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

Section 8 · Nov 13, 2003, 11:11 pm

For all of those who are opposed to Socialism and the like, then I challenge you to answer a question:
What's next in the process of governmental and social structure?
You can't expect that capitalism is the best it will ever be, as this is plain ignorant. So what is it?

nature of reality · Nov 13, 2003, 11:31 pm

Laissez faire capitalism.

Best there will ever be, simply becaue it allows men to live like men, and not like draft animals, begging a government for a hand out to survive.

next time u think about socialism, remeber the 3 hour bread lines in russia, then go to a super market and marvel at the greatest of capitalism.

Section 8 · Nov 13, 2003, 11:37 pm

No, when I think of capitalism I think of the dying children in poor countries because they can't afford a $1.60 shot. The millions that die every day because of capitalism.

Governmental evolution will cease when we reach utopia, and we'll never reach utopia.

nature of reality · Nov 13, 2003, 11:53 pm

yep, too bad they won't allow child labor in those poor countries.

also, remeber in socialism, why bother discovering the 1.6 shot?

Finally, all of civilization has been a process of freeing man from other mens. Utopia is a land of privacy. And capitalism, pure, rational, logical capitalism is the only way to achieve.

We can get damn close to in this lifetime.

___________www.freestateproject.com________

Bayou · Nov 14, 2003, 01:41 am

Hah freeing man from other men; put a colour, religion or political identity on that "other men" and you have Fascism.
Well it seems socialism is a bit more realistic, we can at least recognise we will never be free of other men and in fact it's in are best interest if we never do= divided we fall after all.

indierockboy · Nov 14, 2003, 03:37 am

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
yep, too bad they won't allow child labor in those poor countries.

also, remeber in socialism, why bother discovering the 1.6 shot?

Finally, all of civilization has been a process of freeing man from other mens. Utopia is a land of privacy. And capitalism, pure, rational, logical capitalism is the only way to achieve.

We can get damn close to in this lifetime.

___________www.freestateproject.com________<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

capitalism isn't freedom, it's living under a different type of ruler. rupert murdoch and the media monopoly anyone?

nature of reality · Nov 14, 2003, 08:09 am

a true monopoy cannot exist under laissez faire capitalism.

only with GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION can a monopoly exist.

Otherwise, a businessman has to compete against the POSSIBLITY of a competitor. Only when the government FORCES there to be only one provider, does a true monopoly become created. Case in point, the big 4 of railroads. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION (the opposite of capitalism) created them, CAPITALISM got blamed for them.

"Hah freeing man from other men; put a colour, religion or political identity on that "other men" and you have Fascism.
Well it seems socialism is a bit more realistic, we can at least recognise we will never be free of other men and in fact it's in are best interest if we never do= divided we fall after all.
"

?!?!?!?

Yes indeed, individual rights is totally fascism. O wait, fascism is statism, another gang of your precious altruism, who consider the individual to be less then the state (ie statists).

Fascists are just another brand of god damn statist-socialists.

Section 8 · Nov 14, 2003, 09:36 am

Fascism happens to be the exact opposite of anarcho-communism. Note the anarcho part. And call it anarcho-communism, or communism, or socialism and none of that altruism bull. What exactly do you mean by saying free man from man?

laserkid · Nov 15, 2003, 08:33 pm

I think the problem here isnt so much capitalism as it is government interference - if the government didnt tax people to death so they could be poor then use the tax money to give them meager amounts of food maybe they'd survive. As far as I see it the government needs to make sure that there are no carels or monopolies - basically that buisiness' are fair and don't break the law, and leave the rest to the peoples free market decisions.

G. Adams · Nov 15, 2003, 09:32 pm

My my it gets better and better in your world.

Now lets remember most people earn $1.04 per hour (i'm positive its per day, but I'll be conservative). Now if the government tax say 50%, they have 52 cents. They can't afford the $10 a day aids drugs with that. But then they couldn't with their $1.04 anyway. But if that tax runs right through a society, the government can afford a public health care system and ensure they get their aids drugs.

