Justify this

[lithium]

Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

People in the Third World live in poverty because their land is owned by people of the First World countries. The farmers are forced to work this land and give everything over to the capitalists, and are barely given enough to survive in return.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:00 PM
Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

People in the Third World live in poverty because their land is owned by people of the First World countries. The farmers are forced to work this land and give everything over to the capitalists, and are barely given enough to survive in return.
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.

First of all, the Soviet Union existed from 1917 until 1979 and did nothing to end poverty either in the Soviet Union itself or anywhere else.

One look around the globe and it become clear that people who chose socialism mire themselves in poverty and those who chose capitalism are prosperous.


Land in third world countries is generally owned by "the government" not capitalists.


Capitalists are unlikely to invest in any country where their investment is not secure. Third world governments have a nasty habit of confiscating any wealth that foreigners bring for investment.

The Beatles once played in Manila. The Beatles left and the money stayed with Marcos. No bands ever went to the Philipines again, if you can imagine that.

The problem with third world countries is that the changing of land titles often takes 6 months to two years.

Compare that with 30 to 60 days in Canada and the USA.


You should read the Marc Emery story. The "price of pot" went to Thailand in the late 80's and fell in love with the place. Foriegners are not permitted to own land in Thialand, and many other third world countries by the way. So Marc made a friend and struck a deal. The "friend" bought the land. Marc spent upwards of $250,000. When the house was finished and the day came for Marc and his family to move in, they were greeted at the door of their new home by his friend and his family who had the police standing by to escort MR. Emery off the property.

That was that, the guy owned the land on paper and that meant he owned that home and Marc Emery was out his money.

So much for how easy it is for Capitalists to buy land and force people to work on it.


The question begs, who sold these capitalist the land in the first place? The poor perhaps? And why would they sell if the land were prosperous and productive?


They sell the land because they do not have the means of developing the land.

The average farmer in Canada needs about $500,000 in equipment to make a living from farming.

Tractors, industrial size roto-tillers, rock pickers, bailers, combines, trucks to get the crop off the field and to the elevator.

It gets expensive. One man with a how and a shovel would be lucky to develope one acre of land from which self-sustainability might emerge. It will take about 40 years of hoeing rows to save the kind of wealth it takes to bring a modern farm up to production levels.

We in the west have 100 + years of accumulated wealth invested in the land. Father to son passing of the farm is the normal course of business.

It is our method of governance that allowed the farmers to accumulate their wealth and pass it along to their decendents that acounts for our productivity and the resulting lift in the standard of living foreverybody.

So name one of these third world countries where capitalists are responsible for thousands of people dieing every day and I shall point out what government policy is responsible for whatever evil.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.
:lol: I stopped reading after this.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:00 PM
Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

People in the Third World live in poverty because their land is owned by people of the First World countries. The farmers are forced to work this land and give everything over to the capitalists, and are barely given enough to survive in return.
Technically, I don't think it is possible that people die as a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism causes things to occur or occur at a higher rate, and those things cause people to die.

[Stellix]

Let's take Africa as an example.

Africa is poor today because it had very weak cultures. Many had no written language, literature, architecture, cuisine or fashion. This put them at a huge disadvantage and allowed the Europeans to enslave them. The effects of colonization are still felt today, of course this is true.


Ask yourself this.

If Europeans had never set foot in Africa, how different would it be? Not easy to answer.

[amanondeathrow]

First of all, the Soviet Union existed from 1917 until 1979 and did nothing to end poverty either in the Soviet Union itself or anywhere else.

One look around the globe and it become clear that people who chose socialism mire themselves in poverty and those who chose capitalism are prosperous.

One only has to look at the counties formerly ruled by socialist parties to understand the extent those governments went to elevate poverty. Since the free market overtook eastern Europe, levels of poverty have increased substantially. The newly "democratic" governments have abandoned most of the social programs that came very close to guarantying every citizen a descent life, and have instead invited foreign corporations to exploit an increasingly poorer citizenry.

Many capitalists blame this on the former governments for creating economies hostile to development. But as the Soviet Union fades into the distant past, and conditions have only worsened, it is becoming very clear that the free market hold more then a little of the blame for so much suffering and poverty.

You are correct, however, that those who honestly chose to live in capitalism do prosper substantially. The new capitalist elites in Eastern Europe did every thing they could to deter democracy if it threatened their wealth, even as a massive out cry began to grow as people realized that what they had once taken for granted, namely socialism, was a much better system then the one currently crushing their dreams for sustainable existence.


Land in third world countries is generally owned by "the government" not capitalists.

This is an utter falsification. Foreign corporations control vast amounts of recourses in third world countries, bringing poverty to nations that would otherwise benefit from expensive resources.

Whenever a government does attempt to appease its hungry populous by nationalizing a few oil fields, they are meet by fierce resistance from western capitalists. At times, as in Cuba, this can bring sanctions that may devastate the economy. Some countries have even been attacked militarily, either directly or through proxy, by the US and its allies for thinking of its own people's welfare over that of capitalists.


So name one of these third world countries where capitalists are responsible for thousands of people dieing every day and I shall point out what government policy is responsible for whatever evil.

I'm curious as to why East Germany's income disparities have risen so much since the fall of socialism. Or why thousands of children now live in the sewers of Mongolian cities. Is it because of the few remaining welfare programs? Or the lenient government restrictions on property?

It would seem more reasonable to blame the emergence of the free market which appeared just before these horrible symptoms.


Africa is poor today because it had very weak cultures. Many had no written language, literature, architecture, cuisine or fashion. This put them at a huge disadvantage and allowed the Europeans to enslave them. The effects of colonization are still felt today, of course this is true.

Africa was actually one of the most culturally and technically advanced areas of the world before, and in places after, European colonization.

It is a mistake to blame current poverty on false images of primitive savages being easily over taken by the west.

[Stellix]

Most culturally and technically advanced areas of the world?

Are you referring to Egypt? I meant sub-saharran Africa. I need a link to these wonderous technology produced in Africa.

If it is so, why do they all still live in straw huts and eat each other?

[Morag]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 03:51 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 03:51 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 04:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.
:lol: I stopped reading after this. [/b]
Hey, me too! ^_^

But then I read again.


Africa is poor today because it had very weak cultures. Many had no written language, literature, architecture, cuisine or fashion. This put them at a huge disadvantage and allowed the Europeans to enslave them. The effects of colonization are still felt today, of course this is true

No cuisine? You mean they had no food? Sure... No fashion? You mean, those pretty necklaces aren't you idea of fashionable, don't you. They had clothes or fashions that were pertinent to their environment.

They had a very strong culture, it just wasn't developed along the ways of European culture, didn't value the same things, nor did it have the same resources and knowledge. That doesn't mean it was weak, kust as it doesn't mean native American culture was weak, or Aboriginal culture in Australia was weak. It was just different.

[amanondeathrow]

Most culturally and technically advanced areas of the world?

Are you referring to Egypt? I meant sub-saharran Africa. I need a link to these wonderous technology produced in Africa.


Heres a basic desciption of early Sub Saharran culture from Wikipedia.

I don't have an afro centric veiw of history, but I certaily beleive that Africa had its own culture and technology that could be compared in ways to the west.

It's not hard to find more advanced texts on African history, so I suggest you educated your self further before you attack a contintnet and a people with such a rich histoy.


Sub-Saharan Africa

Linguistic evidence suggests the Bantu people (e.g. Xhosa and Zulu) have emigrated southwestward into former Khoisan ranges and displaced them. Bantu populations used a distinct suite of crops suited to tropical Africa, including cassava and yams. This farming culture is able to support more persons per unit area than hunter-gatherers. The traditional Bantu range goes from the northern deserts right down to the temperate regions of the south, in which the Bantu crop suite fails from frost. Their primary weapons historically were bows and stabbing spears with shields.

Ethiopia had a distinct, ancient culture with an intermittent history of contact with Eurasia after the diaspora of hominids out of Africa. It preserved a unique language, culture and crop system. The crop system is adapted to the northern highlands and does not partake of any other area's crops. The most famous member of this crop system is coffee, but one of the more useful plants is sorghum, a dry-land grain; teff is also endemic to the region.

Ancient cultures also existed all along the Nile, and in modern-day Ghana .


If it is so, why do they all still live in straw huts and eat each other?

I am not one who is usually concerned about other member's ignorance, but this really goes too far.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:47 PM


If it is so, why do they all still live in straw huts and eat each other?

I am not one who is usually concerned about other member's ignorance, but this really goes too far.
Quite so :blink:

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:31 PM
Most culturally and technically advanced areas of the world?

Are you referring to Egypt? I meant sub-saharran Africa. I need a link to these wonderous technology produced in Africa.

If it is so, why do they all still live in straw huts and eat each other?
Oh God... That's stereotyping gone too far... Ignorance is a terrible veil. You might want to think before you type

[Ze]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 08:51 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 08:51 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 04:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.
:lol: I stopped reading after this. [/b]
same here. i have an open mind which means i usually know when something is simply not worth reading.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:00 PM
Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

People in the Third World live in poverty because their land is owned by people of the First World countries. The farmers are forced to work this land and give everything over to the capitalists, and are barely given enough to survive in return.
[QUOTE]

They are poor, in poor countries, because they live in poor countries. Agricultural countries are going to be poor. Socialism is not going to change this fact. Such poverty is not because of foreign ownership, or capitalism. That's why as countries industrialise, the workers go to work in the factories, because it represents a better standard of living than what existed before.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:24 PM
They are poor, in poor countries, because they live in poor countries. Agricultural countries are going to be poor. Socialism is not going to change this fact. Such poverty is not because of foreign ownership, or capitalism. That's why as countries industrialise, the workers go to work in the factories, because it represents a better standard of living than what existed before.
This we know. The peasant's life is shit. The question is why is the majority of the world's population is still living such an existence centuries after the West industrialised.

