communism works. We have just got to find the instruction manual.

------------------
Those silly bullets have minds of their own!
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)-@%

*begins to dig through his drawers of manuals* damn it, I know it's in here some where....

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

oSiRiS: I floated through high school with zero effort and still get to study computer science at one of the best colleges in the nation. I know people who have worked ten times as hard as I have but will probably never make it out of southern Illinois. Some people are crippled by their schools, their parents, their economics, or apparently random throws of some cosmic dice. Others live off investments and connections their parents made and will never have to work. You just can't relate income and work ethic in any meaningful way.

I don't think Osiris is relating economic status to work ethic. There are honestly wealthy people who had to work hard to get where they are. Likewise there are lazy slouths who are multimillionares because they inherited from daddy. He's compairing two individual's desires and work habits. Osiris chose to work hard and take AP courses. His classmates decided to choose "easy A" classes that won't get you into most colleges.

If I understand communism correctly, Osiris and his classmates would be put on the same economic status as his classmates.

A little tidbit about Soviet Russia. My AP Government teacher back in 2000 showed us a Soviet frizbee. He had spend some years in the Soviet Union. On it, the frizbee read "flying disk" (in Russian of course). It was blue and utterly plain. It wasn't detailed with graphics. It wasn't designed with intricate patterns. It was blue and plastic.

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

I never said you could. Let's take a look again at what I did say:


What you have counts as natural expertise, or natural ability, which unfortunately must also count, regardless of how "fair" it is--we cannot discriminate against someone who didn't try as hard if he is still doing the same calibur of work. What I mean by calibur of work is how restricted the field is: how many people can do it, or would want to do it, or have the ability to do it. And this is one of the basics of capitalism. If your job is necessary (in demand) and no one else does it, you will be paid very well. I think this is why anesthesiologists get paid a MINT.

Life sucks and isn't fair, that's hardly a reason to change the system when it's the only way that makes sense. The alternative make absolutely no sense at all: paying everyone the same regardless of how restricted the job is. Paying say, a brain surgeon the same as a janitor. It's nuts.

------------------
Ω of 14

[This message has been edited by oSiRiS (edited May 09, 2004).]

Just for an example of what I'm saying, I'll demonstrate why your analogy is wrong.

Here's the hypothetical situation:
You've got all the men on the ferry. The captain drives, and the navigator says where to go. Beyond that, we've got the workers on the decks, cleaning up and managing the docking procedure, or helping people or whatever on and off and making sure no one gets into trouble.

The worker who cleans the deck is killed in a horrible shark-laser accident. To replace him, we just hire pretty much anybody off the street and train him for 10 minutes. He keeps the decks clean.

The captain now dies in a horrible electrified-manatee debacle. To replace him, we just hire pretty much anybody off the street and train him for 10 minutes. He tries, but can't understand the navigator's directions and crashes the ferry into the dock. He blows up the engines by over-revving them, and when a storm comes sinks the boat by allowing the waves to cascade inside.

All of the people are necessary, but they are not equal, their jobs are not equal, their abilities are not equal.

------------------
Ω of 14

Yes, Communism is completely deserving of its bad rap. Any economic system that denies people their right to own property, or that ignores their will in favor of some stupid notion of a society where everyone is made miserably equal and equally miserable, is wrong.

"Social justice" is not a reason to tax people merely because you think they have too much money. I've never heard someone who uses that term define it. I don't imagine they can.

Also, how many Communist governments have to turn into "people's republics", i.e. dictatorships, in order for people to realize that there is a connection between political and economic freedom?

'Communism' is the final stage of several outlined in the Communist Manifesto.

But first, you have to understand the basic principles of Classical Marxism.

The key element is conflict. Under capitalism, there are two classes:

- The proliteriat: the factory workers and farmers, and also teachers and professors. They prostitute their labour to earn a wage.

- The bourgeoise: the factory owners and landlords, those that own the means of production. They make money by exploiting the proliteriat, by paying them less than their labour is worth.

