Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Geoff332 · Oct 15, 2003, 06:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The genocide itself was Neitzsche's original idea as well: he claimed Germans were the "super race" and called for them to eradicate all other races whom were their competitors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Neitzsche made no such claim. As has already been pointed out, he did not consider the German's to be superior to very much. It's more likely, reading his later work in particular, that he foresaw Nazi's as the consequence of the decay of European culture. His latest writings on Wagner make this fairly clear.

The adoption of Nietzsche's ideas by the Nazi's was largely inspired by his sister, Elisabeth. This adoption was always partial -- the concept of Ubermensch appealed nicely to Hitler's neuroses, but he was probably incapable of realising that his hatred precluded him from this category. The fact it was only a partial adoption means that the link between Nietzsche's writings and Hitler's actions is very, very weak.

Impenitent · Oct 15, 2003, 06:39 pm

1. encouraging violence is not condoning genocide... Nietzsche understood that life itself was violent... "That which does not kill me makes me stronger..."

2. the individual comes before the herd... the herd is not a concern for Nietzsche, Nietzsche wrote for the individual

3. the ubermensch was a goal, not a person... hitler was far from an ubermensch

4. re-read Thus Spoke Zarathustra...

Bayou · Oct 16, 2003, 12:07 am

Yes I will take advice from a nihilist.....not.
Whether examples in nature are violent or not, does not mean that humanity must follow those examples.
Not to mention that you are focusing in on events with relatively short occurances in the time frame of nature, and ignoring the beauty, rythm and dynamics of life and bastardizing it's spirit by calling it "violent".
Defining nature as violent is the observation of the ignorant.
I am sorry that impenint finds his choices(stated by G.Adams) so frustrating....but hey impenint is a nihilist, if he did not turn everything we say into a no win situation, he wouldnt be living up to nihilistic philosophy now would he?
Heh encouraging violence is not condoning genocide hmmmm?
Oh is their an ethicallly excepted level of violence?
When does violence give way to peace?
When their is nothing left.
What a wonderful philosophy and so constructive to!
Luckily to hate nothing is nothing to hate, accordingly:
I hate Nihilists.

Hehe, I guess we have one philosopher who we can blame for the distortion of communism: nietzche.
And the propagandist who employ his philosophy.

castille · Oct 16, 2003, 09:08 am

Anyone remember the native American tribes? They were close to Communism, helped each other, etc.

Of course, they also went to war and killed other tribes.

It is impossible to mould humanity into "one big tribe". Psychologically, humans have a need to fit themselves into a specific catagory, and they will maintain links with that catagory unless there is a sudden interruption of pattern.

For example, even Communists in China and the USSR remained loyal to the concept of "China" and "Russia". Why, despite Stalin's efforts, did the people of Kazakh/Estonia/other republics retain ties to their republics, rather than announcing themselves as "Russia"? Even Stalin often visited Georgia, and spared his worst brutalities in his home area.

Unless aliens invade and we are forced to unite, humans will always be at conflict with one another. Have you ever argued with somebody else? What about a fight? Well, so do countries.

G. Adams · Oct 16, 2003, 10:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
G?

1. you CHOOSE to be in the group?
but
2. without the group you DIE?

some choice...

mutual respect and recognizition of rights is a choice as well... not everyone chooses as you would wish... it all is exploitation<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is the natural order of life, unless you wish civilisation to revert to hunter gathering?

And this is a similar choice to working under capitalism. Either you work, or you starve to death. That is unless you were born into a rich family, in which case other people work for you.

G. Adams · Oct 16, 2003, 11:02 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Anyone remember the native American tribes? They were close to Communism, helped each other, etc.

Of course, they also went to war and killed other tribes.

It is impossible to mould humanity into "one big tribe". Psychologically, humans have a need to fit themselves into a specific catagory, and they will maintain links with that catagory unless there is a sudden interruption of pattern.

For example, even Communists in China and the USSR remained loyal to the concept of "China" and "Russia". Why, despite Stalin's efforts, did the people of Kazakh/Estonia/other republics retain ties to their republics, rather than announcing themselves as "Russia"? Even Stalin often visited Georgia, and spared his worst brutalities in his home area.

