communism myths [Archive]

hotsexygrl42

30th July 2004, 22:55

Capitalism Creates child labor?

Since 1970 child labor and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

During the 1970s and 1980s, developing countries with open markets had annual growth of 4.49 per cent, whereas open industrialized countries had only 2.29 per cent. During the 1990s, globalising developing countries had 5 per cent growth annually, whereas the industrialized countries had 1.9 per cent. Free trade, in other words, gives poor countries a means of moving up on more affluent ones and eventually catching up with them.

Capitalism takes away your freedoms

Number of states which are democratically governed and respect human rights is increasing all the time. Today there are 120 democratic states with a combined population of 3.5 billion people (roughly 60 per cent of the world population)

Their will be more debunking later so dont worry

LuZhiming

30th July 2004, 23:41

Originally posted by hotsexygrl42+Posted on Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM--> (hotsexygrl42 @ Posted on Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM)Since 1970 child labor and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half. [/b]

Yeah, and why is that? Not because of Capitalism, but because of state intervention, the very fact that there is a law in countries like the United States against child labor is itself an Anti-Capitalist measure, since the whole theory of "true" Capitalism is to have markets free from the state.

Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM
During the 1970s and 1980s, developing countries with open markets had annual growth of 4.49 per cent, whereas open industrialized countries had only 2.29 per cent. During the 1990s, globalising developing countries had 5 per cent growth annually, whereas the industrialized countries had 1.9 per cent. Free trade, in other words, gives poor countries a means of moving up on more affluent ones and eventually catching up with them.

"Open markets?" That's one of those misleading terms one can use. I'm curious as to exactly what countries this article is referring to. I'm really curious what you have to say about Latin America, which for years had opened itself up to importing from the U.S., with result of highly-subsidized U.S. agro-business driving peasents farmers out of business and into either starvation or coca production. "Free trade" is merely a propaganda term, there absolutely has to be elaboration on some of those countries if this statement is to mean anything.

Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM
Number of states which are democratically governed and respect human rights is increasing all the time. Today there are 120 democratic states with a combined population of 3.5 billion people (roughly 60 per cent of the world population)

Here's another misleading one, countries that have "Democratic" elections are not necessarily ones that respect Human Rights, or are in any meaningful sense free for that matter. Again, I urge you to look at Latin America, in which most of the elections for a number of reasons including lack of differences between allowed political parties, government repression, U.S. threats, restrictions made by IMF "developement" plans and other so-called "agreements," "cultures of terror," corporate-serving political party's control of the media, and many othes are completely meaningless.

[email protected] on Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM
Their will be more debunking later so dont worry

I can't wait.

Never Forget, Never Surrender

31st July 2004, 00:40

This reminds me of the rhetoric that comes out of the White House. The economy's great, look at last month's numbers.

You can pour over the reports all you want. But I would suggest going outside, walking through your neighborhoods, and seeing how the "middle class" in America lives today. And I mean the "middle class". The ones who make 35k a year.

That's STILL the median income in this country, and more of us slip under that mark every year. Mostly because of "free trade" ie job exportation and plastic crap importation.

hotsexygrl42

31st July 2004, 00:46

I'm curious as to exactly what countries this article is referring to. I am not sure but i make a guess.
Chile's United Kingdom China's Ireland's Hong Kong's

I'm really curious what you have to say about Latin America I dont know but i will do my homework and get back to you on this subject.

Again, I urge you to look at Latin America, Yes lets look at latin america

According to the new Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report, Latin American countries increased their economic freedom ratings from 5.0 in 1985 to 5.4 in 1990 to 6.5 on a 10-point scale by the end of that decade.

Y2A

31st July 2004, 01:28

True Capitalism doesn't work and will never work. State intervention is indeed needed at times.

redstar2000

31st July 2004, 03:43

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

:lol:

A particularly ill-informed statement.

Certainly the United States has been removed from the list of "democratically governed" countries after the presidential election of 2000.

And, likewise, "respect for human rights" has become an oxymoron in the wake of the "Patriot Act".

In fact, I suspect "human rights" are declining precipitously in all of the advanced capitalist countries in the wake of the "war on terrorism".

Not to mention our new imperial possessions, of course. The quisling regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq are not "democratic" in any sense; while U.S., British, and other European forces perfect their techniques of torture and rape.

Yep...things are just looking "better" with every passing day. :lol:

Since 1970 child labor and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half.

Sez who?

Any reason to believe their numbers?

Would capitalists and their lackeys lie?

Do bears shit in the woods?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

hotsexygrl42

31st July 2004, 04:21

Man lay off the communist Koolaid man it is fucking around with your mind

Certainly the United States has been removed from the list of "democratically governed" countries after the presidential election of 2000.
A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.b...ories/main.html (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

In fact, I suspectWell that makes it true????? ;)

human rights" are declining precipitously in all of the advanced capitalist countries in the wake of the "war on terrorism". Can you give me an example?

Would capitalists and their lackeys lie? Yes but no one lies more then a commie

Any reason to believe their numbers? I do not expect you to believe the numbers

Guerrilla22

31st July 2004, 04:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:21 AM

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.b...ories/main.html (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

Well that makes it true????? ;)

". Can you give me an example?

Yes but no one lies more then a commie

I do not expect you to believe the numbers
Possibly, but theree were still quite a few irregularities in largely black populated districts, also for the first time in about 50 years prisoners were not allowed to vote in Florida, as most of the general prison population is black.

Here's an example: the United States, just check out what amnesty international has to say about the War on Terror and the decline of human rights in the US:

More than 600 foreign nationals were detained indefinitely without charge or trial or access to family members or legal counsel in the US naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba, on grounds of possible links with al-Qa'ida; others were held in undisclosed locations. There were allegations of torture or ill-treatment of detainees held at a US base in Afghanistan and of detainees held by US forces in Iraq following the US-led invasion and occupation. Three people were held incommunicado without charge or trial in the USA as "enemy combatants". Death sentences continued to be imposed and carried out under federal and state law. There were reports of police brutality, deaths in custody and ill-treatment of prisoners.

Background

Thousands of people were detained in the context of the US-led war against Iraq and subsequent occupation of Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority (see Iraq entry). Others were held in US bases in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere as part of the ongoing "war against terrorism". While calling for those responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and other crimes to be brought to justice, AI condemned the US denial of basic rights to many of those detained.

International Criminal Court

In July the USA announced that it was cutting military aid to 35 countries which had refused to enter into an impunity agreement not to surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the International Criminal Court. Such agreements are in breach of states' obligations under international law.

Detentions outside the USA

Hundreds of detainees from around 40 countries remained in legal limbo in the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay. In April, the US authorities revealed that children as young as 13 years old were among those held at the base. None of the detainees were charged, tried, or given access to lawyers, relatives or the courts. In October, the US Supreme Court said that it would decide whether the US courts "lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality" of the Guantánamo detentions, as lower federal courts had earlier held. The Supreme Court ruling was expected to be handed down in 2004. Meanwhile, in December, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that foreign nationals held as "enemy combatants" in Guantánamo Bay had a right to seek court review of the legality of their detention. The appeal judges concluded that the government position was "inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of American jurisprudence and raises serious concerns under international law". This ruling may also form part of the Supreme Court's review.

During 2003, concern continued to grow about the psychological impact on the detainees of the indefinite and isolating detention regime in Guantánamo. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the only international non-governmental organization with access to the detainees, took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the lack of legal process and spoke of the deterioration in mental health that the organization had witnessed among large numbers of the detainees. There were numerous suicide attempts among the detainees during the year.

The US air base in Bagram, Afghanistan, continued to be used as a detention facility. There, too, detainees were denied any sort of legal process. The ICRC did not have access to all those held there. During the year, allegations were made that detainees had been tortured or ill-treated in Bagram. Former detainees interviewed by AI in Afghanistan alleged that they were subjected to prolonged enforced standing and kneeling, sleep deprivation and the cruel use of shackles. By the end of the year, the US authorities had not announced any results of the military investigation into the deaths of two Afghan men in US custody in Bagram in December 2002. Their autopsies had revealed "blunt force injuries" in both cases and gave the cause of death as "homicide". Another man died in custody in a US holding facility in Asadabad in Kunar province, Afghanistan, in June.

There were also allegations of torture and illtreatment by US forces in Iraq (see Iraq entry). Twelve US soldiers charged with ill-treating Iraqi detainees were awaiting court martial at the end of the year.

An unknown number of prisoners continued to be held incommunicado in undisclosed locations without access to the ICRC or any sort of legal process.

There were continuing concerns about the possible transfer of prisoners to countries where it was feared they might face torture during interrogation.

Military commissions

On 3 July, the Pentagon announced that President Bush had selected six foreign detainees to be subject to the provisions of the Military Order he signed in November 2001. The Order provides for non-US nationals suspected of involvement in "international terrorism" to be held indefinitely without trial or to be tried by military commissions. The names of the six were not made public by the US authorities, but it emerged that two were United Kingdom (UK) nationals, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, and one, David Hicks, was an Australian national. The UK and Australian authorities pursued discussions with their US counterparts over the detainees' future. In December, the Pentagon revealed that Guantánamo detainee Salim Ahmed Samdan, a Yemeni national, was among the six. By the end of the year, no detainee had been brought to trial before a military commission.

Detentions in the USA following attacks of 11 September 2001

A government watchdog agency reported in June that there had been "significant problems" in the treatment of hundreds of foreign nationals detained in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. The investigation, by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), confirmed many of the concerns raised by AI and other groups that detainees' basic rights had been violated. Violations included denying detainees prompt access to lawyers and family members and failing to charge detainees promptly or to "clear" them for release or removal from the USA, leaving many to languish for months in detention centres despite having no connection with the attacks. The report found evidence of a "pattern of physical and verbal abuse" by some correctional officers towards some 11 September detainees.

Although most of those detained – many for minor immigration violations – in the original sweeps had been released or deported by the time of the report, the OIG made 21 recommendations to the US government to improve procedures during any similar arrests, including speedier reviews and more objective criteria in detention decisions.

US nationals Yaser Esam Hamdi and José Padilla continued to be held in military custody without charge or trial as "enemy combatants", despite their detentions being criticized as "arbitrary" by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. In January, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the US government to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi without trial or access to an attorney. However, in December the Pentagon announced that it had decided to allow Yaser Esam Hamdi to meet with his lawyer, while stressing that this "is not required by domestic or international law and should not be treated as a precedent". The announcement came one day before the government was scheduled to file a response to an appeal to the US Supreme Court in the case.

In December the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the President did not have the power, without authorization by Congress, "to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat", and ordered José Padilla's release from military custody within 30 days. The judges said the government could then bring criminal charges against him in civilian courts or seek to have him held as a material witness, stating that "under any scenario" he would be entitled to his constitutional rights. However, José Padilla remained in incommunicado military detention at the end of the year, pending a government appeal against the court's decision. A government appeal also continued to place on hold a 2002 federal court order granting José Padilla access to a lawyer.

In July Ali-Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a Qatari national facing trial on criminal charges, was removed from the judicial system on the order of President Bush and designated an "enemy combatant" for alleged links to al-Qa'ida. He remained held incommunicado in military custody at the end of the year.

Some people detained for alleged links to al-Qa'ida were deported to countries where they were at risk of torture or ill-treatment. In October, AI called on the US government to hold a full inquiry into its treatment of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen deported from the USA in October 2002 to his native Syria, where he was allegedly tortured and held for months in cruel conditions before being returned without charge to Canada.

A "special registration" program introduced in late 2002 which required boys and men aged 16 and over from 25 countries, mostly in the Middle East, to register annually with the authorities to be questioned, photographed and fingerprinted, ended in December 2003, although exit and entry registration requirements remained. The measure had been criticized by human rights groups as discriminatory. Many people who had complied with the order were detained, often for minor visa irregularities, and many continued to face deportation even though they had proceedings under way to regularize their status.

Refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers

In April the Attorney General ruled that Haitian asylum-seekers must be kept in detention, stating that the policy was necessary as a deterrent and on national security grounds. The ruling was given in the case of 18- year-old David Joseph, whose release on bail had been ordered by an immigration judge and upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. David Joseph was one of some 200 Haitian asylum-seekers detained in October 2002 after their boat ran aground off the Florida coast. AI urged the government to rescind the blanket detention policy, which the Attorney General said in his ruling could be applied to other groups on similar grounds, in line with international human rights and refugee standards.

There were continuing concerns about between 5,000 and 6,000 unaccompanied migrant children who, contrary to the USA's own guidelines and international standards, were detained in some cases for months. Many were held in punitive conditions alongside juvenile offenders, and subjected to humiliating treatment such as shackling and strip searches.

Ill-treatment and excessive use of force by law enforcement officials

There were reports of ill-treatment, excessive use of force by police and prison officers, and deaths in custody. Incidents included misuse of stun weapons and chemical spray. Nine people died after being struck by police Tasers. Although the cause of death was attributed to other factors or autopsy results were still pending, questions remained about the health risks of such equipment. There were continued reports of cruel conditions in prison isolation units.

