Communism or Capitalism

You all have been saying that ever since Marx's time, and it still hasn't happened, and capitalism has laid you low.  Even in the already poor countries that are becoming leftist, it's no problem, the power of the capitalist states is not worth crushing little bugs like Morales, they'll just run their economies into the ground like they always do.  Leftism is a weak-minded system that just can't buckle up and it will always be crushed by capitalism in the end.

Your revolution is already a century late, Beylerbeyi.  When are you just going to admit that this planet always has and always will belong to us?

The context you're talking about in, the relationship between workers and industrialists, is.

Yes.  Keep in mind, Paris Hilton's father is the one that made the money, he is the fit one, he's just giving to his daughter, which is his right.

And yes, the weak do need to be left by the wayside, lest they drag down others.

Like in a herd of animals, if the weak are not eliminated, they penalize the whole herd.  What goes for animals, goes just as much for humans.

All three were.  Mali was under President Keita,  Mozambique was under FRELIMO, and Ethiopia was under the "Derg".

Hahaha. I didn't know that you had a sense of humour. 

Well, our species is 200 thousand years old. Class based society came around 10 thousand years ago, with agriculture, and cities.

So, we lived under Communism for 190 thousand years, no elite, no state, no private property. From 8000 BC to AD 1800s we were oppressed by Kings and Priests. For the last 200 years or so, we are ruled by the Capitalists, the Bourgeoisie, people who have money, who replaced the Kings and Priests.

Only a Capitalist, typically myopic, would call a rule of mere 200 years (and a tightly contested 200 years) 'the planet always has belonged to us'...

Of course, we know that you are an enemy of the people, so maybe you mean that you would have sided with the elite no matter when you lived.

Even in that case the world hadn't belonged to you, 95% of the time. 

Why not gas the disabled then? And the Jews? In animals groups get selected as well, not just individuals. If the Jews cannot defend themselves, they are not fit to live, are they? Just gas them and get their wealth for the rest of your society, like you used to do.

Well, capitalism wasn't very successful in remedying it, was it?

Russia and China are both capitalist countries. When Russia was Communist no one was poor there. They had the world's second highest GDP, and their pro-capita GDP with PPP was in excess of its value today, 15 years after, they still haven't caught up. 

China is a different matter, it was vast, and very poor, and at the mercy of imperialists.  

And North Korea is a poor, isolated state, ran by incompetent dictators.

By contrast, look at South America. Argentina used to be one of the richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century, in the top 5. Their economy was destroyed by IMF and capitalism. Examples are countless.

As I wrote above, all the world's poor live in Capitalist countries or countries which used to be colonies of the West.

If you think caveman times and the hand to mouth existence of prehistory was utopia, you are truly mad.

In a society where physical ability is so irrelevant compared to mental ability, how can someone in a wheelchair really be considered "unfit".  Look at Stephen Hawking.

I'm surprised you don't want to do that given how much you hate Israel.  Don't you wish Hitler had gotten the other third?

So North Koreans and Cubans aren't poor?  Don't bother responding.  I know what you're going to say "they were de facto colonies".  Go ahead and twist the facts to fit the conclusion.

Now really what do you suggest? i look up instead of at a wealthy man, do you kiss arse?
 

Our govern. just payed off its debt, may even lower taxes again this year, yet still has a proper universal public health system. You guys cant say any of that, but you do have cheap petrol and aircraft carriers.

In fact, all countries have mixed economy. US is not as capitalist as you'd think, and many communist countries were not that communist.

During the cold war, if you were in Soviet sphere your economy would be called socialist, if you were in American sphere, you were capitalist. It was a political label. Very different economies, from Hungarian to Soviet were called socialist, and from Singaporean to Swedish were called capitalist.

If you actually looked at the economies themselves, you'd see that Sweden and Finland were more socialist than some countries in the Soviet sphere, with government domination of all important sectors, full scale social security, and very just distribution on income. In any case, they were self declared social democrats, which, as many people forget nowadays due to liberals taking over the title, is a branch of Marxism. 

