202980439725830002556685383209's forum posts
[QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="phragit"]That certainlly explains why less than 10% of Americans own bussinesses, according to your calculations 90% of Americans living now should be dead or manically depressed.tycoonmike
Like owning your own business means you are able to successfully compete. It works the exact same way in the animal kingdom (of which, humanity is the king). They with superior traits are able to multiply and breed and outcompete they with lesser genes. This is evolution. Considering how young America is compared to the life of the Earth, the evolution of a forbidden>A social darwinist with bad grammer, how contradictory; I've seen worse. Communism allows for slef-run businesses and in most communist states, with governmental permission, you can even have employees. Production, though, must run under unions; that is the only real difference [there are also no chain anythings]. Two things that I've said before; according to what you've said 90% of currently living Americans would be dead or manically depressed; and communism is as open as capitalism, it simply doesn't allow for exploitation.
I would really like to know how what I said was bad.
Before you go insulting me about my grammAr, fix your spelling. It's sELf, also.
Yeah, because for there to be exploitation you need to have a finite amount of consumer goods, which we have. Communism assumes there is an infinite amount of consumer goods and resources, which there obviously isn't. If you don't have an unlimited supply of consumer goods, then people will start to COMPETE for the limited goods, thus a CAPITALIST society will take its place. I wrote a blog about this a while ago that you may want to read, if you're tracking me of course.
Do you believe in human nature, that we are animals with the ability, insofar, to compete against all other forms of life successfully?
First, there is a large difference between typo and grammer. Second. communism certainly does not assume that there is an infinate ammount of goods, please point out which qualification, of the single qualification there is, states that there are is infinate ammount of resources. In communism there is a definate way to compete for more, HAVE A LARGER OUTPUT. Marx was a great supporter of competition, the basic idea of communism is that capitalist is explotation of labor power. I suggest you understand at least a little Marx before critiquing communism, it might really help.
[QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"]Communism is not what most people think of it, to quote Engles: communism is the liberation of the proletariat. This means that everybody has all freedom, so long as they do not use this freedom to exploit other people. Communism only differs from capitalism, in that it does not allow corperate slavery, it is any social ownership of production and only production, property that is not capital is still privately owned. As far as production, communism is much more variable in the style of economy that it can sustain, versus capitalism. A communist economy that is strongly centralized will produce infinately more than a centralized capitalist country [we call these economies statist and fasctist, respectively]. Decentralized communist countries will produce slightly less than capitalist countries for the first 100 years or so, assuming they start at the same time; the main difference being that in the capitalist countries, the capitalists get rich, while the poor starve and in a communist state everybody, assuming the individual in questions works or cannot work for various reasons, lives a possibly fullfilling life. After 100 years or so in both, communists states will eventually produce more, because capitalism always eventually become bogged down in monopolies and malcontents, while communist states continue growing at a perportional rate.trix5817
Nice on paper, but horribly fails in the real world. It doesn't take human nature into hand.
What exactly is it in human nature that contradicts communism; I've often heard people say they want money, but no communist I know supports flat wages.
Read my previous post. Communism takes out competition. Competition is good, and it's necessary. It's in human nature, and in nature in general. Tell me, what species doesn't compete? What makes you think humans are different?
communism does not take out competition any more than capitalism, as has been said in this thread before: "Stalin is to communism as Hitler was to capitalism."
Ahhh yes, and looked where the USSR ended up.........
Has communism ever succeeded? Please, answer.
It ended up significantly better than its capitalist contemporaries, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Communism has succeeded, for the past 20 years Vietnam and China have had the world's highest real GDP growth rate by approximately 4% over their closest competitors, South Korea, who's entire growth resulted from the huge ammount of US soldiers buying from them and Japenese interest, and Ireland, who's growth corresponds to increasing socialist policies. The only places capitalist has "succeeded", Western Europe, the US and Japan have made their profits exclusively from exploitation and imperialism, not by themselves. Even with that, most European countries [Ireland, Spain, Portugel, France, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Norway & Germany] have membership in communist parties at over 30% and about half of those at over 50%.
It's funny you use China as an example. Look at China's standard of living. It's absolute crap compared to the top capitalist countries. Look at Germany. Who has a higher standard of living? Russia, or Germany? Who is better off today and has a more stable government?
Germany has had 60 years to build and have over 30% communist parties membership for most of those years and don't forget, a big chunk of Germany was part of the Soviet Union and they don't have a stable government, a third of the people are neo-statists and they're the only country with neo-nazis in the parlaiment. China's standard of living is crap, but it has two things that you are not considering, it grew from no economy to one of the world's largest in 30 years.
