<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

Capitalism is extremely fragile and does not work nor will ever from an ethical point of view, it barely work in an economic sense. Companies are always expecting to be bailed out by the government, or be given subsidies and preferential treatment and it is so easy for it all to come crashing down. And the whole system has to have lots of safeguards in place to stop it all falling apart. The whole system has to be supported on a never-ending cycle of debt and subsidy adn there must alwasy be someone at the bottem of the chain.
<hr></blockquote>

1. Of course, companies are trying to get a leg up on the competition. That's why it's called competition. And just because they ask/demand subsidies from the government, doesn't mean that you have to give it to them!!! The US government rarely subsidizes or bails out companies or industries. Don't blame capitalism for the inability of European governments to say "NO".

And just because a company goes broke and goes under, that does not mean that capitalism has failed. Not in the least. That indicates that capitalism has succeeded!!! In large part, capitalism is a darwinian process ... survival of the fittest.


Capitalism a failure? Look at the US economy since WW2, it has grown steadily since 1945. Yes, there are regular down turns. It's called the "business cycle" and it seems to occur about once per decade. It's very annoying, but not unexpected. But all in all, the US economy is massive and strong and provides well for its people. And it generally works best when the government keeps its hands off. (Yes, some regulation of various kinds is needed, but this is generally done for "good" reasons or to help increase overall stability to the economy.)


What about the Soviet economy? Constant shortages of necessary items. A pathetic distribution system. Everyone, with the exception of those few party members at the top, lived in the same general level of poverty. Yeah, here's how I desccribe communism ... Let's increase the living standard at the bottom by about 2% and then let's make EVERYONE live at that standard. Why? Because if we cannot all have the livings standard of the rich, then we're all gonna live like the poor because we (the party elite) have decided that's what's "fair".

Simplistic, I know. But what the heck, that is what happened.

When companies fail, people pay the price in terms of lowered living standards and grinding poverty.
And you can point at Russia all you like and say communism doesn’t work, but that is meaningless, as it was NOT properly applied, as people who have read Marx would know, You should know what it is and what its intentions are before you criticise it, if you do that’s fine but otherwise pointing at Russia and making assumptions is not good. Much argument is based around the fact that “it will fail?” Where is the evidence for this? (I repeat Russia/China was not communism as Marx intended) the evidence for the failure of capitalism all around us, it is in Afghanistan, it is in the 3rd world and it is in the companies we work for and in the people who govern us, try reading some of the theory and thoughts of Marx and thinking up your own meaningful ideas of great significance as to why communism would fail, if it was applied on a global scale without the capitalist elements needed at the moment for outside trade would it really fail? You probably do not have enough facial hair to understand or appreciate communism, being clean-shaven only helps the capitalists.

(Dadadadada!!! DA DA!! Charge!)

Wow lots has happened since I last posted here. And as you probably guessed I have lots to say.

The thing about Communism, which Dramnek is saying in a different way, is that it can only happen as a natural progression from capitalism and it requires a complete change in the mindset of the people involved. Capitalism is founded on greed/self interest (delete as you see fit) and as such that has been the basis for our minds for quite some time now. Our whole lives are governed by the principles we live under and as such it changes our minds in an attempt to make us accept what is really a destructive system.

Capitalism promotes one class of people against another. You can say that this is fair as people effectively decide which class they are going to be in,but that only works if everyone starts from square one. Which they blatantly don't. The overwhelming majority of society work for the benefit of others as it is the only way for them to live. They are wage slaves, or the proletariat. They are a class of people created expressly by capitalism, with an interest in destroying the very system which created them. That is the irony of it in my view.

So why is it still around? Because people still don't realise their own power. It is almost second nature to accept that communism is completely impossible and that man is naturally greedy. Capitalism assaults all other ways of life and then points and laughs when they fail. The problem with capitalism is that it is entrenched in people's minds more than in the physical world. But it is my sincere beleif that eventually people will realise that there is another way to do this.

