COMMUNISM OFFERS NOTHING TO THE POOR

[samaniego]

Communism has only good intentions, like many of you here, but like many of you as well it has nothing to offer those who are suffering right now. Capitalism at least offers the opportunity to better yourself. While communism gives no reward for a mans labor, in fact the poors situation is only made worse by the transition from one system to the next. A poor man will still be poor in communism as he is now in capitalism.

[Michael De Panama]

Communism gives no reward for labor? A poor man is still poor in communism?

You're totally wrong, guy. Saying a poor man would still be poor in communism is like saying a small number will still be small when averaged with a large number.

Communism rewards for labor just like capitalism. The only difference is that one person doesn't get more of the rewards for less of the labor, which is a major flaw of capitalism.

[samaniego]

There is nothing to give as a reward. The only ones who prosper are those in charge, not the workers. It happend in russia, china, and cuba. So the common man and woman are still screwed.

[Field Marshal]

The common man and woman you speak of are the people who are (supposed to be) in charge. It's a completely democratic establishment, much more democratic, in theory, than the present American system of democracy.

I suggest you read more for your arguement before you post such a claim.

[samaniego]

Oh you mean democratic in theory not reality. Because I don't recall elections in any communist country. Do you?

[j]

This is another ridiculous argument.....once again.

Communism is democratic in THEORY because true communism has not been implemented making true communism entirely theoretical. While the USSR, China, and Cuba were/are prominent "communist" countries they failed to meet many of the requirements such as democracy. Is Cuba better under Fidel's dictatorship or exploited by America and others? It's all relative. Cuba is definetly better under Castro than they were under Batista. I don't know enough about China or the USSR to say wether they were better or worse for their brand of communism.

True communism is only a theory. But its also evolutionary (how's that for a disclaimer?). So whose to say that the USSR would not have evolved into true communism? Who knows?

Because of greed and drive for wealth among a certain number of people true communism has never exisisted. But it's lack of exisistance does not mean it CAN NOT happen.

j

[samaniego]

"J" do you live in theory? Communism has been implemented and it has failed. regardless of was stage of evolution man is at. Communism is a model system that is beyond the reach of any of you. To even call yourselves communist is a disgrace. You here are fighting the wrong enemy. "j" Do you live by your communist ideals or do you go to work?

[bluerev002]

capitalism offers a reward??

in capitalism if you have enough money you can snach the land from the ppl. how is that a reward?? in cuba fidel snached all the rich ppls land and gave it to teh people. caitalism gives nothing unless you have money and tahts reality

[samaniego]

Sure I don't get rewarded in capitalism. Ever heard of a paycheck? I buy food, a place to live, transportation and anything I can afford. And I stand in line to pay not to see if theres enough food to go around.

[samaniego]

Sure I don't get rewarded in capitalism. Ever heard of a paycheck? I buy food, a place to live, transportation and anything I can afford. And I stand in line to pay not to see if theres enough food to go around.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from samaniego on 4:39 pm on Sep. 13, 2002
There is nothing to give as a reward. The only ones who prosper are those in charge, not the workers. It happend in russia, china, and cuba. So the common man and woman are still screwed.

There is nobody in charge of a communist country. Communism is a classless society. The USSR, China, and Cuba were all only socialist. And socialism without democracy is a little something called fascism.

[American Kid]

Explain, I'm not trying to be a dick, but how a country can operate----with no one in charge. That sounds like anarchy.

-AK

(ps, Mikey D you're being paged in the thread down below this one)

[Field Marshal]

ok motherfucker (sorry, just mad), I told you before to pull out a history book, but you still are stubborn. I believe I was misleading when I mentioned theory.

Do you really want to know why Communisn never worked, look at the history of the United States:

Democratic Marxist President Salvador Allende was elected in Chile even after the CIA fucked with the election. The only thing worse to the CIA than a marxist in power was a elected marxist in power. In a US-backed coup with Augusto Pinochet, September 11, 1973, the democratic marxist government was overthrown.

"A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims — indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century." - Rogue State by William Blum.

Like I said before, read more before you make such claims.

[American Kid]

Am I the motherfucker again this time, or are you calling someone else a motherfucker?

I already know I'm a motherfucker. And you've told me to pick up a history book on occasion, Field Marshall.

