Capitalism vs. Socialism (again)

Subject: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:00 pm

I definitely wasn't satisfied with how the last thread went on so I'll insist on the topic:

Why would those of you who claim to support capitalism (without being capitalists yourselves) support capitalism?

Let's begin by assessing the necessary implications of capitalism:

1. The vast majority gets to be ruled by a quite small minority that profits from it without this minority even being necessary.

2. Most people work their asses off at rates determined by these rulers, that is, people don't get to actually determine how they'll work and how valuable their work is.

The only way through which you could actually benefit more in capitalism than in socialism is solely by beig able to become a capitalist and, let's face it, not only is it highly improbable to become one, it's impossible that capitalists will conform a majority leaving necesarily the majority at their disposal.

Some argue that capitalism rewards people for their ideas, unlike socialism and argue that having the idea of doing something is enough grounds to have at least property over that idea.

Well, being purely scientific and objective, was that idea developed entirely by the individual in question? Definitely not.

The ideas produced by all individuals are necessarily product of all the knowledges and thougts this individual acquires from his environment, that everything he has learnt, known of, understood and thought of because of everything that surrounds him from leafs on the ground he saw while walking on the street to kids playing in a sandbox on the roof of an arabian house he saw on Youtube. Meaning that this idea has been developed thanks to the society if not directly at the very least indirectly.

Aside from that, if this idea is useful for the society, it necessarily stemmed from a need at least a considerable portion of that society has. A general concern. If it's an idea that can be adopted and used by society for its benefit it necessarily stemmed from the way society interacts with the environment. Not only from some guy's head.

On top of this, materially speaking, the individual that comes up with an idea has been brought up not only mentally by the community where he develops, but also materially - someone has provided him with nourishment, with shelter, with clothing, with infrastructure, with electricity, with gas, etc. This indvidual wouldn't have even developed materially had it not been for a community to which he belongs.

Else, aside from ideas and observations that may have lead to this individual's development of a socially useful idea, it is society which provided this individual with a language, with a set of knowledges preserved and developed through time.

And as if all the above wasn't already enough, most socially useful ideas require lots of people to be put to practice becoming actually useful. That is, without society these ideas would neveer come to practice never really providing the community (nor the originator of the idea) with benefit.

It is ultimately society which enables both abstractly and materially these ideas from the start to the end, not just the individual that develops them.

So, how to reasonably claim that an idea that stemmed from everything that surrounded you belongs only to you and moreover claim that it serves as an excuse for property over the means that materially enable it?

If an individual developed an idea he just happened to be the lucky one with the proper yuxtaposition of conditions to develop that idea, as enabled by anyone else.

Aside from all the above, if one can actually own let's say, a factory, not only is it materially enabled by society and the idea provided at least indirectly by society (thus abstractly enabled) it is also enabled simply because the society hasn't decided otherwise.

So after knowing how it is the collective (and the individual as part of a collective) what enables this idea on all levels... how to reasonably claim it as a reason to deprive the rest from this property and moreover exploit them? It just blows my mind.

But not only that... is private property over means of production the only kind of reward that exists for ideas? Is capitalism the only system that enables rewards for brilliant ideas? Definitely not.

Reasonably we want to improve our material conditions. We want conditions that allow us to develop both materially and abstractly. To develop our bodies and minds, to eat well, to lead a life as healthy as we want to it be, to acquire as many knowledges as we want and to dispose of the time as we deem it most convenient.

Do we need to privately own means of production to achieve that? Do we need capitalism? Absolutely not and not only that, it's demonstrable how actually capitalism necessarily implies that most won't be able to achieve that necessary self-improvement (working their asses off so that the rulers [capitalists and government] can actually have it).

To have this self-improvement we need good material conditions. These are provided by nature and society. That is, all we need is to have a fiendly enough natural environment and a society that provides us with what we need.

In a socialist framework, society is organized so that all of us determine how things are to be run, how valuable everything is, how everything is to be provided. Society is focused towards the provision of said material well-being for everyone for that, logically is what is convenient to all of us to achieve that goal of self-improvement.

In socialism, we are who decide.

In socialism if one has a good idea, it will be the rest together with whom originated the idea who will determine how valuable it is and how it is to be implemented. It's not singlehandedly determined by the "originator" of the idea.

In capitalism, on the other hand, you get the vast majority of people competing against each other in a never-ending race to suffice the needs and demands of a ruling-class. You get a considerable enough amount of population in a race to either belong to that class (mostly fruitless for most), in a race to proft as much as possible within that class's rule or in a race to retire as soon as possible from the race. But we're all in a race against each other under the rules dictated by that class to suffice that class's needs at the expense of our own well-being.

This whole system is sustained on the promise to being ablle to someday join the VIP club (many don't care if they have to waste their entire youth and early maturity to achieve it), on the premise that most are not worthy enough and thus deserve to be ruled and on the delusion of many that someone else is actually entitled to run the show for them and that this is actually the most beneficial.

In short, this system is based on a pile of bullshit and we're all fucked up to at least some extent by it.

The disparities necessarily created by this system, that obnoxious race we're all obligued to be in just breed stress, hatred, resentment, servilism, exploitation, poverty. It breeds wars, it breeds suffering, it hinders our development as humanity.

Ultimately, even it represents a threat for capitalists themselves as, and we've seen it several times in history, all this resentment, all this hostility bred by exploitation, by poverty is manifested in a wide array of ways from petty burglary, shoplifting, kidnapping and murdering to organized populist movements that literally search to topple them and make them pay (and how many times have we not seen this?).

Capitalists isolate themselves in their "safe" fortresses, in their "safe" neoughborhoods and, thanks to imperialism, in their "safer" nations keeping extreme poverty as away from home as possible (there's a pretty good reason for which luxury clothing is manufactured in countries like Bangladesh. And yes, there's a good reason for that labor-force to be that cheap).

Capitalists rely entirely on a quasi blind faith and religious obedience people may have in the laws that a state that protects them has established. They can only hope that this over-zealous obedience coupled with the delusion of material well-being provided by imperialism keeps them safe from riots, from strikes, from revolution. They can only hope that this blind faith in the workings of the market and state of law, that ignorance can protect them from people to turn their backs on them.

How can one reasonably follow the Church of Capitalism? The secular religion of capitalism? How can one reasonably work his ass for it? How can one reasonably die for it?

How? How if it's based on a bunch of empty promises which for the vast majority will never be fulfilled? How if it's based on entirely false premises? How when it's so obviously harmful for most of us?

How can one reasonably follow and defend it?

It's most obvious to people in more precarious conditions.

What happens with people in the 1st world? They of course live under the delusion that capitalism has worked. A good amount of people enjoys in those countries a more or less good material condition they can't complaint of. They're deluded by an ilusory wealth.

But how is it that this was achieved and why? The short answer is: Imperialism, so that people at home wouldn't revolt against their masters while creating an army eager to defend their masters (and their mild wellbeing).

Elaborating: Over the years the most industralized nations on Earth have been doing all in their power to have people from abroad work for them, assume the greatest burden of exploitation, of low-payments, of poverty.
How so? Well, initially Colonialism was established. Once it stopped working (partially because Colonial powers wanted more Colonies for themselves and that meant war and partially because the colonised got tired) new forms were tried.

Nazi Germany was one of the most prominent examples of this. As you know, the 2nd Reich lost the battle for the Colonies. This Reich in no way could compare its Colonial power to that of the British Empire or France who were practically the owners of Africa.

A couple of pretextes and the 1st world war sprouted so Germany could have a chance at gaining more colonies. Germany lost and was even forced to pay indeminzations to the rest of the European powers and to the new world-power - the US.

The Germans got pissed at this and decided to create a 3rd Reich. What was the objective of this Reich? Subdue Europe. Have most of Europe controlled and working for the Germans so people at Germany would be happy and wouldn't mess with German rulers.

As history demonstrated, fighting with guys of your industrial, technological and combative level just doesn't work, specially if you choose to fight with a bunch of those and specially if two of those are inmense giants by comparison to you.

Since that war failed and there was an "evil" empire as a neighbor, former enemies decided to join in a strategy that would actually work - Neoimperialism.

This would seldom require military intervention, the most of which would be carried out by the thug of the group (need to name it?), one could always finance domestic movements and of course the new places for teh cheap workers wouldn't pose much of a threat.

