It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
monkeydelarge: Actually, humans survived to today because of socialism. Humans decided a long time ago, it would be better if they all worked together in tribes instead of being enemies of each other so they could try to live in more fancy caves and own more fancy caveman material possessions. Letting other people from your tribe starve to death and die while your family has all the food is not smart. Because division of labor is necessary for a tribe to become stronger. And there is strength in numbers. Something that is important if your tribe is attacked by an army of psychopaths or desperate people. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Everyone has something to offer to their tribe. So from a cold calculating point of view, letting those who can't feed themselves die is not letting the useless be removed from your tribe. And when people are starving to death, they become desperate and will try to take the food from you with the use of violence. Sure, if you are armed and trained, you could defend yourself for some time but eventually they will win because they outnumber you. Is it really a good idea to force people who could be your fellow tribesmen into trying to kill you and your loved ones? People can't afford to have morals when they and their loved ones are dying. And greed is bad for people's life time security because one day, people may be able to accumulate as much food as possible but then one day, misfortune happens and those people are unable to accumulate anymore food. For example, the provider of a family could suffer a hunting accident. Then his wound becomes infected and he dies. And because of this family's "I got mine, fuck you" mentality, nobody outside the family will want to help them when they are starving to death or this family might be alone because everyone else in their tribe died off. If most of the ancestors of people today lived in tribes that thought "greed is good", humanity would of become extinct a long time ago. OR we would still be living in caves, living really shitty and short lives. There is a reason why most people are capable of being altruistic even though the people in power do everything to destroy this inside of us because it doesn't serve them.

And if you look closely at a family unit. You see that there is socialism taking place inside a family unit. And there is a reason why... Because socialism works and benefits everyone. If the provider of the family, the father and husband, lets his wife and kids starve to death, because "I got mine, fuck you", how long before this family ceases to be a family? Then, there was basically no point for the father and husband to start a family. And he helped bring children into the world and cursed them to live a horrible shitty life full of suffering. Not a very nice thing to do to innocent human beings that only exist because of your actions... And of course, nobody is responsible for people who are not their children but that doesn't justify a "greed is good and fuck everyone else" mentality.

It is kind of funny that people who are conservatives today, love capitalism and hate socialism but have no problem with socialism when it comes to their families. This just shows, "conservatives" have been brainwashed to hate socialism because that is what the people in power want. OR they are one of the few people who benefit from the current way of things so they want it continue. OR they just despise everyone who is not family. The people in power want this, so they don't have to spend most of the tax dollars on people but instead spend it on shit that benefits them. :) Because the people in power, see those who have less power as garbage and a threat. They want us to constantly fight for our lives so we are too busy doing that instead of focusing on how bad we are getting fucked over.
But things are so bad today, in most countries, all it takes is an hour of clear and intelligent thinking to realize, you are getting fucked over by those who really have it good.
avatar
shoveling: lol...

Capitalism is the way of the universe and responsible for almost all technology.

Sharing in small groups is hardly socialism, but those who agree with that definition, who are against socialism, admit that it is fine for small groups, but not as a system of government.

Socialism retards the growth of technology, by requiring an inventive mind to do work, a number of times extra, equal to the entire population, just for extra working materials. It rewards laziness by giving an equal share to those that do nothing.

The negative effects of socialism are directly related to ones ability to affect the average of goods, which decreases with an increase in population.

Almost every complaint about capitalism is something caused by government, and not capitalism. The "big evil corporation" is usually caused by regulating the competition out of existence. Capitalism does not cause banks to give out stupid loans, just as you do not naturally loan money to strangers in the dark as a way to make money, lol.

Marxism is probably responsible for the majority of all murders in the 20th century. Word.
LOL

"About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often." from http://www.poverty.com/

And people who are "lazy" are just people who have health problems or mental problems or can't get a job. So better these innocent people are "rewarded" with basic necessities than die or live a miserable existence. The word "lazy" should be removed from the English dictionary because the truth is, there is no such thing as a "lazy" person. It is a word, people like you invented to help them win arguments and demonize people.
Post edited October 29, 2015 by monkeydelarge
avatar
monkeydelarge:
avatar
shoveling: Marxism is probably responsible for the majority of all murders in the 20th century. Word.
No sorry. That would be religion. :D
avatar
jamyskis: an employer who refuses to let an employee pick up their child from school so that the manager can meet their profit targets. Or the bank employee who, under pressure to meet profit targets from their manager, manipulates a customer into buying something they don't need.
avatar
JudasIscariot: An employer who refuses to let an employee pick up their child from school can face severe legal consequences in most countries. I am not sure of the rules on this offhand but I know that that some sort of protection for the employee exists in a capitalist system.

