Skills For The Proletariat

[Impenitent]

a few questions for the pro communist crowd...

who will be the doctors?

who will be the engineers?

who will be the inventors?

how will they be trained?

why would you sacrifice 10 years of your life to learn the skills of medicine and not get anything out of it?

why would you sacrifice any time of your life working harder to educate yourself for any occupation with no benefit for so doing?

if you could get exactly as much stuff for a days worth of picking lettuce as you would get for practicing medicine/surgery and saving lives, what would be the incentive for doing it?

if you would get exactly as much stuff for a days worth of flipping burgers as you would get for making sure the electricity and power were operating correctly, and replacing power lines when they malfunction etc., what would be the incentive for doing it?

what would be the incentive for risking your life daily working in high risk industries eg. firefighters?

what would be the incentive for doing the jobs that no one wants to do eg. sewer or garbage management and the like?

there are a myriad of jobs that require many years of highly specialized training nowadays... why would anyone waste the time learning how to do those jobs when there is no incentive for them to do so?

from each according to their ability...

some abilities require many years of training to acquire... some abilities are better and far more valuable than others... some abilities are beyond the grasp of many people... abilities are not equal...

to each according to their need...

do children need more than adults? do the handicapped need more than the able? do the insane need more than the "well adjusted"? who decides what each needs?do some need more than others because their abilities justify their getting more?
is everone mandated to recieve the same bare pittance when the value of their labor is so obviously different... do you believe that everyone will live like kings? everyone?

do you want equality? do you think communism will be equal? the jobs by virtue of their training requirements alone will never be equal and the ressentiment would be palpable...

[G. Adams]

Why would someone spend ten years in college training rather than just simply flipping burgers? Because they enjoy healing people. I would rather be a doctor than flip burgers.

Now the harder side of, why would people do the crap work? Perhaps we could agree on a system of layering the jobs, based on age. 18-20 you do type a jobs, then 20-25 type b jobs, and keep layering. Thus everyone who wants to move onto better jobs can just by virtue of living, but everyone also has to spend a little time doing crappy jobs.

Or perhaps we could agree on everyone working part time? If you want to be an architect you can, you do your training and work for 25 hours a week, and do 10-15 hours of more menial jobs.

[fedfem]

I do not consider myself pro-communist (or anti-communist for that matter) so I will not answer point by point. I would say that your questions could be answered in part by looking at how Cuba has educated and employed its people.


Your focus on doctors was interesting. You see it as a career and not a calling. Healing another human being is a reward in itself.

Inventors will be inventors regardless of whether they are scrubbing toilets or engineers for a living.

Education is a high priority in the communistic philosophy.

You seem to judge incentive in monetary terms. Step back and pretend money does not exist. Would your chosen career change?

As far as spending 10+ years educating ourselves....some of us enjoy learning and don't see it as a sacrifice that requires a reward.

[G. Adams]

I would think people who go into a job because they love the work, rather than the money, would do the job better, because they would be more committed. The doctor who wants to heal the sick will be prepared to work above and beyond the doctor who works for the paycheck.

[nature of reality]

but heres the thing about those guys who are in it for just the money; they add competition to desirable positions.


A lot of people who WANT to be a doctor because they like helping people. MANY of them are too stupid.

SOME people do not WANT to be a doctor in particular, they wan to be rich. MANY of them are too stupid.


But if you mix a larger population of those two types of people in a competitive enviroment, you get a higher quality of people. If you get rid of the second pool of people who want to be a doctor, you lower the net quality of skilled positions.


This is not just for doctors, but rather for all the high education/ high paycheck jobs.

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
but heres the thing about those guys who are in it for just the money; they add competition to desirable positions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>No, they add belligerence, strife, and a general lackadaisacal attitude for the quality of their work. I do NOT want to be operated on by a doctor who's only doing so to pay for his second home. Nobody wants to be worked on by a doctor who's only doing good enough to ensure his next paycheck. I'd rather have someone who will strive for the best treatment possible because THEY WANT TO DO SO. I want someone who honestly wants to help people because they will put all their talent and energy in helping people.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
A lot of people who WANT to be a doctor because they like helping people. MANY of them are too stupid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Yeah, and too bad that we can't make them smart enough because in this free, rich, capitalist system of ours the schools are run by budgetless cities and staffed with overworked, underpaid, disaffected teachers who have to teach overcrowded classes with outdated materials. In this lovely system of ours, a teacher with a masters degree makes $20,000 less than a garbageman. Man, does that make me feel all warm and tingly about the cleanliness of our streets as compared to the importance of the education of our nation's youth.

