What\'s The Appeal Of Communism?

[spanishinquisition]

Hi everyone. Since im a nooby, I would like to ask:

1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

Thanks. Sorry if these questions seem silly..

[PRC-UTE]

1. so one's not exploited and is free to live and live freely. the creative possibilities of life would be greatly increased in many ways if we didn't have condescending bureaucrats telling us what to do and holding us back. we'd all enjoy better living standards if we weren't exploited by a class of do-nothing parasites.

2. Che was a heroic fighter who gave his life for his cause, unlike the cowardly imperialist generals and military leaders who live in comfort while they massacre civilians.

3. I don't know anyone who emulates him exactly, but plenty use him as an icon to encourage resistance today.

[black magick hustla]

What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

Communism cannot be "discredited" by history, it is not a "set of instructions" used for running society. Some deluded people here try to look at communism as if it were some sort philosophy of life, and they so willingly try to point their fingers as how people like "Stalin" and "Kim Jung Il" were traitors to communism because they were "evil" and destroyed "the revolution". The thing is that they were never delivering "communism", because communism doesnt works as if it were some sort of statist strategy to deliver by some specialists of the revolution.

A "leader" cannot betray communism simply because communism is a hypothetical social condition that could appear somewhere in the future, and as I said before, there arent "premade plans" for it. You do not put the task of socialism as a burden ready to be carried by some few leaders. In order for communism to work, there needs to be class consciousness--people willing to destroy capitalism and experiment with new forms of social organization.

The job of the conscious communist is to agitate and educate in order to develop that class consciousness. It is not his job however, to "lead" the revolution in such a sense that the construction of the new society would be placed on his shoudlers.


You ask the question as if communism is included in a selection of ideologies ready to be chosen by the most willing consumer.


Why do we choose "communist theory"?

I choose it simply because the current modes of production are socially and ecologically unsustainable, It is a matter of choosing freedom and life over death and misery. People need to take control over their lives, and that means, taking over factories, land, buildings, communication--to abolish hierarchy and alienated mediations.



Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?
Not all communists "follow" Che.
I do not understand how people like you accuse che of being a "muderer" considering how you are probably one of those individuals waving flags and consuming the spectacle of nationalism. The revolutionaries that with their struggle gave you most your of rights had to kill; without their violent struggle the world would be much more fucked up. Fucking George Washington was also a "murderer" if we consider your pretty banal assertion of how che was a "murderer"


Do you seek to emulate Che?

no. .

[Dean]

Communism is a freedom-seeking ideology. People have an inherant drive for freedom.

History does not indicate the failure of communism, but the failure of classism. I do not seek to emulate Che nor do I idolize him, I can't speak fro the rest here.

[spanishinquisition]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I can see there is a mixed reaction to Che here.
Dean

Communism is a freedom-seeking ideology. People have an inherant drive for freedom.
I can see how Che can be considered a freedom seeker by attempting to break the oppression of the capitalist classes. On the other hand, he denied capitalist classes the freedom to innovate, with exploitation as a bi-product. He also denied them the freedom to live I might add.


Communism cannot be discredited by history, it is not a set of instructions used for running society
Fair enough. But I would have thought perhaps an alternate method could have been developed by now after all the failures. Quadaffi\\\'s for instance, which combines capitlaism with socialsit elements.


A leader cannot betray communism simply because communism is a hypothetical social condition that could appear somewhere in the future, and as I said before, there arent premade plans for it. You do not put the task of socialism as a burden ready to be carried by some few leaders. In order for communism to work, there needs to be class consciousness--people willing to destroy capitalism and experiment with new forms of social organization.

So you think it will ever happen? We will be waiting a long time for all the capitalists to die of old age.


You ask the question as if communism is included in a selection of ideologies ready to be chosen by the most willing consumer.
Thats because i am a capitalist! I am sure you chose communism unless you have some kind of divine revelation.


I choose it simply because the current modes of production are socially and ecologically unsustainable, It is a matter of choosing freedom and life over death and misery. People need to take control over their lives, and that means, taking over factories, land, buildings, communication--to abolish hierarchy and alienated mediations.
I do not think capitalism is ecologically unsustainable. In fact, capitalism and capitalists enjoy nature for its tourist potential.


I do not understand how people like you accuse che of being a muderer considering how you are probably one of those individuals waving flags and consuming the spectacle of nationalism. The revolutionaries that with their struggle gave you most your of rights had to kill; without their violent struggle the world would be much more fucked up. Fucking George Washington was also a murderer if we consider your pretty banal assertion of how che was a murderer
George Washingtons fight was not to kill people. He was a man of peace and freedom. The British wanted war. Washington organised defence. Che however was fighting simply to liquidate the capitalist classes. He was actively looking for war and any capitalist he came across got a bullet without trial. Compare this to the perpetrators of the Boston massacre who received a trial and were aquitted by a just system. This is why Washington was a revolutionary and Che a murderer.

[Abolish Communism]

1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

3)Do you seek to emulate Che?


1. There is no real appeal, per se. There are, however, a great many bored people with a LOT of spare time on their hands, and they have to "work" for something. Most communits outside America, and the three or four in America, are layabouts with no real goals, ambitions, or achievments.

2. No one "follows" Che. He died. (I think he crashed a motorcycle and was killed. It happened in South America. The American C.I.A. tried to rescue him, but he had lost too much blood.) This prompted the then famous marketing campaign, "Buy a Harley to Memorialize Che".

3. Ah.........no. But I do laugh at him. :lol:

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 8 2006, 06:29 AM

1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

3)Do you seek to emulate Che?



2. No one "follows" Che. He died. (I think he crashed a motorcycle and was killed. It happened in South America. The American C.I.A. tried to rescue him, but he had lost too much blood.) This prompted the then famous marketing campaign, "Buy a Harley to Memorialize Che".


Wait, was that a joke? You have to use smily faces if your going to make a joke around here, comrade.

Us commies are all robots with no sense of humor who want to take away your indivdual freedoms.

[Abolish Communism]

Raj, how you been?

Yeah, it was a joke :D

Note the smiley face.

But I think the part about the CIA was true. I think he wanted a job with them in their decoder ring division. He had a decoder he got from inside Capn' Crunch, but it wasn't a good one.

Take care, Raj. :wub:

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:57 AM
Hi everyone. Since im a nooby, I would like to ask:




3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

Thanks. Sorry if these questions seem silly..

2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?


I dont "follow" Che in the sense sombody follows Jesus, he isent my christ figure. He wasent perfect, he was a key figure in a revolution and revolutions are always bloody.

Murderer? Perhaps. Reactionary estimates put the total death toll at around 600 under his command from what ive read.

Im not justifying any injustices Che may have commited, but did the millions killed in imperialist wars, even in the last half-century, stand trial? Did the civilians stand trial?

I admire him for what he achieved in his lifetime, albeit short.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Abolish C[email protected] 8 2006, 06:43 AM
Raj, how you been?

Yeah, it was a joke :D

Note the smiley face.

But I think the part about the CIA was true. I think he wanted a job with them in their decoder ring division. He had a decoder he got from inside Capn' Crunch, but it wasn't a good one.

Take care, Raj. :wub:
Haha, take care.

I wont have access to any internet for a week or so ( :(), going out of town, so I guess ill catch you all later.

[Delta]

3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

No, not really. I mean, I play with my Che action figures off and on, but that's about it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:57 AM
1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

Libertarian Communism isn't discredited by history, or at least, not to the same extent as Leninism, Stalinism and other authorotarian models. All of which I oppose.


2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

I hate Che


3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

I don't want to emulate anyone, although I take inspiration from hundreds of individuals.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:47 AM
I can see how Che can be considered a freedom seeker by attempting to break the oppression of the capitalist classes. On the other hand, he denied capitalist classes the freedom to innovate, with exploitation as a bi-product. He also denied them the freedom to live I might add.
And this has what to do with my point? I Isaid I don't Idolize him; he did some good things and some bad things, notably the courts in which he executed all of the suspects. I don't go for someone else to tell me what communism is about.

[elmo sez]

George Washingtons fight was not to kill people. He was a man of peace and freedom.

A man of freedom :lol: wasnt he a slave owner ?????

Ches fight wasnt about killing people either , do you actually think that Che decided one day , OH i feel like starting a war just to kill people?


He was actively looking for war and any capitalist he came across got a bullet without trial.

Bit of an overstatement dont you think, besides your looking at Che in the wrong context. He did have people executed theres no doubt about that , but as far as Im aware the majority of the were rapists thieves etc . Your also forgetting that this was during a war , military life is very different to civilian life , and order must be preserved unfortunatly, and im sad to say that the best way to do that is to execute people , im not saying its right in anyway , but sometimes it just has to be done . Take this for an example , a small band of rebels are in the mountains , one of them deserts with the intention of informing the enemy of their wereabouts , now you catch this man before he tells anyone, so your left with a decision do you A let this man go knowing what he is going to do, which will result in the death of all your men,
or B kill the man so he cannot inform on the group , thus saving the lives of all the other men ( and women apologies).?


I can see how Che can be considered a freedom seeker by attempting to break the oppression of the capitalist classes. On the other hand, he denied capitalist classes the freedom to innovate, with exploitation as a bi-product. He also denied them the freedom to live I might add.

