ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
A school in Moscow, 1978.

Teacher: "Ivan, describe capitalism."
Little Ivan: "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man."
Teacher: "Very good, Ivan. Now, describe communism."
Little Ivan: "Communism is the other way around."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-11-06 19:15, IcyMonkey wrote:
A school in Moscow, 1978.

Teacher: "Ivan, describe capitalism."
Little Ivan: "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man."
Teacher: "Very good, Ivan. Now, describe communism."
Little Ivan: "Communism is the other way around."



Man by man of exploitation the is capitalism?

Wow... no reason the USSR collapsed... that and thier financial workings were so fucked up you couldn't find where the imaginary money they had was coming from...

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:49 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
If I remember properly from school, Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned. I don't have any problem with that.

Anyone who does have a problem with it will have to answer to KC I think...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Goldstandard on 2002-11-06 21:51 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Hmmm, methinks some people don't understand subtle attempts at humor when they see them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2225
Location: America
I saw that qoute somewhere.Do you know who said it?

_________________
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
Sir Winston Churchill, My Early Life, 1930


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:05 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Well, this <i>is</i> the debate club, so I always assume it is serious.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Well, even though the original post was meant to be funny, it was also meant to bring up the topic of Capitalism vs. Communism. So, what do you guys think?

I basically agree with the quote. Both capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are exploitation of man by man. The main difference between Soviet Communism and American Capitalism was that in the former, the goverment had a capitalist monopoly over industry, which meant that the ruler and the boss were one in the same. By combining the two main forms of social oppression into one coherent organization, it allowed those in power to more efficiently oppress the working classes.

Anyway, that's my take on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I think the artificial definitions of class are idiotic, and not even consistant with the same person. Icy has gone from a broadly defined 'rich people are evil' to 'only the top 1% are the enemy' several times.

Secondly...communism and anarchy both fail to take into account human ambition. Both require some uber-concious citizenry that is going to overthrow any evil charismatic people that actually make people want to follow them.

That citizenry simply doesn't exist. Not to mention the media, biased or no, is going to have to be owned by SOMEONE or SOMETHING...even if its 'the people' (notice the quotes, because things owned by 'the people' are often just things controlled by a few who find it easy to manipulate said people) it will just throw out BS rubber stamped by said people, rather than genuine informative stuff. So unless we go back to caves and spears, I see no logical way to go to communism.

If you take out social factors, communism is possible. Of course, we can't do that here, so both political systems are moot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 7:29 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Long story short - Communism doesn't work because people are lazy and stupid and won't work if they don't get a reward (from each according to ability, to each according to need is flawed because people won't work to their full potential without incentives), plus true communism is impossible because the implemeters always are corrupt and trying to tempt the people with idle promises, downing caviar while watching the people starve.

Capitalism seems to work as a long-term system, but it causes nasty by-products from the rampant urbanization and commercialization of society, which for some reason seem to piss off the pinkos.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 11:32 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Who cares about the pinkos?!

In a Capitalist society, the individual is the recipient of the concecuences of his decicions.

In communism your hard work gets thrown into the communal pot, so no matter how hard you work, you don't get much for it because it goes to everyone else also. A hard worker sees that his lazy ass neigbor gets the same as he is getting even though he actually strives for excellence in what he does. In communism, you are a fool if you strive for and achieve excellence because you don't get enough out of it for it to be worth it, and because you know that your efforts will ultimately also benefit the lazy fucks who will get the goodies without having to put out the effort. Hence all communist nations have been wastelands where the majority will do only the bare minimum to keep from being punished, and the few who still strive for excellence in what they do feel miserable because they aren't rewarded for excellence.

In a capitalist system, the money you make is yours alone to use, not the neighbors and not the moochers. The moochers starve and those who strive for, and achieve excellence are rewarded. It's the only moral economic system on earth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:04 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Pure capitalism is just as bad, if not worse, than communism. You have a situation where the poor are always poor, and the rich are always rich, with a very small middle class and virtually no class mobility.

I prefer mixed, leaning twords capitalism rather than socialism. The government is, after all, usually less efficient than business. It's duty is to regulate business and make sure they do not oppress the employees.

-Kills Commies
“Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . .” (General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 7, 1944)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 2:21 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
We never had pure capitalism, we have always been a mixed economy. If you look at history, all the alleged "exploitation" wouldn't have even been possible had there not been government officials to enable them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-11-09 13:21, The Goldstandard wrote:
We never had pure capitalism, we have always been a mixed economy. If you look at history, all the alleged "exploitation" wouldn't have even been possible had there not been government officials to enable them.


Not quite true. During the time of Carnegie and Rockafeller it was a true cpitalist society. That was the whole basis for Social Darwinism and it is what ran the country from the end of the civil war until almost WWI.

Then you got people like FDR who said "fuck this shit" (not a direct quote) and put the smack down on buisness.

