CAPITALIST FORUM!

[The Advent of Anarchy]

http://www.capitalismforum.com/

There is a website forum openy and passionately about capitalism. Comrades, capitalists have gathered in one place. Ready to bash them? =3

[Tower of Bebel]

You get banned immediatly if they find out you're part of the evil side.

[Demogorgon]

Ayn Rand nuts. No point in bothering with them

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:33 pm
Ayn Rand nuts. No point in bothering with them
Exactly. Even the bourgeoisie know, and have always known, that Ayn Rand was an idiot that had no idea of how capitalism actually functions.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=943;Skippy McTogostein+--> (http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=943;Skippy McTogostein) I think perhaps Colbert was poking fun at the fact that Rand's work is liked by younger people for its focus on selfishness. Apparently when people grow up (get brainwashed in college) they aren't as selfish...more mature...Anyway, he could also have been satiring the point that her work is sophisticated and deep, let alone very long and extensive. So the fact that he would be reading The Fountainhead to kids for their Objectivist sleepover would be ridiculous.[/b]

My own emphasis.

There doesn't really seem to be any capitalist message board where they let us leftists debate with them.


Raccoon
You get banned immediatly if they find out you're part of the evil side.

In this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57986&hl=), a few Revlefters went there and got banned after 2 or 3 posts.

Edit: Grammar

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Errr, take a look at their post counts. We have more topics in OI alone than they have posts on their entire messageboard...

Clearly, that isn't a place for "all capitalists", but rather one for a very small number of them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, of course. Revleft isn't for all leftists either. There are more members in just the communist party of China than posts on this forum.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 27, 2007 08:22 pm
Errr, take a look at their post counts. We have more topics in OI alone than they have posts on their entire messageboard...

Clearly, that isn't a place for "all capitalists", but rather one for a very small number of them.

Ayn Rand nuts. No point in bothering with them

It fits.

[Iron]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 27, 2007 07:22 pm
Errr, take a look at their post counts. We have more topics in OI alone than they have posts on their entire messageboard...

Clearly, that isn't a place for "all capitalists", but rather one for a very small number of them.
Or maybe it show how few capitalisits their really are.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 27, 2007 07:22 pm
Clearly, that isn't a place for "all capitalists", but rather one for a very small number of them.
They wouldn't even be able to define capitalism adequately. They probably equate it with free enterprise and libertarianism, rather than the way we perceive it (oligopolies, cartels, government intervention, militarism, exploitation of labor, etc.).

And methinks no real capitalist would waste his time on a joke forum like that.

[bootleg42]

My favorite tatic in battling these capitalist lovers is FIRST see what they believe communism means. Believe me, most answers I get are along the lines of "it's being the ***** of the government" or "having to depend on government to do everything for you" or my favorite, "when the government owns everything".

Then define communism in complex language. THEN give an example that any dumb third person reading could understand. That usually stumps the majority of the capitalist lovers. SOMETIMES a capitalist or two might still debate logically been after a few battles, they get stumped too.

I mean I'm a beginner in marxist theory but last night in a sports forum (in the general section), I was able to get this capitalist lover to admit that capitalism is not democratic BUT he claims it's "Free", lmao. Also when I said that in communism, the workers can choose their destinies, he basically said "that's fucking retarded".

Here's the thread (a good read and it will piss many of you off):

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showt...t=127010&page=2 (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127010&page=2)

I'm "bootleg42" in the thread and the really dumb guy is named "gcoll". Feel free to go into that forum and debate him better than I did but for me being a beginner, I did a good job. Make him feel stupid but PLEASE, don't just go on it and flame on people. Go and debate them. You can make people like "gcoll" feel really dumb, I mean I got him to have to conclude that capitalism was not democratic. Have fun.

And if anyone else has any other battles, post em up!!! I wanna read. :D

[Labor Shall Rule]

I actually debated there a few months ago. It was funny, I broke their points on Israel, was able to discuss the shattering contradictions that proves libertarians are uttlerly ridiculous, argued against the blocking of the border, the shifting of capital over borders, but when I went out to argue that Chavez was 'not authoritarian', I was banned immediately. I think my posts are still in there, it was a jolly good time.

[bootleg42]

Wow, can you send me a link to it??? What was your name???

Also I just responded again and I'm sorry to everyone, for one of my responses, I copied and pasted one of the high school guides answers to the famous "And why should someone who is say.....a scientist, get paid the same as a garbage man?" question. I'm sorry in advance but the answer in that guide is SO VERY WELL WORDED to me. Thanks.

