NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that Americans are so adverse to the mention of socialism?

The McCarthy Era and the USSR. That made things really polarized.

Haven't there been about 500 threadsabout this? Use the search key.

Better yet, do a search under Google and see for yourself.

The McCarthy Era and the USSR. That made things really polarized.

the us freaked out about socialism long before then. at least as far back as 1886 (haymarket and the related legal lynchings and indefinite detentions), and i know that it was an issue even earlier than that.

Why is it that Americans are so adverse to the mention of socialism?

McCarthyism. Most have been fooled by the American Upper Class.

Power to the Working Class!

Socialists/communists killed about 60 million people (Mao 40M, Stalin 20M). Nazis "only" killed 34 million. What I wonder about is that there isn't more of a stigma attached to being a Socialist, like there is with being a Nazi.


Oh, you might say...

Socialists are not Communists - they'd like to be when they grow up. both read the same books, and are guided by the same ideas.

Lenin/Stalin/Mao weren't *real* communists - if they weren't, then who is? actually in practice they were socialists, not communists, since they didn't outlaw all private property or abolish money, they only nationalized "the means of production". their ideology was certainly communist.

It can work if only we do it the *right* way - and kill how many more people? Sure, let's give it another try.


Basically, when that philosophy takes hold, the ultimate result is that lots of people die of hunger or disease, and those that survive live in squalor. The semi-socialist countries in Europe are well on their way to being semi-bankrupt.

The McCarthy Era and the USSR. That made things really polarized.
but if it was during that time, why did the usa let socialism spread through west europe?
why americans consider socialism something bad is a good question. it benefits everyone except the rich and super rich.

Socialists/communists killed about 60 million people (Mao 40M, Stalin 20M). Nazis "only" killed 34 million. What I wonder about is that there isn't more of a stigma attached to being a Socialist, like there is with being a Nazi.

Christianity killed millions as well, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop worshiping God.

Jesus Christ was a Communist Himself, read the Book of Acts.

One more reason I am not a christian.

You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.

Christianity killed millions as well, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop worshiping God.

Jesus Christ was a Communist Himself, read the Book of Acts.

Why don't you give us those verses instead?

Why don't you give us those verses instead?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369077

Christianity killed millions as well, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop worshiping God.
And of course, capitalists have killed millions over the years as well.

That really has no relevance to the issue of socialism.

Anyhow, the Red Scare and Soviet imperialism is the reason so many Americans fear mention of the word.


But they probably don't realize their social security is based on socialist ideals.

Socialism plus capitalism = welfare state. Which is what most European countries, and Canada and the US have.

Basically, when that philosophy takes hold, the ultimate result is that lots of people die of hunger or disease, and those that survive live in squalor..

Wake up to yourself. The same is true of global capitalism and its effects on the third world.

Oh, and by the way, it may interest you to note that "communist" nations as a whole have very high life expectancy and literacy rates.

Socialism and being socialist are often considered "bad"; so why is it that americans dont feel that western europeans are "bad" people.

Socialism and being socialist are often considered "bad"; so why is it that americans dont feel that western europeans are "bad" people.

Some do...but generally from my experience criticism focuses on supposedly ugly women. Hmm, that wouldn't be a pot calling the kettle black, considering the US obesity rate, would it? :rolleyes:

Though I still regard Western Europe as mostly capitalist. It's moving in the right direction though.

Socialists/communists killed about 60 million people
Please do me a favor, and site sources. It is my understanding Stalin only killed 10 milion people.
It's irrelevant anyway, because Stalin wasn't really a socialist.
Also, as mentioned before, I'm sure many more people than 60 million have been killed in the name of Christianity.

Because the government takes money I could be making and gives it to some worthless air waster

Fundamentally, Americans hate socialism because they have become dependent on hierarchy and have come to rely on it for comfort. It relieves them of the responsibility of making decisions. They don't like the burden of resisting the urge to do immoral things and want the government and capitalists to tell them what to do.

As a result, anything that threatens traditional hierarchy is viewed with suspicion and often outright fear. Hierarchy has people hooked by various means (sexual repression and thus guilt from sex drive, indoctrination with pro-authority lies, etc.) and won't let go easily.

Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. And so far, our economy is doing very well with Capitalism, and America boasts the highest percentage of Entreprenoures in the world. Yay Capitalism!

Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. And so far, our economy is doing very well with Capitalism, and America boasts the highest percentage of Entreprenoures in the world. Yay Capitalism!

Capitalism is fine until you're working in a sweatshop.

Please do me a favor, and site sources. It is my understanding Stalin only killed 10 milion people.

:eek:
ROFL.
Actually, closer estimate is 17 million.

Capitalism is fine until you're working in a sweatshop.
Are you? Do you know someone who is? As far as I can tell, the only people who end up working in sweatshops are a few illegal immigrants who decided to come to the North rather than the South, where they could find much better work. And they make a lot more money. So basically, its a bunch of greedy northerners that exploit them. Not my problem, yours.

Capitalism is fine until you're working in a sweatshop.

Have any brutal experiences you'd like to share? Who knows you might be able to give your story to a competitor of that particular shop who would then use this information to their advantage and by raising the wages of their own employees while pointing out the "horrible conditions" in their competitor's shop to the consumers, they'd likely sell more product. It's win-win.

Personally, I'd rather work in a capitalistic sweatshop for money I know is mine, than work the same job just to have the majority of my income go to keep some lazy arsehole well-medicated and out of the gutter.

Our country was founded on the ideal of liberty, something I and many other Americans hold dear.

As a US Citizen I believe that the Federal government should remove itself as much as possible from the personal lives of its citizens.

Because most socialistic policies would hamper this effort, I dislike socialism.

Three reasons only a small minority here have any respect for socialism:

France, Spain, and Germany. :)

You have to think of the world as a global economy, with the third world working its way to being the new "proletariat". It isn't the living conditions inside the major capitalist nations (though these are of a concern sometimes), it is the way the world is increasingly polarized between haves and have-nots, with the "haves" exploiting the others. Capitalism is fine, until you look beyond the doorstep.

Lenin/Stalin/Mao weren't *real* communists - if they weren't, then who is? actually in practice they were socialists, not communists, since they didn't outlaw all private property or abolish money, they only nationalized "the means of production". their ideology was certainly communist.

Well actualy none of them were anything like communists. The thing that we call communism is actually Marxism, which is a perverted version of it where the people in charge instead of being leaders and examples are tyrants and take advantage of the system. Communism is where every one in the community cares more about the good of everyone and not just themselves and everything, like food and money, is anyones if they need it. It is when this idea is taken advantage of that all these bad things happen. Pure communism is a Christian idea, where everyone is selfless and of one accord and gives if another has any need that they can meet.

Capitalism is fine until you're working in a sweatshop.
As opposed to, say, not even having the opportunity to work in a sweatshop? After all, if working in a sweatshop is such a good opportunity that people in horribly poor countries choose to work in them, despite how supposedly exploitative they are, then obviously, the alternative, without Capitalism, must have been worse.

so does anybody want to talk about why lots of people, particularly in america, were deathly afraid of socialism 80+ years before anyone could blame any material evils on it at all?

As opposed to, say, not even having the opportunity to work in a sweatshop? After all, if working in a sweatshop is such a good opportunity that people in horribly poor countries choose to work in them, despite how supposedly exploitative they are, then obviously, the alternative, without Capitalism, must have been worse.

well, once you have been forced off your land and have to pay both rent and taxes to the elite that sold your country out to the multinational corporations, you don't really have much other choice, now do you?

well, once you have been forced off your land and have to pay both rent and taxes to the elite that sold your country out to the multinational corporations, you don't really have much other choice, now do you?

So you're blaming multi-national corporations for the problems brought on by despotic governments?

So you're blaming multi-national corporations for the problems brought on by despotic governments?

TNC's take advantage of corrupt, despotic governments and exacerbate many of these problems.

So you're blaming multi-national corporations for the problems brought on by despotic governments?

nah, it took the state to enable the multinationals to get away with what they do. i blame the entire system of power elites making sweetheart deals with each other. i am an anarchist after all.

TNC's take advantage of corrupt, despotic governments and exacerbate many of these problems.

How does giving people a job exaerbate problems brought on by corrupt government? Having multinational corporations come into a poor country is a good first step towards eventual recovery of that nation from its poor condition. Every nation started out with so called 'sweatshop' labor, including the United States. Thats just one of the steps of economic progress.

How does giving people a job exaerbate problems brought on by corrupt government? Having multinational corporations come into a poor country is a good first step towards eventual recovery of that nation from its poor condition. Every nation started out with so called 'sweatshop' labor, including the United States. Thats just one of the steps of economic progress.

Your flawed conclusion is that these corporations exploiting the population is the only means of generating gainful employment. That's frankly not true. A sub-par textile industry that wasn't there before won't develop the nation much, either. They'll remain the underclass, because the corporations need the cheap labour.

Another flaw in your argument is that you seem to view "giving these people" a job as some form of charity. It's not. If it were cheaper to hire Americans, they'd do that instead. They don't care.

Your flawed conclusion is that these corporations exploiting the population is the only means of generating gainful employment.


If you can think of other means of gainful employment then I'd love to hear it.

That's frankly not true. A sub-par textile industry that wasn't there before won't develop the nation much, either. They'll remain the underclass, because the corporations need the cheap labour.

The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.

Another flaw in your argument is that you seem to view "giving these people" a job as some form of charity. It's not. If it were cheaper to hire Americans, they'd do that instead. They don't care.

So because the company benefits we should turn up our noses at the good being done to the population? One of the first tenants of capitalism is mutual benefit in economic transactions.

There are several reasons:
1. The American Culture: We on the western side of the Atlantic tend to have a pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality. We dislike the concept of someone else being behind our success.

2. More American Culture: The Puritan Work Ethic, basically meaning, if you worked for it, you deserve it, anything that is given to you without effort is bad.

3. The Firm American belief in the Right to Property, which is expressed by Locke's natural rights, and the UN Human rights thingy.

4. American's are fans of comptetition. Socialism squelches competition.

5. America has been a nation of home and land owners, rarely very rich, but we worked for what we have.

6. It has nothing to do with McCarthyism. I'm a History major, I have never even had my most moronically liberal prof ever say that. They all talk about the reasons I just talked about.

Now, why I don't like socialism? Socialism leads naturally to a HUGE government. I don't like HUGE government. I believe that the smaller the government, the more freedom we can have. Hence, I'm a Libertarian. I don't believe that any of the natural rights come above the other. And socialism tends to deprive some of the right to property.

Also, I fear the type of Orwellian dystopia that can be spawned from socialist governments (I also fear right wing dystopias, but we ain't talking about that here). Remember, in 1984 the political theory was called Ingsoc, Newspeak for English Socialism.

Another thought: Socialism breeds a new type of elites. An elite who rise to unquestioned power. They are vested with the strength of an unchallenged state, and thus receive absolute power. No matter how strong one is, such power always corrupts, absolutely.

On either sides of the spectrum you can travel far enough that you wind up in the same place. Totalitarianism. One end to two means.

You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.

The right-left thing is a bogus divide.

The only thing you need to believe to be a socialist is that the government should control some/all industries. The Nazis did. The Soviets did as well. They are both socialist. They are also both authoritarian.

Most of Western Europe nowadays is about half-socialist (government directly controls some industries and heavily taxes/regulates most others), and not especially authoritarian in other regards. Is liberal (semi-)socialism fundamentally different from authoritarian socialism? Not in terms of its economic effects.

the whole hate of socialism is through ignorance. Socialism is merely an economic system, it has nothing to do with democracy or dictatorship. Stalin was not a real socialist, just a greedy evil dictator. Real socialists didnt do anthing wrong and I think socialism makes much more sense than capitalism or communism personally and the U.S. should progress more towards it.

Christianity killed millions as well, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop worshiping God.

It doesn't? Really? Seems like a pretty good reason to me.

(Incidentally, don't worry, there is no way that Christianity has anywhere near the death toll of Communism... a couple million at most).

There are several reasons:
1. The American Culture: We on the western side of the Atlantic tend to have a pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality. We dislike the concept of someone else being behind our success.

2. More American Culture: The Puritan Work Ethic, basically meaning, if you worked for it, you deserve it, anything that is given to you without effort is bad.

3. The Firm American belief in the Right to Property, which is expressed by Locke's natural rights, and the UN Human rights thingy.

4. American's are fans of comptetition. Socialism squelches competition.

5. America has been a nation of home and land owners, rarely very rich, but we worked for what we have.

6. It has nothing to do with McCarthyism. I'm a History major, I have never even had my most moronically liberal prof ever say that. They all talk about the reasons I just talked about.

Now, why I don't like socialism? Socialism leads naturally to a HUGE government. I don't like HUGE government. I believe that the smaller the government, the more freedom we can have. Hence, I'm a Libertarian. I don't believe that any of the natural rights come above the other. And socialism tends to deprive some of the right to property.

Also, I fear the type of Orwellian dystopia that can be spawned from socialist governments (I also fear right wing dystopias, but we ain't talking about that here). Remember, in 1984 the political theory was called Ingsoc, Newspeak for English Socialism.

Another thought: Socialism breeds a new type of elites. An elite who rise to unquestioned power. They are vested with the strength of an unchallenged state, and thus receive absolute power. No matter how strong one is, such power always corrupts, absolutely.

I love the works of Orwell, but 1984 and animal farm are more communist situations than socialist. and that is when dictators rise to power and all, which can also happen with capitalism. I don't think real socialism like in Scandinavia or semi-socialism in western europe that has democracy and stuff would end up like that. the state would not go unchallenged. in the unfortunate communist incidents that have happened they ended up with totalitarians who opress freedom of speech and all but that wouldnt have to happen. The connection between communism and socialism and totalitarianism is coincidental.

I have to say, stop with the "this idea killed this many people". Neither socialism, communism, religion, or capitalism killed anyone. People working under those ideologies did, for various reasons.

Snip.

Yeah, that pretty much summarizes the argument I was about to show. It has nothing to do with fear from McCarty. It has to do with the culture the country grew into.

the whole hate of socialism is through ignorance. Socialism is merely an economic system, it has nothing to do with democracy or dictatorship. Stalin was not a real socialist, just a greedy evil dictator. Real socialists didnt do anthing wrong and I think socialism makes much more sense than capitalism or communism personally and the U.S. should progress more towards it.

Socialism is authoritarian by its very nature... the government tells you what you can and can't do when it comes to business. Whether the decision is made by one guy or by a party or by a popular vote, doesn't matter in the least. Do you think that Stalin or Mao or Hitler were acting on their own? There were tens of thousands of people who supported them... in the case of Hitler, he was damned well elected before he made himself a dictator. Socialism an economic system? Yes, an inherently coercive one. Capitalism is not an -ism, it is just everybody doing whatever they want, engaging in any business exchange as they wish (or not). It is pretty much the exact opposite of an -ism. Most of the supposed "ills of capitalism" actually come from state-granted monopolies, which I am certainly in favor of abolishing.

"Stalin was not a real socialist" ... yeah I predicted that someone will say that. See my earlier post. Sure, of course he wasn't. Let's just try the same policies again. It'll be different this time.

US should progress to socialism? This is a truly scary sentiment. If you want to set up socialism in the US, I will fight you all the way... and I am sure there are many who feel that way. You are deluded if you think it will happen without a civil war... which your side will lose.

I have to say, stop with the "this idea killed this many people". Neither socialism, communism, religion, or capitalism killed anyone. People working under those ideologies did, for various reasons.
Much true.

Once again, I shall state that there are fundamental natural rights, Life, Liberty, and Property. I do not believe that any of these rights are subordinate to the others. And the natural safeguards built in, in a short circuit fashion protect all three. (i.e. I have the liberty to kill you, but that would deprive you of life, an equal right, and as such, I just don't carry out the action.)

Socialism tends to trample on one of these three sacred rights, property. And if you are allowed to trample one, you might just be tempted to trample upon all of these, and, tada! Dystopia.

Please do me a favor, and site sources. It is my understanding Stalin only killed 10 milion people.
It's irrelevant anyway, because Stalin wasn't really a socialist.
Also, as mentioned before, I'm sure many more people than 60 million have been killed in the name of Christianity.
:eek:
ROFL.
Actually, closer estimate is 17 million.

You know, if it were Jews Bryle was talking about, it would be called revisionism and he'd go to jail. But it's okay now, it's only nameless Russians picked at random.


the whole hate of socialism is through ignorance. Socialism is merely an economic system, it has nothing to do with democracy or dictatorship. Stalin was not a real socialist, just a greedy evil dictator. Real socialists didnt do anthing wrong and I think socialism makes much more sense than capitalism or communism personally and the U.S. should progress more towards it.

You started out good there with pointing out that socialism is a purely economic system void of intrinsic moral value, the latter being defined by the political measures to instate and maintain said socialism.

However, you got off track by referring to "real" socialists, obviously meaning those you agree politically with, thus again spoiling the sterile principle of an economic system with moral values.

Please do me a favor, and site sources. It is my understanding Stalin only killed 10 milion people.

This is the best meta-source, it cites all the other sources you can possibly want.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

in particular,
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

The two old schools of thought are around 10M or around 40M. The modern consensus is 20M. This is not counting the artificially created famines of the 1920's which would add another 10M. Therefore the total is anywhere between 20M and 50M, take your pick. I picked the lowest credible number.

It's irrelevant anyway, because Stalin wasn't really a socialist.

I predicted someone would say that... nice to know I was right.

I have to say, stop with the "this idea killed this many people". Neither socialism, communism, religion, or capitalism killed anyone. People working under those ideologies did, for various reasons.

That is true but quite misleading. Ideologies are great at producing wholesale murder. People kill each other for all kinds of reasons all the time, but not usually on an industrial scale. Ideology makes a real difference in organizing a large group of people and setting them to work on systematically killing another large group, with no individual guilt or remorse. Ideology really does matter. Moreover, some ideologies have been pretty much proven to reliably cause that effect.

The semi-socialist countries in Europe are well on their way to being semi-bankrupt.
Ehem, excuse me? Some facts please? As far as I know USA is the only western country near bankcrupcy.

How does giving people a job exaerbate problems brought on by corrupt government? Having multinational corporations come into a poor country is a good first step towards eventual recovery of that nation from its poor condition. Every nation started out with so called 'sweatshop' labor, including the United States. Thats just one of the steps of economic progress.
these poor nations give tax-breaks and form taxfree areas in order to get foreign companies into country, but once the "offer" is used, (e.g.they expect that companies start paying taxes af´ter 3 years) companies move to next country. The poor countries don't benefit at all. Instead they loose good work force which could work for their own country and not for foreigners.

The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.


This is not true. First of all there is no inflow. Cheap workers can barely survive with their wages. Foreign companies don't pay taxes. They might pay some corrupt money for the government (or junta), but that doesn't help the situation amongst the poor. Second, in many factories, the workers are little kids. They should be in school. Education helps better than sweatshops. And no, they don't have to go to work to bring food for the family. The parents are often unemployed because children do all the work. If they would be in school, there would be work for parents.

You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.

The reason that is in there is because when they founded the party in the early 20s they were trying to attract the working class, many of whom were socialist, so they gave a contradictory name and intially had anti business policies...almost all of which had gone by the time they came to power (they valued the media barons who supported them too much to alienate them).

The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.

Everyone loves multinationals... :sniper:

The bolivian water war a couple of years back. A water corporation (55% owned by Bechtel, one of the worlds largest utility companies) bought the water system of a city and then tripled the price of water, so half the population couldn't afford both water and food. There were a series of riots which the corp. tried to blame on 'narcocriminals' until the government, scared of a full scale revolt, stepped in, freed the demonstators and gave the control of the water back to the citizens, who reduced the price of water back to its previous levels.

What is now happening is that Bechtel is suing the Bolivian government in a secret court for a riducolous amount of money, 'to make up for their development costs', despite the fact that they didn't do anything to improve the system and in fact owe the Bolivian government a massive unpaid electricity bill.

The bolivian water war a couple of years back. A water corporation (55% owned by Bechtel, one of the worlds largest utility companies) bought the water system of a city and then tripled the price of water, so half the population couldn't afford both water and food. There were a series of riots which the corp. tried to blame on 'narcocriminals' until the government, scared of a full scale revolt, stepped in, freed the demonstators and gave the control of the water back to the citizens, who reduced the price of water back to its previous levels.

What is now happening is that Bechtel is suing the Bolivian government in a secret court for a riducolous amount of money, 'to make up for their development costs', despite the fact that they didn't do anything to improve the system and in fact owe the Bolivian government a massive unpaid electricity bill.
The Bolivians were not allowed to gather rainwater as it belonged to Bechtel. They can own everything. World bank (I'm not completely sure if it was WTO or G8 or...some organisation anyway) has already paid a huge compensation for Bechtel to get out of the country.

If Stalin was really a socialist, he would have socially been on the same level as the rest of the Soviet citizens. And I think it's interesting how we rarely hear of the centuries before Stalinist Russia, where the people lived in equally harsh conditions under the totalitarian regime of the Tsars. So the reason why life sucked in Russia wasn't because of communism, it was because of the totalitarian government.

A democracy is possible in a purely socialist state, it just hasn't been tried.

I think Marx was right, socialism and communism are part of an economic evolution. The reason why it didn't work in Russia is becuase it was forced on the people; they went suddenly from a feudal, pre-industrial revolution state to a communist state. The realistic way is to allow economies to evolve, with gradual change. Allowing unions and government ownership of things like the postal service are gradual steps in the right direction.

Anyone find it interesting that when a company wants to take over something owned by the government (like the situation in the late 70s in Cinncinati regarding selling the government selling the power company) they refer to it as "giving it back to the people?" In a democracy, something owned by the government is really owned by the people (government for the people by the people) The people elect leaders to regulate it; these leaders are motivated by remaining popular with the people. If it's privately owned, one or a few people who are motivated by profit are the regulators. i.e. private ownership=more expensive.

these poor nations give tax-breaks and form taxfree areas in order to get foreign companies into country, but once the "offer" is used, (e.g.they expect that companies start paying taxes af´ter 3 years) companies move to next country. The poor countries don't benefit at all. Instead they loose good work force which could work for their own country and not for foreigners.

I can't even think of one example where this has happened. What usually happens is what I described; a corporation comes in, it pays much higher wages than the local wages (but still sweatshop by our standards), and the people who manage to get those jobs benefit immensely.

There are several reasons:

Now, why I don't like socialism? Socialism leads naturally to a HUGE government. I don't like HUGE government. I believe that the smaller the government, the more freedom we can have. Hence, I'm a Libertarian. I don't believe that any of the natural rights come above the other. And socialism tends to deprive some of the right to property.

Also, I fear the type of Orwellian dystopia that can be spawned from socialist governments (I also fear right wing dystopias, but we ain't talking about that here). Remember, in 1984 the political theory was called Ingsoc, Newspeak for English Socialism.

Another thought: Socialism breeds a new type of elites. An elite who rise to unquestioned power. They are vested with the strength of an unchallenged state, and thus receive absolute power. No matter how strong one is, such power always corrupts, absolutely.

Socialism leads to a huge government, true, and from an ideological perspective I support libertarians, although my strongest conviction is that big business under a capitalist system cannot be trusted to anything honestly or by the rules. Libertarians want to give the same laissez-faire policy to business that I support for the private citizen. As a result I'd rather see big government that actually supports the average joe, hence I'm a Socialist.

Your comments on Orwell's 1984 were interesting, Orwell hated fascism, and hated communism, but was a socialist himself.

As for the "elites with unquestioned power" comment, I think you're neglecting the concept of Democratic Socialism, which is by far the most popular and common socialist ideology around today.

This is not true. First of all there is no inflow. Cheap workers can barely survive with their wages.

In most instances the wages paid are higher than the domestic wages.

Foreign companies don't pay taxes. They might pay some corrupt money for the government (or junta), but that doesn't help the situation amongst the poor.

So? If they did pay taxes that still wouldn't help the poor. Ultimately those nations which are despotic are probably not going to be helped no matter what, but those nations which are not despotic will grow. Look at S. Korea and Hong Kong for instance. They started out with sweatshops and now they are modern first world economies. Look at the US, or virtually any European state, we all started out with sweatshops, child labor, etc

Second, in many factories, the workers are little kids. They should be in school.

Hard to be in school when you're starving. They need those jobs to help them survive.

Education helps better than sweatshops. And no, they don't have to go to work to bring food for the family. The parents are often unemployed because children do all the work. If they would be in school, there would be work for parents.

Who is going to provide that education? The nation is dirt poor and possibly despotic, so no education is going to happen until the economic\political situation changes. These nations also often suffer from underemployment, the children may be able to get jobs that the parents can't(for various reasons such as children generally get paid less or whatever). For some rich westerner like you to arrogently come in and claim that these kids should be in school and not working is to display a laughingly niave understanding of conditions of the third world.

Socialism leads to a huge government, true, and from an ideological perspective I support libertarians, although my strongest conviction is that big business under a capitalist system cannot be trusted to anything honestly or by the rules. Libertarians want to give the same laissez-faire policy to business that I support for the private citizen. As a result I'd rather see big government that actually supports the average joe, hence I'm a Socialist.

So you don't want to trust business, which has no coercive force, but you do want to trust the government, which has tanks and guns? Furthermore, you make some ridiculous distinction between business and private citizens that begs explaining. Business is made up of, and owned by, private citizens. How can you claim to champion private citizens in one breath and in the next disparage business?

Kanabia:
You have to think of the world as a global economy, with the third world working its way to being the new "proletariat". It isn't the living conditions inside the major capitalist nations (though these are of a concern sometimes), it is the way the world is increasingly polarized between haves and have-nots, with the "haves" exploiting the others. Capitalism is fine, until you look beyond the doorstep.

Good point. Labour division has internationalised, but in terms of social responsibility we still think in terms of countries.
Fifty years ago the ones that made our consumer products were our countrymen, and we cared for their living conditions. Nowadays our products are at least for a major part made in semi-developed countries like China or Mexico but we still don't look past our own borders.

About he idea that communism=socialism=dictatorship=mass-murder, why don't we try to define socialism first?

I think the essential point of socialism is that when a decision has to be made between the welfare of an individual or that of society as a whole, the latter option is chosen.

Even market-oriented countries like the United States make that kind of decisions. For example: for an individual consumer it's a good thing that farmers have a hard time selling their produce: it gives us very low prices for our food. For society as a whole price-floors for agricultural products may be better, because it gives income stability for a large part of society and keeps millions of people from falling into unemployment. The US actually chooses for the 'social' option of imposing price-floors.
This is just an example of what socialism can mean if you translate it a bit broader then soviet-communism.

I can't even think of one example where this has happened. What usually happens is what I described; a corporation comes in, it pays much higher wages than the local wages (but still sweatshop by our standards), and the people who manage to get those jobs benefit immensely.
outch, I just wrote a long post but I coudn't post it...darn. Well here we go again.

It happens all the time atleast in Vietnam, Siam, Bangladesh and Burma (yes, many corporations are more than happy to cooperate with the junta). Foreign corporations don't pay any higher wages. Well alright, some of them do, mostly because their customers have demanted it. I'm not saying everything is wrong and all foreign corporations are as bad. Maybe you shuold read some studies about sweatshops and economy.
e.g.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=108
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JVP/is_2001_Summer/ai_90530874/pg_4


Made in China: The Role of U.S. Companies in Denying Human and Worker Rights by Charles Kernaghan, National Labor Committee.
No Sweat: Fashion, Free trade, and The Rights of Garment Workers edited by Andrew Ross.
The Sweatshop Quandary: Corporate Responsibility on the Global Frontier edited by Pamela Varley.
And of course Naomi Klein, No logo.

If sweatshops are great for poor countries, why there are many in the USA? Or is it possible that the economy isn't so great after all?

The semi-socialist countries in Europe are well on their way to being semi-bankrupt.

