DReaver13
12th July 2004, 10:57
Hi, I spend a heck of a long time writing this on Capitalist Paradise, in their "Anti-Capitalism" section. So, why was it deleted?
Hello. I will attempt to counter every capitalist argument in this thread.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that every incarnation of Communism around the world has been touted as the "true form" of Communism. Then when it fails terrible and millions of people die the Communist go on and call it "state capitalism" and come up with yet another form of Communism.
No. There always has been one definition of Communism, a system which has NEVER been established which replaces the competition inherant in capitalist society, with cooperation.
Slobodan Milosevic, like Hitler, was a socialist.
No. To even suggest Hitler was socialist is incomprehensibly stupid. Hitler was Fascist. Fascism is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to socialism, which is perhaps the most basic of all political principles.
Socialism is defined (among other things) as state control of the economy. By a "merge" of state and corporate power Mussolini meant the forcible control of corporations by the state. Thus is WAS in fact socialism.
No. Socialism is the period of transition from capitlism to communism where control of economy is necessary to make the obviously prerequesite changes to the system, and effectively plan the new communist system. Hitler & Mussolini had no intention of progressing towards communism.
Socialism is state control of property, Capitalism is individual ownership of property.
Yes. However, socialism is only a period of transition. The end goal of communism puts power in the hands of all members of society.
Should individuals have a right to own property?
No. This creates petty self-interest, pointless materialism, and wasteful consumerism. A person's only right is to own their own bodies and minds. They should be obliged to work for the good of all, and if not, should simply be moved out of the communist society to somewhere where they will fit in. People should simply have access to what they want, or more importantly what they need.
Democracy goes hand in hand with capitalism.
No. It's the contrary actually. Democracy means "power in the hands of the people", and this goes hand in hand with communism. Capitalism puts power in the hands of wealthy elites.
America does not distort the meaning. We see the truth and that is why we fight against it.
No. America blatently does distort the meaning since none of you know what it means.
Notice that the US has a better economy then all of them.
No. Not better. America has more money because it's exploitative and greedy nature, and due to basic environmental and historical factors. Why should all the wealth be concentrated in one *area* of the world. Why doesn't America share the wealth with the dying and starving people of the world? Greed. That's why. Remarkable that you look down on those in desperate need of help, through no fault of their own, and all you can do is brag about it and claim that it makes you "better".
It appears that the dictionary disagrees with you.
What? You think dictionaries are the complete and ultimate source of all truths? Who do you think wrote those definitions?
Marx could not envision an information economy where a vast middle class of educated, white collar people enjoyed quite a prosperous standard of living.
No. I am middle class, I have a so-called "prosperous" standard of living, and I was a straight 'A' student (now finished school), but I am miserable. This is beacuse I realise the stupidity of this system. You work, you buy things, you die. You are encouraged to work from the advertising of useless goods. Most of the best things in life are free, being with my girlfriend, relaxing, creating art and music etc. In this society, people ignore what they have and concentrate on what they want, and it's sad.
Why do Commies view information as a bad thing?
We don't, quite the opposite. Information allows the prolateriat to learn of their oppressed situation. Fanatical capitalists will also use information to their advantage, mostly the events of the past, however this is irrelevant as communism has never previously been achieved anywhere.
Does it even occur to you people that people might be poor for a reason other the "the rich Americans took their money?"
Yes. Capitalism took their money. People do not get paid the full worth of their labour, and the surplus from this goes towards the profit of the ruling class, increasing their wealth, whilst decreasing that of the workers.
The Soviet Union failed because that is the result of Socialism.
No. The Soviet Union failed because of the 'drunk on power' administration. That is all down to the nature of the individuals who rule. The only thing which threatens communism in the end is selfish nature of people which has been created within people by living under capitalism.
If there is welfare, it is not Capitalism. Money != Capitalism. Freedom = Capitalism.
If capitalism = freedom, then there would be no need for a government, as with communism (which DOES encourage freedom). Capitalism without money would prevent the business owners from exploiting the workers and making profit for themselves, which is the essence of communism. Congratulations you have successfully undermined your entire argument.
