NationStates Jolt Archive

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

Because they hate our freedom! :headbang:

Because capitolism has its faults. And like all economic systems man will create, it tends to destroy itself.

Historically?

-The idea of laborer-controlled economies vastly appealed to the oppressed working class of Europe.

-At the end of the 1920s, free market economies led to the Great Depression, which led to an interest in non-capitalist economics.

Philosophically?

-Some people prefer forced egalitarianism or dictatorship of the proletariat or whatever.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly. Socialism/Communism (ideally) ensures that nobody goes through this. And you must remember, Socialism and Communism, in their pure forms, do not neccesarily prevent Democracy.

-At the end of the 1920s, free market economies led to the Great Depression, which led to an interest in non-capitalist economics.

Technically the problem was the lack of culpability of the banks. otherwise there would have been a crash but the economic recovery would have only taken 2-3 years before it was climbing back up at a steady rate. However because the banks essentially failed most of the capital of the general populace was not present to assist in economic recovery.

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly. Socialism/Communism (ideally) ensures that nobody goes through this. And you must remember, Socialism and Communism, in their pure forms, do not neccesarily prevent Democracy.
Which until energy becomes overabundant and manufacturing most things becomes near effortless will not be able to exist.

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly. Socialism/Communism (ideally) ensures that nobody goes through this. And you must remember, Socialism and Communism, in their pure forms, do not neccesarily prevent Democracy.
Yes but this isnt an ideal world. And whenever socialism or communism have been attempted to be used they fail miserably and lead to unelected governments. Capitalism on the other hand creates nothing but jobs, economic growth and high wages.

You're right Linthiopia, under socialism, everyone starves. Not everyone is always going to be able to afford everthing. That's why there are charaties.

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly. Socialism/Communism (ideally) ensures that nobody goes through this. And you must remember, Socialism and Communism, in their pure forms, do not neccesarily prevent Democracy.

And I'm a Social Democrat so I have an excuse to explain the differences.

Not that this is a direct support for socialism and communism, and I’d agree that Soviet-style planned economies are indeed unworkable and undemocratic; mainly due to their innefficiency, over-centralisation and absurdist bureaucracy; but I’d pick a bone with you about the ‘free market’.

Exactly how free is it, especially outside of the Third World? Throughout history, economies in the Western world have been developed by intensive state-intervention; huge protectionist tarrifs on foreign imports, masive state and big-business subsidies, restricing imports, companies being bailed out with taxpayers money etc.

The idea of a completely free market is an illusion.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

I don't think capitalism is sufficient, although that isn't a reason to endorse socialism.

And how does the free market=elected government? And furthermore, you do realize that democracy is a collectivist government, correct?

Because the idea of an economy for it's own sake, seems perfectly senseless to me. What's the point of employing capitalism if it doesn't benefit everyone?

I'm not in favour of true free market capitalism, but I'm more than willing to give it a shot. I don't anticipate that it'd be nearly as bad as the corporate/protectionist capitalism we all have today, I just don't think it will be sufficient - but given the obvious chance of improving current conditions, I'm all for trying it.the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people.That's only true because no alternative has been tried. You might as well hold Sweden up as everything a society should aspire to be, because it's the nicest place to live on the planet (on average, in material terms). Such a statement says nothing about how 'good' Sweden actually is. If anything it simply hilights how patheticly bad the rest of us are at running our countries.

Protectionist capitalism has kept & keeps roughly 80% of the worlds peoples poor, for the benefit of the other 20%. That's a fact, not a hollow appeal to emotion. I utterly fail to see how that is a 'success'. To me, it looks like a horrendous failure. Free market capitalism, as understood by our collective governments, is a fucking disaster - and has nothing to do with actual free market capitalism.

Yes but this isnt an ideal world. And whenever socialism or communism have been attempted to be used they fail miserably and lead to unelected governments. Capitalism on the other hand creates nothing but jobs, economic growth and high wages.
The kind of high wages Chile had in the 1980s.

The kind of high wages Chile had in the 1980s.

Actually, Chile has one of the healthiest and most diversified economies in South America as well as a functioning republic. The excesses of Pinochet were horrendous, but introducing capitalism to Chile has done a lot to reduce the poverty and unemployment that dog other South American states. However, that does not excuse the murder of Salvador Allende; rather, it shows that capitalism does bring prosperity.

The same is true for China, India, and the OECD; it's raising the living standards of 4 billion people and helping to solve the environmental, political and economic problems that still affect the world.

There are socialists and communists because aggravating for change that could actually happen is too much work.

Yes but this isnt an ideal world. And whenever socialism or communism have been attempted to be used they fail miserably and lead to unelected governments. Capitalism on the other hand creates nothing but jobs, economic growth and high wages.

And managers that earn 500 times more than their employees without good reason. Oh - and the occasional economic collapse of course. But that I can deem acceptable.

More important is the effect capitalism has on other countries. The 80-20% was already mentioned. The forced introduction of capitalism in many third world countries through development aid has also lead to a significant increase in poverty in those countries. People do in fact earn much more money than they used to (1 dollar is 10 times more than 10cts after all), but the existing social and economic structures were destroyed. So they earn more, personally own more, but can use less.

Yes but this isnt an ideal world. And whenever socialism or communism have been attempted to be used they fail miserably and lead to unelected governments. Capitalism on the other hand creates nothing but jobs, economic growth and high wages.
"Nothing but" ... you said it.
China was as communist as they come. They still claim to be, for what that's worth. Yep, here comes China, failing like all-get-out. :p

Heres are some rules/facts of Capitalism:

1. 5% of the global population owns 95% of it's wealth (The unequal disrtibution of wealth). LEGAL!
2. Those who have the most get to make all the rules.
3. The more money you got, the more you can make.
4. The less money you got, the less you can get.
5. The poorer you are, the more expensive everything is.
6. The poorer you are, the iller you will be; the sooner you will die, and the worse off your kids will be.
7. The poorer you are, the worse your education will be, and the worse your job will be.
8. The worse the pay, the harder the job.
9. The higher they pay, the easier the job.
10. If you're really rich, you're a capitalist; you don't need to do any work at all.
11. The poor pay for every mistake made by the rich.
12. Rich people start wars, the poor people have to fight.
13. Most people get rich by inheriting.
14. Most poor people stay poor through hard work, thrift, and sacrifice.

Thats enough rules,

You decide, have I made made these up, or do they sound like things you've thought as well. Now tell me, do you actually agree with these rules?

Socialism is the exact opposite.

China was as communist as they come.
Yeah, and wasn't that fun...

They still claim to be, for what that's worth. Yep, here comes China, failing like all-get-out. :p
Well, they're not anymore. Deng Xiaopeng said that it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. That used to make Mao wild, and you know why.
China is no longer communist. They're probably best described as a modern approximation of Mussolini-type fascism. Except that this time, it's working (to an extent).

"In a proper communist world there would be no war, because the whole world would be a union. You must not forget that communism has not been properly achived untill all the nations in the world are communistic, and fused together."

Heres are some rules/facts of Capitalism...
By the same token:

The Rules of Socialism

1. 1% of the global population owns 95% of it's wealth, "on behalf of" everyone else.
2. Those with the guns get to make all the rules.
3. The more money you got, the more they can take away from you.
4. The less money you got, the less dangerous you are to the leaders.
5. The poorer you are, the less quality foreign imports you get.
6. Regardless of your income, your doctor will be ill-qualified to do anything more than basic GP services. All the specialists have fled or are in re-education camp.
7. Regardless of your income, don't expect anything more than some basic reading and writing skills from your education.
8. All jobs are backbreakingly hard, and you have to do them or else you get shot.
9. Except if you're a big figure in the party.
10. If you're really rich, you get shot.
11. You don't pay for your own mistakes, everyone else does.
12. Party leaders start wars, the poor people have to fight.
13. Most people get rich by stealing and corruption.
14. Everyone stays poor through hard work, thrift, and sacrifice.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
Because some people have had and continue to have the delusion that forcibly controling the economy will somehow help the poor. They feel that by limiting those who succeed and "leveling the playing field" helps the less advantaged. In reality, it simply relegates everyone to the poor (or at least lower-class) status and creates a gigantic bureacracy with little purpose, other than to restrict personal and economic rights.

And please, don't argue about the "ideas" and the "theoretical applications" or whatever, of communism, because the hard fact is every communist government on this planet has failed in the exact same way.

By the same token:

The Rules of Socialism

1. 1% of the global population owns 95% of it's wealth, "on behalf of" everyone else.
2. Those with the guns get to make all the rules.
3. The more money you got, the more they can take away from you.
4. The less money you got, the less dangerous you are to the leaders.
5. The poorer you are, the less quality foreign imports you get.
6. Regardless of your income, your doctor will be ill-qualified to do anything more than basic GP services. All the specialists have fled or are in re-education camp.
7. Regardless of your income, don't expect anything more than some basic reading and writing skills from your education.
8. All jobs are backbreakingly hard, and you have to do them or else you get shot.
9. Except if you're a big figure in the party.
10. If you're really rich, you get shot.
11. You don't pay for your own mistakes, everyone else does.
12. Party leaders start wars, the poor people have to fight.
13. Most people get rich by stealing and corruption.
14. Everyone stays poor through hard work, thrift, and sacrifice.


You are only describing past failures at creating a communist world. The only reason they failed is because they were surrounded by capialist pigs like you that didnt want to give up their wealth/power to the less fortunate that you created!

Because some of us feel that we have a collective responsibility to eachother.

Now, why are some people selfish?

You are only describing past failures at creating a communist world.
Hehe, yeah. Those with the real people in them.

The only reason they failed is because they were surrounded by capialist pigs like you that didnt want to give up their wealth/power to the less fortunate that you created!
Oh, I wish. I'm actually a poor student. I earn my living delivering pizzas (half of the money goes to my family, because otherwise they couldn't pay their rent). I don't own anything but a few shares I bought with my savings, although my grandma also gave me some of them (:eek:). The dividends and my labour pay for my education, which will make me money later on.

I thought that was just a little bit more realistic than sitting on the sidelines yelling for rich people to get killed or disposessed so I can have their stuff.

Well, of course socialism and communism suckz, but pure capitalism has some faults too. In Germany we have a social market economy. This is capitalism with some social benefits for our citizens. I think this is the best way.

You are only describing past failures at creating a communist world.
If by past failures, you mean every attempted communist regime in history, than you're right.
The only reason they failed is because they were surrounded by capialist pigs like you that didnt want to give up their wealth/power to the less fortunate that you created!
Now now, there's no need for that. We simply feel that each person should succeed or fail on their own merits. If someone decides to be a lazy ass and not work, then they diserve to be poor. That simple.

EDIT: Neu Leonstein beat me too it >.<

I think this is the best way.
But difficult to manage, as you well know...

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,425346,00.html

And while you're at it...it was Ludwig Erhard who started the social market economy, Wilhelm Röpke was the principal theorist behind it. And Röpke was a libertarian.
http://www.mises.org/content/roepke.asp

By the same token:

The Rules of Socialism

1. 1% of the global population owns 95% of it's wealth, "on behalf of" everyone else.
2. Those with the guns get to make all the rules.
3. The more money you got, the more they can take away from you.
4. The less money you got, the less dangerous you are to the leaders.
5. The poorer you are, the less quality foreign imports you get.
6. Regardless of your income, your doctor will be ill-qualified to do anything more than basic GP services. All the specialists have fled or are in re-education camp.
7. Regardless of your income, don't expect anything more than some basic reading and writing skills from your education.
8. All jobs are backbreakingly hard, and you have to do them or else you get shot.
9. Except if you're a big figure in the party.
10. If you're really rich, you get shot.
11. You don't pay for your own mistakes, everyone else does.
12. Party leaders start wars, the poor people have to fight.
13. Most people get rich by stealing and corruption.
14. Everyone stays poor through hard work, thrift, and sacrifice.

That is not socialism. That is a dictatorship.

That is not socialism. That is a dictatorship.
Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to confuse the two.

Now now, there's no need for that. We simply feel that each person should succeed or fail on their own merits. If someone decides to be a lazy ass and not work, then they diserve to be poor. That simple.


Too bad capitalism doesn't work that way either. Some people are born at the bottom with no way of climbing up the ladder; their best hope being a lifetime of stitching clothing for wealthy westerners...having to work harder than any us ever will.

Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to confuse the two.
Mainly because since every socialist/communist regime in history has been a dictatorship.

As hard as it is to ignore this fact, it is the truth. Communism does not work with real people. It is contrary to both human nature and human rights.

Some people are born at the bottom with no way of climbing up the ladder
Actually, as previous post have stated, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of those who climbed the latter. But, however, you are confusing the third world (which currently has no economic system), with the poor in the western world (which I believe this debate is about).

Actually, as previous post have stated, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of those who climbed the latter. But, however, you are confusing the third world (which currently has no economic system), with the poor in the western world (which I believe this debate is about).
They must have some kind of economic system. You are just being lazy cuz you want to be poor.

Actually, as previous post have stated, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of those who climbed the latter. But, however, you are confusing the third world (which currently has no economic system), with the poor in the western world (which I believe this debate is about).

The debate is about "Why are some socialist/communist?"
The functioning of global capitalism is absolutely germane. No confusion there. You're trying to limit the scope of the debate because global poverty is EXACTLY what's wrong with capitalism.

Mainly because since every socialist/communist regime in history has been a dictatorship.

Do the western European countries know ?

Actually, as previous post have stated, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of those who climbed the latter. But, however, you are confusing the third world (which currently has no economic system), with the poor in the western world (which I believe this debate is about).

No...

We live in a global economy that with every passing day, increasingly relies upon cheap labour from "developing" countries in order to maintain economic growth in the West.

It is important to think of capitalism as such. It is not confined within individual nations.

The Western world is hardly representative of global economic reality. Most people in advanced nations are indeed born with enough potential capital to start at least a small business. (not saying I believe that exploitation doesn't occur in western nations, however...but the richest 10% of the world is nevertheless the far upper tier.). For the vast majority of the world, this isn't the case.

Actually, as previous post have stated, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of those who climbed the latter. But, however, you are confusing the third world (which currently has no economic system), with the poor in the western world (which I believe this debate is about).

Thats not what this debate is about. And tens thousands of people is nothing compared to the millions of people forced to live in slums and gutters while the capitalist sit in unneeded, over-sized houses and decide that so-and-so needs to be fired or we'll lose money. And who do you think gave them the title "Third-World?" Those with money/power that put them in a lower-class.

Good night everybody; I have to wake up early tomorrow. If this debate is still going, I'll join back in. C'ya till then.

Actually, as previous post have stated, there are literally tens of thousands of examples of those who climbed the latter. But, however, you are confusing the third world (which currently has no economic system), with the poor in the western world (which I believe this debate is about).

The third world countries did have economic systems - just none that were compatible with our global idea of a free market. They tended to work just fine - or at least better than a free market system for the people involved - on small local scales though.

Of course, forcing socialism on them would also have destroyed those economies.

