ARG, its not "get paid the same" its "equal share of production" pleace see my first post in this thread
as in NO DIVISION OF LABOR = owner of company gets same share as everyone else. or to be purly socialist about it company is owned by employees. (kinda like stock options just on a more equal basis)
so if the same doll in my f1rst examle was sold for $40 instead of $20 by a diffrent company the employees + owner would get $10 each instead of $5
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
Communism is a great idea, but it won't work because human nature prevents it. People are naturally interested in themselves. It is NOT the product of society, but rather of our animalistic routes. For communism to work, people must transcend their own human nature. For the majority of the populace, this is impossible. Communism sucks because it is never pure. People will always look for ways to exploit the system, which will essentially create a class system which communism attempted to eliminate.
Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes human nature's desire for self gain, and attempts to funnel it into a system in which all men can gain. Communism seeks to change human nature, an impossibility. Capitalism seeks to channel it into society for the gain of all.
Someone coughallurhivecough will probably say that capitalism is wrong because of sweatshops, coporations, etc. The problem with the third world is indeed Western Civ- not the prescence of Western Civ (democracy, capitalism), but rather the lack of Western Civ. Only countries which embrace democracy and capitalism can elevate themselves out of their current backwords culture and poverty. Considering that unemployment is one of the largest problems in the third world, more sweatshops means more job oppurtunities, meaning higher competition for workers, meaning improved wages and working conditions. Capitalism is like colonialism. It sucks for those who live during its development, but the end result is more than worth the struggle.
I'm also announcing I'm for Students Against Students Against Sweatshops! Details coming soon. :-)
Oh, and if someone was planning on countering 'Its not human nature, its culture!', then why is it that in nearly EVERY culture that has ever exsisted, the sacrafice of one's self is considered the paramount action in terms of honor? I win, gg.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Aug 16 2003, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Aug 16 2003, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
Communism is a great idea, but it won't work because human nature prevents it. People are naturally interested in themselves. It is NOT the product of society, but rather of our animalistic routes. For communism to work, people must transcend their own human nature. For the majority of the populace, this is impossible. Communism sucks because it is never pure. People will always look for ways to exploit the system, which will essentially create a class system which communism attempted to eliminate.
Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes human nature's desire for self gain, and attempts to funnel it into a system in which all men can gain. Communism seeks to change human nature, an impossibility. Capitalism seeks to channel it into society for the gain of all.
Someone coughallurhivecough will probably say that capitalism is wrong because of sweatshops, coporations, etc. The problem with the third world is indeed Western Civ- not the prescence of Western Civ (democracy, capitalism), but rather the lack of Western Civ. Only countries which embrace democracy and capitalism can elevate themselves out of their current backwords culture and poverty. Considering that unemployment is one of the largest problems in the third world, more sweatshops means more job oppurtunities, meaning higher competition for workers, meaning improved wages and working conditions. Capitalism is like colonialism. It sucks for those who live during its development, but the end result is more than worth the struggle.
I'm also announcing I'm for Students Against Students Against Sweatshops! Details coming soon. :-)
Oh, and if someone was planning on countering 'Its not human nature, its culture!', then why is it that in nearly EVERY culture that has ever exsisted, the sacrafice of one's self is considered the paramount action in terms of honor? I win, gg. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Jammer for governor.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Aug 16 2003, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Aug 16 2003, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes human nature's desire for self gain, and attempts to funnel it into a system in which all men can gain. Communism seeks to change human nature, an impossibility. Capitalism seeks to channel it into society for the gain of all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But that's where capitalism falls short, not everyone can gain. If you listen to the capitalists, everyone who works hard and tries hard enough can be rich, which is simply not true, not everyone can be rich. There will always be someone that has to clean the toilets of the guys in the mansions, there will always be an exploited lower class, that's the way capitalism works. That is simply the wrong way to do things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Someone coughallurhivecough will probably say that capitalism is wrong because of sweatshops, coporations, etc. The problem with the third world is indeed Western Civ- not the prescence of Western Civ (democracy, capitalism), but rather the lack of Western Civ. Only countries which embrace democracy and capitalism can elevate themselves out of their current backwords culture and poverty. Considering that unemployment is one of the largest problems in the third world, more sweatshops means more job oppurtunities, meaning higher competition for workers, meaning improved wages and working conditions. Capitalism is like colonialism. It sucks for those who live during its development, but the end result is more than worth the struggle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have I really become that predictable? Oh well. Pk, you're right, the only way a third world non-industrialised country can raise themselves up is through capitalism, but making them merely an extension of US capitalism is not helping them. Sure they get paid, but it's not enough to live on, and anything they make leaves the country, thus making any money that those people make negated by the amount of good and services leaving the country. The only way that a country can help itself is by getting it's own citizens to create their own companies, and sweatchops do not help the people of a country with that, because the corpration owners in this country merely see the people as a renewable source of capitol, in the same way they saw the forests as a renewable source of capitol here in the states, and we all know how that would have turned out if the government hadn't stepped in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and if someone was planning on countering 'Its not human nature, its culture!', then why is it that in nearly EVERY culture that has ever exsisted, the sacrafice of one's self is considered the paramount action in terms of honor? I win, gg. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Many people would argue that spending all day in front of a computer screen isn't human nature, but that's whay many people on this board do a good amount of the time. Is spending one's entire day in a factory working for measly pay in dangerous conditions human nature? Yet that was considered quite normal in the early 20th century. Also, many people would argue that being homosexual is not human nature, but yet it is fast becoming a normal practice and accepted by society. Simply because something is "human nature" does not mean human nature cannot be changed.