What if you’re a lazy bum? Should the government give you food in exchange for sitting on your ass?
If you didn't work, you would not have access to the communally owned goods of the society, just as if you don't work in a capitalist society, you cannot access the purchasable goods.
And then expect the able to go on producing, even though you are taking everything from them?
No. What are you taking from them? Only what they produce, which is re-distrubuted amongst society as a whole. What they get in return is far greater than what they give, access to anything that they require as long as it is available in enough quantity within the society.
Do not give him your sanction by debating with him.
Why? Running out of ideas?
Commies have never solved the motivation problem.
As I have said, communism has never had a chance to establish itself. If people knew they were working simply for the good of all, including themselves, I am certain this would change.
Anybody ever seen one of the communist bloc cars? I have. Total junk. We know their nuke reactors are junk too.
Nothing to do with the type of society though is it! Simply because the U.S. and most of the western economic powers sectioned off the USSR and so it had to survive on it's own. It was already a poor country to begin with. You can't apply this to communism since there are non-communist societies today who don't have cars at all! But for you, ignorance is bliss right?
Corruption and laziness ran rampant in the USSR....and why not? you're going to work your ass off until you die and you have nothing to your name to show for it.
The same applies to capitalist societies. You are going to work until you die, unless you are part of the minority ruling-class. What do you have to show for it when you die? Nothing. All your worldly possessions will pass on to the next generation and most likely be sold of or lost, erasing your existence except as a vague memory in your offspring's minds for a generation or two.
Communism destroys the human spirit, which is why it is evil.
No. Capitalism destroys the human spirit by making you work for pointless consumer goods and live in ignorance while half the world's population is dying of starvation. Oh, but it's ok because you've got the latest Hi-Fi system..
I leave it to your imagination as to what that means, especially since the 'working class' in the US is a decided minority. The only country where the 'working class' is a majority is in an agrarian society.
No. The working class is the vast majority. Are you saying no one works? 'Working-class' does not simply mean the factory workers at the very bottom, doctors are working class, office-workers are working class, anyone that doesn't work, is working class.
Pick me apart as you see fit, but please speak intellegently. Don't resort to getting all violent and frustrated or whatever.. it's rather pointless.
Hello. I will attempt to counter every capitalist argument in this thread.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that every incarnation of Communism around the world has been touted as the "true form" of Communism. Then when it fails terrible and millions of people die the Communist go on and call it "state capitalism" and come up with yet another form of Communism.
No. There always has been one definition of Communism, a system which has NEVER been established which replaces the competition inherant in capitalist society, with cooperation.
Slobodan Milosevic, like Hitler, was a socialist.
No. To even suggest Hitler was socialist is incomprehensibly stupid. Hitler was Fascist. Fascism is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to socialism, which is perhaps the most basic of all political principles.
Socialism is defined (among other things) as state control of the economy. By a "merge" of state and corporate power Mussolini meant the forcible control of corporations by the state. Thus is WAS in fact socialism.
No. Socialism is the period of transition from capitlism to communism where control of economy is necessary to make the obviously prerequesite changes to the system, and effectively plan the new communist system. Hitler & Mussolini had no intention of progressing towards communism.
Socialism is state control of property, Capitalism is individual ownership of property.
Yes. However, socialism is only a period of transition. The end goal of communism puts power in the hands of all members of society.
Should individuals have a right to own property?
No. This creates petty self-interest, pointless materialism, and wasteful consumerism. A person's only right is to own their own bodies and minds. They should be obliged to work for the good of all, and if not, should simply be moved out of the communist society to somewhere where they will fit in. People should simply have access to what they want, or more importantly what they need.
Democracy goes hand in hand with capitalism.
No. It's the contrary actually. Democracy means "power in the hands of the people", and this goes hand in hand with communism. Capitalism puts power in the hands of wealthy elites.
America does not distort the meaning. We see the truth and that is why we fight against it.
No. America blatently does distort the meaning since none of you know what it means.
Notice that the US has a better economy then all of them.