Welcome back btw, can't say I didn't miss you (?)

-AK

[Field Marshal]

haha, no not you American Kid. And I do remember asking you to pick up that history book. I've seen that since I've gone there has been a respectful reputation growing for you. I'll be watching....

[American Kid]

Are you fucking serious.............?

I can't even get into how puzzled I am by that statement of people having respect for me here. Firstly, I hardly ever post in S vs. C, I mosty goof around with the kids in Chit Chat.

I've actually been ashamed by how much I haven't been posting "relevant" stuff lately. Oh, well.

I just picked a fight with you, btw ^ But I'm sure as I'm writing this you're reading it.

Back to business
-AK

[Field Marshal]

I just read this post where everyone was praising you adn bashing brian, whoever that is. EVERYBODY, for some reason.

[American Kid]

They're all assholes. Probably drunk.

-AK
:)

[canikickit]

You're the asshole AndreKirlenko.
I'm gonna shoot you.


I'm reading the above an hour later and it makes no sense. It is kind of strange how your brain changes. I feeling fucked up. What i meant to say was that this fucking samaniego character doesn't really seem to have a realistic grip on the handrail of reality. Welcome to the club.

(Edited by canikickit at 4:49 am on Sep. 14, 2002)

[MaxB]

In Capitalism, I'm only limited by my own limitations. Under Marxism, I'm limited by my own limitations and those imposed on me by the "proletariat dictatorship".
I work for my benefit and not for the benefit of others. I'm not my brother's keeper nor do I want to be. If a "Socialist" wants to share the labors of his fruit and give his "wealth" away, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. By the same token, I don't want a Commie telling me what to do with my property or money.
Socialism doesn't work. Only obtuse, low self-esteem people, and failures followe that sick-stupid ideology.

[pastradamus]

Quote: from MaxB on 4:02 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
In Capitalism, I'm only limited by my own limitations. Under Marxism, I'm limited by my own limitations and those imposed on me by the "proletariat dictatorship".
I work for my benefit and not for the benefit of others. I'm not my brother's keeper nor do I want to be. If a "Socialist" wants to share the labors of his fruit and give his "wealth" away, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. By the same token, I don't want a Commie telling me what to do with my property or money.
Socialism doesn't work. Only obtuse, low self-esteem people, and failures followe that sick-stupid ideology.

Give me an example of where capitalism has actually worked?

70 million poor in america,& ye thing that works?
Stop milking people for your own well being.

[MaxB]

Boy, you're obtuse.
Capitalism works in the U. S., Canada, Japan, Australia, Western Europe. What, are you a joker? I only see people coming to the US and I don't see anyone wanting to leave.

[pastradamus]

Quote: from MaxB on 5:07 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
Boy, you're obtuse.
Capitalism works in the U. S., Canada, Japan, Australia, Western Europe. What, are you a joker? I only see people coming to the US and I don't see anyone wanting to leave.

DID you actually read what i just said,typical ignorant cappi.

But since im suck a sweet guy im gonna repeat that,70 million poor,living in the US alone,Reason being that they've been milked out by fatcats.

& It dosent work in europe,thats why europeans always turn to the left & right when ye guys fuck up!

[pastradamus]

Quote: from MaxB on 5:07 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
Boy, you're obtuse.
Capitalism works in the U. S., Canada, Japan, Australia, Western Europe. What, are you a joker? I only see people coming to the US and I don't see anyone wanting to leave.

Are you an Idiot,
Retard,
Or all of the above?

Did you listen to what i actually said?

Ok since im such a sweet guy i'll rephrase that.

70 million people poor in the US,reason being...
Fatcats in their offices milking & exploting these people.
& thats your idea of things working.

Capitalism dosent work,especially in europe.
Thats why the left & right are popular fronts.
Eg hitler,franco,lenin,....

[RedCeltic]

Adam Smith, the philosopher who basically discovered capitalism, said that every dollar was like a vote.


In a nation where the richest tenth of the population controls more than half the wealth, how can money be a tool of democracy? What sort of election would it be if the rich got to vote ten times or more while the common man cast his single ballot?Because of the inequality in economic “voting” the rich exert a much larger control over the economy and, for that reason, the economy serves their interest over that of the majority.

