Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: blitz on January 11, 2003, 08:41:41 AM
-
Capitalism has proven its superiority over socialism when it comes to economy, no doubt about it.
But how could something bad like socialism ever developp?
Because capitalism is the damn most awful thing in the world.
Just 1 example: Ever heard about 'Manchester Capitalism'?
Little children workin in factories together with their parents like slaves, 16 hours a day, diyin like flies because of horrible life and work conditions.
Was these conditions which inspired people like 'Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels' to wrote the 'Kommunistisches Manifest'.
They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc.
Yes, socialism/communism failed bigtime, costs millions of lives, in fact it will never work because it assumes that people are good and they aren't but it was born because capitalism was a pain in the arse.
Our life conditions have been pretty good in the last 60 years in the western world, not although their was so called socialism but because of it.
Western world needed to show their people that capitalism system is superior or they might would have switched to socialism.
Now socialism is dead and there's no need to still be good or fair for our economic system.
I expect nothin good in the future. This diddlyin system will destroy all we love because there's only 1 value that counts within it.
Morality? Friendship? Peace? Nature? Solidarity? Humanity?
You know it! MONEY
Capitalism will destroy democracy, in fact, big companies dictates politicions already what to do.
Don't know a solution myself but a social order build on money as the 'Holy Gral' won't work in the long terms.
Your thoughts?
Regards Blitz
-
My thought is... is your flamesuit ready? :D :D :D
-
. I am reasonably certain that at some point in the future 'political' countries will cease to exist, and they will be replaced by 'countries' that are in fact corporate entities.
It really is fascinating, thinking about the future, since it is (well duh) the future, and almost anything can happen.
To some extent its already starting to happen, our (the U.S.) government represents more a collection of corporate interests than any representation of private individuals.
I do see the U.S. going to war over in Iraq, and probably occupying it for quite some time, allowing American oil companies to get entrenched over there and installing a puppet government that is quite happy to have 75% of the country owned by American oil companies, as long as it can have whatever dregs of power are left over after the corporations get done.
-
Unrestrained Capitalism is just as bad a unrestrained Communism.
There is a happy balance somewhere in the middle.
-
yep, thrawn.
on almost all political issues the best course is usually somewhere near the middle. the problem is that most of your 'middle of the road' moderate types are too busy earning a living to do the political thing.
when the media goes and looks for quotes on issues the find the wackos out on the fringe at either end and interview them. that way they can say they are unbiased and have represented both sides of an issue.
extream idiots have taken over both political partys.
-
Uhhhm...
Karl Marx was able to write his book because he lived with and was taken care of finiancially by a waelthy factory owner's son, one Friedrich Engels - So not only was he wrong in his idiotic and destructive socioeconomic ideas he was certainly a hypocrite and quite possibly a homosexual....
-
government is evil.. the less you have of it the better. many people who's governments have raped them into poverty feel that the only way to survive is with.... more and stronger govenment... they are wrong. You cant tax yourself into prosperity. It would be nice if you could simply make all the bright and achievers slaves to work for the poor but it doesn't work that way.
lazs
-
Sorry Lazs, I disagree. Government is nescesary to protect people from other people. If we had no government regulations, we'd basically be living in one vast free for all. Could people survive? Absolutely. Would life be brutal and short? Absolutely.
I think in order for humanity to thrive, organization is nescesary. I don't think we are thriving right now. I think with one government (a world government), we could be expanding into space right now, possibly looking for other worlds to colonize. And I think if we get a world government (that is truly united, that it not one country ruling all the other countries... but no countries, just a world) we could probably get all this done in less than a century.
-
urchin.... you are not allowed to dissagree. There is a law.
less government is better... it will allways creep up so the best thing to do is to get rid of as much as possible. One world government would simply mean that they could concentrate on enslaving us more easily.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Uhhhm...
Karl Marx was able to write his book because he lived with and was taken care of finiancially by a waelthy factory owner's son, one Friedrich Engels - So not only was he wrong in his idiotic and destructive socioeconomic ideas he was certainly a hypocrite and quite possibly a homosexual....
That's right Gruen but what did that say?
These guys could have lean back, make career and amuse themselfes as most rich do but they just couldn't stand what they saw around.
Regards blitz
-
Unregulated capitalism is bad - the best case of this are monopolies which raise prices and limit quantities to maximize their profits.
However what blitz is saying is simply @(&*^% !!!!
Blitz here's something to make you feel better when you arent saving the world from capitalism by burning down a starbucks..
Enjoy Comrade! (http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/lyrics/political/SovNatlAnthem.wav)
-
Uhhhm it says that Marx and Engels were living off somebody elses money - that of Engel's hard working factory director father.... No wonder they they were so comfortable with a system that stole money from capable people...
They were hypocrites....
Hey Blitz if you hate capitalism sooo much and long for the glory days of the DDR I would be more than happy to take all your money and reduce you to poverty level, just e-mail me for an address where to send the check or I can setup a paypal account if that's better for you.. :)
-
WOW I did not see this first time through Blitz:
"They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc. "
diddly You squeak, go to hell you whoopeeed communist. Fools like you are responsible for all the hundred and more million people murdered by these degenerate power hungry savages.
Unbelivable!!!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
WOW I did not see this first time through Blitz:
"They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc. "
diddly You squeak, go to hell you whoopeeed communist. Fools like you are responsible for all the hundred and more million people murdered by these degenerate power hungry savages.
Unbelivable!!!!
Don't ya panic Gruen ; D
I'll stick with Winson Churchill
'Who isn't a communist at the age of 20 , has no heart.
Who still is a communist at 30 just has no brains '
Regards blitz
-
Nice response, Grunherz. Logical, reasonable and well-founded with reliable sources. One of your best yet.
Blitz - I agree pretty much 100%. Sadly, I don't think politics for the people will survive another 100 years. Multi-national corporations will be buying some of the smaller third world countries pretty soon. After all, their profits alone eclipse their GDP even now. Imagine the 'progress' by the 22nd century.
Maybe someone will devise a different way of doing things.
-
Thanks Dowding!
As for Engels finiacially supporting Marx and him being the son of a wealthy industralist thats all common knowlege... So whats your point?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thanks Dowding!
As for Engels finiacially supporting Marx and him being the son of a wealthy industralist thats all common knowlege... So whats your point?
Heh, Gruen , ya didn't answer my question.
Why did Karl Marx + Friedrich Engels go opposite direction then all of their friends + family?
They dont have anything to win out there with the weak and the poor, dont they?
Why did Che Guevara left Kuba after they won and he was finacial minister?
Was Guevara wrong when he goes to bolivia?
What's the situation now in bolivia, a long time after he was murdered?
Why Fidel Castro didn't go on with a career as a loyer + risk his life in a revolution, was he tired of life?
Regards Blitz
btw. I don't say i agree with politics in Kuba
-
You wrote:
"They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc. "
Yes you do agree with politics in Cuba.... You make it clear you are a communist and wish for their policies.
Che was a blodthirsty murderer and he went to Bolivia looking for trouble and trying to start a civil war that would have killed tens of thousands. He wasnt wanted there and there was no revolution there and nobody was itching for one- he was trying trying to fulfil his ego at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.
Today Bolivia is the poorest South American nation, it was back then too, no better or worse. There simply isnt much of econmy there whatsover capitalistic/socialistic whatever. If you argue it would have been better if Che got his communist revolution then you are supporter of communism and are threfore party to murder of over one hundred of million people.
Fidel Castro is aand always was a power hungry paranoid inhuman murdering dictator type. He wanted to run the country. But I bet you think he put thousands of people in torture prisons just because...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You wrote:
"They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc. "
Yes you do agree with politics in Cuba.... You make it clear you are a communist and wish for their policies.
Che was a blodthirsty murderer and he went to Bolivia looking for trouble and trying to start a civil war that would have killed tens of thousands. He wasnt wanted there and there was no revolution there and nobody was itching for one- he was trying trying to fulfil his ego at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.
Today Bolivia is the poorest South American nation, it was back then too, no better or worse. There simply isnt much of econmy there whatsover capitalistic/socialistic whatever. If you argue it would have been better if Che got his communist revolution then you are supporter of communism and are threfore party to murder of over one hundred of million people.
Fidel Castro is aand always was a power hungry paranoid inhuman murdering dictator type. He wanted to run the country. But I bet you think he put thousands of people in torture prisons just because...
Well Gruen, on most / all Middle/ South American countries you have capitalism as economy system as it was in the west 150 years ago.
Very few people are unbeleaveble rich + own 90% of the land, rest of the pple are unbeleaveble poor.
And this system is supported by the west because we got some benefit from it, ex. cheap coffee, wood + other stuff.
Ever heard of 'United Fruit Company'?
Ever heard of 'Cammillo Torres', a priest who changed the bible with the gun in south america because he came to the conclusion that it is the system that has to be changed?
Regards Blitz
btw. No idea which way a revolution in bolivia might had taken, might be worth then before, who knows, but would have been worth a try for those who didn't have much to loose and that are most in that part of the world.
-
The way I see it...capitalism is a load of crap. Look at it this way: A man can work his whole life for little pay, just to get by, while some other guy can sit on his butt and get money for free. Even though the first man contributed more to the economy and gov't, the second man is considered better because he has more money.
I hate that logic...I hate the fact rich people can get money for nothing and contribute very little, someone like me can work his arse off and get nowhere in the socail ladder. Do I want the same pay they get? No...what I want if for them to work for thier money. Earn that money like the rest of us. You ain't special cause you got more money that I do...
BTW...there's nothing wrong with communists...
-
Lazs, undoubtedly a system like the Russian or Chinese system is despicable. However, our system isn't any better. Over 'there' kids would be selected for different jobs based on some personality tests, and they'd be forced to do that job whether they like it or not. That is bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of that.
However, in our system people are looked at as nothing more than a way to generate income. A substantial portion of the population is basically imprisoned in run down ghettos where crime and poverty run rampant. Nobody gives a toejam about these people (and no, I'm not any better, I'm not running a 'save the black youth' movement, just holding them up as an example of why our system sucks). The next Einstein could be living in the East Side of Baltimore right now, and he will not get the chance to make any impact on this world at all. Unless he becomes a murderer or drug dealer (in which case he may have some slight impact on his victims families), or is murdered himself.
I mean, even something as basic as HEALTH CARE is 'for-profit' (euphimism for if I don't make any money off you, diddly off and die). Education? Also 'for profit'. Now, I don't think my retarded next door neighbor deserves a free college education, mostly because he wouldn't ever make use of it, and probably couldn't understand the courses anyway. But I do think that anyone that makes it through high school with a decent GPA (or perhaps even with a crappy GPA but high test scores, who knows) could make use of a college education- and perhaps benefit SOCIETY as a whole from it.
And Blitz... the South America of today is the "1st World" of tommorrow... economically speaking anyway. The disparity in income between your 'average' American and 'wealthy' Americans has been growing for the past 30 years. Something like 40% of Americans actually live below the 'poverty line', according to some statistics I saw a couple years ago. I'll try to look them up again and post them.
EDIT: Damn... either those statistics were way the hell off a couple years ago, or I misremembered something. This is from the "I.R.P."
"""The poverty rate represents an average over the entire population, and does not really tell us who, in particular, is well off, who is worse off. For that, it is necessary to examine poverty levels for particular groups. Most notably, blacks and Hispanics have poverty rates that greatly exceed the average. The poverty rate for all blacks and Hispanics remained near 30 percent during the 1980s and mid-1990s. Thereafter it began to fall. In 2000, the rate for blacks dropped to 22.1 percent and for Hispanics to 21.2 percent—the lowest rate for both groups since the United States began measuring poverty. In 2001, the rates were 22.7 for blacks and 21.4 for Hispanics. Among children under age 18, 16.3 percent, or 11.7 million children, lived in poverty. (See Table 1 and Table 2 and also the FAQ, How Many Children Are Poor?) The poverty rate for the aged, which in 1959 exceeded the overall poverty rate, fell below it beginning in 1982. In 2000 it was 10.2 percent. The poverty rate for whites who were not Hispanic was below the overall poverty rate from 1959 through 2001. In 2001 it was 7.8 percent.
Of all family groups, poverty is highest among those headed by single women ( Table 2), especially if they are black or Hispanic. In 2001, 26.4 percent of all female-headed families were poor, compared to 4.9 percent of families in which males were present. Among black and Hispanic families headed by women, poverty rates exceeded 35 percent.
