Capitolism sucks

[Ferret Pie]

I think it sucks because the minority are rich while the majority are poor.

[PoofBird]

what alternatives do you suggest, and why would they work better?

[Ferret Pie]

Benevolent dictatorship is the best government but there are few benevolent dictators and that is beside the point.
Communism is a good alternative, though sometimes it can become perverted. Have you read walden two?

[Pod]

capitalism dosnt always mean the rich will be in the minority

[Magpie]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
Benevolent dictatorship is the best government but there are few benevolent dictators and that is beside the point.
Communism is a good alternative, though sometimes it can become perverted. Have you read walden two?


beside the point?

the point in a debate forum is to reply intelligently instead of saying something is inconsequential.


And as a whole Communism is known for fucking up alot more than it has for working successfuly.

It's a nice idea but it really dosn't have practical applications.

[PoofBird]

Communism is basicly: we're all equal, let's share everything...
note the resemblance to the original Christian ideas.

now, it is a great idea... but it will only work if 100% of the population agrees. If some don't you need oppression to keep em straight... and it all goes downhill from there...

it is true that benevolent dictatorship is the best possible form of government.
but highly impractical...

as i think: Democracy isn't a very good system, but it's the best one we can actually handle (for a given meaning of handle)
yes, we keep messing up, but we're trying

[Dødens Knekt]

I agree with Ferret Pie.

Capitalism IS survival of the fattest.

The free market works well in the west, but there are millions of people starving and suffering because of it.

Norway is a socialistic country, and I think it works very well. The right-wing politicans say they want to fix everything the socialists have ruined in our country, ignoring the fact we were rated as the country with the best livingstandards.

What I don't like about capitalism is how everything is ruled by money. The part of a conflict with the most money wins, and can use whatever he wins to get more money and more power.

I don't think my english is good enough for me to fully participate in this debate. If it was in Norwegian I'd check in here several times a day. Unfortunately it's not so I'll only drop by a couple of times every week...

[squealpiggy]

I think that any kind of politics would work admirably well if it weren't for the politicians ruining it. Benevolent dictatorships are great until a less than benevolent dictator takes over or, as is more likely, less than benevolent underlings disguise the people's discontent in order to continue power-brokering and running things as they want to. Communism is a superb idea, you know, a non heirarchical society of equality. Trouble is it goes against every single aspect of human nature. Humans are heirarchical, they form a pecking order without any persuasion. Some people are leaders and some are followers because that is our nature. An equality based system is alien to our character.

Capitalism is the best of both worlds in it's basest forms, ie barter. It enables mutually beneficial competition. The trouble is that it becomes rather like the benevolent dictatorships once a corporation gets the power to be ruthless. Apparently more than half of the top economies in the world belong to actual countries. Mostly it is crporations who hold the money. Mad eh? And once you have a heirarchy there are people that are employed to keep the ones with a conscience from seeing the bad things.

[SemiCircle]

damn straight. almost all these economic/political systems work fine on a small scale, but on a national scale they fall apart. take the benevolant dictator: he might be able to handle, say, a city-state, but how on earth could he micromanage an entire country? he can't. he has to delegate. as soon as he delegates, he loses some of his power, and corruption seeps in. someone always spots a loophole in the system, where to go against the common good is for his own personal gain, and that's where the system falls apart. someone a grand visier-type character, who manipulates the wording of the benevolant king's judgements to make them suit his own ends.

an ideal system would be one where it is always to a person's personal gain to obey the rules. 'tis cloud cuckoo land, though; i myself can't think of one. capitalist democracy, unfair though it may seem to the poor man, is the best thing we intrinsically flawed people are likely to come up with in the near future.

[Shiny_macShine]

the original "tyrants" in the world were actually the benevolent leaders mentioned who ruled greek cities, these people were very popular amongst the people but eventually there would be someting that they couldn't give so another tyrant came along and other threw the ruling tyrant and it happened over and over. So as someone suggested a benevolent dictator is a bit impractical. No political system is ever widely popular or any good without a strong leader who actually knows what he/she is doing and unfortunately there aren't any. Plus the rich and poweful are too entrenched within capitalism to let it fall as the number one system of governtment for the foreseeable future

[squealpiggy]

someone a grand visier-type character, who manipulates the wording of the benevolant king's judgements to make them suit his own ends.


Grand Vizier I think you mean you Terry Pratchett fan you!

[SemiCircle]

pah. it's a transliteration from a different alphabet. if i could be arsed, i could argue for my spelling. but i can't, so i think form now in i shall spell it with a z. there aren't anough words properly spelt with a z; the only common useage would be the -ize suffix. which blows.

[squealpiggy]

How about "zenith"? I use zenith all the time!

[smiley clown]

I think that capitalism is a good system because even though it can be unfair I think its more unfair in communism when you work a lot harder than other people but you still get the same.

In school we're reading death of a salesman which shows all the bad things in capitalism but it is set about 40 to 50 years ago and I think its out dated because now even if you dont do well you will stil be supported by the government and people nowadays are a lot more diverse.

[PeePers]

Lets all go throw away our talents, be oppressed, and we will all get payed the same for different labors
wooh for communism

[Fruiterian]

All systems are flawed. Simple as that. Finding a balance to get rid of most flaws would be a good idea.

I had a bigger post, but then it went away to unposted post heaven...

[Sloth]

actually the system is perfect... but look at what we have to work with...

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by PeePers
Lets all go throw away our talents, be oppressed, and we will all get payed the same for different labors
wooh for communism

But that's not what communism is about that's what communism became under Stalin, Lenin and other socio-communist dictators. The idea of communism is that people live in cooperating free trading communes. Each commune is producing goods and each member of the commune is producing for the good of all the others in the commune. So you work hard for that. The communes then trade for essentials which they don't have in a regulated market.

What most people think of as communism is actually authoritarian left wing socialism.

[Ferret Pie]

Did you know in britain our prime minister is supposed to be a socialist?
Peepers doesn't understand communism. It generally just means that the government owns all the factories and services e.t.c this way the government is paid back the money it pays people rather than a few rich individuals getting it all. In an uncorrupted system this would mean that all the proceeds of business went back to the people and was used to fund building, government paid jobs (e.g: Teacher), pay an unemployment cheque and give a free health service. In a total communism (such as in walden two ) there would be different amounts of work needed for harder and easier jobs. Money could even be abandoned completely were it not for the fact that that would stop people buying things or choosing any type of food they wanted. I dare say it could all be worked out but not by me or at least not right now.
I don't understand where Peepers idea of opression comes from, perhaps he is thinking of russia ( which was a corrupted communism)

[Fruiterian]

Well, as someone said somewhere:

communists are authoritative liberals, capitalists are conservatives in general. socialism would probably be more leftist of an idea, but not all the way through. there's more room to go about in there.

as far as i know, tony blair has turned britain into a somewhat more capitalistic nation, 'course, not to the level of capitalism that america has. i'm not too sure about this, however, me not being british.

he might be thinking of russia.

but speaking of communism, what about mccarthyism? i think that mccarthy was an idiot. there's some guy in my school who doesn't believe in communism, ultraconservative, and was calling people communists and believes all of them to be evil.

they were persecuting members of the entertainment industry in those days, believing them to be communists but probably very few, if any, were.

fear of a political viewpoint is idiotic: if you listen to their ideas they might have some you agree with. seriously.

[GorillaBearBear]

If you ask me, money is the problem. The best form of government would be no government and self subsistance. Of course this is impossible thanks to human nature. (he has better land than me. *kills other farmer, steals land* hahahaha, I'm now the richest man in the world) We're too far gone to ever rectify the problems in our governmental systems I think.