This is precisely the discussion that i was looking for. it's been awhile since I've seen a rousing topic like this.
I'll start off by saying this: Communism is an amiable idea. Unfortunately, it can never truly exist. The idea of being in a commune and sharing all (I'm talking from a strictly Yippie sense here) is built upon a foundation of capitalism.
Another example are farmers: without capitalism, modern industrial-era farms would have no way of existing. With the growing population of the world, lack of industrialization and capital would lead to food shortages, an the eventual formation of an entire new bourgoise who control the food - it's simply human nature. I realize this is quite bleak-sounding and far-fetched, but I believe it would be precisely what happens if the entire country became communist.
More later <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Lets get it <b>on</b>!
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Dubbilex+Aug 16 2003, 02:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Aug 16 2003, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Another example are farmers: without capitalism, modern industrial-era farms would have no way of existing. With the growing population of the world, lack of industrialization and capital would lead to food shortages, an the eventual formation of an entire new bourgoise who control the food - it's simply human nature. I realize this is quite bleak-sounding and far-fetched, but I believe it would be precisely what happens if the entire country became communist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please explian the logic behind that statement, because I really don't know how you can jump to that conclusion.
an interesting thought: as soon as we have the resources to create computerized machines to perform ALL the basic, low-level tasks (such as farming, cleaning [which is easily feasible]), we can probably begin to consider such a utopia without menial labor.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dubbilex+Aug 16 2003, 07:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Aug 16 2003, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Another example are farmers: without capitalism, modern industrial-era farms would have no way of existing. With the growing population of the world, lack of industrialization and capital would lead to food shortages, an the eventual formation of an entire new bourgoise who control the food - it's simply human nature. I realize this is quite bleak-sounding and far-fetched, but I believe it would be precisely what happens if the entire country became communist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Untrue. Capitalism is what's causing starvation. Think of it! Farmers produce so much surplus, but because of the capitalist system they can only sell a fraction of it (or else there will be a huge supply and thus prices waay sink). If the govt oversaw the distribution of food, there would enough surplus to feed everyone in america 10x over (or maybe feed everyone in Africa)
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Aug 16 2003, 04:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Aug 16 2003, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Untrue. Capitalism is what's causing starvation. Think of it! Farmers produce so much surplus, but because of the capitalist system they can only sell a fraction of it (or else there will be a huge supply and thus prices waay sink). If the govt oversaw the distribution of food, there would enough surplus to feed everyone in america 10x over (or maybe feed everyone in Africa) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, the governments pay the farmers a huge share of their costs in subsidies, just to help the small-time farming industry survive and stay competitive (especially in Europe, where you would least expect it because of the socialist governments there). If no subsidies were paid, small-time farmers would collapse under the financial burden. You've got to store the crops, ship them, sell them at competitive prices, etc etc. While I'm sure that noncorporate farmers could survive, would you be willing to pay, say, $15 for a pound of beef (or head of cabbage), while a corporate-owned farm can sell you the same beef at say $2 a pound? I seriously doubt it. Actually, many governments actually pay farmers not to grow crops, because if everyone grew as many crops as they could, supply would far overreach demand, prices would plummet, and many farmers would be out of work. Sure, there would be enough food to feed the world, but would the people who need food be able to pay for it? Nope. And without enough pay, your farmer will be forced to shut down his operation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But that's where capitalism falls short, not everyone can gain. If you listen to the capitalists, everyone who works hard and tries hard enough can be rich, which is simply not true, not everyone can be rich. There will always be someone that has to clean the toilets of the guys in the mansions, there will always be an exploited lower class, that's the way capitalism works. That is simply the wrong way to do things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Capitalism isn't about everyone becoming rich. It's about everyone becoming rich*er*. While you can say that with capitalism the gap in wealth between the richest blahblahblah% of society vs the poorest blahblahblah% of society has widened, in terms of real wealth and purchasing power, everyone gains. I agree that communism in and of itself is a great system, but I think years of practical experience has taught us that the system is too exploitable, and basically calls for a suspension of reality to work.
