Why is US soo anti-communist?

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some countries say that they are communist countries but in reality they are totalitarian countries. And there are different types of communism just like there are different types of Christianity. Every form of communism is not bad mmmkay.<span id='postcolor'>

You know, when I'm dreaming at night I can fly just by thinking about it. Such a shame that it doesn't work in the real world.

Similarly, fantasy communism is almost impossible in groups of more than half a dozen people because you have far too many divergent opinions to satisfy. Nation-scale communism is totalitarian by design, because it absolutely requires the utter sacrifice of individuality to the will of the state and a massive bureaucracy to decide how much of each good should be produced, by whom and what our needs are: and you can safely bet that their opinion of my needs wouldn't include a Ferrari and Kirsten Dunst in a hot-tub.

I'm amazed that anyone can believe that communism is anything other than a fantasy when it's been proven over and over again that it's a devastating failure every time it's tried on a large scale, and the most murderous and destructive system of government ever invented.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said forced large scale communism would work. People are too stupid and selfish for that.

This is irrelevant but in Star Trek universe the Federation is communistic.   I don't know how many have actually noticed that.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 30 2002,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, with the enormous poverty in large parts of the world one can hardly claim capitalism to be of benefit for most people on earth.<span id='postcolor'>

And, surprise, surprise, most of those nations with enormous poverty have... communist or marxist governments. Or do you think it's just some kind of coincidence that the richest nations on Earth are all either capitalist or wimpy socialist? How can anyone blame capitalism for nations destroying themselves with bizarre left-wing ideologies?

Now, it's certainly true that the IMF and World Bank have impoverished those nations even further, but both of those are socialist institutions which would not exist in a free-market capitalist world and should be dismantled immediately with their management put on trial for crimes against humanity.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Jan. 30 2002,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never said forced large scale communism would work. People are too stupid and selfish for that.<span id='postcolor'>

No, people are individuals with their own opinions. You're the selfish one, expecting the rest of the world to sacrifice their individuality for your benefit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is irrelevant but in Star Trek universe the Federation is communistic. <span id='postcolor'>

Star Trek "communism" is just another plot device they invent in one episode to forget about for the next season until it becomes useful again. The Star Trek Federation is certainly a highly militarised socialist state, but they have money and private property, so it's hardly communist.

It's also yet another reason why I consider Star Trek a joke. If you want an attempt to produce a realistic SF communist society, you need to read Iain Banks' "Culture" books, but even they are implausible in the extreme as political prophecy: though I did like "Excession", which demonstrated that the Culture types are only happy, fluffy, "can't we all get along?" bunnies when they have nothing to fight over... the moment a unique object turns up they all want to own it.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Armourdave @ Jan. 29 2002,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Complete and utter bollocks. I can take you to many small scale societys that base their existance on communist beliefs and attitudes. There are camps dotted all over the UK and they WORK.<span id='postcolor'>

And in my experience most of those groups scrounge off the hard-working taxpayers through the welfare state; it's easy to be a "communist" when you don't have to do the shit work. Nor are they truly communist, since they still have money and private property. Or am I the only one who's actually read the Communist Manifesto?

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Jan. 30 2002,15:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, people are individuals with their own opinions. You're the selfish one, expecting the rest of the world to sacrifice their individuality for your benefit.<span id='postcolor'>

I have learned not to expect anything from anyone and the most certainly I do not seek benefit with the cost of other people's freedom and happiness and I appreciate the individuality of the people and their own opinions.

I wish this conversation would be in Finnish so that I could say exactly what I mean and not to cause any misunderstandings.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Jan. 30 2002,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's also yet another reason why I consider Star Trek a joke. If you want an attempt to produce a realistic SF communist society, you need to read Iain Banks' "Culture" books, but even they are implausible in the extreme as political prophecy: though I did like "Excession", which demonstrated that the Culture types are only happy, fluffy, "can't we all get along?" bunnies when they have nothing to fight over... the moment a unique object turns up they all want to own it.<span id='postcolor'>

Man I just love Banks. The Culture books are in the top lot of SF, since old Iain has thought about things a lot. Anyway, you got to remember that not everybody got agitated in Excession. It was just the couple of ships (like the rapid offensive unit Frank Exchange of Views), who happened to be in the neighborhood to react. Most of the ships, drones and biologicals of the Culture just carried on with their hedonism thingy.

Besides, I doubt the Culture is communism. Since anybody can have anything they want, it is something I would call an utopia.

Man, The Use Of Weapons must be one of the best books I have ever read: "Any object or concept an organism uses to lenghten its survival can be called a weapon. Thus, survival comes down to the use of weapons." And Cheraderinde Zakalwe must be the best in the use of weapons, any weapons...

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 30 2002,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, I doubt the Culture is communism. Since anybody can have anything they want, it is something I would call an utopia.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I believe Banks calls it 'anarcho-socialist', but there's no money and no private property. To quote the commie manifesto, "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

So in that sense it's one of the few true communist societies in fiction: but it only works because the AIs are willing to do the hard work behind the scenes while the humans lounge around playing games or whatever.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man, The Use Of Weapons must be one of the best books I have ever read<span id='postcolor'>

Certainly a good one, though I never quite figured out the prologue. Now, the Culture universe would make a good computer game, particularly if it was a massive multiplayer...

[Brass 0]

good reply, mr lag. thanks for filling the gaps in my knowledge about US law.

and yeah, i know that you found it astonishing that it wasa tie, but hey, a revolution in the US is long overdue. leaving unstability and crash of the dollar, and the UK to be the new imperialist dictators of the world through money.

secondly, in the propaganda bit. i know you got all the statistics on dead and so on, and i know that this was totally tragic in russia's history, that such a madman came to power.

but i am referring to the propaganda of such images as dreary streets, secret police at every corner, not allowed outside, and all those types of things.

ok, there was no free speech until the mid to late 80s in ussr, but people didnt live in 2 by 4 foot flats with no electricity or water. we had the staple foods and goods and services, but not the luxury stuff, which, really makes you spoilt if had too much, like in the west, like i am now.

everyone listen to rage against the machine!! well soon have a revolution! etc

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Jan. 29 2002,17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So are the yanks a bunch of terrorists then? They're certainly stupid enough.<span id='postcolor'>

Feel free to have a discussion by all means, but please refrain from posting inflammatory, immature comments like that one, thanx <span id='postcolor'>

So why was a thread (I forget which one) allowed to go on while some yanks were cussing Brits to begin with? It got quite long.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 30 2002,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why was a thread (I forget which one) allowed to go on while some yanks were cussing Brits to begin with? It got quite long.<span id='postcolor'>

What was the topic of the thread? And how long ago?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And, surprise, surprise, most of those nations with enormous poverty have... communist or marxist governments. Or do you think it's just some kind of coincidence that the richest nations on Earth are all either capitalist or wimpy socialist? How can anyone blame capitalism for nations destroying themselves with bizarre left-wing ideologies?

<span id='postcolor'>

Statements like that are a bit simplistic to say the least. I'm sure there are lots of poor countries that are marxist, but certainly not all. And I dare not say "most", nor should you. There are also many poor nations that would very much like to be a succesfull "capitalist country", but it's just not possible. But you are right of course - it's no coincidence that many countries are ridden by poverty. And it's not all due to socialism, mismanagement or sheer lazyness. In fact we (my own country included) make sure of that by keeping down the prices of their natural resources as well as supporting the corrupt local leaders and politicians with cash and arms.  In return the self appointed leaders deny the working force any right to organize labour unions thus keeping the cost of production as low as possible for our own benefit.

I'd also like to stress the fact that the developement countries large debts further enhances the problem because it makes it impossible to buy or develop their own technology nessecary to compete with western countries.

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth when people are saying they fight communism. In fact, I'd rather say it's logic for people to look towards other political alternatives when they have experienced that capitalism certainly not is beneficial on their behalf.

Furthermore, there is also poverty within many capitalist societies, and to say that the poor could only blame themselves is ignorant. People loose their jobs for several reasons, not allways because they are lazy. Even if we like to think that every- and anyone can succed, this is not allways the case. Lots of people have a disadvantage because they are not brought up in homes with resourcefull parents. And by that I mean intellectual as well as economical.