The second key element that Marx argued for is that the economic base defines the superstructure, NOT the other way round.
So, the way the economy is organised controls how the culture will develop; if the economy promotes collectivised labour, then the culture will value large extended social groups.
So, if you change the way the economic base works, the rest changes too, in time.
This is a fairly long and complex element that is quite hard to understand, you might need to read up on it more. Basically, if you think about it, any country's institutions cannot directly oppose the economic structure.

There is no point for a school to teach teamwork and sharing to its students when the jobs in that country require competition and individualism. If the school did teach those values, then it wouldn't change those jobs, it would simply mean that those students (and in turn, the school) would fail.


But anyway.

Throughout the Communist Manifeso, Marx explains how the bourges do everything possible to suppress the proles and to keep them happy and working, through the use of the various capitalist institutions.

One of those is religion, as religion tries to make the proles happy and accepting of what they have, and to convince them that if they conform to the bourges now they will live in happiness after death.
Another is school, acting as secondary socialisation. In school, individuals are impressed upon the values of capitalism, such as conformity, competitiveness and individualism.
Bowles and Gintis built on this idea, and formed the concept of the Hidden Curriculum, giving examples such as competitive sports being highly praised.

All the capitalist institutions are in order to give the proliteriat a false class consciousness, to make them believe that they are happy when they are in fact being exploited. Marx prophesised that eventually, the proles would reject this and develop a TRUE class consciousness and understand their exploitation. Then comes the revolution.

Marx sees the development of society through revolution. He saw history as a series of revolutionary changes (as opposed to evolutionary changes), a series of great steps from one system to the next.

Barbarism was characterised by the rule of chiefs, which in turn gave way to Feudalism (though I have no idea when a feudal revolution was). The feudal system was basically the hierarchy of monarchs and fiefs and lords throughout the Middle Ages. This would in turn be overthrown by a bourgeois-democratic revolution, and would establish Capitalism (explained above). From capitalism, the proles would unite, overthrow the capitalists and establish Socialism.
Now here there seems to be some confusion. The purpose of socialism is to purge all capitalist influence, and has to be a dictatorship. Marx did not like socialism, but saw it as a necessary step to achieve communism. All capitalist supporters and institutions must be purged from socialist society first. All private property is now owned by the socialist state, and all wealth redistributed.
Once that was achieved, the socialist government would be overthrown by the people, and Communism would be achieved. All property is owned by the people, everyone. Communism is the only true democracy.

Every revolution will be violent, as the bourges will not wish to give up their material goods, and will have control of the military (although the soldiers are proles too, so they might rebel against the bourges as well), but the proles will greatly outnumber them. Violent revolution is the most democratic act there is. Only when the proles are ready to kill and die for Marxism will capitalism be overthrown.

But throughout the series of revolutions, no country has ever achieved communism. Although many like to cliam they have, none have achieved true Marxist communism.
Some Neo-Marxists argue that the entire world has to be socialist before any country can achieve communism, and global liberation is certainly what Marxism promotes ("Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains").

Some have achieved socialism, though.

Most famously, of course, is Russia.
The Russian Revolution was flawed from the start, as Lenin did not have majority support of proles when he engaged the Tsar, and it was a Bolshevik revolution. Had he waited some years he could probably have inspired a peasant revolt, but Lenin overthrew the Tsar and established a Soviet dictatorship. Despite not being a peasant revolt, life in the early Soviet Union was much better than life under Tsarist Russia, especially concerning women's rights, as women could work alongside men as equals, which they could not before (the anti-communist propaganda would later paint Russian woman as very manly and butch, telling women that if they want equality with men, they'd turn into men).
The second greatest enemy of Communism was Stalin. Up until Stalin, the USSR had been promoting revolutions throughout the world and supporting potentially communist countries, as Leninist Marxism stated that communism would NOT work within a single country. Stalin disagreed, and stated that communism WOULD work within a single country, and opted for a dangerously isolationist policy. Stalin started events that would lead to the downfall of the USSR.
However, the greatest enemy of communism was (and still is) the USA.
The constant pressure and aggression exerted on the Soviet Union by the US is possibly the most significant factor in the fall of the USSR (and the considerably uncommunist policies of Gorbachev didn't help).