Because some people believe that not allowing you to control your own rightfully earned assets and safeguard your own rights is a form of justice.

Thats not what this debate is about. And tens thousands of people is nothing compared to the millions of people forced to live in slums and gutters while the capitalist sit in unneeded, over-sized houses and decide that so-and-so needs to be fired or we'll lose money. And who do you think gave them the title "Third-World?" Those with money/power that put them in a lower-class.

I think the number's in the billions, actually...

Mainly because since every socialist/communist regime in history has been a dictatorship.

Sweden is socialist, and they are democratic.

Because some people believe that not allowing you to control your own rightfully earned assets and safeguard your own rights is a form of justice.

You mean that when the cops come for my coke stockpile, I can blow them away with a chain-gun? Outstanding!

Sweden is socialist, and they are democratic.

so·cial·ism
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Nope, don't see it. Last I checked, they had a monarchy too.

so·cial·ism
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Nope, don't see it. Last I checked, they had a monarchy too.

Why does that conflict with definition 1 ?

You mean that when the cops come for my coke stockpile, I can blow them away with a chain-gun? Outstanding!
Yes, you can. You can also get sentenced to death for it. ;) In my ideal world at least, anyway, all drugs will be legal... so that's a moot point.

Why does that conflict with definition 1 ?

Because Sweden is run along capitalist lines and the workers are not empowered?

so·cial·ism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Sigh. OK, it can't be socialist if it doesn't comply with Mirriam-Webster's definition.
Just about everyone owns shares in some way. Got a pension plan? Money in the bank? You own shares. "the means [of production] is owned collectively." We're socialists.

Your government builds roads and bridges? Buys weapons for it's army? It's doing these things for the common good, so it's socialist. Let's not even start on the subject of subsidies, industrial regulation or education. Socialist, the lot of them.

The more important idea here is "why do some people want more socialism, rather than less?" And I think it's been well addressed by several of the posters. Thanks to them for making more sense than I do.

I wonder..

When it's possible to own the food supplies, the water supplies, the sanitation, the power supplies & so on, how come no one's claimed ownership of the air supply yet?

And eh.. Who do I bribe for the right to buy it?

And how does the free market=elected government?


This may be a reference to democratic peace theory. It has been observed, in the study of international relations, that modern democracies do not go to war with each other (edit: instead, they spend their free time blasting the hell out of smaller, less democratic countries). Many theories are proposed to explain this observation: the widely accepted legitimacy of the democratic process, using the mechanism and institutions of said process is preferable to war, widespread membership in collective security/international organizations like the UN or NATO, interdependence created by the international capitalist market system where destroying their economy is also to destroy our economy.

There is much debate, however, over whether "free market," "globalization" or other phenomina related to capitalism are responsible for widespread democracy and the lack of war between said democracies. Chiefly, it's a "chicken and egg" sort of issue: which came first, democracy or markets? Plus, as listed above, there are any number of explainations for the current state of things, "free markets" being only one of them.

Then there is, of course, the counterargument that international economic globalization, and the institutions thereof, are inherently undemocratic and exist for the sole purpose of advancing only the interests of the multinational corporation, the state, and the wealthy and otherwise socially advantaged who command and control both... :eek: edit: not that this process is somehow unique to capitalism, of course.


And furthermore, you do realize that democracy is a collectivist government, correct?

All human activity is collectivist or social to some extent. A market could not function otherwise.

I wonder..

When it's possible to own the food supplies, the water supplies, the sanitation, the power supplies & so on, how come no one's claimed ownership of the air supply yet?

And eh.. Who do I bribe for the right to buy it?
You don't. You just start charging people for it. If some people pay up, you use the money to lobby and sue your way into a monopoly.

What the hell are you talking about Socialism doesnt work, its in several countries. And it can run fine with Democracy if you want it too. When it comes to Communism, Humanity simply isnt ready for that yet.

Free market sucks. Along with Privatized helthcare. You think otherwise? you never have been poor in America. There are so, so, many MANY hard working americans WHO GET SHIT! for money. The poor here are forced to be so by corperate monopolys on the government. I know people who graduated from a 4-year collage and after 30 years and shit loads of work are farther behind than when they started. Capitalism is bullshit. Insurance is bullshit. Socialism and communism is much better. If you dont agree then you've never been on the bottom, you've only watched from the top and made excuses like, oh, they are lazy and foolish, they belong there, fucking aristochracy. The middle class is being evoporated before our eyes and creating a huge rift of Rich vs. Poor, then we all know what happens. The Rich are bloodgened, raped, and plundered. and rightfully so. Capitalism is simply another word for greed, and so will be its downfall god willing. The French Revolution and the October Revolutions were the best things to happen on this planet.

Sigh. OK, it can't be socialist if it doesn't comply with Mirriam-Webster's definition.
Just about everyone owns shares in some way. Got a pension plan? Money in the bank? You own shares. "the means [of production] is owned collectively." We're socialists.

That would hold true if all of the workers held the same stake in the company and recieved their payment through dividends. They don't. There are rich and poor in any capitalist country - in Sweden, too.

Your government builds roads and bridges? Buys weapons for it's army? It's doing these things for the common good, so it's socialist. Let's not even start on the subject of subsidies, industrial regulation or education. Socialist, the lot of them.

Pish, the government could do these things for its own good rather than any concern over social obligations and still enforce a skewed class and ownership system. (and indeed, has - feudalism/mercantilism, anyone?)

Your government builds roads and bridges? Buys weapons for it's army? It's doing these things for the common good, so it's socialist. Let's not even start on the subject of subsidies, industrial regulation or education. Socialist, the lot of them.
Pish, the government could do these things for its own good rather than any concern over social obligations and still enforce a skewed class and ownership system. (and indeed, has - feudalism/mercantilism, anyone?)
Depends on how you look at it. An idealist (eg a Socialist) would say that the govt does these things for the common good, and note that it gets them re-elected.
On the other hand, a rationalist (eg small-govt freemarketeer) would say the govt is taxing and spending to support a beaurocracy, with themselves in the cushy place at the top, and note in passing that people are using the roads and getting an education.
The cat catches mice, I say.

Being a "glass is half-full" sort of guy, I credit government with good intentions, based on good outcomes. You needn't agree.

because in capitalism there is pretty much no equality
Capitalism can even be blamed for the sinking of the tiatanic!

Capitalism is the Devil's money laundering system!

because in capitalism there is pretty much no equality
Capitalism can even be blamed for the sinking of the tiatanic!

Welcome. Capitalism can be blamed for anything! Doesn't seem to worry it much. ;)

Poverty rate in the USA in 2004 = 12.7%

Poverty in Cuba in 2004 = 4.8%

Make of the (slightly old) stats what you will.

Poverty rate in the USA in 2004 = 12.7%
Poverty in Cuba in 2004 = 4.8%
Make of the (slightly old) stats what you will.

Poverty depends on the definition. CIA world factbook gives a GDP per person that's less than a tenth of the US's. Yes, it's possible that everyone there's pretty comfortable on $3000 a year, but I don't think you've proved that.

One thing that's pretty obvious is that Cuba would be doing a lot better if they could sell sugar and cigars into the US market. And please no-one start blathering about human rights as a reason to try to starve Castro out. :mutter: Saudi Arabia, China :mutter: It's just because they call themselves communists, and too many people haven't got out of the Cold War yet.
I've got a suspicion its something to do with the mafia wanting their sugar plantations back, but I can't prove that.

Poverty depends on the definition. CIA world factbook gives a GDP per person that's less than a tenth of the US's. Yes, it's possible that everyone there's pretty comfortable on $3000 a year, but I don't think you've proved that.

One thing that's pretty obvious is that Cuba would be doing a lot better if they could sell sugar and cigars into the US market. And please no-one start blathering about human rights as a reason to try to starve Castro out. :mutter: Saudi Arabia, China :mutter: It's just because they call themselves communists, and too many people haven't got out of the Cold War yet.
I've got a suspicion its something to do with the mafia wanting their sugar plantations back, but I can't prove that.


Why then, I'll give you another reason to starve castro out: zero marxism tolerance.

Why then, I'll give you another reason to starve castro out: zero marxism tolerance.

"Zero Tolerance" ... it's a joke, right ?

"Zero Tolerance" ... it's a joke, right ?

After the GULAG and the Cultural Revolution.... nope, I ain't kidding.
Non patieris vivere.

Why then, I'll give you another reason to starve castro out: zero marxism tolerance.

Hey, is there anyone BogMarsh actually likes?:p

Hey, is there anyone BogMarsh actually likes?:p

Yep :) Mstreet...
Centrists in general
The War Democrats
The CofE.
Federalist Europeans.

Yep :) Mstreet...
Centrists in general
The War Democrats
The CofE.
Federalist Europeans.

So I now know four European Federalists (bar me). w00t!

Hey, is there anyone BogMarsh actually likes?:p

me!

Yep :) Mstreet...
Centrists in general
The War Democrats
The CofE.
Federalist Europeans.

u said that already... tsk

So I now know four European Federalists (bar me). w00t!

YaY!

Our Federal Union - it must be preserved!

u said that already... tsk

Of course! :fluffle:

The Rich are bloodgened, raped, and plundered. and rightfully so. Capitalism is simply another word for greed, and so will be its downfall god willing. The French Revolution and the October Revolutions were the best things to happen on this planet.


No. what actually happens during a revolution is the rich can afford to bribe their way out, leaving the poor schmoos who tried to earn their living by working for them to the tender delights of the Guillitine... or 9mm revolutionary justice... or if they lucky 25 yrs in the gulag

Then some murdering bugger emerges from the revolutionary cause... seizes power by fear/bribery/outright murder, and then oppresses everyone more than the rich ever used too......

Then claims his country is communist/socialist and shoots anyone who argues otherwise..... ref. USSR.... China .... North Korea ... Cuba .... Vietnam .. Cambodia.....

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

Because it hasn't. In every society you talk about there is always a very large working class. And contary to popular belief, the USSR and the PRC are not socialist.

Because it hasn't. In every society you talk about there is always a very large working class. And contary to popular belief, the USSR and the PRC are not socialist.

Unless you show me a real, honest-to-God-working-socialist-country, that's a distinction without a difference.

Yes but this isnt an ideal world. And whenever socialism or communism have been attempted to be used they fail miserably and lead to unelected governments. Capitalism on the other hand creates nothing but jobs, economic growth and high wages.
The population of Europe, especially that of Sweden, which has the longest life expectancy of anywhere in the world, great freedom, and a lot of money, would hasten to disagree.

Unless you show me a real, honest-to-God-working-socialist-country, that's a distinction without a difference.
Sweden.

Sweden.

Oh, ok. Sweden is quite nice.

Oh, ok. Sweden is quite nice.
And capitalist.

And capitalist.
I think you'll find it's very socialist. The poorest there are much better off lifestyle-wise than most countries which are similarly wealthy.

I think you'll find it's very socialist. The poorest there are much better off lifestyle-wise than most countries which are similarly wealthy.Not only that. They don't mind paying their taxes.

It's a general trend, methinks. In the wealthy countries, the more social & economic equality there is, the less people feel their tax money's wasted.

It's one of the things I positively adore about the Scandinavian nations; even the economic liberals are reasonably fond of the heavy-handed taxes. Hell, I don't think it's more than a month ago I last saw a poll where more than 50% of the economic liberals wanted a slight income tax increase.

Compared to a place like America where the poor are about as well off as civilians in a war zone, I think the evil totalitarian mini-HilterStalins of Scandinavia might be on to something.

Capitalism seems to be working world wide... 1 billion people live in luxury, another couple of billion get by, and 3 billion people live in poverty, 1 billion of those in extreme poverty. More than 800 million people go hungry every day, 30,000 children die every day due to hunger and treatable illness, while the GDP of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

Capitalism seems to be working world wide... I see now. I was wrong to call it "failing". Obviously it is working really well.

I just hadn't realised the point was to eradicate people & cause widespread suffering.

He was being sarcastic. Anyhow... Socialism and Communism are not all about totalarian dictators. Theyre about people not starving, not being poor, being equal and such.

Paris Commune?

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

They are mentally challenged.

Both systems in extreme don't work, you need capitalism to run the economy but some socialism for government services and to control the excesses of capitalism.

you can't have capitalism and socialism you can have democracy and socialism or communism and capitalism but not capitalism and socialism they are both money systems. Spain democratic socialism.

You are only describing past failures at creating a communist world. The only reason they failed is because they were surrounded by capialist pigs like you that didnt want to give up their wealth/power to the less fortunate that you created!

Russia and China were "less fortunate?" Sorry bud, but you can't get much wealthier than those nations, and all of those "rules" were true there.

Poverty rate in the USA in 2004 = 12.7%

Poverty in Cuba in 2004 = 4.8%

Make of the (slightly old) stats what you will.

Cuba Per Capita GDP: $3,500
US Per Capita GDP: $41,800

Not only that, but Cuban poverty is a hell of a lot more dire than poverty in the US. Hell, the average poor person in the US has more amenities than the average Cuban and a lot more freedom. I'll take the US any day, especially since we have great concepts like freedom of speech and assembly. Good luck trying to use the Internet or protest against the government in Cuba...

The population of Europe, especially that of Sweden, which has the longest life expectancy of anywhere in the world, great freedom, and a lot of money, would hasten to disagree.

That's because they're capitalist, not socialist. In order to be socialist, the means of production have to be publically owned, and no European state has that kind of economic model. Even Sweden doesn't have a publically owned economy.

I just hadn't realised the point was to eradicate people & cause widespread suffering.

If by that you mean eradicating poverty in China and India and developing strong economies with rising wages and living standards for most of the world's population then you're correct. Right now, 2.3 billion people are seeing their living standards soar thanks to capitalism...the rise of China and India and the development of the OECD are the most powerful proofs of the effectiveness of capitalism in the world.

Pure socialism/communism is flawed to almost an identical level to pure capitalism i.e. no restraints on the market and no welfare. In the case of socialism people suffer because of the need for an all-controlling state where individuality is despised and repressed, whereas in pure capitalism some people cannot even achieve a subsistence level of food, shelter and health. WELFARE/PROGRESSIVE capitalism on the other hand avoids to a certain extent the disadvantages of the extremes. THIS system provides the most prosperity to the greatest number, and has as a result become generally accepted. Socialism/Communism has failed no more than pure capitalism. *Awaits far-right backlash along the lines of "But the poor SHOULD die!"*

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

Capitalism hasn't been proven to do anything of the sort.
Capitialism gives the illusion of success because it is founded upon philosophically flawed values.
People say Capitalism works, which is true, it does work.
But AIDS works, Atomic Bombs work God help us genocide probably works as well, but that does not make them ethically justified.

Capitalism disenfranchises millions, and creates a feudal system that is completely contrary to democracy and freedom. It creates massive poverty and robs people of their most basic rights, it is only because of governments keeping capitalism in check that the world has not already fallen to complete ruin.

