What do you capitalist think?

mattabesta wrote:

if you have leaders that only think about themselvs then that breeds crime becuse if the police is currubt I mean that pretty much explains itselv

This doesn't make sense. Your logic seems to be that cult of personality equals crime and that cult of personality somehow is related to corruption in the police corps.

mattabesta wrote:

and zelot even though your pretty propaganda movies and books tell you that life in the ussr was so good and evrybody was well fed and shit justice evrywere dosn't show realaty russias econamy

It's not completely incredible that you don't even read what I say and still try to argue. I mean, how can you possibly try to argue or disagree with something you don't even know? In this case my posture.

For an instance I never said life in USSR was excellent, and that everyone was well fed and that everything was nice. No. USSR had serious economic problems specially in pre-deténte and post-deténte periods product of USSR's contradictory economic system. But that doesn't mean USSR didn't provide with households to all its citizens, that doesn't mean people had a smilar way of living and that there weren't so high contrasts as there are now, that is Billionaires and homeless kids in the same society. Contrasts that were even less notorious during the deténte in which USSR had more "economic prosperity" than in immediate post war and pre fall periods.

Now, I'm not saying USSR had superior standards than actual Russia (specially Yeltisn's Russia) out of Soviet propaganda. I'm taking that information out of soviet citizens themselves some of them being researchers on their own society. And of course, out of common sense and information available.

mattabesta wrote:

and e-europe crached after the fall not becuse capitalism is worse or anything it was becuse ppl lost there jobs becuse the ussr cun't justify a 5 million man land army 10,000 jeats and who knows how many thousands of nukes not to mention the jobs that the millatary supplied transiting from communism o capitalism ain't nice.

Another parragraph that barely makes any sense. Eastern Europe, like USSR crashed because of the same contradictory system. Not because USSR couldn't justify a 5 million land army...

And once again USSR was no communist. Is that so hard to understand for you?

mattabesta wrote:

when the goverment dose something they usally try to give lot of ppl jobs useless jobs wich means profit is not much but that's not the point when the goverment dose something is it?

Yet another statement that doesn't make sense. The government will act according to its projects being possible a profit or non-profit objective.

mattabesta wrote:

but private companyes don't have the luxury of bottem less recurces like the gov they have to pay loans and moar importasntly the shareholders so invetably they try to be as efficent as posseble they produce goods wich ppl buy not what the goverment THINKS ppl buy anyway the share holders make money n shit mostly banks so the banks can expand moar jobs wich makes up for jobs lost at the factory this winds up usally and last as long as it can usally but most of it is built on trust that this person makes this much money 'n shit but now we see the lack of trust becuse noone really knows what's safe and what's not and without market circulation banks slowly die.

And your point is what? That capitalist economy is efficient but depends on trust? And if so how is that linked to the discussion?

mattabesta wrote:

I wrote that so that you can't use the credit crisi against me.

Don't worry, it was needless for lots of reasons, one of them is that, unlike you, I'm not a snob.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I Don't worry, it was needless for lots of reasons, one of them is that, unlike you, I'm not a snob.

wtf?
how am I a snob?

mattabesta wrote:

wtf?
how am I a snob?

Well, you suppose I'd use a similar tactic as you do. This tactic consists in quoting mainstream thoughts or writings, in this case the "credit crisis". You often employ this tactic which is snob-like.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

wtf?
how am I a snob?

Well, you suppose I'd use a similar tactic as you do. This tactic consists in quoting mainstream thoughts or writings, in this case the "credit crisis". You often employ this tactic which is snob-like.

what?
I quted mainstream?
If you want to know were I got my idears from a six hour long talk with my uncel and dad about communism and how insane marxes idears are today even though they made a hell of a lot of sense backn then.

the credit crisis is main stram? how can it not be mainstream?????????????
the us,UK,EU are going into reseccion how can it not be mainstream?????????????

mattabesta wrote:

what?
I quted mainstream?



If you want to know were I got my idears from a six hour long talk with my uncel and dad about communism and how insane marxes idears are today even though they made a hell of a lot of sense backn then.

Read well and you'll understand that I didn't imply that you quoted mainstream in this conversation.

Although you indeed had to use a lot of mainstream ideas, one of them for example that Communism is practically an orthodox following of Marxist ideas without even considering the context.

Else I explained why tou you they seem not to make sense from a Nicelander point of view that just sees through the eyes of the G-7 and friends.

mattabesta wrote:

the credit crisis is main stram? how can it not be mainstream?????????????
the us,UK,EU are going into reseccion how can it not be mainstream?????????????

I never argued it wasn't mainstream, we simply don't quote it one of the most severe implications of capitalism.

Zealot, I see what your saying

but you should also acknowledge the fact that he could believe in those things...

Liche wrote:

Zealot, I see what your saying

but you should also acknowledge the fact that he could believe in those things...

I do acknowledge it, so?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot, I see what your saying

but you should also acknowledge the fact that he could believe in those things...

I do acknowledge it, so?

