A Question to Capitalists - Is communism evil or different?

[timbaly]

I was just wondering if the capitalists on this site see communism as an evil or as something just simply different and inferior to capitalism. When i was a capitalist i didn't think communism was evil or bad, I just thought capitalism was the better way to go.


(Edited by timbaly at 9:05 pm on Nov. 4, 2002)

[American Kid]

Terrific question.

Recently, after my 1,000th post and promotion to commandante (hand on a bible, never thought I'd ever ascend to such a high rank in a COMMIE army, but I digress...... ;) ) I considered starting a thread I was going to call, "WHAT I'VE LEARNED AFTER A THOUSAND AND ONE POSTS."

And it was going to--- basically--- be just that, what I've learned. Which is:

a lot.


Referencing to a rather fatalistic comment made by Malte some time last summer, I must that the "experiment" has not, in fact, "failed." In my opinion (in my "case".....?) I would say it's been, to the contrary, quite a success.

Again (for the eight thousandth time) I came to this site, months ago, looking for a FIGHT. I am American. Born and bred. Raised on Coca Cola, McDonald's, and saturday morning cartoons--------- AND I want it made clear, I'm not reciting this "laundry list" with any sort of disdain or "negative" connotation, as it's how I grew up, and it's all I know, and I don't regret anything.

Needless to say, it sure wasn't "communism" I was raised on; and to say I knew anything about it beyond it being something to loathe and be frightened of, would be a lie. Now grown into a young adult, as of a few months ago, I'd hardly knew any MORE about it, yet my hostility and trepidation TOWARD it had only GROWN exponentially.

In other words, I was wholly ignorant to a different form of thought. A different way in oder to govern a people. I was cut off to different view points, and in turn was rendered hardly anything resembling "worldy."

And so since then have learned quite a lot, and God help me (help us all.......?) I can now, unequivocally, count among some of the very best cyber-buds I've ever made in the 'net, some of you very hard-line communists who are, like myself, frequent patrons of this board. And I don't think I've ever been quite so happy to have a plan blow up right in my fuckin' face.

The bottom line: I am not a communist. And my fears and trepidations toward any form of censorship prevent me from even feeling comfortable declaring myself a "socialist." Maybe this is left-over, residual ignorance from my first days here. I think it's not. I'm a writer, and there's nothing I value more than my words, or my right to write them.

HOWEVER, there is a very big difference between disagreeing with someone politically (idealogically, philosphically, etc....) and not being able to be their friend. I VALUE the relationships I have with people here-------- who I also disagree with PROFOUNDLY. We won't convince each other to change views totally on all the issues, but we WILL help each other out; to shed light on some things we might not have seen a certain way before; to basically just COMMUNICATE and keep dialogue open and participate in this world---- and with each other about important things and important issues and keep the debate alive and kicking. In my opinion, THAT'S the most important thing, and in some ways is when we're all, as people in this world, the most ALIVE we can possibly be. When we're seeing the world a certain way, and acting on what we think should change about it.

...............Sounding a little earily "Marxist", eh........? :) Whatever..............

What I don't get, and kind of feel bad about, is people who do NOT attempt to .............I don't know what the word is I'm looking for....."empathize" (?) with the other side. The really, really hard-line people who REFUSE to acknowledge, ne're hardly show RESPECT, to those with differences of opinion. I think if you totally commit yourself, EXCLUSIVELY, to either the right or the left, you're missing out, and castrating yourself to all the different view points and ideas available to you throughout this world.

It really, sincerely CONFUSES me when people choose a side, and stick vehemently ("radically"?) to it, regardless of the other side's argument. Because then it ceases to be an "argument", or a "debate", as you no longer are OPEN to what the other side has to do---or say. You're instead spouting your own views------ ASSAULTING the other side with them----- then furiously defending them when disagreed with.

Then there's no compromise, and no real "exchange" being made. There's nothing constructive going on, and in my opinion, no POINT to it anymore.

I won't get into naming names, but those who've been here a while will know whom I'm getting at. And it's too bad. These people bum me out, and they sort of bring the whole place down.

