NationStates Jolt Archive

So, which animal? I can't think of one. This has another purpose related to Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes.

The ant.

The Shire Horse.

The human being?

The ant?!? Ants follow one leader mindlessly and have a strict hierarchy.
I would have to say that the communal lifestyles of many apes and perhaps the elephant for their great amount of care within the herd. (Haha, republicans!)

So, which animal? I can't think of one. This has another purpose related to Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes.



The donkey :D

At least provide raesoning, people.

The Ant- i've already exressed my opinions on this one.
The Shire Horse- Animal Farm reference? This represents the spirit of workers, not the government by the workers.
The Human- Nice. i can see your reasoning here., Intelligence, driving force behind the revolution
The Donkey- Why? They're stubborn, not particularly hard workers, nor do they show great social complexity.

Republicans should change their mascot to the corporate boss. I see a talking elephant better than a gorilla.

The shire horse was indeed a reference to Animal Farm. The representation was more of the way any central government will stab it's mindless supporters.

At least provide raesoning, people.

The Ant- i've already exressed my opinions on this one.
The Shire Horse- Animal Farm reference? This represents the spirit of workers, not the government by the workers.
The Human- Nice. i can see your reasoning here., Intelligence, driving force behind the revolution
The Donkey- Why? They're stubborn, not particularly hard workers, nor do they show great social complexity.


The donkey is the official symbol of the Democratic party ;)

Socialism in general? Maybe a mother bird with a nest full of eggs, representing the government taking care of people.
Big communist bloc style socialism? The bear and dragon already are there, though I could see the horse working as well.

Yes, with the apes I was imagining a lot of jokes about that one. But they (chimps) did invent tools, worked communally, lived communally and definitely would be the animal of primitivist socialism. The elephant would be good. They don't call it a Red state for nothing!

as for the donkey, I know. they are far from socialists. the donkey was supposed to represent the common man and paints a negative image of them.

So, which animal? I can't think of one. This has another purpose related to Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes.

As no animals (humans aside, but I think that's what you had in mind anyway) have developed a capitalist model of resource distribution, there is no answer to this question.

Here's an okay list:

Stalinism- Martial Eagle
Primitivist socialism: Chimpanzee
Socialism: Elephant
Maoism- Dragon
north korea Juche: Their Great and Mighty Leader :thinks to self:Ah, he's so cute! All pudgy and short like a teddy bear:Laughs madly after that:

So, which animal? I can't think of one. This has another purpose related to Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes.
The beaver. Because it's peaceful and it "socialized," the dam industry.

Plus, it's Canada's national animal and they're somewhat socialist.

By the way, here's something amusing for you to look at:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22france's%20national%20animal%22

Lemmings. Self-explanatory.

The human being?

tis a good answer

Canada is not Socialist. They are simply anti-inflammatory capitalists, providing enough to keep the workers sated far below what they could achieve. But yes the beaver is a good choice. Unfortunately, far too many jokes.

Lemmings! Lemmings! Listen, this is a serious thread. Quit with the stupid anti-communist suggestions. I'm also mad at the mother-bird thing.

Lemmings. Self-explanatory.

Why? Because urban myths about their behaviour are spread by Disney?

The human being?Seconded.

I just realized! It already exists! Communism's animal mascot is the cancerous octopus-domino!

Canada is not Socialist. They are simply anti-inflammatory capitalists, providing enough to keep the workers sated far below what they could achieve. But yes the beaver is a good choice. Unfortunately, far too many jokes.

Lemmings! Lemmings! Listen, this is a serious thread. Quit with the stupid anti-communist suggestions. I'm also mad at the mother-bird thing.



Canada is more socialist than capitalist I would say, Comrade Rhetoric :D

No, they implement some (read it, some) socialist reforms to satisfy the worker population. It has been employed in most First World countries. they are not socialist, they are liberal.

Canada is not Socialist. They are simply anti-inflammatory capitalists, providing enough to keep the workers sated far below what they could achieve. But yes the beaver is a good choice. Unfortunately, far too many jokes.

Lemmings! Lemmings! Listen, this is a serious thread. Quit with the stupid anti-communist suggestions. I'm also mad at the mother-bird thing.

The mother bird was actually a serious suggestion especially for south african style socialism (a civil right to housing, food, water, all in the constituiton). The government cares for its people and makes sure they survive. It's exactly the sort of mascot socialists would want.

That's a justification for a benevolent dictatorship. The reason I suggested highly social animals was because they support each other. Remember, the state will eventually wither away as classes erode.

I'm going to suggest the wolf pack. A few of the wolves have the strongest say, and try and provide for the rest of the pack. However the other wolves have a limited amount of input, and will not follow the leaders to their deaths.

Why? Because urban myths about their behaviour are spread by Disney?

Disney made a movie about Socialists????

I don't really like the wolf image. Wolfs are commonly associated with evil in eastern and Western (not Amerindian) symbology. They are also predatory, a part of many communist states that beyond supporting revolutions is useless. Maybe the symbol for the Revolutionary cells?

No! you posted lemmings because of their stupid suicide rumors and probably the game. Taht is what he was referring to.

they are not socialist, they are liberal.


Even worse!!! :p

Exactly, Neo Rogolia. Except Socialist being bad. Liberals are the perpetuators of capitalism. they provide some relief, enough to take out most chances of discontent, while still keeping them below others.

Disney made a movie about Socialists????

Maybe not a complete movie, but think about how the media in the 50s responded to communism.

Disney made a movie about Socialists????

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/documents/disney.html

...wherein it is revealed that Disney believed that all socialists were un-american communists dedicated to the overthrow of the government.

Y'all obviously know that they whole lemmings-mass-suicide thing was widely promulgated by staged scenes in a Disney nature 'documentary'.

The parallels are obvious.

Well, it seems to me that socialism generally has good intentions (like helping people out of poverty) but poor methods (taxes for everyone!). Also, socialism has a way of picking really, really evil leaders (Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Chiang Kai-Shek). So maybe socialism would be best represented by a mother hen who dearly loves her chicks but doesn't know how to protect them from the dangers of the world and so entrusts them to a wolf.

I guess you'll think that this is another anti-socialism comment, but it's about the best I can do. I'm libertarian, so it was a bit of a stretch for me to even say that socialism has good intentions.

All right, I can see your reasoning. It isn't just socialism that picks evil leaders though. At least you tried to keep an open mind.

Taxes for everyone makes sense to allow the free distribution of wealth. It didn't work as well as it could have because it never was implemented in a formerly capitalist country. Russia, China, korea, Vietnam, all feudal or at least oriental in marxist terms. East germany, the poor region, the Rhineland held industry and commerce.

BTW, Chiang-Kai-Shek is not a socialist. he was a nationalist who favored an authoritarian capitalist republic.

Just for the record, Social Programs have as much to do with whether a country is socialist as capitalization has to do with whether a country is capitalist.

How does this sound?

Legislative- Human
Executive- Human with the Martial Eagle perched on Arm, the people dominating the old monopoly on force, maybe a workhorse with pattern of eagle
Judicial- Elephant, wise and fair, tusks ending in golden orbs
Revolutionary Forces- Wolf Pack, violence with a purpose, cool efficiency, fragmented command structure
Commerce- An Egg, showing the chances for infinite growth
Education- The Hen of the State, assuring that all students are treated equally and grow well
Solidarity of Workers- Workhorse, may be coupled with the other animals for certain symbols
Scientific- Chimpanzee, showing the inherited human drive for discovery and experimentation
Public Works- Beaver, working communally on a great project for the betterment of all society

Anyone have any other ideas?

This thread kind of reminded me of the parable of the isms:

SOCIALISM
If you have two cows you give one to your Neighbor.

COMMUNISM
If you have two cows, you give them to the Government, and then the Government gives you some milk.

FASCISM
If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the Government; then the government sells you some milk.

NEW_DEALISM
If you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain.

NAZISM
If you have two cows the government shoots you and keeps the cows.

CAPITALISM
If you have two cows you sell one and buy a bull.

I found it on here: http://johncoats.com/123/Ideals.htm

Libertarianism
You have two cows. A pyramid scheme causes you to lose them and go into debt. When you report it to the authorities, they can't do anything to infringe on the free market.

