Government type that influences production

[PrinceOfWeasels]

*blinks*
Reading through this all more, I'm a little unsettled. As a Communist/Marxist myself, it's always frightening to see how badly it is misunderstood by most people.
I ask that you please try to learn about Communism from its source, Marx and modern Marxists, instead of just watching 'Atomic Cafe' or 'Dr. Strangelove' or some 'KGB Secrets Uncovered' special on the FoxFamily Channel.
Communism is about giving power to the workers. Naturally, production and morale would increase this way. Marxism is giving control to the people. There are many different types of Marxism and Communism now, but in its true and right form, there are not Bolsheviks taking power as they did, and as you seem to believe is an integral part of Communism. If Communism were to occur in the United States, I believe that it could be the true example, a finally correct implementation of Marx's ideas. That's beside the point of a game, but because of my feelings for Communism, when I read these sort of things, you must understand how I feel somewhat unsettled.

In a game, I believe that, sadly, it won't sell right unless you give people -- like the people here who speak negatively about Communism -- the type of Communism they have been lead to believe. But if game developers are wanting to go more with the real way, are wanting to tell the true way, please do read Marx.
But, seeing as they are Capitalist anyway, to be making games in the first place.. fat chance, huh? ;P

Oh well. 8)
Please do not take personal offense at my philosophical and political outlook. I am only trying to express my side and my beliefs, and I do understand this mgiht not've been the best place to do so. 8) Thank you. 8)



------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
|

[Marcel I]

Venger you’re somewhat missing my point on the use of stuka’s against ships.
The Germans couldn’t win the airwar from the british because they had no long range fighters and bombers.
It made their attacks inland very vulnerable to british fighters.
If they had limited themselves to tactical targets in and around the Channel they hadn’t had that disadvantage. In fact the Luftwaffe was build around such purposes (flying artillery)
The Me109 could have covered stuka attacks on intercepting ships, so the british fighters would not be in the advantage they were in the actual battle of Britain (german fighter escorts had to turn back too soon). You probably know that the shortage of british experienced pilots was compensated by the fact that they were not always lost when their planes were shot down. The surviving German pilots were prisoned.
Of course practically nobody in the world at that time did expect Britain to continue the war against Germany. When Hitler realized that, it was already to late for the walk-over I had in mind when I pondered over the possibilies of an invasion.
I guess you are right with your point on the lend and lease strategy. It made britain invulnerable to the feared invasion and gave them their victory at El Alamein. Even the Soviet Union profited greatly from the sent planes and other goods.
This was actually more decisive in defeating Germany in the log run than the presence of American soldiers in Europe.
Personally I’m glad Hitler did declare war to the US, because I doubt if the US would have sent troops to invade France as early as ’44. Roosevelt would ‘ve had too much trouble to convince the congres it was necessary to send them in an undeclared war. I guess the iron curtain would have been along the atlantic coast in that case.

I read somewhere (I don’t know exactly WHERE, damn) that the nuclear material for the bombs was hardly enough for the three made and that it would take more time than a week (I guess) to produce some more. Nuclear plants weren’t widely spread you know. I still don’t think that the bomb would have been the decisive factor in defeating Germany without D-day and Soviet successes on the eastern front.

BTW Prince and Venger: Giving power to the workers was only a means for Marx. His philosophy turned around people unable to influence their own destiny. In his view most people were unhappy in being only a little part of a proces without the means to influence the outcome. This was since the start of industrialisation caused by the accumulation of means of production in the hands of the few. Marx prediction of a ongoing accumulation in the hands of fewer people, resulting in a revolt of the have-nots, has ironically been more the case in agricultural (Russia, Cuba, China) than in industrialised countries. His thoughts about what makes people tick (satisfaction in the work they do), are widely spread in modern day democracies. ‘Modern’ companies give their workers more responsibilities. They tell them what they want as a end result instead of exactly HOW to achieve it.
In a way the workers do own the means of production (shareholders).
You could say the capitalist countries are more marxist than their former adversaries the communist countries.

Phew that was quite an essay in a strange language


------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[The Joker]

I'm back, and really looking forward to comment on all the stuff that has been gong on around here.

It seems that the interest of SE has again increased, so I am currently thinking about posting my good ol' SE system in a thread for you to comment on. Do you think I should?

Now for my replyes:

[The Joker]

quote: ARGGHHH!! That is factually INCORRECT! It was never against the law to be communist! The McCarthy hearing were investigations into (supposed) communist activities in the government, army, and media. It was NEVER against the law to be a member of the communist party.

Did you actually mean that it would be ok for the government to invest into communist activities in the MEDIA??? Well so long free press is all I can say!

Lots of actors and such were accused of being communists (like Chaplin), and afterwards many of them had to "flee" to other countries due to the hetz.

quote: ARGGH! Factually incorrect AGAIN! Let's take 1824 as an example: Total votes cast: 360,000. Assuming your figure, that means the male population at the time must have been 9 million. Well, the 1820 census indicated the whole damn population was 9 million. That doesn't include those who didn't vote, couldn't vote, or were too young to vote.

I checked my source and it was right. But even if you are, it doesn't matter. So that just means that what - 6-8-10% of the pop could vote? Well excuse me, but that doesn't sound very democratic! It doesn't matter whether it's 10, 20, 30 or 50% of the pop that can vote. If it is not a vast majority of it (like 90% or more) then that country can not be described as a real democracy. Of cause when you only allow people with an income over a certain amount to vote, then the policy of the government will be remarkably different from if you let everybody do so.

quote: I cannot imagine a dictator as evil. How can you compare Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos to FREAKING HITLER????

How about Saddam Hussein?

I think what primarily makes people think of a dictator as being very evil is determined by the amount of ressources that that dictator has. Although Pol Pot is propably the dictator in history that has killed the highest percentage of his own people, most people don't think of him as being as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Because Cambodia is just a small unimportant country far from us.

quote: I disagree. It's not all relative.

Have you seen my quote on the arrongance of power? If not you should.

quote: Oh GOD ALMIGHTY NOT THAT AGAIN. Look, what do we care oil price wise which totalitarian shiekdom or muslim Sunni or Shiite group has the oil? It wasn't like he was going to take Kuwait's oil and never sell it...the world economy relies however on stable energy from oil producing nations. Kuwait wasn't the concern. Saudi was. And oil price wasn't a concern. Oil blackmail was.

I am aware that Saudi was the concern. But that doesn't alter anything. If Saddam was to control Saudi's oil he would control most of the oil in the world, and he would be able to rise the price. So we/you stopped him to save a few bucks on gas.

quote: The problem with developing countries - they don't want to develop. The U.S. and European economies took CENTURIES to develop. It required social and economic policies and forces ages to shape the environment to support robust capitalism. Some countries manage it: Japan, Korea, etc. But they have ancient cultures and social structures which allow rapid infusion into the advanced global economy. Eritrea does not.

So you are actually saying that the poor people of the third world want to stay poor? Or are you saying that if you didn't have an advanced social structure 100s or years old you can not advance into the global market? Nonsense.

quote: Nonsense. How come cheap Chinese goods can get in? MFN helps, but if a country wants to make and sell the US cheap goods that are in demand, no tariff is going to come in the way.

To use your own expression: Couqh cough! ARRGHHH! Nope, dude. WRONG!

quote: First, your English is better than half of the American's who post here...

I try. But when describing advanced stuff like economics it suddently gets hard tranlating my thoughts into english.

quote: Second, the key to advanced economic development is the velocity of money. You DO try and get everyone richer. More disposable income means more monetary velocity. If I sell you a shoe, you give me 10 dollars. Now, if I buy socks from you, I give you back the same 10 dollars. Now you buy pants from me for the same 10 dollars. That same 10 dollars is now 30 dollars of production. For a service economy, velocity is CRITICAL, both domestically and abroad. Movement of money creates wealth, absolutely needed now.

That shows you have some basic knowledge about economics, but it has no relevance here.

Sure, the velocity is important (the multiplicator), but the fundamental key to more wealth is higher productivity. The reason that we are richer now than our grandparents were is, that we can now produce much more with the same effort. In the end technological development is the key. But when the multinational coorporations take all the profit from the third world and sends it to us, and therefor don't invest in these countries, their technological development is slowed down. This is one of the key elements of what I have tryed to explain to you.

quote: But at what expense to them? Are they not going to be able to string nationwide fiber or forge a re-entry cone on a reusable space rocket because we are robbing them of bauxite?

This is about the same as above. When we A: Don't allow them to export anything else than bauxite via out tarrifs, and B: Take all profit out of their country and into ours and therefor do not contribute to the development there, we are exploiting them.

[S. Kroeze]

Democracy:

'literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The term has three basic senses in contemporary usage:
(1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens, acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy;
(2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as representative democracy; and
(3) a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy.

Democracy had its beginnings in certain of the city-states of ancient Greece in which the whole citizen body formed the legislature; such a system was possible because a city-state's population rarely exceeded 10,000 people, and women and slaves had no political rights. Citizens were eligible for a variety of executive and judicial offices, some of which were filled by elections, while others were assigned by lot. There was no separation of powers, and all officials were fully responsible to the popular assembly, which was qualified to act in executive and judicial as well as legislative matters. Greek democracy was a brief historical episode that had little direct influence on the development of modern democratic practices. Two millennia separated the fall of the Greek city-state and the rise of modern constitutional democracy.'
(source: Britannica.com, article 'democracy')

quote: Democracy = Every citizen gets one vote and votes on EVERY issue addressed by the state

Dear OrangeSfwr,

In my opinion you are using a very limited and rather personal definition of 'democracy', which does not help the discussion on the subject in any way. My suggestion is to use the general accepted application of the concept.