Granted, sometimes they can be amusing. But like how the running of the bulls can be amusing.

So, is communism evil; OR do we see it as evil...........? Possibly. But getting the definition of communism from someone who does not "subscribe" to it, could be as frusterating as getting it out of someone who DOES.

I don't know. It's how you're raised. Plain and simple. Some people, as they mature into adulthood, can change, and convert to one side or the other. But in my opinion, it's only as evil as how much you grew up with it. It's all circumstantial.

In my opinion, is it evil? No. I think Marx was trying to do the right thing. And in his time, of sweatshop factories and (obvious) class unequality, it was.

But times are different. He had it wrong, as the proletariat didn't raise up and break it's chains, it sat back and watched (along with the bourgesie) as the petit bourgesie rose up, to become today's modern middle class.

The RULING class. The people sitting at home with their remote controls.

It's only as evil as many of my rights as it would take away. And compared to how I'm used to living, that would be a lot.

But what do I know? I'm just American Kid.

you guys (ALL you guys, except that fraud STALINSOLDIERS) are profoundly interesting to me. I love logging on here and reading all the fucked up shit you have to say about our world, and all the pitiful ways in which we attempt to govern it.

From the right AND the left,
-American Kid

(if you read all this, thank you very much)

[Solzhenitsyn]

I was just wondering if the capitalist see communism as an evil or as something just simply different and inferior to capitalism.

The proof is in the pudding. The sixty or so marxist governments ever installed have lead to only one thing -a sea of corpses. If repeated attempt to install Marxists regimes lead repeatedly to mass-murder, then that should tip you off that something is FUCKING WRONG AND/OR EVIL WITH THE WHOLE THEORY.

The first thing half the commies on this board would do if they came to power is slaughter the lot of us. The other half of them would already be dead because they forgot the first rule during a communist revolution - look out for #1 no matter the cost. Listen to their heroes - Lenin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky, Yagoda, Mao, Stalin, Che - prattle on and on about the "uses of terror and propaganda" and such vile filth.

I don't hate commies. I think they deserve pity in the same manner as schizophrenics. They live in a fantasy world created ex nihilo from insanties, lies and delusions.

Are there essentially good but misguided people entangled in communism - yes absolutely. Some of them renounce mass murder commited by communists and honestly care about the little guy. Nor do they have the desire to repeat past mistakes. I've got no complaint with them except I think they're wrong. What sane person doesn't want to leave the world a better place than when they received it? The devil is in the details.

[Stormin Norman]

Excellent answer, Solz. I would differ on only one account; I hate communists. I do not think that ignorance is a good defense for them. By not understanding the implications of the worldview they express, they hold as much of the blame for the violent atrocities that come to pass as the ruthless leaders they later iconify. I don't care about the altruistic nature of those "innocent" communists who simply had no idea how it would play out in the end. Furthermore, anyone still preaching the virtues of communism, after the fact, has enough knowledge to know better. The most immoral of practices is to hold a belief without extensive investigation. Without those innocent sheep who buy into the mantra, without question, the slaughter would not be possible.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:08 pm on Nov. 2, 2002)

[American Kid]

Okay, let's keep this one going.

C'mon, let's not let this one dwell twenty or so threads down at the bottom of the page. We have the potential to actually "do" things with this one.

Someone jump in.

-AK

[Iepilei]

ignorant communists?

is that the reason I had to search for books and information concerning the system. the reason I had to research both capitalist and socialist ideals, histories of the USA and CCCP, and take objective looks at which worked best for a large-world spectrum??

yes, I'm ignorant cause I can argue both for and against capitalism / communism - as, you know, i've studied both of them.

it's ignorant to be objective eh?

[Stormin Norman]

Maybe you're just stupid. If you had done enough investigation you should know by now that communism entails theft of property. If you do not have enough character to see exactly why this is wrong, then there is no help for you. You misread my post, why would I expect you to understand either communist or capitalist theories. When did I say that it is ignorant to be objective. I believe I said quite the opposite. By the way, stupidity is a worse excuse than ignorance.

