Would you vote Respect?

[ComradeBadger]

Since I'm bored, I shall embark on ANOTHER

Why communism doesn't work rant.

Simply put: Communism is an idea formed in a time when labour was the main source of a country's economic strength. Therefore it was remotely feasable - in the 19th Century.

Innovation these days is what brings in money to a country. Not labour. Communism creates a closed society in which there is supposedly no need for innovation. No innovation leads to social and economic stagnation, and as no country can truely fend for itself, eventual collapse.

What if you had a familly?

Our current minimum wage, if applied to a standard 9 hour-per-day 5-day-per-week job, brings in £990 a month. It's quite possible to feed a family of four on that, and afford rent.

It's more strennuous on the body.I don't contest that.

However, manual labour can be done by any healthy human being. Hence the value of that work is reduced.

Incentive such as being able to retire early could be given.

Thus placing more strain on the welfare system..

Communism is not a good idea, as it completley and utterly fails to take into account basic human nature for competition.

I'm left wing myself, but by no means are the extremes a good idea.

Read The Open Society And It's Enemies by Karl Popper and come back to us Solaris.

 

[el Chi]

Communism is an idea formed in a time when labour was the main source of a country's economic strength. Therefore it was remotely feasable - in the 19th Century.

Woah, woah, woah, hang on... What's happened in the last 158 years?

 

[kirovman]

Would you vote RESPEC' ?

 

[Beerdude26]

Would you vote RESPEC' ?

Is that the derivative of the RESPECT party?

 

[BirdMan]

It's time for a little class of "Why will capitalism cause the end of this planet and society why we should not support it"..

First of all here is the sitatuation, this is the result of a research I did in my class: Stakes of the earth

Earth, 2006.

World average hectare available per capita: 2,2
World average hectare per capita: 2,8
we're in a dept of 0,6 hectare per capita... something wrong there

India's average hectare per capita: 0,8
Canada's average hectare per capita: 7,7
USA's average hectare per capita: 10,3

Don't you see something wrong in these numbers? Something saying: If capitalism is good for you, then it's because you're in a ****ing country of overconsumption of luxuary goods and useless junk.. Now throw this ****ing iPod away, you don't deserve it more than anyone else.

1 300 000 000 people are starving every day, not sure if they'll get something to eat. In these 1,3 millions, 800 000 000 are in China, the fastest growing capitalist economy (even tho they call themselves communist but they are no more communist than USSR).

Think about this, Communist will bring down the quality of life by a notch it's sure.. But it will just put us a a stable state of 2,2 hectares per capita which is what we should be.. It's ****ing egocentric thinking that third world countries should stay at 0,5 hectare per capita so YOU can enjoy your 10,3 hectares. And don't bring out the argument of: Capitalism brings jobs in 3rd world countries.. My a**! you almost bring em to the state of slavery. Flame me please, I'm a commie hippie.

Edit: Don't bring the human nature bull shit too, you don't know shit about about human nature. Alot of past societies could function without greed. And those who had, well we've seen what happned ( Easter Island ).

 

[Absinthe]

I'M SORRY, BUT I LIKE MY IPOD AND WEALTH OF USELESS JUNK, SO NO THANKS

 

[kirovman]

Well, that consumption would have been sustainable at previous population levels, but there's been somewhat of a population explosion.

Population (and the consumption it brings with it) is responsible for climate change, and the diminishing space.

800 000 000 are in China

Noone's starving in China as a result of food shortage, maybe it was true at the beginning of the 1980s, but not now. They send food aid to other countries in fact.

 

[The Monkey]

800 000 000 are [starving] in China, the fastest growing capitalist economy (even tho they call themselves communist but they are no more communist than USSR).

That's bullshit. No one, or at least very few, are starving in China.

The USSR was communist, BTW.

 

[Black_Wolf]

It's time for a little class of "Why will capitalism cause the end of this planet and society why we should not support it"..

First of all here is the sitatuation, this is the result of a research I did in my class: Stakes of the earth

Earth, 2006.

