Thread: Capitalism Vs Socialism

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

For most of our history, this country has been defended by "gun toting-hick simpletons".

It will be easy to fight. No real civilians, don't think where you shoot. Just burn it all.

Originally Posted by El Casey

Intrepid, why did you even start this thread? Your first post was decent enough. Your second long-winded post was misinformed and chauvinistic toward capitalism.

To be honest, I initially only wanted to ask the opinions of what people thought about it -- despite my better judgement, I ended up arguing with people.

Socialism has nothing to do with bailing out corporations. That is either State Capitalism (which is exactly what the USSR was once Stalin came to power, dismantled the New Economic Plan and forced industrialization in a mere decade), or what I like to call "inverse fascism" (i.e, big business has corporatized government).

State Capitalism? That's a contradictory in terms if I've ever heard one. "Big Business ("the modern corporation") is the result of over extended government. It's another form of nationalizing industry -- in the United States, it's often called "Market Socialism". Though the socialists in the country still like to blame it on the capitalists.

Now you're at the point where you're simply making personal insults (calling people "tools" and the like), when I've yet to find a cogent, factual argument put forth by you.

You don't have to buy into my arguments, but they're more than just personal insults. It is not my fault you've already been "lost" due to the fallacy of sympathy.

Your lack of understanding of socialist principles is not the problem - it's that you perceive yourself as having knowledge of them. What possible problem could there be with providing essential services, such as public transit, rent subsidies, living wages, telecommunications and health care to the citizenry? I can't think of any...other than getting in the way of fat bourgeoisie greed-mongers (your boys in Enron and Tyco's head, Kozlowski).

Again, tool. The problems with providing "essential" services at the expense of others is that it is all too often against their wishes. Your naivete really shines through, as well as your ignorance of economics and history (but yet you accuse me of the same). There is nothing essential about the services of socialized transit, rent subsidies, living wages, and health care. I think you not only do not know what essential means, but also don't want understand the futility and dependency created by such a system.

Yes, those fat bourgeoisie greed-mongers in Enron... You know Enron is a corporation... and as I've explained elsewhere, the modern corporation is an intentional government construct with the purpose of nationalizing industry. It's called Market Socialism.

Of course, you're a socialist, so you're probably going to want to call it Market Socialism.
Socialists love to steal terms of other liberty minded people. For instance, in America, a liberal is basically a libertarian, and opposed the Conservative/Federalists Right. In the late 1800s, the Socialists pouring into the country began to use the term Liberal, and completely overshadowing the original meaning. "Liberal" comes from a Latin (or Greek?) word for Liberty. Socialism has little to nothing to do with Liberty, and everywhere that it was tried, it resulted in the stripping away of Liberty.

Capitalism works for some people (read: exploiter class), but does not work for the vast majority of the world's peoples, myself included. I am proud to be working class - I work very hard for "decent' money (wages are horribly low in Florida), and I take pride in that.

Again, your naivete shines brightly through. Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to earn what they get. You know, I'm from a working class background. I work quite hard myself for very little money, however, I'm not such a person who wants to use the money of others to further myself along. I earn my money, and I use it wisely. Your whole exploiter class argument is bullshit, and even Marx failed to recognize this. This is why Marx isn't taken seriously in many places today. Not only did he not understand how the means of production changed over time, he also failed to predict the benefits capitalism ended up doing for the working class (oh sorry, the "exploited class"). Capitalism has done more for the safety of workers, and improved worker's "rights" much more than capitalism ever did.

Wages are horribly low in Florida? Come to my home town, pal. You'll see horribly low wages. You'll also see houses where you can buy a 3-floor, 4 bedroom house, with 1 full bathroom, 1 full living room, 1 full dining room, 1 full kitchen, 1 full dining room, and 1 full laundry room, as well a nice little backyard for 10-15,000 dollars. In order for you to make any substantial amount of money ($30,000 a year before taxes), you have to work 60 plus hours of weak breaking your back -- or work for the government. Businesses are always leaving my area, and people have to travel farther and farther away to find good paying work. The reason? Government regulation. Local government trying to "level the playing field" by meddling with taxes and miniature wealth redistribution programs (welfare-like programs).

