An actual thread on the matter! (Capitalism Vs. Socialism/Communism)

So, rather than filling up all the other threads with our back-and-forths on the matter, here's a thread wherein we can actually discuss the matter without being off-topic (Which the mods have graciously not come down on us for. Thanks guys :) ).

So, I'm sure you'll all be aware of my views on the matter. And there are at least a couple of others hanging around who feel similarly to me.

Note; Let's try and keep this thread to capitalism and communism/socialism/whatever. It's fine to hold up America as an example of a failed economic system if you believe it is, but let's not get into talking about how terrible the War is or anything.

My support for capitalism stems from my belief that the ultimate, singular, fundamental, and inalienable right of all sentient beings is that of self-jurisdiction. I am slow even to concede that the police force and military are justifiable, and it is only Human nature which prevents me from simply being an anarchist.

There is no other economic system which allows this self-jurisdiction except one where ALL necessities AND luxuries are abundant to the point of being available to everyone in excess without requiring any effort from anyone in return. This is an obviously utopian state of idealistic existence, and one we are at least hundreds of years away from. (A combination of near-infinite power, hugely advanced automation, and the capacity to assemble anything from anything (Ie atomic manipulation.) would be needed.)

Any system which takes more than the bare minimum of taxes is overstepping the boundaries of the state. By definition, economic control is social control, and social control is by and large abhorrent. There is no justification for telling a person where to spend their money; the money is a representation of the person's skills and efforts and time. It belongs entirely to the person. No individual owes anything to any other individual except through choosing to make that commitment.

http://www.hiro.vivid-memories.net/i...rying_baby.jpg

Not again

Pure Capitalism sucks, but I think Communism sucks more. I'd rather live in a place where it'd be hard to survive, then a place where my survival depends on others.

communism can work. it did in israel.

once you start taking taxes then a boundary has been crossed. and it's a boundary that needs to be crossed.

lets examine when taxes paid for the government, army and nothing else. the industrial revolution period of the 19th century.

it was a time of cholera. they streets and wells were filled with sewage. people were dying on an epedemic scale because noone cared about sewage. it wasn't the governments or councils job. and noone was going to pay for it out of the goodness of their heart. and the people most affected by it were too poor to pay anyone to do it. and alot of people died to the government saw sense and ended the madness and with the help of brunel built a sewer system that is the one we still use today. and noone is dying of cholera.

in the end government intervention ended the cholera epidemic.

it was paid for out of acquired revenue but brought an idea forward of government intervention.

then the country went to war (i can't remember if it was the boer or crimean war). and lots of the working class went to sign up. and were turned away. they weren't suitable, underweight, louse ridden, mal nourished with no intelligenced. the government was lacking in working class troops not because they didn't want to sign up but because they just weren't fit enough.

a country without an army would have been silly. so the government at the time had an idea. it was the foundations of the welfare state. sick pay and access to a doctor, injury pay, education, child labour laws, the end of the work houses, pensions etc. and the next war the country went into the great war. we won and had no lack of troops.

other problems were in that time frame. housing. at the time when the people were flocking to the cities from the farms they were working in factories. working in factories was a bit like selling your soul. though it had been practiced before in the rural environment it has harsher in the cities. as a factory worker you basicly belonged to the factory owner. the food you bought was from him, the house you lived in was his, the water you drank was from his well (see above). and the easiest way to make money is too keep money.

so the houses were . and i mean . single rooms for the whole family. no bed, no gas, no running water, no furniture, a single room. and not a big room either. no ventilation and no heat. food was horrible and often posinous (lead in the bread to make it weigh more was common as was adding dyes).

this of course was a bit of a problem since the government now realised that it's duty was to the people (especially if you need them to fight wars). and so they thought the slums needed to go. and after 1918 many did. "homes for heroes". they knocked down the slum housing and built council houses. fully gassed and with running water, heat, ventilation, windows, electricity. the full works. the plan was never fully completed due to an economic down turn and lack of materials for such a job. but it was the start.

on the topic of factories. working conmditions. working conditions were not great. many maimings, removal of body parts and injuries resulted. cotton mills ended up with people cutting hands stuck in places. children crawled around the back of the machines removing fluff and sometimes were crushed or raised their head at the wrong moment. but there was no law against it. fine to do what you wanted. such instances of people collecting sewage in city centres for fertilizer in large heaps was common practice too.

the government then looked at this and thought that this was never gonna be a good thing. people were dying and getting ill and this was not a great looking thing for the worlds most powerful nation. and all those damned european countries were being nice to their people now and had democracy and this made britain look bad. that and less people meant less taxes and less army. so things had to be done. and laws were changed. no child labour, employers were no responsible, and the first health and safety and environmental health laws came in. no more dumping stuff in the street either.

so what else did the government need to do? education. badly educated children were not good for the economy. so off to school they went. mothers needed care when they were unable to work. babies need extra money. a few other extra's.

alot of this was also out of self interest for the government. the labour movement and unions were gaining support and the working class were gaining the vote. appeasing them meant keeping in power.

but it saved lives. could be why we won the war. and was the foundations for modern britain.

and modern britain kept me alive and educated me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

communism can work. it did in israel.

---

I contest that it would work on a large scale (Under 7% of Israel's population was in a Kibbutzim.), moreover I don't care if it works well. It's wrong. As something of an aside, have you heard of the Westermarck Effect? It's fine in families, but could be very damaging in a communal society. I'll also note that Spiro and Bettelheim found people in Kibbutzim found it harder to bond closely to other people, though they found it easier to make a alrge number of loose friendships. Can you say 'Brave New World'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

once you start taking taxes then a boundary has been crossed. and it's a boundary that needs to be crossed.

---

I agree, that's what my support for the military and police force is about (Although their powers should be greatly limited.). But the boundary must only be crossed because of necessity and it must be crossed to the minimal possible degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

lets examine when taxes paid for the government, army and nothing else. the industrial revolution period of the 19th century.

---

You mean the time when Europe rose from being another set of fueding monarchies into a democratic and first-rate continent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it was a time of cholera. they streets and wells were filled with sewage. people were dying on an epedemic scale because noone cared about sewage. it wasn't the governments or councils job. and noone was going to pay for it out of the goodness of their heart. and the people most affected by it were too poor to pay anyone to do it. and alot of people died to the government saw sense and ended the madness and with the help of brunel built a sewer system that is the one we still use today. and noone is dying of cholera.

---

That is not a valid argument. Most people just weren't aware of the link between sanitation and disease. Nowadays you can ask any common Joe on the street and he'll be well aware that sewage systems exist for a reason. The Industrial revolution caused problems, yes, but it was the first real attempt at it we had. How can anyone expect it to be free of problems? Now we are aware that the government has a duty to protect people from coercion and exploitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

in the end government intervention ended the cholera epidemic.

---

Epidemics and diseases (IE Disaster control) are another aspect of government which I support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it was paid for out of acquired revenue but brought an idea forward of government intervention.

---

Which is a great shame. They should have done their part and stepped back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

then the country went to war (i can't remember if it was the boer or crimean war). and lots of the working class went to sign up. and were turned away. they weren't suitable, underweight, louse ridden, mal nourished with no intelligenced. the government was lacking in working class troops not because they didn't want to sign up but because they just weren't fit enough.

---

The Crimean would have been the one. At any rate, you're sincerely telling me the justification for socialism is war? Ok, well, if you can reconcile that with your stance against Iraq...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

a country without an army would have been silly. so the government at the time had an idea. it was the foundations of the welfare state. sick pay and access to a doctor, injury pay, education, child labour laws, the end of the work houses, pensions etc. and the next war the country went into the great war. we won and had no lack of troops.

---

None of those are things I object to. I merely object to the government forcing me to have system 'X' for, say, pensions when I would prefer system 'Y', or no system at all for whatever reason. You just don't understand it; I am not much for contesting and arguing about which system is more effective (Though I make the case anyway because it's where most of the other side likes to fight.). I care about only the fact that it is wrong to steal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

other problems were in that time frame. housing. at the time when the people were flocking to the cities from the farms they were working in factories. working in factories was a bit like selling your soul. though it had been practiced before in the rural environment it has harsher in the cities. as a factory worker you basicly belonged to the factory owner. the food you bought was from him, the house you lived in was his, the water you drank was from his well (see above). and the easiest way to make money is too keep money.

---

An infringement on self-jurisdiction, thus illegal in any society worth discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so the houses were . and i mean . single rooms for the whole family. no bed, no gas, no running water, no furniture, a single room. and not a big room either. no ventilation and no heat. food was horrible and often posinous (lead in the bread to make it weigh more was common as was adding dyes).

---

My answer for today's supposedly equivalent scenarios (Because, I don't know if you're aware, but the 19th century is not analogous to the 21st.): Don't breed until you can afford to sustain your children. And don't breed more than you can afford to sustain. Lead in the bread is a crime. No problem in getting the companies torn apart in any decent law system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

this of course was a bit of a problem since the government now realised that it's duty was to the people (especially if you need them to fight wars). and so they thought the slums needed to go. and after 1918 many did. "homes for heroes". they knocked down the slum housing and built council houses. fully gassed and with running water, heat, ventilation, windows, electricity. the full works. the plan was never fully completed due to an economic down turn and lack of materials for such a job. but it was the start.

---

And have you been to a council estate lately? Everywhere I've ever seen in Britain, 'council estate' is synonymous with 'pit of depression, drugs, and a lack of hope'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

on the topic of factories. working conmditions. working conditions were not great. many maimings, removal of body parts and injuries resulted. cotton mills ended up with people cutting hands stuck in places. children crawled around the back of the machines removing fluff and sometimes were crushed or raised their head at the wrong moment. but there was no law against it. fine to do what you wanted. such instances of people collecting sewage in city centres for fertilizer in large heaps was common practice too.

---

"but there was no law against it." And there's no need to discuss this further, because putting employees in dangerous situations is, oh, what's that word again? Oh yes, illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the government then looked at this and thought that this was never gonna be a good thing. people were dying and getting ill and this was not a great looking thing for the worlds most powerful nation. and all those damned european countries were being nice to their people now and had democracy and this made britain look bad. that and less people meant less taxes and less army. so things had to be done. and laws were changed. no child labour, employers were no responsible, and the first health and safety and environmental health laws came in. no more dumping stuff in the street either.

---

And I don't have a problem with those laws. But they are merely an extension of law and order, not of social control espoused by most socialists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so what else did the government need to do? education. badly educated children were not good for the economy. so off to school they went. mothers needed care when they were unable to work. babies need extra money. a few other extra's.

---

Yes, because we all know how well the public school system works. I hear almost universal complaints from Americans about theirs, and I am sure they are horrified to hear that in my experience Americans get a better education than British children do in the public school system. But both are horrifically flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

alot of this was also out of self interest for the government. the labour movement and unions were gaining support and the working class were gaining the vote. appeasing them meant keeping in power.

---

Hardly allows one to make claims of altruism. What would you say if the government used tax money to find and implement a cure for your disability, and then set off on an imperialist mission with you on the front lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but it saved lives. could be why we won the war. and was the foundations for modern britain.

---

Because modern Britain is such a wonderful place, free of social ills, with such shining examples of culture as the Tate Modern and Allison Lapper Pregnant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and modern britain kept me alive and educated me.

---

Good for you. Modern Britain kept my father on his ass and didn't compel him with any kind of work ethic, and it put me through a largely useless system where I only learnt how to cheat and lie so that I didn't have to go through the same drudgery yet again. School taught me very little intentionally.

the below history lesson is about what happened when the laissez-faire idea was followed. and it sucked. it really did. people died and suffered. then the government saw that it was a crsp idea to start with and got rid of it and started the welfare state.

democracy is why europe is socialist. it's why it was done.

the disease thing..... there was an idea about where disease came from. miasma (bad smells). and it was on the right track. things that tend to carry disease do smell bad and rotten. and open sewers and crap on the street smell very bad. people thought at the time that was what was causing disease but couldn't be bothered doing anything. the discovery that cholera came from water is an interesting one which i shall share.

cholera was a huge problem and many people wanted to find out the cause. one doctor examined the causes and found that alot of people that had caught it came from one area that had one well. he then turned off the well (thinking that the diseasse was in the foul water) and that area got water from a cleaner source and the cases dropped. this was well before the government had employed brunel to do anything about it.

diease control costs money. and that cost is gonna come from you.

my justification for socialism is not war. it was in fact a historic point. not my view.

the government saw the people were starving and took from the rich to give to the poor. and it saved lives. or you can let the rich keep all their vast wealth and watch the poor die. that is the basic choice. and that was the choice the government saw at the time and took action on. the poor couldn't afford a pension, health care, insurance for sickness or injury. but it was needed. and it needed to be paid for.

i thought you were laissez-faire milf. in that system the factory system and bread would not be a crime. it would be sorted out by society. which didn't quite work as the 19th century shows. same with child labour and health and safety. laissez-faire allows it.

the statement of the liberals motives for the welfare state being motivated by the need to stay in government is not me saying it is a good thing. it's just history.

american education is worse than british. and especially scottish. i had an american friend of mine (exchange student) tell me that the maths she was doing was far more advanced than anything she had done (we are doing revision of logarithims right now). also the scottish system is far greater than the english. example. a higher is 3/4 of an a level course. but the higher course takes 1 year. the a level 2.

and what the hell is wrong with that statue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i thought you were laissez-faire milf. in that system the factory system and bread would not be a crime. it would be sorted out by society. which didn't quite work as the 19th century shows. same with child labour and health and safety. laissez-faire allows it.

---

No, that's anarchy. I'm a supporter of minarchy, not anarchy. Although yes, I have at least enough faith in Humanity that we would boycott a company which sold bread filled with poisons. Again: The 19th century Industrial Revolution is not analogous to the 21st century, when we've had a good 150 years of this and we know where the problems lie.

Quote:

---

american education is worse than british. and especially scottish. i had an american friend of mine (exchange student) tell me that the maths she was doing was far more advanced than anything she had done (we are doing revision of logarithims right now). also the scottish system is far greater than the english. example. a higher is 3/4 of an a level course. but the higher course takes 1 year. the a level 2.

---

I don't know about Scottish education, but I can assure you that American children of equivalent age to me were doing math at least as advanced, and usually more advanced, than I was. Having looked at what my friends are doing here (Not entirely representative, but still a fair spread of people.), my school for example didn't teach us a single thing about matrices until we reached year 12 (Ie A-level). In America, children in year 10 (9th grade) do matrices. Oh, and Britain has no honors system, and nothing to actually help the more intelligent students reach their potential. Finally, the US system has far moer emphasis on actually helping parents know where their children are. My friends have report cards with their grades something like every three or four weeks. I dunno about you, but in my school we got two or three per year.

Now, I know there are plenty of flaws in the US education system. There are flaws in any system which has an end result of a grade or qualification. Both systems are failing the majority of their students. But the American one is still hanging on to some semblance of sanity, whilst Britain considers 47% not just a pass, but an 'A'.

Quote:

---

and what the hell is wrong with that statue?

---

I know, right? Next to Lord Nelson, Sir Napier, King George IV, and Henry Havelock, in a square surrounded by the National Gallery, Canada House, St. Martin's-In-The-Field church, Admirality Arch, with four mighty bronze lions sculpted (Or so rumor has it) from the cannon of the French fleet Nelson repelled, and bordering The Mall, The Strand, Whitehall, and Charing Cross Road, there is an armless, naked, pregnant woman. I have no qualms with the disabled. Or the naked. Or women. Or pregnancy. But she's hardly a hero of the Empire, now is she? Glad we agree on at least one thing. =)

Oh god no i hate debating on the internet. And can someone change the title to Fascism/Capitalism vs Socailism/Communism? Since thats should be the correct title

I'm not taking sides on this argument but I will point out that the US Army follows a basic Communistic standard. Individuals sacrafice for the greater good of the US Army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Oh god no i hate debating on the internet. And can someone change the title to Fascism/Capitalism vs Socailism/Communism? Since thats should be the correct title

---

Then you should probably stop posting in EotW so much, seeing as every thread becomes a debate.

I'm not even touching your facism comment. Either you're trolling or you're too far from reality to see sense. I'll just wait for Cloud.

Fascism has alot more simularities to Capitailism then you think. Take away profit and semi democracy and add Racial glorification and Totalitarianism and you have Fascism.

Hmmm... A day in Public School-

I go into english class. My teacher begins debates on why Richard Cory died in the end. We debate for 45 minutes using what evidence is available till the bell rings.

I go into Psychology class. The teacher begins class discusion on certian mental illnesses that we recieved notes on the day before. He gives examples of people and we must diagnose them and give support as to why. Afterall he ain't so nice to give us clear cut cases.

I go into Physics class. And immediately start a lab. The class was 90% labs. Shooting off rockets to get trajectory and then hitting targets with calculations. Without calcs it doesn't count. And many others.

I go to Wester Civilization class. We spend entire class periods discusing different causes and effects of certian events.

I go to Senior Government. Entire class is spent learning about the upcoming election and what each canidate as to offer and then debating issues. Or we spend the class period trying to come up with a better way of handling public school funding. We also had a 3+ page paper due aweek on american politics etc.

And that doesn't even begin to explain the rest of the classes.

But as a final stab. In college advanced math what we are being taught I learned in 9th and 10th grade. In english we are being taught what I learned in HS. The papers are easier to score high on as well. An A here wouldn't have gotten me an A at my school(then again the teachers did believe if a student was good that they should be graded on a harsher scale. Basically they expected more then a piss ant effort from me. And they could recognize it when I did give them such an effort).


Anyways I don't care for it when Public schools are bashed. The teachers that are in the schools are sometimes the problem. We out perform the Private schools here cause we got the better teachers. The school with the better teachers(and staff) performs better, not whether or not it is private or public.

milf britain does have an honours system. it's the 4th year of university. 3 years is yhour desginated degree. 4th year is your honours year. and 5th year is your masters year.

and that statue has every right to be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

milf britain does have an honours system. it's the 4th year of university. 3 years is yhour desginated degree. 4th year is your honours year. and 5th year is your masters year.

and that statue has every right to be there.

---

Right, because the very last year of university (Which people might not go to for the very reason that they don't get recognized or challenged.) compensates for a decade and a half of not being given a single piece of recognition or pushed to the actual limits of one's intelligence. :rolleyes2

Also; I'm not going to consider anything you ever say on culture, anywhere, ever.

university's entire job is to challenge. it takes the top 10% of the population and then extracts from that the best. and education can challenge. advanced higher physics wasn't really a breeze. rotational motion is not a walk in the park, neither is AI in advanced higher, matrices in maths aren't on my fun list either.

and that statue happens to be there because it stands for everything that this country is. they very thing that the men in the statues and buildings surrounding it fought for. it's about invidiuality and the right to be respected and found as a person no matter what your state.

Quote:

---

communism can work. it did in israel.

---

Please silence yourself before you spew rubbish, thank you. Israel was NEVER a Communist nation - mildly Socialist, at best... and even that only because people thought they had to depend on each other. The Kibbutzim, which practiced softcore Communism, were bankrupt and ruined less than three decades after the actual state and government have risen. Also, very few Israelis actually lived in the Kibbutzim.

Israel would be the last place Communism could work in. Jews love their money and independance\individuality far too much.

Quote:

---

Fascism has alot more simularities to Capitailism then you think. Take away profit and semi democracy and add Racial glorification and Totalitarianism and you have Fascism.

---

Yeah, and add cucumbers and tomatoes and you've got a salad. There's no f*king connection.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Fascism has alot more simularities to Capitailism then you think. Take away profit and semi democracy and add Racial glorification and Totalitarianism and you have Fascism.

Yeah, and add cucumbers and tomatoes and you've got a salad. There's no f*king connection.

---

There's definitely connection, but it's an extreme and not directly related to the discussion at hand- as it hadn't been mentioned and wasn't remotely headed towards before FFguerera's comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

university's entire job is to challenge. it takes the top 10% of the population and then extracts from that the best. and education can challenge. advanced higher physics wasn't really a breeze. rotational motion is not a walk in the park, neither is AI in advanced higher, matrices in maths aren't on my fun list either.

---

Right, which is why the government is trying to get at least 50% of people through university. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

and that statue happens to be there because it stands for everything that this country is. they very thing that the men in the statues and buildings surrounding it fought for. it's about invidiuality and the right to be respected and found as a person no matter what your state.

---

It stands for being a politically correct coward and for not honoring heroes of the nation? I'll tell you who should be on the plinth: Private Johnson Beharry.

the government talks two ways about uni. it wants more people in further eduation (not university college/apprenticeships and other training/education) but it is making university more expensive with top up fees.

and that statue honours every hero britain has. it is their because of what they fought for. do you think the nazis would have had such a statue? it is their honouring every man who fell for the right for all people to be accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Pure Capitalism sucks, but I think Communism sucks more. I'd rather live in a place where it'd be hard to survive, then a place where my survival depends on others.

---

I concur.

Embrace the struggle...

Neither works well.

With Communism, the assumption is that the people who will be running the system are basicly good people who will run the collective to the benefit of all concerned. Unfortunately, Mr. Marx doesn't seem to understand the human animal real well. Anybody in a position of power with very few controls *will* use that power to get more money etc. for themselves. It just happens.

With Capitalism, the assumption is largely the same. The corpotartions will run things ethically and therefore society prospers. Well, Enron pretty much proves that theory wrong as well. If the corp. is honest no problem, but the thing is that they can and do lie pretty often and thus they make themselves rich.

The best solution is to mix the two. So when Captialism is dishonest, the state comes in to smack them and tell them to behave. When the state comes in and harrasses businesses for no good reason, the business can inform the public who can work to change the law.

Of course this only works when the government is a democracy or a republic, and an uncorrupt one at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the government talks two ways about uni. it wants more people in further eduation (not university college/apprenticeships and other training/education) but it is making university more expensive with top up fees.

---

Right. Know why? Two reasons; Cut down on unemployment figures (People in uni aren't counted as unemployed.) and more money (Thus, higher fees.).

Quote:

---

and that statue honours every hero britain has. it is their because of what they fought for. do you think the nazis would have had such a statue? it is their honouring every man who fell for the right for all people to be accepted.

---

I can understand the perspective. But I disagree with it; I feel that in most other places it'd be fine, though I still wouldn't like it (Why's she gotta be naked, for instance?); point is, Trafalgar Square should have the most heroic people we have available to us. We've got a thousand years of history to pick from, I've already suggested a modern example.

she is naked for the samr reason it is in white marble. it is a point regarding other portrait statues most notably the greek ones which were naked and of the perfect human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

she is naked for the samr reason it is in white marble. it is a point regarding other portrait statues most notably the greek ones which were naked and of the perfect human being.

---

If she's naked only for the sake of tradition I can point only to the example of Howard Roark.

I doubt Cloud No. 9 is well-read on Rand.

actually i do know the fountain head.

Oh, you must have absolutely hated it, being that it stood for freedom of man.

i have nothing against freedom. it's injustice i have issues with.

Pure anything sucks because people are corrupt by nature and will abuse the system. The form is a mix of it all. Pure capitalism? SUCKS! Look at how it was. ty wages for all but the top and not a whole lot people could do about it. With the government adding more and more socialist stuff to the laws it became more balanced but now the government is reaching the level of corruption that is intolorable and it needs to be redone with all new people again...or just have a few people who will do what is right and fix everything in one huge bitch slap.

Taken to their extreams, both suck.

Pure Communism may never be achieved but a Marxist Communism may be possible. But if it doesnt work then Socialism is fine, For the first 2 years of Socialism Brazil has been under we have prospered more then we did in 2 decade's under Capitalism. More kids are in school, more people have job's , Their are 60% less slums and crime rate has dramaitcally decreased. Sweden, Norway and Switzerland are considered one of the best place's to live and their Socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i have nothing against freedom. it's injustice i have issues with.

---

"Justice" does not mean "Harrison Bergeron."

ugh, good luck with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i have nothing against freedom. it's injustice i have issues with.

---

Hahahaha

And what's justice? Justice is a process of everyone getting what they deserve, based on their merits and vices alike - everyone being responsible only for themselves. Just as cheating on a test gives you an unearned grade, so does theft grant you unearned money. In that sense, capitalism is the economic system most consistent with justice.

Also, the countries mentioned in the above posts are not socialist - they are "mixed economies." They let business have a degree of freedom, so that production isn't completely halted, while the government leeches most (but not all - allowing for some small degree of production) of the profits, and distributes them accordingly, giving the most back to society without completely destroying economic development. It's an ideal system if you aren't really picky about ideals.

Raistlin I had always been under the assumption that there were many forms of socialism. This was fueled by the fact that Socialism is many times refered as a go between inbetween capitalism and communism.

As far as my knowledge on socialism goes is that in socialism at least part if not most of the buisness is put in control of the collective. That would mean that even if there is some free buisness that it could still be socialism. Socialism is a very broad term, and when used in such as this thread should be defined more clearly.

The extremes are pure capitalism and pure communism. The go between is socialism. Anything that isn't in the extremes(to my knowledge) is at least part socialistic. If not capable of being considered fully socialistic. There are degrees of socialism, they must be defined for reasonable debate.


edit- here is a clearer question... where is the line between the three drawn? are only the extremes capitalism and communism and everything else socialist.... that would make many nations socialists. Or is the line blurred.. and where does the blur end?

"Justice is a process of everyone getting what they deserve, based on their merits and vices alike - everyone being responsible only for themselves" and for that reason everyone should start life equal. otherwise being poor by chance of birth is a handicap which you had no control over and is not just.

Raistlin those countries i mentioned are offically considered "Socialist state's". They may have a little Capitalism in them but they are still very much socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"Justice is a process of everyone getting what they deserve, based on their merits and vices alike - everyone being responsible only for themselves" and for that reason everyone should start life equal. otherwise being poor by chance of birth is a handicap which you had no control over and is not just.

---

Actually, that's a fair point - when I consider the merits of privatized education, I don't actually have any objection to public education, I more have an objection to the fact that the public system is failing (Arguably, already has failed.).

However, the problem is that taken to an extreme this eliminates the concept of inheritance, which is a pretty unreasonable thing to be doing. Besides which, it could easily be circumvented by passing on one's fortune as a gift while still alive.

public education is failing because a lack of money.

it's not just about inheritance by death either.

Exactly like I said before: the biggest reason why our problems will never be solved is because the majority of people are willing to shoulder the blame themselves. Rather than think that the problem could be the actual system, the people scream that they aren't pouring enough of their blood into the system.

Actually Cloud, at least in America, it isn't money that is the largest problem(some schools do have money issues). It is rather complex and will not be easy to fix. In Senior Government we spent ages trying to fix what was wrong. In the end we decided to settle with only comming up with fixing the financial trouble. As complex as that issue may be it is quite easy to solve compared to the real trouble.

I don't know if we could truely ever fix the system of education. It would envolve having to have every teacher being able to find the best learning method for each and every individual student and being able to apply them all. The closest things I have seen to this are the 'true' teachers, the dedicated ones. Our math teacher arrives at high school at 6:30-7AM. School starts at 8:30AM and ends at 3:15PM. She doesn't leave untill about 4:30-5PM and sometimes not till far later. This is one example of what helps. But this is a mere drop in the bucket... a drop in a million. fixing them all may be beyond our ability. Rather we must make the best of what we can. That means we must go beyond just the money issue, beyond mere dedication, we must solve as much as we can, and continue solving. We may never 100% fix it.. .but we can keep coming closer if we strive.

Unfortunately the Politicians put so much red tape on the system that they are fare from helping it. If you constrict the system too much it loses its ability to adapt and teach. Not to mention some of the constrictions are litterally pushing the school backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Shows how much you know about communism :rolleyes2 you can have what you desire.

---

Right. Well, I want a personally outfitted Boeing 737, with space for maybe 15 people. I want a specialised chef just to cook meals there (Not the same one as the cooks in my Hawaiian retreat and Parisian penthouse. I want variety.). I want each and every new videogame and console delivered to my door on the day of release, and I incidentally would like my multiple PCs to be upgraded to the latest, most powerful technology on a monthly basis.

Quote:

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah right with 10 cents a hour, in horrible conditions, 14 hours a day without any rest. Yeah i'm sure you'll LOVE your job when you experience it.

---

Damn right I will, given that my next-door neighbour is working in horrible conditions, for 14 hours a day with no rest, for 6 cents an hour.

Quote:

---

Have you ever been to Cuba? Their living conditions are great, everyone has jobs, excellent education, and free health care. But you'll never hear and see that since your Goverment doesnt permit you to go there.

---

I don't think Britain has any problems with letting people go to Cuba, but even if so I don't really mind. I've little interest in going there. And if it's so great, why does the US Coast Guard keep a constant vigil against illegal immigrants trying to get into the US?

Quote:

---

At the cost of other countries . Those countries stole from Latin America , South East Asia and africa what would you expect? They gotta do something to make their people feel great and not result into a Revolution.

---

As I said, once those nations adopt capitalism and work through their own versions of the industrial revolution, emancipation, labor laws, and so forth, things will brighten up there as well.

Quote:

---

Who the US? Your kidding right? You guys are becoming Fascist http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7556

---

No, Europe, though the US could do with an overhaul as well. Support of the principles of the US does not translate into support for every measure taken by the US government. I damn well hope there's some riots if there's a serious breach of habeus corpus, for example.

Quote:

---

It would look even worse compare the US to some country like Western Sahara or Congo.

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

They still are full of sweatshops genius thats how they became the fastest-growing economies in the world.

---

No . Guess what that means? Sweatshops are the first stage of economic growth! Or have you forgotten 19th century Europe?

Quote:

---

Their in the same position they were in 10 years ago nothing has improved. All that money goes into the pockets of the Goverment and the Elites.

---

Bullhockey. I personally know Indian immigrants to Britain who have told me how things are getting better over there. It's a combination of hard work and earning money in wealthier nations to invest (Hence the immigration, and part of my pro-immigrant stance.) which has caused this. It's not easy. Your promises of an easy solution are comedic. Your solution would be just as hard, if not harder (Due to the inherent unfairness of the system.) to implement.

Quote:

---

Yeah like how unemployment in Venezuela has decreased by 2% in just one year and 40% more kids are in school ever since Hugo Chavez stepped in as president.

---

No, like the trade tarrifs of Europe and America which prevent the possibility of free trade with Africa.

Quote:

---

Why not?

---

I don't think this even needs addressed. If you seriously claim this, you're psychopathic.

Quote:

---

God your ignorent. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST REGIME!!! How many times does it take for it to go through your thick heads? There has never been any Communism in the world, ok? Stop using that lame excuse. If you wanna continue this debate lets continue it on the Communist vs Capitailist thread.

---

Once again!

If we are not allowed to criticise the problems which have been encoutered attempting to implement communism, you are not allowed to criticize the problems which have been encountered in capitalist systems.

Quote:

---

Damn right I will, given that my next-door neighbour is working in horrible conditions, for 14 hours a day with no rest, for 6 cents an hour.

---

What neighbour? You wouldent live in a house lol. Like i said "I'd LOVE to see what you'd say if you were in that position". Which you deserve.

Quote:

---

I don't think Britain has any problems with letting people go to Cuba, but even if so I don't really mind. I've little interest in going there. And if it's so great, why does the US Coast Guard keep a constant vigil against illegal immigrants trying to get into the US?

---

And did you know the majority of them arnt even Cuban? Their from other Latin American countries that try to sneak in the US through that route. The US goverment tells everyone that their all Cuban to make Cuba look like crap.

Quote:

---

As I said, once those nations adopt capitalism and work through their own versions of the industrial revolution, emancipation, labor laws, and so forth, things will brighten up there as well.

---

They always were Capitailist they even had Capitailism forced upon them for the past century. All those countries that are still 3rd world failed under Capitailism.

Quote:

---

No . Guess what that means? Sweatshops are the first stage of economic growth! Or have you forgotten 19th century Europe?

---

You guys became rich during the last century because you guys STOLED from other countries. And who cares thats still exploitation. Why should people be sacrificed for the profits of some people.

Quote:

---

Bullhockey. I personally know Indian immigrants to Britain who have told me how things are getting better over there. It's a combination of hard work and earning money in wealthier nations to invest (Hence the immigration, and part of my pro-immigrant stance.)

---

If India became so good then why did they immigrate to Britain to work?

Quote:

---

which has caused this. It's not easy. Your promises of an easy solution are comedic. Your solution would be just as hard, if not harder (Due to the inherent unfairness of the system.) to implement.

---

Unfair? You know whats unfair? When some country like the United states steals over 10 Trillion dollars in Resources then 40 years later trick's that same country into taking a loan, or when some kid inherit's
his dad's corporation and all his money which he doesnt even deserve , Or when you cant afford school so then you have to work to live. Thats how fair Capitailism is.

Quote:

---

No, like the trade tarrifs of Europe and America which prevent the possibility of free trade with Africa.

---

What are they going to trade if you guys took everything from Africa?

Quote:

---

I don't think this even needs addressed. If you seriously claim this, you're psychopathic.

---

Oh do please give a reason unless you dont have none.

Quote:

---

Once again!

If we are not allowed to criticise the problems which have been encoutered attempting to implement communism, you are not allowed to criticize the problems which have been encountered in capitalist systems.

---

No but you should learn more about what actually happened before making judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Exactly like I said before: the biggest reason why our problems will never be solved is because the majority of people are willing to shoulder the blame themselves. Rather than think that the problem could be the actual system, the people scream that they aren't pouring enough of their blood into the system.

---

The behavior you just described seems so fundamentally against human nature that I almost want to puke, and I imagine you feel the same way about it. However, I can't give up hope and simply say that our problems won't ever be solved. To do that is just as much against our nature as the alternative.

Human Nature isnt a thing. It changes depending on are societies and the way the indvidual is raised. To define Human nature would be to define time its impossible.

I'm not saying that the problems will never ever be solved. I'm saying that if we continue to believe what we believe, they will. And that's being realistic. I love humanity. I love individuals, more specifically. I think it is possible to have a great, thriving society based on the idea that every person is an important asset in himself.

But when people walk around saying that America "stoled" wealth, and that freedom is "exploitation", and that ignorance is "knowledge", and that peace is "war", then we ain't gonna fix our problems, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

But when people walk around saying that America "stoled" wealth, and that freedom is "exploitation", and that ignorance is "knowledge", and that peace is "war", then we ain't gonna fix our problems, no.

---

True only the masses can fix the problem. A Revolution isnt started by a party but by the masses.

It's started by an individual, and his collection of willing allies (who are also individuals). There is no such thing as a "mass" as a single unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

What neighbour? You wouldent live in a house lol. Like i said "I'd LOVE to see what you'd say if you were in that position". Which you deserve.

---

Of course I'd live in a house. Houses cost like a dollar fifty in those countries. It's not fair to say 'Most of the world lives on less than a dollar a day' and proclaim it the greatest evil since Hitler (Since Mao and Stalin can't be evil, they were socio/communists.) when most of the prices down there are in keeping with what the people can afford. As will be the case with any free market.

Quote:

---

And did you know the majority of them arnt even Cuban? Their from other Latin American countries that try to sneak in the US through that route. The US goverment tells everyone that their all Cuban to make Cuba look like crap.

---

Uhuh, and can I get some proof of these claims please? Incidentally, you know you can just walk up through Mexico, right? Why would some peopel emigrate to Cuba, rig a car up to cross a fairly large body of water, and be a very obvious target to get picked up when they can stroll on over from Mexico?

Quote:

---

They always were Capitailist they even had Capitailism forced upon them for the past century. All those countries that are still 3rd world failed under Capitailism.

---

Ridiculous. Most of those countries were torn to pieces because of the effects of European colonialism; they had no idea how to govern themselves in a 'modern' manner and got screwed over, badly. They haven't been capitalist any more than the USSR was communist.

Quote:

---

You guys became rich during the last century because you guys STOLED from other countries. And who cares thats still exploitation. Why should people be sacrificed for the profits of some people.

---

That wasn't capitalism, that was imperialism. The two are not linked, they merely happened to exist at the same time in the most powerful nations on earth.

Quote:

---

If India became so good then why did they immigrate to Britain to work?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

It's a combination of hard work and earning money in wealthier nations to invest (Hence the immigration, and part of my pro-immigrant stance.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Unfair? You know whats unfair? When some country like the United states steals over 10 Trillion dollars in Resources then 40 years later trick's that same country into taking a loan, or when some kid inherit's
his dad's corporation and all his money which he doesnt even deserve , Or when you cant afford school so then you have to work to live. Thats how fair Capitailism is.

---

The country should look out for itself. Encourage an environment where people can prosper because of their own merits and they will ferociously defend the system. The loans are a problem, I agree. The kid deserves whatever materiel a person bequeths him - I can leave my possessions to any individual or group I desire. The only remote chance of it being right to challenge that is if the person I give it to killed me, or if I'm giving it to a criminal group.

Quote:

---

What are they going to trade if you guys took everything from Africa?

---

Crops. Innovation. Labor. Africa is the richest continent on Earth, I'll note, we've barely touched it's material resources.

Quote:

---

Oh do please give a reason unless you dont have none.

---

The inabity to place appropriate value and worth on an individual human being is a mental disorder. My belief is that commiting theft plainly shows one does not appreciate the value and worth of that individual or their efforts. Thus; psychosis.

Quote:

---

No but you should learn more about what actually happened before making judgement.

---

What I said stands. Either you can't criticize imperfectly implemented capitalism or we can criticize imperfectly implemented communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Human Nature isnt a thing. It changes depending on are societies and the way the indvidual is raised. To define Human nature would be to define time its impossible.

---

One funny thing about this is that we've long since defined time. As far as human nature goes, I can give you one word that encompasses the gist of it; desire. Humans inherently desire to better their own situation and to be able to exercise their free will. I believe in giving everyone a chance to showcase what they're worth. This is what occurs in properly implemented capitalism. I don't believe in everyone living for the sake of everyone else, as such a thing defies human nature. This is what communism would have us do. Communism encourages the stifling of abilities, for there is a far smaller tangible reward for their exercise than under a capitalist system, whereas in capitalism the people who have a particular talent can use it to the best of their ability and thus help move society as a whole forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Of course I'd live in a house. Houses cost like a dollar fifty in those countries.

---

And meals cost a days salary. So no you wouldent live in a house. If your lucky maybe some shed in the slums.

Quote:

---

It's not fair to say 'Most of the world lives on less than a dollar a day' and proclaim it the greatest evil since Hitler (Since Mao and Stalin can't be evil, they were socio/communists.) when most of the prices down there are in keeping with what the people can afford. As will be the case with any free market.

---

They can barelly afford anything in those countries. They have no running water, no electricity ,and no education. How can people keep up with that market if they recieve $1.00 a day and their lunch cost's 90 cents?

Quote:

---

Uhuh, and can I get some proof of these claims please? Incidentally, you know you can just walk up through Mexico, right? Why would some peopel emigrate to Cuba, rig a car up to cross a fairly large body of water, and be a very obvious target to get picked up when they can stroll on over from Mexico?

---

You obviouslly know about border control. Yeah a 50 foot wall, 12 day walk in the desert hiding from armed border patrol officers and a swim accross a river. Yeah just a stroll:rolleyes2. Not to also mention the White supremacist's hunting down Mexican refugee's.

Quote:

---

Ridiculous. Most of those countries were torn to pieces because of the effects of European colonialism; they had no idea how to govern themselves in a 'modern' manner and got screwed over, badly. They haven't been capitalist any more than the USSR was communist.

---

Hahaha your lack of intelliegence of what happened is entertaining.

During the cold war the US goverment interviened in many Latin American countries and held power through puppet Goverments. The US enforced Capitalism on Latin America with a Iron fist so the Soviet's during the cold war wouldent have any allies in the America's. You would know this if you lived in one of those countries and read the American Iron Curtain. Anyone who opposed in Latin America was killed by the US.

Quote:

---

That wasn't capitalism, that was imperialism. The two are not linked, they merely happened to exist at the same time in the most powerful nations on earth.

---

They did it for profit and in the name of Capitalism. Capitailism involves theft which those countries performed.

Quote:

---

The country should look out for itself.

---

How? If the other country has a Military much more superior then that country? It would be like telling someone with a knife to fight someone with a sword. And there have been rebellions but they were all killed.

Quote:

---

Encourage an environment where people can prosper because of their own merits and they will ferociously defend the system.

---

So lies, propaganda and brainwashing? You basically want everyone to be controlled and live a lie and your telling me that there is no freedom under Communism?

Quote:

---

Crops. Innovation. Labor. Africa is the richest continent on Earth, I'll note, we've barely touched it's material resources.

---

If thats true then Capitalism failed them. They are Capitalist countries and always were since their indepenece.

Quote:

---

The inabity to place appropriate value and worth on an individual human being is a mental disorder. My belief is that commiting theft plainly shows one does not appreciate the value and worth of that individual or their efforts. Thus; psychosis.

---

Your comparing theft to equal payment? WTF i asked for a valid reason.

Quote:

---

What I said stands. Either you can't criticize imperfectly implemented capitalism or we can criticize imperfectly implemented communism.

---

When i criticize Capitalism i learn what actually happened before i say anything. You obviouslly dont, learn about what happened so you'll know what your talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

One funny thing about this is that we've long since defined time.

---

And when has anyone defined it correctlly?

Quote:

---

As far as human nature goes, I can give you one word that encompasses the gist of it; desire. Humans inherently desire to better their own situation and to be able to exercise their free will. I believe in giving everyone a chance to showcase what they're worth.

---

In communism you can learn what you desire and work how much you desire. There wont be money to restrict you.

Quote:

---

This is what occurs in properly implemented capitalism. I don't believe in everyone living for the sake of everyone else, as such a thing defies human nature.

---

Again you cant define human nature it shift's depending on are society and surrounding's.

Quote:

---

This is what communism would have us do. Communism encourages the stifling of abilities, for there is a far smaller tangible reward for their exercise than under a capitalist system, whereas in capitalism the people who have a particular talent can use it to the best of their ability and thus help move society as a whole forward.

---

The funny part is its the other way around. On that paragraph replace the word Communism with Capitalism and Capitalism with Communism. Thats how it actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Hahaha your lack of intelliegence of what happened is entertaining.

During the cold war the US goverment interviened in many Latin American countries and held power through puppet Goverments. The US enforced Capitalism on Latin America with a Iron fist so the Soviet's during the cold war wouldent have any allies in the America's. You would know this if you lived in one of those countries and read the American Iron Curtain. Anyone who opposed in Latin America was killed by the US.

---

Hands up, I got the wrong part of the world. Only some of the problems in Latin America were caused by colonialism (That bastard Cortez has a lot to answer for.), and yes, the US has acted in a pretty damn ugly manner down there. Guess what? Capitalism has been twisted out of it's ideal shape. In a proper capitalist system nobody would care what went on down there.

Quote:

---

They did it for profit and in the name of Capitalism. Capitailism involves theft which those countries performed.

---

If there's theft, it's not capitalism. Simple.

Quote:

---

How? If the other country has a Military much more superior then that country? It would be like telling someone with a knife to fight someone with a sword. And there have been rebellions but they were all killed.

---

Then do it economically. Like India and China are. China is considered by most to be grownig so fast that the 21st century will be known as the 'Chinese Century'.

Quote:

---

So lies, propaganda and brainwashing? You basically want everyone to be controlled and live a lie and your telling me that there is no freedom under Communism?

---

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense. How does a meritocracy translate into propoganda? 'Use your talents well and work hard, and you'll have plenty.'. Yeah, sounds like brainwashing there, I know this guy, his name was Steve Jobs? Worked his ass off and got nothing out of it. Or another person I know, Richard Brason. Well, Dick has slaved away like a dog for many many years, and has nothing to show for it. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

If thats true then Capitalism failed them. They are Capitalist countries and always were since their indepenece.

---

Erm, go read some 20th century African history, maybe?

Quote:

---

Your comparing theft to equal payment? WTF i asked for a valid reason.

---

Pretty much. Some services and products are valued by the market as worth more than others. This isn't always accurate from an objective standpoint, but hey, libertarianism partly demands objectivism.

Quote:

---

When i criticize Capitalism i learn what actually happened before i say anything. You obviouslly dont, learn about what happened so you'll know what your talking about.

---

I don't need to know what happened though. As I have said before, I will support this system even if there was an absolute guarantee that people would suffer and die from it, because capitalism (When properly implemented) is right and there is no further debate necessary.

Quote:

---

In communism you can learn what you desire and work how much you desire. There wont be money to restrict you.

---

I can learn what I want in a capitalist system. There are plenty of people who believe freely available knowledge is a great benefit to the world, and even without governmental intervention will supply such. Nevertheless, libraries are brilliant things and I have no particular desire to see them abolished. And here's the thing, my friend; I don't desire to work. I only work because I have to. Like everyone else, I dream of winning the lottery or becoming a famous actor or whatever. So in Communism, I can sit around and do esentially nothing and I'll be fine? Because that does sound great. Problem is, how does anyone get fed (Let alone; how does anything of significance get achieved?)?

Quote:

---

because capitalism (When properly implemented) is right and there is no further debate necessary.

---

No, Capitlaism is far too harsh, at least in my eyes. Communism, however, sucks so much it's not even funny.

Like I said, extremes don't do well for a country. Extreme Capitalism has shown its weaknesses well enough in the Great Depression, and the reforms that were done by Roosevelt after the USA had gotten over it have shown the wisdom that was gained - that pure and absolute Capitalism doesn't work.

Communism, on the other hand, has been attempted several times times and in very different places with different people, and has proven itself to be one of the suckiest government systems, save Despotism, Facism and Nazism, maybe. Everyone who says 'But you have'nt seen a REAL Communist regime, ever!' only proves my point further. It cannot, and should not be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Hands up, I got the wrong part of the world. Only some of the problems in Latin America were caused by colonialism (That bastard Cortez has a lot to answer for.),

---

If that were true then the US would be in are same position as alot of Latin American countries. Since cortez went into what is now Texas, Arizona, California and all those states up to Kentucky.

Quote:

---

and yes, the US has acted in a pretty damn ugly manner down there. Guess what? Capitalism has been twisted out of it's ideal shape.

---

False Brazil was closer to a perfect Capitalist Society then the US itself.
Like i said learn what happened so you'd know what your talking about.

Quote:

---

In a proper capitalist system nobody would care what went on down there.

---

Which they dont, no one gives a damn what the US did except for people who live in Latin America , and Communist's and Anarchist's.

Quote:

---

If there's theft, it's not capitalism. Simple.

---

In a pure Capitalist Society stealing would be legal. Even the defination
of theft and stealing involves capitalizing.

Quote:

---

Then do it economically. Like India and China are. China is considered by most to be grownig so fast that the 21st century will be known as the 'Chinese Century'.

---

Its at the cost of others. Kid's in China are dieing from Chicken pox and the Flu because they cant afford any treatment. And India still has the blubonic plague because their goverment wont do anything about it since they only care about profit. Just because their Economy is growing doesnt mean those countries are more liveable. Actually living standards DECREASED in India this past decade according to a recent report. Since now no one can afford because of the growing economy.

Quote:

---

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense. How does a meritocracy translate into propoganda? 'Use your talents well and work hard, and you'll have plenty.'. Yeah, sounds like brainwashing there,

---

Because it is, your thinking for that worker he basically isnt even thinking for himself. Which Communism encourage's.

Quote:

---

I know this guy, his name was Steve Jobs? Worked his ass off and got nothing out of it. Or another person I know, Richard Brason. Well, Dick has slaved away like a dog for many many years, and has nothing to show for it. :rolleyes2

---

What does that solve :confused: ? Thats just one person. What about everyone else who worked equally as hard or even harder and wasnt rewarded? Who care's if just one guy got lucky what about everyone else?

Quote:

---

Erm, go read some 20th century African history, maybe?

---

I recommend you do the same thing.

Quote:

---

I don't need to know what happened though. As I have said before, I will support this system even if there was an absolute guarantee that people would suffer and die from it, because capitalism (When properly implemented) is right and there is no further debate necessary.

---

Thats like a nazi saying he doesnt care about the Holocaust. You clearly are ignorent and oblivious of history. I will not argue with someone who denies history and makes random guesses of what happened, just to fit what he wanted to happen.

Quote:

---

I can learn what I want in a capitalist system. There are plenty of people who believe freely available knowledge is a great benefit to the world,

---

Which Capitalism doesnt allow. You need money to get into College under Capitalism. Under Communism Education is free.

Quote:

---

and even without governmental intervention will supply such. Nevertheless, libraries are brilliant things and I have no particular desire to see them abolished.

---

Abolished? Communism supports self teaching, there would be more libraries in a Communist society.

Quote:

---

So in Communism, I can sit around and do esentially nothing and I'll be fine? Because that does sound great. Problem is, how does anyone get fed (Let alone; how does anything of significance get achieved?)?

---

Because you work under Communism you dont just sit around everyday. You can do whatever job you enjoy doing under Communism. And you can work as much as you desire.

Quote:

---

And did you know the majority of them arnt even Cuban? Their from other Latin American countries that try to sneak in the US through that route. The US goverment tells everyone that their all Cuban to make Cuba look like crap.

---

Thank you. Frankly, ya gotta admire Castro. How long has he been in power? And with the CIA trying to bump him off for years. Pretty impressive. The regiem he replaced was corrupt as hell, but it was also supported by America. The U.S. government isn't against repressive governments- just those that refuse to let us profit from them.

^Exactlly, some of the reasons the US invaded Iraq was because Saddam didnt want any McDonalds or Wallmarts in his country.

Quote:

---

Thats just one person.

---

See, that's the core. That's why Western nations flourish - because they put a serious emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL, the difference one person can make. History has changed not because of mobs, but because of remarkable, single men and women. In a society that discourages individuality and depresses the will and need of certain powerful individuals to rise above the mediocrity of those around them, nothing fascinating or eventful ever happens. No great thinkers ever came out of such countries. Communism doesn't let strong people flourish, lest they harm those around them, and break the balance of equality. You could say a lot of bad things about survivalistic societies like Capitalistic ones, but they produce the greatest of men and women.

Quote:

---

the reasons the US invaded Iraq was because Saddam didnt want any McDonalds or Wallmarts in his country.

---

Yes, because THAT makes sense. :rolleyes2:

Good God, is there no end to this moronic demonisation of the USA? It makes anti-semitism look mild, at some points, and that's saying a lot.

Quote:

---

Yes, because THAT makes sense. :rolleyes2

Good God, is there no end to this moronic demonisation of the USA? It makes anti-semitism look mild, at some points, and that's saying a lot.

---

Why its the truth. If they were doing so much good then why are people rebeling against the US Reich in Iraq?

HOW CAPITALISM WORKS (Part One)
1. WHAT IS A COMMODITY?

Something produced for exchange, not for the personal use of the producer.

A peasant who grows vegetables for his family is not engaged in commodity production, but in production for use. But if he grows them in order to exchange them with the landlord of the local inn for ale, he is engaged in production for exchange, in commodity production.

2. WHAT IS SIMPLE COMMODITY PRODUCTION?

The production of commodities by producers who own their own means of production, like that carried on by artisans under the feudal system.

3. WHAT IS CAPITALIST COMMODITY PRODUCTION?

The production of commodities by working class producers in a capitalist society, that is, by producers who do not own their means of production and so are compelled, in order to live, to seek employment with capitalists who do own means of production.

4. WHAT IS A MARKET?

An area where those who wish to dispose of a commodity and those who wish to acquire it are in contact. Thus, we may speak of a local livestock market or a world oil market.
A market where there are a number of separate individuals or firms competing to dispose of a commodity and a number of individuals or firms competing to acquire it is called a competitive market.

5. WHAT IS THE RATE OF EXCHANGE OF A COMMODITY?

The number of commodities of other kinds for which that commodity can be exchanged in a particular market at a particular time. If a cow can be exchanged in a town's cattle market on a particuar day for two pigs, the rate of exchange of a cow is equal to two pigs, while the rate of exchange of a pig is one- half of a cow.

6. WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A COMMODITY?.

Clearly, it is not necessarily equal to its rate of exchange in a particular market, for in the last example we may speak of a cow being 'worth more' or 'worth less' than its actual exchange value.

At the basis of the exchange rate between two commodities lies the relative quantity of work required to produce them. In fact, the value of a commodity is the necessary labour time required to produce it. So, if it takes 4,000 times more hours to produce a car than to produce a briar pipe, the value of a car is 4,000 times that of the pipe.

7. WHAT DETERMINES THE RATE OF EXCHANGE OF A COMMODITY IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET?

Supply and demand, which causes the rate of exchange to fluctuate above or below its value.

If, for example, there is a shortage of sugar in a particular market, those who wish to obtain it will tend to offer more than its value in order to obtain it. On the other hand, if there is a glut of sugar in a particular market, those who wish to dispose of it will tend to offer it at less than its value in order not to have it left on their hands.

However, if the rate of exchange of a commodity is above its value as a result of shortage, the production of sugar will yield exceptionally high returns, Consequently, more people will go in for producing it, and the production of sugar will rise until its rate of exchange goes down to its value. The reverse process operates if the rate of exchange of sugar is below its value as a result of supply exceeding 'demand'; the production of sugar then yields exceptionally low returns, so that the production of sugar will decrease until its rate of exchange rises to its value.

Thus, in each competitive market there is a tendency for the rate of exchange of each commodity to correspond, in the long run, to its value.

8. WHAT IS BARTER?

The direct exchange of one commodity for another, e.g., wheat for bricks.

9. WHAT IS MONEY?

A commodity (or token of a commodity, such as a banknote, which is the token for a certain quantity of gold) which is generally acceptable within a particular community as a medium of exchange.

The introduction of a monetary system removes many of the difficulties inherent in a barter system. Under the latter, if a weaver wishes to obtain a pair of shoes, he must search for a shoemaker who wants cloth. But when money is in social use, he may sell his cloth to anyone for money and use this to buy shoes from any shoemaker.

10. WHAT IS PRICE?

The rate of exchange of a commodity expressed in terms of money.

11. WHY DO PRECIOUS METALS SUCH AS GOLD AND SILVER COME INTO USE AS MONEY?

For convenience of use and transport. Being rare, their production involves a very large amount of labour time, so that a small quantity of them embodies a very large value.

12. WHAT IS LABOUR POWER?

The capacity of a worker to work for a certain period of time.
The worker, owning no means of production of his own, is compelled in order to live to try to sell his labour power to a capitalist. Thus, in a capitalist society, labour power is a commodity.

13. WHAT DETERMINES THE VALUE OF LABOUR POWER?

As in the case of other commodities, the amount of socially necessary labour time involved in its production, that is, the value of the commodities required to produce, maintain and reproduce it.

The value of labour power is not, however, that of the bare subsistence of the worker and his dependents (who form the next generation of workers) but depends on such additional factors as the subsistence necessary to train a skilled worker, the degree of 'civilisation' of the country concerned, and so on.

14. WHAT ARE WAGES?

The price of labour power.

In a competitive market, the price of labour power, like that of other commodities, may fluctuate above or below its value according to supply and demand, but in the long run its price tends to correspond to its value.

15. WHAT IS SURPLUS VALUE?

The new value created in the course of production by a worker's labour over and above the value of his labour power. If a worker receiving £100 a week in wages were to create only £100 a week in value, his employer would obtain no benefit from employing him and would cease to do so.

An employer will employ a worker only if he produces in a week an amount of new value which exceeds what is paid to him in wages. The difference is the surplus value -- value which is created by the worker but appropriated by his employer. If a worker creates £200 of new value in a week but is paid £100 in wages, his employer has obtained £100 in surplus value from that worker. So, if he employs 1,000 such workers, he obtains a total of £100,000 of surplus value in a week.

This is the mechanism by which the capitalist class exploits the working class. Clearly, exploitation under capitalism has a more concealed character than under slavery or feudalism.

16. WHAT IS CAPITAL?

All that is owned or hired by capitalists in a capitalist society -- land, buildings, machinery, raw materials, labour power -- enabling them to acquire surplus value, that is, enabling them to exploit workers.
The money expended by capitalists for this purpose -- a process known as investment -- is also called capital.

17. WHAT IS CONSTANT CAPITAL?

All capital except that used for the buying of labour power.

Land, buildings, machinery and raw materials do not themselves create new value, but are merely the instruments with which human labour power creates new value. Since the capital expended on these items does not change in value in the course of capitalist production, it is called constant capital.

18. WHAT IS VARIABLE CAPITAL?

Capital expended on the purchase of labour power.

Since the new value created in the course of capitalist production is created entirely by the worker's labour power, the capital expended on this item may be regarded as having changed -- increased -- in value in the course of capitalist production. It is, therefore, called variable capital.

19. WHAT ARE RENT, INTEREST AND PROFIT?

The portions of surplus value which are appropriated by different sections of the exploiting class (or by different exploiting classes) in a capitalist society.

Rent may be paid by the employer (the entrepreneur) to a landlord for the hire of land and/or buildings where his enterprise is carried on.

Interest may be paid by the entrepreneur to a financier or bank for the hire of money capital he requires to carry on his enterprise.

Profit is that portion of the surplus value which the entrepreneur retains for himself after paying any rent or interest.

Rent, interest and profit, being portions of the surplus value produced in the course of capitalist production, all have their source in the exploitation of the workers. An entrepreneur who owns his own land, buildings and money capital retains, of course, all three portions of the surplus value for himself.

20. WHAT IS COMMERCIAL PROFIT?

The profit obtained by a commercial capitalist, that is, one engaged in the distribution (i.e., selling) of commodities.

21. WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF COMMERCIAL PROFIT?

Value is created only by produtive labour, and surplus value is created only by labour employed in capitalist production. No value is created in the process of distribution.

The source of commercial profit (as well as the source of the wages of employed distributive workers) lies in the surplus value created by employed production workers. The capitalist engaged in production sells his finished commodities to a capitalist engaged in distribution at a discount, below their value. The capitalist engaged in distribution realises his commercial profit by reselling them at their value.

In other words, the capitalists engaged in production pass to the capitalists engaged in distribution a portion of the surplus value created by their employed production workers in the course of capitalist production.

22. WHAT IS THE MOTIVE OF PRODUCTION UNDER CAPITALISM?

Profit.
Each capitalist firm strives to make for itself the maximum possible amount of profit.

23. CRITICISE THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS:

'BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 7 ABOVE, THE PROFIT MOTIVE AUTOMATICALLY GEARS PRODUCTION TO DEMAND'.

The 'demand' which is satisfied as a result of the operation of the profit motive is not the needs of the masses of the people. It is what is called 'effective demand', that is, 'demand' measured in terms of the money which consumers are willing and able to spend on the satisfaction of their needs.

If the entire population of a capitalist country were to demonstrate in the streets for bread, there would be no 'effective demand' for bread unless they had the necessary money to offer in the bakers' shops.

Thus, the profit motive gears production approximately to the needs of those people with enough money to express their needs in effective demand. That is why, although there has long been a housing shortage for working people in capitalist Britain, capitalist building firms do not use the resources of the building industry to build houses and flats for working people but, instead, use them to construct such things as office buildings (which may stand empty for years). They do so because the latter course is more profitable, although the social need for it is incomparably smaller.

Only when the profit motive has been abolished and production is consciously planned can it be geared to the real needs of the people.

HOW CAPITALISM WORKS (Part Two)

1. WHAT IS THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL?

The transformation of surplus value into new capital so as to increase the amount of capital in the hands of an individual or firm.

Even if the rate of exploitation remains unchanged, the accumulation of capital enables the number of exploited workers employed by a particular individual or firm to be increased, so increasing the total surplus value obtained by the individual or firm concerned.

2. THE NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE
ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL TEND TO BE MORE MECHANISED THAN THE OLD.

WHAT ADVANTAGE DOES THIS GIVE TO THE FIRM CONCERNED?

The increased productivity resulting from the increased mechanisation reduces the cost of production of each commodity, enabling the firm concerned (as long as it enjoys a technical advantage over its rivals) to make an above-average rate of profit.

NOTE: We call the ratio of constant capital (plant, etc.) to variable capital (wages), the organic composition of capital. Thus, the organic composition of capital tends constantly to increase.

3. WHAT IS CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL?

The enlargement of individual capitals into larger and larger units. The concentration of capital follows from the process of accumulation of capital.

4. LEAVING ON ONE SIDE THE ACCUMULATION AND MECHANISATION OF
CAPITAL, HOW ELSE CAN A CAPITALIST FIRM INCREASE ITS PROFITS?

Only by increasing the amount of surplus value it obtains from each of its workers, for example:

1) by cutting wages (allowing prices to rise while wages are frozen represents a cut in real wages);

2) by increasing working hours while preventing a corresponding increase in real wages;

3) by increasing the intensity of work by methods such as piecework wage systems (where wages are geared to output), 'speed- up' of the conveyor belt system, time-and-motion-study (designed to eliminate any actions which do not contribute to production), etc.

5. WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN LABOUR AND CAPITAL WHICH MARXIST-LENINISTS CALL 'THE CLASS STRUGGLE'?

The division of the value produced by the workers between the two classes -- the working class and the capitalist class. Leaving on one side the accumulation and mechanisation of capital, higher profits can be obtained only at the expense of the living and working conditions of the working class, while improved living and working conditions for workers can be obtained only at the expense of profit.

There is, therefore, a fundamental conflict of interest between the working class and the capitalist class. At times smouldering beneath the surface, at times bursting into the open flames of strike or lock-out, the class struggle is inherent in capitalist society. No repressive measures can do more than hold it down for a while. It will disappear only when capitalists and capitalism no longer exist.

6. WHAT IS THE BASIC CAUSE OF SLUMPS?

Firstly, the unplanned, anarchic character of production under capitalism, where each firm 'plans' its production in the hope of maximising its profits, combined, secondly, with the fact that the working class (who comprise, in a developed capitalist country, the majority of the population) receive in wages considerably less than would enable them to purchase all the goods and services they produce, and with, thirdly, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in line with the growth in the organic composition of capital.

Periodically, therefore, a glut of unsold goods piles up in warehouses and orders to producers are drastically cut. As a result, capitalists cut back their production, putting workers on short time or dismissing them. In consequence, the purchasing power of the working class is reduced still further, orders are further cut back, and the whole system sinks into a vicious spiral of slump or depression, with mass unemployment and widespread bankruptcies.

When production has fallen to a low level (often with masses of surplus produce being destroyed), the warehouses are compelled to order at least a minimum quantity of the goods required by the population. As a result, the capitalists take some workers back into employment and, in consequence of the rise in the purchasing power of the workers, more orders flow into producing firms. The system picks up into a recovery, followed by a boom -- at the height of which a new crisis of relative over-production is precipitated.

7. WHAT IS MONOPOLY?

A firm, or association of firms, which possesses monopoly power, i.e., which controls so much of the output of a commodity within a market that a competitive market can no longer be said to exist.

8. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF MONOPOLY POWER TO THE CAPITALISTS POSSESSING IT?

A monopoly can price its commodities higher than would be possible under conditions of competition, i.e., it can sell its commodities above their value. It can assist this process further by restricting output. Thus, a monopoly can make a higher rate of profit than would be possible under conditions of competition.

9. A MONOPOLY MAY BE: 1) A TRUST; 2) A COMBINE, OR 3) A CARTEL. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH?

A trust is a single giant firm with monopoly power, such as Imperial Chemical Industries.

A combine is a group of firms under single control possessing monopoly power, such as Unilever.

A cartel or ring is an association of separate firms which have agreed to restrict competition among themselves in order to reap the advantages of monopoly power, A cartel may, for example, fix production quotas and the share of the market for the participating firms and/or agreed prices for a commodity. An example of an international cartel is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

10. DOES MONOPOLY END COMPETITION?

No. It reduces competition in the area covered by the monopoly, while accentuating it in other fields -- e.g., between monopoly capitalists and non-monopoly capitalists and between rival groups of monopolists in the same or different countries.

11. WHAT IS FINANCE CAPITAL?

As capitalism develops, concentration and centralisation, of capital proceed in banking as in industry, and a merging of bank and industrial capital takes place, so that a small group of monopoly capitalists -- a financial oligarchy -- comes to control the large banks and financial institutions as well as the large industrial firms. This merged bank and industrial capital is called finance capital.

12. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE CAPITALIST CLASSES OF ALL COUNTRIES ARE FACED WITH A MARKET PROBLEM. HOW DO THEY ENDEAVOUR TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

'In theory' they could raise the workers' wages to equal the value of the commodities they produce, but since this would reduce their profits to nil, capitalists reject this solution.

Consequently, they endeavour to solve their perennial market problem by exporting commodities. Since all the developed capitalist countries have a market problem, each tends to direct its export drive primarily towards less developed countries.

13. WHY DOES THE EXPORT OF COMMODITIES TEND TO LEAD TO THE EXPORT OF CAPITAL AND TO COLONIALISM?

Because an underdeveloped country is economically backwards, its population as a whole tends to be poor. Furthermore, its economy tends to be autarkic (that is, relatively self- contained). Consequently, an underdeveloped country provides a poor market for the surplus commodities from a developed capitalist country unless its economy is radically transformed.

This is one reason why capitalist firms in developed capitalist countries 'export capital' to such underdeveloped countries, i.e,, invest it in the acquisition of large tracts of land for conversion into plantations or mines. They flood the underdeveloped country with cheap manufactured goods which ruin many of the native artisans (who still use handicraft methods which cannot compete with machine production). And if they can control the administration of the underdeveloped country -- a process known as colonialism -- they can force a large part of the peasantry from the land they traditionally held (for example, by imposing money taxes which can be met only from wages).

These ruined artisans and landless peasants are compelled to seek employment at starvation wages in foreign-owned plantations or mines producing cheap raw materials and food for the developed capitalist countries (at a very high rate of profit for the firms involved -- this providing a second important reason for the export of capital.

14. WHAT ARE SUPER-PROFITS?

Surplus value which a capitalist class obtains by the exploitation of workers outside its own country, particularly in underdeveloped colonial-type countries where the degree of civilisation (and so the value and price of labour power) is lower than in the developed capitalist country, so that the rate of profit is (often very considerably) higher.

15. WHAT IS A COLONY?

A colonial-type country which is administered directly by a developed capitalist country, e.g., Gibraltar, Northern Ireland.

16. WHAT IS A SEMI-COLONY?

A country which is nominally independent but is in fact dominated by a foreign power (e.g., Saudi Arabia).

17. SOME PEOPLE CLAIM THAT THE WORKING CLASS OF A DEVELOPED CAPITALIST COUNTRY AS A WHOLE SHARES IN THE EXPLOITATION OF COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRIES. IS THIS TRUE?

No. Super-profits from the exploitation of the working people of colonial-type countries go to the capitalists of the developed capitalist countries concerned. While a small portion of these super-profits may be used to bribe a stratum of highly- paid workers (mainly the officials in the labour movement who act as agents of capital) the workers as a whole receive only the value of their labour power in wages and do not share in the super-profits.

Nevertheless, the existence of the small stratum of workers bribed by imperialist super-profits (the so-called 'labour aristocracy') creates an objective split in the working class which complicates the development of the socialist movement.

For the most part, however, the fact that the standard of living of the British workers has risen over the past hundred years is not because they receive in wages more than the value of their labour-power, but because the value of their labour- power has increased. A considerable part of the super-profits from colonial-type countries has been used to accumulate capital and mechanise production at home, so that productivity has risen and with it the 'degree of civilisation' which contributes to the determination of the value of labour power. In other words, total production has risen very considerably over the last century and the working class has been accorded a minor portion of this in the form of increased real wages. However, the share of total production received in wages by the working class has fallen, so that the exploitation of the British working class has increased over this period.

18. THE ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION OF A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY LIMITS IN TIME THE USEFULNESS OF THE COUNTRY TO THE DEVELOPED CAPITALIST COUNTRY CONCERNED. HOW DOES THIS COME ABOUT?

The capitalists of the dominating country need a stratum of well-educated native people to serve them as civil servants, office workers, etc., and these people become frustrated by the fact that the higher positions are reserved for representatives of the foreign dominating power.

Furthermore, although the foreign capitalists try to limit capitalist development in the colonial-type country, they need railways, harbours, etc. in order to bring out raw materials and food from the country. This helps to bring about the development of a national capitalist class or national bourgeoisie which, although frustrated in many ways by the dominating foreign power (frustrations which assist in developing the political consciousness of the national bourgeoisie), develops a degree of native capitalist industry which competes with the export industries of the developed capitalist country. It also creates an industrial working class, small in size but relatively concentrated; this naturally gives rise to a labour movement, which begins to struggle for higher wages and better working conditions.

In time, all these factors lead to the rise of a national liberation movement, led initially by the national bourgeoisie, the aim of which is to free the colonial-type country from the domination and exploitation of the foreign capitalsts.

19. HOW DO THE CAPITALISTS OF THE DOMINATING FOREIGN POWER RESPOND TO THE RISE OF A NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT?

First of all, by attempting to suppress it by force. Secondly, when the national liberation movement has attained a certain strength, by seeking to neutralise it by transferring poltical power nominally to a group of landlords and comprador capitalists who are dependent upon the foreign power for their ability to exploit the working people.

20. WHAT IS IMPERIALISM?

Imperialism is another name for monopoly capitalism or finance capitalism.

A capitalist society has developed to the stage of imperialism when:

1) the concentration and centralisation of capital has proceeded to the point where it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

2) the merging of bank and industrial capital has developed to the point where it has created, on the basis of finance capital, a financial oligarchy;

3) the export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities, has become extremely important.

On a world scale we must note the creation of international monopolies and the fact that, by 1914, all the underdeveloped countries of the world had been brought within the sphere of influence of one or another imperialist power, so that further imperialist expansion could only be at the expense of some other imperialist power.

Plagiarism. Nice. No credit, then? Or perhaps I am sadly mistaken, and you are to original writer of all that?

Also, this -

Quote:

---

US Reich

---

Is comparing the USA, its leadership and citizens to those of Nazi Germany. I don't appreciate that. Please don't do that again, it is highy disrespectful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

Plagiarism. Nice. No credit, then? Or perhaps I am sadly mistaken, and you are to original writer of all that?

Also, this -

Is comparing the USA, its leadership and citizens to those of Nazi Germany. I don't appreciate that. Please don't do that again, it is highy disrespectful.

---

Why their both very highly similar. Just read these page's
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes;read=34829,

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html ,

http://watch.pair.com/reich.html.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7556

http://opednews.com/articles/opedne_...who_told_o.htm This article is a perfect example of the so called freedom of speech you guys have:rolleyes2 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

http://opednews.com/articles/opedne_...who_told_o.htm This article is a perfect example of the so called freedom of speech you guys have:rolleyes2 .

---

Holy God! He told the Vice President to go smurf himself, and all they did was take his details down and make sure he wasn't about to murder anyone? My God! The horror! The inhumanity! The sheer barbarism... oh... wait a tick. Inconvenient, yes, but hardly totalitarian. The guys with the M-16s said he had broken no laws and was free to go. This really isn't convincing me that the US is all fascist, k?

Quote:

---

15. WHAT IS SURPLUS VALUE?

The new value created in the course of production by a worker's labour over and above the value of his labour power. If a worker receiving £100 a week in wages were to create only £100 a week in value, his employer would obtain no benefit from employing him and would cease to do so.

An employer will employ a worker only if he produces in a week an amount of new value which exceeds what is paid to him in wages. The difference is the surplus value -- value which is created by the worker but appropriated by his employer. If a worker creates £200 of new value in a week but is paid £100 in wages, his employer has obtained £100 in surplus value from that worker. So, if he employs 1,000 such workers, he obtains a total of £100,000 of surplus value in a week.

This is the mechanism by which the capitalist class exploits the working class. Clearly, exploitation under capitalism has a more concealed character than under slavery or feudalism.

---

See, that's one of the roots of the whole problem. There is no established method for deciding how much people's labor is worth other than how much they get paid. An entire philosophy built on that flawed principle is so amazingly shaky that I express constant surprise that it has any followers whatsoever.

Quote:

---

See, that's one of the roots of the whole problem. There is no established method for deciding how much people's labor is worth other than how much they get paid.

---

Their is no money in a Communist society genuis.Communism is not about paying people wages equally, its about abolishing wages, its about abolishing work as we know it.

We are lazy because we have to work; work is boring and oppressive, it drains our creativity as we repeat the same mundane task over and over because our boss told us to do. We have no escape out of this but consumerist society; where we spend the miserable crumbs we make on spetacular society, where our very image of our life is spit back out into our faces; hoping for some temporary resolve to our unhappiness. The boss drives us to work as much as possible; the more work we do, the more profit he makes; really, it is not nessecary to work 8 hours a day, but we do it anyway, because the boss desires it.

Communism is about free labor power; doing what you want, doing what fullfills you, not being restricted to do what you truly desire, its about abolishing work and bosses, and the opressive, alienated society that is built around it.

Quote:

---

An entire philosophy built on that flawed principle is so amazingly shaky that I express constant surprise that it has any followers whatsoever.

---

Maybe its because you know about Communism except what i already told you on this forum. And the propaganda your goverment has fed you.

Uh, you keep with the "lolz you don't know communism" but you think "work" (which means, creative effort, which means, individual achievement) can be abolished and the world will run without honest effort? Which one of us knows "" about the way the world works, again?

And for the record: our government never really taught about communism. What I learned I learned from reading YOUR propaganda. Marx meant well, but I fear he was crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Uh, you keep with the "lolz you don't know communism" but you think "work" (which means, creative effort, which means, individual achievement) can be abolished and the world will run without honest effort?

---

There never was any "honest effort" they work because they have to or they get nothing. In capitalism you can't always be what you want, either you have no capital to start your company, or have no chance because of cost of tuition.

Quote:

---

Which one of us knows "" about the way the world works, again?

---

It definatelly isnt you :rolleyes2 .

Quote:

---

And for the record: our government never really taught about communism.

---

Except junk like "Communism involves a all powerful dictator which tells you how to think and act.". And all those anti-Communist video's they showed during the cold war and are starting to show again in grade school.

Quote:

---

What I learned I learned from reading YOUR propaganda. Marx meant well, but I fear he was crazy.

---

My propaganda? Nice one:rolleyes2 . At least i think for myself unlike you. You sure know alot about Marxism since you didnt know its a State-less society. Thats just how much you paid attention to marx's books and my post's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

There never was any "honest effort" they work because they have to or they get nothing. In capitalism you can't always be what you want, either you have no capital to start your company, or have no chance because of cost of tuition.

---

Uh, no. I was eighteen, working in a factory, and had no money - and now I am going to school because I got a loan and use the money I made in the factory to keep me running. So, I did just fine. Try again, please.

Quote:

---

It definatelly isnt you :rolleyes2 .

---

...ok.

Quote:

---

Except junk like "Communism involves a all powerful dictator which tells you how to think and act.". And all those anti-Communist video's they showed during the cold war and are starting to show again in grade school.

---

Go to a Red Theatre or a Red School eighty years ago and tell me how many times you hear "capitalistic exploitation", "dog-eat-dog mentality" and "starving proletarian" when they talk about America. (And, no, I really didn't see any of that. All of my teachers tended to see communism as "noble", the idiots.)

Quote:

---

My propaganda? Nice one:rolleyes2 . At least i think for myself unlike you.

---

How do I not think for myself? Because I support liberty, justice, and freedom? Or because I don't agree with you and your party/mob?

Quote:

---

You sure know alot about Marxism since you didnt know its a State-less society. Thats just how much you paid attention to marx's books and my post's.

---

No, I really get the idea of "pure communism" or "anarcho-socialism"; I was saying it's impossible, as impossible as anarchism.

I am as of now offically a Communist :cool:. I cant believe i thought all this time Communism sucked and everyone was in misery. But in reality it is something much deferent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infuriated_X

I am as of now offically a Communist :cool:. I cant believe i thought all this time Communism sucked and everyone was in misery. But in reality it is something much deferent.

---

You know, for some reason this has about as much sincerity as an angsty teenager telling his parents he's a goth.

Quote:

---

You know, for some reason this has about as much sincerity as an angsty teenager telling his parents he's a goth.

---

Can't argue that. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Their is no money in a Communist society genuis.Communism is not about paying people wages equally, its about abolishing wages, its about abolishing work as we know it.

We are lazy because we have to work; work is boring and oppressive, it drains our creativity as we repeat the same mundane task over and over because our boss told us to do. We have no escape out of this but consumerist society; where we spend the miserable crumbs we make on spetacular society, where our very image of our life is spit back out into our faces; hoping for some temporary resolve to our unhappiness. The boss drives us to work as much as possible; the more work we do, the more profit he makes; really, it is not nessecary to work 8 hours a day, but we do it anyway, because the boss desires it.

---

Uhuh, so how do things get made if nobody is making them? As I have said, the ultimate ideal is one of complete automation where nobody at all has to work. We'd probably get overthrown by the sentient AI, but that's for another thread. Short of that, someone is going to have to work, and outside of a close circle of family and friends, people aren't going to work for other people. They're certainly not going to go for a job they don't want to do, and there are plenty of jobs people don't want to do.

Oh, and I never got any communist propoganda at school. It was the 90s (In England, no less.), people weren't bothered about Communism anymore. I don't know many people of my generation who've watched any anti-Communist propoganda. (Not that propoganda is necessary, just tell the truth and any self-respecting individual will reject the idea instantly.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Uh, no. I was eighteen, working in a factory, and had no money

---

Would you of worked in that factory if you had the money?

Quote:

---

- and now I am going to school because I got a loan and use the money I made in the factory to keep me running. So, I did just fine.

---

Which would of been free under Communism. What about the less fortunate? Those's who cant pay or get the debt?

Quote:

---

Go to a Red Theatre or a Red School eighty years ago and tell me how many times you hear "capitalistic exploitation", "dog-eat-dog mentality" and "starving proletarian" when they talk about America.

---

What would you expect? The US was doing the same thing too the Soviets. It's obvious they'd Demonize the US as much as they Demonized them.

Quote:

---

How do I not think for myself? Because I support liberty, justice, and freedom?

---

Where's the Liberty and justice in invading a country for profit? Where's the freedom when your country is being forced to follow a ideology
of another?

Quote:

---

Or because I don't agree with you and your party/mob?No, I really get the idea of "pure communism" or "anarcho-socialism"; I was saying it's impossible, as impossible as anarchism.

---

Why is it impossible if it was never attempted? How are you so sure it wont work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Would you of worked in that factory if you had the money?

---

Of course he wouldn't have. But where would the goods come from if people didn't work in the factories?

Quote:

---

Where's the Liberty and justice in invading a country for profit? Where's the freedom when your country is being forced to follow a ideology
of another?

---

Teek's been quiet plain is saying that he did not and does not support the War in Iraq. Or any other overseas action that I can call to mind reading his comments on, actually. At any rate, this allows me to springboard into a point I realized when I was in the shower earlier (Restrain yourselves ladies, I'm taken.).

A capitalist society quite happily permits communist behaviour. Say you live on a street of 100 people (For ease of numbers.). You could without any trouble (Well, assuming everyone was agreeable to the idea of course. Nice that, opting out, isn't it?) get together and arrange to pool your incomes, to ensure everyone on the street gets funding for their rent, food, heating, electricity, and so forth. It also means you could acquire the resources to buy a plot of land and some tools and farm your own foods. You could buy solar panels and suchlike and produce your own electricity.

Quote:

---

Why is it impossible if it was never attempted? How are you so sure it wont work?

---

Every attempt at it has been derailed by some faction or another taking power and killing many people, in some cases tens of millions. It might work itself (Though I doubt it.) but if it can't even be implemented how can one justify, at this time and with this species, attempting to implement it again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Uhuh, so how do things get made if nobody is making them? As I have said, the ultimate ideal is one of complete automation where nobody at all has to work. We'd probably get overthrown by the sentient AI, but that's for another thread. Short of that, someone is going to have to work, and outside of a close circle of family and friends, people aren't going to work for other people. They're certainly not going to go for a job they don't want to do, and there are plenty of jobs people don't want to do.

---

One intangible benefit is the personal freedom of doing what you want. This goes along with the division of labor, which is extremely rigid in capitalism, becoming fuzzier in communism. In communism, you'll have farmers who obviously farm the land, but they will not just be farmers. Who's to say a particularly lousy farmer, who still does his work, will not be a fantastic writer? You will have people with many more skills, skills that they can do because of their lack of reliance on capital. Freedom of the individual in communism actually will grow, contrary to what many capitalists say.

As for tangible benefits, how about the commune's subsistence for one? If the people sleep all day and do no work, as seems to be your father's rather usual capitalist objection, will these people survive? I argue that people naturally have a will to survive, people do not want to die, and they will do what is required to avoid death. This means work. The will to survival is not easily debated, as we all undoubtedly have it. People in communism will work for personal and collective entertainment and enjoyment, as well as communal subsistence. In short, if you don't work, you obviously don't get any food. Why would people simply not work and thus starve themselves to death? Such logic boggles the mind.

Going along with that, many a capitalist has said that 'selfish' desires will take over the people. But this also, when looked at critically, amkes little sense. It is inarguable that in a small commune, every one person will do something constructive for the whole. Value will be placed on communal subsistence. Some say this is impossible. But if one is selfish, and one takes another person's food because 'they have earned it', this person will eliminate the other. Not only will this be severely frowned upon in any group with any kind of morality, but also this will eliminate a worker. This worker was providing the selfish person with some material goods, and now the selfish person has eliminated the worker. In short, in a small community, not only will social relations be rather good, but also each individual will be connected to another, meaning that if one individual is eliminated, the whole suffers. Individuals are reliant upon society, and society is reliant upon individuals.

Quote:

---

Oh, and I never got any communist propoganda at school. It was the 90s (In England, no less.), people weren't bothered about Communism anymore. I don't know many people of my generation who've watched any anti-Communist propoganda. (Not that propoganda is necessary, just tell the truth and any self-respecting individual will reject the idea instantly.)

---

And this is coming from someone who was educated by a right-winged school system. Your thinking the way your state wants you to think, and you dont even realize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Would you of worked in that factory if you had the money?

---

No. But I wasn't there yet. You have to work your way up. I have to make the money to get somewhere. Gain capital.

Quote:

---

Which would of been free under Communism. What about the less fortunate? Those's who cant pay or get the debt?

---

I understand it would have been "free", i.e., everyone would have paid for it. I prefer that I pay for it, because it's my education.

As for a more serious discussion, I haven't decided where I stand for those who really can't support themselves (as for what I mean, I mean mentally disabled or handicapped. I don't mean welfare mom). Still, what about them? 99% of the people can work. And those who do not toil shall not eat, do you not agree? (By the way: everyone can get a loan. Not everyone will get as good as a loan, but everyone can get a loan.

Quote:

---

What would you expect? The US was doing the same thing too the Soviets. It's obvious they'd Demonize the US as much as they Demonized them.

---

That's my point. For whatever propaganda America saw on communism the Soviets saw tenfold on capitalism. I'm saying that the propaganda thing is a moot point, because everyone is doing it. And like MILF said: I went to school in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union fell. I didn't even know what communism was until I was thirteen.

Quote:

---

Where's the Liberty and justice in invading a country for profit?

---

First off, I was speaking hypothetically, not about America. America is not capitalist-free-society, unfortunately; if it was, we'd be a hell of a lot better off and all. But since we're now talking about the war: there is no liberty and justice in invading a country for profit. I would have been ok with the war if there had been a set plan and an objective goal (to actually free the Iraqis from a tolitarian regime, for instance), but even then I wouldn't support it. I'm not an altruist. America shouldn't mess with the affairs of the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Where's the freedom when your country is being forced to follow a ideology of another?

---

I don't know what this is in reference to, but there's no freedom in that, no.

Quote:

---

Why is it impossible if it was never attempted? How are you so sure it wont work?

---

Pure communism is really just anarchism with a bunch of helpful people. But anarchism can't work because anyone can just take over. I understand: the Soviet Union wasn't "purely communist", but that's not the point. The point we are all making is that that is the logical outcome of pure communism. Someone is bound to take control. The masses don't exist. People are people, not to be numbered, but want to put in their honest, individualistic effort to help themselves, and are easily expolited (as your Party is big on exploitation, you'd have to agree). All you need is a hero like Lenin to step up and help in the name of the people, and then Comrade Lenin over here, based on his absolute importance and need, finds out he needs a little bit more room than the average person, and a little more food, and he needs to hold parties becuase he represents their noble ideal. And so it becomes that parties are being held where they drink fine wine and eat cavier while the people are toiling for the masses and got a little less food, this time around.

Even short of that, I have a lot of problems with a supposed "pure" communist state, if you'd like to hear them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

And this is coming from someone who was educated by a right-winged school system. Your thinking the way your state wants you to think, and you dont even realize it.

---

So, what you're saying, is that simply because he disagrees with you he's a mindless drone, brainwashed by the government?

I could turn around and say the exact same thing to you, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Please learn to argue better.

That's what I was thinking. Then we're all screwed because we all became the products of our countries, or whatever.

I don't remember learning crap in school about any of this, actually. (Feel free to complain about America's educational system, actually. I hate it.) What I learned on individualistic effort, the primacy of individual rights, and freedom over security I learned on my own.

And MILF isn't American, Guevara. He was educated by Nanny Welfare State Britain. I was educated by the fascist-capitalists. Get it straight.

So, I see that another facet of Communism is plagiarism. That bodes well for me, as I want to be a writer! =D!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Of course he wouldn't have. But where would the goods come from if people didn't work in the factories?

---

See he worked because he had to not because he wanted to.
If people want to work in factories under Communism then fine they can it's not my problem.

Quote:

---

A capitalist society quite happily permits communist behaviour.

---

Because they know they can profit from it. They couldent during the cold war and guess what happened to a Communist then?

Quote:

---

Every attempt at it has been derailed by some faction or another taking power and killing many people, in some cases tens of millions. It might work itself (Though I doubt it.) but if it can't even be implemented how can one justify, at this time and with this species, attempting to implement it again?

---

I"m talking about actual Anarchism, which has never been attempted.

How could the government had profitted from actual lassiez-faire use of their money? They wouldn't have been able to touch that. It's illegal in capitalism.

Quote:

---

How could the government had profitted from actual lassiez-faire use of their money? They wouldn't have been able to touch that. It's illegal in capitalism.

---

It's legal as long as you can profit from it, it's legal under Capitalism. Even if it's at the cost of others.

The admins seriously need to start banning anyone with a Communist viewpoint. It is patently, categorically irrational and does not contribute at all to intelligent discussion on this or any other forum. THERE IS NO DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE. All there is is a bunch of rational individuals repeatedly owning the hell out of one very ignorant Communist; this is unproductive in the extreme, seeing as the book has long since been closed on Communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

See he worked because he had to not because he wanted to. If people want to work in factories under Communism then fine they can it's not my problem.

---

But they don't want to. Sweet merciful Stalin, what don't you get about this? How are our resources going to be refined, how are the refined resources going to be processed? How does anything get made?

Quote:

---

I"m talking about actual Anarchism, which has never been attempted.

---

Yes it has. It was the default state of our prehistoric societies, before we even formulated the concept of any other form of government. Tribalism, you say? Yes, that's what anarchy will lead to. Anarchy proves itself flawed because it was the form of governence which we evolved away from the day we were able to formulate other theories of governance.

Quote:

---

It's legal as long as you can profit from it, it's legal under Capitalism. Even if it's at the cost of others.

---

I'm starting to think you're not actually a die-hard communist, you're actually a troll. To whit, I'm done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

But they don't want to. Sweet merciful Stalin, what don't you get about this? How are our resources going to be refined, how are the refined resources going to be processed? How does anything get made?

---

Just as a side point. I know many people who absolutely adore work in factories. Heck even I don't mind it. Can be quite fun from time to time. My dad has actually doesn't have to work at the factory as he does. He has been offered time and time again to become higher up. But he doesn't like sitting all day. He likes to go in and work in the factory. He likes it. There ARE people who would want to work in a factory.

Maybe not as many as we currently have working in factories... But I am sure communists would say that without money there wouldn't be that a need for quite as many products... so it would even out. Or some such.

As a note I am not in one of my 'defend what communist does have good' days.. so don't expect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

The admins seriously need to start banning anyone with a Communist viewpoint. It is patently, categorically irrational and does not contribute at all to intelligent discussion on this or any other forum. THERE IS NO DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE. All there is is a bunch of rational individuals repeatedly owning the hell out of one very ignorant Communist; this is unproductive in the extreme, seeing as the book has long since been closed on Communism.

---

And you are a Fascist. Your always attacking Communism for no reason.
If this is none productive then dont post here.
If Communism was dead as you claimed it is then why are you debating with me?

Quote:

---

I'm starting to think you're not actually a die-hard communist, you're actually a troll. To whit, I'm done.

---

Quote:

---

troll

1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

---

Nope doesnt fit my behavior on this forum at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

And you are a Fascist. If this is none productive then dont post here.

---

While you can hardly assume he's a fascist, I agree that you should be allowed to speak, because I'm all about personal liberties.

However, back to harping on you. Your view of capitalism is quite narrow, and the way you describe the two views, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would admit to being a capitalist (since you've basically made capitalism equal criminal). I am telling you: for the same reason you kept screaming at us that "it wasn't real communism", please get your dictionary definitions straight with capitalism, as well. Sorry, but not allowing people to pool their money WOULD be illegal in "real" capitalism, because in real capitalism (lassiez-faire) the government steps away from the plate. In other words, you spend your money how you want, where you want. You can have problems with that (obviously, all social programs that are government-enforced are illegal, in that sense) but don't come up with propaganda about it.

Quote:

---

Nope doesnt fit my behavior on this forum at all.

---

Your little comments about how stupid we are is a weak form of trolling, but I don't really care, myself.

Quote:

---

Your little comments about how stupid we are is a weak form of trolling, but I don't really care, myself.

---

When have i insulted anyone on this topic?

Quote:

---

However, back to harping on you. Your view of capitalism is quite narrow, and the way you describe the two views, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would admit to being a capitalist (since you've basically made capitalism equal criminal). I am telling you: for the same reason you kept screaming at us that "it wasn't real communism", please get your dictionary definitions straight with capitalism, as well. Sorry, but not allowing people to pool their money WOULD be illegal in "real" capitalism, because in real capitalism (lassiez-faire) the government steps away from the plate. In other words, you spend your money how you want, where you want. You can have problems with that (obviously, all social programs that are government-enforced are illegal, in that sense) but don't come up with propaganda about it.

---

In pure Capitalism slavery would be legal, workers would have no right's whatsoever (the very little amount of workers since they'll use slave's to get the most profit) , Pirating would be legal, and stealing wouldent be a crime. Corporation's would have as much power as the goverment. What good is the abilility to " spend your money how you want, where you want. " If you ether own everything or when you cant afford anything. In Communism everyone will meet their need's.

Your snide comments like "genius" spelled incorrectly because we aren't all commie bastards is where we are seeing it.

And considering everything you listed is actually quite anti-capitalist, I'm going to just laugh. I mean, I'll be fine with correcting your mistakes, but only if you ask for it. If you're sure that capitalism is some sort of tribal-fascist-anarchist scenario, and won't change your mind, then we have nothing else to discuss. (Slavery? Hahaha!)

Quote:

---

And considering everything you listed is actually quite anti-capitalist, I'm going to just laugh. I mean, I'll be fine with correcting your mistakes, but only if you ask for it. If you're sure that capitalism is some sort of tribal-fascist-anarchist scenario, and won't change your mind, then we have nothing else to discuss. (Slavery? Hahaha!)

---

What makes me laugh is that you support something you seem like you know nothing of.
Anything that interfer's and decreases the bosses profit will not exist in a pure Capitalist society. You think in pure Capitalism there will be any health insurance?(Sometimes even a salary?). Do you think if you lived in a pure Capitalist society you would of gone to college or school in general? There wouldent be funding in a pure Capitalist society since the elite's would only care about their profit's. To make it simple anything that help's raise profit is LEGAL. Anything that would decrease their profits (which include's giving out schoolarships, health insurance, workers rights) will not exist in a pure capitalist society.

And you know this... because you've seen a pure capitalist society? Or are you just making an assumption?

He's just making an assumption.

*shakes head* Dude, just shut up. You really don't understand capitalism short of what your Party Mob told you. If that's what you think lassiez-faire capitalism is, you should check. Hell, check Wikipedia. Read von Mises or Adam Smith. Do something - you really, really have no clue what you're talking about.

Somewhere, a bridge is missing its troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

He's just making an assumption.

*shakes head* Dude, just shut up. You really don't understand capitalism short of what your Party Mob told you. If that's what you think lassiez-faire capitalism is, you should check. Hell, check Wikipedia. Read von Mises or Adam Smith. Do something - you really, really have no clue what you're talking about.

---

I always study something before i support or go against it. If you dont mind me asking since you claim what i said was not true what is pure Capitalism? How do people live under pure capitalism?

Quote:

---

I"m talking about actual Anarchism, which has never been attempted.

---

That's because a society based on anarchy would very quickly crash and burn.

Quote:

---

A capitalist society quite happily permits communist behaviour. Say you live on a street of 100 people (For ease of numbers.). You could without any trouble (Well, assuming everyone was agreeable to the idea of course. Nice that, opting out, isn't it?) get together and arrange to pool your incomes, to ensure everyone on the street gets funding for their rent, food, heating, electricity, and so forth. It also means you could acquire the resources to buy a plot of land and some tools and farm your own foods. You could buy solar panels and suchlike and produce your own electricity.

---

Exactly. Communism is great with small groups.

Quote:

---

The masses don't exist. People are people, not to be numbered, but want to put in their honest, individualistic effort to help themselves, and are easily expolited (as your Party is big on exploitation, you'd have to agree).

---

Which would explain why the so-called communist regeims were death on individuality.

Quote:

---

And this is coming from someone who was educated by a right-winged school system. Your thinking the way your state wants you to think, and you dont even realize it.

---

Now, that's just insulting.

Quote:

---

How do people live under pure capitalism?

---

They don't. It doesn't work very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Exactly. Communism is great with small groups.

---

I agree with you there- in fact, that's what communism originally meant, people who lived in communes, such as the English quakers and diggers, or the American Amish. Of course, they all differed in their veiws, but their ideas eventually lead to the sort of stuff like Marx.
Really, no societey works outside a small group, even democracy- for true democaracy, everyone must be able to voice their own opinion, but over a nation that would mean constant refferenedums. Hence the system of representational democracy. The trick is to find the sytem which is least broken.

I think it's unfair that people still use Marx and Hardie and the like as examples of 'Why socialism sucks'. These guys were writing years ago, what the say is obviosuly outdated! While Smith, on the other hand, is just about as relevant as ever (greed has always come naturally).
Unfortuanately, modern socialists tend to be political commentators, rather than creating political systems. Michael Moore, for instance. He keeps (rightfully) criticising the capitalist regime, but, strangely, hasn't really ofered any real alternative.
EDIT: Ussually I thrive on this kind of crap, but to me it seems the same old argument that's lasted centuries. I mean, Jesus was doing socialism 2000 years ago, and it didn't sink in. Some people always try to justify their greed. So, I'm either going to ignore this, or start an E0FF revolution. First ten members get to be Commisars.

Quote:

---

hasn't really ofered any real alternative.

---

\
That's because Roger Moore is a provocator - his goal is to incite debate, argument, and recieve lots of flak in the process. In conclusion, the man's an arse. A fat one, too.

Quote:

---

The trick is to find the sytem which is least broken.

---

You see, Capitalism is an economical method, which works best under democracy. Communism is more than that - it engulfs a lot of areas, and it talks a lot about how a government should work, how it shouldn't, the values, etc... Socialism, on the other hand, is the equivelant (yet rival) of Capitalism. It doesn't talk much about the goverment system itself - but rather, economic resolutions and stuff like that. Many of those conclusions make sense, at least to me.

Communism, however, is extremely faulty, especially when attempted on very large groups in the format of country-ruling. Time and again it has proven itself to be impossible. The largest group you could have Communism work with is a few hundreds at the most, and they'd have to be very devoted to a certain cause, be willing to sacrifice much for things to work, and most importantly - to know one another. That's ים' the Kibbutzim worked here for a lengthy period of time, untill even they evolved and grew up, their members yearning for more, more money, more freedom, to advance beyond what the Communist system allowed them. To have their own private posssesion (the old 'it's my car - no it's ours' atgument, etc), to have a bigger house, to give their children better or different education, and generally to be independant and not always depend on one another.

Solidarity is very impoprtant. Even in a Capitalistic country, people shouldn't forget about one another. A powerful man can help many others, change the way the country runs, the way the world works. I still believe the strength of humanity is personal quality, not mob-mentallity.

War Angel made some good points- odd, cos some of the capitalists here seem to be talking hypocritical nonsense.
Communism doesn't really work in a modern western nation, that's true. But neither does capitalism. The best solution is a sort of blend, like Sweedish 'free-karket socialism' or Keynesism (is that right?). Personally, I think both these systems are a little too capitalist-freindly, but they give the equality and fairness of a socialist one, while retaining the personal freedom of a capitalist one.
That is, a good capitalist one. Nations like the USA are pretty prone to propaganda. Not just in the traditional style, but as advertising. Have you seen that stuff? it's all 'BuyBuyBuy! You need more stuff!' or 'You're ugly and old and fat and smelly! Buy our crap!' and of course 'Spent all your money on crap? then take out a big loan, and become deeper in debt!'. Capiatlsim seems to force people into a cycle of greed, self-loathing and fear, so that they never stand up for themselves.
Look at the amount of advertising youy see throughout a day. Now, imagine that it wasn't from a hundred different sources, but from one source. Wouldn't that look just like the USSR or Third Reich or something? Bloody creepy!

"Pure" capitalism is ideal if the proper government is put into place (one based on individual liberties). Don't be mistaken for the idea that the middle road is the best. That's what America is based on today. We have all of the problems of socialism and all of the problems of capitalism mixed into one grabbag. We have a constitutionally-limited dictator, our money is taken away but isn't put to any use, and we can't burn our own flag.

In short, we're starting to suck. I can go in-depth as to why I think pure capitlaism is good, but like I said, I am not for hearing supposed "objective" viewpoints as to how extremism is "bad", no matter what.