Menchise

quote: Alright, first off how in the hell are you going to make them put in their "best effort"? You are rewarding slothfullness. Let's say I was working in a commie factory: ME: "damn... bob isn't doing half of what I am, and jeez he's getting paid the same thing I am... well hell why should I have to bust my ass when I can simply take it easy and do like bob and take breaks every 5 minutes and drag ass..." BOB: "damnit, this is hard work... maybe I should do like James and stay on permanent smokebreak and never work, cause he's doing his "best"..." James: "Damn it, these things are killing me... I may have to put in for workman's comp because I can't breathe so good... I mean after all... I've done my best..." And before you know it production will grind to a hault because HUMAN NATURE will take over and things like "jealousy" and "contempt" will breed and no one will want to do more than the weakest link. That's an exaggerated example of what happens in capitalism when workers are paid very low wages. As Adam Smith once wrote, "when financial rewards are divorced from criteria of performance, neglect of duties is likely to result." It is a fact that when workers are paid a wage that's below a certain amount, they start to neglect their work. Socialism uses ability as a criteria of performance. If someone can work for 8 hours and works for 8 hours, they get paid the same as someone who is only capable of working for 6 hours and does it. Otherwise the reward is divorced from the criteria of performance, and the participation rate of the workforce decreases. However, if someone is capable of working for 6 hours and only works for 2 hours, they don't get equal pay. It's not that different from capitalism, except that the wages are higher and the threshold of ability is taken into account. What's wrong with that? quote: How in the hell is it going to get distributed? I'm sure that everyone will have an equal cut when left to themselves to manage pay. I believe embezzlement is a crime. Guess what happens. quote: First off you wouldn't need many services that people enjoy today. For starters, movies (why spend millions to make movies?) Computer Games (ditto), they aren't necessary to the people's well being, so why should they be around. In fact the only jobs would be factory jobs for infrastructure, and construction jobs, and agriculture. What else would be necessary in a Worker's world? Do you honestly believe that workers have no regard for art and recreation? Be realistic. quote: BTW how is someone going to be able to take care of themselves after they are too old to work? Anyone who is not able to work receives equal payment in the form of an innovative and radical system called...a pension! quote: So in effect you are saying that Communism reconizes you are better than someone else and refuses to give you anything for it, i.e. no incentive. *Nick tries hard not to lose temper* I hope you're not saying that a person who has no medical conditions and works to his/her ability is superior to someone who's sickly and works to his/her ability. They are equal because they both do the best they can. Socialism treats them equally, capitalism does not. quote: Capitalism is ridiculous because Employers can fire someone that isn't doing their job or is lazy? There is nothing wrong with firing someone who is lazy. Lazy people would get fired in Socialism too. Capitalism is ridiculous because it imposes an arbitrary standard of ability, and anyone who doesn't meet that standard is regarded as an inferior person. There are two big problems with this: 1) it effectively discourages large groups of people from joining the workforce, and 2) it's inhumane and just plain disrespectful. quote: Inflation, shortages, valueless money. Come on Mr. Economics, you;ve got to see your figures are BS when you get down to the bare bones of it. If everyone in the world had 5 million dollars, that wouldn't change supply. In fact, it would create shortages and lead to price increases to prevent widespread famin. Inflation is caused by a bloated money supply. A bloated money supply occurs when the total face value of the money is greater than the total value of production. Therefore, if everyone in the world had 5 million dollars when enough goods and services were being produced to provide 850 million dollars to each person, you would have a massive DEFLATION rate (prices would drop like flies) because the money supply is too small. I recommend some revision of monetary policy. quote: Alright Menchise, obviously you are describing a best case scenario where 100% of the world masturbates to the writings of Marx and their fellow lazy workers appear to be saints and "comrades", but lets say that at worst case scenario, you have a 75% decrease in production because of what I described? How many people would starve then? None. Those figures I used to prove that there is enough wealth for absolutely everyone provided for a 50% decrease in production. But, since you want to see the arithmetic of a 75% reduction, I'll give it to you. Total profit = 3 trillion dollars Total population = 7 billion people Distribution of wealth per person = 428 million dollars per year. Actually, just to make this even more dramatic, I'll provide for a 90% reduction. Total profit = 1.2 trillion dollars Total population = 7 billion people Distribution of wealth per person = 171 million dollars per year.