How exactly did he deny the freedom to innovate ? And exploitation is not a bi - product of innovation - exploitation is a bi product of private property. (if youd like to know more about this go to Capitalism and other Kids stuff (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3072291302771620276&q=Socialism)



I do not think capitalism is ecologically unsustainable. In fact, capitalism and capitalists enjoy nature for its tourist potential.

Capitalism is ecologically unsustainable because it requires an ever expanding market . Capitalism defys the Laws of Thermo Dynamics.


In fact, capitalism and capitalists enjoy nature for its tourist potential.

Do you not see what is wrong with that , it just displays the very selfish nature of capitalism, the only allow "nature " to exist as long as its of some use to them in the short term. Im sure if it was an unactrative tourist spot, but an environmental necessity, that they would galdly build over it or something .

Nobody knows how long it will take for capitalism to be destroyed, there are many factors to be takin into consideration. It could be today or tomorrow or 10 years from now, it just better be soon because if its not we are royally fucked :(

[Abolish Communism]

DO NOT post shit about George Washington. He's the Father of our Country, and did more for human freedom than you'll ever dream of.

Thank you.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 8 2006, 05:04 PM
DO NOT post shit about George Washington. He's the Father of our Country, and did more for human freedom than you'll ever dream of.

Thank you.
You don't agree though that he had to kill for you to have your rights?

[elmo sez]

Very Totalitarian of you , what so i cant critise leaders now ?

By human freedom i think you mean white freedom.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 8 2006, 05:04 PM
DO NOT post shit about George Washington. He's the Father of our Country, and did more for human freedom than you'll ever dream of.
And by 'human', you mean 'white male land owners'.

George Washington was a SLAVE OWNER and he suppressed blacks from joining the Continental Army. Something about arming the oppressed underclasses. Incidentily, they joined the British when they offered them freedom.

EDIT: Well, as much freedom as you could have under English Monarchy, anyways. <_<

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 8 2006, 05:04 PM
DO NOT post shit about George Washington. He&#39;s the Father of our Country, and did more for human freedom than you&#39;ll ever dream of.

Thank you.
Says the one who would happily &#39;post shit&#39; about Che and Lenin? Do you have any IDEA what the freedom gained in the Russian Revolution meant to the Russian proletariat? What Che bought to Cuba after their capitalist oppression under Bastista? They were true heroes of freedom, of the working class - of the proletariat, the people.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 8 2006, 09:04 AM
DO NOT post shit about George Washington. He&#39;s the Father of our Country, and did more for human freedom than you&#39;ll ever dream of.


"Father" isn&#39;t supposed to be capitalized, unless you mean that you&#39;re brainwashed.

[red team]

capitalist classes the freedom to innovate, with exploitation as a bi-product

Innovate? That&#39;s a really good joke coming from Capitalists. What exactly do you mean by innovate? Flexibility? So workers will have to work multiple schedules so they won&#39;t be able to sleep because they&#39;re sleeping pattern is all messed up? Or how about the efficiency buzz word? Fire more workers so one worker can do the job of two or more with the same pay. Good way to "innovate". Such ingenuity&#33; <_<

[spanishinquisition]

Jazrat:

Says the one who would happily post shit about Che and Lenin? Do you have any IDEA what the freedom gained in the Russian Revolution meant to the Russian proletariat? What Che bought to Cuba after their capitalist oppression under Bastista? They were true heroes of freedom, of the working class - of the proletariat, the people.
(VOMITS all over keyboard).....(then cleans it).. I cant beleive anyone could write this. I just cant beleive it. You are joking right? This is a cruel bad joke and you will rectify this statemetn?

Redteam:

Innovate? That&#092;&#39;s a really good joke coming from Capitalists. What exactly do you mean by innovate? Flexibility? So workers will have to work multiple schedules so they won&#092;&#39;t be able to sleep because they&#092;&#39;re sleeping pattern is all messed up?
There is nothing wrong with shift work. it makes things more efficient.


Or how about the efficiency buzz word? Fire more workers so one worker can do the job of two or more with the same pay. Good way to &#092;"innovate&#092;". Such ingenuity&#33;
Now what my dear Redteam is the point of having two workers when only one is required? Why shouldnt we free up the other person to do something else for the betterment of society? Doesnt this make sence or am i losing it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:11 AM
Jazrat:

Says the one who would happily post shit about Che and Lenin? Do you have any IDEA what the freedom gained in the Russian Revolution meant to the Russian proletariat? What Che bought to Cuba after their capitalist oppression under Bastista? They were true heroes of freedom, of the working class - of the proletariat, the people.
(VOMITS all over keyboard).....(then cleans it).. I cant beleive anyone could write this. I just cant beleive it. You are joking right? This is a cruel bad joke and you will rectify this statemetn?

Not a lot I can say to that really, what with you making no actual point and all. Although you managed to mispell my username, which is fairly difficult to do what with it being so bloody simple what with Jazz being a very popular style of music and a double &#39;t&#39; in ratt isn&#39;t rocket science.

[spanishinquisition]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 9 2006, 09:33 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 9 2006, 09:33 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 08:11 AM
Jazrat:

Says the one who would happily post shit about Che and Lenin? Do you have any IDEA what the freedom gained in the Russian Revolution meant to the Russian proletariat? What Che bought to Cuba after their capitalist oppression under Bastista? They were true heroes of freedom, of the working class - of the proletariat, the people.
(VOMITS all over keyboard).....(then cleans it).. I cant beleive anyone could write this. I just cant beleive it. You are joking right? This is a cruel bad joke and you will rectify this statemetn?

Not a lot I can say to that really, what with you making no actual point and all. Although you managed to mispell my username, which is fairly difficult to do what with it being so bloody simple what with Jazz being a very popular style of music and a double &#092;&#39;t&#092;&#39; in ratt isn&#092;&#39;t rocket science. [/b]
Firstly, what you write is so grotesquely hidious I cannot begin to fathom the uneduacated mind from which your statemetn sprang. In fact I could say with so many communists here struggling to distance themselves from Lenin et alia for obvious reasons I cant fathom how you could beleive liberation of any sort was actually acheived. In fact quite the opposite happened. Although factory fines may have gone out the door Workers became tied to their factories, enslaved like never before.

Now as to the misspelling of your name. Jazz is an abomination to the human ear, much worse than rap and I couldnt be bothered spelling it correctly. I dont think you can suggest intellect has anything to do with it with a straight face. I dont care much for rats either or ratts whatever they are.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by spanishinquisition+Jul 9 2006, 10:51 PM--> (spanishinquisition @ Jul 9 2006, 10:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:33 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 08:11 AM
Jazrat:

Says the one who would happily post shit about Che and Lenin? Do you have any IDEA what the freedom gained in the Russian Revolution meant to the Russian proletariat? What Che bought to Cuba after their capitalist oppression under Bastista? They were true heroes of freedom, of the working class - of the proletariat, the people.
(VOMITS all over keyboard).....(then cleans it).. I cant beleive anyone could write this. I just cant beleive it. You are joking right? This is a cruel bad joke and you will rectify this statemetn?

Not a lot I can say to that really, what with you making no actual point and all. Although you managed to mispell my username, which is fairly difficult to do what with it being so bloody simple what with Jazz being a very popular style of music and a double &#092;&#39;t&#092;&#39; in ratt isn&#092;&#39;t rocket science.
Firstly, what you write is so grotesquely hidious I cannot begin to fathom the uneduacated mind from which your statemetn sprang. In fact I could say with so many communists here struggling to distance themselves from Lenin et alia for obvious reasons I cant fathom how you could beleive liberation of any sort was actually acheived. In fact quite the opposite happened. Although factory fines may have gone out the door Workers became tied to their factories, enslaved like never before. [/b]
Well there was the overthrrow of the Tsar and the effective ending of the starvation in Russia. There was the overthrow of the corrupt regime in cuba and an improvment in quality of life in general. Stalin really fucked things up in the USSR though. As for the unfathamoble mind of mine? It really depends I find it fairly despicleable and rage invoking that people support capitalism but I can still fathom it, because I know that there are mouth breathers like you in the world. As for uneductaed. Pfah you can&#39;t dismiss a statement such as mine out of hand based solely on education. I find the irony of youh having a go at my intellect utterly delectable by the way, being that from all your posts you have struck me as something of a dullard.


Now as to the misspelling of your name. Jazz is an abomination to the human ear, much worse than rap and I couldnt be bothered spelling it correctly. I dont think you can suggest intellect has anything to do with it with a straight face. I dont care much for rats either or ratts whatever they are. What paticualr kind of Jazz are you talking about or are you dismissing an entire genre out of hand? As for Rap, you&#39;re kidding me right - rap is not a type of music, it&#39;s a singing style and has been used skillfully by many, many people. I never suggested intellect and jazz were linked, although there is a bit of a steroytype of your average Jazz fanatic that seems to be fairly intellectual. I don&#39;t give a shit what your views on rats are, you could believe they give you mystical powers for all I care. just spell my fucking name right, it&#39;s not too difficult.

