clinton

[DukeLeto]

How about a new take on the Communism/Capitalism debate?

Here's my view:

Let me start by saying that I am not exactly "poor"; I'm the only child in a family that pulls down over 50 grand a year. Nonetheless, I know enough people who are poor; or at least relatively so.

1. Capitalism creates far more losers than winners. By this, I mean that there are more people below the poverty line than make more than a million a year. (The "wealth line", as I like to call it.)

2. Emphasis is put on all the wrong things: Athletes and movie stars make millions of dollars per performance, whereas teachers and emergency workers would be lucky to make a million in a lifetime.

3. You can indeed become wealthy simply by manipulating the system.

4. Rich people get better medical care and higher quality educations; which helps keep the poor poor.

5. Which brings me to my next point: The rich only care about stayig rich and keeping the poor poor. This can be seen in policies like Bush's tax cuts for big investors and large corporations.

6. The rich are way undertaxed, which ties into #5.

I could go on...

[DukeLeto]

I believe John Adams was an atheist...

Where did that come from? ???

[SurlyPIG]

To begin with, we could try going to the Moon (again) and actually STAYING there this time, by building a permanent Lunar settlement. Later on, we would be able to move on to Phobos and Deimos, and from there to go down to Mars.

THE MOON? What good will that do us? A moon settlement, like spacecraft and the International Space Station, would be completely dependant on Earth for every little tidbit of a need.

"Did I say anything about Africa? I was only referring to the Middle East. The Africans have no oil, you see, so invading an African country would be pointless."

*I* said Africa in that very first post. There are far more starving people in Africa than there are in the middle-East.

"Oh, and I suppose the ruthless capitalist economy of supply and demand is a better judge?"

YES! Now you're getting the picture. The need for anything determines its worth. This is the absolute only fair way the price of anything has ever been determined. I don't want people voting on what THEY think my job is worth. They aren't me. They havn't walked a mile in my shoes. I don't want some arrogant, ignorant, idealistic politician determining how hard my job is, how hard I work, how hard I sweat, how much stress I bear, because they aren't relevant. Employers are. Hard-working, honest, loyal employees have always been in demand. If I work for a place that doesn't want these things, I don't want to work there. If that's not what they value, somebody else will and I'll work there. I don't want to be streamlined into a dead end by a bunch of lawyers and politicians sitting in an office discussint MY future, MY carreer, MY fate. That is a blatant violation of my right of choice.

"Do you really think that a system where you can get filthy rich by just manipulating money and not doing anything productive is a system that promotes hard work? ::)"

When does this happen? Some people are born filthy rich, but if you literally do nothing you will lose everything. They invest their money in projects they choose, or they loan to others so that they can get their ideas off the ground. Or they put their money in banks who intern loan to others so they can start their businesses, by their homes, their estates, manage their lives.

"And now to answer your question: Determining who is a hard worker is a simple matter of basic math. Person X has a quota to reach in a certain time. If he goes above that quota, then he is a hard worker and should receive extra pay. It's as simple as that."

What a terrible place to live in. Let's say that Jon the stamp guy who works in the mail room has a quota of stamping five hundred letters per week assigned by someone in a far away office who hasn't the slightest clue what his job is like. Bob the construction worker is outside, meanwhile, in the rain, the snow, the heat, the whatever. His quota is to break up 500 tonnes of concrete with his jackhammer, also assigned by someone in a far-away office who has no idea what his job is like. Jon picks up his pace a little and manages to stamp 600 letters this week, while Bob break his back and literally puts his blood, sweat, and tears into his job only to barely meet the quota and go home tired, stressed, and washed out. Does this make Jon a better worker than Bob? Does Jon earn more money in this system?

"Pay should also be proportional to the level of education necessary to work at a certain job. The brain surgeon needs college education, the secretary does not. Again, it's all very simple."

It's all very subjective, rather, to one idiot's opinion of who you are. The judge, jury and executioner. Neither Jon nor Bob needed an education to do their jobs, just a week of intro training. Who should earn more?

"You work better -> the agency starts doing better -> you get paid more. Of course, it doesn't work that way in capitalist agencies, but they're not the ones I am talking about. Communist agencies are collectively owned by their employees. Every worker is a share holder, so to speak. Capitalist wage slavery, whether private or state-run, must be abolished."

Communism at its finest. A company (or 'agency' as you called it) of 500 people, one of whom is you. Lets say you find a way to work 500% better than everyone else. Do you want that increased efficiency to go to you, or do you want 1% of it to go to you and 1% to everyone else? You did the work. You did it alone. Why should 499 other people reap the benefits of YOUR hard work?

