Hey commie.

Use spellcheck.

you whant me to tell you everthing about marxism?? sorry i don't know english that good

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]I belive that classess have faild there funcjon. I belive it is moore just to give all by what they do, make and need. I am a communist becouse communism is the only fair form of society. I don't whant to be used by those who have moore just becouse they like to take everything they can.[/QUOTE]

Communism will never work in practice because of human nature. History should have taught you that. Don't misunderstand me, I don't like capitalism all that much either, but it seems to be what works best.

And BTW, better English might help your case.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]the risk is grate i must admit. the thing is do you whant to crose that line? i do.[/QUOTE]Like I said, congratulations.

A good education in common sense would cure you of this opinion.

No one needs to rag onthe guy about his English. It's not his native language.

Hardly, infact if anything, that is what I would be accusing HIM of, if I were accusing him of anything.

No, I didn't ask you to explain all of Marxism. Stop dodging. You could, you know, summerize it. Although there's no point now since you'll probably just Wikipedia it.

this is a blanket cop out statement for attacking communism, it is much more complex and there are many forms of it to say "it doesnt work"

if you wanted to say that, look at china, it "works" there.

Yeah, it "works" really well there. I agree that most people who arguing about the subject aren't completely educated about it, but I still don't believe it's the ideal solution, even if it would work. But I don't think capitalism is, either. It's really a debate for another subject.

China isn't communist, and it's getting less so iwth every passing day.

Ill gladly summerize it in polish if you like?

Oh comon. Your English is not that bad. There's no reason you could carry on this debate but not explain communism in a few paragraphs or less.

Eh, you could definately argue that.

In several ways.

right but i don't know how to say "ploretariusze" our "burżuje" in english. and these things are esential.

Proletariate?

if you say so :p

And that makes it right? (although this was not an argument you were making, I'll ask it anyway)

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]right but i don't know how to say "ploretariusze" our "burżuje" in english. and these things are esential.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I supopse.

if its getting "less communist with every passing day" then how is it not communist?

I agree there are quite a few capitalist reforms, but at the same time they are trying to maintain their communist ideals with their authoritarian control over their people (e.g. their internet sensorship)

not at all, as you'll see in my earlier posts I disagree with these laws completly. That was just an informative post.

...it also doesn't work in many ways. On some minor issues, like, say, human rights, it doesn't work too well.

true, but you can't blame that on communism, you could look at the bad aspects of the US and blame it on capitalism, but this is just false cause for the problems you're looking at (and people do it quite often)

Communism has "worked" in a few nations simply because they traded with foreign capitalist nations. China is the perfect example of that.

Yeah, but to call it communism isn't really accurate. It's really more a hard socialist system.

Without cheap labor and free trade, China would look far worse as a communist state. Since the government controls industry, corruption and inefficiency still hurts their booming economy. They need more private institutions, a provision of capitalism, to innovate and survive as an economic power, instead of depending on the West.

I remember reading a figure somewhere that a significant portion of goods from China are counterfeit.

Strange... when last I look I thought we were disucussing freedom of speech.

I hate that human nature cliche. Pure capitalism will never work in practice either. The U.S.A tried it in the 19th and early 20th centuries and it failed miserably. Today in the U.S.A., there are very strict limits on business and there are only more imposed every day. Both systems failed not because of human nature, but because the two economic systems limited freedom. There's nothing inherently wrong with the people. The people are fine. You need to change the system.

I just had to laugh at this. In the grand scale of things, they are hardly different. Compared to what could be, capitalism isn't a whole lot different than communism either.

Internet censhorship has nothing to do with communism. It is viable to allow people broad social freedoms while limiting their economic freedom. Communism is merely an economic system, not a political one.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]There is capital in china there was capital in soviet russia and so on and so on. find something else to suck on :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
That's why China only started getting capital as they moved towards a more free market, and Russia collapsed under its socialistic burden?

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]I belive that classess have faild there funcjon. I belive it is moore just to give all by what they do, make and need. I am a communist becouse communism is the only fair form of society. I don't whant to be used by those who have moore just becouse they like to take everything they can.[/QUOTE]
Communism ISN'T fair though. The people in charge make too many decisions, and don't take everything into account--how can they?

In capitalism, if people push themselves harder to succeed, they succeed further. They get more money/the dream job/etc. If you don't want to be ruled by them, PUSH YOURSELF. If you don't want to do that, that's called laziness. But the ironic thing is, in Communism you'll always be ruled by those with more than you, no matter what--there's always a dictator to run things.

Also, if EVERYONE tries to "take everything they can", then that feeds into the Invisible Hand theory. While not perfect, it's the best thing we've got so far, and it seems to work DAMN well.

Finally, there are good dictators. Can you name more than five? Because I can name more than ten bad ones right here. Hell, can you name more than THREE?

Pol Pot
Ghengis Khan
Saddam Hussein
Hitler
Mussollini
Stalin
Kim-Jong Il
Omar Bashir
Juvenal Habyarimana
Mohammed Farrah Aidid

I'll take my chances with the Capitalist system.

Since we are discussing economics and such... can some one tell me why is it that in poor nations there are, in some cases, lots of unemployed people when there are lots of work to be done that I'm sure would benefit the people and the nation and might even get them money.

No, China is becoming less communist, moving towards capitalism, and the government's hold on the country is weakening slowly. I estimate by the time they "come into power" as they're supposed to, they will be considered socialist or capitalist.