Those who support capitalism would like to have you think that these owners have the worker and consumer’s best interest at heart, but big businessmen have only one thing close to their hearts (or, rather, close to their hearts would be if they had them), PROFIT. Companies have always tried to spend as little as possible on their employees. Because of this, many companies have thrown away their workers and moved production offshore to factories where they can better exploit workers in nations without even the United States’ low level of worker protections.

Capitalist economies often grow rapidly for several years and then fall for several years more. While almost all enjoy the highs, many are hurt during the lows. Unemployment rises drastically during these times and lives are ruined as health and education expenses often force people to make choices that harm their bodies, mind, and futures

[samaniego]

70 million poor people. Im poor because I don't own a yacht, or have a million dollars in my bank account. You have to define poverty, and what being poor really means. I see poor homless people on skidrow nearly everyday but not enough to make up the numbers your talking about. I assume that this makes my grasp of reality difficult for you to understand. Seeing as how your all living in your communist countrys. So be careful when you say theres 70 million poor people in the US im poor, but im not starving or homeless.

[RedCeltic]

The number of homeless New Yorkers residing in shelters each night is at the highest point in New York City’s history. At the end of 2001 more than 30,000 homeless men, women, and children were sleeping each night in the New York City shelter system, including more than 12,800 children, 9,800 adult family members, and 7,600 single adults. Thousands more sleep on city streets, park benches, and subway trains.
Since 1998 the New York City homeless shelter population has increased by over 42 percent, from 21,000 people in shelters each night to more than 30,000 people per night.
Over the past three years, the number of homeless families sleeping in New York City shelters and welfare hotels has increased by 55 percent, from an average daily census of 4,429 families in January 1998 to an average census of 6,786 families in December 2001. The average stay for homeless families in the municipal shelter system has more than doubled over the past decade, from five months in 1990 to eleven months currently.

http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/Hom...melessness.html (http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/Homelessness.html)

That's in just one city.

(Edited by RedCeltic at 12:33 pm on Sep. 14, 2002)


(Edited by RedCeltic at 12:34 pm on Sep. 14, 2002)

[Marxboriqua]

The only limit in Capitilism is your capacity for greed. I mean why the hell does anyone "need" a palatial estate or 5 bmw's. Once we remove the shackles of "money" then Communism will truly be a viable alternative to Capitalism.

[Field Marshal]

hey maxb you have a lot of balls to say that believers in Socialism are failures.

Salvador Allende
Victor L. Berger
Eduard Bernstein
Maurice Bishop
Earl Browder
Nikolai Bukharin
James P. Cannon
Fidel Castro
Noam Chomsky
Tony Cliff
Angela Davis
Eugene Debs
Daniel De Leon
Farrell Dobbs
Hal Draper
Max Eastman
Frederich Engels
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn
William Z. Foster
Emma Goldman
Antonio Gramsci
Che Guevara
Gus Hall
Michael Harrington
Bill Haywood
Gerry Healy
Joe Hill
Morris Hillquit
Irving Howe
Mother Jones
Lev Kamenev
Karl Kautsky
Robert M. La Follette
Arlette Laguiller
Vladimir Lenin
Karl Liebknecht
Ken Livingstone
Meyer London
Rosa Luxemburg
Ernest Mandel
Vito Marcantonio
Karl Marx
A. J. Muste
Karl Radek
John Reed
Leon Sedov
Max Shachtman
Joseph Stalin
Norman Thomas
Leon Trotsky
Frank Zeidler
Howard Zinn
Grigori Zinoviev
Jack London
Albert Einstein
George Orwell
Even the Black Panther Party

Fuck there are so many more, you need to pick up that history book.
http://csh.gn.apc.org/TopWindow/pages/VanillaTop.htm

[Mazdak]

????? You are forgetting LEv Kamenenev Field Marshal., What are you trying to prove? that those men are failures or that you support them?

[Anonymous]

I thought you were a capitalist, FM?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 9:58 pm on Sep. 13, 2002
Communism gives no reward for labor? A poor man is still poor in communism?

You're totally wrong, guy. Saying a poor man would still be poor in communism is like saying a small number will still be small when averaged with a large number.

