Why Do we Keep Debating Capitalists?

[Rawthentic]

Why the hell do we keep debating these idiots if we already know that their arguments hold no real, fundamental basis? They come up with shit that we've heard like a million times and we keep on replying to their dumb shit posts. We are past the point of trumping capitalism and trying to explain that communism is possible. We know that it is, so lets move on to bigger and better things such as activism and how to get to revolution.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Because:

A. It's very cynical. We might win some round, and some might have a legitimate point to make.

B. If we seal ourselves off from opposing views... It's bad. It's like not letting you kid play with other children, it's going to have problems. Only talking to people with our views is elitist, and I have a feeling we would stop questioning. And the point at which we don't question is the point at which we are essentially a political religion.


Just my opinion, before i'm accused of being bourgeoisie and a reactionary. :o

-Alex

[Phugebrins]

Target practice.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Because some of them (very few, I know) at least try to actually bring on valid arguments, listen to ours, and want to have a real debate, and if, by debating over and over and over again, we can just convince one of them to the right cause- is that not worth it? :)

[RevMARKSman]

Well, certainly I'd like to know if everything I thought was true turned out to be false... :unsure:

[More Fire for the People]

Because there's nothing on the TV right now.

[theraven]

well besides the fact that your wrong...its fun to debate each other. a better question is why we capitlists bother debating a radical fringe with no serious support or realisitic ideas.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Having said that, the only capitalists i've seen that have two brain cells to rub together are Loknar, HankMorgan and CapitalistLawyer. All the rest have been idiots, without fail.

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:12 PM
Having said that, the only capitalists i've seen that have two brain cells to rub together are Loknar, HankMorgan and CapitalistLawyer. All the rest have been idiots, without fail.

-Alex
Remove Loknar, HankMorgan and CapitalistLawyer. from that list and add Publius and I think I'd agree.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:09 PM
well besides the fact that your wrong...its fun to debate each other. a better question is why we capitlists bother debating a radical fringe with no serious support or realisitic ideas.
This is the kind of shit that I'm talking about. That comment he made can easily be countered, but why the fuck bother with a capitalist who the only thing he/she seeks is justification for a decrepit system?

[Publius]

Why the hell do we keep debating these idiots if we already know that their arguments hold no real, fundamental basis?

I don't know, maybe to learn something?

Of course, this only furthers my theory that communism is just a secular religion; it's adherents don't even take opposing viewpoints into account.


They come up with shit that we've heard like a million times and we keep on replying to their dumb shit posts. We are past the point of trumping capitalism and trying to explain that blcommunism is possie. We know that it is, so lets move on to bigger and better things such as activism and how to get to revolution.

YOu could start by rebuilding the International Socialist movement that died a slow, ignoble death since '68.

Good luck getting that back together.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:08 PM
Why the hell do we keep debating these idiots if we already know that their arguments hold no real, fundamental basis? They come up with shit that we've heard like a million times and we keep on replying to their dumb shit posts. We are past the point of trumping capitalism and trying to explain that communism is possible. We know that it is, so lets move on to bigger and better things such as activism and how to get to revolution.
Shit, I dont.

As far as Im concerned people who arent for the proliteriat dont have fucking opinions.

[Rawthentic]

Publius, you obviously dont understand the kind of society we live in. To say that the socialist movement is dead is utopian and absurd.

Raisa, they have opinions alright, they are just out of reality.

[Publius]

Publius, you obviously dont understand the kind of society we live in. To say that the socialist movement is dead is utopian and absurd.

The international socialist movement is dead. It's a simple fact.

You have what left, ANSWER? Aren't they Stalinites?

There are still socialists, but they aren't a part of any organized movement.

So what are you going to do?

[Delta]

I don't really mess with it on this forum. I discuss it in everyday life with people who have questions or want to learn, but usually the types that you get on sites like this are very right-wing and pro-capitalist to the extreme.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:09 PM
a better question is why we capitlists bother debating a radical fringe with no serious support or realisitic ideas.
because popularity doesn't imply facticity.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:44 AM
So what are you going to do?
have sex and cry, of course.

unless you have some better suggestions.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:39 AM
Publius, you obviously dont understand the kind of society we live in. To say that the socialist movement is dead is utopian and absurd.

