Socialism and Capitalism. Let us learn about each other.

[walrus]

Do you not realize that capitalism evolved out of feudalism? All that changed was that now the serfs had a chance to move up to a hgiher social class. The massive disparity of welath has, and under capitalism, always will remain.

Nope, I still don't realize that. Just because two people state that something is a fact, and yet provide no historical, economic or philosophical examples to back it up does not prove much to me.

They are capitalists, they make much money, you have little control over most of them (especially such bureacracies as those at the BMV, small, non-democratic ones). So yes, I'd call them elites.

A.) Most government bureacrats do not make "much money". B.) What makes government bureacrats capitialists given that they operate in a world in which competition is non-existent, advancement is through political manuevering rather than merit, and there is viturally no accountability for any failures in their work. Sounds like a workers paradise to me.

My idea is not as utopian as you may think (unless you are extremely narrow minded, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

Awww, that's sweet. I appreciate the benefit of your doubt. I wish I could be as open-minded as you are, unfortunately I have a belief which I believe to be (and history has shown to be) correct. I say that you are open-minded because I am sure you would not commit the hypocrisy of accusing someone of something that you are guilty of yourself. Therefore, you must have posted to this thread with the thought that your mind may have been changed. I did not.

I'm guessing you've never been to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or Jamaica. I'll go on the record here and say that I'd much rather live in cuba than any of those three.

You are right, of the three I have only been to Jamaica. Since you didn't deny that you have never been to Cuba I will retain my first-hand impressions rather than replace them with your anecdotal evidence.

No nation is sel sufficient. Trade is always neccesary. Therefore you must not understand trade. The cooperation of other countries is essential to any economic system. The problem with a poor socialist country is that if the mighty US so chooses, it can crush the small socialist economy. Of course, if we could establish socialism in a richer country (likely Italy of France where MArxist parties are relatively strong), this problem would be all but eliminated.

Based on this discussion I daresay I understand trade and international realtions better than you have shown so far. You bring up the examples of Italy and France - how well do they compete in the international market? France is running somewhere around 10% unemployment, and they recently asked for punitive tarriffs against the U.S. in order to allow them to more competitive. It would seem that their socialist labour system is unable to compete with the more caplitalist based U.S. And Italy? Real economic powerhouse there. Are France and Italy non-competitive because the U.S. is crushing their fragile socialist structures, or is it that socialisim can not and never has been able to compete with the free market?

All I want is for the US to keep its hands off any poor socialist state that may arise in the future.

One thing in which we agree. I honestly couldn't care less what economic system other nations adopt as long as they are protecting the basic human rights of it's citizens. I personally hope socialism spreads throughout Europe. The only European economic situation that frightens me is a capitalist unified Europe. As socialists, they will continue their slide into the muck of economic stagnation and mediocrity which they currently find themselves.

But the US is notorious for looking out for its own business interests rather than the welfare of other peoples.

And France is notorious for looking out for the welfare of the French. And Germany is notorious for looking out for the welfare of Germans. And Sri Lanka is notorious for looking out for the welfare of Sri Lankans. What is your point? Any nation that does not look to the welfare of it's own citizens and interests above those of other nations will rapidly fail as a nation. Where are these philanthropical nations that you envision in the world today?

A socialist economy as I've described likely will prove quite beneficial to a poor nation (for that matter, any nation), but in a poor nation, it will require some time to get itself going.

Again, as long as all of it's neighbors agree to not to compete with it in any way, it might work.

And you show your true knowledge by claiming that China is socialist. China is a very capitalist nation now, perhaps even more capitalist in its economic production than the US.

The government of China still considers itself socialist and the means of production of all major industries are still in the hands of the government. I agree, China has made many moves to capitalism in recent years, with tremendous gains in their economy as a result. Ask the average Chinese, whose standard of living has increased more in the last ten years than in the fifty years previous, which system they prefer.

This just goes to hsow you that capitalism doesn't guarentee the welfare of the people living under it. In fact, worldwide, you'll notice that the countries who provide their people with the best quality of life are not highly capitalist nations, but rather those nations that first went through the industrial revolution.

Last things first, any nation which isn't agrarian went though the industrial revolution be it capitalist, communist or monarchy. The industrial revolution was a revolution of technology and the shift from agrarian work to industrial work. That said, the rest of the paragraph seems fairly nonsensical.

You still haven't answered the critical question I posed in an earlier post. What is socialism's answer to it's well proven detrimental effect on innovation and initiative? How do you propose to motivate the Fords, Hughes, and Jobs of the world to take risks on new enterprises it there is very little reward in doing so?

Hussein's breaking some rules set by the UN (as the US repeatedly has done as well) warrants the killing of a quarter million Iraqis? I don't see that as justified or fair in the least. Oh yeah, I forgot, life's not fair, like you cappies continually say. If a quarter million Iraqis are killed through economic sanctions, well, what the hell. Life's not fair, and those Iraqis better realize it!

First off, life is not fair and you commies better quit deluding yourselves that it ever can be made fair through the use of governmental force. I suggest reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut as an excellent analogy for socialism. I agree that starving Iraqis is not fair, but I no more blame the U.S. for this than I blame them for the conditions in North Korea or Cuba (despite the paradise you envision it to be).

You know, it is rather frustrating when cappies simply refuse to listen (in this case read) anything a socialist has to say.

You mistake my disagreeing with you and my refusal to change beliefs garnered by life experience as a sign that I either have not or can not read what you have written. I have read every word, I simply don't agree. The fact that I have repeatedly responded to nearly every sentence in your posts should have indicated that I have read them.

I have repeatedly denounced the actions of the tyrannical socialist states, and repeatedly I have said I do not aim to create tyranny.

Denounce away! As I have said, none of the nations to which I have referred started out with the goal of becoming tyrannies. They simply quickly discovered that only through the use of strong force can socialism be pressed onto citizens, especially those who are already succeeding under a free market. Lenin aimed to create a workers paradise - and see what he ended up with.

The US, like many countries in Europe, were simply the first to go through industrialization, and now are reaping the benefits. Argentina has perhaps the most capitalistic economy in the world, and have had such an economy for some time. And yet the average Argentine does not live a life of luxury. Basically, we have a scenario where the colonizers have a better economy and situation than the colonized. This shouldn't shock anyone. The point, though, is that democratic socialism as I have described can help these people.