NB: It wasn't me making such naive statements about Communism being for the 'good' of the people. Doubtless Hitler would also claim it was all was for the common good of humanity.
And I think that especially orthodox communism, going against our selfish humane nature, needs an authoritarian government.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Marcel I on 05-24-2000 05:14 AM BTW Prince and Venger: Giving power to the workers was only a means for Marx. His philosophy turned around people unable to influence their own destiny.

That's the utter and complete hypocrisy of communism/socialism. Empowering people by removing their economic self determination and tying the individuals prospects to society is folly. Empowerment comes via representative government, one man one vote, and the concepts of personal property, not by taking all and sharing accordingly.

quote: In his view most people were unhappy in being only a little part of a proces without the means to influence the outcome. This was since the start of industrialisation caused by the accumulation of means of production in the hands of the few.

The problem here is that the political power always tends to land in the hands of the few, especially when you empower government to take all property as it's own.

quote: Marx prediction of a ongoing accumulation in the hands of fewer people, resulting in a revolt of the have-nots, has ironically been more the case in agricultural (Russia, Cuba, China) than in industrialised countries.

Industrialized countries continued to develop vertical markets and allowed workers the ability to enjoy real gains in standard of living. As the countries developed, new markets opened for small business and entreprenuers. What killed Marx was the increase in the rate of intellectual and scientific discovery, the service economy, and finally the information economy.

quote: His thoughts about what makes people tick (satisfaction in the work they do), are widely spread in modern day democracies. ‘Modern’ companies give their workers more responsibilities. They tell them what they want as a end result instead of exactly HOW to achieve it. In a way the workers do own the means of production (shareholders). You could say the capitalist countries are more marxist than their former adversaries the communist countries.

Marx was no idiot - just a little too convinced of his own genius. People don't like being unable to effect economic self determination. But what on earth did he think would come of utter economic equality?

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Did you actually mean that it would be ok for the government to invest into communist activities in the MEDIA??? Well so long free press is all I can say!

The Government investigates many aspects of media activity, from music lyrics and broadcast content to transmission standards. The investigation of communism carried with it a concommitant investigation into Soviet coordination with said parties. Frankly, the entire investigation was given a bad name by McCarthy, who was guilty of being a little too arrogant...it was a foolish venture, but anyone who doubts the pervasiveness of Soviet espionage in the United States and it's coordiantion with spy cells should read Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, an excellent book about Soviet cold war espionage activities in America.

quote: Lots of actors and such were accused of being communists (like Chaplin), and afterwards many of them had to "flee" to other countries due to the hetz.

Nobody had to "flee the country". Some actors had trouble finding work. Some were tarnished and shouldn't have been. Sucks being involved in a cold war...

quote: So that just means that what - 6-8-10% of the pop could vote? Well excuse me, but that doesn't sound very democratic! It doesn't matter whether it's 10, 20, 30 or 50% of the pop that can vote. If it is not a vast majority of it (like 90% or more) then that country can not be described as a real democracy.

Put DOWN THE CRACK PIPE. The United States was far from perfect - slaves, women could not vote. Voting rules were determined by the states (Article 1, Section 4 and Article 2, Section 1 plus the 12th Amendment). But if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find only the ridiculous and hence stricken 3/5th compromise as the only non-democratic statement in the whole document. The U.S. is a representative Republic, not a Democracy, at least in more exacting terms...

quote: I cannot imagine a dictator as evil. How can you compare Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos to FREAKING HITLER???? How about Saddam Hussein?

He doesn't even make the needle move on the Hitler-meter. The truly evil dictators are one of a kinds - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

quote: I think what primarily makes people think of a dictator as being very evil is determined by the amount of ressources that that dictator has. Although Pol Pot is propably the dictator in history that has killed the highest percentage of his own people, most people don't think of him as being as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Because Cambodia is just a small unimportant country far from us.

See above.

quote: I am aware that Saudi was the concern. But that doesn't alter anything. If Saddam was to control Saudi's oil he would control most of the oil in the world, and he would be able to rise the price. So we/you stopped him to save a few bucks on gas.

Price was only half the concern, availability was the other. A "few bucks on gas" can lead to worldwide recession. All because of an arrogant power play.

quote: So you are actually saying that the poor people of the third world want to stay poor?

No, they want 2 cars and a house by next year. Not going to happen.

quote: Or are you saying that if you didn't have an advanced social structure 100s or years old you can not advance into the global market? Nonsense.

Look at the success stories of globalization: Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. All are from cultures that were cohesive and were able to make globalization work. Compare Korea to Haiti. Was our tariff on Indonesian products any higher than on Haitian? Or Bangladeshi?

quote: To use your own expression: Couqh cough! ARRGHHH! Nope, dude. WRONG!

Examples PLEASE...

quote: Sure, the velocity is important (the multiplicator), but the fundamental key to more wealth is higher productivity.

Hmmm...what does productivity buy you without consumption?

quote: The reason that we are richer now than our grandparents were is, that we can now produce much more with the same effort.

I would argue we produce less with less effort, but that's another story. The reason we are richer now is that we are building upon what our parents built, and upon what their parents built, and their parents.

quote: In the end technological development is the key. But when the multinational coorporations take all the profit from the third world and sends it to us, and therefor don't invest in these countries, their technological development is slowed down.

What profit? What the hell are we stealing? Raw materials? Labor? Name the sector. We are in an information age economy that doesn't rely on raw materials.

quote: This is one of the key elements of what I have tryed to explain to you.

And I've tried explaining that the raw materials sector is a dead end argument for you, there is NO data to support you. Labor supports you somewhat, but only on cheap consumer goods.

quote: This is about the same as above. When we A: Don't allow them to export anything else than bauxite via out tarrifs,

So we steal the raw materials so we can make it here. Are you insane? Why bring materials here to $12 an hour labor when you can get $1 an hour on site?

quote: and B: Take all profit out of their country and into ours and therefor do not contribute to the development there, we are exploiting them.

What profit? Do you know the average margin on manufactured goods in this country? Sears doesn't make money on the stove, they make money on the repair contract for it. CompUSA doesn't make money on the computer, they make money on the software. For God's sake man, he days of stealing gold from the Natives for shipment to Spain are LONG GONE...

Venger

[The Joker]

Par4:

quote: Russia spends $1billion a year in the military department. The United States spent 277billion this year and before was more during the 80s.

They actually spend that much? What is that - 8 or 10% of it's GNP or what? That is a hell of a lot money to just throw away...

Well, that is what will make them loose their hegenomy in the long run, and be overrun by countries that use their production on more productive things. That is, after all, how all great countries that ever excisted lost their hegenomy.

quote: If Bush wins the elections(he will, Gore is a dull boring guy with few new ideas on health care, education, military, international affairs, economy, social security, all clinton policy, none of the clinton charisma IMO) he said(and he will IMO) increase military spending to raise pay of enlisties and get the parts for the planes(bad stuff when more fighters crash from bad parts than enemy fire).

For the sake of the entire world I sure hope that Gore wins, even if he is a, well, bore.


Orange:

quote: Ok some factual info: The guy from Denmark who pays about 4 dollars per gallon for gas is making an accurate statement. The sweeds as well, they pay up to 4$ a gallon due to socialist govt. (I believe Denmark is)

to use a Venger term: COUGH COUGH!!! What the hell are you talking about?!!??? A socialist government? I think you need to recheck your facts on socialism. Although the Danish government consists of the Social Democrats and the Radical Left (I can see why this sounds pretty extreme) it's policy has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is all about nationalising production and such. Atually the Soviets were socialists (or state capitalists, as most people tend to think of them). Communism is the final stage of Marx's vision. It includes total equality and has never been accomplished.

The danish economic system is just socal capitalism, where we pay 50-55% tax so that there is no homeless people, all unemployed get about 1000$ a month from the state, there is free education and health care for everybody and such.

The reason for the high amount of tax on especcially gas is that gas pollutes a lot, and as Denmark (and the Danish people) are very enviromentally concerned (unlike the US) we accept to pay a lot of money for things that pollute. It is not just because the state wants more money.


Tiberius:

quote: A communist country CAN'T be democratic.

That is a statement. And a very false one, too.

quote: I definately think that communism should be the best choise in a civ world I'll take it as a joke. But I can't laugh.

What I meant was that in some possible Civ worlds, where the international situation isn't as it is today, communism should be the best choise. In other worlds it should be a bad choise, and capitalism would be best.

[The Joker]

Tiberius:

quote: Did you read George Orwell's "1984"? That was supposed to be our future, in the communists vision.

HE HE HE HE HE HE HE!

I always love when anticommunists use 1984 as an examble. Not only did I read it, I wrote a large report on it in my final year of Highschool. (~20 pages)

First of all Orwell was a known socialist (communist - the difference back then was unimportant). He both took part in the Spanish Civil war at the communist side and he wrote "Missery's London and Paris" (something like that, not sure of it's original title, so I'm just translating from the danish one) that described how awful the living conditions of the working class in London and Paris were.