It is most notable, though, that life under the USSR was considerably better for Russians. Poverty rose from 2% in 1980 to 20% to 1995, and the country is pretty much run by the Russian Mafia. It is a triumph of Marxism that even a flawed interpretation and implementation provides much greater living standards than the same country under capitalism.


Another famous socialist revolution was that of Mao Tsetung over the corrupt nationalist Chang Kai Check. Mao was the first leader that managed to feed China. Previously, the country had experienced many great famines, but Mao devised several social policies that, for the first time in history, managed to feed all of China. Later, however, Mao did make grave mistakes.

The first was The Great Leap Forward. China was also pressured to compete with the US, and so Mao implemented policies to try to rapidly accelerate social and military development in China. Due to unrealistic targets and deciet within the Communist Party, this was a tremendous failure, and many people starved.
The second was The Cultural Revolution. Nearing the end of Mao's rule, China slowly entered an economic depression, and things began to stagnate. Mao saw that the USSR had similar problems, and wanted to step away from that, and wanted to rekindle the culture of revolution. He felt that many of the education and welfare systems were elitist and he wanted the young people of China to stand up and question their elders and rebel against traditional values ("Let 100 flowers
bloom and 100 schools of thought contend"). He set up the Red Guard, a Maoist youth army, to challenge those in power. Throughout 1967, several provinces were overthrown by the Red Guard and new political bodies replaced them, although there was great division between various factions of the youth army. The country was thrown into radical turmoil, and the factions continued to fight amongst themselves. In 1976, Mao died, leaving the country in chaos and confusion.
This fervour of almost nationwide violent revolution could have resulted in a complete overhaul of the Chinese communist party, and could have continued the Marxist policy of constant revolution. China could have moved closer to achieving Communism. However, the revolutionaries were not united and not organised and left the country with a timid, fragile government.

Modern China is quite different from Maoist China. Whereas the USSR resisted the USA, China has slowly let American influence seep in. China today is a confused mishmash of pseudo-capitalist economic policy and pseudo-socialist social policy. This is totally going back against Marxist policy of purging capitalist influences, and China cannot continue this mishmash policy for long. Perhaps the European Union and China can together form a superpower to counter the United States as the USSR once did, and China can rid itself of American influence, but this is unlikely for decades to come.


The only way for communism to be achieved is for the entire world to unite and acheive it also. The first step of which would be the United States. Would the US achieve Communism?
Applying Marxism to modern Western society is complicated, because there is no easy divide between bourge and prole, between labourer and owner. Britain and the US have both become much more embourgeoised, because the proliteriat are no longer in those countries. Globalisation has allowed for companies to exploit labourers of other countries to produce goods for western bourges. Cars, clothes, shoes, computers.. All made by foreign labour at a pitiful wage, sold to westerners at an incredible profit. They are the modern proliteriat, exploited by corporations.
So how will a communist revolution take place in Britain or the US? It won't, simply enough. The only way for a revolution to take place would be if the hordes of Mexicans, Chinese, Koreans, Brazillians all united and invaded the US. They would redistribute the wealth and recompensate the exploited proles.

You, middle-class white American, would almost certainly see your standard of living fall. Under global communism, most westerners would. Because you are the bourgeoise. Your way of life is based on the exploitation of foreign third-world labour.
You should oppose Communism, violently oppose Communism.
Marx did prophesise, though, that eventually the revolution WILL come.
He didn't say when or where, but the revolution will come.

Nonsense. You all keep forgetting that it doesn't take any military power at all to begin a communist revolution. It takes a lot of people at the bottom of the system to say "We aren't working anymore." Suddenly, Indsustry no longer functions. Likewise, to say that nobody in the United States is on the bottom is nonsense is well. It is what Fight Club is all about, for crying out loud. If there is nobody to drive the trucks from the factories, can industry function? If there is nobody to serve you your food, can industry function? If there is nobody to remove the garbage, can industry function? If there is nobody to clean the streets, how can industry function?

Communism could very likely happen because the fact is that in a country like America, where you have leaders who are cutting the budgets on federal programs so that the rich can have their tax cuts, you have a society in which the rich need the poor far more than the poor need the rich. If the poor unite and say "we're not going to take it anymore" and just collectively find a way to stop working, then that's it.. we have roots of a communist revolution.