Internet censhorship is tenuous at best. The Chinese government has received a lot of flak for that, and business people are starting to realize what's going on. The only reason that's held on so long is because those who run the businesses don't realize it's going on really. Once knowledge becomes more widespread, there will be a revolt until it is changed. Censoring something like that only lasts so long. Communism feeds off of ignorance.


Could you not? Communism encourages obedience, not intelligence, and complacence and laziness instead of hard work. Communism isn't "just" an economic system in that it only effects the economy--for it to work social reforms must be in place as well obviously. (IE, internet censorship. Two-edged sword).


No, it boosted our economy TREMENDOUSLY. It just horribly violated civil rights because there were no limitations to it. With less limitations that could happen once again, and with less government involvement in the system. However, neither of these things will ever happen. The government is only bound to get more involved, and more laws are bound to pass. Conservatives are fighting an ever-losing battle in this regard (not neo-cons, however). It's just how fast do you lose.


Good job backing that up. They're not at all similar, and if you think they are go live 10 years in China or North Korea, then come back and say that. If you can.

yoshi is totally wrong about everything he posted.

No, he wouldn't live in China or North Korea, because he's different. He'll have to change his name from "Freelancer" to "COMMUNISTRULESlancer".

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, it boosted our economy TREMENDOUSLY. It just horribly violated civil rights because there were no limitations to it. With less limitations that could happen once again, and with less government involvement in the system. However, neither of these things will ever happen. The government is only bound to get more involved, and more laws are bound to pass. Conservatives are fighting an ever-losing battle in this regard (not neo-cons, however). It's just how fast do you lose.[/quote]

What do you mean, no? If it worked, we would still be using it. Hate to break it to you, btw, but the U.S.A didn't become much of an economic power until after WWI when war debts were paid to us. At that time, the U.S.A. came into possession of basically all the gold currency being circulated at the time. You know, Fort Knox and all that.

How can you say a monopolistic economy was a boost to the economy? It put a lot of money in the hands of a few. Do you see that as economic progress? You can't think of the economy solely in terms of money, you must also think about innovation. Monopolies are detrimental to progress, because a monopoly has no reason to be innovative.

I hardly see how overworked employees crushed under the iron heel of some monopolist is the ideal breeding ground for innovation over the long haul. Sure it provides a temporary boost in productivity, but in the long term it is a kink to progress. There have been studies done that peg 40 hours as the ideal work hours for the average worker. Any more and productivity (true productivity) lags, and any less and it lags.

The U.S. was booming in the second industrial revolution.

Granted working conditions sucked, but hey, we wouldn't be there today if people wouldn't have worked for >$1.00/h.

Furthermore, the Industrial Revolutions were the pioneering grounds to the workforce as we know it today. We had to start somewhere. And I think we did pretty damn good. Without the crappy working conditions, people wouldn't form child labor laws, women rights, and so on.

Kinda my view on things.

Protaginism FTW

The economic practices of the Industrial Revolution were a major contributor to the Great Depression, though a lot of it was caused by bankers. It wasn't until the New Deal secretly socialized businesses that we were able to get out of that slump.

Cheap labor + tons of natural resources + open land - laws = economic progress. After you move to a certain point, it stagnates, but until then you see humongous gains. If it weren't for the robber barons we would be in the same position as China, only with a lot less people. We wouldn't have had railroad run across the country and linked up, we wouldn't have distribution of natural resources, and we'd be SCREWED. You can't argue that the robber baron era was an era of humongous economic gains.

I think we became a power shortly after the Spanish-American war.

Great Depression = totally caused by bankers and Black Thursday/Tuesday.

IMO at least.

Once again, without the mistakes that were made, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Don't always look on one side of things.

Also, the New Deal only kept our country afloat, if anything, and has done more harm in the long run than it has good. It didn't "secretly" socialize anything. I hope FDR is burning in hell, to be honest with you, because I consider him one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

Worse than Bush?

LBJ?

Regan?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Also, the New Deal only kept our country afloat, if anything, and has done more

arm in the long run than it has good. It didn't "secretly" socialize anything. I hope FDR is burning in hell, to be honest with you, because I consider him one of the worst presidents we've ever had.[/QUOTE]

....oh dear god.....


Yeah, it did secretly socialize many of the largest businesses in the U.S.A. Maybe you don't know about it because it was 'secret.'

Let's see, the New Deal stated that corporations could count plant expansions and new equipment as operating expenses, which they could deduct from their new earnings before calculating income taxes. Which amounts to a subsidy to cover all new-equipment. They then said the same thing about advertising. In fact, through these tax deductions, it amounted to about 7 billion dollars(keep in mind this is the 30s) a year to subsidize advertising. So basically they took the risk out of free enterprise. They didn't socialize the people directly; they socialized the businesses.

They placed controls of every kind on banks; banks became about as regulated as the post office. Plus they guaranteed bank accounts to 5,000 dollars. They made a number of companies their 'prime contractors', and instead of taking control of them, they simply gave them orders - for example, to Chrysler for tanks. Congress passed rent controls, limited interest rates to 1.5%, and passed all sorts of other price controls. The New Deal drastically raised the minimum wage (in fact it may have instituted them for the first time, I'm not sure), and raised them so much that basically everyone was pretty well-to-do. Even the lowliest laborer. The New Deal also viciously negotiated constantly with businesses to limit profits (to prevent drastic overpricing). During the New Deal, businesses only averaged 10 percent or so.

Everything I just mentioned is socialism, man. And a lot of the things I mentioned are still in effect today, so you take them for granted as pure Capitalism.