Discussion

[Zinn]

Slavery was a huge issue with the Romans. The huge slave-powered estates forced the smaller farmers into homelessness, because they couldn't compete with the low prices and quantity that the free labor of slaves provided. So, a large chunk of the Roman population was homeless and was forced to rely on welfare, which later contributed to the Roman collapse, after the Roman government could no longer pay to keep people distracted through bread and circuses, because the money was devalued due to mixing the silver with aluminum, because of a more limited silver supply. Wow, that was one hell of a run-on sentence. Anyway, that sounds sort of like smaller businesses competing with large, offshore businesses in modern times. Hmm.....

If the majority of the people want something, it doesn't mean that it is right. The states have the right to make decisions on all of the things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Equal rights for everyone is mentioned in the Constitution. The general population is not well informed. What valid legal reasons are there to ban gay marriage? You can't use religious reasons, and the 'slippery slope' argument is illogical, in addition to not having any legal ground.

How do you know they don't aim? I would like to counter that they do aim, since they have no other choice. As a guerilla fighting force, they have limited ammo. Your statement is merely speculation, unless you can prove otherwise.

They haven't found anything of value. Aluminum tubing isn't evidence of a bomb. Weapons grade uranium or plutonium is. There isn't any. Case closed. The US officially ceased the search for WMD's last week, finally admitting that there aren't any, but not apologizing for not checking the facts, and getting us into a pointless war.

They gave a medal to George Tenet, who said that the case for Iraqi WMD's was a slam dunk. He was completely and entirely wrong. He contributed to the Iraqi quagmire, and he has a medal. WTF, seriously? That doesn't even make sense.

[Valodya Bassarov]

Thankyou Zinn, that is actually the very argument put forth by Engels. In The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State, he argued in both Rome and Athens the working free could not compete with slave labor, which lead to a impoverished population and unproductive economy.

[Gunnar]

Well, Zinn you have proved to me that I am not well enough informed to run with this pack. I will continue to read but won't post anymore in the political discussions untill i'm more prepared, however, history is something i've studied, and the decline of rome to the beginning of the high middle ages is my favorite subject.

Slavery was an excepted fact in europe, untill, of course, the church decided that it was not alright to enslave other christians (wrong, i know, but that's the way things worked). However, slavery in the later years of Rome was not nearly as bad as in the early years. After they stupid it was to have armed slaves(the gladiators) in their empire, they began a new policy toward the various barbarians in which they only had to pay tribute for roman protection, such as in the case of gaul and certain goth tribes. However, there were still slaves, but freedom could be bought. It was not uncommon for a slave owner to marry his slave and thereby give her roman citizenship, and young male's could join the legions in certain casses, as did many barbarians, and through that gain citizenship.

The Key to Roman decline is an uncountable number of things in all fields. The fall of rome was like a decaying tree, and just like that tree, which will continue to stand years after it stops sprouting foilage, it took centruies before rome finaly collapsed under the weight of rot and filth.

Politicaly, the blame can be placed on weak and incompitant emporers, and the Roman vs. Roman conflicts after their deaths as legion generals tried to caputre the title for them selves, all of this could, of course, have been avoided, except for the fact that the Senate had lost all it's former glory and only lived to wallow in it's one decidance.

Militarily, the roman army was a relic, they continued to use the legion tactics even after it was obvious it couldn't stand to the fleety manuvers of Hunic horseback archers and the now equally well trained previously conquered barbarians. And after Aetius, credited as the Last true Roman, there were few leaders fitting to carry the eagle, ans so the armies sat on their haunches, slowly disentigrating.

The Christian church that found foundations under Constantine aslo can cary some blame. This is where Gibbons places a great deal of the blame, though during his time it was popular to bash the church so not altogether credible in that respect, but the Church was indeed no inocent in Rome's fall. It carred nothing for the state of the empire and only absorbed power, like a spunge, taking what was left of roman glory for it's own, finding new victims in the remanints of the Western Empire and the Franks in Gaul after Rome passed away.