But that is not the question. Does communism work? You cannot say that it wouldn't because it has never been tried. Stalin.. Lenin... Those men were not communist by any means, nor were the incarnations of Russia which they dictated. In reality, we have never seen Communism (that is a state run by the dictatorship of the proliteraite) really functioning, but one can only wonder if it would work. I wouldn't dismiss it as not working, because as mentioned although some work harder than others, it is not as though in Capitalism the "Work to Reward" ratio is neccessarily equal, and it is not like a street sweeper neccessarily works less hard than a doctor (over looking the education element, which I admit is kind of silly).

Communism would be interesting, but it was far more appealing at the turn of the last century than it is now, however "Socialism-lite" is doing quite well in western Europe (and Canada, for that matter).

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

Another level of competition is cooperation. A basketball team cooperates so they can win and get a nice bonus in their pay check. The marketing department of a corporation cooperate to create a better ad then their competitors so that their product is bought and they are more likely to get promotions and raises down the line.

Side note: Stalin used this to great affect. But instead of worshipping a god, everyone had to bow down to the government. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Capitalism does not promote conformity. That is what communism does.

The poor and exploited classes of America, Britain, and other countries managed to get change during the Industrial Revolution without violence on their part.

Russia isn't down the toilet because of capitalism. They are down the toilet because they tried converting economic and political systems practically over night. A jolt like that would send ANY economy down for a good long time. However, the Russian economy is coming back.

constant revolution is not a marxist policy. That is totally Maoist.

It won't last for long because the economic system is slowly changing more and more capitalist. After the radical leadership of Mao, Diang Xiapeng came into power and began applying more practical measures. China has been getting better. It is still bad, but it has hope.

There are still a lot of factories in the US. For instance, Utah is a huge steel mining and smelting state. Yet the workers haven't revolted. They don't have to.

Marx was smart, but he was too radical. He let his personal feelings get in the way of his emotions. Industrial Revolution workers did revolt, but they didn't shed their bosses blood. Through protests, boycotts, and eventually unions, the working class are allowed to shape and change their situation because of the flexibility of the system they were under (democractic, restricted capitalism). Nowadays workers have the upper hand over their employers(in most first world countries anyway).

The reason communism and laissez faire capitalism are bad is because they are totally lopsided and bias towards one group. But in order for an economy to survive, it has to have both a working class and a management class. They go hand in hand. What socialism(european brand) and restricted capialism do is make economic issues like a court room. You have two completely opposed sides that are biased on the information. But if you pit them together you can sift through all the falsities and find what really works.


Mort, I get the eerie feeling that you pulled some chunks of your post off a web site. If you don't mind, I would like to look at that web site.
------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 10, 2004).]

Yeah Marx was the man. Communism works. Not on the scale of human society of course. But think of things like bacteria and how they live, or the human body.

But people are generally stupid.

Communism will only work if everyone is on the same intellectual page. It's basis is on the premise that everyone works for the good will of the nation and no one attempts to take advantage of the others.

But people like Stalin are all like "Hey Communism means your all equal, so let's be Communists and all be happy"

People-"Hey we're dumb, let's listen to this guy and be happy"

Stalin-"Of course you'll have to give all your freedom and power to me so I can straighten stuff out"

People-"Okay"

Stalin-"And it may suck for the first 50 years or so, so just hang in there; by the way capitalism is evil"

People-"Damn Capitalists"

Yeah Capitalism is bad. It was the attempt of aristocrats to maintain power by saying the strength of the nation is not as important as things like individual liberties and the right to privacy and ownership. Unfortunately, the aristocrats owned most of the stuff in first place, and under this doctrine weren't likely to lose it anytime soon.

Capitalism is kind of like cancer, screw the nation, I'm out for myself, and if I kill the body in the process by making monopolies and oppressing the little people, then whoops!

But cancer misses the fact that if it succeeds, it dies with the body, mwahahaha!

Not that cancer is bad, revolutions can be seen as cancer, so can elections, so can a jelly sandwich if you try hard enough.

I'm just trying to say Marx was an alright guy, even if his ideas are a little archaic. Well I'm back to my pitiful existance of pretending I rule the universe.