Poverty levels also differ depending on where people live (See Table 1). The metropolitan poverty rate differs greatly between suburbs and the inner city. In 1979, the average central city poverty rate was 15.7 percent; at its highest point, in 1993, it was 21.5; by 2001 it was 16.5 percent, but was still over twice the rate for the suburbs (8.2 percent). Poverty in rural areas is not negligible either; in 2001, 14.2 percent of people living outside metropolitan areas (that is, in the countryside and small country towns), were poor.
The poverty rate also varies by region and within regions. In 2001 it was greatest in the South, at 13.5 percent, and lowest in the Midwest, at 9.4 percent. Over the years 1998–2000, the poverty rate was lowest in the state of Maryland (7.3 percent)—yet in the adjacent District of Columbia, it stood at 17.3 percent.
""
EDIT Part Duece: OK, some stuff on income disparity in the U.S.
This is from http://www.justpeace.org/structures/squeeze.htm (http://www.justpeace.org/structures/squeeze.htm)
From 1977 - 1989, the wealthiest 660,000 families gained 75% of "average pretax income" increases, while most middle income families saw only a 4% increase -- and those in the bottom 40% of income cohorts had real declines.
The average annual earnings of the top group increased from $315,000 to $560,000 in twelve years. In 1990, the median income was $29,934; in 1973, it was $30,943 (constant dollars). Women in the workforce have helped to forestall lifestyle crashes due to this stagnant growth (Newman Declining 40, 42).
During 1983 to 1992, the top 1% of households net worth increased from 34% to 42% of all household wealth; the bottom 80% dropped from 18% to 15% (the top 20% in 1989 controlled 85% of all household wealth). The only other comparable era of wealth concentration was 1922 to 1929 (12-13).
The ratio of the compensation of CEOs to the average worker in 1974 was 35 to 1; now it is 150 to 1. Using Council of Economic Advisors data, the article found that the real income of men with high school educations dropped 21% between 1979 and 1990 [MY NOTE: Capitalism in action, baby...]
The cost of medical care and household costs of medical care rose 50%, 1970 - 1990, in constant dollars [MY NOTE: More Capitalism in action]
-
Originally posted by Urchin
And Blitz... the South America of today is the "1st World" of tommorrow... economically speaking anyway. The disparity in income between your 'average' American and 'wealthy' Americans has been growing for the past 30 years. Something like 40% of Americans actually live below the 'poverty line', according to some statistics I saw a couple years ago. I'll try to look them up again and post them.
Rgr that urch, need to simplyfy at times ;)
What i really hate on capitalism - its leads to a very big ifference, rich-poor on long terms.
Germany was kind of levelled out , a few rich, a few poor, most was fairly middle- class, liked that. Now as DDR is history we see these gold diggers out there with this $sign in their eyes and everything goes south here.
Mooonnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee eeyyyyyyyy ;)
Rgards blitz
-
the main problem w/ capitalism occurs after the top dog outcompetes the other contenders. during the brawl for market share it works great, but eventually it leads to a monopoly situation
-
true laisefare capitalism is what works like in the old days of our forefathers, they wanted to keep govt small only protecting the basic rights of citizens..thats where capitalism works...government has grown since then steadily getting bigger and bigger like a snowball deciding what we can and cant do.. gov't dont make it better private organizations, business's and you the citizens make a better country. dosent everyone know by now if the government is involved with somthing it usually dosent work (only according to them it does and if it dosent we need more money(your money) to make it work) har har har they own you, you are all just livestock happily feeding them the money they need to keep you blissfully ignorant.
-
Well, Mirge.... I think Laisse Faire (or however the hell thats spelled) doesn't work at all.
In the 'days of our forefathers' (depending on how far back you go I suppose), there was no industry. There wasn't even really a 'society' in the terms that we think of nowadays. People lived in isolation, even large 'cities' would barely qualify as towns today.
When industry was introduced our 'forefathers' (the ones who weren't killed anyway) labored away working 16 hour days 6 days a week.. making no money. They bought all they needed at the 'company store' (and employees were sometimes even prohibited from buying supplies anywhere else, assuming that another source was even available) where the cost was happily put on their 'tab'. Their 'tab' was of course always higher than their earnings were, thus keeping them in bondage to the company. Children were employed at factories.. the younger the better since smaller children could fit into smaller spaces... and also didn't have to be paid as much.
Then laborers got organized. The unions fought the corporations and won some benefits. Workdays and workweeks were shortened, pay was increased. Now Labor's power has been broken (and will more than likely never rear it's head again, outside of 'professional' occupations such as pilots, law enforcement, etc.). The power of the corporation is back on the rise... courtesy of politicians bought and paid for by same.
Expect to see increasing work for decreasing pay.. in the name of our state religion.. Capitalism.
-
Blitz! Ahoy! It was fun meeting you at last years Eurocon! Hope you're making enough MONEY to come to the next one, as I'm looking forward to getting my hands inside that beer cooler of yours. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Blitz! Ahoy! It was fun meeting you at last years Eurocon! Hope you're making enough MONEY to come to the next one, as I'm looking forward to getting my hands inside that beer cooler of yours. :)
Ahoi Beetle, did a little search lately and it looks like con is in june this year.
http://pub36.ezboard.com/f322ndsqn1strofthenetherlandsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=43.topic
Lookin forward to meet ya, since then sittin next to the street beggin for some money from rich tourists or selling some 'Che' posters to them ;D
Regards blitz
-
this is what i mean by capitalism... laissez-faire capitalism.
A social system based on on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The governments only role in this is to protect you from any physical force brought upon you in which you have the right of self defence. low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism were alll the the national economics of the time could afford. capitalism didnt create povert it inherited it. compared the the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first change the poor had ever had to survive. As proof the enormous growth of the european population during the 19th century, a growth of over 300%,, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3% per century. ppl could actually survive off this new system called capitalism.. anyway i got most of this from ayn rands writings more specifically the lexicon. i didnt just pull it outta thin air.. there is still too much to say about it and itd be better if you read it from the book i mentioned this is just a snippit... and plz tell me where you get your viewpoint from... plz dont say the history books you read in HS.
-
I've formulated my views based on all kinds of reading I've done (in text books and otherwise),reading newspapers, and even a outside of class lecture or two while I was still in college. I majored in History (mostly in European and Asian History, with a smattering of U.S. History courses that were required), but I also took a number of political science classes. I also read the paper every day.. you'd be amazed at some of the stories you see in there.
"Capitalism" has been around since the Middle Ages. The fuedal lords of Europe realized they could make more money by clearing out a spot in the forest and building a town there. People would go to the town to live, since it was safer than living out on your own surrounded by forest. In this manner, the Lord provided protection to the people living on 'his' land. In return, the town generated revenue in the form of taxes (primarily on trade goods.. towns attracted merchants as well). This was money the Lord could use to pay troops, build castles, throw parties, whatever. The ushering in of a 'urban' rather than 'rural' way of life for the medieval Europeans usherd in capitalism.
Now, what we have now is slightly different. I call it "Robber Baron-ism". Yea, I know, it is a little unwieldy, but I just made it up on the spot. The goal isn't to merely make a living, but to exploit everyone else as far as you can. If we didn't have a government that was (occasionally, anyway) interested in the welfare of private citizens, we'd be slaves right now just as surely as the blacks were slaves to the plantation owners in the 19th Century.
Oh, I'll have to check on that '300%' growth rate for the 19th century, it sounds a little extreme to me. Same with the 3% for the previous centuries. Granted, the population of Europe did explode, but it was because of a revolution in farming (which started in, you guessed it, the Middle Ages) rather than the birth of industrialism that caused the population boom.
"low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism were alll the the national economics of the time could afford. capitalism didnt create povert it inherited it. compared the the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first change the poor had ever had to survive."
Sorry, I missed this going through the first time. Sure, I'll buy the first sentence. I don't believe it, but I won't contest it. I'll also buy the second sentence... I'm not contesting the fact that 'capitalism' generates wealth. That is a given. What I'm saying is that your typical American, or Dutchman, or Australian, or whatever, gets the toejam end of the stick as far as 'capitalism' goes.
And sure, the 'poor' have a chance to survive now. Are the urban poor of 2003 better off than the urban poor of 1823? Certainly. Are the urbanite wealthy doing better than they were before? Absolutely. What I have a problem with is that the urban poor are doing twice as well (made it up off the top of my head) and the wealthy are doing fourteen MILLION times as well (made that one up to, but you get the picture).
I won't contest the fact that "Capitalism" is a better system than "Fuedalism". That is a given. What I will contest is that Capitalism is the end all, be all of governmental/economic systems.
-
I perfer it to communism.
-
i have to agree current capitalism isnt really capitalism.. i guess it depends on your definition of it. Still alot more ppl benefit from this system(small business, entrprenuers) than any other and some take advantage mainly BIG business's but their just a small% that make the news and that paper you read :) hehe
....yep some amaz'n stories in the paper how bout that one about 4 terrorists that slipped into US across the canadian border later found out it was just hogwash, that would suck to be one of those guys lol.. still the paper is better than the news on tv but then again that also depends on the paper and the news channel but in general id like to think the paper is a better way to get honest news than the tv. ehh just make up a story about something outragious and they'll print it.. bigfoot, lockness, those guys that believe in ufo's that claim to have cloned a human, war on...(fill in the blank) second hand smoke kills, deathrow inmate found inicint after 15 yrs in jail, drugs are bad but not the ones in pharmacy's, the ozone is melting ahhhhh!!!
some are true, some arnt, some obvious and some with a twist with many other possabilities. its proven to be what the majority wants to read/hear. btw whats better than capitalism, aint it about time someone come up with a new ism to dethrone the big Cap that had so much potential but grew into an evil opressive monster mocking the commie bastards or is society too far down the road to go back to a new beginning. ill let ya sort out the bs my editor isnt here
-
I perfer it to communism.
I don't think you'll find anybody saying otherwise - but capitalism is not some pinacle of human social achievement like some people make it out to be. It is still too divisive, still too wasteful.
There has to be a better way. Forget about working out how to get nuclear fusion functional, someone devise a better system of doing things.
-
Originally posted by texace
The way I see it...capitalism is a load of crap. Look at it this way: A man can work his whole life for little pay, just to get by, while some other guy can sit on his butt and get money for free. Even though the first man contributed more to the economy and gov't, the second man is considered better because he has more money.
I hate that logic...I hate the fact rich people can get money for nothing and contribute very little, someone like me can work his arse off and get nowhere in the socail ladder. Do I want the same pay they get? No...what I want if for them to work for thier money. Earn that money like the rest of us. You ain't special cause you got more money that I do...
BTW...there's nothing wrong with communists...
How does somebody get money for free in capitalism???
What you described is communism where hard working and intelligent people are abused to support lazy and ignorant types who in fact get money for free in a communist system for doing nothing and contributing nothing.
Saying there is nothing wrong with communists is like saying there is nothing wrong with Nazis. You are incredibly ignorant texace, please please take some 20th century history classes and
also some economics.
-
Is this the real Grun?
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not really. The BBS type things and the internet in general are becoming just another forum for people to communicate and interact and be "with" other people. Its now no diffrent than talking to friends on the phone or writing letters to family or incresingly just hanging out with your internet buddies so to speak. Now of course there is a difference that people bring up, if you dont like it just go to next wepbage or leave alltogether but so can you do in real life, at the expense of giving up participation in that community. [/color=red]However doing that largely acts to condone the abusive behavior because its seen as an effective arguing tacitc, it ridicules people till they give in, give up or get out - and thats bad. You miss the point it's not about the game its about people.[/color][/B]
Or (9 days later) is this the real Grun?
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ 01-02-2003 05:10 PM
WOW I did not see this first time through Blitz:
"They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc. "
diddly You squeak, go to hell you whoopeeed communist. Fools like you are responsible for all the hundred and more million people murdered by these degenerate power hungry savages.[/u]
Unbelivable!!!!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I don't think you'll find anybody saying otherwise - but capitalism is not some pinacle of human social achievement like some people make it out to be. It is still too divisive, still too wasteful.
There has to be a better way. Forget about working out how to get nuclear fusion functional, someone devise a better system of doing things.