READ ON!!!:

page 2 (when I start, I'm bootleg42, the cappie's name is "gcoll") :

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showt...t=127010&page=2 (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127010&page=2)

page 3 (my recent response) :

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showt...t=127010&page=3 (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127010&page=3)

If anyone wants to help, please do, I can learn from reading your responses. PLEASE don't go on and flame, just intelligently DESTROY HIM, LOL.

[Tommy-K]

Just found this:

http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=694

Can we plague this numbskull anti-Islamist with hate please?

[Matty_UK]

haha check RPAS's posts on the politics sub-section of that forum, awesome work...trollish but if they ban anyone who debates them what do they expect!

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:15 am
http://www.capitalismforum.com/

There is a website forum openy and passionately about capitalism. Comrades, capitalists have gathered in one place. Ready to bash them? =3
You would attack a forum? Can you say "childish".

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 30, 2007 01:49 pm
You would attack a forum? Can you say "childish".
Oh, it's Mr. Touchy again. I thought he was done with this forum.

No, I can't say "childish" here. It's a pointless ad hominem in any debate. I can, however, say "engage", "discuss", "tongue-tie", "convince", "present an alternative viewpoint", "correct", "*****-slap into merciful oblivion or a glimmer of common sense is achieved" and many other interesting activities which a bunch of Ayn Rand nuts are likely to be sorely in need of.

No, don't thank me. They're all free. Just make sure you air them often.

[Dr Mindbender]

i got IP banned there after 2 posts :D

What pisses me off is they say us commies are undemocratic yet they dont even want to debate with us.

[Dr Mindbender]

Oh i just read their BS justification for banning marxists...



Originally posted by 'EC'+--> ('EC')Is it possible that you can add a rule stating that members can NOT argue from the irrational and evil premise that certain arguments, statements, conclusions, etc. are "grey"? Since this is not true because a thing is true or it is not, it is moral or it not-- shades of "grey" do NOT exist in reality when it involves ideas. Also, it might be a good idea to create a rule such that one person makes the unsupported and wrong assertion that everything is just somebodies "opinion" and therefore there is no way to objectively look at reality and discover what the real truth regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter.
[/b]

'Carl'
If they are disagreeing in a marxist way, they are banned. Communist countries are not privately owned, therefore government action against someone's speech is censorship. These forums are privately owned, and therefore actions by the owners can never be censorship. Moneyislife was not being rational. He was not using logic at all and was not in any way that I can see triumphing with his argument. He spouted out the same marxist bull over and over, never changing his debate even after we proved it wrong. That gets someone banned.

http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7

[Axel1917]

If they are disagreeing in a marxist way, they are banned. Communist countries are not privately owned, therefore government action against someone's speech is censorship. These forums are privately owned, and therefore actions by the owners can never be censorship. Moneyislife was not being rational. He was not using logic at all and was not in any way that I can see triumphing with his argument. He spouted out the same marxist bull over and over, never changing his debate even after we proved it wrong. That gets someone banned.

I was never for attacking their site, but this is just funny! They say censorship can't exist in a capitalist nation? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Imagine if they ran society: We have killed billions of poor people and ethnic groups we don't like, but since the means of production are privately owned, this killing can't be genocide! :rolleyes:

It just shows how "objective" the Randriods really are! :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 30, 2007 05:14 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 30, 2007 05:14 pm) Oh i just read their BS justification for banning marxists...



Originally posted by 'EC'@
Is it possible that you can add a rule stating that members can NOT argue from the irrational and evil premise that certain arguments, statements, conclusions, etc. are "grey"? Since this is not true because a thing is true or it is not, it is moral or it not-- shades of "grey" do NOT exist in reality when it involves ideas. Also, it might be a good idea to create a rule such that one person makes the unsupported and wrong assertion that everything is just somebodies "opinion" and therefore there is no way to objectively look at reality and discover what the real truth regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter.


