Any Leftist 'Radicals' Here?

[AlanGurvey]

Communists don't like that other people are more successful than they are, and want to bring them down to their own level.

Refering to your opponent's opinions as Childish gets you no where in a debate.

 

[AlanGurvey]

. It is communism that looked at Capitalism and had an inspiration to fix the misery and sorrow caused by capitalism, unfortunatly the cure was worse than the problem it was supposed to fix.

Only rightist Communism has produced problems for the people...



I fail to see how Marxism in its purity or Spartacism is 'worse' than Capitalism.

 

[Borealis]

It is certainly nice to have all those things, however I believe that CCGirl is refering more to power than some degree of wealth. The power and freedom that comes from owning the place where you work, the power and freedom that comes from being a part of community which makes it's own destiny, which charts it's own course. Strange that most people with a nice home and nice cars and half a dozen credit cards can hardly imagine such a world.

In a communist society, I might still be a piano teacher, but I wouldn't be an independent teacher with my own music school. I'd have to work for the state instead. So how is that freedom? I don't have a school of my own yet, but I have the chance to do so. Or, if I want, I can do something entirely different. It's up to me. In a communist society, you don't have the option.

I also disagree with you when you say Capitalism was born of Inspiration,

I didn't say it was born, I said it IS born, as in it springs forth from the inspiration of others to succeed. The mentality of capitalism is positive, communism is negative.

it was born of the desire for wealth and success and security and even greed. It is communism that looked at Capitalism and had an inspiration to fix the misery and sorrow caused by capitalism, unfortunatly the cure was worse than the problem it was supposed to fix.

We now have our nominee for the biggest understatement of the day.

Fortunatly the most peoples understand that there is a third path, one which balances the desire to make this a better world with the desire to generate wealth. A blend of Capitalism and Communism which we know today as Socialism.

Socialism is not better. If it was possible to institute a socialism that was static and could not drift toward totalitarianism, then that would be alright. However, human beings being what they are, it's simply not possible. Look at countries that have a socialist bent and observe just how intrusive the government really is. It's been said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation (to justify all sorts of immoral behavior), yet apparently the same people believe the government has its place in every other aspect of human existence. And as it grows, it takes away more and more of our freedom and our ability to choose and even think for ourselves.

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Safety has now determined that store employees are utter morons and have to be taught not to use a garbage compacter or cardboard baler when someone is inside it or when the door is open. It's beyond idiocy, and yet it's not government policy. Just how stupid are we supposed to be? But that's what you get when the government becomes all-encompassing.

 

[Borealis]

For the rest of the world, yes indeed.

Define 'the rest of the world.' The Middle East? That's a region flooded with economic opportunity. Economic dictators have prevented the people from sharing in the bounty to prevent them from being free to choose for themselves. Central Africa? Again, petty dictators have destroyed what economic opportunities were there. Zimbabwe used to be a relative economic powerhouse in Africa; Mugabe fixed that nicely, and it's an economic wasteland now.

In fact, the only societies in the world where people DO achieve even modest success are capitalist ones. Even socialist nations like Sweden and Canada have the greatest success from capitalism, not government intervention.

 

[Borealis]

Refering to your opponent's opinions as Childish gets you no where in a debate.

Where did I use the word 'childish?' If an accurate description bothers you, that's not my problem. I described it in plain terms for what it is: class envy. Even its proponents recognize its fundamental principle. It's not equality for the masses, it's destruction of the ruling class. Tear them down to bring yourself up. Except that it doesn't work that way, as was proven time and time again in the 20th century.

 

[ACougar]

In a communist society, I might still be a piano teacher, but I wouldn't be an independent teacher with my own music school. I'd have to work for the state instead.

In a true communist society there would be no State. That's the irony here, communism completly and fully executed eliminates government completly.

So how is that freedom? I don't have a school of my own yet, but I have the chance to do so. Or, if I want, I can do something entirely different. It's up to me. In a communist society, you don't have the option.

I don't know that you wouldn't have that option. If the community decided it wanted to support a piano teacher, they might build a school and cooperate with you to insure that your needs were met as well as the needs of the community which would benefit from having access to piano lessons.