Even the arts and sciences aided roman decline, for hundreds of years the romand road on the backs of poets and writers long in the grave, none trying to surpass these old masters, and though the romans learned the science of brain surgery first, no one elaborated on this untill the 1700's.

And as for my comment on them not aiming, this I have heard from many friends and relatives who have been over in Iraq, like I said, I live in the south and here most everyone, even those he thought the war was a dumb idea, take pride in our volunteers, on my road alone we have 15 people over in Iraq.

That is all I'll say for a while untill I have something I know is worth saying with somethign solid behind it, though, you have planted some doubt in my mind, Zinn, so I suppose that means you won the debate in my case.

[Valodya Bassarov]

I posted on the wrong thread to you Gunnar, but I thanked you for sharing your opinion since most conservatives on this rpg are reluctant to considering this rpg run by communists.

[Zinn]

Causing people to question their beliefs makes me feel all tingly.

[Calithin]

Alright, I suppose I'll just post my reply here then. Regretfully I cannot stay and argue with you all longer after this, but I must be going.

Anyway...

There are simply some things that people cannot, and will simply never be able to do. Like global communism, this will never happen. The countries of the world cannot even agree to stop attacking each other and you want them to all settle (and communism is settling on a grand scale) for one type of government. It's ridiculous. Even over looking the natural human incapacitation to work peacefully with one another. Honestly, certain places in the world are so far gone economically that both money and time would have to be spent to even bring them up to a workable standard. Why should the more advanced countries waste their own resources for the sake of another? When really we should be focusing on taking care (to a certain point) of our own people.

And yes, it is unrealistic that someday the people will have enough. Because just how I should apparently not define what is real, you should not define what is "enough." Enough is never enough quite frankly, people will always want more and feel stifled when such limitations to what they can and cannot have have are put forth, especially by their government. Atleast in capitalism they have a chance to define for themselves what is enough.

Now as most if not all Communists say the nature of capitalism is economic competition. But I think when you mention it it's supposed to be a taboo. So what if it is? Great advances in history have been made because of competition. Why do you insist on condemning it? Perhaps in time the competition does turn violent, but as you well know I am willing to accept that, in most part because the gain that comes from it out weighs the loss by far.

So it is true that most people die in the same class to which they are unfortunately born, but thats beside the point. Atleast they had some opportunity to become something greater in communism there is no greater. It's all one large blackhole of a class that no one can escape. You are the ones putting a cap on human potential, not us. The only reason there are but a few anomalies where people have gone from rags to riches is because the competition to get out of the lower class is extreme. And no, even then it would not work if everyone was rich, but who said the goal was to make everyone wealthy?

Also, capitalist economics economics are in reality very tuned in to human needs. Those being the needs of the corporation owners, but none the less. Who are you to judge what people need? Some need more than others, and within this system they have a chance to fill those needs.

By the by, have you ever thought that maybe it's a common argument that communism will fail because it's true?

In any case you can't say the Russian Revolution failed because the odds were against them. What new idea does not have a great deal to over come. Just for example take the American Revolution. Why did that revolution succeed and that of the Russians fail? The colonists here were unorganized, out matched, had fewer men and fewer weapons, lacked clear leadership and like Russia has people who doubted it from the inside. Yet they managed to defeat the world's greatest army (of the time). Despite everything they succeeded, and do you know why I think that is? They believed enough in what they were fighting for, and they unlike the Russian Communists had a good idea to base a revolution on to begin with. THEY were working towards a "realistic ideal." Not just the American Revolution succeeded, there have been countless others and you want me to believe Russia was the only country that got screwed that badly because they were "up against impossible odds." So look at America now, in spite of everything they had to over come it is the most prosperous and rich nation in the world.

And what is communism? Exactly what it was to begin with... a hopeless dream.

