Outsourcing Helps the Poor

[punditbeat]

True and outsourcing, as I just showed you, makes it worse.



I love this arguement. People always say to me communism is a terrible ideology when they see I sport the hammer and sickle but they fail to understand many things. First, every nation that has had 'communism' (not actual communism, I'll explain that later or in another thread) has been the worst shithole-thrid world-poor-peasant country imaginable. Russia, for example, was a country that consisted of 90% peasants before the revolution. People worked all their lives doing hard manual labor to feed nobles and czars and the army. They sewed there own clothes and made their own shoes. Lenin organized a revolution and took the wealth which was stolen from the peasants by the czars and gave it to the people who worked the fields. While, the rest of the world was in a devestating depresion (1930's) Russia was a booming economy. Suddenly there were factories. Suddenly there were tractors clothes and food for those who had previously broken their back for cow ****. Woman's rights came to the forefront and arranged marriages were ended. In 1920, Russia became the first european state to allow abortions. In cuba it's the same story. Schools for children were build and illiteracy was destroyed forever. Children had clothes and books. Families who had been left to die in the streets by Batitista now had homes. Castro brought free and quality healthcare better than that of the first world. For More on Cuba read this.

Why did people flee? Well those who did were mostly nobles in Russia, and plantation owners in Cuba. The numbers have been greatly exagerated by the "liberal media" here because in Cuba only about 1000 people leave each year. Compared to other simialer countries like Nicaragua and Jamaica and even Mexico, this is much less. In fact if you compare Cuba to other small latin countries in most things cuba is better.

Of course socialism failed in general in the 20th century. It was ****ed the second Stalin took power and beaurocratized the state, consolidated all worker power, and did away with free speech. Communism is not about that. It's about liberating workers from the leeches who steal from them. It's about common ownership. It's about communities working together and it's about freedom. As Trotsky once said, "socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen".

Very interesting....nice story

 

[LeftyHenry]

Yes... CIA.gov... I'd say theyre a more reliable source then "wakeup walmart.com"
anyway... try this on....
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/features/aoc/aoc.deng.html
"Deng recast China, and in many ways altered the world we live in. He did this through the simple expedient of giving the land Mao had originally confiscated from the landlord class back to the peasants. Through the contract responsibility system, farmers were free to grow any crops they wished, so long as they delivered a specified amount of staple crops to the central government. Soon money was beginning to course through the system. Two-story brick houses rose where thatched huts used to be. Some 200 million Chinese - more people than all of Indonesia - escaped destitution."

The difference is that Wake-Up Wal-Mart sources there facts. That article you posted, did not. Both are biased but at least Wake-Up Wal-Mart's facts have been researched and aren't just anti-communist propaganda that the CIA.gov's article is.

Okay that's great, Deng built an apartment building. He also set the stage for the low wages and terrible conditions workers now live in. The lack of healthcare and education and other necessities. Just look at the conditions
in China now for the working class. Besides, what makes you think that a worker or farmer would live in this apartment made for the new bourgious class.

I suggest you read this about Maoist China

Link Here

not quite all...
"Commenting about the protectionist approach by the US towards outsourcing, Blake, Jr. said, "Outsourcing offers India, job creation and investment, provides US firms with improved efficiency and profitability. This would seem to present a win-win situation."

Ya and Blake has can say that from his big corporate office while saving billions by taking away American jobs and outsourcing them to India where he can avoid any sense of 'labor laws'. Blake most likely hasn't worked in one of these 'created jobs' or even seen the conditions.

ready for the other side?...

Ya and read the first part!

Link Here

once again, I refer you to this.

 

[SFLRN]

It's not necessarilly just about displacing American workers. It's more about the fact that I'm an abolitionist :doh


...That pay low wages in poor conditions....




illegal immigration doesn't displace workers because the employer will first employ someone who speaks english or whatever rather than someone who doesn't. There is a working class people in the US who want those jobs but Mexicans usually are not hired by large companies like that.



ya the per capita of the new elite class of factory managers, and executives, but for the working class things are horrid. The rights violations cannot be addressed as they are a byproduct of capitalism and the idea of maximizing profit. The only possible solution is higher prices. Until that, we will continue to be dependent on this neo-slavery and most likely, this issue will continue to be ignored.