And that's basically what the Cold War was about. Developed bourgeoise states trying to keep unhappy and poor workers as far away from home as possible while the USSR and buddies tried to impose a global network of exploiting States that would compete with those bourgies until they were eliminated.

If USSR & pals had intervented more effectively in the 3rd world, that is, more actively in Africa, Middle East and Latin America and Chine and teh USSR would have never split Europen, Japanese and USA bourgeoisies would have crumbled of course.

But why?

Well, basically because European, North American and Japanese states needed somewhere to keep all the poverty that otherwise would be at home. So that people at home would be happy and deluded enough to go an die for their masters.

How does this work? Well, developed bourgeoise states make sure that somewhere in the world beyond their borders there is a contry (or several) with a population able to provide their bourgeoisies with cheap labor so they don't have to force workers at home to be that cheap and provide them with that illusion of well being they have.

That's how Nike, Adidas, Puma, Pink, Victoria's Secret, Armani, Rebook, Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Salvatore Ferragamo and such can pay good enough salaries and taxes to their people - they get some guys from Bagladesh, Vietnam, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Mexico or Laos to produce dozens and dozens of shirts, shoes, sweaters and such for a couple bucks while they sell them for a couple hundred bucks.

So say Tran Van Tran was paid 5 dollars to produce 20 shirts that will be sold each at 300 USD. So Tran's bosses get 5,995 dollars for what Tran produced. Like Tran there are other 100 guys in that factory making that production daily. So all in all, Company X spends 500 dollars paying people far away from home to earn $599,500 daily. From those, a bit goes to the government that allows Tran to be exploited by Company X, another bit goes to the owners of Company X, another bit goes to the workers of Company X at home and the last bit goes to the government at Company X's home.

Why Tran and not John? Because John is far more expensive and John is at home. If the owners and state benefited by Company X's exploitation of workers had to exploit John, John would be unhappy and would start trade unions, riots, strikes and maybe even revolutions at home. That proved to be too dangerous as the last half of the XIX century and the XX century demonstrated so you want unhappy workers away from home. Better if they're deluded by their own government and some primitive religious thoughts and can't use internet. And most important away from home.

Why away from home? Because discontent can be dealt more effectively that way. You don't have to worry some guys will stop entirely your economy, you don't have to worry some guys will surround your house demanding for higher wages or worry that some guys will topple your government and put you through a Stalinist or Castroist hell.

All you have to do is finance foreign governments to deal themselves with that and, when they're not efficient enough you can always scare the shit out of your own population and create pretexts to invade those foreign nations with all the might your super-developed nation full of content deluded workers can project.

That's how you come up with things like terrorism (which is nothing but a product of all this exploitation) so you can have people scared and with the feeling of being justified to act in defense of "themselves" (actually teh state and their masters)

But now even "peaceful" neoimperialism has started to backfire a bit as hordes of inmigrants cross the US border, the Mediterranean sea and the borders with Eastern Europe. Oh no, those poor workers are comming home. Their governments are not doing a good job at home.

And that's how you get things like "Plan Merida" which literally allow for US to intervene military and politically in places like Mexico with the wonderful excuse of the drug cartels.

And as if these distractions weren't enough, one gets awesome entertainment industries which, aside from beign distractive enough they can sometimes serve to culturally mold people to accept the status quo, to diseminate misinformation and keep them in the race for becoming Capitalism's Best Servant.

That's why to most people in the 1st world this is all not so evident. They live in a bubble of happiness created by imperialism. In a bubble of illusory mediocre self-realisation being happy to just be able to say "Somalia is a shit hole, we live better than Brazilians, Mexicans and Argentinians and we make more money than most Chinese".

I seriously can't understand why would this be preferable to a system where we all get to decide how to work, where our work and what we need to perform it actually belong to us, where we get to organize ourselves with each other for the mutual provision of that material wealth we need, where we get to decide everything instead of leaving everything in the hands of a few people that can't know what we all need and that can't effectively decide for us and that will logically act for their own interests because they simply can't do otherwise.

So please explain me, how can you reasonably support capitalism if you're not a capitalist yourself and don't live under teh illusion that you'll become one? By being too lazy to make decisions yourself and prefering to simply accept the rule of others? By zealously adoring entrepeneurs and the god-given property rights as zealous christians adore Christ and the Bible? How?

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:33 am

Quote :: The vast majority gets to be ruled by a quite small minority that profits from it without this minority even being necessary.

Properly done, this would not happen. The "ruling" I mean.

Quote :: Most people work their asses off at rates determined by these rulers, that is, people don't get to actually determine how they'll work and how valuable their work is.

Properly done, blah blah blah. And people generally DO get to determine WHAT they do, if their qualification allows it.

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:40 am

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :: The vast majority gets to be ruled by a quite small minority that profits from it without this minority even being necessary.

Properly done, this would not happen. The "ruling" I mean.

Then it wouldn't be capitalism. If you privately own means of production you have authority over them, if you have authority over means of production you rule over those who need them for you have the authority to determine what is to be done with those means of prodution.

TK wrote:: Properly done, blah blah blah. And people generally DO get to determine WHAT they do, if their qualification allows it.

Last time I checked the vast majority of workers didn't get to determine the amount of time they work a day, the size of their wage nor the price of their production.

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:11 am

Quote :: Then it wouldn't be capitalism. If you privately own means of production you have authority over them, if you have authority over means of production you rule over those who need them for you have the authority to determine what is to be done with those means of prodution.

Not a hell of a lot is stopping a group of people from, now, starting a factory of their own, eliminating the "owner".

Quote :: Last time I checked the vast majority of workers didn't get to determine the amount of time they work a day, the size of their wage nor the price of their production.

Because as an employer you have rules. It's ismple as that. Time you work? You CAN come in and leave whenever you want. But if you do, you might be fired. Don't like that? Read above. Now, for the rest of that first one....

Quote :: Some argue that capitalism rewards people for their ideas, unlike socialism and argue that having the idea of doing something is enough grounds to have at least property over that idea.

Well, being purely scientific and objective, was that idea developed entirely by the individual in question? Definitely not.

The ideas produced by all individuals are necessarily product of all the knowledges and thougts this individual acquires from his environment, that ........

Well the idea does not stem from EVERYTHING, and there have been many who lock themselves away from society. In addition, society did not come up wtit he idea. One did. Society did not provide a house, clothe,, food, etc for free, and so the indvidual does not owe anything more to society for "giving" them this idea. But the individual DOES give back by providing new jobs.

Quote :: And as if all the above wasn't already enough, most socially useful ideas require lots of people to be put to practice becoming actually useful.

The original designer of the car didn't need other people. He did it himself the first little while, before getting investors.

Quote :: Most of the rest

So far, it all comes down to "Yes, it's been corrupted, but if properly done, and it's not being done so currently, it not only can work but eliminate poverty and amke all happy." My responce.

Quote :: Bagladesh, Vietnam, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Mexico or Laos to produce dozens and dozens of shirts, shoes, sweaters and such for a couple bucks while they sell them for a couple hundred bucks.

Bucks? As in USD? What company is THAT generous?

Quote :: That's how you come up with things like terrorism (which is nothing but a product of all this exploitation)

Which groups?

Quote :: And as if these distractions weren't enough, one gets awesome entertainment industries which, aside from beign distractive enough they can sometimes serve to culturally mold people to accept the status quo, to diseminate misinformation and keep them in the race for becoming Capitalism's Best Servant.

Okay, THIS is just fucking bullshit. I don't know when it was that you last watched a hollywood (I assume Hollywood) movie, but they're for the most part the EXACT opposite. Corporations are almost ALWAYS out to get you, and the government is controlled by a shadow government. Media is anti government and anti corporation quite often, pointing out the shit more than you know, except the right wingers when they have a right wing group in office. And big companies, the right wing love them. Which if this argument this terrible, it really calls into question the validity of our other points, even if true.

Quote :: That's why to most people in the 1st world this is all not so evident

Except it IS, that's the problem with your entire argum,ent. You assume the people's eyes are covered,t hat they're being controlled, but the corporations and government are run by idiots. And the average person is even stupider.

