prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck - Page 6

Tiberius · October 3, 2003, 12:23

Quote:

Capitalist nations starve a lot more often the Communist nations do.

This is a blatant lie. (supposing that you are talking about real-life communist countries, and not some star-trek utopia)

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by People in capitalism are hungry because of natural catastophes like droughts/floods or wars etc,

War is not a natural catastrophe. War is a product of capitalism.

Che is absolutely right. Look at it from a world view. This is a capitalist world. That is why people starve. If we lived in a communist world people wouldn't even starve because of natural catastrophes.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Don't forget about the shortages UR. Right now the homeless shelter for families is full where I live. NOw that's what I call an inefficiency. Who the hell cares how many SUVs we produce when homeless families have no place to go?

that thought lacks pragmatism. u can't strip ppl of suv's and have an equal amt of work go into feeding ppl who don't do work. and to do so would be called slavery.

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

that thought lacks pragmatism. u can't strip ppl of suv's and have an equal amt of work go into feeding ppl who don't do work. and to do so would be called slavery.

Slavery?

The government allocates resources all over the place. If it benefits society it's justified. Slavery?

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Slavery?

The government allocates resources all over the place. If it benefits society it's justified. Slavery?

forcing ppl to work for other ppl is called slavery.

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

forcing ppl to work for other ppl is called slavery.

No one is forcing them remember. They don't have to take the job.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

No one is forcing them remember. They don't have to take the job.

oh I was talking about communism. sorry.

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:32

btw, I noticed that you assumed that homeless people don't work. That's only true in some cases. Very prejudice.

General Ludd · October 3, 2003, 13:33

Has anyone answered how forcing people to work minimum wage to clean the toilets of billionares isn't just as bad a form of slavery yet?

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:37

Osweld,

They choose to do that job.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
Has anyone answered how forcing people to work minimum wage to clean the toilets of billionares isn't just as bad a form of slavery yet?

no1 is forcing u to work. its the billionaires money, u want some of it. u ask him what u can do to get some of it.

General Ludd · October 3, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Osweld,

They choose to do that job.

Yes, like they choose whether they eat or not.

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

Yes, like they choose whether they eat or not.

That was sarcasm. I was beating yavoon to the punch

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
btw, I noticed that you assumed that homeless people don't work. That's only true in some cases. Very prejudice.

yes true. I will hereby add "homeless ppl that do not work."

lord of the mark · October 3, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by SKILORD
America until the Civil War was lassaiz faire.

Tariffs were lassaiz-faire? The Bank of the U.S. was lassaiz-faire? The Whiskey Tax was lassaiz-faire? Government theft of Indian land was lassaiz-faire? Government theft of Meixcan land was lassaiz-faire? Wow? I never new lassaiz-faire meant so much government intervention.

[

whiskey tax was pretty close to laissez faire. Adam smith et al never denied that some govt revenue was required. Given that, taxing a product whose supply was almost completely inelastic meant minium alteration in the economy. Of course the fact that supply was inelastic (what else where the frontier farmers supposed to do with all that corn?) meant that it was a direct hit to farmers income, and thus the rebellion. May have been unjust taxation (certainly regressive) but definitely compatible with laissez faire (as say other Hamiltonian policies were not)

(By the way, hows this for threadjacking to american history - maybe we can threadjack the whole forum to history, huh?)

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

yes true. I will hereby add "homeless ppl that do not work."

Well that doesn't mean the same thing because all homeless people need shelter. btw, I bet more homeless people work than rich people.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

Yes, like they choose whether they eat or not.

very few ppl starve in developed capitalist societies.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Well that doesn't mean the same thing because all homeless people need shelter. btw, I bet more homeless people work than rich people.

as a % or a #?

General Ludd · October 3, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

very few ppl starve in developed capitalist societies.

Yes, because of socialist programs.

Kidicious · October 3, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

as a % or a #?

% of course.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

Yes, because of socialist programs.

yes, I'm not arguing for lasseiz faire. I believe in welfare programs and anti trust and all sorts of mechanisms to help develop the intent of capitalism(competition). to its best.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

% of course.

k sure I'll take u up on that.

lord of the mark · October 3, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

Yes, because of socialist programs.

are standard social welfare programs socialist? then i really am a socialist

Of course ive always said im a social democrat

i thought we were talking about communism here

General Ludd · October 3, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

yes, I'm not arguing for lasseiz faire. I believe in welfare programs and anti trust and all sorts of mechanisms to help develop the intent of capitalism(competition). to its best.