[Lady Violet]

This is more an argument about human nature than it is about communism or capitalism.

Communists believe that humans can flourish in the right conditions. That there is no such thing as human nature, or if there is, it is mostly good.

How you view humans and their capacity is the prime determiner in whether or not you accept communism.

[Zinn]

Well, if I were a communist, I would argue that human potential isn't necissarily an individual thing, and that an economic cap doesn't limit humans in any creative respect.

Personally, I believe that it is quite possible to achieve peace. While I don't believe that international communism is the answer, I do believe that ethnic/nationalistic violence is a learned behavior, and can be overcome.

I believe that people are naturally greedy. However, you'll notice that most religions and ethical systems contradict that. Therefore, I believe that one of the defining parts of human existance is resisting our own nature.

I'll add more tommorow.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

Moderator:

Ahem... Calithin, you are the master of getting a rise out of me, congratulations. However, if you continue in your condescending attitude, then I will play the role of the Stalinist and start deleting your posts arbitrarily.

Anyways...

Capitalism is the cause of war. There, I said it. So maybe this explains a little bit why these countries can't stop bickering with each other? And you can't draw an equals sign between the leadership of a country and the people of a country. Imperialist capitalists, and military dictators have very different end goals than say, a working class blue collar worker.

Aside from a few anomalies, economic inequality is what fosters crime. I think I've said this on this board about a thousand times now, but it's a well documented historical fact that the rate of crime is directly proportional to the rate of poverty. Which by extension means, when you raise the standard of living of the poor of the world, then the crime rate goes down accordingly.

Duh.

Other nations in the world are poor because countries like the United States sucks the cheap labor out of them until they're bled dry. Pakistan for example, their infrastructure is collapsing, and can't afford such basic elementary rights like public schools. When a kid heads to classroom which can't afford pencils, let alone text books, they're probably not going to get much out of it, and that Madrasa next door, set up and funded by groups like Al'Qaeda, looks a lot more appealing. Pakistan, a country that spends 80% of its annual income paying back the interest, just the interest, on its debt to the World Bank.

Now competition...

Sure great things have come out of competition, but what you can accomplish, and the gains that come out of cooperation are exponentially more rewarding, and concrete than the same gains made from competition. It's widely believed that Hitler would have had nuclear weapons before the allies had reached Berlin had their scientists not been divided into different camps, not sharing their research, and not working together.

That really makes me sound like a fascist, but you get my point. Why divide your resources when you can pool them and collectively learn, build, and gain a lot faster and efficiently than you ever would in a competitive environment.

You're right, the competition to get out of the lower class is intense. I really don't know what you're going for here, and I'm wondering if you're arguing for the simple fact of trying to get a rise out of myself or Bassarov, since the following statement doesn't really have much weight behind it-

Also, capitalist economics economics are in reality very tuned in to human needs. Those being the needs of the corporation owners, but none the less.

Thank you, that's my entire point.

Who are you to judge what people need? Some need more than others, and within this system they have a chance to fill those needs.

You're right, who is *any*one to judge what other people need? Who is Seventeen magazine to tell preteen girls that they always need to be on a diet and hate their bodies? Who is Microsoft to tell me that Windows is the end all, be all operating system that I will ever need? And who the f**k are all those cretins in the white house, republican and democrat alike, telling us that invading Iraq is what will help us end terrorism?

Socialism is not one person at the top deciding what's best for everyone, socialism is everyone deciding what's best for themselves. You're right, some people do need more than others. A person with a broken leg needs a wheelchair, a person with strep throat needs anti-biotics, a starving person needs food. It's not profitable to meet these needs under capitalism, therefore, they don't get met.

