new capitalism vs communism thread - Page 10

Ned · February 7, 2004, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Ned,
Would you agree that Capitalism is responsible for the Colonization of America, Africa, Australia, European rule of most of the world, All the major wars of the 1-21st century.
These things I consider more evil than communism or socialism.

PAX, wars and oppression have a lot more to do with a lack of democracy that with the free enterprise system. Also, the Europeans of the last 500 years were clearly racist - indicating their "German" domination. That too had a lot to do with the oppression of native populations.

Pax · February 7, 2004, 14:20

Oh yeah, if Cuba is basically at war with the U.S. the Republican's should understand that civil liberties will get suspended ask President Bush and Lincoln.

Ned · February 7, 2004, 14:33

PAX, huh?

A war against Castro, if it occurs, will be just like the war against Noriega.

Now think.

What civil liberties did anyone lose then?

Pax · February 7, 2004, 14:34

Opium War- Force China to Open market to sale of illegal known harmful substance by democratic capitalistic British Empire

Civil War-Fueled by difference in economic structure between democratic capitalistic North and democratic capitalistic South

WW1 - Industrialized countries ran out of places to conquer and open markets so eventually they will clash.

WW2 - continuation of WW2

Post WW2 - client system of weak states who do not have control of their natural resources and depend on their former colonizer for products have left Africa and South America in constant turmoil.

Vietnam/Indochina - French determination to control Vietnam markets and tax the hell out of its people. Also forced the sale of Opium.

The Opium Wars, The Civil War, WW1 and WW2, The War in Vietnam/Indochina, had more to do with Capitalism than type of government.

To name a few

Pax · February 7, 2004, 14:38

Ned,
I said economic war.

I think a shooting war won't necessarily end like Panama.

A country that we were allied with.

Cuba has one of the best trained militaries.

A lot of Cubans are believers.

Ned Why do you say Panama and not Vietnam or Iraq.

Why not say it will end the way it did when we took control from Spain.

Ned · February 7, 2004, 14:43

Who started the opium wars?
The Civil War was about freeing the slaves.
Who started WW1?
Who started WW2?
Who started the Vietnam War.
Who started the war against the French in Vietnam?

Tripledoc · February 7, 2004, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Who started the opium wars?
The Civil War was about freeing the slaves.
Who started WW1?
Who started WW2?
Who started the Vietnam War.
Who started the war against the French in Vietnam?

The Capitalists and their feudal partners in crime. And no, the Civil War was about stopping a seccesionist movement.

Ned · February 7, 2004, 15:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

The Capitalists and their feudal partners in crime. And no, the Civil War was about stopping a seccesionist movement.

Feudal, yes. However, in all cases, the wars started when a non democratic element began firing.

On the Civil War, why the seccession? The war was not about economics per se. It was more fundamental. It was about human rights.

The Andy-Man · February 7, 2004, 15:50

I think that whoever starts another one of these threads whould be shot.

curtsibling · February 7, 2004, 17:05

Today: Capitalism is practiced in many free nations. The system still is on top.

Today: Apart from China's lipservice to it, and N Korea and Cuba's delusions, Communism is impotent and dead.

End of battle.

yavoon · February 7, 2004, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Feudal, yes. However, in all cases, the wars started when a non democratic element began firing.

On the Civil War, why the seccession? The war was not about economics per se. It was more fundamental. It was about human rights.

I'm in the "war was economic" boat.

The Andy-Man · February 7, 2004, 18:25

The US Civil War was alot to do with politics, Nationalism and the spirit of 1776, and only a tiny bit about economics.

yavoon · February 7, 2004, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
The US Civil War was alot to do with politics, Nationalism and the spirit of 1776, and only a tiny bit about economics.

=D

a lot of the politics was based around economics.

The Andy-Man · February 7, 2004, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

=D

a lot of the politics was based around economics.

not really, i mean, i can hardly see any succesion movement just because the north wanted tariffs and had a strong industry.

The hting people seem to forget, is that the Civil Wart was more like a war of indepedance, and also had alot more to do with slavery then people like to think. If slavery hadn't been a major issue, i doubt there would have been a war, economics or no.

yavoon · February 7, 2004, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

not really, i mean, i can hardly see any succesion movement just because the north wanted tariffs and had a strong industry.

