To all the capitalism defenders [Archive]

comrade_mufasa

3rd February 2005, 00:13

All of you capitalist need to relize that true communist know that the USSR, North Korea, communist China, and almost all other self procalmed communist countrys never were and are not communist. why cant you people relize this? in all of those attempts at communism they never removed the class system they just replaced the ruling class with the party officals. so stop using former "communist" countries as examples of what we want for the world.

The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event. so we communist dont know what will happen during this transation period. Our only hope is as little to no blood shed as possible.

Why dont some of you try reading the Communist Manifesto. Here (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) is a link to it.

Thats all I have to say about that :hammer:

Publius

3rd February 2005, 00:17

Just as no country has ever been "communistic" no country has been "capitalistic" because there has always been government regulation and taxation.

So if you can you play your semantics games, we can play ours.

If you critisize capitalism, I get to play the "But that's not REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLY capitalism" card.

Right?

I mean, anything short of anarcho-capitalism (Which I don't support) isn't true captitalism.

And if promise to read that, will you read this?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=448934&page=3

It's much shorter and it's backed by facts not speculation and poor philosophy.

Read Myth 1.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

3rd February 2005, 00:23

Publius

3rd February 2005, 00:28

Stop filthying the name of anarchists with your fake ideology. Anarchism is the absence of all masters and oppression. Thus no state, church of capital.

Capitalism needs the state. What would stop a business from enslaving people under libertarian-capitalism?

Anarcho-capitalists are as anarchist as leftist anarchists.

Exactly, in anarcho capitalist there is no church of capital.

Everyone is free to do what they want with their capital.

Capitalism doesn't need a state.

Do I need a state to sell you a car or some bread?

Of course not. All a state does is make commerce more difficult with taxes and regulations.

What would stop business from enslaving people? Nothing.

That's why none in their right mind supports anarchy whether it's anarcho capitalism or anarcho socialism.

Anarchy is Albania or Somolia, roving bands of gun toting thugs shooting raping and robbing.

Any of you fake pussy anarchists want anarchy, go to Somolia, it's as real as your going to get. No government to get in the way of anything.

Try telling some warlords how great anarchy is, before they kill you and rob your corpse.

You might get a laugh out of them.

crazyman

3rd February 2005, 01:12

If their are no examples then how do you know that communism will work?

Publius

3rd February 2005, 01:23

If their are no examples then how do you know that communism will work?

Shh, don't piss on their parade.

comrade_mufasa

3rd February 2005, 01:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:12 PM
If their are no examples then how do you know that communism will work?
we dont, but we know capitalism dosnt work.

Publius

3rd February 2005, 01:56

Yes. It doesn't work at all.

It doesn't produce computers for stupid pinkos to type on does it?

Or provide internet service to said stupid pinkos.

Or provide "Ads by Gooooooogle" on the top of this page.

ComradeRed

3rd February 2005, 01:59

If you critisize capitalism, I get to play the "But that's not REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLY capitalism" card.

Right?

I mean, anything short of anarcho-capitalism (Which I don't support) isn't true captitalism. Wrong, Marx coined the term capitalism(actually the verbatim translation is "capitalist mode of production" but it is the same thing), if you were to use it you would be forced to use it properly. Sorry :(

crazyman

3rd February 2005, 01:59

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 3 2005, 01:46 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 3 2005, 01:46 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 08:12 PM
If their are no examples then how do you know that communism will work?
we dont, but we know capitalism dosnt work.[/b]
No I don't know how capitalism dosn't work. So please tell me.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

3rd February 2005, 02:01

Spain 1936

And man don't get frustrated. Nobody here is called pussy or pinko. Watch your language.

Veritas

3rd February 2005, 02:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:17 AM
Just as no country has ever been "communistic" no country has been "capitalistic" because there has always been government regulation and taxation.

So if you can you play your semantics games, we can play ours.

If you critisize capitalism, I get to play the "But that's not REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLY capitalism" card.

Right?

I mean, anything short of anarcho-capitalism (Which I don't support) isn't true captitalism.