You have two cows. Unfortunately, milking them would infringe upon the free market by introducing cost-free milk into your household, disrupting the Invisible Hand. Ha-ha.

Eco-Anarchist
You have two cows. Yet, you cannot infringe upon their personal right to exist in their own way by milking them. You die of malnutrition

Libertarianism
You have two cows. A pyramid scheme causes you to lose them and go into debt. When you report it to the authorities, they can't do anything to infringe on the free market.

You have two cows. Unfortunately, milking them would infringe upon the free market by introducing cost-free milk into your household, disrupting the Invisible Hand. Ha-ha.

Eco-Anarchist
You have two cows. Yet, you cannot infringe upon their personal right to exist in their own way by milking them. You die of malnutrition

1) only if you are a stupid Libertarian. (No cracks about redundancy, please.) A pyramid scheme cannot "cause" you to loose anything, it can only convince you to give it away. A government, on the other hand, can tax away your livestock whether you like it or not. Also, most Libertarians advocate some form of contract law, which would allow for punishment of swindlers.

2) No Libertarian would be opposed to someone using a cow to produce their own milk. It's no different than earning money and then using that money to buy milk. It's worth noting that in Canada it is illegal for someone to milk a cow and give the milk to their children. No kidding. There was a court case a few years back. Statism is clearly more of a hinderance to free milk than Libertarianism is.

3) I'll leave it to someone else to complain about your eco-anarchism comments. I like 'em!

Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants! Ants!
There is no true ruler of an Ant colony, they all jsut do what they do as part of the group because they lack anything remotely like free will or individualism. They embody "From each to his worthiness to each according to his worthlessness" perfectly. The Warrior caste fight, the worker cast dig holes, the males screw and die, and the fertile females (queens) lay around and squeeze out eggs.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/documents/disney.html

...wherein it is revealed that Disney believed that all socialists were un-american communists dedicated to the overthrow of the government.

Y'all obviously know that they whole lemmings-mass-suicide thing was widely promulgated by staged scenes in a Disney nature 'documentary'.

The parallels are obvious.



Aren't they? :p

I didn't mean those seriously. They were some I remembered, that were the worst. I don't like the you have two cows thing. There was one I loved that was like three paragraphs about capitalism. I'll find it soon but back to the topic.

Yes but communists and workers have free will!. And Each according to his worthiness each according to his worthlessness is just stupid. Are the emntally or physically diabled to receive nothing? They are viewed as worthless by many and from an ant perspective they would be.

The Donkey- Why? They're stubborn, not particularly hard workers, nor do they show great social complexity.
Sounds like a socialist to me…

Sounds like a socialist to me…


He so set the socialists up for that one :D

Yes but communists and workers have free will!. And Each according to his worthiness each according to his worthlessness is just stupid. Are the emntally or physically diabled to receive nothing? They are viewed as worthless by many and from an ant perspective they would be.
No they don't (Here I am referring to communist workers). If they had free will then they wouldn't be fullfilling their duty to their fellow peoples. What if everyone in a communist state decided that what they wanted to do was grow cabbage? In a capitalist state the price of cabbage goes down and people can either sell their cabbage for pennies or move on. What are the communists going to do? And what if I want to ascend the ranks to power outside of government chanels? Or have a TV that is 200 feet across? Maybe I can't reach the goals in a capitalist country either, but I can damn well try.
And Ants don't view anything as worthless, their ants. They don't concern themselves with their neighbors, they just accomplish their alloted task and die. And no, people who are physically and/or mentally handicapped to the point of no longer being able to provide for themselves are worthless. If their relatives want to (out of free will) heft them up on their shoulders and carry anothers burdens, more power to them.

The Donkey- Why? They're stubborn, not particularly hard workers, nor do they show great social complexity.
Sounds like a socialist to me…
lolololol good 1 !!!1 :rolleyes:

lolololol good 1 !!!1 :rolleyes:
I know, wasn’t it great? :D

Canada is more socialist than capitalist I would say, Comrade Rhetoric :D


dont care what you say we get free health care.......our army sucks on the other hand

No they don't (Here I am referring to communist workers). If they had free will then they wouldn't be fullfilling their duty to their fellow peoples. What if everyone in a communist state decided that what they wanted to do was grow cabbage? In a capitalist state the price of cabbage goes down and people can either sell their cabbage for pennies or move on. What are the communists going to do? And what if I want to ascend the ranks to power outside of government chanels? Or have a TV that is 200 feet across? Maybe I can't reach the goals in a capitalist country either, but I can damn well try.
And Ants don't view anything as worthless, their ants. They don't concern themselves with their neighbors, they just accomplish their alloted task and die. And no, people who are physically and/or mentally handicapped to the point of no longer being able to provide for themselves are worthless. If their relatives want to (out of free will) heft them up on their shoulders and carry anothers burdens, more power to them.


That's why you need a Comrade Stalin. He makes sure that the cabbage farmers farm cabbage, the coal miners mine coal, the factory workers work the factories, and the commissars enjoy the fruit of their labor.

Well, it seems to me that socialism generally has good intentions (like helping people out of poverty) but poor methods (taxes for everyone!). Also, socialism has a way of picking really, really evil leaders (Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Chiang Kai-Shek).

A question asked out of partial ignorance: was Chiang Kai-Shek actually a socialist?

And no, people who are physically and/or mentally handicapped to the point of no longer being able to provide for themselves are worthless. If their relatives want to (out of free will) heft them up on their shoulders and carry anothers burdens, more power to them.

Why is it that truth always sounds so harsh?

*Prepares for barrage of angry comments from non-capitalists; puts on helmet*

And no, people who are physically and/or mentally handicapped to the point of no longer being able to provide for themselves are worthless.

That's why you need a Comrade Stalin.

Have I missed the point here, or are you agreeing to the proposition that people who from your perspective have immortal souls are worthless?

Why is it that truth always sounds so harsh?

*Prepares for barrage of angry comments from non-capitalists; puts on helmet*

We are all their relatives. The distance is just slightly greater, but the responsibility is no less.

We are all their relatives. The distance is just slightly greater, but the responsibility is no less.

If distance doesn't matter, wouldn't that mean that we're all inbred?

Workers do have a free will! it was oppressed by Stalinism and it is still oppressed by capitalism. True Communism would allow them to show a certain amount of freedom in management with regards to the rest of society. They are simply not allowed the freedom to oppress others with their wealth and other thieveries. Very few people ever achieve something within Capitalism as wealth is used to oppress and people are forced by necessity into the worst of jobs at far less than the profits they are generating for
their Capitalist overlords. That Stalinism did the same thing is disheartening. Every nation, every person limits their ability to act on their free will. Without it, society would fall apart and any idealistic anarchists would be sadly disappointed at what would result.

As for the donkey joke, you capitalists are slow. i've been expecting taht since I submitted it.

Have I missed the point here, or are you agreeing to the proposition that people who from your perspective have immortal souls are worthless?
He was agreeing to Stalin's cabbage farmers.

We are all their relatives. The distance is just slightly greater, but the responsibility is no less.
I am only related to those people who I acknowledge. I don't acknowledge my relation to you (and I sincerely doubt it exists) so I refuse to shoulder you or your burdens.

lolololol good 1 !!!1 :rolleyes:


It was classic :D and, let's be honest, didn't you see it coming from miles away?

If distance doesn't matter, wouldn't that mean that we're all inbred?

Yup, we are. Do some research on the mitochondrial Eve and then gte back to me.

The hammer-bug and sickle-bug



because when the secret police think you are a traitor they smash your face with a hammer and cut your dick off with a sickle LOL

Workers do have a free will! it was oppressed by Stalinism and it is still oppressed by capitalism. True Communism would allow them to show a certain amount of freedom in management with regards to the rest of society. They are simply not allowed the freedom to oppress others with their wealth and other thieveries. Very few people ever achieve something within Capitalism as wealth is used to oppress and people are forced by necessity into the worst of jobs at far less than the profits they are generating for
their Capitalist overlords. That Stalinism did the same thing is disheartening. Every nation, every person limits their ability to act on their free will. Without it, society would fall apart and any idealistic anarchists would be sadly disappointed at what would result.

As for the donkey joke, you capitalists are slow. i've been expecting taht since I submitted it.

