A question to Communists:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where, exacty, in the capitalist doctrine does it say: one must use all accumulated wealth, derrived from efficiency, for evil?
It merely says that one must accumulate wealth in the form of a profit. That, my dear, is enough to ensure that evil will occur.

Nor does it mean that all people endeavoring to accumulate wealth are demons.
Under this system, the only way to accumulate wealth is to gain from the work of others- who do not gain half as much from you as you do from then.

Plenty of rich people have done plenty of great things - things that I doubt the government would have accomplished.
NEWSFLASH: The government is rich people.
 
Ron Popeil is evil?
People assume that our biggest quarrel is with the people behind the capitalist system when it is more accurately a struggle against the capitalist system itself. I would say that there are no "evil" people, merely evil systems that compel people to act in evil ways.

Tolstoy (who formulated a theory that is often described as "Christian Anarchism") said that the liberal boss who was not particularily hostile to his employees was akin to the man who feeds his donkey well, ensures it is healthy, and gives it shelter- but still uses it as a beast of burden. Even if there is a little "give-and-take," the exploitive and exceptionally undemocratic nature of capitalism means that at the root of it it's still not fair or liberating in any way.
 
To truly be libertarian is to want to limit both the government and businesses power. Wanting to remove the checks and balances in this system is stupid.

I'm sorry? I thought libertarians were for liberty. Personal liberty.
 
I'm sorry? I thought libertarians were for liberty. Personal liberty.

What he's saying is that checks and balances are the best way to maximize personal liberty, as anarchy in a particular quadrant of society will lead to infringements on liberty.
 
What he's saying is that checks and balances are the best way to maximize personal liberty, as anarchy in a particular quadrant of society will lead to infringements on liberty.

Nobody disagrees with that. Well, maybe hardcore libertarians, but that's only because they don't see the big, long-term picture.
 
Nobody disagrees with that. Well, maybe hardcore libertarians, but that's only because they don't see the big, long-term picture.

You're also forgetting that libertarian is not exclusively a rightist term; they stole it from the libertarian socialists. :p
 
Libertarian socialism is voluntary socialism though. :p
 
People assume that our biggest quarrel is with the people behind the capitalist system when it is more accurately a struggle against the capitalist system itself. I would say that there are no "evil" people, merely evil systems that compel people to act in evil ways.
ron_pic.jpg


So the Ronco™ Compact Showtime Rotisserie is the product of evil?
 
So the Ronco™ Compact Showtime Rotisserie is the product of evil?
As absurd as it sounds to you, dead-set in your commodity-fetishizing ways (that wasn't mine, that was one of Marx's) yes. Yes it is. Maybe those aren't chickens maybe they are babies lol.
 
ron_pic.jpg


So the Ronco™ Compact Showtime Rotisserie is the product of evil?

What a childish arguement to make. Just because there is institutional evil, doesn't mean that the induviduals involved are evil.
 
ron_pic.jpg


So the Ronco™ Compact Showtime Rotisserie is the product of evil?
Yes, I can just see pure evil and malice flowing through the veins of this product. I can see the entire world ending and the beginning of the plot of another Dr.Strangelove movie.
 
Many people believe in Communism because it's fair.

I like Communism better than Capitalism. But I don't believe that it works, because some people are too damn selfish.
 
Many people believe in Communism because it's fair.

I like Communism better than Capitalism. But I don't believe that it works, because some people are too damn selfish.

Communism has many problems, many because of practical reasons such as the fact that a command economy cannot be micromanaged enough to be efficient. The fact that "people are too damn selfish" is a dumb argument.
 
The fact that "people are too damn selfish" is a dumb argument.
But they are! Show me a country that is communists and the people get paid the same and are never greedy?
 
Ever heard of the term "gilded cage?"
I know you've definitely heard of the term "you're full of crap".

A cage limits your actions. As I already described, I am exempt from all the limits employers generally impose on their workers--many workers can't surf the Internet or make personal calls on the company phone or keep an X-Box in the desk or wear blue jeans and sneakers to work.

I can. Therefore no cage.

Yes, I have to work for my salary. But then, work is inevitable and unavoidable. If there were no employers and no evil corporations, you would still have to work in order to survive--you would be finding your own food, building your own house, and you wouldn't have any electricity because you don't know how to build your own generator or refine your own gasoline. In short, if not for corporations, you would be working a lot longer hours for less stuff.

So, how do we prevent people from being enslaved into a life of servitude??? Simple: allow them to choose their own profession. Oh, wait--capitalism already does that.

How do we distribute goods fairly? Simple: give everybody an allotment of points and let them spend the points however they like. Aww, gee, we already have that--it's called money. Everyone in here who was whining about the evils of money? You got the wrong target. Money is merely a proxy for food, shelter, computers, sunglasses, and other goodies--the problem isn't money. The problem is that humans are naturally greedy. Including you Commies--you're trying to upend the current system and replace it with one in which you get more goodies for less work. In short, you're no different from Bill Gates. (OOOHHHH, that one HAD to hurt!!!)

How do we decide how much money a worker should get? Also simple: if power is to be placed in the hands of the workers, then the workers should be left to decide for themselves. Big surprise: capitalism already does that too. Employers make offers, and YOU choose which one to take--if any. Nobody said you had to take any of them. Go buy yourself a farm. Or start a job in your own garage building computers for people. Hmmmm.....that's how Alienware started out.....



The reason I ditched this thread in anger--before very quickly getting lured back in--was because people in here aren't playing fair.

-- Whenever an employer makes a gesture to improve working conditions, you call "gilded cage" and completely disregard the fact that the cage of labor is not placed around us by employers--it's simply a fact of life.

-- Several of you leftist wingnuts have pointed out various failures of capitalism--for example, Ondskan pointing out that Cuba has better health care--while neglecting to point out the 473 different ways Cuba has failed in comparison to the U.S.: freedom of speech, economic strength, quality of luxury goods, and quality of medical care (for those who do get it) being just a few. The real truth is that the score is Cuba 1, U.S. 473.

-- Then there's the tactic of holding capitalism to an impossible standard. The U.S. can't be the absolute best at everything. Yet Ondskan and others did just that. Well, if you tally up all the ways in which every (attempted) Communist state has failed, the list becomes very, very, VERY long. A lot longer than capitalism's list of failures.​


When one's opponents are cheating, there are only two choices--either cheat better than them or boot them from the table. Since I'm not a mod, I can't boot people, so I guess that leaves playing dirty.....:mad:
 
And "capitalism is evil" is a mature argument? You are loopy. :crazyeye:

It's really no more of a loopy argument than, as I said in my sig for so long, "free market solves everything." You have to admit that libertarian socialism is admirable for being consistent, at the least, even if there are fundamental principles which you disagree with.
 
Communism has many problems, many because of practical reasons such as the fact that a command economy cannot be micromanaged enough to be efficient. The fact that "people are too damn selfish" is a dumb argument.

No it is, simply, not. The bureaucracy which is run by the people during communism is not the problem. The problem is the numerous people in each part of the bureaucracy are normally pretty corrupt. That is the selfishness, not the bureaucracy that is a problem here.

Also, the actual production of the communist nation decreases terribly because people are too selfish to make an effort in it.

And don't say it was a dumb argument. That is the same as stating I am dumb, which is trolling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom