Go Capitalism!!!! - capitalism and a few other things

[Anti communist]

Why was the "Wake up, CHE is dead" post locked? Aren't socialists supposed to be "tolerant". After all, isn't that a major component of socialism. Isn't this the one place in this forum where us capitalists and right wingers can express our ideoligy. If you delete this, you will look like you aren't tolerant at all. Please don't delete this. Let everyone read it and let's have an ntelligent discussion. Let's cut down on the insults and name calling so we can have a nice discussion. I really think I make some good points below and I'd like to see your responses. I lived in Castro's and Che's Cuba so I can shed some light on this.

Peaccenicked said: US/UK are war mongers. Why, because together we are removing a brutal dictator who has murdered and tortured thousands the same way Castro and Che did? That's right, they killed and tortured thousands and not in the middle of the revolution as you said. They did it after they had won and Castro still does it to this day.

Did you see 20/20 on ABC Fri night? They showed the results of the thousands of Kurds that Saddam killed in the north. And even more disturbing they showed a video of several Kurdish men being tied to posts and then executed with machine guns. Then they went up to each victim and shot them in the head to make sure they were dead. And the worst part is that they forced the whole town to watch (even small children were in the crowd) so they knew not to mess with Saddam's gov't. This is the same thing Castro did with the help of Che after they won the revolution. By the way, Hussein is the biggest killer of Muslims at least in modern history.

Peaccenicked said: US/UK are losing in Iraq. How do you figure that? You're probably one of those that think we lost in Vietnam also. I'm sure you know we lost 58,000 Americans in Vietnam, but did you know that in 1995, the Vietnamese gov't admitted to losing 1.1 million in the war. That's a 20 to 1 kill ratio, so we didn't lose. We agreed to end the war, and mostly just because we were viewed as the bad guy when our intentions were honorable. The Vietnamese also recently admitted that if Nixon would have kept bombing the north with b-52s for just a couple more weeks they would have surrendered, but we didn't know that at the time.

Anyway, back to Iraq. We control most of the country except the capital after just 1 week and we've only lost a couple dozen soldiers. I'd say we're winning. Do you know why we haven't already won? It's because we are exactly the oposite of war mongers. We could have won by bombing Bahgdad into the stone age already but instead we are being careful so we can minimize civilian casualties, at the cost of the lives of the coalition forces I might add. Yes, there will be civilian casualties unfortunately, but we will do everything possible to minimize that. Saddam on the other hand puts civilians between us and him so we can accidentally kill civilians and then he can blame us for it, and also to deter us from attacking his military targets. He is having his thugs go into homes and take children and threaten the man of the house to fight against us or else the children will be killed. I'm glad and you should be too that we are removing him from power. In 1998 when Clinton went into the former Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing it was a good thing he was doing wasn't it? Why is Iraq any different?

Red Cletic said: Capitalism makes a small part of society rich and the rest poor. The US has one of the highest standards of living in the world and it's because of capitalism. There is a huge middle class that benefits from it. And even poor people in this country benefit from it because of all the money we pay in taxes (the middle and upper classes) which makes many social programs available to the poor. The poor in this country live better, healthier, and safer than anywhere else in the world. And as far as the poor in other parts of the world, they also benefit from our capitalism because our capitalists are so greedy that they'd rather employ poor people oversees for less pay than an American worker so they can make more profit. So those people who had no income before in these poor countries now have a job and can help feed their families.

Then, there's all the aid we provide to poor countries. The US helps feeds millions of people each year. Did you see Bush's last state of the union addres. He wants 15 billion from the congress to spend on aids prevention in Africa. All this is possible because of capitalism. We are spreading the wealth around.

Then there's the technology aspect of capitalism which improves everyone's lives. Because of capitalism, and those greedy men who want nothing more than to make a buck, they compete with each other to make the best product. The result of this competition is new medicines and medical technology that lets us live longer, safer cars that also polute less, agriculture technologies that yield more crops per acre, the best military technology which is so superior that no enemy would dare attack the US or its allies where we have troops stationed (Germany, S. Korea, just to name 2). You could argue that the US military which was crafted by these capitalists has saved millions of lives world wide. Without our military presense in such parts of the world the murderous distatorships of the world would have killed millions for the sake of conquering and ethnic cleansing. Look at Israel, 1 small country surrounded by about 20 Arab/Muslim countries that don't want it to exist. The only reason Israel still exists is because they are our allies and no one will attack them because of it, and because of their military superiority, compliments of US technology.

I hope to hear from you all.

[synthesis]

You seem to have an odd attitude towards capitalism. I'm much too tired to address your whole post at the moment, but some of your statements piqued my curiousity. (Don't worry, I'll respond in full when I wake up.)

"they also benefit from our capitalism because our capitalists are so greedy that they'd rather employ poor people oversees for less pay than an American worker so they can make more profit. "

"Because of capitalism, and those greedy men who want nothing more than to make a buck, they compete with each other to make the best product"

No comment, really, I just thought these were interesting.

As I said, if I don't get to it tonight, I'll get to it in the morning. Well-written post, I must say.

[hazard]

you seem like a smart guy, but all you say wreaks of stupidity

you tow the party line, you spew the words you are told to spew, you think what you are expected to, and you want everybody to see what a robot you are in making posts like this one

I see you, but do you see yourself?

there is a one word answer to everything you say

PROPAGANDA

you believe what you are told to believe, not because it is believable, but because you are told to believe it

you, "anticommunist", are the only one that needs to wake up. you behave like a walking zombie, waving that sickening flag and repeating the ideas of others like a record player skipping, over and over and over

[synthesis]

Why was the "Wake up, CHE is dead" post locked?

Because it was stupid. The moderators are trying to clean up this mess of a forum.

Aren't socialists supposed to be "tolerant"

To a point.

Isn't this the one place in this forum where us capitalists and right wingers can express our ideoligy.