How would you oppress someone with wealth? By giving it to them? By not giving it to them? By talking about how much of it you have?

Oppression via wealth pales in comparison to oppression via government.

He was agreeing to Stalin's cabbage farmers.

Is 'he' unable to speak for 'himself'?


I am only related to those people who I acknowledge. I don't acknowledge my relation to you (and I sincerely doubt it exists) so I refuse to shoulder you or your burdens.

Ah, so despite the amazing advances in biology and genetics the whole shebang of 'relation' isn't actually scientifically defined but instead something that depends solely upon your own opinions and can thus be turned off and on like a tap?

EDIT:...and yes, we are related. See previous post.

Listen, i don't storm your threads and flame you. i don't mind people like that libertarian who at least kept an open mind, but if you don't want to do that fine. Leave. i don't believe in something like the KGB so i guess a plead from one individual to another will have to be enough. Leave this thread to the socialists and communists and those who are open minded enough to do something otehr than flame.

The donkey is the official symbol of the Democratic party ;)

Who aren't at all socialist. :rolleyes:

Humans and chimps are by far the animals that best represent socialism.

Yup, we are. Do some research on the mitochondrial Eve and then gte back to me.

All I'm saying is, if I'm not allowed to marry my cousin, I'm shouldn't be forced to give money to someone I've never met.

My reasoning is airtight, no? ;)

Yup, we are. Do some research on the mitochondrial Eve and then gte back to me./EDIT:...and yes, we are related. See previous post




Only if you believe in her and adam i dont

Only if you believe in her and adam i dont

'Mitochondrial Eve' is an entirely different colour of critter than 'Biblical Eve': apologies for the Wikipedia link in the absence of a better source, but hey, half a bottle of gin does that to a man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Only if you believe in her and adam i dont

possibly the most confused evolutionist post I've ever seen.

Mitochondrial Eve is a name used by evolutionary scientists to refer to the first human woman, from whom we all descended. It is related to creationism only in name.

'Mitochondrial Eve' is an entirely different colour of critter than 'Biblical Eve': apologies for the Wikipedia link in the absence of a better source, but hey, half a bottle of gin does that to a man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


Might wanna append a nudity warning to that link.

All I'm saying is, if I'm not allowed to marry my cousin, I'm shouldn't be forced to give money to someone I've never met.

My reasoning is airtight, no? ;)

No. You are moving from your earlier position of claiming that people are not related to one now of not closely related.

As to whether you should be 'forced' to give money to them or not, that is an entirely different matter, but to claim that you bear no genetic relation to them is patently absurd.

Listen, i don't storm your threads and flame you. i don't mind people like that libertarian who at least kept an open mind, but if you don't want to do that fine. Leave. i don't believe in something like the KGB so i guess a plead from one individual to another will have to be enough. Leave this thread to the socialists and communists and those who are open minded enough to do something otehr than flame.

Yeah, you're right man. I'm sorry. I really have no right to be on this thread. To make it up to you, I'll start a Libertarian Animal thread and you can flame that one all you want.

Workers do have a free will! it was oppressed by Stalinism and it is still oppressed by capitalism. True Communism would allow them to show a certain amount of freedom in management with regards to the rest of society. They are simply not allowed the freedom to oppress others with their wealth and other thieveries.
Most people would see the holes in your argument with the bolded bits, but I'll point them out anyway. How does someone oppress someone else with wealth? No one forces you into free exchange, and corporate conspiracy theorists are completely full of shit, there is no monoconglamoragtesupercorporation overlord company out there waiting to steal our souls.
I'd respond to the rest, but there is far too much deviation from the topic, so this will be my last reply, feel free to keep talking without me though.

However, you never did tell me what the communist comrades are planning on doing when the entire country starts coming up with cabbages. I guess they'll found a Bureau of Cabbages that will try to invent Cabbage powered planes.

A question asked out of partial ignorance: was Chiang Kai-Shek actually a socialist?

No, he was a capitalist and an authoritarian monster.

Although numbers are uncertain, many estimates place the number of deaths as a result of Chiang Kai-shek's rule on the mainland at around ten million (the lowest estimates provide a figure of about four million, while higher figures suggest as many as 18 million). Many deaths were the result of famine, but according to R.J. Rummel approximately four million were killed directly. Even the lower figures would suggest that Chiang Kai-shek has been responsible for more deaths than all but a handful of 20th-century dictators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-Shek

Might wanna append a nudity warning to that link.

Unlikely: Moderators have raised the example of a link to Michelangelo's David as an example of the unclad human form (one which displays primary sexual characteristics) which does not breach site rules, whereas this one only displays secondary sexual characteristics.

EDIT: aside from which 'showing breasts whilst wearing at least three items of clothing' hardly qualifies as 'nude' by any definition.

No. You are moving from your earlier position of claiming that people are not related to one now of not closely related.

As to whether you should be 'forced' to give money to them or not, that is an entirely different matter, but to claim that you bear no genetic relation to them is patently absurd.


I think he was being humorous. At least that was the impression I got from the smiley.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM. Also for those communists who say socialism involves freedom name me one communist country where people had free rights and freedom to vote.

No, he was a capitalist and an authoritarian monster.


That's kind of what I thought. Not that being an authoritarian monster is any obstacle to the practice of socialism, obviously.

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM. Also for those communists who say socialism involves freedom name me one communist country where people had free rights and freedom to vote.

socialism != communism.

socialism != communism.Hell, Communism=/=communism.

I think he was being humorous. At least that was the impression I got from the smiley.

I have all the smileys adBlocked on this site. I have had to stare at far too many 13 year old idiots spraying their posts with oh-so-kewl sniper and MP5 distractions to put up with them any more. This is not to say that Spartalia fits into that category, but I generally adopt the position that reliance on smileys to subvert or modify the meaning of your actual words is an irritating thing.

Is 'he' unable to speak for 'himself'?
No HE isn't. For I am the voice of HIM that in HIS Almighty wisdom choose not to speak. For I am the Clarifier. Striking in the dark of night (Or at least its night in my timezone) with statements and defenses for other people. I am an unasked for presence that sweeps in on the bitter north wind, and I shall not be denied!

Hell, Communism=/=communism.

Yeah, well eventually communism = anarchism, but the authoritarian scum try and keep that one quiet, lest people start questioning the whole validity of the dictatorship malarky and display a desire to cut to the chase instead without all that tedious mucking about in pseudo-Stalinist societies first.

possibly the most confused evolutionist post I've ever seen.

Mitochondrial Eve is a name used by evolutionary scientists to refer to the first human woman, from whom we all descended. It is related to creationism only in name.


ok wrong eve,i was thinking the bible eve

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM. Also for those communists who say socialism involves freedom name me one communist country where people had free rights and freedom to vote.


At least they have their hearts in the right place. Try not to be hard on them, they're really looking out for the good of others, even if communism/socialism doesn't work.

Yeah, well eventually communism = anarchism, but the authoritarian scum try and keep that one quiet, lest people start questioning the whole validity of the dictatorship malarky and display a desire to cut to the chase instead without all that tedious mucking about in pseudo-Stalinist societies first.
Indeed.

Mitochondrial Eve is a name used by evolutionary scientists to refer to the first human woman, from whom we all descended.

An infrequent post of agreement: at the risk of being overly pedantic... yes, but the comma there is somewhat extraneous at best and likely to be confusing to those unfamiliar with the concept. It reads better like this:

'Mitochondrial Eve is a name used by evolutionary scientists to refer to the first human woman from whom we all descended.'

Might wanna append a nudity warning to that link.

Oh no, painted titties! Let's all get offended. :eek:

Oh no, painted titties! Let's all get offended. :eek:


:rolleyes:

How is it that capitalists fail to see how accumulation of wealth can be used to oppress and necessity rules out their voluntary exchange argument? How can they be so blind?

An infrequent post of agreement: at the risk of being overly pedantic... yes, but the comma there is somewhat extraneous at best and likely to be confusing to those unfamiliar with the concept. It reads better like this:

'Mitochondrial Eve is a name used by evolutionary scientists to refer to the first human woman from whom we all descended.'

Actually it's used to refer to the last woman we are all descended from.

And she happened to live far removed from Y chromosonal Adam.