I have a feeling that some people (you?) tend to think of the world as black and white. For you there is no other goal than being a succesfull capitalist or whatever you call it. And if a person doesn't fit the picture he surely must be a communist. There are however many societies that wish for nothing else than continuing their way of life without having to cope with oppression and indifference caused by our capitalist system. Try to explain the Yanomamő indians in the amazon rainforest the benefits of your way of life when you at the same time burn down the forest that provides their subsistence livelihood. But they are commies right?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Complete and utter bollocks. I can take you to many small scale societys that base their existance on communist beliefs and attitudes. There are camps dotted all over the UK and they WORK.<span id='postcolor'>

And in my experience most of those groups scrounge off the hard-working taxpayers through the welfare state; it's easy to be a "communist" when you don't have to do the shit work. Nor are they truly communist, since they still have money and private property. Or am I the only one who's actually read the Communist Manifesto?<span id='postcolor'>

There are lots of societies that consider themselves to be communist in one way or another. I know of one which is situated in Karlsřy in the northern Norway. They receive no support from the government whatsoever and neither do they receive any of the taxpayers money. Their livelihood is based on selling products generated by farming.

You really should read the Manifest more carefully because you clearly havent understood it properly. Marx and Engels theory is not about abolishing money or property. Its about owning the means of production. The money generated by working is supposed to go back to the workers themselves, not a capitalist per se whom in M & E's opinion didn't do any labour themselves. True, the individual can't own property though. If the collective group considered the group to be closed, then it is a functioning communist society.

The Soviet Union on the other hand was not a communist society - it was marxist-leninist, and something totally different.

Personaly I prefer the social liberalism which is based on pluralism. It takes away some of the more harmfull aspects of capitalism.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Jan. 30 2002,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why was a thread (I forget which one) allowed to go on while some yanks were cussing Brits to begin with? It got quite long.<span id='postcolor'>

What was the topic of the thread? And how long ago?<span id='postcolor'>

My mistake TheHamster started it. But it went on for a while. The thread was in A&M and was called 'NATO more like USA USA!!!' or something.

[foxer 0]

I'am Anti-communist,not anti-russia.Seems like you people put the 2 together.Look at china,then cuba,then north korea.,These countries are very poor.Ask yourself why india,china Has a billion people.You know why ? Because they can't buy condoms.  Or something like that.  

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 31 2002,14:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ask yourself why india,china Has a billion people.You know why ? Because they can't buy condoms.  Or something like that.  <span id='postcolor'>

China has a billion people because our Glorious Comrade Chairman Mao instigated a deliberate breeding program (and I'm not talking about his private program of shagging schoolgirls). In one of his more paranoid moments he was convinced that America was going to attack China and the only defence was to breed faster than they could be killed; now, of course, they've gone from rewarding people for having lots of kids to punishing them for having more than one.

Ain't communism grand?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Statements like that are a bit simplistic to say the least. I'm sure there are lots of poor countries that are marxist, but certainly not all. <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you could suggest a few poor capitalist nations? And by that I don't include places like Argentina which have bankrupted themselves with expensive social programs that they couldn't afford, funded with foreign money.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are also many poor nations that would very much like to be a succesfull "capitalist country", but it's just not possible.<span id='postcolor'>

And why isn't it possible? It's not as though it's hard to be a capitalist nation: all the government has to do is get out of the way. The vast majority of poor countries -- particularly those you mention where the government sells resources to their foreign cronies at knock-down prices -- are poor due to too much government, not too little.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, I'd rather say it's logic for people to look towards other political alternatives when they have experienced that capitalism certainly not is beneficial on their behalf.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed: losers always turn to left-wing nonsense when they realise that they can't otherwise steal the wealth of the productive members of society.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore, there is also poverty within many capitalist societies, and to say that the poor could only blame themselves is ignorant.<span id='postcolor'>

There are a small fraction of poor people who are poor purely due to bad luck: that's why we have charities to help them get back on their feet if they can't get help from their relatives and friends. Equally there are people who are rich purely due to good luck.

But the vast majority of poor people are poor because they slacked off at school, came out with no skills and then suddenly realised that flipping burgers doesn't pay too well. In the past they could make a reasonable living pulling levers and pressing buttons in factories, today the factory jobs are going, and they're not coming back.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lots of people have a disadvantage because they are not brought up in homes with resourcefull parents. And by that I mean intellectual as well as economical.<span id='postcolor'>

So you mean that after all those billions and billions of pounds we blow every year on tax-funded schools, they're still unable to do a remotely useful job even for those who want to learn? Doesn't sound like a good argument for giving the government total power in other areas if they screw that up so badly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For you there is no other goal than being a succesfull capitalist or whatever you call it<span id='postcolor'>

No, I just want to retire at 35 so I can do the things that really matter to me; and at the moment I'd say there's a fair chance of my doing so. Unlike lefties, who often don't seem to be able to think about anything else, I'm not obsessed with money...

