...can be found in communism. In theory, communism isn't the atrocity it proves to be in practice. It still has many flaws, however. In short, communism takes wealth from those with ability (those who deserve it) to those with need (those who don't deserve it). A great majority of the world's rich are rich because they worked for it. They deserve every penny of their wealth. The rich have the intelligence, the innovation, and the initiative necessary to be rich. They worked and still work to get to the position they are in now. The poor, on the other hand, lack these traits. The poor are poor, for the majority, because they are less intelligent, take less risks, have less innovation. One of the main arguments against this are that the poor are born poor and continue a cycle, unable to get education and therefore a good job. This is completely false. My father, for one, came to Atlanta with fifty dollars and a couch (probably not 100% true, but I am supposing it is close to it). Now he makes a large amount of money, all because of his intelligence and other traits listed above. J.B. Fuqua never even got a college degree, but died a very rich man. He grew up in a dirt-poor farming family and, through intelligence, risk-taking, innovation, and initiative, rose through the ranks to become the man he is (or was, now).
That is how communism is bad in theory, now onto practice.
Communism has never worked. Every time it has been attempted it has ended a bloody, fearful dictatorship.
Stalinist Russia: 40,000,000 (four-hundred million) dead.
Maoist China: 38,000,000 (thirty-eight million) dead.
Pol Potist Cambodia (Khmer Rouge): 1,700,000 (one million seven-hundred thousand) dead.
And those are only three. A nice little website that lists all of them can be viewed here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm)
Now some of you may say, "These aren't real communists." I agree, they aren't. But they are the ones that end up in power. In theory they won't, but in practice they do. There lies one of the main problems with communism- it is a theoretical government. Nothing happens exactly to theory in real life.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"can be found in communism. In theory, communism isn't the atrocity it proves to be in practice. It still has many flaws, however. In short, communism takes wealth from those with ability (those who deserve it)"
-----------------------------------------------------------
So less than 1/4 of the worlds population deserve all the wealth while the remaining 3/4 starve to death or live in wretched poverty?
You filthly Capitalist pig.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"A great majority of the world's rich are rich because they worked for it. They deserve every penny of their wealth."
-----------------------------------------------------------
A MAJORITY of rich people have the good fortune of growing up in a first world nation with rich parents. Most did nothing to deserve what they have except being born into a privlliged family.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The rich have the intelligence, the innovation, and the initiative necessary to be rich.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First world nations are where they are today because they have the fortune of living off of the labour power of the third world workers. Hence these people can increase their own countries wealth at the expense of others.
Letting others die while you live in luxury doesnt denote intelligence or innovation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
They worked and still work to get to the position they are in now.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rich people work? not very many of them do work or at least they dont work anywhere near as hard as the working class they oppress.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The poor, on the other hand, lack these traits. The poor are poor, for the majority, because they are less intelligent,
-----------------------------------------------------------
Your an Idiot most of the poor are poor because they had all the bad breaks in life. They usually grew up in a family that lacked many of the neccessities of life.
-----------------------------------------------------------
One of the main arguments against this are that the poor are born poor and continue a cycle, unable to get education and therefore a good job. This is completely false. My father, for one, came to Atlanta with fifty dollars and a couch (probably not 100% true, but I am supposing it is close to it). Now he makes a large amount of money, all because of his intelligence and other traits listed above. J.B. Fuqua never even got a college degree, but died a very rich man. He grew up in a dirt-poor farming family and, through intelligence, risk-taking, innovation, and initiative, rose through the ranks to become the man he is (or was, now).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Its a pity your father didnt pass his intelligence on to you if he did you wouldnt be preaching self evident nonsense.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That is how communism is bad in theory, now onto practice.
Communism has never worked. Every time it has been attempted it has ended a bloody, fearful dictatorship.
Stalinist Russia: 40,000,000 (four-hundred million) dead.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You arent educated on Communism are you Russia was state capitalist not Communist.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maoist China: 38,000,000 (thirty-eight million) dead.
Pol Potist Cambodia (Khmer Rouge): 1,700,000 (one million seven-hundred thousand) dead.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maoism is a variant of stalinism hence it is not Communism either as well as the rest of them are all dictatorships not workers states.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now some of you may say, "These aren't real communists." I agree, they aren't. But they are the ones that end up in power. In theory they won't, but in practice they do.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wrong Marxist theory is considerably different than leninism or any other branch of so called Communist theory. No country has ever followed Marxist doctrine hence none of them have ever been a proletarian revolution.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It is a fact that the most wealthy and powerful people in the world are in proportionately male and ethnically ‘white’. Are you suggesting that white men are in some way more intelligent, more innovative or show greater initiative? How do you explain the situation of ‘black’ Africans who surly must be unintelligent and incompetent by nature if they are unable to accumulate vast amounts of wealth as the obviously genetically superior Bill Gates is able to?
The London Times publishes the Rich List every year. It lists the top 1,000 earners in the UK in order. 125 people in that list are aristocrats, people who play golf and appear on reality TV all at the expense of the tax payer. The top five of the list are as follows:
5. Phillip Green – Born into an upper middle class ‘Oxbridge’ family and inherited the family business, the second largest retail outlet in Britain.
4. Hans Rausing – invented the Tetra Pak milk carton. Wow! Moved away from Sweden to UK to pay less tax (a.k.a. avoid contributing to society, milk cartons are enough of a contribution apparently).
3. Duke of Westminster – so entrepreneurial he was born rich. Born in a huge manor, so well worth his £5.6 billion
2. Roman Abramovich – ex-Russian politician who ‘earned’ his £7.5 billion during Russia’s chaotic post-soviet oil scramble. The unelected governor of Chukotka, in Russia’s oil rich and impoverished east also has a strong connection with the Russian mafia. He is currently living in Britain (still a governor in Russia) as owner of England’s top football (soccer) team, Chelsea FC. There’s another group of millionaires who ‘work really hard’ for their money, footballers.