[spanishinquisition]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 9 2006, 11:03 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 9 2006, 11:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:33 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 08:11 AM
Jazrat:

Says the one who would happily post shit about Che and Lenin? Do you have any IDEA what the freedom gained in the Russian Revolution meant to the Russian proletariat? What Che bought to Cuba after their capitalist oppression under Bastista? They were true heroes of freedom, of the working class - of the proletariat, the people.
(VOMITS all over keyboard).....(then cleans it).. I cant beleive anyone could write this. I just cant beleive it. You are joking right? This is a cruel bad joke and you will rectify this statemetn?

Not a lot I can say to that really, what with you making no actual point and all. Although you managed to mispell my username, which is fairly difficult to do what with it being so bloody simple what with Jazz being a very popular style of music and a double &#092;&#39;t&#092;&#39; in ratt isn&#092;&#39;t rocket science.
Firstly, what you write is so grotesquely hidious I cannot begin to fathom the uneduacated mind from which your statemetn sprang. In fact I could say with so many communists here struggling to distance themselves from Lenin et alia for obvious reasons I cant fathom how you could beleive liberation of any sort was actually acheived. In fact quite the opposite happened. Although factory fines may have gone out the door Workers became tied to their factories, enslaved like never before.
Well there was the overthrrow of the Tsar and the effective ending of the starvation in Russia. There was the overthrow of the corrupt regime in cuba and an improvment in quality of life in general. Stalin really fucked things up in the USSR though. As for the unfathamoble mind of mine? It really depends I find it fairly despicleable and rage invoking that people support capitalism but I can still fathom it, because I know that there are mouth breathers like you in the world. As for uneductaed. Pfah you can&#39;t dismiss a statement such as mine out of hand based solely on education. I find the irony of youh having a go at my intellect utterly delectable by the way, being that from all your posts you have struck me as something of a dullard.


Now as to the misspelling of your name. Jazz is an abomination to the human ear, much worse than rap and I couldnt be bothered spelling it correctly. I dont think you can suggest intellect has anything to do with it with a straight face. I dont care much for rats either or ratts whatever they are. What paticualr kind of Jazz are you talking about or are you dismissing an entire genre out of hand? As for Rap, you&#39;re kidding me right - rap is not a type of music, it&#39;s a singing style and has been used skillfully by many, many people. I never suggested intellect and jazz were linked, although there is a bit of a steroytype of your average Jazz fanatic that seems to be fairly intellectual. I don&#39;t give a shit what your views on rats are, you could believe they give you mystical powers for all I care. just spell my fucking name right, it&#39;s not too difficult. [/b]

Well there was the overthrrow of the Tsar and the effective ending of the starvation in Russia.
Did you just say what i thought you said? Did you just say that? I dont beleive you are for real is thats what you beleive. i mean gosh only 20 000 000 starved to death in the early 20s and again the early 30s since the 20s lesson was not enough.


It really depends I find it fairly despicleable and rage invoking that people support capitalism but I can still fathom it, because I know that there are mouth breathers like you in the world.
You obviously dont know the power of capitalism if you think its just a political system that can be overthrown.

capitalism is merely the freedom to meet demand with supply and have the security of property ownership to do it. how is that evil?


As for uneductaed. Pfah you can&#39;t dismiss a statement such as mine out of hand based solely on education. I find the irony of youh having a go at my intellect utterly delectable by the way, being that from all your posts you have struck me as something of a dullard.
You have proven yourself to be a dullard by defending jazz and defending a disgusting system. I hope you sleep well at night.


I never suggested intellect and jazz were linked, although there is a bit of a steroytype of your average Jazz fanatic that seems to be fairly intellectual.
Yah.....right. Jazz is like a squeaky wheel that badly needs grease. The derilict mind that invented it had way too much unemployment time on his hands.

[Abolish Communism]

"Father" isn&#39;t supposed to be capitalized, unless you mean that you&#39;re brainwashed.

Father of our Country is a nickname given to George Washington. Capital letters generally apply to proper nouns with no other reference.

There are, of course, many countries, and there are other "fathers" referred to in those nations. I couldn&#39;t really say.

The origin of the term dates back to the writing of "spellers", books children used to learn about the history of America in the 1800&#39;s. America is a nation without a "mythology", and we&#39;re very new. Instead of drawing on U.S. legends, as we had none, famous Americans were used.

This is where the "Cherry Tree" story about Washington came from, and the one about "Abe Lincoln once walked miles to return a penny to a lady" came from. There&#39;s truth to some of them: Lincoln did walk many miles daily and delivered the mail. He also borrowed law books this way. But these are mainly stories.



And by &#39;human&#39;, you mean &#39;white male land owners&#39;.

George Washington was a SLAVE OWNER and he suppressed blacks from joining the Continental Army. Something about arming the oppressed underclasses.QUOTE]

It is important to examine a person in the context of their times in which they lived. For his time he was revolutionary on a great many things, especially the Bill of Rights. But there&#39;s no argument he was a slaveholder. But it&#39;s funny you use the expression "suppressed". He wouldn&#39;t have thought in those terms. Black people were "suppressed" during Jim Crow. In Washington&#39;s time, they were out and out slaves.

I have met a great many black people who wear shirts celebrating Cleopatra and Nefertiti as great Africans. It doesn&#39;t seem to bother them that those women were slaveholders. Again, people should be judged for the values in their times.


[QUOTE]Incidentily, they joined the British when they offered them freedom.

As did the Southerners at the end of the Civil War, for those who would support the South. (There were some.) It&#39;s amazing how many turn to emancipation for slaves WHEN they need to. Up until that time, the British had no problem with slaves. And that emancipation option didn&#39;t apply to the slaves in the UK at the time. :lol:

Of course I have no probelm wth people questioning their leaders. Niether did Washington, by the way, as he was president during the implimentation of the First Amendment.

To be fair, when John Adams became president after him in 1797, he used the Sedition Act to punish those who openly opposed Federalist Party policies. It&#39;s one of the things that cost him his bid for reelection.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:22 PM

Well there was the overthrrow of the Tsar and the effective ending of the starvation in Russia.
Did you just say what i thought you said? Did you just say that? I dont beleive you are for real is thats what you beleive. i mean gosh only 20 000 000 starved to death in the early 20s and again the early 30s since the 20s lesson was not enough.
Care to read on in my post where I said &#39;Stalin really fucked up&#39;? (or somthing like that) or are you just going to take the bits and pieces of my post you like.




It really depends I find it fairly despicleable and rage invoking that people support capitalism but I can still fathom it, because I know that there are mouth breathers like you in the world.
You obviously dont know the power of capitalism if you think its just a political system that can be overthrown.

capitalism is merely the freedom to meet demand with supply and have the security of property ownership to do it. how is that evil? Merely the freedom to exploit other human beings? To prevent people from realising their full potential in the name of my profit? To take from society and claim my theft as a right? How is this not evil?



As for uneductaed. Pfah you can&#39;t dismiss a statement such as mine out of hand based solely on education. I find the irony of youh having a go at my intellect utterly delectable by the way, being that from all your posts you have struck me as something of a dullard.
You have proven yourself to be a dullard by defending jazz and defending a disgusting system. I hope you sleep well at night. I take it then you are not a musician, as no one who plays an instrument can dislike jazz on musical or technical grounds. I&#39;m not the one defending a system which allows people to starve while others build swimming pools in the shape of genetalia or plate their teeth with gold. That would be you. I sleep fine by the way, because the blood of the workers is not on my hands and because I have purpose.



I never suggested intellect and jazz were linked, although there is a bit of a steroytype of your average Jazz fanatic that seems to be fairly intellectual.
Yah.....right. Jazz is like a squeaky wheel that badly needs grease. The derilict mind that invented it had way too much unemployment time on his hands. Ladies and gentelmen SpanishInquistion knows FUCK ALL about music. Come to think of it the &#39;about music&#39; phrase seemd a little superfluous to that sentence.

[spanishinquisition]

Care to read on in my post where I said &#092;&#39;Stalin really fucked up&#092;&#39;? (or somthing like that) or are you just going to take the bits and pieces of my post you like.
Stalin is not the only one. Lenin and Trotsky fucked up too. In fact the whole revolution was a mistake as Lenin was forced to go NEP.

Some Lenin to show the liberation&#33;

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

He who now talks about the &#092;"freedom of the press&#092;" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

We do not have time to play at “oppositions” at “conferences.” We will keep our political opponents… whether open or disguised as “nonparty,” in prison.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin



Merely the freedom to exploit other human beings?
Capitalism is about realising human freedoms to interact with one another in a purely voluntary manner. This is why exploitation does not exist under capitalism. Communism removes these freedoms with compulsion, resulting in real exploitation.


To prevent people from realising their full potential in the name of my profit? To take from society and claim my theft as a right? How is this not evil?
Under capitalism people do realise their free potential in the name of profit. To take what from society? What one creates? This belongs to the factor of the capital created, not those who helped it along. They have already been compensated under a voluntary arrangement with wages. This is evil if freedom is evil.


I take it then you are not a musician, as no one who plays an instrument can dislike jazz on musical or technical grounds.
How much you wanna bet?