In September a police officer from Bayton, Texas, was charged with using unnecessary force against a disabled 59-year-old Latina woman. The officer struck Naomi Autin three times with a Taser as she knocked on her brother's door with a brick after getting no answer.The trial was pending at the end of the year.
John Allen Muhammad was given an electric shock twice with a stun belt in August while in hospital in the custody of the Prince William County Sheriff Department, Virginia. The belt, which was wrapped round his arm, was activated after he refused to submit to a head X-ray by moving his head and trying to sit up while strapped to a stretcher. He allegedly suffered welts on his arm from the 50-70,000-volt shock.
In October the state of Virginia paid out an undisclosed sum to the family of Larry Frazier, who died in prison in July 2000 after being repeatedly shocked with a stun gun. The Corrections Department suspended the use of the Ultron 11 stun gun shortly after the incident when an autopsy found it could have contributed to Larry Frazier's death.
Fort Lauderdale Police Department, Florida, tightened its procedures after the Medical Examiner ruled that police use of pepper spray had contributed to the death in April of 21-year-old Raymond Sterling who suffered from sickle cell trait. The new procedures provided that anyone pepper sprayed or injured by police must be taken to hospital instead of jail.
A lawsuit was filed against the Florida prison authorities alleging that prisoners were repeatedly sprayed with pepper spray and tear gas while trapped in their cells, causing breathing difficulties, burning and skin blisters. According to the lawsuit, chemical agents had become the most common force used in Florida prisons.
Conditions in prison isolation units, including "supermaximum security" facilities, remained extremely harsh in many states.

In Unit 32 of Parchman Prison, Mississippi, nearly 1,000 prisoners, many severely mentally ill, were reportedly confined to insect-infested, insanitary cells for between 23 and 24 hours a day and were not allowed fans or sufficient water despite extreme summer heat. Litigation to improve conditions for death row prisoners in Unit 32 was being pursued at the end of the year.

There were allegations of police brutality and excessive use of force against anti-war protesters in several US cities, including Chicago, Illinois and Oakland, California. In November, police in Miami were alleged to have fired rubber bullets, pepper spray, Tasers, gas canisters and concussion grenades at crowds demonstrating against the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations. Several protesters required hospitalization as a result of police action and dozens more were treated for injuries.

Women prisoners

In October AI called on the California prison authorities to rescind a policy allowing male guards to conduct "pat down" (clothed body) searches of women prisoners which included touching intimate parts of the inmate's body. Contrary to international standards, California and other US states continued to allow male guards unsupervised access to women prisoners. In several states, including New York, prisoners alleged they were sexually abused by male guards.

Supreme Court overturns sodomy laws

In June the Supreme Court issued a far-reaching decision overruling a Texas sodomy law on the ground that adults had a constitutional right to private sexual conduct (Lawrence v Texas). The ruling invalidated laws in Texas and three other states – Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri – which criminalized sodomy between same-sex partners, as well as laws in nine other states – Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia – which made sodomy a crime in all cases.

Death penalty

In 2003, 65 people were executed, bringing to 885 the total number of prisoners put to death since the US Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on executions in 1976. The USA continued to violate international standards in its use of the death penalty, including by executing people who were under 18 at the time the crime was committed. The US government carried out its third federal execution since 1963 – all three were carried out under the current administration. Texas carried out its 300th execution since 1976 and accounted for 24 of the USA's executions during 2003.

In January, Mexico brought a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on behalf of more than 50 of its nationals on death row in the USA. The case concerned alleged violations of the UN Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which requires states to inform foreign nationals upon arrest of their right to seek consular assistance. There were more than 100 foreign nationals on death row in the USA in 2003, the majority of whom were denied this right. The ICJ was expected to make its judgment in 2004.

On 11 January 2003, the outgoing governor of Illinois, George Ryan, emptied the state's death row. He pardoned four condemned prisoners whom he believed had been tortured into confessing to crimes they did not commit, and commuted the death sentences of 167 others on the grounds that the system that sentenced them was flawed.
In July, Joseph Amrine was released after more than 16 years on Missouri's death row for the murder of a fellow prisoner. He had been convicted on the basis of testimony from other inmates which was later retracted. Joseph Amrine became the 111th person to be released from death row in the USA since 1973 on the grounds of innocence. The 112th such case occurred in December, when a Pennsylvania prosecutor announced that he would not retry Nicholas Yarris who had been on the state's death row for two decades. A federal judge had ordered a new trial after DNA testing supported Nicholas Yarris' claim of innocence.
On 3 April, Scott Hain was executed in Oklahoma for a crime committed when he was 17 years old. On 8 December, the outgoing governor of Kentucky, Paul Patton, commuted the death sentence of Kevin Stanford, on death row for a crime committed in 1981 when he was 17. Governor Patton had described the death sentence as an "injustice" because of Kevin Stanford's age at the time of the crime.
James Colburn was executed in Texas on 26 March and James Willie Brown was put to death in Georgia on 4 November. Both men had long histories of mental illness, including diagnoses of schizophrenia.
In October the US Supreme Court refused to take Arkansas death row prisoner Charles Singleton's appeal against a lower federal court ruling that the state could forcibly medicate him for his mental illness even if that rendered him competent for execution.
In November, two years after Mexican national Gerardo Valdez came within days of his execution in Oklahoma, a jury resentenced him to life imprisonment. In 2001,the state parole board had recommended clemency after reviewing evidence that Gerardo Valdez had been denied his right to seek consular assistance. The Governor denied clemency, despite the board's recommendation and a personal appeal from President Vicente Fox of Mexico. A state court subsequently granted Gerardo Valdez a new sentencing hearing.

AI country visits

An AI delegate visited the USA in October. An AI delegation visited Afghanistan in July to interview former US detainees.

E-mail this page Printer friendly

Back to Top ^^

ABOUT AI | NEWS | LIBRARY | ACT NOW | CAMPAIGNS | RESOURCES & LINKS | CONTACT US | SITEMAP

© Copyright Amnesty International

Also see repressive measures taken in Europe, the Middle-East and Central Asia as well.

hotsexygrl42

31st July 2004, 05:14

Guerrilla Yes America has fucked up a lot, but we have also done a lot of good like getting rid of nazism, talitarianism(i think i spelled that right) , America gives billion of dollars to help other countries to fight aid, hunger and a hole bunch of other shit.

http://www.usflag.org/art/banner.jpeg

redstar2000

31st July 2004, 05:37

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

Even though Gore actually got more votes.

Puh-leeze!

Can you give me an example?

Sure. Check out the "security precautions" in Greece for the Olympic Games.

Not even when the Nazis were occupying Athens has there ever been such a totalitarian presence in that country.

Yes but no one lies more then a commie

I think George II has broken all the old records for lying.

Is he a "commie"?

America gives billion of dollars to help other countries to fight aid, hunger and a hole bunch of other shit.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Hawker

31st July 2004, 07:49

we have also done a lot of good like getting rid of nazism, talitarianism

No you haven't Nazism still exists and tolitarianism still exists,they exist in the American society.

America gives billion of dollars to help other countries to fight aid, hunger and a hole bunch of other shit.

Please most of those things are done by charity groups in the US and Federal agencies that do help out around the world rely heavily on volunteers in order for the group to work.

Dark Exodus

31st July 2004, 09:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:14 AM
America gives billion of dollars to help other countries to fight aid, hunger and a hole bunch of other shit.
So do many other countries, this should never be used as a defense.
What is the 'other shit'?

Professor Moneybags

31st July 2004, 10:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 01:28 AM
True Capitalism doesn't work and will never work. State intervention is indeed needed at times.
On what ground do you make this statement ?

Professor Moneybags

31st July 2004, 10:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:42 AM
Possibly, but theree were still quite a few irregularities in largely black populated districts, also for the first time in about 50 years prisoners were not allowed to vote in Florida, as most of the general prison population is black.
People are usual in prison because they have committed a crime. Do you want affirmative action to start some sort of quota system ?

The Sloth

31st July 2004, 12:49

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 31 2004, 10:16 AM
People are usual in prison because they have committed a crime. Do you want affirmative action to start some sort of quota system ?
And why do blacks commit the disproportionate amount of crimes?

You can answer this question in one of two ways:

1) Blacks are genetically proned to criminality, or
2) The system is failing a huge chunk of a major demographic

If you answered choice one, you're a racist. If you answered choice two, you've admitted to the failings of capitalism.

Either way, you're fucked.

hotsexygrl42

31st July 2004, 16:30

You can answer this question in one of two ways: what about rap or the fact that most black kids do not have a father?

If you answered choice two, you've admitted to the failings of capitalism. No capitalism is not failing the black community it is the rap that is glorifying the bad behavior that is hurting the black community

DaCuBaN

31st July 2004, 16:45

I do not expect you to believe the numbers

I believe the numbers alright. Have you bothered to research who and where the money ends up? Did you ask yourself on what was this money made?

America has fucked up a lot, but we have also done a lot of good like getting rid of nazism, [totalitarianism], America gives billion of dollars to help other countries to fight aid, hunger and a hole bunch of other shit.

1) Nazism is alive today, throughout Europe, Scandanavia, North America and probably every other continent. Thirty seconds on google will find you endless amounts of information to corroborate(sp?) this

2) Totalitarianism - It's literal meaning is government control and is so frequently misconstrued as Despotism - they are quite seperate I assure you. The US has done little to solve either, having installed many, many dictators in foreign nations. If you'd care for me to cite evidence I'd be more than obliging.

3) The US gives it's aid selectively. Take for example North Korea - and it's an extreme example. The US has promised to provide food aid if they stop their nuclear program, yet the US holds the largets stockpile of the aforementioned on the surface of the globe. It's called hypocracy, and there's nothing 'good' about it. Similarly, the US has supported Israel in their annexing of Palestinian territory - forcing many thousands of people to relocate.

Some fucking country you've got there.

what about rap or the fact that most black kids do not have a father?

The biological impossibilities of this statement aside, you are wrong. Although a lot of 'black culture' may portray violence, sex and gangsterism as 'hip' or somesuch, the idea of it being 'black culture' is entirely false. Leave the shores of the US sometime, and you might actually learn some of this 'shit'.

capitalism is not failing the black community it is the rap that is glorifying the bad behavior that is hurting the black community

Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera have suddenly changed their skintone? :rolleyes: They call this prejudice, and almost always it's based on ignorance. Try browsing through the music forum here, you'll get plenty of material that will 'show you up'

hotsexygrl42

31st July 2004, 17:10

Here is another lie from commies

western countries are rich because they stole the resources of Third World countries in colonial times.
countries with natural resources as a rule grown as fast as those without, for example Singapore. A brilliant example of free trade success is Estonia, which soon after independence in 1992 abolished all tariffs.

True Capitalism doesn't work and will never work. State intervention is indeed needed at times. The 20 economically most liberal countries have a per capita GDP of approximately 29 times that of the economically least liberal.

Even though Gore actually got more votes. That is right but bush still won because of the electoral college

Professor Moneybags

31st July 2004, 17:19

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 31 2004, 12:49 PM
And why do blacks commit the disproportionate amount of crimes?

You can answer this question in one of two ways:

1) Blacks are genetically proned to criminality, or
2) The system is failing a huge chunk of a major demographic

If you answered choice one, you're a racist. If you answered choice two, you've admitted to the failings of capitalism.

Either way, you're fucked.
To call that a failiure of capitalism presupposes that the purpose of capitalism is something other than preventing the initiation of force. It isn't.

If you are in jail, you are there for a reason, remember ?

It don't matter is you're black or white.

Professor Moneybags

31st July 2004, 17:26

3) The US gives it's aid selectively. Take for example North Korea - and it's an extreme example. The US has promised to provide food aid if they stop their nuclear program, yet the US holds the largets stockpile of the aforementioned on the surface of the globe.It's called hypocracy,

And this is called moral relativism.

Guerrilla22

31st July 2004, 21:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:14 AM
Guerrilla Yes America has fucked up a lot, but we have also done a lot of good like getting rid of nazism, talitarianism(i think i spelled that right) , America gives billion of dollars to help other countries to fight aid, hunger and a hole bunch of other shit.

http://www.usflag.org/art/banner.jpeg
Got rid of Nazism. A typical cappie argument. You opened yourself up for this. Let me just quick go over some of the tolotolitarian regimes the US has supported over the years;

Mussolini (at first), Batista, Somoza, Ubico, Mont, The Shah, Marcos, Duvalier (both of them), Pinochet, Noriega, Saddam and the Saudi Royals and there are plenty of others that I didn't mention. The backing of these monsters far out ways anything we did in World War 2.

By the way, the US contributes far less foreign aid than Germany, Italy, France and Canada.

The Sloth

31st July 2004, 22:00

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 31 2004, 05:19 PM

To call that a failiure of capitalism presupposes that the purpose of capitalism is something other than preventing the initiation of force. It isn't.

What beautiful prose!

But is it accurate?

I certainly do "presuppose" that capitalism exists for the purpose of "initiation of force." The whole fucking point of "the state" is to initiate force! "The state" exists for the purpose of regulating class antagonisms and "protecting property"...If class antagonisms were absent, please explain to me what the purpose of "the state" would be. "The state" is necessary when there are existing tensions to be controlled at levels that are tolerable for the upper-strata in society. The way you "control" these intentions is THROUGH coercion and initiation of force. Why is the police here, if not to keep the citizens that may misbehave "in check"? Ask yourself what the purpose of "the state" is, if not to "regulate" the people THROUGH force, by COMMANDING them to "do this" and "do that" or else they will be hurt?

Capitalism is merely the economic system that caters to "the state" as it exists today...true, no one is forcing you to work by putting a gun to your head, but when you're stuck in a situation with little room for the possibility of legitimate employment, it's either "you steal, or you don't eat." "The state" under capitalism merely ensures the continuation of such situations, and thus, INDIRECT coercion or "initiation of force."

If you are in jail, you are there for a reason, remember ?

It don't matter is you're black or white.

How nice.

Now please answer the damn question:

Why are blacks commiting most of the crimes when they are the minority?