1. Lakshmi Mittal – Having started with only one measly steel factory (his parents gave him as a present) he became Britain’s top industrialists. This one was embroiled in a political scandal dubbed Mittalgate with Prime Minister Blair when it became apparent that a donation Mittal had made to the Labour Party (£2 million) had led to Blair's intervention (a letter to the Romanian prime minister) in a business deal favouring Mittal.
The top five have a collective personal wealth of £37.7 billion, that’s $66.9 billion. And do they work 37.7 times harder than nurses, social workers, engineers, paramedics, teachers, train drivers, fire-fighters. I don’t think so.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
>>>>In short, communism takes wealth from those with ability (those who deserve it) to those with need (those who don't deserve it).<<<<
You have no idea what you are talking about. the rich are rich because they have the ability to put aside all morals and freely oppress the lower classes that do all the work.
>>>>>>Nothing happens exactly to theory in real life.<<<<<<
Just because nothing HAS happened doesn't mean that nothing WILL happen. The circumstaces have never been certain, and it has yet to take place correctly. Or even if it does, closet-Nazis like Stalin just take over. What needs to happen is for people to stop trying to force the Revolution, and when it does, it must be led by lower class, honest men.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"On this "nice little website" it clearly states 20,000,000 not 40,000,000 killed under stalin's regime in bold letters.
(Also how can you call this website nice when it lists deathtolls)"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Me: It is debatable as to the actual death toll during Stalin's regime, but 40,000,000 is a commonly acceptable number. And if it was 20,000,000, would that mean it wasn't bad?
And by "nice" I meant "nifty."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"So less than 1/4 of the worlds population deserve all the wealth while the remaining 3/4 starve to death or live in wretched poverty?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: I wouldn't exactly call it "wretched poverty." There is a middle class, you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"You filthly Capitalist pig."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:You damn dirty red.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A MAJORITY of rich people have the good fortune of growing up in a first world nation with rich parents. Most did nothing to deserve what they have except being born into a privlliged family."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Me: I will admit, a large percetage of the rich got that way because they were born into it. But in order to stay rich, they needed to learn innovation blah blah blah all the things I mentioned above. The world needs ditchdiggers too.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Rich people work? not very many of them do work or at least they dont work anywhere near as hard as the working class they oppress."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Me: The rich do much harder work than the poor. Physical work? No, mental work. What's easier, lifting a bag of bricks or being in charge of a company, needing to hire, fire, orginize, rate, and in the end, make a profit?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Your an Idiot most of the poor are poor because they had all the bad breaks in life. They usually grew up in a family that lacked many of the neccessities of life."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Me: As mentioned above, the world needs ditchdiggers too.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Its a pity your father didnt pass his intelligence on to you if he did you wouldnt be preaching self evident nonsense."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Me: He is strongly anti-communist as well, much more than me. He beleives fascism is the left, but it being accepted as being the right is a leftist plot to make the right look bad. Now I don't go this far.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"You arent educated on Communism are you Russia was state capitalist not Communist."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Me: I agree that it is not communist, but theoritical communist societies always turn out like this.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Will somebody tell me that if a person inherits the looks, brain and all the qualities of their parents (in short everything) then why shoouldnt he inherit the fruits of their labour. That is, I am trying to say that it is completely moral for a child to bear the brunt of poverty if he was born in it and a rich person to get opportunies(after all his parents have worked hard for it). A child inherits all the qualiteis from their parents so why not fruit of labour?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
A child does not inherit all their qualities from their parents. Experience of life is the major contributor to the creation of the self. If the self were purely genetic, then it would be unchanging. I know that I do not have the same beliefs that I did when I was a child and I also doubt that you have. People are impressionable and easily conditioned; we act in the manor that we have learnt to act in. Because we are so easily moulded we take on the personality that is projected on to us by our experiences. It is unfair to give children different starting points because it ultimately condemns those who start at the bottom to poverty.
As with the above argument by ‘No Communism’ your genetics argument can only lead to the conclusion that some people are genetically better than others and since whites have in proportional wealth (gained through innovation or genetic superiority) it is only natural to assume that those who are not white must be inferior in some way. Is this really what you are claiming?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Actually, a majority of America's poor are white. If you're talking about the entire world, Africa is the poorest country and the majority of Africans are black, so that would explain why there are a lot of poor blacks (world wide), not because of their colour but their country of birth.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
>>>>>>>Me: As mentioned above, the world needs ditchdiggers too.<<<<<<<
That is so insensitive, you god damned racist fascist. It's capitalist pigs like you who are responsible for all the evils in the world.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Actually, a majority of America's poor are white. If you're talking about the entire world, Africa is the poorest country and the majority of Africans are black, so that would explain why there are a lot of poor blacks (world wide), not because of their colour but their country of birth."
America's majority might by white and, obviously the majority is poor, but they are much richer than the workers of third world countries whom produce the extremely cheap products of labor for the American masses, which is why America's majority poor are not as poor as the third world countries of Africa, for example. Third world countries are poor for the simple reason that they are militarilly weaker than white-rule countries, such as America and the European countries that dominate the world. And the white countries will never allow socialism or militarist nationalism in the third world, because it would lead to loss of cheap labor market and a threat to white domination of the rest of humanity.
