Continuing the debate

[Guest]

Just one thing that I saw Cosmos, that tossed it out the window for me as far as your argument was concerned.

Berkeley CA.

I have relatives there that teach at the university there, you probably know it. The biggest bunch of socialists I have ever seen. Sorry, you may be right about some of the social programs, and if you look at the constitution, they go against the very grain of it. But when I see Berkely, I cringe, it is, I am sorry to say, the socialist and communist mecca of the United States!! So to hear you speak out against capitalism is far from surprising.

Nothing personal, just personal observation on my part.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Menchise]

I'm not dancing around 'human nature' in my posts, I'm challenging your interpretation of it. I provided evidence in the form of how individuals in other societies did not have these characteristics, yet they still lived well, and they had freedom. For some reason, nobody has challenged the evidence, apart from expressing some annoyance at my mention of eskimos. Nobody has clearly explained why or how these systems worked without greed, competition, or even private property, apart from claiming that because those societies don't exist anymore, they didn't work after all.

But why don't these societies exist anymore? What happened to the Sioux nations and the nomadic culture of the Australian Aborigines (a system of society that has no native word for "purchase" in any of its dozen or so languages)? I'll tell you what happened. They were attacked by capitalists looking for land and 'opportunity'. Anyone who couldn't be subjugated was wiped out. You asked me how many people died as a result of capitalism. You'll find plenty of examples during the so-called Age of Discovery, Scramble for Africa, Colonial America, and so on. Hundreds of societies and systems that worked were destroyed, and the people were either dispossessed by force, bought into slavery, or killed off.

You could say that this doesn't happen anymore, and I would agree to a small extent, but you must admit that the "great capitalist countries" of the world would not have existed without the huge volume of death and destruction that occurred during the imperialist era.

I believe now is the time when you would challenge me to admit that this volume of death and destruction also occurred within the communist countries. All I can say is that I have not seen any clear and effective rebuttals to my arguments about why those countries weren't communist, apart from several people stating that I'm simply dodging the issue.

I'll repeat those arguments for convenience. The Stalinist model of "communism" which dominated the USSR, China, and the smaller "communist" states, takes control of the means of production and places it in the hands of a nationalist central power. The idea was that if all industrial power was centralized, it could be uniformly directed towards spreading revolution in other countries through economic and military competition. This model contradicts with socialism in so many ways that Trotsky himself described it as 'degenerate' and a betrayal of the revolution, and even he was too moderate in condemning it. You can't have a worker's revolution by using the methods of the ruling class (economic and military warfare) because that would inevitably result in another ruling class replacing the old one. That is not socialism. It bears a much closer resemblance to fascism and/or state capitalism.

How did Stalin come to power in a communist state and corrupt the system? That's a debatable issue, but in my opinion, it was because Lenin made the mistake of concentrating too much power in one place (the central committee of the vanguard party). This was a Leninist idea, not a Marxist one.

Marx never prescribed a system where the state was above the people. In fact, he didn't even prescribe a system where a state entity existed (states and governments are not the same things).

Be patient Aramike, I'll get to the economic issues later.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Just one thing that I saw Cosmos, that tossed it out the window for me as far as your argument was concerned.

Berkeley CA.

I have relatives there that teach at the university there, you probably know it. The biggest bunch of socialists I have ever seen. Sorry, you may be right about some of the social programs, and if you look at the constitution, they go against the very grain of it. But when I see Berkely, I cringe, it is, I am sorry to say, the socialist and communist mecca of the United States!! So to hear you speak out against capitalism is far from surprising.

Nothing personal, just personal observation on my part.

---

Jaguar, what the hell is all this BS about?!

You're claiming that Cosmos' arguments are wrong just because he's from Berkeley!

I would be laughing my ass off if I wasn't so disgusted.

[Cosmos]

Nonsense, Jaguar, I could have listed East Podunk instead of Berkeley and you would merely have looked for another way to invalidate my statements. It's called having a closed mind.

(Also, thinking that everyone in Berkeley is a commie is evidence of a nasty failing known as prejudice.)

[aramike]

Cosmos: The fact that you called this nation "fascist" seems to invalidate the argument on its own.

$ilk: PLEASE quit changing the font sizes. They are already selected.

Menchise: I'm fine with the economic arguments -- take your time. Those are economic FACTS, not theory. Hard to challenge. As for human nature, I think you've defaulted yourself on that one (read my arguments on that).

[Guest]

I stand by my statement, and will continue to stand by my statement. Your words were enough to prove my point and it's validity.

My Uncle is a professor there, he is as socialist as they come. Your wonderful Barbara Lee was the ONLY one to vote against the declaration of intent in Congress, and she won by pretty wide margins in that district, again proving my point, the woman is the poster child for the socialist agenda.

No, I stand by my statement, because it is the truth.

And Menchise, if he lives in Berkeley, if he grew up there, no matter what I say or how I debate him is going to convince him. So why bother. It is like trying to debate a priest about catholicism. ain't gonna happen.

And be disgusted as you want Menchise, but it is the truth, Berkeley is indeed the socialist communist mecca of the US. then again, you live in Australia, so you would not know this.

And Cosmos, I am not prejudice, I just know Berekley, my relatives live there!! THAT IS WHY THEY LIVE THERE!!! So consider me prejudiced, that's fine, I'll just consider you religious and forget about debating you.

Menchise, I like you presonally, but politically, you need some help, but I am not the one that is going to teach you. I do not have the patience to deal with it. I'll let Silk and Aramike debate you on this, because I'm tired of talking to a wall.

So now please consider me out of this debate, I believe in a capitalist system, and think that the overregulation of it will destroy this country. Why, because it will turn into a socialist country and self destruct. Socialist countries ALWAYS self destruct, it is in thier nature, ALWAYS!!!

History proves my point time and time again, under capitalism people flourish, under socialism, they flounder, and then self destruct. EASY!! Canada is doing it now, they are self destructing from within because of socialism, and if we do not Stop our overregulation, it will happen to us.

College is a wonderful thing gentleman, knowledge is power, but knowledge without experience is an even more dangerous thing.

Without experience in the REAL world, socialism looks wonderful, but in the real world it causes nothing but pain suffering and destruction.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Berkeley CA

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

I saw that too.... oh my gosh it's funny.

My friends, welcome a true product of our government educational system to this thread!

Be warned friend, independant thought exists here...

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Cosmos: The fact that you called this nation "fascist" seems to invalidate the argument on its own.

---

I have an idea. How about, instead of distilling Cosmos' entire argument down to an accusation of fascism and then saying that the argument is wrong without any foundation, that you actually try rebutting the argument. In other words, countering the points.

quote:

---

As for human nature, I think you've defaulted yourself on that one (read my arguments on that).

---

I couldn't find any arguments in your posts that were relevant to my latest post about 'human nature' (the one where I state that nobody has managed to explain how or why other societies without greed, competitiveness, or private property managed to provide working systems with freedom and subsistence).

[Guest $iLk]

No offense Cosmos. Alright, I'm going to reiterate my point, the points of the socialists in this thread revolve around outdated information, emotion, and repitition of marxist doctrine.

Suggesting that the founding of America was imperialist is true to an extent, but you take it to the extremes of blaming those decended from Europeans for their ancestors mistakes.