Now I would maintain that the reason that such a minority of the global population command the vast bulk of its resources is entirely due to capitalism. This yawning rich/poor divide is after all a rather integral aspect of capitalism. If we discount cuisine as a factor of course...

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:59 PM
This we know. The peasant's life is shit. The question is why is the majority of the world's population is still living such an existence centuries after the West industrialised.

Now I would maintain that the reason that such a minority of the global population command the vast bulk of its resources is entirely due to capitalism. This yawning rich/poor divide is after all a rather integral aspect of capitalism. If we discount cuisine as a factor of course...
[QUOTE]

Perhaps becasuse they are not in the West, and have not adopted those practices which brought the West up.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:41 PM
Let's take Africa as an example.

Africa is poor today because it had very weak cultures. Many had no written language, literature, architecture, cuisine or fashion. This put them at a huge disadvantage and allowed the Europeans to enslave them. The effects of colonization are still felt today, of course this is true.


Ask yourself this.

If Europeans had never set foot in Africa, how different would it be? Not easy to answer.
I think that's a simple question to answer.


All one has to do is gauge whether these African countries are soing better or worse since the gained their independence.

1960 was a long time ago, so those African countries have had an opportunity to shine on their own.


I don't think there is a single former colony doing better now than they did then.

[black magick hustla]

Gosh, some commies are soooo stereotipical. :P

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 03:51 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 03:51 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 04:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.
:lol: I stopped reading after this. [/b]
Too bad because you would have learned something.


The people of Africa rejected Colonialism and they rejected capitalism along with it. Therefore, they chose to mire themselves in poverty.

That was not the intention but it was the result.


People who pick a bad ideology are doomed to dust.


No one ever beat the Roman Empire.


The Roman Empire chose a bad economic ideology and doomed themselves to dust.

It's all in the coins. 400 B.C 100% gold coins, 400 A.D 2% gold in the coinage. The Roman leadership squander the wealth that 1000 years worth of labor produced.

The same thing goes on in Africa, whatever wealth created is squandered by the leadership and soon enough, poverty for all, which is where Africa is today.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:37 AM
I don't think there is a single former colony doing better now than they did then.
But several of them were doing very well until the World Bank instituted conditional loans and forced the restructuring of the economies. Several of them still had hope until HIV/AIDS began its devastation. But now, when health care, education and other government operations were gutted just as the virus came into full force, they are doing very poorly indeed.

This isn't their fault any more then it's a rape victims fault if she becomes pregnant and can't support a baby. The majority of African states didn't have a chance to reject capitalism in the last generation, but you can damn well bet the next generation will.

[Stellix]

Can I have this stupid restriction taken away, Please?

[amanondeathrow]

Can I have this stupid restriction taken away, Please?

Read the fucking board guidlines. Racism is not tolerated here.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:41 PM
Let's take Africa as an example.

Africa is poor today because it had very weak cultures. Many had no written language, literature, architecture, cuisine or fashion. This put them at a huge disadvantage and allowed the Europeans to enslave them. The effects of colonization are still felt today, of course this is true.


Ask yourself this.

If Europeans had never set foot in Africa, how different would it be? Not easy to answer.
It doesnt need to be different.
They had theirown shit going on.
And they had the right to.

If the europeans would have stayed in europe no one would have caught the unique diseases they spread becasue they only bathed once a month and put animal fats in their hair.

[Stellix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 04:52 AM

Can I have this stupid restriction taken away, Please?

Read the fucking board guidlines. Racism is not tolerated here.

I am not racist. My girlfried is Hispanic. I am a liberal.

My "straw hut" comment was a poor attempt at humor. I am sorry. I am a very anti-racist person, and it sucks to be restricted.

If I screw up again, you guys can ban me, ok?

[Morag]

Originally posted by Stellix+Aug 29 2006, 05:22 AM--> (Stellix @ Aug 29 2006, 05:22 AM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 04:52 AM

Can I have this stupid restriction taken away, Please?

Read the fucking board guidlines. Racism is not tolerated here.

I am not racist. My girlfried is Hispanic. I am a liberal.

My "straw hut" comment was a poor attempt at humor. I am sorry. I am a very anti-racist person, and it sucks to be restricted.

If I screw up again, you guys can ban me, ok? [/b]
I think the problem was the "eat each other" thing. Because many Africans do live in, if not straw huts, it's pretty close. i can't remember the exact phrase right now. But, having a Hispanic girlfriend doesn't mean that you aren't racist, as your comments clearly showed to this board, and we don't care if your a liberal or whatever. If you want the restriction gone, consult the board's ToU.

[deadk]

Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

You have misrepresented the argument from the start. The question is not what ought to be done; it is what can be done. Justice only exists within the context of a corrupt human nature, and thus perfect justice is unattainable. Indeed, harm has historically been done in attempting to attain perfect "justice". I don't expect you to accept the view of a fixed human nature since it is so rooted in fundamentalism and found in the very question of Being itself.

But it seems that by asking me to "justify" capitalism, you are forcing me to construct an argument regarding what ought to be, as opposed to what is. In this, a direct reply (something involving "justice") would concede that justice is attainable. Unless for some purpose we would argue what ought to be knowing that it can't be.

Overall, this is the true capitalist’s response; to say that you are asking the wrong question.

[Rollo]

Tigerman is right, people just like to be poor and starving.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Man I could go for some starvation right now *drools*

You know what they should do, they should sell starvation in boxes, that way we can make money from the homeless.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty
Might just end up in the sig

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+Aug 29 2006, 01:53 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ Aug 29 2006, 01:53 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 03:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty
Might just end up in the sig [/b]
I did that, but I already removed it again.

[Raisa]

The real answer is:

The Fuckers cant justify it.
Thats why they have the police!

Amen.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:40 PM
The real answer is:

The Fuckers cant justify it.
Thats why they have the police!

Amen.
what do we have to justify? that people die? people die, the world is a hard place.

the police are there to perseve order.

[red team]

what do we have to justify? that people die? people die, the world is a hard place.

the police are there to perseve order.

The world is a hard place is relative and depends on the way you look at it and also depends on the place you occupy in the pecking order. It also depends on the society where you're living in.

Having kerosene thrown at you by your in-laws because you fail to bear their family a son is a lot harder than filing for divorce in the more well off Western societies. If you're a male in that society then you get to be kerosene thrower and not the burn victim. You are relatively well-off because of the position you occupy in the social pecking order.

The reason why women here have more rights is because of material conditions. We're materially more affluent, but that doesn't mean we couldn't even be more affluent by overthrowing obsolete ways of doing things and obsolete institutions which hold back progress.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:47 PM

Too bad because you would have learned something.


The people of Africa rejected Colonialism and they rejected capitalism along with it. Therefore, they chose to mire themselves in poverty.

That was not the intention but it was the result.


People who pick a bad ideology are doomed to dust.


No one ever beat the Roman Empire.


The Roman Empire chose a bad economic ideology and doomed themselves to dust.

It's all in the coins. 400 B.C 100% gold coins, 400 A.D 2% gold in the coinage. The Roman leadership squander the wealth that 1000 years worth of labor produced.

The same thing goes on in Africa, whatever wealth created is squandered by the leadership and soon enough, poverty for all, which is where Africa is today.
Their leaders claimed to reject capitalism. In the turmoil that resulted, between U.S. and Soviet meddling, they just ended up trading in old masters for new ones. Anyone can claim an ideaology for votes, carrying it out is an entirely different thing,

[theraven]

The world is a hard place is relative and depends on the way you look at it and also depends on the place you occupy in the pecking order. It also depends on the society where you're living in.

sure




Having kerosene thrown at you by your in-laws because you fail to bear their family a son is a lot harder than filing for divorce in the more well off Western societies. If you're a male in that society then you get to be kerosene thrower and not the burn victim. You are relatively well-off because of the position you occupy in the social pecking order.
ok then



The reason why women here have more rights is because of material conditions. We're materially more affluent, but that doesn't mean we couldn't even be more affluent by overthrowing obsolete ways of doing things and obsolete institutions which hold back progress.

i concur, but how does any of this make your point

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.


The people of Africa rejected Colonialism and they rejected capitalism along with it. Therefore, they chose to mire themselves in poverty.

:wacko:


tigerman,

you've been making this argument for a while, despite the fact that i'm always challenging it. indeed, private messages and entire threads go un-answered as if such silly questions aren't worth anyone's time; you even went so far as to categorize these discussions as "banter," and simply left it at that. fair enough; perhaps banter is all i'm capable of. regardless, i did request a rebuttal, and you did offer an article in response.. an article, in fact, that makes the very same argument that you made. that's rather problematic. so, in that case, what's the point? are your assessments correct? they're clearly indefensible.. to think that choice and marxist politicians play a role in african power-politics and uncontrollable structural adjustment programs is absurd, if not offensive.

remember, while our banter is abstract, hunger is not. starvation belongs to the stomach, not in the chic philophies of "freedom from" and "freedom to." linguistics have no bearing on malnutrition, and that's the source of the offensiveness.

moreover, your conception of "choice" is a bit off. to you, declaring whether you'd like to be raped with an iron or a steel dildo is making a "choice".. to me, those things are abusive alternatives, not meaningful choices.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-Mecca+Aug 30 2006, 03:47 AM--> (Brooklyn-Mecca @ Aug 30 2006, 03:47 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 03:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.


