Communism Is A Scam

[Malleus Malificarum]

How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 02:54 AM
How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.
Cuba hasn't used the 'bait & switch' system so the problem is not about communism is it?

Change title to: Stalin was a scammer

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by Latifa+Dec 4 2004, 02:59 AM--> (Latifa @ Dec 4 2004, 02:59 AM)
Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 02:54 AM
How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.
Cuba hasn't used the 'bait & switch' system so the problem is not about communism is it?

Change title to: Stalin was a scammer [/b]
What was promised the Cuban people in order to persuade them to accept Communism? Was that promise delivered? Or did they even have a choice?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Cubans had as much of a choice as say, Americans in the American revolution.

Communism deprives nobody of liberty. All it does is to prevent people from subjugating others by acquiring the means of productions.
It guarantees freedom.
With inequality comes hierarchy. With hierarchy come subjugation of the underclass and subjugation and a lack of freedom. Communism establishes equality and therefore freedom.

Next time come up with a real fuckin argument.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Cubans had as much of a choice as say, Americans in the American revolution.

Then why have so many of them left Cuba and come here as refugees? If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?


Communism deprives nobody of liberty.

Gulags. KGB. Tienenmen. Fucking. Square. Fucking liar.


All it does is to prevent people from subjugating others by acquiring the means of productions.

Yeah, let's ignore the fact that, even according to Marx's fucking manifesto, the people must be deprived of their ability to emigrate, to travel freely, or to take in ideas from non-Communist societies, to say nothing of wiping out their right to dissent when they feel the state has wronged them. You're either the most bald-faced liar I've ever encountered, or delusional to a fucking clinical extreme.


It guarantees freedom.

It can't exist with freedom, because if it allowed freedom, people would freely abandon it. Oh, huh, fancy that -- people have -- they just had to risk their lives and abandon their families to do it.


With inequality comes hierarchy. With hierarchy come subjugation of the underclass and subjugation and a lack of freedom.

Bullshit. First of all, Nature is chock full of inequality. Watch the Discovery Channel for half an hour if you don't get it. Second, explain to me exactly how the effects of hierarchical society -- which is exactly what every practiced form of Communism has been anyway -- are automatically exploitative.


Communism establishes equality and therefore freedom.

Even more bullshit. If those in positions of political power have even one more freedom that those working in the factories do not have, then there is no equality.


Next time come up with a real fuckin argument.

How about you come up with a real fuckin' rebuttal to the real fuckin' argument I already posted, numb-nuts?

[Latifa]

MM ya stupid fuck, the danger in Cubans coming to the US involves the Coast Guard, not the Cuban goverment. Dumbarse. Also they are not travelling in rickety homemade boats but big fuckin cappie speedboats. Supplied no doubt by dickheads like you.

[leftist resistance]

[Quote]Then why have so many of them left Cuba and come here as refugees? If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?[Qoute]

Because they choose to.


[Qoute]Gulags. KGB. Tienenmen. Fucking. Square. Fucking liar.[Qoute]

Fucking.Square.Fucking liar?Wtf?


[Qoute]Yeah, let's ignore the fact that, even according to Marx's fucking manifesto, the people must be deprived of their ability to emigrate, to travel freely, or to take in ideas from non-Communist societies, to say nothing of wiping out their right to dissent when they feel the state has wronged them. You're either the most bald-faced liar I've ever encountered, or delusional to a fucking clinical extreme.[Qoute]

It's Communist Manifesto,not fucking manifesto.

[Qoute]It can't exist with freedom, because if it allowed freedom, people would freely abandon it. Oh, huh, fancy that -- people have -- they just had to risk their lives and abandon their families to do it.[Qoute]

You don't know anything about communism do you?Nah,you don't


[Qoute]Bullshit. First of all, Nature is chock full of inequality. Watch the Discovery Channel for half an hour if you don't get it. Second, explain to me exactly how the effects of hierarchical society -- which is exactly what every practiced form of Communism has been anyway -- are automatically exploitative.[Qoute]

Refer to above


[Qoute]Even more bullshit. If those in positions of political power have even one more freedom that those working in the factories do not have, then there is no equality.[Qoute]

Refer to above


[Qoute]How about you come up with a real fuckin' rebuttal to the real fuckin' argument I already posted, numb-nuts?[Qoute]

Because the real(?) fuckin' argument is shitty,no intelligence at all

[Malleus Malificarum]

MM ya stupid fuck, the danger in Cubans coming to the US involves the Coast Guard, not the Cuban goverment.

They're interdicted by the Coast Guard because they are illegal immigrants. They elect to become illegal immigrants because of the oppressive Cuban government, you dense *****.


Also they are not travelling in rickety homemade boats but big fuckin cappie speedboats.

Oh, really? (http://www.wpbfnews.com/news/2957340/detail.html)

No, I mean it... really? (http://www.canf.org/2004/1in/noticias-de-cuba/2004-jul-17-Increasingly-desperate-Cubans.htm)

Let me just say it again -- Really? (http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/30/cuba.asylum.01/) Now that last one says that the Coast Guard isn't even deporting them anymore.

Oh, and about those speedboats? Those are run by people who are smuggling (http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/castropromisessevmeas.html) Cubans to this country, rather than by individual Cubans fleeing Cuba. Do a little homework.

[Malleus Malificarum]

[Quote]Then why have so many of them left Cuba and come here as refugees? If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?[Qoute]

Because they choose to.


[Qoute]Gulags. KGB. Tienenmen. Fucking. Square. Fucking liar.[Qoute]

Fucking.Square.Fucking liar?Wtf?


[Qoute]Yeah, let's ignore the fact that, even according to Marx's fucking manifesto, the people must be deprived of their ability to emigrate, to travel freely, or to take in ideas from non-Communist societies, to say nothing of wiping out their right to dissent when they feel the state has wronged them. You're either the most bald-faced liar I've ever encountered, or delusional to a fucking clinical extreme.[Qoute]

It's Communist Manifesto,not fucking manifesto.

[Qoute]It can't exist with freedom, because if it allowed freedom, people would freely abandon it. Oh, huh, fancy that -- people have -- they just had to risk their lives and abandon their families to do it.[Qoute]

You don't know anything about communism do you?Nah,you don't


[Qoute]Bullshit. First of all, Nature is chock full of inequality. Watch the Discovery Channel for half an hour if you don't get it. Second, explain to me exactly how the effects of hierarchical society -- which is exactly what every practiced form of Communism has been anyway -- are automatically exploitative.[Qoute]

Refer to above


[Qoute]Even more bullshit. If those in positions of political power have even one more freedom that those working in the factories do not have, then there is no equality.[Qoute]

Refer to above


[Qoute]How about you come up with a real fuckin' rebuttal to the real fuckin' argument I already posted, numb-nuts?[Qoute]

Because the real(?) fuckin' argument is shitty,no intelligence at all
Get a name, chicken-shit, and try offering something other than fallacies in your next pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. And for Fuck's sake, use the tags on the menu, since you obviously can't spell any more proficiently than you can reason.

[Zingu]

Then why have so many of them left Cuba and come here as refugees? If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?


Why aren't they fleeing to the "capitalist paradise" of Haiti eh? Its closer than the U.S! :lol:


Bullshit. First of all, Nature is chock full of inequality. Watch the Discovery Channel for half an hour if you don't get it. Second, explain to me exactly how the effects of hierarchical society -- which is exactly what every practiced form of Communism has been anyway -- are automatically exploitative.


Yeah, Socialism is not about equality, its about the domination of the working class, its not a pretty bed of roses, its when the working class seizes control of the state and takes complete political control and as well as economic control, the capitalists will be lucky if they aren't lined up and shot, maybe you should read a little more to Marx than just the first 10 pages of the Manifesto, its called class struggle, have you any idea what Historical Materialism is about? Read here, get back to me once you have:

Historical Materialism for dummies (http://comradered.superihost.com/article1.html)





Gulags. KGB. Tienenmen. Fucking. Square. Fucking liar.

That was not Communism, that was what you call a "degenerated workers' state" in Trotskyist terminology, read the book "A Revolution Betrayed", plus every one of those revolutions were Marxist-Leninist or Maoist (I hope I won't take any flak from the Leninists are these boards), the Paris Commune was not Leninist is and it worked out fine till the very bloody end, same with the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.

[leftist resistance]

Yawn -_-

An asshole will forever be an asshole

[Latifa]

I like his name, so fuck you!

[Malleus Malificarum]

Why are they fleeing to the "capitalist paradise" of Haiti eh? Its closer than the U.S! :lol:

They're not fleeing to anywhere, they're fleeing away from Communism, jackass.


Yeah, Socialism is not about equality, its about the domination of the working class, its not a pretty bed of roses, its when the working class seizes control of the state and takes complete political control and as well as economic control, the capitalists will be lucky if they aren't lined up and shot, maybe you should read a little more to Marx than just the first 10 pages of the Manifesto, its called class struggle, have you any idea what Historical Materialism is about? Read here, get back to me once you have:

Historical Materialism for dummies (http://comradered.superihost.com/article1.html)

Why bother? You just made my point for me -- Communism cannot exist without creating far more inequality and violations of human rights than it claims to eliminate. Thank you so much for agreeing with me.


That was not Communism, that was what you call a "degenerated workers' state" in Trotskyist terminology, read the book "A Revolution Betrayed", plus every one of those revolutions were Marxist-Leninist or Maoist (I hope I won't take any flak from the Leninists are these boards), the Paris Commune was not Leninist is and it worked out fine till the very bloody end, same with the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.

Oh, shut the fuck up already. I'm so fucking sick of Communists responding to Communist atrocity by claiming that the perpetrators were anything but Communists. Own up to your ideology's fuckups or shut the fuck up.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:43 AM
Yawn -_-

An asshole will forever be an asshole
Say something meaningful, idiot.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:45 AM
I like his name, so fuck you!
He doesn't have a name, Corky. Now go find your drool cup, and ask your mommy to tie your shoe.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 05:46 AM

They're not fleeing to anywhere, they're fleeing away from Communism, jackass.
Okay, look at this way, compare what Marx said in his writings about what the ideal Communist society is and compare to Cuba, you'll see, if you have any intellegence Cuba is nowhere near Communism, neither was the USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, not Union of Soviet "Communist Republics")



Why bother? You just made my point for me -- Communism cannot exist without creating far more inequality and violations of human rights than it claims to eliminate. Thank you so much for agreeing with me.


How can I argue with an ignorant moron who won't even learn what his arguing about? Class struggle, there is no middle ground, don't give me crap about creating inequality, its already there, the capitalists are screwing the proletariat over already, so they derserve the bullet in the head, of course some of the upper class will willingfully come over to the revolutionary side in many cases.

Why are you complaining about human rights? Like the ruling elite of the Imperialist U$A really cares about human rights and freedom.

Get your head out of your ass you ignorant fuck, human right abuses are happening all over.


h, shut the fuck up already. I'm so fucking sick of Communists responding to Communist atrocity by claiming that the perpetrators were anything but Communists. Own up to your ideology's fuckups or shut the fuck up.

You make me laugh, you are a complete idiot you probably have no idea of the diffreneces between Maoism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Revisionism, Marxist Humanitarianism, Stalinism, Titoism, Libertarian Socialism and ect.

We are not 'all the same communists', I do not support the USSR, the Leninists do, but I'm not a Leninist.

You are making yourself look like a complete fool.

Theres alot more than 'what happened in the Soviet Union.'


EDIT- Oh to add to that list-
Syndicalism
Anarchism
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Council Communism
Social Democracy
Democractic Socialism
Labor Unionism

[Latifa]

They're not fleeing to anywhere, they're fleeing away from Communism, jackass.
Haiti is not communist, therefore they could do that.

Oh, shut the fuck up already. I'm so fucking sick of Communists responding to Communist atrocity by claiming that the perpetrators were anything but Communists. Own up to your ideology's fuckups or shut the fuck up.
Are you trying to sound intellegent? Because rest assured you don't.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You know, because the United States wasn't split almost 50/50 in the American Reaction, and American loyalists didn't go on to make up a huge chunk of the population of Ontario . . . and to this day, it's not as though many an American expatriate doesn't exist.

Oh, wait.

(American-History-Student-OWNED!)

[fernando]

Hey many people flee from Mexico to the US...they are capitalists..THAT PROVES CAPITALISM DOESNT WORK!!! :P

[New Tolerance]

How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.

You do realize that this is Marxist-Leninism you are talking about right? That's only ONE form of communism that people are advocating.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Then why have so many of them left Cuba and come here as refugees? If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?

Because they lost their personal fortunes when justice was established.
Why do so many more Mexicans come to the US?