You can't force him to think other wise (I'm not saying you are forcing him) even if you are right, "you can't show them how to walk the path, only tell them what is on the other side"

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

what?
I quted mainstream?



If you want to know were I got my idears from a six hour long talk with my uncel and dad about communism and how insane marxes idears are today even though they made a hell of a lot of sense backn then.

Read well and you'll understand that I didn't imply that you quoted mainstream in this conversation.

Although you indeed had to use a lot of mainstream ideas, one of them for example that Communism is practically an orthodox following of Marxist ideas without even considering the context.

Else I explained why tou you they seem not to make sense from a Nicelander point of view that just sees through the eyes of the G-7 and friends.

mattabesta wrote:

the credit crisis is main stram? how can it not be mainstream?????????????
the us,UK,EU are going into reseccion how can it not be mainstream?????????????

I never argued it wasn't mainstream, we simply don't quote it one of the most severe implications of capitalism.

zelut do you knwo what kind of an econamy the niceland you always talk about has? a free market econamy and it's qite nice

and why do you think that my entier argument in anothere thread is only about marx? I just gaveit a name but that's not the point in the thread.
sorry for the a bit off topic

mattabesta wrote:

zelut do you knwo what kind of an econamy the niceland you always talk about has? a free market econamy and it's qite nice

That's subjective.

mattabesta wrote:

zelut do you knwo what kind of an econamy the niceland you always talk about has? a free market econamy and it's qite nice

And explained why it is so "nice" at least in appearance and not so patently bad as in USA, or other even more obvious countries.

mattabesta wrote:

and why do you think that my entier argument in anothere thread is only about marx? I just gaveit a name but that's not the point in the thread.
sorry for the a bit off topic

It is about communism in general as I see it. But lets discuss about it there.

To touch on the idea of "free markets" that mattabesta mentioned, I should mention that when people discuss the idea of free markets, they genuinely are discussing fairy tales. They discuss an idea that has never existed, and currently does not exist. The U.S. - as well as most, if not all, Capitalist contries - has a state-interventionist, Keynesian market; the government is able to subsidize businesses and it has ownership of a few key public institutions that it permits its citizenry to have access to, such as the transportation system, the fire department, the mail industry, and all sorts of other things. In other countries government control is more extensive; it may also entail government-run health industries, education system, and some other such social programs.

But the fact is is that a free market - a society with no government intervention in the market at all - does not exist. And thank goodness for that.

Governments are bad, but private, unaccountable, powerful institutions - to refer to them simply: corporations, which are genuinely one of the few things that would actually benefit from a free market - are worse.

So Iceland, for the most part, probably doesn't have a "free market". Unless everything is privatized, and nothing is within the ownership of the government.

And, if that's the case, that would mean that Iceland would be exhibiting a type of tyranny that has not likewise occurred ever in history: economic tyranny, tyranny wherein the citizenry is so abused that they do not possess, even in the form of a government, their own means. And that's bad - it kind of creates economic disparities and some other bad stuff.

Thanks for that excellent contribution WeiWuWei.

I think that there is a notion of free market, nor pure thus not completely realistic, that a free market is a market in which private institutions may compete alongside the government.

Lets exemplify.

USSR was a market economy completely run by the government while US economy is a market economy in which individuals can compete among each other and in which government intervention is far more moderate.

I'd call this notion of "free market" a "relatively free market economy".

A regulated 'free market'? A minarket?

Stos wrote:

A regulated 'free market'? A minarket?

Well, it's definitely not the same to have a market regulated at a 100% by the state than a Market with scarce or moderate state intervention.

WeiWuWei wrote:

To touch on the idea of "free markets" that mattabesta mentioned, I should mention that when people discuss the idea of free markets, they genuinely are discussing fairy tales. They discuss an idea that has never existed, and currently does not exist. The U.S. - as well as most, if not all, Capitalist contries - has a state-interventionist, Keynesian market; the government is able to subsidize businesses and it has ownership of a few key public institutions that it permits its citizenry to have access to, such as the transportation system, the fire department, the mail industry, and all sorts of other things. In other countries government control is more extensive; it may also entail government-run health industries, education system, and some other such social programs.

But the fact is is that a free market - a society with no government intervention in the market at all - does not exist. And thank goodness for that.

Governments are bad, but private, unaccountable, powerful institutions - to refer to them simply: corporations, which are genuinely one of the few things that would actually benefit from a free market - are worse.

So Iceland, for the most part, probably doesn't have a "free market". Unless everything is privatized, and nothing is within the ownership of the government.

And, if that's the case, that would mean that Iceland would be exhibiting a type of tyranny that has not likewise occurred ever in history: economic tyranny, tyranny wherein the citizenry is so abused that they do not possess, even in the form of a government, their own means. And that's bad - it kind of creates economic disparities and some other bad stuff.

iceland's goverment dosn't have the means to intervene in the econamy any longer most of the banks revnue is 5 times the stes income and the biggest one has 8 times moar but I guess your right it isn't completely free market but it "realtivly" free.