Im not the one defending a system which allows people to starve while others build swimming pools in the shape of genetalia or plate their teeth with gold. That would be you. &#092;&#092;
I dont want gold teeth of a swimming pool like that. i just go to the beach when i wanna swim.


I sleep fine by the way, because the blood of the workers is not on my hands and because I have purpose.
Capitalsists dont muder their workers. This would be innefficient. Communists do as they cant afford machinery with their backward economies and always need gulags run extra production. In capitalist societies prisoners just sit on their ass as everyone is rich enough already, (but i would put them to work).


Ladies and gentelmen SpanishInquistion knows FUCK ALL about music. Come to think of it the &#092;&#39;about music&#092;&#39; phrase seemd a little superfluous to that sentence.
Oh Ho Ho clap clap. I am a level 9 piano. owned again.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:04 AM

Ladies and gentelmen SpanishInquistion knows FUCK ALL about music. Come to think of it the &#092;&#39;about music&#092;&#39; phrase seemd a little superfluous to that sentence.
Oh Ho Ho clap clap. I am a level 9 piano. owned again.
Oh my shit, I must give up communism now that I&#39;m talking to a guy who can play music&#33; Maybe if he made arguments that weren&#39;t bollocks I would, but instead he does. And he knows pretty much fuck all about the system he proports to support and even less about the one he is opposed to.

Also I don&#39;t really give a shit what some fuckhead on the internet claims to be abkle to do. Because on the internet my penis is three feet long and I use it to kill people and deflower virgins.

[spanishinquisition]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 10 2006, 12:10 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 10 2006, 12:10 AM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 12:04 AM

Ladies and gentelmen SpanishInquistion knows FUCK ALL about music. Come to think of it the &#092;&#39;about music&#092;&#39; phrase seemd a little superfluous to that sentence.
Oh Ho Ho clap clap. I am a level 9 piano. owned again.
Oh my shit, I must give up communism now that I&#39;m talking to a guy who can play music&#33; Maybe if he made arguments that weren&#39;t bollocks I would, but instead he does. And he knows pretty much fuck all about the system he proports to support and even less about the one he is opposed to.

Also I don&#39;t really give a shit what some fuckhead on the internet claims to be abkle to do. Because on the internet my penis is three feet long and I use it to kill people and deflower virgins. [/b]
Why would I lie? You calling me a liar? I speak the truth and I know what good music is and what isnt. I didnt claim to have a 3 foot penis did I? I dont see any girls here claiming to have size z breasts?


And he knows pretty much fuck all about the system he proports to support and even less about the one he is opposed to.
I know everything about communism and capitalism. Of course i am not at all opposed to your utopian communism. I mean its not like its ever going to be implemented or anything. it will just end in dictatorship. Why dont you enlighten me as to something you think i dont know about communism as to why it is so good or capitalism as to why it is so evil?

And how did you like those lenin quotes? Quite a liberationist eh?

[red team]

So how&#39;s the Capitalist track record of providing material wealth and a decent living for everybody? Last time I check 30,000 children die every 35 minutes from starvation and preventable disease. That&#39;s the equivalent of a Jumbo airliner filled with kids crashing every 35 minutes forvever. A massacre of the innocents wouldn&#39;t you say? For those with a closed mind, which I assume you have, there is no thinking outside of the competition for profit framework that Capitalism operates in. So why even bother coming here? I don&#39;t claim that I have all the answers. But the fact is I don&#39;t worship any ideology like it is an unquestionable religion which I can&#39;t say the same about you.

For starters maybe you should ask yourself some questions like:

- what&#39;s money?
- what&#39;s wealth?
- what&#39;s profit?
- does money measure wealth? does it measure labour? Or is it just a con game that is only as valuable as long as people keep on having faith in exchanging it for things they can use?

- If money isn&#39;t a measure of anything then what is it&#39;s purpose?
- And tell me this why does different currencies purchase different amounts of things including labour? They&#39;re all money aren&#39;t they?

Being a Capitalist like yourself I wouldn&#39;t expect you to question these things outside of the mainstream being that you have a stake in the system in the way that it is already.

But Capitalism isn&#39;t going to last forever. Massive armies of the poor and dispossessed are currently flooding into the cities looking for opportunities to make a living. What is your answer? When this system finally does collapse from not being able to provide for these people you better think fast for an answer otherwise they may demand your hide.

[Abolish Communism]

- what&#39;s money?
- what&#39;s wealth?
- what&#39;s profit?
- does money measure wealth? does it measure labour? Or is it just a con game that is only as valuable as long as people keep on having faith in exchanging it for things they can use?

- If money isn&#39;t a measure of anything then what is it&#39;s purpose?
- And tell me this why does different currencies purchase different amounts of things including labour? They&#39;re all money aren&#39;t they?

Being a Capitalist like yourself I wouldn&#39;t expect you to question these things outside of the mainstream being that you have a stake in the system in the way that it is already.

But Capitalism isn&#39;t going to last forever. Massive armies of the poor and dispossessed are currently flooding into the cities looking for opportunities to make a living. What is your answer? When this system finally does collapse from not being able to provide for these people you better think fast for an answer otherwise they may demand your hide.


It&#39;s interesting that those who would "fight" or "revolt" for socialism have never understood that money is a far more simpler concept than they make it to be in their minds.

Money has been around for a longer time than capitalism has been, and merely represents faith. It is a philosphical belief that it will be honored by another for goods or services.

Long before capitalism, people made promises to one another. Such promises are almost as old as complex societies. People&#39;s poor memories and the absurd ability to carry around chickens whereever they go (witness China in the late 80s and early 90s), societies turned to something substantial to take the place of the promises, and it was at first something physical and hard, like shells or marked clay that dried, to paper that was held to forge against counterfeiters.

This is expreemly basic stuff, and is historical fact. It was not invented by a secret Illuminati planning on screwing labor. You can screw labor, if that&#39;s your objective, without any money whatsoever. Egyptian rulers messed up laborers lives without any currency at all.

Most at this board would agree that North Korea does not practice communism, yet there is a vast majority of people living there who are "poor and dispossessed".

There is no logical reason why people demanding change will try and displace a free society. In the Early 90&#39;s, millions of people who were poor and exploited by the State chose capitalism as a means to destroy the "Socialist Society" created by their masters.

The notion that people will turn to the structures or events theorized by Karl Marx to save them from their poverty makes as much sense as their turning to Jerry Falwell to do the same. He&#39;s written plenty about society and says that if you only followed his views, society would be without want or frustration.

I don&#39;t believe him, but the truth is that if we ALL followed nearly ANY ruler, life would be a paradise, presuming we accepted that anything that leader said was correct and we believed him or her would be for the better for society.

Finally, why would anyone coming into the cities of America for opportunity (I chose my country because that&#39;s where I live) want MY hide. Most people have no real power. I&#39;m no different. I have possessions and let&#39;s say they have none. If they came for my possessions with the idea that they will kill me to get them, those of us who have our possessions can kill them. Not because of cappie bosses telling us to do so, merely because we know that the society that this "socialism" will bring will become a murder machine.

One more note (sorry for going on and on Red Team) There is no reason why society in America won&#39;t "evolve" peacefully to a more socialist society. I realize that your entire premise is built on the notion that the forces of capitalism won&#39;t let them, but if that were true, no evolution would ever have occurred in American history.

Land ownership as a requirement to vote happened without ANYONE getting killed. It happened at the state level in the 1800s. It was achieved during the time of President Jackson, and he is often associated with it, though he supported it, did not actually do it himself.

According to all reasoning, if one were to believe that the might of capital would never allow REAL change, this particular change, of non land owners having the franchise, would NEVER have happened in America. (Or anywhere else for the matter of that.)

I won&#39;t bore you will the list of other changes in American society that fly in the face of the notion that we&#39;re mere pawns in a greater game we have no control over.

[spanishinquisition]

Redteam:


So how&#092;&#39;s the Capitalist track record of providing material wealth and a decent living for everybody? Last time I check 30,000 children die every 35 minutes from starvation and preventable disease. That&#092;&#39;s the equivalent of a Jumbo airliner filled with kids crashing every 35 minutes forvever. A massacre of the innocents wouldn&#092;&#39;t you say?

For you sir:



Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa&#092;&#39;s Problems
Monday, January 6, 2003
By: Andrew Bernstein

It is capitalism that enabled the West to rise to great prosperity.

A specter is haunting Africa--the specter of starvation. At least 2.5 million Zambians currently face famine, as do millions more across southern Africa--in Lesotho, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The United Nations estimates that more than 14 million Africans face possible starvation by March 2003.

According to the comprehensive 2001 Index of Economic Freedom, sub-Sahara Africa &#092;"remains...by far the poorest...area in the world.&#092;" In Ethiopia, per capita GNP is estimated at &#036;108. In Sierra Leone the figure is &#036;146; in Mozambique &#036;178; in Tanzania &#036;180. By contrast, the per capita GNP in the United States exceeds &#036;30,000.

Most people forget that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa and had a much lower life expectancy. Even a relatively well-off country like France is estimated to have suffered seven general famines in the 15th century, thirteen in the 16th, eleven in the 17th and sixteen in the 18th. And disease was rampant. Given an utter lack of sanitation, the bubonic plague, typhus and other diseases recurred incessantly into the 18th century, killing tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands at a time.