Unless aliens invade and we are forced to unite, humans will always be at conflict with one another. Have you ever argued with somebody else? What about a fight? Well, so do countries.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

When I fight someone gets a bloody nose. When countries fight thousands, or occaisionally millions, die. As we become more efficient at killing each other we will have to recognise at some point that co-operation rather than conflict is the only way to continue. When that happens we have crossed a turning point, and we will be on our way to real peace, between nations and classes by dissolving both.

Either that or we'll simply wipe out each other totally.

Waychel · Oct 16, 2003, 12:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And this is a similar choice to working under capitalism. Either you work, or you starve to death. That is unless you were born into a rich family, in which case other people work for you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Because of the massive amount of profit that Capitalism generates, we can afford to have a welfare system in the US that keeps people from starving to death if they do not work. Likewise, we have many benefits to working (health plans, among other things) and if one is disabled on the job they can get worker's compensation. Even people who are disabled naturally, making them incapable of work, get money from their state, government and many other independent groups and organizations so that they may not only survive, but live rather decently at that.

We're not exactly the only country with systems such as these either. Capitalism makes countries rich, and the richer the country the more money it can spend upon increasing the decency of living for the less fortunate.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
When I fight someone gets a bloody nose. When countries fight thousands, or occaisionally millions, die. As we become more efficient at killing each other we will have to recognise at some point that co-operation rather than conflict is the only way to continue.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Capitalism has promoted the international economy we have today. There is more cooperation between the countries of the world today than there was in the past, because of foreign trade. In actuality, the majority of the bloodshed of the past was a RESULT of Communism for the most part, as we carried conflicts with the USSR and its allies.

I'd like to see how and why Communism, if it were tried now, would be a successful and utopian exception to all its failed attempts throughout history. Nobody has yet to explain this to me.

G. Adams · Oct 16, 2003, 02:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)

Because of the massive amount of profit that Capitalism generates, we can afford to have a welfare system in the US that keeps people from starving to death if they do not work. Likewise, we have many benefits to working (health plans, among other things) and if one is disabled on the job they can get worker's compensation. Even people who are disabled naturally, making them incapable of work, get money from their state, government and many other independent groups and organizations so that they may not only survive, but live rather decently at that.

We're not exactly the only country with systems such as these either. Capitalism makes countries rich, and the richer the country the more money it can spend upon increasing the decency of living for the less fortunate.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Those benefits were only gained because socialist or socialist governments put them in place, or liberal and conservatives feared the repurcussions of not doing so. They are all the fruits of working class movements throughout the last century. However the working class should not have stopped at these gains, because now that we have them and a class mentality has subsided, the bourgois governments are now cutting welfare where ever they can get away with it. Even in the supposedly left wing government of Tony Blair, they have taken away university grants, introduced tuition fees and propose top up fees. Even the Conservative Party didn't dare do that when they were in power.

Bit by bit that welfare system you hold up as proof of capitalism moderating itself will be stripped away in order to allow profit margins to expand.

Bayou · Oct 17, 2003, 01:19 am

I dont think theirs anything wrong with nationalism, in healthy non-destructive moderate excersisings of it (see the olympics).
It's when nations exploit other nations people for their own personal gain without giving back a fair share (example in world trade today, getting paid .05 cents for a making a product that is priced on the shelf at $30, that is not fair trade SEE Documentary The Corporation for more examples) is the gasoline that sparks socialist movements if their positive or Fascism.

Another problem with the tribal analogy, is the fact that due to severe technological limits (native americans fastest mode of travel was by canoe until horses re-appeared from europeans), tribal communities were the most logical design for a subsistence level existence.
We have come a long way from those tribes, we can communicate with people in places in seconds that it took tribes days, months if not years(!) to communicate with.
Basically what we can do now with our collective knowledge is truly state that : The main parts of my Identity are: human 1st, male/female 2nd, part of my Nation 3rd Ect ect.
Their is no superior human, some may exceed in a certain area, but they are vulnerable in others.
Socialism is the natural answer to uniting humanity.
Finding common ground for introverted socialism(national based sociaism) and extroverted Socialism (international socialism) is the key to the social common wealth.

