Capitalism vs. Socialism

[Erin Go Braugh]

I'm a mild socialist, but capitalism works BETTER than socialism in economics. How will better products be produced without incentive to make them better? In a socialist society, where you are guaranteed to get paid the same as the guy sitting next to you, you can sit on your ass all day and not even have to become promoted. Heck, I'd become a "video-game tester" and just play games all day, and get paid the same amount as some scientists trying to cure cancer. It just won't work... social democracy w/ captilasim is THE final stage.

[Dyst]

Erin Go Braugh, you must consider some other facts when judging which one is "better". You are considering it from a western point of view. You must recognize that capitalism actively destroyes millions of human lives each day, and kills houndreds of thousands of children each day because of starvation. And that is not considered what comes out of wars and similar events. You may enjoy capitalism or "social democracy" all you like, but it only serves as a giant machine of exploition of other countries and people, while folks like you live happily ignorant.

[NovelGentry]

Heck, I'd become a "video-game tester" and just play games all day

And certainly such people will be necessary. I personally would much prefer to be the scientist trying to find a cure for cancer, not SPECIFICALLY that, but what I'm trying to say is I would much rather be important to the world in that respect.


social democracy w/ captilasim is THE final stage.

This is just foolish. You can't hold off technology forever. What happens when the needs of all men can be produced by a few individuals? For example, what happens when we have robots to build houses? Companies will lay off workers to increase profit, but to what end, without people working who will buy these products? The only way to sustain capitalism indefinitely is to destroy such technological advancment. In the end, sustaining capitalism will come from an extremely authoritarian method of control in which technology is not permitted to advance.

We've already seen this to some degree in the medical industry with the limitation placed on stem cell research, for which there is NO good reason not to advance it.

[Dyst]

And certainly such people will be necessary. I personally would much prefer to be the scientist trying to find a cure for cancer, not SPECIFICALLY that, but what I'm trying to say is I would much rather be important to the world in that respect.
I completely agree with NG. I would much rather be someone who was really interested in what I did and contributed something that was important, also in the case of a small importance, not necesseraly someone famous (although that could to a certain degree be possible,) instead of laying on my butt doing something more tedious.

And if there for some reason would be a need for it, I don't see why we couldnt consider how much people we need in each job, and if too many requested it, it could become impossible or unadvised to take that occupation.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Erin Go [email protected] 2 2005, 07:34 PM
social democracy w/ captilasim is THE final stage.
Society is constantly evolving, who knows what comes after Communism?

[New Tolerance]

I'm a mild socialist, but capitalism works BETTER than socialism in economics. How will better products be produced without incentive to make them better? In a socialist society, where you are guaranteed to get paid the same as the guy sitting next to you, you can sit on your ass all day and not even have to become promoted. Heck, I'd become a "video-game tester" and just play games all day, and get paid the same amount as some scientists trying to cure cancer. It just won't work... social democracy w/ captilasim is THE final stage.

The incentive will be the improvement of your own life. Don't like candle light? Then invent electricity. If you want to boil it down to that stage.

If you are the kind of person that just want to sit on your ass in a socialist society, then the chances are that you are the kind of person that will also just sit on your ass (living on minimum welfare, or a low paying job) in a capitalist society.

Industries which make their objective 'the maximization of profit' usually fails. Because the maximization of profit isn't actually an agenda. An actually plan for success would be something like "high quality customer service" etc. The same goes for the individual, if you allow yourself to be profit driven, you may be able to carve out a living, but it is highly unlikely that you will be particularly successful like Bill Gates. Since you are devoted to the money and not to the work, you might be able to perform some basic taskes but it is unlikely that you will ever have the insight to do anything particularly inventive.

ie If you want to come up with a new theory in physics, then your mind should be filled with physics, and not: "yes, I will be able to buy new car after I get this done." You will NOT get this done because you are not actually thinking about the theory.

[NovelGentry]

And if there for some reason would be a need for it, I don't see why we couldnt consider how much people we need in each job, and if too many requested it, it could become impossible or unadvised to take that occupation.

This isn't really a problem. While I agree under socialism such aspects would be regulated. It would be the position of the workers councils right up through the administrative to manage "employment" so to speak (on various levels). For example... if a car factory needed 10 more people to try and meet the output required to fulfill demand it could easily seek to hire these individuals just the same as a business under capitalism. Thus you would see very similar regulation under socialism as you would communism. What would be avoided, however, would be the ability for one of these workers councils to lay off workers.