In any case you can't say the Russian Revolution failed because the odds were against them. What new idea does not have a great deal to over come. Just for example take the American Revolution. Why did that revolution succeed and that of the Russians fail? The colonists here were unorganized, out matched, had fewer men and fewer weapons, lacked clear leadership and like Russia has people who doubted it from the inside. Yet they managed to defeat the world's greatest army (of the time). Despite everything they succeeded, and do you know why I think that is? They believed enough in what they were fighting for, and they unlike the Russian Communists had a good idea to base a revolution on to begin with. THEY were working towards a "realistic ideal." Not just the American Revolution succeeded, there have been countless others and you want me to believe Russia was the only country that got screwed that badly because they were "up against impossible odds." So look at America now, in spite of everything they had to over come it is the most prosperous and rich nation in the world.

And as for this little piece of work, your revisionist history is comparable to Stalin's. Yes, the Russian Revolution failed because the odds were stacked against them. So much so, that the entire capitalist world united in opposition to them, and invaded, right after its conception. A little known war between the white and red armies, and how f**king dare you say that the Russians didn't know what they were fighting for when they fought off over a dozen industrialised capitalist nations, including the United States, in a war that would inevitably cripple the Russian economy, moreso than it already was.

The American revolution was a walk in the park compared to the Russian revolution. What made the American revolution succeed? Well, the Americans weren't sanctioned by the entire world, for one. Everyone in America was relatively well off already, Russia was a backwards country with over 80% of its population peasant based. Russia is a huge country, America had 13 piddly little colonies. And as you may or may not know, America didn't earn its superpower status until well after world war 2. The only nation who fought in ww2 whose homeland wasn't invaded was the United States. What a f**king surprise that their economy came out above everyone elses after the war.

[Zinn]

Mikhael said:

Moderator:

Ahem... Calithin, you are the master of getting a rise out of me, congratulations. However, if you continue in your condescending attitude, then I will play the role of the Stalinist and start deleting your posts arbitrarily.

Also moderator: I don't think he is just trying to get a rise out of you. Calithin, try to be less condecending please. This is your second warning.

Capitalism is the cause of war. There, I said it. So maybe this explains a little bit why these countries can't stop bickering with each other? And you can't draw an equals sign between the leadership of a country and the people of a country. Imperialist capitalists, and military dictators have very different end goals than say, a working class blue collar worker.

I think war is a pretty complicated issue for a concept that is based around beating the crap out of your opponent until someone says 'uncle' or is destroyed. I think that while capitalism has probably been the cause of most of our 20th century wars, nationalism, religion, racism, and all of the other lines we draw through learned behaviors. I don't think capitalism is the sole cause. If I were to lump the causes into one, I would say that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Yes, military dictators and imperialist capitalists have different goals than the average blue collar working, but that is because of their respective access to power, or lack thereof. Power corrupts... yeah, you know the rest. I've used it enough. I think if you took the average blue collar worker, and put him or her in charge of a country, she would do the exact same things a military dictator had, if she or he had access to the power. Being lower class doesn't make someone unselfish. It's just that when you don't have the money, and you don't know if you'll have enough money to feed the kids next week, you aren't going to be thinking about world conquest. It's simply a matter of priority based on need. Class is an illusion. We really are just a bunch of savages underneath. Either and extreme lack of privlege, or an excess just causes that to surface.

Aside from a few anomalies, economic inequality is what fosters crime. I think I've said this on this board about a thousand times now, but it's a well documented historical fact that the rate of crime is directly proportional to the rate of poverty. Which by extension means, when you raise the standard of living of the poor of the world, then the crime rate goes down accordingly.

I agree with you there.

Other nations in the world are poor because countries like the United States sucks the cheap labor out of them until they're bled dry. Pakistan for example, their infrastructure is collapsing, and can't afford such basic elementary rights like public schools. When a kid heads to classroom which can't afford pencils, let alone text books, they're probably not going to get much out of it, and that Madrasa next door, set up and funded by groups like Al'Qaeda, looks a lot more appealing. Pakistan, a country that spends 80% of its annual income paying back the interest, just the interest, on its debt to the World Bank.