Waychel · Oct 17, 2003, 02:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Those benefits were only gained because socialist or socialist governments put them in place, or liberal and conservatives feared the repurcussions of not doing so. They are all the fruits of working class movements throughout the last century. However the working class should not have stopped at these gains, because now that we have them and a class mentality has subsided, the bourgois governments are now cutting welfare where ever they can get away with it. Even in the supposedly left wing government of Tony Blair, they have taken away university grants, introduced tuition fees and propose top up fees. Even the Conservative Party didn't dare do that when they were in power.

Bit by bit that welfare system you hold up as proof of capitalism moderating itself will be stripped away in order to allow profit margins to expand.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, those systems were put into place during the Great Depression / Dust Bowl era because we realized the repercussions of not having them in the first place. You seem to believe that these systems exist out of philanthropy, when they do not (at least, not entirely). The welfare system has economic benefits in that it gives people a chance to go back to school or continue searching for work. The ideal is that they will not leech off the system, but benefit from it to help them in finding a new job eventually or working towards having a better career. More people are a part of the work force and contribute a greater deal more to our economy thanks to the welfare system giving them that chance. We would never toss away the welfare system because there would be no benefit in doing so from either an economic or sociological standpoint (there would be a significant increase in crime for one).

We have not cut our welfare system AT ALL. This is a pretty naive statement considering that not only does the welfare system continue to increase in spending and budget every year, but we have broadened it to such an extent that even illegal aliens in this country can depend upon it for aid.

Section 8 · Oct 17, 2003, 02:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, those systems were put into place during the Great Depression / Dust Bowl era because we realized the repercussions of not having them in the first place. You seem to believe that these systems exist out of philanthropy, when they do not (at least, not entirely). The welfare system has economic benefits in that it gives people a chance to go back to school or continue searching for work. The ideal is that they will not leech off the system, but benefit from it to help them in finding a new job eventually or working towards having a better career. More people are a part of the work force and contribute a greater deal more to our economy thanks to the welfare system giving them that chance. We would never toss away the welfare system because there would be no benefit in doing so from either an economic or sociological standpoint (there would be a significant increase in crime for one).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ha! get an education on welfare. They'd be lucky if they got three meals a day. Communism there is no need for welfare, as the workers are as equal as the teachers. Therefore, we don't need welfare under a communist system. Also, communism would work at least 1000 times better than the current welfare system.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
We have not cut our welfare system AT ALL. This is a pretty naive statement considering that not only does the welfare system continue to increase in spending and budget every year, but we have broadened it to such an extent that even illegal aliens in this country can depend upon it for aid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Under Clinton, we cut at least 10,000 people off welfare. Illegal immigrants are forced to get sent back to their country to die, or to work horrible and long hours doing manual labor for three bucks an hour.

Waychel · Oct 17, 2003, 04:38 am

WTF I wrote a huge reply to this and lost it. -_-; AL:JFKKHSHKLDFA

Oh well, here's the Cliff Notes version:

1.) Communism states everyone gets THE EXACT SAME, no more and no less, so it would not work "1000x better" because it would be inconsiderate to varying needs. As with welfare, the people on it DO get 3 meals a day - where I live, out state welfare system even covers snack food. If a person on welfare is in need of more food than the average person, or has more dependents with more mouths to feed, it is as easy as requesting more food stamps to get more food.

2.) Under Clinton, some 10,000 people were cut from the welfare system who were unfairly benefitting from it; committing fraud to get aid they did not need, or more aid than they were in need of. In other words, people cheating the system. In some cases, people had been on welfare for 20+ years just leeching off of it. I fail to see the atrocity in this.

G. Adams · Oct 17, 2003, 07:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Those benefits were only gained because socialist or socialist governments put them in place, or liberal and conservatives feared the repurcussions of not doing so. They are all the fruits of working class movements throughout the last century. However the working class should not have stopped at these gains, because now that we have them and a class mentality has subsided, the bourgois governments are now cutting welfare where ever they can get away with it. Even in the supposedly left wing government of Tony Blair, they have taken away university grants, introduced tuition fees and propose top up fees. Even the Conservative Party didn't dare do that when they were in power.