:rolleyes:

My thoughts exactly.

How is it that capitalists fail to see how accumulation of wealth can be used to oppress and necessity rules out their voluntary exchange argument? How can they be so blind?


The probability of exploitation occuring when society gives you the power of communist leadership increases drastically as opposed to the same situation under a capitalist government.

Actually it's used to refer to the last woman we are all descended from.

You are indeed correct. My apologies.

My thoughts exactly.


Not everyone is a sexual maniac who probably would advocate mandatory nudity :rolleyes: And I'm sure the individuals at work wouldn't be too pleased if their bosses just happened to walk by when they clicked it.

Not everyone is a sexual maniac who probably would advocate mandatory nudity :rolleyes:


Nudity != sexuality. How exactly did you draw the conclusion that a depiction of a woman living at a time of a level of technology which where it exists in historically modern cultures often went hand in hand with a lack of taboos about mammary glands makes the people that approve of it sex mechanics?

And I'm sure the individuals at work wouldn't be too pleased if their bosses just happened to walk by when they clicked it.

Their bosses fear their employees educating themselves, but are quite happy for them to hang around on internet game forums?

EDIT: aside from which, you assume that said people are not working in the fields of archeology, fine art, genetics or possibly even pornography, no?

Not everyone is a sexual maniac who probably would advocate mandatory nudity :rolleyes: And I'm sure the individuals at work wouldn't be too pleased if their bosses just happened to walk by when they clicked it.

An artistic representation of an early person isn't the same as porn, if you're at work you shouldn't be reading encyclopedia articles anyways, that's why it's work, not happy-fun-read-wikipedia time.

Mandatory nudity would impinge on my right to wear pants.

That is Stalinist thinking. Marx suggested a heavily decentralized system where workers would have a much greater say in governance. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the same sense that the USA was the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

That is Stalinist thinking.

Quoting gives context which helps comprehension... are you asserting that Soviet Haaregrad's right to wear pants is Stalinist thinking?

Quoting gives context which helps comprehension... are you asserting that Soviet Haaregrad's right to wear pants is Stalinist thinking?

I think he's responding to someone else... at least I hope so.

Nudity != sexuality. How exactly did you draw the conclusion that a depiction of a woman living at a time of a level of technology which where it exists in historically modern cultures often went hand in hand with a lack of taboos about mammary glands makes the people that approve of it sex mechanics?



Their bosses fear their employees educating themselves, but are quite happy for them to hang around on internet game forums?



In my experience, those who generally tend to get all uppity about any restrictions on nudity tend to be the sexually rampant. I've gone through this situation enough times to know enough about that. I personally don't care to get into the debate over "prudish societies restricting our sexual rights", but at least be courteous enough to append a warning to the link for those of us who might not exactly benefit from a pair of breasts popping up on our screen?




I doubt their bosses would want either, but nudity wouldn't exactly help one's case ;)

In my experience, those who generally tend to get all uppity about any restrictions on nudity tend to be the sexually rampant. I've gone through this situation enough times to know enough about that. I personally don't care to get into the debate over "prudish societies restricting our sexual rights", but at least be courteous enough to append a warning to the link for those of us who might not exactly benefit from a pair of breasts popping up on our screen?




I doubt their bosses would want either, but nudity wouldn't exactly help one's case ;)

Actually, I don't think that is a pair. :p

I think he's responding to someone else... at least I hope so.


Filthy Stalinist pants-wearer!!!! :D

Yeah, I'm falling asleep. I was responding to Neo-Regolia.

The probability of exploitation occuring when society gives you the power of communist leadership increases drastically as opposed to the same situation under a capitalist government.

Strong communist leadership was supposed to exist but not in Lenin's form or Stalin's or Mao's... It was supposed to be decentralized. It was supposed to put the means of production in the worker's hands, not the new capitalists, grimmer and more ill-fit than the last batch.

And yes, wearing pants is Stalinist. look at him and Hitler, they both wore pants!

Actually, I don't think that is a pair. :p

IIRC at one point Italy introduced legislation which allowed the presence of representations of only one naked breast per printed page. You can only guess at the results.

Filthy Stalinist pants-wearer!!!! :D

:p

And yes, wearing pants is Stalinist. look at him and Hitler, they both wore pants!

And underwear too. At least Chomsky goes free-balling.

Yeah, I'm falling asleep. I was responding to Neo-Regolia.



Strong communist leadership was supposed to exist but not in Lenin's form or Stalin's or Mao's... It was supposed to be decentralized. It was supposed to put the means of production in the worker's hands, not the new capitalists, grimmer and more ill-fit than the last batch.



But the workers generally would not have the mental capacity to regulate such an enormous task. You eventually need a group of intellectually elite individuals to relegate the resources to the masses, and this is where corruption comes into play.

How is it that capitalists fail to see how accumulation of wealth can be used to oppress and necessity rules out their voluntary exchange argument? How can they be so blind?

Okay then, if you had great quantities of wealth, and I didn't, in what way would you oppress me?

I'd have to pitch in with Humans being the best representation of socialism.

Capitolism, however, is best represented by the seagull. Mine! Mine! Mine! ("Finding Nemo")

At least Chomsky goes free-balling.

as is graphically described in one of his recent books

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/wolfbrigade/chomskybook1.jpg

They were supposed to have some managerial duties and workers were to be educated to help in management. It would be a communal effort. As for the distribution, that would have had to have been handled by experts.

I will agree with my anarchist brethren that men may self-manage in many ways. I don't think that can be the full basis of a society.

Spartiala, how do I oppress you? I force you by necessity into the most meager wages which are just barely enough for you to feed yourself in exchange for working in my factory. I force your children into labor by the same necessity. Note that i don't classify wealth as just having money. Revenue producing property. I make a huge profit as you go home aching and near starvation, only to start again the next day. I should raise wages but why? No other company will when there are plenty of unemployed workers wandering the streets to replace anyone who dies or happens to ask for higher wages. I grow steadily richer as you are driven to the the brink of death. Aren't you glad you abolished market regulations? Real Voluntary exchange, huh? Felt the trickle down effect yet?

Spartiala, how do I oppress you? I force you by necessity into the most meager wages which are just barely enough for you to feed yourself in exchange for working in my factory. I force your children into labor by the same necessity. Note that i don't classify wealth as just having money. Revenue producing property. I make a huge profit as you go home aching and near starvation, only to start again the next day. I should raise wages but why? No other company will when there are plenty of unemployed workers wandering the streets to replace anyone who dies or happens to ask for higher wages. I grow steadily richer as you are driven to the the brink of death. Aren't you glad you abolished market regulations? Real Voluntary exchange, huh? Felt the trickle down effect yet?

Wow, so you're saying that not only do employers oppress the workers, but that if you were an employer you would too! Can we say... PROJECTION?

And your usual strawman about corporations run by scientific management theory are not even worth addressing.

Kids, this is a problem with the *socialist* mindset. The socialist sees all people as "equal," and therefore one employee is just as good as - well, just as good as an unemployed worker newly hired from off the street! How quaint!

This is why Marxist Rhetoric here isn't a business owner. Welcome to the 21st century, where fossils who treat modern employees like cattle still live a long and prosperous life in the fantasies of anticapitalists. In the real world, however, things are not so simple.

And for that matter, people aren't cattle.

Libertarians believe in almost no market regulations. i just showed him how that could fail. And he claims that wealth has no chance of being abused. Ha! Without market regulations and given a third-world birthrate that would happen. Unskilled factory work doesn't take much you know, skill. It may be astrain on the eyes and otehr muscles but in that case a fresh new worker is better. I myself would never do such a thing. Profits should be shared communally. I'm out. I'm going to bed. Insult my name as I sleep.

as is graphically described in one of his recent books

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/wolfbrigade/chomskybook1.jpg

I think I just wet myself.

Without market regulations and given a third-world birthrate that would happen.

Since when did "no market regulations" and "third-world birthrate" get attached to each other?

Unskilled factory work doesn't take much you know, skill.

And how much of the USA's employment market is made up of unskilled labor taking place in factories?


It may be astrain on the eyes and otehr muscles but in that case a fresh new worker is better.

Right, because all people are equal, and therefore one is as good as another, right? So there's nothing to protect workers from being replaced, since all humans are the same as other humans. I.e the people=cattle theory.

