Closer Look at Socialism/Communism

[KrisHawkXXX]

I will not respond to people if they leave me the impression they failed to finish reading the post without an open mind and clearly respond out of direct anger.

This is a sensitive topic, and I know I am known to be kinda harsh in expressing my views based on research and study so I took the time to think about how my words will affect others for the first time on this forum. Since I am taking my time to kindly bring this discussion in this forum so that I am cautious not to hurt someone's feelings, I would like the favor returned so that you fully read my words carefully and not skim them to reply in some angry insulting post.

I am not a socialist nor a communist. What I am about to talk about may raise anger, confusion, joy, or hopefully understanding. I will provide a list of literature from Amazon.com for anyone that chooses to read and learn something further on this subject.

Let me stress this.

NEVER before in the history of economics has a foreign nation ever exercised TRUE communism or socialism. I will explain how the Soviet Union was a corrupt fascist/capital government with a distortion of communism which would have Marx rolling in his grave. There is also a huge difference between the two. It takes lot of reading to express in full detail how these would work. It takes months or possibly years to understand this form of this political philosophy from a new perspective that isn't influenced by pro-capital propaganda.

I am just beginning to see the world from a WHOLE new perspective and its very sad and disheartening to see misery and corruption in our everyday lives when we see a homeless mother with kids on the street or a politician blaming economic unrest on poverty individuals that clearly have no control of the free-market or dirt-low wages. We have seen corrupt businesses make products that are harmful which result in law-suits to protect the consumer. Of course, the company does not accept responsibility and the result ends up as the employees taking punishment indirectly or a rise in prices. We have seen doctors make irresponsible decision in hospitals which also ends up with a lawsuit. Premiums go up and monopolize with the excuse they must pay for 'frivolous" lawsuits and persuade the notion to overthrow the "Liability" clause so if the doctor messes up, you're screwed. It's not about protecting people, it's about money and greed.

Karl Marx stated that you could NOT just implement socialism or communism as a form of political change by a quick reform which was a huge mistake of the Soviet Union which set the nation up for future self-destruction from the very start. He also stated that violence was never an answer and as long as we continued to mistreat each other over financial struggle with money as a our main motivation in life, Capitalism would always have massive power over our minds. He also stated that money would not be a factor of government in communism because money is what ultimately drives people to war, selfishness, poverty, greed, starvation, power, etc.


Socialism, the half-way point, will evolve from Capitalism slowly over time, not by a quick change. Communism which has never been seen by man would only take place in the future and evolve from socialism. Communism is something that nobody on this forum will see in their lifetime. Socialist ideas have already slowly begun taking place around the world and hopefully by the end of my life I will see more change and equality in the market place. Once people start to have compassion for other human beings and the other life on the planet will we start to transform into a community that overthrows finances (money) as our source of survival. Communism will allow people to use their maximum talents and potential which we see many times go unappreciated or un-noticed.

The things we produce through Capitalism has one result in production in the end, PROFIT. The main result of human life should not be profit, it should be HUMAN BENEFIT. Take Wal-Mart for example. We see things that are produced that are in reality completely worthless. Paper plates which destroy the environment, sparkly Sponge-bob stickers, gas outside to fuel cars that destroy the o-zone layer, all these things that took wasted energy that don't benefit humans long-term but was made to make profit for people at the top. These products weren't made mainly to help others acquire better living benefits.

People in these cheap factories get paid dirt-cheap wages that make it near impossible to live. They struggle day to day in life until they pass away and never move up anywhere in life so that our wealth in this world is built on their misery. They make the same products over and over so that we throw them away once they are consumed and we waste all our valuable resources so that big companies can make billions and billions of dollars that can't even be taken with them when they die. Not only is the billions of dollars worthless when they pass away, it has no human value. Money does not buy happiness it only buys convenience for a short while. Capitalism drills into our heads that we must be motivated to participate in the financial system in order to survive or else we will struggle and live in misery.

As Capitalism gains more and more power over us, we become more alienated from society and become less compassionate with the "social world" which leaves us feeling empty inside to buy material items that only give us a quick adrenaline rush for a short period of time. We keep buying all this garbage because we are misinformed that it will bring happiness but in reality we keep feeling empty afterward and all the money in the world will never bring true happiness.

Companies pay their employees low wages and will do anything at all costs to make the biggest profit because the individual or group of individuals that OWN "Capital" feel they are not obligated to support those who make their business as powerful as it is and take advantage of them. They suck the most profit and lust after money like an addiction or sickness. The company makes its profit through a system of exploitation.

The soviet union took basic ideas of Marx and distorted them with the intention of doing good for the people, but quickly many ideas were changed and some were added. The financial system was kept which totally defeats the purpose of having a communist government. The people all got the same dirt low wage while there was only ONE main Capitalist making profit, the Soviet government. It was a scary nation to live in overtime and political opponents were assassinated under Stalin who in reality was a complete lunatic. I feel disgusted with today's Communist party of America who wishes to have a communist world NOW when they go against everything Marxism stands for. People hear of something good, they want it now, and they rush the process of natural change and end up causing destructive economic catastrophes. Communism is something that won't occur for a very long time and would only be effective in a positive benefit for all of man-kind if done on a global-scale. The carelessness of North-Korea, North-Vietnam, and the Soviet Union has crippled any positive outlook on what will eventually be the final global solution to end poverty, despair, war, toxic waste, social class (rich and poor), starvation, etc.

The nazi party believed in fascism and something few know as NATIONAL socialism which means that all nations should be equal, or in easy terms everyone should be one Nazi Germany. Sure, Hitler had ideas of equality but believed everyone should be BLONDE with BLUE-EYES. Of course, we know this is sickening and hard to stomach because its cruel and inhumane. But this distorted political tyranny is something that should never be repeated anywhere else in this world of ours. True socialism calls for equality and still uses a system of finances but is a half-way stepping stone to train the human race to have more compassionate thinking towards each other.

Our political philosophy and cognitive thinking is based on how we are raised and what essentially gets drilled into our heads by the media. Marx knew that change from Capitalism would be a long process overtime but the reality of world cruelty would only hit us once things get so bad to a point that people start revolting not through violence but the exchange of intellectual ideas. Then will the society grow and change for the better. The economic scale goes back and forth between the right and left constantly. Changes are made, things are repealed. The same changes are put in place again, they are repealed. The rich get tax cuts, the economy tanks and stock market crashes. The poor people always receive the blame and the rich upper-class never takes full responsibility in order to keep the system of Capitalism because it actually benefits them. Socialism is slowly taking effect worldwide while the fear of the upper class throws out tantrums and false information on stations such as Fox news. Do you want to keep the system going back and forth throughout your lifetime by listening to the side of politics that keeps change from occurring longer, or do you want to be one of our greatest contributors of human compassion and intellectual ideas to make change happen in our lifetime?

 

[SuperPsyze]

My concern comes from the socialist structures we currently have. I mean, look at education. It's a socialized system. Our tax money goes towards educating our kids, and the government has control over what happens at these schools. It's clearly socialized education, and I don't think its working...

If our hospitals end up like our schools, it's gonna be a disaster...