Comments
as in NO DIVISION OF LABOR = owner of company gets same share as everyone else. or to be purly socialist about it company is owned by employees. (kinda like stock options just on a more equal basis)
so if the same doll in my f1rst examle was sold for $40 instead of $20 by a diffrent company the employees + owner would get $10 each instead of $5
ナイキ ダンク 上野 http://www.kaiho.or.jp/newshoe/nike2712481.html
Communism is a great idea, but it won't work because human nature prevents it. People are naturally interested in themselves. It is NOT the product of society, but rather of our animalistic routes. For communism to work, people must transcend their own human nature. For the majority of the populace, this is impossible. Communism sucks because it is never pure. People will always look for ways to exploit the system, which will essentially create a class system which communism attempted to eliminate.
Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes human nature's desire for self gain, and attempts to funnel it into a system in which all men can gain. Communism seeks to change human nature, an impossibility. Capitalism seeks to channel it into society for the gain of all.
Someone coughallurhivecough will probably say that capitalism is wrong because of sweatshops, coporations, etc. The problem with the third world is indeed Western Civ- not the prescence of Western Civ (democracy, capitalism), but rather the lack of Western Civ. Only countries which embrace democracy and capitalism can elevate themselves out of their current backwords culture and poverty. Considering that unemployment is one of the largest problems in the third world, more sweatshops means more job oppurtunities, meaning higher competition for workers, meaning improved wages and working conditions. Capitalism is like colonialism. It sucks for those who live during its development, but the end result is more than worth the struggle.
I'm also announcing I'm for Students Against Students Against Sweatshops! Details coming soon. :-)
Oh, and if someone was planning on countering 'Its not human nature, its culture!', then why is it that in nearly EVERY culture that has ever exsisted, the sacrafice of one's self is considered the paramount action in terms of honor? I win, gg.
Communism is a great idea, but it won't work because human nature prevents it. People are naturally interested in themselves. It is NOT the product of society, but rather of our animalistic routes. For communism to work, people must transcend their own human nature. For the majority of the populace, this is impossible. Communism sucks because it is never pure. People will always look for ways to exploit the system, which will essentially create a class system which communism attempted to eliminate.
Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes human nature's desire for self gain, and attempts to funnel it into a system in which all men can gain. Communism seeks to change human nature, an impossibility. Capitalism seeks to channel it into society for the gain of all.
Someone coughallurhivecough will probably say that capitalism is wrong because of sweatshops, coporations, etc. The problem with the third world is indeed Western Civ- not the prescence of Western Civ (democracy, capitalism), but rather the lack of Western Civ. Only countries which embrace democracy and capitalism can elevate themselves out of their current backwords culture and poverty. Considering that unemployment is one of the largest problems in the third world, more sweatshops means more job oppurtunities, meaning higher competition for workers, meaning improved wages and working conditions. Capitalism is like colonialism. It sucks for those who live during its development, but the end result is more than worth the struggle.
I'm also announcing I'm for Students Against Students Against Sweatshops! Details coming soon. :-)
Oh, and if someone was planning on countering 'Its not human nature, its culture!', then why is it that in nearly EVERY culture that has ever exsisted, the sacrafice of one's self is considered the paramount action in terms of honor? I win, gg. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jammer for governor.
But that's where capitalism falls short, not everyone can gain. If you listen to the capitalists, everyone who works hard and tries hard enough can be rich, which is simply not true, not everyone can be rich. There will always be someone that has to clean the toilets of the guys in the mansions, there will always be an exploited lower class, that's the way capitalism works. That is simply the wrong way to do things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Someone coughallurhivecough will probably say that capitalism is wrong because of sweatshops, coporations, etc. The problem with the third world is indeed Western Civ- not the prescence of Western Civ (democracy, capitalism), but rather the lack of Western Civ. Only countries which embrace democracy and capitalism can elevate themselves out of their current backwords culture and poverty. Considering that unemployment is one of the largest problems in the third world, more sweatshops means more job oppurtunities, meaning higher competition for workers, meaning improved wages and working conditions. Capitalism is like colonialism. It sucks for those who live during its development, but the end result is more than worth the struggle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have I really become that predictable? Oh well.
