What's the problem

[Astrofro2001]

Through reading many of the posts on this forum, i have come to a conclussion. Many left winegers on this forum have the idea that capitalism is this gigantic monster coming to eat them. That we are just out to your movements. I come from the United States and can easily say that this is total bull shit. Our policy is definitly not one of supporting democracy and capitalism, it's one of supporting whatever suits our country best. Hell even in the US we have socialist programs including wellfare and medicade. My leftist friend states that many countries using socialism do better than the US then retracted saying that Norway is the only one with better living standards. To my knowledge even Norway is a mix of both with their petroleum being nationalized but other industries remain free. And most of the dribble coming from many leftist's mouths is all idealistic. Examples can only be seen in small populations of your theories at work. Furthermore it is against human nature to accept suppression of individuality. That is why such science fiction books as 1984 and Brave New World and the Foundation books appeal to so many people. I do agree that the concepts would create a great society, but the ONLY way that socialism could truely be incorporated into the world is in such circumstances as in Norway. Leaving room for people to strive to be better for themselves, and also have a community to fall back on. Supporting BOTH the individual and the community. I have to go to class now, maybe i'll finish this later tonight with some feedback, good day.

[sabre]

in socialism you could strive for yourself, and by striving for yourself you benfit society as well instead of hurtin g someones else (workers below you)

on the topic of individuality , i think www.newyouth.com puts it the best

"Often, people's idea of individualism under socialism is based on the idea that socialism is represented by either Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. This brings to mind everyone running around in uniform, in terms of both their clothing and their behavior, and an all-powerful state to which the rights and wishes of the individual are subservient, in the "interests of the whole of society". In reality it was not the whole of society whose interests were being served in those cases but the interests of the small bureaucratic clique who led a parasitic existence on the backs of the working class, and on the back of the nationalized, planned economy.

This bureaucratization had a fatal impact on all the gains made by the revolution in Russia, not just economically but in every sphere of life. Bureaucratism has a stifling, suffocating effect not just on production but also on art, science and culture. The Stalinists were terrified of any potential opposition, and especially the intellectuals that they could not control. They were snuffed out, in many cases quite literally. Individual expression was portrayed as counter-revolutionary, even culture was subjugated to the "collective will" - not of society but of a handful of bureaucrats desperate to cling on to their power and privilege. Not just economy but all aspects of life require the oxygen of democracy if they are to flourish.

The capitalist society we live in today is supposedly individualistic, and this is made to sound positive. In reality the profit based society is one that engenders greed, selfishness, and egotism. It is a society based on the idea of "kill or be killed", and under capitalism people will do anything to "get ahead". In the name of profit, the talents and abilities of the vast majority of people are squandered on the production line, or the unemployment line. We don't have the right to a job, the right to an education, the right to healthcare, the rights that could ensure the bare bones of a civilized existence, let alone the right to express ourselves and contribute, to fulfil our potential.

The collective society of genuine socialism is one where the rights of the individual can truly flourish for the first time, without any force or coercion. It will be a society without borders and frontiers, based on the democratic running of all aspects of life by the whole of society on the basis of an economy of super-abundance, where all our needs and more can be catered for. With modern technology we can produce more than enough for all the needs and desires of humanity with relatively minimal effort. For example, it used to take many workers to build a television set. But now, with automation, robotics and other improvements in efficiency, it takes many less workers. But under capitalism, the machines replace the workers, who must then find other, usually lower-paying jobs or be unemployed - wasting their potential away. Under socialism, improvements in technology will be put to the use of humanity. Machines will be made to work for us - the time we save due to their efficiency can then be spent pursuing other goals in life. We will be freed from the drudgery of human labor that is our existence under capitalism, and we will have the time to breathe in life, to study, to travel, to mingle with other cultures, to realize our talents.

The development of our economy, will enable us to spend less time in work, and free us to participate in those fields blocked off from us today either by money or by overwork. Art, science, music, etc. will all will be able to blossom once they are unshackled from the constraints of capitalist society. How many Shakespeares or Beethovens have existed to date? Barely a handful. Or rather barely a handful whose talent we've been able to enjoy. How many more have been confined to the factory, the field or the office? Having done away with the outmoded private profit system and the anarchy it introduces into our economy, not only the rights of the individual, of all individuals, but their aspirations and their dreams will be set loose as well. New heights of human culture will be attained, and from those summits on the horizon ever newer peaks will emerge. Standing on the shoulders of all previous experience, men and women will stand head and shoulders above history. With our primitive past behind us, and with a democratic plan on how to use our resources and technology, humanity will be free to develop and realize its true potential as a whole and as individuals. "

also, might i remind you that George Orwell (who wrote 1984) was a democratic socialist, so even the person you think was warning you about socilaism was a socialist, and he is actualyl warning about totalitarianism, which is not socialism


"Supporting BOTH the individual and the community."

buddy, thats the entire theory of socialism

[Astrofro2001]

I was well aware of his socialist beliefes but he used his book as a tool to warn what abuses can come. He was definitly not depicting a democratic capitalistic society, and it seems that he describes the same authoritarian society that you believe that all fields and outlooks thrive on. Before I emerge in depth into this battle if you will:) I would like to commend you on your mature approach that you replied in, it remains unseen from many of the left wing 'emotional' posters here. Socialism does allow one to strive for the common good yet the problem remains that very few people strive to better themselves for the common good. Another problem I believe will arise in a socialist environment is the fact that a God cannot play a part in life. Roman Catholics for one would be wiped from the Earth. Priests could no longer be the sole messangers of God because that would give them power over followers. Just by taking away this higher power you will eliminate a necessity in humans. When a blight afflicts the whole worlds crops there will be no higher power to turn on. I for one am not religious nor do I believe in God yet even I can see the necessity for God. I would like a reply to what room there is for God in a Socialist world? I do realize that both the USSR and China are bad examples of communism it still can be a testament to what would happen no matter how much theory you preach. People in the world we live in are GREEDY. I believe that according to Marx there was to be a provisional government after the proletarian revolt. Unlike you I do not have such belief in human morality. May I also remind you under what conditions men like Marx wrote their prophesies under. He wrote it when such abuses of the working class were occuring and conditions seemed unbairable. Children were worked 14 hour days in coal mines. People living in rat infested homes having no rights. In the new era of capitalism most of these abuses of the proles do not exist. Most of them are infact protected from the "capitalistic pig dogs" borrowing my friends term. I pose you another question. Do you imagine that in a Socialist community there will be no bureaucracy? For the advancements of science there will need to be one. I also want to ask you what conditions you see workers suffering from the bureaucratic rulers?
I have this vision of you invisioning these CEOs of companies just smoking their cigars while the workers shine their shoes. An example can be seen in a man like Bill Gates. His innovations would never surface in a Socialist environment. He may have taken risks which in a society you see as occuring would not be allowed. There is another problem i forsee. Who makes important decisions. I cannot see every little article being voted on. And then if you have a single person your back to the individual who can abuse power. I have wondered to long that i forgot what i was going top say, but after some more replies maybe I will remember. Please think of this before you throw your flames towards me, I do believe that socialism is a good idea, but I still see no way it can occur large scale in this world. Infact i still believe that a good mix of both WILL create a perfect society for humans. Theoreticly it may not seem utopian, but then agiain humans are not perfect.

[RedRevolutionary87]

the problem is that his inovations havent helped many people, he needs to constantly inovate himself to survive "the bourgoisie needs to constantly change the means of production for it to be able to survive"

the problem is also the immense amount of money he holds, there is not enough commodeties in the world for everyone to make 200 000 a year, which isnt even close to bill's salary, and what he makes isnt even that important, he makes bad opperating systems, thats all. dont you think the farmer is far more important that the computer nerd? i mean you cant eat microchips, the problem is that all ambition in capitalism is fueled by the want of more money, and it is never satified, we have a priorities wrong, when worst comes to worst, and there is nowhere to buy food, all the money in the world wont stop you from starving.

[RGacky3]

hey when I was talking (shouting) to you during class you sounded quite anti socialist.

[Nateddi]

I was well aware of his socialist beliefes but he used his book as a tool to warn what abuses can come. He was definitly not depicting a democratic capitalistic society, and it seems that he describes the same authoritarian society that you believe that all fields and outlooks thrive on.
I don't see capitalism very democratic. All politicians are bought. Our opposition "Democratic" party supports things such as free trade, collosal 'defense' spending, privatized healthcare, etc. Corporations donate money to both parties, apparantely they must be pleased with both platforms :rolleyes:. My point is, money dominates, there is no real democracy in the US. The third parties have little chance, are looked down upon, and will never get the kind (massive monetary) support that the right-center parties do for obvious reasons. This is a plutocracy gilded as a democracy.