------------------
-I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood
-The Christians are coming, and they are not nice people.
--George Carlin

Interesting story, Gandalf.

oS, you said you worked hard in high school because you knew you were going to be rewarded, but then immediately admitted that hard work doesn't necessarily guarantee or even imply financial success. How does communism offer any less of an incentive? What are you going to do if capitalism, being driven after all by an impersonal market with no regard for karma, personal dignity, or the right thing, doesn't reward you?

The captain and the deck worker are equally valuable humans working equally hard at their respective jobs. Why does one deserve (morally or ethically) a larger paycheck? Remember, this isn't a lifeboat scenario. No one is irreplaceable. There is no catastrophe waiting to happen.

Also, I'd like to note that demand has little to do with necessity.

1). Work harder. The possibility of reward is always more preferable to no possibility at all, obviously.

2). Untrue. Karma, personal dignity, and the right thing do mean something in a capitalist system. It all depends on where you work. Big business does not respect these things nearly as much as small business, which is why I like small business better.

3). I already explained this to you. Supply and demand. There is a more limited supply of captains than there is a supply of deck cleaners. This is very basic economics, and just because you don't address supply and demand as real in communism doesn't mean it ceases to exist. Naturally, there are simply less people capable of doing more difficult tasks. And this is why they are paid more. If they are not, then they can easily enter a lower class of work; there is nothing to provide incentive to do what they do.

And therein lies the problem with communism. If, in fact, we were all doing the exact same class of work, then communism might work. Say, if we were ALL janitors. But the world doesn't work that way, and as technology advances, never will.

------------------
Ω of 14

I am betting that you cannot define (or quantify in economic terms) "exploit", "pitiful wages", or "recompensate". Or delineate between "proles" and "bourges." You would be laughed out of an economics class if you claimed that the fact workers in developing countries are paid relatively lower wages is oppression.

You do realize that in most developing countries, factories owned by foreign companies pay higher wages and have better working conditions than their domestic rivals? Despite all the talk of resisting American influence in China and anti-globalization watermelons in France, worldwide spending habits are becoming more and more American every day.

I hate to further derail your ideological trainwreck, but people are not sheep. When an Indonesian factory worker aspires to buy a car, it's not because he's brainwashed, or because US corporations control what he thinks. He wants a ****ing car because it will make his life easier, and thus, happier. Who the **** are you to tell him otherwise?

People wake up in the morning and go to work so they and their families can have better lives. That poor, poor Indonesian who works in a Western-owned factory, for whom your heart so passionately bleeds, is much better off than he would be if he followed your model. He realizes that - why don't you?

Sine: I just noticed your comment on why communism should have a bad rap and I want to comment. Communism doesn't have a bad rap because it's a bad system(though it should). It's given a bad rap because people relate it to murder, genocide, oppression, and death. I don't think that is right. People should give Stalin and the others that relation, not communism itself.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 10, 2004).]

But like I said, how many Communist governments have to spawn dictators like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Il Sung, etc, in order for people to get that you can't have political freedom without economic freedom?

Whoa, a mention of a dictator without the mention of Hitler! Didn't see that coming.

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

Sine: Economic control implies a dangerous amount of power invested in a government. That doesn't mean that a constitutional democracy couldn't be communist, just that power would have to be distributed, checked, and balanced.

oS:
1. Or just buy lottery tickets. The possibility of reward is always more preferable to no possibility at all. Why do you think working harder would change anything?

I'd have no problem with your perspective if money wasn't so critically important for, like, living. Even with safety nets, a poverty-line person is saving to buy lightbulbs. It seems a colossel mistake to condemn anyone to a life of saving for lightbulbs, particularly if it is through no fault of their own, when there are so many people with an excess of lightbulb-buying cash.

2. Small business is dead. The economies of scale have eaten its corpse. A huge corporation with an obligation to turn a large profit won't give you or anyone else any breaks. If the right thing ever was associated with a capitalist system, it was akin to a fuzzy rodent duct-taped to a jaguar.