And if promise to read that, will you read this?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=448934&page=3

It's much shorter and it's backed by facts not speculation and poor philosophy.

Read Myth 1.
You seem to know quite a lot! 2 questions so that I can learn.
1. What country do you feel has come closest to you ideal?
2. What would be you ideal of a complete socialist state?

My answers would be for #1 Cuba and my answer for #2 would be a country that shares in whatever economics they can produce and share it equally.

Publius

3rd February 2005, 02:04

A bunch of atheists who have a belief that condones violent revolution get pissy when someone cusses?

Hilarious.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

3rd February 2005, 02:08

Yes, we do love neat debates.

Are you Christian btw?

comrade_mufasa

3rd February 2005, 03:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:04 PM
A bunch of atheists who have a belief that condones violent revolution get pissy when someone cusses?

Hilarious.
:lol: im not an atheist. there will only be a violent revolution if it comes to that. which it will. so fuck you, you pussy

no not really that funny

t_wolves_fan

3rd February 2005, 13:53

I understand what you are saying, comrade.

The problem, as I see it, is that any system of government eventually needs some form of centralized control. Especially considering many of the problems we face, such as pollution, trade, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, are global in scope; and therefore cannot be dealt with effectively by small, individual communes acting all on their own.

But even ignoring extra-governmental issues such as international pollution, for the U.S. to convert to the communism you envision is going to require that some group be put in charge to explain to the rest how it works, and to manage the transition. They are going to have to overcome resistance from people, like me, who value individual freedom more than they value collective good. Many of you yourself have said such a revolution is necessary and could well be violent. Well, violence perhaps more than anything requires coordination and coordination requires some form of heirarchy.

Thus, during the revolution and after, a group of people (the party) is going to have control. Such an overwhelming change can't realistically happen any other way. And those people are going to have to wield dictatorial powers in order to nationalize businesses and appropriate personal property into the collective.

Cuba is the perfect example. They have socialism or communism, which many of you celebrate. Yet it took Castro's heavy hand to make it so. And last I checked, Castro hasn't abdicated power. He lets the locals make some decisions through their elections, but by all accounts he still has the power to lock up people who "disrespect him".

The bottom line is that we have yet to see any person or group who gains the absolute power that comes with running a system where everyone has just forfeited their personal property and personal liberty abdicate that power.

Even more scary to me, on a theoretical basis, is that collectivists view it as their job to manage people so as to achieve the results they view as necessary for the best of the collective. The result is a CEO or board of directors that is just as tyrannical as any corporate CEO or BOD, but which is much more difficult to remove.

Professor Moneybags

3rd February 2005, 14:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 AM
The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event.
Why is this "transformation" even needed ?

t_wolves_fan

3rd February 2005, 14:10

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 3 2005, 02:03 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 3 2005, 02:03 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 AM
The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event.
Why is this "transformation" even needed ? [/b]
I don't think it is either.

In fact looking at your two classic quotes, I hope to God it never happens.

:(

Professor Moneybags

3rd February 2005, 14:14

Stop filthying the name of anarchists with your fake ideology. Anarchism is the absence of all masters and oppression. Thus no state, church of capital.

Nothing to stop oppression either.

Capitalism needs the state. What would stop a business from enslaving people under libertarian-capitalism?

The government.

Come to think of it, what would stop someone enslaving someone else under anarchism ? Nothing : There are no laws, so no laws against slavery.

Professor Moneybags

3rd February 2005, 14:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:46 AM
we dont, but we know capitalism dosnt work.
Define "work".

Professor Moneybags

3rd February 2005, 14:16

Originally posted by ComradeRed[email protected] 3 2005, 01:59 AM

If you critisize capitalism, I get to play the "But that's not REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLLY capitalism" card.

Right?

I mean, anything short of anarcho-capitalism (Which I don't support) isn't true captitalism. Wrong, Marx coined the term capitalism(actually the verbatim translation is "capitalist mode of production" but it is the same thing), if you were to use it you would be forced to use it properly. Sorry :(
Semantics isn't going to get you off the hook.