Raisa, they have opinions alright, they are just out of reality.
Last time I checked, the word for what comes out of peoples asses is "shit"....


I have no respect or regard for the mentalities of people who rub the system in the face of others, as far as I am concerned they have nothing to say.

This system profits off of the suffering of most of the world, and I take it personally.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:44 AM


Publius, you obviously dont understand the kind of society we live in. To say that the socialist movement is dead is utopian and absurd.

The international socialist movement is dead. It's a simple fact.

You have what left, ANSWER? Aren't they Stalinites?

There are still socialists, but they aren't a part of any organized movement.

So what are you going to do?
uh.

The libertarian and socialist struggle is still alive.

It is just that they don't present themselves as explicitly socialist anymore. ;)

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:25 AM
Of course, this only furthers my theory that communism is just a secular religion; it's adherents don't even take opposing viewpoints into account.

You're one of the few capitalists that I have respect for, but this is just an idiotic comment. The fact that communism or leftism in general is not a religion has been discussed many times over here, but cappies always have to recycle their old material to 'prove' their point.

When we question the benefits of debating capitalists, it's because we've been doing it for so long and rarely do the opinions of either side change. This in no way makes us comparable to a religion!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Jazzrat - I forgot Publius, but don't let's be too harsh. Those 3 at least use grammar correctly, and make vague attempts at serious arguments. Especially when compared to ebeneezer and General Patton.

-Alex

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:44 PM


Publius, you obviously dont understand the kind of society we live in. To say that the socialist movement is dead is utopian and absurd.

The international socialist movement is dead. It's a simple fact.

You have what left, ANSWER? Aren't they Stalinites?

There are still socialists, but they aren't a part of any organized movement.

So what are you going to do?
Stop thinking out of your ass, its not about organizations (which there are hundreds of socialist organizations, namley; The Free People's Movement which operates around the world).

Communism is a self-transcending movement, whatever you think doesnt change the facts.

[Publius]

You're one of the few capitalists that I have respect for, but this is just an idiotic comment. The fact that communism or leftism in general is not a religion has been discussed many times over here, but cappies always have to recycle their old material to 'prove' their point.

The 'fact'?

No, the 'opinion'.

I know you, being a communist, will not take that opinion.

But I think it's actually very accurate.

It uses different terminology, sure, but you can't disagree that the implementation of communism, so far, has been almost overtly religious.

The Communist party replaces organized religion.

Now I know that's not how it's 'supposed to be', but that's how it is, or was.

Thems the breaks.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:16 PM




Stop thinking out of your ass, its not about organizations (which there are hundreds of socialist organizations, namley; The Free People's Movement which operates around the world).

How's it not about 'organizations'?

A communist revolution will just arise out of thin air?

Will it arise because of some 'class conciousness'?



Communism is a self-transcending movement,

"Self-transcending."

Right.



whatever you think doesnt change the facts.

I thought that was exactly how communism worked? The proletarian collectively 'thinks' in their own class interest and then the the 'facts' (material conditions) change in order to comply with the new understanding?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:44 PM
It uses different terminology, sure, but you can't disagree that the implementation of communism, so far, has been almost overtly religious.

And I'll have to disagree with you here. I'm sure you've already heard Stalinism not actually representing communism a million times, but it's true.

Personality cults replace religion, but not true Socialism. An economic system simply cannot take the form of a religion, but worshipping a leader can.

[adenoid hynkel]

Publius is right; communism doesn't seem to be very popular. Realistically speaking, I would say that unfortunately it is more possibly for a fascist revolution to arise in the next 50-60 years in Europe than for a communist revolution to arise. The only place in this world at which communism, and lefism in general, seems to prevail is Latin America.

[Publius]

And I'll have to disagree with you here. I'm sure you've already heard Stalinism not actually representing communism a million times, but it's true.

Personality cults replace religion, but not true Socialism. An economic system simply cannot take the form of a religion, but worshipping a leader can.