For the record, America was founded as free. Both economically, and politically. This thought existed pretty much through the end of WWI, as evidenced by the booming 20's. Then the federal reserve system was created and people realized that banks only had one dollar for every few dollars they took in. The subsequent run on the banks caused the stock market crash.

The great depression saw a rise in socialist thought and practice, Roosevelt started many socialist programs in order to apease the reds in America. When the government realized what power they held with increased responsibility, they persisted to lay a foundation for even greater involvment in our lives. Socialists in congress, who failed to achieve a "red revolution" during the great depression as World War 2 gave way their position to thought and reason instead of desperation. These socialists began to curtail our economic and political liberty, through gun legislation, over taxation, and state welfare. Welfare creates dependency, dependency bought votes. Votes were needed to keep them in power.

Today's socialists are incensed at their failure to achieve revolution in the 60's and have established themselves in major media, hollywood, and universities.

That's your history lesson of socialism in America, so to an extent I agree with your point about much of america being socialist.

However Socialism is, by design against freedom. In order to achieve individual freedoms, we need a system whereby individuals are rewarded, if not by the system, by their own merits.

I offer the following points up for debate.

1. Can freedom (political and economic) exist under Communism?

2. Capitalism offers economic freedom, as well as political freedom.

3. The government, or the state in America today is not what was intended. When John F. Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country." He was spouting pro government socialist propaganda. According to Milton Friedman, Neither half of that statement is as it should be.

"The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny.

The organismic, "what you can do for your country" Implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary."

He goes on to say that:

"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him, nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government to help us discharge our individual responsibilities..." - Milton Friedman ; Capitalism and Freedom

The point of this being, that if you are truly free, then there is no need for redistribution of income.

In fact, the very idea of being in a system such as socialism is the anti-thesis to freedom itself.

In fact, I go further to offer, that if free trade was permitted (true free trade whereby both parties agree on exchange) and individual liberty upheld, the distribution of income would solve itself.

Furthermore, Freedom is what made America great.

Those who hate America because we have done terrible things;

Imperialism (before we had a government or a country I might add...)

Slavery (Not that it isn't going on in Africa still, not to mention many middle eastern countries0

Poverty (Not like we have the best standard of living anywhere, and the fact that those here in poverty, are considered too wealthy and greedy in many other country's.)

This hate America crap is going to come to an end in this country some day. I can always have that hope. America is the beacon of freedom, and god forbid that you have so much money taken out of your check every week, while other countries governments are KILLING their citizens.

Why not learn what America is about by reading about America not through the eyes of Lenin, Trotsky, or Some professor in Berkeley? Of course they are going to be biased. They hate America, because they cannot compete in the system.

The Capitalist system is not unjust. Give credible reasons. Poverty, not unique to our system, although those people in poverty with jobs and a roof over their heads here, as opposed to say, Cuba or China? You can sit there and blame everything on Capitalism, but it never fails that the same things are worse, and there are worse things, in any other system. Capitalism is the best thing we've come up with.

Communism keeps reinventing itself. Just like Al Gore.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I couldn't find any arguments in your posts that were relevant to my latest post about 'human nature' (the one where I state that nobody has managed to explain how or why other societies without greed, competitiveness, or private property managed to provide working systems with freedom and subsistence).

---

Not that we haven't countered it in inumerable ways, but I'm gonna bite and call you wrong. First of all greed,envy, etc. You can't say what they are much less that they didn't exist. Competitiveness, perhaps back in the day they had other things to worry about besides each other (I've talked about this too in the thread) Nature, and animals were at odds with early settlers. Private property, maybe because they had no definition for it.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. There was freedom because resources were SOOOOO Plentiful, and their society was SOOOOOOO small, that you cannot even begin to compare it to a nation wide/world wide system with the logistix of feeding billions on a set number of resources, vs feeding maybe a million on what was to them unlimited resources.

So in other words, answer my question about where (besides limited communities) could communism work nationwide?

I've already told you why nations couldn't work. Because of individuals. Things work best on an individual basis, followed by family, followed by county, followed by state, followed by nation.

Here is the real kicker. Lets say that you put Communism over a small neighborhood in the USA, that's cool cause I can move to another neighborhood.

What if you put it over a state? I could move to another state I guess.

And if you put it over a country? I'm screwed pretty much cause there aren't many alternatives.

The fact that I would be trying to get out, along with a large percentage of the US, is because it inhibits freedoms.

It takes away freedom.

I've answered your "point" now answer mine.

Does freedom (political and economic) exist under communism?

$ilk braces himself to hear about injustices to eskimos and American takeover of the igloos...

[Thomas Siemens]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

Does freedom (political and economic) exist under communism?

$ilk braces himself to hear about injustices to eskimos and American takeover of the igloos...

---

Well, freedom does indeed exist under any system, may it be capitalism, communism, or whatever, doesn't it? It just depends on what you define "freedom."

I, personally, would define "freedom" as the abilitiy to make decisions. Decisions within the limits of the actual system you happen to life in, naturally. We have this ability to decide, because we are humans. It is one the things that actually makes us human.

Now, to be more concrete: I doubt that your understandment of "freedom" exists in communism, because AFAIK you define freedom as the possibility to get "rich" (read: more money than you really need), and can stop working for the rest of your life, and maybe this richness supports even your kids, grandchilds, and so on. I guess this is some kind of dream a communist would never share, because he would want at least the next generation to start "with nothing", and work for his life.

Thus, your question could be only answered NO in this context of your view (freedom = capitalistic freedom).

About the statement of the escimos. Well, as far as I can see it, this whole concept of "America" has been build on the conquest of the New World, i.e. stealing it from the North American Indians, and later from suppressing them. Nearly the same happened later with the black people, who had been brought over from Africa as slaves, before they have been "freed" in some bloody, civil war. Are they really "free" now? This was about freedom, wan't it?

No need to talk about escimos IMHO!

Btw., the arguments of "Cosmos" in itself seemed to be okay. I do not understand the mention of fascism, because he did not explain it in this scnenery, whereas he gave good, comprehensible arguments of his statement that the U.S. are partly socialism.

Now, being from Germany, I simply cannot understand the prejudices reactions from Jaguar et. al., declaring his (Cosmos') arguments as nothing, just because he happens to live in Berkeley, CA., where there are some professors "who cannot compete"? Excuse me, but this goes far beyond my understanding.

Best regards.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Thomas Siemens ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Suggesting that the founding of America was imperialist is true to an extent, but you take it to the extremes of blaming those decended from Europeans for their ancestors mistakes.

---

I'm not blaming anyone here for what their ancestors did, that would be very hypocritical of me (Italy in the 40s wasn't exactly a pleasant place to be). However, it is important that such history be noted because just about every highly developed capitalist nation today still benefits from the atrocities of past imperialism, not to mention the "mistakes" committed by capitalists today. The only reason why such "mistakes" are not so overtly committed in the 'first world' today is because the capitalists in the 'first world' have secured their power. Now you have capitalists that are committing the same "mistakes" in South America and the Middle East (Bin Laden is one example) because they want to become the more powerful ruling class. In other words, they're trying to "improve themselves" (euphemisms can be very nasty things).

