The Grand Socialism and/or Communism vs. Capitolism Debate. (1 Viewer)

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

ok, a friend of mine from Missouri helped write this article to get a person elected in congress. Capitolism vs Socialism(I have no idea who this guy running for congress is, I'm not big into Missouri politics) Now, I'm known for making jabs at communism, being raised that way because of my father. But, I'm not as knowledgeable over the subject as he is, so, for educational reasons, I open up this thread for debate over the topic, is socialism better or worse than Capitalism?

 

[Jay R]

ok, a friend of mine from Missouri helped write this article to get a person elected in congress. Capitolism vs Socialism(I have no idea who this guy running for congress is, I'm not big into Missouri politics) Now, I'm known for making jabs at communism, being raised that way because of my father. But, I'm not as knowledgeable over the subject as he is, so, for educational reasons, I open up this thread for debate over the topic, is socialism better or worse than Capitalism?

Socialism and Communism are two different things. The 'Red Devil' that Americans have been raised to fear has nothing to do with modern Socialism, any shared ground in the past has been rendered obsolete, the respective ideaologies have evolved down different tangents. By grouping the two as a single entity you demonstrate the limited understanding of the political left that characterises the American attitude. Capitalism, which America holds so dear incorporates Socialism in some degree, right at this very moment America is engaged in Socialist policies. If you pay taxes, that's Socialism, if the state pays welfare, or unemployment support, or even gives pensioners free bus passes, then that's Socialism. A nation without any Socialist policy would be wracked by dissent and violent uprising of the kind that brought about the Russian and Chinese revolutions, leading to the much more extreme Communism's. The broad political consensus is that Sociapolicy is used to temper and dilute the less palatable effects of the Capitalist system to protect it from overthrow, basically helping the poor a little justifies wealth gap and stops people talking about ridiculous notions such as 'absolute equality', or 'perfect societies'.

 

[taxedout]

A nation without any Socialist policy would be wracked by dissent and violent uprising of the kind that brought about the Russian and Chinese revolutions, leading to the much more extreme Communism's.

If what brought communism to power in China and Russia had actually been people's revolutions, and if those countries were anything more than thinly disguised totalitarian states, this arguement may have some basis.

 

[Jay R]

If a hell of a lot of people deciding to overthrow a government and establish a different one, totalitarian or not, isn't a revolution of at least some of the people then what the hell is smarta**? Lenin and Mao would have looked pretty damn stupid trying to have their way alone now wouldn't they?

 

[LeftyHenry]

This thread is silly. Everyone who stops and thinks will realize that communism is a much more humaine theory than capitalism. Capitalism is a savage system while communism is a human's system. That's all there is too it.

BTW why is this in the Off Topic forum. Shouldn't it be in the political platforms? Someone should move it.

2BTW the article was complete and utter crap. This guy has obviously never read a word of marxist theory. If I have time tommorow I'll try to respond to the entire article.

 

[taxedout]

If a hell of a lot of people deciding to overthrow a government and establish a different one, totalitarian or not, isn't a revolution of at least some of the people then what the hell is smarta**? Lenin and Mao would have looked pretty damn stupid trying to have their way alone now wouldn't they?

They were poitical coups.
You'd be amazed how much populist support you get when your military beats the population into submission.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Coomunism/Socialism sux. Well it's a great sysytem if you want to wipe out any type of incentive, innovation, personal ingenuity, Personal responsibility etc etc etc... It will do a great job if you want your industry to essentially stall and never progress. IT's a system that rewards mediocrity and conformity.

The current system.. All be it not perfect, as no system is. Promotes individual and corprate innovation. This desire to exceed, to attain wealth drives the advancement of the sciences along with personal incentive and innovation.

Anything else is a safety net for those unwilling to work but demanding of monetary equality. Equal wealth is a moronic concept. You get what you work for. And there is no way in hell I'm going to be enslaved by my governemtn to work so other people can steal and share my earnings. I make money for those employing me, and I give a portion to the government to support various programs. This is the cost of living in the greatest nation in the world. I Have the ability to do nothing and I have the ability to work harder and live nicely. BUt best of all I have the ability to work very hard and attain much wealth. It's there for the taking, just depends on how driven you are. It would seem the only people communism would actually help would be the bottom of the financial food chain. The rest of the country would suffer and be the ones forced to actuallyy give up. So I am not seeing the point of a system designed to only benifit the bottom 1 Percent and punish the rest

 

[Jay R]

They were poitical coups.
You'd be amazed how much populist support you get when your military beats the population into submission.

Funny, I seem to recall a lot of Chinese students waving little red books rather than guns. Anyway, your definitions of those revolutions is of secondary concern, the point I stated is that Americans, by and large, are incapable of diferentiating between Communism and Socialism, which are indeed two very seperate things, and Socialism is considered useful even to arch Capitalists to keep dissent with the system at bay.

Equal wealth is a moronic concept. You get what you work for.

I agree completely, and yet I consider myself a Socialist. See were not that bad:smile:

It would seem the only people communism would actually help would be the bottom of the financial food chain. The rest of the country would suffer and be the ones forced to actuallyy give up. So I am not seeing the point of a system designed to only benifit the bottom 1 Percent and punish the rest

That bottom one percent of the financial food chain likely accounts for a very significant proportion of the total population however.

But best of all I have the ability to work very hard and attain much wealth.

Out of interest, how much would you consider to be 'very much'? I'd dispute that there's equal opportunity to achieve beyond a certain level of wealth, hard work will get you so far, but then you reach a level where networks become more important than effort.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Coomunism/Socialism sux. Well it's a great sysytem if you want to wipe out any type of incentive, innovation, personal ingenuity, Personal responsibility etc etc etc... It will do a great job if you want your industry to essentially stall and never progress. IT's a system that rewards mediocrity and conformity.

Not really. It's a theory which treats people like human beings. Gives them shelter and food and recognizes that humans are not trash and deserve better than starvation. It's basically the system of humanitarians

Capitalism on the other hand, is the system of barbarians. It is a savage system which rewards greed and makes poverty flourish.

