Another Serious question for you communist

[CaptainCapitalist68]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor? One job requires you to be responsible for the lives of many people while the other will make you responsible for a clean floor. Why would anyone want to become a doctor or show that they can be a doctor? Are their any incentives for being a doctor in communist society?

What would be the point of working hard if everyone gets paid and rewarded the same? Wouldn't you get rewarded with more work if you did a good job? If people liked your work wouldn't people demand more of your work then lets say another person who isn't as good as you?

[Plagueround]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor?

Under communism there would be no need for money. Under socialism, which some believe to be the "building blocks" on the road to communism, there are many different theories on the distribution of labor credit, some of which involve labor vouchers, energy accounting, or another means of counting participation and work. I'm not going to go in depth here because some of the socialist means of pay are not necessarily my forte (we all have our gifts and our weaknesses right?) and can be better explained by others or the many other threads on the subject. In any event, the idea is not to simply adopt the capitalist system and making sure everyone has an equal amount of "dolla dolla bills".


One job requires you to be responsible for the lives of many people while the other will make you responsible for a clean floor. Why would anyone want to become a doctor or show that they can be a doctor?Imagine how dirty the buildings and cities we live in would become if no one cleaned them up. The doctor would probably be overwhelmed with the increase in disease, so perhaps janitorial work is worth more than you've given it credit for. As for becoming a doctor, people still become doctors today, despite the fact that it is no longer one of the highest paying fields out there. When you look at college enrollment these days, do you see everyone cluttering the admissions office hoping to become doctors, or do they spread out into a wide variety of fields? Obviously there is more to it than the incentive of pay. Also, the idea that a minority of jobs are infinitely more important than others isn't looking at the entire picture.

I hope that answers the question. I didn't include responses to the rest because it's pretty much reiteration.

[Djehuti]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor?

You won't get paid the same, wage labour and commodity production will be abolished as a whole. It won't cost anything to study either, so you don't have to take big loans to finance your education.

Instead ask yourself this. If you can be what you want to be, would you prefer to be a janitor over something "big" like a doctor? Really?





One job requires you to be responsible for the lives of many people while the other will make you responsible for a clean floor. Why would anyone want to become a doctor or show that they can be a doctor? Are their any incentives for being a doctor in communist society?

Why do you assume that nobody actually wants responsibilities? Being a doctor and helping people in such a direct way is a very rewarding job in it self. Such a job will have a huge social status in any socitety.


I belive that in a communist society most people will have more than one job (if we can talk about "jobs" in such a society), all people are unique and have many different talents. No one wishes just to clean floors or flip burgers all day, every one knows that they can do much more than so.

Why can't a person work on a construction at morning, teach during the day and paint at evening? Or work at a supermarket at morning, do algebra at evening and play in a metal band at evening? We have creative, intellectual, philosophical and physical need and all aspects of us should be stimulated for us to feel good and for the benefit of society as a whole. A good society won't reduce a person to one single task, or a few single tasks for that sake.

I belive that it's not the big, demanding occupations that would be hard to fill in a communist society, but rather the un-stimulating, non-creative, booring stuff that still needs to be done. And I belive that we should split these tasks on the population as a whole, so that we do these things two hours a day and then is free to do something more stimulating with our labour force.

I realise that it seems utopic, but I am convinced that we can organize society and production in a way that actually enables these things to function quite well.

[BobKKKindle$]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor?

This question is based on the premise that the only thing which can motivate people to enter a given profession is monetary reward. In reality, however, this is only one of many possible motives and people are also influenced by other things such as personal interest (consider the fact that people often spend a great deal of their time and energy on activities which provide absolutely no monetary reward simply because people find them empowering, such as gardening - they're called hobbies) a sense of duty to the community, and the prestige which comes with certain jobs.

[spice756]

What would be the point of working hard if everyone gets paid and rewarded the same? Wouldn't you get rewarded with more work if you did a good job? If people liked your work wouldn't people demand more of your work then lets say another person who isn't as good as you?


Under communism everyone has basic stuff like food,house ,clothing , education and healthcare for free,

Going on vacation or having commodities you need to work for it.The more you work the more you get.There is no money under communism .

I would print this out and memorize it.


:(

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance) of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need

[Zurdito]

so if Doctors get paid the same as Janitors, and a youngster starts out with a material basis allowing him the time to live comfortably while studying to be a doctor, no-one will want to be a Doctor? I find that hard to believe. Cuba produces a huge amount of Doctors compared to most other countries in Latin America, and of a high statndard. Cuba may not be a communist society by any means, but certainly the differences between wages for a doctor and an ordinary worker in Cuba are lower than anywhere else in the region.

my belief is that a society which valued education and science enough that it provided each child with a solid material basis for an education and invested huge amounts of wealth into improving technology and scientific advance to beenfit everyone, would produce a lot more doctors than a society which lets huge amounts of wealth rot away in mansions and private neighbourhoods, in wars, on advertsing, presidential campaigns, luxuries for the super-rich, the "city", etc., whilst a large amoutn of society concentrates on surviving say to day and has little education or time and energy to learn, as well as nobody being interested in teaching them.

[Ratatosk]

People don't normally become doctors or teachers just because of the salary. Around here, doctors and teachers are paid pretty terribly, but people still want to do it.

A better question is who would want to clean the sewers or do other unpleasant tasks (or, for that matter, boring tasks like janitoring).

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You won't get paid the same, wage labour and commodity production will be abolished as a whole. It won't cost anything to study either, so you don't have to take big loans to finance your education.

Instead ask yourself this. If you can be what you want to be, would you prefer to be a janitor over something "big" like a doctor? Really?

First of all it wouldn't matter what a person wants to be under a communist society. What matters is what he/she is good at.

Second, there wouldn't be a big reason for people to become doctors because the job gives a person a lot of responsibility and is a lot harder then that of a janitor.

Third, under a communist society being a doctor would be as great as being a janitor.

If there are any privileges to being a doctor then its not really a communist society because the job pays more.






Why do you assume that nobody actually wants responsibilities? Being a doctor and helping people in such a direct way is a very rewarding job in it self. Such a job will have a huge social status in any socitety.


I belive that in a communist society most people will have more than one job (if we can talk about "jobs" in such a society), all people are unique and have many different talents. No one wishes just to clean floors or flip burgers all day, every one knows that they can do much more than so.

Why can't a person work on a construction at morning, teach during the day and paint at evening? Or work at a supermarket at morning, do algebra at evening and play in a metal band at evening? We have creative, intellectual, philosophical and physical need and all aspects of us should be stimulated for us to feel good and for the benefit of society as a whole. A good society won't reduce a person to one single task, or a few single tasks for that sake.

I belive that it's not the big, demanding occupations that would be hard to fill in a communist society, but rather the un-stimulating, non-creative, booring stuff that still needs to be done. And I belive that we should split these tasks on the population as a whole, so that we do these things two hours a day and then is free to do something more stimulating with our labour force.

I realise that it seems utopic, but I am convinced that we can organize society and production in a way that actually enables these things to function quite well.

2-3 jobs a day where you're told what to do and have no say so sounds like a nightmare.

[Plagueround]

First of all it wouldn't matter what a person wants to be under a communist society. What matters is what he/she is good at.

Second, there wouldn't be a big reason for people to become doctors because the job gives a person a lot of responsibility and is a lot harder then that of a janitor.

Third, under a communist society being a doctor would be as great as being a janitor.

If there are any privileges to being a doctor then its not really a communist society because the job pays more.

2-3 jobs a day where you're told what to do and have no say so sounds like a nightmare.

You're not told what to do. That's the point of free association. Have you even bothered to read anything regarding communist ideology? Ever?

To be frank, this section of the forum is for Opposing Ideology, not for trollishly disagreeing with everything here. The more regular OI posters usually have much more to say, disagreeing based on their own educated and researched views or philosophies. Most of them at least have the courtesy to at least consider our views objectively, even if they strongly disagree.
You have not demonstrated a will to learn or debate, you don't appear as if you've done any actual research or attempt to view anything objectively, and you have not demonstrated a reason to be here other than antagonizing people. You simply wish to put a blanket "WRONG" stamp on everything you disagree with.

On a personal note, you seem like a rather uneducated, lonely, and angry person. You likely attack people in real life like this because you lack proper social skills, or perhaps you don't because people would beat the shit out of you, so this is your way of venting.
I could be wrong because I don't like to judge people based entirely on their posts on a website, but this is how you come off. I've witnessed enough people like you in my day, I can almost see the angry little kid staring back at the screen on the other end.
I won't call for banning you at this point unless your posts continue to become more trollish and disruptive, but I won't lie, it would probably be best if you just went away. It's doubtful you read anything outside of what you need to browse the internet everyday, so I don't much expect you to learn anything while you're here.

[jake williams]

I would rather be a doctor than a janitor, even if it entailed, and oh this is so awful, jerking around at university for a decade, sorry, "working hard". The real question is how we convince people to be janitors, not just because it can be difficult, unpleasant work, but because people like yourself, of whom there are disturbingly many, treat them like shit. The simple answer in our society is that we have sort of a semi-caste system which coerces poor people into being janitors and rewards wealthier people with dependable, rewarding careers and disproportionately high salaries.

[Sendo]

Plagueround is on the ball here.

Janitors are undervalued. Anyhow, socialism would be far more efficient and you wouldn't have lazy deadbeats like Warren Buffet getting rich off of other people's work and then amassing fortunes which make everyone else poorer by competing for and buying goods and services which he doesn't deserve to have lavished upon himself.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Plagueround is on the ball here.

Janitors are undervalued. Anyhow, socialism would be far more efficient and you wouldn't have lazy deadbeats like Warren Buffet getting rich off of other people's work and then amassing fortunes which make everyone else poorer by competing for and buying goods and services which he doesn't deserve to have lavished upon himself.

But... but... Warren Buffet creates jobs by investing his money. That's such hard and possibly-disasterous labor. :laugh:

Captain Capitalism, your defenses for capitalism rely on some faulty "human nature" logic that invokes an image of everyone being clones to the profit regime. Becoming a medical doctor is a ***** because of the education requirements, not the actual labor. Sure, it's hard work. Hella' hard. But people interested in $$$ above common care and interest don't usually become doctors, because just as much money is to be made in business. With the exception of extensive welfare states, in capitalism you are put at an economic disadvantage for chasing after a profession in medicine. Most are turned off from the staggering debt, even if it is payed off in ten years. For example I know dozens of pharmacist majors who first thought about becoming doctors until they realized just how much sacrifice they had to put in - and I'm not talking about hours, but consumption. Under communism someone in pursuit of a degree in medicine would be treated as a worker.

If anything your authoritarian system is what prevents more people from becoming doctors and nurses. Almost every communist is supportive of free association, but most capitalists aren't. If you want to go off and try to create your own small business as a protest of communist organizations, be our guest. Just don't try to recreate capitalism through a public currency and land monopolies and socialized business practices. Although I have to question what you're worried about - nobody wants to work three jobs. "Jobs" under communism would be for the satisfaction of both producer and consumer. With frivelous professions built around money now obsolete, and the need for constant-expanding capital (non-goods) eliminated, work hours would follow a deflationary pattern. The conservative estimate is 20 hours per week.

If you hate communism so much, you better never touch freeware or pirate off the internet.


