Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.

No. Maybe in parts of Eastern Europe. But certainly not the Wrstern half, like in the Scandinavian countries. Poverty don't exist here like it does in the US. What is considered "poor" in the US is considered destitute here. Just look at your trailer parks; anyone living in a trailer would be considered homeless here. Look at your decrepid and drug-filled slums; nothing like that exist here. Look at your uninsured masses; here, everyone is guaranteed healthcare. Look at all the employees working ling hours for minimal wage and no benefits; here, benefits are mandated. Look at how little social mobility there is in the states compared to here. And so on, and so forth.

Once again. If you want successful socialism, look at western Europe.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

Quite the opposite actually - the ambitious were the only ones who had any chance of succeeding in the communist states, whether illegally or inside the system.

[PatriotSaint]

The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.

Before responding to PatriotSaint, please read this post.  Ask yourself: is it really worth expending effort on someone who is this wilfully ignorant?  I am pretty sure the answer is no.

This is a discussion, not a war of sermons.

Are you saying the above is not true?  I am not talking about the homeless, for which free beds in homeless shelters (that do not allow alcohol or drugs) number much greater.

They wouldn't deny that the poor are better off in the west, but they dispute the "middle class in Europe" (some of whom's countries have welfare systems and free health care)  and especially "upper class" in the rest of the world bits. I remind you third world corrupt politicians still do well for themselves. Bear in mind this comes from something who would appreciate Bay12 bearing in mind their position in comparison to others, and is answering this on the off-chance it isn't a troll post and your english/proof reading needs some work. If you misunderstand anything i have said, i suggest you find out by other sources.

Your registration date does not fill me with confidence, combined with the known troll spammer on the boards.

Oh, okay. First off, no, I am not a troll. I mean what I say.

1. The poor in the U.S. live better compared to the poor in other countries without the welfare or free healthcare that the poor in said countries receive.

2. They own more property, live more comfortably, have more to eat, some even have their own car(s), etc. etc. etc.

3. Americans don't mass immigrate as refugees searching for a better life. It's the other way around. The U.S. has citizens from every ethnicity and culture in the world.

4. I am not talking about the poor of the U.S. vs. African warlords, a.k.a. "politicians". I am talking about the poor, and the poor, and the difference.

P.S. Umm... what's wrong with my English?

[Scoops Novel]

I assumed that could be a reason why you effectively said Europe was worse off then America, but don't worry you've cleared it up. We can all agree with the points you've just stated. What would you like to do next?

[PatriotSaint]

capitalism has millions of people being executed or put into camps because they are the underclass who don't have the economic power to negotiate a living wage.

The poor of America can be considered to be anywhere in the Middle-Class in Europe, and Upper-Class almost anywhere else. Even those in "poverty" often have TVs, microwaves, freezers, etc. etc. etc.

No. Maybe in parts of Eastern Europe. But certainly not the Wrstern half, like in the Scandinavian countries. Poverty don't exist here like it does in the US. What is considered "poor" in the US is considered destitute here. Just look at your trailer parks; anyone living in a trailer would be considered homeless here. Look at your decrepid and drug-filled slums; nothing like that exist here. Look at your uninsured masses; here, everyone is guaranteed healthcare. Look at all the employees working ling hours for minimal wage and no benefits; here, benefits are mandated. Look at how little social mobility there is in the states compared to here. And so on, and so forth.

Once again. If you want successful socialism, look at western Europe.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

Quite the opposite actually - the ambitious were the only ones who had any chance of succeeding in the communist states, whether illegally or inside the system.

1. The drug-filled slums and trailer parks are the result of cultural influence, not governmental.
2. "Uninsured" is not a death sentence.
3. Minimal wage jobs aren't careers.
4. "No Benefits" is not a death-sentence.
5. Can you explain how other countries, like yours, have more social mobility than the U.S.?

6. The ambitious were the government. It wasn't allowed for anyone else.

[PatriotSaint]

I assumed that could be a reason why you effectively said Europe was worse off then America, but don't worry you've cleared it up. We can all agree with the points you've just stated. What would you like to do next?

Well, feel free to counter any of them.

I thought you people wanted discussion and debate?

Unless the purpose of this thread was for people to agree how progressive and liberal they are and talk about how much they like progressive and liberal policy, and otherwise rage about what they don't like, as a group...

[Leafsnail]

The US poor have it better than those in rich European countries, providing you are prepared to selectively ignore random factors as "cultural".

e: and insist that black is white repeatedly.

[PatriotSaint]

The US poor have it better than those in rich European countries, providing you are prepared to selectively ignore random factors as "cultural".

e: and insist that black is white repeatedly.

My point was never to show how "superior" American life is to European life. The argument was about Capitalism and Communism, not living standards, or even socialist European countries.