The current system.. All be it not perfect, as no system is. Promotes individual and corprate innovation. This desire to exceed, to attain wealth drives the advancement of the sciences along with personal incentive and innovation.

yeah I have no problem with corporations besides the fact that they suck your soul out and treat their workers like scum.

Socialism and communism are systems which gives the working man power. As soon as the worker realizes that he's the one doing the work and that his master/boss is just leeching off of him, he'll realize that socialism and communism is the way to go.

I wouldn't worry about incentives. I'm sure I've explained LTVs to you before, haven't I? In case I haven't, here's a quote from one of my blog entries which explains it.

Labor Time Vouchers. 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.

Anything else is a safety net for those unwilling to work but demanding of monetary equality. Equal wealth is a moronic concept. You get what you work for. And there is no way in hell I'm going to be enslaved by my governemtn to work so other people can steal and share my earnings. I make money for those employing me, and I give a portion to the government to support various programs. This is the cost of living in the greatest nation in the world. I Have the ability to do nothing and I have the ability to work harder and live nicely. BUt best of all I have the ability to work very hard and attain much wealth. It's there for the taking, just depends on how driven you are. It would seem the only people communism would actually help would be the bottom of the financial food chain. The rest of the country would suffer and be the ones forced to actuallyy give up. So I am not seeing the point of a system designed to only benifit the bottom 1 Percent and punish the rest

Maybe you don't understand. Jobs aren't as abundant as flowers. Many of the unemployed are unemployed because they are not qualified to get a job. Many kids who have grown up in poverty have grown up in a disadvantage. Socialism gives everyone the same chance to succeed and doesn't let the top 10% hold 90% of the wealth at times. I mean who needs 4 lambourginis when 32 million people are in poverty in the "richest country in the world". It's obscence that you could even talk about how they 'steal your earnings'.

 

[LeftyHenry]

JamesRichards,

Please explain in depth a little more what you think socialism is as socialism and communism aren't very different and you may just in fact be a social democrat.

I've spent much time studying marx, marxism, socialism, and communism and conferencing with others who have done the same and in my experience socialism is basically the transistion period between capitalism and communism. It is the period of time where the worker takes control of the 'state'.

Social democrats on the other hand are the equivelant of hardcore democrats/labours party members.

 

[Jay R]

JamesRichards,

Please explain in depth a little more what you think socialism is as socialism and communism aren't very different and you may just in fact be a social democrat.

It's rather difficult to do so, certainly impossible in terms of British politics, as no one presently offers a manifesto I'd largely agree with. I guess you would interpret the following as being a Social Democrat.

I definitely consider myself to be a Socialist as I appreciate the value of social policies and also believe that government should actively be involved in developing greater levels of prosperity across the spreas of the populace, not just the top 10%. However, I don't advocate government control of commercial industries as that has been proven disastrous by Britains past, they should however encourage business to invest in their country, and when that business tries to pull a fast one and screw the people over after recieving incentives (LG was a big disaster in Wales), then I think a government should have the courage to confront that company for it's cheating. Protectionism or indeed predjudice against a company could be used not as policies but as a big stick to threaten companies that try to exploit the process. As an example, I'm not averse to the increasing competition between the Euro25 nations as I feel that is beneficial for the EU as a whole, encouraging competition and efficiency and helping our new members to develop. However the tide of work we are losing to China (to a lesser extent India, though that's more subjective) is unnacceptable to me as that nation is able to grossly undermine the whole European workforce, that's not competition as far as I'm concerned, we simply cannot compete and protection of the market is acceptable in such a case.
Some industries are also not suited to a commercial model, notably in Britain the train service, state ownership here could be better than our current system, but it cannot be seen as a means of fixing unemployment figures, 'jobs for the boys' is a fallacy. If one intends to pursue full or nearly-full employment then that must be achieved by encouraging self suffiecient and profitable private business.
I'm also a socialist as far as my opinions on civil liberties, I feel that while there are absolute rights of the individual there is also a burden of responsibility on that person as a member of a society, a modern interpretation that offers support but demands effort as a justification is necessary, simply handing out money is foolhardy, Blair has talked about this (not that I'm any friend of his), but has in my opinion not succeeded in getting the balance right.

On the other hand in addition to, or perhaps in concert with, my Socialist beliefs I have what would be politically deemed a Conservative streak, particularly in relation to law and order, crime and punishment. I don't personally think of it as Conservatism, rather as an element of Socialism as referred to above. Crime is antisocial activity, it damages a society, thus to be tough on criminality is to be a Socialist, protecting the society from those who refuse to accept the responsibilities of membership of the collective. Also like a conservative I believe in having a strong military capability and the willingness to deploy it in the defence of the nation and it's interests or to assist one's allies in doing the same. I'm presently unhappy with the UN, very unsocialist of me I know, but frankly I don't think my pride would allow me to sit at a table with the likes of Sudan or Zimbabwe.

I have a rapidly developing sense of the environment and of green politics as being a valuable part of my particular brand of Socialism, as our society has to live somewhere, protecting and preserving our surroundings and trying to make them as pleasant as possible to inhabit is in my opinion a Socialist ideal.

I also believe that violence is unfortunately an intrinsic element of the human condition and that the best way to deal with such an antisocial element is to make sure that the violence and violent tendancies of a society are targeted at those who threaten it or into constructive alternatives. Hence I support a return to the use of capital punishment for top tier crimes, my justification being that it is better for the society to inflict violence upon it's antisocial assailents than for those people to have the exclusive license on violence and use it to attack the collective society. Competitive sports are highly valuable in directing violent emotion into a constructive ends, particularly in the case of male violence, we should be doing more to encourage and support sporting activities throughout our community. I have also been interested in the idea of a national service of some sort, whether of military organisation as is the case in Israel and some European nations, or following the US Peace Corps model, I feel that the idea bears some serious consideration as a means to provide some sort of direction and focus to the frustrated competitive desire to achieve. Britain has unfortunately raised a generation that are now taking to the streets and fighting amongst themselves, sometimes harming others as well.