Also true. I support the abolition of the World Bank. However, the World Bank is just an example of extreme, unchecked capitalism gone awry. The entire way they function is harmful. We need more regulation in place so that things like the World Bank can't exist. Partial socialization is one thing, but I think that the whole shebang, with pure socialism, is harmful to people's rights. I think having the government entirely in charge of the economy is just as dangerous as a laissez-faire attitude.

Sure great things have come out of competition, but what you can accomplish, and the gains that come out of cooperation are exponentially more rewarding, and concrete than the same gains made from competition. It's widely believed that Hitler would have had nuclear weapons before the allies had reached Berlin had their scientists not been divided into different camps, not sharing their research, and not working together.

And burning Albert Einstein's books. That probably set them back a bit. I dabble in art, and I agree with you. I don't write because I want money, and I don't take photographs because I want the sale. While many inventions were econonically motivated, I would like to argue that necessity and enjoyment are far greater motivators. I think if you asked most creators and inventors if they would do what they do if they didn't get any money for it, they would probably say they would do it anyway. Starving artist anyone? The cliche exists for a reason. The guys that built the first PC's did it for fun. Perhaps selfishness is a natural human trait, but there will always be those crazy genetic flukes that do things because they want to help people. Usually, people that are smart enough to create great things are smart enough to see that helping people, or having people see their art, is more important. I don't think creating while getting paid or creating while not getting paid is any more or less rewarding. I would do it either way, and so would many others.

That really makes me sound like a fascist, but you get my point. Why divide your resources when you can pool them and collectively learn, build, and gain a lot faster and efficiently than you ever would in a competitive environment.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with you here, because most of the people I know could care less about the things that you mentioned. They would rather do nothing but sit around and drink/smoke pot, and watch reality television. Many people, including myself would love to be in such an environment, but it simply doesn't work for everyone, in my experience. I attended a Montessori school when I lived in Michigan, and I learned more there than I did after two years of public school and four years of parochial school. I learned because I wanted to learn, I enjoy learning, and I don't deal with high-stress evironments very well. The system only works if people are willing to work, and given the option, most people would rather not, because other people who are more enthusiastic will work for them. The problem has riddled the kibbutzim, which are probably the closest working models of the end result of communism in the world.

You're right, the competition to get out of the lower class is intense. I really don't know what you're going for here, and I'm wondering if you're arguing for the simple fact of trying to get a rise out of myself or Bassarov, since the following statement doesn't really have much weight behind it-

Focusing on the needs of the minority is poor strategy.

You're right, who is *any*one to judge what other people need? Who is Seventeen magazine to tell preteen girls that they always need to be on a diet and hate their bodies? Who is Microsoft to tell me that Windows is the end all, be all operating system that I will ever need? And who the f**k are all those cretins in the white house, republican and democrat alike, telling us that invading Iraq is what will help us end terrorism?

I agree with Mischa, but I also disagree with him. Control is control, whether that control is designed to sell stuff, or to sell an idea.

Socialism is not one person at the top deciding what's best for everyone, socialism is everyone deciding what's best for themselves. You're right, some people do need more than others. A person with a broken leg needs a wheelchair, a person with strep throat needs anti-biotics, a starving person needs food. It's not profitable to meet these needs under capitalism, therefore, they don't get met.

Socialism is a government, albeit a government of like-minded individuals deciding what is best for the people until the people think the same way, so that a utopia can be achieved. Somewhere along the line, people have to un-learn the things that you believe are not inherent in humanity. Propoganda would be the easiest and most likely way to achieve that, or. in the more euphemistically friendly way that whoever is in charge uses the term, 're-education'. The people can decide what is best for themselves as long as what they want for themselves isn't more than what others want. I would hardly call that free. On the other hand, when people do get more, then the people who have less are entirely ignored and unrepresented. Either way, it isn't a win for freedom.

