Anti-Communists, what do you think Communism is?

[Phil Free]

How much do you think you know, really, about Communism or Anarchism? More often than not, I think not much. Most likely due to your views being heavily influenced, if not completely created, by pro-Capitalist propaganda and media-meddling.

A reminder:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

Did Communism ever happen in Russia, China, or Cuba? No. What happened in those parts of the world was simply State Capitalism (as opposed to laissez faire capitalism).

Socialism is (using the most accurate definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism):

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Ideally, Communism is state socialism, where socialism is the end, and the state is the means, and the people come first (rather than the State).

In Russia, China, Cuba, etc - the State takes from the workers that which they produced with the apparent intent of redistributing it evenly. However, historically, when the means of production and distribution are owned by a bureaucracy, that bureaucracy becomes, no matter what the original intent, no different than a corporation.

The State becomes the owning class as those running it decide to make a profit and the workers become the working class and suffer. The centralization of wealth and power result and such systems cease to be Communist.

So one can't really blame Communism for the atrocities suffered under pseudo-Communist regimes. It's the capitalists running that State that are to blame. The economic failures of such States is due to the fact that they were trying to maintain as much as possible the appearance of being Socialist, while actually functioning as Capitalist States. No easy feat, obviously.

Communism has never even existed in Russia or China!

As for Anarchism...

Anarchism has always been a Socialist/Communist movement, in that the idea is to give power to the workers and decentralize wealth, despite what those so-called Anarcho-Capitalists will try to tell you (anarchist capitalism is an oxymoron). Just like Communists, they seek to decentralise power and wealth. Unlike Communists they don't trust the State to act in the people's favor. They're strong believers that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Anarchists were around long before Russia, Cuba, and China attempted (and failed) to become Communist states. Of course, the failure of these places to become Communist only buttressed the Anarchists belief that State Communism was an impossibility, and that only the Libertarian path could bring about true Communism.

Summary:

1) Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. were never Communist States.

2) Those States were awkward and ineffectual Capitalist States that struggled between trying to appear, for the sake of keeping the workers from revolting, to be Socialist while functioning in reality as Capitalist nations.

3) Anarchism is a Communist (or socialist, if you prefer) movement that does not trust the state, as opposed to State Communism, and apparently for a good reason.

[G. Adams]

I am an anarcho-communist, though my opinions have moved around a bit within the hard left.

I agree with much you have to say, although I would like to bring you up on your "what communism is".

To the best of my knowledge, (apart from being a politics student at Keele Uni I have also been involved with the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Workers Party (UK), the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Alliance and Respect), Communism as an ideology is NOT state socialism. Communism, in itself, is the stage of economic relations where all property (here we are talking of only the means of production) is communally owned, not by the state, but by the people. The communist stage is reached when, as opposed to the "preperation" phase of (Lenin's idea of,) Socialism, the state has withered and died. The Communist idealogy is that in order to achieve communism, one must go through the socialist phase. This is where all property is controlled by the state, the dictatorship of the proleteriat, in order to organise society in such a manner that Communism can be reached.

As you say about, anarchism, anarchists distrust any state, because a states function is always self-preservation, regardless of the principles it was founded upon. Therefore society, the people themselves, must organise themselves into a communist system. This prevents power being centralised, and therefore prevents a new tyranny.

So, I would argue it is Communist's fault for ignoring human tendancies to act on behalf of themselves. And it is not as if there were not others who said as I said before the Russian Revolution, they just, impatiently, chose to ignore it.

[Gorgo]

Chomsky defines anarchism as, if I remember correctly, the removal of illegitimate authority.

[Section 8]

You're incorrect in your definition of anarcgy Phil. I am an anarchist, a market anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist.

As to openents of communism being ill informed, I'm afraid you're mistaken I'm thoroughly educated in the writings of Berkman, Bakunin, and Marx.