*laughs hysterically*

Bankrupt? Compared to the USA, we of the Netherlands have streets paved with gold.

why americans consider socialism something bad is a good question. it benefits everyone except the rich and super rich.

That's your opinion. Even if it's true it's immoral. Just because something benefits x # of people doesn't make it okay. Besides, I'd like to be rich some day.

In most instances the wages paid are higher than the domestic wages.

I would really like to see some facts to prove this. Yet, I'm willing to admit that some corporations pay better wages.

So? If they did pay taxes that still wouldn't help the poor. Ultimately those nations which are despotic are probably not going to be helped no matter what, but those nations which are not despotic will grow. Look at S. Korea and Hong Kong for instance. They started out with sweatshops and now they are modern first world economies. Look at the US, or virtually any European state, we all started out with sweatshops, child labor, etc
If they would pay taxes the country would benefit. You're saying that it's alright they don't pay taxes, nevermind who's leading the country? Hong Kong growth has nothing to do with sweatshops. Maybe the fact that it was a British harbour (and the only western) in the best possible market place in the world had something to do with it. We still have sweatshops and child labour in Europe, USA has sweatshops. S. Korea has sweatshops. The overall economy is certainly better, but I just don't believe that having sweatshops is the best way to rise the economy.



Who is going to provide that education? The nation is dirt poor and possibly despotic, so no education is going to happen until the economic\political situation changes. These nations also often suffer from underemployment, the children may be able to get jobs that the parents can't(for various reasons such as children generally get paid less or whatever). For some rich westerner like you to arrogently come in and claim that these kids should be in school and not working is to display a laughingly niave understanding of conditions of the third world.
I pay 10€ per month to educate Nepalese girls. To give basic education for one child in Nepal costs that 10€. And they can still work beside their studies.
If foreign corporations keep supporting despotics the situation will never change. The children get the jobs because they're paid less, but still their parents could do the work as well. They would have work if children could be children. And I think it's horrible that you think it's alright. I'll say your naive if you can't see that it is the children who are making the parents unemployed.

You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.
The Nazis weren't Socialist. They adopted that when they joined (took over) a socialist party and kept it to maintain the illusion that they were for the workers, which was important as the Communist party was pretty strong and getting stronger in Germany in the 20's when the Nazi party started. They were competiting for the same votes.


On another note, I followed the discussion about the sweatshops with interest - and can't see either one changing their position. Personally I think the 'at least they have a job' is patronising at best. They work in appalling conditions, sometimes handling dangerous or hazardous materials with little/no protection, for up to 18 hours a day for a pittance. Many of them have been lured there with the promise of much better paying jobs - so they borrow heavily to travel there and bribe the right person, only to find the job is shit. And they're stuck there practically slaving away to pay off their debts, sometimes living on land owned by the multinational who then has the audacity to charge them rent.
But hey! "at least they have a job" :rolleyes:
Regardless of the above rant, could someone who is for these sweatshops, please justify why Tiger Woods gets paid more from Nike than the entire Indonesian Nike workforce which makes the products he endorses.
Without him, Nike could double the pay of everyone of their workers in Indonesia (which would alleviate their poverty immensely) - and how many Nike products have you bought because you saw a picture of Tiger wearing it?

Capitalism is fine until you're working in a sweatshop.

At least when you're working in a sweat shop you're still alive.

"In country after country, educating girls yields spectacular social benefits for the current generation and those to come. An educated girl tends to marry later and have fewer children. The children she does have will be more likely to survive; they will be better nourished and better educated. She will be more productive at home and better paid in the workplace. She will be better able to protect herself against HIV/AIDS and to assume a more active role in social, economic and political decision-making throughout her life."
UNICEF
http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/index.html

At least when you're working in a sweat shop you're still alive.
If you can call it a life

... in the case of Hitler, he was damned well elected before he made himself a dictator.

Yes, Hitler was elected with 34% of the vote ...

I can't even think of one example where this has happened. What usually happens is what I described; a corporation comes in, it pays much higher wages than the local wages (but still sweatshop by our standards), and the people who manage to get those jobs benefit immensely.

I don't know anyone who would consider using the phrase "immense benefit" to characterize an hourly wage of a dollar an hour -- such as so many Mexican maquilladora workers make... unless one were referring to the immense benefit to the maquilladora owners, who benefit immensely by paying workers less than 20 per cent of the U.S. minimum wage.

Thus far in history, socialism has only been even moderately effective in the homogenous societies -- such as the ones in the Scandinavian countries -- in which the population's specific individual needs can be grasped, identified, and met by others with highly similar specific individual needs. In this sense, helping others is far more akin to helping oneself, or at least a mirror of oneself, than it could ever be in a heterogenous polyglotic society such as the one in the U.S.

IMO, a lot of us are also very confused about the distinctions between purported economic systems and actual economic practice. For example, while I think of myself as being supportive of "traditional" capitalism a la Adam Smith, this form of capitalism no longer exists and most likely never will again -- no more than Marxist theory likely will ever have a legitimate proving ground. The Industrial Revolution fairly well stamped out forever the agrarian social organizations that both traditional capitalism and Marxism would require.

But to go back to the original thread-starter, there are dozens of selfish and ideological reasons to fear socialism, and we all know how fear generates dislike and hatred. Clearly, only half of the U.S. population fears autocratic dictatorial demagogues masquerading as peace-loving capitalists, while the other half is split between ignorant xenophobes and lockstep sycophantic minions.

As I understand it, the people of Norway have the highest per capita standard of living. Perhaps we might all consider the benefits of Norwayism... ;)

So you don't want to trust business, which has no coercive force, but you do want to trust the government, which has tanks and guns? Furthermore, you make some ridiculous distinction between business and private citizens that begs explaining. Business is made up of, and owned by, private citizens. How can you claim to champion private citizens in one breath and in the next disparage business?

Guns? Who the hell needs guns when you have shitloads of
money!? Also remember that tanks, guns and everything else is bought with, exactly, money...

IMO, a lot of us are also very confused about the distinctions between purported economic systems and actual economic practice. For example, while I think of myself as being supportive of "traditional" capitalism a la Adam Smith, this form of capitalism no longer exists and most likely never will again -- no more than Marxist theory likely will ever have a legitimate proving ground. The Industrial Revolution fairly well stamped out forever the agrarian social organizations that both traditional capitalism and Marxism would require.
Actually Marxism is about bringing the benefits of the industrial revolution to the people. Marxism never required the agrarian social organizations, on the contrary it requires to bring mass of workers together and mass produce. This what communism is about : switching from agrarian social organization to industrial organization. This is why socialism/communism is progressive while capitalism is conservative.

I think I should say a few things.
Not all Americans despise socialism. In fact, the Democratic party is heavily socialistic and our Republican administration spends more on social welfare programs that Clinton's did. It's just that the word "socialism" has a bad stigma. I suppose this is an after-effect of the cold war. There probably was a century ago, but today I really don't think there's a very heavy genuine dislike for socialism, considering that the amount we spend on social-welfare stuff is comparable to many semi-socialist European nations, although this spending is probably much less effective. That's because of the ever-increasing centralization, among other reasons. Add on the warfare spending to the welfare spending and US govt. spending as a % of GDP is near the highest in the world. That's not entirely socialism, but it is big nanny government, and we tolerate it.

If you look at Franklin D Roosevelt's "New Deal", it was loaded with all sorts of socialist programs. Hell, he pretty much nationalized the whole economy. Much of the New Deal is still with us today, and only radical capitalists like me wish it wasn't. FDR was basically our second dictator and he destroyed what was left of the Constitution. The only thing that remained was marginal respect for some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and some of the basic procedure. Bush is doing what he can to finnish the job. Today, campaign issues pretty much revolve around handing out favors.

As I said, the dislike of socialism is mostly superficial. I'm one of the few who really believe it's a rotten idea. I understand that it comes in many forms, but the only one I can tolerate is the voluntary sort, like a gift-giving society. I think that sort of thing naturally arises from economic prosperity. People cannot be forced to care about each other. You should understand that while I'm a capitalist, I still see much economic injustice in the world. This comes from the international banking groups, various governments, and some corporatons. It is not an inherent trait of free-market capitalism.

Well, I've had to scroll through rather a lot of crap (no offence to those who are actually presenting reasoned, relevant arguments) to get to the end of the thread, but I get the general gist of the argument, and I intend in this post to summarize the shortcomings of communism. (I take communism to be the extreme of socialism, which I think is marginally better, but since many people seem to be arguing in favor of utter communism here I plan to address just this ideology)

Economically:
Economically, communism is bunk. If you don't believe me, move to North korea, and enjoy your daily government-issue breadcrumbs.

I defy anybody to name a single nation in the modern world which truly follows the principles of socialism in their entirety whose populace are not starving and trying to run away.

Unfortunately for those of you who seem to think that America is in economic crisis, I beg you to compare the dietary concerns of the people of America and the people of Cuba for instance. When the dietary skirge of a nation shifts from starvation to obesity, I think it speaks greatly of that country's affluence.

Socially:
Communism is unfair. It is unfair for a government to steal (yes, it's theft - in most cases armed robbery because if you fail to pay up, you can probably expect to have your body parts redistributed equally amongst the various areas of the firing range) from its hardest working citizens and give those riches to its bums and layabouts.

Historically:
Let's take an empirical look at communism. How much weight do communist nations hold on the world stage today? Surely if communism was really such an amazingly potent hammer of crushing power and indomitable justice it would have managed to stand the test of time - at least the test of time over less than 100 years.

Throughout history, power has been wielded by those nations and political enitities acknowledged the successful, championed competitiveness and disregarded the underachievers.

Prehistorically:
The human race didn't evolve by peacefully sharing its resources equally with other animals. It evolved by killing and eating the weak animals. Competition, therefore is clearly an integral part of progress (If we are to assume that the human race's condition is a "success" in comparision with those of other species. I make this assumption).

Thanks to human nature:
Communist regimes would function just fine if everyone in them believed that sharing everything was a good idea. Unfortunately, after the thousands of years of brutal, nefarious backstabbing that went on in prehistoric earth, we as a species are born with the desire to have what is ours, and often what is other people's as well. Human cynicism is too great a force to be counteracted by the fleeting utopian dreams of a few political philosophers.

A footnote - You are a hypocrite.
Since those people who are arguing here in favor of communism clearly have access to the internet, they probably do not live under a communist regime.

Here is some advice (and please excuse my rampant stereotyping here) to all you fickle-minded 12 year olds who've probably only a couple of history textbooks and some rage against the machine liner notes, and come to the conclusion that communism is pretty cool:

Take a look at everything around you. The desk you are sitting at, the chair you are sitting at, the computer you are typing on, the clothes you are wearing, the meal you will probably consume later today...

...Were they produced by hordes of russian peasants in red overalls singing the praises of their glorious leader? No. They were produced by greedy, self-interested multinational corporations who employ their lowest ranking workers for peanuts. Hell, your parent(s) probably work for one such company in some capacity (or if you're of employment age, you probably do).

The moral of the story is this. You need capitalism. It rocks. Stop bashing what keeps you fed, clothed and able to play online political simulation games.

bla bla bla.
You don't know what you are talking about.

It is not an inherent trait of free-market capitalism.
The problem with capitalism is that those who own prevent those who don't own from owning. And those who don't own work for those who own. Those who own increase their property from this work.
This is why capitalism is flawed (not free market, but capitalism).

Stop bashing what keeps you fed, clothed and able to play online political simulation games.

http://forum.politics.be/images/smilies/extra1/finger022.gifhttp://forum.politics.be/images/smilies/extra1/finger022.gifhttp://forum.politics.be/images/smilies/extra1/finger022.gif

Psylos/Zhaid:

The fact that neither of you were able to counter my argument with actual reason merely prooves further your utter inanity.

Kanabia:


Good point. Labour division has internationalised, but in terms of social responsibility we still think in terms of countries.
Fifty years ago the ones that made our consumer products were our countrymen, and we cared for their living conditions. Nowadays our products are at least for a major part made in semi-developed countries like China or Mexico but we still don't look past our own borders.

The US has always relied on international trade to to maintain and grow our prosperity and standard of living. There are few countries that could survive without international trade, and the US isn't one of them.


I think the essential point of socialism is that when a decision has to be made between the welfare of an individual or that of society as a whole, the latter option is chosen.


You're absolutely right. That's the difference between individualism and collectivism. I maintain that individualism is the natural way of things. Sure, it's natural to care about others, but it's not natural to sacrifice your life, liberty, or happiness for the sake of someone you've never even met.


Even market-oriented countries like the United States make that kind of decisions. For example: for an individual consumer it's a good thing that farmers have a hard time selling their produce: it gives us very low prices for our food. For society as a whole price-floors for agricultural products may be better, because it gives income stability for a large part of society and keeps millions of people from falling into unemployment. The US actually chooses for the 'social' option of imposing price-floors.
This is just an example of what socialism can mean if you translate it a bit broader then soviet-communism.

Price controls are terrible things. It's immoral to force people to pay more than the natural market price for things they need to survive. I hope this doesn't still goes on, but FDR was destroying crops and killing livestock during the great depression when thousands of people were hungry. If farmers can't turn a profit farming, they can try something else, or just eat their own produce.

Psylos/Zhaid:

The fact that neither of you were able to counter my argument with actual reason merely prooves further your utter inanity.
Which argument?
Inform yourself about the concept of ownership, read the critic of the capital by Marx, learn the history of the USSR.

Actually Marxism is about bringing the benefits of the industrial revolution to the people. Marxism never required the agrarian social organizations, on the contrary it requires to bring mass of workers together and mass produce. This what communism is about : switching from agrarian social organization to industrial organization. This is why socialism/communism is progressive while capitalism is conservative.
In an effort to avoid being diatribical, I shorthanded my point. To clarify:

While Marx certainly intended to offer a theoretical solution to the incipient ills of class-based capitalist industrialism, it now seems fairly clear that his theory -- like Smith's -- was rooted in an idealistic projection of agrarian social organization into an industrialized world. Marx and Engels enumerated the generalized steps to achieve a Communist state as including "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." This indicates to me that they were enamored of a theoretical social organization in which the waning agrarian social organization would be revived to form the model and foundation for a future including industrial means of production. In this sense, Marxist Communism indeed does require the workings of an agrarian social organization. (Hence the elevation of the engine-powered farm tractor to such symbolic significance in Soviet Communism, n'est-ce pas?)

Guns? Who the hell needs guns when you have shitloads of
money!? Also remember that tanks, guns and everything else is bought with, exactly, money...

Money? Who the hell needs money when you have shitloads of guns?


Over time criminals (and governments) consume their wealth, they always need their guns to secure more.

Well, I've had to scroll through rather a lot of crap (no offence to those who are actually presenting reasoned, relevant arguments) to get to the end of the thread, but I get the general gist of the argument, and I intend in this post to summarize the shortcomings of communism. (I take communism to be the extreme of socialism, which I think is marginally better, but since many people seem to be arguing in favor of utter communism here I plan to address just this ideology)

Economically:
Economically, communism is bunk. If you don't believe me, move to North korea, and enjoy your daily government-issue breadcrumbs.

I defy anybody to name a single nation in the modern world which truly follows the principles of socialism in their entirety whose populace are not starving and trying to run away.

Unfortunately for those of you who seem to think that America is in economic crisis, I beg you to compare the dietary concerns of the people of America and the people of Cuba for instance. When the dietary skirge of a nation shifts from starvation to obesity, I think it speaks greatly of that country's affluence..

Yes. I also wish to remind you of all the 3rd world countries (only a few a which declare themselves "socialist") where not even government breadcrumbs are available.


Socially:
Communism is unfair. It is unfair for a government to steal (yes, it's theft - in most cases armed robbery because if you fail to pay up, you can probably expect to have your body parts redistributed equally amongst the various areas of the firing range) from its hardest working citizens and give those riches to its bums and layabouts.

Yes. Obviously, this also applies to any cent of taxes you're paying to your capitalist gov, money you can frolicly spend to bombard communists (and not just them) all over the world. Besides being spent to pay police forces preventing killers to break through your house and kill you on "the strongest wins" basis.


Historically:
Let's take an empirical look at communism. How much weight do communist nations hold on the world stage today? Surely if communism was really such an amazingly potent hammer of crushing power and indomitable justice it would have managed to stand the test of time - at least the test of time over less than 100 years.

Throughout history, power has been wielded by those nations and political enitities acknowledged the successful, championed competitiveness and disregarded the underachievers.

Sure. And on this basis, the theocratic monarchy is, without any doubt, the best government form, being in great fashion for at least 4000 years.


Prehistorically:
The human race didn't evolve by peacefully sharing its resources equally with other animals. It evolved by killing and eating the weak animals. Competition, therefore is clearly an integral part of progress (If we are to assume that the human race's condition is a "success" in comparision with those of other species. I make this assumption).

No, we did not share our resources with animals (but I'm quite sure communists never intended to make animals join into the government) but for hundred of thousands of years, humans got along in small tribes where almost about everything was brotherly shared.


Thanks to human nature:
Communist regimes would function just fine if everyone in them believed that sharing everything was a good idea. Unfortunately, after the thousands of years of brutal, nefarious backstabbing that went on in prehistoric earth, we as a species are born with the desire to have what is ours, and often what is other people's as well. Human cynicism is too great a force to be counteracted by the fleeting utopian dreams of a few political philosophers.

Well, if this is a good justification, why are we spending the hard-stolen gov's money to pay for police who chase criminals? They are perfectly fitting the "human nature" picture. We could even say they are examples to imitate!


A footnote - You are a hypocrite.
Since those people who are arguing here in favor of communism clearly have access to the internet, they probably do not live under a communist regime.

Here is some advice (and please excuse my rampant stereotyping here) to all you fickle-minded 12 year olds who've probably only a couple of history textbooks and some rage against the machine liner notes, and come to the conclusion that communism is pretty cool:

Take a look at everything around you. The desk you are sitting at, the chair you are sitting at, the computer you are typing on, the clothes you are wearing, the meal you will probably consume later today...

...Were they produced by hordes of russian peasants in red overalls singing the praises of their glorious leader? No. They were produced by greedy, self-interested multinational corporations who employ their lowest ranking workers for peanuts. Hell, your parent(s) probably work for one such company in some capacity (or if you're of employment age, you probably do).

The moral of the story is this. You need capitalism. It rocks. Stop bashing what keeps you fed, clothed and able to play online political simulation games.

Having access to internet or not is a matter of civil freedom (something which should be well checked in some dictatorial capitalist countries), NOT a matter of economic form.

Psylos/Zhaid:

The fact that neither of you were able to counter my argument with actual reason merely prooves further your utter inanity.

And here I was thinking that smiley blatantly expressed approval/agreement.

Having access to internet or not is a matter of civil freedom

That, and a matter of having a computer.

See much Cubans on the net lately?

outch, I just wrote a long post but I coudn't post it...darn. Well here we go again.

It happens all the time atleast in Vietnam, Siam, Bangladesh and Burma (yes, many corporations are more than happy to cooperate with the junta).

The corporations are not the source of the problem though, the corrupt governments are. Quit blaming business for political problems that they didn't cause. Blame the despots who are responsible.

Foreign corporations don't pay any higher wages. Well alright, some of them do, mostly because their customers have demanted it. I'm not saying everything is wrong and all foreign corporations are as bad. Maybe you shuold read some studies about sweatshops and economy.


I have, sweatshops are good. Try asking a real economist http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040128.shtml



If sweatshops are great for poor countries, why there are many in the USA? Or is it possible that the economy isn't so great after all?

Now I can only wonder at what your defination of a sweatshop is, because the US doesn't have any sweatshops by any standard I know of.

Why is it that Americans are so adverse to the mention of socialism?
TANSTAAFL

Zhaid:
Sorry for misunderstanding. The link displayed reading "http://forum.politics.be/images/smi...1/finger022.gif", I assumed you were concurring with psylos.

Economically:
Economically, communism is bunk. If you don't believe me, move to North korea, and enjoy your daily government-issue breadcrumbs.

A poor example. North Korea spends a massive proportion of money on its military; a similar situation would arise if a capitalist nation did the same. China would probably be a better example, despite not being my image of an ideal nation. (You can cry "But they're capitalist now" if you like, but the majority of their economy is still centralised.)

I defy anybody to name a single nation in the modern world which truly follows the principles of socialism in their entirety whose populace are not starving and trying to run away.

Thats completely subjective.

In my opinion Sweden comes closest, while not a perfect example...they have a while to go.

Unfortunately for those of you who seem to think that America is in economic crisis, I beg you to compare the dietary concerns of the people of America and the people of Cuba for instance. When the dietary skirge of a nation shifts from starvation to obesity, I think it speaks greatly of that country's affluence.

Actually, Cuba are in the upper tier of food consumed. (Not to mention literacy and life expectancy as well)

"only Cuba and Mexico ranked with developed nations, consuming more than 3,000 calories per capita daily."

http://www.etext.org/Politics/NAFTA.Monitor/Volume.3/nm-03.015

Socially:
Communism is unfair. It is unfair for a government to steal (yes, it's theft - in most cases armed robbery because if you fail to pay up, you can probably expect to have your body parts redistributed equally amongst the various areas of the firing range) from its hardest working citizens and give those riches to its bums and layabouts.

Yes, the aristocracy in Russia were such hard working people and deserved their wealth far more than those useless, lazy, emaciated peasants.

While not an advocate of politically motivated violence, wealth redistribution was (and is, on a global scale) needed.
Historically:
Let's take an empirical look at communism. How much weight do communist nations hold on the world stage today? Surely if communism was really such an amazingly potent hammer of crushing power and indomitable justice it would have managed to stand the test of time - at least the test of time over less than 100 years.

Surely if capitalism was so good and wonderful, guaranteeing wealth to all who embraced the free market, every person and nation would be content to have such a system in the first place?

Throughout history, power has been wielded by those nations and political enitities acknowledged the successful, championed competitiveness and disregarded the underachievers.

Success through competitiveness involving annexation of "underacheiving" nations and peoples? Like the Native Americans, perhaps...or those damn Mexicans? Hell, what of the Australian aborigines for something a bit closer to me?


Prehistorically:
The human race didn't evolve by peacefully sharing its resources equally with other animals. It evolved by killing and eating the weak animals. Competition, therefore is clearly an integral part of progress (If we are to assume that the human race's condition is a "success" in comparision with those of other species. I make this assumption).

If humans were such an outright competitive species in the first place, how the hell did we cooperate long enough to build cities? Wouldn't it have been easier and caused more progress (by your rationale) if we just killed eachother and took the women of our defeated enemies?

However, I can debate your point on another level. We did advance by sharing our resources, thats called domestication of animals and was necessary for agriculture.

Thanks to human nature:
Communist regimes would function just fine if everyone in them believed that sharing everything was a good idea. Unfortunately, after the thousands of years of brutal, nefarious backstabbing that went on in prehistoric earth, we as a species are born with the desire to have what is ours, and often what is other people's as well. Human cynicism is too great a force to be counteracted by the fleeting utopian dreams of a few political philosophers.

You think that way, it doesnt mean everyone else does.

A footnote - You are a hypocrite.
Since those people who are arguing here in favor of communism clearly have access to the internet, they probably do not live under a communist regime.

Oh, well done. Have a gold sticker.

Here is some advice (and please excuse my rampant stereotyping here) to all you fickle-minded 12 year olds who've probably only a couple of history textbooks and some rage against the machine liner notes, and come to the conclusion that communism is pretty cool:

Eww, rampant stereotyping (studying a politics major)

Take a look at everything around you. The desk you are sitting at, the chair you are sitting at, the computer you are typing on, the clothes you are wearing, the meal you will probably consume later today...

Ah, so what do you suggest? Knitting my own clothes and farming my own crops?

...Wait, to do that i'd need to buy the materials and land...Its a necessary evil. So I fail to see your point.

"A poor example. North Korea spends a massive proportion of money on its military; a similar situation would arise if a capitalist nation did the same."

No it wouldn't. In a capitalist nation, the government doesn't provide food. Government's military spending would bear little correlation to private spending on farming/food production.

By the way, thanks for actually responding with an argument.

"Yes, the aristocracy in Russia were such hard working people and deserved their wealth far more than those useless, lazy, emaciated peasants"

Tsarist russia was not representitive of free market capitalism until the 1860's. Before that there existed a system of slavery, which goes in contradiction to the principles of modern capitalism. Certainly after 1861 the peasants were "free", and they were then able to go and get paid jobs in industrial areas. They may not have earned much, but at least they were earning something.

"Surely if capitalism was so good and wonderful, guaranteeing wealth to all who embraced the free market, every person and nation would be content to have such a system in the first place?"

I'm pretty sure that most people who live in the capitalist societies of the west are content. I'm also fairly sure that most people living under failing communist regimes are rather discontent. Of course it would be naive to assume that EVERYONE would ever be content with a single philosophy. However, communists can be accused of the same oversight.

"Success through competitiveness involving annexation of "underacheiving" nations and peoples? Like the Native Americans, perhaps...or those damn Mexicans? Hell, what of the Australian aborigines for something a bit closer to me?"

I don't support ethnic cleansing or mass slaughter of populations of people, but the prevalance of western ideology and practice in modern society is exemplary of the "survival of the fittest" darwinistic suggestion.

"If humans were such an outright competitive species in the first place, how the hell did we cooperate long enough to build cities? Wouldn't it have been easier and caused more progress (by your rationale) if we just killed eachother and took the women of our defeated enemies?"

It's called enlightened self-interest. It was in our interest to divide labour and cooperate to a certain degree. It wasn't in our self interest to forcefully take from the rich and give to the poor. The first societies were capitalist in the sense that people traded their goods and resources freely. I'm not supporting utter anarchy.

"Yes. I also wish to remind you of all the 3rd world countries (only a few a which declare themselves "socialist") where not even government breadcrumbs are available."

You don't have to declare yourself something to be it. I'm sure lots of murderers declare themselves innocent. Does that mean they are?

As long as a government heavily interferes with trade and commerce, appoints an autocratic leader and trys to give everybody the same pay regardless of output, it doesn't matter if they call themselves "The free capitalist democracy of laissez-faire", they're still a communist dictatorship.

"Yes. Obviously, this also applies to any cent of taxes you're paying to your capitalist gov, money you can frolicly spend to bombard communists (and not just them) all over the world. Besides being spent to pay police forces preventing killers to break through your house and kill you on "the strongest wins" basis."

Of course there has to be a middle ground. Trying to completely dissolve government is as stupid as trying to impose utter socialism. It all depends on where you draw the line.

No it wouldn't. In a capitalist nation, the government doesn't provide food. Government's military spending would bear little correlation to private spending on farming/food production.

Yes, actually, it would. It would result in a decrease in public services, particularly welfare. People get annoyed with tax as it is; imagine what it would be like if 100% of your tax dollars went to the military and you saw nothing of it back.

By the way, thanks for actually responding with an argument.

A pleasure.

Tsarist russia was not representitive of free market capitalism until the 1860's. Before that there existed a system of slavery, which goes in contradiction to the principles of modern capitalism. Certainly after 1861 the peasants were "free", and they were then able to go and get paid jobs in industrial areas. They may not have earned much, but at least they were earning something.

As a condition of the emancipation act in fact, the peasants incurred a large amount of debt that had to be paid towards their former landlords, who were already quite wealthy. Many of the peasants couldn't afford to pay the interest, let alone the debt itself. Hence many of them did save (similar to what many third-world citizens do, put family funds away to pay for a single members emigration) and move to the city, but they still had that family debt passed from generation to generation...yes, they did earn more than in the country, but it was a terrible existance of being subservient to your superiors who obviously worked so much harder than you and deserved all of your money.

That's capitalism at a grassroots level for you.

I'm pretty sure that most people who live in the capitalist societies of the west are content. I'm also fairly sure that most people living under failing communist regimes are rather discontent. Of course it would be naive to assume that EVERYONE would ever be content with a single philosophy.