[Iepilei]

I think you're just angry.

Regardless, the theory does not entail the "theft" of property, yet the distribution of the means of production to the hands of the state - a democratic state at that.

I'm sure the kings cried when we took the temples, castles, and schools from them. When we took their kingdoms from them - made them disgraced and worthless. Democracy!?? One man not over all?!

What a cursed concept!

Yeah, well I support that. I have found that socialism is the best way to institute democracy, as it places no man above no other in any aspect. No heirarchy, etc.

If it means I have to take the factory away from the man who worked to obtain it, then SO be it!! The kings weren't just "issued" castles either, they had to fight for them and work for them... on the backs of others - just as the capitalists do.

[timbaly]

I want to hear CI's opinion on this, someone tell him to post here.

[LeninCCCP]

Fuck living in a fantasy world if you told people in a monarchy that in the future their ancestors votes would make a difference they would laugh at you. If you tell any of the bonehead capitalists here that all people could be equal with no social classes they would laugh in your face my point being is... That things take a long time to change but pretending things will always be the same is retarded so i feel pity for cappies cause they live in a fantasy world that the rich will always be rich.

[timbaly]

OK people COOL IT!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't want to turn this into a debate.
I just want the opinions, no matter how stupid they may seem to you.
American Kid can you remind the others to post here, only you seem to see the greatness of this question.

[Yars]

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 10:30 am on Nov. 2, 2002
I don't hate commies. I think they deserve pity in the same manner as schizophrenics. They live in a fantasy world created ex nihilo from insanties, lies and delusions.
From Lies and Delusions eh? Huh...Our current system seems to be coming to mind. Funny...in a sense, how people can only come up with arrogance, and insults to back their claims and comments.

[Stormin Norman]

Both Solz and I both back our positions rather well. I am arrogant and have no problem insulting those that fall in the category of subhuman commy filth. That should not detract from the fact that your position is wrong. If anything, our constant insults further exemplify what a lower order of life-form the commies represent.

[trebboR]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:30 am on Nov. 5, 2002
Both Solz and I both back our positions rather well.

Ok, you crappie cappie filfth back up your positions very well. Let me back up my commie position very well to you my ignorant friend. You know who were the original natives of your so great-fucking-all-so-beauty-capitilist US? You probably do. The indians. You should all know something about the indians you cappies. The indians were commies. Yep, all you cappies are living in the most beautifull country ever because it is the only country were the communist society worked perfect.

The indians had differen tribes (communities), with a chief of that tribe (the community leader). Everyone was equal, everyone had it's job. There was an indian who was a fisher, there was an indian who made clothes, there was an indian medicineman. They all had their jos, they didn't get paid for it, but because everyone worked for eachtother they had enugh food, clothes, tents to live in etc. Because everyone worked for eachother they survived. They worked to support each other. And the chief of the tribe made sure their wouldn't be criminals in his tribe or else he would punish them. He made peace with other tribes etc.

And what about the Kiboets? Little working communities. A few families live together on a farm and everyone on the farm works. They keep eachother alive. That is the communist spirit too. And does it work. Hell yeah it does, they don't have problems. It works perfectly.

Now the indains and the Kiboets eren't real communists, but the point is. They have a system where equality is the main point, people work on a free basis, there is no government and still the system works. And the problem is (and Marx already said that as every commie and crappie cappie knows) that communism should be worldwide or else the captitalist people will fuck it up again.


(Edited by trebboR at 9:21 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)

[American Kid]

No offense dude, but seriously, the "Indian" argument, is just tired and irrelevant.

On the real though, no one cares. Well, people do care, but again, it's irelevant.

I mean, seriously: what do you want us to do?

-AK

(and on a side note, in a true commie society, how well do you think "praying to the rain gods" would go over.....? I thought that religion was--- ah, nevermind.....)

