Capitalists are too utopian in their ideas...

[The Sloth]

I don't think capitalists or conservatives really analyze their own beliefs before ranting against the evils of socialism and liberalism in general.

Let's examine the following conservative ideas, their counter-productivity, and, of course, their ultra-utopian, un-reachable nature:

1) The constant *****ing about the garbage in the media, the garbage and mindless "entertainment" industry, etc. Of course, they seek to "reform" this under capitalism, not realizing that capitalism directly keeps the masses ignorant in order to ensure the existence of the elite, thus paying off every Nelly, every 50 Cent, every other "artist" while suppressing the ultra-talented Ras Kass, Blackalicious, etc. This also destroys every last ounce of credibility that hip-hop has, since many individuals now generalize the musical genre as a mindless piece of shit artform.

I cringe when I hear Bill O' Reilly complaining about garbage in the media, while supporting a capitalist economy. You seek to ease the degeneration, the SICKENING of the collective mindset of humanity under capitalism? Haaa! Utopians!!!!!

2) Capitalists believe that the Third World's suffering can be gradually attenuated, with things becoming "fair." Of course, this ignores the necessity of exploitation under capitalism (I know I've been making a lot of points in this thread so far that probably need elaboration for the un-aware capitalist, but this thread is intended for the already converted communist/socialist). It seems to me that every time a leap forward towards equality is made, every time conditions are improved, it all comes through adopting more and more socialist reforms.

3) Capitalists are utopian in the sense that they believe "philanthropy" is enough to keep individuals content and such...I guess we can rely on big business owners to single-handedly (or with the help of socialist reforms, of course!!!) to keep the homeless off the street, to fund public facilities?

Because I'll tell you what happens under philanthropy....every school in New York City gets equal funding from the city based on the number of students within a given school. However, we have schools that are TORN DOWN, that are INFESTED by criminals and such...why does this happen? Because those schools that are torn down are receiving the FULL city funding, but LACK philanthropists' money because most of the elite has no interest in funding a school that is in a BLACK neighborhood, with a 89% BLACK student body.




Why is it that my school has individuals that are stabbed, that are being stuck up by guns...why do we have armored police cars outside, within police officers, rent-a-cops, and security guards with megaphones? Why do we have few to zero mirrors, because these damn kids are going to knock them to shards to use them as weapons? Why is it my school, with a large number of BLACKS and HISPANICS, in the news for disgusting bathrooms, why do I have human excrement and urine in the hallways? If the only way to reduce illegal activity in my school, if the only way to suppress the animalistic nature in the SICK, mentally-decapitated 17-year old freshmen is to establish a police state, then there's a problem.

We have so many act as animals...why? And guess what...they're mostly black or hispanic! I guess it's "human nature" for blacks and hispanics to act like criminals, hmmmm? Or is it the theft of culture, disadvantaged socioeconomic status that is to blame for this...?

[Yazman]

Well, I don't really have too much to say here, but you're totally right when you say that many cappies are utopian, because they are. Capitalism/Plutocracy can only fail.

[Professor Moneybags]

I don't think capitalists or conservatives really analyze their own beliefs before ranting against the evils of socialism and liberalism in general.

Let's examine the following conservative ideas, their counter-productivity, and, of course, their ultra-utopian, un-reachable nature:

The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.


1) The constant *****ing about the garbage in the media, the garbage and mindless "entertainment" industry, etc. Of course, they seek to "reform" this under capitalism, not realizing that capitalism directly keeps the masses ignorant in order to ensure the existence of the elite, thus paying off every Nelly, every 50 Cent, every other "artist" while suppressing the ultra-talented Ras Kass, Blackalicious, etc. This also destroys every last ounce of credibility that hip-hop has, since many individuals now generalize the musical genre as a mindless piece of shit artform.

I cringe when I hear Bill O' Reilly complaining about garbage in the media, while supporting a capitalist economy. You seek to ease the degeneration, the SICKENING of the collective mindset of humanity under capitalism? Haaa! Utopians!!!!!

I don't know about conservatives, but as an LFC, I can tell you that I couldn't give a toss about the media.


2) Capitalists believe that the Third World's suffering can be gradually attenuated, with things becoming "fair." Of course, this ignores the necessity of exploitation under capitalism (I know I've been making a lot of points in this thread so far that probably need elaboration for the un-aware capitalist, but this thread is intended for the already converted communist/socialist).

No doubt one who wrongly believes that the use of the word "exploitation" in this context has some meaning.



It seems to me that every time a leap forward towards equality is made, every time conditions are improved, it all comes through adopting more and more socialist reforms.

Probably, but presupposes that equality is a desirable goal and brings prosperity along with it. It doesn't.


3) Capitalists are utopian in the sense that they believe "philanthropy" is enough to keep individuals content and such...I guess we can rely on big business owners to single-handedly (or with the help of socialist reforms, of course!!!) to keep the homeless off the street, to fund public facilities?

What do you mean by philanthropy ?


Because I'll tell you what happens under philanthropy....every school in New York City gets equal funding from the city based on the number of students within a given school. However, we have schools that are TORN DOWN, that are INFESTED by criminals and such...why does this happen? Because those schools that are torn down are receiving the FULL city funding, but LACK philanthropists' money because most of the elite has no interest in funding a school that is in a BLACK neighborhood, with a 89% BLACK student body.

I doubt it's because they are black, but I think it's kinda funny someone complains about schools being overrun with criminals whilst calling for more money to be stolen from the taxpayer in order to improve them.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I doubt it's because they are black, but I think it's kinda funny someone complains about schools being overrun with criminals whilst calling for more money to be stolen from the taxpayer in order to improve them.


This statement makes verry little sense. Why would you condemn and individual that is only attempting to make you aware of the conditions that exist in his/her school?

In addition, how can you say that raising taxes to pay for the education of our children is "stealing" from you?

Oh I remember, these blacks and hispanics spics are not your children so who cares right?

Add 1000 white kids to the student body and I'm sure you would not mind, because hey, it's all for our children's future right?

You are a pathetic human being.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 06:36 AM

I doubt it's because they are black, but I think it's kinda funny someone complains about schools being overrun with criminals whilst calling for more money to be stolen from the taxpayer in order to improve them.


You wouldnt dare stop taxes.People would probably just rob you instead. You'd get all scared of the reality of things, all the poor people around you who covet the food you throw away, and you would start shelling out money to shut us up so you can wear your rollexes freely again!

Listen capitalists.....taxes save your asses!


And by the way Mecca....that was a wonderful post. Thank you.

[Professor Moneybags]

In addition, how can you say that raising taxes to pay for the education of our children is "stealing" from you?

Because the money to pay for it is taken out of my pocket by force and whether I agree to it or not.


Oh I remember, these blacks and hispanics spics are not your children so who cares right?

Add 1000 white kids to the student body and I'm sure you would not mind, because hey, it's all for our children's future right?

You are a pathetic human being.

The only patheic human being is the one that pretends that his every political opponent is racist.

Stop the straw man arguments.

[Professor Moneybags]

You wouldnt dare stop taxes.

I'd dare.


People would probably just rob you instead.

Apart from the fact that they are doing it already, albeit indirectly, I'd probably shoot them if they did.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 09:53 PM

You wouldnt dare stop taxes.

I'd dare.


People would probably just rob you instead.

Apart from the fact that they are doing it already, albeit indirectly, I'd probably shoot them if they did.
Ohhh, so you'd shoot them, huh? Fine, let's take a walk down some neighborhoods in Brooklyn, NYC. You know, I grew up in Brooklyn. I can tell you with full confidence that there are plenty of individuals to shoot because there are plenty of individuals that would want to rob you. Take your pick of either going down the hispanic Williamsburg or the black Flatbush....warning: those "dirty spics" travel in packs, though! Better get your crew before you shoot anyone for trying to rob you!


Now, let's take a step back for a second...your "rebuttals" (if you want to call them that) made no sense. You seem to be getting a little defensive over the fact that I presented the situation of my school. Of course, why wouldn't you get mad? Capitalism has apparently failed in this case, and gives you less and less reason to defend it.

Why has capitalism failed? Here's a short argument.

Too many of the business-owning individuals in, say, Harlem and Crown Heights, are, of course, non-black. Those that aren't black are usually Jewish. Jews have little sections in Crown Heights and have little sections in Harlem for residence...of course, they have larger sections for their commercial enterprises. Blacks are too poor to open up equally-successful businesses...thus, whites profit when the blacks enter their stores, while the whites retreat to Brighton Beach or some other middle-class area and put money in THEIR neighborhoods.

Few measures were taken in order to ensure equal opportunity...affirmative action is too small of a deal in order to make significant impact. Because, in the end, Harlem will continue to deteriorate in SOME sections, while the OTHER sections are stabilized in the following ways:

1) the city establishes a police state in the area; patrol cars on all the corners, security cameras everywhere, and extra-extra-extra harsh anti-drug laws. Thus, crime is attenuated by establishing a police state.....hmmmmmm.....

2) many sections of these poorer neighborhoods are subsidized by the drug trafficking business; thus, when Ras Kass says "fuck legalizing hemp, keep the profit on the streets!" he understands the desperation many of the youth face.
Of course, marijuana isn't the onl drug...interesting to note that most crack heads, coke heads, heroin addicts, etc. are poor and desperate. This is the incentive for use.

Now, the school system is also very politicized and very much under-funded. Fort Greene, for example, has schools in which the students have already adopted systematic anti-intellectual attitudes. As far as the grades go, here is the situation: one of my teachers used to be at a school ghetto beyond fantastic proportions...every student scored under a 65 on his tests and handed in few to none of the assignments. Thus, he wanted to fail all of them. He had the proof that he was able to. However, higher authority said, "no, you cannot do this." If I was the principle, I'd do the same thing. Of course, when the kids leave with passing grades and with false hopes of accomplishment. The second the realities of the real world hit, they are ill-prepared.

(Of course, every student coming from an all-white suburban school is also ill-prepared. I used to go to such a place....I feel sorry, very very sorry, for any individual that is forced to stay at that "institution of education" even if it's ranked in the top twenty in the nation. Those kids leave brainwashed, they leave stupid. Who made them stupid? They certainly weren't born stupid.)

My school is in its situation because, SURPRISE SURPRISE! all the mostly-black schools in certain neighborhoods were closed down due to a lack of productivity...so, if those schools has criminals, they were simply stuffed into new hallways.

And, again, I ask...why is it that BLACKS are the ones to face this poverty, criminality, etc.? Again, I say, it's not genetics.

"I don't know about conservatives, but as an LFC, I can tell you that I couldn't give a toss about the media."

Which leads me to the next point. Now, with all the pressures to sell drugs, to break the laws due to a failing, parasitic, blood-sucking economic system, we come to the media. The media glorifies the gangster, the media promotes idiocy, promotes ignorance, etc. Of course, we have, every now and then, those messages on MTV, "get active!" and "vote!", but of course, for every message of "get active!", you get THIS garbage right here being played:

"You said you a gansta but you neva pop nuttin'
We said you a wanksta and you need to stop frontin'
You ain't a friend of mine, (yeah)
You ain't no kin of mine, (nah)
What makes you think that I wont run up on you with the nine
We do this all tha tyme, right now we on tha grind
So hurry up and copy and go selling nicks and dimes
Shorty she so fyne, I gotta make her mine
A ass like dat gotta be one of a kind
I crush 'em everytime, punch 'em with every line
I'm fuckin with they mind
I make 'em press rewind
They know they can't shine if I'm around the rhyme
Been on parole since 94 cause I commit tha crime
I send you my line, I did it three ta nine
If D's ran up in my crib, you know who droppin dimes"

This, of course, is coming from the "brilliant" mind of no other than 50 Cent. I say "brilliant" because he is, sadly, compared to more talented artists, and, of course, ultra-talents such as Mos Def and Talib Kweli.

Now, here comes the slam-dunk: blacks are the ones mostly attracted to this. Whites follow. Of course, then you have the political conservatives....they hear these inane songs on the radio, see booty-clapping females in the videos, and then proclaim,

"Hip-hop is total filth; it's garbage!"

Now, the revolutionary aspect of hip-hop...the brilliance that it once began with is diminished. Hip-hop becomes an impotent force. Hip-hop is now stereotyped and labeled as "garbage" because you don't see the hip-hop that is out there that actually STANDS for something. And, the capitalists win. The blacks follow. The whites follow, too. Suburban whites, especially. And whites in Bensonhurst that are CONVINCED they are "gangsters," as if it's a good thing. Capitalism promotes this, and at whose expense? And, for whose profit?

Now, I pose the questions:

1) Why is the black unemployment rate so much longer than the white unemployment rate?

2) Why are drugs concentrated so heavily in the black neighborhoods?

3) Why does criminality become such an INTEGRAL part of the systematically-deteriorated black mind?

4) Who profits off of blacks' circumstantial inability to run very-successful businesses in their own neighborhoods?

5) Who fills the gap in the black neighborhood's economy?

6) Where is this money taken after the gap is filled....pumped back into the black community, or pumped into the white community?

7) Why are drugs sold? Recreation or desperation?

8) With "gangsterism" in the media aimed mostly at urban youth, who will be the most negatively affected? What demographic?