Say you have 100 employees for this factory, each working 4 hours a day, and the deman rises... well as a temporary solution you could of course increase hours. This would not be done forcefully, it would be asked if anyone would like to put in more hours, if people want the extra labor time, they can provide it, if not, they'd look for more employees. Say they then hire 10 more employees at 4 hours. Then the demand subsides. Well optionally employess could decide whether they wanted to decrease their hours as a whole, individually, etc..etc. Once again, OVERPRODUCTION IS WELCOME. Underproduction is NOT, however, and society will feel it. When every other time you go to the distribution center looking for a certain kind of cereal and it's not there, you're gonna start to get a bit mad. So go work for the cereal mill! (if you want to call it that).

Where the government, or I should say the administrative comes in is determining the validity of jobs. It's not possible for someone to just sit at home and cook themselves dinner and say that's their job. Regulating who has the right to afford labor time to people can be determined on that level, and should be. So what stops the government from saying they no longer accept say daycare centers as a valid job and thus not a valid way to acquire labor time? Well the people would, in the end they have veto power over anything the government does, legislative or executive.

Under communism this becomes a whole lot more abstract. Once the credit system is removed we assume that society not only has the social conditions for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"... but also the material conditions for that. This is one of the key points often looked over by capitalists aswell as communists, that material conditions MUST make this possible. This is done to a great extent by changing the means of production from private ownership to public ownership, which occurs on the step to socialism, but cannot be completed until those means of production (at least for NEED) can be handled by all. At that point communism is unavoidable, this isn't to say it's not possible BEFORE this, but it will be determined as much before this point by social conditions as it is material conditions.

[Erin Go Braugh]

Well, when we have the robots that build things (which we already have), who will maintain them? Men. Robots maintaining robots will need to be maintained also, so it's a never-ending cycle until there is a "reproducing robot" which will probably be the end of capitalism and the start of some sort of utopia.

And also, I believe everyone has the right to a job. I'm not saying its a dog eat dog world out there, like most capitilasts. The government should simply put that person to work (if they want it, and they may choose). Basically like the New Deal.

And you may call me ignorant, and you'd be wrong ;) , but the ignorant thing to say (in my opinion) is that everyone will want to be "good". The majority of the world does not like work, South Korea and Japan being the main exceptions. There would be no one who would want to dig the ditches or build the roads, they'd all be inside or being pro athletes or what-not.

Also, bringing technology to a hault is ignorant, because that will simply never happen. Human survival depends on our ability to build new things to combat our "enemies", such as disease, war, famine, death, and rap-music (jk :D ). Also... you may not call me ignorant and insult intellectualism. I am going to work in an office when I grow older and so will most people in time. The hammer and sickle will be replaced with a mouse and keyboard. Industry is rather boring...I don't want to stand in an assembly line all day... and farming requires HUGE AMOUNTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. DUH!

[NovelGentry]

Well, when we have the robots that build things (which we already have), who will maintain them? Men. Robots maintaining robots will need to be maintained also, so it's a never-ending cycle until there is a "reproducing robot" which will probably be the end of capitalism and the start of some sort of utopia.

I wouldn't call them reproducing robots, I prefer to call them self-maintenance or no-maintenance robots. But yes... it will be the start of some sort of utopia... communism is often referred to as utopian. Once again, this doesn't mean we have to wait till this happens. The technology doesn't HAVE to exist if the social conditions and relations have changed enough to make it possible for communism BEFORE this point. I also believe this will happen, LONG before the technology HAS to exist. The point is, whether or not you believe that is possible, it's difficult to deny that the other thing will happen, unless some strictly authoritarian body takes over and destroys new technology to prevent it... fascism maybe, selected target: robots.


And also, I believe everyone has the right to a job. I'm not saying its a dog eat dog world out there, like most capitilasts. The government should simply put that person to work (if they want it, and they may choose). Basically like the New Deal.

If a job is no more than a means to survive, I agree. Everyone has the right to the means to survive. If there is no "job" they have a right to the resources which make it possible for them to supply their own means of life.


And you may call me ignorant, and you'd be wrong wink.gif , but the ignorant thing to say (in my opinion) is that everyone will want to be "good". The majority of the world does not like work, South Korea and Japan being the main exceptions. There would be no one who would want to dig the ditches or build the roads, they'd all be inside or being pro athletes or what-not.

