new capitalism vs communism thread

[Ned]

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

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

[Pax]

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

[Ned]

PAX, huh?

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

Now think.

What civil liberties did anyone lose then?

[Pax]

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

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

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

WW2 - continuation of WW2

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

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

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

To name a few

[Pax]

Ned,
I said economic war.

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

A country that we were allied with.

Cuba has one of the best trained militaries.

A lot of Cubans are believers.

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

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

[Ned]

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

[Tripledoc]

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

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

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


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

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

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

[The Andy-Man]

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

[curtsibling]

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

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

End of battle.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ned


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

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

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

[The Andy-Man]

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

[yavoon]

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

=D

a lot of the politics was based around economics.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by yavoon


=D

a lot of the politics was based around economics.

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

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

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man



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

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

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

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