3. Morally or ethically, oS. I'm quite aware of the practical reasons.

4. As technology advances, fewer and fewer workers are needed to make larger and larger quantities of goods. Maintaining a consistent unemployment rate necessitates creating demand for an ever expanding market for luxuries.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited May 10, 2004).]

Bulls***! Take a walk through downtown Carlsbad, California and you see little shops that have been around for years and they are thriving. The small buisness is MOST DEFINITELY not dead.


------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Getting a reward is not a gamble. You know if you work hard enough, you will be rewarded. It may not be in a monetary sense or by the person you work for, but it will happen. People value ability and if you show greater ability, you will be rewarded for that. You shouldn't get rewarded for sitting around or doing a mediocre job on something. It's not fair to those who are better and more diligent workers.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

Carlsbad doesn't have a Wal-Mart, Gandalf. If that referendum is still undecided, I'd recommend voting against the free market.

Kieran: In spite the dozens of people who have told you otherwise in an effort to get you to work hard and get ahead, that's not always true. Working hard is like affirmative action at the U of M law school: a factor, but not a deciding factor.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited May 10, 2004).]

If it makes you happy, the citizens of San Marcos (neighboring city and where my college is located) defeated proposition G would have placed a Walmart in San Marcos. Should a Walmart be opened in Carlsbad (doubtful since there is one within a 10 mi radius of all the city) the shops I've told you about will not be shut down.

[Let me expand on this further. The free market did decide. The people didn't want a Wal-Mart because it would have caused a hellatious traffic nightmare. The free market isn't all about big corporations moving into backyards. Free market is about with what people want to do business.]
------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

[This message has been edited by Gandalf1120 (edited May 10, 2004).]

No, the free market was regulated by a majority decision in a democratic process. If the free market had decided the Wal-Mart would have opened and, within a surprisingly short amount of time, killed your downtown. Wal-Mart can sell products for what it costs most retailers to buy wholesale and still makes a 20% profit. How is a capitalist going to argue with that sort of efficiency?

Dollars are votes in a free market. If you do over 200 billion dollars in sales, you win.

Under capitalism, the owner of the means of production specifies the wage to pay his employees and the price of which to sell the product. The labourer does not have any economic freedom.
Does it make sense that a man working in a factory making trainers doesn't earn enough to actually buy a pair of the trainers he's made?

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited May 11, 2004).]

Dictator and Communist are not synonyms.

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

Yes, especially considering they're probably not marketed to him anyway. What exactly is your point? That some people have more money than others? That some countries have higher GDPs per capita than others?

... How, exactly, does this amount to oppression? The company that makes those trainers is driven by a desire to maximize profits, so it goes to developing countries for cheap labor. It competes with domestic and other multinational companies by offering higher wages and better working conditions. This is a gradual and continual process. As companies compete for labor, wages and conditions go up. The standard of living rises with them.

Capitalism is a temporary economic system until we can achieve Communism, and likewise Communism will be a precursor to the ultimate economic, political, and societal system.

------------------
-I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood
-The Christians are coming, and they are not nice people.
--George Carlin

okay, a factor but not a deciding factor.

The owner and the workers unions decide the wages and price for materials, worker wages, maintenence costs, consumer interest(and supply and demand), etc determines the price which the product is sold. I don't know about a lot of the other countries, but factory workers in America and Britain have it pretty damn good. Hell, in America and more so in Britain they are an entire voter base.

Communism looks good on the surface, but it doesn't take into account cause and effect. But capitalism is nothing but cause and effect.

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

Apparently that wasn't the case for the city of San Marcos. I thought that it was going to win. There were signs all over the place for "Yes on G" with the Wal-Mart "smilie." The pro-G croud probably spent a good amount trying to pass this measure. In the end It was soundly defeated 60-40. Wal-Mart's dollar-votes didn't win here.

Downtown Carlsbad will not die if there is a Wal-Mart near by. Why? Because there IS a Wal-Mart near by. It is ~10 minute drive from downtown (I'm including stoplight delays). I have not seen a "vacancy" sign anywhere. I'm sorry but your villification of multi-m/billion dollar corporations as oppressive behemoths will not work here.