The people of Africa rejected Colonialism and they rejected capitalism along with it. Therefore, they chose to mire themselves in poverty.

:wacko:


tigerman,

you've been making this argument for a while, despite the fact that i'm always challenging it. indeed, private messages and entire threads go un-answered as if such silly questions aren't worth anyone's time; you even went so far as to categorize these discussions as "banter," and simply left it at that. fair enough; perhaps banter is all i'm capable of. regardless, i did request a rebuttal, and you did offer an article in response.. an article, in fact, that makes the very same argument that you made. that's rather problematic. so, in that case, what's the point? are your assessments correct? they're clearly indefensible.. to think that choice and marxist politicians play a role in african power-politics and uncontrollable structural adjustment programs is absurd, if not offensive.

remember, while our banter is abstract, hunger is not. starvation belongs to the stomach, not in the chic philophies of "freedom from" and "freedom to." linguistics have no bearing on malnutrition, and that's the source of the offensiveness.

moreover, your conception of "choice" is a bit off. to you, declaring whether you'd like to be raped with an iron or a steel dildo is making a "choice".. to me, those things are abusive alternatives, not meaningful choices. [/b]
Chosing tribalism is not like being raped.

Why do you suppose Liberia exists?


Munrovia?


They are testiment to former slaves who repatriated themselves to Africa with dreams of spreading "liberty for all" accross the continent.


So the people of Africa "know" about James Munroe and Classic liberalism.

They reject the ideology and choose tribalism and socialism.

The economic and political lesson of the Soviet Union are clear for anybody who cares to look.

Now the Soviet people had a choice too. Putin, the strongman, was voted in by people who should know better. Putin won fair and square. The people had a taste of capitalism and didn't like it and voted back in someone who could do something about it.

So when the Russian people lost their freedom of the press again, and now with the nationalization of the oil industry and jailing of the chief capitalist, the Russian people have demonstrated what they think of individualism.

The results are predictable. The Russian economy is already suffering as fewer and fewer investors are willing to put their money into any Russian business. The state has already demonstrated they will confiscate any "excessive profits" anybody might earn. The Russian people choose to starve together rather than let someone get rich serving them with products they want.

Does that mean the Russians have decided between being raped with a iron dildo is better than being raped with a steel one?

Looks like the Russian chose the Iron dildo.

The choice was theirs to make. The Russians could have chosen Capitalism, they were free to do so, but they rejected it and it can no be said that tjhey chose their own destiny be it what it may.

It is in that respect that I state the people of Africa chose to be poor.

They chose poverty over prosperity when they chose the system of governance they now live under.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 29 2006, 10:51 PM--> (theraven @ Aug 29 2006, 10:51 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 10:40 PM
The real answer is:

The Fuckers cant justify it.
Thats why they have the police!

Amen.
what do we have to justify? that people die? people die, the world is a hard place.

the police are there to perseve order. [/b]
According to your order, there is a ghetto for every city in the united states.

You order doesnt even make good toilet paper for my ass.


Order. I dont even think you know what that word means.

[KC]

The real answer is:

The Fuckers cant justify it.
Thats why they have the police!

Amen.

Justice is relative. It is justified because they have the police.



According to your order, there is a ghetto for every city in the united states.

You order doesnt even make good toilet paper for my ass.


Order. I dont even think you know what that word means.

On the contrary. The state has done a very good job of preserving order. Proof? No revolution.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 06:50 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 06:50 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 07:47 PM


If it is so, why do they all still live in straw huts and eat each other?

I am not one who is usually concerned about other member's ignorance, but this really goes too far.
Quite so :blink: [/b]
I third that.

And have you noticed how none of these capitalists can give a straight, easy answer to the original question. They know people are dying, they know its their fault. The only difference between us and them is that they don't care. They're blinded by money. They can see what they're doing, they know perfectly well whats happening as a result of their actions, but quite frankly, they don't give two shits. Some even go as far as to try and blame the people they are exploiting. "They chose to live in poverty". They weren't even given a fucking choice. If they'd been given a choice between poverty and a decent standard of living, do you really think almost an entire continent would choose poverty? They never 'chose' anything. They had poverty forced upon them by the same people that sit in leather armchairs in their oversized offices smoking ridiculously expensive cigars, which, strangely enough, were probably rolled by people living in poverty.

Capitalists, you can't hide it, however much you try. It's your fault the third world even exists, no one elses, especially not those who actually live in it.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.
Just what the fuck are you talking about?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Raisa+Aug 30 2006, 06:00 AM--> (Raisa @ Aug 30 2006, 06:00 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:51 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 10:40 PM
The real answer is:

The Fuckers cant justify it.
Thats why they have the police!

Amen.
what do we have to justify? that people die? people die, the world is a hard place.

the police are there to perseve order.
According to your order, there is a ghetto for every city in the united states.

You order doesnt even make good toilet paper for my ass.


Order. I dont even think you know what that word means. [/b]
there are poor and rich parts of everywhere, so yes there are poor areas of cities.

and if you are dissatsified with the toliet paper then start your own toliet paper company

[Phugebrins]

"start your own toliet paper company"
What is this 'something from nothing' myth? You can't just start your own company - you need capital! We're talking amounts of money inaccessible to most people.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:14 PM
"start your own toliet paper company"
What is this 'something from nothing' myth? You can't just start your own company - you need capital! We're talking amounts of money inaccessible to most people.
if youlack the capitl but think it would be a profitble idea then go to a bank or venture capitlist. explain your idea and chances are you'll find you'll have the money.

[Rollo]

The bank won't give you money unless you already have some money.

[Phugebrins]

"explain your idea and chances are you'll find you'll have the money."
Or, in the latter case, he'll say 'thank you very much', and do it himself. Banks generally don't lend signficant amounts of money unless they think there's a low risk of failure or extremely high profits. Unless you have had the right opportunities and training (i.e. inherited money or sheer luck), you're almost certainly going to be rejected as an inexperienced liability.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:52 PM
The bank won't give you money unless you already have some money.
not true, bansk will be wary if you have no proeprty, however even then you can always try for venture capitlisits

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:59 PM
"explain your idea and chances are you'll find you'll have the money."
Or, in the latter case, he'll say 'thank you very much', and do it himself. Banks generally don't lend signficant amounts of money unless they think there's a low risk of failure or extremely high profits. Unless you have had the right opportunities and training (i.e. inherited money or sheer luck), you're almost certainly going to be rejected as an inexperienced liability.
bankers generally dont' start thier own companies, so unless your idea is a way to make dirt to gold (which actually wouldn't be that good but anyway) your probably safe presenting the idea ot a banker.

and yes if you have no expince in th field chances are they will be less liely to help you, however emrember bankers make thier money by lending it out.

[Phugebrins]

"bankers generally dont' start thier own companies"
Hence my using the words "in the latter case".

"emrember bankers make thier money by lending it out"
Not all their money is made that way. They have all sorts of far more specialised ways of making money. But your point is very pertinent: they are professionals. And if you're not, then ninety-nine percent of the time, you will be politely shown the door.
(No, I don't know what the point you were trying to make was. Presumably it's not 'well, they've got to lend it to *someone*', as they will always pick the person who's had a more priveleged background in terms of experience, education, and contacts).

[lithium]

To keep the cappies on their toes...

From www.globalissues.org:


Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this? Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their government? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But often less discussed are deeper and more global causes of poverty.

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization, are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.


From http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13461.htm (an interesting read, but I won't quote it all):


For appallingly meager wages and benefits, the cashiers tending the sacred Churches of Capitalism and Consumerism gather the offerings which enable their fellow faithful to reap the fruits of practicing their devotion.

Good little Consumers can receive a veritable cornucopia of “blessings” which include working in jobs amounting to indentured servitude, obesity, insurmountable debt, insularity from the rest of the world, unwitting support of a merciless militaristic regime which is evolving into fascism, idolatrous worship of celebrities and money, facilitation of obscene concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, and participation in the severe desecration of our environment.

They may exist in a spiritual wasteland, but at least those Americans who are fortunate enough to find themselves in the shrinking middle class have access to basic human necessities, some creature comforts, and relative stability and safety (at least for the short term). However, a growing number of Americans find themselves wandering in a barren desert, lacking both sustenance for the soul and the corporeal “blessings” bestowed upon the middle class wage earners by the high priests of Capitalism and Consumerism.


And from www.signsofthelastday.com:


It is well known that poverty is the lack of food, shelter, clothing, health services, and the other basic needs, due to a low level of income. Despite the possibilities afforded by advanced technology, poverty is today one of the most serious problems the world faces. In Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe, many people live with hunger every day. Imperialism and unrestrained capitalism has prevented the distribution of income throughout the world and the advancement of under-developed and developing countries. While there is a happy minority that has more than it needs, there are a considerable number of people struggling with the problems of poverty and destitution.

In the world today, poverty has reached grave proportions. The last report by UNICEF stated that one in four people of the world’s population lives in “unimaginable suffering and want.” 1.3 billion of the world’s people survive on less than $1 a day. 3 billion people in the world today struggle to survive on $2 a day. Approximately 1.3 billion people lack safe water. 2.6 billion people are without access to adequate sanitation.

According to the report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for the year 2000, 826 million people around the world do not get enough to eat. In other words, one in six people are hungry.

Over the last ten years, the injustice of income distribution has increased more than one can imagine. United Nations reports show that, in 1960, the 20% of the people of the world who live in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20; by 1995 it was 82 times. As an example of the collapse of social justice, the wealth of the world’s 225 richest individuals is equal to the annual income of the poorest 47%.


