NationStates Jolt Archive

Which system do you like better. I like Capitalism because you can make lots of money and become rich.

Capitalism, baby.

Capitalism. Due in part to the fact that while Communism sounds good on paper, in pratical application, it does not work because of the human greed factor.

Capitalism, if you would have us choose between two extremes. :?

Oh, for the love of god, not another one of these threads! :x

Capitalism. Due in part to the fact that while Communism sounds good on paper, in pratical application, it does not work because of the human greed factor.

Communism. Capitalism sounds good on paper (actually it doesn't, what's so great about a system built on élitism and ultranarrow self-interest centered around profit?), but in practice, it results in poverty, crime, mental anguish, etc.

Communism, by contrast has been put into practice only a few times (not counting prehistoric societies, which were mostly anarcho-communist), but worked well before crushed by fascists. I can quote a good example of anarcho-communism:

"Artisans, barbers and other non-agricultural workers were also grouped into collectives... ...Within this unit, the land was divided between work teams (brigada) of ten to fifteen people on a technical basis. Within the brigada, less pleasant tasks were rotated and shared, and each person encouraged to perform those task (s) for which s/he had special competence... ...Management committees with regularly rotating memberships were elected to oversee the economic and social activities on each collective, and monthly general assemblies of both working and non-working members were held to review production plans, evaluate progress and redesign stages of production... ...Overall, no tasks were given status over others, no did any collective members get paid for doing administrative work: in most collectives, payment was done according to need: all collective members were assured of food, clothing and shelter...

...Most collective villages were able to improve the living standards of their members, and strenuous efforts were made in most cases to increase production... ...This was often done quite successfully, as formerly vacant land was brought under cultivation, herds increased, conservation measures introduced (such as crop rotation and planting to trees to prevent soil erosion), and, with the help of technicians and agronomists, new or better farming techniques applied (for example, irrigation was greatly expanded, selective cattle breeding developed, and tree nurseries established)... ...In some cases, harvests were increased by up to five times their pre-Revolution level..."

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I wonder which will win? :roll:

Theres no incentive to excel in communism you can do sloppy lazy work and get paid the same as the guy that works hard where the motivation. In capitalism the guy that works and has talent and ability goes on to bigger and better things and the guy that has little talent and is lazy gets fired theres the motivation.

Both in moderation.


yeah, anarcho-communism is stupid

(not counting prehistoric societies, which were mostly anarcho-communist) Unless I am mistaken, the anthropological evidence regarding this is in dispute, so I've heard from a few encyclopedias. As this in and of itself is not a fact, and is more or less the only proveable thing in a political debate, anarcho-primitivism is not really a viable option for defending anarcho-communism.

You are, however, right in saying that capitalism can cause poverty. It is mostly in laisez-faire capitalism that it appears, so it looks to me. Either that, or in countries just emerging from dictatorships. This seems to suggest that more authoritan government = screwed up economy, but yet too liberal of a government = screwed up economy. There is also the theory that the greater verbal IQ of a population = the greater GDP per capita of the population. Countries with alternate form of resources, such as many Middle-eastern nations living off of oil, are an exception to the rule as they got the one, hard to find, resource that most of Earth needs.

Communism has been put into practice a few times, yes, and regardless of being crushed by fascists, crumbles after the next generation emerges. An example of such would be the city of Zoar, Wisconsin (not sure on the state, but it was in America. Yes, there is also a Biblical/Israeli Zoar.). After starting with nothing and becoming highly succesful in a small, communist society, it appeared communism was going to be highly succesful. After the new generation grew up, new ideas influenced by outsiders eventualy led to the people voting to end communism, if I am not mistaken. I think they had 200 or so people, and they eventualy collectively owned one million or so dollars, in thier times (1800s?).

As for the Spanish anarcho-communists, I know very little of them, nor do I know much about the Spanish civil war in general, accept that many foriegn parties fought there. Hitler and Mussolini liked to play in Spain, as did some sort of British-American-(?)Soviet(?) group. I forget what they were called, were they the International Brigade or something? To see how they were, I'll look them and Ukrainian anarcho-communists up. Until you told of them, I did not know they even existed. The Ukrainians at least.

I'll report back here after I study these Ukrainian and Spanish anarchists, to see what they did and all. Can't argue for or against something if you don't know what you are fighting against!

BTW, I remember you played KOTOR, Letila. Did you ever get finished with it?

You are, however, right in saying that capitalism can cause poverty. It is mostly in laisez-faire capitalism that it appears, so it looks to me. Either that, or in countries just emerging from dictatorships. This seems to suggest that more authoritan government = screwed up economy, but yet too liberal of a government = screwed up economy. There is also the theory that the greater verbal IQ of a population = the greater GDP per capita of the population. Countries with alternate form of resources, such as many Middle-eastern nations living off of oil, are an exception to the rule as they got the one, hard to find, resource that most of Earth needs.

The US has poverty, too, you know.

Communism has been put into practice a few times, yes, and regardless of being crushed by fascists, crumbles after the next generation emerges. An example of such would be the city of Zoar, Wisconsin (not sure on the state, but it was in America. Yes, there is also a Biblical/Israeli Zoar.). After starting with nothing and becoming highly succesful in a small, communist society, it appeared communism was going to be highly succesful. After the new generation grew up, new ideas influenced by outsiders eventualy led to the people voting to end communism, if I am not mistaken. I think they had 200 or so people, and they eventualy collectively owned one million or so dollars, in thier times (1800s?).

Where did you read this? I can't find it anywhere? So they would have had $5,000 each, which would be the equivalent of a lot of money today? I don't buy it. There has to be something you aren't saying.

As for the Spanish anarcho-communists, I know very little of them, nor do I know much about the Spanish civil war in general, accept that many foriegn parties fought there. Hitler and Mussolini liked to play in Spain, as did some sort of British-American-(?)Soviet(?) group. I forget what they were called, were they the International Brigade or something? To see how they were, I'll look them and Ukrainian anarcho-communists up. Until you told of them, I did not know they even existed. The Ukrainians at least.

The Ukrainian anarchists-
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH11.html
The Spanish anarchists-http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html

BTW, I remember you played KOTOR, Letila. Did you ever get finished with it?

Yes. I liked how it turned out the main character was Darth Revan.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Neither. I pick Socialism. Since Communism is more of a form of Socialism than Socialism being a form of Communism, it would be more appropriate to say Socialism, or you can type just a little more and put both.

Fence sitting.

I must concur with Glione, the innate greed of humans is the down fall of a communist state or economy. The bible indicates that this is true of many human endeavors, so it's not surprising. Perhaps we will learn this BEFORE judgement day.