[The Dunedan]

Speaking as a former Communist myself, I -know- what Communism is, and I despise it.
Communism is a pie-in-the-sky psuedo-utopian dreamland in which all persons are not only inherently equal ( equal before the law ) but materially equal as well. As a consequence, the lazy are rewarded for being lazy, the stupid for being stupid, and the vicious for being vicious.
Communism requires that a person place his the needs of the lazy, stupid, and vicious before his own, even to the point of allowing them to victimize him physically; after all, according to Communism, there is no property, least of all one's own body. If one's body is not one's property, then it ( like evrything else ) is part of the collective, and may be used by the lazy, stupid, and vicious for whatever purposes they wish.
Communism requires that no one person have any advantage over any other person; therefore Communism proscribes the posession or use of weapons for the purposes of self-defense. However, lynch-mob violence againts "Enemies of the Proletariat" is more than tolerated; it is expected. Communists frequently point to the French Revolution as a working example of Proletarian revolution in action; they're more right than they'll admit. Maximillian Robspierre is a perfect example for these sorts.
Communism is predicated upon theft, at very least in it's opening phases, wherein the property of the "wealthy" is forcibly confiscated and "Redistributed" to the poor.
Communism is Democratic. I do not trust Democracy. In a Communist society, a large enough Majority can/could vote to do whatever it liked to the minority. Again, the French Revolution is a perfect example of this.


As for Anarchism:
I am currently straddling the line between Minarchist and Anarcho-Capitalist. I do not believe in more than an absolute minimum of State control of ANYTHING, and am leaning towards -no- State control of anything, including economics. I believe that people should be free to engage in whatever buisness they like, work whatever hours they want, charge/pay whatever they can afford to, and make as much money, chickens, or land as they see fit. I do not believe that the State should intervene in the Market by means such as taxes, State-granted monopolies, Corporate Welfare, or even the existance of Corporations to begin with. Such things interfere with the free flow of capital and ideas, and should be eliminated.
As for the "Anarchist" kiddies who like to wear all-black, sneer down their noses at everyone else, smash windows of Starbucks, and generally harass honest buisnessmen; nothing but contempt. These twits seem to think that "Anarchy" means "Chaos" and do everything in their irritating power to bring that chaos about.

[Section 8]

Dunedan, about Market Anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism, I suggest you check out www.anti-state.com, a wonderful resource.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by G. Adams, To the best of my knowledge, (apart from being a politics student at Keele Uni I have also been involved with the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Workers Party (UK), the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Alliance and Respect), Communism as an ideology is NOT state socialism. Communism, in itself, is the stage of economic relations where all property (here we are talking of only the means of production) is communally owned, not by the state, but by the people. The communist stage is reached when, as opposed to the "preperation" phase of (Lenin's idea of,) Socialism, the state has withered and died. The Communist idealogy is that in order to achieve communism, one must go through the socialist phase. This is where all property is controlled by the state, the dictatorship of the proleteriat, in order to organise society in such a manner that Communism can be reached. So, I would argue it is Communist's fault for ignoring human tendancies to act on behalf of themselves. And it is not as if there were not others who said as I said before the Russian Revolution, they just, impatiently, chose to ignore it.

My problem with your argument here is merely that when you use the term Socialism and Communism as distinct, unlike the way I use it (interchangeably) we get problems when we hand non-communist folk pamphlets such as Isaac Puente's "Libertarian Communism" or when we introduce them to people who throw around terms like Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Communism, etc.

See, when one does as the Marxists and the academics do and, whether it is entirely correct or not, seperates Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism, we get very confused people in today's world. I would understand the distinctions, but would consider them acedemical fluff. Others might think that "Libertarian Communism" sounds redundant, so why seperate it from Communism? Or why use the term Anarcho-Communist? And aren't Anarcho-Socialism and Libertarian-Socialism oxymorons?

I don't dissagree with you, but I have a tendency not to seperate Communism and Socialism because the Anarchists use those terms to "label" themselves as well. Instead, I simply differentiate between Authoritarian and Libertarian sides of the communist/socialist spectrum.