Finally:

http://www.projectmercy.net/images/project%20mercy/poverty.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,496157,00.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/niger_child050727.jpg

http://borgenproject.org/sitebuilder/images/starvation_picture-640x428.png

Capitalists: don't you dare say that these people chose to live and die this way. It is capitalism that is causing this.

Now, stop dodging the issue: justify capitalism.

[Tungsten]

Brooklyn-Mecca

remember, while our banter is abstract, hunger is not. starvation belongs to the stomach, not in the chic philophies of "freedom from" and "freedom to." linguistics have no bearing on malnutrition, and that's the source of the offensiveness.
But "freedom from" (particularly "freedom from having food taken away from you") tends to work wonders when it comes to preventing starvation. Africans generally don't have any such right, whereas we do. That's one reason why they starve and we don't.

moreover, your conception of "choice" is a bit off. to you, declaring whether you'd like to be raped with an iron or a steel dildo is making a "choice".. to me, those things are abusive alternatives, not meaningful choices.
And to you, and a great many others here, having to work for a living or living in poverty is "not a fair choice". But that's reality, not the result of political hegemony, and therefore fair. Or are you one of these people who think no one will ever have to do any work under communism?
Tommy-K

And have you noticed how none of these capitalists can give a straight, easy answer to the original question.
It's easy to oversimplify a complicated subject in which many factors come into play for the sake of political convenience.

They know people are dying, they know its their fault.
Presumably, I'm considered a capitalist, so how is it my fault?

The only difference between us and them is that they don't care. They're blinded by money.
And not caring makes it my fault?

Capitalists, you can't hide it, however much you try. It's your fault the third world even exists, no one elses, especially not those who actually live in it.
It's our fault Africa has been what we would call a shithole since the year dot? I doubt that. Heaven forbid the natives should take any of the blame.

If they'd been given a choice between poverty and a decent standard of living, do you really think almost an entire continent would choose poverty?
Maybe some of them are satisfied with living in tribes and living on the bread line. The tribesmen I've seen on TV documentaries seem quite happy with it to the point where they're willing to use violence to defend their way of life. If they thought they'd be better off in our country, I'm sure they'd have packed up and begun the long walk ages ago. No one can give one all-encompasing reason as to why why millions of individual people choose to live the way they do. Trying to suggest that they all live that way because someone is pointing a gun at them and forcing them to do so is absurd.
Phugebrins

What is this 'something from nothing' myth? You can't just start your own company - you need capital! We're talking amounts of money inaccessible to most people.
What did they do before capital? Sit there waiting for goods to float down from heaven?
lithium

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization, are global decisions, policies, and practices.
There is no "world government", therefore no global decisions policies or practices. If this is an attempt to blame poverty on globalism, then you're barking up the wrong tree; poverty was around long before globalism, so that eliminated it as a cause. I was wondering how long it'd be before one of you clowns would start posting piccies of African shanty towns, as if that somehow gives clues as to the cause.

Capitalists: don't you dare say that these people chose to live and die this way. It is capitalism that is causing this.
This is your problem: You think capitalism "causes poverty" (how?) and you think communism will "solve" it. It won't. There's no such thing as communism and there never will be. It'll only ever be socialism, and that rarely solves anything.

Now, stop dodging the issue: justify capitalism.
Okay your turn: Go on, tell me how communism or whatever utopian crap you belive in is going to solve these people's problems without turning the rest of the world into a collective slave state in the process. Let's hear your big plan. And don't go thinking that redistributing the weath of a few big-nobs is going to do anything meaningful.

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:19 PM
And don't go thinking that redistributing the weath of a few big-nobs is going to do anything meaningful.

Well it's a start. Give money to those who need it more than we do. I don't see how that isn't meaningful

[Phugebrins]

"What did they do before capital?"
Kings and nobles commanded labour by force of arms. Capitalism is merely the 'civilised' repackaging.

[Tungsten]

Rhyknow

Well it's a start. Give money to those who need it more than we do. I don't see how that isn't meaningful
It's not quite a simple as that. If a rich man has ten bars of gold and distributed it amongst a village of ten people who have only had a few nuggets each, the gold would become less valuable.
Phugebrins

Kings and nobles commanded labour by force of arms. Capitalism is merely the 'civilised' repackaging.
I agree it's more civilised. Money can't force you to do anything, it can only bribe those willing to accept it.

[theraven]

Not all their money is made that way. They have all sorts of far more specialised ways of making money. But your point is very pertinent: they are professionals. And if you're not, then ninety-nine percent of the time, you will be politely shown the door.
(No, I don't know what the point you were trying to make was. Presumably it's not 'well, they've got to lend it to *someone*', as they will always pick the person who's had a more priveleged background in terms of experience, education, and contacts).

the vast majorty of bankers money is made from investmetns of some kind or another. a major one of these is loans. the govenrmetn also helps encourge banks to amke semi risky loans so as to encouarge entuerpenauer ship.

[Phugebrins]

Yes, but very often, what we're talking about is an existing company attempting to expand. If you want to start your own company with no prior experience, you have a far more limited choice of industries. No bank will lend you the resources to set up your own train company or television station just like that. You might be able to get an ice-cream van.

"the govenrmetn also helps encourge banks to amke semi risky loans so as to encouarge entuerpenauer ship."
Which government? How? Are we talking about loans to people with no business studies degrees, no professional background in entrepreneurship?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:14 PM
Yes, but very often, what we're talking about is an existing company attempting to expand. If you want to start your own company with no prior experience, you have a far more limited choice of industries. No bank will lend you the resources to set up your own train company or television station just like that. You might be able to get an ice-cream van.

"the govenrmetn also helps encourge banks to amke semi risky loans so as to encouarge entuerpenauer ship."
Which government? How? Are we talking about loans to people with no business studies degrees, no professional background in entrepreneurship?
1) of course no bansk going to lend you the kind of money you need to start that kind fo company. i am talking like a small manufcauting plant or sotre.

2) the US govenrmetn, they do it by ensuring the loans. the loans are generaly aimed at people with little money who presnt buisnes plans. you can't be stupid but its not like they chekc your mba or anything.

[Phugebrins]

"i am talking like a small manufcauting plant or sotre."
Precisely. And small businesses have small profits. You lose out on all economies of scale. Even if you're insured, without experience, you're still high-risk, you're paying a lot of interest on the loan. You lose out on every economy of scale, as a small fish in a big pond, you can easily be wiped out by competition, and are at the mercy of those suppliers/customers/both (depending on your industry sector) who are better organised or have local monopolies. But let's say you put your life and soul into it, and just about succeed at all this. You then end up with a corner-shop or very small factory somewhere making a miniscule profit. Great. That's one item on your CV. Meanwhile, the more priveleged professional will have set up and sold five businesses. Yes, it's theoretically possible to repeat the steps, slowly advance up the rungs, and ultimately 'make it big', but as I said in the first place, this is not the everyday way of things, it's the million-to-one chance, when you could lose everything at any stage.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:37 PM
"i am talking like a small manufcauting plant or sotre."
Precisely. And small businesses have small profits. You lose out on all economies of scale. Even if you're insured, without experience, you're still high-risk, you're paying a lot of interest on the loan. You lose out on every economy of scale, as a small fish in a big pond, you can easily be wiped out by competition, and are at the mercy of those suppliers/customers/both (depending on your industry sector) who are better organised or have local monopolies. But let's say you put your life and soul into it, and just about succeed at all this. You then end up with a corner-shop or very small factory somewhere making a miniscule profit. Great. That's one item on your CV. Meanwhile, the more priveleged professional will have set up and sold five businesses. Yes, it's theoretically possible to repeat the steps, slowly advance up the rungs, and ultimately 'make it big', but as I said in the first place, this is not the everyday way of things, it's the million-to-one chance, when you could lose everything at any stage.
thats how all major compaines got started. you have to start out small to get big. your right most do fail, but when you succed the reward is that much sweeter. thats the risk/reward ratio.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Look forward to expropriating them, then.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 11:48 PM
Look forward to expropriating them, then.
of course i'll look forward to get money from them...

[colonelguppy]

so they wouldn't be poor and dieing without the capitalist providing jobs for them? wtf?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


of course i'll look forward to get money from them...

Eh?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 02:49 AM
Raving:


of course i'll look forward to get money from them...

Eh?
expropriating


ex·pro·pri·ate (k-sprpr-t) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "expropriating" [P]
tr.v. ex·pro·pri·at·ed, ex·pro·pri·at·ing, ex·pro·pri·ates

1. To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who lived in the path of the new highway.
2. To transfer (another's property) to oneself.


so you said look foward to transefeirng their properties to yourself

so of course i'lll ook fowar dto getting money from them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving, you're clearly unaware of the meaning of this term in Marxism:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=1320

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 03:10 AM
Raving, you're clearly unaware of the meaning of this term in Marxism:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=1320
consideirng the relvance marxism has i am not all that concerned, and in your context thats the only thing it means that i am stealing/taking moeny from the corportion. anyway knowing how you don't see words the way other peopel do i am not all the concenred with making sense of you.

[Zero]

Raven, you try to say that other people are not being clear, when you can't be bothered to use a spellcheck?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:43 PM
so they wouldn't be poor and dieing without the capitalist providing jobs for them? wtf?
but seriously whats the thought process here?