The average Argentine also does not live a life of poverty such as may be found in rural China, North Korea, or Cuba. Congratulations on figuring out that conquerers usually fare better than the conquered. It's the way of the world as as soon as we accept it the sooner we can improve the things that can be improved. By the way, by the end of this post you sound like you are only advocating socialism for developing nations. By all means, go right ahead! I thought you were advocating socialism for this country, something I will fight with every last drop of blood in my capitalist body. I agree that a nation whose goal is not to be a world leader would be well served by socialism. If a nation only wants to exist and not prosper, socialism is a great alternative.

 

[anomaly]

Nope, I still don't realize that. Just because two people state that something is a fact, and yet provide no historical, economic or philosophical examples to back it up does not prove much to me.

I just provided you with the evidence you need. The evidence is the very similar nature of both systems. They each create a very miniscule ruling class (the bourgeoisie) that rules over the lower classes (the proletariat). The only difference between the systems is that in capitalism, the serf has a chance to become a capitalist, which is not so in feudalism.

Awww, that's sweet. I appreciate the benefit of your doubt. I wish I could be as open-minded as you are, unfortunately I have a belief which I believe to be (and history has shown to be) correct. I say that you are open-minded because I am sure you would not commit the hypocrisy of accusing someone of something that you are guilty of yourself. Therefore, you must have posted to this thread with the thought that your mind may have been changed. I did not.

Your mindless assumptions are completely false. History has only proven tyrannical socialism to be a failure, and history has also shown tyrannical capitalism (as seen in Zaire, Bolivia, Panama and many other Latin American countries, all of which had the full support of the USA) to be a failure. Democracy, and democracy alone has proven itself successful. Capitalism fails poor individuals every day. Democratic socialism, to this point, hasn't been given a chance, but this will likely change in the future. But the foundations of democratic socialism, where a nation is still capitalist yet with much state control, has shown to be successful in France and Scandinavia.

You are right, of the three I have only been to Jamaica. Since you didn't deny that you have never been to Cuba I will retain my first-hand impressions rather than replace them with your anecdotal evidence.

No I have never been to Cuba, but I do not consider your being to Jamaica as first hand evidence. A vacation is far different from actually living in the country (unless, have you lived in Jamaica?).

Based on this discussion I daresay I understand trade and international realtions better than you have shown so far. You bring up the examples of Italy and France - how well do they compete in the international market? France is running somewhere around 10% unemployment, and they recently asked for punitive tarriffs against the U.S. in order to allow them to more competitive. It would seem that their socialist labour system is unable to compete with the more caplitalist based U.S. And Italy? Real economic powerhouse there. Are France and Italy non-competitive because the U.S. is crushing their fragile socialist structures, or is it that socialisim can not and never has been able to compete with the free market?

France and Italy are not socialist yet, only capitalist with some socialistic structures. Regardless of the numbers you present however, it cannot be denied that the standard of living is very good in these countries. Also, you mention tariffs. Are you aware that some in the US have been asking for tariffs against Chinese goods? The Chinese market is much 'freer' of state control than is the USA's, so based on your thinking, why aren't you going to China? The truth is that where nationalization of atleast a moderate percent of the economy exists, the standard of living is usually higher. It is because of the 'free' market that so many in developing countries are not free, they don't have the luxury of using the market to their advantage by leaving their employer and going to a new one. They must work or risk death. Cheap labor in China leads to fabulous numbers for its economy, but not fabulous living conditions. In Mexico, US companies are drawn to the country by its cheap labor. The problem is that, with the globalization of capitalism, this company may leave Mexico for a place like China, where production costs are much cheaper. This leads to the current state of many poor economies: they are completely reliant upon US businesses to make their economy go. This is the darker side of capitalism that too few in the USA are aware of.

One thing in which we agree. I honestly couldn't care less what economic system other nations adopt as long as they are protecting the basic human rights of it's citizens. I personally hope socialism spreads throughout Europe. The only European economic situation that frightens me is a capitalist unified Europe. As socialists, they will continue their slide into the muck of economic stagnation and mediocrity which they currently find themselves.

Hmm, it seems as though the EU is doing rather well for itself at the moment. I don't htink I'd have a problem living in any country of western Europe, even for its 'economic stagnation'. In fact, the EU's economy is becoming a real competitor in the world with the US. We now see a 'big three' emerging in terms of economic might: China, the EU, and the USA. Perhaps we could even site a fourth in the Middle East with its control of the world's oil, without which the three previously mentioned economies would suffer. Also, you seem to contradict your own held beliefs. You likely know that it is the most capitalist countries of the world (China, India, many Latin American countries) where living conditions are the worst and little or no human rights exist. It seems as though your seemingly held belief that capitalism does wonders for everyone in it is a bit false.

And France is notorious for looking out for the welfare of the French. And Germany is notorious for looking out for the welfare of Germans. And Sri Lanka is notorious for looking out for the welfare of Sri Lankans. What is your point? Any nation that does not look to the welfare of it's own citizens and interests above those of other nations will rapidly fail as a nation. Where are these philanthropical nations that you envision in the world today?

So when the US government allows GM factories and Ford factories to be shipped to Mexico, creating poverty among the ex workers and poor economic conditions for the towns in which the factories once were, this is looking out for Americans? The scariest part about capitalism is that govenrments are many times simply powerless to stop these actions of capitalists to increase their profits.

Again, as long as all of it's neighbors agree to not to compete with it in any way, it might work.

A socialist country which is not sanctioned by the USA would likely prove successful. Trade will always occur. But it must be fair trade, not 'free trade' (otherwise known as trade that will benefit the US economy).

 

[anomaly]

The government of China still considers itself socialist and the means of production of all major industries are still in the hands of the government. I agree, China has made many moves to capitalism in recent years, with tremendous gains in their economy as a result. Ask the average Chinese, whose standard of living has increased more in the last ten years than in the fifty years previous, which system they prefer.

The economic success of China can be directly attributed to its massive population. But human welfare is by no means very good at all in China, as you wrongly suggest. Mao was no genius, and he ruined China's chances for socialism. Mao was a guerrilla warrior, a good one, but a terrible political leader.

Last things first, any nation which isn't agrarian went though the industrial revolution be it capitalist, communist or monarchy. The industrial revolution was a revolution of technology and the shift from agrarian work to industrial work. That said, the rest of the paragraph seems fairly nonsensical.