I don't care if a country in Europe becomes the wealthiest nation that ever was a resident of Earth.
The discussion got a little derailed, and I think I did contribute to that, sorry.

However, this was a comparison between Capitalism, where there is a standard of living, and Communism, where there is only a standard of dying in every sense.

If I had meant to tote superiority, I could have gone on an endless rant about how Europeans are snooty, pompous, snotty, know-it-all socialites-for-life. I didn't, and I never will.    *evil American laugh*

[scrdest]

PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

* GlyphGryph snorts

You can't be serious, can you?

How can I not be serious?

I don't have time to go into details, but yes. Its a degenerate capitalist system where absolute power resides in those who acquired a monopoly on capital (the principal form of which was land held by "noble" families).

It cannot be a 'degenerate capitalist' system since in medieval times, there was no capitalist system to be degenerated yet.

Monetary exchange was often secondary to barter, especially in systems where the tribute to feudal lords was made to be paid in goods rather than money.

There is no labour market to speak of in feudal societies - peasants are bound to the manor.

The peasants didn't generally receive payment for the work in the fields - they worked the fields and kept or sold the produce, and they paid for the ability to use the land with labour, produce or money - so no wage labour.


Unless you are using custom-tailored definitions, Feudalism is not a Capitalist, but a pre-Capitalist system. Hell, even Marx distinguished between the two.

[scriver]

No. Maybe in parts of Eastern Europe. But certainly not the Wrstern half, like in the Scandinavian countries. Poverty don't exist here like it does in the US. What is considered "poor" in the US is considered destitute here. Just look at your trailer parks; anyone living in a trailer would be considered homeless here. Look at your decrepid and drug-filled slums; nothing like that exist here. Look at your uninsured masses; here, everyone is guaranteed healthcare. Look at all the employees working ling hours for minimal wage and no benefits; here, benefits are mandated. Look at how little social mobility there is in the states compared to here. And so on, and so forth.

Once again. If you want successful socialism, look at western Europe.

Ambition is human nature, and Communism in practice is a prime example of when it (human nature) is ignored an not accepted and accomodated.

Quite the opposite actually - the ambitious were the only ones who had any chance of succeeding in the communist states, whether illegally or inside the system.

1. The drug-filled slums and trailer parks are the result of cultural influence, not governmental.
2. "Uninsured" is not a death sentence.
3. Minimal wage jobs aren't careers.
4. "No Benefits" is not a death-sentence.
5. Can you explain how other countries, like yours, have more social mobility than the U.S.?

6. The ambitious were the government. It wasn't allowed for anyone else.
[/quote]

1. They're created and maintained by your economy.
2. Irrelevant. Being insured means you're less poor and healthier than if you are uninsured.
3. Certainly not. Yet in the US, people get stuck with them all the time. Oh, and your minimal wage is lower than ours, as well.
4. Irrelevant. Someone with benefits is less poor and healthier than someone without.
5. In short, greater investure in the people gives them more means with which to pursue a future. You can't make money without spending money, and to be able to spend money you need to have enough to support yourself (and family) and still have enough over to create more wealth. It's simple invest and return, except for the government, the return comes in the happier lives of the citizens (and also taxes ).

6. No, the government were the ambitious, or the one's in charge of the black market. It was the not-particularly-ambitious who suffered.

[Angle]

1. I never said human nature was plastic. The exact opposite. It is what it always has been. My point was that Communism attempts to change it, because that is the only way Communism would ever work.

I said human nature was somewhat plastic, and that every society and every political system in the history of the human race have "changed human nature", or more accurately, framed it around the preconception and attitudes.

2. That it is irrelevant. Communism in practice (not in theory) is totalitarianism.

Not all communisms everywhere, forever. If just once we could have a democratic communist country, things would be different. They wouldn't be perfect, and they might not even be that much better, but they would be different.

[Nadaka]

PatriotSaint: feudal nations were very much capitalist.

* GlyphGryph snorts

You can't be serious, can you?

How can I not be serious?

I don't have time to go into details, but yes. Its a degenerate capitalist system where absolute power resides in those who acquired a monopoly on capital (the principal form of which was land held by "noble" families).

It cannot be a 'degenerate capitalist' system since in medieval times, there was no capitalist system to be degenerated yet.

Monetary exchange was often secondary to barter, especially in systems where the tribute to feudal lords was made to be paid in goods rather than money.

There is no labour market to speak of in feudal societies - peasants are bound to the manor.

The peasants didn't generally receive payment for the work in the fields - they worked the fields and kept or sold the produce, and they paid for the ability to use the land with labour, produce or money - so no wage labour.


Unless you are using custom-tailored definitions, Feudalism is not a Capitalist, but a pre-Capitalist system. Hell, even Marx distinguished between the two.

