Why do Americans fear communism

[small101]

Whi is it that most americans (from what i have seen and heard) are completely freaked out by communism and socialism.

I mean why is there some stigma attached to communism over there that makes yanks neck hair stand on end???

[tondraal]

They have been brainwashed by Usa goverment. ;)
They were in Cold War with Communism, that is why they see an enemy in it. ;)

[Capital Punishment]

It's not necessarily a fear per se. There was a huge rivalry with the Soviet Union during the cold war, plus olympic sporting events and such that left Americans with a bitter taste in their mouths.

I guess in some respect it could be a fear. People might fear the loss of individual rights.

[Arsiema]

Why shouldn't they fear communism? Give me some good reasons for not fearing communism. :)

[TheKingOfMercy]

Americans will fear communism because they are fed a load of shit about how evil it was. None of the regimes in the world came close to communism, even cuba has gotten more and more.... tolerant of capitalism. The world will probably never see communism on a large scale, because human nature dictates that it aint going to work for all.

Socialism is perfectly attainable, as it doesnt depends so much on armed revolt, and nationalist-socialism, when you take the terms literally, is a perfectly attainable goal. (anyone who mistakes 'nationalist socialism' for nazism is either stupid, ignorant, or doesnt understand english very well. or a combination).

[Publius]

I don't know, maybe the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, the Eastern Bloc, and others.

The fact that they weren't 'communist' is really irrelevent.

The stigma of the word due to those countries has permanently ruined your fairy tales.

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:34 PM
Why shouldn't they fear communism? Give me some good reasons for not fearing communism. :)
You shouldn't fear communism because it won't exist in today's society. Too many people oppose it.

[danny android]

Originally posted by Capital Punishment+Jul 11 2005, 03:54 PM--> (Capital Punishment @ Jul 11 2005, 03:54 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 01:34 PM
Why shouldn't they fear communism? Give me some good reasons for not fearing communism. :)
You shouldn't fear communism because it won't exist in today's society. Too many people oppose it. [/b]
like capitolists and facists and other oppressive doctrines. If people knew that communism was the opposite of these ideas then they would support it.

[TheKingOfMercy]

Capitalism works though, communism doesn't. People with common sense wouldn't support it. No matter how oppressed you think they all are.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:05 PM
Capitalism works though, communism doesn't.
As much as I'd like to see you prove that communism doesn't work, im worried that you'll mention the same crap that's been proved wrong countless times before.

However, you mention that capitalism works? brilliant. A corrupt, murderous, unfair, exploitative system works!!! what else do we need!

[Publius]

A corrupt,

An economic system cannot be corrupt.

If you mean it's practitioners are corrupt, I would have to ask if you mean capitalists or governments?

Most of the true corruption is in the latter.



murderous,

I think you mean 'life saving'



unfair,

What's 'unfair' about it?



exploitative

It isn't exploitive at all.



system works!!!

Yes it does.

[bur372]

what publicus is saying that you cannot have corruption in capitalisim which is true.

In capitalisim corruption is not illegal sure it still morally wrong but there is no law saying you cannot be corrupt because the market makes the laws.

therfore corruption is not illegal unless the market says it is illegal.

And as all the market ultimatly says is "make profit in anyway possible"

therfore the market is in effect telling people to be corrupt. because corruption makes money.

Therfore you cannot have corruption in a capitalist system corruption would just be another form of making profit.

[small101]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:09 PM

A corrupt,

An economic system cannot be corrupt.

If you mean it's practitioners are corrupt, I would have to ask if you mean capitalists or governments?

Most of the true corruption is in the latter.



murderous,

I think you mean 'life saving'



unfair,

What's 'unfair' about it?



exploitative

It isn't exploitive at all.



system works!!!

Yes it does.
An economic system that poisions the drinking water and drugs up its countrymen, and causes much secrecy, i'd call it corrupt.

murderous in the sense that people all over the world are starving and dying in some of the worlds major oil production factories, capitalised upon by YOUR oppressive ragime.**

Unfair in the sence that people inherit millions of dollars, invest it and make more millions, whilst the beggars on the street have a plastic bag, and no hope of a FAIR chance at life.

**expoitive as well...

systems work when they are coordinated in a true communistic/socialistic sence, not dictator, only freedom.

[Loknar]

Communism I dont feat, but what I do fear is what coiuld happen to that well meaning communist regime. All too often these regimes became corrupt and caused the deaths of many people. That is what I fear happening.

[TheKingOfMercy]

Human nature defeats communism, hands down, unless people were brainwashed into believing it. It aint human nature to share and be all communal, not en masse. Many other revolutionarys, ones with better cause aswel, have tried the dream, and it crashed and burned because of human nature.

When the left can alter nature, it can have it's revolution, before then, either some form of moderate socialism or the current system are the only really viable long-term options.

[Capital Punishment]

All attempts at communism have resulted in deaths of millions (in that very same nation!) and poverty for the majority of citizens. Unless you are a drug lord, a member of the commie party, or the dictator, you are worth jack sh*t.

That reminds me. Dictators. With no one ruling in the communist nation, wait, excuse me, society, who makes the decision. You can say the people, but who breaks the deadlocks? Plus, there is always someone wanting power, so a society without a ruler would be weak, and most likely couldnt exist for long. Like the King said, only the "current" style of socialism would work, but not well. People in this "current" style are the most opressed in the world. If capitalism is so opressive, then why do so many Cubans try to come to America? A better life, kids, a better life.

[small101]

have you ever heard of council communism, there is NO need for a dictator, and who said it is a better life being a slave to the corporate agenda, not knowing what is in you food, and have you voice muffled by a capitalist regime.

[Capital Punishment]

haha capitalist regime. Last time i checked my food was fine, and i'm not a slave. I have the freedom of speech. In "current" communism, you can't say anything against the gov, otherwise you face serious consequences. You can't even leave on your own free will. That is slavery.

Also, whats to stop communist cooks from putting brainwashing material in communist food to retain communist ideals?

And council communism? A group of workers can still have a deadlock. Who decides the outcome then?

I'm curious 101, where are you from and who taught you the fairy tales of opressive capitalist regimes which condone slavery?

[Publius]

An economic system that poisions the drinking water

Flouride? Blame the government.



and drugs up its countrymen,

MK-ULTRA? Blame the government.



and causes much secrecy,

How does capitalism 'cause much secrecy'?



i'd call it corrupt.

That's because you don't know what you're talking about.



murderous in the sense that people all over the world are starving

That isn't 'murder'.

And can you posit that capitalism is causing these deaths?

If not, I can say capitalism has SAVED the life of every person alive by providing them with food.

What do you say to that?



and dying in some of the worlds major oil production factories, capitalised upon by YOUR oppressive ragime.**

My oppressive government, yes.

We're not talking about government, we're talking about capitalism.

And I wasn't aware that many people were actually dying inside the oil factories.



Unfair in the sence that people inherit millions of dollars,

Did you know that over half the worlds billionares are self-made?

How is it 'unfair' to give money to your children?



invest it and make more millions,

What do they invest it in? Companies.

Companies that grow due to this investment, make products that the people use, and employ these very people you say are exploited.

As long as the money is invested, it is HELPING the poor.



whilst the beggars on the street have a plastic bag, and no hope of a FAIR chance at life.