'Carl'
If they are disagreeing in a marxist way, they are banned. Communist countries are not privately owned, therefore government action against someone's speech is censorship. These forums are privately owned, and therefore actions by the owners can never be censorship. Moneyislife was not being rational. He was not using logic at all and was not in any way that I can see triumphing with his argument. He spouted out the same marxist bull over and over, never changing his debate even after we proved it wrong. That gets someone banned.

http://www.capitalismforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7 [/b]
I have said it again and again. Randroids are just self aggrandising teenagers who think they have found some wonderful idea that makes them smarter than everyone else. They will grow out of it quickly.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:32 pm

If they are disagreeing in a marxist way, they are banned. Communist countries are not privately owned, therefore government action against someone's speech is censorship. These forums are privately owned, and therefore actions by the owners can never be censorship. Moneyislife was not being rational. He was not using logic at all and was not in any way that I can see triumphing with his argument. He spouted out the same marxist bull over and over, never changing his debate even after we proved it wrong. That gets someone banned.

I was never for attacking their site, but this is just funny! They say censorship can't exist in a capitalist nation? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Imagine if they ran society: We have killed billions of poor people and ethnic groups we don't like, but since the means of production are privately owned, this killing can't be genocide! :rolleyes:

It just shows how "objective" the Randriods really are! :lol:
Actually, they are correct.

If people are being murdered with impunity, then that is not capitalist by definition.

"Capitalism" to most capitalists - especially Randians - encompasses much more than simply who owns the means of production.

[RevMARKSman]

Anyone who wants to debate with actual cappies in a friendly environment where you've got something in common...

atheistforums.com

Their politics/gov section has a huge shortage of communists and it's a good challenge to debate with these people.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 08:08 pm

Actually, they are correct.

If people are being murdered with impunity, then that is not capitalist by definition.

"Capitalism" to most capitalists - especially Randians - encompasses much more than simply who owns the means of production.
The trouble is that it is an invented definition. No more correct than the Randian definition of Communism as being evil people who drink the blood of infants.

Calling capitalism anything more than an economic system is foolish. A capitalist may well believe that it is wrong to have a system where people can be murdered and what not. Indeed nearly all do, but that doesn't make that a characteristic of capitalism

[pusher robot]

The trouble is that it is an invented definition.

As opposed to all the other definitions which are...discovered? Revealed? Instinctive?

[Publius]

As opposed to all the other definitions which are...discovered? Revealed? Instinctive?

We use the term "dartboard indicated."

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 09:22 pm

The trouble is that it is an invented definition.

As opposed to all the other definitions which are...discovered? Revealed? Instinctive?
Capitalism is the name we give to the current economic system. We can see exactly what this system is, simply by watching it work. People like the Rand nuts want to ascribe capitalism a whole different set of properties from the ones we see in action, and that just isn't going to work.

We know perfectly well that the Government might slaughter civilians under capitalism, because we have seen it happen. Soccer stadiums in Santiago were used for a lot more than football at one point. If you are going to try and wiggle out of that one by claiming Pinochet wasn't a capitalist, oh dear...

[pusher robot]

Capitalism is the name we give to the current economic system.

So? You haven't offered any reasons why your definition is superior to theirs.


We know perfectly well that the Government might slaughter civilians under capitalism, because we have seen it happen.

Are you willing to concede the same of communism? Or are you going to argue that the USSR, et al. were not "true" communist societies?

My real point was that even if you could offer some reason why your definition is better, it makes no sense to criticize the posters for saying something they aren't actually saying, which is what you are doing when you substitute your definition of capitalism for the one they are using.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)So? You haven't offered any reasons why your definition is superior to theirs.[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]

cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

pusher robot

Are you willing to concede the same of communism? Or are you going to argue that the USSR, et al. were not "true" communist societies?
Russian communism died in 1924, when Stalin took over. We know this because he had all active bolsheviks shot and had them replaced with cronies that were loyal to his idea of centralised state capitalism.
Plenty of countries who the west today demonise as being 'communist' are so in name only yet they dont actually practise the principles of communism/socialism in any discernable manner. The DPRK for example, is not communist because there are no organised workers groups there with state influence.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 02:49 am

Capitalism is the name we give to the current economic system.

So? You haven't offered any reasons why your definition is superior to theirs.


We know perfectly well that the Government might slaughter civilians under capitalism, because we have seen it happen.

Are you willing to concede the same of communism? Or are you going to argue that the USSR, et al. were not "true" communist societies?

My real point was that even if you could offer some reason why your definition is better, it makes no sense to criticize the posters for saying something they aren't actually saying, which is what you are doing when you substitute your definition of capitalism for the one they are using.
My definition works, because it mtches the society we see today. Any definitions about la la lands of free association, no government interference etc, don't work, because they do not match any capitalist society we see today.

