Communism or Capitalism

I agree such wide a gap between the poor and rich is an injustice against humanity. However communism is not the answer.

Capitalism is the cancer. Socialism is the cure.

That's if you believe the Labor theory of value, which no one other than communists truly believe.

Ricardo wasn't a Communist was he? 

If Paris Hilton didn't steal that money from those starving people, we have no right to guillotine her and take her money like you seem to advocate.

I don't advocate killing Paris Hilton. I advocate that she should work like anyone else, and her dog should not be treated better than poor black children. You are the one who says everyone deserves what they get, just like the Nazis did; i.e. the poor deserve death, Hilton deserves what she has.  

You told us before that you think it is good for the society that the poor starve. This way the incompetent are weeded out, and useful and successful members of the society like Paris Hilton and their dogs can live a better life. You think that this is the law of the nature, and we should not help the poor, by taking from the rich. Government should not redistribute the wealth, right? This will penaltise the whole society, right?

Well, I wonder what do you think about the disabled? Do you agree with the Nazis on this issue as well? Shall we gas them for the benefit of the society and the economy? They are weak anyway, only the fittest should survive, right? 

Isn't it also odd how so many of the three billion poorest people live in Communist or ex-communist countries, like Mozambique, Mali, and Ethiopia.

None of those were Communist. But all of those were colonies. Africa was destroyed by capitalism. I know of two (once) left wing states in sub-saharan Africa. Angola and Tanzania. I don't know about Angola except that it had American and its Nazi ally (South Africa)-sponsored civil war, but Tanzania had higher literacy rate and better child survival rate than Turkey in 1990. One billion people live in India, and there is only one state which has more than 80% literacy rate among women and it's Kerala, the ex-Communist state. We know how Cuba compares to Haiti. We know how the USSR compares to Russia. Or Bulgaria in 1990 to Turkey in 1990. Etc., etc.

Anyway, isn't it odd that ALL of those three billions live in post colonial capitalist states? What is your explanation for this? Are they poor because they are stupid lazy niggers? Surely not being Communist is the reason? Whole the f**king world is Capitalist now? Most African countries are more capitalist than the US...

Since the end of the Cold War, the winning side.

History of mankind is history of class war. And history of mankind is long, and it isn't over yet, no matter what neocon wankers think.

Leninism is only one form of Socialism. It might have lost the cold war,  but the left is far from being defeated. Have you noticed changes in South America recently? Imperialist grip on the world is weakening. Environment is falling apart. If the all humans of the world used as much resources as an American, we would need THREE to FOUR planets today. And billions of Chinese and Indians are trying to become Americans...

In short, your world is unsustainable. It has already started falling apart. The symptoms are there from Katrina to Iraq. Your end is coming as well. Maybe the future will be socialist, maybe it won't be. But sure as hell it won't be capitalist. 

500 billionaires in this world have as much money as three billion poorest people, half the f**king world

I agree such wide a gap between the poor and rich is an injustice against humanity. However communism is not the answer.

Communisms official ideoligy conflicts with human nature.

It�s against hierarchy and materialistic hierarchy. Hierarchy is a huge element in society. When you�re a tiny tot you will inevitably notice that your parents and older siblings have access to certain tangible goods, which you are not allowed. You also notice that daddy and mummy can order you around. You immediately make a link between power and materialism. And that material objects often contain status symbolism. Communism curtails your ability to expand your material arsenal. If the neighbour next door to you has the same amount of goods as you then who has higher status. Him/She or you? Since communist countries can�t stop their baby criticizes from experiencing this they end up implanting this link between material wealth and status. When the baby grows up to be an adult the link is still there but now you cant have any more then anyone else. Now, because the link is still apparent those communist citizens who achieve government office cant help becoming corrupt. Communism is like an apple with  a worm inside that slowly eats its way down to the core.

im glad you replied Genghis i thought you forgot.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas If its all about the money, then yes you would see this as a problem. It's not about the money, it's about fairness and liberty.  A person has the natural right to all the fruits of his labors.

not of fruits of others though. liberty is a word that can also be aplied to not having to make money for others, it means different things to different people. Fairness should begin at birth.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas A very relevant communist critque of our system, is the alienation of the worker from his job. Does earning (and spending) squillions provide the answer? And don't you see more productivity in capitalist societies?

We are great consumers, not producers. Termites. Dont mistake Consumerism as productivity, the only way you can feed this is to access and control cheap resources, while using third world 'cheap and hungry' countries to become production lines (and potential, converts to consumerism). Perpetuating imperialism in one form or another because we cannot produce what we want at home, thats what we are good at.

Its not like western factories (if there is any left) can produce more than a 'communist' chinese factory.

Originally posted by Genghis I'd say that argument is totally wrong, how could someone be alienated from what provides his lifestyle?  That's one of the surest ways to make someone care intimately about something.  Haven't you ever had a side job to earn some money, even though you hated it?