Yes, on both ends of the spectrum, libertarian and authoritarian, the goal is a stateless society where power and wealth are decentralized and dissolved - but their means to that end are very different, and that is only where I make the distinction.

I'd just, for the sake of the uninitiated and the Libertarian Communists out there, argue that it is not communist's fault, it is the State Communist's fault. But that would not be an argument against your statement. It would be a difference in semantics.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Chomsky defines anarchism as, if I remember correctly, the removal of illegitimate authority.

I agree...

[5010]

Communism is the odd idea that creatures defined by billions of years of competition and natural selection can thrive without it.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by The Dunedan,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Dunedan,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Speaking as a former Communist myself, I -know- what Communism is, and I despise it.[/b]

This will be interesting... I used to be a card carrying member of the American Libertarian Party, and I -know- what Capitalism is, and I despise it.

Originally posted by The Dunedan,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Dunedan,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Communism is a pie-in-the-sky psuedo-utopian dreamland in which all persons are not only inherently equal ( equal before the law ) but materially equal as well. As a consequence, the lazy are rewarded for being lazy, the stupid for being stupid, and the vicious for being vicious.[/b]

So, by psuedo-utopian you mean that it really is possible?
We are inherently equal, and should be especially when it comes to "law". How could you ever prove that we are not? If you can not, then I would say it is safe to assume that we are at least born equal.
The lazy are rewarded? Wrong. If we don't work towards our goal of communism (libertarian or otherwise) we will not have our communism. We value our own work more than Capitalists (who value the work of their wage-slaves rather than their own - they're quite happy having others work for them while they play golf) do, I'd wager. In a commune, if you don't tend to the garden, you don't eat from it.
The stupid are rewarded? Wrong. At least

Originally posted by The Dunedan, Communism requires that a person place his the needs of the lazy, stupid, and vicious before his own, even to the point of allowing them to victimize him physically; after all, according to Communism, there is no property, least of all one's own body. If one's body is not one's property, then it ( like evrything else ) is part of the collective, and may be used by the lazy, stupid, and vicious for whatever purposes they wish.

Should I even justify this with a response???
I think here you are actually arguing that people can be raped and beaten simply because their bodies are not their property! This is beyond silly. Communism is a result from the persuit of social justice and empathy towards your fellow human being. Sadists usually find the ideas of communism very very distasteful.

Not to mention that your entire argument here is contridictory to itself! You rely on the term "the vicious" here. Who are these "vicious" people? Aren't you emplying that they are communists as well? Ok then. If this is the case, then the "vicious" would also have to follow the rules of their communist society.

A) These "vicious" people as you call them are communists.
B) All communists (as you say) are supposed to put their needs after the needs of others.
C) The vicious are supposed to put their needs after the needs of others.

So how could a vicious person physically violate another to suit his or her own needs, when the needs of the violated should be coming before his own? He can't, and the other communists should see that he is being selfish and should expell him from their community if he decides to put his own selfish desires before the others' simple desire to live unmolested.

Your argument here is a total, but amusing, failure.

Originally posted by The Dunedan, Communism requires that no one person have any advantage over any other person; therefore Communism proscribes the posession or use of weapons for the purposes of self-defense. However, lynch-mob violence againts "Enemies of the Proletariat" is more than tolerated; it is expected. Communists frequently point to the French Revolution as a working example of Proletarian revolution in action; they're more right than they'll admit.

Pardon me, but I am a Communist, and I am a pacifist. So, again, your wrong. At least you are wrong in suggesting that all communists are violent.

I do believe in self-defense, but only self-defense, or the defense of the weak. So violence is not out of the question, it is just not "lynch-mob violence" as you say.

Is it wrong to attack a person violating a weaker person, in that weaker person's defense? Then why is it so horrible to think that there are Communists that attack leaders of Nation-States who are often the worst kind of murderers and poisoners in the world?