"Yes, of course you'll decrease unemployment, because the unemployed will starve to death... ::)"

Another very uninformed statement. Study after study has been done in the US (the epitomy of the free market economy) that shows if you reduce welfare (not social security) payments for people who are able to work but don't, they WILL get jobs. The starvation rate remains exacty the same at all times; extremely low. (most street starvation is actually either due to addiction or mental disorder, but that's another thread)

"The capitalist way of treating people like beasts of burden that need to be whipped into line never ceases to amaze me...

Every human being has the right to live. As such, he is entitled to basic food, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Any system that does not provide these things freely to its citizens has the blood of innocents on its hands."There are no faschist states anymore Edric. All FME systems DO provide this to their citizens. Welfare, social security, unemployment insurance - its all there. It's designed to get people back on their feet so they can get these things for themselves. Welfare is for people who cannot work because of circumstance, I am okay with that. General society is okay with that. We don't mind that some of our money goes to support victims of crippling accidents, mental trauma, six-kids-no-husband, etc. But social insurance is and must be temporary. Its called a social safety net. People fall all the time, this catches them before they hit rock bottom. But some people have a tendancy to stay on the net way longer than they should - sometimes forever, tying up resources that would otherwise go to more deserving people. Unemployment checks stop arriving after a certain time you know.

"Corporate-funded propaganda easily manipulates public opinion, Ace. Not to mention that in the vast majority of countries the voters only have 2 or 3 real political options to choose from, and all of them are very similar to each other. What kind of a democracy is one where two virtually identical sides switch places every few years?"

I'll take corporate-funded propaganda over forced tax-payed communist central-government dictator propaganda ANY day. If you can't get you mind around corporate propaganda, whose problem is that?

"If the USA is such a "land of the free", how come every single one of its presidents has been a white male Protestant?"

Gee, maybe its because most of the country is white protestant? And most politicians are male, unfortunately. But the door is open and that's what matters.

[Edric O]

TMA, do me a favour and look up "propaganda" in the dictionnary.

Speaking of which, it's nice to see how you attack my choice of words instead of my arguments. ::)

Oh, and by the way:

Edric, you are a talking doll. Every time I pull the string, you say one of you 5 different attacks on an issue. you are as 1 dimensional as a line, because your spin isnt even from your own creativity. come on man geesh. you are more intelligent than that.

If you keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving you the same answer.

P.S. Duke, you've done a great job at summing up the socialist argument. But those 6 points are only a small part of what's wrong with capitalism.

[TMA_1]

since you dont understand what it is like to be poor duke, I wouldnt expect you to be a good socialist. You really dont have to be as well off as you are. True socialism does not pay better for some over other edric. Each job is important inanof itself. If you place a standard higher on one job, it is unfair.

I attack your words because it is a sign of the type of attitude you hold. I find that you spew so much stuff out and its all the same every time, that it really does need to be put down. I dont keep bringing the same thing up. You just keep denying what I say.

Your arguments are biased and that will destroy the fundimental nature of what you stand for. How can you arbitrate with a preconcieved viewpoint? it would be like a judge that ruled for a man to be sentanced for the death penalty because that is how he personally sees things should be handled. It happens all the time and that is wrong. Because he places his personal feelings above the law and above what is reasonable, he destroyes his whole purpose of opinion.

[SurlyPIG]

1. Capitalism creates far more losers than winners. By this, I mean that there are more people below the poverty line than make more than a million a year. (The "wealth line", as I like to call it.)

2. Emphasis is put on all the wrong things: Athletes and movie stars make millions of dollars per performance, whereas teachers and emergency workers would be lucky to make a million in a lifetime.

3. You can indeed become wealthy simply by manipulating the system.

4. Rich people get better medical care and higher quality educations; which helps keep the poor poor.

5. Which brings me to my next point: The rich only care about stayig rich and keeping the poor poor. This can be seen in policies like Bush's tax cuts for big investors and large corporations.

6. The rich are way undertaxed, which ties into #5.

1. How do you define 'winner'? This can change you know. A few weeks ago I saw a story on 20/20 about a man in San Francisco who made his way from homeless and living in a subway bathroom to the owner of a proud stockbroking company and millionaire.

2. Supply and demand, my friend, supply and demand. Society demands movie stars and athletes. I'm not saying its good but its reality, it's what the people want.

3. Nope. If you are already wealthy, you can stay wealthy by investing, that's it. You can't make money from nothing. You need work first.

4. Not in my country :-)

5. I suppose you know every wish of every rich person. ::) The rich pay the most taxes and donate the most to charities, so you can't say they don't care. That would be LYING.

6. In some situations I agree. I think tax rates should be derived unicrementally through a formula that gives breaks for contributions to the economy ie a system where people are penalized and taxed additionally for sitting on their money.

