The great commie versus Patriot depate

[grendalsbane]

Rouge Leader, the more you talk on this subject I see a picture of you in my head, the shifty type who tends to blame all those around him for his short commings in life, it's always the dirty politicians or the corrupt bussiness men that have you down. You live in the greatest land ever. We are more free than any society ever, much to the loathing of the left who seeks to control us. I know on some plane you belive that we can have this workers utopia, but the basic primise is flawed. When you share everything and everone is treated the same, life STAGNATES. There is no incentive to better yourself, people simply don't do things for the common good, unless the common good is their good. You site provincial France is an example. Since the period you quote France has been through huge termoil because of the failings of that and other systems. If it was such a perfect system why is it gone, and why has every system that started with the philosophy degenerated to chaos. While a wonderful theory history has taught us that it always leads to oppresion in the guise of the common good. As for the quotes that it is pure democracy I agree whole heartedly, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a capatalist REPUBLIC!!!! Democracy is just a nice word that discribes traits within our government.

[Jason]

From Suggestions forum " Capitilism works for one reason it thrives on every humans pinchant for greed."

I am sorry but that is incorrect.

Capitalism is greed? Being greedy is recieving or having something that is not deserved or not needed. There is no magical scale in Capitalism to measure what is deserved or what is needed. This is because every individual would be free to earn as much as they so desire. This scale exists only in systems such as Socialism where the policy is roughly "to each according to need". The greed scale exists in such an economy because "need" is the basis of the system itself and thus, is the only time greed can be used in a non-abitrary manner. With that in mind, someone who links greed and Capitalism illustrates their lack of understanding in both concepts.

Furthermore, don't even dare say that the US is Capitalist. Such thoughts are absurd and unfounded. Although, to some degree, it would be correct to say the US was founded on capitalistic structures.

You are correct in saying the US is a Republic. By no means interpretation was this country ever a Democracy. In fact, the word Democracy is not found in the Dec. of Independence nor the Constitution. The modern consensus that Democracy is a representative government is incorrect. The first Democracy was Greek, and to illustrate the political power held by the masses at that time, Socrates was "voted" to be killed for asking too many questions.

Those who think "deregulation" and non-progressive taxes lead to a greater centralization of wealth need a history lesson. Around the newly properous times of the '20s the top 1% of the income earners came home with 14% of the total income, TODAY the top 1% earn 33% of the income.

If anyone wishes to see why big business prefers regulation, please see these two LONG articles. Government and Big Business (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=475&month=22&title=G) and Power Elites (http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/monopoly.htm)

--------------
I am, therefore I think

[Zundfolge]

Ok, in response to this rediculous notion that communism is democratic. If you do not allow people to profit from and trade with their ideas and/or labor then they are SLAVES.

This particular topic has come up several times here, and frankly this forum has had some of the most thought provoking discussions on communism vs capatlism (and also among the most polite too, a testament to the folk in this forum) but I'm tired and I refuse to argue it anymore.

Go out an read "The Road to Surfdom" By Fredrick Heyak. If you still believe communism and/or socialism are a good idea after that then you are either a fool or a dangerous person with possible tendencies toward megalomania.

And please, don't give me this song and dance about how Soviet communism and or Chinese communism are not pure communism or they didn't do communism right or any of that horse droppings.

Soviet and Chinese style oppression of their own people are ALWAYS the end result of abandoning freemarket capitalism in favor of governmental monopolies (aka communism/socialism).

EDIT: Hey grendalsbane, out of respect for the forum moderators, do you thing could you go lock the other thread that started this. Since you started it I think the forum software will only let you or a moderator lock it, thanks :)
<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif </center>

[I_ABuGa]

now where is this debate, i cant seem to find it.

[jaunty]

Where's mojo when the commies need him?

Anyway, i'll add my thoughts to this little debate.

Any government, will eventually turn to a world of s<u></u>hit. It's enevitable, once someone disagrees with something, they will twist all the weak minded ones around them into pawns and encite revolution, thats one possibilty, but its human nature, we dont like being told what to do or how to live.

Just look at a teenager, they've gorwn up, and think they're old enough to control their own lives so they revolt against the authority, in this case, the parents. Think of a country as a child, growing ever so slowly, and the government as the parents.

No governemnt will ever work for a very long time. Its not possible.

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/bischlong/jaunty2.jpg><span style="width:100%;font-family:arial;text-align:left;color:red;font-size:12pt;height:12pt;filter: glow(strength=8,color=black)">Free f<u></u>ucking speach!</span><span style="font-size:12pt;width:100%;height:12pt;text-align:left;filter:wave(freq=1,strength=2,phase=4,lightstrength=55)"><span style="width:100%;font-family:arial;text-align:left;color:red;font-size:12pt;height:12pt;filter: glow(strength=15,color=lightblue)">

[Sebu_NZ]

I am part Russian, we were capitalist "fatcats" force from our home country at the time of the October Revolution (or November, what ever you normally call it, for those who don’t know, Russia before 19.. ummm..17 (I think) had the old system of date, thus it was some 30 days off the West (my Grandfather had two birthdays, one Russian, and one "normally"), hence its two names),

But do I despise what happened? No, the common Russian was being mistreated, exploited. Russia was far behind the rest of Europe, in terms of both, living conditions (although similar conditions to neighboring China), and its Industry. The blame cannot be put on Revolutionary Political Terrorist (Bosavieks) but Russia’s incompetent Czar (Nic. II) and lets not forgot Rasputin, without him, Bloody Sunday (The Russian version: The Peasants were protesting, Rasputin, was to blame for the firing on the crowd, which sparked the beasts within the Peasants) would not of happened, perhaps no Revolution, but that’s not likely, if a large group of humans want change it is inevitable.

I don't like Leninism or Stalinism, but these "Communist states" are but "socialist dictatorships", and then called "Communist states" to decrease the appeal and image of Communism, you people must realize that no-matter what you believe you grew up in a country that was wildly Anti-Communism (except those who grew up in communist states, or Soviet back countries, or far-left wing countries), they (West) will do any to harm its image. The People’s Republic of China, The Soviet Union, all were fu.cked by ****-sucking dictators.