Quote :: "Somalia is a shit hole, we live better than Brazilians, Mexicans and Argentinians and we make more money than most Chinese".

If this is the thoughts of the average person, then finish it. "Yet it still sucks here." There's no "bubble", no illusion. people are just A) stupid, or B) don;t care and don't think YOUR way would be any kind of improvement. Like me. You know what I see as the difference between Libertairianism and Communism is? One has money, the other doesn't.

Quote :: a system where we all get to decide how to work

What do you mean by this?

Quote :: of a few people that can't know what we all need and that can't effectively decide for us

No CEO takes this much part in the creation of a product. It's the worker, the proletariate, that makes these kinds of decisions.

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:07 am

Tyrong Kojy wrote:: Not a hell of a lot is stopping a group of people from, now, starting a factory of their own, eliminating the "owner".

There's a state, de facto owner of the land and there's the bourgeoise competing enterprises which for their characteristics can offer the same but at much lower prices. Plus whoever that wants to start a business has to buy the land (technically rent it) from someone else, be it a private propietor or the state.

So yeah, there are enough good-enough obstacles. However, that's not quite the point. I do believe there's a way to actually start eliminating private ownership and the state even within this framework but that of course is already out of the topic of capitalism as that by definition is socialism.

TK wrote:: ]Because as an employer you have rules. It's ismple as that. Time you work? You CAN come in and leave whenever you want. But if you do, you might be fired. Don't like that? Read above. Now, for the rest of that first one....

Thus, workers don't get to decide. Which is what I said.

TK wrote:: Well the idea does not stem from EVERYTHING, and there have been many who lock themselves away from society.

Every idea you have stems from the combination of thoughts and concepts you've got in your mind. If it wasn't for all the information you've got in your brain you wouldn't process things in the same way. Just as you wouldn't think as fast if you didn't have the languages and concepts provided to you, unavoidably, by the community if at least indirectly.

As for locking themselves up, they're not entirely isolated, and that's for sure.

TK wrote:: In addition, society did not come up wtit he idea. One did.

The society caused it at least indirectly as well as providing for the material means to exist, and of course, if socially useful and with the purpose of providing with benefit for both the society and the originator of the idea, also provided the purpose of the idea.

TK wrote:: Society did not provide a house, clothe,, food, etc for free, and so the indvidual does not owe anything more to society for "giving" them this idea.

I didn't say this provision was for free (and in some cases to some extent it has been. And certainly most parents do provide for free).

Nor did I imply, in case you may have understood it that way, that those who have ideas shouldn't be rewarded. I'm just contending that in no ways having the idea is grounds for being the sole propietor (and thus ruler) of means of production.

TK wrote:: But the individual DOES give back by providing new jobs.

Jobs exist because of needs, as simple as that. Entrepeneurs are not needed and ideas do not only come from them nor is the possibility of being owner of means of production the only or even greatest incentive to come up with ideas.

And again, I did not imply that creative people with good ideas should not be rewarded for them. I just argue that in no way is that grounds for owning the means of production.

TK wrote:

Quote :: And as if all the above wasn't already enough, most socially useful ideas require lots of people to be put to practice becoming actually useful.

The original designer of the car didn't need other people. He did it himself the first little while, before getting investors.

Being socially useless as he wouldn't be able to produce it himself en masse... but wait a minute... did the first designer of the car also process the steel he used by himself? The rubber? The fuel? I doubt it.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Most of the rest

So far, it all comes down to "Yes, it's been corrupted, but if properly done, and it's not being done so currently, it not only can work but eliminate poverty and amke all happy." My responce.

For starters, it's impossible for it to not be corrupted or at the very least made "uncorruptible". Secondly it's absurd to think that a handful of men can actually accurately take decisions that will benefit everyone better than a system that allows for people to take those matters in their hands.

Thirdly, you can't eliminate poverty unless you eliminate class inequalty and you can't eliminate that if you don't eliminate classes.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Bagladesh, Vietnam, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Mexico or Laos to produce dozens and dozens of shirts, shoes, sweaters and such for a couple bucks while they sell them for a couple hundred bucks.

Bucks? As in USD? What company is THAT generous?

A couple bucks for producing dozens of stuff is what they usually get. For example, here in Mexico no company can pay less than 5 USD a day.

TK wrote:

Quote :: That's how you come up with things like terrorism (which is nothing but a product of all this exploitation)

Which groups?

Which "terrorist" groups you mean? If so, any prominent terrorist group. They wouldn't get much members if it wasn't because of the social context in which they develop or for the fact that many they're identified with are found in extremely deplorable social contexts caused by this exploitation and imperialism.

TK wrote:: Okay, THIS is just fucking bullshit. I don't know when it was that you last watched a hollywood (I assume Hollywood) movie, but they're for the most part the EXACT opposite. Corporations are almost ALWAYS out to get you, and the government is controlled by a shadow government.

I'm pretty sure that "entertainment industry" is inmensely broader than "Hollywood".

Else, I didn't imply that they were advocating for governments or corporations. I meant what I said in a much broader sense.

TK wrote:: Media is anti government and anti corporation quite often, pointing out the shit more than you know, except the right wingers when they have a right wing group in office.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did I say that media were pro or against anything?

TK wrote:: And big companies, the right wing love them.

Surely big companies love themselves too.

TK wrote:: Which if this argument this terrible, it really calls into question the validity of our other points, even if true.

I'd take this point but seemingly you didn't get it so it's nil.

TK wrote:

Quote :: That's why to most people in the 1st world this is all not so evident

Except it IS, that's the problem with your entire argum,ent. You assume the people's eyes are covered,t hat they're being controlled, but the corporations and government are run by idiots. And the average person is even stupider.

Well, I haven't seen much evidence of what I said being evident for most. Most don't seem to understand that most of their well being and the awesome conditions they enjoy at home stem from Imperialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: "Somalia is a shit hole, we live better than Brazilians, Mexicans and Argentinians and we make more money than most Chinese".

If this is the thoughts of the average person, then finish it. "Yet it still sucks here."

I actually meant it as the usual thoughts of the average apologist of capitalism when questioned on its success. Not of the average person.

TK wrote:: There's no "bubble", no illusion.

From what I've been able to talk with, specially with many Europeans and Unitedstatians, they do believe that the system at home is awesome, is worth keeping and that capitalism's success is demonstrated by how superior living standards are in USA, Japan and Western Europe in comparison to the rest of the world.

TK wrote:: people are just A) stupid,

Define "stupid".

TK wrote:: or B) don;t care and don't think YOUR way would be any kind of improvement.

Basically out of pure ignorance or sheer laziness, or because they're capitalist which obviously are a minority and thus irrelevant to the point

TK wrote:: Like me. You know what I see as the difference between Libertairianism and Communism is? One has money, the other doesn't.

Then you got it all wrong.

TK wrote:

Quote :: a system where we all get to decide how to work

What do you mean by this?

That we all get to dictate the rules of the workplaces where we work.

TK wrote:

Quote :: of a few people that can't know what we all need and that can't effectively decide for us

No CEO takes this much part in the creation of a product. It's the worker, the proletariate, that makes these kinds of decisions.

Furthering how much of a parasite a CEO is.

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:45 pm

Quote :: Plus whoever that wants to start a business has to buy the land (technically rent it) from someone else, be it a private propietor or the state.

Rent. In other words, pay taxes to the community? Okay, and the problem there is?

Quote :: Being socially useless as he wouldn't be able to produce it himself en masse

And yet still do more than enough for himself to have kept it small, him alone, and still be able to retire in only a few years.

Quote :: Being socially useless as he wouldn't be able to produce it himself en masse... but wait a minute... did the first designer of the car also process the steel he used by himself? The rubber? The fuel? I doubt it.

Neither did society. Capitalists and workers did.

Quote :: For starters, it's impossible for it to not be corrupted or at the very least made "uncorruptible".

Don't even THINK to tell me communism is better, because you'd know you'd just be lying.

Quote :: Secondly it's absurd to think that a handful of men can actually accurately take decisions that will benefit everyone better than a system that allows for people to take those matters in their hands.

Certainly I can. People are stupid. Mobs of them even more so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cetp3FxBHQg

Quote :: Thirdly, you can't eliminate poverty unless you eliminate class inequalty and you can't eliminate that if you don't eliminate classes.