One at a time, please.

quote: If I as a capitalist, invested 100 million dollars in a company, and at 10% profit, it would take 10 years to pay for my initial investment, so now a marxist would expect me to sell my product at cost? The author was not prescribing anything, he was writing about how capitalism's attempts to justify profit have little foundation. quote: I am not going to invest 100 million dollars to break even, that's just PLAIN STUPID!! Apparently, you didn't read the entire quote very carefully. Here is the paragraph that you missed. If it is 'sacrifice' that is being rewarded, then surely after the first ten years all profits should cease. For by then the capitalists have been paid back completely for the money they put in the first place. In fact, however, the capitalist is twice as wealthy as before. He owns his original investment and the accumulated profits. 100 million dollar factory + 100 million dollar profit = 200 million dollars. Also, since property is an appreciating asset, the factory itself would be worth more than 100 million dollars after ten years. quote: If I am going to invest 100 million dollars, I better make at least 300 million over the next 10 years or else get out of whatever business I was in. Why would you need 300 million dollars? That's 6000 years of upper-middle class income ($50,000 per year). So unless you're immortal... quote: That is a REAL nice dream Menchise, but you continue to forget to add in Human nature Which part of human nature wants more money than one would ever need to spend in 50 lifetimes? quote: HUMAN NATURE, ain't it a B#$ch? No. It's a lame excuse.

OK, I've made a new thread for the debate. It's called "Continuing the debate". The first post is a response to Jaguar's post on page 2.

This thread is a continuation of a debate that originated in the thread called "And so it begins...". I will start by replying to Jaguar's last post on page 2, and I'm still waiting for $iLk's response to my previous post. quote: It has been tried time immemorial, the pilgrims even tried it. They decided that everyones labor belonged to everyone else and that they would put everything in a central location and people would take what they needed from that. Guess what? They almost starved to death... In preparation for my response to this argument, I did some brief research on the famine at the Plymouth Colony in the 1620s, and there were definitely other factors involved that undoubtedly contributed to the lack of food. First of all, Plymouth was not suitable for any large scale agriculture because the land wasn't fertile enough. That's why more pilgrims reluctantly started settling on more fertile land to the north in the 1630s. Secondly, the Plymouth colonists were having very limited success in finding native seeds and learning how to grow them, which is why the colonists were dependant on Native American food supplies for so long. Thirdly, Plymouth was in debt to merchants in London, so they needed a method of production that had faster output. In my opinion, the "communistic" model of agricultural production was not abandoned because of famine (there were other causes for that), it was abandoned because Plymouth needed a bigger surplus to help pay off its debts. quote: If there is no PERSONAL reward for labor or product manufactured, the system will fail, just as it always has. I agree, and that's why I'm against capitalism. Capitalist production is based on owners taking away the personal rewards of workers who perform all of the labour and manufacture all of the products.

