Being a Communist

[:) Smiley]

Well, much like in the case of Communism, Capitalism has lots of nice side effects. In this case it's a proliferation of consumer products and entertainment.

Fundamentalism keeps power at the local level. But that's about it all it does.

[The Mad Monk]

I got a raise today!!!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I got a raise today!!!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai


If you really believe that then there is not much point talking to you about China and Chinese people.

Are you UR? This is one of his escape techniques.

I personally didn't know anything about this until Chinese people pointed it out. Talk to them about it. It's quite noticeable. You know, there is no system of charity here. Just last week, I saw a restaurant manager literally throw a poorer man's bicycle into the mud to make room for a car of a customer. In fact, he asked the driver if he was a customer before doing it. You don't live in mainland China. I'm not saying that the Chinese are bad people. They just have a different culture with different values developed from a different history. I am saying that Chinese culture isn't suited to communism. Even Mao recognized that.

This is not the first time you've let your emotions and bias cloud your judgement, Tingkai. Perhaps a better approach for you is to simply walk away and cool off.

[Tripledoc]

Re: Being a Communist

Originally posted by notyoueither
But today it seems it is simply an almost forgotten creed that is aped with imperfection by modern day rebels with very few clues.

Likewise with liberals and conservatives it would seem. And your leader even looks like a monkey! Sorry but that arrogant statement required some sort of silly response, don't you think?

[The Mad Monk]

No.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I got a raise today!!!

I didn't and I've been asking for one for over two months!

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by DaShi
I am saying that Chinese culture isn't suited to communism. Even Mao recognized that.

Which is why he started the Cultural Revolution. Granted, a lot of bad things happened during it, but it did put an end to the patriarchal system that had locked the country into stagnation for the last few hundred years.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Being a Communist

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your predecessors have already changed the world.

Yes they did, and the capitalist engaged in a brutal, no-holds, barred, kicking, biting, nail-gouging fight to oppose them. So instead of being able to build a better society, they had to build a society oriented around defending themselves. A society like that has no future.

However the best parts of your message have been subsumed by other systems (socialism and capitalist, liberal democracies).

Only because we forced it upon you. Without the threat of red revolution, without communists fighting in the factories and streets of the various industrialized countries, there would be no welfare, no minimum wage, no socialized medicine. Everything that makes life in the West not life in in a Third World ****-hole sweatshop is due to us.

What is left to distinguish yours from other offerings available is a future devoid of choice for individuals on how to organise their affairs.

The capitalists are on the offensive, taking back the promises of the social welfare state. In Canada, the capitalists are sabotaging the health care system, so that you won't want to use it anymore and will turn to private alternatives. In France, they want to expand the work week. In Germany, they want to trim their vacations. Without us fighting to hold on, you won't get to keep them. Sure, you say you'd never let it happen, but after a few decades of Rupert Mudoch telling you otherwise and the government refusing to fund your services, you'll agree to let it happen. Even if you just want a more humane capitalism, you still need us.

[Agathon]

Che is right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the Americans. They'll have a choice between a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich and a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich.

If you're not a millionaire, why support the Republicans or the Democrats.

You know it is easy to focus on one Presidential election and say, OH MY GOD, IT'S ALL RICH YALE PEOPLE! What about Clinton? Dole? Reagan? Carter? Humphrey? Nixon? Ford? None of them grew up rich! Simply because the last two US elections have had two rich Ivy League candidates doesn't mean that is what the leadership of both parties are.... Hell, let's look at the Congressional leadership! Delay? Pelosi? Gephart (when he was leader)? Hastert? There were ordinary schmoes!

So sorry, that analysis of the parties doesn't hold up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What about Clinton? Dole? Reagan? Carter? Humphrey? Nixon? Ford? None of them grew up rich!

They were all millionaires by the time they ran.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The question I have is why do people support the existing capitalistic system in the west that is built and maintained for the corporate elite and hereditary rich.

Look at the Americans. They'll have a choice between a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich and a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich.

If you're not a millionaire, why support the Republicans or the Democrats.

Even if the American people elected a president that created policies that benefited the majority, those policies would be blocked by the senate which is composed of the super-rich. The average cost of winning a senate position is US$7 million, compared to $700,000 for a House of Representatives seat.

Who's got the money to finance these political campaigns - the rich.

The so-called free market is really an economic system designed to benefit mega-corporations. They're the ones getting the lion share of government funding.

Meanwhile, small and medium-sized businesses are the ones creating the majority of new jobs.

Information is becoming more and more controlled by mega-corporations like Time-Warner who control smaller corporations down the line.

The workers (blue collar, white collar, whatever) create the profits, but the corporate elite are the ones taking home multi-million dollar salaries, even when they are running a corporation into the ground.

The corporate elite ship good jobs to low-income countries, which means they can get richer while the rest of us get poorer.

Why support this? Why not demand a government that looks after the interests of the majority instead of the pampered rich?

Because wealth creation benefits everyone, I live a lot better life then my ancestors did for a reason.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Look at the Americans. They'll have a choice between a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich and a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich.

If you're not a millionaire, why support the Republicans or the Democrats.

You know it is easy to focus on one Presidential election and say, OH MY GOD, IT'S ALL RICH YALE PEOPLE! What about Clinton? Dole? Reagan? Carter? Humphrey? Nixon? Ford? None of them grew up rich! Simply because the last two US elections have had two rich Ivy League candidates doesn't mean that is what the leadership of both parties are.... Hell, let's look at the Congressional leadership! Delay? Pelosi? Gephart (when he was leader)? Hastert? There were ordinary schmoes!

So sorry, that analysis of the parties doesn't hold up.

Damn it -- I agree with Imran on something -- again.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Whoha


Because wealth creation benefits everyone, I live a lot better life then my ancestors did for a reason.

"Wealth creation" fosters social stratification. The "haves" will do whatever it takes to hoard their wealth and refuse to share it while the "have-nots" will try and fight for equality.

Social stratification may be good for some, but the underlying theme is "I'm better than you."