As for definitions of Communism, well you could callt he USSR Communist if you wanted to, I tend not to use the word, so I am not going to fight for ever. But I don't think you should call it that (or anything else) as it does tend to match wider definitions of capitalism, with the state acting as a large corporation.

If we are simply allowed to come up with our own definitions without regard to simple matters of reality, then we could call the systems anything. In that case I call capitalism the system where nasty monstrs rule the world and communism the system where pink fluffy rabbits frolic freely everywhere. Can you contradict me?

[pusher robot]

oops

[pusher robot]

In that case I call capitalism the system where nasty monstrs rule the world and communism the system where pink fluffy rabbits frolic freely everywhere. Can you contradict me?

Of course not - but I can point out that your use of the words differs than my use of the words, and explain how those differences are relevant. I can especially point out that your criticisms of what YOU call capitalism are irrelevant to the beliefs that I call capitalism.

Your criticism of the posters failed because you were using a different definition than they were and ignoring that fact, thus putting words in their mouths that they didn't actually say.

Consider the following exchange:

ME: A good martini is very dry.
YOU: Look at pusher robot! What an idiot! He actually says that a beverage should not be liquid!

Clearly, your argument is wrong, because I was using a different definition of "dry" than you are. As a result, you end up criticizing something I didn't actually say.

Granted it might not be clear sometimes. But when a clarification is made, your response should take that into account. Consider:

ME: I feel really queer today.
YOU: Apparently you are bisexual.
ME: No, I mean "queer" as in "odd."
YOU: No, sorry, "queer" means "gay" and therefore you MUST be bisexual. You said it, and you would know, therefore it is true.

Do you see the logical fallacy here?

[Demogorgon]

As you seem to think you are so clever, perhaps you should be able to take your own advice. When did I put words in anybodies mouth?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:11 pm
As you seem to think you are so clever, perhaps you should be able to take your own advice. When did I put words in anybodies mouth?
You're right, you didn't. The OP I was replying to did. Sorry to get you mixed up.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by pusher robot+July 30, 2007 08:08 pm--> (pusher robot @ July 30, 2007 08:08 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 05:32 pm

If they are disagreeing in a marxist way, they are banned. Communist countries are not privately owned, therefore government action against someone's speech is censorship. These forums are privately owned, and therefore actions by the owners can never be censorship. Moneyislife was not being rational. He was not using logic at all and was not in any way that I can see triumphing with his argument. He spouted out the same marxist bull over and over, never changing his debate even after we proved it wrong. That gets someone banned.

I was never for attacking their site, but this is just funny! They say censorship can't exist in a capitalist nation? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Imagine if they ran society: We have killed billions of poor people and ethnic groups we don't like, but since the means of production are privately owned, this killing can't be genocide! :rolleyes:

It just shows how "objective" the Randriods really are! :lol:
Actually, they are correct.

If people are being murdered with impunity, then that is not capitalist by definition.

"Capitalism" to most capitalists - especially Randians - encompasses much more than simply who owns the means of production. [/b]
If such a thing is carried out by a capitalist regime in the interests of capitalism, the capitalist system is responsible for it.

Capitalism is objectively private ownership of the means of production based on commodity production, with a chief contradiction being the social mode of production and the individual mode of appropriation. This can be made by studying the workings of the system itself.

[pusher robot]

If such a thing is carried out by a capitalist regime in the interests of capitalism, the capitalist system is responsible for it.

If you apply that logic to capitalism's failures, then you ought, to be consistent, apply it to capitalism's successes.

And you ought, to be consistent, to apply the same logic to acts carried out in the name of communism. I doubt very much that you are willing to do this.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 11:13 pm


If such a thing is carried out by a capitalist regime in the interests of capitalism, the capitalist system is responsible for it.

If you apply that logic to capitalism's failures, then you ought, to be consistent, apply it to capitalism's successes.

And you ought, to be consistent, to apply the same logic to acts carried out in the name of communism. I doubt very much that you are willing to do this.
Obviously Capitalism's successes, such as they are, should be attributed to capitalism.

And as for Communism, well if we could get a proper Communist society, of course we would credit its successes and failures to it.

What is your point?

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 04:44 pm
Of course not - but I can point out that your use of the words differs than my use of the words, and explain how those differences are relevant. I can especially point out that your criticisms of what YOU call capitalism are irrelevant to the beliefs that I call capitalism.
Let's see, capitalism is, from what I understand the "Libertarian, free-market society" to be, anarchy with economic authority / hierarchy.