Sure, the west, but as i've said, the world must be thought of as a global village now....

Do you think the billions that live in the east are mosly content with their lives?

However, communists can be accused of the same oversight.

I concede that point.

I don't support ethnic cleansing or mass slaughter of populations of people, but the prevalance of western ideology and practice in modern society is exemplary of the "survival of the fittest" darwinistic suggestion.

My point is, just because it's successful doesnt mean that it's right or acceptable.

The corporations are not the source of the problem though, the corrupt governments are. Quit blaming business for political problems that they didn't cause. Blame the despots who are responsible.
I haven't blame any corporation for that. I only said that as long as the corporations give money to despots, the political situation in those countries (I've been talking about Burma all the time) is not likely to change. Eventhough they didn't choose the leader, they keep the despots in power. The corporations (most) aren't helping in the other countries either.



I have, sweatshops are good. Try asking a real economist http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040128.shtml

I'm sorry, not convinced. A columnist with one example. I already agreed that not every corporation is a greedy crook.


Now I can only wonder at what your defination of a sweatshop is, because the US doesn't have any sweatshops by any standard I know of.
I keep reading about them e.g. in Fast food nation, from these sites
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/040246
http://irregulartimes.com/saipan.html
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/sweat.htm
etc etc

Kanabia:

But "right" and "acceptable" are so subjective. "successful" although it can be gauged in different ways is far better as an across-the-board measure of "goodness".

Battery Charger:
The US has always relied on international trade to maintain and grow our prosperity and standard of living. There are few countries that could survive without international trade, and the US isn't one of them.

True, and isn't that a good reason to care for the foreign workers who produce our goods as if they were our countrymen? If not by paying them fair wages (instituting international minimum wages are impossible), then at least by ameliorating their working conditions.

I maintain that individualism is the natural way of things. Sure, it's natural to care about others, but it's not natural to sacrifice your life, liberty, or happiness for the sake of someone you've never even met.

It's difficult to make statements about human nature, but I agree that a state can not force someone to give up his life, liberty and happiness. Therefore socialism should never be imposed on individuals.

Let's make a distinction between state-socialism (the state assumes control of the economy in order to promote the interest of society) and social democracy (the state implements socialist measures through a democratic process). I reject state-socialism: it's uncontrolable, practically inefficient and usually falls into totallitarianism. I do support social-democracy, where social measures are implemented if and only if it has popular support. Sometimes this will mean the government gives priority to the interest of society over the individual interest, but only because the people give the state the mandate to do this.

I think it has to do with the context of what socialism has come to mean to people. If you look at the community of a church it is not considered socialism it is a willingness to understanding one another. if you look at the government sense of socialism it is about forcefully changing poeple to the issues a socialistic state may want. In the church it is actually a real community that is willing to understand each others differences without hate but only LOVE. Within a community of a city or such it is about forcing you're ideas (issues) upon another without even trying to understand everyside of the story.

Yes, Hitler was elected with 34% of the vote ...
Parliamentary system baby!

I think it has to do with the context of what socialism has come to mean to people. If you look at the community of a church it is not considered socialism it is a willingness to understanding one another. if you look at the government sense of socialism it is about forcefully changing poeple to the issues a socialistic state may want. In the church it is actually a real community that is willing to understand each others differences without hate but only LOVE. Within a community of a city or such it is about forcing you're ideas (issues) upon another without even trying to understand everyside of the story.

socialism, per se, is only considered to be in the realm of the government. Whilst what you are talking about is called communalism. Communalist villages existed in several places in the US, and were founded in the 1700's and 1800's.

Kanabia:

But "right" and "acceptable" are so subjective. "successful" although it can be gauged in different ways is far better as an across-the-board measure of "goodness".

No, genocide is always wrong no matter the point of view. Well, unless you're a Nazi. If a nation is "successful" and wealthy as a result of genocide or ruthless expansionism, the regime governing that nation is not "good".

I couldn't find the western democracy socialism one to quote, but we've seen it enough to know it.

I know how the western "socialist" democracies stay above the budget. They tax the fuck out of their people. For example, Germany where AVERAGE WORKERS (not industrialists, not companies, not rich folk) pay in combined sales, and income and all taxes over 70% to the government. The rate for rich folk, corporations and industrialists is even higher.

This insanely high rate leads to, you guessed it, the exporting of jobs overseas. And if the US has a severe job problem at <6% unemployment, than who knows how much in the shitter D-land is with an unemployment rate of >14%. So, "social justice" seems to have a fairly severe cost. One we Americans aren't willing to take.

*Still rockin' in the free world*

Oh yeah, that reminds me, the Kerry rally I was at last night r0xx0rs. Even if there were paranoid, angsty people in front of me talking about how the Bush administration has put jackbooted thugs on the streets. I haven't seen 'em. If I do, I'll let you know.

"No, genocide is always wrong no matter the point of view. Well, unless you're a Nazi."

Or a communist dictator

"No, genocide is always wrong no matter the point of view. Well, unless you're a Nazi."

Or a communist dictator

Or a capitalist dictator (or any other kind of heartless dictator. You get the point, hopefully).

I think I should say a few things.
Not all Americans despise socialism. In fact, the Democratic party is heavily socialistic and our Republican administration spends more on social welfare programs that Clinton's did. It's just that the word "socialism" has a bad stigma. I suppose this is an after-effect of the cold war. There probably was a century ago, but today I really don't think there's a very heavy genuine dislike for socialism, considering that the amount we spend on social-welfare stuff is comparable to many semi-socialist European nations, although this spending is probably much less effective. That's because of the ever-increasing centralization, among other reasons. Add on the warfare spending to the welfare spending and US govt. spending as a % of GDP is near the highest in the world. That's not entirely socialism, but it is big nanny government, and we tolerate it.

If you look at Franklin D Roosevelt's "New Deal", it was loaded with all sorts of socialist programs. Hell, he pretty much nationalized the whole economy. Much of the New Deal is still with us today, and only radical capitalists like me wish it wasn't. FDR was basically our second dictator and he destroyed what was left of the Constitution. The only thing that remained was marginal respect for some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and some of the basic procedure. Bush is doing what he can to finnish the job. Today, campaign issues pretty much revolve around handing out favors.

As I said, the dislike of socialism is mostly superficial. I'm one of the few who really believe it's a rotten idea. I understand that it comes in many forms, but the only one I can tolerate is the voluntary sort, like a gift-giving society. I think that sort of thing naturally arises from economic prosperity. People cannot be forced to care about each other. You should understand that while I'm a capitalist, I still see much economic injustice in the world. This comes from the international banking groups, various governments, and some corporatons. It is not an inherent trait of free-market capitalism.

As a person who believes in some of socialism's tenets, I would like to thank you for your lucid and intelligent comments. You obviously do not fear socialism. Certain people, such as I, believe that true socialism as espoused by Marx can only occur within tribal units or other small communities where there exists a direct relation between those with ability and those with need.

As to your final comment, I would be interested in hearing what your opinions are concerning regulation of international commerce with respect to economic injustice created by the groups you have mentioned. While I agree that laissez-faire capitalism does inherently creat these injustices, I believe that it does creat an environment that allows these injustices to happen with relative impunity.

The idea of a "capitalist dictator" is rather redundant I think. Certainly it would be possible to have an autocratic ruler in a capitalist society, but this "dictatorial" government would have no power over trade commerce or industry (if the nation was truly capitalist) and probably little power over the civil liberties of its denizens.

Dogburg, don't mudsling. I've said many a time that i'm a democratic socialist. I wasn't calling you a nazi, just making an observation.

Kanabia:

Sorry. I wasn't assuming that you were in favor of autocratic communism, i was just broadening your statement to encompass others who find genocide accpetable.

Socialism tends to end up encroaching on civil liberties. There are very few 'libertarian socialist' countries. Besides, socialism only encourages the most base of all human flaws: envy. Sure, capitalism is flawed, but in a way it is just - the harder you work, the more you get. It's survival of the fittest (obviously there should be checks and balances; unrestrained capitalism is very bad indeed)

Why is it that Americans are so adverse to the mention of socialism?

Because it is inhuman evil crystalized into principles and procedures.


It is based on unreal social premises, which are any principles that are not based on individual property ownership and observation of the universe for guidance.

It is a contrived mechanism for the control of humanity toward the service of a power-mad minority.

It is most often a wolf in sheep's clothing, until it gains a "majority" when it becomes a devouring and devastating beast.

(( Dress it up all you like, but be aware that when you do, you guarantee that you will be destroyed by your own creation when it comes to power. ))

It is simply antithetical to America.

Socialism tends to end up encroaching on civil liberties. There are very few 'libertarian socialist' countries. Besides, socialism only encourages the most base of all human flaws: envy. Sure, capitalism is flawed, but in a way it is just - the harder you work, the more you get. It's survival of the fittest (obviously there should be checks and balances; unrestrained capitalism is very bad indeed)
Yes, I agree much. When you equip capitalism with government checks (which are also checked, by say the constitution) then you have an optimal system. This system provides equal opportuinity, but rewards the harder workers with better results.

Scandior:
I was saying that a "capitalist dictator" - a concept which i found to be impossible - would be redundant as a "dictator" BECAUSE that government would have no control over civil liberties. You're right, socialist governments restrict civil rights.

Scandior:
I was saying that a "capitalist dictator" - a concept which i found to be impossible - would be redundant as a "dictator" BECAUSE that government would have no control over civil liberties. You're right, socialist governments restrict civil rights.
A better term would be coporated dictator, and that would be thouroughly against the concepts of capitalism.

Scandior:
I was saying that a "capitalist dictator" - a concept which i found to be impossible - would be redundant as a "dictator" BECAUSE that government would have no control over civil liberties. You're right, socialist governments restrict civil rights.

Malignant Dictator BAD..!

Benign Dictator GOOD..!

Dictatorship of Money (aka America) BEST..!


Let's let history decide. And let's take history's opinion of the now. Where do people want to be?

Everyone can epouse their beliefs, and make their protestations, but when it comes down to it we (humanity) will vote with our "desire seeking mechanism" and the "force lines of desire" ("where would I rather be on this planet?") will point, not only toward capitalist countries in general, but America in particular.

Sure, capitalism is flawed, but in a way it is just - the harder you work, the more you get. It's survival of the fittest (obviously there should be checks and balances; unrestrained capitalism is very bad indeed)

As i've said, that's not true.

How do you explain Paris Hilton, then?

Compare her existance with an african sweatshop labourer. Who works harder?

Hilton vs sweatshop:

Sure, there are exceptions to any rule. The point is, most of the time, the hardworking get their money's worth in capitalist systems, and in communist systems they tend not to. By definition, those in fully communist systems are bound to recieve either less than they deserve or more than they deserve.

Also, "hard work" is often more suitably described as "production of the most demanded goods". For the people who determine the respective salarys of Paris Hilton and sweatshop worker X (the general public determine their salaries by buying large quantities of their goods or not buying large quantities), the work of a sweatshop employee can be done by any able bodied adult, but the public will only buy the modelling of paris hilton, not any able bodied adult.

You can beat your head against a wall all day and it's hard work, but nobody's going to pay you to do it.

You can beat your head against a wall all day and it's hard work, but nobody's going to pay you to do it.

I beg to differ, didn't those morons of Jackass do that once? :D

Excuse my poor example, then. But I'm sure you understand the analogy.

[QUOTE=Kanabia #116]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scandior
Sure, capitalism is flawed, but in a way it is just - the harder you work, the more you get. It's survival of the fittest (obviously there should be checks and balances; unrestrained capitalism is very bad indeed)

As i've said, that's not true.

How do you explain Paris Hilton, then?

Compare her existance with an african sweatshop labourer. Who works harder?

Kanabia, you are an ass.

Paris Hilton feeds innumerable people with her galavanting and massive personal spending.

How many people does your "sweatshop laborer" feed..?

It rather hinges on what HARDER means, doesn't it..?

You, like all leftists, are terminally addicted to simple jealousy and unbelievable adolescent naivete.

I suggest, if you were true to your "principles", that you get the fnoork off the internet, and out of this efite snob-ass "game" and go help your lowly sweatshop laborer to find a better place to be, or create a better "government" (who is most likely leftist itself) to exist under.

I beg to differ, didn't those morons of Jackass do that once? :D
lol!

And on the topic of stigmas of socialism in the US, I think much of it has to do with a perceived divergence from the "American Dream" of earning your marit and working hard and getting rewarded for it.

A lot of people perceive capitalism--or more lassez-faire style economies (sorry about the usage, I'm not fluent in french, it probably isn't right)--as a requirement for the 'american dream'. And I think they see social nets as a hindrance to the entrepeneurial spirit. Now, this is different from area to area. If you go to a fairly low-class neighborhood they will undoubtedly support social welfare an socialist practices, as it's in their interests. But in other areas it's seen as an annoyance to help someone else who's too lazy to get off his/her butt and work (not my viewpoint, just my view of others view of others).

Another thing is that I don't know if many of the lesser educated in the US are even aware of what Socialism is. When they hear the word they probably think it's just another one of those bad "-isms" that are "here to take ofver the world". Nazi-ism, Communism, Marxism, Totalitarianism, Terrorism: these are things Americans are culturally taught to fear. Also many of those that do understand what socialism is, don't want to be like the other, more socialistic western nations. To some it's just a matter of national identity and another measure in the rift across the Atlantic. Well, to some this rift, between European nations and America, includes Canada, so maybe the Atlantic isn't the best dividing point.

But, I think lack of education, fear of being like everyone else just for the sake of being like everyone else, and fears that it will cripple the "American Dream" are leading causes for the American stigma of "Socialism".

Now now, leave Paris alone. Having sex with random guys, and having them videotape it is hard grueling work.

Guy with the red writing:

Hey, let's not go bashing jealousy here. Jealousy inspires competition, which inspires quality. Communists are clearly some of the most unjealous people in the world! The point is, Jealousy is good!

Kanabia, you are an ass.

Shove it.

Paris Hilton feeds innumerable people with her galavanting and massive personal spending.

But thats not hard work.

It rather hinges on what HARDER means, doesn't it..?

Uh, no, try as I might I cannot think of her life as difficult. Sorry.

You, like all leftists, are terminally addicted to simple jealousy and unbelievable adolescent naivete.

Bullshit. I don't want her money, i'm comfortable as I am and I don't need any more. The issue here is that those who are rich are not necessarily hard-working, so don't try and circumvent it.

I suggest, if you were true to your "principles", that you get the fnoork off the internet, and out of this efite snob-ass "game" and go help your lowly sweatshop laborer to find a better place to be, or create a better "government" (who is most likely leftist itself) to exist under.

Frankly, you have no idea of the extent of my political involvement, so don't bother commenting or speculating.


Sure, there are exceptions to any rule. The point is, most of the time, the hardworking get their money's worth in capitalist systems, and in communist systems they tend not to. By definition, those in fully communist systems are bound to recieve either less than they deserve or more than they deserve.

Come on, to over-simplify things, its like a household/camp/whatever. If you don't do your fair share of the chores, you're socially stigmatized for it. To truly be part of the community, therefore you would naturally want to put in.

Also, "hard work" is often more suitably described as "production of the most demanded goods". For the people who determine the respective salarys of Paris Hilton and sweatshop worker X (the general public determine their salaries by buying large quantities of their goods or not buying large quantities), the work of a sweatshop employee can be done by any able bodied adult, but the public will only buy the modelling of paris hilton, not any able bodied adult.

She inherited most of her money, she was born with it. It's not hard work that gave her that money, its the luck of birth. And therefore, the idea that rich=hard working is bullshit.

Let's take your household analogy then. So if Lenin is dad, you get "socially stigmatized" as lazy if you don't work. Boo hoo. Now let's say it's a capitalist household. If you don't pull your weight, you don't get paid. Ultimately you die. Seriously, "social stigmatization" is not a motivation for work. If the government was willing to pay me a decent wage for sitting on my ass all day, I wouldn't care if my neighbors told me that I was damaging the community.

Let's take your household analogy then. So if Lenin is dad, you get "socially stigmatized" as lazy if you don't work. Boo hoo. Now let's say it's a capitalist household. If you don't pull your weight, you don't get paid. Ultimately you die. Seriously, "social stigmatization" is not a motivation for work. If the government was willing to pay me a decent wage for sitting on my ass all day, I wouldn't care if my neighbors told me that I was damaging the community.

Now, in ideal socialism, you are guaranteed a job however, so theres no choice of simply not working.

Your other option is to perform poorly at your work. In which case, you lose the respect of your workmates: "social stigmatization". And possibly moved into a different field of work that you'll perform better at (why do i get the image of a prison camp...lol, thats not what im meaning don't worry).

But since they'll be paying me the same, standard wage anyway, I might as well work as lazily as possible. If I was employed by a capitalist company in a free market economy, I would most likely be rewarded for high levels of production with a wage increase. Or, failing that, I would be rewarded for my slackness not by my workmates laughing at me, but with having myself fired. Then I would either go and die on the street or actually get off my ass and produce something.

My point is, I don't CARE if my workmates think I'm a lazy bastard, I care that I do as little work as possible for the most amount of money. Also, it is extremely likely that my workmates are slacking off at least as much as me. I can just shoot their insults back at them.

I just read some writings that could have only come from either really ignorant or really stupid minds. One says socialism and a whole lot start talking about communist dictatorships. As if those few horrific examples define the basics of socialism. Dumb fucks! Then one starts jabbering about Nazism. How rightwing killed lesser millions of people then leftwing commies like mao and stalin. Then one says that nazis were in fact socialist, look at the name (if you can only translate socialist then don't even bother saying anything about it you twirp). "Die Nazional-Sozialitlische Deusche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP) was socialist and they killed so many millions of people!!". The nazi party wasn't socialist. Hitler used the word "national" to get to the nationalists, the word "socialist" to get to the socialists and the word "worker" to get to the common working man. The name was one of the ways of hitler to get more votes (yes he was voted to power). Extremist right wing and extremist left wing always use misleading and contradictory information to get to power or attack the opposition. Look at what Bush and Kerry are saying about eachother. Probably not 10% of what they're saying about eachother is completely true.

What is socialism all about then? Socialism gave the working man a voice. That is the main principle of socialism. Church was represented by the christian party. The rich bussinesmen and bosses of the factories were represented by the liberal party and eventually the working man got his say in politics thanks to the socialist party. The socialist party broke the power of the church over the common working man (they had much say in society in my grandfathers days; telling people what to do; if you didn't go to church, you lost your job, because the priest went talking to your boss, priests often abused their spiritual power, people weren't educated enough and believed the priest could condem them to hell if they didn't do as he said and such, etc.). The socialists pleaded for more holidays (a 6 day week, with just enough pay to get not even 1 bread a day wasn't all that when there wasn't a socialist party yet), more pay, more human friendly conditions on the working floor (many people were killed in coalmines, weaver factories, ...), they abolished child labour, they defended the rights of the working man and even the women (who hadn't had much to say in society for a...well ever). They made it possible for workingmen to save some money (they used to have to spend it all on food, hadn't got anything left at the end of a week). The socialist party also pleaded for a fund for old retired people, so they wouldn't have to die poor and neglected. They also helped education becoming cheaper and eventually a right for every citizen. Helping the working man and making the working man smarter and giving him the right to speak up and organise has scared every powerful nation. Americans were scared of the "red danger" because they would only further devide "what little" power the politicians had.

Now you can start pleading that it wasn't the socialist party who established this and that, but fact remains that political parties tend to "steal" each others popular propositions in order to gain more power. So without the socialist party nothing would have ever happened to help the working man. And eventually the working would have become so mad and desperate (like in Russia), they would have attacked and destroyed the leading classes. But luckely this didn't happen in our country because people got their say in politics and were able to improve there living conditions. Just like in the beautiful fairytales :p.

That is what socialism stood for. The working man. It is the reason our country has one of the best social security in the world. They are also ideal to balance the right wing. A good political system has to have right wing, central and left wing in order to function correctly and least corrupt. Where ever there is power, there are people corrupting it. Socialist, capitalist, rightwing... either way there will be corrupt people seeking power/money. But don't splash mud on the concept op socialism by dragging Mao, Stalin and even rightwingnutcase Hitler in it. They weren't socialists, they were despots, dictators, populists and tyrants. Anyhow a two party system with only right wing and even more right wing can't be good. I've seen many americans say on "my television" that they'll have to chose between the lesser of two evils. Well...

- appendix -


Please note: my views on socialism are based on what happened in my country (and most other west- and central-european country I might add). And I can start naming names at some people writing narrowminded things about subjects they haven't even experienced. I also wrote many typos, but you try writing Dutch without mistakes... And it may strike you as odd, but I'm not a socialist. I just don't like it when money and oil becomes more important then people or nature. So in american rightwing terms I'm probably treehugging, commie-pinko, do-good, hippy scum, while I just enjoy living in a healty environment where people aren't killing eachother over pitty things. :fluffle: In fact I don't like new-age hippy pasifists who are taking it to far, every man is good and such. You can be tolerant, but you mustn't be naieve either.

So, Roccan, who are you on the good old forum.politics.be? ;)

~ Tzuvar Raemborr

So, Roccan, who are you on the good old forum.politics.be? ;)

~ Tzuvar Raemborr

Haha, I don't do politics, this is the only forum that sometimes gets me mad enough to start typing. Before I knew this forum I couldn't have imagined how people can get some thing so totally wrong. Eventually its my truth against theirs I think. I once voted socialist, I voted for the environmentalists (the green party), I voted liberal and I have even voted for the "Christian" party, never for the extremists or the flanders independance parties (what are they thinking, separating Flanders from Wallony c'mon). I don't have a party to really relate to actually. And I'm in a jabbering mood this friday evening. I'm going to drink some good belgian ales with my friends (Duvel here I come) and tomorow I'll do it even more intensively :D. Belgian beer is good for you! ;)

Haha, I don't do politics, this is the only forum that sometimes gets me mad enough to start typing. Before I knew this forum I couldn't have imagined how people can get some thing so totally wrong. Eventually its my truth against theirs I think. I once voted socialist, I voted for the environmentalists (the green party), I voted liberal and I have even voted for the "Christian" party, never for the extremists or the flanders independance parties (what are they thinking, separating Flanders from Wallony c'mon). I don't have a party to really relate to actually. And I'm in a jabbering mood this friday evening. I'm going to drink some good belgian ales with my friends (Duvel here I come) and tomorow I'll do it even more intensively :D. Belgian beer is good for you! ;)

Awww, judging by your signature, I thought you were one of my BUB "buddies" on that forum :D (about all four of their voters post there regularly)

Well, guess I'm siding with the other side, me voting for the Blok and all :p Still, enjoy your beer, we do have the best in the world, at least one thing we can be proud of. I'm sticking to Palm for tonight, myself. I call it "building things up slowly." :D

Awww, judging by your signature, I thought you were one of my BUB "buddies" on that forum :D (about all four of their voters post there regularly)

Well, guess I'm siding with the other side, me voting for the Blok and all :p Still, enjoy your beer, we do have the best in the world, at least one thing we can be proud of. I'm sticking to Palm for tonight, myself. I call it "building things up slowly." :D

Spijtig dat je voor het Blok stemt, ik vind ze minder opbouwend dan b.v. beginnen met Palm :D. Nu het is een vrij land. Laten we hopen dat het zo blijft.

Guy with the red writing:

Hey, let's not go bashing jealousy here. Jealousy inspires competition, which inspires quality. Communists are clearly some of the most unjealous people in the world! The point is, Jealousy is good!

Heh he he he he..!! :D

I absolutely agree with you..! Sort of, as you're being inconsistent.

Jealousy, focused as "I want that,.. I'll MAKE that..!" is good.

Jealousy, focused as "I want that,.. I'll get my friends and take it away from the rightful owner" is bad.

Leftists/Fascists/Communists are of the later variety.

Capitalists are of the former variety.

Now, in ideal socialism, you are guaranteed a job however, so theres no choice of simply not working.

Your other option is to perform poorly at your work. In which case, you lose the respect of your workmates: "social stigmatization". And possibly moved into a different field of work that you'll perform better at (why do i get the image of a prison camp...lol, thats not what im meaning don't worry).

I think thats where Iokeoke (or however you spell his name), why Socialism doesn't work. And why he considers it evil.

When you don't perform well, or your lazy, your punishment is getting sent to another place? Imagine getting deported. I doubt you'll be sent to a nice sandy beach where the lazy person can bask under the nice warm sun and feed off the 'Hard working' citizens of the country.

That because of people, who work selfishyly (aka, all of us), eventually you would need to have a hardline system that keeps the citizens in place, which eventually becomes communism.

I'm with Dogberg. If I don't enjoy working for myself, where I get the most out of my own work, I prefer not to work and enjoy travelling but eating up all your sweat and blood.

At the end of the day, who's the stupid one? The person who works his whole life and have equal benefits? Or the lazy person surfing at the ocean all day, climbing mountains, go trekking and acting the goat all day and receive the same benefits?

As opposed to, say, not even having the opportunity to work in a sweatshop? After all, if working in a sweatshop is such a good opportunity that people in horribly poor countries choose to work in them, despite how supposedly exploitative they are

My God! Isn't capitalism kind, allowing those people to work in sweatshops ever so generously!
Now thta's sarcasm.

obviously, the alternative, without Capitalism, must have been worse.

As a famous NS player would say, that is a logical fallacy.

[QUOTE=Kanabia #124]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Kanabia, you are an ass.

Shove it.

Ah,.. the lefist. Font of knowledge.

Quote:
Paris Hilton feeds innumerable people with her galavanting and massive personal spending.


But thats not hard work.

So "hard" is the question. That is SO often the question of the left: "How HARD is it"..!


Quote:
It rather hinges on what HARDER means, doesn't it..?

Uh, no, try as I might I cannot think of her life as difficult. Sorry.

That's fine. Your call. :)


Quote:
You, like all leftists, are terminally addicted to simple jealousy and unbelievable adolescent naivete.

Bullshit. I don't want her money, i'm comfortable as I am and I don't need any more. The issue here is that those who are rich are not necessarily hard-working, so don't try and circumvent it.

And you are indeed an adolescent by the reading of my patented "dip-shit-o-meter" of your choice of words and phrase structure.


Quote:
I suggest, if you were true to your "principles", that you get the fnoork off the internet, and out of this efite snob-ass "game" and go help your lowly sweatshop laborer to find a better place to be, or create a better "government" (who is most likely leftist itself) to exist under.

Frankly, you have no idea of the extent of my political involvement, so don't bother commenting or speculating.

Your actualness does not concern me. The fact that you aren't "commited to your ideals" is an interesting fact.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogburg
Sure, there are exceptions to any rule. The point is, most of the time, the hardworking get their money's worth in capitalist systems, and in communist systems they tend not to. By definition, those in fully communist systems are bound to recieve either less than they deserve or more than they deserve.

Come on, to over-simplify things, its like a household/camp/whatever. If you don't do your fair share of the chores, you're socially stigmatized for it. To truly be part of the community, therefore you would naturally want to put in.

Blar... uh.... :)


Quote:
Also, "hard work" is often more suitably described as "production of the most demanded goods". For the people who determine the respective salarys of Paris Hilton and sweatshop worker X (the general public determine their salaries by buying large quantities of their goods or not buying large quantities), the work of a sweatshop employee can be done by any able bodied adult, but the public will only buy the modelling of paris hilton, not any able bodied adult.

She inherited most of her money, she was born with it. It's not hard work that gave her that money, its the luck of birth. And therefore, the idea that rich=hard working is bullshit.

And you find that morally objectionable.

Poor baby,.. some of us don't, and will hold her to account as either doing "good" with her wealth, or not, with the way we intereact with her, but will won't do as you would and violently rip her wealth from it's rightful owner.

You are a fascist thug. Thank you for clarifying that.