But what pride can I take in being denied a human right, viz, health coverage? I'm not speaking of emergency care, which is actually undeniable (a nice gesture, but hardly the solution). If I get the flu, or need to go to the chiropractor, who pays for that? I do. Out of my meager earnings I pay rent, utilities, telecom fees, food, etc. So my back hurts, and I don't go, because it's unaffordable! How is this justice?

First of all, I think you need to learn what Natural Rights are. Natural Rights are those things that you have by merely becoming sapient. These include things like, the freedom to earn a living, the freedom to earn your way to a good live by being fiscally responsible and saving money to afford things that you need first of all, and then investing in things you find enjoyable.

Aw, your back hurts. How absolutely terrible. Here, here's 1/5 of my hard earned paycheck for you to afford that trip to the chiropractor (because I don't whine every time my back hurts and want to go to the chiropractor). You have a twisted idea of what justice is. Your idea of justice is to use my money to send you to the chiropractor everytime your back hurts from work. Sounds alot like stealing to me.

Besides, a chiropractor is not necessary, nor is it your Right to a "Free" trip to the chiropractor. It is a privelege that must be earned. They're not likely to be able to send you to the chiropractor in Moscow, either.

Again, health coverage is not a Right. So you're not being denied anything. Health coverage is a privilege that you have to earn -- either buy inefficient and overexpensive socialized healthcare (that becomes more and more expensive, and eventually collapses--on account of people wanting more and more of what they perceive as "free').

The point I'm trying to make here is that I am not some high school kid, or a college student (at least not a full time student - I do attend college, however) who thinks "Soviets were neat" and decided to call myself a socialist or, on the flip side, some insulated bourgeois suburban kid whose Mommy and Daddy have always paid for everything, has delusions of "mad cash", and think I'll be a billionaire some day.

I'm actually a college student, and all of my money is being paid by myself and my parents. My parents earned their money, why should they not be able to put their one child who earned his way into college, through college? Also, I'm not a suburban kid. I come from the historic coal region in Pennsylvania. There are only a little over 300 people living in my home town. The biggest city within a half hour of me has about 15,000 people in it, and there aren't too many jobs there either. I hope you weren't trying to insinuate that I'm some "bourgeois suburban kid"? I don't want mad cash, and I have never exploited anyone in my life -- I also never intend on it. However, you seem to be heavily in favor of exploitation, and that's what socialism is.

This is the bottom line, and it is what I seek - to be comfortable and happy. That's what real socialism can provide to the masses; comfort, essential services, and work for the sake of work, not to scrimp by on a poverty-line wage unable to visit a non-emergency health care facility.

I seek to be comfortable and happy too. However, I'm not so arrogant ("misinformed and chauvinistic") as to think that I deserve this at the expense of others. I learned at a very young age that you should earn everything you want in life.

Socialism does not provide comfort, essential services (again, dig deeper into the definition of essential), and whatever else you demand at the expense in others. I'll also throw out that when people see things as being "Free', or at the expense of others, they tend to use more and more of it. All those Socialist Democracies of Scandinavia and Europe are going broke. You know Sweden has be exported not only jobs but also government investments for years? Taxes are also increasing their, and quality of healthcare is going down. But it sounds like this is what you're after. Just make sure you save up enough money to EARN that plane ticket.

A dose of the real world would do you good!

Heh, that sounded like a whole lot of fanciful pipe-dreaming to me.

Originally Posted by scotcher

I never had a go America, it's Navy, it's history, or it's culture, I simply had a go at the absurd notion that America has never been invaded just because it's citizens are armed, and that us Europeans are somehow poorer for having (and wanting) gun-free societies,

Something to do with higher rates of private gun ownership having something to do with low amounts of robbery and murder all over the Western World (nobody in Asia or Africa likes to give out that information).

being peddled by a half-wit who treats any piece of information not as something to be evaluated on its own merits, but as something to be manipulated, simplified, and distilled down to a nice little absolute that it fits more easily with all the other absolutes (capitalism good/ socialism bad, conservatism good/ liberalism bad) in the world-view given to him by his society in return for his unquestioning loyalty and patriotism.

Not the calculated insult I expected from a Briton, but still pretty fair enough.

Haha, and which rights, precisely, are you referring to that are unique to the USA?