Study your history and learn a bit about the world as it was when Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, it certainly wasn't a paradise, it was a blighted existence run by slave drivers. Thankfully Socialist reforms have reigned in capitalists since then, though we haven't yet done enough.

Capitalism disenfranchises millions, and creates a feudal system that is completely contrary to democracy and freedom. It creates massive poverty and robs people of their most basic rights, it is only because of governments keeping capitalism in check that the world has not already fallen to complete ruin..

Is it merely coincidental that the richest and freest countries are all capitalist? Also, is it coincidental that poverty has fallen since trade liberalization began in the 1950's?

Socialism does more to repress, impoverish, and destroy the wellbeing of those it is imposed on than any system in existence.

This may be a reference to democratic peace theory. It has been observed, in the study of international relations, that modern democracies do not go to war with each other (edit: instead, they spend their free time blasting the hell out of smaller, less democratic countries). Many theories are proposed to explain this observation: the widely accepted legitimacy of the democratic process, using the mechanism and institutions of said process is preferable to war, widespread membership in collective security/international organizations like the UN or NATO, interdependence created by the international capitalist market system where destroying their economy is also to destroy our economy.

There is much debate, however, over whether "free market," "globalization" or other phenomina related to capitalism are responsible for widespread democracy and the lack of war between said democracies. Chiefly, it's a "chicken and egg" sort of issue: which came first, democracy or markets? Plus, as listed above, there are any number of explainations for the current state of things, "free markets" being only one of them.

Then there is, of course, the counterargument that international economic globalization, and the institutions thereof, are inherently undemocratic and exist for the sole purpose of advancing only the interests of the multinational corporation, the state, and the wealthy and otherwise socially advantaged who command and control both... :eek: edit: not that this process is somehow unique to capitalism, of course.

I will certainly agree that interdependency amongst economies promotes stability between the two, I have made that point before, but have we had an actual chance to see how a socialistic economy would act if it achieved interdependency?

I would also say that there is a definite correlation between the rise of capitalism and the rise of democracy. Throughout history it is observed that those who are able to get wealth have also managed to get political power. As wealth spreads out, so does political power.

All human activity is collectivist or social to some extent. A market could not function otherwise.

No doubt about that, but democracy is enforced collectivism. The market allows for subjective valuation while being collective through competition and substitution.

Is it merely coincidental that the richest and freest countries are all capitalist? Also, is it coincidental that poverty has fallen since trade liberalization began in the 1950's?

Socialism does more to repress, impoverish, and destroy the wellbeing of those it is imposed on than any system in existence.

Your statistics are grossly misused. America has a very small very rich elite, but also massive levels of poverty. It is also worth remembering that capitalist countries base a great deal of their economy on the exploitation of weaker countries, so whilst you may become more prosperous it is because you are surrounded by the poverty your system creates. America has often helped overthrow democratically elected leaders in favour of dictators that will support America's exploitation of their people.

Your statement that the "freest" countries are all capitalist is a subjective one, and not a salient fact.
Many people do not consider America to be a free nation, and capitalism is a philosophy fundementally opposed to true freedom. Capitalism is freedom without responsibility, it allows people to harm others without restraint or recompense. The only time that capitalism is implemented succesfully, is when it is held back by socialist restraints

Pure Communism would suck, like we see in Cuban, but under a Democratic goverment, with Socialist laws implemented in it, but still keeping the good parts of capitalism and taking the bad parts out and we would have a winner.
Honestly ideas like free health care and and cheaper or free education to college levels would be some socialist ideas that would benefit poor people and lift them up. So a bit more taxes for the richer people booho..to bad get over it. At the end we would have a more fairer system were poor people would be brought out and given a more fairer chance to rise in the economic ladder. Full Communism= BAD Full Capitalism= Just as Bad. Middle road mixture of both= GOOD.

Solaris-X

I would agree with you, though i think many would disagree about where that "middle line" is to be drawn

Your statistics are grossly misused. America has a very small very rich elite, but also massive levels of poverty. It is also worth remembering that capitalist countries base a great deal of their economy on the exploitation of weaker countries, so whilst you may become more prosperous it is because you are surrounded by the poverty your system creates. America has often helped overthrow democratically elected leaders in favour of dictators that will support America's exploitation of their people.

America has a very large middle class and considerable social mobility; however, we have to make sure that those at the bottom have the ability to do so if they put the effort in, and that is a place where America is currently failing. We're not perfect, but our system does work when regulated and that is something socialism has never achieved. It has always failed regardless of the form used when it is applied on a national level. Poverty is falling worldwide and median real income is rising; these statistics are hard to dispute especially when the proof can be seen in the physical economic development of India and China or the standard of living most Westerners have that is higher than any time in the past.

The Cold War murders committed by the US are unacceptable. There's no way to justify them and they stand as a monument to the stupidity of the Cold War and the danger of both capitalism and communism when used for political pressure rather than economics.

Your statement that the "freest" countries are all capitalist is a subjective one, and not a salient fact. Many people do not consider America to be a free nation, and capitalism is a philosophy fundementally opposed to true freedom. Capitalism is freedom without responsibility, it allows people to harm others without restraint or recompense. The only time that capitalism is implemented succesfully, is when it is held back by socialist restraints

The OECD is entirely democratic, and they also have the highest living standards and most civil rights overall in the world. They are also capitalist; furthermore, representative government and civil rights arose first in nations with the freest economies and remain denied to those with closed economies. It's a circumstantial relationship but has proof when the economic system of repressive states is compared with the democratic ones.

Well, of course. No system can be implemented in pure form, but capitalism does edge out socialism because it can survive in a modified form whereas socialism can't and will degenerate in to corruption and oppression. Every socialist state has failed or is failing, while ever

America has a very large middle class and considerable social mobility; however, we have to make sure that those at the bottom have the ability to do so if they put the effort in, and that is a place where America is currently failing. We're not perfect, but our system does work when regulated and that is something socialism has never achieved. It has always failed regardless of the form used when it is applied on a national level. Poverty is falling worldwide and median real income is rising; these statistics are hard to dispute especially when the proof can be seen in the physical economic development of India and China or the standard of living most Westerners have that is higher than any time in the past.

The Cold War murders committed by the US are unacceptable. There's no way to justify them and they stand as a monument to the stupidity of the Cold War and the danger of both capitalism and communism when used for political pressure rather than economics.



The OECD is entirely democratic, and they also have the highest living standards and most civil rights overall in the world. They are also capitalist; furthermore, representative government and civil rights arose first in nations with the freest economies and remain denied to those with closed economies. It's a circumstantial relationship but has proof when the economic system of repressive states is compared with the democratic ones.

Well, of course. No system can be implemented in pure form, but capitalism does edge out socialism because it can survive in a modified form whereas socialism can't and will degenerate in to corruption and oppression. Every socialist state has failed or is failing, while ever


You cannot possibly point at socialism for it's instances of corruption whilst defending capitalism, a system of equal corruption, where the rich become policy makers instead of the people. The problem of corruption is a human failing, and not a failing of any particular political system. Though it is interesting to note that when Communist countries do experience corruption, it is capitalism that is the corrupting force, i.e. officials taking more than their fair share and powerful companies bribing the government.

The argument that socialism falls to corruption is tantamount to saying that "lawful governments always experience crime so we should lapse to a wholly criminal government"

Your "if they put the effort in" statement is very telling of the truth behind capitalism, the fact is, that in a capitalist system, their are victors and victems. and yes, if you're big and strong enough you can become a victor, anyone can. But the fact is everyone can't win capitalism relies on some people being poor so that others can be rich.
America's middle class may grow fat, but the economies that America is in the business of raping grow frail and weak, look at south America or the sweatshops run aborad (because American law protects its on people from slave labour but not people abroad). Capitalism is a fundementally viral philosophy, and though it raises GDP it does not raise quality of life or happiness. Does it suprise you that one quarter of Americans need to use anti-depressants?

Poverty is falling in India and China, two countries experiencing a boom because they have chosen to exploit rather than be exploited, but for each country that pushes itself up, other weaker countries get pushed further down.

Many dictatorships have been capitalists, capitalism has always, only guaranteed freedom for an elite, and not the whole. America has a high level of personal freedom (though it lacks many other freedoms) though in order to maintain this it has needed corporate-controlled dictatorships abroad. You cannot consider America's freedom without also taking into account the freedom of its vassals.
A Citizen in Ancient Rome had a high level of freedom, but it was freedom built on the backs of slaves

People seem to forget that capitalism didn't arrive over night. It took several hundred years of slow, gradual change for capitalism to finally vanquish feudalism in Europe. Early attempts at capitalism proved to be just as disastrous as early attempts at socialism because of direct oppossiton from the fuedal power structures.

Just because no true, functioning socialist state has been created after one hundred and fifty years of expermentation doesn't mean that is impossible for one to arise. To make such a conclusion has no merit from the evidence of our history.

The creation of the so-called "communist" USSR was by no means a socialist revolution. What occured was that a small group of people (the Bolsheviks) took power in Russia in the name of the people. V.I. Lenin and his comrades took absolute power, with the intention of using it to set up a proletarian democracy. However, any small group with absolute power will never give up its power willingly. What was supposed to be an interim, revolutionary government became the permanent government of the USSR. The Communist Party used socialist theory as a facade, and warped its interpretation to suit its own means.

The point is that no revolution, political or social, can ever succeed if a vanguard party takes control in the name of the people. What ends up happening is that one ruling class is substituted for another. In Russia, the Czars and the boyars were replaced by the nomenklatura, in other words, the Communist party Elite.

I submit that for any real change in the system, the change must be done democratically, representing the real interests of the people as a whole, not the interests of a vanguard party. If you want to read more into the vanguard party phenomenon, read Animal Farm by George Orwell. It is an allegorical critique of the rise of the Communist Party in the USSR written from the perspective of a libertarian socialist.

Capitalism seems to be working world wide... 1 billion people live in luxury, another couple of billion get by, and 3 billion people live in poverty, 1 billion of those in extreme poverty. More than 800 million people go hungry every day, 30,000 children die every day due to hunger and treatable illness, while the GDP of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.
Its better that some people are rich while others are poor. Its better than everyone being poor like with socialism/communism. Im happy that Im part of the world that has benefited from capitalism and Im not going to apologize for that.

Its better that some people are rich while others are poor. Its better than everyone being poor like with socialism/communism. Im happy that Im part of the world that has benefited from capitalism and Im not going to apologize for that.

The world hasn't benefited from Capitalism according to your own argument.
A minority has.

If that is the sort of world you take pride in then why not just stick with feudalism and monarchy?

It is exactly the same, some people live rich and priveleged lives at the expense of their vassals.
------

Also to the guy who recomended George Orwell, would just like to add "1984" to that reading list :)

It should be noted that nearly all respectable communist theorists have since shown the USSR to be an example of corrupt capitalism posing as socialism, as with Animal Farm and Oceania in 1984.

"Oceania is at war with Eurasia...Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia"

[QUOTE]
Free market sucks. Along with Privatized helthcare. You think otherwise? you never have been poor in America.
Actually the free market has been proven to work as well as privatized healthcare. Socialism and Public healthcare have been PROVEN to fail, just look at Europe. Many countries are trying anything they can to keep their failing healthcare services but they are just putting off what is bound to happen which is private healthcare.
There are so, so, many MANY hard working americans WHO GET SHIT! for money. The poor here are forced to be so by corperate monopolys on the government. I know people who graduated from a 4-year collage and after 30 years and shit loads of work are farther behind than when they started. Capitalism is bullshit. Insurance is bullshit. Socialism and communism is much better. If you dont agree then you've never been on the bottom
Thats not true because thanks to the free market you can move up if you work hard and make the right moves. The economy you want would not allow for this and keep you at the bottom.

you've only watched from the top and made excuses like, oh, they are lazy and foolish, they belong there, fucking aristochracy. The middle class is being evoporated before our eyes and creating a huge rift of Rich vs. Poor, then we all know what happens. The Rich are bloodgened, raped, and plundered. and rightfully so. Capitalism is simply another word for greed, and so will be its downfall god willing.

And how do you afford your home, computer, and internet connection so you can tell me how evil the free market is? THE FREE MARKET!

The world hasn't benefited from Capitalism according to your own argument.
A minority has.
the minority that has embraced capitalism. Look at Africa, most those countries are poor. Why? Because they have corrupt governments that do things like prevent small businesses from starting. But a country like Botswana is doing ok because they have capitalism and a stable government.
If that is the sort of world you take pride in then why not just stick with feudalism and monarchy?

It is exactly the same, some people live rich and priveleged lives at the expense of their vassals.
The idea that with capitalism the rich get rich at the expense of the poor is a myth.

[QUOTE=Barbaric Tribes]

Actually the free market has been proven to work as well as privatized healthcare. Socialism and Public healthcare have been PROVEN to fail, just look at Europe. Many countries are trying anything they can to keep their failing healthcare services but they are just putting off what is bound to happen which is private healthcare.



Is there a polite way of saying that is BS ?

The free market has never been proven to work, and private healthcare has never been provedn to work.
Private healthcare does nothing but make good health a designer product instead of right.
Public healthcare in Britain continues to work, the only aspects of it that fail are the capitalist aspects. It was only when the government started trying to run the NHS as a business that it grew problems.
The failure to make profit is not a failure, the NHS isn't meant to make profits, it is meant to cure sick people.

You live in a country where 1/4 of the people are on antidepressents (it would be more if you had the morals to bring in public healthcare) and presume to preach to countries that haven't yet fallen to your plague.

Thank god Europe still measures quality of life by human happiness and not GDP

the minority that has embraced capitalism. Look at Africa, most those countries are poor. Why? Because they have corrupt governments that do things like prevent small businesses from starting. But a country like Botswana is doing ok because they have capitalism and a stable government.

The idea that with capitalism the rich get rich at the expense of the poor is a myth.

LOL nonsense. You think the guys slogging away in Mcdonalds for a couple of dollars an hour haven't embraced capitalism? how rich are they?

Botswana is a country rich in diamonds, that had the guts to take control of it's own national resources (a move that America always hates in a foreign country as we witness in Iraq).

Africa is poor because American Corporations rape their economy and abuse and enslave their workers. Because for every £1 in aid they receive the world bank takes back more than twice that.

It is no myth, rich people exploit poor people and get rich. We see this every day. It is an undeniable fact

Actually the free market has been proven to work as well as privatized healthcare. Socialism and Public healthcare have been PROVEN to fail, just look at Europe. Many countries are trying anything they can to keep their failing healthcare services but they are just putting off what is bound to happen which is private healthcare. Yes, do look. America has the least efficient & most expensive healthcare system in the 1st world. To call our public healthcare systems a failure, only serves to hilight the barbaric uselessness of your own.Thats not true because thanks to the free market you can move up if you work hard and make the right moves. The economy you want would not allow for this and keep you at the bottom. Upward mobility is "The American Dream". It's also a dream that's been growing increasingly difficult to put into practice over the last 20 years, and one that is significantly easier to live out in any Socialist Democracy you can find on this planet.And how do you afford your home, computer, and internet connection so you can tell me how evil the free market is? THE FREE MARKET!Rubbish. The class war isn't a thing of the past. The class devides have simply shifted, mainly as a result of our extreme exploitation of 3rd world countries. Much of that exploitation is maintained directly through force of arms & economic sanctions/pressure.

