Menchise

Nobody deserves that kind of torture!

The Swastika is an interesting symbol to discuss because of its potentially inadvertent references. Its adoption by the Nazis has effectively demonized its visibility, which is not very fair to people practicing Buddhism where the Swastika is a symbol of good fortune (I think). So, if you see someone with a swastika on their person, they're not necessarily neo-nazis. In the case of Buddhism, there is a way of telling the difference (the spokes are in reverse order). EDIT: So much for my line drawing skills. [ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm going to join this debate. First of all, what's the ACLU? Secondly, the section of the first amendment regarding religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof I don't think 'establishment of religion' refers to a building, it refers to officiality. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress is not allowed to pass a law establishing an official national religion. In other words, it's unconstitutional to officially state that America is a christian or jewish or whatever nation, because that would imply that citizens who exercise other religions or don't believe in religion are not Americans. It does not mean that congresspeople are not allowed to have any visible references to any religion on their person while they're in session. What would happen if a Muslim woman was elected to Congress? Does she hide her cover in another cover? That would be a direct contradiction to the first amendment because people are being prohibited from freely exercising their religion. Remember that the members of congress are also members of the American people whom they were elected to represent. They're allowed to vote, speak, and do anything else that's within their civil rights, including the free exercise of their religion. One of the purposes of the first amendment is to allow everyone to freely exercise their religion within the boundaries of civil rights (eg you're not allowed to sacrifice a virgin), but nobody is allowed to establish their religion as the official religion of the nation or of any public organization that's supposed to represent all American citizens. [ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: 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?

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 ]

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 ]

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.

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 ]

Guns are also fairly restricted in Australia. Handguns are allowed, but automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned. This was done in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre (a psycho killed over 30 people in a restaurant with a semi-automatic). Japan is the ultimate success story of gun control. They have the most restrictive gun laws in the world. The entire country has about as many homicides per year as New York City has in a day. To say the least, that is very interesting.

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 ]

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).

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.

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 ]

Congratulations, Luc.

quote: Human nature exists... and does play a role in the way that people function in society. Of course human nature exists, but what is 'human nature'? Where is the line between what is inherent in human beings and what is taught to us by social constructs? Were humans really born greedy, or have humans just adapted to a society that rewards greed? Why do some humans choose to adapt, while others try to change things? Where in the book of 'human nature' does it say that having more money makes you a happier person, let alone a better person? I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that money never makes anyone truly happy. Why do so many people believe that making more money for yourself is the same as improving yourself? Osama bin Ladin runs a terror business that specializes in human plastiques. Is he improving himself? Shell is a billion dollar oil company that bribes the Nigerian government into assassinating unionists. Is that improvement? Is that 'human nature'? No. That's capitalism. quote: Because it makes them feel good to believe in a cause that claims to be able to answer all problems and correct social injustices. Especially when it isn't their money they want taken away as much as those who have more than they do. Now you've defeated the argument of capitalism yourself. Why would I ever agree with a cause that claims to answer problems and injustices if, as you and Jaguar so vigorously claim, capitalism works very well? If capitalism really did work very well, then why do so many problems and social injustices exist? That is what I've been getting at during the entire time that we've been discussing 'human nature'. People believe in causes that challenge the existing society when the sum of their experiences contradict with the teachings of that society! quote: I say human nature varies by the person, only in the effect that whatever they believe will help themselves, they will do. You do not see animals taking care of each other, they compete, which brings me to my next point. Animals only take what they need. What's our excuse? quote: I disagree because a person should be compensated for however much they contribute, not be set at a certain level. If I stack 10 tons of bricks and you stack 1 ton, all in the same amount of time, quite frankly I deserve more. After seeing no reward don't you think I would feel a little cheated? Do you not think I would envy you if you worked 1/10 of what I did and got paid the same? Regardless of your ability? Don't you think that I would envy you if I could only stack 1 ton of bricks while you could stack 10 times as many in the same amount of time? Do you not think I would feel cheated if I worked just as hard as you did and you got paid ten times as much? Regardless of my effort? See what I mean? Competition can also discourage people from trying to improve themselves because no matter how hard they try, they're still regarded as inferior. In the end, they starve to death because nobody will hire them. quote: And what is wrong with having more than someone else if you earned it and they didn't? What does it take for someone to earn something? Working to the best of one's ability, or having more ability than someone else? [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Personally, I'm getting sick of reviewers reducing the scores just because a game doesn't have multiplayer. Since when did a single player game become equivalent (sp?) to an 'incomplete' game? What about the developers who make kick-ass single player games? [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: Address the main points as to why we are wrong instead of quoting some professor's "theory". 1) I have been addressing some points by quoting other sources. 2) The author is not a professor, so stop calling him that. 3) The author's "theory" is supported by facts. So far, everyone has been using the 'human nature' argument, which is why I quoted that author. He provides three concrete examples that disprove the points about 'human nature'. So far, nobody has rebutted that quote (with the exception of some meaningless rhetoric). In fact, most people have ignored it, and continued using 'human nature' in their arguments. Until someone can effectively reply to Harman's quote (the author's name is Chris Harman), I will continue to ignore the 'human nature' arguments and get on with the debate. [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Just a brief reply for now. I saw Friedman's book last year, read a few pages, raised a few eyebrows, didn't read it again. His arguments (at least the ones that I read) sound interesting, even convincing if they're not given a serious moment's thought. In one chapter he wrote that anti-discrimination laws are bad for the economy because if a businessman started hiring minorities in a racist community the business would fail. Sounds logical in that particular context, but when you look at the big picture it is deeply flawed because discrimination effectively discourages minorities from working at all, thus the participation rate of the workforce decreases (ie fewer people enter the 'labour market'). The fact that none of the minorities in that community are working also reinforces the racism in that community. Friedman's theories show a bias toward the status quo, thus any change, even positive change, is discouraged. quote: Use common sense in your argument instead of saying "well Marx said... well professor **** said..." There is nothing wrong with quoting other sources. If you don't like it, then stop telling me about Boortz and Friedman.