Gulags. KGB. Tienenmen. Fucking. Square. Fucking liar.

You have to suppress the opposition. Just like in any fucking revolution. Or did the Americans not kill any British in the American revolution?

And none of those were communist nations. Arguably socialist.
But that's a cop out. I completely condone the killing of those who refuse to accept equality and freedom and insist upon reverting back to the old system of subjugation and oppression.


Yeah, let's ignore the fact that, even according to Marx's fucking manifesto, the people must be deprived of their ability to emigrate, to travel freely, or to take in ideas from non-Communist societies, to say nothing of wiping out their right to dissent when they feel the state has wronged them. You're either the most bald-faced liar I've ever encountered, or delusional to a fucking clinical extreme.

You forgot to address the point.

And if you wish to argue over the Manifesto, I'll be glad to explain to you the premise of any given excerpt from it.


It can't exist with freedom, because if it allowed freedom, people would freely abandon it. Oh, huh, fancy that -- people have -- they just had to risk their lives and abandon their families to do it.

You're not addressing the points.


Bullshit. First of all, Nature is chock full of inequality. Watch the Discovery Channel for half an hour if you don't get it. Second, explain to me exactly how the effects of hierarchical society -- which is exactly what every practiced form of Communism has been anyway -- are automatically exploitative.

We are different from animals in that we can organize ourselves with justice. At least most of us, anyway.

And communism has never existed.

Hierarchy is the existence of social classes. For one class to retain its position, it must practice oppression and subjugation of the underclass. Nobody is voluntarily a "have-not".


Even more bullshit. If those in positions of political power have even one more freedom that those working in the factories do not have, then there is no equality.

You need to learn what communism is before you try to argue against it.

[Professor Moneybags]

It's Communist Manifesto,not fucking manifesto.

That's certainly debatable.

[Professor Moneybags]

Why aren't they fleeing to the "capitalist paradise" of Haiti eh? Its closer than the U.S! :lol:

Haiti is neither capitalist nor paradise.


Yeah, Socialism is not about equality, its about the domination of the working class,

Ah, the one where a master-race of manual labourers takes over the world and brings heaven on earth. It is would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the world is filled with people who actually believe in this crap.


Historical Materialism for dummies

You got that right.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2004, 05:34 PM

How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.

You do realize that this is Marxist-Leninism you are talking about right? That's only ONE form of communism that people are advocating.
No. Marxism-Leninism is one form of socialism.

[New Tolerance]

No. Marxism-Leninism is one form of socialism.

Right, I stand corrected.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Malleus Malificarum
Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.

I'm afraid I may be responsible for this individual's presence -- he's almost certainly one of the half-dozen brain-dead cold-warriors from Ex-Christian net.

As you've already seen, their "style" of "argumentation" is rather limited...as is their vocabulary.

Only our own godsuckers will have anything to celebrate by MM's arrival; they'll actually get to read atheist posts that are even dumber than their own.

And by a fairly substantial margin at that. :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?

Greed conquers all, not love.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 05:46 AM

They're not fleeing to anywhere, they're fleeing away from Communism, jackass.
Okay, look at this way, compare what Marx said in his writings about what the ideal Communist society is and compare to Cuba, you'll see, if you have any intellegence Cuba is nowhere near Communism, neither was the USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, not Union of Soviet "Communist Republics")

Who gives a fuck what they called it? Marx's idea of Communism hever has been implemented, and never will. Everything that has ever come anywhere near it has resulted in genocidal dictatorships. So you can play all the little word games you want, but the fact remains that collectivist economies enforced by leftist political systems have historically always trampled on civil rights.



Why bother? You just made my point for me -- Communism cannot exist without creating far more inequality and violations of human rights than it claims to eliminate. Thank you so much for agreeing with me.


How can I argue with an ignorant moron who won't even learn what his arguing about? Class struggle, there is no middle ground, don't give me crap about creating inequality, its already there, the capitalists are screwing the proletariat over already, so they derserve the bullet in the head, of course some of the upper class will willingfully come over to the revolutionary side in many cases.

Are you fucking stupid? No middle class? What do you think someone hwo works for a living and earns money on investments is a part of? Jesus, what are you, 12 years old?


Why are you complaining about human rights? Like the ruling elite of the Imperialist U$A really cares about human rights and freedom.

Yeah, let's just ignore all of the civil rights reform since the 1950s. You're an ignorant little fucker, aren't you?


Get your head out of your ass you ignorant fuck, human right abuses are happening all over.

And you propose insituting a system of government that will engage in even worse and more rampant violations. Shut your hole.



h, shut the fuck up already. I'm so fucking sick of Communists responding to Communist atrocity by claiming that the perpetrators were anything but Communists. Own up to your ideology's fuckups or shut the fuck up.

You make me laugh, you are a complete idiot you probably have no idea of the diffreneces between Maoism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Revisionism, Marxist Humanitarianism, Stalinism, Titoism, Libertarian Socialism and ect.

Uh huh. As if all the different brands of Communism are really different things. That's like saying that Christianity was never responsible for human deaths, just because the Crusades were pursued by the Catholic church. Someone seriously needs to fuckstart your cortex, Junior.


We are not 'all the same communists', I do not support the USSR, the Leninists do, but I'm not a Leninist.

Who gives a flying fuck? If your ideology is so radically different from Soviet Communism, does it make a difference? No form of Communism is willingly accepted by a society, and it can't be enforced without violating human rights. Hello?! Retard?!


You are making yourself look like a complete fool.

No, I'm making you debate on an emotional level, a level on which you cannot win. I'm making you play by my rules.


Theres alot more than 'what happened in the Soviet Union.'

And it all resembled what happened in the Soviet Union insofar as civil rights and human life were concerned.


EDIT- Oh to add to that list-
Syndicalism
Anarchism
Anarcho-Communism
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Council Communism
Social Democracy
Democractic Socialism
Labor Unionism

Here's another one: Bullshit evasions. Sums up all the rest rather nicely.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Yeah, let's ignore the fact that, even according to Marx's fucking manifesto, the people must be deprived of their ability to emigrate, to travel freely, or to take in ideas from non-Communist societies, to say nothing of wiping out their right to dissent when they feel the state has wronged them. You're either the most bald-faced liar I've ever encountered, or delusional to a fucking clinical extreme.



Documentation?

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by Malleus Malificarum
Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.

I'm afraid I may be responsible for this individual's presence -- he's almost certainly one of the half-dozen brain-dead cold-warriors from Ex-Christian net.

Holy shit, a Communist taking responsibility for something! I may drop dead of shock! Sadly, this is something you retards can't pin on your little buddy, Redstar, since it wasn't him that brought me here.


As you've already seen, their "style" of "argumentation" is rather limited...as is their vocabulary.

And yet you yourself can't seem to actually answer any of their claims, or mine, except on the level of logical fallacy.


Only our own godsuckers will have anything to celebrate by MM's arrival; they'll actually get to read atheist posts that are even dumber than their own.

Who said I'm an atheist? And what's "dumb" about any of my claims, other than the fact that they undoubtedly leave you stamping your lettle feet and screaming obscenities at your pets? :)

[quote]And by a fairly substantial margin at that. :o

Well, here's a smart one -- you're now a citizen of Malleusland. Yep, the revolution has reached you, Comrade. Now send me your paycheck. :)

[LSD]

Who gives a fuck what they called it? Marx's idea of Communism hever has been implemented, and never will. Everything that has ever come anywhere near it has resulted in genocidal dictatorships. So you can play all the little word games you want, but the fact remains that collectivist economies enforced by leftist political systems have historically always trampled on civil rights.

And you propose insituting a system of government that will engage in even worse and more rampant violations. Shut your hole.

Uh huh. As if all the different brands of Communism are really different things. That's like saying that Christianity was never responsible for human deaths, just because the Crusades were pursued by the Catholic church. Someone seriously needs to fuckstart your cortex, Junior.

Who gives a flying fuck? If your ideology is so radically different from Soviet Communism, does it make a difference? No form of Communism is willingly accepted by a society, and it can't be enforced without violating human rights. Hello?! Retard?!

And it all resembled what happened in the Soviet Union insofar as civil rights and human life were concerned.

As I'm sure you're well aware, names mean precious little.

Augustus claimed to be "first citizen of a democratic Rome, was the Roman Empire democratic?

Saddam Hussein won "election victory" after "election victory', was Iraq democratic?

You claim that "different brands of Communism [aren't] really different things", but what you don't understand is that the countries you mention were never communist at all!

Furthermore, sects and divisions among ideologies do matter. Like you I have no love for the Christian church, but I must admit that there are practical differences between Unitarians and abortion clinic bombers.

Look, are you honestly telling me you see no difference between Sweden's social-democracy and Germany's national-socialism?


Who said I'm an atheist?

"Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age"


No, I'm making you debate on an emotional level, a level on which you cannot win. I'm making you play by my rules.

No one can win an "emotional" argument, that's why most of us use logic instead.


And yet you yourself can't seem to actually answer any of their claims, or mine, except on the level of logical fallacy.

As you said yourself, "I'm making you debate on an emotional level", you are not arguing logically and hence are engaging in a single pervading "logical fallacy" (that of appealing to emotion).

Before you accuse anyone else of fallacies, I would advise you analyze your own.


And what's "dumb" about any of my claims,

Well, her'es a sample of your posts so far in this thread:


You're an ignorant little fucker, aren't you?

Jesus, what are you, 12 years old?

Here's another one: Bullshit evasions. Sums up all the rest rather nicely.

Fucking liar.

You're either the most bald-faced liar I've ever encountered, or delusional to a fucking clinical extreme.

Bullshit.

Even more bullshit.

How about you come up with a real fuckin' rebuttal to the real fuckin' argument I already posted, numb-nuts?

Oh, really?

No, I mean it... really?

Get a name, chicken-shit, and try offering something other than fallacies in your next pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. And for Fuck's sake, use the tags on the menu, since you obviously can't spell any more proficiently than you can reason.

jackass.

Oh, shut the fuck up already.

Say something meaningful, idiot.

He doesn't have a name, Corky. Now go find your drool cup, and ask your mommy to tie your shoe.

hmm.. I think "dumb" is quite appropriate.


other than the fact that they undoubtedly leave you stamping your lettle feet and screaming obscenities at your pets?

So far as I've seen, you are the only one here "screaming obscenities".

[Zingu]

So you can play all the little word games you want, but the fact remains that collectivist economies enforced by leftist political systems have historically always trampled on civil rights.

Go back to history class junior, read a little history on what the Paris Commune was about, it seems the "12 year old" knows more about history than your own self.

[Professor Moneybags]

No one can win an "emotional" argument, that's why most of us use logic instead.

Most of who ?


Before you accuse anyone else of fallacies, I would advise you analyze your own.

That goes for you too, Mr. Might-makes-right.

[BOZG]

We are not 'all the same communists', I do not support the USSR, the Leninists do, but I'm not a Leninist.

We defend the gains made in the USSR, we don't support it.

[NovelGentry]

Are you fucking stupid? No middle class? What do you think someone hwo works for a living and earns money on investments is a part of?

Sounds to me like petty bourgeoisie -- Marxist classes are not defined by wealth so much as they are ownership of the means of production. Investment would assume partial ownership of a company and thus partial ownership of the means of production, however, the person in quesiton still needs to survive. Petty Bourgeoisie.

I'm too lazy to read the rest of this thread and respond to everything, and I'm sure it's just a bunch of other stupid questions like this, so why bother? This just struck my fancy, so there it is.

[zangetsu]

I think its interesting that you bring up the fact that communist governments try to control people in the way of leaving when America and other capitalist governments they keep strict control over people trying to get in... i dont believe either of these controls says much about a government's ideology... it's just a practicle measure ensuring the perpetuation of their respective systems

I have heard the reason South Korea is so moderate and conciliatory to its neighbour is because it does not want the people of North Korean huddled at their door-step if the regime were to collapse

MM, do you not concur with my point?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:35 PM

We are not 'all the same communists', I do not support the USSR, the Leninists do, but I'm not a Leninist.

We defend the gains made in the USSR, we don't support it.
No offence, but shouldnt we, if Communists wish to distance themselves from the Soviet Union, reject all aspects of it? We cant just choose the positive bits and reject the negatives ones.

[New Tolerance]

Uh huh. As if all the different brands of Communism are really different things. That's like saying that Christianity was never responsible for human deaths, just because the Crusades were pursued by the Catholic church. Someone seriously needs to fuckstart your cortex, Junior.

O, so ideas should not be treated differently if they branched from the same thing eh? Most contemporary ideologies claim to be humanist, that is: communism, liberialism, capitalism, libertarianism all call themselves humanist at some point. Hey, they branched from the same thing, the crimes of one must be attributed to the others, so therefore capitalism is also guilty of killing one hundred million....