Now look at the other side of the scale. If I earn $1 000 000, and they tax me 50%, I still have $500 000. Am I going to starve on that?

Its only the rich who whine about wanting lower taxes, they lose a lot of money when they are taxed. Most people lose hardly anything to taxes, and as long as the government isn't corrupt, or wasting it on $500billion of arms, they can gain a lot from it.

laserkid · Nov 15, 2003, 10:40 pm

Oh yes, you seem to very much like to talk about my little world don't you, and you automatically assume I'm rich because of my stance - it must be nice to live in YOUR world where you can know the amount of money they have just based on their stances.

Im not a huge fan of capitalism in its current form, but I dont see socialism/communism doing any better when its been practiced either.

G. Adams · Nov 15, 2003, 11:06 pm

I don't assume you are rich, I assume you are shielded.

Communism has never been practised, beyond small isolated communes.

Socialism has and is practised, but that term covers so many different styles of governing, it is difficult to say definitively it is good or bad. It can be good, and it has been bad. Primarily, a decent socialist government has to be liberal (classically) in the social and political arena, but clearly not in economics. Examples of working socialism are the Scandinavian countries, pre-unification Germany (could still work if they made some hard sacrifices to the right, then rebuilt) and...well much of Europe really, but it has stagnated.

The thing with socialist government, I can only see them working as long as they keep the goal of communism in mind, even if it is verrry far distant, otherwise they will stagnate. At the beginning of left wing movements, the parties had set goals for when they got in. They did that, and usually well. But then they forgot what they were in government for, and focused on just staying in power. Socialists are progressive, and have to keep moving towards the goal of justice, equality and humanitarianism.

laserkid · Nov 16, 2003, 12:55 am

Im not saying all leftist/socialist ideas are bad - Communism is great on paper very much so, but in practice it has failed simply because humans are corruptable by power, and if there are no elections and thus absolute power, it corrupts absolutely. If men were angels, communism would probably be done simply by nature, but, we aren't.

G. Adams · Nov 16, 2003, 10:45 am

Communism hasn't been tried. If you read up and communism, then read up on the Soviet Union, China, NK etc you'll see none of them compare to communism right from their conception, so it is incorrect to call them communist

nature of reality · Nov 16, 2003, 05:24 pm

the reason why "pure" communism has never been created, only approached, is because communism is the complete opposite of the requirsites of life.

if the zero of communism would be reached, it would be in a nucluer apoclypse.

laserkid · Nov 16, 2003, 06:53 pm

I know its not pure Communism my friend, and thats simply because while they TRIED to do it the human condition messed it up.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 16, 2003, 08:05 pm

Well, no. Lenin was a staunch Communist, and it shows. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac, and that shows. Blaming "humanity" is a cop-out, and works against finding the true reasons as to the downfall of the Communist state.

laserkid · Nov 16, 2003, 08:22 pm

Rebel - I know that some truly want it and I don't mean Stalin when I talk about human nature. Human nature wants to well "equal work for equal pay" is the bes tphrase I can give here, if I am working a lot more than someone else and we're being paid the exact same why do I bother to work at all? I'm still going to be paid.

Stalin was not a true communist, I know that but he just further proves the point - when you have people in full power for life you can corrupt them into people like him. If Communism

A - Paid based on work output

B - Held elections on leaders

it MIGHT work

nature of reality · Nov 17, 2003, 06:32 am

"Well, no. Lenin was a staunch Communist, and it shows. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac, and that shows. Blaming "humanity" is a cop-out, and works against finding the true reasons as to the downfall of the Communist state. "

I agree, blaming humanity IS a cop-out.

What, we aren't GOOD enough for a fucking dictatorship?

castille · Nov 17, 2003, 07:30 am

The problem with using Third World dictatorships as an example for the failings of capitalism is this:

Those Third World nations aren't capitalist.