The free market you so love has never existed. Not 500 years ago & not today.

Communists are invariably either power-hungry or naive idealists.

Socialism is another animal entirely - it is proven to be a vital part of the best societies in the world, those of northern europe.

As socialism approaches communism, it becomes absurd. Socialism in a limited form, however, is an ethical necessity along with capitalism.

Africa is poor because American Corporations rape their economy and abuse and enslave their workers. Because for every £1 in aid they receive the world bank takes back more than twice that.

When was Africa not poor?

By the same token:

The Rules of Socialism

1. 1% of the global population owns 95% of it's wealth, "on behalf of" everyone else.
2. Those with the guns get to make all the rules.
3. The more money you got, the more they can take away from you.
4. The less money you got, the less dangerous you are to the leaders.
5. The poorer you are, the less quality foreign imports you get.
6. Regardless of your income, your doctor will be ill-qualified to do anything more than basic GP services. All the specialists have fled or are in re-education camp.
7. Regardless of your income, don't expect anything more than some basic reading and writing skills from your education.
8. All jobs are backbreakingly hard, and you have to do them or else you get shot.
9. Except if you're a big figure in the party.
10. If you're really rich, you get shot.
11. You don't pay for your own mistakes, everyone else does.
12. Party leaders start wars, the poor people have to fight.
13. Most people get rich by stealing and corruption.
14. Everyone stays poor through hard work, thrift, and sacrifice.


And I thought you were annoying as a socialist. You're even worse as a right-wing libertarian. So, what are you going to be next month? A monarchist?

[QUOTE=Soviestan]


Is there a polite way of saying that is BS ?

The free market has never been proven to work, and private healthcare has never been provedn to work.
Private healthcare does nothing but make good health a designer product instead of right.
Public healthcare in Britain continues to work, the only aspects of it that fail are the capitalist aspects. It was only when the government started trying to run the NHS as a business that it grew problems.
The failure to make profit is not a failure, the NHS isn't meant to make profits, it is meant to cure sick people.

You live in a country where 1/4 of the people are on antidepressents (it would be more if you had the morals to bring in public healthcare) and presume to preach to countries that haven't yet fallen to your plague.

Thank god Europe still measures quality of life by human happiness and not GDP
right..... give it ten years and public healthcare will completely fall apart, governments just cant support it.

Yes, do look. America has the least efficient & most expensive healthcare system in the 1st world. To call our public healthcare systems a failure, only serves to hilight the barbaric uselessness of your own.
And kindly note that this is a public healthcare system. USian private healthcare services are generally far better (albeit more expensive). Likewise, private schools tend to be better than publicly funded ones. And so on.


Upward mobility is "The American Dream". It's also a dream that's been growing increasingly difficult to put into practice over the last 20 years, and one that is significantly easier to live out in any Socialist Democracy you can find on this planet.
Primarily because the wealthiest one can get in a socialist state (even a democratic socialist one) is of a far lower standard than the highest possible income in a capitalist one.

That's because they're capitalist, not socialist. In order to be socialist, the means of production have to be publically owned, and no European state has that kind of economic model. Even Sweden doesn't have a publically owned economy.

Finally, someone who fucking gets it. I've spent a while trying to explain that "socialism" is actually what most people think communism is.

:rolleyes: That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly.


As compared to nearly everyone in your communist "utopias".

And I thought you were annoying as a socialist. You're even worse as a right-wing libertarian. So, what are you going to be next month? A monarchist?
Maybe a middle-of-the-roader.... that'll be fairly unique here.

LOL nonsense. You think the guys slogging away in Mcdonalds for a couple of dollars an hour haven't embraced capitalism? how rich are they?
No they havent. They arent rich because they probably dont have the drive do anything but flip burgers.
Botswana is a country rich in diamonds, that had the guts to take control of it's own national resources (a move that America always hates in a foreign country as we witness in Iraq).
lots of African countries have natural resources that they control and they are still poor. And you dont really think Iraq was about oil do you?

Africa is poor because American Corporations rape their economy and abuse and enslave their workers. Because for every £1 in aid they receive the world bank takes back more than twice that.

It is no myth, rich people exploit poor people and get rich. We see this every day. It is an undeniable fact
right......whatever you say Karl Marx

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly.
Your point being?

right......whatever you say Karl Marx
your argument would be more credible if you avoided name-calling and stuck to debunking of solid facts instead.

LOL nonsense. You think the guys slogging away in Mcdonalds for a couple of dollars an hour haven't embraced capitalism? how rich are they?

And what's stopping them from getting a new job? Getting a raise or promotion? Saving money for higher education, then pursuing a career? That's the great thing about capitalism; you can come from nothing and become something.

Africa is poor because American Corporations rape their economy and abuse and enslave their workers. Because for every £1 in aid they receive the world bank takes back more than twice that.

Because there were American corporations 500 years ago, right? Africa was poor then, it's poor now, and in 100 years, it'll probably still be poor.

And for all those who like to blame the West for Africa's problems, think about this: when the UK granted independence to Sierra Leone in 1961, it was one of the most advanced nations in Africa, and more advanced than Singapore. Now look at it. In the shitter.

your argument would be more credible if you avoided name-calling and stuck to debunking of solid facts instead.
How is that name calling? Im sure he would love to be compared to Marx. What he said was communist proganda about how the workers are being oppressed, blah, blah, blah.

Maybe a middle-of-the-roader.... that'll be fairly unique here.


Wait, we allow moderates here now? Since when? ;)

That's the problem that I, a Democratic Socialist, have with Capitalism. Not all. Most. The essence of the problem is that there ARE people who starve and live in poverty needlessly. Socialism/Communism (ideally) ensures that nobody goes through this. And you must remember, Socialism and Communism, in their pure forms, do not neccesarily prevent Democracy.

The people who starve most often deserve it -- it's impossible to have everyone equal, get over it

No. what actually happens during a revolution is the rich can afford to bribe their way out, leaving the poor schmoos who tried to earn their living by working for them to the tender delights of the Guillitine... or 9mm revolutionary justice... or if they lucky 25 yrs in the gulag

Then some murdering bugger emerges from the revolutionary cause... seizes power by fear/bribery/outright murder, and then oppresses everyone more than the rich ever used too......

Then claims his country is communist/socialist and shoots anyone who argues otherwise..... ref. USSR.... China .... North Korea ... Cuba .... Vietnam .. Cambodia.....

um... do you know anything about the revolutions of history???????

um... do you know anything about the revolutions of history???????

Hmm... he wasn't far off. By many of the dead in the French Rev were workers and peasants.

Hmm... he wasn't far off. By many of the dead in the French Rev were workers and peasants.


No, everybody fucking died. It was not one sides. The rich were slaughtered. Rightfully so. then, the revolution turned on itself with the rain of terror, you cant just go make up facts about the past to suit your own agenda.....unless you bush....:mad:

um... do you know anything about the revolutions of history???????
Yes, take a look at the ones he referenced.

No, everybody fucking died. It was not one sides. The rich were slaughtered. Rightfully so. then, the revolution turned on itself with the rain of terror, you cant just go make up facts about the past to suit your own agenda.....unless you bush....:mad:
In revolution-era France, though, the wealthy made up 3% of the population while the poor made up 97%. Naturally, no matter how many wealthy died as well, the poor would die in greater numbers simply because there were more of them.

No, everybody fucking died. It was not one sides. The rich were slaughtered. Rightfully so. then, the revolution turned on itself with the rain of terror, you cant just go make up facts about the past to suit your own agenda.....unless you bush....:mad:

Czardas summed it up nicely. Not to mention that many nobles fled France before and during the early part of the Rev.

Mainly because since every socialist/communist regime in history has been a dictatorship.

As hard as it is to ignore this fact, it is the truth. Communism does not work with real people. It is contrary to both human nature and human rights.

They really had no choice unless they wanted to face the sabotage by the Soviet Union.

And what's stopping them from getting a new job? Getting a raise or promotion? Saving money for higher education, then pursuing a career? That's the great thing about capitalism; you can come from nothing and become something.

Because there were American corporations 500 years ago, right? Africa was poor then, it's poor now, and in 100 years, it'll probably still be poor.

And for all those who like to blame the West for Africa's problems, think about this: when the UK granted independence to Sierra Leone in 1961, it was one of the most advanced nations in Africa, and more advanced than Singapore. Now look at it. In the shitter.

Because in a Capitalist system, it is impossible for everyone to be rich, it is unsustainable, their simply isn't enough wealth to go around if everyone wants to live a a lifestyle ofpure consumption and indulgence. What stops them is capitalist exploiters. That's the shit thing about capitalism, even if 90% of your country had a PhD level of education, you would still have doctors flipping burgers.

Economy as we know did did not not function in this way in Africa 500 years ago. When Africa was made up of kingdoms and tribal societies, actually yes, they did have a better quality of life than before we forced the open market on them.

Many people falsely claim that African countries and India were better off under the British Empire, but this is an outright lie which cannot be backed up by genuine statistics. In fact the British in Africa were better off. Most countries saw rapid improvement for the populace once Britain left.

Czardas summed it up nicely. Not to mention that many nobles fled France before and during the early part of the Rev.
That too.

No they havent. They arent rich because they probably dont have the drive do anything but flip burgers.

lots of African countries have natural resources that they control and they are still poor. And you dont really think Iraq was about oil do you?


right......whatever you say Karl Marx

I see. Unable to provide an argument to defeat me you resort to sarcasm... *shrugs* well it wasn't a noble surrender but i shall accept it anyway

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
So I guess the huge amount of the world's population that's dirt poor ought to be glad the prevailing global economic system is EXACTLY as you've said it is.

No they havent. They arent rich because they probably dont have the drive do anything but flip burgers.

lots of African countries have natural resources that they control and they are still poor. And you dont really think Iraq was about oil do you?


right......whatever you say Karl Marx
And just for the record, most African countries are prevented from controlling their own resources by the US and yes, Iraq was about oil.

There were no WMDs and the original stated reason was never liberation.

Is it a coincidence that America blocked the consitution that would have given Iraq control of it's oil? or that America was already selling contracts to American companies to work in Iraq, even before the war?

Iraq was nothing more than capitalist imperialism. Not suprising as the American form of capitalism is little more than feudalism

Because in a Capitalist system, it is impossible for everyone to be rich, it is unsustainable, their simply isn't enough wealth to go around if everyone wants to live a a lifestyle ofpure consumption and indulgence. What stops them is capitalist exploiters. That's the shit thing about capitalism, even if 90% of your country had a PhD level of education, you would still have doctors flipping burgers.

And socialism is so much better for becoming rich?

Not everyone will become rich under capitalism. But everyone can improve their situation.

Many people falsely claim that African countries and India were better off under the British Empire, but this is an outright lie which cannot be backed up by genuine statistics. In fact the British in Africa were better off. Most countries saw rapid improvement for the populace once Britain left.

Some countries WERE better under British rule. Such as Sierra Leone. After the British left, the country collapsed. As I recall, British forces went back recently to help stabilise. The residents were fucking thrilled to see them there.

[QUOTE=Mt Sam]
right..... give it ten years and public healthcare will completely fall apart, governments just cant support it.


Proof please? or are the facts so inconvenient that they are now to be excluded from debate

Iraq was nothing more than capitalist imperialism. Not suprising as the American form of capitalism is little more than feudalism

You know nothing about feudalism, so I suggest you hush.

And socialism is so much better for becoming rich?

Not everyone will become rich under capitalism. But everyone can improve their situation.



Some countries WERE better under British rule. Such as Sierra Leone. After the British left, the country collapsed. As I recall, British forces went back recently to help stabilise. The residents were fucking thrilled to see them there.

No, everyone can't. In a society where we are forced to continually either expand or be absorbed it is impossible for everyone to achieve a sustainable and comfortable lifestyle. Capitalism creates poverty because it's sole stated aim is to expand and consume.

Socialism is not designed to make people rich, it is designed to let people live in a safe society free and happy society.

A society with public healthcare and wellfare is much better off than one where 1/4 of the populace is clinically depressed

No, everyone can't. In a society where we are forced to continually either expand or be absorbed it is impossible for everyone to achieve a sustainable and comfortable lifestyle. Capitalism creates poverty because it's sole stated aim is to expand and consume.

Where are you getting this from? Capitalism is FREEDOM. It has no goal, AFAIK, because what you do with yourself economically is your business.

No, everyone can't. In a society where we are forced to continually either expand or be absorbed it is impossible for everyone to achieve a sustainable and comfortable lifestyle. Capitalism creates poverty because it's sole stated aim is to expand and consume.

Socialism is not designed to make people rich, it is designed to let people live in a safe society free and happy society.

A society with public healthcare and wellfare is much better off than one where 1/4 of the populace is clinically depressed



Communism and it's step cousin socialism are designed to, and DO enslave the masses. Capitalism allows the poorest to become the richest - and vice versa depending on the creativeness, intelligence, diligence and the work ethic of the individual.

Iraq was nothing more than capitalist imperialism. Not suprising as the American form of capitalism is little more than feudalism
Capitalism and imperialism by force are unreconcilable opposites.

Where are you getting this from? Capitalism is FREEDOM. It has no goal, AFAIK, because what you do with yourself economically is your business.

Capitalism is not true freedom anymore than an empire ruled a god-king is free. Oh sure, the god-king can do whatever he wants, but no one else can. So it is with capitalism.
Capitalists want to be allowed to do anything they want, this is what they call freedom, but they do not want to take any responsibility for their actions, or have any limit on their power. In short, they want to expand and consume until they become gods. Capitalism is the philosophy or the virus, to keep growing, to keep consuming, but (as you stated) with no goal or purpose.

It is an empty, corrupt and meaningless philosophy, devoid of true freedom.

Socialism recognises the natural limits on the abilities of everyone, it recognises that freedom does not extend over the freedom of others.
Capitalist nations measure success with GDP (and are largely unhappy) whilst socialists measure success in good quality of life

Where are you getting this from? Capitalism is FREEDOM. It has no goal, AFAIK, because what you do with yourself economically is your business.


His buddies down at the Communist gatherings. The truth means nothing to people like that.

Capitalism and imperialism by force are unreconcilable opposites.


America has succesfully combined the two.
They sell a country to themselves (a country they do not own) and then create a fake premise, invade, and let their businesses in to carve it up between them

Capitalism is not true freedom anymore than an empire ruled a god-king is free. Oh sure, the god-king can do whatever he wants, but no one else can. So it is with capitalism.
Capitalists want to be allowed to do anything they want, this is what they call freedom, but they do not want to take any responsibility for their actions, or have any limit on their power. In short, they want to expand and consume until they become gods. Capitalism is the philosophy or the virus, to keep growing, to keep consuming, but (as you stated) with no goal or purpose.

