NationStates Jolt Archive

The fact that their "survey" is less than one 0.02048% (60,000) of the population (CIA: 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) ) is a good indication that this isn't a reasonable sample of the poplulation. Probability alone should give some fluctuation. And...where is their margin of error? It's not an easy calculation, so I would take their numbers with a grain of salt.
Actually it's 60,000 out of about 100,000,000 - they survey households, not indivduals. The confidence of any single unemployment survey is about 90% with a margin of error relative to the total US population of about.08% (which is meaningless) and the measured population (number of unemployed) of less than 5% - any single survey may be off by up to 230,000. Note the word single, while any individual survey of unemployment (or any indicator for a large population) may be incorrect and should be viewed with that in mind, if continued surveys produce similar results the probabliltiy of error decreases exponentially, When we perform continous surveys of the same population for the same charecterisitc, we need a far lower degreee of confidence since, while any single survey has a 10% chance of being off by more than 5%, two surveys have only a 1% chance of both being off by more than 5%, three surveys have only a .1% chance of being off by more than 5%, and four surveys have a .01% chance of being of by more than 5% and at that point we might as well start betting on green at the roulette tables.. Also note that the calculation of error and confidence is made more difficult in this survey by the reuse of the same sampled population, bootstrapping and a few other factors. As to whether or not 60,000 is a sufficent survey size for a population of about 100,000,000, yes if you're willing to accept only a 90% confidence in any given sample.

This is interesting...It's from the same site (http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm):



So, they even have numbers for what the unemployment numbers probably should be.I'm not certain how you get that. Seasonal adjustment?

But what you want to look at for your argument is "discouraged workers". These are people who have given up looking for work and are no longer considered part of the workforce. Unfortunetely, if you want to compare the US to Europe, EUROSTAT also doesn't consider discouraged workers to be part of the workforce.

Wow, how Orwellian is that? Freedom is slavery! Capitalism is based on exploitation,
No it's not.

Exploitation is Marxist nonsense.

I'm not certain how you get that. Seasonal adjustment?

But what you want to look at for your argument is "discouraged workers". These are people who have given up looking for work and are no longer considered part of the workforce. Unfortunetely, if you want to compare the US to Europe, EUROSTAT also doesn't consider discouraged workers to be part of the workforce.
They don't really explain what they mean by 'seasonal' adjustments. That's why I used both adjusted and unadjusted numbers. I hate to assume anything here, but I image they are adjusting for construction or farm workers that aren't working in the winter. I don't know. It's just a guess.

The unfortunate thing is that these people aren't counted. Those "discouraged workers" are discouraged becasue there isn't a job for them. They want to work, and they should be counted. By cutting these people out it makes things look better than they really are.

Exploitation is Marxist nonsense.So you don't consider exploitation to exist full stop?

I used to be a convinced capitalist, and even a right-winger. A short dose of the real world cured me of that rather quickly.

Funny. A good dose of the real world has made me all the more capitalist.
I have been changed from being a moderate right-wing capitalist by what I consider a few good doses of the real world. So, I think that I have a good idea of the kind of "dose of the real world" Caselonia is talking about.

However, I'm not sure what BAWAA is talking about, so I would be interested in hearing what BAAWA's "dose of the real world" was.

They don't really explain what they mean by 'seasonal' adjustments. That's why I used both adjusted and unadjusted numbers. I hate to assume anything here, but I image they are adjusting for construction or farm workers that aren't working in the winter. I don't know. It's just a guess.

The unfortunate thing is that these people aren't counted. Those "discouraged workers" are discouraged becasue there isn't a job for them. They want to work, and they should be counted. By cutting these people out it makes things look better than they really are.You're basically right about seasonal adjustments. There are other factors like students entering the workforce for summer jobs and a surge arround Christmas, it's more significant in local unemployment numbers in areas with major seasonal employment - Telluride has a big difference in unadjusted employment rates between winter and summer. The BLS website had a breakdown of how seasonal adjustment is calculated taht I read last year, I'm pretty sure it's still there somewhere if you look hard enough, if you're really interested.

As for discouraged workers, well yes, discouraged workers are a problem, (why I mentioned them). For comparisions between Europe and the US it's a wise idea to ignore them (as if they aren't already ignored enough), since neither EUROSTAT or the BLS adds them in to thier unemployment numbers. I don't know if EUROSTAT has compiled the stat recently, but for the 1990's it was pretty much a given that a larger percentage of the working age population in most European countries were discouraged workers than the US. It would be interesting to see if this still holds true.

This is why I like Capitilism...

It gives the individual the right to use there inventivness.

Socialism, although a good idea for everyone to be equal, the only equality is the same level poverty to all citizens.
Norway is a socialist country that has been rated by the Human development Index as the best country in the world, and even has a higher GDP than the US:

Population living below 50% of median income (%), 1990-2000 6.4

However the US, is ranked 17th and last among OECD countries for poverty:

Population living below 50% of median income (%), 1990-2000 17.0

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/cty/cty_f_USA.html

So your argument falls flat?

No it's not.

Exploitation is Marxist nonsense.

If my work produces 100 units of value and I receive 10 of them, while the owner of the factory receives 90, that's exploitation. It's quite simple, under a capitalist system, a worker does not receive the product of their work, the owner of the capital does. That's exploitation.

Vas.

:headbang:
capitalism is an economic system, socialism is a government style, you can't really compare them in the way you are thinking

Rubbish. Socialism is first and foremost an economic system.

If my work produces 100 units of value and I receive 10 of them, while the owner of the factory receives 90, that's exploitation. It's quite simple, under a capitalist system, a worker does not receive the product of their work, the owner of the capital does. That's exploitation.
.
First of all, the owner has responsibilites and costs. And it's his factory that enables you to produce 100 units of value. What could you produce without the factory? The owner has put some effort, risk and resources into creating the factory. In short the factory does not come for free.

Because it the factory was free, and the owner worthless to the production, then you could just work for yourself earning 100 out of 100 units for yourself.

Also, why don't you quit work and start working for someone who pays better?

Norway is a socialist country that has been rated by the Human development Index as the best country in the world, and even has a higher GDP than the US:


I'm from Norway. Let me quote myself a few pages back:


When it comes to the socalled scnadinavian socialist paradises, or whatever they're called here, I live in one; Norway. Yes it's great. It's great being less than 5 million people, having an ocean filled with oil to export, having huge amounts of water falls to give cheap energy etc. Any government would do well under such conditions!

Norway came out on top on the UN report of the best nations to live in. The other nations that scored great where other scandinavian countries, and countries like canada and australia. What do all these nations have in common? Very few people compared to the land area! That's what; few people and comparably lots of resources! Don't be fooled into thinking socialism is the great magic behind, because it ain't!

We have socialism for one reason: Too many hate the rich, and we can afford to!


Lots of natural resources and a small population, that's the magic. Not socialism.
Norway does not have a very healthy private business sector. It's difficult starting your own business in Norway, lots of taxes holding one back. There's not much resource and development. We have very high sallaries and a strong currency, making it very difficult for the export industry. And there's not much export except for raw resources.

Norway is a great place to live in today. Norway is in its golden age right now. But what happens in a few decades, when the oil well dries up? Hopefully sea agriculture will be the next big thing, because again we would be blessed.

Norway is damned lucky. After the second world war we received the marshall help form the US to help restore the nation. Followed by large amounts of oil combined with a small population and in general good nature resources.

Norway is a lucky place, socialism had nothing to do with it. Socialism is just a luxury we can afford at the moment. But I predict it will eventually be our ruin.

A few 'fun facts' about socialist Norway from an insider...

I'm sure you have some McDonalds hospital wings for children in US. For more than ten years McDonalds and some politicians have tried to establish the same thing in Norway. No luck! It's considered a bad thing that businesses show interest in social welfare, it's supposed to government terroritory only! (Yes, it's true!)

And volunteer community work is virtually nonexistant.

It's not long ago they closed down a childrens delivery ward (sorry, english is not my native language), and then just after we had a small baby boom. People were giving birth in the corridors and bathrooms! Corridor patients is generally not uncommon.

Most old people spend their last years in homes. Seldom having private rooms. Sometimes having makeshift rooms in bathrooms and so forth. Often staying in bed for the majority of the day. It's really a shame!

The streets of Oslo, our capital, is during the weekends filled with litter. Norwegian youth go out friday night, to drink, brawl and litter. And it's not cleand up before monday morning.

We have probably the biggest social sector in the world per capita. And we're one of the richest nations on earth. Still you may risk going to a doctor office in the weekend, and find there's noone in the reception. Just write your name on the paper and wait for a couple of hours and you'll get to see the doctor for fifteen very efficient minutes

Norway is great as long as you're healthy and independent. And you can live of the government for a long time without working. But if you find yourself on the wrong side of the system... tough luck. The system is all there is, no alternatives.

First of all, the owner has responsibilites and costs. And it's his factory that enables you to produce 100 units of value. What could you produce without the factory? The owner has put some effort, risk and resources into creating the factory. In short the factory does not come for free.

Welcome to the world of the left. The owner's claim on the factory is theft. There ya go.

Because it the factory was free, and the owner worthless to the production, then you could just work for yourself earning 100 out of 100 units for yourself.

Exacimondo! Or you and nine others could work together and probably create 1,100 units - 110 each. Solidarity and co-operation.

Also, why don't you quit work and start working for someone who pays better?

Why choose exploitation at all? Revolution, baby, revolution!

Vas.

Welcome to the world of the left. The owner's claim on the factory is theft. There ya go.

Ha!


Exacimondo! Or you and nine others could work together and probably create 1,100 units - 110 each. Solidarity and co-operation.

No you couldn't because nobody would have built the factory in your world.

Rubbish. Socialism is first and foremost an economic system.

I agree. But on the other hand one could say true capitalism is a governmental form as well. Actually both are both. Socialism is one of the nicest govts to life in, because everyone has equally divided goods, it's not particulairy one of the most advanced. This is the other way around with capitalism, being a form which doesn't care about personal misshief, because it holds profit above any other values, but it can because of that advance very quickly.

This is the other way around with capitalism, being a form which doesn't care about personal misshief, because it holds profit above any other values
No "it" doesn't, and neither do the people in "it".

Ha!



No you couldn't because nobody would have built the factory in your world.

Sure they would have. If someone decided that they wanted a certain mass-produced good, they'd have to go and build the factory to produce it.

Welcome to the world of the left. The owner's claim on the factory is theft. There ya go.

So why should anyone spend their resources when they could just wait for others to do it and exploit what they built?


Exacimondo! Or you and nine others could work together and probably create 1,100 units - 110 each. Solidarity and co-operation.

You're free to do that under capitalism. Capitalism doesn't stop you. Actually capitalism encourages you to!

What stops you from doing that is that you lack the resources, personal and/or material.

OK if property is outlawed, you can take materials and land from your neighbour. Providing he had anything left for you to take. Or you could share, providing nobody else already have'nt used them. And then you could spend time and effort building your factory, which other people can use as they will. Since, by law it's not your property.

Yeah, and I will take at least 55 of your units. Not because I've actually worked but since property is outlawed and it's not more yours than mine.

Sounds nice.... In a society like that, why work? You gain just as much letting others do the work.



Why choose exploitation at all? Revolution, baby, revolution!

I don't get you? Wasn't it you who said it was free to exploit factories built by other. Now you contradict yourself!

Galtania, apologies for the caustic nature of my initial response to you, it was borne of a frustrating day and far too much caffeine. What bugs me is the assertion that socialism is 'slavery'. I've seen this many times before. This appears to be based on a definition of slavery (I'm not reproducing it here because I don't have it at hand and frankly can't be arsed to dig it up) that I do not accept as valid. It doesn't take a leap in logic to invert the definition and claim that capitalism is slavery. Slavery seems to be a word bandied around somewhat carelessly in discussions of political theory. However, I welcome your response in the hope that you might provide a fresh angle on the discussion.

One point in general to all... with few exceptions (I'm not naming names), most people here seem to argue on behalf of their preferred ideology because they sincerely believe that humanity will benefit from the adoption of that ideology. You disagree with friends and family on various issues, yes? Does that mean you mock, deride and insult them? I'd hope not. I have no problem with people attacking bigots etc, but the political and economic preferences of essentially powerless individuals really aren't worth getting irate about, surely? Yeah, Galtania, I know I'm guilty as well...

Ignorant question - please inform me...

Have either a true capitalist or true socialist economy ever been successfully maintained? I know the US doesn't have true capitalism because it doesn't have a real free-market economy. There are tariffs and embargoes and other socialist government handlings all over it. I'm just curious for some specific examples so I can look at apples and apples and not just theory and rhetoric.

Ha!



No you couldn't because nobody would have built the factory in your world.

I'm sorry, maybe you're living on a planet where factory owners build factories, but here on planet earth, they rarely do.

Vas.

I don't get you? Wasn't it you who said it was free to exploit factories built by other. Now you contradict yourself!

I'm now, officially, sick to death of repeating myself. Fuck off and read a book - there's tons of them here (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/).

Vas.

I'm sorry, maybe you're living on a planet where factory owners build factories, but here on planet earth, they rarely do.

Vas.
He's right. The majority of of factories and business buildings [in the US] aren't even owned by the owners of the business'. They're leased.


I'm now, officially, sick to death of repeating myself. Fuck off and read a book - there's tons of them here.

Well, it's interesting that your link is to books on anarchism, since this is a discussion about socialism. Try this instead:
Haymarket Press (http://haymarketbooks.org/)

And...can we please stop the derisive dialogue. We'll get nowhere by insulting each other.

No "it" doesn't, and neither do the people in "it".
Really?
Then why is the minimum wage still at $5 and change, and outsourcing is all the rage?
Why are these companies shipping jobs overseas or closing the whole factory and moving overseas when they are making record profits? They're firing good US workers to hire labor at dirt cheap wages so they can make more profits!

So, yes it does.

This entire debate is really incomplete because it doesn't allow for a medium between the two choices. I personally believe in an economic policy which is a hybird between the two choices. Some of the policies I believe in include: the government should own its own means of supporting itself ie it owns the neccesary industries to mine its own raw materials and process them into finished government buildings, military equipment, and scientific research. This would creat an enormous amount of jobs for our country and people without jobs such as the poor and homless could be trained to work at these government jobs and thus the poverty rate would decreace dramatically.