Peace & Long life are in God.

The US has poverty, too, you know. Indeed it does, and it appears that every nation has had poverty from Biblical ages to modern ages. It appears to be incurable.



Where did you read this? I can't find it anywhere? So they would have had $5,000 each, which would be the equivalent of a lot of money today? I don't buy it. There has to be something you aren't saying. As far as I know, they had no problems except at the start and end, mostly after thier leader died.

Zoar (http://www.neohiotravel.com/myweb/Histories/zoar.html)
Zoar again (http://swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/Lebensreform/69)
EDIT-Try searching for the Separatist Society of Zoar


The Ukrainian anarchists-
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH11.html
The Spanish anarchists-http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html Ok, thanks, I'll look into that rather shortly.


Yes. I liked how it turned out the main character was Darth Revan. It was an odd twist, in my opinion, but as the likely candidate for Dark Lord anyways, my charactor probably would have been more happy than not to learn he was Revan. HK-47 didn't mind either.

Communism will always fail because its a failed system.

Indeed it does, and it appears that every nation has had poverty from Biblical ages to modern ages. It appears to be incurable.

In other words, it's connected to hierarchial, class-based societies, just what anarchism seeks to abolish.

As far as I know, they had no problems except at the start and end, mostly after thier leader died.

First, they didn't disband because of the flaws in communism. Maybe this has something to do with it:

"The Society began to decline after Bimeler's death in 1853, and by the late 1800's they were no longer commercially competitive. This and other outside influences caused the Society to disband in 1898 with a division of assets. Each Society member received land, house and possessions."

Not to mention this:

"All intercourses of the sexes, except what is necessary to continue the species, we hold to be sinful and contrary to the command of God; entire abstinence or complete chastity is still better."

You're going to have to do better than that. Kropotkin wrote a whole essay on why small communal experiments often fail.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Hail to Capitalism! 8)

Socialism, but since that isn't an option

Communism. Why? Because in the capitalist world, a few get rich, and many get poor. And the corporations can royally screw people over. COmmunism is just better IMO

"The Society began to decline after Bimeler's death in 1853, and by the late 1800's they were no longer commercially competitive. This and other outside influences caused the Society to disband in 1898 with a division of assets. Each Society member received land, house and possessions."

Hmm...now let me point to the real reason that this is more an argument against communism then an argument that says communism isn't the reason it failed...

. . . they were no longer commercially competitive.

Why do communist societies need to be commercially competitive unless they are in fact a part of the capitalist world, and if they are, which apparantly they are, then how can any communist say that communism is hands down better than capitalism if communism can not even survive without capitalism? I, while choosing capitalism over communism, realize that capitalism inspire progress, but at the same time, our society would be terrible if it was not partially socialist/communist. And yes, part of America is communistic, ever worked fast food?

Hmm...now let me point to the real reason that this is more an argument against communism then an argument that says communism isn't the reason it failed...

A communistic organization doesn't have the drive to expand the way a capitalist one does. That makes them better for the environment, but also, they have a harder time against capitalist firms.

And yes, part of America is communistic, ever worked fast food?

Fast food restarauts are the anti-thesis of communism. They are strictly top-down, with people doing boring jobs for hours on end with little say.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Theres no incentive to excel in communism you can do sloppy lazy work and get paid the same as the guy that works hard where the motivation.

Wrong. In practical communism, the government gives the worker what he/she needs based upon their work. So, if the worker doesn't work, they don't get government benifits. That is the motivation to work.

Also, all this stuff about communism being a failed system - it isn't. There has never been a true communist state in the modern history of the world. All 'communist' states are just forms of dictatorship that want to look better. Stalin, Mao, Castro - all them are dictators, not communists. Communism is an unknown at this point, it has never been tested to its full potential.

Personally I'd go with socialism. We know that works, and works rather well. (Thank you Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Germany, etc...). But again, not an option, so I'd have to go commie.

Better Red than dead.

BLARG, he didn't say there is no incentive to work. He said there is no incentive to excel. As long as you get the minimum requirement done, you're good to go. In capitalism, the more successful are rewarded more than others, therefore there is great incentive to be all that you can be.

Letila, I like how you aren't very good at debating.

1) You ignored my primary argument but
2) still came up with a rebuttle, in fact
3) you argued against a lead in to one of my arguments. That's kind of weak.

Now, please don't argue on any of those points Letila, as they are merely pointing out the flaws of your argument. Here is my argument against your argument, and this is what you should reply to:
Capitalism does harm the environment, I will give you that, but you can not argue that a fully communist world would not also harm the environment. Additionally, with responsibility in the business leaders of capitalism, the environmental damages could be minimized, but you are going to argue "but they aren't responsible." To that I respond with a request that you not compare IDEAL COMMUNISM to REAL CAPITALISM. Of course Communism wins every arguement in that match up. Additionally, you haven't worked fast food, so you are not qualified to answer the question posed as you have no idea what I am referring to. And if you have worked fast food, you still have no idea what I am referring to, so you are still not qualified to make argument against fast food being partially communistic.

Wrong. In practical communism, the government gives the worker what he/she needs based upon their work. So, if the worker doesn't work, they don't get government benifits. That is the motivation to work.

In genuine communism, there isn't a state. Work, in a sense, doesn't really exist. Since workers control the workplace, working conditions rise significantly and social pressure is sufficient to ensure that people work.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Genuine comunism doesn't, can't and won't work on the scale of civilized nations.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works wherever there is a scarcity of resources and presence of human nature.

My money's on capitalism ;) though to the disturbingly large amount of you who think communism is nifty, I suppose that makes me a criminal.

I prefer capitalism, but like communism in the real world it tends to fail. Communism fails because people are greedy and selfcentered and want rewards for their hard work, or very few will work hard. Capitalism tends to fall into a type of entrenched oligarchy where those who are sucessful gain power and use it to prevent others from becoming sucessful. Capitalism seems to have higher tolerance than communism before beaking down, but it does break down (witness the Western world, changing from a capitalist system to the very sort of protected merchantilism capitalism was developed in opoosition to, combined with a hefty dose of corporatism). There is a fair ammount to said for merchantiism as a system, but it isn't a poll option and I cannot say I would vote for it if it were.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works wherever there is a scarcity of resources and presence of human nature.

Who says there's a scarcity of resources? We all seem to have enough to eat, except for the poor people in Africa. Market forces distribute things so well, don't they?

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Capitalism, on the other hand, works wherever there is a scarcity of resources and presence of human nature.

Who says there's a scarcity of resources? We all seem to have enough to eat, except for the poor people in Africa. Market forces distribute things so well, don't they?