As for why it hasn't worked elsewhere. It is fairly obvious from the arguments above. Because capitalism has to be overthrown by the working class it has a tendecy to cling on in people's minds if it is instead overthrown by the "representatives" of the working class. In Russia there was no strong workers movement to speak of. The country was dominated by a largely illiterate peasant population with the ability to hold the government to ransom. That is no way the kind of condition that a revolution is going to survive in. From square one the government had to resort to oppression and murder. If they had waited for a proper workers movement to have a revolutin with then things might have been different for Russian communism.

Also I should point out that communism is supposed to be a global phenomenon, which might explain its failure when applied in single countries who still have to maintain a capitalist economy to encourage trade. Just a thought...

Dramnek, just as an aside, your sig gets weirder everytime I am on here.

Blah, blah, blah..... More communist postings, most BS. Communists, nazis, socialists, fascists. Murdering bastards all. The one thing that they have in common is their common race to see who can murder more human beings before humanity gets tired of their bullcrap and dump them all in the trash compactor of history.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
Blah, blah, blah..... More communist postings, most BS. Communists, nazis, socialists, fascists. Murdering bastards all. The one thing that they have in common is their common race to see who can murder more human beings before humanity gets tired of their bullcrap and dump them all in the trash compactor of history.<hr></blockquote>
A Man (assumtion made)After My Own Mind, the only down side I see Magness, is you're a Yankee :D Well nobody's perfect :D
Magness if you have Sierra's Civil War Generals 2 let me know I'm looking for some competition, Bobby Lee has nothing on me :D

John D Harris, I have southern (Louisiana and Mississippi) relatives. Does that help??? :D

Oh BTW, JD Harris, calling a Red Sox fan a "Yankee" is a mortal sin in these parts!!! [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
Oh BTW, JD Harris, calling a Red Sox fan a "Yankee" is a mortal sin in these parts!!! [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I didn't realize you were a Red Sox fan, everthing north of the Mason-Dixon line kinda blurs together :D

Dear Magnuss
Calling Communism and Fascism the same thing because they both murder people is just plain riduculous. If you had actually read any of the postings from the communists in this forum correctly, you would realise that they are not saying "oh the Bolsheviks were wicked" or "Man the CCCP rocked". They are agreeing with the Marxist idea of Communism, which is nothing like the murderous hell you make it out to be. You should try reading some Marx or Trotsky before calling communist a murderous regime. I'm not a communist myself (don't believe it will ever work, due to the fact that it needs to be worldwide and Americans seem to be incapable of listening to anyone elses point of view) but it's a lot better idea than your fascist rantings.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Smeagol:
Dear Magnuss
Calling Communism and Fascism the same thing because they both murder people is just plain riduculous. If you had actually read any of the postings from the communists in this forum correctly, you would realise that they are not saying "oh the Bolsheviks were wicked" or "Man the CCCP rocked". They are agreeing with the Marxist idea of Communism, which is nothing like the murderous hell you make it out to be. You should try reading some Marx or Trotsky before calling communist a murderous regime. I'm not a communist myself (don't believe it will ever work, due to the fact that it needs to be worldwide and Americans seem to be incapable of listening to anyone elses point of view) but it's a lot better idea than your fascist rantings.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for that. Exactly what I have been saying for the last 4 pages of posts (except for the "don't think it will work part").

Magness and JD Harris, if you want to disagree with me then fine. But please don't just describe what me and Dramnek write as BS and not back it up. IMO you don't do yourselves or your cause any favours that way.