I don't believe I said unique to the U.S., just something that quite a significant portion of the Nation still firmly believes in (unlike what Michael Moore proclaims).

You'll have to try harder than that if you want to hurt my feelings, I'm no more likely to take offence at an insult directed at 'my' country than at an insult directed at people with the same colour of eyes as me. You see, I wasn't made to swear allegiance to a flag every day at school, and I am entirely free from the affliction of indoctrinated nationalism that seems so prevalent amongst your own countrymen.

Ah, I didn't really mean to try to offend you there. I actually admire the English more so than any other Western country besides my own. I grew up in a town with a bunch of "proud Irish Americans" who still ignorantly criticize the British "dominating the Irish people" in Northern Ireland.

You know, I actually never had to swear the allegiance to a flag either. This is only very common in some areas, and it's not something that I support either. There is actually a big movement against this, and I suspect the compulsory element of it will be revoked in the relatively near future.

Deprived people of arms, my hoop. They had gun laws, but that doesn't mean there weren't large numbers of weapons sloshing around anyway. How about South-East Asia? Israel? Libya (hell, take your pick in Africa)?

Interesting to note for future reference, gun laws only take guns away from ordinary citizens who obey the law.

[quote:3omsrd09]
I attribute my opinions only to me, not the country in which I happen to live and certainly not to an entire continent, and I, for one, didn't attack America, I attacked one utterly moronic opinion, that just so happened to have been expressed by an American.

You made a few jabs at Americans in this post. When you get back from your trip, you can look them up

The idea that the Europeans posting in the thread are somehow in cahoots with each other in a conspiracy to denigrate America is so spine-twistingly idiotic and small-minded that I can't barely even muster the contempt necessary to dismiss it properly.

I never said the Europeans here are in cahoots?

For the record though, I have nothing against Americans, I just hate dickheads. The fact that they are so often synonymous is, I can assure you, a coincidence quite beyond my control, and I am always happy when I meet one of the many millions of exceptions who prove the rule.

I have very little against the English, or say, the Swiss, but I don't care for most Europeans. As a whole, the English have long been a people that did what they said they would do (unlike, say, France).

Err.. since we were discussing gun laws I didn't see much point in referring to any history farther back than the issue itself, but hey, if it will make you happy, and in the spirit of Trans-Atlantic friendship, I am certainly willing to concede that the Roman invasion of Britian probably would have faltered if Boudica's army had been armed with assault rifles.

That wasn't about gun laws, per say, but rather about the English channel keeping the peoples of Britain safe.

That last statement is the kind of humorous wit I expect from a Briton. I honestly appreciate such a gibe.

You can insist all you want dear, and I might even answer if you explain who has managed to invade and conquer the whole of Europe and what it has to do with gun-control legislation.

Not that I'm likely to be able to read it anyway, since I'm off abroad for a few weeks starting tomorrow (yay!), and I have a feeling the topic will have moved on by the time I get back.

[/quote:3omsrd09]

I suppose the Roman Empires held control over most of the mainland Europe, including parts of the British isles. Nazi-Germany did as well (except the part about holding British isles).

Have fun on your trip, and be safe.

If you really want to believe that America owes it's historical and continuing freedom from invasion to a bunch of gun-totting hick simpletons like yourself then I'm not going to try to stop you (as a European, contrary to what you seem to believe, I really couldn't give the smallest hoot what gun laws you have in the US, that's your business), but you may want to consider the fact that the UK has also not been invaded recently, in spite of having been targeted for invasion on several occasions.

First off, you have once again exposed ignorance of the real America and it's people. The vast majority of gun owners in this country are very normal people, although much more vigilant, headstraight and generally not stupid.
You on the other hand are proving to be a radadicle, living in a country which despite it's gun restriction, has a much higher crime rate then the US.