[Tkinter1]

They want us to give the land back to the several thousand indians. we will then relocate the millions of masses to other parts of the world, and attempt to find jobs in the ALREADY struggling countries economies, so we can have another failed communist revolution.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 12:07 am on Nov. 6, 2002)

[Iepilei]

actually, I personally want to give the land to the state and have them moderate, through means of democratic representation on local basis.

[trebboR]

No, I'm not talking about giving the land back to the indians or start praying to the rain Gods. All I mena is, the Kiboets and the indians live in a classless society, everyone is equal. The live to the same keywords as communism: equality, freedom and justice. And their system works. All I'm trying to say is, all you cappies say that communism will never work because people will not work on a voluntary base etc. etc. But I'm proving that that is wrong because in those societys people worked on a voluntary base too.

[timbaly]

Why do I have to post this twice? Please people stop the argument. There are plenty of other places to express your differences on this iste, here isn't one of them.
Even if you must argue can you atleast answer my question?

[Tkinter1]

"No, I'm not talking about giving the land back to the indians or start praying to the rain Gods. All I mena is, the Kiboets and the indians live in a classless society, everyone is equal. "The live to the same keywords as communism: equality, freedom and justice. And their system works. All I'm trying to say is, all you cappies say that communism will never work because people will not work on a voluntary base etc. etc. But I'm proving that that is wrong because in those societys people worked on a voluntary base too."

In some ways you're right, but you also have to look at the fact that they have chiefs and wise men who are on the "upper evel" and make executive decisions. Communism has worked(to an extent), on small scale communities, but has so far failed to work on a large scale.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 1:45 am on Nov. 7, 2002)

[timbaly]

I love the fact that Tkinter1 failed to answer the question not once but twice. Come on people You've had this current argument only 100 other times, do we really have to have it here and now.

[Tkinter1]

Timbaly,

Your question was irrelevant to the quote I was responding to.

but to answer your question. I dont think that communism is evil or inferior. It's just seems to be prone to have flaws that result in huge injustices or millions of deaths. I've compared the flaws between the two systems and I think that capitalist injustices can be fixed far easier than communist. Again, on a small scale it looks ok, but on a large scale...not yet!

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 1:32 am on Nov. 9, 2002)

[Guest]

In a commie society, everyone is supposed to share, and to not exploit one another, and to not have more money than their neighbor, and stuff like that. In a capitalist society, You keep the money you earn, you do what you need to do to survive even if it is walking all over your rivals, and you can be rich without being considered bad or evil or oppressive. 100% communism sucks because you could do nothing and still eat. technological advancements would slow down. 100% capitalism sucks because you have people with a butt load of money and owning half of the country and people living in holes and boxes and working in coal mines for an incredibly small amount of money. I think 50/50 is pretty good. The government would regulate buisinesses so that the workers wouldn't get paid crap or be mining at the age of seven. Technological advances would be competitive, because you have to come out with the new technology before the other companies. People would share a bit if they were generous, and the governmant would make non profit organizations to distribute charity money to the needy. Is this almost perfect society starting to sound familiar? YES!!! THAT"S RIGH!!! America, the land of the red white and blue! 100% communism is for poor hippies, and 100% capitalism is better for predators in the animal kingdom.

Just try and argue against what I have said! I dare you!
-god

[Guest]

oh yeah, and did you noticed how i didn't start commie bashing or capitalist bashing? that's because saying Crappie cappies or anything mean like that. That is no way to win an argument, it just makes the oponent mad, but I WILL make fun of trebboR for his Indian comment... trebboR, if you like the tribal communist stuff, then go to Afghanistan, I hear they have trbes over there.

I still want to see if any of you can argue against what i said before...

and just to be random... Am i the only person on this planet who likes techno?
-god

[Guest]

Oh poo, you must think I'm retarded for that sentence fragment

[SonofRage]

Well said, " Guest 24.125.119.41"

[Stormin Norman]

I posted this in another thread, but thought I would post it here in case you don't see it there.