The hting people seem to forget, is that the Civil Wart was more like a war of indepedance, and also had alot more to do with slavery then people like to think. If slavery hadn't been a major issue, i doubt there would have been a war, economics or no.

what issue was slavery? slavery was an economic issue. the north had no overflowing pride for slaves. but they certainly didnt need them(they had the irish). the south needed them.

the #1 difference between the north and south was their economic structures. everything from their culture to their politics was based on this divergence.

The Andy-Man · February 7, 2004, 18:42

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

what issue was slavery? slavery was an economic issue. the north had no overflowing pride for slaves. but they certainly didnt need them(they had the irish). the south needed them.

the #1 difference between the north and south was their economic structures. everything from their culture to their politics was based on this divergence.

That just silly

Slavery, for the north, was not economic. It was a matter of principle. Secondly, I would say it is more the diverging economies grew out of the vastly different cultures of north and south, of which were highly apparant long before independance, when the north still had as many slaves as the south.

yavoon · February 7, 2004, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

That just silly

Slavery, for the north, was not economic. It was a matter of principle. Secondly, I would say it is more the diverging economies grew out of the vastly different cultures of north and south, of which were highly apparant long before independance, when the north still had as many slaves as the south.

thats the point. the north didnt need slavery, the south did. and the economies drove the cultures, not the other way around.

Kuciwalker · February 7, 2004, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by joncha

This is true, but it's also the easy answer.

Before there is communism globally, a military would be necessary, if only to defend it from the likes of Ned and his army of zombie trolls.

A communist military must be democratic. Those who are asked by society to fight and die for it must be willing, active participants. Officers are elected to lead on the battlefield. Military plans and strategies are drawn up by officers and voted on by the soldiers.

And before anyone jumps all over me to say how "unrealistic" this is, it's how the Red Army was actually run (and run successfully) under Trotsky.

jon.

So you want a military that is accountable, not to the people, but to itself? Unless you compell people to join the military, why should them having to take orders be a problem? The military exists to serve and defend the people, not its members.

Kuciwalker · February 7, 2004, 18:47

methinks some people are theadjacking

yavoon · February 7, 2004, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
methinks some people are theadjacking

k I stop

Ned · February 7, 2004, 21:08

skywalker, the purpose for a military in a police state is obvious.

Pax · February 7, 2004, 22:27

I agree pure communism works against human nature. Pure Capitalism works against the best interest of humans by promoting the cracking of heads and the selling of unsafe products for profit.
Anything pure is almost definitely bad for you.

Kuciwalker · February 7, 2004, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
skywalker, the purpose for a military in a police state is obvious.

Stop spouting crap - no one here is espousing a police state. If you can't obey the rules, get the hell out of my thread.

Kuciwalker · February 7, 2004, 22:35

The stuff about "human nature" is all well and good, but unless you can show that the examples Spiffor and Azazel are providing go against it, you aren't going to convince many people. (Note: this is exactly what I'm trying to do, but I'm doing it by actually ADDRESSING their example

)

loinburger · February 7, 2004, 22:37

I'm lazy, so can somebody summarize this thread for me? Who's winning?

Imran Siddiqui · February 7, 2004, 22:40

The capitalists, of course. I believe it is 3402-3401

Kuciwalker · February 7, 2004, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm lazy, so can somebody summarize this thread for me? Who's winning?

This thread is actually two threads: Azazel, Spiffor, and I having a nice, pleasant discussion about the mechanics of a communist government (I'm questioning them, hoping to show that their position is untenable

), and a bunch of trolls on both sides feeding each other.

Pax · February 7, 2004, 22:52

How can you show that their position is untenable when there has never been a true Communist or socialist government.

It's already been shown that Capitalism has decimated South America, the caribbean, and Africa?

Pax · February 7, 2004, 22:56

China under communism is not the country that could be pushed around at the turn of the century. Vietnamese under communism are also better off than under Capitalistic french rule.

Can you give an example of a thirld country under capitalism that has prospered.

What about a comparison of Cuba vs Puerto Rico or the USVI.

These are reallife examples of Capital Economy failure.

Kuciwalker · February 7, 2004, 23:00

Pax Africanus - we've agreed already that discussing failures of previous "communist" or "capitalist" systems is pointless.