BTW I know capitalism has its downfalls but it is so much morally better than any other system in history, ESPECIALLY communism.

[DukeLeto]

1. How do you define 'winner'? This can change you know. A few weeks ago I saw a story on 20/20 about a man in San Francisco who made his way from homeless and living in a subway bathroom to the owner of a proud stockbroking company and millionaire.

2. Supply and demand, my friend, supply and demand. Society demands movie stars and athletes. I'm not saying its good but its reality, it's what the people want.

3. Nope. If you are already wealthy, you can stay wealthy by investing, that's it. You can't make money from nothing. You need work first.

4. Not in my country :-)

5. I suppose you know every wish of every rich person. ::) The rich pay the most taxes and donate the most to charities, so you can't say they don't care. That would be LYING.

6. In some situations I agree. I think tax rates should be derived unicrementally through a formula that gives breaks for contributions to the economy ie a system where people are penalized and taxed additionally for sitting on their money.

BTW I know capitalism has its downfalls but it is so much morally better than any other system in history, ESPECIALLY communism.

1. Ooh, one out of 10s of millions... ::)

2. Then society needs to WAKE UP! That sentence clearly states the degredation of society, which is primarily caused by...get ready for a surprise...CAPITALISM! ::)

3. Let's see, there's a guy living right up ther road from me who would rent out a house, default on the loan, and leave the people stuck with no home or money. Buy the house back, lease it out again, repeat. ::) Scams like that are not uncommon these days. And don't even get me started on things like "pay-to-play"...

4. Then you need to wake up. ::) Edit: Ah, Canada has socialized medicine, yes? But you still have to pay for college.

5. Hmm...Yeah, I guess in some respects that's true. But you also have a lot of Bushes and Trumps who just care about making dough.

6. Good, we agree on something! :)

I think Socialism could be made work a lot better than Capitalism.

[Edric O]

THE MOON? What good will that do us? A moon settlement, like spacecraft and the International Space Station, would be completely dependant on Earth for every little tidbit of a need.

LOL, there's a big difference between empty vacuum and a solid planetary surface littered with metal-rich rocks. There are many, many designs for self-sufficient Moon colonies. The Moon has everything you need to build a settlement from scratch, except water. The Lunar surface is rich in both metals (that can be used as construction materials) and oxygen.

*I* said Africa in that very first post. There are far more starving people in Africa than there are in the middle-East.

Yes, corporate exploitation is far worse in Africa than in the Middle East. So what's your point?

YES! Now you're getting the picture. The need for anything determines its worth. This is the absolute only fair way the price of anything has ever been determined. I don't want people voting on what THEY think my job is worth. They aren't me. They havn't walked a mile in my shoes. I don't want some arrogant, ignorant, idealistic politician determining how hard my job is, how hard I work, how hard I sweat, how much stress I bear, because they aren't relevant. Employers are. Hard-working, honest, loyal employees have always been in demand. If I work for a place that doesn't want these things, I don't want to work there. If that's not what they value, somebody else will and I'll work there.

Oh, really? Let's see how Jon and Bob do in your perfect capitalist paradise:

Jon the stamp guy is happy - his services are in high demand. Dozens of letters go through the post office every day, and all he has to do is stamp them. There are very few people willing to do his job. By the laws of supply and demand, his work is very valuable. He gets paid a hell of a lot and can afford a cool expensive car and a nice suit.

Bob the construction worker, on the other hand, is very sad. His services aren't needed any more. Hundreds of people would jump at an opportunity to get his job, and work for less money. So Bob gets a cut in pay. He's got to break tonnes of concrete with his jackhammer every day, but there's so little need for breaking concrete, that no one cares about Bob's work. He works extra hours, breaking his back and sweating in intense heat, for far less money than before. Eventually he gets old, and his back pains intensify. He slips and falls, and fractures his spine. He is left paralyzed for life. But the construction office has no need for old crippled workers. Bob gets fired, and dies a few months later of pneumonia in a back alley, where rats feast on his dead body.

And Bob is just one of the fortunate residents of the back alleys and sewers of Ace's capitalist paradise, where supply and demand reign supreme.

I don't want to be streamlined into a dead end by a bunch of lawyers and politicians sitting in an office discussint MY future, MY carreer, MY fate. That is a blatant violation of my right of choice.

Oh, so you'd rather have a buch of businessmen and CEO's doing the exact same thing? ::)

From my experience, it seems that right-wingers are perfectly fine with any degree of oppression and exploitation, as long as the government isn't the one doing it.

When does this happen? Some people are born filthy rich, but if you literally do nothing you will lose everything. They invest their money in projects they choose, or they loan to others so that they can get their ideas off the ground. Or they put their money in banks who intern loan to others so they can start their businesses, by their homes, their estates, manage their lives.