Actually, it is this response which is nosensical. First, let me reiterate that I said the first countries to go through the industrial revolution are now today's richest nations. There were no communist nations to lead the charge into the industrial revolution, in fact, at that time, socialism and communism only existed in the writings of MArx. This is the 1800s we are talking about here. And many monarchys were capitalist nations. The industrial revolution began in Britain, and spread across western Europe and then to the USA. Japan got there a bit later. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and most other communist nations experienced the industrial revolution in the twentieth century. In cuba, industrialization never really happened, as agrarian reform was implemented. The same can be said of most of south America, were peasants still exist in numbers, and most people are small farmers. Industrialization may be just beginning there. But we can see that what I said is true: Western Europe and the USA are the two most successful economies in the world, followed by the up and coming economy of China, which is fueled by its own cheap labor and the consumerism of its massive population.

You still haven't answered the critical question I posed in an earlier post. What is socialism's answer to it's well proven detrimental effect on innovation and initiative? How do you propose to motivate the Fords, Hughes, and Jobs of the world to take risks on new enterprises it there is very little reward in doing so?

I've actually answered this question several times. I envision that these geniuses would consult their local government and inform them of their ideas. If the government and other specialists (in the area in which the new idea would be taking place) agree, the government will buy this idea, making the man who came up with it exceedingly rich. I think the initiative is clear. In fact, in light of this, I actually have no idea of what the hell you're talking about. The past is past, and the failures of the past will not be repeated in the future.

First off, life is not fair and you commies better quit deluding yourselves that it ever can be made fair through the use of governmental force. I suggest reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut as an excellent analogy for socialism. I agree that starving Iraqis is not fair, but I no more blame the U.S. for this than I blame them for the conditions in North Korea or Cuba (despite the paradise you envision it to be).

I've never said Cuba is a paradise. You are obviously intelligent, you idiot. Life can be made fairer, and since the word fair is subjectively viewed by all of us, perhaps the world can never be fair to you, but I do think that we socialists can make this world fairer, through government intervention, not 'force' as you again wrongly say. I hope that my future cappie opposition in debate isn't reading walrus for inspiration. And how can you, walrus, not blame the US for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and killing all those people? Sanctions have had a similar effect in Cuba. N Korea is simply ruled by a man who is insane.

You mistake my disagreeing with you and my refusal to change beliefs garnered by life experience as a sign that I either have not or can not read what you have written. I have read every word, I simply don't agree. The fact that I have repeatedly responded to nearly every sentence in your posts should have indicated that I have read them.

If you have read what I have said, then why do you say I've called Cuba a paradise? I've said that its better off than Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. This does not render it a paradise. If you have read what I have typed, why do you wronlgy assume I have not accounted for initiative in socialism? These flaws in your quotes are quite enough to make me believe you are not reading my posts well enough.

Denounce away! As I have said, none of the nations to which I have referred started out with the goal of becoming tyrannies. They simply quickly discovered that only through the use of strong force can socialism be pressed onto citizens, especially those who are already succeeding under a free market. Lenin aimed to create a workers paradise - and see what he ended up with.

Stlain destroyed Lenin's vision. And yes, Stlain's ideas were quite tyrannical. You're wrong. Mao and Fidel Castro also intended to become dictators. On this point, you're simply wrong.

The average Argentine also does not live a life of poverty such as may be found in rural China, North Korea, or Cuba. Congratulations on figuring out that conquerers usually fare better than the conquered. It's the way of the world as as soon as we accept it the sooner we can improve the things that can be improved. By the way, by the end of this post you sound like you are only advocating socialism for developing nations. By all means, go right ahead! I thought you were advocating socialism for this country, something I will fight with every last drop of blood in my capitalist body. I agree that a nation whose goal is not to be a world leader would be well served by socialism. If a nation only wants to exist and not prosper, socialism is a great alternative.

Socialism will alow a nation to prosper. In fact, socialism may very well help some rich nations. Socialism cannot help the USA simply because the capitalist propaganda in our country, which is incredibly anti-Marxist, has turned the people's will completely against socialism. You are right in saying that socialism will do the most good for the very poor nations, but once again, rich nations too can prosper from socialism, expecially if a pro-labor situation already exists in the rich country (like it does in Fracne and Italy). Right now socialism would most quickly help the nation of Venezuela, where a strong anticapitalist movement exists, and some factories are controlled by the workers. But have no fear, capitalist pig, have no plans of establishing capitalism in the USA.

 

[walrus]

Anomaly - I am sorry I seem to have insulted you with my extreme stupidity. We don't all live in fairy-tale land along with you. You know, that world where socialism actually worked someplace that it was tried.

The economic success of China can be directly attributed to its massive population.

Where is India's success? Or Africa?

But human welfare is by no means very good at all in China, as you wrongly suggest. Mao was no genius, and he ruined China's chances for socialism. Mao was a guerrilla warrior, a good one, but a terrible political leader.

And which of us accuses the other of not reading posts? I never said welfare in China is "very good". If you recall, I have been there. I said it was better than it has been.

Actually, it is this response which is nosensical. First, let me reiterate that I said the first countries to go through the industrial revolution are now today's richest nations. There were no communist nations to lead the charge into the industrial revolution, in fact, at that time, socialism and communism only existed in the writings of MArx. This is the 1800s we are talking about here. And many monarchys were capitalist nations. The industrial revolution began in Britain, and spread across western Europe and then to the USA. Japan got there a bit later. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and most other communist nations experienced the industrial revolution in the twentieth century. In cuba, industrialization never really happened, as agrarian reform was implemented. The same can be said of most of south America, were peasants still exist in numbers, and most people are small farmers. Industrialization may be just beginning there. But we can see that what I said is true: Western Europe and the USA are the two most successful economies in the world, followed by the up and coming economy of China, which is fueled by its own cheap labor and the consumerism of its massive population.

Oh, I see - so the succesful nations all led the industrial revolution. Oh yeah, except for China. and Japan. Very consitent theory. Did it ever occur to you to wonder why Russia didn't enter into the industrial age until WWII? Where is a all this innovation and efficiency promised by socialism. Surely with the largest areas of arable land on Earth as well as some of the richest natural resources Russia should have led the way.

I've actually answered this question several times. I envision that these geniuses would consult their local government and inform them of their ideas. If the government and other specialists (in the area in which the new idea would be taking place) agree, the government will buy this idea, making the man who came up with it exceedingly rich. I think the initiative is clear. In fact, in light of this, I actually have no idea of what the hell you're talking about. The past is past, and the failures of the past will not be repeated in the future.

I realize you don't know what the hell I am talking about. It's all right, I'll keep trying to eductate you. What makes you think that failures which have occured every time this has been tried will not occur in your particular system. Are you that much wiser than Marx and Lenin?