Yeah, but it's not a place to spew your shit, to use cruder terms than are necessary. In other words, debate is fine, but flaming and other stupidity is not welcome.

If you delete this, you will look like you aren't tolerant at all. Please don't delete this.

We rarely delete posts here.

Why, because together we are removing a brutal dictator who has murdered and tortured thousands the same way Castro and Che did?

No, because it isn't necessary.

By the way, may I see your evidence that Castro and Che used torture?

They did it after they had won and Castro still does it to this day.

And Sharon, for example, doesn't?

They showed the results of the thousands of Kurds that Saddam killed in the north.

...so on and so forth. You don't need to convince us that Saddam's bad. We know he's an evil, fascist fucker.

Capitalism makes a small part of society rich and the rest poor. The US has one of the highest standards of living in the world and it's because of capitalism.

America does, in fact, have one of the highest standards of living. You're forgetting something, though. Its proxy governments, all capitalist, all fascist, in all continents across the globe, not only reduce the quality of living for its residents to nearly inhabitable (see: Greece, Chile, South Vietnam, the Congo, Colombia, et cetera) but these capitalist countries with awful standards of living do so for America's benefit. In other words, our quality of life comes at the expense of people all over the world.

And even poor people in this country benefit from it because of all the money we pay in taxes (the middle and upper classes) which makes many social programs available to the poor.

Okay, but this isn't a result of free-market capitalism... if you know what I mean.

Then, there's all the aid we provide to poor countries.

Yeah, we buy their support. What else is new?

Because of capitalism, and those greedy men who want nothing more than to make a buck, they compete with each other to make the best product.

This is a claim that always irked me. Capitalists don't compete to make the best products; they compete to create the products that make them the most money. If it is in the capitalist's interests to make a worthwhile product, he will do so. But wouldn't you say that it is in capitalism's best interests to invent a car with a horrible rate of miles to the gallon, or a car whose engine breaks down often, so that the owner must have it repaired or replaced all-too frequently? It isn't the ideas of quality that are rewarded, but the ideas that will generate the most capital.

The result of this competition is new medicines and medical technology that lets us live longer,

Here's a good example for the above. If we have a cure for AIDS, would you not say it would be in the capitalist's best interests to withhold this cure from the population in order to keep them hooked on monthly medications? It's certainly more profitable to do so.

the best military technology which is so superior that no enemy would dare attack the US or its allies where we have troops stationed

Yeah, glorious capitalism. Here in Portland, the school year just got cut back to the beginning of March, and here's the U.S., spending $600 billion a year on its military. Hoo-fucking-ray. Pardon me if I'd rather that this "benefit" of capitalism were echewed in favor of schools and health care.

Look at Israel, 1 small country surrounded by about 20 Arab/Muslim countries that don't want it to exist.

Man, you do not want to get me started on Israel. I'll give you the most fucking disgusting images you've ever seen, of dead Palestinian men, women, children, and babies, and some truly sickening tales of massacres of unsuspecting Palestinian towns.

As I said before - you wrote a good post. Nice to have a non-confrontational capitalist for once.

[Ymir]

War in Iraq:

The war in Iraq hasn't accomplished what you might think. Just because coalition troops have traveled 250 miles into Baghdad does not mean they have any control over areas. Basra, one of the more southern cities, is still under Iraqi control and humanitarian aid has not been able to reach any iraqi civillians, even though we have moved 250miles into the center of the territory...
We do not control 'most of the country', if that was true then coalition leadership would not be so afraid to move troops into cities. Why won't we move into cities? Because we have not secured any urban areas. What we control is a vast expanse of wasteland and desert, the Iraqi people are NOT on our side.

[Anti communist]

DyerMaker said: By the way, may I see your evidence that Castro and Che used torture?

Armando Valladares
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=625

http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?ID=1069

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/aghop/aghop.html

DyerMaker said: This is a claim that always irked me. Capitalists don't compete to make the best products; they compete to create the products that make them the most money. If it is in the capitalist's interests to make a worthwhile product, he will do so. But wouldn't you say that it is in capitalism's best interests to invent a car with a horrible rate of miles to the gallon, or a car whose engine breaks down often, so that the owner must have it repaired or replaced all-too frequently? It isn't the ideas of quality that are rewarded, but the ideas that will generate the most capital.

That doesn't make any sense. Competition has proven that people will buy the best they can afford. Look what happened to the US auto industry in the 70's when the Japanese cars started selling like crazy because they were more reliable and fuel efficient. The result, US cars are now just as reliable and fuel efficient. The US car companies got the message and decided to improve their product or go into bankruptcy. That's the great thing about capitalism, the best, most cost effective, safest, etc always leave the competition behind. You see, even if what you said above is true, the consumer will only buy it for so long until they see that someone else has a better product and therefore the guy who was making the bad product has got to improve his design or go into the history books.

Here's a good example for the above. If we have a cure for AIDS, would you not say it would be in the capitalist's best interests to withhold this cure from the population in order to keep them hooked on monthly medications? It's certainly more profitable to do so.

No. First of all, aids will probably not be cured. There hasn't been a single virus in history that has been "cured". Once a person gets a disease from a virus, they can't get rid of it. The way viruses have been eliminated is through vaccinations. That's how small pox and polio were elimnated. You can prevent someone from getting it with a vaccine but you can't cure it. You can try to prolong their lives and increase the quality of their lives with drugs, that's all. Now if what you say is true, then it would be more profitable to find a vaccine than a cure. Why you ask? Because there are only like I think 100 million people in the world with the virus right, maybe not even that many? Well, that limits the number of people that would buy the drugs from these companies. But if they found a vacccine and charged, let's say $100 a pop for it, that would give these drug companies almost $600 billion overnight because all 6 billion people on the planet would want to be vaccinated.

Yeah, glorious capitalism. Here in Portland, the school year just got cut back to the beginning of March, and here's the U.S., spending $600 billion a year on its military. Hoo-fucking-ray. Pardon me if I'd rather that this "benefit" of capitalism were echewed in favor of schools and health care.