9) If the black demographic is negatively effected, how much more difficult is it to snap-out of the circumstantial, bullshit cycle of killing, selling, and robbing that non-whites have found themselves in?



Interesting to note that not a single contemporary black activist was a capitalist. Not Eldridge Cleaver, not Assata Shakur....not Huey P. Newton, not Dr. King...not Angela Davis, not George L. Jackson, not Chuck D, not Bobby Seale.

"People only complain when they get the short-end of the stick." I guess when Cleaver and Jackson got that short end, they were the victims of capitalism. And, of course, the victims of the mental degradation that capitalism is so synanymous with.

[Professor Moneybags]

Why has capitalism failed? Here's a short argument.

Failed at what exactly ?


Few measures were taken in order to ensure equal opportunity...affirmative action is too small of a deal in order to make significant impact.

It's also racist.


1) the city establishes a police state in the area; patrol cars on all the corners, security cameras everywhere, and extra-extra-extra harsh anti-drug laws. Thus, crime is attenuated by establishing a police state.....hmmmmmm.....

I'm not in favour of drug laws.


Of course, marijuana isn't the onl drug...interesting to note that most crack heads, coke heads, heroin addicts, etc. are poor and desperate. This is the incentive for use.

"I'm poor and desperate, so what shall I do ? I know, I'll take up a $200 a day coke habit !"


And, again, I ask...why is it that BLACKS are the ones to face this poverty, criminality, etc.? Again, I say, it's not genetics.

Maybe it's just their attitude. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040525.shtml)


4) Who profits off of blacks' circumstantial inability to run very-successful businesses in their own neighborhoods?

Left wing "anti-racist" groups.


Interesting to note that not a single contemporary black activist was a capitalist. Not Eldridge Cleaver, not Assata Shakur....not Huey P. Newton, not Dr. King...not Angela Davis, not George L. Jackson, not Chuck D, not Bobby Seale.

Maybe that's part of the problem.


I guess when Cleaver and Jackson got that short end, they were the victims of capitalism. And, of course, the victims of the mental degradation that capitalism is so synanymous with.

Mental degradation presupposes that you have a mind to degrade.

[Hoppe]

Too many of the business-owning individuals in, say, Harlem and Crown Heights, are, of course, non-black. Those that aren't black are usually Jewish

Always those damn Jews.......


And, again, I ask...why is it that BLACKS are the ones to face this poverty, criminality, etc.? Again, I say, it's not genetics.

Interesting question. Why do you never hear Asians complaining?


2) Why are drugs concentrated so heavily in the black neighborhoods?

Maybe because they are very materialistic and they want to make easy money to buy expensive clothes and fast cars. Of course blacks are much more affected by capitalist thinking than your average white joe who has decided that there are more honest ways to make a living? <_<

[DaCuBaN]

I don&#39;t think capitalists or conservatives really analyze their own beliefs before ranting against the evils of socialism and liberalism in general

Your damn right about that. ;)

It&#39;s a slander to the few who really think they are onto something and go out of their way to prove it, but most are reactionaries intent on squashing a movement far bigger than they are, happy with the status quo that allows them to drive an SUV and live what they believe to be a fulfilling life.

Whatever floats your boat I guess :rolleyes:

Incidentally, nice posts Brooklyn-Mecca :)

[The Sloth]

"Maybe because they are very materialistic and they want to make easy money to buy expensive clothes and fast cars. Of course blacks are much more affected by capitalist thinking than your average white joe who has decided that there are more honest ways to make a living?"

"They" are materialistic for a reason; "they" want to buy "expensive cars" because society forces the idea on "their" heads that expensive cars measure your worth, your power, etc. The garbage in the media is not directed at the "average white joe" and the "average white joe" does not live in neighborhoods that have been riddled with drugs and such, thus creating special pressures that effect strictly non-whites, making your argument INVALID.

I&#39;m sure there are too many blacks that have tried getting a job, but couldn&#39;t for a variety of reasons.

Question: why was Harlem, almost fully-black, a fine, nice community back in the 1920&#39;s? In other words, why was Harlem a fine, nice community BEFORE the police state, BEFORE the drugs were dropped into its streets by out-of-towners, and BEFORE the media played such a significant role in mental degradation?

"Mental degradation presupposes that you have a mind to degrade."

But yet you haven&#39;t read the works of George Jackson and Eldridge Cleaver, THUS meaning that you cannot speak about their minds, THUS betraying your prejudices, THUS making you lose credibility.

"It&#39;s also racist."

Of course it&#39;s racist. Thank you for pointing that out. Affirmative action is racist because it sees that there are definite socioeconomic differences and disparities in advantages directly linked to race, THUS discriminating between, for example, a black and a white. That type of racism I can live with. :)

"I&#39;m poor and desperate, so what shall I do ? I know, I&#39;ll take up a &#036;200 a day coke habit &#33;"

Nice way to over-simplify the realities of the situation. Let us read the ultra-critically-acclaimed Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon to reveal your anti-intellectual tendencies.

"4) Who profits off of blacks&#39; circumstantial inability to run very-successful businesses in their own neighborhoods?

Left wing &#39;anti-racist&#39; groups."

Nah, it&#39;s not left wing "anti-racist" groups. It&#39;s more like the non-blacks that own the businesses in the area, thus profiting off of others&#39; disadvantages (the &#39;disadvantages&#39; have already been discussed), and returning the profits to the communities that they live in (which, oddly enough, is not Harlem).

"Maybe it&#39;s just their attitude."

Thank you&#33; Of course it&#39;s their attitude&#33; And, of course, attitude is shaped by the oppresive environment that blacks live in&#33; You&#39;ve proved my point several times for me, thank you...I didn&#39;t even need to elaborate. It&#39;s all you, baby&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

"Interesting to note that not a single contemporary black activist was a capitalist. Not Eldridge Cleaver, not Assata Shakur....not Huey P. Newton, not Dr. King...not Angela Davis, not George L. Jackson, not Chuck D, not Bobby Seale.

Maybe that&#39;s part of the problem."

Thanks for dodging.




And, again, here is how capitalism "promotes" artistic growth&#33;&#33;&#33;


"You said you a gansta but you neva pop nuttin&#39;
We said you a wanksta and you need to stop frontin&#39;
You ain&#39;t a friend of mine, (yeah)
You ain&#39;t no kin of mine, (nah)
What makes you think that I wont run up on you with the nine
We do this all tha tyme, right now we on tha grind
So hurry up and copy and go selling nicks and dimes
Shorty she so fyne, I gotta make her mine
A ass like dat gotta be one of a kind
I crush &#39;em everytime, punch &#39;em with every line
I&#39;m fuckin with they mind
I make &#39;em press rewind
They know they can&#39;t shine if I&#39;m around the rhyme
Been on parole since 94 cause I commit tha crime
I send you my line, I did it three ta nine
If D&#39;s ran up in my crib, you know who droppin dimes"

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 29 2004, 08:01 PM
"They" are materialistic for a reason; "they" want to buy "expensive cars" because society forces the idea on "their" heads that expensive cars measure your worth, your power, etc. The garbage in the media is not directed at the "average white joe" and the "average white joe" does not live in neighborhoods that have been riddled with drugs and such, thus creating special pressures that effect strictly non-whites, making your argument INVALID.

I&#39;m sure there are too many blacks that have tried getting a job, but couldn&#39;t for a variety of reasons.

Question: why was Harlem, almost fully-black, a fine, nice community back in the 1920&#39;s? In other words, why was Harlem a fine, nice community BEFORE the police state, BEFORE the drugs were dropped into its streets by out-of-towners, and BEFORE the media played such a significant role in mental degradation?

Aha. It&#39;s a white men conspiracy to broadcast as many r&b and hiphop as possible so young blacks are brainwashed to believe this. Gosh, sociology is so easy.

Of course your claim is also invalid. What you will see is that people of different backgrounds will flock together in cities. So indeed black people mostly live together, you have Chinatown, little Italy etc etc. Is there as many violence, drugs or unemployment as in the black "ghettos"?

What about all the white "trash" living in trailerparks?

And the answer to your question is: welfare.

[DaCuBaN]

Of course your claim is also invalid. What you will see is that people of different backgrounds will flock together in cities. So indeed black people mostly live together, you have Chinatown, little Italy etc etc. Is there as many violence, drugs or unemployment as in the black "ghettos"?

What about all the white "trash" living in trailerparks?

And the answer to your question is: welfare

&#39;Welfare&#39; is a reform instituted to keep the socialists at bay - under a communist system you wouldn&#39;t have this problem - work and be fed, or don&#39;t and die.

&#39;loafers&#39; have no place - hence the &#39;revolution (or rather evolution) of the mind&#39;. This attitude extends across race, creed - the whole lot.

[Hoppe]

Hmm, normally, and this goes for almost any culture, when something happened to people, they could only fall back on family or their community. Thus people helped eachother and you had social control. Now you can just go to the goverment and ask for money.

You mustn&#39;t underestimate the effect welfare has had on social cohesion within local communities. Just ask someone from a third-world country how they manage things and compare it to most western countries.

[The Sloth]

Alright, first of all, thank you for illuminating us regarding your ignorance of the realities of things. Knowing that there people out here like yourself really does good things for my ego.

Anyway, let&#39;s continue to analyze your post, Hoppe...


Aha. It&#39;s a white men conspiracy to broadcast as many r&b and hiphop as possible so young blacks are brainwashed to believe this. Gosh, sociology is so easy.

Despite your attempt at humor, you&#39;re not saying anything worthwhile here. Because, let&#39;s look at this rationally, meaning, drop your emotional and illogical reactions to my points.

Regardless of whether there is a "conspiracy" where a group of whites come together to plan the destruction of the black race, here is the reality: before hip-hop was infiltrated by greedy corporations (who just so happened to be owned by whites), it was a genuine form of artistic expression. There is still some great hip-hop out there, such as...

Blackalicious, The Roots, Common, Ras Kass, Canibus, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Aceyalone, etc.

However, these voices are silenced. Why would the public want to listen to garbage gangster-laced music as opposed to refreshing, poetic and inspirational hip-hop? You haven&#39;t answered this. My guess is that the media discourages such music, and since gangsterism sells, it dominates the airwaves. Meaningless pop music also sells, so it&#39;s there just as well. Of course, even you can understand the consequences this creates for the mind: it is degraded&#33;

Why are kids, both white and black, running around in elemntary school grabbing their dicks, calling female students "*****es" and "ho&#39;s"? Doesn&#39;t the mainstream hip-hop teach, and not only teach, but reinforce this? I remember when I was 12 or so, I used to act in that stereotypical manner, but luckily, I escaped the little downward-spiral trend at an early age. And, of course, I automatically saw mainstream hip-hop as the cause of this degradation.

Of course, hip-hop is directed mostly at the minority demographic, forcing disproportionate amounts of blacks and hispanics to act this certain way. Note, however, that so far, I&#39;m only talking about the negative effects of hip-hop....how about adding every other ingredient into this disgusting stew, hmmm?

Of course your claim is also invalid. What you will see is that people of different backgrounds will flock together in cities. So indeed black people mostly live together, you have Chinatown, little Italy etc etc. Is there as many violence, drugs or unemployment as in the black "ghettos"?

Oh man, oh man....you&#39;re making my head spin with your non-sense.

My claim is not invalid because you&#39;re basing that assumption on this non-sensical logic right here:

1) All-black communities are poor;
2) But, all-Italian communities are not;
3) Thus, since there are no differences in socioeconomic realities and we are all equal under the great American capitalistic system, blacks themselves must be blamed, and, it&#39;s very possible that they are genetically-inclined to criminality.

My claim, however, IS valid because it takes into account several realities.

ONE, the residents in Chinatown, for example, were NOT systematically "pushed back" into the slums of the city like blacks and hispanics.

TWO, the residents of Chinatown, for example, were NOT systematically denied employment, were NOT denied decent education, NOR were they forced to feel ashamed of their ancestry and thus forced to lose their identity, like blacks (and to a lesser extent, hispanics).

THREE, the residents of Chinatown, for example, were NOT enslaved, thus, they DID NOT have to carry over their poverty.

FOUR, the residents of Chinatown, for example, DID NOT have their communities raided by police with CRACK COCAINE INTENTIONALLY DROPPED INTO THE STREETS for the purpose of creating drug dependency for personal use and for both small-business subsidies and supplementing the meager or non-existent income of the black and hispanic family.

"What about all the white "trash" living in trailerparks?"

...What about them? The white family is more organized, the white community infested with less drugs, and whites are not targeted as the demographic for mentally-degrading mainstream hip-hop. The trailer parks are also not the slums, as blacks and hispanics were pushed back into areas where crime was already a reality. And while communities may be getting better in some cases, mental repression is increasing, canceling the "progress" out.

You&#39;re refusing to acknowledge the dynamics of the black community. You&#39;re also challenging me on a subject that you know very little about it. Here is some recommended reading for you:

George Jackson - Soledad Brother
Eldridge Cleaver - Soul on Ice
Frantz Fanon - The Wretched of the Earth.

I&#39;m sure that will help you out in understanding the oppressed, especially the black and oppressed, mentality, both domestically and internationally, colonized and neo-colonized.

