[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
in this case the capitalists have reduced man to a mindless producer with no pride in his work.
[/quote]
Sort of like what happened in many of the Communist countries under Stalin, or Cambodia under the Khymer Rogue…oh, wait…
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
you help to prove my point by implying that having a good life is having a home with a pool and drinking beer. you have been brainwashed by the capitalists to believe that material things justify the fact that during the week you are at work more than you are at home (not counting sleep). life is more than material things, why cant we have the freedom and the time to persue intellectual and spiritual wealth as well.[/quote]
So what are you saying, most of the world’s people are poor. They have no money. Why do they want money? To buy material things.
So if material things justify the fact that we are at work more then we are at home and have no time for intellectual and spiritual wealth, why the hell should I feel sorry for the poor in the world if by improving their lot, they increase their wealth and material possessions thus turning themselves into the very thing you condemn?
[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
i think this is where we just flat out disagree. i believe in political equality for all people and as i stated, in order to achieve that there must be economic equality.
What if everyone is equal economically and not everyone decides to spend his wealth to wield political power?
What if someone invest it and gets richer than others?
[/quote]
So, how does this work? Can I make as much as a high paid surgeon by mopping a floor, or does the surgeon not get paid as much so he can be on more of an equal playing field as the janitor? Or is it each gets paid according to the amount of skill, or education one has? How does this equal distribution of wealth work out when each job requires different levels of skill and education?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(And don’t give us that BS about ‘Find one post where I celebrate…’ How about: ‘America will never conquer Iraq as long as one Iraqi man is still standing!’ ? There’s one of many.)
[/quote]
Irrespective of what Lixy has said in other posts - for they may well have proven your point in another post. However, this post says nothing about celebrating American deaths.
To me, Lixy’s comment has more to do with a (potential) Iraqi perception and devotion to concepts of homeland and internal sovereignty. The US hholds a similar correlation in its national anthem, does it not?
‘…The land of the free and the home of the brave…’
However, while Lixy’s comment does not support a notion of celebrating American dead - although it makes implicit sense that there would be celebration at repelling a foe - the comment is, perhaps ill-conceived inasmuch as it uses emotive language to support an assumption: explicitly, the use of the word ‘conquer’.
Irrespective of my feelings about the war, it’s justification or otherwise, I doubt very much that the USA went into Iraq with any intention of conquering it - the intrinsic notion of conquering the place implies something else than what has been done. If the US wanted to conquer Iraq the could have used a hell of a lot more destructive weaponry and levelled the place.
Also important to note: Politically, no matter how much arrogance you may attribute to the US govt (and you can attribute an awful lot), even the most gung-ho of Hawks is not politically naive enough to try and ‘conquer’ an anyone; especially in teh Middle East.
[quote]orion wrote:
If you understand enough of the world to earn a fortune maybe you know something that others don`t. [/quote]
An excellent illustration of that is Georges W. Bush.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
i think this is where we just flat out disagree. i believe in political equality for all people and as i stated, in order to achieve that there must be economic equality.
What if everyone is equal economically and not everyone decides to spend his wealth to wield political power?
What if someone invest it and gets richer than others?
So, how does this work? Can I make as much as a high paid surgeon by mopping a floor, or does the surgeon not get paid as much so he can be on more of an equal playing field as the janitor? Or is it each gets paid according to the amount of skill, or education one has? How does this equal distribution of wealth work out when each job requires different levels of skill and education?[/quote]
In communism, one of the best jobs around for the “common folks”, by which I mean non top party elite, was to be a farmer from a bigger collective.
That’s right, a doctor got less in pay and less in extra benefits!
Lixy, I agree that in both worlds a lot of subintellectual debris tends to float atop because of heritage.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
…without economic equality there will never be political equality, …[/quote]
This is all bullshit. People are not equal.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
…without economic equality there will never be political equality, …
This is all bullshit. People are not equal. [/quote]
At least not politcally and economically…We’re all equal when we die.
What people, dissatisfied with capitolism, don’t realize is that socialism/communism is not only a far worse alternative; it’s a proven, bonafied, unadulterated failure. This has been proven by time and time again by real world examples. Monarchies were a more successful politcal system than socialism.