I would rather be a doctor than a janitor, even if it entailed, and oh this is so awful, jerking around at university for a decade, sorry, "working hard". The real question is how we convince people to be janitors, not just because it can be difficult, unpleasant work, but because people like yourself, of whom there are disturbingly many, treat them like shit. The simple answer in our society is that we have sort of a semi-caste system which coerces poor people into being janitors and rewards wealthier people with dependable, rewarding careers and disproportionately high salaries.It's kind of ironic because the largest danger to communism is not a persistence of labor in journalism, medicine, business, art, education, or animal training, but menial jobs like mining. People naturally gravitate towards the former.

However, automation and job rotations make this "problem" a relatively small one. Small in comparison to the American nurse shortage, at least.

[jake williams]

With frivelous professions built around money now obsolete
I should say, as far as this very common statement goes, it's correct but slightly misleading. Banking and the finance industry might disappear, but they'd be replaced by something which would fulfil some analogous functions, and this would require work and resources. The idea that the effective allocation of resources is a task that takes work to solve is not just a fabrication of capitalist ideology, and I don't think communists pay enough attention to that.


It's kind of ironic because the largest danger to communism is not a persistence of labor in journalism, medicine, business, art, education, or animal training, but menial jobs like mining. People naturally gravitate towards the former.

However, automation and job rotations make this "problem" a relatively small one. Small in comparison to the American nurse shortage, at least.

I agree completely. I should say that it very much disturbs me when I hear people suggesting, particularly in regards to art, especially when "intellectual property" comes up, that we need to provide artists "incentives" to keep doing their work. People who say these things have never met artists. People who say these things are ignorant and don't have the requisite understanding to be able to comment effectively on the issue. Now artists, part-time or full-time, do need some measure of material support, especially in a capitalist society. But that's a very narrow idea and very separate from the "incentive" framing. They need food so they don't die, and they need paint so they can make paintings, and maybe a novelist needs a research budget and there's some analogues to that, but that's about the extent of it. I have very little sympathy or respect for artists who want to be wealthy, but fortunately I haven't met many.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I should say, as far as this very common statement goes, it's correct but slightly misleading. Banking and the finance industry might disappear, but they'd be replaced by something which would fulfil some analogous functions, and this would require work and resources. The idea that the effective allocation of resources is a task that takes work to solve is not just a fabrication of capitalist ideology, and I don't think communists pay enough attention to that.Oh, of course, but the current model of currency transactions is quite inefficient. Those who like to plug in numbers and bust out possibilities for X will be very essential to the production and distribution process. But jobs built around banking and money-handling (like bank tellers, or tax men) would be obsolete.

Most artists I've met online or in person are socialist or very, very strong welfarists. I was verbally raped for criticizing JK Rowling's seizure of a small book project worth $3,000 because it broke copyright standards - not by artists, but homemakers and business owners. If losing $3,000 out of $1 billion is the fail rate of non-copyright protections, I think we'll be okay.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You're not told what to do. That's the point of free association. Have you even bothered to read anything regarding communist ideology? Ever?

To be frank, this section of the forum is for Opposing Ideology, not for trollishly disagreeing with everything here. The more regular OI posters usually have much more to say, disagreeing based on their own educated and researched views or philosophies. Most of them at least have the courtesy to at least consider our views objectively, even if they strongly disagree.
You have not demonstrated a will to learn or debate, you don't appear as if you've done any actual research or attempt to view anything objectively, and you have not demonstrated a reason to be here other than antagonizing people. You simply wish to put a blanket "WRONG" stamp on everything you disagree with.

On a personal note, you seem like a rather uneducated, lonely, and angry person. You likely attack people in real life like this because you lack proper social skills, or perhaps you don't because people would beat the shit out of you, so this is your way of venting.
I could be wrong because I don't like to judge people based entirely on their posts on a website, but this is how you come off. I've witnessed enough people like you in my day, I can almost see the angry little kid staring back at the screen on the other end.
I won't call for banning you at this point unless your posts continue to become more trollish and disruptive, but I won't lie, it would probably be best if you just went away. It's doubtful you read anything outside of what you need to browse the internet everyday, so I don't much expect you to learn anything while you're here.

I think you're the one who's confused here.

Freedom of association is a capitalism idea and not a communist idea. A business owner under a capitalist society has the right to associate or not associate with another person. Whether it be a customer, another businessman or a person looking for a job. He has the right to welcome this people or to tell them to fuck off or right to try to make whatever deals he wants with them. Same thing goes for that other person. Thats what freedom of association is.That is what the free market is all about. Everything is done voluntary unlike your system.

Under a communist society a doctor doesn't have the right to tell a patent in need to fuck off. He is obligated to to deal IE associate with people under a communist society.


"From each according to their ability to each according to their needs"
is the motto for the communist.

Man are not born equal. Some man are simply better then others, especially when we talk about ability.

That being said, under a communist society people will be given their occupation based on the ability they show at a early age."From Each ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY" IE If a young person shows that his good at science and good with his hands then he will be given the chance to become a doctor. If a child shows that his dumb but is good at manual labor then he will be given the job of a ditch digger.

Under a Capitalist society a person can try and become whatever he wants to be provided he has the potential to do so.

Sorry but I think you're the one who's mixed up.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Plagueround is on the ball here.

Janitors are undervalued. Anyhow, socialism would be far more efficient and you wouldn't have lazy deadbeats like Warren Buffet getting rich off of other people's work and then amassing fortunes which make everyone else poorer by competing for and buying goods and services which he doesn't deserve to have lavished upon himself.

Every penny he has he has earned and worked for. Its busniess men like warren buffet that built this country and made it what it is. You will never find this type of peopel in some communist country or some third world shit hole.

1943: (13 years old)


Buffett filed his first income tax return, deducting his bicycle as a work expense for $35.

1945: (15 years old)


In his senior year of high school, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in a barber shop. Within months, they owned three machines in different locations.

1949: (19 years old)


In 1949, he was initiated into Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity while an undergraduate at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. His father and uncles were also Alpha Sigma Phi brothers from the chapter at Nebraska, where Warren eventually transferred.

1950: (20 years old)


Buffett applied for admission to Harvard Business School but was turned down.[30]
Buffett enrolled at Columbia Business School after learning that Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, two well-known securities analysts, taught there.

1951: (21 years old)


Buffett discovered Graham was on the Board of GEICO insurance at the time. After taking a train to Washington, D.C. on a Saturday, Buffett knocked on the door of GEICO's headquarters until a janitor allowed him in. There, he met Lorimer Davidson, the Vice President, who was to become a lasting influence on him and life-long friend.[31] They talked for four hours about the insurance business. Davidson recalled that he found Buffett to be an “extraordinary man” after fifteen minutes.
Buffett graduated from Columbia and wanted to work on Wall Street. Both his father and Ben Graham urged him not to. Buffett offered to work for Graham for free but Graham refused.[30] He purchased a Sinclair Texaco gas station as a side investment, but that venture did not work out as well as he had hoped. Meanwhile, he worked as a stockbroker. During that time, Buffett also took a Dale Carnegie public speaking course. Using what he learned, he felt confident enough to teach a night class at the University of Nebraska, "Investment Principles." The average age of the students he taught was more than twice his own.


Lazy deadbeat my ass. Warren Buffet has more human potential on his little finger then you can ever dream of having. Same thing goes for capitalism.



You know I wish all the tycoons, CEOs, busniess owners, great doctors, lawyers, directors, presidents , scientist would go on strike that way all the parasites in the world would die off.

[freakazoid]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor? One job requires you to be responsible for the lives of many people while the other will make you responsible for a clean floor. Why would anyone want to become a doctor or show that they can be a doctor? Are their any incentives for being a doctor in communist society?

What would be the point of working hard if everyone gets paid and rewarded the same? Wouldn't you get rewarded with more work if you did a good job? If people liked your work wouldn't people demand more of your work then lets say another person who isn't as good as you?

Do you know what volunteer firefighters are? They don't get paid for what they do and they can die doing what they do, yet they still do it.


That being said, under a communist society people will be given their occupation based on the ability they show at a early age. IE If a young person shows that his good at science and good with his hands then he will be given the chance to become a doctor. If a child shows that his dumb but is good at manual labor then he will be given the job of a ditch digger.

Where do you get this BS?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

But... but... Warren Buffet creates jobs by investing his money. That's such hard and possibly-disasterous labor. :laugh:

How do you know? Have you done it before? AM I to understand that Warren Buffet creates jobs out of thin air simply by snapping hsi fingers and using a few stacks of money?

Let me tel you something. Wealth does not come from human labor . It comes from the mind directing that human labor. And Warren Buffet is one of the top mind that directs human labor.




Captain Capitalism, your defenses for capitalism rely on some faulty "human nature" logic that invokes an image of everyone being clones to the profit regime. Becoming a medical doctor is a ***** because of the education requirements, not the actual labor. Sure, it's hard work. Hella' hard. But people interested in $$$ above common care and interest don't usually become doctors, because just as much money is to be made in business. With the exception of extensive welfare states, in capitalism you are put at an economic disadvantage for chasing after a profession in medicine. Most are turned off from the staggering debt, even if it is payed off in ten years. For example I know dozens of pharmacist majors who first thought about becoming doctors until they realized just how much sacrifice they had to put in - and I'm not talking about hours, but consumption. Under communism someone in pursuit of a degree in medicine would be treated as a worker.

A good education shouldn't be cheap. Hell even if they were free they would be as good as our public school system, and we all know how good our public school system is right?

You want to be able to pay for a doctors education? First, get a job that pays at least 10 bucks an hour.(not that hard to get really) Then for the next few years live of water and baloney sandwiches and anything else you need to survive. Rent a cheap as place, hell share a room or live with your parents. After a few years (could be 3 or 10) you'll have enough money to pay for most of your doctors education cost. There nwo you have enough money for a doctors education. What other excuse do you have.




If anything your authoritarian system is what prevents more people from becoming doctors and nurses. Almost every communist is supportive of free association, but most capitalists aren't. If you want to go off and try to create your own small business as a protest of communist organizations, be our guest. Just don't try to recreate capitalism through a public currency and land monopolies and socialized business practices. Although I have to question what you're worried about - nobody wants to work three jobs. "Jobs" under communism would be for the satisfaction of both producer and consumer. With frivelous professions built around money now obsolete, and the need for constant-expanding capital (non-goods) eliminated, work hours would follow a deflationary pattern. The conservative estimate is 20 hours per week.



You know many of this Tycoons and multi hundred billionaire's started of trying to create their own busniess then they failed. Now Did they ***** cry and complain about how other big capitalist corporations aren't given them a chance to succeed or ***** about how they weren't getting any help from? No HELL NO, they picked themselves up and tried again, and maybe even again but the point is that they eventually got it right and succeeded. Thats whats a capitalist system is all about!

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I hear community service can be useful to have on a resume.



Where do you get this BS?

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.

[BobKKKindle$]

You know I wish all the tycoons, CEOs, busniess owners, great doctors, lawyers, directors, presidents , scientist would go on strike that way all the parasites in the world would die off.

Are you seriously suggesting that if all the people who own businesses suddenly decided to stop working, production would grind to a halt? Throughout history there have been countless examples of workers who have taken control of their workplaces and continued production without needing the guidance of any managers, through democratic structures such as soviets (which generally encompass multiple workplaces and also extend to other social groups such as conscripts and agricultural laborers) and factory committees.

[freakazoid]

I see that you have absolutely no understanding of what that saying means. Well you've come to the right place because if you are WILLING to learn then you should eventually understand what it is that we actually believe.

And no response to my volunteer firefighter argument?

[Black Dagger]

Every penny he has he has earned and worked for. Its busniess men like warren buffet that built this country and made it what it is. You will never find this type of peopel in some communist country or some third world shit hole.