Erm, well there's a scarcity of resources whenever there isn't an infinite amount of resources. That's economics. If we really had everything we needed, all the time, there would be no economics and indeed, no need for capitalism. But we don't, and so there is.

It's not even so much a need for capitalism, as a natural result of the situation. Communism has always been the unnatural attempt to become more like ants, who don't trade even if it would benefit them, and less like people, who trade even if communists outlaw capitalism.

Capitalism

Which system do you like better. I like Capitalism because you can make lots of money and become rich.

This is not the point of capitalism. Read "Wealth of Nations."

This is not the point of capitalism. Read "Wealth of Nations."

I'd say it is. That's how it's advertised and we all know that advertising is important in capitalism.

Erm, well there's a scarcity of resources whenever there isn't an infinite amount of resources. That's economics. If we really had everything we needed, all the time, there would be no economics and indeed, no need for capitalism. But we don't, and so there is.

Why is finite the same as scarce? You don't actually believe we all want everything, do you?

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

...

So you've never wanted any material or commodity that you weren't able to produce yourself? Good thing you're not on a computer or anything. ;)

This is not the point of capitalism. Read "Wealth of Nations."

I'd say it is. That's how it's advertised and we all know that advertising is important in capitalism.


Wow. I like how you argue that Communism is better than Capitalism and you don't know the true nature of Capitalism. Bravo.

Wow. I like how you argue that Communism is better than Capitalism and you don't know the true nature of Capitalism. Bravo.

I know more than you do. I know the authoritarian and exploitive side you don't see.

So you've never wanted any material or commodity that you weren't able to produce yourself? Good thing you're not on a computer or anything.

How is that the same as wanting infinite products?

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Dear Letila, you, once again, suck at arguing. So, here is my little analogy.

Yahoo had 4mb storage space and 3mb max file send size for their Email service. Yes? Yes.

Google announces Gmail and starts beta testing (I have 2 accounts by the way). The offer 1000mb of storage space as well as a 10mb max file send size for their Email service. Yes? Yes.

Clearly this threatens Yahoo. They can in no way compete with that unless the upgrade. Yahoo upgrades to 100mb storage space as well as a 10mb max file send size for their Email. Google is still better, but Yahoo gives their entire email service an entire face lift, making it look much prettier. In addition, shortly after, they upgraded their messenger big time. Now the playing feild is pretty level. So, advertisers won't go all for google. Now true, the reason that Google offered awesome email was for more money from advertisements. And the reason Yahoo responded with ugprades is so that they wouldn't lose any of the advertisement money they already get. They did their upgrade for money. But, that's only half of capitalism. This is were the true reason and argument for capitalism comes in. I, the customer, now have the choice of two really awesome email services and I now have a much better messenger service. It actually can compete with AIM now. My life has been made better by competitiveness by corporations. The true logic behind capitalism is that, through competiveness, the most successful company will be the one that can off the best product for the best price, or a more elite product for a slightly higher price, or a bargain price for a not-so-awesome product. In the end, in idealistic capitalism, the consumer is the one who really benefits the most.

It's not. But if there were infinite resources... including time and energy, hey... you wouldn't have had to gone out and buy or steal your computer.

You know, I highly recommend taking a good economics class. If a phrase like "scarcity of resources" is so strange seeming to you, well who knows what else you might learn.

Wow. I like how you argue that Communism is better than Capitalism and you don't know the true nature of Capitalism. Bravo.

I know more than you do. I know the authoritarian and exploitive side you don't see.


Doesn't change the fact that you don't know what Capitalism is really all about and the fact that you are arguing a reality vs an ideality. Argue both as realities or both as idealities or I will label you as no more than an extreme propagandist.

In other words, it's connected to hierarchial, class-based societies, just what anarchism seeks to abolish. You said you can find Bible quotes to justify anarchism, right? I believe that as Jesus was getting some oil for something, one of his disciples asked him why he bought the oil instead of food for the poor. I think he said something along the lines of "there will always be poor." I'll have to look this up, get an actual location [ex. Genesis 1:1].



First, they didn't disband because of the flaws in communism. Maybe this has something to do with it:

"The Society began to decline after Bimeler's death in 1853, and by the late 1800's they were no longer commercially competitive. This and other outside influences caused the Society to disband in 1898 with a division of assets. Each Society member received land, house and possessions." It is debateable that any society has to be competitive as such in order to last. If they aren't competitive, then it is possible that an imperialistic/power hungry (think of the leaders of places such as China or North Korea) state will try and take over them. Either that, or economically they will be destroyed. And no, ending money ain't gonna do a lick of good in my opinion.


"All intercourses of the sexes, except what is necessary to continue the species, we hold to be sinful and contrary to the command of God; entire abstinence or complete chastity is still better." Indeed, it is true that they were a highly theological society. They whole reason why they founded Zoar was because they were escaping religious prosecution in Europe (Germany was it?). A similar society (I forget the name) in Pennsylvania (I think) was founded on similar origins.


You're going to have to do better than that. Kropotkin wrote a whole essay on why small communal experiments often fail. And I think I've read that. Was that a letter from someone to him asking if he would be thier treasurer? Or am I thinking of something else?

Now, for more fun anti-communist activities. The fact that Marx was wrong on where revolution for communism (though it was corrupted from communism) happens is surpising. From what I understand, he thought that revolution for communism would happen in highly advanced western nations. From what I've seen, the third/second world is the only place I've seen the revolutions.

And isn't it funny that those advanced western nations are leading the capitalist world today? Germany...England...America...etc...

You said you can find Bible quotes to justify anarchism, right? I believe that as Jesus was getting some oil for something, one of his disciples asked him why he bought the oil instead of food for the poor. I think he said something along the lines of "there will always be poor." I'll have to look this up, get an actual location [ex. Genesis 1:1].

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." (Golden Text: 2 Corinthians 8:14)

It is debateable that any society has to be competitive as such in order to last. If they aren't competitive, then it is possible that an imperialistic/power hungry (think of the leaders of places such as China or North Korea) state will try and take over them. Either that, or economically they will be destroyed. And no, ending money ain't gonna do a lick of good in my opinion.

They had to be in order to survive in capitalism.

Indeed, it is true that they were a highly theological society. They whole reason why they founded Zoar was because they were escaping religious prosecution in Europe (Germany was it?). A similar society (I forget the name) in Pennsylvania (I think) was founded on similar origins.


Obviously, you neglected to tell me this. They sound very authoritarian and yet you had me assuming they were some sort of anarcho-communist group that dissolved because people genuinely prefered capitalism.

And I think I've read that. Was that a letter from someone to him asking if he would be thier treasurer? Or am I thinking of something else?


You must be thinking of something else. It was about small communal experiments.