Investment, banking, stock exchange... these are just a few examples of non-productive money-handling that can make a person filthy rich. There is a wealthy elite of people who do not produce anything or contribute to society in any way, yet live in opulent luxury.

What a terrible place to live in. Let's say that Jon the stamp guy who works in the mail room has a quota of stamping five hundred letters per week assigned by someone in a far away office who hasn't the slightest clue what his job is like. Bob the construction worker is outside, meanwhile, in the rain, the snow, the heat, the whatever. His quota is to break up 500 tonnes of concrete with his jackhammer, also assigned by someone in a far-away office who has no idea what his job is like. Jon picks up his pace a little and manages to stamp 600 letters this week, while Bob break his back and literally puts his blood, sweat, and tears into his job only to barely meet the quota and go home tired, stressed, and washed out. Does this make Jon a better worker than Bob? Does Jon earn more money in this system?

So, to make a long story short, you are arguing that the quotas will be unfair, because they will be set by someone in a far away office who hasn't the slightest clue what the jobs are like. Wrong. The quotas will be set according to the necessities of the planned economy, using the average productivity in previous years as an indicator of what the workers can do. There will also be many checks and balances in place to guard against abuse. And since this is a democracy we're talking about, the people themselves can remove any abusive leaders.

It's all very subjective, rather, to one idiot's opinion of who you are.

Funny. Last time I checked, a college diploma was an actual solid object, not some guy's opinion of who you are. ::)

Neither Jon nor Bob needed an education to do their jobs, just a week of intro training. Who should earn more?

In Communism, they both earn the same. In Capitalism, they are both at the mercy of market forces, and either one could earn a lot more or a lot less than the other, depending solely on who's work is in higher demand.

Communism at its finest. A company (or 'agency' as you called it) of 500 people, one of whom is you. Lets say you find a way to work 500% better than everyone else. Do you want that increased efficiency to go to you, or do you want 1% of it to go to you and 1% to everyone else? You did the work. You did it alone. Why should 499 other people reap the benefits of YOUR hard work?

Selfishness at its finest.

For your information, doing all the work "alone" is impossible. A team is more than the sum of its parts. Your job wouldn't exist without the other team members, and neither would theirs. It's not just 1% of your work that goes to someone else, it's also 1% of his work that goes to you. You work TOGETHER.

Another very uninformed statement. Study after study has been done in the US (the epitomy of the free market economy) that shows if you reduce welfare (not social security) payments for people who are able to work but don't, they WILL get jobs. The starvation rate remains exacty the same at all times; extremely low. (most street starvation is actually either due to addiction or mental disorder, but that's another thread)

How many times must I remind you that the US economy is not a closed system? The US consumes far more than it produces.

But getting to the point at hand: You are right about starvation - it's a bad example to use in the case of rich countries such as the USA. But let's look at the poverty rate. Are you telling me that giving people less money results in them getting richer? ::)

There are no faschist states anymore Edric. All FME systems DO provide this to their citizens. Welfare, social security, unemployment insurance - its all there. It's designed to get people back on their feet so they can get these things for themselves. Welfare is for people who cannot work because of circumstance, I am okay with that. General society is okay with that. We don't mind that some of our money goes to support victims of crippling accidents, mental trauma, six-kids-no-husband, etc. But social insurance is and must be temporary. Its called a social safety net. People fall all the time, this catches them before they hit rock bottom. But some people have a tendancy to stay on the net way longer than they should - sometimes forever, tying up resources that would otherwise go to more deserving people. Unemployment checks stop arriving after a certain time you know.

Neither education nor health care is provided equally to the rich and to the poor. Rich people can buy themselves better health, and buy their children a better education - both at the expense of the poor.

As for the rest, you are absolutely correct. In fact, social safety nets and welfare programs are among the most important aspects of socialism, and I salute capitalist regimes for having adopted them.

Not all capitalist regimes are equally bad. In fact, there are some that I actually support (namely the socialists and social-democrats, like Sweden).

I'll take corporate-funded propaganda over forced tax-payed communist central-government dictator propaganda ANY day. If you can't get you mind around corporate propaganda, whose problem is that?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have NO propaganda.

Gee, maybe its because most of the country is white protestant? And most politicians are male, unfortunately. But the door is open and that's what matters.

Oh yes, the door is indeed open. Too bad there are guards preventing people from going through...

My argument was that the people are not given a choice. Maybe the majority would like to see someone other than a white male Protestant in office, but what can they do when they have only 2 virtually identical candidates to choose from?

[Acriku]

I believe John Adams was an atheist...

Where did that come from? ???