So how do you like being a slave, giving part of your wage to feed and shelter people, or educate children?

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

So how do you like being a slave, giving part of your wage to feed and shelter people, or educate children?

I dont have to give it all. ur right tho, taxes are forced. and I don't like how quite a bit of my taxes get spent. I would take moderate taxation to help lube capitalism over communist authoritarianism anyday.

u can imagine as they take mor eof my money i feel like more of a "slave." more work so other ppl can spend my money. if they just removed my money(work product) and reallocated it as they saw fit. then there'd be hell to pay.

chequita guevara · October 3, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

not really... in proportion if you take all the communist states together and all the capitalist ones including africa/ south america etc...

Which is what I am doing.

Quote:

on average I am 100% certain that all the hunger... think about it... Ukraine, Russia, China, etc... because of management mistakes would never have happened in a similarly developed capitalist society...

Au contrair, management mistakes are occuring all the time. Ever hear of the terms: crisis, depression, & recession? Just because the management is done anarchically instead of centrally doesn't mean that capitalist famines are not the result of mismanagement. The difference, though, is that capitalist famines are an integral part of the system. Capitalism needs them to redirect the flow of capitali from less profitable to more profitable enterprises, to shake out the dead wood.

Quote:

People in capitalism are hungry because of natural catastophes like droughts/floods or wars etc,

War is actually the chief cause of famine in the modern world, but not the only one. Even still, most wars occur in the capitalist world and are fought over the control of capital and resources. This is not always the case. During the Somoli famine, for example, the country was still exporting food in order to get hard currency. Money was more important than lives (the Bolsheviks also did this in 1924, IIRC).

During the Irish Potato Blight, Ireland exported enough food to feed the whole island. Clearly, the famine was not the result of the blight, but that capitalist farmers couldn't make money selling to people with no money. Ireland's population has only just recovered from the famine, btw, even though it was 160 years ago.

It's better not to die at all, but would you rather die from a mistake or to enrich some landlord?

Japher · October 3, 2003, 14:18

sheesh, this thread is still bobbing on the surface!

First, I'll say it again, morals are subjective.

Second, saying that communism promotes slavery is a bad argument to take as communism is as much a train of though as it is a form of government. This train of thought is intuned to the utopian idea of helping your brother man... a following everyone in the communist environment must take... thus, it is not slavery.

It is as much slavery as one would could claim that capitalism is; slave to the economy, taxes, your job, the bank, and as Phish put it "Slave to the Traffic Light"...

It's just that more people are able to conform to capitalism and in a sense socialism because it doesn't seemingly "require" as much personal charity. Yet, you are still a slave, the draft or monster.com are you traders, and many things are your master.

yavoon · October 3, 2003, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
sheesh, this thread is still bobbing on the surface!

First, I'll say it again, morals are subjective.

Second, saying that communism promotes slavery is a bad argument to take as communism is as much a train of though as it is a form of government. This train of thought is intuned to the utopian idea of helping your brother man... a following everyone in the communist environment must take... thus, it is not slavery.

It is as much slavery as one would could claim that capitalism is; slave to the economy, taxes, your job, the bank, and as Phish put it "Slave to the Traffic Light"...

It's just that more people are able to conform to capitalism and in a sense socialism because it doesn't seemingly "require" as much personal charity. Yet, you are still a slave, the draft or monster.com are you traders, and many things are your master.

communism is a democracy that requires a prepetually unanimous vote. or communism is an autocratic dictator with some prison space leftover.

MrFun · October 3, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Which is what I am doing.

We know what you're REALLY up to -- you're plotting a communist revolution in the United States.

Japher · October 3, 2003, 14:23

Quote:

communism is a democracy that requires a prepetually unanimous vote. or communism is an autocratic dictator with some prison space leftover.

It's all about your frame of mind... Yet taking a stance on it's morality would present for a very vague argument. It would be like a jew and a catholic arguing about which knife to cut the pork with.