Is that Portland Oregon or Maine? There has to be a balance. As much as we's like to, we can't do/be everything for everyone. The most important job the US has is to protect the citizens. Now, knowing that there are Saddams and other eveil people like that in the world that want to kill us, I'd say that get's a little more priority than schools, at least until the threat is eliminated. Also, your state can decide where it wants to put it's tax dollars also. They can put it into schools, or unemployment or homeless shelters, but something somewhere has to get less unfortunately.

Man, you do not want to get me started on Israel. I'll give you the most fucking disgusting images you've ever seen, of dead Palestinian men, women, children, and babies, and some truly sickening tales of massacres of unsuspecting Palestinian towns.


Like Saddam's images of the Kurds? Also, the Arab/Muslim world always views the US foreign policy through the scope of the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Bush already has said several times in the last couple of yrs that he supports "the creation of a free and independent Palestine". But it won't be overnight, and I definitely don't think Israel should be blackmailed into giving up land by homicide bombings. I work with a guy from Jordan who tells me that even though most of the countries out there are Arab/Muslim, that they hate each other, but they just hate Israel a little more. He says that the people aren't happy with the dictatorships they live under wether it's Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Hazaed said: you seem like a smart guy, but all you say wreaks of stupidity you tow the party line, you spew the words you are told to spew, you think what you are expected to, and you want everybody to see what a robot you are in making posts like this one I see you, but do you see yourself? there is a one word answer to everything you say PROPAGANDA you believe what you are told to believe, not because it is believable, but because you are told to believe it you, "anticommunist", are the only one that needs to wake up. you behave like a walking zombie, waving that sickening flag and repeating the ideas of others like a record player skipping, over and over and over.

I say what I want to because I can and want to. I can choose to be leftist or right winger. After living in Castro's and Che's Cuba, I choose the right wing. I can vote for whoever I want here, say what I want. It is in Cuba and China, etc that people are told what to say and think. People will tell you in front of a camera that they are happy with the system but in private they curse the system. I lived it, I know it. I remember my mother telling me to never speak against the gov't or we could get in big trouble, to put it mildly. You get 1 oz of coffe a month, 1 egg a day for protein, 1 piece of bread a day, 1 pair of shoes a yr, kids get 1 toy a yr around Christmas time, yet Castro has the nerve to send toys to kids overseas (I think it was Africa). ***IS THIS MISERY WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOUR FAMILIES?*** The US system may not be perfect but it is the best of all time so far.

Ymir wrote: Basra, one of the more southern cities, is still under Iraqi control and humanitarian aid has not been able to reach any iraqi civillians, even though we have moved 250miles into the center of the territory...
We do not control 'most of the country', if that was true then coalition leadership would not be so afraid to move troops into cities. Why won't we move into cities? Because we have not secured any urban areas. What we control is a vast expanse of wasteland and desert, the Iraqi people are NOT on our side.

Didn't you see the video from the south where people were practically luting the coallition aid trucks. It's been slow because mines have to be cleared near the port city to move aid in. The reason we haven't gone into the cities yet is 2 or 3 reasons. First, we are waiting for supplies while we are 50 miles outside Bahgdad, 2nd they are now hommering the Republican gurad outside the city with air power. They are sodtening them up before moving in for the kill. That makes sense to me. Why risk ground forces if you can eliminate 50% of their capacity from the air before you move in. And 3rd, why should we get involved in a fight with the 2nd largest city, Basra, when we could take the capital, Bahgdad, and effectively cut off the head which will lead to the fall of Basra shortly thereafter.

(Edited by Anti communist at 7:47 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[CruelVerdad]

"We control most of the country except the capital after just 1 week and we've only lost a couple dozen soldiers."
Excuse me, but Bush told the nation and worldwide communication systems that they will finish this stupid war is 72 hours!
Only lost a couple dozen soldiers...? Well it all depends, the US army says they only few deads, but let´s talk in a real way, how many do you really think are dead? A LOT, and for nothing...
How many civilian casualties? More than 1300.
I just think this war is unfair, and most stop before more civilians die.

[thursday night]

I've had it beyond my tolerance level with you filthy Cuban exiles. Socialism in Cuba is brilliant and nearly flawless, but you whiny upper-class malcontents spread these lies that have no bearing on truth. I have posted pages and pages of facts and comparisons of Cuba and neighbouring countries, not to mention my own experiences in that free island, but I am talking to a wall when I talk to an exile, which I assume you are.

[Anti communist]

CruelVerdad said: Excuse me, but Bush told the nation and worldwide communication systems that they will finish this stupid war is 72 hours!

Bush never said that. The talking heads on the news shows were saying that.

CruelVerdad said: Only lost a couple dozen soldiers...? Well it all depends, the US army says they only few deads, but let´s talk in a real way, how many do you really think are dead? A LOT, and for nothing...
How many civilian casualties? More than 1300.

Why would the military lie if they have to notify family members of the dead and mia. If they say it's 24 and they contact 3000 families, I think the press will pick up on this soon. As far as the civilians, blame Hussein for putting them in harm's way.

thursday night said: I've had it beyond my tolerance level with you filthy Cuban exiles. Socialism in Cuba is brilliant and nearly flawless, but you whiny upper-class malcontents spread these lies that have no bearing on truth. I have posted pages and pages of facts and comparisons of Cuba and neighbouring countries, not to mention my own experiences in that free island, but I am talking to a wall when I talk to an exile, which I assume you are.

The reason I'm doing well in this country is because I left Cuba. I came at age 7 in 1971 with my mother and grandmother. We were struggling at first but then my mom decided to go back to schhol and get her GED (she already spoke English since she was young), and she got a better job, then a better one yet, and we were then doing ok. I then finished high school, went to tech school and have a great job in one of the major computer technology companies of the world. I could not have done this in Castro's Cuba.