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

My concern comes from the socialist structures we currently have. I mean, look at education. It's a socialized system. Our tax money goes towards educating our kids, and the government has control over what happens at these schools. It's clearly socialized education, and I don't think its working...

If our hospitals end up like our schools, it's gonna be a disaster...

Our education system doesn't work because we don't put enough concern and funds into the budget. May I ask where you gathered your opinion that led you to feel that the current system is a socialized system? I'm curious to hear your points because many times I feel frustrated when I hear these statements but no reasons why.

Many school systems in Europe truly have socialized structures and are far more advanced in science and math then American children tend to be.

As for socialized medicine, nothing is perfect. I've talked to numerous citizens from Canada and the UK and the majority of those that I have spoken with are overall satisfied with their system of medicine. A few cases of negative criticism has been distorted by American politicians to scare the public for asking for a reformed health system when our old system was costing billions of dollars. In Maine there was one health insurance and within the last decade they raised their premiums by 39%. A social government is only efficient if everyone cooperates and its most effective if done on a global scale.

What is your definition of socialized education? What is the opposite of socialized education?

 

[Royal Heart]

My concern comes from the socialist structures we currently have. I mean, look at education. It's a socialized system. Our tax money goes towards educating our kids, and the government has control over what happens at these schools. It's clearly socialized education, and I don't think its working...

If our hospitals end up like our schools, it's gonna be a disaster...

Your military is a socialist structure. Your tax money goes towards training troops and equipping them. Now compare how much money is spent on the military each year and compare that to how much money is spent on education each year. I think you'll notice something interesting.

 

[SuperPsyze]

Your military is a socialist structure. Your tax money goes towards training troops and equipping them. Now compare how much money is spent on the military each year and compare that to how much money is spent on education each year. I think you'll notice something interesting.

Well, exactly. So far, there has been nothing to convince me that we'd move money away from the military funds and into our schools OR health care system. It's so frustrating being an American -_-;;;

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Well, exactly. So far, there has been nothing to convince me that we'd move money away from the military funds and into our schools OR health care system. It's so frustrating being an American -_-;;;

What is your definition of social education and what is your definition of the opposite of social education? What ideal system of education would you like implemented to benefit our future generations?

 

[NotThatCreative]

That's why I'm a libertarian socialist. But I hasten to point out a few things.

One: capitalism does allow you to move up the socioeconomic ladder in a truly fantastic way. My parents, for example, both grew up poor. My mother was eligible for the free lunch program throughout her school career. Her father was a steel worker. My father actually lived on welfare for a few years after his first dad died and before his stepdad came into the picture, who worked in the mines. But my parents left that lower class background and are now upper class. Capitalism does screw some people over, but for most it really does have the potential to reward hard work.

Two: what makes you think the corruption/misery that exists in a capitalist society wouldn't also exist in a society that was under Marxian rule? Corruption and misery are an unremovable part of the human condition. You decrease corporate/private power and increase government power in its place, and you're just changing who's greedy hands are all over your life.

Three: I find fault in your assumption that there'll ever come a day when people have true compassion for one another and won't look to money as what's most important. Greed is an inherent part of all humans, and that won't change any more than we've managed to make humans nonsexual beings. We can come up with controls on it, and try to restrain it. But a system that relies on people to not be greedy is ultimately doomed to fail.

Four: human benefit? Why? I have mine, my family and friends have theirs, why should we give up all we've worked for so some people can have more. We have private charity to bring that along some of the way, and my family and I all give to charitable organizations. Why should the fruits of my advantages and my efforts be taken from me at gunpoint? Personal responsibility isn't talked about nearly enough anymore.

Five: I mistrust any argument that uses the concept of "true human happiness." It's a slippery, ill-defined, and probably undefinable concept. And anyone who says money doesn't at least aid in happiness needs to ask homeless people what they think of the idea of having more money. They'll tell you they'd really like some. Ask them if having the money to have a place to live and be able to put food on the table with regularity will make them happier, and the answer will be yes. Money may not be able to get you all the way, but it helps. And for some people, they really are happy buying real nice name brand things. They like Armani suits. If it doesn't make you happy, then fine. Doesn't make me happy either. But who are you and I to judge what is permissible as a source of happiness for others?

Six: Any statement made that says the upper class don't take full responsibility is simply wrong. It's inaccurate populist anger. Right now the federal income tax for a rich person is at 35%. When the Bush tax cuts expire, it'll go back up to 39%. The rich pay for this country. The bottom tax bracket pays 10% for federal income tax. The top 5% of this country pays for 57% of this country. They pay way more than their fair share. I'm not advocating we get rid of the progressive tax system. It's necessary in order for this country to work. But to say the rich don't take responsibility is simply not accurate.

Seven: The capitalism Karl Marx lived with was quite different than the capitalism we have now. Marx incorrectly felt that the boom and bust cycle inherent in capitalism (to his credit, I think he was the first to point it out) would destroy capitalism. A prediction that has thus far proved untrue. The capitalism he saw was unrestrained, with no minimum wage, no right to unionize, child labor running rampant, disgusting and unhealthy working conditions. Some of the stuff that went on during the Industrial Revolution make modern-day sweatshops seem not that bad. That's how bad things were. It's the closest we've ever come to having true capitalism. Right now we're striking a balance in the middle.

Eight: concentrated costs and distributed benefits. You see this all over politics, politicians not doing or fixing something because of it. It's a major feature of capitalism. Sure, Wal-Mart's employees get treated terribly. But I, along with many many other people, get to enjoy cheaper goods. There are far more people benefitting from Wal-Mart than there are people who are hurt. That's life, though. No system leaves people unhurt. Capitalism at least doesn't deny it, and embraces this fundamental fact of life to make it so that even the lower class live well enough. There are 1 million people chronically homeless in this country, and another 2 million point-in-time homeless. For them, it really sucks. But for even the upper lower class, life in this country is really good. They have cars, they have TVs and computers. The relative poverty of America looks like opulence in some other parts of the world. It's not perfect, but things could be much worse.

Exploitation is inevitable so long as there's a power hierarchy or structure. You can't escape it.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

That's why I'm a libertarian socialist. But I hasten to point out a few things.

One: capitalism does allow you to move up the socioeconomic ladder in a truly fantastic way. My parents, for example, both grew up poor. My mother was eligible for the free lunch program throughout her school career. Her father was a steel worker. My father actually lived on welfare for a few years after his first dad died and before his stepdad came into the picture, who worked in the mines. But my parents left that lower class background and are now upper class. Capitalism does screw some people over, but for most it really does have the potential to reward hard work.

Capitalism does reward hard work, and its a common statement used by pro-capital agenda. While your statement does provide some truth, Its mainly a system of luck for those that grow up poor. Many times its because of the town they live in that has good schools, a good police department, organized towns, parents that are born with values etc. Many times a story has two sides and leaves certain facts out. Many people get a good job based on personal connections.. not because of what they know (who they know) Sometimes people take a chance and actually do live a successful life based on their achievements. But most people that do bust their ass and strive for a better life.. DON'T get rewarded. Its inefficient because its not equal in providing full opportunities for all global citizens. What about the kids born in bad neighborhoods with bad schools because the state refuses to spend more on education? Those kids get ruined for life many times and are lucky if they have a positive role model to help them see bigger dreams. One thing about Capital America is the fact that We use the majority of the world's resources and in history we have stolen resources from other nations. You think countries in Africa were always poor? Our factories that produce these items for profit cause major health problems and issues to our environment.