quote: Survival of the fittest I believe it's called. Socialism is well intentions at their worst. Maybe everyone has a job in Communism, yet so did everyone in Nazi Germany - does that make it a good system? I don't think so IMHO. Hitler had good intentions too (he was just psychotic). Darwinism at its extreme. I'll never accept the idea that only "the fittest" deserve to live. I prefer a system with good intentions over a system with inhumane apathy. Hitler and other fascists never had any good intentions either. They recognized raw resentment among the people and used a scapegoat to direct that resentment for their own political ends. Hitler's intention was to become the dictator of Europe. That doesn't sound good to me. quote: Sad but true, however it isn't up to the state to make jobs in our society. Who says we need a state at all? quote: Free market economy allows for people to govern their own trade. Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work well in practice. Ask anyone who owned one of the 2/3 of businesses that fail in their first year, leaving the "governors of individual trade" with debts that they can't pay off. quote: And anyone who isn't working for someone has the opportunity to go into business themselves, or refuse to work and become a liability to taxpayers. Just as the market is incapable of sustaining enough jobs, it is also incapable of sustaining enough business opportunity. As I said before, two thirds of people who go into business themselves end up penniless within the year. The problem is not that the owners of these businesses weren't smart enough or worked hard enough. The problem is that no market has or ever will have the sustainable capacity. quote: I don't think you find many starving people over here thanks to these socialist welfare state practices, but I think a majority of them are abusing the system because they can get something for free. Human nature. The welfare system was not a socialist idea, and it does much more than just keep people alive. The concept of a welfare system within capitalism was developed by an economic theorist called John Maynard Keynes. The idea is that by providing wealth to the unemployed through taxation, the unemployed are able to purchase goods and services in the market, thus they become consumers and a source of aggregate demand. Therefore, a welfare system that supports the unemployed is actually healthy for the capitalist economy, because it provides businesses with more people to whom they can sell goods and services. I have no doubt that a minority of people may be abusing welfare, but that's not because of human nature (you seem to have ignored my entire rebuttal about human nature in my previous post). quote: Of course if you are working for someone, you can't expect to make the same thing they are making. You should be making more than that someone, because you're doing all of the hard work. quote: As far as giving back as little as possible, that's a pessimistic Communist argument. I guess human nature is driving that factory owner or something... It may be pessimistic and communist, but it's also true, and the factory owner is not being driven by human nature. That factory owner is driven by the pressure of having to compete with other factory owners in order to keep the factory. If the owner can't keep expenses as low as they are in other factories, then the factory's produce will have to be sold at a higher price to cover the costs and maintain the same profit margin as the competition. Less profit = less investment in the future = less production = less revenue in the future = even less profit = a factory owner who's going to be penniless if he/she doesn't sell his/her factory = people without jobs. Need I say more? quote: I mean seriously, let's be honest - it wouldn't work would it? Truthfully and totally the economic model sounds good, and maybe you can even argue it to where it sounds good - but we both know that it would never work - though I agree it would be nice if it could. I think that it can work. I wouldn't be debating with you if I didn't. [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: What is the incentive in a communist economy? No matter how hard you work, your extra effort goes towards compensating someone who did much less work than you do. That statement is based on the assumption that socialists and/or communists want a system where everyone gets the same amount of pay without exception (eg worker #1 works 10 hours for $100, #2 works 15 hours for $100). There are probably some Socialists who do believe in that, but I'm not one of them, and I believe the majority of Socialists who revise the works of people like Marx and Engels don't believe in that either. There is a difference between equal payment and an equal rate of payment. Obviously, if someone works longer, they get paid more. I don't believe that Marx wrote anything to the contrary, and if he did, then that's another reason why I may not be Marxist. The "incentive to work" is one of the common anti-socialist arguments out there, so I will reply to it with a common rebuttal. In capitalism, there is no such thing as an incentive to work. What many people call the "incentive to work" is more accurately described as the "threat of starvation". Therefore, I find it difficult to digest (no pun intended) that anyone could say socialism is wrong because it tries to prevent people from starving to death. quote: Capitalism rewards initiative and brains. People who favor Communism are usually themselves unable to compete in a Capitalist economy. Not by lack of anything but effort. A very common pro-capitalist argument, with a very common socialist rebuttal. The "lack of initiative" argument is a euphemism for unemployment. It essentially blames unemployment on the unemployed, claiming that they either don't try hard enough or they're not smart enough. The reality is that even the most prosperous of capitalist economies are totally incapable of sustaining enough jobs for everyone, which is why full employment is impossible within the current system. Another, more disturbing reality is that big businesses generally don't want governments to help reduce unemployment because the unemployment rate provides another so-called "incentive to work". quote: Stalin attempted to bring the means of production under state control, as Lenin envisioned as a road to pure communism. It was known even during the Red Revolution in Russia that human beings cannot be trusted to look out for others. That's why true Communism will never happen. Because until human nature evolves to the point where self isn't as important as others, it will not work. Ahh, the infamous "humans are inherently selfish" argument. I could give a detailed description about how capitalist society teaches people that it is natural to be selfish, but instead, I'll just give you one example of why it's not true (even I was surprised by this). A long time ago, some colonists in North America were studying the behaviour of the Sioux people. One of the things they tried to do was put a small group of Sioux Indians through a series of IQ tests. The colonists were astonished to discover that the Sioux could not understand why they weren't allowed to help each other figure out the answers to the questions. The concepts of selfishness and competition were totally alien to them. quote: I take the belief that you should get back what you put into the system. Exactly! That's what capitalism does not do. In fact, Marx wrote three volumes explaining how capitalism does not do exactly that. That's what the whole concept of Surplus Value is about. When you're a worker in a capitalist system, you never get back what you put in. If you did, then there would be no such thing as billion dollar profits. The capitalist mode of production is founded on the idea that workers perform all of the labour, the owner of the means of production gets all of the profit, and gives back as little as possible to the workers in order to keep them at the same location. The key to this entire issue is that labour generates value. This is not a concept that's exclusive to Socialism, nor did it originate from Marx. It was written by one of the pioneering capitalist economists, Adam Smith, so it's ironic that such an important piece of knowledge is totally ignored by today's so-called economists, who tend to view working people as commodities instead of human beings.