Hey, it's Charles Dickens!



**expoitive as well...

Posit how it's exploitive.



systems work when they are coordinated in a true communistic/socialistic sence, not dictator, only freedom.

And what type of coordination is that?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:19 AM
have you ever heard of council communism, there is NO need for a dictator, and who said it is a better life being a slave to the corporate agenda, not knowing what is in you food, and have you voice muffled by a capitalist regime.
Of course.

However what about executive power?

If there is a communist system anywhere new in this day and age, I think history has taught us that there needs to be a balance to not allow 1 branch of government to become too powerful

What about a hybrid of the American government (and how it is set up between the 3 branches) and Communism?

[Livetrueordie]

history(dogmatic) and fear have lead Americans (in the US) to believe communism is evil. Hitler and Stalin are considered dualistic.

capitalism is an economic system, while communism is both economic and governmental. They cannot be compared as governmental systems without clarifying.

what troubles me is the position towards socialism, which matches communism, while it is much more realistic to our current situation.
after all there's a lot of grey space between capitalism and communism and it cant be ignored.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:33 PM



invest it and make more millions,

What do they invest it in? Companies.

Companies that grow due to this investment, make products that the people use, and employ these very people you say are exploited.

As long as the money is invested, it is HELPING the poor.


so shitty minimum wage jobs are helping people? last time i checked living off of minimum wage is a struggle.

[KC]

We're not talking about government, we're talking about capitalism.

This is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard considering that capitalism is what governments are based around. So if you want to argue that governments did all that, it was in the name of profit. This is what capitalism does.


Communism I dont feat, but what I do fear is what coiuld happen to that well meaning communist regime. All too often these regimes became corrupt and caused the deaths of many people. That is what I fear happening.

There won't be a communist regime considering the fact that there won't ever be a communist state and never has been. This would be completely contradictory to what communism is.


Human nature defeats communism, hands down, unless people were brainwashed into believing it. It aint human nature to share and be all communal, not en masse. Many other revolutionarys, ones with better cause aswel, have tried the dream, and it crashed and burned because of human nature.

If you studied materialism and dialectical materialism you'd understand that selfishness isn't human nature. And I'd like to see you prove that it is. Start a new thread, cite sources if you have to. Let's see it.


All attempts at communism have resulted in deaths of millions (in that very same nation!) and poverty for the majority of citizens. Unless you are a drug lord, a member of the commie party, or the dictator, you are worth jack sh*t.

Nobody's attempted "communism". You're thinking of socialist states. And most of the citizens in Cuba aren't treated badly at all.


If capitalism is so opressive, then why do so many Cubans try to come to America? A better life, kids, a better life.

This has been answered countless times on this board. Most of the Cubans that come over are criminals. About 90% are criminals and 10% are what you say (those figures aren't exact, i'm just saying that a whole lot more are criminals than what you say). Of course, if youre going to use this to argue that capitalism works and "communism" doesnt, you're going to have to explain why so many mexicans (which is a capitalist country) come to america.



Also, whats to stop communist cooks from putting brainwashing material in communist food to retain communist ideals?

Maybe because they won't benefit from it in any way? And they wont need to?



And council communism? A group of workers can still have a deadlock. Who decides the outcome then?


The chances of this happening are incredibly small when talking about direct democracy. And if you want to talk about how to solve this problem; how about making the council an odd number!


I'm curious 101, where are you from and who taught you the fairy tales of opressive capitalist regimes which condone slavery?

In the quest to drive down prices, corporations have gone overseas to find cheaper labor. They go to third-world (capitalist) countries. People that own sweatshops buy corporate contracts. Sweatshop workers make what you wear every day. These people don't have the same chance of making money as you do. They often make less than a dollar a day, and are forced to work hours unimaginable to someone like you. They can work days at a time. If they try to organize and form unions, they are blacklisted and nobody hires them so they die. If they speak out and try to organize protests, they are murdered. Sweatshop labor is often considered modern day slavery. It is committed by oppressive capitalist regimes.


Flouride? Blame the government.


Blame the capitalist government. Governments are just as vulnerable to the current economic system as everything else is.



MK-ULTRA? Blame the government.


The government that was built around capitalism.



That's because you don't know what you're talking about.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.




That isn't 'murder'.

So refusing to feed people which causes them to starve to death isnt murder? That's considered murder. If i kidnapped someone and locked them in my basement and didnt feed them - besides kidnapping - i'd also get convicted for murder.



And can you posit that capitalism is causing these deaths?


It is not in the interest of the companies that have the excess food to ship it to poor countries. Also, capitalism NEEDS a lower class. Capitalism needs third world countries. Capitalism needs people starving for it to work. Why? Because when people are starving they will work for any pay as long as it is pay. Capitalism exploits the starving.



If not, I can say capitalism has SAVED the life of every person alive by providing them with food.

What do you say to that?


I say that according to what you're saying, Nazi's have SAVED the life of every person that survived the concentration camps by providing them with food. What do you say to that?



If there is a communist system anywhere new in this day and age, I think history has taught us that there needs to be a balance to not allow 1 branch of government to become too powerful

There won't be a communist system in this day and age. What history are you talking about? The history of capitalism? Of feudalism? Both were systems that encouraged striving for power. You can't make decisions on how to structure one system based on the outcome of other systems.



capitalism is an economic system, while communism is both economic and governmental. They cannot be compared as governmental systems without clarifying.

That's not entirely true, considering the fact that communism can exist with a variety of different governments.



what troubles me is the position towards socialism, which matches communism, while it is much more realistic to our current situation.

Yes, this is what we should be doing. Socialism must be attained before communism can even be thought about.



so shitty minimum wage jobs are helping people? last time i checked living off of minimum wage is a struggle.

Did you see that episode of 30 days with Morgan Spurling when him and his fiance tried to live off minimum wage for a month? It was really eye opening. They lived next to a crackhouse with no furniture half the time and could afford basically nothing.

[Loknar]

There won't be a communist regime considering the fact that there won't ever be a communist state and never has been. This would be completely contradictory to what communism is.


Yes I agree there never has been a true communist government anywhere on this planet.

Isnt that Anarchy?

[KC]

Isn't what anarchy? A communist state? No, it's just a bad idea :lol:

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:47 AM
Isn't what anarchy? A communist state? No, it's just a bad idea :lol:
No i meant where you said the world will never be a communist regime because it is contradictory to what communism is. I asume you believe in Communism but a form where no central government exists.

[KC]

No i meant where you said the world will never be a communist regime because it is contradictory to what communism is. I asume you believe in Communism but a form where no central government exists.

I don't think there needs to be a "central" government in a communist society. They would be governing the world and that isn't really needed. To have a communist regime I assumed you meant a communist state. And it is impossible to have a communist state in a capitalist society.

And a communist society without government is anarcho-communism.

[Arsiema]

may be we shouldn't fear communism then. May be it's the state or government that's giving communism a bad look or something. Anyways, Most people don't really have the exact definition or aim of communism, and hearing the name gives them a nightmare. I think what we really need is enlightning people about what communism is and stuff.

[KC]

Exactly. People need to be educated.