Ridiculous, no?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:35 PM

We are not 'all the same communists', I do not support the USSR, the Leninists do, but I'm not a Leninist.

We defend the gains made in the USSR, we don't support it.
Hehehe, sorry BOGZ, thank you for clarifying that.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 02:54 AM
How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.
Good post, though I wouldn't classify it as a 'scam' per se (many of today's communists are deluded utopians, not diabolicals servants of Zion).

'Organized religion', despite the occasional atrocity commited in its name, has done more 'good' than 'evil'-- which is exactly what any sensible 'commie' trying to realistically uphold communism would say about his own pet ideology.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Abby Normal+Dec 16 2004, 04:35 PM--> (Abby Normal @ Dec 16 2004, 04:35 PM)
Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 02:54 AM
How else should it be described? It follows the pattern of the textbook bait-and-switch scheme, deprives millions of people of their wealth, their liberty and, for many, their lives, all based on promises it has never kept and, in fact, cannot keep. Only organized religion has resulted in greater loss of personal assets, potential for human achievement, liberty and life, and only by virtue of its greater age.
Good post, though I wouldn't classify it as a 'scam' per se (many of today's communists are deluded utopians, not diabolicals servants of Zion).

'Organized religion', despite the occasional atrocity commited in its name, has done more 'good' than 'evil'-- which is exactly what any sensible 'commie' trying to realistically uphold communism would say about his own pet ideology. [/b]
Good post

Great minds think alike, yet fools seldom differ. Little Mal doesn't show any signs of a great mind, so that kinda narrows it down.

(many of today's communists are deluded utopians, not diabolicals servants of Zion).


Coming from a capitalist, and supported of a failed economic ideology, I find that highly hypocritical.

'Organized religion', despite the occasional atrocity commited in its name, has done more 'good' than 'evil'

What good has organised religion done which out weighs say the Taiping rebellion?

[Professor Moneybags]

Coming from a capitalist, and supported of a failed economic ideology,

By what standard are we judging this failiure ?

[Hate Is Art]

Africa, Asia, South America.

[cormacobear]

I must have 'Easy Mark' written all over me, a Catholic and a Communist.

I would say cudos, in regards to scams goes to the capitalists. For convincing the majority's in democratic society's that they can fail to benefit from the economic equality offered by communism.

[Abby Normal]

Good post

Great minds think alike, yet fools seldom differ. Little Mal doesn't show any signs of a great mind, so that kinda narrows it down.

That saying is redundant; whoever first uttered it needs to make up their mind. :P


(many of today's communists are deluded utopians, not diabolicals servants of Zion).


Coming from a capitalist, and supported of a failed economic ideology, I find that highly hypocritical.

Fool; I am not a 'capitalist'. I see no reason to attach myself to any particular economic system and purpote it as 'The One True Way'; such is far too dogmatic for me. :P

BTW, what is 'highly hypocritical' is how you, a communist, refer to capitalism as 'failed economic ideology'. Isn't a 'world revolution' the grand judge of the 'superiority' of a system? As I do not subscribe to an outdated, nineteenth-century, technology-worshipping, linear view of 'progress', I am not the one who needs to answer this question. By Saint James, ideologues begone! :lol:

[Yes, perhaps ideologically (in terms of the 'ideal system' laid out by Smith, Rand, et al.), but communism in the 'real world' is also quite different from how it appears on paper-- and as a practical, real-world economic system, capitalism, particularly of the 'mixed-economy' variety, is far from 'failed'.]


'Organized religion', despite the occasional atrocity commited in its name, has done more 'good' than 'evil'

What good has organised religion done which out weighs say the Taiping rebellion?

Your small, materialistic worldview provides no answers to the questions that truly nag humans (particularly, with not a small amount of irony, 'The Oppressed' your 'comrades' claim to know so well).

[Zingu]

Fool; I am not a 'capitalist'. I see no reason to attach myself to any particular economic system and purpote it as 'The One True Way'; such is far too dogmatic for me. :P

BTW, what is 'highly hypocritical' is how you, a communist, refer to capitalism as 'failed economic ideology'. Isn't a 'world revolution' the grand judge of the 'superiority' of a system? As I do not subscribe to an outdated, nineteenth-century, technology-worshipping, linear view of 'progress', I am not the one who needs to answer this question. By Saint James, ideologues begone! :lol:


Depends on what it "failed" to procure, if you mean as a fair and balanced system that won't lead to imperialism, war, massive inequality, starvation, racism, fascism, corporate rule, well, yes, it did fail.

I think you have the wrong conception of Marxism, Marxism is not "The One True Way", its been constantly debated, revised, debated over more and questioned....by us Marxists, many have added their own ideas to it, Leninism, Maoism, Social-Democracy, Revisionism ect.
You should tune into one of our debates about if Dialectical Materialism is complete crap or something worthwhile, the whole Marxist camp here is divided over the issue (I'm undecided at the moment :lol: ).
Marxism is merely an interpretation of history and the means of production in relation to society, its been tinkered with, thought about, and is still today.



Your small, materialistic worldview provides no answers to the questions that truly nag humans (particularly, with not a small amount of irony, 'The Oppressed' your 'comrades' claim to know so well).

What? A book made by some old, rich farts which preached patriarchy, slavery, suppression of people's rights and commands an individual's servitude to the existing social order has the answers to life? :blink:

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 05:13 AM
Depends on what it "failed" to procure, if you mean as a fair and balanced system that won't lead to imperialism, war, massive inequality, starvation, racism, fascism, corporate rule, well, yes, it did fail.

None of this has anything to do with the 'success' or 'failure' as a fairly stable, globally-reaching economic system. One problem with Marxism is that it expects too much out of economic systems; the economic sphere will never be the sole cause of or cure for all the world's ills.


I think you have the wrong conception of Marxism, Marxism is not "The One True Way", its been constantly debated, revised, debated over more and questioned....by us Marxists, many have added their own ideas to it, Leninism, Maoism, Social-Democracy, Revisionism ect.
You should tune into one of our debates about if Dialectical Materialism is complete crap or something worthwhile, the whole Marxist camp here is divided over the issue (I'm undecided at the moment :lol: ).
Marxism is merely an interpretation of history and the means of production in relation to society, its been tinkered with, thought about, and is still today.

It is fortunate for you that you do not think along these lines, as I detest Marxists who accept historical materialism as fact and believe that all societies are evolving in a linear fashion toward the 'inevitable' end of communism. This particular piece of dogma is particularly disgusting to me as it is a vestige of nineteenth-century evolutionary determinism (closely tied in with other conceptions of an inevitable linear pattern of progress or decline) and conflicts with what any rational, educated observer of history would conclude (provided he is not souped up on nineteenth century philosophy).

I would be honored to participate in said debates on dialectical materialism, thereby offering my informed opinion-- but I am a 'restricted member', so perhaps you should bring some of them here to OI. :)



What? A book made by some old, rich farts which preached patriarchy, slavery, suppression of people's rights and commands an individual's servitude to the existing social order has the answers to life? :blink:

Presumably you are referring to the Bible, Torah, et al.; I am not a doctrinaire Christian/ Muslim/ etc., nor do I lack doubts about the (exoteric, at least) Semitic religions. Still, their Holy Scriptures provide much that the so-called 'Bible of the Working Man' cannot and never will.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Abby [email protected] 18 2004, 05:28 AM
None of this has anything to do with 'success' or 'failure' as a fairly stable, globally-reaching economic system. One problem with Marxism is that it expects too much out of economic systems; the economic sphere will never be the sole cause of or cure for all the world's ills.




Nothing is perfect or utopia, Communism would just be a better society, society never stands still, constantly evolving, but I do have to point out, as we progress life in society has gotten progressively better and better, what would come after Communism? Who knows?!




I am glad that you think along these lines, as I detest Marxists who accept historical materialism as fact and believe that all societies are evolving in a linear fashion toward the 'inevitable' end of communism. This particular piece of dogma is particularly disgusting to me as it is a vestige of nineteenth-century evolutionism (faith in inevitable progress or decline) and conflicts with what any rational, educated observer of history would conclude (provided he is not souped up on nineteenth century philosophy).


Yes, well, there are some orthodox Marxists around on these boards, go have some arguments with them when they start showing themselves. Marx was a genius, but he was human! Not a prophet or a 'god'



Presumably you are referring to the Bible, Torah, et al.; I am not a doctrinnaire Christian/ Muslim/ etc., nor do I lack doubts about the (exoteric, at least) Semitic religions. Still, their Holy Scriptures provide much that the so-called 'Bible of the Working Man' cannot and never will.

So what are you? A free thinker who follows Idealist philosophy?

[Abby Normal]

Nothing is perfect or utopia, Communism would just be a better society, society never stands still, constantly evolving, but I do have to point out, as we progress life in society has gotten progressively better and better, what would come after Communism? Who knows?!

ROFL, that's the biggest misconception most people in general (and not just Marxists) have about history: continual, linear progress is as much a myth to legitimate, non-ideologue historians and political analysts as the Seven Days are to yourself. Life during the 'Dark Ages' was not better than life under the Roman Empire simply because the 'Dark Ages' came later; most anthropologists would laugh at the assertion that 'Progress' has made our lives indefinitely better than those of 'primitive' hunter-gatherers and agricultural peoples.

Marxists in particular are plagued by this misconception due to the melting of all the factors that affect society into one (namely, the economic factor) that is inherent in their ideology. Switching from one economic system to another that is supposedly 'more evolved' will not guarentee 'a better life' for those involved.


Yes, well, there are some orthodox Marxists around on these boards, go have some arguments with them when they start showing themselves. Marx was a genius, but he was human! Not a prophet or a 'god'

I'm glad you do not accept dialectical materialism unquestioningly.


So what are you? A free thinker who follows Idealist philosophy?

If you mean idealism as opposed to materialism, one might consider me an idealist-- and I do consider myself a free thinker, naturally. ;)

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Abby [email protected] 18 2004, 05:53 AM

ROFL, that's the biggest misconception most people in general (and not just Marxists) have about history: continual, linear progress is as much a myth to legitimate, non-ideologue historians and political analysts as the Seven Days are to yourself. Life during the 'Dark Ages' was not better than life under the Roman Empire simply because the 'Dark Ages' came later; most anthropologists would laugh at the assertion that 'Progress' has made our lives indefinitely better than those of 'primitive' hunter-gatherers and agricultural peoples.

Marxists in particular are plagued by this misconception due to the melting of all the factors that affect society into one (namely, the economic factor) that is inherent in their ideology. Switching from one economic system to another that is supposedly 'more evolved' will not guarentee 'a better life' for those involved.

China was flourishing during this period of the 'Dark Ages', so was the Islamic Empire, not everything is just restricted to what happened in Europe. The world was a pretty isolated place as well, societies did not progress at the same speeds as others due to this. Of course this is different compared to today.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by Zingu+Dec 18 2004, 06:11 AM--> (Zingu @ Dec 18 2004, 06:11 AM)
Abby [email protected] 18 2004, 05:53 AM

ROFL, that's the biggest misconception most people in general (and not just Marxists) have about history: continual, linear progress is as much a myth to legitimate, non-ideologue historians and political analysts as the Seven Days are to yourself. Life during the 'Dark Ages' was not better than life under the Roman Empire simply because the 'Dark Ages' came later; most anthropologists would laugh at the assertion that 'Progress' has made our lives indefinitely better than those of 'primitive' hunter-gatherers and agricultural peoples.

Marxists in particular are plagued by this misconception due to the melting of all the factors that affect society into one (namely, the economic factor) that is inherent in their ideology. Switching from one economic system to another that is supposedly 'more evolved' will not guarentee 'a better life' for those involved.

China was flourishing during this period of the 'Dark Ages', so was the Islamic Empire, not everything is just restricted to what happened in Europe. The world was a pretty isolated place as well, societies did not progress at the same speeds as others due to this. Of course this is different compared to today. [/b]
I was referring to Europe, silly: the example I provided serves as proof that European history did not 'progress' continually, as the fall of the Roman Empire was not a dialectical clash of a 'thesis' and an 'antithesis' that produced some great 'synthesis'; rather, it led to decay. Your statement that different areas of the world were isolated merely affirms my point that we should look at the history of each part of the pre-modern world as a separate whole -- and, BTW, Chinese and Muslim history did not progress continually, either.

[synthesis]

You can't simply say "life" is "better" or "worse" in a certain mode of production; that fails to take into account class antagonisms.

So no, "life during the 'Dark Ages' was not [necessarily] better than life under the Roman Empire simply because the 'Dark Ages' came later." However, it would have been better to have been a serf in the Dark Ages than to have been a slave for the Roman Empire, just as it is easier to be part of the industrial proletariat than to exist in serfdom.