LuZhiming

31st July 2004, 23:35

Originally posted by hotsexygrl42+Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM --> (hotsexygrl42 @ Jul 30 2004, 10:55 PM )I am not sure but i make a guess.
Chile's United Kingdom China's Ireland's Hong Kong's [/b]

Chile: I have posted on this before, Chile's economy started to grow after it took a bunch of Anti-Capitalist measures, one of them being placing a restriction on the flow of foreign capital. You can read it here: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...ndpost&p=417186 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=26190&hl=&view=findpost&p=417186)

UK: I'm not sure what this is supposed to be talking about, the UK has been rich for a long time. The country wasn't even invaded in World War II, we should not exagerate its devastation. If you're talking about Thatcher's "reforms," those totally wrecked the country. The only impressive Captialist success in Britain is the arms industry, which isn't exactly good for people, just ask people in East Timor or some other place. The UK selectively institues protectionist programs too, so there's nothing about "free trade" here.

China: China is still a centrally-planned economy, and I'm not sure what "free trade" agreements it has ever signed anyway.

Ireland: I will admit I don't know a thing about Ireland's economic history, although I would be interested in reading any articles about it if anyone has any.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong has been part of China for a long time now as it rightly should be, but Hong Kong basically carried out developement in a similar way to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Again, I have no idea what "free trade" agreements it signed.

[email protected] 30 2004, 10:55 PM
According to the new Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report, Latin American countries increased their economic freedom ratings from 5.0 in 1985 to 5.4 in 1990 to 6.5 on a 10-point scale by the end of that decade.

Economic "freedom" ratings are meaningless. They barely take government subsidies to the rich into account at all, inequality isn't an issue, property rights only take into account if people technically have the right by law to property but it's irrelivant how that condition is, same thing with the right to compete, and there whole section on "free trade" is completely innacurate, they for example would call it trade when some corporation sends its parts to one of its subsidiaries in another country and that subsidiary would later send it back, even though such moves have nothing to do with any economy. Besides, economic freedoms have nothing to do with Democratic freedoms.

hotsexygrl42

1st August 2004, 01:47

Chile: I have posted on this before, Chile's economy started to grow after it took a bunch of Anti-Capitalist measures, one of them being placing a restriction on the flow of foreign capital. You can read it here: Lets take a look at the "ANTI-CAPITALIST MEASURES"
Opening the economy to world trade
· Conservative fiscal policy pursuing simultaneously a budget surplus and reduction of public
debt
· Expanding of the domestic capital market
· Reform of labor and tax policies, including a tax increase that allowed the government to
expand social expenditures by more than 200 percent through the 1990s

East and South Asia, particularly China and India, have lifted 500 million people out of extreme poverty

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

United Nations report published this month (July 15) showed the economy grew by 6.8 percent per year between 1990 and 2002, bettered only by China.
The average Irish worker now earns more than anyone in the world apart from the Norwegians and Luxembourgers.

The report showed that for the first time, per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is higher in Ireland than in the United States -- a statistic rich in symbolism given the history of Irish emigration to the promised land of America

Osman Ghazi

1st August 2004, 05:03

Reform of labor and tax policies, including a tax increase that allowed the government to
expand social expenditures by more than 200 percent through the 1990s

Wow, Redstar was right you don't have a ing clue.

Increasing taxes is an anti-capitalist measure!

Please, don't argue Chile with Lu, he'll school you. Though I wouldn't imagine that he'd waste his time on someone who still has so many things to puzzle out first.

Xvall

1st August 2004, 05:07

Since 1970 child labor and the proportion of people in the world who have to go hungry has fallen by more than half.

In the late 1800's, slavery was no where near as awful as it was in the early 1800's. That isn't an argument for slavery.

hotsexygrl42

1st August 2004, 06:04

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 1 2004, 05:03 AM

Wow, Redstar was right you don't have a ing clue.

Increasing taxes is an anti-capitalist measure!

Please, don't argue Chile with Lu, he'll school you. Though I wouldn't imagine that he'd waste his time on someone who still has so many things to puzzle out first.
Taxes has nothing to do with capitalism dumbass

Also no one can school me on capitalism because the facts speak for themselves.

CubanFox

1st August 2004, 07:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:04 PM
Taxes has nothing to do with capitalism dumbass
You aren't in any position to call anybody a "dumbarse", especially with that comment.

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 08:35

I certainly do "presuppose" that capitalism exists for the purpose of "initiation of force." The whole fucking point of "the state" is to initiate force!

Perhaps it is under socialism, where the law is used a weapon to attack people. You can see it happening in today's mixed system too.

"The state" exists for the purpose of regulating class antagonisms and "protecting property"...If class antagonisms were absent, please explain to me what the purpose of "the state" would be.

To prevent people from killing each other. Does that sound like a good enough reason ?

"The state" is necessary when there are existing tensions to be controlled at levels that are tolerable for the upper-strata in society. The way you "control" these intentions is THROUGH coercion and initiation of force.

Would you care to explain how it does this ?

Why is the police here, if not to keep the citizens that may misbehave "in check"?

How about to stop them killing each other ?

Ask yourself what the purpose of "the state" is, if not to "regulate" the people THROUGH force, by COMMANDING them to "do this" and "do that" or else they will be hurt?

Hold on, attacking someone is an initiation of force, but protecting a citizen from attacks from others isn't.

Capitalism is merely the economic system that caters to "the state" as it exists today...true, no one is forcing you to work by putting a gun to your head, but when you're stuck in a situation with little room for the possibility of legitimate employment, it's either "you steal, or you don't eat."

I wouldn't accept that as an excuse in a LF society, never mind in today's welfare state. What's stopping you from working ?

Why are blacks commiting most of the crimes when they are the minority?

It's not for me to question why individuals commit crimes; I don't have the crime statistics.

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 08:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:23 AM
You aren't in any position to call anybody a "dumbarse", especially with that comment.
They don't. Only absence of them.

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 08:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 11:35 PM
Economic "freedom" ratings are meaningless.
It's just a funny coincidence that all the countries at the bottom of it happen to be :

- Dictatorships.

- Socialist or run by militant Islam.

Osman Ghazi

1st August 2004, 15:10

They don't. Only absence of them.

So if the taxes were raised you would have no problem with that. After all, that wouldn't have anything to do with capitalism, right?

LuZhiming

1st August 2004, 15:47

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Aug 1 2004, 08:45 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Aug 1 2004, 08:45 AM) It's just a funny coincidence that all the countries at the bottom of it happen to be :

- Dictatorships.

- Socialist or run by militant Islam. [/b]
Yeah, plus a lot of African countries which aren't even dictatorships. If you dare ask that evil 'why?' question, the answer quickly reveals itself that those nations can't have much trade internationally. You will also notice a lot of those nations at the bottom have high foreign debt.

Originally posted by [email protected] on Aug 1 2004, 01:47 AM
Opening the economy to world trade

That simply isn't true, like I have pointed out, Pinochet passed a law restricting the flow of foreign capital, I don't even think Allende ever did anything that dramatic. That isn't "opening the economy to world trade," it's restricting world trade. Besides, no successful "Capitalist" nation has ever opened their economy to world trade, Western nations have instituted more protectionist programs than anyone else(Only at times when they're not directly stealing from other countries of course). Again, when Chile pursued that policy, which was in the early 1980s, the economy was a mess.

Originally posted by [email protected] on Aug 1 2004, 01:47 AM
· Expanding of the domestic capital market

Eghh, that was only in the time of what should be called the Chilean depression, as I said, Pinochet later reversed this policy leading to some recovery. In the 80s Chile was a complete failure, ok? Read this article, it's excellent: http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

Originally posted by [email protected] on Aug 1 2004, 01:47 AM
· Reform of labor and tax policies, including a tax increase that allowed the government to
expand social expenditures by more than 200 percent through the 1990s

Yes exactly, the government resorted to massive intervention in the economy, and it worked. Again, like you actually say, in the 1990s. During the reign of the Chicago Boys(1980s), the exact opposite happened, and Chile was a disaster. Posting something on raising government expenditures is not an arguement for Capitalism. On the matter of reform of labor, the keyword there is unionbusting and that went on all through the 80s, the reforms made in the 1990s increased labor rights.

[email protected] on Aug 1 2004, 01:47 AM
East and South Asia, particularly China and India, have lifted 500 million people out of extreme poverty

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

United Nations report published this month (July 15) showed the economy grew by 6.8 percent per year between 1990 and 2002, bettered only by China.

Yes, so what are you saying? China hasn't done it through privatizing everything and cutting back government spending, all they have done is basically change the way government's spend. Look, all you're pointing out is that China is better under a Semi-South Korean model then it is under an even more corrupt military dictatorship that uses force to get people to work. That's no secret. In India, the economy may have grown, but starting in 1990 and escalating afterwards, rural poverty has increased, rural per capita consumption has mostly stagnated and sometimes declined, and the rate of growth was cut in half. Inequality has escalated as well. In case you don't know, most of the population in India is rural. Again, these liberalization programs in India are doing the same thing they did in Mexico, the economy goes up, profits go up, the amount of billionares go up, and poverty goes up too. That's nothing to brag about.

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 16:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:47 PM
Yeah, plus a lot of African countries which aren't even dictatorships. If you dare ask that evil 'why?' question, the answer quickly reveals itself that those nations can't have much trade internationally. You will also notice a lot of those nations at the bottom have high foreign debt.
Maybe it's because trade is largely restricted by law in such places.

Which political systems do we know of that restrict free trade ?

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 16:24

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 1 2004, 03:10 PM

So if the taxes were raised you would have no problem with that. After all, that wouldn't have anything to do with capitalism, right?
You idiot.

LuZhiming

1st August 2004, 17:02

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 04:23 PM
Which political systems do we know of that restrict free trade ?
The ones in industrialized nations are an example, every industrialized nation institutes protectionist programs when they choose, and no poor country can do anything about it. They only selectively allow "free trade" when they can get their own highly subsidized industries to drive peasent workers and other people completely out. Most poor nations have their trade decided for them by foreign governments and the IMF/World Bank. The only exceptions right now are dictatorships like the ones in Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. which have all been purposely isolated from the world, most of them being sanctioned. So of course their trade is going to be low.

Osman Ghazi

1st August 2004, 18:03

You idiot.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm just saying, why are you stepping in to defend her obviously stupid statement? I mean, you must have known after reading it that it was stupid, so why? Just because shes a cappie?

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 20:32

Stop the context dropping, Kazi. You knew very well what I meant.

Professor Moneybags

1st August 2004, 20:37

The ones in industrialized nations are an example, every industrialized nation institutes protectionist programs when they choose, and no poor country can do anything about it.

I don't advocate protectionism.

They only selectively allow "free trade" when they can get their own highly subsidized industries to drive peasent workers and other people completely out. Most poor nations have their trade decided for them by foreign governments and the IMF/World Bank.

I don't support those institutions either.

The only exceptions right now are dictatorships like the ones in Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. which have all been purposely isolated from the world, most of them being sanctioned. So of course their trade is going to be low.

I can tell you for a fact that sanctions are not the cause. It's all the fault of their respective governments.

A recent report from Zimbabwe estimated the unemployment rate to be 70% with half of the country starving; it used to be the bread basket of Africa.

The Sloth

2nd August 2004, 00:46

To prevent people from killing each other. Does that sound like a good enough reason ?

And why do people want to kill each other?

When African and other non-European tribes and civilizations were run on a socialist/anarchist basis, there was no "state" in the way "the state" exists today. There were no gangs running around killing each other, there was no need to enforce laws...hell, there really were no "real" laws in the first place considering that there was little incentive to "act up"!

Do some research and you'll understand that in America, the growth of the police force erupted with the increasingly repressive working conditions in factories. Not only was wealth starting to be distributed more and more unfairly (thus causing "class antagonisms"), but also strikes were becoming more and more common. To protect the "capitalist class" (elite minority) and its wealth (industrial capital) from "the people," a new organ of "the state" was created or spurred in its growth - the police force.

In the South, the growth of the police force was proportionate to the rise in tensions between slave and slave-owner, and the number of run-aways and such. Again, the "property" (slaves) of the "capitalist class" was ensured through the initiation of force!

Today, the police exist with two primary functions. The first I already mentioned. The secondary function is to protect the people "from each other," to ensure that we do not "kill each other off." Most crime arises from socio-economic injustices and the indirect and secondary problems associated with this reality. Since we have an "incentive" to join a gang, to steal and to kill, plus the back-up of a "state" that is rooted in chaos, then these things will occur.

Why does crime fall most heavily on blacks, if I may ask? Does it have to do with the material conditions or with a "genetic" and "pathological" obsession that blacks have with criminality? I don't think it's the latter. I find it interesting that when I was having a debate with my teacher, he told me Harlem is "getting better" by pointing out the fact that there is less crime...at the expensive of having a patrol car on every corner! Now, you tell me that "the state" and "capitalism" exist without "the initiation of force," but if having armed enforcers as an incentive NOT to commit crimes is NOT "the initiation of force," then I don't know what is!

So, in short, "the state" and "the police" exist for the purpose of "initiating force," to get "the people" to do what is "necessary" because in our society, the people can't always naturally do what is necessary. This is so due to the relationships in power that exist, the authoritarian nature of society, and other material (including economic) conditions that are currently present.

Now, why don't you explain what the "nature" of "the state" is, if I am incorrect?

What's stopping you from working ?

Because the wages are either insufficient or there are no fucking jobs?!

It's not for me to question why individuals commit crimes; I don't have the crime statistics.