Moving right along now...

Originally posted by The Dunedan, Communism is predicated upon theft, at very least in it's opening phases, wherein the property of the "wealthy" is forcibly confiscated and "Redistributed" to the poor.

No, theft is in this case a Capitalist idea, foreign to Communists - who believe that the only theft is property, that is: theft is when an individual claims land, natural resources, and that which is produced and created by the worker for his very own.

Let me throw this one at you: you say communists "steal" so they can redistribute property. But what is a capitalist doing when he claims earth that is by no right, but by MIGHT, his very own? And what about those workers that have what they created ripped from their very hands and sold as though it was the capitalists, and not the workers, simply because the Capitalist "owns" (through employment) the worker's labour?

Capitalists call us thieves, we call them thieves. There's no use generalising, as you have, here. We're all thieves to someone - but at least communists are striving for equality while the capitalists only seek to use the masses to elevate themselves.

<!--QuoteBegin-The Dunedan,@
Communism is Democratic. I do not trust Democracy. In a Communist society, a large enough Majority can/could vote to do whatever it liked to the minority. Again, the French Revolution is a perfect example of this.[/quote]

Oh, ye olde "Tyranny of the Majority" argument. While I'm not totally in dissagreement here with you, as I am an anarchist, I do think the Tyranny of the Majority argument to be a bit shallow.

For example, yes - the Salem Witch Trials were sick. That was indeed an example of the majority tyrannizing the innocent minority.

However, what choice have we? (Besides Anarchism, in which you can drop out of a community in which you find the 'rules" distasteful and find or found a community more to your liking.) Are you saying that a Dictatorship is better?

No, I would rather give up my happiness for the happiness of many, than to have me and my family and friends give up their happiness for the (sick) amusement of a tyrant. I think numbers DO matter, here, friend. Let's not be infantile.

As for Anarchism:
<!--QuoteBegin-The Dunedan,
I am currently straddling the line between Minarchist and Anarcho-Capitalist. I do not believe in more than an absolute minimum of State control of ANYTHING, and am leaning towards -no- State control of anything, including economics. I believe that people should be free to engage in whatever buisness they like, work whatever hours they want, charge/pay whatever they can afford to, and make as much money, chickens, or land as they see fit. I do not believe that the State should intervene in the Market by means such as taxes, State-granted monopolies, Corporate Welfare, or even the existance of Corporations to begin with. Such things interfere with the free flow of capital and ideas, and should be eliminated.
As for the "Anarchist" kiddies who like to wear all-black, sneer down their noses at everyone else, smash windows of Starbucks, and generally harass honest buisnessmen; nothing but contempt. These twits seem to think that "Anarchy" means "Chaos" and do everything in their irritating power to bring that chaos about.[/quote]

As for the "anarchist" kiddies who wear business suits and turn their businesses and corporations into empires at the expense of the working class, and themselves into emperors; nothing but contempt.

When I was a card-carrying member of the "American Libertarian Party" (I was younger and much more naive then), I thought what they were asking for was complete freedom and tolerance. It didn't take me long to figure out their definition of freedom and tolerance, though.

What so called "Anarcho-Capitalists" and "American Libertarians" want is complete freedom for themselves (while enslaving the working class) and complete tolerance, from the minimized state, of their unethical and totalitarian practices. I say you're monsters, Sadists every one of you, that would enjoy the fruit of the labour of thousands of others - that would pay a worker some of what he should have earned and take the rest for yourself so you don't have to work at all.

No, I've debated on the horribly mistitled site http://anarchism.net/ plenty of times. They have not convinced me of any of their B.S. and in fact, they've been only able to admit their crookedness.

Laissez faire capitalism has always been and always will be about one person reaching the top at the expense of others, the elimination of competition, and the accumulation and centralization of wealth and power. Everything that anarchism is not.

Laissez faire capitalism, and capitalism in general, are just alternative ways of saying totalitarianism.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by 5010, Communism is the odd idea that creatures defined by billions of years of competition and natural selection can thrive without it.

