Stop Microsoft

Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Kintaro on 13 March 2003, 13:57

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 13 March 2003, 13:57
I noticed recently, anybody who does anything against capitalism, gets called Immature, and told to grow up, this has been Stallman, and now me. Which pisses me off quite a bit, capitalism is bullshit, and people actually stick up for it, what has happened, maybe we should be more anti-capitalist, to make yourself stand out with your other socialist buddys can make a stance against this shit.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: xyle_one on 13 March 2003, 14:07
i have come to the realization that i am not a capitalist. at least not a hardcore capitalist. i do not, however, know what i would consider myself..
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 13 March 2003, 14:48
I do things for the people not money, I am a socialist.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Interscope on 13 March 2003, 15:30
My thoughts on capitalism.  (http://smile.gif)

 
quote:

In february 1920, a correspondent of an American Newspaper asked Lenin:
"Should Russia fear from Contra-Revolutionary interferances coming from the outside?"
Lenin anwserd:
"Unfortunately, yes. Because the Capitalists are ignorant and greedy. They have done a few ignorant and greedy attempts at interfering our activities, that we should fear of it's repeat untill the workers and the peasants of every country educate their Capitalists to be humans."


bad translation, but oh well.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 14 March 2003, 06:12
"Immature" "Grow up!"

Is that the best argument they can come up with?

They are mentalists.

zooloo
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 14 March 2003, 06:56
you people have problems. I AM a capitalist. (and proud of it)

socialism has one major fault that stands in the way of it being better then capitalism, and one fault only. This fault is that humans are, only human

communism is good in theory, but humans need a leader, and eventually, that leader will crave absolute power of his country (it is possible to have a leader that will generally want to help people and have everything equal, but this will not last long)

in socialism, there is no incentive for working hard, because you will get nothing out of it. in capitalism, however, if you work hard, you will probibly do well (not in all cases, i know)

humans are not logical, so a logical form of government simply can not work.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 14 March 2003, 08:27
disclaimer:  this is just a rant, nothing personal.  I may not even agree with half of what I say

you people have problems. I AM a capitalist. (and proud of it)

Ok fair enough, what are our problems?

socialism has one major fault that stands in the way of it being better then capitalism, and one fault only. This fault is that humans are, only human

Humans have forgotten their roots.  They are social animals after all, and have a natural urge to help each other.  We need a society that encourages this instead of a dog-eat-dog jungle.

communism is good in theory, but humans need a leader, and eventually, that leader will crave absolute power of his country (it is possible to have a leader that will generally want to help people and have everything equal, but this will not last long)

Humans don't need a leader, what they need is leadership, freethought and the ability to govern themselves.  We should never have one leader to "lead" us.  That is a monarchy.  

It is not inevitable that people have to be sheep.  Most people simply have been raised from an early age to accept whatever crap is shoved down their throat.  (We have organized religion partly to blaim for this)

in socialism, there is no incentive for working hard, because you will get nothing out of it. in capitalism, however, if you work hard, you will probibly do well (not in all cases, i know)

You're thinking like a capitalist.  Sure, "profit" may be a reason for working for something in its own narrow terms, but when people start working only for profit it creates a kind of intangible ethical pollution that encourages selfishness and a generally amoral attitude towards your fellow human being.  Money is not the only reward for work, anyway.  People should work for something because it is worth working for, or because it serves society in some way.  The idea of working purely for the advancement of society, and also one's own personal enjoyment, is the most noble reason to work at anything in my opinion.  Think about this situation to help you visualize the difference in motivation for working in capitalism and socialism:

There is an old lady who is having trouble crossing a busy street.

The capitalist helps her because he is expecting to be rewarded by her with money.

The socialist helps her because he's a kind person who enjoys helping his fellow human for its own sake.

Helping people is its own reward.  Doesn't it feel good to help people?  If everyone helped each other a little more without thought of "profit" or a cash reward our society would be for the better.

I also find the comment about people usually being rewarded properly for their work in capitalism kind of funny.  In my country (the US) we have teachers that aren't being paid shit and yet Michael Jackson has more fucking moulla than 500 teachers ever will.  In this country, crime and inheritance are the preferred ways of making money, and "work" is something to be done by, well, the working class.  I doubt that the fat cats running Enron did very much work besides cooking the books and touring multimillion dollar houses they planned on buying with their ill-gotten gains.   Selling proprietary software is also popular (think Bill Gates, the richest man in the world)

humans are not logical, so a logical form of government simply can not work.

That is what capitalists have been saying for years:  "people are too stupid and selfish for socialism to work!"

People are not naturally like this.  Our society has made them this way.

I for one have greater faith in humanity.


You may say that I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.
Someday I hope you'll join us,
and the world will live as one.

- from "Imagine", by John Lennon

[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 14 March 2003, 08:56
quote:
Originally posted by Siplus: linux advocate:

in socialism, there is no incentive for working hard, because you will get nothing out of it. in capitalism, however, if you work hard, you will probibly do well (not in all cases, i know)

No in socialism, you work for what is needed, in capitalism, people work work work, thinking thats "what they should do" then they grow old and die. I will not live that life. I want to live live live, if everyone does there bit, then we have no need to ever work hard. We just do what is needed to live, and enjoy ourselfs. Whereas capitalism is a poor ass excuse for making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Why should one suffer because anoyher has no life.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 14 March 2003, 21:02
Linux user points it out with his old lady example.

