The Morally Correct System

[Imperial Power]

Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System?
On Principle, v1n3
Autumn 1993

by: C. Bradley Thompson



Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the twentieth-century collectivism has taken many forms: socialism, fascism, nazism, welfare-statism and communism are its more notable variations. The only social system commensurate with individualism is laissez-faire capitalism.

The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two-hundred years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting.

It is fashionable among college professors, journalists, and politicians these days to sneer at the free-enterprise system. They tell us that capitalism is base, callous, exploitative, dehumanizing, alienating, and ultimately enslaving.

The intellectuals' mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works.

Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.

The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another's wealth but also the desire to see another's wealth lowered to the level of one's own. Socialism's teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good." Fascism, said Mussolini, is " a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests…realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies."

Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.

Despite the intellectuals' psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.

Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent.

Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgement of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system.

It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one's birth or station in life.

Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient.

Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice. This applies to both the business executive and the carpenter, the lawyer and the factory worker.

But how does the entrepreneurial mind work? Have you ever wondered about the mental processes of the men and women who invented penicillin, the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the radio, the electric light, canned food, air conditioning, washing machines, dishwashers, computers, etc.?

What are the characteristics of the entrepreneur? The entrepreneur is that man or woman with unlimited drive, initiative, insight, energy, daring creativity, optimism and ingenuity. The entrepreneur is the man who sees in every field a potential garden, in every seed an apple. Wealth starts with ideas in people's heads.

The entrepreneur is therefore above all else a man of the mind. The entrepreneur is the man who is constantly thinking of new ways to improve the material or spiritual lives of the greatest number of people.

And what are the social and political conditions which encourage or inhibit the entrepreneurial mind? The free-enterprise system is not possible without the sanctity of private property, the freedom of contract, free trade and the rule of law.

But the one thing that the entrepreneur values over all others is freedom--the freedom to experiment, invent and produce. The one thing that the entrepreneur dreads is government intervention. Government taxation and regulation are the means by which social planners punish and restrict the man or woman of ideas.

Welfare, regulations, taxes, tariffs, minimum-wage laws are all immoral because they use the coercive power of the state to organize human choice and action; they're immoral because they inhibit or deny the freedom to choose how we live our lives; they're immoral because they deny our right to live as autonomous moral agents; and they're immoral because they deny our essential humanity. If you think this is hyperbole, stop paying your taxes for a year or two and see what happens.

The requirements for success in a free society demand that ordinary citizens order their lives in accordance with certain virtues--namely, rationality, independence, industriousness, prudence, frugality, etc. In a free capitalist society individuals must choose for themselves how they will order their lives and the values they will pursue. Under socialism, most of life's decisions are made for you.

Both socialism and capitalism have incentive programs. Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else becuase the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker.

Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production--the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work while capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth.

According to socialist doctrine, there is a limited amount of wealth in the world that must be divided equally between all citizens. One person's gain under such a system is another's loss.

According to the capitalist teaching, wealth has an unlimited growth potential and the fruits of one's labor should be retained in whole by the producer. But unlike socialism, one person's gain is everybody's gain in the capitalist system. Wealth is distributed unequally but the ship of wealth rises for everyone.

Sadly, America is no longer a capitalist nation. We live under what is more properly called a mixed economy--that is, an economic system that permits private property, but only at the discretion of government planners. A little bit of capitalism and a little bit of socialism.

When government redistributes wealth through taxation, when it attempts to control and regulate business production and trade, who are the winners and losers? Under this kind of economy the winners and losers are reversed: the winners are those who scream the loudest for a handout and the losers are those quiet citizens who work hard and pay their taxes.

As a consequence of our sixty-year experiment with a mixed economy and the welfare state, America has created two new classes of citizens. The first is a debased class of dependents whose means of survival is contingent upon the forced expropriation of wealth from working citizens by a professional class of government social planners. The forgotten man and woman in all of this is the quiet, hardworking, lawabiding, taxpaying citizen who minds his or her own business but is forced to work for the government and their serfs.

The return of capitalism will not happen until there is a moral revolution in this country. We must rediscover and then teach our young the virtues associated with being free and independent citizens. Then and only then, will there be social justice in America.