I may not WANT to dig ditches, but I would. How is teaching a job I WANT to do equivalent to being a pro-athlete or "what-not" ? What about for a person who WANTS to be a doctor. Such people exist, whether you believe so or not.

Capitalism has taken that value out of work. It's not inherent in men. Art can be found in almost any profession. And above and beyond art, some of us just want to help other people the most we can.


Also, bringing technology to a hault is ignorant, because that will simply never happen.

Yes


Human survival depends on our ability to build new things to combat our "enemies", such as disease, war, famine, death, and rap-music (jk biggrin.gif ).

Material incapabilities are not on our "enemy." They are a problem, but relating such unconscious things as an enemy sounds like a shortcut to authoritarianism and fascism.


Also... you may not call me ignorant and insult intellectualism

Of course I can.


I am going to work in an office when I grow older and so will most people in time.

Congratulations. There is always SOMEONE working the fields though, even if it takes far fewer people to do so, and even if those people are in different countries. Communism is global.


I don't want to stand in an assembly line all day

It's tough to want such a thing, but many people are willing to do it if that's what it takes.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Erin Go [email protected] 2 2005, 07:34 PM
...but capitalism works BETTER than socialism in economics.
Okay, I'll just comment on this part. Capitalism controls the economic factors so it had better "work Better," but as other people have said, it depends on your definition of working better... more people continue to have little or no rights and consistantly die. Also people work at pointless jobs they despise; capitalism is actually better at doing that. What is your point?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Erin Go Braugh
The majority of the world does not like work, South Korea and Japan being the main exceptions.

A remarkable "observation"; do you suppose it's "in their genes"? :lol:

In my opinion, most people do enjoy useful and productive work. What they do not "like" is long hours, low pay, unpleasant working conditions, and lack of respect for their human dignity.

In short, it's the "slave-like" aspects of work that most people really despise...even, I suspect, in South Korea and Japan.

In a communist society, where all labor is voluntary, people will still "want to work"...perhaps even more than they do now.(!)

They will be working at tasks of their own choosing, at a pace and under conditions set by themselves, without the fear of hunger/poverty/homelessness, etc.

And they will have the respect of both themselves and others around them.

You tell me that's not a hell of a lot better than the shit we live in now!

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm a mild socialist, but capitalism works BETTER than socialism in economics.

What does this mean, exactly?
For whom does capitalism work? Certainly not for the hundreds of millions living in poverty these days.
Capitalism works for capitalists, those who own capital. The rest of us are deprived of power, just as we're deprived of property and the products of our labor.


In a socialist society, where you are guaranteed to get paid the same as the guy sitting next to you, you can sit on your ass all day and not even have to become promoted. Heck, I'd become a "video-game tester" and just play games all day, and get paid the same amount as some scientists trying to cure cancer. It just won't work...

Why do you think we work in capitalism? To provide for ourselves, no? In socialism, our work will provide for us much more efficiently and much better. If any of us fail to work, the only ones who will lose will be us as a whole. Why would you wnat that?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:55 PM
In a communist society, where all labor is voluntary, people will still "want to work"...perhaps even more than they do now.(!)

They will be working at tasks of their own choosing, at a pace and under conditions set by themselves, without the fear of hunger/poverty/homelessness, etc.

So everyone will do what they want, when they want at the pace they want and everyone will somehow be fed, clothed and housed in the process ?

Yeah, right.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Moneybags, stop trying to coerce the discussion to suit your argument. Read the other responses and save yourself the embarassment of sounding like an idiot.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I'm a mild socialist, but capitalism works BETTER than socialism in economics.

What's your reason for saying this?

Why does capitalism works better than socialism?

Even if your claim was true, you have to ask yourselves:

Works better for who?



How will better products be produced without incentive to make them better?

What is the incentive to produce better things in a capitalist society?

The workers produce, and they do not have any incentive to produce better, except for the fear of being fired.



In a socialist society, where you are guaranteed to get paid the same as the guy sitting next to you, you can sit on your ass all day and not even have to become promoted.

That is socialism as you see it.

That might not be the socialism I want.



It just won't work...

That's a claim with no evidence what so ever.


social democracy w/ captilasim is THE final stage.

Also a claim. I see no facts.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

survival depends on our ability to build new things to combat our "enemies", such as disease, war, famine, death, and rap-music (jk ).