Second I started to examine the supplement about the new language. In it there is a few interesting expressions, that all sound a little know-all like. Terms like "New Language was suppose to be introduced in 2050" and "They thought that New Language...". It was like someone was looking back at the period, well knowing that "this wasn't how it would go". In my search for a brighter future in the incredibly depressing book I thought of this as an, although small, indication that some time between 1984 and 2050 something had changed. The Party had lost power, and a more democratic world order had emerged.

I then started to closely observe the society in the book, and I found some very interesting facts:

- The society is extremely polarized. The very poor prolatariat is about 60% or more of the population, and the upper class (the Inner Party) is just 2%.

- There is a constant and extreme exploitation of the third world.

- There is a constant war, that is not used to make the world richer, but to keep the people in poverty so they will not revolt against the upper class.

- The support for the party is almost religious. People are using their entire lives working for the party, as it is seen as being more important than themselves.

- There are very few countries left. In a darwinistic elimination race only the very strongest of countries has survived.

- The enemy of the Party (can't really remember his name) has a jewish name. So does Marx.

- Winston is constantly talking about the proletariat being the only hope to destroy the party. They could do it very, very easy, but they have to become aware of their own power first, which is the tricky part.


Anybody with a little knowledge about marxism should have a bell ringing now.

Fact is, that Orwell isn't talking about our future in a communistic world. In stead he is talking about THE LAST STAGE OF THE CAPITALIST SYTEM! Think about it. The society in 1984 excactly meets what Marx thought the end of capitalism would be like. Extreme polarization, very few countries, a constant depression etc etc.

Therefor what Orwell really wanted to say with the book was his aversion towards the communism in USSR. He thought that it would propably spread all over the world, but he didn't see it as communism. In stead he saw it as an alternate way towards the end of capitalism, and the system in USSR was nothing more than state capitalism. Orwell still thought that communism would come. It would just come further into the future, when the world was ready to it, not now.

[The Joker]

Kroeze:

What I meant was that Russia at the time of WW1 was a terrible country. It was in horrible shape, it was 50 years or more behind in the industrialization process, food shortages was frequent and peasant revolts, which in many other countries went with the middle ages were alsi a thing often seen in Russia. It was no match for Germany.

The communists changed all this as they started heavy industry and got it going in just a few years. And in WW2 they could compete against and even win over the well run Nazi war maschine.

I have never meant that Russia was never a great power.

I would also rather call the Russian system before 1917 an absolute monarchy rather than a despotism. Despotism is a very ancient government type.

[S. Kroeze]

quote: It seems that the interest of SE has again increased, so I am currently thinking about posting my good ol' SE system in a thread for you to comment on. Do you think I should?

Dear Joker,

If you are going to repost your SE model, please do it in 'our' SE 3.0 thread. I promise to react on it.
How would you define Despotism? I have always found it a rather indefinite concept. In my interpretation of it -arbitrary government depending on the military- it is definitely less old than monarchy. I hope you have read my rather long post on it in the TechTree thread. Unfortunately Yin never used it...

[Marcel I]

Joker,

I guess we all agree then about the kind of communism that ruled Russia and other parts of the world? It didn't work the way that was intended by Marx.
The only question is if ANY kind of communism would work in the way Marx predicted.
As I mentioned before, modern democratic countries put more of Marx ideas in praktice than Communist paties anywhere in the world ever did.
As Venger pointed out Marx idea of nationalizing means of production did (and IMHO too always will) kill initiative.
The worth of Marx work isn't so much his foretelling the future (as it has been proven wrong so far), but his philosophical ideas about human behavior. He was however overly optimistic in the goodness of mankind.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[The Joker]

Venger:

quote: ...it was a foolish venture, but anyone who doubts the pervasiveness of Soviet espionage in the United States and it's coordiantion with spy cells should read Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, an excellent book about Soviet cold war espionage activities in America.

And I am sure I can find some stalinistic book on how the US is actually spying on the Soviets. If all you are to read is proamerican litterature then you are only seing things from one side.

quote: Put DOWN THE CRACK PIPE. The United States was far from perfect - slaves, women could not vote. Voting rules were determined by the states (Article 1, Section 4 and Article 2, Section 1 plus the 12th Amendment). But if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find only the ridiculous and hence stricken 3/5th compromise as the only non-democratic statement in the whole document. The U.S. is a representative Republic, not a Democracy, at least in more exacting terms...

How about yourself? When the US only allowed the wealthies 20% (or more or less) of it's population to vote long into the 20th century then it is not a real democracy. Like the Soviet Union wasn't one.

As I can not at the moment find any primary litterature about the subject, then how about me quoting Marting Luther King:

"Why is it that the black people of our southern states can not vote, and that the ones of our northern ones do not do so?"

(I am typing this off my memory, so every word might not be correct. The essence, however, is the same)

Why would the good man Martin Luther King write that if it had nothing to do with reality? I don't care if it was in the constitution or whatever. Fact is, that if an entire ethnic minority can not vote, no matter ho it is done, then the US is not democratic.

quote: He doesn't even make the needle move on the Hitler-meter. The truly evil dictators are one of a kinds - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

Saddam has experimented on the effectivity on his nerve gas on his own people. I would call that pretty evil. Of cause, this is relative, but I would call Saddam almost as evil as Hitler.

But still, you are focusing on unimportant details and missing my point. When the US are supposed to be the great protector of democracy why did it support so many totally nondemocratic dictators? I will tell you why: Because the majority of the people in those countries wanted socialism, which the US due to the containtment policy wanted to avoid. So they supported these dictators because they maintained a capitalist system in these countries.

This policy has nothing to do with maintaining justice or acting like the good guys. It is pure security policy. Like I said: In international politics there is no good guys or bad guys. Just power. And power always justifies itself, as J. William Fullbright wrote.

quote: Examples PLEASE...

Hmm, I went to www.wto.org and tryed to find something there. Here goes (about the US):

"Notwithstanding the low overall level of tariff protection, 5% of MFN tariffs involve rates exceeding three times the overall average; such tariff "peaks" affect some agricultural and food products as well as textiles, clothing and footwear."

Of cause the third world can not compete in very high tech sectors. But in certain areas, such as clothing (very labourintensive) they can due to their low labour prices. And to protect national production they have high tarrifs on certain things. Touche?

quote: Hmmm...what does productivity buy you without consumption?

What are you talking about? Money is just a thing you use to buy things with as it is easier than bartering. The velocity of money is not important. If the velocity suddently slows down it would mean nothing more than that there would be a lack of money, which would give deflation, and we would end in the same situation as we started in after a few years of recession due to the inertia of the economic system (people need some time to figure out the new economic situation). Or at least that's what I think, because I am a neokeynesian. A classisist would say that everybody would emmidiately realise the new situation and act upon it - lower their prices and wage.

quote: I would argue we produce less with less effort, but that's another story. The reason we are richer now is that we are building upon what our parents built, and upon what their parents built, and their parents.

Your first argument simply suggests that you are ignorant. Your second has no relevance in this discussion what so ever.

quote: What profit? What the hell are we stealing? Raw materials? Labor? Name the sector. We are in an information age economy that doesn't rely on raw materials.

If you actually mean that we today don't need any raw materials then I see no point of continuing this discussion. We use more raw materials today than we have ever done before! The reason the information economy etc etc is coming is, that the labour needed for producing the raw materials and manufactuaring them into goods has dropped enormeously in the last 100 years due to rises in productivity. This had freed a lot of labour, that didn't have anything to do. Then they just start doing new things, like running internet companies. But all this is, and will always be, an addon to the unerlaying economic system. The underlaying system just doesn't employ as many people, and due to the relative drop in the cost of these goods and raw materials, it doesn't produce as large a part of the GNP as it used to. But it is still equally important to the society as a whole. If we have no food, no clothes and no electricity we wouldn't care about internet shopping.

I gotta go now. Be back with more arguments in a few hours.

[PrinceOfWeasels]

I know I said I'd stop reading here, but gosh, I just am so against Capitalism that I think I'll delight Venger and Tiberius with more hard facts that they can attempt to disprove solely on propaganda and their Pattonesque attitudes. 8)

First-- everyone here who's at all interested-- listen to the Communist Internationale. You can Napster the Billy Bragg version--I'm sure he wouldn't mind you hearing that song, he won't sue you. For money. Like Metallica. Like CAPITALISM!
Ever see the movie Scarface? 8)? I think Tony Montana said it pretty well and straight with 'Jou know what Capitalism is? Gettin' ****ed!'
And /this/ was a Cuban, one of the dregs of the jails sent over. I know it's fictional, but is it ever true.
In case you didn't know, Cuba is Socialist.
In case you didn't know, the Cuban people are much better provided for under Fidel.
In case you don't know, Fidel offered to send doctors to Harlem.