They have no choice. Not everyone can farm or owns a piece of land. Those who work in the sweatshops are often urbanites.

Slavery is ownership by another person. Slavery would be being forced to do the work by some outside power. No one forces these workers to work. Sure they may not have the same job choices as Americans do. But you could argue in the same breath that without these factories they are forced to work the fields to survive, does that mean they are slaves? Sure we're all slaves to the fact that we need to feed ourselves. But lets consider this, would we rather go and prevent them from having that opportunity, to work in factories, or nothing at all? You say some of them could not farm anyways, so what should they do if we do not let them work factories and they can't get farms? Should they sit there and die?

You're right, employers prefer employing people from their own country, but when the opportunity cost is not in their benefit they choose not to, just like with immigrants. Not to mention, why waste a completely competent workforce on such mindless manufacturing? They would be more efficient to gain an American education and get a better job. Which the overwhelming majority have done. There is about 9% (US Census) of American who are still high school dropouts, down significantly from the past. If there wasn't this global competition this number would be higher. Just like immigration might edge out americans for low skill jobs outsourcing does that as well. But in the long term it helps. Very few people who used to work those sweetshops are still unemployed. They simply found work in other fields. Sure its nice to not have to think on the job, but theres only so much a government can do.

Of course we're dependent on their cheap labor, it saves many poor americans a lot of money. And they're also dependent on us. Because even if workers see a small increase in wages, its still better than before. Because as you say, "they could not own land and work it." But is it bad that we are forced to depend on each other? No man is an island.

Outsourcing doesnt displace workers just like immigration doesnt
And EPI (as a reference to some other poster) is too biased of a source to use.

 

[gynks2001]

Okay that's great, Deng built an apartment building. He also set the stage for the low wages and terrible conditions workers now live in. The lack of healthcare and education and other necessities. Just look at the conditions
in China now for the working class. Besides, what makes you think that a worker or farmer would live in this apartment made for the new bourgious class.

read that article again lefty, you completely missed the point. Mao turned out to be a nightmarish failure for all of China and he even admitted it toward the end of his rule. Deng at least got the countrty back on its feet and is now quickly becoming a world economic powerhouse. Don't get me wrong, im not a big supporter of Deng in the least, complete capitalism and complete communism is not a good mix and is certainly hurting the people of China. This is because as more Chinese people find jobs and start making money, there is naturally going to be a push for workers rights and minimum wages, such as there was in the US. However, since China wants to remain socially communist, people arent allowed to protest and speak against the government.
the GLF did not work and hurt Chinese economy to the point where everyone, farmers included, embraced the change Deng proposed.

Blake most likely hasn't worked in one of these 'created jobs' or even seen the conditions.

Most likely not, but if he had you wouldnt listen either, you even disregard the words of people in India that have those jobs as 'Western propoganda'

Ya and read the first part!

I read it, but the second part explains that the GLF ended up being more of a complet failure then an ounce of success for the economy.

 

[LeftyHenry]

read that article again lefty, you completely missed the point. Mao turned out to be a nightmarish failure for all of China and he even admitted it toward the end of his rule. Deng at least got the countrty back on its feet and is now quickly becoming a world economic powerhouse. Don't get me wrong, im not a big supporter of Deng in the least, complete capitalism and complete communism is not a good mix and is certainly hurting the people of China.