In fact, siplus, i have this for you
(http://users.bigpond.com/tate0/shit/fuck-you.png)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Calum on 14 March 2003, 13:47
maybe there are reasons other than their politics that they say you are immature?  ;)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 14 March 2003, 21:39
hmm...somehow i don't remember resorting to personal attacks in my post. i respect your opinions about socialism/capitialsim...

 
quote:
It is not inevitable that people have to be sheep. Most people simply have been raised from an early age to accept whatever crap is shoved down their throat.  

true. but i do not see people being raised differently in the near future


 
quote:
Helping people is its own reward. Doesn't it feel good to help people? If everyone helped each other a little more without thought of "profit" or a cash reward our society would be for the better.

point taken.

 
quote:
I for one have greater faith in humanity.
 

sadly, i don't. i wish i could have hope for humanity like you

i see only distruction and corruption, to the point where we can never achive a perfect society. that is why i think socialism will never work, because, as you said 'we' capitialists say that people are too stupid, people are too stupid. they can not handle the concept of helping people without monetary compensation. it would take forever to change that fact. education, at least in the USA, is horrible and little or nothing is happening to fix that. but look at countries who claim to be 'communist' (which is of course a type of socialism), they are even worce (china, north korea...)

our world is not perfect. capitialism is our best choice for what we have to work with in this world. if we manage to improve the public to be compatible with socialism, i would accept it fully
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 14 March 2003, 21:55
Well, never say never.  Our society may have a bright future after all.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Calum on 14 March 2003, 23:04
interestingly, while i agree with siplus on many points, generally i agree with his observations, although i don't think i am quite so extreme about how everything's going down the shitter (but maybe i'm reading it wrong) because as far as i can see, a lot of things are going down the shitter, but where there's life there's hope et c. the only way you'll change something is by doing things, which you do do if you're alive, groaning on about how everything's shit isn't helping (not that i'm accusing siplus of that, but there are a lot of moaners out there who don't fucking do anything (for example VOTE) but they still feel like they have a right to be all holier than thou about it. as far as i'm concerned, if you didn't vote in the last election, you have no right to comment on politics (unless you were too young to vote obviously) and that goes for other things too).

but anyway like i was saying, while i agree with siplus' observations to a good degree, i am a socialist. a real socialist. i voted for the scottish socialist party in the last election because they were the party i most agreed with. there is a cultural need for me to vote for the scottish nationalists right now, but fuck, the nationalists are so childish and the socialists just have their shit together. socialists deserve to be heard in parliament. go and browse their website (http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/) to see what i mean.

i just do not have any respect for somebody who says the world's fucked so capitalism is the best bet. no it is not. capitalism is the easy way out. you are saying "we're all cunts, so we might as well act it", but bullshit! why not try and better your society while you're on this planet? you'll get a shitload of satisfaction from that, more than you ever would money in the bank and a history of squashing your enemies in the business arena.

sadly, people don't know the benefits of socialism if they don't try it.

largely it is a very similar setup as the microsoft/linux setup. i will leave you to figure out which analogises socialism and which capitalism.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: cahult on 15 March 2003, 04:01
I am what you might call a social liberal, in between right and left, if there really is such a thing as right and left in politics. Marx once said that religion is an opium for the people. I would like to add that politics is heroin for the people...
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 15 March 2003, 06:10
First off I want to say, I did not read the whole post, too boring for me.  But I did want to reply.  I, although only 16 consider myself to be a hard on conservative capitalist.  I would not go so far as to consider you immature or stupid or whatever for believing in something different.  My personal opinion however is....If you don't want to be in a capitalist government move to china or north korea or some solcialist/communist country.  That way you can be with your other believers.  Although, based on the conditions in most of those countries I do not think they believe in socialism/communism.

I admit there are faults to capitalism, as we are seeing now with these corporate scandals, but I think our mix of capitalism and socialism, to allow people to work for money, but try to limit their ability to screw other people, is working pretty well so far.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 15 March 2003, 18:41
Why don't you move to South Korea or Shanghi?

There you can fight with the other greedy retards and stab each other in the back to you capitalist heart's content.

Capitalism is a fault, what you think of as a capital/social "mix" is only the majority paying to keep capitalism going (See Keynes).

The organisation of society to keep a few in excess while the majority go without is insane.

Capitalism is not the best system, it is not the only system.  It is the system of a primate and quite barbric peoples who respond to greed and reaction rather than reason - if you think capitalism is good or the sole option you are only displaying your own shameful ignorance.

Capitalism 's saving grace is it has the seeds of it's own destruction and the cure is socialism - red or dead is the future.

zooloo

[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 15 March 2003, 20:02
Da, comrade!    :D  

(please note the soviet union was never really socialist either)

[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Fett101 on 15 March 2003, 20:37
quote:
Originally posted by zoolooo:
It is the system of a primate and quite barbric peoples who respond to greed and reaction rather than reason.


And... it does well thsn.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 15 March 2003, 22:25
quote:
There you can fight with the other greedy retards and stab each other in the back to you capitalist heart's content.

why do you think that all capitalists are "greedy retards" ??? I am a capitalist, and i do not stab everyone i see in the back!

 
quote:
Capitalism is not the best system, it is not the only system.

i NEVER said it was the best, nor did i say it was the only system of government

 
quote:
It is the system of a primate and quite barbric peoples who respond to greed and reaction rather than reason - if you think capitalism is good or the sole option you are only displaying your own shameful ignorance.  

"It is the system of a primate"--first of all, we are primates, may i remind you... Capitalism is not exactly barbaric. the only system of government i can think of being barbaric would be tribal or military dictatorships. I DO THINK that capitalism is good, and i do think it is our (not the) best choice. in saying that, tell me where i am showing my ignorance, because i must see the error in my ways before i can learn and improve.

 
quote:
Capitalism 's saving grace is it has the seeds of it's own destruction and the cure is socialism - red or dead is the future.