Why not?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Are you seriously suggesting that if all the people who own businesses suddenly decided to stop working, production would grind to a halt? Throughout history there have been countless examples of workers who have taken control of their workplaces and continued production without needing the guidance of any managers, through democratic structures such as soviets (which generally encompass multiple workplaces and also extend to other social groups such as conscripts and agricultural laborers) and factory committees.

No the Soviet Union eventually collapse.

The minds of great men is what keeps the motor of the world running and this minds don't run on other people's favors or whims.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Why not?

In a capitalist society man do things in pursuit of their own happiness with their own vision in mind. They start up a busniess, thereby giving people jobs and products thereby making themselves rich.

In a communist society people do things for each other. "To each according to their needs."

I don't think a true capitalist would surrender his mind to the whims of others.


Sorry but thats just the way nature is. Its survival of the fittest.

[spice756]

How do you know? Have you done it before? AM I to understand that Warren Buffet creates jobs out of thin air simply by snapping hsi fingers and using a few stacks of money?


In capitalism you make money controlling the market.Has a capitalists you want to get profit you have to things to do one is lower wages or come up with a new idea.

That say you a capitalists making cars and want to compete for profit you make better cars,or bad cars ,lower wages or have a different car than the other maker.

We all know how bad US cars are not like other counties.The US use to make good cars that is all gone.

All capitalists do is want more and more money and contoling the market .

[Black Dagger]

In a capitalist society man do things in pursuit of their own happiness with their own vision in mind. They start up a busniess, thereby giving people jobs and products thereby making themselves rich.

In a communist society people do things for each other. "To each according to their needs."

I don't think a true capitalist would surrender his mind to the whims of others.

I don't care about your views on communism, you haven't answered my question.

I bolded the bit that related to my question, i.e.

"Every penny he has he has earned and worked for. Its busniess men like warren buffet that built this country and made it what it is. You will never find this type of peopel in ... some third world shit hole."

So why not? What is the difference between the people in the US and the people in the 'third world'?

[spice756]

A good education shouldn't be cheap. Hell even if they were free they would be as good as our public school system, and we all know how good our public school system is right?

You want to be able to pay for a doctors education? First, get a job that pays at least 10 bucks an hour.(not that hard to get really) Then for the next few years live of water and baloney sandwiches and anything else you need to survive. Rent a cheap as place, hell share a room or live with your parents. After a few years (could be 3 or 10) you'll have enough money to pay for most of your doctors education cost. There nwo you have enough money for a doctors education. What other excuse do you have


Okay for the middle class but try that in Detroit or New Orleans and see how far you get.

And no the left believe everyone has the right to free education.Why should the privilege people get education and healthcare and not others are they some how special .

So when they do crime they get special treatment like big TV in jail and nice jail cell or do not have to go to war.

What about people who have learning problems they do not have the right to education ?

[Plagueround]

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.


This doesn't mean you'll take a test and have a job assigned. It means you are able to do whatever you would like to do, and society will only expect of you the things you want to do to contribute, and all your needs will be taken care of in return. You don't honestly think you're an individual do you? The very thoughts you are spewing forth here were bought and paid for long ago.
How can you claim capitalism promotes freedom when so many people are forced to give a majority of their income to someone else to make ends meet, let alone attempt having an enjoyable life, as opposed to a society where you are free to have whatever job you like at any given time, and can get trained in other jobs any time you would like?

Imagine the benefits a society would have if people didn't have to come from rich families or scrimp and save and life like bums for years to become doctors and the like.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I see that you have absolutely no understanding of what that saying means. Well you've come to the right place because if you are WILLING to learn then you should eventually understand what it is that we actually believe.

And no response to my volunteer firefighter argument?


Maybe I don't understand it as well as you do. Maybe I am a man whos read Atlas Shrugged far to many times.

the truth is or the way I see it communism tries to make things equal and fair among man, but man are simply not created equal to one another. Some man deserve to be in cages and some man deserve to be in large yachts. I know that you know that the former is true at least.

And yes I love knowing shit. I've read the communist manifesto quite a few times actually.



I don't care about people who volunteer their time. I am a man who much rather use my wealth to buy a 50 inch plasma, PS3, High performance computer, flashy cloths, instead of giving this money to a needy dieing family in Africa. And I am not afraid to admit it.

I've met many people who like to give. Pretty sorry asses if you ask me. They attract leeches and parasites from all walks of life and don't usually have anything to give.

Sorry but in this world,as the tin man said "its not about how much love you give, its about how much love you get!". Same thing gos for money!

[freakazoid]

In a communist society people do things for each other. "To each according to their needs."

I don't think a true capitalist would surrender his mind to the whims of others.Yeah, people do things for each other, not people have a gun held to there head and are told to dig a ditch for someone.

[Black Dagger]

And yes I love knowing shit. I've read the communist manifesto quite a few times actually.


Perhaps you should read more detailed stuff? The communist manifesto is one pamphlet, it's a propaganda piece that gives the reader only a rudimentary understanding of marxism.

[freakazoid]

I don't care about people who volunteer their time

It's not about caring for people who volunteer their time. My example clearly throws your entire premise out the window, the whole thing about why would people do something harder if they don't get more money.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

So why not? What is the difference between the people in the US and the people in the 'third world'?

Why are you so concern with what I think? Looking for an excuse to ban me I am thinking.

The United States is a country where the phrase "To Make money", "to make a profit", "The American Dream" came from. As far as I know its the only moral country in existence, or at least it use to be.

People here in the United states grow up thinking that its OK to try and become rich and wealthy therefore you will find many people trying and becoming very rich here and there is nothign wrong with that(provided you don't cause harm to other people or acquire things by force). In a communist society you won't find people trying to become rich because its not possible. In a third world you will get robbed if you become rich in a legitimate way. Sorry but my opinion on third world countries is very low.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

It's not about caring for people who volunteer their time. My example clearly throws your entire premise out the window, the whole thing about why would people do something harder if they don't get more money.

I sure some people are like this but the vast majority of men are not and that is why a system where people oaught to try their hardest for the sake of his fellow brother would not work.

[bcbm]

Maybe I am a man whos read Atlas Shrugged far to many times.


I think we have found the root of the problem here.

[spice756]

I don't care about people who volunteer their time. I am a man who much rather use my wealth to buy a 50 inch plasma, PS3, High performance computer, flashy cloths, instead of giving this money to a needy dieing family in Africa. And I am not afraid to admit it.

I've met many people who like to give. Pretty sorry asses if you ask me. They attract leeches and parasites from all walks of life and don't usually have anything to give


So it is okay for there to be homeless people or people who have a hard time putting a roof over them self and poor people? And you buy a big Plasma TV and nice computer?

How nice of you.

You still have not respond to the other posts here.

[spice756]

The United States is a country where the phrase "To Make money", "to make a profit", "The American Dream" came from. As far as I know its the only moral country in existence, or at least it use to be.

Do you watch the news ? The US economy is falling apart and so is the The American Dream.This proves the The American Dream does not work and the economy is falling apart .And soon the US will be like Mexico or some other 3 third world countries



People here in the United states grow up thinking that its OK to try and become rich and wealthy therefore you will find many people trying and becoming very rich here and there is nothign wrong with that(provided you don't cause harm to other people or acquire things by force). In a communist society you won't find people trying to become rich because its not possible. In a third world you will get robbed if you become rich in a legitimate way. Sorry but my opinion on third world countries is very low

There is no money or wealth under communism.And still you have not reply on the other posts here.

By the way he has long off.He is probably not going to come back here to continue the debate has he has not replied to alot of the other posts here.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How do you know? Have you done it before? Yeah, I have. I'm a business owner. I became one at the age of 18. How about you, spanky?


As far as I know its the only moral country in existenceYou're a hopeless nationalist.


In a communist society you won't find people trying to become rich because its not possible. In a communist society everyone is wealthy, negating the need to exploit others with an authoritarian property system just to get ahead.


I've read the communist manifesto quite a few times actually.
You've got to be kidding me. The Communist Manifesto was for existing communists; it set a purpose and ideology for a particular branch of the communist movement. This is like someone declaring themselves unapologetically socialist because they watched Friedman give a speech on why he's a Republican.


I've met many people who like to give.I've met many people like you.

http://www.ejpress.org/ImageGallery/7aa3172b-cbaa-48c9-91a7-4d05c62ee000.jpg

You want all the benefits of using the labor and natural resources from Africa, but none of the responcibility. Nice going.


Wealth does not come from human labor . It comes from the mind directing that human labor. And Warren Buffet is one of the top mind that directs human labor.Now that we've established you aren't an entrepreneur... Seriously, what kind of stupid shit is this? You can't honestly attest to believing this. No labor equates to no innovation. The vast majority of innovations didn't require management from an external source. The only large projects I'm aware of which came about through managing subordinates were state projects like the internet and space exploration.

And you seem to be under the presumption I don't consider mental work labor. I do, but investing is non-productive. It can be handled by 100% of the population instead of the top 1%.


A good education shouldn't be cheap. Hell even if they were free they would be as good as our public school system, and we all know how good our public school system is right?Nice leap in logic there. I do have to question your statement about "free schools" failing to meet a quantified level of "goodness" when the best education exists in welfare states like Finland that treat practically all education as "free."

Even in the United States a side-by-side comparison of similar demographics shows that public school students do just as well as their private peers. The worst schools are categorized as conservative, Protestant, and private. Why do I suspect you want to defend these three adjectives the most?


First, get a job that pays at least 10 bucks an hour.(not that hard to get really) Then for the next few years live of water and baloney sandwiches and anything else you need to survive. Rent a cheap as place, hell share a room or live with your parents. After a few years (could be 3 or 10) you'll have enough money to pay for most of your doctors education cost. There nwo you have enough money for a doctors education. What other excuse do you have.
You are a wonderful example of why capitalism is going to crash and burn.


You know many of this Tycoons and multi hundred billionaire's started of trying to create their own busniess then they failed. Now Did they ***** cry and complain about how other big capitalist corporations aren't given them a chance to succeed or ***** about how they weren't getting any help from? No HELL NO, they picked themselves up and tried again, and maybe even again but the point is that they eventually got it right and succeeded. Thats whats a capitalist system is all about!Because they're now utilizing the system to their benefit. How many usurper kings complained about feudalism? How many black slave owners complained about slavery? Hell, the most renown liberal - Locke - was very fond of his motto "life, liberty, and property," but only when it wasn't in reference to blacks!

This is the same argument I hear in the corporate media about "picking yourself up the boostraps" - other than being anatomically impossible, it's not reality. Thousands of entrepreneurs you've never heard about have contributed more to society with less return in money. Bill Gates isn't near as important to current computing technology as other peers.


Warren Buffet has more human potential on his little finger then you can ever dream of having. Same thing goes for capitalism. Hilariously your article told of Warren Buffet failing at his one true laborious business adventure.

Even funnier is the fact Warren Buffet is probably the biggest welfare advocate in the entire Forbes list. He wants to get rid of inheritance above one million dollars. *Gasp.*

Even (even) better is that I'm one of those business owners you want to keep around.


You know I wish all the tycoons, CEOs, busniess owners, great doctors, lawyers, directors, presidents , scientist would go on strike that way all the parasites in the world would die off.
Why do you want to die?

Take out "great scientists" and "doctors" and we can agree on something! I'd love for directors, presidents, CEOs, and lawyers to strike. We don't need them. Let's throw them in a bus with Congress and drown it.

On edit-


Freedom of association is a capitalism idea and not a communist idea.