The effect on life expectancy was predictable. In parts of France, in the middle of the 17th century, only 58 percent reached their 15th birthday, and life expectancy was 20. In Ireland, life expectancy in 1800 was a mere 19 years. In early 18th century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age five.

Then a dramatic change occurred throughout Europe. The population of England doubled between 1750 and 1820, with childhood mortality dropping to 31.8 percent by 1830. Something happened that enabled people to stay alive.

What did that early period lack that the later period had? Capitalism. What does Africa lack that the West has? Capitalism. It is capitalism that enabled the West to rise to great prosperity. The lack of capitalism is responsible for Africa&#092;&#39;s crushing poverty.

What is capitalism? It is an economic system in which all property is privately owned, a system without government regulation and government handouts. It is a free economy, a system in which individuals are free to produce, to trade, and to make--and keep--a profit.

Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, the right of every individual to his life, his liberty and the pursuit of his own happiness. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, including John Locke and the Founding Fathers, brought these ideas to the forefront in Europe and America. The result was an economic revolution, which--in a relatively brief time--transformed the West from a poverty-stricken region to one of great productive wealth. This system of freedom liberated the most creative minds of Western society, resulting in a torrent of innovations--from James Watt&#092;&#39;s steam engine to Louis Pasteur&#092;&#39;s germ theory to Henry Ford&#092;&#39;s automobile to the Wright Brothers&#092;&#39; airplane and much more. This new freedom, and the Industrial Revolution it spawned, resulted in vast increases in agricultural and industrial production.

Creative minds--from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs--flourish only under freedom. The result is new products, new jobs, new wealth, in short: the furtherance of life on earth, in length, quantity and quality. Under the kings, theocracies, military dictatorships and socialist regimes that dominate Africa, such minds are stifled. The result is stagnation, poverty and death.

Africa has the identical natural resource fundamentally responsible for the West&#092;&#39;s rise: the human mind. But it has neither the freedom nor the Enlightenment philosophy of reason, individualism and political liberty necessary for creating wealth and health. Africa is mired in tribal cultures that stress subordination to the group rather than personal independence and achievement. All over the continent brutal dictators murder and rob innocent citizens in order to aggrandize themselves and members of their tribes.

What Africa desperately needs is to remove the political and economic shackles and replace them with political and economic freedom. It needs to depose the military dictators and socialist regimes and establish capitalism, with its political/economic freedom, its rule of law and respect for individual rights. And to accomplish that, it first needs to remove the philosophic shackles and replace tribal collectivism with a philosophy of reason and freedom. The truly humanitarian system is not the Marxism espoused by Western intellectuals but the only system that can establish, as it historically has, the furtherance of life on earth: capitalism.

Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

This Op-Ed was published in the Orange County Register (June 16, 2005) and The Louisville Courier-Journal (June 18, 2005)

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?age=News...ws_iv_ctrl=1085 (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?age=NewsArticle&id=7305&news_iv_ctrl=1085)


For those with a closed mind, which I assume you have, there is no thinking outside of the competition for profit framework that Capitalism operates in. So why even bother coming here? I don&#092;&#39;t claim that I have all the answers. But the fact is I don&#092;&#39;t worship any ideology like it is an unquestionable religion which I can&#092;&#39;t say the same about you.

I dont worship capitalism. I just really really admire it. There isnt no picture of Adam Smith in the background of the replying box on any capitalist forums ive seen. I dont think its about worship. I think admiration is the word we cappie have for the elegance and beauty of our system.

The problems of Africa can be solved if only governments would have an open border policy. Lets face it, many Africans have little to sell but their labor. Fine, we build factories there and provide food in return. Its exploitation if we DONT invest in poor African countries. I mean wouldnt that solve the starvation issue? Ethiopias problem is over&#33; And if we have an open border policy, ethiopians for instance can leave that place and go to the United States, Europe or wherever the jobs are. Its redtape and government that is stopping it. Redtape of China and South Korea keeps North Korea alive or everyone would have left that crazy place.


what&#092;&#39;s money?
Unspent production whose pricing power is undermined by socialist inflationary economics.


- what&#092;&#39;s wealth?
A significant accumulation of unspent production.


- what&#092;&#39;s profit?
The thing which makes you set up the factory and employ workers in teh first place. It is a reward for ingenuity and efficiency. The more efficiency the less resources are wasted and the greater the reward. If you discourage profit why would anything be done? If it would be done why would it be done with greater efficiency than under capitalism?


- does money measure wealth? does it measure labour?
Yes, money measures wealth as wealth is described by money. There are different asset classes though. Owning a secondary industry like a factory is a far shakier foundation of wealth than say owning a property. Some capital is contilually depreciating to zero and so ill think you agree profits are necessary for replacements and the reward for starting that business in teh first place.

Does money measure labour? You&#092;&#39;re going to say the worker produces xyz but only gets x out of it. Well of course, they didnt do all the work. If they truly did there is nothing stopping them settign up their own factory quite easily and gettingn xyz. The fact they dont proves they in fact dont do yz and Marx was foolish to say the workers do al lthe labor. Thought and management is labor as well and is necessary for effective employment. AND YOU PROBABLY SAY CAPITALSIM DOESNT REWARD INTELLECT&#33; It does, but only if it is benificial to others.

In fact, what if the capitalist is poor and makes no money as often happens? then what is there to re-distribute? There is nothing to do but close shop, putting workers out of a job. We need profits for efficient employment. Anyway, we have unions these days to ensure a greater slice of the cake to, I would say the maximum amount tolerable by management.


Or is it just a con game that is only as valuable as long as people keep on having faith in exchanging it for things they can use?
Is money a con game? It is if the government has excessive inflation.


- If money isn&#092;&#39;t a measure of anything then what is it&#092;&#39;s purpose?
For you money might be a piece of paper, differnet from the capital, but you can buy capital with it cant you? And administration over this capial is legally enshrined to all humans who own it in a decent government, which I might add, results in a rich country.


- And tell me this why does different currencies purchase different amounts of things including labour? They&#092;&#39;re all money aren&#092;&#39;t they?

Many different reasons. Dictators like Lukashenko print money to pay people. This devalues it.

Efficient market theory also dicattes it. Which is accurate unless people panic or are overoptimistic. If everyone in the whole world knows all the data, basically the thoery states the currency floats according to what people think it is worth relative to the US/CHE/JPY/GBP/EUR/AUD/CAD. Of course the intellectual elite poor as shit college professors think the market is completely efficient. I guess the peaks and troghs dont exist then. The imporatnt thing is the market is driven by freedom of purchase.

Of course, boosting gov interest rates also results in a firmer currency as inflation is curtailed by a proportional increased cost of money.


Being a Capitalist like yourself I wouldn&#092;&#39;t expect you to question these things outside of the mainstream being that you have a stake in the system in the way that it is already.
But capitalism lifts the whole of society out of povery.


But Capitalism isn&#092;&#39;t going to last forever. Massive armies of the poor and dispossessed are currently flooding into the cities looking for opportunities to make a living. What is your answer? When this system finally does collapse from not being able to provide for these people you better think fast for an answer otherwise they may demand your hide.
hmmm sounds like savagery to me. Let them go to the cities though. Let them move freely wherever the big money is and there will be people ready to give them a job.

[which doctor]

I&#39;m a communist for the group sex.

[The Sloth]

1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

appeal.. i guess it depends. "ethics" is not a question of logic. some people, indeed, see nothing "appealing" about equality, among other things. i can&#39;t logically call them "wrong," but i can call them fucking pigs, nazis, and the like.

as for history: yes, state socialism based on the leninist paradigm has been discredited. no biggie, as it was discredited even before it was put to the test. so, it&#39;s not so much a failure of equality, but a failure of a specific revolutionary model, that was implemented in a specific time, in a specific society. communism, of course, can never work in a backwards region that hasn&#39;t even seen the most fundamental industrialization, and urbanization.

etc.


2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

a murderer is one who kills. if i were, for example, to murder the person that attempts to rape my wife, would you have a problem with that?

i&#39;m not saying that che had a wife that was about to raped by imperialists -- i&#39;m simply criticizing the FORM of your argument, and asking you to be specific: who did he murder? were these murders defensible? if they were not defensible, does that discredit a person, a person&#39;s political theories, a people&#39;s movement, or what? what is being said, exactly?


3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

emulate, in what sense? get our hands cut off in bolivia?

again, be specific.

[red team]

dont worship capitalism. I just really really admire it. There isnt no picture of Adam Smith in the background of the replying box on any capitalist forums ive seen. I dont think its about worship. I think admiration is the word we cappie have for the elegance and beauty of our system.

The problems of Africa can be solved if only governments would have an open border policy. Lets face it, many Africans have little to sell but their labor. Fine, we build factories there and provide food in return. Its exploitation if we DONT invest in poor African countries. I mean wouldnt that solve the starvation issue? Ethiopias problem is over&#33; And if we have an open border policy, ethiopians for instance can leave that place and go to the United States, Europe or wherever the jobs are. Its redtape and government that is stopping it. Redtape of China and South Korea keeps North Korea alive or everyone would have left that crazy place.


