Continuing the debate

[Guest]

Oh my GOD, I keep saying that I am not going to debate, but the statements that I see in here are JUST KILLING ME!!! DAMN!!!

quote:

---

Profit = revenue - expenses. Bills are expenses. Profit is what you have left after all of the bills have been paid. In any case, that wasn't my argument. In fact, Harman wasn't even prescribing that kind of system. He was challenging the perception that profit is a reward for 'sacrificing' capital.

---

Karl Marx wasn't a Marxist, once he figured it out, he realized how dumb and moronic it actually was!!

Get a FRICKING GRIP!!! Damn Manchise, you're just killing me man!!!

Why the heck would I risk my own money, if there was no way I was going to make a profit? COME ON!!!

If I am going to riskMY money, I sure as heck better make more money for it!!

What? I am going to risk my money for the good of mankind? GET REAL!!!

[buckthesystem]

jeez, the next person that tells me that computers rot your brains,will be directed by me, to this thread! I have seen some of the best debate in ages here.

Socialism Vs. Capitalism

(please forgive me if I cover some things that have already been covered, there is a lot to read through here!)

Socialism is a perfect system. An utopian ideal. as such it can never work as intended. Chaos theory ensures that any system, however perfect will always return to chaos. people are greedy, people are selfish, people are jealous. Socialism requires people to be perfect, ie not have all the bad qualities above. Capitalism serves these qualities, jealousy breeds competition, hard work is feulled by greed. socialism does not reward greed. (except when you are in charge, then greed leads to corruption)

socialism can't work because people are not perfect. capitalism works because people are not perfect. Capitalism is an apathetic system, it doesn't care about other people except when they can be exploited. It is an individual system. It is a system that rewards human nature.

[Guest $iLk]

Which is why Marxists do not address individual needs and basic human nature in their arguments.

They talk about how well the individual will be off because of society, and class.

I'm still trying to wake up so I will post my arguments later today.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Some points I wanted to react on :

Equality : remember there are now proof that we are not born as equals. Some of us grow up as Einstein, Mozard or Platon and some will not be able to lace their shoes alone for their life.

Then it is a bit "artificial" to think so different people will live(deserve?) the same living condition.

Anyway, the problem is not to limit the amount of money that Bill Gates can earn per year. I believe the problem is more what is the minimum to live under which human dignity is not respected ?

To answer this question I do not think that capitalism is adapted, but communism is even worse.

Then a bit of history : I read in this thread that in the 30s in Germany, the Jews were possessing almost the entire (what was left of) German economy. This point has seen some widespread use in different country. This is to forget a bit to quickly that during 1500 years, jews were NOT allowed to own lands in most of europe. They could work on it, but never own it. There you go on the legend that all jews were merchants. In fact, they had very little choice.

During middle age, the power was with the lands owners. Merchants was some sort of low caste. That started to change around XVI century. Nowadays it is the contrary....

Then for the feeling of most of Europe versus the jews, it has NEVER been good until end of second world war. My Grandmother used to pray in the church to forgive 'these poor jews who killed the Crist'.

THAT WAS IN FRANCE JUST BEFORE THE WAR.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Then it is a bit "artificial" to think so different people will live(deserve?) the same living condition.

---

His argument is that just because someone doesn't have the same ability why should they be left behind. Because it isn't right for the weakest link - to be the weakest link. Everone should have equal opportunity and no one should be able to strive and reach their full potential unless everyone can catch up.

The economic model will not work because naturally the only ones who would go for this system are - the weaker or less able.

He argues that those who are able to do the most work are willing to sacrifice their earnings so that those who haven't worked as hard can live off of them. A majority of them would not allow this to happen of their own free will, therefore they would need to be dominated under a system they don't agree with. The fallacy of this is that the weak will have to dominate the strong .

So suffice to say that it's not going to happen. I will continue debating it, but the sad truth is it can't work and humans aren't up to using the system.

He can debate how it's immoral and all that, but by his own argument he is falling into a trap by thinking humanity is going to realize the error of it's ways and unite.

quote:

---

His motivation for making money is not relevant, only the means by which he makes it is. The training camps are his property, not the sponsors'. He uses that property to produce what the sponsors want him to produce. All they want is the terror, they don't care how he does it or where he does it, whether it's by suicide bombing or mustard gas, as long as it's directed toward the West. The fact that what he wants is the same as what the sponsors want is irrelevant. The sponsors are like shareholders: if Bin Laden does not produce what they want, then he gets no funding. Even if his inheritence wasn't totally spent, the lack of investors would dampen his operations.

Here's another "assumption" for you to chew on. Do you honestly believe that Bin Laden was unaware of what the consequences would be if he attacked the centres of American economic and military power on the same morning? He's not a complete idiot. He wants America to retaliate, because it will increase demand for anti-Western terrorism and expand the potential suicide bombing market. Remember Beirut in 1982? Imagine ten times the number of US marine living quarters that could be attacked by explosive trucks. The shareholders will be pleased.

---

That truly is a sick analogy. Of course I could compare Mao and Stalin as big government Socialists. Capitalism has never been about killing anyone, that entire argument is drawing allusions that are really reaching. Why not:

Bin Laden is a Socialist

He and all his friends commune together

They all pool their money together to meet a need in the United States, a lack of violence.

