Socialist or immature

[Kintaro]

I wont live off anyones tax dollars, that would still make me a low end capitalist. I wont do anything for money that effects other people, or there capitalist ideals. I will live!

[Calum]

looks like i agree with zooloo on this. i don't need to add anything here.

[Siplus]

i think we should agree to disagree

i'm not good with political debates, nor did i want to get into one here. i am here b/c i hate microsoft. i guess i'm kind of contradicting myself. i love linux and hate proprietary products (namely windows), sort of a socialist view i guess, but at the same time i support capitialism. maybe i'm a hypicrit, i don't know.

i do not a persuasive enough person to try to convert your thoughts, and i'm too stubborn (hmm, set in my ways at the young age of 15--good, or bad?) to give up my full support of captialism. i love capitalism and i hope i always live in a capitalist state. i do not beleive that is is based upon the 'backstabing' of enemies. i do not believe it is an uncivilized form of goverment--it is quite the contrary in my mind. freedom is everything. you should be able to be a billionare if you want/can. i, however, would like to think that i would DO something meritable with a billion, but if someone doesn't want to, they have the FREEDOM to be a bastard if they want. it's all about choice

i am 15. would it be possible for a 15 yr old to own a laptop in a socialist society? probibly not, everyone would want a laptop, so only the people who need one would actually get it, which would leave me out. i have a job (that i hate, but it brings in $$ for my laptop and hopefully a car for when i get my drivers licence next year    ), and if the world was socialist, do you think that a "child" of my age would have a job? no, i think that open jobs would be given to adults, thus leaving me out. i guess that would be good, because the adult would need to pay for living, while my parents do that for me at my age, but i wouldn't be as happy.

i do not know of what else i can type here to try to get my point across. YES, some people will get screwed under capitalism--that is it's nature, to compete. the "losers" will moan and complain, and the "winners" will live a marginally happy life.

i'm going to leave now. i do not think i'm leaving with the best post, but at least give me credit that i tried!! we are just repeating ourselves here, so unless i see something new, i'm not going to so anymore in the conversation. i hope someone will continue this discussion on the part of capitialism, and if not, then this thread will die

[zoolooo]

Siplus: *Capitalist*,

I wonder what you actually think capitalism is.

How do you define it?

One point you raised was could you have a laptop in a socialist society.  There is no reason why not.  That "everyone would want one" is not true.

This "I want" is a capitalist attitude.  "I need" is the socialist attitude.  So within the bounds of what society can afford/provide you would have everything you need - guaranteed.

"From each according to their means, to each according to their needs" is the basic principle.

Luxuries would exist but probably in a different form as it wouldn't be a consumer society as it is now.

Socialism gives the majority more freedom than capitalism can - nobody is stealing your surplus so you can spend less time in necessary production and so have more time to do what you want, for example.

zooloo

[billy_gates]

I have read most of the posts here but I still cannot find a reason to work harder for the common good.  I would probably work the minimum.  I would be afraid to work under the minimum because I would probably be killed or something.  And as Siplus brought up, what if we want things that we don't need?  That is what all kids wantm stuff to have fun with.  How would we get that stuff?  Would we be destined to boredom our whole lives? Never being able to get a nice car to go have good times in, always being stuck with the "needed" pinto of a car?

Back to Bill Gates, I personally do not like him, I think he is an evil backstabbing bastard.  But I tell you, I aspire to become as rich and powerful as he is.  I also wonder how democrats ever got into power with Bill Gate's money going towards the republicans?  However, when I had that much money I wouldn't sell shit anymore.  I would sell good products at competitive prices, but to get there I would do anything.

[slave]

quote:But I tell you, I aspire to become as rich and powerful as he [Bill Gates] is.  

Ewwwwww!

I'm majoring in computer science.  But I do *not* want to be like Bill Gates, ever.  I'd rather be a waiter for a living than that.  What I do want to do, however, is help spread the message of free software and social freedom to share information.  Why would I want to help the public; I mean, what's in it for me?  The answer is that as a member of society I'm acting in both my own interest and the interest of everyone else.  Only a capitalist would make such an either-or statement "Either I act like a selfish cunt or help society!"  Like it or not, you're part of society.  

I don't know what this greed syndrome is all about.  It all seems self-destructive in the end.  I never want to be rich.  If I ever became rich somehow, I'd give most of my money away to needy people.  All I want, basically, is good food, clean air, freedom and love.  (and a decent internet connection) Everyone on Earth should  and can have that.  Ever wonder why there's crime in the US?  I mean, we're such a rich country, why do people do it?  Even millionaires are criminals (in fact, a lot are) The reason is that people don't understand what's important.  Money isn't important.  Drugs, cars, bling bling, none of that is important.

Socialism doesn't mean nobody can have gamecubes, computers, software etc.  Under socialism, people can work to make those things if they wanted to, though.  Socialist or not, it takes the same amount of work.  Actually it would take less work because corporate combat would be eliminated from the scene, replaced with the spirit of cooperation for the common good.  If everyone in the US were to suddenly go socialist, we could all work less and yet have even more "goodies" than we had before.  And people would still work, even so-called "lazy" people.  After all, everyone has an interest in *something* It's just that money would no longer be the object, the end result -- more cars, devices, computers, gizmos, toys, technology -- would.  And we could all agree to have 4 day work weeks  

[zoolooo]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
...but I still cannot find a reason to work harder for the common good.

Strange.  What then is your reason for working harder to keep people like Bill Gates rich?

A reason for working to the common good is that you would be better off than you are now.

zooloo

[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by zoolooo:
Strange.  What then is your reason for working harder to keep people like Bill Gates rich?
[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

I don't work harder to keep people like him rich, I just want to be rich.  If it would help I would cheat him out of his money just as he has done to everyone else.  Not for everyone esle of course, but for me, so I can have that money instead of him.