Before I emerge in depth into this battle if you will:) I would like to commend you on your mature approach that you replied in, it remains unseen from many of the left wing 'emotional' posters here. Socialism does allow one to strive for the common good yet the problem remains that very few people strive to better themselves for the common good.

I have seen too many comments such as this one. Explain how exactly socialism does not support people striving for themselves.


Another problem I believe will arise in a socialist environment is the fact that a God cannot play a part in life. Roman Catholics for one would be wiped from the Earth. Priests could no longer be the sole messangers of God because that would give them power over followers. Just by taking away this higher power you will eliminate a necessity in humans. When a blight afflicts the whole worlds crops there will be no higher power to turn on. I for one am not religious nor do I believe in God yet even I can see the necessity for God. I would like a reply to what room there is for God in a Socialist world?
Where do you get the ideas about no God? You come calling yourself as someone who "understands", yet you still call on this "no-God" hype? There is plenty of room for God in a socialist society. If people turn to religion, it is because they want to be saved in the afterlife, not because they call on God to get them out of poverty.


I do realize that both the USSR and China are bad examples of communism it still can be a testament to what would happen no matter how much theory you preach. People in the world we live in are GREEDY. I believe that according to Marx there was to be a provisional government after the proletarian revolt. Unlike you I do not have such belief in human morality.

People are not greedy by nature (not to the point of making socialism impossible, that is). People are greedy based on environment / society. When everyone around you and in the media is pushing for the quickest way to make money without working, thats not human nature, thats a human mutated by a lazy capitalist society (notice both words).


May I also remind you under what conditions men like Marx wrote their prophesies under. He wrote it when such abuses of the working class were occuring and conditions seemed unbairable. Children were worked 14 hour days in coal mines. People living in rat infested homes having no rights. In the new era of capitalism most of these abuses of the proles do not exist. Most of them are infact protected from the "capitalistic pig dogs" borrowing my friends term.

Living conditions will always improve over time, no doubt about it. But why such an argument? (borrowing from Mr. Chomsky) Is that an argument for slavery? Living conditions were much better in the 19th century than they were in the 18th century, so why such an argument? You are still supporting a system which promotes profit by underpaid labor. As for the argument that living conditions have improved; to what degree? Privatized healthcare doesnt cover 45,000,000 americans. Education is shit because money is instead going to the military. The poverty rate is very high, and its misarble for people. And oh yes, another biggie is expanded and free trade. Our companies in many different industries nowadays move their sweatshops to exploit the less-developed third world, while 'improving' working conditions here.

I pose you another question. Do you imagine that in a Socialist community there will be no bureaucracy? For the advancements of science there will need to be one. I also want to ask you what conditions you see workers suffering from the bureaucratic rulers?
Democratically elected representatives and a well-organized system will eliminate bureaucracy pretty fast. Later in a society, even that wont be needed.

I have this vision of you invisioning these CEOs of companies just smoking their cigars while the workers shine their shoes. An example can be seen in a man like Bill Gates. His innovations would never surface in a Socialist environment. He may have taken risks which in a society you see as occuring would not be allowed.
Anything he did questionable was anti-competative practices, inflating prices, and to a lesser extent some minor exploitation (they don't make shoes).

Here is another problem i forsee. Who makes important decisions. I cannot see every little article being voted on. And then if you have a single person your back to the individual who can abuse power.
The basic commodities will be taken over and worked collectively. Most minor issues, new laws, etc can be voted on in annual elections in a community, similarly to how it is done now. There really is no need for a present style market.

(Edited by Nateddi at 1:14 am on April 26, 2002)

[Astrofro2001]

I don't see capitalism very democratic. All politicians are bought. Our opposition "Democratic" party supports things such as free trade, collosal 'defense' spending, privatized healthcare, etc. Corporations donate money to both parties, apparantely they must be pleased with both platforms :rolleyes:. My point is, money dominates, there is no real democracy in the US. The third parties have little chance, are looked down upon, and will never get the kind (massive monetary) support that the right-center parties do for obvious reasons. This is a plutocracy gilded as a democracy.

Not all politicians are bought, some actually do try and help our world. You seem to miss the fact that a person who becomes a politician can be bought shows that people naturally allow it. You say that people arent greedy then why doesnt morality set in? How is free trade a bad thing? regarding our collosal 'defence' spending you happen to miss the fact that much of that defence spending affects consumers and health care and society in general. Ultrasound technology was developed from this same 'defence' spending. Defence spending is needed for protection. I dont agree with people like Bush who wish to take away from education. These again are political platforms that appeal to people in our society. You seem to not understand democracy. It is the freedom to vote for whichever party you want, and support whatever policies you want. By saying that both parties are the same because they are paid money by companies, then you are full of nonesence. Harry Trueman can be seen as an example. Though thusted into office by crime organizations he looked out for the people. In your society i dont see how third parties would be recognized since everything would be put up to general election, their oppinions would still be put down.

I have seen too many comments such as this one. Explain how exactly socialism does not support people striving for themselves.

The only reason people like Bill Gates strived to be better and work harder is because they could improve his conditions for him and his future family quickly. In a socialist society the only change one man can do is in the confines of whatever program he is working within. People like Bill would feel no need to strive for a better life in the near future. When kids want a toy they want it NOW, not when there are enough for the collective. That is the downfall of socialism. People will know they cannot change their circumstances quickly so they may give up. However horrible this may sound money does have a possitive, it motivates people. Even if it is to their own gain it can help society.

There is plenty of room for God in a socialist society. If people turn to religion, it is because they want to be saved in the afterlife, not because they call on God to get them out of poverty.

That is bullshit. People turn to god because they wish for a better life. I was using an example of Roman Catholics where the priest is the middle man. To create a socialist empire you would have to get rid of Roman Catholics therefore you would already eliminate one twelth of the worlds population.

People are not greedy by nature (not to the point of making socialism impossible, that is). People are greedy based on environment / society. When everyone around you and in the media is pushing for the quickest way to make money without working, thats not human nature, thats a human mutated by a lazy capitalist society (notice both words).

Good point, ill give you that one:)

Education is shit because money is instead going to the military. The poverty rate is very high, and its misarble for people. And oh yes, another biggie is expanded and free trade. Our companies in many different industries nowadays move their sweatshops to exploit the less-developed third world, while 'improving' working conditions here.

Im assuming that you live in the US considering you said 'here.' I am aware that you believe that have horrible education. Do you know what tests determine these? Ones which dont cater to immigrants and minorities. The world currently does not have a single test which determines the the education level of its people. Our poverty rate is very low, infact the legal workers whom you believe suffer from the capitalists earn a good enough living to live comfortably. There was even a story of this guy in the paper. He was a drugy on skid row. He wished to improve his conditions so he started going to the library the learn, teaching himself secondary school education all over again. He then worked his way through a community college while supporting two kids mind you. He then got a scholership to USC a very prominent school. All Leftists believe that in this country there is no way to improve your circumstances. That is BS. The US has a great community college system allowing for advancement for even impovrished people. Some leaders do take money from education and put it in the military yet others dont. Your comment has nothing to do with free trade. free trade is having markets in other countries. and these sweat shops are illegal. When found out about, audits are done on the company and the company is penalized. I can definitly see a problem with such people as Bush in office where they punish companies such as Enron, but the consulting firm that covered up Enron's problems only gets a 3 year probation period saying they cant do illegal things in the next three years. Sort of comical since they cant do illegal things anyway. But that is how it goes. Thats why there is only a 4 year term.

Anything he did questionable was anti-competative practices, inflating prices, and to a lesser extent some minor exploitation (they don't make shoes).
I was refering to Bill Gates's shoes that the hard workers shined. With his practices he did make money yet he still donates a large amount of it to charities. He was just an example.

The basic commodities will be taken over and worked collectively. Most minor issues, new laws, etc can be voted on in annual elections in a community, similarly to how it is done now. There really is no need for a present style market.

The problem I see with this is that all decisions would occur very slowly...

hey when I was talking (shouting) to you during class you sounded quite anti socialist.

I'm still not against the principles, i just believe that the examples you gave were twisted. Your argument seemed very one sided and idealistic. You shout too much, easier to argue with Max:)

the problem is that his inovations havent helped many people, he needs to constantly inovate himself to survive "the bourgoisie needs to constantly change the means of production for it to be able to survive"

the problem is also the immense amount of money he holds, there is not enough commodeties in the world for everyone to make 200 000 a year, which isnt even close to bill's salary, and what he makes isnt even that important, he makes bad opperating systems, thats all. dont you think the farmer is far more important that the computer nerd? i mean you cant eat microchips, the problem is that all ambition in capitalism is fueled by the want of more money, and it is never satified, we have a priorities wrong, when worst comes to worst, and there is nowhere to buy food, all the money in the world wont stop you from starving.