The Idea Of Communism is great, but will be very hard to have a pure communist state with a large country because:

1) Many people who want control/power

2) The country will need great administration work, there inlays your problem, These people work very hard and they believe they deserve more, why not, they aren’t just working the land, they work their asses off. Thus creates a feeling of different classes, Admin and Workers,

Basics people, Communism = Classless society, now its has gone wrong.

A Jewish Kibbutz is an almost prefect example of Communism, all laborers work, the income is given to kibbutz and then equally handed out. In the kibbutz the farmers work together, buy everything together, share equipment with each other. They even elect a director. This is a true, Democratic Communist State (farm = state in this case).

Now pure a true Democratic State, would be one in which people are selected randomly to present the people, voters even vote randomly. Now granted a Pure Democratic State, is likely to ever happen, I want you Western Democrat’s to realize this.

I am not a Communist, but I respect it. What I don’t respect is Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, Titoism. these are just bastardized versions of a good theory, Communism.

If you believe that mankind is full of greed then I think you have lost faith in humanity. Look no further than a Jewish Kibbutz.

A Plan economy is too confining, I believe that ever economy should be free market, because this allows for competition, which leads to price reduction, the availability for all potential customers, and innovations, the latter being the most important, but price and availability are still very important.

To say that socialist is bad, shows your personally, why should we not help our fellow human beings? You can talk about Tax-payers that, Tax-payers this, but they got fu.cked by society and we should help them in some form of another. My personally view is education, not payoffs, but that’s another discussion altogether.


That about 50 cents wroth, not a mere 2 cents!

[Ballistophobia]

I like Russia. The language is so ****in cool too.

<small>Well that's all I have to say on this topic</small> :)

[phatcat]

ok, Communism that you see in the world, even fourm Communist countries. are NOT Communist!


"if this is marxism, then I am not a marxist"
-karl marx


Communist China is more of a dictatorship/socialist than Communism.

http://phatcat.animedominion.com/phat-2-s.gif
http://phatcat.animedominion.com/newbie.jpg

[Zundfolge]

I've brought this up before, but Communism will work, but only in one very specific situation.

A small (less then say, 10,000 people) agrarian theocracy.

You have to believe that your devotion to the state is tied to your devotion to God.

Jewish Kibbutz is one example, Amish communities are another.

For the rest of the secular, industrialized, crowded world, free market capitalism is the best way to assure the greatest number of people succeed.

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[RogueLeader]

Ideas are not owned by single people. That is the greed that grendelsbane is talking about. The one thing you should always realize if you have a good idea is that if you didn't come up with it, someone else would. It is exactly that attitude, that "I came up with it so its mine", thats stops human progress.

"Capitilism works for one reason it thrives on every humans pinchant for greed"
We both have the benifit of living in the United States. But take a look worldwide and you will find out that capitalism DOESN'T work. Over 50% of the world's population doesn't make enough money to eat the minimum ammount of food to live on.

A woman in Vietnam working in a Nike sweatshop makes 20¢ an hour in American currency, working 6 days a week for 10 hours a day (thats about $50 a month). That 20¢ is $1.40 less than than the $1.60 required for food daily. Michael Jordan gets paye $20 million a year to advertise for Nike. If that woman lives to be 400000 years old, she will make as much money in her life as Michael Jordan makes in 1 year. Lets take a look at who is more important: that woman, who provides you your shoes that keep your feet warm and protected so you can live a more happy life, or Michael Jordan, who has done nothing but entertain people. That woman is giving you the basics to live, yet under your idea of a fair and just economic system she is starved to death so some billionaire executive can get a few extra cents. But Zund, your right, he had a good idea with the whole sweatshop thing, and he deserves to benefit from their suffering- your democracy at work.

Lets look at some other great ideas that got people rich. John D. Rockefeller had a good idea- illegally form trusts, force railroads to give him rebates, and coorperate espionage. What a genius. How about Bill Gates. He's a smart one, who else could come up with the idea of forcing other companies out of business to get their products and claim them as your own. Amazing, I wish I could come up with such great, if not criminal, ideas.

"workers utopia"? Communism is all about reality. Capitalism is the utopian idea. Capitalism makes the conjecture that all human nature is good and no one will take advantage of the system and squeeze money out of the poor. There are no checks and balances to the capitalist economic system. Anyone who wants everything can take it. Its all about selfishness. Whoever is willing to take the money will get it. Communism is all about accepting the fact that people by nature are greedy, and stopping it. You said it yourself, communism is about greed. As long as there is greed there will be people who squeeze the money and the life out of innocent people. But like you said, it makes capitalism work- for the top 1% of the world who controls most of the world's wealth. You appear to be confusing Communism with Utopian Socialism, too very different ideas. I can see you really don't know communist or socialist theories well, and I would suggest you don't criticize what you don't understand.

As for your patriotism, I can see clearly your type of person, a true patriot, for better or for worse. I can have nothing but admiration for someone who really feels the nationalism of their country, something that is rare today. However, I also see you are one easily affected by propoganda, the faithful servant of a government no matter what it does. A patriot should not be someone who serves a nation, but someone who serves the ideals of that nation. You clearly are a strong supporter of the ideals of peace, liberty, freedom, etc., that the United States stands for. But are you aware of the changes in our government since its inception? Our government is now one of the most powerful in the western worlds. The U.S. is one of the most frequent human rights violators of the first world nations. As we speak, we have liberals trying to take away our right to defend ourselves with guns, and conservatives trying to strip our freedom of religion. Is that freedom? Ask yourself, why did our government want to stop the spread of communism so badly? Why did the government illegally have communists leaders in America beaten and killed in during the Red Scares? Perhaps it is because the people in our government are the very ones that own stock in companies like Nike- they are the source of the problem, and a communist revolution would get rid of their grip on the laborers. So as a patriot, do you serve them, or justice? Just because you happen to have the luck to be a citizen in a wealthy nation gives you the right to live at the expense of half the world? If you had the bad luck to be born in Vietnam and started working in a sweathshop at 4 years old, I bet you would love capitalism then.

