I apologize for being a bit too flippant with my remark about “more discerning red baiters”. They’re really weren’t any.
I suppose what I was getting is that most loyalty oaths and such just asked if you were not going to join any organization that advocated the overthrow of the government. I have absolutely no evidence that anyone ever claimed that they were a member of the Communist Party, but asked for leniency because they didn’t advocate any overthrow of the government.
“I can no longer back and allow communist infiltration and indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodyily fluids.”-General Jack D. Ripper
Responding to the inquiry “Show me a capitalist country where the poor got poorer”: the reason there is no quick reply to this is because there is no pure capitalist society, never has been, never will be. We’ve watered it down with a bit of socialism due to the fact that even politicians have a little bit of humanity deep, deep down in the very core of their beings.
dhanson wrote:
That applies equally well to democracy. It says that a person must be a slave to the majority.
Work like you don’t need the money…
Love like you’ve never been hurt…
Dance like nobody’s watching! …(Paraphrased)
Arnold, Arnold, Arnold. I stand by my contention that capitalism is the nearest thing to a natural system. Humans wish to be rewarded for their hard work, creativity, and exceptional talent, and they wish to be free to pursue those rewards. To people living under communist regimes the west always was “the land where dreams come true”. Communism is so unnatural that it must always be brutally and violently imposed. If this thread is going to deviate into an analysis of the evils of capitalism we might as well waltz on over to great debates. Capitalism is not paradise and I was careful to add “liberal democratic” capitalism. The great ideological war of the 20th century was actually communism versus fascism. Capitalism thrives under fascism - there’s nothing like slave labour to boost shareholder value and unlimited slave labour that you don’t have to feed is a capitalist’s wet dream.
“and dats what I tink” - Andrew Dice Clay
To quote Archie Bunker:
What’s the point of working hard all your life, if, in the end, all you wind up is - equal
Some people work ‘harder’ than others. Some people work smarter.
So who’s to say who is more valuable? I have an idea - how about the people who wish to trade with you? The ‘value’ of your work is nothing more or less than what other people are willing to pay for it through voluntary transaction. This is the fundamental nature of the market.
When you decide what is more valuable through fiat, or force, or some ‘scientific’ method like Marxism, then either one of two things must happen: A) your decisions exactly match the decisions of the people who wish to trade, in which case you are superfluous, or B) your decisions are different than the person’s who wishes to trade. If that is the case, then you can either force him at gunpoint to do what you think is ‘best’, or you can do nothing. If you do nothing, you have accomplished nothing.
Thus, Marxism replaces the free trade of individuals acting in their own interest with the threat of force to enslave people to your interests.
Of course the same thing can be said of democracy. This is the tyranny of the majority. And it’s also why we have a limited democracy. We have a bill of rights which states that no matter how many thugs the mob can get together, there are some lines they just can’t cross. The ideal of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ embodies the notion that a man or woman has a right to live for himself, and owes nothing to the body politic other than to pay for services which he or she uses.
Obviously we have strayed from this ideal in just about every modern country. That does not justify communism, it just makes us the recipients of the lesser of two evils.
What if you don’t have a boat? What if you can’t swim, either?
Furthermore, the labor theory is not a complete load, since it is self evident that you will in fact, pay $10,000-15,000 for an assembled car, but would pay far less than that for an unassembled pile of car parts. And it isn’t due to scarcity, either; cars are abundant, and relatively easy to come by.
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
And I stand by my contention that socialism (or communism) is the nearest thing to a natural system. Look at the case of people after, for example, a shipwreck, stuck in a lifeboat. You have managed to bring some food with you, and no one else has. What is your first reaction? “I brought food, and your guys were too dumb to think of it, so you can all starve?” When I was a child, my parents taught me to share with others. Were my parents unnatural?
Materialism and greed are no more “natural” than compassion and generosity.
Communism is a new economic movement, and such a radical change from capitalism
that it would be unlikely if it happened peacefully. Look at the early western European democracies such as France and the USA. That change did not happen peacefully but as a result of war. There are several regions of the world that have or have had democratically elected communist governments (the state of Kerala in India, the country of San Marino in Europe, and probably others that I am aware of.) Socialism, which is closer to communism than capitalism, is of course the chosen form of government of many democracies. To repeat the example above, it was the chosen form of government of Chile, until a military dictatorship backed by the USA forcibly imposed a capitalist government on the country.
Yes. Meaning that Lenin was succesful in overturning the czarist government.
And what if the company decides to have layoffs at the same time because they’re losing money? Don’t those people suffer?
The argument I have is with people who have the unthinking knee-jerk reaction “Capitalism good, communism bad.” Look at all the benefits that have been brought to you by the communist and worker’s union movement. Do you enjoy getting week-ends off? Do you like the fact that you only work 40 hours a week? How about paid holidays and vacations?
dhanson said:
All I have to say to that is look at working conditions in the industrial era before the advent of unions. Or read “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck. Why do you think the USA restricts immigration from its poorer neighbour to the south?
J’ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal
The labor theory of value says that labor is intrinsically valuable. It isn’t. Its value is contained in the products and services it provides.
The labor in a car is valuable. Labor spent in street gangs is not. Treating all labor as equally valuable leads to silliness like equating 4 hours of Einstein’s ‘labor’ with the 4 hours it might take a thug to slowly beat someone to death. Should society ‘pay’ them both equally? After all, they both labored for 4 hours.