Now, for more fun anti-communist activities. The fact that Marx was wrong on where revolution for communism (though it was corrupted from communism) happens is surpising. From what I understand, he thought that revolution for communism would happen in highly advanced western nations. From what I've seen, the third/second world is the only place I've seen the revolutions.

I'm not a Marxist, though.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

In communism, everyone is at the same level; poor.

Ooops, I forgot about the few politicos at the top, they have everything. Looks like communism is only for those outside the government. It's a manner for people who cannot make it in a capitalist society to "make it" to the top by way of winning a popularity contest or by being the biggest bully on the block.

I guess you people that like communism would rather just envy a few in the government that oppress you (with no hope of advancement) than envy many in a capitalist system (with some hope of advancement).

Well, I guess you just admitted that I am right as you have not responded to my arguments.

In communism, everyone is at the same level; poor.

Ooops, I forgot about the few politicos at the top, they have everything. Looks like communism is only for those outside the government. It's a manner for people who cannot make it in a capitalist society to "make it" to the top by way of winning a popularity contest or by being the biggest bully on the block.

I guess you people that like communism would rather just envy a few in the government that oppress you (with no hope of advancement) than envy many in a capitalist system (with some hope of advancement).

So many misconceptions.

Well, I guess you just admitted that I am right as you have not responded to my arguments.

Your analogy needs work. In real life, there are things like monopolies and planned obsolesence.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

There's nothing wrong with monopolies as long as they are made fair and square. Who are you to limit a company or individual's expansion?

I'll tell you who you are, you are the CONSUMER. If you don't like monopolies don't create them in the first place! Vote with your wallet! Spread the word!

As for my "misconceptions" I use history as my guide.

I am not of the school that believes that one ideology is a silver bullet to solve all problems. Personally, I'd say regulated capitalism, simply due to practicality. Taking communism to mean a socialist economy, I would say that it takes too much freedom away from people, but due to human greed it is necessary to have some regulation.

to any of the 13 commies that have voted for communism, show me an example where communism has worked

Well, I guess you just admitted that I am right as you have not responded to my arguments.

Your analogy needs work. In real life, there are things like monopolies and planned obsolesence.


First, let me note that, again, you suck at arguing. When did Google and Yahoo stop being "real life"? Second, you are attacking my analogy because it apparantly isn't realistic when all you do is preach about "in ideal communism" this and "in ideal communism" that. Lastly, of course monopolies have the possibility to exist. They are bad. They are the flaw of capitalism. In real life however, there are things like human pride and self-worth. They are the flaw of communism I suppose. Monopolies however are easier to prevent. Additionally, start pointing out real life monopolies so I can show you how they aren't as controlling as you think they are...

to any of the 13 commies that have voted for communism, show me an example where communism has worked

Agrarian communes in revolutionary Spain.

There's nothing wrong with monopolies as long as they are made fair and square. Who are you to limit a company or individual's expansion?

I'll tell you who you are, you are the CONSUMER. If you don't like monopolies don't create them in the first place! Vote with your wallet!Spread the word!

Right. I so consented to have nothing but Microsoft products.

As for my "misconceptions" I use history as my guide.

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky

Do you know what that means? The USSR wasn't communist.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The trouble with the name "capitalism" is that it implies that the point of the economy is to amass as much money as possible. I do not believe that this is ethically right, however, I do believe people should have the freedom to trade their goods as they wish. In the real world, the world of capitalism, this can be and is abused, so a democratically elected government must regulate it.

Right. I so consented to have nothing but Microsoft products.

If you don't like using M$ stuff, just get Linux or something. It's not difficult.

Yeah, wouldn't you like to be Bill Gates too Letila? I know I would. Of course, I don't envy him as you.

Let me tell you, Microsoft was not born, it was created. It was created by people with a vision, intelligence, and innovation. Remember that Microsoft was not always the conglomerate it is. People like you AND I continue to purchase Microsoft products. I purchase them because they are quality (by comparison and in my opinion) and do not have incompatibility problems with most 3rd party programs and hardware. Why do you purchase them? You do realize, there are other alternatives; don't you like them? Maybe it's not the Microsoft product you dislike but the billions of dollars that a man and organization has? You'd probably like the government (the one true monopoly...on your life) to own Microsoft. You're right, GREED IS a problem...you're just looking at it from the wrong prespective.

The trouble with the name "capitalism" is that it implies that the point of the economy is to amass as much money as possible.

Actually, the trouble with capitalism is that the commies make it out to be that way. If you will read through the post, you'll see I've demonstrated the true meaning of capitalism, well...at least in Adam Smith's vision...

Right. I so consented to have nothing but Microsoft products.


Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are held in check by Macintosh, Linux, Unix, hackers, pirates (Aarrr!), and people like me that build their own computers and go get the individual software they want for it themself. The only thing that makes Microsoft a monopoly is ignorance.

The trouble with the name "capitalism" is that it implies that the point of the economy is to amass as much money as possible. I do not believe that this is ethically right, however, I do believe people should have the freedom to trade their goods as they wish. In the real world, the world of capitalism, this can be and is abused, so a democratically elected government must regulate it.

No, government allows capitalism to exist in the first place by enforcing property laws.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Actually, the trouble with capitalism is that the commies make it out to be that way. If you will read through the post, you'll see I've demonstrated the true meaning of capitalism, well...at least in Adam Smith's vision...

Ok then, what was Adam Smith's vision?

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

BLARG, he didn't say there is no incentive to work. He said there is no incentive to excel. As long as you get the minimum requirement done, you're good to go.

Here's the thing though. The workers want to advance the state so that thier own working and living conditions go up. If the workers do not excel, the state cannot advance because it stagnates at the 'bare minimum. If the state stagnates there, conditions cannot go up for the workers, defeating their goal. So: the workers produce excellent goods because they want to better their own conditions. The state betters itself because the workers produce excellent goods. The state in turn, because it is owned by the workers, betters the workers, achieving their primary goal through production of excellent goods.

What I like about communism is that the entire state is driven towards a common goal: betterment. The state can focus the energies of the workers towards that goal, therefore achieving it faster.

In capitalism, the state has no driving force for total betterment, capitalism is based upon the individual. Certain individuals raise within the capitalist system to better themselves, but the vast majority will never attain the level of living that they wish.

Capitalism is an inherently aggressive system through which individuals compete for control of the system. What this leads to is the competition between the companies that we see. This competition is good for the 'consumer' because it brings the best products at the highest price. That is the base argument for capitalism, it serves the consumer. However, since it is based upon the aggression, the companies try to force each other out of the way. When one company does this and gains control of the market (monopoly), that company does not have to produce anything in competition. The problem with that, of course, is that the company stagnates, or even if it does create new products, it no longer serves the consumer because it does not have to compete in a market to survive. This is where the price gouging comes into play where ridiculous amounts of money are charged for products because there is no competition.