Two: what makes you think the corruption/misery that exists in a capitalist society wouldn't also exist in a society that was under Marxian rule? Corruption and misery are an unremovable part of the human condition. You decrease corporate/private power and increase government power in its place, and you're just changing who's greedy hands are all over your life.

There is no such thing as Marxian rule... they wasn't his ideas. Have you read any of his literature? He stated overtime it would take place naturally through a long-term course of events and exchange of ideas. It would take MANY years for change to take effect. It would only take effect when the human race realizes that Capitalism may in some ways benefit a small portion of the global population, but it exploits the majority of the human race and eventually people will revolt and I won't blame them.

Three: I find fault in your assumption that there'll ever come a day when people have true compassion for one another and won't look to money as what's most important. Greed is an inherent part of all humans, and that won't change any more than we've managed to make humans nonsexual beings. We can come up with controls on it, and try to restrain it. But a system that relies on people to not be greedy is ultimately doomed to fail.

The wealth in the United states and other leading nations is built on the misery of others. This is what I'm talking about. You are happy with Capitalism because it benefits YOU because you are one of the FEW lucky people in this world. People that benefit from Capitalism fail to see the misery of others. The attitudde (well that's not my problem) is very selfish of the few lucky people to have even just a bit of wealth. Marx stated that Communism would eventually in the far future take effect even if he hadn't expressed his philosophy and that the ideas weren't even his. Capitalism is about climbing up a ladder and moving up in status and not caring that others below them are starving to death and dying of colds and other simple illness that would be easily treated with proper health care. We have enough resources in this world to make sure every human being has the basic needs.

Four: human benefit? Why? I have mine, my family and friends have theirs, why should we give up all we've worked for so some people can have more. We have private charity to bring that along some of the way, and my family and I all give to charitable organizations. Why should the fruits of my advantages and my efforts be taken from me at gunpoint? Personal responsibility isn't talked about nearly enough anymore.

There is not enough MONEY because it is a man-made thing. Money only has value because WE say it does. Gold is just a metal and for all we know it could be worth NOTHING in the future. But in terms of food, resources to make homes and clothes, (Hemp is easy to grow and makes the most durable clothes), water, etc, yes we do have enough to help everyone if we strive to work towards human benefit, not make a few bucks a day to waste materials on the earth so they just end up in landfills. We could still make advances in technology and advance further into the future. No you are right, personal responsibility is NOT talked about anymore. I think the fact that billions of dollars are spent each year to stop gay rights when those billions could be spent on the BILLIONS of starving families that can't move up in Capitalism even if they wanted to because they live in a third world country or their schools just got bombed by the US government.

Five: I mistrust any argument that uses the concept of "true human happiness." It's a slippery, ill-defined, and probably undefinable concept. And anyone who says money doesn't at least aid in happiness needs to ask homeless people what they think of the idea of having more money. They'll tell you they'd really like some. Ask them if having the money to have a place to live and be able to put food on the table with regularity will make them happier, and the answer will be yes. Money may not be able to get you all the way, but it helps. And for some people, they really are happy buying real nice name brand things. They like Armani suits. If it doesn't make you happy, then fine. Doesn't make me happy either. But who are you and I to judge what is permissible as a source of happiness for others?

A homeless person wants money because the human race MAKES money valuable. Money is not an essential need of life. Food, water, shelter, social values, clothes, better technology, THOSE are essential and you don't need money to make it happen. Money is system that keeps people in power. You say your parents grew up poor, why not place them in the middle of a third world country where there are no jobs and they can see what REALLY true poverty is. Go live in Nigeria where there are no hospitals for miles and there is a huge famine and the HIV rate is spread so rapidly.. live their for a year then come back and tell me you think the Capitalist world is fair. Go over there and get a job and move up in the status ladder because Capitalism is the greatest thing in the world. Wow you're right, Personal responsibility of human beings ISN'T talked about anymore. They live in America thinking they are Gods entitled to materialism and see the corruption of the world with a blind eye. Under communism there is no split governments or nations.. because it would only work under a global scale. When people put aside their differences in culture, language, religion, sexual orientation, race, then maybe we can work together and put our ideas and technology together to create a COMMunity to create an even BETTER world. Because if the majority of people are getting fucked over by something called money that has no value in REALITY, then that's kinda outrageous, don't you think?

Six: Any statement made that says the upper class don't take full responsibility is simply wrong. It's inaccurate populist anger. Right now the federal income tax for a rich person is at 35%. When the Bush tax cuts expire, it'll go back up to 39%. The rich pay for this country. The bottom tax bracket pays 10% for federal income tax. The top 5% of this country pays for 57% of this country. They pay way more than their fair share. I'm not advocating we get rid of the progressive tax system. It's necessary in order for this country to work. But to say the rich don't take responsibility is simply not accurate.

Go look at the world on a global scale. I wasn't just talking about the USA. Most of the world is Capitalist. China.. I won't even go there.

Seven: The capitalism Karl Marx lived with was quite different than the capitalism we have now. Marx incorrectly felt that the boom and bust cycle inherent in capitalism (to his credit, I think he was the first to point it out) would destroy capitalism. A prediction that has thus far proved untrue. The capitalism he saw was unrestrained, with no minimum wage, no right to unionize, child labor running rampant, disgusting and unhealthy working conditions. Some of the stuff that went on during the Industrial Revolution make modern-day sweatshops seem not that bad. That's how bad things were. It's the closest we've ever come to having true capitalism. Right now we're striking a balance in the middle.

Right. I worked at a fast food chain. On busy morning two people would be on the floor. Me and one manger. I would run drive-thru and the inside register because the company was too cheap to put more labor on the floor. But last Christmas tons of executives got big raises but surely didn't care about the nerve-wrecking stress that poor employees like me had to deal with because that extra money could have helped everyone on the work floor. WE the employees on the bottom work the establishments, greet the customers, and make THEIR paychecks possible while they sit at the office in their big chairs talking on the phone.

Eight: concentrated costs and distributed benefits. You see this all over politics, politicians not doing or fixing something because of it. It's a major feature of capitalism. Sure, Wal-Mart's employees get treated terribly. But I, along with many many other people, get to enjoy cheaper goods. There are far more people benefitting from Wal-Mart than there are people who are hurt. That's life, though. No system leaves people unhurt. Capitalism at least doesn't deny it, and embraces this fundamental fact of life to make it so that even the lower class live well enough. There are 1 million people chronically homeless in this country, and another 2 million point-in-time homeless. For them, it really sucks. But for even the upper lower class, life in this country is really good. They have cars, they have TVs and computers. The relative poverty of America looks like opulence in some other parts of the world. It's not perfect, but things could be much worse.