Or weren't you describing this system but a fictional one about how Capitalism should be but never was?

It's funny how the incentiveless communist state of Cuba has so many more people with graduate and professional degrees per capita than our 'meritocratic' system of capitalism here. It's funny how they have more doctors, a higher literacy rate, and an economy that has yet to collapse after 42 years of a trade and travel embargo from half the world's wealth. It's funny that people even clean the streets there, too.

[nature of reality]

yes, and thats is why we have to stop all of our citizens from trying to escape to cuba....


"staffed with overworked, underpaid, disaffected teachers who have to teach overcrowded classes with outdated materials. In this lovely system of ours, a teacher with a masters degree makes $20,000 less than a garbageman. Man, does that make me feel all warm and tingly about the cleanliness of our streets as compared to the importance of the education of our nation's youth."


and both positions are not MARKET posistions, but state run positions. Thus the discrepancy. The funny thing is, your solution IS the problem


"It's funny how the incentiveless communist state of Cuba has so many more people with graduate and professional degrees per capita than our 'meritocratic' system of capitalism here. It's funny how they have more doctors, a higher literacy rate, and an economy that has yet to collapse after 42 years of a trade and travel embargo from half the world's wealth. It's funny that people even clean the streets there, too. "

yes, and today everyone is thrilled about being worked on a doctor with a Degree from university of havanna....

A paper from a corrupt government does not a doctor make.


Here is some real facts for ya from the cia world fact book...

Infant Mortality.
America 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
Cuba 7.15 deaths/1,000 live births

life expectancy is less as well... i guess that is because they have so many good doctors...

GDP Per Capita...

Cuba-2,300
America-37,600

Holy Crap! Communism does benefit the people!!!


But hey, this is just tempory.

Growth of GDP

Cuba--0% (woohooo, now that is progressive)

America--2.45%

Lets see how this abudence of skilled labour employees itself in cuba!


agriculture: 7.6%
industry: 34.5%
services: 57.9% (2000 est.)

Thats right! Almost half use there great education to make cigars or grows beans!

America

agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80% (2002)



Actually, America and Cuba have the same literacy rate, 97%...
"and an economy that has yet to collapse after 42 years "


But has yet to grow.... Unforunately that would take innovation, which communism is designed to kill.

[G. Adams]

If there were no travel restrictions, and Cuba let US parents send their children to a bording school there, I bet they'd be more than willing to pay top dollar for it.

And as for medical education, there is nowhere in the world better for teaching doctors. If you did as much in Cuba as you could, then specialised in whatever field in the US or Europe (Cuba can't get the equipment for the most specialisation possible), you'd be a brilliant doctor.

As for flagging US GDP up as a comparison, its not really accurate. I mean, lets pick another capitalist country, like Chad, which is $1 100. Or maybe Angola? $1 600. Hey, best I've found yet, Burundi, at $600. These arn't liberal democracies, but they are capitalist.

And you should really be comparing Cuba before and after the revolution. They now have 97 % literacy (better than the US), 7.15/1000 infant mortality, life expectancy at 76. I doubt Batista even cared about reaching these levels.

Whats the US in these stakes? Literacy-97% Infant Mortality-6.75/1000, life expectancy-74.

Hey, so a beleaguered, last standing socialist country is comparable to the US, and the US is the richest capitalist nation.

And I don't see Cuba raping poor nations of natural resources like the US is. Hell its exporting doctors to them free of charge, more doctors than the UN has since its inception.

[nature of reality]

"As for flagging US GDP up as a comparison, its not really accurate. I mean, lets pick another capitalist country, like Chad, which is $1 100. Or maybe Angola? $1 600. Hey, best I've found yet, Burundi, at $600. These arn't liberal democracies, but they are capitalist."