Exactly, and how well does capitalism seek to prevent and "combat" disease, war, famine, and death? It doesn't "do well" at all, because capitalism need disease, war, famine, death. It's not in their interest to combat these things, much less to put an end to it.


The capitalist class need to drive profit out of everything. If they can poison a city with millions of people in order to sell the inhabitants medicine, they will. If they need to get more profits, they order the government (which all in all belong to the capitalist class too) to take out a country in order to rob the nation (which sometimes even is a capitalist nation) of its natural resources.

The capitalist class only protect and invest in its own interests. Why shouldn't the workers defend their interests?


Capitalism doesn't exist because it's "a good system", or because the system is "cool". It exist because it protect and serve a class.

[Pawn Power]

In a socialist society, where you are guaranteed to get paid the same as the guy sitting next to you, you can sit on your ass all day and not even have to become promoted.

Thats why we need to progress into a communist society.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

That might as well lead to new problems.

For example, your neighbor might eat a lot of greasy shit at 7/11, drinking alcohol, only using the rest of the time in front of the television, while you might work 12 hours a day, and he will reap the fruits of your labor.

One day, you won't bother to work because this is unfair, and you'll quit working.

Not only that, but in order to achieve a communist society, everyone has to be for it 100 percent, or else it won't work.

That is not the case with socialism.

[Pawn Power]

That might as well lead to new problems.

For example, your neighbor might eat a lot of greasy shit at 7/11, drinking alcohol, only using the rest of the time in front of the television, while you might work 12 hours a day, and he will reap the fruits of your labor.

One day, you won't bother to work because this is unfair, and you'll quit working.

Not only that, but in order to achieve a communist society, everyone has to be for it 100 percent, or else it won't work.

That is not the case with socialism.

Now it is obvious that you are not well read in this area. It is useless to discuss this with you until you further your knowledge.
You should start with this, Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&), it is well written and makes allot of sense.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Now it is obvious that you are not well read in this area.


I am well read.


It is useless to discuss this with you until you further your knowledge.
You should start with this, Who Will Clean the Sewers?, it is well written and makes allot of sense.

Read it before.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:54 PM
That might as well lead to new problems.

For example, your neighbor might eat a lot of greasy shit at 7/11, drinking alcohol, only using the rest of the time in front of the television, while you might work 12 hours a day, and he will reap the fruits of your labor.

One day, you won't bother to work because this is unfair, and you'll quit working.

Not only that, but in order to achieve a communist society, everyone has to be for it 100 percent, or else it won't work.

That is not the case with socialism.
The usual nonsense.

Do you sit around and worry about what your neighbor does with his time now?

Well, maybe you do...some people are "busy-bodies" always afraid that somebody else is having more fun or something.

If my 12 hours a day of productive labor is enjoyable, I would feel pity for poor bastard you're describing. I wouldn't live like that for anything!

As to the degree of support a communist society needs to "work"...we don't know. But it's certainly not 100 percent...no society has that -- otherwise there would be no crime or criminals.

:redstar2000:

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

[Pawn Power]

Read it before.

Then why would you make a statement like this
One day, you won't bother to work because this is unfair, and you'll quit working. , obviously you did not absorb any of it.

RedStars previous post again nicely words another reason why you statement is irrational.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Then why would you make a statement like this

Because I know several people, (among them a lot of anarchists), who would be opposed to this. I personally think it is a good very idea.

I believe that societal pressure must be very important, even extremely important during the transition from socialism to communism where we enter a new era.

What are we going to do with people who, yes, due to societal pressure work, but just do so because they need to, and does not move an inch more than they possibly have to?

How are you going to prevent that people take according to ability (take whatever you want without thinking of the well being of others), and work according to need (what is practically minimum)?


Also, RS2k, I have a question.

If only you care about yourself and not being a wage slave, why don't/didn't you buy an Island with anarchists and communists? I am serious. You could have gotten away from the whole wage-slavery. You still can, if you put an effort to it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
If only you care about yourself and not being a wage slave, why don't/didn't you buy an Island with anarchists and communists? I am serious. You could have gotten away from the whole wage-slavery. You still can, if you put an effort to it.

No, you are not serious.

As a rule, people who are communists and anarchists do not have the resources to purchase islands...indeed, making the rent can be problematical.

During the 19th century, there were quite a few efforts to establish "islands of communism" in the ocean of capitalism...virtually all of them perished or transformed themselves into capitalist enterprises.