Get back to me when currencies are completely privatized, legal fiction like corporate personhood and limited liability abolished, and land monopolies a thing of the past. It may come as a surprise to you, but nobody here is going to get uppity if you flip off communist associations in a post-capitalist society and stick to a strictly non-authoritarian individualistic lifestyle. If you think it can do better for you than communism, be our guest.

[Bud Struggle]

"Every penny he has he has earned and worked for. Its busniess men like warren buffet that built this country and made it what it is. You will never find this type of peopel in ... some third world shit hole."

So why not? What is the difference between the people in the US and the people in the 'third world'?

If I may answer that: you do find Warren Buffets in third world shitholes. You find them all over the place. In Zimbabwe there's Robert Mugabe for example. In Iraq there was Saddam Hussain. There was Napeoleon and there was was Caesar. Look at what Stalin did to Communism. These kinds of Super "A" type personalites come up unexpected all over the world every now and then.

What more "civilized" countries have done is put in a series of rules and laws that limit the power that can be collected by these men, so they go off into business or become parlementary leaders because they have no access to real raw power. It's been blocked by Constitutions and tradition and laws.

In other parts of the world where there aren't all sorts of restrictions--these kinds pf people run rampant. And that's one of my main problems with things like Anarchism--who is going to stop these people from getting access to power? Or better yet, how is society going to focus these people's ruthless and strong ambitions?

They come from nowhere and they have a tendancy to take over. It's easy to think of the Constitution as something that gives US rights. It's really a document that limits the rights of tyrants over us.

That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Killfacer]

Why are you so concern with what I think? Looking for an excuse to ban me I am thinking.

The United States is a country where the phrase "To Make money", "to make a profit", "The American Dream" came from. As far as I know its the only moral country in existence, or at least it use to be.

People here in the United states grow up thinking that its OK to try and become rich and wealthy therefore you will find many people trying and becoming very rich here and there is nothign wrong with that(provided you don't cause harm to other people or acquire things by force). In a communist society you won't find people trying to become rich because its not possible. In a third world you will get robbed if you become rich in a legitimate way. Sorry but my opinion on third world countries is very low.

What the fucks wrong with England you bastard. We made you. We invented "to make profit" because not only did we invent the bloody words, we had the industrial revolution and you don't get much more money making than that.

From where i'm standing the US of A does not look like a particuarly moral country (no offence to you yanks who are okay). You shit all over just about everyone, you have lots of highschool shootings, you invented the teen movie, you invented high school musical, your full of shit, you stole our language and made it shit, you point guns at just about everything, you kill animals happily, your predominantly right wing christian nut jobs, you teach creationism in schools, you have a museum to intelligent design, most of you are fat, you happily destroy the enviroment, you all have stupid naff 80's hair, you all have stupid naff 80's mustaches, you all wear stupid naff 80's clothes, your music is shitter than ours, you were part of the slave trade, you received help from the french and thats the only way you beat us.

On the plus side i like Arnie, but hes Austrian anyway.

[Plagueround]

you all have stupid naff 80's hair

Hey now. There is nothing wrong with my Jedi Mullet. I'm going to make sure you get a ban for that one. :lol:

[Plagueround]

What more "civilized" countries have done is put in a series of rules and laws that limit the power that can be collected by these men, so they go off into business or become parlementary leaders because they have no access to real raw power. It's been blocked by Constitutions and tradition and laws.

They come from nowhere and they have a tendancy to take over. It's easy to think of the Constitution as something that gives US rights. It's really a document that limits the rights of tyrants over us.


The past 8 years (not to many many of the ones before it) showed how much the constitution, regulation, and laws mattered to these people. They do whatever the hell they want and the law only comes down on them when they disagree with each other.

By the way, in response to the anarchy thing, I would argue it is these people lifting themselves up by manipulating and modifying existing laws for their own gain.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

In capitalism you make money controlling the market.Has a capitalists you want to get profit you have to things to do one is lower wages or come up with a new idea.

That say you a capitalists making cars and want to compete for profit you make better cars,or bad cars ,lower wages or have a different car than the other maker.

We all know how bad US cars are not like other counties.The US use to make good cars that is all gone.

All capitalists do is want more and more money and contoling the market .

Yes thats the good thing about capitalism. Because of competition the capitalist keeps improving his products and making them cheaper for us to buy.

And there is nothing wrong with wanting more and more.

Tell me, do you want more then what you have right now? If so then you are also guilty of greed.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

The past 8 years (not to many many of the ones before it) showed how much the constitution, regulation, and laws mattered to these people. They do whatever the hell they want and the law only comes down on them when they disagree with each other.

By the way, in response to the anarchy thing, I would argue it is these people lifting themselves up by manipulating and modifying existing laws for their own gain.

All this regulations, laws, and bureaucracy crap are not part of the ideology of capitalism. This government controlled things are more of a result of socialist, liberal lefty ideas.

Capitalism, Libertarianism, conservatism, republicanism are all about small government, less regulations and more freedom. Yours is the other way around. Even if your government consisted of a reckless gang mob of people. They would still be regulating everything, including people's property.

[Bud Struggle]

All this regulations, laws, and bureaucracy crap are not part of the ideology of capitalism. This government controlled things are more of a result of socialist, liberal lefty ideas.
Government (if done correctly) should produce a flat playing field so that there isn't any discrimination or unfair practices. Largey the Government should regulate what business shows it can't regulate for itself. A good example is the current bail out--they want government money--now thay have to follow government regulation.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Other than executives walking out with millions - possibly billions - of dollars in compensation and increased inflation?

[Bud Struggle]

Other than executives walking out with millions - possibly billions - of dollars in compensation and increased inflation?

I'm not particularly crazy about that either. :thumbdown:

[Plagueround]

Capitalism, Libertarianism, conservatism, republicanism are all about small government, less regulations and more freedom. Yours is the other way around. Even if your government consisted of a reckless gang mob of people. They would still be regulating everything, including people's property.

All your previous statements indicate you don't believe in laws, instead preferring some sort of anarcho-capitalism. More than likely you prefer the system we have now but aren't intelligent enough to articulate anything beyond the same tired lines you picked up from Atlas Shrugged, nor do you actually realize the implications of such a society.

If you own land, and there is no state to protect your precious "property", what is to stop me from taking it from you by force? Hell, by your own admission I make more money than you do by a long shot (not that money matters much to me, but for the purpose of the example)...who knows, under your system I could own you!

Only when you abolish naive notions of "private property" and get people to work toward a collective interest would you be free to live without a state. The state is what props up the very notion of private property and not the other way around.

Really, you're going to have to do better than what you've managed so far. Every rebuttal you've posted is essentially a "NO U!".

P.S. In the system people like me envision, you could attempt capitalism, but people would likely just laugh at you and shake their heads because they'll already have everything they could ever want, and the notion of someone trying to "sell" it to them will be probably be seen as an ironic joke.

[freakazoid]

In other parts of the world where there aren't all sorts of restrictions--these kinds pf people run rampant. And that's one of my main problems with things like Anarchism--who is going to stop these people from getting access to power?

Anarchy itself keeps those people from getting into power. :confused:


republicanism are all about small government, less regulations and more freedom.

Are you kidding me!?

[#FF0000]

Sorry but thats just the way nature is. Its survival of the fittest.

No it fucking isn't

You obviously ain't read shit by Charles Darwin. "Survival of the Fittest" is not Darwin. He used it figuratively to refer to natural selection, but natural selection goes far beyond that. Real scientists don't even think of using "survival of the fittest". Only folks who don't know a thing about human interaction and psychology, or even science and biology for that matter use it as a substitute for "natural selection". Hence, Herbert Spencer, who took Darwin and applied it childishly to human society, which Darwin never intended and in all likelihood would have laughed long and hard at.

Darwin actually observed that natural selection seemed to favor animals that cooperated with each other. It sort of baffled him at first and then he decided that animals act in the common good because the environment demands it. Thus, altruism can become an evolutionary trait. An Anarchist by the name of Pyotr Kropotkin came along and wrote further on it. Called it "Mutual Aid". The end.

Read.
A.
Book.

[Black Dagger]

Why are you so concern with what I think?

Because you didn't explain you said.

You were just like, 'well people in the third world could never be like warren buffer!'

I want to know why you think - how you justify the statement. FYI, i disagree - so i would like to know your reasoning.

I'm not sure why you're being so coy about the whole thing :confused:



Sorry but my opinion on third world countries is very low.

But... why?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Government (if done correctly) should produce a flat playing field so that there isn't any discrimination or unfair practices. Largey the Government should regulate what business shows it can't regulate for itself. A good example is the current bail out--they want government money--now thay have to follow government regulation.

Nothing wrong with that.

This bailouts are according because the government got involve with this businesses in the first place. During the Clinton Administration Home Loan companies were told not to check people's credit when applying for a home loan. Lo and Behold now this people with bad credit can't make their home loan payment. Bush and McCain tried to put an end to this a couple of times but the democrats kept stopping them.

I believe this companies should just go out of business and the people who can't afford to make their home payments should go live in the streets.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Because you didn't explain you said.

You were just like, 'well people in the third world could never be like warren buffer!'

I want to know why you think - how you justify the statement. FYI, i disagree - so i would like to know your reasoning.

I'm not sure why you're being so coy about the whole thing :confused:



I did, i said they can't because they wouldn't be able to. The Ideology in communist countries and thirdworld countries is totally different.




But... why?

Because they know they got a shitty country and they keep on doing the same thing over and over again(or maybe they don't know?). Middle East countries are still theocracies. African countries still have some African tyrannical overlord governing them. You can blame capitalist America all you want but its not their fault.

When the forefathers of this country found America they knew that a government that gets involve in economics and religion was a bad thing.

[Elliot_R]

CaptainCapitalist68 you seem to be convinced that everyone can get a $10/h job. that sure as hell is not true. you know how difficult it is for me to get a job? And my mum doesnt even make $10/hour, but, you know what, i'm not lazy or anything like that. I want a job. but i cant get one. i apply everywhere, but they turn me down for less qualified workers, aka stupid teenagers who spend all their money on drugs. thats pathetic. sure tons of people are freeriders and abusing government support, but also some people NEED help. total anarchy free-market ssytem is blantantly immoral and disgusting.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Did you ever stop to think that our corporations and military getting themselves involved in the affairs of other countries is what keeps these places from progressing? Or do you think our carpet bombing and mass privatization of resources have no impact?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

No it fucking isn't

You obviously ain't read shit by Charles Darwin. "Survival of the Fittest" is not Darwin. He used it figuratively to refer to natural selection, but natural selection goes far beyond that. Real scientists don't even think of using "survival of the fittest". Only folks who don't know a thing about human interaction and psychology, or even science and biology for that matter use it as a substitute for "natural selection". Hence, Herbert Spencer, who took Darwin and applied it childishly to human society, which Darwin never intended and in all likelihood would have laughed long and hard at.

Darwin actually observed that natural selection seemed to favor animals that cooperated with each other. It sort of baffled him at first and then he decided that animals act in the common good because the environment demands it. Thus, altruism can become an evolutionary trait. An Anarchist by the name of Pyotr Kropotkin came along and wrote further on it. Called it "Mutual Aid". The end.

Read.
A.
Book.

Capitalism or the free market is all about people cooperating with each other ON A VOLUNTARY BASES instead of people being FORCED to do things for one another.

The best capitalist are the ones that end up winning while the losers don't. The best Capitalist would be the one that best cooperates with others while the loser capitalist would be the one that loses because he doesn't cooperate with his customers.

In your system everything is about forced. Doctors would be force to deal with whoever needs medical attention. Schools would be force to teach whoever needs education. Corporations would be force to do busniesses Actually businesses probably wouldn't exist because people would be forced out of business under a communist society.