[Rollo]

My brother has been denied a home loan by everybody you can think of simple because he got sucked into a credit card. Banks won't give him money.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:46 PM

Well it's a start. Give money to those who need it more than we do. I don't see how that isn't meaningful
It's not quite a simple as that. If a rich man has ten bars of gold and distributed it amongst a village of ten people who have only had a few nuggets each, the gold would become less valuable.
Exactly. And that's when people realise that money is only there to give the people who have money the appearance of having power. When everyone has their share of the wealth, then why does one need money at all?

Expand your example, and let the village be the world, and the villagers the population of the planet. Everyone in all the countries get a share of the wealth, and suddenly, bang, money is worthless. But in a society like that, where everyone is equal, and not judged by the amount of money, why does one need money at all?

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by Tigerman+Aug 28 2006, 03:28 PM--> (Tigerman @ Aug 28 2006, 03:28 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:00 PM
Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

People in the Third World live in poverty because their land is owned by people of the First World countries. The farmers are forced to work this land and give everything over to the capitalists, and are barely given enough to survive in return.
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.

First of all, the Soviet Union existed from 1917 until 1979 and did nothing to end poverty either in the Soviet Union itself or anywhere else.

One look around the globe and it become clear that people who chose socialism mire themselves in poverty and those who chose capitalism are prosperous.


Land in third world countries is generally owned by "the government" not capitalists.


Capitalists are unlikely to invest in any country where their investment is not secure. Third world governments have a nasty habit of confiscating any wealth that foreigners bring for investment.

The Beatles once played in Manila. The Beatles left and the money stayed with Marcos. No bands ever went to the Philipines again, if you can imagine that.

The problem with third world countries is that the changing of land titles often takes 6 months to two years.

Compare that with 30 to 60 days in Canada and the USA.


You should read the Marc Emery story. The "price of pot" went to Thailand in the late 80's and fell in love with the place. Foriegners are not permitted to own land in Thialand, and many other third world countries by the way. So Marc made a friend and struck a deal. The "friend" bought the land. Marc spent upwards of $250,000. When the house was finished and the day came for Marc and his family to move in, they were greeted at the door of their new home by his friend and his family who had the police standing by to escort MR. Emery off the property.

That was that, the guy owned the land on paper and that meant he owned that home and Marc Emery was out his money.

So much for how easy it is for Capitalists to buy land and force people to work on it.


The question begs, who sold these capitalist the land in the first place? The poor perhaps? And why would they sell if the land were prosperous and productive?


They sell the land because they do not have the means of developing the land.

The average farmer in Canada needs about $500,000 in equipment to make a living from farming.

Tractors, industrial size roto-tillers, rock pickers, bailers, combines, trucks to get the crop off the field and to the elevator.

It gets expensive. One man with a how and a shovel would be lucky to develope one acre of land from which self-sustainability might emerge. It will take about 40 years of hoeing rows to save the kind of wealth it takes to bring a modern farm up to production levels.

We in the west have 100 + years of accumulated wealth invested in the land. Father to son passing of the farm is the normal course of business.

It is our method of governance that allowed the farmers to accumulate their wealth and pass it along to their decendents that acounts for our productivity and the resulting lift in the standard of living foreverybody.

So name one of these third world countries where capitalists are responsible for thousands of people dieing every day and I shall point out what government policy is responsible for whatever evil. [/b]
What you refer to as Socialism, others refer to as "State-Capitalism."

Capitalist countries are heavily dependent upon dictators of third-world countries and vice-versa. They have a symbiotic relationship: Government by dictatorship is evil, but economically efficient, because the amount of money plundered by any given dictator is less than the amount to provide adequate basic services to the general public as well as the plundering made by lower level politicians in the case of a democratically elected legislature. Because dictators can use what you'd call oppressive "Socialist," measures to increase economic output rather than increase equality, it's more appropriate to call them State-Capitalist. In exchange for cheap raw goods, first-world countries provide trade to such dictatorships and turn a blind eye to their socioeconomic crises.

Also, no one here but you would consider the USSR to be "Socialist." Many Socialists consider true Socialism to involve Anarchism and the USSR was nothing more than a degenerated workers' state.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


anyway knowing how you don't see words the way other peopel do i am not all the concenred with making sense of you.

So you are ignorant of the theory you attack.

Why does that not surprise me?

And, when if ever you can string together a comprehensible sentence, I'll still only ever take the piss out of you.

[colonelguppy]

My brother has been denied a home loan by everybody you can think of simple because he got sucked into a credit card. Banks won't give him money.

and this is the banks fault? they're just trying to protect their investment, and credit ratings are one of the only ways to judge reliability.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:19 PM

Now, stop dodging the issue: justify capitalism.
Okay your turn: Go on, tell me how communism or whatever utopian crap you belive in is going to solve these people's problems without turning the rest of the world into a collective slave state in the process. Let's hear your big plan. And don't go thinking that redistributing the weath of a few big-nobs is going to do anything meaningful.
Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:54 AM

My brother has been denied a home loan by everybody you can think of simple because he got sucked into a credit card. Banks won't give him money.

and this is the banks fault? they're just trying to protect their investment, and credit ratings are one of the only ways to judge reliability.
Actually it is the banks fault. The bank gave him a credit card, he missed one or two payments, eventually payed everything off after selling his car and now the same bank won't give him a home loan because he's broke. Thus you have to have money in he beginning to get any money.

[Tungsten]

lithium

Exactly. And that's when people realise that money is only there to give the people who have money the appearance of having power.
It hasn't done a very good job because I don't think it does.

When everyone has their share of the wealth, then why does one need money at all?
As a more flexible medium of exchange.

Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.
Nationalising is expensive, particularly because something nationalised doesn't need to be run efficiently or for profit- any shortcomings can, and usually are filled by raising taxes.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 02:31 PM
Raving:


anyway knowing how you don't see words the way other peopel do i am not all the concenred with making sense of you.

So you are ignorant of the theory you attack.

Why does that not surprise me?

And, when if ever you can string together a comprehensible sentence, I'll still only ever take the piss out of you.
no i understand your theory fairly well, thats why it amuses me so much. none th less the way you used the word made no sense. you were saying I would take tings form the companies. I probably will, in the form of slaries or fees.



Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.

so....you want the USSR?

oh and whoever, if your bro ha sa crappy credit rating it iwll make it harder for him to get a loan.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


no i understand your theory fairly well,

I doubt it; you made an egregious error over "expropriate", and your present comments suggest you still do not know what it means.

[theraven]

rosie lick'n shine



I doubt it; you made an egregious error over "expropriate", and your present comments suggest you still do not know what it means.

I love how you think your made up definitions trump everyone elses. jewish isn't offesnive because you say so, and expropriate doesnt mean what the dicsiotn says it means...how pleasent..

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:26 AM
Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.
how are you going to get capital for more economic expansion? how exactly are these nationalized industries going to turn a profit? if the workers are garuanteed a share of the profits, whats the point in wokring harder than anyone else is, or for that matter, at all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


I love how you think your made up definitions trump everyone elses.

Still mired in ignorance, I see.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 10:11 PM
Raving:


I love how you think your made up definitions trump everyone elses.

Still mired in ignorance, I see.
no i am just not telepehathic and can't tell you waht yourmade up defintion of the word is

[Zero]

theraven.

There is no such thing as a "made up definition". All words are "made up" to signify something. Marxist definitions are just as "made up" as Capitalist definitions. Both of which share common ground most of the time. Or refer to different viewpoints on situations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


no i am just not telepehathic and can't tell you waht yourmade up defintion of the word is

Still clueless I see.

I hope you stay that way; then you are only a danger to yourself.

[theraven]

rosie lick'nshine


Still clueless I see.

only about your world, and honestly I wouldn't want to understand your world, i prefer sticking to the real world




There is no such thing as a "made up definition". All words are "made up" to signify something. Marxist definitions are just as "made up" as Capitalist definitions. Both of which share common ground most of the time. Or refer to different viewpoints on situations.


yes but in the real world people agree on the make up of these definesn. rosie made up one that varies from the one most peole use it for.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


only about your world, and honestly I wouldn't want to understand your world, i prefer sticking to the real world

Your posts suggest otherwise.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Rollo+Aug 31 2006, 04:28 PM--> (Rollo @ Aug 31 2006, 04:28 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 01:54 AM

My brother has been denied a home loan by everybody you can think of simple because he got sucked into a credit card. Banks won't give him money.

and this is the banks fault? they're just trying to protect their investment, and credit ratings are one of the only ways to judge reliability.
Actually it is the banks fault. The bank gave him a credit card, he missed one or two payments, eventually payed everything off after selling his car and now the same bank won't give him a home loan because he's broke. Thus you have to have money in he beginning to get any money. [/b]
[QUOTE]

And why would a socialist community be any different?

Wealth is finite as well. The money that the bank lent your brother could have been used somewhere else. Decisions on how to use resources are going to exist in a socialist community as well.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Rollo+Aug 31 2006, 11:28 AM--> (Rollo @ Aug 31 2006, 11:28 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 01:54 AM

My brother has been denied a home loan by everybody you can think of simple because he got sucked into a credit card. Banks won't give him money.

and this is the banks fault? they're just trying to protect their investment, and credit ratings are one of the only ways to judge reliability.
Actually it is the banks fault. The bank gave him a credit card, he missed one or two payments, eventually payed everything off after selling his car and now the same bank won't give him a home loan because he's broke. Thus you have to have money in he beginning to get any money. [/b]
or not be a fuck up and pay your bills on time. its your brothers fault for earning the poor credit rating, if banks went around and loaned money to everyone with similiar circumstances then they would lose alot of money.