<leans over and takes a bite of chaw... "ain't nobody never found nuthin' better yet..." <spits a long brown stream into spitoon... "now as for Fusion, my cousin Jethro has a magnetic torus in the coop which shows some promise.."
-
Both Toad.... I really would like for us all to try and argue resonably.
But I really really hate communism, perhaps the only thing I truly hate in this world. I know it's somewhat irrational but thats how I feel. Moreover I have had plenty of intellectual arguments with them in real life and I have just given up on trying to help them - it's an incurable disease, they simply will never understand economics or human nature.
Its a contradiction for sure, but I'm human.
-
Originally posted by blitz
........Capitalism will destroy democracy, in fact, big companies dictates politicions already what to do.
Regards Blitz
is there a way to mix democracy with socialism?
-
Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add willl not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet. These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value - the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives - and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense defintion as measured in terms of use. R.A.H.
Capitalism may not be the best system.. but it's the best we got.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
is there a way to mix democracy with socialism?
You pay Social Secuirity taxes don't you Ike?
From each according to his work, to each according to his need? Isn't that SS? and in the same society as Microsoft, Enron, and Exxon...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But I really really hate communism, perhaps the only thing I truly hate in this world. I know it's somewhat irrational but thats how I feel. Moreover I have had plenty of intellectual arguments with them in real life and I have just given up on trying to help them - it's an incurable disease, they simply will never understand economics or human nature.
Its a contradiction for sure, but I'm human.
LOL!
You realize that a lot of people could substitute the "L" word you went on a 7 page rant about in the General Discussion for "communism" in this quote?
What would you say to them?
Can't have it both ways, Grun. Either your a "peace, love and understanding" guy or not.
-
I am very tolerant of most thing and ideas and i'm willing to be peace love and resonable when discussing them. However communism is not one of the things I have that policy with. I can have that hatred all to myself - its my business, its personal.
Toad you are just trying to argue something unrelated because you are pissed off at me or dont like me because of our past arguments. How bout you just stop that and contribute to this disccusion.
-
I am very tolerant of most thing and ideas and i'm willing to be peace love and resonable when discussing them.
This has to be the funniest thing I've read all year.
How bout you just stop that and contribute to this disccusion.
Whenever anyone criticizes Bush or his administation, you screech 'Deth to Amreeka' and spiel some unfunny parody.
Asking someone to 'stop that and contribute to the discussion' is pretty ironic, when it's coming from you. I hope you can see that.
-
I have my moments...
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Sorry Lazs, I disagree. Government is nescesary to protect people from other people. If we had no government regulations, we'd basically be living in one vast free for all. Could people survive? Absolutely. Would life be brutal and short? Absolutely.
Amen, Urchin. The amazing thing is that you are having to spell this out to a guy some 30 years your senior. :confused: I think you might just be the US equivalent of Dowding. ;)
But... I think less government is appropriate in the field of welfare/jobs. Better to allow people to earn more money (and to keep more) and decide their own destiny, than having a nanny state. Personally, I think Thatcherism rocks! and Norman Tebbit is one cool dude! :p Well, it worked for me. A lot of people came unstuck because there were no more cookies in the "jobs for life" cookie jar. People had been raised in a "dependency culture", in which they would automatically be provided for. Unfortunately, when socialism was abolished in Britain in 1979, there were a lot of early casualties caught in the transition. Now, the diddlying Labour "government" has decided that freelance consultants (as I once was) are "really employees of the client organisations" who we serve. (They conveniently overlook the fact that we have no paid holidays, no sickness benefit, no employee perks, and no pension) So no more being able to claim travelling expenses, hotel expenses against tax. And because of that decree, they make us pay National Insurance on everything. Employee AND Employer. For me, it equated to an overnight tax increase of around 20%. Well diddly that. I retired early. So whereas the Gov. would have made a good wedge from me (40% tax), I'm not going to pay 60% (plus Corporation Tax - forgot to mention that), so now from me they leave... with nothing. (said in Anne Robinson voice)
The whole point of Thatchers brand of capitalism as the antidote to socialism was to create the conditions in which people could flourish under their own steam. Under the Wilson/Callaghan Labour "government" of the 1970s, people were literally buggering off overseas to escape punitive taxation.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I am very tolerant of most thing and ideas and i'm willing to be peace love and resonable when discussing them. However communism is not one of the things I have that policy with. I can have that hatred all to myself - its my business, its personal.
I'll be saving this one, Grun. The next time you go on a rant about the "luftwhiners" you're going to see it a lot... with only one word changed. :D
You do know what they call a guy that says one thing but does another, right?
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Toad you are just trying to argue something unrelated because you are pissed off at me or dont like me because of our past arguments. How bout you just stop that and contribute to this disccusion.
No, I'm not arguing at all. I'm pointing out an obvious inconsistency in your BBS behavior to you. You had a snit fit in the General Discussion Forum over name calling, pleading how "not nice" it is and how damaging it is to the genteel posters.
Yet all along anyone that's read the board has seen you put up plenty of stuff in several different forums just like the vitriolic post above.
As Dowding said, it's pretty ironic and more folks than just Dowding hope you can see that.
I for one hope you can see that.
That's all. Continue.
-
Well Then I switch sides. :rolleyes: I pledge to be and continue to be an bellybutton just like the rest of you and do as I see fit and as it pleases me.
But if you really wanna bring that up go read what I said about my o'club attitude in the two big threads. I basically see it as place to bash heads as opposed my attitude in the general AH community forums. But be careful and dont that let get in the way of what you want to see and believe Toad...
Anyhow back to communism...
Does anyone know of another political system that has caused so much death and misery and injustice in recent history? The various facists, certainly another disasterous attempted 20th century political wonder idea, all put together and even including all casualties from WW2 from all sides arent even close in number of deaths. Anyone?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Snip
Does anyone know of another political system that has caused so much death and misery and injustice in recent history? The various facists, certainly another disasterous attempted 20th century political wonder idea, all put together and even including all casualties from WW2 from all sides arent even close in number of deaths. Anyone?
Snip
The Monarchy?
Englands World domination cost many wars and lives. That went on into the 20th century.
-
Not in so short a time, give communism that much time and it would not even be comparable.
-
I'm not so sure it is the political system itself that is to blame as much as it is the various despots that attempted to impose a misguided version of it onto on unwilling or unready population.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao Zedong... All of them attempted to impose their version of 'communism' on a society that wasn't even industrialized yet. Plus all of them (with the possible exception of Castro) were bloodthirsty lunatics. Or morons.. I think Mao was more of a moron than a bloodthirsty lunatic.
It seemed rather obvious to Marx & company that a society couldn't be ready for 'communism' until it had already been through industrialized capitalism. None of those countries had gotten there yet. Stalin industrialized his country with the blood of many millions of Russians, and look at what a mess that turned out to be. Pol Pot (and I don't know a whole helluva lot about Cambodia, so an expert can correct me if I'm wrong here) attempted to get RID off anything smacking of modernism and go back to a 'paradise' of agrarian culture. Mao... for chrissakes, he tried to 'industrialize' his country by making every village a foundry... and that sure turned out well. I really think Cuba could have turned out a lot better than it did had Castro and the U.S.A. not gotten into a 40 year pissing contest that is just now coming to an end.
Grun, I'm not sure if humans even CAN make a society where everyone is more or less equal, and nobody gets all the 'pie' to themselves. I'm not sure if it is possible. I don't think people have it in them. I honestly believe that, when you get right down to it, the 'foundation' of a person is greed, dishonesty, and base stupidity. However, I'm not sure yet if that is genetic or just learned.
-
Communism is unworkable when real life people are in the equation. So you try to take them out of the calculation. Do you think it's a coincidence that all those guys ended up eliminating millions of their own people to enforce their regimes?
-
I agree with most of you guys.
And GRUNHERZ, would you please stop that whining?
Do some job so your dad dont have to pay all you want :/
I mean, try to read something that you say...
And yes we know that communism dosnt never work right.
But something between democracy and communism MIGHT work.
-
That is what we have now Puudeli.
-
I can point to plenty of other regimes that aren't communist that do a decent job on their own people too. Iraq, Iran, quite a few countries in South and Central America.
You know what ties those regimes and 'murdering commie bastard' regimes together? A basic lack of human rights. It isn't the fact that the regime is 'communist'.. it is the fact that the regime doesn't value human life the way our "Christian" Western culture does. And I got news for ya bud... the corporations give two toejams about your life, or my life, or anyones elses life. If they can make a buck by working someone to death (and they won't be held liable for it).. they'll do it.
Why do you think companies move to Asia? Its a lot easier to exploit people over there than it is here. Of course, the solution is to make it easier to exploit American workers and all the companies will come back. I think a nice package where the company pays no land tax for 1,200 years and gets the factory constructed and land paid for with public money (read: taxes) is fair right? Especially considering all the EMPLOYEMENT it will bring to the area. Hell, one factory can pay minimum wage to thousands of people. Sounds life a good deal to me, how bout you? Actually hell, I thought better of it. Since we are trying to make it attractive for companies to move back to the U.S., lets abolish the minimum wage. What do you think would happen to wages then, Grun? You think the various corporations, out of the goodness of their little green hearts, would pay a wage a person could live off of? I think not, but then, I'm a pessimist.
-
And many feel its not working Fatty. Too much Government involvement in too many areas.
Canada is worse than the US by far. Too dang close to Communism as far as I'm concerned.
-
Oh I'd agree there. The concern I have is people thinking this is capitalism and picking something between this and pure socialism when we are a far, far cry from capitalism.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Anyhow back to communism...
Does anyone know of another political system that has caused so much death and misery and injustice in recent history? The various facists, certainly another disasterous attempted 20th century political wonder idea, all put together and even including all casualties from WW2 from all sides arent even close in number of deaths. Anyone? [/B]
Me :D
Does it really matter which of these 2 economical system costs more lives?
Fact is they both are responsible fr million and million of death.
Ever heard of 'Krupp', 'Thyssen', 'IG Farben' ?
Very large and mighty companies in Deutschland which sponsored Adolf Hitler from the beginning. not the only ones naturely.
They knew what they did, they wanted the war because of the profit they could make.
There's nothin better than a war for companies producing arms.
Martin Marieta and the other companies gettin benefit from the next iraque war just now sittin in their big chairs laughin their arse off, while young americans and the iraque people have to pay the bill.
Best was Iran /Iraque war where weapons was sold to both.
Capitalism needs to be controlled by the goverment or it can get outa controll easily.
But controlling very large companies while we read every day about 'Global Players' in the papers?
These companies are not dump, they are mighty and have great influence in politics. They have their very own targets and noone will stop them. Global payers are the hare and democracy is the
hegehog runnin behind them tryin to catch up.
Regards Blitz
btw. Marieta was just an example, ask 2000 little american farmers goin bankruppt every year how well this system works.
Its all about monopoly in the long terms.
-
Puudeli:
"But something between democracy and communism MIGHT work"
Yea just look at all those democratic communist regimes. So many people really want that.. You cannnot have communism and democracy, because in a very short time people become tired of it - if they can vote then they vote it out.
Urchin:
Name one significant communist regime that did not have incredibly oppresive human rights record. There were plenty of communist regimes so there are surely some you can find.
You simply dont get it do you? The nature of communism is against the human spirit. It wasnt a coincidence it was a disaster everywhere it went.
Oh yes the evil corporations, they are simply ruining everything. It would be so much better if they were all gone and free enterprise was gone and everything was gun by an enlightened central comitee with the peoples best intersets in mind. Oh yes that would be soo good.
But since I think you will object to my characterization of you here Urchin, why not enlighten us all and suggest an alternative to free enterprise and an individuals or a group of individuals right to own and operate a business - which is all your evil corporations are.
-
So the O'Club is your "special place" where you can do all the things you blasted other folks for doing? Because in your opinion it's OK to be an a** about some topics but not others?
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
is there a way to mix democracy with socialism?
That's what we had in various variants in the last 50 years in the west.
In Germany it was called 'Soziale Martwirtschaft' which means economics was based on capitalism but goverment tries to controll it a bit and helps poor/weak people.
System was abused by a lot of lazybones 'Faule Säcke :D ', but worked pretty well for the last 30 years in germany.
With communism quits and 'Globalisierung' of economics this is history.
See what's next.