Now, on the military side, in WW II, you can thank the NRA for keeping that invasion from happening. 1 channel is not enough to stop a whole national military force from invading.
On the American front, the Japanese admitted in their own words that it was because of gun toting citizens that they never invaded.
I have also come across accounts when Russian X-KGB and various others stated that they would never invade the US because of all the armed citizens.
You may also try taking a map, covering in red all the countries in Europe that Hitler attempted to invade ( that weren't his allies ) and take a peak at the unusual gun laws of that highly useful white spot next to Germany.
To put it in to a more lifelike prospective, if our country wants to, we will invade the UK, remove the king and queen and enslave you and the rest of your citizens, and their is nothing your citizens can do to defend themselves once your military is wiped out should it happen.
If your country nuked our cities and bombed all our military, you would still be wiped out should you invade.
If your people don't want to be armed, then it's your choice and I don't have any problem with you making it.
Oh, the US is the UKs main defense from invasion. It's not the UK their worried about, it's the US coming to the UKs aid. Japan is solely dependent on the US military, and has made well by doing so.
On the other hand, a government who seeks to render it's citizens defenseless can not be trusted, nor can people who seek to make such infringement.
Gun control is on the wrong side of history.

Once the penny has dropped (I accept this may take some considerable time), come back and I'll give you a big long list of countries who's populations have always been heavily armed and yet have still managed to find themselves oppressed by their own governments and regularly invaded by others.

Please, by all meetings.

What will happen to Europe without US? There will be less wars.

Why not, Europe is mostly nothing but states of the New world order.
Their is nothing to fight over.

Those thousands of years of "European civilization" had millions of instances of cruelty, oppression, and barbarism, from persecutions to witch burnings to continent spanning wars and depopulation due to disease and famine. From Ancient Greece through Hitler and Stalin, there has yet to be much of a wonderful "civilization"

Lets not forget that the most barbaric culture in the US ( the Racist rednecks, KKK etc. ) are a culture that immigrated here from Europe ( mostly from France ) and chose not to change much.

Pearl Harbor. Midway. The Ardennes. Krushyov & Missiles Inc. Ring a bell?

Our military at that time was more citizenry.
Lets not forget the Revolutionary war, the Mexican war, some terrorist stuff that happened throughout time, the taking of arms that southern black people did to gain their rights ( becha never herd of that before did you ), pirate invasions, stopping witch hunts, and the list goes on.

I bet he was wondering what his island nation had a real lack of to defend itself. Now we know, it was the Navy.

Yup. That is one of the major shortcomings of the Brits. It was also a shortcoming of the Germans, but still more then enough to take on the British navy.
Also keep in mind that Britain is an island separated in some places only by rivers. If I recall correctly, you can take a ferry from Britain to France.
That's very shallow invasion defense.
Their actually came a time when the Germans were ready and capable of invading Britain.
That's when American gun owners came to Britons rescue.

In these two countries it was not illegal to have weapons. In the European part of the USSR, literally arsenals of weapons were scattered all over it after the last war. Having those weapons was illegal but almost nobody would give a f*ck.

In Germany, the ownership of firearms was granted to certain classes of people ( almost exclusively active Nazis at one point ) while Jews, other undesirables and people that Germany saw might stand in their way were rendered defenseless, and were rounded up and massacred by the millions as result.
They also took very open and blunt advantage of Hollands, Polands, Ukrains and many other countries gun control laws.
Russia also had similar but less intense gun laws during WW II.
It was the little looseness they had that saved them from being concurred by Germany, not because they faced citizens who were using the guns they grew up with, but because the citizens used skills they grew up with that the Soviets never would have won the war without.

The tyrannies that you mentioned above were founded by European idealists, too.

Yup, and the European cultures who founded this country wrote our constitution in defense against them.

and that us Europeans are somehow poorer for having (and wanting) gun-free societies

You are indigently defenseless as result of your gun laws.
It is people who think like yourself that make Europe the radical and ruined place it is.

Haha, and which rights, precisely, are you referring to that are unique to the USA?

And you accuse us of ignorance.
Try reading our constitution. Then you'll actually know something of the background of what you are arguing against.

You'll have to try harder than that if you want to hurt my feelings,

I don't think anyone is trying to hurt your feelings.

Libya (hell, take your pick in Africa)? Do you think all the guns floating around in Iraq just now were legally-held or army-issue before the war?

Do you think their would still be 600+ dead American soldiers over their if they were not around.
Saddam didn't let his citizens have arms. Only his followers. The citizens who DID have guns during his reign were rebellions fighting him and were starting to win when we invaded.

Those guns may have made life more difficult for invading armies afterwards, but they didn't stop any invasion, and they can't stop oppression so long as the government in question has more guns.