Something that you must understand is that we Marxists always measure progress by the status of the society's working class.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 16 2004, 05:02 PM
Africa, Asia, South America.
Just like USSR, China, Cuba and Cambodia are examples of the failiure of communism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Depends on what it "failed" to procure, if you mean as a fair and balanced system that won't lead to imperialism, war, massive inequality, starvation, racism, fascism, corporate rule, well, yes, it did fail.

Well communism didn't solve any of those, so that must be a failiure too.


What? A book made by some old, rich farts which preached patriarchy, slavery, suppression of people's rights and commands an individual's servitude to the existing social order has the answers to life? :blink:

What, the Communist Mannifesto ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Nothing is perfect or utopia, Communism would just be a better society, society never stands still, constantly evolving, but I do have to point out, as we progress life in society has gotten progressively better and better, what would come after Communism? Who knows?!

Communism has declared itself "the next step". It isn't. You correctly point out that life has got better- but ignore the cause; individual rights. Now it is getting worse, as individual rights are slowly being disposed of.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Abby [email protected] 18 2004, 05:37 AM

Good post

Great minds think alike, yet fools seldom differ. Little Mal doesn't show any signs of a great mind, so that kinda narrows it down.

That saying is redundant; whoever first uttered it needs to make up their mind. :P


(many of today's communists are deluded utopians, not diabolicals servants of Zion).


Coming from a capitalist, and supported of a failed economic ideology, I find that highly hypocritical.

Fool; I am not a 'capitalist'. I see no reason to attach myself to any particular economic system and purpote it as 'The One True Way'; such is far too dogmatic for me. :P

BTW, what is 'highly hypocritical' is how you, a communist, refer to capitalism as 'failed economic ideology'. Isn't a 'world revolution' the grand judge of the 'superiority' of a system? As I do not subscribe to an outdated, nineteenth-century, technology-worshipping, linear view of 'progress', I am not the one who needs to answer this question. By Saint James, ideologues begone! :lol:

[Yes, perhaps ideologically (in terms of the 'ideal system' laid out by Smith, Rand, et al.), but communism in the 'real world' is also quite different from how it appears on paper-- and as a practical, real-world economic system, capitalism, particularly of the 'mixed-economy' variety, is far from 'failed'.]


'Organized religion', despite the occasional atrocity commited in its name, has done more 'good' than 'evil'

What good has organised religion done which out weighs say the Taiping rebellion?

Your small, materialistic worldview provides no answers to the questions that truly nag humans (particularly, with not a small amount of irony, 'The Oppressed' your 'comrades' claim to know so well).
Sorry Polythene Pam, wrong on all scores.

That saying is redundant; whoever first uttered it needs to make up their mind.

You my pedigree chum, have proved that saying to be bang to rights.

Fool; I am not a 'capitalist'.

'Fool'? At the risk of sounding arrogant, I wager I’m more in the 'know' than you are. However yes you are a capitalist, your posts reek of the ill-informed junk which seams to go hand in hand with the other slow witted individuals who subscribe to said economic ideology.

BTW, what is 'highly hypocritical' is how you, a communist, refer to capitalism as 'failed economic ideology'.

Sorry, wrong again, I am no communist. How amusing that the slow witted capitalist is so quick to jump to a nice easy attempt at categorisation.

As for communism, if it has never been attempted, then pray explain how it has failed.

but communism in the 'real world' is also quite different from how it appears on paper--

My small minded friend, it does not, and has not existed in the real world. Personally I have my doubts if it ever will. I prefer to hope that a similar system, with parallel values can be achieved, but on a different basis to communism.

and as a practical, real-world economic system, capitalism, particularly of the 'mixed-economy' variety, is far from 'failed'.]

Wrong, it has failed utterly. Capitalism as a theory should be self regulating, and ensure universal prosperity. However as we are all witness to, it does not.

Your small, materialistic worldview provides no answers to the questions that truly nag humans

Indeed, it does not attempt to. Religion on the other hand, it has to be said, does answer these question; incorrectly. It replaces reason with a fantastical utopia, rejecting science and embracing nonsense.

But please, don’t let me stop you placing your faith in something that can never reward your piety or for fill your hopes, which will inevitably leave you with nothing but doubt. I wouldn't expect a small minded individual such as your self to be able to traverse the abyss that separates reality from imagination.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 16 2004, 05:46 PM

Coming from a capitalist, and supported of a failed economic ideology,

By what standard are we judging this failiure ?
The total inability to for fill its theoretical promise.

[NovelGentry]

Dear Abby,

Your continual reference to Marxism as a linear ideology is hilarious and ignorant. It would appear that you have no knowledge what so ever on the issue. If you did, you would indeed see that Marx's ideas are NOT linear. His dialectics alone shun the idea that history is simply linear, cause and effect. Instead it takes into account both sides of an issue, two opposing forces, and attempts to see what has come of that opposition. This is not linear, it is not cause and effect, it is not to say that history is always progressive, however, on a LARGE scale it could be considered as such. On a selective scale, one spanning anything BUT the entire history of man, it is easy to see (using both dialectics and otherwise) that it is not linear. If you feel Marx, in any way, has put across a linear model of history, I would ask that you go back and look again.

Sincerely,
A concerned reader.

[Zingu]

Well communism didn't solve any of those, so that must be a failiure too.

Capitalism is a global system, and it still has massive inequalities everywhere. Communism has never been implemented (I don't know how many times we have to say that), so how can it be a failure before it is even realized?



What, the Communist Mannifesto ?

I don't recall the Manifesto preaching patriarchy and I don't think Karl Marx, one of the authors was a "rich old fart", maybe old, but definately not "rich", prove me otherwise.

[Abby Normal]

Enigma:
Do stop; your posts are so full of drivel that they make my head hurt. Reading your assertion that you are more 'in the know' about my own beliefs than I am myself was the equivalent to taking in about twelve Danielle Steel novels.

NovelGentry is not as bad, particularly as his screen-name is vaguely reminiscent of an old one of mine (La Nouvelle Aristocrate); but, like Enigma, he seems to have a talent for misinterpreting my posts. Unlike Enigma's monstrosities, his post is worth responding to later.

[NovelGentry]

As I do not subscribe to an outdated, nineteenth-century, technology-worshipping, linear view of 'progress', I am not the one who needs to answer this question.

I see, so you weren't referring to Marxism there? Maybe I should quote the line where you specifically say Marxism. You said it was linear, not I. I was simply requesting that you actually look at how Marx saw the world, which was in any way BUT linear, and certainly all FORWARD motion is progress, you can progress and still be progressing into poorer conditions.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 18 2004, 04:51 PM--> (Enigma @ Dec 18 2004, 04:51 PM)
Professor [email protected] 16 2004, 05:46 PM

Coming from a capitalist, and supported of a failed economic ideology,

By what standard are we judging this failiure ?
The total inability to for fill its theoretical promise. [/b]
Which is what ? Who proposed this theoretical promise ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Capitalism is a global system, and it still has massive inequalities everywhere. Communism has never been implemented (I don't know how many times we have to say that), so how can it be a failure before it is even realized?

How many times do I have to say "There is no global capitalist system, just a bunch of mixed economies. Pure capitalism has never been implemented." before it sinks in ?


I don't recall the Manifesto preaching patriarchy and I don't think Karl Marx, one of the authors was a "rich old fart", maybe old, but definately not "rich", prove me otherwise.

He certainly didn't begin life as one of the so-called "downtrodden", did he ?

[Professor Moneybags]

As for communism, if it has never been attempted, then pray explain how it has failed.

It has been attempted and it didn't go according to plan because it is unrealisable. You wipe out individual rights and still think they are going to be respected and then when they're not and the bodies start piling up, you start screaming that it wasn't "real communism".


Wrong, it has failed utterly. Capitalism as a theory should be self regulating, and ensure universal prosperity.

Even if you we theorectically did live in an LFC society, who ever proclaimed it to "ensure universal prosperity" ? Capitaism allows you to live by your own efforts without random property siezure and rights violations. No one promised the garden of eden or anything "in the bag".

Oh yeah, I know we have random property siezure and rights violations. That's largely thanks to socialist politicians and their "progressive" laws.


I wouldn't expect a small minded individual such as your self to be able to traverse the abyss that separates reality from imagination.

You're one to talk.

[Encrypted Soldier]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 04:48 AM
Gulags. KGB. Tienenmen. Fucking. Square. Fucking liar.
All those examples is when some evil dictator used Communism to his advantage. That isn't real Communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It has been attempted and it didn't go according to plan because it is unrealisable. You wipe out individual rights and still think they are going to be respected and then when they're not and the bodies start piling up, you start screaming that it wasn't "real communism".

When are you going to pull your head out of your arse and learn the difference between Leninism (Which has been attempted in the past and has failed) and Anarcho-Communism (Which has so far never been attempted, and thus cannot be said to have failed)?

There is more than one way to achieve communism. And the only 'individual rights' that communism elminates is the right to exploit and oppress others.

And what about your screaming of 'it's not pure capitalism' whenever union leaders are killed or people have to work themselves to death for a living or any other capitalist atrocity you care to mention?

And explain just how it unrealisable, rather than just giving out bland assertions. Wait, don't tell me, you'll feed me some Randian bullshit about 'human nature' (which has never been proven to exist, btw)

I'll also point out that the pure capitalism has never been achieved through [b]any[/n] means, Be it revolution, reform, whatever.

Who has the unrealisable idealogy now?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Abby Normal
...as I detest Marxists who accept historical materialism as fact and believe that all societies are evolving in a linear fashion toward the 'inevitable' end of communism. This particular piece of dogma is particularly disgusting to me as it is a vestige of nineteenth-century evolutionary determinism (closely tied in with other conceptions of an inevitable linear pattern of progress or decline) and conflicts with what any rational, educated observer of history would conclude

What is it, exactly, that bothers you so much about "evolutionary determinism"?

Or the idea that societies "progress"?

Of course, trying to arbitrarily impose a schema (linear or dialectical) on the evolution of human societies will get you into trouble if you fail to take into account the twists and turns of any relatively brief period.

But would you really want to argue that "we are the same" as Babylonian peasants under Hammurabi or 19th century factory workers under the Kaiser?

Or that the changes have not been progressive?

Perhaps you are a follower of the "shit happens" school of bourgeois historicism...things just happen at random, more or less, and there's no "order" in human history at all.

A few bad breaks here and there, and we'd all still be building pyramids or sacrificing virgins, eh?


Presumably you are referring to the Bible, Torah, et al.; I am not a doctrinaire Christian/ Muslim/ etc., nor do I lack doubts about the (esoteric, at least) Semitic religions. Still, their Holy Scriptures provide much that the so-called 'Bible of the Working Man' cannot and never will.

Yes, they offer "cosmological justification" for oppression and exploitation...something of great value to ruling classes of all kinds.

Something Marx wisely decided we could all do without.

Except you?


Switching from one economic system to another that is supposedly 'more evolved' will not guarantee 'a better life' for those involved.

That seems to have been the general outcome. Otherwise, why would people keep doing it?


Your small, materialistic worldview provides no answers to the questions that truly nag humans

Perhaps that's because they are not real questions that have real answers.

And perhaps people are learning that. Supposedly the people without any religion at all are now approaching one billion in numbers...that's a lot of folks who've decided to ignore those "nagging questions".

Only 300 or so years ago, there weren't any of those people around at all -- everyone was (at least publicly) religious.

Progress, again?

:redstar2000:

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

[praxus]

When are you going to pull your head out of your arse and learn the difference between Leninism (Which has been attempted in the past and has failed) and Anarcho-Communism (Which has so far never been attempted, and thus cannot be said to have failed)?


All "Anarcho-Communism" is, is when you separate the power of the socialist state among various groups of people in the country such as "working councils" and the like. Every form of anarchy in the history of the world has erupted into gang warfare. What makes you think these individual groups wouldn't start warring against their neighbor?


There is more than one way to achieve communism. And the only 'individual rights' that communism eliminates is the right to exploit and oppress others.


Actually Capitalists don't believe in positive rights. We believe in freedom from the initiation of force and fraud. You however believe that looting someone whom you voluntarily traded your labor to is in fact a right.



And what about your screaming of 'it's not pure capitalism' whenever union leaders are killed or people have to work themselves to death for a living or any other capitalist atrocity you care to mention?

Do you mean to say that when there is a national bank, 19 billion tons of regulation, 20-50 percent income tax (national and state combined), state sales tax, tariffs, pro-union coercive laws, and god knows what else, is in fact Capitalist?

What are you delusional?