A perfectly competitive free-market has never been achieved. In fact, it is the ideal situation that economists use as a model to predict patterns and behavior, and also to determine where economies are doing poorly. It is recognized by virtually all of the world's economists that this model does a better job of answering the three main questions of any economy than communism. The main purposes of any economy are to determine what goods to produce and in what quantities, how these goods are distributed, and how to accomplish the first two goals in an efficient manner with a limited number of resources. It just so happens that the closer an economy resembles this ideal model, the healthier the economy.

Economics is a very interesting topic. One can make a comparison of this social science to the hard sciences. The job of the theoretical scientist is to arrive at theories that explain certain phenomenon. The job of the laboratory scientist is testing the assertions of theory. The difference between the idea of communism and the ideal of a perfectly competitive free-market lies in the fact that one is an actual model that has proven itself in theory and in practice, while the other is some fanciful dream with no real world application. Communism is a hypothesis not supported by experimental data. The free-market has withstood experimentation and been dubbed a law. Again I ask you, if you were to design an airplane, would you prefer the one based on science or the one based on intuition?

[Stormin Norman]

"actually, I personally want to give the land to the state and have them moderate, through means of democratic representation on local basis."

You see, this is what I was talking about when I said communists promote theft, a charge that you denied. It amazes me that you would post this in the same thread. Let me ask you this. In order for you to give someone something don't you have to be the owner? If you give someone something that is not yours to give, does that make you a thief? What you should have really said is that you support the state taking control of all private lands. That too constitutes theft. By seizing an item that someone has a legitimate claim to, you are in fact stealing it. Tell me where I am wrong.

[timbaly]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 8:31 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
Timbaly,

Your question was irrelevant to the quote I was responding to.

but to answer your question. I dont think that communism is evil or inferior. It's just seems to be prone to have flaws that result in huge injustices or millions of deaths. I've compared the flaws between the two systems and I think that capitalist injustices can be fixed far easier than communist. Again, on a small scale it looks ok, but on a large scale...not yet!

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 1:32 am on Nov. 9, 2002)


It seems to always have flaws because some dictator, who is not a communist is always in control and exploits the people he claims to have "freed". If the majority of the leftists here are true to their words they would never take that kind of authority of a dictator and would do whatever they can to prevent this exploitation. Preventing exploitation is one of the main goals for most leftists. As for the last thing you wrote, are you saying that you believe that in time communism on a large scale will work?

[timbaly]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:31 am on Nov. 10, 2002
"actually, I personally want to give the land to the state and have them moderate, through means of democratic representation on local basis."

You see, this is what I was talking about when I said communists promote theft, a charge that you denied. It amazes me that you would post this in the same thread. Let me ask you this. In order for you to give someone something don't you have to be the owner? If you give someone something that is not yours to give, does that make you a thief? What you should have really said is that you support the state taking control of all private lands. That too constitutes theft. By seizing an item that someone has a legitimate claim to, you are in fact stealing it. Tell me where I am wrong.


I must first apologize to those I told not to argue, but I couldn't help myself.

Communists do not promote theft. The belief is why should one have more than the next. Why should one have more than they need while another person doesn't have enough to live. If one person has more than they need and another person doesn't have enough isn't it only logical to give your excess to the needy person. Why should someone be living in poverty while another is living in luxury. This is distribution not theft. You give what you produce to people who need and you get what you need from them. It is an even trade. It's not like your goods are being taken and you get nothing for them.

[American Kid]

It looks good on paper (all the numbers match), but how do you plan on implementing it, practically?

You realize that the majority of people are going to absolutely cringe at the idea...........? To be sapped of their identities and individualities.

And as a person who's been there---some poor people, are right where they should be. Definetely.

But I'm also, to be fair, for heavy taxation of the rich. I am for welfare and things like that. Don't get me too wrong.

I just don't think "communism", in a practical sense, can ever, ever work. I mean, look at the results so far.