The only nightmare in China was the drought and terrible weather of China in 1959. Anybody who has studied basic Chinese history knows that droughts, and famines and terrible weather are/have been common in Chinese history. The GFL created radical change and brought worker's rights, like never before. The only mistake was the pace at which Mao collectivized however, the collectivization and rationing of food probably saved more Chinese people than if Jishi was in power with his free market policy where 90% of the wealth was in 5% of the hands (or something crazy like that). If Jishi had been in power the results would have been far more catastrophic. Hell, a good example is Africa now in places like Congo and Ethiopia and many other countries where there is a market capitalist economy and the vast majortiy of the people are in deep poverty and in some places starving.

What is this, complete capitalism and communism that you claim is in China? China has never been communist. China is State-Capitalist. Meaning that it has an (very) controlled market economy. Deng did make some improvements but that comes naturally.

This is because as more Chinese people find jobs and start making money, there is naturally going to be a push for workers rights and minimum wages, such as there was in the US. However, since China wants to remain socially communist, people arent allowed to protest and speak against the government.

That's the most upsurd **** ever said! Socialy communist? What a load of bollocks. Who have you been learning about communism from? The US school system? :rofl

okay let me quickly fill you in on the definition of communism, socialism, and the nature of 20th century "communist states"

Communism is a stateless, classless society in which the means of production are owned communally

Socialism is a worker's state which seeks to establish a stateless or at least classless society. During socialism, the means of production are owned by the Public

Socialism is the first step towards communism this is the beliefs held by communists

Capitalism ==> revolution ==> socialism ==> communism

(this is the belief held by anarchists)

Capitalism ==> revolution ==> communism

Now where did the USSR and China go wrong? Well, in short communism and socialism are systems of the working class. The working class needs to be fully behind it. In cases, where the working class is not, a perversion of socialism called Stalinism emerges where the socialist government restricts the rights of the workers. Marx's writings stressed the importance of Worker and communal ownership of the means of production.

Now if a society is communist, it will be democratic. Why? because how can the means of production be run communally if the people who own it have no say in whats being done with it? Socialism is the same. What we're seeing now in Oaxaca, Mexico is a socialist commune emerging which is run in a directly democratic-communal fashion. In anycase, the USSR stopped being socialist around 1931 when Stalin consolidated worker "soviets" (russian for councils) power in decision making. China stopped being socialist probably towards the end of the Hundred Flower Program when they started rounding up working class dissenters.

So than what was the USSR 1932 and after? It was State-Capitalist. The state controlled the means of production and engaged in market activities with capitalist countries.

I read it, but the second part explains that the GLF ended up being more of a complet failure then an ounce of success for the economy.

Ya but that's because of the weather. Besides, the infarstructure (i.e. schools, nurseries, hospitals, factories) were still there and contributing.

Besides the only reason why the famine is focused on so much is that it happend under a "socialist" (I use that loosely). You rarely here about the capitalist famines and poverty in Latin America and Africa or the famines in China that had occured before because of the weather

 

[LeftyHenry]

Slavery is ownership by another person. Slavery would be being forced to do the work by some outside power. No one forces these workers to work. Sure they may not have the same job choices as Americans do. But you could argue in the same breath that without these factories they are forced to work the fields to survive, does that mean they are slaves? Sure we're all slaves to the fact that we need to feed ourselves. But lets consider this, would we rather go and prevent them from having that opportunity, to work in factories, or nothing at all? You say some of them could not farm anyways, so what should they do if we do not let them work factories and they can't get farms? Should they sit there and die?

Wage-slavery doesn't necessarily mean ownership by another person. It means that you are forced to work against your will for some wage which you have no control over. There is wage-slavery in America, but it is more severe in India and other countries. As a matter of fact, they are forced against their will. I posted a link a couple of posts back in which a worker claimed to be locked into the factory and forced to work or not recieve their earned wage. In Columbia also, there was a high profile story a couple months ago where Coca-Cola had hired right-wing paramilitaries to scare workers from starting a union.

 

[gynks2001]

whats this whole thing about 'state-capitalism'? state capitalism is one of the broadest terms in the economic dictionary. There is a Marxist definition, a capitalist definition, and a socialist definition of 'state-capitalism.'
So yes, I agree, China is state-capitalist but they do have communist social policies.