Do you think personality cults are an accident? That they just happen? Or do you think there's a cause for it?

I know you like to think there'll be no 'leaders' in a communist revolution; that it will be class based. But what can you base that on, other than pure faith?

You seem to think people are inclined to rally behind an idea, not a person. I think that's nonsense and ignorant of how things really work. Did people elect Hitler because they took an objective look at his policies, in comparison to other political parties, and said "This guy seems to have things in order."?

What I find ironic is that communists posit the exact same type of perfect rationality that they criticize capitalist economists of using.

If there's anything human history can teach us it's that rationally designing a society will always fail. Not 'communism' or 'socialism' but any attempt at designing a system to be better than human ignorance.

Even the American system, arguably the world's most successful, at least longest running, democratic country, is headed now by incompetent nut-jobs.

Why can't Plato's republic work? Why can't libertarianism work? Why can't fascism work (the theory)?

Because they all posit a level of decency and rationality that's difficult to find in people.

The reasons people vote for leaders, or take up causes, or learn ideologies are not rational; I don't think for most people they even can be.

I don't honestly think you can wrestle ignorance away from most people. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how soundly you refute them, there are still people who will ignorantly cling to their belief-system.

How can you combat that? Liberal democracy does it by giving them a voice and (if were lucky) marginalizing them, so that a few crazies get policy x, a few get policy y, etc., but overall, things stay sane.

There's a balance of insanity, if you will.

Liberal democries work so well precisely because they don't work. They take so long, they're so ineffective, so incompetent, and so caught up in trivialities that they really can't fuck things up too easily.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only hope for the human race is education based on rationality and critical thinking. Granting this possibility, anything is possible. But since that won't happen any time soon (and I have no reason to believe it will), I see no reason to support communism; I think if you had a revolution right now it would lead straight to dictatorship.

But see, my plan is a self-fullfilling prophecy. Once people are logical, moral and decent (assuming they can be), all the problems will be solved. There'll be no need for a revolution if working conditions improve because people put eachother first. Only perhaps a socialism-lite would have to exist, sort of like a European state system.

That's the fatal flaw of communism; it assumes that the vast, vast, majority of people are rational and decent, but then posits an additional stage of revolution. What you aren't seeing is that, in a liberal democracy, if people were rational and humane enough to want to be communists, there wouldn't be any problems left because they would vote in leaders who uphold their values, and they would be the ones in positions of power.

Communism refutes itself.

When I set down to type I only intended to write 2 or 3 lines, but this just sort of came out. I made most of it up on the spot, but it sounds pretty good, I think.

[Phalanx]

I know you like to think there'll be no 'leaders' in a communist revolution; that it will be class based. But what can you base that on, other than pure faith?

There will be leaders in a communist revolution, but there's no reason to assume that personality cults will spring up from the revolution.


You seem to think people are inclined to rally behind an idea, not a person. I think that's nonsense and ignorant of how things really work. Did people elect Hitler because they took an objective look at his policies, in comparison to other political parties, and said "This guy seems to have things in order."?

No, I think people will rally behind a person that serves as the vehicle for that idea.


If there's anything human history can teach us it's that rationally designing a society will always fail. Not 'communism' or 'socialism' but any attempt at designing a system to be better than human ignorance.

So do you think humans are shackled by history to exploit each other to a point of slavery? Do you think that this is a good system and nothing should be done to counter it?


Because they all posit a level of decency and rationality that's difficult to find in people.

Decency and rationality is one thing, exploiting and starving others is another. I have no illusions that socialism will not be perfect, but it sure as hell will be better than the current system. I'm sure the arguments for feudalism and slavery were much the same.


The reasons people vote for leaders, or take up causes, or learn ideologies are not rational; I don't think for most people they even can be.

That's where education is important. And I'm not talking about spreading education in the name of education.


I don't honestly think you can wrestle ignorance away from most people. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how soundly you refute them, there are still people who will ignorantly cling to their belief-system.

Of course. Do you think either of us would be having this discussion if we didn't hold on to our differing views of economic systems?