First I'm not an American. It's not only Americans who dislike socialism most of the highly bueracratic EU ain't very fond of it either! Socialism along with communism is fine in theory. In an eventual and very distant utopian society maybe one day all things will be eqaul, LED's won't exist and we can all sit around and smoke hash. But in the immortal words of the sex god that is Aragorn "it is not this day". Socialism gives the government too much control and socialist countries-to my knowledge is it spain is slighty socialist, well with the exception of them don't fair too well on the old democratic scene..unless your a friendly neighbour hood dictator

Iakeokeo: coward-at-arms, bum-boy for the Bush regime...go hide behind Nancy Reagan's skirts already...

Quote:
Paris Hilton feeds innumerable people with her galavanting and massive personal spending.


But thats not hard work.

So "hard" is the question. That is SO often the question of the left: "How HARD is it"..!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I realised about people who are poor.
Is why do they have so much damn pride in hard work?

I prefer to do as little much work as possible and reap the most ammount of benefits. I think once people start thinking that hard work is good, they remain the same and never change.

People who are rich and most effecient think always of 'leverage'.

Well, guess I'm siding with the other side, me voting for the Blok and all :p Still, enjoy your beer, we do have the best in the world, at least one thing we can be proud of. I'm sticking to Palm for tonight, myself. I call it "building things up slowly." :D

A fellow Flemish capitalist Blok-voter?
Zalig :D

Greedy pig:

Absolutely. That's the problem with communism: it relys on the idea that the entire populace will be willing to work their hardest for absolutely nothing. However, there are too many of us who would rather work as little as we have to. I'm fairly sure that's a trait of human nature.

As a person who believes in some of socialism's tenets, I would like to thank you for your lucid and intelligent comments. You obviously do not fear socialism. Certain people, such as I, believe that true socialism as espoused by Marx can only occur within tribal units or other small communities where there exists a direct relation between those with ability and those with need.

Well, I don't really buy the communist arrangement of those with need versus those with ability. It's entirely subjective. The moral answer is that people ought to own themselves and what they produce, and they have every right to volutarily trade their property with other people. Beyond that, it's up to the owner of property (money, food, whatever) to give at their own discretion. People will naturally help out their loved ones. Some help strangers and foreingers. This charity is, of course, limited by their ability (wealth), and their understanding of the world. Nobody's going to send food to people starving in Somalia if they don't even know people in Somalia are starving.


As to your final comment, I would be interested in hearing what your opinions are concerning regulation of international commerce with respect to economic injustice created by the groups you have mentioned. While I agree that laissez-faire capitalism does inherently creat these injustices, I believe that it does creat an environment that allows these injustices to happen with relative impunity.

It's my opinion that true free trade is what ought to exist accross borders. I think modest tariffs are acceptable. The problem with modern "free trade" agreements is that they're thousands of pages long. If it was true free trade, they would only need one two pages. Those many pages are usually filled with all sorts of price industrial, labor, and price controls. They allow one nation to dictate economic controls on another nation. It's sort of a modern sophisticated version of mercantilism. And beyond that, there's the US Federal Reserve and the related World Bank and IMF. In a nutshell, these banks profit from manipulating money. These parasites are fed by the American and third world work forces, probably among others. Actually, those in and near the public sector (military contractors) benefit from this arrangment, but those far from it (retail, service industry) lose out. That's where corporations come in. That's pretty simplified, but that's about what I see.

Sometimes, it's thought that international free trade isn't always the best answer. I'm skeptical of that, but I"m not really sure. Today, the US depends heavily on trade with China, and China profits massively in return. American consumers are able to see lower prices, and the Chinese are rapidly raising their standard of living. The problem is that the Chinese corporations are apparently state owned machines run by military generals. They are well on their way to becoming the other superpower. And then there's all normal issues people have with Chinese labor, on top of the lost American jobs. I don't really know how bad it is, but it would be nice if their people had political and economic freedom, for starters. What I'm getting at though, is that free trade, in this instance seems to have some potentially serious drawbacks.

OTOH, the US/UN had those sanctions (opposite of free trade) against Iraq between the two wars, that reportedly killed a half-million people, and made Iraqis less able to resist their dictator.

Now, in ideal socialism, you are guaranteed a job however, so theres no choice of simply not working.

Hey, they sounds a lot like slavery.

Iakeokeo: coward-at-arms, bum-boy for the Bush regime...go hide behind Nancy Reagan's skirts already...

Heh he he he he he...!! :D

I do love leftists.

They're SO clever...

..except for this one.

:D

I just read some writings that could have only come from either really ignorant or really stupid minds. One says socialism and a whole lot start talking about communist dictatorships. As if those few horrific examples define the basics of socialism. Dumb fucks! Then one starts jabbering about Nazism. How rightwing killed lesser millions of people then leftwing commies like mao and stalin. Then one says that nazis were in fact socialist, look at the name (if you can only translate socialist then don't even bother saying anything about it you twirp). "Die Nazional-Sozialitlische Deusche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP) was socialist and they killed so many millions of people!!". The nazi party wasn't socialist. Hitler used the word "national" to get to the nationalists, the word "socialist" to get to the socialists and the word "worker" to get to the common working man. The name was one of the ways of hitler to get more votes (yes he was voted to power). Extremist right wing and extremist left wing always use misleading and contradictory information to get to power or attack the opposition. Look at what Bush and Kerry are saying about eachother. Probably not 10% of what they're saying about eachother is completely true.

What is socialism all about then? Socialism gave the working man a voice. That is the main principle of socialism. Church was represented by the christian party. The rich bussinesmen and bosses of the factories were represented by the liberal party and eventually the working man got his say in politics thanks to the socialist party. The socialist party broke the power of the church over the common working man (they had much say in society in my grandfathers days; telling people what to do; if you didn't go to church, you lost your job, because the priest went talking to your boss, priests often abused their spiritual power, people weren't educated enough and believed the priest could condem them to hell if they didn't do as he said and such, etc.). The socialists pleaded for more holidays (a 6 day week, with just enough pay to get not even 1 bread a day wasn't all that when there wasn't a socialist party yet), more pay, more human friendly conditions on the working floor (many people were killed in coalmines, weaver factories, ...), they abolished child labour, they defended the rights of the working man and even the women (who hadn't had much to say in society for a...well ever). They made it possible for workingmen to save some money (they used to have to spend it all on food, hadn't got anything left at the end of a week). The socialist party also pleaded for a fund for old retired people, so they wouldn't have to die poor and neglected. They also helped education becoming cheaper and eventually a right for every citizen. Helping the working man and making the working man smarter and giving him the right to speak up and organise has scared every powerful nation. Americans were scared of the "red danger" because they would only further devide "what little" power the politicians had.

Now you can start pleading that it wasn't the socialist party who established this and that, but fact remains that political parties tend to "steal" each others popular propositions in order to gain more power. So without the socialist party nothing would have ever happened to help the working man. And eventually the working would have become so mad and desperate (like in Russia), they would have attacked and destroyed the leading classes. But luckely this didn't happen in our country because people got their say in politics and were able to improve there living conditions. Just like in the beautiful fairytales :p.

That is what socialism stood for. The working man. It is the reason our country has one of the best social security in the world. They are also ideal to balance the right wing. A good political system has to have right wing, central and left wing in order to function correctly and least corrupt. Where ever there is power, there are people corrupting it. Socialist, capitalist, rightwing... either way there will be corrupt people seeking power/money. But don't splash mud on the concept op socialism by dragging Mao, Stalin and even rightwingnutcase Hitler in it. They weren't socialists, they were despots, dictators, populists and tyrants. Anyhow a two party system with only right wing and even more right wing can't be good. I've seen many americans say on "my television" that they'll have to chose between the lesser of two evils. Well...

- appendix -


Please note: my views on socialism are based on what happened in my country (and most other west- and central-european country I might add). And I can start naming names at some people writing narrowminded things about subjects they haven't even experienced. I also wrote many typos, but you try writing Dutch without mistakes... And it may strike you as odd, but I'm not a socialist. I just don't like it when money and oil becomes more important then people or nature. So in american rightwing terms I'm probably treehugging, commie-pinko, do-good, hippy scum, while I just enjoy living in a healty environment where people aren't killing eachother over pitty things. :fluffle: In fact I don't like new-age hippy pasifists who are taking it to far, every man is good and such. You can be tolerant, but you mustn't be naieve either.

All the "wings" (right/left) have their function. Leftists superficially work for the "common man" until they gain power, when they stifle everything that makes a society function effectively. BUT,.. they DO tend to help the rather-helpless when they are working their way up the ladder of power.

I definitely DO agree that America is primarily rightist in orientation. Our political "spectrum" is much narrower than europe. And that's as it should be for a country with as much variation in "social norm" as America.

We simply have always HAD to be more "conservative" (less shit-disturber-ish) to accomodate our radically different regions.

That's why one of the prime tenets of "America" is: Make as few laws as humanly possible.

..which is precisely WHY America hates leftists (generally). The very life's blood of the left is "shit-disturber-ry" and legislation.

The reason we are known as such a highly litigious society, contrary to our nature by the way, is because leftists are so damned noisy and absolutely masterful at gaming our legal system.

Thus, more invective is generated and heaped upon the lawyers, leftists, and other various fascist functionaries in America by the "normal" people.

[QUOTE=Greedy Pig #140]
Quote:
Paris Hilton feeds innumerable people with her galavanting and massive personal spending.


But thats not hard work.

So "hard" is the question. That is SO often the question of the left: "How HARD is it"..!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I realised about people who are poor.
Is why do they have so much damn pride in hard work?

I prefer to do as little much work as possible and reap the most ammount of benefits. I think once people start thinking that hard work is good, they remain the same and never change.

People who are rich and most effecient think always of 'leverage'.


This is my echo of your thoughts:

The "hard" part for the rich is figuring out how to do the most with the least.

The "hard" part for the poor is how hard it hurts to do "your assigned task".

..and that's why education is SO important for the poor.


Under the left (socialism/communism) the government gives you aspirin.

Under the right (capitalism) the government (should) give you books.

..and that's the real task of the right. To turn aspirin into books.

Ah,.. the lefist. Font of knowledge.

Wha...hold on, you have some privilege to call me an ass, but when I tell you to shove it, you ridicule me with sarcasm as a "leftist font of knowledge"?

What do you want me to say? There is no possible intellectual response to "You are an ass". I fired back a remark of an identical nature to yours. So I don't understand your point.

And you are indeed an adolescent by the reading of my patented "dip-shit-o-meter" of your choice of words and phrase structure.p

If you're looking for eloquent and witty repartee, Might I humbly suggest, sir, that you remove yourself from the vicinity of your computer, especially the internet, and go somewhere else.

By the way- What does my age have to do with anything? Once again I don't understand your point. You're trying to step around arguments here, and simply attack me on a personal level.

Your actualness does not concern me. The fact that you aren't "commited to your ideals" is an interesting fact.

Who says i'm not committed to my ideals?

...wait, you did it again.

And you find that morally objectionable.

Yes.

Poor baby,.. some of us don't, and will hold her to account as either doing "good" with her wealth, or not, with the way we intereact with her, but will won't do as you would and violently rip her wealth from it's rightful owner.

Excuse me.

When did I justify violence? I've lost you on that one. You've got quite a habit of doing that, don't you?

I think thats where Iokeoke (or however you spell his name), why Socialism doesn't work. And why he considers it evil.

When you don't perform well, or your lazy, your punishment is getting sent to another place? Imagine getting deported. I doubt you'll be sent to a nice sandy beach where the lazy person can bask under the nice warm sun and feed off the 'Hard working' citizens of the country.

Look, the easy solution is to find a job that you enjoy (rather than forcing a lifetime of cruddy work on someone, which they naturally won't enjoy), and you want to do. During your student years, you might have to be a part-time labourer, however, it will pay off if you are able to become say, a doctor without having any financial barriers prohibiting it. Everyone has something that they're good at and/or aspire to.

At the end of the day, who's the stupid one? The person who works his whole life and have equal benefits? Or the lazy person surfing at the ocean all day, climbing mountains, go trekking and acting the goat all day and receive the same benefits?

That's just your opinion..."stupid" is subjective. If you want to be like man 2, (somehow coming up with the money to fund that) and never seek to accomplish anything in life, fine, your call.

America is a culturally different land from the vast majority of Europe. We collectively don't believe any of this class warfare stuff. We believe in class mobility, and always have. Bill Clinton went from being poor as fuck as a child, to becoming the President of the US. We Americans love a Horatio Alger style success story. We love personal responsibility. We loathe handing any part of our lives over to someone else. We are highly individualistic, and radically independent. We are not ueber-conservative nazis, nor are we capitialist pawns. We follow our own beliefs, and our culture clearly does not want socialism at this time.

This thread is not to debate the merits of socialism, this thread is to debate why we Americans are opposed to this concept.

Hey, they sounds a lot like slavery.

That's an interesting comment, and I would be inclined to agree had I read that comment out of its original context.

However, the situation is basically the same in capitalism, out of context.

Furthermore, life is the same. You don't breathe, you die.

Anyhow, I concede that it did come out wrong. Though it's important to note that work is necessary for survival in any society, with socialism however, it's a community responsibility as well.

*starts jubilantly chanting*

Aspirin into Books! Aspirin into Books! Aspirin into Books!

But my hypothesis is that Americans are opposed to socialism BECAUSE of its distinct lack of merits.

*starts chanting again*

Life, Liberty and Property! Life, Liberty and Property! Life, Liberty and Property!

Socialism and being socialist are often considered "bad"; so why is it that americans dont feel that western europeans are "bad" people.
American's not thinking of W. Europeans as bad people, I disagree.

Have we ever heard of "freedom fries" or "freedom toast?" (a stupid term, I will say, but it proves this point"

One thing I realised about people who are poor.
Is why do they have so much damn pride in hard work?

I prefer to do as little much work as possible and reap the most ammount of benefits. I think once people start thinking that hard work is good, they remain the same and never change.

People who are rich and most effecient think always of 'leverage'.

Who said I was "Poor"?

Quite frankly, I can see that many in high positions do work very hard, and possess a great deal of responsibility that the average worker does not, and therefore they are paid more.

My (main) gripe is with those who inherit vast wealth....

If a person can be born into a family and not have to work (Aside from Miss Hiltons modelling) or possess any real responsibility whatsoever, why do they deserve it? I don't care if that sounds like jealousy...no-one can say thats fair.

Capitalism has evolved to the point where most people are unable to utilise their right to own and run a business capable of matching a living wage, unless (in 90%+ of cases) they are born with the money, so what's the point?

Anyhow, I concede that it did come out wrong. Though it's important to note that work is necessary for survival in any society, with socialism however, it's a community responsibility as well.

A "community responsibility" of forced labor? Its amazing how you wrap a concept like forced labor into a cute phrase like "community responsibility" and then trundle forth as if it were a perfectly reasonable expectation in complete harmony with the structure of a free society. Sorry, deal with the harsh reality of your proposal; government forced labor is slavery.

A "community responsibility" of forced labor? Its amazing how you wrap a concept like forced labor into a cute phrase like "community responsibility" and then trundle forth as if it were a perfectly reasonable expectation in complete harmony with the structure of a free society. Sorry, deal with the harsh reality of your proposal; government forced labor is slavery.

My point is that its no different from capitalism on that level so your criticism is invalid.

How is "government forced labour" different from "market-forced labour"?

Its a necessity to work. If people don't work, we all die.

\

My (main) gripe is with those who inherit vast wealth....

If a person can be born into a family and not have to work (Aside from Miss Hiltons modelling) or possess any real responsibility whatsoever, why do they deserve it? I don't care if that sounds like jealousy...no-one can say thats fair.

\?

I can say that that's fair. Their parents and grandparents worked to get to a position where their children would have a better life then they. The worked for the one's they value above themselves, their children.

I am not a parent, I am not married, I am a freshman in college, and I can understand this.

If you deprive people of this ability to guarantee their children's future, then you deprive them of a motivating factor.

I admit I am jealous of some part so Paris Hilton's life, but hey, I was born into a middle class family, not a multi-billionaire family, that's the way the dice fall, y'know?

I can say that that's fair. Their parents and grandparents worked to get to a position where their children would have a better life then they. The worked for the one's they value above themselves, their children.

That's a point, but its not necessarily true in all (or possibly most) cases...

I am not a parent, I am not married, I am a freshman in college, and I can understand this.

If you deprive people of this ability to guarantee their children's future, then you deprive them of a motivating factor.

I admit I am jealous of some part so Paris Hilton's life, but hey, I was born into a middle class family, not a multi-billionaire family, that's the way the dice fall, y'know?

It may be the way the dice fall, but you are still unable to utilise your right to own a free-enterprise.

My (main) gripe is with those who inherit vast wealth....

If a person can be born into a family and not have to work (Aside from Miss Hiltons modelling) or possess any real responsibility whatsoever, why do they deserve it? I don't care if that sounds like jealousy...no-one can say thats fair.

Freedom isn't about fairness, its about justice. It is just that you be able to dispose of your wealth as you see fit, including bestowing it on your heirs.

Capitalism has evolved to the point where most people are unable to utilise their right to own and run a business capable of matching a living wage, unless (in 90%+ of cases) they are born with the money, so what's the point?

This is an outright fabrication. There are literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the United States. I know many people who are self employed, employed by small (15 or fewer employees) business, or who have started their own business. Many have failed and started a new business. Thats the nature of a free and fair market.

My point is that its no different from capitalism on that level so your criticism is invalid.

How is "government forced labour" different from "market-forced labour"?

Its a necessity to work. If people don't work, we all die.

It is not necessary to work, people don't work all the time. In a free market those who amass enough wealth to no longer need to work often don't. That option would be stripped from them were the government to compel labor.

Freedom isn't about fairness, its about justice. It is just that you be able to dispose of your wealth as you see fit, including bestowing it on your heirs.

Well, lets take a middle road and be just then.

We'll put a tax on inheritance, let people keep most of it, and use the rest to give economically disadvantaged people a leg-up. There, that's fair and just.

This is an outright fabrication. There are literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the United States. I know many people who are self employed, employed by small (15 or fewer employees) business, or who have started their own business. Many have failed and started a new business. Thats the nature of a free and fair market.

Yeah, its possible and happens to many people. But quite frankly, I don't see myself raising the starting capital for a business anytime before i'm 50 (and even then, it won't be worth it). The majority of the population are therefore still unable to do so.

It is not necessary to work, people don't work all the time. In a free market those who amass enough wealth to no longer need to work often don't. That option would be stripped from them were the government to compel labor.

Not necessarily. I'm not talking working until death, here. After people reach retirement age, they can travel all they like, perhaps be given an allowance to do so.

It may be the way the dice fall, but you are still unable to utilise your right to own a free-enterprise.

What? I am not being able to utilise my right to own a free enterprise? How? I don't exactly have a claim to the Hilton Hotel Empire.

If I had a radical new idea, and I had a little bit of extra cash around, I could start my own enterprise. If I try to imitate an already successfuly product, than I am failing in innovation. That is a key to capitalism.

But, I'm a college freshman at the moment, and my studies concern me more. I am not thinking up new business opportunities at the moment.

What? I am not being able to utilise my right to own a free enterprise? How? I don't exactly have a claim to the Hilton Hotel Empire.

If I had a radical new idea, and I had a little bit of extra cash around, I could start my own enterprise. If I try to imitate an already successfuly product, than I am failing in innovation. That is a key to capitalism.

But, I'm a college freshman at the moment, and my studies concern me more. I am not thinking up new business opportunities at the moment.
You've proved my point exactly. You can't exploit your right to own a business, because you don't have the starting capital and it may be years before you gather it...and by then, whats the point?

I want to see this magic aspirin-book machine ...

(I'll shut up after this) Hitler was not elected by majority vote. Under the German system of proportional representation a candidate needed over 50% of the vote. Hitler's highest (before Jan 1933) was 34%. By Jan 1933 (The time of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor) Nazi support was declining, they were running out of money and Hitler had threatened suicide. He was, however, appointed by a collaboration of landowners and industrialists. They used Von Papen's (Chancellor) influence over Hindenburg to convince the ailing general to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, along with a conservative cabinet and Von Papen as Vice-Chancellor. They did this as Hitler would shut down the trade unions and increase military spending, creating lucrative industrial contracts. Yet another reason to be suspicious of big business ....

Because it is inhuman evil crystalized into principles and procedures.

It is based on unreal social premises, which are any principles that are not based on individual property ownership and observation of the universe for guidance.

It is a contrived mechanism for the control of humanity toward the service of a power-mad minority.

It is most often a wolf in sheep's clothing, until it gains a "majority" when it becomes a devouring and devastating beast.

(( Dress it up all you like, but be aware that when you do, you guarantee that you will be destroyed by your own creation when it comes to power. ))

It is simply antithetical to America.

That argument (with the exception of "not based on individual property ownership") could easily be applied to the neo-conservatives ...

Well, lets take a middle road and be just then.

We'll put a tax on inheritance, let people keep most of it, and use the rest to give economically disadvantaged people a leg-up. There, that's fair and just.

Actually thats neither fair nor just. In a free society which values the natural rights of man we cannot engage in government sponsored acts of charity. In this way it is not just. People are already taxed when they earn their wealth in the first place. To tax it a second time when they dispose of it in a non-economical transaction is unfair.



Yeah, its possible and happens to many people. But quite frankly, I don't see myself raising the starting capital for a business anytime before i'm 50 (and even then, it won't be worth it). The majority of the population are therefore still unable to do so.

So if you are unable to do something then the rest of the population is also unable to do it. One might call that a bit egotistical. Regardless, it doesn't matter if the "majority of the population" can or cannot do something. All that matters is that the legal and institutional playing field is level, ie everyone is subject to the same rules. Other advantages possessed by the wealthy, the highly educated, etc are immaterial in a free society when it comes to evaluating the justness of the system.



Not necessarily. I'm not talking working until death, here. After people reach retirement age, they can travel all they like, perhaps be given an allowance to do so.

Many people who are highly successful can retire much earlier than your government mandated retirement age. You cannot support forced labor without also supporting a major infringement on the rights of the people. In a free society forced labor is intolerable.

You've proved my point exactly. You can't exploit your right to own a business, because you don't have the starting capital and it may be years before you gather it...and by then, whats the point?

I don't have the money to operate a newspaper either, so is my right to freedom of press useless? We have rights as free people in a free society. We do not have IOU slips from the government ensuring us that we will be able to open a business at 25.

First I'm not an American. It's not only Americans who dislike socialism most of the highly bueracratic EU ain't very fond of it either! Socialism along with communism is fine in theory. In an eventual and very distant utopian society maybe one day all things will be eqaul, LED's won't exist and we can all sit around and smoke hash. But in the immortal words of the sex god that is Aragorn "it is not this day". Socialism gives the government too much control and socialist countries-to my knowledge is it spain is slighty socialist, well with the exception of them don't fair too well on the old democratic scene..unless your a friendly neighbour hood dictator

I would really like to know how socialism gives the government too much control?

All the "wings" (right/left) have their function. Leftists superficially work for the "common man" until they gain power, when they stifle everything that makes a society function effectively. BUT,.. they DO tend to help the rather-helpless when they are working their way up the ladder of power.

I definitely DO agree that America is primarily rightist in orientation. Our political "spectrum" is much narrower than europe. And that's as it should be for a country with as much variation in "social norm" as America.

We simply have always HAD to be more "conservative" (less shit-disturber-ish) to accomodate our radically different regions.

That's why one of the prime tenets of "America" is: Make as few laws as humanly possible.

..which is precisely WHY America hates leftists (generally). The very life's blood of the left is "shit-disturber-ry" and legislation.

The reason we are known as such a highly litigious society, contrary to our nature by the way, is because leftists are so damned noisy and absolutely masterful at gaming our legal system.

Thus, more invective is generated and heaped upon the lawyers, leftists, and other various fascist functionaries in America by the "normal" people.

If the US had socialists, there would be less poverty and more jobs. Factories wouldn't get subsidized to move abroad and people would have social security...and the US would not have to go to war.
At the risk of being called a commie-pinko hippy anarchist... It is massive corporations who are masterfull at gaming "your" legal system, even corrupt it or change it by massively fund and buy the president. Money buys everything. The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.
And fascism is right wing, my friend...you call it republican I believe?

You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.
And Hitler purged the Socialists from the Party (a large chunk were in the SA under Roehm)

Actually thats neither fair nor just. In a free society which values the natural rights of man we cannot engage in government sponsored acts of charity. In this way it is not just. People are already taxed when they earn their wealth in the first place. To tax it a second time when they dispose of it in a non-economical transaction is unfair.

So...we'll just be just then and let all of those children born into disadvantaged families stay that way and have the same for their children...

Well, they deserve poverty for being lazy, right?

So if you are unable to do something then the rest of the population is also unable to do it. One might call that a bit egotistical.

It's not based around me. It's based around "the majority". If I were not around, it would be the same. I'm not being egotistical.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if the "majority of the population" can or cannot do something.

That's completely wrong on many levels, one of them being democracy, but i'll credit it as a slip of the tongue and not seize on it, OK? :)

All that matters is that the legal and institutional playing field is level, ie everyone is subject to the same rules. Other advantages possessed by the wealthy, the highly educated, etc are immaterial in a free society when it comes to evaluating the justness of the system.

Both the national football team and a junior football team are playing the same game and are subject to the same rules, but I can tell you who's going to win out every time....

Many people who are highly successful can retire much earlier than your government mandated retirement age. You cannot support forced labor without also supporting a major infringement on the rights of the people. In a free society forced labor is intolerable.

Like I have said, often people who are "Highly Successful" are considered that from the day they are born, and therefore, such is not fair. Capitalism is forced labor for the many and luxury for the few. That's how it is, and you cannot deny it. Socialism balances out the labour share, therefore helping the many.

I don't have the money to operate a newspaper either, so is my right to freedom of press useless? We have rights as free people in a free society. We do not have IOU slips from the government ensuring us that we will be able to open a business at 25.

Nope, because you can write an article and distribute it to a newspaper to publish if you so desire. Operating a newspaper is different to contributing to one. Poor example.

The fact is, you have "rights" that don't apply to everyone.

I would really like to know how socialism gives the government too much control?

Lets think about it for a moment. In most socialistic nations the government takes a large portion of the national income as taxes and then uses it in various ways, purportedly for the "good of society." That may include nationalizing some industries, especially such things as health care services, communications networks, transportation networks, etc Instead of the people deciding, with their purchases, how these things operate the government can hand down as little or as much service as it wishes. Since the costs of these services are now hidden overconsumption may occur, in which case the government gains descretionary power over who gets what service and when. The government now has a large potential for abuse. What if the government wants to freeze the movement of the population? It just turns off the transportation system it monopolizes. Maybe it wants to freeze communications? Its simple to do when the government controls all the sources. Perhaps the government decides that it needs to spend its resources somewhere else; it has a huge income from the social programs it can divert "for the good of the public." Suddenly the quaint little social system with its "harmless" bureaucrats has morphed into a tiger that refuses to respond to the pleading leash tugs that the population is able to give to it in an attempt to regain control. How is a population to respond to government excess when they cannot easily travel or disseminate information to each other? Even worse, what happens when a significant plurality of the population agrees with these government excesses? Will such a society, which has lost its vital functions to the centralized government, be able to mount an effective campaign to check the actions of their government? Such scenarios seem distant to the generations which now live under these systems, but the danger is ever present whenever government is given too much control.

Pure communism is a Christian idea, where everyone is selfless and of one accord and gives if another has any need that they can meet.




That's not exactly how I would say it...

The Christian idea is more the willingness and selflessness to share what you have for the good of others.
I don't think a governmental/economic system that enforces sharing counts.