Captilism cannot exist under a dictatorship, only statism. which you are advocating.


"If there were no travel restrictions, and Cuba let US parents send their children to a bording school there, I bet they'd be more than willing to pay top dollar for it. "

Yea, we would stuff our kids on inner tubes, or be willing to work in near slavery for 9 years for a overcrowded seat to get out of this capitalist hell hole.

?



"now have 97 % literacy (better than the US)"
"Whats the US in these stakes? Literacy-97%"

Do you read your own posts?



"And I don't see Cuba raping poor nations of natural resources like the US is"


Yea, raping. Because we take inactive quarrys, or oilwells or whatever, that would just sit in the ground and rot, and develop into a fountain of wealth, providing jobs for natives who would otherwise just sit in their mud huts and worry about demons stealing there rice (although even if it didn't help the natives, it would be just as good regardless. Im just giving you a reason you can understand. Although, this is probably a mistake, as it gives validity to your false values).


But then again, you see mines and oil spickets as bad, as they are signs of human innovation, which the perfect world would be much better without. Or humans for that matter.

[Black Fox]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
If there were no travel restrictions, and Cuba let US parents send their children to a bording school there, I bet they'd be more than willing to pay top dollar for it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Possibly. I personally think that the US restriction on travel to Cuba is a foolish policy.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And as for medical education, there is nowhere in the world better for teaching doctors. If you did as much in Cuba as you could, then specialised in whatever field in the US or Europe (Cuba can't get the equipment for the most specialisation possible), you'd be a brilliant doctor.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Please substantiate this. I hope you don't expect us to believe it because you said it.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As for flagging US GDP up as a comparison, its not really accurate. I mean, lets pick another capitalist country, like Chad, which is $1 100. Or maybe Angola? $1 600. Hey, best I've found yet, Burundi, at $600. These arn't liberal democracies, but they are capitalist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Are you saying that any country that isn't socialist/communist is capitalist? That's a very biased and inaccurate definition.

Anyway, it will interest you to know that until very recently, Angola was as socialist as they come - in fact, during the recently concluded civil war, Cuba sent many soldiers to help the government in its fight.

I agree there that people will often do things for love rather than money. In fact, I think why Cuba has been successful to a large extent in its education and health programs is because workers in the education and health systems felt inspired by the Cuban revolution to work for its success, especially after the oppressive years of the Batista regime.

But you are wrong to think that you can get people to do things for love indefinitely without paying them a proper wage. Cuba still has well trained people; however the vast majority of them have to supplement their income doing a second job or the other.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
"As for flagging US GDP up as a comparison, its not really accurate. I mean, lets pick another capitalist country, like Chad, which is $1 100. Or maybe Angola? $1 600. Hey, best I've found yet, Burundi, at $600. These arn't liberal democracies, but they are capitalist."



Captilism cannot exist under a dictatorship, only statism. which you are advocating.


"If there were no travel restrictions, and Cuba let US parents send their children to a bording school there, I bet they'd be more than willing to pay top dollar for it. "

Yea, we would stuff our kids on inner tubes, or be willing to work in near slavery for 9 years for a overcrowded seat to get out of this capitalist hell hole.

?



"now have 97 % literacy (better than the US)"
"Whats the US in these stakes? Literacy-97%"

Do you read your  own posts?



"And I don't see Cuba raping poor nations of natural resources like the US is"


Yea, raping. Because we take inactive quarrys, or  oilwells or whatever, that would just sit in the ground and rot, and develop into a fountain of wealth, providing jobs for  natives who would otherwise just sit in their mud huts and worry about demons stealing there rice (although even if it didn't help the natives, it would be just as good regardless. Im just giving you a reason you can understand. Although, this is probably a mistake, as it gives validity to your false values).


But then again, you see mines and oil spickets as bad, as they are signs of human innovation, which the perfect world would be much better without. Or humans for that matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic one, and is compatible with authoritarean regimes. IE China

As for the literacy rates, I got distracted in looking at the different stats, it should have been written 'better than many US states'.