This was much worst before world war 2, however after world war 2, ad the subsequent cold war, that allowed many countries colonized by the white countries to gain National Independence through support from the Soviets and or China. After the cold war, the world's working masses, even the white workers of white-ruled countries, are much more in international solidarity against international capitalism and imperialism, than 60 years ago, during the height of the colonialism and imperialism of white-ruled countries.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: I wouldn't exactly call it "wretched poverty." There is a middle class, you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Been to Cuba recently? How about Africa? I have been to both of those countries and I can tell you what they consider as the middle class would be considered poverty in the united states and Canada
Thank you being called a dirty red by a selfish imperialistic bastard is quite a compliment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: I will admit, a large percetage of the rich got that way because they were born into it. But in order to stay rich, they needed to learn innovation blah blah blah all the things I mentioned above. The world needs ditchdiggers too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your arguments are not based on logic take Paris Hilton for instance she inherited billions of dollars from here parents thats more than her great great great great grandchildren and much more could ever spend in one life time. She has to do absolutely nothing to stay rich just sit on her ass keep her money in the bank and live off the millions of dollars of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: The rich do much harder work than the poor. Physical work? No, mental work. What's easier, lifting a bag of bricks or being in charge of a company, needing to hire, fire, orginize, rate, and in the end, make a profit?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consult the labour theory of value.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Me: He is strongly anti-communist as well, much more than me. He beleives fascism is the left, but it being accepted as being the right is a leftist plot to make the right look bad. Now I don't go this far.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If your father knew what Communism was I would be surprised. Very well he is against a stateless classless society where education and health care are free to all people regardless of status. Wow your father must really have a deep rooted hatred for the poor I bet he cant stand that they are allowed to exist in the same country as himself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: I agree that it is not communist, but theoritical communist societies always turn out like this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical Communist societies have never been tried Marxism is the core philosophy of Communism hence no society can claim to be following Communism unless they accept pure Marxism. No society has ever done so I know a fellow Comrade who grew up in one of the eastern bloc countires her father was a devoted communist who was punished because he practiced Marxism and not state sanctioned Marxism-Leninism which is a bastardization of true Marxism.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Think before you type
No score for this post April 12 2006, 7:21 AM
A child does not inherit all their qualities from their parents. Experience of life is the major contributor to the creation of the self. If the self were purely genetic, then it would be unchanging. I know that I do not have the same beliefs that I did when I was a child and I also doubt that you have. People are impressionable and easily conditioned; we act in the manor that we have learnt to act in. Because we are so easily moulded we take on the personality that is projected on to us by our experiences. It is unfair to give children different starting points because it ultimately condemns those who start at the bottom to poverty.
As with the above argument by ‘No Communism’ your genetics argument can only lead to the conclusion that some people are genetically better than others and since whites have in proportional wealth (gained through innovation or genetic superiority) it is only natural to assume that those who are not white must be inferior in some way. Is this really what you are claiming?"
I think u interpreted my use of word "everything" incorrectly. Let me rephrase my question :-
If a child inherits so many qualities from their parents(not everything) then why not their wealth. And if parents want to pass on their wealth to their children then its their personal matter and why should a third person interfere. I hope my question is clear now
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The problem with giving one child a better opportunity than another, based only on the success of their parents, is it inevitably leads to the denial of opportunities to those who’s parents have not succeeded. To simplify; if you give 60% of X to A, you can only give 40% of X to B. Why should a child receive limited opportunities based on the perceived failings of their parent, also, what about those who can’t afford to give their child the best start but have contributed over and above the norm to society i.e. nurses and social workers.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Why should a child receive limited opportunities based on the perceived failings of their parent, also, what about those who can’t afford to give their child the best start but have contributed over and above the norm to society i.e. nurses and social workers."
Redstar u r a funny guy. cause u have not given any reason and have just put "why" infront of effects of pure inheritence. I can equally say that "why should not a child recieve more opportunities cause his family has already worked hard. or why should a third person interfere within any dealings between parents and children." But unfortunately this is not how reasoning is done. Reason it out!!!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
If you reward a person based on what their parents have done then you must punish a person for what their parents have done, I am asking you what is your justification for punishing a child for something out of their control.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Why do you keep calling Africa a country? This shows just how much you've looked into the topic. "the poorest country in the world is Africa", no it isn't, it's the poorest continent.
This just proves you're ignorance No Communism. I'm gonna use some wise words that redstar1 used before me, think before you type and actually before you speak or even try and justify capitalism. If you do discover the wonders of thought then you won't be doing the last one anymore.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Why do you keep calling Africa a country? This shows just how much you've looked into the topic. "the poorest country in the world is Africa", no it isn't, it's the poorest continent.
---------------------------------------
Yes, I too think that mister No_Communism doesn't know that Africa is a continent. I also belive that that shows that Communism is a viable form of government.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
>>>I can't stand people like No_Communism. Someday, the revolution will occur and i'd like to see him and those similar thinking capitalists shot.<<<
------------------------------------------------
So let me get this straight. Because No_Communism disagrees with your political beliefs, you feel justified to shoot him. Frankly, that sounds rather Stalinistic to me. Also, even if onely one person holds a belief and everyone disagrees with him, nobody has a right to silence the one person because as humans, we cannot truly know if we are correct.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In response to Rockefeller_Groupies response to RedHerman:
{{{{{{{{>>>I can't stand people like No_Communism. Someday, the revolution will occur and i'd like to see him and those similar thinking capitalists shot.<<<
------------------------------------------------
So let me get this straight. Because No_Communism disagrees with your political beliefs, you feel justified to shoot him. Frankly, that sounds rather Stalinistic to me. Also, even if onely one person holds a belief and everyone disagrees with him, nobody has a right to silence the one person because as humans, we cannot truly know if we are correct.}}}}}}}}}}}}}
The reason why many Leftists want capitalists to be shot after a revolutionary workers government takes power, is not because capitalists believe in capitalism, but because of their crimes against workers through use of capital to exploit labor, and also because obviously the capitalists would try to rebel and or organize a reactionary insurgency or civil-war, if they were to be allowed to live, even if they were imprisoned they might be able to bribe themselves out or runaway to another country to escape imprisonment, in order to safely conduct/organize counter-revolutionary terrorism against the revolutionary workers government.