Mr. Bush holds a speech in the street.
Talkin about his government brought 1 million new jobs.
One of his listeners in the crowd to his friend: "Hey, that's right, get four of them already " ;D
Regards Blitz
ps Talkin about WEST germany here
-
Basically I see o'club as a place where anything goes and is unregulated and a free for all. I like to go after the communists in here and the osama bin laden loving USA haters. Other people like to bash corpoartions and managers and gun owners and whatever..
I think it's important we should be civil in the other forums though because they are about the game and the game community specifically and HTC seems concerned with the negative conduct there as well. I want the attitude there to be netter and am willing to work to that end in the future.
You on the other hand seem to focus on the past and are apparently preparing for more negativity and insults to come.
-
Grun, I think Puudeli was a little confused. I believe he meant Capitalism and Communism.
And while we are on the subject of what is and what is not possible... is it not also impossible to have a capitalist society and a democratic society? In a decmocratic society 'power' is shared equally by anyone who can vote. In a capitalist society those with the money are those with the power. I think it should be blatantly obvious who has the power in the U.S.A.
And Grun.. I'm not nescesarily against corporations. As soon as I find one that pays their employees a living wage, and treats them with dignity, I'll be all for it. What I AM against is corporations buying politicans (and please don't tell me it doesn't happen) and subverting our political system for their own ends.
As far as a "communist" country that doesn't have an 'incredibly oppressive human rights record', well, I'll take a look for you. How do you define 'communist'? Are countries with a somewhat free enterprise system of economy but with some government run industries 'communist'? Or only dictatorships where the state runs everything? I also note the word 'significant' in your challenge... whats significant mean? Is there a population limit?
I suppose I could label your question the way you meant to ask it "Name one 'communist' regime in Russia or China that didn't have an incredibly oppressive human rights record". That better?
-
That's touching, Grun. But it's still saying one thing and doing another.
-
Communism cant work in a democratic process because people will reject it very quickly if given the chance. But no communist regime has had much of a democacy so they never get the chance, they just die in gulags or flee to america.. :D
Power? How many votes does a corporation have? None. Zip. Zero. People can vote however they want, why do leftists always assume people are ignorant or decieved and dont vote in their own interests and that "corporatios" deceive them? Is it any wonder communists then try to take all power away from people?
And I still dont see a single wholesome human rights oriented communist regime. How bout this just take that to mean anything you want and come up with a defensible case for your choice of the human rights communist democratic regime. OK?
Corporation:
Oracle
-
"Power? How many votes does a corporation have? None. Zip. Zero. "
Because corporations can't vote they have no power? That's pretty naive. Are you honesty saying that corporations have no power over politicians. Are you saying that politicians never bow to pressure from corporations. That they always have their constituents best interests at heart?
-
Of course there is that inflence, but I say again ultimately the evil corporation has no votes.
And if you dont like that influennce you have the option of voting that particular person out in the next election if enough people agree with you.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And if you dont like that influennce you have the option of voting that particular person out in the next election if enough people agree with you.
Sure, you can vote Republican, who are backed by big business. Or Democrat, who are slightly less backed by big business, yeah tons of choice.
So the majority of Americans don't bother to vote at all.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Of course there is that inflence, but I say again ultimately the evil corporation has no votes.
And if you dont like that influennce you have the option of voting that particular person out in the next election if enough people agree with you.
That's not like it works Gruen , your'e pretty funny :D
Pretty sure ya know Silvio Berlusconi from Italy.
At first he formed a large media imperium.
Then he jumped in politics controlling nearly everything l what people could read in the papers or seh on tv.
Now he's chief of italy government.
Yet, he begins to change the whole system to his needs.
That's a classic 1, hope italian democrats can fight him back
Regards Blitz
-
Toad.. I'm going to get a little bit nasty here even though I probably shouldn't.
What Grun seems to be trying to say is that he really enjoys 'dishing it out'... but it makes him cry when has to 'take it', so he really wishes people would stop making fun of him.
And Grun.. How about Marshal Tito's Yugoslavia? I did a very brief search on the Web... pulled this up.
"For the republics of Yugoslavia (1944-1992), Marshall Tito cultivated socialist fraternity and a unity that took precedence over ethnic differences. Tito was a considered a benevolent Father about whom rousing songs were composed and whose portrait still occupies a prominent place some homes and public buildings. Children honored him en masse every year on his birthday, May 25. A child was proud to make a small speech, hand him flowers, or present the ceremonial stafeta at the end of a relay race. This semblance of unity was maintained by sending dissidents to work camps or demoting them from positions of power.
Tito's death from cancer in May 1980 was a profound shock and provoked mourning throughout Yugoslavia. Many feared that without his presence unity could not be maintained. His coffin was placed on a train, which wound through the country, headed for an official state funeral in Belgrade. Huge crowds lined the tracks, carrying placards and singing songs that vowed to follow his path. Tito's burial was accompanied by a gun salute and the wailing of air-raid sirens.
Yugoslav brotherhood and unity dissolved quickly following Tito's death, as his "sons" vied for the position of the Father. An escalation of gruesome and violent acts by citizens against one another led to demands for the autonomy of republics and to a fracturing along ethnic lines. Bosnia became the central site of a multicultural dissolution, engineered by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. One of the most poignant symbols of this painful disintegration was the Croatian army's bombing of Bosnia's Mostar bridge, which brutally separated the city's Muslim and Croat populations. "
Granted, there is a mention of 'work camps'... but I suppose an examination of the United States penal system compared to some other countries would take up a whole other thread. However, it would seem that in Yugoslavia's case Marshal Tito's brand of 'communism' held the country together in spite of racial tensions that existed before the country was even formed, and exploded into open war during the 1990's.
Although I'm no politican or economist.. I'll tell you what MY 'utopia" would be. You would be absolutely allowed to own your own business, corporation, island.. whatever. However, in return ALL of your employees WOULD earn a living wage (I trust I don't have to explain what this is) and your business would be taxed in proportion to its earnings.
The 'living wage' thing would take some doing, since obviously teenagers that work don't HAVE to live on their own, so they wouldn't necesarily need a living wage. In an ideal world, teenagers wouldn't HAVE to work, they'd be free to concentrate on their schoolwork. You would be absolutely free to pay yourself a salary of 800 billion a year. However, you'd be paying some very heavy taxes on it.
Politicans would run on their own merits. There would be no 'fund-raising', and each candidate would get equal time and coverage on TV and in the newspapers.. not matter how whoopee stupid their platform is. Politicans would not make outrageous salaries, nor could t hey accept any gifts at all (even a whoopee puppy dog). They'd be SERVING the state... not serving themselves.
There would be free healthcare for everybody. There would be NO unemployment or food stamps, however, there WOULD be a guaranteed diddlying job for anyone who wanted one. And it'd be a job paying a living wage, since every job WOULD pay a living wage. If someone is physically or mentally unable to work (like, honestly diddlyed up, not just a slacker) then there would be a fund to provide them with money so they could live.
Although I haven't served in the military, I'd be in favor of mandatory military service after high school. Furthermore, that would be how you earn your right to vote. If you are a concientious objector, you can serve in a medical detachment.
I've gotta go eat dinner... chew on this for a while and I'll be back later.
-
Tito is a perfect case why communism doesnt work. The only reason that country survived was due to massive loans, which we never paid back, from the west and support from the east as well because both sides wanted us to like them. In 1948 Tito told Stalin to diddly off and we went netural even sided with the west. Did you all know that until the mid 1960s Yugoslavia had a mainly western airfoce with F84s and F86 etc. So our glorious socialism was only possible because the capitalist country was paying the bills to earn our favor. As for human rights Tito was a wonderful guy. Not only did he never kill or hurt anyone he never put members of my family into concentration camps and nobody died in his prisons and no dissidents were murdered - all was cheery..
Toad:
How so Toad? Have I been acting differently than I said after our big threads? That of being civil in other forums but not necccesarily so in o'club. I'm commited to being civil in the other forums in the future, are you?
Why is so hard for you to undrstand that I think we should act civily in the main community forums but have more freedom in the unregualted off topic forums that often feature heated poilitical debate and off the wall bizzare topics.
Urchin:
I think in the main forums we should act in a civil manner, and I am willing to do that. In here in the o'club we can go at it attack and be attacked. I have no probnlem with that wheter i'm attacking or being attacked and I have never complained about that. I only argued there was a problem in the other forums about negative behavior and HTC agreed and we tried to work something out thrugh that discussion.
-
FWIW But I do think I go to far in here with my angry attacks... I'll have to think about that.
-
Just picture Grun wearing his leather crotchless strumfurher carb replete with Uboat skippers hat and monocle, pissed as hell at the butterin commies and banging away at his keyboard... how in hell can yah stay mad at him??
-
LOL :D
-
hmmm I would think Cuba's government seems to be doing ok..what other communist/socialist country has so much western tourism?
Tronsky
-
hmmm I would think Cuba's government seems to be doing ok.
ROFL!!!
now THATS butterin funny!
-
"Tito is a perfect case why communism doesnt work. The only reason that country survived was due to massive loans, which we never paid back, from the west and support from the east as well because both sides wanted us to like them. In 1948 Tito told Stalin to diddly off and we went netural even sided with the west. Did you all know that until the mid 1960s Yugoslavia had a mainly western airfoce with F84s and F86 etc. So our glorious socialism was only possible because the capitalist country was paying the bills to earn our favor. As for human rights Tito was a wonderful guy. Not only did he never kill or hurt anyone he never put members of my family into concentration camps and nobody died in his prisons and no dissidents were murdered - all was cheery.. "
Ok... but why is all the opression and murdering and putting people into concentration camps a 'communist thing'? That sort of thing takes place all over the world.. it isn't a function of what kind of government is in place. How is Yugoslavia any different than say Costa Rica or Columbia?
-
Urchin:
The reason is simple communist's are inherently undemocratic because they trhink they know better than the people do and thats why they want to control everything.
Like a centralized run and planned econmoy.
Like extreme forced redistribution of income.
Like tight control of press, and no freedom of press.
Like tight restrictions on fredom of movement.
Like tight controls on freedom of emplyement and carreer choice.
Like tight controls on labor rights and collective barging.
Like no real attempt at democracy.
They cannot accept people making the decision for themselves or having any say in it. When there are "elections" in a communist syatem there is usually only one candidate - why do you think that is. If people protest they are shot, torured jailed and reeducated. All communist governments have had and do have these policies, it is an inherent part of them. It does not excuse communism if another failed policy has them to some part as well. Are you saying it's ok commuists murder political opponents en masse because Nazi's did it? I dont think so.
trotsky:
Honestly if it's so great in cuba why dont you move there yourself? I hear Cuba's politcal prisoner jails are just beutiful in the spring. In the summer they get too hot and the guards are a bit agitated but spring is poerfect.
And it's interesting trotsky that you as a liuberal who claimes he believes so strongly in human rights and freedom of exprresion likes cuba so much even with it's well documented human rights abuses and opression.
Urchin you should take note of this particulary. Trotsky obviously sees that the existance and prseservation some cracckpot socialist/communist socio-economic policy as exists in cuba takes precedence over human and individal rights. Otherwise he wouldnt hold cuba in such high regard given its vast human rights issues. You see how communists like him are inherently undemocratic and against the interests of people in general?
-
Cuba is a great holiday destination. In 10-20 years, you'll have loads of American tourists there too. Castro isn't immortal.
I like to go after the communists in here and the osama bin laden loving USA haters.
That statement is simply abnormal. It's weird. You're chasing ghosts and those ghosts just turn out to be people who disagree with you. In the end you just appear to be some unstable, hot-headed fool without the self-control to disagree and remain civil, even on an internet BBS.
Now, no-one is perfect, everyone gets angry and regrets some of the things they say, here and in real life - but your justifications for your behaviour paint a picture of someone who enjoys being abusive, and enjoys feeding off his emotions - 'but only in the O-club'.
Excuse me if I don't believe you.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Like a centralized run and planned econmoy.
Like extreme forced redistribution of income.
Like tight control of press, and no freedom of press.
Like tight restrictions on fredom of movement.
Like tight controls on freedom of emplyement and carreer choice.
Like tight controls on labor rights and collective barging.
Like no real attempt at democracy.