[dietrite]

Whi is it that most americans (from what i have seen and heard) are completely freaked out by communism and socialism.

I mean why is there some stigma attached to communism over there that makes yanks neck hair stand on end???


You might want to look at the enormous, massive amounts of propaganda distributed by the media and government since the birth of the idea of communism to understand the gigantic amount of conditioning which has taken place socially.


I don't know, maybe the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, the Eastern Bloc, and others.

The fact that they weren't 'communist' is really irrelevent.

The stigma of the word due to those countries has permanently ruined your fairy tales.


I think this is incorrect–most opinions, throughout history, held by the populations of any given state/nation/etc are the result of media reporting/conditioning of the objective news.

The populace has a certain conditioned-view-point of these nations–almost all of their assumptions about these nations are completely incorrect and historically-inept nonsense.


Capitalism works though, communism doesn't. People with common sense wouldn't support it. No matter how oppressed you think they all are.


What do you mean by “works”?


An economic system cannot be corrupt.


Ok, *****, stop being overly-particular.


Human nature defeats communism


TheKingofMercy pulls out the old cop-out argument.

Good job, horsefucker.


All attempts at communism have resulted in deaths of millions (in that very same nation!) and poverty for the majority of citizens. Unless you are a drug lord, a member of the commie party, or the dictator, you are worth jack sh*t.


OOOOhhhh, good one.

Another worthy, Sean Hannity-style rant of a comment.

That jack shit really convinced the board.


That isn't 'murder'.

And can you posit that capitalism is causing these deaths?

If not, I can say capitalism has SAVED the life of every person alive by providing them with food.

What do you say to that?



Yes, it’s murder.

Yes.

I say you’re a *****.

[TheKingOfMercy]

Human nature defeats communism


TheKingofMercy pulls out the old cop-out argument.

Good job, horsefucker.

If it's valid, it doesn't matter how much it's been said before. And calling me 'horsefucker' doesn't help your cause child.


Capitalism works though, communism doesn't. People with common sense wouldn't support it. No matter how oppressed you think they all are.


What do you mean by “works”?

Every state that has tried some form of leftist government has ballsed it up, the russians and others thought they could play at communism, and It didnt work. capitalism has existed since the time of the Romans, it is proven to be a working system, it doesnt die on its arse after 20 years of posturing behind tanks and ranks of soldiers.


I don't know, maybe the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, the Eastern Bloc, and others.

The fact that they weren't 'communist' is really irrelevent.

The stigma of the word due to those countries has permanently ruined your fairy tales.


I think this is incorrect–most opinions, throughout history, held by the populations of any given state/nation/etc are the result of media reporting/conditioning of the objective news.

The populace has a certain conditioned-view-point of these nations–almost all of their assumptions about these nations are completely incorrect and historically-inept nonsense.

So none of those countries have ever had murderous dictators claiming leftist influences right ? Go read a real history book. Stalin, in the name of pretty communism (I know he wasnt, but he still invoked its name), killed more people than Hitler, Mao in china, the Khymer Rogue in cambodia, all mass murderes, all in the name of this communist ideaology. Granted Imperialist ventures aint been much better, but it's silly to disavow one system on death statistics whilst waving a hammer and sickle with the other.

and to lazar , In the Real World, you can see that much of the population, eventually, will fall back on instincts such as personal survival, for example. Actions that would be considered selfish (ie, running from a burning building instead of helping someone else out with you), arent complimentary to whichever leftist Ideal.

The same is applicable to the rest of Real Life, this is why I don't need to name 'sources', because it's in the real world, ye just need to open your eyes, people will crave property, more then their neigbour, a lot will crave power, wealth, greatness. Unless you kill these people, wipe out this majority section of the gene-pool, you can't have your utopia. Some power mad nut would just take over eventually anyway, as mankind was never meant to work without guidance, it's why we invented Gods.

[Arsiema]

People are afraid of what they don't know and don't understand and that's what's going on with communism. It's the state or government that's giving communism a bad look or something. Anyways, I think most people don't really have the exact definition or aim of communism, and hearing the word "communism" gives them a nightmare. I think what we really need is enlightening people about what communism is and stuff.

[small101]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:33 AM


An economic system that poisions the drinking water

Flouride? Blame the government.



and drugs up its countrymen,

MK-ULTRA? Blame the government.



and causes much secrecy,

How does capitalism 'cause much secrecy'?



i'd call it corrupt.

That's because you don't know what you're talking about.



murderous in the sense that people all over the world are starving

That isn't 'murder'.

And can you posit that capitalism is causing these deaths?

If not, I can say capitalism has SAVED the life of every person alive by providing them with food.

What do you say to that?



and dying in some of the worlds major oil production factories, capitalised upon by YOUR oppressive ragime.**

My oppressive government, yes.

We're not talking about government, we're talking about capitalism.

And I wasn't aware that many people were actually dying inside the oil factories.



Unfair in the sence that people inherit millions of dollars,

Did you know that over half the worlds billionares are self-made?

How is it 'unfair' to give money to your children?



invest it and make more millions,

What do they invest it in? Companies.

Companies that grow due to this investment, make products that the people use, and employ these very people you say are exploited.

As long as the money is invested, it is HELPING the poor.



whilst the beggars on the street have a plastic bag, and no hope of a FAIR chance at life.

Hey, it's Charles Dickens!



**expoitive as well...

Posit how it's exploitive.



systems work when they are coordinated in a true communistic/socialistic sence, not dictator, only freedom.

And what type of coordination is that?
The preservatives in the food giving you cancer, the chlorine in the water, the secret service and cia bugging phones and taking part in secret mission. senators being paid off by companies.

ok so if capitalism has saved their lives..... tell me why they is still so much death in such countries from lack of necessary recources.

your government supports the capitalist ideology, which inturn makes is a capitalist regime, and capitalist nations capitalising upon these poor souls, paying them 7 american cents per jacket they make and then selling it for a dollar, unfair yes, but not illegal by your capitalist standards.

you can take the piss out of my comments all you want, that just proves how ignorant you are!

ok, tell me why a person needs a billion dollars????

Companies like monsanto Corp, that produce useless products like Agent Orange and that product to make more milk..... yeah really useful. and again pay well under the minimum standards of you country, but hey its not illegal if it outside your borders.

a self critical democratic-socialist government that emplores questioning and challenging of itself, one that listen to the people and one that there is no room for corruption, it can happen, but only with an absence of capitalism.

[Arsiema]

But are Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, and others really communists? Could we take them as an example of communist nations?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:35 PM
Communism I dont feat, but what I do fear is what coiuld happen to that well meaning communist regime. All too often these regimes became corrupt and caused the deaths of many people. That is what I fear happening.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why the majority of Americans 'fear' communism, or atleast interpret it as a 'negative' thing. The reason people so oppose communism, obviously, is sheer ignorance. Communism cannot have a 'regime', any leftist knows that. But the very fact that this cappie thinks it will indeed have a regime is why he opposes it (along with probably quite afew more ignorant reasons he has). Sadly, the ignorance shown in this post is held by the majority of the American public...is it any wonder they fear communism?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:54 AM
But are Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, and others really communists? Could we take them as an example of communist nations?
No, they are not communist. The essential theme of communism is equality, having the means of production owned in common, for example. As most leftists know from Marx's writings, communism occurs when the state 'withers away'. By the state, we can assume that what must wither away is anything associated with the modern nation state, that is, capitalism and government, or, to be more abstract, official forms of hierarchy.