Communism rewards for labor just like capitalism. The only difference is that one person doesn't get more of the rewards for less of the labor, which is a major flaw of capitalism.


unfortunatey, it measures only physical labor, and does not recognize intellectual property or innovative thinking, or mental-ability and labor, which are just as important and more rare than physical labor

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Field Marshal on 10:43 pm on Sep. 13, 2002
The common man and woman you speak of are the people who are (supposed to be) in charge. It's a completely democratic establishment, much more democratic, in theory, than the present American system of democracy.

I suggest you read more for your arguement before you post such a claim.


unfortunately,it lacks any freedom

[Field Marshal]

haha, No I am not a capitalist. I've been on this forum before.

I consider my self a socialist capitalist. I believe in power to the people and that people have the power. I believe in many socialist ideas, but I also believe that people should be able to make as much money as they want. But I also believe that there should be a limitation to that amount of gain.

All I believe in is that people can do whatever they want (ecnomically), as long as everyone else can still live in a healthy (free health care) and decent enviroment. I bevlieve that those who want to gain more wealth, must also gain more responsibilities to help others.

[Pinko]

It doesn't measure anything. Anyone who is willing to contribute to society (positivly) is treated equally. The philosopher and the scientist are as important as the steel worker. In communism there is no such thing as intelectual property, it is all the property of society.

[Capitalist Imperial]
"unfortunately,it lacks any freedom"

Justify that.

(Edited by Pinko at 9:00 pm on Sep. 14, 2002)

[Field Marshal]

CI, if communism in some places, like Chile or Guatamala, was given a chance, then I don't think you would be sitting there typing "No Freedom" when you describe communism.

[Goldfinger]

CI, could you please describe what exactly you mean with no freedom? maybe then I could try to agree with you for once?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from pastradamus on 4:35 pm on Sep. 14, 2002

Quote: from MaxB on 4:02 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
In Capitalism, I'm only limited by my own limitations. Under Marxism, I'm limited by my own limitations and those imposed on me by the "proletariat dictatorship".
I work for my benefit and not for the benefit of others. I'm not my brother's keeper nor do I want to be. If a "Socialist" wants to share the labors of his fruit and give his "wealth" away, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. By the same token, I don't want a Commie telling me what to do with my property or money.
Socialism doesn't work. Only obtuse, low self-esteem people, and failures followe that sick-stupid ideology.

Give me an example of where capitalism has actually worked?

70 million poor in america,& ye thing that works?
Stop milking people for your own well being.



7o million? did you just pull that from "you know where"?

the 2000 US census poverty statistc was about 11% (trending down from 10 years ago), which would mean about just under 30 million

And of course, american standards of poor are relative. Most of these people are still clothed, fed, and sheltered.

"poor" in america sometimes means you get cable, but not HBO

stop the class and power envy against the US

look at you own nation for change, stop blaming benevolent America!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from pastradamus on 5:42 pm on Sep. 14, 2002

Quote: from MaxB on 5:07 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
Boy, you're obtuse.
Capitalism works in the U. S., Canada, Japan, Australia, Western Europe. What, are you a joker? I only see people coming to the US and I don't see anyone wanting to leave.

DID you actually read what i just said,typical ignorant cappi.

But since im suck a sweet guy im gonna repeat that,70 million poor,living in the US alone,Reason being that they've been milked out by fatcats.

& It dosent work in europe,thats why europeans always turn to the left & right when ye guys fuck up!


actually, it works great in europe

the UK and germany, and other western nations, are some of our largest trading partners

We (the USA) rebuilt europe after WWII

pastradamus probably means that it doesn't work for HIM because he is lazy and doesn't understand that in capitalism you actually are responsible for yourself and have to work a little for your reward, and not expect a government handout like most extreme leftists

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Pinko on 8:58 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
It doesn't measure anything. Anyone who is willing to contribute to society (positivly) is treated equally. The philosopher and the scientist are as important as the steel worker. In communism there is no such thing as intelectual property, it is all the property of society.

[Capitalist Imperial]
"unfortunately,it lacks any freedom"

Justify that.