If you argue that Communism isn't evil, I think the same thing about Capitalism. No country under the name of Capitalism has carried out destructive attacks against it's own people. Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler ever did. Stalin killed more people than Hitler, all in the name of a Socialist ideal. You can argue he was a dictator who used a socialist flag to carry his agenda.

I argue he is a Socialist who was corrupted by the realization that he could be ABOVE his Comrades. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

quote:

---

Despite the fancy name, National Socialism is not socialism at all. Socialism aims to free all workers, not just workers of a specific race. When you place one group of workers above another in a political or economic hierarchy, you have class division, thus you have one class exploiting another. Socialism aims for a classless society. Nazism aims for the exact opposite.

---

The theory of National Socialism came about long before Hitler took power. It was an offshoot of Marx's writings and in fact wanted a sustainable economy with full employment on a national scale - regardless of race.

Hitler took it to the extreme and wanted to expel those of non-German blood, not just non-citizens. The idea is that only citizens can work, only citizens can reap the benefits, and everyone recieves back what they put into it equally. So if you do 10 hours work stacking 5 tons of bricks and your buddy spends 10 hours stackin 1 ton, you get five times the amount he gets and a pat on the back.

Ability determines what kind of job you have, and also allows the weaker to sustain a job in different areas of the market that actually does give them near equal pay to those with greater ability.

But National Socialism was killed by the Nazis so I'm not worried about it anymore.

quote:

---

The issue is not money, it's ownership. In capitalism the means of production is owned by a ruling class that dictates how production will be carried out, yet it is the workers that carry out the production. It's like a government deciding to ban elections and raise taxes whenever they like. That is not democratic. The means of production must be accountable to the people who are actually producing the goods and services in order to have economic democracy, just as the means of taxation and public policy (the government) must be accountable to taxpayers in order to have political democracy.

---

What's wrong with owning something and deciding how it's used without interference? The factory owner doesn't tell his workers what to do with their investments does he>?

quote:

---

Who says that those variables don't fit? Republican and Democrat voters disagree with each other vigorously, yet both groups vote and live together, and political democracy lives on. How would it be any different in an economic democracy? The working class is not a bunch of bigots who don't respect other opinions (if they were then we wouldn't be debating right now ).

---

Democracy is just as bad as Communism. Democracy is mob rule, in fact do you know how many times the word Democracy appears in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independance?

None - 0 times.

We are a republic with separation of powers. Each state has the power of a vote, so that states with more people aren't over represented.

There is such a thing as too much representation. Democracy would only last until the people realized they could vot themselves money from the public treasury.

Haven't you heard that before?

quote:

---

As opposed to three big central powers (legislative, judicial, and executive).

---

Made up from representatives of 50 states. i.e. 50 little powers who don't agree with each other so that damaging policy can't be handed down easily.

quote:

---

Now I'm curious. How would these little powers cause others to pay more for tvs? Why would they even do something like that if they couldn't profit from it (they would actually be worsening their own situation by reducing purchasing power)? How would these people not get caught if they tried something like that (corrupt politicians have a tendency to get caught in a democracy)?

---

Lets say a food distributor who is the closest supplier to a community wants to jack up their price, offers it's workers more money so they agree. They would have GREATER purchasing power.

The community has to either pay more money or starve. What happens then?

quote:

---

Be serious. If you have no arms, then you can't realistically be able to perform surgery, no matter which economic system is the norm, unless you had some remote operated robotic arms, which seems to be becoming a reality now. Wouldn't that be great?! You wouldn't even need arms to perform surgery!

---

I am being serious, if someone with a disability was unable to safely carry out an operation, yet had all the training necessary. Why should they be allowed to have that job?

quote:

---

Exactly my point. How do the owners become the providers of jobs? By investing the money that was generated by labour. So, in the final analysis, it is the labour of workers that makes the provision of jobs possible. Therefore, workers are the ultimate providers of jobs, not capitalists.

---

Actually it's a two way relationship. Who's gonna work without an owner of production?

If they own their own productive materials who are they working for?

Don't they become capitalists simply by owning the factors of production?

quote:

---

They don't have much of a choice, do they?

---

They have a choice of other jobs or to start their own business. If they choose to work for someone they have no right to complain if the terms of the contract are honored.

quote:

---

Competition = most competitive products, not the best products. If competition really did lead to superior products, would we be using VHS recorders instead of Beta?

---

That's redundant, the most competitive products are the best products. Otherwise they couldn't compete. The nature of competitiveness as you said are so that the best get ahead.

quote:

---

I believe that I have provided clear arguments about why Stalinism and Nazism are not socialist. Try rebutting those points instead of accusing me of trying to rewrite history.

---

I did in this post

quote:

---

It does not put anyone over anyone's head. Elected representatives answer to the people. Why would any government abuse its power if it's no longer profitable to be corrupt?

---

Are you saying there would be no more *******s? People who just don't like to deal with other people?

quote:

---

That's exactly what I'm proposing. The government consists of elected workers' representatives who facilitate communication between production and consumption. Workers coordinate production through these facilities, not the other way around.

---

So production will be what everyone feels is best rather than what is most efficient and well thought out?

quote:

---

If artists weren't producing then they wouldn't get paid in a capitalist system either. Human beings have an appreciation for art, thus workers have an appreciation for art, thus it has value.