The existence of private property neccesitates hierarchy, obviously. Government, as well, creates hierarchy, no matter how 'democratic' it may outwardly appear. Now, I suppose in some sense there will be some form of 'government', but it will have to be completely democratic, and perhaps moreso (for example, holding decision making meetings until unanimity is achieved by the entire commune is certainly a possibility). Rules and other decisions will be created collectively, that is, democratically. So we see that true communism is one that abolishes such official forms of hierarchy, thus making the very idea of a communist state completely absurd.

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:09 AM
What do you mean by “works”?

Ok, *****, stop being overly-particular.

TheKingofMercy pulls out the old cop-out argument.
Good job, horsefucker.

OOOOhhhh, good one.
Another worthy, Sean Hannity-style rant of a comment.
That jack shit really convinced the board.

I say you’re a *****.
Idk about everyone else, but this guy has blown me away with riviting arguements. Just shut up and stop picking fights.


Anyway, we can all keep arguing, but communism has never existed, and until the world is brainwashed, it won't. Human nature. It's getting a bit redundant, but human nature will conquer "true" communism.


And modern socialist republics do have crappy living conditions and the majority of people do live in poverty. I have no idea why you people defend those nations. They are more opressive then any capitalist "regime," and aren't even "real" communist societies.

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:31 AM
Exactly. People need to be educated.
I think most of us were educated on sharing in pre-k. Besides, why would people want to just give up all their possesions and share with everyone? What do they get out of it? There is no incentive.

I just thought of something else too. If everyone is equal socially and economically, then won't a communist society be generally poor? How will a government, or worker's council sustain the masses with everything they need/luxuries they want? I mean if one person gets a roll's royce, won't everyone else in the "society" have to get a rolls royce? This is just a thought.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:10 AM




This is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard considering that capitalism is what governments are based around. So if you want to argue that governments did all that, it was in the name of profit. This is what capitalism does.

Of course it sounds idiotic to you.

You have no comprehension of what I'm talking about.

It is my ideal to take government out of capitalism, completely, and pragmatically, to take it out of capitalism as much as possible.

I'm not 'pro-capitalist' I'm 'anti-government'.

Using any current country to argue against what I support is exactly akin to using the Soviet Union to lambaste your views.



Blame the capitalist government. Governments are just as vulnerable to the current economic system as everything else is.

Prove to me that flouride in the water is capitalism's fault.

I implore you.


The government that was built around capitalism.


No, the government that is antithetical to capitalism.


Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

What a witty repartee.


So refusing to feed people which causes them to starve to death isnt murder? That's considered murder. If i kidnapped someone and locked them in my basement and didnt feed them - besides kidnapping - i'd also get convicted for murder.

Capitalism isn't 'kidnapping' anyone, so your analogy fails.

A better one is this: A kid in Africa starves to death, and the police come to your house and arrest you because you didn't fly to Africa and give him your food.

Is that murder? Is you not giving your food to that starving child murder?

If you're not a murder, how can you say 'capitalism' is, when it's the exact same thing that's happening?



It is not in the interest of the companies that have the excess food to ship it to poor countries.

Yes it is. They sell it. They're CAPITALISTS not cartoon villians out to harm.



Also, capitalism NEEDS a lower class. Capitalism needs third world countries. Capitalism needs people starving for it to work. Why? Because when people are starving they will work for any pay as long as it is pay. Capitalism exploits the starving.

No it doesn't. Capitalism functions fine here in the modern Western world without this poverty and it's reducing poverty around the world at a an incredible rate.

It halved the worlds extreme poor in 15 years.

But I guess that's 'explotation' too.



I say that according to what you're saying, Nazi's have SAVED the life of every person that survived the concentration camps by providing them with food. What do you say to that?

I say you suck at making analogies.

We aren't in a metaphorical 'concentration camp' so the analogy doesn't hold up.




Did you see that episode of 30 days with Morgan Spurling when him and his fiance tried to live off minimum wage for a month? It was really eye opening. They lived next to a crackhouse with no furniture half the time and could afford basically nothing.

This should be funny.

What should we do, raise the minimum wage?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:50 AM








The preservatives in the food giving you cancer, the chlorine in the water, the secret service and cia bugging phones and taking part in secret mission. senators being paid off by companies.

If we didn't have preservatives in our food, our food wouldn't be preserved. It would rot.

If you didn't have chlorine in your water, you would get ill from a water-borne germ.

The other two are failures of the GOVERNMENT, that I hope to rectify.


ok so if capitalism has saved their lives..... tell me why they is still so much death in such countries from lack of necessary recources.

Because capitalism isn't there yet.

They don't have a capitalism economy, they live under a roughshod dictator, and they have no industrailization.

What do you propose be done?



your government supports the capitalist ideology, which inturn makes is a capitalist regime, and capitalist nations capitalising upon these poor souls, paying them 7 american cents per jacket they make and then selling it for a dollar, unfair yes, but not illegal by your capitalist standards.

I'm sure making it illegal would be so much more humanitarian. That poor soul could make his jackets, not at all, and starve to death.

Capitalism PREVENTS these people from dying and you're *****ing about it.

It reminds me of some anecdotal stories of actors wanting to close down sweatshops in Asia, and the people working there not wanting them to close down, because if it did, they would starve and die.

Did the actors care? No.


you can take the piss out of my comments all you want, that just proves how ignorant you are!

No, it proves how ignorant you are.

But you almost got it right.


ok, tell me why a person needs a billion dollars???

Because that billion dollars was given to them by other people.

It's their money.


Companies like monsanto Corp, that produce useless products like Agent Orange and that product to make more milk..... yeah really useful. and again pay well under the minimum standards of you country, but hey its not illegal if it outside your borders.

Agent Orange was produced for the government to fight an immoral war.

And a product that makes more milk sounds immensely useful.


a self critical democratic-socialist government that emplores questioning and challenging of itself, one that listen to the people and one that there is no room for corruption, it can happen, but only with an absence of capitalism.

I don't propose a democratic-socialist system.

There would be no socialism, and only democracy in the sense that you could vote.

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:37 PM
I'm not 'pro-capitalist' I'm 'anti-government'.
I don't understand your political standing publius. From that comment you sound like an anarchist.

[Publius]

I don't understand your political standing publius. From that comment you sound like an anarchist.

I'm a libertarian.

I was saying I don't support government aid to business.

I don't support government favoritism.

I don't want special privileges for business.

[Enragé]

http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/growi...ld_poverty.html (http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/growing_world_poverty.html)

[Che1990]

America are afraid of communism because they are a huge capitalist state. Surely it's pretty obvious.

[KC]

and to lazar , In the Real World, you can see that much of the population, eventually, will fall back on instincts such as personal survival, for example. Actions that would be considered selfish (ie, running from a burning building instead of helping someone else out with you), arent complimentary to whichever leftist Ideal.

Self-preservation isn't the same thing as selfishness. Getting rich isn't self-preservation.


Human nature. It's getting a bit redundant, but human nature will conquer "true" communism.

