So You're a Socialist...

[Kidlicious]

As for class conflict driving society. I don't realy go for that. I think people believe in justice, and gradually we will get it. But history has proven that it won't work out the way that Marx invisioned.

[Kropotkin]

"...wealth leads to inequality, and knowledge is a type of wealth."
One great leader, Pol Pot, also got this and did something about it! Back to year Zero!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
"...wealth leads to inequality, and knowledge is a type of wealth."
One great leader, Pol Pot, also got this and did something about it! Back to year Zero!!!

Thanx for pointing that out, because I would like to say that I'm cerainly not against knowledge.

[Kropotkin]

(Hey! Don't you diss Pol Pot. I got hold of a speech of him from the Kampuchean communist parties congress (translation courtesy of the Swedish-Kampuchiean friendship association) and I have to say, he's a killer comedian. I laught my ass off!)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. (SOUND - EVERYONE's A WINNER)

Allow me to correct that.

Capitalism- You have two cows. As all the grazing land is already owned by "McMoo! plc" you cannot feed them, except on artificial "Cow Chow" supplied by "Plague and Poison plc", the price of which outstrips the value of your milk. Therefore you sell both cows for dog food (at a knockdown price, because they know you're desperate) and get a job flipping burgers.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Allow me to correct that.

Capitalism- You have two cows. As all the grazing land is already owned by "McMoo! plc" you cannot feed them, except on artificial "Cow Chow" supplied by "Plague and Poison plc", the price of which outstrips the value of your milk. Therefore you sell both cows for dog food (at a knockdown price, because they know you're desperate) and get a job flipping burgers.

Now that's right on!

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sometimes some people are so wrong, you don't even know how to correct them. Siklord falls into that catagory. Why do Libertarians have to make up their own language that no one else uses?

You don't know how to correct me because I am right. You cannot accept my words because they are against your excruciatingly simple basic beliefs (Work is bad, I hate people who are wealthier than me. Let's get together and take their money). And if they are true then you are wrong and you simply do not wish to admit that.

I wish I could be self-righteous and smug with you (ie: That che is so wrong... I don't even know where to start and so I won't correct him. Let us take on the faith of my word that he is wrong.) but I'm no that sort of a person.

In addition I seem to speak english.

I don't understand what's so complicated about what I'm saying... I really don't.

Maybe I'll issue a manifesto to explain my stance properly...

capitialism is in direct confrontation with true equality of men.

wealth = power
power = inequality
wealth -> inequality

economic equality must be realized before any true notion of equality can be realized.

the son of a major CEO has a far greater chance to succeed in society than the son of a janitor. people are being born into their classes. it's still a feudal caste system, albiet more mobile.

On the other hand... let us view Soviet Russia. The son of the Premier had no better chances at sucess than the son of a common farmer. How idyllic.

As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism? There is absolutely and inheritly NONE. A man cannot work hard his entire life and work his way up the Social ladder. A man's work is valueless in Socialism.

Who was Carnegie's father? Rockefeller's? Walt Disney's?

Who were their sons?

Let us now name a rags to riches story from Socialism....

No I guess we won't.

-

Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. It is simply the granting of economic freedom and to hell with what you do with it.

Irresponsible?

Yes, but when authorities are irresponsible it is time for us to act. Socialism does not allow one to act, it does not allow one to live. It acts for them, it lives their life for them.

How convienient.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
You don't know how to correct me because I am right.

No, because you are so wrong I don't know where to start. On top of that, words seem to have different meanings for you.

You cannot accept my words because they are against your excruciatingly simple basic beliefs (Work is bad, I hate people who are wealthier than me. Let's get together and take their money).

You have obviously not paid any attention to this thread or you wouldn't set up such a simple strawman. Socialism does not think work is bad. We think that people who sponge off those who actually do the work, i.e., capitalists are bad, to put it terrbly simply. It is not the politics of envy, but of justice.

On the other hand... let us view Soviet Russia. The son of the Premier had no better chances at sucess than the son of a common farmer.

So in otherwords, it's a meritocracy. You get ahead siomply on your own ability and not those of your parents.

As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism?

There is social mobility, it's just not based on wealth.

Who was Carnegie's father? Rockefeller's? Walt Disney's?

Who were their sons?

And why are their children wealthy and powerful today? What did they do to deserve such positions of power? And let us not forget the Rocketfeller built his wealth through criminal means, like so many capitalists. Carnegie too.

Let us now name a rags to riches story from Socialism....

Since there are no riches, it's impossible. You might as well blame submarines for not being able to fly.

Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform.