Make no mistake (no pun intended), America became the "land of the free" by subjugating and/or killing anyone on that land who disagreed with the Europeans' interpretation of freedom and private property. You call it a "mistake", I call it "terrorism".

quote:

---

Then the federal reserve system was created and people realized that banks only had one dollar for every few dollars they took in. The subsequent run on the banks caused the stock market crash.

---

And how did the banks end up that way? How did the economy become so stagnant? Because capitalism was so unregulated that companies were producing more quantities of goods and services than consumers could afford to purchase. Why couldn't consumers afford to purchase such things if the majority of consumers are the same workers who collectively produced these things? Because wages were so low. The reduction in consumption and the losses from over-production led to a fall in savings and investment. I suggest you read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" by John Maynard Keynes, the capitalist who solved the Great Depression.

quote:

---

The great depression saw a rise in socialist thought and practice, Roosevelt

started many socialist programs in order to apease the reds in America.

---

Not true. Roosevelt started many Keynesian capitalist programs in order to help America recover from the Great Depression. In the end, the government had to save the economy from self-destructing.

quote:

---

Welfare creates dependency, dependency bought votes. Votes were needed to keep them in power.

---

Welfare creates a new source of demand, thus increasing consumption, encouraging economic growth, and reducing unemployment.

As for your point about votes, you're half correct. Many politicians started abusing Keynesian economics in order to fulfil lofty election promises; they threw away Keynes' stipulation about balancing the budget and went on a shopping spree of deficit spending (it's probably the only point made by Friedman that I agree with).

quote:

---

Capitalism offers economic freedom, as well as political freedom.

---

Depends on your interpretation of economic freedom. Here's my interpretation:

1) There are jobs available everywhere for everyone, and you can apply for whichever available job that you want as long as you do the work to the best of your ability.

2) If you're not happy with the job you have, you can quit without fear of starvation as you look for another job.

3) As a worker producing goods and services, you can participate in the decision making process regarding how production should be carried out and what workers demand in the workplace.

4) All workers are equal, thus all workers have an equal say in production.

5) The managers of production (ie the 'bosses') are elected representatives of the workers.

Therefore, from my point of view, capitalism does not offer much economic freedom.

1) There are insufficient jobs for everyone. Only the most competitive are able to get employment, and those jobs are constantly insecure due to the instability of the market.

2) In 'pure' capitalism (ie without a welfare system) the freedom to move between jobs is restricted by the threat of starvation.

3) Workers are not allowed to participate in the decision making process. They're only expected to do what they're told.

4) Workers are regarded as inferior to the owners, thus the workers have little say in production.

5) The managers of production (ie the 'bosses') are also the main owners of the means of production. They're not elected representatives and they're not held accountable to the workers' needs.

As for political freedom, capitalism provides nothing of the sort. The constitution and the bill of rights are not capitalist documents, they're liberal documents. Equality before the law is a liberal concept. Before you start talking about what liberalism is, here is what the dictionary says about it.

Liberalism: a movement in modern Protestantism which emphasises freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the spiritual capacities of men.

If capitalism was left to its own devices without liberalism in place to provide any sort of legitimacy, only the wealthy would have political freedom.

quote:

---

The point of this being, that if you are truly free, then there is no need for

redistribution of income.

---

The people in a capitalist system are not truly free.

quote:

---

In fact, I go further to offer, that if free trade was permitted (true free trade

whereby both parties agree on exchange) and individual liberty upheld, the distribution of income would solve itself.

---

'Free' trade distributes income among the most competitive. The most competitive tend to be the few who already have lots of money. 'Free' trade does nothing more than maintain the status quo.

quote:

---

Communism keeps reinventing itself.

---

So does capitalism. What's your point?

quote:

---

So in other words, answer my question about where (besides limited communities)

could communism work nationwide?

---

Communism is a global movement, not a national movement. The horrific results of Stalinism prove that you can't have socialism in one country. That's why the final sentence in the Communist Manifesto says "Workers of all countries, unite!".

You also mentioned socialist communities on a local level. I don't know exactly which communities you're referring to, but I don't think they're socialist. They're more likely to be left wing anarchist communities.

quote:

---

Does freedom (political and economic) exist under communism?

---

Yes, but as TS implied, it would not be "capitalistic freedom".

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[aramike]

quote:

---

I have an idea. How about, instead of distilling Cosmos' entire argument down to an accusation of fascism and then saying that the argument is wrong without any foundation, that you actually try rebutting the argument. In other words, countering the points.

---

I have an idea: how about you killing the unpleasant sarcasm.

At any rate, I don't need to spend time rebutting an argument that is completely out of whack and DILIBERATELY misrepresents FACTS. At that point, it appears that the argument is merely inflammatory.

quote:

---

I couldn't find any arguments in your posts that were relevant to my latest post about 'human nature' (the one where I state that nobody has managed to explain how or why other societies without greed, competitiveness, or private property managed to provide working systems with freedom and subsistence).

---

Read 'em again. They're on the second page of this thread.

quote:

---

Well, freedom does indeed exist under any system, may it be capitalism, communism, or whatever, doesn't it?

---

No. Capitalistic freedom is one kind, yes, but not the only freedom that a capitalist nation affords over a socialist nation.

1: I prefer to have choices. When purchasing a product, I prefer the quality to be better due to free-market competition. In a socialist system, the products would invariably be worse due to total lack of incentive for improvement.

2: I prefer the freedom of advancement. Look at ANY of those so-called "socialist" races you've pointed out. How far did THEY advance technologically in 600 years versus how far capitalists advanced in 100 years? Capitalism, even in a monarchy-type form, has ALWAYS spurred advancement. That and war.

3: I prefer the freedom of control. When I own something, I don't want the government to be able to force me to let another citizen use it.

4: I prefer the freedom of occupational choice. If an industry is failing in a socialist system, guess what: workers MUST be diverted to fill that industry. Now, HOW would you do that? Incentives? No, you can't, you're in a socialist system. Ask people? Yeah, right -- if people didn't choose to go there in the first place, why the hell would they go there now? Force people? Fine, sure -- become a centralized-slave state.

Or just let the industry fail, and push people into poverty.

Real workable system.

[Guest $iLk]

Perhaps I did not define freedom completely in this thread, though I have in others.

My definition of true freedom is:

The absolute right to do anything you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights of someone else to do whatever they want.

More specifically, you have a right in America (under the constitution) to life, liberty, and the 'pursuit' of happiness.

Take these points one at a time, you have a right to life. The right to live. No one has a "right" to infringe on that right, unless you first infringed on theirs, (i.e. you may kill someone in self defense only)

You have a right to liberty. Liberty can be defined as the right to be free basically. Unrestrained by anything except other peoples rights. As a supreme court justice put it:

"My right to move my fist is restricted by the proximity of your chin."

The "pursuit" of happiness is the final right you have. You do not have a right to be happy, you do not have a right to emotional well being. i.e. If I so chose I could say anything I wanted about you without fear of legal action, something that is being curbed somewhat today. You do not have a right to be fulfilled in life. You however do have a right to TRY for all these things.

Okay now that I've defined actual freedom, or political freedom if you will - let me discuss how economic freedom goes hand in hand. An economic system is either with or against these basic rights. As noted by our founding father's these rights are self-evident. i.e. understood to exist naturally without legal law - i.e. Natural Law or Human Nature if you will.