Why is it this particular concept always seems to come from the left? And then they insist it is somehow a part of the right?

Profits should be shared communally.

Two words: dividend rate.

They were supposed to have some managerial duties and workers were to be educated to help in management. It would be a communal effort. As for the distribution, that would have had to have been handled by experts.

I will agree with my anarchist brethren that men may self-manage in many ways. I don't think that can be the full basis of a society.

Spartiala, how do I oppress you? I force you by necessity into the most meager wages which are just barely enough for you to feed yourself in exchange for working in my factory. I force your children into labor by the same necessity. Note that i don't classify wealth as just having money. Revenue producing property. I make a huge profit as you go home aching and near starvation, only to start again the next day. I should raise wages but why? No other company will when there are plenty of unemployed workers wandering the streets to replace anyone who dies or happens to ask for higher wages. I grow steadily richer as you are driven to the the brink of death. Aren't you glad you abolished market regulations? Real Voluntary exchange, huh? Felt the trickle down effect yet?

It doesn't matter how poor I am, and it doesn't matter how many unemployed workers there are in the economy; you will never be able to force me to work for you. At the very least I will have the option of striking out on my own and running my own business, but more likely I will be able to find better employment with someone else or convince you to pay me more. Why? Because business owners (assuming they are working for their own self-interest) will always be willing to pay more for good workers. All I would need to do in order to earn better wages is become a better worker, and that would come mainly from experience. Even a worker who has worked at a company for only a few months is considerably better at doing his job than a new worker would be.

In a way, I would be oppressing you: I would come to your business and work at your crappy wages for a while, then demand higher wages. It'd be much easier for you to pay me a bit more per hour than for you to hire someone new and have to train him, so you'd give me the raise. A few months later, I'd ask for another raise, and you'd give it to me for the same reason. Eventually I'd become one of the best workers in your plant and you'd be quite willing to pay a fair bit for my services. By this point, I'd know the business pretty well and I'd have some cash saved up, so I'd quit my job and start my own business in the same industry as you. Now not only have I taken a substantial amount of money from you over the years, I'm also your competition. How unfair is that?

Of course, if I had any sort of education or training before I took the job, the process would only be quicker.

*Ahem!*

Going back to the original topic I think elephants would make a very good mascot. They live in communities where they all protect each other and they even help each other raise their young.

Failing that, I would suggest we follow Robert Tressel and make lunatics our 'mascots'.

The Capitalists are the dangerous madmen, who harm others.
The majority of people are mad because they allow themselves to be opressed and even defend the Capitalists who opress them.
The Socialists are mad because they think you can reason with madmen. ;)

the phoenix cos while socialism's popularity in the political world wanes and fluctuates over time, you just can't kill it ;)

probably already been said, but... bah

the phoenix cos while socialism's popularity in the political world wanes and fluctuates over time, you just can't kill it ;)

probably already been said, but... bah

Better still, a Zombie!! Bits fall off occaisonally to form splinter groups but we keep on coming!!! :p

The leech represents socialism. Yeah, that will work.

Sucking effort and money from the individual to use for whatever "those-who-know-better" think it should be used for, regardless of what the person who produced the results thinks.

Yup, the leech fits perfectly.

The leech represents socialism. Yeah, that will work.

Sucking effort and money from the individual to use for whatever "those-who-know-better" think it should be used for, regardless of what the person who produced the results thinks.

Yup, the leech fits perfectly.

So what would your view be on those unable to work?

So what would your view be on those unable to work?

You seem to be assuming that I think all forms of programs are bad. That is not the case. I just think MOST are bad.

I want government to be really small--not non-existent.

You'd have to seriously prove you needed the assistance, though. Not like the millions upon millions in the US that are riding programs these days. And there are some cases where you just have to play the hand you're dealt.

The world isn't fair, and it's not up to humanity to equalize the playing field--were that the case, most of Europe would be morally bound to rise up against China and smash the totalitarian regime and put their own in place--so people can be equal.

Too many "need" help right now. The more you help someone else, the less they can help themselves. It's why parents stop giving kids so much money to live on as they get older. You wean them off assistance, so they can do it themselves.

You seem to be assuming that I think all forms of programs are bad. That is not the case. I just think MOST are bad.

I want government to be really small--not non-existent.

You'd have to seriously prove you needed the assistance, though. Not like the millions upon millions in the US that are riding programs these days. And there are some cases where you just have to play the hand you're dealt.

The world isn't fair, and it's not up to humanity to equalize the playing field--were that the case, most of Europe would be morally bound to rise up against China and smash the totalitarian regime and put their own in place--so people can be equal.

Too many "need" help right now. The more you help someone else, the less they can help themselves. It's why parents stop giving kids so much money to live on as they get older. You wean them off assistance, so they can do it themselves.

The number of poor people who choose to avoid work and live on benifits is greatly exaggerated, most people on benifits are either unable to work or unable to find work. The majority of poor people don't want charity, they want a job so they can earn their own way in the world, it is Capitalism which denies them employment.

Very few people comment on the numbers of the hereditary rich. Many of them do no work and put nothing into society but they do take things which have been produced by those who do work (and in fact take far more out than those who actually work do. In effect these people are parasites, the same as those who refuse to work and live on benifits.

The difference? The poor parasites are quite rightly attacked and demonised in the tabloid press. The rich parasites are idolised and photographed for glossy magazines. Occasionally one of these idle-rich parasites gives a bit of the money, which they never earned, to charity and everyone praises them for it.

The number of poor people who choose to avoid work and live on benifits is greatly exaggerated, most people on benifits are either unable to work or unable to find work.


Maybe in the UK, but not in the US. We have one third of our population bringing in at least some kind of money (roughly 92 million people) due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I know there are those that cannot function without help, but 1/3 the United States disabled? I have a very rough time swallowing that.


The majority of poor people don't want charity, they want a job so they can earn their own way in the world, it is Capitalism which denies them employment.


See, I can't buy that. I've been unemployed before, and there was always a minimum-wage job available somewhere--again, at least in the US (capitalism didn't stop them). People WON'T "lower" themselves to do those jobs, though, when they've done "better" things in the past. Reality is reality, though, and it doesn't have fairness on the agenda.


Very few people comment on the numbers of the hereditary rich. Many of them do no work and put nothing into society but they do take things which have been produced by those who do work (and in fact take far more out than those who actually work do. In effect these people are parasites, the same as those who refuse to work and live on benifits.

The difference? The poor parasites are quite rightly attacked and demonised in the tabloid press. The rich parasites are idolised and photographed for glossy magazines. Occasionally one of these idle-rich parasites gives a bit of the money, which they did never earned, to charity and everyone praises them for it.

Actually, no. The difference is that their parents made the decision to forever support their children with their own earnings (or inheritance), as is their RIGHT to choose that option. It's theirs to do with as they please. They own it. Just because you did or didn't inherit, doesn't mean anyone has rights to those resources that someone else owns.

Like I said, you have to play the cards you are dealt. It will never be fair. I came from a poor family myself, and have done okay. I'm not incredibly rich, but I'm comfortable, and can give to those charities I choose, despite the 1/3 to 2/5 bite the government steals from me each month.

So, which animal? I can't think of one. This has another purpose related to Tony the Tiger and Frosted Flakes.

Prairie Dogs.
Individualistic, yet are a community. Each does the task that needs doing to benefit the group.
seems to apply

actually how about the lion for communism.
Both sexes are equal and all a free to hunt. After spending hours on the task and finally getting your reward, some big lazy boss comes over a claims everything. When he's had what he want he leaves the rest for the pack

Maybe in the UK, but not in the US. We have one third of our population bringing in at least some kind of money (roughly 92 million people) due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I know there are those that cannot function without help, but 1/3 the United States disabled? I have a very rough time swallowing that.

Ok, I don't know much about America so I can't argue this point, it is valid in the UK though.

See, I can't buy that. I've been unemployed before, and there was always a minimum-wage job available somewhere--again, at least in the US (capitalism didn't stop them). People WON'T "lower" themselves to do those jobs, though, when they've done "better" things in the past. Reality is reality, though, and it doesn't have fairness on the agenda.