As you can see I have a spead of ideas that are considered as components of various ideologies, I think the most important is that I try to have a balanced interpretation of politics that draws from the most applicable ideas in the interests of better governance; hard and fast dogma I find is restrictive and exclusive. I believe that having traditionally left wing ideas, coupled to the most appropriate of the conservative ideas, along with other more niche politics is to be a true Socialist, a government reflecting the ideas of many people rather than towing a dogma of those who won one election seems like a good idea. So to answer your question, my interpretation of Socialism is what's good for the society as a whole, that doesn't necessarily mean equality, it means encouraging that which benefits people and discouraging that which harms people, it doesn't necessitate planned economy, but it doesn't give business a free reign, it's all a question of balance. Communism tends to favour a very state focussed society with the emphasis on state control and planning of industry, Capitalism, in it's unrestrained form is simply market driven and quite Darwinist, that works to a fair degree within a state, but we live in a Globalized world now and the market is open to competition that many in Europe and the US cannot match without lowering standards of living, I quite value my society's standard of living as it is. I guess I'm making up my own politics as I go along, picking and choosing the best ideas from different perspectives to deliver the best results for my society. What could be more Socialist than that?:smile:

Wow, that ended up a lot longer than I expected, hope it clarifies me a bit. Sorry for boring anyone.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I agree completely, and yet I consider myself a Socialist. See were not that bad:smile:

It's s start :lol:

That bottom one percent of the financial food chain likely accounts for a very significant proportion of the total population however.

Guess that would depend on the country. In this country I don't think that bottom 1% is a significant portion. It is not small by any stretch. Poverty level is at 12% or 36,000,000 people out of 300,000,000. And I think of this you have a large portion that are not interested in working to aquire. They are happy living off the state. Middle class and upper class are the ones that are definetly going to take the brunt of the punishment here. These are the same people that fuel our economy. They are also the one that spur innovation and development.

Out of interest, how much would you consider to be 'very much'? I'd dispute that there's equal opportunity to achieve beyond a certain level of wealth, hard work will get you so far, but then you reach a level where networks become more important than effort.

I don't understand? "very much" what?

I disaggree... hardwork will only get you so far. But within that is the networking your talking about. As you build youmeet people and build contacts. I am not saying that everyone that works hard is going to become Donald Trump or Bill Gates. But the opportunity is definetly there and attainable to some degree. But the truth of the matter is you can work hard your whole life and never attain the wealth you seek. But nobody is gauranteeing that you will. You have the chance, the oppurtunity. You have more chance of aquiring that wealth in this country more so then anywhere else on earth IMO. And the desire to aquire that wealth is what spurs this country and it's economy. That desire is what fuels innovation. Without that desire this country is no longer the leader in Medical, technical etc etc R&D. And without that, the whole world suffers

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Not really. It's a theory which treats people like human beings. Gives them shelter and food and recognizes that humans are not trash and deserve better than starvation. It's basically the system of humanitarians

It's a theroy of handouts for those that are not willing to put effort into there lives. And it's a burden for those that are driven and goal oriented that want to succeed and flourish. Its a safety net that is being supported by the majority for the vast minority

Capitalism on the other hand, is the system of barbarians. It is a savage system which rewards greed and makes poverty flourish.

12% OF 300,000,000 I would hardley describe as flourishing...LOL it gives you the ability to grow and become more. To move forward or up. To hand your family or your children the life you didn't have. Greed is good. Greed drives people, greed drives imigination, greed drives innovation, greed drives renovation, greed drives revitilization, greed drives the economy. Greed can be very good

yeah I have no problem with corporations besides the fact that they suck your soul out and treat their workers like scum.

Never saw that happen... Do you have pictures?

They pay there workers for doing a job. How dare those rotten SOB's employee millions of people so they can put food on there table.

Socialism and communism are systems which gives the working man power. As soon as the worker realizes that he's the one doing the work and that his master/boss is just leeching off of him, he'll realize that socialism and communism is the way to go.

NA ... Sorry that doesn't cut it. Because without those spurring industry there are no jobs to have in the first place. If I start a company WTF should YOu make as much as me ... IT my fu ckin company. I took the risk invested the money, made the sacrifices. Your system is doom to failure. There is no true incentive. Your a worker, and your kids will be workers and there kids will be workers and there kids kids will be workers. WTF is my incentive in this grey world you want to produce.?

I wouldn't worry about incentives. I'm sure I've explained LTVs to you before, haven't I? In case I haven't, here's a quote from one of my blog entries which explains it.

Ya.... They seem kind of pointless. Just pay me in cash. That way I can buy anything I want.

Maybe you don't understand. Jobs aren't as abundant as flowers.

5% unemployment.. Jobs aren't that hard to come by if you want to work

Many of the unemployed are unemployed because they are not qualified to get a job.

And many are unemployed because they don't want to work. And would rather live off the state. WHich your system will glady supply

Many kids who have grown up in poverty have grown up in a disadvantage.

Many more have grown up in great middle class families that have a lot more then there fathers families had. But lets sacrifices the largest group to accomodate the smallest. The worlds not perfect... You want to change the whole to suit a few... Makes no sense

Socialism gives everyone the same chance to succeed and doesn't let the top 10% hold 90% of the wealth at times.

Noboby succeeds in socialism. Everyone is basically on the same plain. THere kids will be there and so will there kids kids a nd so on and so on

I mean who needs 4 lambourginis when 32 million people are in poverty in the "richest country in the world". It's obscence that you could even talk about how they 'steal your earnings'.