Lets think about it for a moment. In most socialistic nations the government takes a large portion of the national income as taxes and then uses it in various ways, purportedly for the "good of society." That may include nationalizing some industries, especially such things as health care services, communications networks, transportation networks, etc Instead of the people deciding, with their purchases, how these things operate the government can hand down as little or as much service as it wishes. Since the costs of these services are now hidden overconsumption may occur, in which case the government gains descretionary power over who gets what service and when. The government now has a large potential for abuse. What if the government wants to freeze the movement of the population? It just turns off the transportation system it monopolizes. Maybe it wants to freeze communications? Its simple to do when the government controls all the sources. Perhaps the government decides that it needs to spend its resources somewhere else; it has a huge income from the social programs it can divert "for the good of the public." Suddenly the quaint little social system with its "harmless" bureaucrats has morphed into a tiger that refuses to respond to the pleading leash tugs that the population is able to give to it in an attempt to regain control. How is a population to respond to government excess when they cannot easily travel or disseminate information to each other? Even worse, what happens when a significant plurality of the population agrees with these government excesses? Will such a society, which has lost its vital functions to the centralized government, be able to mount an effective campaign to check the actions of their government? Such scenarios seem distant to the generations which now live under these systems, but the danger is ever present whenever government is given too much control.

Then it ceases to be a socialist state and is in fact a dictatorship. If you have a good balanced political system including both left, right en centre wing you needn't worry about that. I'm more "scared" of extreme rightwing that listen to but a few people and their "needs", then of socialist who are trying to do good for the majority.

[QUOTE=Roccan]The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.
[QUOTE]



That's good and all, but why haven't the for-the-working-man socialism-loving left-wing presidents done that?

Then it ceases to be a socialist state and is in fact a dictatorship. If you have a good balanced political system including both left, right en centre wing you needn't worry about that. I'm more "scared" of extreme rightwing that listen to but a few people and their "needs", then of socialist who are trying to do good for the majority.




No one does anything just for the good of the majority.

So...we'll just be just then and let all of those children born into disadvantaged families stay that way and have the same for their children...

Well, they deserve poverty for being lazy, right?


Your cure is worse than the disease; the solution to poverty is not government tyranny. I will freely donate my money to charities to help the poor, but I will not submit to government infringement on my property rights. The duty of free government is to defend my natural rights, all other actions, including charity, are up to me.


It's not based around me. It's based around "the majority". If I were not around, it would be the same. I'm not being egotistical.

It sounds pretty egotistical when you say the rest of society cannot do something because you cannot. However, as I said before, it doesn't matter, your conclusions were invalid regardless of the structure of your arguement.



That's completely wrong on many levels, one of them being democracy, but i'll credit it as a slip of the tongue and not seize on it, OK? :)

It wasn't at all a slip of the tounge, it was a part of a valid arguement when taken in context with the rest of my statement.


Both the national football team and a junior football team are playing the same game and are subject to the same rules, but I can tell you who's going to win out every time....

It may be a mismatch but it is still a fair match, which is all that matters in a free society. It isn't the job of government to handicap the more talented to give the less talented a chance to win, it is the job of the government to ensure everyone plays by the same rules.



Like I have said, often people who are "Highly Successful" are considered that from the day they are born, and therefore, such is not fair.


I fail to see how you come to this conclusion. Many children born into rich families have led pointless wasteful lives. Conversely many children born into poverty have gone on to be successful. You can't look at a baby and logically place him in a success category; success is based on actions, not on birthrights.

Capitalism is forced labor for the many and luxury for the few. That's how it is, and you cannot deny it.

Capitalism is simply another word for freedom. Each individual is not coerced into doing anything in capitalism. Everyone works with mutual consent for personal gain. Everyone is entitled by right to the fruits of their efforts, whatever that may be.

Socialism balances out the labour share, therefore helping the many.

Socialism doesn't "balance" out the labor share, it redistributes the fruits of said labor from the earners to the non-earners. Such a system is inherently unfair and an anathema to any society which wishes to be free and prosperous.

Nope, because you can write an article and distribute it to a newspaper to publish if you so desire. Operating a newspaper is different to contributing to one. Poor example.

There is no guarentee that my article will be published in any newspaper. No more guarentee than there is that people will wish to engage in commerce with my start up business. The majority of people in society do not get their works published, by your standards my right to free press is pointless.

The fact is, you have "rights" that don't apply to everyone.

Everyone plays under the same rules. You are confusing, to use your ball game example, a mismatch to an unfair match.

Then it ceases to be a socialist state and is in fact a dictatorship. If you have a good balanced political system including both left, right en centre wing you needn't worry about that. I'm more "scared" of extreme rightwing that listen to but a few people and their "needs", then of socialist who are trying to do good for the majority.

Socialism is what gave the government enough power to make the transition to an even more despotic state possible. It would be like if you ate tons of fatty foods and wanted to know how they could possibly be bad for you. I start talking about how they cause cholesterol which can block arteries, etc. You respond by protesting that now I'm talking about a heart attack, not fatty foods. In fact the fatty foods are what made the heart attack possible. Socialism is the fatty food of the political cardiovascular system.

Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. And so far, our economy is doing very well with Capitalism, and America boasts the highest percentage of Entreprenoures in the world. Yay Capitalism!

I am an entreprenuer. A large percentage of small businesses fail in the US, usually in the first 1-5 years. It seems to me the main purpose of entrepreneurism is to rob the proletariat of their life savings by offering a dream of indepenence that is impossible to achieve without Capital.

Are you? Do you know someone who is? As far as I can tell, the only people who end up working in sweatshops are a few illegal immigrants who decided to come to the North rather than the South, where they could find much better work. And they make a lot more money. So basically, its a bunch of greedy northerners that exploit them. Not my problem, yours.

Sure, I used to work at McDonalds and know many who do still. If you profit from the exploitation of others and dont take responsability for it, you will regret it when you try to enter the gates of heaven.

How does giving people a job exaerbate problems brought on by corrupt government? Having multinational corporations come into a poor country is a good first step towards eventual recovery of that nation from its poor condition. Every nation started out with so called 'sweatshop' labor, including the United States. Thats just one of the steps of economic progress.

Please. So called poor nations have as much national resource wealth and human capital as any other nation. Its the systemic rape of the weaker nations by the global system that makes they poor by controlling access to critial resources like financial capital, food, water and energy.

[QUOTE=Roccan #169]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
All the "wings" (right/left) have their function. Leftists superficially work for the "common man" until they gain power, when they stifle everything that makes a society function effectively. BUT,.. they DO tend to help the rather-helpless when they are working their way up the ladder of power.

I definitely DO agree that America is primarily rightist in orientation. Our political "spectrum" is much narrower than europe. And that's as it should be for a country with as much variation in "social norm" as America.

We simply have always HAD to be more "conservative" (less shit-disturber-ish) to accomodate our radically different regions.

That's why one of the prime tenets of "America" is: Make as few laws as humanly possible.

..which is precisely WHY America hates leftists (generally). The very life's blood of the left is "shit-disturber-ry" and legislation.

The reason we are known as such a highly litigious society, contrary to our nature by the way, is because leftists are so damned noisy and absolutely masterful at gaming our legal system.

Thus, more invective is generated and heaped upon the lawyers, leftists, and other various fascist functionaries in America by the "normal" people.



If the US had socialists, there would be less poverty and more jobs. Factories wouldn't get subsidized to move abroad and people would have social security...and the US would not have to go to war.
At the risk of being called a commie-pinko hippy anarchist... It is massive corporations who are masterfull at gaming "your" legal system, even corrupt it or change it by massively fund and buy the president. Money buys everything. The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.
And fascism is right wing, my friend...you call it republican I believe?

No,.. fascism is "leftwing". You use your dictionary. I'll use mine. :)

(( See several of my previous posts for my reasoning,.. if you dare. :) ))

But you propose and interesting, though meaningless, scenario.

Good luck on implementing that..!

If you can think of other means of gainful employment then I'd love to hear it.



The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.



So because the company benefits we should turn up our noses at the good being done to the population? One of the first tenants of capitalism is mutual benefit in economic transactions.

Dude, read something on the subject before posting uniformed drivel. It seems the sum of your knowledge of global economics comes from watching Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. You are plainly and simply wrong. People in the Third World have had jobs for millenia - your statements are not just wrong, they are arrogant, dismissive and ultimately racist.

[QUOTE=Roccan #168]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraGrad
First I'm not an American. It's not only Americans who dislike socialism most of the highly bueracratic EU ain't very fond of it either! Socialism along with communism is fine in theory. In an eventual and very distant utopian society maybe one day all things will be eqaul, LED's won't exist and we can all sit around and smoke hash. But in the immortal words of the sex god that is Aragorn "it is not this day". Socialism gives the government too much control and socialist countries-to my knowledge is it spain is slighty socialist, well with the exception of them don't fair too well on the old democratic scene..unless your a friendly neighbour hood dictator



I would really like to know how socialism gives the government too much control?

Because with socialism/communism/fascism (yes all are equated) the government has all control of all things. Period.

A limited version of "socialism", as you probably envision, as long as it respected private property and the role of law as ONLY restricting behavior, which I would describe as "Compassionate Capitalism", would NOT control society to much as it forgoes the "evilness" of private property ownership.

It's pretty simple, actually.

We undoubtedly agree on much more than we disagree, but we disagree on a very critical point.

That private property ownership is a good thing.

Unless I'm wrong there too,.. which is more than possible. :)

No,.. fascism is "leftwing". You use your dictionary. I'll use mine. :)

(( See several of my previous posts for my reasoning,.. if you dare. :) ))

But you propose and interesting, though meaningless, scenario.

Good luck on implementing that..!


You'll do well to note the difference between sophistry and reason.

Although I reject the whole notion of "Left vs. Right" it is rediculous to assert that Fascism has anything to do with what we typically associate with Leftist ideologies.

Wait, perhaps if I put on my tin hat - there we go - ah now I see, your position is so clear to me now!!

Socialism is what gave the government enough power to make the transition to an even more despotic state possible. It would be like if you ate tons of fatty foods and wanted to know how they could possibly be bad for you. I start talking about how they cause cholesterol which can block arteries, etc. You respond by protesting that now I'm talking about a heart attack, not fatty foods. In fact the fatty foods are what made the heart attack possible. Socialism is the fatty food of the political cardiovascular system.

Hmmm, sounds like someone is having a Mac-Attack. You say nothing here to discredit Socialism. All you demonstrate is 1) that you dont like Socialism (OK, fine), and 2) that you are willing to make up unfounded scenarios to justify how you FEEL about the subject.

This is not an argument, just you jabbering.

[QUOTE=Vox Humana #167]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanabia
You've proved my point exactly. You can't exploit your right to own a business, because you don't have the starting capital and it may be years before you gather it...and by then, whats the point?



I don't have the money to operate a newspaper either, so is my right to freedom of press useless? We have rights as free people in a free society. We do not have IOU slips from the government ensuring us that we will be able to open a business at 25.

Kanabia is an adolescent absolutist idiot.

Unless it's "utterly good" it's "evil".

Unless we're talking about the evils, demonstrated profusely by history, of all the evil leftist thuggery experiments that have come to power on this planet.

Then it's, "But they were corrupted by bad individuals..!"

Which begs the question, would you rather put stock in a system that is so sensitive to the influence of "bad individuals", or a system that creates it's stability and ongoing movement towards greater human potentiation on the basis of natural and impersonal principle..?

Property rights are indeed impersonal. And yet, as it comes from natural process (the right of the strong tempered by the human NEED for a safe and compassionate society), it's basis is better than ALL others.

[QUOTE=New Exeter #170]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nationalist Hungary
You people do know that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST which is an extreme right-wing form of government so stating that americans hate socialism because its directly related to left-wing communism simply isnt true.


And Hitler purged the Socialists from the Party (a large chunk were in the SA under Roehm)

This illustrates the danger of using political labels that may have been defined as they are by those with reasons for defining them contrary to their "accepted" meanings.

Which makes the actual words UTTERLY meaningless.

Which is why I simply define leftist as "believers in the illegitimacy and evil of individual property ownership", and use "rightist" to mean the opposite.

All other labels (communist/socialist/neo-con/conservative/liberal/fnoorkist/etc) are meaningless to me, other than my "felt" relationship between the user of these labels and my definitions of the left/right scale.

[QUOTE=Roccan]The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.
[QUOTE]



That's good and all, but why haven't the for-the-working-man socialism-loving left-wing presidents done that?

there is no leftwing in the us, democrats are as far right as republican... maybe a bit less, but far right enough that you can't even mistake them for centrist wing.

Socialism is what gave the government enough power to make the transition to an even more despotic state possible. It would be like if you ate tons of fatty foods and wanted to know how they could possibly be bad for you. I start talking about how they cause cholesterol which can block arteries, etc. You respond by protesting that now I'm talking about a heart attack, not fatty foods. In fact the fatty foods are what made the heart attack possible. Socialism is the fatty food of the political cardiovascular system.

in other words: GOOOOOO EXTREMIST RIGHTWING! KILL THE PESKY LEFTIES AND BYE BYE COUNTERBALANCE! ... Hitler was rightwing, he got to power too, by election I might add. He had a network of spies and rats to control the masses too. He had absolute control too. So right wing is a fatty food that could cause fascism...in your words then. My point being (all along actually)...you must have right, left and centrist to have a decent balanced government. One time the rightwing will win, the other time, centrist, the other time leftwing. But opposition always influences the leading party (in a healty democracy).

No one does anything just for the good of the majority.

They do it because the majority will vote for them... Before there were socialists, the working man didn't got to vote or had a vote that was worth not half of the vote of a rich factory boss (and you had to miss a days work in order to go vote too so not many did). The majority, before socialism, was the leading classes (rich people and clergy), not working men and not women. Now it is every citizen above 18 (in our country). Democracy works to a certain level. Don't throw away the baby with the tub water, like we say around here (not that you implicated that but...).

[QUOTE=Roccan #174]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
Lets think about it for a moment. In most socialistic nations the government takes a large portion of the national income as taxes and then uses it in various ways, purportedly for the "good of society." That may include nationalizing some industries, especially such things as health care services, communications networks, transportation networks, etc Instead of the people deciding, with their purchases, how these things operate the government can hand down as little or as much service as it wishes. Since the costs of these services are now hidden overconsumption may occur, in which case the government gains descretionary power over who gets what service and when. The government now has a large potential for abuse. What if the government wants to freeze the movement of the population? It just turns off the transportation system it monopolizes. Maybe it wants to freeze communications? Its simple to do when the government controls all the sources. Perhaps the government decides that it needs to spend its resources somewhere else; it has a huge income from the social programs it can divert "for the good of the public." Suddenly the quaint little social system with its "harmless" bureaucrats has morphed into a tiger that refuses to respond to the pleading leash tugs that the population is able to give to it in an attempt to regain control. How is a population to respond to government excess when they cannot easily travel or disseminate information to each other? Even worse, what happens when a significant plurality of the population agrees with these government excesses? Will such a society, which has lost its vital functions to the centralized government, be able to mount an effective campaign to check the actions of their government? Such scenarios seem distant to the generations which now live under these systems, but the danger is ever present whenever government is given too much control.



Then it ceases to be a socialist state and is in fact a dictatorship. If you have a good balanced political system including both left, right en centre wing you needn't worry about that. I'm more "scared" of extreme rightwing that listen to but a few people and their "needs", then of socialist who are trying to do good for the majority.

But that's the problem, Roccan..!

Leftist governments will ALWAYS degenerate into dictatorships.

Your "balance" is based on the good will of the member "politicians", and nothing else.

And that's the crux of it. Without the moderating (conservative) power of property ownership, which is the STRONGEST crystallizing agent (as it's REAL) for a society to coallesce around, there is nothing but POWER (power to distribute ALL resources) for society to organize around, and the "greed" of the wielders of that power (the "communal leaders") will ALWAYS degenerate the system into a dictatorship.

Thus the leftist "dictatorship of the proletariat".

If you centralize power (which regardless of it's protestations the left is DUTY BOUND by principle to do) it will further condense into a dictator's weapon.

If you have individual property ownership, it will stay decentralized by the counter-pressure of the separate interests of the individual owners. Yes, there will be "condensations of interest", but they always (usually by the NECESSARY function and existence of a leftist adolescent thuggish contingient in society) will be broken up effectively.

And that's the difference. The left thinks that everything in society can be planned for and dealt with by it's "intelligencia", while the right doesn't and has the wisdom (as opposed to the juvenile "exhuberance and hope" of the left) to base society on the REAL principle of private property ownership, and the measured optimism that people are good and will, though time and overall, prefer a society of striving peace as opposed to corrupting servitude.

[QUOTE=Kanadesaga #179]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HadesRulesMuch
Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. And so far, our economy is doing very well with Capitalism, and America boasts the highest percentage of Entreprenoures in the world. Yay Capitalism!



I am an entreprenuer. A large percentage of small businesses fail in the US, usually in the first 1-5 years. It seems to me the main purpose of entrepreneurism is to rob the proletariat of their life savings by offering a dream of indepenence that is impossible to achieve without Capital.

I would suggest, if you are an entrepreneur, which I doubt, you should probably get out of the entrepreneur business.

[QUOTE=Bosworth II #165]
I want to see this magic aspirin-book machine ...

(I'll shut up after this) Hitler was not elected by majority vote. Under the German system of proportional representation a candidate needed over 50% of the vote. Hitler's highest (before Jan 1933) was 34%. By Jan 1933 (The time of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor) Nazi support was declining, they were running out of money and Hitler had threatened suicide. He was, however, appointed by a collaboration of landowners and industrialists. They used Von Papen's (Chancellor) influence over Hindenburg to convince the ailing general to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, along with a conservative cabinet and Von Papen as Vice-Chancellor. They did this as Hitler would shut down the trade unions and increase military spending, creating lucrative industrial contracts. Yet another reason to be suspicious of big business ....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Because it is inhuman evil crystalized into principles and procedures.

It is based on unreal social premises, which are any principles that are not based on individual property ownership and observation of the universe for guidance.

It is a contrived mechanism for the control of humanity toward the service of a power-mad minority.

It is most often a wolf in sheep's clothing, until it gains a "majority" when it becomes a devouring and devastating beast.

(( Dress it up all you like, but be aware that when you do, you guarantee that you will be destroyed by your own creation when it comes to power. ))

It is simply antithetical to America.



That argument (with the exception of "not based on individual property ownership") could easily be applied to the neo-conservatives ...

So what..!? I don't care who it applies to. I am a "rightist", not a neo-con, whatever the hell that means.

[QUOTE=Roccan #169]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
All the "wings" (right/left) have their function. Leftists superficially work for the "common man" until they gain power, when they stifle everything that makes a society function effectively. BUT,.. they DO tend to help the rather-helpless when they are working their way up the ladder of power.

I definitely DO agree that America is primarily rightist in orientation. Our political "spectrum" is much narrower than europe. And that's as it should be for a country with as much variation in "social norm" as America.

We simply have always HAD to be more "conservative" (less shit-disturber-ish) to accomodate our radically different regions.

That's why one of the prime tenets of "America" is: Make as few laws as humanly possible.

..which is precisely WHY America hates leftists (generally). The very life's blood of the left is "shit-disturber-ry" and legislation.

The reason we are known as such a highly litigious society, contrary to our nature by the way, is because leftists are so damned noisy and absolutely masterful at gaming our legal system.

Thus, more invective is generated and heaped upon the lawyers, leftists, and other various fascist functionaries in America by the "normal" people.



If the US had socialists, there would be less poverty and more jobs. Factories wouldn't get subsidized to move abroad and people would have social security...and the US would not have to go to war.
At the risk of being called a commie-pinko hippy anarchist... It is massive corporations who are masterfull at gaming "your" legal system, even corrupt it or change it by massively fund and buy the president. Money buys everything. The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.
And fascism is right wing, my friend...you call it republican I believe?

No,.. fascism is "leftwing". You use your dictionary. I'll use mine. :)

(( See several of my previous posts for my reasoning,.. if you dare. :) ))

But you propose and interesting, though meaningless, scenario.

Good luck on implementing that..!





haha fascism is right wing. you're referring to national-socialism, they are right wing too the national socialists, don't let the term socialist fool you.

Benitto Mussolini started the ‘Fascio di Combattimento’ in 1919. The term fascism is derived from the name of those fightingtroops (a bit like hitler's SA) - fascio >> fascisme. Those ‘Fascio di Combattimento’ were used to attack and severely hurt the socialist party members (execute actually). They did some very nasty things. Fascisme is against democracy and preaches one leader to guide the people. While socialists want more "power to the people". Communists are a bit more extreme and state that every citizen should have an equal amount of power and status (wich is in fact never the case and a few can take power and put up a dictatorship...communism is very easy to directly corrupt). So in short the ideals of fascism are the absolute opposit of everything that is even remotely left.

And before you start saying Hitlers NSDAP was a socialist party...well I explained in my previous post. Hitler exterminated socialism but abused the ideals to play the crowd by using hollow sentences (You will have work...arbeit macht frei...jadde jadde).

[QUOTE=Kanadesaga #183]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
If you can think of other means of gainful employment then I'd love to hear it.



The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.



So because the company benefits we should turn up our noses at the good being done to the population? One of the first tenants of capitalism is mutual benefit in economic transactions.



Dude, read something on the subject before posting uniformed drivel. It seems the sum of your knowledge of global economics comes from watching Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. You are plainly and simply wrong. People in the Third World have had jobs for millenia - your statements are not just wrong, they are arrogant, dismissive and ultimately racist.

As opposed to Kan-head, who dismisses as informed someone who simply states that wage-earners in other countries bring money into their country.

What a hypocrit.

And what is your justification your use of the word "racist", other than the "divide and conquer" tool of choice of the left..?

Kan-head is quite simply a leftist bigot. All people who are not of his clique are "wrong" and racist. I admit that leftists, like Kan-head here, have a function in society,.. Kan-head, as a good leftist puppet, will grant NO legitimate function for the right, other than as target practice when the revolution comes.

[QUOTE=Kanadesaga #183]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
If you can think of other means of gainful employment then I'd love to hear it.



The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.



So because the company benefits we should turn up our noses at the good being done to the population? One of the first tenants of capitalism is mutual benefit in economic transactions.



Dude, read something on the subject before posting uniformed drivel. It seems the sum of your knowledge of global economics comes from watching Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. You are plainly and simply wrong. People in the Third World have had jobs for millenia - your statements are not just wrong, they are arrogant, dismissive and ultimately racist.

As opposed to Kan-head, who dismisses as informed someone who simply states that wage-earners in other countries bring money into their country.

What a hypocrit.

And what is your justification your use of the word "racist", other than the "divide and conquer" tool of choice of the left..?

Kan-head is quite simply a leftist bigot. All people who are not of his clique are "wrong" and racist. I admit that leftists, like Kan-head here, have a function in society,.. Kan-head, as a good leftist puppet, will grant NO legitimate function for the right, other than as target practice when the revolution comes.


hell! you speak of puppets, you are living in fucking puppet land. there are many examples of countries well functioning with socialist parties. and those people are less corrupt then your "everything is for sale" capitalist major corporation ass licking politicians.

[QUOTE=Kanadesaga #185]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
No,.. fascism is "leftwing". You use your dictionary. I'll use mine.

(( See several of my previous posts for my reasoning,.. if you dare. ))

But you propose and interesting, though meaningless, scenario.

Good luck on implementing that..!



You'll do well to note the difference between sophistry and reason.

Although I reject the whole notion of "Left vs. Right" it is rediculous to assert that Fascism has anything to do with what we typically associate with Leftist ideologies.

Wait, perhaps if I put on my tin hat - there we go - ah now I see, your position is so clear to me now!!

"What we typically associate.." is correct, but "what we typically associate.." is not my concern. If you don't understand my usage of language, query me about it.

But the "superior" NEVER demeans himself to inquiry of his "inferior". It's just too unseemly, and against leftist "We are the intelligencia!" rules.

You look quite fetching, I'm sure, in your tin hat, but unless it gets you off your highhorse of superiority, it's not going to do much to improve your mental functioning, assuming you're interested in "understanding" and not merely "winning JFKerry debate points".

[QUOTE=Roccan #189]
[QUOTE=Noctivia]
[QUOTE=Roccan]The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.

Quote:

That's good and all, but why haven't the for-the-working-man socialism-loving left-wing presidents done that?

there is no leftwing in the us, democrats are as far right as republican... maybe a bit less, but far right enough that you can't even mistake them for centrist wing.


For once we agree, Roccan..! :D

There IS no left in America (with any power), because America absolutely despises the left as the evil it is. Period.

There is a (necessarily) anti-american, evil and subversive left in America, but they can not achieve any power and tend not to show themselves as those who "support" them don't want to be seen with them.

See some of my previous posts regarding WHY this is.

[QUOTE=Roccan #190]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
Socialism is what gave the government enough power to make the transition to an even more despotic state possible. It would be like if you ate tons of fatty foods and wanted to know how they could possibly be bad for you. I start talking about how they cause cholesterol which can block arteries, etc. You respond by protesting that now I'm talking about a heart attack, not fatty foods. In fact the fatty foods are what made the heart attack possible. Socialism is the fatty food of the political cardiovascular system.



in other words: GOOOOOO EXTREMIST RIGHTWING! KILL THE PESKY LEFTIES AND BYE BYE COUNTERBALANCE! ... Hitler was rightwing, he got to power too, by election I might add. He had a network of spies and rats to control the masses too. He had absolute control too. So right wing is a fatty food that could cause fascism...in your words then. My point being (all along actually)...you must have right, left and centrist to have a decent balanced government. One time the rightwing will win, the other time, centrist, the other time leftwing. But opposition always influences the leading party (in a healty democracy).

Hitler was a fascist. His right of left-ness is irrelevant.

Your "left" is evil. It is NOT a "scale direction".

There IS NO absolute "tick mark" measure on the "yardstick" of the left/right scale.

If you don't understand this, please form a specific question about what I just said and I will answer it. This concept is VERY important.

A foot-long ruler will balance in the middle just as will a yard-long yardstick.

What you describe as the "left" is so far off in the "fascist" dimension (which is not even ON the REAL left/right scale) that we consider it actually EVIL.

[QUOTE=Roccan #191]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctivia
No one does anything just for the good of the majority.


They do it because the majority will vote for them... Before there were socialists, the working man didn't got to vote or had a vote that was worth not half of the vote of a rich factory boss (and you had to miss a days work in order to go vote too so not many did). The majority, before socialism, was the leading classes (rich people and clergy), not working men and not women. Now it is every citizen above 18 (in our country). Democracy works to a certain level. Don't throw away the baby with the tub water, like we say around here (not that you implicated that but...).

And curiously enough, our CAPITALIST society handled that little problem.

Go Capitalism..!

(( The society was STILL capitalist when it made the adjustment. I won't even conjecture what would happen if it were SOCIALIST at the time. The current economic and social conditions of the Russia do come to mind, though. ))

[QUOTE=Roccan #195]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=Roccan #169]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
All the "wings" (right/left) have their function. Leftists superficially work for the "common man" until they gain power, when they stifle everything that makes a society function effectively. BUT,.. they DO tend to help the rather-helpless when they are working their way up the ladder of power.

I definitely DO agree that America is primarily rightist in orientation. Our political "spectrum" is much narrower than europe. And that's as it should be for a country with as much variation in "social norm" as America.

We simply have always HAD to be more "conservative" (less shit-disturber-ish) to accomodate our radically different regions.

That's why one of the prime tenets of "America" is: Make as few laws as humanly possible.

..which is precisely WHY America hates leftists (generally). The very life's blood of the left is "shit-disturber-ry" and legislation.

The reason we are known as such a highly litigious society, contrary to our nature by the way, is because leftists are so damned noisy and absolutely masterful at gaming our legal system.

Thus, more invective is generated and heaped upon the lawyers, leftists, and other various fascist functionaries in America by the "normal" people.



If the US had socialists, there would be less poverty and more jobs. Factories wouldn't get subsidized to move abroad and people would have social security...and the US would not have to go to war.
At the risk of being called a commie-pinko hippy anarchist... It is massive corporations who are masterfull at gaming "your" legal system, even corrupt it or change it by massively fund and buy the president. Money buys everything. The first thing a decent politician (socialist or not) should do is ban the funding of big corporations in political campaigns.
And fascism is right wing, my friend...you call it republican I believe?