Additionally, with responsibility in the business leaders of capitalism, the environmental damages could be minimized, but you are going to argue "but they aren't responsible."

Right, because we've obviously seen that work in the U.S. haven't we.

Adam Smith created the Laissez-Faire system (don't debate me on this, he was the most published writer about that topic). That was for Letila.

Now, let's not kid ourselves any longer. You don't have to be a genius to see that communism is, ideally, the best system anyone could ask for. But, as much as I hate to flog a dead horse, it'll never, ever work. It won't work because it has no staying power. So there were "communities" tens of thousands of years ago. To that, I have to give a big: "Who gives a shit?" The evolution of society has produced capitalism, one of the many things Marx was either naive about or just inept in observance of.

Poverty...a word similar to "racism" or "sexism." Used to try and end an argument before it can begin, but, like racism or sexism, it's something that no one can seriously take into account if the debate lies within the boundaries of any practical application. For theoretics, hey, knock yourself out. But if you want to seriously discuss economic systems in real world settings...pull your head out of your ass and stop using poverty like capitalism is the only reason it's here or communism would end it. Neither are the case, hell, mercantilists and fascists and whatever system you could think of can't create a society without the poor. Stop trying to use poverty as a legit argument in a discussion about applied economics.

What's the conclusion? Once again, dead horse, but you're living in a dream world if communism is your choice for economic system. Why do I say that? Because there are people who want to make something more of themselves that those around them. People read Adam Smith and Ayn Rand and then Karl Marx and realize that the old man was just plain naive. Because there are people like me out there.

Indeed, Smith created Laissez-Faire, which I don't totally agree with, however, I think you are all missing what Opal Isle is pointing at. Capitalism is intended to create competition so the people get the best product and that just doesn't happen in communism.

The problem is that no one here seems to know anything about communism. I suggest all people criticizing and even many people advocating it read up on it so they can learn what it is about.

The link in my signature is a good place to start.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

to any of the 13 commies that have voted for communism, show me an example where communism has worked

Agrarian communes in revolutionary Spain.

And what sort of life did they have?

There's nothing wrong with monopolies as long as they are made fair and square. Who are you to limit a company or individual's expansion?

I'll tell you who you are, you are the CONSUMER. If you don't like monopolies don't create them in the first place! Vote with your wallet!Spread the word!

Right. I so consented to have nothing but Microsoft products.

Since there are more products than just Microsoft, I must ask what planet you are living on.

As for my "misconceptions" I use history as my guide.

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky

Chomsky is a linguist, not an historian or political scientist or philosopher.

Do you know what that means? The USSR wasn't communist.

Yeah, actually it was.

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." (Golden Text: 2 Corinthians 8:14)

"The disciple is not above his master nor the servent above his lord." Matthew 10:24 (King James Version)



They had to be in order to survive in capitalism. And it isn't going away any time soon. The phrase "survival of the fittest" is a great thing to apply here.

You must be thinking of something else. It was about small communal experiments. The letter I am speaking of was about them and was telling about why they fail etc. etc. This might not be the essay that you speak of, it might be a letter ol' Peter wrote to someone about it.


I'm not a Marxist, though. Never said you were, but this is a communism vs. capitalism thread.

Never said you were, but this is a communism vs. capitalism thread.

But I don't follow Marx's views.

And what sort of life did they have?

"...the land was divided between work teams (brigada) of ten to fifteen people on a technical basis. Within the brigada, less pleasant tasks were rotated and shared, and each person encouraged to perform those task (s) for which s/he had special competence (Breitbart 1979b; Geurin 1970). Management committees with regularly rotating memberships were elected to oversee the economic and social activities on each collective, and monthly general assemblies of both working and non-working members were held to review production plans, evaluate progress and redesign stages of production (Breitbart 1979b; Geurin 1970). Overall, no tasks were given status over others, no did any collective members get paid for doing administrative work: in most collectives, payment was done according to need: all collective members were assured of food, clothing and shelter..."

Chomsky is a linguist, not an historian or political scientist or philosopher.

So? That doesn't make his views immediately invalid. You aren't a political scientist or philosopher. Does that make your comments invalid?

Yeah, actually it was.

No, they didn't have the characteristics of communism. Did workers own the means of production? Was money abolished? No. They weren't communist.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The trouble with the name "capitalism" is that it implies that the point of the economy is to amass as much money as possible. I do not believe that this is ethically right, however, I do believe people should have the freedom to trade their goods as they wish. In the real world, the world of capitalism, this can be and is abused, so a democratically elected government must regulate it.

No, government allows capitalism to exist in the first place by enforcing property laws.

So why have there been property laws enforced WITHOUT a government?

And please don't tell me that you're of that idiotic Proudhonian ilk that thinks that "All Property Is Theft" is valid and not a stolen concept fallacy.
If you do, I will have to post Branden's slaughter of it for you and make you feel stupid.

That's only if you do, though.

And what sort of life did they have?

"...the land was divided between work teams (brigada) of ten to fifteen people on a technical basis. Within the brigada, less pleasant tasks were rotated and shared, and each person encouraged to perform those task (s) for which s/he had special competence (Breitbart 1979b; Geurin 1970).

Doesn't sound good to me.

Management committees

aka GOVERNMENTS.

with regularly rotating memberships were elected to oversee the economic and social activities on each collective, and monthly general assemblies of both working and non-working members were held to review production plans, evaluate progress and redesign stages of production (Breitbart 1979b; Geurin 1970).

Meaning: the government reviewed what was going on and made changes to the plan.

Overall, no tasks were given status over others, no did any collective members get paid for doing administrative work: in most collectives, payment was done according to need: all collective members were assured of food, clothing and shelter..."

And who was to provide that?

Chomsky is a linguist, not an historian or political scientist or philosopher.

So? That doesn't make his views immediately invalid.

Doesn't make them valid, either.

You aren't a political scientist or philosopher.

Actually.....

Yeah, actually it was.

No, they didn't have the characteristics of communism.

Yeah, they did.

Did workers own the means of production?

Yep.

Was money abolished?

The ruble was worthless, so yes.

Anarchocommunism is self-contradictory. Whine all you want.

Lenin was an enemy of socialism...and capitalism. But what was the system he adopted to get the U.S.S.R. on its feet? Before you indict us on not knowing much about applied communism compared to theoretical communism, maybe you should read up on it.