Who the HE.LL are you to tell me what I can and cannot have with the money I earn. If I want to drive one of my 4 lambpourginis tough sh.it. I worked for the money that I used to buy them. In otherwards I earned it. WTF should you be telling me what I can and cannot have. Your idea is to fu.ck 88% to satisfy 12%...... The logic is stupid. Sacrafice the majority for the good of the minority. Lets get rid of the rich... Of course when we do that there are no jobs. Then everyone will be eaqually unemployed and poor. So keep your hands of my money or there going to end yup calling you stumpy.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Who the HE.LL are you to tell me what I can and cannot have with the money I earn. If I want to drive one of my 4 lambpourginis tough sh.it. I worked for the money that I used to buy them. In otherwards I earned it. WTF should you be telling me what I can and cannot have. Your idea is to fu.ck 88% to satisfy 12%...... The logic is stupid. Sacrafice the majority for the good of the minority. Lets get rid of the rich... Of course when we do that there are no jobs. Then everyone will be eaqually unemployed and poor. So keep your hands of my money or there going to end yup calling you stumpy.

That, made my visit here worthwhile.

 

[LeftyHenry]

It's a theroy of handouts for those that are not willing to put effort into there lives. And it's a burden for those that are driven and goal oriented that want to succeed and flourish. Its a safety net that is being supported by the majority for the vast minority

It's a society which spreads the wealth among everyone not just a few fat white men. It is people's theory that protects against poverty. It is a system that is humaine, not barbaric like capitalism.

12% OF 300,000,000 I would hardley describe as flourishing...LOL it gives you the ability to grow and become more. To move forward or up. To hand your family or your children the life you didn't have. Greed is good. Greed drives people, greed drives imigination, greed drives innovation, greed drives renovation, greed drives revitilization, greed drives the economy. Greed can be very good

12% or 32,000,000. Do you understand how large that number is? It's basically 4 times the size of New York City. And we're the richest capitalist country of them all.

Greed starves people. 32 million to be exact, but I guess that's a good thing to you and your capitalist friends, right?

They pay there workers for doing a job. How dare those rotten SOB's employee millions of people so they can put food on there table.

LOL they enslave them with wages. Look at the facts buddy, corporations such as wal-mart have never ending records of shuting down stores just because unions MAY be forming. Also Wal-Mart could rasie each employees wages $1.00 an hour by raising prices a half penny per dollar.

Here's a link about some of the beautiful things you angelic corporations do.

Link here

NA ... Sorry that doesn't cut it. Because without those spurring industry there are no jobs to have in the first place. If I start a company WTF should YOu make as much as me ... IT my fu ckin company. I took the risk invested the money, made the sacrifices. Your system is doom to failure. There is no true incentive. Your a worker, and your kids will be workers and there kids will be workers and there kids kids will be workers. WTF is my incentive in this grey world you want to produce.?

You can be whatever you want in socialism excpet a pig or leech which is what these CEOs are. In anycase, most corporations weren't founded by their CEO.

And in socialism there is an incentive you just don't like it because you prefer having children starve. It boosts your ego.

In marxism, jobs will be created by planners. There is no need for CEOS.

Ya.... They seem kind of pointless. Just pay me in cash. That way I can buy anything I want.

No because then there is inequality in wealth. And LTVs do allow you to buy whatever you wish.

5% unemployment.. Jobs aren't that hard to come by if you want to work

5% unemployment doesn't take into account discouraged workers which in all is between 10-15%.

It's not that jobs are hard to find, it's just that these people get rejected because 'they aren't qualified'.

And many are unemployed because they don't want to work. And would rather live off the state. WHich your system will glady supply

That's bullcrap. Welfare gives you next to nothing, and then you have to pay it back. Also, you can only live with welfare for 5 years, and if your parents had welfare when you were a kid, you can't have it.

The idea that someone would live off the state is right wing bullshit propaganda used to justify the wealth you hog from starving children. I don't buy it for a second. Who the **** would want to live on the streets? You actually think that if these people were able to get jobs they wouldn't do them?

In anycase, in marxism you must have a job in order to recieve societies support.

Many more have grown up in great middle class families that have a lot more then there fathers families had. But lets sacrifices the largest group to accomodate the smallest. The worlds not perfect... You want to change the whole to suit a few... Makes no sense

Communism benefits white collar middle class workers as well. They spend their lives in a little cubicle typing, while the CEO leeches off of them and goes and plays golf. In communism, everyone would be middle class.

Noboby succeeds in socialism. Everyone is basically on the same plain. THere kids will be there and so will there kids kids a nd so on and so on

Because marxism isn't really about succeeding. It's about caring for your neighbor's welfare and him caring about your welfare. It's about everyone helping everyone, the way society should be. If you believe this is wrong, you are a pyschopath.

Who the HE.LL are you to tell me what I can and cannot have with the money I earn. If I want to drive one of my 4 lambpourginis tough sh.it. I worked for the money that I used to buy them. In otherwards I earned it. WTF should you be telling me what I can and cannot have. Your idea is to fu.ck 88% to satisfy 12%...... The logic is stupid. Sacrafice the majority for the good of the minority. Lets get rid of the rich... Of course when we do that there are no jobs. Then everyone will be eaqually unemployed and poor. So keep your hands of my money or there going to end yup calling you stumpy.

Your logic is stupid. Your logic is encourages greed. Marxism doesn't **** 88% and screw 12%. It helps 80% and ****s 20%. Communism puts society in the worker's hands to do as he wishes. It creates a communal society where everyone has a part and everyone owns everything.

You are very narrow minded to think that only rich people can make jobs as that is false. Rich people just leech off the working mans work. Jobs will be made based on need. If we need more food, we'll assign more volunteers to farming. It's not that hard. We just give him equipment and tell him to work. If he works hard he may one day own 4 lambourgingis...

 

[taxedout]

Anyway, your definitions of those revolutions is of secondary concern,

Strange, I remember you just asserting that these "revolutions" had some sort of mass populist support. Guess your being wrong is of secondary concern too ?

 

[Jay R]

I don't understand? "very much" what?

You referred to people being able to work hard and achieve 'very much' wealth, I was just wondering if there was a specific range in mind that constituted 'very much' money.