I personally, think that capitalists should be sent to "re-education camps" for a chance to admit their crimes against the working-class and change their class-consciousness by willingly going to labor camps in the countryside, for "back-breaking labor" in trying to further reform them. And shooting those capitalists that act arrogant or rebellious either at the "re-education camp" or during the "back-breaking labor" at the labor camps in the countryside.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So, I suppose you take political advise from Stalin then? Or perhaps you have no concept of an "atrocity". Or perhaps you think being laid off is equivelent to being sent to a worker's camp. Or perhaps you are proposing a sickeningly inhumae idea as a satire of hard line Communists. I hope this is the one, because what you just wrote was sickening. I didn't realize that rational beings could think that way.
Rereading your post, I'm almost positive there is at least a hint of satire.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Rockefeller Groupie, I don't quite get you. You seem quite willing to bad mouth other people's views without actually expressing your own ever.
You do appear to be slanted towards the right wing slightly but i can't really tell.
Secondly, I believe the best policy would be to allow these capitalists either admit to being greedy bastards who don't deserve forgiveness for all the evils they have done or be exiled out of the country or countries which are communist.
With parties like the BNP i would be verging on the belief that they could be justifiably shot.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I've actually written about a two page essay about my beliefes, but to sum up, I think the government and the people should have as little to do with each other as possible. I chose my screen name because it amuses me. I find Rockefller to be an intelegent and interesting man, but I am not really a groupie. I'm not really right wing, but generally people on the left think I'm right wing, and people on the right think I'm left wing. You might call me an anti-extreminst.
Also, I have a fairly strict "no atrocity" policy. You might want to look into that.
And yes, exiling people because you have deemed them to be "greedy bastards", a subjective judgement if ever there was one, is an atrocity. Shooting them somewhat moreson.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"I've actually written about a two page essay about my beliefes, but to sum up, I think the government and the people should have as little to do with each other as possible."
The world is moving toward democracy, whether you like it or not, and the idea that the government should have as little to do with the people as possible is anti-democratic and in fact promoting some sort of an autocratic bureaucracy. Do you respect a peoples decision to vote to power any type of political ideology? What do you think of direct democracy? Direct democracy is a government in which the people vote in referendums on every issue concerning them rather than electing someone to make decisions for them; For example the people would vote in a referendum whether to go to war against a certain country, rather than letting a politician decide to go to war without support of the masses. Another example of direct democracy is people voting in a referendum on what should be done with capitalists, and if they vote that all the capitalists should be shot, then "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" can not be used to bring to trial anyone, because the masses are responsible for "atrocity", by enacting it through voting for it.
"And yes, exiling people because you have deemed them to be "greedy bastards", a subjective judgement if ever there was one, is an atrocity."
What about imprisoning them for their crimes, just like we imprison any other criminal, like thieves and murderers?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"but to sum up, I think the government and the people should have as little to do with each other as possible."
______________________________________________________________________________
So your a Libertarian then.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
First off, I would like to say something. This is a political, not economic, theory. Economics make my head spin and are far too unpredictable for any theory to be absolutely useful. This means that in my political system, I do not specify anything about capitalism or communism. Now, onward:
There are a few facts I want to lay down. The first is that the worst form of government is the absence of government. Chaos, above all else, leads to violence, cruelty, and makes it so that the weak have no defense against the strong. Not only that, but it by necessity will always lead to the second worst form of government, military dictatorship. Military dictatorship is order taken to the extreme, and although the violence is drastically less than in anarchy, it is more ordered. There are several other forms of government, such as hereditary monarchy, Roman style dictatorship, merchant oligarchies, council oligarchies, total democracies, and aristocracies. These should all be avoided. They are either corrupt, short sighted, overly leftist or rightist, or brutal. At this moment in time, the best forms of government now in use are either Parliamentary Democracies (Yes, I realize it is technically a Parliamentary Monarchy, but seeing as the monarch has zero authority…), such as in Britain, or Federal Democracies, such as in the US. I personally favor the US system because less emphasis is placed on the party and more on the individual. More on why I detest parties later.
Now, I will lay a few rules that I find to be universal. The first is that the government and the people should have as little to do with each other as possible. When the government interferes with the people too much, you get oppression. When the people interfere with the government too much, you get mob rule. Too my eyes, both are equally bad. So what people have done about this is created legislative assemblies so that no one man can have utter dominance. However, what this causes is that the assemblymen become entrenched and overly conservative. So they become elected. This is the best method the assemblies. Unfortunately, this means the congresses veer dangerously towards mob rule.
The job of a government official is not, as is often said, to do what the people want. The job of a government official is to do what is best for the country. These two often don’t line up. The ordinary citizen is a busy man. He has to support his job, his family, and himself. When John Q. Smith gets home from work, what he wants to do is too laze around and take a break. He deserves it. He has been working hard all day, and he wants to watch the football game. Wonderful how football translates into every nation, by the way. Yes, there are exceptions, but I would be willing to bet that by and large I am right. Mr. Smith here doesn’t really know about tax policy or the ramifications of pollution reform. So he compromises by sound bites. If one politician’s sound bites are more appealing than the other’s, he will go with him. Or perhaps he will vote strictly party lines. Again, I will get on to why parties were created by Satan later. So he has no business interfering with the government.
Likewise, the government has no business interfering with him. A large group of men in Washington/London/Paris/Sydney/Berlin/ect don’t understand John’s business as well as he does. I would go into this in greater detail, but this isn’t a Libertarian beliefs thread.
So what is my ideal form of government? One in which the government and the people exist to support and protect each other, and one in which they exist to be not only mutually dependent, but also to be mutually exclusive.