No things are cetainly not perfect. Is this nation all bad? No. But why settle for something good when we can have something better? Should the poverty in the world be entitled to have a chance when we have more then enough resources to do so? You can still be rewarded in a future social/communist world. Your hard work would be WAY more appreciated then it is now and all your talents would be put to use so that you appear so dull and lifeless in the work world like a machine to make profit. Profit (money) is worthless in terms of human value and morality.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Capitalism does reward hard work, and its a common statement used by pro-capital agenda. While your statement does provide some truth, Its mainly a system of luck for those that grow up poor. Many times its because of the town they live in that has good schools, a good police department, organized towns, parents that are born with values etc. Many times a story has two sides and leaves certain facts out. Many people get a good job based on personal connections.. not because of what they know (who they know) Sometimes people take a chance and actually do live a successful life based on their achievements. But most people that do bust their ass and strive for a better life.. DON'T get rewarded. Its inefficient because its not equal in providing full opportunities for all global citizens. What about the kids born in bad neighborhoods with bad schools because the state refuses to spend more on education? Those kids get ruined for life many times and are lucky if they have a positive role model to help them see bigger dreams. One thing about Capital America is the fact that We use the majority of the world's resources and in history we have stolen resources from other nations. You think countries in Africa were always poor? Our factories that produce these items for profit cause major health problems and issues to our environment.

It's true, luck in where your born does play a role. I was raised upper middle class and then lower upper class. I got lucky. Compared to the poor bastards who had to attend inner city DC schools... suffice it to say their misfortune is not necessarily their fault. I won't for a moment deny that there is a systematic form of oppression involved. But you can't eliminate luck from life any more than you can eliminate greed. However, i do support major investment in education, for adequate education provides you with what you need to improve your own status if you're willing to work for it. We don't need to leave capitalism for that though. Public education is a part of all "capitalist" countries. We just need to improve it.

As far as us exploiting others' resources to get rich. Yeah, that helped quite a bit. Ironically though, environmentalism helps keep those poor countries poor. Heaven forbid they should start emitting greenhouse gases at US or Chinese levels. I despise environmentalism, so I feel no need to defend those beliefs. Environmentalism relies on the I have mine now you can't have yours mentality I'm often attacked for.

There is no such thing as Marxian rule... they wasn't his ideas. Have you read any of his literature? He stated overtime it would take place naturally through a long-term course of events and exchange of ideas. It would take MANY years for change to take effect. It would only take effect when the human race realizes that Capitalism may in some ways benefit a small portion of the global population, but it exploits the majority of the human race and eventually people will revolt and I won't blame them.

Reread what I said. It was a conditional sentence. I know there's been no such thing as Marxian rule. But if Marx was right, then the things he wrote about and envisioned and claimed as inevitable will come to pass, and it is that rule I was speaking of. I referred to it as Marxian rule for the sake of ease and efficiency. By the way, there has also never been a true capitalist state just like there hasn't been a true Marxist one. Whether or not he was right... I doubt it, but only time can tell.

The wealth in the United states and other leading nations is built on the misery of others. This is what I'm talking about. You are happy with Capitalism because it benefits YOU because you are one of the FEW lucky people in this world. People that benefit from Capitalism fail to see the misery of others. The attitudde (well that's not my problem) is very selfish of the few lucky people to have even just a bit of wealth. Marx stated that Communism would eventually in the far future take effect even if he hadn't expressed his philosophy and that the ideas weren't even his. Capitalism is about climbing up a ladder and moving up in status and not caring that others below them are starving to death and dying of colds and other simple illness that would be easily treated with proper health care. We have enough resources in this world to make sure every human being has the basic needs.

I object strongly to the notion I don't see the misery capitalism causes. I do. Perhaps you fail to see the misery inherent in the human condition, but I know capitalism causes misery. As I said, you cannot end greed. It has always been there, and will always be there. Communism could never work precisely because it relies on people to defy human nature and not be greedy, not get as much as possible from as little work as possible. That will never work.

There is not enough MONEY because it is a man-made thing. Money only has value because WE say it does. Gold is just a metal and for all we know it could be worth NOTHING in the future. But in terms of food, resources to make homes and clothes, (Hemp is easy to grow and makes the most durable clothes), water, etc, yes we do have enough to help everyone if we strive to work towards human benefit, not make a few bucks a day to waste materials on the earth so they just end up in landfills. We could still make advances in technology and advance further into the future.

So what if money and gold, etcetera have value because we assign it value? It still has value. Why shouldn't I like my stuff? My family's stuff? So what if it ends up in landfills? What's wrong with liking my comforts, with liking my computer even though there are starving kids in Africa? Why should the fruits of my labor and my family and friends' labor be taken from us by force for the sake of people we don't know and will never meet? As I said, I give to charities, I'm not against helping them out. But since when did making sure they get to enjoy every single thing I do become my responsibility, become a goal for which it is permissible for an institution (like the government) to take away what is mine by force? That is not freedom, that is not a desirable state of affairs. The price of that is freedom, and it's not a price I'm willing to pay. Would I feel differently in their shoes? Maybe, but I'm not in their shoes, I'm in mine.

No you are right, personal responsibility is NOT talked about anymore. I think the fact that billions of dollars are spent each year to stop gay rights when those billions could be spent on the BILLIONS of starving families that can't move up in Capitalism even if they wanted to because they live in a third world country or their schools just got bombed by the US government.

Billions of dollars are spent each year in favor of gay rights, and that was money that could've been spent on helping starving families. I own a Macbook, I could've bought a cheaper Toshiba (which is still a nice computer) and given the extra money to charity. If you're going to use this argument I hope to god you've never bought something name-brand. They have the freedom to use their money for what they like, even if you don't approve of the cause they choose. That's part of freedom. Once again, I'm not willing to sacrifice freedom for the sake of a small portion of the populace.

Also, I hate that guilt-ridden "just got bombed by the US government" argument. So what if it was? I didn't tell them to. And right now our bombing is confined to three countries, two of which the whole world understand. The third, well, can't be right every time. But I don't think that because we unjustly bombed the hell out of Iraq I owe people in Swaziland or Indonesia anything.

A homeless person wants money because the human race MAKES money valuable. Money is not an essential need of life. Food, water, shelter, social values, clothes, better technology, THOSE are essential and you don't need money to make it happen. Money is system that keeps people in power. You say your parents grew up poor, why not place them in the middle of a third world country where there are no jobs and they can see what REALLY true poverty is. Go live in Nigeria where there are no hospitals for miles and there is a huge famine and the HIV rate is spread so rapidly.. live their for a year then come back and tell me you think the Capitalist world is fair. Go over there and get a job and move up in the status ladder because Capitalism is the greatest thing in the world. Wow you're right, Personal responsibility of human beings ISN'T talked about anymore. They live in America thinking they are Gods entitled to materialism and see the corruption of the world with a blind eye. Under communism there is no split governments or nations.. because it would only work under a global scale. When people put aside their differences in culture, language, religion, sexual orientation, race, then maybe we can work together and put our ideas and technology together to create a COMMunity to create an even BETTER world. Because if the majority of people are getting fucked over by something called money that has no value in REALITY, then that's kinda outrageous, don't you think?