Capitalism has it's pros and cons, however it is more desirable than socialism because it falls more into line with Natural order and does not try and force society into a block system which is UnNatural if you will.

Capitalism:

You have a right to life; since Capitalism is not a political system per say' you cannot argue that people starving in the system (as rare as it is) is denying them life. Socialist thought comes in use here to preserve their lives as well, but to the detriment of other areas of the society. I will get to that in a minute.

Liberty is preserved through capitalism, because in unrestricted free trade you are carrying out anything you choose while not affecting other's rights. Keep in mind the definition of "Free Trade" is that both parties enter into a transaction willingly and therefore cannot complain under law that they were cheated.

The pursuit of happiness follows quite closely along those lines, yet it is more evident that it is a pursuit and not a guarantee. Life isn't fair, why should the system be? Deal with it.

Socialism:

In theory preserves the right to life, assuming you take just the theory as written and ignore every nation who has practiced it where this right was violated horrendously. Bear in mind I am talking pure socialism not so-called democratic socialism

Liberty is violated because a person does not have unrestricted right of choice. Choice to pursue the following pursuit of happiness. Choice of income - what choice is there really when whatever job you take you have no difference in pay or benefit?

The pursuit of happiness is restricted because there are limits to how far a person may advance, unlike capitalism where limit=ability or determination or both. If they aren't happy with what the top has to offer, tough deal with it. The difference between this and capitalism is that they have no alternative.

quote:

---

I, personally, would define "freedom" as the abilitiy to make decisions. Decisions within the limits of the actual system you happen to life in, naturally. We have this ability to decide, because we are humans. It is one the things that actually makes us human.

---

I agree with the second half, I disagree with the first. Let me explain, in America government is not the do-all be-all tell-all leader (under the constitution) In Europe, especially Germany I understand that you are used to following leaders. In America we understand that government is based on the consent of the governed, and government is a tool to be used to preserve our rights. Government has a tendency to overgrow itself and seek domination in private lives. That is wrong, and is happening in America due to Socialist thought. From the moment the income tax came about there was the possibility the government would want more and more. The income tax wasn't even constitutional I understand, many of our programs aren't. Those in power are interested only in power and have left their obligation to America on the sideline. Sadly many do not know what America was about, and government education teaches children what the government wants them to hear just as surely as christian schools teach children what they want them to hear. Children are educated to believe that big brother government is able to fix any problem there is and they don't need to do anything except vote for whoever promises to keep it that way. That's not what government is for - government is supposed to follow what the people wish, not determine how they should have it and are too stupid to rule themselves.

quote:

---

Nearly the same happened later with the black people, who had been brought over from Africa as slaves, before they have been "freed" in some bloody, civil war. Are they really "free" now? This was about freedom, wan't it?

---

They are more than free. Certain black "leaders" are attempting to get government to side with them in infringing on the rights of whites so that they can somehow overcome this "historical disadvantage". Let me tell you something about that, if they would follow the constitutional definition, they ARE free. I personally don't think that blacks are disadvantaged as a group, and believe that many who claim disadvantagement only seek money.

Let's say I was to be an employer, and 2 people came in for the same job. A clean cut man in a suit, who happens to be white - and a teenager with his shorts below his boxers by about six inches, his hat on backwards and cannot communicate effectively. He happens to be black.

I hire the white person, not because of color but because of the way he presents himself, and sure enough the black teenager goes out of that office thinking "he didn't hire me because I'm black." If the second person had been white and didn't have the race card to fall back on, maybe he would have left saying "maybe I need to clean up a little bit before I go for an interview..."

Class warlords like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are quick to jump on anything that they can label "racism" on. Quite frankly they don't even define the term properly.

Racism is the belief that a race is superior to another race and therefor has a "right" to dominate that race.

Perhaps the word they are looking for is bigotry? But bigotry doesn't stem only from race, and isn't as "colorful" no pun intended.

But the more blacks that politicians can convince they are not succeeding as good as whites, the more votes. It's simple math.

quote:

---

Now you have capitalists that are committing the same "mistakes" in South America and the Middle East (Bin Laden is one example) because they want to become the more powerful ruling class.

---

Now comparing capitalists to Bin Laden. That's cheap and quick to see through and you know it. BTW everyone, liberals like to demigogue their opponents by equating them with easily recognizable "evil" symbols. Conservatives are the equivalent of "NAZI's!" because they oppose the left, when in reality Nazism was a leftist ideology. "National Socialism" which is a bit right of so-called "State Capitalism" which is a little right of Communism.

The surest way to get accused of "hate-speech" by a liberal is to use logic and facts in your argument. They are so funny when they get riled up.

quote:

---

Make no mistake (no pun intended), America became the "land of the free" by subjugating and/or killing anyone on that land who disagreed with the Europeans' interpretation of freedom and private property. You call it a "mistake", I call it "terrorism".

---

Trying the same thing I see. Anyway if we were all the sudden to become Communist, could I then say that our Communist state was the result of imperialism in the beginning? Dumb(by dumb I mean baseless) argument really because no matter what system is in power you can use that same argument.

Capitalism is what one might call "advancement" I can always call imperialists "stone-age founded barbarians" or something?

quote:

---

And how did the banks end up that way? How did the economy become so stagnant? Because capitalism was so unregulated that companies were producing more quantities of goods and services than consumers could afford to purchase. Why couldn't consumers afford to purchase such things if the majority of consumers are the same workers who collectively produced these things? Because wages were so low. The reduction in consumption and the losses from over-production led to a fall in savings and investment. I suggest you read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" by John Maynard Keynes, the capitalist who solved the Great Depression.

---

Actually I'm in the midst of reading some of his stuff in my economics class.

quote:

---

Not true. Roosevelt started many Keynesian capitalist programs in order to help America recover from the Great Depression. In the end, the government had to save the economy from self-destructing.

---

Just because they were started in a capitalist country does not mean they were founded on capitalist ideas however.

quote:

---

Welfare creates a new source of demand, thus increasing consumption, encouraging economic growth, and reducing unemployment.

---

Welfare creates a demand. In practice however, that demand leads to over-demand and eventually dependancy. A majority of people on welfare stay on it as long as they can instead of attempting to quit being a drain on society because it takes too much "effort".

quote:

---

1) There are jobs available everywhere for everyone, and you can apply for whichever available job that you want as long as you do the work to the best of your ability.

---

There are jobs everywhere, unfortunately tendancy would be for the "best" jobs to fill up and create a lack of choice. Since training is not regulated people would flock to the easiest jobs.

quote:

---

2) If you're not happy with the job you have, you can quit without fear of starvation as you look for another job.

---

Exactly how long can you be a drain on society while you "look"? Just wondering.

quote:

---

3) As a worker producing goods and services, you can participate in the decision making process regarding how production should be carried out and what workers demand in the workplace.

---

True in Capitalism, you can "participate" though you cannot overrule the person who's money you are risking.

quote:

---

4) All workers are equal, thus all workers have an equal say in production.