As far as the rest of your coments, I can't believe you believe that. It's so far from the truth. Yes Cuba has a great school system and medical system (all socialist/communist countries do). But that's where it ends. You barely get the essentilas to live. Everyone is living in misery, quality of life sucks. I lived it dude, I know it.

You get 1 oz of coffee a month, 1 egg a day, 1 piece of bread a day, 1 pair of shoes a yr, kids get 1 toy a yr around Christmas time. Did your pages and pages of research ever expose this? Not to mention that if you talk againsta the gov't you disapear and are jailed/tortured or killed. See the following links for a first hand account of this. CHECKMATE!!!!!

Armando Valladares
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=625

http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?ID=1069

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/aghop/aghop.html

[RedCeltic]

Red Cletic said: Capitalism makes a small part of society rich and the rest poor. The US has one of the highest standards of living in the world and it's because of capitalism. There is a huge middle class that benefits from it. And even poor people in this country benefit from it because of all the money we pay in taxes (the middle and upper classes) which makes many social programs available to the poor. The poor in this country live better, healthier, and safer than anywhere else in the world. And as far as the poor in other parts of the world, they also benefit from our capitalism because our capitalists are so greedy that they'd rather employ poor people oversees for less pay than an American worker so they can make more profit. So those people who had no income before in these poor countries now have a job and can help feed their families.

Capitalism can only survive in this world by exploitation of land labor and resources of the undeveloped world. Living standards are so high in the United States, because of the exploitation of this energy (land/labor/material) It promises that living conditions would be improved if people simply buy into it’s system, however… in order for the entire world to live at the living standard that the typical middle class American lives at, we would require four more earths, of equal or higher population and resources to exploit.

A system of redistribution, in place of the current spiral of greed and corruption, will not only grantee equal access to a quality life for the world’s workers, but will also ensure that we live more in harmony with the earth.

[Saint-Just]

'You get 1 oz of coffee a month, 1 egg a day, 1 piece of bread a day, 1 pair of shoes a yr, kids get 1 toy a yr around Christmas time. Did your pages and pages of research ever expose this? Not to mention that if you talk againsta the gov't you disapear and are jailed/tortured or killed. See the following links for a first hand account of this. CHECKMATE!!!!!'

Some of us don't have a problem with this. In addition, Cuba is not a developed country like the U.S. or Europe. You can not expect high or even relatively good standards of living from a country such as Cuba. Particualrly since the country has generally been self sufficient in its socialist history.

[Anti communist]

Did you say "Some of us don't have a problem with this"? I'm speechless. How could anyone not have a prob with this.....oh unless you were in he ruling class of such a dictatorship?

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Anti communist on 9:26 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Did you say "Some of us don't have a problem with this"? I'm speechless. How could anyone not have a prob with this.....oh unless you were in he ruling class of such a dictatorship?

I would suggest you would not have a problem if you were in the working-class-thought class of this dictatorship.

[Anti communist]

What?

[RedCeltic]

What's that? You are annoyed that Cuba still is able to feed it's people despite the US Stranglehold on the Island.

I know what needs to be changed. Piece of shit Florida Cuban Mafioso trash like yourself need to stop encouraging a US foreign policy of starvation on your own people.

Yes Cuba is still able to feed it's people, despite people like you. And if world resources were properly distributed among all the people of the world, they would have much more.

[Anti communist]

Maybe you missed part of what I said, but do you call this being able to feed your own people:

'You get 1 oz of coffee a month, 1 egg a day, 1 piece of bread a day, 1 pair of shoes a yr, kids get 1 toy a yr around Christmas time. Did your pages and pages of research ever expose this? Not to mention that if you talk againsta the gov't you disapear and are jailed/tortured or killed. See the following links for a first hand account of this. CHECKMATE!!!!!'


(Edited by Anti communist at 11:01 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)


(Edited by Anti communist at 11:03 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Maybe you missed the part were I said:

"What's that? You are annoyed that Cuba still is able to feed it's people despite the US Stranglehold on the Island.

I know what needs to be changed. Piece of shit Florida Cuban Mafioso trash like yourself need to stop encouraging a US foreign policy of starvation on your own people.

Yes Cuba is still able to feed it's people, despite people like you. And if world resources were properly distributed among all the people of the world, they would have much more."

[Anti communist]

Hm.....it seems that you don't have an intelligent counter argument. I've debunked your socialist, communist paradise but you can't debunk my pro American, anti communist ideology.

[RedCeltic]

So, without the ability to counter my argument you have to attack my intelegence? You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

You didn't debunk crap. For starters you don't even know what my theory is.

It sure is not communism. Or any ISM that includes a STATE.

Because, face it, states get in the way of the people properly distributing resources. If the United States didn't bend over backwards to help Florida Cubans starve their own people, than the people of Cuba would have alot more.

As long as you support imerialism, and Statism, you are not seeing the whole picture.

You have said nothing, your "Proof" shows how the conflict between the STATE of the USA and the STATE of CUBA starve the Cuban people.

A real MAN would step up to the US Government and say that they don't want to see their own people starve in CUBA just because of a disagreemant in politics and push for a lifting of the embargo.

However, you can not be a real man and be a captialist at the same time.

[Anti communist]

Typical, you're blaming the US for the suffering of the Cuban people just like others here blame the US for the suffering of the Palestinians, or the Iraqi civilians. The blame for the suffering of the Cuban people goes to none other than Castro.

As far as me going to the gov't to tell them to stop the embargo. Why the hell would I do that? I hate that system and I want it to colapse from within since it doesn't seem like we are going to take any military action against Castro any time soon.

[RedCeltic]

See... you are so full of hate that you missed the whole point of what I was saying!

I did not say that it was ONLY the fault of the U$A and I did not say it's ONLY the fault of CUBA I said it was the fault of STATISM which keeps people divided.

YOU are a traitor to your own people for siding with a government that wants to see it's people starve.