 

quote:Socialism doesn't mean nobody can have gamecubes, computers, software etc. Under socialism, people can work to make those things if they wanted to

I thought you guys just said that working for things for your own personal betterment was against socialism.  So the only way I could see someone having a gamecube or a nice car would be if everyone had it, or an equvilant.  Thats impossible, for all of the, what 5 bilion, people on this earth to have everything that everyone else has?  What, then, would be the point of having cool stuff if everyone had it, it would then not be cool.

Also, according to your statement in socialism, you work for the common good, then if you want extras you can work more on the side.  Why would I work for everyone esle, then for me, when I could work only for me and no one else?  Therefore reducing my workload?

[slave]

quote: I thought you guys just said that working for things for your own personal betterment was against socialism. So the only way I could see someone having a gamecube or a nice car would be if everyone had it, or an equvilant. Thats impossible, for all of the, what 5 bilion, people on this earth to have everything that everyone else has? What, then, would be the point of having cool stuff if everyone had it, it would then not be cool.

I never said that.  I said that working *only* for your own "betterment" and ignoring everyone else or even stepping on their toes to get what you want is wrong.  Socialism is the ONLY real way to better yourself in my opinion.  I never said that nobody can have something until everyone can have it either.  That wouldn't work for obvious reasons.  What would work is to let people choose what they wanted if there was a scarcity of resources, sort of like having an allowance.  Not everyone would choose to "spend" their allowance on a gamecube, but some would.  I guarantee you just as many people would have them however.  However, in socialism we should concern ourselves with more important public issues before we think about toys like that.  There should be not one homeless person in the country before we start to think about video games.

Anyway, what's so "uncool" about everyone having video game systems?  This mentality of "I have something you don't; I'm better than you" has to stop.

[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

[zoolooo]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:


I thought you guys just said that working for things for your own personal betterment was against socialism...

Why did you think this? it is an absurd statement.


 What, then, would be the point of having cool stuff if everyone had it, it would then not be cool.

This is one of the most stupid statememnts I have ever encountered.  You have a sad ideal of value, simply based on "I got you aint!"


Also, according to your statement in socialism, you work for the common good, then if you want extras you can work more on the side.  Why would I work for everyone esle, then for me, when I could work only for me and no one else?  Therefore reducing my workload?

No.

[distortion]

i haven't read everything, so i apologize if this has already been said...

but, one of the unfortunate things is that humans are hardly mature enough to be apart of either system. capitalism would be great, were it not for the fact that living in a capitalist society essentially means you'll work all day and all night, so you can have enough money to support the "american dream" (oh yeah, i live in the U.S.). so you can have an oversized house you'll never set foot in, a wife/husband you'll never see, and children you can't watch grow up because you're still at the damned office. sure, it may be possible to become wealthy, but the likely hood of that is just this side of nil. especially if your a member of a minority. (how many rich business men do you know of that aren't white?) i don't want to say this but race still plays a role in determining how far you'll go in this country.

and on the other side of the capitalist coin, you have companies like nike, who move factories to developing nations. sounds great, until you find out that the employees are 12-year-old girls working 14 hours a day for so little money, they couldn't buy lunch at the mcdonalds that just opened up accross the street.

ultimately in a capitalist society, many people can't help but be over come by greed.

at the opposite end of the spectrum, i hardly think enough people are mature enough to handle the freedom that comes with socialism to make an entire country.

i hope one day that people realize that there is a big wide world beyond money. but for socialists, it is "battle" that couldn't possibly be won. so i guess i'm on the losing side. i don't care. i feel like it is the moral thing to do. and not to be conceited, but i feel like i'm one of the few people mature enough to handle the freedom that comes with socialism.

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: distortion ]

[Kintaro]

I like todays nick (HA HA HA)

[slave]

my favorite song:

http://www.ericas-designs.com/songs/Imagine.mp3

[xyle_one]

okay. i have begun reading alot into socailism and i am definitley a socialist.  no doubt about it. why would money matter if you had everything you needed, and were still able to obtain those "luxuries" you desired. even thosugh those luxuries would be meaningless. working for each oher, and growing to develop an educated, CIVILIZED, world where non suffered, where you were genuinely happy. fuck man, can you imagine. actually, genuinely helping each other, instead of trying to "one-up" joe smith neighbor. what would be the point? no more fucked up divide between the oppressed majority run by a rich minority. dude. i fuckng hate the world capitalism has created. it makes no sense. its back-ass-wards as hell. what i see, in a world that embraced a true socialist socitey, is a world i have only read about in novels written by Frank Herbert (my father went to school with his son, cool    ) and Larry Niven. Shit, even George Orwell saw what will be created from capitalism. he saw it before it became such a montrosity. anyways. im rambling and im drunk. so i will sop. i will leave with only a few words. and they will be capitalised. FUCK CAPITALISM. IT DOES NOTHING BUT HOLD THE HUMAN RACE AT BAY. PREVENTS US FROM ACTUALLY "INNOVATING" (    )AND GROWING.

(goddamn it took me a long time to write that, i had to go back and correct a lot of shit. and im sure i missed somethings....)

[Calum]

interestingly, many people have waxed on about 'nineteen eighty four' by orwell and how prophetic it is/isn't but i find it interesting that orwell's 'animal farm' has turned out to be much more prophetic of late 20th century western civilisation, even though it is based on the first few decades of the soviet union's history.

huxley's brave new world got it pretty much spot on in a lot of ways too.another little known book with a lot of good predictions (this one from 1962) is 'the fifth planet' by fred and geoffrey hoyle, if you get the chance to read it.