It does not seem to have been a workable approach...possibly because no such "island" can be genuinely self-sustaining and thus truly be an "island" at all.

At this point, it looks to me like communism would need something the size of the EU (or most of it) and with that high level of technology in order to "work".

At present, people who wish to escape wage-slavery develop individual strategies...some way to acquire enough money that they will no longer have to work except on their own terms.

The vast majority of people who purchase lottery tickets, for example, are poor working people or people on small pensions, unemployment, social security or welfare.

Like me.

:redstar2000:

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

[Pawn Power]

How are you going to prevent that people take according to ability (take whatever you want without thinking of the well being of others), and work according to need (what is practically minimum)?

You have it backwards, it is,
from each according to ability, to each according to need

There will always be people like that, however they will eventually become very few. First of all they would be looked down apon and social issolation is a terrible punishment. Also under a developed communist society, starting as a child, you would be taught otherwise. Growing up under communism you would not want to be a lazy slob, you would want to work, not to mention the work hours would be far less and conditions not as awful.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 4 2005, 11:09 PM
Growing up under communism you would not want to be a lazy slob, you would want to work, not to mention the work hours would be far less and conditions not as awful.
You might even say pleasent. I would think most work would be enjoyable. You can make a comfortable environment, do the work as you please and to your own standards. I would think most of the unpleasent work done now can easily be eliminated in an efficient society.

[EMS]

The best example right now that I can find in the world of anarcho-communism within a capitalist society has to be the open-source movement. These people work hard and produce goods that are ten times better than proprietary software(user-friendly too!) and are completely free! When workers control where they work, they can readjust the atmosphere to be more supportive. Also in spain when Anarcho-communism was implemented for sometime, the cost of goods was one-fourths what it would have been under capitalism.

The inherent contradictions of capitalism:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=ST&f=6&t=32183 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=32183)

Marx's name has been tarnished in the west, and it may take years before people see the logic in Marx's philosophy.

[encephalon]

The best example right now that I can find in the world of anarcho-communism...

Their products are made for use (and the labor fulfilling, not based in just-to-stay-alive mentality), not profit. I think this is what matters most. Profit-gained and quality-produced tend to work inversely. Those that think a better quality product sells better than another in capitalism are sorely mistaken, and need to actually pay attention to commodity trends. In the past century countless better mousetraps have been made, but we're still using the same original (mass produced) one. That applies to all things, not just mousetraps.

I'm almost positive that capitalists have to lie to themselves about how their own system works to feel good about it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by encephalon
I'm almost positive that capitalists have to lie to themselves about how their own system works to feel good about it.

One of the most common replies from capitalists when reproached for some particular atrocity...

If I hadn't done it, someone else would have.

:redstar2000:

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

[NyChe21]

I think that we have raised an interesting question about communism and Che's great friend, volunteer work (which I would like to note that even he retracted from later in his tenure in the Cuban ministry). I agree that social incentive to work is a possibility (maybe not in this century but the future). I would like to note that the social incentive for any person is inherent. Capitalism feeds on this by providing(supposedly universally) the opportunity for a person to provide a service to the community, such as a grocery store or pizza shop(mmmmm...), and they recieve material benefits for this. The better they do their job, the more benefits they recieve. Now, assuming that most services, including pizza, would be easily made by automatons, what other materials or products can man produce for the betterment of society? Obviously, the fixing of machines would be a service to the community, and that would provide one person with benefits such as status within the community and not much else. Accordingly, the person who invents a cure for cancer would be given even more societal acclaim. Can this type of incentive system work? I would say yes, in principle. Of course, this type of incentive system is long from reach from mankind's current state.
In a short description of other aspects of such a utopia, I would like to touch upon the cultural part of this society. Art and music would obviously be available to all, and it would be as abundant as the sun (providing neoliberals don't blacken the sky by then). Socialization of young people would be a huge part of teh education system. The human tendency to want and want and want is something that is difficult to overcome, and capitalism feeds on this. Socialism will hopefully feed on another human tendency overlooked, the necessity to care and serve one another. Religion (such as fundamental evangelism and Protestantism) has made this difficult.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:17 PM
The human tendency to want and want and want is something that is difficult to overcome, and capitalism feeds on this.
Not only does capitalism feed on that "drive," it creates it. Commercialism and depravity are greatly responsible for these urges people feel and I don’t know that people would be so likely to have endless "want," without it.