 

[LeftyHenry]

whats this whole thing about 'state-capitalism'? state capitalism is one of the broadest terms in the economic dictionary. There is a Marxist definition, a capitalist definition, and a socialist definition of 'state-capitalism.'
So yes, I agree, China is state-capitalist but they do have communist social policies.

once again I'll repeat myself

Communist social policy = democracy

communal ownership cannot exsist if people can't discuss together how they want to run the communal production they own.

State-Capitalism is a broad term. In terms of the USSR post-1931, State-Capitalism was in a extreme form. There were socialist economic policies like collectivization but there was a lack of worker control because everything was state-owned and beaurocratized.

China is very different and I haven't studied it in depth so I don't no when it became State-Capitalist.

Different branches of the Revolutionary Left look at the USSR differently.

Stalinists/Maoists= USSR socialist until 1953, China socialist until 1976

Trotskyists= China = State Capitalist or a degenerate worker's state, USSR = Socialist until 1931, state capitalist or degenerate worker's state after

Anarchist = all state-capitalist

 

[gynks2001]

once again I'll repeat myself

Communist social policy = democracy

communal ownership cannot exsist if people can't discuss together how they want to run the communal production they own.

State-Capitalism is a broad term. In terms of the USSR post-1931, State-Capitalism was in a extreme form. There were socialist economic policies like collectivization but there was a lack of worker control because everything was state-owned and beaurocratized.

China is very different and I haven't studied it in depth so I don't no when it became State-Capitalist.

Different branches of the Revolutionary Left look at the USSR differently.

Stalinists/Maoists= USSR socialist until 1953, China socialist until 1976

Trotskyists= China = State Capitalist or a degenerate worker's state, USSR = Socialist until 1931, state capitalist or degenerate worker's state after

Anarchist = all state-capitalist

yes... but they are still communist in the sense that one is not allowed to protest or speak against the government. One also doesnt have the right to express religion and the govt determines the school curriculem.
I believe it is safe to say that China is communist and mainly capitalistic.

 

[SFLRN]

Wage-slavery doesn't necessarily mean ownership by another person. It means that you are forced to work against your will for some wage which you have no control over. There is wage-slavery in America, but it is more severe in India and other countries. As a matter of fact, they are forced against their will. I posted a link a couple of posts back in which a worker claimed to be locked into the factory and forced to work or not recieve their earned wage. In Columbia also, there was a high profile story a couple months ago where Coca-Cola had hired right-wing paramilitaries to scare workers from starting a union.

Where in America is anyone forced to work? Perhaps the army comes in, and under threat of death, makes anyone work? That would be forcing someone to work. The thing is people may be forced to work so they can survive. But under any system imaginable we have to work to survive. Imagine if the cavemen thought it was slavery for them to have to hunt for their food.

Wage slavery in America? Like where? Where does the state go and bring the Army to your house and force you, by threat of death, to work? It doesn't happen. Okay now I'll agree no one wants to work in a sweatshop over a nice office job, but it will be awhile until everyone has that choice. Forced to work? Sure thats 1 example of someone being locked in, a definate human rights violation. But just because in one instance there was a violation does that mean we throw the whole system out? Thats one worker in millions. The other million or so are never threatened by death to work at a factory. If they choose not to they can do so. Yes they have limited control over the wage, just like many people in low skilled americans job do. If they think it does not pay enough then they can shop around for better wages or work until better wages are provided by someone who wants efficient workers. Where is it that people are forced, by gun point to work? How are they forced to work? furthermore you did not answer my questions from the previous post.

 

[LeftyHenry]

yes... but they are still communist in the sense that one is not allowed to protest or speak against the government. One also doesnt have the right to express religion and the govt determines the school curriculem.
I believe it is safe to say that China is communist and mainly capitalistic.

I'm starting to get frustrated because you are not reading my posts. Rather, you are going by your own brain washed definition of communism.

COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM=ECONOMIC SYSTEM, NOT POLITICAL SYSTEM

CAPITALISM=ECONOMIC SYSTEM, NOT POLITICAL SYSTEM

Communism has never exsisted before

Socialist Democracies include = The Paris Commune, The Oaxaca Commune, The St. Petersburg Soviet, and the USSR (1917-1931)

Capitalist dictatorships include = Pinochet Chile, Peron's Argentina, Hitler's Germany, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, and various African despotisms


So you can't say socially-communist. It makes no sense and makes you look like a fool considering that there have been many capitalist despotism and still are.

Communism would be the most democratic of systems, because the proletariat, or the masses are in control of the system. While in Capitalism a small percentage of the elite and wealthy are in control of the system. Thus in true communism the masses would allow for far more personal freedom.

 

[gynks2001]

I'm starting to get frustrated because you are not reading my posts. Rather, you are going by your own brain washed definition of communism.

COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM=ECONOMIC SYSTEM, NOT POLITICAL SYSTEM

CAPITALISM=ECONOMIC SYSTEM, NOT POLITICAL SYSTEM

Communism has never exsisted before

Socialist Democracies include = The Paris Commune, The Oaxaca Commune, The St. Petersburg Soviet, and the USSR (1917-1931)

Capitalist dictatorships include = Pinochet Chile, Peron's Argentina, Hitler's Germany, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, and various African despotisms


So you can't say socially-communist. It makes no sense and makes you look like a fool considering that there have been many capitalist despotism and still are.

Communism would be the most democratic of systems, because the proletariat, or the masses are in control of the system. While in Capitalism a small percentage of the elite and wealthy are in control of the system. Thus in true communism the masses would allow for far more personal freedom.

okay, i know that. What would you consider China's political system then? It certainly isnt democratic...
I also dissagree with your lofty view of socialism and communism...
Communism/socialism is a great idea on paper for a perfect world scenario, the only problem is once the idea comes off paper and into the REAL world, which is far from perfect, we see how flawed the system becomes.
Communism/socialism doesnt work on a worldwide scale. So every country that is now powerful in the world economic system has gotten rid of many of its communist or socialist economic policies.
China is becoming one of the worlds biggest economic powerhouses and is improving its living conditions rapidly.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Where in America is anyone forced to work? Perhaps the army comes in, and under threat of death, makes anyone work? That would be forcing someone to work. The thing is people may be forced to work so they can survive. But under any system imaginable we have to work to survive. Imagine if the cavemen thought it was slavery for them to have to hunt for their food.

Wage-Slavery in America is working for a wage you have no control over and which everyday is a constant struggle to feed your family, pay the rent, etc... Under any system imaginable you do have to work to survive but only in capitalism can you work hard and sill not have enough to get by. People who have jobs which don't pay living wages, yet they probably work harder and longer than there white collar counterparts. 44% of Americans live on under 40,000 dollars a year. That is upsurd. You can't get by in most places and in many places that is dire poverty.

Wage slavery in America? Like where? Where does the state go and bring the Army to your house and force you, by threat of death, to work? It doesn't happen. Okay now I'll agree no one wants to work in a sweatshop over a nice office job, but it will be awhile until everyone has that choice. Forced to work? Sure thats 1 example of someone being locked in, a definate human rights violation. But just because in one instance there was a violation does that mean we throw the whole system out? Thats one worker in millions. The other million or so are never threatened by death to work at a factory. If they choose not to they can do so. Yes they have limited control over the wage, just like many people in low skilled americans job do. If they think it does not pay enough then they can shop around for better wages or work until better wages are provided by someone who wants efficient workers. Where is it that people are forced, by gun point to work? How are they forced to work? furthermore you did not answer my questions from the previous post.