I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only hope for the human race is education based on rationality and critical thinking.

Yes! I agree with you completely here. Socialism needs to progress, and the only way that's possible is if there's people willing to question the status quo. And maybe those people will think of a system to succeed socialism.


I think if you had a revolution right now it would lead straight to dictatorship.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. But that does not give us the right to say "Well, it won't happen in my lifetime, so why the hell work for it?". I am certain to a reasonable degree that a true revolution will not happen in my lifetime. But I will work nonetheless, just as many other socialists have before me.

[Publius]

There will be leaders in a communist revolution, but there's no reason to assume that personality cults will spring up from the revolution.

If the leaders were so good during the revolution, who's to say they won't be effective leaders post-revolution?

Lenin, for example, did well during the Revolution.

Of course, he was a less-than-stellar leader afterwords, but that's exactly my point.



No, I think people will rally behind a person that serves as the vehicle for that idea.

Exactly.

And there's no way of knowing if they're 'really' for that idea. I mean, I assume Lenin was, and Trotsky, but Stalin? Not so much.

How much are people like Mao and Castro motivated by a genuine concern for socialism, and how much are they motivated by overbearing ego's and self-interest?

I'm not sure anyone can really say.



So do you think humans are shackled by history to exploit each other to a point of slavery? Do you think that this is a good system and nothing should be done to counter it?

No. But I think one should be realistic in his solutions.

In fact, I would like to see people learn compassion and humanity, as rules, so they would never 'exploit' or 'enslave' another person, not for economic reasons, but because it's wrong.

Is that realistic? I don't know, maybe I'm an idealist like you, but I know that's the only way things will change.

'What should be done' is teaching morality, and punishing undesirable behavior such as wanton greed.



Decency and rationality is one thing, exploiting and starving others is another. I have no illusions that socialism will not be perfect, but it sure as hell will be better than the current system. I'm sure the arguments for feudalism and slavery were much the same.


Actually, Locke had a pretty specific idea for what a liberal democracy would look like, as oppose to monarchy, and, at least in America, he got it fairly right.

They had a decent idea what they were doing.




Of course. Do you think either of us would be having this discussion if we didn't hold on to our differing views of economic systems?


But see, I'm rational, and I would like to think you are as well.

If there were evidence supporting communism, I could accept it. I would have no problems with it. I'm not ideologically against it (I once was, but I'm not now), I just don't think it's realistic.

Now I doubt there's any specific evidence you can give me, as, without hard scientific data, and with such a disparate opinion, there's probably not very convincing evidence to the contrary but, say capitalism hits another crisis and the proletariat starts taking charge, I would switch sides in an instant, just like how I would hope that if globalization continues to aid poverty and advance the human condition in an even greater fashion over the next 20 or so years that you would re-examine your views.

I'm trying to look at things scientifically; to be a scientist. Most people aren't.




Yes! I agree with you completely here. Socialism needs to progress, and the only way that's possible is if there's people willing to question the status quo. And maybe those people will think of a system to succeed socialism.

It's entirely possible.

But to say "I support that system that they will come up with" is wrong-headed; first support the education, then later take note of what it causes.

I support education, and I support whatever science and education leads to. I don't have a goal in mind that I follow ideologically.

I have a process to achieve a goal: to lessen human suffering.

[Phalanx]

If the leaders were so good during the revolution, who's to say they won't be effective leaders post-revolution?

Looking at history, this is a major problem we as leftists have to face. The transition from revolution to post-revolution has frequently been all about the consolidation of power of certain individuals. This must be corrected if we want to be successful.


In fact, I would like to see people learn compassion and humanity, as rules, so they would never 'exploit' or 'enslave' another person, not for economic reasons, but because it's wrong.

Honestly, I'm not that detached from humanity that I believe enslaving people is wrong for economic reasons, it's wrong because it's cruel, needless, and sadistic.


If there were evidence supporting communism, I could accept it. I would have no problems with it. I'm not ideologically against it (I once was, but I'm not now), I just don't think it's realistic.