And explain just how it unrealizable, rather than just giving out bland assertions. Wait, don't tell me, you'll feed me some Randian bullshit about 'human nature' (which has never been proven to exist, btw)

You mean man doesn't have a specific nature and consequently requirments for life in society?

Tell me have you ever read any Ayn Rand?


I'll also point out that the pure capitalism has never been achieved through [b]any[/n] means, Be it revolution, reform, whatever.

Who has the unrealisable idealogy now?

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. Communism however is impossible because it makes economic calculations impossible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All "Anarcho-Communism" is, is when you separate the power of the socialist state among various groups of people in the country such as "working councils" and the like. Every form of anarchy in the history of the world has erupted into gang warfare. What makes you think these individual groups wouldn't start warring against their neighbor?

Because you're using the bourgeouis definition of anarchy. Anarchy does not mean complete chaos, it is a society without leaders.
And what sorts of anarchy have erupted into gang warfare? give some examples at least.


Actually Capitalists don't believe in positive rights. We believe in freedom from the initiation of force and fraud. You however believe that looting someone whom you voluntarily traded your labor to is in fact a right.

The only real 'choice' I get is to sell my labour to some bastard, (Or have someone else sell their labour to support me) or starve.
No surprise that I wish to rid the system that gives me these 'options'


Do you mean to say that when there is a national bank, 19 billion tons of regulation, 20-50 percent income tax (national and state combined), state sales tax, tariffs, pro-union coercive laws, and god knows what else, is in fact Capitalist?


How is that relevant to the paragraph you quoted? all that proves is that LFC is naturally self-destructive and needs regulation in order to function for any length of time.


You mean man doesn't have a specific nature and consequently requirments for life in society?

Well, being an abstract concept 'society' is malleable and as such so are the requirements for 'fitting in'
How can that be a nature if it is not constant?



Tell me have you ever read any Ayn Rand?

Yes, a good cure for insomnia.


Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. Communism however is impossible because it makes economic calculations impossible.

Of course it makes them impossible! you cannot make calculations about economics when money doesn't exist.
You don't need 'em.

[praxus]

Because you're using the bourgeouis definition of anarchy. Anarchy does not mean complete chaos, it is a society without leaders.
And what sorts of anarchy have erupted into gang warfare? give some examples at least.


Anarchy is the absense of Government. Anarchy is not to be defined however you want it to be. Anarchy comes from two Greek words and litterally means Absense (an) of rule (archy), and that is to say absense of government. The biggest example today of Anarchy is the Sudan and much of Afghanistan outside the major cities.


The only real 'choice' I get is to sell my labour to some bastard, (Or have someone else sell their labour to support me) or starve.
No surprise that I wish to rid the system that gives me these 'options'

This is utter non-sense.


How is that relevant to the paragraph you quoted? all that proves is that LFC is naturally self-destructive and needs regulation in order to function for any length of time.

So just because the Government has created these regulations by it's nature implies that that Laissiez Faire Capitalism is self-destructive?

The person whom I quoted stated that Capitalists claim that when Union leaders and the like are killed that Capitalism isn't responsible. I refuted his claim by showing that we don't live in a Capitalist society, which we don't. We live in a mixed economy, no matter how much you want to evade this fact it does not change it.


Well, being an abstract concept 'society' is malleable and as such so are the requirements for 'fitting in'
How can that be a nature if it is not constant?

I didn't say "fitting in", I said "living". In order for man to live within the realm of other people (society) he requirs certain things, certain rights within the context of the group of people to survive. This is were negative rights are derived. The right to be free from the initiation of force and fraud. Any other rights, are self-destructive and as such require the physical destruction of some peoples lives in order to appease the so called "need" of the others.


Yes, a good cure for insomnia.

Really which books have you read, smart ass?


Of course it makes them impossible! you cannot make calculations about economics when money doesn't exist.
You don't need 'em.

Of course you do, it's the only way to determine with any accuracy the desire by the people for a certain product.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Anarchy is the absense of Government. Anarchy is not to be defined however you want it to be. Anarchy comes from two Greek words and litterally means Absense (an) of rule (archy), and that is to say absense of government. The biggest example today of Anarchy is the Sudan and much of Afghanistan outside the major cities.

That is not the sort of anarchy anarchists propose and you know it. Once again you spout off bourgeouis misconceptions.


This is utter non-sense.

It's true. And what's more, under LFC there is no welfare state to fall back on (Not that the current welfare state gives much willingly anyway!).
So under your so-called coercion-free paradise, people who cannot get employment are doubly fucked.


The person whom I quoted stated that Capitalists claim that when Union leaders and the like are killed that Capitalism isn't responsible. I refuted his claim by showing that we don't live in a Capitalist society, which we don't. We live in a mixed economy, no matter how much you want to evade this fact it does not change it.

Please. 'mixed economy' is simply capitalism with a few bones thrown to the working class to ensure quiescience. It is those who control capital who are responsible for society today. These people are called capitalists. You may have heard of them.


I didn't say "fitting in", I said "living". In order for man to live within the realm of other people (society) he requirs certain things, certain rights within the context of the group of people to survive. This is were negative rights are derived. The right to be free from the initiation of force and fraud. Any other rights, are self-destructive and as such require the physical destruction of some peoples lives in order to appease the so called "need" of the others.

Well it's not much of a life if you can't fit in, that's for sure.
And what makes you think that food, clothing and shelter aren't needs?
Freedom from fraud means little if you cannot eat.


Of course you do, it's the only way to determine with any accuracy the desire by the people for a certain product.

Idiot. You don't need worthless 'calculations' that serve only to increase the status of those doing the calculations by making them appear 'smart'.*
If people want and need something, they will let you know about it!

*After all, why bother advancing human knowledge by studying real sciences like biology, physics or astronomy when you can study the pseudo-science of economics and make a pile of cash from some poor saps at the same time?

[praxus]

That is not the sort of anarchy anarchists propose and you know it. Once again you spout off bourgeouis misconceptions.

That is absolutely what you are proposing. You are proposing for the power of the Socialist state to be broken up among small units (gangs) that would inevidably lead to gang warfare. Where each "workers commitee" would declare war on other "worker commitees" based on their pretend need.



It's true. And what's more, under LFC there is no welfare state to fall back on (Not that the current welfare state gives much willingly anyway!).
So under your so-called coercion-free paradise, people who cannot get employment are doubly fucked.

Non-Sequiter.


Please. 'mixed economy' is simply capitalism with a few bones thrown to the working class to ensure quiescience. It is those who control capital who are responsible for society today. These people are called capitalists. You may have heard of them.

Enslaving me to the rest of society for 1/3rd of the year is your idea of "throwing a few bones to the working class"?


Well it's not much of a life if you can't fit in, that's for sure.
And what makes you think that food, clothing and shelter aren't needs?
Freedom from fraud means little if you cannot eat.

Food and Water are requirments to live, but if you consider them rights you would have to violate them in order to secure them. That is to say take food and water from one and give it to another through force. It is therefor not contiguos with the choice: to live.

The last part is a blatant appeal to emotion, which is unacceptable in a rational argument.


Idiot. You don't need worthless 'calculations' that serve only to increase the status of those doing the calculations by making them appear 'smart'.*
If people want and need something, they will let you know about it!

But there is a limited supply of goods, services, and natural resources.

Tell me what is a "need" and what is a "want". If I am falling off a cliff do I not need a parachute? If I am falling into a pit of lava do I not need the lava to disappear? Or what If I'm watching TV and won't get off my butt, do I not need someone to pick up the remote for me?

Where do you draw the line between "need" and "want". A "need" is a requirment to do a certain thing, or not to do it.

So if 99% of the population want's a PDA but production can create enough for 2% of the population, who decides who get's it? By what standard?


*After all, why bother advancing human knowledge by studying real sciences like biology, physics or astronomy when you can study the pseudo-science of economics and make a pile of cash from some poor saps at the same time?

Non-Sequiter.

[Professor Moneybags]

The only real 'choice' I get is to sell my labour to some bastard, (Or have someone else sell their labour to support me) or starve.
No surprise that I wish to rid the system that gives me these 'options'

Or you could live by yourself, by your own efforts. Your "problem" is not with capitalism, oppression, or any particular socio-economic "class". The system you wish to rid yourself of is reality. It's not going to happen. Ever.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:50 AM

As I do not subscribe to an outdated, nineteenth-century, technology-worshipping, linear view of 'progress', I am not the one who needs to answer this question.

I see, so you weren't referring to Marxism there? Maybe I should quote the line where you specifically say Marxism. You said it was linear, not I. I was simply requesting that you actually look at how Marx saw the world, which was in any way BUT linear, and certainly all FORWARD motion is progress, you can progress and still be progressing into poorer conditions.
*sigh*

You should seriously consider re-thinking your 'personal definitions' of linear, forward motion, and progress.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Abby [email protected] 19 2004, 02:24 AM
Enigma:
Do stop; your posts are so full of drivel that they make my head hurt. Reading your assertion that you are more 'in the know' about my own beliefs than I am myself was the equivalent to taking in about twelve Danielle Steel novels.

NovelGentry is not as bad, particularly as his screen-name is vaguely reminiscent of an old one of mine (La Nouvelle Aristocrate); but, like Enigma, he seems to have a talent for misinterpreting my posts. Unlike Enigma's monstrosities, his post is worth responding to later.
Do stop; your posts are so full of drivel that they make my head hurt.

If it is such drivel, then where is your cutting, world view shattering, response... ohh wait you don't have one, I see, how very disappointing. Try again sweetie.

Reading your assertion that you are more 'in the know' about my own beliefs than I am myself was the equivalent to taking in about twelve Danielle Steel novels.



If you care to read my post, honey, the comment you are referring to was in direct response to you calling me a fool, not your infantile opinions.

but, like Enigma, he seems to have a talent for misinterpreting my posts.

Don't be silly Abby Road, we are 'streets' ahead of you.

Unlike Enigma's monstrosities, his post is worth responding to later.

Ironically you did respond, just now in the same post as the above quote. You have amnesia Abby? Or just a tiny IQ?

[PRC-UTE]

Anarcho-Communism (Which has so far never been attempted, and thus cannot be said to have failed)?


It was implemented on a mass scale, in Spain. There are other attempts as well, you could even count the Paris Commune to some extent.

Cracking open a few history books wouldn't hurt you at all. ;)

I'd just like to say that, despite the repellent aspects of Lenin, Stalin,, Castro, Mao, et cetera, no capitalist government ever achieved what they did in the time that they have. In terms of literacy, health care, food production -- there is no capitalist equivalent. It took Belgium 200 years to go from agrictulural to industrial economy, and backwards countries like Russia and China did it in just a few decades.

Like BOZG said, we don't have to support countries like the USSR, but we can defend the gains made for our class.

All capitalism can offer people is more misery, exploitation, hunger the destruction of families and native cultures.

[praxus]

I'd just like to say that, despite the repellent aspects of Lenin, Stalin,, Castro, Mao, et cetera, no capitalist government ever achieved what they did in the time that they have. In terms of literacy, health care, food production -- there is no capitalist equivalent. It took Belgium 200 years to go from agrictulural to industrial economy, and backwards countries like Russia and China did it in just a few decades.


It took the United States 80 years to turn from an agricultural nation to the greatest Industrialized Nation in the World, with living standards equaling thoose of Great Britian(the best in the world at the time). The Soviet Union didn't come close to the United States at any period in terms of healthcare, food production, and living standards, even among the poorest Americans.


All capitalism can offer people is more misery, exploitation, hunger the destruction of families and native cultures.


What hunger, do you see anyone starving in the United States?

[colombiano]

"Then why have so many of them left Cuba and come here as refugees? If they were free to leave any time they wanted, why are they forced to make the trip in rickety homemade boats, risking their very fucking lives in the process?"
For the same reason that Millions Of Illegal Mexicans, Colombians, and other other Latin Americans cross the border every year. That is a weak argument. Many illegals come from all over Latin America and Many of which are fleeing poverty in a capiatalist society of their own native countries.

[praxus]

How are their countries capitalist?

[colombiano]

LOL, You got to have a better arguement than that?

[colombiano]

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market


Care to take a guess at how many Latin AMerican Countires fall under this category?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:33 PM
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market


Care to take a guess at how many Latin AMerican Countires fall under this category?
Not too many, judging from the economic freedom index.

[praxus]

The correct answer is not a single one. There are no free markets, only semi-free ones.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:08 AM
Ironically you did respond, just now in the same post as the above quote. You have amnesia Abby? Or just a tiny IQ?
My apologies for not clarifying my intent; I usually make an effort to do so when dealing with people of a limited ability to make inferences.