Sure you can. All have jobs and proper wages, I don't see poverty.

Quote :: For example, here in Mexico no company can pay less than 5 USD a day.

Wow... Mexico sucks. Our minimum is 8 bucks, or so. America's is, I think, 9ish, taking into account value differences of the dollar.

Quote :: Which "terrorist" groups you mean? If so, any prominent terrorist group. They wouldn't get much members if it wasn't because of the social context in which they develop or for the fact that many they're identified with are found in extremely deplorable social contexts caused by this exploitation and imperialism.

Or religion, racism, lust for power, boner for green nature, whale fetish, etc. Those last ones tend to be from individuals from afluent backgrounds, and they STILL can't think straight. Half of their tactics are usless whining, the other half kills many and ruins lives across the board. Cancer cure tested on animals? Free the animals (only to euthanise them at a later date because they can't find homes for the antisocial monkies) and loose that. Terrorist roups are not always, and in fact are very rarely, brought on by poverty. And don't you dare say that if people were educated and all in the communist utopia that religion wouldn't be a factor. VenomFangX. Rich boy. At least before his dad kicked him out for annoying the shit out of everyone.

Quote :: Else, I didn't imply that they were advocating for governments or corporations. I meant what I said in a much broader sense.

As in? Because it sounds like you said that, in the entertainment industry, "the man" is shown as god, whether itbe movies, or games, or books, or TV, pr news, or what have you, when in reality it's most often the exact opposite. That's entertainment industry to me. What are YOU talking about, then?

Quote :: Correct me if I'm wrong but did I say that media were pro or against anything?

I was further elaborating on the above.

Quote :: Well, I haven't seen much evidence of what I said being evident for most. Most don't seem to understand that most of their well being and the awesome conditions they enjoy at home stem from Imperialism.

They know. most just don;t attribute what's happening now as "Imperialism", namely because it's not happening in the way you're often talking about.

Quote :: I actually meant it as the usual thoughts of the average apologist of capitalism when questioned on its success. Not of the average person.

Oh, well, APPOLOGISTS, different story, there.

Quote :: From what I've been able to talk with, specially with many Europeans and Unitedstatians, they do believe that the system at home is awesome, is worth keeping and that capitalism's success is demonstrated by how superior living standards are in USA, Japan and Western Europe in comparison to the rest of the world.

Yes it IS worth keeping. But do they say there's no reason to change it? And Europe is far more socialist, or tends to be, than North America, for example. But again, do they say there's no room for change?

Though I don't agree if that's their reason, simple country comparison. If anything I'd compare technology differences. "Capitalist" countries tend to develop and advance faster than "communist" countries historically, even taking into account the general... let's call it "transference", I can't think of a better word, of technologies. As in, we developed this, and as the tech spread it eventually goes to all countries. I hope I'm explaining that right....

Quote :: Define "stupid".

Not doing what's "logical", listening blindy, etc.

Quote :: Basically out of pure ignorance or sheer laziness

Yes, ignorance and lazyness. This isn;t an "atheism/theism" kind of argument. THere's no "ignorance". From what I, personally, have seen of the human condition, a communist society with a large ammount of people would eventually become, once again, capitalist without one noticing, and the average person prefers things this way, not out of blind faith in capitalism but out of an observance that it DOES work when done right.

Quote :: or because they're capitalist which obviously are a minority and thus irrelevant to the point

You can count every poerson, or close to it, who lives in a capitalist society as a capitalist.

Quote :: Then you got it all wrong.

I fail to see many differences. Both are anarchy, oth still pretty much mob rule, both having all the same institutions and set up that you've described many times. The only difference is money. And Libertairians have CEOs.

Quote :: That we all get to dictate the rules of the workplaces where we work.

"We the workers don't think gloves or washing hands are important to this food preperation ebcause they are uncomfortable." But you don;t think this will happen, because you think people are smarter than this. And that's our fundamental difference, really.

Quote :: Furthering how much of a parasite a CEO is.

They run the company, thereby making the company more money, thereby providing more jobs and raising wages (or at least that's how it's SUPPOSED to work). Doing stuff isn't parasitic, it's symbiotic.

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:12 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:: Rent. In other words, pay taxes to the community? Okay, and the problem there is?

The problem here is that Government=A, Community=B where AЄB (A belongs to; is part of B).

I don't know how it's in your locality but in every single place I have been (and I'm sure your location is not exception to this) taxes are imposed by and paid to the Government.

What's the problem with this? That the government ultimately decides how to use these taxes as they see fit, not the community.

Else, taxes would be useless if instead of a Government the community self-managed (itself).

TK wrote:

Quote :: Being socially useless as he wouldn't be able to produce it himself en masse

And yet still do more than enough for himself to have kept it small, him alone, and still be able to retire in only a few years.

This leading to nothing but the thought that the man was greedy and wanted more money and power while being under the delusion perhaps, that he was doing a favor to his community by providing it with jobs and an awesome invention that wouldn't have been acquired otherwise.

Once distributed, regardless of how few, most engineers would have been able to reverse-engineer that thing and have it produced en masse, supposing no one would come up himself with the idea of a car which is more than probable.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Being socially useless as he wouldn't be able to produce it himself en masse... but wait a minute... did the first designer of the car also process the steel he used by himself? The rubber? The fuel? I doubt it.

Neither did society. Capitalists and workers did.

"Neither did society". "Capitalists and workers did". What is the society primarily composed of in a capitalist framework? Ah, yeah, Capitalists and workers (and specially in the XIX even children were in the ranks of workers in the industrialized world).

Also, most capitalists don't do anything but manage their profit and, as I've argued before, are completely expendable. Extremely few are the cases of capitalists that are actually necessary to produce something, if any today. Since the second half of the XIX century capitalists just have been becoming more and more expendable.

In fact, now that I think of, certainly capitalism is a disease that belongs to the XIX century as it's the only period of time where one could actually argue that capitalists were actually necessary to produce something because, after all, then it was quite hard for workers to actually get enough knowledge to properly invent stuff and its respective productive model keeping their numbers low. Frederick Taylor's theory of "Scientific"Management must have been developed as means to prevent the unevitable from happening - the complete obsolesence of capitalists.

Today I can't think of a single industry that would require capitalists to function, not even financial institutions and they're even a symptom of this system.

The only petty attempt at excuse capitalists may have to exist is the requirement of investment created by the alienation of the working class.

TK wrote:

Quote :: For starters, it's impossible for it to not be corrupted or at the very least made "uncorruptible".

Don't even THINK to tell me communism is better, because you'd know you'd just be lying.

How do you corrupt something that is not centralised at all?

If a workplace is managed by the 5 people that work in it, how do you get it to be corrupted without its members noticing about it or agreeing with that "corruption" making it by definition not corruption?

If all the economy is managed that way, how the hell do you corrupt it? At worst it becomes a series of inconclusive negotiations and disagreements over ridiculous demands for exchange among the parties involved in negotiations which certainly can be easily dealt with. Specially within a workers' community that hasn't broken alienation out of the sudden.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Secondly it's absurd to think that a handful of men can actually accurately take decisions that will benefit everyone better than a system that allows for people to take those matters in their hands.

Certainly I can. People are stupid. Mobs of them even more so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cetp3FxBHQg

1. Define "stupid". If you include anything resembling "ignorant" within your definition of "stupid" I'll regard it merely as "ignorance", a condition that can easily be reverted.

2. If I have to recurr to personal experiences, I definitely couldn't say that people are incapable of self-management nor incapable of determining themselves what's best for them given the proper information.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Thirdly, you can't eliminate poverty unless you eliminate class inequalty and you can't eliminate that if you don't eliminate classes.

Sure you can. All have jobs and proper wages, I don't see poverty.

Define "proper wage". Besides part of being poor is precisely the limitations you have. One of the many reasons for which you want an income, for which you work, is because you want independence, freedom. If workers have to work by the rules others imposed, that is work as much as dictated by their bosses and earn in accordance to what those people decided so that said people can profit from the workers' labor, then, technically they'd be 1) poorer that their bosses for sure and 2) less free than their bosses which would pragmatically be granted with the greatest freedom there is at the expense of the workers' freedom.

On top of that, those bosses are completely useless. They end up being parasites that aside from profiting at your expense also tell you what to do and how. I don't see how that's reasonable in any way.