Your system goes against nature because in real nature the weak die of while the strong survive. You system forces the strong to help the weak. And so that is why your system is very unnatural "To each according to his abilities to each according to his needs"

[Dean]

Because they know they got a shitty country and they keep on doing the same thing over and over again(or maybe they don't know?).
Like invading soverign nations and killing innocent civilians? Right, the U.S. only did that In Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Panama, Grenada, Laos, Vietnam. Not repetitive.


Middle East countries are still theocracies.
Right, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who hate the United - oh wait the U.S. has helped fund the military in every singe one of these repressive nations! I guess the U.S. didn't learn that funding foreign brutal theocracies could be hazardous - who would have thought?


African countries still have some African tyrannical overlord governing them. You can blame capitalist America all you want but its not their fault.
Who exactly is that? This is the first time I'm hearing of this overlord!

In any case, you can blame Capitalism and Belgium specifically. You know, the greatest genocide of the 20th century, in which 8 million Congolese were massacred, was committed for the noble pursuit of... increased rubber production. You know what stopped the murders? The cost of harvesting the material, which included a huge military cost, began to outweigh the worth of the product.


When the forefathers of this country found America they knew that a government that gets involve in economics and religion was a bad thing.
But slavery, torture, sexism, protectionism and anti-gay laws were all "good things," I take it.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Did you ever stop to think that our corporations and military getting themselves involved in the affairs of other countries is what keeps these places from progressing? Or do you think our carpet bombing and mass privatization of resources have no impact?

Businesses getting involve with the government is not part of Capitalist ideology To the contrary, Capitalism is all about the government not being involve in economics.

To some degree we are responsible for some things and in other ways we have made things better.

What would happen if we never helped out South Korea? They to probably would've been living under North Koreas shitty communist government huh?

WHat would happen if we never liberated Briton, France, Poland and North Africa from the Nazis? Can you say "Hail Hitler"?

How would Japan be like if it was communist right now? (Let me guess, a fuckign paradies)



There has always been war in the middle east. The sunnis and the Shiites have been at each others throats for 600 years now.

And Africa, well nothing good has ever come from Africa. Except for Egypt.

It is a pity that a large part of the worlds oil are all under this 3rd world countries soil.

[Plagueround]

WHat would happen if we never liberated Briton, France, Poland and North Africa from the Nazis? Can you say "Hail Hitler"?

You know who else is widely credited with stopping Nazi domination, so much in fact that they took Berlin before we did?

Hint: Rhymes with "Smoviet Smunion".



And Africa, well nothing good has ever come from Africa. Except for Egypt.


I'm not surprised you would say something like this. Care to explain that one? We're listening intently.

[Decolonize The Left]

Capitalism or the free market is all about people cooperating with each other ON A VOLUNTARY BASES instead of people being FORCED to do things for one another.

Are you sure? Let's take a peek at the capitalist system and see just how "voluntary" things are, shall we?

Capitalism: If you can't afford to eat, live under a shelter, have clothes, etc... you die.

How do I afford not-dying? By enslaving myself... I see...

Seems like some voluntary choice there doesn't it? Slavery or death....


The best capitalist are the ones that end up winning while the losers don't. The best Capitalist would be the one that best cooperates with others while the loser capitalist would be the one that loses because he doesn't cooperate with his customers.

If by "cooperate" you mean "lie, cheat, and swindle," then yes, this is true. Don't believe me? Read the news.


In your system everything is about forced. Doctors would be force to deal with whoever needs medical attention. Schools would be force to teach whoever needs education. Corporations would be force to do busniesses Actually businesses probably wouldn't exist because people would be forced out of business under a communist society.

And right now things are different? Doctors aren't "forced" to treat those who need medical attention? Oh, that's right, doctors are forced to treat those who can afford medical attention.


Your system goes against nature because in real nature the weak die of while the strong survive. You system forces the strong to help the weak. And so that is why your system is very unnatural "To each according to his abilities to each according to his needs"

Says "CaptainCapitalist68" on Revleft. So you're entitled to speak for nature all of a sudden? Wow... that's mighty impressive for someone who can't formulate coherent arguments.

Why don't you lay off the "nature" arguments, since they're entirely unjustified (not to mention completely unscientific, and yes, I know you think you're arguing Darwin, but you're not).

- August

[Socialist18]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor? One job requires you to be responsible for the lives of many people while the other will make you responsible for a clean floor. Why would anyone want to become a doctor or show that they can be a doctor? Are their any incentives for being a doctor in communist society?

People generally don't just become doctors for the money, they really want to help people, this is the incentive not the pay and the incentive will still be there in communism, people wont automatically stop caring just because its communism ya know.

[the questionist]

What would be the point of working hard to lets say to become a doctor if you're going to get paid the same as a janitor? One job requires you to be responsible for the lives of many people while the other will make you responsible for a clean floor. Why would anyone want to become a doctor or show that they can be a doctor? Are their any incentives for being a doctor in communist society?

What would be the point of working hard if everyone gets paid and rewarded the same? Wouldn't you get rewarded with more work if you did a good job? If people liked your work wouldn't people demand more of your work then lets say another person who isn't as good as you?

Communism abolishes money. Communism could be described as a 'gift economy' of sorts with a catch.Social pressure would force you to leave the commune if you refuse to use your abilities to give to those in need of them. I don't know what incentives there would be to be a doctor in communism but I believe communists think that once the capitalist ideology is destroyed once and for all and economic variables are changed that a sense of altruistic morality will dominate the masses and finding doctors won't be a problem.

Basically the argument I keep on hearing is that people's ethics and behaviors are determined by special forces ( dialectics) in the material fabric of existence and social humans are no exceptions. Economic conditions determine social conditions and social conditions determine people's attitudes and behaviors. Once the economic variables are changed correctly, social variables will comply , and people will be motivated to provide for everyone else in communism.

[#FF0000]

Capitalism or the free market is all about people cooperating with each other ON A VOLUNTARY BASES instead of people being FORCED to do things for one another.

While "Produce for my profit or starve" is technically a choice, I don't think many people would feel they have one upon stumbling by this little fork-in-the-road.


In your system everything is about forced. Doctors would be force to deal with whoever needs medical attention. Schools would be force to teach whoever needs education. Corporations would be force to do busniesses Actually businesses probably wouldn't exist because people would be forced out of business under a communist society.

And in capitalism people are forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth to survive.

What exactly is wrong with doctors having to see a patient, or a school having to educate someone, by the way?

Your system goes against nature because in real nature the weak die of while the strong survive. You system forces the strong to help the weak. And so that is why your system is very unnatural "To each according to his abilities to each according to his needs"

Okay, two things.

1) Natural does not mean good. Stop using it. It is a meaningless term in this discussion. Lots of things are natural. Like snake venom.
2) You can find loads of examples of the "strong helping the weak" in early human societies. Many hunter-gatherer tribes, for example, were radically egalitarian and ran on a very basic sort of "from each according to ability, to each according to need".

So not only is "natural" meaningless here, your assertion that such a society is "unnatural" is thoroughly thrashed by the fact that the earliest human societies ran on a similar principle.

Huh. Looks like objectivism is completely detached from the reality of human relations and history. Whoda thunk it.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

CaptainCapitalist68 you seem to be convinced that everyone can get a $10/h job. that sure as hell is not true. you know how difficult it is for me to get a job? And my mum doesnt even make $10/hour, but, you know what, i'm not lazy or anything like that. I want a job. but i cant get one. i apply everywhere, but they turn me down for less qualified workers, aka stupid teenagers who spend all their money on drugs. thats pathetic. sure tons of people are freeriders and abusing government support, but also some people NEED help. total anarchy free-market ssytem is blantantly immoral and disgusting.

Get a 6.50 dollar an hour then. Buy books on how to get a job! Buy books on how to get Rich! The answers are out there for those who are looking for them and for those willign to try!

You have the luxury of a computer and internet so thats already telling me that your not in such a bad position.

SO who's suppose to help this people that need help?

[#FF0000]

Get a 6.50 dollar an hour then. Buy books on how to get a job! Buy books on how to get Rich! The answers are out there for those who are looking for them and for those willign to try!

You have the luxury of a computer and internet so thats already telling me that your not in such a bad position.

SO who's suppose to help this people that need help?

You really think it's possible for everyone who works hard to make it to the 40,000 a year rung of the ladder?

You really are mad.

[the questionist]

While "Produce for my profit or starve" is technically a choice, I don't think many people would feel they have one upon stumbling by this little fork-in-the-road.

I think his point was that no matter what system you live in that you must act ( i.e. expend) the labor of your mind and body to survive. This is a natural consequence of being born a human being with cognitive faculties.


And in capitalism people are forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth to survive.

As mentioned above. Capitalism doesn't create the human condition of needing to expend energy to survive, its a biological imperative. Whether you decide to sell your labor or not , you must still use your own labor to survive. The question is would you be willing to trade your labor/mind abilities with someone else for mutual benefit?


Your system goes against nature because in real nature the weak die of while the strong survive. You system forces the strong to help the weak. And so that is why your system is very unnatural "To each according to his abilities to each according to his needs"

I agree that altruism is a net loss and possibly even self-destructive. However its not the 'strongest' that survive according to evolution, its those most adaptable to change. As far as social humans go, its hard to compare it to a purely natural standard when some humans are born into places of utter terror and agony. These places usually have rulers pointing guns at the ruled.




Huh. Looks like objectivism is completely detached from the reality of human relations and history. Whoda thunk it.

Seems like a fallacious argument. Comparing it to a precedent where altruistic morality happened to be dominate in history ( along with force) doesn't argue the case, its an appeal to tradition. While Objectivism has its problems, I think it correctly identifies that human beings are motivated by incentives and are ultimately individual actors.

[the questionist]

Get a 6.50 dollar an hour then. Buy books on how to get a job! Buy books on how to get Rich! The answers are out there for those who are looking for them and for those willign to try!

You have the luxury of a computer and internet so thats already telling me that your not in such a bad position.

SO who's suppose to help this people that need help?

But genuine misfortune does occur to people. Some people have tried to become successful , have become successful ( perhaps in New Orleans) , and have had it all stripped from them by forces out of their control such as a hurricane.

I do not think that this means other people should be positively obligated to distribute their wealth to others ( the natural conclusion to that is some people have a right to other people's property, which is , inconsistent and immoral) but I see it as aesthetically positive to help those in need, especially if they didn't end up there as a result of their own irrational choices.

[#FF0000]

As mentioned above. Capitalism doesn't create the human condition of needing to expend energy to survive, its a biological imperative. Whether you decide to sell your labor or not , you must still use your own labor to survive. The question is would you be willing to trade your labor/mind abilities with someone else for mutual benefit?

Of course one must rely on their own labor to live. I am just saying that it is exploitive to profit off of the labor of others, which is what happens under capitalism. The worker gets a wage that is only a portion of the wealth they create. The worker, without property of their own, is forced to do this.

I'm just pointing out that when a doctor is "forced" to provide treatment, it is immoral, wrong, unnatural...etc, but when a worker is "forced" to give up some of the full value of their labor to survive, it's a-okay.


Seems like a fallacious argument. Comparing it to a precedent where altruistic morality happened to be dominate in history ( along with force) doesn't argue the case, its an appeal to tradition.

I'm not making an appeal to tradition. He is claiming that a society in which the strong help the weak is unnatural. I am pointing out that when people started out on this planet, they organized into societies which did just that. If such a society is so unnatural, then why would humans so naturally fall into these societies?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

While "Produce for my profit or starve" is technically a choice, I don't think many people would feel they have one upon stumbling by this little fork-in-the-road.