In the UK most of these jobs are done by immigrants (some illegal, some legal) and they are brutally exploited by the employers, they do it because they have to. I think that people with any alterative will turn down this kind of job because it demands back-breaking labour for criminally low pay. Nobody should have to do that sort of job for so little return.

I stand by my point that the idle-rich do far less work but live far better lives, this is not right.

Actually, no. The difference is that their parents made the decision to forever support their children with their own earnings (or inheritance), as is their RIGHT to choose that option. It's theirs to do with as they please. They own it. Just because you did or didn't inherit, doesn't mean anyone has rights to those resources that someone else owns.

Maybe I was being a little unclear in my post, I was mainly thinking of people who inherit land. For example, in the UK the Royal Family own land and have done for centuries, a few of them do work (one of the princes just joined the army) but many of them live off this land. I'm afraid I don't agree with your view that they have the right to hold this land when they have done nothing to earn it, all land should be held in common, not carved up and handed out to a few individuals.

Like I said, you have to play the cards you are dealt. It will never be fair. I came from a poor family myself, and have done okay. I'm not incredibly rich, but I'm comfortable, and can give to those charities I choose, despite the 1/3 to 2/5 bite the government steals from me each month.

Currently life isn't fair, maybe it's time to change the way society works to make it fair.

Ok, I don't know much about America so I can't argue this point, it is valid in the UK though.


You'd know more about that than I would, you're there, after all. :)


In the UK most of these jobs are done by immigrants (some illegal, some legal) and they are brutally exploited by the employers, they do it because they have to. I think that people with any alterative will turn down this kind of job because it demands back-breaking labour for criminally low pay. Nobody should have to do that sort of job for so little return.


Depending on what the market will support. Too many are concerned with obtaining wealth and possessions (probably due to too much marketing and advertising, and not enough introspeciton on the individual's part), so what we think people "need" is actually a want. It comes down to food, shelter, and clothing. Not steak, a house, and Tommy jeans.


I stand by my point that the idle-rich do far less work but live far better lives, this is not right.


No, it's not FAIR. The resources of the planet have been pretty much carved up and owned for centuries now. You can't just take everything away from everyone and start over using different rules. People are in possession of what they have now. If you want something, you're going to have to work and save up for it. That's reality.


Maybe I was being a little unclear in my post, I was mainly thinking of people who inherit land. For example, in the UK the Royal Family own land and have done for centuries, a few of them do work (one of the princes just joined the army) but many of them live off this land. I'm afraid I don't agree with your view that they have the right to hold this land when they have done nothing to earn it, all land should be held in common, not carved up and handed out to a few individuals.


I come from a land that started without a monarchy, where a single family didn't own it all. It doesn't work like that here. People had to work and gain their wealth and property in the US.

I don't know how it could be fixed in the UK--perhaps a start would be removing royal titles, since your government already runs without them. Since the royal property is property of England, you could divide it up and let your market take over from there, so it would become private property--and the government would get a one-time boost of money as well.


Currently life isn't fair, maybe it's time to change the way society works to make it fair.

How is that fair to those that own property? Using inequality to create equality isn't fair either. And stealing is outright wrong, regardless of the rationale.

Prairie Dogs.
Individualistic, yet are a community. Each does the task that needs doing to benefit the group.
seems to apply

Prairie Dog. Anyone?

I never understood how ants are considered socialistic. For one, they are about as hierarchial as they come, complete with a queen. For another, have you ever seen an ant raise its fist and overthrow the queen? No, they seem very content to do their job, just like the whitewashed image of capitalism where the workers voluntarily live under the benign rule of the righteous capitalist class.

I never understood how ants are considered socialistic. For one, they are about as hierarchial as they come, complete with a queen. For another, have you ever seen an ant raise its fist and overthrow the queen? No, they seem very content to do their job, just like the whitewashed image of capitalism where the workers voluntarily live under the benign rule of the righteous capitalist class.
They are socialists because they all work for a common good. The queen is sort of a misnomer because all she does is lay eggs. She is more of the mother than the queen. All ants do what they think is necessary for the common good. If they see a problem they fix it or get other ants to help them. I have even heard of ants being more of an anarchy because of the fact that they have no leaders(they have a caste system but no social classes really). Ants do what they think is best not what they are told to do(but ants don't really think anyway so they merely respond to the environment).

I never understood how ants are considered socialistic.

To be honest, they're more communistic.

For one, they are about as hierarchial as they come, complete with a queen.

Just cuz it's called a queen doesn't mean it's royalty. It's just an ant with a large ass that has reproductive capability.

No, they seem very content to do their job, just like the whitewashed image of capitalism where the workers voluntarily live under the benign rule of the righteous capitalist class.

Bah. That worker contentment is part of the communist utopia, where everyone is happy to do their own part, to each according to their needs etc. In comparison no capitalists contend there will be some mythical end-state where everyone is satisfied with their position. The essence of capitalism is not being satisfied with what you have, and therefore inclined to go out and work and get more.

You do realise that we've utterly hijacked this thread don't you :D

Depending on what the market will support. Too many are concerned with obtaining wealth and possessions (probably due to too much marketing and advertising, and not enough introspeciton on the individual's part), so what we think people "need" is actually a want. It comes down to food, shelter, and clothing. Not steak, a house, and Tommy jeans.

Agreed, but we could give them better than that if the wealth was spread fairly.

No, it's not FAIR. The resources of the planet have been pretty much carved up and owned for centuries now. You can't just take everything away from everyone and start over using different rules. People are in possession of what they have now. If you want something, you're going to have to work and save up for it. That's reality.

I have no objections to meritocracy, my objection is that if you have a disadvantaged start in real poverty (some parts of Africa for example) unless you get really lucky you could work hard all your life and never do as well as somebody who never did a minute of work in their life.

I come from a land that started without a monarchy, where a single family didn't own it all. It doesn't work like that here. People had to work and gain their wealth and property in the US.

Actually I think they took their land away from the native Americains but that's another debate.

Having just finished an incredibly boring history GCSE on agricultural history (results in 21 days :eek: ) I think I can make some comment on effects of American development on Britain because of Capitalism. Once the American railroads and steam-ships were in place huge ammounts of American grain were shipped out to Britain. Logically speaking more available food should have meant better lives for everyone but because the imported grain was so numerous (you guys can really farm :) ) it forced down the prices until it was cheaper than British grain. This triggered a depression for British farmers and farm workers and put a lot of them out of work, many had to go to work in the new mills and factories which were awful places and poorly paid. This demonstrates how, under Capitalism, a development which could and should improve life for all can actually work to the detriment of others which is just plain illogical. I realise this doesn't really answer your point but they are linked and I think it does show that Capitalism is a mad way to run the world.

I don't know how it could be fixed in the UK--perhaps a start would be removing royal titles, since your government already runs without them. Since the royal property is property of England, you could divide it up and let your market take over from there, so it would become private property--and the government would get a one-time boost of money as well.

With you on most of that, my only alteration to the plan would be to keep the land under state control, over time this could produce income to buy more land until all land belongs to the state as a whole, this would allow a peaceful transition to Socialism and avoid accusations of theft.

How is that fair to those that own property? Using inequality to create equality isn't fair either. And stealing is outright wrong, regardless of the rationale.

I agree that stealing is wrong, in my view landowners should be compensated for their loss. However, I view Capitalism as theft because it allows the rich to take the things made by the poor without doing anything to deserve it, think the 'Little Red Hen' parable.

the Rabbit. Good for nothing leaches the reproduce, yet share everything. Destroying the resources until they starve themselves to death. Not like the far more capitalistic foxies and wolfies. Wolfies share, but they also have a consept of "mine, not yours." Foxies are self reliant. Eating up the soci-bunnies until balance is restored.

I like pie. :p

You do realise that we've utterly hijacked this thread don't you :D


Yes, and I'm sorry. :D


Agreed, but we could give them better than that if the wealth was spread fairly.


Except I have a problem with a government doling out the dough--mostly because I didn't have a decision in what happens with the money I've worked for. If a parent gets rich and chooses to give that money to their kids, that's an entirely different matter--they still had the choice. That's really the only issue I have with it--government equals force.