.

[Jurhael]

Jesus holy fucking Christ! This sounds like something that comes across as Ayn Rand bullshit! And every bit of it is laughable. LAUGHABLE!!!

Do you want a cracker, Polly? Because this shit isn't even convincing ME, much less anyone else here.

[pce]

"The entrepreneur is the man who is constantly thinking of new ways to improve the material or spiritual lives of the greatest number of people. "

classic

[Hayduke]

Its always fun copying nice long text bout capitalism from a capitalism site........it happens in the best families though

[peaccenicked]

ANARCHO-HUCKSTERS
"From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalists are always eager to put glossy packaging on tired old products in order to put one over on the purchasing public. In this way, they hope to rekindle demand for what is actually the same product they have been providing people in the past.
This is the rationale behind what can only be called "anarcho" chic; that is, the usurpation and appropriation of anarchist forms without anarchist substance, in an effort to create the illusion that somehow, magically, capitalism is about freedom, liberty, and anarchy!

The following terms are generally used by these laissez-faire capitalists to describe themselves:

"anarcho" capitalist
libertarian
libertarian capitalist
anarch
"anarchist"
While we (actual anarchists, e.g., those who oppose rulers) can't claim possession of any term, we have an obligation to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the laissez-faire capitalist use of anarchistic terminology. They use the term "anarchist", but at the expense of their credibility---why? Because their self-definition doesn't hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning.
"Anarcho" capitalists are, in fact, simply capitalists who object to the State cutting into their own profits by way of regulations and taxation. That is their sole gripe with the State. They see the bureaucrat as the nefarious boogeyman in their lives, motivated solely to enmesh the world in red tape--simply out of maliciousness alone.

"Anarcho" capitalists do not object to private property, to class distinctions, social stratification, concentrated wealth, and other bourgeois trappings in society. Their idea of a utopia is a world of unaccountable, unfettered corporate power where literally everything is up for sale and is negotiable.


Humans for Hire: Selling Yourself for Fun and Profit
Far from being the vindication of humanist values, the "anarcho" capitalist ethic is the denial of them before arbitrary, inhumane market forces. The "ideal" social interaction, in "anarcho" capitalist terms, is that of prostitution.
Prostitution, e.g., selling your services for an anticipated monetary gain, is the highest definition of "anarcho" capitalist "empowerment", amazingly. The ability to sell yourself to whomever you want is the "anarcho" capitalist idea of "freedom".

Nothing would be free from market forces. Not families, not children, not the environment, and, of course, not you! Literally everything would have a price tag! Clean air, clean water, housing, human organs--each not an end unto themselves, but a marketable commodity: a product! In such a dystopia, anything which could not be readily translated into product would be cast out as pointless and without value (measured only in economic terms, of course).

Thus, visual art would become, instead, graphic design; writing would be merely ad copy; poetry reduced to syrupy greeting card maxims; and so on--The humanities as we know them would wither away. This is occurring already in higher education, as humanities departments get less and less academic funding.

To the "anarcho" capitalist, there is no problem here. If humanities were "worth" anything, economically, universities would invest in them more heavily. Why this attitude?

More = Better??
It is because, to the "anarcho" capitalist, what is "good" is purely what is profitable. Conversely, that which is not profitable is termed "bad" (or at best, "worthless").
You can see how this attitude has poisoned our existing culture to the extent that it has. How do you defend an open park along such harsh, utilitarian lines when to the "anarcho" capitalist an open park is a parking lot waiting to happen?

This quantitative ethic messes up their reasoning. If what is profitable is good, then a book that sells a million copies MUST be good, right? Or a coat that costs $2,000 has to be high quality, by their own definition. But this isn't so. A good book may be bought by a lot of people--but then again, it may be ignored for generations! The fact that lots of people buy it doesn't make it intrinsically good!

Moreover, what sells the most tends to be that which appeals to the largest number of people--this means that things which challenge or threaten people the least will typically do the best, economically. It is in this manner that within a capitalistic society, culture fizzles out, as art and literature are co-opted into feel-good propagandistic fluff.