(R)evolution of the mind

3rd February 2005, 16:02

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 3 2005, 05:14 PM
Come to think of it, what would stop someone enslaving someone else under anarchism ? Nothing : There are no laws, so no laws against slavery.
No laws (dead rules) does not mean no commonly agreed-upon rules of conduct. While there may not be a written law that bans slavery, it is a precondition for an anarchist (or communist) society to ever stay anarchist even for a moment that a great majority of people do not condone slavery -- or wage slavery -- and would rush to the help if any group of people tried to oppress others (against their will).

t_wolves_fan

3rd February 2005, 16:07

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the mind+Feb 3 2005, 04:02 PM--> ((R)evolution of the mind @ Feb 3 2005, 04:02 PM)
Professor [email protected] 3 2005, 05:14 PM
Come to think of it, what would stop someone enslaving someone else under anarchism ? Nothing : There are no laws, so no laws against slavery.
No laws (dead rules) does not mean no commonly agreed-upon rules of conduct. While there may not be a written law that bans slavery, it is a precondition for an anarchist (or communist) society to ever stay anarchist even for a moment that a great majority of people do not condone slavery -- or wage slavery -- and would rush to the help if any group of people tried to oppress others (against their will). [/b]
On what would you base your reason for coming to the defense of the slave?

There's no law, and almost certainly no moral basis in your version of anarchy, on which to argue.

Mob mentality?

(please do not change the subject by making the assumption that I support slavery).

(R)evolution of the mind

3rd February 2005, 17:26

On what would you base your reason for coming to the defense of the slave?

Solidarity but also self-interest, defense of the revolution: these people could be used to form armies to enslave me too. It is as simple as that.

(please do not change the subject by making the assumption that I support slavery).

But you do, in the disguised form of wage slavery.

t_wolves_fan

3rd February 2005, 17:38

Solidarity but also self-interest, defense of the revolution: these people could be used to form armies to enslave me too. It is as simple as that.

Defense of the revolution? If there is no government then what is there to defend?

If you tell me to help defend you against this slave army, or to punish someone who has taken a slave, isn't that coercion and therefore not anarchy?

How do you find this person guilty? How is he punished?

How is any of this done without some form of authority?

But you do, in the disguised form of wage slavery.

Nope. I support a system where people are allowed to either work for others or start their own business. It's entirely their choice. There is no slavery involved.

You on the other hand...I still can't really figure out what it is you support. It appears to be some sort of system where people are compelled to follow rules but there aren't any rules. Or, uhhh, there aren't any rules but there are rules that everyone agrees upon and enforces.

:unsure:

(R)evolution of the mind

3rd February 2005, 18:12

Defense of the revolution? If there is no government then what is there to defend?

The New World Order without a state/centralised government.

If you tell me to help defend you against this slave army, or to punish someone who has taken a slave, isn't that coercion and therefore not anarchy?

Slavery (or wage slavery) means there are slavemasters, rulers. That is not anarchy. Anarchy literally means 'no-ruler'.

How do you find this person guilty? How is he punished?

If a person managed to coerce people into slavery (by definition against their will), that person would be tried in some kind of communal court. For the first attempt there probably wouldn't be a punishment as such, but some reparations might have to be made to the victims. If the same person tried such a thing again, he might have to be put into house arrest or something.

How is any of this done without some form of authority?

There's no person or position with coercive authority. The only 'authority' in such matters is the will of the whole population concerned (decentralisation).

Nope. I support a system where people are allowed to either work for others or start their own business. It's entirely their choice. There is no slavery involved.

Wake up from your dream! Small businesses have very little chance of survival in a monopolistic market, and the choice between poverty and one capitalist master or another isn't really a choice. It's economic coercion. Not to mention the fact that there simply isn't enough work for everyone, which gives the capitalists their coercive authority.

You on the other hand...I still can't really figure out what it is you support. It appears to be some sort of system where people are compelled to follow rules but there aren't any rules. Or, uhhh, there aren't any rules but there are rules that everyone agrees upon and enforces.