I also beleive however in private ownership of the private sector with stricter regulations imposed on the corporations by the government. For example corporations, imparticularly big buisness, would be held almost explicitly responsible for any health, enviormental, fincancial, or international consequences of their actions. Thus big buisness can't harm the enviorment, population, or their workers without hurting themselves much more than it is worth. People might think that this would decreace competitiveness but it would increace it as companies strive to find healthier and cleaner methods to produce the same product at less cost while maintaining the enviornment and safety of the people. If companies go out of buisness because they can't complie with these means than small buisnesses who can comply will grow and thus there will always be new blood in our economy.

Since citizens can still chose thier profession and have the same freedoms they do in the U.S. today i wouldn't call this system socialisim...but at the same time i wouldn't call it the big buisness orientated cut-throat capitalisim that we have in our country today.

Well, it's interesting that your link is to books on anarchism, since this is a discussion about socialism. Try this instead:
Haymarket Press (http://haymarketbooks.org/)

Heh, the anarchist posts to a collection of free texts, the socialist to a bookshop :)

And...can we please stop the derisive dialogue. We'll get nowhere by insulting each other.

Of course we will, it's theraputic. You should try it, why'dya think Irish people are generally so happy and chilled out?

Vas.

Heh, the anarchist posts to a collection of free texts, the socialist to a bookshop :)
Vas.
Oh right, sorry...try marxists.org (www.marxists.org) instead. There's all kinds of texts from lots of people...and in many different languages.

I'm sorry, maybe you're living on a planet where factory owners build factories, but here on planet earth, they rarely do.

That's completely irrelevant to my point. Nobody would have built the factory.

He's right. The majority of of factories and business buildings [in the US] aren't even owned by the owners of the business'. They're leased.

So?
Really?
Then why is the minimum wage still at $5 and change, and outsourcing is all the rage?
Why are these companies shipping jobs overseas or closing the whole factory and moving overseas when they are making record profits? They're firing good US workers to hire labor at dirt cheap wages so they can make more profits!

So, yes it does.

If I was only interested in profits I'd work 18 hours a day in a corporate job instead of researching physics. I also wouldn't donate any money to charity. I wouldn't have children and I wouldn't spend money on beer and CDs. People want to get more stuff but it's neither their most important priority nor something unique to any particular economic system.

Capitalism cannot be opposed to socialism.

Socialism is contradictory to LIBERALISM, and not to capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic though, not a political though.

Capitalism can be opposed to FEUDALISM, for instance.

Both socialism and liberalism are political forms of the relation between the State and the individuals:
socialism claims that social equality is more important than individual liberty, liberalism claims that individual liberty is more important than social equality.

And both socialism and liberalism are political forms that depends on the capitalism. There´s not liberalism without capitalism, there is not socialism without capitalism (even if there is a capitalism of State, where the State plays the role of the capital's owner, like in Soviet Union).

Ah, but what are the chances that anyone here will go off and read the works of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and the others? I would, but I'm interested; most people don't care in the least. They're content in their little world, where commies are evil without question, and greed and self-interests are excellent regulators.

If I was only interested in profits I'd work 18 hours a day in a corporate job instead of researching physics. I also wouldn't donate any money to charity. I wouldn't have children and I wouldn't spend money on beer and CDs. People want to get more stuff but it's neither their most important priority nor something unique to any particular economic system.
I didn't disagree with you about the individual people. My disagrement is about the system...the corporate entities. They are only interseted in the bottom line...profits.

Physics? Me too. What field? HEP here.

I didn't disagree with you about the individual people. My disagrement is about the system...the corporate entities. They are only interseted in the bottom line...profits.
Quite right too. It makes them do socially beneficial things like open factories in the 3rd world and outsource to produce cheap goods.

Physics? Me too. What field? HEP here.
Snap! 1st yr PhD in theory at Glasgow, you?

Capitalism cannot be opposed to socialism.

Socialism is contradictory to LIBERALISM, and not to capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic though, not a political though.

Capitalism can be opposed to FEUDALISM, for instance.

Both socialism and liberalism are political forms of the relation between the State and the individuals:
socialism claims that social equality is more important than individual liberty, liberalism claims that individual liberty is more important than social equality.

And both socialism and liberalism are political forms that depends on the capitalism. There´s not liberalism without capitalism, there is not socialism without capitalism (even if there is a capitalism of State, where the State plays the role of the capital's owner, like in Soviet Union).

Ngh! Not again.

Socialism, in a pure sense, is merely an economic system, one at odds, but not entirely contradictory to, capitalism. It is not about freedom of the individual to do as they will, but their ability to create tremendous wealth for themselves by exploiting others.

Liberalism is about personal freedom; doing what you like, so long as it doesn't affect others. Authoritarianism is about telling people what they can and cannot do in their person lives.

The economic system which most strongly supports socialism is communism.
The social system which most strongly supports capitalism is fascism.

Just some fuel for the fire.

That's completely irrelevant to my point. Nobody would have built the factory.

So no co-operative has ever built a factory? Really?

Vas.

The social system which most strongly supports capitalism is fascism.

Just some fuel for the fire.
That one burns quickly. Fascism => strong govt, restrictions on freedom, warfare and military spending, regulation of industry, and welfare state. Fascism is anti-capitalist. Just 'cos it's anti-communist doesn't make it pro-capitalist. Nazi = national SOCIALIST party!

Snap! 1st yr PhD in theory at Glasgow, you?
Finishing my Masters Thesis on tests of CERN's ATLAS detector within days. I'm in Texas right now, but I'll be leaving soon for Wisconsin to begin teaching high school. I was going to pursue a PhD, but felt it was more important that we have good teachers.

That one burns quickly. Fascism => strong govt, restrictions on freedom, warfare and military spending, regulation of industry, and welfare state. Fascism is anti-capitalist. Just 'cos it's anti-communist doesn't make it pro-capitalist. Nazi = national SOCIALIST party!

A very simplistic view of fascism. The 'welfare' state is weak and incomplete, designed to prevent worker revolt rather than provide aid and comfort. Fascism is definitely not free market, though is strongly pro-business and supportive of capitalism. To be specific, it is in favor of an economy controlled by business leaders, who are closely connected with those in power.

And yes, the Nazi party did call itself the National Socialist Party, yet it exhibited no socialist characteristics once in power. It is rare for someone to be judged by the labels they give themselves, when their actions are both clear and contradict that label.

Quite right too. It makes them do socially beneficial things like open factories in the 3rd world and outsource to produce cheap goods.
"socially benificial"...
*falls out of chair and rolls on the ground in laughter*
LMFAO!

Tell that to the worker that lost his job, and the new worker overseas that learns that the person doing the job before was making the same amount of money every hour as they make in a whole month (or more in some cases).

Fascism is anti-capitalist. Just 'cos it's anti-communist doesn't make it pro-capitalist. Nazi = national SOCIALIST party!

Because a group says they are socialists or communists, doesn't mean they are. Just like a democratic republic isn't necessarily a democracy.

Fascism involves military spending, regulations on freedom for individuals, and planned economy all in support of corporations- totally in keeping with capitalism. Corporate rule and State rule working together. You know, like the United States.

Galtania, apologies for the caustic nature of my initial response to you, it was borne of a frustrating day and far too much caffeine. What bugs me is the assertion that socialism is 'slavery'. I've seen this many times before. This appears to be based on a definition of slavery (I'm not reproducing it here because I don't have it at hand and frankly can't be arsed to dig it up) that I do not accept as valid. It doesn't take a leap in logic to invert the definition and claim that capitalism is slavery. Slavery seems to be a word bandied around somewhat carelessly in discussions of political theory. However, I welcome your response in the hope that you might provide a fresh angle on the discussion.

One point in general to all... with few exceptions (I'm not naming names), most people here seem to argue on behalf of their preferred ideology because they sincerely believe that humanity will benefit from the adoption of that ideology. You disagree with friends and family on various issues, yes? Does that mean you mock, deride and insult them? I'd hope not. I have no problem with people attacking bigots etc, but the political and economic preferences of essentially powerless individuals really aren't worth getting irate about, surely? Yeah, Galtania, I know I'm guilty as well...

Actually, your posts were among the most civil I saw yesterday. :)

If slavery is defined as physically coercing someone to work for the benefit of others, then socialism certainly fits that definition. Capitalism does not, because there is no coercion. You may argue that workers in a capitalist system work for the benefit of the "boss", but they do so volutarily. They can leave their jobs if they wish, an opportunity not open to many workers in socialist systems that have existed in history (e.g., the Soviet Union). When a government seizes by force a portion (or all) of a worker's pay (i.e., income tax), that IS coercion, effectively making the worker, at least in part, a slave to the state.

"socially benificial"...
*falls out of chair and rolls on the ground in laughter*
LMFAO!

Tell that to the worker that lost his job, and the new worker overseas that learns that the person doing the job before was making the same amount of money every hour as they make in a whole month (or more in some cases).

Actually, the United States is a net IMPORTER of jobs. Additionally, the pay of workers for American companies overseas is at least equal to, if not higher than, the average wage for all people in that country. In simple terms, $10 there will buy as much as $100 in the U.S., so it is not correct to just compare the hourly rates.

Snap! 1st yr PhD in theory at Glasgow, you?

Say - what do you do for fun in Glasgow?

My girlfriend is studying there in the fall and I plan on visiting for part of November...beautiful weather I'm sure!

Funny how every thread seems to boil down to pro and anti capitalist bickering...

Oh, MS in geophysics

Snap?

Vote Libertarian

Of course we will, it's theraputic. You should try it, why'dya think Irish people are generally so happy and chilled out?

Vas.


Ha ha - I got into many a spirited debate over in Ireland...You all sure can swear up a storm...had a helluva time though...

If slavery is defined as physically coercing someone to work for the benefit of others, then socialism certainly fits that definition. Capitalism does not, because there is no coercion. You may argue that workers in a capitalist system work for the benefit of the "boss", but they do so volutarily. They can leave their jobs if they wish, an opportunity not open to many workers in socialist systems that have existed in history (e.g., the Soviet Union). When a government seizes by force a portion (or all) of a worker's pay (i.e., income tax), that IS coercion, effectively making the worker, at least in part, a slave to the state.

I think there's defacto taxation/coercion in capitalist systems, though unlike socialism the burden is placed much more heavily on the lower classes in form of rent. Essentially, anyone born without property (particularly land of some kind) must pay a percentage of their earnings (and generally it is a very significant portion indeed, much higher than conventional taxation) simply to gain shelter. Until such a time as an individual can afford to purchase his or her own land (and I'm certain with rising population this will only become increasingly difficult) they are totally subject to the whims of the owner; if they cannot pay, they will be forced from their homes, and in some situations, place into prison. As far as I'm concerned, this represents a form of coercion in the strictest sense; there is certainly no way to 'opt out' of the situation.

The coercive nature of capitalism becomes still clearer when we look at the way this mode of production has been used to socialize all of us. Is it possible to 'opt out' of a system which bombards us constantly? The most powerful single medium of socialization and indoctrination is surely mass media; and it is controlled almost exclusively by an elite handful, who shape our very conceptions of the world and possible future world in a painfully Orwellian fashion.

....Capitalism is better than Socialism. Historically, Socialist countries have ended up with a few wealthy leaders exploiting the populace to line their own pockets, remaining in power and luxery while the common man starved. Socialism is a nice idea on paper, a place where everyone gets along and receives what they need via a generous goverent who collects and redistributes the funds collected from the people. In essence, a slightly milder form of Communism. If we lived in a Utopian world where everyone was an angel, yes, this system would work. However, the entire concept of group ownership is alien to humans. People want there own stuff. Have you ever seen little kids fighting over a doll or a toy car, or even a stick? That's what people do. It's human nature. A Socialist sytem does not work because it goes against this inherient nature. I'm not saying that people shouldn't work towards sharing and being decent and respectful towards others, but a political and economic system based on it? Doomed to destruction. A nice idea, but one that will not work in the real world. Not as long as there is corruption and explotation by those in power. Not as long as humans are humans instead of angels.

That one burns quickly. Fascism => strong govt, restrictions on freedom, warfare and military spending, regulation of industry, and welfare state. Fascism is anti-capitalist. Just 'cos it's anti-communist doesn't make it pro-capitalist. Nazi = national SOCIALIST party!
From www.politicalcompass.org:

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country - political, ethnic, religious - whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power."

Corporations left to govern themselves. Isn't that your view? And do you believe the GDR was democratic?

I would jus like to say that you have hit the nail on the head regarding human nature and that greed is the most prevalent factor which is stopping us reaching a socialist or marxist state. But that doesn't mean we should give up ad let social issues go astray.
Captalisim is a bad thing, the best example of the rich poor divide is to look at how the US's abuse of foreign econamys in the name of "freedom" during the cold war has led to the US getting rich of the backs of other countrys and then leaving them with poverty

Okay, I don't understand something here.

I'm an anarchist, I regard the state and capitalism to be twin evils. State systems promote and reward greed for political power, capitalist systems promote and reward greed for financial gain.

What in the blue hells is an anarchist disliking capitalism for? Pure Capitalism means the government doesn't have any part in the economy, and isn't that what an anarchist would want?

If anything, I'd think an anarchist would be against the government controlling that kind of thing.

EDIT: Oh, and greed can be a good thing, too.

Actually, the United States is a net IMPORTER of jobs.
It's also a net creator of lower paying jobs these days...for example: destroying good manufacturing jobs and replacing them with 'nice' jobs at Walmart. We may be a net importer of jobs, but over the past 4 years we have a net loss in jobs.

Additionally, the pay of workers for American companies overseas is at least equal to, if not higher than, the average wage for all people in that country. In simple terms, $10 there will buy as much as $100 in the U.S., so it is not correct to just compare the hourly rates.

Yes it is. The world is not a level playing field, and it is imperative that actual wages be considered. Cheap labor is the whole reason these jobs are being moved overseas. If the corporations are still going to be selling their product here, then you have to consider actual wages. You can't focus on the spending ratios between the change of worker when the corporations are not changing their selling markets.

Okay, I don't understand something here.



What in the blue hells is an anarchist disliking capitalism for? Pure Capitalism means the government doesn't have any part in the economy, and isn't that what an anarchist would want?

If anything, I'd think an anarchist would be against the government controlling that kind of thing.

Actually you're confusing anarcho-capitalism (Libertarian patry = insane right-wing US political party that wants to privatize everything) and anarchism, which is anticapitalist in all branches. Anarcho-capitalism isn't the greatest word because you'd never hear a Libertarian calling themself an anarchist.

Actually you're confusing anarcho-capitalism (Libertarian patry-US) and anarchism, which is anticapitalist in all branches.

I think I see what you're trying to say. Thanks.

I have been changed from being a moderate right-wing capitalist by what I consider a few good doses of the real world. So, I think that I have a good idea of the kind of "dose of the real world" Caselonia is talking about.