No. Not better. America has more money because it's exploitative and greedy nature, and due to basic environmental and historical factors. Why should all the wealth be concentrated in one *area* of the world. Why doesn't America share the wealth with the dying and starving people of the world? Greed. That's why. Remarkable that you look down on those in desperate need of help, through no fault of their own, and all you can do is brag about it and claim that it makes you "better".
It appears that the dictionary disagrees with you.
What? You think dictionaries are the complete and ultimate source of all truths? Who do you think wrote those definitions?
Marx could not envision an information economy where a vast middle class of educated, white collar people enjoyed quite a prosperous standard of living.
No. I am middle class, I have a so-called "prosperous" standard of living, and I was a straight 'A' student (now finished school), but I am miserable. This is beacuse I realise the stupidity of this system. You work, you buy things, you die. You are encouraged to work from the advertising of useless goods. Most of the best things in life are free, being with my girlfriend, relaxing, creating art and music etc. In this society, people ignore what they have and concentrate on what they want, and it's sad.
Why do Commies view information as a bad thing?
We don't, quite the opposite. Information allows the prolateriat to learn of their oppressed situation. Fanatical capitalists will also use information to their advantage, mostly the events of the past, however this is irrelevant as communism has never previously been achieved anywhere.
Does it even occur to you people that people might be poor for a reason other the "the rich Americans took their money?"
Yes. Capitalism took their money. People do not get paid the full worth of their labour, and the surplus from this goes towards the profit of the ruling class, increasing their wealth, whilst decreasing that of the workers.
The Soviet Union failed because that is the result of Socialism.
No. The Soviet Union failed because of the 'drunk on power' administration. That is all down to the nature of the individuals who rule. The only thing which threatens communism in the end is selfish nature of people which has been created within people by living under capitalism.
If there is welfare, it is not Capitalism. Money != Capitalism. Freedom = Capitalism.
If capitalism = freedom, then there would be no need for a government, as with communism (which DOES encourage freedom). Capitalism without money would prevent the business owners from exploiting the workers and making profit for themselves, which is the essence of communism. Congratulations you have successfully undermined your entire argument.
What if you’re a lazy bum? Should the government give you food in exchange for sitting on your ass?
If you didn't work, you would not have access to the communally owned goods of the society, just as if you don't work in a capitalist society, you cannot access the purchasable goods.
And then expect the able to go on producing, even though you are taking everything from them?
No. What are you taking from them? Only what they produce, which is re-distrubuted amongst society as a whole. What they get in return is far greater than what they give, access to anything that they require as long as it is available in enough quantity within the society.
Do not give him your sanction by debating with him.
Why? Running out of ideas?
Commies have never solved the motivation problem.
As I have said, communism has never had a chance to establish itself. If people knew they were working simply for the good of all, including themselves, I am certain this would change.
Anybody ever seen one of the communist bloc cars? I have. Total junk. We know their nuke reactors are junk too.
Nothing to do with the type of society though is it! Simply because the U.S. and most of the western economic powers sectioned off the USSR and so it had to survive on it's own. It was already a poor country to begin with. You can't apply this to communism since there are non-communist societies today who don't have cars at all! But for you, ignorance is bliss right?
Corruption and laziness ran rampant in the USSR....and why not? you're going to work your ass off until you die and you have nothing to your name to show for it.
The same applies to capitalist societies. You are going to work until you die, unless you are part of the minority ruling-class. What do you have to show for it when you die? Nothing. All your worldly possessions will pass on to the next generation and most likely be sold of or lost, erasing your existence except as a vague memory in your offspring's minds for a generation or two.
Communism destroys the human spirit, which is why it is evil.
No. Capitalism destroys the human spirit by making you work for pointless consumer goods and live in ignorance while half the world's population is dying of starvation. Oh, but it's ok because you've got the latest Hi-Fi system..
I leave it to your imagination as to what that means, especially since the 'working class' in the US is a decided minority. The only country where the 'working class' is a majority is in an agrarian society.
No. The working class is the vast majority. Are you saying no one works? 'Working-class' does not simply mean the factory workers at the very bottom, doctors are working class, office-workers are working class, anyone that doesn't work, is working class.
Pick me apart as you see fit, but please speak intellegently. Don't resort to getting all violent and frustrated or whatever.. it's rather pointless.