---

Under law they are equal. On a person to person basis this would create resentment as people who are seen as "idiots" by others and cause a personal friction in the workplace. Quite possible threats to voice an opinion in a certain way. (that ruins the daydream of happiness)

quote:

---

5) The managers of production (ie the 'bosses') are elected representatives of the workers.

---

That's nice. How is everything regulated again? oh that's right it's not. And you expect to meet the needs of a citizenry without a central control and distribution area?

Anyway moving on to what you said about Capitalism

quote:

---

1) There are insufficient jobs for everyone. Only the most competitive are able to get employment, and those jobs are constantly insecure due to the instability of the market.

---

Exciting isn't it? Insufficient jobs only after social programs, and government taxation weigh in on the "free" market.

As for the most competitive getting employment, I would rather my doctor have had to outdo everyone competitively so I know I'm getting the BEST.

Not the BEST OF HIS ABILITY person who can't hold a scalpel right.

quote:

---

2) In 'pure' capitalism (ie without a welfare system) the freedom to move between jobs is restricted by the threat of starvation.

---

In pure capitalism you should be able to save up money in a certain job to sustain you until looking for another. BTW you don't have to quit a job to look for another. I do it all the time.

quote:

---

3) Workers are not allowed to participate in the decision making process. They're only expected to do what they're told.

---

See above, you are incorrect. As I said:

"True in Capitalism, you can "participate" though you cannot overrule the person who's money you are risking."

quote:

---

4) Workers are regarded as inferior to the owners, thus the workers have little say in production.

---

See above. It isn't their money being risked so why should they have EQUAL say?

quote:

---

5) The managers of production (ie the 'bosses') are also the main owners of the means of production. They're not elected representatives and they're not held accountable to the workers' needs.

---

See above again. The worker's aren't risking anything by working for someone. Who told you that you have a right to someone else's money? Can I have equal say in how you invest yours?

quote:

---

As for political freedom, capitalism provides nothing of the sort. The constitution and the bill of rights are not capitalist documents, they're liberal documents. Equality before the law is a liberal concept. Before you start talking about what liberalism is, here is what the dictionary says about it.

Liberalism: a movement in modern Protestantism which emphasises freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the spiritual capacities of men.

---

As I've said before, today's liberal is not the same as the "classic" liberal. Though I thought you would agree with Friedman's statement that when he refers to someone as a "liberal" he is doing so in the classic sense.

So I am talking about what liberalism IS in the present sense. You are arguing what it WAS. And logical thought prevents classical thoughts to outdo current thoughts. Haven't you noticed how the Republican party of 1860 was different than today's? Would you like me to argue that today's Democratic Party stance is the same as it was in the beginning?

Feeling in the South US has remained constantly pro-American and pro-Liberty. Wonder why in 1940-1980 we voted strictly Democrat - when today we vote strictly Republican? Because the meanings of each changed.

So in essence learn what you talk about as it applies to present day and not what Marx said it was back in the 1800's. Regardless of what the dictionary says, because if I took the dictionary to be the know all say all I would use the term ass to describe donkeys instead of people who don't know what they are talking about.

quote:

---

The people in a capitalist system are not truly free

---

In what way?

quote:

---

If capitalism was left to its own devices without liberalism in place to provide any sort of legitimacy, only the wealthy would have political freedom.

---

Not that way, people don't become wealthy overnight. It is true that the wealthy have more social status, but they still only have one vote. (Under the constitution)

quote:

---

'Free' trade distributes income among the most competitive. The most competitive tend to be the few who already have lots of money. 'Free' trade does nothing more than maintain the status quo.

---

The most competitive seem to make more money? I wonder why? Because they succeed where others fail. Free trade does not prevent anyone from entering into any contractual obligation. Nothing saying that if you don't make good decisions you can be rich too.

quote:

---

So does capitalism. What's your point?

---

I meant in regards to meaning. Capitalism has to change along with society. Communism is trying to distance itself from atrocities of the past and come back saying "look I'm a good thing, I mean no one harm!" regardless of it's failures people keep trying to forward it as a logically thought out scheme.

It isn't well thought out because it doesn't deal with individual thought. Only society.

Capitalism appeals to the little guy, you know the one who communism is supposed to be respecting his rights without knowing or caring what he by himself has to say, only the majority.

quote:

---

You also mentioned socialist communities on a local level. I don't know exactly which communities you're referring to, but I don't think they're socialist. They're more likely to be left wing anarchist communities.

---

In my very own state, the community of Fairhope is pretty much socialist. There is free enterprise that is somewhat regulated (kind of like glasnost) however there is no private property, once you die someone else moves in, not necessarily your family. The people answer to government instead of vice-versa.

Hope that clears some things up.

It's a fun argument, and nothing personal, I just don't agree with you and actually feel sad that people still try to forward the system.

[aramike]

quote:

---

As for political freedom, capitalism provides nothing of the sort. The constitution and the bill of rights are not capitalist documents, they're liberal documents. Equality before the law is a liberal concept. Before you start talking about what liberalism is, here is what the dictionary says about it.

---

Confusion of government and economy. Capitalism facilitates a democratic government, whereas socialism does not. Capitalism and socialism are both primarily economic models, not government models. The difference is that, in socialism, the government must completely control the economic model (including labor) in order to achieve success. This would invariably lead to communism as, in order to regulate the goods production, the government would have to control more than just social distribution.

[Gallion]

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose ... and you ain't nothin' if you ain't free ...

Janice Jopland

TTFN

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Gallion ]

[Guest $iLk]

Here is something I snipped from Newsmax today about Berkley - just so you understand why we laughed at where you were from.

quote:

---

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2001

'Berkeley's Useless Idiots' Condemn U.S. Military Action

The People's Republic of Berkeley, which is kooky even by California's loose standards, is at it again. The left-wing university town is being bombarded with hundreds of angry e-mails and phone calls after its city council condemned the U.S. military strikes in terrorist-harboring Afghanistan.

``We have a chance to show that great powers of the world can fight on lines of their choosing,'' council member Dona Spring said before Tuesday's 5-4 vote. ``If we can't support a nonviolent solution, when or where will some government agency do that?''

Mayor Shirley Dean, a voice of reason compared to some in Berkeley, said she opposed ``indiscriminate bombing'' but thought ``targeted military action'' was necessary. She mocked Spring's call for a "legal resolution" to terrorism: ``Who's going to serve the papers?''

This is the same city council that unanimously voted last month to commend Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., for being the only member of Congress to oppose use of military force against the terrorists.

This is the same anti-choice town that forced firefighters to remove American flags from their trucks because intolerant "anti-war" protesters might tear down Old Glory and attack the firemen.

This is the same anti-choice town that screamed for censorship and condemnation after the university newspaper published a cartoon showing turbaned hijackers in hell. "I guess in Berkeley people always want to say they value free speech and are the home of the free-speech movement, but it always seems people stop following that as soon as you say something they disagree with," noted Daily Cal editor-in-chief Janny Hu.

The fantasy land of Berkeley, of course, has been the butt of jokes for decades. The Wall Street Journal's Web site never runs out of material for its daily roundup of articles titled "Berkeley's Useless Idiots."

---

So no offense but you see where we are coming from.

[Guest]

Sorry, just wanted to throw this one in as well!! LOL It'll back us both up Silk, these people in Berkeley are just OUT THERE!!

quote:

---

California City calls on US Military to halt Bombings!!