That which I addressed to you previously was not a 'response' by the definition I employ in regards to message-boards in that it did not include a reply specifically directed at any of your 'points' (in this case, such would be a waste of time). As you may (or, more likely, may not) have noticed, it consisted merely of general ranting aimed in your direction, as such is all that can be thought practical in your case.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:35 PM
The correct answer is not a single one. There are no free markets, only semi-free ones.
Correct you are. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that those who believe perfect 'free markets' to be practicable are as deluded as those who think the same regarding 'pure communism'.

[colombiano]

LOL, so I suppose you want to get into a battle of semantics. You have NO basis for such. Mexico , Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador , Peru are just to name a few "Open Markets" .
The accusation that people are fleeing Cuba simply becuase of Communisn is simply preposterous. The truth of the matter is that people are fleeing poverty .

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:17 AM
LOL, so I suppose you want to get into a battle of semantics. You have NO basis for such. Mexico , Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador , Peru are just to name a few "Open Markets" .

Open, or free ? How much power does the government have over trade in these places ?


The accusation that people are fleeing Cuba simply becuase of Communisn is simply preposterous. The truth of the matter is that people are fleeing poverty .

Caused by what ?

[colombiano]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 02:18 PM

LOL, so I suppose you want to get into a battle of semantics. You have NO basis for such. Mexico , Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador , Peru are just to name a few "Open Markets" .





Open, or free ? How much power does the government have over trade in these places ?

To be honest I have no scientific data or "gauge" of what control exists there. I spent 5 years of my life abroad In Mexico and Colombia and I know that individuals and corporations hold interest in the means of production and markets in these countries and can prosper freely there much like here in the US. My mother in law owns a business in Medellin and my father in law owns a Pharmacy in Cordoba Colombia and I know for a fact that the economy cannot be considered anything other than that of a free market . Are you saying they are anything other than capitalist? If so may I ask what? The burden of proof lies on your shoulders my friend.



Caused by what ?


Caused by a poor economic situation in Cuba likewise in Mexico, Colombia and throughout Latin America. Poverty plain and simple. It is estimated that 20% of Mexicans born in Mexico are now living in the US and 10% of all Native born Colombians live abroad. I would dare say that most Cubans flee for the same reason, Haitians , Mexicans, Colombians, Peruvians etc, etc, etc flee for . POVERTY!

[praxus]

Caused by a poor economic situation in Cuba likewise in Mexico, Colombia and throughout Latin America. Poverty plain and simple. It is estimated that 20% of Mexicans born in Mexico are now living in the US and 10% of all Native born Colombians live abroad. I would dare say that most Cubans flee for the same reason, Haitians , Mexicans, Colombians, Peruvians etc, etc, etc flee for . POVERTY!

Again, poverty, caused by what?


To be honest I have no scientific data or "gauge" of what control exists there. I spent 5 years of my life abroad In Mexico and Colombia and I know that individuals and corporations hold interest in the means of production and markets in these countries and can prosper freely there much like here in the US. My mother in law owns a business in Medellin and my father in law owns a Pharmacy in Cordoba Colombia and I know for a fact that the economy cannot be considered anything other than that of a free market . Are you saying they are anything other than capitalist? If so may I ask what? The burden of proof lies on your shoulders my friend.

A free market is [pure] Capitalism, it doesn't exsist anywhere in the world. Anything else is a semi-free market.

[colombiano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:40 PM

Caused by a poor economic situation in Cuba likewise in Mexico, Colombia and throughout Latin America. Poverty plain and simple. It is estimated that 20% of Mexicans born in Mexico are now living in the US and 10% of all Native born Colombians live abroad. I would dare say that most Cubans flee for the same reason, Haitians , Mexicans, Colombians, Peruvians etc, etc, etc flee for . POVERTYTo be honest I have no scientific data or "gauge" of what control exists there. I spent 5 years of my life abroad In Mexico and Colombia and I know that individuals and corporations hold interest in the means of production and markets in these countries and can prosper freely there much like here in the US. My mother in law owns a business in Medellin and my father in law owns a Pharmacy in Cordoba Colombia and I know for a fact that the economy cannot be considered anything other than that of a free market . Are you saying they are anything other than capitalist? If so may I ask what? The burden of proof lies on your shoulders my friend.

A free market is [pure] Capitalism, it doesn't exsist anywhere in the world. Anything else is a semi-free market.
![/QUOTE]

Again, poverty, caused by what?

[QUOTE]
As I said a poor economy which may or may not be caused by communism. The same as Mexico and Colombia that is what type of governement and economy? Yeah Ok a "Semi Free" same as the good ole USA ! You SIMPLY Cannot say that Cubans flee on the Basis of Communism alone .
We can play your game though.
Why is there an exodus of people from other impoverished countires that are NOT communist??
You have proven NO basis for your arguement. You remind me of the Bushitos that still insist there are WMD's in Iraq .

[Osman Ghazi]

Open, or free ? How much power does the government have over trade in these places ?


Total, just like everywhere else.


Caused by what ?

I seem to recall you saying that poverty has no cause. I mean, when we said that capitalism has incredible poverty you just say 'There was poverty before and there will always be poverty.'

But now, socialism causes poverty?


Anything else is a semi-free market.

No, most markets are 'free', while some others are not. For example, the condom market is very free whereas say, the gasoline market has numerous restrictions. You can have a semi-free market economy but within that there are some free markets and some which are not free. This situation exists in every single country in the world. Yes, even Cuba has a mixed economy.

How does the 'economic freedom' rating work? Does it simply measure the percentage of economic activity conducted within 'free' markets?

[praxus]

As I said a poor economy which may or may not be caused by communism. The same as Mexico and Colombia that is what type of governement and economy? Yeah Ok a "Semi Free" same as the good ole USA ! You SIMPLY Cannot say that Cubans flee on the Basis of Communism alone .

You can not simply seperate the effects of communism (or in the case of Cuba, Totalitarian Socialism) from communism (Totalitarian Socialism), then declare the problem is based on one of the effects and not on the cause.


Why is there an exodus of people from other impoverished countires that are NOT communist??

When did either myself or Professor Moneybags ever suggest that communism is the only cause for poverty? This being said Cuba isn't really Communist by the definition of many Communists. Cuba is a socialist state. Also mass poverty is caused by intervention into the economy on an enourmous scale (such as in Socialism, Feudalism, Fascism, or Communism) or the complete lack of government (anarchy).


You have proven NO basis for your arguement. You remind me of the Bushitos that still insist there are WMD's in Iraq .

I didn't assert anything prior to your post, therefor there was nothing for me to prove.

To Osman:

No, most markets are 'free', while some others are not. For example, the condom market is very free whereas say, the gasoline market has numerous restrictions. You can have a semi-free market economy but within that there are some free markets and some which are not free. This situation exists in every single country in the world. Yes, even Cuba has a mixed economy.

A free market economy refers to the entire economy as a whole being free. Yes Cuba is a mixed economy in the sense that are some free sections of it, but these are few and far between. It is so overwhelmingly socialist it's just much easier to call it a Socialist state, mainly because that is it's official policy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:29 PM
You can not simply seperate the effects of communism (or in the case of Cuba, Totalitarian Socialism) from communism (Totalitarian Socialism), then declare the problem is based on one of the effects and not on the cause.
Can you please define communism?

[praxus]

A de facto state of anarchy were the power of the socialist state is divided among the "people" (Workers Comittees and the like).

[colombiano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:29 PM
As I said a poor economy which may or may not be caused by communism. The same as Mexico and Colombia that is what type of governement and economy? Yeah Ok a "Semi Free" same as the good ole USA ! You SIMPLY Cannot say that Cubans flee on the Basis of Communism alone .

You can not simply seperate the effects of communism (or in the case of Cuba, Totalitarian Socialism) from communism (Totalitarian Socialism), then declare the problem is based on one of the effects and not on the cause.


Why is there an exodus of people from other impoverished countires that are NOT communist??

When did either myself or Professor Moneybags ever suggest that communism is the only cause for poverty? This being said Cuba isn't really Communist by the definition of many Communists. Cuba is a socialist state. Also mass poverty is caused by intervention into the economy on an enourmous scale (such as in Socialism, Feudalism, Fascism, or Communism) or the complete lack of government (anarchy).


You have proven NO basis for your arguement. You remind me of the Bushitos that still insist there are WMD's in Iraq .

I didn't assert anything prior to your post, therefor there was nothing for me to prove.

To Osman:

No, most markets are 'free', while some others are not. For example, the condom market is very free whereas say, the gasoline market has numerous restrictions. You can have a semi-free market economy but within that there are some free markets and some which are not free. This situation exists in every single country in the world. Yes, even Cuba has a mixed economy.

A free market economy refers to the entire economy as a whole being free. Yes Cuba is a mixed economy in the sense that are some free sections of it, but these are few and far between. It is so overwhelmingly socialist it's just much easier to call it a Socialist state, mainly because that is it's official policy. [/quote]
[QUOTE]You can not simply seperate the effects of communism (or in the case of Cuba, Totalitarian Socialism) from communism (Totalitarian Socialism), then declare the problem is based on one of the effects and not on the cause.[QUOTE]

Nor can you seperate the effects of this either knowing that inevitably capitalism creates a caste system in which society is split among the"Haves" and the "Have Nots". The obvious is that capitalism has brought poverty to many as well. You are quick to blame the exodus of Cubans on communism but yet offer no real arguement for the other millions of Latin Americans who flee their countires. Inpursuit of a better life. Cause and effect should apply to both sides if you really want to use such .

[praxus]

Nor can you seperate the effects of this either knowing that inevitably capitalism creates a caste system in which society is split among the"Haves" and the "Have Nots".

That's odd because a lot of "Have Nots" have become "Haves".


The obvious is that capitalism has brought poverty to many as well.

WHERE?


You are quick to blame the exodus of Cubans on communism but yet offer no real arguement for the other millions of Latin Americans who flee their countires. Inpursuit of a better life. Cause and effect should apply to both sides if you really want to use such .

The Latin American Countries don't have anywhere near the level of economic freedom as the United States. This is a fact.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:17 AM
The accusation that people are fleeing Cuba simply becuase of Communisn is simply preposterous. The truth of the matter is that people are fleeing poverty .
What causes poverty, colombiano? Certainly if economics dictate as much as many a 'revolutionary' would hold, and if economic systems are as influential as claimed by the same, their very arguments can be turned back upon themselves to arrive at the notion that improperly-handled economies are a chief cause of poverty. ;)

[colombiano]

Originally posted by Abby [email protected] 22 2004, 10:25 PM

What causes poverty, colombiano? Certainly if economics dictate as much as many a 'revolutionary' would hold, and if economic systems are as influential as claimed by the same, their very arguments can be turned back upon themselves to arrive at the notion that improperly-handled economies are a chief cause of poverty. ;)
Touché . That is exactly what I was trying to say. Poor economics may it be Capiatalism or Communism creates a situation of poverty !
So the statement that I have said SOOOOOOOO many times still stands true. People risk their lives to escape poverty , whether it be capitalism or communism or socialism.

[colombiano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:12 PM


WHERE?

Right here in the United States and abroad. WHat do you live in an imaginary world where everyone lives a life of luxory

The Latin American Countries don't have anywhere near the level of economic freedom as the United States. This is a fact.

WRONG AGAIN BUDDY! Have you ever been to any of these countries? Have you ever stepped outside of your perfect little world in the states and seen the poverty and despair that is brought on by the consumption monster known as the American Economy? I suggest you pick up a book and open your eyes. The American System is FAR from perfect and has caused its own fair share of despair and hardship.

[praxus]

Right here in the United States and abroad. WHat do you live in an imaginary world where everyone lives a life of luxory


How has Capitalism caused it? Oh and don't give me the "exploitation of the workers" bull shit.


WRONG AGAIN BUDDY! Have you ever been to any of these countries? Have you ever stepped outside of your perfect little world in the states and seen the poverty and despair that is brought on by the consumption monster known as the American Economy? I suggest you pick up a book and open your eyes. The American System is FAR from perfect and has caused its own fair share of despair and hardship.

Could you explain to me how this reply has to do with my statement? Furthermore when did I say the American system was perferct?

[colombiano]

"How has it not been a cause? "
Capiatalism in America.
The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002.
Capitalism creates a caste system. Those that have and those that simply DO NOT. That is your cause and effect!

[colombiano]

Could you explain to me how this reply has to do with my statement? Furthermore when did I say the American system was perferct?
I expect you to answer it , simple as that. Have you been Through the streets of Medellin and seen children sniffing glue to offset their extreme hunger? BTW in a free market country where 20% of the population control 90% of the wealth.