TK wrote:

Quote :: For example, here in Mexico no company can pay less than 5 USD a day.

Wow... Mexico sucks. Our minimum is 8 bucks, or so. America's is, I think, 9ish, taking into account value differences of the dollar.

Not really linked to the discussion.

Also, you should have said "8 bucks an hour or so", because if it was a Day, Canadian workers would be pretty much as screwed as Mexican ones, being a bit more aware of their condition as overall screwed people.

Also in USA the average minimum wage is 7 per hour but, by law, it ranges from 5 to 6 in many states.

And those nice, far higher-than-mexican minimum wages are possible thanks to Imperialism.

If cheap workers from all over the world were not working for the G-7 nations' enterprises, these nations wouldn't be able to afford those comparatively better salaries.

TK wrote:: Or religion,

The vast majority of terrorists linked to religion are the Islamic extremist organizations, at least they are by far the most prominent ones.

For starters, their acivities go well against many of the precepts of the Quoran (you know quite well how contradictory religions are) and their targets are entirely political.

What's the kind of people that join the Islamic Jihad? Al Qaida? Hizb' Allah? Fatah? Hamas? Why do they join? For those 72 virgins (that by most muslims I've talked with the story is considered considered nearly an urban legend) ? Don't think so.

The kind of people that joins the Islamic Jihad are mostly people concerned with the cultural impact of the west throughout the Islamic world, a cultural impact that stems directly from imperialism as said cultural impact emerges from the massive amount of western enterprises that dominate the markets of the Islamic world. This coupled with the massive amount of US military bases throughout the Islamic world.

Part of what they consider to be decadent is the massive poverty that reigns throughout the Islamic world and how culturally inferior are predonminantly Islamic nations today compared to the once mighty Caliphates that in many senses were beacons of science, knowledge and overall progress.

Aside from that, they're indeed a response to the massive invations the middle East has had since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the constant state of war and unstability caused by these massive foreign interventions in te middle east.

Identifying themselves with each other as muslims and identifying themselves with the once glorious Caliphates, they believe they have to fight off all that represents the decadence of what used to be their mighty peoples and fight for the restoration of the Caliphate, which indeed does imply theocracy but goes well beyond that as it implies the creation of a powerful unified state. It's basically geopolitics, inernational projection and Imperial nostalgy unified by religion (which would give them a massive extension as they'd claim the entire muslim world), a religion that more than serving as that would serve as the cultural basis of said world, the cultural basis for the Caliphate nationalism.

So yeah with Islamic Jihad it goes well beyond religion. Religion is basically a binding and encouraging factor, a means of identifying with each other, of getting united and getting the inspiratiojn and cultural framework for a project with a profound political scope.

What kind of people joins them? Any muslim who has first-hand seen the effects of western imperialism in their lands, any muslim who knows what the caliphates stood for and thinks that armed struggle is the way to go, anyone that feels muslims are being attacked world-wide and that Islamic Jihad is the best organization to confront this attack and any person who rejects Western imperialism, finds Islam appealing and gets converted and thinks Islam is the strongest bloc opposing western imperialism.

Al Qaida? We know where these guys come from. They're like a lousy US-made version of Al Jihad envisioned to fight USSR's "anti-imperialism" in muslim dominated areas. Later, once the USSR and the pseudo-socialist bloc collapsed they "got out of hand" giving awesome pretexts to further the police state and further violent imperialism.

The case of Fatah, Hamas and Hizb' Allah it becomes more clearly a response to imperialism.

They are the product of 700,000 Palestinians displaced from their homes into neighboring Arabic countries and reduced to small divided territories in what used to be their land just because all the fucking world-powers so decided. If the USA, Western Europe and USSR agreed on something during the cold war it was on this - Palestinians can suck Kosher cocks.

Thanks to massive support by all world-powers toppled with Holocaust guilt and sympathy pseudosocialist and capitalist Zionists could join to create Israel displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and starting one of the longest lasting armed conflicts until today.

The Palestinians, completely overpowered by those who displaced them and with no military of their own, having to fight a group that was literally supported by practically all the industrial might of the planet had to recur to desperate means - from stones to pipe-improvised rockets.

What does religion have to do with all that? It unites them, it makes them feel identified with ewch other, it's their link with teh rest of the Islamic word which also suffers, but less than them, their link with other guys that have been directly striken by those that enabled their displacement in the first place, their cultural framework. Muslims are being attacked world-wide and Palestine, the Holy Land, is the front-line.

But why would a guy be willing to join a group of guys that fight to death shouting Allahu Akhbar? Because he's going to get 72 girls to give him blowjobs with the approval of Allah? Or might it be because his grandparents were displaced, his family and the families of his friends forced into extreme poverty and then killed within a context in which most of what he sees is suffering, death, blood, explosions, curfews, water shortages and disease caused by guys that just have to ride state-of the art tanks and planes provided by the resources foreign nations give to a nation that was in the first place literally created by those foreign powers? (Even until today - USA gives money and weapons, Russia gives gas).
Why would women join suicide groups? Because they hope Allah has catched up with women's rights and will provide them with 72 super girthy cocks when they arrive in heaven or because maybe they lost a child, a friend, a husband, their parents, a sister a brother or all of teh above after being displaced from her home as a child?

All these groups have something in common - they're entirely overpowered by their enemies. To fight, and they're convinced the way to go is to fight, they have to recurr to asymetrical warfare.

Their enemies go around with super heavy artillery, intercontinental bombers, superb tanks, gunships, cruise missiles... they have to make do with pipes and some Ak-47s and weapons of their fallen enemies and, in teh best of cases for them, some state of the art weaponry provided by arms dealers. That or to become some PhD in Chemical Engineering, make a bomb and blow a Starbucks coffee in New York.

And they're called terrorists just because size matters. If the US carpet bombs Baghdad killing 100 thousand civilians, it's strategy, they're putting pressure on a terrible evil regime and the population that partially supports it and partially is afraid of it (and which they, the US, most probably helped to establish in the first place). It's not terrorism. But, if Abdul Jamil al-Nasif blows up a Wallgreens in Boca Raton killing 5 and wounding 17, he's a terrorist and, if he comes from Syria, Syria should watch out.

All in all, it's a combination of national pride, historical nostalgy, personal vendettas, despair, international identification, indignation all binded together but not caused by religion.

So no, religion is not the cause among most of the world's terrorists. It's a binding factor, but definitely not the cause.

TK wrote:: racism,

The only prominent cases I've known of this are what the KKK and other white supremacist groups have done. They're certainly acts of terrorism, but as certain as that is they constitute by far a minority of the cases of terrorism world wide and tehy're certainly not the target of the so called "War on Terrorism".

TK wrote:: lust for power,

"Imperialism" works fine to refer to this one.

TK wrote:: boner for green nature,

Again, another set of exceptional cases. However not entirely unrelated to imperialism. After all, Capitalism is one of the driving forces behind the destruction of nature. Capitalism's very essence is that of consumption, capitalism is pretty much opposed to sustainability. And Imperialism is just necesary extension of Capitalism.

TK wrote:: whale fetish, etc.

Are you seriously going to put those guys from Whale Wars and Greenpeace on the same category as Timothy McVeigh and Abdulsalam ib Tayib? For real?

TK wrote:: Those last ones tend to be from individuals from afluent backgrounds, and they STILL can't think straight. Half of their tactics are usless whining,

They think straighter than you think. For starters, I did not claim that people became terrorists just because they were poor. I claimed that imperialism was the main cause for terrorism as most terrorism today is a manifestation of asymmetrical warfare. A wealthy kid from Saudi Arabia may one day watch 10 youtube videos on what is going on in Palestine an Iraq, then read on that in wikipedia while he downloads some Nasheed through his high-speed internet connection and then decide to join Islamic Jihad and fight there because he sympathises with them and feels he ought to do something.

In the case of these "eco-terrorists" you talk about, it's people that feel tehy got to do something, and by something they don't mean write a letter to the senate asking for them to put pressure on the Japanese government. They actually mean real action, something that will actually make a difference. Something that has less probabilities at failing to protect whales than a letter to the senate. And surrounding a whaling vessel with little rafts is just that.