Look, if you don’t like capitolism then fine, it has flaws. However, come up with something better than socialism. Make it up, be creative. There are more then two potential political systems.
I could drone on and on about why socialism has failed and will continue to fail where it’s tried. The problem is that socialism ignores the needs of the individual. This tends to piss individuals off. A good socio/economic model has to take care of both societal and individual needs. They are both equally important.
So think of something better, not worse than what we have. It like saying “This size 10 shoe is to small, so let me try a size 9. Hey, at least it’s different.”
[quote]iscariot wrote:
However, while Lixy’s comment does not support a notion of celebrating American dead - although it makes implicit sense that there would be celebration at repelling a foe - the comment is, perhaps ill-conceived inasmuch as it uses emotive language to support an assumption: explicitly, the use of the word ‘conquer’. [/quote]
You’re right. I got carried away.
Look, Morocco and Tunisia were conquered. There is no other way to put it. It required neither overwhelming destructive force nor leveling the place. Bush’s speeches nowadays replicate perfectly those of the French in the early 20th century.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is all bullshit. People are not equal. [/quote]
Self-evident truths? What self-evident truths?
C’mon, Lixy, you know what he really means and that he’s right:
People are born with different talents, motivations, ambitions, emotions, mindsets etc.
And of course one should treat and respect them equally [high] which we consider self-evident.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is all bullshit. People are not equal.
Self-evident truths? What self-evident truths?[/quote]
Even if people were created equally they do not develop equally.
I believe in providing equal opportunity, not equal pay for all.
If you want more money get a better education and work harder. Move to where the jobs are.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Why don’t you spend some time in a kibbuz and see for yourself how it really is. These are probably the most successful socialistic entities out there. You will see how and why this idea has it’s limits.
The third world is certainly being raped in a certain sense. And we do live in times where managers and the upper class get a ridiculously large chunk of the steak.
But how do you think this whole business works? What are the alternatives?
Concerning political equality- So because nature made man and his communities unequal, it is our task to make sure everybody’s the same, or gets the same? My neighbour has a lousy job. He studied hard. Is this fair. A garbageman earns a lot more then my physiotherapist buddy here in Germany? Fair? And why has Germany no oil? Why doesn’t Venezuela or Iraq or Iran give us some of theirs?
It’ll never work this way. Besides, who shall define “fair”, “merit” and “equal” - the party?
The third world has other problems. They are victims of a culture shock. As I posted in a different thread, there are no poor countries who profit from their natural riches. On the contrary, if, for instance, pakistan finds out tomorrow they sit on huge bubbles of natural gas, you can bet your ass it’s going to be a bloodbath.
Most poor countries also suffer horrendously from foreign aid. With no motivation to establish a clean democracy, transparent political structures, you just assure continuous strife.
And since most of them have no grasp of the concept of property or legal security, they can’t effectively operate economically.
Development worker are sometimes astounded how naturally their subjects assume that since we have magically acquired this “muney”, we should share it like you share your cow’s milk cause it’s utter is the biggest in town.
You can’t force those principles, we have learnt/discovered through the decades down their throats the same way you can’t force-feed democracy to the Iraqis.
[/quote]
i dont feel i should spend time in a kibbuz because that is not the type of society i believe in. what i believe in is a living breathing movement where people take control and they shape their movement according to the needs of the people.
there are discrepencies in pay as you have outlined but if the people want to eradicate the system the beaurocracy makes it very difficult. if people directly and democratically controlled their government then the people could decide for themselves fairer wages according to reponsabilities.
they reason why germany doesnt get oil is because of capitalism. because capitalism prohibits cooperation for the sake of cooperation. in capitalism if its not good for business it wont be done. venezuela has given oil to countries in latin america as well poor communities in the U.S.
it is our duty to realize there are many things wrong in the world and that we may be headed toward extinction and we must face these problems and get to the root.
[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization
How did “capitalism” manage to do that?
u.s. corporations wished to increase their profits and/or did not want their financial interests threatened so they used the government’s secret agencies to install military dictatorships which would allow u.s. corporations to make that profit. capitalism at its worst.
Ah, so it was an abuse of government power that caused problems?
Why is that a problem caused by capitalism.