Shut up *laughs*

You claim since you are not a statistics expert, you can't even comment on the nature of crimes, or acknowledge the fact that most crimes (violent, not white-collar) are commited by minorities?

Oh fucking please...you're not an expert on anything you say, but all of a sudden, this "lack of expertise" is chosen "selectively" and prevents you from commenting on my assertion? You might as well just stop going to this board altogether, or not even argue with any of us, because just like you, most here aren't really "experts" on anything.

hotsexygrl42

2nd August 2004, 02:36

You might as well just stop going to this board altogether I guess some one is tired of getting pawned Mecca

Osman Ghazi

2nd August 2004, 05:14

I guess some one is tired of getting pawned Mecca

Its so refreshing to meet a cappie who isn't a pseudo-intelectual. Just as we of the left have our RevolutionIndia's and other notoriously dumb characters, so does the right have ygrl42.

Just so you know 42, I'm making fun of you because it is not 'pawned' but rather 'pwned' which is, if my video game lore is correct, a mistyping of 'owned'.

The Sloth

2nd August 2004, 12:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:36 AM
I guess some one is tired of getting pawned Mecca
Did you even understand the context of that statement? It's more so an attack on Moneybags "backing down" then actually asking him to leave:

"Oh fucking please...you're not an expert on anything you say, but all of a sudden, this 'lack of expertise' is chosen 'selectively' and prevents you from commenting on my assertion? You might as well just stop going to this board altogether, or not even argue with any of us, because just like you, most here aren't really 'experts' on anything."

You could have added something intelligent to the debate, such as offer a critique of my description of the role of "the state," but alas, you only reinforced the previous opinions I and everyone else on this board held of you.

If you are supposed to be the "ideal capitalist," then please, continue arguing and never, never stop. You'll help our cause beyond the efforts of every other comrade that ever lived. :lol: :lol:

And, by the way, I'm just interested...why is your name hotsexygrl42 when your profile describes you as a "male"? :blink:

Osman Ghazi

2nd August 2004, 14:01

And, by the way, I'm just interested...why is your name ygrl42 when your profile describes you as a "male"?

The wierdest thing is that gender is the only information block that he/she/it bothered to fill out.

Professor Moneybags

2nd August 2004, 14:58

There were no gangs running around killing each other, there was no need to enforce laws...hell, there really were no "real" laws in the first place considering that there was little incentive to "act up"!

Oh no, of course not. I don't know what's so special about African and non-European tribes, but tribes from all around the world have been killing each other over trivialities in religion, land and resources since time immemorial. In Africa, they still do today. There doesn't need to be a "state as we know it" to murder people.

Do some research and you'll understand that in America, the growth of the police force erupted with the increasingly repressive working conditions in factories. Not only was wealth starting to be distributed more and more unfairly (thus causing "class antagonisms"), but also strikes were becoming more and more common. To protect the "capitalist class" (elite minority) and its wealth (industrial capital) from "the people," a new organ of "the state" was created or spurred in its growth - the police force.

Enough hyperbole : Wealth isn't "distributed", let alone "unfairly" so. The police force protects everyone, not just the "rich" (whatever that means). Can you see where this is leading ? Defending someone presupposes that someone is attacking- initiating force. Those who initiate force are wrong regardless of the number of initiators. But you don't believe that. To you, might makes right.

In the South, the growth of the police force was proportionate to the rise in tensions between slave and slave-owner, and the number of run-aways and such. Again, the "property" (slaves) of the "capitalist class" was ensured through the initiation of force!

Slavery is an initiation of force, as people are not property and thus, ends in themselves. You believe the exact opposite (as can clearly be seen from the number of folks here who advocate "positive rights"). Thus, the slavers weren't the "capitalist class", but a "socialist class".

Most crime arises from socio-economic injustices and the indirect and secondary problems associated with this reality.

Proof ?

Why does crime fall most heavily on blacks, if I may ask? Does it have to do with the material conditions or with a "genetic" and "pathological" obsession that blacks have with criminality?

I saw some crime statistics a few years ago and the biggest proportion of theft-related crime came not from the poorest, but from the group above them. If your argument were true, we would be seeing a direct link.

Now, you tell me that "the state" and "capitalism" exist without "the initiation of force," but if having armed enforcers as an incentive NOT to commit crimes is NOT "the initiation of force," then I don't know what is!

The fact that someone carries a gun to deter you from robbing them is not an initiation of force. What exactly have they done to you ?

Shut up *laughs*

You claim since you are not a statistics expert, you can't even comment on the nature of crimes, or acknowledge the fact that most crimes (violent, not white-collar) are commited by minorities?

I don't jump to conclusions without evidence. There could be any number of reasons. I prefer the right answer, rather than the most convenient one.

Professor Moneybags

2nd August 2004, 15:00

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 2 2004, 05:14 AM
Just as we of the left have our RevolutionIndia's and other notoriously dumb characters,
Like who ? You ?

Osman Ghazi

2nd August 2004, 16:38

The Sloth

2nd August 2004, 18:12

Oh no, of course not. I don't know what's so special about African and non-European tribes, but tribes from all around the world have been killing each other over trivialities in religion, land and resources since time immemorial. In Africa, they still do today. There doesn't need to be a "state as we know it" to murder people.

Why is this bullshit even in the conversation? I don't ever remember making the assertion that there was no such as thing as fighting with foreigners, etc. And present-day Africa isn't even relevant to what I'm saying.

Tribes and civilizations existed without the need for "the initiation of force"; there was no so-called "authority" in the context of today's meaning of the word. There was no "state" and wealth was distributed under a socialist basis...the literature I've read on Africa mentioned the lack of "crime" and there was no need for laws and officials to enforce them.

You also seem to have skipped over 90% of my post for "undisclosed reasons." Would you mind explaining to me, in the same detail that I have, the reason for a state, meaning, not some bullshit one-liner? Considering the fact that it's obvious you've given little thought to the concept of "the state," you might as well also outline the time and reasons why "the state" becomes "necessary."

"The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from the outside; just as little is it 'the reality of the moral idea,' 'the image and the reality of reason,' as Hegel asserts. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms that it is powerless to dispel.” In order that the antagonisms of the bourgeoisie and proletariat do not “consume themselves in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above society became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it within the bounds of ‘order’; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it, and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state."

Thus, it seems as if the state arises when these antagonisms between people can no longer be objectively reconciled (without adopting radical changes, that is!)

Slavery is an initiation of force, as people are not property and thus, ends in themselves. You believe the exact opposite (as can clearly be seen from the number of folks here who advocate "positive rights"). Thus, the slavers weren't the "capitalist class", but a "socialist class".

First of all, remember that your statement regarding the Jews is what created my response.

Second, while you claim "people are not property," it is "the state" that deemed blacks as "property" for the purpose of catering to the southern aristocracy. Anything can be declared "property"...hell, with the changes in time, websites, abstract ideas, etc. can all be considered "property" depending on what "the state" sees as "acceptable."

Slavers certainly were the "capitalist class" - they buy/rent plantations, put down money on slaves and land as an investment, work within the context of the laws regarding what property actually is -- black people -- as laid out by "the state" at that time.

Enough hyperbole : Wealth isn't "distributed", let alone "unfairly" so. The police force protects everyone, not just the "rich" (whatever that means). Can you see where this is leading ? Defending someone presupposes that someone is attacking-initiating force. Those who initiate force are wrong regardless of the number of initiators. But you don't believe that. To you, might makes right.

It's obvious you didn't understand my post, much less the nature of any bureaucracy.

The police -- armed enforcers of the law -- grew when the need arose to protect the minority's property from the masses, both in the North East and in the American South. This is the foundation of the police force.

Today, the police have a second role -- to protect the people "from each other." The reason why people need to be protected "from each other" is because there is too much incentive to commit crime. Change the socio-economic conditions, and thus crime rate is altered depending on laws, wealth distribution, and social relations either for the the better or for the worse.

Proof ?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So it's only a coincidence that the highest crime rates are, by very far, in black neighborhoods?

So it's only a coincidence that most prison inmates come from poor backgrounds?

I saw some crime statistics a few years ago and the biggest proportion of theft-related crime came not from the poorest, but from the group above them. If your argument were true, we would be seeing a direct link.

Why do most crimes occur in poor neighborhoods? You're dancing around, claiming you're too "ignorant" to answer the question, or even acknowledge the fact.

Most wanted in New York City, from the NYC Police Department:

Queens

Giovanni Anzora
Thomas Acosta
Man Singh
Michael Francis
Ryan Johnson
Moises Interiano
Yascob Hondri
Fernando Cuartas
Oscar Ortiz
Eric Coles

Bronx

Alejandro Polinar Romero Solis
Angel Salgado Sanchez
Ceasar Rosas
Armondo Morante
Danilo Frias
Nelson Cleveland
Jesus Guzman
Christie O'Neil
Noel Majile
Francisco Polanco
Russell James
Frank Cedano
Edwin Fernandez
Eric Salguero
Kurk Broaster

Brooklyn

Andre Neverson
Charlie Brackett
Carlos Borja
Adofo Whittle
Shamel Leroy Jones
Christopher Robbs
Chau Dang

Manhattan

Yossi Hanania Ben-Sadon
Israel Or
Henry Rosario
Burton Maskow
You Gu
Jing Xiong/Jing Kelly
Jin-Le Liu
Felix Soriano
Shemel Henry
Orlando Moreno
Javier Penilla
Louis Rivera
Jose Heras
Alejandro Alba

Staten Island

Enrique Perez
Dennis F. Matthews
Leslie Jermaine
Juan Martinez
Eric Mills
Albert Johnson
Donnichola S. Prasanna

The individuals I've italicized are white. The rest are non-whites. Fifty-two individuals on this list, five are white.

New York City is thirty-five percent white, and sixty-five percent non-white.

According to these statistics, a little more than 18 individuals would have to be white; instead, there are five, considerably less than one-third of what it "should be."

According to these statistics, close to 34 should be non-white, but instead, we have 47, which is considerably more than what the figure "should be."

Staten Island is the most interesting borough...the whitest of them all, only one individual on the "Most Wanted" list is white. My guess is that most of those offenders in SI are from Stapleton Projects, considering that's where much of the crime takes place.

(Keep in mind that this is a "Most Wanted" list.)

I remember my teacher was once reading out some figures from the NYC Police Department. He said that in Red Hook (a small, black neighborhood in Brooklyn of approximately one and a half square miles), there were 80 (or so?) murders in 2003 out of 350 (or something like that?) Brownsville, East N.Y., Bedstuy, Flatbush, Crown Heights, Canarsie, etc. (all-black neighborhoods) added up to an additional 200 (or so?). This means that out of 350 murders, eighty percent were done by 35% of a demographic, considerably more than two times of what the figure "should be."

The other demographics that make up about 65% commited 20% of the murders, or, less than 1/3 of what the figure "should be."

And, before I forget, East N.Y., Crown Heights, Fort Greene, Flatbush, Brownsville, Red Hook, and Bedstuy are also the poorest neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

I don't jump to conclusions without evidence. There could be any number of reasons. I prefer the right answer, rather than the most convenient one.

I gave you my reasons. Now how about you give me yours?

Professor Moneybags

3rd August 2004, 15:56

True. The only thing you need a state for is murdering your own people, rather than say, another tribe.

You don't need a state for that either.

So, if I give a capitalist my money, he is creating it? :blink:

What are you talking about ?

In fact, the Bobbies date from about 1835, two years or so after the Reform bill managed to stave off a Revolution.

Wow, a revolution decades before the communist mannifesto ! Is this an anachronism on your part ?

So then, why the invasion of Iraq? Were you not initiating force?

Retalliation on behalf of Saddam's victims.

Should feudalism have been abolished? I mean, after all, it was necessary to initiate force to do it.

You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about, have you ?

If by 'might' you mean that the opinions of a majority of the population support something, then yes, might makes right.

That's all I needed to know.

After all, what is the difference between being 'mighty' and being smart? Nothing really.

Different type of might- I don't claim that being "smart" grants me the right to turn those who are not into my slaves, nor do I claim that being part of a majority grants me the right to kill/rob/enslave a minority.

Yet you would have us believe that someone's personal abilities (might) entitles them to certain priveleges.

No, I don't.

According to objectivism. People really are property. They have the right to self-ownership, thus they must be property. And if people want to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery, who are you to stop a voluntary transaction?

I'd think very carefully before quoting any of Redstar2000's tripe; I've answered this in the thread he started. Needless to say it has not been responed to.

Wrong. At the Redstar2000 Papers, there are two articles with the title 'People are not property'. (1 & 2) In addition to that, I think that I will decide what I bleieve rather than have you tell me, thanks very much.

I'm merely pointing out what you believe, not telling you what to believe...and I was right.

Well let's see. Do you think you would be more likely to steal something if you had something to lose or if you had nothing to lose. I think the latter.

What's this got to do with socio-economic injustices ? Are you still peddling that nonsense about the reason someone has more money than someone else is because he must have "stolen" it from him ?

Yes. Exactly like me. I've often speculated on the reasons for my below average intelligence. I think its because I hang around in OI too much and talk to too many retards like you and ygrl42. They hurt my brain.

My debating level is a bit over your head, but I have included a small bout of name-calling to bring it down to an all-inclusive level, as you can see.

Professor Moneybags

3rd August 2004, 16:44

There was no "state" and wealth was distributed under a socialist basis...the literature I've read on Africa mentioned the lack of "crime" and there was no need for laws and officials to enforce them.

On a small scale there may very well not have been. There would be nothing wrong this arrangement provided no-one was forced to contribute and remain in the tribe.