Just because this people don't understand that they have other choices doesn't mean they should be calling the capitalist system a slavery system where people in reality don't actually have a choice.

And who is starving in our capitalist society? Many poor Americans are in fact fat and able to afford beer. Just because they don't know about al the choices and methods to become rich doesn't mean they don't exist.





And in capitalism people are forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth to survive.

Your saying another thing that is technically not true. If people in America were selling their labor for less than what its worth to survive we would be seeing people dieing because they aren't making enough to survive.

Like I said, we should change the phrase "not making a living wage" to "make-people-complain-wage".





What exactly is wrong with doctors having to see a patient, or a school having to educate someone, by the way?

Private schools, private doctors and private business should have the right to refuse service or refuse trade or business with anyone they want. Everyone should have this right. Thats what capitalism is all about. Freedom of association.




Okay, two things.

1) Natural does not mean good. Stop using it. It is a meaningless term in this discussion. Lots of things are natural. Like snake venom.
2) You can find loads of examples of the "strong helping the weak" in early human societies. Many hunter-gatherer tribes, for example, were radically egalitarian and ran on a very basic sort of "from each according to ability, to each according to need".

The tribal society is the lowest form of human civilized living (not even civilized living in fact). Here you can not own anything(well except for your lucky stone axe) and the girls and authority goes to the strongest and smartest male.

Also the tribe that wins over other tribes is the one that practices war and violence more and not the one that practices peace and harmony.




So not only is "natural" meaningless here, your assertion that such a society is "unnatural" is thoroughly thrashed by the fact that the earliest human societies ran on a similar principle.

Huh. Looks like objectivism is completely detached from the reality of human relations and history. Whoda thunk it.

Then why are you using nature as an example?

How is objectivism detach from human reality? Did you knwo that Ayn Rand came to America with nothing but her own vision in mind? She learned English, educated herself and became a Philosopher and was the writer of a best seller and she never asked or demanded help.

Your ideology is the one thats detach from reality. It punishes the strong and rewards the weak. It doesn't give people the choice to not work or to become rich. It brings the worst out of men since people receive based on their whims, needs and suffering. It doesn't produce anything but destruction and suffering. History has told us this over and over again when will you get it?

We haven't even given capitalism a chance. Where has there ever been a pure capitalist society? The US was at one point very capitalistic (but never completely) and it was also very wealthy too. Now our government is going more and more left and things are getting worst and worst. Can you make a connection?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

But genuine misfortune does occur to people. Some people have tried to become successful , have become successful ( perhaps in New Orleans) , and have had it all stripped from them by forces out of their control such as a hurricane.

I do not think that this means other people should be positively obligated to distribute their wealth to others ( the natural conclusion to that is some people have a right to other people's property, which is , inconsistent and immoral) but I see it as aesthetically positive to help those in need, especially if they didn't end up there as a result of their own irrational choices.

And you know what, money can be remade and things can be rebuilt.

This reminds me of a Hurricane, which was as strong as Katina, that hit Galveston TX some time ago. What happen on the first clear day? Did the people show their ugly faces in camera and cried out for help and tens of thousands of dollars in money? NO! They started rebuilding their city on the first sunny day without having to import government help and illegal Mexicans to do their job for them! Koudos to the people of Galveston!

Believe it or not I like helping people. I makes me feel more powerful then them. It makes me feel important. It makes me feel useful. I especially love helping people that I like. But the thing is that people should have to choice on whether or not to help others. Under Communism you don't have that choice. Your ability goes to the need of others whether you want to or not.

[the questionist]

Of course one must rely on their own labor to live. I am just saying that it is exploitive to profit off of the labor of others, which is what happens under capitalism. The worker gets a wage that is only a portion of the wealth they create. The worker, without property of their own, is forced to do this.

Profit can be many things , not simply money. Economic cost-benefit calculations are done in our personal lives all the time. However, the workers typically aren't responsible for the creation of wealth. The requirement for wealth creation isn't just labor energy, its the brilliance of the mind and the ability to accumulate wealth over a period of time.

I think its fair to say that if you have employees at your own firm, its quite certain that your employees wouldn't even have work had it not been for all the effort you put into establishing the firm in the first place. These are past actions you've taken which is illustrated in the present fruition of the company. It was an effort of your mind and labor since you would have to save, and have an environment which protects your savings, that made all of it possible. Simply, none of it would exist without you.

The workers' property is what you pay them. If your firm produced bowling balls I highly doubt the workers would want to be paid in bowling balls. Rather, they usually prefer a type of currency in exchange for working to produce bowling balls.

The worker that came to work for you is an individual first, and then a member of a group of workers second. In each case, one must ask that if the conditions are horrible for the workers now, well compared to what? The choice is to be there instead of somewhere else at this moment in time.

The value of the product isn't determined by you or your workers , its determined by consumers which are out of the control of either the worker or head hancho.


He is claiming that a society in which the strong help the weak is unnatural. I am pointing out that when people started out on this planet, they organized into societies which did just that. If such a society is so unnatural, then why would humans so naturally fall into these societies?Actually this would confirm his point, unfortunately. Ancient societies up till recently have been about the parasites exploiting the producers almost exclusively. Your brute tribal leader and your witch doctor( monarch/priest, etc). The producers, the ones that are robbed , are taught usually by the witch doctor that it is moral to give your wealth away and immoral to make a lot of it or keep it, and they are taught the brute wants to protect them. Imagining a society without the brutes and the witch doctors then becomes frightening to human beings although it is the rational way.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I agree that altruism is a net loss and possibly even self-destructive. However its not the 'strongest' that survive according to evolution, its those most adaptable to change. As far as social humans go, its hard to compare it to a purely natural standard when some humans are born into places of utter terror and agony. These places usually have rulers pointing guns at the ruled.


Adaptable is definitly a more accurate word.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif Can be applied to Capitalism. IE the Capitalist Blacksmith will get beaten by the Capitalist Gun Smith because the Gun Smith has adapted to the new weapon's market of our time. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1248379)

[CaptainCapitalist68]

disregard.

[the questionist]

Adaptable is definitly a more accurate word.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif Can be applied to Capitalism. IE the Capitalist Blacksmith will get beaten by the Capitalist Gun Smith because the Gun Smith has adapted to the new weapon's market of our time. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1248379)

Or the horseshoe supplier and the car supplier.

It doesn't mean the horseshoe supplier is 'weaker' but is definitely shutting out a bit of reason to change with the times. The free market takes his wealth out of his hands anyway if he can't give the people what they want.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Or the horseshoe supplier and the car supplier.

It doesn't mean the horseshoe supplier is 'weaker' but is definitely shutting out a bit of reason to change with the times. The free market takes his wealth out of his hands anyway if he can't give the people what they want.

Markets don't operate around want; demand and want are separate concepts. The later is dependent on the supplier's own investment strategies, the consumer's purchasing power, and how (s)he can manipulate profits.

People want reliable and dollar cheap insurance, but their demand doesn't reach reciprocation. A commodity that comes to mind are computers.

[bcbm]

And who is starving in our capitalist society?Only about 30000 people everyday globally, you fucking swine.

edit: Actually, that is only how many die from starvation every day. About a billion are chronically undernourished.

[Plagueround]

Actually this would confirm his point, unfortunately. Ancient societies up till recently have been about the parasites exploiting the producers almost exclusively. Your brute tribal leader and your witch doctor( monarch/priest, etc). The producers, the ones that are robbed , are taught usually by the witch doctor that it is moral to give your wealth away and immoral to make a lot of it or keep it, and they are taught the brute wants to protect them. Imagining a society without the brutes and the witch doctors then becomes frightening to human beings although it is the rational way.

That makes two people in this thread that know nothing about tribal societies. It really isn't that hard to find information these days and reading instead of making an assumption based on what you saw in a fucking Ringo Starr caveman movie.

[Plagueround]

How is objectivism detach from human reality?

Because it completely denies any notion of a collective while acknowledging wealth comes from others...for one example...there is many more.


Did you knwo that Ayn Rand came to America with nothing but her own vision in mind?On a personal note, she is a really terrible writer. She's not very entertaining or particularly good at being descriptive.


She learned English, educated herself and became a PhilosopherReal philosophers are rolling over in their graves. You know, even Marx is recognized as being a major influence on sociology, as much as people bash him. Most acdademics and even right wing economists reject the stupidity that is Ayn Rand.



Your ideology is the one thats detach from reality.Conflict theory is quite real, has been demonstrated through history, and, as I said, acknowledged as an actual science. Rand is regarded as a poorly written fantasy with Ayn "Mary Sue"ing herself the entire time.


It punishes the strong and rewards the weak. It doesn't give people the choice to not work or to become rich.No one will be forced to work in communism. Better go read something other than Rand.


It brings the worst out of men since people receive based on their whims, needs and suffering.How so? Everyone working together for a common good and being provided for? Never having to worry about the idea of wondering where your next meal is coming from or if you'll have enough money to afford the things you need or want? Never having to choose between gas for the car or food?


It doesn't produce anything but destruction and suffering. History has told us this over and over again when will you get it?Anything bad capitalism does you shrug off as not being applicable to real capitalism, but anything even close to leftist ideology gets lumped in with the wide variety of thoughts and ideas we promote? Nice.


We haven't even given capitalism a chance. Where has there ever been a pure capitalist society?There has been some that attempted to be as close as possible to Libertarian ideas. They crashed and burned worse than any attempt at socialism.


The US was at one point very capitalistic (but never completely) and it was also very wealthy too.Was that during the years when they were subjugating and murdering the countries original inhabitants, enslaving others, treating women like third class citizens, placing Asian Americans in camps, and/or denying civil rights based on color?


Now our government is going more and more left and things are getting worst and worst. Can you make a connection?Actually both parties have been moving steadily right. Can you make a connection?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Yeah, I have. I'm a business owner. I became one at the age of 18. How about you, spanky?


Why would it matter if I am a business owner or not? It seems that you're just looking for an excuse to say "HAHA Iam better then you because I have this and You dont HAHA!". You're just like that other communist guy who bragged to me about how he makes more money then me.

So ok , back to the question, is there work involve in finding good people to hire?




You're a hopeless nationalist.

If you don't like this country then why don't you move to a communist one?




In a communist society everyone is wealthy, negating the need to exploit others with an authoritarian property system just to get ahead.

Are the streets paved with gold and are the walls made out of pearl too? Show me proof of this working in real life then maybe I'll believe you.



I've met many people like you.

No you haven't

I have met a lot of people liek you actually, but they are all in the closet because they are afraid or are to stupid to know that they are a communist. Met many half ass communist too. This I call liberals.



You want all the benefits of using the labor and natural resources from Africa, but none of the responcibility. Nice going.

The only responsibility I should have for getting this natural resources is me paying my hard earned money for them. If the genius capitalist can make this natural resources available for me at a good price all the better.






Now that we've established you aren't an entrepreneur... Seriously, what kind of stupid shit is this? You can't honestly attest to believing this. No labor equates to no innovation. The vast majority of innovations didn't require management from an external source. The only large projects I'm aware of which came about through managing subordinates were state projects like the internet and space exploration.

Typical communist, giving all the credit to the monkeys that push the button for making the product instead of giving credit to the person running the show and whos responsible for putting everything all together. I am just saying that nothing would be possible without the capitalist, which you so often curse at, first having a vision/idea on his mind.