Who the HE.LL are you to tell me what I can and cannot have with the money I earn. If I want to drive one of my 4 lambpourginis tough sh.it. I worked for the money that I used to buy them. In otherwards I earned it. WTF should you be telling me what I can and cannot have.

Incidentally Lefty, ask anyone who owns a Lamborghini or Ferrari and actually drives it regularly and they'll tell you that the cost of purchase is nothing compared to the parts, servicing and labour costs. And garages and dealers have to employ technically skilled specialist staff to handle such exotics, providing good jobs for a few working men, jobs that won't exist if everyone drove Skodas.:smile:

Anyway, your definitions of those revolutions is of secondary concern,

Strange, I remember you just asserting that these "revolutions" had some sort of mass populist support. Guess your being wrong is of secondary concern too ?

Nah, I used them as a demonstration that ignoring social problems stimulates frustration that can boil over into riot or outright rebellion as in the examples. You raised the issue of whether they were or were not in fact populist uprisings, which is largely irrelevent to the statement that angry poor people can get nasty. For my part I feel that both the Russian and Chinese revolutions enjoyed significant support among the poor and the working class, if you wish to dispute that it's your business, I don't advocate Communism or Totalitarianism, but neither am I ignorant of the frustrations of the inevitable losers in the Capitalist system. I can't really be wrong just because you disagree with an interpretation of a historical event now can I?

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

It's a society which spreads the wealth among everyone not just a few fat white men. It is people's theory that protects against poverty. It is a system that is humaine, not barbaric like capitalism.

But you see, poverty is an opinionated word. The people who live in simple houses nowadays would be considered Kings in midevil times. If you have an apartment down 4th avenue, ward 9, you would be considered a shiek in Arabia/africa, (maybe not a powerful shiek but a shiek nonetheless).

12% or 32,000,000. Do you understand how large that number is? It's basically 4 times the size of New York City. And we're the richest capitalist country of them all.

88% or 268,000,000 are rich. Do you understand how big a number that is? Its basicly 28 times the size of New York City and 7.2 times the size of the poverty level. Wealth Flouriches in the Capitalist economy.

Greed starves people. 32 million to be exact, but I guess that's a good thing to you and your capitalist friends, right?

No, its a bad thing, be we sure as hell not going to give up our well, hard-earned cash for bums down the street who are too lazy to earn their paychecks. I believe it was John smith who said "If you don't work, you don't eat."

LOL they enslave them with wages. Look at the facts buddy, corporations such as wal-mart have never ending records of shuting down stores just because unions MAY be forming. Also Wal-Mart could rasie each employees wages $1.00 an hour by raising prices a half penny per dollar.

Good for them, because its simple decisions like that that get you money. Such as the decision of whether to get off your bum and earn yourself a paycheck besides feeding off the government like leeches and increasing the government's debt, which thanks to Bush, needs no more increasing.

Here's a link about some of the beautiful things you angelic corporations do.

Link here
[/quote]



You can be whatever you want in socialism excpet a pig or leech which is what these CEOs are. In anycase, most corporations weren't founded by their CEO.

So, your saying that the instead of the CEO's taking the blame of being "leeches" or "pigs, you would rather it be the government? If you think what the CEO's are doing is bad then why don't you just sue em? or call your congressman to pass a law that says that corporations are not allowed to do blah blah blah.

And in socialism there is an incentive you just don't like it because you prefer having children starve. It boosts your ego.

yea, no. With capitolism, there is an incentive to work because the more they work, the more money they get. In socailism, the worker is going to get the same amount no matter how hard or long he works. He could do nothing and still get his money, which influences lazinees in the office.

In marxism, jobs will be created by planners. There is no need for CEOS.

well, there is no need for planners either. The only thing you need is the Entrepreneur, the employee, and the product, and walla, a buisness has been created!

Communism benefits white collar middle class workers as well. They spend their lives in a little cubicle typing, while the CEO leeches off of them and goes and plays golf. In communism, everyone would be middle class.

But some people don't want to be Middle Class, and why shouldn't they? If a person is smart enough to come up with an idea, and it succedes as a product, then he deserves all the rewards that comes with it!

Because marxism isn't really about succeeding. It's about caring for your neighbor's welfare and him caring about your welfare. It's about everyone helping everyone, the way society should be. If you believe this is wrong, you are a pyschopath.

This is not wrong. We want this to happen, everyone does. But unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. Humans, by nature, are greedy, and trying to defy human nature will only screw urself and make 88% of the people not like you. You are right by all means, society should be like you say, BUT ITS NOT! AND NEVER WILL!. Because some people are smart enough to understand this, they know that the only known economic system that will work is capitolism. A system of which, uses the human nature of greed, to its benefit.

Your logic is stupid. Your logic is encourages greed. Marxism doesn't **** 88% and screw 12%. It helps 80% and ****s 20%. Communism puts society in the worker's hands to do as he wishes. It creates a communal society where everyone has a part and everyone owns everything.

so you admit, you screw somebody.

You are very narrow minded to think that only rich people can make jobs as that is false. Rich people just leech off the working mans work. Jobs will be made based on need. If we need more food, we'll assign more volunteers to farming. It's not that hard. We just give him equipment and tell him to work. If he works hard he may one day own 4 lambourgingis...

but what if those people don't want to work on farms? What if they want to be an accountant or lawyer or something? Their not going to like you if you assign them work they don't want to do.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

oh and uh, the richest countries in the world http://www.aneki.com/richest.html

Can you please explain to me why their are no communist countries on the list?

 

[LeftyHenry]

But you see, poverty is an opinionated word. The people who live in simple houses nowadays would be considered Kings in midevil times. If you have an apartment down 4th avenue, ward 9, you would be considered a shiek in Arabia/africa, (maybe not a powerful shiek but a shiek nonetheless).

Oh umm...well, in case you didn't notice, WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE AGES! Jobs nowadays depend on computers and robotics as opposed to bow and arrow.