ALL Governments must fall for the people of the world to unite and take back what is rightfully theirs!

[Anti communist]

I think leftists are the ones that are full of hate because they blame capitalism for all their (and the world's) probs. They need communist gov't help from the cradle to the grave. I've seen the lefties on this site get pretty nasty while the righties have kept their composure.

Red Celtic said: ALL Governments must fall for the people of the world to unite and take back what is rightfully theirs!

Are you serious dude? Do you know what would happen if all gov't fell? You'd have anarchy, genicide, homocide, war lords, everyone would be screwed. No one would unite, they'd be trying to screw each other. You'd have a million Stalins, Hitlers, Husseins, and Pol Pots in no time. Let me be nice about this and simply say that it doesn't seem like you thought that one out real well before writing it.

Red Celtic said: YOU are a traitor to your own people for siding with a government that wants to see it's people starve.

Nice try......didn't work, but nice try anyway. Let's see, on one hand you (leftists in general) say that the Cuban people aren't starving, but on the other hand you admit that they are starving but that the US is helping Castro starve his own people.

[RedCeltic]

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."

This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:


"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order."

While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule."

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:


So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this, "in common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy"

http://www.infoshop.org

[Anti communist]

Dude, that will never work. There HAS TO BE structure and order. That theory is based on the assumption that no one will have ambitions to lead people, or accumulate wealth, etc, things which are hard wired and programed into our brains for thousands or millions of yrs of human evolution now. It sounds very dangerous to me. I can only see people accepting a form of society like that if they are walking around stoned all the time and feeling melow.

[abstractmentality]

Anti communist:
this will be regarding your first few post in this thread, particularly to your thoughts on capitalist economics.

as previously said, the relatively high standard of living in the US is relatively high because of the relatively low standard of living of foreigners that the US exploits. an example of this can be seen in NAFTA. Eight million mexicans (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1281), who were middle class before NAFTA's signing are now in poverty. Also, the gap between the rich and the poor there has increased. so, the poor have essentially become poorer. beyond that, the price of tortillas, has risen 483% (http://www.wtowatch.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/State_of_Play_on_the_FTAA.pdf) yay capitalism!

Dyermaker gave you a list of countries suffering right now because of good old capitalism, but i would also like to add Ecuador, Uganda and Zambia. i can give you more information on globalization if you would like, i just wrote an essay on globalization and the wonders of free-market capitalism for my anthropology class.

i think the example of cars Dyermaker was using was misinterpreted by you, and i think i can perhaps explain it (i hope that i am seeing what dyermaker said in the right light). yes, people will buy things that are "better" if they see other people offer it, but dyermaker was not opposing this thought. what i think he was trying to say was that a car company can make things slightly not as reliable so as to force people to pay more money to fix them or more money in the fueling of them. for instance, i think most cars now use plastic radiators. this webpage (http://www.customautorepair.com/auto_repair.htm) doesnt even offer to rod or recore plastic radiators, but rather to replace them. older cars, though, used metal radiators that can be rodded and used for numerous more miles. another example would be cell phones. i was talking to somebody a while back that worked for a cellphone company (cant remember which one), and he told me that certain parts of their cellphones are made to break or not function after approximate time periods, forcing people to buy more.

beyond this, in your original post, you said that "even poor people in this country benefit from" the capitalist system. hmm...lets only take on the educational factor in this. the high school i came from has trouble paying for many things, including shortages of books. when the time of the year comes around to pay for AP exams, one year our average income level was so low that we all got to pay only 5 dollars, and the next year we didnt qualify for that and had to pay 78 dollars. while this is happening to an obviously poor school with students from a low economic demographic, the school that my college room mate, that lived by the beach, payed for everybodys AP exam regardless of economic background. this, in effect, is reproducing the class system. beyond this i have noticed that many of my college friends that came from well off areas had school programs and classes that were never even offered to my school. one of my room mates was offered a cultural anthropology class, dealing with class relations, race, culture, etc. at his high school, while me, in the ghetto, was not offered anything remotely close to that.

also, concerning globalization, it has been showed that the gap between the rich and the poor increases (even Thomas Friedman, the praiser of globalization recognizes this in his book The Lexus and The Olive Tree). now, if you ask these people who have become relatively more poor, im sure they wont be praising capitalism as you do.

im getting re-settled into my dorm room right now, so i will leave you at that.

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Anti communist on 5:26 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Dude, that will never work. There HAS TO BE structure and order. That theory is based on the assumption that no one will have ambitions to lead people, or accumulate wealth, etc, things which are hard wired and programed into our brains for thousands or millions of yrs of human evolution now. It sounds very dangerous to me. I can only see people accepting a form of society like that if they are walking around stoned all the time and feeling melow.

this entire post is written under the assumption that you know what human nature is. please, tell me, what is human nature? now, after that, give me some proof of this, because to my knowledge, their is none. people can be influenced to act in different ways, to be greedy, to be powere hungry, to be melow, etc. when one is born within a certain type of world or system, the great majority of the people will fall into that system and abide by its set rules and thoughts. being born in a hierarchical society will influence many people of that population to want and desire a hierarchical society, thinking that it is needed. many people being born into a greedy society will turn out to be greedy themselves. if born into a cooperative non-hierarchical society, many will not want to be competitevly greedy and will not see a necessity of a hierarchical structure to keep things inline.

for further info:
Louis Althusser's essay Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatus.
on "human nature" see Biology as Ideology by geneticist RC Lewontin.

[Anti communist]

abstractmentality I'm so glad to have a non hostile response. Thank you very much. I have to shoot some holes in a few things you said.

I've already said plenty on capitalism so let me skip to the car thing. Plastic radiators are more reliable and will not need roding or coring, that's the point. Metal radiators start to rust and leak. The plastic ones won't do this. For several yrs now auto companies have been using plastic composite parts in their race cars as experiments. For example, did you know that there are plastic composite cylinder valves. That's one of the highest stressed, and most heated parts in an engine and it's a type of advanced plastic. I wish they would make radiators from tat stuff. No more corrosion. As far as the cell phone thing, I don't believe it. Was this an electronics engineer that told you this or a disgruntled Sprint store clerk?