And you seem to be under the presumption I don't consider mental work labor. I do, but investing is non-productive. It can be handled by 100% of the population instead of the top 1%.

Investing can be very productive. You should try it sometimes. In fact go invest all your money on home loan companies.



Nice leap in logic there. I do have to question your statement about "free schools" failing to meet a quantified level of "goodness" when the best education exists in welfare states like Finland that treat practically all education as "free."

No not really, the best educations exist in schools which you have to pay for to attend.




Even in the United States a side-by-side comparison of similar demographics shows that public school students do just as well as their private peers. The worst schools are categorized as conservative, Protestant, and private. Why do I suspect you want to defend these three adjectives the most?

You got any proof for this? Everyone knows that our private schools this days are producing some shitty kids. Maybe you're talking about military schools were they send trouble makers too.



You are a wonderful example of why capitalism is going to crash and burn.

I just proved to you that almost any person can get enough money for a doctors education. And people have done this shit before. I don't care if you have to live in your car or work as a ditch digger to get. It is possible to save enough for a doctors education.



Because they're now utilizing the system to their benefit. How many usurper kings complained about feudalism? How many black slave owners complained about slavery? Hell, the most renown liberal - Locke - was very fond of his motto "life, liberty, and property," but only when it wasn't in reference to blacks!


WHo the hell is talkign about blacks?

They don't use the system to their benefit. They come up with an idea/invention and find a way to sell it to the people for a profit. Or they invest their money on the right company which they figure would do good. Whatever the case, if a person is getting rich from tax payers then we aint talking about capitalism any more.




This is the same argument I hear in the corporate media about "picking yourself up the boostraps" - other than being anatomically impossible, it's not reality. Thousands of entrepreneurs you've never heard about have contributed more to society with less return in money. Bill Gates isn't near as important to current computing technology as other peers.


Many will try but only a few will make it to god hood. Such is the life of a capitalist, very risky but very glorious too.

Bill Gates could've just sold his idea to IBM or work with them and had a good payign job. But no, he didn't do that which most other computer entrepreneurs probably ended up doing, he took his idea and sold it to the masses on his own.





Hilariously your article told of Warren Buffet failing at his one true laborious business adventure.


I guess no ones perfect, not even Warren Buffet.




Even funnier is the fact Warren Buffet is probably the biggest welfare advocate in the entire Forbes list. He wants to get rid of inheritance above one million dollars. *Gasp.*


I guess he feels that no one should be that rich without going though some shit first.


Warren Buffet is the man that claimed the tallest mountain, broke every bone in his body in process, but was able to find paradise and has healed since then.

[Gleb]

If you don't like this country then why don't you move to a communist one?

Perhaps he would if there actually were some around? But yeah, nationalism is really silly and if you aren't one, it has nothing to do with where you are willing to spend the days of your life.


Are the streets paved with gold and are the walls made out of pearl too? Show me proof of this working in real life then maybe I'll believe you.

I'd like to show but the result would probably me being jailed or in some countries, shot. By people like you. And no one here is stating that life would be dancing on the flowers - no one is seriously saying that in communist society, everyone could live like kings and gods, but just that everyone would have decent income to ensure that every worker has right to basic goods and leisures of human life. But tell me, babe, where's the proof of Randyist delusions working in real life?


No you haven't

I have met a lot of people liek you actually, but they are all in the closet because they are afraid or are to stupid to know that they are a communist. Met many half ass communist too. This I call liberals.

I herd u liek mudkips


The only responsibility I should have for getting this natural resources is me paying my hard earned money for them. If the genius capitalist can make this natural resources available for me at a good price all the better.

They are earning their money a lot harder than you are, but still getting less. The genius capitalists has no limbs if he has no slave wages to do everything for him.
It's a bit funny that sometimes you cappies really seem to think that only kind of work that seems to matter is administration and running business, the only kind of work where one should be able to gather all the fruits from the work the businessman is doing, while in reality he is just reading the recipe and then eating most of the cake and leaving some slices to the bakers itself.


Typical communist, giving all the credit to the monkeys that push the button for making the product instead of giving credit to the person running the show and whos responsible for putting everything all together. I am just saying that nothing would be possible without the capitalist, which you so often curse at, first having a vision/idea on his mind.

Typical capitalist, not realizing that without these monkeys pressing the buttons you and the whole western civilization would be nothing..


No not really, the best educations exist in schools which you have to pay for to attend.

But when looking at the whole population, not just the upper class, best results come from countries with free educational program. In a recent reasearch on students' skills in reading, mathematics and science, PISA, best results came from - surprise, surprise - Finland, where all education is free. Other Scandinavian welfare states ranked high too.


I just proved to you that almost any person can get enough money for a doctors education. And people have done this shit before. I don't care if you have to live in your car or work as a ditch digger to get. It is possible to save enough for a doctors education.

Any person with money to get the doctor's education, maybe. The fact that you don't care if someone has to live in one's car to get a doctor's education tells quite much about your complete disregard towards people who actually are the column of whole concept of civilization, while it's completely ok when some rich spoiled brats get the money just by whining about it to their daddies.

[#FF0000]

And who is starving in our capitalist society? Many poor Americans are in fact fat and able to afford beer. Just because they don't know about al the choices and methods to become rich doesn't mean they don't exist

Fat does not mean well-fed. Most of the poor are overweight and malnourished. That's just in the U.S. too. Across the world people starve every day.


Your saying another thing that is technically not true. If people in America were selling their labor for less than what its worth to survive we would be seeing people dieing because they aren't making enough to survive.

If I work in a factory and I make $50 worth of widgets a day, and only get payed $10 a day for them, I am selling my labor for less than it is worth, because I created $50 worth of wealth that is separated from me. The fact that business makes profit means that I am selling my labor for less than its full value.


The tribal society is the lowest form of human civilized living (not even civilized living in fact). Here you can not own anything(well except for your lucky stone axe) and the girls and authority goes to the strongest and smartest male.

Also the tribe that wins over other tribes is the one that practices war and violence more and not the one that practices peace and harmony.

Except that isn't true in all of these hunter-gatherer societies. Many peaceful and egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies existed. I don't have to say anything else. It is a well-established fact.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Fat does not mean well-fed. Most of the poor are overweight and malnourished. That's just in the U.S. too. Across the world people starve every day.

Well then this fat people should learn to buy better food. The moral of the story is that its their fault for them being the way they are. This people already knwo that shoving Big Macs into their faces all the time is bad for them. A 8 year old can tell you that shit.




If I work in a factory and I make $50 worth of widgets a day, and only get payed $10 a day for them, I am selling my labor for less than it is worth, because I created $50 worth of wealth that is separated from me. The fact that business makes profit means that I am selling my labor for less than its full value.

Did you create this widgets out of thin air too or did you use the expensive machinery and the facility? If you and everyone else feels this way then why don't you quit or why don't you go create your own widgets somewhere else and/or make a factory that pays "fair"?

And who's to say how much your labor is worth? Is everyone's labor worth the same? Is the labor you use to press the button to make this widgets worth the full price of the widgets?

I don't see anything wrong with a large portion of the wealth goign to the master mind who made all this possible and who gave you a job, a means to live by and some inexpensive products for you to buy. this master mind will probably reinvest his money into making another factory and make more jobs available to the people, more money for them to make and more inexpensive useful products. You should be grateful you get to work for such a person instead of conspiring to take away all his rightly earned property away.




Except that isn't true in all of these hunter-gatherer societies. Many peaceful and egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies existed. I don't have to say anything else. It is a well-established fact.

No not really, history has shown us over and over again that the most powerful and successful of groups is the one that takes over the other groups and not the ones that live in peace and harmony.

Take for instance the Aztecs, they were mostly warriors who ruled over other tribes and enslaved and sacrifice them thus they became a great empire. In Africa the people that rule are the biggest killers too.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Only about 30000 people everyday globally, you fucking swine.

edit: Actually, that is only how many die from starvation every day. About a billion are chronically undernourished.

Ohh so the whole world is capitalist now? Can you point to one country?

Its funny how there has never even been anything close to a capitalist society.

[danyboy27]

Except that isn't true in all of these hunter-gatherer societies. Many peaceful and egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies existed. I don't have to say anything else. It is a well-established fact.

i was thinking the same about the zulu recently, i read some stuff about them, and at the end they where no better than the brittish, their leader was a sick fuck.

okay, 2 wrong dont make 1 right i admit it.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

All your previous statements indicate you don't believe in laws, instead preferring some sort of anarcho-capitalism. More than likely you prefer the system we have now but aren't intelligent enough to articulate anything beyond the same tired lines you picked up from Atlas Shrugged, nor do you actually realize the implications of such a society.

If you own land, and there is no state to protect your precious "property", what is to stop me from taking it from you by force? Hell, by your own admission I make more money than you do by a long shot (not that money matters much to me, but for the purpose of the example)...who knows, under your system I could own you!

I don't want there to be no government but rather a limited government with the maxium amount of freedoms for all.

Most capitalist are also libertarian which believes in a government who's only responsibility is to protect its citizens from criminals and foreign invaders. So if you tried to steal my land you would be stopped.

No one owns anyone under a capitalist system.




Only when you abolish naive notions of "private property" and get people to work toward a collective interest would you be free to live without a state. The state is what props up the very notion of private property and not the other way around.

Really, you're going to have to do better than what you've managed so far. Every rebuttal you've posted is essentially a "NO U!".

P.S. In the system people like me envision, you could attempt capitalism, but people would likely just laugh at you and shake their heads because they'll already have everything they could ever want, and the notion of someone trying to "sell" it to them will be probably be seen as an ironic joke.

No, under your system there will still be a government. Whos going to control who does what and crime? Whos goign to say that we need more workers for this or that we need more of this material for that? Theres your government right there. It will probably turned corrupt and terrorize the people but it will still be a government.

No one will be able to sell anythign because there will be no currency. nothign good will ever be produce under your system.

[the questionist]

Markets don't operate around want; demand and want are separate concepts. The later is dependent on the supplier's own investment strategies, the consumer's purchasing power, and how (s)he can manipulate profits.

People want reliable and dollar cheap insurance, but their demand doesn't reach reciprocation. A commodity that comes to mind are computers.


The supplier may attempt to stimulate demand through advertising if thats what you mean.

I don't you or anyone can possibly know exactly what everyone wants or demands. The only way to objectively measure this is to see what resources people are willing to part with in exchange for something else.

I guess in general you could say that people want or desire a cost free existence, however when I say want, want is confined to the realm of reality in which man must dispose of resources in order to further his own condition.

Are you trying to say consumer wants have nothing to do with consumer demand? If this is true , its surely a novel theory in the realm of economics and I am very interested in hearing how you utterly divorce the two.

[Plagueround]

No, under your system there will still be a government. Whos going to control who does what and crime? Whos goign to say that we need more workers for this or that we need more of this material for that? Theres your government right there. It will probably turned corrupt and terrorize the people but it will still be a government.

The people are more than capable of taking care of themselves, you've just been taught that people are stupid because it helps prop up the system. If anything, the capitalist system is creating people who can no longer take care of themselves and fall into either poverty and depression or nihilism and greed.

No one will be able to sell anythign because there will be no currency. nothign good will ever be produce under your system.[/quote]

Production and innovation will increase because no one will have to worry about making ends meet, they won't have to work when sick for fear of being fired or losing wages, and they won't be pitted against each other in a competition for promotions and minimal wage increases. Even today, companies where the workers assume control and there are no bosses or stockholders increase production, safety, and quality. Money is just paper (and is even moving away from that), it only has as much power as people let it have.