BERKELEY, Calif., Oct 17 (Reuters) - The city council in Berkeley, California has approved a controversial resolution calling for a halt to the U.S.-led bombing of Afghanistan, making the city famed as a haven for peace activists the first to approve such a symbolic protest.

Berkeley, a traditionally liberal city and hot-bed for anti-war activism during the Vietnam war, approved the resolution on Tuesday night at a packed council meeting where some waved American flags while others held signs aloft that said "Stop the Bombing."

Council members have received thousands of e-mails, phone calls and even some death threats, Berkeley Mayor Shirley Dean, who voted against the measure, said on Wednesday.

"I believe Berkeley is the first city in the country to pass such a resolution," she said.

The resolution was approved as polls show a majority of Americans support the air strikes against Afghanistan.

It calls on the United States to stop the bombing as quickly as possible and urges the government to work with international organizations to bring those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to justice.

Councilwoman Linda Maio, who supported the measure, said the bombing of Afghanistan would only succeed in sowing "more hatred, confirming those who regard us as evil and nurturing yet another generation of recruits prepared to attack us at all cost."

Dean said local businesses were fearful that they would lose money as a result of the decision and said the community had been sharply split on the issue with mail running heavily in opposition to the measure.

"Out of my last 26 messages, 20 said they would boycott the city," Dean said. "The Chamber of Commerce is very much concerned how this is going to impact the city."

---

A majority of citizens in Berkeley are not Socialist/Communist, UH, HUH, yeah right!!

OK, back out of this again now.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Dean said local businesses were fearful that they would lose money as a result of the decision and said the community had been sharply split on the issue with mail running heavily in opposition to the measure.

---

So they are capitalist or what?

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Now comparing capitalists to Bin Laden. That's cheap and quick to see through and you know it.

---

If it's so easy to see through then why don't you prove to me that he's not a capitalist?

In the meantime, I'll explain why he is.

Bin Laden runs a terrorist organization that's allegedly sponsored by anti-Western interests (the existence of sponsors is suspected because Bin Laden's inheritance was spent years ago). This is how the organization is likely to operate.

1) Bin Laden either approaches or is approached by potential clients known as "sponsors" who wish to pay for a "service". These are Bin Laden's customers.

2) These clients give Bin Laden some capital in advance of the "service" being provided. He invests this capital in training camps.

3) The workers in these training camps "produce" the service demanded by Bin Laden's clients: trained suicide bombers.

4) If the product and the service is to the satisfaction of the client, then Bin Laden receives the rest of the capital in exchange for the service provided.

5) He invests this capital back into his training camps to produce more suicide bombers.

So, in conclusion, Bin Laden owns the means of producing terror. His organization is a business, albeit a criminal one.

quote:

---

Conservatives are the equivalent of

"NAZI's!" because they oppose the left, when in reality Nazism was a leftist ideology. "National Socialism" which is a bit right of so-called "State Capitalism" which is a little right of Communism.

---

National Socialism is a contradiction in terms. The Nazi Party (short for the National Socialist German Worker's Party) initially pretended to be all things to all Germans, even communist Germans. As soon as Nazi power was secured, the 10% of Socialism that existed during the party's early years was thrown out and the party became 100% nationalist.

quote:

---

Trying the same thing I see. Anyway if we were all the sudden to become Communist, could I then say that our Communist state was the result of imperialism in the beginning?

---

No you can't because communism was not the motivation behind imperialist forces and communism would not benefit from past imperialism. The whole point of imperialism is to find new sources of capital and expand the markets for private interests in the core nations. It's no coincidence that some of the most active forces in spreading imperialism have been businesses like the Dutch and British East India Companies.

quote:

---

True in Capitalism, you can "participate" though you cannot overrule the person who's money you are risking.

---

Exactly my point. The managers of production are not accountable to the workers, thus capitalist production is not democratic.

quote:

---

Under law they are equal. On a person to person basis this would create resentment as people who are seen as "idiots" by others and cause a personal friction in the workplace. Quite possible threats to voice an opinion in a certain way. (that ruins the daydream of happiness)

---

Say what? Please explain this statement more clearly because it's not very coherent.

quote:

---

That's nice. How is everything regulated again? oh that's right it's not. And you expect to meet the needs of a citizenry without a central control and distribution area?

---

Why does everyone assume that a socialist economy requires some kind of central power to manage everything?

The way it works is not as complicated as most people think. The fundamental concepts of any economic system are demand and supply, consumption and production.

So, if a worker has a home, a car, but no TV set, then that means that the supply of TVs is not meeting demand in that area. That worker can inform his/her elected representative, who subsequently communicates with other representatives in other areas of the community in order to find a means of production that's producing a surplus of TV sets and sends the information back to the workers represented.

That is one possible way that a socialist government (if one is really necessary) operates. It doesn't manage the economy, it facilitates communication and coordination between producers and consumers.

quote:

---

Exciting isn't it? Insufficient jobs only after social programs, and government

taxation weigh in on the "free" market.

---

The economy has insufficient jobs despite social programs, not because of them.

quote:

---

As for the most competitive getting employment, I would rather my doctor have

had to outdo everyone competitively so I know I'm getting the BEST.

Not the BEST OF HIS ABILITY person who can't hold a scalpel right.

---

Now that's extreme. You still have to be qualified to work, but you don't have to have more ability than everyone else in order to be qualified.

quote:

---

See above. It isn't their money being risked so why should they have EQUAL say?

---

See above. The fact that it's their money and their means of production restricts economic freedom and prevents economic democracy.

quote:

---

See above again. The worker's aren't risking anything by working for someone.

Who told you that you have a right to someone else's money? Can I have equal say in how you invest yours?

---

Who told the owners that their money gives them the right to take as much labour value as they see fit?

quote:

---

In what way?

---

When someone is looking for someone to work for, it is true that they have a lot of choices. The problem is that just about all of those choices are economic dictatorships competing with other economic dictatorships for power. So then capitalists say that you can start a business yourself if you don't like working for someone else. The problem is that in order to be a successful business person, you must also become an economic dictator and compete for power. It's an endless state of war where the workers are the conscripts.

Therefore, capitalistic economic freedom comes in the form of two choices: 1) Attempt to seek employment from an economic dictator, hopefully the one who does the least exploiting. 2) Become a dictator yourself, so that you can exploit others in a war against the rest of the dictators.

quote:

---

Not that way, people don't become wealthy overnight. It is true that the wealthy have more social status, but they still only have one vote.

---

Who needs one vote when you can directly influence who the major candidates are going to be? Is it just coincidence that every American president except one belongs to the one group in American society that has the most money (the WASPs)?

quote:

---

I meant in regards to meaning. Capitalism has to change along with society.

Communism is trying to distance itself from atrocities of the past and come back saying "look I'm a good thing, I mean no one harm!" regardless of it's failures people keep trying to forward it as a logically thought out scheme.

---

It's called revision. The failures of the past have shown us that socialism cannot be combined with nationalism, and power should not be concentrated in a central committee or a vanguard party. That is why I do not support such approaches. I explore new approaches and discuss them. So stop assuming that I'm some kind of neo-leninist or neo-stalinist. I'm not even a mainstream marxist.

quote:

---

It's a fun argument, and nothing personal, I just don't agree with you and actually feel sad that people still try to forward the system.