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Actually, at the turn of the century, we were pretty much pure capitalist society. Very little or no regulations on business was the norm. A dreg of people who could not get out of poverty because of the extortionist practices of business owners resulted. (ie, you lived on a place your boss provided for you, but it costs almost your whole paycheck to live there)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:22 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
You want to see a real example them?

Look at Transcontinental railroad, ran by Union Pacific. The railroad was heavily subsidised and the truth was that at the time east/west traffic didn't justify building the track at the time. So, for a while only that track existed because competitors couldn't get the big subsidies and doing it on their own wasn't profitable enough to merit it at the time. When the amount of traffic increased enough to warrant building the track, and the subsidies ended, competition began.

I still maintain that behind every corporate scandal, you will find a burecrat somewhere in the mess. And as for FDR, all I have to say is that when it comes to corruption, he was the worst of all. He didn't pull us out of the depression, he prolonged it and we got out of it in SPITE of his regulations. Now that is a testament to the strength of the american businessman...

FDR's programs never solved the economic problems, they only further hampered our economy. Businessmen couldn't make a long range plan to get on the road to recovery because every now and then he and his buddies would spring some new rule on them, screwing up their plans. He also started all those social welfare programs, which further drained the economy, and continue to bleed us dry today.

And one last thing, we were NEVER a true capitalist society, we were always a mixed economy. Yet it is capitalism which always gets blamed while the burecrats get off scott free, and get more power as a result. By blaming capitalism you are playing right into their hands.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
The fact remains that without some regulations, the middle and lower classes suffer too much to claim it is a level playing field. When it is virtually impossible to muster up the money to up in the world (ie, my previous example, which you answered WITH HALF BAKED OPINIONATED PROPAGANDA WITH NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP) there is a crime going on.

I can see it as 'you need to have the will the idea to move up significantly' but when it is simply impossible to move up without aid from on high, you need regulations. Society is not here for the exploitation of the rich or the government. You are just as idiotic as the liberals- they villify the rich and idolize the poor, and you are just vice versa! The point is there should be FAIRNESS, and there is NO DATA to support that pure capitalism supplies that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:16 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Since when did I vilify the poor?

As for your regulations, all I have to say is that we have been trying to regulate the market for over a hundred years, and it still hasn't solved anything. If a large company is becoming slothful and innefficient, someone will see that and try to start up a competing company. Investors are always looking to make a buck, and investing early in a company that promises to be very successful can pay off nicely. Look at Microsoft as a modern day example. If you invested in Microsoft when the company first went public, you would profit handsomely. Same with Walmart too. The profit motive is the best deterrent against the so called "ills" of free market economics. Finally, to your claim that a lack of resources prevents the poor from prospering, all I have to say is that you are totally wrong. Wealth is relative, the so called "poverty line" has been rising over the years. Even in the harshest factory towns of the 19th century, the workers were FAR better off than before the industrial revolution. All the poverty that did exist at the time was a carry over of the legacy of the pre industrial period where most people were landless serfs who served the local nobility. That age was filled with famine, plague, and all sorts of horrors that would be hard to imagine today. You can't go straight from having nothing to having a three bedroom house, two cars and three square meals a day. It took time for things to improve. Someone who would want immediate prosperity is jsut like a spoiled child who shrieks "I WANT IT NOW!" A poor person today is far better off than a 14th century noble was. Sure, the noble may have had more political power, but his standard of living was far below what poor people have now.

There is a reason Capitalism is named the way it is. To build companies and industries, one needs capital. In a capitalist system people can get the capital by selling shares in their business to investors, so if their business shows promise investors will provide the needed capital. It is based solely on the merit of the company. There is no impossible barrier to obtaining capital IF you can convince investors that you can succeed. That is why they have all the research, so they can find these companies and point them out to investors, so they can profit. You say that moving up is impossible without aid from up high and that regulations are needed. What kind of regulations does this imply? Simple, it implies that the ones up high should be forced to help those who want to move up. What you miss is that like I said, THE HIGHER UPS WANT TO MAKE MONEY! If you can convince them that you can make money, and make them some money too, they will lend you the money. That is what capitalism is all about, voluntary exchanges to mutual benefit. You build a successful company and you make your shareholders rich as well.

I don't know why you refer to yourself as a capitalist. You are nothing but a socialist. :razz:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Quote:
Finally, to your claim that a lack of resources prevents the poor from prospering, all I have to say is that you are totally wrong. Wealth is relative, the so called "poverty line" has been rising over the years.


You still have not addressed my point, namely that class mobility simply did not exist as it does now. They were better off, to be sure, but they just exchanged one type of exploitation for another. What changed this? Minimum wages and workers rights movements, not any market trends.