However, I'm not sure what BAWAA is talking about, so I would be interested in hearing what BAAWA's "dose of the real world" was.
Would you?

Tough.

I think there's defacto taxation/coercion in capitalist systems, though unlike socialism the burden is placed much more heavily on the lower classes in form of rent. Essentially, anyone born without property (particularly land of some kind) must pay a percentage of their earnings (and generally it is a very significant portion indeed, much higher than conventional taxation) simply to gain shelter. Until such a time as an individual can afford to purchase his or her own land (and I'm certain with rising population this will only become increasingly difficult) they are totally subject to the whims of the owner; if they cannot pay, they will be forced from their homes, and in some situations, place into prison. As far as I'm concerned, this represents a form of coercion in the strictest sense; there is certainly no way to 'opt out' of the situation.

The coercive nature of capitalism becomes still clearer when we look at the way this mode of production has been used to socialize all of us. Is it possible to 'opt out' of a system which bombards us constantly? The most powerful single medium of socialization and indoctrination is surely mass media; and it is controlled almost exclusively by an elite handful, who shape our very conceptions of the world and possible future world in a painfully Orwellian fashion.

Rent is coercion? <big game show buzzer> No, but thank you for playing. Coercion involves the use of force (look it up), not just the lack of an "opt out." Rent is payment for a good or service, just like any other good or service. Nobody has the "right" to housing at someone else's expense. By the way, home ownership in the United States is at record levels now, especially among the African-American population (traditionally, if cynically, thought of as "poor"). Recent months have seen record sales of new and existing homes.

Again, the media is not using force, so it cannot be coercion either. Anyone with an independent mind can "opt out" of the "socialization and indoctrination" of the media. Are you saying that most people lack this faculty? That would be very arrogant of you. Or are you just saying that you lack this faculty?

Seems to me like you're just looking to "opt out" on reality.

If my work produces 100 units of value
LTV has been refuted to death. Don't even try it.

Exploitation is a Marxist myth.

LTV has been refuted to death. Don't even try it.

Exploitation is a Marxist myth.
So no exploitation exists? Not even kids sent up chimneys in Victorian times? Were they just living the anarcho capitalist dream?

Say - what do you do for fun in Glasgow?

Dunno. Got any women you want to send me?


My girlfriend is studying there in the fall and I plan on visiting for part of November...beautiful weather I'm sure!

Great. :)

Hmmm. Glasgow has a great nightlife, clubs, pubs and concerts. Good cinemas too and I guess she'll like the shopping if my stereotypes of American women are correct. Basically the same as every other city in the world.

Tell her to avoid anyone in a white tracksuit. Such people are called "neds" (non-educated delinquents) and are generally illiterate drunken vandals.

Is she studying at Glasgow University? What does she do?


Funny how every thread seems to boil down to pro and anti capitalist bickering...

I feel it's my duty to educate the ignorant.


Oh, MS in geophysics

Snap?

I don't know what an MS is but I've never done any geophysics.

Vote Libertarian
Well..... If you really must vote.... I guess so.

"socially benificial"...
*falls out of chair and rolls on the ground in laughter*
LMFAO!

Tell that to the worker that lost his job, and the new worker overseas that learns that the person doing the job before was making the same amount of money every hour as they make in a whole month (or more in some cases).
The overseas guy now has a job paying 50% more than his old one (if he had an old one) so he is delighted. They love globalisation in the 3rd world.

The American worker (assuming your from the US) has lost his job and will get another, probably lower paying one. But EVERY American benefits from the good which is slightly cheaper because of the lower wages. That one worker lost out this time but wins every time it happens to someone else with the net result that the cheaper goods more than make up for the drop of wages. This was proven centuries ago but has yet to make it into school curricula. Wonder why?

At least, this is how it works without govt interference. So yes, it is a socially beneficial thing even though it seems harsh. Best of all, it is non-coercive, unlike trade barriers which use the threat of violence (jail etc) to enforce their rulings. The best thing about free trade is that it is what happens in the absence of overwhelming agressive violence.

It's also a net creator of lower paying jobs these days...for example: destroying good manufacturing jobs and replacing them with 'nice' jobs at Walmart. We may be a net importer of jobs, but over the past 4 years we have a net loss in jobs.

That's true. The govt's socialist/neo-mercantilist policies have been slowly eroding the economy.

Yes it is. The world is not a level playing field, and it is imperative that actual wages be considered. Cheap labor is the whole reason these jobs are being moved overseas. If the corporations are still going to be selling their product here, then you have to consider actual wages. You can't focus on the spending ratios between the change of worker when the corporations are not changing their selling markets.
$10 overseas may well buy the same as $50 in the US. Where the good is sold is irrelevant. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the wages are comparable in real terms, clearly they aren't, but they will get more so if free trade is embraced.

Capitalism cannot be opposed to socialism.

Socialism is contradictory to LIBERALISM, and not to capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic though, not a political though.

Capitalism can be opposed to FEUDALISM, for instance.

Both socialism and liberalism are political forms of the relation between the State and the individuals:
socialism claims that social equality is more important than individual liberty, liberalism claims that individual liberty is more important than social equality.

And both socialism and liberalism are political forms that depends on the capitalism. There´s not liberalism without capitalism, there is not socialism without capitalism (even if there is a capitalism of State, where the State plays the role of the capital's owner, like in Soviet Union).
I'm sorry, I completely disagree with your definitions of liberalism and, as such, cannot accept your argument. Capitalism opposed to feudalism? Many would argue with some justification that capitalism is the overlap between feudalism and democracy. The economic and political spheres are not discrete and exclusive.

Actually, your posts were among the most civil I saw yesterday. :)

If slavery is defined as physically coercing someone to work for the benefit of others, then socialism certainly fits that definition. Capitalism does not, because there is no coercion. You may argue that workers in a capitalist system work for the benefit of the "boss", but they do so volutarily. They can leave their jobs if they wish, an opportunity not open to many workers in socialist systems that have existed in history (e.g., the Soviet Union). When a government seizes by force a portion (or all) of a worker's pay (i.e., income tax), that IS coercion, effectively making the worker, at least in part, a slave to the state.
Thanks. However, the 'socialism' that I subscribe to has no stronger level of coercion that is found in capitalist systems (you can't deny that people feel trapped in jobs and continue in employment they find oppressive as it's the least of many evils). Then again, I'm not convinced I am socialist. I know what I'm not and this doesn't appear to leave many viable political labels...

Thanks. However, the 'socialism' that I subscribe to has no stronger level of coercion that is found in capitalist systems (you can't deny that people feel trapped in jobs and continue in employment they find oppressive as it's the least of many evils).
I think this is the point that socialists and libertarians look at differently. The socialist says, "why should I work if I don't want to, it's oppressive. That guy has loads, why can't I get some of his?" whereas the libertarian would say, "somebody has to work to feed and cloath you and why should it be anybody but you? That guy has loads because he either earned it or someone gave it to him which is none of your business. If he knew you were going to take it he wouldn't have bothered and nobody wins. It's wrong to expect others to look after you even if you don't want to do it yourself. Deal with it."

The overseas guy now has a job paying 50% more than his old one (if he had an old one) so he is delighted. They love globalisation in the 3rd world.
I really don't believe this is an accurate representation of a Chinese or Philippine sweatshop worker's views on globalisation. Dissent has been clamped down on in these nations, so we tend not to hear the opposition. What makes the situation so awful is the combination of dubious (I'm not for now saying bad) economic activities combined with repressive regimes and institutions.

Would you?

Tough.
Polite as always, my fragrant little peachblossom.

I think this is the point that socialists and libertarians look at differently. The socialist says, "why should I work if I don't want to, it's oppressive. That guy has loads, why can't I get some of his?" whereas the libertarian would say, "somebody has to work to feed and cloath you and why should it be anybody but you? That guy has loads because he either earned it or someone gave it to him which is none of your business. If he knew you were going to take it he wouldn't have bothered and nobody wins. It's wrong to expect others to look after you even if you don't want to do it yourself. Deal with it."
Ah, but... let's say that this worker is, um, me. I don't want others to look after me, I don't want to 'get some of his'. It's not that I don't want to work. If I was unfortunate enough to live somewhere where working conditions are poor in terms of health and safety, hours, etc then I would want to leave. But if the nature of the working system is such that I have nowhere to go, then I have to stay in order to feed and clothe myself.

Why should freedom stay out of the workplace?

As it happens, I don't want to work but that has nothing to do with my political views which, as stated before, aren't really socialist.

I really don't believe this is an accurate representation of a Chinese or Philippine sweatshop worker's views on globalisation. Dissent has been clamped down on in these nations, so we tend not to hear the opposition. What makes the situation so awful is the combination of dubious (I'm not for now saying bad) economic activities combined with repressive regimes and institutions.
Yes. Corrupt and oppressive govt is the biggest problem for the 3rd world (and the rest of it too). Without dictatorship and with free trade all of China would look like Hong Kong or Taiwan does by now. Globalisation will hasten the day when the whole world will enjoy the living standards we do in the west.

Genetics is another factor that influences childs intelligence. Hey, that reminds me of another socialist, I forget, what was his name? Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler. He was into controlling everything so the world would be his idealist fantasy utopia as well.

Stop blaming socialism for A. Hitler. Hitler wasn't such an asshole because he was a bit of a socialist, but for other reasons, such as starting a war and genociding jews and gypsies.

Why should freedom stay out of the workplace?

It shouldn't. But freedom doesn't mean just doing whatever you like, because that could impinges on others' freedom. With freedom comes responsibility to recognise others' freedom. Clear boundaries need to be drawn where one man's freedom starts and anothers' finishes. The most beneficial and moral (in my opinion) are that each does what they want with themselves and their property and respects others' right to do the same. If this leads to the most energetic and resourceful employing the others so be it. Many people would rather be employed than have to take a risk, save and invest or worry about the big picture. If that's how they choose to live so be it.

The overseas guy now has a job paying 50% more than his old one (if he had an old one) so he is delighted. They love globalisation in the 3rd world.

Prove it. The anti-globalisation movement is increasingly being led by the South. Latin America is, of course, the main focus, but Asia and Africa are catching up. Try to pay attention to what's actually happening and not just relying on the Economist's propaganda to get you through. A good start is: http://www.indymedia.org/ and http://www.oneworld.net/. Corrupt governments might love globalisation, but the people definitely do not.

Vas.

I think this is the point that socialists and libertarians look at differently. The socialist says, "why should I work if I don't want to, it's oppressive. That guy has loads, why can't I get some of his?" whereas the libertarian would say, "somebody has to work to feed and cloath you and why should it be anybody but you? That guy has loads because he either earned it or someone gave it to him which is none of your business. If he knew you were going to take it he wouldn't have bothered and nobody wins. It's wrong to expect others to look after you even if you don't want to do it yourself. Deal with it."

Exactly and that's what makes you not an anarchist. Libertarianism isn't about freedom of the individual, it's about freedom for me and fuck everyone else.

Vas.

But freedom doesn't mean just doing whatever you like, because that could impinges on others' freedom. With freedom comes responsibility to recognise others' freedom. Clear boundaries need to be drawn where one man's freedom starts and anothers' finishes.
This made me smile. I've been saying this in the UN forum for as long as I can remember, usually against economic libertarians. Don't get me wrong - I'm not mocking you, just enjoying the irony that we appear to have very similar views and have reached (or are reaching) completely different conclusions on how to act on them.

By the way, you have my utmost respect for sticking with physics rather than running away screaming into the night like I did. Sort of.

Dischordiac... maybe he's not an anarchist, maybe he is. However, anarcho-capitalism is a pretty much accepted term nowadays. I think Libertovania is intelligent enough to define himself how he will; he's not coming from a position of ignorance.

Prove it. The anti-globalisation movement is increasingly being led by the South. Latin America is, of course, the main focus, but Asia and Africa are catching up. Try to pay attention to what's actually happening and not just relying on the Economist's propaganda to get you through. A good start is: http://www.indymedia.org/ and http://www.oneworld.net/. Corrupt governments might love globalisation, but the people definitely do not.

Vas.
http://www.iconservatives.org.uk/in_defense_of_global_capitalism.htm

A book by a former Anarchist (one of yours) in praise of global capitalism, from moral and consequentialist grounds. I'm pretty sure he was the source of my quote.

Stop blaming socialism for A. Hitler. Hitler wasn't such an asshole because he was a bit of a socialist, but for other reasons, such as starting a war and genociding jews and gypsies.He was actually a capitalist, at least in terms of his relations with corporations.

He was actually a capitalist, at least in terms of his relations with corporations.
There's a world of difference between free trade and mercantilism, both of which are confusingly referred to as capitalism. Hitler was a mercantilist/socialist, much like our present govts.

A few 'fun facts' about socialist Norway from an insider...

I'm sure you have some McDonalds hospital wings for children in US. For more than ten years McDonalds and some politicians have tried to establish the same thing in Norway. No luck! It's considered a bad thing that businesses show interest in social welfare, it's supposed to government terroritory only! (Yes, it's true!)

And volunteer community work is virtually nonexistant.

It's not long ago they closed down a childrens delivery ward (sorry, english is not my native language), and then just after we had a small baby boom. People were giving birth in the corridors and bathrooms! Corridor patients is generally not uncommon.

Most old people spend their last years in homes. Seldom having private rooms. Sometimes having makeshift rooms in bathrooms and so forth. Often staying in bed for the majority of the day. It's really a shame!

The streets of Oslo, our capital, is during the weekends filled with litter. Norwegian youth go out friday night, to drink, brawl and litter. And it's not cleand up before monday morning.

We have probably the biggest social sector in the world per capita. And we're one of the richest nations on earth. Still you may risk going to a doctor office in the weekend, and find there's noone in the reception. Just write your name on the paper and wait for a couple of hours and you'll get to see the doctor for fifteen very efficient minutes

Norway is great as long as you're healthy and independent. And you can live of the government for a long time without working. But if you find yourself on the wrong side of the system... tough luck. The system is all there is, no alternatives.
It appears that you are not happy and/or grateful for what you have been blessed with? Yet you seem to contradict yourself, first by saying it is a great place to live then suggesting that it is not. You suggest that your country has a wealth of resources but lament what will happen when the oil is gone.

You complain of lack of doctors on the weekend, yet your country has more doctors per 100,000 than does the US, and not by a few but by a hundred.

You complain of youthful partying in Oslo on the weekends and the litter. Perhaps you should visit some US cities that are far worse, for litter, squallor, and crime?

Your human poverty index is the 2nd best among OECD countries compared to the US's 17th ranking, where twice as many people per 100,000 live in poverty.