The perfection of this idea, however, is impossible. Human nature keeps getting in the way of what is best for human kind. So, the idea is not only to limit the government and the people’s involvement in each other’s affairs, but also to limit the influences of human nature. This is why we can’t have just one man governing, because there is no way of telling whether that one man is the right man, and even if he is, there is no way of stopping him from choosing a poor replacement. Trust me on this, I’ve tried all I can to think of a way, and the closest that I can think of is to say that the ruler may not choose a man of his bloodline to the second degree as his successor, but this is imperfect, as his loyal advisor or perhaps his favorite crony would succeed him. So you need a balance of powers. And what better way to have a balance of powers than with a three branch government?
Here is my government system, in essence: There are three branches, Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive. The Legislative branch is completely elected by either proportion (British style) or district (American style). There are pros and cons of each, so I would say a state system similar to the US in which people are elected proportionally. So, you have an elected legislative branch, but I said executive and Judiciary are not elected. So what are they? They are indirectly put into office. The people vote for an assembly of Electors, preferably around 100, every two or so years. The President is appointed by them every four years. It would go like this: 1990: President appointed, 1991, electors elected, 1993, electors elected, 1994, president elected. This gives them one year to find and appoint a president. So what are they doing the rest of the time? For one, they are the ones the president runs his Supreme Court nominees by. Also, they have the power to remove legislators from office. The president can be removed by a movement from the Electors that goes through both houses of the Legislator, but the president is finally removed by a second vote by the Electors. My Electors have considerable influence, but no power. You could argue that if the Electors were to be dominated by one man, then he could easily control the government. I respond by saying that this is no different than any Assembly body. . Electors and Representatives (Who have two year terms) have a four term limit. Presidents and senators (Who have six year terms) have a two term limit.
Now, what you’ve all undoubtedly been waiting for: Why a despise parties. In short, they constrain people. Seeing as I identify myself with the LP (Libertarian Party), one might say that I am naturally biased, but I have logic on my side. Let me give a hypothetical situation: you want to run for an office, but you don’t identify yourself with the two major parties. You have two choices: You either run as a third party candidate and inevitably lose, or go to the major party you identify yourself with most. Now, assuming you chose the latter option, in order to gain any influence in your party you have to conform to the party line. You are constrained. In the state of Yowtopia, there will be no political parties, and Electors will not run with their presidential choices.
So yeah, that’s pretty much all I can think of. Next time one of you overthrow your government, give me a call, and I’ll set up your constitution for you.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Firsdt of all communism has Never been tried, only reactionary state capitalist using the name. So any argument against the evils of communism are only what you think is communism.
Communism will come and if you do not want to dirty your hands, then perhaps you should hide within the Democratic Party.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You should browse this whole website. In particular, look at the identity of the absolute worst of the 20th Century human atrocities - you will notice they are the USSR and China....Communists. Also note that Capitalist countries don't score very highly on this list. It's mainly comprised of Socialist and Nationalist regimes. Socialism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin. They are both Collectivist in nature, and both are driven by "altruism" or some "common good". Collectivism and altruism have been responsible for more human misery, suffering and slaughter than anything else in human history. Don't you find this a little puzzling? Or at least enlightening? You should.
97 million killed by two Marxist regimes alone in the 20th Century - Communist Russia and China. You people are toying with the seeds of an ideology which resulted in the systematic slaughter of more than ten times as many as were killed by Hitler. It is worse than if you were toying with the seeds of Nazism. People, you need to ground yourselves in reality here. Communism, Marxism and Socialism of any kind are evil, immoral, unnatural, SLAVERY. Assert your individual rights as a human and REJECT this tribalist idiocy!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
*****So less than 1/4 of the worlds population deserve all the wealth while the remaining 3/4 starve to death or live in wretched poverty?
You filthly Capitalist pig.*****
See, the thing is, you Socialists are actually out of your minds and this is something I don't particularly enjoy pointing out but it needs to be said. The extent to which your world view is removed from reality is staggering. I'm going to give you the proper version now and I shouldn't have to say it again after that.
First of all, let it be said that Capitalism didn't create poverty, misery, hardship, toil, death. It INHERITED all of those things from the earth. But nothing in history has done more that Capitalism to improve the existence of mankind. This is NOT conjecture or speculation, this is empirical FACT. Pre-Capitalistic life on Earth was not the idyllic harmony you people obviously believe it was - it was neither fair, just, safe, prosperous or even "nice". People lived relatively short lives, and those lives consisted mostly of a wretched subsistence. Life was dangerous. Children died often. Diseases went untreated, minor injury frequently led to death. Before the Industrial Revolution in Britain, the average life expectancy was a little over a third of today's average, and the infant mortality rate was five times as high. Capitalism improved the lives of these people immeasurably and has since been responsible for improving the livelihood and prosperity of the poor all over the world ever since.
Where there is still poverty, there is not enough capital invested per head. This also is fact, not conjecture. The difference between poverty in India and America lies in the amount of capital invested. This is why the poor in India are starving, while the poor in America have color TVs and microwaves and get a welfare check. Lack of capital investment - the seeds of wealth creation and hence BETTER LIVES FOR THESE PEOPLE - is a situation rectified by MORE Capitalism, not less. Where Capitalism has appeared to "fail" the poor, is entirely because of the meddling of Socialist style governments who just can't keep their criminal hands off the market and the economy. The free market and the interplay, foresight, vision and ambition of some of the worlds most capable people is what creates the wealth that lifts people out of poverty, not the decisions of faceless bureaucrats working for some fictional "common good".
The people who make it all happen, the go-getters, the movers and shakers, earn their wealth fair and square and if you don't like it, go create your own. Wealth is not a finite pie that "belongs" to everyone equally, it's something that is CREATED by the effort, both physical and mental, of individuals, of Capitalists. Oil doesn't drill itself, nor does it distill itself, cars don't create themselves - they are made possible by extraordinary people who are prepared to take their minds to great lengths, and work long hours. It is entirely appropriate that the people whose vision and intellect make these things happen should be compensated handsomely. A person should be able to keep the product of their minds achievement - that is an axiomatic individual human right. Just as a worker employed by such an entrepreneur has the right to keep the product of his or her work - ie, their wage, for which they mutually agreed to trade their labor with their employer.