World community... I'm not part of one, that's not the world we live in. There are people who hate Americans, who hate you and I and work to have us killed for simply being American. We have every right to end their existence, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to do so. They also have every right to end ours at this point because we're killing them. They're welcome to try. A world community can't and won't ever exist. I have no obligation to some human in Swaziland, or Malaysia, or China, or France, or even in the city three hours away from where I live. I have an obligation to me, to my family, to my friends (and indirectly, through them, to my country). I help others out through my time and money because sometimes life does suck, and I would like to help out. I am in no way under an obligation to do so. It's not about their nationality, their religion, their socioeconomic status, their orientation, their race, or anything else. It's about I don't know them. If I were given a choice between killing a member of my family and killing 10 people I've never met of various backgrounds I'd kill the 10 without giving it a thought and with a totally clean conscience. My obligation is not to "humanity".

I am not outraged by a majority of people suffering because of something that has no intrinsic value. For if it weren't money, it'd be something else. Capitalism is the tool of oppression right now, but if the whole world was communist there'd be something else. Humans can be amazingly good and amazingly bad to one another, and as long as there's power there's oppression and misery.

Go look at the world on a global scale. I wasn't just talking about the USA. Most of the world is Capitalist. China.. I won't even go there.

Globally that's probably accurate. Once again, not outraged by it. That's life. I got lucky, good on me. Others aren't lucky, that sucks for them. I'm not liable for every random person who lives in abject poverty in the slums of India though.

Right. I worked at a fast food chain. On busy morning two people would be on the floor. Me and one manger. I would run drive-thru and the inside register because the company was too cheap to put more labor on the floor. But last Christmas tons of executives got big raises but surely didn't care about the nerve-wrecking stress that poor employees like me had to deal with because that extra money could have helped everyone on the work floor. WE the employees on the bottom work the establishments, greet the customers, and make THEIR paychecks possible while they sit at the office in their big chairs talking on the phone.

I work fast food right now, during breaks. Same thing happens at the McDonald's I work at. The employees might all get 5 cent raises while the higher ups get raises in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. And then there's always the bonuses, which regular employees don't get. I've never seen my store manager at the store at 4 am like I often am. And so? Executives, by and large, earn their pay. And if they don't? They payed their dues to get where they are, or got lucky and knew someone. Good for them. Assuming you live in a country with a minimum wage like I do, then you got paid that. I work my ass off at work for two reasons. One: a good work ethic is required if you're getting paid. Two, and more important: because there's a minimum wage, I can never earn my wage no matter how hard I work. It's the nature of the minimum wage system. It's a price floor. You and I, by the laws of supply and demand, get paid more than we're worth. Executives on salaries, though, get paid what they're worth. By that logic, they earn their pay, we don't. So who's being treated unfairly?

And the capitalism of today can't hold a candle to the horrors of the capitalism of the Industrial Revolution. Child labor, getting paid a dime for 10-hours work, being able to be fired for any reason, no worker's compensation if you get injured on the job, no right to unionize (definitely one of the key labor rights). You and I have it so easy in comparison. There are countries whose capitalism is reminiscent of the capitalism the West had during the Industrial Revolution (China comes to mind here).

No things are cetainly not perfect. Is this nation all bad? No. But why settle for something good when we can have something better? Should the poverty in the world be entitled to have a chance when we have more then enough resources to do so? You can still be rewarded in a future social/communist world. Your hard work would be WAY more appreciated then it is now and all your talents would be put to use so that you appear so dull and lifeless in the work world like a machine to make profit. Profit (money) is worthless in terms of human value and morality.

Communism envisions a world of economic equality. That comes at a cost: freedom. I don't accept that trade. Trading in one set of oppressive masters for another is not what I have in mind, especially seeing as how my family, friends, and I benefit from the oppressors we've got more than the oppressors that'd bring. Money may be "worthless" intrinsically, but freedom is worth something. I also disagree with the notion that communism is necessarily more moral. After all, isn't it moral to reward someone who does a good job, works a lot harder, or anything of that sort? I mean really reward them, not the vague promise of "appreciation".

Your utopian ideal of communism has some benefits, as all systems do, but I choose libertarian socialism over it any day. The costs of communism are just too great.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Let me ask you a few questions so I can get a better understanding of how you are feeling on the other end. Answer these to the best of your ability. You may share an opinion.. but make sure to directly answer the question to test your ethics.

You say that Capitalism gets the most out of the most little work possible.
1.
A)What is gained from little work that is performed from a minimum wage and how does it benefit the world?
B)How would one living in a third world country go about supporting their struggling families when their are no jobs available and they are willing to prove their "worth ethics?"

Nuclear energy has many times failed when the reactor goes out of control and that has resulted in high levels of radiation that has been released into the air and into the drinking water of communities. The result of radiation poisioning destroyed many lives in terms of birth defects and mutated DNA and to this day has cost BILLIONS of dollars to clean up.From the all the costs of health risks which drain global economies from polluted air, water, the o-zone layer, etc.
2
A)Why would it be wise in your eyes to say environmentalism keeps poor families poor when all this pollution wouldn't cost so much money to clean up if we didn't cause the pollution in the first place?
B)With evidence that air pollution mainly from the USA will lead to radiation from the sun, change water currents and temperatures, and increases of the sea level, would you say its best to let things keep going the way they are or change the course of events so that they aren't disastrous?
C)Do You personally feel green energy can stimulate many jobs under a socialist government in terms of solar energy and wind energy? Do You think it could save billions upon billions of wasted dollars that are used to clean up pollution made by humans?


You say you are entitled to material items and that future communism takes away your freedom. Nobody ever said Communism takes away freedoms it actually would give you more freedoms to have MORE. We have a VAST amount of resources to give people what they need and some basic wants for leisure purposes or maybe even more. But today we are limited how much of these basic needs and resources we as humans are able to obtain because of a system that uses money which determines what you can and can't have. because you are limited on "funds" and if you are poor well then you can't have shelter and food "tough shit!" says the wealthy people.
3
A)Why do you think some people who are better off then most simply don't feel some obligation when some that are better off then most actually feel responsible to help improve the future while they are blessed to be given life on earth?
B)Do you think if you were born in a third world country you would cherish what you now view as worth ethics? Do you feel there is a chance that you wouldn't value what you now see as worth ethics and why?
C)In A system of no finances\where the value of survival is using tools around you to trade with others and build something that is durable is a trait of theoretical communism. Would you rather have a chair from Wal-mart that was rushed with cheap materials to get a job done for quick profit or would you rather have a chair that was built from someone's talented hard work to REALLY struggle with work ethics so that a job is well done and he can help others have durable furniture but for no financial deal but a trade for meals, fabrics, home-built computers, etc?


4
You say you are not obligated to care or do something about poverty, famine, starvation, or sadness in the world because you already have everything you need.
A)Why is the United states of America so entitled to consume most of the world's resources and take the resources of third world countries for themselves?
B)Why do so many Americans think they are better then everyone else in this world?
C)Why do people feel that having wealth and material items makes them a better person then a homeless person on the street? Do they sometimes feel they are more valuable because they have status? Does their money and housing status make them better people?


FINAL QUESTIONS
(Our national wealth is built on the misery of others)
A)You work at a McDonalds. How do you feel knowing that your company contributes to the obesity rate that is a frightening number? How do you feel knowing that the USA is the most obese country in the world? How do you feel knowing that fast food contributes to BILLIONS of wasted dollars in health problems? If People decided to eat healthy would your company cut back on jobs and you may be unemployed?
B)If someone does not care about the suffering of others in the world and fails to see that their wealth actually contributes to the suffering of others then clearly doesn't their selfishness clearly show they aren't better people to begin with and that they are actually the worst and most despicable of all?