I can actually understand that. But, as much as I can understand your viewpoint, I disagree with it. Something must be done to eliminate the current system, and socialism is what I believe offers the most benefits to humankind.


But to say "I support that system that they will come up with" is wrong-headed; first support the education, then later take note of what it causes.

Of course not. Blind faith is extremely dangerous and unfortunately is the path most taken. People must question and re-evaluate Marxism before they actually decide it's the right path.


I have a process to achieve a goal: to lessen human suffering.

You and I have the same goal, but with very different means.

[theraven]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+Aug 16 2006, 12:02 AM--> (hastalavictoria @ Aug 16 2006, 12:02 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 03:09 PM
well besides the fact that your wrong...its fun to debate each other. a better question is why we capitlists bother debating a radical fringe with no serious support or realisitic ideas.
This is the kind of shit that I'm talking about. That comment he made can easily be countered, but why the fuck bother with a capitalist who the only thing he/she seeks is justification for a decrepit system? [/b]
how can it be countered? its a statement of fact. I don't seek justifiacain for a decrispt sysetm, i merely point out the postiives sides of a well working system.

[rouchambeau]

Let's take it a step further and ask ourselves what we could be doing if we weren't chating on this forum right now.

[Rawthentic]

How's it not about 'organizations'?

A communist revolution will just arise out of thin air?

Will it arise because of some 'class conciousness'?

Organization will become critical after class consciousness is reached, not that its not important now, but more so even then.


I thought that was exactly how communism worked? The proletarian collectively 'thinks' in their own class interest and then the the 'facts' (material conditions) change in order to comply with the new understanding?

Yeah, and you're not a proletarian. And by the way, class consciousness arises due to material conditions, not the other way around

[Tungsten]

hastalavictoria

To say that the socialist movement is dead is utopian and absurd.
It died along with the soviet union.

And by the way, class consciousness arises due to material conditions, not the other way around.
What material conditions would those be?
DovBerBorochov

The fact that communism or leftism in general is not a religion has been discussed many times over here, but cappies always have to recycle their old material to 'prove' their point.
It might not be a religion in the conventional sense of having gods to worship and ceremonies to perform, but it seems to generate the same utopianism, psychoses and delusions of grandeur that can be found in the followers of most religions.

The number of people here who have embarassed themselves by spouting off idiotic, absurd threats and bragging about "how I'm going to torture/execute the cappies after the revolution" is evidence of the afformentioned lunacy.

[red team]

It died along with the soviet union.

There's still conflicts between rich and poor aren't there?

There are still people who are alienated and disgusted at a commercialised world where everything can be traded and reduced to a transaction value are there not?

There are still populist movements that flare up in poor countries and have enormous support among people who have no interest in the present system are there not?

There are still obscene wealth among the defacto rulers of the world who have enormous power and control over the rules of the game is there not?

Are there not still people who have more personal wealth than could be spent in a hundred lifetimes amidst people who could barely scrape enough income to have minimal shelter and food in a day's hard labour if they're "fortunate" enough to find someone who will pay them much less for their work then it's worth in the market place?

The Socialist movement is far from defeated. There is still struggle to find a better way of organizing society and conflict still exists. But, for now you advocate the game of death monopoly and other people are forced to play.


What material conditions would those be?

Material conditions that make it possible to implement a system that don't need to rely on arbitrary economic shell games that need to manipulate human psychology in order to function.


The number of people here who have embarassed themselves by spouting off idiotic, absurd threats and bragging about "how I'm going to torture/execute the cappies after the revolution" is evidence of the afformentioned lunacy.

The current class of people at the top of the economic food chain didn't perform mandatory cranium-body separation surgery on kings and other royalty, eh?

[theraven]

The current class of people at the top of the economic food chain didn't perform mandatory cranium-body separation surgery on kings and other royalty, eh?

the only place that really happened was the french revolution, which is hardly a model of fuedal to capitlsit soceity. a better one would be the dutch/rbitsih transition. true brtiain did behead one king for refusing parilimet however it was far from a bloodthirsty revolt

[Rawthentic]

Oh shut the fuck up, you goddam fascist. Why do you keep debating? Us communists always put you in your place when you come up with all the stupid shit you say. And you know it too. ;)

[Tungsten]

red team

There's still conflicts between rich and poor aren't there?