[NyChe21]

I think in saying that capitalism drives consumerism requires some more backup information. In my opinion, it is the American neoliberal regime that drive consumerism. If we notice other countries such as Thailand and Indonesia (best wishes to all tsunami victims) consumerism isnt as prevalent, in fact, after they pulled out of the ridiculous International Monetary Fund and World Bank, their economies have done positive things by tweaking tariffs and making demands on multinational companies that factories built would be at least 50% under the control of native management, as well as profits made. Perhaps a middle course is possible. But the question still remains: Is consumerism caused by American media and the neoliberal regime, or is consumerism directly caused by capitalism?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:12 PM
Is consumerism caused by American media and the neoliberal regime, or is consumerism directly caused by capitalism?
I don't understand why you are asking that question; the capitalist system is woven into the media; so how can you separate them? Capitalism is the drive and design behind it and works through the media and actual interaction in society, propagating through both.

[NyChe21]

And you must add that the American media also dominates the international arena. And I was just being kind philosophical in asking questions, just my thing.

[Elmo]

I aint read 32 of the messages on here cause the first message is so easy to answer, the point is uniting and working together, the american attitude is to slack of and "test video games" wake up jerk, the point is society that works together for society, thinking of one self in such a matter is the reason it didnt work the first time round as a major politacal stance, but the vision is the people work together, doing there fair share.

[NyChe21]

True. And thus.....American society ain't ready for anything close to that.

[EMS]

Any society based around materialist goods wont be able to understand the deeper social obligations. Suffering must come first.

[Gen Arkan]

Originally posted by Erin Go [email protected] 3 2005, 01:15 AM
Well, when we have the robots that build things (which we already have), who will maintain them? Men. Robots maintaining robots will need to be maintained also, so it's a never-ending cycle until there is a "reproducing robot" which will probably be the end of capitalism and the start of some sort of utopia.

what stops one A type robot fixing another A type robot therefore you need 2 to keep each other maintained

[DUNKiNUTS]

Well my take on this is get rid of money and then no one has anything to fight for its all there. Set up some framework that states you must have a job,etc. work so much and meet these standards when making your product.

But with what all of you are saying there is one flaw.....people. Mainly western capitalist. They are all money hungry. If you take out the money then what are they going to fight for.....? the quality of their product is all that is left.... makes you think

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:00 AM
Well my take on this is get rid of money and then no one has anything to fight for its all there.
That would be great but money is a concept. If you can destroy all of the money in the world; please do so or help us do it... I don't see how that could be possible.

Maybe digital money; Possibly like in the movie "Fight Club," where Tyler destroys credit debt.

[Capatalist]

Communism doesn't actually work, it's a great concept and idea, but it's only works in theory. Communism may be better than Batista, but it just doesn't work. Look at China, how backwards they were compared to the capatalist western governments. Under communism, there is no freedom of speech, little rights for the people, and a lousy economy. Tianamin square is a perfect example of the chinese people wanting reform, but what did the communist government do? Killed them that's what.

[October Revolution]

How can you say that, China is not communist and never has been probaly never will be. Communism would have no state and since China has a state it is clearly not communist. Where are you getting your information from?

Since Communism has never been put into practice you argument is fundamentally flawed.

[Zingu]

Communism doesn't actually work, it's a great concept and idea, but it's only works in theory. Communism may be better than Batista, but it just doesn't work. Look at China, how backwards they were compared to the capatalist western governments.



Look how backwards China was before the revolution.


Now, look at how much it has progressed to this day.


My point should be obvious.

Also, now, look at the Paris Commune of 1871.



Under communism, there is no freedom of speech, little rights for the people, and a lousy economy. Tianamin square is a perfect example of the chinese people wanting reform, but what did the communist government do? Killed them that's what.

China wasen't even Socialist when the Tiamenn Square massacure occured, it was already moving into a capitalist economy. The last song the students sung together was the 'The Internationale'; the anthem of the international Socialist Movement

Seriously, you have one fucked up view of Communism; so do millions of other Americans. THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT UNDER COMMUNISM.

[praxus]

How can you say that, China is not communist and never has been probaly never will be. Communism would have no state and since China has a state it is clearly not communist. Where are you getting your information from?

Since Communism has never been put into practice you argument is fundamentally flawed.


Anarchy doesn't work, no matter how much you want to believe that it does.