Capitalism is based on war.
You take, you take, you fight--and it takes your life, it becomes your life. Forget that, Vengie. Forget that, Tibby-tibby-tabtab-tabuli-buddy.
Communism doesn't take away initiative. I refuse to believe, no matter what you could EVER tell me, that pure, right, strong human emotion could be overcome by money.
Ever watch a children's cartoon, wherein the animals live in a classless, currenciless society? Wasn't that peaceful, and right, compared to the crap going on in the 'free world' now? Where the Republicans hate half the country, and a nation is collectively sighing over a pile of bills? You do not know what Communism is, Venger, Tiberius, and anyone who would speak against it like you do. Your outdated and plain evil notions of the world and human nature are sickening, and I challenge your life experience. I challenge, saying that you do not know enough, that you have not experienced enough, and that your consciousness is not human enough to comprehend peace or the vision of a happily united Earth.
I stop there, though. Regardless of your politcal ideas now, _I_ can realize the type of conditioning and propaganda that the US has done to you. Don't bring up anything about Soviet Russia--they weren't real Marxism. But I deeply respect Russian culture, and I hope that everyone here, Communist or Capitalist, can listen to the music of that land and know the beauty of its people. All people are beautiful, even Venger and Tiberius. See how passionately they persue Capitalist hate now? Just imagine if they had been raised under more supportive and peaceful conditions. They would poets, or artists, or philosophers. This is an example of the corruption that Capitalism and the subtle yet evil actions of the US brings to people. Know that whatever they say here, no matter what words they type, they are a product--and isn't that horrible? It's sickening. I'm very sure that they feel love and happiness, but just imagine that their very minds have been twisted by Capitalism into that hate and close-mindedness. They themselves are not sickening. As humans, I love them and respect them and hope they can be happy. I think it's very sad that so many otherwise beautiful people have to be so mutilated by Capitalism.
Even if racial groups are allowed to vote, the US system of it is a vile trick. It is not Representitive Democracy, but Bourgeois Democracy! It is a four-year Dictatorship! Voters have no say in policy, and are unable to recall their representitives! It is only an illision that by voting you are controlling the political process. You can talk to people on the street, I'm sure you'll find a whole lot who disagree with lots of goings ons right now. But are they able to change it? You can argue that protest allows, but you know that's not even a half-truth. I know that you will go through this, systematically taking out quotes (and destroying my literary flow in the process, but that works out better for you), and you will go through nearly every thing. But what you will say afterwards will be mindless. Insult or propaganda. You have been blocked from the truth, and I completely understand why you would think what you do. And it is to stop the hate and arrogance and evil, malignant ignorance that people like me continue.
Thank you, all, and I apologize if this is considered 'spam'.

Proudly,

------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
|

[The Joker]

Venger:

quote: So we steal the raw materials so we can make it here. Are you insane? Why bring materials here to $12 an hour labor when you can get $1 an hour on site?

Becasue if we started moving all of our production out to these countries the wages there would move up, so we would end up not being able to get cheap raw materials from them any more. So in the long run it would be better to live off from them by having them produce most of the raw materials and having us manufacture them.

quote: What profit? Do you know the average margin on manufactured goods in this country? Sears doesn't make money on the stove, they make money on the repair contract for it. CompUSA doesn't make money on the computer, they make money on the software. For God's sake man, he days of stealing gold from the Natives for shipment to Spain are LONG GONE...

About your first argument I was talking about the profit from the third world countries. Because their productive capabilities the profitrate there is higher than that in the developed countries. Sadly, the low profitrate today has been foreseen by Marx 150 years ago (the profitrate's tendency to drop).

[The Joker]

Kroeze:

Do you mean that I should bring back ye ol' SE Thread? I was thinking of maybe making a new one, as all the people posting in the old one is, in an Apolyton manner, deceased.

Despotism:
I agree that despotism is a somewhat indefinit concept. I always assumed that it would describe the ancient military based, but still absolutely ruled civs. I think the absolute monarchy, the monarchies in Europe after the king took all power from the nobilities (in Denmark it happened in 1660) and therefor had absolute power.

Would you say that monarchy was the first government form or what? I would mean that something had to have come before it, but I am not sure what.


Marcel:

I think that the most significant work Marx did was his describtion of the capitalist system. No other theory can better describe the economic crisises that frequently occur in capitalism better than marxism. His work on the profitrates tendency to drop is incredible. Especcially as he is right! In all sectors of capitalism the profitrate drops always due to the increased competition. Marx thought this would end in a permanent recession in all communist countries, which in the end would leave everybody poor enough to realise how bad capitalism was.

I think (this is my own personal theory) that the reason this might not neccesarilly happend is that the technological development not only increases productivity (which was what Marx thought) but also creates new sectors, in which the competition is now so rough. This means that the size of the companies doesn't grow as fast as he thought, as the old companies are not neccesarilly good at competing in the new sectors. This keeps the economic development dynamic, and not static as Marx thought. But hey, that's just my oppinion.


Prince:

It is very interesting to hear from an actual communist. Are you a traditional marxist (meaning that you think that communism is inevitable due to the general economic development) or just a socialist (meaning you would just like us all to pay 80% tax so equality is obtained this way)? I would really like to know.

I, unlike some people here, can respect your opinion, although I miht not share it.

quote: Even if racial groups are allowed to vote, the US system of it is a vile trick. It is not Representitive Democracy, but Bourgeois Democracy! It is a four-year Dictatorship! Voters have no say in policy, and are unable to recall their representitives! It is only an illision that by voting you are controlling the political process. You can talk to people on the street, I'm sure you'll find a whole lot who disagree with lots of goings ons right now. But are they able to change it? You can argue that protest allows, but you know that's not even a half-truth.

I also believe in the ideal of direct democracy, especcially since the technological development has made it possible. However, I do fear that it would make some people, populists, that can say what the people want them to say, to influence the political process enough for the democracy to stop. I fear, that the people are not smart enough to overlook the complexity of many laws. I fear, that it might end like in Athens, where the people ended up voting on what they just felt like - like executing all of the city's generals only to vote on them being innocent the next day and start going after the people who wanted them being executed. But I do hope, that it is possible, and I do hope, that it will be done.

I hope that you will go through this thread and tell us your opinion about all that we have written. I would really like to hear your viewpoints.


In my SE model I have included both socialism (a nondemocratic form would be like that in USSR, a democratic one would be Marx's idea for what would come after capitalism) and communism (Marx's utopia coming after socialism). I would like to have communism, and it should have the bonuses that Marx thought it would (like extreme happyness and science output). It should just be very hard to get. It should require something like 50 years of socialism, loads of trade per capita and lots of all the resources you need.

[PrinceOfWeasels]

Joker:
Hey, hi! I'm interested in SE..but I have no idea what it is. ;P 8) I only have the Windows version of CivOne. Not CivNet.
I am party both of what you said. I don't believe that Socialism can be completely described as what you said (But I know what you mean!), and I am not yet sure what my feelings are regarding Socialism before Communism, insofar as the transition away from Capitalism. But I have faith in people who can be enlightened--I believe they will use common sense of human emotion to move things, once they learn of how things really are, to the nearest to Utopia we'll get. I am /very/ strong-minded about freedom of expression and thought, and art. I see Capitalism as blocking billions of people from artistic and intellectual contentment. America, being the power it is, does not only effect Americans. Third-world nations are kept under the thumbs of dictators that a truly Marxist nation with the powers of the US would remove. People in Africa starve and die, and the US just hangs out in the embassies while they let us get paranoid about China at home.
I will say that I love America very, very much, though. I respect deeply the actions of its founding fathers and all of the men who fought in the Revolution and the Second World War. And I feel sorry for the poor men who were sent to die in Vietnam and Korea, along with respect. I love America. America is where people from all over the world came together to build and be happy and share their ideas and talents. But one hundred years later, it is not the land of opportunity, but disguised oppression. People are made bitter and anger by the stress of work, hundreds of thousands are forced into crime. I think that that is horrible, evil. I can imagine the shining eyes of immigrants as they first see the Statue of Liberty, and then in a second a fade to the hopeless eyes of a single mother in a high-crime neighbourhood, children being corrupted by crime and hate, and then the narrowed eyes of a businessman as he looks out from his sky-scraper window, thinking that /that/ is what life is about.
I love humanity, I love art, I love freedom.
I will be sixteen years old, as of this June.
I am disgusted that there are humans who could act /against/ other humans for money. Money. I am admittedly extremely idealistic, but I believe that you can never be overly so -- name something great built or discovered by someone who /wasn't/. But I believe that in the flow of human history, at some point currency should leave us. Under Communism, which in its true form is true Demoracy, that could eventually be accomplished. The resources to build are /there/, and if everyone owns a part, and it's for helping out /people/, humans with emotions, then why not just make things because it's what those people need? Everyone sharing enough in that way. As I said before, I refuse to believe that pure and true human emotion can be conquered by money, once it is unleashed. For now, it is held prisoner by Capitalism, only reaching out with underdeveloped and underfed, bony fingers from its jail-cell.
I can see a green and blue and white sphere. Beneath the white, I can see endless green and clear blue. Looking closer, I can see communities of well-kept houses, gardens, streets in good repair. I can see children playing in the greenness--one of those children would have become schizophrenic later in life, but beause greed is no factor and time has passed, enough medical advance has been made, out of a love for humanity, to cure him genetically. I see another child who would have grown to be a biggot, but introduced to enlightened concepts since he was small, he plays with his friends with happy eyes instead of scanning ones.
Moving outwards again, I notice no boundaries on this green. People move freely, live freely, think freely, make art freely, live happily. That is Marxism.

------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
|

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 05-24-2000 06:07 PM Dear OrangeSfwr, In my opinion you are using a very limited and rather personal definition of 'democracy', which does not help the discussion on the subject in any way. My suggestion is to use the general accepted application of the concept.

Yes I realize that Democracy has taken on those last two definitions in today's society. I used Direct Democracy for my point, but I can still argue - how can you call Greece democratic? They had Slaves, same with the US and many other countries about a century back. It's really a republic based form of government.

Today, we have billion dollar lobbyist groups who run our government, not the people. Representative government is simply a GAME for the rich and powerful. If we worked more on a direct representation government than the people would be represented better. But as long as we use this trustee-representative system in the US, we will always be a Democratic Republic.

quote: Fact is, that if an entire ethnic minority can not vote, no matter ho it is done, then the US is not democratic.

Also true, furtering my argument that no country is or has been completely democratic.

As for your socialism comment - I apologize, "Socialist Government" was really not a good way to label Sweeden's government. What you said is more accurate - that they are influenced by leaders that have socialist ideals. (Because how can you have a "socialist government" you really can't, it's an economic system, not a governmental system.) So yes I see your point, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the tax on Gas is so high because of the high taxes a socialist system brings. I'm not saying the Sweedish model is wrong, Sweeden and the US are actually very similar when it comes to facts and figures (Literacy, life expectancy, GDP/capita, etc.) But our ideologies are completely opposite. In Sweeden everyone has medical care, education, they're even GIVEN money for college by the state! So I don't see what your big "cough cough NO" venger impersenation is all about. My facts on socialism are correct.

BTW: does anyone know - what's the Denmark economy like?

Marcel - Have you (or anyone following this thread) ever read "The Time Machine"? It's a great book detailing the future of the Earth where the struggle between the Captalists and Communists forced humans to split into two species. If anyone has, I would like to make a connection. The aboveground species ("Eloi" - Captalists) seem to be the Ideal Communists why the belowground species ("Morlocks" - Communists) seem to be the ideal Capitalists.

Basically for Communism you need perfect people who always want to do what is right and never complain and always have a smile on their face, never upset. Basically - you need the infinitely stupid. For true Captalism you need the opposite. Pure Genuises (lol). The world is a mix of both types of people. So you'll never be able to implement each type of Economy in the way they were meant to be. So the world continues to represent a breeding of the two. No country is really Communist, no country is completely Captalist. We're all Socialist to a different extreme. That's the way I see it at least. So I don't see Communism on Earth...ever.

quote: Put DOWN THE CRACK PIPE. The United States was far from perfect - slaves, women could not vote. Voting rules were determined by the states (Article 1, Section 4 and Article 2, Section 1 plus the 12th Amendment). But if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find only the ridiculous and hence stricken 3/5th compromise as the only non-democratic statement in the whole document. The U.S. is a representative Republic, not a Democracy, at least in more exacting terms...

Damn skippy...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 25, 2000).]

[PrinceOfWeasels]

The Internationale (Billy Bragg version)

Stand up, all victims of oppression,
for the tyrants fear your might.
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
for you have nothing if you have no rights!

Let racist ignorance be ended,
for respect makes the empire small.
Freedom is merely privelage extended,
unless you join by one and all!

So come brothers and sisters, for the struggle carries on!
The Internationale unites the world in song!

So, comrades, come rally--for this is the time and place!
The International ideal unites the Human race!

Let no one build walls to divide us--
walls of hatred nor walls of stone.
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us,
we'll live together or we'll die alone.

In our world, poisoned by exploitation,
those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one Earth on which to live.

So, come brothers and sisters,
for the struggle carries on!
The Internationale unites the world in song!

So, comrades, come rally,
for this is the time and place
The International Ideal unites the Human race!

And so begins the final drama,
in the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
we defy their guns and shields!
When we fight, provoked by their aggression,
let us be inspired by life and love!
For though they offer us concessions,
change will not come from above.

So, come brothers and sisters, for the struggle carries on! The Internationale unites the World in song! So, comrades, come rally--for this is the time and place!

The International Ideal Unites The Human Race!

...hey, Tibby-tabby? I looked all through that song, but you know what? I didn't find a single thing about enforcing New-Speak. Isn't that weird?

Going along more with 1984 really being about Capitalism, notice the the way songs for the Proles are made. Very similiar to the MTV crap that's messing up kids' minds nowadays, I'd say. They're also kept in check by a lotto, hoping to win it big. Just like 250,000,000 out of 265,000,000 people in the US are kept in check with that same wanting and waiting and hoping for the impossible 'promises' of Capitalism now.


------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
|

[Venger]

Venger:

quote: And I am sure I can find some stalinistic book on how the US is actually spying on the Soviets. If all you are to read is proamerican litterature then you are only seing things from one side.

Pro-American literature? This book is based nearly entirely on declassified Soviet documents!!! If this is going to degenerate into "that's just American propaganda", let's all save ourselves the time...

quote: How about yourself? When the US only allowed the wealthies 20% (or more or less) of it's population to vote long into the 20th century then it is not a real democracy. Like the Soviet Union wasn't one.

Where do you pull these figures from? They are not accurate whatsoever.

quote: "Why is it that the black people of our southern states can not vote, and that the ones of our northern ones do not do so?"

Poll taxes and literacy tests were obstacles to black voting - the poor and illiterate were often black. So - when those were outlawed, did we then become a democracy in your eyes?

quote: Saddam has experimented on the effectivity on his nerve gas on his own people.

He doesn't consider the Kurds his own people.

quote: I would call that pretty evil. Of cause, this is relative, but I would call Saddam almost as evil as Hitler.

I would see them worlds apart. Saddam is still a piece of **** however...

quote: But still, you are focusing on unimportant details and missing my point. When the US are supposed to be the great protector of democracy why did it support so many totally nondemocratic dictators?

Perceived US strategic interest.

quote: I will tell you why: Because the majority of the people in those countries wanted socialism, which the US due to the containtment policy wanted to avoid. So they supported these dictators because they maintained a capitalist system in these countries.

A majority huh? In which country in particular? The Phillipines? Nope. Many small nations had communist guerilla groups which were Soviet sponsored, and against which the US government fought by supporting governments felt better autocratic than communist.

quote: This policy has nothing to do with maintaining justice or acting like the good guys. It is pure security policy.

And?

quote: Like I said: In international politics there is no good guys or bad guys. Just power. And power always justifies itself, as J. William Fullbright wrote.

I think Fulbright would disagree. Read his works and I think his criticism of US policy indicates there are good and bad guys, but that good guys do bad things. And being good or bad comes after surviving...which both the US and Soviet Union felt was at stake in the Soviet Union.

Was the US good or bad in Vietnam? Was the Soviet Union good or bad erecting the Berlin wall? Good nations do bad things. Bad nations do bad things. Nations will do nearly anything they deem vital to their national interest when engaged in a serious confrontation with an enemy.

quote: "Notwithstanding the low overall level of tariff protection, 5% of MFN tariffs involve rates exceeding three times the overall average; such tariff "peaks" affect some agricultural and food products as well as textiles, clothing and footwear."

Tariffs of low cost consumer goods. That is hardly the theft of raw materials for the creation of luxury goods AND it's hardly tariffs on manufactured goods designed to keep the third world poor. You know how has pain in the ass tariffs? Japan and Europe. The U.S. has ongoing suits, talks, etc. just trying to get goods into those markets.

quote: Of cause the third world can not compete in very high tech sectors. But in certain areas, such as clothing (very labourintensive) they can due to their low labour prices. And to protect national production they have high tarrifs on certain things. Touche?

No, because that's exactly what I've been saying. Labor is the only resource a third world nation often has. The U.S. tariffs don't protect local clothes and textile production - those goods are STILL far cheaper manufactured overseas than in the U.S. Cheap industrial and soft textile labor jobs left 20 years ago. The only cheap labor jobs in America are service jobs...

quote: What are you talking about? Money is just a thing you use to buy things with as it is easier than bartering.

Productivity doesn't mean anything without consumption. If you can produce 20 widgets a day now instead of 10, that's only important if you can SELL 10 more. Consumption comes from wealth.

quote: The velocity of money is not important. If the velocity suddently slows down it would mean nothing more than that there would be a lack of money,

What? The velocity of money creates wealth. When it slows, it slows the entire economy, removes capital from investment (in a capitalist economy), and causes contraction of production. If money doesn't move, nothing gets produced. What's the point of money other than investment and expenditure?

quote: I would argue we produce less with less effort, but that's another story. The reason we are richer now is that we are building upon what our parents built, and upon what their parents built, and their parents. ---- Your first argument simply suggests that you are ignorant. Your second has no relevance in this discussion what so ever.

Ignorant? Welp, you've earned it...Go here and do likewise...

quote: If you actually mean that we today don't need any raw materials then I see no point of continuing this discussion.

I actually mean our economy is not driven by extraction of raw materials.

quote: We use more raw materials today than we have ever done before!

We use more raw materials but the produciton of raw materials accounts for a smaller portion of the economy in terms of real GDP

quote: The reason the information economy etc etc is coming is, that the labour needed for producing the raw materials and manufactuaring them into goods has dropped enormeously in the last 100 years due to rises in productivity.

Agriculture is really the only sector that lives up to your statement.

quote: But it is still equally important to the society as a whole. If we have no food, no clothes and no electricity we wouldn't care about internet shopping.