Your unemployment rate is less than the US, there is less pollution and better school funding.

How would you fare any better under a capitalist driven economy?

Hmmm. Glasgow has a great nightlife, clubs, pubs and concerts. Good cinemas too and I guess she'll like the shopping if my stereotypes of American women are correct. Basically the same as every other city in the world.


Yeah I think most women like to shop - but there are monetary constraints. How expensive are things over there? We are used to things being pretty cheap - $900/month for a 4 bedroom house & $2 pints.

hows the food?


Tell her to avoid anyone in a white tracksuit. Such people are called "neds" (non-educated delinquents) and are generally illiterate drunken vandals.

Ha ha - good to know. Unfortunately, she is pretty ignorant about other countries/cultures - she just thinks Trainspotting and Braveheart...if you see a blond with a thick american accent wandering around looking confused, tell her I said 'hey'


Is she studying at Glasgow University? What does she do?

Yep. Pred-med at the moment - Im trying to get her to make some serious $$


I feel it's my duty to educate the ignorant.

It is a bit frustrating don't you think? But it is comforting to know that the commies and anarchists live in a fantasy world and will never win...because I'll be the first to come over and stomp on their little commune...


I don't know what an MS is but I've never done any geophysics.

M.S. is a masters in science...between a bachelors and PhD. I mostly dealt with using electromagnetic pulses to probe the subsurface for landmines (think giant MRI)


Well..... If you really must vote.... I guess so.
Yeah, Ive always thought of not voting as a vote for the government to just go away...which would be nice...

It appears that you are not happy and/or grateful for what you have been blessed with? Yet you seem to contradict yourself, first by saying it is a great place to live then suggesting that it is not. You suggest that your country has a wealth of resources but lament what will happen when the oil is gone.

As he should be. Have you ever looked at how much Norway pulls in due to oil? I don't have the stats in front of me, but it's mind boggling...


You complain of lack of doctors on the weekend, yet your country has more doctors per 100,000 than does the US, and not by a few but by a hundred.

Canada - 2.1 per 100k, US - 2.7 per 100k...I don't know what Norway's is but I am sure you are right about it being high - they import doctors from places like hungary and the philipines. The number is not the issue - the problem is that it is free, so people go whenever they get the sniffles. That is what causes overcrowding in states with socialized meds. It's a good idea gone awry. The best solution? I dunno.


You complain of youthful partying in Oslo on the weekends and the litter. Perhaps you should visit some US cities that are far worse, for litter, squallor, and crime?

Well, I guess that depends on what city...and more importantly, what part of the city. Most of Washington is clean and safe, just stay away from the eastern part...


Your human poverty index is the 2nd best among OECD countries compared to the US's 17th ranking, where twice as many people per 100,000 live in poverty.

Your unemployment rate is less than the US, there is less pollution and better school funding.


One thing to think about when dealing with "poverty" is the cost of living. I make below the poverty level in the US (10k a year - measly university stipend), but life comfortably because rent and food are so cheap. I even go to the pub three nights a week. Yet I qualify for food vouchers...


How would you fare any better under a capitalist driven economy?
Give it time

There's a world of difference between free trade and mercantilism, both of which are confusingly referred to as capitalism. Hitler was a mercantilist/socialist, much like our present govts.I've already quoted the answer to this several times so I won't use the same quote again. (Find it here- http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343242&page=3 if you missed it).

I'll show this one instead:

"And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." " From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm While the source is obviously biased (though no more then the Caplan you're so fond of quoting ;)) it's fully sourced

I've already quoted the answer to this several times so I won't use the same quote again. (Find it here- http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343242&page=3 if you missed it).

I'll show this one instead:

"And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." " From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm While the source is obviously biased (though no more then the Caplan you're so fond of quoting ;)) it's fully sourced
So what would you call a system based on a welfare state, supervision of industry and nationalised industry if you won't call it socialism? I'm going to call it socialism until you give me a more "accurate" label for it.

Yeah I think most women like to shop - but there are monetary constraints. How expensive are things over there? We are used to things being pretty cheap - $900/month for a 4 bedroom house & $2 pints.


She's in for a shock. We pay in £ what you pay in $ (seriously).

hows the food?

Sucks. Except for good ol' American Dominos and Subway. Try a kebab from "Cafe India" on Great Western Road, you'll thank me for it. (but make sure you're drunk first.)

Ha ha - good to know. Unfortunately, she is pretty ignorant about other countries/cultures - she just thinks Trainspotting and Braveheart...if you see a blond with a thick american accent wandering around looking confused, tell her I said 'hey'
There's nothing to worry about. Same language, same music, same movies... We drink much more though.

Yep. Pred-med at the moment - Im trying to get her to make some serious $$


Always a good thing.

It is a bit frustrating don't you think? But it is comforting to know that the commies and anarchists live in a fantasy world and will never win...because I'll be the first to come over and stomp on their little commune...

Technically I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I know that wasn't aimed at me :)

It is frustrating. I wouldn't care what they think but it effects me when they back it up with govt guns. The price we pay for being ahead of our time.

M.S. is a masters in science...between a bachelors and PhD. I mostly dealt with using electromagnetic pulses to probe the subsurface for landmines (think giant MRI)

Neat.

Yeah, Ive always thought of not voting as a vote for the government to just go away...which would be nice...
Voting is beneath you.

Oh, I almost forgot...

Norway is one of the largest exporters of oil. So as far as pollution goes, they certainly arent helping any...

The US has the best university system in the world...

Unemployment
4.5% to 6%...so what?

Compare economic growth....
2003: .5% compared to 3.1% for the US

Stats are from CIA world factbook
I thought it was interesting to see how many norwegians are in the service sector...?

as a socialist i vote for ... socialism because i don't see why one has to take 2 hardworking jobs just to survive and another one doesn't need to work because his parents were rich. I am not saying we should take the money from the rich people's bankaccounts and give it to the poor people, but i am saying that it is fair to give those with a high income a higher taxrate and to provide social security to those that need it.



So in other words you're saying that "we should take money from the rich people's bank accounts and give it to the poor people"...... :p

Yes, I am left wing. If you don't like it, get the hell off a forum that's all about alternate views, you stupid pillock.
. :rolleyes:

The amusing thing is, you actually deem left-wing "thinking" to be "an alternate view"....

It is a bit frustrating don't you think? But it is comforting to know that the commies and anarchists live in a fantasy world and will never win...because I'll be the first to come over and stomp on their little commune...
Hate to be the one to break it to you darling, but having a goverment is not a necessary prequisite to engaging in defensive violence. Considering I've been involved in street confrontations with the fascists, I'm not particuarly scared of a bunch of economic students. I do find your post fascinating for putting the real face of libretarianism across. Proof positive that you'd enforce your views on others, no?

Why should wealthier people be taxed more? If A & B started off in the same position and A studied hard, worked hard and became wealthy, why should he or she have to pay more because B dosed off a school and then could not be motivated to work hard?
Richer people should only have to pay higher taxes as they have more to lose. But most wealthy people earned their money, so why should they penalised for it??

Why should wealthier people be taxed more? If A & B started off in the same position and A studied hard, worked hard and became wealthy, why should he or she have to pay more because B dosed off a school and then could not be motivated to work hard?
Richer people should only have to pay higher taxes as they have more to lose. But most wealthy people earned their money, so why should they penalised for it??I've already provided research showing that social mobility stalled and stagnated in the late 70's. So your claims of a meritocracy fall down. Unless you can prove different.

I'm a capitalist partly because I believe in helping the poor. Socialism is about pretending to help the poor to make you feel better.

I've already provided research showing that social mobility stalled and stagnated in the late 70's. So your claims of a meritocracy fall down. Unless you can prove different.
But. That. Wasn't. A. Free. Market.

It was and is mercantilist socialism.

Why should wealthier people be taxed more? If A & B started off in the same position and A studied hard, worked hard and became wealthy, why should he or she have to pay more because B dosed off a school and then could not be motivated to work hard?
Richer people should only have to pay higher taxes as they have more to lose. But most wealthy people earned their money, so why should they penalised for it??
Having a high income does not mean you worked harder than someone with a low income.

Hate to be the one to break it to you darling, but having a goverment is not a necessary prequisite to engaging in defensive violence. Considering I've been involved in street confrontations with the fascists, I'm not particuarly scared of a bunch of economic students. I do find your post fascinating for putting the real face of libretarianism across. Proof positive that you'd enforce your views on others, no?

No no - I'm not really serious about that - but someone would (think michigan's militia). I just don't like stupid people.

This is the only role government should play - ensuring people's rights

Careful now, I'll smack you with my pocket-protector

I'm a capitalist partly because I believe in helping the poor. Socialism is about pretending to help the poor to make you feel better.
Nope. It's just a different approach to helping the poor. That's the thing about politics and economics: there are very few certainties, hence all the disagreements.

Out of interest, is capitalism equivalent to free markets? Is mercantilism not one expression of capitalist theory? I'm not an economics student, y'see...

Bugger, just seen my log in - I'm Ecopoeia, by the way.

it does in my case. most places have some form of incentive system. You sell more or make more, you earn more.
you work on commissions, then the more you sell the more you make.
You study harder a school, your in more of a position to earn more when you start work.
Yes there are exceptions, I realise this. But capitalism works best! If someone can show many another country, ANY country that uses a different model and is better off for it? (not being combatative, am honestly curious)

Out of interest, is capitalism equivalent to free markets? Is mercantilism not one expression of capitalist theory? I'm not an economics student, y'see...

Bugger, just seen my log in - I'm Ecopoeia, by the way.


Mercantalism is based on the belief that there is a set amout of available wealth. This is not the case, and this sort of theory has been collecting dust...

What I find laughable is how many people, at least in the NS world, are ardent ultracapitalists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.


What I find laughable is how many people in the world are ardent ultrasocialists/communists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.... :rolleyes:

What I find laughable is how many people in the world are ardent ultrasocialists/communists because they're bourgeois 13-year-olds who still live with Mommy and Daddy in suburbia.... :rolleyes:
Can't we just find all bourgeois 13-year-olds laughable irrespective of ill-conceived political allegiance and be done with it?

But capitalism works best! If someone can show many another country, ANY country that uses a different model and is better off for it? (not being combatative, am honestly curious)

Competition, progress, evolution...capitalism is the only way to go - the more free trade, the better

I'm a capitalist partly because I believe in helping the poor. Socialism is about pretending to help the poor to make you feel better.That's a reasonable criticism of the vast majority of the left. But I'm simply calling for the working class to have control of our own destinies. Does that sound unreasonable to you?

what about all the children who think because they've read a book, feel that they are able to argue a subject without any real-world experience. Capitalist or socialist.
Knowledge is extremely important and I respect alot of what has been said, but please back it up with experience.

what about all the children who think because they've read a book, feel that they are able to argue a subject without any real-world experience. Capitalist or socialist.
Knowledge is extremely important and I respect alot of what has been said, but please back it up with experience.What specifically are you asking to be backed up?

So no exploitation exists?
Not in the Marxist sense.

Yeah, I think people become more capitalist when they start working and get that paycheck. My God, the taxes! I love paying to support inner city midnight basketball programs...

As they say, if youre not a democrat at 20 you have no heart...if youre not a republican at 40 you have no head...

I am not asking for anything to be backed up specifically. I just wish that some of the people in the discussion realise that what they are saying to each other is based on what they have read. Not on what they have experienced. If i am mistaken I apologise, but when you have 2 13 year olds bitching at each other, its just annoying.

This is not aimed at anyone specific, not really anyway.

Apologise on spelling writing, time is short

Yeah, I think people become more capitalist when they start working and get that paycheck. My God, the taxes! I love paying to support inner city midnight basketball programs...

As they say, if youre not a democrat at 20 you have no heart...if youre not a republican at 40 you have no head...
We have a similar quote in the UK, though it's socialist rather than Democrat (ie more extreme) and the changeover point is 30.

I am not asking for anything to be backed up specifically. I just wish that some of the people in the discussion realise that what they are saying to each other is based on what they have read. Not on what they have experienced. If i am mistaken I apologise, but when you have 2 13 year olds bitching at each other, its just annoying.

This is not aimed at anyone specific, not really anyway.

Apologise on spelling writing, time is short
I have the feeling that a fair few of us are distressingly far away from being 13...

That's a reasonable criticism of the vast majority of the left. But I'm simply calling for the working class to have control of our own destinies. Does that sound unreasonable to you?

Does the working class not have control over its destinity? We can vote. Choose where to work. How is the working class oppressed or treated differently?

I have the feeling that a fair few of us are distressingly far away from being 13...

God I hope not!

That's a reasonable criticism of the vast majority of the left. But I'm simply calling for the working class to have control of our own destinies. Does that sound unreasonable to you?

I wonder how many posters here are truly working class

Does the working class not have control over its destinity? We can vote. Choose where to work. How is the working class oppressed or treated differently?Because the decisions on how are communities are run are not made by those same communities. Certainly in England all the mainstream parties make it clear that their main target voters are "Middle England". If you want to see what the state thinks of people taking control of their own lives, try setting up an anti muggers campaign and see how long it takes the cops to arrive in force.

http://www.iconservatives.org.uk/in_defense_of_global_capitalism.htm

A book by a former Anarchist (one of yours) in praise of global capitalism, from moral and consequentialist grounds. I'm pretty sure he was the source of my quote.

Oh Christ, they're the worst. Former lefties who've "seen the light", people like Christopher fucking Hitchens, will be first on the bonfire when the revolution comes. It's not true, while GDP may be increasing, the poor in many countries (India, for example now has the same food distribution levels it had before the first world war) are getting poorer in absolute terms. And Argentina is a perfect example of how wrong free market fundamentalists were five or six years ago, and still are.

Vas.

One thing to think about when dealing with "poverty" is the cost of living. I make below the poverty level in the US (10k a year - measly university stipend), but life comfortably because rent and food are so cheap. I even go to the pub three nights a week. Yet I qualify for food vouchers...

Isn't it fun to live live below the poverty level! There's nothing like living on a grad stipend. Geez, you must not be in a city to live on that. I make a little more and scrape by here in Dallas, but then again I don't really know anyone here so I'm forced to live by myself, which is a large hit on the funds.

God I hope not!
Ha! I meant that we're older, it was phrased badly. I don't think I can even remember being thirteen.

Working class? Nope, haven't claimed to be. My family are (their politics are all over the shop).