Uh... you're confusing darwinist evolution with human politics and economics.

I suppose all ants then, within their own colony, compete, if what you say is correct. To cite one example among many...

I guess that we have a problem here people: if 5010 is correct, then all those people that have studied animals are wrong, and therefore 5010 is incorrect, for 5010 has based his/her conclusion on what these very people have studied...

woah....

[Dan_77]

Phill, China, USSR, et all were communist societies according to Marxist communism. They were in the first stage of communism, the "dictatorship of the proletariot." The problem is, when they reached that point, they discovered the same problem that every communist society has discovered: People are generally lazy and self-serving, and when given the option to work or to have everything provided for nothing, they generally will choose the latter.

An interesting problem I have with the "final communism," at least as Marx describes it, is the notion of rotating job functions; that is, you're a doctor one week, a garbageman the next depending on what society needs. The notion that people could change jobs depending on what society needs, and still enjoy contributing (which Marx says they would) is foreign to me. Personally, I wouldn't want to spend 7 years in school (for me, B.S. plus a J.D.) only to be told that society needs me to contribute and so during certain times of my life I'm going to be sweeping floors? Especially if i knew that everything was being provided, I'd simply not work.

As much as communists point to the utopian ideals of everyone having what they want and everyone enjoying their life without rich and poor, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to either of the following two questions:
1) How does communism overcome the fundamental economic principal of scarcity? In other words, there aren't enough Rolls-Royces to go around, and if there were, they wouldn't be Rolls-Royces as we know them.
2) How does communism overcome our basic selfishness and laziness? In a society where the average person gives less than 1% of their income to charity and keeps the rest of their disposable income for themselves, how do you expect to entirely reverse that tendency?

[Gorgo]

Don't know enough about Communism to speak, but on socialism in general:

1) Who needs Rolls-Royces? If you want one, build one. That's part of the problem. All kinds of wasted labor for nothing.

2) How does capitalism overcome our basic selfishness and laziness? The purpose of capitalism is to get as much by contributing as little to society as possible. It breeds laziness. The purpose of socialism is to contribute as much as possible to the whole.

[Dan_77]

But what I'm saying is:

1) Everyone wants a rolls-royce, in the global sense... in other words, everyone could survive driving a Yugo around, but you don't see many of them being sold because people want a "nicer" car. No one "needs" rolls-royces, but if every car were free, i'd take one.

2) capitalism overcomes our laziness by creating a need to work in order to survive, and a want to work in order to attain greater wealth, comfort, and possessions. This sounds bad, but it's really not. The car, airplane, computer, and in general the vast majority of modern technologies were created by someone who "wanted to make a buck". The purpose of socialism may be to contribute as much as possible, but like i said, in general human beings don't give a crap about the "whole" and there's no good way to reverse that from what i've seen.

I should mention that communism can and does work on very small scales: families where there is equal distribution of assets despite unequal pay, very close extended families, etc. The notion of the '70s "commune" was in fact a communist economy on a small scale. Trouble is, not everyone is a brother-loving goodnik to whom that type of lifestyle appeals. You've got to do the best with the reality that you have. And my reality is, if there's no need to work to obtain the things i want, why work?

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by tivodan1116,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tivodan1116,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Phill, China, USSR, et all were communist societies according to Marxist communism. They were in the first stage of communism, the "dictatorship of the proletariot." The problem is, when they reached that point, they discovered the same problem that every communist society has discovered: People are generally lazy and self-serving, and when given the option to work or to have everything provided for nothing, they generally will choose the latter. [/b]

You telling me there were no members of the bourgeoisie running things, and that the members of the ruling bureaucracy were not profitting at the expense of the workers?