There doesn't need to be a written-in-stone law to tell people to drive on the right side of the road for them to do so. There doesn't need to be a law to ban violence for people to realise that it should not be condoned except in defense against a violent aggressor, and even then only to stop the aggressor.

For more answers see e.g. http://anarchistfaq.org/

Right_is_right

3rd February 2005, 18:21

All of you capitalist need to relize that true communist know that the USSR, North Korea, communist China, and almost all other self procalmed communist countrys never were and are not communist. why cant you people relize this? in all of those attempts at communism they never removed the class system they just replaced the ruling class with the party officals. so stop using former "communist" countries as examples of what we want for the world.

It sounds like you are disowning the communists of the past. The communists in the past just screwed up. They were tempted by power to abandon their ideals. Im sure your ghost wouldn't be happy when future communists disown you for your mistakes... and lets not get into a ghost debate please.

Raisa

3rd February 2005, 19:27

Well good, I'll leave a cookie at their graves! <_<

When you are making communism, what you do is either part of the problem or part of the solution....
You dont give people props for being part of the problem and if you are smart then you just learn from the past.
Everyone has things they do that are good and things they do that are bad.

Publius

3rd February 2005, 20:09

Nope

Civil debates are for pussies.

Enemy

3rd February 2005, 20:34

The Machine

3rd February 2005, 20:49

Originally posted by ®evolution of the [email protected] 3 2005, 06:12 PM

Slavery (or wage slavery) means there are slavemasters, rulers. That is not anarchy. Anarchy literally means 'no-ruler'.

There is a difference between "no-ruler" and "no-rulers". In anarchy, is every man not free to become his own ruler?

There is always a ruler. If no man is free to become his own ruler, there must be one holding his right back.

(R)evolution of the mind

3rd February 2005, 21:00

Originally posted by The Machine+Feb 3 2005, 11:49 PM--> (The Machine @ Feb 3 2005, 11:49 PM)
®evolution of the [email protected] 3 2005, 06:12 PM

Slavery (or wage slavery) means there are slavemasters, rulers. That is not anarchy. Anarchy literally means 'no-ruler'.

There is a difference between "no-ruler" and "no-rulers". In anarchy, is every man not free to become his own ruler?

There is always a ruler. If no man is free to become his own ruler, there must be one holding his right back. [/b]
Well, what anarchists infact are opposed to is hierarchical rule/authority/government/whatever, that there are persons or positions that have more authority than the rest of the members of the society. If there are going to be rules, everyone who is affected by them must have equal direct voice in deciding about them and rules not being forcibly imposed on those who strongly disagree with the result, instead of someone or some group higher up in the hierarchy deciding them and having the violence machinery of the state at avail to enforce those rules on the rest.

The Machine

3rd February 2005, 21:03

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the mind+Feb 3 2005, 09:00 PM--> ((R)evolution of the mind @ Feb 3 2005, 09:00 PM)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2005, 11:49 PM

®evolution of the [email protected] 3 2005, 06:12 PM

Slavery (or wage slavery) means there are slavemasters, rulers. That is not anarchy. Anarchy literally means 'no-ruler'.

There is a difference between "no-ruler" and "no-rulers". In anarchy, is every man not free to become his own ruler?

There is always a ruler. If no man is free to become his own ruler, there must be one holding his right back.
Well, what anarchists infact are opposed to is hierarchical rule/authority/government/whatever, that there are persons or positions that have more authority than the rest of the members of the society. If there are going to be rules, everyone who is affected by them must have equal direct voice in deciding about them and rules not being forcibly imposed on those who strongly disagree with the result, instead of someone or some group higher up in the hierarchy deciding them and having the violence machinery of the state at avail to enforce those rules on the rest. [/b]
So slavery is possible

progressive thinker

4th February 2005, 01:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 AM
All of you capitalist need to relize that true communist know that the USSR, North Korea, communist China, and almost all other self procalmed communist countrys never were and are not communist. why cant you people relize this? in all of those attempts at communism they never removed the class system they just replaced the ruling class with the party officals. so stop using former "communist" countries as examples of what we want for the world.