[lithium]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Aug 31 2006, 09:51 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Aug 31 2006, 09:51 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 11:26 AM
Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.
how are you going to get capital for more economic expansion? how exactly are these nationalized industries going to turn a profit? [/b]
Capital is gained in the exact same way as privatised companies do. The difference is that the excess profits don't go into a multi-millionaire's pocket.


if the workers are garuanteed a share of the profits, whats the point in wokring harder than anyone else is, or for that matter, at all?

Social Insurance credits, their own savings, experience, etc. The same reason people would work for a privatised company. Like I said, the difference is that all of the profits don't go to a private individual.

I'm guessing you have little faith in nationalising companies. There are several major companies under public ownership where I come from. And from what I can see, they do quite well.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by lithium+Sep 1 2006, 11:47 AM--> (lithium @ Sep 1 2006, 11:47 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:51 PM

[email protected] 31 2006, 11:26 AM
Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.
how are you going to get capital for more economic expansion? how exactly are these nationalized industries going to turn a profit?
Capital is gained in the exact same way as privatised companies do. The difference is that the excess profits don't go into a multi-millionaire's pocket.


if the workers are garuanteed a share of the profits, whats the point in wokring harder than anyone else is, or for that matter, at all?

Social Insurance credits, their own savings, experience, etc. The same reason people would work for a privatised company. Like I said, the difference is that all of the profits don't go to a private individual.

I'm guessing you have little faith in nationalising companies. There are several major companies under public ownership where I come from. And from what I can see, they do quite well. [/b]
yes, but how will it be redirected into further economic ventures if all the profits go into the workers pockets? will the government take extra funds in taxes to invest them in new businesses and industries? if so, who decides within the government what to invest in, and why will they do it if theres economic incentive to do so?

and why will the workers be willing to work anything but the bare minimum if they are all garaunteed the same share of the profit? are some going to be paid more for harder work, and if so, who will determine what makes a worker more valuable?

[lithium]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 1 2006, 06:04 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 1 2006, 06:04 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:51 PM

[email protected] 31 2006, 11:26 AM
Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.
how are you going to get capital for more economic expansion? how exactly are these nationalized industries going to turn a profit?
Capital is gained in the exact same way as privatised companies do. The difference is that the excess profits don't go into a multi-millionaire's pocket.


if the workers are garuanteed a share of the profits, whats the point in wokring harder than anyone else is, or for that matter, at all?

Social Insurance credits, their own savings, experience, etc. The same reason people would work for a privatised company. Like I said, the difference is that all of the profits don't go to a private individual.

I'm guessing you have little faith in nationalising companies. There are several major companies under public ownership where I come from. And from what I can see, they do quite well.
yes, but how will it be redirected into further economic ventures if all the profits go into the workers pockets? will the government take extra funds in taxes to invest them in new businesses and industries? if so, who decides within the government what to invest in, and why will they do it if theres economic incentive to do so? [/b]
Not all - if any - of the profits need to go back into the workers pockets directly. But the profits can be used to benefit the workers in ways I have already mentioned, and also including developing further industries.


and why will the workers be willing to work anything but the bare minimum if they are all garaunteed the same share of the profit? are some going to be paid more for harder work, and if so, who will determine what makes a worker more valuable?

No, they're not guaranteed the same share of the profits. They would be paid in relation to hours worked.

A nationalised company works pretty much in the same way as a privatised company does. The difference is that the profits go into public ownership, and not to a private owner. So, the more nationalised companies there are, the more money is available for public spending.

There is already a huge number of public limited companies that work in a similar way. For example, in Ireland we have Ulster Television, Anglo-Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, Tesco, and Eircom, to name a few. These are owned by anybody who buys shares in them. Everybody is able to buy shares in a PLC. Some PLCs are created under legislation and their profits go into public ownership, and not directly to shareholders. Instead, these funds are used to build hospitals, develop transport, etc.

[lithium]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 31 2006, 06:46 PM--> (theraven @ Aug 31 2006, 06:46 PM)
lithium

Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.

so....you want the USSR? [/b]
Uh no :blink: What makes you think the me being pro-nationalisation makes me want the USSR?

If you did any research you'd find that there is already a large number of public companies. In a previous post on this thread I mentioned some of them.

Are you from the USA? Are there any public companies there?

EDIT: Never mind. I've found a few. Some of the US transport companies are nationalised.

[theraven]

Originally posted by lithium+Sep 1 2006, 06:32 PM--> (lithium @ Sep 1 2006, 06:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 06:46 PM

lithium

Here's a plan: nationalise all companies and put them into public ownership. Profits go back into public ownership. These profits are redistributed back to the workers in the form of lower taxes, higher wages, free healthcare, etc., regardless of their wealth or class or whatever.

Although it's not Communism, this is a relatively simple left-wing economic idea that can be considered a first step toward Communism.

so....you want the USSR?
Uh no :blink: What makes you think the me being pro-nationalisation makes me want the USSR?

If you did any research you'd find that there is already a large number of public companies. In a previous post on this thread I mentioned some of them.

Are you from the USA? Are there any public companies there?

EDIT: Never mind. I've found a few. Some of the US transport companies are nationalised. [/b]
yes in the us a few things are natioanlist. none of them work as well as private companes. the post office is worse then fed ex, amtrak is unrealibe and barely worth the extra moneyt ti ocsts over grey hound.i would not awnt more companes to be nationalized, and frankly i wish some of thse were private.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


yes in the us a few things are natioanlist. none of them work as well as private companes. the post office is worse then fed ex, amtrak is unrealibe and barely worth the extra moneyt ti ocsts over grey hound.i would not awnt more companes to be nationalized, and frankly i wish some of thse were private.

On this evidence, the Capitalist education system is really f*ucked.

I bet Raving writes with green ink.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Tigerman+Aug 28 2006, 10:28 AM--> (Tigerman @ Aug 28 2006, 10:28 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:00 PM
Could the capitalists here please justify why thousands of people die everyday as a direct result of capitalism?

People in the Third World live in poverty because their land is owned by people of the First World countries. The farmers are forced to work this land and give everything over to the capitalists, and are barely given enough to survive in return.
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.

First of all, the Soviet Union existed from 1917 until 1979 and did nothing to end poverty either in the Soviet Union itself or anywhere else.

One look around the globe and it become clear that people who chose socialism mire themselves in poverty and those who chose capitalism are prosperous.


Land in third world countries is generally owned by "the government" not capitalists.


Capitalists are unlikely to invest in any country where their investment is not secure. Third world governments have a nasty habit of confiscating any wealth that foreigners bring for investment.

The Beatles once played in Manila. The Beatles left and the money stayed with Marcos. No bands ever went to the Philipines again, if you can imagine that.

The problem with third world countries is that the changing of land titles often takes 6 months to two years.

Compare that with 30 to 60 days in Canada and the USA.


You should read the Marc Emery story. The "price of pot" went to Thailand in the late 80's and fell in love with the place. Foriegners are not permitted to own land in Thialand, and many other third world countries by the way. So Marc made a friend and struck a deal. The "friend" bought the land. Marc spent upwards of $250,000. When the house was finished and the day came for Marc and his family to move in, they were greeted at the door of their new home by his friend and his family who had the police standing by to escort MR. Emery off the property.

That was that, the guy owned the land on paper and that meant he owned that home and Marc Emery was out his money.

So much for how easy it is for Capitalists to buy land and force people to work on it.


The question begs, who sold these capitalist the land in the first place? The poor perhaps? And why would they sell if the land were prosperous and productive?


They sell the land because they do not have the means of developing the land.

The average farmer in Canada needs about $500,000 in equipment to make a living from farming.

Tractors, industrial size roto-tillers, rock pickers, bailers, combines, trucks to get the crop off the field and to the elevator.

It gets expensive. One man with a how and a shovel would be lucky to develope one acre of land from which self-sustainability might emerge. It will take about 40 years of hoeing rows to save the kind of wealth it takes to bring a modern farm up to production levels.

We in the west have 100 + years of accumulated wealth invested in the land. Father to son passing of the farm is the normal course of business.

It is our method of governance that allowed the farmers to accumulate their wealth and pass it along to their decendents that acounts for our productivity and the resulting lift in the standard of living foreverybody.

So name one of these third world countries where capitalists are responsible for thousands of people dieing every day and I shall point out what government policy is responsible for whatever evil. [/b]
The ignorance of this post is overwhelming. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ. Forgve me for not sticking to the topic, but this forum badly needs a policy of baning those who reject facts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RZ, what can you expect when these cappies believe all they are told in their c*ap education, and on their lying media?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I attended American public schools for twelve years. There is no excuse for this. I am enraged at the paramount ignorance of this thread. FUUUUUUUUUUCK

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:26 PM

A nationalised company works pretty much in the same way as a privatised company does. The difference is that the profits go into public ownership, and not to a private owner. So, the more nationalised companies there are, the more money is available for public spending.

There is already a huge number of public limited companies that work in a similar way. For example, in Ireland we have Ulster Television, Anglo-Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland, Tesco, and Eircom, to name a few. These are owned by anybody who buys shares in them. Everybody is able to buy shares in a PLC. Some PLCs are created under legislation and their profits go into public ownership, and not directly to shareholders. Instead, these funds are used to build hospitals, develop transport, etc.

Ireland, to my knowledge, is still considered a "capitalist" country. The workers do not own the means of production, money is still used, interest rates charged, stock markets function, prices are dependent upon the market, workers can be terminated from their jobs to increase profit to thwe owner ect ect ect.

I do not think that such a state of affairs would be considered "socialist" by most of the regulars on the non-restricted list.

Socialism requires "change." And the situation is still the same in Ireland. Just dressed up differently.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RZ, OK but that does not mean that all schools deliver a good education.