His innovations have helped the general public creating an easy to use system that allows easy integration and a system allowing great capacity for filing which can be used for medical records and such. He doesnt need to change what he does to survive, he has enough money to last him many lifetimes although most of it is frozen. He put himself into research and development because he doesnt need money, this shows another thing. Under your reasoning he would have tried to become richer.

Bill also donates about 6 BILLION a year to impovrished people, yet he still is a money hungry pig. Choose an example of a bad person, but then again that is only one example. He makes a operating system that many like so it can't be bad. Why do you have a computer, your supporting the capitalist pigs at Microsoft. People can't eat microchips but then again if everyone was a farmer than there would b no need for other people. This world has a sur plus of food. Food is easy to grow and doesn't require you to have a 50 acre farm.

All of you leftists by buying these products. By having a TV, by having a computer support the same people you oppose. You want to support your movement? boycott the capitalist. Then again the farmers in this country only wish to make money. so you must grow your own food. Many of you complain about that capitalist pigs yet you support the system. Untill all of you agree to give up your comodities then you are no better than the capitalist pigs you abhore.

Good Day gentlemen

[sabre]

"All of you leftists by buying these products. By having a TV, by having a computer support the same people you oppose. You want to support your movement? boycott the capitalist. Then again the farmers in this country only wish to make money. so you must grow your own food. Many of you complain about that capitalist pigs yet you support the system. Untill all of you agree to give up your comodities then you are no better than the capitalist pigs you abhore. "


I cant just suddenly stop living by capitalist rules, because i live in a capitalist society. If i dont interact with a society i will die becuase i dont grow my own food, i buy it. To boycott everything capitalist would be to not buy anything, and not sell anything, and you cant survive like that (under a capitalist system)


"this world has a surplus of food"

you are kidding, right? maybe in America and other prosperous nations, but for sure not in africa or indonesia or latin america

20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the worlds goods.

"Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion have no access to electricity."

if there is an abundance of food then why do 35,615 , yes 35,615 children die of hunger each DAY in the world? (the source is listed in a magazine i have upstairs, and ill post it later, its the UN agriculture division, but ill get hte date and stuff)
in a world with surplus food 35,615 children wouldnt die every day due to hunger. and that figure is JUST CHILDREN, not even counting the adults that starve

"The only reason people like Bill Gates strived to be better and work harder is because they could improve his conditions for him and his future family quickly. In a socialist society the only change one man can do is in the confines of whatever program he is working within. People like Bill would feel no need to strive for a better life in the near future. When kids want a toy they want it NOW, not when there are enough for the collective. That is the downfall of socialism. People will know they cannot change their circumstances quickly so they may give up. However horrible this may sound money does have a possitive, it motivates people. Even if it is to their own gain it can help society. "

In capitalism, you benefit yourself at the expense of others.
In socialism, you benefit yourself while also benefitting society.

and when you benefit society, it is directly benefitting you! Better healthcare, more pencils in school. Say you work an extra hour one day? your kids school will get 50 more reams of paper. Society gives back when you give to society

i would write more, but i gotta run

Remember: 35,615

[RedRevolutionary87]

well all communists suport every political movement simply because it benifits them in the end, the farther right you get the more people will dislike you and want change, and so communism sets in, that is the beauty of our movement it is so perfect, it is the only social movement that is lead by a majority and is for the benifit of the majority. plus we are forced to support this system because whatever we do we are paying for something, however after the revolution everyone will have to support thte communist way, simply because one cannot survive in the old fashioned curncy runned capitalist society

[Nateddi]

All of you leftists by buying these products. By having a TV, by having a computer support the same people you oppose. You want to support your movement? boycott the capitalist. Then again the farmers in this country only wish to make money. so you must grow your own food. Many of you complain about that capitalist pigs yet you support the system. Untill all of you agree to give up your comodities then you are no better than the capitalist pigs you abhore.

With all due respect, I don't like these kinds of comments.

I boycott everythign I can (known sweatshop clothing, other corporations by which I can get around, etc) I built my own computer from generic parts, simply because I can, etc. Your comment actually helps our argument, that is, capitalism is in control of you. You can't boycott it if you try

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Nateddi on 8:07 am on April 26, 2002

All of you leftists by buying these products. By having a TV, by having a computer support the same people you oppose. You want to support your movement? boycott the capitalist. Then again the farmers in this country only wish to make money. so you must grow your own food. Many of you complain about that capitalist pigs yet you support the system. Untill all of you agree to give up your comodities then you are no better than the capitalist pigs you abhore.

With all due respect, I don't like these kinds of comments.

I boycott everythign I can (known sweatshop clothing, other corporations by which I can get around, etc) I built my own computer from generic parts, simply because I can, etc. Your comment actually helps our argument, that is, capitalism is in control of you. You can't boycott it if you try

Oh yeh that would really help, let throw my Phillips T.V out and just wait untill capitalism falls. That would destroy it.....


Astrofro2001 we have had many of your kind...." thinking they are real smart to come with many arguments against communism "
Guess what they come and go the same minute.......

[Dan Majerle]

D Day the point is to set an example. Sure you purchasing nike sneakers won't see the fall of capitalism but it will give you satisfaction to know you are not contributing to the exploitation for workers in Third World countries. Are you claiming you do not boycott particular companies simply because such actions will not immediately lead to communist revolution?

[Anarcho]

How can you say that it is lazy capitalist societies that create greed?

Greed has been shown throughout all human history, regardless of the society that existed. Greed, in one way or anther, is part of Human Nature.

Why do you wish a Socialist society? To make a better future for yourselves.

sounds greedy, doesn't it?

"But I'm not wanting a material thing, I just want a better society..."

And what, other than the alleged end of poverty (more greed there, BTW) would this better society bring? More money for all? Greed. Equal footing for all peoples? Well, that would be greed for those that are below that level now....

See what I'm getting at? Greed is part of HUMAN NATURE.

For those that are about to flame me for it, please give me one solid, reliable piece of documented theory or proof that states otherwise.

[Dan Majerle]

Anarcho is greed is wanting to help the poor of the world and establish an egalitarian and democratic society then call me greedy!

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Dan Majerle on 2:34 pm on April 26, 2002
D Day the point is to set an example. Sure you purchasing nike sneakers won't see the fall of capitalism but it will give you satisfaction to know you are not contributing to the exploitation for workers in Third World countries. Are you claiming you do not boycott particular companies simply because such actions will not immediately lead to communist revolution?


Yep not wearing nikes would really help a thing......people dont notic....the kids are still working.....and the nikechair man doesnt even miss the dolars......but at least I gave an example......

Get a life

[Hayduke]

Quote: from Dan Majerle on 2:34 pm on April 26, 2002
D Day the point is to set an example. Sure you purchasing nike sneakers won't see the fall of capitalism but it will give you satisfaction to know you are not contributing to the exploitation for workers in Third World countries. Are you claiming you do not boycott particular companies simply because such actions will not immediately lead to communist revolution?


Yep not wearing nikes would really help a thing......people dont notic....the kids are still working.....and the nikechair man doesnt even miss the dolars......but at least I gave an example......

Get a life

[Astrofro2001]

Your reasoning is very flawed D day. You say that it wont cause the immediate fall of capitalism it is allright. You support the same system you hate. A computer is definitly not a necessity nor will you die from lack of being on one.

I am still wanting an example of how people such as Bill hurt the normal Joe below him?

"this world has a surplus of food"

you are kidding, right? maybe in America and other prosperous nations, but for sure not in africa or indonesia or latin america

20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the worlds goods.

well I find this amusing because it is mostly at the fault of the nations leaders that the poor countries with no surplus of food. Will you agree that the majority of the African nations where most malnutrition among children can be found are ruled by greedy people who are not even in a capitalistic system nor democratic one. You look towards the Autocracies as examples of problems with capitalism while no proof is given.

Anarcho this is one thing that is true. Greed is part of human nature. An example I gave was the kid who wants the same toy as a friend has. GREED IS HARDWIRED INTO HUMANS.

that is the beauty of our movement it is so perfect, it is the only social movement that is lead by a majority and is for the benifit of the majority

It may be a perfect theory but im still looking for a REAL LARGE SCALE example of it happening. I still believe that no proof has been given showing the possibility that a revolution will even occur. You also speak of a widespread revolution. This is idealistic. There is no chance that in even the next 200 years a revolution will take place. I doubt that even in 1000 years sentaments towards socialism will be better. But untill you prove that it will work on a large scale, I still will continue to believe that countries such as Norway are the best society.

Great responces. I am learning much of your point of views. And thank you for all of your informative answers. Only got to respond to the last 5 so sorry if i didnt answer.

[sabre]

35,615

[Nateddi]

Your reasoning is very flawed D day. You say that it wont cause the immediate fall of capitalism it is allright. You support the same system you hate. A computer is definitly not a necessity nor will you die from lack of being on one.
What do you expect him to do? It is extremely hard, if not impossible to boycott capitalism. Nobody on this forum (lefitsts that is) will choose sweatshop made goods over American goods. People do enough as they can, leftists are not comfortable with exploitation, however you and I both know that it is impossible to boycott everything.