But we all make choices: some of those choices make you rich, some make you poor... Similarly, political choices which help the productive and harm the unproductive make your society rich, and political choices which harm the productive and help the unproductive make your society poor. This is why capitalist societies are rich and communist societies are poor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are however many societies that wish for nothing else than continuing their way of life without having to cope with oppression and indifference caused by our capitalist system. <span id='postcolor'>

And in a true capitalist world they'd be free to buy a place and live their lives in their dull little way; whereas in a communist world I'd be taken out and shot for being a troublemaker.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Try to explain the Yanomamő indians in the amazon rainforest the benefits of your way of life<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, I've lived in a cave, I don't plan to make a lifestyle out of it. Certainly it seems to me that the few people who believe that living in a jungle is so much better than living in a high-tech industrial society have rarely actually spent any time, like, living there themselves. Glorifying primitive tribes who live at subsistence level in the jungle is a clear sign of a society in deep decline.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">when you at the same time burn down the forest that provides their subsistence livelihood.<span id='postcolor'>

So persuade the government to give them the property rights to the jungle where they live, rather than sell the rights to logging companies. But really, why do you think these people should have exclusive rights to a large hunk of jungle which can much more productively be used for other things?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are lots of societies that consider themselves to be communist in one way or another.<span id='postcolor'>

I was talking about the groups I've come across in the UK. I'm sure there are others around the world which don't just scrounge off the hard-working taxpayers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You really should read the Manifest more carefully because you clearly havent understood it properly. Marx and Engels theory is not about abolishing money or property.<span id='postcolor'>

And then:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True, the individual can't own property though.<span id='postcolor'>

So private property isn't abolished, you just can't own any? You could get a good job as a spin doctor for the Labor party.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its about owning the means of production.<span id='postcolor'>

And who exactly would own it? Ah, I remember, it's bad when EVIL CAPITALISTS own the means of production, but good when the Glorious People's Communist Collective own it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The money generated by working is supposed to go back to the workers themselves, not a capitalist per se whom in M & E's opinion didn't do any labour themselves.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, they just provide the jobs by paying for those means of production that the losers want to steal. You'd think they might be grateful, wouldn't you?

Fortunately they no longer have to worry about being exploited by the EVIL CAPITALISTS, since the factory jobs are being sent abroad where people are grateful to have the work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personaly I prefer the social liberalism which is based on pluralism. It takes away some of the more harmfull aspects of capitalism.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed: it's awful when productive people get to make money and keep it, rather than have it siphoned off to pay for bread and circuses for the losers.

[Silencer 0]

STOP THE CAPISTM MACHINE!

POOR LOSERS DON'T GET ANYTHING

if you're going to live in american you must something that is green and called "money" if you don't have it you're dead.Back in communism all you have to do and is go to work and work for food

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Maybe you could suggest a few poor capitalist nations? And by that I don't include places like Argentina which have bankrupted themselves with expensive social programs that they couldn't afford, funded with foreign money.

<span id='postcolor'>

There are many nations participating in the capitalist system who are not very succesfull. A hole lot of them are situated in latin america.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And why isn't it possible? It's not as though it's hard to be a capitalist nation: all the government has to do is get out of the way. The vast majority of poor countries -- particularly those you mention where the government sells resources to their foreign cronies at knock-down prices -- are poor due to too much government, not too little.

<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is not really too little or too much government. Many of these countries hardly have any government at all except from an army to make sure the dictator stays in power. Oh yes, I forgot to say that most of the foreign companies and trade partners support the very same person as well. If you fail to see the significance of this I can explain to you how it works: Corporate Fruit company buys or leases land in Honduras to produce bananas. It's cheap due to extremely low wages and almost no taxes. The only price to pay is a contribution to the landowner and the local ruling political party which accidentally happens to be corrupt. In return they provide you with guaranties against strikes and troublesome labour unions claiming better work conditions and higher wages. You as a corporate representative think this is cost effective and great even though you suspect the workers to be effectively held at gunpoint.