Consider this. Socialist revolutions create socialist states across the globe. Eventually the world is socialist. In a socialist system nobody is raised to be greedy (which isn't human nature). From socialism - since nobody is raised to be greedy - we can go to communism. Your argument is garbage.



And modern socialist republics do have crappy living conditions and the majority of people do live in poverty.

Cuba is better off being socialist than it would be under capitalism. Cuba is the only socialist country, and it's not poor because of socialism.


I have no idea why you people defend those nations.

Maybe it's because it works better than capitalism? Everybody's treated better. Nobody starves!


They are more opressive then any capitalist "regime," and aren't even "real" communist societies.

Cuba isn't oppressive.


Besides, why would people want to just give up all their possesions and share with everyone? What do they get out of it? There is no incentive.

They don't have to work long hours at shitty jobs anymore. They could work whatever job they want as long as they want and they get everything for free. Your argument isn't really relevant, though. We're not going to have a communist society overnight. It's going to take hundreds of years.



I just thought of something else too. If everyone is equal socially and economically, then won't a communist society be generally poor? How will a government, or worker's council sustain the masses with everything they need/luxuries they want? I mean if one person gets a roll's royce, won't everyone else in the "society" have to get a rolls royce? This is just a thought.

Why couldn't everyone else in society have a rolls royce? The better question would be, who would want one? There is no such thing as "status items" in a communist society as everything is free.



It is my ideal to take government out of capitalism, completely, and pragmatically, to take it out of capitalism as much as possible.

I'm not 'pro-capitalist' I'm 'anti-government'.

Using any current country to argue against what I support is exactly akin to using the Soviet Union to lambaste your views.

The soviet union wasn't communist so you can't make that argument. Your government is capitalist so I can.



Prove to me that flouride in the water is capitalism's fault.

Government puts fluoride in water because it can make money. Capitalism teaches to do anything to get money.



What a witty repartee.


Why thank you!




Yes it is. They sell it. They're CAPITALISTS not cartoon villians out to harm.


So it's in the companies' best interests to ship the food to third world countries to try to sell it to people that can't even afford it? They'd lose money on the shipping and from pricing it high enough to make a profit, which nobody would be able to afford.




No it doesn't. Capitalism functions fine here in the modern Western world without this poverty and it's reducing poverty around the world at a an incredible rate.


Globalization.




I say you suck at making analogies.

We aren't in a metaphorical 'concentration camp' so the analogy doesn't hold up.

Actually that was a good analogy. Saying that capitalism saves the lives of everyone alive in the environment that it created where people starve because of it is just like nazis saving hte lives of everyone that lived through a concentration camp, which the nazis created.



What should we do, raise the minimum wage?


Of course not. That won't do anything. Capitalist economics dictate that that'll do jack shit. And Kerry's an idiot for trying to push for the 7.25 for so long. You can't change the problems without changing the system.


That poor soul could make his jackets, not at all, and starve to death.

So you think sweatshops are good. Capitalism hurts these people. If there weren't sweatshops, they wouldn't starve. They could use the land to farm! And be better off!

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:37 PM
Your argument isn't really relevant, though. We're not going to have a communist society overnight. It's going to take hundreds of years.

My argument isn't relevant? Hahah please. You are defending dictatorships. Do you understand? Dictatorships. Your argument is garbage.

People aren't all going to accept socialism. The whole world will never agree on one thing. I guess you'll have to haul all of the non-communist population of to gulags. Or you can stick us in our own little island. Or maybe send us to the moon. This banter is more useful than your defense!

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:37 PM
Why couldn't everyone else in society have a rolls royce? The better question would be, who would want one? There is no such thing as "status items" in a communist society as everything is free.
Everything is free huh. Since the world will never be all socialist, communist societies will still need money. Where do you get the money to make and distribute all those "free items?" The little communist society will not have every resource in the world, they will need to trade.

[TheKingOfMercy]

lazar, you missed the rest of my point about human nature, if you're going to quote me and dismiss my points, at least attempt to dismiss the whole point instead of half of it. Or couldn't you ? ... I've noticed on this site, its a trend, single phrases or words are picked up to dismiss whole arguements, usually missing the point of the argument altogether.

[red_orchestra]

Hey, this question is fairly fucking easy to answer: A system which challanges the very nature of Capitalism's existance is a threat to all of those pigs who hold the greatest percentage of wealth in the world. Pigs like to protect their wealth and false image in society so that they can continue to exploit others and make larger $$$$$$$.

Sick, sick, sick!
--------------------------
Capital Punishment: "free" is an arbitrary word... in a true strongly socialist/ "Communist" people pay for the items by use of labour or work of some kind. So its just a different way of recieving wealth. People work for their goods. Money has no value in a communist society, however the county must survive globally if it is to recieve goods...trade is one of those options.

[Publius]

The soviet union wasn't communist so you can't make that argument. Your government is capitalist so I can.

Our government is anti-capitalist.

Capitalism is a free market. Our government does not promote a free-market.

Our government is not capitalist in any sense of the word.

capitalist

1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

1. The government doesn't support capitalism. It supports socialism.

2. The government doesn't invest invest, it steals and gives away.

3. The government doesn't have any wealth. It's citizens have wealth, they just steal it.


Government puts fluoride in water because it can make money. Capitalism teaches to do anything to get money.

How does putting flouride in teh water make them money? It costs them money.


So it's in the companies' best interests to ship the food to third world countries to try to sell it to people that can't even afford it? They'd lose money on the shipping and from pricing it high enough to make a profit, which nobody would be able to afford.

If you grow the food in Africa, the shipping isn't an issue.

And since food is sold in Africa, your postulations are bullshit.


Globalization.

... is a good thing.


Actually that was a good analogy. Saying that capitalism saves the lives of everyone alive in the environment that it created where people starve because of it is just like nazis saving hte lives of everyone that lived through a concentration camp, which the nazis created.

No, it's a false analogy.

Starvation was higher before capitalism.

Deaths in concentration camps were non-existant before the Nazis.

The analogy only works if capitalists invented or brought about starvation, which is the exact opposite of what happend.



Of course not. That won't do anything. Capitalist economics dictate that that'll do jack shit. And Kerry's an idiot for trying to push for the 7.25 for so long. You can't change the problems without changing the system.

Glad to see your have at least part of functioning brain.



So you think sweatshops are good. Capitalism hurts these people. If there weren't sweatshops, they wouldn't starve. They could use the land to farm! And be better off!

They were farming, doublessly, before the sweatshop arrived.

And I don't have to think sweatshops are good and neither do you.

All that matters is that people working in them do.

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:09 PM

A corrupt,

An economic system cannot be corrupt.

One that places people above other people and treats them like animals, a comadity that is bought and sold, where money equals power, is corrupt.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:18 PM
http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/growi...ld_poverty.html (http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/growing_world_poverty.html)
:lol:

"I would argue that the working class, and the masses internationally have lost the entire 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st because of the absolute failure of capitalism to advance the mass of humanity."

In order to benefit from capitalism, Africa must first practice it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:37 PM
Maybe it's because it works better than capitalism? Everybody's treated better. Nobody starves!


Your arguments lack evidence.


Cuba isn't oppressive.