And they'd be just "eco-saboteurs" as they really don't terrorize anyone.

Ramming a whaling vessel with yours, ok, that's more of a terrorist act, it also sells seasons at animal planet.

The day some guy or guys literally blow-up or set a whaling vessel on fire, that day you can call them terrorists.

TK wrote:: the other half kills many and ruins lives across the board. Cancer cure tested on animals? Free the animals (only to euthanise them at a later date because they can't find homes for the antisocial monkies) and loose that.

And still this doesn't qualify as terrorism. It qualifies as sabotage.

TK wrote:: Terrorist roups are not always, and in fact are very rarely, brought on by poverty.

I said Imperialism one of which byproducts is precisely poverty. Also, tell that to Palestinians, Iraqis and many others.

If you're poor (or forced into poverty) and you want to force yourself out of that condition, terrorism may seem a viable way to go as, after all, it's asymmetrical warfare.

TK wrote:: And don't you dare say that if people were educated and all in the communist utopia that religion wouldn't be a factor.

Since religion is hardly really a factor and most of the religion-linked terrorists are actually muslim, I could well posit that a Socialist Caliphate could well be established - culture would be governed by theocratic authorities, economy by the workers. Imperialism erradicated, caliphate established, and well educated muslims that know their religion is actually against killing innocents (and knowing that not-killing is far better, more confortable and has less implications than killing, as they'd be educated) there would be none or close to cero religion related terrorism. At least from part of muslims.

However, if to take Randroids into account, well now I think they could actually well be terrorists within a socialist framework as they believe that their religion is against communism (or any trace of collectivism).

TK wrote:: VenomFangX. Rich boy. At least before his dad kicked him out for annoying the shit out of everyone.

Not a terrorist, just a good Jew clever at making money the L. Ron Hubbard way.

TK wrote:: As in? Because it sounds like you said that, in the entertainment industry, "the man" is shown as god, whether itbe movies, or games, or books, or TV, pr news, or what have you, when in reality it's most often the exact opposite. That's entertainment industry to me. What are YOU talking about, then?

The entertainment industry is also the sports industry, games' industry, etc.

And, I said that they "culturally mold" people, not that "they insert into the people this idea that the Government and corporations are awesome and should be followed".

Sports, for example, create an entire cultural framework where people can deposit the entirety of their national pride, role models to aspire to, a distraction from problems.

Here in Mexico you get people killing each other because they cheer for different soccer teams, workers that would rather cry because their favorite team lost the championship than cry because they're underpaid as fuck. Millions of people world-wide get their attention entirely drained by these sportive events.

What about the cinema and the media? They promote a masisve array of contradicting ideas which eventually end up in massive consumption of goods.

Singers, particularily those of Disney, are incrementally worshipped as rolemodels by millions of kids world-wide who don't give a fuck about something else that is not listening to their Hannah Montana playlist, while wearing their Hannah Montana clothes carrying their Hannah Montana backpack and pretending to be Hannah Montana while they sing to Hannah Montana songs on "Sing it!".

Media usually comes up with a lot of misinformation about how one should arrange one's diet, about the reasons for everyday problems, with contradictory information on a plethora of things, things that most won't even bother to confirm in scientific journals, books etc.

And all this with the objective to achieve maximum consumption of good and to divert attention from problems while giving bogus explanations from said problems.

This all going well-beyond the "Government is bad or good, big corps are bad or good".

Not even satirical parts of the media like South Park, Family Guy, etc.are understood by the way their creators mean them to be understood.

This "cultural molding" goes well beyond what you said.

And if to mention actual pop-culture hits, many do advance the agenda of the governing entities, at least partially. For example a series such as "Law & Order" promote strongly the ruling class's view on how crime works and often makes open critiques to this or that opposing political view aside from actually making clear poliical statements sometimes.

Most shows and movies that have to do with this I've seen do glorify capitalists, and I'm not even talking about about big corporations, I'm talking simply about capitalism in general. Many cultural elements and trends today do glorify the effort of the indidvidual above the effort of the collective to the point of promoting the idea that for example Cars are an achievement of the car-company's owners or that Buildings are mainly product of the work for the Architect.

Here in Mexico there's even a trend of actually glorifying poverty (logical, Mexico ought to be a poor place to workforce can be cheap for German, French, Unitedstatian and other Bourgeoisies) of glorifying one's condition as a loyal worker that does not question his obviously more capable boss who always knows what's best and if not him, other boss surely does.

And the trend of glorifying bosses extends all over Latin America as far as I can tell. In most of it, it's either the young, handsome and tenacious entrepeneur or the fair, wise hard-working, experienced elder that founded a company. If not, it's the brave freedom fighter that from lawyer became the liberator of the people.

Overall there's always a glorification of leadership and the repressentation of most people as sheep or should-be sheep.

And of course the usual mocking on those who contend things shouldn't be that way.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Correct me if I'm wrong but did I say that media were pro or against anything?

I was further elaborating on the above.

And I was further insisting that I did not mean that in any way.

TK wrote:: They know.

As demonstrated by the continuation of your statement, seemingly nope.

TK wrote:: most just don;t attribute what's happening now as "Imperialism", namely because it's not happening in the way you're often talking about.

Precisely this kind of denial and/or ignorance is what I'm talking about.

"Imperialism" is a fact, an impossible to deny fact.

Industrialised nations' companies get cheap workforce abroad so they can actually achieve a better living standard for their workers at home, at least better (and usually by far) than that of the rest of the nations.

And most people in those "developed nations" don't seem to be aware of this. If it wasn't because the companies they work for can produce so much shit at low price and sell it, they wouldn't enjoy those supra-standard minimum wages and in the case of many countries all that social welfare.

If all Volkswagen cars were made solely by Germans, they'd be far more expensive because Germans need higher salaries than Brazilians and Argentinians. They would sell less and would have to pay less to Germans, and Germans wouldn't be happy. Same applies for a bunch of stuff.

And so, because Imperialist nations can be that fucking rich, some non-imperialist nations can benefit from trade with them, particularily if they're comfortable neighbors that share imperial pasts.

TK wrote:

Quote :: I actually meant it as the usual thoughts of the average apologist of capitalism when questioned on its success. Not of the average person.

Oh, well, APPOLOGISTS, different story, there.

And most of those that are not apologists just don't know why everything sucks so hard and much less have a clue on how to change that. Many just think on how to get themselves out of that mess or simply come to resignation and "accept the natural order of things".

TK wrote:: Yes it IS worth keeping.

With all its fundamental and undavoidable flaws I don't see how unless you're into economic and political BDSM.

TK wrote:: But do they say there's no reason to change it?

Many say there's not, others say some things could be fixed like readicating the government, others think there should be some more taxation and a lot of modifications history has proven absolutely worthless but that they somehow think are avant-garde.

TK wrote:: And Europe is far more socialist, or tends to be, than North America, for example.

Again, "socialism" is an absolute. Either you have socialism or you don't. Currently no European nation or big enough community is stateless and classless. I know of no European nation where the workers own the means of production.

So nope, this ain't true.

TK wrote:: But again, do they say there's no room for change?

There's always room for change. But if you keep it being capitalism it has fundamental flaws the implications of which can't be reverted by other mean than its abolition.

TK wrote:: Though I don't agree if that's their reason, simple country comparison. If anything I'd compare technology differences.

And it certainly wouldn't work as technology can't be developed properly without proper economy and they seem to be talking about economy.

TK wrote:: "Capitalist" countries tend to develop and advance faster than "communist" countries historically, even taking into account the general... let's call it "transference", I can't think of a better word, of technologies.

Now this is entirely false. It took USSR 23 years to become a superpower (being created after two extremely bloody wars and facing the heaviest burden of the bloodiest war humanity has ever had) and surpass in many industries and several other categories (and by far) any other nation of the world.

It took USA a century and a half and as far as I know it took Britain longer, and USSR eventually did surpass them both in many areas, and not by a little.

The only reason why USSR collapsed and the reason for this wrong impression you have is because USSR practically did not invest in the civilian industry. They nearly didn't give a damn about civilian cars (even cars for the elite were not good), they didn't give a damn about technology for better producing shoes or clothing, they didn't give a damn about making fany advertising or any of such things.