quote: The communist rhetoric probably came from lenin for Stalin, and same for Mao. Stalin wrote his own rhetoric, and so did Mao. They took Marxist principles and twisted them around. Stalin wrote about "Socialism in one country", which effectively contradicts with everything Marx wrote about the proletarian revolution. He also brought the entire country's industrial power under his control and started using it to compete with businesses in the West instead of supporting the struggle of workers. In other words, state capitalism. Mao adopted communism as a platform because the ideology was the exact opposite of Jiang's pro-capitalist position, but in reality, Mao was an authoritarian nationalist who wanted to expel Jiang Kaishek and the string-pulling "foreign devils" from China (given the circumstances, I can't say I blame him). China is also state capitalist. quote: That's what communism has been defined by, not to mention Pol Pot, the NVA, etc. I don't know much about Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge, but from what I've heard, he was a total nutcase who wanted to restart the calendar, literally (not sure about this, but I think it was Pol Pot who started the whole "Year Zero" thing). quote: Find me a good example of communism NOT on a local but national level. If you're looking for examples of economic success, it's not gonna happen. Socialist nations cannot prosper in a capitalist world because they're not geared for competition, just as a capitalist nation would not prosper in a socialist world because the workers in that country could find better jobs with much better pay elsewhere. If you're looking for examples of communist countries that did not use violence against its own people, the best example would be Chile between 1970 and 1973 when Allende was in power. In fact, Allende was the first (and probably the only) Marxist who became the leader of a nation by electoral means. It's very ironic that the freedom-loving USA supported Pinochet's coup against a democratically elected government, and continued supporting him afterwards despite the increasing violence against the Chileans. [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

If I sounded grumpy in my previous post, I apologize. I've just spent four hours handing out leaflets and trying to talk people into voting at a student election campaign. It was the first time I'd done something like this, so I was inexperienced, thus I was figuratively mowed down by two gangs of right wing parties, both of which are led by two groups of people. One group rorts the budget and spends it on parties at the pub, the other group doesn't show up for work.

quote: "Understand, too, that there's no such thing as a "liberal". It's a word socialists use to evade being properly identified. And no wonder: socialism is nothing more than a cheap attempt, philosophically and politically, to justify rape, robbery, and murder on a scale Attila the Hun never dreamed of. That statement is total rubbish. Here's why: 1. Liberals are anti-socialist. 2. Liberals are pro-capitalist. 3. The US constitution was written by Liberals. 4. Liberalism is a cheap attempt to justify poverty, division of human beings into classes, and war. 5. Liberalism is the foundation of capitalist propaganda. 6. Both of America's major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are liberals. 7. Stalin and Mao (the ones who ordered most of the murder in the name of socialism) were not socialist: they were despots who used communist rhetoric to make them look different from the fascist dictators they were fighting against (Stalin vs Hitler, Mao vs Jiang). Try looking up the word Liberalism in a dictionary.

quote: As for being Marxist, you could always follow the path of Karl Marx himself and declare "I am not a Marxist!" What are you talking about? Since when did Marx declare that he wasn't Marxist? By the way, I'm not sure what I am at the moment. Marxists are only one group of Socialists. Others include the Leninists, the Trotskyites (sp?), and the reform-oriented Socialists (Social Democrats). Despite popular belief, Social Democrats are not the same as Social Capitalists. Social Democrats believe in the parliamentary reform of Capitalism into something resembling Socialism. Social Capitalists, aka Keynesians, believe in keeping Capitalism, but with some level of state intervention to help the poor. [ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: Ghandi said - "an eye for an eye can only make you blind". I believe the actual quote is "An eye for an eye only makes the world go blind." quote: I have to tell you something about human rights. It's a great concept but sometimes it gets twisted and confused. Here is a simple definition. All human beings, no matter what their race, religion, political beliefs, legal status etc., have fundamental rights. quote: Police can't do their job because if they arest too many people of a certain race then they get investigated (what if they patrol an area that is predominatly of a certain race, will they not arest people of that race?) For example Sacramento has a population that is almoust 80% Russian, do you hear complaints that mostly Russian people get arested there? I don't know of any present investigations regarding disproportionate arrests based on race, at least here in Australia, but there are a lot of investigations regarding disproportionate deaths in custody. For example, in the Northern Territory, a disturbingly high percentage of deceased in custody are Australian Aborigines. Considering that the Aboriginal population is less than 1 percent of the entire national population, it's no wonder that many people smell a rat. quote: Also what about the lawsuits that criminals can file against the police for using excessive force, it might work if they were arested and found innocent, but what if you were arested and found guilty? You still have the right to file a lawsuit for excesive use of force. Guilt does not make human beings less human. quote: in my eyes you give up your human rights and freedom when you decide to do something illegal and should not have any rights, an animal should have more rights then criminal and convicts do. There are big differences between human rights and civil rights. When someone breaks the law, some or all of their civil rights can be taken away, but human rights must always remain intact. No exceptions.