Like in the ghettos of America where it is a constant struggle to get by. That's not just one instance. There are many others. You're just not going to have many examples of that on record WHEN YOU WORK 15 HOURS FOR 15 DOLLARS AND CAN'T AFFORD TO RISK LOSING YOUR JOB! They actually are threatened by death. It's either slavery or starvation. In America it is far less severe but in those places the wages are so small you can't tell the difference. In fact, many sweatshop workers probably live in worse conditions than American slaves did. THIS IS AN UTTER VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, YOU CANNOT DEFEND IT. I mean read the violations. Corporations like Wal-Mart have violated every human right from working overtime to child labor to beating workers who try to leave.

 

[LeftyHenry]

okay, i know that. What would you consider China's political system then? It certainly isnt democratic...

It's a dictatorship or despotism. Hitler wasn't socially a communist because he was a dictator. That would make no sense

I also dissagree with your lofty view of socialism and communism...
Communism/socialism is a great idea on paper for a perfect world scenario, the only problem is once the idea comes off paper and into the REAL world, which is far from perfect, we see how flawed the system becomes.

Well I get that arguement alot. Here is my response. The revolution must be overwhelmingly supported by the proletariat in order to succeed. That is what socialism entails. If it isn't like in Russia and China, we see a completely different system emerge.

Second, communism failed on it's first attempts. So what? So did Democracy in Rome and Greece and capitalism is failing right now all over the world from Africa to Latin America to Asia. Every political and/or economic system has failed but that doesn't necessarily mean we should give up on it.

And Third, In every place where communism has been attempted, the liv ing standards have increased staggeringly. For example, in Russia and China, the life expectancy doubled!

Communism/socialism doesnt work on a worldwide scale. So every country that is now powerful in the world economic system has gotten rid of many of its communist or socialist economic policies.

And in turn, millions upon millions upon millions live in dire poverty and strugle to even feed themselves. Is that a good system?

China is becoming one of the worlds biggest economic powerhouses and is improving its living conditions rapidly.

Perhaps for the new wealthy class, but not for the working class.

 

[bismitch]

"And Third, In every place where communism has been attempted, the liv ing standards have increased staggeringly. For example, in Russia and China, the life expectancy doubled!"

um.... dont you think these were fudged a little?

and another thing both of these countries just came out of a losing war, before becoming communist, so naturally the bombed out houses were repaired and people were happier.

 

[gynks2001]

And in turn, millions upon millions upon millions live in dire poverty and strugle to even feed themselves. Is that a good system?

I really do hate this argument... One of the unfortunate truths about the world is that there will always be poor people, and there will always be people hungry. Nothing has been able to fix that.
What has been fixed a little bit with capitalism is mans natural greed. By fixed, i dont mean it gets rid of mans natural greed, but rather it uses that greed to help the economy. For example, in communism all profits go to the government, and everybody basically works for the common good. Problem is man's natural greed eventually takes over and says, ' I work harder then anyone i know and we still get the same priveleges(sorry, bad spelling), the same size houses etc.. So Im done workin my arse off...
In capitalism, that greed is exploited by saying you can break from the govt, start your own business, and higher people to work for you. When you do well and get paid you can expand your business and make more money etc...
Of course, capitalism, as everything else, has flaws. What happens to the hard working farmer that cant find anyone to sell his crops to? hes screwed... what happens to the uneducated poor, they mostly are part of the endless cycle of poverty no matter how hard they work...
But, as i stated earlier, there will always be these people... the question becomes, just because some live this way, which is definately unfortunate... does it mean everyone should?
I dont believe communism works for that basic reason... the poor of a country will end up bringing down that status of the potential investors and employers(wealthy) and therefore the economy.

 

[gynks2001]

Under any system imaginable you do have to work to survive but only in capitalism can you work hard and sill not have enough to get by.

:lol: :lol: try again... ever heard of bread lines... even people who worked hard had to wait for hours and hours for one loaf of bread!!! thats maybe enough to feed a person for two days, nevermind a family of four for a week.