88% or 268,000,000 are rich. Do you understand how big a number that is? Its basicly 28 times the size of New York City and 7.2 times the size of the poverty level. Wealth Flouriches in the Capitalist economy.

LOL wow umm 32,000,000 people make under 20,000 dollars a year. That's what considered 'below the poverty line'. Of course in most places you can't live in anything but poverty if you make 50,000 or so but who cares right? Because we'd rather pretend everyone is rich.

No, its a bad thing, be we sure as hell not going to give up our well, hard-earned cash for bums down the street who are too lazy to earn their paychecks. I believe it was John smith who said "If you don't work, you don't eat."

Easy for you to say with a car in your garage, behind a monitor with high speed internet and a college education. Ever think all people aren't as lucky as you????

You think people love the streets and are just 'lazy'? please stfu. You try one day on the street without food and than comeback and tell me these people are just lazy and jobs are staring them in the face.

Good for them, because its simple decisions like that that get you money. Such as the decision of whether to get off your bum and earn yourself a paycheck besides feeding off the government like leeches and increasing the government's debt, which thanks to Bush, needs no more increasing.

erm...yeah..what??

So, your saying that the instead of the CEO's taking the blame of being "leeches" or "pigs, you would rather it be the government? If you think what the CEO's are doing is bad then why don't you just sue em? or call your congressman to pass a law that says that corporations are not allowed to do blah blah blah.

erm...yeah..what?? WTF are you talking about?

yea, no. With capitolism, there is an incentive to work because the more they work, the more money they get. In socailism, the worker is going to get the same amount no matter how hard or long he works. He could do nothing and still get his money, which influences lazinees in the office.

He could still get lots of LTVs of he works his *** off. Arguement debunked.

well, there is no need for planners either. The only thing you need is the Entrepreneur, the employee, and the product, and walla, a buisness has been created!

How about just the worker/planner. That way the worker can't get abused by the entrepeneur.

But some people don't want to be Middle Class, and why shouldn't they? If a person is smart enough to come up with an idea, and it succedes as a product, then he deserves all the rewards that comes with it!

He'll get rewards in communism too. He'll get a shitload of LTVs if he comes up with the cure for cancer but c'mon. Some of the **** people come up with and get rich off of is ridiculous. disposible toilet brush. WOW.

This is not wrong. We want this to happen, everyone does. But unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. Humans, by nature, are greedy, and trying to defy human nature will only screw urself and make 88% of the people not like you. You are right by all means, society should be like you say, BUT ITS NOT! AND NEVER WILL!. Because some people are smart enough to understand this, they know that the only known economic system that will work is capitolism. A system of which, uses the human nature of greed, to its benefit.

That's sickening. So apparantly all you have to do is wave your little 'human nature' wand and socialism fails and smart people support savergy. In case you didn't notice human nature has been taken care of.

so you admit, you screw somebody.

but what if those people don't want to work on farms? What if they want to be an accountant or lawyer or something? Their not going to like you if you assign them work they don't want to do.

Yes we screw the people who hold all the wealth and money and food with causes starvation in America and all over the world. We liberate that **** and give it to the people.

***

The way the job system will work isn't difficult really for the average worker. He/she'll just apply for 1 job and have 1 or 2 backups. Than he/she will be assigned one of the jobs based on qualifications, availibility, and 1st choice.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Most of your last post belonged to calm2chaos's rebuttal, so I should've probably layed off a bit. anyways.......

Oh umm...well, in case you didn't notice, WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE AGES! Jobs nowadays depend on computers and robotics as opposed to bow and arrow.

But you prove my point, Poverty is an opinionated word. A person living on an island with nothing but a bamboo house and the clothes on his back eating nothing but oranges can consider himself to be rich. Whilst a person could own 10 mansions, make a million dollars a day, and eat at 5 star restaurants ever meal every day, and still consider himself poor. Unlikely as that may be, it can happen. Its opinion.

That's sickening. So apparantly all you have to do is wave your little 'human nature' wand and socialism fails

Yea.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

It's a society which spreads the wealth among everyone not just a few fat white men. It is people's theory that protects against poverty. It is a system that is humaine, not barbaric like capitalism.

It's a system that enslaves families for generations to help the slimmest of the minority. It's a system to assist those that don't want to work but don't want others having more then them

12% or 32,000,000. Do you understand how large that number is? It's basically 4 times the size of New York City. And we're the richest capitalist country of them all.

do you realize how big a number 280,000,000 is? NO we are not the richest country of them all. Get your damm facts straight.

Greed starves people. 32 million to be exact, but I guess that's a good thing to you and your capitalist friends, right?

You don't want to starve, get a job. Stop trying to live off the state and my hard earned money. Lets take from everybody else to help the minority... YA .. that seems fair

LOL they enslave them with wages. Look at the facts buddy, corporations such as wal-mart have never ending records of shuting down stores just because unions MAY be forming. Also Wal-Mart could rasie each employees wages $1.00 an hour by raising prices a half penny per dollar.


Here's a link about some of the beautiful things you angelic corporations do.

Link here

WHy pay them more? If you do that then I have to pay more I stop shopping there they go out of business and people are out of work. Walmart is not a career its a job you take to hold you over or when you retire. But some people want to do the bare minimum. These are the people that would flourish in your system because that is all that your system will ever ask of them

You can be whatever you want in socialism excpet a pig or leech which is what these CEOs are. In anycase, most corporations weren't founded by their CEO.

They get paid what the market bears. There paid for there experience, knowledge, networks, contacts, education etc etc. Your a drone in socialism. And the sad part is your kids will be drones and so will there kids

And in socialism there is an incentive you just don't like it because you prefer having children starve. It boosts your ego.

Tell em to get jobs, ill find a sweat shop for em to work at..LOL..NO INCENTIVE.. Everybodies a drone, no innovation... a grey boring world... Least we helped that 12%. screw the 88% that had to give up everything to do it though.. Great idea

In marxism, jobs will be created by planners. There is no need for CEOS.