In the case of the capitalist numpties who post here, something/someone failed/biased them: family, education or media.

Take your pick.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 03:10 PM
RZ, OK but that does not mean that all schools deliver a good education.

In the case of the capitalist numpties who post here, something/someone failed/biased them: family, education or media.

Take your pick.
we're all biased, but the didfference is we're accepting reality. you want utopia.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


we're all biased, but the didfference is we're accepting reality. you want utopia.

Using the royal 'we' now are you?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 06:18 PM
Raving:


we're all biased, but the didfference is we're accepting reality. you want utopia.

Using the royal 'we' now are you?
no i was refering to we as the restricted members

but now that you mention it, i am King Raven and would appreciate being addressed as so.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


i am King Raven and would appreciate being addressed as so.

Looking forward to doing to you what we did the Charles 1.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 06:47 PM
Raving:


i am King Raven and would appreciate being addressed as so.

Looking forward to doing to you what we did the Charles 1.
actually it was us capiltsts who did it to chalres the first. a better example would be the tsar..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


actually it was us capiltsts who did it to chalres the first. a better example would be the tsar..

The pressure to execute came from the radical/popular communist wing of the revolution, otherwise Charles would not have been executed.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 11:24 PM
Raving:


actually it was us capiltsts who did it to chalres the first. a better example would be the tsar..

The pressure to execute came from the radical/popular communist wing of the revolution, otherwise Charles would not have been executed.
it came from the republican/anti-monarchist wing actualy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


it came from the republican/anti-monarchist wing actualy.

Responding to pressure from below.

[mauvaise foi]

Even if the bourgeoisie did kill Charles I, the bourgeoisie, at the time of the English Civil war, was progressive, even revolutionary. This lasted at least until the French Revolution. The bourgeoisie, at the time, was the revolutionary class, dedicated to overthrowing feudalism. Now that the bourgeoisie has won that battle, it is reactionary, and the proletariat is the revolutionary class.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 3 2006, 02:00 AM
Raving:


it came from the republican/anti-monarchist wing actualy.

Responding to pressure from below.
the peopel who were the most extreme in the revolution were the republican/anti-moncarhcst. this is undisputed.

here is the accoutn of his exuciatoin..





He was to be tried by 135 judges who would decide if he was guilty or not. In fact only 68 turned up for the trial. Those that did not were less than happy about being associated with the trial of the king. In fact, there were plenty of MP’s in Parliament who did not want to see the king put on trial but in December 1648, these MP’s had been stopped from going into Parliament by a Colonel Pride who was helped by some soldiers. The only people allowed into Parliament were those who Cromwell thought supported the trial of the king. This Parliament was known as the "Rump Parliament" and of the 46 men allowed in (who were considered to be supporters of Cromwell), only 26 voted to try the king. Therefore even among those MP's considered loyal to Cromwell, there was no clear support to try Charles.

The Chief Judge was a man called Richard Bradshaw. He sat as head of the High Court of Justice. He was not one of the original 135 judges but none of the 68 that did turn up wanted to be Chief Judge and the job was given to Bradshaw, who was a lawyer. He knew that putting Charles on trial was not popular and he actually feared for his own life. He had made for himself a special hat which had metal inside it to protect his head against an attack. It was Bradshaw who read out the charge against Charles; that he


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/CharlesI_execution.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving, read Brian Manning and Christopher Hill.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 3 2006, 09:40 AM
Raving, read Brian Manning and Christopher Hill.
I don't have access to thier books., and that doesnt cahnge the fact that the "extremists" who killed charles the first wre capitlist not communist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


I don't have access to thier books., and that doesnt cahnge the fact that the "extremists" who killed charles the first wre capitlist not communist.

Wrong, as these books show.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 3 2006, 02:37 PM
Raving:


I don't have access to thier books., and that doesnt cahnge the fact that the "extremists" who killed charles the first wre capitlist not communist.

Wrong, as these books show.
and in which book did they show this :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


and in which book did they show this

I thought you knew everything?

[Tungsten]

Rosa Lichtenstein

The pressure to execute came from the radical/popular communist wing of the revolution, otherwise Charles would not have been executed.
The main opponent of Charles 1st was the church of England and the parlimentarians (whigs and tories). Oliver Cromwell was a devout protestant. Stop making up history as you go along; there wasn't any communist wing.

Wrong, as these books show.
They wouldn't be the first to try to shoehorn communism into a context it doesn't belong. The English civil war wasn't communist any more than the American war of independence was.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tung:


They wouldn't be the first to try to shoehorn communism into a context it doesn't belong. The English civil war wasn't communist any more than the American war of independence was.

So you say, but you are biased.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 3 2006, 03:59 PM
Raving:


and in which book did they show this

I thought you knew everything?
no, only communism thinks people are perfect.



So you say, but you are biased.

and you aren't? its not disputable that the "radicals" of this time were protestnants, and capitlsits. there were no commnists and as my evidnce poitned out the execution of th king was not widlely popular.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:47 PM
Ireland, to my knowledge, is still considered a "capitalist" country. The workers do not own the means of production, money is still used, interest rates charged, stock markets function, prices are dependent upon the market, workers can be terminated from their jobs to increase profit to thwe owner ect ect ect.

I do not think that such a state of affairs would be considered "socialist" by most of the regulars on the non-restricted list.

Socialism requires "change." And the situation is still the same in Ireland. Just dressed up differently. [/quote]
Of course! Ireland is indeed still capitalist. But we are experiencing a lot of leftist ideas, including strong trade union movements and public ownership of companies. This, with growing dissatisfaction with Dáil Éireann, is paving the way to eventual movement to Socialism, as was aspired by previous revolutions in Ireland.

I think that Ireland can be considered an example of how capitalism naturally develops into Socialism, or at least, it will be considered so.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:28 PM
People in the Third world live in poverty because they chose to live in poverty.
Oh they choose to live in poverty? :o I don't think theres a single human being that would choose to live in poverty, and still hold an ounce of common sense. It's so easy for you to put their misery back at them, like it's their fault. The problem is that No one cares about them, least their own governments, Just look at Detroit here in the States, its forgotten land. Africa at least was colonized over and over, destroyed by the capitalist insurgence all across the continent, been stretched to the limit, and once the profit making capability is gone so do the capitalists, bye bye. Even know the people work hard, and what do they get to show for it? the businesses and the government takes the blood of the workers and turns it into profit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


no, only communism thinks people are perfect.

So you imagine an ideology thinks do you?


and you aren't?

No.

What are these:


protestnants

And:


there were no commnists

That shows how ignorant you are.

[ZX3]

Ireland, to my knowledge, is still considered a "capitalist" country. The workers do not own the means of production, money is still used, interest rates charged, stock markets function, prices are dependent upon the market, workers can be terminated from their jobs to increase profit to thwe owner ect ect ect.

I do not think that such a state of affairs would be considered "socialist" by most of the regulars on the non-restricted list.

Socialism requires "change." And the situation is still the same in Ireland. Just dressed up differently.
Of course! Ireland is indeed still capitalist. But we are experiencing a lot of leftist ideas, including strong trade union movements and public ownership of companies. This, with growing dissatisfaction with Dáil Éireann, is paving the way to eventual movement to Socialism, as was aspired by previous revolutions in Ireland.

I think that Ireland can be considered an example of how capitalism naturally develops into Socialism, or at least, it will be considered so.[/QUOTE]

No. All Ireland is doing is watering down capitalism, so to speak.

Socialism requires change. Ireland is merely reshuffling the deck, not jettisoning, the deck. It is insufficient to progress to socialism.

[theraven]

Originally posted by crazy *****
So you imagine an ideology thinks do you?

no, but the people who thought it up did......


anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


no, but the people who thought it up did......

Proof?


anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists

History says otherwise.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:35 PM
anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists :)
It was niether.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 02:41 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 4 2006, 02:41 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 02:35 PM
anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists :)
It was niether. [/b]
who was it then




History says otherwise.

really? so oliver cromwell wasn't a radical protsenatn/capilist?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You wish to identify with the ideas of Oliver Cromwell? Fine. How's about we ban you now for racism?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 4 2006, 03:10 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 4 2006, 03:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:41 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 02:35 PM
anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists :)
It was niether.
who was it then [/b]
Cromwell. Certianly not an example of capitalism, as defined by most capitalists anyway.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:21 PM
You wish to identify with the ideas of Oliver Cromwell? Fine. How's about we ban you now for racism?
Please do. Cromwell was a murderer who slaughtered thousands of Irish people. Anyone who thinks agrees with this should be given the boot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving, a monument to the capitalist education system:


really? so oliver cromwell wasn't a radical protsenatn/capilist?

Wha...???

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Raving, a monument to the capitalist education system:



really? so oliver cromwell wasn't a radical protsenatn/capilist?


Wha...???


And the sad thing is, he can seen nothing wrong with the way he was educated, or rather the way he wasn't educated.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 01:25 PM
Raving, a monument to the capitalist education system:


really? so oliver cromwell wasn't a radical protsenatn/capilist?

Wha...???
odds are he probably went to public school, either way its not like you would learn much about cromwell in either public or private schools (enless its college or something)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 06:25 PM
Raving, a monument to the capitalist education system:


really? so oliver cromwell wasn't a radical protsenatn/capilist?
We should ban him, don't we ban protsenatns?

Or capilists?

What is a capilist, does it have something to do with hair?