On the school thing, see one of my other posts, maybe this one, I don't know. I mention in there that there are priorities that a gov't has to take into consideration. They go something like this: 1)citizen safety (defense dept, police), 2)health of citizens (food programs, disease control), then comes the schools, and other things. The gov't can't be everything for everyone, everytime, there are priorities.

As far as the gap between the rich and the poor, it's shrinking everyday in this country not growing. Look at African Americans. They now own homes, go to college, have great jobs, hold high gov't jobs (Powell, Rice). Just forty yrs ago prosperity wasn't likely to happen for blacks as much as for whites.

As far as the other countries of the world.......too bad. Their gov'ts missed the boat. If they would have followed the US model 100 or 200 yrs ago, they might be as well off as the US. I'm not gonna give up my lifestyle and safety for some 3rd world diaper head that wants to kill me just because I'm not a Muslim.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Anti communist on 7:26 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Dude, that will never work. There HAS TO BE structure and order. That theory is based on the assumption that no one will have ambitions to lead people, or accumulate wealth, etc, things which are hard wired and programed into our brains for thousands or millions of yrs of human evolution now. It sounds very dangerous to me. I can only see people accepting a form of society like that if they are walking around stoned all the time and feeling melow.


The most basic form of human society is an egaliterian community where people work for the greater good of the group.

In fact, if we put human existance in terms of a twenty four hour clock, and the world started at midnight, and it's now getting near dusk, we had spent most of the day, up untill about 45 min. ago in small communal bands, and only the last 45 min have we begun to live in this modern society of states, who's focus is on individual wealth rather than communal wealth, and who's focus is on greed, coruption and power.

These are not "Human Nature" these are constructs that are manifest in states, for the existance of states had only come about through greed, lust for power, and control of the masses.

People seem unable to think of how Anarchy will come about, and seem to think that one day they will wake up and be in the middle of an old Mad Max film. That's far from the truth.

Anarchy seeks to transform small communites and workplaces at a time by setting up cooperative living conditions and workplaces. We have many of these in the US, Canada and Europe.

It seem as if someone would have to be on heavy drugs to walk around through life letting other people make drastic choices that affect their life and safty. And not care that they have little to no say in the Govt.

[OzWizard]

HA HAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Another American who thinks they didn't lose the Vietnam War! Mate, when you leave with your tail between your legs and the gates of your embassy are run over by a North Vietnamese tank (to be greeted by an Australian journalist, by the way- read it in Dispatches- the sort of stuff warmongers love) You've LOST! Did anyone see A Fish Called Wanda? Kevin Kline says to John Cleese "You hate America because we're winners!" Cleese just says "Winners, eh, like North Vietnam?" Kline gets angry "Vietnam was a DRAW!" Oh my god I'm rolling around laughin'! You didn't lose Vietnam! Hahahahahahahah! Who did? The Mexicans? Is the Communist Party not in control in Vietnam? (not that i'm a fan of the Vietnamese administration- but hey THEY KNOW HOW TO KICK YANK ARSE!) Are you still fighting in the Bay of Pigs too? Or was that a draw as well!?! America military adventurism, despite your swollen heads, has been copping a hiding from the time of the 1812 War til now. You only win when you have allies to help you. Why? Because you are STUPID! You don't know anything about the world you inhabit! Only a false belief in your country's abysmal record as a 'warrior nation' has ever stopped you from realising the worth of international organisations like the UN. YOU'VE LOST! MANY, MANY TIMES! Stop trying!

[Ghost Writer]

"Excuse me, but Bush told the nation and worldwide communication systems that they will finish this stupid war is 72 hours!"

Really? When? Let's see the press release, where he said this. It doesn't exist, because he never said it.

[Anti communist]

Guys, I'll respond tomorrow if I get a chance. I've been in front of this pc all day. It's time to do something else. Meanwhile, if you read through my posts today I think you'll find an answer to almost everything you guys broguth up, including Vietnam. Cheers, and have a good night. God bless America, Land that I love................

[abstractmentality]

Anti communist:
the point i was trying to make with the radiator is that a stock radiator from the company will make them more money then being able to clean the old metal one. plastics seem to be coming into cars much more, some parts well, some others not so well. i know plenty of improvements have been made, but i have heard the complaints from the old timers about how some stuff just doesnt last as well as the old metal stuff did.

the cell phone story, im assuming, was legitimate, as it came from an alumni of my college that was brought in to give us an inspirational talk about how we should step on all of our classmates so that we can be rich in a summer advising session for engineering students.

the school thing: the state does have priorities, but as far as i know, the taxes the students parents pay are where much of the schools funding comes from. so, if one lives in the ghetto, their school is going to get less money then the persons school from a well off area. that does not have to deal with government priorities.

the classic example of giving a few examples of people of color that have "made it," or the person from a lower income family that "made it" is flawed in so many ways. for every Colin Powel or Bill Clinton there are thousands that didnt "make it." the initial thought of this being a meritocracy is alarming, and if you really do think that, i would suggest the ethnography Aint No Makin' It by Jay MacLeod. yes, progress is being made, but you make it seem as though things are great, when in reality you still have glass ceilings and plenty of other things, making it not great.