I am truely sorry, but i fail to see why capitalism bears the 'seeds' of its own destruction, nor can i figure out why socialism is the cure. no, IMHO, it is not. if you were to suddenly change the world to socialism, all would not be well. if we shall ever be socialist, there must be steps taken to prepare the public, because as i (and appearently all capitalists, as was said eariler...) said before, the public is too stupid.

 
quote:
red or dead is the future.

well, we are all going to die, so i guess "dead" is the future
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 15 March 2003, 23:44
I was reading my Bible (Dilbert) the other day, and there was a cartoon where aliens knocked on Dogbert's door.  It went like this:

**knock knock**

(Dogbert opens door)

Alien: We are aliens from another planet, and we have been watching life on Earth mature for quite some time.

2nd Alien: We'd like to share with you now our knowledge on how to end disease, hunger, and poverty.

Dogbert: Ok, but what's in it for me?

(Aliens look at each other, then get in their ship and fly off)

Dogbert: I wonder if I could've handled that any better.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 16 March 2003, 02:45
quote:
Why don't you move to South Korea or Shanghi?

There you can fight with the other greedy retards and stab each other in the back to you capitalist heart's content.

Capitalism is a fault, what you think of as a capital/social "mix" is only the majority paying to keep capitalism going (See Keynes).

The organisation of society to keep a few in excess while the majority go without is insane.

Capitalism is not the best system, it is not the only system.  It is the system of a primate and quite barbric peoples who respond to greed and reaction rather than reason - if you think capitalism is good or the sole option you are only displaying your own shameful ignorance.

Capitalism 's saving grace is it has the seeds of it's own destruction and the cure is socialism - red or dead is the future.


Why the hell would I move out of our capitalistic government and into their capitalistic government?

Like Siplus said, we are primates, and I do not stab "everyone" in the back, only the people that deserve it.

I don't see how capitalism seeds its own destruction either, it seems its the opposite, several countries have tried to achieve socialism and have failed, democracy and capitalism have won.

The idea that the minority are rich and the majority are poor, is not because of capitalism.  It is because of people's laziness.  That is why our government should be less socialistic, we give the poor people too much stuff, they don't work for it because we give it to them.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 16 March 2003, 04:51
quote:
Like Siplus said, we are primates, and I do not stab "everyone" in the back, only the people that deserve it

uh, one of the things i'm trying to point out here is that not all capitalists enjoy 'stabbing' other people in the back. obviously some do. i thank you for agreeing with me, but we shouldn't double cross everyone just b/c we may not like them... one of the points "they" are making is that socialists won't backstab each other

 
quote:
The idea that the minority are rich and the majority are poor, is not because of capitalism. It is because of people's laziness. That is why our government should be less socialistic, we give the poor people too much stuff, they don't work for it because we give it to them.

i completely agree. that's one reason i don't like the US's welfare program. some people can live their entire lives on the tax dollars of the entire public. i agree that we should have a welfare system, but it should not be that easy to receive government funds
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 16 March 2003, 05:57
Opps, I meant primative not primate.

Capitalists and stabbing - basically you can't make money without exploitation.

Stop welfare and you'll have a revolution, that's why there is welfare.

Capitalism... seeds... destruction... the price of capital good outpaces the price of consumer goods = recession (depression). That you don't know this shows you do not even know what you are supporting, which is no surprise.

Sudden Socialism would not work.  Russia for example was much the same under the Czar as it was with Stalin and is still a state dictatorship of secret police and censorship.  So it needs evolution not revolution. (Only now the poor are really poor)

As a species we are geting smarter (standing on a giant's shoulders we see further) as we get smarter the present way we conduct our affairs now will become absurd.

Capitalism is not civilised.

zooloo

BTW, Capitalists, how much is your capital and how did you get it?
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 16 March 2003, 06:20
quote:
The idea that the minority are rich and the majority are poor, is not because of capitalism. It is because of people's laziness. That is why our government should be less socialistic, we give the poor people too much stuff, they don't work for it because we give it to them.


I'm sorry, but there are a *lot* of hard working poor people in the States.  Another thing, why does anyone need to be a billionaire?  Even if you worked harder than anyone else, I can't imagine that you'd ever need that much money.  And don't even get me started on the US businesses that outsource their operations to 3rd world countries so they can get away with paying the people pennies a day...

[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 16 March 2003, 06:37
quote:
Stop welfare and you'll have a revolution, that's why there is welfare

i didn't mean to stop welfare, i'm sorry if i mislead you. i mean that welfare should only be for a short period of time. i do NOT want some jackass who doesn't want to work to live off of my tax money. i DO WANT WELFARE for the honest person unemployeed, for a period of time that is reasonable to find a new job, because we all know people lose their jobs for various reasons, and it's not always their fault

 
quote:
As a species we are geting smarter (standing on a giant's shoulders we see further) as we get smarter the present way we conduct our affairs now will become absurd.

i beleive that the amount of knowledge the human race has is always increasing, but (and i feel like i'm repeating myself way too much here) the gap of the populus's intelligence is growing larger then the gap between the "rich minority and poor majority." the majority of our society is by far less intelligent then any of us here.

 
quote:
Capitalism is not civilised.

i do not see how it capitialism is not civilised. as far as i know, we don't have public beheadings. i can not possible understand how you can say capitialism is not civilised!! GIVE me reasons, EXPLAIN yourself!!!!!

 
quote:
I'm sorry, but there are a *lot* of hard working poor people in the States

i agree. but most hard working people are not poor. if you work hard, then *generally* you do well. look in the communist countries, they are far worce off then people in the US or other capitalist states

 
quote:
Another thing, why does anyone need to be a billionaire?