(Edited by Pinko at 9:00 pm on Sep. 14, 2002)


It is simple, if everyone is to be compensated equally, then the pime motivator in a carreer will not be compensation or challenge, but type of work. no one will want to dig ditches, or be a janitor (as most don't in the US, but the difference here is that you can choose to do something else)

In communism, a board of labor planners will test you, poke you, and prod you, then they will tell you how you are to spend your next 60 years on earth

choice in products will be extremely limited

elections will be a jooke

those that disribute resources will skim from the top

etc, etc, until it evolves into the form of communism we all know and love so much

[Ymir]

"choice in products will be extremely limited"

Most people in the U.S. can see many products, but still can't buy anything they want.

"elections will be a jooke"

It's the same today in the U.S.

"those that distribute resources will skim from the top"

Again, it is exactly the same in U.S. today.

[canikickit]

1 in 7 people in New York recieve financial aid from the gov't. It's the best coutry in the world.

[Pinko]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:28 pm on Sep. 14, 2002
It is simple, if everyone is to be compensated equally, then the pime motivator in a carreer will not be compensation or challenge, but type of work. no one will want to dig ditches, or be a janitor (as most don't in the US, but the difference here is that you can choose to do something else)

In communism, a board of labor planners will test you, poke you, and prod you, then they will tell you how you are to spend your next 60 years on earth

choice in products will be extremely limited

elections will be a jooke

those that disribute resources will skim from the top

etc, etc, until it evolves into the form of communism we all know and love so much


Why should there be no challenge in what you do as your job?
Love of society can be a bigger incentive than money.
As for the dirty jobs, get everyone to do two weeks community service each year, this should prove more than adequete for the needs of society.
Communism doesn't have to dictate what job you do, why shouldn't people have a choice if they are qualified to do so. You are assuming that everyone is educated to the same standard. People with a higher ability to learn should be encouraged to push the levels of their learning to the limit. There is no real reason that the hiring/firing procedure of the rest of the world cannot be used to determine suitability.

Why do you need a vast choice of products? One type of toothpaste will do me for the rest of my life as long as it does the job.

"Elections will be a joke." Can you give any reason for that? I can't see any problem that there isn't a way around.

Why would those distributing resources skim? If there is no monetary system, what possible use could someone have for things they don't need? Anyway, there are bureaucratic safeguards that can be implemented.

[Tkinter1]

"The only limit in Capitilism is your capacity for greed. I mean why the hell does anyone "need" a palatial estate or 5 bmw's. Once we remove the shackles of "money" then Communism will truly be a viable alternative to Capitalism."

Viable maybe. But boring and unrewarding at the same time.

If i (could) wanna wear gator boots
and a pimped out gucci suit
get new bmws and bentelys and yachts
and live in a 10 mil home
im gona do it and laugh in your face when ur jealous ass is washing my a half a million dollar car.



If you were living on the streets would you want some jerkoff coming up to you and asking you if want handouts for the rest of your life? Or would you want him to get you cleaned up and get that job interview. Which sounds like more fun?

[Stormin Norman]

Communism is democratic in THEORY because true communism has not been implemented making true communism entirely theoretical. While the USSR, China, and Cuba were/are prominent "communist" countries they failed to meet many of the requirements such as democracy. Is Cuba better under Fidel's dictatorship or exploited by America and others? It's all relative. Cuba is definetly better under Castro than they were under Batista. I don't know enough about China or the USSR to say wether they were better or worse for their brand of communism.

China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union are all examples of communist party-states. Political scientists have arrived on an agreement about the definition of this. The accepted definition is:

"A political system in which the ruling Communist Party holds a monopoly on political power, claims the right to lead and control all government and social institutions, and proclaims allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism." -Introduction to Comparative Politics; 2nd edition; by Kesselman, Krieger, and Joseph

Now, if this definition doesn't match your vision of communist ideals you are a sucker. You have been duped into thinking that there is some pure form of communism that can exist. Furthermore, when faced with the theory of communism you acknowledge that it is a virtuous theory, which it is not. Somewhere you have dropped the ball when doing your research on the subject. It appears that you missed the totalitarian theme involved in Marx's writings. I suggest you go back and review the Manifesto. Where does it say that a communist state is a democratic one? Communist revolution involves an infiltration of whatever political system exists and a violent takeover of the current infrastructure. Loyalists and property owners must be removed from their stations forcibly and the resources must be redistributed 'fairly' amongst the masses. If you claim that communist ideology promotes anything other than bloody riots, massive looting, and totalitarian rule in order to promote this type of equitable destruction, I suggest that you lack any moral fiber. The suckers that believe in this system of rule suffer two fates. They either become party favorites that profit from the theft of resources and capital, or the poor slaves who are forced to work at a level of subsistence determined by the government. Funny how a two-class system must emerge in order to save the people from what Marx mistakenly called a two-class system. However, through Marxism the lower of the two classes exists as slaves. Marx himself claimed that slaves where better off than the working class under capitalism. Perhaps that is why his theory results in there creation.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:09 pm on Sep. 15, 2002)