Sorry bit out of the UK a few years. But if you are referring to the middle class, that's a good thing isn't it? They are the largest demographic in the UK. A large % rose to that class, were not simply born into it. They are the ones that in terms or % have to pay the most to the government. Most of our educated workforce are in that group. More would be if the sociolists of england had not destroyed the grammer schools years ago.
And if you had to look at the needs of a nation, do you only treat with the richest, the poorest or do you go for a middle ground?

So in other words you're saying that "we should take money from the rich people's bank accounts and give it to the poor people"...... :p

No, abolish money, it's much easier. Then rich people can have all the paper they want.

Vas.

I wonder how many posters here are truly working classI am. Basic admin for a local playscheme. Before anyone is stupid enough to tell me it's not manual labour a) it's not the 1940's anymore and b) class is essentially based on three factors:

1. Wages

2. Social status of job

3. Social function of job.

I'd agree though. I suspect most posters here aren't working class. But I don't think many say they are.

Because the decisions on how are communities are run are not made by those same communities. Certainly in England all the mainstream parties make it clear that their main target voters are "Middle England". If you want to see what the state thinks of people taking control of their own lives, try setting up an anti muggers campaign and see how long it takes the cops to arrive in force.

Curious, how did you go about the campaign? Did you follow the correct guidelines for said event?
And taking control of your life is all fine and good, but you must follow the rules set down by society.

No, abolish money, it's much easier. Then rich people can have all the paper they want.

Vas.

Oh yeah that's brilliant...

Does the working class not have control over its destinity? We can vote.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman.

Vas.

God I hope not!

Listen young man, we'd rather not hear that kind of language around here. And keep the noise down.

Vas (29).

A capitalist economy should be viewed like American Football. The bigger, stronger, richer, more powerful teams/companies/individuals want very few rules so they can take advantage of the smaller, poorer and less powerful. It is the job of the government to set up a structure to allow a more even playing field so all can participate.
If there were no rules (antitrust laws, fair labor practices laws, minimum wage, holding, pass interference, etc.) the larger teams/companies could merely brush aside the smaller merely by virtue of its size. Where is the "competitive marketplace" then?

It's not true, while GDP may be increasing, the poor in many countries (India, for example now has the same food distribution levels it had before the first world war) are getting poorer in absolute terms. And Argentina is a perfect example of how wrong free market fundamentalists were five or six years ago, and still are.

Vas.

Oh, like back when the UK ruled them? Argentina fucked themselves by mismanaging their funds and ignoring IMF guidelines.

I wonder how many posters here are truly working class

Define working class - class or modern. I'm classically working class in that I do not own property and work for others, in modern terms, I'm a professional (which is that subdivision of working class that doesn't like to admit it).

Vas.

A capitalist economy should be viewed like American Football. The bigger, stronger, richer, more powerful teams/companies/individuals want very few rules so they can take advantage of the smaller, poorer and less powerful. It is the job of the government to set up a structure to allow a more even playing field so all can participate.
If there were no rules (antitrust laws, fair labor practices laws, minimum wage, holding, pass interference, etc.) the larger teams/companies could merely brush aside the smaller merely by virtue of its size. Where is the "competitive marketplace" then?


mmm...i smell progress...

Curious, how did you go about the campaign? Did you follow the correct guidelines for said event?
And taking control of your life is all fine and good, but you must follow the rules set down by society.The correct guidelines? What, wait for the cops to get off their arses and do something, while old folk get mugged in the meantime? Nah, we didn't, can you guess? We videoed the people known to be doing it. And what rules laid down by society? Nobody round my way was asked how we thought society should go about it. Which brings us back to my call for working class communities to rule themselves. Make our own rules if you will.

Listen young man, we'd rather not hear that kind of language around here. And keep the noise down.

Vas (29).

Sorry should not bring god into this

Define working class - class or modern. I'm classically working class in that I do not own property and work for others, in modern terms, I'm a professional (which is that subdivision of working class that doesn't like to admit it).
Is it bollocks. You're a fucking journo Dis. It doesn't get more middle class.

The correct guidelines? What, wait for the cops to get off their arses and do something, while old folk get mugged in the meantime? Nah, we didn't, can you guess? We videoed the people known to be doing it. And what rules laid down by society? Nobody round my way was asked how we thought society should go about it. Which brings us back to my call for working class communities to rule themselves. Make our own rules if you will.

where you from then?

...but someone would (think michigan's militia).
Well, being from Michigan, and knowing some of these people, I'd have to say I doubt it.

Isn't it fun to live live below the poverty level! There's nothing like living on a grad stipend. Geez, you must not be in a city to live on that. I make a little more and scrape by here in Dallas, but then again I don't really know anyone here so I'm forced to live by myself, which is a large hit on the funds.

Yep - beauty of small town life

Oh, like back when the UK ruled them? Argentina fucked themselves by mismanaging their funds and ignoring IMF guidelines.
Regardless of whether or not one supports free markets, the one-size-fits-all approach of the IMF has been nothing short of disastrous. They're a bunch of clowns who seem to take a perverse pride in pushing the final nail in a country's coffin of an economy. Hell, it's like they pour acid in the victim's wounds, wait for it to die then dig up the corpse, molest it, deface the gravestone, dance around the grave singing "we are evil" then collapse in a fit of maniacal giggles.

Well, something like that.

Well, being from Michigan, and knowing some of these people, I'd have to say I doubt it.

What? Are you saying Micheal Moore lied to me? I'm so disallusioned!

Regardless of whether or not one supports free markets, the one-size-fits-all approach of the IMF has been nothing short of disastrous. They're a bunch of clowns who seem to take a perverse pride in pushing the final in a country's coffin of an economy. Hell, it's like they pour acid in the victim's wounds, wait for it to die then dig up the corpse, molest it, deface the gravestone, dance around the grave singing "we are evil" then collapse in a fit of maniacal giggles.

Well, something like that.
Nobody likes the IMF. Bunch of tossers.

Regardless of whether or not one supports free markets, the one-size-fits-all approach of the IMF has been nothing short of disastrous. They're a bunch of clowns who seem to take a perverse pride in pushing the final in a country's coffin of an economy. Hell, it's like they pour acid in the victim's wounds, wait for it to die then dig up the corpse, molest it, deface the gravestone, dance around the grave singing "we are evil" then collapse in a fit of maniacal giggles.

Well, something like that.


The "moral hazard" of the IMF is real...and its track record is far from perfect. They do have bright spots though, like the recovery of Mexico. They really are trying to help, not finish the country off. Furthermore, no one is forcing them to take the loans.

Oh, like back when the UK ruled them?

Yes (though, I should have said WWII, back when the country was part of the British Empire and people starved - a lot.

"Meanwhile, economists cheering from the pages of corporate newspapers inform us that the GDP Growth Rate is phenomenal, unprecedented. Shops are overflowing with consumer goods. Government storehouses are overflowing with foodgrain. Outside this circle of light, farmers steeped in debt are committing suicide in their hundreds. Reports of starvation and malnutrition come in from across the country. Yet the Government allowed 63 million tonnes of grain to rot in its granaries. 12 million tones were exported and sold at a subsidized price the Indian government was not willing to offer the Indian poor. Utsa Patnaik, the well known agricultural economist, has calculated foodgrain availability and foodgrain absorption in India for nearly a century, based on official statistics. She calculates that in the period between the early nineties and 2001, foodgrain absorption has dropped to levels lower than during the World War-II years, including during the Bengal Famine in which 3 million people died of starvation. As we know from the work of Professor Amartya Sen, democracies don’t take kindly to starvation deaths. They attract too much adverse publicity from the ‘free press’.

"So dangerous levels of malnutrition and permanent hunger are the preferred model these days. 47% of India’s children below three suffer from malnutrition, 46% are stunted. Utsa Patnaik’s study reveals that about 40% of the rural population in India has the same foodgrain absorption level as Sub-Saharan Africa. Today, an average rural family eats about 100 kg less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s. The last five years have seen the most violent increase in rural-urban income inequalities since independence." - Arundhati Roy, from http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=5435

Argentina fucked themselves by mismanaging their funds and ignoring IMF guidelines.

Argentina was fucked for listening to the IMF in the first place. It's recovering now precisely because it's disregarding the IMF.

Vas.

Nobody likes the IMF. Bunch of tossers.
WE UNCONDITIONALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!

*does a little jig*

Um, I may have reached that 'too much coffee' part of the day again.

WE UNCONDITIONALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!

Just don't ask why, it'll spoil the moment. :)

maybe the indians should try to stop reproducing

Is it bollocks. You're a fucking journo Dis. It doesn't get more middle class.

As I said, it depends on your definition. The middle classes are, correctly, those who own property - landlords, shop owners, etc. If I was a newspaper proprietor, I'd be middle class. The modern confusion between classes is deliberate, it's aimed at being divisive. The professional class regards itself as middle class, but it isn't unless the people in it own property. I'm a worker, I produce things that are used by others for profit (strictly not the case in my current job, but...). Producing a news story for a newspaper isn't that much different to producing the wheels for a car. Just because journalists like to think of themselves as being middle class, they're not, they're working class professionals.

Vas.

The "moral hazard" of the IMF is real...and its track record is far from perfect. They do have bright spots though, like the recovery of Mexico. They really are trying to help, not finish the country off. Furthermore, no one is forcing them to take the loans.

The IMF doesn't give loans.

Vas.

where you from then?England. If you want more specific details TG me.

Just don't ask why, it'll spoil the moment. :)
Heh. Don't worry, I'll remain in blissful ignorance.

Actually, bugger it. One of the main reasons that outside agents like the IMF and US occupation forces piss me off is that they seem quite happy to sell off a nation's assets and liberalise its economy but are not prepared to act on their doctrine in a sincere fashion in their own country. Americans enforcing the sell-off of Iraqi state assets - Jesus wept. Now if they did thes ame at home and it worked then I would be content to see such practices transferred elsewhere. However, this smacks of using Iraq (and others) as a way of experimenting with neoliberal theory without having to suffer the consequences via the home electorate.

End of rant.

England. If you want more specific details TG me.
Christ, the Brits have taken over this thread.

As I said, it depends on your definition. The middle classes are, correctly, those who own property - landlords, shop owners, etc. If I was a newspaper proprietor, I'd be middle class. The modern confusion between classes is deliberate, it's aimed at being divisive. The professional class regards itself as middle class, but it isn't unless the people in it own property. I'm a worker, I produce things that are used by others for profit (strictly not the case in my current job, but...). Producing a news story for a newspaper isn't that much different to producing the wheels for a car. Just because journalists like to think of themselves as being middle class, they're not, they're working class professionals.
Not if you take my previous definations (nicked from Zinn). By your defination the Trots are correct in claiming to be a working class party. I'm not saying there isn't a role for the middle classes to play. But to do that means being prepared to accept that working class movements have to be mainly composed of and led by working class people.

Dang socialism is winning

Christ, the Brits have taken over this thread.I'm sure Dis is from Ireland. I don't think he'll like being called a "Brit". ;)

...people like Christopher fucking Hitchens...,
Vas.
I can't stand that guy. He's an ass.

I'm sure Dis is from Ireland. I don't think he'll like being called a "Brit". ;)
Oops. I forgot about that. Sorry, Dis/Vas.

The IMF doesn't give loans.

Vas.


·In the event that member countries do experience difficulties financing their balance of payments, the IMF is also a fund that can be tapped to help in recovery.

Financial assistance is available to give member countries the breathing room they need to correct balance of payments problems. A policy program supported by IMF financing is designed by the national authorities in close cooperation with the IMF, with continued financial support conditional on effective implementation of this program.

Christ, the Brits have taken over this thread.

Oi, I may live in London, but I'm very much not a Brit. Jaysus, do I not curse enough to be immediately obviously Irish? Fer fuck's sake.

Vas.

I vote Capitalism.

For the simple reason that Capitalism works everyplace you try it. People will always do best when allow them to use money/capital as they see fit. You don't need a government agency for that. Anyway, Socialism is just Communism without a big military- everyone knows that!

The statutory purposes of the IMF today are the same as when they were formulated in 1944. Since then, the world has experienced unprecedented growth in real incomes. And although the benefits of growth have not flowed equally to all—either within or among nations—most countries have seen increases in prosperity that contrast starkly with the interwar period. Part of the explanation lies in improvements in the conduct of economic policies, including those that have encouraged the growth of international trade and helped smooth the economic cycle of boom and bust. The IMF has contributed to these developments.

·The IMF is also actively working to reduce poverty in countries around the globe, independently and in collaboration with the World Bank and other organizations.
The IMF provides financial support through its concessional lending facility—the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF)—and through debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.

Being two different types of things, it's not really answerable. But I see what you're getting at... a feudalistic, elective democracy that allows capitalism versus a socialistic, direct democracy that allows communism.

I think it's sorta obvious... capitalism is nothing but trouble, at least pure capitalism. In the days of pure capitalism (1800s, then the Gilded Age), humans were fair trade. Children worked in factories and coal mines, dying of a black lung in their late twenties. If you're dead, how can you get ahead in society like capitalism promises? Capitalism is basically an excuse for the feudal system, people being better than people because they were born that way.

Shouldn't it be that everyone gets there by working together, instead of enslaving eachother and competing against eachother?

I say capitalism.

Not if you take my previous definations (nicked from Zinn). By your defination the Trots are correct in claiming to be a working class party. I'm not saying there isn't a role for the middle classes to play. But to do that means being prepared to accept that working class movements have to be mainly composed of and led by working class people.

I agree, the classic distinctions no longer hold much water, which is why I tend to use the term professional class - working class people who think they're middle class. Hey, I grew up in Dublin at a time when the "real" working class were the mass of unemployed!

The thing about the Trots is that, by Marxist definitions, they are working class. (One of the many) problems with them is that they don't interact properly with those who do regard themselves as truly working class.

I'm not all that interested in a class-based method of organisation, I'd like to see organisation properly integrated with the people with which they're concerned. The anarchist WSM in Dublin, for example, works to facilitate the formation of local community-based groups for campaigns it's involved in such as anti-racism, anti-bin charges, etc. It doesn't matter whether these communities are working class or middle class, the important thing as that they're within the community and form links between different communities.

Vas.

England. If you want more specific details TG me.

We'll you make sound like your from a hard area, so I thought I'd ask where exactly. Sorry not familiar with the term TG. The reason I wanted to know, is that you as a working man, have been poorly treated by society, or that seems to be the impression your giving.

Being two different types of things, it's not really answerable. But I see what you're getting at... a feudalistic, elective democracy that allows capitalism versus a socialistic, direct democracy that allows communism.

I think it's sorta obvious... capitalism is nothing but trouble, at least pure capitalism.
Really?

In the days of pure capitalism (1800s, then the Gilded Age),
That wasn't pure capitalism. There was a government. There were regulations.