No wonder market fundamentalists like Genghis call those countries 'socialist', and try to downplay their success.

Same thing with Japan. It has one of the world's lowest GINI indexes, better than most ex-communist states. Its economy was nothing remotely like the neoliberal. Yet they try to sell it to us as a capitalist/free-market success story.

Yes. We have the imperialists and the colonised. Imperialists are rich because of imperialism, not because of capitalism. Colonised countries are poor, because they were colonised, whether they were capitalist or communist.

Capitalists compare USA to Cuba and say capitalism is better than communism. All I say is compare Cuba to Haiti, or Soviet Russia to Capitalist Russia.

I agree with you actually. I wouldn't call myself an Orhodox Marxist. Only when faced with fascists like Genghis I feel the need to defend Leninism. I agree that the teleology in Marx's teachings is crap, something left over from 19th century German romantic philosophy crap.

I don't know how socialist you are, though, because socialism is more than economy. Socialism is not intended to heal the West or anything remotely similar. No socialist ever claimed that. Toynbee and Huntington are not socialists. They are right wing.

Huntington is a dumb idealist who thinks the world system is based on culture. In fact it is based on economy, based on imperialistic lines of North/South. Culture is just soft power, which follows hard economical power.

It is also wrong to believe that people died in socialist countries because they didn't fit in someone utopian ideal. Philosophical idealists think that way, not materialists.

I am not saying that at all. I am just making fun of your lack of perspective. That 190000 year state of prehistoic anarchy, was not glorious indeed, but it wasn't capitalist either. Nor was the period between 8000 BC - 1800 AD. So your world is 200 years old. But you go claiming 'all your base belong to us'...

So they are to escape gassing because they have potential to be useful, rather than they are human beings. Then what about the mentally disabled, herr Genghis? It's ok gas those, right?

"In fact, all countries have mixed economy. US is not as capitalist as you'd think, and many communist countries were not that communist.

During the cold war, if you were in Soviet sphere your economy would be called socialist, if you were in American sphere, you were capitalist. It was a political label. Very different economies, from Hungarian to Soviet were called socialist, and from Singaporean to Swedish were called capitalist.

If you actually looked at the economies themselves, you'd see that Sweden and Finland were more socialist than some countries in the Soviet sphere, with government domination of all important sectors, full scale social security, and very just distribution on income. In any case, they were self declared social democrats, which, as many people forget nowadays due to liberals taking over the title, is a branch of Marxism. 

No wonder market fundamentalists like Genghis call those countries 'socialist', and try to downplay their success.

Same thing with Japan. It has one of the world's lowest GINI indexes, better than most ex-communist states. Its economy was nothing remotely like the neoliberal. Yet they try to sell it to us as a capitalist/free-market success story."

Well yes, if you look at it, Scandinavia and Finland where the person was most important as is now, were much more communist than the USSR with its satellite states in Europe. These were just areas where the Russians could work their imperial politics. If i had to choose between USA or Sweden to live in, i would answer Sweden before hearing the options.

The USSR just operated on romantic ideological ideals that had no relation to effective economic behavior, the examples lie across Eastern-Europe. But i still wonder why communism dies out already after the revolution, are communists all so radical that they lose the sane way, i can't get it, its so damn crazy.

yes those with relative more would be happier. Its a capitalist arguement, that you use agianst marxist. I would  really like to see that being refuted, rather than just dismissed.

What I am saying is that happiness and wealth are not the same thing, and more importantly, someone else's wealth doesn't affect my happiness.  I don't find other's wealth threatening.

 i look up instead of at a wealthy man, do you kiss arse?

I suggest you quit labelling people based on their wealth.

Hmm, the nordic counties and australia which have there own types of 'mixed economy' are not doin so bad.

Not doing bad and not doing your best are two different things.  Also observe how more capitalistic countries such as the USA, Japan, and Ireland have higher GDP-PPP per capita.