WHEN YOU WORK 15 HOURS FOR 15 DOLLARS AND CAN'T AFFORD TO RISK LOSING YOUR JOB! They actually are threatened by death. It's either slavery or starvation.

a dollar an hr? i dont think so in the US... unless of course, you're talking about an illegal alien that has the job... we DO have a mimimum wage here you know...

In America it is far less severe but in those places the wages are so small you can't tell the difference

.
And america is much further along eceomically then those countries...
people in the US used to work for 5 dollars a day, back then that was a decent wage, today it seems next to nothing.

 

[LeftyHenry]

:lol: :lol: try again... ever heard of bread lines... even people who worked hard had to wait for hours and hours for one loaf of bread!!! thats maybe enough to feed a person for two days, nevermind a family of four for a week.

Ya so what? btw, the breadlines weren't once a week. They were probably every morning. Rationing made sure everyone got fed.

a dollar an hr? i dont think so in the US... unless of course, you're talking about an illegal alien that has the job... we DO have a mimimum wage here you know...

Well I was refering to India not America in that case, but it's the same scenario here even if they're making a bit more.

And america is much further along eceomically then those countries...
people in the US used to work for 5 dollars a day, back then that was a decent wage, today it seems next to nothing.

Rise in cost of living? Inflation?

 

[bismitch]

http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040927_4.gif

Yes, these people have low wages, but because of the cheap labor, the goods inside of the country are much less in price than U.S. prices.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I really do hate this argument... One of the unfortunate truths about the world is that there will always be poor people, and there will always be people hungry. Nothing has been able to fix that

Except a system that eliminates the social classes that are the reason for starvation and poverty.

What has been fixed a little bit with capitalism is mans natural greed.

Human nature is a myth created by capitalism. You are shaped by the system you are surrounded in. You are shaped by your culture, your friends, and the society you live in. Hunter/gatherers were selfless, people who watch commercial after commercial aren't. Does that make sense? I'm kinda high right now so it may not make any sense

By fixed, i dont mean it gets rid of mans natural greed, but rather it uses that greed to help the economy.

Greed is never good. Why? Because a society that encourages greed and makes wealth awesome, encourages crime and theft and robbery, which can turn into rape and murder. That's why the poorest communities have the most crime, because they're in the constant class war trying to climb the ladder/...

For example, in communism all profits go to the government

Once again, you have to stop using that Rush Limbaugh-McCarthy US school system anti-communist propaganda.

I refer you to www.revleft.com

and

www.Communistleague.com

look around, click on some links, learn the true nature of communism. We are not statists, fascists, or satanists.

Communism is an ideology which seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of any forms of private property.

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

straight outta wikipedia internet encyclopedia. So tell me how a Stateless society has everything going to the State?

and everybody basically works for the common good.

lol common need but ya common good in reality...

Problem is man's natural greed eventually takes over and says, ' I work harder then anyone i know and we still get the same priveleges(sorry, bad spelling), the same size houses etc.. So Im done workin my arse off...

Labor Time Vouchers solve that as well as work quotas and peer pressure. I'll go in depth on that later because I'd **** it up now. I feel like I can barelly type.

In capitalism, that greed is exploited by saying you can break from the govt, start your own business, and higher people to work for you.

90% of Executives in America don't work a 10th as hard as the working class farmer or factory worker yet get paid 10 times as much. They are leeches and ARE NOT PRODUCING. The working man knows his job as he has done int continuously for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or even more years. He knows how to plant seeds, or operate factory machinery he doesn't need a leech making profit off of his labor.

Of course, capitalism, as everything else, has flaws. What happens to the hard working farmer that cant find anyone to sell his crops to?

Capitalism say; **** the working class

hes screwed...

yes he is while the executive sits in his mansion and drives a ****inh porche. Mean while the farmer who works his arse off can barely afford a tractor and a shcak

what happens to the uneducated poor, they mostly are part of the endless cycle of poverty no matter how hard they work...

yep.

But, as i stated earlier, there will always be these people...

...in capitalism, in a classless system, sadly for the executivesm, capitalists, fascists, and elitists, there won't.

the question becomes, just because some live this way, which is definately unfortunate... does it mean everyone should?