Bit by bit that welfare system you hold up as proof of capitalism moderating itself will be stripped away in order to allow profit margins to expand.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, those systems were put into place during the Great Depression / Dust Bowl era because we realized the repercussions of not having them in the first place. You seem to believe that these systems exist out of philanthropy, when they do not (at least, not entirely). The welfare system has economic benefits in that it gives people a chance to go back to school or continue searching for work. The ideal is that they will not leech off the system, but benefit from it to help them in finding a new job eventually or working towards having a better career. More people are a part of the work force and contribute a greater deal more to our economy thanks to the welfare system giving them that chance. We would never toss away the welfare system because there would be no benefit in doing so from either an economic or sociological standpoint (there would be a significant increase in crime for one).

We have not cut our welfare system AT ALL. This is a pretty naive statement considering that not only does the welfare system continue to increase in spending and budget every year, but we have broadened it to such an extent that even illegal aliens in this country can depend upon it for aid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Firstly, I speak from a European perspective on this issue, so my arguments may not always be entirely applicable in a US context. However this is not such an occaision.

Depressions are an inevitable part of capitalism, when the holders of capital realise there is no more expansion to be made, they withdraw their capital, pulling the rug from under the feet of the economy. So the Great Depressionis not so rare an event that it alone brought about such changes. The fact remains that if the centre parties did not adopt socialist policies, though not socialism, the people would have moved more and more leftwards for solutions. The utter horror at such an idea to the elites drives them to adopt policies that would otherwise be contemptible. But when these policies succeed in helping the population out of the rut, and the populace become more centred politically again, they chop away at the social security nets.

Contextually, I can't speak for the US welfare system. I will let Sec8 do that as he is bettered placed to. But from a British point of view, our welfare and state provision has been dropping off the map since Thatcher got in. Our NHS is in a right state through 15 years of underfunding (trying to drive us into private health care) and further and higher education budgets being slashed as well as student aid, THEN making us pay for our higher education. This is the greatest hypocracy, since just about every current government minister themselves benefitted from no fees and grants.

Regarding your two points on communism....

Nowhere in Marx's works nor in the manifesto's of current communist parties (in britain, looking at CPGB, SWP, AWL, CPB, SPGB, SPEW) is there advocation of people recieving EXACTLEY the same. Its 'from each according to his ability, to each according to to his needs'. Everyone is provided for, and provisions made for individual development outside the group, providing it does not impinge upon other peoples basic rights.

Bayou · Oct 19, 2003, 01:57 am

Yes G,Adams points out the #1 distorted fact about Communism:

All people are paid exactly the same.

This is only present in STALINIST theory of communism which is nothing more than a beurocratic dictatorship, Anyone who's done a bit of research will find TROTSKY's opposing theory(stated by G.Adams again) that ultimatly got him expelled and killed by the Stalinistic power structure.
I would like to point out that in this day and age of so called "cost cutting" why is the beurocracy slow and vapid and bogged down in red tape still?
Could it be that money does not define efficient and effective government?
The hilarity at the moment is with George W Bush's government is cutting the tax support from the state governments and literally financing with their deficit a Beurocratic dictatorship of the federalist state.
And we all know what happened to the Soviet Union when they did this......

castille · Oct 24, 2003, 08:20 am

Actually Capitalism is the one being distorted these days. People are saying its "evil, dictatorial, sadistic, machoistic, etc etc". How many protestors do you see rallying against a concept that doesnt even exist?

Communism, in contrast, is recieving international support. Unfortunately not from the brightest ones! The funniest had to be the bunch of kids protesting against McDonalds, then finishing the protest and buying a few Big Macs in their Nike shoes and shirts....

G. Adams · Oct 24, 2003, 09:32 am

Where the hell is communism recieving international support?

And capitalism IS being distorted in some ways.

According to Max Weber, he presented an opposing theory to Marx so you should like him Cas, the spirit of capitalism is that instead of people working for consumption, they work for profit. And unlike consumption, where you stop or slow down when your full, profit has no 'full'. So when people have maxmisied their profit in the rules of the game that they set out, they start to bend and break them because they seek further profit.

So Capitalism is being distorted at one end to protect those who are already rich and to allow them to get even more rich, while it is being fully realised by the poor. They have no barriers to trade, or subsidies, safety regulations or even piffly things like human rights to stand in the way of capitalism.