World average hectare available per capita: 2,2
World average hectare per capita: 2,8
we're in a dept of 0,6 hectare per capita... something wrong there

India's average hectare per capita: 0,8
Canada's average hectare per capita: 7,7
USA's average hectare per capita: 10,3

Don't you see something wrong in these numbers? Something saying: If capitalism is good for you, then it's because you're in a ****ing country of overconsumption of luxuary goods and useless junk.. Now throw this ****ing iPod away, you don't deserve it more than anyone else.

1 300 000 000 people are starving every day, not sure if they'll get something to eat. In these 1,3 millions, 800 000 000 are in China, the fastest growing capitalist economy (even tho they call themselves communist but they are no more communist than USSR).

Think about this, Communist will bring down the quality of life by a notch it's sure.. But it will just put us a a stable state of 2,2 hectares per capita which is what we should be.. It's ****ing egocentric thinking that third world countries should stay at 0,5 hectare per capita so YOU can enjoy your 10,3 hectares. And don't bring out the argument of: Capitalism brings jobs in 3rd world countries.. My a**! you almost bring em to the state of slavery. Flame me please, I'm a commie hippie.

Edit: Don't bring the human nature bull shit too, you don't know shit about about human nature. Alot of past societies could function without greed. And those who had, well we've seen what happned ( Easter Island ).

move to Cuba plz, you nub cake.

 

[Beerdude26]

It's time for a little class of "Why will capitalism cause the end of this planet and society why we should not support it"..

First of all here is the sitatuation, this is the result of a research I did in my class: Stakes of the earth

Earth, 2006.

World average hectare available per capita: 2,2
World average hectare per capita: 2,8
we're in a dept of 0,6 hectare per capita... something wrong there

India's average hectare per capita: 0,8
Canada's average hectare per capita: 7,7
USA's average hectare per capita: 10,3

Don't you see something wrong in these numbers? Something saying: If capitalism is good for you, then it's because you're in a ****ing country of overconsumption of luxuary goods and useless junk.. Now throw this ****ing iPod away, you don't deserve it more than anyone else.

1 300 000 000 people are starving every day, not sure if they'll get something to eat. In these 1,3 millions, 800 000 000 are in China, the fastest growing capitalist economy (even tho they call themselves communist but they are no more communist than USSR).

Think about this, Communist will bring down the quality of life by a notch it's sure.. But it will just put us a a stable state of 2,2 hectares per capita which is what we should be.. It's ****ing egocentric thinking that third world countries should stay at 0,5 hectare per capita so YOU can enjoy your 10,3 hectares. And don't bring out the argument of: Capitalism brings jobs in 3rd world countries.. My a**! you almost bring em to the state of slavery. Flame me please, I'm a commie hippie.

Edit: Don't bring the human nature bull shit too, you don't know shit about about human nature. Alot of past societies could function without greed. And those who had, well we've seen what happned ( Easter Island ).

Or, we could do what we're doing now and help the other countries get the same amount of luxury. And don't tell me that won't work, because your idea isn't going to be done in one day either.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Edit: Don't bring the human nature bull shit too, you don't know shit about about human nature. Alot of past societies could function without greed. And those who had, well we've seen what happned ( Easter Island ).

Insulting your opponants only makes you look worse. Thank you for informing me that I, as opposed to you, 'don't know shit' about human nature.

Competition is a part of human nature - it drives some people more than others, but it's there. You can't deny that.

 

[Solaris]

You can still have competition. People can still strive to be the best becuase of other incentives besides more money. Perphaps being able to retire early would be a good one, or a big medal at a cermony.

 

[Mr Stabby]

You can still have competition. People can still strive to be the best becuase of other incentives besides more money. Perphaps being able to retire early would be a good one, or a big medal at a cermony.

Personally I think that sounds awful, a token medal, and a reduced prison sentence don't sound much fun compared to the capitalist system. We're not ants

 

[kirovman]

Can I have a medal with a diameter of 1 metre saying "WIN" on it?

 

[repiV]

See. you putting words into my mouth. No socialist would argue that people should get the benifits of society if they do not work for it. Our core belief is "From each according to ability, to each according to need". This means, we ask that people contribute to the best of their ability, clever people should do clever jobs ect. And people will be given depending on their need, a woman with 3 kids would be given more food entiltilment than a single student.

Why should people have to do harder work for less reward?

