Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Apr 20 2005, 08:50 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Apr 20 2005, 08:50 AM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 06:37 AM
True, but fortunately those on the right have tempered those causes and helped shield us from the inevitable unintended consequences of the left's good intentions.
Which would be? Opposition to ruling bodies? A cry for freedom? Yeah, thanks for the help.
The left has plenty of ideas that could have led to disastrous unintended consequences.[/b]
Ah, okay; I suppose your unsubstantiated generalization will have to substitute for reasoning but I will admit the right (even if you consider communism totalitarianism <_<) has committed genocide and slavery of an unchallengeable scale.
Your side of the spectrum doesn't have the monopoly on great or even "right" ideas - neither side does.
You sir, are the one that brought up "sides," way to shift the focus ;)
So you would maintain that the far right powers in control should be removed from power?
Through the democratic process, yes.
Fair enough but this raises the question of enforcing the "democratic" will and since corporative entities have no accountability, you should also be against that?
I'd rather we have what we have now than have a revolution led by the hard-left that you personify.
Hmm; I personify the "hard-left?" I will just take that as a complement but really, you could give some reasoning as to why you title me as such and possibly what you mean by it.
It's my firm belief that the hard-left would be without question more tyrannical than the hard right could ever be.
Please explain how the left could be worse than the far right (like Nazis) and why you assume this.
Again capitalism is not perfect, and never will be. No system will ever be perfect. From what I have seen on this board, capitalism is a far cry better than any system people like you would implement.
Yeah, serial killers aren't perfect either; I suppose we will just have to allow them to roam around freely. People like me huh? Like who? Who is like me? What do I stand for? Why don't you explain, uh, anything?
What a stupid comparison.
Hey you used the cliché justification, "hey, nothing’s perfect." I worked with what you gave me.
No, you don't just let serial killers run around free just like you don't let capitalism run free.
Ah, so you roll with the stupid comparison; *high five*.
Your problem as a radical is that you see only two options, because you're indescribably closed-minded and naive.
Okay; tell me more, because you seem to know a lot about me. Seriously though, I have looked at many "options" and I doubt you know the path I would prefer society develop along. As far as "closed-minded and naive;" okay but you are a coldhearted cappie asshole and I will defend my statement after you provide legitimate proof of yours.
You believe that capitalism is by definition bad, and that any forms of capitalism are equally as evil.
Actually, I haven't said anything of the sort. I know capitalism to be flawed in function as you can see in definition; though "hindsight is 20/20," and the more we learn, the more capitalism's flaws are evident.
To you, Nazism was capitalism was just as evil as American capitalism;
Well, not to say that you are making a coherent point but I think Nazism was in a stage of capitalism, specifically its decay and "American capitalism" is not yet to that point. Though they are different; we could defiantly compare/contrast the two.
while communism and the radical left are unquestionably the proper way to go,
I am open to debate; though you seem to be more interested in making my points for me.
there are no negatives to it at all,
I would not say that at all; social transitions take work and resistance takes sacrifice but if we could progress, we should all be better off.
and anyone who doesn't agree should be ignored (or worse). It's all absurd of course, but you'll never accept that.
Riight, feel free to point out where I said that. Debates are fun when you make up the counter argument; aren't they?
You either fail or refuse to understand that while politics and economics are by necessity closely related, any economic system can work under any political system. I have already addressed that point. If you missed it; I suggest you read the thread.
A socialist economic system could work under a totalitarian regime, a representative republic, even a direct democracy. Capitalism likewise could exist and work under a totalitarian regime, a direct democract, even an anarchy.
Socialism requires a state, as does capitalism and so anarchism and direct democracy could not coexist with them.
Therefore to point at the United States and claim its failures are due to capitalism is absurd. Capitalism is a factor, true, but capitalism as an economic practice never forced companies to undertake anti-labor practices nor forced the government to vote to cut the social safety net.
First off, your examples didn't "pan out," and the economic system derived from capitalism, encourages such actions by rewarding predation.
I'm guessing your failure to understand that is the result of a combination of youth (and therefore inexperience and naiveté) and your closed-minded, radical beliefs (as described above).
Giving up of disusing the issues so soon? I understand all of your points; you just have no proof and don't even bother to follow through.
The fact is, there is little if any coercion in capitalism besides the need to work to survive; and many communists on this board have said in their ideal system people will work or die, so what is the difference?
I never said that, so your question is invalid. Ask them to justify their "ideal system."
You know, I even realize as I write this that I have been wrong on communism, to a degree. "Communism" as many people on here, I admit, does not by definition mean what happened in the Soviet Union. I believe it could work, but only after an incredible degree of reform both in our way of governing and in our way of living. The problem, as I still see it, is that this reform will either happen after about a thousand years of continued evolution, or it will need to be "enforced" by a revolution that people on this board advocate.
I see no problem with revolution.
I can't really oppose its creation through evolution because I'll be long dead by then. But I do oppose its creation through revolution because my contention still stands that if people like you were in charge, your or my ideal form of "communism" would fail to happen - instead we'd be stuck with totalitarian, Stalin-like regimes.
I would not be in charge as I am against "totalitarian, Stalin-like regimes."
Have you applied for those food stamps yet?
:lol: Did you think that up yourself?
No, you are truly my inspiration.
Well, that made no sense.
How old are you and what level of education do you have, if I may ask?
Check my profile, as long as you can do the math, you can figure it out (unlike how you don't display you B-day). I have been learning about politics for many years now.
And when is this fucking server ever going to be reliable?
Who knows; I haven’t heard and I've asked the people that would know... it is a mystery.