You don't have to say it is perfect , however your arguement that it has not caused famine or poverty would indicate otherwise.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Abby Normal+Dec 22 2004, 02:38 AM--> (Abby Normal @ Dec 22 2004, 02:38 AM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 02:08 AM
Ironically you did respond, just now in the same post as the above quote. You have amnesia Abby? Or just a tiny IQ?
My apologies for not clarifying my intent; I usually make an effort to do so when dealing with people of a limited ability to make inferences.

That which I addressed to you previously was not a 'response' by the definition I employ in regards to message-boards in that it did not include a reply specifically directed at any of your 'points' (in this case, such would be a waste of time). As you may (or, more likely, may not) have noticed, it consisted merely of general ranting aimed in your direction, as such is all that can be thought practical in your case. [/b]
You just responded, a second time. I love people like you, inconsistant as well as idiotic. It makes taking the piss out of you so much easier.

That which I addressed to you previously was not a 'response' by the definition I employ in regards to message-boards in that it did not include a reply specifically directed at any of your 'points' (in this case, such would be a waste of time). As you may (or, more likely, may not) have noticed, it consisted merely of general ranting aimed in your direction, as such is all that can be thought practical in your case.

Do you have a bike Abby? You see, your backpeddling needs a little more work.

I wait in eager anticipation for the task of picking apart your next attempt at witty and cutting retort.

[praxus]

"How has it not been a cause? "
Capiatalism in America.
The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002.
Capitalism creates a caste system. Those that have and those that simply DO NOT. That is your cause and

Only 5% of the poor in 1975 were still in poverty by 1991. So much for your cast system. Also could you define what you mean by poverty? Because if you went by the standards in the US over 40% of Sweden would be in poverty.


expect you to answer it , simple as that. Have you been Through the streets of Medellin and seen children sniffing glue to offset their extreme hunger?

Non-sequiter.


BTW in a free market country where 20% of the population control 90% of the wealth.

This is utter non-sense. Wealth is not a static sum. Just because the top 20% have 90% of it at any given moment doesn't mean that the bottom 80% isn't 100% wealtheier then they were in the past.


You don't have to say it is perfect , however your arguement that it has not caused famine or poverty would indicate otherwise.

Never said that, try again. I said capitalism has never caused a famine or poverty, and I'm right it hasn't.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Only 5% of the poor in 1975 were still in poverty by 1991. So much for your cast system. Also could you define what you mean by poverty? Because if you went by the standards in the US over 40% of Sweden would be in poverty.

Are you denying that a hierarchy exists in capitalism? :lol: Don't forget that we live in a global community, and the subordinate third world is just as much a part of American capitalism as the consumers and owners.


This is utter non-sense. Wealth is not a static sum. Just because the top 20% have 90% of it at any given moment doesn't mean that the bottom 80% isn't 100% wealtheier then they were in the past.

He showed you proof that a huge economic imbalance exists in capitalist class society, and you just completely failed to refute it.


Never said that, try again. I said capitalism has never caused a famine or poverty, and I'm right it hasn't.

So what is to blame for all the famines? The environment? :lol: In the world today, there is enough food to feed everyone. It is due to capital that only a fraction of us enjoy a suitable diet. The same is applicable for poverty.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:31 PM
A de facto state of anarchy were the power of the socialist state is divided among the "people" (Workers Comittees and the like).
Communism is a society at the end of class struggle which is classless and stateless and where responsability is divided communities, where everyone works according to ability and recieves according to need.

Is that what you mean?

[praxus]

Are you denying that a hierarchy exists in capitalism? :lol: Don't forget that we live in a global community, and the subordinate third world is just as much a part of American capitalism as the consumers and owners.

Jesus H. Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall. The third world isn't even remotely capitalists.


He showed you proof that a huge economic imbalance exists in capitalist class society, and you just completely failed to refute it.

Actually I pointed out that there is not a static ammount of wealth and therefor one man's gain is not another's losses. Just because one section of the society is rich doesn't mean the rest of it is poor.



So what is to blame for all the famines? The environment? :lol: In the world today, there is enough food to feed everyone. It is due to capital that only a fraction of us enjoy a suitable diet. The same is applicable for poverty.

North Korea has a famine, is that our fault? How? If you took all the food in the United States and destributed it for free around the world by force, the farmers would simply stop working, because you would put them out of buisness, and now a whole shitload more people are going to starve. Then what are you going to do, enslave them? You going to keep a soldier at their farm and threaten to execute them everytime they don't work? By what right?

[colombiano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:09 AM

Only 5% of the poor in 1975 were still in poverty by 1991. So much for your cast system. Also could you define what you mean by poverty? Because if you went by the standards in the US over 40% of Sweden would be in poverty.


This is utter non-sense. Wealth is not a static sum. Just because the top 20% have 90% of it at any given moment doesn't mean that the bottom 80% isn't 100% wealtheier then they were in the past.


Never said that, try again. I said capitalism has never caused a famine or poverty, and I'm right it hasn't.
Wrong AGAIN!
2003 Poverty Guidelines, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

Size of
family unit
48 Contiguous States

1
$8,980

2
12,120

3
15,260

4
18,400

5
21,540


6
24,680


7
27,820


8
30,960
TO say poverty does not exist in Capitalism is simply naive.The figures I provided to you eralier are from a 2002 study that can be found on CNN website.

You are quick to blame Communism for poverty in Cuba and yet you have No answer for the Poverty in Mexico and Colombia. You wiggle around semantics claiming them Not to be capitalist ,however I can only see hypocrisy. You want to hold Cuba's Version of Communism accountable but yet offer NO answer for the Later with Mexico and Colombia claimimng them not to be capitalist becuase you have no answer?!

[colombiano]

The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002.
Capitalism creates a caste system. Those that have and those that simply DO NOT. That is your cause and effect.
This info is from 2002.

[praxus]

TO say poverty does not exist in Capitalism is simply naive.The figures I provided to you eralier are from a 2002 study that can be found on CNN website.

Are you blind, do you have a reading problem? I didn't say there is no poverty under Capitalism, I said Capitalism doesn't cause poverty.


You are quick to blame Communism for poverty in Cuba and yet you have No answer for the Poverty in Mexico and Colombia. You wiggle around semantics claiming them Not to be capitalist ,however I can only see hypocrisy. You want to hold Cuba's Version of Communism accountable but yet offer NO answer for the Later with Mexico and Colombia claimimng them not to be capitalist becuase you have no answer?!

I have given you an answer several times, you just choose to ignore it. Tell me how are Mexico and Columbia [pure] Laissiez Faire Capitalist countries? Do you even know what Laissiez Faire is?


The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002.
Capitalism creates a caste system. Those that have and those that simply DO NOT. That is your cause and effect.
This info is from 2002.

Repeating yourself isn't going to change the fact that there is no caste system in the United States. I have given you factual information that shows that most people in poverty rise out of it. You just continue to ignore whatever I say. In fact a great deal of the 19th Century Industrialists rose out of poverty, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnigie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt being the most famous among these. The fact is there is no such caste system, you can sit in your self-delusioned world plotting the overthrow of "evil" capitalists, whishing for a blood filled glorius revolution, but it won't change reality.

[colombiano]

Here is something for you my Blind Friend
Global capitalism, world poverty
It's 200,000 Hutu refugees from the civil war in Burundi and Rwanda are staggering on through an insect*infected, disease*ridden Congo jungle in extreme heat, desperately looking for food. They will have little time, or will, to celebrate this date in the Christian calendar, although many are at least formally Christians, another product of the mark left by Belgian imperialism along with poverty and ethnic violence.

It's Christmas. And the stockbrokers and money traders of the City of London are celebrating record bonuses from the profits made by their companies in 1996 * a year when Wall St and the FTSE stock market indexes rocketed to new heights, producing a bonanza of goodies for the few not seen since the heady days of the Thatcherite 'big bang' of the late 1980s. This staggering contrast between the lives of the many in Africa and the few in the wealthier industrial countries is not new news. But the sheer magnitude of the chasm between the world's masses and the ruling class elite throughout the world is often difficult to comprehend.

The United Nations may yet again have failed the people of Rwanda just as it has done for the masses in Bosnia, East Timor or Mogadishu, but at least its statisticians have made a small contribution. They have recently published their Human Development Report. This outlines a swathe of facts and figures to document the immensity of the injustice, inequality and exploitation that is meted out on the majority by the minority across the globe, as of 1996.

Free market
Most human beings are in a bad way, and it is not getting better, according to the UN's economists, whatever the preachers of the "free market" say and whatever the complacent platitudes mouthed by the world's capitalist political leaders. So at the risk of boring you to death with figures, let me give you a flavour of what the UN has found about the state of homo sapiens in the 1990s. Since the end of the great world capitalist boom in 1974, growth in real economic output has fallen in 100 countries, with 1.6bn or one*third of the world's population. Since 1980, 1.5bn people in just 15 countries have seen faster growth. In 70 countries, average incomes are lower than they were in 1980, and in 43 countries they are lower than in 1970!

The worst falls have been in the ex*Stalinist countries of Eastern Europe, where 21 countries have had falls of over 20% in just four years. At the same time, the world has become more polarised between rich and poor. The world generates $23 trillion a year. But $18 trillion comes from the 26 OECD countries and only $5 trillion from the rest, who house 80% of the population. The poorest 20% of the world's population saw their share of global income fall from a miserly 2.3% in 1963 to a minuscule 1.4% in 1993. Yet the share of the richest 20% rose from a massive 70% to a gigantic 85%! Thus the ratio of rich to poor in the world doubled from 30 to 1 to 61 to 1. The extreme is revealed in just one statistic: that just

358 people have more assets than the incomes of 45% of the world's people! Okay, that is not comparing like with like, as your wealth is not the same as your annual income. But if you compared those billionaires' wealth with the wealth of the poor, the comparison would be even worse, because the world's poor have no wealth to speak of at all, just their power of labour. I continue. There's much more to come. Those experiencing growth in national income per head that was faster than 5% a year has risen from just 12% of the world in 193 to 27% now, but those experiencing falling income per head has tripled from 5% to 18%. So the gap widens. Average income per head in the OECD is about $20,000. In developing countries it is $4,600, a gap that has tripled in a generation. But where growth has been achieved in the last 30 years, it has not helped most people in those countries. Between 1965*80, in the golden age of capitalism, 200m people saw their incomes fall. In the last 15 years, more than 1 billion people did.

Advances
There have been some advances for the mass of people. In the last 30 years, life expectancy has increased by more than one*third, and in 30 countries is now over 70 years. And the number of people with access to safe water has doubled from 36% to 70%. But 17m still die each year from curable diseases and there are now 18m HIV*infected people, 90% of whom are in developing countries. Primary education is now available to 77% of the world's population from 48% in 1960, but there are still 130m without any schooling and 275m with no secondary education. Food production per head has risen 20% in the last decade but 800m still do not get enough food and another 500m are chronically undernourished. Maternal mortality in developing countries is still 17 times greater than in the OECD, while more than one*third of all the world's children do not get enough to eat and infant mortality is still five times greater in poor countries. And the divisions in the quality

of life are just as great within the richer industrial capitalist countries as they are between the industrial countries and the so*called developing world. One*third of all adults in the OECD countries do not have any educational qualifications whatever. The poorest 40% of households get only 18% of the income. More than 100m people live below their countries' official poverty line in industrial countries. And it's going to get worse unless something changes, according to the UN. Poverty will deepen in the poorest countries with income per head falling to just $325 by the end of the next generation, while income per head in the richest countries will double. At present rates, it would take fast*growing China another 50 years to catch up with OECD incomes, and slower*growing India 150 years! In other words, never. And inequality within countries is rising. The average income of an American citizen is four times greater than the poorest 20% of Americans. That compares with just a two to one ratio in more equal Japan. This gap widened most of all in Britain in the last 30 years. Now the richest 20% in Britain

earn ten times more than the poorest 20%. Wealth is also distributed unequally, according to the UN data. In 'egalitarian' Sweden, the richest 1% of households own 20% of the nation's assets, and in the US the richest 1 % increased their ownership of assets from 20% in 1975 to a staggering 36% in 1990.

Weak
And capitalist growth is not only weak, uneven and unequal. It is damaging the planet and its inhabitants. Capitalist violence and wars left nearly 27m people as refugees in 1994 (before the latest Zairian exodus), an elevenfold increase since 1970. So much for the great "New World Order" after the end of the Cold War. Today, one in every 200 people is either a refugee or forcibly displaced from his or her country of origin. In developing countries, water supply per head is only one-third of what it was in 1970. About 8*10m acres of forest is lost every year. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, 65m hectares of productive land have disappeared in the last 50 years. Around 700m people suffer from indoor smoke because of the lack of chimneys in their homes.