And it's spelt Capitalism.
honestly

[Ferret Pie]

If we invented a giant robot god programmed to stop all crimes and suchlike we could have anarchism, but face it, that would be impossible for many hundreds of years if not thousands.
The point i am trying to make is that, while anarchism has benefits, it does not benefit everyone unlike communism.
(oops this has turned into a communism good rather than a capitalism bad thread)

[almighty_bob]

Originally posted by PoofBird
Communism is basicly: we're all equal, let's share everything...
note the resemblance to the original Christian ideas.

now, it is a great idea... but it will only work if 100% of the population agrees. If some don't you need oppression to keep em straight... and it all goes downhill from there...

it is true that benevolent dictatorship is the best possible form of government.
but highly impractical...

as i think: Democracy isn't a very good system, but it's the best one we can actually handle (for a given meaning of handle)
yes, we keep messing up, but we're trying

Well spoken

[Reddig]

First some quotes:

Communism is a good alternative, though sometimes it can become perverted.

What do you mean, sometimes? Show me a single communist country in which communism hasn't got perverted.

Communism is basicly: we're all equal, let's share everything...
note the resemblance to the original Christian ideas.
now, it is a great idea... but it will only work if 100% of the population agrees.

Arghargharghagrhaaaa!!!! Jesus Christ, man! You don't know what you are talking about! It's not about equality! Communism is about the leading role of the working class in a sosciety, and it is to be the main reciever of the benefits of the system.

And what does it have to do with Chrisianism??? The main slogan of communism is the war of the classes (the working class agains the owners and capitalists). It has revolution and gaining rule by means of force. How does that go with christianism?


Norway is a socialistic country, and I think it works very well. The right-wing politicans say they want to fix everything the socialists have ruined in our country, ignoring the fact we were rated as the country with the best livingstandards.

Norway is not socialistic, it's social-democratic, and that's a big difference. It has (i presume) social help for the needing, free hospitals, free schools, all theese things, but then again it also has free market, competition, democracy, and monarchy (theoreticly monarchy doesnt get along with socialism). And remember, that socialism spoils the society and requires money - even Norway will come to a point, when it will have to liberalise it's system (soon).


Plus the rich and poweful are too entrenched within capitalism to let it fall as the number one system of governtment for the foreseeable future

Communism, fascizm, dictaroship etc. usually gain controll through revolution. Even the richest capitalist is helpless when standing on the other side of a gun. As for the rest of your post, Shiny, i rather agree.

The idea of communism is that people live in cooperating free trading communes. Each commune is producing goods and each member of the commune is producing for the good of all the others in the commune. So you work hard for that. The communes then trade for essentials which they don't have in a regulated market.

Quite so. I'll only add, that in an advanced communism there is supposed to be no law (just social norms), no country, no government, no money, no private owning. Of course it ment total cooperation of all people, and everyone being good and such.

Peepers doesn't understand communism. It generally just means that the government owns all the factories and services e.t.c this way the government is paid back the money it pays people rather than a few rich individuals getting it all. In an uncorrupted system this would mean that all the proceeds of business went back to the people and was used to fund building, government paid jobs (e.g: Teacher), pay an unemployment cheque and give a free health service. In a total communism (such as in walden two ) there would be different amounts of work needed for harder and easier jobs. Money could even be abandoned completely were it not for the fact that that would stop people buying things or choosing any type of food they wanted. I dare say it could all be worked out but not by me or at least not right now.
I don't understand where Peepers idea of opression comes from, perhaps he is thinking of russia ( which was a corrupted communism)


No. This is not communism, but an ideal social-democracy. And it doesn't work anyway.

The idea of communism meaning oppression comes from communism being unacteptable for the people who are governed by it. Thus a mechanism of pressure is needed. It happened not only in Russia - it happened in every single communist country (even in Paris Comune).



Now a bit from me.
I come from Poland. Poland untill 1989 was a communist country. I just know how it looks like from the inside, and let me tell you - you don't want to live in a communistic country. As for capitalism... there are things one may not like about it, but as far as today noone has came up with anything better. Socialism and social-like systems are coming out to be unefficient - vide Sweden, Germany, France, and even Norway.

Sorry if i misunderstood someone, or written something, hat doesn't make gramatical sence - i'm Polish, and if I could, i'd write you an essey here in Polish, but then again - noone would understand sh*t ;]. I did my best though.

[almighty_bob]

WOW dude; u are one sweet debator...
nevermind about tht spelling or language issues...

difficult to agrue so many points at one,

the idea of equality is similar to the idea of 'love your neighbour'
and hence the idea of treating others how you wish to be treated

I know that the former USSR did not follow this, in fact it frowned upon Christianity...
However, the theory behind communism is a good one, pity it will never work, as humans are too greedy...

to quote from a conversation i had last night;
"communism is a great idea, pity about the humans..."

<although as I was quick to point out... it didnt work in animal farm either....>

[Reddig]

Well that's the point - people mislead communism for politea - communism even in it's ideals is not about equality or everyone helping everyone. The "creator" of communistic ideology and communistic doctrine - Karl Marx - ment it to be a system, where there is only working class, no ownership and so forth, no place for egalitarism (I hope the word looks like that in english, in polish it's "egalitaryzm"), human imprefections and all that. I already mentioned it. Now if i'm not mistaken the system which has cooperation of all people for the good of all people is politea. There we have ideal equality, law and order, all the nice things. Of course that's an utopia.

Saying, that "communism is ok, if only people were better" makes as much sense as saying "capitalism is ok, if only the people were better", or "democracy is ok, if only...".

"Wouldn't it be nice, if everyone was nice?".

If we take the whole issue theoretically, we won't get anywhere, because all systems are perfect in their ideals. Then again if we look at it from the practical side, it's pretty obvious - as far as democracy and capitalism have their drawbacks, they are by far the best known altrnatives for today's reality.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
I think it sucks because the minority are rich while the majority are poor.


That is a bleedin lie. American capitailsm provides for a HUGE middle class and a small upper class and poor class.

The point is that in communism EVERYONE is poor. lol. With capitalism even the poor are not that bad off.

[Ferret Pie]

Actually in america there are alot of people living in conditions as poor as a third world country and in communism noone is poor because ( this is in an extreme communism not yet tried) noone has money, everything is free..
Anyway, to reddig, full on communism is when the state owns everything , as i said, perhaps you misunderstood me. Libya is a succesful communist country for one. Effects of communism are very good. For instance, in eastern Europe, most people were socialist or communist. This resulted in people saving up for many years to get a car which won't be that good anyway, but being able to get public transport very cheap. People may not have gotten much money but because everything is made by the state and so goes back into the state everything is cheap. rent, (nobody can own property) and tax i think, was only about 5% of income. To go on holiday there peoplehad to convert about£8 a day but because everything was so cheap people had a hard time spending it. The poinmt is that although you might not have been able to get such luxuries as exotic fruits e.t.c, everything was affordable without the country or the people losing too much money. If you get less but everythging costs less, is that not a good thing for a country and for its people. This is my argument on this point though i could probably elaborate.

[Amazing Morris]

In order to make any kind of government work you have illiminate all kinds of corruption. Corruption is mostly brought about by money and the like so the only way to do it is to isolate all of our politicians from the outside world and only give them the bare essentials to live on. That way there would be nothing in it for them so they could do their jobs properly without the constant temptation of oil companies ect...
The problem would be that the politicians would go insane and no one would want to run the country afterwards.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
[B]Actually in america there are alot of people living in conditions as poor as a third world country and in communism noone is poor because ( this is in an extreme communism not yet tried) noone has money, everything is free..


