One of the worst.

I didn't say he didn't socialize it Free. I said he didn't secretly do it. That's not secret, that's pretty damn public. I don't know how you get off saying it's not public.

Also, we don't practice pure capitalism, that much is for sure. But we're more than a stone's throw away from Communism. A lot more.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]Suck it up, idiot, Hitler what next? you belive it's wrong that he is in jail i belive it's good. you are the ones who can't get along with the opinions of others.[/QUOTE]Not one person in this thread says you have to agree with what this man is saying.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]One of the worst.

I don't know how you get off saying it's not public.

[/QUOTE]

Because to the average worker, at the time, there was the illusion that the system was like it used to be, except the government was propping up businesses behind the scenes. But this was not common knowledge.

amen


I did say in another post that they are changing..





Not necessairly, even American companies are dealing with the communist government there, even google and yahoo have built in censors now for chinese audiences




this is just ignorance here, part of communism (atleast the revolutionary aspect) is for the working class to rise and take control

I dunno about all that. If they got their news from FDR's fireside chats maybe, but if they paid attention to the laws being passed, then I doubt it.


I meant Chinese businesses. Sorry for the misinterpretation.


Maybe in a perfect world, but we're not talking about a perfect world in any sense of the word. We're talking about a real world.

Well then we arent talking about any nation that has ever existed then, since no country has attempted to go forth with communism.

Therefore we must only look at the theory of communism which intails the workers being one of the most important factors of communism.


plus even if you look at countries that claim to have attempted communism, like lets say cuba: the average person is far from lazy

harm like creating many jobs and give us more roads and national park system, I could go on and on for what it has done positively for the US

What little good it did was only temporary through throwing money at the problem instead of putting money strategically in places. If you subsidize businesses, they pay employees more, prices go down because more people are buying, and the market evens out. Overly simplified, but what FDR did was just throw money everywhere, thus making the value of the dollar not only less, but also not helping the problem as much as he could have had he not panicked and tried to push his own socialistic ideas on our society. In the long run, he's created detrimental systems such as the ever-failing Social Security system, localized government-run electric plants which could be more efficiently done privately, and socialized a lot of things that would be better off in today's society privately.

I'm talking wholly economically though. As far as domestic non-econ issues go, he wasn't that bad of a president.

power plants should be government owned because they become monopolies by default if they are privatley owned. Plus the government has more resources to manage something like power.

FDR's new deal helped create jobs for many people, as seen by his predecessor, Hoover, something needed to be done

(hoover decided to let it play out by itself)

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]...localized government-run electric plants...[/QUOTE]
As a resident of California I can vouch for this. The electricity debacle was caused by a cluster**** of problems nonewithstanding government incompetance. Grayout Davis just threw money at the problem and capped electrical prices. Businesses that did own utilities were quickly losing money. Businesses can operate efficiently and better the utilities but only if competition. San Diego Gouge & Extort Gas & Electric had a fun time making San Diegans paying $400 power bills.

You see you're taking two extremes and saying one's right by saying the other is wrong. That doesn't work.

Hoover was stupid. FDR was just a step above. He knew something needed to be done...he just didn't know to what degree. He went too far. And how do you know Power Plants should be government owned? We've never lived in a world where they weren't--it's all government-run businesses. Prices of gas, water and electricity are skyrocketing because the government's trying to even things out, and it ends up affecting places where the cost of living is lower hard. Trust me, I know.

I hate to say it, but most socialist economics guys are just rich kids who never had to work for anything and don't appreciate things like competition, entrepeneurship and capitalism. They think that since what they have works, why look towards something that could work BETTER. I used to be that way.

Or better yet, they should be free commodoties because everyone deserves to have the essentials of life. That won't happen in any political or economic system that believes there isn't enough to go around, but through good engineering. It's possible, but the government and private business both frown on the idea because it would put them out of business. Boohoo. (I'm talking about water, electric, & utilities)

I suggest you watch the "Enron: Smartest Guys in the room" movie, gave interesting perspective to the black outs. It seems to have been more about corruption than incompetance.



Blanket stereotype here. The average worker isn't benifited by capitalism, the buisness owners are.

well getting water, electricity, etc. to people isn't free, so someone has to be paid for that. (remember the "nothing is free" aspect of highschool economics)

One thing I admire about Communism is that it values the worker; the guy down on the ground doing real work. Capitalism really doesn't. The guys at the top all make money from money or make a fortune by screwing over their workers or by investing. But the guy at the bottom gets **** on, doesn't have money to invest, and maybe he doesn't want to **** all over everyone else by starting a business.

exactly, in capitalism you can make money just by having money and not really "working" (e.g., stocks, real estate)

so one could argue that capitalism breeds lazieness, not communism

That's funny. I got rained on yesterday. Funny that no one collects rainwater. And the sweet deal is, you don't even have to purify it because the sun already did that for you! People are total idiots. Even a little water can go a long way if you use it wisely. What possible reason could there be for people not to get their own water? Dig a well, dig a ditch, collect rainwater. Pipe it in yourself with your wind turbine and your photovoltaic cells if there's no other way you can get water. H2O is more plentiful than O2 on this earth. Desalinization is viable if you live near the ocean. Next thing you know, they'll be taxing us to breathe. I really wouldn't be surprised.