We have people creating jobs everyday why do we need planners.. O YA >> thats right... Because your stsyem destroys innovation and individuality.

No because then there is inequality in wealth. And LTVs do allow you to buy whatever you wish.

Theres the working and the lazy. You don't deserve the same as everybody else. There job is different, harder, more stressfull, more demanding etc etc... It's pretty simple reasoning

5% unemployment doesn't take into account discouraged workers which in all is between 10-15%.

First off your lying and making up numbers to prove a bad point. Second I am sure none of the drones are discouraged that there going nowhere and neither are there kids or there kids kids. and that there life is what it is and they will never be more then they are at that very moment. Your system would make me want to eat a bullet

It's not that jobs are hard to find, it's just that these people get rejected because 'they aren't qualified'.

They need a high school education, and thats free. Exactly whats the problem here? They are qualified they would just rather live off the state

That's bullcrap. Welfare gives you next to nothing, and then you have to pay it back. Also, you can only live with welfare for 5 years, and if your parents had welfare when you were a kid, you can't have it.

What welfare do you have to pay back? And what welfare are you not allowed to have if your parents were on it... Please give me a source for this information

The idea that someone would live off the state is right wing bullshit propaganda used to justify the wealth you hog from starving children. I don't buy it for a second. Who the **** would want to live on the streets? You actually think that if these people were able to get jobs they wouldn't do them?

I know it for fact.
your naive and your ideals are polluted with dreams of utopia. There are a great deal of people that have no problem living off the state working the system. If you think this is untrue then you live in a dream world ... WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't think that system is perfect by any stretch. I do however think your system destroys what makes this country unique and great. And it turns thriving striving innovative people into pointless go nowhere drones.

In anycase, in marxism you must have a job in order to recieve societies support.

DRONES

Communism benefits white collar middle class workers as well. They spend their lives in a little cubicle typing, while the CEO leeches off of them and goes and plays golf. In communism, everyone would be middle class.

It benifits the 12% and thats all. The people you talk of benefiting are the ones that lose everything to pay for the 12% leeches. It's a job, they pay you to perform it. Who the hell said your getting a big office with a window. If you want that go to school, start your own company and become CEO. And by the way does thta mean under your system nobody will be working in a cubicle????

Because marxism isn't really about succeeding. It's about caring for your neighbor's welfare and him caring about your welfare. It's about everyone helping everyone, the way society should be. If you believe this is wrong, you are a pyschopath.

No sh.it it's not about succeding. It's about sucking the life and ingenuity out of people and turning them into mindless robots for the masses comrade......LOL

Yo

ur logic is stupid. Your logic is encourages greed. Marxism doesn't **** 88% and screw 12%. It helps 80% and ****s 20%. Communism puts society in the worker's hands to do as he wishes. It creates a communal society where everyone has a part and everyone owns everything.

WRONG !!!! Anytime I have to give up more of my money to help the lazy I am being screwed. And your system screws everyone but the 12% your talking about. They benifit off the sweat of everyone else. It destroys free thinking. it annihilates ingenuity and it drown entrepreneurship. And in doing this you doom this country and you doom the global economy

You are very narrow minded to think that only rich people can make jobs as that is false. Rich people just leech off the working mans work. Jobs will be made based on need. If we need more food, we'll assign more volunteers to farming. It's not that hard. We just give him equipment and tell him to work. If he works hard he may one day own 4 lambourgingis...

And your a fool if you assume I said anything of the sort. Anybody can creat job. Thats what this country does. Your system however kills that spirit. The rich are not the enemy. They have what you don't so you made them the enemy. Stop beeing a lazy sack of sh.it and work for it, odds are they did. Not all rich people started out rich. Not everyone is born into money. Many build through all those traits you wish to kill within this country with your drone system of everyones eaqual. And stop calling them volunteers. If they don't do the job they don't eat. So that makes them A.) SLAVES or B.) EMPLOYEES..... And if they are A. then your system sucks worse and if there B then there capitolist .. Either way your screwing everybody to help out a few

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You referred to people being able to work hard and achieve 'very much' wealth, I was just wondering if there was a specific range in mind that constituted 'very much' money.

I think I probably meant much more wealth....
Guess that depends on the person... It could be 50k a year or it counld be 5,000,000. Depends on your drive, your work your luck etc etc. NObody is saying you'll definetly get to that 5 mil mark... But it is definetly a possibility

 

[LeftyHenry]

It's a system that enslaves families for generations to help the slimmest of the minority. It's a system to assist those that don't want to work but don't want others having more then them

That's your idiotic point of view. If you call letting everyone have everything they need to survive without starving slavery, than you have some issues.

All socialism does is take the money from the CEO that he'd usually wipe his *** with, and give it to the workers who he enslaves.

do you realize how big a number 280,000,000 is? NO we are not the richest country of them all. Get your damm facts straight.

Notice how the countries ahead of us are more socialized?

You don't want to starve, get a job. Stop trying to live off the state and my hard earned money. Lets take from everybody else to help the minority... YA .. that seems fair

What? umm no howabout just take from the ultra rich and give to the people that they make suffer.

Besides, most do have jobs. If 5% are unemployed and 32,000,000 are in poverty, something must be wrong with your logic.

WHy pay them more? If you do that then I have to pay more I stop shopping there they go out of business and people are out of work. Walmart is not a career its a job you take to hold you over or when you retire. But some people want to do the bare minimum. These are the people that would flourish in your system because that is all that your system will ever ask of them

umm well I'm sorry to inform you, but not everyone can afford college and a degree in your fantastic capitalist system and career jobs are usually jobs that require you to have a college education.

Besides, I wouldn't call working for minimum wage in a unsanitary factory 'the bare minimum'.

It's their job. What kind of elitist are you to justify keeping them in poverty. This is from the link I provided.

The national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705, well above the average associate's annual wages of $13,861. [“Poverty and Family Budgets” online at www.epinet.org]

And seriously, you paying a couple of pennys is nothing compared to the help it would do the family of the workers.