 

[Kulindahr]

1. Marx was wrong about capital.

Capital isn't money. Capital is the value that people place on things; money is merely the game counter.


2. The Soviet Union wasn't capitalist in any way.

The Soviet government didn't make profit; it was so bad at dealing with money it had to use the point of a gun (i.e. taxes) to merely stay in business. Nor did it intend to make a profit, it intended to accumulate power. And when it finally collapsed, it did so to a large degree because it was broke.


3. Relying on "the benefit of humans" as a motivation for people will always fail.

Capitalism is the condition of interactions between people in their natural form. I have bushes that give berries, you have hens that lay eggs -- we trade. That's "barter capitalism." Someone else has wheat; I trade some berries so I can make bread, you trade some eggs so you can feed your hens. Someone else has lumber... and one day a guy builds a warehouse to store lumber and wheat and eggs and berries. He gives us each discs with pictures of berries, eggs, wheat, and lumber on them. Now if I want some eggs, I can use an egg disc to get some. If I don't have an egg disc, I offer you a wheat disc, and you give me however many eggs that much wheat trades for. After a bit, we're using discs to do our transactions, and using them to trade for leather and pottery and other things. We figure out what the different discs are worth in relation to each other.

That's capitalism. It's the way people behave normally.


4. Communism will always fail.

What communism encourages people to do is sit on their asses and expect someone else to do things for them. There's no incentive to work hard when everything you need is just handed to you, and when if you work hard you don't get any benefit from it.


5. People in factories run by American companies overseas get paid well.

Nike once got charged with treating employees in Korea (IIRC) like crap: they had ten-hour work days, got $4/hour, and a few other complaints. But those ten-hour workdays were a wonder to them; they were used to sixteen. That $4/hr there was over twice the standard wage. So while from here we might think their wages and hours sucked, over there they were the envy of their communities.


6. You can't run an economy without a financial system.

Actually this should be obvious from #3, but I'll repeat it. When you start making goods, there has to be accounting. When people start acquiring goods, there has to be accounting. For people to get their weekly or monthly ration of food or whatever, they have to have some kind of marker that they can turn in to get there stuff. Such markers will become money. If somehow the system could be done by the absence of markers, people will start trading things, and, well, at that point you're right back in #3 above.



Finally, the only real trouble with capitalism is the accumulation/concentration of wealth. That, however, occurs under any system. So what we need is a mechanism to deal with that accumulation. Here's mine: we replace the death tax with a death distribution requirement: no one would be allowed to leave more than a million times the minimum wage to any one person or organization, they have to split it up.

So when Bill Gates kicks it, his will would have to spit his fortune about a thousand ways.

 

[Kulindahr]

You say that Capitalism gets the most out of the most little work possible.
1.
A)What is gained from little work that is performed from a minimum wage and how does it benefit the world?
B)How would one living in a third world country go about supporting their struggling families when their are no jobs available and they are willing to prove their "worth ethics?"

If it wasn't of benefit, no one would be paying someone minimum wage to do it.

If there are no jobs available in a third world country under capitalism, there will still be no jobs under communism. Money is a measure of resources and the best method ever invented for passing information through an economy,

Nuclear energy has many times failed when the reactor goes out of control and that has resulted in high levels of radiation that has been released into the air and into the drinking water of communities. The result of radiation poisioning destroyed many lives in terms of birth defects and mutated DNA and to this day has cost BILLIONS of dollars to clean up.From the all the costs of health risks which drain global economies from polluted air, water, the o-zone layer, etc.

Nuclear power plants rarely fail. They cause fewer health problems that oil-fired plants. They put less radiation into the environment that coal-fired plants.

2
A)Why would it be wise in your eyes to say environmentalism keeps poor families poor when all this pollution wouldn't cost so much money to clean up if we didn't cause the pollution in the first place?
B)With evidence that air pollution mainly from the USA will lead to radiation from the sun, change water currents and temperatures, and increases of the sea level, would you say its best to let things keep going the way they are or change the course of events so that they aren't disastrous?
C)Do You personally feel green energy can stimulate many jobs under a socialist government in terms of solar energy and wind energy? Do You think it could save billions upon billions of wasted dollars that are used to clean up pollution made by humans?

Environmentalism keeps families poor as just one element in the liberal program of making things more expensive so the poor can't afford them, and of driving jobs overseas by making things too expensive to run here.

The U.S. has had better progress on controlling emissions than all but a few countries. That has been driven, BTW, by capitalism.

You say you are entitled to material items and that future communism takes away your freedom. Nobody ever said Communism takes away freedoms it actually would give you more freedoms to have MORE. We have a VAST amount of resources to give people what they need and some basic wants for leisure purposes or maybe even more. But today we are limited how much of these basic needs and resources we as humans are able to obtain because of a system that uses money which determines what you can and can't have. because you are limited on "funds" and if you are poor well then you can't have shelter and food "tough shit!" says the wealthy people.

What money does is tell people what can be developed or manufactured in a way that doesn't drag the system down but makes the best use of available resources.

C)In A system of no finances and where the value of survival is using tools around you to trade with others and build something that is durable. Would you rather have a chair from Wal-mart that was rushed with cheap materials to get a job done for quick profit or would you rather have a chair that was built from someone's talented hard work to REALLY struggle with work ethics so that a job is well done and he can help others have durable furniture but for no financial deal but a trade for meals, fabrics, home-built computers, etc?

See my answer above: money will get invented again.

A)Why is the United states of America so entitled to consume most of the world's resources and take the resources of third world countries for themselves?
B)Why do so many Americans think they are better then everyone else in this world?

The United States gets so many of the world's resources because we have the money to buy them. That money is a symbol of productivity, and without it you'll never had an economy.

 

[NotThatCreative]

1.
A)What is gained from little work that is performed from a minimum wage and how does it benefit the world?
B)How would one living in a third world country go about supporting their struggling families when their are no jobs available and they are willing to prove their "worth ethics?"

A) It doesn't benefit the world. I mean, it employs another person. But minimum wage isn't a living wage for most in this country, and there are plenty of countries with no minimum wage and those people have an even harder time making ends meet with their wages. So even the employment benefit is limited.

B) Sort of answered that with A. In third world countries they're just screwed if jobs aren't available. They can try an agricultural route (unless they live in a city), but that's difficult and sketchy and requires a little bit of capital to begin. All entrepreneurial work does, as a matter of fact. However, there are plenty of jobs in a lot of third world countries if that particular country is being exploited for resources or cheap labor by richer countries. The pay and hours suck , but they're there.

2
A)Why would it be wise in your eyes to say environmentalism keeps poor families poor when all this pollution wouldn't cost so much money to clean up if we didn't cause the pollution in the first place?
B)With evidence that air pollution mainly from the USA will lead to radiation from the sun, change water currents and temperatures, and increases of the sea level, would you say its best to let things keep going the way they are or change the course of events so that they aren't disastrous?
C)Do You personally feel green energy can stimulate many jobs under a socialist government in terms of solar energy and wind energy? Do You think it could save billions upon billions of wasted dollars that are used to clean up pollution made by humans?