---

Same here.

quote:

---

Confusion of government and economy. Capitalism facilitates a democratic government, whereas socialism does not. Capitalism and socialism are both primarily economic models, not government models. The difference is that, in socialism, the government must completely control the economic model (including labor) in order to achieve success. This would invariably lead to communism as, in order to regulate the goods production, the government would have to control more than just social distribution.

---

I disagree. In socialism, the government does not need to control anything. Assuming that a government is actually needed in the first place, it would only be required to provide the facilities through which workers and their representatives can communicate with each other and coordinate efforts. There is no need for a central committee or a state entity. All that's needed is accountable representation and communication so that workers can coordinate and manage production themselves.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest $iLk]

Okay this post is just for another article about FEELINGS over FACTS I will respond to you in a bit Menchise

quote:

---

October 18, 2001

Agenda over fact

Three years ago, I concluded a 16-year stint as a Business Week columnist with the observation: "As the growing emphasis on feelings crowds out reason, facts will play a smaller role in public discourse." That was the safest prediction any economist ever made. Respect for facts has a tenuous hold on the allegiance of public policymakers, journalists, academics, and many others with agendas unsupported by the facts.

Recently, a history professor wrote a book citing sources that don't exist. What was important to the professor was not truth, but making a case against gun ownership.

To further their agendas, other professors have fabricated life stories for themselves. A professor in Maryland passed himself off as a Vietnam veteran and told stories about events that never happened. Another at Columbia created a history of himself as a Palestinian refugee. One woman won a Nobel Prize in literature for a fabricated biography. Even some scientists have made up global warming scenarios in order to achieve their environmental objectives.

In a civilization in which so much depends on adherence to fact, it is a scary thing to experience fact playing second fiddle to emotion. If fact becomes dispensable, what becomes of law, crime and punishment, trials, contracts, insurance, finance, technology, science and identity?

Almost anywhere we look, we can find examples of propaganda crowding out truth. Consider the issue of domestic violence.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness month. The premise of domestic violence is that it is something men do to women. A current issue of National Review, for example, has a two-page ad sponsored by the tobacco company Philip Morris. One page has the face of an attractive young woman. The other page is text designed to arouse anger at men:

"He said he beat me because I deserved it. Now I know I deserve better." "'He tried to strangle me last night.' Melissa cried as she wrote these words, eight months pregnant and seeking an order of protection from her husband. Their high school romance had seemed like a fairy tale, but when the honeymoon ended the beatings began."

There are shelters for battered women, domestic violence coordinating councils, and magazine and newspaper articles and advertisements that encourage women to report their husbands to the police just as they would report any other criminal.

Seminars warn women that a raised male voice constitutes abuse and is a prelude to a beating.

Feminists believe that the percentage of men who are abusers is far higher than arrest records indicate. From this belief they conclude that hordes of abused women are suffering in silence.

How many times have you read this statement: "In the U.S., a man beats a woman every 12 seconds"? Have you ever wondered where these statistics come from or how often women batter men?

In his book, "The Revolt of the Primitive," Howard S. Schwartz shows that the one-sided portrait of men as abusers of women is constructed out of fabrications and selective reporting of real studies.

The most extensive database on domestic violence is the National Family Violence Survey, funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health and supervised by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles. Their conclusion that women are as likely to be violent and to initiate violence as men is one of the best replicated findings in all of social science.

A 1999 Canadian study by Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone, reported in the National Post, found that "women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship." The National Post noted that the study "deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor."

Dishonest feminists created the image to fit their agenda by selectively reporting and emphasizing only instances of male violence. The feminist claim that 12 to 15 percent of men are abusers comes from a survey, which reported that 10.8 percent of the men committed minor acts of violence, and 2.5 percent committed more severe acts. The same survey found that 12.4 percent of women committed minor acts and 4.7 percent committed major acts of violence. Moreover, 67 percent of the women said they had initiated the violence. Only 26 percent of the women blamed the male.

Ironically, it is mainly uninformed males, such as Dan Rather and Philip Morris executives, who spread the feminist propaganda. When Dan Rather termed Super Bowl Sunday "a day of dread for American women," he was giving credibility to the feminist claim that wife beatings shot up 40 percent on the day of the big game. This feminist hoax was finally exposed by Ken Ringle in the Washington Post.

When confronted with their false reporting, feminists say that they trust their feelings about men more than "gender-biased statistics." Like others, they are not interested in information that gets in the way of an agenda.

Contact Paul Craig Roberts

┬®2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

---

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

(the existence of sponsors is suspected because Bin Laden's inheritance was spent years ago).

---

Assumption, Fiction, or Fact? Just wondering.

quote:

---

Bin Laden runs a terrorist organization that's

allegedly

sponsored by anti-Western interests (the existence of sponsors is suspected because Bin Laden's inheritance was spent years ago).

This is how the organization is likely to operate.

---

You say yourself this is an assumption so I'll give it a pass, just making it clear that it is.

quote:

---

1) Bin Laden either approaches or is approached by potential clients known as "sponsors" who wish to pay for a "service". These are Bin Laden's customers.

2) These clients give Bin Laden some capital in advance of the "service" being provided. He invests this capital in training camps.

3) The workers in these training camps "produce" the service demanded by Bin Laden's clients: trained suicide bombers.

4) If the product and the service is to the satisfaction of the client, then Bin Laden receives the rest of the capital in exchange for the service provided.

5) He invests this capital back into his training camps to produce more suicide bombers.

So, in conclusion, Bin Laden owns the means of producing terror. His organization is a business, albeit a criminal one.

---

By your own definition, Capitalism is the aquisition of more capital. That's not the point of Bin Laden. I offer an alternate view:

1.) Bin Laden hates America and want's to kill any Americans he can. My source is Bin Laden himself.

2.) Bin Laden knows other people who hate America as much as he does, yet they have access to funds.

3.) Since they have access to funds, and aren't able to raise followers themselves they act in the only way they know how - funding.

4.) Bin Laden has already trained his followers, but can't get plane tickets or transportation for them without money.

5.) Not caring what his "supplier" wants Bin Laden makes a plan and then attacks America for the sole purpose of killing Americans.

My point is that Bin Laden is simply a murderer. All murderers need money or goods to commit a murder. Bin Laden isn't interested in making more money - other than to spend it on killing. So by your own definition he isn't a Capitalist.

quote:

---

National Socialism is a contradiction in terms. The Nazi Party (short for the National Socialist German Worker's Party) initially pretended to be all things to all Germans, even communist Germans. As soon as Nazi power was secured, the 10% of Socialism that existed during the party's early years was thrown out and the party became 100% nationalist.

---

Sadly I used to lean to the left towards National Socialism. The only thing that turned me off was the "race" issue possessed by other National Socialists I met. What turned me towards it was lack of Nationalism in modern America. I don't care what color you are so long as you are an American and love your country. Unlike some I don't equate America's government with the American People. Tune into CBS or ABC and see their reason for not displaying American Flags. Because they don't want to go along with the "government". Sadly the American flag has nothing to do with the government, it's a symbol of the people protected through, not by, the government.