Humans were fair trade. Children worked in factories and coal mines, dying of a black lung in their late twenties. If you're dead, how can you get ahead in society like capitalism promises? Capitalism is basically an excuse for the feudal system, people being better than people because they were born that way.
Communism/socialism is an excuse for jealousy to rear its head.

I vote Capitalism.

For the simple reason that Capitalism works everyplace you try it. People will always do best when allow them to use money/capital as they see fit. You don't need a government agency for that. Anyway, Socialism is just Communism without a big military- everyone knows that!

Go away.

Vas.

I am. Basic admin for a local playscheme. Before anyone is stupid enough to tell me it's not manual labour a) it's not the 1940's anymore and b) class is essentially based on three factors:

1. Wages

2. Social status of job

3. Social function of job.

I'd agree though. I suspect most posters here aren't working class. But I don't think many say they are.
Being a grad student, I'm certain in the poor class.
However, I'll soon be a high school teacher...arguably working class.

Really?


That wasn't pure capitalism. There was a government. There were regulations.


Communism/socialism is an excuse for jealousy to rear its head.

You go away as well. This has been completely debunked by a number of people on this thread. You could at least learn to modify your arguments rather than spouting the same thing over and over again.

Vas.

We'll you make sound like your from a hard area, so I thought I'd ask where exactly. Sorry not familiar with the term TG. The reason I wanted to know, is that you as a working man, have been poorly treated by society, or that seems to be the impression your giving.Telegram. I don't want to give specific details about where I live out on a public forum.

You go away as well. This has been completely debunked by a number of people on this thread. You could at least learn to modify your arguments rather than spouting the same thing over and over again.

Vas.


Really? It has? The 1800s were full of huge government aid to businesses (like railways) as well as crippling tariffs...

Kids really should stop playing video games all the time and get back to the mines

Kids really should stop playing video games all the time and get back to the minesHey, why not. According to BAAWA there's no such thing as economic exploitation. I guess child prostitution's fine under "anarcho"-capitalism as well.

Is everyone high? Socialism works great if you don't mind double-digit unemplyment, shitty government services & don't forget the 0.5% economic growth. But maybee the should create a government agency to oversee the government agency that's in charge of economic growth. That'll fix it! Government is in the business of keeping government in your everyday life. Realize that & you'll set your economic mind free.

Really? It has? The 1800s were full of huge government aid to businesses (like railways) as well as crippling tariffs...

Kids really should stop playing video games all the time and get back to the mines

Ya who de what now? I was refering to his last sentence, I just wasn't arsed removing the other two.

Vas.

Is everyone high? Socialism works great if you don't mind double-digit unemplyment, shitty government services & don't forget the 0.5% economic growth. But maybee the should create a government agency to oversee the government agency that's in charge of economic growth. That'll fix it! Government is in the business of keeping government in your everyday life. Realize that & you'll set your economic mind free.Shhhh. Grownups talking.

Is everyone high? Socialism works great if you don't mind double-digit unemplyment, shitty government services & don't forget the 0.5% economic growth. But maybee the should create a government agency to oversee the government agency that's in charge of economic growth. That'll fix it! Government is in the business of keeping government in your everyday life. Realize that & you'll set your economic mind free.

Why oh why do people not read what's been said previously in this thread? Do they really think that what they have to say is soooo important that it will blow away all that's been said previously?

Look, dufus, the vast majority of people engaged in this debate are anti-government, it's largely been anarchists vs oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists), with the odd interjection from a dumb American (note: not all Americans are dumb, but the "socialism means big government" argument is generally the province of the American education systems) that socialism is bad because govmint is bad, mmmkay.

Vas.

Shhhh. Grownups talking.
Nothing like dismissing when shown facts. Brilliant comeback.

Ya who de what now? I was refering to his last sentence, I just wasn't arsed removing the other two.

Vas.

Eh? was that english? Hittin the bottle already? (passes a pint of Murphys)

I was just saying that it would be good to send the brats to a work camp for the summer - give em respect for the workin man and the value of a hard days work...just kidding...

but seriously, lets put em to work

Why oh why do people not read what's been said previously in this thread? Do they really think that what they have to say is soooo important that it will blow away all that's been said previously?

Look, dufus, the vast majority of people engaged in this debate are anti-government, it's largely been anarchists vs oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists), with the odd interjection from a dumb American (note: not all Americans are dumb, but the "socialism means big government" argument is generally the province of the American education systems) that socialism is bad because govmint is bad, mmmkay.

Vas.
That's impressive. You were able to get the "dumb American' part in there with "dufus". Nanny nanny boo boo. If you consider yourself anti-government how can you back an Economic/Goverment system that empowers the government to be responsible for everyone's well being. Bit ironic.

Ya who de what now? I was refering to his last sentence, I just wasn't arsed removing the other two.
Lazy commie.

Shouldn't it be that everyone gets there by working together, instead of enslaving eachother and competing against eachother?
Eh? I thought you were a socialist.

That's impressive. You were able to get the "dumb American' part in there with "dufus". Nanny nanny boo boo. If you consider yourself anti-government how can you back an Economic/Goverment system that empowers the government to be responsible for everyone's well being. Bit ironic.
Here's the point: he doesn't.

What? Are you saying Micheal Moore lied to me? I'm so disallusioned!
What are you talking about?
BfC I guess?
Well, he never portrayed them as some kind of repressive group that wants to shove any ideology on anyone...because they're not. So, I don't know how you got that from the movie.

They're a "right to bare arms" group with no political, religious, racial or any other type of ideology. They just want to defend the right to have guns.

note: I don't agree with them, but I feel that it's important to annihilate all the lies and misinformation about them. And..sure, I do think think some of them are a little nuts[not go shoot up the post office nuts...just a little too much in love with their guns].

Shouldn't it be that everyone gets there by working together, instead of enslaving each other and competing against eachother?

Eh? I thought you were a socialist.
*bangs head on table repeatedly*

Sounds socialist to me.

How many times must we go through this?

if we don't compete how are we supposed to improve?

Competition is the only reason you improve yourself? You must not aspire to much.

Depends on how we define 'improve'.

Nothing like dismissing when shown facts. Facts? Did I miss the large part of your post where you provided referenced sources to back up your opinions?Brilliant comeback.Cheers. I thought so too.

That's impressive. You were able to get the "dumb American' part in there with "dufus". Nanny nanny boo boo. If you consider yourself anti-government how can you back an Economic/Goverment system that empowers the government to be responsible for everyone's well being. Bit ironic.

I'll type this slowly, maybe it'll help you understand:
Socialism... is... NOT... a... Government... system.... It... is.... a... socio-...economic... system..., which... must... be... attached... to... a... political... theory... to... form... a... political... system....

Thus... Marxism.... is... state... socialism..., while... anarchism... is... libertarian... socialism.

Vas.

Really?
That wasn't pure capitalism. There was a government. There were regulations.
Communism/socialism is an excuse for jealousy to rear its head.
You go away as well.
I think I'll stay right here and piss you off by reminding you oxymorons that anarchocapitalism is the only true anarchist system.

This has been completely debunked by a number of people on this thread.
No, it hasn't.

You could learn not to lie; that would help you.

Hey, why not. According to BAAWA there's no such thing as economic exploitation. I guess child prostitution's fine under "anarcho"-capitalism as well.
Strawman/ad hom fallacy combo. Child prostitution has nothing to do with economic exploitation, either.

Now try to grow a brain.

What are you talking about?
BfC I guess?
Well, he never portrayed them as some kind of repressive group that wants to shove any ideology on anyone...because they're not. So, I don't know how you got that from the movie.

They're a "right to bare arms" group with no political, religious, racial or any other type of ideology. They just want to defend the right to have guns.


Oh I know...I have an old Mosin Nagent myself...something comforting about having a weapon may have killed a few nazis...

I like to "bare" my arms too, but sometimes I get sunburned

Meh! I've had it! Look, even socialists ought to see that "competition" is not a bad thing. My theory is, if you think competition is inherently evil or unfair, it's probably because you've lost every one you've ever had! Seriously. Or maybe they just have never competed with themselves by trying to do something better than they did a while ago. Improvement is a form of competition, as is LIFE ITSELF!

Rent is coercion? <big game show buzzer> No, but thank you for playing. Coercion involves the use of force (look it up), not just the lack of an "opt out."

No, thats not so. Coercion is actually a vague term; the best defintion, from a sociology or political theory perspective would be a concious removal of choices from party A by party B through a given means; if I have no choice but to pay rent (or meet some very undesirable end; i.e. end up homeless, lose my job, be unable to even apply for a passport to leave a given nation). In short, violence is not necessarily a component of coercion. [Lukes, Power: A Radical View]

Rent is payment for a good or service, just like any other good or service. Nobody has the "right" to housing at someone else's expense. By the way, home ownership in the United States is at record levels now, especially among the African-American population (traditionally, if cynically, thought of as "poor"). Recent months have seen record sales of new and existing homes.

I disagree. Rent is payment to a given party for the use of capital, whether it be land or otherwise. I think land is something of a 'special case'. IMO, land (especially land in excess of what one can individually use; thus rented properties) is granted comunnally- it is not the product of any individuals labour, and thus it should be regard as a commons property. When one individual has more land than he or she can use, despite the fact they did not (nor did any prior transferring party) actually create it in any real sense, I do not think they have a real claim to such land: we all have an equal right to those goods not created but naturally occuring/found.

Again, the media is not using force, so it cannot be coercion either. Anyone with an independent mind can "opt out" of the "socialization and indoctrination" of the media. Are you saying that most people lack this faculty? That would be very arrogant of you. Or are you just saying that you lack this faculty?

Seems to me like you're just looking to "opt out" on reality.
No one can 'opt out' of society any more than anyone can live outside of it. It is a ridiculous conception, in my view. The very thought process and language you are using are a product of your own socialization. To imply that education, upbringing and enviroment (all elements of socialization) have an insignificant, and indeed negligible, impact on the idea of the self is laughable. The media is simply the most obvious and arguably effective tool of mass indoctrination ever known; I think its ludicrous it should be held in the hands of a few elites.

Meh! I've had it! Look, even socialists ought to see that "competition" is not a bad thing. My theory is, if you think competition is inherently evil or unfair, it's probably because you've lost every one you've ever had! Seriously. Or maybe they just have never competed with themselves by trying to do something better than they did a while ago. Improvement is a form of competition, as is LIFE ITSELF!

Who said competition is "inherently evil or unfair"? Stop making bullshit claims unsupported by what other people say. The problem with capitalism is that it promotes competition over co-operation and selfishness over solidarity. Competition in general is not bad, two scientists competing to find a cure for something are likely to motivate each other. However, this is different to competition exclusively for profit, which (sans regulation in an "anarcho-capitalist" sense) would mean no safety standards, no workers rights, etc. The problem with capitalism is that it aims for the thing that will make most money rather than the best thing for people.

I've previously cited the example of cars - car manufacturers around the world compete to get people to buy them. As a result, most cities around the world are approaching gridlock. It may be profitable for the car manufacturers, but it's completely impractical for everyone else. Alas, it's not pollution or destruction of social space that's driving the opposition to this, but simply other capitalists complaining that gridlock damages their business (delayed deliveries, reduced customer base). Public transport systems are far more efficient (compare crossing London by car with crossing by Tube), but they're not profitable enough.

Vas.

Meh! I've had it! Look, even socialists ought to see that "competition" is not a bad thing. My theory is, if you think competition is inherently evil or unfair, it's probably because you've lost every one you've ever had! Seriously. Or maybe they just have never competed with themselves by trying to do something better than they did a while ago. Improvement is a form of competition, as is LIFE ITSELF!SB, I did a detailed reply to your views on the thread you started if you fancy answering it.

Child prostitution has nothing to do with economic exploitation, eitherWhat about kids being sent down mines?

While I like socialism better than capitalism, if it becomes corrupted, the consequences wouldnt be so great

A Socialistic viewpoint is always shown with a
Fuzzy, "We love children and want to help the poor"
attitude. Every politician that leans this
way is out to make himself look like a "Man of the people"
"We're going to make sure MORE money goes to the Education
system, or for the Underprivelaged. These are all
catch phrases for, "Dumping money to make me look good."
But why shouldn't they? Well, IT'S REALLY EASY TO GIVE
MONEY AWAY THAT DIDN'T BELONG TO YOU IN THE FIRST
PLACE, MONEY THAT YOU DIDN'T WORK FOR.
Don't tax MY life away so that you can give it to programs
that you DEEM fit. If I want to give MY money to people that
need it i will, and DO. BUT it's NOT the Government's job
to decide to take what they want of mine and give it to whomever
just because they know better than Me what to do with my money.
I agree with programs to help people, but it needs to be my choice.
The Government does not know what's best for us, we do.

I like to "bare" my arms too, but sometimes I get sunburned
LOL! That's what I get for trying to write and post fast so I could catch the bus. I meant "bear" of course.

Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them. But of his legal duty – that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his fellow men – his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection, must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do so, and the exigency will admit of it.

Sums it up, in my opinion. Disco-dick will claim this man Spooner was a socialist, you know.

I suppose I would be considered to be "working class".

Sums it up, in my opinion. Disco-dick will claim this man Spooner was a socialist, you know.Sums it up by ignoring anything that doesen't fit your theory you mean.He was an individualist. What in your quote suggests he was a capitalist? Do I really need to repeat the same quotes again?

Who said competition is "inherently evil or unfair"? Stop making bullshit claims unsupported by what other people say.

It was implied somewhere. I'm not going to search through a bunch of threads to find that quote. Besides, you know there are people who think that very thing.

The problem with capitalism is that it promotes competition over co-operation and selfishness over solidarity.

Speaking of bullshit. Ever hear of a corporation? What does "corporation" mean? Perhaps in your definition, corporations are nothing more than playtoys of the ultra rich with every worker a mere pawn, but in my mind they're a GROUP of people cooperating and competing at the same time. Cooperating, or else they wouldn't be a corporation. Competing, as in healthy self improvement, hence corporations tend to succeed over one man operations.

And that's just US corporations. Japanese corporations can be super-tightly bonded. Cooperation. The very act of business involves and necessitates cooperation, indeed capitalism does, or else it doesn't work. Maybe I'm just not seeing how it promotes competition OVER cooperation, unless human nature itself does.


Competition in general is not bad, two scientists competing to find a cure for something are likely to motivate each other. However, this is different to competition exclusively for profit, How are these different? Both are highly motivated and don't want to lose. What's the big deal?

which (sans regulation in an "anarcho-capitalist" sense) would mean no safety standards, no workers rights, etc. The problem with capitalism is that it aims for the thing that will make most money rather than the best thing for people.