Capitalism existed long before it was defined. The market has likely existed as long as there have been human cities, perhaps even longer.

The serfs rent access to the capital owned by the nobles in exchange for a portion of the transformed product of their labor. They were bound to the land by the contracts that gave them permission to use the land.

It is a degenerate form of capitalism because it is in its lowest and most exploited state. A state of absolute monopoly and disenfranchisement resulting from the unrestrained dynamics of a market unfettered by the restraint of social interests.

[PatriotSaint]

1. I never said human nature was plastic. The exact opposite. It is what it always has been. My point was that Communism attempts to change it, because that is the only way Communism would ever work.

I said human nature was somewhat plastic, and that every society and every political system in the history of the human race have "changed human nature" or more accurately, framed it around the preconception and attitudes.

2. That it is irrelevant. Communism in practice (not in theory) is totalitarianism.

Not all communisms everywhere, forever. If just once we could have a democratic communist country, things would be different. They wouldn't be perfect, and they might not even be that much better, but they would be different.

1. Fair enough; communism tries to change it radically, to the point that it's not even human nature. Well, it's really a sort of attempted replacement. Again, because it's the only way communism could work.

2. Maybe then, only a few dozen people worldwide will be thrown into camps and/or executed in communist countries in the next 100 years. In the past 100, communism managed over 100 million deaths through execution and failed programs. That's a pretty solid high score. Who knows, maybe they'll actually beat it.

[XXSockXX]

Unless you are using custom-tailored definitions, Feudalism is not a Capitalist, but a pre-Capitalist system. Hell, even Marx distinguished between the two.

Exactly. It doesn't make too much sense to compare pre-modern societies to modern ones. Feudalism was much more than an economic system, while Capitalism is not.

However, this was a comparison between Capitalism, where there is a standard of living, and Communism, where there is only a standard of dying in every sense.

The cold war is over. While it is true that most capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than communist ones have (or rather had, since very few communist countries still exist), this black and white polarization is pure propaganda. Capitalism is merely an economic system, while Communism is both a political and an economic system. The difference lies in the degree of individual freedom and democratic participation, not necessarily in the standard of living. If you think of Capitalism as a political system you commit the same fallacy the Communists historically did, when in reality the main contrast is between Democracy and Totalitarianism. Even most formerly communist states have long since realized that and implemented Capitalism as their economic system without much intention of implementing Democracy.

[Angle]

1. Fair enough; communism tries to change it radically, to the point that it's not even human nature. Well, it's really a sort of attempted replacement. Again, because it's the only way communism could work.

No it doesn't! Communism, when you boil it down, comes down to the idea that our individual self interests would all be best served by serving our greater group interest. Similarly, capitalism states the inverse: That our group interest is best served by serving our individual self interest. Neither of these is especially an alteration of human nature.

2. Maybe then, only a few dozen people worldwide will be thrown into camps and/or executed in communist countries in the next 100 years. In the past 100, communism managed over 100 million deaths through execution and failed programs. That's a pretty solid high score. Who knows, maybe they'll actually beat it.

And again, that's not communism, that's totalitarianism. You'll notice that in most of those countries, very little attention was devoted to such details as making things better for society as a whole, and a great detail was devoted to things like militaries and the whims of those in power - not details you'd find in a communist system.

Capitalism is merely an economic system, while Communism is both a political and an economic system. The difference lies in the degree of individual freedom and democratic participation, not necessarily in the standard of living. If you think of Capitalism as a political system you commit the same fallacy the Communists historically did, when in reality the main contrast is between Democracy and Totalitarianism. Even most formerly communist states have long since realized that and implemented Capitalism as their economic system without much intention of implementing Democracy.

Communism is not remotely a political system! It is entirely an economic one, and it just so happens that historically, everyone insists on pairing it up with totalitarianism, even though democracy would go so much better with it.

[GlyphGryph]

Nadaka, feudalism was not capitalism. A wealthy merchant was still nothing before a landless noble. It was cronyism,  pure and simple - all the wealth in the world was nothing unless you were in the good graces of the powerfuk. Did mercantile activity happen? Sure. But even mercantalism isn't the same as capitalism. Every communist country that has ever existed was more capitalistic than feudal society by your definitions. Both capitalism and communism are supposed to be classless systems and both were in their own ways revolts against the elite. The first a revolt by those who held the wealth and greased and tinkered the machine of society, the second by those who held the tools and fed the furnaces that kept society running. But neither system was fuedalism - because feudalism wasn't about what you could earn, it was about who you knew, where you could come from, and what you could take. Capitalism requires those who obtain power to offer something in return and feudalism made no such guarantee.

Because there are only two natural natural states for humanity. The natural government is cronyism and the natural.society is tribalism. And ultimately every system we design wants to revert to these two things.