The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event. so we communist dont know what will happen during this transation period. Our only hope is as little to no blood shed as possible.

Why dont some of you try reading the Communist Manifesto. Here (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) is a link to it.

Thats all I have to say about that :hammer:
If you ever try to incite a communist revolt here in the US there will be no such thing as "little blood shed". The real reason why communism will never be instituted is people like having this thing called "freedom". I know its ambigious and you cannot understand why people would want to have such a right. Needless to say there are people who would defend to their death this ideal. I don't know if I could say the same about you and your ideal, although once you're in power I'm sure you can easily suppress any sort of resistance to the communist ideals by assigning subordinates to carry out the rehabilitation of people.

In blaming everything on capitalistic principles and purposes, you show your true nature. In the same type of argument you use, then you can not ever blame the US or any other republic for any sort of human rights violation. Since we can just as easily claim that this country does not advocate pure capitalistic principle, your arguments are moot.

To carry your argument even further I do not ever expect to hear anyone in this forum blame the Catholic Church for the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition since that did not fit with the "ideals" of what the Church stands for.

As for your writing, in a communist society would you be a teacher? I hope not. I'd hate to relize a world in which that would occur.

comrade_mufasa

4th February 2005, 01:59

Originally posted by Enemy+Feb 3 2005, 03:34 PM--> (Enemy @ Feb 3 2005, 03:34 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 AM
All of you capitalist need to relize that true communist know that the USSR, North Korea, communist China, and almost all other self procalmed communist countrys never were and are not communist. why cant you people relize this? in all of those attempts at communism they never removed the class system they just replaced the ruling class with the party officals. so stop using former "communist" countries as examples of what we want for the world.

The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event. so we communist dont know what will happen during this transation period. Our only hope is as little to no blood shed as possible.

Why dont some of you try reading the Communist Manifesto. Here (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) is a link to it.

Thats all I have to say about that :hammer:
Yet, you guys love to defend Castro. You defend a murderer and a dictator. You show your true colors when you do this. [/b]
I think Castro is a dictator. I wish that he would not be in power and allow free elections. I wish that Cuba had a fully democratic communist system, but then I think that if Cuba had a democratic communist system would the US try and get involved so that they would be able to stake a claim in Cuba by mess with the votes. This would be no better then Castro, so I would rather have Castro. I would love to share a cigar with Castro over a beer with Bush.

comrade_mufasa

4th February 2005, 02:10

Originally posted by progressive thinker+Feb 3 2005, 08:12 PM--> (progressive thinker @ Feb 3 2005, 08:12 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 AM
All of you capitalist need to relize that true communist know that the USSR, North Korea, communist China, and almost all other self procalmed communist countrys never were and are not communist. why cant you people relize this? in all of those attempts at communism they never removed the class system they just replaced the ruling class with the party officals. so stop using former "communist" countries as examples of what we want for the world.

The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event. so we communist dont know what will happen during this transation period. Our only hope is as little to no blood shed as possible.

Why dont some of you try reading the Communist Manifesto. Here (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) is a link to it.

Thats all I have to say about that :hammer:
If you ever try to incite a communist revolt here in the US there will be no such thing as "little blood shed". The real reason why communism will never be instituted is people like having this thing called "freedom". I know its ambigious and you cannot understand why people would want to have such a right. Needless to say there are people who would defend to their death this ideal. I don't know if I could say the same about you and your ideal, although once you're in power I'm sure you can easily suppress any sort of resistance to the communist ideals by assigning subordinates to carry out the rehabilitation of people.

In blaming everything on capitalistic principles and purposes, you show your true nature. In the same type of argument you use, then you can not ever blame the US or any other republic for any sort of human rights violation. Since we can just as easily claim that this country does not advocate pure capitalistic principle, your arguments are moot.

To carry your argument even further I do not ever expect to hear anyone in this forum blame the Catholic Church for the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition since that did not fit with the "ideals" of what the Church stands for.