The bank employee scenario can easily be avoided by the customer standing firm and saying "NO!" every once in a while as you are always going to have people attempting to manipulate you into something you don't need. See just about every department store clerk :) It's called "sales", it's done everywhere, and the onus of responsibility lies on the consumer to prevent themselves being manipulated by a savvy clerk or sales employee.

Also, under a capitalist system the aforementioned employee with the child has the choice of changing jobs if they find the employer to be unbearable.
capitalism doesn't necessarily provide those protections. rather government does. countries with more ingrained capitalist values tend to have higher turnover rates that succumb more easily to market pressure.

capitalism affords no rights whatsoever. it is government and society which does this. if a country was all about capitalism, it would have no laws that contradict profit or stakeholders of any such assets in any way.
avatar
JudasIscariot: An employer who refuses to let an employee pick up their child from school can face severe legal consequences in most countries. I am not sure of the rules on this offhand but I know that that some sort of protection for the employee exists in a capitalist system.

The bank employee scenario can easily be avoided by the customer standing firm and saying "NO!" every once in a while as you are always going to have people attempting to manipulate you into something you don't need. See just about every department store clerk :) It's called "sales", it's done everywhere, and the onus of responsibility lies on the consumer to prevent themselves being manipulated by a savvy clerk or sales employee.

Also, under a capitalist system the aforementioned employee with the child has the choice of changing jobs if they find the employer to be unbearable.
avatar
johnnygoging: capitalism doesn't necessarily provide those protections. rather government does. countries with more ingrained capitalist values tend to have higher turnover rates that succumb more easily to market pressure.

capitalism affords no rights whatsoever. it is government and society which does this. if a country was all about capitalism, it would have no laws that contradict profit or stakeholders of any such assets in any way.
That's why I mentioned laws that protect the worker in the first place :) I never stated that capitalism provides any sort of protection :)
low rated
avatar
shoveling: Marxism is probably responsible for the majority of all murders in the 20th century. Word.
avatar
tinyE: No sorry. That would be religion. :D
Not even religion comes close to capitalism.
avatar
tinyE: No sorry. That would be religion. :D
avatar
monkeydelarge: Not even religion comes close to capitalism.
Ummmm yeah. Okay. Whatever you say. XD
avatar
monkeydelarge: LOL

"About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often." from http://www.poverty.com/

And people who are lazy are just people who have health problems or mental problems or can't get a job. So better these innocent people are "rewarded" with basic necessities than die or live a miserable existence.
Like this type of hunger? You know, the kind caused by socialist regimes exterminating people wholesale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Or what about this type of hunger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Can you name a "capitalist" country that has ever done anything similar to this, on such a huge scale?
low rated
avatar
monkeydelarge: LOL

"About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often." from http://www.poverty.com/

And people who are lazy are just people who have health problems or mental problems or can't get a job. So better these innocent people are "rewarded" with basic necessities than die or live a miserable existence.
avatar
TARFU: Like this type of hunger? You know, the kind caused by socialist regimes exterminating people wholesale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Or what about this type of hunger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Can you name a "capitalist" country that has ever done anything similar to this, on such a huge scale?
This is basically a straw man argument. You are trying to attack socialism by attacking all the evil shit the Soviet Union and China did, which have nothing to do with socialism. That is like saying, PC gaming is evil because in the past, some PC gamers went on a shooting rampage. I never said, without capitalism, there will never be people doing evil shit to other people.
Post edited October 29, 2015 by monkeydelarge
avatar
johnnygoging: capitalism doesn't necessarily provide those protections. rather government does. countries with more ingrained capitalist values tend to have higher turnover rates that succumb more easily to market pressure.