---

I thought that goods had no value? All were equal?

quote:

---

Profit = revenue - expenses. Bills are expenses. Profit is what you have left after all of the bills have been paid. In any case, that wasn't my argument. In fact, Harman wasn't even prescribing that kind of system. He was challenging the perception that profit is a reward for 'sacrificing' capital.

---

Let's say all I had to my name was $500.00 - I invest it in a company and bring in $100.00 a month.

You are saying that after 5 months, since I own the tools of production which cost $500.00 and got my $500 back also, I should get no more profit?

How am I going to eat without a supply of money?

If I put $500 in and am successful I should recieve money for as long as I am a success. If someone says, you own the factory and the money, let's not forget I had to spend most of that money to eat and pay bills and still need an income.

He didn't take that into account, he just assumed that every factory owner must have more money than he will ever need. All Capitalists must have more money than they need? I'm Capitalist and I could start a business right now and not make much more than employees of other businesses - does that mean I'm evil because I 'own' something?

[aramike]

[Menchise]

Revision time (revision of my ideas and interpretations, not socialism).

quote:

---

His argument is that just because someone doesn't have the same ability why

should they be left behind. Because it isn't right for the weakest link - to be the weakest link. Everone should have equal opportunity and no one should be able to strive and reach their full potential unless everyone can catch up.

The economic model will not work because naturally the only ones who would go for this system are - the weaker or less able.

He argues that those who are able to do the most work are willing to sacrifice their earnings so that those who haven't worked as hard can live off of them. A majority of them would not allow this to happen of their own free will, therefore they would need to be dominated under a system they don't agree with. The fallacy of this is that the weak will have to dominate the strong.

---

If the majority of workers don't want equal pay across the board, then they have the right to vote against it in an economic democracy. However, if the owners of production in a capitalist system decided to pay the same amount to all workers, then the majority of workers would have no choice but to follow the dictator. Even if that happened, I would still be against capitalism.

The idea of equal pay for equal effort regardless of ability is just one of my personal idealist beliefs (or fantasies if you prefer). The point is that if I became an owner of the means of production in a capitalist system and decided that everyone (including me) would get paid the same amount, the workers in my employ would have to live with it, or else quit and hope that they can find another job, in which case I can hire other workers from the long-term unemployed category (ie those who have been unable to find jobs) and do the same thing, and the long term unemployed are not just those with less ability, it also includes marginalized social groups and minorities who were rejected for reasons other than ability. In an economic democracy, the workers can tell me to shove it without losing their jobs because I would have no ownership, and the issue would be resolved.

That's the whole point of socialism. It's not about equal distribution of wealth, it's about equal distribution of power.

The advantages are that, 1) unemployment would be non-existent, because even those with less ability get a job, whether it's equal pay or not, 2) because unemployment is zero and the participation rate is higher, there is more labour, thus more production (which solves the "lack of resources" problem that Aramike was pointing out), and 3) production is accountable to the producers instead of a dictator with lots of money.

quote:

---

Capitalism has never been about killing anyone, that entire argument is drawing allusions that are really reaching.

---

Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. Bin Laden owns the means of producing terror, just like Stalin and Hitler did.

quote:

---

Bin Laden is a Socialist

He and all his friends commune together

They all pool their money together to meet a need in the United States, a lack of violence.

---

If terrorists were friends who pooled their money together, then why are terrorist organizations so fragmented? Why do they only attempt to gain power for their own organizations instead of all organizations?

quote:

---

No country under the name of Capitalism has carried out destructive attacks against it's own people.

---

Chile, El Salvador, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Colombia, USA, Australia.

quote:

---

What's wrong with owning something and deciding how it's used without interference? The factory owner doesn't tell his workers what to do with their investments does he?

---

You said it yourself. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why power should be equally distributed among the workers instead of being left in the hands of a wealthy few.

quote:

---

Democracy is just as bad as Communism. Democracy is mob rule, in fact do you know how many times the word Democracy appears in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independance?

None - 0 times.

---

The preamble (the very first paragraph) of the US constitution states:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, THE PEOPLE do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Democracy, demos kratos, people rule.

Democracy gave birth to the constitution!

quote:

---

Each state has the power of a vote,

so that states with more people aren't over represented.

---

You're describing a federal system, not a republic. State/provincial representation was devised so that the states could form a union, hence the United States. Each state has one vote, but the direction of that vote is directly influenced by how the people vote in that state.

quote:

---

There is such a thing as too much representation. Democracy would only last until the people realized they could vote themselves money from the public treasury.

---

The money in the public treasury comes from taxation of the people. Therefore, if the majority of the people vote themselves money from the public treasury, the end result is that the people get their money back. That doesn't sound like the end of democracy to me.

quote:

---

Made up from representatives of 50 states. i.e. 50 little powers who don't agree

with each other so that damaging policy can't be handed down easily.

---

As opposed to workers' representatives who have no power to make any decisions on their own. Their sole function is to be an avenue of communication between communities, and many socialists (the ones who know more about it than I do) can argue that even this facility does not need to be operated by any kind of public representation. Therefore, in a global socialist system, it's possible that there is no need for any top-down government, whereas in capitalism it is essential.

quote:

---

Lets say a food distributor who is the closest supplier to a community wants to

jack up their price, offers it's workers more money so they agree. They would have GREATER purchasing power.