Ok, now get this: EVERYONE is a capitalist.

Socialism recognises the natural limits on the abilities of everyone, it recognises that freedom does not extend over the freedom of others.
Capitalist nations measure success with GDP (and are largely unhappy) whilst socialists measure success in good quality of life

Actually, the best measure, IMO, is GDP/capita.

Capitalism is not true freedom anymore than an empire ruled a god-king is free. Oh sure, the god-king can do whatever he wants, but no one else can. So it is with capitalism.
Capitalists want to be allowed to do anything they want, this is what they call freedom, but they do not want to take any responsibility for their actions, or have any limit on their power. In short, they want to expand and consume until they become gods. Capitalism is the philosophy or the virus, to keep growing, to keep consuming, but (as you stated) with no goal or purpose.

It is an empty, corrupt and meaningless philosophy, devoid of true freedom.

Socialism recognises the natural limits on the abilities of everyone, it recognises that freedom does not extend over the freedom of others.
Capitalist nations measure success with GDP (and are largely unhappy) whilst socialists measure success in good quality of life


Cue twilight zone music.:rolleyes:

His buddies down at the Communist gatherings. The truth means nothing to people like that.

Yes all those communist gatherings that the green party attends :rolleyes:

Either use a real argument or stop paddling in the deep end of a debate with your bloody armbands

Yes all those communist gatherings that the green party attends :rolleyes:

Either use a real argument or stop paddling in the deep end of a debate with your bloody armbands


Yep, those are the ones! One and the same.


I'll give you a real argument the minute you become coherent enough to post something that is not a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Capitalism is not true freedom anymore than an empire ruled a god-king is free. Oh sure, the god-king can do whatever he wants, but no one else can. So it is with capitalism.
No, under capitalism anyone can do what they like so long as it does not directly undermine another's rights to property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Capitalists want to be allowed to do anything they want, this is what they call freedom, but they do not want to take any responsibility for their actions, or have any limit on their power.
Yes, capitalists do want to reduce restrictions on individual power. That is why capitalism is another word for freedom. In a capitalist society, however, people are still bound not to infringe on others' rights, and that is the role of government (what distinguishes capitalism from anarchism).

In short, they want to expand and consume until they become gods.
Yes. What is wrong with that?

Capitalism is the philosophy or the virus, to keep growing, to keep consuming, but (as you stated) with no goal or purpose.
Capitalism has no end goal. Economic growth, however, does have purpose, because without purpose it would not have been initiated. As capitalism is a free society, all action is taken in the interests of individuals, by individuals, not by the state. Its purpose is whatever purpose its initiators wished to pursue.

It is an empty, corrupt and meaningless philosophy,
If you think freedom is corrupt and meaningless then I guess it is.

devoid of true freedom.
Define "true freedom".

Socialism recognises the natural limits on the abilities of everyone,
Which is why a socialist society is unfree; because the government enforces "natural" limits on its citizens (or they enforce them on themselves, depending on whether you live in the real world or a fantasy world).

it recognises that freedom does not extend over the freedom of others.
Actually the precise opposite. Socialism contends that there are "positive rights", such as the "right to food". That is, Socialism contends that people have rights that demand and compel action from others, as opposed to Capitalism which only contends that 'negative rights' exist - that is, that no outside body can force the individual to do something. The two are incompatible. Your "positive rights" make everyone in the society the slave of everyone else in the society - nothing anyone produces can truly be said to belong to them. I do not wish to be a slave and nor do I wish to be a slave driver. In a capitalist society, the individual is neither.

Capitalist nations measure success with GDP (and are largely unhappy) whilst socialists measure success in good quality of life
Capitalist nations measure success in whatever way they choose. Generally, the choose GDP, because GDP represents the ability to provide a good quality of life. Capitalists care about outcomes, not intentions, which is why they oppose the well-meaning but unproductive public services that socialists cling to, and demand be funded with other peoples' money.

Yep, those are the ones!


I'll give you a real argument the minute you become coherent enough to post something that is not a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

I have stated facts. Facts that you have made clear you are either intellectually inequiped to answer, or to frightened to face.

Clearly the debate is over

No, facts you have not backed up with sources. These 'facts' are common values taught to Communists by other Communists to make anyone who is not a Communist look bad. Ultimately, you have not won the argument, because if you hate capitalism so bad, why are you using the internet?

I see. Unable to provide an argument to defeat me you resort to sarcasm... *shrugs* well it wasn't a noble surrender but i shall accept it anyway
I did respond to a couple of your points but the last one was utter nonsense and the only way I could reply was with sarcasm.

I have stated facts. Facts that you have made clear you are either intellectually inequiped to answer, or to frightened to face.

Clearly the debate is over

This is an example of your so called "facts"!


Capitalists want to be allowed to do anything they want, this is what they call freedom, but they do not want to take any responsibility for their actions, or have any limit on their power. In short, they want to expand and consume until they become gods. Capitalism is the philosophy or the virus, to keep growing, to keep consuming, but (as you stated) with no goal or purpose.



'nuff said.

I'll give you a real argument the minute you become coherent enough to post something that is not a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
QFT

QFT

NOt sure of that term.

Where are you getting this from? Capitalism is FREEDOM. It has no goal, AFAIK, because what you do with yourself economically is your business.

Yes - you can pay for everything, or you can't. And, what you can't pay for, you can't have.

Capitalism has a goal. The goal is 'capital', hence the name. And if you aren't 'making a profit', then you are losing ground, since capital 'value' inflates.

Thus - one MUST become more rich, or one MUST suffer.

Capitalism certainly is not, in ANY way, 'freedom'... except for those who own MOST of the capital.

At least we don't have gulags.

Proof please? or are the facts so inconvenient that they are now to be excluded from debate
Just look at places like Canada, Germany and the UK. All have struggling health services. Its kind of like social security, you can do things like raise taxes to keep it going for a little while but eventually it will collapse.

No, under capitalism anyone can do what they like so long as it does not directly undermine another's rights to property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness


Yes, capitalists do want to reduce restrictions on individual power. That is why capitalism is another word for freedom. In a capitalist society, however, people are still bound not to infringe on others' rights, and that is the role of government (what distinguishes capitalism from anarchism).


Yes. What is wrong with that?


Capitalism has no end goal. Economic growth, however, does have purpose, because without purpose it would not have been initiated. As capitalism is a free society, all action is taken in the interests of individuals, by individuals, not by the state. Its purpose is whatever purpose its initiators wished to pursue.


If you think freedom is corrupt and meaningless then I guess it is.


Define "true freedom".


Which is why a socialist society is unfree; because the government enforces "natural" limits on its citizens (or they enforce them on themselves, depending on whether you live in the real world or a fantasy world).


Actually the precise opposite. Socialism contends that there are "positive rights", such as the "right to food". That is, Socialism contends that people have rights that demand and compel action from others, as opposed to Capitalism which only contends that 'negative rights' exist - that is, that no outside body can force the individual to do something. The two are incompatible. Your "positive rights" make everyone in the society the slave of everyone else in the society - nothing anyone produces can truly be said to belong to them. I do not wish to be a slave and nor do I wish to be a slave driver. In a capitalist society, the individual is neither.


Capitalist nations measure success in whatever way they choose. Generally, the choose GDP, because GDP represents the ability to provide a good quality of life. Capitalists care about outcomes, not intentions, which is why they oppose the well-meaning but unproductive public services that socialists cling to, and demand be funded with other peoples' money.

A quick thank you, though we disagree, at least you are capable of intelligent debate.

In theory capitalism should not let people undermine the rights of others, but just like state-communism, it does not function in practice.
There quite simply isn't enough to go round, capitalism is a system built of victims and victors. It's logical conclusion is always the rich ruling the poor, and consequently taking more than they need or deserve.

Giving individuals unlimited personal power is a return to the days of feudalism, where a person has to take no responsibility for their actions and can do as they please, consequences be damned.
If the king wanted to have all his peasants put to death, it was his perogotive, even though he had no right to do so.

You say economic growth has a purpose, but what is that? all economic growth does is continue to grow. It does not truly provide for a society, only rich individuals. It encourages people to live unsustainable lifestyles at others expence.

True freedom is natural freedom, it is our right not to have our own share of food taken, because the guy next door just wanted more. There is always enough to go round, but capitalism insists that some should get more than others, more even than the individual needs.

"negative rights" are little more than an excuse for an individual to take more than they deserve.

NOt sure of that term.
quote for truth. It means I agree with your point since alot of what he says is so off the wall you cant really reply to it.

Just look at places like Canada, Germany and the UK. All have struggling health services. Its kind of like social security, you can do things like raise taxes to keep it going for a little while but eventually it will collapse.


And all three of them have depended to one degree or another on the United States to relieve them of having to spend as much on defense.

Communism and it's step cousin socialism are designed to, and DO enslave the masses. Capitalism allows the poorest to become the richest - and vice versa depending on the creativeness, intelligence, diligence and the work ethic of the individual.

Bullshit, and irrelevence.

Isolated examples prove nothing about the generalities.

(Aleksei Grigorievich Stakhanov, for example, would be 'evidence' of the kind of claims you make for capitalism, under the flawed Stalinist form of Statist Communism).

Just look at places like Canada, Germany and the UK. All have struggling health services. Its kind of like social security, you can do things like raise taxes to keep it going for a little while but eventually it will collapse.

I live in the UK.

I have also spoken in depth to doctors.
Any UK doctor will tell you that the only problem with the NHS is that people try to run it as a business and not a hospital.
Until the government started trying to enforce a capitalist agenda on the NHS it never had any problems. Despite this, it still functions, our doctors are good moral people who do not sell health as a designer product

His buddies down at the Communist gatherings. The truth means nothing to people like that.

Ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic.

Yes - you can pay for everything, or you can't. And, what you can't pay for, you can't have.
Quite right. Everything is the produce of someone, so whenever something someone has not earnt is given to him, a theft is taking place. Most enlightened societies believe theft is wrong.

Capitalism has a goal. The goal is 'capital', hence the name. And if you aren't 'making a profit', then you are losing ground, since capital 'value' inflates.

Thus - one MUST become more rich, or one MUST suffer.
Not necessarily. If an individual chooses, he can hold down a small job and live in austerity for his entire life.

Capitalism certainly is not, in ANY way, 'freedom'... except for those who own MOST of the capital.
You confuse "freedom" with "the ability to do anything you want, regardless of how this ability is obtained". This is an absurd definition, and anyone holding it consistently would contend that theft, rape and murder should be legalised.

Actually, the best measure, IMO, is GDP/capita.

Actually, the best measure is GINI.

In which, the US scores about like a Sub-Saharan nation...

Wow, its still going. Gonna take me awhile to catch up. :p

And all three of them have depended to one degree or another on the United States to relieve them of having to spend as much on defense.

The UK does not rely on American military aid in any form.

In fact it was America that came crawling on it's stomach for British aid in Iraq because so many of its other allies were little more than 3rd world puppets with no military

There quite simply isn't enough to go round, capitalism is a system built of victims and victors.


Sheese! I really WANT to engage you in an intelligent debate, but you are so FAR from the truth as to make it nearly impossible.


Capitalism is built on FREE EXCHANGE. No one has to buy anything they do not wish to buy. No one is coerced into paying more than they are willing to pay. No one works for less than they are willing to work for. In order to get rich, you have to give a LOT of people something they want. The more people you serve the more wealth you are able to accumulate.

The UK does not rely on American military aid in any form.

In fact it was America that came crawling on it's stomach for British aid in Iraq because so many of its other allies were little more than 3rd world puppets with no military
yeah, spain, italy, and Australia are really 3rd world puppets with no military arent they:rolleyes:

Ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic.


Neither is redefining terms.

Quite right. Everything is the produce of someone, so whenever something someone has not earnt is given to him, a theft is taking place. Most enlightened societies believe theft is wrong.


Untrue on several levels.

Naturally occuring resources are not the 'produce' of any one person.

Also - you missed the point... in what way does amount of ability to purchase have ANYTHING to do with what one 'earns'?

Plus - of course, theft is only a relavent concept if you allow ownership.


Not necessarily. If an individual chooses, he can hold down a small job and live in austerity for his entire life.


If one can get a job.

Austerity is irrelvent... because the 'cost' of austerity increases.

It is almost impossible for the average earner to support a family on the wages of only one working parent.


You confuse "freedom" with "the ability to do anything you want, regardless of how this ability is obtained". This is an absurd definition, and anyone holding it consistently would contend that theft, rape and murder should be legalised.

No - no such confusion exists. You have created a strawman of my argument to ridicule.

Sheese! I really WANT to engage you in an intelligent debate, but you are so FAR from the truth as to make it nearly impossible.


Capitalism is built on FREE EXCHANGE. No one has to buy anything they do not wish to buy. No one is coerced into paying more than they are willing to pay. No one works for less than they are willing to work for. In order to get rich, you have to give a LOT of people something they want. The more people you serve the more wealth you are able to accumulate.

Until you take the shutters off your eyes how do you intend to see what the truth even is?
Once you see truth from fiction you will be in a position to say how far from it I stand.

When huge identical multinational corporations control everything, you do not have a choice. Starvation or Tescos is not a choice.
These huge companies are at leisure to set whatever prices they please, comfortable in the knowledge that no one has the means to defy them.
I'm not saying capitalists do not control things people want, and i have never stated as such, that is a fantasy you created. I said that capitalists control things they have no right to control and horde these things for their own benefit.

Sure, everyone wants oxygen, that doesn't give me the right to take control of it and sell it to them.

Yet this is what capitalists do with water or healthcare, both basic human rights.
No civilised human would deny another water

Neither is redefining terms.

Irrelevent.

YOu are attacking the validity of the argument based on what you THINK might be true of the person arguing.

It is a logical fallacy.

And, your 'but, he/she started it' argument MIGHT have worked on the playground in third grade, but it does not excuse your logical fallacies in an actual debate forum.

yeah, spain, italy, and Australia are really 3rd world puppets with no military arent they:rolleyes:

Would that Spain who, seeing the horror of being an american puppet elected a socialist government and pulled out of Iraq?

Oh yes it would.

Canada and Australia came on board later, but the original "coalition of the willing" consisted of several nations such as Afganistahn, the Republic of Trongo and Mexica, two of which did not even have a military at the time of invasion

A quick thank you, though we disagree, at least you are capable of intelligent debate.
That's very kind of you.

In theory capitalism should not let people undermine the rights of others, but just like state-communism, it does not function in practice.
No, it doesnt. We have this terrible thing called "democracy" that means capitalism is almost always tainted by this awful thing called "socialism".

There quite simply isn't enough to go round, capitalism is a system built of victims and victors. It's logical conclusion is always the rich ruling the poor, and consequently taking more than they need or deserve.
This assumes that wealth generation is a zero-sum game - that is, if one person takes one slice of the pie, there is less pie for everyone else. This is untrue. Wealth can be created, which is why even the poorest, most destitute of people in Britain today (or any other mixed economy leaning towards capitalism) are only around the same level as the average "citizen" of the former USSR (or any other mixed economy leaning towards socialism).