And the problem with socialism is that it aims for the thing that will make everyone exactly the same, rather than the best thing for people.

Except you're talking about completely unregulated capitalism, which is something of a straw man here. I'm not any anarcho-capitawhatsit.

I've previously cited the example of cars - car manufacturers around the world compete to get people to buy them. As a result, most cities around the world are approaching gridlock. It may be profitable for the car manufacturers, but it's completely impractical for everyone else. Alas, it's not pollution or destruction of social space that's driving the opposition to this, but simply other capitalists complaining that gridlock damages their business (delayed deliveries, reduced customer base). Public transport systems are far more efficient (compare crossing London by car with crossing by Tube), but they're not profitable enough.


Who's to blame, the fool or the fool that follows him? Maybe it's not the evil, competing manufacturers. Maybe it's all the dumbass people who buy the latest car when they don't need to. People are stupid, I don't blame the suppliers who give stupid people what they want and will voluntarily mortgage their children to buy, I blame the stupid people. If demand decreases, supply will follow. Unless it's government-subsidized supply..

Maybe if stupidity wasn't so profitable, things would be more to our liking. But even if it wasn't, it would still be prevalent and people would still take advantage of it.

In the real world they can co-exist, look at europe and canada, so how about Socialistic Capitalism?

It was implied somewhere. I'm not going to search through a bunch of threads to find that quote. Besides, you know there are people who think that very thing.If you know who you think said it you could use the "find all posts by this poster feature". I can't remember it.

If you know who you think said it you could use the "find all posts by this poster feature". I can't remember it.

Meh I don't remember.

Capitalism allows us all to have ambition. If a professional is paid the same wage as a blue-collar worker, why would anyone bother getting a professional job? Every job except the easiest ones going would become vocations that no one would bother with. The precious state-funded education systems would have no one to teach in them; the ridiculous farce of an NHS would have no doctors.
Or if you want to go the whole leftie hog and dish out the state benefits at astronomical rates, who's going to bother working at all?
Whereas under Capitalism, people can work hard and have a well-deserved sense of achievement when they become successful, as well as monetary rewards.

Capitalism allows us all to have ambition. If a professional is paid the same wage as a blue-collar worker, why would anyone bother getting a professional job? Every job except the easiest ones going would become vocations that no one would bother with.

Ahh, this is bullshit!

Your telling me if people had the choice between working in a factory or becoming say...a doctor or an engineer...they would choose the factory job?

Uhhh, no. They wouldn't. Come on.

Socialism because it is the closest to Communism humans can become until they can transcend.

I like them mainly because it gets rid of the corruption that riddles our society, large corporations opress everyone, devour needlessly and control our entire society. It's just disgusting to see so many people opressed for the desires of a few elites.

Why oh why do people not read what's been said previously in this thread? Do they really think that what they have to say is soooo important that it will blow away all that's been said previously?

Look, dufus, the vast majority of people engaged in this debate are anti-government, it's largely been anarchists vs oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists), with the odd interjection from a dumb American (note: not all Americans are dumb, but the "socialism means big government" argument is generally the province of the American education systems) that socialism is bad because govmint is bad, mmmkay.
Vas.

Yikes! I, in previous posts to this thread, was arguing that capitalism doesn't work and was even using America as an example. I'm American, and although we pay out the hooter for college, they teach economics, mmmkay? Admittedly, I didn't take any of those classes, but I'm posting anyway. =P

I don't know the economic terminology, but I'm convinced there has to be a balance of the two (Deomcratic socialism? Near capitalism?) I don't trust the government to handle my money, but I don't trust my boss either! Each system lends itself to greed of one form or another, so why not have a balance to keep it in check?

An interesting unanswered question from earlier... what are some real-world examples of a successful (in purest available form) capitalist and socialist country? Sub-question: Can it even be just one country, or does it have to be a region?

YES COMRADES!

Socialism is winning, lets show the hicks and concentrators of wealth who the REAL power is. We stand up for everything that is good and noble, such as caring for people with less opportunities in life, and thus a worse life overall. You can't simply say its 'ALL DERE OWN FAULT!!!!!!'.

If into a black family in Inner City LA where your dad could hardly ever find a job and your mum struggled to care for you would it necessarily be your fault that you happened to be born into a family that has far less opportunities in terms of education at an early age/college as well as countless other areas such as healthcare would it be your fault? No.

And before you start going - "Your a benefit fraud!!!!", My dad is the head of Business Banking (handling of rich clients) in the bank of Cyprus. He earns a good wage (above 65k, in pounds), but is strongly socialist despite the fact he would be better off under a Conservative Government. And despite the advantages I have, I still remain a committed socialist as well.

Isn't it interesting how many of the 'rich' talk socialism? "I am advantaged" or "Daddy was advantaged, so I never have to work" or "Hey, I've got a job that is (probably parasitical) really well paid".

It's easy to talk socialism, while your are living in the luxurious lap of capitalism.

It would actually be waaaaaaaaaaay easier for the rich to talk about the goods of capitalism

Neither, I'll go with the third option.

Isn't it interesting how many of the 'rich' talk socialism? "I am advantaged" or "Daddy was advantaged, so I never have to work" or "Hey, I've got a job that is (probably parasitical) really well paid".

It's easy to talk socialism, while your are living in the luxurious lap of capitalism.

Haha. That's funny. I think I've heard everything, now. Look, friend; either only the poor like socialism, or only the rich do. You can't have it both ways.

I'll even make the choice for you. The rich have more to lose under a socialist government. The poor have more to gain. From a position of comfort, it is easier to promote the current system than change. As has been pointed out before, many of the leaders of revolutions have been rich--but it has always been the masses who defeated the old governments.

It is, of course, a fear of change, and the myth of upward mobility(and for most people, it is only a myth. Trust me.) that keeps the common people in line.

Yikes! I, in previous posts to this thread, was arguing that capitalism doesn't work and was even using America as an example. I'm American, and although we pay out the hooter for college, they teach economics, mmmkay? Admittedly, I didn't take any of those classes, but I'm posting anyway. =P

I don't know the economic terminology, but I'm convinced there has to be a balance of the two (Deomcratic socialism? Near capitalism?) I don't trust the government to handle my money, but I don't trust my boss either! Each system lends itself to greed of one form or another, so why not have a balance to keep it in check?

An interesting unanswered question from earlier... what are some real-world examples of a successful (in purest available form) capitalist and socialist country? Sub-question: Can it even be just one country, or does it have to be a region?


I give you credit for admitting you've never taken an economics course. However, you need to go take one before you try to guess at it.

Haha. That's funny. I think I've heard everything, now. Look, friend; either only the poor like socialism, or only the rich do. You can't have it both ways.

I'll even make the choice for you. The rich have more to lose under a socialist government. The poor have more to gain. From a position of comfort, it is easier to promote the current system than change. As has been pointed out before, many of the leaders of revolutions have been rich--but it has always been the masses who defeated the old governments.

It is, of course, a fear of change, and the myth of upward mobility(and for most people, it is only a myth. Trust me.) that keeps the common people in line.

I, personally, never said that either "only the poor" or "only the rich" liked socialism. I merely pointed out that the majority of people who actively promote it, do so from a position of comfort. Maybe it's how they salve their conscience?

And when, exactly, have the masses defeated the old governments? As far as I can tell, it's usually some cult-of-personality figure... an orator, and his armed militia. Unless you are thinking of Cromwell as a socialist reformer, which I would find deliciously ironic. Although, actually - he was an orator with an army, too.

It's not the promise of upward mobility that keeps the peons down. Its' "bread and circuses". So long as you give the proles enough food to survive, and enough entertainment to dull the pain, they'll stay calm. It worked in Rome, and it's working now.

My point is - the people living the lifestyle of the proletariat are too engrossed in circuses, and in the drudgery of existence, to be too enmeshed in politics... therefore, socialism has become the plaything of the idle rich - who have time to argue about the niceties of refined political models, because they have never done a day of back-breaking work.

Wannabe socialist, want to be socialists only because they have no conception of how much their own lives would change. They gaze into a misty future where every home is comfortable, has two cars, 2.4 kids, whatever, and blind themselves to the reality that the socialist and the middle-class lifestyles cannot be reconciled.

I, personally, never said that either "only the poor" or "only the rich" liked socialism. I merely pointed out that the majority of people who actively promote it, do so from a position of comfort.

Zapatistas (http://www.ezln.org/) in Mexico, MST (http://www.mstbrazil.org/) in Brazil - the list goes on and on and on. The so-called "anti-globalisation" movement has been led from the South, not the North - inspired by the Zapatistas from Mexico's poorest region, motivated by campaigns in the slums and subsistence farms of Latin America and Asia, driving by a sense of solidarity between activists in the North and those in the South. Read We Are Everywhere (http://www.weareeverywhere.org/) to see just how wrong you are.

Vas.

Zapatistas (http://www.ezln.org/) in Mexico, MST (http://www.mstbrazil.org/) in Brazil - the list goes on and on and on. The so-called "anti-globalisation" movement has been led from the South, not the North - inspired by the Zapatistas from Mexico's poorest region, motivated by campaigns in the slums and subsistence farms of Latin America and Asia, driving by a sense of solidarity between activists in the North and those in the South. Read We Are Everywhere (http://www.weareeverywhere.org/) to see just how wrong you are.

Vas.

I was originally talking about the forum, about how people on the forum posting pro-socialism messages tend to be more affluent, but it does hold true outside that medium too.

Okay, it's different in nations like Brazil, where the standard of living is so low, that even those 'activists' are barely above subsistence, and that may be why collectivisation is more popular down their way. It would be a different matter to try the same scenario in England, where the Crown owns most of the land, and the average joe doesn't have it THAT bad. And - once again, in that situation you find that the most active proponents of socialistic lifestyles are those who are least affected by the inequalities of the current model.

And, as I said in the previous thread we debated in, these 'collectives' are temporary and localised abberations, not a model. the only reason these collectives survive is because they have been allowed to. If the government of any of the nations actually WANTED them gone, they'd be gone.

Ahh, this is bullshit!

Your telling me if people had the choice between working in a factory or becoming say...a doctor or an engineer...they would choose the factory job?

Uhhh, no. They wouldn't. Come on.

I'd say that the choice is actually between working and not working. If people could get away with not working, they would. And that's exactly what a socialistic government supplies--"free" money to those who don't want to work. Except it's not free. It comes from those that do work for it.

Look at Denmark--1/5 of the population unemployed??? 20%! The US is under 5% for a reason. Socialist government (and therefore socialistic economics) doesn't work.

Socialism because it is the closest to Communism humans can become until they can transcend.

I like them mainly because it gets rid of the corruption that riddles our society, large corporations opress everyone, devour needlessly and control our entire society. It's just disgusting to see so many people opressed for the desires of a few elites.

Yo, Arnestho, what the heck do you think a government is? An even larger corporation with yet more corruption. It devours private land, and yes, controls entire societies. I'll take the smaller bad guys, thank you.

Just remember what the word Nazi actually means. National Socialist. I'd like to stay as far away from those words as possible. Is it an extreme comparison? Yeah. But it's still a valid link.

I will continue to keep Socialism as far away from my life as possible.

Yo, Arnestho, what the heck do you think a government is? An even larger corporation with yet more corruption. It devours private land, and yes, controls entire societies. I'll take the smaller bad guys, thank you.

Just remember what the word Nazi actually means. National Socialist. I'd like to stay as far away from those words as possible. Is it an extreme comparison? Yeah. But it's still a valid link.

I will continue to keep Socialism as far away from my life as possible.

Theres christian socialism, libertarian socialism, liberal democratic socialism, the aforementioned national socialism....

socialism comes in many different forms and they are nothing alike.

I'd say that the choice is actually between working and not working. If people could get away with not working, they would. And that's exactly what a socialistic government supplies--"free" money to those who don't want to work. Except it's not free. It comes from those that do work for it.

Look at Denmark--1/5 of the population unemployed??? 20%! The US is under 5% for a reason. Socialist government (and therefore socialistic economics) doesn't work.
I'm not going to read all this thread because there are too many things I don't agree with or I find plain stupid. I'm just going to reply to this obvious idiocy.

First off, how much does your fat ass billionaire work? You say you have the choice, either to work or to not work. That's true because you have the capital, you can let your capital work for you. But most people choose not to work because they prefer spending their days like lizards in cancoon, paying prostitutes and snorting cocaïn. And why would they work when they have slaves to work for them? And you're right, it's not free. The working class works for the capitalists. But this will end soon.

BTW the unemployment in Denmark is way under 10%. I know it because the highest unemployment rate in Europe is 10%, but I don't know the exact number for Denmark, and neither the one of the US, and neither do you, because the US government does not have statistics about unemployment. Well they have but they are a joke. They only count you as unemployed for several days after they lost their jobs. In Denmark, you are unemployed while you don't have a job. In the US, you are unemployed for 13 weeks, after that you are nothing. No wonder, you come up with statistics like that (about 6.5% in the US they say).

I'd say that the choice is actually between working and not working. If people could get away with not working, they would. And that's exactly what a socialistic government supplies--"free" money to those who don't want to work. Except it's not free. It comes from those that do work for it.

Have you ever been unemployed for reasons beyond your control? Have you ever been forced to seek unemployment assistance from the state to eat and have somewhere to live? If not, shut the fuck up. There is nothing fun or enjoyable about losing control of your life and relying on state handouts, for the vast majority of people who do this, it's because they have no choice.

Vas.

Theres christian socialism, libertarian socialism, liberal democratic socialism, the aforementioned national socialism....

socialism comes in many different forms and they are nothing alike.

They all have a few similarities:

1) The government would take even more of my money and use it for things I don't want to authorize

2) Everyone else would get to dictate how I live my life. Not something I want.

Have you ever been unemployed for reasons beyond your control? Have you ever been forced to seek unemployment assistance from the state to eat and have somewhere to live? If not, shut the fuck up. There is nothing fun or enjoyable about losing control of your life and relying on state handouts, for the vast majority of people who do this, it's because they have no choice.

Vas.

Since, yes, I have been in that position, I shall not shut the fuck up. I was laid off September 12th, 2001. And when I was, I took the first job I could get to stay off welfare. No, it definitely was not enjoyable. But I did it so I didn't live off of someone else's paycheck. And before anyone starts jabbering about how we already pay unemployment insurance, I don't believe in it, so I wasn't going to support the use of it.

I've heard the whining: "Oh, I don't want that job, it's beneath me." "Why should I, when I get more money from the government?"