There must be more people out there! Come on... post... I want a proper argument. Lots of people must have views on this one.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Smeagol:

Calling Communism and Fascism the same thing because they both murder people is just plain riduculous. If you had actually read any of the postings from the communists in this forum correctly, you would realise that they are not saying "oh the Bolsheviks were wicked" or "Man the CCCP rocked". They are agreeing with the Marxist idea of Communism, which is nothing like the murderous hell you make it out to be. You should try reading some Marx or Trotsky before calling communist a murderous regime. I'm not a communist myself (don't believe it will ever work, due to the fact that it needs to be worldwide and Americans seem to be incapable of listening to anyone elses point of view) but it's a lot better idea than your fascist rantings.
<hr></blockquote>

Smeagol, I did not say that communism, nazism, socialism, and fascism are the same thing. I did say that end up at the same "place". They all end up murdering their populations in massive numbers.


I have read Marx, Engels, and Lenin and some fascist writers as well. I took a political idealogies class a few years back. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It's an incredible hoot bitching about my "not listening". American universities are the true sources of political "not listening"... It's just fine and dandy for liberals and socialists to speak on American campuses. But if a conservative DARES [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] to speak on an American campus, that person is shouted down by all those open-minded, tolerant liberals!!!

I reached the point where I do not find communism and fascism WORTHY of serious debate as viable philosophies. They are only worthy of being on the dung heap of history.

Magness, if you don't find them worthy of debate then the answer is quite simple:

DON'T POST HERE!

There are a few of us that do want to debate these kind of issues and it is annoying to have what amounts to flaming everytime me or Dramnek post an opinion. If you want to keep posting here then fine, but if you are going to keep coming up with the same type of non-arguments then please expect people to get a mite pissed off with you.

Anyway, as for your point about Universities... where are you studying? I am at Uni in London and the left wing movement is practically non-existant. There are 7000 students here and we only managed to get 300 signitures for the Stop the War campaign. That is the level of radicalism in UK Universities these days. Maybe there is some truth in the idea that everyone thinks they are misunderstood and had done by. I know I think that, and it seems you do too, anyone else want to join this list?

Finally, to everyone, don't be scared! Please post here! There must be people out there who want to argue against me and Dramnek properly. I am begging you... post here... This could be a really good topic IMO and I promise to not get angry unless people get angry at me. Anyone...

... Ronn...

...SC....

.... (deep breath) Yorick?...

Where on earth has everyone gone?

BtS, I have been out of school for many years (I'm 42.)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Anyway, as for your point about Universities... where are you studying? I am at Uni in London and the left wing movement is practically non-existant. There are 7000 students here and we only managed to get 300 signitures for the Stop the War campaign. That is the level of radicalism in UK Universities these days. Maybe there is some truth in the idea that everyone thinks they are misunderstood and had done by. I know I think that, and it seems you do too, anyone else want to join this list?
<hr></blockquote>

BtS, there may be plenty of lefties on your campus that simply don't agree with the Stop the War campaign. 9/11 made a lot of lefties into warhawks, at least in the short term. Not really all that surprising, I think you'd have to admit.

I'm not worried so much about being "misunderstood" as I am that I think that I think that so-called open-minded, tolerant liberals (at least the American college version) are a bunch of hypocrits. They're perfectly "open-minded" and "tolerant", so long as you agree with them. If you DARE to disagree, they'll shout you down at a speech and they'll destroy all copies of the university newspaper, if you print an ad or an editorial or opinion column. And when I say this, I am not only talking about extremely contraversial "conservatives". I'm talking about mainline conservatives like Jean Kirkpatrick.

Whether you agree with them or not (and whether they agree with you or not), American conservatives will let you say your piece.

Where has everyone gone? Good question. I was back here on day one and have been watching since. The "war" has been rather quiet since the forums went offline. That's not to say that there hasn't been other "interesting" and important stuff worth discussing.... the Isreal/Palestinian situation and the India/Pakistan situation are two that come to mind.