First off, the distinction between political and economic issues should be laid to rest here: the interests confined to the state are no differrent from those given to the rest of the economy - except that those given to the state are often the ones that the population feels so relevant that they must be controlled by an acceptable power (via representative democracy, feudalism, whatever).

Now we see an obvious contradiction... because economics cover all of our rights, and "states" are really just economic empires, even in cases where economic authority chooses to find no interest (i.e. discrimination based on foot size), anarchy cannot exist with economic authority. The U.S. concept of Libertarianism is an oxymoron: it is nothing more than choosing different leaders or groups to tell you what to do.

The logical concept of capitalism - also embraced in the above ideology - is a mode of economic existance where greed and / or profit motive are central to the existance and development of society. Let's just say that the state is run the same way, or doesn't exist and the current economies of the state - police, military, intelligence gathering, etc. - are privatized.

Is this freedom? will it result in freedom? It allows for hierarchies, land ownership which can - and for most - mean that they are at the whim of the property rights of the land owner, privatised police and military with their own right to choose what is and isn't acceptable, who to back and who not to back, etc.


First, this sounds just like the current state of things. The state is an abstraction in the context of Libertarian thought: something exactly like it would arise in "Libertopia."

Second - who would want to live in a society where every economic governing party is interested solely with profit margin? Who would possibly want to be born into a society where there are already economic bodies set up to make use of his or her body and rights, instead of letting him or her choose those things for themself? In other words - I want a one-way ticket back to the womb.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot
If you apply that logic to capitalism's failures, then you ought, to be consistent, apply it to capitalism's successes.

To paraphrase Fidel Castro, where have capitalism's 'successes' been in Latin America and Africa?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 01, 2007 09:45 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 01, 2007 09:45 am)
pusher robot
If you apply that logic to capitalism's failures, then you ought, to be consistent, apply it to capitalism's successes.

To paraphrase Fidel Castro, where have capitalism's 'successes' been in Latin America and Africa?[/b]
Where is "capitalism" in Latin America and Africa?

I refuse to accept this ridiculous double standard whereby you classify anything you want as "capitalism" while simultaneously denying that - adamant professions of those involved notwithstanding - there has ever been a single communist state.


Let's see, capitalism is, from what I understand the "Libertarian, free-market society" to be, anarchy with economic authority / hierarchy.

No, that is the belief of anarcho-capitalists, an extreme minority.


First off, the distinction between political and economic issues should be laid to rest here: the interests confined to the state are no differrent from those given to the rest of the economy - except that those given to the state are often the ones that the population feels so relevant that they must be controlled by an acceptable power (via representative democracy, feudalism, whatever).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Given to the economy by whom? Given to the state by whom? Interests in what?


First, this sounds just like the current state of things. The state is an abstraction in the context of Libertarian thought: something exactly like it would arise in "Libertopia."
The difference is that under the anarcho-capitalist vision, you are free to choose the provider of your social goods, rather than being compelled to support a single one.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot

Where is "capitalism" in Latin America and Africa?

I refuse to accept this ridiculous double standard whereby you classify anything you want as "capitalism" while simultaneously denying that - adamant professions of those involved notwithstanding - there has ever been a single communist state.

All bar a few nations in Latin america and Africa have applied free market models, and look where it has got them.
The reason us revlefters deny the existence of supposed 'communist states' and even Lenin himself argued this , is because it cannot hope to survive in isolation, particularly alongside a prominent capitalist economy. In order to survive, it must be applied on a global scale with the participation of proletarians of, if not every, then most countries.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 01, 2007 01:25 pm
No, that is the belief of anarcho-capitalists, an extreme minority.

...which you later defend as a good model of economy, so I guess I chose the right terms.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Given to the economy by whom? Given to the state by whom? Interests in what?
By society, the economic model, whatever. You say "under capitalism people are given the right to choose." But by whom? Please, this is pitiful - I can present any attribute in that context and somehow take away its credibility.


The difference is that under the anarcho-capitalist vision, you are free to choose the provider of your social goods, rather than being compelled to support a single one.
No, the difference is that a single individual may be able to choose for others while a socialsit economy decentralizes economic power so that each individual may always choose for himself, even if that means isolation.

[Demogorgon]

I would say that large parts of Latin America have come far closer to pure capitalism than the United States ever has. For all the silly idealism you get from some of capitalisms more starry eyed supporters, capitalism left to develop in its own way without interference will usually end up as corporatism with very little competition and that is precisely what you find in a lot of Latin America.