I am still wanting an example of how people such as Bill hurt the normal Joe below him?
Lets see. If Microsoft lowered prices, more people could have access to a computer. They keep everything hidden and pocket the money into such great revenue which makes Bill Gates (and many other MS execs) very rich.

"this world has a surplus of food"

you are kidding, right? maybe in America and other prosperous nations, but for sure not in africa or indonesia or latin america

20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the worlds goods.

well I find this amusing because it is mostly at the fault of the nations leaders that the poor countries with no surplus of food. Will you agree that the majority of the African nations where most malnutrition among children can be found are ruled by greedy people who are not even in a capitalistic system nor democratic one. You look towards the Autocracies as examples of problems with capitalism while no proof is given.

Forgive me but I am not really sure what point you are trying to make by this. The reason why some blame capitalism is because America favors dictators which bring profit to American companies at the expense of the people. If not rich with natural resources, the third world is a home to American corporate sweatshops. The poverty created is basically the reason for little food surplus. Capitalism isn't solely to blame, but it has its share.

Anarcho this is one thing that is true. Greed is part of human nature. An example I gave was the kid who wants the same toy as a friend has. GREED IS HARDWIRED INTO HUMANS.
Although this is correct, as I said before this isn't somethign which will fail a socialist system. Nobody wanted to start their own business, to stab their friends in the back, to make money by not working, etc in any planned economy. Human nature has never been greedy to such an extent. However, in the last 200 years after the Industrial Revolution and the begginings of modern capitalism, humans (in countries like the US) have turned into money hungry savages. Wage-Slavery non-discriminant on background has replaced conventional slavery. Humans have lost a simple animal instinct: survival of their own kind. Although the environment is dying, the ozone is in shreads, marketing SUVs has sprung up to use more fossil fuels, simply to bring profits to exxon-mobil, shell, etc. We still use the 100+ year old internal combustion engine, coal, oil, and nuclear power. During this time, high fuel efficiencies are possible to meet in almost every (if not every) personal vehicle, and the sun is up in the sky providing us with constant friendly energy. Fossil fuels which lead our earth to destruction and bring collasal profits are still being used. The good human instincts are sold for money, the bad human instincts are amplified for money.

that is the beauty of our movement it is so perfect, it is the only social movement that is lead by a majority and is for the benifit of the majority

It may be a perfect theory but im still looking for a REAL LARGE SCALE example of it happening. I still believe that no proof has been given showing the possibility that a revolution will even occur. You also speak of a widespread revolution. This is idealistic. There is no chance that in even the next 200 years a revolution will take place. I doubt that even in 1000 years sentaments towards socialism will be better. But untill you prove that it will work on a large scale, I still will continue to believe that countries such as Norway are the best society.
How so? I don't see our world living in a capitalist paradise for many years. Either it starts changing to a more human system soon, or our kids (or even we) wont live to our natural death. Still on the human nature / better conditions / failed USSR argument? ;)

Great responces. I am learning much of your point of views. And thank you for all of your informative answers. Only got to respond to the last 5 so sorry if i didnt answer
Thanks for the opinion. I know its not natural for leftists to be pleased with a new non-leftist member, but atleast you seem more open minded than others.

Sabre
What does that supposed to mean?

[RedRevolutionary87]

bill gates hurts those bellow him by accumilating capital above his needs, this leaves less money for those bellow him. all profit is bad, simply because it comes from the unpaid labour of workers, do you think the microsoft employee can buy back what he produces in one day? no this is because he produces a certain amount of product, but doesnt get paid the amount the product is sold for, and since it is the labourer majority that is the consumer of this product, and they cant afford to buy it, this leads to overproduction, which leads to layoffs, which leads to more people who cant afford to buy the product, and so it goes on untill the capitalist society is an depression, then it goes into war, and is able to spend the surpluss product. this is how capitalism works, notice that everydepression was ended with a war!

[Fabi]

(Not that it makes a difference, but i am writing this on a mac. so not all people use Windows....)

First of all i want to say that it is really interesting to read all the diverse opinions stated here.

i for myself cant claim to be all that left-winged. at least not if it requires me to avoid nike, adidas etc.
not to sound like a total moron, but i am just too busy with myself and finding my place in society or at least coping with everyday life. i dont have the patience and maybe honesty or lack of greed that would be required for me to boycott companies like the ones mentioned above. i dont support them either since i dont have the money to do that, but i suppose a lot of the clothes (as an example) i wear come from third-world countries.

i sort of have forgotten my point... sorry 'bout that.
what choices do you have? now that i finally turned eighteen i will even be able to vote this september... (in germany, that is...)
who am i gonna vote? i am not really too happy about the government (social-democrats and the green party) but i certainly wont vote for the christian-democratic party. then what would happen to gay rights as just a very minor example? (there are others, but look at my signature...)

what is left to vote for? well, the green party and the socialist party would be okay just to have an oppostion that could have some say... (that is if the green party will not be part of the government)


(if anyone cares: i just went to this site cause i wanted to find out more about che before i ***** about what i dont like about him. because lately the teens who run around with che t-shirts that cost them fifteen bucks are getting more and more. and then they dont even know who he was, what he did etc.
i suppose a lot of them just think he was cool 'coz he waz a badazz ravalooshinary' or something close to that.)

thanks again for the interesting comments on everything...

[RGacky3]

You say greed is part of human nature, but so is killing people you don't like, or steeling things that you want, does that mean that it should not be suppresed, of course not, greed is a part of human nature that mussed be suppressed. And about leftists buying things, if we leftists gave up our jobs, got rid of our stuff, it would be impossible to change the system, we have to go with the system to change it.

[BatistaNationalista]

Oh please.

Greed cannot be controled like violent crimes. Socialism will never work democratic. People wil choose their freedom, or if it stays socialist, people will be ruled under a castro-style dictatorial tyrant.

[sabre]

or they can be run under a Batista-style dictatorial tyrant.

[BatistaNationalista]

Batista would have never ran a leftist dictatorship. He would instead build friendly ties with capitalist nations under a more right wing leadership.

[Astrofro2001]

Well I believe that for this world civilization that some of you believe will occur, there must be some democracy left just to have the ability of change if people wish for a different society.

bill gates hurts those bellow him by accumilating capital above his needs, this leaves less money for those bellow him. all profit is bad, simply because it comes from the unpaid labour of workers, do you think the microsoft employee can buy back what he produces in one day? no this is because he produces a certain amount of product, but doesnt get paid the amount the product is sold for, and since it is the labourer majority that is the consumer of this product, and they cant afford to buy it, this leads to overproduction, which leads to layoffs, which leads to more people who cant afford to buy the product, and so it goes on untill the capitalist society is an depression, then it goes into war, and is able to spend the surpluss product. this is how capitalism works, notice that everydepression was ended with a war!

You have quite a bit to say but little to back it up. The last three wars for example were not for the sakes of capitalist depressions. Vietnam actually occured in a time of prosperity with a thriving middle class. World War One had nothing to do with depression except an Kaisers greediness. World War Two started from hatred. These are the recent wars that have occured. I see no depressions that caused them. You say that all profits are bad because it comes from the unpaid labor. I dont believe Microsoft uses slave labor. There is no overproduction which leads to over production either. You truely are lost in your ideas because they make no sence to me.

Humans have lost a simple animal instinct: survival of their own kind. Although the environment is dying, the ozone is in shreads, marketing SUVs has sprung up to use more fossil fuels, simply to bring profits to exxon-mobil, shell, etc. We still use the 100+ year old internal combustion engine, coal, oil, and nuclear power. During this time, high fuel efficiencies are possible to meet in almost every (if not every) personal vehicle, and the sun is up in the sky providing us with constant friendly energy. Fossil fuels which lead our earth to destruction and bring collasal profits are still being used. The good human instincts are sold for money, the bad human instincts are amplified for money

When you speak of the environment being destroyed that is all based on policies of people. Bush is a greedy bastard. If people like Nader got in then all those enviromental problems you state would be a thing of the past. When you say taht fossil fuels are not necessary, to keep our current power there is not enough alternative energy sources in the world with our technology to do that. Oh, and human instinct is a singular need for survival, not a collective.

Forgive me but I am not really sure what point you are trying to make by this. The reason why some blame capitalism is because America favors dictators which bring profit to American companies at the expense of the people. If not rich with natural resources, the third world is a home to American corporate sweatshops. The poverty created is basically the reason for little food surplus. Capitalism isn't solely to blame, but it has its share.

My response was that he stated so many children die daily because of capitalism. Most of those children die in under developed countries with tyranical regimes suppressing them. Do you really believe that Corprate sweat shops are everywhere in third world countries? I believe that you are greaty exagerating.