[Zinn]

In any case you can't say the Russian Revolution failed because the odds were against them. What new idea does not have a great deal to over come. Just for example take the American Revolution. Why did that revolution succeed and that of the Russians fail? The colonists here were unorganized, out matched, had fewer men and fewer weapons, lacked clear leadership and like Russia has people who doubted it from the inside. Yet they managed to defeat the world's greatest army (of the time). Despite everything they succeeded, and do you know why I think that is? They believed enough in what they were fighting for, and they unlike the Russian Communists had a good idea to base a revolution on to begin with. THEY were working towards a "realistic ideal." Not just the American Revolution succeeded, there have been countless others and you want me to believe Russia was the only country that got screwed that badly because they were "up against impossible odds." So look at America now, in spite of everything they had to over come it is the most prosperous and rich nation in the world.

It has nothing to do with odds. It is a simple matter of conditions. The Americans had a pretty prosperous system, and they didn't want to be taxed so much, even though they were taxed less than many of the other colonies. They also wanted free trade. The colonists were very well organized, and had well formed militias with a guerilla strategy that the British in their bright red jackets that basically screamed 'shoot me shoot me' couldn't match.

The Russians, on the other hand, had beets, vodka, and subzero weather. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but 19th and early 20th century Russia was a frozen, underdeveloped hole in the ground. The Russian army was an outdated pile of rust and horses. Russia only managed to defeat Napoleon because of Guerilla tactics and the weather. Up until Napoleon popped up, the Kremlin was MADE OF WOOD. What does that say about the country? When the revolution went down, people were starving to death en masse. The first government to seize control wasn't actually socialist. They were a bunch of disorganized supporters of democracy, that were booted out by the Bolsheviks because the Bolsheviks had a large chunk of the army behind them.

The American revolution didn't succed because of strength of ideology. They succeeded because they were more priveleged.

And as for this little piece of work, your revisionist history is comparable to Stalin's. Yes, the Russian Revolution failed because the odds were stacked against them. So much so, that the entire capitalist world united in opposition to them, and invaded, right after its conception. A little known war between the white and red armies, and how f**king dare you say that the Russians didn't know what they were fighting for when they fought off over a dozen industrialised capitalist nations, including the United States, in a war that would inevitably cripple the Russian economy, moreso than it already was.

The American revolution was a walk in the park compared to the Russian revolution. What made the American revolution succeed? Well, the Americans weren't sanctioned by the entire world, for one. Everyone in America was relatively well off already, Russia was a backwards country with over 80% of its population peasant based. Russia is a huge country, America had 13 piddly little colonies. And as you may or may not know, America didn't earn its superpower status until well after world war 2. The only nation who fought in ww2 whose homeland wasn't invaded was the United States. What a f**king surprise that their economy came out above everyone elses after the war.

Ummm... yeah. Since most of the Russian population was peasantry that couldn't even read, most of Russia didn't know about the revolution. Yes, strong ideology was involved, but most of the people of Russia could have cared less during the revolution. It takes a long time for news to travel in a country that didn't have a solid infrastructure at that point.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

Thanks for bringing another non-communist argument to the table by the way, Zinn, it's nice to hear other perspectives.

However, the Russian revolution was lost without the peasantry, there was no way they could fight off the entire world without the help of 80-90% of the population, and yes, the peasants fought on the side of the red army. The Bolsheviks promised them land reform, and after the revolution, they couldn't keep their promise, but nevertheless, the peasants fought the white army.

((Oh wait, you posted twice, this was to your second post))

((And I have an anti-war rally to go to, so I will respond to your second post later tonight))

[Zinn]

Hmm, I read that the Bolsheviks came to power because they had the backing of a lot of the actual military, in which case peasant support wouldn't really be necissary. I will go and check my sources. Sorry about the double post, but apparently my post was too long, and it wouldn't let me post it all at once.

Have fun at the rally.