Folks, look up the word "communism" in the dictionary. Chances are, the first part of the definition will include the phrase "The theoretical." That is to say, it never has worked, and likely never will. Capitalism, on the other hand, has been implemented because it's realistic and acknowledges human flaws and Social Darwinism, both of which are cast aside in communist philosophy. And remember, Adam Smith didn't even have the advantage of Darwin's writings like Marx did...even the forces behind both ideals are inequal...with capitalism succeeding hands down. To apply other societal theory and realize that, sadly, not all men are equal, the nonsensical communism falls to the pragamatic capitalism everytime. End of story.

neither. i like a mix. For example, Norway or denmark. Switzerland as well(well, on a much more conservative scale)
You can make lots of money, but there are still the huge lack of work benefits and healthcare.

Some people say that true communism never truely existed. What do you think? :?: :?: :?:

communism is a nice idea. but as far as practicality goes, capitalism to the max.

Just for a reference point...and something interesting to do...take a look at your capitalist paradises and then at your anarchies and your democratic socialists...in general, capitalists have an economy far superior but suffer otherwise. I suppose its not an all-around thing, more about what you consider more important in a country.

I will fight with complete conviction with what structure helps me out. I will then look out for others...

Here's what Websters has on the definition of communism:

Communism - n. 1. A system in which production and goods are commonly owned. 2. The theory of struggle toward communism through revolution. b. Socialism as practiced in countries governed by Communist Parties.


That was from Webster's II, New Riverside Dictionary.

Now, it says theory because communism has never been implimented. No matter how hard the matter is debated, it has never been implimented. All that has come from these revolutions are various forms of dictatorship under the facades of communism.

Now, it says theory because communism has never been implimented. No matter how hard the matter is debated, it has never been implimented. All that has come from these revolutions are various forms of dictatorship under the facades of communism.

I wonder why it hasn't been implemented...

Could it be because it would require the cooperation of everyone and there are people in this world that don't want to lower themselves to the same value as the almost subhumans below them? I think so...

Just some questions of curiousity...

To all the proponents of communism,

Did you parents love you and treat you right when you were younger?
Are you one of the hardest workers at your job?
Did you excel at school?
Did you ever play sports?
Did you ever win anything (not necessarily just sports)?
Have you ever done drugs?
Where do you live?

Could it be because it would require the cooperation of everyone and there are people in this world that don't want to lower themselves to the same value as the almost subhumans below them? I think so...

Actually, I think communism is the highest form of government. If properly executed, it leads to utopia, not this so called sub-human existance that you speak of. If you would make the assumption that everyone is communism is sub-human, than you my friend, would be widlely misinformed.

Also, out of curiosity, would you care to explain how those questions to relate to propounding capitalism? I don't quite follow that one.

Actually, I think communism is the highest form of government. If properly executed, it leads to utopia, not this so called sub-human existance that you speak of. If you would make the assumption that everyone is communism is sub-human, than you my friend, would be widlely misinformed.
How can any political system that places an individual subordinate to society be called anything but sub-human?

to any of the 13 commies that have voted for communism, show me an example where communism has worked

Agrarian communes in revolutionary Spain.
I was meaning an example of it working for an entire country. If you want to pick small examples of the idea of cummunism working, I can point to me and my brother having to share everything as children.

Could it be because it would require the cooperation of everyone and there are people in this world that don't want to lower themselves to the same value as the almost subhumans below them? I think so...

Actually, I think communism is the highest form of government. If properly executed, it leads to utopia, not this so called sub-human existance that you speak of. If you would make the assumption that everyone is communism is sub-human, than you my friend, would be widlely misinformed.

Also, out of curiosity, would you care to explain how those questions to relate to propounding capitalism? I don't quite follow that one.

If you would please take the time to actually read my post, you'll see that I stated that communism won't work because I don't want to put myself (and there others that share this veiw, many others) at the same level as someone less capable and qualified to do things. Communism forces that. If everyone was absolutely equal in skill in everyrthing, communism would be unarguably perfect and achieveable.

How can any political system that places an individual subordinate to society be called anything but sub-human?

because it works for the betterment of the people as I explained in an earlier post.

I would actually label capitalism as sub-human because it leaves everyone except for the elite behind. Its a system that eats people up and spits them back out. If the capitalism being decribed here had been in place in the U.S. - heres an example of what could have happened.

Bill Gates, our favorite capitalist, was born poor. He lived poor, then he worked his ass off and got into college and from there started Microsoft be developing (and stealing) ideas. Bill Gates owes his very life to social programs, if not for them, he would have been killed early on from a chronic lack of care for the poor that is present within capitalist society.

Could it be because it would require the cooperation of everyone and there are people in this world that don't want to lower themselves to the same value as the almost subhumans below them? I think so...

Actually, I think communism is the highest form of government. If properly executed, it leads to utopia, not this so called sub-human existance that you speak of. If you would make the assumption that everyone is communism is sub-human, than you my friend, would be widlely misinformed.

Also, out of curiosity, would you care to explain how those questions to relate to propounding capitalism? I don't quite follow that one.

If you would take the time to actually read my post, you'll see that I didn't call the communistic society sub-human. What I said is that I, and others, would not want to be forced to put are self at the same worth as others that are clearly not as valuable. I don't mean this in a racist way. Race has nothing to do with it. But let's face it, some people are smarter, some people are stronger, some people are better at doing stuff, etc. I want my skills to be worth something. I don't think I should get the same as the guy next to me. If he does better than me, he deserves more. But I don't want him to get more, that is why I strive to meet or beat his achievements. (Or cooperate with him, or whatever) But either way, I'd like rewards for my achievements. I don't want to get the same as everyone else just because that is how the system works.

Additionally, you clearly didn't quite follow my other posts, so why don't you answer the questions any way? You replied to the other posts.

(It is people like this guy that I don't want to know I get the same cut of benefits as...)

The implication was communism since that was this debate is about.

In communism, your skills are put to use. If you are smart, you are likely to head to managment, strong, you go to labor. Your skills become your job, they are not ignored. Since (in communism) you would be put with people of more or less equal skill, you would probably not feel that an idiot is getting the same thing as you. You would have a different job. Also, your benifits from the job would be different. Differences in jobs, differences in benifits, that is how that would work. Communism seeks to take advantage of your particular skill so that it can not only be applied within your job, but for the overall betterment of society.


Answers to your questions, then tell me how they tie in because apparently i missed that.

1. Yes, mostly.
2. No, there are others that work harder, others that work less.
3. I'm pretty much average, not an excellent student
4. Yes, soccer for about 11 years, now I play intramurals
5. Yes, most people have at some point or another
6. Unless you consider alcohol and tobacco a drug, no.
7. U.S.A.