So the man who invents the car becomes exceedingly rich? How does that square with socialism? You mean the man who sits on his butt dreaming up ideas will be made fabulously wealthy while the man who puts sweat and blood into an assembly line is given a minimum wage? And this is different from capitalism in what way? (other than in your system the government gets the lion's share of the profits)

I've never said Cuba is a paradise. You are obviously intelligent, you idiot.

Ahhh - name-calling. The last refuge of the uninspired.

Life can be made fairer, and since the word fair is subjectively viewed by all of us, perhaps the world can never be fair to you, but I do think that we socialists can make this world fairer, through government intervention, not 'force' as you again wrongly say.

You say tomato I say tomato. All government "intervention" is force. What happens if I don't go along with your plan if the American people should be so blinded as to put your system into power? Would I be applauded for my dissent? What if I refused to turn over the means of production to the goverment? Would they just come and ask nicely, or would they use the force of government to compel me to give up my property? Don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I hope that my future cappie opposition in debate isn't reading walrus for inspiration.

Me too.

And how can you, walrus, not blame the US for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and killing all those people? Sanctions have had a similar effect in Cuba. N Korea is simply ruled by a man who is insane.

I felt as if I had answered this, but maybe it was another case of you not reading my post. If you want to continue this particular discussion I suggest we relocate to one of the many millions of threads already on this subject.

If you have read what I have said, then why do you say I've called Cuba a paradise? I've said that its better off than Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti.

You are very good at wielding hyperbole and sarcasm for yourself, but much poorer at recognizing them externally.

This does not render it a paradise. If you have read what I have typed, why do you wronlgy assume I have not accounted for initiative in socialism? These flaws in your quotes are quite enough to make me believe you are not reading my posts well enough.

Your attempt to account for initiative within socialism simply ignores human nature. It has not worked in the past, there is no reason to believe it will work in the future. Yes, I know - "what's past is past". I seem to also remember something along the lines of "those who refuse to take the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it".

Stlain destroyed Lenin's vision. And yes, Stlain's ideas were quite tyrannical. You're wrong. Mao and Fidel Castro also intended to become dictators. On this point, you're simply wrong.

If provided with proof, I might be willing to concede the point about Castro and Mao. I am sorry but, "you're simply wrong" does not qualify.

But have no fear, capitalist pig, have no plans of establishing capitalism in the USA.

There you go again.

If I called you a godless, freedom-hating, deluded, commie pinko bed-wetter would it bring the conversation to a level you are more comfortable with?

 

[josh]

Every1 is nearly as bad as politicians at question dodging!

 

[teacher]

For: Soviet Guy. Comrade Brian. Anomaly. Stump. GPS Flex and any other anti capitalists not yet identified. If I have lumped any onto my list wrongly please accept my humble apologies. Sometimes these posts with multiple quotes can be tiresome to track to their source. In compensation I offer to buy you the best lunch to be found in 1980's East Berlin.

Yes, let us learn. Some questions for you reds out there. The gloves come off.

While serving in Germany in the mid 80's I was awarded a trip to Berlin. Part of that was a full day in East Berlin unescorted (full dress uniform required, they knew right away who we were). While walking through the main plaza a young shabbily dressed couple angled up to me and with downcast eyes and low voice the man said "You should thank God you can thank God". For lunch we went to one of the best so called 4 star hotels and I ordered the best they had. Upon arrival I got 2 small pieces of boiled meat and a smattering of boiled potatoes. I thought about ordering 2 more right then but thought better of it not wanting to flaunt my "wealth". The price? A pittance for me. A weeks salary for the average worker. Before returning to West Berlin that evening my four Friends and I purchased 5 bottles of Stoli each at a whopping 1$ a bottle. Later that evening during our drunken wanderings we found ourselves near the wall, "The Wall". Natural born leader I am I hopped on top of a low wall 10 feet or so inside "The Wall" from where I could see over "The Wall". From my vantage point I directed the fire of snowballs of my four drunken friends at a nearby East German machine gun tower on the other side of "The Wall". (Can you say international incident?) Unfortunately the tower was beyond the range of our deadly projectiles but I could see the look on the guards face. Pure hate. Now the questions.
1. If communism/socialism is so grand explain the comment asked of me by that terrified man.
2. If c/s is so grand explain my pathetic lunch.
3. If c/s is so grand explain the society that produces a man so hate filled he can't laugh at the ridiculousness of snowballs being throw at a machine gun tower.
4. What other government has to build a wall around it's people to keep them IN?
5. Why over the recent decades do s/c governments keep going by the wayside?
In my experience the only good thing about c/s is cheap hooch.
All this rhetorical debate is fine and dandy but there is no substitute of seeing with your own eyes. Which begs the question. Is your love for c/s derived from first hand life experience or the musings of a populace controlling megalomaniac? Really, rhetoric your way around these questions with reality not utopian pie in the sky dreams of someones writings of a workers paradise. Looks good on paper but at the least c/s destroys initiative and ambition. A couple of things that make our little over 200 year old country the most prosperous in the WORLD.

And please note. This is East Berlin. The world's shining jewel of c/s.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

1. If communism/socialism is so grand explain the comment asked of me by that terrified man.
2. If c/s is so grand explain my pathetic lunch.
3. If c/s is so grand explain the society that produces a man so hate filled he can't laugh at the ridiculousness of snowballs being throw at a machine gun tower.
4. What other government has to build a wall around it's people to keep them IN?

All Communism, none of that is Socialism, show me some example of visits to either Spain ( however it was more Facsist than anything else ) or France in the 70s or 80s. You are an idiot my friend, only Communism prohibits religious practise, and only a Communist system would build a wall around it's country to keep people in and serve them next to sh*t meals. Socialism is different my mislead friend, much different.

 

[teacher]

[

QUOTE=Soviet_Guy]All Communism, none of that is Socialism, show me some example of visits to either Spain ( however it was more Facsist than anything else ) or France in the 70s or 80s. You are an idiot my friend, only Communism prohibits religious practise, and only a Communist system would build a wall around it's country to keep people in and serve them next to sh*t meals. Socialism is different my mislead friend, much different.

[/QUOTE]

Communism it is then. Socialism then is the one where every thing is government owned and controlled? Doesn't that one also destroy ambition and initiative? Show me a socialist system as successful as our representative republic. Oh my, now I'm an idiot. Think I'll go flog myself.