In ACE's and Edric's post, they talk about WASP - white anglo-saxon protestant, and how all presidents were white american protestants.

[SurlyPIG]

[c]

"

LOL, there's a big difference between empty vacuum and a solid planetary surface littered with metal-rich rocks. There are many, many designs for self-sufficient Moon colonies. The Moon has everything you need to build a settlement from scratch, except water. The Lunar surface is rich in both metals (that can be used as construction materials) and oxygen.

And what is the one necessity of life above all, Edric? The thing required by bears, gnats, and microbials alike?

"Jon the stamp guy is happy - his services are in high demand. Dozens of letters go through the post office every day, and all he has to do is stamp them. There are very few people willing to do his job. By the laws of supply and demand, his work is very valuable. He gets paid a hell of a lot and can afford a cool expensive car and a nice suit.

Bob the construction worker, on the other hand, is very sad. His services aren't needed any more. Hundreds of people would jump at an opportunity to get his job, and work for less money. So Bob gets a cut in pay. He's got to break tonnes of concrete with his jackhammer every day, but there's so little need for breaking concrete, that no one cares about Bob's work. He works extra hours, breaking his back and sweating in intense heat, for far less money than before. Eventually he gets old, and his back pains intensify. He slips and falls, and fractures his spine. He is left paralyzed for life. But the construction office has no need for old crippled workers. Bob gets fired, and dies a few months later of pneumonia in a back alley, where rats feast on his dead body."

Or maybe he gets a new job...ever think of that? And in any civilized capitalist nation there exist unions and safety standards and inspectors and procedures and safeguards. Jon is covered by insurance that his employer is required by law to provide. If his employer doesn't, Bob is sitting pretty because he can sue that @$$ off his employer if he gets hurt. Everyone is accountable. If the accident is Bob's fault, he has his insurance that will pay for everything he needs. If someone else causes jon's accident, (spilled chemicals, poor cleanup etc) they they are accountable and are responsible for Bob's injury. So he gets a cut in pay. So what? He can leave and work elsewhere. He knew damn well he might get a salary reduction or a raise when he entered the field. Everyone has job availibility statistics readilly availible to them at the time they choose their education. But since Bob only needs base training, he can go ANYWHERE else and get a job unless he is too proud and too stubborn.

"Oh, so you'd rather have a buch of businessmen and CEO's doing the exact same thing? ::)"

YES! Now you're seeing the light. Do you know why I'd rather have that? Because if the businessmen and CEOs make a bad decision it hurts THEM. If I'm a dumbass and they keep me on board, I hurt productivity and they lose money. If I'm a great employee and they fire me, too bad for them. Their mistake. They find someone less efficient and they lose money. Now if its some commie who has nothing to do with me, what the hell does he care what he does with my carrer? If he transfers me from a hospital operating room to highway garbage collecter, why should he care? Doesn't effect him. Hell, he could have me picking grapes and it wouldn't matter to him. Why should he make good decisions?

"From my experience, it seems that right-wingers are perfectly fine with any degree of oppression and exploitation, as long as the government isn't the one doing it."

Nonsense. If I feel I'm being exploited I can quit. I can complain to the BBB, I can complain to the law, I can leave, or all three. If I get exploited in a communist system, why the hell should the government workers care? If I quit I'd get a visit from the KGB (or their neo-communist counterparts).

"Investment, banking, stock exchange... these are just a few examples of non-productive money-handling that can make a person filthy rich. There is a wealthy elite of people who do not produce anything or contribute to society in any way, yet live in opulent luxury."

Without investment, nobody can get their ideas off the ground. Without banking, everone loses money because of inflation and people wouldn't be able to afford their home, their car, their furnishings or whatever because they can't spend more than they have.

I'm going to have to break the next part up just to point out all of the gross flaws...

"So, to make a long story short, you are arguing that the quotas will be unfair, because they will be set by someone in a far away office who hasn't the slightest clue what the jobs are like. Wrong."

Nope. It is right by default. I'm going to guess that you'll make up some excuse and tie it to 'the good of all' or something and then I'll question who chooses that...

"The quotas will be set according to the necessities of the planned economy,"

And who determines what is necessary to the PLANNED economy? Hmm...maybe the planners? Who are essentially people in a far away office who havn't the slightest clue what the jobs are like. :)

"using the average productivity in previous years as an indicator of what the workers can do."

Ah yes, because everything is going to go just perfect exactly as you plan. Sure, there won't be other factors that throw EVERYTHING off. Allow me to introduce you to the concept completely foreign to all communists; the biggest thorn in Marx's side; the concept of the SHORTAGE! In the REAL world, there exist circumstances in which things don't go exactly as planned. I'll use examples from the USSR. In years of drought, crop yields were low. Nobody met their quotas. In a capitalist system, something would have to give, but in a Communist system, why go over your quota? And how can the government increase the quota when all people originally do is slack off for months at a time then work like dogs to meet their quota in time. How can you do double what you originally had to in the same amount of time? And when the quotas aren't met, the KGB shows up and people start to "disappear"...