How so? I don't see our world living in a capitalist paradise for many years. Either it starts changing to a more human system soon, or our kids (or even we) wont live to our natural death. Still on the human nature / better conditions / failed USSR argument?

I do believe that we must change our system nor did I say we live in a capitalistic paradice, but he believes that there is going to be a revolution coming very soon, not only that, people will forget everything they were used to. It is just idealistic. I wish for real examples. I give countries such as the UK which shows that 40 million people can stand capitalism. Where are your utopian socities.

Sabre- was just an accident probably just copied it for some reason:) good day you all, keep the responses rolling in. Thanks Nate, really helping my understanding. once again i havnt responded to all the responces but i try my best.

[RedRevolutionary87]

wrong! world war one was right after a global deppression, world war two starts after the 1930's depression, im telling you a pattern, read betwean the lines, remember the winners write history. vietname was different because it was a fear war, america was afraid of lossing its power, it was also an expansionist war. i have plenty to gack this up with, just look at our society and you will see, you cannot just look at one country, look at the global capitalist society and you will see its failer. global powers are becoming more and more agressive, we just hear less about it, war has lost its pomp, but if one looks closely they will realize that we are at war almost always.

[sabre]

trhat big blue number is how many children die every day of starvation, and according to Astrofro the world has a surplus of food

[Ernest Everhard]

100 years ago, in a world that had almost 3 billion people, a whole 290 million died of famine related causes, ie, starvation. Today, in a world of 6 billion about 10 million die of starvation. In all cases, according to people like Amarya Sen, this happens, not because there's no food, but because the systems of distribution are broken. For instance the famines in Ethiopia were due to the forced starvation that the communist regime unleashed on its people. The famine in somalia was due to the general anarchy that the nation succumbed toin the 90's.
Capitalism doesn't cause starvation, when was the last time you heard of a famine in a capitalist country. Food is plentyful and cheap, and the market system keeps it this way. If you really care about keeping people from starving you would've become a capitalists long ago.

[vox]

You're right that Amartya Sen has done some very interesting work on famine. However, capitalism is not the answer you suggest:

"Take the Bangladesh famine of 1974. Sen discovered that it 'occurred in a year of greater food availability per head than in any other year between 1971 and 1976.' What actually happened was that the floods that year hit rural landless laborers indirectly. Because they had no land, all their income came from transplanting rice for others. The floods prevented them from earning the meager amount that kept their families alive in most years. There did turn out to be enough food in Bangladesh that year, but the rural poor could not afford to buy it.

"Sen points out, chillingly, that large famines can strike down thousands of human beings without anyone's formal libertarian rights being violated. No dictator stole food from the Bangladeshi poor in 1974. The normal functioning of the economy, with property rights respected, led to their deaths."

Full Article (http://past.thenation.com/issue/991206/1206north.shtml) (Review of Development as Freedom.)

During the famine in Ireland, she was still exporting food everyday to England. No communists there, just capitalists. In Afghanistan recently, bombing made it impossible for food to be shipped into the country and distributed. Indeed, food is often used as a weapon of war. Wasn't that the case in Somalia? It was according to an article from the New York Times (http://www.netnomad.com/somtimes.html) (June 16, 1996):

"Somalia has been without a central government since 1991, when rebels overthrew the President, Mohammed Said Barre. Soon after the coup, rival clan leaders struggling for power turned their guns on each other. In the chaotic war that followed more than 30,000 Somalis were killed in battles and another 300,000 people died of famine brought on largely by the fighting."

I suggest that government subsidies, not the market system, keep food prices stable. But even in the US, childhood hunger is still a problem (http://www.secondharvest.org/childhunger/child_hunger_facts.html).

It's a large and complicated topic, to be sure. One can't simply say that capitalism is the cure all when, as today and yesterday show, it is not.

vox

(Edited by vox at 3:56 pm on April 27, 2002)

[Astrofro2001]

As Ernesto pointed out and as i said earlier it isnt that there is not enough food to go around but rather corupt governments and war (or natural disasters:) that cause these deaths. RedRevolutionary... You can say that they happened after economic depressions, yet u have no proof that they CAUSED the wars. In world war one the war was started by the Austrians and there greed for land. World War Two started ofcoarse by Hitler. He did use the depression as a tool to get him in power. But he believed in Arian supremacy so much that it caused him to start the war. His schitzoihavenocluehowtospell it probably was also a factor im sure. Red I think your reading in between the lines that you want to see. Be realistic.

O and gacky killing isnt in human nature. I will agree that it is brought on by greed or just insanity. but not nature.

(Edited by Astrofro2001 at 6:45 pm on April 28, 2002)

[RedRevolutionary87]

Quote: from Astrofro2001 on 12:43 pm on April 28, 2002
As Ernesto pointed out and as i said earlier it isnt that there is not enough food to go around but rather corupt governments and war (or natural disasters:) that cause these deaths. RedRevolutionary... You can say that they happened after economic depressions, yet u have no proof that they CAUSED the wars. In world war one the war was started by the Austrians and there greed for land. World War Two started ofcoarse by Hitler. He did use the depression as a tool to get him in power. But he believed in Arian supremacy so much that it caused him to start the war. His schitzoihavenocluehowtospell it probably was also a factor im sure. Red I think your reading in between the lines that you want to see. Be realistic.

O and gacky killing isnt in human nature. I will agree that it is brought on by greed or just insanity. but not nature.

(Edited by Astrofro2001 at 6:45 pm on April 28, 2002)


try and make some assumptions, ofcorse no1 is gonna openly say that wars were started for economic reasons, ever think a war could be an agreement between the leaders of two countries to get rid of surplus capital. notice how before 9/11 everyone was talking about how the world was going into resession, and now we are at war. try and think for yourself and dont rely on the media

(Edited by RedRevolutionary87 at 8:00 pm on April 28, 2002)

[Astrofro2001]

You consider this a war? It is a rapeing of weaker people. Even that is incorect. It's basically PR for our president Bush. We aren't going into an arms race right now that would pull us out of a recession. If anything we are sinking deeper into one. I'm not taking media bullshit. Try reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, it'll tell you everything that you need to know. You even dare say that any of the wars mentioned were agreements between the two countries? a killing of about 60 million people between the Japanese and the Germans is not an agreement. It is genocide. You truely are dilusional if you believe that the world is constantly in conspiracy to keep the average Joe in the dark. I read the first relevant, good, and informative article on this site. It was about Equatorial Guinea. That capitalism can support a regime like that by keeping people in the dark. Then again I hate Bush and all his greedy policies. He is an unfit idiotic ruler, even his father would NEVER let this happen

[RedRevolutionary87]

so you have no doubt in your mind? hell ww2 gave america the bomb, it made germany big, it made the soviets big, war makes people big, it doesnt have to be an arms race, all that is needed is destruction of capital, damn it just read marx and you will get it

[Ernest Everhard]

and it makes others small then?!?

[Anarcho]

I would have no problem with killing people, if it weren't for those pesky laws that would punish me for it.

I know 3 people off the top of my head that the world would be a better place without. One I actually tried to kill several years ago.

Violence is also part of human nature.

Man is not a happy peaceful animal. I'm not saying we should give into those base desires, but they are there.

Right now, many 1st world nations pay money to farmers to leave land fallow. If all the world started cranking out food to the best of it's ability, there would be such a surplus it would be astounding.

And people would still starve.

[Dan Majerle]

Quote: from Anarcho on 8:07 am on April 30, 2002
I would have no problem with killing people, if it weren't for those pesky laws that would punish me for it.

I know 3 people off the top of my head that the world would be a better place without. One I actually tried to kill several years ago.

Violence is also part of human nature.

Man is not a happy peaceful animal. I'm not saying we should give into those base desires, but they are there.

Right now, many 1st world nations pay money to farmers to leave land fallow. If all the world started cranking out food to the best of it's ability, there would be such a surplus it would be astounding.

And people would still starve.


You have serious issues dude

[Astrofro2001]

It made Germany big, so you forgot the whole east and west Berlin thing? It didnt make the US big, it established us as a world power but that was true before WW1. You first stated that economic falls cause war, you just pointed out an outcome but not the cause. I want numbers not just statements. Prove to me that depression caused WW2.

[RedRevolutionary87]

simple, the german people never would have supported the nazis if they werent in economic depression. and yes germany did flourish after the war, you cant deny that.

[Ernest Everhard]

it flourished, at least in the german federal republic, because of the environment set up by the allies, and the economic assistance provided for by the US. If taken within the context of all of history, the altruism of the US was an anomally in the behavior of conquerors.