Giving individuals unlimited personal power
Where did I say that capitalism gives individuals unlimited power? If you read my post again, you will find I explicitly said that this was not the case.

You say economic growth has a purpose, but what is that?
There is no specific purpose - it is whatever purpose the person generating the wealth wants it to be. In my case, it is to buy food, clothing, computer games, music, Etc.

all economic growth does is continue to grow.
No, it also creates wealth, which is just a generic term for "stuff". The more "stuff" there is, the more "stuff" there is to go around, and the cheaper it becomes, meaning less "stuff" needs to be produced to trade for it.

It does not truly provide for a society, only rich individuals.
Which is quite clearly why the average citizen of Britain or America has far more personal "stuff" than the average citizen of China or North Korea?

It encourages people to live unsustainable lifestyles at others expence.
It does? In what way? In a capitalist society, people are allowed to act in their interests. They will not act if doing so is against their interests. Therefore, they would not allow themselves to live "unsustainable" lifestyles or be "at someone else's expense".

True freedom is natural freedom, it is our right not to have our own share of food taken, because the guy next door just wanted more.
Why do you have a right to a share of this food? Did you produce it? If not, do you own it? If not, how can you justify claiming something belonging to another? This is theft!

There is always enough to go round,
Generally in Communist societies, my dear sir, there isn't. You are clearly desensitised to the benefits of the free market.

but capitalism insists that some should get more than others, more even than the individual needs.
Capitalism insists that people only own what they have produced, or what they have freely traded for. Socialism contends that people have a right to things other people have produced or traded for. Which sounds fairer to you?

"negative rights" are little more than an excuse for an individual to take more than they deserve.
Who are you to decide how much of what people own they "deserve" to be allowed to keep? Your own words expose the inherent tyranny of Socialism.

Would that Spain who, seeing the horror of being an american puppet elected a socialist government and pulled out of Iraq?

Oh yes it would.

Canada and Australia came on board later, but the original "coalition of the willing" consisted of several nations such as Afganistahn, the Republic of Trongo and Mexica, two of which did not even have a military at the time of invasion

The Republic of Trongo? Mexica?

*nominates for "Today's Funniest Post"*

Sure, everyone wants oxygen, that doesn't give me the right to take control of it and sell it to them.

We don't want oxygen, we NEED oxygen.

The problem is everyone against Communism seems to argue it from the perspective of the countries that call themselves Communist actually are when in fact they are not at all.

Calling North Korea Communist is a horrible twist of Communism that it becomes no longer Communism. The same with the USS, China, Cuba or any other nation that seems to have taken to calling itself a Communist Government (Which is pretty close to being an oxymoron).

Untrue on several levels.

Naturally occuring resources are not the 'produce' of any one person.
Are they not? Primarily, they belong to whoever owns the land. However, natural resources have no value while they are underground. To have value, they must be extracted and processed. This requires labour that must be paid for, machines that must be bought, materials and consumables purchased to support the other two... do you see?

Also - you missed the point... in what way does amount of ability to purchase have ANYTHING to do with what one 'earns'?
"Stuff" has no intrinsic value, only what others are willing to pay. This is the only way a free society can operate, because otherwise people would be being forced to pay what they are unwilling to, and this would result in slavery. 5 hours' work sweeping streets does not equivelate to 5 hours' work as a civil engineer, because the produce of these two labours defined as their value to others defined as what others are willing to pay are different. No one should be paid large amounts of "stuff" for work only worth small amounts of "stuff".

Plus - of course, theft is only a relavent concept if you allow ownership.
Why yes of course, but ownership is a basic right. If individuals own nothing then something (I would call it the state, Communists would probably call it something else) owns everything. This is tyranny and leads to slavery with people producing things which then are not their own.

If one can get a job.
Yes indeed, because no one has the right to consume "stuff" when he has not produced any "stuff" himself - that would be theft.

Austerity is irrelvent... because the 'cost' of austerity increases.
I assume you're talking about inflation? In which case the market has demosntrated that wages rise in line. As "stuff" becomes worth less, employees demand more "stuff" for their labour.

It is almost impossible for the average earner to support a family on the wages of only one working parent.
Provide citations, because personal experience tells me this is untrue.

No - no such confusion exists. You have created a strawman of my argument to ridicule.
Then please redefine your argument, because I have clearly missed the point.

We don't want oxygen, we NEED oxygen.
That doesn't eliminate his point.

Everyone needs Water, so why should it be bottled up and sold?

Everyone needs Water, so why should it be bottled up and sold?

Because people are willing to pay for it. If there was no market for bottled water, it wouldn't be sold.

Because people are willing to pay for it. If there was no market for bottled water, it wouldn't be sold.
And I just said we need it to survive. The market is always there.

So why should it be denied to those who do not have enough money to get it?

Until you take the shutters off your eyes how do you intend to see what the truth even is?
Once you see truth from fiction you will be in a position to say how far from it I stand.

When huge identical multinational corporations control everything, you do not have a choice. Starvation or Tescos is not a choice.
These huge companies are at leisure to set whatever prices they please, comfortable in the knowledge that no one has the means to defy them.
I'm not saying capitalists do not control things people want, and i have never stated as such, that is a fantasy you created. I said that capitalists control things they have no right to control and horde these things for their own benefit.

Sure, everyone wants oxygen, that doesn't give me the right to take control of it and sell it to them.

Yet this is what capitalists do with water or healthcare, both basic human rights.
No civilised human would deny another water



That is not the case at all. You REALLY need to investigate things a bit more.

That doesn't eliminate his point.

Everyone needs Water, so why should it be bottled up and sold?
Because water requires wealth to produce. It doesn't just come from nowhere - it must be collected in reservoirs, drilled for with aquifers or collected from desalinated seawater. All of these things are expensive and require employees, machinery and consumables. Then it must be distributed. All of this requires wealth which won't come from nowhere. You can rename "water bills" to "income tax" if you want, but all you're doing is charging people based onhow much they earn rather than on how much they consume. This is unfair.

A comparable argument would be: Good people don't condone feeding human remains to children. That is what communists do.

It is based in as much "fact" as the vast majority of your arguments.

That's very kind of you.


No, it doesnt. We have this terrible thing called "democracy" that means capitalism is almost always tainted by this awful thing called "socialism".


This assumes that wealth generation is a zero-sum game - that is, if one person takes one slice of the pie, there is less pie for everyone else. This is untrue. Wealth can be created, which is why even the poorest, most destitute of people in Britain today (or any other mixed economy leaning towards capitalism) are only around the same level as the average "citizen" of the former USSR (or any other mixed economy leaning towards socialism).


Where did I say that capitalism gives individuals unlimited power? If you read my post again, you will find I explicitly said that this was not the case.


There is no specific purpose - it is whatever purpose the person generating the wealth wants it to be. In my case, it is to buy food, clothing, computer games, music, Etc.


No, it also creates wealth, which is just a generic term for "stuff". The more "stuff" there is, the more "stuff" there is to go around, and the cheaper it becomes, meaning less "stuff" needs to be produced to trade for it.


Which is quite clearly why the average citizen of Britain or America has far more personal "stuff" than the average citizen of China or North Korea?


It does? In what way? In a capitalist society, people are allowed to act in their interests. They will not act if doing so is against their interests. Therefore, they would not allow themselves to live "unsustainable" lifestyles or be "at someone else's expense".


Why do you have a right to a share of this food? Did you produce it? If not, do you own it? If not, how can you justify claiming something belonging to another? This is theft!


Generally in Communist societies, my dear sir, there isn't. You are clearly desensitised to the benefits of the free market.


Capitalism insists that people only own what they have produced, or what they have freely traded for. Socialism contends that people have a right to things other people have produced or traded for. Which sounds fairer to you?


Who are you to decide how much of what people own they "deserve" to be allowed to keep? Your own words expose the inherent tyranny of Socialism.

I should make clear that I am not arguing in favour or state-communism, such as the USSR, so these comparisons are non-sequiters.
Especially since most political theorists actually believe state-communism to have been a form of capitalism.

As I have stated before, When capitalism is restrained by democracy and socialism, it is not so bad. I'm not for abolishing trade completely, but putting sensible limits on it, to prevent it from harming people unjustly.
IMO there are not yet enough restraints upon capitalists, who are very rarely put under legal bindings to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Wealth is a taking game, America currently uses a 6th of the worlds resources, "stuff" doesn't come out of thin air, it is finit. As is wealth.
A country can print millions of it's own currency but that does not equate to wealth, in fact in most cases it would cause the collapse of that countries economy by destroying the value of the currency

In theory capitalism does not give unlimited power. It practice it often does.
There are no laws protecting people abroad being exploited by capatalism, the businesses do not care about the welfare of these people and are happy to exploit them for profit. The people forced to work in sweatshops have no real choice.
A simple law such as a living minmum wage can prevent this, it is a simple check on the freedom of capitalists but allows everyone to live better lives and prevents people stealing what is not truly theirs.

When the only means of living is a $2 an hour job, this is not choice. They are forced to work at someone elses expence. Capitalism does not provide free education or training so if they are born into a poor family these people are essentially at the mercy of capitalists

The big businesses did not produce the food either. The workers did.
Big businesses do not produce water, it is a natural product of the earth, that they capture and exploit. Every human needs water to live so they effectively enslave people by taking control of their most basic needs.
How is this morally justifiable? it is no different to theft.

I do not say take away everything everyone owns and split it evenly, I'm saying society has a responsibility not to let others take over and steal from us our most basic rights. That we have a right to drink and breath and eat and be healthy. No one should have the right to deny these things to another human.
Simple solutions to these problems are state-run healthcare and water

Would that Spain who, seeing the horror of being an american puppet elected a socialist government and pulled out of Iraq?

Oh yes it would.
If Spain hadnt been attacked a few days before the election, the socialists would have lost. They only won because of an emotional knee jerk reaction by many of the people. Britian, Japan, Australia, and the US all had troops in Iraq during the past elections and all were re-elected.

Canada and Australia came on board later, but the original "coalition of the willing" consisted of several nations such as Afganistahn, the Republic of Trongo and Mexica, two of which did not even have a military at the time of invasion
Ok, couple things here. 1st Canada was never and is not a part of the coalition of the willing. 2nd what are Trongo and Mexica? and if you mean Mexico, they didnt support the war either so Im not sure what your getting at.

Because water requires wealth to produce. It doesn't just come from nowhere - it must be collected in reservoirs, drilled for with aquifers or collected from desalinated seawater. All of these things are expensive and require employees, machinery and consumables. Then it must be distributed. All of this requires wealth which won't come from nowhere. You can rename "water bills" to "income tax" if you want, but all you're doing is charging people based onhow much they earn rather than on how much they consume. This is unfair.

People have a choice here also. They can set out rain buckets if they wish to have free water - or dig their own well. Or they can hire someone to dig a well for them. It is all about choice.

That is not the case at all. You REALLY need to investigate things a bit more.


You keep saying that but keep refusing to back your arguments with facts.

Simply denying something does not stop it from being true.
You have not managed to refute a single thing I say, instead you simply dismiss it because you do not like it

The UK does not rely on American military aid in any form.

In fact it was America that came crawling on it's stomach for British aid in Iraq because so many of its other allies were little more than 3rd world puppets with no military

Ever heard of a little thing called our nuclear deterrent?

Because water requires wealth to produce. It doesn't just come from nowhere - it must be collected in reservoirs, drilled for with aquifers or collected from desalinated seawater. All of these things are expensive and require employees, machinery and consumables. Then it must be distributed. All of this requires wealth which won't come from nowhere. You can rename "water bills" to "income tax" if you want, but all you're doing is charging people based onhow much they earn rather than on how much they consume. This is unfair.
Hardly. People who earn more don't always do more labor, so I fail to see how I'm robbing of their day's pay should that money be taken away.

Not to mention no matter what they earn most people need to cosume usually the same consumer goods to live (Whether the increase what they actually consume is not the question), so taxing from that perspective hardly seems fair.

You keep saying that but keep refusing to back your arguments with facts.

Simply denying something does not stop it from being true.
You have not managed to refute a single thing I say, instead you simply dismiss it because you do not like it


This is why!

This is what a comparable argument would be against communism: Good people don't condone feeding human remains to children. That is what communists do.

It is based in as much "fact" as the vast majority of your arguments.


Have you stopped beating your wife yet???

If Spain hadnt been attacked a few days before the election, the socialists would have lost. They only won because of an emotional knee jerk reaction by many of the people. Britian, Japan, Australia, and the US all had troops in Iraq during the past elections and all were re-elected.


Ok, couple things here. 1st Canada was never and is not a part of the coalition of the willing. 2nd what are Trongo and Mexica? and if you mean Mexico, they didnt support the war either so Im not sure what your getting at.

The Labour government was actually drastically weakened by its support for the war. They now rely on rival politcal parties to get their policies passed. So I think your statement needs a little context.

It was no more a knee jerk reaction than America's invasion of Afganistahn.
Spain saw a problem and sought to fix it.

The Republic of Trongo is a country, you wouldn't of heard of them because it is outside America and doesn't speak English. Do some research. America offered several of these countries huge incentives to act as supporters of the "coalition" in the UN.
Though when this failed they broke international law and invaded anyway, making their military war criminals

Because they hate our freedom! :headbang:

stop fooling yourself there is no such a thing as freedom. we like to beleive that there is :D

This is why!

This is what a comparable argument would be against communism: Good people don't condone feeding human remains to children. That is what communists do.

It is based in as much "fact" as the vast majority of your arguments.


Have you stopped beating your wife yet???

Yes, but if you accused Communists of eating children, I could prove they do not, instead of just denying it loudly or making snide comments. You however, though you consistently dismiss my comments, are never able to logically disprove them.

The Labour government was actually drastically weakened by its support for the war. They now rely on rival politcal parties to get their policies passed. So I think your statement needs a little context.

It was no more a knee jerk reaction than America's invasion of Afganistahn.
Spain saw a problem and sought to fix it.

The Republic of Trongo is a country, you wouldn't of heard of them because it is outside America and doesn't speak English. Do some research. America offered several of these countries huge incentives to act as supporters of the "coalition" in the UN.
Though when this failed they broke international law and invaded anyway, making their military war criminals


And the French did the same to dissuade them. I submit that allowing Saddam to kill 71,000 per month is more of the "war crime". We stopped genocide.

Ever heard of a little thing called our nuclear deterrent?

Ever heard of ours :rolleyes:

Yes, but if you accused Communists of eating children, I could prove they do not, instead of just denying it loudly or making snide comments. You however, though you consistently dismiss my comments, are never able to logically disprove them.


Then PROVE it.

And the French did the same to dissuade them. I submit that allowing Saddam to kill 71,000 per month is more of the "war crime". We stopped genocide.

The stopping of genocide was a lucky coinciddence.
You went in to find imaginary WMDs.