No, raping as in using the WTO to push economic reform onto countries not ready for it, thus opening up their markets to plundering from TNC's from the US and Europe. At the same time, you refuse to open up your own markets to these states, and even if you did your subsidies to your agricultural industry would prevent them from entering into the US market. Thats why I said your raping the world.

Oh, and the little incidents of propping up friendly dictatorships while knocking down democratic governments to ensure the oil still flows westwards.

[nature of reality]

"Capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic one, and is compatible with authoritarean regimes. IE China"


yes, china is indeed the very face of laissez faire capitalism.

?

from the cia world factbook

"In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2002, with its 1.3 billion people but a GDP of just $4,400 per capita, China stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US (measured on a purchasing power parity basis). Agriculture and industry have posted major gains, especially in coastal areas near Hong Kong and opposite Taiwan, where foreign investment has helped spur output of both domestic and export goods. The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (windfall gains and growing income disparities). China thus has periodically backtracked, retightening central controls at intervals. The government has struggled to (a) collect revenues due from provinces, businesses, and individuals; (b) reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and &copy; keep afloat the large state-owned enterprises, many of which had been shielded from competition by subsidies and had been losing the ability to pay full wages and pensions. From 80 to 120 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time low-paying jobs. Popular resistance, changes in central policy, and loss of authority by rural cadres have weakened China's population control program, which is essential to maintaining long-term growth in living standards. Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment, notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. Beijing says it will intensify efforts to stimulate growth through spending on infrastructure - such as water control and power grids - and poverty relief and through rural tax reform aimed at eliminating arbitrary local levies on farmers. Accession to the World Trade Organization helps strengthen China's ability to maintain strong growth rates but at the same time puts additional pressure on the hybrid system of strong political controls and growing market influences. Beijing has claimed 7%-8% annual growth in recent years, and while many observers believe the official figures over the past two decades overstated China's real economic growth by 2 to 3 percentage points, China's official national growth rates of the past two years are fairly close to actual GDP growth. "



Even with liberal use of the term, china is at best a MIXED economy, and now where near a laissez faire capitalist system. But notice as their policies approach non-control, the economic output and general quality of life improves.

But as any economy apporaches or has approached your precious ideal of communism, economic output drops and so does quality of life( not to mention how life is valued....). All in search of that dirty zero you seek.


"No, raping as in using the WTO to push economic reform onto countries not ready for it, thus opening up their markets to plundering from TNC's from the US and Europe. At the same time, you refuse to open up your own markets to these states, and even if you did your subsidies to your agricultural industry would prevent them from entering into the US market. Thats why I said your raping the world.
"


market economy.... So they are consenting to be raped? You have a funny definition for rape.


Also, subsidies to the agriculture, or robbing me and giving it to a lazy farmer is a socialist policy enacted by statists. Or are you saying subsidies are a laissez capitalist features? Because that would show a very ignorant knowledge of the defintion of the word.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
"Capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic one, and is compatible with authoritarean regimes. IE China"


yes, china is indeed the very face of laissez faire capitalism.

?

from the cia world factbook

"In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2002, with its 1.3 billion people but a GDP of just $4,400 per capita, China stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US (measured on a purchasing power parity basis). Agriculture and industry have posted major gains, especially in coastal areas near Hong Kong and opposite Taiwan, where foreign investment has helped spur output of both domestic and export goods. The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (windfall gains and growing income disparities). China thus has periodically backtracked, retightening central controls at intervals. The government has struggled to (a) collect revenues due from provinces, businesses, and individuals; (b) reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and © keep afloat the large state-owned enterprises, many of which had been shielded from competition by subsidies and had been losing the ability to pay full wages and pensions. From 80 to 120 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time low-paying jobs. Popular resistance, changes in central policy, and loss of authority by rural cadres have weakened China's population control program, which is essential to maintaining long-term growth in living standards. Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment, notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. Beijing says it will intensify efforts to stimulate growth through spending on infrastructure - such as water control and power grids - and poverty relief and through rural tax reform aimed at eliminating arbitrary local levies on farmers. Accession to the World Trade Organization helps strengthen China's ability to maintain strong growth rates but at the same time puts additional pressure on the hybrid system of strong political controls and growing market influences. Beijing has claimed 7%-8% annual growth in recent years, and while many observers believe the official figures over the past two decades overstated China's real economic growth by 2 to 3 percentage points, China's official national growth rates of the past two years are fairly close to actual GDP growth. "



Even with liberal use of the term, china is at best a MIXED economy, and now where near a laissez faire capitalist system. But notice as their policies approach non-control, the economic output and general quality of life improves.