But we do have those things. What's your point? That we should pay as much for bread as for a microchip?

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by PrinceOfWeasels on 05-25-2000 02:01 PM Capitalism is based on war.

Capitalism is based on property.

quote: You take, you take, you fight--and it takes your life, it becomes your life. Forget that, Vengie. Forget that, Tibby-tibby-tabtab-tabuli-buddy.

What are you smoking? Is it legal to grow your own in your country?

quote: Communism doesn't take away initiative.

I'm a Soviet factory worker. I make widgets. I make 2 an hour. I can make 3 an hour. But why? I will not get a pay raise, I will not be hired by a competitor who needs someone to make 3 an hour, I will not be given a raise for it.

I'm a Soviet farmer. I grow 10 bushels of wheat per acre. I can grow 12 bushels of wheat, but it will require more work. Since the additional wheat doesn't belong to me, but to the people's of the Soviet Union, I won't realize any reward for my hard work.

I'm a Soviet worker. I have a concept for a new widget. But the new widget will not belong to me. I won't realize any reward for my creative process or work in developing it. So why bother?

quote: I refuse to believe, no matter what you could EVER tell me, that pure, right, strong human emotion could be overcome by money.

Can you pay for my child? No. Can you pay for my work? Yes. Money is a fungible medium for transactions. It allows me to keep my work in my pocket or bank instead of in gold or sheep.

They key to capitalism is wealth. Not money.

quote: Ever watch a children's cartoon, wherein the animals live in a classless, currenciless society? Wasn't that peaceful, and right, compared to the crap going on in the 'free world' now?

Now I know why we won the Cold War.

quote: Where the Republicans hate half the country, and a nation is collectively sighing over a pile of bills? You do not know what Communism is, Venger, Tiberius, and anyone who would speak against it like you do. Your outdated and plain evil notions of the world and human nature are sickening, and I challenge your life experience. I challenge, saying that you do not know enough, that you have not experienced enough, and that your consciousness is not human enough to comprehend peace or the vision of a happily united Earth.

My God. I've seen the light. The light is above the padded room you're in. Time for your dosage of Thorazine.

quote: I stop there, though. Regardless of your politcal ideas now, _I_ can realize the type of conditioning and propaganda that the US has done to you.

Yep, that crazy free press and internet, we're all BRAINWASHED.

quote: Delusion deleted

My sincere apologies on your lobotomy.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Becasue if we started moving all of our production out to these countries the wages there would move up, so we would end up not being able to get cheap raw materials from them any more.

What do you think happened and is happening? How many things do you get anymore built in Japan? They moved it to Korea. Then they moved it to Malaysia. Now they're moving it to Banglasdesh. That's the nature of a global economy.

quote: About your first argument I was talking about the profit from the third world countries. Because their productive capabilities the profitrate there is higher than that in the developed countries. Sadly, the low profitrate today has been foreseen by Marx 150 years ago (the profitrate's tendency to drop).

It's a natural consequence of competition. It's not sad, it's a boon to the consumer. Who is, by the way, the proliteriat...

Venger

[Marcel I]

Joker,

You are right in stating that Marx’ analysis of capitalism in its raw form was important.
IMHO he was wrong in the way he described the inevitable end to the system. As you say yourself there were reasons why this end didn’t come in the way he foresaw. Capitalism in its raw form doesn’t exist anymore, maybe partly because of Marx’work.
BTW as Venger said decreased profit marges turned out to be for the consumers’ good.
Marx didn’t foresee that industrial massproduction would inevitably lead to massconsumption, which had to lead to better wages for the workers to buy these goods. Even the owners of means of production (e.g. Henry Ford) understood their workers were also potential consumers. Instead of the gradual impoverishment of an increasing number of people, the standard of living was going up. The collapse of the system didn’t come.

Prince,

You’re overly optimistic in the nature of ‘the beast called man’. If you were right there would be no criminals or leaders like Stalin, Saddam, Pinochet or Hitler.
Some people DO abuse power and trust, some are plain egoistic. Look at the kulaki (don’t know if it’s the right translation, but I hope you know what I mean) in the Soviet Union, shortly after the revolution. They worked only a small part of the land, but for their own profit, yet they produced half of the food in the country just after the revolution. It’s just the way people are motivated first themselves then/or their families and if there is anything left they will perhaps share it with other people.
Call me cynical, but I’m 39 and I guess I’ve met enough people in my life who wouldn’t fit in your socialist paradise. So I’ll call it an utopia.
Free market may not be a perfect system but until now it has at least been effective in raising the standards of living for many citizens in the western world. Combined with a democratic government it’s the best system that has proven itself so far. I’m not talking theory (that’s for games like Civ ), but real life.


------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[PrinceOfWeasels]

Venger

I think it's so cool how you completely dodged many points I brought up, with insults. Just like I knew you would.
Capitalism is based on war. I don't mean what I'm sure you're thinking about--I mean what is behind war. The way war works.
But this war is bigger than any war before, with the number of parties involved, and also considering the cruelty and casualties.
You have thousands of companies, hundreds of parent companies, and dozens of mega-corporations, all fighting in the market. Competition is crushed, those people loe their jobs, and while they were fighting they're so stressed that their personal lives and intellectual ability for anything besides the business and the products, however important you seem to think they are (gotta get that new Voodoo7!), are compromised and in many cases destroyed. People are twisted by Capitalism, and you fail to see it. I believe it is because you have been conditioned to be greedy, because that is what Capitalism needs. You think that your products are neccesary. Who makes the produts? The labor of the third-world countries, that are kept from true Marxism by governments claiming to be Communist, which are the things you have associated with Communism ideaoligy in all your originality and comprehension, and the forces of the US that you yourself brought up. The people of those countries have been twisted worse than you--the work is completely their life, except for the love they have for their families and the hopes they have of something better someday.
The propaganda and the forces of Capitalism are as much of you as your parents are, and that is wrong. You argue for money against peace, which is impossible for a human to do without Capitalism's greed. Anyone can /say/ that Capitalism is for property, but /prove/ it, prove it beyond any doubt or any facts that anyone else could ever bring up. I assure you that that is impossible, because Capitalism is wrong.
People still have property under Communsim. No one will come into your home, grab something of yours, and walk out like it was theirs--because they'd have their own--that example proving unarguably true even if you refuse to believe that neighbourly love and respect can exist. There are no secret police that will come steal from your house beause they can--because they're people, like you, with their own things--and with nothing to /gain/ from stealing, no one would need to steal.
I understand more debates are ahead, but eventually the only way you will ever be able to find something I and the other people here will not be able to disprove is if you become completely rhetoric or abstract.
This Soviet factory worker. First, I told you to not bother bringing up Soviets--haven't you learned from how badly you've been disproved that the Soviet Union wasn't true Marxism? Before I take the wind out of your sails again, I will bring the argument to /you/, Venger.
I am an American factory worker in Silicone valley. I am a single mother, having one daughter, aged three. When I arrive in Silicone Valley, I find a job at a software packing facility for a large corporation. But it was as a 'temp' for a sub-contrating agency. My pay of 8.25 per hour is not enough to pay for my rent, food, and day-care for my child, because the prices of all were driven up to exploit the workers of the area. I move from homeless-shelter to homeless-shelter, along with thousands of other exploited workers, until I can finally get a job out of the area.*
I am a factory worker in a Marxist America. My day is from noon till five PM. I leave the house after I have lunch, and return to have dinner with my family. I work to put sneaker shoes together, on an assembly line with many other workers. We are glad to be making quality products that we ourselves and our neighbours will end up with, since we are producing for this area. We do not want ourselves to not have shoes, so we will make quality products. My shift is the last of the day.
And if the population increases, Venger, Tabouli, then more workers or more fatories are added. What a concept. I bet it must be evil someway, though, huh? That those people can work shorter hours in conditions that they control, to make their own products? They must be wanting to do something else besides making shoes! Well, I bet the factory-full of Chinese pre-teens don't want to make more high-priced Nikes than you'll ever need a little bit more than those people I described.
Why would you want to keep your work in your pocket when you could look around your entire world to see it helping people?
Yes, I know why you won the Cold War too. Because things got to a point where money was the deciding factor in the victory. America kept things tied with the Soviet Union until the economy had matured and gone global enough for them to break the USSR through that. I know you'll go on some talk about something you read in a spy book. Go ahead. We all know that everything we read is true. If it says it's declassified on the back of the book, then that /must/ be the case.


..delusion deleted? I never typed that, but it's really cool how you replied with an insult.
I challenge again. I challenge you to henceforth reply only with what is fact. Propaganda allowed, because that's what you'll know--but an insult proves further how truly feeble your arguments are.
You can /say/ anything, Venger. 'Capitalism is based on property'. 'Communism takes away initiative.' But lets see you /prove/ that, Venger. Go through every possibility, every scenario, and do it all in a true way.
You will never be able to, because you fight on a side that is primitive.

Those here who do not support Communism, yet see past the propaganda and actually know something of it, and also see the faults in the US's Capitalism, I do not challenge or insult you. This has become about crushing ignorance. But your minds, that look into all posibilities and analyze, I respect and would gladly work with. Your ideas are progress. Ignorance is the foot-in-the-door of an evil Capitalism.