Perphaps not, but you might have a familly and kids that need supporting.

What if you had a familly?

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would make sure they could support a family before having one. The state already picks up after you in this country anyway (more than it should do), so it's a non-issue.

Private enterprise would be none existant, the state would run all buissness, it wouldn't 'outsource' labour.

Wow...we can all be slaves of the state. Loyal, obedient, battery hens with no ambitions, no way to improve our prospects in life, no way to innovate, allowing no progress in society whatsoever...doomed to the same miserable existence forever, completely at the mercy of the government. Our entire society defined by the will of the state, self-expression allowed only within the confines of what the state decides we need next. No imagination, no progress, no LIVING.
I would rather kill 90% of the population of the planet than subject the whole of it to your unbelievably nightmarish dystopia.

Your applying my desires to a caplitalist international enviroment. Under complete international socialism there would be no private enterprise.

So you want to enslave the entire world and make them subservient, powerless tools of the all-encompassing state.

You think someone whos working fulltime is entitled to enough money to support their familly?

They're entitled to whatever their market value is.
Boo-hoo, someone makes poor money in a factory. I'm crying tears of pity. Why don't they become a plumber instead? They make more money than most white-collar workers. Oh, right...I forgot. That would require some initiative, responsibility and accountability.

Half of people employed produce nothing. Under socialism we could all work significantly less and make the same amount of things.

We have a high-tech, specialised, service-driven economy. It isn't about producing anything. I make a small fortune filling my clients' job vacancies for them, and that's because the service I provide is worth the cost to them. It's cheaper, faster and more effective to use a third party than to do their recruiting in-house. Ain't the market wonderful?

Who would work for them? If all the workers were rich?

Just because everyone has the potential to become rich, doesn't mean that they are going to.

Becuase you are a member of mankind, and the welfare of man is your buissness and duty to protect.

The "welfare of man"? We live in a world at war. Human civilisation is and always has been defined by struggle, suffering and conflict. Where do you get your hippie fantasies from?

It's more strennuous on the body.I don't contest that.

Like ComradeBadger said, anybody can do it so that work has little value. You aren't worth much for being ordinary, nor should you be.

Boderline.You have no more right to be here than anyone else does, neither

No. What is racist is coming to Britain as a foreigner and demanding that the British make adjustments to suit them. What is almost treasonous is that this incompetent government will take their demands and do twice as much to appease them.
Appeasing the Muslims is somehow more important than national security and cultural harmony. Wonders never cease.
By the way, my British passport says otherwise.

Incentive such as being able to retire early could be given.

What ComradeBadger said.

I'd like to see you read some marxist material with an open mind, and then argue, understanding what this 'socialist' thing is you are debating.

I studied Marxism quite extensively, thanks. I used to think he was pretty cool - then I grew up.

 

[Ome_Vince]

It's time for a little class of "Why will capitalism cause the end of this planet and society why we should not support it"..

First of all here is the sitatuation, this is the result of a research I did in my class: Stakes of the earth

Earth, 2006.

World average hectare available per capita: 2,2
World average hectare per capita: 2,8
we're in a dept of 0,6 hectare per capita... something wrong there

India's average hectare per capita: 0,8
Canada's average hectare per capita: 7,7
USA's average hectare per capita: 10,3

Don't you see something wrong in these numbers? Something saying: If capitalism is good for you, then it's because you're in a ****ing country of overconsumption of luxuary goods and useless junk.. Now throw this ****ing iPod away, you don't deserve it more than anyone else.

1 300 000 000 people are starving every day, not sure if they'll get something to eat. In these 1,3 millions, 800 000 000 are in China, the fastest growing capitalist economy (even tho they call themselves communist but they are no more communist than USSR).

Think about this, Communist will bring down the quality of life by a notch it's sure.. But it will just put us a a stable state of 2,2 hectares per capita which is what we should be.. It's ****ing egocentric thinking that third world countries should stay at 0,5 hectare per capita so YOU can enjoy your 10,3 hectares. And don't bring out the argument of: Capitalism brings jobs in 3rd world countries.. My a**! you almost bring em to the state of slavery. Flame me please, I'm a commie hippie.