Luís Henrique

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 03:32 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 4 2006, 03:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:41 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 02:35 PM
anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists :)
It was niether.
who was it then
Cromwell. Certianly not an example of capitalism, as defined by most capitalists anyway. [/b]
he was a radical protesnant, and ceritnaly was no commie



Please do. Cromwell was a murderer who slaughtered thousands of Irish people. Anyone who thinks agrees with this should be given the boot.

I've never discucsed cromwells ideas invovling race....

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 4 2006, 10:53 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 4 2006, 10:53 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:41 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 02:35 PM
anyway I'm sorry but you commies were not invovled in the overthrow of king charles..that was us capilisists :)
It was niether.
who was it then
Cromwell. Certianly not an example of capitalism, as defined by most capitalists anyway.
he was a radical protesnant, and ceritnaly was no commie
[/b]
Hence neither. You dim fuckwit.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You said "us capitalists" were responsible for overthrowing the British crown for the first time. Well "you capitalists" were also responsible for trading slaves and slaughtering Irish people.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:03 PM
You said "us capitalists" were responsible for overthrowing the British crown for the first time. Well "you capitalists" were also responsible for trading slaves and slaughtering Irish people.
capitlits slaved trades as it was both profitibel and accepted at the time.

as for the slaughter o fthe ish-i have no idea, all i now is my mom is/was protestnatn irish/scottish/....

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 4 2006, 11:19 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 4 2006, 11:19 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 11:03 PM
You said "us capitalists" were responsible for overthrowing the British crown for the first time. Well "you capitalists" were also responsible for trading slaves and slaughtering Irish people.
capitlits slaved trades as it was both profitibel and accepted at the time. [/b]
And you're fine with this?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 11:23 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 4 2006, 11:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:19 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 11:03 PM
You said "us capitalists" were responsible for overthrowing the British crown for the first time. Well "you capitalists" were also responsible for trading slaves and slaughtering Irish people.
capitlits slaved trades as it was both profitibel and accepted at the time.
And you're fine with this? [/b]
in a modern context? or back then?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 4 2006, 11:48 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 4 2006, 11:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:19 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 11:03 PM
You said "us capitalists" were responsible for overthrowing the British crown for the first time. Well "you capitalists" were also responsible for trading slaves and slaughtering Irish people.
capitlits slaved trades as it was both profitibel and accepted at the time.
And you're fine with this?
in a modern context? or back then? [/b]
Relativism is no basis for morality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


and ceritnaly was no commie

Ah, but the person who actually chopped Charles 1's head off was working-class.

Executioners are not capitalists.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 5 2006, 12:57 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 5 2006, 12:57 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:19 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 11:03 PM
You said "us capitalists" were responsible for overthrowing the British crown for the first time. Well "you capitalists" were also responsible for trading slaves and slaughtering Irish people.
capitlits slaved trades as it was both profitibel and accepted at the time.
And you're fine with this?
in a modern context? or back then?
Relativism is no basis for morality. [/b]
no basis for personal morality, however when looking at past actins one most consider the circuamsntancces. if it is widely acccepted among alost every society, religion and govenremtn most people are giong to think nothing of it.'



Ah, but the person who actually chopped Charles 1's head off was working-class.

Executioners are not capitalists.


actually no one knows who the execuaion was because they insisited on wearing a mask

and the people who gave the order to execute him where

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

actually no one knows who the execuaion was because they insisited on wearing a mask

and the people who gave the order to execute him where

I personally see that as a excuse.

The Bourgeois would never want to get their hands dirty - they had no grudge against the King, they didnt care that he was a tyrant or anything - they just had the goal of free-market introduction and the means was executing the king - so they ordered their army of proles to go and do it for them.

Capitalists are physically lazy, and mentally/board-game-like-ly extremely busy/workative.

Its a strange job everyday to think how to ruin ppl even more.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:41 AM

actually no one knows who the execuaion was because they insisited on wearing a mask

and the people who gave the order to execute him where

I personally see that as a excuse.

The Bourgeois would never want to get their hands dirty - they had no grudge against the King, they didnt care that he was a tyrant or anything - they just had the goal of free-market introduction and the means was executing the king - so they ordered their army of proles to go and do it for them.

Capitalists are physically lazy, and mentally/board-game-like-ly extremely busy/workative.

Its a strange job everyday to think how to ruin ppl even more.
1) many in the army on both sides were capilists at the very least in ideolgoy.

2) many capilsits work very ardous physical work

3) mental work still counts as work. you do't enviosn a future where all anyone does is physcial labour is it?

4) you assume they plan ot make peoples lives worse..au contari many capilsits want to make things better...

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
2) many capilsits work very ardous physical work
ROFL, like what? Sow the land? Plant the seeds? Tend the crops?

Or that "ardous" job of writing stringent paychecks, and kissing ass to other capitalists?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Zero+Sep 5 2006, 04:58 AM--> (Zero @ Sep 5 2006, 04:58 AM)
"theraven"
2) many capilsits work very ardous physical work
ROFL, like what? Sow the land? Plant the seeds? Tend the crops?

Or that "ardous" job of writing stringent paychecks, and kissing ass to other capitalists? [/b]
haha well if they own the land and their equitment then chances are the farmer is also a capitlist...which means he will often be doing his own labor.

[KC]

1) many in the army on both sides were capilists at the very least in ideolgoy.

2) many capilsits work very ardous physical work

3) mental work still counts as work. you do't enviosn a future where all anyone does is physcial labour is it?

4) you assume they plan ot make peoples lives worse..au contari many capilsits want to make things better...

1. I'd wager that less than 0.5% of the people in the army are capitalists.

2. Many robbers do as well.

3. That is irrelevant.

4. They don't plan to make people's lives worse, and I don't think anyone here thinks that. What they plan on doing is making a profit, and if they have to make people's lives worse in the process then that's just fine with them. Oh, and it doesn't matter what capitalists "want" to do, because all that matters is what you do and what you don't do.



haha well if they own the land and their equitment then chances are the farmer is also a capitlist...which means he will often be doing his own labor.

Actually the farmer would either be a peasant or petty-bourgeois.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


actually no one knows who the execuaion was because they insisited on wearing a mask

So you admit that you do not know whether it was the 'capitalists' who executed him.

Fine, but why did you not say so earlier?


and the people who gave the order to execute him where

And the people who forced them to do this were not.

[theraven]

1. I'd wager that less than 0.5% of the people in the army are capitalists.



Ideologoiclly or by your defintion of capilitist


2. Many robbers do as well.


robbers are not helpful to society


3. That is irrelevant.

how? you said they dongt work..i said they do


4. They don't plan to make people's lives worse, and I don't think anyone here thinks that. What they plan on doing is making a profit, and if they have to make people's lives worse in the process then that's just fine with them. Oh, and it doesn't matter what capitalists "want" to do, because all that matters is what you do and what you don't do.

except they do make peoples lives better..



So you admit that you do not know whether it was the 'capitalists' who executed him.

Fine, but why did you not say so earlier?


i was refering to who ordered it, not who did the actual deed.



And the people who forced them to do this were not.

it was cromwell who forced it

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


i was refering to who ordered it, not who did the actual deed.

So you admit once more that you do not know whether it was the 'capitalists' who executed him.

Fine, but why did you not say so earlier?


it was cromwell who forced it

Responding to pressure from others.

[theraven]

Responding to pressure from others.

what others? do you have evidnce of this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


what others? do you have evidnce of this?

I have already posted it.

But check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu...levellers.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/levellers.shtml)

[theraven]

1) you haven't posted any other evidence. you stated some rather prolific authors had talked about it, but failed to even cite a book, no less where in the book

2) those levelers wanted free trade, no voting for beggers and servants. they were hardly communist

3) charles was executived in 49, in the wane of levleer power. hardly an example of a triumph of thers

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


1) you haven't posted any other evidence. you stated some rather prolific authors had talked about it, but failed to even cite a book, no less where in the book

But you are raving, so how would you know?


those levelers wanted free trade, no voting for beggers and servants. they were hardly communist

Who said they were?


charles was executived in 49, in the wane of levleer power. hardly an example of a triumph of thers

Who were the 'levleers'?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:47 PM
no basis for personal morality, however when looking at past actins one most consider the circuamsntancces. if it is widely acccepted among alost every society, religion and govenremtn most people are giong to think nothing of it.'
So in what context exactly do you view Oliver Cromwell as "one of us"? That you agree with his ideas and actions? No, because they are only relative the "circuamsntancces" of his time. So how exactly is he "one of us"?

[theraven]

So in what context exactly do you view Oliver Cromwell as "one of us"? That you agree with his ideas and actions? No, because they are only relative the "circuamsntancces" of his time. So how exactly is he "one of us"?

what do you mean? I agree with the general princiapl of parlimentry supremacy and capitlism that was the general theme of the revolt.



But you are raving, so how would you know?

becase you never answered




Who said they were?

you said that communists (or something like communists) were responsbel for pushing cromwell to execute the king. when asked for detials your provided the link to the site about the levelers. therefore the logical assumption would be you considred levelers communist. since this is not true you have once again proved yourself stupider then the worst speller on the board.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

either stop spaming with your off-topic, ad-hominem, petty attacks or don't post anything at all

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:19 PM
as for the slaughter o fthe ish-i have no idea, all i now is my mom is/was protestnatn irish/scottish/....
I thought you were a Jew?

Luís Henrique

[theraven]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Sep 11 2006, 09:03 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Sep 11 2006, 09:03 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 11:19 PM
as for the slaughter o fthe ish-i have no idea, all i now is my mom is/was protestnatn irish/scottish/....
I thought you were a Jew?

Luís Henrique [/b]
i am. mom converted