A) With the viable forms of energy out there right now, and the fact that getting nuclear energy is very difficult (technically, financially, politically), in order for poor countries to grow their economies they have to pollute. One of the things keeping them poor is that many third world countries don't manufacture stuff, all they do is get the raw materials out whereupon it gets sent to Europe, China, etcetera to be made into something useful. Finished products are worth substantially more, but as of right now they require substantial pollution, especially if the country's too poor for nuclear energy. Pollution can cost money, but right now we're all paying for the pollution of select rich countries, and poor countries aren't allowed their "fair share" of pollution because of environmental concerns. Their economies would grow. It's a two steps forward, one step back sort of deal.

B) That the US, China, etcetera are all a factor in global warming / climate change is, at this point, undeniable scientifically. However, humans are not the cause of it. We are exacerbating it, but it would happen to a lesser degree with or without us. Should the US, as a rich nation, wean ourselves off fossil fuels? Yes, if for no other reason than there's a finite supply.

C) Green jobs are helpful in an economy under any economic model. Any country that shifts to a green economy needs to have a certain level of wealth and technological advancement. So it's great for American and Europe, not so much for Nigeria and Cambodia. Green energy, in the long run, will save money. But not initially, and that's why a society should have a certain level of wealth before they attempt a switch. America, as a leader in research and development around the world, is well-positioned to make the transition and do what we can to make green energy more efficient both financially and as an energy source. Requiring third world countries to do it is simply unrealistic.

3
A)Why do you think some people who are better off then most simply don't feel some obligation when some that are better off then most actually feel responsible to help improve the future while they are blessed to be given life on earth?
B)Do you think if you were born in a third world country you would cherish what you now view as worth ethics? Do you feel there is a chance that you wouldn't value what you now see as worth ethics and why?
C)In A system of no financeswhere the value of survival is using tools around you to trade with others and build something that is durable is a trait of theoretical communism. Would you rather have a chair from Wal-mart that was rushed with cheap materials to get a job done for quick profit or would you rather have a chair that was built from someone's talented hard work to REALLY struggle with work ethics so that a job is well done and he can help others have durable furniture but for no financial deal but a trade for meals, fabrics, home-built computers, etc?

A) People have different systems of ethics. Humanism is an incredibly popular philosophy these days, especially in Europe. I don't subscribe to it, obviously. As I said, I give to charities, but it's a small portion of what I have. I do not feel obligated to do so, but as some people are simply down on their luck and I can afford to, why not? That might one day be me, and then where would I be? I'm especially likely to give when natural disaster strikes. That has nothing to do with turnabout, but it's the kind thing to do to lend a helping hand. If I didn't, I'd not feel myself morally or ethically lesser. I don't feel I must give, but as I have spare money... Plus, what would I do with a lot of money anyway? The desire to get rich is very strong for most people, but I still don't understand what they'd do with the money once they had it. Buy Armani suits and Rolex watches? I don't see the attraction. Cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? For what purpose, you can't take advantage of its horsepower unless the cars in front of you have similar horsepower. With no desire to be rich, I have even more spare money than most. Lower middle class would suit me just fine. Enough to not be drowning in debt and yet live comfortably but without it being too easy.

B) If I were born in a third world country it's quite likely my political/ethical ideas would be drastically different. That doesn't make what they feel more correct, just different. Different situations lead to different perceptions and therefore different ideology. Milgram showed us how much a person's situation affects their ethics. Doesn't make it better, though. You can always find a sob story, in any situation. If we didn't have the current system, the one that would replace it would also provide heart-wrenching stories. I don't make ethical/political decisions on their basis, as they're inevitable and not part of an appeal to logic but rather emotion.

C) That would depend on which one I felt had the best combination of comfort and price. I'll admit to irrationally being a bit of a sucker for hand-crafted things, but rarely do I ever buy them if they aren't better form a price/comfort point of view. I think it's as much the rarity of hand-crafted furniture/etcetera that attracts me to it as anything else.

4
A)Why is the United states of America so entitled to consume most of the world's resources and take the resources of third world countries for themselves?
B)Why do so many Americans think they are better then everyone else in this world?
C)Why do people feel that having wealth and material items makes them a better person then a homeless person on the street? Do they sometimes feel they are more valuable because they have status? Does their money and housing status make them better people?

A) It's not, ethically/morally speaking. Politically, because the Nigerians we're exploiting can't vote and we have the largest economy by far and the largest military by far, so who's going to stop the US? It's essentially might makes right, which I don't ethically/morally agree with.

B) This isn't a trait unique to Americans. It's a part of in-group/out-group thinking, a well-documented sociological effect. In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, there was a significant number of Hutus who died because the genocidists thought, incorrectly, they were Tutsis. That's happened in other genocides and civil wars as well. The very notion of being a group diminishes the worth of other's in a person's mind. I'm much more base than that, I don't think an American from California I've never met is worth any more than an Indonesian from Jakarta I've never met, or a Pakistani form the Swat Valley I've never met. To me, my family/friends and I are each worth substantially more than any of them though.

C) Some people actually do think like that, yes. I, however, am not one of them. To me the life of my twin brother is worth more than Donald Trump, Bill Gates, and Oprah combined. Or any similar number of poor people. Logically, Oprah may be worth more than some random homeless person, I suppose, but only on the basis of her potential positive influence. The CEO of Goldman Sachs certainly isn't worth any more than a random homeless person.

FINAL QUESTIONS
A)You work at a McDonalds. How do you feel knowing that your company contributes to the obesity rate that is a frightening number? How do you feel knowing that the USA is the most obese country in the world? How do you feel knowing that fast food contributes to BILLIONS of wasted dollars in health problems?
B)If someone does not care about the suffering of others in the world and fails to see that their wealth actually contributes to the suffering of others then clearly doesn't their selfishness clearly show they aren't better people to begin with and that they are actually the worst and most despicable of all?

A) Perfectly fine. We don't run around stuffing Big and Tasty's down people's throats. They choose to eat that unhealthy. I know advertising is involved, but there's choice to some degree in how much of that they expose themselves to (for example, I rarely ever watch TV. There are, as a result a helluva lot of commercials it seems everyone around me but me has seen. My family doesn't have cable, but rather a black box of some kind that gets us ten or so channels. So my whole family isn't exposed to the same amount of advertising others are). There's also a choice in which barrage to listen to: McDonald's or SubWay. I'm well aware McDonald's doesn't care about the consumer. I've actually pointed that out to my store manager more than once (much to her annoyance ). But one of the things I'm also aware of is that there are few companies that do have their hands clean. My father works at a nonprofit medicaid company, so I suppose he might. Many many companies have negative sides to them, though. (e.g. Coca-cola, Chevron, Citgo, Wal-Mart, Caterpillar, riverboat casinos in Illinois, the construction industry in Chicago, and a hell of a lot more) Oh, and don't forget we all pay taxes to the most oppressive institution of all, the government.