You described Monsanto :D
Well not exactly but IMO it's what the capitalist mega-corp will try to achieve :
I want power to the citizen not to the capital !
-
Abnormal? How so you call me names and I call you names and then we argue about it.
Let me be perfectly honest here.
I hate communism and anything that smacks of it. There are too many people here who just aimlessly go around criticizing our system and basically asking for some form of communism wheter they know it or not. And yes massive income redistribution from those who are very productive to others regardless of productive economic input is one of basic tenents of communism. So is much of hatred of capital and freedom of investment which is exactly what drives all our collective well being. I really though the issue of communism was settled 13 years ago, but then again I do know it's a very tempting system to those people ignorant of economics and human nature. Now I also made a personal decison a few years back not to distinguish much between socialists and communists beacause frankly in spirit they are not much different.
Second as for the osama bin laden lovers. Well I dont really think think any of you here have little shrines to the bastard but I am shocked at the resentemnet towards the USA after 911 from the liberals and europeans. Thats what i mean by the deth to amreeka sentiments so many of you express.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Second as for the osama bin laden lovers. Well I dont really think think any of you here have little shrines to the bastard but I am shocked at the resentemnet towards the USA after 911 from the liberals and europeans. Thats what i mean by the deth to amreeka sentiments so many of you express.
I don't see from where you can form this impression.
We not allways agree with the US governement but it's our right no ?
We are not supposed to agree all the time I think ?
I don't agree with a war against Iraq because I think that the real threat actually are : Saoudia and North Korea.
-
I'm not even so sure why Iraq problem came up. I'm not too gung ho about it myself. But I think the comparsions of Bush to hitler et are stupid when used by people oppsing the USA..
What shocked me was the attitude so may had after 911. But then again I was at college in the middle of SF bay area so you can imagine the types... :)
-
Here's the difference Grunherz - I didn't say you were abnormal, I said the statement:
I like to go after the communists in here and the osama bin laden loving USA haters.
was weird/abnormal. I stand by my comments.
You make yourself sound like some 'War on Terrorism' crusader, riding against the foes that would lead America astray.
-
So what dowding, am I not allowed to be pissed at people who say obsurd things like that my country is an abisuve enslaving nazi police state bent on eliminatyion of all muslims after 911?
-
You're proving my point. It's all in your imagination and as final proof I'd like you to find posts by ANYONE on this BBS:
...who say obsurd things like that my country is an abisuve enslaving nazi police state bent on eliminatyion of all muslims after 911?
Good luck!
-
C'mon and what do you call all those "jokes" about Bush being hitler and ashcroft being a nazi......
Dont be rediculous...
-
Yes, Grunherz, they are jokes. J.O.K.E.S. Written for the specific purpose of producing laughter.
Ridiculing the rich and powerful is not the same as seriously suggesting that the US is the Third Reich lead by the anti-Christ. It's satire, it's not disestablishmentarianism - it's permissable under a free, democratic and liberal society. The day it becomes taboo, is the day you should really be worried.
Yet, you repeatedly fail to such statements that way. Instead you produce one of your '5 word rant' - you know, where you run communist, bin laden, loving, f**k and anti-American into one thought provoking and meaningful phrase.
You are so proud to be an American and so defensive of it, but for me, looking from the outside, you are everything it isn't.
This was not meant to be an offensive put-down - I'm trying to be as frank and honest as I can.
-
Actually I know perfectly what you mean and I do see that as a problem when it comes to perception of me. And I thank you for keeping cool with this and patient despite my anger.
I grew up here in the left wing urbanite Bay Area where so many around here seemingly are too cool and progressive to show any support of our country and in fact think its their highest fprm of "patriotism" to demonize the USA at every opportunity be it economics, world affairs or anything - and be loud about it. I love this country, it allowed my father to bring us out of a poor youglavia with no jobs and move up in life to now where I can attend an excellent college and study Business and have a chance at lots of succes in life. I find nothing wrong in actually agreeing with what this country does, because you know what, I have seen it be good to people around me, even when we first came here and there were five of us stuffed into a tiny aparment for the first few years it was better than before beacuse we could hope for something better.
So when I go ballistic and go too far on people, yes I know it will probably hurt my image but I just cannot let some statement like blitz's of Castro and Che being "good" people go without challenge. Yet being polite and telling him the obvious about Cuba's terrible economic standards or human rights record seems pointless because everyone knows that yet he still sees those people as Heroes. And I have interacted with plenty of people just like him, no matter how much reasonable evidence you give them they just trott along and think communism is just gee golly the most bestest thing ever. They may acknowlege that it hasnt worked before, but you know what they just ask for another chance or say capitalism is evil - just like blitz. And thats what he is asking for whether he realizes it or not.
What can you do in the face of that dowing? How could you argue with for example a Holocaust Denier? And yes I think thats a perfect analogy for communism was the other great Holocaust of this century, both of the human spirit and the body...
People defending communists or posing them as heros and asking for it again truley make me angry, and often I just cannot manage to hold that anger back.
-
Grun:....Just heard an interesting comment. I'm gonna share it with you.
In law enforcement, when a crime is committed, agencies arrive and try to determine motive for the murder/violent crime.
This is in no way critical of the victim, it is a means of determining who could be responsable and why they were motivated to do it.
With 911 public sentement and government actions are not allowing this process. Ask yourself, Is there anything that US or Government policies may have done to inflame the Perps to act as they did No matter how heinous their acts or how misguided they might be.
This is not condemning the US citizens in any way.
No one deserved to die like that and neither did NY deserve to be attacked.
Terrorists World Wide need to be sought out and stopped.
But Grun, Reflect now, Is there anything that the US can do to help in this process?
This is not a sign of Freedom haters, nor lovers of communist states, It is a sign of learning from past mistakes and Improving ones self. Both on a personal level, and national level.
-
Originally posted by Ping
In law enforcement, when a crime is committed, agencies arrive and try to determine motive for the murder/violent crime.
This is in no way critical of the victim, it is a means of determining who could be responsable and why they were motivated to do it.
Determining motive is just a tool to identify and convict the perpitrator.
Once you know who it is, you apprehend them. Understanding why David Berkowitz did what he did doesn't stop him, but putting him in prison did.
Grunherz is just zealous. Give him a break. Just as newly stopped smokers worry more about you smoking than other folks, newly arrived US citizens tend wear the flag on their sleeve. Kinda cool to be born in a country where the feelings of newly arrived citizens are so deeply felt.
As for socialism vs capitalism, the bottom line is that capitalism works and socialism goes bankrupt. I don't know why one needs to go any deeper than that.
-
"As for socialism vs capitalism, the bottom line is that capitalism works and socialism goes bankrupt. I don't know why one needs to go any deeper than that."
Oh how I wish and hope with all my heart that would be the end of it, but they just dont understand economics even on that simple a level...
-
Holden are you comparing what I call "pure" capitalism ala Manchester as said Blitz with communism as applied in former USSR ?
The truth IMO is that the right setup is somewhat on the middle between capitalism and socialism (I say socialism not comunism it not the same thing for me)
In fact it look to work for most European country.
Speaking of France I'm glad the comunistes fighted in the 30's for a lot of social right but I hate their tentative to take over France after 1945.
Btw as strange as you can imagine I fully agree with GRUNHERZ concerning the "socialism" like it was in western Europe you can name a country a "people republic of whatever" it's just a dictature nothing like the theorician dreamed.
-
Capitalism is such a vibrant system that it can flourish even with societal controls on child labor, safety controls, work week length, and a governmental control of monopolies.
Marx and Engles threw the baby out with the bathwater and discarded the only proven economic system for a pie in the sky Rodney King philosophy, "Why can't we all just get along?" when all that was needed was to control the excesses of the Manchester system.
A level of socialism can be supported by the economic foundation built by capitalism, and should be. Most people, if they can afford altruism, do help. It is probably incumbant upon society to emulate the better thoughts of its citizens.
But it should never be forgotten that the foundation upon which all is built is a capitalistic system, and the level of societal altruism that can be acheived is only that which can be supported by the foundation.
-
As for socialism vs capitalism, the bottom line is that capitalism works and socialism goes bankrupt.
Replace 'socialism' for 'communism' and I would agree. Britain has a moderately socialist government and is doing fine, thanks.
-
So we agree on our vision of a reasonable capitalism
not a feudal system in disguise like it was in England.
I think that a pure (as defined previously) capitalist system is as oppresive as a comunist system.
I'll refrain to post more as you will have to learn french to follow the discution (I'm to lazy to translate my exact prose :D)
-
Originally posted by blitz
That's not like it works Gruen , your'e pretty funny :D
Pretty sure ya know Silvio Berlusconi from Italy.
At first he formed a large media imperium.
Then he jumped in politics controlling nearly everything l what people could read in the papers or seh on tv.
Now he's chief of italy government.
Yet, he begins to change the whole system to his needs.
That's a classic 1, hope italian democrats can fight him back
Regards Blitz
Things are worse than you painted, Blitz.
Italy it's on the way to become a new South American dictatorship, with a strong propaganda system....
Or a new fascist state...
Or simply dissolve...
:(
-
Can someone please cut and paste here the definitions of the tree terms:
1) Capitalism
2) Socialism
3) Communism
from his dictionary or encyclopedia?
(want to see the differences between edictions/states)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
That of being civil in other forums but not necccesarily so in o'club. I'm commited to being civil in the other forums in the future, are you?
Why is so hard for you to undrstand that I think we should act civily in the main community forums but have more freedom in the unregualted off topic forums that often feature heated poilitical debate and off the wall bizzare topics.
If you're so serious about avoiding the pain and hurt of harsh words being needlessly inflicted upon our fellow BBS members then you'd be polite in ALL the forums. The O'Club wouldn't be a spew zone for you.
But clearly, your wish is that some topics... chosen by you... should be protected from harsh words while others... chosen by you... should be "free fire zones".
Grunherz Not really. The BBS type things and the internet in general are becoming just another forum for people to communicate and interact and be "with" other people. Its now no diffrent than talking to friends on the phone or writing letters to family or incresingly just hanging out with your internet buddies so to speak. Now of course there is a difference that people bring up, if you dont like it just go to next wepbage or leave alltogether but so can you do in real life, at the expense of giving up participation in that community. However doing that largely acts to condone the abusive behavior because its seen as an effective arguing tacitc, it ridicules people till they give in, give up or get out - and thats bad. You miss the point it's not about the game its about people.
Aren't you missing the point Grun? It's about PEOPLE.
Aren't you afraid of hurting the feelings of the communist sympathizers? They're people too... just like people overly concerned about a possible minor flaw in the flight model of a certain 60 year old warbird.
Oh, the humanity!
Wait... you're only concerned about the humanity of folks you choose to be concerned about. Burn the rest of those witches...but be sure to do it in the O'Club!
Are you saying that all the incivility directed towards people overly concerned about a possible flaw in the ballistics model of the 20mm cannon of a certain WW2 combatant country would be perfectly acceptable if said incivility was posted in the O-Club?
BTW... I think the O'Club banner says "Open forum for off-topic and less serious discussions", not "place where you can freely use vulgarity to insult other posters that don't agree with you".
Further, if you can find ANY source, ANYwhere of me saying something like this:
Grunherz: diddly You squeak, go to hell you whoopeeed communist.
[/color]
I will cheerfully pay your AH subscription for 6 months.
How's that for a civil offer?
-
I'll paste here my finding:
(Sorry it's in Italian :) )
Amaizing the difference in lenght of the 2 terms.
capitalismo
capitalìsmo, sm. - Sistema economico-sociale caratterizzato dalla proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione e della conseguente separazione tra classe dei capitalisti e classe dei lavoratori.
INGL: sm. capitalism.