[cheisgreat]

I'm reading some of the bullshit from this capitalist forum. Some of it is laughable while some of it makes me angry. Here are a few quotes by these dumb fucks:

"The BBC is more or less a communist organization and is corrupting the next generation. Anyone else agree with me?"

"Atheism... the Root of Terrorism"

On Thatcher:"To me she is an inspiration and a political hero. I realize that she was not a complete laissez-faire capitalist but I also recognize she did a hell of a lot of good for England and is in my opinion our countries greatest prime minister to date."

" Socialism and self-esteem.
I've sometimes wondered if there is a connection between these two. Could it be that those who promote and preach socialism, communism, or any such collectivist system do so because they feel unable to meet the demands of a truly free society? Do they feel inadequate to compete with others and feel the only way to build themselves up is to take from others?"

"Castro is worth $900 million."

"War against Muslim hordes
This war started with the Islamic empire attacking Eastern Rome c.900. Then they attacked France via Spain. They were defeated there but have continued attacks through the Balkans for centuries. Eventually the West became too strong to worry about these barbarians. Then the Soviet Union appeared and gave them $billions worth of tanks and guns to use against Israel and the West. (Russia continues this - $10M to Hamas just now). Despite all this they are still too weak to do anything to the West. (Israel defeated 5+ Arab armies with Soviet pilots in each war).

The only way they can make victories against us is if the West refuses to defend itself. This is the first time in history that something like this is happening. 4 years have passed and Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia still exist.

I bet even if Iran destroys Tel-Aviv with a nuclear bomb, America and Israel will still refuse to respond to the war. Their past behavior is so unbelieveable that this is what to expect."

"Marxist indoctrination of our nations youth
This is a scary read, one which will make your blood boil - We really, really need to so something about this crap....

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/Soci...stice.pdf" (http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/SocialJustice.pdf")

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 01, 2007 03:25 pm
I refuse to accept this ridiculous double standard whereby you classify anything you want as "capitalism" while simultaneously denying that - adamant professions of those involved notwithstanding - there has ever been a single communist state.
You cannot simply define away the flaws in your preferred social system by arguing that your preferred social system is perfect by definition, and therefore anything which existed in the real world so far has no connection with your system. You cannot, for example, say that collusion between business and government cannot exist under "capitalism," because the system stops being "capitalism" by definition at the moment when business and government collude. Randians are guilty of defining capitalism as perfect, and ignoring any criticism of the flaws of real-world systems. (though there are also many good theoretical criticisms of their theoretical system)

Likewise, of course, any communists who brush aside the entire history of 20th century Marxism-Leninism are guilty of the same fallacy. But it is important to note that one is not limited to choose between the following positions:

A. "20th century Marxism-Leninism had nothing to do with 'true communism', and nothing in the M-L experience is relevant to communism."

B. "20th century Marxism-Leninism was the only possible logical result of communist ideas, and any kind of communist ideology at any place or time will generate exactly the same kind of society seen in the Soviet Union."

These are two extreme and illogical positions, and I reject both. Rather, I believe that yes, 20th century Marxism-Leninism was a form of communist ideology and countries such as the Soviet Union were one possible outcome of past class struggles, but other outcomes and other types of communist ideology are also possible.

[mikelepore]

Bootleg42 on July 28:

when I said that in communism, the workers can choose their destinies, he basically said "that's fucking retarded".

There are a variety of opinions about what it would really take to make socialism work well, and the person who used the word "retarded" seems to me to have been responding, not to the entire concept of socialism, but to your specific suggestion to have voting on what products to make and what cooperatives to start. Myself -- I've been a Marxist for forty years now -- I wouldn't have phrased the goal as having voting on what products to make or what cooperatives to start. First, I consider the idea of having cooperatives to be a form of capitalism, because it seems to imply that each workplace would be a separate financial entity with its own positive income and negative outgo that have to be balanced. Secondly, while there could be voting on criteria about products, such as banning a dangerous chemical, etc., it would not be reasonable to have voting on what products to produce. Its more sensible for a socialist system to continue this one aspect that capitalism already uses somewhat, namely, that a suggestion by a designer or planning worker to have a new product can result in the prototype production of the new product with a small quantity, and then, monitoring the inventory flow, the more the consumers select that type of product the more an increased manufacturing quantity has to be scheduled.

[colonelguppy]

lol they have a whole subforum devoted to rand