And, some more "brilliance" from the mind of one of the best-selling rappers in the last 5 years&#33;

If there&#39;s beef, cock it and dump it, the drama really means nothin
To me I&#39;ll ride by and blow ya brains out (brains out)
There&#39;s no time to cock it, no way you can stop it
When niggas run up on you wit them thangs out (thangs out)
I do what I gotta do I don&#39;t care I if get caught
The DA can play this motherfuckin tape in court
I&#39;ll kill you - I ain&#39;t playin, hear what I&#39;m sayin, homie I ain&#39;t playin
Catch you slippin, I&#39;ma kill you - I ain&#39;t playin,
Hear what I&#39;m sayin, homie I ain&#39;t playin

Keep thinkin I&#39;m candy till ya fuckin skull get popped
And ya brain jump out the top like Jack-in-da-box
In the hood summer time is the killing season
It&#39;s hot out this ***** that&#39;s a good &#39;nuff reason
I&#39;ve seen gangsta&#39;s get religious when they start bleedin
Sayin "Lord, Jesus Help Me" cause they ass leakin
When they window roll down and that A.K. come out
You can squeeze ya lil handgun until you run out
And you can run for ya back-up
But them machine gun shells gone tear ya back up
God&#39;s on ya side, shit I&#39;m aight wit that
We reload them clips and come right back
It&#39;s a fact homie, you go against me ya fucked
I get the drop, if you can duck, ya luckier then Lady Luck
Look nigga, don&#39;t think you safe cause you moved out the hood
Cuz ya momma still around dog, and that ain&#39;t good
If you was smart you&#39;d be shook of me
Cuz I&#39;d get tired of lookin for ya, spray ya momma crib, and let ya ass look


And I used to listen to this garbage...if I was black and desperate, this guy would have inspired me to go and sell some drugs.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:02 PM
Just ask someone from a third-world country how they manage things and compare it to most western countries.
And just look how well they&#39;re doing...

[Hoppe]

before hip-hop was infiltrated by greedy corporations (who just so happened to be owned by whites)

What a nice coincidence, not?


However, these voices are silenced. Why would the public want to listen to garbage gangster-laced music as opposed to refreshing, poetic and inspirational hip-hop?

Yes blame the media (which happens to be owned by whites). It&#39;s just as useless to ask why people rather read Harry Potter than Shakespeare.


Of course, hip-hop is directed mostly at the minority demographic, forcing disproportionate amounts of blacks and hispanics to act this certain way. Note, however, that so far, I&#39;m only talking about the negative effects of hip-hop....how about adding every other ingredient into this disgusting stew, hmmm?

So what you are really saying is that the black hip-hop artists are helping to mentally degrade their own people.


My claim, however, IS valid because it takes into account several realities.

Blame it on something which was abolished 150 years ago.

I certainly do not deny that ridicoulous things happened to black people, but WHY are blacks the only minority being oppressed?


George Jackson - Soledad Brother
Eldridge Cleaver - Soul on Ice
Frantz Fanon - The Wretched of the Earth.

I have read Sowell, is that ok as well?

[DaCuBaN]

So what you are really saying is that the black hip-hop artists are helping to mentally degrade their own people

In exchange for monetary compensation to satisfy their own greed, yes.


It&#39;s just as useless to ask why people rather read Harry Potter than Shakespeare

The former is a child&#39;s book written with the intent of being easy-to-read. The latter is written in a defunct form of english that is almost indecipherable to all but the most literate mind, and was never really intended to be &#39;read&#39; as such, but performed on stage.

That wasn&#39;t too hard now was it? ;)


I certainly do not deny that ridicoulous things happened to black people, but WHY are blacks the only minority being oppressed?

The simple answer is they are not the only minority being oppressed. There is still lingering racial tension, but a lot of the problems directly related to race are gone.

It will be years before this gulf is bridged.


ONE, the residents in Chinatown, for example, were NOT systematically "pushed back" into the slums of the city like blacks and hispanics.


Not to the same extent no, but it did happen. Quite a large percentage of them came over far later, and as such avoided a lot of the hardships - the former slaves having already &#39;broken in&#39; the country for them.



TWO, the residents of Chinatown, for example, were NOT systematically denied employment, were NOT denied decent education, NOR were they forced to feel ashamed of their ancestry and thus forced to lose their identity, like blacks (and to a lesser extent, hispanics).

again, it&#39;s not that clean cut but it is certainly true. In many ways of course, as a result of their hardships the african community has tried to retain far more of it&#39;s &#39;heritage&#39; (which in itself comes from the days of slavery - this has always struck me as odd) than many other &#39;ethnic minorities&#39;



THREE, the residents of Chinatown, for example, were NOT enslaved, thus, they DID NOT have to carry over their poverty.


True, true.


FOUR, the residents of Chinatown, for example, DID NOT have their communities raided by police with CRACK COCAINE INTENTIONALLY DROPPED INTO THE STREETS for the purpose of creating drug dependency for personal use and for both small-business subsidies and supplementing the meager or non-existent income of the black and hispanic family.


No, in fact quite often it was the &#39;residents of chinatown&#39; that were the purpetrators.

Bastards know no race ;)

[Hampton]

Yes blame the media (which happens to be owned by whites)

Ya think? Or is Colin Powell Jr. considered the head of a media operation? However there is a difrence between Harry Potter and Shakespeare and say Jay Z and Dead Prez or Immortal Technqiue so your comparison is pretty stupid.


So what you are really saying is that the black hip-hop artists are helping to mentally degrade their own people.

A lot are yes, if you put enough shit into your music about killing people, having the need for cars and jewelry people will pick up on it. Of course that usually comes with people who have, in the sense, "already made it", meaning signed to a major label as opposed to the underground, as it&#39;s called, which does the opposite.


Blame it on something which was abolished 150 years ago.

Can you not say that the effects are still not felt and that when slavery was ended that a system of laws was no established that restricted their lives almost as bad as slavery did. That lasted over 80 years, then you have redlining, gentrification is such areas like Harlem, over 1 million in prison why? Because they commit the most crime? If you believe that you&#39;re a fool.

[Hoppe]

In exchange for monetary compensation to satisfy their own greed, yes.

But if this is true how can someone claim that the media is the source of all evil? The actions of some black people negatively affect the rest, so they&#39;re creating their own destruction. Basically he is acknowledging that black people are more stupid. (and no, I am not racist. This is not my opinion).


The former is a child&#39;s book written with the intent of being easy-to-read. The latter is written in a defunct form of english that is almost indecipherable to all but the most literate mind, and was never really intended to be &#39;read&#39; as such, but performed on stage.

That wasn&#39;t too hard now was it?

Do you know how many adults I see reading Harry Potter in the train? Shakespeare also wrote beautiful sonnets, but in the end the majority prefers easy to read books (or songs about money, cars and *****es instead of political views).


Can you not say that the effects are still not felt and that when slavery was ended that a system of laws was no established that restricted their lives almost as bad as slavery did. That lasted over 80 years, then you have redlining, gentrification is such areas like Harlem, over 1 million in prison why? Because they commit the most crime? If you believe that you&#39;re a fool.

Well, that&#39;s mostly because they have these crazy druglaws in the US, and an even crappier legal system with prejudiced juries.

If black people were given equal rights two weeks ago I would agree with you.


a think? Or is Colin Powell Jr. considered the head of a media operation? However there is a difrence between Harry Potter and Shakespeare and say Jay Z and Dead Prez or Immortal Technqiue so your comparison is pretty stupid.


No, it&#39;s a simple matter of preference.

[Professor Moneybags]

"They" are materialistic for a reason; "they" want to buy "expensive cars" because society forces the idea on "their" heads that expensive cars measure your worth, your power, etc. The garbage in the media is not directed at the "average white joe" and the "average white joe" does not live in neighborhoods that have been riddled with drugs and such, thus creating special pressures that effect strictly non-whites, making your argument INVALID.

It is false to believe that any idea can be "forced" on anyone. Not even a gun can force people to believe something they believe is false.


"I&#39;m poor and desperate, so what shall I do ? I know, I&#39;ll take up a &#036;200 a day coke habit &#33;"

Nice way to over-simplify the realities of the situation. Let us read the ultra-critically-acclaimed Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon to reveal your anti-intellectual tendencies.

There&#39;s nothing anti-intellectual about criticising illogic and lack of will to face reality.


Thank you&#33; Of course it&#39;s their attitude&#33; And, of course, attitude is shaped by the oppresive environment that blacks live in&#33; You&#39;ve proved my point several times for me, thank you...I didn&#39;t even need to elaborate. It&#39;s all you, baby&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Did you bother to read the link ?

[Professor Moneybags]

&#39;Welfare&#39; is a reform instituted to keep the socialists at bay

No, it was reform to sneak communism in through the back door. It was put there by socialist politicians (contrary to the notion that welfare was invented as some sort of "bread and circuses" charade by "capitalists").

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 04:47 PM
That lasted over 80 years, then you have redlining, gentrification is such areas like Harlem, over 1 million in prison why? Because they commit the most crime? If you believe that you&#39;re a fool.
Comitting a crime is usually the reason people are put in prison. I don&#39;t think the authorities have set up a "quota system".

[The Sloth]

"But if this is true how can someone claim that the media is the source of all evil? The actions of some black people negatively affect the rest, so they&#39;re creating their own destruction. Basically he is acknowledging that black people are more stupid. (and no, I am not racist. This is not my opinion)."

Of course they&#39;re creating their own destruction; black people have to be educated to understand this simple fact. This "education," however, is overshadowed by a criminal mentality and by greed.

However, you&#39;re basically saying that blacks have the power to resist, which is true. However, simply because they have the power to resist, the media should not be held accountable if it is such a strong force working against this power, thus putting blacks in a deeper disadvantage?

Wow.

"Do you know how many adults I see reading Harry Potter in the train? Shakespeare also wrote beautiful sonnets, but in the end the majority prefers easy to read books (or songs about money, cars and *****es instead of political views). "

Yes, because our current realities still encourage anti-intellectualism.

"If black people were given equal rights two weeks ago I would agree with you."

So, simply because blacks can vote, are not legally segregated, and some laws about discrimination are passed, you depend on welfare and affirmative action to, all of a sudden, turn the north and eastern parts of Brooklyn into places up to par with the socioeconomic realities of the white neighborhoods? Hmmm...

Number one, even if those things were actually in effect right now, they would not be enough to end the extreme inequalities that exist today. Number two, those things DO NOT exist because the black and hispanic vote becomes HIGHLY ineffective once you realize that a huge chunk of minority populations are disenfranchised due to a disproportionate amount of crime falling upon blacks and hispanics. Also, simply because legal segregation is over doesn&#39;t mean that we&#39;re going to have all these whites flocking to the slums in Harlem.

"It is false to believe that any idea can be &#39;forced&#39; on anyone. Not even a gun can force people to believe something they believe is false."

However, growing up in the slums, you don&#39;t always grow up believing guns are "wrong."

Also, while no idea can be "forced" upon someone else, it is much easier to influence others with an idea when the conditions warrant it. And, of course, the conditions warrant such a thing in the situation that we&#39;ve been discussing.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 30 2004, 12:26 PM

&#39;Welfare&#39; is a reform instituted to keep the socialists at bay

No, it was reform to sneak communism in through the back door. It was put there by socialist politicians (contrary to the notion that welfare was invented as some sort of "bread and circuses" charade by "capitalists").
This is simply false. The modern concept of welfare started with Otto von Bismarck as a means of quelling economic dissatisfaction. Roosevelt instituted the New Deal directly as an alternative to impending revolution - contextually, the radical left had never had such popularity as during his time. I could go on.

[Hampton]

Comitting a crime is usually the reason people are put in prison. I don&#39;t think the authorities have set up a "quota system".


A Broward Sheriff&#39;s Office district whose investigators may have systematically elicited false confessions to clear cases and improve the department&#39;s crime stats has instituted rigid, quota-like &#39;&#39;minimal expectations&#39;&#39; for deputies.

They mandate how many arrests they make, how many tickets they write and how many truants they nab.

Link. (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/8308037.htm?1c)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Because the money to pay for it is taken out of my pocket by force and whether I agree to it or not.


By that rationale it is safe to say then you feel that all taxes should be abolished then, correct?

I would have to agree with you here, yes, let&#39;s abolish all taxes. Within a few years, revolution will not be necessary due to the collapse of the capitalist system.

Are you sure you&#39;re not a communist in disguse? :lol:


The only patheic human being is the one that pretends that his every political opponent is racist.


I certainly am not pretending, you definitely are racist.

[Professor Moneybags]

I would have to agree with you here, yes, let&#39;s abolish all taxes. Within a few years, revolution will not be necessary due to the collapse of the capitalist system.

Explain. Without taxation or even a claim to other people&#39;s money, the socialist politicians won&#39;t have an economic leg to stand on. I don&#39;t fancy that with their newly increased economic freedom, people are is going to welcome either your revolution or your command economy with open arms.


I certainly am not pretending, you definitely are racist.

Cite where I have made racist comments.


This is simply false. The modern concept of welfare started with Otto von Bismarck as a means of quelling economic dissatisfaction. Roosevelt instituted the New Deal directly as an alternative to impending revolution - contextually, the radical left had never had such popularity as during his time. I could go on.