The community has to either pay more money or starve. What happens then?

---

That's assuming that the socialist system uses monetary currency (I still have much to learn in this area). Anyway...

A distributor who bribes workers with more money so that he/she can sell food at a higher price is an idiot, because the extra money that would have come from selling more expensive items has already been spent on bribes. Therefore, not only does the distributor not profit from the attempt, he/she also loses money doing it because the money for the bribes came from his/her labour value.

quote:

---

I am being serious, if someone with a disability was unable to safely carry out an

operation, yet had all the training necessary. Why should they be allowed to have that job?

---

They shouldn't. I already said that. When I said regardless of ability, I wasn't implying an absolute disregard for it, especially when safety is an issue.

quote:

---

They have a choice of other jobs or to start their own business. If they choose to work for someone they have no right to complain if the terms of the contract are honored.

---

In other words, they have a choice of other economic dictatorships, or to become a dictator.

quote:

---

That's redundant, the most competitive products are the best products. Otherwise they couldn't compete. The nature of competitiveness as you said are so that the best get ahead.

---

Read Aramike's argument. It contradicts with yours.

Because Beta is more expensive to the end consumer. Competition is market driven -- if people want something that is more cost-effective and not as quality, that's what the people get.

Hey Aramike, how much did you pay for MS Office when StarOffice is free?

quote:

---

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, all in the name of a Socialist ideal.

---

All in the name of a twisted interpretation of socialism (socialism in one country), just as the Taliban kills over a twisted interpretation of Islam.

quote:

---

The theory of National Socialism came about long before Hitler took power. It was

an offshoot of Marx's writings and in fact wanted a sustainable economy with full employment on a national scale - regardless of race.

---

It may have been an offshoot of Marx's writings, but that does not mean that Marx agreed with the concept. Lenin and Trotsky certainly didn't.

National Socialism is not socialism because it attempts to achieve a sustainable economy through economic and military competition with other countries. That's why I keep calling it state capitalism: it's the state competing with other states and/or businesses for profit and power.

quote:

---

So production will be what everyone feels is best rather than what is most

efficient and well thought out?

---

Capitalist production is an exercise in inefficiency and excess. There is overproduction (ie higher quantity of goods than consumers can afford to purchase), and the surplus is either thrown into landfills or burned. It's wasteful.

quote:

---

I thought that goods had no value? All were equal?

---

Where did you get that idea? Goods and services are as valuable as the labour that's put into their production.

quote:

---

He didn't take that into account, he just assumed that every factory owner must

have more money than he will ever need. All Capitalists must have more money than they need? I'm Capitalist and I could start a business right now and not make much more than employees of other businesses - does that mean I'm evil because I 'own' something?

---

When marxists like Harman use the word 'capitalist' to describe someone, they're not usually referring to people who agree with the capitalist system. They're referring to the owners of the means of production, also known as the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie.

I'll reply to the rest of the arguments later. Gotta go now.

[modarken]

lol i was going to reply but your guy'Zzz post is too long.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

You're assuming that his so-called sponsers have any control over him.

---

Without sponsors, he can't raise capital to invest in his training camps. That implies control.

quote:

---

A classless society which defies culture. Socialism aims for the eradication of culture in order to replace it with a universal culture, which, coincidentally, was the goal of pretty much every fascist throughout world history.

---

How would a classless society lead to the eradication of culture? How does a classless society defy culture?

By the way, could you explain to me why today's cultures are becoming more Americanized? Why do so many Australians know who the first American president was, but so few know the name of Australia's first Prime Minister? What's happening to cultures today?

quote:

---

So the PRIVATE sector has to take the form of government? That's EXACTLY what

the founding fathers of our nation were trying to get AWAY from.

---

I was describing capitalism.

quote:

---

In any case, if socialism were to occur (you've ignored this point several times), goods would not be in great supply and would not be as high-quality. Capitalist competition drives quality.

---

Socialist production would be higher and less wasteful because there is a greater participation rate and no long term unemployment. Quality will also be higher because workers will be producing for themselves instead of an owner.

quote:

---

Another fallacy. How, per se, is the free market limited in capacity? I can show you 100 years worth of numbers to the contrary.

---

Examine the numbers for participation and unemployment rates. The mere existence of the latter proves the limited capacity of the 'free' market.

quote:

---

By investing money that was generated by THEIR labor.

---

Exactly my point again. The labour of workers makes provision of jobs possible.

quote:

---

That's wrong. The workers do NOT provide the jobs, the CONSUMERS do. Workers

are included in that category with anyone else. So the workers ULTIMATELY have control of the capitalist economy through market-power.

Capitalism is more democratic than you think; certainly moreso than socialism. The majority of workers (consumers) are what drives companies in and out of business. Instead of using a ballot, they use a wallet.

---

The companies that go out of business are replaced by other companies that do the same things all over again. So much for wallet power.

quote:

---

How would it not be profitable? You're still thinking in terms of currency, which is your greatest flaw. Socialism is NOT ABOUT MONEY -- it's about RESOURCES and GOODS. Those government officials could just as easily be corrupted by goods rather than by the dollar.

---

That's assuming that socialism needs a top-down government.

quote:

---

The workers still don't have control because the DEMAND would be the control.