But as any economy apporaches or has approached your precious ideal of communism, economic output drops and so does quality of life( not to mention how life is valued....). All in search of that dirty zero you seek.


"No, raping as in using the WTO to push economic reform onto countries not ready for it, thus opening up their markets to plundering from TNC's from the US and Europe. At the same time, you refuse to open up your own markets to these states, and even if you did your subsidies to your agricultural industry would prevent them from entering into the US market. Thats why I said your raping the world.
"


market economy.... So they are consenting to be raped? You have a funny definition for rape.


Also, subsidies to the agriculture, or robbing me and giving it to a lazy farmer is a socialist policy enacted by statists. Or are you saying subsidies are a laissez capitalist features? Because that would show a very ignorant knowledge of the defintion of the word.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There are no laizzes-faire economies, so to try and hold China, which is a burgeoning capitalist state, up to such a comparison is meaningless.

Of course China improves as authoritarianism is picked apart, this is nearly always the case. So whats your point?

You have a funny definition of consent? Hey you, starving country, want some food? Well your gonna have to cut all subsidies, take away all public health support and slash your education budget like theres no tommorow. Yes we know without education your country can't actually improve, but we don't want you to, cause then we'd have to pay your better wages! So get into those factories and stitch some shirts for 60cents an hour.

[nature of reality]

first something i wanted to respond to a bit back...

(blackfox)
"But you are wrong to think that you can get people to do things for love indefinitely without paying them a proper wage. Cuba still has well trained people; however the vast majority of them have to supplement their income doing a second job or the other. "

Prositution is rampart in Cuba as a second choice job.. This makes Cuba quite angry, as its destruction of government property upsets it.



"You have a funny definition of consent? Hey you, starving country, want some food? Well your gonna have to cut all subsidies, take away all public health support and slash your education budget like theres no tommorow. Yes we know without education your country can't actually improve, but we don't want you to, cause then we'd have to pay your better wages! So get into those factories and stitch some shirts for 60cents an hour. "


Yep, and they CONSENT to this. We don't hold a gun to their head and make them trade. you might want to take notes on how that is done *cough*.


"Capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic one, and is compatible with authoritarean regimes. IE China"

"There are no laizzes-faire economies, so to try and hold China, which is a burgeoning capitalist state, up to such a comparison is meaningless.

Of course China improves as authoritarianism is picked apart, this is nearly always the case. So whats your point? "


Again, do you read your own posts? So as captalism immerges, an authoritarian regime breakes apart, but they are perfectly compatable? The thing is Capitalism is about Political Rights, in its essense. The right to be left alone, and not coerced about economic issues. Socialism is about "economic rights", which are in direct contrast with political rights, as they detract from the rights of others, and require a strong government to enforce the state of unnaturality which is socialism.


Also, another thing implicit is that a detraction from authoriatarism is what caused the improved economy, and if it was capitalism, or your odd economic form, the result would be the same.


STOPE EVADING THIS ISSUE. If your economy isn't market (based on mutual consent to mutual advantage), or Command (fear and power), then what the hell does it operate?

[G. Adams]

I'm not evading the issue, I'm entirely not presenting it because it is a waste of my time to write for an hour and a half for someone isn't going to try and understand it. I've been patient with all the crap you ignorant and close minded right wingers have thrown, I spent 4 years trying to get through, but because you come to the table not prepared to listen to begin with, it's worthless.

China's authoritarianism isn't being picked apart by capitalism, the people with the chinese so-called chinese communist party is preparing the country nicely so it can become the new capitalists. So they relax the rules a bit, and set up their own companies, then relax a bit more when its safe for them to do so, bit by bit.

Actually you could say the spirit of capitalism is taking apart, greed. But its not capitalism itself doing it.