Capitalism is nothing more than an economic front for a plutocracy, exactly what we have in America. How many congressmen do you think are middle class or poor? Andrew Jackson is the one and only one president we have ever had that wasn't upper class. Funny how he turned out to be one of our best- he disposed of the corrupt wealthy national bank, and was the only president to pay off our national debt. I guess the capitalist idea that the wealthy are better people doesn't work.

Also worthy of note is that you seem to misunderstand the communist period of French history. France was at peace during the communist period. Everyone had work, and the people were happy. Once the economy was back on its feet, the people abandoned the communist workshops, and surprise!, hell broke loose again. Funny how history seems to constantly vindicate Marx's ideas.

And I also think you should look up the word Republic. A Republic is by definition a democracy, which uses representatives. Saying we arn't a democracy but a republic is like saying "we don't have a government, we have a federal government".

Sebu, I agree with you, people like Stalin are monsters, but they arn't communist. That is a huge misconception. People like Stalin and Lenin liked to use the name communist to try to trick the people into thinking they were for the workers, but in no way was the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, or any other so called "communist" government of today a communist government.

As for the idea centralized economies always fail- lets look at the soviet union. As I said before, not communist, but a centralized economy will do. Under the soviet system, the economy, while not that strong (Russia never had a strong economy), was not failing. Now that they have reverted to capitalism, they are in serious debt and have a terrible economy. THere are lot of U.S. propoganda about the soviet economy too. For example, in the "famine" in the 60's and 70's when supposedly there was mass hunger in the soviet union, the average person in the soviet union still had 6x more food than the average person in the United States.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[grendalsbane]

This rant is running great. The problem is finding the time to respond to everything you said.

I will start with your reference to NIKE at it's "sweat shops" ohh the horror. Most of these companies were invited to these contries by there governments. In vietnam the state controlled workers government. What is ham-stringing those governments from developing from the 3rd to 2nd world is there politics. I FEEL NO PITY FOR THEM, they work there at wages that are much higher than the wages that existed before those businesses showed up. It is the free market at work. Money that would not have been in those countries is now there.

While this seems barbaric in the age of the modern media the world is getting better as a whole, just not fast enough for some people. Remember that spot "sweat shop spot" is on the news to sale advertising time to NIKE.

I am not a blind patriot. I actively work within my countries system to bring about change. The Constitution, Dec of IND, and federalist papers are the foundation of most of my political idealism. I dread the day they try to git rid of the 2nd Amend because it will be a bugle call to all true patriots. I think though we can prevent all this by educating others on the ideals of our country.

The one danger you should watch is ingesting the large amounts of revisionist history that you are excepting at face value. What document proves the amount of food the average Russian had in the 60s and 70s? Who authored it, propbably some Marx loving Harvard Half-wit who has never had a job outside of a university. Russia sucked and it's people suffered, I don't remember many Americans defecting to Russia or people jumping the fence to get into west Berlin, if they had we would not have shot at them from our side.

If the French abandoned these ideals wouldn't anyone else. No marxist society has lasted and the only way to make them last is to implement CONTROL, BOOM FREEDOM is gone. The American system is imperfect, but it is more perfect than any other one. If this is not true we would not be the only true thriving super power left. The key to America is not equality like many think, it is opportunity, any one who has the desire to, can thrive in this society and thats what many can't stand, when you fail here it is because you didn't apply yourself 90% of the time.

[grendalsbane]

Little new to message boards, I am adjusting to computer etiquite

[I_ABuGa]

Zundy:
I think you mean a country whose citizens place full trust in their government, the laws and those people running the government. Also a country in which government is never corrupt.

Then you have a starting point for a ultra socialist/communist country.

I think that even in a theocracy the citizens will still not be ready for such a state of economy were they not able to trust in their government.

A communist country needs all its citizens focused on the "big picture" - the betterment of both self within certain moral strictures and for the good of all others around regardless. Sorta like the Star Trek universe (- I may be wrong here since I aint that much of a trekkie.)

[RogueLeader]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It is the free market at work [/quote]
Exactly my point. And before anyone says it: Vietnam is not communist, just more dictators using the name. And the fact that the government invited Nike there is irrelevant. The ideal of Capitalism is that someone who works hard should become wealthy. While this sometimes work, the Nike sweatshops are a good example of the 50% of the world where it doesn't. Does Michael Jorden do more work than the people in those sweatshops? According to the salleries, Jordan does over 34722x more work. But of course he does relativly little. The workers in Vietnam labor most of their waking day to bring you your shoes in conditions that arn't fit to support human life. Michael Jordan gets taped doing a few slam dunks a couple times a year to advertise the shoes.

I hardly consider the documented ammount of food rationed in the Soviet Union to be revisionist. As annoying as revisionists can be, they usually don't resort to falsifing information. I'm afraid I don't remember what the source was for that information, so its not very good evidence, but I thought I should mention it anyway. The book I read it from attacked revisionists accounts of history though, so I doubt it was one itself.

The communist government in France was never never meant to be permanent and never totally adopted communism, but it shows that true democratic communism works. If the economy was in ruin, and the communist system revived it, I see that as pretty strong evidence in support of communism. You say "no marxists society", but France is the only Marxist society in world history, so I don't know what other government you are referring to.

I would have serious reservations about touting America as the land of opportunity. Opportunity requires equality. If a middle class man (or woman) can't participate in government, how can this be a land of opportunity?

And America is not a superpower because of its economic and politcal system, it is a world power because of Eisenhower's and Roosevelt's ingenious political maneuverings. Most historians consider America a world power coming out of the 1st World War. Eisenhower, and FDR later, both entered the World War rather late. Consequently, America was mostly unharmed while the rest of te undustrialized world was ravaged.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Zundy:
I think you mean a country whose citizens place full trust in their government, the laws and those people running the government. Also a country in which government is never corrupt. [/quote]
Wrong, I mean a theocracy (a theocracy is a government run by the church)

The only way communism works is in small agricutlural communities where everyone knows everyone else (and is related to most everyone else) and where their government is seen as an agent of God himself and who's leaders use the bible (or tora or koran or writings of budah or whatever) to rule the people.

People will not willfuly submit to absolute authority unless they think they will go to hell for it.