Edit: Don't bring the human nature bull shit too, you don't know shit about about human nature. Alot of past societies could function without greed. And those who had, well we've seen what happned ( Easter Island ).

First of all, hunger and poverty were there before capitalism => they're natures trademarks, not capitalist ones. Those numbers meen jack shit because its always been like this even before capitalism. In countries with huge out of control birthrates, poverty is often a result.
No system has been able to counter this.
Yet in the cases of India and China, things are changing as the industrial world is moving over there.

Your argumentation on hectare per capita is also bullshit, as it says absolutely nothing about fareness and equality.
My country has one of the higher human development rates, and is a puny piece of land with a shitload of people.
Land says nothing about happiness.

Ever hear of this Human Development index? Its a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used by many people to distinguish whether the country is a first, second, or third world country.

SOURCE
Check that list:

1. Norway (=)
2. Iceland (↑ 5)
3. Australia (=)
4. Luxembourg (↑ 11)
5. Canada (↑ 1)
6. Sweden (↓ 4)
7. Switzerland (↑ 4)
8. Ireland (↑ 2)
9. Belgium (↓ 3)
10.United States (↓ 2)
11.Japan (↓ 2)
12.Netherlands (↓ 7)
13.Finland (=)
14.Denmark (↑ 3)
15.United Kingdom (↓ 3)
16.France (=)
17.Austria (↓ 3)
18.Italy (↑ 3)
19.New Zealand (↓ 1)
20.Germany (↓ 1)

I cant find any communist or former communist regimes in there, do you? hmmmm. :smoking:

It gets even worse:
If you want to look at how many people enjoy the "fruits of communism" (meaning either communist states, or former communist wrecks). Here's a nice list for you:

SOURCE

List of Suicides:

Rank Country Year Males Females Total
1. Lithuania 2003 74.3 13.9 42.1
2. Russian Federation 2002 69.3 11.9 38.7
3. Belarus 2003 63.3 10.3 35.1
4. Kazakhstan 2002 50.2 8.8 28.8
5. Slovenia 2003 45.0 12.0 28.1
6. Hungary 2003 44.9 12.0 27.7
7. Estonia 2002 47.7 9.8 27.3
8. Ukraine 2002 46.7 8.4 26.1
9. Latvia 2003 45.0 9.7 26.0
10. Japan 2002 35.2 12.8 23.8
11. Sri Lanka 1996 NA NA 21.6
12. Belgium 1997 31.2 11.4 21.1
13. Finland 2003 31.9 9.8 20.6
14. Croatia 2003 31.4 8.4 19.5
15. Switzerland 2001 26.5 10.6 18.4
16. Cuba 1996 24.5 12.0 18.3

Notice anything funny in this list?

As for capitalism "raping" China and India. Half the industrial world is moving to these places.
I worked for several months in India, and you see enormous amounts of buisness moving over there, and the salaries are rising enormously.
They are growing very fast, so several large corporations like Appel are allready on there way out to find the next cheap place to produce -> national wealth there is growing...
Soon they'll start showing up in the Human Development Index lists as their quality of life is improving.

And "dont give me shit about human nature alot of societies could survive without greed" wtf are you talking about?
Please name 1 society in the history of mankind, that has ever been without greed-corruption-poverty

The answer is: None. The quality of life has risen, compared to the past.
Capitalism however, does in some form need to be combined with a level of socialism in order to create a good society, but its still not perfect => nothing really can be.

 

[BirdMan]

Take note, English is not my first language and I do not master it, so some of my sentences could be confusing. I'll explain myself if you ask.
----

move to Cuba plz, you nub cake.

Can't handle truth?

That's bullshit. No one, or at least very few, are starving in China.

The USSR was communist, BTW.

You got to be ignorant on both subject if you say this. I'm sorry but it is my job to study these societies problems and I was shown a documentary on my local "discovery channel"(cause that's not what it's called) about the dark side of China. I can't link sources right here cause it's a documentary, unless I can find it on youtube or whatever, then you have the right to not believe the truth (but I'll try to find a source on the net so you can see). If you go in big cities like Shangai and Hong Kong you're gonna be "WOW China is coming in great!!"... but get out just a little bit of big cities, go in rural areas.. You'll see there's nothing to be happy about this new economy.