HAhahahahahahahahah that is just a lie that left wingers make up. alot of the so called "poor" people in america (even the ones who collect welfare) are as fat as big pigs. When was the last time you saw a starving person in america like you do in third world countries?

most poeopl cannot get their fat butts into japanese brand cars

In communism everyone is poor . No one has anything except the crap that the state doles out to them. it is horrific conditions for people to live under. Just look at what communism did to the russians...about 12 million dead

[Reddig]

For instance, in eastern Europe, most people were socialist or communist. This resulted in people saving up for many years to get a car which won't be that good anyway, but being able to get public transport very cheap. People may not have gotten much money but because everything is made by the state and so goes back into the state everything is cheap. rent, (nobody can own property) and tax i think, was only about 5% of income. To go on holiday there peoplehad to convert about£8 a day but because everything was so cheap people had a hard time spending it. The poinmt is that although you might not have been able to get such luxuries as exotic fruits e.t.c, everything was affordable without the country or the people losing too much money. If you get less but everythging costs less, is that not a good thing for a country and for its people.


Look, i don't mean to offend you, but what you have written here is poop. I come from a country, which was communist untill 14 years ago, and i know what it was like (it had nothing to do with what you have written).

First about the cars. It's not that you got little money, so you saved it bladiblabla. You couldn't just go and buy a car. You had to go and sign up for one. You waitet for about 5-10 years (really), and then you got a chance to buy it. The public transport was normal, same as anywhere else - tickets and stuff.

It's not that people had to convert 8$ a day to go on a holiday, because they earned 20-40$ a MONTH. Of course you could >>theoretically<< buy more for that money in poland, but the thing is - nothing was AVAILABLE. Empty shops. People stood in line to shops for 5 houres just in case there was something to buy. Whatever it was - they bought it. You had oranges only on x-mass. You got ham up to few times in a month, you had to spend eons just to get your hands on a washing machine (and you didn't choose, you just took what you could grab).

Oficially there was no such thing as tax. You got the same income all the time, for example 1000zl a mont, and that was all. The problem was, that while the prices sometimes could go up up to 100% a year you always got the same ammount. You not only got less, and could afford less, but you couldn have bought anything, because it wasn't available. Of course you could buy things in PEWEX, which had stock from import, but the prices were in $. Imagine a stiuation like this - a chockolate bar costs 1$. You get the ammount equal to 25$ a month. Get the picture?


it is horrific conditions for people to live under. Just look at what communism did to the russians...about 12 million dead


About 15 mln of russians got killed or died in "kovhoz", "sovhoz" and concentration camps. Add about 10 mln of foreigners (Poles, Germans, Hungarians and so on and so forth) you'll get about 25 mln of people. And that only in years 1917-1956. 25 mln people - It's like killing every single person in Holand+Austria. If you got a bullet in a back of your head and got burried in some forrest - you could consider yourself lucky.

[Fruiterian]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
Actually in america there are alot of people living in conditions as poor as a third world country and in communism noone is poor because ( this is in an extreme communism not yet tried) noone has money, everything is free..

I'm trying to recall, are you American or not?

Being an American myself, I know something about this topic.

But it depends on where you live if you're under horrible conditions or not, what your family's riches are, et cetera.

My family's blue-collar, not particularly rich but we live in an area where there are more than a few people doing well. It's fairly expensive compared to, say, Georgia or the south.

Nowadays you need college education to get ANY sort of job. Families who are poor are likely to stay poor, considering how much college costs.

Yes, it's true, most people in this country are obese. McDonald's is cheap food, and quite a few people go in and eat there every day.

I'm not overweight myself, I'm in pretty good shape. Not great, but pretty good. I could lose a little weight around my abdominals, but I'm better than a lot of other people in that area.

But it depends on what area you live in, too. The economy's really fucked up over here, there's a shitload of problems... we had record surpluses under clinton but now we have record deficits under Bush, and he's been in office for only three years.

Anyone else find a problem with that statement? I sure do.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Reddig
Look, i don't mean to offend you, but what you have written here is poop.

reddig will u marry me???

Gosh it is so nice to hear from someone on a pinboard who is not a socialist!

[Reddig]

I'd be honoured ;]

I admit it, I abominate socialism, communism, all that crap. I know the arguments of socialists, I know it's doctrines and I don't agree with most of them. Socialism may sound just and proper and all that, but it simply doesn't work - and it never did. Nowhere.

[Wahoo]

i don't really like socialism either

[[murray]]

WHAT PART OF COMMUNISM AND LENINISM ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS DONT YOU FUCKTARDS FUCKING WELL UNDERSTAND?!?!

"OMG COMMUNISM FUCKED RUSSIA OVER!!!322342oneoneone!"

No it fucking didnt, LENIN fucked Russia over. If youve actually read into it at all, youd understand that Lenin didnt give a shit about the peasants and the industrial workers, he was only interested in the middle classes and the landed roletariat. He never wanted equalit for all, he was a wolf in sheeps clothing, not a communist ut a fascists dictator who was no better than Hitler and Saddam Hussein, incase you're stupid enough to think Hitler was a jolly nice fellow as well.

The basic premise of communism is equality for all, not equality for some.

Get the facts before you're going to slag something off, you morons.

(This rant is not directed at everyone in this thread, only the ones comparing leninism and communism as the same thing, you know who you are.)

[GorillaBearBear]

Originally posted by often Ndisguise
HAhahahahahahahahah that is just a lie that left wingers make up. alot of the so called "poor" people in america (even the ones who collect welfare) are as fat as big pigs. When was the last time you saw a starving person in america like you do in third world countries?

most poeopl cannot get their fat butts into japanese brand cars

In communism everyone is poor . No one has anything except the crap that the state doles out to them. it is horrific conditions for people to live under. Just look at what communism did to the russians...about 12 million dead

....Communism didn't do that to the russian state. Well, more specifically Marxism. You are thinking of Leninism and Stalinism, which are completely different to Marxism, the original form of Communism. Leninism/Stalinism is a perverted form of Marxism instated by their namesakes to make them wealthy. They had no interest in the welfare of their country, therefore millions died.
Secondly, are you trying to claim that there aren't many poor people in america, firstly, the Americas have a very high rate of poverty, as this includes all of south america as well, who have some of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. More to the point, if you meant the USA, which I expect you did, then how can you be so stupid as to claim that the majority are wealthy. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Most of the working class in the west are in debt. Being in debt technically means you are poor. I think you will find that the Majority of US workers are in debt. How clueless can you get.

Originally posted by Often Ndisguise The point is that in communism EVERYONE is poor. lol. With capitalism even the poor are not that bad off.

Communism isn't "everyone is poor", the ideal is that everyone is equal and money is nothing. Everyone gets the same, it is all free, there are no benefits. In the Ideal Communist Utopia, the words "poor" and "rich" have no bearing as they no longer exist.

The idea of communism meaning oppression comes from communism being unacteptable for the people who are governed by it. Thus a mechanism of pressure is needed. It happened not only in Russia - it happened in every single communist country (even in Paris Comune).

First off, the paris commune was socialist. Socialism isn't equality, socialism is elevation of the Proletariat, and downsizing the powers of the Aristocracy. Secondly, It's not that communism is unacceptable to anyone, it's that leaders like Castro or Lenin pervert the ideals to suit their own needs.

bah. I'm all ranted out for now.

[[murray]]

Originally posted by GuerillaBaaBaa
....Communism didn't do that to the russian state. Well, more specifically Marxism. You are thinking of Leninism and Stalinism, which are completely different to Marxism, the original form of Communism. Leninism/Stalinism is a perverted form of Marxism instated by their namesakes to make them wealthy. They had no interest in the welfare of their country, therefore millions died.
Secondly, are you trying to claim that there aren't many poor people in america, firstly, the Americas have a very high rate of poverty, as this includes all of south america as well, who have some of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. More to the point, if you meant the USA, which I expect you did, then how can you be so stupid as to claim that the majority are wealthy. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Most of the working class in the west are in debt. Being in debt technically means you are poor. I think you will find that the Majority of US workers are in debt. How clueless can you get.