But this is straw man; it's not the arrangement you are advocating. You are not calling for a volunteers to join a commune, you are calling for revolution and to inflict this on people who do not want it. And it's no good saying "if you don't like it, get out", as you actions are not legitimate because you are initating the use of force.

You also seem to have skipped over 90% of my post for "undisclosed reasons." Would you mind explaining to me, in the same detail that I have, the reason for a state, meaning, not some bullshit one-liner? Considering the fact that it's obvious you've given little thought to the concept of "the state," you might as well also outline the time and reasons why "the state" becomes "necessary."

Considering that you're not capable of conceptual thought, this is a bit of a joke.

By state, I assume you mean government, but you have ignored what the only legitimate role of government is, and have substituted non-essential traits into your definition (such as oppression- not an essential trait of a government). I'm guessing that's how the "fascism = capitalism" argument started.
But aside from that, a moderator is needed to resolve disputes between people and to enforce the rule of law (even those tribes you speak of must have had some laws). In the absence of such a moderator, the people have no insitution to retalliate or punish those who initiate force against them. Then you get a might-makes-right society.

Second, while you claim "people are not property," it is "the state" that deemed blacks as "property" for the purpose of catering to the southern aristocracy. Anything can be declared "property"...hell, with the changes in time, websites, abstract ideas, etc. can all be considered "property" depending on what "the state" sees as "acceptable."

That doesn't legitimize it, though, does it ?

Slavers certainly were the "capitalist class" - they buy/rent plantations, put down money on slaves and land as an investment, work within the context of the laws regarding what property actually is -- black people -- as laid out by "the state" at that time.

You're doing it again; arguing by non-essentials. Other people are *not* property. Just because the state says so does not make it right. Just because a socialist state says that property rights should not exist does not make them right, either.

The police -- armed enforcers of the law -- grew when the need arose to protect the minority's property from the masses, both in the North East and in the American South. This is the foundation of the police force.

What's thet got to do with anything ?

Today, the police have a second role -- to protect the people "from each other." The reason why people need to be protected "from each other" is because there is too much incentive to commit crime. Change the socio-economic conditions, and thus crime rate is altered depending on laws, wealth distribution, and social relations either for the the better or for the worse.

In other words, to reduce theft-based crime, legaize it.

Oh, of course crime would go down by redistributing wealth- the government will be commiting all the stealling legally on behalf of all the private individuals who would otherwise have to do themeselves illegally.

I can't say I'm impressed with your reasoning.

So it's only a coincidence that the highest crime rates are, by very far, in black neighborhoods?

So it's only a coincidence that most prison inmates come from poor backgrounds?

Why do most crimes occur in poor neighborhoods? You're dancing around, claiming you're too "ignorant" to answer the question, or even acknowledge the fact.

See above.

The individuals I've italicized are white. The rest are non-whites. Fifty-two individuals on this list, five are white.

New York City is thirty-five percent white, and sixty-five percent non-white.

According to these statistics, a little more than 18 individuals would have to be white; instead, there are five, considerably less than one-third of what it "should be."

According to these statistics, close to 34 should be non-white, but instead, we have 47, which is considerably more than what the figure "should be."

Staten Island is the most interesting borough...the whitest of them all, only one individual on the "Most Wanted" list is white. My guess is that most of those offenders in SI are from Stapleton Projects, considering that's where much of the crime takes place.

(Keep in mind that this is a "Most Wanted" list.)

I remember my teacher was once reading out some figures from the NYC Police Department. He said that in Red Hook (a small, black neighborhood in Brooklyn of approximately one and a half square miles), there were 80 (or so?) murders in 2003 out of 350 (or something like that?) Brownsville, East N.Y., Bedstuy, Flatbush, Crown Heights, Canarsie, etc. (all-black neighborhoods) added up to an additional 200 (or so?). This means that out of 350 murders, eighty percent were done by 35% of a demographic, considerably more than two times of what the figure "should be."

The other demographics that make up about 65% commited 20% of the murders, or, less than 1/3 of what the figure "should be."

And, before I forget, East N.Y., Crown Heights, Fort Greene, Flatbush, Brownsville, Red Hook, and Bedstuy are also the poorest neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance (whilst ignoring your statistical shotgunning), but can you explain to me how "homicide" is going to somehow improve your socio-economic status ? I've read the details; these aren't "victims of capitalism" who rob people because they "have no choice"; they're murders -black or white- who kill people over petty arguments (which seems to get mentioned an awful lot).

You've shot yourself in the foot, Mecca. These statistics don't say you what you seem to think they say.

The Sloth

4th August 2004, 14:34

On a small scale there may very well not have been. There would be nothing wrong this arrangement provided no-one was forced to contribute and remain in the tribe.

Odd.

According to each historian I’ve read, they seem to say that there was a harmonious contribution because work was a value instilled into the people form day one (such as in our day, riches are instilled into our values from our births).

:blink:

But this is straw man; it's not the arrangement you are advocating. You are not calling for a volunteers to join a commune, you are calling for revolution and to inflict this on people who do not want it. And it's no good saying "if you don't like it, get out", as you actions are not legitimate because you are initating the use of force.

I am calling for a revolution, correct.

If the parasites, the leeches, the blood-suckers, etc. want to resist, should I really give a fuck? I’m not going to let them “go free” and I understand they don’t want the revolution to come considering that they will 1) lose their capital, 2) lose their power to exploit the majority.

The people really have nothing to lose.

“Show me a capitalist and I’ll show you a blood-sucker. Capitalism cannot exist with some blood to suck.”

- Malcolm X

Considering that you're not capable of conceptual thought, this is a bit of a joke.

By state, I assume you mean government, but you have ignored what the only legitimate role of government is, and have substituted non-essential traits into your definition (such as oppression- not an essential trait of a government). I'm guessing that's how the "fascism = capitalism" argument started.
But aside from that, a moderator is needed to resolve disputes between people and to enforce the rule of law (even those tribes you speak of must have had some laws). In the absence of such a moderator, the people have no insitution to retalliate or punish those who initiate force against them. Then you get a might-makes-right society.

A moderator is necessary because the current realities create or at least intensify conflicts.

You're doing it again; arguing by non-essentials. Other people are *not* property. Just because the state says so does not make it right. Just because a socialist state says that property rights should not exist does not make them right, either.

Just because a capitalist says the existence of property for 1/10 of the population at the expense of 9/10 of the population does not make him right, either.

What's thet got to do with anything ?

Ummm, the fact that police arose out of the desire of the business owners to break strikes and maintain sustenance-level wages proves that the police (enforcers of the state and status quo) proves that “the people” were not to be protected from “the people” (as there was no need for this yet), but that “the elite” was to be protected from “the people”???

In other words, to reduce theft-based crime, legaize it.

Yes!

Oh, of course crime would go down by redistributing wealth- the government will be commiting all the stealling legally on behalf of all the private individuals who would otherwise have to do themeselves illegally.

I’d rather the government “steal” from the minority to equalize the majority rather than the minority leeching off the majority, but whatever, I guess we have different “tastes.”

I can't say I'm impressed with your reasoning.

I can’t say I’m impressed with your reasoning.

See above.

See above.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance (whilst ignoring your statistical shotgunning), but can you explain to me how "homicide" is going to somehow improve your socio-economic status ? I've read the details; these aren't "victims of capitalism" who rob people because they "have no choice"; they're murders -black or white- who kill people over petty arguments (which seems to get mentioned an awful lot).

You've shot yourself in the foot, Mecca. These statistics don't say you what you seem to think they say.

And that was supposed to be Moneybag’s coup de grace, everyone! :lol: :lol: :lol:

No time to bullshit around, though, let me get this one moving so I can put it all to rest.

I can understand the belief that most of these (usually) black murderers kill each other over “petty arguments,” because y’know how them uppity, jive-talkin’ Negroes act, right? :lol:
At least, it seems that whenever I argue with “white nationalists,” they bring up that up as the reason why there is so much crime in black neighborhoods.

But then again, could it be that many of these murders occur over, um, drug deals? This is speculation, but then again, I have stories that back this claim up. And if it is true that “petty arguments” cause even “many” of these murders, remember that poverty is the greatest risk factor for things such as the use of heavy drugs, and also plus thus the break-down of the family. When the family breaks down, it is much easier for the individual that is living in poverty to adopt anti-social attitudes, violent and aggressive behavior, promiscuity, etc. But don’t think I’m making any of this up; this is what Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D., a professor of clinical psychology, writes in his book The Growth of the Mind and the Endangered Origins of Intelligence:

“Furthermore, when emotional risk factors were added to social and economic ones, we found that children who came from families with four or more adverse factors, such as depressed or addicted parents, a harsh emotional climate, poor education, low income, and low occupational and social standing, were twenty-four times likelier than children from homes with no more than one adverse factor to score below 85 in IQ. Kids from more fortunate homes scored overwhelmingly in the normal to superior range. In addition, as expected, children from families plagued by difficulties suffered more behavioral problems. Follow-up studies of these children at age thirteen confirmed these findings.”

Greenspan goes on to list problems associated with these things, such as violence, aggression, etc. However, he also emphasizes that SOCIAL and ECONOMIC conditions are not the ONLY thing to blame; at the same time, social and economic conditions create problems in a family, which later causes the break-down in individuals and creates them into murderers. Get rid of the economic and social problems, and thus the family structure can be reinforced, and thus there will be no race of people that seems as if it murders “pathologically.” I guess my statistics actually DO reinforce this point, and while not everyone steals to improve their economic situation, it seems as if they murder and behave violently partly BECAUSE of their economic situation.

all-too-human

4th August 2004, 14:55

Professor Moneybags

4th August 2004, 15:22

According to each historian I’ve read, they seem to say that there was a harmonious contribution because work was a value instilled into the people form day one (such as in our day, riches are instilled into our values from our births).

The fact remains.

"There would be nothing wrong this arrangement provided no-one was forced to contribute and remain in the tribe."

I am calling for a revolution, correct.

If the parasites, the leeches, the blood-suckers, etc. want to resist, should I really give a fuck? I’m not going to let them “go free” and I understand they don’t want the revolution to come considering that they will 1) lose their capital, 2) lose their power to exploit the majority.

This presupposes that people with property are parasites. This is a false premise.

The people really have nothing to lose.

How about their own property (and their rights) ?

“Show me a capitalist and I’ll show you a blood-sucker. Capitalism cannot exist with some blood to suck.”

- Malcolm X

Nothing but hot air.

A moderator is necessary because the current realities create or at least intensify conflicts.

What do mean "current realities" reality is the same regardless of who's in charge.

Just because a capitalist says the existence of property for 1/10 of the population at the expense of 9/10 of the population does not make him right, either.

Property does not exist and *anyone's* expense. Does my car exist at your expense ? Does my house exist at my neighbour's expense ? Hardly.

Ummm, the fact that police arose out of the desire of the business owners to break strikes

They had no right to do such a thing; it would go contrary to capitalism. Think of it as a sort of primitive "government interventionism" (you know, socialism).

I’d rather the government “steal” from the minority to equalize the majority rather than the minority leeching off the majority,

But the minority do not "leech" from the majority.

but whatever, I guess we have different “tastes.”

I have functioning mind. You don't.

I can understand the belief that most of these (usually) black murderers kill each other over “petty arguments,” because y’know how them uppity, jive-talkin’ Negroes act, right?

It says the homicides were over "arguments" in the crime description !

Congratuations on evading the "how does homicide improve one's socio-economic status ?" question.

But then again, could it be that many of these murders occur over, um, drug deals? This is speculation, but then again, I have stories that back this claim up. And if it is true that “petty arguments” cause even “many” of these murders,

See above.

remember that poverty is the greatest risk factor for things such as the use of heavy drugs, and also plus thus the break-down of the family.

No, poverty isn't the greatest risk factor, stupidity is. How is taking drugs going to solve the problem of poverty ? It's no more a "way out" than suicide.

were twenty-four times likelier than children from homes with no more than one adverse factor to score below 85 in IQ

What did I tell you ?

Not only do you presume that poverty is somehow caused by capitalism, even if the problem could somehow be aleviated by comitting grand theft, there is little moral difference between you and the criminal.

The Sloth

4th August 2004, 16:38

The fact remains.

"There would be nothing wrong this arrangement provided no-one was forced to contribute and remain in the tribe."

Except it would be "beyond understanding" why anyone would refuse to work or contribute, unlike under capitalism.

This presupposes that people with property are parasites. This is a false premise.

9/10 of the population with property are not parasites; however, the 1/10 that owns 9/10 of the property are because it's owned at the expense of the majority.

Example: Africa, India, South America.

How about their own property (and their rights) ?

Under communism, the individual will have a home, televisions, computer, etc. The concept of "private property" being abolished does not mean that no one will have anything; rather, it means no one will have anything that someone else cannot obtain because they don't have the money.

The fact that you mention "rights" is misleading...they will not have the "right" to own a business, but oh well, I would give up that "right" in exchange for another "right": freedom from exploitation.

Nothing but hot air.

Except his socialist/communist opinions are one and the same with every other recognized black activist's (even rappers), including Chuck D, M1, Sticman, Assata Shakur, Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale, Fred Hampton, Eldridge Cleaver (for a time), Elaine Brown, Angela Davis, Martin Luther King Jr. (yes, that "responsible" black activist), George Jackson, Cornel West (today's leading black intellectual), W.E.B. Du Bois, etc.

What do mean "current realities" reality is the same regardless of who's in charge.

What are you talking about, "realities" are same regardless of who's in charge? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that according to you if a monarch was in charge our realities would be the same now, too? I know you didn't mean THAT, so please explain.