Putting Profits Above People
Because "anarcho" capitalists use the market as their sole gauge of good and bad, they are, in effect, unable to make effective moral judgments! This percolates into all of their thinking--they revere wealthy entrepreneurs as examples of virtue, basing this solely on their quantitative ethic. If this ethic holds true, then, in the US, Bill Gates must be the most virtuous person in human history! General Motors must be the most virtuous of corporations! This is clearly untrue, therfore:

Merit (e.g., good and bad) cannot be ascertained in quantitative economic terms.
"Anarcho" capitalist "freedom" is the freedom to have anything which you can afford! Thus, those with the most money in an "anarcho" capitalist society have the MOST freedom--which means that those with the LEAST money have the LEAST freedom. This bothers true anarchists very much. It doesn't trouble "anarcho" capitalists in the least.
To anarchists, freedom has to be available for ALL, not just those with the cash to afford it! Otherwise, it is meaningless. True anarchists would never put a price tag on freedom!

It is this difference that reveals the manifestly bourgeois, reactionary quality of "anarcho" capitalism, contrasted with the revolutionary, radical outlook necessary for anarchistic consistency.


"Anarcho" capitalism: Bourgeois Bombast
"Anarcho" capitalists talk of freedom as a negative, in a (Ayn) Randian definition of: "the absence of physical violence". They see capitalism as the epitome of this ethic, and the State as the antithesis of it (defining the State as "the institution with a monopoly of force").
This is the cornerstone of their professed anarchism. They say, "we oppose the State; anarchists oppose government; ergo, we are anarchists."

But anarchists look at that statement and ask:

What of the boss in the workplace?
What of the wealthy owner of property?
What of the capitalist industrialist?
What of the church elder?
What of the judge?
What of the patriarch of a family?
Don't these people have very real authority over others' lives? Haven't each of these, in their way, brought shame, misery, and degradation to those under their control?

"Anarchy" with Bosses?
The "anarcho" capitalist has no problem with rulers below State level, so long as they don't impinge on profit and property! So, if your boss eavesdropped on your calls, the "anarcho" capitalist would say, "hey, you can always get a new job" rather than taking the anarchist stance of "how dare X boss eavesdrop on their employees?! We must work to end workplace tyranny!"
In fact, to the "anarcho" capitalist, being able to work for whomever you want (including working for clients [e.g., "self"-employment) is what they consider "freedom". This amounts to choosing who gets to be your boss! Some choice, huh?

Anarchists, in contrast, don't think there should BE any bosses. Everyone pulls their fair share of the collective social burden of day-to-day living. And, while everyone works, the distinction between this and typical capitalist drudgery is that, in anarchy, you'd be working for your own needs, rather than for the profit of another! As such, you wouldn't have to put in 40+ hour weeks lining the pockets of whoever owns the company you work for (or servicing your clients' needs).


"Freedom" to Starve
But "anarcho" capitalists don't want any part of that; they cling to vague notions of "freedom" and "liberty" that simply fail to stand up under scrutiny. The only "freedom" that exists in the capitalist laissez-fairyland "anarcho" capitalists defend is the freedom to work for another's gain or starve!
Any rational being knows that you have to work to survive. This is a law of nature. But in capitalist society, some people (owners), don't HAVE to work! They live off of the surplus (that is, profit) earned by others--their employees! So, magically, some people are able, within capitalist society, to defy the laws of nature--they profit without working for it!

But profits come from property; that is, assets that allow for the generation of surplus. And for this to occur, these owners must own capital (land, factories, etc.) Which means that any old Joe can't come onto "their" property and live off it--otherwise, no surplus...no profit...no capitalism!

In other words, the "choice" of working for another or starving isn't a choice, in capitalist society, because the worker can't go off and live on their own; somebody owns the very ground they walk on.

And this leads us to the next glaring inconsistency of "anarcho" capitalism: the absolute necessity of the State in their affairs. All rhetoric aside, laissez-faire capitalists NEED the State to uphold contracts and defend property "rights". Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent squatters from coming along and usurping someone's holdings.