<!--QuoteBegin-tivodan1116,
As much as communists point to the utopian ideals of everyone having what they want and everyone enjoying their life without rich and poor, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to either of the following two questions:
1) How does communism overcome the fundamental economic principal of scarcity? In other words, there aren't enough Rolls-Royces to go around, and if there were, they wouldn't be Rolls-Royces as we know them.
2) How does communism overcome our basic selfishness and laziness? In a society where the average person gives less than 1% of their income to charity and keeps the rest of their disposable income for themselves, how do you expect to entirely reverse that tendency?[/quote]

1) Education on the limitedness of resources, and education on the problems with the profit motive. Education on reproduction, and the heavy burden having too many children and not enough resources can have on the world.
2) Education on personal responsibility. You don't work, you don't eat. You don't have to work, but understand that not everyone will want to give you a hand out.

In all cases the idea is Education. You say "our basic selfishness and laziness", but I don't think there really all that basic. We learn a lot of laziness and selfishness, IMO. (Especially selfishness.)

When I think of answers to your problems, I always look at the so-called primitive tribes of today and yesteryear. We were foolish to look down on them, because now we're in some real trouble. I'm not saying their cultures were utopian or perfect, but they were and are better in many ways than ours. At least they were often better at living with nature and living with their community members. We can learn a lot from them if we'd get off our high horses.

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by tivodan1116,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tivodan1116,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But what I'm saying is: 1) Everyone wants a rolls-royce, in the global sense... in other words, everyone could survive driving a Yugo around, but you don't see many of them being sold because people want a "nicer" car. No one "needs" rolls-royces, but if every car were free, i'd take one.[/b]

I'm lost. We'd take anything that was free. What does this matter? In any case, nothing is free. Work is what pays for all things.

Originally posted by tivodan1116,@ 2) capitalism overcomes our laziness by creating a need to work in order to survive, and a want to work in order to attain greater wealth, comfort, and possessions. This sounds bad, but it's really not. The car, airplane, computer, and in general the vast majority of modern technologies were created by someone who "wanted to make a buck". The purpose of socialism may be to contribute as much as possible, but like i said, in general human beings don't give a crap about the "whole" and there's no good way to reverse that from what i've seen.

Capitalism also creates rich, lazy, good-for-nothing children, who go on to "run" their mommy's or daddy's business - or simply benefit from it without having to run anything. In any case, what I see at the top is really lazy people - not hard workers. I worked at a place where the company president's son got paid to go play golf with clients while the other workers and I filled and lifted boxes of screws, nuts, and bolts. And of course, he got paid more for playing golf than we got paid for our blood and sweat.

<!--QuoteBegin-tivodan1116,
I should mention that communism can and does work on very small scales: families where there is equal distribution of assets despite unequal pay, very close extended families, etc. The notion of the '70s "commune" was in fact a communist economy on a small scale. Trouble is, not everyone is a brother-loving goodnik to whom that type of lifestyle appeals. You've got to do the best with the reality that you have. And my reality is, if there's no need to work to obtain the things i want, why work?[/quote]

I agree. I don't believe ANYTHING can work on the nation-state scale. At least, not peacibly. I don't trust any globalising scheme.

But a whole lot of communes works better than a mix of communes and capitalist states. Because the communes are willing to live and let live, but the capitalist state needs to expand, conquer, centralise wealth and power.

Capitalism is the tyrannical bully. But if Capitalism can grow up, and learn to live small, without feeling the need to dominate (actually, probably an impossibility) then it would be worthy of respect. As an anarchist, my problem with capitalism is it's repressive tendencies. If people want to risk being a wage slave, then by all means, go live in a capitalist state. But I don't want to suffer under it's tyranny, and capitalists have no right, only might, to claim any part of the earth theirs.

[Gorgo]

Most people want what they're told to want. That's why ridiculous concepts like religion still exist. In a socialist culture, people will still want, and get frills, but not to the insane extent that they exist now. The duplication of effort in capitalism would be eliminated making these things even more possible for more people.

[Dan_77]

Pardon me, I don't mean to insult you here, but I think your pointing to early societies and primitive tribes as being better then ours is hypocritical and unrealistic.