The reason why governments don&#39;t let immigrants into "their" countries is because there is not enough jobs for them to do. Which means you have to keep them alive somehow otherwise they&#39;ll get into trouble like starting riots and burning things. Being that money is a token of debt the class of people in command of this debt economy will only pay for someone to do a job for them if they get more money (debt notes promising to repay) in return for the job being done, otherwise what would be the point if you break even? Wouldn&#39;t that be simply a waste of time? Since the whole economy behaves this way why would you want to hire somebody to make things to be sold if there&#39;s too much of whats being sold already because there will always be too much of what&#39;s being sold. The debt cannot be repaid unless you give out credit cards to promise to repay what you&#39;ve promise to repay with money.

What an absurdity we have now. A debt credit to pay using debt notes on a debt for services rendered. :lol:
You simply cannot hire them all even for everybody who is desperate to accept any kind of deal, otherwise you&#39;ll simply make the problem of having "too much" of what&#39;s being sold even worse. A debt accumulation economy which all money economies are including "socialist" economies simply cannot allow for full production without going further into debt and who would want that?




what&#092;&#39;s money?

Unspent production whose pricing power is undermined by socialist inflationary economics.


You may think that, but it&#39;s really not. If money can be truly "unspent" then it cannot be circulated as debt. Suppose an amount of money was given out for labour in production of a certain quantity of goods. After the goods are produced that certain amount of money given out assuming that it is truly "unspent" production should correspond exactly to the amount of goods produced.

So far so good?

Well then what happens if the price of goods is fluctuating as it is now? If the price is set higher than what the consumer can pay as is always the case now then the amount of goods on market cannot be exchanged with the "unspent" production. Further, if the consumer saves what he has instead of spending it because let&#39;s face it working in a debt accumulation economy gives you a huge sense of insecurity then again goods will be left unsold and production would stop or slow down. Who want&#39;s to produce with less people owing you for the things you produce?

The only conclusion you can draw is that money cannot be "unspent" production, but rather a medium for an exchange of debt that can only be repaid in perfect ideal circumstances that cannot be realizable in the real world.

1. debt notes cannot be saved otherwise people owed that debt cannot be repaid and will stop production

2. debt notes to be repaid cannot be lower than the total purchase price (total debt value set by the producers) otherwise people owed that debt cannot be repaid and again will stop production. This will never be as profit is used to run everything in Capitalist society.

When are those two conditions for corresponding exchange of debt for production met? Never would be the answer.

Furthermore, if a ticket used for claiming ownership of an item produced can truly be spent, it should be nullified upon exchange of the ticket for the ownership claim upon that item, otherwise what you have is simply a method of economic control by those with a monopoly of these debt tokens. Think about it. If money was circulated back upon the issuer or dominant owners (what we call the wealthy) of these debt tokens then nothing is really being spent corresponding to productive labour is it? It&#39;s simply circulated back to those with majority financial resources used in influencing the economic and social life of that society be it the wealthy Capitalist or the wealthy "Socialist" bureaucrat or party member. That&#39;s the whole reason why (more money=more power), otherwise if tickets of ownership claims were cancelled out upon item purchase money would be entirely useless for gaining power.

As with all good metaphors since money is not really a measure of anything, but a accumulation of debts of subjective and fluctuating value, it deserves a good metaphorical analogy. Take a car fueled with gasoline for example. The gasoline being a quantifiable measure of energy that produces something useful for me like getting me from point A to point B is spent upon igniting the gasoline to power the engine to get me somewhere, but with the money as the fuel the "spent" money should appear back into the gas station that supplied it. :lol:




- what&#092;&#39;s wealth?

A significant accumulation of unspent production.


Is that your sole criteria?
Because poor health, armament production, poisonous and addictive consumer substances, pollution, gambling - legal and illegal, trading - legal and illegal can also be "wealth" of a sort. You&#39;ve got a very inconsistent and strange definition of "wealth". Negative externalities I suppose? :lol:




- what&#092;&#39;s profit?

The thing which makes you set up the factory and employ workers in teh first place. It is a reward for ingenuity and efficiency. The more efficiency the less resources are wasted and the greater the reward. If you discourage profit why would anything be done? If it would be done why would it be done with greater efficiency than under capitalism?


Is efficiency the sole criteria?
Perhaps it is since everything in a monetary society is operated on debt accumulation, but what&#39;s going to happen if the debt you&#39;ve set to accumulate is higher than what can be circulated back from the total wages (in debt notes) paid out? Of course, you&#39;re going to stop production because you don&#39;t want to be a debtor, but rather a debtee (see above explanation for money), but what&#39;s stopping you from producing useful things for the consumers in the first place? Did all of a sudden your factory machines don&#39;t work anymore? Is there no power to make your machines work? What&#39;s really going on? Or rather I should ask what&#39;s really your motive for production? To have more people owe you debts that they can never repay or consumer utility?


More later...

[Zingu]

1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

The idea that we, the workers, can be empowered with our lives, as the Internationale&#39;s lines go: "We who were nobody, lets be everything&#33;". Unless you are a worker yourself, it is very hard to explain our posistion to a class enemy.

We have no control over our own lives, our labor is spent for our bare survival rather than our for own productivity and enjoyment.


The question really isn&#39;t what is true or false, what works and what doesn&#39;t work, what the best system or the worst system is, its really a question of class, my interests vs. yours.

Thats why these arguements never get anywhere.


2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

I have no problem with the suppression of class enemies. Its called revolution, by its own nature it is a authoritarian act.


3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

No, Che was in a quite different historical and material situation then I am today. I live in a post-industrial, first world nation, Che lived in an imperialized, impoverished continent.

The requirements and nessecities for social revolution is obviously quite different.

[Janus]

I think admiration is the word we cappie have for the elegance and beauty of our system.
You sound like the Architect and not even his system was perfect. :lol:


The problems of Africa can be solved if only governments would have an open border policy. Lets face it, many Africans have little to sell but their labor. Fine, we build factories there and provide food in return.
Yes, you are talking about re-introducing imperialism. The problem is that Africa is already fucked up because of this.

[Janus]

What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?
First of all, there is a difference between authoritarian "Communism" and communism the theory.

Now, I could write a whole book about the appeal of communism the theory but the main points is that it provides for an egalitarian society in which oppression is nonexistent and where each individual&#39;s full potential can be fully realized.

[Shadowlegion]

I don&#39;t think any particular system of government can be "discredited" or redeemed based on its record throughout history. Civilizations are formed by their changes to vague terms like "capitalism" and "communism" and are not necessarily representative of it&#39;s ideals to everyone.

communism&#39;s appeal is the same as any other systems. entitlement. you do something, and you get something, its more like a pact than some outline, at least to me.

[The Sloth]

I know everything about communism and capitalism.

do you know "origin of the family" in the original german, by heart, in its entirety?

if your answer is negative, please refrain from flaunting your perfect knowledge ("i know everything about..."), as if you&#39;re some lovely repository of divine wisdom.


it will just end in dictatorship.


glad to see you&#39;re so perceptive. end in a dictatorship, it will. and, considering that you know everything about capitalism AND communism, as well as the meticulous employment history of jazz musicians, i want you to actually FINISH the statement and its implications, NOT simply leave it dangling in mid-air. your questions should be specific, not general. savor the details&#33;

meaning.. what "kind" of revolutionary government ends in a dictatorship? do all revolutionary movements end in a dictatorship? do non-vanguard revolutions all end in a dictatorship? moreover, what do revolutionary movements have in common.. specifically, WHOSE paradigm did most "socialist" revolutions of the 20th century follow? was THIS particular person correct in his judgments? can THIS single paradigm be taken as a fair point of reference from which to criticize communism in its entirety? or, do different paradigms imply different socio-political arrangements?


Why dont you enlighten me as to something you think i dont know about communism as to why it is so good or capitalism as to why it is so evil?

well, your penchant for dem lenin quotes sort of reveals exactly what you should be enlightened on. really&#33;

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:22 AM
I don&#39;t think any particular system of government can be "discredited" or redeemed based on its record throughout history.
maybe not, but i do disagree. after all, how could be judge the use of a certain political entity or social institution, if not by checking its historical track-record?

of course, these questions need to be specific. our generous local god, spanishinquisition, for example, likes to generalize a bit.. to him, modern state-socialism and state-capitalism is NOT a product of certain out-dated revolutionary ideas, of certain revolutionary paradigms that have, indeed, been discredited so many times. to him, it&#39;s not indicative of an archaic paradigm.. it is, no doubt, indicative of people&#39;s lack of goodness.

to think in such simple terms isn&#39;t practical, nor logical.. but, it&#39;s an easy way to keep oneself from the rigors of thinking.

not everyone wants to think, and there&#39;s really nothing wrong with that. it only becomes a problem when that thought-less, un-original hack claims to "know everything about communism and capitalism," only to (embarassingly) reveal something quite to the contrary.

hmph.

again, when someone wants to ask questions about "historical record," or anything else for that matter, those questions have to be SPECIFIC, and they have to refer to the MINUTE DETAILS of the fact in question, instead of "skipping" these things for more convenient, yet more skewed, answers.