No,.. fascism is "leftwing". You use your dictionary. I'll use mine.

(( See several of my previous posts for my reasoning,.. if you dare. ))

But you propose and interesting, though meaningless, scenario.

Good luck on implementing that..!







haha fascism is right wing. you're referring to national-socialism, they are right wing too the national socialists, don't let the term socialist fool you.

Benitto Mussolini started the ‘Fascio di Combattimento’ in 1919. The term fascism is derived from the name of those fightingtroops (a bit like hitler's SA) - fascio >> fascisme. Those ‘Fascio di Combattimento’ were used to attack and severely hurt the socialist party members (execute actually). They did some very nasty things. Fascisme is against democracy and preaches one leader to guide the people. While socialists want more "power to the people". Communists are a bit more extreme and state that every citizen should have an equal amount of power and status (wich is in fact never the case and a few can take power and put up a dictatorship...communism is very easy to directly corrupt). So in short the ideals of fascism are the absolute opposit of everything that is even remotely left.

And before you start saying Hitlers NSDAP was a socialist party...well I explained in my previous post. Hitler exterminated socialism but abused the ideals to play the crowd by using hollow sentences (You will have work...arbeit macht frei...jadde jadde).

The left demands that they determine and control every aspect of society. Period.

I'm not talking about Hitler, or any particular party. I'm talking about "the left".

I despise Hitler as a fascist. And to me all leftists ARE fascists, as they demand abject and total control of all things.

The evil of the left is the evil of fascism. The left is simply a method TO fascism.

[QUOTE=Roccan #197]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=Kanadesaga #183]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
If you can think of other means of gainful employment then I'd love to hear it.

The inflow of capital supplied by their cheap labor will help build up their nation's economy. The only other option is usually no job or a worse job.

So because the company benefits we should turn up our noses at the good being done to the population? One of the first tenants of capitalism is mutual benefit in economic transactions.

Dude, read something on the subject before posting uniformed drivel. It seems the sum of your knowledge of global economics comes from watching Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. You are plainly and simply wrong. People in the Third World have had jobs for millenia - your statements are not just wrong, they are arrogant, dismissive and ultimately racist.

As opposed to Kan-head, who dismisses as informed someone who simply states that wage-earners in other countries bring money into their country.

What a hypocrit.

And what is your justification your use of the word "racist", other than the "divide and conquer" tool of choice of the left..?

Kan-head is quite simply a leftist bigot. All people who are not of his clique are "wrong" and racist. I admit that leftists, like Kan-head here, have a function in society,.. Kan-head, as a good leftist puppet, will grant NO legitimate function for the right, other than as target practice when the revolution comes.

hell! you speak of puppets, you are living in fucking puppet land. there are many examples of countries well functioning with socialist parties. and those people are less corrupt then your "everything is for sale" capitalist major corporation ass licking politicians.

Love your use of the shift-key.

A country with a functioning socialist PARTY is a good thing.

A Socialist Country (a country run by the "no private property ownership" principle) is a very bad thing.

I admit there is a function, a reason for being, for a socialist party,.. as the "compassionate mommies" sub-group, with all the great things that "compassionate mommies" bring to society.

But my point is that socialist, or ANY leftist, party morph into if they RUN a country on true leftist (no property ownership) principles is a fascist horror show.

I'm sorry you confuse the right with ass-lickers, but I am of the opinion that leftists who truly live by their confiscatorial inhuman power mad "intelligencia" worshiping ways are MUCH more accustomed to sucking the privates of their overseers.

And what about your much vaunted policy of "all parties should be included"..?

The leftists that I describe don't really exist anywhere, with any power, but the "ass-lickers" that you describe seem to actually exist,.. yet you would exclude those people.

Naughty naughty young one..! You really shoyuld be more even handed. :)

haha fascism is right wing. you're referring to national-socialism, they are right wing too the national socialists, don't let the term socialist fool you.

It all depends on what your definition of "fascism", "left wing" and "right wing" is.

I think Iakeokeo made a good point (meaning that I throughly agree with him) when he said :
Which is why I simply define leftist as "believers in the illegitimacy and evil of individual property ownership", and use "rightist" to mean the opposite.

Left-wing : The good of "society" as a whole is more important than the individual. Wealth is redistributed on a national scale, mostly through income tax, in order to alleviate the status of the "less fortunate". Leftism = collectivism.

Right-wing : The individual is sacred. Taxing is essentially government-organised theft. Every individual is regarded as self-responsible and free of state intervention. Rightism = individualism

If you implement these definitions (and not the common socialist definition of right-wing as "stupid and authoritarian" :rolleyes:), then you must agree that fascism is inherently left-wing and collectivist.

Please. So called poor nations have as much national resource wealth and human capital as any other nation. Its the systemic rape of the weaker nations by the global system that makes they poor by controlling access to critial resources like financial capital, food, water and energy.

These nations are suffering from domestic tyranny, not foreign economic exploitation. They are unable to utilize their national resources because of their political structure. Ultimately it is up to them to throw off these oppressive regimes. Unfortunately such regimes are often supported by the minority, which has the guns, because they benefit from it or due to other circumstances such as ethnic tensions. The fact of the matter is that these nations were poor economic backwaters long before the "global system" showed up, and they will continue to be until they effect political reform.

Dude, read something on the subject before posting uniformed drivel.

So far you've not engaged in this discussion on a substantive level, instead choosing to sit along the sidelines tossing out personal attacks and vague suppositions unsupported by facts or logic. Do you feel better now that you've gotten your ideological rant out of your system, or are you just a troll?

that you are willing to make up unfounded scenarios to justify how you FEEL about the subject.You, referring to my analogy regarding socialism


You're nitpicking at my analogy, which is just that, an analogy. Please read the arguement my analogy described and criticize that if you wish. Don't misrepresent my arguement because you are too lazy or intellectually feeble to mount a credible challenge.

Left-wing : The good of "society" as a whole is more important than the individual. Wealth is redistributed on a national scale, mostly through income tax, in order to alleviate the status of the "less fortunate". Leftism = collectivism.

Right-wing : The individual is sacred. Taxing is essentially government-organised theft. Every individual is regarded as self-responsible and free of state intervention. Rightism = individualism

If you implement these definitions (and not the common socialist definition of right-wing as "stupid and authoritarian" :rolleyes:), then you must agree that fascism is inherently left-wing and collectivist.

I'd say there are more than just left and right. The scale of politics (as I see it) is more of a 2D plane.


Libertarian
Social Freedom /\ Economic Freedom
/ \
/ \
Liberal / \ Conservative
\ Mod. /
\ /
Economic Control \ / Social Control
\ /
Populist

Let's give a general idea where people lie:

Hitler: Populist, believed state had absolute control over all aspects of life

Eric Blair (G. Orwell): Liberal, believed in Liberty, but supported some state control of econ

George W. Bush: Conservative, of sorts, believes in individual economic freedom, but not so much in social freedom.

John F. Kerry: Moderate, slight liberal, less state control of social concerns, more of economic portions.

Michael Badnarik: Libertarian, believes in absolute freeom of the individual in economic and social arenas, virtually no government.

Michael Peroutka: Populist, believes in government control of social issues and economic.

Me (the great and wonderful Andy): Libertarian, believes in absolute individual freedom both economically and socially, makes room for government roles such as education, law enforcement, military though.

edit: ouch, sorry about how the diamond of political leanings came out, but hey, it still gives the general idea

in other words: GOOOOOO EXTREMIST RIGHTWING! KILL THE PESKY LEFTIES AND BYE BYE COUNTERBALANCE! ...

Sad really, I was hoping that you wanted to discuss the issues, but apparently you only want to slander me and misrepresent my position.


Hitler was rightwing, he got to power too, by election I might add.

You've got a peculiar defination of "right wing." If we examine Hitler's governance policies we see nationalized industries, works projects, immense levels of government control, squelching of basic, natural human rights, etc I have advocated none of these policies, indeed I have been quite vocal against them. Your attempt to parallel me and my positions to a genocidal despot is shallow and quite transparent. I can only assume that you've concluded that you cannot prevail on the issues and so instead have decided to quietly lump me in with the "bad guys" to gain credibility.

My point being (all along actually)...you must have right, left and centrist to have a decent balanced government. One time the rightwing will win, the other time, centrist, the other time leftwing. But opposition always influences the leading party (in a healty democracy).

It is immaterial what party you have in power, what matters is that the government must be restricted in the powers it possesses. We must reserve as many powers as possible in the hands of the people. If the government has no power it can abuse then whoever is in office can't abuse it. This is why I acknowledge and support limited government as one of the basic fundamental tenants of a representative government.


Before there were socialists, the working man didn't got to vote or had a vote that was worth not half of the vote of a rich factory boss

Basic ignorence of history. Ever since the founding of the United States, even when only white property owners could vote, the poor voters far outstripped the wealthy. Soon after the founding male sufferage was granted, further widening the divide between the tiny wealthy minority and the broad majority of the general populace. The difference is that back in those days the general populace and the wealthy shared the same deep belief in minimal government, private property, and representative government. In today's society of class warfare a rather disturbingly large segment of the underclasses have decided that it is acceptable for them to wield the power of government to strip their fellow citizens of their property. This trend was born out of the politicals of envy and greed, fed by corrupt politicians who swell their own power by promising the masses that they too can get a share of the pie, telling them that they deserve it, tricking them into believing someone else's wealth should be theirs by right. This is why socialism is such a threat to a free society; it breaks down the level playing field, it takes competition out of the market place, and puts it into the legislature and court rooms.

Libertarian
Social Freedom /\ Economic Freedom
/ \
/ \
Liberal / \ Conservative
\ Mod. /
\ /
Economic Control \ / Social Control
\ /
Populist


I completely agree with you (I too would classify myself as a libertarian by the way :)). (by the way, I don't know if it has been posted lately, but there's a nice political test on www.okcupid.com (you don't have to register to do the test) that is pretty interesting, although slightly flawed (I came out as Anarchist while I should have been Libertarian, but I can forgive the makers for that)

I was merely pointing out the Individualism-collectivism point in order to to counter the "fascism = right-wing basically because they're the bad guys" argument

My beliefs: The individual is sacred. We are human beings blessed (either by a deity, nature, aliens whatever) with our own individual consciousness. No one has a claim over our lives, our property or our liberty. Socialism tramples upon property, one of the three supremely equal inalienable rights.

Socialism makes life easier for some, but at what cost to society as a whole? It puts the group above the individual. And when the group is valued above the individual, other things that support the individual begin to erode. Liberty is eroded in the name of "social justice". Eventually, it reaches the point where life if even regarded as nothing, and people are summarily executed on the street, but because society is conditioned to this they ignore.

I'd suggest that you read a book by a noted socialist (so much so that he fought for the Communists in the Spanish Revolution.) Eric Blair, or George Orwell realized that his beliefs were just as capable of evil as those of the conservatives or populists.

In summary, if you believe in Freedom, the only logical political philosophy is some sort of Libertarianism. But that's my bias. Toodles.

I completely agree with you (I too would classify myself as a libertarian by the way :)). (by the way, I don't know if it has been posted lately, but there's a nice political test on www.okcupid.com (you don't have to register to do the test) that is pretty interesting, although slightly flawed (I came out as Anarchist while I should have been Libertarian, but I can forgive the makers for that)

I was merely pointing out the Individualism-collectivism point in order to to counter the "fascism = right-wing basically because they're the bad guys" argument

I understood. Good argument too. I just jumped off of your post (because it used the right left thing) to enlighten the masses, something, I could tell from your argument you understood, just the way some people here are portraying this issue.... well, they're wrong.

Basic ignorence of history. Ever since the founding of the United States, even when only white property owners could vote, the poor voters far outstripped the wealthy. Soon after the founding male sufferage was granted, further widening the divide between the tiny wealthy minority and the broad majority of the general populace. The difference is that back in those days the general populace and the wealthy shared the same deep belief in minimal government, private property, and representative government. In today's society of class warfare a rather disturbingly large segment of the underclasses have decided that it is acceptable for them to wield the power of government to strip their fellow citizens of their property. This trend was born out of the politicals of envy and greed, fed by corrupt politicians who swell their own power by promising the masses that they too can get a share of the pie, telling them that they deserve it, tricking them into believing someone else's wealth should be theirs by right. This is why socialism is such a threat to a free society; it breaks down the level playing field, it takes competition out of the market place, and puts it into the legislature and court rooms.


Wow...couldn't have said it better.

[QUOTE=Andaluciae #211]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
Basic ignorence of history. Ever since the founding of the United States, even when only white property owners could vote, the poor voters far outstripped the wealthy. Soon after the founding male sufferage was granted, further widening the divide between the tiny wealthy minority and the broad majority of the general populace. The difference is that back in those days the general populace and the wealthy shared the same deep belief in minimal government, private property, and representative government. In today's society of class warfare a rather disturbingly large segment of the underclasses have decided that it is acceptable for them to wield the power of government to strip their fellow citizens of their property. This trend was born out of the politicals of envy and greed, fed by corrupt politicians who swell their own power by promising the masses that they too can get a share of the pie, telling them that they deserve it, tricking them into believing someone else's wealth should be theirs by right. This is why socialism is such a threat to a free society; it breaks down the level playing field, it takes competition out of the market place, and puts it into the legislature and court rooms.




Wow...couldn't have said it better.


Bing-freakin'-go...!

It would have taken me 20 pages to say what this wise genius pronounced.

Excellent..! :D

My beliefs: The individual is sacred. We are human beings blessed (either by a deity, nature, aliens whatever) with our own individual consciousness. No one has a claim over our lives, our property or our liberty. Socialism tramples upon property, one of the three supremely equal inalienable rights.

Socialism makes life easier for some, but at what cost to society as a whole? It puts the group above the individual. And when the group is valued above the individual, other things that support the individual begin to erode. Liberty is eroded in the name of "social justice". Eventually, it reaches the point where life if even regarded as nothing, and people are summarily executed on the street, but because society is conditioned to this they ignore.

I'd suggest that you read a book by a noted socialist (so much so that he fought for the Communists in the Spanish Revolution.) Eric Blair, or George Orwell realized that his beliefs were just as capable of evil as those of the conservatives or populists.

In summary, if you believe in Freedom, the only logical political philosophy is some sort of Libertarianism. But that's my bias. Toodles.
ok.
1. Socialism/communism dont hurts the individuality of people
2. property dosnt makes you more yourself
3. you cant have a right to property on the cost of other people. Thats what im criticizing the most on the us way of life (also on the european way, which isnt that hart as the american but still egoism) Do Americans KNOW how much of the world ressources theire using?
4. Alls this abotu "group over individual stuff" is from you is a big bunch of doggy poo. So easy ^^ A group is always a group of individuals. And democracy is a MUST in a communist/socialist society. Every one has equal rights and the same standard in living. If only a small group is ruling, without the little man having any power in political decisions, youre losing the equality within a few months. Thats what happened in the SU, china and other "communist" countrys. They just have gone to a wrong way because of an sentence of marx. He was against something he called "bürgerliche Demokratie" in german, dont know how to say in english. But the point is, he was talking about demoracy in fact being a ruling of the ones with the money, who can affect the public thinking over several ways (just like advertising) Some stupid people then thougt: oh, communism means no democracy. But thats just fucking wrong.
5. So did orwell? Never heard about that.... searching searching searching, google is such a great thing.
Ammm ummm, your a liar :P He was still a socialist after spanish revolution. Maybe you were thinking about the book "animal farm" but, thats only about stalin and his using of the name communism for his own purposes *that asshole >_<*
6. If you believe in freedom the only solution is COMMUNISM. Because if everyone has equal power (yes, communism is the utopian idea, that is wanted to be reached trough SOCIALISM) and no one has more money to pay politicians or advertise his own political ideas, you have true democracy.

Wow...couldn't have said it better.
i, too, am pleased with that post. very well put.

[QUOTE=Ivarka #213]
Quote:
My beliefs: The individual is sacred. We are human beings blessed (either by a deity, nature, aliens whatever) with our own individual consciousness. No one has a claim over our lives, our property or our liberty. Socialism tramples upon property, one of the three supremely equal inalienable rights.

Socialism makes life easier for some, but at what cost to society as a whole? It puts the group above the individual. And when the group is valued above the individual, other things that support the individual begin to erode. Liberty is eroded in the name of "social justice". Eventually, it reaches the point where life if even regarded as nothing, and people are summarily executed on the street, but because society is conditioned to this they ignore.

I'd suggest that you read a book by a noted socialist (so much so that he fought for the Communists in the Spanish Revolution.) Eric Blair, or George Orwell realized that his beliefs were just as capable of evil as those of the conservatives or populists.

In summary, if you believe in Freedom, the only logical political philosophy is some sort of Libertarianism. But that's my bias. Toodles.


ok.
1. Socialism/communism dont hurts the individuality of people
2. property dosnt makes you more yourself
3. you cant have a right to property on the cost of other people. Thats what im criticizing the most on the us way of life (also on the european way, which isnt that hart as the american but still egoism) Do Americans KNOW how much of the world ressources theire using?
4. Alls this abotu "group over individual stuff" is from you is a big bunch of doggy poo. So easy ^^ A group is always a group of individuals. And democracy is a MUST in a communist/socialist society. Every one has equal rights and the same standard in living. If only a small group is ruling, without the little man having any power in political decisions, youre losing the equality within a few months. Thats what happened in the SU, china and other "communist" countrys. They just have gone to a wrong way because of an sentence of marx. He was against something he called "bürgerliche Demokratie" in german, dont know how to say in english. But the point is, he was talking about demoracy in fact being a ruling of the ones with the money, who can affect the public thinking over several ways (just like advertising) Some stupid people then thougt: oh, communism means no democracy. But thats just fucking wrong.
5. So did orwell? Never heard about that.... searching searching searching, google is such a great thing.
Ammm ummm, your a liar :P He was still a socialist after spanish revolution. Maybe you were thinking about the book "animal farm" but, thats only about stalin and his using of the name communism for his own purposes *that asshole >_<*
6. If you believe in freedom the only solution is COMMUNISM. Because if everyone has equal power (yes, communism is the utopian idea, that is wanted to be reached trough SOCIALISM) and no one has more money to pay politicians or advertise his own political ideas, you have true democracy.

May you live a long and happy life in your leftist utopia.

Though I know you won't, as it's a lovely adolescent dream. As is the rightist utopian dream. But at least we have the freedoms that living in a capitalist representative domocracy give us. Which is at least livable, and even profitable..!

Where do you live, by the way. And are you heading in the direction of a leftist utopia now..?

If so,.. why so..?

And if not,.. why not..?

I'd really like to know.

Or are you just another dejected leftist voicing your frustrations..?

ok.
1. Socialism/communism dont hurts the individuality of people


Socialism and communism discounts individuality for the sake of community. The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice. How you can say that these political philosophies do not injure the concept of individuality is puzzling.


2. property dosnt makes you more yourself


Property is an extension of our mental and physical selves. They are the tangible fruits of our personal talents. Just as we are entitled to self ownership, so to must property be sacred in a free and just society.

3. you cant have a right to property on the cost of other people. Thats what im criticizing the most on the us way of life (also on the european way, which isnt that hart as the american but still egoism) Do Americans KNOW how much of the world ressources theire using?


The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce. They do so of their own volition because they realize something that you apparently do not; trade benefits everyone envolved. Its like when you go to the grocery store, you exchange something you value less (money) for something you value more (food). Do you think the grocer curses you on the way out for exploiting him? Hardly, both of you gained mutual benefit from your consensual act of trade.

4. Alls this abotu "group over individual stuff" is from you is a big bunch of doggy poo.... Some stupid people then thougt: oh, communism means no democracy. But thats just fucking wrong.


How are you going to implement Marx's policies without taking away democracy? I don't think most people will willingly give up their religion, family, property, be coerced to work, etc


6. If you believe in freedom the only solution is COMMUNISM. Because if everyone has equal power (yes, communism is the utopian idea, that is wanted to be reached trough SOCIALISM) and no one has more money to pay politicians or advertise his own political ideas, you have true democracy.

Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion, etc? Or are we talking about some pseudo-intellectual concoction of communism which attempts to fix the ugly side of Marx's philosophy with pretty words?

It is not necessary to work, people don't work all the time. In a free market those who amass enough wealth to no longer need to work often don't. That option would be stripped from them were the government to compel labor.

Just to add, we normally call that option "retirement".

You've proved my point exactly. You can't exploit your right to own a business, because you don't have the starting capital and it may be years before you gather it...and by then, whats the point?

This whole line is total BS. There's a machinest I work with name Phil. About two years ago everybody's hours and wages were cut (I was laid off by then) and Phil could no longer afford to spend the amount of money on recreation that he was accustomed to. He had done landscaping when he was younger, so he decided to see if he could earn a few extra bucks trimming and removing trees. All the capital he needed was a chainsaw and a pick-up truck. Today, he still works where I do, but he's making more doing his landscaping and has 7 employees. He talks about leaving, but he's probably affraid to give up the stability and benefits. He's making lots of money, and doesn't have time to spend it, but he prefers that to sitting on the couch with nothing to do.

My point is that it's total BS that impossible to raise capital.

ok.
1. Socialism/communism dont hurts the individuality of people
2. property dosnt makes you more yourself
3. you cant have a right to property on the cost of other people. Thats what im criticizing the most on the us way of life (also on the european way, which isnt that hart as the american but still egoism) Do Americans KNOW how much of the world ressources theire using?
4. Alls this abotu "group over individual stuff" is from you is a big bunch of doggy poo. So easy ^^ A group is always a group of individuals. And democracy is a MUST in a communist/socialist society. Every one has equal rights and the same standard in living. If only a small group is ruling, without the little man having any power in political decisions, youre losing the equality within a few months. Thats what happened in the SU, china and other "communist" countrys. They just have gone to a wrong way because of an sentence of marx. He was against something he called "bürgerliche Demokratie" in german, dont know how to say in english. But the point is, he was talking about demoracy in fact being a ruling of the ones with the money, who can affect the public thinking over several ways (just like advertising) Some stupid people then thougt: oh, communism means no democracy. But thats just fucking wrong.
5. So did orwell? Never heard about that.... searching searching searching, google is such a great thing.
Ammm ummm, your a liar :P He was still a socialist after spanish revolution. Maybe you were thinking about the book "animal farm" but, thats only about stalin and his using of the name communism for his own purposes *that asshole >_<*
6. If you believe in freedom the only solution is COMMUNISM. Because if everyone has equal power (yes, communism is the utopian idea, that is wanted to be reached trough SOCIALISM) and no one has more money to pay politicians or advertise his own political ideas, you have true democracy.


1. Yes it does. The violation of the Basic Right of Property is a violation of the individual.
2. What I own is a part of my expression. Be it my University ballcap, or my laptop or even by fan or desk lamp, I have worked hard for all of these things and no one, not a dying bum on the street, or a three year old with cancer has a greater right to them than me.
3. My property doesn't harm anyone. If they didn't educate themselves and work hard enough to have as much property as I (and I have very little, I'm a college student!) then it's their fault. It would appear to me that I have enough money to get health insurance, housing, tuition, food (no auto, but that's because I get unlimited COTA busing through tuition).
4. Guess what, ich kenned Deutsch! Buergerliche Demokratie bedeutet, auf Englisch: Middle Class Democracy. Basically the concept means that no one should be allowed to express their views in a way that requires resources. Freedom of Speech is VITAL to democracy, and to limit, say advertising on a specific issue, well, that's a clear violation of Liberty, my point that to a socialist our Fundamental Rights as Human Beings are null and void at the whim of the masses.
5. I never said Orwell ever left socialism, but unlike so many of the socialists out there, he underwent serious introspection of his beliefs, and as a result, his views began to change to a limited socialist perspective. And yes, Animal Farm is chiefly about the USSR, but 1984 (in my opinion, his masterpiece) is about a society in the West that went socialist. He describes how the intellectual elites of the "Oceania" use the "revolution" to seize power, and perfect a system of power maintenance. And if you counter by saying "in a perfect socialist state that wouldn't happen", name a single popular, non-conservative revolution that hasn't wound up in a mad dictatorship. Please, I challenge you.
6. So your saying it's wrong for people to express their views however they want? How do you learn contrasting political opinions if you never hear any? Dissent, espescially vocal dissent is vital to any democracy. Under your concept no one can broadcast their views beyond their neighborhood.

Oh yeah, thanks for the insulting of my opinions and myself. I love it when my beliefs are called "doggy poo". Same rhetoric I hear out of extreme conservatives, populists and liberals. It's not my fault you can't read what I said about Orwell.

Oh yeah, that great thing Google. You do realize that is the creation of individuals using their own knowledge and capital, to create a unique idea and improve their lives? Do you want to take the results of their hard work away from them? Do you want to take the money they made from their risk to pay for whatever? Because without this drive to strike gold, no one will feel the desire to improve, stagnation will occur. Under the system you claim to desire, we'd never have Google. We'd never have the internet. We'd probably not even have automobiles.

Right,... so I think we're stomping the spotznitz out of them in this particular discussion.

They have their platitudes. We have history and the courage not to give in to noisy unreal idealists who claim to be "ENLIGHTENED".

Has anyone ever noticed how the left runs like little scared french schoolgirls when the pontifications they posture as "principles" are laughed at and ridiculed as they should be..?

I personally think it's because they're used to the "rarified air" of the "higher educational institutions" and their mommie worship of their so-called professors.

The thin air affects their thinking and mommies tit lulls them into a complacency that no one could POSSIBLY hold other ideas.

But that's just my theory.

What's yours...!? :D

I'm not a fan of insulting people, but I'd admit that many liberals and populists tend to run. It's not that their stupid, and their opinions are equally valid.

But they cannot challenge the basic rights we all share as Human Beings. They behave as if liberty can be achieved by violating some of these rights, but it cannot (same reason I tend to disagree with conservatives). They fail to realize that true freedom isn't just an abstract concept that can be twisted to their whims, but a multifaceted creature, which covers every portion of our lives. Like many conservatives, religions or clubs they believe in a set dogma that they fail to question. Believe me, I have questioned every belief I have had.

I used to be a die-hard conservative. But as I learned about government and politics I underwent a personal kind of revolution. That we all have basic rights, which should never be violated. Life, Liberty and Property. As a conservative, I tended to trample upon Liberty, but at the realization of this my beliefs were thrown into turmoil. I researched an read from the position of a true undecided, and came to the conclusion that all Freedoms were equal, that all rights were equal.

Many leftists undergo a personal revolution as well, but their revolution is typically less responsible. It typically involves a traumatic event in their lives (loss of job, violent death of friend and family member, etc.). They hear something that sounds nice, they only read about that theory, they pick up the Communist Manifesto and think "wow, here my problem would never occur again" or they read revisionist history and think "it's all these rich white dudes fault my life is like this." But they never read other points of view. They shift the blame for their failings and misfortune to others, and they think that others (whom they blame) should "pay them back." (I also tend to find a similar thing with Conservatives too, not exactly the same, but similar)

Often I find many who claim to be Conservative are actually Libertarian at heart, whilst many a leftist tends more to be populist. Which is diametrically opposed to my beliefs of absolute freedom.

Hey, it's the truth. There are plenty of things one can do if one's life sucks, but it's always a whole hell of a lot easier to shift the blame to others.

[INDENT][QUOTE=Andaluciae #221]
I'm not a fan of insulting people, but I'd admit that many liberals and populists tend to run. It's not that their stupid, and their opinions are equally valid.

Insults are allowed. Not given. You can't insult someone who won't accept it.

They aren't stupid, only intolerant. As I am intolerant of their opinions, but while I consider their opinions actually EVIL, they are not their opinions. They are not as people evil. It is the opinion (held belief) that is evil. And luckily, they always come to realize this. They may disagree that they do change, but unless a person truly becomes evil, the evil will eventually sluff off because that is the nature of the "glue" holding evil to human beings.