There are still people who are alienated and disgusted at a commercialised world where everything can be traded and reduced to a transaction value are there not?
Communism has far less support today than it did prior to the collapse of the soviet union. Does that mean there's less equality now than there was prior to the collapse?

There are still populist movements that flare up in poor countries and have enormous support among people who have no interest in the present system are there not?
It isn't going to make much of a difference over here if someone overthrows Insignificantistan's despot-of-the-month and replaces it with something else. The poor countries don't have the "present system", which is usually why they're poor in the first place.

arbitrary economic shell games
You mean economic choices?

The current class of people at the top of the economic food chain didn't perform mandatory cranium-body separation surgery on kings and other royalty, eh?
Communists, kings and other royalty initiate force regularly. The "current class" does it at a much lower frequency and in the old days they hardly ever did it at all. That makes the current class imperfect, but preferable.

[R_P_A_S]

i just like to read how the fellow comrades make them feel like idiots when they reply to them. and like to tell them. Fuck a cappie, its kids and its dead homies

[Rawthentic]

Communism has far less support today than it did prior to the collapse of the soviet union. Does that mean there's less equality now than there was prior to the collapse?

Communism doesnt just sprout out from thin air. It is the product of a social consciousness created by the conditions that capitalism inevitability makes. In a time of an inevitable capitalist crises, communism will seem lovely. History has shown this. Shut up


It isn't going to make much of a difference over here if someone overthrows Insignificantistan's despot-of-the-month and replaces it with something else. The poor countries don't have the "present system", which is usually why they're poor in the first place.

They're poor because of capitalism and the centralization of capital. You are a jackass (besides the obvious) if you dont realize what causes poverty.



You mean economic choices?

Economic choices for who? For those who control the economy of course. The rest, and even the capitalist parasites sometimes, are subject to blind and sudden economic fluctuations and changes that destroys livelihoods and causes poverty, unemployment, etc.


Communists, kings and other royalty initiate force regularly. The "current class" does it at a much lower frequency and in the old days they hardly ever did it at all. That makes the current class imperfect, but preferable.

The typical apology for the bourgeiosie. The point is that their repression, oppression and murder are systematic in order to keep thier positions of power. To compare with previous classes is erroneous and doesnt justify this current class. They are social parasites nonetheless

[Tungsten]

hastalavictoria

Communism doesnt just sprout out from thin air. It is the product of a social consciousness created by the conditions that capitalism inevitability makes. In a time of an inevitable capitalist crises, communism will seem lovely. I beg to differ.

History has shown this.Where? When?

They're poor because of capitalism and the centralization of capital.How? Centralised where?

Economic choices for who?Everyone who's ever bought anything.

The typical apology for the bourgeiosie.I don't apologise for any class because the situation if far more complicated that some simplistic "rich vs poor" battle.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is getting cultish :rolleyes:


Why the hell do we keep debating these idiots if we already know that their arguments hold no real, fundamental basis?

Because (at least in the western world) 99 percent of the population are capitalist-sympathisers? You might go hide in a cave with fellow "comrades", but if you are going to live a normal life, well, you'll for the most part only meet capitalist-sympathisers.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:08 PM
Why the hell do we keep debating these idiots if we already know that their arguments hold no real, fundamental basis? They come up with shit that we've heard like a million times and we keep on replying to their dumb shit posts. We are past the point of trumping capitalism and trying to explain that communism is possible. We know that it is, so lets move on to bigger and better things such as activism and how to get to revolution.
Communists always reply with the same dumb shit. But the empirical evidence proves Capitalism has been more succesful in multiple ways. Capitalist societies have a higher standard of living, higher employment, less poverty and better social services. Lefists usually no nothing about economics.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Capitalist societies have a higher standard of living, higher employment, less poverty and better social services
Than what?

[red team]

Originally posted by Tungsten

arbitrary economic shell games

You mean economic choices?