[Frosty]

"China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union are all examples of communist party-states"
That's what they call themselves. They are all a result of their leaders' interpretion of communism. In China and the Soviet Union especially, this led to what you fanatically believe is the core of communism.
That leads me to say that Stalin, for instance, not only made some horrible havoc in his time, but also has responsibility as to why communism is so hated by ignorant people.

"Now, if this definition doesn't match your vision of communist ideals you are a sucker."
LMAO


"If i (could) wanna wear gator boots
and a pimped out gucci suit
get new bmws and bentelys and yachts
and live in a 10 mil home
im gona do it and laugh in your face when ur jealous ass is washing my a half a million dollar car. "
Would you be happy just because you had all this?


(Edited by Frosty at 1:18 pm on Sep. 15, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

Frosty,

I am hardly ignorant when it comes to communist history or theory. This is a charge that is to made of someone who promotes its use. Either the person is ignorant of what the actual theory entails, or they are ignorant of what it means to be a human being. Whatever the reason for their stance, they represent the lowest form of life on earth, next to the cock roach.

[Frosty]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 2:13 pm on Sep. 15, 2002
Frosty,

I am hardly ignorant when it comes to communist history or theory. This is a charge that is to made of someone who promotes its use. Either the person is ignorant of what the actual theory entails, or they are ignorant of what it means to be a human being. Whatever the reason for their stance, they represent the lowest form of life on earth, next to the cock roach.

ok, i'll take back the statement that you are totally ignorant, as it seems from your posts that you have already read a little about communism.
Also, i'm not a communist myself, BUT:
*don't you think communism has evolved at all? don't you think today's communists see the mistakes of USSR and China, and learn from them?
*"they represent the lowest form of life on earth, next to the cock roach"
i guess "stormin moron" suits you well.


(Edited by Frosty at 2:36 pm on Sep. 15, 2002)

[crcdknight]

Communism rewards every poor people or those who are at a disadvantage. These people may not live a luxurious life but they will be afforded with the basic stuff they need everyday.

In a capitalist scenario, there may be people whom you called "rewarded" by their selfish motives, but is the society really at ease with the system. Capitalism is a system of exploitation, while Communism is a system of equality and justice.

In the idea of election, election in an american sense or the so called overused "democratic" sense, is not by democracy at all...or should i say does not exhibit the real sense of democracy for it only allows those people who have power and money to run for office.

Well, I guess that's all i have to comment for the time being and I hope those who admire capitalism and criticize the ideology we believe in will entirely read about what we're fighting for. Never depend on the propaganda released by the Imperialist which took advantage of their power over the major brodcasting companies in the world.

Long live the Proletarian Revolution!!

[Stormin Norman]

[
Once we remove the shackles of "money" then Communism will truly be a viable alternative to Capitalism.

What do you suppose we replace the medium of exchange, known as money, with? Without the use of money, we would be relegated to using a barter system, or far worse, complete slavery. The human race has progressed since those times, and I would hardly support a move in that direction. Money ensures a mutual benefit for mutual exchange relationship between the employer and the employee when a worker offers his time in exchange for money. Not to mention that money gives the consumer a choice in the goods and services that he can obtain. Money is a common consensus and is the most collective idea that I know. It is obvious why you are a poor, starving communist. You are a lunatic with no concept of the monetary system. I kind of pity your lack of proper thinking. Take a class or read a book once in awhile.

It is funny to me when someone like you uses the term viable or sustainable. If the human race listened to the fools who use these liberal buzzwords there would be no viable economic system or sustainable living, for that matter. We would all be living in mud-holes and eating bugs to survive. I like it here in the 21st century. You communists have a lot in common with these Islamic fascists who wage war on modernity.