But they cannot challenge the basic rights we all share as Human Beings. They behave as if liberty can be achieved by violating some of these rights, but it cannot (same reason I tend to disagree with conservatives). They fail to realize that true freedom isn't just an abstract concept that can be twisted to their whims, but a multifaceted creature, which covers every portion of our lives. Like many conservatives, religions or clubs they believe in a set dogma that they fail to question. Believe me, I have questioned every belief I have had.

Dogma is always bad. And leftist are so hard-and-fast in holding to theirs because it is the ONLY thing they have to hold onto. Idealists are idealists because all other things have failed them.


I used to be a die-hard conservative. But as I learned about government and politics I underwent a personal kind of revolution. That we all have basic rights, which should never be violated. Life, Liberty and Property. As a conservative, I tended to trample upon Liberty, but at the realization of this my beliefs were thrown into turmoil. I researched an read from the position of a true undecided, and came to the conclusion that all Freedoms were equal, that all rights were equal.

The purpose of conservatives is to conserve the liberal ideas of humanity. The purpose of liberals is to expose more liberties for humanity. When people confuse "liberal" with "leftist", they fail to recognise either one.


Many leftists undergo a personal revolution as well, but their revolution is typically less responsible. It typically involves a traumatic event in their lives (loss of job, violent death of friend and family member, etc.). They hear something that sounds nice, they only read about that theory, they pick up the Communist Manifesto and think "wow, here my problem would never occur again" or they read revisionist history and think "it's all these rich white dudes fault my life is like this." But they never read other points of view. They shift the blame for their failings and misfortune to others, and they think that others (whom they blame) should "pay them back." (I also tend to find a similar thing with Conservatives too, not exactly the same, but similar)

The leftist trauma is "leaving the womb".

The rightist trauma is "the power to hurt".

Leftists need security restored. Rightists need to not need the drug of being able to inflict pain on others, even though they can.


Often I find many who claim to be Conservative are actually Libertarian at heart, whilst many a leftist tends more to be populist. Which is diametrically opposed to my beliefs of absolute freedom.

I don't know WHAT any of these labels mean anymore. If they ever actually described anything. People of compassion (erstwhile "leftists") tend to see rightists as "bullying fathers". Rightists (you know who you are) tend to see leftists as "weenie ass teet-suckers".

And therefore nobody's seeing anybody, really. They're just seeing stereotypes.

I've decided to center my views on the "not absolute freedom of individual private property ownership" pivot point. It is THE primary basis of all human society (and probably animal as well, though I'm still undecided about the plant kingdom), and seems to be THE NEXUS for both paths of thought these days.

Therefore, to me, there are two sides,.. those who want it and those who don't. And the two are only reconcilable when each side comes to the realization that they're talking about the same thing in different ways.

Hey, it's the truth. There are plenty of things one can do if one's life sucks, but it's always a whole hell of a lot easier to shift the blame to others.

I've often had this "hallucination" of an entire population of downtrodden miserable slaves simply walking west (the direction of sunrise and "newness" I imagine) as one cheerful smiling mass, being occassionally cut down by evil people with machetes, but still moving west with smiles intact knowing for an absolute fact that their lives could not be any worse and this mass movement is the best, most pleasurable thing that has ever happened to any human being in history.

And how anyone with property and knowledge of the ways of the world could not share what they have in a way that "teaches them to fish" so that they'd never be miserable again, after a vision like that would be my personal definition of evil incarnate.

The purpose of conservatives is to conserve the liberal ideas of humanity. The purpose of liberals is to expose more liberties for humanity. When people confuse "liberal" with "leftist", they fail to recognise either one.



Interesting thought, I've never had that thought before. I love having the ability to learn from others.

Has anyone ever noticed how the left runs like little scared french schoolgirls when the pontifications they posture as "principles" are laughed at and ridiculed as they should be..?

I personally think it's because they're used to the "rarified air" of the "higher educational institutions" and their mommie worship of their so-called professors.

The thin air affects their thinking and mommies tit lulls them into a complacency that no one could POSSIBLY hold other ideas.

But that's just my theory.

What's yours...!? :D[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

*Sigh*

Having an intellectual argument with you is pointless.

You are arrogant and just as unwilling to accept that others hold beliefs without resorting to childish name-calling and rampant stereotyping...

Maybe one day, you will realise the hypocrisy behind you insinuating that others are immature and wake up to yourself. When that day comes, i'll be happy to continue this discussion. Until then...

(And no, i'm not running like "a little scared french schoolgirl", if you want to continue this discussion without flaming, let me know)

I live in Orlando, which was recently hit by three successive hurricanes. In each case my "socialist" power company (community owned, not for profit Orlando Utilites Company) was much faster and more efficient in restoring power than the private capitalist power companies servicing surrounding communites.

Cheaper bills. Better service.

I say give me more socialism.

Socialism and communism discounts individuality for the sake of community. The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice. How you can say that these political philosophies do not injure the concept of individuality is puzzling.



Property is an extension of our mental and physical selves. They are the tangible fruits of our personal talents. Just as we are entitled to self ownership, so to must property be sacred in a free and just society.



The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce. They do so of their own volition because they realize something that you apparently do not; trade benefits everyone envolved. Its like when you go to the grocery store, you exchange something you value less (money) for something you value more (food). Do you think the grocer curses you on the way out for exploiting him? Hardly, both of you gained mutual benefit from your consensual act of trade.



How are you going to implement Marx's policies without taking away democracy? I don't think most people will willingly give up their religion, family, property, be coerced to work, etc



Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion, etc? Or are we talking about some pseudo-intellectual concoction of communism which attempts to fix the ugly side of Marx's philosophy with pretty words?
you know, i keep thinking about entering this debate, but everything i would say has already been covered by this chap. it's kind of nice, since i get the vicarious satisfaction of seeing "my" points being made, and yet i don't actually have to go to the trouble of posting them. danke :P.

Good thread. Damn the time zone. :(

"The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice."

If you really wanted to criticise "communist" nations, the individual was sacrificed to the greater good of the party oligarchy. Much like capitalism then, where the individual is sacrificed to the greater good of the corporate oligarchy. No nation is free when the government can be bought. The USA is not a democracy. The non-election of Bush Junior confirmed this. Suspicions were also aroused when it came to pass that the USA's subjects numbered most of the world's population while it's empowered citizens were only a fraction. No-one can win an election in the US without vast amounts of money. The only people in the US with vast amounts of money are the capitalist class. The USSR was a dictatorship of party officials; the USA is a dictatorship of corporate officials. Both are just as harmful to the individual and her/his rights.

"Property be sacred in a free and just society."

Socialism in most its forms does not want to steal your property. It wants the capitalists to give ours back. The capitalist system is built on the exploitation of one class by another. Why is only the property of the most ruthless protected?

"The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce."

This made me laugh. What about the activities of the IMF and the World Bank? Or the coups that took down the Sandanistas and President Allende, both sponsored by the CIA? The United States' ongoing embargo against Cuba, conducted because Castro refused to allow his island to become the US' source of cheap sugar and rum? The entirety of American foreign policy is based on forcing nations to trade on unequal terms with the USA. This is what happens when all the power lies with the corporations.

"Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion..."

There's freedom to and freedom from. I want both. Oligarchical state socialism often denies freedom to, while capitalism denies freedom from poverty, crime, poor housing, pollution, invasion, exploitation, de-humanisation and the reduction of my self to a unit of production and consumption. I do not want to force anyone. I merely don't want them to force me. Like the first white pioneers in America, the native population before them, and the freed slaves of the American ruling class, I want to pursue my life, liberty and happiness. Without the interference of governmental morons, sick and faceless corporate
suits, the violence of those capitalism has dehumanised, and the constant unceasing racket of commercialism. I want to be free from the demand to produce and consume for creatures who have neither the right nor virtue to command me to.

That is why I am proud to be a socialist. That is why I believe in my rights. That is why capitalism is and always will be opposed to the humanity of every exploited and used human being on this earth.

If you really wanted to criticise "communist" nations, the individual was sacrificed to the greater good of the party oligarchy.

No. The whole idea of communism (and socialism) is that the selfish needs of the individual is sacrificed for the greater good of "the people". You are talking about dictators, those who hold the power (the president, the chairman, the prime minister, elected or not). We are talking about the system itself. Socialism has always been and will always be, in theory and in practice, collectivism. And that reason alone is enough for me to loathe it wholeheartedly.

The USA is not a democracy. The non-election of Bush Junior confirmed this.

The US is a federal republic. George W. was elected democratically. If you do not agree to this, you do not agree to the entire system of the United States.


No-one can win an election in the US without vast amounts of money. The only people in the US with vast amounts of money are the capitalist class. The USSR was a dictatorship of party officials; the USA is a dictatorship of corporate officials. Both are just as harmful to the individual and her/his rights.

There is no "capitalist class". There are only free individuals. But I know by "capitalist class" you mean "the rich".
You do have a point in that only the rich have the money to sponsor a campaign. But aren't you free to create that wealth in a capitalist society?

And really, this is not an issue!
Much more important than who can become the representative of the people is WHAT that man/woman CAN DO in that position!
If the government is unable to infringe on an individual's life, liberty or property without a valid reason, then it doesn't really matter how high you are in the system! And that is exactly why a free society with rules to keep the government out of our lives as much as possible is safest for all of us. If there is no absolute power over our lives, it can never corrupt.

Socialism in most its forms does not want to steal your property. It wants the capitalists to give ours back. The capitalist system is built on the exploitation of one class by another. Why is only the property of the most ruthless protected?

Please elaborate on how you can respect the property of the individual and be a socialist at the same time..

This made me laugh. What about the activities of the IMF and the World Bank? Or the coups that took down the Sandanistas and President Allende, both sponsored by the CIA? The United States' ongoing embargo against Cuba, conducted because Castro refused to allow his island to become the US' source of cheap sugar and rum? The entirety of American foreign policy is based on forcing nations to trade on unequal terms with the USA. This is what happens when all the power lies with the corporations.

Ever heard of the Cold War?

I want to pursue my life, liberty and happiness. Without the interference of governmental morons, sick and faceless corporate
suits, the violence of those capitalism has dehumanised, and the constant unceasing racket of commercialism. I want to be free from the demand to produce and consume for creatures who have neither the right nor virtue to command me to.

You seem to hold a completely libertarian point of view, yet for some reason you hate corporations so much you flee into the arms of socialists who want to take all that you hold dear to you away from you.

"The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice."

If you really wanted to criticise "communist" nations, the individual was sacrificed to the greater good of the party oligarchy. Much like capitalism then, where the individual is sacrificed to the greater good of the corporate oligarchy. No nation is free when the government can be bought. The USA is not a democracy. The non-election of Bush Junior confirmed this. Suspicions were also aroused when it came to pass that the USA's subjects numbered most of the world's population while it's empowered citizens were only a fraction. No-one can win an election in the US without vast amounts of money. The only people in the US with vast amounts of money are the capitalist class. The USSR was a dictatorship of party officials; the USA is a dictatorship of corporate officials. Both are just as harmful to the individual and her/his rights.

-I cannot even begin to comprehend how wrong this is. Much too much of this portion of the post is literally recycled propaganda straight off of conspiracy theory websites. In capitalism the individual isn't sacrificed to the greater good. The greater good is something that comes about naturally by groups of individuals pursuing their own interests, and nothing is sacrificed. No life, no liberty and no property. The so called capitalist class is not a monolithic figure. The charge that you need to be rich (and typically this ideology believes, born rich) would be utterly refuted by a little known man named BILL CLINTON (favorite President of the 21st century). There is a fundamental difference between the "dictatorships" of the US and the USSR. In the USSR what you just did would get you a bullet in your head, and a bill sent to your family for it. In the US, do we see any repercussions? Do we see summary executions of "thought criminals"? Are there secret police? No, there aren't. We do elect our Presidents, and we aren't in a dictatorship, if you feel so, then you seriously need to get in touch with reality.

"Property be sacred in a free and just society."

Socialism in most its forms does not want to steal your property. It wants the capitalists to give ours back. The capitalist system is built on the exploitation of one class by another. Why is only the property of the most ruthless protected?

-Jesus H. Christ. Please, when did Capitalists "steal" your property. Have you ever seen a man in a suit, black top hat and a cane sneak into your house at night and nab what he wants. A capitalist is someone who, upon having a good idea, acts on it, makes a product or service, sells that and makes money as the result of their labor. Not a fucking burglar. What we read before this is straigt class warfare pure and simple. And it's wrong.

"The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce."

This made me laugh. What about the activities of the IMF and the World Bank? Or the coups that took down the Sandanistas and President Allende, both sponsored by the CIA? The United States' ongoing embargo against Cuba, conducted because Castro refused to allow his island to become the US' source of cheap sugar and rum? The entirety of American foreign policy is based on forcing nations to trade on unequal terms with the USA. This is what happens when all the power lies with the corporations.

-Blatant ignoring of history. Sandinistas: After toppling a nasty military government, they set up their own regime, a communist regime that had just as many nasty aspects as the previous regime. Also it was the cold war, we couldn't have the russkies encroaching any further upon the west. You clearly cannot see the threat that the FREE WORLD faced from the USSR and it's puppets.
-Allende was a Marxist. It was the cold war. See above.
-Cuba: Holy Shit. Did we completely forget a little thing called the CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS? The embargo is not for economic reasons, but to punish Castro's Dictatorial Regime (what, would you have me believe that it is a perfect land, just like pre-iraq war iraq is portrayed in Fahrenheit 9/11). Foreign policy is based upon spreading freedom to all portions of the world.

"Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion..."

There's freedom to and freedom from. I want both. Oligarchical state socialism often denies freedom to, while capitalism denies freedom from poverty, crime, poor housing, pollution, invasion, exploitation, de-humanisation and the reduction of my self to a unit of production and consumption. I do not want to force anyone. I merely don't want them to force me. Like the first white pioneers in America, the native population before them, and the freed slaves of the American ruling class, I want to pursue my life, liberty and happiness. Without the interference of governmental morons, sick and faceless corporate
suits, the violence of those capitalism has dehumanised, and the constant unceasing racket of commercialism. I want to be free from the demand to produce and consume for creatures who have neither the right nor virtue to command me to.

-Oh my God. Cannot respond to how ill rationalized this is...must focus...must focus...bingo.
Your choice, Life, Liberty and Property, or that. The ability to deny any of these three rights is the foundation of that.

Freedom From:
Crime-Get a gun
Poor Housing-Work hard, get an education, don't drop out of high school, go all the way to college, you can do it!
Pollution-And this isn't going to occur under socialism? Whenever we use natural resources to create something there will be waste. When waste comes out in moderation it is best, otherwise, nothing is being produced. Get real, don't live in fairy land.
invasion-Not sure what you're going on about in this one. I've never been invaded by any capitalists. Actually in oligarchical socialism this tends to occur when the secret police bash in your door, charge you with crimes against the state, and cap your ass.
exploitation-You mean the oligarchs won't exploit you? Hmm. It's not exploitation if you agree to it, which is the basis of capitalism, all trades are voluntary.
de-humanisation...-This doesn't occur in capitalism. Dehumanisation only occurs if one allows it to. When one blames outside forces for what is occuring in their life. If one maintains responsibility for one's own life you are not dehumanized, but empowerd. Meanwhile the basic concept of socialism is that we don't have control over our lives and we aren't empowerd.
I want to pursue my life, liberty and happiness. Without the interference of governmental morons-Um, last time I checked, in socialism the government controls everything. I'd suspect that's where the government would tend to interfere with your life the most.
I want to be free from the demand to produce and consume for creatures who have neither the right nor virtue to command me to-once again, no one forces you to take part in capitalism, you can go out in the woods and live in one with nature if you want. I am not being forced to produce. Hell, I don't produce, I go to college and sit in my dorm room fiddling with my computer, not very productive, eh?
sick and faceless corporate suits-These "corporate suits" are actually human beings. They work for their living just like you, only difference being they worked smarter and harder and took responsibility for themselves, and not blame misfortunes on "sick and faceless corporate suits".
and the constant unceasing racket of commercialism-turn off the TV and radio. Go into the woods, rest relax and enjoy the quiet. Commercialism isn't bad, but it can get old, that's why we can rest, go to a state or national park, hell when I was in Grand Teton National Park with my friends we were the only people we saw for ages, c'mon, there's ways around commercialism.

That is why I am proud to be a socialist. That is why I believe in my rights. That is why capitalism is and always will be opposed to the humanity of every exploited and used human being on this earth.

-See above about personal responsibility.

If you really wanted to criticise "communist" nations, the individual was sacrificed to the greater good of the party oligarchy.

I'm not criticising the "communist" nations, I'm criticising Marx's vision of communism. Under Marx's doctrine the individual is rountinely sacrificed for what Marx perceives as the "greater good" of society. Everyone is forced to work, families are disbanded, religion is prohibited, the state raises and compels labor from children, the government has monopolies on all communication\transportation systems, private property is prohibited, etc. All these things are very destructive to individuality. How can you be an individual if you don't own property and by extension don't own yourself? How can you be an individual when you have no right to travel, speak, or worship as you see fit? You can't.



Much like capitalism then, where the individual is sacrificed to the greater good of the corporate oligarchy.

Capitalism doesn't sacrifice anyone for anything. Capitalism is just another way of saying freedom. No one is coerced into taking any action whatsoever in a capitalist society. People work and trade by mutual consent for personal gain. They may work as little or as much as they want to. They may travel wherever their means can take them and say anything they wish in any medium their means can allow. Corporations are not some kind of tentacled beast lurking in the deep seeking whom they may devour, they are simply your fellow citizens and neighbors. Most corporations are owned by people from a broad swath of society, people who do business with them theirselves. Those corporations you loath are the same corporations that provide large numbers of jobs, most of the goods and services, and even most of the charitable contributions which benefit all of society. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

No nation is free when the government can be bought.

Campaign contributions pale in comparison to votes from real people. Unfortunately you've bought into the velvet words of the politicians who wish to eliminate public imput into the political process so that they can maintain their incumbancy. Campaign contributions don't "buy" politicians; indeed, campaign contributions are given by people who hold certain political persuasions to politicians whom they believe will support their ideals. Do you think that when the Sierra Club gives Kerry some money that they are buying his support of their radical environmental agenda? Do you think that if they gave equal contributions to Bush that he would do an about face and turn into a tree hugger as soon as the check cleared? If you think that government can be bought then I guess you surely must answer in the affirmative to both those questions.

The USA is not a democracy. The non-election of Bush Junior confirmed this.

We are in fact not a democracy, nor have we ever been. We are a Representive Republic where the rights of the minority and the interests of the region are factored into the consideration of elections. Bush was elected according to law; you may disagree with the result, but the process was legitimate according to the Constitution which is the only arbiter that matters.

Suspicions were also aroused when it came to pass that the USA's subjects numbered most of the world's population while it's empowered citizens were only a fraction. No-one can win an election in the US without vast amounts of money.

The people can elect anyone they want. People may need to spend great deals of money in order to get out their message, but in the end the people can elect whomever they choose. This is basically like complaining that the cost of clothing is outrageous because everyone chooses to buy the $100 dollar pair of jeans and glossing over the fact that there is a discount rack right next door that anyone is free to use.

The only people in the US with vast amounts of money are the capitalist class.

Actually most money for political campiagns, espeically Congressional campaigns, is raised $10, $20, and $50 dollars at a time. Even in the Presidential campaign its limited to $2000 per candidate. Even a family of modest means can and does contribute to political campigns. Furthermore, the "capitalists" as you call them are doing the poor people, like myself, a favor. I'd love to donate $2000 to President Bush, but I don't have the money. The rich are promoting my political views for me by donating their money. I'm actually free-riding on the backs of the rich when it comes to politics in this election cycle.

The USSR was a dictatorship of party officials; the USA is a dictatorship of corporate officials. Both are just as harmful to the individual and her/his rights.

I don't think that USSR party heads ever went to prison like Martha Stewart or got involved in an expensive multi-year lawsuit with the government like Bill Gates. Americans enjoy a prosperous economy, extensive rights protected under our Constitution, a free and open system; basically the exact opposite of the USSR. This kind of comparison is political demagoguery
at its basest level.

Socialism in most its forms does not want to steal your property. It wants the capitalists to give ours back. The capitalist system is built on the exploitation of one class by another. Why is only the property of the most ruthless protected?

You've got a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is which I addressed in a paragraph above. Sufficed to say the capitalists have not stolen your property, they have created their wealth, and probably much of yours as well.

This made me laugh. What about the activities of the IMF and the World Bank?

No one makes third world nations go along with these institutions or accept loans from the first world. You're blaming us for the decisions someone else made.

Or the coups that took down the Sandanistas and President Allende, both sponsored by the CIA?

Allende was a communist, Soviet KGB agents were on the ground, and in order to save the country Pinochet seized power on the request of the Supreme Court of Chile. After the crisis was abated Pinochet stepped aside and today Chile is a rather moderate and relatively successful democratic state.

The United States' ongoing embargo against Cuba, conducted because Castro refused to allow his island to become the US' source of cheap sugar and rum?

It could be because of that or it could be because he is a communist who tried to point nuclear missles at us forty years ago. You're very selective with your recollection of historical details.

The entirety of American foreign policy is based on forcing nations to trade on unequal terms with the USA. This is what happens when all the power lies with the corporations.

No one is denying that we seek the most favorable trade terms possible; everyone does that. The point is that we don't coerce anyone into trade agreements and the trade agreements we have are mutually beneficial. Apparently you would complain about any trade deal the US engages in except ones where we willingly lose! Apparently smart economic dealings are sins in your book, while getting self-defeating trade deals is a sign of virtue. Do you always make sure to buy everything when it isn't on discount at the local store? Apparently thats what you think the US should do.


There's freedom to and freedom from. I want both. Oligarchical state socialism often denies freedom to, while capitalism denies freedom from poverty, crime, poor housing, pollution, invasion, exploitation, de-humanisation and the reduction of my self to a unit of production and consumption.

There is no such thing as freedom from (poverty, crime...) because in order to attempt to provide those sorts of "freedom" you must first trample on the freedom of your fellow citizens. Indeed what you have just proposed flies in the face of traditional free government as has existed in America since the founding. Government was only intended to provide you freedom from government interference, not a right to anything specific (like housing or food). Anything more and the government becomes tyrannical, wielding its power to strip one individual of his or her property to give to someone else who has no claim to it.

I do not want to force anyone. I merely don't want them to force me.

You just got done saying that you wanted the right to some sort of standard of living, good housing, etc Any attempt by the government to provide those things will require the use of force against your fellow citizens.

Like the first white pioneers in America, the native population before them, and the freed slaves of the American ruling class, I want to pursue my life, liberty and happiness. Without the interference of governmental morons, sick and faceless corporate...

If you want to be like the first pioneers then you don't want the government doing hardly any of that long laundry list of imagined "freedoms."



That is why I am proud to be a socialist. That is why I believe in my rights. That is why capitalism is and always will be opposed to the humanity of every exploited and used human being on this earth.

Well your rhetoric on the end sounded like a capitalist, not a socialist. Socialists are the ones who will reduce you to a unit of production and consumption. Socialists are the ones who will control your actions and dictate your life. Socialists are the ones who will rob you for the supposed good of society. If you want to be free from coercion, to produce and consume and live as you see fit, then you are a capitalist my friend.

*gruff voice*
hear hear! hear hear!

Honestly, the people who are going on about "capitalism is exploitation" or "capitalism destroys freedom" - Listen guys, your political ideas are beyond misguided. They are simply retarded.

Would you rather be "exploited" (It's called being privately employed - people pay you what your services are worth to them) by your employer, in who's interest it is to treat you well, or risk loosing you to another, better employer (that's the thing about capitalism - you can quit your job).

Or would you rather be "exploited" by an omnipotent, uncaring government, who use your services to further "society as a whole"* who have no incentive to treat you nicely, after all - slaves can't quit their jobs!

*(although generally society as a whole will be busy doing exactly what you are doing - slave labour - while chairman Bob sits in the red house figuring out just how little everyone should earn)

Well your rhetoric on the end sounded like a capitalist, not a socialist. Socialists are the ones who will reduce you to a unit of production and consumption. Socialists are the ones who will control your actions and dictate your life. Socialists are the ones who will rob you for the supposed good of society. If you want to be free from coercion, to produce and consume and live as you see fit, then you are a capitalist my friend.

Freedom and pure capitalism are mutually exclusive as long as you have police. The only restraint on the mercantile upper class is the threat of robbery. Socialism itself is a balance between pure capitalism and pure communism. Free enterprise is possible but the government enacts redistribution measures to make sure that the merchants don't overrun the consumers and consumers don't rob the merchants.

Remember, a merchant is essentially a parasite, it does not produce it merely lives off of the work of others. A successful parasite will leave its host better off for its presence, like intestenal parasites that help prevent auto immune disorders or a pie vendor that saves you the time of having to make your own pies. A parasite that knows no restraint will eventually kill its host and thus kill itself like amoebas that cause dissentery worm or a Walmart that drives all of the local businesses out of business and then closes down that location because no one in that town has enough money to buy stuff from them anymore.

This is pure capitalism. The people are paid so little that they are driven further and further into debt and then there's no one left for the merchants to make money from so they go out of business. It is the job of government to take account of things other than money. If money is all it takes care of then it is redundant.

Originally Posted by Ivarka
ok.
1. Socialism/communism dont hurts the individuality of people


Socialism and communism discounts individuality for the sake of community. The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice. How you can say that these political philosophies do not injure the concept of individuality is puzzling.

Who says this? You are just shouting out what is said over communism from the right wing, but the people im counting as real communist (e.g. Marx) have never said or written that the individual should be sacrificed for the collective. And to be fair. You cant fully avoid putting rights of the mass over the rights of a few if you dont want a dictature, where the rights of a few were put over the rights of the mass. Thats democracy my little friend ^^
Quote:
2. property dosnt makes you more yourself


Property is an extension of our mental and physical selves. They are the tangible fruits of our personal talents. Just as we are entitled to self ownership, so to must property be sacred in a free and just society.

Property is an illusion. You wouldnt be an other man if you lose your property.

Quote:
3. you cant have a right to property on the cost of other people. Thats what im criticizing the most on the us way of life (also on the european way, which isnt that hart as the american but still egoism) Do Americans KNOW how much of the world ressources theire using?


The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce. They do so of their own volition because they realize something that you apparently do not; trade benefits everyone envolved. Its like when you go to the grocery store, you exchange something you value less (money) for something you value more (food). Do you think the grocer curses you on the way out for exploiting him? Hardly, both of you gained mutual benefit from your consensual act of trade.

Thats only naive. The real world is hardly different. Im just giving you ONE example how capitalism really works. If you want more, learn different languages and watch international tv. Thats really educating.
Now the example:
While youre readign this, a pipeline is build from baku (caspian sea) to the turkish west coast. Oh, thats just a benefit for everyone involved you think, dont you? The workers needed there become money and the little villages, where the pipeline is build through gain something really nice... well, something nice like crystal like water turning into mud, leaving nothing to drink. Oh, and they wanted to build a filter to clean the water. What did shell? They put a piece of cotton into the way of the water. A piece of cotton to clean drinking water! drinking water! Was that supposed to be a joke? Or was it just the rules of capitalism.... you can imagine on your own what it is.


Quote:
4. Alls this abotu "group over individual stuff" is from you is a big bunch of doggy poo.... Some stupid people then thougt: oh, communism means no democracy. But thats just fucking wrong.


How are you going to implement Marx's policies without taking away democracy? I don't think most people will willingly give up their religion, family, property, be coerced to work, etc

why religion? why family? History has often shown that enough people are willing to give away property and are willing to work in exchange for a safe live where they can be sure no one has more property than theyrselves. Well, and this will has often be used by cruel dictators.