That must explain why consumers are at historically high debt levels. When I get paid by my boss I need to use what I got paid with to pay a boss for what I need to live because in a money circulation economy that's how it works. If it's a Capitalism dominated economy then I won't ever see what I got paid with ever again unless I go back to get ripped off again by my boss. But, that's the problem. With every boss in the economy ripping off their workers through wages who will have enough from what they got paid with to pay for the rip-off in product purchases so the game can continue? That's a pretty good description of the current economic shell game.

Speaking of economic choice. Funny, I didn't know that having a Hollywood bimbo sign her name on or endorse a product would make it more valuable? So tell me, what significant utility did it add to the original product? Here's an idea. I buy a Bolex watch and take out the "B" and replace it with an "R" then sell it to you for a fortune. You'll never know the difference. :lol:

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Aug 21 2006, 10:38 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Aug 21 2006, 10:38 PM)
Communists always reply with the same dumb shit. But the empirical evidence proves Capitalism has been more succesful in multiple ways. Capitalist societies have a higher standard of living, higher employment, less poverty and better social services. Lefists usually no nothing about economics. [/b]
Even if you count places like the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, as "Communist States" (Which they aren't, but for your arguments I guess thats the only thing you can understand)

In Cuba and China the poverty rate is 4.7% - in the US? over 12%, same in Britian, and every other one of your capitalist glory lands.

Life Expectancy in the USSR was higher than it is in Modern Russia and the 1990's Russia.

All the Eastern Bloc Capitalist Nations are undergoing mass-suicides and terrible living conditions.

Cuba = Illiteracy has been eliminated.

Capitalist India ? I can only guess at how many


[email protected] 15 2006, 10:08 PM

Because (at least in the western world) 99 percent of the population are capitalist-sympathisers? You might go hide in a cave with fellow "comrades", but if you are going to live a normal life, well, you'll for the most part only meet capitalist-sympathisers.

I beg to differ.

Most of the western world is clearly non-capitalist - I wouldn't be able to find a single man anywhere if I searched for a year around the US that would die for capitalism.

Most don't even care, and if they do, they don't really support "Capitalism", and certainly don't support Corperations - thats why the workers fight so hard and so often against them.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red team+Aug 23 2006, 01:58 AM--> (red team @ Aug 23 2006, 01:58 AM)
Tungsten

arbitrary economic shell games

You mean economic choices?

That must explain why consumers are at historically high debt levels. When I get paid by my boss I need to use what I got paid with to pay a boss for what I need to live because in a money circulation economy that's how it works. If it's a Capitalism dominated economy then I won't ever see what I got paid with ever again unless I go back to get ripped off again by my boss. But, that's the problem. With every boss in the economy ripping off their workers through wages who will have enough from what they got paid with to pay for the rip-off in product purchases so the game can continue? That's a pretty good description of the current economic shell game.

Speaking of economic choice. Funny, I didn't know that having a Hollywood bimbo sign her name on or endorse a product would make it more valuable? So tell me, what significant utility did it add to the original product? Here's an idea. I buy a Bolex watch and take out the "B" and replace it with an "R" then sell it to you for a fortune. You'll never know the difference. :lol: [/b]
1) how is it a rip off for your boss to pay you for your time and work, and then you go pand pay someoen else the moeny in exchange for goods/services?

2) a brand name and/or endorsment is adding somoens credibilty to something. if paris hitlon endorses a fragrence the consumer assumes it sexy, if a basketball player endorses a pair of shoes kids think its good to play basketbal in and so on. A rolex is worth mroe because the qualty that historicly comes with it. if rolex started making shitty watches rolexs wouldn't be worth as much.

[theraven]

Even if you count places like the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, as "Communist States" (Which they aren't, but for your arguments I guess thats the only thing you can understand)

In Cuba and China the poverty rate is 4.7% - in the US? over 12%, same in Britian, and every other one of your capitalist glory lands.