Here are some Cubans who disagree :

Link (http://d2.mediastreamnetworks.com/streamvideo.asp?sss=d2&ssvn=2138&ssun=Freestar&ssvs=Large&sspc=6&ssps=3&ssvw=320&ssvh=253)


The soviet union wasn't communist so you can't make that argument. Your government is capitalist so I can.

No, it's a mixed economy.


Government puts fluoride in water because it can make money. Capitalism teaches to do anything to get money.

Nice characature. That's not what I adovcate.


So you think sweatshops are good. Capitalism hurts these people. If there weren't sweatshops, they wouldn't starve. They could use the land to farm! And be better off!

So why do they abandon farms to work in these "sweatshops", if they&#39;re better off on farms ? Obviously these people are too dumb to know what&#39;s good for them. Thank goodness we have people like you to herd them in the right direction... <_<

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:56 PM
"free" is an arbitrary word...
No, it means "costs nothing".


in a true strongly socialist/ "Communist" people pay for the items by use of labour or work of some kind.

Except for those who don&#39;t work.


So its just a different way of recieving wealth.

We can all see who benefits the most from that (see above).

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2005, 07:16 PM
Here are some Cubans who disagree :

Link (http://d2.mediastreamnetworks.com/streamvideo.asp?sss=d2&ssvn=2138&ssun=Freestar&ssvs=Large&sspc=6&ssps=3&ssvw=320&ssvh=253)
Yet people on this site support castro. Hahah ignorant fools. As I said, an oppresive gov. It&#39;s why my grandfather left, and why so many others leave. They maybe labeled criminals, but thats only because they opposed the government. Lazar, you lose.


Government puts fluoride in water because it can make money

No it will lose money. And it will put dentists out of business. Dentists everywhere, the government has no right to do your job&#33; Revolt&#33;

On a serious note water with a large concentration of flouride can harm, but poland spring is sold with flouride in it for dental reasons (i&#39;m sure others do too, but poland spring adevertises it on the wrapper thing). Or maybe it&#39;s a conspiracy.

[Enragé]

Cuba isn&#39;t oppressive.

donno about that man..looks pretty dictatorial from the outside though..you been there?


In order to benefit from capitalism, Africa must first practice it.

the world is generally capitalist because big businness is almost everywhere, including africa. The reason why they go there is cuz they can pay those people a dollar a day and sell their produce 3000 miles up north/north east for 300 dollars...
So yeah, capitalism fucks up africa too.



I must agree with you however on the fact that governments cant be completely capitalist if they intervene in corporate affairs. However, it is quite obvious that for example the US government is completely subjugated to corporate wishes and thus everything they do is in the best interest of the capitalist corporations. E.G :They invaded iraq so Halliburton could plunder the oil and make more profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making as much profit as you possibly can, the US government therefore is a mere tool for CAPITALISM. (cuz they enhance profit)

[Young&#39;un]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:40 AM
Whi is it that most americans (from what i have seen and heard) are completely freaked out by communism and socialism.

I mean why is there some stigma attached to communism over there that makes yanks neck hair stand on end???
I know lots of people from the USA that don&#39;t like capitalism, and some who are fine with communism.

It&#39;s a matter of favouritism, when the MAJOIRTY are born into something, the become it, but not everyone does that.

To many people seem to think that the politicans of the USA account for everyone who lives there.

[GoaRedStar]

It is to my understanding that no one in this thread knows what communism is ,so here is a description from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Here is a article on the history of socialism in the 20th century and it current state.
http://monthlyreview.org/0705jbf.htm

please read these articles.Most people dont read links because they are lazy but hopefully some of you are not.

this is a advice for all
first learn about the subject before you comment on it because it just usually makes you sound pretty stupid.

[Publius]

It is to my understanding that no one in this thread knows what communism is ,so here is a description from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Here is a article on the history of socialism in the 20th century and it current state.
http://monthlyreview.org/0705jbf.htm

please read these articles.Most people dont read links because they are lazy but hopefully some of you are not.

this is a advice for all
first learn about the subject before you comment on it because it just usually makes you sound pretty stupid.

I find the defintions flawed.

If I said "capitalism is a system where everyone is happy and everything is perfect", and then you critique capitalism, and I respond with "Well, since everyone isn&#39;t happy and everything isn&#39;t perfect, what you&#39;re describing obviously isn&#39;t capitalism" would I be in the right?

This is their definition: As a social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, and no social classes. All property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights. Human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of the capitalist poverty cycle.


I take issue with almost every point brought up. I don&#39;t think that&#39;s how the society would unfold.

Take this definition of capitalism for example: Capitalism is an economic system that is predicated on the free exchange of goods and services through a society, as a market, free from coercion or force. Capitalism is best described, not as a system, but as a lack of a system; it is the culmination of individual decisions, not a force that acts on it&#39;s own. Perhaps the most eloquent description of capitalism exists in the allusion to an "Invisible Hand", coined by Adam Smith. This allusion maintains that the individual actions and trades of many persons can, and do, aid those less than ancillary to the trade. It is through this that capitalism brings about benefits to all the members of the economy, not just an elite few. Since a trade under capitalism necessarily benefits both parties, each and every trade adds value to the whole of the economy. Follow this to its logical extent, and you see that the actions of inviduals in a capitalist society benefit all its members.

Using this definition, a nice, rosy picture is displayed. It&#39;s correct in all it&#39;s langauge, but I&#39;m sure you take issue with it.

[small101]

Originally posted by Publius+Jul 12 2005, 01:47 PM--> (Publius &#064; Jul 12 2005, 01:47 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 07:50 AM








The preservatives in the food giving you cancer, the chlorine in the water, the secret service and cia bugging phones and taking part in secret mission. senators being paid off by companies.

If we didn&#39;t have preservatives in our food, our food wouldn&#39;t be preserved. It would rot.

If you didn&#39;t have chlorine in your water, you would get ill from a water-borne germ.

The other two are failures of the GOVERNMENT, that I hope to rectify.


ok so if capitalism has saved their lives..... tell me why they is still so much death in such countries from lack of necessary recources.

Because capitalism isn&#39;t there yet.

They don&#39;t have a capitalism economy, they live under a roughshod dictator, and they have no industrailization.

What do you propose be done?



your government supports the capitalist ideology, which inturn makes is a capitalist regime, and capitalist nations capitalising upon these poor souls, paying them 7 american cents per jacket they make and then selling it for a dollar, unfair yes, but not illegal by your capitalist standards.

I&#39;m sure making it illegal would be so much more humanitarian. That poor soul could make his jackets, not at all, and starve to death.

Capitalism PREVENTS these people from dying and you&#39;re *****ing about it.

It reminds me of some anecdotal stories of actors wanting to close down sweatshops in Asia, and the people working there not wanting them to close down, because if it did, they would starve and die.

Did the actors care? No.


you can take the piss out of my comments all you want, that just proves how ignorant you are&#33;

No, it proves how ignorant you are.

But you almost got it right.


ok, tell me why a person needs a billion dollars???

Because that billion dollars was given to them by other people.

It&#39;s their money.


Companies like monsanto Corp, that produce useless products like Agent Orange and that product to make more milk..... yeah really useful. and again pay well under the minimum standards of you country, but hey its not illegal if it outside your borders.