You were a good engineer or scientist and wanted prominence in the USSR? You had to join the military and space projects of the government, sometimes the raw industrial projects, but mainly military ones.

And there, the USSR did excell.

Soviet rocket systems were the best in the whole world (and to this date the most efficient and powerful rocket engine ever built is a Soviet one, which has been even bought by the USA and which they intend to use as basis for their newest rocket engine), the best aerodinamically speaking planes in the world were the soviet ones. It was not until the inception of the F-22 that USA actually fielded a plane as aerodinamically capable as Soviet designs like the MiG-29 and the Su-27. Soviet submarines established and keep records of their respective classes. The soviet tank industry was by far the most advanced in the world having put soviet tanks on the top of tanks several times and being the ones who first introduced smoothbore guns and fin-stabilized projectiles, principles held even today by all top-quality tank-guns except the British Challenger's. The first supersonic VSTOL aircraft was developed by the USSR and it was partially used as basis for the US F-35. The basis theory for Stealth technology was developed in the USSR. And like that many other things.

USSR was definitely not technologically subpar in what they cared about and had it continued existing, it would certainly have the technological military upper hand, again, because that's what they cared the most about, and taht's to a good extent what fucked the USSR with its system.

And, if USSR's advance in several fields of science (particularily biology) was hindered, it was to a great extent thanks to Stalin's rejection of many capable "socialist" scientists from abroad that wanted to contribute to USSR's development, basically, his fault not the system's fault per say as these people did agree with that system. Just the guy that was in shift didn't like them.

TK wrote:: As in, we developed this, and as the tech spread it eventually goes to all countries. I hope I'm explaining that right....

Yup, but it becomes moot when the first satellite was placed by those "commies", also the first man that reached space and when the west was shitting its pants with the Soviet war machine, which wouldn't have been half as scary if they were to be regarded as technologically inferior.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Define "stupid".

Not doing what's "logical", listening blindy, etc.

When I was uninformed I also did many ilogical things and followed blindly a lot of others. Cognoscitive development eliminated this. I've seen that happen in lots and lots of cases.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Basically out of pure ignorance or sheer laziness

Yes, ignorance and lazyness.

Both of which acn be easily overcomed.

TK wrote:: This isn;t an "atheism/theism" kind of argument.

Considering the amount of blind faith and ignorance capitalism requires to operate, they're quite similar.

TK wrote:: THere's no "ignorance".

Oh, there is and a lot.

TK wrote:: From what I, personally, have seen of the human condition,

Define "human condition", people always come with this magical concept and often interchange it with "human nature" so I want to know what you personally mean with it. Also, one can find a deifnition for "human nature" but not for "human condition" in a dictionaire so I'd really like to know what you mean with that.

TK wrote:: a communist society with a large ammount of people would eventually become, once again, capitalist without one noticing,

That'd be unheard of in history, because capitalists are always a minority and because no communist society has undergone such a change, it has just been destroyed.

TK wrote:: and the average person prefers things this way, not out of blind faith in capitalism but out of an observance that it DOES work when done right.

1. Has never "worked right" (unless that "right" by your standards is what we have been having for the past two centuries) so that "proper working" has never been observed.
2. Since it has never been observed, one can only hope for it to "work right", requiring faith (as there's no scientific method to make capitalism workable, unless you literally control humanity's mind into accepting it through bioengineering).
3. Capitalism has the inherent flaw of leaving decisions that everyone should take, ultimately, in the hands of a few. That's fundamental for capitalism. The workplace is ran by the bosses and the nation by the government. Expect this to be workable requires blind faith.

TK wrote:

Quote :: or because they're capitalist which obviously are a minority and thus irrelevant to the point

You can count every poerson, or close to it, who lives in a capitalist society as a capitalist.

Not by definition of "capitalist".

TK wrote:

Quote :: Then you got it all wrong.

I fail to see many differences. Both are anarchy,

False as Libertarianism promotes private ownership of means of production thus creating a hierarchy-based system and defacto different governing factions.

TK wrote:: oth still pretty much mob rule,

False, workers determine the framework of norms and how it is to be followed.

Libertarians advocate for privately owned law enforcement enterprises.

TK wrote:: both having all the same institutions

Which institutions?

TK wrote:: and set up that you've described many times.

What set up?

TK wrote:: The only difference is money.

Communism can have money. I personally advocate for scientific rationalist economics, but communist (by definition) systems such as Anarchosyndicalism can include money or some sort of currency. Even though that ultimately, as science develops and prevails, rationalism would susbstitute them.

TK wrote:: And Libertairians have CEOs.

Thus what I said that, this is not anarchy.

Libertarianism is a bunch of private governments fighting against each other.

Anarchy is the lack of that.

TK wrote:

Quote :: That we all get to dictate the rules of the workplaces where we work.

"We the workers don't think gloves or washing hands are important to this food preperation ebcause they are uncomfortable." But you don;t think this will happen, because you think people are smarter than this. And that's our fundamental difference, really.

Ok, I don't know what kind of freaking community you live in, but here and in several other places I have met workers that actually demand those things.

Also, this is nothing knowledge can't prevent from happening.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Furthering how much of a parasite a CEO is.

They run the company,

It could be eaisly and more effectively ran by the workers.

TK wrote:: thereby making the company more money,

Money comes from the profit of selling a product and/or service, cost efficiency can help to increase profit. Cost efficieny can be calculated by anyone who knows how the productive process works. In most industries engineers tend to calculate the cost efficiency of products.

How much money an enterprise ought to earn could and should be determined by the workers since, after all they're who provide the service.

Need sales? You can have a sales and PR department.

And all being workers. No need for "CEOs"

TK wrote:: thereby providing more jobs

Are cars needed? Yes. There's the origin for car-makers' jobs. Are buildings needed? Yes. There's the origin for construction workers' jobs. Is food needed? Yes. There's the origin for food-industry workers. Is water provision needed? Yes. There's the origin for water-provision related jobs. No need for a CEOs.

TK wrote:: and raising wages (or at least that's how it's SUPPOSED to work).

Workers should determine how worthy their labor is. Not a CEO.

TK wrote:: Doing stuff isn't parasitic, it's symbiotic.

A mosquito also does a lot of stuff - it flies, it has to avoid yo from noticing its presence, it has to avoid you from hitting it if you notice, it has to stand on your skin, penetrate your skin inject venom, suck blood and flie away. You just don't need the mosquito to suck your blood and perhaps even transmit some disease or at the very least leave you with some unpleasant swelling and itch or pain.

CEOs are the same shit. No one needs them but they are there to suck the profit of the workers' labor and annoy the shit out of them, decide who keeps his job and who doesn't, who gets a job an who doesn't, how much workers have to get in a complete exercise in fultilty and hindrance for society.

Subject: Re: Capitalism vs. Socialism (again) Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:01 am

Quote :: taxes are imposed by and paid to the Government.

What's the problem with this? That the government ultimately decides how to use these taxes as they see fit, not the community.

Else, taxes would be useless if instead of a Government the community self-managed (itself).

The government represents the community. The whole of a country is the community.

Quote :: This leading to nothing but the thought that the man was greedy and wanted more money and power while being under the delusion perhaps, that he was doing a favor to his community by providing it with jobs and an awesome invention that wouldn't have been acquired otherwise.

Which is another reason why I don;t think your view of communism would work. Greed. It's inherent.

Quote :: most engineers would have been able to reverse-engineer that thing and have it produced en masse

I suppose you mean after said creator is dead, correct? Otherwise you're just stealing what he worked on and relied on, and otherwise what would prevent anyone from doing this, and what would be the reason anyone would ever want to come up with a new idea for their benifit? No one would benifit from their own inventions.

Quote :: Also, most capitalists don't do anything but manage their profit

What? No board of directors would allow this. Not in the real world.

Quote :: Extremely few are the cases of capitalists that are actually necessary to produce something, if any today.

They run the company, which helps expand it. COuld the workers do this? Yes. Oh, wait, they ARE workers doing that! They're simply workers that get paid more.

Quote :: How do you corrupt something that is not centralised at all?

I've goven worst case examples of this many times before.

Quote :: If a workplace is managed by the 5 people that work in it, how do you get it to be corrupted without its members noticing about it or agreeing with that "corruption" making it by definition not corruption?