Life Expectancy in the USSR was higher than it is in Modern Russia and the 1990's Russia.


well yes the USSR was a stable govenrmetn at least, modern russia has no infastructe thanks to the USSR plus hsitoical russian corruption...it cuases probesm


All the Eastern Bloc Capitalist Nations are undergoing mass-suicides and terrible living conditions.


if you say so....i have freinds in the baltic nations and they are enjoying huge increases in prosperity since the fallof the USSR. as far as i know the othe countires areat least doing as well.


Cuba = Illiteracy has been eliminated.

Capitalist India ? I can only guess at how many

india until about 15 years ago was a socalist o****ry...

[hedonist]

Originally posted by red team+Aug 23 2006, 01:58 AM--> (red team @ Aug 23 2006, 01:58 AM)
Tungsten

arbitrary economic shell games

You mean economic choices?

That must explain why consumers are at historically high debt levels. When I get paid by my boss I need to use what I got paid with to pay a boss for what I need to live because in a money circulation economy that's how it works. If it's a Capitalism dominated economy then I won't ever see what I got paid with ever again unless I go back to get ripped off again by my boss. But, that's the problem. With every boss in the economy ripping off their workers through wages who will have enough from what they got paid with to pay for the rip-off in product purchases so the game can continue? That's a pretty good description of the current economic shell game.

Speaking of economic choice. Funny, I didn't know that having a Hollywood bimbo sign her name on or endorse a product would make it more valuable? So tell me, what significant utility did it add to the original product? Here's an idea. I buy a Bolex watch and take out the "B" and replace it with an "R" then sell it to you for a fortune. You'll never know the difference. :lol: [/b]
Yes, they bought the Rolex because it would be a mark of superior intrinsic social value. But you can buy fakes cheapo Redteam. I don't know anyone who would be foolish enough to buy a real one.

And how does your boss rip you off? And if so, why don't you just quit and take a holiday? I would'nt work with a ripoff artist.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:10 AM


well yes the USSR was a stable govenrmetn at least, modern russia has no infastructe thanks to the USSR plus hsitoical russian corruption...it cuases probesm
What do you mean by "historical russian"? All countries have a history of natural corruption when the possibility arises, from everywhere from the US, Europe, China, Africa, India, everywhere.

The USSR, yes, was in decline - but with the resurgence of Capitalism, they should have prospered economically with all those already-built factories and mines and all that - and they did, but only for a small minority of people who went to the baths everyday while the others are now all homeless or starving.


if you say so....i have freinds in the baltic nations and they are enjoying huge increases in prosperity since the fallof the USSR. as far as i know the othe countires areat least doing as well.

That is because a small minority is getting richer and happier, while the other large majority is getting poorer and suffering more, aka Capitalism :D


india until about 15 years ago was a socalist o****ry...

15 Years is a long time, after all those Eastern European Countries have only been officially Capitalist for 16 years...

but for a better example:

In the USA, 1/7 Adults can BARELY read a electric bill or job offer (AKA they know like 2 words then don't understand the rest) (According to the US Goverment - http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/)

According to the British Goverment, in the UK there are 7,000,000 People Illiterate, AKA about 8% of the Population.

of course, illiteracy doesn't really matter as now it is in severe decline - but just pointing out :P

[theraven]

What do you mean by "historical russian"? All countries have a history of natural corruption when the possibility arises, from everywhere from the US, Europe, China, Africa, India, everywhere.

The USSR, yes, was in decline - but with the resurgence of Capitalism, they should have prospered economically with all those already-built factories and mines and all that - and they did, but only for a small minority of people who went to the baths everyday while the others are now all homeless or starving.

no, the pole who prosedered were those few who had done some capislit trading uner the USSR. the probelm with russi ais it lacks the foundations for capitlism



15 Years is a long time, after all those Eastern European Countries have only been officially Capitalist for 16 years...

but for a better example:

15 years is nto logn enough to fix cenires of problems..


In the USA, 1/7 Adults can BARELY read a electric bill or job offer (AKA they know like 2 words then don't understand the rest) (According to the US Goverment - http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/)

According to the British Goverment, in the UK there are 7,000,000 People Illiterate, AKA about 8% of the Population.

of course, illiteracy doesn't really matter as now it is in severe decline - but just pointing out tongue.gif

your link does not work