Property does not exist and *anyone's* expense. Does my car exist at your expense ? Does my house exist at my neighbour's expense ? Hardly.

Laughable.

Let me give you an example:

"Brothers in South Africa are slaving to death in diamond mines
While we spending every penny to over-shine,
Tellin' the next man that he's lesser,
'Cuz he can't afford to buy ice from his oppressor
Now he's pullin' out nines,
Ready to homocide me for mine,
While George W. Bush got a war on crime."

American and European corporations cater to our desire for diamonds, for example, while poor Third World laborers slave away for chump change, so we get these diamonds at their expense. Are you denying that African labor is being exploited for our goods?

"We" exist at the expense of those that have nothing...are you seriously denying this statement?

They had no right to do such a thing; it would go contrary to capitalism.

And more "contrary" our policies are to capitalism, the better it is.

But the minority do not "leech" from the majority.

A dollar a day for your South American labor because American CEO's don't want to pay $5.15 an hour to the workers in the United States.

Alright, you've convinced me that everything is fair.

I have functioning mind. You don't.

A decaying mind is "functioning," but nonetheless it's "decadent."

It says the homicides were over "arguments" in the crime description !

Congratuations on evading the "how does homicide improve one's socio-economic status ?" question.

WHY ARE BLACKS SO QUICK TO MURDER ANOTHER OVER "ARGUMENTS" THEN?!?! I ANSWERED THE QUESTION SEVERAL TIMES, ONLY NOW PROVIDED QUOTED FACTS!

No, poverty isn't the greatest risk factor, stupidity is. How is taking drugs going to solve the problem of poverty ? It's no more a "way out" than suicide.

It's not "stupidity," it's ignorance -- you don't know what "else" to do because you are desperate....due to poverty.

You're a fuck-head. I actually take the time to look through a book of mine and type some information up, but your retort is "no, it's not" or a souped-up "you're wrong" type of "rebuttal." Then fuck you if you refuse to argue with facts and statistics, refuse to "speculate" because the conclusion points somewhere other than capitalism as the answer, refuse to admit that most crimes "for some odd reason" seem to happen in poor and especially black neighborhoods. I guess the opinions of clinical psychologists are meaningless, too, for this reason: "they're wrong."

What did I tell you ?

Not only do you presume that poverty is somehow caused by capitalism, even if the problem could somehow be aleviated by comitting grand theft, there is little moral difference between you and the criminal.

But I really, really, really don't mind -- that's what you don't seem to understand! :lol:

abigratsass

4th August 2004, 20:05

yes!! yes !! as a citezen in a ''devolping'' country i definatly fell that economic growth ur talking about !!!!! its amazinnnnng .......... thank you again!

i think that only around half of my country now have a problem with getting food on their table :lol: , again we dont know how to thank you ! please come and plunder the riches of my country some more, we owe you so much!!

p.s im really stonnnnnnned!!

Professor Moneybags

4th August 2004, 21:11

Except it would be "beyond understanding" why anyone would refuse to work or contribute,

Cop out (see below).

9/10 of the population with property are not parasites; however, the 1/10 that owns 9/10 of the property are because it's owned at the expense of the majority.

Explain how it is owned at the expense of the majority.

Under communism, the individual will have a home, televisions, computer, etc. The concept of "private property" being abolished does not mean that no one will have anything; rather, it means no one will have anything that someone else cannot obtain because they don't have the money.

At whose expense ? What if they don't want to provide you with these things ? It's a safe bet force is going to be applied to them if they don't comply.

The fact that you mention "rights" is misleading...they will not have the "right" to own a business, but oh well, I would give up that "right" in exchange for another "right": freedom from exploitation.

What do you mean by "exploitation" ?

American and European corporations cater to our desire for diamonds, for example, while poor Third World laborers slave away for chump change, so we get these diamonds at their expense. Are you denying that African labor is being exploited for our goods?

Yes, I deny it. We pay for their services, they do the work. If they don't want to, then they should tell us to get lost or demand that we pay them more.

And more "contrary" our policies are to capitalism, the better it is.

Better for whom ?

A dollar a day for your South American labor because American CEO's don't want to pay $5.15 an hour to the workers in the United States.

Alright, you've convinced me that everything is fair.

What do you mean by "fair" ?

WHY ARE BLACKS SO QUICK TO MURDER ANOTHER OVER "ARGUMENTS" THEN?!?!

How should I know ? How is it relevent ?

It's not "stupidity," it's ignorance

Everyone knows that drugs mess you up.

-- you don't know what "else" to do because you are desperate....due to poverty.

Yeah, right.

Then fuck you if you refuse to argue with facts and statistics, refuse to "speculate" because the conclusion points somewhere other than capitalism as the answer, refuse to admit that most crimes "for some odd reason" seem to happen in poor and especially black neighborhoods.

I'm not willing to put the blame for this on capitalism any more than I'm willing to blame it on race. I'm not after contrived or "conventient" answers.

But I really, really, really don't mind -- that's what you don't seem to understand!

I amire your honesty, but little else.

Capitalist Imperial

5th August 2004, 00:31

Originally posted by Never Forget, Never [email protected] 31 2004, 12:40 AM
This reminds me of the rhetoric that comes out of the White House. The economy's great, look at last month's numbers.

You can pour over the reports all you want. But I would suggest going outside, walking through your neighborhoods, and seeing how the "middle class" in America lives today. And I mean the "middle class". The ones who make 35k a year.

That's STILL the median income in this country, and more of us slip under that mark every year. Mostly because of "free trade" ie job exportation and plastic crap importation.
35K/ year is plenty of money.

Hot Dog Day #84

5th August 2004, 22:03

Even though Gore actually got more votes.
the democrats have only themselves to blame. its them who decided to only call for a recount in the three counties where they thought they would get the most votes. if they had done the truly democratic thing and asked for all states to be recounted, they would have won and the republicans would not have been able to stop them.

poetic justice i like to see it as.

The Sloth

5th August 2004, 22:56

Explain how it is owned at the expense of the majority.

...Those that do not have the capital that the top 10% of the world do probably have less property??? :blink:

At whose expense ? What if they don't want to provide you with these things ? It's a safe bet force is going to be applied to them if they don't comply.

At no one's expense. Under capitalism, if you get paid $6/hr at a factory, the factory owner probably collects twice as much when the products are sold, and makes the same profit off of everyone else. Under communism, what would be "profit" is instead distributed back to the community instead of collected and concentrated into the hands of the few.

What do you mean by "exploitation" ?

You know, you do the work, and someone else collects the profit. :lol:

...or demand that we pay them more.

And because the "capitalist class" wants to oh so badly see their employees strike, they make them watch anti-union propaganda when faced with a worker that wants to join one.

Better for whom ?

The people.

What do you mean by "fair" ?

Fair
Pronunciation Key (fâr)
adj. fair·er, fair·est

7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.

How should I know ? How is it relevent ?

It's not relevant to you; it's relevant to the people that live in the projects.

Everyone knows that drugs mess you up.

And since everyone knows that drugs are so harmful, they take them intentionally for the purpose of "not being harmed"?

I'm not willing to put the blame for this on capitalism any more than I'm willing to blame it on race. I'm not after contrived or "conventient" answers.

Would you please point to the things you CAN put the blame on? It's either that blacks are inherently violent and lazy or it's the system they live in.

Have you not studied the very basics of behavior? Do you not remember learning about the "nature vs. nurture" debate? It's either nature (inherent racial tendencies, in this case) or nurture (society/present material conditions) that determines behavior.

But oh, I know I left you feeling as if I "copped out" on your question of how "murder" accounts for most of the crime when blacks, upon being poor, would rather improve their economic situation through crimes that would allow them to reach a higher status.

Well, first of all, consider this: those statistics are for the "MOST WANTED" criminals...I doubt the cops will go through the trouble of finding a picture of some black guy that was selling marijuana on Nostrand Avenue :lol:

Second, the murder statistics prove that blacks have a tendency to be violent due to the environment they grow up in (unless, of course, YOU believe that it is their "nature" that determines this behavior). This shows something is wrong.

Third, if you want statistics to prove that blacks in the projects are comitting crimes that would help improve their ECONOMIC situation, then look at this:

INMATES BY RACE

White: 100,593 (56.7%)

Black: 71,156 (40.1%)

Asian: 2,870 (1.6%)

Native
American: 2,899 (1.6%)

Blacks, making up about 12% of the population, make up 40.1% of the prisoners.

Note that "white" means both Caucasian and Hispanic. If you are interested in only the Hispanic prisoners:

ETHNICITY

Hispanic: 57,029 (32.1%)

Thus, Hispanics make up 32.1% Subtracting that from 56.7%, you will see that Caucasians actually make up about 24.6% of the inmates, in a society that is 65% Caucasian.

TYPES OF OFFENSES (calculated for those with offense-specific information available)

Drug Offenses: 87,174 (54.3%)
Robbery: 10,228 (6.4%)

Thus, almost 61% of the crimes commited are for the purpose of "improving" economic situation.

Of the 246,100 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2001, 139,700 (56.7%) were black, 47,000 (19%) were Hispanic, and 57,300 (23.2%) were white.

56.7% + 19% = almost 76% of drug offenses are committed by individuals that make up about 25% of the population. Interesting enough, these are the poorest races commiting the crimes that would help their economic situation best. Of course, these are the percentage of drug dealers and users that are caught. Many are not, especially considering the fact that police officers oftentimes don't go to neighborhoods such as Crown Heights and arrest the dealers.

Unequal political representation:

"Thirteen percent of all adult black men -- 1.4 million -- are disenfranchised, representing one-third of the total disenfranchised population and reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. Election voting statistics offer an approximation of the political importance of black disenfranchisement: 1.4 million black men are disenfranchised compared to 4.6 million black men who voted in 1996."

(Even though it's not relevant, I thought I'd throw that in.)

Between 1995 and 2001, the increasing number of violent offenders accounted for 63% of the total growth of the State prison population; 15% of the total growth was attributable to the increasing number of drug offenders.

According to the above statistic, violence can be attributed to the increasing usage and selling of drugs, mostly affecting blacks. I guess this augments my argument that many of these murders are not over "petty arguments," but over crimes that deal with "economic situation"!

Now, you said those that "use drugs" are "stupid"...I'm sure you will say the same thing about those that "sell drugs," too.

Thus, since it's mostly blacks and Hispanics that seem to sell and use, it is as if there is a "wave of stupidity" that's flowing through the non-white races....and I guess it has to do with an "inherent deficiency of the brain" considering how the system can never be blamed, correct?!?!?!

Done.

Osman Ghazi

5th August 2004, 22:57

35K/ year is plenty of money.

You would know? How much do you make?

Actually wait, I take that back 35K American is a shitload of cash. That's probably a regular middle-class job. I mean 18K canadian (about 14k american) is the poverty line and 16% of the population lives below it.

Osman Ghazi

5th August 2004, 22:59

Capitalist Imperial

6th August 2004, 00:56

35k American is OK, I mean, it is pretty much middle class, and it goes pretty far (except maybe in Cali or NYC).

It is by no means rich by U.S. standards, but it is enough to maybe buy a house, or at least rent a decent place, feed yourself, cloth yourself, have a car and even have some extra bucks to go but a ticket to F 9/11.

pandora

6th August 2004, 01:13

Actually this was in response to Hot Sexy Girl or Chick whatever the hell she wants to be called's contention on the US being such a lovely county with all of it's foreign aid,
Guerrilla added this:

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 01:09 AM
Got rid of Nazism. A typical cappie argument. You opened yourself up for this. Let me just quick go over some of the tolotolitarian regimes the US has supported over the years;

Mussolini (at first), Batista, Somoza, Ubico, Mont, The Shah, Marcos, Duvalier (both of them), Pinochet, Noriega, Saddam and the Saudi Royals and there are plenty of others that I didn't mention. The backing of these monsters far out ways anything we did in World War 2.

By the way, the US contributes far less foreign aid than Germany, Italy, France and Canada.
My Response to the Foreign Aid Bullshit:
Aid my ass,
Hey didn't the US get busted in the world court yesterday over using it's $300 billion in farm subsidies to large corporations to undercut prices in third world markets and collapse their agriculture buisnesses.

Just ask any Jamaican why they no longer produce milk, Haitian about rice, in fact the only reason the greedy fucks in Utah want to open the market to Cuba is to bleed their market dry.

It works like this, your generous AID package actually is real cheap crops like potatoes at below market cost. So everyone grabs US potatoes and the potato producers in Jamaica [true] went out of business.

No sooner does the local market close then low and behold the U.S. doubles and triples the price of potatoes to beyond what the Jamaican price was, but just enough so that the Jamaican farmers couldn't get the price to rebuild their industry.

It was policies such as this that made Jamaican dairy farmers empty pipes of milk into the river.

Now that was stupid, if they knew more about communism and markets they would have given the milk away and undercut the US subsidies.

Capitalist Imperial

6th August 2004, 01:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:13 AM
Actually this was in response to Hot Sexy Girl or Chick whatever the hell she wants to be called's contention on the US being such a lovely county with all of it's foreign aid,
Guerrilla added this:

My Response to the Foreign Aid Bullshit:
Aid my ass,
Hey didn't the US get busted in the world court yesterday over using it's $300 billion in farm subsidies to large corporations to undercut prices in third world markets and collapse their agriculture buisnesses.

Just ask any Jamaican why they no longer produce milk, Haitian about rice, in fact the only reason the greedy fucks in Utah want to open the market to Cuba is to bleed their market dry.