I didn't say it was born, I said it IS born, as in it springs forth from the inspiration of others to succeed. The mentality of capitalism is positive, communism is negative.

You've assigned those values to Capitalism and Communism, however I believe that each has positive and negative aspects. Pure capitalism if allowed to run to long would result in a few people having control over almost all wealth. Even when Capitalism is heavily influenced by socialism as it is in the U.S. and Canada we have corperations with economies larger than Denmark, Poland and South Africa. Companies like Walmart, which force smaller bussinesses out and which drive saleries and benefits down. It creates a jungle environemnt where the strong survive and the weak are lucky to become peasants of thier new corperate feudal masters.

Socialism is not better. If it was possible to institute a socialism that was static and could not drift toward totalitarianism, then that would be alright. However, human beings being what they are, it's simply not possible.

For a people/government to say, we are going to ensure that everyone has access to the education resources they need to be successful, health care, that children will have enough food and clothing and shelter to be able to take advantage of education. If the government makes maximum opportuinity for success it's social mission, then it is in my opinion a socialist government.

Look at countries that have a socialist bent and observe just how intrusive the government really is. It's been said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation (to justify all sorts of immoral behavior), yet apparently the same people believe the government has its place in every other aspect of human existence.

The ideal government in my opinion would maximize opportunity for all it's citizens, manage necessary infrastructure required for maximum success, protect the environment for future generations and protect it's citizens from violence. If people want moral direction let them go thier churches, if people want better work conditions let them form a Union.

And as it grows, it takes away more and more of our freedom and our ability to choose and even think for ourselves.

There are some problems government is most suited to fixing, there are others government is not most suited to fixing. Government is by it's nature a slede hammer and usuitible for many jobs just a sledgehammer would be unsuitable for hanging a picture.

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Safety has now determined that store employees are utter morons and have to be taught not to use a garbage compacter or cardboard baler when someone is inside it or when the door is open. It's beyond idiocy, and yet it's not government policy. Just how stupid are we supposed to be? But that's what you get when the government becomes all-encompassing.

It shouldn't be government, this sort of thing should be decided by employess and owners of the store.

 

[jgarden]

..........Socialism is not better. If it was possible to institute a socialism that was static and could not drift toward totalitarianism, then that would be alright. However, human beings being what they are, it's simply not possible. Look at countries that have a socialist bent and observe just how intrusive the government really is. It's been said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation (to justify all sorts of immoral behavior), yet apparently the same people believe the government has its place in every other aspect of human existence. And as it grows, it takes away more and more of our freedom and our ability to choose and even think for ourselves.
..........

List of countries by Human Development Index

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Australia
4 Luxembourg
5 Canada
6 Sweden
7 Switzerland
8 Ireland
9 Belgium
10 United States

1.The first 9 countries that rank above the US are all "socialist" by American standards. Which of the first 9are considered totalitarion?

2. America has the highest concentration of wealth of modern democracies 1% of the population controls approximately 33% of the nations wealth.

 

[Borealis]

List of countries by Human Development Index

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Australia
4 Luxembourg
5 Canada
6 Sweden
7 Switzerland
8 Ireland
9 Belgium
10 United States

1.The first 9 countries that rank above the US are all "socialist" by American standards. Which of the first 9are considered totalitarion?

Did I say they were totalitarian? No, I didn't, so kindly don't pretend otherwise. All of those countries ahead of the US have a more pervasive government that takes on more and more responsibility for the lives of the citizenry, whether they want it or not. Canada has been extraordinarily guilty of this in the past few decades thanks to the influence of one Pierre Elliot Trudeau. In time, such government intervention will become totalitarian in nature, whether it be a benevolent dictatorship or not.

2. America has the highest concentration of wealth of modern democracies 1% of the population controls approximately 33% of the nations wealth.

Impressive. That means that 99% of the American population controls approximately 67% of the nation's wealth.

Now take a look at the communist countries. How much of the wealth of China is controlled by the top 1% of the nation? Close to 100%, isn't it? How about North Korea, or Cuba? Do the bottom 99% come even close to controlling 67% of their country's economic prosperity? And don't even try pretending that all the people control the wealth of their nations if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion. Outside of the inner circle of leadership, nobody gets a piece of the pie unless it's doled out.