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[RogueLeader]

But communism does not call for absolute authority, it calls for democratic elections. And communism requires a completely seperate church and state.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Zundfolge]

But if the government owns everything (and by definition that's what communism is), then they own you.

So the end result of communism is ALWAYS totalitarianism.

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[RogueLeader]

The government owns nothing. Collectivism, the property aspect of communism, is the belief that everything belongs to everyone. If the government owns the property, then the property is owned by a single entity, and its right back to capitalism, only its the government being the capitalist. That is fascism. Fascism and communism are idealogical enemies because of that.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Jason]

"But take a look worldwide and you will find out that capitalism DOESN'T work."

What country is Captialist? If I take a look worldwide, I see nothing but governments who THINK regulation is the solution. The way things look now, it appears they are wrong.

Communism or communes, as described by Rogue Leader, could easiliy exist in a Capitalist nation. In a Capitalist nation, deviod of all political power except in enforcing contracts and securing rights, the citizens could easily form communes without hesitation. This is because there would be no power PREVENTING them to do so. A group of Citizens, by their own free will, choose to mold their property together and work for each others sake.

I don't know how many times I must say this but big business does not necessarily support laissez-faire. In laissez-faire the government has no say in the economy, thus, big business can't lobby for supply restrictions, price fixes, or regulation which primarily hurts those who can't afford to be hurt.

"...50% of the world's population doesn't make enough money to eat the minimum amount of food to live on."

If that were true, then why is the world population at 6 billion and still growing?

As to why Micheal Jordon makes so much more money than a Vietnamise woman, supply and demand. How many people are as popular and had as much skill than Mr. Jordon? Now, how many people can sit in a factory and make shoes?

If the US were to force corporations to quit doing business with these countries there would be even greater poverty. Why? Even less people would be employed, and earning. I would have to research this more but, I have heard 20 bucks buys a lot more in some of those "sweat shop" countries.

"That woman is giving you the basics to live..."

Shoes are needed for survival?

"yet under your idea of a fair and just economic system she is starved to death so some billionaire executive can get a few extra cents"

Again, you fail to grasp what is Capitalism. IT IS NOT ment to be "fair". For it to BE fair would require some authority to use force to achieve a "fair" deal.

"force railroads to give him rebates"

How did he do this?

"I would suggest you don't criticize what you don't understand"

Likewise.

"Wealthy nation"

Translation: The least intervening.

Plutocracy? I guess you haven't read the two articles I have posted. If anything, interventionist governments are more compatible with plutocracy.

Now that Russia has converted to Capitalism? *Bangs head against wall* Russia is slowly attempting to buy up media outlets. That is Captitalist?

How will a Marxist nation deal with those citizens who wish to work for their own self-interest?

--------------
I am, therefore I think

[Jason]

"That is fascism. Fascism and communism are idealogical enemies because of that."

Capitalism is not fascism, fascism requires a interventionist authority which a Capitalist nation lacks.

Actually, Hitler(National Socialist) borrowed some fascist ideas from Mussolini concerning political economy.

It is true that fascists truely despise those with differing opinions, although ironically fascism borrows many ideologies from various sources.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

[RogueLeader]

Capitalism does not imply no regulation. A capitalist nation can regulate businesses.

I said businesses support laissez-faire?

The population grows because people are able to scrounge up food by eating garbage, dirt, etc.

How many people can play basketball- anyone who can walk and throw a round object. How many people are willing to suffer in a sweatshop 10-12 hours a day for 20 cents? I doubt anyone here will volunteer.

The argument wasn't about who the U.S. should do business with. I still buy Nike shoes for the very reason you note. The argument is about what form of government is best.

$20 doesn't buy more. THe 20 cents American currency takes the inflation of American currency into account.

Shoes arn't necessary for survival, but you will die faster walking bearfoot over sharp objects, dirt, trash, insects, and hookworms, a lot faster than you will from not watching a basketball game.

Again, you fail to grasp what is Capitalism. IT IS NOT ment to be "fair".
Exactly my point.

Rockefeller ran the biggest oil company in America. The railroads needed the business from shipping his products. So he forced them to give him rebates so he could ship products cheaper.

"Wealthy nation"- Sweden is wealthy, and socialist.

A true communist state, not having a wealthy class, cannot be a plutocracy.

Buying out media outlets? Buying out businesses...sounds capitalists too me.

Indeed, I messed up there, fascism is not capitalism, rather a variation on capitalism. More of a crossbreed between capitalism and socialism, in which the government acts like a business but has does not allow a free market. Definitly the most idiotic government ever concieved in my opinion.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[This message was edited by Rogue Leader on Feb 02, 2001 at 16:50.]

[This message was edited by Rogue Leader on Feb 02, 2001 at 16:52.]

[Sebu_NZ]

It seems RogueLeader is out number by all the capitalistic people here, not too many socialistic gun-lovers.

I would like to add my 2 cents on the whole Vietnamese shoe maker.

You call America the superpower of today? fine

You call America the world police? So be it

But you call America the forefront of human-rights? Then why isn’t America boasting equality throughout the world, it is in the Dec. Of Independence or the Constitution which ever it is. That calls of the equality of all American citizens, if then America is the super-power and the world police, then why doesn’t excise its power help more in the area of human-rights.

Now that George W. (duda) Bush is in power and the security of state Colin Powel , will we see a return to neo-isolationism, if one thing we learnt of both WWI and WWII is that America the super-power, and world policeman, cannot stay out of European Affairs. With being the "World policeman and Superpower" come responsibilities, which America needs to fulfill, and cannot be a neo-isolationism country. I for one will definitely miss Madieline Albright, she was an amazing woman, who made some many break through’s that it shows the power that America can do any if it pushing hard enough, and has woman like Albright working for America, I personally hope she gets a high up job in the UN in human-rights. Speaking of the UN, the UN with full American Support and the rest of Europe can change the world drastically, if it has the motivation and is really stands for its believes. You call America "the land of opportunity" and "sweet land of liberty" or is this merely the fact that it is the biggest country that vaguely represents this ideas?