Goons with Guns
So, these selfsame "anarchs" will rely on law enforcement personnel and paramilitary goons to protect their property. Now, they note that these latter-day Pinkertons would not be instruments of Statist oppression, but rather, are employees of private "defense firms". But I guarantee that the truncheons they use on you will feel the same, regardless of who their boss is. In fact, there are fewer safeguards with paramilitaries, because, unlike municipal police forces, these are paid employees of the capitalists in question! Thus, if their boss wants them to shoot strikers, they'll do it, or risk losing their employment! And you know what? This is exactly what happened during the golden age of laissez-faire capitalism, when the Pinkerton Detective Agency serviced industrialists across the United States.
Further, the "anarcho" capitalists will still require a court system, and thus laws, to uphold property rights and contracts! These private judicial firms would offer the "best" justice to the clients who paid them the best! Some justice!

Laissez-faire capitalists don't particularly care what happens to people; despite their lofty declarations about liberty and freedom, their actions put the lie to them. They say, "nobody FORCES you to work for somebody else", but if you don't have your own capital reserve (like most of us), what choice do you have? You must work or starve!


Owners Uber Alles
Nothing humanistic about this ideology! In fact, laissez-faire capitalism has much more in common with fascism, the old enemy of anarchism, than with democracy! The simplest exploration of the workplace reveals this reality: who has the final say in the workplace...the average worker, or the owner? The owner, of course. That's why they're called "the Boss". It's their property, the laissez-faire capitalists say, so they have the authority. Pure, top-down, fascistic decision-making in action.
Now, certainly, workplaces make a grand show of including workers in the decision-making process, but you'll find that this involvement focuses on ratifying and executing decisions the owners have already made,instead of the owners seeking the advice and experience of the people who actually DO THE WORK within the company! Ultimately, where a given property is concerned, the owners have the final authority. Anarchists rightly see this as deeply authoritarian; "anarcho" capitalists pretend otherwise, and advise you to start your own company, or become self-employed (as if these were effective remedies)!

Anarchism is about challenging unjust authority (and any authority wrought by coercion is unjust); capitalism is about making a profit from the labor of others. The two have nothing in common! The "anarchs", "anarcho" capitalists, laissez-faire capitalists, and Libertarians of this world don't object to rulers, except when rulers cut into their profits! This makes them not anarchistic at all, but manifestly bourgeois in character, ethic, and temperament. "Anarcho" capitalism is a reactionary credo with more in common with postindustrial feudalism and outright fascism than anything remotely anarchistic, for the aforementioned reasons.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, check out the following BOOKS and begin to learn about the real antiauthoritarians: the anarchists!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Moskitto]

That's total bollux. You just take 2 rather nasty figures and use them to defend socialism, yet take nice figures to defend capitalism. It's like me Taking Rosa Luxemburg and Daniel DeLeon to defend socialism and giving you say, Augusto Pinochet and C'aing Kai Shek as defenders of capitalism.

Welfare-State systems oppressive, BOLLUX, Tell that to the poor, tell that to the hungry, tell that to the old, tell that to the kids who can't read. TELL THEM!!!!! and see the reaction.

Fortunately I live in a country which isn't filled with total free-market worshipping morons like you.

[Imperial Power]

Moskitto you've lowered yourself to name calling with the rest of them now. It got to hard for you too.

[peaccenicked]

Name calling?
you have strongly implied that we are stalinists
that is verbal abuse.
who has called you anything other than a few
terms of endearment, you would hear in a pub argument

[Moskitto]

Upon closer examination, this system bears a striking resemblence to the policies of the BNP but blaming people on benefit for stealing from the rich rather than immigrants.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:35 pm on Feb. 1, 2002)

[Guest]

So the 2 billion people living under the poverty line in the world and under capitalist regimes are negligent, lazy and shiftless??????? Since when are exploitation, greed, private property, profit over people and oppression all part of morality?

[vox]

"Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent."

Of course, if someone corners the market for food in your town by buying up all of the grocery stores, you're free not to buy them.

What the capitalist fools always leave out is the difference in power.

vox

[Moskitto]

Since when are exploitation, greed, private property, profit over people and oppression all part of morality?