 

[anomaly]

Teacher, you are a terrible teacher. The contemporary ideas about socialism are far different from East Germany or the USSR or China. Again, these countries were Stalinist, not socialist. No democratic socialist country has ever existed, and we modern socialists intend to change that. I am terribly sick of cappies accusing socialism of being 'totalitarian'. It is a system that gives political and economic power on a scale so far unseen to the proletariat, which in a normal society constitute around 80% of it. I have repeated my ideas on socialism over and over and you seem to be the only one not realizing it, teacher. BTW, stump and GPSflex are decidedly anti-socialist. They don't belong on your little list.

 

[teacher]

Teacher, you are a terrible teacher. The contemporary ideas about socialism are far different from East Germany or the USSR or China. Again, these countries were Stalinist, not socialist. No democratic socialist country has ever existed, and we modern socialists intend to change that. I am terribly sick of cappies accusing socialism of being 'totalitarian'. It is a system that gives political and economic power on a scale so far unseen to the proletariat, which in a normal society constitute around 80% of it. I have repeated my ideas on socialism over and over and you seem to be the only one not realizing it, teacher. BTW, stump and GPSflex are decidedly anti-socialist. They don't belong on your little list.

#1. As stated if I goofed on my little list then forgive me. BTW does that mean stump and GPSflex are communists? If so then #56 for them stands.
#2. Had a go with Mr. Holocaustpulp on Economics: capitalism pros and coms. #239. You might view. He seems bright, and not so angry.
#3. So you support a new form of government. A Democratic Socialist what? Utopia? Shangrila? Commune? No offense but an untried form of government backed with your degree of vehemence is a bit esoteric. Can you really with any degree of certainty put down what I have seen and delt with in the real world with some form of government that only exists in your head. A bit presumptuous don't you think.
#4. You intend to change? Sorry bro but that is over the line. All the land is taken so you can't sail away and start anew. Your going to do this with which existing country? I guess I'm at a loss for words...almost, good friggin luck.
#5. Sorry about your over and over thing but I haven't read all your posts. I'm still a little new to this site so I guess I'm the only one not to bow down to the pontification of Anomaly. And with your presumptive plan to change an existing form of government with one that seems to work in YOUR head, well, give me a little time. I need to pontificate myself you know.
#6. You seem a little heady with the I'm right sort of thing. That's cool. But if you want to see the same attitude only with real teeth check out "911 was an inside job" post #29. That is something a man can be proud of.

 

[walrus]

First off - LOL Teacher, great posts. In the same way that anomaly is sick of "cappies" who "don't get it", I am sick to death of commies whose only experience with socialism is either books written by idealists whose ideas never worked when put into practice, or ivory-tower academics who love the "proletariat" in principle but look down their noses at them in practice. I have never met a person successful in business who is a socialist. I personally believe there is a very good reason for that. (I am sure anomaly would say that reason is that anyone who is successful in business did so by exploiting the workers and through dishonesty, but I am pretty sure that isn't it)

Here are some additional reasons why socialism will not work. Be prepared to be shocked, anomaly, by my disdain for the proletariat. These sentiments come from the bottom of my cold, cynical, pragmatist, capitalist pig heart:

1. Socialism assumes benevolence of government. Governments tend to remain benevolent for about one generation after their founding. Once you put that much power in the hands of government, all it takes is one Stalin, or Mao, or Kim to turn it into a totalitarianism. I know you don't believe this anomaly, but all I can do is point to the mountains of evidence provided by history.

2. Socialism assumes competence of the citizenry. Socialism requires that the assembly line worker be given an equal voice in the running of the company as the assembly line manager. Anything else is hierarchal and just capitalism under another name (and with the government being the primary beneficiary rather than citizens).

3. Socialism assumes that all are equally motivated and equally deserving. It can not (and remain true to it's theory) reward innovation and entrepreneurship above mediocrity.

4. Socialism assumes that the government is the best forecaster of business and research & technology trends. It does not allow a person to "strike out on their own" in a field that no one else thinks is worth pursuing - say for example the personal computer. Most people (including those in government) would have said in 1970 that there would never be a need for a private citizen to have a computer in their home. Would your wise, far-seeing, utopian government have had the farsight to buy Steve Jobs design for a home computer? Or would that have been left to some evil capitalist nation to develop?

5. Socialism assumes people are willing to work together for the common good. In my 31 years on this Earth, absent a catastrophic event, I have rarely seen people work long or efficiently for the common good. We are motivated by individual reward, and this is anathema to socialism.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I found these definitions.

A communist is a Marxist. A communist wishes to abolish the exploitation of man by man. He wants to do this by first abolishing private property over the means of production and giving power to the people (therefore establishing a socialist system), then slowly phasing out even personal property and the State itself, until communism is achieved. Communism is a classless, propertyless, stateless social system organized along the principle "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs".

An anarchist is someone who wishes to establish communism virtually overnight, without going through any intermediary socialist stage. Anarchists call for the immediate abolition of the state and all private property.

A socialist is a person who supports a socialist system - in other words, a system of public ownership over the means of production, with a planned economy and a democratic state - but without wishing for that system to eventually turn into a communist one. A socialist wants to abolish private property over the means of production, but maintain personal property and the state. A socialist wants to reduce inequality to a minimum, but not remove it entirely.

A social democrat is someone who wants to combine socialism with capitalism. Social democrats believe they are taking the "best" elements of both socialism and capitalism and using them together to create a "mixed economy" (also known as a welfare state).

A centrist or moderate is a person who doesn't really hold any political views, and simply chooses whatever option seems best to him/her at one particular time.

A liberal is someone who supports capitalism (private property over the means of production) but wants people to have freedom of choice in personal matters.

A conservative is someone who supports capitalism (private property over the means of production) and also supports rigid "traditional values" in personal matters.

A nationalist is a person who puts his or her nation above anything else, who blindly supports his nation regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and who believes in strict hierarchy and obedience.

A fascist is someone who has a burning hatred for democracy, human rights, and all forms of equality. A fascist supports dictatorship, an even more strict hierarchy than that of the nationalists, and brutal treatment of political opponents. Fascists despise all workers' movements (particularly communists) and are often (but not always) virulently racist.

 

[walrus]

Thanks Tovarish Brian for those unbiased definitions. Where exactly did you "find" them?

This thread is the greatest misnomer on this forum. Is anyone on either side of the debate really here to "learn" from each other? I am pretty set in my capitalist pig ways myself. Let's change the title to, "Socialism and Capitalism. Let us argue with each other".