Lastly, BtS, I fully understand that communism and fascism are far, far from being the same. Since WW2, fascism has been utterly thrown onto the idealogical trash heap and people who attempt to propogate truly fascist beliefs are properly denigrated and harassed. I, personally, feel that communism deserves the exact same fate. (I believe that the reason that it hasn't is that most universities are left-wing havens (whether they've been protesting the war or not) and cannot bring themselves to attack the source of their core beliefs.) I find that debating the topic in the manner that you'd prefer only gives that philosophy respectability that it does deserve.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
BtS, there may be plenty of lefties on your campus that simply don't agree with the Stop the War campaign. 9/11 made a lot of lefties into warhawks, at least in the short term. Not really all that surprising, I think you'd have to admit.

<hr></blockquote>

dead on magness. even more, i think that the more fanatic warhawks are the converted "lefties". since they have the excuse of being liberals they can go farther than the rightwing ones. kind of "the only one that could have gone to china is nixon", only backwards.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I'm not worried so much about being "misunderstood" as I am that I think that I think that so-called open-minded, tolerant liberals (at least the American college version) are a bunch of hypocrits. They're perfectly "open-minded" and "tolerant", so long as you agree with them. If you DARE to disagree, they'll shout you down at a speech and they'll destroy all copies of the university newspaper, if you print an ad or an editorial or opinion column. And when I say this, I am not only talking about extremely contraversial "conservatives". I'm talking about mainline conservatives like Jean Kirkpatrick.

<hr></blockquote>

incredibly enough, i think you are right again. it seems that, strangely enough, the so called liberals are the WORST when it comes to voicing an opinion that contradict theirs. they believe they have the monopoly of the truth, sadly. lots of the time the rightwingers are the same, but i have to admit that liberals are far worse.

i dont consider myself a liberal, or a socialist, by the way (i have even more arguments with them than with rightwingers). i have maybe too extreme a view about politics and believe that liberalism is just a washed up way the system has of perpetuating itself (by system i dont mean only capitalism).

sadly, this world is as it is, and nothing is going to change it short of massive revolution or a terrible natural disaster. since that is not likely to happen, what is left? resignation or idealistic fighting, that will probably change nothing. but at least we will feel better and know that we tried.

ps: damn them quotes. they are driving me mad.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ]</p>

Hiya, norompanlasolas.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
incredibly enough, i think you are right again. it seems that, strangely enough, the so called liberals are the WORST when it comes to voicing an opinion that contradict theirs. they believe they have the monopoly of the truth, sadly. lots of the time the rightwingers are the same, but i have to admit that liberals are far worse.
<hr></blockquote>

I tend to think that both sides think that they have a monopoly on the truth. That's not the problem. The problem is that liberals (at least on American university campuses) want to surpress legitimate contradictory points of view. I really think that conservatives (at least the thinking ones) are perfectly willing to let their opposition say their say. Aside from it being the polite thing to do, I think that there's another reason as well. Have you ever heard the saying "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove that your are". (I don't remember the exact quote.) I think that conservatives are willing to let lefties talk because the conservatives think that lefties will metaphorically hang themselves with their own words.

Magness, just quickly, where has this argument come from? As far as I can tell the argument for a little while has gone like this:

Me - Communism is great because...
You - BS!
Me - Why do you say that?
You - Because it is.
Me - No really, what are your reasons.
You - It murders people in the same way fascism does.
Me - It doesn't have to.
You - But it is BS anyway and I don't find it worthy of debate.
Me - Well I do so butt out.
You - On American Uni campuses liberals won't tolerate other viewpoints.

Is it just me or did the last point come from nowhere? If you are not at University why did you want to bring it up at all? I don't follow much of the latter stages of this argument. Also you have expended a lot of internet time "debating" something you find not worthy of your time to discuss.

My point about the StW coalition here is that Universities are no longer hotbeds of radicalism. The percentage of people in the country as a whole against the war is about 50. But in this university it is pitiful, people at Uni are just there for the qualification. Activists go elsewhere. It may be different in the US but even then could someone please explain the relevance of that to an argument about communism.