Communism isn't "everyone is poor", the ideal is that everyone is equal and money is nothing. Everyone gets the same, it is all free, there are no benefits. In the Ideal Communist Utopia, the words "poor" and "rich" have no bearing as they no longer exist.



First off, the paris commune was socialist. Socialism isn't equality, socialism is elevation of the Proletariat, and downsizing the powers of the Aristocracy. Secondly, It's not that communism is unacceptable to anyone, it's that leaders like Castro or Lenin pervert the ideals to suit their own needs.

bah. I'm all ranted out for now.

/me applauds

[SemiCircle]

lenin wasn't a "leninist", he was a bolshevic. he actually believed in communism, but he believed more in doing what he had to to keep himself in power. hence the mass starvation of the peasantry, etc.
stalin was much the same, only worse. he didn't give a toss about the communist ideals. he only wanted power, and once he got it he held onto it like a limpet on a rock. he was also heavily paranoid, which is why he "purged" so many people. similarly, he associated himself with the sate, and so he did whatever he could t improve russia as a state. he was exactly the kind of person who would kill an innocent child to save humanity (see some other thread). thus he ignored the pain and suffering he was causing to make russia great.
once stalin popped his clogs, the russians were left with a political mess. nobody really understood communism, so they improvised where stalin had left off. it was a shambles, and that's why russia isn't a superpower any more. nobody knew what they stood for any more.
the decline was inevitable from the moment lenin sidelined his bolshevic ideals. that is not to say that it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't; it is more than likely that the whole thing would have fallen apart in seconds, and democracy instated. however, they all got confused as to what communism meant, and so it all fell apart.

marxism has been shown to be flawed. as i'm sure i said earlier in this thread, it starts with the premise that all men are created equal. which is a mistake, as any geneticist will tell you.

communism is a nice idea, but it'll never work. 'tis cloud cuckoo land, as anyone who has read aristophanes will tell you.

[Reddig]

When will you people finally learn? How many people have to die because of the neo-communistic reigns, and how many more are to be humiliated by the more soft-core ones? Why do people always think - yeah, communism, ok, so it didn't work in Russia, but that was something different (bolshevism), and has nothing to do with the real communism.

No?

What about China?
What about Kambodia?
What about Angola?
What about Cuba?
What about Lybia?
What about all the eastern Europe countries, which could honestly have whatever comunism they wanted to have?

Most of these countries were a communistic country. Right now even Cuba is liberalising it's system, and except China, Cuba and partly Lybia they have overthrown communistic reigns long ago.

Communism always works the same way.


First off, the paris commune was socialist. Socialism isn't equality, socialism is elevation of the Proletariat, and downsizing the powers of the Aristocracy. Secondly, It's not that communism is unacceptable to anyone, it's that leaders like Castro or Lenin pervert the ideals to suit their own needs..


No, the elevation of proletariat is a communistic doctrine. So is war of the classes, revolution, the dispossession of the owning and so on. It was in "Capitalism" by Marx.

Communism always leads to the same point. In its pure form it's an utopia (and not a very happy one too), just like an ideal politea or the idea of everone being nice to everone else. In real life it ends just like it ended in the countries I've just mentioned.

[[murray]]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
lenin wasn't a "leninist", he was a bolshevic. he actually believed in communism, but he believed more in doing what he had to to keep himself in power. hence the mass starvation of the peasantry, etc.
stalin was much the same, only worse. he didn't give a toss about the communist ideals. he only wanted power, and once he got it he held onto it like a limpet on a rock. he was also heavily paranoid, which is why he "purged" so many people. similarly, he associated himself with the sate, and so he did whatever he could t improve russia as a state. he was exactly the kind of person who would kill an innocent child to save humanity (see some other thread). thus he ignored the pain and suffering he was causing to make russia great.
once stalin popped his clogs, the russians were left with a political mess. nobody really understood communism, so they improvised where stalin had left off. it was a shambles, and that's why russia isn't a superpower any more. nobody knew what they stood for any more.
the decline was inevitable from the moment lenin sidelined his bolshevic ideals. that is not to say that it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't; it is more than likely that the whole thing would have fallen apart in seconds, and democracy instated. however, they all got confused as to what communism meant, and so it all fell apart.

marxism has been shown to be flawed. as i'm sure i said earlier in this thread, it starts with the premise that all men are created equal. which is a mistake, as any geneticist will tell you.

communism is a nice idea, but it'll never work. 'tis cloud cuckoo land, as anyone who has read aristophanes will tell you.

Russia hadnt been a superpower since the late 19th century, so dont get me started on how Lenin started the decline, because he merely contributed to it.

As far as he was concerned the peasantry didnt matter at all, and they would not figure in his plans, hence his aiming of the revolutionary propaganda at the middle classes, so dont tell me thats communist, because it isnt. Bolshevik is just another namefor it, not a policy, they were only called Bolsheviks cause they won the editorship of the party newspaper in the early 20th century. Bolshevik means majority.

[Ferret Pie]

Reddig, Lybia is succesful on the whole.
Also, about the eastern Europe business, Yes, you did have to convert roughly £8 a day, and i am not talking about Poland. Maybe there was less to buy but there was enough for people to easily live on andi i don't like oranges anyway. People from these places could not afford to go to spain or amerca i suppose but they could go to places such as bulgaria (i must have that wrong) and other nearby places. I think the place i am talking about may be east germany but i am not 100% sure. Also please don't make your posts so long or quote mass amounts, it's annoying to read for me.
Also your arguments aren't against what i was tring to prove.

[Reddig]

I had to make long posts, because i had a lot to answer. I'll try to make them shorter now.

In 1973 Kadafi announced the "Third World Theory", the so called "Green Book", in which he wrote a program for Lybia, which, roughly speaking, combined communism with democracy. The negative effects of that semi-communistic program pushed him into letting private economical activity back in in 1987, privatisation in 1992, turning back from free health system and political liberalisation of the regime. In IX.2000 in Tripolis and Bengazi there was a masacre of protesting against unemployment imigrant workers. Lybia has about 30% unemployment rate, and an inflation of 20%. 32% women, and 9% men are analfabets.

It's not what i would call succesfull.


The oranges were just an example. Imagine a world, where oranges are luxury. The money you got was barely enough for a living, especially when the prices got went up, and the wages stayed on the same level.
You're right about the Bulgary bit - once in a few years people could afford to go on a trip to Bulgaria/Yugoslavia/DDR, but that was about it. It's not that poeple didn't afford to go to Spain or America - going there on a holiday was nearly impossible. It's that you couldn't afford the most basic needs when visiting western countries. But that didn't matter, because it was hard as hell to get a permission to leave the country.


As far as I can see you are trying to proove, that it wasn't so bad to live in a socialist/communist country. What i'm trying to do is to proove you wrong - and that's because i KNOW you are wrong. I've lived here all my life, so did my parents, their parents, my friends, their parents and so on. I know how it is in a system like communism, because i've seen it every day with my own eyes.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Reddig
I'd be honoured ;]

I admit it, I abominate socialism, communism, all that crap. I know the arguments of socialists, I know it's doctrines and I don't agree with most of them. Socialism may sound just and proper and all that, but it simply doesn't work - and it never did. Nowhere.

I have a book you might be interested in: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

No other written work in the history of book making has exposed socialism as a complete failure more successfully.

Rand lived in the hell that was communist russia and eventually moved to the united states.

I think you may be wasting your breath trying to convince these ppl socialism does not work. You can argue and argue and show example after example and proof after proof, but at the end of it all they will throw it up in your face and act like you are an idiot.

The left seems skilled at stating outright lies (like america has lots of starving people like 3rd world countries..god almighty that is such a lie!) and acting as if they are the complete truth. The scary thing is, alot of people don't question these lies.

Trust me, I have tried and its not worth it. I would prefer reading posts from people like you!

[squealpiggy]

The left seems skilled at stating outright lies (like america has lots of starving people like 3rd world countries..god almighty that is such a lie!) and acting as if they are the complete truth. The scary thing is, alot of people don't question these lies.


Lies like "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" and "The enemies of freedom must be brought to justice"?

Just a point ;)

Reddig what country are you from? I am most impressed by your knowledge, your knowledge of your countries political past puts my knowledge of mine to shame! I have some friends in Romania and they had a very similar situation, and they are still really poor over there. Better than it was but still... Bucherest is home to the largest building in the world. Building it almost bankrupted the country, it's not the tallest nor does it covr the biggest area but is does have the biggers volume. Built and covered in gold leave as a monument to communism... erm... except that it was never really finished, the gold leaf was only half done and the rooms were never all utilised.

In a truly capitalist free market the poor people have no rights. Capitalism tends to become oligarchy, so those without money tend to become an underclass. With no safety net for people who fall out of the capitalist system you will get forgotten underclasses. Centrist politics is the way forward.

[Reddig]

I've mentioned it a few times - I was born and live in Poland (and to be exact - in it's capitol city Warsaw).

Romana had even harder times than Poland did - not only it had a more totalitarian regim personified by Nicolae Ceausescu (in comparison to whom Milosevic is a nice and loving uncle liberal), who is the one responsible for what you are saying about the centre of Bucharest, but after overthrowing his communistic rule he was substituted in 1989 by another communist - Ion Iliescu and his socialist party. The neo-socialist path chosen by Iliescu had driven Romana into poverty even bigger than it was during Ceausescu reign. It took Romana 7 years to get rid of him and finally change the ruling party for somthing more democratic (i think it was sth like central-right wing, led for sure by Constantinescu), but they didn't do much better. To be honest with you, I'm not sure if Ion Iliescu isn't their president again.


My ambitions are to study politics studies at the university, so i kinda just know some things. I'm also pretty interested in the history of the XIXth and XXth century, as well as in the stuff about doctrines, sustems and all that. Of course it's not that i can remember by heart things like the unemployment rate in Lybia, I check up for such thing in books i have, but some more important facts i just happen to know. BTW thanks for the compliment :].

[squealpiggy]

You know more about Romanian poltical history than I know about my own too!:notworthy

[notmarcie]

Ndisguise. Might I suggest you read 'Nickle and Dimed' by Barbra Echenreich. America does have huge underclass. People living on or below the poverty line. They ar fat because cheap food contains high amounts of fat and sugar as detailed in Greg Critsers book Fat Land.

Whilst there may not be starvation as seen in the third world where the lack of food is due to drought, there are people who are very nutritionally deficient and living in relative poverty.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by notmarcie
Ndisguise. Might I suggest you read 'Nickle and Dimed' by Barbra Echenreich. America does have huge underclass. People living on or below the poverty line. They ar fat because cheap food contains high amounts of fat and sugar as detailed in Greg Critsers book Fat Land.

Whilst there may not be starvation as seen in the third world where the lack of food is due to drought, there are people who are very nutritionally deficient and living in relative poverty.

America does not have an underclass as big as most countries. The left goes crying about the poor in america. actually, if there are a large number of ppor ppl in america, it is the liberal politicians fault for letting all these immigrants in.

And it is possible to buy food that is not high in fat and sugar that is cheap. You could make a fruit salad with fruit bought from walmart for the same price as 2 big mac meals with big gulp sodas. Hell, you could buy a pack of raw chicken breasts for the same price as the mc donalds junk. hell, you could even buy a pack of 6 frozen gardenburger brand veggie burgers for the same price as a mcdonalds meal. hell, you could buy a can of pinto beans for less than a mc donalds meal. i gurantee a 90 cent can of beans is better than anything at mcdonalds/

people pay 4 or 5 bucks for a mcdonalds meal because they like the way the fat tastes. They also like the fact they dont have to do anything to cook it. There are alot of lazy people out there who like to eat french fries.

you can get large amounts concentrated orange juice for the same price a big old sugar laden soda costs. But, people like to drink sodas. u do not have to be rich to eat a relatively healthy diet.

[squealpiggy]

It is difficult to live cheaply and have a healthy diet, even for me and I have a relatively well paying job. To cook food from scratch is expensive. I can buy a jar of Thai curry for a pound fifty, to make the same curry fresh I need to buy chilli, ginger, bunched coriander, coconut, onions, garlic, star anise, fish oil etc etc. It works out to be a fair bit of money.

Lack of education is a major factor in poor diet. People with little or no education somtimes have only one method of "learning": Advertising. So you have commercials that the well off ignore but that the poor take in.

As for the comment about immigrants, I will be in immigrant to Canada in the next few months, how about that?

[Reddig]

As far as i know, the US. has an unemployment rate of 4%. I expect, that the people who are employed do not suffer from extreme poverty (because, as i presume, the officially employed earn more money than the poverty line, therefore these people are 'poor' at best), so only this 4% and people who are not rated (illegal imigrants etc. They're in the US illegaly, so they actually shouldn't be counted) might be creating this underclass you are talking about. 4%. Poland has 20% of unemployment. The socialdemocratic France has 9%, likewise socialdemocratic Germany has 9,4%. So if these countries have a worse situation, why is everybady saying, that it's so horrible in USA?

[squealpiggy]

According to http://www.bls.gov/ the current unemployment rate in the US is 6.1%. The US has a populationf of around 250,000,000 meaning that approximately there are 15,250,000 unemployed people in the United States. The US has a very regressive welfare system that does little to help the jobless get appropriate skills to find work, and with little opportunity for success has a tendency of perpetuating the recipient's dependence on welfare.

I don't know about Poland but Germany has quite a comprehensive benefits and welfare system and I know the UK does, so America is pretty bad in that regard. Also take into account the fact that unemployment figures do not include people who cannot work through sickness and disability and that there are people who are sick but could not afford medical insurance and are therefore on welfare with no real treatment.

[often Ndisguise]

As for the comment about immigrants, I will be in immigrant to Canada in the next few months, how about that? [/B]

Excellent! senisble policies for a happier free america!

[often Ndisguise]

[ They're in the US illegaly, so they actually shouldn't be counted) might be creating this underclass you are talking about. 4%. Poland has 20% of unemployment. The socialdemocratic France has 9%, likewise socialdemocratic Germany has 9,4%. So if these countries have a worse situation, why is everybady saying, that it's so horrible in USA? [/B]

Lovely logic reddig. You should move to the united states. we need more of your kind here.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
It is difficult to live cheaply and have a healthy diet, even for me and I have a relatively well paying job. To cook food from scratch is expensive. I can buy a jar of Thai curry for a pound fifty, to make the same curry fresh I need to buy chilli, ginger, bunched coriander, coconut, onions, garlic, star anise, fish oil etc etc. It works out to be a fair bit of money.

Lack of education is a major factor in poor diet. People with little or no education somtimes have only one method of "learning": Advertising. So you have commercials that the well off ignore but that the poor take in.

As for the comment about immigrants, I will be in immigrant to Canada in the next few months, how about that?

WEll first of all, a jar of premade thai curry is not that unhealthy...compared with....mcdonalds. Notmarcie was making the unbelievably false suggestion that the only food poor people have available to them in the usa is unhealthy fast food.

Actually, fast food is quite expensive! About five dollars for a burger meal at mcdonalds is a luxury to a truly poor person. Most truly poor peopl will buy something like a bag of rice and some beans and live off of beans and rice. Beans and rice is very healthy and very inexpensive.

Buying rice and beans in bulk creates meals that cost alot less than a 5 dollar a pop burger. You can buy a whole pack of extremely healthy veggie burgers for less than five dollars a pack. Lets see...at six veggie burgers per package ..that = about 6 meals.

I eat veggie burgers all the time on plain wheat bread. Its cheap and healthy! There are ways to find healthy things to eat.

People eat fast food because they like it. If people didnt like the way it tasted they would not buy it and there would not be a market for it.

Most people are just too damn lazy to cook. IT does not take long to make rice and beans. lol

You cannot tell me that poor people are so stupid that they do not realize that eating alot of mcdonalds burgers will make them fat! what a load of crap! Almost everyone knows that eating junk food like whoppers and ice cream sundaes adds pounds to your hips.

[notmarcie]

Its not actually an unbelievable suggestion I was making if you take the time to read and comprehend. I wasn't talking about fast food like McDonalds (and as far as I am aware you can buy a burger for about 60 cents)

I really suggest you read Nickel and Dimed. The author was working at minimum wage jobs and was at one point working 2 jobs. She could not make end meet. She was working legally. Accomodation costs can be phenomonal, and after paying rent she didn't have enough money to

The cheapest way to buy food is to buy in bulk is .
If you don't have a car of your own, and live somewhere without a cheap reliable integrated public transport system you cannot buy the cheapest food. Big box economies of scale like the Wal Mart/K mart means it is not economically viable for smaller grovers to stay open therefore they either charge higher costs which disadvantages the customer, who has no alternative as they cannot get to the supermarket or they close, leaving people with places like 7-11 to buy food. And I think you will agree 7-11 doesnt offer the widest choice of healthy food.

Its even basic things such as white bread is cheaper than brown bread and has lower nutritional value. It is refined carbohydrates which cause a blood sugar peak and then fall meaning one has to eat more of it to feel full. I know this because I have read extensively on nutrition. If you are poorly educated then you are more likey to be in poverty, and also more likely to not understand nutrition and healthy eating.

If you cannot afford to buy cooking equipment like saucepans, chopping board, and knives you cannot prepare food from scratch you are left with no option but to use ready meals.
Those on the poverty line are more likely to be ill educated, they may not have the skills to prepare a meal from base ingredients in addition to not having the tools required.

McDonalds have spent a huge amount of money trying to promote their food as healthy, considering how many people in the US are functionally illiterate (and I mean legal residents who have English as a first language) and thus do not have the capacity to read nutritional information

fatness doesn't equate wealth. Which was the point I was trying to make

[often Ndisguise]

If you cannot afford to buy cooking equipment like saucepans, chopping board, and knives you cannot prepare food from scratch you are left with no option but to use ready meals.


there are very very few ppl in america who are so poor they cannot buy a freakin' knife and sauce pan. and even if there are a few ppl such as this..it is probably their own fault for being lazy. This is a land of plenty because of capitalism and a good work ethic. Most people are doing very well.

Some of my relatives have previously held some menial, very low paying jobs and they still have their own little house , etc etc. Why? because they work hard. Oh yeah and they could afford a knife and saucepan too. And they never have to eat at mcdonalds all the time. nor have they needed tax payer assistance.

The ones who aren;'t doingwell are mostly illegal immigrants as reddig and i have already stated

i am not evne going to reply to anythign else you write because you are typing some really ridiculous fairy-tale, sob-sister stuff.

[often Ndisguise]

U.S economy grows at blistering pace! *news article* (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20031030/bs_dowjones/200310300841001006)

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by often Ndisguise
there are very very few ppl in america who are so poor they cannot buy a freakin' knife and sauce pan. and even if there are a few ppl such as this..it is probably their own fault for being lazy. This is a land of plenty because of capitalism and a good work ethic. Most people are doing very well.

Some of my relatives have previously held some menial, very low paying jobs and they still have their own little house , etc etc. Why? because they work hard. Oh yeah and they could afford a knife and saucepan too. And they never have to eat at mcdonalds all the time. nor have they needed tax payer assistance.

The ones who aren;'t doingwell are mostly illegal immigrants as reddig and i have already stated

i am not evne going to reply to anythign else you write because you are typing some really ridiculous fairy-tale, sob-sister stuff.

That's a bit of a childish ending which is a shame.

There are overweight Americans who are suffering symptoms of being manourished. There is an undrclass in America that lives below the poverty line and this is more pronounced in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world. Brshing it under the carpet by saying it is "probably their fault for being lazy" is doing nothing and thinking nothing to contribute to helping the situation. Look around you, look at the poverty you try not to see. It is real.

[Reddig]

The ones who aren;'t doingwell are mostly illegal immigrants as reddig and i have already stated

Hmm... I didn't quite state, that it's only immigrants who are doing poor, although that is a fact, that they are a problem, which is hard to solve. Besides, you should.... hmm... change your attitude a bit, because saying "poeple who say this are yaddayadda" only makes the others who don't agree with you more sure about their views.

What I wanted to show, was the connection between unemployment rate and the wealth state of the citizens. Now I don't know how the american welfare system works, but i rather can't believe that it doesn't do anything in the matter of poverty. Besides high outlay on the social support for the needing does have it's negative sides - it drains money as nothing else does (the overgroth of the social support system is the main reason for very serious polish economical problems), it spoils the society, it corrupts and slows down the economy and the market. It is needed of course, but it has to be controlled not to go too much into the social side.


Another thing, that USA gets the best marks if it comes to chances of a single person to change his social class during his life. I think I already mentioned it - for what an american needs about 15 years the sweds need 3 generations (if they are lucky). The is almost no other country where a career "from a bootblack to a milionaire". All you need is an idea, luck, and a lot of hard work.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Reddig
Hmm... I didn't quite state, that it's only immigrants who are doing poor, although that is a fact, that they are a problem, which is hard to solve. Besides, you should.... hmm... change your attitude a bit, because saying "poeple who say this are yaddayadda" only makes the others who don't agree with you more sure about their views.

i didnt state that the only ones who are doing poor are immigrants either. If you reread my post i said it is 'mostly illegal immigrants'. MOSTLY. not totally. I dont care how sure anyone else is about their views. I only care about my views. This is especially true about any discussions about socialism. I am convinced socialism is stupid and illogical and a waste of money. Nothing is going to change that and i really could care less what sob-sister pleas the leftists have to defend their illogical ideas.

What I wanted to show, was the connection between unemployment rate and the wealth state of the citizens. Now I don't know how the american welfare system works, but i rather can't believe that it doesn't do anything in the matter of poverty. Besides high outlay on the social support for the needing does have it's negative sides - it drains money as nothing else does (the overgroth of the social support system is the main reason for very serious polish economical problems), it spoils the society, it corrupts and slows down the economy and the market. It is needed of course, but it has to be controlled not to go too much into the social side.

a small amount of welfare money is a good thing. however, the socialists keep wanting to up the amount taken out of a worker's salary. The more money collected, the more money can be wasted.



Another thing, that USA gets the best marks if it comes to chances of a single person to change his social class during his life. I think I already mentioned it - for what an american needs about 15 years the sweds need 3 generations (if they are lucky). The is almost no other country where a career "from a bootblack to a milionaire". All you need is an idea, luck, and a lot of hard work.

I dont think the united staets is the only country that allows for social mobility. But the way the united states is run makes social mobility much easier.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
That's a bit of a childish ending which is a shame.

There are overweight Americans who are suffering symptoms of being manourished. There is an undrclass in America that lives below the poverty line and this is more pronounced in the United States than anywhere else in the developed world. Brshing it under the carpet by saying it is "probably their fault for being lazy" is doing nothing and thinking nothing to contribute to helping the situation. Look around you, look at the poverty you try not to see. It is real.

This is truly my last reply to you. I am not being childish in the way i am ending this discussion. I merely consider your arguments to be so off base with reality (wake up! America has very little poverty! people LIKE to eat junk food. Even rich people eat junk food and are not healthy) that it is not worht the trouble to reply to them.

[notmarcie]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/national/main527453.shtml

Its from one year ago. It has a link on it called The Nation we live in, which will take you to a map of the US and you can click on each state and see how many people are in poverty in each state. It also offers figure for previous yars which shows that although there has been a rise in poverty due to a poor economy, there has always been a significant underclass below the poverty line.

The statistics are from the the Census Bureau not a liberal charity who are producing sob stories.

You can choose to accept them or ignore them as you wish, but it is evidence (if not proof) of poverty in the US

[squealpiggy]

I dont care how sure anyone else is about their views. I only care about my views. This is especially true about any discussions about socialism.

Without wanting to sound stupid... why post in debatesa if you don't care about anyone else's views?

I'm not a socialist, I'm a centrist, but your views are hard right bordering on extremism and are really quite disturbing. And your dismissal of any other ethos is also quite frightening.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Without wanting to sound stupid... why post in debatesa if you don't care about anyone else's views?

I'm not a socialist, I'm a centrist, but your views are hard right bordering on extremism and are really quite disturbing. And your dismissal of any other ethos is also quite frightening.

Because If people want to be socialists then that is their problem. I could really care less. I have a large distaste for socialism and communism because it causes wide spread misery. I do not mind listening to centrists, but I do not feel I have to listen to far left mumbo-jumbo.

I do not belong to any particular political group. I belong to a camp of philosophy called 'objectivism' more than anything. I do not like politics because most politicians are out to take peoples money and find new and stupid ways to waste it.

In what ways are my views bordering on extremism? I have not even really stated any of my views (don't really have any reason to) other than the fact that I dont think there is a huge poverty problem in america. Is that too extreme for you?

[Ogilvy]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
Benevolent dictatorship is the best government but there are few benevolent dictators and that is beside the point.
Communism is a good alternative, though sometimes it can become perverted. Have you read walden two?

I disagree. A benevolent dictatorship would not work. Nobody has the intellectual capacity to run a country well by themselves. There must be some participation by others in the government.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Ogilvy
I disagree. A benevolent dictatorship would not work. Nobody has the intellectual capacity to run a country well by themselves. There must be some participation by others in the government.

I dunno..there have been some pretty iron handed leaders throughout history who have had almost complete control over their country. Of course they have ppl to help them carry out their orders...but they are still the ones making the orders.

[Ogilvy]

Originally posted by often Ndisguise
I dunno..there have been some pretty iron handed leaders throughout history who have had almost complete control over their country. Of course they have ppl to help them carry out their orders...but they are still the ones making the orders.

Yes, they can run the country, but can they run it well? The answer, I think, is no. A dictator could not possibly keep everybody happy, even if he tried.

[often Ndisguise]

lol i am in no way suggesting that dictators make for a well-run country. But of course they can run a country....providing they spill alot of blood and terrorize the masses.

Then again, it is impossible for everyone in a country to be happy....no system of govt is perfect and even if there was a perfect system of govt there wold still be ppl suffering

[Ogilvy]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
Benevolent dictatorship is the best government but there are few benevolent dictators and that is beside the point.
Communism is a good alternative, though sometimes it can become perverted. Have you read walden two?

Communism, like anarchy, only works in very small populations. It can't work for countries with millions of people. If you're stranded on a desert island with nine other people, then hey, communism and anarchy might work, but no way is it going to work in a large country.

[Ogilvy]

Originally posted by Sloth
actually the system is perfect... but look at what we have to work with...

No man-made system is perfect. Anything made by human hands is inherently flawed.

[Ogilvy]

Originally posted by [murray]
WHAT PART OF COMMUNISM AND LENINISM ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS DONT YOU FUCKTARDS FUCKING WELL UNDERSTAND?!?!

"OMG COMMUNISM FUCKED RUSSIA OVER!!!322342oneoneone!"

No it fucking didnt, LENIN fucked Russia over. If youve actually read into it at all, youd understand that Lenin didnt give a shit about the peasants and the industrial workers, he was only interested in the middle classes and the landed roletariat. He never wanted equalit for all, he was a wolf in sheeps clothing, not a communist ut a fascists dictator who was no better than Hitler and Saddam Hussein, incase you're stupid enough to think Hitler was a jolly nice fellow as well.

The basic premise of communism is equality for all, not equality for some.

Get the facts before you're going to slag something off, you morons.

(This rant is not directed at everyone in this thread, only the ones comparing leninism and communism as the same thing, you know who you are.)

It's impossible. There cannot be equality for all. There will always have to be a strong government to "enforce" communism, and this will always regress to a small elite class that oppresses the poor and perverts the original goal of communism.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by Ogilvy
It's impossible. There cannot be equality for all. There will always have to be a strong government to "enforce" communism, and this will always regress to a small elite class that oppresses the poor and perverts the original goal of communism.

indeed. And at least with capitalism you usually hav a large middle class in addition to the elite class. Capitalism really has a much fairer distribution of wealth than communism does. Communism turns into "only the ppl who are on the good side of the politicos get any moola or any perks".

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Ogilvy
No man-made system is perfect. Anything made by human hands is inherently flawed. you say that like its a bad thing....

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by often Ndisguise
Because If people want to be socialists then that is their problem. I could really care less. I have a large distaste for socialism and communism because it causes wide spread misery. I do not mind listening to centrists, but I do not feel I have to listen to far left mumbo-jumbo.

I do not belong to any particular political group. I belong to a camp of philosophy called 'objectivism' more than anything. I do not like politics because most politicians are out to take peoples money and find new and stupid ways to waste it.

In what ways are my views bordering on extremism? I have not even really stated any of my views (don't really have any reason to) other than the fact that I dont think there is a huge poverty problem in america. Is that too extreme for you?

Capitalism, especially world capitalism also causes widespread misery. Capitalism unregulated of the sort that you get in China, Jakarta, Africa, results in tyrannical executives using an easy threat of relocating operations to keep local governments from calling foul about labour practices, keep ocal bosses bending the rules, keep local security ruling with an iron fist and keep the workers from having access to unions and in fear that their jobs will disappear. The capitalist companies that have these practices are the most recognisablew brands, Nike, Adidas, Reebok etc.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Capitalism, especially world capitalism also causes widespread misery. Capitalism unregulated of the sort that you get in China, Jakarta, Africa, results in tyrannical executives using an easy threat of relocating operations to keep local governments from calling foul about labour practices, keep ocal bosses bending the rules, keep local security ruling with an iron fist and keep the workers from having access to unions and in fear that their jobs will disappear. The capitalist companies that have these practices are the most recognisablew brands, Nike, Adidas, Reebok etc.

China has been communist for quite awhile.....:confused:

I dont think that the economic systems used in China or Africa are anything like the capitalistic systems taht developed in western europe and america. The reason west. europe and america have such high standards of living is that they are capitalistic

BTW could one of the mods kindly change the title of this topic from 'capitolism' to 'capitalism'. That has been annoying the heck out of me for a month now.:D

[squealpiggy]

China is in fact a people's republic, it is not communist per se.

Basically the west was built on capitalist ideals, all well and good, manufacture providing jobs which provide income which provide a marketplace to sell the manufactured goods. Now you have a system where the market is no longer contained within a single economy, it is instead released into a global economy so companies make use of poor labour laws and cheap workers to produce goods at a greater profit margin. So pure capitalism exploits the lower classes and keeps them in line with threat of job losses in order to provide a hefty profit with which to market to the middle classes.

[Reddig]

China = people's republic. Pffft <snigger>. Yeah, they call themselves that way. They always did. And they are still a communistic (or at least real-socialism) country, with no more than a few elements of capitalism. Blaming capitalism and big companies for China's misery makes as much sense as blaming punk-rock industry for the existance of Avril Lavigne. China's poverty was there in the first place, and the companies giving mass jobs for petty (for us at least) money in bad conditions only help these people. Without them they would have no job, or they would have a worse one, in worse conditios, for even smaller money.