---

Can you be more specific?

quote:

---

Yes, we'd all want recreation. But the faculties for recreation would be limited. Therefore, only some would receive it.

---

Why?

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[buckthesystem]

quote:

---

No country under the name of Capitalism has carried out destructive attacks against it's own people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chile, El Salvador, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Nigeria,

South Africa

, Zimbabwe, Colombia, USA, Australia.

---

whoa, don't even go there! (it's a whole new argument) That was not about capitalism, that was about political power retention.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

The preamble (the very first paragraph) of the US constitution states:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, THE PEOPLE do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Democracy, demos kratos, people rule.

Democracy gave birth to the constitution!

---

No - People gave birth to the constitution. People needed government that was responsive to their needs. Government that was based on the consent of the people.

And that paragraph was writted by representatives of the people. By the way, how many times does 'republic' appear in the Constitution? Just wondering.

quote:

---

If the majority of workers don't want equal pay across the board, then they have the right to vote against it in an economic democracy. However, if the owners of production in a capitalist system decided to pay the same amount to all workers, then the majority of workers would have no choice but to follow the dictator. Even if that happened, I would still be against capitalism.

---

As soon as people started voting to earn more than the weakest links, where in the hell would equal distribution of income go? Jeez man you just shot your argument in the foot

quote:

---

The idea of equal pay for equal effort regardless of ability is just one of my personal idealist beliefs (or fantasies if you prefer). The point is that if I became an owner of the means of production in a capitalist system and decided that everyone (including me) would get paid the same amount, the workers in my employ would have to live with it, or else quit and hope that they can find another job, in which case I can hire other workers from the long-term unemployed category (ie those who have been unable to find jobs) and do the same thing, and the long term unemployed are not just those with less ability, it also includes marginalized social groups and minorities who were rejected for reasons other than ability. In an economic democracy, the workers can tell me to shove it without losing their jobs because I would have no ownership, and the issue would be resolved.

---

Now you are agreeing that the workers might have thoughts of their own about how the stuff should work... uh oh it's unraveling...

quote:

---

That's the whole point of socialism. It's not about equal distribution of wealth, it's about equal distribution of power.

The advantages are that, 1) unemployment would be non-existent, because even those with less ability get a job, whether it's equal pay or not, 2) because unemployment is zero and the participation rate is higher, there is more labour, thus more production (which solves the "lack of resources" problem that Aramike was pointing out), and 3) production is accountable to the producers instead of a dictator with lots of money.

---

Damn you were on a roll here comes justification and more points why it "could" work...

quote:

---

Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production.

---

And not killing. We are after all talking economics and not morality. At least some of us are

quote:

---

If terrorists were friends who pooled their money together, then why are terrorist organizations so fragmented? Why do they only attempt to gain power for their own organizations instead of all organizations?

---

They are fragmented because it's common sense so that if the leaders get taken out, the terrorist cells have more resiliency. Have you ever heard of the concept of cells?

quote:

---

You said it yourself. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why power should be equally distributed among the workers instead of being left in the hands of a wealthy few.

---

At the same time, if power is distributed too widely, there is no efficiency in reaction times. You have a huge beuracracy.

quote:

---

You're describing a federal system, not a republic. State/provincial representation was devised so that the states could form a union, hence the United States. Each state has one vote, but the direction of that vote is directly influenced by how the people vote in that state.

---

That's what I was describing in response to your argument, however I take an anti-federalist position. FYI

quote:

---

The money in the public treasury comes from taxation of the people. Therefore, if the majority of the people vote themselves money from the public treasury, the end result is that the people get their money back. That doesn't sound like the end of democracy to me.

---

It is if the government can't operate, and the stronger vote money to sections that already have more than enough, and the weaker sections are left to starve.

quote:

---

As opposed to workers' representatives who have no power to make any decisions on their own. Their sole function is to be an avenue of communication between communities, and many socialists (the ones who know more about it than I do) can argue that even this facility does not need to be operated by any kind of public representation. Therefore, in a global socialist system, it's possible that there is no need for any top-down government, whereas in capitalism it is essential.

---

There is always someone who has the power of counting votes or organizing the results. Corruption can still occur easily.

quote:

---

That's assuming that the socialist system uses monetary currency (I still have much to learn in this area). Anyway...

A distributor who bribes workers with more money so that he/she can sell food at a higher price is an idiot, because the extra money that would have come from selling more expensive items has already been spent on bribes. Therefore, not only does the distributor not profit from the attempt, he/she also loses money doing it because the money for the bribes came from his/her labour value.

---

not if he profited from food sales.

quote:

---

They shouldn't. I already said that. When I said regardless of ability, I wasn't implying an absolute disregard for it, especially when safety is an issue.

---

WHoah woah woah there. So how long before peoples abilities would soon matter more and you would be back where you started?

quote:

---

In other words, they have a choice of other economic dictatorships, or to become a dictator.

---

Actually they don't have to hire anyone so long as they can run it by themselves or with their family. And still make more than other people working for people.

Think about that one.

quote:

---

Read Aramike's argument. It contradicts with yours.

Because Beta is more expensive to the end consumer. Competition is market driven -- if people want something that is more cost-effective and not as quality, that's what the people get.