 

[Comrade Brian]

Now the questions.
1. If communism/socialism is so grand explain the comment asked of me by that terrified man.
2. If c/s is so grand explain my pathetic lunch.
3. If c/s is so grand explain the society that produces a man so hate filled he can't laugh at the ridiculousness of snowballs being throw at a machine gun tower.
4. What other government has to build a wall around it's people to keep them IN?
5. Why over the recent decades do s/c governments keep going by the wayside?
In my experience the only good thing about c/s is cheap hooch.
All this rhetorical debate is fine and dandy but there is no substitute of seeing with your own eyes. Which begs the question. Is your love for c/s derived from first hand life experience or the musings of a populace controlling megalomaniac? Really, rhetoric your way around these questions with reality not utopian pie in the sky dreams of someones writings of a workers paradise. Looks good on paper but at the least c/s destroys initiative and ambition. A couple of things that make our little over 200 year old country the most prosperous in the WORLD.

And please note. This is East Berlin. The world's shining jewel of c/s.

1. your pathetic lunch, this had better not be why you seem anti-socialist, and if capitalism is so great, why are millions of people starving under their dictatorship, a socialist dictatorship doesn't have that much starving people, I don't recall much starvation in socialist countries unless a catastrophe happened(WWII) and better that everyone has at least a pathetic lunch, than a few people with a feast and everyone else starves to death, also in former USSR many people are now starving that probably wouldn't have happened if they were still their semi-socialist countries.

2.The government of Morrocco built a wall around W Sahara(a country governed by Morocco)to keep the impovershed people in, Morocco is pro-US, and is at war with iraq

3. communism has NO government, these countries were a form of socialism, but they didn't follow what socialism was really supposed to be, though they did have more socialist standards than US, they had the oppressiveness of capitalism, so they are semi-socialist

 

[Comrade Brian]

Thanks Tovarish Brian for those unbiased definitions. Where exactly did you "find" them?

I found them at the Communist/Socialist forum

http://www.soviet-empire.com

 

[walrus]

I found them at the Communist/Socialist forum

http://www.soviet-empire.com

If Communism and Socialism are such radically different philosophies, as I have been assured time and time again in this thread - why do they share a forum with naught but a slash between them? Has anyone visited the Monarchy/Communism site? or the Oligarchy/Anarchy site? Probably not, because these philosophies are not similar enough to be grouped together.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

No democratic socialist country has ever existed.

What, are you talking about. :screwy , try looking at France's, Austria's and Luxembourge's political systems from 1974 onward.

 

[Comrade Brian]

If Communism and Socialism are such radically different philosophies, as I have been assured time and time again in this thread - why do they share a forum with naught but a slash between them? Has anyone visited the Monarchy/Communism site? or the Oligarchy/Anarchy site? Probably not, because these philosophies are not similar enough to be grouped together.

Because unlike Monarchy/Communist Oligarchy/Anarchy, Socialism/Communism are not opposites, yes there are many differences, and socialism is rather vague, like Nazi is short for National Socialist, or Reactionary Socialist, many of themselves think they are socialists, because they are anti-capitalist, but socialism itself is quite different, and communism is a kind of socialism, and Communists/socialists often help each other because we have the same immediate goals

 

[anomaly]

First off - LOL Teacher, great posts. In the same way that anomaly is sick of "cappies" who "don't get it", I am sick to death of commies whose only experience with socialism is either books written by idealists whose ideas never worked when put into practice, or ivory-tower academics who love the "proletariat" in principle but look down their noses at them in practice. I have never met a person successful in business who is a socialist. I personally believe there is a very good reason for that. (I am sure anomaly would say that reason is that anyone who is successful in business did so by exploiting the workers and through dishonesty, but I am pretty sure that isn't it)

Here are some additional reasons why socialism will not work. Be prepared to be shocked, anomaly, by my disdain for the proletariat. These sentiments come from the bottom of my cold, cynical, pragmatist, capitalist pig heart:

1. Socialism assumes benevolence of government. Governments tend to remain benevolent for about one generation after their founding. Once you put that much power in the hands of government, all it takes is one Stalin, or Mao, or Kim to turn it into a totalitarianism. I know you don't believe this anomaly, but all I can do is point to the mountains of evidence provided by history.

Again, these countries were all Soviet sattelites, except in the case of China, where Mao was simply a terrible leader. The Soviet Union propped up these countries in almost every way, so it should be no surprise that these countries conformed to the Stalinist system that existed in the USSR. With the USSR gone, socialist systems that are democratic can finally arise. Before, as in the case of Cuba, sanctions by capitalist countries forced leaders to go to the USSR for help.

2. Socialism assumes competence of the citizenry. Socialism requires that the assembly line worker be given an equal voice in the running of the company as the assembly line manager. Anything else is hierarchal and just capitalism under another name (and with the government being the primary beneficiary rather than citizens).

Actually, in my ideas of socialist production, workers in an assembly line have an equal voice in democratically selecting a factory planner. This planner will have the aid of an economist, which I have previously explained. It is hierarchal, but still radically different from modern capitalist production. For one, the production in socialism is planned, and if you carry that a bit farther, you'll see that this planned production will lead to less worker exploitation, as he will work less hours (since huge surpluses need not be created). Another radical difference from my system and modern capitalism is that in my system, the heads of factories are chosen by the workers of these factories. And it will not be a popularity contest for the simple reason that this planner shall hold the factories production destiny in his hand for his term. Workers want a competent and inteelligent leader, not some one who is simply a 'good' guy.

3. Socialism assumes that all are equally motivated and equally deserving. It can not (and remain true to it's theory) reward innovation and entrepreneurship above mediocrity.

You speak of 'equal wages' which is a myth.

4. Socialism assumes that the government is the best forecaster of business and research & technology trends. It does not allow a person to "strike out on their own" in a field that no one else thinks is worth pursuing - say for example the personal computer. Most people (including those in government) would have said in 1970 that there would never be a need for a private citizen to have a computer in their home. Would your wise, far-seeing, utopian government have had the farsight to buy Steve Jobs design for a home computer? Or would that have been left to some evil capitalist nation to develop?

In my system, a Steve Jobs would go to his local government to present his case. If the idea is a good one (and any government would likely already be noticing some technological advances similar to the ones Jobs has in mind, so it is likely that this government will have the wisdom to hire the man), as Job's was, he will be hired by the government and a factory shall be set up by the state to begin materializing the idea.

5. Socialism assumes people are willing to work together for the common good. In my 31 years on this Earth, absent a catastrophic event, I have rarely seen people work long or efficiently for the common good. We are motivated by individual reward, and this is anathema to socialism.