Capitalism and authoritarianism are compatible. Look at GB, its system is authoritarian, although the people in government rarely use its authoritarian powers. And we had capitalism before anyone else.

[nature of reality]

"I'm not evading the issue, I'm entirely not presenting it because it is a waste of my time to write for an hour and a half for someone isn't going to try and understand it. I've been patient with all the crap you ignorant and close minded right wingers have thrown, I spent 4 years trying to get through, but because you come to the table not prepared to listen to begin with, it's worthless."


Im ready to listen. Why not just give me a synposis rather then evade the issue again?


"China's authoritarianism isn't being picked apart by capitalism, the people with the chinese so-called chinese communist party is preparing the country nicely so it can become the new capitalists. So they relax the rules a bit, and set up their own companies, then relax a bit more when its safe for them to do so, bit by bit. "

What a great refutable of the 1. increase in standard of living 2. 400% increase in GDP. O no wait, this is a bunch of rambling drivel.


"Actually you could say the spirit of capitalism is taking apart, greed. But its not capitalism itself doing it."

You mean self-interest? i agree, people who enjoy living are indeed evil, evil beings. they are ruining your view of a perfect world! And don't retort "But its at the expense of other people!!?1" because 1. the economy is not base sum. I know its the onlly way you understand how money is had, by clubbing people, but wealth can be created, and 2. how can you rob people with their consent?



"Capitalism and authoritarianism are compatible. Look at GB, its system is authoritarian, although the people in government rarely use its authoritarian powers. And we had capitalism before anyone else. "


Yes! look at GB and see the inverse relationship betwen Capitalism and Authoritarianism. GB IS authoritarian, but also is highly socialistic, from natinalized medicine to a massive death tax, GB is an excellent example of an increase in socialistic policies creates an increase in authoritarianism. Thank you for proving my point for me.

[G. Adams]

Ahh yes, your ready to listen, you say in a calm tone. Then you go off on one again. I'm not going to bother. If you really wanted to know then I suggest sifting through www.marxist.org or www.worldsocialism.com

I wasn't refuting your point. I was stating that the people in power currently are relaxing their powers slowly so that they can monopolise the system when its finally at western levels of freedom. And I certainly wouldn't refute China's great improvement in many, many areas. But this is to be expected when a regime goes from authoritarean to open. I have never supported authoritareanism, I support democracy, which you are clearly terrified of.

GB didn't become authoritarian because of socialism. Its always been authoritarian because, I don't know if you know, we have a monarchy. Monarchs have total power over the military and foreign relations no matter what the people want. Now the power of the monarch is given to the PM, who is not even directly elected. Theres not even open primaries. The parties elect their leader, and the party leader is the one who becomes PM. So Tony Blair is an elected king, without restraints in his foreign relations. We don't even have a written constitution, so if Tony thinks having elections every five years is a bad thing, he can draft a new bill scrapping elections. Now you might think that such a bill would never be approved by parliament. Well over here our party systems are so damned tight and patronage so powerful that the amount of times a party has actually voted against its government in the last century can probably be counted on your fingers and toes.

And entirely against what you have suggested, it has been historically the Conservative Party that have brought in civil rights curtailing measures mostly, not Labour. You heard of Thatcher? Well she might be famous to you as being a good friend of Reagan, but here she is famous for putting three million people into unemployment while similtaneously cutting welfare, absolutely destroying the unions and supporting dictators (she actually denied that saddam had gassed the kurds for a long time even while there were reporters showing the bodies). Oh the freedom and liberty of it all. In this country it has always been the left wing that has pressed for more rights for individuals, not the right, which has clung on the vestiges of aristocracy.

Oh no, Labour introduced an NHS? Private health has never stopped, so there is still choice. Massive death taxes? Oh boo hoo, rich kids have to look after themselves rather than have daddies money? Big deal, and its a well known secret that the rich give their wealth to their kids bit by bit as they get closer to death just to avoid the death tax.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word socialism is you think GB is highly socialistic.

[nature of reality]

It might be interesting to note that strife between capitalism and authoritarianism created my country....


"I have never supported authoritareanism, I support democracy, which you are clearly terrified of."