Oppression nothing to do with morallity? Never moan about dictatorships again.
Greed? Try reading religious and philosophic works about this one.
Exploitation? Yeah, exploitation isn't that bad, I mean luring little girls into your home would be a very moral thing to do?

And you're mistaken about poor countries. They're poor because they don't have the money to get themselves off the ground. Not because they're lazy. If someone comes into your country and forces your entire country to collect rubber sap and kills 8 million people in the process and then leaves and installs a dictatorship, your not exactly going to be rich are you?

[vox]

HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CAPITALIST SYMPATHIZERS RUNNING AWAY!!!!!

Fact is, they alway run away. They cannot defend their principles, and they cannot defend their lies, so they leave threads hanging and hope that we forget.

They require a constant influx of info, for only then can they forget that they have no foundation in reality.

They are pathetic. They are joke people.

How very sad for them, to be humiliated like this.

Perhaps others forget, right-wingers, but I do not.

vox

[Rosa]

"Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent."
?!?
the socialism is the only system that can be called morally correct, bcs it's the only system that gives equal chances for everybody to grow. Trading, yes, but with the goods you made by your (lets say: maybe not so clever)self, not your clever uncle which has left a company to you.

[RedCeltic]

Under caplitalism... those who have been born in families with money, are able to prosper themselves... or those lucky enough to claw their way up from the bottom of th barrel. Meanwhile... the skill-less, or uneducated are forced to work two jobs just to afford a shack in the ghetto, where their children learn the quick and easy way out is through crime.

Socialism takes away the money factor and gives oportunity for all to lead a decent existance. Anyone who supports such a system of capitalism is a murderous inhumane tyrant... pure and simple.

[Drifter]

neither system is perfect

-Grand Master of the obvious

[vox]

Okay, perhaps the right-wingers will now say that they won't answer this thread because of lil ol' me. However, perhaps they will answer RedCeltic's post?

Lessee here. IP, FC, SM, RL, a few others, and none have anything to say?

Hee!

vox

[sabre]

since when is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich moral?

[Forever capitalism]

Is it morally correct in a communist system to grant everybody the same token of food and resources regardless of their contribution to society. A person who works 8 full hours a day will receive the same as somebody who works 4. That makes it "fair". In communism people are allowed to shirk responsibility when it comes to labour, that is why in communist regimes nothing of quality or quantity was produced and why poverty and hunger reigned.
People under communist regimes subordinate themselves to the all powerful state, making themselves slaves to something that controls them and owns them. It doesn't grant them freedoms or enough to subsist.
Capitalism on the other hand people are free to start business where competition is ripe meaning a higher quality of products. Employees receive fair wages for their hard efforts and the employer rightfully accumulates profit as they have had to start up the business with their own money and cater for the employee by making their job easier and less hazardous. Capitalism is the superior system.

[peaccenicked]

communism is not stalinism
How many times dop you need to be told.
Foreverdeaf

[Forever capitalism]

You are differentiating between communism in practice and in theory. Theory is immaterial unless it can be proven successful in practice. Communist regimes tried to be set up yet all failed. Hence communism doesn't work!

[peaccenicked]

communist theory has not been proven
successful in practice not because it has been practiced
because it has not been practiced

[vox]

FC is saying that "society" is the same as the individual. Note, he wrote, "Is it morally correct in a communist system to grant everybody the same token of food and resources regardless of their contribution to society. (sic)"

However, precisely where does Marx demand that? Nowhere, of course.

Marx denied Hegel in the idea of the State as some kind of Super Individual, which is something the right-wingers have never been able to grasp.

Meanwhile, they go on saying that communisn means that no one will do anything, which is precisely the opposite of what communism means.

They all love the "to each according to his needs" quote, but they forget the "from each according to his ability" part.

Capitalists: fools who pick and choose.

vox

[Forever capitalism]

Your argument emanates from what you have read. Now theory is different to practice. You cannot argue that Lenin, Mao and Castro all strived to establish a communist regime before they attained power. They were all communists. However once they obtained power and realised the wonders and advantages of a despot, they quickly exploited the situation and turned their back on communism. Now this was the case in all attempts to create communism. That is fact. This proves that once in power, communist leaders cannot contain themselves and ultimately turn fascists and slave drives. This has happened in every communist situation in the past 80 years. Marx and Engels did not envisage that when they were writing because they did not realise the potential for darkness of a human. Communism gives the leader free reign to abuse his power and exploit his position.