And BTW, USSR was not communist, read Marx about his view on communism.. you'll see there are no countries in the world who clearly represented it's view

Or, we could do what we're doing now and help the other countries get the same amount of luxury. And don't tell me that won't work, because your idea isn't going to be done in one day either.

We CAN'T give them the same amount of luxuary. We are already abusing earth's capacities of ressources only to the pleasure of 1/5 of the population of the planet. Guess why China's rising is a problem in the future, because it's gonna unbalance the way of our lives. We can't afford to have 1.3 billion people with 1 car each like we do. We can't afford to have 1.3 billion people more consuming as much as we do, the earth just can't handle that much of ressources hugging. We DEPEND on third world countries so we can continue to live "the american dream". Guess why we're payin them 5 pennies a day (I'm making a generalisation here I agree), not because they do not need more... it's because if they get too rich, we're doomed.

First of all, hunger and poverty were there before capitalism => they're natures trademarks, not capitalist ones. Those numbers meen jack shit because its always been like this even before capitalism. In countries with huge out of control birthrates, poverty is often a result.

Sure it was there, but now the difference is WE (by WE I mean rich countries) maintain it. We have the power to create schools in every third world countries, give em access to pure water, give em preservatives so we can stop (or at least break) the spreading of AIDS... and the list goes on. But we don't want that (or at least not the business men)... Exemple: What would life be if oil countries realised that their ressources are being ambused by rich countries? Something like this would happen... Not good at all for us... High Gas price?? Oh noes! Now imagine every oil countries doing this... It would be the crash of US economy, it's too dependent on oil. We don't want them to know we're abusing them at this very moment.

What I want you to realise is we depend on those third world countries, we depend on the poverty of those ppl so we can live happy lives. This is not the result of competition, it's a crime against humanity.

Earth can't handle 6 500 000 000 people living happily(by the time we acheive this, the number will have reached 10 000 000 000), it can't even handle the current situation.

Ever hear of this Human Development index? Its a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used by many people to distinguish whether the country is a first, second, or third world country.

Yes I did, but it doesn't explain anything. All I see is pure logical sense. Btw your misguided here, the term THIRD world countries came in during the Cold War as a title to the countries who did not fit into neither Capitalist (First) or Communist (Second) countries. And What I mean is by it does not explain anything is that I see it's normal that no communist or former communist countries are featuring on that list: being communist means putting a break in developpement (at some extent). If other countries don't put a break too, you're gonna get some delay with the other countries. I remember I saw once a comparason between East and West berlin. Something like East berlin had 40 years delay in technology and other negative points (like you said, quality of life and all).. But there was one positive point in East Berlin that ruled them all: East Berlin was like 200% less poluted... and i'm a tree hugger so guess what: We depend on the environment to live.. and we're srewing it up big time right now..

The quality of life has risen, compared to the past.
Capitalism however, does in some form need to be combined with a level of socialism in order to create a good society, but its still not perfect => nothing really can be.

Sad but true, we are doomed for extinction like -almost- every other species on earth.. Humans are a young specie compared to alot of animals but we have something unique that, to my knowledge, no species ever achieved(correct me if I'm wrong).. We are going to cause our own destruction

I'd like to clarify, my job is not to give solutions, but to study our planet's social, environnemental and economic issues. I don't want to have world wide communism, I love my way of living and it's making me sad to think that I should be living with much less... But what saddens me the most, Is to think that we don't really have the choice to reduce our quality of life if we want to give us and earth a chance. We can't keep up like this forever, this dream will not go on forever... If you ppl think of a better solution that could prevent the destruction of our specie, I'm open.

And a last thing, I think I was misunderstood when I said that greed is not part of human nature.. It is part of human nature, but we are not controlled by it at every extent. Sharing is also part of human nature, common thinking is also part of human nature and cooperation... What I want is to create a society based on "cooperation" and not on "Free For All" (hey we're in a gaming forum after all ).

Now I'm tired it's 2:30 am, and I don't have time to answer everything else and I don't have sources of what I said expect books that I've read, documentary I've watched and other studies conclusions, so I'll leave it there for now.

Peace! (I wish)

Edit: Oops I made a mistake on some numbers, i've looked up in my geopolitics notes and now I corrected: 800 000 000 ppl are starving everyday, and 300 000 000 are in China.