"There will also be many checks and balances in place to guard against abuse."

Such as? Who runs these checks and balances?

"And since this is a democracy we're talking about, the people themselves can remove any abusive leaders."

And what's to stop a 90% majority from electing someone that abuses a 10% minority?

"Funny. Last time I checked, a college diploma was an actual solid object, not some guy's opinion of who you are. ::)"

Which college? Harvard or Texas A&M? Oxford or Devry? I can buy a fake degree online for thirty dollars. Does that count?

"In Communism, they both earn the same. In Capitalism, they are both at the mercy of market forces, and either one could earn a lot more or a lot less than the other, depending solely on who's work is in higher demand."

Well how stupid is that? I can get a four year degree in nuclear physics and is that equal to a four year degree in fine arts, general studies or drama? It's all conjecture, all based on one idiots opinion of what's worth more than what.

"Selfishness at its finest.

For your information, doing all the work "alone" is impossible. A team is more than the sum of its parts. Your job wouldn't exist without the other team members, and neither would theirs. It's not just 1% of your work that goes to someone else, it's also 1% of his work that goes to you. You work TOGETHER."

And what if 1% of his work is equal to HALF of 1% of yours? He's holding you down. You're dragging him up. How does that help the team be productive? If he's the best your 'agency' can get, then fine. But if they can find someone better whose willing to work for his salary, why wouldn't they hire him instead?

"But getting to the point at hand: You are right about starvation - it's a bad example to use in the case of rich countries such as the USA. But let's look at the poverty rate. Are you telling me that giving people less money results in them getting richer? ::)"

If you had actually read what I posted I said it leads to them getting jobs for themselves.

"Neither education nor health care is provided equally to the rich and to the poor. Rich people can buy themselves better health, and buy their children a better education - both at the expense of the poor."

Controlling ALL education is essentially mind control. And nearly all FME countries have public health care.

"As for the rest, you are absolutely correct. In fact, social safety nets and welfare programs are among the most important aspects of socialism, and I salute capitalist regimes for having adopted them."

You think it's just Sweden that has them? Get a clue Edric. They're all there, in EVERY country. Even in the US. Unemployment, social security, welfare, food stamps - it's ALL there.

"I don't know about you, but I'd rather have NO propaganda."

And you don't think that communists governments won't use propaganda to control the masses when they inevitably make poor, life-effecting decisions? *laughs* Of course I'd rather have no propaganda, but I'd rather trust many citizens not to propagate lies than a single, all-powerful government. You've said it yourself; power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would rather have corrupt power than corrupt absolute power.

"Oh yes, the door is indeed open. Too bad there are guards preventing people from going through..."

Lies again. Give me one example in the last thirty years of when someone was stopped from running in an election because of race, sex, religion etc...

"My argument was that the people are not given a choice. Maybe the majority would like to see someone other than a white male Protestant in office, but what can they do when they have only 2 virtually identical candidates to choose from?"

Virtually identical? Are you kidding me? There are tonnes mroe candidates Edric. Tonnes more. But nobody votes for them. And they might both be WASPs but what the hell does that matter? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't vote based on race/religion/language etc. If you do, what does that say about you? I wouldn't smypathy vote for a minority just because they're a minority. That's no less racist voting exclusively for WASPs.

[Acriku]

Edric, first get a grasp on the system in America, you obviously don't know much, except what communism manifesto tells you and maybe a little more.

[Edric O]

*bangs head against wall*

I already know what the system is like in America, Acriku. Of course, I don't know it as well as an American would, because I don't live there. But last time I checked, neither does Ace.

YOU should get a clue about communism, other than what your government tells you and maybe a little more.

Now, the fact is that this is a buisy time for me, and originally I didn't intend to reply to any of these long posts until tomorrow night. But I cannot remain indifferent to Ace's uninformed attack on communism, especially since his main argument is that capitalism is better than communism because of all the socialist features that it adopted over the past 100 years. ::)

So, here goes:

And what is the one necessity of life above all, Edric? The thing required by bears, gnats, and microbials alike?

Oh, so I see, taking hydrogen with you so you can combine it with the oxygen from lunar rocks to create water is just too hard, isn't it? Fighting wars and killing people is so much easier! ::)

Or maybe he gets a new job...ever think of that? And in any civilized capitalist nation there exist unions and safety standards and inspectors and procedures and safeguards.