How many people love their jobs? The fact people work to feed their lifestyles, is alienating them from their job. Do you work becuase you really want to work (an ends in itself) or do you work becuase its a means to another ends? (lifestyle , consumerism)

Originally posted by Genghis Haven't you ever had a side job to earn some money, even though you hated it?

Yes thats arguing that we are alienated to a point right? I had to clean dishes (a dish pig)and jump on trash for a minum wage. Rather do something because i want to, not because I have to.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas Well the morals depend on what you deem more important, the individual or the community. No.  It's a matter of rights.  A man has the right to own the property he has earned through lawful means without fear of it being appropriated by a government that thinks it knows better than its citizens on what to do with their wealth.

well your focus is on the individual, individual rights takes precedence over collective/social rights. There is no right answer here but you are living in the right country (for such a right wing point of view) which is good for you. Right?

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas its simply isnt your money if it was deemed to be unethical in your hands. How is my keeping money that I earned unethical, so long as I don't spend it on unethical things like illegal drugs and prostitutes, etc?

ethics and rights are a very grey area. Your thinking in terms of "I" and  "me" vs everyone else and I think in terms of me and my community being two things that are completly interdependant. Hence why our veiws on 'rights' are different, though not juxtaposed.

People that get rich in america (and any other country) should also thank that country for giving them the opportunity. Its not all about "me".

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas Social relativity is the key thrust of my logic. The right of all people to own property and keep it without fear of a government like the one you're advocating someday taking it away from them is the thrust of mine.

Yes but i never argued against that right of property. Its the ownership that makes people care and work, a very important positive of our society. But i also advocate a reasonable wealth gap which would put in healthy checks and balances .

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas Anyway whats wrong with just having one ferrari instead of 4? If someone purchased four Ferraris I would say they were an idiot who was wasting their money, but I wouldn't call them unethical.  If they earned their money or had it freely given to them by family or friends, the government or anybody else for that matter has no right to limit what they can do with it, as long as it's not used for illegal activities.  You have no right at all to tell me how I can spend my money.

Humans are quite simple, being number one is the most important part (its not about unlimited wealth), and if you can do it owning one sports car why need two?

If you have the biggest house in the street your number one in you own world, you dont need to own the rest of the street to be number one. Im saying stop at the biggest house part, your saying well "I" have rights and if that means owning everyone's else house for "MY" rights sake than tough. Your ok with the idea that you can be soo much richer no matter what happens everyone in your street cannot have the capital (you have most of it) to own a house, they have to pay you rent (more capital you dont need). Collective rights are ignored for your rights, hec they are not even conceived or understood. To me thats when a right becomes an abuse of another.

There has to be a balance between your rights with the collective right and to aim for the best cohesion and balance between the two, not just fundamental individualism.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas all you lose is the right to have unlimited consumerism (and wealth accumulation). And thus you become a slave of a system that can dictate to its citizens how they conduct their own lives.

Its niave to think your not a slave now. Whatever system your in, your never free Genghis. I think consumerism and its side kick debt has done a better job in binding you to a 'system', and the most ironic (yet devilish) thing is that you think you embrace it freely. If you dont think your a slave how can you rebel?

In my world, you have the right to be a winner and keep the responsibilty of being a loser, nothing changes but the klipping of the wings of consumerism and its side kick.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas If your really good at what you do, the honour of being popular  or the best and also living relatively better and wealthier should be enough. It should be, but the government has no right to say it needs to be.

Governments can and do have those rights. Its a mind set, you live in country where the individual (and the individual rights) is fundamental and over and above the group right. Believe it or not that can be considered by others as fundamentalist. Its extreme position, when you see a flock of birds you see individuals, a communist only sees a flock, and i see individuals within a flock. You cant have one without the other.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas Otherwise take a look in a mirror and ask why your not happy. I'd like to ask you why you're so threatened by other people having more than you?  I find that a very shallow and materialistic stance.  I don't find people who are wealthier than me to morally inferior as you seem to think, and I don't find their wealth threatening.  I know that there are more things that add value to my life than wealth and that many people who are wealthier than me live much worse lives, and that a person with less can live a better one.  One thing that is more important than wealth is the right of a man to keep what he earns without others taking it from him using some twisted logic which makes him a criminal for being more successful than others.

your read me wrong and i find it curoius you think im materialistic. honour and human relations are more important to me than money, ive chosen a bumpier career path (and less money) for my own dignity thanks. I didnt say wealth is immoral, but its pursuit as an ends is hollow. Success is not a wealth thing, its being good at what you do, being relatively well off and having a good family//love life what more can you want? If your not happy with that, then you would have deeper issues to address (ok thats my value judgment).

In short wealth (or consumerism) doesnt make you happy alone, but what else does your world offer Genghis?

Edited by Leonidas

Originally posted by Genghis The right of all people to own property and keep it without fear of a government like the one you're advocating someday taking it away from them is the thrust of mine.