But suffice to say I have a pretty good grip of the economic model of it. Social programs, looking out for EVERY worker.

Let me not go into too much of a rant, but National Socialism is the only working model of Socialism I have seen on a national level. Each person is responsible for working. Everyone has to work, if they cannot get jobs then the state provides work such as building roads and infrastructure to support society. You get from National Socialism what you put into it - so if you don't work you get nothing, but if you do work you get paid in proportion to that work. You are taxed a certain portion of your income so that medical bills, and essential services are paid for. For every child you have you are rewarded with less taxes so that you can support children.

Everyone produces to a National effort, everyone is taken care of as far as medical bills go. Once you are old you either use the money you have saved up or your children take care of you.

Unfortunately writers like Nietche (who later contradicted his own ideas through actions) said that if you could no longer contribute and sustain yourself you should not be a drain on the system.

Hitler's purification efforts to rid the gene pools of mentally and physically deficient followed.

That's what turned me off of it, but I still believed that revised the economic model would work. Then I started reading about American heros and learned that America itself didn't need to be patriotic so that I could.

But the point is that Germany was rooted in Socialism, yet rewarded those who put forth effort the proportion to which they were entitled, and everyone was taken care of under the medical establishment.

quote:

---

Exactly my point. The managers of production are not accountable to the workers, thus capitalism is not democratic.

---

You don't understand, you aren't being democratic by not letting me have equal say in how you spend your money by your argument.

If I was to come up with an idea for... $iLk's Computer shop, and needed a secretary to take messages. I put forth $5,000 to start the business. I pay the secretary $10 an hour. Okay to start off -

1.) She has agreed to this arrangement, while just as easily she could have started here own business. Her reasons could be to save up money so she can do just that.

That's free choice.

2.) It's my money that started the business, therefore it's that proportion to which I am entitled.

Okay now let's say I want to know what to buy and sell. The secretary thinks that I should buy... Macintosh. I tell her I would rather go with Microsoft. Now:

1.) I was perfectly within my right as I would be spending my money.

2.) She doesn't have an equal say because she is only putting forth 1/50 per hour of what I have already put into it.

That's why. And you say that's not democratic but you say that I should be able to force someone how to spent their money? That's tyrannical. That's Stalinist.

quote:

---

Say what? Please explain this statement more clearly because it's not very coherent.

---

I'm talking about discontentment in the work environment. Between individuals. You know, the variables that don't fit in with Socialism.

quote:

---

Why does everyone assume that a socialist economy requires some kind of central power to manage everything?

The way it works is not as complicated as most people think. The fundamental concepts of any economic system are demand and supply, consumption and production.

So, if a worker has a home, a car, but no TV set, then that means that the supply of TVs is not meeting demand in that area. That worker can inform his/her elected representative, who subsequently communicates with other representatives in other areas of the community in order to find a means of production that's producing a surplus of TV sets and sends the information back to the workers represented.

That is one possible way that a socialist government (if one is really necessary) operates. It doesn't manage the economy, it facilitates communication and coordination between producers and consumers.

---

Oh so it's a bunch of little central powers? How come none of the little powers would realize they could increase demand and cause others to pay more for tvs? The law of economics is ignored in the socialist setup.

quote:

---

The economy has insufficient jobs despite social programs, not because of them.

---

Don't you think that the government could create jobs? Or at least force people on these programs to do something to EARN it?

quote:

---

Now that's extreme. You still have to be qualified to work, but you don't have to have more ability than everyone else in order to be qualified.

---

So if I had the know how to do brain surgery but had to hold the scalpel with my teeth would you let me?

quote:

---

See above. The fact that it's their money and their means of production restricts economic freedom and prevents economic democracy.

---

No... I think it is a give take relationship in a heirarchial structure. The worker cannot exist without the provider of jobs, the provider of jobs cannot exist without workers. The fact that the provider of jobs doesn't give all his money into the system only to get an equal share back with his workers is either an idiot or something because HE is responsible for the operation of the plant,factory,toy store, whatever and has to have funds to continue production.

quote:

---

Who told the owners that their money gives them the right to take as much labour value as they see fit?

---

Probably the workers who are willing to give it to them?

quote:

---

When someone is looking for someone to work for, it is true that they have a lot of choices. The problem is that just about all of those choices are economic dictatorships competing with other economic dictatorships for power. So then capitalists say that you can start a business yourself if you don't like working for someone else. The problem is that in order to be a successful business person, you must also become an economic dictator and compete for power. It's an endless state of war where the workers are the conscripts.

Therefore, capitalistic economic freedom comes in the form of two choices: 1) Attempt to seek employment from an economic dictator, hopefully the one who does the least exploiting. 2) Become a dictator yourself, so that you can exploit others in a war against the rest of the dictators.

---

The whole time you are competing against other workers and hope you have better skills.

Competition = superior products.

If computer companies weren't competitive, we would probably just now be getting into the GB hard drive era.

quote:

---

It's called revision. The failures of the past have shown us that socialism cannot be combined with nationalism, and power should not be concentrated in a central committee or a vanguard party. That is why I do not support such approaches. I explore new approaches and discuss them. So stop assuming that I'm some kind of neo-leninist or neo-stalinist. I'm not even a mainstream marxist.

---

It's called history revisionism. Failure to accept what happened - it wasn't communism it was socialism, it wasn't socialism it was a dictatorship, it had nothing to do with anything red - the color red was... on the NAZI flag! They were the Communists!

quote:

---

I disagree. In socialism, the government does not need to control anything. Assuming that a government is actually needed in the first place, it would only be required to provide the facilities through which workers and their representatives can communicate with each other and coordinate efforts. There is no need for a central committee or a state entity. All that's needed is accountable representation and communication so that workers can coordinate and manage production themselves.

---

Which would put someone over everyones head. A government always abuses it's power.

People need a system through which they can act, not from which.

What about individual needs? If I needed an XBOX could I get one?

Well since it isn't a need I guess communists wouldn't be producing it...

Workers would be working hard enough just to provide food and shelter. You wouldn't have anything interesting. Don't tell me painters would be appreciated because why would they even get paid? They aren't producing.

[Guest $iLk]

OH yeah, heres an argument about profits credit to Rush Limbaugh

quote:

---

Folks, get it out of your head that "profits" are a dirty word. If you work to produce something, you do so so you can pay your bills.

Those scientists still have to eat. Those people doing FDA trials still have to pay their bills. The people who clean Cipro's buildings and make the equipment they use aren't doing this for free. That's just not how things work. Another downside of letting everyone market his product is that, if you start flooding the market with Cipro, and everybody starts using it, it isn't going to be effective for long.

---

About your argument that a factory owner puts money into a system and should reach no profit because he already owns the factory.

[Menchise]

[Guest $iLk]

I notice more debatable topics but sadly am unable to continue tonight, I will reply in the morning.

For tonight I simply say that I believe in private ownership, and the right to own everything that you personally produce instead of distributing it.

Those who don't produce shouldn't recieve anything more than they can produce unless they are unable to produce in which case social programs could possibly be used to help them.

If you want to be fed, work.

If you cannot work, you may recieve some assistance.

If you are able to work but are not working tough luck.

Anyway serious debating tommorow.