America does not need to own the Media, I wonder how many blind patriots and neo-conservative are in top ranking places in the Media Industry?, 80%+? Who knows. But my personal stand is that media should be an absolute different entity, free from government or political influents.

Every Political ideal has its faults, you pick the one you believe is the lesser or the evils. Capitalism is a totally free-market, without any, ANY government regulations or controls, Capitalism holds the seeds for its own destruction. Capitalism has been an uneven, spasmodic development of a country.

I believe for a Capitalistic state to kept the basic human equality their needs to be some form of centralized government. Basically laissez-faire. Capitalism with a free-market cannot work because it allows for the rise monopolies, and the grossly inequitable distribution of wealth, and exploitation of labour (see Vietnamese shoe-maker lady). The Capitalist fatcats do, in my humble opinion, deserve a social-economic benefit for their hard work and smart thinking, but the exploitation of human rights is not allowed by anyone, no matter what their economic power is, or their political power.

I agree with RogueLeader that Capitalism is not meant to be equal but the basic human rights should not be exploited for the added wealth of another man. Not every person was made to the same intellectual ability, weather they be missing something in another area, but because someone is business smart, should that mean that someone will go without food because their 3 jobs cannot get them milk and bread everyday? No, but I believe that it should make them more wealth, but not at the cost of others basic rights.

[jaeg]

You people scare me.

FreeBSD: The Power to Serve - www.freebsd.org (http://www.freebsd.org)

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I wonder how many blind patriots and neo-conservative are in top ranking places in the Media Industry?, 80%+? [/quote]

What ****ing planet do you live on????

The media is probably more like 90%+ liberal democrats (that's from the peeon news boy all the way up to the heads of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, ETC) In survey after survey of journalists less then 5% are registered Republicans. In a recient Zogby poll they found like 2% Republicans, 5% Libertarians, 15% Independents 2% "other" and the rest are Democrats. The only news source I can find that isn't run by the DNC is Fox News.

That's why people like Rogue Leader can run around thinking that communism is not poison.


free market capitalism is far from what Rockefeller practiced. Monopolies are bad, weather they are the government or companies.


Look, I'm not going to get sucked into this argument again. Like I said before, go read Friedrick Hayek's "The Road to Surfdom", Dr, Walter E, Williams "Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks" and Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics; The Citizens' Guide to the Economy". Then we'll continue this argument.

(and yes I've read "The Communist Manifesto, Das Capital and several books on economics and politics from a leftist position, plus some book about Che Guevara)

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[RogueLeader]

Conservative media?
/me will not even comment on that...
and btw Zund- liberal doesn't mean communist- the media spreads just as much anti communist propoganda as the government.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Zundfolge]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply liberal=communist (although in some cases... ;) )

No, I just don't think anyone can make the assertion that the media is biased toward conservatism with a strait face. :rolleyes:

also I didn't mean to make that last post sound like a direct attack on you (noticed the tone was a bit harsh after re-reading it)

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif </center>

[Sebu_NZ]

Yeah i agree that comment on westen media, ****ed, I know, i dont really know what its like in america but, in new zealand, no-one has any balls, media im talking about :D

[sdOK]

Eat the rich.

[Sebu_NZ]

Yay, Fozzy!

[RogueLeader]

Definition of capitalism:
capitalism, n- an economic system in which the production of goods and services is privatly owned

nothing about regulation. Any economy that lets a private citizen own a business, no matter how regulated that business is, is capitalist.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Sebu_NZ]

With no regualation it leads to the rise monopolies, and the grossly inequitable distribution of wealth, and exploitation of labour.


England, 19th Century

[Lord_Bunker]

i'll call myself a compolist. i don't think either system really works worth a ****. both have pros and cons. what we need is a compromise tween the too. after all, most capitalist societies do some communistic things. look at social security, taxes, welfare and so on. you pay your money to be given to everybody else. i'd think a truely 100% capitalist society would let you keep you money.

i support a basic communistic like economic system with a strong capitalist style buearcracy in place to regulate it. as far as the idea that communism doesn't support compotition well try this, that's what the beuracracy is there for. to make sure nobody gets a job they shouldn't have. contracts would go to those who would do the best job instead of who will do it the cheapist.

http://members.aol.com/bunkvania/myhomepage/firetatanka.jpg
FEAR!
http://www.geocities.com/lord_bunker/

[Jason]

"Definition of capitalism:
capitalism, n- an economic system in which the production of goods and services is privatly owned
nothing about regulation. Any economy that lets a private citizen own a business, no matter how regulated that business is, is capitalist."

If a company is regulated, then I can say it is not privatly owned-it is a puppet of the government. Think of it in terms of the drug war, if the government can tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.. do you really "own" yourself? Think of the whole abortion fiasco as well.

A while back RL said "Why did the government illegally have communists leaders in America beaten and killed in during the Red Scares?"

Fear, ignorance, or plain stupidity. I can also recall that there were two Anarchists around the same period that were put to death with weak evidence against there involvement in a crime. The judge in the case said "This man, although he may not actually have committed the crime, is nevertheless morally culpable, because he is the enemy of our existing institutions." In fact, some of those arrested and beaten weren't even proven to be Communists(I'm NOT condoning the actions in any way), the public was urged to report those who spoke out against the government.

I never said America was the shining light at the end of the tunnel. Although, the documents of this country come close to laissez-faire. One thing to note, the great failure in the founding fathers thought processes was the notion that rights are self-evident.

"How many people can play basketball- anyone who can walk and throw a round object. How many people are willing to suffer in a sweatshop 10-12 hours a day for 20 cents? I doubt anyone here will volunteer."

Ahhh... if there were as many people capable of what Micheal Jordon is, I gurantee you his income would be down the toliet.

'Again, you fail to grasp what is Capitalism. IT IS NOT ment to be "fair".
Exactly my point.'

Fairness is not only arbitrary, unless a government creates an official definition, but cannot be guarenteed. I can't guarntee this forum won't crash, ending our conversation.

"Rockefeller ran the biggest oil company in America. The railroads needed the business from shipping his products. So he forced them to give him rebates so he could ship products cheaper."

I thought Rockefeller skipped that process(Railroads) by building pipelines. What I wanted to know was, how he forced them to give him special rates?