This is why I say it's impossible to argue with you. We live in the coetiy capitalism has made. It has a system. It has a platofrm. It is inherently unequal. If they didn't create a state to restrain them, there is nothing they wouldn't do in their quest for accumulation. They lie, cheat, steal, murder, and so on. They are violent, dishonest, an dangerous. They have misruled this world and killed hundreds of millions in their lust for wealth. Socialism isn't about taking their wealth. It's about justice.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. It is simply the granting of economic freedom and to hell with what you do with it.

Looks like someone doesn't know what an economic system is either.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by SKILORD
You don't know how to correct me because I am right.

No, because you are so wrong I don't know where to start. On top of that, words seem to have different meanings for you.

You cannot accept my words because they are against your excruciatingly simple basic beliefs (Work is bad, I hate people who are wealthier than me. Let's get together and take their money).

You have obviously not paid any attention to this thread or you wouldn't set up such a simple strawman. Socialism does not think work is bad. We think that people who sponge off those who actually do the work, i.e., capitalists are bad, to put it terrbly simply. It is not the politics of envy, but of justice.

On the other hand... let us view Soviet Russia. The son of the Premier had no better chances at sucess than the son of a common farmer.

So in otherwords, it's a meritocracy. You get ahead siomply on your own ability and not those of your parents.

I see that we cannot sense sarcasm. The sons of the Premiers ion Soviet Russia did notgo to Soviet schools.

As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism?

There is social mobility, it's just not based on wealth.

Who was Carnegie's father? Rockefeller's? Walt Disney's?

Who were their sons?

And why are their children wealthy and powerful today? What did they do to deserve such positions of power? And let us not forget the Rocketfeller built his wealth through criminal means, like so many capitalists. Carnegie too.

Are their children wealthy and powerful today?

I daresay not.

You base your entire beloved system of government off of revolution and then complain if others begin criminally?

Let us now name a rags to riches story from Socialism....

Since there are no riches, it's impossible. You might as well blame submarines for not being able to fly.

So there is no way to succeed in Socialism? SO if you do succeed in Socialism your victory will only be stolen by your brothers?

Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform.

This is why I say it's impossible to argue with you. We live in the coetiy capitalism has made. It has a system. It has a platofrm. It is inherently unequal. If they didn't create a state to restrain them, there is nothing they wouldn't do in their quest for accumulation. They lie, cheat, steal, murder, and so on. They are violent, dishonest, an dangerous. They have misruled this world and killed hundreds of millions in their lust for wealth. Socialism isn't about taking their wealth. It's about justice.

Au Contraitre, MEN lie, cheat, steal, murder, they do so regardless of the government they live under or the economic system they have.

Capitalism takes nmo responsibility for the actions of those who claim its name, it grants them freedom to do as they please. Therefore it cannot be blamed when men screw up.

[Kidlicious]

Capitalism isn't about freedom. It's about rules. Men have to follow those rules to survive. They are only free to either follow the rules or end up dead or in prison.

Someone needs to get real.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SKILORD
As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism?

Social mobility is an illusion in Capitalism, it is just a pipe dream to pacify the common folk.

Originally posted by SKILORD
There is absolutely and inheritly NONE. A man cannot work hard his entire life and work his way up the Social ladder. A man's work is valueless in Socialism.

There are no classes in a socialist country. Don't you know that?

Originally posted by SKILORD
Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. It is simply the granting of economic freedom and to hell with what you do with it.

There goes your credibility.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Capitalism- You have two cows. As all the grazing land is already owned by "McMoo! plc" you cannot feed them, except on artificial "Cow Chow" supplied by "Plague and Poison plc", the price of which outstrips the value of your milk. Therefore you sell both cows for dog food (at a knockdown price, because they know you're desperate) and get a job flipping burgers.

Gimpy did a much better job than I.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Are their children wealthy and powerful today?

I daresay not.

They are quite powerful, acutally. Disney's kid owns 40% of Disney, a powerful media empire. The Rockerfellers still own most of the Standard Oil companies, and several of them have been important politicians (govenor, senator, etc). And one of Carnegie's decendents Mellon-Scaife, who pours his billions into extreme right-wing causes.

Dude, if you are going to argue about people, know something about them.

As for your complain about there being no success in capitalism, you must be a materialistic miser, because there are plenty of ways to gauge success without money. No, people will not grow wealthy under socialism, but they will still receive honor and recognition and merit and all that comes with doing a good job, helping others, coming up with great new ideas, etc. There is more than one way to reward someone than being rich.

[SKILORD]

There are no classes in a socialist country. Don't you know that?

That is my point, that's why I said 'Inheritly'

but they will still receive honor and recognition and merit and all that comes with doing a good job, helping others, coming up with great new ideas, etc. There is more than one way to reward someone than being rich.

Well whupity doo, a fuc*ing pat on the back.

Dude, if you are going to argue about people, know something about them.

Well... I can confess that you're right here... I was wrong.