Imagine you are a worker in a factory in a socialist nation. If you do your job well, as instructed by the factory planner, and your factory proves efficient that year, you'll receive a bonus from the government for your success. This means that you, a worker, will then receive more money than you normally would. My system takes care of such a criticism by allowing for an individual reward for individual success. The people end up working for the common good, as everyone is paid a living wage atleast, and also indivdual good, for their personal benefit.

 

[teacher]

First off - LOL Teacher, great posts. In the same way that anomaly is sick of "cappies" who "don't get it", I am sick to death of commies whose only experience with socialism is either books written by idealists whose ideas never worked when put into practice, or ivory-tower academics who love the "proletariat" in principle but look down their noses at them in practice. I have never met a person successful in business who is a socialist. I personally believe there is a very good reason for that. (I am sure anomaly would say that reason is that anyone who is successful in business did so by exploiting the workers and through dishonesty, but I am pretty sure that isn't it)

Thank you. Assuming here you are correct in Anomaly's reason of success how could he respond to this. I work for myself with no employees. I look customers in the eye and say " I'm not marking up a cent for the equipment I bring you. Of course you pay for my time of research and to obtain said equipment. I am charging you 50$/hour for my labor and knowledge". I finish job, they pay me, then refer me to their friends. Who is exploited or lied to in my little world of entrepenurial capitolism. Sorry reds, I work hard and smart, I've built a better mousetrap. I say again. I post on first hand experience only. All your esotaric musings of a socialist, communist, giant Lenin Stalin Marx saliva swapping love fest or whatever fanciful system it is that you think looks so good on paper or in your head CAN NOT compare to what actually works in the real world. The only thing that I see your systems doing well is spreading the misery of the lazy and incompetant to the creative and productive and taking the money of the creative and productive and giving it undeservedly to the lazy and incompetant.

all I can do is point to the mountains of evidence provided by history.

Dude, that little dose of reality just is not fair.

In my 31 years on this Earth, absent a catastrophic event, I have rarely seen people work long or efficiently for the common good.

America has been working long and hard to help the poorer nations of the Earth and to spread freedom at the cost of our sons and daughters. That's not a catastrophic event. But then you did say rarely. We feed and immunize most of Africa. Who sends planefuls of food, medicine, doctors, rescue teams, tents, trained dogs to sniff out survivors ect. to every damn place on Earth every damn time something horrible happens. All this from this evil, exploitive, greedy capitalistic nation called America, Our system is not perfect yet but not another on Earth come in close to a distant second. Oh I'm sorry reds is that to logical and factual for you. And to those that think you will change anything here let me tell you the closest you'll ever come to having socialism in America is by electing Hillary.

 

[anomaly]

What, are you talking about. :screwy , try looking at France's, Austria's and Luxembourge's political systems from 1974 onward.

Are these nation's systems really the exact same as the system you favor? These nations are social democratic sountries, or capitalist countries with extensive welfare programs. They are not socialist. Socialism implies the nationalization of industry, in other words, the nationalization of production.

 

[teacher]

1. your pathetic lunch, this had better not be why you seem anti-socialist,

Yes, that and the other four reasons and the gazillion I didn't write.

and if capitalism is so great, why are millions of people starving under their dictatorship, a socialist dictatorship doesn't have that much starving people,

Anybody hungry in this country, government programs notwithstanding, is either to stupid or lazy to walk to the nearest church or soup kitchen.

and better that everyone has at least a pathetic lunch, than a few people with a feast and everyone else starves to death,

In this country every one who is not feasting CAN HAVE a pathetic lunch. On my dime I might add.

3. communism has NO government, these countries were a form of socialism, but they didn't follow what socialism was really supposed to be,

Okay now I'm confused. You've read my post of my visit to 1980's East Germany. I've got one guy screaming at me that that place was communist. Now you appear to be telling me it was socialist. Maybe you reds need to powwow and get your story straight. One fact that can't be changed is I saw that form of government with my own eyes and it sucked brontosaurus. Can you say you experienced it and it was grand. Once again my posts are from first hand experience that while maybe you can argue my perception leading to my opinions is flawed you can't say my facts seen with my own eyes are flawed. Doesn't anyone like my story about my drunken friends and I throwing snowballs at machine gun towers? Maybe you had to be there. I mean the two opposing superpowers, they had guns, I had snowballs.....oh never mind. Waiter,I'd like a Bourbon neat and a round of sense of humors for my friends here.........

 

[anomaly]

Yes, that and the other four reasons and the gazillion I didn't write.


Anybody hungry in this country, government programs notwithstanding, is either to stupid or lazy to walk to the nearest church or soup kitchen.



In this country every one who is not feasting CAN HAVE a pathetic lunch. On my dime I might add.



Okay now I'm confused. You've read my post of my visit to 1980's East Germany. I've got one guy screaming at me that that place was communist. Now you appear to be telling me it was socialist. Maybe you reds need to powwow and get your story straight. One fact that can't be changed is I saw that form of government with my own eyes and it sucked brontosaurus. Can you say you experienced it and it was grand. Once again my posts are from first hand experience that while maybe you can argue my perception leading to my opinions is flawed you can't say my facts seen with my own eyes are flawed. Doesn't anyone like my story about my drunken friends and I throwing snowballs at machine gun towers? Maybe you had to be there. I mean the two opposing superpowers, they had guns, I had snowballs.....oh never mind. Waiter,I'd like a Bourbon neat and a round of sense of humors for my friends here.........

Whose calling that place communist, teacher? I called in Communist, which is of course different from communism. Communist countries were essentially Stalinist Soviet sattelites. For convenience, I suppoe I'll refer to such countries as Stalinist from now on. Communism, true communism, has no government. It is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. East Germany was a Stalinist country, as it practiced authoritorian socialism (socialism with a dictator, which , when you look at how socialism must operate, doesn't make the slightest bit of sense). Hoep I've cleared up some confusion for you. The important thing to remember, though, is that the Eastern Bloc nations are not representative of the socialism we wish to establish.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Are these nation's systems really the exact same as the system you favor? These nations are social democratic sountries, or capitalist countries with extensive welfare programs. They are not socialist. Socialism implies the nationalization of industry, in other words, the nationalization of production.

Yet the parties are SOCIAL, how can I explain top you, FPO, SOCIAL. France's party I don't known the name, but I can look it up, it was SOCIAL.