More importantly, how much of the nation's wealth is controlled by the government? In capitalist societies, it's a hell of a lot less than the communists control.

Notice the difference in our approach to it: you say that 1% controls a third, I say that 99% controls two-thirds. From your perspective, the economic glass is one-third empty; I say it's two-thirds full. See what I mean about the difference in attitudes? Communism is born of the envious mentality. Instead of judging your success based on what other people are doing, base it on your own goals. If I'm not happy with where I am in my life, it's not because Ted Rogers is a billionaire who owns a baseball team and I don't. It's because I haven't achieved the goals I've set for myself. But I will, because I believe in my goals, I believe in what I'm doing, and I'm willing to do what it takes to succeed.

 

[Gracchus]

Notice the difference in our approach to it: you say that 1% controls a third, I say that 99% controls two-thirds. From your perspective, the economic glass is one-third empty; I say it's two-thirds full. See what I mean about the difference in attitudes? Communism is born of the envious mentality. Instead of judging your success based on what other people are doing, base it on your own goals. If I'm not happy with where I am in my life, it's not because Ted Rogers is a billionaire who owns a baseball team and I don't. It's because I haven't achieved the goals I've set for myself. But I will, because I believe in my goals, I believe in what I'm doing, and I'm willing to do what it takes to succeed.

But of course if 5% of the population controls 50% of the nation's wealth, then 95% of the population controls 50% of the nation's wealth, and if 10% of the population controls 66% of the nation's wealth then 90% of the population controls 33% of the nation's wealth, and if 25% of the populations controls 75% of the nation's wealth, then 75% of the population controls 25% of the nation's wealth, and if 30% of the population controls 90% of the nation's wealth then 70% of the population controls 10% of the nation's wealth. And it is possible that all of the above figures could be accurate. No one figure gives an accurate picture.

Google, for instance "Gini coefficient",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index#Calculation
or "Lorenz Curve".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve

As my grandfather used to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 

[nvxplorer]

Notice the difference in our approach to it: you say that 1% controls a third, I say that 99% controls two-thirds.

Yep, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the top 5% control 59% of the wealth (68% of financial wealth). Looking at it this way - which is the only way to get an accurate picture - kinda blows your empty/full glass analogy out of the water. The bottom 80% control only 16% of the net worth and 9% of financial worth. The glass is indeed six-sevenths empty for 80% of the population.

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top 1 percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[Maxwell511]

List of countries by Human Development Index

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Australia
4 Luxembourg
5 Canada
6 Sweden
7 Switzerland
8 Ireland
9 Belgium
10 United States

1.The first 9 countries that rank above the US are all "socialist" by American standards. Which of the first 9are considered totalitarion?

Actually Ireland's economy in most aspects is much more liberal than the US. We are a tax haven by US standards.

 

[Borealis]

Yep, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the top 5% control 59% of the wealth (68% of financial wealth). Looking at it this way - which is the only way to get an accurate picture - kinda blows your empty/full glass analogy out of the water. The bottom 80% control only 16% of the net worth and 9% of financial worth. The glass is indeed six-sevenths empty for 80% of the population.

They're still ahead of the third world dictatorships and communist regimes, where the bottom 99% control roughly ZERO percent of the financial worth (and the top 1% controls a lot less than the 1% atop the capitalist societies.

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top 1 percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Again, the question is, SO WHAT? Why do people have to judge their own self-worth on what OTHER people are doing with their lives? It's their money, leave them alone already! If they're going to hoard it and keep the very poorest people in poverty, they will answer to God in the end anyway. And many of them are very charitable with their money. As a percentage of their income, it might be smaller than the middle class is donating, but in terms of sheer dollars and cents, it's huge.

Live your own life instead of complaining about how well other people are doing. History is full of successful people who pulled themselves up from nothing and refused to let failure keep them down. Inspiration, not envy, is the key to improving society.

 

[.Sabre.]

Responding to AlanGurvey's question, I'm a Socialist. That doesn't make me a commie though.