If the radical left never had popularity, then how could there have been an impeding revolution ? Apart from the obvious fact that Bismark and Roosevelt are hardly advocates of capitalism, welfare statism involves violation of property rights.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Explain. Without taxation or even a claim to other people&#39;s money, the socialist politicians won&#39;t have an economic leg to stand on. I don&#39;t fancy that with their newly increased economic freedom, people are is going to welcome either your revolution or your command economy with open arms.


We were not talking about taxes in relation to a Socialist economy, we were talking about abolishing all taxes right now were we not?

I say again, let&#39;s do it&#33;


Cite where I have made racist comments.



"Maybe it&#39;s just their [those uppity, jive talkin&#39; negroes] attitude".

[synthesis]

If the radical left never had popularity, then how could there have been an impeding revolution ?

You misread me. Rephrasing what I said earlier, the radical left of America was at its peak during the Depression.


Apart from the obvious fact that Bismark and Roosevelt are hardly advocates of capitalism,

Advocates, perhaps not. Saviors, though - that is undeniable.


welfare statism involves violation of property rights.

Welfare is, ultimately, protection of property rights when mass action threatens to overwhelm bourgeois ownership as an institution.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 08:01 AM






If the radical left never had popularity, then how could there have been an impeding revolution ?

You misread me. Rephrasing what I said earlier, the radical left of America was at its peak during the Depression.

So you want another depression, then?


Welfare is, ultimately, protection of property rights when mass action threatens to overwhelm bourgeois ownership as an institution.

???

Simpler explanation - bureaucrats did it to buy votes. They keep it so they don&#39;t lose votes.

[The Sloth]

"So you want another depression, then?"

It&#39;s not so much a matter of &#39;wanting&#39; another depression as much as it is a matter of the inevitability of a coming catastrophe.


The only hinderance the people have rests in the mental oppression imposed by the bourgeois propaganda machine - everything from the reinforcement of racism, a media that nurtures anti-intellectualism, the belief that the "ultimate merit" is submission to authority.

Seriously, when it is understood and no longer denied that a Palestinian holocaust is in the making, when it is understood that Middle Eastern terrorism is due to imperialism&#39;s oppression, etc. then, finally, our mentalities will shift and, of course, capitalism will die.

By the way, I&#39;m really itching for the "Right Opposition" to reply to my previous post&#39;s points.

[synthesis]

So you want another depression, then?

If it would create proletarian revolution, sure - but I&#39;m not so sure it will. Capitalism has proven itself to be flexible in times of crisis - for example, granting minor socialistic concessions to working classes during the Depression for the purpose of pacification.


???

Think about it this way. There&#39;s a department store which is suffering from a great deal of shoplifting. They hire security guards, and the shoplifting ends.

It&#39;s a balance between whether or not the added security will ultimately yield more profit than what would otherwise be the case.

I think you&#39;re very ignorant of the big picture here. When the entire system that allows men to profit off the labor of others is on the verge of collapse due to its own flaws, those most minor of concessions that have been granted seem well worth it to the owners of the means of producing capital.


Simpler explanation - bureaucrats did it to buy votes. They keep it so they don&#39;t lose votes.

Opportunist politicians must have the material conditions set in place before their populist message will take hold.

Also - need I remind you that von Bismarck was not elected?

EDIT: I should clarify, because that was a stupid misstatement on my part. Von Bismarck was elected to the Prussian Parliament, but he was then appointed by the monarch to be Chancellor, the position from which he gave workers old-age pensions and accident insurance as part of proletarian pacification.

[Fidelbrand]

Professor moneybags,


Because the money to pay for it is taken out of my pocket by force and whether I agree to it or not.

First , i would like to discuss with you the definitions and distinctions of exploitation and consent:
Exploitation----&#62; Person A drowns accidentally in a lake and person B offers a cool deal in helping him but asking him to pay a million dollar to save him. Person A has no choice but to accept the offer. Person A is explioted for his windfall mishappening but since he has less bargaining power, he surrenders to the deal.

Coercion -----&#62; Person A is pushed by person B in a lake, drowning, whence person B offers to save him if he pays a million dollars.

In fact, what&#39;s your view on / definition of exploitation?

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

In your saying about tax taken from you by force,
.... sure what you said is apparently right, but, have you ever try
to give it a thought that
1) the money you have gained or earned is facilitated under a exploitative situation/system?
2) sustainability of mankind is out of mutual respect for some shared basic rights (food, shelter,education,etc) and their importance to stand as fuller beings under a system?
3) as a citizen of your country, you should have the responsibility to pay your tax to support your own country in its overall management? even if the tax you gave might not benefit you directly or in the short run?

FB. ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 31 2004, 07:28 AM

Cite where I have made racist comments.



"Maybe it&#39;s just their [those uppity, jive talkin&#39; negroes] attitude".
You wanker. The (racist) words in brackets are yours, not mine.



EDIT

wrong button

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 08:01 AM
Welfare is, ultimately, protection of property rights when mass action threatens to overwhelm bourgeois ownership as an institution.
Welfare protects property rights by violating them ?

Lol. Only a socialist....

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 1 2004, 06:57 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 1 2004, 06:57 AM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 08:01 AM
Welfare is, ultimately, protection of property rights when mass action threatens to overwhelm bourgeois ownership as an institution.
Welfare protects property rights by violating them ?

Lol. Only a socialist.... [/b]
lol?

Capitalists at times violate the laws of the FREE market (via micro/macro economic measures) to uphold their everlasting exploitative process too~

I don&#39;t see dyemaker&#39;s argument as flawed.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:05 AM
Capitalists at times violate the laws of the FREE market (via micro/macro economic measures) to uphold their everlasting exploitative process too~

I don&#39;t see dyemaker&#39;s argument as flawed.
It&#39;s flawed because if they did, they wouldn&#39;t be capitalists. They would be something else.


to uphold their everlasting exploitative process too~

Care to explain ?

[Fidelbrand]

It&#39;s flawed because if they did, they wouldn&#39;t be capitalists. They would be something else.

Oh , i see. Then look around you in this world and take a closer look at what the capitalists are doing right now~ what you are saying is capitalism in theoretical sense, but in practice, micro/macro economic interventions are execised in reality.


Care to explain ?

Care not to start an endless disucussion on our theoretical fundamental disparity but to look at what we leftists have said million times before?? (I am saving your time and my time, don&#39;t take me as being offensive. In fact, i have made a reply to you above in regards to the defintion of EXPLOITATION)


care to add your view on this too click here. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=8&t=25312&p=403486)tks.

[Professor Moneybags]

First , i would like to discuss with you the definitions and distinctions of exploitation and consent:
Exploitation----&#62; Person A drowns accidentally in a lake and person B offers a cool deal in helping him but asking him to pay a million dollar to save him. Person A has no choice but to accept the offer. Person A is explioted for his windfall mishappening but since he has less bargaining power, he surrenders to the deal.

Coercion -----&#62; Person A is pushed by person B in a lake, drowning, whence person B offers to save him if he pays a million dollars.

Do you think that these things are absent under socialism ?



In your saying about tax taken from you by force,
.... sure what you said is apparently right, but, have you ever try
to give it a thought that
1) the money you have gained or earned is facilitated under a exploitative situation/system?

First of all, in my case, no it isn&#39;t.


2) sustainability of mankind is out of mutual respect for some shared basic rights (food, shelter,education,etc) and their importance to stand as fuller beings under a system?

There is no mutual respect to be gained between a thief and his victim. The things you lise are needs, not rights (that is not to say that others couldn&#39;t provide these things on a voluntary basis).


3) as a citizen of your country, you should have the responsibility to pay your tax to support your own country in its overall management? even if the tax you gave might not benefit you directly or in the short run?

It would be in my self interest.

[Professor Moneybags]

Oh , i see. Then look around you in this world and take a closer look at what the capitalists are doing right now~

You mean the ones that aren&#39;t capitalists ?

If a capitalist isn&#39;t an advocate of capitalism, then what is it ?


what you are saying is capitalism in theoretical sense, but in practice, micro/macro economic interventions are execised in reality.

We are living in a mixed system, you realise. Not because some capitalist wants socialism to appease people, but because socialists wants socialism. The problem here is that the more socialist you get, the more dependent people become on the state and the more difficult it becomes to repeal such ideas without causing people to suffer.

[Fidelbrand]

Do you think that these things are absent under socialism ?

yes, good try, but under socialism/communism, this maligned situation is much alleviated with regulatory means. I know, you would then say history has proved itself that communist / socialist jurisdictions failed in such ways, but a historical mistake cannot totally rule out the feasibility of this idea. Under capitalism, the workers are subject to exploitation because they have no choice ---&#62; Get the job, or starve to death. Employers take advantage of this..
When there is a economic trough, for a big profit making company (such as public utilities like,e.g. a bus company that monopolised the transportation market and making lucrative profits " Well, i m sorry we have to cut salaries, the economic situation is worsening" (when they still are making millions/billions of profits) While for the workers, that cut can cost them much stress and strains~ At most for the ruthless company, it might just reply, " Well, fuck~ &#33; We are a profiting-making company adhereing to thhe laws of l-s-f economics, go find another job....... if you can&#33;&#33;&#33; ;) "


First of all, in my case, no it isn&#39;t.

You don&#39;t see the point. The system universalises and dogmatically legitimise our acts in the economic realm, everyone who survives under this system does exploitation directly and indirectly.


There is no mutual respect to be gained between a thief and his victim. The things you lise are needs, not rights (that is not to say that others couldn&#39;t provide these things on a voluntary basis).

Well, that&#39;s why i don&#39;t respect capitalist.
Good point-=> The things you lise are needs, not rights Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially article 22 to see if basic food , shelter, education are basic needs + rights of your fellow species~


It would be in my self interest.
Can&#39;t quite get what you are saying here, pardon.

[Fidelbrand]

You mean the ones that aren&#39;t capitalists ?

If a capitalist isn&#39;t an advocate of capitalism, then what is it ?

no, i mean the ones who are capitalists but they intervne in the free market in order to support capitalism, it is a dilema.
Hmm... then what he be? maybe something worse than a capitalist .... a fulltime economic dictator merely striving for his/ his own companies&#39; benfits.


We are living in a mixed system, you realise. Not because some capitalist wants socialism to appease people, but because socialists wants socialism. The problem here is that the more socialist you get, the more dependent people become on the state and the more difficult it becomes to repeal such ideas without causing people to suffer.

Yes, i realise this, but doesn&#39;t this appeal that capitalism has it flaws and need to be balanced by socialist means?

I think depending on consumerism is more of a tragedy when my fellow species are starving while I go change my computers / cellular phones when a fancy ad pops up whence the money can be devoted to save lives under this falwed economic operational entity.

I think depending on the notion of liberal democracy under capitalism is more of a tragedy when it allows us to freely elect our representatives that can do nothing to erase exploitations. Worse yet, when the system deters any interventions into the free market, more people die and became unprivledged before they have the life to be FREE. How can u enjoy FREEDOM when your life is being THREATENING or derived? Simple logic..... right? Can&#39;t just let the big fat richman or the ruling elites talk about rights~ what about the grassroots who has meagre social bargaining power under capitalist liberal democracy?

The asnwer might be : Well, tough luck poor ass&#33;&#33; Your dieing save our resources and we can divert our resources for endless economic expansion (with a widening rich and poor gap)

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, that&#39;s why i don&#39;t respect capitalist.
Good point-=> The things you lise are needs, not rights Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially article 22 to see if basic food , shelter, education are basic needs + rights of your fellow species~

No thanks, I don&#39;t recognise the UN&#39;s authority. The fallacy of "positive rights" are well documented already.




It would be in my self interest.
Can&#39;t quite get what you are saying here, pardon.

It would be in my self interest to pay money for defence, police etc.

I don&#39;t think you got the point when I said "are these things absent under socialism". Let&#39;s apply some of those anologies to real life :


Exploitation----&#62; Person A drowns accidentally in a lake and person B offers a cool deal in helping him but asking him to pay a million dollar to save him. Person A has no choice but to accept the offer. Person A is explioted for his windfall mishappening but since he has less bargaining power, he surrenders to the deal.

When I am being used as a cash cow to fullfil the needs of others, then I am being exploited.


Coercion -----&#62; Person A is pushed by person B in a lake, drowning, whence person B offers to save him if he pays a million dollars.

If I am threatened with violence/punishment if I do not comply with the above (yet I have not done anything to anyone), then that is coercion.

[Fidelbrand]

No thanks, I don&#39;t recognise the UN&#39;s authority. The fallacy of "positive rights" are well documented already.

Don&#39;t make it a shallow discussion, professeur~ "Positive" and "Negative" rights have been argued as overlapping in some sense.

The usual distinction of "positive" and "negative" tights-----&#62; The exercise of positive rights are inevitably asserted to scare goods and because of scarcity, it implies a limit to the claim. On the other hand, negative right is about not to do something on someone else. Imposition is held. Fried reckons that negative rights do not appear to have such natural, such inevitable limitations (scarcity). right?

But........

Henry Shue when discussed the Right to subsistence, he stressed that it can be less complicated and expensive than other programs that aim to protect the negative rights of the citizens (E.g. Food stamp program vs. Anti-drugs program). So according to him, all it matters is the relative dimensions of the respective problems and the implementation of laws should be unaffected by its nature. He finally puts it, “The request is not to be supported, but, to be allowed to be self-supporting”


It would be in my self interest to pay money for defence, police etc.