Of course not. Everyone should have access to everything they need to live. That is the goal of communism

I dont believe communism works for that basic reason... the poor of a country will end up bringing down that status of the potential investors and employers(wealthy) and therefore the economy.

In a system where there is no money and everything is shared collectivly, there is no need for investors. I need to find you this article on the Labor Theory of Value. I'll do it in the morning. It's quite good. I'll email a comrade about it tonight

 

[gynks2001]

lefty...
Communism can never and will never work in the real world. People are naturally to greedy, they want more for themselves, everyone feels like they deserve more.
Many countries have tried and none have succeeded. There will always be a class system, and there has to be a currency system.
And you say all this stuff about everyone deserving healthcare etc... thats great, and how does the govt pay for that???

 

[LeftyHenry]

http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040927_4.gif

Yes, these people have low wages, but because of the cheap labor, the goods inside of the country are much less in price than U.S. prices.

maybe or maybe not. Most likely not. I've been to Nicaragua and the prices were normal, no real diference than here.

 

[LeftyHenry]

"And Third, In every place where communism has been attempted, the liv ing standards have increased staggeringly. For example, in Russia and China, the life expectancy doubled!"

um.... dont you think these were fudged a little?

and another thing both of these countries just came out of a losing war, before becoming communist, so naturally the bombed out houses were repaired and people were happier.

housing has nothing to do with the fact that people's lives were now nearly twice as long. The universal healthcare system now in place was probably the main reason. And no it's not fudged. People went from living until they're 35 to living until they're 60.

 

[LeftyHenry]

lefty...
Communism can never and will never work in the real world.

umm no it can and it will it's just a matter of time.

People are naturally to greedy, they want more for themselves, everyone feels like they deserve more.

No people are shaped by the society they live in. If society encourages and embraces greed than the people will be greedy. Besides there could be a system of Labor Time Vouchers, or LTVs. Here's a quote from my blog to explain them.

LTVs in short, are basically a measurement of how hard one works at his or her job. It is an account on a computer which you log into when you start working and log out of when you stop. LTVs can be determined by the smaount of stress and effort put into your job. The amount and quality of the product you produce. Or the successful completion of a hard task. When you are finished working, you log out and print the LTVs which you will then save up and use to by non-necessities such as electronics and furniture. What is the point of LTVs? Simple to provide a motive and incentive for man to work during the time he is still intoxicated by the evils of capitalism.

Many countries have tried and none have succeeded. There will always be a class system, and there has to be a currency system.

No there doesn't. Unless you call LTVs a currency system. I'm still trying to find that article I talked about in my last post. I'll post it as soon as I get it.

You're right. Many countries have tried and failed, however, like I've pointed out already, democracy failed in Greece and Rome, and capitalism is failing all over the world now in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia.

And you say all this stuff about everyone deserving healthcare etc... thats great, and how does the govt pay for that???

There is no government in communism. In socialism it would be a communal thing.

 

[gynks2001]

You're right. Many countries have tried and failed, however, like I've pointed out already, democracy failed in Greece and Rome, and capitalism is failing all over the world now in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia.

nope... complete democracy is what failed in Rome and Greece, and would fail here in the US or anywhere else as well... The republic is what succeeded and is what we based the political system of the US on. Of course, we also saw where their republic went wrong and tweaked some things to fix those problems.
Capitalism is not failing in those places....most of them are still in transition as they were previously communist or socialist. Capitalism takes a while to develop in areas where everyone lived in complete poverty beforehand...
again, you will call me brainwashed by propoganda but you are simply wrong, Ive studied the area rather thuroughly and I'm already starting to see some positives of capitalsim in areas such as S. Africa.

There is no government in communism. In socialism it would be a communal thing.

okay... the question is still unanswered... how would everyone get healthcare in a communist society? Who will pay the doctors, and who will pay for the medicine? especially if theres no currency system?