 

[Voice of Reason]

EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS POST. IT IS MY LAST AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WHAT I HAVE LEARNED AND TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN MY TOPIC.


Dear Friends.

I am sorry to have been gone for so long. I was off on a little trip.

I have read and re-read this entire forum several times. I have seen good arguments and I have seen bad arguments. I will not name names but I will say that a majority of those posting here are arguing for the sake of advancing your own views and that most of you arent trying to actually find the best system but rather are trying to justify your own. This causes you become closed to new ideas and makes you blind. To those of you who this does not apply to, you know who you are.

I have read this forum and processed all of the information without regard to either side. I developed this forum for my own personal knowledge because to be frank, I was too uneducated in socialism to argue one side or the other. (for those of you who will try to use my arguments for capitalism against me as a personal bias, thats fine by me, but for the record I was stating arguments in order to gain opposing feedback so that I might better learn about socialism. In the process I even learned a little more about capitalism.) I have also read some in the library in order to confirm some of the views that I have heard.

The forum has reached the point of repitition and I have come to my own conclusions and as always,(as I am quite smart and blessed with common sense) I feel that based on the arguments for either side both good and bad, that I am right in my conclusion. For those of you interested I will post them below. For those of you who aren't...well I'm sure they will be used as ammo to spawn new arguments about my personal credibility and bias bigotry ( maybe even my ignorance. But for those of you who call me ignorant, well first of all I dont care and second of all, much of whatI have learned you have taught me, so its your fault.)



Last of all I want to thank everyone here for being a part of this discussion and for opening my eyes to many different views and ideas. To both capitalist and socialist present I thank you for your ideas, openess, and your patience in explaining things that I didn't understand.

This is my conclusion and it is drenched in fact and reason. To me their can be no more discussion. Whether you choose to agree with me or not, you CANNOT disprove me. You are welcome to try, although its pointless. These are not my ideas or even what I want to accept, they are simply the proven facts. You see, Reason is an unbreakable foundation. For those of you who wish to continue here, I wish you farewell and again thank you for your knowledge. I look forward to future sharing of knowlege, and maybe on the next topic I will be able to teach you something instead! Thank you all.

The Voice


Conclusion of the Voice

1. Neither Socialism or Capitalism as it has existed to date has been fully effective or without flaws.

2. Based on the arguments, I found that while the socialist ideas sounded
good, most of them were unable to withstand scrutiny. Like a puzzle missing its peices, you were able to come up with great micro solutions but you are unable to make it work within the big picture. And instead of laying out how it would work you simply repeat what you have already said in different wording or you give a different micro solution that fits with the origional idea, yet in doing so yu create a problem somewhere else.

3. While the capitalist arguments were far more substantial as far as practical application, I found that most of the capitalist posts were aimed at just arguing with the socialist and thus it was hard for me to really learn form them. I actually learned more about capitalism from the socialists. (However there were many good posts on each side.)

4. I found that when the socialists tried to find faults in capitalism they were generally aimed at capitalist America rather than the capitalist system. Most of the problems pointed out were good, but almost all of them can be resolved within the capitalist system. They are mostly legislative and executive problems of our system instead of the foundation of the system itself. And although there are some bugs which will never be worked out due to human nature, it still functions at its foundation. Socialism simply has no foundation. I'll explain in the next conclusion.

5. Perhaps the biggest distinction that I saw between the actual people behind the ideas was unity. The capitalists on this forum all worked off of each other and used each other to build a very strong, very solvent and impressive argument for capitalism. The socialist seemed to be scatter brained. Most couldn't even work out their own solutions amongst themselves, let alone argue against the well organized arguments of the capitalists. Not only could they not agree on many of the indivdual ideas, but they all seemed to have a completely different idea of what socialism actually is. This not only speaks for the arguments themselves but in a much larger picture it shows me that socialism doesnt even have a set form in and of itself. Not only do the micro parts not unite to make a solvent socialist system, but all of the micro socialist ideas dont even unite to make one macro socialist definition. This is a major flaw. Unity is the foundation for any system regardless of which one it is.

6. By simply determining the facts of the arguments (listed in this forum and from a few other sources.) I have decided that the evidence is simply overwelming for capitalism. Most of the capitalist arguments were actually won by socialists while they were trying to dismantle them. To me the fact that the arguments against capitalism actually served to advance it implies that their is simply an undeniable foundation to capitalism. It is a solvent and practical solution which stands up against scrutiny. Socialsism has a very good structure when the human elements are in place but those elements are far from reasonable which causes socialism as a seperate and self sufficient entity to fall.

7. To my socialist friends I am afraid that based on your arguments (not the arguments against you) that your system not only needs refining but it needs defining as well. Realize that people will never be trustworthy as a whole. People will never be honest, totally unified, or concerned primarily with the welfare of each other. That means people will always cheat in elections, decieve and manipulate for power, and will be concerned primarily with their own welfare not the welfare of others. Is this right? No. Is it o.k.? no. Will it ever change? The odds against it are incalculable. Knowing these facts, Does it make sense to install a system which depends on trust, unity, honesty, and teamwork? No. Does it makes more sense to develop a system which depends on selfishness and personal success? Yes.

Capitalism uses human nature as fuel. It uses our selfishness. We desire to become rich and a portion of our riches goes to the maintenance of the system. It uses our desire to be better than everyone else to create competition and diversity resulting in more money and a wealthier economy. In America, some of the poorest ,most poverty stricken families live far better lives than many mass populations in other countries. Our poverty level is compared to the great wealth of our economy, not to the rest of the world. When is the last time you walked an American street and saw somebody literally starving to death? Never. Their is abundance of food in our dumpsters. Many people from other nations would love to spend one night in American poverty. Their is no such thing as true poverty in America. Even the lowest of our people could make money if they wanted to. The vast majority of our poverty population are their by matter of choice. The problem is that most of them dont even realize that fact. Those who do are simply too lazy. If you feel that you need to argue this point feel free to do so, but their is no room for debate. These are the plain simple facts. Indisputable and unbreakable. Only time can change them if it so chooses, but no amount of reasoning or debate can deny that America even its weakest form is still far far from being a broken system. We have our standards set so high that we can't even comprehend what its like to be truly poor or hungry. We are spoiled, fat, unhealthy, and far too happy. The problem with capitalism is not that it doesn't work. The problem is that it works too damn well. We will grow so fat and happy that we will simply fall off the tree one day, not because our system didn't work but because we felt so invincible that we lost touch with reality.

...I have run out of room on this post and will conlude on the next...