[RedRevolutionary87]

exactly in doing so, theunited states got rid of surplus product in its own economy (up goes the usa's economy) and fixed up germany, so germany flourishes too, all wars start for economic reasons, most are because of overproduction which leads to depression

[Astrofro2001]

Stating that they would not have supported the Nazis if not in a depression is another 'if' question that has no support. The only reason people followed the Nazi regime because the policies played on German Nationalism. That once again the Arians would be a world power. He stated that the November Criminals(Hindenburg-ending WW1) should be taken out of the government. Hitler's first try on taking the government was an utter failure. At that time in 1923 the economic position of Germany was much worse than in (1931?) Eastern Germany did which was controled by the allies, while the communist side remained a shit hole. The point is that Hitler was a eloquent speaker who appealed to the average Joe in Germany. THAT is how he came to power and it was not till EIGHT years later when the war started. Before you throw around reasons why dont you research what your talking about. Once again Rise And Fall Of The Thrid Reich by William Shier is a great book doing this. I'm sure the 1400 pages will be light reading for you. The United States' economy had by then well recovered from the depression mainly FIFTEEN years earlier. I truely doubt that the US wished for the millions of American lives to be sacraficed for economic growth. Considering that FDR was also president at the time there is no way that he is that heartless. I consider him to be one of the greatest presidents in our history. We have strayed from the point, but any corrections or input are still being heard. Ill try my best to disprove all the leftists here :P

[RedRevolutionary87]

history is written by the winners, so i dont trust your little books, ive read them, and i came to my own conclusions. america did jack shit in ww2 anyways, they joined in at the end. im simply saying that war destroys surplus which boosts the economy. for what other reason could ww1 have been started? i agree ww2 had some different circumstances, but ww1 was simple capitalist destruction of capital, millions died simply to get out of depression, ww1 had no other point what-so-ever.

[man in the red suit]

KAREEM (astrofro),
whos side are u on?!! arg arg arg
the socialists must dominate!!!

"it is the very essence of imperialism which drives men into wild bloodthirsty animals" -Che

[Astrofro2001]

... Max... atleast you found my post heh. Red you say that history is written by the winners. What history books are you reading which are supporting your theory. Since I doubt that you have read Shiere's book(hope im speeling it right) he was a man who worked inside of the Nazi government. May I also remind you that the Nazi's documented almost EVERYTHING they did including much commentary on the reasons. Not only that but the history you so distrust is taught EVERYWHERE around the world, so before you come up with your conspiracy theories why dont you find some factual texts to base it on. You say that America did nothing in WW2. So D Day was nothing but a small skirmish. Britain wasn't being bombed the shit out of. WW2 SURVIVORS are just lieing? To have this conspiracy you see in your mind would require the cooperation of MILLIONS of normal people. I can soundly say that barely any educated person can break down war into such simple means. So before you respond using the same point that you used two times previous, actually give some info that relates to the arguments staged here.

[RedRevolutionary87]

no im simply saying that d day didnt wint he war, it only happend because they saw the russian would get to berlin first, all war is economical, it simply hides behind ideology so people can make money, its human sacrifice for money, everything alse is just propaganda

[Fabi]

im not taking sides or anything, but WWI didnt start cause of economic surplus.... at least as far as i know....

it was more the imperialization/people like to win wars/we're the biggest-sort of reason...

it's been a few years since we went through it in my history classes, but in germany we do go through it... and take our time to understand what went on... (i hated my history teacher, though)

[Fabi]

and i think that at least partly the US helped germany after WWII cause they didnt want a WWIII...

Germany had been left alone half-dead... which lead to Hitler's rise to power... they didnt want that to happen again....

(of course it could be that i'm wrong though...) ;)

[RedRevolutionary87]

yes the help was probably for that reason, but one can only assume that they had other intentions too, same with ww1, all wars are imperialist, but they go to war to a)make a larger market b)destroy surplus

[Moskitto]

WW2 started 6 years after he came to power, not 8.

Edit: Speeking of Americans fighting wars, At least they never had a general like Haig. On the Somme more people died on one day than all the American casualties in Vietnam, my Great Grandfather was nearly one of them.

Everything that people moan about the Americans doing the Brits do much worse. Except no one complains.

Britishness is stupid. What would you rather be seen as?

A) A drunken yobo who goes around foreign cities helping to smash up as many things as he can especially if it's Turkish (English Football hooligans + Turkish Football hooligans = WW3 and murders)

B) A poncy arrogant snob who's got the strange feeling that his nation is the worlds most powerful based on the political climate of 1900.

British Nationalists are morons, the Anglo-Saxon race they talk about as being "British" is Stupid because Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish are not Anglo-Saxon, they're Celtic.

(Edited by Moskitto at 10:51 pm on May 2, 2002)

[Astrofro2001]

RedRevolutionary your beginning to dicredit any credability you had before. All you have is conjecture "one can only assume that they had other intentions too, same with ww1." I will admit that America's ideology of fighting for freedom was not the reason till after the war and all damage was done, but to say that America's goals were that of imperialism is BS. America didn't attack Japan first. No matter what history book or person you hear it from, America did not start anything. Do your research before you make statements that show ignorance "no im simply saying that d day didnt wint he war, it only happend because they saw the russian would get to berlin first." May I ask what year D Day occured, and what year Berlin was invaded? You will find a discrepency. Stop reading in between the imaginary lines. At the time of D Day almost all of continental Europe was under Nazi control, Russia remained for the most part in their boundries, and America supressed Germany's attack on Africa and the Middle East. But you didn't know that even though you "have read all those books." Britain soon would be crushed, and you say that the US did nothing. Maybe you'd also fudge a little facts, the Nazi's only killed 2 million Jews. The Japanese only killed 10 million Chinese. I think you have a very general knowledge about WW2 even WW1 for that matter, quite frankly im sick of your non-answers, could someone who this kid could trust tell him the truth, i'm obviously not getting it into his head. Then you assume that the US helped Germany for economic gains. I'm sorry but unlike the French(Maggino Line) we don't make the same mistake twice. We even offered to help the USSR with some reparations yet they refused. I think that we knew very well we wouldnt get shit out of Stalin. So thank you, hopefully Red you've learned something. Most likely not, you still think there is a world wide conspiracy.

[Fabi]

hey astro...
your opening comment for this thread also included left-wingers thinking 'capitalism is the big monster' coming to get us... or something close to that.

if you have not already done so (you sound quite reasonable) you really should read 'no logo' by naomi klein.
i think reagan really caused a lot of damage by weakening/getting rid off anti-trust laws...

for example i think the censorship big companies such as wal-mart impose on their customers is really sickening.
and also time magazine being owned by time warner, abc having merged with disney...

it all leads to a lack of freedom (e.g. of speech) and a lack of choice.......... (like for example toys'r'us pushing toy manufacturers into only selling them the toys, not other stores...

it might sound ridiculous to you and i apologize for any typos and stuff like that and dont claim to be some all-knowing god, just consider reading the book... (among others out there..)

[Moskitto]

the Nazi's only killed 2 million Jews

Where did you get that number from? I've been trying to say to just about every idiot on the net that Hitler killed a hell of a lot more than 2 million Jews, he killed 6 million Jews, 5 million Slavs as well as Gypsies, Homosexuals, Socialists, Black People and everyone else who disagreed.

Annother thing, Montgommary (Britain) was incharge in North Africa and Britain also kicked the Luftwaffe in 1940 without US help. And annother thing, Britain was actually a world power at the time. Oh yes, the USAF used to shoot at everything that wasn't American, Canal Boats, Refugee Columns, British Tanks.

And yes, you did nothing in WW1. Except provide reserve forces and arms.

[Ernest Everhard]

what anti-trust laws did reagan weaken

moskito, have you ever heard of operation torch.

[Fabi]

hey ernest... refer to my quote....
i am too lazy to look it up... i bet ms/mrs klein has it somewhere in the bibliography or something like that.....

[Moskitto]

moskito, have you ever heard of operation torch.

Yes,

Warning: Recognition of above reference does not indicate knowledge of the subject matter

[Astrofro2001]

Moskitto, when stating the number of Jews killed mayb you didnt see the sarcasm. Red was trying to play down facts of WW2. You say that Britain beat the Luftwaffe by themselves in 1940. That's very interesting yet the war ended in 1945. The Americans being in the war since 1944 is it couldnt help em out. Maybe you forgot the dates. You might also want to check up on the different battles past 1944 i believe that that year the Allies had a more productve year than before. With WW1 Germany was 35 miles outside of Paris, and the ONLY reason that the Entante faught them off was because of American Reinforcements. From the trench warfare both sides were basicly beat.