[Calithin]

I am sorry then in advance if I happen to sound condescending in this. I can assure you it's not on purpose, but when you get use to something it's semi-pointless to break away from it for one little argument. I will work on it though, as much as possible. But for the record I am still being condescending and very patronizing on the inside.

Right so...

One, I am not saying the world needs to stay exactly as it is. I am as much for raising the living standard as anyone. I only disagree about how it is to be done. I don't think we need Communism to do this at all. Capitalism will work just as well, it is only in a slump at the moment and it is easy to kick something when it's down (as you said about the Russians). But I do think that it will happen eventually within this system, as soon as we get another war under way that is. Like I said earlier, I think it will be worth it, some give for the gain of many. It's how it is.

Now, Pakistan (and the alike) years ago should have taken the initiative to insure that countries such as the United States and those in Europe did not exploit them. It is after all the responsibility of a nation's leader to look after the well being of their country and the fair treatment of it's people (if they do not well then the people picked a poor leader they bloody deserve it). You cannot blame the other nations for looking after themselves and taking advantage of another weaker country that did not see the same opportunity and ended up in that weak state. Conclusively, it is there own fault they are exploited and in such bad shape. I say; kudos to the superior exploiters.

Taking a side step in this back to Russia... If they didn't let themselves fall into communist rule to begin with and stuck capitalism out, then played WW2 well they would be in much better shape. Survival of the fittest, in this case referring to intelligence. Again, you can't blame the other countries of the world for joining together (was the greatness of teamwork not mentioned)? against them to protect their own life styles from the "communist threat" and defend their own governments. People tend to attack what they think challenges what they are use to. It's my belief that many of whats wrong with nations today branches out greatly from their own poor choices. Not entirely I will admit, but greatly.

Going back to competition. True, a great deal can be accomplished through teamwork, but never is everyone in the "team" as good as another. The lazy have a tendency to rely on the natural workers but take the credit and reap the spoils anyway and that really defeats the purpose. Now in competition the naturally gifted can take credit for their own accomplishments and it also helps to weed out the weak and unnecessary. I cannot help but think communism is out to make a person feel ashamed for being better, perhaps even the best. It's like your taking away people's motivation to succeed, I mean really whats the point if you don't do any better than anyone else? And please don't say that the motivation is to help others because that is very poor motivation. I would do nothing if thats all I had to go on.

Lastly I would like to try and move away from the negativity of my posts for a bit since I know they are very "communism would never work because of...." And such. So how about why capitalism is better (in my opinion that is, see I am working on it).

Anyway, you have to admit that capitalism to date has worked far better than any system that has had freedom integrated within it. Free market economies, such as those that Capitalism allows grow organically and openly. Communist economics need never ending attention because those people that live under those communist systems want to break away from it to such a degree that it needs to be constantly watched. Furthermore, communism is one huge monopoly and the government is Mr.Money Bags, I would feel choked if my government had that much control over me. True people need to be controlled, but it needs to be subtle and not to that degree. Also, In a capitalist system, people do not have to go to the government every time they want to open up a shop they don't have to justify it on the basis of public benefit, if a person wants to open a business they get a licensee and thats it, your allowed to negotiate yourself into the system. It actually makes it more efficient than centrally planned economies. I know a lot of people argue that capitalism is better because it provides such great opportunity's, but it really does. A capitalist system is one of an economy based on negotiated compromise. The whole system requires compromise and in that way it is self-maintaining, as this compromise comes from everyone's attempts to do the same within their overlapping influence. And all in all capitalism is just easier. Not only does communism require all countries to have the same government and a close watch to be maintained on those people within that government but it is unnecessarily complicated. Capitalism does not require all to have the same government which is easier and it allows other countries the freedom to not participate (though it is wiser to) it is self-maintaining as I have said, and all it needs is the occasional war. Small price to pay for grand opportunity, simplicity, freedom, and of course the wonderful fact that you can be better than someone else and be paid for it.