Did feudal, mercantilistic, fascist and socialist governments not do the same?[/quote]
it was the abuse of government power caused by capitalist interests. govenrment is just the strong arm of the capitalists. how can you fail to see the connection.
the governments that you mentioned did do the same, although never to the extent of capitalism, and all those governments were overthrown just like capitalism will be.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
you help to prove my point by implying that having a good life is having a home with a pool and drinking beer. you have been brainwashed by the capitalists to believe that material things justify the fact that during the week you are at work more than you are at home (not counting sleep). life is more than material things, why cant we have the freedom and the time to persue intellectual and spiritual wealth as well.
So what are you saying, most of the world’s people are poor. They have no money. Why do they want money? To buy material things.
So if material things justify the fact that we are at work more then we are at home and have no time for intellectual and spiritual wealth, why the hell should I feel sorry for the poor in the world if by improving their lot, they increase their wealth and material possessions thus turning themselves into the very thing you condemn?[/quote]
wrong, wrong, wrong. you couldnt be more wrong. and this pretty much convinces me that you have no idea about what is going on in the world.
people do not want money to buy material things. they want money for food, medicine, housing, clothing, education, electricty, etc…everything that is need to live a dignified life. every day 25,000 people die because of poverty.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
…without economic equality there will never be political equality, …
This is all bullshit. People are not equal.
At least not politcally and economically…We’re all equal when we die.
What people, dissatisfied with capitolism, don’t realize is that socialism/communism is not only a far worse alternative; it’s a proven, bonafied, unadulterated failure. This has been proven by time and time again by real world examples. Monarchies were a more successful politcal system than socialism.
Look, if you don’t like capitolism then fine, it has flaws. However, come up with something better than socialism. Make it up, be creative. There are more then two potential political systems.
I could drone on and on about why socialism has failed and will continue to fail where it’s tried. The problem is that socialism ignores the needs of the individual. This tends to piss individuals off. A good socio/economic model has to take care of both societal and individual needs. They are both equally important.
So think of something better, not worse than what we have. It like saying “This size 10 shoe is to small, so let me try a size 9. Hey, at least it’s different.”[/quote]
in my opinion it would be impossible to outline a better system and then implement it. it has to be organic, it has to grow out of popular movements.
all i am saying is that people have to take control and they have to eliminate this oligarchic system just like they eliminated past socio-economic systems. if you want to label this as socialism then its up you, i prefer not to give it a label because then people like you completely ignore the argument and go back to the same old rhetoric about “communism is bad, look at russia, china, cuba…”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is all bullshit. People are not equal.
Self-evident truths? What self-evident truths?
Even if people were created equally they do not develop equally.
I believe in providing equal opportunity, not equal pay for all.
If you want more money get a better education and work harder. Move to where the jobs are. [/quote]
people are different but their value as human beings are equal.
who said anything about equal pay? i said a more equal distribution of wealth.
how easy do you think it is for some one in poor country were they dont have money to build schools and buy books to “get an education and work harder”?
immigrants from latin america are trying to move to where the jobs are.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
Ah, so it was an abuse of government power that caused problems?
Why is that a problem caused by capitalism.
Did feudal, mercantilistic, fascist and socialist governments not do the same?
it was the abuse of government power caused by capitalist interests. govenrment is just the strong arm of the capitalists. how can you fail to see the connection.
the governments that you mentioned did do the same, although never to the extent of capitalism, and all those governments were overthrown just like capitalism will be.[/quote]
I fail to see the connection because governments ruthlessly expanded their imperium long before capitalism was even a set of ideas.
Now if you argued that governments are basically violent institutions I´d agree.
It is also not true that those governments never expanded their powers like capitalist societies.
Examples are:
The Roman Empire, the unification of China, the land taking of Russia, Alexander the Great.
A lot of what you state as fact and obviously strongly believe in is just plain wrong.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
how easy do you think it is for some one in poor country were they dont have money to build schools and buy books to “get an education and work harder”? [/quote]
You don’t get it. Third world people are lazy bums and certainly not the victims here. If you don’t have a school in your village, it’s because you didn’t prioritize, and instead of uniting, you started fighting over who gets the last bucket of water from the well.
Poor countries are poor because of their ideology, not because of imperialism or globalization. Really! Don’t they teach you anything at school?