I have no objections to meritocracy, my objection is that if you have a disadvantaged start in real poverty (some parts of Africa for example) unless you get really lucky you could work hard all your life and never do as well as somebody who never did a minute of work in their life.


Okay, here we have another divergence of ideals. I want to help my family, friends, neighbors, countrymen, THEN everyone else--in that order. It will always come down to the fact that humans will help who they know first. They're more important. If there's no face, no personality, no reality to cement a relationship, it's very difficult to get involved with a stranger's situation.


Actually I think they took their land away from the native Americains but that's another debate.


Yes, they did, but Europeans (and those spawned from Europeans) did that in the day... :(


Having just finished an incredibly boring history GCSE on agricultural history (results in 21 days :eek: )


Good luck!


I think I can make some comment on effects of American development on Britain because of Capitalism. Once the American railroads and steam-ships were in place huge ammounts of American grain were shipped out to Britain. Logically speaking more available food should have meant better lives for everyone but because the imported grain was so numerous (you guys can really farm :) )


Tell me about it, I'm in Wisconsin. :) Lots 'o corn here.


it forced down the prices until it was cheaper than British grain. This triggered a depression for British farmers and farm workers and put a lot of them out of work, many had to go to work in the new mills and factories which were awful places and poorly paid. This demonstrates how, under Capitalism, a development which could and should improve life for all can actually work to the detriment of others which is just plain illogical. I realise this doesn't really answer your point but they are linked and I think it does show that Capitalism is a mad way to run the world.


That depends. When the US started out, we had tariffs on imported goods. This allowed for the revenue to run the government--we didn't have income taxes until the early 1900s--it also allowed a bit of leverage to the domestic farmer/producer/etc. It probably would have helped your ancestors as well. I know there would be a lot more detail involved, but the general theory would have applied.


With you on most of that, my only alteration to the plan would be to keep the land under state control, over time this could produce income to buy more land until all land belongs to the state as a whole, this would allow a peaceful transition to Socialism and avoid accusations of theft.


Ooo...small problem with that. Governments steal from citizens. The citizens need to retain control of the government and the land, otherwise you just end up with despotism--kinda like the failed communist experiment in Russia. Communism should be able to work, but can't because of the human factor.


I agree that stealing is wrong, in my view landowners should be compensated for their loss.


If I have a memory tied to a specific plot of my land, or I have a house that I built with my two hands--or a relative did a hundred years ago, no amount of money will be able to compensate for it, if it's torn down or changed and "developed". There are some things that literally, money cannot afford.


However, I view Capitalism as theft because it allows the rich to take the things made by the poor without doing anything to deserve it, think the 'Little Red Hen' parable.

Okay, someone with resources gives a worker some of those resources, for the worker's own use, to make something with some other resources that the owner has. This worker agrees to do this. The worker does make something grand with the resources, and gets to keep the resources that the two parties agreed upon as payment. I don't see how that is exploitation. The "rich" person provided the raw materials and the payment for the "poor" person to get the end result that the "rich" person was looking for. That's not exploitation to me. That's commerce.

I see socialism as theft because the government takes from me, without my permission, to give to someone else that didn't do the work to earn it. Or blew it on a project that I was absolutely against.

Yes, and I'm sorry. :D

Well everyone else seems to have gone so I doubt anyone minds. :)

Except I have a problem with a government doling out the dough--mostly because I didn't have a decision in what happens with the money I've worked for. If a parent gets rich and chooses to give that money to their kids, that's an entirely different matter--they still had the choice. That's really the only issue I have with it--government equals force.



Okay, here we have another divergence of ideals. I want to help my family, friends, neighbors, countrymen, THEN everyone else--in that order. It will always come down to the fact that humans will help who they know first. They're more important. If there's no face, no personality, no reality to cement a relationship, it's very difficult to get involved with a stranger's situation.

I don't expect anyone to care about faceless strangers more than their friends or family, I admit that I don't. The theory is that by everyone working and the products of that work being shared equally everyone will get back nearly as much as they produced (with some taken out to help those who can't work). It's a bit like the NHS in the UK. Everyone pays part of their income in taxes to fund hospitals and in return everyone receives free health care. I admit that a few people exploit the system but not many do and I think the good it does outweighs any problems.

Yes, they did, but Europeans (and those spawned from Europeans) did that in the day... :(

Logically I guess the settlers weren't actually 'American' until they controlled America so it's probably our fault, I blame the french. :p

Good luck!

Thanks.

That depends. When the US started out, we had tariffs on imported goods. This allowed for the revenue to run the government--we didn't have income taxes until the early 1900s--it also allowed a bit of leverage to the domestic farmer/producer/etc. It probably would have helped your ancestors as well. I know there would be a lot more detail involved, but the general theory would have applied.

Sounds like it could have been a good idea, in the long term though it would have increased prices for imported goods so oranges and other tropical fruits would have been a rarity.

Ooo...small problem with that. Governments steal from citizens. The citizens need to retain control of the government and the land, otherwise you just end up with despotism--kinda like the failed communist experiment in Russia. Communism should be able to work, but can't because of the human factor.

Personally I don't like Communism because it relies too much on restricting freedom and the 'one party system'. I reckon that MPs (or Senators) should be unpaid so only people who've done their share of work and have a state pension would be able to stand, it wouldn't be an opportunity to make money.

If I have a memory tied to a specific plot of my land, or I have a house that I built with my two hands--or a relative did a hundred years ago, no amount of money will be able to compensate for it, if it's torn down or changed and "developed". There are some things that literally, money cannot afford.

There are compulsory purchase laws today, there wouldn't be much difference.

Okay, someone with resources gives a worker some of those resources, for the worker's own use, to make something with some other resources that the owner has. This worker agrees to do this. The worker does make something grand with the resources, and gets to keep the resources that the two parties agreed upon as payment. I don't see how that is exploitation. The "rich" person provided the raw materials and the payment for the "poor" person to get the end result that the "rich" person was looking for. That's not exploitation to me. That's commerce.

But the "rich" person only got the resources from another "poor" person. Taking metal as an example, it is mined from the ground by someone and the metal ore is then taken from them, the money they are given by the employer is only enough to buy back a small ammount of the ore. This is exploitation because if the "poor" person refused to work they would starve while the "rich" person could afford to buy food. By skimming profit off at each layer of industry the "rich" person can make a lot more money than the workers without working. I realise that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this and I respect that but I cannot accept this fundamental injustice.

I see socialism as theft because the government takes from me, without my permission, to give to someone else that didn't do the work to earn it. Or blew it on a project that I was absolutely against.

But currently money is taken from you by people who don't work to earn it and they get a lot more money than you. The only non-workers that Socialism would support would be those who are unable to work. Anyone who could work but was too lazy could rot for all I care.

I don't expect anyone to care about faceless strangers more than their friends or family, I admit that I don't. The theory is that by everyone working and the products of that work being shared equally everyone will get back nearly as much as they produced (with some taken out to help those who can't work).


Hmmm, I can see a problem with that model--eventually, the resources that the few put out will be depeleted by the larger populace (since there are more people to feed/clothe/medicate/protect than are working). And what about those that try harder? Or those that don't work as much?


It's a bit like the NHS in the UK. Everyone pays part of their income in taxes to fund hospitals and in return everyone receives free health care. I admit that a few people exploit the system but not many do and I think the good it does outweighs any problems.


And there is no competition by doctors. Everyone knows they will be going to the nearest doctor, since no rewards are given out for exemplary service. This can cause stagnation in the field, in both the customer service sense, and the medical advancement sense. Morals are great and all, but they can't continue to push an industry or service. There has to be a reward system of some sort. Capitalism rewards by giving more resources to those that work harder or smarter.


Logically I guess the settlers weren't actually 'American' until they controlled America so it's probably our fault, I blame the french. :p


I'm so THERE!


Sounds like it could have been a good idea, in the long term though it would have increased prices for imported goods so oranges and other tropical fruits would have been a rarity.


Yes, you pay for the items that require more work to obtain (importation, funding government programs without having to tax the citizenry, etc.)


Personally I don't like Communism because it relies too much on restricting freedom and the 'one party system'. I reckon that MPs (or Senators) should be unpaid so only people who've done their share of work and have a state pension would be able to stand, it wouldn't be an opportunity to make money.