-AK

[timbaly]

Quote: from Guest on 9:29 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
In a commie society, everyone is supposed to share, and to not exploit one another, and to not have more money than their neighbor, and stuff like that. In a capitalist society, You keep the money you earn, you do what you need to do to survive even if it is walking all over your rivals, and you can be rich without being considered bad or evil or oppressive. 100% communism sucks because you could do nothing and still eat. technological advancements would slow down. 100% capitalism sucks because you have people with a butt load of money and owning half of the country and people living in holes and boxes and working in coal mines for an incredibly small amount of money. I think 50/50 is pretty good. The government would regulate buisinesses so that the workers wouldn't get paid crap or be mining at the age of seven. Technological advances would be competitive, because you have to come out with the new technology before the other companies. People would share a bit if they were generous, and the governmant would make non profit organizations to distribute charity money to the needy. Is this almost perfect society starting to sound familiar? YES!!! THAT"S RIGH!!! America, the land of the red white and blue! 100% communism is for poor hippies, and 100% capitalism is better for predators in the animal kingdom.

Just try and argue against what I have said! I dare you!
-god


In the US big bussiness is not regulated they allow big time corporations such as Nike to set up shop in China and pay workers virtually nothing for their labor. If the US was truly the defender of democracy and the free world it would not let this happen. Those peole workers are not getting paid a living wage, meanwhile Nike is paying basketball players millions to be on their commercials meanwhile they already make millions for just playing their game. What about restaurants the US lets restaurants pay waiters and waitresses under minimum wage, isn't that illegal?
Technological advancements are sometimes limited because selfish big busniesses decide to be greedy and patent things such as certain methods of medical research. Then you have politicians in power who want to prevent the research although it is for the benefit of all humans, just because he wants to buy some votes in the bible belt.

[Stormin Norman]

"Why should one have more than they need while another person doesn't have enough to live."

Because they earned it, and it remains their property. Tell me why should my property be siezed because the next man is less capable than I? Tell me, is it still charity if it is being forced at the point of a gun? Sounds very altruistic, indeed.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:35 pm on Nov. 11, 2002)


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:35 pm on Nov. 11, 2002)

[Iepilei]

oh christ, not this "they earned it" bull.

they plowed the ground, but they're sitting on their asses watching Jerry Springer while everyone that they're paying half-assed compared to how much they're pulling in made the enterprise what it is.

so you're saying we should be ruled under kings? cause god only knows, one man got a band of other men together to fight for the borders - shouldn't he be given the right to rule as it's his??

No power to kings. Sorry, mate.

[timbaly]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:34 am on Nov. 12, 2002
"Why should one have more than they need while another person doesn't have enough to live."

Because they earned it, and it remains their property. Tell me why should my property be siezed because the next man is less capable than I? Tell me, is it still charity if it is being forced at the point of a gun? Sounds very altruistic, indeed.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:35 pm on Nov. 11, 2002)


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:35 pm on Nov. 11, 2002)

It is collectivism everyone is entitled to everything. The people will give their goods to a trustworthy gov't that distributes the fruits of their labor to those who need. In return you get what you need which is made by other people.

[Tkinter1]

It seems to always have flaws because some dictator, who is not a communist is always in control and exploits the people he claims to have "freed".

why do you think a dictator arises

If the majority of the leftists here are true to their words they would never take that kind of authority of a dictator and would do whatever they can to prevent this exploitation.

if not them someone someone else. People want the leader it seems, they dont just take power.

"Preventing exploitation is one of the main goals for most leftists."
And in the end, SOMEONE gets exploited, its unavoidable

As for the last thing you wrote, are you saying that you believe that in time communism on a large scale will work?

I believe that it would be possible to work.... That is, if every person of every nation could regard one another as family and be willing to work with each other.

We should concentrate more on fixing the problems we have with this system instead of ripping it down and starting over with a system that has proven to work inefficiently on a large scale.

[Guest]

you know how to get those "god awful" companies out of china? Raise the standered or living there and poof the corporations go away if they can find somewhere cheaper to be. cm on markets are amoral, they only reflect needs and desires of those within them.

basketball players get played millions cause they have highly demanded skills that nobody else can do and ppl are willing to pay them that much by going to their games.

sad truth is that most ppl dont care much about the guy plowing the field cause, heh, machines can do that pretty well. cm to think of it, most farmers in the US are rich. garbage men are respected too, most make about the same and some even make more then school teachers. lol.

i dont know what that says about our glorious socialized education system. oh well vouchers are gonna get rid of that.