[samaniego]

Why is everything a man does to improve his life, considered greedy by communist. I think it's greedy of you to want to take away a mans wealth and give it to those who do not deserve it. Communism is a humane way of keeping those to weak to survive alive. Capitalism continues the evolution of man by eliminating the weak. It's a completly natural process.

[Anonymous]

I agree.

The strong shall survive, and the weak shall perish.

[vox]

I've yelled at Leftists here for not understanding science, and now I'll yell at the right-wingers for the same thing:

"Capitalism continues the evolution of man by eliminating the weak. It's a completly natural process."

Where to begin?

You don't define your terms. You posit evolution as having "progress" as a goal (though "progress" can ONLY be defined in cultural terms). You define "natural" something that exists only under certain, and man-made, class relations. That's a start, and let's all take a closer look.

Definition of terms: What is "weak," and what is "strong," in samaniego's world? To infer from the post from which I quoted, the "weak" are those who can't "survive" in capitalist society. These would include the severely physically disabled, to a large degree, and many senior citizens who can no longer work, not to mention the mentally handicapped. Many who fall into these classes cannot "survive" by themselves. The anti-human quality of capitalism is here fully realized in samaniego's heartless post. However, thanks to both, I think, the Judeo-Christian tradition and also from Enlightenment thinking, even most capitalist apologists don't think that it's morally permissable to simply abandon these people. Note that Dark Capitalist agrees with samaniego on this point.

Evolution: If ever the case needs to be made that evolution desperately needs to be taught in schools, people need look any farther than the right-wing mischaracterization of evolutionary theory. Samaniego takes the traditional, and discredited, "Social Darwinism" approach, and there is no doubt that is precisely what he's doing, for he conditions "progress," that is, "evolution," upon the elimination of the "weak." This is the old "suvival of the fittest" argument.

However, in Darwinian terms, what does "fit" mean? It means nothing more than reproductive success. It has nothing at all to do with prowess, intelligence, or "success" defined by man-made cultural determinations. To equate culturally defined "good" with the process of natural selection is to misunderstand Darwin and to reify moral choices in natural processes. I strongly suggest you read Gould on the ladder of progress.

(As an aside, I think it's also interesting to note that some Leftists, and virtually all right-wingers, consider "progress" an inherently good thing, and this generally refers to technological progress, when, in reality, it's neither good or bad but simply a process of building upon the knowledge inherited from previous workers.)

Capitalism: Samaniego ends by telling us that elimination of the "weak" under capitalism is a "natural process," but he does not see that capitalism is not a part of nature, like gravity, earthquakes and wind, but a man-made system of social relations. Verily, if capitalism was somehow the "natural" condition for humankind, why did it take so many thousands of years to come about? One can say that it's natural for cats to hunt, and anyone who has a cat for a pet could probably verify this. I've a friend whose cat "hunts" shopping bags, hiding from it, sneaking up on it, and then finally pouncing and "killing" the bag. Samaniego and his ilk wish to reduce us to this kind of "species being," though it lacks any sort of historicity and is easily invalidated by looking at various human cultures throughout the world.

But for right-wingers, is means ought: since things are this way, they ought to be this way, and they will misuse science, or anything else, to try to "prove" it. That they so often fail so miserably, as samaniego and DC did here, is no deterrent to their prejudice.

vox

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from vox on 5:35 am on Sep. 16, 2002
I've yelled at Leftists here for not understanding science, and now I'll yell at the right-wingers for the same thing:

"Capitalism continues the evolution of man by eliminating the weak. It's a completly natural process."

Where to begin?

You don't define your terms. You posit evolution as having "progress" as a goal (though "progress" can ONLY be defined in cultural terms). You define "natural" something that exists only under certain, and man-made, class relations. That's a start, and let's all take a closer look.

Definition of terms: What is "weak," and what is "strong," in samaniego's world? To infer from the post from which I quoted, the "weak" are those who can't "survive" in capitalist society. These would include the severely physically disabled, to a large degree, and many senior citizens who can no longer work, not to mention the mentally handicapped. Many who fall into these classes cannot "survive" by themselves. The anti-human quality of capitalism is here fully realized in samaniego's heartless post. However, thanks to both, I think, the Judeo-Christian tradition and also from Enlightenment thinking, even most capitalist apologists don't think that it's morally permissable to simply abandon these people. Note that Dark Capitalist agrees with samaniego on this point.