Bayou · Oct 27, 2003, 01:55 am

Capitalism is being distorted?
Capitalism is nothing better than a number theory, It's vey creation is to be subserviant to human economic system.
Capitalism is not a way to run a society or government, just an economic system.
Socialism, communism wants to put a concious element in the system.

Oct 15, 2003, 06:39 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The genocide itself was Neitzsche's original idea as well: he claimed Germans were the "super race" and called for them to eradicate all other races whom were their competitors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Neitzsche made no such claim. As has already been pointed out, he did not consider the German's to be superior to very much. It's more likely, reading his later work in particular, that he foresaw Nazi's as the consequence of the decay of European culture. His latest writings on Wagner make this fairly clear. The adoption of Nietzsche's ideas by the Nazi's was largely inspired by his sister, Elisabeth. This adoption was always partial -- the concept of Ubermensch appealed nicely to Hitler's neuroses, but he was probably incapable of realising that his hatred precluded him from this category. The fact it was only a partial adoption means that the link between Nietzsche's writings and Hitler's actions is very, very weak.

Oct 15, 2003, 06:39 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	1. encouraging violence is not condoning genocide... Nietzsche understood that life itself was violent... "That which does not kill me makes me stronger..." 2. the individual comes before the herd... the herd is not a concern for Nietzsche, Nietzsche wrote for the individual 3. the ubermensch was a goal, not a person... hitler was far from an ubermensch 4. re-read Thus Spoke Zarathustra... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 16, 2003, 12:07 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	Yes I will take advice from a nihilist.....not. Whether examples in nature are violent or not, does not mean that humanity must follow those examples. Not to mention that you are focusing in on events with relatively short occurances in the time frame of nature, and ignoring the beauty, rythm and dynamics of life and bastardizing it's spirit by calling it "violent". Defining nature as violent is the observation of the ignorant. I am sorry that impenint finds his choices(stated by G.Adams) so frustrating....but hey impenint is a nihilist, if he did not turn everything we say into a no win situation, he wouldnt be living up to nihilistic philosophy now would he? Heh encouraging violence is not condoning genocide hmmmm? Oh is their an ethicallly excepted level of violence? When does violence give way to peace? When their is nothing left. What a wonderful philosophy and so constructive to! Luckily to hate nothing is nothing to hate, accordingly: I hate Nihilists. Hehe, I guess we have one philosopher who we can blame for the distortion of communism: nietzche. And the propagandist who employ his philosophy. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Oct 16, 2003, 09:08 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Anyone remember the native American tribes? They were close to Communism, helped each other, etc. Of course, they also went to war and killed other tribes. It is impossible to mould humanity into "one big tribe". Psychologically, humans have a need to fit themselves into a specific catagory, and they will maintain links with that catagory unless there is a sudden interruption of pattern. For example, even Communists in China and the USSR remained loyal to the concept of "China" and "Russia". Why, despite Stalin's efforts, did the people of Kazakh/Estonia/other republics retain ties to their republics, rather than announcing themselves as "Russia"? Even Stalin often visited Georgia, and spared his worst brutalities in his home area. Unless aliens invade and we are forced to unite, humans will always be at conflict with one another. Have you ever argued with somebody else? What about a fight? Well, so do countries. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 16, 2003, 10:56 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) G? 1. you CHOOSE to be in the group? but 2. without the group you DIE? some choice... mutual respect and recognizition of rights is a choice as well... not everyone chooses as you would wish... it all is exploitation<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is the natural order of life, unless you wish civilisation to revert to hunter gathering? And this is a similar choice to working under capitalism. Either you work, or you starve to death. That is unless you were born into a rich family, in which case other people work for you. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 16, 2003, 11:02 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Anyone remember the native American tribes? They were close to Communism, helped each other, etc. Of course, they also went to war and killed other tribes. It is impossible to mould humanity into "one big tribe". Psychologically, humans have a need to fit themselves into a specific catagory, and they will maintain links with that catagory unless there is a sudden interruption of pattern. For example, even Communists in China and the USSR remained loyal to the concept of "China" and "Russia". Why, despite Stalin's efforts, did the people of Kazakh/Estonia/other republics retain ties to their republics, rather than announcing themselves as "Russia"? Even Stalin often visited Georgia, and spared his worst brutalities in his home area. Unless aliens invade and we are forced to unite, humans will always be at conflict with one another. Have you ever argued with somebody else? What about a fight? Well, so do countries.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> When I fight someone gets a bloody nose. When countries fight thousands, or occaisionally millions, die. As we become more efficient at killing each other we will have to recognise at some point that co-operation rather than conflict is the only way to continue. When that happens we have crossed a turning point, and we will be on our way to real peace, between nations and classes by dissolving both. Either that or we'll simply wipe out each other totally. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 16, 2003, 12:54 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by And this is a similar choice to working under capitalism. Either you work, or you starve to death. That is unless you were born into a rich family, in which case other people work for you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because of the massive amount of profit that Capitalism generates, we can afford to have a welfare system in the US that keeps people from starving to death if they do not work. Likewise, we have many benefits to working (health plans, among other things) and if one is disabled on the job they can get worker's compensation. Even people who are disabled naturally, making them incapable of work, get money from their state, government and many other independent groups and organizations so that they may not only survive, but live rather decently at that. We're not exactly the only country with systems such as these either. Capitalism makes countries rich, and the richer the country the more money it can spend upon increasing the decency of living for the less fortunate. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by When I fight someone gets a bloody nose. When countries fight thousands, or occaisionally millions, die. As we become more efficient at killing each other we will have to recognise at some point that co-operation rather than conflict is the only way to continue.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Capitalism has promoted the international economy we have today. There is more cooperation between the countries of the world today than there was in the past, because of foreign trade. In actuality, the majority of the bloodshed of the past was a RESULT of Communism for the most part, as we carried conflicts with the USSR and its allies. I'd like to see how and why Communism, if it were tried now, would be a successful and utopian exception to all its failed attempts throughout history. Nobody has yet to explain this to me. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 16, 2003, 02:35 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Because of the massive amount of profit that Capitalism generates, we can afford to have a welfare system in the US that keeps people from starving to death if they do not work. Likewise, we have many benefits to working (health plans, among other things) and if one is disabled on the job they can get worker's compensation. Even people who are disabled naturally, making them incapable of work, get money from their state, government and many other independent groups and organizations so that they may not only survive, but live rather decently at that. We're not exactly the only country with systems such as these either. Capitalism makes countries rich, and the richer the country the more money it can spend upon increasing the decency of living for the less fortunate. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Those benefits were only gained because socialist or socialist governments put them in place, or liberal and conservatives feared the repurcussions of not doing so. They are all the fruits of working class movements throughout the last century. However the working class should not have stopped at these gains, because now that we have them and a class mentality has subsided, the bourgois governments are now cutting welfare where ever they can get away with it. Even in the supposedly left wing government of Tony Blair, they have taken away university grants, introduced tuition fees and propose top up fees. Even the Conservative Party didn't dare do that when they were in power. Bit by bit that welfare system you hold up as proof of capitalism moderating itself will be stripped away in order to allow profit margins to expand. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 17, 2003, 01:19 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	I dont think theirs anything wrong with nationalism, in healthy non-destructive moderate excersisings of it (see the olympics). It's when nations exploit other nations people for their own personal gain without giving back a fair share (example in world trade today, getting paid .05 cents for a making a product that is priced on the shelf at $30, that is not fair trade SEE Documentary The Corporation for more examples) is the gasoline that sparks socialist movements if their positive or Fascism. Another problem with the tribal analogy, is the fact that due to severe technological limits (native americans fastest mode of travel was by canoe until horses re-appeared from europeans), tribal communities were the most logical design for a subsistence level existence. We have come a long way from those tribes, we can communicate with people in places in seconds that it took tribes days, months if not years(!) to communicate with. Basically what we can do now with our collective knowledge is truly state that : The main parts of my Identity are: human 1st, male/female 2nd, part of my Nation 3rd Ect ect. Their is no superior human, some may exceed in a certain area, but they are vulnerable in others. Socialism is the natural answer to uniting humanity. Finding common ground for introverted socialism(national based sociaism) and extroverted Socialism (international socialism) is the key to the social common wealth. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Oct 17, 2003, 02:24 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Those benefits were only gained because socialist or socialist governments put them in place, or liberal and conservatives feared the repurcussions of not doing so. They are all the fruits of working class movements throughout the last century. However the working class should not have stopped at these gains, because now that we have them and a class mentality has subsided, the bourgois governments are now cutting welfare where ever they can get away with it. Even in the supposedly left wing government of Tony Blair, they have taken away university grants, introduced tuition fees and propose top up fees. Even the Conservative Party didn't dare do that when they were in power. Bit by bit that welfare system you hold up as proof of capitalism moderating itself will be stripped away in order to allow profit margins to expand.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, those systems were put into place during the Great Depression / Dust Bowl era because we realized the repercussions of not having them in the first place. You seem to believe that these systems exist out of philanthropy, when they do not (at least, not entirely). The welfare system has economic benefits in that it gives people a chance to go back to school or continue searching for work. The ideal is that they will not leech off the system, but benefit from it to help them in finding a new job eventually or working towards having a better career. More people are a part of the work force and contribute a greater deal more to our economy thanks to the welfare system giving them that chance. We would never toss away the welfare system because there would be no benefit in doing so from either an economic or sociological standpoint (there would be a significant increase in crime for one). We have not cut our welfare system AT ALL. This is a pretty naive statement considering that not only does the welfare system continue to increase in spending and budget every year, but we have broadened it to such an extent that even illegal aliens in this country can depend upon it for aid. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 17, 2003, 02:30 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Actually, those systems were put into place during the Great Depression / Dust Bowl era because we realized the repercussions of not having them in the first place. You seem to believe that these systems exist out of philanthropy, when they do not (at least, not entirely). The welfare system has economic benefits in that it gives people a chance to go back to school or continue searching for work. The ideal is that they will not leech off the system, but benefit from it to help them in finding a new job eventually or working towards having a better career. More people are a part of the work force and contribute a greater deal more to our economy thanks to the welfare system giving them that chance. We would never toss away the welfare system because there would be no benefit in doing so from either an economic or sociological standpoint (there would be a significant increase in crime for one).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ha! get an education on welfare. They'd be lucky if they got three meals a day. Communism there is no need for welfare, as the workers are as equal as the teachers. Therefore, we don't need welfare under a communist system. Also, communism would work at least 1000 times better than the current welfare system. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by We have not cut our welfare system AT ALL. This is a pretty naive statement considering that not only does the welfare system continue to increase in spending and budget every year, but we have broadened it to such an extent that even illegal aliens in this country can depend upon it for aid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Under Clinton, we cut at least 10,000 people off welfare. Illegal immigrants are forced to get sent back to their country to die, or to work horrible and long hours doing manual labor for three bucks an hour.