OOC: If things start to get incoherent from here, I apologize, its past 1 a.m. out here.

Opal, the fact that men are not equal in ability is not an attack on communism. All that would lead to is a caste system like in Plato's Republic. The correct defence is that a man does not belong to his state or society, he belongs to himself. Because of the premise of ownership of the person, communism is thoroughly immoral, not an "advanced system that we just haven't implemented properly before".

Stirnir, have you read the manifesto? Communism does not seek to own the person, it seeks to give the means of production over to the workers so they can direct society for their benifit.

Stirnir, have you read the manifesto? Communism does not seek to own the person, it seeks to give the means of production over to the workers so they can direct society for their benifit.
When the means of production are the minds and bodies of people, that's called slavery. And that's how it has been enacted every time.

Stirnir, have you read the manifesto? Communism does not seek to own the person, it seeks to give the means of production over to the workers so they can direct society for their benifit.
When the means of production are the minds and bodies of people, that's called slavery. And that's how it has been enacted every time.

The means of production are the factories, the matieral goods, as well as the people. But, when the people control the means, or themselves as you have defined them as, it is not slavery, it is self-determination, the workers decide what they want. I'd hardly call that slavery. Now, in capitalism, where people such as CEOs (the bourgeoise [sp]) control the means (the bodies and minds) and they reap the benifits, that is slavery. You have your systems mixed up.

I'll be back on tomorrow, sleepy time for now.

SOCIALISM RULES!

While full-blown capitalism "will make people rich", only a tiny minority would. The rest of the population will be slaving away for these fat, rich pigs.

Of course full-blown communism is riddled with problems.

What is the alternative?

SOCIALISM!

Did you parents love you and treat you right when you were younger?
Are you one of the hardest workers at your job?
Did you excel at school?
Did you ever play sports?
Did you ever win anything (not necessarily just sports)?
Have you ever done drugs?
Where do you live?

1. Yes, mostly.
2. No, there are others that work harder, others that work less.
3. I'm pretty much average, not an excellent student
4. Yes, soccer for about 11 years, now I play intramurals
5. Yes, most people have at some point or another
6. Unless you consider alcohol and tobacco a drug, no.
7. U.S.A.

I want to see a communist answer like this:

1. Very much so, yes.
2. Absolutely.
3. Valedictorian.
4. All-State Point Guard.
5. You name it, I've pretty much won it.
6. Never touched anything that could possible influence my mind.
7. (Doesn't matter).

If someone who answers somewhat like that still believes in communism, I will then possibly starting taking people arguing for communists more seriously...

EDIT: Point being, of all the proponets of communism I've known, none have been highly intelligent, extremely successful people. They've all kind of been run of the mill and below. And I know that is stereotyping, but even back in the early part of the 20th century, when the Communist party actually was a threat in the presedential election, the base was entirely the lower class. It seems only the people who can't get capitalism to work for them are the ones that want to switch over to communism. And can you blame them, I mean, trial and error, right? But that doesn't mean I want to give communism a chance in America...

Capatalism all the way

Point being, of all the proponets of communism I've known, none have been highly intelligent, extremely successful people. They've all kind of been run of the mill and below. And I know that is stereotyping, but even back in the early part of the 20th century, when the Communist party actually was a threat in the presedential election, the base was entirely the lower class. It seems only the people who can't get capitalism to work for them are the ones that want to switch over to communism. And can you blame them, I mean, trial and error, right? But that doesn't mean I want to give communism a chance in America...

Nice how you equate being lower class with being stupid. Does that mean the minorities in poor innercity areas are stupid?

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Directed to OI:

Communists are not perfect people, no one is, get over it. Most communists are going to be like me, above average but still not stellar people in the aspects you mention.

Of course, I think you haven't met very many communists if you say that they are not very intelligent. Consider yourself lucky to have met an intelligent socialist (who supports communism) on this board. The communist's base was the people that could be considered the victims of capitalism, the ones who could not afford to go to college or private school. These people cannot afford the education that would get them ahead in life, and so, they support a system that grants free education to all.

The closest anything remotly resembling communism came to winning a Presidential election was Eugene Debbs. He ran on a progressive socialism platform in the early 1900s, and even then, he was not a threat to America. The two-party system was too firmly in place, the progressive party (later assimilated by the Democrats) ate him up.

Engels was a member of the upper class, a factory owner. So don't say that people who can't make capitalism work for them are communists, its not really true.

Communism is crap. :evil: :evil:
Capitalism is good :twisted: :twisted:

where are the commies here??
Making a break after the six hour work day or what????
Well: it´s over commies. It´s trash which landed at the bin of history.

where are the commies here??
Making a break after the six hour work day or what????
Well: it´s over commies. It´s trash which landed at the bin of history.

how. . .insightful oh arrogant one.

If you're not going to contribute to the debate, please do something else.

Captialism has a better chance of succeeding on a large-scale compared to communism. While it works on small scales, with a larger populus there is a much higher chance that somebody will corrupt the system, and turn communism into facism

Socialism. Because quite frankly, people like private property and private enterprise. It gives them a sense of higher self determination.

Oh, and just pointing out the USSR wasn't Socialist or Communist, it was a state capitalist totalitarian dictatorship (now that's a mouthfull). (http://web.archive.org/web/20030413110551/members.madasafish.com/~kefka/ussrtotaly.htm)

Socialism. Because quite frankly, people like private property and private enterprise. It gives them a sense of higher self determination.

But most people aren't on the good end of private enterprise. They are stuck selling their labor and freedom 8 hours a day to survive.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

where are the commies here??
Making a break after the six hour work day or what????
Well: it´s over commies. It´s trash which landed at the bin of history.

how. . .insightful oh arrogant one.


Arrogant, maybe.
In tune with reality, no doubt.

^-- hehe, pwnt.

Arrogant, maybe.
In tune with reality, no doubt.

Wasn't Rome a republic that became a dictatorship? If a monarchist claimed that proved the failure of republics, they wouldn't be taken seriously.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Captialism has a better chance of succeeding on a large-scale compared to communism. While it works on small scales, with a larger populus there is a much higher chance that somebody will corrupt the system, and turn communism into facism

Which is a good point. Invariably, communism will lead to contention within the ranks which is why it doesn't work. I like communism, but I do recognize that it doesn't work for large scale societies.

The other side though, is that capitalism encourages corruption to make higher profits. I don't think that a system that promotes to use of other people should be supported. Thats why I'm a socialist.

If you libs are actually fearful that the US will turn into a dictatorship if Bush is re-elected, then you should focus your efforts on winning back congress from the GOP.