Tarring a communist with the same brush as a liberal is a bit of a mistake in the first place really. Although Smeagol might want to argue against the insults you have thrown towards liberals I have no problem with accepting that they sometimes do one thing and say another. I am not a liberal, that is not my problem. I am a Communist and as such if you want to actually argue against my philosiphy please argue against communism. And by argue I don't mean just repeatedly shout "That's a big pile of poo" whenever I make a point.

Bottom line, say what you like just don't expect me to like it if you insult my philosiphy without any reasons.

Come on Magness if your 42 you obviously havn't been on a Uni campus for quite some time and even if they are still dominated by Liberals and socialists shouting down Conservatives how would that concern me (I'm not one of them), I am not "Liberals" I am a "Liberal". Being a liberal is not a strict set of rules, it is being open minded, making your own decisions. Probably the reason why more liberals lean towards socialists rather than conservatives is because the socialists tend to make there point better without using insults. And I personally don't know any socialists that have been "converted" due to the war, but I do know a few Liberals that have been pushed the other way.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Smeagol:

Come on Magness if your 42 you obviously havn't been on a Uni campus for quite some time and even if they are still dominated by Liberals and socialists shouting down Conservatives how would that concern me (I'm not one of them), I am not "Liberals" I am a "Liberal". Being a liberal is not a strict set of rules, it is being open minded, making your own decisions. Probably the reason why more liberals lean towards socialists rather than conservatives is because the socialists tend to make there point better without using insults. And I personally don't know any socialists that have been "converted" due to the war, but I do know a few Liberals that have been pushed the other way.
<hr></blockquote>

Smeagol, when I was in college (in the late 70's), it was a very quiet time, politically speaking. The events that I have been discribing are well-reported events that have been happening in the US increasingly over the last 20 years. On American college campuses, Liberals CLAIM to be open-minded and tolerant. They are complete hypocrites. If you do not agree with their liberal views, they not not take their tolerance to heart. They are not open-minded enough to let you say your say. They will shout down the spoken word and burn down the written word. I know what I'm speaking about on this!!!

Examples:
Jean Kirkpatrick (a fairly well-known mainstream American conservative, hardly a wacko) was shouted down at a speech at an American university.

David Horowitz (an American conservative writer, a Vietnam war and civil rights protestor during the 60's) wrote a opinion piece that was included in the Brown University college newspaper on the topic of affirmative action (if I remember correctly). Open-minded and tolerant liberals stole and destroyed every copy of that issue of the newspaper, rather than be open-minded and tolerant enough to allow the opinion to be read.


I cannot speak to how students protest at European universities, but these days, to be a Republican or a conservative at a liberal American university is tantamount to being a Nazi!!!

(Barry the Sprout, this thing about universities came up because you mentioned your "Stop the War" campaign at the university you attend. BTW, just curious... Is the LSE a post-graduate university or otherwise?
Also, is a campus population of 7000 considered a small, medium, or large university in the UK? In the US, it would be on the fairly small side, I think.)

Magness, how can you can condem (spelling?) every single person who shares a political stance of not being tolerant or open minded as I have allready said I am not "Liberals" I am a "Liberal". I have my own mind and I do listen. I don't just look at who has written a post and either automatically agree with it or dismiss it. Every single Liberal that I know (personally)is open minded and tolerant and I can assure you I wouldn't protest at all if I thought it would be shouting out someone elses view. I see protesting as a way to get your point across to those who arn't listening. (FYI I have never been on a protest in my life). I find it hard when you keep saying that I wont listen because I'm a Liberal when I will, I totally agree with you that shouting out other peoples views and burning there articles is not the way to do things.

And I wish people wouldn't say trust me I know what I'm talking about, I find it very patronising especially when you only have experience with "Liberals" that I would dislike as much as you.

The LSE is considered absolutely vast by UK standards. But it is mostly postgrads and overseas students so you are right - some people just aren't interested for other reasons. Anyway, I seem to remember that you brought up the apparent liberal intolerance in the US first, then talked more specifically about Uni's when I had said that it was different over here. But either way it doesn't matter now.