you are right, no one needs to be a billionare. that is a hell of a lot of money, and they will never be able to spend it all. but the great thing about capitalism is: you have the FREEDOM to become one if you can. the hard part is being able to figure out how

[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: Siplus: linux advocate ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 16 March 2003, 07:18
Bill Gates is a billionaire.  I know he's not the only billionaire--the US has many many more--but I think he makes for a good example, since he IS the richest man alive.  His assets are worth over 40 billion dollars.  It's enough money to feed a 3rd world nation.   Do you think his work deserves him all those billions?  I personally think he has exploited many people in order to make that money.  I'm sure Bill would say "this is a free market, it's my right to make money, blah blah" but the question remains; how much merit does a system really have that allows people to get so obscenely rich through mistreating other people?

I'd like to live in a society where money is irrelevant so we can work on improving the human condition, not form a corporate gang (a business) and go on some profiteering spree.

 
quote:
 but most hard working people are not poor. if you work hard, then *generally* you do well. look in the communist countries, they are far worce off then people in the US or other capitalist states


Yeah, but the funny thing is most people in the US (I speak for the US only because I don't know how it is in other countries) work their asses off not to improve society but to make a profit.  It ends up hurting everyone.  They all have dollar signs in their eyes and work night and day for money since they believe it will make them happy.  (They've been tricked!)  After all, isn't the American Dream to make a bunch of money and live in the suburbs somewhere with your two cars, boat, 3 kids and big house?  The sad thing is they end up being slaves to money, and work so much to get it that they find they don't have any time left to actually drive their cars, relax in their houses, or play with the kids (another reason why families are literally falling apart in this country)  This kind of system results in massive wastefullness because people want to feel justified for working their butts off like that so they spend it all on stupid things.  The US is *the* home of gluttons; I mean, look at how fat we all are!  We are the biggest bunch of porkos on the planet, in fact, I'm surprised we don't cause Earth's orbit to go off balance or something from the uneven distribution of weight.

/rant mode off
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 16 March 2003, 10:08
Ok I found an excellent website (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/)  on socialism with some quotes that may help explain what socialism is really about.

I'll post the move relevant questions/statements.

From the FAQ:

Isn't socialism at odds with human nature?


Isn't socialism contrary to human nature? Aren't people inherently selfish?


To my mind socialism is more in line with human nature than capitalism. Part of our human nature is the possession of needs that can only be met through cooperation and reciprocal relations with others. These include both emotional needs and the need to self-actualise or achieve. So 'enlightened selfishness' requires cooperation and mutual regard.


It is certainly true that socialism would be impossible if people were to continue behaving in the anti-social ways that they do at the moment. However, this behaviour is mainly driven by conditions that are far from permanent and would be eliminated under socialism. These include the following:

Capitalism generates dog eat dog behavior. Your interests are set unnecessarily at odds with others. You have to be a bastard to get ahead in your career or business. Your success is someone else's failure. Because socialism is based on cooperation rather than competition, it removes much of the conflict between our needs and those of others.
Socialism not only removes the incentives to act against the common good, it generates the motivation to actively serve it. Work is transformed into a desirable activity performed for its own sake and people feel part of society rather than alienated from it.
In developed countries it is now possible for everyone to live a reasonably affluent life and be free of long hours of routine toil. As discussed [below] this creates a better basis for cooperation and mutual regard. Historically, where equality would have meant shared misery, scarcity made a necessity out of the plunder, enslavement and exploitation of others. And there was no room for an 'enlightened' attitude. If you were not on the delivering end, you were on the receiving end. Freed slaves felt no compunction about enslaving others.
Any desire to harm others is not part of human nature but rather something neurotic and self-destructive. The same goes for the complementary desire of some people to be treated as door mats. Such disordered behaviour is fostered by capitalism. Firstly there is the direct effect of the dog-eat-dog workings of the system and the alienated nature of labor. Then there is the indirect effect through the impact of other people's neurotic behaviour, particularly that of parents, who have been deformed by the system.

Doesn't socialism suppress individuality and economic freedom?


If socialism suppresses individuality and economic freedom it is only the individuality and freedom of capitalists as they trample on the individuality and freedom of everybody else. They will no longer have the freedom to control and exploit others by monopolising the means of production.


Capitalism is premised on economic freedom being confined to a minority. Everyone else has to follow orders. If workers went to work tomorrow morning determined to show initiative and creativity, they would immediately see how the system gets in their way.


Capitalists want their cake and to eat it too. On the one hand they want workers to accept their subordinate position but at the same time to show a bit more initiative within their cramped area of responsibility. Success is limited because people who accept their subordination tend to lack initiative while those who don't accept their subordination are hard to motivate.


Certainly a worker under capitalism is freer than a serf under feudalism. They are not obliged to stick with one boss. And also, the capitalist is freer than the guild master bound by guild rules. However, you can't keep dining out on that for five hundred years. Being better than feudalism loses its power to impress. It's about as impressive as a middle aged couch potato outpacing an octogenarian with a walking frame.

Socialism in a nutshell


In a socialist society the means of production [1] are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.


It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.


At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.


The personally empowering and cooperative nature of socialist ownership underpins similar changes in other aspects of life. Socialism means far healthier individuals and human relationships. It means full participation by each individual in the intellectual, cultural and political life of society.


Socialism requires a revolution with three main stages: firstly the emergence of a workers' movement committed to socialist revolution, secondly the achievement of political power and the expropriation of the capitalists and thirdly a period during which workers learn how to be owners and rulers and cast off the psychological and ideological dross of the past.