Quote:
6. If you believe in freedom the only solution is COMMUNISM. Because if everyone has equal power (yes, communism is the utopian idea, that is wanted to be reached trough SOCIALISM) and no one has more money to pay politicians or advertise his own political ideas, you have true democracy

Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion, etc? Or are we talking about some pseudo-intellectual concoction of communism which attempts to fix the ugly side of Marx's philosophy with pretty words?
Vox Humana is offline Report Bad Post
Oh please shut up. Someone with his head full of ideas published by capitalist medias should not speak about freedom. You are a slave of the big corporations without knowing it (for the time im thinking of you as american citizen) If they dont want you, they can put you on the street. And in america you are nothing. Ive never seen a ghetto in cuba.....
Communism is not the government owns everything, its: the community owns everything. Communications are free. monopolies of transportation and business can be a nice thing if made right. A communist government would not have the maxime:"a good life for every citizen" instead of "maximal profit". Also it can use the ressources much more efficient as it has not hundreds of little corporatiosn doing the same but only one finishing it in the end.

Hmmm, i should stop talking about these things in english.. having not enoug knowledge of the english language to change someones opinion ^^

May you live a long and happy life in your leftist utopia.

Though I know you won't, as it's a lovely adolescent dream. As is the rightist utopian dream. But at least we have the freedoms that living in a capitalist representative domocracy give us. Which is at least livable, and even profitable..!

Where do you live, by the way. And are you heading in the direction of a leftist utopia now..?

If so,.. why so..?

And if not,.. why not..?

I'd really like to know.

Or are you just another dejected leftist voicing your frustrations..?
Im a german. I am heading to these leftist utopia.... but at the time i cant make something different then talking with people about communism in the hope they will adopt the ideals of a fair community ^^ the reason is simple: im studying. Maybe i will got the chance of doing something active for communism (no, not a bloody revolution) in my later life. Maybe not. Sadly im a child of capitalism and as a child of capitalism om not fully without egoism. But i will do my best. (and i hope my best will be more than these little, stupid writing shit ^^)

Freedom and pure capitalism are mutually exclusive as long as you have police.

This is just simply wrong, I can put it in no clearer terms. Capitalism is based on a free society where people interact willingly, without force.

The only restraint on the mercantile upper class is the threat of robbery.

The upper class is restrained by law in all things that everyone else are restrained in and by the consumers in all things ecnomic. The people can punish or obliterate a merchant in an eye-blink by simply taking their business elsewhere.

Socialism itself is a balance between pure capitalism and pure communism. Free enterprise is possible but the government enacts redistribution measures to make sure that the merchants don't overrun the consumers and consumers don't rob the merchants.

Socialism doesn't balance anything, it upsets the balance of a free market and harms everyone in society. When you redistribute money you accomplish two-fold ills: First, when you take the money from the wealthy you cause them to increase prices (taxes are a cost of business) and to decrease jobs (why earn more money when its going to be taxed at a rate so as to make earning it unprofitable?). Secondly, when you redistribute it you swell the bureaucracy, which performs no beneficial function, and you reward self-destructive behavior, creating an underclass of perpetual poverty. If left to its own devices the free market will do the most good for the most people.

Remember, a merchant is essentially a parasite, it does not produce it merely lives off of the work of others.

This is manefestly inaccurate; the merchants "produce" just like every other member of society. Merchants produce with their capital. What is capital? Capital is an expression of labor, goods and services, ie value. Merchants risk the value they possess by buying things to resell or by hiring people to do some profitable function. If at the end of the day the money they spend doesn't turn a profit the worker they hired still has his wage, but the merchant has lost what he started out with. If at the end of the day the merchant has profited then the worker still has his wage but now the merchant has money to spend\invest\etc. The point is that the worker wouldn't have been able to produce anything without the capital of the merchant. Furthermore, the worker himself, now that he has wages, may decide to reinvest that money in the merchants business, in effect becoming a merchant himself. You try to divide the working class and the "merchant" class artifically when in reality they overlap a great deal.

Walmart that drives all of the local businesses out of business and then closes down that location because no one in that town has enough money to buy stuff from them anymore.

So instead of having the cheapest most efficient provider of goods and services you'd rather have people paying higher prices? If your Mom&Pop store is so high priced that it can't compete then you need to get a new line of business, not just shut down and sit on your hands complaining. If we kept inefficient operations active with unfair market restrictions we'd still be using manual labor to harvest corn instead of a reaping machine which eliminated all those inefficient jobs.

This is pure capitalism. The people are paid so little that they are driven further and further into debt and then there's no one left for the merchants to make money from so they go out of business. It is the job of government to take account of things other than money. If money is all it takes care of then it is redundant.

You've bought the power hungry politicians twisted version of capitalism which is thrust upon an unwary public so that they will keep electing him to protect them from the big bad businessmen. In reality capitalism is the system which has brought us economic prosperity and technical advances unmatched by any other system in the history of mankind. Capitalism is the only system a just and free government can have because it is the only system that leaves all economic power in the hands of the people themselves instead of in the hands of the politicians.

[QUOTE=Kanabia #224]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Has anyone ever noticed how the left runs like little scared french schoolgirls when the pontifications they posture as "principles" are laughed at and ridiculed as they should be..?

I personally think it's because they're used to the "rarified air" of the "higher educational institutions" and their mommie worship of their so-called professors.

The thin air affects their thinking and mommies tit lulls them into a complacency that no one could POSSIBLY hold other ideas.

But that's just my theory.

What's yours...!?

*Sigh*

Having an intellectual argument with you is pointless.

You are arrogant and just as unwilling to accept that others hold beliefs without resorting to childish name-calling and rampant stereotyping...

Maybe one day, you will realise the hypocrisy behind you insinuating that others are immature and wake up to yourself. When that day comes, i'll be happy to continue this discussion. Until then...

(And no, i'm not running like "a little scared french schoolgirl", if you want to continue this discussion without flaming, let me know)

Heh he he he... You're quite right (correct) in many ways..!

As you've probably noticed, I don't REALLY argue,.. I generally give my views (usually unsupported) and prod ("insult") my conversation partner to get the conversation going,.. then attempt to elucidate on my "position".

Most all (if not all) of what I have to say is said in the form of "my held beliefs", which are basic tenets that I hold as true and (essentially) unshakable. And they are unshakable simply because they are SO general and simplistic. They are (veritably) always the equivalent of saying "the sky is sometimes blue". It's not something that anyone could possibly disuade me from believing.

My positions, therefore, are always ludicrously extreme. And they are purposefully extreme to expose the "silly parts" of what we SEEM to be disagreeing about..!

Do I actually think that all leftists are evil people? Of course not. Precisely because "leftist" is of vague meaning and so "unreal" as to never really describe any actual person.

The IDEA of "the leftist" is, though, thoroughly evil, to me (it's ALWAYS "to me"!), and it's this "ideal leftist" that I rail against.

The point is to differentiate the person (any person) from the "ideals" of their personality. Many people actually confuse the person with that person's stated opinions, and that is grossly stereotyping a real person for the purpose of "condemning" them (the person) to make you feel as though you've "conquered" the "ideal" that they "stand for".

It's a false victory.

I love conversation, not debate, as debate is seldom productive unless the parties debating are actually trying to MUTUALLY get closer to some TRUTH. They MUST be "different sides of the same side" so to speak.

The "debate" I see in these forums, which reflects the "talkative world" we all know and "love" these days <sarcasm>, is simple bashing of the opposition with pseudo-fact and ideological assault weaponry.

Thus, I don't "debate". I provoke.

And hopefully, once the obviousness of my nonsensical prodding (insult) is realized (and those who don't realize have not passed my first test of "maturity"), we can get down to having a productive conversation.

And that's me.

Who are you..? :D

[QUOTE=Ogiek #225]
I live in Orlando, which was recently hit by three successive hurricanes. In each case my "socialist" power company (community owned, not for profit Orlando Utilites Company) was much faster and more efficient in restoring power than the private capitalist power companies servicing surrounding communites.

Cheaper bills. Better service.

I say give me more socialism.

How is that a "socialist organization"..?

It is still "owned", and is still "run" by "knowledgable operators", and still uses MONEY as a measure of operational effectiveness, and still exists embedded in a capitalist society as a capitalist entity (a "corporation").

Show me the "socialism" in that..? :)

[QUOTE=Bottle #226]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
Socialism and communism discounts individuality for the sake of community. The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice. How you can say that these political philosophies do not injure the concept of individuality is puzzling.



Property is an extension of our mental and physical selves. They are the tangible fruits of our personal talents. Just as we are entitled to self ownership, so to must property be sacred in a free and just society.



The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce. They do so of their own volition because they realize something that you apparently do not; trade benefits everyone envolved. Its like when you go to the grocery store, you exchange something you value less (money) for something you value more (food). Do you think the grocer curses you on the way out for exploiting him? Hardly, both of you gained mutual benefit from your consensual act of trade.



How are you going to implement Marx's policies without taking away democracy? I don't think most people will willingly give up their religion, family, property, be coerced to work, etc



Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion, etc? Or are we talking about some pseudo-intellectual concoction of communism which attempts to fix the ugly side of Marx's philosophy with pretty words?


you know, i keep thinking about entering this debate, but everything i would say has already been covered by this chap. it's kind of nice, since i get the vicarious satisfaction of seeing "my" points being made, and yet i don't actually have to go to the trouble of posting them. danke :P.

Hey Bottle..!? Weren't you on the "leftist" side of things in the past, or (more probably) am I going even madder (more insane) than I already am..?!

:D

..it's probably me. Way too much hawai'ian rap music (calypso-reggae beat, hawai'ian language rap vocals, slack-key guitar style instumentation,.. VERY cool..! Though "t'will WARP your mind!")

Who says this? You are just shouting out what is said over communism from the right wing, but the people im counting as real communist (e.g. Marx) have never said or written that the individual should be sacrificed for the collective. And to be fair. You cant fully avoid putting rights of the mass over the rights of a few if you dont want a dictature, where the rights of a few were put over the rights of the mass. Thats democracy my little friend ^^


I'm reasoning directly from the writings of Marx. Marx says that we should have an "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." So you want to express your individuality in the type of home you own? Sorry, Marx says no property. Marx advocates the "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." So if you want to work for your children you're out of luck, Marx's state will take it all away, assuming you get any wealth in the first place which is a big if under Marx's economy. Speaking of Marx's economy, he advocates the "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." Did you want to have the ability to loan out your money for usery? If so, guess again, Marx would disallow that, and furthermore if you want to borrow money you only have one place to turn: the state. Marx also wanted the "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state." Did you want to travel freely or communicate freely? Think again under Marx's communism. Instead of living your life as you choose you get to ride the state bus and read the state newspaper full of state approved propaganda. No sports cars, no spur of the moment trips to Vegas, no midnight cruise with your girlfriend, no nothing. Then of course there is the infamous dictate of the "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." How do you like the idea of being in an "industrial army?" Does that sound like an expression of individuality when Marx equates you to a soldier? I guess your registration number will be individual. I could go on, but do we really need to continue the hurting which is brought on by actually analyzing the long tired dilusional rant which is Marxism?


Property is an illusion. You wouldnt be an other man if you lose your property.

If I don't own the things I produce with my own mind and body then I do not own myself. Its really that simple, which is why Marx's communism boils down to a fancy form of chattle slavery.

Thats only naive. The real world is hardly different. Im just giving you ONE example how capitalism really works. If you want more, learn different languages and watch international tv. Thats really educating.

Here I was wasting my time actually reading Marx and other great political thinkers from history when instead all I need to do is learn French and watch TV. How could I have been so naive?

Now the example:
While youre readign this, a pipeline is build from baku (caspian sea) to the turkish west coast. Oh, thats just a benefit for everyone involved you think, dont you? The workers needed there become money and the little villages, where the pipeline is build through gain something really nice... well, something nice like crystal like water turning into mud, leaving nothing to drink. Oh, and they wanted to build a filter to clean the water. What did shell? They put a piece of cotton into the way of the water. A piece of cotton to clean drinking water! drinking water! Was that supposed to be a joke? Or was it just the rules of capitalism.... you can imagine on your own what it is.

This has nothing to do with capitalism at all. I'm quoting it in its complete form just for the sheer entertainment value alone. Also to keep you from deleting it and denying you ever posted it. Comedy gold!


why religion? why family?

Why religion and family? I brought them up because they should both be abolished according to Marx.

History has often shown that enough people are willing to give away property and are willing to work in exchange for a safe live where they can be sure no one has more property than theyrselves. Well, and this will has often be used by cruel dictators.

Where in history has this been true? Where, when people have given up their right to property, has any good come of it? They may all be equal, equally poor oppressed slaves by a cruel and unaccountable government. Are you seriously suggesting anyone would want to live like that?


Oh please shut up. Someone with his head full of ideas published by capitalist medias should not speak about freedom. You are a slave of the big corporations without knowing it (for the time im thinking of you as american citizen) If they dont want you, they can put you on the street.

They'd have a tough time doing that seeing as how I own my own property. Now were I living in a Marxist state where I owned nothing I would fear being thrown out of my house at the whim of the elite.

And in america you are nothing. Ive never seen a ghetto in cuba.....

Thats because you can't tell the ghetto apart from the rest of the country ;)

Communism is not the government owns everything, its: the community owns everything.

The "community" which is run by the government. The fact of the matter is that someone has to run the communist state. These elites in the government have no check on their power because the government has all the money, all the property, all the force, and the people have nothing. The people are just little workers on the government bus in the "industrial army."

Communications are free. monopolies of transportation and business can be a nice thing if made right.

How are they free when the government has sole control over them? You simply assume that if you give all the power to the government that it will use it justly and responsibly. Egads, and you call me naive.

Also it can use the ressources much more efficient as it has not hundreds of little corporatiosn doing the same but only one finishing it in the end.


We know by looking at examples of competition vs. examples of government monopoly that this is untrue. Monopolies are always destructive. With nothing to motivate good administration they fall into sloth and wastefullness. I suggest you actually read Marx; his ideas are truely terrifying.

Damn, everything Iakeokeo posts messes with my head and makes me think more than the rest of this. *bzzt* cannot comprehend...*bzzt* circuits failing. *bzzt*...

Hello! Today I'd like to introduce you to a nosehair trimmer! This nifty little device can remove all that unsightly nosehair that makes girls run from you, just a little twirl in the nostril and boom it's gone, this can be yours for the low price of *roommate throws a book at Andaluciae*

Ahh, there we go, I'm back.

But seriously, if you don't believe in a right to property, then, well you're wrong. A right to property is recognized by the UN and the Universal Human Rights Declaration or whatever it's called, by many philosophers, the most famous being Locke, and all sorts of fun people.

Marx's theories are frankly wrong. They fail to take into account many things about humanity, no communist utopia will ever exist, government intervention or otherwise.

I have failed to see any point behind socialist claims in this thread, and as such I declare myself done with it, chiefly because I've posted all my views at least 5 times.

I also notice that all involved are certain of their own beliefs, and will not be changing them. This thread has helped me to examine my beliefs and has just made them firmer. Typically when one goes up against a dead-set opposition member, their beliefs get hardened.

So, off I go, have fun, be civil, and don't threaten anybody's life, liberty or property.

[QUOTE=Free Bohemia #228]
Just leave us alone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The individual is sacrificed whenever it is perceived that a "greater good" for the faceless majority will ensue from that sacrifice."

If you really wanted to criticise "communist" nations, the individual was sacrificed to the greater good of the party oligarchy. Much like capitalism then, where the individual is sacrificed to the greater good of the corporate oligarchy. No nation is free when the government can be bought. The USA is not a democracy. The non-election of Bush Junior confirmed this. Suspicions were also aroused when it came to pass that the USA's subjects numbered most of the world's population while it's empowered citizens were only a fraction. No-one can win an election in the US without vast amounts of money. The only people in the US with vast amounts of money are the capitalist class. The USSR was a dictatorship of party officials; the USA is a dictatorship of corporate officials. Both are just as harmful to the individual and her/his rights.

Their are no non-capitalists in a capitalist society. To state otherwise is to buy (and I use the word "buy" purposefully) the leftist illusion that one can opt-out of life (or more accurately "out of reality") and still exist.

I actually agree that the only "actual" (realizable) form of government is the dictatorship. And that's why I choose to live under the dictatorship of the impersonal DOLLAR rather than the very personal dictatorship of humans.


"Property be sacred in a free and just society."

Socialism in most its forms does not want to steal your property. It wants the capitalists to give ours back. The capitalist system is built on the exploitation of one class by another. Why is only the property of the most ruthless protected?

You are not owed any. Period. And any "justification" you (leftists) come up with is simply a chicken-and-the-egg ruse to placate your guilt for wanting to steal other's property.


"The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce."

This made me laugh. What about the activities of the IMF and the World Bank? Or the coups that took down the Sandanistas and President Allende, both sponsored by the CIA? The United States' ongoing embargo against Cuba, conducted because Castro refused to allow his island to become the US' source of cheap sugar and rum? The entirety of American foreign policy is based on forcing nations to trade on unequal terms with the USA. This is what happens when all the power lies with the corporations.

Live in your unreal world, then, and enjoy your agony of being "powerless". Just because you don't think the world should work the way that it does, does not mean that it shouldn't work that way.

Talk about hubris..! You know better? Then make it happen..! But be prepared for the consequences if you "lose", OR if you "win", as a "win" could well be worse than the loss (as history has proved true HOW MANY TIMES now?).


"Your idea of freedom is government monopolies of communications, transportation, ownership of business, compulsed labor, abolition of family, child labor, prohibition of religion..."

There's freedom to and freedom from. I want both. Oligarchical state socialism often denies freedom to, while capitalism denies freedom from poverty, crime, poor housing, pollution, invasion, exploitation, de-humanisation and the reduction of my self to a unit of production and consumption. I do not want to force anyone. I merely don't want them to force me. Like the first white pioneers in America, the native population before them, and the freed slaves of the American ruling class, I want to pursue my life, liberty and happiness. Without the interference of governmental morons, sick and faceless corporate
suits, the violence of those capitalism has dehumanised, and the constant unceasing racket of commercialism. I want to be free from the demand to produce and consume for creatures who have neither the right nor virtue to command me to.

Wealth is made. Poverty is made. Lawfulness is made. Crime is made, Etc..

You want the benefits without the work,.. the energy expense of the "making" part of society.

You are simply lazy.


That is why I am proud to be a socialist. That is why I believe in my rights. That is why capitalism is and always will be opposed to the humanity of every exploited and used human being on this earth.

That is why you complain, when work would get you what you desire.

That is why capitalism is your hated enemy. Because you are a lazy sponge.

Monopolies are always destructive.

I disagree.
A natural monopoly achieved by a producer who is simply the most successful is beneficial in every way. Of course this is terribly hard to achieve, and even harder to maintain.

[QUOTE=Domici #234]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Humana
Well your rhetoric on the end sounded like a capitalist, not a socialist. Socialists are the ones who will reduce you to a unit of production and consumption. Socialists are the ones who will control your actions and dictate your life. Socialists are the ones who will rob you for the supposed good of society. If you want to be free from coercion, to produce and consume and live as you see fit, then you are a capitalist my friend.

Freedom and pure capitalism are mutually exclusive as long as you have police. The only restraint on the mercantile upper class is the threat of robbery. Socialism itself is a balance between pure capitalism and pure communism. Free enterprise is possible but the government enacts redistribution measures to make sure that the merchants don't overrun the consumers and consumers don't rob the merchants.

Remember, a merchant is essentially a parasite, it does not produce it merely lives off of the work of others. A successful parasite will leave its host better off for its presence, like intestenal parasites that help prevent auto immune disorders or a pie vendor that saves you the time of having to make your own pies. A parasite that knows no restraint will eventually kill its host and thus kill itself like amoebas that cause dissentery worm or a Walmart that drives all of the local businesses out of business and then closes down that location because no one in that town has enough money to buy stuff from them anymore.

This is pure capitalism. The people are paid so little that they are driven further and further into debt and then there's no one left for the merchants to make money from so they go out of business. It is the job of government to take account of things other than money. If money is all it takes care of then it is redundant.

And thus chimes in the adolescent who, after having thoughts of robbing his more "prosperous" neighbor, then subsequently having thoughts of being apprehended by the police and punished, comtemplates killing all police officers. And then promotes the idea to all his friends.

Who says this? You are just shouting out what is said over communism from the right wing, but the people im counting as real communist (e.g. Marx) have never said or written that the individual should be sacrificed for the collective. And to be fair. You cant fully avoid putting rights of the mass over the rights of a few if you dont want a dictature, where the rights of a few were put over the rights of the mass. Thats democracy my little friend ^^
Quote:


Property is an illusion. You wouldnt be an other man if you lose your property.

Thats only naive. The real world is hardly different. Im just giving you ONE example how capitalism really works. If you want more, learn different languages and watch international tv. Thats really educating.
Now the example:
While youre readign this, a pipeline is build from baku (caspian sea) to the turkish west coast. Oh, thats just a benefit for everyone involved you think, dont you? The workers needed there become money and the little villages, where the pipeline is build through gain something really nice... well, something nice like crystal like water turning into mud, leaving nothing to drink. Oh, and they wanted to build a filter to clean the water. What did shell? They put a piece of cotton into the way of the water. A piece of cotton to clean drinking water! drinking water! Was that supposed to be a joke? Or was it just the rules of capitalism.... you can imagine on your own what it is.


why religion? why family? History has often shown that enough people are willing to give away property and are willing to work in exchange for a safe live where they can be sure no one has more property than theyrselves. Well, and this will has often be used by cruel dictators.


Oh please shut up. Someone with his head full of ideas published by capitalist medias should not speak about freedom. You are a slave of the big corporations without knowing it (for the time im thinking of you as american citizen) If they dont want you, they can put you on the street. And in america you are nothing. Ive never seen a ghetto in cuba.....
Communism is not the government owns everything, its: the community owns everything. Communications are free. monopolies of transportation and business can be a nice thing if made right. A communist government would not have the maxime:"a good life for every citizen" instead of "maximal profit". Also it can use the ressources much more efficient as it has not hundreds of little corporatiosn doing the same but only one finishing it in the end.

Hmmm, i should stop talking about these things in english.. having not enoug knowledge of the english language to change someones opinion ^^


Im a german. I am heading to these leftist utopia.... but at the time i cant make something different then talking with people about communism in the hope they will adopt the ideals of a fair community ^^ the reason is simple: im studying. Maybe i will got the chance of doing something active for communism (no, not a bloody revolution) in my later life. Maybe not. Sadly im a child of capitalism and as a child of capitalism om not fully without egoism. But i will do my best. (and i hope my best will be more than these little, stupid writing shit ^^)

Yes, you are german. And may you enjoy your coming leftist utopia. :D

I'm sure you'll never see it, of course, but have fun with the illusion.

May you also enjoy your journey to the right.

Of that I'm SURE you'll find it "interesting".

Hoorah for UTOPIANS..! They are such amusing people..!! :D

[QUOTE=Andaluciae #241]
Damn, everything Iakeokeo posts messes with my head and makes me think more than the rest of this. *bzzt* cannot comprehend...*bzzt* circuits failing. *bzzt*...

Hello! Today I'd like to introduce you to a nosehair trimmer! This nifty little device can remove all that unsightly nosehair that makes girls run from you, just a little twirl in the nostril and boom it's gone, this can be yours for the low price of *roommate throws a book at Andaluciae*

Ahh, there we go, I'm back.

But seriously, if you don't believe in a right to property, then, well you're wrong. A right to property is recognized by the UN and the Universal Human Rights Declaration or whatever it's called, by many philosophers, the most famous being Locke, and all sorts of fun people.

Marx's theories are frankly wrong. They fail to take into account many things about humanity, no communist utopia will ever exist, government intervention or otherwise.

I have failed to see any point behind socialist claims in this thread, and as such I declare myself done with it, chiefly because I've posted all my views at least 5 times.

I also notice that all involved are certain of their own beliefs, and will not be changing them. This thread has helped me to examine my beliefs and has just made them firmer. Typically when one goes up against a dead-set opposition member, their beliefs get hardened.

So, off I go, have fun, be civil, and don't threaten anybody's life, liberty or property.

I need a good nosehair trimmer. My present one is VERY ineffective.

Must be a socialist trimmer. Only cuts the "rich" ones.

Anyway,... thanks for the help in making the world safe for capital-ocracy, aka "reality", and confusing and/or annoying the leftists out there.

Live long and prosper. <a famous capitalist saying>

[QUOTE=Grogginc #243]
Quote:
Monopolies are always destructive.



I disagree.
A natural monopoly achieved by a producer who is simply the most successful is beneficial in every way. Of course this is terribly hard to achieve, and even harder to maintain.

Impossible to maintain, which is the reason that capitalism is preferable.

The "trend" of a leftist (fascist) monopoly is toward ever tighter control BY that monopoly [mom-opoly?] (as they are exclusive with "power").

The "trend" of a capitalist (rightist) monopoly is toward ever more exposed "chinks" in the system that keeps that monopoly a monopoly which weakens it toward it's eventual "downfall".

to maintain, which is the reason that capitalism is preferable.

The "trend" of a leftist (fascist) monopoly is toward ever tighter control BY that monopoly [mom-opoly?] (as they are exclusive with "power").

The "trend" of a capitalist (rightist) monopoly is toward ever more exposed "chinks" in the system that keeps that monopoly a monopoly which weakens it toward it's eventual "downfall".

Wow! You really are wedded to your ignorance of what constitutes fascism aren't you?

Unregulated capitalism always tends toward monopoly. It is the natural result of allowing people to gather wealth and power, they will use it to keep others from doing so.

It is a socialist compromise to allow a government to step in and break up monopolies. Why do you think your vaunted Ayn Rand devoted so many pages to criticizing the governments efforts to break up monopoly? It is a leftist/liberal/socialist effort to break up a monopoly, a rightist/fascist/capitalist one to allow them.

The United States does not coerce other nations into engaging us in commerce. They do so of their own volition because they realize something that you apparently do not; trade benefits everyone envolved. Its like when you go to the grocery store, you exchange something you value less (money) for something you value more (food). Do you think the grocer curses you on the way out for exploiting him? Hardly, both of you gained mutual benefit from your consensual act of trade.


This is completly untrue. Capitalist trade can benifit everyone involved but this is not what happens when the US trades with any other country. Or indeed when any countries of unequal power trade with one another.

Have you ever read about the 1950's invasion of guatemala? We bombed them and replaced their government because they didn't want to sell us BANNANAS! Sure we could have offered them more money, but we decided that bombs were cheaper. This sort of thing still happens all over the world.

The US does not undertake capitalist trade with weaker nations. We undertake mercatilistic trade.

[QUOTE=Domici #248]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
{Impossible} to maintain, which is the reason that capitalism is preferable.

The "trend" of a leftist (fascist) monopoly is toward ever tighter control BY that monopoly [mom-opoly?] (as they are exclusive with "power").

The "trend" of a capitalist (rightist) monopoly is toward ever more exposed "chinks" in the system that keeps that monopoly a monopoly which weakens it toward it's eventual "downfall".

Wow! You really are wedded to your ignorance of what constitutes fascism aren't you?

Unregulated capitalism always tends toward monopoly. It is the natural result of allowing people to gather wealth and power, they will use it to keep others from doing so.

It is a socialist compromise to allow a government to step in and break up monopolies. Why do you think your vaunted Ayn Rand devoted so many pages to criticizing the governments efforts to break up monopoly? It is a leftist/liberal/socialist effort to break up a monopoly, a rightist/fascist/capitalist one to allow them.

Your ignorance of capitalism is profound.

(( And I'm "prodding" again, with the leftist=fascist equation. Though "leftism" is inherently fascist, fascism are not necessarily ONLY leftist. ))

Apparently you don't agree with my "trend analysis" of rightist monopoly with leftist monopoly. That's fine. :)

The truth hurts, and we all generally avoid pain.