In the case of a car, the only reason you can buy one in the first place is because each car represents the result of the concentration of billions of dollars of capital. UAW workers make good wages not only because of the union, but because a capitalist has provided them with tools to magnify the value of their labor.
Your rhetorical question about the poor not having boats is silly. In this case, the person himself is the boat. It just means everyone benefits from a wealthier society. Even if you are destitute and have nothing, you benefit from the rich infrastructure. Even the waste products of a rich society can make a street person wealthier than the destitute in poor countries.
The poverty line in the U.S. is something like $12,000 per year. This is three times the average world income. Minimum welfare benefits in the U.S. are somewhere around $8000, which is almost twice the average world income, and 2/3 of the average income in developed nations. And BTW, the average Soviet citizen had a standard of living MUCH lower than the average welfare recipient in the U.S.
But let’s assume the U.S. was totally capitalist and there was no welfare, only private soup kitchens. What would the poor do then? In the past voluntary charity managed to provide basic shelter and food to the destitute in the U.S, if you were willing to live in a dormitory and do light work during the day to maintain the facility.
There are seventeen countries in the world where the average income is below $250 per year. Do you believe that the poor in the U.S. could not find benefits worth 70 cents per day? They could get at least 10 times that amount in handouts just from panhandling.
By standards of the undeveloped nations, the poor in America are phenomenally wealthy. It seems that rising tides really do lift all boats.
Ah, the plot sickens! Forget it dhanson, Arnold figures its time for the real communists to stand up now that those amateurs in Russia have thrown in the towel. Arnold has chosen to stand by his contention that communism is more natural than capitalism, a contention that I don’t see him as having made in his previous posts on this thread. Arnold’s version of communism is that it is based on sharing and generosity rather than the greed and materialism of capitalism. HAHAHAHA (choke)
I loved the life boat example. Sure, if you are conditioned from birth that Big Brother will send a rescue ship and save you it might be fairly civilized in a lifeboat type situation. From my reading, if people are left in a lifeboat type situation for too long most of them will steal, kill, cannibalize, whatever it takes to survive, including the guy in charge of the lifeboat.
Arnold, you’re a screaming left winger, a pinko. I am pleased to have you aboard the democratic lifeboat. I believe the left has a vital role in democracy as an adversarial opposition, helping to temper the excesses of capitalism and to resist the slide towards fascism.
“and dats what I tink” - Andrew Dice Clay
Are you saying that’s a good thing? I don’t think that because that’s the way you would react, you should assume that everyone else would do the same thing. Have you never heard of people giving up their lives to save others? Even it’s not the “natural” behaviour, which one is the more laudable? Which behaviour whould we try to emulate?
You seem to assume that Amnesty International is an “anti-communist” organization. We are apolitical and not affiliated with any religion. As a long-time involved member, let me assure you that more than half of the cases I’ve worked on occurred in “capitalist” countries.
Was that supposed to be an insult? I personally took it as a compliment.
J’ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal
Just for the record, scarcity in economic terminology is applicable to every product and resource under the sun. It is part of the very basic definition of economics - the study of the distribution of scarce resources to their highest valued uses. All that it means is that cars are not floating all around where we can just grab one when we need it. Clean water, my friend, is a scarce product, but I bet you can turn on your faucet any time you wish and it is “relatively easy to come by”.
I am truly sorry that you couldn’t figure this one out for yourself. In capitalism, people are rewarded for doing something valuable with money, and the amount of money they recieve is proportional to the value of the service or product they are providing. When you take away that money you are in effect punishing them. In communism there is no reward for doing anything. Therefore it is self-destructive. The true evil behind communism is that is sounds really nice, and if you are worthless it is a great system, but if you are capable of doing anything it will kill you.
Anyone that tells you money is evil, is just trying to deprive you of it.
Now, now. There was communism before Marx. There were free markets before the U.S.
An economic system is only as good or as bad as the people in charge of it.
True communism and True democracy have both existed in only small populations.
Enough of facts. Time for my opinion. Any system that allows power to be centralized and controled by a very small group, no matter how well intentioned, is setting itself up to experience the worst in human nature. Power corrupts…Absolute power…you know the rest.
An economic system is only as good or as bad as the people in charge of it.
No one is ‘in charge’ of a capitalist system. That’s what socialists hate about it, and what economists understand is great about it.
Well, ever heard of the Federal Reserve? Or A guy named Greenspan?
Granted, this is a passive control model ment to “influence” the market. But it’s parts were put in place to avoid the panics caused by volitile free market activity.
Early in this century influentual people realized that there might not always be a J.P.Morgan to stabilize a threatening situation as in 1908.
So, yes, we do have some controls in place.
Just for the benefit of all and sundry, I thought I would post the official definitions of all these various governmental systems, so everyone knows exactly what they’re dealing with here. To-wit:
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You and your neighbors take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took away from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk equally.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
LATIN AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors vote on who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors choose someone to tell you who gets the milk.
BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you to not milk them. Then it takes both cows, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms to account for the missing cow.
PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors take the cows and kill you.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. You dye one green and the other chartreuse while the government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
There. All clear now? 
nonono people my question wasn’t “what’s wrong with communism?” but rather “what’s so wrong with communism that we need to go to war over it?” i mean if they want to f*** themselves royaly let them. there is no need to kill them.
eggo
–sorry for the long abcense, my computer took a crap…