---

ACtually it didn't contradict. He said if people want cheaper instead of quality. I personally buy quality. Which is more expensive, and more competitive in the area of quality.

quote:

---

All in the name of a twisted interpretation of socialism (socialism in one country), just as the Taliban kills over a twisted interpretation of Islam.

---

Socialism was supposed to be in one country according to Lenin. All countries were supposed to develop dictatorships of the proletariat, and once the whole world was socialist, the "managers" of production would step down and allow the people to take total control.

quote:

---

Capitalist production is an exercise in inefficiency and excess. There is overproduction (ie higher quantity of goods than consumers can afford to purchase), and the surplus is either thrown into landfills or burned. It's wasteful.

---

We produce so much quality stuff that there is an overabundance. Compared with cheap socialist crappy products where there would be barely enough or not enough?

quote:

---

Where did you get that idea? Goods and services are as valuable as the labour that's put into their production.

---

But all labor is equal according to you.

quote:

---

When marxists like Harman use the word 'capitalist' to describe someone, they're not usually referring to people who agree with the capitalist system. They're referring to the owners of the means of production, also known as the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie.

---

So he's overgeneralizing. In fact misrepresenting the truth. Take the specifics and the capitalist system is a lot different than what those people say.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

No - People gave birth to the constitution. People needed government that was responsive to their needs. Government that was based on the consent of the people.

---

That's what democracy is! Decision making is based on the consent of the people.

quote:

---

And that paragraph was writted by representatives of the people. By the way, how many times does 'republic' appear in the Constitution? Just wondering.

---

How do representatives of the people become representatives? With the consent of the people. It's called Representative Democracy.

quote:

---

As soon as people started voting to earn more than the weakest links, where in the hell would equal distribution of income go? Jeez man you just shot your argument in the foot

---

I shot my personal ideal in the foot, not my arguments for socialism. Where in the manifesto does Marx write anything about equal distribution of income? As I recall, he didn't. He wrote about proletarian revolution.

quote:

---

Now you are agreeing that the workers might have thoughts of their own about how the stuff should work... uh oh it's unraveling...

---

I never disagreed with that. You just assumed that I did.

quote:

---

Damn you were on a roll here comes justification and more points why it "could"

work...

---

And the problem is what?

quote:

---

And not killing. We are after all talking economics and not morality. At least some of us are

---

Here's some economics for you. There's demand for anti-Western terror. Bin Laden owns the means of producing terror. The sponsors demanding terror give him capital to invest in the production of terror. Satisfied?

quote:

---

They are fragmented because it's common sense so that if the leaders get taken out, the terrorist cells have more resiliency. Have you ever heard of the concept of cells?

---

I wasn't talking about fragmented in the sense of there being multiple cells, I was talking about fragmented in the sense that they don't coordinate operations with other organizations.

I'll respond to the rest of the arguments later. Busy, busy, busy.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Where in the manifesto does Marx write anything about equal distribution of income? As I recall, he didn't. He wrote about proletarian revolution.

---

10 Planks of the Communist Party.

BTW have you read it?

Anyway I will get back to the argument later, i'm a little busy.

[Menchise]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

10 Planks of the Communist Party.

BTW have you read it?

---

Have I read the Manifesto? Yes I have.

There is a list of ten things in there, but Marx didn't call them planks or anything like that, and they don't mention equal distribution of income.

Are you referring to a separate document?

[Guest $iLk]

Alright, that's enough. I'm not going to waste times shooting down points one at a time, I'm going for the source.

quote:

---

Does that mean that everyone else buys according to quality?

---

Then your argument is flawed, you assume everyone buys according to cheapness.

As far as the planks go, the 10 planks(ideas) of the Communist Party as referred to by the Communist Party USA, who is the current authority in America of Communist thought. They have said that the ten planks discuss the redistribution of income, only after extensive questioning.

Alright, so far our arguments have run around the issue. You are going further and further into left field - that common sense of the way humans would react and the way that intelligent thought would analyze your arguments escapes you.

I, Aramike, Jaguar, all of us explain your misquotes to you about why they are wrong and you try to turn it around saying you meant something different. Your argument in fact started with equal distribution regardless of ability and Karl Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Am I missing something there? Isn't he agreeing with your "personal preferences"?

If so, isn't that what he envisions in Communism.

By changing that you have admitted that Communism would not work and are reinventing your personal thoughts on the matter, which I applaud.

You admit that human nature exists, yet you don't allow for it in your arguments. You quote some guy about something dealing with eskimos that doesn't compare side by side without alluding to some central theme that in reality was non-existant!

You further show that your base for reality (defined by facts and logic and not emotionalism) has been derailed by some Communist line that alludes Bin Laden to a Capitalist!

Why is America successful? We were Capitalist. Why is our poverty rate the lowest in the world? We are the purest Capitalist country in the world. Why is it that America is the strongest country? Competition with other countries. What's wrong with it? You are arguing that we shouldn't have competed and instead lay our Nationalism aside and bow before the rest of the worlds ideals and sacrifice everything, when so much that we have given to other countries is disregarded and they hate us for it.

If it wasn't for American Capitalism - you would be speaking Japanese.

Think about that, and try not to ignore the points you can't argue effectively against, and show how the idea of communism is impotent when placed as a choice between the two systems.