Socialism will not be an utopia simply created in people's minds. It will be the product of economic and social development. In developed countries it is now possible for everyone to live a reasonably affluent life and be free of long hours of routine toil. This creates a better basis for cooperation and mutual regard. Historically, where equality would have meant shared poverty, it was inevitable that a minority would plunder, enslave and exploit the majority. At the same time rank and file workers are progressively acquiring through their experiences, the abilities to do without an elite. Their general level of education and training has advanced significantly over the last couple of generations. The work they do, while still totally oppressive, has an increasingly mental and conceptual content. And they now have extensive access to cultural and intellectual resources and the diverse experiences of living in a modern society. So while socialism was impossible in the past, these emerging conditions make it inevitable in the future.


Footnote [1]. The means of production comprise everything, except labor, that is used in production, namely, factories, plant, equipment, offices, shops, raw materials, fuel and components.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 17 March 2003, 03:08
quote:
i do NOT want some jackass who doesn't want to work to live off of my tax money.


But you give more of you tax to the very rich to keep them that way than you do on Welfare payments.  Why is your issue with the poor jackass and not the rich jackass?

 
quote:
i do not see how it capitialism is not civilised. as far as i know, we don't have public beheadings. i can not possible understand how you can say capitialism is not civilised!! GIVE me reasons, EXPLAIN yourself!!!!!


Co-operation is more civilised and a higher order of thinking than competition is. QED

Your ignorance is showing.

zooloo

BTW, you didn't say how much your capital is and how did you get it.  Please do, I'd like to know as I am sure I'd be able to use it against you.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 17 March 2003, 03:22
Zooloo, there's one thing I'd like to mention in your last post.

Competition isn't--in and of itself--a bad thing; it's when it degenerates into combat that we start to see problems.  Richard Stallman puts it better than I can, so I'll quote what he says in his essay Why Software Should be Free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html):

Is Competition Inevitable?


 Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not harmful; the harmful thing is combat.


There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the old days, there was competition among programming wizards--competition for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit everyone, as long as the spirit of good sportsmanship is maintained.


Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.


Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when ``Let the best person win'' gives way to ``Let me win, best or not.'' Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.


Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.


Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with anti-trust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general, executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic equivalent of factional civil war.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 17 March 2003, 04:11
Yes Linux User #5225982375, I agree.

Thank you for the point, I see now that I was assuming an extreme ideal of competition and I should have been clearer.

I sacrificed too much accuracy for the sake of brevity.  You have corrected that.

zooloo  (http://smile.gif)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 17 March 2003, 14:41
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!
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Calum on 17 March 2003, 16:25
looks like i agree with zooloo on this. i don't need to add anything here.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 18 March 2003, 05:02
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  (http://smile.gif)  ), 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
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 18 March 2003, 05:25
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
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 18 March 2003, 06:32
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.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 18 March 2003, 07:23
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   ;)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 18 March 2003, 14:38
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 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 19 March 2003, 07:21
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?
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 19 March 2003, 08:01
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 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 19 March 2003, 15:41
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.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: distortion on 20 March 2003, 06:56
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 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 20 March 2003, 08:13
I like todays nick (HA HA HA)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 20 March 2003, 21:02
my favorite song:

http://www.ericas-designs.com/songs/Imagine.mp3 (http://www.ericas-designs.com/songs/Imagine.mp3)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: xyle_one on 20 March 2003, 13:45
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  (http://smile.gif)  ) 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" (  (http://smile.gif)  )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....)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Calum on 20 March 2003, 14:25
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.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: xyle_one on 20 March 2003, 21:15
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: Member # 81:
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.

you know. i havent read animal farm in like 10 years. i think i should read it again.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 21 March 2003, 01:34
I have nothing against money, i have somthing against capitalism. I dont like people who just want to make more and more money and spend it on crap, we need laws to stop rich people from making life crap for others.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 21 March 2003, 02:46
what, exactly, are they doing to make the poor's life crap? having money? i didn't know b. gates was making my life horrible by having billions of dollars. it isn't his money that is harming me, it is his monopoly on the computer software industry

funny..."1984" reminds me of a socialist state more then a capitalist state. it's kind of like what the liberals are trying to do to the US (and what the communists want)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: flap on 21 March 2003, 02:59
Yes, because somehow liberals... are against freedom? That makes sense.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: papercut on 21 March 2003, 04:34
Sure you get to have a laptop and what not, but whats the point if you don't have time to use it.

Nazi germany, and Soviet Union weren't true socialist countries they were led by dictators. The soviet union had no freedom they didn't even get to choose their profession.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 21 March 2003, 05:07
quote:
Originally posted by Siplus: *Capitalist*:
what, exactly, are they doing to make the poor's life crap? having money? i didn't know b. gates was making my life horrible by having billions of dollars. it isn't his money that is harming me, it is his monopoly on the computer software industry

funny..."1984" reminds me of a socialist state more then a capitalist state. it's kind of like what the liberals are trying to do to the US (and what the communists want)


Same here.  If you want to think about rich people that aren't ruining our lives, just think about Steve Jobs.  I think he is a millionaire, but really, wut is the difference between 100's of millions and 60billion, there is no way you could spend either amount.  But back to the point, Steve makes our lives better, he makes sure the Mac OS gets made by his legions of programmers.  and the Mac OS makes people's lives better.  Because you lack the shit of Windows and lack the difficulty associated with most Linux Distros.  So there, that is a rich capitalist who makes our lives better.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 21 March 2003, 05:13
quote:
So there, that is a rich capitalist who makes our lives better.  