B) I do care and I do see how my wealth as an American contributes to worldwide poverty. I just don't feel it's my obligation to take care of them. Is that extremely selfish? Yes. Does that make me a lesser human? Not in my eyes it doesn't. For two reasons. One: I'm me, and so value myself quite highly. Two: I don't think of anyone as evil. Our ethics/morals are very much determined by our situation (I defer to Milgram's experiment again). Therefore, for me, actions can be immoral/unethical/wrong/etc but not actors. Hitler did a lot of evil things, but imagine if he'd been accepted into art school? Such a tiny switch in situation could've had a great impact on what he would have gone on to do and world history in general. The genocide was an evil, Hitler was not. The same applies to bin Laden.

I attempted to answer the questions. If I misunderstood, I'll re-answer any. Ideologically I believe in the form of anarchism called libertarian socialism, and I believe in it to a moderate degree (meaning I'm a moderate libertarian socialist. really wish there was a short-hand for that). However, I am very much a pragmatist when it comes to actually advocating various political solutions.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

4. Communism will always fail.

What communism encourages people to do is sit on their asses and expect someone else to do things for them. There's no incentive to work hard when everything you need is just handed to you, and when if you work hard you don't get any benefit from it.

Communism has never been in effect in the history of politics... just mere distortions of communism that go against every principle that Marx spoke of. Don't know where you get your facts about people sitting on their asses I've read numerous articles and books on this matter.. nothing you say makes sense. Can I ask where you read in Marxism that people sit on their ass and do nothing? MORE work would be driven out of citizens under theoretical communism which has never been carried out. I haven't even stressed everything about Marx because it could take weeks to write it all out. It's very complex, Would you like a list of books you can order online?

 

[Kulindahr]

Communism has never been in effect in the history of politics... just mere distortions of communism that go against every principle that Marx spoke of. Don't know where you get your facts about people sitting on their asses I've read numerous articles and books on this matter.. nothing you say makes sense. Can I ask where you read in Marxism that people sit on their ass and do nothing? MORE work would be driven out of citizens under theoretical communism which has never been carried out. I haven't even stressed everything about Marx because it could take weeks to write it all out. It's very complex, Would you like a list of books you can order online?

Rubbish.

Ask any psychologist. For that matter, live around people getting government assistance. The basic impulse of human nature is to do as little as possible to get what you need -- when you're denied what you want. If everyone is guaranteed the basics, but hard work won't get fun toys, you won't get hard work out of anyone except a few mystics or people who would work for the welfare of everyone around them anyway.

Marx was in total la-la land when he fantasized that human nature would change. To get your more work out of people under communism would require a half million years of carefully guided evolution -- if you're lucky. But given that Marx was wrong about capital, that's not surprising. Marx, like too many economists, just didn't understand the human factors involved.

What followed Mao's revolution in China at first came pretty close to ideal communism. It soured fast, because people naturally want more than just the basics, but working harder still got them... the basics.

 

[saymyname]

There's a reason over half of the world tried to implement socialism.

I'm not going to get into this argument, but for the record, as always, it sounds like Kulin is basing his arguments out of... well, nothing. Capital was a critique of capitalism and the private property system. People who bring up some fixed notion of human nature are so ill informed... communism messed up due to historical forces. For example, the Cold War, the space race, or, in the very beginning, having a socialist revolution in a country that wasn't even in a developed capitalist stage at that point.

Kris, your heart is in the right place maybe, but you really need to learn the difference between the following terms: socialism. revolutionary socialism. social democracy. communism. Stalinism (USSR), Maoism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, etc. etc. Communism is a KIND of socialism. By disowning the history of socialism you're doing a disservice to all the people who died trying to make that dream a reality. It wasn't a joke. It didn't turn out the way leaders and people had planned, but to say that that "wasn't" communism is idiotic. Look at the GDR. All of those were ATTEMPTS at revolutionary socialist communism, backed by the Soviet bloc. Unlike most Western socialists or modern socialists, it was way more authoritarian than we would like. But don't conflate social democracy and revolutionary socialism. It just confuses people.

 

[Lostlover]

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with capitalism. I do believe however that there are people who take things to an extreme. If you give Pedro's or Jamal's kids benefits like healthcare, all of a sudden you're a communist.

There's nothing wrong with this. But, Republicans have foolish, selfish people scared thinking that people (minorities) are living off their hard earn money.

This type of thinking is dying. It's generational for sure.

 

[opinterph]

Ideologically I believe in the form of anarchism called libertarian socialism, and I believe in it to a moderate degree (meaning I'm a moderate libertarian socialist. … However, I am very much a pragmatist when it comes to actually advocating various political solutions.

Welcome to JUB, NotThatCreative.

I too am a pragmatist and so, it is nice to have an opportunity to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

Your references to “libertarian socialism” interest me and I would enjoy an opportunity to more fully understand the point of view represented by that affiliation.

World community... I'm not part of one, that's not the world we live in.

That may be true with respect to our daily lives and the routine associated with each individual’s normative existence, but is there not a mutual interdependence of some sort that transcends boundaries or whatever personal identification may be attributed to residential demographics? Are humans located in different parts of the world so distinctly different that there is no commonality of purpose or design that binds us together and perhaps in some way joins our fate to that of our fellows?

Environmentalism relies on the I have mine now you can't have yours mentality I'm often attacked for.

Why should the fruits of my labor and my family and friends' labor be taken from us by force for the sake of people we don't know and will never meet?

Maybe because societies (considered on a macro scale) have an ethical obligation to look out for those less fortunate? Luck can certainly represent part of each individual (or family) outcome; however, without genuine opportunity luck provides little advantage. Similarly, without some sort of seed, a plant will not grow. I will quickly concede that success is directly related to effort, but must also point out that each outcome is a product of effort combined with ability/opportunity. A farmer can meticulously tend his fields, but without the benefit of seeds (e.g. ability/opportunity), his work will not yield a harvest.

All entrepreneurial work does, as a matter of fact [require a little bit of capital to begin.]

I understand how government sponsored assistance may be in some ways unfair to individuals who, for whatever reason, do not perceive the fundamental value of such help or themselves require such assistance. And though it is reasonable to assume that some portion of government sponsored assistance provided to individuals, entrepreneurs, corporations, industries, or even foreign entities may be ineffective or wasteful, it doesn’t necessarily follow that an advanced society is relieved from an ethical obligation to put forward such an effort.

It is sometimes said that freedom is not free. And it can be argued that the rich pay more than their share, but without the proletariat~ wealth itself would have little practical meaning or purpose. Freedom in a democracy cuts both ways.

 

[hotatlboi]

Socialism and Communism are inherently evil. Like kicking puppies.

This is about the level of understanding one would get on either system from watching Glenn Beck.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a reason over half of the world tried to implement socialism.

Yes -- because lots of people want something for nothing, or at least want everyone else to take care of them.

I'm not going to get into this argument, but for the record, as always, it sounds like Kulin is basing his arguments out of... well, nothing. Capital was a critique of capitalism and the private property system. People who bring up some fixed notion of human nature are so ill informed... communism messed up due to historical forces. For example, the Cold War, the space race, or, in the very beginning, having a socialist revolution in a country that wasn't even in a developed capitalist stage at that point.

Kulin is basing his arguments on historical reality. The forces that messed up communism are called free trade and freedom -- which, ironically, existing beneath the radar, are why it survived so long.