 

[gick]

JK Glabraith sez:
'Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's just the opposite'

He's right. They both ****ing suck. At the moment, millions of people (not to mention the environment) are being seriously ****ed over by capitalism. But if the whole world was communist, everybody would be getting ****ed over in one way or another.

The answer (IMO) is a market driven economy with a very healthily funded public sector, and strong laws to protect people and their rights from any form of unaccountable power, be it a corporation or a trade union. The beauty of this is that lots of countries already have a system like this in place. We can achieve a better world for everybody - all we need is compassion, determination, and a big dose of pragmatism

 

[el Chi]

I agree with gick on a lot of those points. I'm nnot a fan of the state of capitalism in the world today, although that's mainly because of corporaions are allowed to get away with unbelievably ruthless contradictions to human decency that many governments turn a blind eye to. That's more a criticism of current politics and corporatism than capitalism, I suppose.
Although the state does have an inherent duty to take good care of its citizens.

move to Cuba plz, you nub cake.

Well that's a snappy counter.

Can't handle the truth?

And a snappier comeback.

 

[The Monkey]

You got to be ignorant on both subject if you say this. I'm sorry but it is my job to study these societies problems and I was shown a documentary on my local "discovery channel"(cause that's not what it's called) about the dark side of China. I can't link sources right here cause it's a documentary, unless I can find it on youtube or whatever, then you have the right to not believe the truth (but I'll try to find a source on the net so you can see). If you go in big cities like Shangai and Hong Kong you're gonna be "WOW China is coming in great!!"... but get out just a little bit of big cities, go in rural areas.. You'll see there's nothing to be happy about this new economy.

And BTW, USSR was not communist, read Marx about his view on communism.. you'll see there are no countries in the world who clearly represented it's view

I have been to the rular areas of China, and yes it is poor, when it comes to capital, but they are far from starving. The main reason the Chinese are so poor is its long history of communist oppression. Capitalism is slowly changing Chania for the better. People are getting better and better quality of life (although the progress is a tad slower on the countryside, it's still coming). Capitalism is probably the best thing that has happened to China during the last 1000 years. I am by no means saying that China is perfect, it's not. But the wind of change that's coming brings more than anything well-being to the people of China, even if it has its dark sides as well.

 

[Ome_Vince]

@Birdman
I'm not interested whether or not humanity is a descent species => its not, like al animals its ego-centric.
There is no way around human nature, we need capitalist states with a socialist underground to create a good fair starting point giving people hope, and opportunity (which they need).

You call on "we have the power to build schools" billions each year are spend on helping third world countries (by rich countries).
Yes its not even nearly enough, and indeed shamefull we're not doing more, but please draw the comparisson with communism (Which is what we're doing here).
I've actually NEVER heard of communist countries stepping in and helping other countries, other than trying to overthrow a capitalist state and change it into a communist one....
If anything those regimes let the rest of the world rot and die, and lets not have fantasies on "we can all be equal", thats never going to happen (even if the whole world adopts communism).

If you are refering to tree-hugging over quality of life for humanity, than i think thats not a very good argument to choose communism over capitalism.
I love nature, but i'd always choose humanity over a tree. I'd like to force humanity to care, but if you want a show-down on which governmental system "is better", then the Nr1 thing to look at is quality of human life, and not some side-effects on nature.
Also, within communism alot of polution also happens, look at the Soviet Union for instance. Its a side-effect of industrialism, not of a certain government type.
The reason West-Berlin poluted more, was because it also produced more, it was economically 400% more powerfull and the quality of life was much better for humans.

East-Berlin suffered so many people in misery, wishing to leave, they had to build a big wall to keep them in (force them to stay).
This is but one of the examples of how miserable the effects of communism are.
Dont get me wrong, i'm not a commie hater, if Cuba wants to live in communism, i couldnt care a rats ass, just as long as i dont have to live in it, or my family.

Imo there is no real argument to choose for communism, other than theoretical ones, "lets all be equal" => and thats just the one that time and time again has been proven not to work: not under communism, not under capitalism, not ever => its a fantasy, just like "lets all prevent war and murder".
Capitalism gives people a chance, and hope, which has the positive effect on humanities quality of life.

On top of that, any tree-hugger should also go for capitalism, while indeed industrial growth has screwed nature over, more and more societies are aiming for nature. Cant say the same for communist ones...
For instance in many European countries (especially mine) we cant polute, we cant chop down trees or shoot animals, there's extreme laws vs industries who polute etc etc. More and more societies are aiming to care for the world instead of ruin it.
And again, i cant say the same for communist states, not in the past or now (havent searched, so if i'm wrong please post examples)..

 

[Beerdude26]

12. Belgium 1997 31.2 11.4 21.1

D: Liez

Sad but true, we are doomed for extinction like -almost- every other species on earth.. Humans are a young specie compared to alot of animals but we have something unique that, to my knowledge, no species ever achieved(correct me if I'm wrong).. We are going to cause our own destruction

Well yeah, shit happens
/me moves to Mars and gets pwnt by Martians

We CAN'T give them the same amount of luxuary. We are already abusing earth's capacities of ressources only to the pleasure of 1/5 of the population of the planet. Guess why China's rising is a problem in the future, because it's gonna unbalance the way of our lives. We can't afford to have 1.3 billion people with 1 car each like we do. We can't afford to have 1.3 billion people more consuming as much as we do, the earth just can't handle that much of ressources hugging. We DEPEND on third world countries so we can continue to live "the american dream". Guess why we're payin them 5 pennies a day (I'm making a generalisation here I agree), not because they do not need more... it's because if they get too rich, we're doomed.

Indeed. This is why I support renewable energy sources, like water and wind energy, and get rid of oil. (Hey, it WILL happen in a century or two, it's not like we can say "WTF OIL STAY HERE D:")

 

[Nemesis6]

D: Liez

Well yeah, shit happens
/me moves to Mars and gets pwnt by Martians

Indeed. This is why I support renewable energy sources, like water and wind energy, and get rid of oil. (Hey, it WILL happen in a century or two, it's not like we can say "WTF OIL STAY HERE D:")

*gets a mental image of a Texan shouting at an oil pool* - "YALL BETTER STAY HERE, BOY!"

 

[Ome_Vince]

D: Liez

Yeah, though it must be hard being "a belg"
"Alle menneke!"
"Chefke!"

 

[Solaris]

Please Mr.Taxman, don't for a minute think that China was ever communist.

 

[delusional]

didnt marx invent the dictator of the proletariat which every communist state was stuck in.
which is the transition from capitalist to communist. so china and russia got stuck in a transitional state because the dictator got corrupted by power and wealth
would socialist nazi germany better fit your definition of socialism?

 

[Solaris]

didnt marx invent the dictator of the proletariat which every communist state was stuck in.
which is the transition from capitalist to communist. so china and russia got stuck in a transitional state because the dictator got corrupted by power and wealth
would socialist nazi germany better fit your definition of socialism?

*Private Ryans Avatar*

 

[kirovman]

It WAS just about as communist as you could up until about the end of the cultural revolution.

Collectivised farming and industry, nationalised industries, money was abolished, people could ride buses for free, get healthcare for free (although the system was in a poor state and was unsustainable).

Upper classes sent into the countryside for "a working class education" and peasants sent into the city.

In fact, the only difference I see between this communism, and your communism is the end result.
Your end result is a utopia where everyone is happy.
The end result in China was chaos, leaving the country in a worse state than ever, with high nationalist sentiments and mutual suspicion of everyone about "American Capitalist Spies"
Rich businessmen in China were dragged through the mud and beaten by mobs.
Being poor was a sign of being virtuous and everyone was encouraged to be working class.

So after the death of Mao, Deng Xiaoping quickly implemented economic reforms, which has brought about 600 million people out of poverty since.

You can't just disassociate it with communism because it doesn't fit in with your perfect vision of it. This was the really ugly side of communism.

 

[Ome_Vince]

..would socialist nazi germany better fit your definition of socialism?

hmm, interesting point.. :

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP = Hitlers party)

Translation: National Socialist German Workers Party..