Steve Jobs "makes our lives better" in the same way a benevolent Lord may treat his peasants better than some asshole who owns the castle down the street.  But we'd be much better off without the whole sapitalist system, just as we're better off now without feudalism.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: papercut on 21 March 2003, 05:17
But gates cheats his way into making more and more money he will never need/use. Jobs only made 1 cent or $1 last year, he doesn't scam his way into making more money he will never use.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 21 March 2003, 05:30
Bingo!

Steve jobs makes better software and he is willing to do it for free, well $1.

Once again we see that if the motive is the task itself we get a better result than when the motive is money.

This is the point the socialist keep making!


On another topic: Rich people make your life crap because they produce nothing.  To keep them in luxury you have to produce a surplus - in practice, a little bit for you and a lot more for them.

If you didn't have to produce their cut you'd have more time to pursue the enriching things in life.

zooloo
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 21 March 2003, 05:35
quote:
Originally posted by zoolooo:
Bingo!

Steve jobs makes better software and he is willing to do it for free, well $1.

Once again we see that if the motive is the task itself we get a better result than when the motive is money.

This is the point the socialist keep making!


On another topic: Rich people make your life crap because they produce nothing.  To keep them in luxury you have to produce a surplus - in practice, a little bit for you and a lot more for them.

If you didn't have to produce their cut you'd have more time to pursue the enriching things in life.

zooloo


Wow, excellent point.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Siplus on 21 March 2003, 06:05
quote:
Sure you get to have a laptop and what not, but whats the point if you don't have time to use it.  

uh, i'm on my laptop right now--what do you mean i don't have time to use it  :confused:  

in case you people are unaware, you don't have to work 23 hours a day. i'm not quite sure how much my parents work, but it's probibly somewhere around 8 (i get about 10 hours a week, but i'm only in hs w/ a sucky part time job...)

 
quote:
Once again we see that if the motive is the task itself we get a better result than when the motive is money.

no, actually, this is the first one i've seen. but i don't like macs, so it doesn't really do anything for me. i'm sure that there are many senerios where when "the motive is the task" will produce a better product, but when "the motive is money" there is much encentive (i'm not saying that is good, or bad)
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Kintaro on 21 March 2003, 21:02
How much pay does stallman get, NONE.

Steve Jobs is a nice guy, i'll have to have a beer and a chat with him one day.

And then theres torvalds, he does things for the hope of World Domination. But that doesnt bother me!
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 24 March 2003, 06:58
Actually I've heard that Steve is a real ass hole, in terms of his personal life. but that doesn't matter.  I also agree that money is a huge incentive for anything.  But it can be a problem, if for instance the amount of money is based on the speed of creation, then u will get crap.  However, if the amoung of money is based on hours or quality of prodcut then u get good results.  Also most people don't work all ends of their lives, and some things you use on your way to and from work.  Like a nice car, a nice stereo, an iPod or other MP3 player, cell phone, etc, etc.  So even in daily tasks you have extras that aren't required that make your life better because you spice up your drive, etc ,etc.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 24 March 2003, 18:03
Name one useful invention/development that originated through the pure pursuit of profit.

All great inovations were done because the person was inclined/compelled to do it.  Money and profit is never a factor beyond funds to continue the work.

Those who make the profit are those who steal the ideas of others.

zooloo
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: Calum on 24 March 2003, 19:38
you idiotic capitalists (a few posts up the page) who think that people who have too much money do not harm you should really think again.

what is it keeps your capitalist economy on the go? public spending! yes that's right kids, now you see that the more saving that is going on, the less spending there is, yes? now you can see that the richer one person is, the more saving that person will do (unless they are addicted to spending in which case they won't be stupidly rich for long).

The way that the economy is trying to deal with this is by putting most people who are not rich into permanent debt. you know that 75% of people in western countries are actually in debt? ridiculous.

so the richer the rich are, the faster the economy goes down the shitter. why do you think the US economy is so far in debt? capitalism, that's why.

i agree with X11, we need to cap income. above a certain rate i think that 100% should go to the state, this way it would give people an incentive to stop earning far too fucking much, and we would all be better off.

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for justice & peace ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 25 March 2003, 04:58
you think the rich people got rich by spending all of their money.  Maybe this is a message to people in debt.

And rich people do spend money, more than poor people do, just not a greater percent.  They buy their ferraries and boats and aircraft carriers. They buy big houses which has a super direct impact on the uneducated.  Not only does it give lots of construction workers jobs, it also makes all of the houses around that house worth more.  I'm sure you've heard of the trickle down effect.  When Rich people get more money, they spend it, they have no reason to save it.  When they spend it, it goes to the poor people who work, not the poor people who don't work.  See, the richers tax money goes to people that don't work and live for free.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 25 March 2003, 06:37
Ya I'm sure all the workers who built Bill Gates' gigantic house got paid real well.  I've got a better idea: eliminate this system of exploitation that lets people get "rich" in the first place.

And as for people on welfare, they don't do so well.  I live in a very poor rural neighborhood on a dirt road and most of the people around live in little shacks and don't work because they have no freakin' education, and no motivation.  Nobody cares about them, just enough to give them some food stamps so they won't starve to death.  Of course they never spend food stamps on condoms and keep having more kids, who also end up losers, sitting on the front porch evey morning in rags drinking beer for breakfast.  I imagine a country where social engineering would make such a class of people obsolete.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 25 March 2003, 16:10
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
I'm sure you've heard of the trickle down effect.


Yes, and I hear it doesn't work.  If you have examples of where "trickle down" is effective please give them.  You won't because you can't

Why not "trickle up"?