Technology, that wonderful, miraculous thing which has resulted in untold benefits for mankind all over the globe and looks likely to continue to progress and offer even more benefits for prices which get lower and lower - is a result of the marriage between Science and Capitalism, not Science and Socialism. Scientists work best when they are free, ie NOT part of some evil forced "collective" in which the individual means less than the "group". Capitalism distributes the results of that unencumbered innovation to the masses at lower and lower prices. The demand for lower prices improves efficiency of production, which is after all something we all agree is beneficiary, both to us and the planet. Improved efficiency both lowers prices and improves wages, which is why the worker, since the Industrial Reviolution, have gotten steadily better and better off in terms of absolute prosperity.
Socialist revolutions require a mass of angry, disgruntled, exploited workers who aren't surviving on what they earn. You don't have anything approaching this in America, or indeed anywhere else in the West. Those days are long gone. The poor get richer. The global poor will only raise their standard of living when they see more capital investment in their countries. The reason why this isn't happening is usually because of some oppressive tyrant regime which won't allow Capitalism to do its job unencumbered. Capitalism is, and will continue to be, their only savior.
I wish you would realize how shameful it is to be throwing a tantrum and lashing out at the one thing in this world which has REALLY made a difference to the lives of humans in so short a time period. The amount of hatred directed at Capitalism from irrational people is pretty darned screwed up if you ask me.
*****A MAJORITY of rich people have the good fortune of growing up in a first world nation with rich parents. Most did nothing to deserve what they have except being born into a privlliged family.******
You won't win an argument by simply "making stuff up", Sparky my son.....in fact, the great majority of rich or "prosperous" people in this country are self-made, and earn every penny of their money. Yes, rich people in THIS nation have good fortune to have been born here (or immigrated here). But so has everyone else. Even the poor have good fortune to live here. The reason why the rest of the world isn't enjoying these standards of living is because Capitalism hasn't really taken off yet, and because where it is taking off, it's floundering under the exploitation of corrupt governments who can't keep their hands off.
*****
First world nations are where they are today because they have the fortune of living off of the labour power of the third world workers. Hence these people can increase their own countries wealth at the expense of others.
Letting others die while you live in luxury doesnt denote intelligence or innovation.*****
This is simply not true. Most US employed workers are American, or live in America. And where countries outsource to the third world, they are offering a lifeline to people who otherwise would be starving to death. If, for instance, child labor was to be banned all over the world right now, then within a week you'd have hundreds of thousands starving to death. The reason why labor is so cheap over there is because of not enough capital investment, and the technical means of production is far less advanced and hence less efficient than in the West. Capitalists are not "letting others die", this is a disgraceful lie, and you should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself. They are CREATING WEALTH, and in the process providing a means of living for millions of people who would otherwise have nothing.
*****Rich people work? not very many of them do work or at least they dont work anywhere near as hard as the working class they oppress.*****
Again this is really getting to the heart of the warped, fantastical world view that Socialists have. It's all about "hatred of the successful". It's envy and jealously - as simple as that. Rich people DO work - damn hard. A lot of them use their BRAINS to full capacity in order to create their wealth. Most of you Socialists possess a fictional, romanticized world view in which the only "toil" worth noting is that which is back breaking and sweat inducing. Internally, when you picture "the workers toil", you're imagining men stripped to the waist, underground, bent double, being relentlessly whipped by portly fat-cats sat atop elephants smoking cigars and sipping port. It's this fictional symbolism which the Socialist spends his or her whole life writhing in agony over. They don't think of the engineer who had a vision, who slaved over hot textbooks for years and years and strained his eyes and busted his brains and sacrificed his time in order to gain mastery over a region of human knowledge which would enable him to fulfill his desire to reshape a part of the world in the reflection of his own values and hence make life better for him, his family, and everyone who came into contact with or benefited from his project along the way and henceforth after that. Capitalists work DAMN hard and not only that, they are the ones prepared to take RISK with the investment of the product of their time, their labor, their minds. It is the vision and the risk taking of humans like these that is responsible for the incredible improvements to human life made over the last couple of hundred years. Dammit, meditate on this information if you have to because it's TRUE.
******Your an Idiot most of the poor are poor because they had all the bad breaks in life. They usually grew up in a family that lacked many of the neccessities of life.******
Well, you're both partly right. The poor are poor for a variety of reasons, not least of which is their own propensity for making bad decisions or simply being lazy. But most of all, the poor are poor because they haven't had enough capital invested in them. As I've said, this is a situation which can only be solved by less restrictions on the flow of capital, not more. Communism and Socialism only ever produced misery, inefficiency, poverty, death. Go check the link above again, if you like. You might also like to check out this guy, who can educate you more than me on the subject....
*****You arent educated on Communism are you Russia was state capitalist not Communist.*****
You can argue all you like about which particular "strain" of Marxism the USSR was based on, the fact is it's all based around the subordination of the individual to the group, and can only be described by the word SLAVERY. Capitalism is the only system known to man which fully recognizes and protects the fundamental, inalienable right of the individual to his or her own life. Those of you with any kind of moral or intellectual or philosophical integrity will be abandoning your assorted leftist slave ideologies for free Capitalism about now.
******Maoism is a variant of stalinism hence it is not Communism either as well as the rest of them are all dictatorships not workers states.*******
It does not matter - a "workers state" will end up the same way - enforced slavery to the "collective good" whether you want to or not and no ultimate concept of individual or property rights. The right of property is most important of all, because from it flows naturally the right of a person to the property of their own mind, their own life.