As far as the other countries of the world.......too bad. Their gov'ts missed the boat. If they would have followed the US model 100 or 200 yrs ago, they might be as well off as the US.
they missed the boat? followed the US model? hahaha. first off, the US practiced 200 years, and are still practicing to some extent, protectionist economic policies. beyond that, it is no burried truth that the US has exploited many other nations natural resources and hindered their development of economic strength. for an exmample, look at Brazil. brazil is rich in natural resources, and should be relatively well off. the country has recently been doing well, but for the amount of natural resources they have, they should be doing much better, and started this much better route a long time ago.

now these countries are being locked into neo-liberal economic policies by US led efforts (ie. NAFTA, future FTAA) and other "restructural programs" that do not let these countries follow the US's economic policies of its development. so, in effect, these policies are inhibiting these countries to develop as the US did. and these policies have not done much except commit ethnocide, increase the gap between the rich and the poor, and, since democratic governments are a representation of the people and in neoliberalist policies the government has less say in the economics of the state, the people lose say in what they do economically (thought taken from Noam Chomsky's Profit Over People).

"3rd world diaper head" ?? perhaps you should explain this, because right now im not seeing this in a good light whatsoever.


(Edited by abstractmentality at 6:42 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[peaccenicked]

OZwizard, your post.was my point, It is get really pathetic that these americans, come to a che site and try to tell us things about their great US, try to tell us things about Saddam Hussein that we knew about before most americans. His country only stopped supporting the day he invaded Kuwait. Before then he was the US favourite torturer and dictator and it was only the likes of socialists and Amnesty international that pointed this out.
This is why we know this war is not about removing a dictator but bringing about a new one more in line with the yankee dollar.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:16 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[OzWizard]

Answer these questions for me when you return. No semantics, no Jedi-like, certain point of view stuff.

1. Who DID lose the Vietnam War? If not America, WHO? I don't think even the most right wing professor of history could possibly muster an argument that the USA didn't lose. You certainly didn't WIN, did you? Just to pre-empt (its the fashion these days) here's where you might try to weasle out of the fact that the USA got flogged.
"South Vietnam lost the War" PRE-emptive response (it does feel good I can see why they do it)-The South Vietnamese Government was never democratically elected, existed solely on funds provided by Washington and collapsed as soon as the US withdrew. It consisted almost entirely of Catholics in a country which is dominated by Buddhism. It was in every sense of the word a Puppet Regime. A proxy for US geopolitical interests.
2. "We killed more of them than they killed of us"
Under this rationale Hitler defeated Stalin, France lost the First World War and South Africa is still under white minority rule. This is the most childish way of looking at a war imaginable, (it was Sir Douglas Haig's view, much to the detriment of those who had to fight on the Western Front under the British). It's called attrition and is utterly invalid in terms of evaluating the success of a military adventure, except in the playground with toys.

You need schoolin', boy, befo' you git yosef into trouble. America lost the Vietnam War. Fair and square. You may take Baghdad, but you'e got a snowball's chance in Ho Chi Minh City on a summer afternoon of getting out of there without a very bloody nose.
I'd just be worried about the draft if I was you.

Do you trust those nice men in Washington enough to go and get shot by your own side for them? Didn't think so. Go back to the library and leave war to less enquiring minds.

[OzWizard]

Thankyou, senor peacenicked. I very much like your quote, it makes me want to get off this computer!

[synthesis]

Competition has proven that people will buy the best they can afford.

No, it has proven that capitalists will do what they can to make money - even produce shoddy products. American manufacturers could have easily produced cars with the quality of the Japanese cars you mentioned. They chose not to because it was not in their best interests.

First of all, aids will probably not be cured. There hasn't been a single virus in history that has been "cured". Once a person gets a disease from a virus, they can't get rid of it.

There could conceivably be a pill or treatment of some sort that effectively expels all symptoms of the AIDS virus from the body in one go. This would not be profitable.

Now if what you say is true, then it would be more profitable to find a vaccine than a cure.

I'm not even sure what the hell you're talking about here.

Is that Portland Oregon or Maine?

Oregon.

As much as we's like to, we can't do/be everything for everyone. The most important job the US has is to protect the citizens. Now, knowing that there are Saddams and other eveil people like that in the world that want to kill us, I'd say that get's a little more priority than schools, at least until the threat is eliminated.

So you think spending a completely unnecessary amount of money on the military instead of on schools to educate our children is a good thing? The U.S. spends twice as much money on its military than the next five ranked countries combined. Do you honestly think we need all of this?

Also, your state can decide where it wants to put it's tax dollars also.

There are state taxes and there are federal taxes. Federal taxes go to the military.

Also, the Arab/Muslim world always views the US foreign policy through the scope of the Palestinian/Israeli issue.

Again, I don't see how anything you're saying here has anything to do with what I said.

Typical, you're blaming the US for the suffering of the Cuban people just like others here blame the US for the suffering of the Palestinians, or the Iraqi civilians.

This is absolutely ridiculous, because the U.S. is responsible for the arms of the Israeli murderers, the sanctions on Iraq which have killed over 1,500,000 Iraqi infants, and the crippling trade embargo on Cuba.

[IHP]

Just quickly in response to the need to spend excessive amounts of money on the military while neglecting education. This is from a Current Population Study (CPS).

"Between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population, or approximately 44 million people, according to the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), scored in Level 1 (see description above). Another 25-28 percent of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, scored in Level 2. Literacy experts believe that adults with skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills to function successfully in our society."

How about that? Between 89 and 94 Million Americans do not possess the literary ability to function successfully in society.

That is an absolutley disgusting figure wouldn't you agree?

--IHP

(Edited by i hate pinochet at 5:17 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[synthesis]

Are you serious dude? Do you know what would happen if all gov't fell? You'd have anarchy, genicide, homocide, war lords, everyone would be screwed.

Just in case RedCeltic's post didn't get it across... anarchy and genocide/war lords could never co-exist. They are completely contradictory. Also, I'm still chuckling at this line.

Typical, you're blaming the US for the suffering of the Cuban people just like others here blame the US for the suffering of the Palestinians, or the Iraqi civilians. The blame for the suffering of the Cuban people goes to none other than Castro.

Typical, you're blaming Nazi Germany for the Holocaust just like others blame John Wilkes Booth for Lincoln's assassination and Bill Clinton for screwing his intern. The blame for the suffering of the Jewish people goes to none other than the Jews.