BTW.  Capitalists... how much is your capital and how did you get it?

zooloo
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 27 March 2003, 06:40
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
And as for people on welfare, they don't do so well.  I live in a very poor rural neighborhood on a dirt road and most of the people around live in little shacks and don't work because they have no freakin' education, and no motivation.  Nobody cares about them, just enough to give them some food stamps so they won't starve to death.  Of course they never spend food stamps on condoms and keep having more kids, who also end up losers, sitting on the front porch evey morning in rags drinking beer for breakfast.  I imagine a country where social engineering would make such a class of people obsolete.


That is the exact reason I don't support welfare, they should be allowed to starve to death if they don't work.

I also hate the idea of not letting people get rich.  being rich is something people work for.  Most don't achieve it, but for the few who do, bravo, I aspire to become rich like you.  Even if I have to knock a couple people out of the way, they should have done it to me first.  Even if I lived in a socialist society I would slow everyone down to make me look better.  I think many others would say the same.  You guys here are a minority, people would be stepping all over you because of your "big hearts and want for free stuff" but don't you see, you want to hurt others, you want to take all rich people's riches away.  That is hurting someone just as bad as a rich person screwing some poor person over.  The rich person worked for his or her money, even if they did it in an unfair way.  Luck was on their side.

 
quote:
Yes, and I hear it doesn't work.


Well lets look at it from a rich person point of view. (when I say I, I am referring to a rich person, not to myself)

I make $500,000 a year.  The government takes 40% away, that leaves me with $300,000.  Now they raise taces to 50%, I know only have $250,000 to play around with.  I'm just gonna take a pay cut because I am a nice person and my laborers are hard working.  Fuck No.  I now have 3 choices.  Raise Product Price to the consumer.  Cut spending (Layoffs.)  Or squeeze more time out of them (longer hours, less pay, less vacation, etc.)  Raising prices is the easiest but we lose competitive advantage.  Squeezing doesn't always work and is very difficult.  That leaves me with Layoffs.  There is something easy.  Fire $50,000 worth of people and machinery.  Perfect.  While I'm at it, why not take add a little extra to my wallet.

That is how the trickle down works.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: slave on 27 March 2003, 06:52
Here's some RMS quotes that I think are kind of relavent to this discussion:

"We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor; but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite message.


Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard from Ronald Reagan to Jim Bakker, from Ivan Boesky to Exxon, from failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays into a jungle.


If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation."

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]

Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 27 March 2003, 07:37
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Here's some RMS quotes that I think are kind of relavent to this discussion:

"We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor; but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite message.


Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard from Ronald Reagan to Jim Bakker, from Ivan Boesky to Exxon, from failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays into a jungle.


If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation."

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]


I want to hear what that means to you.

To me it means that people aren't very good at taking advantage of one another and should improve or face poverty.
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: zoolooo on 27 March 2003, 16:42
Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain,

In the spirit that this thread started...

"You are immature, grow up."

 :D  

comrade zooloo
Title: Socialist or immature
Post by: billy_gates on 28 March 2003, 03:29
quote:
Originally posted by zoolooo:
Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain,

In the spirit that this thread started...

"You are immature, grow up."

  :D  

comrade zooloo


Of course I am, I'm 16.  I have much Growing and maturing to do.  In the meantime I think my arguments make some sense, but I can see that this post is practically dead now.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: publiknotice on 20 February 2006, 18:53
Know u just don't want to live in a homoginzed world where there is no option and a big greedy company wants to own and run anything that slightly threatens their shareholders profits.

If we learnt anything from the 1980's its don't allow 1 company to have to much control of any media distribution network.
 
I am sure that Rupert murdoch and bill gates can have their secret orgys without threat of being touched whilst weilding far to much power.
but people are clocking on, and unless you get rid of the 'net nutrallity' (maybe by threating senators and politicians with bad press exposure via (sly) fox or MSNBC unless they get rid of the net nutrallity law! - no shit it could happen.
Anyone who has seen aol's new marketing ploy would be forgiven for thinking that a terrorist pedo are about to jump through their screen any second -NOT TRUE! (all add more to this when there is time).
Anyway, good to see the whole world isn't a bunch of lemmings, there IS hope!
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: Lead Head on 20 February 2006, 19:01
Holy mother thread resurection!
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: adiment on 20 February 2006, 19:06
wow...this thread actually makes this forum look like it had members!


what happend?
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: cymon on 20 February 2006, 19:13
But one issue to a communist society is the overall negative view of communism by the People. Whenever someone says communism, there's an automatic knee jerk reaction that Communism is evil, just because of countries like the Soviet Union and China. They're about as communist as Bill Gates, just because true Communism requires that everyone is equal. If anything, a communist state would be democratic; because, if everyone is equal, then why shouldn't they be represented equally? A dictatorship is the complete opposite of Communism.

One of the biggest issues to a Communist USA is the whole 'American Dream.' America is a society that takes glamour and wealth as a drug. The whole American dream of a big house, nice car, and a family conficts with the communist principles of equality.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 20 February 2006, 20:43
Communism is the opression of the poor and middle-class by a rich group of cock-suckers who take everything away from the people and give it to the state a.k.a themselves !!! ... then when the revolution comes they run off with the money and leave the country bankrupt and broken ... case in point: all communist regimes that were ever established !

You might be thinking ... no it's ruled by normal people, not by rich cocksuckers, well you are WRONG ... they put up some poor fool as a facade for their 'for the people' campaign ... just so he takes the blame when the revolution comes. They are the puppetmasters, they always were and always will be ... the rich cocksuckers !