Jon is covered by insurance that his employer is required by law to provide. If his employer doesn't, Bob is sitting pretty because he can sue that @$$ off his employer if he gets hurt. Everyone is accountable. If the accident is Bob's fault, he has his insurance that will pay for everything he needs. If someone else causes jon's accident, (spilled chemicals, poor cleanup etc) they they are accountable and are responsible for Bob's injury.

So he gets a cut in pay. So what? He can leave and work elsewhere. He knew damn well he might get a salary reduction or a raise when he entered the field. Everyone has job availibility statistics readilly availible to them at the time they choose their education. But since Bob only needs base training, he can go ANYWHERE else and get a job unless he is too proud and too stubborn.

Or maybe he CAN'T get a new job... ever think of that? Or, much more likely, there are no better paid jobs where he lives. He is forced to work for scraps, because the alternative is starvation (by the way, this is also the manner in which your beloved cut in welfare makes people get jobs...). That's what I mean by "capitalist exploitation" - people are forced to work like slaves because they have no choice.

Also, it looks to me like you completely misunderstood my example. I wasn't talking about the United States! I was talking about PURE CAPITALISM (hence the fact that I said "Let's see how Jon and Bob do in your perfect capitalist paradise"). Please pay more attention to what I'm actually saying before you attack it...

Of course the US is far better than the purely capitalist world I was talking about, and that's because the US is not purely capitalist. You've just given me examples of socialist elements that make the United States a good place to live. Thank you for proving my point.

YES! Now you're seeing the light. Do you know why I'd rather have that? Because if the businessmen and CEOs make a bad decision it hurts THEM. If I'm a dumbass and they keep me on board, I hurt productivity and they lose money. If I'm a great employee and they fire me, too bad for them. Their mistake. They find someone less efficient and they lose money. Now if its some commie who has nothing to do with me, what the hell does he care what he does with my carrer? If he transfers me from a hospital operating room to highway garbage collecter, why should he care? Doesn't effect him. Hell, he could have me picking grapes and it wouldn't matter to him. Why should he make good decisions?

Yes, but if you're a great employee and they can get away with exploiting you, they won't think twice about doing it. Businessmen and CEOs don't give a damn about their employess - they care about PROFITS. So they will try to be as unjust and oppressive as they can afford, without hurting their profits. And the less regulations are in place, the more exploitation they can afford.

Nonsense. If I feel I'm being exploited I can quit. I can complain to the BBB, I can complain to the law, I can leave, or all three. If I get exploited in a communist system, why the hell should the government workers care? If I quit I'd get a visit from the KGB (or their neo-communist counterparts).

You can quit all right, but what if there are no better jobs available, because all employers are the same? Remember, I'm not talking about "you" as in the middle-class bourgeois who works in a comfortable office. I'm talking about the poor working-class labourer, especially the ones in 3rd world countries, where they really don't have a choice between being paid $10 a month and starving to death.

As for the communist system, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You CAN'T get oppressed by your employer, because you don't HAVE an employer! The abolishment of wage labour is a central tenet of communism.

And a secret police cannot exist in a democratic state. There are no such things as the stalinist KGB or the capitalist "Comission for Un-American Activities" (see the lovely McCarthy era) in a communist society.

Without investment, nobody can get their ideas off the ground. Without banking, everone loses money because of inflation and people wouldn't be able to afford their home, their car, their furnishings or whatever because they can't spend more than they have.

That's because the capitalist system is made that way. I was pointing out its lack of efficiency.

Nope. It is right by default. I'm going to guess that you'll make up some excuse and tie it to 'the good of all' or something and then I'll question who chooses that...

The PEOPLE decide what the good of the PEOPLE is. Gee, that was a tough one, wasn't it? ::)

And who determines what is necessary to the PLANNED economy? Hmmm... maybe the planners? Who are essentially people in a far away office who havn't the slightest clue what the jobs are like. ;)

Seeing how the economic plan needs to be approved by the majority of the people, I doubt that...

Ah yes, because everything is going to go just perfect exactly as you plan. Sure, there won't be other factors that throw EVERYTHING off. Allow me to introduce you to the concept completely foreign to all communists; the biggest thorn in Marx's side; the concept of the SHORTAGE! In the REAL world, there exist circumstances in which things don't go exactly as planned. I'll use examples from the USSR. In years of drought, crop yields were low. Nobody met their quotas. In a capitalist system, something would have to give, but in a Communist system, why go over your quota? And how can the government increase the quota when all people originally do is slack off for months at a time then work like dogs to meet their quota in time. How can you do double what you originally had to in the same amount of time? And when the quotas aren't met, the KGB shows up and people start to "disappear"...