[Forever capitalism]

Ultimately all communist regimes eventually turned into Stalinists regimes, buttressing the fact that communism only works in theory and not in practice.

[TheDerminator]

What is the ethos of bourgeois ideology, it is extreme individualism.
We are all supposed to be self-reliant individuals each with the chance to become a multi-millionaire. Durp.

There are a few technicalities. Durp.

First of all if you are lucky enough to receive an education; for many in the working classes it is a third rate education, and you have to qualify even that by adding that there is still a peasantry in the so-called Third World and their level of education is even worse than the crap they dish out in the East End of Glasgow.
There is no level playing field.
Durp.

If you think of it most of the managers and owners of large business organisations come from the bourgeoisie and the middle class, and even though the numbers from the working class going into higher education is much greater than ever, when it comes to the very highest echelon, the universities, it is there you see a disappropriate number in the percentage from working class backgrounds.
There is no level playing field, the inequalities exist from the very first day a child attends a substandard nursery school, and even before that day begins, unfortunately more than just a few parents from a working class background to not know the importance of constantly encouraging their children to achieve all they can achieve in the sphere of education. Not just more than a few, very many.
Durp.
It is not that education is at the heart of the inequality, because that inequality is in-built in the class-divided economic system. Nontheless, there can be no freedom without equality of freedom, and that equality of freedom does not exist in bourgeois society.
Durp.
They say "equal in the eyes of the law". They only mean criminality is equal in the eyes of the law, we mean social justice should be equal in the eyes of the law.
There can be no real freedom without social justice enshrined in the law. No, real freedom without equality entrenched in the law, the law for every member of society.
You see your idea of "responsibility" is a crass conception, we have a responsbility to ensuring social justice for each and every human being.
It is not that you have shirked responsibility, you have never possessed anything in your shit ethos to shirk.
Communist regimes have never been set up, that is your grave error, only primitive socialist regimes have been set up, and they were all doomed to failure, just as Cuba is doomed as an experiment, if it is meant to hold out alone indefinitely. No, need to shout doom, just yet, the situation of Argentina, ought to remind the Cuban people, of how caring "capitalism" is in relation to the poorer nations on Earth.
Durp.
You have to shake your head at the neanderthal mentality, that wants rid of the "mixed economy" in the United States, they want dog eat dog, they want the surivival of the fittest taken to its most extreme. These bastards possess an animalistic mentality that is anti-human society, anti-people and they dress it up in the "self-reliance" of the individual.
Buying and selling of people, traders, slave traders? Prostitution? People should not be treated as commodites, we should treat people as human beings.
Is it morally fair to give the same equality regardless of your contribution.
Yes, you should know that from the age of five.
How can you compare the slog of hard labour against the mental labour of being a banker. The comparison is odious. The labour has equal value, because you do not relate the labour to economic price, you relate the value to ethos, itself, and that ethos is that you work hard for your community, when the community requires your hard work, and for that ethos, you deserve an equal share for your equal ethos. No more and no less.
The best society can offer.
If you possess the ethos you will work the required hours, and you can be your own time-keeper, because tired work becomes poor work, and tired thinking becomes poor thinking.
You do not need to legislate for socialist ethos, it is in the individual consciousness of each socialist.
The Socialist State is only a transitory phase of socialist development, the State becomes global, and there is no subjugation, because there is no State ownership, only global community property and that goes for the media too, each journalist has the freedom to write whather ever they wish.
We are the subjugated. We are subjugated to the capital we possess. All our freedoms are constrained by our level of money. The whole of humanity is subjugated by money, and that includes the people in Cuba.
If you have a socialist society, you organise labour without money, and no one rushes out to horde commodities, they are too busy helping people in the socalled Third World raise their living conditions to be overly worried about the latest gadget on the market.
High quality products are only available at the high end of the market. A mini bus to carry retired people to a cinema outing is not a high quality product, now a limosuine is a high quality product, costs a little bit more though you know.
I am poor, I cannot afford high quality products. I have a degree in Management, so I know the fucking difference. Durp.