I'd like to thank Joker and Marcel for being what I have described and made my respect known for.

Marcel -
I never claimed that evil /couldn't/ exist in man. I say that under Marxism, evil would not need to. There would be nothing at all to gain from some man stopping work, and stealing. If he just puts in his five hours a day, he can have everything he needs. If he doesn't enjoy his job, then there would be people whose job it is to find jobs for people who can't do a certain type of work. Many types of factories, someday, will not even need to be manned. The technology very nearly exists now, but if it were put into place, people under Capitalism wouldn't have jobs because they'd live in ghetto-type areas where there was very little else to do, legally. Technology like that put into place under Communism would result in thos epeople being able to move over to production for recreation, literary, or postitive morale products, or becoming teachers for new subjects, or becomming farmers to make sure everyone has the food they need.
Five hours out of twenty-four. Leaves time for a far better sleep than most people in Capitalism knows, and more time with their friends, family, and intellecutal progression than anyone under Capitalism knows, except the very rich.
I believe that human behavior is shaped by conditioning and dis-orders. Someone with dis-order to be obsessive compulsive for example could, through the gene-technology we see becoming more likely and safe, be cured. He would grow up introduced to enlightened concepts and literature, and a world very friendly.
I understand you could bring up the subject of mind-control through genetic-engineering, but I will take care of that argument now.
In a world or even nation controlled by the people, why would they want to hurt themselves? There are no secretive or hidden levels of government to do this type of crime. In fact, I find it much more likely to happen under the US system of government, wherein there are levels that we either don't know of or don't know all the activited of. It would be completely within their interests to 'tweak' certain parts of a human's mind--their conditioning is proof they're still wanting those results, and the types of experiments on their own people we now know that they did during the Cold War prove that they /would/ try.
The people you've met that wouldn't fit were conditioned by Capitalism. No one who is raised in a world with Capitalism is untouched by it, except some unknown tribe in Africa that's never seen any other people for as long as it's been around. They don't have money. They produce for themselves, as much as they need and at the quality they need it. You an argue that their medical technology is basically non-existant and that they have no modern technology, and suggest that I am saying that all of man should exist that way--but I agree with you in the first part, and I am not what you might say in the second.
I believe that Capitalism was a step needed to quickly bring about technology and certain quality-of-life advancements. But soon, the time we needed it will end, and humanity can move on to much happier.
It is seeming to me like you judge quality-of-life based on material posessions and medical technology. Going with material posessions, I think we can both agree that they are not what life is all about. And sofar as medical technology, that goes along with what I said about Capitalism quickly advancing certain areas.
I believe that life is about, much more than posessions, happiness first and most importantly, free-thought, art, nature, beauty, and enough intellectual development to be progressive and content and able to handle situations and ideas. All of these would be status-quo under a Communist world or nation, somewhat ahead of America in technology (the type of technology that America will shortly achieve anyway).
What I am trying to get across to you, Marcel, is that with Capitalist conditioning, there always will be people who won't 'fit' with the Marxist nation. The Marxist nation doesn't change above the people and filter down, as the US and its type of Capitalism do. The Marxist nation's power is from the core, which is the people. I am saying that I believe that in Marxism the 'human-nature' of greed would not have enough fuel to be what many people think it has to be. I am not giving an image of a world free from all conflict to you. Two men could fall in love with the same woman. A child somewhere might 'borrow' something without asking. Accidents would still happen. And that could happen hundreds of times a day, the world over. Conflict and suffering brings about knowledge and strength, so it is important that we never forget or try to leave suffering completely. It is in human nature to bring about some suffering to oneself at points. But I hope to put up, instead, a more realistic and possible and, I think, better world, wherein everyone at least has a chance and the love to want it.

Thank you.


*Basics of story taken from article on rednet.org

------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
| |
[This message has been edited by PrinceOfWeasels (edited May 26, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by PrinceOfWeasels (edited May 26, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by PrinceOfWeasels (edited May 26, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by PrinceOfWeasels (edited May 26, 2000).]

[PrinceOfWeasels]

I understand now why Venger posted about 'Delusion deleted'.
One of my posts was for Orangeswrfr, and it was deleted. Maybe, for a time, the text of the message was changed, before it was deleted alltogether.
In any case, I'm not posting anymore on a board that would do that. Delusion wasn't deleted, but an argument for something that someone doesn't like was.
I'm glad you deleted it, just like how someone like you would burn a book if given the conditions I'm sure you'd like.
This will probably be deleted soon, also. Or, they might not delete it, to make that statement seem paranoid. But, however, I hope some of the more open-minded people I've met here read this, and know the type of censorship that's gone on here.
That action goes along exactly with what the US is doing and influencing and wanting.
Venger, Tiberius, and the person who deleted my post--your minds are closed and dead, and I hope and work and bleed for a world that is unlike what you want to see.
I really want you to read this and process the ideas and images that so many people are completely against you and will do so much to make a world that is vastly different than what you dimly comprehend with milky, blind eyes. Someday the whole world will look back on what you thought was right and think of it the same way we see slavery now.

For anyone here that does not support Communism as it is, but still works to leave the evils in the Amercian Capitalist 'demoracy', I give respect and praise. Orangeswrfr, Marcel, and Joker, I know of.

Things will continue to move and change on this board, and things will continue to move and change in the world. And with the very intelligent people I've seen here wanting movement in change the way they are, I've got a feeling that both will leave people like Venger behind.


This is a note to the person who deleted my first post-- even if you delete this or edit it, the message will still go to the people it needs to go to. Just because you have access to a button doesn't mean that you can limit access to truth for people.

------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
|

[PrinceOfWeasels]

Accidentally did it twice. Edited this one to be this.
[This message has been edited by PrinceOfWeasels (edited May 26, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

Delusion or not, I think its important to give K.Marx a chance to speak for himself:

"The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work, Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and , as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
(source: K.Marx,'Manifesto of the Communist Party',1848)

What does a general reference book say about Marxism?

'Marxism may be said to have had three sources or to have merged three national streams: French revolutionism, the British Industrial Revolution, and German philosophy. Without the massive fact of the Great French Revolution standing at the opening of the nineteenth century it is doubtful whether anyone would have developed so improbable a doctrine as the abrupt and total renovation of human affairs by the Revolution. But revolution had in fact occurred; it therefore might occur again. What the bourgeoisie class had done, the workers could do too. And Marxism, along with all early forms of socialism, saw an unredeemed promise in the French Revolution, believing that social and economic equality should follow the civil and legal equality already won. In addition, and in keeping with the general movement of romanticism, the concept of liberty began also to mean a more personal emancipation. Marx, especially in his youthful writings, developed the idea of psychological alienation, a state of mind produced when a human being becomes divorced from the object on which he works, through the historic proces of mechanization and commercialization of labor.

The revolutionary outbreaks of 1848, coming within a few weeks of the publication of the Communist Manifesto, naturally confirmed Marx and Engels in their beliefs, and the actual class war that shook Paris in the June Days was taken by them as a manisfestation of a universal class struggle. But Marx was no mere insurrectionary schemer, like the "revolution-makers", as he contemptuously called them. His mature thought was no system for producing revolution, but it showed how the future revolution must come by the operation of vast impersonal forces.

Engels, engaged in the Manchester cotton industry, possessed a personal knowledge of the new industrial and factory system in England. He was in touch with a few of the most radical Chartists, though he had no respect for Chartism itself as a revolutionary movement. In 1844 he published a revealing book on The Condition of the Working Classes in England. The depressed condition of labor, to which Marxism like all forms of socialism called emphatic attention, was an actual fact. It was a fact that labor received a relatively small portion of the natonal income, and that much of the product of society was being reinvested in capital goods, which belonged as private property to private persons. Government and parliamentary institutions, also as a matter of fact, were in the hands of the well-to-do in both Great Britain and France. Religion was commonly held to be necessary to keep the lower clases in order. The churches at the time, as a matter of fact, took next to no interest in the problems of the workers. At best, evangelical sects taught the poor that they must be patient. The family, as an institution, was in fact disintegrating among laboring people in the cities, through exploitation of women and children and the overcrowding in inadequate and unsanitary living quarters. All these facts were seized upon and dramatized in the Communist Manifesto.'
(source: R.R.Palmer/J.Colton:'A History of the Modern World',1978)

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by PrinceOfWeasels on 05-26-2000 08:55 AM Venger I think it's so cool how you completely dodged many points I brought up, with insults.

I labored but found no points.

quote: Just like I knew you would.

Well aren't you the clever one.

quote: Capitalism is based on war. I don't mean what I'm sure you're thinking about--I mean what is behind war. The way war works. But this war is bigger than any war before, with the number of parties involved, and also considering the cruelty and casualties. You have thousands of companies, hundreds of parent companies, and dozens of mega-corporations, all fighting in the market. Competition is crushed, those people loe their jobs, and while they were fighting they're so stressed that their personal lives and intellectual ability for anything besides the business and the products, however important you seem to think they are (gotta get that new Voodoo7!), are compromised and in many cases destroyed.

The word you are looking for is competition, not war. Do your kids war in the junior high track meet, or do they compete?

quote: People are twisted by Capitalism, and you fail to see it. I believe it is because you have been conditioned to be greedy, because that is what Capitalism needs.