Yes, Wal-Mart can try and open in another city. But if that doesn't work now what do they do? Bully there way in? We don't like that down here. You give far too little faith in the people resisting a corporation's presence.

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Too many words!

------------------
I check my e-mail.

Gandalf: Like I said. A democratic process (one person, one vote) trumped economic freedom. The Walton family's ability to conduct their business was infringed upon by the tyrannical majority. I never implied that Wal-Mart could have bought the proposition's results, just that they would win at business in Carlsbad if they were actually allowed to compete on a purely economic playing field.

How am I villifying Wal-Mart? I'm just pointing out that Wal-Mart provides better goods and services at cheaper prices, driving their less worthy competitors out of business. If it hasn't happened in Carlsbad yet, wait. (how long ago did it open, anyway?) It's a fairly established phenomenon. Small businesses can't compete fairly with large businesses, particularly Wal-Mart, so they either go broke or resort to underhanded attempts to thwart the free market.

Or something. I hoping this is when you decide that a capitalist economy requires stringent regulation and heavy taxes to prevent it from becoming a victim of its own success.

Communism sounds great, but I don't believe for a second it could ever work.

Like all econimic systems and systems of government, it is based on the idea that people are perfect. Unlike some others, this is what it is almost entirely based upon. People have a natural inclination to look higher; to want. People also have a natural inclination to look out for number one.

No body is perfect. Pure capitalism works best when people care about one another, those with taking care of those without until they can get back on their feet. Unfortunately most don't, leading to the abuses of capitalism. The government must take action to help the poor, in the stead of the regular people who can't all be counted on to do it themselves.

Pure communism isn't just based on enough people taking care of the little guy to keep poverty at a minimum, it's based on the idea that the vast majority everyone will care for everyone else as themself; that for this love, the vast majority will give up dreams and be satisfied with the here and now; that paridise will come to the Earth because of love of neighbor.

It relies so heavily on the idea that people are perfect that it can't function. The ordinary guy isn't gonna give up all he has for everyone else, and settle for the maybe-happiness of those around him - most would have to be forced, and that's where the abuses of communism begin.

...It also says religion is a lie of the capitalist pigs, trying to delude the working poor into making the best of a miserable now in hope of paradise for the righteous, instead of making that paridise now (which most religion and philosophy sees as impossible because of the imperfection of man).

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

They also don't like it becasue relkigion, especially freedom of religion, allows people to be different from one anouther, a big no-no in communism.

------------------
"No good can ever come from staying with normal people"
-Outlaw Star
"Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul"
-Tycho, Penny Arcade
"I'm a Cannabal-Vegitarian. I will BBQ an employee if there is no veggie option"
-DX:IW
A Knight's Tail
Exile: A Tale of Light in Dark
Scions of Light[/i]
The Never Ending Story Squared[/i]

No it doesn't.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'pure' capitalism, but the fundemental principles of capitalism are individualism and competition. The individual constantly competes with other individuals to try and be better than everyone else. There is one winner, and all other losers. 'Helping others' does not have anything to do with capitalist ideaology. Your confusion probably arises in that few, if any, countries are really 'pure' capitalist countries. There is usually a mix of 'capitalist' policies and 'socialist' policies. The 'helping others' certainly falls into the latter. The two different types of policy don't work well together, and often contradict interests.



A policy that does that is a (to a certain degree) socialist one. Countries that tax a lot and put money into national healthcare and social services and council houses are adopting such policies.

Radical Marxists, however, would argue that such pseudo-socialist policies aren't REALLY out to help the proles, that their purpose is to reinforce the false class consciousness. A healthy, housed, well-fed proliteriat is a hard-working proliteriat, and so the welfare systems are actually intended to benefit the the bourgeoise. Only when the ruling class are overthrown will the proles be free of their chains.




This is clearly assuming that what you are doing is 'natural', that it is a 'biological function' of some sort.
This is often a nice, pleasant thought as it makes you think that what you're doing is 'right' and 'natural'.
There is nothing natural about you.
Human beings, and other animals too but to a much lesser extent, are shaped by their surroundings. You are shaped and moulded like a piece of clay on a potter's wheel.
You are socialised into society's norms and values.
I'm sure you have heard about the various case studies of children raised by animals from an early age, like Horst the 'Wolf Boy' that was neglected by his parents and brought up by dogs, and saw the dog as his mother. The result was that he acted exactly like a dog, walked on all fours, even lifted his leg to urinate. If human behavior were 'natural' then Horst would have acted like a normal person anyway, but he was perfectly dog-like.
Similarly, you need only look at the huge differences across cultures and across history to see the changes in behavior and changes of socialisation.