Now this is an interesting trick of logic. I am not for statism either. You support lynch-mob style democracy.

Why do you present be 1. Ruled by the Majority or 2. Ruled by a Dictator , as the two poles? Why can't there be 3. Ruled by myself? I want a government of Laws, not men.

Also, if thatcher is like reagan who supported supply - side economics, i am against that as well. i believe in NO government tampering of the economy. Laissez faire.

If you have to pay for NHS, there is no choice. Thats is like someone coming to my house, putting a gun to my head and saying you must pay for this, but you don't need to use it. Then you say " See ! Thats not robbery, you have choice!"

As for death taxes, the point of rich children is irrelevent. The issue is the will of the dead parent, who actually earned the money. Is it better to have a 3-5 leach children , or 30-50 leech paupers?

I don't think you know the meaning of the word capitalism is you think GB is highly capitalistic.


Also, i wandered around those silly sites. They were as ambigious as to how the economy would operate as you were. I guess that explanes your answer, as if even your crackpot leaders can't figure out a way to make it seem like it would work, then certainly you can't either.

[castille]

What if a guy who is known for making "mistakes" (ie. his hand keeps slipping and killing his patients) insists on being a doctor?

What will Communism do then?

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
It might be interesting to note that strife between capitalism and authoritarianism created my country....


"I have never supported authoritareanism, I support democracy, which you are clearly terrified of."

Now this is an interesting trick of logic. I am not for statism either. You support lynch-mob style democracy.

Why do you present be 1. Ruled by the Majority or 2. Ruled by a Dictator , as the two poles? Why can't there be 3. Ruled by myself? I want a government of Laws, not men.

Also, if thatcher is like reagan who supported supply - side economics, i am against that as well. i believe in NO government tampering of the economy. Laissez faire.

If you have to pay for NHS, there is no choice. Thats is like someone coming to my house, putting a gun to my head and saying you must pay for this, but you don't need to use it. Then you say " See ! Thats not robbery, you have choice!"

As for death taxes, the point of rich children is irrelevent. The issue is the will of the dead parent, who actually earned the money. Is it better to have a 3-5 leach children , or 30-50 leech paupers?

I don't think you know the meaning of the word capitalism is you think GB is highly capitalistic.


Also, i wandered around those silly sites. They were as ambigious as to how the economy would operate as you were. I guess that explanes your answer, as if even your crackpot leaders can't figure out a way to make it seem like it would work, then certainly you can't either.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


I don't support lynch mob democracy. There are basic rights that I would fight for regardless of the numbers against me. But I don't believe that if communism came about through the route I support that we would have lynch mobs. I want the world to be fully capitalistic as well as liberal democratic. That means everyone having a good education. People that have such an education don't fall to mobs easily.


If people want the benefits of living in Britain then they pay taxes. If they are so against paying taxes that will help poor people, we have an entire EU for them to move to without restrictions. Go to Italy, they have lower taxes.

You want to be both ruled by yourself and ruled by laws? Who makes the laws? Oh look someone else is ruling you now. You have the misfortune of living in a community, so you won't be able to rule yourself. You have to make some arrangements to get along with your neighbours.

Well Thatcher I'm not sure of Thatchers support for supply side economics because she never really go to that point, she was so busy just cutting national industries (which I support) without trying to get new jobs to replace those lost (which I don't support) that she never really had to get into such economic tactics. But the point regarding Thatcher was that she was authoritarean and a conservative, while you were suggesting it was the socialists who were authoritarean.

30-50 leach paupers. Those children have likely had the benefit of private education, they can find their own feet. But those paupers are, well, paupers, and if that money can get them out of that situation and let them look after themselves well then that money has gone to a good cause. Will of the dead? They have no will, as long as the kids are okay it doesn't matter. And this death tax, the GB government takes, it allows up to 3 million per spouse, any left over is taken. So I doubt the kids are gonna starve.

Britain is capitalistic with some socialist practices, rather than socialist with some capitalist practices.

Wow, you impress me if you can thoroughly read all relevant articles across those two sites in one night.

Okay, well now you've done that, I recomend Marx's Das Capital.