ENC. - Sistema economico fondato sulla proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione, dall'offerta di forza lavoro da parte dei lavoratori salariati, da rapporti regolati da leggi di domanda-offerta. Nato in Europa tra il XVI e il XVIII sec., nel XIX sec., in America, Germania e Inghilterra, sorsero le prime forme di consorzi industriali (trust), tipiche del capitalismo moderno. Avversato dal marxismo, attualmente anche nei paesi definiti capitalisti, il sistema è limitato da inteventi dello Stato nell'economia.
comunismo
comunìsmo, sm. - Sistema politico, sociale ed economico basato sull'abolizione della proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione e dei prodotti del lavoro. Ha assunto caratteristiche diverse nei tempi, da Platone a Tommaso Moro a Campanella; è passato da una concezione utopistica e di esaltazione della natura a un significato più storico e rivoluzionario, a seguito della rivoluzione industriale del XVIII sec. I primi teorici furono i socialisti utopisti come Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Owen; il pensiero comunista fu poi precisato ed enfatizzato dall'opera di K. Marx e F. Engels, con un'analisi critica del sistema di produzione e sociale del capitalismo. Con l'opera Il Manifesto del Partito comunista (1848) venne esposta una prima strategia politica mirante, nel tempo, alla creazione di una società senza classi. In questa società, non esistendo più classi sociali distinte, lo Stato stesso deve cessare di esistere, a favore della dittatura del proletariato e per mezzo della salita al potere della classe operaia. Tale strategia fu accettata nel 1871 dalla Prima Internazionale. La Seconda Internazionale (1889) riorganizzò partiti e sindacati europei in modo riformista. Fu dominata dal pensiero di Marx e si proponeva di abbattere il sistema capitalistico così come di migliorare le condizioni del lavoro e di promulgarne una legislazione internazionale. Nel 1919 la corrente rivoluzionaria, guidata da Lenin, si separò formando la Terza Internazionale cui aderirono sessanta partiti rivoluzionari. Essa fu fortemente accentratrice e si oppose con forza ai partiti socialdemocratici e riformisti. Fu sciolta da Stalin nel 1943. La Quarta Internazionale fu fondata a Parigi da Trockij dopo il distacco da Stalin, ma ebbe scarso successo. Il comunismo è stato quindi adattato e modificato, secondo le varie situazioni storiche, dal leninismo e dal maoismo in Russia e in Cina, nonché nei numerosi tentativi di socialismo reale fatti in Europa orientale, Africa e Asia nel XX sec. Il fallimento dell'esperienza sovietica ha prodotto una crisi del comunismo, culminata alla fine degli anni '80 nella dissoluzione del blocco comunista legato all'Unione Sovietica.
INGL: sm. communism.
ETIM: franc. communisme.
socialismo
socialìsmo, sm. - Nel suo significato più generale, ogni dottrina che predichi una riorganizzazione della società su basi collettivistiche, che metta la società e non l'individuo al centro delle attenzioni. Il termine si diffuse in Inghilterra alla fine dell'Ottocento. Il significato vago si rifà a qualsiasi aspirazione, ideale, tendenza o dottrina che prospetti un cambiamento della società in senso collettivistico. SIN: marxismo, collettivismo.
INGL: sm. socialism.
ENC. - Termine con il quale si indicano, dal XIX sec., quelle teorie e azioni che prevedono un sistema-economico politico fondato sulla socializzazione dei fattori produttivi e sul controllo statale dei settori economici, al fine di promuovere una maggiore giustizia sociale e l'emancipazione dei lavoratori. In contrapposizione con l'individualismo, già nell'antichità si possono trovare tracce di lotte sociali (guerre sociali in Grecia e a Roma, guerre servili) e che continuarono anche nel medioevo, segnando il progressivo potenziamento e l'affermazione della borghesia (tumulto dei ciompi, Jaqueries, guerra dei contadini). I primi socialisti, detti utopistici, furono borghesi e si prefissero come obiettivo quello di creare una società futura, attraverso la realizzazione di alcune comunità modello; si diffusero così in Francia le teorie di Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Blanqui, in Gran Bretagna di Owen e in Germania di Lassalle che possono essere considerate come un approfondimento di elementi presenti nel pensiero illuminista. L'idealismo delle teorie portava spesso a posizioni utopiche che segnarono il fallimento dei vari tentativi (atelier di Blanc, cooperative di Owen). Il rafforzamento del movimento operaio, nel corso del XIX sec., consentì la formazione di un socialismo pratico, soprattutto grazie al lavoro di P. G. Proudhon, progenitore del futuro movimento anarchico e di Marx ed Engels. Questi due furono gli artefici del socialismo scientifico che prevedeva la conquista del potere da parte della classe operaia, oltre alla socializzazione dei mezzi di produzione e di scambio e che fu all'origine del movimento comunista. Esso si diffuse in tutta Europa, accompagnandosi allo sviluppo delle società industriali nei vari Paesi, grazie alla prima Internazionale (1864-1876) e alla seconda Internazionale (1889-1914), imponendosi anche politicamente, grazie alla formazione di partiti socialisti (in Francia, Inghilterra, Italia e Russia); dal 1899, quando apparvero le tesi di Bernstein, il socialismo incominciò a orientarsi (revisionismo) alle riforme e alle conquiste sociali, anziché alla rivoluzione, e a un progressivo avvicinamento del proletariato alla borghesia. Fino al 1919 socialismo e comunismo erano considerati congiuntamente, mentre dopo la contrapposizione della terza Internazionale alla seconda Internazionale e in seguito alle numerose scissioni nei movimenti socialisti, i due termini indicarono concezioni separate e, a volte, contrapposte. In contrapposizione al comunismo, il socialismo esclude la presa del potere da parte dei proletari tramite dittatura, non riconosce che alcun partito eserciti tale dittatura in nome dei proletari, non ammette che ci sia radicale differenza tra classe elitaria e maggioranza, pretende il rispetto delle regole democratiche, esclude la subordinazione della vita culturale alle esigenze del partito. Da allora, ogni movimento che accettava la lotta parlamentare venne detto socialdemocratico, creando una nuova accezione del termine; nel corso della lotta al fascismo, molti partiti confluirono nella opposizione al regime, nell'alleanza con i vari fronti popolari o nella resistenza. Nel primo dopoguerra i partiti socialisti occidentali costituirono l'Internazionale socialista (1951), alla quale, dopo gli avvenimenti ungheresi, aderirono anche quei partiti socialisti che, come quello italiano, avevano privilegiato la collaborazione con le forze comuniste. Dopo l'occupazione dell'Ungheria (1956) molti partiti socialisti che avevano appoggiato il comunismo si spostarono su posizioni socialdemocratiche.
-
@Toad : do this post count for your offer ? :D
-
[q]Like a centralized run and planned econmoy.[/q]
As long as the planners aren't incompetent, I wouldn't really see a problem with this either. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean here. I would look at this as the government saying 'we need XXX companies to make widgets (for instance), and then the companies come forward and say "ok, I'd like to get a contract to make widgets". Thats how the U.S. does it.
[q]Like extreme forced redistribution of income. [/q]
Sorry Grun, I guess the communist in me just can't sympathise. As long as the forcee is left enough to live comfortably on (he doesn't have to be reduced to a level BELOW everyone else)... I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
[q]Like tight control of press, and no freedom of press.[/q]
Again, it may not be 'governmental'.. but the same corporations that purchace politicians own the media. I'll honestly have to check some statistics here.. but I've read some pretty interesting things about our media.
[q]Like tight restrictions on fredom of movement. [/q]
Elaborate this for me please? How do they stop people from moving around?
[q]Like tight controls on freedom of emplyement and carreer choice. [/q]
You've got me there, a government with strict controls on employement and career choice is definately one of the aspects of a communistic society I'm not a big fan of.
[q]Like tight controls on labor rights and collective barging.[/q]
Sorry Grun, but this is laughable. I guess you hadn't heard the Bush Administration forbade any Unionizing of the baggage screeners now working across the country, huh? And that is just one of the more recent examples. Walmart, for example, the largest retailer (hell, largest company) in the world, has successfully resisted any attempts by its employees to unionize.. I can't imagine why. It might impact their profit margins.
[q]Like no real attempt at democracy.[q]
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Well, the U.S. meets number 1, maybe(2 and 3 weren't really applicable). Doesn't meet 5, 4's up in the air. I would say it doesn't meet number 4, some people would say it does.
Main Entry: plu·toc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: plü-'tä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; akin to Greek plein to sail, float -- more at FLOW
Date: 1652
1 : government by the wealthy
2 : a controlling class of the wealthy
I think the U.S. definately meets numbers 1 and 2 here.
Actually, did you read my post on *my* utopia? Does that sound like an evil communist utopia to you? It might, I really haven't given much thought to it to be honest.
-
*As long as the planners aren't incompetent, I wouldn't really see a problem with this either. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean here. I would look at this as the government saying 'we need XXX companies to make widgets (for instance), and then the companies come forward and say "ok, I'd like to get a contract to make widgets". Thats how the U.S. does it.
Ok Urchin how eaxctly would the government forsee any neccesary change or forsee the development of new techologies - which it would need to do every time before ordering the production of something and anything.
Plus imagine how slow government processes are and all the interests that they are beholden too, why do you think that would change under a communist system as you want. History certainly does not support you there.
Also the government would naturally want to make evertyuing as efficient and stanaradized as possible, so they would order only one type of everything this would reduce variety and innovation. Ever heard of the Trabant?
That just doesnt work for more reasons than I have time or breath to explain, but the above three are some of the more common problems.
*Sorry Grun, I guess the communist in me just can't sympathise. As long as the forcee is left enough to live comfortably on (he doesn't have to be reduced to a level BELOW everyone else)... I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
Problem here is it stifles innovation and incentive to take risks. Communist economies were incredibly stagnant and lacked risk taking. Risk taking with capital and is what with the hope of great rewrd is what drives the world economy now. Do you think bill gates would have risked creating microsoft if he would only be living like a carpenter. Think about it this way why would people go to med school for many years and give up the income of working those years when they could only earn the same living as a carpenter - no offense to carpenters of course.
*Again, it may not be 'governmental'.. but the same corporations that purchace politicians own the media. I'll honestly have to check some statistics here.. but I've read some pretty interesting things about our media.
Well first of all the problem of press freedom can be put into simple terms: Offical Governemt News Channel. Basically every communist regime really really tried hard to limit news coming in from anywhere else and especially no criticizm of the government. Say whatever you want about businesses owning news channels or papers -who else would BTW- but there is no end to critical viewpoints in the press towrds the governemt and leadership.
But lets put some perspective here and apply it to your example of an all knowing all seeing central decision making comitee. Your idea clearly implies assume that the comitee always acts in the best interest of the most people or even everyone. Why would any rational person then have anything to criticize the government for in a newspaper editorial for example. That might seem laughable or absurd to you now, but many people heve paid the price for doing just that in one of your communist wonder societies.
*Elaborate this for me please? How do they stop people from moving around?
I'll get back to this later.
*You've got me there, a government with strict controls on employement and career choice is definately one of the aspects of a communistic society I'm not a big fan of.
I'm happy we agree on this but allow me to expand. Getting back to your all knowing comitee again. One of the things that people might miss reading this point is how ominous the implications of these polices were. For example one of the things that could have happend is rougly like this. Lets say you took an aptiude test in school which showed you were going to be a great engineer, and then the all powerful comitee condicuted an ecomomic forecast that said there was a need for more engineers. Thus controlling all education and education money - remember education is "free" - they could force you to study engineering even if you really want to become an artist despite your aptitude test. Plus imagine the quality of the product or service rendered by somebody so forced.
*Sorry Grun, but this is laughable. I guess you hadn't heard the Bush Administration forbade any Unionizing of the baggage screeners now working across the country, huh? And that is just one of the more recent examples. Walmart, for example, the largest retailer (hell, largest company) in the world, has successfully resisted any attempts by its employees to unionize.. I can't imagine why. It might impact their profit margins.
This is actually the easiest one to defend. Since the all wise governmemt planning comitee makes all ecominc decision they are in effect the big bad evil corporate managers that union types hate so much. And since in every communist state I know of there were only government unios allowed, I think the problem becomes quite clear. How much would a union hold the workres rights and interests to heart if it was in fact owned and operated and directed by the managers. And just because the system is called "communism" or "socialism" dont think that the usual labor/management conflicts go away, they dont. Now do you understand all the fuss raided in communist Poland about the Solidarity labor rights movement - when the central comitee finally gave in that lead directly to the fall of the communist regime some years later.
* As for democracy.
Communist states usually run one candidate per post, These candidates are picked by a small governing eliete and there is no choice of differeing viewpoints. Moreover these peopleThe people then "elect" these candidates in "elections". Say what you want about the money and connections needed to run for president in the USA but I see 4 or 5 democrats vying for the nomination. Also dont forget Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, was the poor son of a drunkard father IIRC and he maged to be Governor and President because he is very driven and intelligent.