As for your writing, in a communist society would you be a teacher? I hope not. I'd hate to relize a world in which that would occur. [/b]
If I lived in a communist socity then I would love to be a teacher. I would teach kids that every human is your fellow sister or brother. I would teach them that the world was once run be only the smallest fraction of the human population. I would teach them how capitalism works. I would then teach them what Marx gave to the world. I would teach them that if the communist system ever turned in on it self they would be the ones who would have to take it in thier hands to make sure it would not return to capitalism.

Veritas

4th February 2005, 02:23

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 4 2005, 02:10 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 4 2005, 02:10 AM)
Originally posted by progressive [email protected] 3 2005, 08:12 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 AM
All of you capitalist need to relize that true communist know that the USSR, North Korea, communist China, and almost all other self procalmed communist countrys never were and are not communist. why cant you people relize this? in all of those attempts at communism they never removed the class system they just replaced the ruling class with the party officals. so stop using former "communist" countries as examples of what we want for the world.

The transformation from a capitalist world to a communtist one will be a complex event. so we communist dont know what will happen during this transation period. Our only hope is as little to no blood shed as possible.

Why dont some of you try reading the Communist Manifesto. Here (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) is a link to it.

Thats all I have to say about that :hammer:
If you ever try to incite a communist revolt here in the US there will be no such thing as "little blood shed". The real reason why communism will never be instituted is people like having this thing called "freedom". I know its ambigious and you cannot understand why people would want to have such a right. Needless to say there are people who would defend to their death this ideal. I don't know if I could say the same about you and your ideal, although once you're in power I'm sure you can easily suppress any sort of resistance to the communist ideals by assigning subordinates to carry out the rehabilitation of people.

In blaming everything on capitalistic principles and purposes, you show your true nature. In the same type of argument you use, then you can not ever blame the US or any other republic for any sort of human rights violation. Since we can just as easily claim that this country does not advocate pure capitalistic principle, your arguments are moot.

To carry your argument even further I do not ever expect to hear anyone in this forum blame the Catholic Church for the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition since that did not fit with the "ideals" of what the Church stands for.

As for your writing, in a communist society would you be a teacher? I hope not. I'd hate to relize a world in which that would occur.
If I lived in a communist socity then I would love to be a teacher. I would teach kids that every human is your fellow sister or brother. I would teach them that the world was once run be only the smallest fraction of the human population. I would teach them how capitalism works. I would then teach them what Marx gave to the world. I would teach them that if the communist system ever turned in on it self they would be the ones who would have to take it in thier hands to make sure it would not return to capitalism. [/b]
But they would be fighting you all the way. Would you have the ones that don't agree with you punished for their disagreement? Would you ridicule them? What do you do with disent in a communist culture? Playing Devils advocate.

comrade_mufasa

4th February 2005, 03:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:23 PM
But they would be fighting you all the way. Would you have the ones that don't agree with you punished for their disagreement? Would you ridicule them? What do you do with disent in a communist culture? Playing Devils advocate..
No I would not have them punished. I would talk, debate, and discuss with them. To even think that I would redicul them is an insult. Some will try and undermine the revolution. The people will look to those counter-revolutionaries and say "look we have homes we cant be kick out of, we have food no matter what, health care is free for all, education is free for all, and we have true freedom". so the counter-revolutionaries will be silenced becouse thier words will fall on deaf ears.

bed_of_nails

4th February 2005, 04:58

You speak of freedom as if everyone in the United States has it and always will. Freedom is relative.

How about the freedom to sleep in a warm house at night? Due to capitalism, people are forced to sleep in cold houses at night, to be left on the lowest rung of the social ladder. Due to capitalism, people are forced to decide which bills they will pay. Due to capitalism, some people will never have the resources they need for an education. Dont ever give me any crap about "it's their own fault". I have spent most of my life living around people in the poverty level, and I have seen both sides of this. When you support capitalism you condemn people to a miserable life of deciding which bills to pay in support of your theoretical freedom.