[Tungsten]

el.mozez

exploitation is a bi product of private property
I own a house, which is my private property, so who am I exploiting? Time for a re-think cow boy.

Capitalism is ecologically unsustainable because it requires an ever expanding market . Capitalism defys the Laws of Thermo Dynamics.
I wasn&#39;t aware free trade was a thermodynamic process.
red team

But Capitalism isn&#39;t going to last forever. Massive armies of the poor and dispossessed are currently flooding into the cities looking for opportunities to make a living. What is your answer?
Let them.

When this system finally does collapse from not being able to provide for these people you better think fast for an answer otherwise they may demand your hide.
They provide for themselves the same way everone else does- by getting a job and working. The workers will not be held to ransom by the dispossessed.

[Abolish Communism]

Capitalism is ecologically unsustainable because it requires an ever expanding market . Capitalism defys the Laws of Thermo Dynamics.

No doubt Beethoven&#39;s attempts to expand the instruments in the orchestra and structure of the symphony, requiring an ever expanding number of musicians, defied the Laws of Thermo Dynamics.

:lol:

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:57 AM
Hi everyone. Since im a nooby, I would like to ask:

1)What is the appeal of communism, particularly as it is discredited by history?

2)Why do you follow Che, more a murderer than revolutionary?

3)Do you seek to emulate Che?

Thanks. Sorry if these questions seem silly..
1) The appeal is that it works towards building a world where humans work for the world community, for the needs and satisfying quality of life which every human deserves. Discredited? Well, as an anti-authoritarian "council" communist, I will say that it has not been discredited. Communism, being stateless, has never existed nor been attempted on any meaningful scale. Faux socialism, Leninism, on the other hand has been attempted and failed, no doubt. Yet Leninism is simply the rape of true socialistic and communistic values. It wasn&#39;t (and isn&#39;t) true socialism, contrary to what your public school textbooks and corporate media would lead you to believe.

2) I, personally, don&#39;t "follow" Che. But he has become somewhat of a symbol or icon for anti-capitalist and revolutionary values.

3) Personally, no. Communism isn&#39;t about Che, its about liberation of the oppressed peoples of the world. If people want to use iconography thats fine, but I don&#39;t participate in it myself.

[PLPTX]

1) Communism offers freedom from the extreme right-wing socialites, as well as freedom from the oppression of the controling upper class or "owning class".

2) Che was a socialist, not a communist. Thus I tend to care less about his accomplishments as a revolutionary.

3) I emulate no one.

[Anti-Red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:41 AM
3) I emulate no one.


Except Stalin.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:41 AM
1) Communism offers freedom from the extreme right-wing socialites, as well as freedom from the oppression of the controling upper class or "owning class".

2) Che was a socialist, not a communist. Thus I tend to care less about his accomplishments as a revolutionary.

3) I emulate no one.
With the revlolutionary vanguard centralizing power who&#39;s going to be attracted to the vanguard? Maybe not at first, but can you picture former Capitalists switching to hats with little red stars and fervently and passionately proclaiming they are for the revolutionary and justice and equality for all, blah, blah, blah...

It&#39;s the best strategy for them to adopt when faced with being obsolete. Being master manipulators they can play on the crowd to support them. Capitalists wouldn&#39;t be Capitalists today unless they were already master bullshitters.

Once in the central power structure they can be the new mandarins, managers and bosses. Can you guard against all careerists and charlatans because the big fat loophole you call a dictatorship of the proletariat might be far too tempting for former cappies and new aspiring cappies to overlook.

[red team]

Originally posted by spanish inquisition+--> (spanish inquisition)Some capital is contilually depreciating to zero and so ill think you agree profits are necessary for replacements and the reward for starting that business in teh first place[/b]

What does that prove? Everything in the world eventually wears out and dies including trees which we print our money from. Do trees grow again? Using what? If you&#39;re thinking that there&#39;s no free lunch because profits needs to be used to replace worn out assets think about the biggest free lunch in terms of energy that runs everything including people that we have now. The Sun. Next think about the free lunch you get from running water down a cliff attached to electric generators. Next the free lunch you get from burning things to provide energy to an engine. Next the free lunch from (some natural resource)...

What&#39;s the point I&#39;m trying to get at? It&#39;s that we&#39;re fast approaching a time in which the work provided by our machines far outstrip the work provided by any person or group of people doing manual labour. The problem at present is that there are still areas in which manual work by people is needed because of the "intelligent" and dexterous nature of the work. But think about this for while. Computer speed and memory doubles roughly every 18 months. Breakthroughs in cutting edge computer technology that can be programmed to do manual work is occurring at a very fast pace.

Relying on surplus debts of scarce value as a motivation to get people to do manual work only makes sense if there isn&#39;t any other way we can accomplish work without it. But, using surplus energy which is the biggest free lunch we have to power intelligent machines to do useful work is much more effective and humane isn&#39;t it? Furthermore, it actually achieves common abundance because knowledge which can always be stored and relearned and machines which does useful work as long as energy is given to them, can go on forever in accumulating material wealth without the need to deprive anyone and without continuous drudgery which must be motivated with greed/desperation which is often severe desperation resulting from deprivation of life critical resources. This is impossible for a debt/scarcity system of value tokens which by it&#39;s very nature must rely on inequality/scarcity and greed/desperation as a motivation for work, otherwise what would be the point of accumulating money?


If they truly did there is nothing stopping them settign up their own factory quite easily and gettingn xyz. The fact they dont proves they in fact dont do yz and Marx was foolish to say the workers do all the labor.

Marxism in it&#39;s classical form of public rationing of wealth is obsolete, but so is Capitalism or soon to be. Accumulation of non-redistributable debt will see to that.


Thought and management is labor as well and is necessary for effective employment. AND YOU PROBABLY SAY CAPITALSIM DOESNT REWARD INTELLECT&#33; It does, but only if it is benificial to others

Or only when it makes money. Armaments, narcotics (both legal and illegal), gambling and prostitution are among the biggest money makers in the world. Many so-called useful items are also junk (that may be hazardous to your long term health) that only has consumer demand from slick advertising campaigns.


In fact, what if the capitalist is poor and makes no money as often happens? then what is there to re-distribute? There is nothing to do but close shop, putting workers out of a job. We need profits for efficient employment. Anyway, we have unions these days to ensure a greater slice of the cake to, I would say the maximum amount tolerable by management.


What&#39;s the maximum amount? You operate on debt accumulation for production otherwise you can&#39;t operate at all. Being that there is only a finite amount of value out in circulation how are you going to increase value without increasing inflation? High interest rates will just make it worse as this means businesses will either stop borrowing or have to raise profit margins to repay to the bank a higher percentage of what they need to repay in the first place. Both interests and profits are charged at a rate. That means percentage of a lump amount is still that percentage of that amount no matter how many subdivisions of that lump amount you have which is essentially what you&#39;re doing when you print more money.


Is money a con game? It is if the government has excessive inflation.

See above.


For you money might be a piece of paper, differnet from the capital, but you can buy capital with it cant you? And administration over this capial is legally enshrined to all humans who own it in a decent government, which I might add, results in a rich country.

The meaning of rich must be measured relative to poverty, otherwise there&#39;s no point. With a money based economy somebody, somewhere will have to be poor. It&#39;s inevitable. With a "Socialist" economy everybody will be equally poor except for party members and with a Capitalist economy a small number of CEOs and wealthy investors will be rich and everybody will work to make them rich. So again, what&#39;s the difference?


Many different reasons. Dictators like Lukashenko print money to pay people. This devalues it.

Efficient market theory also dicattes it. Which is accurate unless people panic or are overoptimistic. If everyone in the whole world knows all the data, basically the thoery states the currency floats according to what people think it is worth relative to the US/CHE/JPY/GBP/EUR/AUD/CAD. Of course the intellectual elite poor as shit college professors think the market is completely efficient. I guess the peaks and troghs dont exist then. The imporatnt thing is the market is driven by freedom of purchase.

Of course, boosting gov interest rates also results in a firmer currency as inflation is curtailed by a proportional increased cost of money.

Lukashenko is just a dictator that runs a country. Individual capitalists are dictators over their own company. The difference is only in the scale of dictatorship.


But capitalism lifts the whole of society out of povery.

At the cost of greater empire. Well, empire is falling right now. When the empire is rich, concessions can be given out to it&#39;s citizens. When the empire is poor and failing they&#39;ll turn their own citizens into slaves and kill them if they resist.


hmmm sounds like savagery to me. Let them go to the cities though. Let them move freely wherever the big money is and there will be people ready to give them a job.

No, it will be a nightmare as wages for all except the most privileged jobs will be bid down to subsistence wage levels because the rich company owners can afford to bargain against the money-desperate for the limited jobs available that is not enough for everybody to take.

By the way, I have hope that they will be the ones who will be the first to rebel as they will have the least to lose against a system that doesn&#39;t provide anything for them.


Originally posted by Abolish Communism+--> (Abolish Communism)I won&#39;t bore you will the list of other changes in American society that fly in the face of the notion that we&#39;re mere pawns in a greater game we have no control over.
[/b]

Great, when are we going to achieve: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to need"?