Oh, so you're just assuming that every single citizen is so incredibly stupid that no one realizes the difference between a SHORTAGE and a NORMAL YEAR, right? ::)

Of course there will be shortages. And of course that a corrupt dictatorship like Stalin's USSR won't be able to handle them. But I'm a communist, not a stalinist...

And as for how the people choose to distribute their work, that's their business. They can choose to slack off at first and work like dogs afterwards to catch up, or they can choose to work at a steady pace. Who am I to tell them what to do?

Oh, and don't pretend that the capitalist world has a perfect ever-growing economy full of flowers and sunshine. Does THE GREAT CRASH ring any bells?

Such as? Who runs these checks and balances?

Such as the usual laws that any civilized country has in place against abuse at the workplace.

And what's to stop a 90% majority from electing someone that abuses a 10% minority?

I wasn't talking about voting leaders IN. I was talking about voting them OUT.

And naturally, there will be laws in place to protect minorities, like we have today. What on Earth made you think otherwise?

Which college? Harvard or Texas A&M? Oxford or Devry? I can buy a fake degree online for thirty dollars. Does that count?

LOL. In any communist system, you won't see people buying themselves a better education than others by getting themselves into a better school. The goal is to provide equal education to everyone, no matter which college they go to.

Well how stupid is that? I can get a four year degree in nuclear physics and is that equal to a four year degree in fine arts, general studies or drama? It's all conjecture, all based on one idiots opinion of what's worth more than what.

Thank you for providing yet another argument against capitalism. You see, you've just described what happens in a capitalist society. In a communist one, no one makes such arbitrary judgements. A four year degree in nuclear physics is equal to a four year degree in fine arts, which is equal to one in general studies, which is equal to one in drama.

And what if 1% of his work is equal to HALF of 1% of yours? He's holding you down. You're dragging him up. How does that help the team be productive? If he's the best your 'agency' can get, then fine. But if they can find someone better whose willing to work for his salary, why wouldn't they hire him instead?

And who are you to judge how much a person's work is worth? Who are you to say that 1% of a doctor's brain surgery is worth half as much as 1% of another doctor's heart transplant? The irony is that this is exactly what you accused me of doing just a few lines above, and now you're doing it yourself!

If you had actually read what I posted I said it leads to them getting jobs for themselves.

Ah, yes. People are far more willing to work all day in sweat shops for scraps of food if they know that the alternative is starvation... why not implement social darwinism while you're at it? ::)

Controlling ALL education is essentially mind control. And nearly all FME countries have public health care.

Who said anything about controlling education? What I said was that ALL education should be FREE. It should be paid by the state, NOT controlled by it.

And yes, I was already aware that almost all rich countries have a system of public health care. But that's not the end of the story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't private clinics and hospitals offer far better services than public ones? Aren't so many treatments and operations so expensive that only the well-off can afford them?

You think it's just Sweden that has them? Get a clue Edric. They're all there, in EVERY country. Even in the US. Unemployment, social security, welfare, food stamps - it's ALL there.

LOL, when did I even hint that Sweden is somehow unique in having them? I can understand it if you twist my words, but now you're completely making things up!

I said: "In fact, social safety nets and welfare programs are among the most important aspects of socialism, and I salute capitalist regimes for having adopted them."

And "capitalist regimes" means a lot more than just Sweden, you know...

I only mentioned Sweden as the best example of a thriving, prosperous social democracy. At least from my knowledge.

Lies again. Give me one example in the last thirty years of when someone was stopped from running in an election because of race, sex, religion etc...

I never said they couldn't run in an election. I said they couldn't win. And so far, they haven't.

Virtually identical? Are you kidding me? There are tonnes more candidates Edric. Tonnes more. But nobody votes for them. And they might both be WASPs but what the hell does that matter? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't vote based on race/religion/language etc. If you do, what does that say about you? I wouldn't smypathy vote for a minority just because they're a minority. That's no less racist voting exclusively for WASPs.

Ace, the initial point of this whole "WASP" argument was that the United States isn't the great open-minded land of freedom and opportunity that it claims to be. I brought up the lack of ethnic, religious and gender diversity in the leadership of the US (as opposed to many European countries) as evidence.

The European political system is far more balanced and diverse than the American one. Add to that the greater left-wing inclination of Europe and the anti-imperialist stance of France, Germany and Russia, and you'll see why I support the emerging European resistence to the American Empire.

[Acriku]

YOU should get a clue about communism, other than what your government tells you and maybe a little more.

I know very little about communism, but it is my opinion that in the long run, communism cannot last. But, I am open-minded to how it can, it isn't that a hatred of communism is in my blood. Now, I haven't read your long posts that is towards another person who makes long posts as well, but if you can make another thread and talk to me, I will read all of it (or IM me) :)