[Anti communist]

Guys, there's too much here to respond to but here is a little.

On a lighter note, RedCeltic, did you see the move Fight Club? You would love it. I loved that movie. It's the biggest head game ever. Even though there's fighting and violence, it has nothing to do with that. I don't want to give it away, but you would love it. Maybe it's not exactly your thing but it comes close. In fact a lot of the people here would love this movie.

OzWizard, as far as the Vietnam war, yes we lost it as far as it's political goals and Vietnam it communist now which is what we were trying to prevent.

However, I was talking about the effectiveness of the US military against Ho Chi Min's fighters. Here's what I said in my post and I stand by it. This was said by the Vietnamese gov't in 1995, I didn't make this up.:

I'm sure you know we lost 58,000 Americans in Vietnam, but did you know that in 1995, the Vietnamese gov't admitted to losing 1.1 million in the war. That's a 20 to 1 kill ratio, so we didn't lose. We agreed to end the war, and mostly just because we were viewed as the bad guy when our intentions were honorable. The Vietnamese also recently admitted that if Nixon would have kept bombing the north with b-52s for just a couple more weeks they would have surrendered, but we didn't know that at the time.

Buenas noches fellas. I gotta get some work done tomorrow so I probably won't get on here. I've been on here for like 5 hrs tonight.

[革命者]

Quote: from Anti communist on 11:45 am on Mar. 30, 2003
Why was the "Wake up, CHE is dead" post locked? Aren't socialists supposed to be "tolerant". After all, isn't that a major component of socialism. Isn't this the one place in this forum where us capitalists and right wingers can express our ideoligy. If you delete this, you will look like you aren't tolerant at all. Please don't delete this. Let everyone read it and let's have an ntelligent discussion. Let's cut down on the insults and name calling so we can have a nice discussion. I really think I make some good points below and I'd like to see your responses. I lived in Castro's and Che's Cuba so I can shed some light on this.

Peaccenicked said: US/UK are war mongers. Why, because together we are removing a brutal dictator who has murdered and tortured thousands the same way Castro and Che did? That's right, they killed and tortured thousands and not in the middle of the revolution as you said. They did it after they had won and Castro still does it to this day.

Did you see 20/20 on ABC Fri night? They showed the results of the thousands of Kurds that Saddam killed in the north. And even more disturbing they showed a video of several Kurdish men being tied to posts and then executed with machine guns. Then they went up to each victim and shot them in the head to make sure they were dead. And the worst part is that they forced the whole town to watch (even small children were in the crowd) so they knew not to mess with Saddam's gov't. This is the same thing Castro did with the help of Che after they won the revolution. By the way, Hussein is the biggest killer of Muslims at least in modern history.

Peaccenicked said: US/UK are losing in Iraq. How do you figure that? You're probably one of those that think we lost in Vietnam also. I'm sure you know we lost 58,000 Americans in Vietnam, but did you know that in 1995, the Vietnamese gov't admitted to losing 1.1 million in the war. That's a 20 to 1 kill ratio, so we didn't lose. We agreed to end the war, and mostly just because we were viewed as the bad guy when our intentions were honorable. The Vietnamese also recently admitted that if Nixon would have kept bombing the north with b-52s for just a couple more weeks they would have surrendered, but we didn't know that at the time.

Anyway, back to Iraq. We control most of the country except the capital after just 1 week and we've only lost a couple dozen soldiers. I'd say we're winning. Do you know why we haven't already won? It's because we are exactly the oposite of war mongers. We could have won by bombing Bahgdad into the stone age already but instead we are being careful so we can minimize civilian casualties, at the cost of the lives of the coalition forces I might add. Yes, there will be civilian casualties unfortunately, but we will do everything possible to minimize that. Saddam on the other hand puts civilians between us and him so we can accidentally kill civilians and then he can blame us for it, and also to deter us from attacking his military targets. He is having his thugs go into homes and take children and threaten the man of the house to fight against us or else the children will be killed. I'm glad and you should be too that we are removing him from power. In 1998 when Clinton went into the former Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing it was a good thing he was doing wasn't it? Why is Iraq any different?

Red Cletic said: Capitalism makes a small part of society rich and the rest poor. The US has one of the highest standards of living in the world and it's because of capitalism. There is a huge middle class that benefits from it. And even poor people in this country benefit from it because of all the money we pay in taxes (the middle and upper classes) which makes many social programs available to the poor. The poor in this country live better, healthier, and safer than anywhere else in the world. And as far as the poor in other parts of the world, they also benefit from our capitalism because our capitalists are so greedy that they'd rather employ poor people oversees for less pay than an American worker so they can make more profit. So those people who had no income before in these poor countries now have a job and can help feed their families.

Then, there's all the aid we provide to poor countries. The US helps feeds millions of people each year. Did you see Bush's last state of the union addres. He wants 15 billion from the congress to spend on aids prevention in Africa. All this is possible because of capitalism. We are spreading the wealth around.

Then there's the technology aspect of capitalism which improves everyone's lives. Because of capitalism, and those greedy men who want nothing more than to make a buck, they compete with each other to make the best product. The result of this competition is new medicines and medical technology that lets us live longer, safer cars that also polute less, agriculture technologies that yield more crops per acre, the best military technology which is so superior that no enemy would dare attack the US or its allies where we have troops stationed (Germany, S. Korea, just to name 2). You could argue that the US military which was crafted by these capitalists has saved millions of lives world wide. Without our military presense in such parts of the world the murderous distatorships of the world would have killed millions for the sake of conquering and ethnic cleansing. Look at Israel, 1 small country surrounded by about 20 Arab/Muslim countries that don't want it to exist. The only reason Israel still exists is because they are our allies and no one will attack them because of it, and because of their military superiority, compliments of US technology.

I hope to hear from you all.
sociallists + tolerance.. nah.. try solidarity.

Scotty.