Workers on their own do nothing. They need innovators, free thinkers, entrepreneurs with vision and strategic thinking abilities. Such people do not work under duress or coercion or by force or at the barrel of a gun. No matter how fluffy and nice you think your idyllic little enforced slave-labor camp "Commune" is going to be, it's not! People don't WANT to live like that, they will want out! And then what will you do? Build some Gulags?
*******Wrong Marxist theory is considerably different than leninism or any other branch of so called Communist theory. No country has ever followed Marxist doctrine hence none of them have ever been a proletarian revolution.********
And no country ever will, thank God. The very idea of Marxism is grotesque and a violation of the most basic individual human rights. The Capitalists have done an amazing job in dragging this world into some kind of relative civilization over the last 200 years. Look around you. Everything wrong in the world is due to some kind of collectivist tyranny or other. It's time stop this crap. It's 2007 for chissakes.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
*****It is a fact that the most wealthy and powerful people in the world are in proportionately male and ethnically ‘white’. Are you suggesting that white men are in some way more intelligent, more innovative or show greater initiative? *****
Well, the basic intellectual, philosophical, mathematical and political tools which led to the explosion of capitalism originated in Europe, which is indigenously white in most places, and like societies all over the world throughout history, has been traditionally dominated by men. I'm not saying that this primitive patriarchy is right or just, I'm saying that that's how come most wealthy and powerful people are white men. It doesn't prove that white men are more intelligent, not in the slightest. Where those "white men" have made their money through Capitalism, as long as they didn't deny the basic rights of others, it's because they deserved it. If they simply inherited it, they didn't "deserve it" in the same way, but it still has nothing to do with you since one person is free to give their wealth to whomever they wish. "Capitalism" has nothing to do with the fact that most rich and powerful people are white men - in fact, Capitalism is the only thing which will redress the balance in the future. See, Capitalism isn't about any of this racist, tribal, Nationalist, Fascist, collectivist, Socialist, Communist crap (all part of the same thread if you ask me). It's just about giving the individual the right to go about their lives in a manner which best suits them but which doesn't violate the rights of others.
*****How do you explain the situation of ‘black’ Africans who surly must be unintelligent and incompetent by nature if they are unable to accumulate vast amounts of wealth as the obviously genetically superior Bill Gates is able to?*****
How do you explain the fact that the CEO of Time Warner, Richard Parsons, is black?
*****The London Times publishes the Rich List every year. It lists the top 1,000 earners in the UK in order. 125 people in that list are aristocrats, people who play golf and appear on reality TV all at the expense of the tax payer. ******
Perhaps you'd like to explain to us what "living off the taxpayer", or aristocracy, has to do with Capitalism? Because I don't see any connection at all. You leftists use the concept of Capitalism as a package deal to attack everything you see as evil...people who claim state benefits are not Capitalists. You've totally embarrassed yourself there.
******5. Phillip Green – Born into an upper middle class ‘Oxbridge’ family and inherited the family business, the second largest retail outlet in Britain.*******
So what does this have to do with you? So what if a father wants to give his business to his son? What POSSIBLE objection could you have to this? My god - this STINKS of jealouy. ADMIT IT! IT'S SOUR GRAPES! Isn't it!
******4. Hans Rausing – invented the Tetra Pak milk carton. Wow! Moved away from Sweden to UK to pay less tax (a.k.a. avoid contributing to society, milk cartons are enough of a contribution apparently).*******
So why shouldn't a man who invented a type of convenient packaging which is used by millions be rewarded for his work as the market sees fit? And yes, moving from a very Socialist country to a slightly less Socialist country would be one way of ensuring that those thieving Socialist criminals managed to extort less of his fair earnings from him for the immoral purpose of "wealth redistribution". One day kid, you may own some wealth, that you earned fair and square. And then you're going to understand what it's like to have so much of it wrenched from your hands to pay for social programs you may or may not agree with.
******3. Duke of Westminster – so entrepreneurial he was born rich. Born in a huge manor, so well worth his £5.6 billion*******
Firstly - what does this have to do with Capitalism? Nothing. He is a product of the British ruling aristocracy, the old Feudal system. A blast from the past. And secondly, that 5.6 billion is invested in the economy, so he's doing absolutely no harm whatsoever, aside from maybe making you writhe with envy.
******2. Roman Abramovich – ex-Russian politician who ‘earned’ his £7.5 billion during Russia’s chaotic post-soviet oil scramble. The unelected governor of Chukotka, in Russia’s oil rich and impoverished east also has a strong connection with the Russian mafia. He is currently living in Britain (still a governor in Russia) as owner of England’s top football (soccer) team, Chelsea FC. There’s another group of millionaires who ‘work really hard’ for their money, footballers.*******
Firstly, you describe a bunch of Russian criminals. How would your Socialist utopia guarantee no criminal behavior? A more aggressive police force? Secondly, soccer players DO work damn hard for their money - they develop an extraordinary talent through hard work and dedication, and use that talent to take advantage of the market demand for watching football games.
******1. Lakshmi Mittal – Having started with only one measly steel factory (his parents gave him as a present) he became Britain’s top industrialists. This one was embroiled in a political scandal dubbed Mittalgate with Prime Minister Blair when it became apparent that a donation Mittal had made to the Labour Party (£2 million) had led to Blair's intervention (a letter to the Romanian prime minister) in a business deal favouring Mittal.*****
Again, you're talking "government favors" and that kind of thing - nothing whatsoever to do with Capitalism at all. In fact, this kind of thing is more likely to happen under Socialist or Communist regimes. Those who have favor with the leadership, take the spoils. Of course, what we have in America, and also in Britain, are mixed economies which really means leftist policy paid for with the extorted proceeds of Capitalism. In such a system, government favor is up for grabs and there are billions to be made. Halliburton is a good example of such a company - they would never exist on the free market as Capitalists, not in a million years.