Primitive societies that you speak of prove exactly the point I am trying to make: These primitive societies provided everything for everyone, and stayed stagnent in technological and social development until explorers came along from capitalist societies and utterly kicked their asses because they'd spent the last 1000 years making better "things" (including guns), because their existence depended on having something better then the next guy.

You are espousing these primitives, but how well are you really studying what they were? In general, they were communist among themselves, but capitalist at least in a bartering sense when it came to exchange with external economies. Furthermore, their lives were neither better nor more comfortable and peaceful then ours. As a whole, their lives were dangerous, brutal, and short.

I say it's hypocritical because the reason we are all here having this discussion is because of capitalism. Our innovations were all created because of the need to innovate to survive. You can take your "better" society of living to 35, constant fear for survival, disease, starvation, no tv, phone, internet, computer, etc etc etc. I'd prefer the comfort and security that thousands of years of capitalist innovation have given me.

As long as I can figure out a way to get some Libertarians elected......

[Dan_77]

Also, I take exception to your assertion that wealthy people are lazy. You are assuming that physical labor=hard work and mental labor=laziness.

If you make a mistake carrying a box of nails, you have a spilled box of nails. If your boss at the nail factory makes a costly mistake, you lose your job and so do hundreds or thousands of others. (not saying any nail factory in particular, just first thing that came to mind as an industry... i hate using "widgets")

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by tivodan1116,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tivodan1116,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Pardon me, I don't mean to insult you here, but I think your pointing to early societies and primitive tribes as being better then ours is hypocritical and unrealistic.[/b]

I don't remember saying that every tribe was better than ours. There ARE/WERE better ones though. I think your pointing to ours as being the best society ever is hypocritical and unrealistic, thank you.

Originally posted by tivodan1116,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tivodan1116,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Primitive societies that you speak of prove exactly the point I am trying to make: These primitive societies provided everything for everyone, and stayed stagnent in technological and social development until explorers came along from capitalist societies and utterly kicked their asses because they'd spent the last 1000 years making better "things" (including guns), because their existence depended on having something better then the next guy.[/b]

Oh, and we're awesome because we have nukes, eh? I still say using bows, slingshots, or blowguns is better than dropping an H-bomb and killing thousands indiscriminately. Your use of the term "better" when it comes to things is naive and narrow in vision.

<!--QuoteBegin-tivodan1116,@
You are espousing these primitives, but how well are you really studying what they were? In general, they were communist among themselves, but capitalist at least in a bartering sense when it came to exchange with external economies. Furthermore, their lives were neither better nor more comfortable and peaceful then ours. As a whole, their lives were dangerous, brutal, and short.[/quote]

Oh, so all primitive tribes traded/trade? I think you need to do some research. And in any case, a bartering system is not at all conducive to capitalism, even if you were to site certain bartering tribes. Do you know much even about capitalism?

<!--QuoteBegin-tivodan1116,
I say it's hypocritical because the reason we are all here having this discussion is because of capitalism. Our innovations were all created because of the need to innovate to survive. You can take your "better" society of living to 35, constant fear for survival, disease, starvation, no tv, phone, internet, computer, etc etc etc. I'd prefer the comfort and security that thousands of years of capitalist innovation have given me.[/quote]

The reason why those early, greedy, selfish capitalists even had a chance to exist was because their ancestors ("primitives" all) weren't killed by other greedy, selfish jerks. Did our ancestors give us a world just so we can trash it and kill ourselves?

And NO NO NO - not all of our innovations were created because of the need to innovate to survive. We had what we needed, it's what certain greedy people wanted that gave us the H-Bomb. We can't eat, wear, or use an H-bomb as proper shelter. It doesn't sustain us, and in fact is almost as much a threat to us as it is to our enemies. Get your facts straight.

You put too much stock in the silliness of capitalists. And you apparently don't even know who they were or are... they got you pretty much fooled.