Unfortunately most Communists/leftists/neo-nazis/stalinists here will choose to ignore that logic and continue chanting their slogans.

Nov 13, 2003, 11:31 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	Laissez faire capitalism. Best there will ever be, simply becaue it allows men to live like men, and not like draft animals, begging a government for a hand out to survive. next time u think about socialism, remeber the 3 hour bread lines in russia, then go to a super market and marvel at the greatest of capitalism. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 13, 2003, 11:53 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	yep, too bad they won't allow child labor in those poor countries. also, remeber in socialism, why bother discovering the 1.6 shot? Finally, all of civilization has been a process of freeing man from other mens. Utopia is a land of privacy. And capitalism, pure, rational, logical capitalism is the only way to achieve. We can get damn close to in this lifetime. ___________www.freestateproject.com________ Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 14, 2003, 01:41 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	Hah freeing man from other men; put a colour, religion or political identity on that "other men" and you have Fascism. Well it seems socialism is a bit more realistic, we can at least recognise we will never be free of other men and in fact it's in are best interest if we never do= divided we fall after all. <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>

Nov 14, 2003, 03:37 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,) yep, too bad they won't allow child labor in those poor countries. also, remeber in socialism, why bother discovering the 1.6 shot? Finally, all of civilization has been a process of freeing man from other mens. Utopia is a land of privacy. And capitalism, pure, rational, logical capitalism is the only way to achieve. We can get damn close to in this lifetime. ___________www.freestateproject.com________<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> capitalism isn't freedom, it's living under a different type of ruler. rupert murdoch and the media monopoly anyone? http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 14, 2003, 08:09 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	a true monopoy cannot exist under laissez faire capitalism. only with GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION can a monopoly exist. Otherwise, a businessman has to compete against the POSSIBLITY of a competitor. Only when the government FORCES there to be only one provider, does a true monopoly become created. Case in point, the big 4 of railroads. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION (the opposite of capitalism) created them, CAPITALISM got blamed for them. "Hah freeing man from other men; put a colour, religion or political identity on that "other men" and you have Fascism. Well it seems socialism is a bit more realistic, we can at least recognise we will never be free of other men and in fact it's in are best interest if we never do= divided we fall after all. " ?!?!?!? Yes indeed, individual rights is totally fascism. O wait, fascism is statism, another gang of your precious altruism, who consider the individual to be less then the state (ie statists). Fascists are just another brand of god damn statist-socialists. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 13, 2003, 11:11 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	For all of those who are opposed to Socialism and the like, then I challenge you to answer a question: What's next in the process of governmental and social structure? You can't expect that capitalism is the best it will ever be, as this is plain ignorant. So what is it?

Nov 13, 2003, 11:37 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	No, when I think of capitalism I think of the dying children in poor countries because they can't afford a $1.60 shot. The millions that die every day because of capitalism. Governmental evolution will cease when we reach utopia, and we'll never reach utopia.

Nov 14, 2003, 09:36 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Fascism happens to be the exact opposite of anarcho-communism. Note the anarcho part. And call it anarcho-communism, or communism, or socialism and none of that altruism bull. What exactly do you mean by saying free man from man?

Nov 15, 2003, 08:33 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	I think the problem here isnt so much capitalism as it is government interference - if the government didnt tax people to death so they could be poor then use the tax money to give them meager amounts of food maybe they'd survive. As far as I see it the government needs to make sure that there are no carels or monopolies - basically that buisiness' are fair and don't break the law, and leave the rest to the peoples free market decisions. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 15, 2003, 09:32 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	My my it gets better and better in your world. Now lets remember most people earn $1.04 per hour (i'm positive its per day, but I'll be conservative). Now if the government tax say 50%, they have 52 cents. They can't afford the $10 a day aids drugs with that. But then they couldn't with their $1.04 anyway. But if that tax runs right through a society, the government can afford a public health care system and ensure they get their aids drugs. Now look at the other side of the scale. If I earn $1 000 000, and they tax me 50%, I still have $500 000. Am I going to starve on that? Its only the rich who whine about wanting lower taxes, they lose a lot of money when they are taxed. Most people lose hardly anything to taxes, and as long as the government isn't corrupt, or wasting it on $500billion of arms, they can gain a lot from it. 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