capitalism affords no rights whatsoever. it is government and society which does this. if a country was all about capitalism, it would have no laws that contradict profit or stakeholders of any such assets in any way.
avatar
JudasIscariot: That's why I mentioned laws that protect the worker in the first place :) I never stated that capitalism provides any sort of protection :)
oh ok I haven't been following the thread that far. sorry. in pretty much all cases, capitalist countries tend to have more liberal and fair societies. so there's overlap, but it's not a part of capitalism's MO. it's just that the only other types of societies you usually see usually are really oppressive.
avatar
TARFU: Like this type of hunger? You know, the kind caused by socialist regimes exterminating people wholesale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Or what about this type of hunger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Can you name a "capitalist" country that has ever done anything similar to this, on such a huge scale?
avatar
monkeydelarge: This is basically a straw man argument. You are trying to attack socialism by attacking all the evil shit the Soviet Union and China did, which have nothing to do with socialism.
Negative, ghostrider. The direct cause of the evil was socialism, a system of governance that has failed time and time again and is rotten to the very core.
avatar
shoveling: Marxism is probably responsible for the majority of all murders in the 20th century. Word.
avatar
monkeydelarge: LOL

"About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often." from http://www.poverty.com/

And people who are "lazy" are just people who have health problems or mental problems or can't get a job. So better these innocent people are "rewarded" with basic necessities than die or live a miserable existence. The word "lazy" should be removed from the English dictionary because the truth is, there is no such thing as a "lazy" person. It is a word, people like you invented to help them win arguments.
So, no one is lazy and hunger is somehow related to murder... cool story bro.

Sounds like you have been eating corn from the same Jeb Bush diapers as Karl Rove.
avatar
shoveling: Marxism is probably responsible for the majority of all murders in the 20th century. Word.
avatar
tinyE: No sorry. That would be religion. :D
Marxism is religion.
Post edited October 29, 2015 by shoveling
low rated
avatar
monkeydelarge: This is basically a straw man argument. You are trying to attack socialism by attacking all the evil shit the Soviet Union and China did, which have nothing to do with socialism.
avatar
TARFU: Negative, ghostrider. The direct cause of the evil was socialism, a system of governance that has failed time and time again and is rotten to the very core.
Not at all. The Holodomor was Josef Stalin's way of dealing with people he saw as a threat. Because he was a bad guy, he dealt with the people he saw as a threat in a very cold blooded way. So because Josef Stalin was a bad guy, socialism is evil? Because there were some bad people who lived and who are living today, socialism is evil? I don't think so. Capitalists deal with threats too and sometimes in ways that would probably even be too evil for Josef Stalin. And because of the nature of capitalism, capitalists do evil shit, not only to deal with people who are a threat but to also profit.

Socialism has never failed and is not rotten to the core. Capitalism on the other hand, has failed time and time again and is rotten to the very core. Just because capitalism has been allowed to keep existing for a long time, doesn't mean it hasn't been failing time and time again.
Post edited October 29, 2015 by monkeydelarge
avatar
tinyE: No sorry. That would be religion. :D
avatar
shoveling: Marxism is religion.
Now that is an interesting point! I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I do; problem is it's a little on the deep side and I'm half asleep right now. :P

Shit, you could probably write 1000 books on that discussion alone. :D
avatar
TARFU: Negative, ghostrider. The direct cause of the evil was socialism, a system of governance that has failed time and time again and is rotten to the very core.
avatar
monkeydelarge: Not at all. The Holodomor was Josef Stalin's way of dealing with people he saw as a threat. Because he was a bad guy, he dealt with the people he saw as a threat in a very cold blooded way. So because Josef Stalin was a bad guy, socialism is evil? Because there were some bad people who lived and who are living today, socialism is evil? I don't think so. Capitalists deal with threats too and sometimes in ways that would probably even be too evil for Josef Stalin.

Socialism has never failed and is not rotten to the core. Capitalism on the other hand, has failed time and time again and is rotten to the very core. Just because capitalism has been allowed to keep existing for a long time, doesn't mean it hasn't been failing time and time again.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, I think someone like Judas (who has been replying to you in this thread) who has actually lived under the boot heel of socialism would know quite a bit about it and if he says it's bad it's most likely bad.

This all reminds me of Westerners who have these romantic ideas of third world countries (the "Darjeeling Limited" mindset), but when you talk to people who were raised in third world countries and who escaped to a Western country, they are fortunate to have gotten away from there (third world country).
avatar
shoveling: Marxism is religion.
avatar
tinyE: Now that is an interesting point! I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I do; problem is it's a little on the deep side and I'm half asleep right now. :P

Shit, you could probably write 1000 books on that discussion alone. :D
Ya, but the good news is that I was not disagreeing with you. YAY!

The Internet: we just did it right.