Agent Orange was produced for the government to fight an immoral war.

And a product that makes more milk sounds immensely useful.


a self critical democratic-socialist government that emplores questioning and challenging of itself, one that listen to the people and one that there is no room for corruption, it can happen, but only with an absence of capitalism.

I don&#39;t propose a democratic-socialist system.

There would be no socialism, and only democracy in the sense that you could vote. [/b]
if we didn&#39;t have presertives in our food, we would not have many of the illnesses we have today, or atleast they would not be so widespread, such as cancer, diabeties and liver deseases.

the chlorine in the water does stop bacterial growth, but that inturn also hieghtens the risk of stomach alsers etc.

then y was it said that it HAS saved their lives...

i propose that a social-democratic government be placed in power, and a industrialised agracultural system of growth be inforced, producing what that particular country is best suited for.

he could be put in a better paying position and not have his hard work be exploited to m,ake some fat yank richer.

again it only hepls the people on the recieving end of capitalism from dying, and yet america doens not even have a public health system and you can&#39;t say that america cant afford it...

that still does not answer my question as to who NEEDS a billion dollars&#33;

The effects of agent orange are still being seen today, the children of vietnam are still being deformed and killed whilst the vets of america get compensation, where is the vietnamese&#39; compensation for this??

that is the last thing that the american economy needs is more milk, your government is paying people NOT to produce milk. besides that product also makes the cows sick and it increses the bacteria count in the milk to an unhealthy level, because of the puss that gets into it from the cows utter.

[red_orchestra]

The current system that the "free" world is under is NOT sustainable. Plain and simple. Resources are not inexhaustable. Which further illustrates a need for change...both economically and politically. How do you do that?
Its quite simple: you create a political system that puts the needs of a Commun-ity first and then the general population. You create a system that reuses, recycles, and adopts a harmonized way of life governed by a strong government..ie/ a benvolent Socialist dictatorship.

If every country had a "Bush" running it....we would be a DefCon 4, complete Nuclear War. So fuck him and his fucking politics&#33; Fuck the fucking Republicans&#33;

[Redvolution]

It&#39;s probably been said 80 times, but the propaganda, USSR, Vietnam, etc.

When I mentioned a paper I wrote on socialism & mentioned communism in it, my mother turned and looked at me when I read it and said, "But isn&#39;t communism a dictatorship?" People don&#39;t know enough about it.

The rivalry with the "communist" USSR didnt&#39; help.

Nor did the Vietnam war.

[KC]

Or the famous black book trials or whatever they were called during the cold war when they investigated famous celebrities to see if they were spies for the ussr. It trampled on people&#39;s rights and created a whole lot of chaos out of nothing.

[Redvolution]

Indeed, the "Witch hunts" of the McCarthy era didn&#39;t help either.

Actually in the 1920s I think it was a Communist ran for President and got like in the teens of 20 % of the vote ( I think? Maybe I just made that up, its past 12:00... )

[KC]

The largest vote recorded by the American Communist Party was for William Z. Foster in the presidential election in 1932. Foster polled 102,991 votes, but Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate, polled seven times that figure. Earl Browder was the candidate for the next two elections but did badly: 1936 (80,195) and 1940 (46,251).

[dietrite]

If it&#39;s valid, it doesn&#39;t matter how much it&#39;s been said before. And calling me &#39;horsefucker&#39; doesn&#39;t help your cause child.

It’s not valid though, and yes, calling someone a “horsefucker” indeed helps the cause.

Horsefucker.


capitalism has existed since the time of the Romans,


This should prove you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.


So none of those countries have ever had murderous dictators claiming leftist influences right?


Some have, yes. Others you listed, no.

Go read a real history book.

Name one, Zhivago.


Stalin, in the name of pretty communism (I know he wasnt, but he still invoked its name), killed more people than Hitler, Mao in china, the Khymer Rogue in cambodia, all mass

No, he didn’t.


No it doesn&#39;t. Capitalism functions fine here in the modern Western world without this poverty and it&#39;s reducing poverty around the world at a an incredible rate.


That’s because you’ve transferred the role of the proletariat to the tens of millions in third world nations.

[danny android]

I know that in my capitolist school I was basically just taught that communism was a system where the people were oppresed by an evil dictator. I was taught that the idealogie was similar to the nazis and that they were evil. I learned later that non of this was true. And have been very angry ever since. So atleast in Amerika we are basically raised to hate communism not to mention to think that annarchism is a dumb idea and to believe that anarchists are all people who just want to do a lot of violience.

[farleft]

Capitalism works fine in the western world?

CIA world fact book says 12% of the USA lives below the poverty line 2004

CIA world fact book says 17% of the UK lives below the poverty line 2002


And this is in the wealthier countries of the world, what about the rest&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:53 AM
Capitalism works fine in the western world?

CIA world fact book says 12% of the USA lives below the poverty line 2004

CIA world fact book says 17% of the UK lives below the poverty line 2002


And this is in the wealthier countries of the world, what about the rest&#33;
The poverty line is set wherever the statistician wants it. Are you really trying to tell me than 1 in 8 people in the US and 1 in 5 people in th UK are starving and homeless ? Gimme a break.

[Publius]

Did You Know: The average &#39;poor&#39; person in America is more materially wealthy than the average Europeon?

[KC]

Europe is made up mostly of 2nd- and 3rd-world nations.

[Publius]

Europe is made up mostly of 2nd- and 3rd-world nations.

Like Denmark, Sweden, Britain, Italy and France?

I agree.

http://www.timbro.com/index.asp?page=publications


If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.



As a nice statistic regarding the &#39;poverty line&#39;.

If we transcribe the American poverty line to Sweden, 40% of Swedes would be living in poverty.

[Capital Punishment]

New York City alone exceeds Sweden. New York City - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)

[Zingu]

New York City is made up of 20 million people and is a economic hub for America.


Sweden is a country made up of 9 million people.

Some very obvious differences.

[Capital Punishment]

A city surpasses a country in population and wealth even though it is much smaller. That proves Publius/lazar&#39;s point.

[kingbee]

"The poverty line is set wherever the statistician wants it. Are you really trying to tell me than 1 in 8 people in the US and 1 in 5 people in th UK are starving and homeless ? "

i think they call it relative poverty.

"The average &#39;poor&#39; person in America is more materially wealthy than the average Europeon? "

as in, they have a television and a phone? does that show wealth?

[Publius]

"The poverty line is set wherever the statistician wants it. Are you really trying to tell me than 1 in 8 people in the US and 1 in 5 people in th UK are starving and homeless ? "

i think they call it relative poverty.

"The average &#39;poor&#39; person in America is more materially wealthy than the average Europeon? "

as in, they have a television and a phone? does that show wealth?

Yes.

[romanm]

Amerikkkans should fear communism..

Communism will take away their PIG lifestyles.

[Publius]

Amerikkkans should fear communism..

Communism will take away their PIG lifestyles.

I didn&#39;t know Ice Cube regulared this site.

Or was a pinko.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:29 PM

"The poverty line is set wherever the statistician wants it. Are you really trying to tell me than 1 in 8 people in the US and 1 in 5 people in th UK are starving and homeless ? "

i think they call it relative poverty.