I see... So, Are you just thinking about yourself when your money is invested in such provisions?


When I am being used as a cash cow to fullfil the needs of others, then I am being exploited.

i am afriad you have applied it wrongly. Lets face it objectively,

Firstly, in your situation, you are the one helping the others, not the one who falls in a desperate situation. (You have put yourself on the wrong side)

Secondly, on your side, the cash you sacrificed will not threaten your life or survival.


If I am threatened with violence/punishment if I do not comply with the above (yet I have not done anything to anyone), then that is coercion.
Needless to say..

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 1 2004, 06:53 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 1 2004, 06:53 AM)
COMRADE [email protected] 31 2004, 07:28 AM

Cite where I have made racist comments.



"Maybe it&#39;s just their [those uppity, jive talkin&#39; negroes] attitude".
You wanker. The (racist) words in brackets are yours, not mine.



EDIT

wrong button [/b]
No kidding son, that&#39;s what the brackets are for. I take it English in its written form is not your "forte".

Care to know what quotation marks are for?

[pandora]

Excellent topic, yes capitalists are much more utopian they all believe they&#39;re going to get rich, and will never need anyone else in the society, ie. welfare

If they were more realistic they would realize everyone needs help sometimes, that&#39;s what society is. Communists and socialists recognize that they live in a web of community and by recognizing that interdependence are more open to humility and reality.

No grand illusions and big cars and dreams just simple humanity working together

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 31 2004, 11:57 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 31 2004, 11:57 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 08:01 AM
Welfare is, ultimately, protection of property rights when mass action threatens to overwhelm bourgeois ownership as an institution.
Welfare protects property rights by violating them ?

Lol. Only a socialist.... [/b]
Your problem is that you are completely incapable of seeing a larger picture than what is at hand.

Imagine that free speech was removed from a few people that wanted to remove free speech for everybody; for example, Germany&#39;s denazification policy. Is this pro-free speech or anti-free speech? It seems to be a bit of a paradox, certainly.

It&#39;s the same thing with reformism. When the material conditions created by laissez-faire capitalism create a risk of armed uprising among the most disadvantaged of society&#39;s proletarians, minor reforms seem to hardly be any form of surrender at all when compared to the only other possibility - that of total revolution.

[Professor Moneybags]

Imagine that free speech was removed from a few people that wanted to remove free speech for everybody; for example, Germany&#39;s denazification policy. Is this pro-free speech or anti-free speech? It seems to be a bit of a paradox, certainly.

No paradox there. Banning nazis from speaking is voilating freedom of speech. Just as I have to respect a communist&#39;s property rights, I have to respect a nazi&#39;s freedom of speech. If I didn&#39;t allow him to do so, I&#39;d be endorsing nazism under the guise of opposing it.


It&#39;s the same thing with reformism. When the material conditions created by laissez-faire capitalism create a risk of armed uprising among the most disadvantaged of society&#39;s proletarians, minor reforms seem to hardly be any form of surrender at all when compared to the only other possibility - that of total revolution.

Not if you think in principles. Armed agressors should be dealt with using force, not comprimised with.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Jun 2 2004, 03:07 AM--> (COMRADE RAF @ Jun 2 2004, 03:07 AM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 06:53 AM

COMRADE [email protected] 31 2004, 07:28 AM

Cite where I have made racist comments.



"Maybe it&#39;s just their [those uppity, jive talkin&#39; negroes] attitude".
You wanker. The (racist) words in brackets are yours, not mine.



EDIT

wrong button
No kidding son, that&#39;s what the brackets are for. I take it English in its written form is not your "forte".

Care to know what quotation marks are for? [/b]
Why don&#39;t you just give up all pretence of honesty and rationality and quit while you&#39;re behind ?

[Nyder]

"Welfare appeases the masses" (?)

^This statement seems to imply that without welfare, there would be mass poverty and that eventually these suffering people will become violent and create anarchy.

You forget that welfare comes from taxes, and a quite a large proportion too. If low income earners get a huge tax break I don&#39;t see why they would rise up and destroy the bourgoisie.

Also, you would still have welfare without redistribution. It would be unemployment insurance.

[Osman Ghazi]

If low income earners get a huge tax break I don&#39;t see why they would rise up and destroy the bourgoisie.

It&#39;s funny because the Social Democratic NDP have just proposed this.

[Timon of Athens]

OK, I don&#39;t know where to begin with this one. Here goes:

Communism is not a utopia&#33;&#33; You&#39;re thinking Utopian Socialism (which Marx was against). Notice the name &#39;Utopian Socialism&#39;. Examine the first word.
Learn about something before you criticize it. Otherwise we end up with a stupid thread that has absolutely no bearing on anything. Like this.

[synthesis]

No paradox there. Banning nazis from speaking is voilating freedom of speech. Just as I have to respect a communist&#39;s property rights, I have to respect a nazi&#39;s freedom of speech. If I didn&#39;t allow him to do so, I&#39;d be endorsing nazism under the guise of opposing it.

Well, that&#39;s a debatable point, and it is by all means irrelevant to the point at hand. I was simply trying to provide an example - is adapting a theory to reality simply to preserve the existence of the general idea behind that theory a violation of it? Or is it straying too far?

The ruling class of America seems to believe the former. Ideals are rarely followed in their complete form, from Lenin bypassing the bourgeois phase of history to Jefferson making the Louisiana purchase to corporations which extol the &#39;free market&#39; yet jump at the bit for the opportunity to be subsidized.

We had a die-hard capitalist poster here some time ago who proposed, in all seriousness, that universities be banned from hiring Marxist or leftist professors. When confronted with the fact that this was a regulation of hiring practices, he shrugged it off, saying that it was necessary to violate a certain small number of laissez-faire principles to preserve the system as a whole.

Anyways, in the case of the Depression and of the Second Reich, the ruling establishment felt it was necessarily to violate certain key tenets of free-market capitalism in order to prevent the entire system from crumbling.


Not if you think in principles. Armed agressors should be dealt with using force, not comprimised with.

Very honest, I admire that.

We see here the origin of Fascism - an armed state used to protect the holdings of the corporate elite.


This statement seems to imply that without welfare, there would be mass poverty and that eventually these suffering people will become violent and create anarchy.

No, it implies that welfare is used to placate the violent, anarchic tendencies of those suffering people mired in mass poverty.


You forget that welfare comes from taxes, and a quite a large proportion too. If low income earners get a huge tax break I don&#39;t see why they would rise up and destroy the bourgoisie.

Ah, yes, the old "they&#39;d be so much better off if they could only keep more of their minimum wage" argument.

Oh, wait, you want to abolish the minimum wage, right? Never mind. :lol:

[Maynard]

.I think, on the question of Welfare, in the case of consumer economies, getting rid of welfare would, I believe, cause a huge contraction in most major economies, spending will drop significantly. As if there is less of a safety net, people will rightly save more than they do now, just as they do in Japan or South Korea but for them, it works, as the banks are a major source of industry funding. So mess with welfare at your own peril. Poverty levels are at the lowest, in Scandinavia countries, where taxes are the highest as well.

I think the Asian financial crisis shows what happens when the IMF tries to impose American style capitalism on other nations. Absolute disaster it was. However, it&#39;s strange how those on the right are the first to want to get rid of welfare but advocate huge military budgets and occupations that absolutely drain a national economy. Those sort of ideas led to the downfall of the USSR, it&#39;ll be interesting to see if the same happens here.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 04:06 PM
"Welfare appeases the masses" (?)

^This statement seems to imply that without welfare, there would be mass poverty and that eventually these suffering people will become violent and create anarchy.

You forget that welfare comes from taxes, and a quite a large proportion too. If low income earners get a huge tax break I don&#39;t see why they would rise up and destroy the bourgoisie.

Also, you would still have welfare without redistribution. It would be unemployment insurance.
Being in a state with little or no unemployment insurance [they are privatizing it, your employer has to chose to give it to you <_< ]

We have no welfare,

They have cut the school year for K-12 to beyond less than any other state and are still looking at cutting off another month, the class sizes are over 50:1, the schools are so run down its incredible, I&#39;ve been in them, even in the nice neighborhoods they&#39;re run down with no money.

The teachers are working two weeks for free these next two weeks just to keep them open.

College students are expected to pay 3/4 of all costs to operate the institution through massive privatized loans at triple the rate of federal loans, most of which accrue interest while they are in school, and still don&#39;t cover all the costs of schooling.

They have even cut off aid to people with disabilities such as down syndrome and mental retardation who can live in supported living facilities, ie. the mental age of 10-12.

Elderly people must give up all property to receive intensive medical care.

Medicare has been privatized by HMO&#39;s.

Retirement benefits from the government won&#39;t even cover rent in the cheapest apts.

and no tax breaks for the low income citizens, and no one rising up I feel this is a lie.

We are under such a massive state of repression right now that the other shoe is going to fall as soon as the middle class does; which is soon.

Anyone who feels otherwise has never worked for minimum wage in a right to work state in the United States, or for welfare-to-work with children.

How this revolution will come about is anyones guess, but we are in a situation here similar to that Rousseau witnessed in France prior to the Revolution just waiting for the spark. It is nice to walk around in the summer though as there are so many homeless people on the street to talk to it creates a real community.

Have a nice day :P

[Professor Moneybags]

We had a die-hard capitalist poster here some time ago who proposed, in all seriousness, that universities be banned from hiring Marxist or leftist professors. When confronted with the fact that this was a regulation of hiring practices, he shrugged it off, saying that it was necessary to violate a certain small number of laissez-faire principles to preserve the system as a whole.

Whether or not Marxists are employed is dependent on the university&#39;s policy, not the government. I don&#39;t know who this "die-hard" capitalist was, but he is not being consistent.


Anyways, in the case of the Depression and of the Second Reich, the ruling establishment felt it was necessarily to violate certain key tenets of free-market capitalism in order to prevent the entire system from crumbling.

But this is like the example I gave. Just as banning certain political views just because you don&#39;t happen to like them is violating freedom of speech, violating key tenets of capitalism is being anti-capitalist.


We see here the origin of Fascism - an armed state used to protect the holdings of the corporate elite.

Defending one&#39;s property against aggressors is fascism ? Wasn&#39;t that what the allies were doing during the war ? They must be fascists. Plus, anyone who defends themselves from rapists, muggers and burglars must be fascists too. Bloody hell...the entire world is fascist. Either that, or you are talking nonsense.

[The Sloth]

"Defending one&#39;s property against aggressors is fascism ? Wasn&#39;t that what the allies were doing during the war ? They must be fascists. Plus, anyone who defends themselves from rapists, muggers and burglars must be fascists too. Bloody hell...the entire world is fascist. Either that, or you are talking nonsense."

No; you&#39;re talking non-sense.

Defending oneself from "rapists" and "muggers" is not the same thing as creating an armed police state complete with a capitalistic propaganda machine (i.e., the media and our schools) that is out for the the interests of the few over the majority.

Fascism = an elite class ruling over the majority. They use force and progaganda to keep themselves at the top.

Defending yourself from a mugger = keeping yourself alive NOT at the expense of anyone else.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 3 2004, 03:20 PM
Fascism = an elite class ruling over the majority. They use force and progaganda to keep themselves at the top.

Defending yourself from a mugger = keeping yourself alive NOT at the expense of anyone else.
But you are keeping yourself alive at the expense of others if you are stealing from them. The fact that some of these people happen to be rich does not make their property any less "theirs".

[synthesis]

But this is like the example I gave. Just as banning certain political views just because you don&#39;t happen to like them is violating freedom of speech, violating key tenets of capitalism is being anti-capitalist.

Regardless of whether or not their actions meet your own personal standards, their actions were designed to prevent the rise of a system that would have "violated individual property rights" far more than welfare ever has.

Unless you wish to suggest that Otto von Bismarck was actually trying to "sneak Communism in through the back door." :lol:


Defending one&#39;s property against aggressors is fascism ? Wasn&#39;t that what the allies were doing during the war ? They must be fascists. Plus, anyone who defends themselves from rapists, muggers and burglars must be fascists too. Bloody hell...the entire world is fascist. Either that, or you are talking nonsense.

This isn&#39;t the theoretical issue you attempt to portray it as. Historically, Fascism is the result of the corporate elite defending their own property against the aggressive forces of those who believe in public control of the means of production.

[The Sloth]

Doesn&#39;t Professor Moneybags or any other member of the "Right-Wing Opposition Party for the American Gestapo" have any brilliant rebuttals to my previous two or three posts?

I feel like I&#39;m talking to a fascist wall when I don&#39;t get any responses...and don&#39;t you capitalists want to be animate, living and breathing fascists instead of taking on the personality of a brick? :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

Regardless of whether or not their actions meet your own personal standards, their actions were designed to prevent the rise of a system that would have "violated individual property rights" far more than welfare ever has.

They&#39;re not my standards, they&#39;re the dictionary&#39;s.

(Does this example also apply to your denial that the USSR wasn&#39;t real communism because the actions of Lenin and Sralin did not meet your "personal standards" ?)


Unless you wish to suggest that Otto von Bismarck was actually trying to "sneak Communism in through the back door." :lol:

If not, he&#39;d be one of the few exceptions. For every one that didn&#39;t there&#39;s a dozen that have.