When will it come under a system that depends on people owning all the tools that people need to make the stuff that life depends on and have the power to deprive people working on these tools of the wealth produced by them if it is felt that they can&#39;t sell what is made to gain them extra wealth?

Can you answer that?


[email protected]
They provide for themselves the same way everone else does- by getting a job and working.


Who&#39;s going to hire them? You? Good luck selling the products they make at a price that won&#39;t bankrupt you because a lot more poor people are paid a money value that is a lot less in some shithole third world country. Which explains why so many people who wants to come here are from shithole third world countries.


Tungsten
The workers will not be held to ransom by the dispossessed.

Who&#39;s ransoming who? Machines are left idle that could be made productive to provide for: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to need" because things made can&#39;t be sold for more value than what was paid out. Which is a mathematical impossibility as I&#39;ve said many times.

We have a different idea of what constitute productive. Different ideology I guess.

[spanishinquisition]

Redteam, Im not hungup about the definition of capital or money and I certainly see where youre coming from. If you call it debt, fine. If you see a society spiralling into debt under the capitalist system, I suppose this view could be equated with the busienss cycle in which people will eventually find themselves in over their heads and a period of stagnation of needs to take place.

Personally though I consider the business cycle an oportunity for profit. Buy at the bottom, sell at the top and if you have a really good business, you buy athe bottom and dont selll at all. Your hypothetical society will no doubt be structured so well such opportunities will not exist. Maybe this will happen in the future to replace the keynsian monetary yuck. Who can say?




QUOTE (spanish inquisition)
Some capital is contilually depreciating to zero and so ill think you agree profits are necessary for replacements and the reward for starting that business in teh first place



What does that prove? Everything in the world eventually wears out and dies including trees which we print our money from. Do trees grow again? Using what? If you&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;re thinking that there&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s no free lunch because profits needs to be used to replace worn out assets think about the biggest free lunch in terms of energy that runs everything including people that we have now. The Sun. Next think about the free lunch you get from running water down a cliff attached to electric generators. Next the free lunch you get from burning things to provide energy to an engine. Next the free lunch from (some natural resource)...
Yah, its a free lunch....if the capitalist puts in teh work hey. I mean you know capital is not permanet. We need profits to build it up again, to pay the bank, to pay the workers. If we only pay the workers we remove the existence factory as well.



What&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s the point I&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;m trying to get at? It&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s that we&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;re fast approaching a time in which the work provided by our machines far outstrip the work provided by any person or group of people doing manual labour. The problem at present is that there are still areas in which manual work by people is needed because of the &#092;&#092;&#092;"intelligent&#092;&#092;&#092;" and dexterous nature of the work. But think about this for while. Computer speed and memory doubles roughly every 18 months. Breakthroughs in cutting edge computer technology that can be programmed to do manual work is occurring at a very fast pace.
(thanks to capitalistm)....I agree.


Relying on surplus debts of scarce value as a motivation to get people to do manual work only makes sense if there isn&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;t any other way we can accomplish work without it. But, using surplus energy which is the biggest free lunch we have to power intelligent machines to do useful work is much more effective and humane isn&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;t it? Furthermore, it actually achieves common abundance because knowledge which can always be stored and relearned and machines which does useful work as long as energy is given to them, can go on forever in accumulating material wealth without the need to deprive anyone and without continuous drudgery which must be motivated with greed/desperation which is often severe desperation resulting from deprivation of life critical resources. This is impossible for a debt/scarcity system of value tokens which by it&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s very nature must rely on inequality/scarcity and greed/desperation as a motivation for work, otherwise what would be the point of accumulating money?
Maybe capitalism will just die out once we have the technology to do everything weithout labor? Why not.


QUOTE
If they truly did there is nothing stopping them settign up their own factory quite easily and gettingn xyz. The fact they dont proves they in fact dont do yz and Marx was foolish to say the workers do all the labor.



Marxism in it&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s classical form of public rationing of wealth is obsolete, but so is Capitalism or soon to be. Accumulation of non-redistributable debt will see to that.
So you say......but weve had capitalism almost forever.


QUOTE
Thought and management is labor as well and is necessary for effective employment. AND YOU PROBABLY SAY CAPITALSIM DOESNT REWARD INTELLECT&#33; It does, but only if it is benificial to others




Or only when it makes money. Armaments, narcotics (both legal and illegal), gambling and prostitution are among the biggest money makers in the world. Many so-called useful items are also junk (that may be hazardous to your long term health) that only has consumer demand from slick advertising campaigns.

Yeah, but socialist countries have those things too, only they do them less efficiently meaning everyone has to pay more for equivalent service.


QUOTE
In fact, what if the capitalist is poor and makes no money as often happens? then what is there to re-distribute? There is nothing to do but close shop, putting workers out of a job. We need profits for efficient employment. Anyway, we have unions these days to ensure a greater slice of the cake to, I would say the maximum amount tolerable by management.




What&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s the maximum amount? You operate on debt accumulation for production otherwise you can&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;t operate at all. Being that there is only a finite amount of value out in circulation how are you going to increase value without increasing inflation? High interest rates will just make it worse as this means businesses will either stop borrowing or have to raise profit margins to repay to the bank a higher percentage of what they need to repay in the first place. Both interests and profits are charged at a rate. That means percentage of a lump amount is still that percentage of that amount no matter how many subdivisions of that lump amount you have which is essentially what you&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;re doing when you print more money.

Increase value without increasing infaltion? Its only possible in a really good business/country that doesnt need much debt. Debt does not contribute to long term value for a manufacturer. Its a little known fact. Mars chocalates have never never used debt and its family members have 20bill each by making 30%per annum for 50years.
But yeah, if you need to borrow, eventually you will go out of business if you are not careful enough to reduce the debt in teh good tiems. You think its a problem with all of capitalism? Maybe it is.


QUOTE
For you money might be a piece of paper, differnet from the capital, but you can buy capital with it cant you? And administration over this capial is legally enshrined to all humans who own it in a decent government, which I might add, results in a rich country.



The meaning of rich must be measured relative to poverty, otherwise there&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s no point. With a money based economy somebody, somewhere will have to be poor. It&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s inevitable. With a &#092;&#092;&#092;"Socialist&#092;&#092;&#092;" economy everybody will be equally poor except for party members and with a Capitalist economy a small number of CEOs and wealthy investors will be rich and everybody will work to make them rich. So again, what&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s the difference?

Ah so youre like Si Pinto who says Imperialism causes African poverty. Is it correct? Well I can say capitalism has increased the wealth of the whole world in the past 200 years, is this not a fact? I think Africa is a richer nation today than 200 years ago despite the odd famine.

And the difference is taht in a capitalist economy, the poor are like the rich of a socialist economy. CEOS do not get all the wealth. CEOS cannot live in luxury without some rubbing off on the masses who aspire to the same and emulate accordingly.


QUOTE
But capitalism lifts the whole of society out of povery.



At the cost of greater empire. Well, empire is falling right now. When the empire is rich, concessions can be given out to it&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;s citizens. When the empire is poor and failing they&#092;&#092;&#092;&#39;ll turn their own citizens into slaves and kill them if they resist.

Well just have to wait and see&#33;

[Janus]

but weve had capitalism almost forever.
Several hundred years is a forever? :blink:


Ah so youre like Si Pinto who says Imperialism causes African poverty. Is it correct? Well I can say capitalism has increased the wealth of the whole world in the past 200 years, is this not a fact? I think Africa is a richer nation today than 200 years ago despite the odd famine.
That is because Africa was quite primitive in the early 19th century. You actually think that the problems and conflicts which Africa is experiencing today is totally not connected to imperialism and what it did?

[spanishinquisition]

Several hundred years is a forever? :blink:

You know I sort of think we have had capitalism for a very long time in one way or another. Weve always had trade right? Merchants sailing the world, or overland like Marco Polo on the one expedition which would make his fortune.
So long as we also have property rights and trade, we have capitalism. It isnt just a political system of the middle class. There is a deeper definition, a desire for wealth we have always had.


That is because Africa was quite primitive in the early 19th century. You actually think that the problems and conflicts which Africa is experiencing today is totally not connected to imperialism and what it did?

Imperialists are only responsible for Africas problems when they were in Africa, which is not today. To say Imperialism is responsible is I belive inaccurate to the situation. Si Pinto or Jazzratt, said that Africa is poor because it has been looted. But we are talking about a desert here. Nothing to do with somone being rich in another country I would imagine. Africas poverty is not our creation so why do we need to feel guilt?

[elmo sez]

But we are talking about a desert here.

What ???? Do you even know what your talking about africa isnt just desert. &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; That just really shows your ignorance


Imperialists are only responsible for Africas problems when they were in Africa, which is not today.

Africa didnt have the kind of problems it has today before imperialists .


Nothing to do with somone being rich in another country I would imagine. Africas poverty is not our creation so why do we need to feel guilt?

African poverty is our creation , you know that little thing called third world debt&#33;&#33;&#33;
The imperialists have been replaced by corrupt puppet governments that loot the countries on behalf of the west&#33;&#33; Youd be surprised how many people in the west are rich because of this , its directly related &#33;&#33;&#33;