Communism is bullshit ... even more so than Capitalism ... we need a new fucking system !
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: piratePenguin on 20 February 2006, 20:52
Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H
Communism is the opression of the poor and middle-class by a rich group of cock-suckers who take everything away from the people and give it to the state a.k.a themselves !!! ... then when the revolution comes they run off with the money and leave the country bankrupt and broken ... case in point: all communist regimes that were ever established !
If that's the case, then they're not communists.

Communism does indeed suck when the leaders aren't communist. Capitalism sucks when the leaders are capitalist.
Quote
we need a new fucking system !
Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 20 February 2006, 21:00
An anti-cheat system ... where rich cocksuckers cannot exist. Basically some system that does not try to make all people equal like Communism, but prevents people from cheating (Bill Gates is a perfect example of a cheater). That way a natural balance is established, rather than forcing people to give up their possesions in order to equate them.

So basically eliminate all possibilities of exploitation and monopolization or even oligopolization. Similar to Communism in that all people will be equal (possesion and money-wise), but removing the ruling class, and preventing people from becoming too rich and powerful ... this includes everyone. Maybe some type of multi-council sytstem, where power is divided among many regional councils, who make decisions for their region. Once in a while elected members of each council meet to decide on the national level. All governmental meetings anywhere must be televised, unedited to the public.

Taxes should be applied exponentially based on income, with absolutely no way to bypass them. The richer you are the more taxes you pay (a lot more). 50 % of all tax income will be re-distributed to the public in a reverse exponential curve ... poor getting most ... rich least. Everyone is requred to work, as slackers would really fuck up the system.

Unlike Communism, you are allowed out of the state, not a prisoner.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: Lead Head on 20 February 2006, 23:18
Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H
An anti-cheat system ... where rich cocksuckers cannot exist. Basically some system that does not try to make all people equal like Communism, but prevents people from cheating (Bill Gates is a perfect example of a cheater). That way a natural balance is established, rather than forcing people to give up their possesions in order to equate them.

So basically eliminate all possibilities of exploitation and monopolization or even oligopolization. Similar to Communism in that all people will be equal (possesion and money-wise), but removing the ruling class, and preventing people from becoming too rich and powerful ... this includes everyone. Maybe some type of multi-council sytstem, where power is divided among many regional councils, who make decisions for their region. Once in a while elected members of each council meet to decide on the national level. All governmental meetings anywhere must be televised, unedited to the public.

Taxes should be applied exponentially based on income, with absolutely no way to bypass them. The richer you are the more taxes you pay (a lot more). 50 % of all tax income will be re-distributed to the public in a reverse exponential curve ... poor getting most ... rich least. Everyone is requred to work, as slackers would really fuck up the system.

Unlike Communism, you are allowed out of the state, not a prisoner.

You dont want girls to exist :p
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 21 February 2006, 00:36
No, just whores.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 21 February 2006, 03:41
Quote from: Lead Head
You dont want girls to exist :p

Hahaha .. ok call 'em rich, white, male, cocksucking faggots ... is that better ?
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: WMD on 21 February 2006, 04:11
Actually, there is nothing wrong with capitalism.  The problem is with the "corporate welfare" system we have in the United States.  Ever hear of "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich"?  Yeah.  If we could eliminate all government lobbying by corporations, we'd have proper capitalism.

And communism is in fact evil.  Rights come from property.  Communism = no property = no rights.  Quite simple, really.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 21 February 2006, 04:32
Rights come from property ? How is that ?
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: cymon on 21 February 2006, 04:53
Rights don't come from property, and that's for a good reason. Having more property inevitabily gives you more rights, making it unfair for the poorer citizens who would end up with less rights. The poor can't do anything to improve, and get fucked over by 1800's capitilism. Rights come from citizenship, and that's how it should be.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: WMD on 21 February 2006, 06:34
Quote from: cymon
Rights don't come from property, and that's for a good reason. Having more property inevitabily gives you more rights, making it unfair for the poorer citizens who would end up with less rights.

Incorrect.  You're taking it too literally.  If I go out and buy 10,000 of something expensive, I don't suddenly have the right to do stuff like kill people.  I merely obtain rights to whatever that stuff is.  You own your body, hence you have the right to do...um...we'll say "stuff" to it.  And so on in that direction.  Otherwise, you have people dictating what I can do with my stuff...which is what happens in communism.

Quote
Rights come from citizenship, and that's how it should be.

Also incorrect.  If rights came from citizenship, it sounds like the government gave you your rights.  But that's not possible - you can't be given a right by somebody, that would be a privilege.  You simply have rights.  In fact, even people in countries where they don't have rights actually have them, they are just being violated by the government.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: Pathos on 21 February 2006, 11:57
Nothing wrong with capitalism?

I assume most people associate their arguments with the USA.

Capitalism is only a economic system, Government intervention on behalf of the people is required to keep society in check. Especially to make sure that rights/social power are not dependent on assets.

In the USA this is definitely not happening. Partly due to government and partly society.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: Dark_Me on 21 February 2006, 13:05
Quote from: Pathos
Capitalism is only a economic system, Government intervention on behalf of the people is required to keep society in check. Especially to make sure that rights/social power are not dependent on assets.
If there is government intervention then it's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on a "free" market model. Essentally the theory (which has been proven not to work) is that the government does't interfear except in the case of a monopoly and the maket just basically sorts everything else out.
Title: Re: Socialist or immature
Post by: Pathos on 24 February 2006, 11:44
Quote from: Dark_Me
If there is government intervention then it's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on a "free" market model. Essentally the theory (which has been proven not to work) is that the government does't interfear except in the case of a monopoly and the maket just basically sorts everything else out.

thats sought of what I was inferring. Government intervention is required because capital theory does not work on its own.