[RedRevolutionary87]

ahahahahahahaha. so wait let me get this straight, you are trying to convince the good people of che lives that america won both world war one and 2? ok first of all, world war 2 was one by the soviet union, stalingrad was prety much the deciding point, not d day, d day was simply a race to berlin against the soviets. i can confidently say that ww1 was won by the canadians, french, and british, not america, the americans sent in some reinforcements while germany was on the run, to make it look like they won the war. and yes america is imperialistic in all wars, if it wasnt it would get its bases out of the philipeans since japan is no longer a threat, they would end the enbargo on cuba, since they are no longer a threat, i mean come on man, america fights wars only when they can gain something, not when its the right thing to do, alot of americans were considering fighting for the germans in ww2

[man in the red suit]

you see-
capitalism works on the systems of the haves and the have-nots. The rich, or the burgeois, owns all property and wealth in a community while the working class, or proletariot, earns a fraction of his boss's salary. The problem with capitalism is that you unfortunately need money to make money. The factory owners maintain great wealth and own companies in which they can sell to make more money. Basically, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In communism everyone is equal and has an opportunity to exceed in what he/she does best. In capitalism individuals are compelled to work in order to feed their families orfet more money. Meanwhile the person may be doing a job that he/she hates. In communism this would cease to exist. Karl Marx defined this in his 8th point of the mannifesto as "equal liability of all to labour." In other words, all labour earns equal pay. Many capitalists disagree with this and think that only their jobs are important. You know like acting, where you stand in front of a camera and read lines, or being a lawyer where you get to be a bold faced liar. WOW!! those jobs seem really hard. I'm sure breaking your back and working your ass off on a farm doesn't deserve any money. come on. Many jobs today pay more thatn they should. Unfortunately, the cappies have one good point that can not be avoided and is always brought up in an attempt to cripple us. This point is that communism creates a lack of incentive. I will admit, this is true. This is the only reason communism FAILS. By fail I do not mean "disliked." Communism is not "liked" by everyone. Yes, the only time communism can not properly function is when there is a lack of incentive. This is why the Soviet Union collapsed. First allow me to explain this "lack of incentive." Person "A" works his ass off to benefit his community, person "B" does the bare minimum, knowing he will still earn the same amount of pay. When this happened in Russia, the government gave raises to the real workers and basically turned itself into capitalism. At this conclusion we have come to understand that communism doesn't work. THIS CAN BE PREVENTED. My comrad, Gacky and I have discovered that lack of incentive occurs with an increase of population. One can not deny that Russia is an extremely populated country. Cuba however is much smaller and has worked for 43 years. Why because it is small. When you decrease the population, People become more dependent on one another and therefore enforces utopian socialism, or communes. Cuba does not consist of communes, however it is smaller than Russia, therefore closer to this socialism than they were.
In utopian socialism, people live in communes and depend on each other for the communty to thrive. When one person doesn't work, the system breaks down, therefore this increases the incentive to work.

Democratic socialism, in its curent form, is too capitalistic.
This is why we must continue to use the mannifesto to spice up socialism with a little more Marx in order to difuse the large quantities of capitalism without reverting to communism all together.

FUCK CAPITALISM. we are sick of you cappie bastards discriminating us!!! Leave us be. We are entitled to our opinion as you are to yours. FUCK OFF

although it has been said a billion times, i'll say it again,
"VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!"

yeah ok it's corny............................sue me

p.s- if you are interested in our new form of socialism which we are in the process of making, be sure to come to either one of our web sites. Go to "our book" Our book is about our new socialism. We call it community Union Socialism. But why am I telling you about it now?
GO SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[man in the red suit]

D DAY
you have to go with the system to go aginst it. You can't simply boycott everything. You live in America, that should be punishment enough. Don't make youself more miserable by boycotting everything and living like an 18th century bum. It won't help anythig. The capitalists don't give a dam or even notice whether you boycott their products or not. Only boycott the major technological advancements if you can. I only boycott those miniature phones, those palm pilot things, and those movie disc player things. You don't need to boycott everything that has any relation to the capitalist system. Or you can. I don't really care. It's your life.

[Fabi]

uuuumm... NO. ;)

D Day lives in the netherlands..... so he's pretty dutch... rather than american.... ;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

I think there are a few points we are missing here. I think most of us can agree than
neither pure communism nor pure capitalism exists. The present systems that
contemporary empires are based on lie on a spectrum between the two theoretical
ideologies. Also, we could argue all day about the acadmic principles of each system,
but real world data proves that Capitalism is the much better system. The
free-marketcapitalist system that America represents has produced the strongest
economy that has ever existed, and the best standard of living ever. Even America's
poor live relatively well. This is a measurable fact. Notions of exploitation of thirld world
countries for the most part amount to nothing more than making excuses for nations that
have not been as industrious and ingeneous (and to some extent lucky) as the US has
been. I mean, please, exploitation? What do you call standing in line 4 hours for a loaf of
bread? Killing 50 million people (Stalin)? What more needs to be said??? Another
consideration is that capitalism encourages individual innovation and acheivement. This
principle is proven in reality in thatthe vast majority of technological innovation that has
benefitted humanity in the last 150 years has come out of the United States. This
includes both the computer you are looking at and the internet you are communicationg
through. Also, we discuss exploitation of smaller countries by the U.S, but fail to address
the fact that the US is by far the most humane and alturistic country on earth, both in
terms of dollars spent (debt relief and direct monetary aid) and in people and
organizations contrributing service and aid abroad. When there is a major naturalk
disaster, what is the only country to contribute money and resources to assist in aid? The
USA. I cant remember a time when the Soviets, Cuba, or China contributed to foreign
relief of any kind. Finally, immigration. The USA has quite a challenge accomodating the
thousands of immigrants (worker-class, mind you) that enter its borders daily. Many of
these people are risking both their and their family's life just for an opportunity to get in.
Why? Because capitalist "workers" still live much better than communist or socialist
"workers". Needless to say, China, Cuba, and the then Soviet union (failed
system,remember?) had no immigration problem. Their border control budgets were
allocated to keep people in!!! Its a self explanatory phenomenon!!! So, we could argue
academic and philisophical principals all day, but real world data and behavior makes it
self evident that the American form of Capitalism is by far the best system going today.
Also, I have been pretty much discussing economic aspects of capitalism, to say
nothing of the personal freedoms and the opportunity given to Amercian citizens to
pursue success and what makes them happy. These fundamental principles are, to say
the least, severely hindered by centrist governments. Look at real world activity, and
you see the best real world system.

[RGacky3]

as the man in the red suit mentioned before. me and him have come up with a new type of socialism which takes utopian socialism and makes it work at a large scale.

go to www.geocities.com/socialistliberators to read about this socialism, under the link "our book"

[Astrofro2001]

Max listen to Capitalist imperialist... Can he also stop the pasting on EVERY single topic... im too tired to write, lata

[reagan lives]

Hey Gacky, I read your website. I have to say, I love it.

"We intended on
having numerous communes which work together in unity, each providing an
individual form of capital which is traded among other communes. A central
government will exist in order to maintain balance and order. The central government will consist of a member of each commune whom is previously
elected by popular vote by the people of that group. The communes will each have a ruler who makes decisions for the commune unless overided or vetoed by the central government."

Change the word "commune" to "business" and you pretty much have the current American system.

"Inheritance rights will only allow the right to inherit physical posessions but not
money."

That's pretty close to how it works now, too.

"Money will be replaced by the credit"

Money is credit, you dupe.

"Property may be owned but is restricted. Utilities are owned by the state, as is
means of transportation and communication."

I'm sorry, I thought the "state" was nothing more than a representative from each business. If you want a state that controls things like utilities, transportation, and communication, you're just going to end up creating another business (or businesses) that you just nominally call "the state."

"All education is free"

ALL education? You're going to remove people's rights to privately educate people? Well, I suppose you have to if you want to prop up anything based on socialist dogma.

"65% income tax on privately owned businesses, which are allowed but whose
decisions in marketing are restricted to prevent monopolies."

What happened to the communes? Will they be taxed on the "forms of capital" they produce?

"Salaries of government businesses are equal (equal liability of all to labour)"

I just don't understand this statement. All government employees will be paid the same? Is that what you're saying?

"Surpluses of money are used towards the benfit of the people in forms of welfare and social security. Money will be used to help the handicapped
and those who are unable to work."

Sounds like an idealized form of the American welfare state. I like it. Good for you, capitalist.

[BatistaNationalista]

Astrofro,

The problem with people on this forum is ignorance.

Just a bunch of teenage rebels trying to make themselves look different with their communism. Don't worry though, 9 out of 10 of them will have the opposite beliefs when they get a taste for the real world.

[Fabi]

anybody read 'no logo' ??????????

well if you didnt you STILL should.... goddammit.... ignorance? read the book.. klein makes some interesting points....

and so... how old are you?
18 here... and i dont know yet where i stand politically.....

(walmart limits freedom of speech and consumer's choice by the way... just one example bout capitalism being fucked up... bout socialism and communism i dont know yet...)