This isn&#39;t the theoretical issue you attempt to portray it as.

Yes it is. The way you portray it is absurd. All police are fascist. Anyone who defends themselves against muggers or burglars is a fascist. See below.


Historically, Fascism is the result of the corporate elite defending their own propertyagainst the aggressive forces of those who believe in public control of the means of production.

(This gets better. :rolleyes: )

Oh, Hitler was acting in "self-defence", was he ? If you believe that, you&#39;ll believe anything. Hitler was not part of any "corporate elite". Nor was there any "corporate elite" to defend anyway. (And show me which dictionary shares your definition of fascism.)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 02:14 PM
Doesn&#39;t Professor Moneybags or any other member of the "Right-Wing Opposition Party for the American Gestapo" have any brilliant rebuttals to my previous two or three posts?

I feel like I&#39;m talking to a fascist wall when I don&#39;t get any responses...
I feel like I&#39;m talking to a dupe when I keep getting called a fascist. Especially when "rebuttals to your previous two or three posts" have already been provided.


and don&#39;t you capitalists want to be animate, living and breathing fascists instead of taking on the personality of a brick? :rolleyes:

Aren&#39;t you going to do something more original than screaming "fascist" at anyone that doesn&#39;t share your worldview ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Historically, Fascism is the result of the corporate elite defending their own property against the aggressive forces of those who believe in public control of the means of production.

Fascism is just an extention of feudalism. Nothing to do with corporations. No property rights. Just some despots handing out arbitary laws. Rather like communism, actually.

[synthesis]

(Does this example also apply to your denial that the USSR wasn&#39;t real communism because the actions of Lenin and Sralin did not meet your "personal standards" ?)

Well, it&#39;s a little more complicated than that. Welfare is the result of a ruling class attempting to adapt capitalism to material conditions. The USSR, and the Leninist paradigm, was the result of the Bolshevik ruling class attempting to adapt Marxist ideology to the material conditions of the Russian economy and society.

Russia was a mostly unindustrialized society before the Leninists took over. As the material conditions were not present for the working classes to become agitated due to capitalist deficiencies, the only way for Lenin, in his view, to adapt Marxism to the USSR was to create a vanguard instead of mass consciousness, which was what Marx prescribed.

From the vanguard party, we can then trace all of the totalitarian excesses of Soviet state and society.

So, yes, I hold them to the same standards.


If not, he&#39;d be one of the few exceptions. For every one that didn&#39;t there&#39;s a dozen that have.

Nice examples. Ever notice how all the New Deal Democrats are Republicans now, because they thought that progressivism had "progressed too far beyond the New Deal"?


Yes it is. The way you portray it is absurd. All police are fascist. Anyone who defends themselves against muggers or burglars is a fascist. See below.


Fascism is just an extention of feudalism. Nothing to do with corporations. No property rights. Just some despots handing out arbitary laws. Rather like communism, actually.

Fascism has always been instituted by bourgeois sympathizers, funded by industrialists who felt that a capitalist democracy was not enough to protect their private property from mass action.

The examples are endless; from Mussolini expressly advocating corporate power to the Night of Long Knives to Wall Street&#39;s unabashed tolerance of and assistance to (http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_01.htm) Hitler, I can&#39;t say that Fascism has much to do with public control of the means of producing capital, a.k.a. socialism. :rolleyes:

[Guerilla22]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 09:48 PM

In addition, how can you say that raising taxes to pay for the education of our children is "stealing" from you?

Because the money to pay for it is taken out of my pocket by force and whether I agree to it or not.


Oh I remember, these blacks and hispanics spics are not your children so who cares right?

Add 1000 white kids to the student body and I&#39;m sure you would not mind, because hey, it&#39;s all for our children&#39;s future right?

You are a pathetic human being.

The only patheic human being is the one that pretends that his every political opponent is racist.

Stop the straw man arguments.
I hate to break it to you, but schools only recieve about 2% of all state taxws and something like 0.0001% of federal taxes. Schools are not robbing anyone. It is the schools that are being robbed. Actually it&#39;s the children that are being robbed. You wanna ***** about somethin, how about the &#036;450 Billion a year the military spends.

[Professor Moneybags]

I hate to break it to you, but schools only recieve about 2% of all state taxws and something like 0.0001% of federal taxes. Schools are not robbing anyone.

Erm...yes they are. They are robbing 2% of state taxes.


It is the schools that are being robbed. Actually it&#39;s the children that are being robbed.

They haven&#39;t got anything to steal.


You wanna ***** about somethin, how about the &#036;450 Billion a year the military spends.

I am. And be sure to tell that to DaCuban- he doesn&#39;t believe that more is spent on the military than on research.

[Professor Moneybags]

Fascism is just an extention of feudalism. Nothing to do with corporations. No property rights. Just some despots handing out arbitary laws. Rather like communism, actually.

Fascism has always been instituted by bourgeois sympathizers, funded by industrialists who felt that a capitalist democracy was not enough to protect their private property from mass action.

It&#39;s so cute the way you make history up as you go along.


The examples are endless; from Mussolini expressly advocating corporate power to the Night of Long Knives to Wall Street&#39;s unabashed tolerance of and assistance to (http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_01.htm) Hitler, I can&#39;t say that Fascism has much to do with public control of the means of producing capital, a.k.a. socialism. :rolleyes:

In other words, government ownership.

Speaking of which, Hitler had quite alot of support from the Communist party. (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/histpol/hist108/lec3.html)

"Hitler was helped by the fact that the left of German politics did not unite against him. Communists supported Hitler in destroying the Weimar Republic in 1928-32. Communists (including Joseph Stalin and the Communist leaders in Russia) thought that Hitler was just a lightweight passing fad. Who would break through the democratic ice, cause instability and create conditions for a Communist revolution."

[Osman Ghazi]

"Hitler was helped by the fact that the left of German politics did not unite against him. Communists supported Hitler in destroying the Weimar Republic in 1928-32. Communists (including Joseph Stalin and the Communist leaders in Russia) thought that Hitler was just a lightweight passing fad. Who would break through the democratic ice, cause instability and create conditions for a Communist revolution."

Yes, yes, we know all about the mysterious &#39;social ts&#39; but if you take your directions from Josef Stalin, you aren&#39;t really a communist, now are you? Also, there were two or three &#39;communist parties&#39; at that time. Some were violently against him, like the SDP and some supported Hitler because the Third International (controlled by the Soviets) told them to.


It&#39;s so cute the way you make history up as you go along.


It&#39;s so disgusting the way you deny the irrefutable facts of history. m has always appeared in conditions where capitalism seemed to be failing. Supporters for m have always come from the middle classes and from rightist elements within the working class. The money to fund it all comes from corporations and rich businessmen.


In other words, government ownership.

Ya, because we want the government to control everything. (sarcasm) There is a slight difference between regular &#39;public control&#39; (government control) and the kind of public control we plan to give the people. That is to say, the people actually will have the power.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, yes, we know all about the mysterious &#39;social ts&#39; but if you take your directions from Josef Stalin, you aren&#39;t really a communist, now are you?

That still remains open to debate.


It&#39;s so disgusting the way you deny the irrefutable facts of history. m has always appeared in conditions where capitalism seemed to be failing.

What&#39;s "m" ? Do you mean communism or fascism ?


Supporters for m have always come from the middle classes and from rightist elements within the working class. The money to fund it all comes from corporations and rich businessmen.

Again, I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re talking about communism or fascism, because there are plenty of rich communists. So much for economic determinism.


Ya, because we want the government to control everything. (sarcasm) There is a slight difference between regular &#39;public control&#39; (government control) and the kind of public control we plan to give the people. That is to say, the people actually will have the power.

Those differences being...?

[synthesis]

Speaking of which, Hitler had quite alot of support from the Communist party.

You&#39;re not telling me anything I don&#39;t already know. Stalin ordered the Communist Party of Germany to cooperate with the Nazi party because he thought that a violent overthrow of the Weimar Republic would lead to a weak Nazi state to be subsequently overthrown by the Communist Party. The Communist Party obeyed in part because of their decades-old bitter rivalry with the Social Democrats.

This was a blunder to the highest degree on the part of the vanguard party (Stalin made many such errors subsequently), and would never have happened were the Communist Party of Germany controlled by its base constituency as opposed to foreign, unaccountable bureaucracy.

BTW, it looks like you&#39;ve completely given up on the whole "Communist origin of welfare" bit. Or would you like to continue?

[Osman Ghazi]

That still remains open to debate.


Not really. Around here, at least.


What&#39;s "m" ? Do you mean communism or m ?


[email protected] My browser is just ed up.


Again, I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re talking about communism or m, because there are plenty of rich communists. So much for economic determinism.


Plenty is a fairly subjective term, isn&#39;t it? Does that meant that there are 100 rich communists or a thousand? Personnally I wouldn&#39;t say that they make up any kind of large group within the communist movement.


Those differences being...?

Well, for one, there will be no seperate governemtn from that of the people. You won&#39;t hear anyone say "The government this or the government that&#39; because they won&#39;t consider the governement to be a sepera y from themselves. Since they will participate in all the decision-making processes, they aren&#39;t alienated from power like in our society and they will be able to do pretty much whatever they want, within reason.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:25 PM
BTW, it looks like you&#39;ve completely given up on the whole "Communist origin of welfare" bit. Or would you like to continue?
There isn&#39;t really anything more to debate. (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=74&sortorder=articledate)

The welfare state could only of derived from the same philosophy as communism.

"In 1945, Labor Party leader Clement Attlee proposed a "welfare state" as a contrast to "Hitler&#39;s warfare state." The idea proved so appealing that British voters dumped their wartime hero, Winston Churchill, just two months after the German surrender and installed Attlee as prime minister. The National Health Service, with its proud boast "free to all at the point of use," was one result.

As Western Europe&#39;s postwar recovery produced high growth rates and high tax revenue, governments poured money into an ever-increasing network of social services, subsidies and direct payments. There was open competition with the Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which promised an even more generous welfare menu."

Or perhaps you&#39;re going to insist that the (communist) Eastern European welfare state was set up to "prevent revolution" ? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0529-01.htm) :rolleyes:

I don&#39;t think "preventing revolution" was what Atlee had in mind when he set up Britain&#39;s welfare state, either.

If you still want to continue this pointless debate topic, then go ahead. My patience will be limited.

[DaCuBaN]

From your own source


The welfare state has been a colossal fraud from its inception. Its origins were shrouded in deceit, provision for the poor was always secondary to the real agenda of government domination by social elites

As far as I can see it, that&#39;s in direct contradiction to your (and your second sources) claim that the british welfare state was set up for any reason other than to prevent revolt.


If you still want to continue this pointless debate topic, then go ahead. My patience will be limited

You consider another debate futile? :D ;)

[The Sloth]

"Aren&#39;t you going to do something more original than screaming "fascist" at anyone that doesn&#39;t share your worldview ?"

Fine; since "fascist" is too political for you, how about "tyrant"? "Slave-driver"? "Overseer"?


"I feel like I&#39;m talking to a dupe when I keep getting called a fascist. Especially when &#39;rebuttals to your previous two or three posts&#39; have already been provided."

No, actually, my points were not answered, because after I made a certain rebuttal on page two, it seems that no capitalist cared to respond. Instead, the conversation started to slowly shift away from the topic, and went into welfare and such....anyway, for you to understand what I&#39;m talking about, here is the rebuttal I posted a couple of pages ago:





"But if this is true how can someone claim that the media is the source of all evil? The actions of some black people negatively affect the rest, so they&#39;re creating their own destruction. Basically he is acknowledging that black people are more stupid. (and no, I am not racist. This is not my opinion)."

Of course they&#39;re creating their own destruction; black people have to be educated to understand this simple fact. This "education," however, is overshadowed by a criminal mentality and by greed.

However, you&#39;re basically saying that blacks have the power to resist, which is true. However, simply because they have the power to resist, the media should not be held accountable if it is such a strong force working against this power, thus putting blacks in a deeper disadvantage?

Wow.

"Do you know how many adults I see reading Harry Potter in the train? Shakespeare also wrote beautiful sonnets, but in the end the majority prefers easy to read books (or songs about money, cars and *****es instead of political views). "
Yes, because our current realities still encourage anti-intellectualism.

"If black people were given equal rights two weeks ago I would agree with you."

So, simply because blacks can vote, are not legally segregated, and some laws about discrimination are passed, you depend on welfare and affirmative action to, all of a sudden, turn the north and eastern parts of Brooklyn into places up to par with the socioeconomic realities of the white neighborhoods? Hmmm...

Number one, even if those things were actually in effect right now, they would not be enough to end the extreme inequalities that exist today. Number two, those things DO NOT exist because the black and hispanic vote becomes HIGHLY ineffective once you realize that a huge chunk of minority populations are disenfranchised due to a disproportionate amount of crime falling upon blacks and hispanics. Also, simply because legal segregation is over doesn&#39;t mean that we&#39;re going to have all these whites flocking to the slums in Harlem.

"It is false to believe that any idea can be &#39;forced&#39; on anyone. Not even a gun can force people to believe something they believe is false."

However, growing up in the slums, you don&#39;t always grow up believing guns are "wrong."