Evolution: If ever the case needs to be made that evolution desperately needs to be taught in schools, people need look any farther than the right-wing mischaracterization of evolutionary theory. Samaniego takes the traditional, and discredited, "Social Darwinism" approach, and there is no doubt that is precisely what he's doing, for he conditions "progress," that is, "evolution," upon the elimination of the "weak." This is the old "suvival of the fittest" argument.

However, in Darwinian terms, what does "fit" mean? It means nothing more than reproductive success. It has nothing at all to do with prowess, intelligence, or "success" defined by man-made cultural determinations. To equate culturally defined "good" with the process of natural selection is to misunderstand Darwin and to reify moral choices in natural processes. I strongly suggest you read Gould on the ladder of progress.

(As an aside, I think it's also interesting to note that some Leftists, and virtually all right-wingers, consider "progress" an inherently good thing, and this generally refers to technological progress, when, in reality, it's neither good or bad but simply a process of building upon the knowledge inherited from previous workers.)

Capitalism: Samaniego ends by telling us that elimination of the "weak" under capitalism is a "natural process," but he does not see that capitalism is not a part of nature, like gravity, earthquakes and wind, but a man-made system of social relations. Verily, if capitalism was somehow the "natural" condition for humankind, why did it take so many thousands of years to come about? One can say that it's natural for cats to hunt, and anyone who has a cat for a pet could probably verify this. I've a friend whose cat "hunts" shopping bags, hiding from it, sneaking up on it, and then finally pouncing and "killing" the bag. Samaniego and his ilk wish to reduce us to this kind of "species being," though it lacks any sort of historicity and is easily invalidated by looking at various human cultures throughout the world.

But for right-wingers, is means ought: since things are this way, they ought to be this way, and they will misuse science, or anything else, to try to "prove" it. That they so often fail so miserably, as samaniego and DC did here, is no deterrent to their prejudice.

vox


Believe it or not, i'm having an argument with a social darwinist right-winger on another forum I'm in, and what you've said right here has helped me enormously. Thanks a bundle.

[vox]

"Believe it or not, i'm having an argument with a social darwinist right-winger on another forum I'm in, and what you've said right here has helped me enormously. Thanks a bundle."

Hey, I'm just glad it's useful. It's just another example of the anti-intellectualism upon which the right-wing thrives. Spread the word.

vox

[RedCeltic]

how many times have we argued about social dawinism on this board? I've lost count now..

... Social Darwinism is a relic of the victorian age where anthropologists where trying to find the "Lost Tribe of Israel"... and archaeologists excavated with dynamite.

Dispite the fact that the concept of "The strong survive" had been proven not relivent in the study of anthropology and sociology in the 1930's (by a German no less) It was still a major part of Nazi philosophy.

While Darwinism still continues to be the main foundation for explination of biological and geological evelution, it is useless in examination of socal structure.

Societies do not evolve. To say so, you would have to believe that every human on earth is subject to the same social elements. Every society that emerged, had been given the same oppertuinity, the same resources, and same experiences.

[samaniego]

My intentions are in no way to degrade man. Nor was I soley looking at Darwin but Marx' point as well. Im not cold hearted as you would like to believe. Im merely making an observation, not as a commie or a cappie but as a man. If you as a communist would like to believe that your doing something for those who are crippled, old, or just to lazy to work then you are one in a billion. Man has not at this time evolved enough for the plea of humanity by wannabe commies to be heard. Im not a money hungry machine that would climb over one man to get his share of the pie, I work to get what I deserve my fair share, and nothing more.

[samaniego]

My intentions are in no way to degrade man. Nor was I soley looking at Darwin but Marx' point as well. Im not cold hearted as you would like to believe. Im merely making an observation, not as a commie or a cappie but as a man. If you as a communist would like to believe that your doing something for those who are crippled, old, or just to lazy to work then you are one in a billion. Man has not at this time evolved enough for the plea of humanity by wannabe commies to be heard. Im not a money hungry machine that would climb over one man to get his share of the pie, I work to get what I deserve my fair share, and nothing more.

[RedCeltic]

you basicly just said nothing 2X

[El Che]

lol

[samaniego]

Nothing that idealist would understand. Come back when you have something to debate.