"Buying out media outlets? Buying out businesses...sounds capitalists too me."

What I originally tried to say was the Russian government is buying local(Russian) media outlets. From what I have read, if the media companies didn't want to be bought out, the government would take them by force.

"Indeed, I messed up there, fascism is not capitalism, rather a variation on capitalism. More of a crossbreed between capitalism and socialism, in which the government acts like a business but has does not allow a free market. Definitly the most idiotic government ever concieved in my opinion."

Fascists think their way of thinking is better than the Socialists because they relise that businesses don't actually have to be owned in order to have complete control over them.

A nation based on laissez-faire cannot be a plutocracy either. This quality is inherent because no one individual or group has political power over another. Thus, it would be impossible for a politician to be "bought", this is because he(the politician) has no power to influence the market, nor anyone else. If a such a politician were to use force, it would violate the principals of the nation and wouldn't be operating on the concepts of laissez-faire.

Giving the government power over the market ALLOWS businesses to influence it. This is the problem with protectionism, interventionism and so forth. It opens the doors to influence of any kind.

Capitalism is not compatible with egalitarianism, as in economic equality. But again, due to less influence by big business, laissez-faire is more competitive. This is due to no price controls, and no regulating of foriegn supply.

I would like to hear a response to the possibility of communes in a Capitalist nation. It cannot be said to be impossible. There is no force limiting the activity of a group of citizens from voluntarily coming together and working for each other.

Also, I would like to know where these examples of Capitalism are coming from. Please, I need to know what country you are talking about. I would like to move there! ;)

I am not being sarcastic when I say that it is not often there is a conversation like this without a great deal of flaming. My last conversation(in another forum) was with a person who started out merely questioning Capitalism. I answered him quite nicely, yet his next response ended with "see you on the battlefield." :eek:

I will read "The Communist Manifesto" and other related books. I am not set in my ways, I am objective. If anyone wants some Capitalist readings just go HERE (http://www.capitalism.net/Mises%20et%20al%20on%20Line.htm). There are several(free) online texts.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

[MrLaggy]

The problem with Communism is very simple. When you set up a society with the idea of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs', it's obviously very attractive to those who have large needs and no ability, and extremely unattractive to those with ability. But it absolutely requires those of ability to sustain itself. It is, therefore, impossible except amongst samll groups of ideologues who are dedicated to the cause.

[MrLaggy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now that George W. (duda) Bush is in power and the security of state Colin Powel , will
we see a return to neo-isolationism,[/quote]

If only! Bush seems to be setting us up for another war with Iraq as we speak; determined to get his presidency off to the right start with a major debacle.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I for one will definitely miss Madieline Albright, she was an amazing woman, who made some many break through’s[/quote]

ROTFLMAO...Madeleine Half-Bright has been an absolute disaster for America and for the cause of peace in general. Every country in the world now knows that if they're weak and oppose American hegemony they're going to be bombed on trumped-up 'human rights' charges.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I personally hope she gets a high up job in the UN in human-rights.
[/quote]

I do too; then when we close down the UN she'll be living in a cardboard box in New York. The UN is nothing but a tax-funded club for sad old socialist who still dream of imposing a global government on the rest of us; the sooner it's shut down the better.

[MrLaggy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With no regualation it leads to the rise monopolies, and the grossly inequitable
distribution of wealth, and exploitation of labour.[/quote]

No, government regulation creates almost all monopolies. Microsoft, for example, is often claimed to be a monopoly; yet it only has its pseudo-monopoly status because copyright law prevents anyone competing with them by selling Windows.

If you disagree:

1. Name one monopoly which has occured without government interference and been able to use its power to increase prices above free market levels?

2. Explain to us exactly why private monopolies are wrong, yet you want to transfer power to a government monopoly? You can't rationally complain about monopolies and then support monopolistic government regulation.

[RogueLeader]

The government can tell you that you have to drive below the speed limit, have to have car insurance, and can't drive drunk- but you still own your car. The same goes with businesses in Capitalism.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Jason]

"The government can tell you that you have to drive below the speed limit, have to have car insurance, and can't drive drunk- but you still own your car. The same goes with businesses in Capitalism."

The "rules of the road" only apply to the roads You can drive drunk on your own property, so long as you do not infringe the rights of others in the process.

The difference is the roads are not owned by a paticular person or group.

"1. Name one monopoly which has occured without government interference and been able to use its power to increase prices above free market levels?"

The first part I can answer, Standard Oil was able to become a monopoly without the state's help. The bottom half of your challenge I can not meet. As Standard Oil kept it's prices lower than most competition in history.

On monopoly, the primary difference between government and private monopolies is the component of force. Government monopoly, if-not limited, can and will use force to achieve it's goals. Whereas private men will have to freely-associate with other men in voluntary actions. Simply put, political power=TAKE and economic power=EARN.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

[RogueLeader]

There is one reason a monopoly is bad: it can drive up prices and lower quality. What you are thinking of is fascism, in which the government is a capitalist monopoly. In a true socialist system there is no reason to fear a government monopoly as there would be no prices, and without prices on the government making goods as well, quality will be higher than any private industry can achieve. Just look at today's social democracies, like Sweden. Care to guess why they are so well off?

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In a true socialist system there is no reason to fear a government monopoly as there would be no prices, and without prices on the government making goods as well, quality will be higher than any private industry can achieve. [/quote]

Rogue Leader, now I don't want to be insulting. I don't want to make this discussion a personal flame war kind of thing. But I have to ask, do you honestly believe that statement?
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. I think you're trying to play devil's advocate... let me rephrase that, I hope you're playing devil's advocate because if you honestly believe what you just said then I think there's no hope for you and you need to just off yourself, or maybe I've judged your situation all wrong and you need to call the nice nurse over and tell her to lower your dosages because the drugs they have you on in the mental hospital you live in are screwing up your brain!

I don't know where to begin with how bassackwards that is. With a government monoploy on goods and services what reason at all would the government have to give you quality goods and services? There is only one reason why a government employee would give good service or make quality goods, and that would be the armed police officer that will kill him on the spot for shoddy work.