Nov 15, 2003, 10:40 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	Oh yes, you seem to very much like to talk about my little world don't you, and you automatically assume I'm rich because of my stance - it must be nice to live in YOUR world where you can know the amount of money they have just based on their stances. Im not a huge fan of capitalism in its current form, but I dont see socialism/communism doing any better when its been practiced either. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 15, 2003, 11:06 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I don't assume you are rich, I assume you are shielded. Communism has never been practised, beyond small isolated communes. Socialism has and is practised, but that term covers so many different styles of governing, it is difficult to say definitively it is good or bad. It can be good, and it has been bad. Primarily, a decent socialist government has to be liberal (classically) in the social and political arena, but clearly not in economics. Examples of working socialism are the Scandinavian countries, pre-unification Germany (could still work if they made some hard sacrifices to the right, then rebuilt) and...well much of Europe really, but it has stagnated. The thing with socialist government, I can only see them working as long as they keep the goal of communism in mind, even if it is verrry far distant, otherwise they will stagnate. At the beginning of left wing movements, the parties had set goals for when they got in. They did that, and usually well. But then they forgot what they were in government for, and focused on just staying in power. Socialists are progressive, and have to keep moving towards the goal of justice, equality and humanitarianism. 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

Nov 16, 2003, 12:55 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	Im not saying all leftist/socialist ideas are bad - Communism is great on paper very much so, but in practice it has failed simply because humans are corruptable by power, and if there are no elections and thus absolute power, it corrupts absolutely. If men were angels, communism would probably be done simply by nature, but, we aren't. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 16, 2003, 10:45 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Communism hasn't been tried. If you read up and communism, then read up on the Soviet Union, China, NK etc you'll see none of them compare to communism right from their conception, so it is incorrect to call them communist 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

Nov 16, 2003, 05:24 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	the reason why "pure" communism has never been created, only approached, is because communism is the complete opposite of the requirsites of life. if the zero of communism would be reached, it would be in a nucluer apoclypse. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 16, 2003, 06:53 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	I know its not pure Communism my friend, and thats simply because while they TRIED to do it the human condition messed it up. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 16, 2003, 08:05 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Well, no. Lenin was a staunch Communist, and it shows. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac, and that shows. Blaming "humanity" is a cop-out, and works against finding the true reasons as to the downfall of the Communist state. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 16, 2003, 08:22 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	Rebel - I know that some truly want it and I don't mean Stalin when I talk about human nature. Human nature wants to well "equal work for equal pay" is the bes tphrase I can give here, if I am working a lot more than someone else and we're being paid the exact same why do I bother to work at all? I'm still going to be paid. Stalin was not a true communist, I know that but he just further proves the point - when you have people in full power for life you can corrupt them into people like him. If Communism A - Paid based on work output B - Held elections on leaders it MIGHT work "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 17, 2003, 06:32 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	"Well, no. Lenin was a staunch Communist, and it shows. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac, and that shows. Blaming "humanity" is a cop-out, and works against finding the true reasons as to the downfall of the Communist state. " I agree, blaming humanity IS a cop-out. What, we aren't GOOD enough for a fucking dictatorship? Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 17, 2003, 07:30 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	The problem with using Third World dictatorships as an example for the failings of capitalism is this: Those Third World nations aren't capitalist. Unfortunately most Communists/leftists/neo-nazis/stalinists here will choose to ignore that logic and continue chanting their slogans. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.