Oct 17, 2003, 04:38 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	WTF I wrote a huge reply to this and lost it. -_-; AL:JFKKHSHKLDFA Oh well, here's the Cliff Notes version: 1.) Communism states everyone gets THE EXACT SAME, no more and no less, so it would not work "1000x better" because it would be inconsiderate to varying needs. As with welfare, the people on it DO get 3 meals a day - where I live, out state welfare system even covers snack food. If a person on welfare is in need of more food than the average person, or has more dependents with more mouths to feed, it is as easy as requesting more food stamps to get more food. 2.) Under Clinton, some 10,000 people were cut from the welfare system who were unfairly benefitting from it; committing fraud to get aid they did not need, or more aid than they were in need of. In other words, people cheating the system. In some cases, people had been on welfare for 20+ years just leeching off of it. I fail to see the atrocity in this. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 17, 2003, 07:35 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Those benefits were only gained because socialist or socialist governments put them in place, or liberal and conservatives feared the repurcussions of not doing so. They are all the fruits of working class movements throughout the last century. However the working class should not have stopped at these gains, because now that we have them and a class mentality has subsided, the bourgois governments are now cutting welfare where ever they can get away with it. Even in the supposedly left wing government of Tony Blair, they have taken away university grants, introduced tuition fees and propose top up fees. Even the Conservative Party didn't dare do that when they were in power. Bit by bit that welfare system you hold up as proof of capitalism moderating itself will be stripped away in order to allow profit margins to expand.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, those systems were put into place during the Great Depression / Dust Bowl era because we realized the repercussions of not having them in the first place. You seem to believe that these systems exist out of philanthropy, when they do not (at least, not entirely). The welfare system has economic benefits in that it gives people a chance to go back to school or continue searching for work. The ideal is that they will not leech off the system, but benefit from it to help them in finding a new job eventually or working towards having a better career. More people are a part of the work force and contribute a greater deal more to our economy thanks to the welfare system giving them that chance. We would never toss away the welfare system because there would be no benefit in doing so from either an economic or sociological standpoint (there would be a significant increase in crime for one). We have not cut our welfare system AT ALL. This is a pretty naive statement considering that not only does the welfare system continue to increase in spending and budget every year, but we have broadened it to such an extent that even illegal aliens in this country can depend upon it for aid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Firstly, I speak from a European perspective on this issue, so my arguments may not always be entirely applicable in a US context. However this is not such an occaision. Depressions are an inevitable part of capitalism, when the holders of capital realise there is no more expansion to be made, they withdraw their capital, pulling the rug from under the feet of the economy. So the Great Depressionis not so rare an event that it alone brought about such changes. The fact remains that if the centre parties did not adopt socialist policies, though not socialism, the people would have moved more and more leftwards for solutions. The utter horror at such an idea to the elites drives them to adopt policies that would otherwise be contemptible. But when these policies succeed in helping the population out of the rut, and the populace become more centred politically again, they chop away at the social security nets. Contextually, I can't speak for the US welfare system. I will let Sec8 do that as he is bettered placed to. But from a British point of view, our welfare and state provision has been dropping off the map since Thatcher got in. Our NHS is in a right state through 15 years of underfunding (trying to drive us into private health care) and further and higher education budgets being slashed as well as student aid, THEN making us pay for our higher education. This is the greatest hypocracy, since just about every current government minister themselves benefitted from no fees and grants. Regarding your two points on communism.... Nowhere in Marx's works nor in the manifesto's of current communist parties (in britain, looking at CPGB, SWP, AWL, CPB, SPGB, SPEW) is there advocation of people recieving EXACTLEY the same. Its 'from each according to his ability, to each according to to his needs'. Everyone is provided for, and provisions made for individual development outside the group, providing it does not impinge upon other peoples basic rights. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 19, 2003, 01:57 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	Yes G,Adams points out the #1 distorted fact about Communism: All people are paid exactly the same. This is only present in STALINIST theory of communism which is nothing more than a beurocratic dictatorship, Anyone who's done a bit of research will find TROTSKY's opposing theory(stated by G.Adams again) that ultimatly got him expelled and killed by the Stalinistic power structure. I would like to point out that in this day and age of so called "cost cutting" why is the beurocracy slow and vapid and bogged down in red tape still? Could it be that money does not define efficient and effective government? The hilarity at the moment is with George W Bush's government is cutting the tax support from the state governments and literally financing with their deficit a Beurocratic dictatorship of the federalist state. And we all know what happened to the Soviet Union when they did this...... <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Oct 24, 2003, 08:20 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Actually Capitalism is the one being distorted these days. People are saying its "evil, dictatorial, sadistic, machoistic, etc etc". How many protestors do you see rallying against a concept that doesnt even exist? Communism, in contrast, is recieving international support. Unfortunately not from the brightest ones! The funniest had to be the bunch of kids protesting against McDonalds, then finishing the protest and buying a few Big Macs in their Nike shoes and shirts.... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 24, 2003, 09:32 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	Where the hell is communism recieving international support? And capitalism IS being distorted in some ways. According to Max Weber, he presented an opposing theory to Marx so you should like him Cas, the spirit of capitalism is that instead of people working for consumption, they work for profit. And unlike consumption, where you stop or slow down when your full, profit has no 'full'. So when people have maxmisied their profit in the rules of the game that they set out, they start to bend and break them because they seek further profit. So Capitalism is being distorted at one end to protect those who are already rich and to allow them to get even more rich, while it is being fully realised by the poor. They have no barriers to trade, or subsidies, safety regulations or even piffly things like human rights to stand in the way of capitalism. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 27, 2003, 01:55 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	Capitalism is being distorted? Capitalism is nothing better than a number theory, It's vey creation is to be subserviant to human economic system. Capitalism is not a way to run a society or government, just an economic system. Socialism, communism wants to put a concious element in the system. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>