Capitalists compare USA to Cuba and say capitalism is better than communism. All I say is compare Cuba to Haiti, or Soviet Russia to Capitalist Russia.

We can also look at North Korea and South Korea, China before and after Mao.  Or you can compare Cuba to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, or Trinidad and Tobago.  Communists can only justify their systems by comparing them to the poorest capitalist countries whose poverty owes most to political instability and corruption which can occur in any system.

There were not the failures of centrally planned economies you try to advocate.  Throughout that time period the market was allowed to exist.  There has always been a market, since the first production of surpluses of goods.

Then what about the mentally disabled, herr Genghis? It's ok gas those, right?

I'll make this perfectly clear, it is a mistake to impede natural selection.  Gassing anyone is artificial selection.  I don't support gassing the mentally-handicapped, but on the same note, they deserve no help from society.

I don't agree with Genghis' social Darwinism, because in order to make sense one should assume that the preconditions of all people are the same, which is obviously not true, many people have gotten an advantage or disadvantage already upon birth.

That is true, and for that reason it is why I support things which aid the disadvantaged who have potential such as college grants.  What I support is allowing people a more or less equal starting point with an assurance of meritocratic promotion.  Keeping the incompetent from failing is not what I support.

Now I ask him what about the mentally disabled.

I'm not going to gas them, but I'm not going to waste money on them either, that could be better spent helping people get educations for the future benefit of society, or could just be left in the economy with lower taxes.  Any revenue spent the government should be considered an investment by society, and not an entitlement by individuals.  Government's should only invest money in those who will be useful, assist those who are useful, or to reward those who were formerly very useful good citizens like the elderly.

Genghis your belief that the way America operates close to how nature operates is very mistaken.

I never said that, I said capitalism in principle operates that way.

your claim that America will continue on ruling "the Planet"

Again, I'm talking about capitalism.

America has too many problems in her home to be even thinking about "ruling the planet" at this time.

We got gangs

We had the mafia and robber barons too. That argument that gangs prevent world power is nonsensical.

 we got ethinic "mini-states" that hate other "mini-states"

We've had that much worse in the past, think turn of the century.

 we got a horribly failing "social security" system

European countries have that even worse.

we got blacks in ghettos going nowhere

Yes, not like in the 1930's and 1960's when Blacks were incredibly successful.

Lets not even mention China's growing influency

They have far greater internal problems than we do.  Pollution, corruption, workers riots, etc.

the fact that the rest of the world hates us so much now.

The same thing happened in Vietnam, the rest of the world will bitch and moan but not do anything and forget about when we leave Iraq.  The mob is stupid and has a short memory.

Nope they don't because Europeans pay heavier taxes than us and at least the medical coverage for most are covered. The pensions for people like me and you provided we lead a middle class life, will go up in smoke unless you have a great porfolio or if half of your check goes into you 401k plan. What Europeans have a problem with is their aging population and lower birthrate and you can't blame them at that because they are thinking more ahead than we are.

Look at Germany, a quarter of their budget goes to paying off debts that were accrued to pay for their social system, which is slowing down their economic growth.  They've also been moving in a more liberal direction to get their house in order.

Far greater? Not really. Greater? Maybe for the moment?.

Have you read anything coming out of there? 

Here's a good Economist article about rising riots in China.

Here's a good excerpt from it:

According to Mr Zhou, there were some 74,000 protests last year, involving more than 3.7m people; up from 10,000 in 1994 and 58,000 in 2003. Sun Liping, a Chinese academic, has calculated that demonstrations involving more than 100 people occurred in 337 cities and 1,955 counties in the first 10 months of last year. This amounted to between 120 and 250 such protests daily in urban areas, and 90 to 160 in villages. These figures are likely to be conservative.

China however is not the point.  The point is you're making it that the United States is overflowing with unsolveable problems and then you brush over the idea that any country but the United States has equally or even more challenging problems.