Without competition ALL manufacturing and services will sink to as low as they possibly can, why should anyone do their best if there is no competition to come and beat them? Sure some people will always put out 110% no matter whether or not they see any reward, but most people (90%+) will not.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just look at today's social democracies, like Sweden. Care to guess why they are so well off? [/quote]
They still have a (mostly) freemarket economy, plus in Sweden the tax rate is like 80%+!! Just think how productive the Swedes would be if they where allowed to keep their money instead of having it stolen by their government.

When taxes where lowered in the 1980's by the Evil Ronald Regan, our economy shot through the roof, competition created better products, better services, more wealth across the board.
The fastest growing segment of our society was the black middle class.
Charitable giving almost trippled, to the highest point ever seen in the history of humanity.
Because people had more money in their pockets, they invested and ended up growing the economy and making money themselves and thus ended up paying MORE in actual tax dollars!!

See, when government gets the hell outta the way people thrive! Why do you want to put government in people's way?

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[RogueLeader]

Communism is NOT (N, O, T) totilatarian. That seems to still be a misconception in this forum. I'd like to thank the damn soviets for completely ruining communism's future by completely corrupting everything it stood for.

The people of Sweden are heavily taxed, because the government uses that money to provide them with services. In other words, the money goes back to the people. And note that they have very good standards of living, so obviously the government is doing a quality job. So how much better off would they be if they could keep there money? None. They would have to choose from big businesses that don't give a damn about the people, just getting more of their money. This way, the Swedes in the end get more for their money, and live better.

And the Ronald Reagan example is a pretty good one. The economy did grow, by a lot, but at the expense of national debt. That didn't have much effect back then, but it always comes back to haunt us. And who benefits from national debt- the wealthy bankers and international investors. On another interesting note- Ronald Reagon was originally a Marxist. However, he, like so many of you, started to confuse soviet communism and marxist communism and began to think that communism in general was oppressive.

I cannot stress enough, Marxist Communism is the most anti-totilatarian government ever conceived. Seriously, read his writings, you will find that true communism is much different than the soviets near-fascist government

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>  
Communism is NOT (N, O, T) totilatarian. That seems to still be a misconception in this forum. I'd like to thank the damn soviets for completely ruining communism's future by completely corrupting everything it stood for. [/quote]

I don't care how well intentioned communists are communism will ALWAYS lead to totilatarianism, the grand misconception of communists around the world is that they can do it right.

The right to freely trade is just as important as the right to speach, religion, etc. and communism by Marx's own definition robs people of the right to freely trade.


As to the national debt going up under Regan, it's because of 2 things, increased defense spending (which many argue is what finaly ended the cold war) and because the Democrats that controlled the congress wouldn't give him the spending cuts he asked for.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> On another interesting note- Ronald Reagon was originally a Marxist. [/quote]
I don't buy that for a second. You're going to have to supply a credible source before I swallow that one.


Even if a communist government is not oppressive, it still keeps the people at the lowest common demoninator, and doesn't allow for growth.

It's a nice pipe dream, but so are the goose that lays the golden eggs and santa clause.

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So how much better off would they be if they could keep there money? None. They would have to choose from big businesses that don't give a damn about the people, just getting more of their money. [/quote]
So all businesses don't care about people and all governments do?


See I think it the Swedish people where allowed to keep their money, they could more effeciently spend it on the goods and services they want. Not waiting for mama government to come wipe their behinds.

The Swedes are doing quite well, not because of their socialism but despite it. See the government has fixed the prices of the goods and services they provide so Swedes are not allowed to shop around for the best price and spend the difference on other things they want/need.

The silliest thing I find in this whole arguement (not just this argument with you, but the whole communist vs capitalist thing) is that communists don't trust companies any more then they can throw them, but they trust governments completely. But companies are just people, and so are government bureaucrats, what makes you think that bureaucrats are more caring people then businesspeople.
See if the bureaucrat wrongs you your only redress is to go to his buddies (the other bureaucrats) and see if they are willing to do something about it, however in the mean time you still have to use the bureaucrat who wronged you to accomplish whatever it is you where trying to do (yeah, that will work). But when a private business wrongs you at the very least you can just go to another business (this happens enough and that guy is out of business) or at worst you can go to the bureaucrats you love and they can do something about it.

My point is that even if you are able to establish some sort of utopian communist state that doesn't oppress it's people, you still aren't better off then in a free market capitalist democracy.

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[Zundfolge]

Sorry for the flurry of postings, but I've had too damn much coffee (love that Uganda Blue :) )

Let's also look at Sweden and try to determine how fair their socialism is (fairness is something most communists claim is their reason for loving communism).

We'll do it in a little roleplay. Sven is not happy with his tax bill, so he goes to the tax office and asks the bureaucrat why his taxes are so high.

Sven: Excuse me, maybe you can help me. Why am I paying 80% of what I earn in taxes.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well, you get lots of services for your money. Why you even get 2 weeks a year at a spa. Paid for by the government.

Sven: But I don't like the spa, I don't want to go.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well then don't go... It's a free country, nobody is going to force you.

Sven: So do I get a refund for not going?

Bureaucrat Bjorn: (laughs) you're joking right? The government doesn't give refunds.

Sven: But if I had the extra money I could buy a bigger house to house my growing family. Afterall I did do all the hard work that earned me the money in the first place.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well there's nothing we can do about that, why don't you just enjoy your 2 weeks at the spa.

Sven: But I don't like the spa damnit! If I went anywhere I'd like to go to Austrailia or maybe a hiking trip in Bolivia.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well that sounds like fun, why don't you do that?

Sven: Because I can't afford to go there, can't the government just pay for my trip instead of me going to the spa?

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Sorry it's the spa or nothing.

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif</center>

[Jason]

Please refer to this article for current information about Sweden (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pdinter/feb98e.html)

No doubt Swedish business interests will soon be few and far between. This is derived from the fact that high-income earners are taxed OVER 100% of their total earnings! What factory owner, what self-employed man would wish to live in a place in which no matter how hard he worked or how much he earned, would always have a deficit at the end of the year? There is NO incentive to produce. Wait, there is a NEGATIVE amount of incentive to produce. If a man were to produce he would lose MORE than he started with, even if he was successful.