******The top five have a collective personal wealth of £37.7 billion, that’s $66.9 billion. And do they work 37.7 times harder than nurses, social workers, engineers, paramedics, teachers, train drivers, fire-fighters. I don’t think so.*******
No, but they create that WEALTH THEMSELVES, so they are free to keep it. That's a part of property rights, and there is nothing you can do about it, except of course form a tyrannical leftist regime and steal their money from them. I see that is what many of you propose. Without the Capitalists, those EVIL BASTARDS who are being paid "too much", nurses and engineers wouldn't have any technology to work on. Who do you think creates the wealth to pay for hospitals, railways, schools, fire fighting services, etc? WHO? The resentment you feel for those who make it all happen is disgraceful! I find it so depressing to see such ignorance on display. (sigh)
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I've found a FANTASTIC book which should explain the beauty and superior morality of Capitalism to all you young Socialists and Communists. Listen up, I understand how you think when you're a teen or in your early 20's - when I was 18, I was a RAGING Socialist. Couldn't understand why anyone could be anything else. Thought Capitalism was a curse word, just like anyone else who's been indoctrinated by the leftist media and the progressive education system, which have been systematically smearing Capitalism for the last 50 years at least. And when you're that age, you don't understand much about the world, about money, about history, about the importance of property rights and individuality, about human nature, about philosophy, about economic and politics. You THINK you do, but you don't.
Winston Churchill once said something along the lines of "If you're 18 and not a Socialist, you have no heart. If you're 40 and not Conservative, you have no brains". Substitute "Capitalism" for "Conservative" (the two don't always correlate) and you're onto something. When you're young, life's all about showing how virtuous and "caring" you are, how politically "angry" you can get (Smash the System!) and of course, falling in line with your peers. Leftist views are a good way of expressing this. Rare is the young person who openly expresses their support for Capitalism while everyone around them screams "Socialism!". Such a person may have "no heart" according to Churchill, but I'll tell you what - they're brave, independent, radical, forthright and compromise with nobody. Such a person is a cut above.
Anyway, as you get older, if you genuinely DO progress intellectually, you WILL eventually embrace Capitalism. It's going to take a lot of reading, of watching and analyzing, of understanding concepts which are hard to understand when you're 21. Every single one of you would do well to read this fantastic little book, which is an easy read, funny, interesting and most of all, impossible to argue with since it's based 100% on rational thinking and empirical evidence. I've just finished it and I can promise you it will change your mind forever. Check it out:
Another thing to consider is this. I'm now 35 and I've known hundreds of people in my time. People of all backgrounds and ages. And one thing I can say is that Socialists get angrier as they get older (the ones who don't "convert" as they age, like intelligent people). I'm not talking about anger against "the system", the same anger that you young leftists feel, I'm talking about a deep seated bitterness and resentment, at the world, at everyone and everything. It comes from a number of reasons, but first and foremost is from seeing the ideology of their life fail miserably all around them. Old Socialists and Communists now have seen, during their lifetimes, both Socialism and Communism collapse all over the world, in every single case. They can look back to the 50s and 60s and they now know in retrospect that the Communist regimes they supported cheerfully in that time, were really some of the most brutal, bloody, murderous regimes in history and that people suffered dreadfully under them. They've seen every tinpot Socialist regime collapse, go into bankruptcy, be smashed by revolution. They witnessed the British Socialist government collapse in 1979 with its economy in tatters. They saw the city of Liverpool in the UK officially go bankrupt (yes, a whole CITY) because it was run to a Socialist agenda. They've seen the French flounder, they've seen every Socialist Scandinavian country turn towards freer and freer markets. And most of all, they've seen up front and first hand the prosperity that Capitalism brings, and its potential to help the poor of the world. They've seen it, but they still don't ADMIT it. And the rage builds inside them slowly but surely. It's very hard, at that age, to admit that all you're life, you were wrong. When it DOES finally happen, it makes a person angry. That's why most old Socialists and Communists have bitterness written all over their faces. When they're college professors, they can't WAIT to indoctrinate their students with this bitterness and poison their minds against the ideology that WON, Capitalism.
Most of all though, aging Socialists are angry at THE COMMON MAN. This ignorant, ungrateful son of a bitch who should have been GRATEFUL that WE, the SOCIALISTS said and did so much for them, and yet here they are, enjoying the higher standards of living that Capitalism brought them, with the word "Proletariat" further and further from their minds. These bastards should be revolting, forming a workers state and yet they're NOT......and THIS is why old Socialists hate "the common man" so much. As you get older, you'll begin to notice this too.
The theory was that workers in the West would become so poor and exploited and pissed that they would organize themselves into a revolution and take over and form a workers state and oust all the evil Capitalists. This has, however, not happened and nor will it ever. The aging Marxists know this, they can see for themselves that the workers of the West have gotten steadily better off under Capitalism. So they've had to change their theory in order to save face (they'll never have the guts to admit they're wrong). You will now notice that most Marxist theories of today revolve around the newly updated scenario, that it's not the workers of the West that will rise up against the Capitalists - no, now the struggle between the exploited and the exploiters has been transferred to the struggle between the "exploited" 3rd World and the West who "exploits" them. Marxism has been updated (juggled) in order to save itself from destruction, given the fact that regular Marxism has failed all over the world.
My young friends, do yourselves a favor and read that book. The "status quo" is now fiercely anti-Capitalist and favors State control (the Neocons, for instance). Supporting Capitalism is the new radicalism, if that's what it's all about for you. How about thinking outside the bun for a change and breaking from tradition? Embrace mankind; embrace Capitalism.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I enjoyed reading your thread. I can tell it's dead-on right, because all of the pseudo-intellectual communists have (once again) been reduced to name calling. When the commies