 

[delusional]

hitler also followed karl marx advise and blamed judaism for all their problems which ultimately led to the holocaust. think the same thing hapened in russia too but not to that extent

 

[Solaris]

hmm, interesting point.. :

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP = Hitlers party)

Translation: National Socialist German Workers Party..

If you were next to me, I'd punch you. An e-punch will have to do. *punch*.

Just. My hands are in my head. Anger, Disbelief, Amazement. If you thin.... Just.... I'm not going to bother.

And good point kirkovmon, I'll read into it and get back to you.

 

[delusional]

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/lies.htm
there you go solaris
i just dont believe the god stuff in it as much

 

[Nemesis6]

Ome, or Vince... That last post of yours reminded me of something - In Kaunas, Lithuania, 3,800 of the city's 33,700 Jewish inhabitants were attacked by "anti-Communist Lithuanian partisans". That kind of makes sense, they do the Germans' bidding and kill Jews. What they failed to realize, is that at the same time, they are, ironically, doing the bidding of communism, too. For example, take the Kielce pogrom. The same thing happened, but this time, it was the communists. Civilians and police, alike, they did what communism does best - Kill civilians.

If there's one thing nazism and socialism, in most of its forms, share, it's hatred of the Jewish people.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. As crappy as communism can be/is (as Kirov's post illustrates), there is no ingrained anti-semitism. Nazism fundamentally incorporates racial hatred, eugenics, extreme nationalism and expansionist policy. That's what it is. The original NSDAP manifesto is a pile of contradictions and the only thing that holds it together is hatred.

Communism does not fundamentally incorporate racial hatred. Hatred of the rich? Probably. Hatred of capitalists? Maybe so. Hatred of religion? Quite possibly. Hatred of jews? If you think that's a fundamental part of communism you're simply making up more reasons to justify your hatred of it, and quite frankly, there are enough reasons without having to invent any.

It should be noted that anti-semitism was quite engrained in Tsarrist Russia as well.

EDIT: Hell, Stalin set up an oblast just "to try to create a 'Soviet Zion' for a proletarian Jewish culture to develop" (wikipedia).

 

[delusional]

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/holo.htm
"as soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empiracal essence of judaism, and the conditions which produces him, the jew will become imposible... his consciencness will no longer have a corresponding object because the subjective basis of judaism viz: practical needs, will have been humanized, because the conflict of the individual, sensual existence with generic existence of the individual will have been abolished." karl marx

 

[Solaris]

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/holo.htm
"as soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empiracal essence of judaism, and the conditions which produces him, the jew will become imposible... his consciencness will no longer have a corresponding object because the subjective basis of judaism viz: practical needs, will have been humanized, because the conflict of the individual, sensual existence with generic existence of the individual will have been abolished." karl marx

If you read it the whole of that peice of writing entitled "On the Jewish Question" or something like that, you will see how that quote isn't anti-semitic in the slightest.

 

[delusional]

karl marx was against the jewish mentality of capitalism. because in the dark ages jews couldnt own property so they lived off the market and sold goods and when the aristocracy fell it left the wealthy on the top of the social structure which many jews were part of since they accumulated wealth through trade. so marx equated all the sins of capitalism to judaism since they were the precursers of capitalism

 

[Solaris]

karl marx was against the jewish mentality of capitalism. because in the dark ages jews couldnt own property so they lived off the market and sold goods and when the aristocracy fell it left the wealthy on the top of the social structure which many jews were part of since they accumulated wealth through trade. so marx equated all the sins of capitalism to judaism since they were the precursers of capitalism

No he didn't...

 

[delusional]

then explain to me why he wants to abolish the jewish mentality? you read "on the jewish question" havent you?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Guess what: that was written before he actually formulated many of his ideas about economics and so on and so forth.

Guess what also: it would be a criticism of the method by which he saw Jews as trading by, not of Jews themselves.

Guess what the third: the essay was really about how Jews in Prussia could free themselves with regards to civil rights, and could free themselves with regards to religious rights, but could never free themselves from the economic system they were trapped in. It was in response to an essay which claimed Jews could only free themselves if they abandoned religion.

By the way: Karl Marx != communism as an ideology.

Quoting from wikipedia is lazy, but:

Marx himself has been accused of being an anti-Semite, though most critical scholars today tend to reject this argument.