It works like this, your generous AID package actually is real cheap crops like potatoes at below market cost. So everyone grabs US potatoes and the potato producers in Jamaica [true] went out of business.

No sooner does the local market close then low and behold the U.S. doubles and triples the price of potatoes to beyond what the Jamaican price was, but just enough so that the Jamaican farmers couldn't get the price to rebuild their industry.

It was policies such as this that made Jamaican dairy farmers empty pipes of milk into the river.

Now that was stupid, if they knew more about communism and markets they would have given the milk away and undercut the US subsidies.
You fail to mention direct financial aid, debt relief, and disaster relief, all of which the US is the leader in providing.

Frederick_Engles

6th August 2004, 02:06

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 31 2004, 05:19 PM
To call that a failiure of capitalism presupposes that the purpose of capitalism is something other than preventing the initiation of force. It isn't.

If you are in jail, you are there for a reason, remember ?

It don't matter is you're black or white.
Let me get this strait- you think that because a man holds the same name as a convicted felon, he should not be allowed to vote?

Osman Ghazi

6th August 2004, 06:21

You fail to mention direct financial aid, debt relief, and disaster relief, all of which the US is the leader in providing.

Yes, because you have 10 times the economy of any other country. As a percentage, it is much lower than many other countries.

Professor Moneybags

6th August 2004, 14:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:06 AM
Let me get this strait- you think that because a man holds the same name as a convicted felon, he should not be allowed to vote?
Would you mind explaining where the hell you got that idea from ?

Osman Ghazi

6th August 2004, 15:23

Would you mind explaining where the hell you got that idea from ?

That is exactly what happened in Florida. People couldn't vote because they had the same name as a convicted criminal and were wrongly removed from the voting registry. Wasn't it some insane number of people that it happened to? Like 50,000 or something? Maybe that's just something I heard.

Capitalist Imperial

6th August 2004, 17:25

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 6 2004, 06:21 AM

Yes, because you have 10 times the economy of any other country. As a percentage, it is much lower than many other countries.

Yes, because you have 10 times the economy of any other country.

Wow, and they say capitalism doesn't work.

As a percentage, it is much lower than many other countries.

Are you sure the percentage is lower? You may have me there.

Even if it is, it doesn't matter. We still give more than anyone in pure dollars, and shouldn't be held to a percentage.

I would like to see reports of who gives what percent of their total economy to world relief.

Osman Ghazi

6th August 2004, 21:35

Wow, and they say capitalism doesn't work.

Well I've never said that. Capitalism 'works' in as much as it does what it is supposed to; i.e. the economy rises, but it is rare that anyone but the very rich will see any significant benefit.

Are you sure the percentage is lower? You may have me there.

Even if it is, it doesn't matter. We still give more than anyone in pure dollars, and shouldn't be held to a percentage.

I would like to see reports of who gives what percent of their total economy to world relief.

Polls have shown that Americans view foreign aid with suspicion -- with some convinced that sending their tax dollars abroad is a waste of resources. The result is that the share of the federal budget devoted to foreign aid has declined steadily since World War II.

Since the late 1940s, the proportion of the federal budget devoted to foreign aid has declined from more than 15 percent to 0.72 percent this year.
Top recipients of U.S. foreign aid in 2000 were Israel and Egypt -- at $4 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively.
Other top beneficiaries include Colombia, the Palestinian West Bank/Gaza, Jordan, Russia, Bolivia, Ukraine, Kosovo and Peru.
As a proportion of gross domestic product, Denmark leads in foreign aid spending at 1.06 percent, not including military assistance -- followed by the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Luxemburg, Belgium, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom.
The United Nations would like to see countries give at least 0.70 percent of GDP -- the exact amount pledged by Luxemburg. Not including military assistance, the U.S. contributes 0.10 percent of GDP.

Critics say that too often U.S. aid has been skimmed off by corrupt foreign governments, or wasted on projects and programs that undercut the growth of important economic sectors in recipient countries.

That satisfy your curiosity?

Looks like the U$ pales in comparison to most other industrialized nations.

Capitalist Imperial

7th August 2004, 01:27

In percentage, not dollars.

I don't think we should be criticized because of our percentage, our gifts are still generous.

Hot Dog Day #84

7th August 2004, 01:32

The US has enough of its own problems to be worrying about sending aid to other countries. Not the trade deficit, that despite what people think is no major problem at the moment, payment can be delayed and spread over quite some time.

But the population time bomb in the states is going to increase the public spending budget by a huge amount. The equivolent of all social security costs doubling I remember hearing. Because of there being more old people, more pensions, people on welfare, etc. Which personally is why I dont see the US position as a superpower lasting longer than a decade or so, after that it is going to have to cut military funding by a very significant amount.

Capitalist Imperial

7th August 2004, 01:55

I think you're making a bad assumption if you think the US will sacrifice that much military spending for social funding.

V.I.Lenin

7th August 2004, 02:42

In matters of the funding of war it breaks down to this simple equation - a nations government robs the coffers of its citizens,funds which could be used toward improving health and education,programs aimed at assisting the homeless and senior citizens,medical research,transportation and housing,etc.,the list goes on and on.

Rather,the government puts these funds into building up and dispatching troops in order to attack and destroy other nations thus causing all the more poverty and misery.

It would seem that the U.S. has gone mad with power since the dissolution of the USSR,now that the cold war has ended and the U.S. feels she has no equal among the nations in matters of nuclear weaponry and by this she,as a school-yard bully,can simply push her weight wherever she wants,whenever she wants.

With the recent actions of the U.S. it would likewise now seem that the UN charter is nothing more than an empty document fit for the fire.

In connection with the 'bully' analogy one can consider what may eventually happen,just as in the case of most bullies,some little,unimposing figure generally always will emerge to take the bully down or else,as on many a school-yard,a group of children will band together saying,'enough is enough' ... in retrospect of such things the U.S. indeed appears to be treading on thin ice.

Hot Dog Day #84

7th August 2004, 04:25

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 01:55 AM
I think you're making a bad assumption if you think the US will sacrifice that much military spending for social funding.
It will have to cut spending somewhere. If it halves social security - what it pays people, and halves the amount of services availible to people, it will cause huge political unpopularity.

The Sloth

8th August 2004, 13:49

Moneybags, are you going to reply to the second-to-last post on the previous page?

Here: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...pic=27649&st=40 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27649&st=40)

Raisa

8th August 2004, 22:10

<<I do not expect you to believe the numbers >>

Why do YOU?

Professor Moneybags

9th August 2004, 16:05

...Those that do not have the capital that the top 10% of the world do probably have less property??? :blink:

But how is it owned at the expense of the majority ?

At no one's expense. Under capitalism, if you get paid $6/hr at a factory, the factory owner probably collects twice as much when the products are sold, and makes the same profit off of everyone else. Under communism, what would be "profit" is instead distributed back to the community instead of collected and concentrated into the hands of the few.

This is totally ignorant. What about the money that needs to go back into production (i.e. most of it) ?

You know, you do the work, and someone else collects the profit. :lol:

Such as wealth redistribution programs ?

And because the "capitalist class" wants to oh so badly see their employees strike, they make them watch anti-union propaganda when faced with a worker that wants to join one.

So what ? People have minds of their own, don't they ?

The people.

Don't give me that. The only ones who benefit from socialism are the "special interest" groups and those running it.

Fair
Pronunciation Key (fâr)
adj. fair·er, fair·est

7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.

"Fair" is pretty subjective.

Would you please point to the things you CAN put the blame on? It's either that blacks are inherently violent and lazy or it's the system they live in.

Although this is a false dichotomy, you are right about one thing; it is the system they live in. That system sure isn't capitalism.

Have you not studied the very basics of behavior? Do you not remember learning about the "nature vs. nurture" debate? It's either nature (inherent racial tendencies, in this case) or nurture (society/present material conditions) that determines behavior.

I know quite alot about this subject. Messing up in the "nurture" part usually involves the child being taught bad mental habits by parents, but these are nothing compared to the bad mental habits taught in schools.

Thus, almost 61% of the crimes commited are for the purpose of "improving" economic situation.

But this still doesn't address the issue; what you are advocating as a remedy is that the government (or whoever) commit the same crimes on their behalf, only legally.

Thus, since it's mostly blacks and Hispanics that seem to sell and use, it is as if there is a "wave of stupidity" that's flowing through the non-white races....and I guess it has to do with an "inherent deficiency of the brain" considering how the system can never be blamed, correct?!?!?!

Seeing as both communists and these criminals both seem to think that killing someone and taking their money is an exceptable way of behaving, perhaps what we are seeing is a deficiency not in intelligence, but in morality.

The Sloth

31st August 2004, 20:58

But how is it owned at the expense of the majority ?

When you are allowing a bunch of Africans and South Americans "entry" into your beautiful factory and/or plantation, telling them to work long hours at manual labor for horrible pay, while you collect the profits of their labor, then it is you that is able to own most of the property; on the other hand, the African and the South American have significantly diminishing returns and thus cannot own as much property.

In other words....when your job is to "manage capital" and "strategically" move around factories to places where most profits can be collected (usually the Third World), you are able to collect the commodity of labor, then transform it into capital, while returning a tiny percentage back to the individuals doing the real work.

And a note on "overproduction"...this is just a fancy term for the products created which the workers cannot afford to purchase. I'm sure quite the number of goods are destroyed to "cater" to the current "laws" of the market....and while this surplus is destroyed, millions in the world are going hungry.

This is totally ignorant. What about the money that needs to go back into production (i.e. most of it) ?

"Most" of it is QUITE incorrect...you make it seem as if 80% of the profits collected "go back" into "improvements" of the product and back in "production." Some of this money goes back into production, but the rest is collected by the factory/plantation owner.

For example, in New York City, if no owner was to profit from the metro system, riding the bus or the subway would cost about fifty or so cents, and great improvements could be made on top of it.

Such as wealth redistribution programs ?

No, not exactly; you're putting the profits back into the hands of the real workers. You seem to think as if they are "less important" than the owner. I say, "yes, let us have factory supervisors"....however, let them be paid no more than those creating the products.

So what ? People have minds of their own, don't they ?

Who gives a fuck? They're attempting to brainwash the masses.

Don't give me that. The only ones who benefit from socialism are the "special interest" groups and those running it.

This is why you institute "socialism" not as a program such as selective welfare, but as the one and only economic system in existence. "Special interest groups" are struck down and become non-existent as everything is maintained by the people, with no bureaucrats hiding in the midst.

"Fair" is pretty subjective.

Yes -- I think it's "unfair" that millions are starving, while you think it is.

And since it is difficult to change people's minds on that, I think it would be "fair" that "shooting squads" become instituted in a communist society. :lol:

Although this is a false dichotomy, you are right about one thing; it is the system they live in. That system sure isn't capitalism.

Yes, because America is a socialist nation.

So is the continent of Africa -- in its entirety.

I know quite alot about this subject. Messing up in the "nurture" part usually involves the child being taught bad mental habits by parents, but these are nothing compared to the bad mental habits taught in schools.

Actually, expert clinical psychologists commonly believe that the parents in early stages of the child's development are the ones that impact the child's future course of behavior, so I don't need your "opinion" that schools teach children these "decadent patterns of behavior."

Now, let me dig out an old paragraph of a book I have already quoted for you in this thread. It explicitly states that poverty and other social conditions help determine the child's behavior, and, of course, the mother's method of "teaching" what is "right and wrong"; Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D., a professor of clinical psychology, writes in his book The Growth of the Mind and the Endangered Origins of Intelligence:

“Furthermore, when emotional risk factors were added to social and economic ones, we found that children who came from families with four or more adverse factors, such as depressed or addicted parents, a harsh emotional climate, poor education, low income, and low occupational and social standing, were twenty-four times likelier than children from homes with no more than one adverse factor to score below 85 in IQ. Kids from more fortunate homes scored overwhelmingly in the normal to superior range. In addition, as expected, children from families plagued by difficulties suffered more behavioral problems. Follow-up studies of these children at age thirteen confirmed these findings.”

As a back-up to these studies, it seems as if addiction runs rampant in neighborhoods of color (and thus, neighborhoods of LOW INCOME), along with depression associated with addiction and harsh emotional climates.

See a pattern yet?

But this still doesn't address the issue; what you are advocating as a remedy is that the government (or whoever) commit the same crimes on their behalf, only legally.

Wow, you were quick to run away from the point I made.

I said, after some statistical hunts, "thus, almost 61% of the crimes commited are for the purpose of 'improving' economic situation" right after you told me that the statistics I previously provided did not "prove" that the crimes I was talking about WERE NOT in an effort to "improve economic situation." You did not imply that my point was irrelevant THEN, but, after proving to you the origin of crime, you are dismissing it as "not addressing the issue."

Now, let's get back to the point you just made: the "government" is committing a crime if it re-distributes the wealth, "only legally." Well, it has been shown over and over again that no one deserves to control a huge percentage of the wealth, to have this power and influence within the hands of a minority that is able to pass legislation favorable to an elite's interests, devise mass propaganda campaigns (such as painting Israel as a "victim" when the verdict has been in on that issue since 1948 -- the very year that the terrorist state was established) and etcetera.

Thus, your point is irrelevant.

However, I would like to also say that your usage of the word "crime" makes no sense. A "crime" is a transgression of law and authority, the same law and authority which is an artificial invention used to keep the masses in check, developed the second a minority is able to put itself into a position of power, even when the people's intentions from the start have been to refuse to set up "official laws" or an "official government." I think what you are trying to say is in regards to "ethics" -- whether it is right for a group of people to take your wealth and prevent you from profiting (at others' expense) for your own personal gain, only to "give back" a minor amount of commodities into the market.