Also, while no idea can be "forced" upon someone else, it is much easier to influence others with an idea when the conditions warrant it. And, of course, the conditions warrant such a thing in the situation that we&#39;ve been discussing.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:37 PM
As far as I can see it, that&#39;s in direct contradiction to your (and your second sources) claim that the british welfare state was set up for any reason other than to prevent revolt.
How is it a contradiction ? Just because the first source called it a scam ?


Fine; since "fascist" is too political for you, how about "tyrant"? "Slave-driver"? "Overseer"?

Because I&#39;m not a tyrant, a slave-driver or an overseer. The biggest irony is that those things would all be better used to describe you.


"It is false to believe that any idea can be &#39;forced&#39; on anyone. Not even a gun can force people to believe something they believe is false."

However, growing up in the slums, you don&#39;t always grow up believing guns are "wrong."

Most socialists here still seem to believe that guns are a perfectly acceptable way if interacting with people. Even the ones not bought up in slums.


Also, while no idea can be "forced" upon someone else, it is much easier to influence others with an idea when the conditions warrant it. And, of course, the conditions warrant such a thing in the situation that we&#39;ve been discussing.

It was claimed earlier in the thread that the welfare state was set up to discourage revolution. It would seem that putting people into poverty is considered a useful "tool" to turn people to socialism (the soviets used this tactic in Eastern Europe). Why would you want to discourage it ?

[synthesis]

There isn&#39;t really anything more to debate.

This has to be one of the most hilarious pieces of propaganda I&#39;ve ever seen. Let&#39;s check out some of its intellectualisms. It&#39;s really pretty funny how quickly it falls apart after anyone takes more than a casual glance at its nonsense.


The first significant push for welfare came during the beginning of the Progressive Era in the late 1800s, a time when average economic growth was the highest it has ever been in U.S. history.

This is great. Notice how it says &#39;average&#39; growth. &#39;Average&#39; wealth means nothing. If Bill Gates joined Che-Lives, we&#39;d all be billionaires.

What&#39;s important to this guy&#39;s point is the median growth - that&#39;s what indicates who&#39;s getting richer and who&#39;s getting poorer. Go on, try to deny that there was mass poverty and labor strife in the late 1800&#39;s. Any person who&#39;s taken basic high-school American History will laugh at you. Welfare was a way to quell the mass dissent among the great masses of people impoverished by laissez-faire policies.


The second great push occurred during the 1930s after the recovery from the worst of the Great Depression had already begun.

Untrue. The "worst" of the Great Depression is usually considered to be 1929-1933, when unemployment rose by 23% while manufacturing fell by about a third. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the most productive period of the New Deal, in a legislative sense, was the "First Hundred Days." (Amusingly enough relative to your claim that welfare originated with Communism, only a week after Roosevelt was elected, one of his new legislations actually aimed to cut government salaries and veterans&#39; pensions by up to 15%.)


The third, possibly most harmful, phase came in the 1960s during a long economic expansion when President Lyndon Johnson convinced Congress to implement his "Great Society" programs.

I haven&#39;t been shown any evidence that Johnson was any sort of Communist. Most modern historians believe that LBJ was simply an egotistical individual, who sought to make a legacy for himself by drafting as much legislation as he could. In fact, the example of Johnson contradicts your Communist Origin Theory, as he involved America more in fighting Communists than any other president.


The underlying assumption is that a free-market economy generates poverty, a view borne of the belief that wealth can only be gained at the expense of the poor. But that is a characteristic feature of non-market economies. For example, the socialist kleptocracies of Africa feature political strongmen who are often listed among the worlds wealthiest men, despite the fact that their nations are desperately poor. (The late Mobutu of the former Zaire was typical of the dictators who regularly loot their citizenry.) It is not the free market which gave men like Mobutu their riches; rather, it is socialism and the centralization that accompanies it.

LOL, Mobutu Sese Soku was a CIA-funded dictator who overthrew a democratically-elected socialist president.

Fuck the facts, this article&#39;s gung-ho for misrepresentation.


The irony is that until John F. Kennedys "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnsons "Great Society" programs, poverty rates were plummeting in the United States, and especially for blacks, from more than thirty-three percent in the early 1950s to less than fifteen percent by the late 1960s. In other words, "dog-eat-dog" capitalism and the philanthropic sector it created was helping to eradicate poverty on its own.

Many poor people, including blacks, benefitted highly from the economic booms of World War II and the Korea War, which, need I remind you, was funded largely out of the pockets of the wealthy. This gradually faded after the War, and is very well documented. The economy can change independently of the government&#39;s policies, or is that only a fact to be used conveniently when conservatives are discussing Bill Clinton?

Really, it seems like everything this guy says depends on the reader to not know the context of the information he provided.

Not only is your article garbage, but it does nothing for your claim that welfare originated with people trying to &#39;sneak in&#39; Communism. All his harping about how welfare originated with the wealthy only helps my argument, not yours.


If you still want to continue this pointless debate topic, then go ahead. My patience will be limited.

I will continue to challenge your ridiculous claims that welfare has anything to do with Communism until you concede the point or you provide some evidence besides that trash above. If you don&#39;t want to waste time defending your laughable arguments, don&#39;t make them in the first place.

[Professor Moneybags]

Any person who&#39;s taken basic high-school American History will laugh at you.

Anyone who&#39;s taken basic high school history has been fed the same propaganda. This is an appeal to popularity.


Welfare was a way to quell the mass dissent among the great masses of people impoverished by laissez-faire policies.

Keep repeating the mantra, Dyer, it still doesn&#39;t explain why every socialist nation adopts a "welfare state".


Untrue. The "worst" of the Great Depression is usually considered to be 1929-1933, when unemployment rose by 23% while manufacturing fell by about a third.

Did you get that from "basic high-school history" too ? Is this the same one that taches you that the opposite of socialism is "national" socialism and that democracy is a comprimise between Lenin and Hitler ?


Not only is your article garbage, but it does nothing for your claim that welfare originated with people trying to &#39;sneak in&#39; Communism. All his harping about how welfare originated with the wealthy only helps my argument, not yours.

How does it help to suggest that welfare was invented to "appease the masses" ? If not, then it doesn&#39;t help your case.


I will continue to challenge your ridiculous claims that welfare has anything to do with Communism

...regardless of what evidence is presented. Congratulations on totally evading the other article.

[DaCuBaN]

How does it help to suggest that welfare was invented to "appease the masses" ?


provision for the poor was always secondary to the real agenda of government domination by social elites

This is the contradiction. Do you agree with this statement? I see it in direct contradiction to your own stance on welfare

[synthesis]

This is getting funnier by the post. All you can do now is dodge and evade, and hope that no one notices you&#39;re replying to as little as you think you can get away with.


Anyone who&#39;s taken basic high school history has been fed the same propaganda. This is an appeal to popularity.

LOL, so there weren&#39;t a lot of poor people in the late 1800&#39;s? Ever heard the term "agrarian distress"?


Keep repeating the mantra, Dyer, it still doesn&#39;t explain why every socialist nation adopts a "welfare state".

You&#39;re one to talk about repetition :rolleyes:

It&#39;s pretty simple. "Socialist states" adopt policies of redistribution because they are the popular representatives of the poor, who see the rich as having something that belongs to them due to the alienation of labor.


Did you get that from "basic high-school history" too ? Is this the same one that taches you that the opposite of socialism is "national" socialism and that democracy is a comprimise between Lenin and Hitler ?

Sneer and roll your eyes all you want, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that most historians consider the low point of the Depression to be 1933, although things were basically shit until WWII.

"The nadir of the Great Depression was in 1933, but the economy showed very little improvement through the end of the decade, and remained grim until it was dramatically reshaped through America&#39;s involvement in World War II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States


How does it help to suggest that welfare was invented to "appease the masses" ? If not, then it doesn&#39;t help your case.

The fact that welfare was originated by the wealthy and educated suggests that the people who came up with it had the ability to step back and look at the big picture of things.

I never said that one specific example conclusively proves anything; merely that his suggestion that welfare originated with the wealthy is open to interpretation.


...regardless of what evidence is presented.

Yeah, who&#39;s been providing all the historical evidence throughout this whole debate again?


Congratulations on totally evading the other article.

Perhaps I&#39;m missing something. I can&#39;t see how the article is relevant to the discussion other than to suggest that Europe is more geared towards the "welfare state", as a whole, than America is.

This is logical, because Europe was devastated by World War II, whereas America escaped economically untouched and perhaps improved. That&#39;s why America enacted the Marshall Plan - to send billions of dollars to European governments in order to combat the poverty which was lending to the popularity of Communist movements.

Oh, wait - maybe they were just trying to "sneak in Communism through the back door." :rolleyes:

Read&#33; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan)

[Nyder]

The fact that welfare was originated by the wealthy and educated suggests that the people who came up with it had the ability to step back and look at the big picture of things.

I never said that one specific example conclusively proves anything; merely that his suggestion that welfare originated with the wealthy is open to interpretation.

Yeah - &#39;wealthy&#39; as in elitist chardonnay socialists. :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:54 AM

How does it help to suggest that welfare was invented to "appease the masses" ?


provision for the poor was always secondary to the real agenda of government domination by social elites


This is the contradiction. Do you agree with this statement? I see it in direct contradiction to your own stance on welfare.

The soclial elites being the communist rulers who always seem to spring up at the head of every communist state. Take a look at of the socialist politicians who use welfare as a means to expand their own power. Who did you think it was talking about ?

[Professor Moneybags]

This is getting funnier by the post.

Keep laughing. We both know who&#39;s "winning". ;)


All you can do now is dodge and evade, and hope that no one notices you&#39;re replying to as little as you think you can get away with.

Is that the reason you&#39;ve ignored the second link I&#39;ve posted ? Because it provides evidence you find difficult to rationalize away ? There&#39;s no point trying to accuse me of doing what you&#39;re doing. Projection won&#39;t get you anywhere.


LOL, so there weren&#39;t a lot of poor people in the late 1800&#39;s? Ever heard the term "agrarian distress"?

There were alot of poor people in the 1700&#39;s too. And the 1600&#39;s and the 1500&#39;s and the 1400&#39;s...but they seem to be getting less and less "poor" after the 1800&#39;s. I wonder why...

"Poor" is a relative term.


You&#39;re one to talk about repetition :rolleyes:

It&#39;s pretty simple. "Socialist states" adopt policies of redistribution because they are the popular representatives of the poor, who see the rich as having something that belongs to them due to the alienation of labor.

That&#39;s the welfare state in a nutshell. Invented by socialists, impemented by socialists.

If capitalists began advocating the redistribution of wealth, they would no longer be capitalists, but socialists. Just as if socialists began advocating private property, they would no longer be socialists.


Sneer and roll your eyes all you want, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that most historians consider the low point of the Depression to be 1933, although things were basically shit until WWII.

"The nadir of the Great Depression was in 1933, but the economy showed very little improvement through the end of the decade, and remained grim until it was dramatically reshaped through America&#39;s involvement in World War II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States

Fascinating. But how is it relevent to the topic ?


The fact that welfare was originated by the wealthy and educated suggests that the people who came up with it had the ability to step back and look at the big picture of things.

So did communism. Your point ?


I never said that one specific example conclusively proves anything; merely that his suggestion that welfare originated with the wealthy is open to interpretation.

You specifically argued that it was invented by the rich to prevent revolution. I agree it was invented by the rich; rich soclialists.



Congratulations on totally evading the other article.

Perhaps I&#39;m missing something. I can&#39;t see how the article is relevant to the discussion other than to suggest that Europe is more geared towards the "welfare state", as a whole, than America is.

It&#39;s relevent, because it explains the origins of the welfare state. Not an invention of capitalism, but socialism.


This is logical, because Europe was devastated by World War II, whereas America escaped economically untouched and perhaps improved. That&#39;s why America enacted the Marshall Plan - to send billions of dollars to European governments in order to combat the poverty which was lending to the popularity of Communist movements.

Oh, wait - maybe they were just trying to "sneak in Communism through the back door." :rolleyes:

They prefered the ideologically purer method of forcing communism on to people and threatening them with the gulag or a firing squad if they didn&#39;t.

[DaCuBaN]

Who did you think it was talking about ?

The first man to really make any kind of effort on behalf of &#39;the people&#39; in the UK was Benjamin Disraeli.

This man was no socialist.

[synthesis]

Keep laughing. We both know who&#39;s "winning".

Considering the fact that you avoid answering all but about a third of my points every time I provide evidence to back my claims (unlike you), I&#39;d say that yes, it&#39;s common knowledge by this point. :D


Is that the reason you&#39;ve ignored the second link I&#39;ve posted ? Because it provides evidence you find difficult to rationalize away ?

It takes you 10 seconds to post one of those idiotic articles, and it takes me... well, far more time than it&#39;s worth to read it, quote it, and refute it, which I did anyways.

So we move to the second link, which you provided to us by way of commondreams.org, a progressive website that wants to stomp all over your individual liberties and take the fair fruits of your work from you at gunpoint. :rolleyes:

I found exactly one paragraph in it that related to anything other than Britain, which I did refute earlier - the widespread government spending in Europe, in a large part by way of American loans and aid packages, was to quell poverty, a prime catalyst for Communist revolution.