In exactly the same way, you are socialised into the norms and values of capitalism.

You see greed and caring about yourself as 'natural', but it is really something that you have been taught, and taught so well that you don't even think about it, and take it as being 'normal' and 'natural'.
That is all taught to you through the media and through school.

The only way to move on to communism is to totally purge all capitalist influences (this is the purpose of socialism). All institutions must be radically restructured, and all capitalists must be killed. The problem is, as you might expect, the generation that had already been socialised into capitalism. They must be prevented from socialising their children into capitalist values. A simple solution would be to send all children to state boarding schools from an early age to be socialised into communism. The generation that has been brought up into communist society, and doesn't know of capitalism, should have perfect communist values, of:

- Collectivisation, being able to and preferring to work together in large groups.

- Consensus, not competeing with others but rather joining up and working together to achieve a greater goal.

- Radicalism, possibly the most difficult one to inspire as a complacent, conservative society is much easier to create and maintain, but radical revolution must be inspired to make society constantly question itself and keep moving on. Violent revolution would not be 'frowned upon' like it is in capitalist society. This one was not achieved in the USSR, and was one of the key problems. Mao tried to inspire this with his Cultural Revolution, but didn't follow it through well enough. This is possibly the aim of modern Marxists, to inspire a culture of revolution.


One of the problems in the USSR was that the society was not changed radically enough, and capitalism was not fully purged, certainly not in schools. Capitalist influences continualy seeped in from the USA, corrupting the communist values.
North Korea has tried to combat this problem by closing itself off to all capitalist nations and trying to protect its population from capitalist influences. But this isolationist policy is dangerously unMarxist.



Indeed it does (thought not quite in those words. Marx was quite a writer, and the Communist Manifesto reads like a poem ). This was the reason for the fierce opposition to communism by Osama bin Laden and his army that fought off the Soviets in the Middle East. Libya, however, has mixed socialist values with Islam. I'm not sure how successfully, but I should be going on holiday to Libya next year!

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited May 12, 2004).]

And yet they do that by screwing their employees out of their overtime pay.

Until walmart stops treating its employees like s*** and stops blocking unionization efforts, I will never shop there.


Walmart also drives its smaller competitors out of business b/c it cuts prices so low that smaller providers can't beat it and still make a profit. With that said, they can't really compete with walmart, so its an unfair business practice. This is bad and irresponsible capitalism, and unfortunately, the problem will not go away until people stop being so damn greedy.

------------------
Old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next." They stopped after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.

[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited May 12, 2004).]

Or until we kill them.

Da Boverisch!!

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I hope you are just explaining that and not actually believing that. That is beyond radical into just plain stupid. And I'm not talking about the atrocity of social cleansing (Holocaust and The Purges repeat anyone?). I'm only taling about the logistics of it.

That continuous revolution was not one of Marx's ideas. Marx had one revolution in his theories(that didn't even have to be violent if it could be avoided). Mao created that himself and he was good at created constant revolution. That is why China is so screwed today.

Now, I try to keep an open mind and if you have an opinion then I'll listen to it and take it for their opinion. But you are being asinine. You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about. I could argue for communism far better than you can. If you went to any kind of communist party meeting and you spoke you would be laughed off the stage. Hell, compared to some of the things you've said you make schizophrenics look like the epitome of sanity. Are you a sociopath or something?

------------------
Is Wayne Brady going to have to choke a *****?

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited May 12, 2004).]

Go on then.

Let's bumpalump!

One thing...

I just read a little, so I do not know if someone alrady has said this, but anyway.

That example with the ship. If the captain dies he is harder to replace. But that does still not make him better than the other crew! They got other experience in other things, and to come thinking of it, they have a mind and can think. They are still equal.