[QUOTE="phragit"]That certainlly explains why less than 10% of Americans own bussinesses, according to your calculations 90% of Americans living now should be dead or manically depressed.tycoonmike
Like owning your own business means you are able to successfully compete. It works the exact same way in the animal kingdom (of which, humanity is the king). They with superior traits are able to multiply and breed and outcompete they with lesser genes. This is evolution. Considering how young America is compared to the life of the Earth, the evolution of a forbidden>A social darwinist with bad grammer, how contradictory; I've seen worse. Communism allows for slef-run businesses and in most communist states, with governmental permission, you can even have employees. Production, though, must run under unions; that is the only real difference [there are also no chain anythings]. Two things that I've said before; according to what you've said 90% of currently living Americans would be dead or manically depressed; and communism is as open as capitalism, it simply doesn't allow for exploitation.
edit: spelling
[QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"]Communism is not what most people think of it, to quote Engles: communism is the liberation of the proletariat. This means that everybody has all freedom, so long as they do not use this freedom to exploit other people. Communism only differs from capitalism, in that it does not allow corperate slavery, it is any social ownership of production and only production, property that is not capital is still privately owned. As far as production, communism is much more variable in the style of economy that it can sustain, versus capitalism. A communist economy that is strongly centralized will produce infinately more than a centralized capitalist country [we call these economies statist and fasctist, respectively]. Decentralized communist countries will produce slightly less than capitalist countries for the first 100 years or so, assuming they start at the same time; the main difference being that in the capitalist countries, the capitalists get rich, while the poor starve and in a communist state everybody, assuming the individual in questions works or cannot work for various reasons, lives a possibly fullfilling life. After 100 years or so in both, communists states will eventually produce more, because capitalism always eventually become bogged down in monopolies and malcontents, while communist states continue growing at a perportional rate.trix5817
Nice on paper, but horribly fails in the real world. It doesn't take human nature into hand.
What exactly is it in human nature that contradicts communism; I've often heard people say they want money, but no communist I know supports flat wages.
Read my previous post. Communism takes out competition. Competition is good, and it's necessary. It's in human nature, and in nature in general. Tell me, what species doesn't compete? What makes you think humans are different?
communism does not take out competition any more than capitalism, as has been said in this thread before: "Stalin is to communism as Hitler was to capitalism."
Ahhh yes, and looked where the USSR ended up.........
Has communism ever succeeded? Please, answer.
It ended up significantly better than its capitalist contemporaries, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Communism has succeeded, for the past 20 years Vietnam and China have had the world's highest real GDP growth rate by approximately 4% over their closest competitors, South Korea, who's entire growth resulted from the huge ammount of US soldiers buying from them and Japenese interest, and Ireland, who's growth corresponds to increasing socialist policies. The only places capitalist has "succeeded", Western Europe, the US and Japan have made their profits exclusively from exploitation and imperialism, not by themselves. Even with that, most European countries [Ireland, Spain, Portugel, France, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Norway & Germany] have membership in communist parties at over 30% and about half of those at over 50%.
[QUOTE="phragit"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"]Communism is not what most people think of it, to quote Engles: communism is the liberation of the proletariat. This means that everybody has all freedom, so long as they do not use this freedom to exploit other people. Communism only differs from capitalism, in that it does not allow corperate slavery, it is any social ownership of production and only production, property that is not capital is still privately owned. As far as production, communism is much more variable in the style of economy that it can sustain, versus capitalism. A communist economy that is strongly centralized will produce infinately more than a centralized capitalist country [we call these economies statist and fasctist, respectively]. Decentralized communist countries will produce slightly less than capitalist countries for the first 100 years or so, assuming they start at the same time; the main difference being that in the capitalist countries, the capitalists get rich, while the poor starve and in a communist state everybody, assuming the individual in questions works or cannot work for various reasons, lives a possibly fullfilling life. After 100 years or so in both, communists states will eventually produce more, because capitalism always eventually become bogged down in monopolies and malcontents, while communist states continue growing at a perportional rate.tycoonmike
Nice on paper, but horribly fails in the real world. It doesn't take human nature into hand.
What exactly is it in human nature that contradicts communism; I've often heard people say they want money, but no communist I know supports flat wages.
In one word, greed. Human greed makes communism impossible because human greed dictates that it must have more goods, that the mind must be materialistic. If the government cannot provide unlimited goods, as only unlimited goods can assuage human greed, then the government becomes more controlling, ultimately failing or reforming itself to better govern policy and economy.
Communism is not statism, most communists are trade unionist and support the state less than capitalists; in addition, capitalism, to the masses, can feed very few, because goods are hogged by the capitalist class, where the lowest classes get nothing. I say capitalist is against the human condition, because it creates struggles along lines of gender, race and [especially] class.
Log in to comment