*Nick takes a break from endless debating and runs to the birthday thread* *pant* *pant* Happy birthday, Ep5! *Nick runs back*

OK, here's another quote for you guys to dissect, if you can. It's about human nature ("How Marxism Works", 1997, pp. 15-16). "One very widespread, non-Marxist, materialist view holds that human beings are animals, who behave 'naturally' in certain ways. Just as it is in the nature of wolves to kill or in the nature of sheep to be placid, so it is in the nature of men to be aggressive, domineering, competitive and greedy (and, it is implied, of women to be meek, submissive, deferential and passive). One formulation of this view is to be found in the best selling book The Naked Ape. The conclusions that are drawn from such arguments are almost invariably reactionary. If men are naturally aggressive, it is said, then there is no point in trying to improve society. Things will always turn out the same. Revolutions will 'always fail'. But 'human nature' does in fact vary from society to society. For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scientists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition. The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of 'war'. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them. In our society it is regarded as 'natural' that parents should love and protect their children. Yet in the Ancient Greek city of Sparta it was regarded as 'natural' to leave infants out in the mountains to see if they could survive the cold. 'Unchanging human nature' theories provide no explanation for the great events in history. The pyramids of Egypt, the splendours of Ancient Greece, the empires of Rome or the Incas, the modern industrial city, are put on the same level as the illiterate peasants who lived in the mud hovels of the Dark Ages. All that matters is the 'naked ape' - not the magnificent civilisations the ape has built. It is irrelevant that some forms of society succeed in feeding the 'apes', while others leave millions to starve to death."

quote: That just shows ignorance of the capitalist system, Profit is the reward for having your vision in starting a business come to fruition. The author was pointing out a contradiction here. Capitalists talk about the profit as the reward for having a vision of a business coming to fruition, but totally ignores the fact that it was the collective labour of the workers that made that vision come true. It's like riding a horse. You have a vision of where you want to go, but it's the horse that actually takes you there. So, where are the rewards for the workers, eh? quote: That math is just a little off. First lets assume that the total business profit in the USA is 6,000,000,000,000 (That is about where it is). If you were to split that money between 400,000,000 people you get 15,000 per person, per year. That means a family of 3 would get 45,000 dollars a year. Doh!