* Back to travel restrictions.
Now Imagine you were an intellugent person, a hard worker and very ambitious and you wanted to make something out of yourself and believed in freedom of expression and freedom to persue your intersts. Imagine you were living in such as state as you described Urchin, with limits to carrer chocie, earnings, carrer fulfilment, labor rights, advencement and expression. Then imagine just accros the border in the next sate there was another system that let you excercise many of those ideal to a far greater extent.
What would you do?
Can you understand why your comitee would then want to restrict your movement so not to lose an intelligent driven individual to a possible competitor?
Can you undertand the traver and movement restrictions?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
When I go ballistic and go too far on people, yes I know it will probably hurt my image but I just cannot let some statement like blitz's of Castro and Che being "good" people go without challenge. Yet being polite and telling him the obvious about Cuba's terrible economic standards or human rights record seems pointless because everyone knows that yet he still sees those people as Heroes. And I have interacted with plenty of people just like him, no matter how much reasonable evidence you give them they just trott along and think communism is just gee golly the most bestest thing ever. They may acknowlege that it hasnt worked before, but you know what they just ask for another chance or say capitalism is evil - just like blitz. And thats what he is asking for whether he realizes it or not.
Heh, Gruen, ya ever been in Kuba? Doubt it.
I was in 1989 and even tho i don't agree with many aspects of Kuba politics ( human rights, free spech etc.) i saw many good aspects for a land of the third world.
Absolutely no starvation, free education for all, free medical help for all. Gone trough the most dark areas of Havanna in the middle of the night, was absolutely out of tourist area and noone did a harm to me.
Now if ya look to other countries in that part of the world the bigest difference is:
Theres a few rich, a very small middle class and many ,many very poor people, murder, violence, no rights for the poor.
These rights youre talkin about didn't exist for people who don't have enough to feed their children, punt!
How was the life for most of the people of china before Mao tse Tung came?
Didn't most of them lived like slaves same as in Russia before 1917?
I say it again because you need that obvisiouly:
KOMMUNISMN FAILED BIGTIME ALL OVER THE WORLD AND WILL NEVER WORK BUT THERE WAS A REASON WHY IT EVER CAME UP AND THAT REASON WAS THE HORRIBLE WORKIN AND LIVIN CONDITIONS ALL OVER THE WORD WITH CAPITALISM SYTEM IN THE 18TH AND 20TH CENTURY, PUNT !
And yes i admire some people who was willing to give their lives for a great idea that will never work as intened but they tried there best to make it work. And yes, Fidel Castro & Che Guevara are 2 of them.
Regards Blitz
Sidenote: What i remember very good from Kuba holyday 1989 is ,that most young people seemed to be bored to death, all dreamin from Miami but older people was very different.
They still loved 'Fidel' but 'The Che' was like a God to them.
No idea how its now.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by blitz
That's not like it works Gruen , your'e pretty funny
Pretty sure ya know Silvio Berlusconi from Italy.
At first he formed a large media imperium.
Then he jumped in politics controlling nearly everything l what people could read in the papers or seh on tv.
Now he's chief of italy government.
Yet, he begins to change the whole system to his needs.
That's a classic 1, hope italian democrats can fight him back
Regards Blitz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Naso
Things are worse than you painted, Blitz.
Italy it's on the way to become a new South American dictatorship, with a strong propaganda system....
Or a new fascist state...
Or simply dissolve...
:(
Blitz :(
-
Honestly blitz you need to be shocked out of this idea, Let me try my best here...
Blitz said:
"And yes I admire some people who was willing to give their lives for a great idea that will never work as intened but they tried there best to make it work. And yes, Adolf Hitler & Heinrich Himmler are 2 of them."
Just replace the wealthy or capitalist class in your argument with jews in this one and it still works perfectly. Both policies led to vast human misery and death, both had good medical systems and low crime rates, both restricted free speech, both tried to improve the lives of their favorite class/race of people and arguably did to some exent, but at what price?
But somehow I doubt this staement would be so popular with you, although it perfectly matces your beloved ideology.
How bout you go into the streets of berlin and say that thing up there, yell it, yell it really loud so everyone can hear you - then yell again.
-
I would edit that post fast GRUN.
I guess Blitz reaction and I just want to warn you : he will more than over-pissed don't forget you are speaking to a german citizen.
And some things canno't be said to a German and I strongly believe that your post enter this category.
It would be better to delete this sentence quick.
I guess you never had a discution about recent history with a German .
-
No way straffo, he has to face the full implications of what he is saying...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Honestly blitz you need to be shocked out of this idea, Let me try my best here...
Blitz said:
"And yes I admire some people who was willing to give their lives for a great idea that will never work as intened but they tried there best to make it work. And yes, Adolf Hitler & Heinrich Himmler are 2 of them."
Just replace the wealthy or capitalist class in your argument with jews in this one and it still works perfectly. Both policies led to vast human misery and death, both had good medical systems and low crime rates, both restricted free speech, both tried to improve the lives of their favorite class/race of people and arguably did to some exent, but at what price?
But somehow I doubt this staement would be so popular with you, although it perfectly matces your beloved ideology.
How bout you go into the streets of berlin and say that thing up there, yell it, yell it really loud so everyone can hear you - then yell again.
Well its hopeless Gruen, you just need to offence people, feel sad for you brother :(
Regards Blitz ( This was good little Blitz)
YA FUUCKIN LITTLE BONEHEAD, Gruen.
WAS 'Nationalsozialismus' ever a good idea, heh?
Ya ever read 'Mein Kampf' written by Adof in 'Festung Landshut' in the late 20ties?
No?
You ever read 'The SS State' by Eugen Kogon? No?
You look to me as if ya just a dweeb who feels sad and lonely if McDonaldo is short on 'Big Macs'.
Only excuse to me is your're young.
World isn't as simple as you might think. White and black, right and wrong. Nonsense.
"!§$$$%"§$&?=?/)(=)))))?/&/&%§%"$E&/)=(()(=/&%$§!!!!%&/)(=
Blitz ( was the ugly 1, feels better now ;) )
PS No idea why some of my friends & the girl i live with for the last 20 years like to call me 'Golly-geen stupid conservative' and they do i asure you.
-
I see you got upset, good.
Care to tell me how great Casto is again? But of course that's different....
Listen up blitz.
You may get a kick out of praising communt murders like Castro and Che, but the only kick many thousands and millions of people got from the likes of those and their comrades interantinally was a kick in the belly in prison before they were shot in the head.
It's interesting how offended you got when I put your defense of a failed catastrophic idea to an evil you undesrtood.
Basically you are saying it's ok to murder people as long as the propaganda is sunny.
Listen to yoursel blitz, think about the moral implucations of what you are defending...
-
blitz
Member
Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Berlin Germoney
Posts: 90
Capitalism is a pain in the arse
Capitalism has proven its superiority over socialism when it comes to economy, no doubt about it.
But how could something bad like socialism ever developp?
Because capitalism is the damn most awful thing in the world.
Just 1 example: Ever heard about 'Manchester Capitalism'?
Little children workin in factories together with their parents like slaves, 16 hours a day, diyin like flies because of horrible life and work conditions.
Was these conditions which inspired people like 'Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels' to wrote the 'Kommunistisches Manifest'.
They were good people, tryin to make the world better just like many others, Che Guevarra', 'Fidel Castro' etc, etc.
Yes, socialism/communism failed bigtime, costs millions of lives, in fact it will never work because it assumes that people are good and they aren't but it was born because capitalism was a pain in the arse.
Our life conditions have been pretty good in the last 60 years in the western world, not although their was so called socialism but because of it.
Western world needed to show their people that capitalism system is superior or they might would have switched to socialism.
Now socialism is dead and there's no need to still be good or fair for our economic system.
I expect nothin good in the future. This diddlyin system will destroy all we love because there's only 1 value that counts within it.
Morality? Friendship? Peace? Nature? Solidarity? Humanity?
You know it! MONEY
Capitalism will destroy democracy, in fact, big companies dictates politicions already what to do.
Don't know a solution myself but a social order build on money as the 'Holy Gral' won't work in the long terms.
Your thoughts?
Regards Blitz
I was interested of what people might have to say and there was some nice statements
Best:
Quote
Hang said ' It might not be the best system but it's the best we got'
It's short + it has all of the case in it. ( Altough Hang is the most conservative car-addict ever borne ;)
You, Gruen, have to say absolutely nothin.
Blitz
-
A) Natianal socialism seems like a a great Idea if you were an ignorant unemplyed unskilled racially pure German without significant communist leanings.
B) National Socialiosm was not so great an idea if you were Jewish or a Communist.
Much like:
A) Communism seems like a great idea if you are unskilled politically appropriate ignorant unemplyed laborer.
B) Communism is not so great an idea if you are a business owner or banker or writer.
Both went on to murder dozens of million of group B...
Here is the funny thing too, I can dig up some old SS WVHA (SS financial office) rules that detail up how they distributed stolen jewish property down to the last minr luxury item like silk underwear - it all went to german people often at minimal cost directly to individuals and soldiers. Very socialistic in the way it was done, pure communist redistribution of wealth from inappropriate clasases to the correct classes of people.
Blitz you must accept that communists are no better than Nazi's, both placed their extreme demented social policies ahead of literaly hundreds of milliuons of lives - and then forced the issue. You cannot defend one while being offended when forced into a defense of the other by a similar standard.
Communism is bad. Communist are bad. Nazism is bad. Nazis are bad.
Accept one as you acceth the other.
-
I think that Blitz reaction was quite moderate I've some german friend who whould have killed you.
-
And your last statement about me saying nothing is garbage, you just have your panties all up in a bunch because I exposed your immoral support of communists by focing you to examine your words in a context of an evil personally hurtful and understood you.
And you cannot deny that becausae it's clear to the emotinal reaction coming from you after I forced the issue.
And to say I said nothing after I took all time to reasonably and calmy rewply to Urchins big post just encorages, right or wrong, my earlier angry replies to you, you communists just arent worth talikng to - you are unwilling to give that evil disease up.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I think that Blitz reaction was quite moderate I've some german friend who whould have killed you.
And I bet every one of them thinks Castro is just too cool.
Yu know what If its possible to force an emotianal breathrough wiht that in a discussion of a nearly identical disaterous policy then so be it.
-
Grun..You need to seek therapy. I swear that you are just trying to lash out and create strife and pain.
Tell me about your mother.
-
Two Words: Deus Ex
-
It's funny I ragoe out at his support of communism, and call him names somethandg that personally and morally hurts me, and all of a sudden I'm a nutbag.
Then I turn it around on him by contrasting his defense of communists to more or less identical defense of Nazi's, something thats personally and morally offensive to him, he explodes and rages out at me and calls me names yet again i'm the nutbag.
Tell me how can a German who obviously is sensitive to the human rights abuses caused by the german people in WW2 come out in support and admiration of leaders like Castro and the other murderous communists, merely dismissing their human right abuses because they agree with the goals of an obvously disaterour system? Explain that to me...
-
Grun. the ideals that communism held were noble. Its the corruption of leaders and men that make it Evil.
And for the record Grun...I hold German citizenship.
-
Grun- you made some good arguments at me :). I need time to think up more arguments lol, you shot down all mine.
Yea, I understand the travel restrictions.. for some odd reason the only thing I could think of was 'in-country' travel, not international.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Grun. the ideals that communism held were noble. Its the corruption of leaders and men that make it Evil.
An extermely naive and ignorant statement.
-
Noble? Never, the whole idea of it was a conspiracy to gain power over a society and order it to their own liking the rest was propaganda. Sound familiar doesnt it? You would think if that wasnt case that there would at least have been one decent fair communist government with democracy and humn rights and freedom of speech.. But no. Or are we to believie that it was only by cahce that it all went bad? Perhaps, and I point out yet again, one should ask for antother chance be given to communism. Surely it will work the next time.
No there is nothing noble about it. There is nothing noble about limiting freedom of employment or expression, there is nothing nible about taking all the rights and perhaps more importantly responsibilties from average people. No there is little nobility to be found in it.
I just cannot believe how a German like blitz who is obviously so sensitive about Hitler even being brught up can say something like he did about the communist murderes.. It is simply incomprehensible to me.
-
Originally posted by mietla
An extermely naive and ignorant statement.