Marx supported Socialist causes in order to set up his ideas. No Capitalist would support the initiation of force in order to achieve their goals. This is because the initiation of force is the very opposite of the system supported. The same could be said about Marx, yet he supported forceful measures.

"The people of Sweden are heavily taxed, because the government uses that money to provide them with services. In other words, the money goes back to the people."

I'm sure not all of the Swedes choose to have these services. In the business of government they still have no choice but to pay for that service. In the business of business those who wish to have a certain good or service voluntarily choose to pay. That is the difference. As I have said, political power is force.

"In a true socialist system there is no reason to fear a government monopoly as there would be no prices, and without prices on the government making goods as well, quality will be higher than any private industry can achieve."

How will a lack of prices lead to a higher quality. Further, how will a Communist country determine an activity to be beneficial without prices? Without prices there can be no knowledge of possible gains and possible losses from building or producing. It's like "let's hope we'll benefit from what we're about to do."

Economic problems with Socialist monopolies (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap26sec1.asp)

From the link "Eliminate economic calculation and you have no means of making a rational choice between the various alternatives.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

[RogueLeader]

Marx believed that progress towards the communist epoch was natural, force merely sped that process up.

"I don't care how well intentioned communists are communism will ALWAYS lead to totilatarianism, the grand misconception of communists around the world is that they can do it right"
How come the ONLY communist nation to ever grace the earth (France) did not? You seem to be going out on a limb saying that though this never happened before, it aways will in the future.

I saw on the History Channel once a biograpgy of Reagan- yes he was a communist, as were many in Hollywood.

"So all businesses don't care about people and all governments do"
All businesses DON'T care about the people, and all governments ruled by the people, i.e. democracy do. The problem with out system is we arn't a democracy, the wealthy rule us.

"The silliest thing I find in this whole arguement (not just this argument with you, but the whole communist vs capitalist thing) is that communists don't trust companies any more then they can throw them, but they trust governments completely"
This prooves my point. How bad can our government be if you don't trust it? Communism is all about an uncorrupt system led by the real foundation of society, the workers.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Communism is all about an uncorrupt system led by the real foundation of society, the workers. [/quote]

There's your weak link. Power corrupts, you will never have a system free of corruption.


As for using the French as an example of successful communism. Please :rolleyes: the French economy is one of the weakest in Europe and it's people live at a standard of living lower then the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, (there's quite a list here).

I also don't think the French are all that free. Their government tends to try to micromanage everything and thus you end up with many less satisfied people than if you just let the private sector take care of itself.
Free speech is dissapearing in France and Great Britain, so are privacy rights and self defense rights. I say this is a direct result of the governments of those countries taking a greater role in the day to day lives of it's people (that's how communism leads to tyrany)


Maybe Regan was a communist when he was young, but that kind of echos what Churchill said ...
"If your not a socalist by the time you're 20 you have no heart, if you're still a socalist when your 30 you have no brain." (paraphrased)

<center>http://home.kscable.com/biles/ZundSig4.gif </center>

[RogueLeader]

Modern France isn't communistm, the 3rd Republic was. At that time, the corrupt governments of the Jaccobin's reign of terror had decimated France. Unemployment was rampant, inflation was out of control, and the economy was in shambles. One of the men who came to power in that period was a communist who implemented communist principals into the government and setup workshops for the workers. Those workshops provided employment for every French citizen, and the economy grew back. When it was back, the other man in chage (I can't remember the names of either of the two leaders) disposed of the communist system since it was assumed they could go back to capitalism. As as soon as they did, the economy crashed again. That seems like great evidence to me.

Power does corrupt, but so does money. So which is worse, a man in power, or a man in power with a lot of money? Our government has turned into one of the most totilatarian in the world. Just today in the paper I read they are trying to make it illegal to sell any food in schools that arn't nutrional. What the f*ckin hell is that? I have to disagree with the common statement that power will corrupt anyone. There are rare good people out there. It seems to me the entire the goal of human society has and always will be to find a system that lets those people rule. I believe in the natural aristocracy, as Jefferson put it, the naturally selected leaders of society, the enlightened and educated few who will eventually come to power and give order to the lesser people. Communism in its purest form is meant to make sure that happens. Capitalism is the system that puts the artificial aristocracy in power, the even fewer among us who by virtue of the incredible wealth they horde rule us, whether qualified or not.

And I wouldn't try to use Churchill as a source for a quote- he was another rich man who didn't want to lose his money, not to mention he was a murderer. Anyone willing to let over 1000 die in a sinking ship just to bring the U.S. into a war is a sick freak.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg

[IRIGHTI]

So much discussion these days deals with the fact that the people arguing are so stubborn that they cannot see the others point of view. The other reason is the lack of facts being respoken and completely being construde. Everyone has there opinions and most of the time nothing will change their thoughts.

All this discussion leads in a vicious circle that never gets anywhere and never ends. Each party has their followers and they convey the facts that they would like them to hear. No one is saying they are false, it is just that they are incredibly misinformed.

I try to only make judgements when I can see all of the facts and can make my on judgement. But....this is still an opinion.

I hope everyone gets my point, but arguing is still fun, I know. :)

Look What You See When You Don't Have a Gun

[Lord_Bunker]

points to above

he should know he's the perfect example.

http://members.aol.com/bunkvania/myhomepage/firetatanka.jpg
FEAR!
http://www.geocities.com/lord_bunker/

[IRIGHTI]

It depends on your definition of the person that starts the arguement. Is it the one who responds to the statement. Or is it the one who states something that he knows will get a negative response. I prefer to think it is the latter. If he knowingly sees he will get a response then he is the one that starts it.

For example: A guy walks into a german bar and calls all of them Nazi's. I don't think you would call the first guy who decks him the starter of the arguement.

Look What You See When You Don't Have a Gun

[RogueLeader]

Ultimatly you can't proove quantitavly that communism works in practics, or that it doesn't. Only one nation has ever utilized communism, and it was a success, but in accordance to the scientific method, more testing must be done.

http://www.bunker7irc.net/shot.jpg