What workplace has 5 people? A small store? How would this at all be different than what we have now? That one holds the deed ot the place? Why is this an issue?

Quote :: 1. Define "stupid". If you include anything resembling "ignorant" within your definition of "stupid" I'll regard it merely as "ignorance", a condition that can easily be reverted.

2. If I have to recurr to personal experiences, I definitely couldn't say that people are incapable of self-management nor incapable of determining themselves what's best for them given the proper information.

In my personal experience, even with full knowledge of a situation, people STILL choose, quite often, what's bad for them. Do you smoke? Drink? Take other danegrous drugs? Sniff glue? Or markers? I say that's stupid. And if other peopel are doing it, othes want to fit in. They have the knowledge. And yet..... A great example is school children. Many start smoking "Because their frinds are doing it". They know it's bad. But don;t think it's limited to just that. There's no ignorance there. That's what I call stupidity. People. Are. Stupid.

Quote :: Define "proper wage".

A fair wage for your job, which is not what third world contries get. Rather the things first world countries get. Companies can afford it.

Quote :: If workers have to work by the rules others imposed, that is work as much as dictated by their bosses

You're still under rules, only by the mob instead.

Quote :: poorer that their bosses for sure

This generally only complies with larger companies today. Smaller ones, the "owner" is simply the deed holder, and the one who hires and fires. Started the business, and wants to make sure it's done right, to their vision.

Quote :: If cheap workers from all over the world were not working for the G-7 nations' enterprises, these nations wouldn't be able to afford those comparatively better salaries.

They can easilly afford it. They just prefer the profit which, sadly, s by law their numberone priority, and that shouldn't be. THAT has created a system of exploitation, where they need to pay overseas workers less.

Quote :: The vast majority of terrorists linked to religion are the Islamic extremist organizations, at least they are by far the most prominent ones.

KKK. More famouts than the Taliban. At least before 9-11. And that's still not brought on by poverty itself.

Quote :: For starters, their acivities go well against many of the precepts of the Quoran

I'm an atheist. You're a former Jew, and we have a former christian here. They're not going against anything in the Qurann.

Quote :: The kind of people that joins the Islamic Jihad are mostly people concerned with the cultural impact of the west throughout the Islamic world, a cultural impact that stems directly from imperialism as said cultural impact emerges from the massive amount of western enterprises that dominate the markets of the Islamic world.

Actually it tends to be rascist hatred, almost never having anything to do with the influence of the west, and I guarentee you that even if there were no military incursions by the west they'd still hate, soimply because the west's cuture is more popular, out of jealousy, adn rascist hatred.

Quote :: This coupled with the massive amount of US military bases throughout the Islamic world.

Especially now after the fact.

Quote :: Part of what they consider to be decadent is the massive poverty that reigns throughout the Islamic world and how culturally inferior are predonminantly Islamic nations today compared to the once mighty Caliphates that in many senses were beacons of science, knowledge and overall progress.

So... racial hatred aainst those more wel off than yourself? As for culturally inferior, well, that's really their own fault, not at all being the capitalist west.

Quote :: they believe they have to fight off all that represents the decadence of what used to be their mighty peoples and fight for the restoration of the Caliphate, which indeed does imply theocracy but goes well beyond that as it implies the creation of a powerful unified state

Yes, united. And oppresive and theocratic. You want this as a major power? That alone is reason enough to me to keep the middle east engulphed in war. Aren't you trying to convince me AGAINST stuff like this? (I already am, but the way uou put it it sound slike it'd be better as it is now)

Quote :: So yeah with Islamic Jihad it goes well beyond religion. Religion is basically a binding and encouraging factor, a means of identifying with each other, of getting united and getting the inspiratiojn and cultural framework for a project with a profound political scope.

Well, if by binding you eman slaughtering all those of that other tribe so your tribe has all the resources and is the only one left, then yes. It's very binding.

Quote :: What kind of people joins them? Any muslim who has first-hand seen the effects of western imperialism in their lands, any muslim who knows what the caliphates stood for and thinks that armed struggle is the way to go, anyone that feels muslims are being attacked world-wide and that Islamic Jihad is the best organization to confront this attack and any person who rejects Western imperialism, finds Islam appealing and gets converted and thinks Islam is the strongest bloc opposing western imperialism.

Or someone who's brainwashed, which happens... most of the time. Especially with the young. They rarely know about any of this, other than the west wants to kill them and Allah will save their souls. Not much more than this, generally. And sadly, the majority have become this.

Quote :: Al Qaida?

No one disagrees they were a big mistake, as was ultimately the whole cold war itself, which led to many other problems worldwide. USSR and US sucked balls.

Quote :: 700,000 Palestinians displaced

Admitedly this still confuses the hell out of me why this was ever allowed to happen. I really think, honestly, it was a christian thing done in hopes of hastening the whole second comming. From what I know of the backgrounds of those involved, this actually sounds like a fairly plausible conclusion. Or at least when it comes to the western powers. Wow I sound like a conspiracy theorist....

Quote :: Palestine, the Holy Land, is the front-line.

And I would have supoprted Palestine at first, certainly. Now though, well, they're settled in the new areas, I kinda have to say get over it.. Neither side are going to give up, but both sides are so rascist they won;t sit and talk, or even stop shooting while they sit and talk.

Quote :: But why would a guy be willing....

I agree. However, for many today, if not most, it's been simplified to "They're our enemy because they're our enemy and Allah will help us win, so logically we can't loose" So their entire reasons, even if originaly fairly justifiable, are now moot.

Quote :: USA gives money and weapons, Russia gives gas

I've said before that I don;t agree with everything America does, and this is one of those. In fact most of what they've been doing lately is bullshit, ad just breaking the country and world, for example how much they're corrupted the capitalist system. However this doesn't justify attacking civilians of those dragged into the conflict. What's more, they could try much more peaceful ways of doing things, which they do NOT. Im not justifying America.

Quote :: Baghdad

You already know my position on Iraq.

Quote :: killing 100 thousand civilians

No one supports this, ever. It's not a tactic. It IS terrorism, and people awknowlege this. So if you want to do something about it, go ahead. But you and I both know that those responsible will make sure the evidence against them points to others, and you and I both know you can't just grab the guy YOU think is guilty. Sad fact is, this will never go unpunished. If you want to lead an indipendant investigation, go ahead. I wish you luck. Faced with the blatant evidence, well, there's not much te US supreme court can do but start the trial. At least to bring it to court.

Quote :: Capitalism's very essence is that of consumption, capitalism is pretty much opposed to sustainability.

Capitalism, if done right, looks toward the future, which almsot never happens. Look at the banks. How far ahead did they look? Not very.

Quote :: Whale Wars and Greenpeace

Greenpeace, sometimes. Those guys from Whale Wars are a joke. They don't DO anything. They shout. That's pretty much it. How many seasons did that show even get? I don't think more than two.

Quote :: feels he ought to do something.

So... feel he ought to kill innocent people who are supposedly exloited and kept ignorant, not actually acheiving anything and only fucking up the region more? I think I called these people idiots SOMEWHERE.

Quote :: And surrounding a whaling vessel with little rafts is just that.

Except it DOESN'T do anything. Especially to the Japanese. The Japanese people LOVE whale meat. No, writing letters won;t do anything. But you know what wil? Grassroots politics. It;s hard, but you can do it. It happens all the time. Sadly, the only ones with the drive to do that tend to be the easilly corruptable. Everyone else gives up ebcause they find it too ahrd. Some have "drive", others don;t. But anyway, you're right, writing letters usually DOESN;T do anything. First off, one letter is uselss. Hundreds of thousands, on the toher hand..... There are many, many other ways. And you know surrounding a whaling ship with rafts isn;t what I'm talking about. I eman the ones who firebomb and think they're acheiving anything. All that happens is, to continue this example fo whalers, it makes then arm against the eco's. It's an endless cycle of douchbaggery, stubborness, and idiocy.

Quote :: The day some guy or guys literally blow-up or set a whaling vessel on fire, that day you can call them terrorists.

Happens more often than you think.

Okay, I really dont care about any of the rest at all, in any way whatsoever. I'm tired of typing.

» Capitalism and Monopolies
» Christian capitalism?
» Capitalism And Corporatism
» Capitalism and Consent
» Capitalism And Other Kids Stuff -