Fair wages? What fucking world do you live in?
Not any with a fucking sweat shop, that is for sure.
Your "fair wages" are fucking insult. The work has the same ethical value.
Rightfully accumalates profit?
There is nothing right in screwing people for all they have to give, and then giving them a fraction of your own wealth in return. Durp.
Your "ethos" is a fucking insult to humanity, it is profoundly unethical, and entrenched in inequalities, and in social injustice.
A moral word: "evil".
That is what you support: Fucking evil.
derminated.

[vox]

FC,

Actually, all it really means is that Marxism has not been implemented in a democratic, post-industrial society.

I've asked right-wingers this before, but maybe you'll be the first to answer it:

If socialism is always doomed to failure, why has the USA spent so much money to "defeat" it?

vox

[Guest]

Because its spiral into disaster doesn't happen in a vaccuum, dumbass.

[Nateddi]

Hmm, so if chile was doomed to fail, why not let their socialist government fail, it wont even effect any of us. However, it must have some effect on us because its worth killing the elected leader and puting in a dictator in his place.

Guest, why not get registered so we know who other than FC is posting ignorant comments.

[peaccenicked]

FC
You have shifted ground now instead of communism
=stalinism.
Communism leads inevitably to stalinism.
It proves you have listened a little.
Firstly, let me deal with logic.
How does a philosophy which is primarily about sharing things necessarily lead to mass murder
torture or any of the attributes of Stalinism.
What has it got fundamentally to do with sharing things.
lenin was fundamentally a product of the struggle against the absolutism of the tsar, Moa the emperor,
Fidel, the fascist batista. Their revolutions were doomed
to failure, if the advanced countries did not gain freedom from capitalism. Lenin recognised this explicitly.
Mao turned to stalinism thus counfounding the problems of China. Castro reduced democracy to head nodding plebiscites.
Marx theorised that revolution could only be successful
in advanced capitalist countries
marxist believe that we can be successful in these countries because they have a tradition of free thinking and democracy. Not like the absolutist poor counties that suffered horrendously a lack of democratic traditions

[Guest]

If by "us" you mean "citizens of the United States of America." However, my point was that communist failures don't happen in theory or in history books. They happen at the expense of millions of lives.

[peaccenicked]

These are failures of counter revolution not revolution.
counter revolution aimed at ultimately restoring capitalism. Yes we have paid dearly for not achieving socialism, in the world for capitalism is horror and war without end.

[Guest]

What a compelling argument. I see that peaccenicked is in line with vox in the "because I said so" school of argument.

[peaccenicked]

it is a claim but you could be clear by what you
think is wrong with it.
I usually get dug up for providing 'boring' evidence.

[Jurhael]

Oh no...capitialism was NEVER at the expense of millions. Oh never never...never did back torture regiemes so the rich can have more money...never never...only "socialists" do that. *snort*

Subtle doesn't mean non existant.

[Forever capitalism]

Vox, the U.S. spent money to prevent communist regimes from attaining people because they were noble enough to try and preserve ones freedoms, democracy, and standard of living. Who in their right minds would want another Mao, Lenin, Castro, despots who rule over everybody without tolerance to dissent or opposition. U.S. was doing people favours.
Somebody, i forgot who know, suggested that they should merely have waited for socialism to crumble by itself. What you mean like Cuba?? Socialism has crumbled but nobody has yet to clean up the remnants of it. Hence Castro remains, 42 years and counting and without signs of letting up unless of natural causes.
U.S. wanted to quickly and efficiently preserve and maintain ones liberties and freedoms whilst bring them back into the international community without fear of oppression or violence.

[Moskitto]

"The Judge of a civilisation is how it treats it's weakest members"

[Forever capitalism]

Exactly moskitto, that merely buttresses my point as the U.S. tried to help the poor and vulnerable and protect them from communist/totalitarian regimes.

[TovarishAlexandrov]

I hate "articles" that have no proof, just opinion