[timbaly]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 9:36 pm on Nov. 12, 2002
It seems to always have flaws because some dictator, who is not a communist is always in control and exploits the people he claims to have "freed".

why do you think a dictator arises

If the majority of the leftists here are true to their words they would never take that kind of authority of a dictator and would do whatever they can to prevent this exploitation.

if not them someone someone else. People want the leader it seems, they dont just take power.

"Preventing exploitation is one of the main goals for most leftists."
And in the end, SOMEONE gets exploited, its unavoidable

As for the last thing you wrote, are you saying that you believe that in time communism on a large scale will work?

I believe that it would be possible to work.... That is, if every person of every nation could regard one another as family and be willing to work with each other.

We should concentrate more on fixing the problems we have with this system instead of ripping it down and starting over with a system that has proven to work inefficiently on a large scale.


Well I'm not here to defend those dictators. They use the public to rise into power. They come up with the ideas for revolution, claim to free the people from their problems but they promise one thing and do another.

But as I said before I don't believe that the majority leftists on this site would want to be dictators. They would not want to weild all that power.

I hope that one day people will work with each other no matter origin or religion or any other possible barrier. I believe it can happen.

[timbaly]

Quote: from Guest on 1:27 am on Nov. 13, 2002
you know how to get those "god awful" companies out of china? Raise the standered or living there and poof the corporations go away if they can find somewhere cheaper to be. cm on markets are amoral, they only reflect needs and desires of those within them.

basketball players get played millions cause they have highly demanded skills that nobody else can do and ppl are willing to pay them that much by going to their games.

sad truth is that most ppl dont care much about the guy plowing the field cause, heh, machines can do that pretty well. cm to think of it, most farmers in the US are rich. garbage men are respected too, most make about the same and some even make more then school teachers. lol.

i dont know what that says about our glorious socialized education system. oh well vouchers are gonna get rid of that.


Let me set this straight, just situation is better than another does not make it a good situation. That applies to what you said on China. Nike owes a lot more to those people who are practically slaves to the sweatshops.

As for sports goes, I can't understand why people even bother to go to games for the ridiculous prices. It's like they're slaves to it. No matter how much, people will pay. To go to Shea Stadium and watch the New York Mets Baseball team play costs the average family of four over $370!!!!!! That only includes 4 second deck tickets, (lodge) 4 hot dogs, 2 sodas and 2 beers. That is a huge chunk of money compared to a persons paycheck. Not to mention that it's more money at Yankee Stadium and the average New Yorker only makes $38,814 a year. This may sound like a lot but it costs a lot to live in NY. Higher property taxes and insurance bills. So how can peole to so crazy to go to10-20 games a year, they are paying thousands to make multi-millionaires get even richer at their expense!

[Tkinter1]

I hope that one day people will work with each other no matter origin or religion or any other possible barrier. I believe it can happen.

Dissolve all culture, all religon, all race, all racism, and you'll have your wish.

[TheLesserof2Evils]

I think capatalism has many drawbacks, but not as many as communism, I mean I like the idea of communism and if some country could ever make it work good for them. I do belive capitalism does cause many problems, it's wastefull, ineficient, and sometimes causes people to become wrapped up in blankets of pseudo ideas. However, I do believe that if a capitalist society took on socialist values, that maybe everything might work together to form a stronger society with less govermental ties.

[timbaly]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 10:43 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
I hope that one day people will work with each other no matter origin or religion or any other possible barrier. I believe it can happen.

Dissolve all culture, all religon, all race, all racism, and you'll have your wish.




Thats what I intend on doing, it's a hell of a task. The one race will be the human race. I hope to convince people that religion is nonsense. Therefore Racism would hopefully dissappear.