It was social evolution, not capitalism working. It was simply big business being efficient- they would prevent their workers from being able to support themselves if they quit, merely because so much of their paycheck was eaten up by the housing their employer provided for them (and required them to have.) True, the poverty line goes up as time goes on, but that is due to inflation, not because people are so much better off than then. The only difference between then and now is that firstly, there is a minimum wage and secondly, there is a burgoning middle class, which is why most people are better off than back then.

Whenever you're ready to back up your claims with FACTS, not propaganda, give me a ring.

Quote:
A poor person today is far better off than a 14th century noble was.


Untrue. A poor person can barely keep himself fed, must work at least 8 hours a day (if they work...but lets leave out the unemployed for a moment) and has social problems as well- ie, environment around them, etc. I'd choose being a 14th century noble over a 21st century poor person, given the choices. Again, you are delusional in your idiotic pandering to objectivist propaganda.

Quote:
Sure, the noble may have had more political power, but his standard of living was far below what poor people have now.


Lets compare the poor person I described above to the rich noble.

Noble was:
-Educated
-Lots of leisure time
-Well fed
-Large beds
-Warm rooms
-Large house
-Servants
-Virtually no hard labor

Mhm...yeah, I'd prefer that, thank you.

Quote:
There is a reason Capitalism is named the way it is. To build companies and industries, one needs capital. In a capitalist system people can get the capital by selling shares in their business to investors, so if their business shows promise investors will provide the needed capital. It is based solely on the merit of the company.quote]

Without regulation, already established companies tend to bully out smaller companies. Psychological studies show that people will go with an established brand over a new one, even if the new one is virtually the same, even better, and is cheaper. So no, capitalism does not work so simply. Established products can easily muscle out new ones. That is why we have anti-trust laws, to prevent this from happening completely. 1 sole company is bad for competition, remember?

Quote:
You say that moving up is impossible without aid from up high and that regulations are needed.


I said it was that way for a poor person at the turn of the century, dumbshit.

You still have not provided any proof, merely opinions based on propaganda. It would be nice if you could handle yourself in a debate, but you obvious can not.

Information, please, not propaganda, is preferred. I have placedo n the table that regulations have done more to instill a level playing feild- which is what I want, not for everyone to help everyone else but a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, WHERE ANYONE CAN SUCCEED WITH EFFORT AND BRAINS. Pure capitalism does not allow for that, for the reasons listed above, which are FACTS.

You sir, are an imbecile. You have yet to provide a single fact, just speculation and endless propaganda. Feel free to keep going, so I can laugh and declare my victory at the end of your last post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
He's not only an imbecile he's wrong on many counts as well. But hey retards are allowed to have opinions why can't morons spout lies?

Quote:
On 2002-11-11 16:22, The Goldstandard wrote:

I still maintain that behind every corporate scandal, you will find a burecrat somewhere in the mess. And as for FDR, all I have to say is that when it comes to corruption, he was the worst of all. He didn't pull us out of the depression, he prolonged it and we got out of it in SPITE of his regulations. Now that is a testament to the strength of the american businessman...

FDR's programs never solved the economic problems, they only further hampered our economy. Businessmen couldn't make a long range plan to get on the road to recovery because every now and then he and his buddies would spring some new rule on them, screwing up their plans. He also started all those social welfare programs, which further drained the economy, and continue to bleed us dry today.


And as every economist worth his salt will tell you (conservative or liberal, it matters not) if it hadn't been for FDR the United States wouldn't have had the money to function long enough to make it world war two. The country would have collapsed around 1935 from total lack of funds is FDR had lost. Second FDR kept us alive and significantly reduced the depression until WWII came along which pulled us the rest of the way out.

FDR's problems were idealistic ones. The same issues in many ways that idiotic capitalist morons like yourself spout. FDR tried to give the poor the leg up they needed to be able to compete for good jobs. With out him you would probably be dead right now from a manufaturing actident or similar incident.



Quote:

And one last thing, we were NEVER a true capitalist society, we were always a mixed economy. Yet it is capitalism which always gets blamed while the burecrats get off scott free, and get more power as a result. By blaming capitalism you are playing right into their hands.


A simple review of your basic history from 1870- ~1905 will prove you wrong my friend. As a matter of fact until that time with a few minor exceptions we were always a capitalist society since the revolution. But it was all local economy. You couldn't have a national economy so the system itself provided checks and leveld the playing field. And there was always the opportunity to go west and seek your fortunes there.

Please go get some facts and inteeligence before coming back to the table. Thank you, Come again.

-Lifyre
The next irrational idiot who spouts lies get to meet Huey...

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:23 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
So, tell me if I'm wrong here (and I mean that honestly, not in some I'm-smarter-than-you-and-I'll-prove-that-by-saying-a-stupid-cliche way), but don't conservatives usually argue that business should be given more free reign? And aren't you a conservative, KC?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group