Prior to your engagements in Honduras you also had a little chat with some fellows in the trade department and foreign office. They ensured you that the local government received backing from your own country and thus there would be no chance of a socialist party claiming victories in the coming elections.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Indeed: losers always turn to left-wing nonsense when they realise that they can't otherwise steal the wealth of the productive members of society.

<span id='postcolor'>

The above mentioned statement is a good example of more noncense in this world than left-wing noncense alone.

If a whole family including the children work at a pinaple plantation somewhere in Honduras and still can't provide the nessecary means for their daily livelihood you really should ask yourself why. If they are held at gunpoint and denied any rights that rich people apply for themselves - you should ask yourself if this is called equal opportunities. And yes, in a given situation like this (which hardly is uncommon) I would say it's logic to be a little sympathetic towards left-wing ideas.

If you fail to regard these people as exploited then there is no point in arguing with you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

But we all make choices: some of those choices make you rich, some make you poor... Similarly, political choices which help the productive and harm the unproductive make your society rich, and political choices which harm the productive and help the unproductive make your society poor. This is why capitalist societies are rich and communist societies are poor.

<span id='postcolor'>

I believe you are right!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Sorry, I've lived in a cave, I don't plan to make a lifestyle out of it. Certainly it seems to me that the few people who believe that living in a jungle is so much better than living in a high-tech industrial society have rarely actually spent any time, like, living there themselves. Glorifying primitive tribes who live at subsistence level in the jungle is a clear sign of a society in deep decline.

<span id='postcolor'>

I believe you are being ignorant even though I have to agree that living in a cave would be awful. And like you I'm not glorifying tribal life. There is no escaping the fact though that people should be able to live threir own life - a privilige that most of us take for granted. To force these people to live your way of life is just as bad as if you were forced to live their way of life. It's as simple as that!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And in a true capitalist world they'd be free to buy a place and live their lives in their dull little way....

<span id='postcolor'>

How can you possibly buy an enormous jungle when you don't have any money due to the very fact that you are not participating in a monetary economy? Besides, do you really believe the powerful companies and governments would let you buy it? No, I don't think so!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personaly I prefer the social liberalism which is based on pluralism. It takes away some of the more harmfull aspects of capitalism.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed: it's awful when productive people get to make money and keep it, rather than have it siphoned off to pay for bread and circuses for the losers.

<span id='postcolor'>

Even if the term "social liberalism" makes use of the word "socialism" it has nothing to do with socialism or communism for that matter. The ideas generated by social liberalists are the very foundation of modern democracy. You should do some more reading!

[Shabadu 0]

Personally I have no problem with communism. There's nothing wrong with the ideas and all that it's a very noble cause. But unfortunately at the moment it is not a viable way of running a country. Idealism has no place in a world where morals and ethics are so low in many people. Capitalism is proof of this. I can't continue this without basically insulting the US.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Silencer @ Feb. 01 2002,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you're going to live in american you must something that is green and called "money" if you don't have it you're dead.<span id='postcolor'>

How many people starve to death in capitalist America? And how many Russians and Chinese starved to death under communism, or Ethiopians under their marxist government?

Food is incredibly cheap in America, and would be even cheaper without government support to keep farm prices high; if people are lacking food because they don't have money, it's because the minimum wage is too high to justify hiring them, not because of EVIL CAPITALISTS.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Back in communism all you have to do and is go to work and work for food <span id='postcolor'>

So capitalism is evil because if you want to eat you have to work, whereas communism is good because if you work you get to eat? Looks like another candidate for Labor spin doctor.

[Jinef 2]

Look at China guys.

Most powerful military force on earth, economy that can feed the largest population of one country on earth.

And look at how Russia was so powerful and it's income inequality was so low and now because of Capitalism it's got the highest income inequality.

Some of you people sound like you're reading out of a dictionary for christ's sake "communism is about the means of production" - learn about it first them comment!

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 06 2003,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at China guys.

Most powerful military force on earth, economy that can feed the largest population of one country on earth.

And look at how Russia was so powerful and it's income inequality was so low and now because of Capitalism it's got the highest income inequality.

Some of you people sound like you're reading out of a dictionary for christ's sake "communism is about the means of production" - learn about it first them comment!<span id='postcolor'>

lol, mods don't really like it when old dead topics are revived.

[bn880 5]

Jinef, I think it's time to stop digging.