They get paid what the market bears. There paid for there experience, knowledge, networks, contacts, education etc etc. Your a drone in socialism. And the sad part is your kids will be drones and so will there kids

No, you're a drone in capitalism. You get up. Go to work. Come home. Watch the game. Eat dinner. Go to sleep. That's the basic work day. That's the routine of a drone.

Tell em to get jobs, ill find a sweat shop for em to work at..LOL..NO INCENTIVE.. Everybodies a drone, no innovation... a grey boring world... Least we helped that 12%. screw the 88% that had to give up everything to do it though.. Great idea

<ultra conservative rant><VALIDITY: 0%>

We have people creating jobs everyday why do we need planners.. O YA >> thats right... Because your stsyem destroys innovation and individuality.

Quite the opposite. It ends poverty and allows people more opportunity to do jobs they are more interested in.

Planners just make sure that the commune would have enough of everything.

Your system strangles and kills those not 'fit' for the job.

Theres the working and the lazy. You don't deserve the same as everybody else. There job is different, harder, more stressfull, more demanding etc etc... It's pretty simple reasoning

what are you saying? I'm afraid I don't understand. Repeat clearer please and than I'll respond. Thank you.

First off your lying and making up numbers to prove a bad point. Second I am sure none of the drones are discouraged that there going nowhere and neither are there kids or there kids kids. and that there life is what it is and they will never be more then they are at that very moment. Your system would make me want to eat a bullet

:rofl! All your points are horrid so that's joke right? All you're arguing is that they worked for it by abusing workers and despite the fact that there are children starving, the CEOs should be allowed to wipe their *** with little green Ben Franklins marked $100.

Capitalism is worse. In capitalism the only reason for wroking is this illusion of getting rich which very, very few are able to accomplish. You work 50 years of your life in a little cubicle typing on a computer and then retire and cripple up and die. And the cycle starts again with your kid. In communism, there is lot's of room to explore and do jobs because they're interesting, not because they make the most money. College is free to those who have fair grades so the possibilities are endless. it is your system that makes people eat bullets and jump off buildings and hang themselves. Divorce and suicide rates are high. It's your system that is for drones.

They need a high school education, and thats free. Exactly whats the problem here? They are qualified they would just rather live off the state

public high schools in many poverty stricken places in the US such as Compten and south central will get you no where.

I know it for fact.
your naive and your ideals are polluted with dreams of utopia. There are a great deal of people that have no problem living off the state working the system. If you think this is untrue then you live in a dream world ... WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't think that system is perfect by any stretch. I do however think your system destroys what makes this country unique and great. And it turns thriving striving innovative people into pointless go nowhere drones.

You are the one naive. You're just spewing Fox news bill O'Reilly brainwashing ****. Do you, Can you honestly believe that believe would live off the state when living off the state would only be poverty? Welfare gives you next to nothing! You're spewing lies to drown out the cries of starving children in our country, states, and cities.

It benifits the 12% and thats all. The people you talk of benefiting are the ones that lose everything to pay for the 12% leeches. It's a job, they pay you to perform it. Who the hell said your getting a big office with a window. If you want that go to school, start your own company and become CEO. And by the way does thta mean under your system nobody will be working in a cubicle????

No it doesn't. Socialism benefits the entire working class of our country. It gives everyone equal opportunity unlike capitalism in which your daddy's pay check decides if you're a shoe shiner or get your shoes shined.

The idea of no cubicles I guess is sort of metaphorical in the sense that you are not forced to work away in this little totalitarian space. You are given freedom to achieve what is expected on your own time. Although I'm not sure I said there would be no cubicles.

No sh.it it's not about succeding. It's about sucking the life and ingenuity out of people and turning them into mindless robots for the masses comrade......LOL

No it's about liberating people from an oppressive system in which you sell your labor but cannot even buy the product you produce.

Yo

sup?

WRONG !!!! Anytime I have to give up more of my money to help the lazy I am being screwed. And your system screws everyone but the 12% your talking about. They benifit off the sweat of everyone else. It destroys free thinking. it annihilates ingenuity and it drown entrepreneurship. And in doing this you doom this country and you doom the global economy

You don't unless you're a CEO who hogs all the money and wipes his *** with his surplus.

And when did I ever say I give a **** about the 'global economy' Hopefully when people realize that they can live so much more peacefully without the crap of capitalism. And because they are impovrished by the capitalist 'free market', they'll revolt and join communism.

And your a fool if you assume I said anything of the sort. Anybody can creat job. Thats what this country does. Your system however kills that spirit. The rich are not the enemy. They have what you don't so you made them the enemy. Stop beeing a lazy sack of sh.it and work for it, odds are they did. Not all rich people started out rich. Not everyone is born into money. Many build through all those traits you wish to kill within this country with your drone system of everyones eaqual. And stop calling them volunteers. If they don't do the job they don't eat. So that makes them A.) SLAVES or B.) EMPLOYEES..... And if they are A. then your system sucks worse and if there B then there capitolist .. Either way your screwing everybody to help out a few

LTVs would give people the same incentive to take risks as capitalist money does. And please shut up about people in poverty being lazy. Most are not and work there *** off in crappy minimum wage jobs. I'm willing to bet that much of the unemployed are rich 3rd generation brats who's grand daddy and daddy made milions of dollars via whiping the workers. Also my ideoloy is neither of your choices it's communist. It's a system where everyone shares everything to make everyone happy except the few pro-starvation people like you who watch people suffer for enjoyment.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Notice how the countries ahead of us are more socialized?

their are only 2 countries ahead of us and the only one thats remotely socialist is Norway, and we have twice as many social programs than them, and its a constitutional monarchy, an ancestor of democracy, not communism. Same with Luxemburg, it too is a constitutional monarchy it doesn't have near as many social programs that norway has. Also, scrolling through the list, your big communist countries (such as Russia and China,) don't even make the list.