It's all about self-sufficiency. If people spent all that money during the cold war engineering households to be truly energy efficient and truly self-sufficient, instead of building enough bombs to blow the earth up 50 times, maybe we'd be quite a bit further on toward that dream than we are now.

Hell, this is the kind of thing the government should be completely subsidizing if I've ever seen it.

Communism breeds complacency. In communism, everyone's a worker. It's a faux equalité. Under communism, I wouldn't acheive anything. I would be just a hapless worker for the rest of my life. I don't want that. I want to acheive and not be stuck in one spot the rest of my life.

thats not true. that would be like saying "well in communism everyone has to work in factories!" it just doesnt make sense.

Communism puts people to do productive things, not invest in things like real estate, that would be done through the government.

So there would still be scientists, researchers, etc.

Plus, look at the space race, the russians were kicking america's *** for the longest time. They were productive under socialism (not communism, but close enough)

*vomit*
Yeah, but like Bguitar says they have to come from somewhere. You can't go 50/25/25 (capitalist/socialist/communist) with such an important commodity. Yeah, it'd put them out of business and inflation would occur because too much money would be floating around and it'd end up being bad for the economy.



Did you not learn anything in HS Econ? Competition breeds low prices. True, the lowest rung of workers don't get much out of working hard, but they get their paycheck and do a service which allows the higher ups to do their jobs. They facilitate keeping their own jobs and promote the economy, in a somewhat roundabout way. Big business can't survive without minimum wage workers, and vice versa.


People would fight over rain, making territories, breaking up the communities, making society...horrible... Desalinization isn't that viable of an alternative yet--the returns aren't as great as the input. Kind of like fusion. It'd be the ideal alternative, but it's not happening. Remember--real world, not ideal.

And power, water, and everything else we pay for takes energy to make the object available to the public. Air doesn't. You've got a flawed perspective.

Also--Communism breeds complacency, but that doesn't mean there aren't niches in the Capitalistic system which allow for laziness. But the entire system doesn't promote it. Like I said, it's not the best thing we could come up with, I'm sure, but it's all we got. At least it works, and works well. And if you say it doesn't, then try going to live in China and living off a dollar a day wages. At least here you get something feasible for your time and effort, though it may not be the "greatest return" it should be.

PS--I am for socializing health care to a degree in spirit. Doctors make way too much in my opinion, and health care is too expensive. That's just me though.


1) You may not have to work in factories, but you don't get to do what you want. You only do what you're best at. Technically, I'm a great mathematician, artist, and writer. I have a lot of potential I'm told. But I'd rather be a programmer than any of those, even though it's definitly not my strongest suit. I've got a lot of work, but I can be what I want.

This is where real world applies to the system of Communism--human nature is that you want to do what's best for you, not for some state which is corrupt and crumbling (PS--about the power issue being all about corruption, government owned businesses, and hell the government itself breed more corruption than any business on earth.). And by doing this you support yourself AND your state.

The only reason the Russians were "kicking our ***" in the Space Race was because they gave it their all--their entire economy. They lead for a while, but they had a horrible economy and horrible living conditions. The US, however, had a perfectly fine quality of life, and still kept up, even eventually surpassing them. The part you're overlooking is where they got destroyed when they switched economic systems (before you start up the argument that it was Capitalism that killed them, realize that they went from Communism (or the closest incarnation we're going to see in this millenium) to Capitalism in the blink of an eye. That'd be a problem for any nation.).

Also, like I said, there's never been a "true" communist state--and never will be. The people have to have someone to delegate all their power to, and those will be the people in charge, the people who make the rules, put themselves ahead, fight for power, ending up with one...dictator.

Ohsnap. I think I've won this thread many times over.

But there would be no rockstars. I am going to be a rockstar so I can have celebrity (b level) sex and sit around. Also I want to have enough money to donate to charities. But first and foremost I want deigner jeans, sex, and rest. Also making people happy is cool. But pants are great.

You see, in communism, you work. Forever. FOR-EV-ER. OH GOD KILL ME BEFORE I THINK ABOUT IT TOO MUCH

Wow 5 pages...

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]*vomit*
Yeah, but like Bguitar says they have to come from somewhere. You can't go 50/25/25 (capitalist/socialist/communist) with such an important commodity. Yeah, it'd put them out of business and inflation would occur because too much money would be floating around and it'd end up being bad for the economy.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm, methinks not, just like when agriculture went down the tubes because technology improved. When technology improves to the point that piped-in water and power is irrelevant, somehow I think the economy will cope.
Besides, isn't it a little hypocritical of the government to provide subsidized education but not water? Since when is the current education system more important to human life than water?