Yes, I've been there. Yes, I know what it's like. I also pulled myself out of it. I'm no better than anyone else, not any smarter, stronger, or faster. Yet I managed to get off welfare as fast as possible, where many languish on it.

Shut the fuck up, indeed.

I'm not going to read all this thread because there are too many things I don't agree with or I find plain stupid. I'm just going to reply to this obvious idiocy.

First off, how much does your fat ass billionaire work? You say you have the choice, either to work or to not work. That's true because you have the capital, you can let your capital work for you. But most people choose not to work because they prefer spending their days like lizards in cancoon, paying prostitutes and snorting cocaïn. And why would they work when they have slaves to work for them? And you're right, it's not free. The working class works for the capitalists. But this will end soon.

BTW the unemployment in Denmark is way under 10%. I know it because the highest unemployment rate in Europe is 10%, but I don't know the exact number for Denmark, and neither the one of the US, and neither do you, because the US government does not have statistics about unemployment. Well they have but they are a joke. They only count you as unemployed for several days after they lost their jobs. In Denmark, you are unemployed while you don't have a job. In the US, you are unemployed for 13 weeks, after that you are nothing. No wonder, you come up with statistics like that (about 6.5% in the US they say).

http://www.free-europe.org/fe-english/index-1240.html?url=http://www.free-europe.org/eu/english.php?catid=4&blogid=2

http://www.free-europe.org/fe-english/index-1240.html?url=/eu/english.php?itemid=47&amp;catid=4

I'm just going by what the citizens themselves are seeing.

I bet this bloke isn't even well off, hes probably just a hick who pretends hes rich to further enforce his Republican standing.

What about access to education? College money? The state of schools in the inner city compared to private schools? Aren't these all factors that influence the development of a child's intelligence and therefore make some people more/less inclined to suceed?

Anyways, all you spout is rhetoric.

come on. now days any one can get money in so many ways. find a sponsor, get a job, build a buisness. i know of a former wendy's manager who is right now taking a vacation in africa cause he buiilt his own buisness. oh and he is in his early 40s. it really aint that hard. it just requires effort, some education (you can always get a book from the library, its free), and work.

http://www.free-europe.org/fe-english/index-1240.html?url=http://www.free-europe.org/eu/english.php?catid=4&blogid=2

http://www.free-europe.org/fe-english/index-1240.html?url=/eu/english.php?itemid=47&amp;catid=4

I'm just going by what the citizens themselves are seeing.Read the links you post.
1/ this is irrelevant to this thread.
2/ your 2nd link has statistics about Denmark (not about unemployemnt though) and those statistics say Denmark has the least corrupt government in the world.

If you want to back up an opinion with links, make sure you have an opinion to back up first, then make sure the links are about it.

come on. now days any one can get money in so many ways. find a sponsor, get a job, build a buisness. i know of a former wendy's manager who is right now taking a vacation in africa cause he buiilt his own buisness. oh and he is in his early 40s. it really aint that hard. it just requires effort, some education (you can always get a book from the library, its free), and work.
Unless you don't have the capital. Go to Soudan and tell me if it's true.

Unless you don't have the capital. Go to Soudan and tell me if it's true.

i also know of a man that was over 300,000 dollors in debt 10 years ago. he is now debt free and lives off a half a million dollors a year and his income is still increasing. if any one didnt have money it was him, but he still built a buisness and is now finacially sucessfull. it all depends how hard and long you are willing to work. this is america

i also know of a man that was over 300,000 dollors in debt 10 years ago. he is now debt free and lives off a half a million dollors a year and his income is still increasing. if any one didnt have money it was him, but he still built a buisness and is now finacially sucessfull. it all depends how hard and long you are willing to work. this is america

And yet, apparently (we have no way of knowing if your little rags-to-riches story is true) he had 300,000 dollars pass through his hands. Looking back at all the money I've ever spent, 'm not sure 300,000 has ever passed through my hands.

How did he get access to 300,000, especially in such a rush that he could go 300,000 in debt? I'm having problems with the logic of your story.

Long and hard work is not all it takes to make millions, as well you know, otherwise most of the population would be millionaires. In fact, most of the people I have known that have had money have had it practically fall in their laps, or have had the good fortune to get a 'soft' job that pays a disproportionate amount.

I was originally talking about the forum, about how people on the forum posting pro-socialism messages tend to be more affluent, but it does hold true outside that medium too.

Okay, it's different in nations like Brazil, where the standard of living is so low, that even those 'activists' are barely above subsistence, and that may be why collectivisation is more popular down their way. It would be a different matter to try the same scenario in England, where the Crown owns most of the land, and the average joe doesn't have it THAT bad. And - once again, in that situation you find that the most active proponents of socialistic lifestyles are those who are least affected by the inequalities of the current model.

There are numerous reasons for this. Yes, Bakunin's point about the Lumpenproletariat, those with nothing to lose, being the most likely revolutionaries is valid. However, there is also the issue that many leftwing organisations fail to connect properly with local groups - choosing campaigns that are of no interest to people around them and ignoring local issues. This is starting to change.

And, as I said in the previous thread we debated in, these 'collectives' are temporary and localised abberations, not a model. the only reason these collectives survive is because they have been allowed to. If the government of any of the nations actually WANTED them gone, they'd be gone.

That's true of your house. That said, the Zapatista communities in Chiapas have survived for ten years despite government and army attempts to destroy them, Christiania in Denmark has survived continuing attempts to dismantle it.

Vas.

Read the links you post.
1/ this is irrelevant to this thread.
2/ your 2nd link has statistics about Denmark (not about unemployemnt though) and those statistics say Denmark has the least corrupt government in the world.

If you want to back up an opinion with links, make sure you have an opinion to back up first, then make sure the links are about it.

I was backing up the numbers of people on government subsidies in the country. 900,000 out of 5 million is fairly close to 20%.

I would like to reply to what councellor nemo said. First of all, socialism and capitalism are both economic systems and not goverment styles, so you can compare them. Second of all, Capitalism will NEVER WORK, the people can not be allowed to control their income or own huge enterprises like microsoft. See what happens then is, you get a multi-billionare like Bill Gates who just sits in his office with his new high tech vibrator chair thinking of ways to make more money when there are people on the street in the same country that work harder than anyone could imagine and have no money. America uses the capitalist system and that is exactly what will continue to happen with this system. There are too many factors to list why this system will never work, but that is just one. People who support capitalism are just making this country worse and I don't believe that we will ever go the right way with this.
People are too different to make it with capitalism. The goverment if it is a truly socialist body would control almost all the money and redistribute it evenly throughout the population. This way, every one would have the same amount of money and we wouldn't have all this trouble we do with loans, credit, banks etc. Every one would be able to buy what we need, because there would be an end to high priced items because no one would be able to buy them. Everything would be in the same price range or close to it. Communism is a totally different system in which communism controls all business and money, which I don't think is necessary but look at China they are doing pretty good. The problem with communism comes when you have a corrupt goverment the idea behind it is not so bad, if you don't work you don't eat. There is a very slight overwiew of my position on all 3 economic systems and it is the right one. Capitalism doesn't work. Send your comments and/or death threats to epeagle@mn.rr.com or if you have an account on nationstates i am the united socialist states of scotty doesnt know.

I would like to reply to what councellor nemo said. First of all, socialism and capitalism are both economic systems and not goverment styles, so you can compare them. Second of all, Capitalism will NEVER WORK, the people can not be allowed to control their income or own huge enterprises like microsoft. See what happens then is, you get a multi-billionare like Bill Gates who just sits in his office with his new high tech vibrator chair thinking of ways to make more money when there are people on the street in the same country that work harder than anyone could imagine and have no money. America uses the capitalist system and that is exactly what will continue to happen with this system. There are too many factors to list why this system will never work, but that is just one. People who support capitalism are just making this country worse and I don't believe that we will ever go the right way with this.
People are too different to make it with capitalism. The goverment if it is a truly socialist body would control almost all the money and redistribute it evenly throughout the population. This way, every one would have the same amount of money and we wouldn't have all this trouble we do with loans, credit, banks etc. Every one would be able to buy what we need, because there would be an end to high priced items because no one would be able to buy them. Everything would be in the same price range or close to it. Communism is a totally different system in which communism controls all business and money, which I don't think is necessary but look at China they are doing pretty good. The problem with communism comes when you have a corrupt goverment the idea behind it is not so bad, if you don't work you don't eat. There is a very slight overwiew of my position on all 3 economic systems and it is the right one. Capitalism doesn't work. Send your comments and/or death threats to epeagle@mn.rr.com or if you have an account on nationstates i am the united socialist states of scotty doesnt know.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345283

I didn't read all of the posts because theyre pretty expansive, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet...buuut, obviously, socialism is supposed to be some kind of utopia where everyone gets their share, contributes their share and lives in general comfort. I believe that in a socialistic society, every job that someone has has to be commited to bettering the economy or the people. So, I ask, how do the arts come into play? Would music, art, literature even exist and who would decide which arts benefit the people? They are forms or entertainment and entertainment is somewhat useless to the masses or is it? Blah blah, this isnt a very good point. To conclude, capitalism is better because the nature of human kind is much too selfish and greedy to be able to sustain equality or at least until we evolve into something better.

I didn't read all of the posts because theyre pretty expansive, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet...buuut, obviously, socialism is supposed to be some kind of utopia where everyone gets their share, contributes their share and lives in general comfort. I believe that in a socialistic society, every job that someone has has to be commited to bettering the economy or the people. So, I ask, how do the arts come into play? Would music, art, literature even exist and who would decide which arts benefit the people? They are forms or entertainment and entertainment is somewhat useless to the masses or is it?

Don't be stupid. Music, art and literature better society.

Blah blah, this isnt a very good point. To conclude, capitalism is better because the nature of human kind is much too selfish and greedy to be able to sustain equality or at least until we evolve into something better.

Simple question - if people are so completely greedy, is it best to maintain a system where people profit from being greedy? Rather than promoting a negative element of humanity, would we not all be better served with a system that tried to promote positive aspects such as co-operation and solidarity? Wouldn't a more equal system actually benefit more people than the current system?

Vas.

I would like to reply to what councellor nemo said. First of all, socialism and capitalism are both economic systems and not goverment styles, so you can compare them. Second of all, Capitalism will NEVER WORK, the people can not be allowed to control their income or own huge enterprises like microsoft. See what happens then is, you get a multi-billionare like Bill Gates who just sits in his office with his new high tech vibrator chair thinking of ways to make more money when there are people on the street in the same country that work harder than anyone could imagine and have no money.

People are too different to make it with capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't work.


Bill Gates does not sit on a pile of money. His wealth is vested into investments, which provide jobs. His wealth would be considerably diminished were he to withdrawl his investments. Furthermore - he built the company from nothing. He earned it.

Being in debt does not prevent one from starting a business. A company[corporation] is a seperate entity. Your personal debts have nothing to do with it.

Capitalism is working just fine.

Are all you corporate bashers using Linux?

yeah canada does rule!

free beer for the commonwealth!

yeah canada does rule!

free beer for the commonwealth!


free beer to everyone!

I was backing up the numbers of people on government subsidies in the country. 900,000 out of 5 million is fairly close to 20%.
But then you are comparing people on government subsidies in Denmark (it includes people with low income) with "jobless" (just 13 weeks after they lost their job) people in the US.

bump

This has been a fascinating discussion to read. I wanted to add something, though, for once. This is a set of instructions that I generally followed to come to my conclusions. Try it. It beats argument.

1. Travel to a housing project. The Fischer Project in New Orleans did it for me. Think abou it.
2. Take an ecomomics class and pass it.
3. Read The Fountainhead and/or 1984 and/or Brave New World
4. Return to the projects and think about what you see.

I once saw no harm in socialism. It was like any other argument...both sides with merit, both sides with faults. But these four things changed my mind.

Good day.

This has been a fascinating discussion to read. I wanted to add something, though, for once. This is a set of instructions that I generally followed to come to my conclusions. Try it. It beats argument.

1. Travel to a housing project. The Fischer Project in New Orleans did it for me. Think abou it.
2. Take an ecomomics class and pass it.
3. Read The Fountainhead and/or 1984 and/or Brave New World
4. Return to the projects and think about what you see.

I once saw no harm in socialism. It was like any other argument...both sides with merit, both sides with faults. But these four things changed my mind.

Good day.


You ever read Parliament of Whores? There's a great chapter about the projects in it.

3. Read The Fountainhead and/or 1984 and/or Brave New World

you misunderstood 1984 if you thought it was an argument against socialism. brave new world too.

This has been a fascinating discussion to read. I wanted to add something, though, for once. This is a set of instructions that I generally followed to come to my conclusions. Try it. It beats argument.

1. Travel to a housing project. The Fischer Project in New Orleans did it for me. Think abou it.
2. Take an ecomomics class and pass it.
3. Read The Fountainhead and/or 1984 and/or Brave New World
4. Return to the projects and think about what you see.

I once saw no harm in socialism. It was like any other argument...both sides with merit, both sides with faults. But these four things changed my mind.

Good day.I'm not sure what it means but I think he means that he changed his mind and now think Socialism is not like any other argument, but the superior system.

I'm not sure what it means but I think he means that he changed his mind and now think Socialism is not like any other argument, but the superior system.

No, it is because of these four things that he realised the failures of socialism.

you misunderstood 1984 if you thought it was an argument against socialism. brave new world too.

Hahahahah,

at least for 1984 George Orwell should also be misunderstood, he wrote it after almost been executed for been in a rival communist party (POUM) in the very "socialist" Spanish Republic (really a stalinist puppet state).

Check your facts first.

No, it is because of these four things that he realised the failures of socialism.
So what is his alternative to socialism?

Hahahahah,

at least for 1984 George Orwell should also be misunderstood, he wrote it after almost been executed for been in a rival communist party (POUM) in the very "socialist" Spanish Republic (really a stalinist puppet state).

Check your facts first.Check your sentence construction. And back up your claim that the Spanish Republic (as opposed to the Spanish Communist party) was a puppet of Stalin. Reread 1984 again- it has three systems, all exactly the same yet claiming ideological oppostion to each other. What parallels are there with the way the world was when Orwell wrote 1984? And if, as you admit, Orwell was fighting alongside POUM (he was never a member, so you really are in no position to be lecturing others about facts) then do you acknowledge that those who claim Orwell was anti communist are either liars, morons or both?

those who claim Orwell was anti communist are either liars, morons or both?

and anyone who makes a similar claim about aldous huxley and 'brave new world' didn't read his introduction to the book.

though we are probably dealing with the old 'all socialism/communism equals stalinism' silliness.

Neither. Not in their present forms anyway.