What other freedoms are Americans given due to capitalism? We are given rights that only apply to us if we fit into the right social caste. I have seen police abuse of others first hand. I have seen discrimination due to race firsthand. Never tell me that Americans have unconditional freedom when someone can have their freedom capped because they were born a minority.

We have the freedom to pay taxes and die. Everything else can be revoked.

Don't Change Your Name

4th February 2005, 07:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:28 AM
All a state does is make commerce more difficult with taxes and regulations.
Like the fish thing that Stossel dude mentioned on the link you posted? :rolleyes:

Anarchy is Albania or Somolia, roving bands of gun toting thugs shooting raping and robbing.

Straw man fallacy.

you fake pussy anarchists want anarchy,

Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)

go to Somolia, it's as real as your going to get. No government to get in the way of anything.

Straw man fallacy again!

Try telling some warlords how great anarchy is, before they kill you and rob your corpse.

Contradicts the "anarchy" thing. You might as well claim replace "Somolia" with "United States Of America" for that matter.

There are no laws, so no laws against slavery.

Laws don't necessarily need a hierarchical order. If somebody enslaves somebody else, then it's justified to take actions against that individual since he is in fact violating the actual idea of anarchism.

kingbee

4th February 2005, 10:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:34 PM
[QUOTE=comrade_mufasa,Feb 3 2005, 12:13 AM]
Yet, you guys love to defend Castro. You defend a murderer and a dictator. You show your true colors when you do this.
yes, i defend castro. yes i show my true colours when i say this.

how many people has he murdered? how do you know this? i'm sure i could label any government in the world 'murderers'.

maybe he is a dictator, but he is popular in cuba, and therefore is still in power. look at the gains he has given cuba- that is why many cubans love him!

Professor Moneybags

4th February 2005, 14:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:15 AM
how many people has he murdered? how do you know this? i'm sure i could label any government in the world 'murderers'.

Oh, so that's okay then. :rolleyes:

maybe he is a dictator, but he is popular in cuba, and therefore is still in power. look at the gains he has given cuba- that is why many cubans love him!

Yeah, and Saddam had a 99% approval rating.

Professor Moneybags

4th February 2005, 14:28

How about the freedom to sleep in a warm house at night? Due to capitalism, people are forced to sleep in cold houses at night, to be left on the lowest rung of the social ladder.

Yeah, they can't just gang up on a home owner and take his house. Sucks, doesn't it ?

Due to capitalism, people are forced to decide which bills they will pay.

Yeah, they can't just demand the unearned.

Due to capitalism, some people will never have the resources they need for an education. Dont ever give me any crap about "it's their own fault".

Then who's fault it is ? Teachers need to be paid for. As do schools ? Who do you think is paying for all of this ?

What other freedoms are Americans given due to capitalism? We are given rights that only apply to us if we fit into the right social caste.

Freedom of speech and property are protected regardless of who you are or how much/little you have. Spare me the "caste" rhetroic.

kingbee

4th February 2005, 14:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:15 AM
how many people has he murdered? how do you know this? i'm sure i could label any government in the world 'murderers'.

"Oh, so that's okay then. :rolleyes: "

doesnt quite answer my question, but never mind.

"Yeah, and Saddam had a 99% approval rating."

yes, but thats officially. i'm sure if you asked ordinary iraqis, they wouldn't say they liked him. but anyway, you can't draw parallels between two different situations.

kingbee

4th February 2005, 14:39

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 4 2005, 02:28 PM

How about the freedom to sleep in a warm house at night? Due to capitalism, people are forced to sleep in cold houses at night, to be left on the lowest rung of the social ladder.

Yeah, they can't just gang up on a home owner and take his house. Sucks, doesn't it ?

so do you think that those who are poor deserve to live in squalor?

What other freedoms are Americans given due to capitalism? We are given rights that only apply to us if we fit into the right social caste.

Freedom of speech and property are protected regardless of who you are or how much/little you have. Spare me the "caste" rhetroic.

great. so if i'm poor, have no house or regular income, then at least i can speak freely. property? if i can afford it.