We have provided effective arguments why individuals would not respond to this sytem in a positive way unless they were among the minority that were disadvantaged.

When you place your goals of Communism on the table, don't you see the blatant impossibilities of most points of it ever succeeding?

We have outlined them for you several times, and you cannot effectively reply except to emotionalize (hopefully) our feelings for the disadvantaged, who may or may not exist in the numbers you ascribe to.

In the end you are counting on the idea that communism means that everyone will have everything they would ever want or need.

And while we are on the subject, you have shown blatant disregard for the laws of economics that have been proven through most of a millennium in your "fuzzy math" and idea that everyone having purchasing power would still have the same abilities to purchase.

Economics isn't hard to understand if you at least have a concept of supply and demand.

Regardless of ability to purchase there will never be complete fulfillment of ability to provide. Most of the people in the world are working now, and still cannot provide for their families effectively without bringing their spouses and children into the pool.

You ignore the majority of aramikes posts, and half of all mine. I reread through this thread, and I've pretty much quoted and replied to every WORD you wrote and aramike has pretty much done that as well. I have used facts, aramike has used FACTS.

You have used propaganda.

Since you once in this thread threatened to quit replying until someone rebutted your reply about human nature (which we had rebutted several times) I refuse to respond until some semblance of common sense instead of Marxist rhetoric appears in this thread.

I'm your friend, and enjoy our cooperative in AW. Personally, you are a nice person. Ideologically, you are a sad person who has been tricked into self-hatred and have fallen into a moral agenda. Yet if you really cared about the disadvantaged, you would do like Che Gueverra, and not TALK communism, but practice it by helping those who you, out of some misplaced feeling of self guilt, feel deserve your infintesimal knowledge of Economics and Social Issues in America - and the world.

What is Communism but an attempt to enslave the world?

I've handled this with kid gloves, trying to point out to you why it's wrong, but basically - it's time to really get down to basics.

It won't work.

I challenge you again (since you have ignored it previously) to address to following questions.

Explain how Communism would work and encourage the individual to work.

Give me an example of a "nation" in history which you consider truly communist or socialist.(DO NOT USE ESKIMOS or other ethnic enclaves as examples.)

Any attempts to elude these points or spout more "America is evil" propaganda will be deemed by me a succesful conclusion of this argument and one up for McArthyism.

I'm going to bed, good night man.

[Guest $iLk]

Story time again

quote:

---

The Hanssen Shocker

March 20, 2001

Liberals are rather pleased that Robert Hanssen, the latest accused Soviet/Russian agent, was to all outward appearances a strict, orthodox Catholic. The liberals fail to see that, far from impugning Catholicism, the Hanssen case vindicates McCarthyism.

Hanssen is baffling, because he forces us to ask: ÔÇ£How could a man be so devout a Catholic and a Soviet agent at the same time?ÔÇØ After all, he had six children, sent them to expensive Catholic schools, went out of his way to attend daily Mass, and was an active opponent of abortion. This goes far beyond the need to establish a credible disguise. At the same time, it didnÔÇÖt help him when he was caught in illegal activities.

Put otherwise, Hanssen is an enigma precisely because orthodox Catholicism is the most unlikely camouflage for pro-Soviet activities. It requires a life of strenuous contradictions.

On the other hand, nobody was really shocked when a liberal turned out to be a Communist. The case of Alger Hiss, Franklin RooseveltÔÇÖs advisor and architect of the United Nations, shocked us because an active Soviet agent had gotten so close to the president (though, as it turns out, Hiss wasnÔÇÖt the only one). But even HissÔÇÖs defenders werenÔÇÖt really puzzled by the possibility that Hiss was secretly working for Joseph Stalin; nobody asked, ÔÇ£How on earth can you be a liberal and a Communist at the same time?ÔÇØ

Why? Because liberalism was the most hospitable camouflage for Communism. You could advance the Soviet cause merely by pursuing a liberal agenda. The simplest proof is that William Z. Foster, head of the U.S. Communist Party, also sat on the national board of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU saw no contradiction in his working for ÔÇ£civil liberties,ÔÇØ as it defined them, and working for Soviet goals, for the simple reason that there was no contradiction.

Communism had been approvingly described as ÔÇ£liberalism in a hurry,ÔÇØ and liberals like Roosevelt affectionately dubbed Stalin ÔÇ£Uncle Joe.ÔÇØ Even today, few liberals blame Roosevelt for his abject truckling to Stalin. The wartime alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union ended with ten Christian countries falling to Communist tyranny, with persecution on a scale Nero would have blanched at ÔÇö a persecution liberals didnÔÇÖt, and still donÔÇÖt, care to talk about. TodayÔÇÖs liberals also like to forget that Roosevelt extended admiration and aid to Stalin long before World War II. He knew a kindred spirit when he saw one.

After all, ÔÇ£liberalism in a hurryÔÇØ sought the same sort of social order American liberalism seeks ÔÇö a secularist, materialist society in which power is centralized and the state controls economic life. When Americans finally awoke to the evil of Communism, liberals had harsher words for Joe McCarthy, who cost a few people their government jobs, than for Joe Stalin, who cost tens of millions of people their lives.