There is a good example for capitalism being 50000 times better than communism. South Korea and North Korea. After the war, when both Koreas were created North Korea had better natural resources, help from just outside the border and was generally wealthier. South Korea on the other had almost no resources and was isolated. In the early 80's South Korea began to liberalise it's politics and economy. In the 90's it was one of the most capitalised countries in the region. When that was hapening the always communistic North Korea suffered from famine (about 2 milion people died between 1995-1999 from starvation).

Ndisguise: western countries don't have capitalism because they are rich - they are rich because they've had capitalism.

[Rogue]

Ndisguise: western countries don't have capitalism because they are rich - they are rich because they've had capitalism. [/B]

I changed my name.

Yess... you will find that i never stated anything to the contrary. I never for one second ever suggested that western countires have capitalism bc they are rich.

here are my exact words: "The reason west. europe and america have such high standards of living is that they are capitalistic"

That is stating that they are rich bc of capitalism.

[SemiCircle]

no communist country has ever called itself communist per se (to my knowledge). china is most definately possibly communist. the word has a bit of a dodgy meaning nowadays; communism in china is very different from the communism of russia, for example.

v good point about the globalisation thing, squealpiggy. the big question is, does it matter? it probably does, yes. but in a couple of centuries, it'll have sorted itself out, like every other class divide thus far in history has. marx wasn't totally wrong, y'know.

[squealpiggy]

The sad thing is that to sort itself out at it's current pace it would need a massive depression in the West to even out the wealth a ittle and allow now developing countries to compete with the West for purchasing power. Depression in this case would be a localised Western depression, and there would be booms in other parts of the world. Of course the companies that are bringing this about will simply move to where the wealth is.

And I am not saying that China is poor because of capitalism but the major companies are certainly exploiting that poverty. China is a people's republic having more in common with far left authoritarian socialism than with communism per say.

[Reddig]

no communist country has ever called itself communist per se (to my knowledge).

Err... Well, China's leading political force and main source of rule is called "the Communistic China Party" (or something like that... Komunistyczna Partia Chin, if you know what I mean). Besides, communism is either a political reign, or economical reign, so no wonder "communism" is not mentioned in the name of a country (have you ever heard a country calling itself "capitalistic" or "liberal"?)


And I am not saying that China is poor because of capitalism but the major companies are certainly exploiting that poverty.

Is that a bad thing? Both - the companies and the "hard working people of... wherever" are getting something out of this. China's people would definately loose, if Reebok or Nike were to leave China.


China is a people's republic having more in common with far left authoritarian socialism than with communism per say.

You could say that about every communistic country. It depends what you mean by communism. If we are talking about the real-communism, than your quote won't be true, because the real-communism has authoritarian socialism built in as a political course. On the other hand, if we are talkig about the ideal communism, than your statement will be true in every situation, because (as we already know) communism has a major flaw above other flaws - it is impossible, so the systems we have do have more out of some kind of authoritarian or totalitarian socialism.

[squealpiggy]

China's people would definately loose, if Reebok or Nike were to leave China.


No, China's government would lose. China's people are being exploited to believe that they would lose, hence Nike and Reebok (rather the franchised contractors that manufacture for them) can use political influence to make sure that the authorities turn a blind eye to unfair working practices and can maximise profit and minimise expenditure. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a left winger, and I've looked at this from all angles, but read No Logo by Naomi Klein for more in depth looks at how capitalism in developing countries can be a very bad thing.

[Reddig]

But you didn't understand me. I know that Reebok, Nike, Adidas and companies X, Y, Z, etc. are exploiting China, and taking advantage of the people there.

But imagine, that these companies just leave. People loose their low-paid, bad-condition jobs, and are left for themselves. Most of them won't find a job and will suffer even more serious poverty than they did when the evil capitalistic companies were there. What will they do then?

[Salty Samurai]

Communism is the way of the Samurai, its ideas were written in the five sacred scroll by our ancestors ten thousand years ago, the people listened with open minds and flowing heads, our views shoved down the throughts of our enimies on the tips of our swords, we are united, we are strong.

[eleventh-pie]

Communism is also the way of the pie, for we follow the same basic tenets as the Samurai

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Reddig
But you didn't understand me. I know that Reebok, Nike, Adidas and companies X, Y, Z, etc. are exploiting China, and taking advantage of the people there.

But imagine, that these companies just leave. People loose their low-paid, bad-condition jobs, and are left for themselves. Most of them won't find a job and will suffer even more serious poverty than they did when the evil capitalistic companies were there. What will they do then?

No people will go back to the low paid jobs they did previously. Plus they would go back to working for the state.

[SemiCircle]

but there would be no money coming in. the economy would grow stagnant without foreign investment. it is too technologically inferior compared with, say, japan, to offer anything to the global economy beyond sheer manpower. it needs the foreign corporations as much as they need it.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
but there would be no money coming in. the economy would grow stagnant without foreign investment. it is too technologically inferior compared with, say, japan, to offer anything to the global economy beyond sheer manpower. it needs the foreign corporations as much as they need it.

The factories are built on formerly farmland so the people are being taken from farming into manufacture and then are left without land, so therefore are in a worse situation than before such "investment".

[Reddig]

But working in the factories puts them in a better posotion, than the one they were before the factory. Besides, unemployment began to become dangerously high before the western concerns were let in. Now it's a bit better, and people have jobs (bad, good - doesn't matter)...

[Rogue]

If you really thought capitalism was all that bad, you might want to give up your computer. The internet and modern personal computers are the product of a capitalistic economy.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Reddig
But working in the factories puts them in a better posotion, than the one they were before the factory. Besides, unemployment began to become dangerously high before the western concerns were let in. Now it's a bit better, and people have jobs (bad, good - doesn't matter)...

But do you not believe that the Western companies should be a little bit more humanitarian when giving contracts to give people fair working conditions? After all we're talking about profit margins that would suffer, not prices being raised...

And I am not against capitalism, I can't stress this enough. I am merely stating the position that capitalism isn't always the saviour of the world.

[Rogue]

no economic system is enough to save the world. Although capitalism sure is a big help..

Being a christian I feel that only god can save us.

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Rogue
no economic system is enough to save the world. Although capitalism sure is a big help..

Being a christian I feel that only god can save us.

Well He's doing a cracking job of it so far!

[Rogue]

Most of the evil that has befallen humanity is humanity's own fault. Particularly incidents such as WW2 and the communist disaster in russia.

I love God personally.

[squealpiggy]

I know but if it's God's job to save us then He should be saving us even from ourselves....

That's a different discussion though.

[Wally]

AAAAAAAAAAH!
YOU ALL ARE CRAZY!
TRYING TO BE LIKE STALIN!
Capitalism is okay and here in Holland we give things to the poor (NANANANANANANA! WE GOT MORE FREEDOM... stupid other countries.. we can smoke weed and you can't... FRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!)

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Wally
AAAAAAAAAAH!
YOU ALL ARE CRAZY!
TRYING TO BE LIKE STALIN!
Capitalism is okay and here in Holland we give things to the poor (NANANANANANANA! WE GOT MORE FREEDOM... stupid other countries.. we can smoke weed and you can't... FRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!)

OK so perhaps marijuana shouldn't be legalised :cool:

[Rogue]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
OK so perhaps marijuana shouldn't be legalised :cool:

lol! but i like the cut of young wally's jib.

[kitchard]

Problem is that the huge companies that capitolism promotes stifle the continued growth of our culture. Do you really think that the huge petrol consortiums are really going to let other forms of fuel look any good until it's far too late (electric cars...pah!)? Mega corporations never want something better to come out unless it's their own and only a bit better. Science is becoming more and more corporate until one day all the research in the world will be for how many blades you can actually fit onto a razor (ooohh...smooth) or something equally anal.

The problem is that communism is rubbish and never works. Shame cos it's good in theory....