Ours originally didn't have the boatloads of cash their counterparts have today. :mad:


There are compulsory purchase laws today, there wouldn't be much difference.


I know, and I don't agree with eminent domain in any sense.


But the "rich" person only got the resources from another "poor" person. Taking metal as an example, it is mined from the ground by someone and the metal ore is then taken from them, the money they are given by the employer is only enough to buy back a small ammount of the ore. This is exploitation because if the "poor" person refused to work they would starve while the "rich" person could afford to buy food.


The reason prices go up is due to the chain of processing--each processor has to make their own money along the way, or why else do it?


By skimming profit off at each layer of industry the "rich" person can make a lot more money than the workers without working. I realise that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this and I respect that but I cannot accept this fundamental injustice.


I guess there's the difference--I see it as a life factor, and you believe it can be removed from the equation somehow. And this is where respecting others' belief systems comes into play. I guess we're polite folk. :D


But currently money is taken from you by people who don't work to earn it and they get a lot more money than you.


My company is not-for-profit...heh. However, for those that run for-profit organizations, I just don't have an issue with someone getting to the line before me, with an idea as to how to make a decent living--and perfoming it with such economic efficiency that allows them to not have to do anything, but be able to make enough to pay someone else to run the endeavor. I think that's working smarter, to be honest. The market in the US isn't really as bad as many would have you think. I'm always seeing help wanted signs in a great many service industries--and they pay more than minimum wage.

It's the rampant consumerism and the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentaility that cause people to not go after jobs that don't "make enough money to live", when in reality, they surely will allow someone to survive with ease.


The only non-workers that Socialism would support would be those who are unable to work. Anyone who could work but was too lazy could rot for all I care.

But would the socialistic laws be able to peg those that didn't work? Unfortunately, it's too easy, in the US, to get away with doing very little and still feeding off the government.

Man, we keep writing books!

Hmmm, I can see a problem with that model--eventually, the resources that the few put out will be depeleted by the larger populace (since there are more people to feed/clothe/medicate/protect than are working). And what about those that try harder? Or those that don't work as much?

Most resources are virtually inexhaustable if used responsibly, resources such as oil need to be treated carefully and substituted anyway when neccessary. I think I answer your second point in the next part.

And there is no competition by doctors. Everyone knows they will be going to the nearest doctor, since no rewards are given out for exemplary service. This can cause stagnation in the field, in both the customer service sense, and the medical advancement sense. Morals are great and all, but they can't continue to push an industry or service. There has to be a reward system of some sort. Capitalism rewards by giving more resources to those that work harder or smarter.

Even in a Capitalist society some things are worth more than money, respect and honour are two of them. Do you think a millitary veteran would sell his Medal of Honour (that is your highest millitary medal isn't it?) unless he absolutely had to? I think the majority of people would be more motivated by being publicly recognised as a hard working and generally good individual than by a small pay rise. I don't know about America but in Britain a lot of civilian medals and honours go to celebrities and the owners of very large businesses (Bill Gates got an honoury Knighthood), in effect you can buy yourself a medal, by awarding medals purely on merit they will have a lot more meaning and there could be a ranking system for them.

I'm so THERE!

Where would we be if we couldn't blame France for everything? :D

Yes, you pay for the items that require more work to obtain (importation, funding government programs without having to tax the citizenry, etc.)

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of such things only being available to the rich.

Ours originally didn't have the boatloads of cash their counterparts have today. :mad:

Originally ours were unpaided but that was to stop anyone who wasn't very rich getting in.

I know, and I don't agree with eminent domain in any sense.

Fair enough.

The reason prices go up is due to the chain of processing--each processor has to make their own money along the way, or why else do it?

My point is that the 'rich' individual isn't actually doing anything constructive, they could be removed the process without any negative ramifications apart from the need for the workers to get organised.

I guess there's the difference--I see it as a life factor, and you believe it can be removed from the equation somehow. And this is where respecting others' belief systems comes into play. I guess we're polite folk. :D

You forgot clever, witty and very modest. :p

My company is not-for-profit...heh. However, for those that run for-profit organizations, I just don't have an issue with someone getting to the line before me, with an idea as to how to make a decent living--and perfoming it with such economic efficiency that allows them to not have to do anything, but be able to make enough to pay someone else to run the endeavor. I think that's working smarter, to be honest. The market in the US isn't really as bad as many would have you think. I'm always seeing help wanted signs in a great many service industries--and they pay more than minimum wage.

I suppose this is hard to debate as it's really opinion rather than fact.

It's the rampant consumerism and the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentaility that cause people to not go after jobs that don't "make enough money to live", when in reality, they surely will allow someone to survive with ease.

Survive: yes. Live: debateable.

But would the socialistic laws be able to peg those that didn't work? Unfortunately, it's too easy, in the US, to get away with doing very little and still feeding off the government.

Man, we keep writing books!

I think they should be able to. As everyone could be offered a job there would be no need for unemployment benifit. Keep writing those books. :)

Most resources are virtually inexhaustable if used responsibly, resources such as oil need to be treated carefully and substituted anyway when neccessary. I think I answer your second point in the next part.


The entire school of economics refutes that statement--no resource is inexhaustable.


Even in a Capitalist society some things are worth more than money, respect and honour are two of them. Do you think a millitary veteran would sell his Medal of Honour (that is your highest millitary medal isn't it?) unless he absolutely had to?


I would certainly hope they would hang onto that medal. It means they did something very self-sacrificing and giving. Too many of the kids in the US today, just don't see that.

I think the majority of people would be more motivated by being publicly recognised as a hard working and generally good individual than by a small pay rise.


You know, many companies are trying this in the US, and it's failing.


I don't know about America but in Britain a lot of civilian medals and honours go to celebrities and the owners of very large businesses (Bill Gates got an honoury Knighthood), in effect you can buy yourself a medal, by awarding medals purely on merit they will have a lot more meaning and there could be a ranking system for them.


Oh yeah, I know--the popularity contest ensues over here as well. There are more honorary degrees and such, as opposed to governmental recognitions, but it's still applicable (though, I thought it was impossible for anyone but a Brit to become a knight--or is it just the "Sir" part?).


Where would we be if we couldn't blame France for everything? :D


Blaming Luxembourg. I mean, c'mon! They're just waiting, like Canada, for the right time to invade Turkey. :D


True, but I was thinking more along the lines of such things only being available to the rich.


Depends on the price. If everyone wants their personal jet, sorry, that doesn't work. Everyone should have the chance to get the basics (hence my limited government support view), but no one has a right to a TV, VCR, DVD player, etc. You have to work for those.


My point is that the 'rich' individual isn't actually doing anything constructive, they could be removed the process without any negative ramifications apart from the need for the workers to get organised.


They paid for the infrastructure, by paying for the products from the farmers initially, paid the delivery folks, and paid for the warehouses that store the products, as well as paid for the stores that the products are sold in. Those didn't just appear due to a farmer. If the workers were to pay for all that, they wouldn't get any of the profits as they'd be too busy paying off the loan for the building to sell their wares in the first place.


You forgot clever, witty and very modest. :p


Indubitably!


I suppose this is hard to debate as it's really opinion rather than fact.


Good point.


Survive: yes. Live: debateable.


Yup. It all depends on your definition of live.


I think they should be able to. As everyone could be offered a job there would be no need for unemployment benifit. Keep writing those books. :)

Like I've said before, there are more jobs out there than unemployed workers in the US. Some can't work (there's the support system), and some won't "lower" themselves to take a job they don't want. Everyone can work here, for the most part. Many choose not to. They'd be the first to abuse the systems.

A leech, trying to leech of the rich, damn parasites.

The donkey is the official symbol of the Democratic party ;)
But you're on our socialist side. (the right... or should I say left side!) The Democrats are to the Right.

Also, socialism has a way of picking really, really evil leaders (Chiang Kai-Shek).
It's OK. I stopped reading here.

Statism is clearly more of a hinderance to free milk than Libertarianism is.

Tell that to Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher!

What animal embodies/represents socialism?


Roadkill.

A leech, trying to leech of the rich, damn parasites.

I'd say more that it didn't matter what "class", the leech takes from everyone. It wouldn't matter if the person were rich, middle class, or poor, they system takes from everyone.