Yep, as are most by communist supporters - unfortunately...
-
Originally posted by mietla
An extermely naive and ignorant statement.
Not entirely, The basic ideals were that all would be equal and would all contribute to the collective group.
It just so happens that Tyrannical rulers were the ones instating it.
I do not admire any of those rulers associated with Communism, just pointing out that the basic ideals are noble in thought.
The USA's founding fathers also expounded the ideals of equality.
Noble yes. Dont confuse admiration of a Noble thought with admiring Murderous Dictators.
-
Grun: I do not support communism...its your fanatacism that sees support every where you look.
-
No Ping.
Explain the nobility of stealing the crops of common farmers for distribution by a central comitte?
Explain the nobility of telling a young business owner that he no longer has any management rights in his own shop?
Explain the nobility of relieving all normal citizens from the responsibilites to their own finances.
Explain this wonderous definition of noble that you seem to hold, please.
I am simply stunned...
-
Saying the goals of communism are noble, despite all the worlds evidence and suffering, sure is a strong statement against it! I learn so much every day...
It's interesting you bring up the US founders and their idea of Equality. They never tried to force mandatory equality on everyone - they tried as best they could within the restraints of the time, sytematic racism and sexism etc, to provide conditions for people to achive their best, there was no guarantee of anything beyond some reasonable hope and a chance to try.
In fact one could argue that is perhaps the key difference between basic propaganda of communism/socialism and the basic ideals capialism and democracy. The conflict wheter the system should guarantee a supposedly perfect forced solution or just provide a framework to enable us all to find soultions together over time.
Is it any wonder then that communism propaganda leads to people thinking it has noble aspirations, I mean who woldnt want to dream about a perfect world - Urchin even called his communist vision of a perfect country "Utopia"...
-
Originally posted by Ping
The basic ideals were that all would be equal and would all contribute to the collective group.
My point exactly. That's the "naive" part of your post.
How naive you have to be in order to be convinced by some phony ideolog that this is possible.
Besides, it's beyond me why would you find it desirable. I find it abhorring.
The USA's founding fathers also expounded the ideals of equality.
Noble yes. Dont confuse admiration of a Noble thought with admiring Murderous Dictators.
Nonsense. This is an "ignorant" part of your post.
Equality before the law... Absolutely.
"Sameness" every where... it's idiotic and abhorring. Everybody equally cold living in the same color mud-hut (don't expect anything more), everybody eating their own toejam (but will there be enough for everybody).
-
Why do you take it that I am convinced of this ideal of communism?
I merely stated that the basic ideals of Equality and all contributing are a noble thought.
Never did I say that I am drawn towards communism..I detest it.
Never did I say sameness..rather boring dont you think.
Don't put words in my mouth. I expect more from rational thinking beings mietla.
All of us contribute to the society we live in do we not? That is what I refer to when I say contribute.
Equality: as human beings we are in essence equal..both put on our pants one leg at a time. I do not perceive you as being godlike...Hell even Pyro and hitech aren't godlike. As far as I'm concerned I am their equal.
Do you get the point?
Once again, dont put words into others mouth to try to prove a point.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Grun. the ideals that communism held were noble.
You did all the putting of words in your mouth....
-
Ideals of communism. Equality and all Contributing.
Your right. However I did not say I was drawn to communism. Idid not say anything about admiring the leaders of communism.
Need I go on?
You would have done well in the Mcarthy era.
Communists, communists everywhere.
Your Rabid dog syndrome needs to be calmed down.
To want Equality and have everybody working is a noble Ideal..Hence the reason your country is working towards that.
-
Originally posted by mietla
How naive you have to be in order to be convinced by some phony ideolog that this is possible.
Besides, it's beyond me why would you find it desirable. I find it abhorring.
Nonsense. This is an "ignorant" part of your post.
"Sameness" every where... it's idiotic and abhorring. Everybody equally cold living in the same color mud-hut (don't expect anything more), everybody eating their own toejam (but will there be enough for everybody).
These are the points you claimed I made. I would suggest you read throught my posts and find where I said this.
I will now name this phenomenom "Rabid Dawg Syndrome" .
Its sad that you have reach out to find an argument..cant you just get married and have em there?
-
"To want Equality and have everybody working is a noble Ideal."
That is an incredibly naive view of what communism is and stnds for. If you think that way about it, you support it in your heart wheter you realize that or not.
-
Grun Grun Grun...What would your founding fathers have thought of your classification of their goals.I guess Bush is a communist because he wants all americans to have work. Equality of the sexes and races, cant have that or we will be communist.
I think from now on I will just poke fun at you and watch you foam at the mouth like the rabid Mcarthyite that you are.
You really should be living in the 50's where you would much better fit in. I'm guessing you are still a child and unable to draw conclusions and ascertain facts.
Tell me about your Mother.
-
Lets put it this way Ping...
You said:
Ideals of communism. Equality and all Contributing.
The basic ideals were that all would be equal and would all contribute to the collective group.
Grun. the ideals that communism held were noble.
just pointing out that the basic ideals are noble in thought.
You also said:
It just so happens that Tyrannical rulers were the ones instating it.
So which is it for you Ping Is communism bad or is it the bad leaders? If you actually believe that the ideals of communism are pure and noble and all about equality then why wouldnt you support communism? Why not say communism is a great idea but never had good leaders to run it succesfuly?
And I think it's really funny to be called a child by a person who thinks communism was noble.
As for the founding fathers:
I think this bit from the decleration of independance makes it pretty clear, there is no guarantee of absolute equality, just an assuracnce of a chance.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Your ignorance lies in the fact that you actually think the communist concept of "equality" is the same one as held by the founders of the USA. Nowore do the foundng fatheres guarantee equality except before the law. They make no attamt to centarly arrange the economy so that they assure everyione is equal in everything.
-
"I think from now on I will just poke fun at you "
Brilliant.... :rolleyes:
I think this thread is a perfect example as to why its pointless to waste breath and time on communist leaning types. They simply lack the understanding to be able to learn and accept why communism is inherently wrong in its principles. Please note that despite his vehement protestations to the contrary that not once has Ping demonstrated any disagreement with the basic tenents of communism - in fact has has repeatedly gone out of his way to state that they are, indeed, noble....
-
I shall type slowly so you get this right.
The Ideals of Comunism..that of Equality and all contributing, are Noble.
I do not agree with the practice of communism.
All the leaders of communist Nations have been corrupt tyrants.
OK?
Pretty straight forward.
The Bible said it best. Man will continue to dominate man to his injury.
I agree with the Noble Ideals of Equality and all contributing to society....In their own capacity and in a capitilistic manner to earn what they are worth.
Do I need my lawyer to right this down for you?
-
Do you understand that the communist idea of absolute equality is even in theory a lie and is impossible?
-
As it is a lie with true Equality in a capitalistic government as well.
There are some things that are not obtainable in any government.
There will always be those that try to live off of society and those that strive for power over others. Its a fact of Human existance.
But in no way am I drawn to Communistic policies or governments.
I just believe that Everyone should be contributing to society ie. NO WELFARE :mad:
-
Capitalism does not promise any equality in end result, it just exists to set up a sytem where one can move ahead through hard work and risk taking, overall of course. Capitalism is not an end in itself it's simply a means to an end. Communism always posed itself as a perfect guarantted solution, in effect it was the ends in itself.
In communinst ideas the term "equality" implies a welfare redistribition of income. Since its impossible that every able working individual produces exactly the same ecomomic output it naturally means the income of the more productive able working individuals must be taken from them and given to those who did not produce as much output - if you want to maintain their version of equality, which even beside that point is a lie.
Do you understand now why I'm fighting you on the idea that communist notions of equality and contribution are not noble.
Their idea of equality implies an extreme welfare system.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And I bet every one of them thinks Castro is just too cool.
Yu know what If its possible to force an emotianal breathrough wiht that in a discussion of a nearly identical disaterous policy then so be it.
not likely :)
Some may find Castro cool but not all.btw I don't think Blitz find Castro cool I just said that castro was not worse than Batista and United Fruit :p
-
trotsky:
Honestly if it's so great in cuba why dont you move there yourself? I hear Cuba's politcal prisoner jails are just beutiful in the spring. In the summer they get too hot and the guards are a bit agitated but spring is poerfect.
And it's interesting trotsky that you as a liuberal who claimes he believes so strongly in human rights and freedom of exprresion likes cuba so much even with it's well documented human rights abuses and opression.
Urchin you should take note of this particulary. Trotsky obviously sees that the existance and prseservation some cracckpot socialist/communist socio-economic policy as exists in cuba takes precedence over human and individal rights. Otherwise he wouldnt hold cuba in such high regard given its vast human rights issues. You see how communists like him are inherently undemocratic and against the interests of people in general?
You got all that from: What about cuba?
Dear oh dear.... what a diatribe. Normally I would think somone was taking the piss, if I didn't know you as such a bitter little infant.
for starters, like it or not Cuba is a functioning socialist state.
Lonely Planet travel guide (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/caribbean/cuba/history.htm)
In December 1991, the Cuban Constitution was amended to remove all references to Marxism-Leninism, and economic reforms began. In 1993, laws passed allowing Cubans to own and use US dollars, be self-employed and open farmers' markets. Taxes on dollar incomes and profits were levied in 1994, and in September 1996 foreign companies were allowed to wholly own and operate businesses and purchase real estate. These measures gradually brought the economy out of its post-Soviet tailspin. The US responded by stiffening its embargo with the Helms-Burton Act, ironically solidifying Castro's position as defender of Cuba against the evil empire.
The Cuban government has long been criticized for its human rights record; at least 500 people are 'prisoners of conscience' for criticizing Cuba's present leadership or for attempting to organize political opposition. When Pope John Paul II visited the island in January 1998, he condemned both the Cuban government's heavy hand and the US government's embargo. Each year, hundreds of Cubans brave the shark-infested waters separating Cuba from the USA, hoping to make a landfall that guarantees US citizenship and support from the wealthy Cuban exile community in Miami, Florida.
And why the lonely planet guide? Because it was recommended in a local travel TV show, who showed holiday destinations in the Americas, including GASP - Cuba!!!!
Damned reds are just everywhere!!!!
Yep one step off that jetliner...straight into a gulag!
Of course that damned commercial TV station program did state that cuba did welcome western tourists, and it was quite a safe place to visit (not at all like your usual corrupt commie states - sneaky red bastards eh?)..huh if they like it that much they should go and live there!
And it's interesting trotsky that you as a liuberal who claimes he believes so strongly in human rights and freedom
I have?
hmmmmmmm that infection you have starting to really kick in there grubherps...
Tronsky
-
So in all that you managed to say that Cuba, your mighty Communist wonderland, has managed to survive post 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union because they adepted some basic evil Capitalist principles....
Man o man you communist loving types never cease to amaze me, you say communism works in Cuba because they adapt capitalist principles.
Wow one must must give a big fat to the communist propagandists of the past century - they did a remarkable job infecting people's minds for decades to come. :(
-
Originally posted by straffo
not likely :)
Some may find Castro cool but not all.btw I don't think Blitz find Castro cool I just said that castro was not worse than Batista and United Fruit :p
Ahoi Ping & Sraffo:)
It's pretty useless to speak with him, he's just goin for trouble.
I know a guy called blitz and he said to me:
If there's wasn't that strugle for communism we wouldn't have had the rights we have now in the west.
Competition is a good thing and even capitalism needs it, ( i don't mean economic )
But competition is gone after communism has quit...
Fidel Castro cool? No politician is cool these days.
When he landed in Siera Madre with 23 men, throw outa dictator Batisa, who was supported bigtime by the United States, that was great.
Never got a clue why the mighthy USA with its high civil rights standards and cool dudes as Abraham Lincoln was, likes to support fascist or dictatorship regimes all over the word till the final end and afterwards rant about civil rights when the whole thing has gone south.
just to name a few:
done:Kuba, done: Nicaragua,done: Persien, done:Chile
in progress :El Salvador, in progress:Agypt, in progress: Saudi Arabia, in progress:Kuwait,
Might be better to help before. Fidel Castro wasn't a commie from the beginning, but America don't want to support him after his takeover.
He had no choice other then runnin to the russians especially after that 'Schweinebucht' desaster.
Regards Blitz
Flamesuit on :D