Though i'm going to have to ask you for a source for your 71,000 a month figure.

I am aware that before Sept. 11 500 Iraqis died each month at the hands of Americans "keeping the country in line"

Then PROVE it.


Excessive canniblism results in spongiform diseases, yet if we examine the basic health records of any Communist Country (as shown by the World Health Organisation amoung others) we can see that they had no excess of these diseases.


Your turn

The stopping of genocide was a lucky coinciddence.
You went in to find imaginary WMDs.

Though i'm going to have to ask you for a source for your 71,000 a month figure.

I am aware that before Sept. 11 500 Iraqis died each month at the hands of Americans "keeping the country in line"

500 Iraqis a month, by Americans, pre-9/11? Where do you get this shit from?

The stopping of genocide was a lucky coinciddence.
You went in to find imaginary WMDs.

Though i'm going to have to ask you for a source for your 71,000 a month figure.

I am aware that before Sept. 11 500 Iraqis died each month at the hands of Americans "keeping the country in line"

You are lying again, and mis-appropriating the blame.

What report are you citing that says there were no WMD's???

500 Iraqis a month, by Americans, pre-9/11? Where do you get this shit from?

The Independent. It is recognised as a Newspaper of Record in the UK.

Also the book, Numbers.


Since you ask

Excessive canniblism results in spongiform diseases, yet if we examine the basic health records of any Communist Country (as shown by the World Health Organisation amoung others) we can see that they had no excess of these diseases.

No, they just starved the Ukrainians to death. Nobody cares about the Ukrainians.

Besides, you trust the communist countries to GIVE us their records? Please.

You are lying again, and mis-appropriating the blame.

What report are you citing that says there were no WMD's???

It has been reported in all national media for over a year. No WMDs were found.

The WMD argument is proven to be a lie.

Only in America were these stories underplayed by the rightwing media.

The Independent. It is recognised as a Newspaper of Record in the UK.

Also the book, Numbers.


Since you ask

And, how? Why? What do the Americans do? "Stay in line, you people that we have nothing to do with!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm

No WMDs

smart debat.
you just forget"you"
And the why not? option

The Independent. It is recognised as a Newspaper of Record in the UK.

Also the book, Numbers.


Since you ask

Where are they getting information from??? (I am talking specifically of WMD's here)

And that was before the Hutton Enquiry, which i suggest you research

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm

No WMDs

So? America made a mistake. We're man enough to admit that. But they can't just leave.

Where are they getting information from??? (I am talking specifically of WMD's here)

The BBC, The Independent. The Hutton Enquiry (an independent enquiry commisioned by the UK government to investiagte whether the war was legal)

It has been reported in all national media for over a year. No WMDs were found.

The WMD argument is proven to be a lie.

Only in America were these stories underplayed by the rightwing media.


Show me the official results that the major media relied upon for such a claim. NOT the newspaper accounts.

So? America made a mistake. We're man enough to admit that. But they can't just leave.


No, that would mean giving up all those big tasty oil contracts.

Iraq was very close to agreeing on a consitution, but America blocked this first attempt because it gave Iraq control of it's oil. As reported by Johan Hari in the independent

No, that would mean giving up all those big tasty oil contracts.

It would also mean Iraq collapsing into anarchy and likely becoming a terrorist state. Yay.

What did the weapons inspectors say???? And show me where they said it - again IN the actual reports - not a newspaper's version of what they said.

Ever heard of ours :rolleyes:

Yes, it is based from four ballistic submarines, Vanguard, Victorious, Valiant, and Venerable, one of which is always on patrol, each carries sixteen launch systems for the TRIDENT-D5 of which the WARHEADS are BORROWED from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. See, because of Socialism we can't even afford our own nuclear deterrent.

Show me the official results that the major media relied upon for such a claim. NOT the newspaper accounts.

David Kelly, the Scientist in charge of Britain's search for WMD's commited suicide.

This was after he had admitted to being pressured by the government to find evidence of the weapons, and having the goverment use his reports prematurely.

He showed that the goverment intelligence was ill founded.

After this, a public enquiry (Hutton) was launched to investigate his death and the claims surrounding it.

It was made public knowledge by this stage (and has been admitted by the British Government) that no WMDs were discovered and the intelligence for them had never been conclusive.

The government then scapegoated Dr. Kelly, claiming it to be his fault. Hence the suicide

I should make clear that I am not arguing in favour or state-communism, such as the USSR, so these comparisons are non-sequiters.
No, most Communists don't. They realise that defending the indefensible will only result in people seeing their views for what they really are, so instead they invent a fairy land in which people will act against their interests because they're "nice" or because of "community spirit". The problem is that is not possible. There will always be dissenters and the society will break down. Therefore you need someone to enforce it. Lenin found this to his cost in the 20s - the peasants fought his attempts to steal their property and take away freedoms they had even under the Tsar, so they had to be killed. In their millions. Communism doesn't turn into a statist tyranny because the people who've tried it so far arent "proper communsits", it turns into a statist tyranny because there is no other way.

Especially since most political theorists actually believe state-communism to have been a form of capitalism.
I don't know who these people are, but they're clearly idiots. Capitalism is defined as a society in which there are no restricts except the necessity to respect others' "negative rights". A society in which the state has total control over the economy is a polar opposite of this.

As I have stated before, When capitalism is restrained by democracy and socialism, it is not so bad.
Well if you study your history, you'll find that the economic destruction and general deprevation of the general populus is directly proportional to how consistently socialism has been implemented. Note, for example, Lenin's policy of 'war communism' - true Communism where all produce save what people needed to survive was confiscated and redistributed. This lead to mass starvation, so it had to be replaced with the pseudo-capitalist "new economic policy". It is not socialism that restrains capitalism, it is the other way around.

I'm not for abolishing trade completely, but putting sensible limits on it, to prevent it from harming people unjustly.
Trade is based on mutual acceptability. It cannot unjustly harm people, by definition. Your "restrictions" force participants to act against their interests for the benefit of one or other party, or simply restrict their joint ability to act. This is tyranny.

IMO there are not yet enough restraints upon capitalists, who are very rarely put under legal bindings to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Define "taking responsibility for one's actions". If the acts of an individual infringe on another's rights, in a capitalist society he could be arrested or the wronged party could litigate depending on circumstance. What else do you wish to see?

Wealth is a taking game, America currently uses a 6th of the worlds resources,
It uses a 6th of the world' resource production, because it is best able to pay for it. In what way is this unfair?

"stuff" doesn't come out of thin air, it is finit. As is wealth.
There is a clear difference between stuff and wealth. There is a finite amount of iron ore in the ground, for instance, but that iron ore has little value unless it is extracted, processed and sold. The amount of "stuff" is unchanged, but wealth has appeared 'out of thin air'. This can continue as long as there is enough stuff, at which point growth will plateau and 'stuff' will simply be recycled (or until space mining becomes economically viable, which I personally think will happen first). This 'plateau point' is the same as it would be under communism (except that a communist society would take far longer to reach it, if it did at all).

A country can print millions of it's own currency but that does not equate to wealth, in fact in most cases it would cause the collapse of that countries economy by destroying the value of the currency
Printing currency is theft. This would not exist under a capitalist system, nor would government controlled currencies in general.

In theory capitalism does not give unlimited power. It practice it often does.
Demonstrate that this is the case.

There are no laws protecting people abroad being exploited by capatalism,
We're arguing about a capitalist society, not real world society. Under a capitalist society, rights would be uniform.

the businesses do not care about the welfare of these people and are happy to exploit them for profit.
And they don't have to, just as the employees do not have to care about the welfare of the business and can be happy to exploit it for profit. This mutual nature of trade ensures no one is unfairly exploited.

The people forced to work in sweatshops have no real choice.
I have no choice as to whether or not to get a job either. The amount this job pays (and, indeed, whether or not anyone wishes to employ me) depends on my worth to a potential employer.

A simple law such as a living minmum wage can prevent this, it is a simple check on the freedom of capitalists but allows everyone to live better lives and prevents people stealing what is not truly theirs.
The minimum wage creates a price floor on labour. Like any price floor, this leads to a surplus - that is, people are not willing to buy so much of it. In labour terms, this is called unemployment. A minimum wage is great... if you have a job, but a minimum wage works at the expense of business and at the expense of those who lose their jobs because of it. You would call this "exploitation", would you not? Setting a minimum price below which individuals are not allowed to offer their services creates suffering, and above all is not liberty.

When the only means of living is a $2 an hour job, this is not choice. They are forced to work at someone elses expence. Capitalism does not provide free education or training so if they are born into a poor family these people are essentially at the mercy of capitalists
Please don't call it "free" education. It is not "free". Nothing is "free". What you mean is, capitalism doesn't steal money from people in order to pay for education for others. This is quite right and proper.

The big businesses did not produce the food either. The workers did.
Farms and fishermen aren't generally "big business", but they do indeed produce food, yes.

Big businesses do not produce water, it is a natural product of the earth, that they capture and exploit.
Water requires wealth to produce. It doesn't just come from nowhere - it must be collected in reservoirs, drilled for with aquifers or collected from desalinated seawater. All of these things are expensive and require employees, machinery and consumables. Then it must be distributed. All of this requires wealth which won't come from nowhere. You can rename "water bills" to "income tax" if you want, but all you're doing is charging people based onhow much they earn rather than on how much they consume. This is unfair.

Every human needs water to live so they effectively enslave people by taking control of their most basic needs.
How is this morally justifiable? it is no different to theft.
They enslave them by asking them to enter into a mutually exceptable trade argeement? Bizarre definition of slavery, and indeed theft.

I do not say take away everything everyone owns and split it evenly, I'm saying society has a responsibility not to let others take over and steal from us our most basic rights.
Oh quite, which is why the state ought to enforce property rights against meddlesome busy-bodies like you and other socialists who want to steal things from people using weight of numbers.

That we have a right to drink and breath and eat and be healthy. No one should have the right to deny these things to another human.
Simple solutions to these problems are state-run healthcare and water

Again, you are arguing for "positive rights". No one has the right to take what belongs to someone else, no matter how pressing the need.

So? America made a mistake. We're man enough to admit that. But they can't just leave.


There was no mistake made.

We have reduced the violent deaths in Iraq from a MINIMUM average of 71,000 per year, to roughly 19,000 per year. That is ONLY taking 4 specific KNOWN events that Saddam presided over. It also takes the HIGHEST estimate from "Iraq Body Count" an anti-war group.

There were other reasons like they were firing on our planes, WMD's, UN violations, Attempting to assasinate our former President etc.etc.etc.

Hardly. People who earn more don't always do more labor,
No, they do labour of greater value. What is your point?

What did the weapons inspectors say???? And show me where they said it - again IN the actual reports - not a newspaper's version of what they said.

You get me a job with the government, i'll bring you the original report. But the government is hardly going to admit that no weapons had been found to the state controlled news service if it was not the case.

The BBC is world renowned as a reliable news source, i have provided you with numerous details and evidences, thus far you have provided none.

Please sure me a single shred of evidence for WMDs?

Or even a report that exists after 2002 claiming WMDs to exist?

David Kelly, the Scientist in charge of Britain's search for WMD's commited suicide.

This was after he had admitted to being pressured by the government to find evidence of the weapons, and having the goverment use his reports prematurely.

He showed that the goverment intelligence was ill founded.

After this, a public enquiry (Hutton) was launched to investigate his death and the claims surrounding it.

It was made public knowledge by this stage (and has been admitted by the British Government) that no WMDs were discovered and the intelligence for them had never been conclusive.

The government then scapegoated Dr. Kelly, claiming it to be his fault. Hence the suicide




SHOW ME THE DAMN REPORTS. Show me the ISG reports, the Kay reports etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3160602.stm

This report is a valid source, it would be considered so by historians.

It is now your turn to produce evidence

Sorry but it is as supid as THE US ARE FASCHIST,
Socialist revolutionair were communists..
Who cares wat is socialism(democrate)?
Surely this debat come from an ignorant.

Because capitalism doesn't work. It feels like it's working, because you live a comfortable lifestyle in America where you've got big screen TV's and laptops and god knows what else... but remember that whole $3,000,000,000,000 national debt you keep hearing about? America relies entirely on bonds from other countries... especially ones like CHINA (A communist country!) to keep it's economy afloat. America's barely made an honest dollar in decades; it just keeps selling out I.O.U.'s to other countries to make up for other debts.

Meanwhile, global conglomerates who are making money in places like France and Germany are selling their products to America and furthering our debt. They bribe and lobby our politicians to get themselves better deals at the cost of the consumer and the American Economy. Immoral bastards get you to buy $300 IPods when they made them in Indonesia for $25 a piece, and make YOU think you're getting a deal. Meanwhile, these companies, based in other countries make huge profits, which they spend on advertising to convince you to buy more overpriced crap here!

We sit around listening to workers complain about outsourcing and poor health care plans at work, as unemployment statistics rise all the time, our debt just keeps going up, taxes keep rising, but because the government is selling stocks and bonds to other countries, you can keep sitting pretty in your beautiful house. But in all honesty, our economy is going to hell!

Socialism is an economic policy that controls means of production - companies don't work for personal gain, they work for the gain of the people on the whole. The people aren't working for the man - the people are working for the people. It will encourage jobs within the nation - not outsourcing them, leaving people without jobs and without hope. It allows for public health-care for all, free doctors, medicines, all of it, because it's all produced by the state for free, and nobody's looking to make any money - they're just looking to serve the public. There's no reason to deny the poor medicine, because there is no poor. It's total equality.

And for those of you who believe there is no freedom in a socialist nation, that's not true. Because you're thinking of socialism as Stalin applied it in the U.S.S.R. That was a totalitarian government. But Socialism is perfectly applicable to a Democratic society! Leaders can still be freely elected and represent the will of the people as it should be. We can still have the freedoms of Religion, the Press, Speech, all of it. In a properly designed and well-run Socialist Democracy, we can still encourage a free-market artistic community, music, radio and television too - with government controlled, but not censoredstations and publishing companies, etc. People can still choose their occupations, just as they do now, except now, everyone would have equal opportunity to follow their ambitions, with free education and better chances for collage.

Don't sterotype Socialism in the same way that it was applied by Stalin, because that's not how it has to be. Socialism does not have ulterior motives - it's for the people and nothing less.

Explain things a bit?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3160602.stm

This report is a valid source, it would be considered so by historians.

It is now your turn to produce evidence

Did you notice the date???

3 October, 2003

Please show me the reports. This is a newspaper article. (it also was written before the Official search was finished - hell it was written only a couple of months after we went in.

I will settle for something in 2005 or later.

Because capitalism doesn't work. It feels like it's working, because you live a comfortable lifestyle in America where you've got big screen TV's and laptops and god knows what else... but remember that whole $3,000,000,000,000 national debt you keep hearing about? America relies entirely on bonds from other countries... especially ones like CHINA (A communist country!) to keep it's economy afloat. America's barely made an honest dollar in decades; it just keeps selling out I.O.U.'s to other countries to make up for other debts.