However you also have the right to an education, the right to cheap health care, the right to an equal opportunity and the right to services. Unless you have a particularly cunning government (eg Singapore) it is impossible to have both, the government must take your money and property (usually in the form of taxes) to provide the other rights.
I am more concerned with the ability for all people to have an equal start. This means I am against all elitist private schools and similar organisations which provide an 'advantage' to those who have been born to wealthy families.

I say: Better Red than Dead. But still, for all of you to know, I'm no communist. I believe in some kind of market socialism that is more or less liberal though.

 

Communism and Capitalism is not two different sides of the coin if you ask me. They can co-exist perfectly, just look at China. At least I consider China to be a sub-communist proto-capitalist semi-dictatorship. They have an open market and so on and so forth.

 

Ok, back to the question.

If I had to choose between extreme communism or extreme capitalism, well then I would rather shoot my self in the head than having to endure the horrors and bullsh*t of these two utopic systems (that allways seem to transform in to hell, due to the human factor).

The humane and democratic ideas & values of the ideology allways seem to surrender to coruption and megalomania when money & power are at grasp (or allready achieved). Both of these systems will become cold, harsh and inhumane when practised at a grand scale, because none of them seem to work in the end. People like power, money and luxury whatever the cost. It doesn't mater if the losers of the system is the own people or some poor suckers on the other side of the planet... Because in the eyes of the Big Boss these are not real people; they are just faceless statistics & resources (or lack of it) to make profit on. Nice ey? 

The evils of communism is direct and easy to recognize, while the evils of capitalism is harder to pinpoint because of the seemingly non-physical damage it brings; "It's all economical, no people got hurt" Anonymous and therefor innocent?...yeah, right... (money makes the world go round. Corection: the ones without the money made/makes the world go around for the ones who already got the money.)

For me it doesn't mater if a supercriminal maim everyone who doesn't agree with him/her... or if he abuse and sh*t on the poor people/nations of the world to get rich and successful. Same caca, different nombre.

Mahalo!

Edited by Lilleman

If i didn't see anything unclearly, i could swear, pledge an oath even, that....... that there was a poster for the "rights of the gays of Iran". Was i dreaming, or was that really true?

Yea, the entire street from Big Ben going to Trafalgar square was blocked for traffic. That was probably the reason i waited for half an hour the bus that never came. I was really in awe to see such a mass of protesters in one spot, a totally different protest culture there.

You were there? I don't know, a new guy gave me my poster back from behind their stand after i had given it for holding to have a visit in the museum. Maybe it was you. I kinda remember your face from the "My picture" thread here, but hardly well enough.

But in the end whatever good you think up about the Soviet Union, and however much you idealize it and oppose it to the evil of the West, you have to think about one thing: 2.7 million Germans fled the "socialist" Soviet Union haven in a mere 12 years from 1949-1961, and the West never had to shoot people trying to cross "the Wall". The West never had to capture its people from the forests of Austria, trying to flee to the east, that was always the job for the commies whose "free socialist workers" fled this haven. This is no porpaganda of the West, this is the hard reality of a repressive regime and it is overwhelmed by facts. The people had spoken, some got led in their belly for that.

You can wish to live under communism, i have no resentment for that, but don't talk about the Soviet Union in the same context, they don't match up.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Leonidas making sure that you cant get tooo rich So, when I'm an engineer and say I develop something really useful, you're going to tell me I can't make too much money off of it?

The first question should be on why you developed something really well. Some people do it becase they want to do their best, thats their character and talent. Its the same as asking (before sponsership) why do athletes compete? If its all about the money, then yes you would see this as a problem.

 A very relevant communist critque of our system, is the alienation of the worker from his job. Does earning (and spending) squillions provide the answer?

Originally posted by Genghis If you make your money legally, then no one has the right to say you're too rich.  How can you morally justify taking my money because I happened to be a shrewd investor or a gifted designer.

Well the morals depend on what you deem more important, the individual or the community. If you look at it as just a choice between the two then your looking at this in a confined (and most likely a extreme) way. Thats why I state that more communist type (by this i mean egalitarian) values should be in the laws. Its called balance, its simply isnt your money if it was deemed to be unethical in your hands.

 I would say depending on the overall wealth of the community your in, you shouldnt have X amount more. Social relativity is the key thrust of my logic. If you want to be better off and already better of than everyone else, then it would be in your interest that the community is also better off.

Anyway whats wrong with just having one ferrari instead of 4? If you the best or luckiest in your community your still the richest. This is the most important thing you keep, all you lose is the right to have unlimited consumerism (and wealth accumulation).

how can you morally justify unlimited consumerism and wealth accumulation?

Originally posted by Genghis Or what if I'm a musician and I become incredibly popular?  How would taking my money be justified?  Some of the greatest crimes this century have been committed using the rationale "some people have too much money".

Yeah but most crimes are done in making sure those at the top stay there. If your really good at what you do, the honour of being popular  or the best and also living relatively better and wealthier should be enough.

Otherwise take a look in a mirror and ask why your not happy.


Edited by Leonidas