[the questionist]

That makes two people in this thread that know nothing about tribal societies. It really isn't that hard to find information these days and reading instead of making an assumption based on what you saw in a fucking Ringo Starr caveman movie.

Relative to the modern world , primitive existence was utterly hellish.
Do you have any sources that say the opposite? I'll be more than happy to read them. :)

The only past civilization I could think of that was somewhat tolerable for man's existence was Ancient Greece and perhaps elements of Rome before it became Imperial.

[the questionist]

Fat does not mean well-fed. Most of the poor are overweight and malnourished. That's just in the U.S. too. Across the world people starve every day.



If I work in a factory and I make $50 worth of widgets a day, and only get payed $10 a day for them, I am selling my labor for less than it is worth, because I created $50 worth of wealth that is separated from me. The fact that business makes profit means that I am selling my labor for less than its full value.



Except that isn't true in all of these hunter-gatherer societies. Many peaceful and egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies existed. I don't have to say anything else. It is a well-established fact.

Is the conclusion then that capitalism is responsible for starving in the world. Ok, but this is measurable. We may easily examine , given the information available, the material conditions of men before the advent of capitalism and the study should show that nobody starved and material conditions were at least average before the advent of capitalism.

Rocsh, I think the burden of proof is on you to provide this evidence.

The value of the widget isn't determined by you in the scenario you're talking about. If its possible that you get paid $10/widget and they sell for $50/widget , then why is it not equally possible that you get $10/widget and they sell for only $5/widget. The price of the widget and of your wage is subject to supply and demand. +40$ of profit margin would draw competition in like sharks in which people would pay labor more to work for them and not work for the other guy.

Hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful? I think this is a very optimistic view of primitives ruled the tribal leader and the witch doctor. Relative to each other some might have been more peaceful than others, but they were still savage compared to a civilization.

I suppose it would be proper for both of us to try to provide evidence to support the claim, if its even that important to debate much further? :rolleyes:

[revolution inaction]

Relative to the modern world , primitive existence was utterly hellish.
Do you have any sources that say the opposite? I'll be more than happy to read them. :)

The only past civilization I could think of that was somewhat tolerable for man's existence was Ancient Greece and perhaps elements of Rome before it became Imperial.

Both had slavery, how is that tolerable?

[revolution inaction]

Is the conclusion then that capitalism is responsible for starving in the world. Ok, but this is measurable. We may easily examine , given the information available, the material conditions of men before the advent of capitalism and the study should show that nobody starved and material conditions were at least average before the advent of capitalism.

No it is just necessary to shoe that regions have exported food while people starved because it was more profitable, this happened in most if not all modern famines.



+40$ of profit margin would draw competition in like sharks in which people would pay labor more to work for them and not work for the other guy.

this is not true, capitalism maintains a constant proportion of people unemployed, a need to attract workers from other businesses is rare.
also capitalist will often cooperate to maintain high prices.



Hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful? I think this is a very optimistic view of primitives ruled the tribal leader and the witch doctor. Relative to each other some might have been more peaceful than others, but they were still savage compared to a civilization.

he said there where many peaceful ones not that they where all peaceful.

[#FF0000]

Is the conclusion then that capitalism is responsible for starving in the world. Ok, but this is measurable. We may easily examine , given the information available, the material conditions of men before the advent of capitalism and the study should show that nobody starved and material conditions were at least average before the advent of capitalism.

Oh I'm not saying that these problems just arose with capitalism. I am saying that I don't believe they can't be alleviated so long as goods are distributed as they are, and not according to need.


The value of the widget isn't determined by you in the scenario you're talking about. If its possible that you get paid $10/widget and they sell for $50/widget , then why is it not equally possible that you get $10/widget and they sell for only $5/widget. The price of the widget and of your wage is subject to supply and demand. +40$ of profit margin would draw competition in like sharks in which people would pay labor more to work for them and not work for the other guy.

Yes, but the point is that the worker does not see the full value of their labor. It's taken from them by their boss, who owns property. Without property, a worker can't just produce for his or herself.


Hunter-gatherer societies were peaceful? I think this is a very optimistic view of primitives ruled the tribal leader and the witch doctor. Relative to each other some might have been more peaceful than others, but they were still savage compared to a civilization.

Upon waking up today I realize I was somewhat dishonest in the way I portrayed hunter-gatherer societies. Many, in fact, were very egalitarian, led by the counsel (not authority) of an elder or something. However, this was not true of all of them. Other hunter-gatherer societies were strictly hierarchical and authoritarian, as well as warlike.

But the point I try to make whenever I mention those peaceful, egalitarian societies is that humans are capable of it, and that people are not born altruistic or greedy, but instead they are socialized towards it. Not that primitive society was some utopia.


I suppose it would be proper for both of us to try to provide evidence to support the claim, if its even that important to debate much further? :rolleyes:

I'd continue with the debate, but at the moment I just don't have the time.

Definitely another time though. It isn't often I turn down a debate.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

The people are more than capable of taking care of themselves, you've just been taught that people are stupid because it helps prop up the system. If anything, the capitalist system is creating people who can no longer take care of themselves and fall into either poverty and depression or nihilism and greed.


If people can take care of themselves then why do you insist that we need free health care? Free Education? Free Food and housing for anyone who needs it?

If people can care care of themselves why do you insist that they are to stupid to have the freedom of a free market? Why are you all about regulating prices and materials?

If people are in fact able to take care of themselves (and I believe they will be able to after you take away all their freebies) then why are they too stupid to get a living wage job or take care of their own health care or education without resorting to the strong to help them out?



Production and innovation will increase because no one will have to worry about making ends meet, they won't have to work when sick for fear of being fired or losing wages, and they won't be pitted against each other in a competition for promotions and minimal wage increases. Even today, companies where the workers assume control and there are no bosses or stockholders increase production, safety, and quality. Money is just paper (and is even moving away from that), it only has as much power as people let it have.

Production and Innovation is the highest in capitalist societies because of competition and the rewards of profiting! Who the fuck is sick of fear of getting fired? No, people aren't scared of getting fired, they are instead ambitious about going up the food chain ladder. People who show up late and miss work all the time are the ones who shoudl be worried about gettign fired but they are not because they certainly don't give a shit.

[Lost In Translation]

Ohh so the whole world is capitalist now? Can you point to one country?

Its funny how there has never even been anything close to a capitalist society.

What is the US, then? A beacon of hope and a peacekeeper? :lol::lol::lol:

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Oh I'm not saying that these problems just arose with capitalism. I am saying that I don't believe they can't be alleviated so long as goods are distributed as they are, and not according to need.



Distributing wealth according to people's needs is like sending blood to an open wound in your body causing the blood to spill out.

Or like feeding a bunch of parasites and leeches causing them to grow in numbers and for their needs to increase.

Or like putting water in a bucket with a hole on it and the more water you put the bigger the hole gets.

Eventually people become even more helpless and dependant on getting free needs thus they lose the ability to take care of themselves.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

What is the US, then? A beacon of hope and a peacekeeper? :lol::lol::lol:

No country is 100% capitalist but it is indeed the capitals part that keeps it afloat. The leftist part, where wealth is sacrificed to the needy, is what is causing it to sink.

[#FF0000]

Distributing wealth according to people's needs is like sending blood to an open wound in your body causing the blood to spill out.

Or like feeding a bunch of parasites and leeches causing them to grow in numbers and for their needs to increase.

Or like putting water in a bucket with a hole on it and the more water you put the bigger the hole gets.

Eventually people become even more helpless and dependant on getting free needs thus they lose the ability to take care of themselves.

Except they would need to work to produce this stuff. We're not talking about just giving people things for nothing.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Production and innovation will increase because no one will have to worry about making ends meet, they won't have to work when sick for fear of being fired or losing wages, and they won't be pitted against each other in a competition for promotions and minimal wage increases. Even today, companies where the workers assume control and there are no bosses or stockholders increase production, safety, and quality. Money is just paper (and is even moving away from that), it only has as much power as people let it have.

Do you even have any proof that innovation and production will increase after a society because communist?

People increase production and innovation for the sake of being rewarded not for the sake of avoiding punishment.

[Lost In Translation]

No country is 100% capitalist but it is indeed the capitals part that keeps it afloat. The leftist part, where wealth is sacrificed to the needy, is what is causing it to sink.

Hmm...so if there was no welfare, and there was no social net or anything of the sort, western countries would be better off?

The whole 'selling point' of western democracy was that it gave the illusion that everybody had a chance. Now you're disregarding that and saying the country can do without 90% of the population because they are poor.

You should hire yourself out as a billboard. You are the perfect poster boy of capitalism.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Hmm...so if there was no welfare, and there was no social net or anything of the sort, western countries would be better off?

The whole 'selling point' of western democracy was that it gave the illusion that everybody had a chance. Now you're disregarding that and saying the country can do without 90% of the population because they are poor.

You should hire yourself out as a billboard. You are the perfect poster boy of capitalism.

WHat are you talking about, everyone does have a chance in a capitalist society. Poor people can become rich and rich people can become poor. There are many examples even to this day.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Except they would need to work to produce this stuff. We're not talking about just giving people things for nothing.

They might need to change their culture where they kill each other for wealth too.

[JimmyJazz]

WHat are you talking about, everyone does have a chance in a capitalist society. Poor people can become rich and rich people can become poor.

So class borders are permeable--that doesn't mean that a class-divided society is a good thing.

That is similar to arguing that slavery can be justified as long as you occasionally hold a lottery that allows some slaveholders and slaves to switch places. What radicals aim at is a society without exploiters and exploited, not a society where everyone has a chance to take a turn at each role.

[synthesis]

The idea of a "limited government" under free market capitalism is absurd. Humans as a rule are easily corruptible, and when there are no limits on how powerful commercial entities can become, their influence over government is never negligible. 19th century America is a prime example of these tendencies.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Do you even have any proof that innovation and production will increase after a society because communist?

People increase production and innovation for the sake of being rewarded not for the sake of avoiding punishment.

Who is going to punish you? If you don't like communism, you don't have to interact with our associations. Just don't expect us to sit by and watch you recreate a corporation from legal fiction.

[Dr Mindbender]

Do you even have any proof that innovation and production will increase after a society because communist?
.
it almost certainly will do if they use technocracy, yes.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm not a communist but I was always amazed at the argument that people only do things for the money. I mean, it's just not true, it holds no basis in reality. There are many reasons people go into the lines of work they go into other than financial ones, and there are also many reasons people don't pursue more lucrative career paths. For example, in one highly successful London-based international law firm, about 40% of solicitors said that they have no desire to ever make partner. I also know people who have taken €20k pay cuts moving jobs and been delighted about it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, I think that has to do with functional vs. social divisions of labour. With regards to the latter, lots of people don't want to be stuck in even certain high-paying jobs for life. Most accounting instructors that I know of are paid instructors because they like what they call the "semi-retirement" after making the big $$$ as cappie execs, coordinating controllers, and what not.

[bcbm]

WHat are you talking about, everyone does have a chance in a capitalist society. Poor people can become rich and rich people can become poor.

So if everyone worked hard enough (individually!) every person in this society could be rich simultaneously?

[Sendo]

Capt Cap

free healthcare, for one, is necessary because life can be a lottery, and if we have the surplus wealth to provide medicine and health care we should. Nobody could possibly produce enough extra wealth in his own lifetime (Without being a sports star or an exploiter) to pay, for, cancer treatment in a capitalist or semi-capitalist system.

I knew someone whose family racked up a bill of over a million dollars for just the drugs for cancer treatment. They had, health insurance, but they still paid a lot in premiums.