It has been proven that, "yes, it is right."

So, it all breaks down from there.

Anyway, I would just like to, before continuing any further, provide for you the causes of crimes:

Causes of Crime

Three great categories of causes produce these anti-social acts called crimes. They are social, physiological, and physical. I shall begin with the last-named causes. They are less well known, but their influence is indisputable.

Physical Causes

When one sees a friend mail a letter which he has forgotten to address, one says this is an accident--it is unforeseen. These accidents, these unexpected events, occur in human societies with the same regularity as those which can be foreseen. The number of unaddressed letters which will be mailed continues from year to year with astounding regularity. Their number may vary slightly each year, but only slightly. Here we have so capricious a factor as absentmindedness. However, this factor is subject to laws that are just as rigorous as those governing the movements of the planets.

The same is true for the number of murders committed from year to year. With the statistics for previous years in hand, anyone can predict in advance, with striking exactitude, the approximate number of murders that will be committed in the course of the year in every country of Europe.

The influence of physical causes on our actions is still far from being completely analyzed. It is, however, known that acts of violence predominate in summer whereas in winter acts against property take the lead. When one examines the curves traced by Prof. Enrico Ferri and when one observes the curve for acts of violence rise and fall with the curve for temperature, one is vividly impressed by the similarity of the two curves and one understands how much of a machine man is. Man who boasts of his free will is as dependent on the temperature, the winds, and the rain as any other organism. Who will doubt these influences? When the weather is fine and the harvest good, and when the villagers feel at their ease, certainly they will be less likely to end their petty squabbles with knife thrusts. When the weather is bad and the harvest poor, the villagers become morose and their quarrels will take on a more violent character.

Physiological Causes

The physiological causes, those which depend on the brain structure, the digestive organs, and the nervous system, are certainly more important than the physical causes. The influence of inherited capacities as well as of physical organization on our acts has been the object of such searching investigation that we can form a fairly correct idea of its importance. When Cesare Lombroso maintains that the majority of our prison inmates have some defect of their brain structure, we can accept this declaration on condition that we compare the brains of those who died in prison with those who died outside under generally bad living conditions. When he demonstrates that the most brutal murders are perpetrated by individuals who have some serious mental defect, we agree because this statement has been confirmed by observation. But when Lombroso declares that society has the right to take measures against the defectives, we refuse to follow him. Society has no right to exterminate those who have diseased brains. We admit that many of those who commit these atrocious acts are almost idiots. But not all idiots become murderers.

In many families, in palaces as well as insane asylums, idiots were found with the same traits which Lombroso considers characteristic of "criminal insanity." The only difference between them and those sent to the gallows is the environment in which they lived. Cerebral diseases can certainly stimulate the development of an inclination to murder, but it is not inevitable. Everything depends on the circumstances in which the individual suffering from a mental disease is placed.

Every intelligent person can see from the accumulated facts that the majority of those now treated as criminals are people suffering from some malady, and that, consequently, it is necessary to cure them by the best of care instead of sending them to prison where the disease will only be aggravated.

If each one of us subjects himself to a severe analysis, he will see that at times there pass through his mind the germs of ideas, quick as a flash, which constitute the foundations for evil deeds. We repudiated these ideas, but if they had found a favorable response in our circumstances, or, if other sentiments, such as love, pity and the sense of brotherhood had not counteracted these flashes of egoistic and brutal thoughts, they would have ended by leading to an evil act. In brief, the physiological causes play an important part in leading men to prison, but they are not the causes of "criminality" properly speaking. These affections of the mind, the cerebrospinal system, etc., might be found in their incipience among us all. The great majority of us have some one of these maladies. But they do not lead a person to commit an anti-social act unless external circumstances give them a morbid turn.

The Social Causes

But if physical causes have so strong an influence on our actions, if our physiology so often becomes the cause of the anti-social deeds we commit, how much more potent are the social causes. The most forward-looking and intelligent minds of our time proclaim that society as a whole is responsible for every anti-social act committed. We have our part in the glory of our heroes and geniuses; we also share in the acts of our assassins. It is we who have made them what they are,--the one as well as the other.

Year in and year out thousands of children grow up in the midst of the moral and material filth of our great cities, in the midst of a population demoralized by hand to mouth living. These children do not know a real home. Their home is a wretched lodging today, the streets tomorrow. They grow up without any decent outlets for their young energies. When we see the child population of large cities grow up in this fashion, we can only be astonished that so few of them become highwaymen and murderers. What surprises me is the depth of the social sentiments among humanity, the warm friendliness of even the worst neighborhoods. Without it, the number of these that would declare open warfare on society would be even greater. Without this friendliness, this aversion to violence, not a stone would be left of our sumptuous city palaces.

And at the other end of the ladder, what does the child growing up on the streets see? Luxury, stupid and insensate, smart shops, reading matter devoted to exhibiting wealth, a money-worshipping cult developing a thirst for riches, a passion for living at the expense of others. The watchword is: "Get rich. Destroy everything that stands in your way, and do it by any means save those that will land you in jail." Manual labor is despised to a point where our ruling classes prefer to indulge in gymnastics than handle a spade or a saw. A calloused hand is considered a sign of inferiority and a silk dress of superiority.

Society itself daily creates these people incapable of leading a life of honest labor, and filled with anti-social desires. She glorifies them when their crimes are crowned with financial success. She sends them to prison when they have not "succeeded." We will no longer have any use for prisons, executioners, or judges when the social revolution will have wholly changed the relations between capital and labor, when there are no more idlers, when each can work according to his inclination for the common good, when every child will be taught to work with his hands at the same time that his mind and soul get normal development.

Man is the result of the environment in which he grows up and spends his life. If he is accustomed to work from childhood, to being considered as a part of society as a whole, to understanding that he cannot injure anyone without finally feeling the effects himself, then there will be found few cases of violation of moral laws.

Two-thirds of the acts condemned as crimes today are acts against property. They will disappear along with private property. As for acts of violence against people, they already decrease in proportion to the growth of the social sense and they will disappear when we attack the causes instead of the effects.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...isonsmoral.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/prisonsmoral.html)

Seeing as both communists and these criminals both seem to think that killing someone and taking their money is an exceptable way of behaving, perhaps what we are seeing is a deficiency not in intelligence, but in morality.

So, basically, blacks are the ones with the least amount of morals, correct? You substituted one idea for the other, Professor.

This goes back to my previous statement:

1) It is either the blacks' inherent racial make-up, or
2) The system that they live in.

It seems to be affecting a huge racial demographic. Hmmm, I wonder what makes it so..... But so you don't have to wonder about it, I'll just say that it has to do with "poverty", the idiocy of the profitable rap videos that many black teenagers look up to, and the forcing of blacks to be made "slaves to wealth," thus making it "common" to find crimes disproportionately fall upon blacks.

Anyway, we all know the origins of "morality" and "ethics"...

Let me explain.

First of all, morality has nothing to do with religion, any supernatural forces, gods, devils, or other irrelevant superstitions. There are several ideas on the origins of "morality," "good" and "evil."

One has to do with the factor of imagination. Any individual existing within a non-oppressive society and is thus unaffected by adverse social conditions is bound to feel sympathy towards others. For example, if you see a child being beat, you are most likely picturing yourself as the child, watching his tears, and attempting to come to terms with his pain. You feel intense sympathy, and this forces you to feel pain.

Another deals with the pursuit of what is best for the rest of society. For example, robbing a convenience store is "immoral" because you are subjecting another individual to a poor situation for your own profit. Since you profit, and the store clerk does not, this has an adverse effect and forces you to feel "immoral." Giving up some money to those less fortunate and etcetera is beneficial to society. This is especially true in the rest of the animal kingdom. Those that say "ants" have no "morals" are sadly mistaken. If a greedy ant, for example, is getting fat at the expense of the rest of the colony and is stealing food, etc. then, during a fight between a rival colony, it is the greedy ant that his comrades will attack, not the rival colony first. This has been demonstrated and proven many times, and similar situatons have been seen with any other given animal in the world.

What seperates us from animals in intelligent thought -- they are nearly incapable of existing as a "single kingdom," as they don't go any further than the concept of "mutual aid," a phenomenon that proves the idea of cooperation for a stated objective. Humans, on the other hand, can develop an intelligence that proves "mutual aid" is profitable not only for a single region or society/branch of humanity, but for the whole of humanity. This has been proven and demonstrated in real-life, as well as economics -- the practical and objective translation of action and relationship simplified into the concept of goods and services (and, unfortunately, in this decadent society, also needlessly simplified into "money").

The other idea regarding morality, which is the root of all the aforementioned theories, is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. You would never give your clothes up to a naked and shivering man -- unless you get a certain pleasure out of helping others that outweighs your loss. And while it may pain you to be cold and shivering, giving up your clothing to another, you do it only because it pains you much more to see the other individual in such a sorry state.

The "lack" of morals comes from, as I have said, adverse social conditions. If you want dozens of proofs for this assertion and much more information and such, I suggest you read the following, since I can't type all of that out:

http://www.pugzine.com/arch03.html

Nyder

2nd September 2004, 04:34

In other words....when your job is to "manage capital" and "strategically" move around factories to places where most profits can be collected (usually the Third World), you are able to collect the commodity of labor, then transform it into capital, while returning a tiny percentage back to the individuals doing the real work.

And.. assuming the labour theory of value is correct... how can you prove that the value added from capital management is less then the inputs from labour (please don't give me your personal opinion, I want hard facts)?

ComradeRed

2nd September 2004, 05:55

And.. assuming the labour theory of value is correct... how can you prove that the value added from capital management is less then the inputs from labour (please don't give me your personal opinion, I want hard facts)? Because the management wasn't labour but service. You see, without the labor there wouldn't have been a commodity to begin with.

revolutionindia

2nd September 2004, 06:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 11:25 AM
Because the management wasn't labour but service. You see, without the labor there wouldn't have been a commodity to begin with.
But in the near future machines will take over and human labour will be made redundent
Thats when the real crisis will start

Comrade Hector

2nd September 2004, 07:20

For hotsexygrl: Perhaps you should be sure which countries you're refering to before letting your mouth write a check your brain can't cash.

The Sloth

2nd September 2004, 12:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 04:34 AM
And.. assuming the labour theory of value is correct... how can you prove that the value added from capital management is less then the inputs from labour (please don't give me your personal opinion, I want hard facts)?
I never said anything is "less" or "more." The "management" of a factory, supervision, etc. is just as important as creating the products. Thus, the "value" is the same.

I called the creation of the products the "real work" only because, in this society, you are paid much less for doing that kind of labor as opposed to "management."

Nyder

3rd September 2004, 03:10

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 2 2004, 12:39 PM
I never said anything is "less" or "more." The "management" of a factory, supervision, etc. is just as important as creating the products. Thus, the "value" is the same.

I called the creation of the products the "real work" only because, in this society, you are paid much less for doing that kind of labor as opposed to "management."
That's only YOUR concept of value. I told you not to give me your personal opinion and that is exactly what you did. You cannot say with any objective reasoning that capital management is just as important as human labour inputs from employees, and therefore their value is the SAME. Based on what? That is totally ridiculous.

The Sloth

3rd September 2004, 20:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:10 AM
That's only YOUR concept of value. I told you not to give me your personal opinion and that is exactly what you did. You cannot say with any objective reasoning that capital management is just as important as human labour inputs from employees, and therefore their value is the SAME. Based on what? That is totally ridiculous.
You accuse me of not being "objective" when it comes to proving the fact that capital management is just as important as human labor, but yet your support of the status quo and the profits of the "managers of capital" means that you obviously believe that the "owners of production" deserve more returns for their "management," without objective proof.

My "objective proof"...

Without any individuals creating the product, skilled or unskilled, they will always be necessary for the product to exist. You may argue that for more money, they should "get educated" and pick up a "skill," but it doesn't take away from the fact that these type of workers not only will always exist, but HAVE to exist. The supervisor is just as necessary, and thus his job is not any less "important."

Nyder

6th September 2004, 17:03

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 3 2004, 08:28 PM
You accuse me of not being "objective" when it comes to proving the fact that capital management is just as important as human labor, but yet your support of the status quo and the profits of the "managers of capital" means that you obviously believe that the "owners of production" deserve more returns for their "management," without objective proof.

My "objective" justification for how the scheme works is this:

*The person who owns the business or who is employed to run the business hires employees to create goods and services.
*Their point of doing this is to make money.
*They pay employees what they are worth to them in a competitive market for labour.
*Employees accept whatever wage they think they can realistically bargain for given their demand among potential employees and the wage they are willing to accept to meet their ongoing costs (or if not they may have to work another job).

My "objective proof"...

Without any individuals creating the product, skilled or unskilled, they will always be necessary for the product to exist. You may argue that for more money, they should "get educated" and pick up a "skill," but it doesn't take away from the fact that these type of workers not only will always exist, but HAVE to exist. The supervisor is just as necessary, and thus his job is not any less "important."

WRONG - people will not always be necessary to provide labour - in fact machines account for a greater amount of human labour then in the past (and please don't get into the stupid circular argument: "but human labour created machines" nonsense).

The thing you just can't seem to grasp is - if the supervisor is paid more it means that he/she is valued more by the person paying the bills. It is an individualistic allocation of value. If someone decided an employee was more valuable they may pay the employee more to give him/her an incentive to stay with the company.

Well, my words will fall on deaf ears but you can either have it two ways: let individuals determine value for themselves or have it forced by a ruling authority.