[Zinn]

Calithin said:

I am sorry then in advance if I happen to sound condescending in this. I can assure you it's not on purpose, but when you get use to something it's semi-pointless to break away from it for one little argument. I will work on it though, as much as possible. But for the record I am still being condescending and very patronizing on the inside.

I don't think you understand the point. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to insult other people's opinions.

One, I am not saying the world needs to stay exactly as it is. I am as much for raising the living standard as anyone. I only disagree about how it is to be done. I don't think we need Communism to do this at all. Capitalism will work just as well, it is only in a slump at the moment and it is easy to kick something when it's down (as you said about the Russians). But I do think that it will happen eventually within this system, as soon as we get another war under way that is. Like I said earlier, I think it will be worth it, some give for the gain of many. It's how it is.

Capitalism isn't designed to solve social ills. Wars do not solve social ills. We are in an economic slump because of recent wars. Capitalism never has and never will solve social ills. Communism is designed with the intention. Whether it actually works or not is another matter. If you can explain to me how capitalism, which has been around for thousands of years, is suddenly going to do what it hasn't done yet, my ears are open. On the other hand, I agree that socialism isn't a quick fix, and many of our current social ills would probably continue to exist.

Now, Pakistan (and the alike) years ago should have taken the initiative to insure that countries such as the United States and those in Europe did not exploit them. It is after all the responsibility of a nation's leader to look after the well being of their country and the fair treatment of it's people (if they do not well then the people picked a poor leader they bloody deserve it). You cannot blame the other nations for looking after themselves and taking advantage of another weaker country that did not see the same opportunity and ended up in that weak state. Conclusively, it is there own fault they are exploited and in such bad shape. I say; kudos to the superior exploiters.

You can hold people accountable for exploitation. Exploitation is entirely the fault of the perpetrator. That is like saying that if I trick someone into eating dog feces, it is the persons fault and not mine. Countries that are horribly in debt borrow from the World Bank as a quick fix to feed their people. Unfortunately, things almost always get worse after that. However, there is nothing that the countries can do, due to high interest rates. The World Bank isn't a nation anyway. It is a corporation, and since it is an American based company, it should be America's job to keep that company from doing bad things. By your logic, three year olds should still be carrying coal in coal mines because they are small and easily exploited. It is America, and other more powerful countries' responsibility to be responsible and to help smaller countries deal with problems like starvation and disease, because those countries do not have the natural resources and economy to take care of their own people. Besides, not everyone gets to pick their leader. In fact, most of those tiny countries that the World Bank exploits are harsh military dicatorships. Being in a position of power entails responsibility.

Taking a side step in this back to Russia... If they didn't let themselves fall into communist rule to begin with and stuck capitalism out, then played WW2 well they would be in much better shape. Survival of the fittest, in this case referring to intelligence. Again, you can't blame the other countries of the world for joining together (was the greatness of teamwork not mentioned)? against them to protect their own life styles from the "communist threat" and defend their own governments. People tend to attack what they think challenges what they are use to. It's my belief that many of whats wrong with nations today branches out greatly from their own poor choices. Not entirely I will admit, but greatly.

Actually, the country was greatly modernized under Communism, and became a world power, which would never have happened under the czars. I don't know what you mean by intellegence. Are you implying that an entire country is stupid? That doesn't have any bearing in reality, especially since the Russians beat America in some technological advancements. What threat? Russia never attacked anyone. They did funnel funds to communist revolutionaries in other countries, but the Americans did the same. In fact, during America's strategy of funding anyone who was anti-soviet, America trained Osama Bin Laden, and gave weapons to Saddam Hussein. History does come back to bite us in the arse, but not in the way you describe it. The Soviet Union did quite well in World War II. They gained half of Europe, and became a world power. 'The nations of the World'? You mean NATO? They were all European and North American countries. I would hardly call that 'the nations of the world'.