In the last 25 years, so*called natural disasters have affected three billion people and killed 7m and injured another 2m. In industrial countries too the environment is being destroyed. Air pollution causes $35bn worth of economic costs every year and about 60% of Europe's forests are damaged by acid rain. But most of the damage affects the poor. While the US and the former Soviet Union accounted for nearly one*third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, it's Bangladesh that it most likely to be damaged. It will lose 17% of its land as the sea rises due to global warming. What's the answer of capitalism to this study of inequality, deprivation and misery? More capitalism.

Once the world is fully integrated into the "free market" and the planet is one great global market place for traders and entrepreneurs, everything in the worldly garden will be lovely, the ideologists of capitalism argue. That's ridiculous, of course, and they don't really believe it themselves. But the propaganda is essential to keep people from thinking of alternatives that might damage the interests of the rich few who benefit from this capitalist nightmare. Capitalist ideology now centres on an economic buzzword * globalisation. Since 1965 world trade in goods has tripled and trade in services has grown fourteen*fold! Now every day over $1 trillion circulates the world's financial markets searching ceaselessly (24 hours non*stop) and endlessly for a better return and a quick buck.

Prosperity
This is the way forward to prosperity, we are told. But of course, this growth in trade and money is not evenly spread. The poorest countries containing 20% of the world's people have seen their share of global trade fall from 4% to under 1%. Of all the world's flows of money capital they get just 0.2%! Of the flow of capital to the developing world last year, around $175bn, 75% went to just ten countries. So there we have it. A capitalist world that is getting more capitalist every day as the tentacles of finance and industrial capital seek out new areas and people to exploit in the search for profit. But more profit does not produce more prosperity, except for an infinitesimally small minority * remember just 358 people have more assets than 45% of all human beings! The United Nations has produced the damning evidence of capitalism's failure. The spreading rule of capital across the world over 200 years has brought with it better health (for some), better education (for some), and better technology (for some). But now even those benefits look exhausted. People are getting poorer (on the whole) and the planet is getting more damaged (on the whole). Happy Christmas.

[colombiano]

Learn to spell it right! It is COLOMBIA Not Columbia. Yes I am aware of the "Leave it alone Theory" you speak of. You are delusional. Chew the previous post a bit. You have blamed Cubas version of communism on them fleeing the country yet you cannot accept that there is poverty here in the US and all over the world. You cannot accept that in other free markets people are in the same situations only hoping for a better future.

[praxus]

Ok, how about you adress my points, instead of posting an overly lengthy article in the place of a real argument.

[Abby Normal]

Originally posted by colombiano+Dec 23 2004, 12:20 AM--> (colombiano @ Dec 23 2004, 12:20 AM)
Abby [email protected] 22 2004, 10:25 PM

What causes poverty, colombiano? Certainly if economics dictate as much as many a 'revolutionary' would hold, and if economic systems are as influential as claimed by the same, their very arguments can be turned back upon themselves to arrive at the notion that improperly-handled economies are a chief cause of poverty. ;)
Touché . That is exactly what I was trying to say. Poor economics may it be Capiatalism or Communism creates a situation of poverty !
So the statement that I have said SOOOOOOOO many times still stands true. People risk their lives to escape poverty , whether it be capitalism or communism or socialism. [/b]
Gotcha. I was just making sure your use of this particular argument was entirely consistent. :)

[Hate Is Art]

Communism Is A Scam, Second Only To Organized Religion

No, telemarketing is a scam second only to pryamid schems and organized religion. And probably Bourgeois Democracy.

[colombiano]

Praxus I have addressed what I considered to be incorrect you have failed to address what I have brought to you.
"You are quick to blame Communism for poverty in Cuba and yet you have No answer for the Poverty in Mexico and Colombia. You wiggle around semantics claiming them Not to be capitalist ,however I can only see hypocrisy. You want to hold Cuba's Version of Communism accountable but yet offer NO answer for the Later with Mexico and Colombia claimimng them not to be capitalist becuase you have no answer?! "
Free Markets exist there however you ignore the poverty issue by saying is is not capitalism , at the same time insisiting that People Flee Cuba simply because of Communism. :rolleyes:
(and furthermore your denial of poverty in the US)

The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002.
Capitalism creates a caste system. Those that have and those that simply DO NOT. That is your cause and effect.
This info is from 2002. Hmmm, No Poverty in the US? :rolleyes:

[themanwhodoesnotexist]

peace
hmmmmm....so you think communism and religion is a scam.....
well lets go back 7000 years before any "religion" was in existence.....the aboriginals way of life was that everyone was equal and everyone got a equal portion of whatever fruits the earth produced.........and that my friend.....is socialism......
only oppressors and bloodsuckers like capitalism.....

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:28 PM
Capitalism creates a caste system. Those that have and those that simply DO NOT. That is your cause and effect.
That isn't a caste system. You're just blowing out hyperbole.

[Professor Moneybags]

Here is something for you my Blind Friend
Global capitalism, world poverty
It's 200,000 Hutu refugees from the civil war in Burundi and Rwanda are staggering on through an insect*infected, disease*ridden Congo jungle in extreme heat, desperately looking for food. They will have little time, or will, to celebrate this date in the Christian calendar, although many are at least formally Christians, another product of the mark left by Belgian imperialism along with poverty and ethnic violence.

Yeah, yeah. I sneezed then it started to rain, therefore my sneezing started the rain. This has got nothing to do with capitalism. Poverty and ethnic violence are as old as humanity and far older than "Belgian imperialism". You assume there was no poverty and ethnic violence.


It's Christmas. And the stockbrokers and money traders of the City of London are celebrating record bonuses from the profits made by their companies in 1996 * a year when Wall St and the FTSE stock market indexes rocketed to new heights, producing a bonanza of goodies for the few not seen since the heady days of the Thatcherite 'big bang' of the late 1980s. This staggering contrast between the lives of the many in Africa and the few in the wealthier industrial countries is not new news. But the sheer magnitude of the chasm between the world's masses and the ruling class elite throughout the world is often difficult to comprehend.

It's not difficult to comprehend at all. The rich countries largely embrace capitalism, the poor embrace collectivism and stay poor as a result (the above example of Rwanda's poverty caused by tribal warfare enforced this). As the rich countries follow them into collectivism, they too will end up poor.


The United Nations may yet again have failed the people of Rwanda just as it has done for the masses in Bosnia, East Timor or Mogadishu,

The UN is collectivist run, so I'm not surprised.


They have recently published their Human Development Report. This outlines a swathe of facts and figures to document the immensity of the injustice, inequality and exploitation that is meted out on the majority by the minority across the globe, as of 1996.

This is presuming that that inequality causes poverty, which it doesn't. There is little point commenting on the rest of it; It just repeats the same fallacies over and over again.


Capitalist violence and wars left nearly 27m people as refugees in 1994 (before the latest Zairian exodus), an elevenfold increase since 1970

No examples of are given of why this was caused by capitalism. The tract treats it as self evident and in need of no explanation, just like every other assertion it makes.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:29 PM
peace
hmmmmm....so you think communism and religion is a scam.....
well lets go back 7000 years before any "religion" was in existence.....the aboriginals way of life was that everyone was equal and everyone got a equal portion of whatever fruits the earth produced.........and that my friend.....is socialism......

Why aren't you living with the Aborigines then ?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 24 2004, 08:53 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Dec 24 2004, 08:53 AM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 10:29 PM
peace
hmmmmm....so you think communism and religion is a scam.....
well lets go back 7000 years before any "religion" was in existence.....the aboriginals way of life was that everyone was equal and everyone got a equal portion of whatever fruits the earth produced.........and that my friend.....is socialism......

Why aren't you living with the Aborigines then ? [/b]
Probaly because they were pretty much all wiped out, along with Native Americans and numerous other indigenous peoples by various governments over the years, all in the name of progress. The ones that are left are forced into living with virtually nothing, or have to assimilate into the eurocentric culuture of the west.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The third world isn't even remotely capitalists.

Yes they are.
A "mixed economy" does not radically change the material conditions of a society to the point that capital can no longer be said to yield power.

In socialism, a free market does not exist. In capitalism, it does. Therefore, the third world is capitalist.


Actually I pointed out that there is not a static ammount of wealth and therefor one man's gain is not another's losses. Just because one section of the society is rich doesn't mean the rest of it is poor.

Anytime anyone acquires capital, theft is involved.
One man cannot create capital. It requires hundreds. For the product of that labor to be concentrated in the hands of one man who financed it with stolen money is unjust and is most certainly defined as theft of those hundreds' of others' labor power. So any time anybody is "rich", the rest are deprived of what they're entitled to.


North Korea has a famine, is that our fault? How?

"Our" fault? :lol: I said capital is to blame for poverty, not capitalist apologist kiddies.

But you're right, not all famine is due to capital. But I could safely say that most famine today is due to capitalism, and all famine is due to class society.


If you took all the food in the United States and destributed it for free around the world by force, the farmers would simply stop working, because you would put them out of buisness, and now a whole shitload more people are going to starve. Then what are you going to do, enslave them? You going to keep a soldier at their farm and threaten to execute them everytime they don't work? By what right?

What the fuck are you talking about?
Where did I say that the surplus food in America should be distributed to the needy? That would by no means solve the real problem of class society. At all. In fact, I believe I even spelled out in plain English that capital is to blame for the income gap in the world today. Not the lack of public soup kitchens in the Congo. :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes they are.
A "mixed economy" does not radically change the material conditions of a society to the point that capital can no longer be said to yield power.

In socialism, a free market does not exist. In capitalism, it does. Therefore, the third world is capitalist.

If any free trade exists, it's de facto and not enforced by law, like their property rights. They own private property- until the next tribe comes-a-pillaging. Their trade is free- so long as the rest of the tribe permits it.


Anytime anyone acquires capital, theft is involved.

How ? Don't come the "all trade is theft" argument again. I'm getting tired of refuting that.


One man cannot create capital. It requires hundreds.

Non sequitur.


For the product of that labor to be concentrated in the hands of one man who financed it with stolen money is unjust

This is more question begging; it presumes that his money was stolen in the first place and that there is no such thing as trade, only theft, which doesn't make any sense.


and is most certainly defined as theft of those hundreds' of others' labor power. So any time anybody is "rich", the rest are deprived of what they're entitled to.

Non sequitur.


"Our" fault? :lol: I said capital is to blame for poverty, not capitalist apologist kiddies.

But you're right, not all famine is due to capital. But I could safely say that most famine today is due to capitalism, and all famine is due to class society.

But you wouldn't be right though and I bet you can't provide any real evidence to back this up or explain how this actually occurs.

[Osman Ghazi]

They own private property- until the next tribe comes-a-pillaging.

:o You're kidding, right? You don't actually think this sentence is true, do you?

If so, I encourage you to pick up a book about modern africa and read it. Or, if you're too lazy, check out bbc.co.uk, they have a lot of good stuff on Africa.

Seriously, I'm not even trying to be partisan or anti-capitalist or anything like that, it's just that what you said is entirely untrue!. Obviously, there have been instances of this happening, and its more common there than anywhere else, but it is by no means commonplace.


If any free trade exists, it's de facto and not enforced by law, like their property rights.

No, a hell of a lot of free trade exists. As I was saying before, generally only some markets, usually economically critical or seemingly dangerous or important ones, are regulated. So, consumer goods markets, (which admittedly are weak) often food markets, and others are unregulated.


Their trade is free- so long as the rest of the tribe permits it.


Except for, you know, the 150 million or so Africans who live in cities and not the villages. Admittedly, that's a small portion of the 700 million Africans, but still, you have a lot to learn about Africa and its economy.

[encephalon]

You know, I'm always amazed at how people are much quicker to blame political ideologies rather than cultural factors, both from the left and right (although the right tends to have a more all-encompassing "everything else is evil" approach). Russia went straight from a Totalitarian system to another. The difference in ideology matters little. Russia was not ready for anything close to socialism. They had always been a violently oppressed people. The problem was in their cultural institutions, not communist principles.

I'm also very impressed by how much anti-communist people say about the communist manifesto, a rather short and simple document, when they obviously haven't. What would it hurt to actually read the damned thing before actually saying it contains something? And how many insults are required before you think you've sufficiently made an ass of yourself, from anyone? I was under the impression that debate was supposed to ideally be a relatively peaceful process (although Marx would've disagreed with me..). It seems rather counter-productive to call one another fuckers and whatnot every other phrase.

And Marx insisted that the proletarian revolution must be a democratic process, even if one only reads the manifesto. Communism and Democracy are not opposing viewpoints, either. They are stages on the same string of history. Democratic Capitalism comes before Democratic Communism.