I am a staunch Bush supporter, and I have no fears of this country turning into a dictatorship is W is re-elected. If I saw any remote possibility of that happening, I would be the first person yelling against Bush.

Socialism. Because quite frankly, people like private property and private enterprise. It gives them a sense of higher self determination.

But most people aren't on the good end of private enterprise. They are stuck selling their labor and freedom 8 hours a day to survive.

And you're stuck being forced to breathe to survive. We must break free of the shackles of nature! Nature is an oppressor!

And you're stuck being forced to breathe to survive. We must break free of the shackles of nature! Nature is an oppressor!

You miss the point. In capitalism, there is an élite group that doesn't have to sell their freedom and denies others freedom.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

But most people aren't on the good end of private enterprise. They are stuck selling their labor and freedom 8 hours a day to survive.

This wouldn't change if the economic system changed. People work, and in return they're given currency to exchange for food and luxuries.

This wouldn't change if the economic system changed. People work, and in return they're given currency to exchange for food and luxuries.

But it isn't voluntary. If they don't work, they can't live. The rich, by contrast own the factories and the wealth and don't have to work.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

This wouldn't change if the economic system changed. People work, and in return they're given currency to exchange for food and luxuries.

But it isn't voluntary. If they don't work, they can't live. The rich, by contrast own the factories and the wealth and don't have to work.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

They worked to be able to own the factory didn't they.

For all of you who STILL argue that communism can be implemented, in any form, wake up! Think about what you're saying before you say it. Because of a managing class which will inherently emerge, (type A personalities and type B personalities...it's an eventuality) communism in the Marxist sense can never exist either. Why won't a utopia ever exist? People won't let it happen. You want a communist society? A true communist society? Don't care, it isn't going to happen. I can't even think of one in the animal kingdom for crying out loud. And animals aren't vain, greedy, sinister, scheming evil bastards like mankind. There is a hierarchy to all forms of really intelligent life.
P.S. I said "intelligent" so someone doesn't point out that fish don't have a hierarchy of control. I'm talking animals that are more evolved...humans most of all, of course.

But it isn't voluntary. If they don't work, they can't live. The rich, by contrast own the factories and the wealth and don't have to work.

There's a distinction between manual labor and work. Rather, work isn't exclusively manual labor. CEOs and Presidents definately earn their pay.

There's a distinction between manual labor and work. Rather, work isn't exclusively manual labor. CEOs and Presidents definately earn their pay.

CEOs get paid as much as 500 times as much as the lowest paid worker. That's a salary in the millions. Do you really believe they are 500 times smarter than the average person. Come on, use some common sense.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

CEOs get paid as much as 500 times as much as the lowest paid worker. That's a salary in the millions. Do you really believe they are 500 times smarter than the average person. Come on, use some common sense.

Not in the sense of general intellegence. But they're very good at their jobs; they have to be. The upper echelons of corperations are rife with competition. They are the best at what they do, and what they do is necessary for the continued existance of the company; of the factory where the minimum wage workers are working.

Not in the sense of general intellegence. But they're very good at their jobs; they have to be. The upper echelons of corperations are rife with competition. They are the best at what they do, and what they do is necessary for the continued existance of the company; of the factory where the minimum wage workers are working.

How does that justify huge salaries? They certainly don't appear to work 500 times harder than the average worker to me.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Common sense would be to realize that despite the fact that no human can be 500 times as smart as another, (I think the lowest IQ is like 40 and the highest is Steven Hawking at like 220...?) there are people probably 500 times more driven than others. Because of that, people like me, for example, will do what they can to make themselves look better than their peers. My uncle, for another example, is working in Oklahoma right now for beer and cigarettes. He obviously is not a very driven man. On the other hand, as someone pointed out earlier, Bill Gates started out poor and is currently worth in the neighborhood of 40 billion dollars. Going by dollars, thats exponentially more than 500 times more driven, and thats the best example I can think of to show why communism WILL FAIL. Individual drive. It's something capitalism embraces, something communism neglects. Fundamentally, pragmatically, and...well...in every sense, CAPITALISM!

First off, I know communism will never be implimented because of human nature. This is an ideological debate for the fun of it, not for practicality. (or at least it is to me)

As pointed out earlier, yes, Capitalism embraces human drive, which is part of human nature. However, the drive can become 'mismanaged' in a sense is two ways:

People may be driven, but they do not have the means: People can have all the drive in the world to get to where they want to be, but, in the capitalist system, the vast majority of the population is left behind. Since capitalism praises personal progress and downgrades the poorer classes, anybody within the working class will be a victim of this apathetic nature. So, one of the poor can be driven to the ends of the earth, but, since he is ignored in capitalism, he is left out and will never be able to maintain his drive.

Drive may develope into the all expansive 'monopoly' as well. If drive goes far enough, it can lead to dominate the specific market that the drive occurs within. Once this happenes, one of two things will occur. Either a: stagnation of the market or b: overpricing of goods. An automatic consequence is that all other prospective businessmen in that particualr market are driven out of business by the super-corporation. All of these prospects are undesirable as they lead to the detsruction of the drive within the population.

First off, I know communism will never be implimented because of human nature. This is an ideological debate for the fun of it, not for practicality. (or at least it is to me)

I hope Letila reads that. A commie denouncing communism...

(I think the lowest IQ is like 40 and the highest is Steven Hawking at like 220...?)

That's wrong. At least the part about Steven Hawking is. I'm getting a link and will edit it in. Patience.

First off, I know communism will never be implimented because of human nature. This is an ideological debate for the fun of it, not for practicality. (or at least it is to me)

I hope Letila reads that. A commie denouncing communism...

I'm not a commie, I'm a socialist. I just enjoy the debate. I know the communistic theory won't work anywhere but on NS. But, as a leftist, it is my duty to defend the ideology of communism on these boards in the face of capitalistic fascist expansion :D

Theres no incentive to excel in communism you can do sloppy lazy work and get paid the same as the guy that works hard where the motivation. In capitalism the guy that works and has talent and ability goes on to bigger and better things and the guy that has little talent and is lazy gets fired theres the motivation.

EXACTLY! CAPITALISM ALL THE WAY! 8)

Not in the sense of general intellegence. But they're very good at their jobs; they have to be. The upper echelons of corperations are rife with competition. They are the best at what they do, and what they do is necessary for the continued existance of the company; of the factory where the minimum wage workers are working.

How does that justify huge salaries? They certainly don't appear to work 500 times harder than the average worker to me.

That's not what justifies it. What justifies a much bigger salary is the fact that someone's willing to give them a much bigger salary, voluntarily. You keep going on about what's voluntary but if you really cared you'd stop whining because some folk chose to use their money in ways you don't approve of. How hard they work is irrelevant.