Uh...it didn't go "down the tubes". It stayed around with less workers. And technology may or may not ever improve to that state. But I'll tell you one thing--if you can't foresee a way for it to happen, chances are it'll never happen. However, your stupid, inane, and unconvincing sarcasm has at least given me a good laugh at your expense. Mainly because you really believe you know what you're talking about.

Uh...it didn't go "down the tubes". It stayed around with less workers. And technology may or may not ever improve to that state. But I'll tell you one thing--if you can't foresee a way for it to happen, chances are it'll never happen. However, your stupid, inane, and unconvincing sarcasm has at least given me a good laugh at your expense. Mainly because you really believe you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and about water, you can easily get that. It takes work, but not hard work. However, you canNOT easily get education. It takes upwards of 20-25-30 years depending on what you end up doing, and at least 12 years for a BASIC education. Water takes a few minutes and technology that couldn't be gotten without...*gasp*...people who have educations.

Stop thinking so simple-mindedly.

Right.. just like humans in the 18th century couldn't forsee a way for computers to happen.

BUT OMG! IT HAPPENED!

Want some more examples? I could go on for hours

So we should make water free now so that, in 200 years after our economy collapsed, it could actually BE free? That's like preparing to put all your banking records online in the 1800s.

Not only that, but you're RELYING on chance. That's not a good thing to do.

Think realistically Free.

Dude, stop arguing just to argue. I said water > education TO HUMAN LIFE, and you're ****ing ARGUING WITH ME? Are you a moron? I couldn't GET an education without water...

Yeah, but that's because they're leaders wanted it to happen. They forced every one who was any good at it to work on the projects. You get motivated when your life depends on your success. Notice that in Comminist

The concept of communism is fundamentally flawed. The country won't get ahead because none of the individuals can get ahead. There is no incentive to work harder or to innovate. Who cares if you can double your production if it won't benefit you at all. It is essentially unfair in that a lazy man will make as much as a diligent man. Progress disappears because there is no incentive for progress to happen.

What? What the **** is wrong with you? Jesus christ, you can't even hold a proper debate. You couldn't live without water. But that doesn't mean that it should be free. That just means that you have to work to live. It'd be the same way in Soviet USA, so why should it be any different in Capitalist USA?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]What? What the **** is wrong with you?[/QUOTE]

My parents neglected to buy a gate for the stairway and I fell down it one too many times as an infant.

To quote Waiting:

"God I ****in hope so."

I hope this is satire

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]And if you say it doesn't, then try going to live in China and living off a dollar a day wages. [/QUOTE]

were you one of the people saying that China is turning capitalist? Exploiting workers, having them work long hours for low wages is also a capitalist construct (look at India and American involvment there)

You may not have to work in factories, but you don't get to do what you want.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You only do what you're best at. Technically, I'm a great mathematician, artist, and writer. I have a lot of potential I'm told. But I'd rather be a programmer than any of those, even though it's definitly not my strongest suit. I've got a lot of work, but I can be what I want.[/QUOTE]

For this I will let Karl Marx respond:

[QUOTE=Karl Marx & Fredrick Engels]In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.[/QUOTE]


and as for the space race, I dont really know how much each country spent on the space race, couldn't find it quick enough so I decided not too look any more, don't care that much.

But under capitalism (well more capitalist than before, they still have much more to go before they are all out capitalist) Russia isn't doing to hot

Wow...it's like you didn't read my posts or something. I mentioned that you don't get to do what you want...and that's the problem. There's no incentive to progress. Karl Marx and Fred Engels made a system based on IDEAL conditions, that wouldn't work if conditions were NOT ideal. IT WON'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

And Russia ISN'T doing too hot because they switched so FAST like I FREAKING SAID. Moving slowly from one extreme to the other is the only way to do it. That's why China is showing success. Like I said.

At this point, you're either not reading my posts, or just don't want to admit you're wrong. Reiterating the same points doesn't = being right.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Karl Marx and Fred Engels made a system based on IDEAL conditions, that wouldn't work if conditions were NOT ideal. IT WON'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.[/QUOTE]

The ideal is what we should be continually striving for in.. everything. If we can't get there by shedding our fear and ignorance and money, perhaps we can get a little closer by making better and better technologies that allow us to live more comfortably. That's my main point.

Actually nationalism was fairly strong in the USSR at the time, so the people were motivated, not forced into doing their work as in Nazi germany where the ones who were forced into it usually defected. (e.g., some of the people on the manhatten project)

No, because human nature is the same--GREED.

No, the system they are in is one that brings out that quality in people. Change the system and you'll change the people. People aren't inherently born greedy. If you were born into a civilization without money and without inequity, you wouldn't be inclined to be greedy or even know what greed is.

Which is why a lot of russian scientists came over to America, right?

they certainly didn't. The purpose of it was that conditions were so bad under capitalism that something needed to change. They didn't write about it as if they were living in utopia, but as part of their ideology. The quote I posted simply proves what you said wrong.