"The average &#39;poor&#39; person in America is more materially wealthy than the average Europeon? "

as in, they have a television and a phone? does that show wealth?

Yes.
but what is a tv, or a phone, compared to welfare? personally, id rather have no tv, and welfare, rather than a tv and no welfare care.

[Andy Bowden]

It is correct to say that the poorest European or American is materially better-off than a poor African, Asian, Latin American etc but the effects of relative poverty in the west should not be ignored. While not as bad as absolute poverty relative poverty as it is termed in the West, is far more than not affording cable, or not taking a holiday.

Life expectancy in some of the most poverty ridden areas of Glasgow in Scotland is the same as in Occupied Iraq, and those living in these constituencies can expect to live 10 or so years less than their more affluent counterparts in the leafy suburbs in the south east of England.

[Pawn Power]

Why do Americans fear communism

The two decades of harsh anti-communist propaganda probably made a significant contribution.

[Fidelbrand]

one of my professors said amerika is a land colonized and exploited since it was coercely occupied. One dig a peice of land and said he/she has labour spent on the land, then the land is under his ownership.

This is a cultural side of why U.S. fear communism.

[Publius]

but what is a tv, or a phone, compared to welfare? personally, id rather have no tv, and welfare, rather than a tv and no welfare care.

They can sell their TVs.

[OleMarxco]

Right. And who would buy them? Rich people who don&#39;t have a TV? Like as if they would buy TV&#39;s. Get bent - The only way to get rid of it, is to GIVE it to thrift-shops. The only one&#39;s who deal in secunda-ware. Everyone buys shit news almost anymore (Except me, but I was always an oddball, hah&#33; I think used stuff&#39;s got style) ;)

So all in all, THAT&#39;s your solution? You&#39;re forgetting the fact they would be forced to sell their TV for necesseties later&#33; Then they wouldn&#39;t have an TV just because your bullshit forces them to choose&#33; And then when the money is used up, WHAT THE FUCK GONNA DO&#33; Get a job? Welfare? Chanches are slim. Argh. You&#39;re such an idiot :P

[Publius]

Well since "everybody" does it, it must mean that it&#39;s absolutely impossible.

I mean, that poll of every consumer in the world surely proved that statement&#33;

[SupportTheALF]

I fear communism. Im not american, or conservative&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:39 PM
one of my professors said amerika is a land colonized and exploited since it was coercely occupied.
It wasn&#39;t coercively occupied, the colonists just had a revolution to remove all the greedy indians who wanted it all for themselves.

[Andy Bowden]

The "greedy indians" who happened to be the Indigenous population?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 22 2005, 03:13 PM
The "greedy indians" who happened to be the Indigenous population?
There is no such thing as an "indigenous population". That&#39;s all racist rhetoric.

Do you still want to remove the "indigenous bosses" from their factories ?

[kingbee]

bollocks. how is indigenous population racist? they were there first, before the europeans went over, and wiped out the majority of the population. how greedy of the indians&#33;

and indigenous bosses? what a load of crap. im sure you could do better&#33;

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 22 2005, 11:34 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 22 2005, 11:34 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 06:39 PM
one of my professors said amerika is a land colonized and exploited since it was coercely occupied.
It wasn&#39;t coercively occupied, the colonists just had a revolution to remove all the greedy indians who wanted it all for themselves. [/b]
Hi bags,

and the revolution brought about just a new bunch of people greedy migrants who wanted it all for themselves?

Tell me about colonization........ :D

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:40 AM
Whi is it that most americans (from what i have seen and heard) are completely freaked out by communism and socialism.

I mean why is there some stigma attached to communism over there that makes yanks neck hair stand on end???
Actually from people I help see the truth, they&#39;ve told me their teachers spread the fear of communism to them, saying how socialist and communist start so many wars, blah blah. When I really show them, they understand things way easier. Its the education system man. In every modern day school history book, it never tells anything of the communist being good. Like Vietnam, nothing was mentioned as to why the war started other than the commie was a mean state.

[zendo]

THE ANSWER IS VERY SIMPLE

YEARS OF BRAIN WASHING, MISINFORMATION AND DEMONIZING OF COMMUNISM BY THE CAPITALIST AMERICAN MEDIA

DUH

DONT YOU PEOPLE REMEMBER THE RED SCARE?? IT WAS WHEN AMERICANS WERE BECOMING VERY LEARNED ON MARXISM, MANY AMERICANS WERE TURNING TO MARXISM, THE CAPITALIST US GOVT WAS BECOMING WORRIED
SO THEY BEGAN TO ATTACK AMERICAN COMMUNISTS THROWING THEM IN PRISONS, ETC.

THERE WERE 2 RED SCARES ONE FROM 1917-1920 THAN AGAIN IN THE LATE 1940S.

BUT ITS ALL BEEN BRAINWASHING, ITS FUNNY HOWEVER THAT WHEN THE USSR WERE ALLIES WITH THE USA THERE WERE GIANT POSTERS IN THE USA GLORYYING STALIN

STALIN WAS KNOWN IN THE USA AS UNCLE JOE AND HE WAS ALSO TIME MAN OF THE YEAR http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0...,790648,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,790648,00.html)

ITS FUNNY HOW THEY GLORIFY STALIN DURING WWII AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY DEMONIZE HIM AND EVERYTHING THAT COMMUNISM STOOD FOR

BUT THE TRUTH IS STALIN DEFEATED HITLER IN WORLD WAR II AND EVEN THE USA HAD TO ADMIT THAT

[Seeker]

BUT THE TRUTH IS STALIN DEFEATED HITLER


But would he have been able to if Germany had been allowed to mass their forces in the east?

[danny android]

In all seriousness stalin had nothing to do with the USSR&#39;s victory over Germany. Stalin was a horrible military man and relied heavily on his generals. He had nothing to do with the defeat of hitler.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:28 AM
STALIN WAS KNOWN IN THE USA AS UNCLE JOE AND HE WAS ALSO TIME MAN OF THE YEAR [
but man of the year doesnt mean they back him- it means the man who was in the news the most, or something like that. they were going to have bin laden for 2001 (until they settled on guiliani instead).

[rebelworker]

To see why americans fear communism iot is intersting to look at the collapse of the communist party in the USA between 1930 and 1950, there was state repression, that cannot be denied but when looking ot letters to the editor in the daily woker(might have been weekly at that point) it is very clear that the largest reason for the parties decline was dissatisfaction in the membership, both after the trechery in Spain and the pact with hitler then with the revelations by the party itself of massive abuse after Stalins death.

Americans Freaed Stalinism and Maoism, which at the time were put forward by communist groups ass commmunism, we now know that miether the soviet union or "Red" China where really communist countries.

We must undue the dammage of Bolshevism and show the North American Working class what real communism is, workers controll for the good of all, not the corrupt dictatorship of a self proclaimed vanguard.

Industrialisation dose not equal communism, it equils capitalist growth,
Military victories do not equil communism, it equils militray vicories

Communism is by definition workers controll through workplace and community councils,
Bolshevism of all stripes is an extreem perversion of this and not revolutionary at all,
It is just the extension of a bunch off privaledged assholes who want to see temselves running the society not as capitalists but as communists, its classist and its bullshit&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


rebelworker