Pk, you're right, the only way a third world non-industrialised country can raise themselves up is through capitalism, but making them merely an extension of US capitalism is not helping them. Sure they get paid, but it's not enough to live on, and anything they make leaves the country, thus making any money that those people make negated by the amount of good and services leaving the country. The only way that a country can help itself is by getting it's own citizens to create their own companies, and sweatchops do not help the people of a country with that, because the corpration owners in this country merely see the people as a renewable source of capitol, in the same way they saw the forests as a renewable source of capitol here in the states, and we all know how that would have turned out if the government hadn't stepped in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and if someone was planning on countering 'Its not human nature, its culture!', then why is it that in nearly EVERY culture that has ever exsisted, the sacrafice of one's self is considered the paramount action in terms of honor? I win, gg. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many people would argue that spending all day in front of a computer screen isn't human nature, but that's whay many people on this board do a good amount of the time. Is spending one's entire day in a factory working for measly pay in dangerous conditions human nature? Yet that was considered quite normal in the early 20th century. Also, many people would argue that being homosexual is not human nature, but yet it is fast becoming a normal practice and accepted by society. Simply because something is "human nature" does not mean human nature cannot be changed.
I'll start off by saying this: Communism is an amiable idea. Unfortunately, it can never truly exist. The idea of being in a commune and sharing all (I'm talking from a strictly Yippie sense here) is built upon a foundation of capitalism.
Another example are farmers: without capitalism, modern industrial-era farms would have no way of existing. With the growing population of the world, lack of industrialization and capital would lead to food shortages, an the eventual formation of an entire new bourgoise who control the food - it's simply human nature. I realize this is quite bleak-sounding and far-fetched, but I believe it would be precisely what happens if the entire country became communist.
More later <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Lets get it <b>on</b>!
Please explian the logic behind that statement, because I really don't know how you can jump to that conclusion.
Untrue. Capitalism is what's causing starvation. Think of it! Farmers produce so much surplus, but because of the capitalist system they can only sell a fraction of it (or else there will be a huge supply and thus prices waay sink). If the govt oversaw the distribution of food, there would enough surplus to feed everyone in america 10x over (or maybe feed everyone in Africa)
Untrue. Capitalism is what's causing starvation. Think of it! Farmers produce so much surplus, but because of the capitalist system they can only sell a fraction of it (or else there will be a huge supply and thus prices waay sink). If the govt oversaw the distribution of food, there would enough surplus to feed everyone in america 10x over (or maybe feed everyone in Africa) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the governments pay the farmers a huge share of their costs in subsidies, just to help the small-time farming industry survive and stay competitive (especially in Europe, where you would least expect it because of the socialist governments there). If no subsidies were paid, small-time farmers would collapse under the financial burden. You've got to store the crops, ship them, sell them at competitive prices, etc etc. While I'm sure that noncorporate farmers could survive, would you be willing to pay, say, $15 for a pound of beef (or head of cabbage), while a corporate-owned farm can sell you the same beef at say $2 a pound? I seriously doubt it. Actually, many governments actually pay farmers not to grow crops, because if everyone grew as many crops as they could, supply would far overreach demand, prices would plummet, and many farmers would be out of work. Sure, there would be enough food to feed the world, but would the people who need food be able to pay for it? Nope. And without enough pay, your farmer will be forced to shut down his operation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But that's where capitalism falls short, not everyone can gain. If you listen to the capitalists, everyone who works hard and tries hard enough can be rich, which is simply not true, not everyone can be rich. There will always be someone that has to clean the toilets of the guys in the mansions, there will always be an exploited lower class, that's the way capitalism works. That is simply the wrong way to do things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Capitalism isn't about everyone becoming rich. It's about everyone becoming rich*er*. While you can say that with capitalism the gap in wealth between the richest blahblahblah% of society vs the poorest blahblahblah% of society has widened, in terms of real wealth and purchasing power, everyone gains. I agree that communism in and of itself is a great system, but I think years of practical experience has taught us that the system is too exploitable, and basically calls for a suspension of reality to work.