Right, I fail to see what you see - I disagree, therefore it must be due to a failure on my part to see or understand.

quote: You think that your products are neccesary.

Like my car? Yes.

quote: Who makes the produts? The labor of the third-world countries,

My car was manufactured in Normal, Illinois with parts created in the United States and Japan.

quote: that are kept from true Marxism by governments claiming to be Communist, which are the things you have associated with Communism ideaoligy in all your originality and comprehension, and the forces of the US that you yourself brought up.

If only Communism worked.

quote: The people of those countries have been twisted worse than you--the work is completely their life, except for the love they have for their families and the hopes they have of something better someday.

What countries?

quote: The propaganda and the forces of Capitalism are as much of you as your parents are, and that is wrong.

Communist hysteria is like conspiritorial delusion - any facts that don't support you are part of the plot, those who oppose you are part of the conspiracy, those who don't believe you are too blind to see. Base your argument in fact, we'll talk fact. But you don't use facts, but rather rhetoric. Example:

"You are blinded by propaganda"

That has nothing to do with communism or capitalism.

quote: You argue for money against peace, which is impossible for a human to do without Capitalism's greed. Anyone can /say/ that Capitalism is for property, but /prove/ it, prove it beyond any doubt or any facts that anyone else could ever bring up. I assure you that that is impossible, because Capitalism is wrong.

Capitalism is wrong - more rhetoric. Do you have any facts, or rational arguments to make?

quote: People still have property under Communsim. No one will come into your home, grab something of yours, and walk out like it was theirs--because they'd have their own--that example proving unarguably true even if you refuse to believe that neighbourly love and respect can exist. There are no secret police that will come steal from your house beause they can--because they're people, like you, with their own things--and with nothing to /gain/ from stealing, no one would need to steal.

That's delusional. Are you saying there is a "need" to steal?

quote: I am an American factory worker in Silicone valley. I am a single mother, having one daughter, aged three. When I arrive in Silicone Valley, I find a job at a software packing facility for a large corporation.[quote] Sounds feasible for an unskilled uneducated single mother. [quote]But it was as a 'temp' for a sub-contrating agency.

Who the company is paying $16 an hour to contract for, so they see if you know what you're doing. Since they don't want to pay $16 an hour, they offer a permanent job at $10 an hour.

quote: My pay of 8.25 per hour is not enough to pay for my rent, food, and day-care for my child,

So my Section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid, and EIC help cover these expenses. Since the factory has co-located daycare, I can leave my child at the local facility.

quote: because the prices of all were driven up to exploit the workers of the area.

Because high demand for land and labor are creating a labor shortage and inflationary pressure on core services such as child care. Do you know anything about economics?

Exploit the workers? Who is exploiting you? The capitalists? Aren' these the same people who won't steal your property or take you away in the night if only they'd been in a communist society?

quote: I move from homeless-shelter to homeless-shelter, along with thousands of other exploited workers, until I can finally get a job out of the area.*

I am moving into a 2 bedroom apartment close to the office. Federal student aid is allowing me to take free classes at the local university, and the university provides free day care to low income workers. My child and I have a caloric intake 35% higher than that typical of the same Soviet family. As labor is tight currently, I have high hopes of quick vertical advancement in my current job. At the least, it'll pay the bills while I finish my education, and I can expect a $38,000 entry level salary in my chosen profession.

The difference between my storyline and yours is that mine actually occurs in real life.

quote: I am a factory worker in a Marxist America. My day is from noon till five PM.

That's when I stand in line for bread.

quote: I leave the house after I have lunch, and return to have dinner with my family.

The 8 of us share a 2 bedroom apartment.

quote: I work to put sneaker shoes together, on an assembly line with many other workers.

Sneaker shoes are the highest tech product we make anymore.

quote: We are glad to be making quality products that we ourselves and our neighbours will end up with, since we are producing for this area.

Nobody really needs more shoes, but we make them anyways.

quote: We do not want ourselves to not have shoes, so we will make quality products.

We are afraid the political officer will report us if we complain about working conditions. I really wanted to be an airline pilot, but the Central Planner stated we needed more shoes. We currently have a warehouse full of shoes that are not shipping due to a railroad backlog caused by the failure to account for the overabundance shoes. We need more feet.

quote: My shift is the last of the day.

I will now take public transportation home, where I will see my family, unless the truck breaks down again.

quote: And if the population increases, Venger, Tabouli, then more workers or more fatories are added.

Of course! I mean, we must make more shoes! Regardless of what people want. Sandles? No, you get shoes. Boots? No, you get shoes.

quote: What a concept. I bet it must be evil someway, though, huh?

Just foolish, and fantastically inefficient.

quote: That those people can work shorter hours in conditions that they control, to make their own products?

The products AREN'T THEIRS. They HAVE NO CHOICE. They CONTROL NOTHING.

quote: They must be wanting to do something else besides making shoes!

Some may, some may not, but that should be for the workers, the managers, and the consumers to decide on in a free market.

quote: Well, I bet the factory-full of Chinese pre-teens don't want to make more high-priced Nikes than you'll ever need a little bit more than those people I described.

Yep, you're 100% right. Those workers in COMMUNIST CHINA really don't want to make Nikes either...

quote: Why would you want to keep your work in your pocket when you could look around your entire world to see it helping people?

What?

quote: Yes, I know why you won the Cold War too. Because things got to a point where money was the deciding factor in the victory. America kept things tied with the Soviet Union until the economy had matured and gone global enough for them to break the USSR through that.

Surprisingly, that's a poorly worded and simplistic explanation, but not entirely far from the truth. The Soviet Union was bankrupted - financially, technologically, morally.

quote: I know you'll go on some talk about something you read in a spy book. Go ahead. We all know that everything we read is true. If it says it's declassified on the back of the book, then that /must/ be the case.

All part of the conspiracy against Communism. I'm a bourgeois agent taking part in the giant anti-communist apparatus.

quote: ..delusion deleted? I never typed that, but it's really cool how you replied with an insult.

I typed that, in place of the delusional words you wrote.

quote: I challenge again. I challenge you to henceforth reply only with what is fact.

Oh....my....God....

I challenge you to provide *one* fact, *one* argument based in reason, *one* pertinent point.

quote: 'Capitalism is based on property'. 'Communism takes away initiative.' But lets see you /prove/ that, Venger.

Capital: accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by by private ownership of capital goods

Nuff said on that? That was from the famous anti-communist propaganda work "Webster's Dictionary".

What is the incentive in a communist form of government? I'll allow you to answer.

What is the incentive in a capitalist form of government? To directly affect your own economic outcome.

quote: I never claimed that evil /couldn't/ exist in man. I say that under Marxism, evil would not need to.

Evil does not exist out of a need. It exists independent of wealth, status, or need.

quote: There would be nothing at all to gain from some man stopping work, and stealing. If he just puts in his five hours a day, he can have everything he needs.

No, he can't. They tried. And do you really think that someone who works more is more inclined to steal?

quote: If he doesn't enjoy his job, then there would be people whose job it is to find jobs for people who can't do a certain type of work.

Of great, someone who's job it is to find jobs for those who don't like the job the person who finds jobs gave them.

quote: Many types of factories, someday, will not even need to be manned. The technology very nearly exists now, but if it were put into place, people under Capitalism wouldn't have jobs because they'd live in ghetto-type areas where there was very little else to do, legally. Technology like that put into place under Communism would result in thos epeople being able to move over to production for recreation, literary, or postitive morale products, or becoming teachers for new subjects, or becomming farmers to make sure everyone has the food they need.

Fanatically delusional. I'll let the remaining portion of the post go - flights of fancy need no commentary.

Venger

[Marcel I]

Prince,

Venger said it all.
People aren't conditioned to be evil, it's almost instinctual, it happens without a reason or a particular cause.
Who would decide which genetical defects should be cured? What behavior is unwanted? All thoughts about what is good and what is evil are determined by a peoples history and culture. How would you ever find a world wide common ground on that. Do you really think I (and I think most people in the western world) would ever want to live in a "brave new world". Because that is what you're proposing in a way.
God/Allah/jehovah (etc) help us with the people who know the only way to rescue mankind.
Educate people and let them decide what to do themselves. It won't always give the effects you'd like, but at least it keeps life interesting.


------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

When I opened this thread I did it to discuss civ3 governments not the whole world's history. perhaps some admin should move this to OTF

I had never opened a thread with a resonance like this before... over 100 replies, that's new for me.

Surely we shouldn't use those static government forms like in civ2 but more those flexible and esily changeable ones like in SMAC.

Also I now understand why some people want to be ranked after their post quality not quantity . So manyso large posts, this should be new even for Apolyton. I wonder how long this discussion will go on this way.

Remember guys, someone has to open a new thread when this one reaches 150 posts

And now, fellows, WOULD YOUI PLEASE RETURN TO OUR TOPIC!! NOBODY IS INTERSTED IN THE LIFE EXPECTANCE IN 1950!!! WE WANT TO DISCUSS EFFICIENCIES OF GOVERNMENT FORMS!!!!

so, please, avoid further disgressing, will you?

------------------
ENERGIE!! DU BIST DA, WIE NOCH NIE!!
- taken from the ENERGIE COTTBUS anthem

"You post like a dairy farmer" - edgecrusher
"Your German is eloquent and so is your English" - another Apolytoner, don't remember the name...