[Ernest Everhard]

having read klein's long long spiel i have to say I categorically disagree with her assertion that a private institution can block free speech, its anti-thetical to notions of freedom of speech that a private institution can block free speech. Constitutional restrictions on the restriction of speech apply to government, not individuals. Furthermore they apply to the context of the speech, not the audability of it. You fellas always complain that there is no free speech in america because your tiny, insignificant, thought incredibly entertaining sector of the political life of this nation isn't represented in the media. Yet this hardly constitutes a violation of your freedom of speech. You have the right to shout your opinions, but if you can't afford a megaphone, you don't have the 'right' to use one.

[Fabi]

which is exactly what klein mentions when she talks about billboards... you're not loud enough.. the billboards are, companies are, you're not...

if you cant be loud enough to be heard, then your freedom of speech is useless.

(i dont even want to get into mcDonald's and kmart's stupid copyright violation suits...)

any good books out there that could convince me of either opinion? always willing to learn....

[reagan lives]

Buckley v. Valeo (that's a Supreme Court case, not a guy's name):

But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed "to secure `the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,'" and "`to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 266, 269, quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945), and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 484. The First Amendment's protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person's financial ability to engage in public discussion. Cf. Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127, 139 (1961).

[Fabi]

hey reagan... can u tell what that means??????

[Ernest Everhard]

Quote: from Fabi on 2:16 pm on May 7, 2002
which is exactly what klein mentions when she talks about billboards... you're not loud enough.. the billboards are, companies are, you're not...

if you cant be loud enough to be heard, then your freedom of speech is useless.

(i dont even want to get into mcDonald's and kmart's stupid copyright violation suits...)

any good books out there that could convince me of either opinion? always willing to learn....


The whole point of free speech is that its only supposed to protect the content of your speech, not make you more audible. YOUR freedom of speech might be useless, not mine, and i dont have any billboards. all I have is che-lives, dear me...

[Fabi]

then what about that guy from that coke-sponsored school who got kicked out on 'coca-cola-day' for wearing a pepsi-t-shirt?
what about magazines then not covering certain stories?
what about aol banning users chatting about 'controversial' topics on their servers?

i mean, of course i see your point and maybe my example wasnt all that great... but i hope you understand what i am talking about...

then you could say 'we're gonna put you in some 'sound-tight' (you know what i mean) room where you can say what you want to say...

if your freedom of speech doesnt include being heard, then it is useless because THAT is a right i already have and nobody can take... having my own thoughts inside of my own head where nobody can listen and where i cant be heard...

and what about mcdonald's closing outlets cause workers tried to organize unions? what about big corporations moving out of factories and countries because of unions who make use of 'freedom of speech'? south-korea would be a good example for that...

if you can be limited in WHERE you say things (in a mall, on a cd, in a magazine) then taht is also as good as limiting WHAT you can say....

and mattel sueing danish band 'aqua' cause of their song 'barbie girl' cause it was portraying the doll in some overly sexual way... i'm not here to defend aqua, but if you cant criticize things anymore cause they're copyrighted and stuff, that sounds kinda screwed up....

why cant britney spears say certain things in interviews? or other 'celebrities'? cause their 'employers' limit their freedom of speech...

of course it is not as bad as i make it sound.. not yet... but i think certain developments are not really too great....

------------------------
bout corporations being big bad monsters: they get rid of jobs in the US and europe and go to the third world to violate human rights..... and they make more money than a lot of governments.... which gives them some power... and power is dangerous if people have it who only want to make money...

(sorry if this all was a little confusing and stuff... i am tired...)

[reagan lives]

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, which is one of the most important First Amendment decisions to date and the most germane one to this discussion. In the passage I quoted, the Court held that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not equality of speech. Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want (with the obvious exceptions) as loudly as you can.

The examples you mentioned are all instances of PRIVATE organizations limiting speech. The First Amendment only applies to the government. Let's imagine that you owned and published a socialist newspaper. Let's further imagine that I sent your paper a letter showing (as I do so often) how misguided your ideology is. You, naturally, would have the right to not publish my letter. It would not be a violation of my First Amendment rights. However, in these two cases:
"what about magazines then not covering certain stories?
what about aol banning users chatting about 'controversial' topics on their servers?"

The First Amendment protects the right of the magazines and AOL to do just those things. They're allowed to publish/post whatever they want in their own pages, and they're simultaneously allowed to exclude whatever they want. Just like Malte is allowed to prevent me from posting in the Theory or Chit Chat forums.

"then you could say 'we're gonna put you in some 'sound-tight' (you know what i mean) room where you can say what you want to say...

if your freedom of speech doesnt include being heard, then it is useless because THAT is a right i already have and nobody can take... having my own thoughts inside of my own head where nobody can listen and where i cant be heard..."

You have the constitutionally protected right to get your message out to as many people as you are able. You have that right, and McDonald's has that right. If they can afford commercials and billboards and you can't, that's not the First Amendment's problem.

"why cant britney spears say certain things in interviews? or other 'celebrities'? cause their 'employers' limit their freedom of speech..."
Once again, the First Amendment applies to the government. Private companies can limit the speech of their employees all they want, because the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this.

[Fabi]

it is simply not logical.... i mean, of course i understand what you mean....

but in britain they have a law bout you being able to criticize the government without having to fear anything... know why they passed that law? cause the government was so powerful and that made it dangerous....
the problem is that many corporations nowadays are more powerful than a lot of countries... so why shouldnt it apply to them? just because they wrote the first amendment in a time when only the government was a threat, not the corporations, doesnt mean that corporations should be allowed to censor you....

the declaration of independence and the first amendment and the US where about getting independence from Britain... because britain had too much power.. i bet if it had been a corporation with that much power, they would have gone against the corporation...

what about china 'blackmailing' time warner into being careful bout coverage of china in their stories cause of their asian sattelites?....

[Capitalist Imperial]

I can't believe there are actually people here who deny that the USA was responsible foir winning world war 2. The B-17's of the mighty 8th and their mustang escorts were the primary destroyers of the nazi war machine and factories in berlin. Any educated historian will tell you that without the USA, WW2 would have been lost by the allies. D-Day was the deciding factor, and the russians did not defeat hitler in the east, the russian winter did. please, stop the envy and denial, the USA fought in Europe and the pacific. Where was europes help when we fought Japan???? We fought in 2 theatres, one of those theatres we were pretty much by ourselves (pacific) and won them both, so show a little gratitude and recognition. Yhe greatest empire of all time, the USA!!!

[CheGuevara]

German war production peaked in 1944, after the massive US factory bombing raids in 1943. They may have been "the primary destroyer," but they didn't really destroy it. By June 1944, the Russians clearly had achieved victory. They had already beaten the Germans decisively at the battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943. The Germans already existing weakness on the eastern front was shown during Operation Bagration, which started in late June 1944, during which the Russians again decisively beat the Germans, in every sector of a huge front spanning almost all of Eastern Europe. Did US involvement save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives of Russian and British soldiers? Yes. Did it win the war? Probably not.

(Edited by CheGuevara at 6:47 pm on May 8, 2002)

[Moskitto]

The US isn't the greatest Empire of all time. Guess what, the US hasn't been able to do the following which the greatest empire ever has.

Occupy 1/4 of the world's surface.
Single handedly drive an occupying army out of the Iberian peninsula.
Have a navy bigger than the next 2 biggest navies in the world.
Be feared so much that individuals can use citizenship as protection.
Remove the Turks from the Middle East.

By the way, Mustang's would suck without the British. ever heard of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine? that's what the Mustang used and it was British built.

US pilots suck as well, they used to shoot at refugee columns in WW2 and shot at their allie's tanks in WW2 and the Gulf War. They're probably to xenophobic to realise that they aren't the only people fighting the wars.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The rolls royce merlin engine was good, but the mustang out-performed the spitfire across th board, and please don't compare the british empire of old to the modern USA, because we kicked your but 200 years ago with a volunteer army, and then we saved your ass in WWII, and don't deny that because its true, you know it. Britain now kisses U.S. ass every day, and your weak ass navy cant even compare to the modern US navy, one of our nuclear aircraft carrier battle-groups could decimate your whole fleet, please, great britain of the past is no comparison to the USA today

[Capitalist Imperial]

By the way, the pratt and whitney r2800 double-wasp (american) in the Chance-Vought f4-U Corsair (pacific theatre, "the zero-killer") out-performed the merlin easy, it was the first engine to push a plane past 400 mph, and it didn't stall in a steep climb like the merlin!!!

[Imperial Power]

How about the German BF-103 experimental rocket plane that went in excess of 600 MPH

[Fabi]

i still cant believe that someone can be proud of something they didnt have the least to do with...

and what is up with people spelling 'per se' as 'per say' and things like that? and but-->butt not even to mention your grammar....

yeah... god bless the american education system....

and america is so great... being one of the last countries to have abolished slave trade and slavery... yeah, right....
(the usa to be exact...)