Meanwhile, global conglomerates who are making money in places like France and Germany are selling their products to America and furthering our debt. They bribe and lobby our politicians to get themselves better deals at the cost of the consumer and the American Economy. Immoral bastards get you to buy $300 IPods when they made them in Indonesia for $25 a piece, and make YOU think you're getting a deal. Meanwhile, these companies, based in other countries make huge profits, which they spend on advertising to convince you to buy more overpriced crap here!

We sit around listening to workers complain about outsourcing and poor health care plans at work, as unemployment statistics rise all the time, our debt just keeps going up, taxes keep rising, but because the government is selling stocks and bonds to other countries, you can keep sitting pretty in your beautiful house. But in all honesty, our economy is going to hell!

Socialism is an economic policy that controls means of production - companies don't work for personal gain, they work for the gain of the people on the whole. The people aren't working for the man - the people are working for the people. It will encourage jobs within the nation - not outsourcing them, leaving people without jobs and without hope. It allows for public health-care for all, free doctors, medicines, all of it, because it's all produced by the state for free, and nobody's looking to make any money - they're just looking to serve the public. There's no reason to deny the poor medicine, because there is no poor. It's total equality.

And for those of you who believe there is no freedom in a socialist nation, that's not true. Because you're thinking of socialism as Stalin applied it in the U.S.S.R. That was a totalitarian government. But Socialism is perfectly applicable to a Democratic society! Leaders can still be freely elected and represent the will of the people as it should be. We can still have the freedoms of Religion, the Press, Speech, all of it. In a properly designed and well-run Socialist Democracy, we can still encourage a free-market artistic community, music, radio and television too - with government controlled, but not censoredstations and publishing companies, etc. People can still choose their occupations, just as they do now, except now, everyone would have equal opportunity to follow their ambitions, with free education and better chances for collage.

Don't sterotype Socialism in the same way that it was applied by Stalin, because that's not how it has to be. Socialism does not have ulterior motives - it's for the people and nothing less.

Explain things a bit?


You haven't been paying attention have you.

The reason I am being so insistant Mt. Sam is that the press has been lying to you. Show me the REPORTS they based their stories on, and I will show you that the press is lying.

Anyone who says "no WMD" in relation to Iraq is either WILLFULLY ignorant or lying through their teeth.

All I am going to say is that socialism doesn't take freedom away it is an economic system communism is the government system that happened to take ppl's freedoms away because they got stcuk with some crazy leaders. So like I said before spain I think is still a democratic socialist nation. And if you want the truth nothing politically or economically works for more then the present anyways nothing can really be proven to work unless it works forever and nothing hes so there you go we will never know.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
Because he is:
a) idiot,
b) thief.

Because he is:
a) idiot,
b) thief.

Yup.

All I am going to say is that socialism doesn't take freedom away it is an economic system communism is the government system that happened to take ppl's freedoms away because they got stcuk with some crazy leaders. So like I said before spain I think is still a democratic socialist nation. And if you want the truth nothing politically or economically works for more then the present anyways nothing can really be proven to work unless it works forever and nothing hes so there you go we will never know.


How about my freedom to profit from my property? Socialism severely restricts the freedom of the means of production.

Sam???? Mt. Sam???? Where'd you go???? You are still online! Come on!

Because he is:
a) idiot,
b) thief.
i don't know
explain away.?
lol

i mean in a socialist way explain it to me?
i want to learn.;)

SHOW ME THE DAMN REPORTS. Show me the ISG reports, the Kay reports etc.
Search for them yourself, you lazy bastard.

Search for them yourself, you lazy bastard.


I have ALL of the reports in their entirety. I want him to see that his sources are LYING to him - whichever report he chooses. They are all publicly available with a simple google search.

The reason I am being so insistant Mt. Sam is that the press has been lying to you. Show me the REPORTS they based their stories on, and I will show you that the press is lying.

Anyone who says "no WMD" in relation to Iraq is either WILLFULLY ignorant or lying through their teeth.

This link (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) will take you to the Iraq Survey undertaken for the CIA in order to ascertain just what the extent of Saddam's programs were. Every news story claiming that there were no WMD's has referenced this study. Here are a few highlights:

From the Nuclear section under Key Findings:

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.

* Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
* Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

From the Chemical weapons section under Key Findings:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

From the Biological section under Key Findings:

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Thats not what this debate is about. And tens thousands of people is nothing compared to the millions of people forced to live in slums and gutters while the capitalist sit in unneeded, over-sized houses and decide that so-and-so needs to be fired or we'll lose money. And who do you think gave them the title "Third-World?" Those with money/power that put them in a lower-class.

I know this one guy who runs a Multimedia business, he has 3 Mansions and is building a fourth. Yet he pays his employees below average.

No, most Communists don't. They realise that defending the indefensible will only result in people seeing their views for what they really are, so instead they invent a fairy land in which people will act against their interests because they're "nice" or because of "community spirit". The problem is that is not possible. There will always be dissenters and the society will break down. Therefore you need someone to enforce it. Lenin found this to his cost in the 20s - the peasants fought his attempts to steal their property and take away freedoms they had even under the Tsar, so they had to be killed. In their millions. Communism doesn't turn into a statist tyranny because the people who've tried it so far arent "proper communsits", it turns into a statist tyranny because there is no other way.

Well starters, i'm not a communist. It seems an odd attitude in America that anyone who believes in equality or the welfare state must be a communist.
Any fool can see the errors of the USSR, just as we can see the horrors of 17th and 18th century capitalism and the horrors of sweatshops today. A thing does not become wrong purely by assosiation. Socialist political theories can and do easily function in democratic societies.


I don't know who these people are, but they're clearly idiots. Capitalism is defined as a society in which there are no restricts except the necessity to respect others' "negative rights". A society in which the state has total control over the economy is a polar opposite of this.


It was the rich and powerful controlling all the means of production at the expence of the workers. This is Capitalism. The USSR was never truly socialist, this is discussed n many works of George Orwell, a giant of a political thinker.


Well if you study your history, you'll find that the economic destruction and general deprevation of the general populus is directly proportional to how consistently socialism has been implemented. Note, for example, Lenin's policy of 'war communism' - true Communism where all produce save what people needed to survive was confiscated and redistributed. This lead to mass starvation, so it had to be replaced with the pseudo-capitalist "new economic policy". It is not socialism that restrains capitalism, it is the other way around.


This is simply not true, look at the victorian age, an age completely free of any socialism in Britain, it was hell where workers were ruthlessly exploited and had no rights. It is an example of unrestrained capitalism.


Trade is based on mutual acceptability. It cannot unjustly harm people, by definition. Your "restrictions" force participants to act against their interests for the benefit of one or other party, or simply restrict their joint ability to act. This is tyranny.


Trade should be mutual, but capitalism prevents this and makes trade exploitation.
For example, I need Apples, you need Carrots, let's swap. That is trade.
Capitalism introduces ruthless competion to trade, where the idea is to come out better than the other side, it makes trade into war.


Define "taking responsibility for one's actions". If the acts of an individual infringe on another's rights, in a capitalist society he could be arrested or the wronged party could litigate depending on circumstance. What else do you wish to see?


Airports contribute massively to carbon released into the atmosphere and noise pollution. But refuse to contribute anything to combating these problems.
Big companies are rarely forced to clean up the pollution they create. They should be forced, because it is their mess.


There is a clear difference between stuff and wealth. There is a finite amount of iron ore in the ground, for instance, but that iron ore has little value unless it is extracted, processed and sold. The amount of "stuff" is unchanged, but wealth has appeared 'out of thin air'. This can continue as long as there is enough stuff, at which point growth will plateau and 'stuff' will simply be recycled (or until space mining becomes economically viable, which I personally think will happen first). This 'plateau point' is the same as it would be under communism (except that a communist society would take far longer to reach it, if it did at all).


But the companies do not exist to remove iron from the ground, they exist to profit from it, preventing others from getting their own resources, and setting whatever price they deem worthy. Many products on todays market have a mark up of over 1000% on the production cost.


Printing currency is theft. This would not exist under a capitalist system, nor would government controlled currencies in general.


Currency is property of the government, it is the goverments responsibility to print currency. This is what we call the national mint.
Who do you think makes money? it doesn't appear by magic




We're arguing about a capitalist society, not real world society. Under a capitalist society, rights would be uniform.


Did you not just accuse communists of being fantasists? if we must debate capitalism we must debate it as it is manifesting in society.


And they don't have to, just as the employees do not have to care about the welfare of the business and can be happy to exploit it for profit. This mutual nature of trade ensures no one is unfairly exploited.


It is not mutual. in a poor country where everything is controlled by someone else and your only choice is to work for 10c a day, this is not mutual. it is not trade. it is salvery. Companies can easily afford to pay these people, simply by sharing the profits of their "mutual" venture, but they horde all of the money. Trainers that cost less than a dollar to produce are sold for $100, yet the people who actually make the shoes receive less than 1% of this.


I have no choice as to whether or not to get a job either. The amount this job pays (and, indeed, whether or not anyone wishes to employ me) depends on my worth to a potential employer.


You are fortunate to have been born where you are. In many places, they do not even have this choice.


The minimum wage creates a price floor on labour. Like any price floor, this leads to a surplus - that is, people are not willing to buy so much of it. In labour terms, this is called unemployment. A minimum wage is great... if you have a job, but a minimum wage works at the expense of business and at the expense of those who lose their jobs because of it. You would call this "exploitation", would you not? Setting a minimum price below which individuals are not allowed to offer their services creates suffering, and above all is not liberty.


Next you'll say anti-slavery laws are against liberty! A company should not be allowed to take unfair shares of it's profits at the expence of its workers.
No one needs to lose their jobs, it just means fat cats have to have one less TV in their house. it is capitalist greed that causes job cuts, not minimum wage, the companies can easily afford to keep as many staff on a humane wage.


Please don't call it "free" education. It is not "free". Nothing is "free". What you mean is, capitalism doesn't steal money from people in order to pay for education for others. This is quite right and proper.


Education directly benefits society, it produces are better work force and doctors for our hospitals, it is directly in our interest to subsidise universities and schools.


Water requires wealth to produce. It doesn't just come from nowhere - it must be collected in reservoirs, drilled for with aquifers or collected from desalinated seawater. All of these things are expensive and require employees, machinery and consumables. Then it must be distributed. All of this requires wealth which won't come from nowhere. You can rename "water bills" to "income tax" if you want, but all you're doing is charging people based onhow much they earn rather than on how much they consume. This is unfair.


Watr is a basic right, and yet requires wealth to produce, so we all have a hand in producing it so that our society may have water. "water bills" makes something 100% neccesary to life a designer product, it means the rich get to choose who they serve, who lives and dies. They should not be allowed to own these commodities, it is theft. That is why governments should control it.


They enslave them by asking them to enter into a mutually exceptable trade argeement? Bizarre definition of slavery, and indeed theft.


It is not mutual as I have shown


Oh quite, which is why the state ought to enforce property rights against meddlesome busy-bodies like you and other socialists who want to steal things from people using weight of numbers.


Tell me, when we take something from a weaker person is that not theft?
If so then capitalists and their definition of property is little more than theft.
Others do not have the capacity to get the water, but rather than making it a national resource, they use their strength to control it and sell it.
They use their economic power to set the prices at which sweatshop workers must be employed. They offer no choice, it is this or starve. That my friend is theft. No different to mugging a man in the street.


Again, you are arguing for "positive rights". No one has the right to take what belongs to someone else, no matter how pressing the need.

We are weighing up wants, like "my need to have 5 cars" against needs, like "a poor mans need for a glass of water" ??

that is inhuman

Praetonia

I'm afraid it is time for me to leave, however i've enjoyed the debate.

Another day perhaps?


-sam

bossman(at)socksofwrath.co.uk

Are they not? Primarily, they belong to whoever owns the land. However, natural resources have no value while they are underground. To have value, they must be extracted and processed. This requires labour that must be paid for, machines that must be bought, materials and consumables purchased to support the other two... do you see?


And there we have another concept of ownership. The idea that one CAN 'own the land'.

Of course - even if I DO own the land, I cannot thus claim to 'produce' anything, if my material is purely a natural resource.

Who said anything about the material being underground? What if my material is water?


"Stuff" has no intrinsic value, only what others are willing to pay. This is the only way a free society can operate, because otherwise people would be being forced to pay what they are unwilling to, and this would result in slavery. 5 hours' work sweeping streets does not equivelate to 5 hours' work as a civil engineer, because the produce of these two labours defined as their value to others defined as what others are willing to pay are different. No one should be paid large amounts of "stuff" for work only worth small amounts of "stuff".


You appeal to ridicule with your example. Again - going back to water, the resource I was thinking of above, why does producing clean fresh water pay barely above the minimum wage? Is it not important?

What one gets PAID, and what one works to the VALUE of - are rarely connected.


Why yes of course, but ownership is a basic right. If individuals own nothing then something (I would call it the state, Communists would probably call it something else) owns everything. This is tyranny and leads to slavery with people producing things which then are not their own.


Ownership is not a 'basic right'. That's a ridiculous argument, based on wishful thinking.

There ARE no 'rights'... except what our society allows.

And- yet again, you create a strawman.. if no one owns personal property.... the state must own everything?

Not at all... there could simply be no system of ownership. Or - communities may own communal property. Two options - off the top of my head.


Yes indeed, because no one has the right to consume "stuff" when he has not produced any "stuff" himself - that would be theft.


What about children? Are my children stealing from me?


I assume you're talking about inflation? In which case the market has demosntrated that wages rise in line. As "stuff" becomes worth less, employees demand more "stuff" for their labour.


Rubbish. SOME wages rise in line with a perception of inflation. Most do not. A '4% per annum cost of living raise' will not actually cover the cost of living increase in the last half a dozen years.


Provide citations, because personal experience tells me this is untrue.


And personal experience tells me it IS true.

Because people are willing to pay for it. If there was no market for bottled water, it wouldn't be sold.

That answers why people DO bottle and sell it... not why it SHOULD be bottled and sold.

Because water requires wealth to produce. It doesn't just come from nowhere - it must be collected in reservoirs, drilled for with aquifers or collected from desalinated seawater. All of these things are expensive and require employees, machinery and consumables. Then it must be distributed. All of this requires wealth which won't come from nowhere. You can rename "water bills" to "income tax" if you want, but all you're doing is charging people based onhow much they earn rather than on how much they consume. This is unfair.

More capitalist propaganda.

Why does any of this 'require wealth'?

Does that mean a society which had no concept of 'wealth', would not need water, would not manage to obtain it?

anwsering a topic is one thing ,
but not knowing wat bullshit is ,well; is not mutualist..
Isn't it?

At least we don't have gulags.

Cough*Gauntanemo*cough

Cough*Gauntanemo*cough
*Coughs* And Abu Graibh, not to mention other centres in foreign states where people get moved to be tortured*ends cough*

Because he is:
a) idiot,
b) thief.

I think his name says it all.