You don&#39;t seem to know the topic of history very well. Have you really never heard of the Marshall Plan?


There were alot of poor people in the 1700&#39;s too. And the 1600&#39;s and the 1500&#39;s and the 1400&#39;s...but they seem to be getting less and less "poor" after the 1800&#39;s. I wonder why...

"Poor" is a relative term.

I don&#39;t think you really caught on. The late 1800&#39;s were an especially miserable time to be part of the working poor.

A huge influx of immigrants from Europe in the late 1800&#39;s combined with an absence of child labor laws, minimum wage laws, worker&#39;s protection laws, and so on, meant that there were a lot of poor people willing to work for pennies. There was a huge supply and not a lot of demand; the poor didn&#39;t have a lot of bargaining power, and most of them had it pretty shitty.

When you&#39;re in the inescapable depths of incredible poverty, the possibility that people out there could make life less shitty by taking a little money from a small group of people with gold-plated toilet seats doesn&#39;t strike you as very damaging to anyone&#39;s rights.


That&#39;s the welfare state in a nutshell. Invented by socialists, impemented by socialists.

Well, that&#39;s the point you&#39;re trying to make here, which you haven&#39;t offered any credible evidence for as of yet.


Fascinating. But how is it relevent to the topic ?

The article claimed that Roosevelt had drafted most of his New Deal legislation after the worst of the Depression had ended; the &#39;worst&#39; of the Depression, in a general sense, lasted until World War II, but was at its lowest point in 1933, which was still after Roosevelt had submitted quite a bit of his "socialist" programs.


So did communism. Your point ?

The point is that some people in the ruling class have the ability to look beyond the dogma of unyielding principle and discovered that it may be necessary to throw some scraps to the starving poor in order to prevent popular action from upheaving the capitalist (private property is owned) status quo as a whole.


You specifically argued that it was invented by the rich to prevent revolution. I agree it was invented by the rich; rich soclialists.

Yeah, but here&#39;s the difference. I&#39;m providing evidence, and you&#39;re not. Well, when you do, it only works if you&#39;re counting on the fact that I&#39;m completely ignorant of the history surrounding those actions.


They prefered the ideologically purer method of forcing communism on to people and threatening them with the gulag or a firing squad if they didn&#39;t.

This is just a non sequitur.

[DaCuBaN]

The soclial elites being the communist rulers who always seem to spring up at the head of every communist state

To be fair, I discounted this far too quickly. It is indeed one of the greatest flaws when a nation has moved down the road towards communism.

This is why I, and many others, refuse to accept the &#39;vanguard&#39; model, and instead plump for the anarchist&#39;s head-first aproach.

[Professor Moneybags]

Considering the fact that you avoid answering all but about a third of my points every time I provide evidence to back my claims (unlike you), I&#39;d say that yes, it&#39;s common knowledge by this point. :D

The trouble is, 2/3 of your arguments are usually irrelevent to the topic. As fascinating as the subject of "agrarian distress" is, what it has to do with whether the welfare state is a product of capitalists or socialists remains a mystery.


So we move to the second link, which you provided to us by way of commondreams.org, a progressive website that wants to stomp all over your individual liberties and take the fair fruits of your work from you at gunpoint. :rolleyes:

This is precisely my point; your fellow travellers at commondreams.com belive that the welfare state is their invention and think it&#39;s a good thing. Lol.


I found exactly one paragraph in it that related to anything other than Britain, which I did refute earlier

It&#39;s relevent to every country.


- the widespread government spending in Europe, in a large part by way of American loans and aid packages, was to quell poverty, a prime catalyst for Communist revolution. You don&#39;t seem to know the topic of history very well. Have you really never heard of the Marshall Plan?

Yes, I have. I seem to have mentioned it before. They did it as a means of stimiating the economy, not to pay off revolutionaries. The poverty in Easter Europe was largely thanks to communist manipulation (hence the reason the USSR opposed the Marshall Plan), not due to any alleged capitalism-induced poverty.


I don&#39;t think you really caught on. The late 1800&#39;s were an especially miserable time to be part of the working poor.

A huge influx of immigrants from Europe in the late 1800&#39;s combined with an absence of child labor laws, minimum wage laws, worker&#39;s protection laws, and so on, meant that there were a lot of poor people willing to work for pennies. There was a huge supply and not a lot of demand; the poor didn&#39;t have a lot of bargaining power, and most of them had it pretty shitty.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve caught on either. The people of the 1800&#39;s were poor relative to whom ?


When you&#39;re in the inescapable depths of incredible poverty,

There is no such thing as inescapable poverty.


the possibility that people out there could make life less shitty by taking a little money from a small group of people with gold-plated toilet seats doesn&#39;t strike you as very damaging to anyone&#39;s rights.

Because they have no principles. "A little money" was the thin end of a very large wedge.


Well, that&#39;s the point you&#39;re trying to make here, which you haven&#39;t offered any credible evidence for as of yet.

Welfare involving taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have-nots", doesn&#39;t it srike you that there might be some parallel between that idea and :

"the possibility that people out there could make life less shitty by taking a little money from a small group of people with gold-plated toilet seats doesn&#39;t strike you as very damaging to anyone&#39;s rights."


The point is that some people in the ruling class have the ability to look beyond the dogma of unyielding principle and discovered that it may be necessary to throw some scraps to the starving poor in order to prevent popular action from upheaving the capitalist (private property is owned) status quo as a whole.

That presupposes that capitalism leaves "starving poor". I&#39;ve laready explained before that "popular action" (or in English, "armed robbery") should be treated no differently to any other type of armed aggressor.


Yeah, but here&#39;s the difference. I&#39;m providing evidence, and you&#39;re not.

I&#39;ve provided plenty of evidence to support my claims- even some from your fellow travellers. Whether you chose to acknowledge it is up to you.


Well, when you do, it only works if you&#39;re counting on the fact that I&#39;m completely ignorant of the history surrounding those actions.

You are (see below).



They prefered the ideologically purer method of forcing communism on to people and threatening them with the gulag or a firing squad if they didn&#39;t.

This is just a non sequitur.

No, we call that "history".

[DaCuBaN]

There is no such thing as inescapable poverty

If we speak about a class of people and take it over the time frame of, say 100 years then this is correct. In relation to the indivudal there most certainly is such a thing as inescapable poverty - There are many people in various parts of the globe throughout history that were born, lived and died in poverty.

That you believe this to be their own fault has no bearing on the facts.

[Osman Ghazi]

QUOTE
QUOTE
They prefered the ideologically purer method of forcing communism on to people and threatening them with the gulag or a firing squad if they didn&#39;t.



This is just a non sequitur.



No, we call that "history".

So, if they preferred the &#39;ideologically purer&#39; method of forcing communism in people, why did they go to all the trouble of creating grand schemes like secretly making Eastern Europe poor? You know, you&#39;re just like the Bible; you don&#39;t make any sense and you contradict yourself at every turn.


Yes, I have. I seem to have mentioned it before. They did it as a means of stimiating the economy, not to pay off revolutionaries. The poverty in Easter Europe was largely thanks to communist manipulation (hence the reason the USSR opposed the Marshall Plan), not due to any alleged capitalism-induced poverty.


I think the BIG IN&#39; WAR they had just about then had something to do with the poverty. Not to mention years of pseudo- t governance and being conscripted by the Germans to help fight the Ruskies. Also, its not like these countries were exactly breadbaskets beforehand. Most had just gotten their independance and were very unstable.

And why exactly would the Communists want to keep people poor. I mean, if your country became socialist, you would think that things would get better. As soon as people noticed that it was exactly the same, I think they&#39;d be off. So it is actually to the Communists benefit to make people wealthier in order to show them that socialism is working, no?


That presupposes that capitalism leaves "starving poor". I&#39;ve laready explained before that "popular action" (or in English, "armed robbery") should be treated no differently to any other type of armed aggressor.


Which is precisely the reason why you will be shot someday. Actually, you&#39;ll probably just wet your pants like a little girl so that people will feel sorry for you. in&#39; chickenhawks.

The people are far too powerful to be contained by your weapons, try though you might.


No, we call that "history".

Well, its also &#39;history&#39; that the Americans massacred 200,000 Filipinos in 1900 but, like your comment, that has nothing to do with what we&#39;re talking about thus making it both &#39;history&#39; and a non-sequiter. It can be both, you know.

[Professor Moneybags]

So, if they preferred the &#39;ideologically purer&#39; method of forcing communism in people, why did they go to all the trouble of creating grand schemes like secretly making Eastern Europe poor?

Have you been following this thread ?


And why exactly would the Communists want to keep people poor.

In mixed economies, to trigger revolution (see below). In communist countries, keeping people poor is often unintentional.


So it is actually to the Communists benefit to make people wealthier in order to show them that socialism is working, no?

That&#39;s what I was trying to argue, but Dyer disagreed. The real story is that (all)people do no grow poorer under capitalism, but richer, thus it becomes increasingly less likely they are to reject the system. Communists are fully aware of this, otherwise they too would be arguing for LF capitalism on the grounds that it would hasten the collapse of the system and usher in theirs.


Which is precisely the reason why you will be shot someday. Actually, you&#39;ll probably just wet your pants like a little girl so that people will feel sorry for you. in&#39; chickenhawks.

I&#39;m not an armed aggressor and I haven&#39;t done anything to anyone. But you want to shoot me ? Prove me right why don&#39;t you ?


The people are far too powerful to be contained by your weapons, try though you might.

This is 2004, an age of push-button city-levelling. The size of your "gang" is irrelevent. Don&#39;t turn this into a silly "my daddy can beat up your daddy" contest.

[synthesis]

The trouble is, 2/3 of your arguments are usually irrelevent to the topic. As fascinating as the subject of "agrarian distress" is, what it has to do with whether the welfare state is a product of capitalists or socialists remains a mystery.


Your own ignorance of history does not reflect poorly on my arguments. The article asserted that the 1890&#39;s were a period of great economic growth; this is well and good, but it was also one of the worst times ever to be poor.

As for agrarian distress, you can read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1865-1918)).


This is precisely my point; your fellow travellers at commondreams.com belive that the welfare state is their invention and think it&#39;s a good thing. Lol.

What bourgeois reformists believe or do not believe is no concern of mine.


Yes, I have. I seem to have mentioned it before. They did it as a means of stimiating the economy, not to pay off revolutionaries. The poverty in Easter Europe was largely thanks to communist manipulation (hence the reason the USSR opposed the Marshall Plan), not due to any alleged capitalism-induced poverty.

What does Eastern Europe have to do with the Marshall Plan? The countries that received aid were Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, and Britain.

I&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Western Europe. Poverty in Western Europe mostly resulted from the War, not really from one economic system or another.

Since the Socialist movement began, it has always arisen and gained popularity in desperately poor areas. The way, historically, to keep people from voting Red (aside from fraud and violence, the usual way U.S.-backed Third World terrorist governments conduct matters) is to give them money. This makes them less poor and thus, their economic situation less desperate.

It&#39;s really not a very difficult concept.


I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve caught on either. The people of the 1800&#39;s were poor relative to whom ?

No matter how much you regurgitate tired old capitalist catchphrases, such as "poverty is relative", it doesn&#39;t change the fact that people can and usually do find themselves in desperate economic situations where they can find themselves unable to clothe, feed, and shelter them and their families.


There is no such thing as inescapable poverty.

You&#39;re the oldest of 12 children. You have to drop out of school so you can work to feed your family. There&#39;s no way you can afford any kind of education to escape your situation.

Sure, you could win the lottery tomorrow. But what are the chances of that happening?


Welfare involving taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have-nots", doesn&#39;t it srike you that there might be some parallel between that idea and :

I&#39;ll take the initiative here and admit that I have no idea how this is relevant.


I&#39;ve laready explained before that "popular action" (or in English, "armed robbery") should be treated no differently to any other type of armed aggressor.

Again, this is how Fascism has traditionally arisen - the ruling class defending itself from an entire society full of armed aggressors.

I digress. Anyways, that your class will wish to defend itself in the event of proletarian uprising is fine and expected.


I&#39;ve provided plenty of evidence to support my claims- even some from your fellow travellers. Whether you chose to acknowledge it is up to you.

Yeah, and I&#39;ve gone through and shown how your evidence is BS, to which your defense is sticking your head in the sand and your hands over your ears and pretending that you can dismiss the evidence with trite remarks like "poverty is relative."

OK, so I haven&#39;t "dealt" with the Common Dreams article point-by-point. Take pity on an uneducated soul like myself and explain why an article on one person in modern British politics has anything to do with the topic at hand.


No, we call that "history".

A very bold statement. So history is a non sequitur? That&#39;s an interesting concept.

Stupid word-play aside, let&#39;s review the situation.

I said that the poverty following World War II led to the increased popularity of the socialist movement (usually in the voting booths) within the areas which were hit the hardest. Then, I said that the Marshall Plan was created to combat this poverty.

Finally, I sarcastically remarked that the actual intention of the Marshall Plan was to "sneak Communism in through the back door."

You then said:

"They prefered the ideologically purer method of forcing communism on to people and threatening them with the gulag or a firing squad if they didn&#39;t."

You&#39;ll forgive me if I don&#39;t see what you&#39;re getting at here.