[tocayo]

i just got one thing to say to Guest 24.125.119.41, i can't believe americans are still swallowing the crap that your government feeds you. u actually believe that the U.S. is 50% Cap. and 50% Comm.?!? I mean, when you described capitalism you are painting the picture of your country. Owners of huge enterprises, like Coca-Cola and Microsoft, people with a "butt load of money", DO own half the country, or more like 80% of it. All the government decisions are taken with the big companies' interest in mind, not the people's. And where are these non profit organizations that distribute money to the needy??!!? There are 10 million people in extreme poverty in the United States, so don't tell me that everyone is living the good life.
And if communist governments fell, it was because of the invasions and the coups that the American government sponsored (Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iraq, Panama, Israel, and most recently Venezuela, which failed terribly.....i could go on forever, the list is endless), in which they murdered millions of people.
another thing, in communism, people are way too wise and cultured to "do nothing at all and still eat". and even if it happened, the attitude is much different, people do not let it affect them. they have a communitarian view, opposite to that of the individualist monsters that capitalism breeds.

---------

"...Let it be known, heard, and recorded: I will leave The Coin when I fulfill the mandate that the people gave to me, I will defend this Chilean Revolution and I will defend this Government because it is the mandate that the people has given me. I have no alternative. Only by slaughtering me with bullets will you impede the will that is to fulfill the program of the people..."
-Salvador Allende
9/11/1973

[techguru]

guys, please, before you pose a question or statement to the world about communism, you must define it.

communism means to most people:
north korea
former ussr
china
etc.

terrible repression and crimes were/are committed against the populations in these places... and thats what most people identify communism with.

so why dont you define communism by providing a specific examples and details, i know its work but its what you have to do to prevent a pointless argument. for example, choose the sandanistas. you may say anything you like about them, but the fact is they had some fantastic community and social programs in the works, without the terrible repression that "communist" states had.

I guess the point is also that you cant really use the word communism, it has been villified so much, and connected with major human rights violators. maybe "social oriented" would be better, since thats what its really all about, is people.

[timbaly]

Quote: from techguru on 4:30 am on Nov. 20, 2002
guys, please, before you pose a question or statement to the world about communism, you must define it.

communism means to most people:
north korea
former ussr
china
etc.

terrible repression and crimes were/are committed against the populations in these places... and thats what most people identify communism with.

so why dont you define communism by providing a specific examples and details, i know its work but its what you have to do to prevent a pointless argument. for example, choose the sandanistas. you may say anything you like about them, but the fact is they had some fantastic community and social programs in the works, without the terrible repression that "communist" states had.

I guess the point is also that you cant really use the word communism, it has been villified so much, and connected with major human rights violators. maybe "social oriented" would be better, since thats what its really all about, is people.

Thats true but I think that the capitalists that debate here are well aware that most of us are very much against the crimes committed in the countries you named.
What you said about the word communism is also very accurate, the word is indeed associated with evil just like anarchism is. A alternative word may indeed make people think before they judge something they know little about.

(Edited by timbaly at 9:22 pm on Nov. 20, 2002)


(Edited by timbaly at 9:24 pm on Nov. 20, 2002)

[techguru]

exactly timbaly,
not many people would come out in favor of those crimes, i mean the only ones that support them are those making a profit off it, the richest 1%, and you never hear a word from them.

another demonized word.
welfare

in many large seperate polls, people were asked 2 questions.

#1 should welfare be increased - 16% yes

#2 should assistance to the poor be increased - 64% yes

ahh how effective corporate propaganda is. generals in south america get much larger paychecks than anyone on welfare, yet somehow people believe "all the black mothers popping out babies for a check" should go hungry... sigh.

[Iepilei]

communism can work, the only problem is it's a new system - and it's been stigmatised by it's rival the capitalists.

people once daemonised demoracy. they claimed the average man wasn't intelligent enough to appoint the correct people or enact the correct policies - only certain classes should be able to, and for the longest time it was debated in the US on whether or not to let the lower classes vote.

Funny how one's paradigm shifts...