Guess who! quote: The Communists here at home (the anti-war protestors were, by accident or design - Marxist in their anti-war rhetoric) Prevented us from bringing our full weight to bear. I think the biggest obstacle to 'bringing full weight to bear' was not the protests, it was that the South Vietnamese didn't support the war effort with any conviction, especially after Diem was overthrown. quote: The NVA knew they couldn't defeat us in a land battle, and relied on their "allies" in the united states to push public opinion into ending the war. Are you sure that the change in public opinion had nothing to do with a) Persistent failure after 8 years of attrition, or Conscription, or c) that there was no end in sight, or d) all of the above? quote: In this war, our enemies domestically are already showing their heads in the form of peacenics, who see the United States as the Agressor and the Enemy of Freedom instead of the Defender and Promoter of Freedom. Their HATE AMERICA rhetoric will be what comes into play in a drawn out conflict, though this is different with no bogey man and a clear enemy who has attacked us. Those pushing for peace are either themselves anti-american, or influenced by anti-american marxist college professors. You've been reading too many of my old posts.

All's forgiven.

Hehe. I've seen "The $20,000 Zig" (All your Smurf) before. I didn't get the joke at first because I wasn't familiar with the pyramid game show. Anyway, here is Mr T vs CATS.

Seen it before. In my opinion, the only AYB spin-off that's really funny is "Mr T vs CATS". The rest of the imitators are mostly lame.

*Nick spends half an hour calming down* *Nick spends half an hour staring at a blank message field, and calming down some more* I have looked at SC's evidence. To say the least, it disturbs me. If I wasn't the suspect and I read those findings, I would be suspicious too. That's why I'm not cussing at the SC. I am confused by the IP logs and how or why they make me look more suspicious. I don't know how IP logging works, but as far as I know, none of those numbers match my IP address. According to GRC's IP Agent, my address is (203.164.198.240). If SC believes that it's necessary, I can call Optus@Home Tech Support and follow up on those IP addresses. I will also be on ICQ for a little while, so if Aramike, Gallion et al want to question me, they can.

quote: The guy in the EB store in my local mall already knows I wont let his sister go until he gets me a copy. Which makes it hard, she's hot.. but so is BC:M... dammit SC, you've gotten me into my first midlife crisis! Don't worry Tac. As soon as she sees your BCM she won't want to leave.

quote: this is crazy. SC says which he likes the most and we get 300 variations of the same thing in hopes to steal away the free autographed game from Luc. I don't care about the free game, I just wanna be the one who nailed the genre.

Happy Happy Birthday!

Welcome to the real nightmare.

quote:I am disapointed and a little confused by the posts of some of the vets here. I see posts saying that some of you will only be able to get their copy of the game on a second run. That would be understandable for a newbie that was kinda caught off guard by when the game will be released and didn't have time to pre-order for the first production run, but for a veteran who knew about the game way back when and had almoust 6 months or more to pre-order that's just wrong. I can't speak for every veteran here (I don't think they'd want me to anyway ) but here's my explanation. Yes, I have known about BCM for a while, but I didn't pre-order because I feel uneasy about ordering anything online or even by mail. I have only ordered a game online once, which was Independence War through Chips & Bits. It was supposed to arrive two to three weeks after I sent my money. It took six weeks for the game to arrive. Considering that C&B (and just about every other store) has a time limit after purchase for returns I was very annoyed. There's also the issue of exchange rates. The Australian dollar is performing very poorly at the moment (the last time I checked, it was 50 US cents). That means that if I pre-order the game now, I'll have to pay approximately $108! In any case, with the new forum rules, I'm probably going to pre-order soon. I just need to ask BMT Micro if they accept debit cards or bank keycards (I have no intention of ever getting a credit card).

Ep5, your outpost is totally brilliant! Keep it up. I can't wait to list it in the Directory. Jerold, please don't put ISS recruitment signs on my office wall. I'm an Insurgent, remember? Besides, we get very few visitors, and just about all of them are already in fleets or UCV organizations. Speaking of Insurgents, I did some cleaning up at my base. Got rid of Comtrack and the Engineering section (wasn't happy with them). They'll be back in another form some time in the future. Ep5, what's the next issue of CVNN gonna be about?

My final score: 67,500 I'm bored now. Anybody know where I can find a "Shoot John Howard" game? I'm also looking for a "Shoot Phillip Ruddock" game. [ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]