Liberals were eventually forced to repudiate Stalin (and an honorable few did so before they had to). But they found other Red heroes to replace him: Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara. In each case, violations of freedom and outright atrocities were ignored, while the ÔÇ£achievementsÔÇØ of Communist regimes were lauded: we heard endlessly about the provision of free medical care and universal literacy (never mind that the regimes decided what the people could read, banning classic authors and jailing or killing living voices of dissent).

The theme of liberal press agentry for post-Stalin Communists was that each represented a ÔÇ£newÔÇØ Communism, untainted by the ÔÇ£excessesÔÇØ of Stalinism. Other regimes were judged by their records; Communist regimes were judged by their promises. In 1958 the New York Times even reported that Castro wasnÔÇÖt ÔÇö couldnÔÇÖt be ÔÇö a Communist, just as it had a generation earlier reported, with equal veracity, that Stalin wasnÔÇÖt starving Ukrainians.

If Communism was liberalism in a hurry, liberalism is Communism in slow motion. Where Communism smashed, liberalism erodes. The end result is the same: a soulless society in which liberty perishes and tradition is forgotten.

There is ample testimony that liberalism and Communism are essentially interchangeable, and much of that testimony comes from liberals themselves. Hence their relief at discovering a Catholic traitor for a change.

Joseph Sobran

---

[Menchise]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

---

Those were the ten points, I stand corrected, the redistribution of income is derived from the Communist Party USA.

I still see Marx's quote as equal distribution of income. but when you look at the 10 points, and take into account his quote I can see how I inferred it.

However, these 10 points seem to be exactly what lenin and the soviets were following...

Simply a road to Communism I guess.

quote:

---

Marx's quote is different. He's stating that when people work to their ability, they should receive everything that they need in return, something that capitalism does not do effectively when left to its own devices (ie without government intervention or welfare).

---

I guess you are right, Capitalism returns more than the NEED. Not everything they want. Many liberals confuse needs with wants. Communism seeks to deny everything but necessity.

I'm really freaking tired... good luck with your Java, but continue replying to my last post.

[aramike]

[Guest $iLk]

The actual facts and logistics of a Communist society defy recreation. If it isn't a need it isn't a priority.

If everyone is doing everything they can just to eat, there is no room for recreation. All your jobs would revolve around agriculture and production. Food and Infrastructure.

The appeals of a Communist society are far outweighed by the constraints of reality.

Blanket statements they are, and no facts to support them. Disagreement for the sake of disagreement.

Finish replying to my last post please, and for goodness sakes use logic and facts instead of emotional arguments about ancestors and disadvantages.

You can't fight a moral crusade, it's just like the crusades.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

How did Germany become so strong? Competition with other countries.

How did the Soviet Union become so strong? Competition with other countries.

How is China still so strong? Competition with other countries.

---

The part about Germany is correct.

The part about the USSR is wrong according to yourself. It was competition in a Capitalist world which led to it's downfall.

The PROC is in the same predicament, in fact they are having to allow Capitalism in to prevent poverty and starvation.

Why in the world would anyone want to be in a system that can't stand up to competition? It's you yourself who said that competition makes countries strong who are suited for it.

[Guest $iLk]

I take it the anti-commies win?

I guess it was all "hate-speech" therefore doesn't have to be countered.

Anyone who bothered to read this - The fight against Communism must never end until it is exposed to the masses as the fraud that it is!

The United States of America is the land of the FREE. Capitalism is a system which rewards individuals. Individuals made this country great. We are the most powerful country in the world, and those who weaken us do so from within with their anti-American diatribe and socialist "ideals".

May we meet each threat with the determination shown by our forefathers! God Bless America!

[Menchise]

I've been pre-occupied with the other debate threads. I'm not finished yet.

[Menchise]

Picking up from where I left off...

quote:

---

If it wasn't for American Capitalism - you would be speaking Japanese.

---

If it wasn't for American Capitalism, Japan wouldn't have tried to make me speak Japanese. The causes of Japanese militarism in the 20th century date back to the 19th century. More specifically, 1864.

By the middle of the 19th century, Japan's borders had been closed to Europeans for over a hundred years, after the missionaries stepped in and told everyone that their main religions (Shintoism and Buddhism) were wrong, and tried to run things themselves. Meanwhile, America was joining the club of imperialist powers (Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal) in their quest for new markets and sources of capital. One of the objectives was to find open ports and supplies of coal for naval vessels in the Pacific Ocean. President Fillmore set his sights on Japan.

In 1864, Fillmore sent a polite letter full of subtle threats by courier (read: a fleet of warships under Commodore Perry) to the Japanese emperor. The tone of the letter wasn't difficult to detect (before you ask, I have read the letter): open the ports to American vessels and supply them with coal, or face Perry's warships (for starters). The emperor reluctantly accepted, Japan became a "land of opportunity" for US and European interests, and the Japanese people were suppressed.

It was this violation of Japanese land and dignity that motivated the nation's desire to become a superpower. Within 50 years, Japan became the most powerful nation in Asia and one of the most powerful nations in the world, all for the sake of making sure that they weren't forced to surrender anything again. Obviously, they went too far.

In conclusion, one of the main causes of Japanese militarism in the 20th century was the forced opening of Japanese ports by Fillmore and Perry. If that didn't happen, there would have been little motivation for Japan to build its own empire to such an extent.

By the way, thanks for saving my ass in WWII.