Those guns didn't come in to the hands of Iraqi citizens until after they were cut loose by the invasion, and had Iraqi citizens had guns beyond the rebellion, the invasion would have gone even swifter, since the US would have received much more help from within.

I attribute my opinions only to me, not the country in which I happen to live and certainly not to an entire continent, and I, for one, didn't attack America, I attacked one utterly moronic opinion, that just so happened to have been expressed by an American.

Yeah, I've herd the same thing. Believe me, European idealism is defining your views, weather by your lifestyle, friends, direction of information or what not.
As one who admits to be a Stalinist, I would imagine your views are quite extreme and hostile in some areas.
As I mentioned before, every form of politics is rigged to someones benefit and someone elses disbenefit. Stalinism is rigged for few crooks to benefit at the expense of the majority of innocent.
I have a bad sense that you happen to be among that minority.

Look guys, I use to be in to all this socialism, unionism, radicism etc. I know both worlds quite well and the mentality that has you all locked up.
You wana talk court stuff, in court, both sides have to be herd before a verdict can be made, in order for a fair trial. Until you give equal study on the Right side, your knowledge is insufficient, and your views are both unjust and flawed, and yes, I've studied both sides to an equip proportion and continue to do so.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

If your country nuked our cities and bombed all our military, you would still be wiped out should you invade.

By whom? By the shadows on the lunar landscape? And why would anyone want to invade the lunar landscape?

[quote:1vle0ugv]Pearl Harbor. Midway. The Ardennes. Krushyov & Missiles Inc. Ring a bell?

Our military at that time was more citizenry.
Lets not forget the Revolutionary war, the Mexican war, some terrorist stuff that happened throughout time, the taking of arms that southern black people did to gain their rights ( becha never herd of that before did you ), pirate invasions, stopping witch hunts, and the list goes on.[/quote:1vle0ugv]
Oh-huh. First one guy says that 'For most of our history, this country has been defended by "gun toting-hick simpletons"', then when I mention the most recent episodes of the "defence" (that had nothing to do with the above mentioned simpletons), the other one says something else. Nice try, though.

[quote:1vle0ugv]I bet he was wondering what his island nation had a real lack of to defend itself. Now we know, it was the Navy.

Yup. That is one of the major shortcomings of the Brits. It was also a shortcoming of the Germans, but still more then enough to take on the British navy.[/quote:1vle0ugv]
LSD? Crack? Or the good ol' heroin? What are you smoking?

Also keep in mind that Britain is an island separated in some places only by rivers. If I recall correctly, you can take a ferry from Britain to France.
That's very shallow invasion defense.

Any defence is shallow when you're outnumbered by tactically superior enemy.

Their actually came a time when the Germans were ready and capable of invading Britain.

Which was precisely when?

That's when American gun owners came to Britons rescue.

So, how many Germans did the American gun owners kill on the British Isles? When exactly did they stem the tide of the Huns?

In Germany, the ownership of firearms was granted to certain classes of people ( almost exclusively active Nazis at one point )

Not bad, given that the latter category was the biggest "class of people" "at one point".

It was the little looseness they had that saved them from being concurred by Germany, not because they faced citizens who were using the guns they grew up with, but because the citizens used skills they grew up with that the Soviets never would have won the war without.

OD.

Yup, and the European cultures who founded this country wrote our constitution in defense against them.

After they invented the time machine. Yeah, I know.

WOW, you are an ignorant chauvinist, Intrepid!

No point in continuing in thread!

Originally Posted by bad manners

Any defence is shallow when you're outnumbered by tactically superior enemy.

You don't have to outright defeat a tactically, technologically, numerically superior enemy. All you have to do is not give up, and manage to inflict some casualties and cause the enemy to give up vasts amounts of resources in order to crush the rebellion.

VietNam? Iraq? In might sound bad for me to say this, but I believe Iraqi "insurgence", as they are called on American t.v., have every right to attack U.S. troops. Hell, it should be expected of any patriot (patriot, not nationalist) to defend his homeland against invaders and occupiers. If they do not give up in Iraq, the U.S. will probably be forced to lose interest.

That or we'll continue to occupy Iraq, in some way, shape, or form, until the point when our Empire begins to fall apart from under its own weight. To be honest, I look forward to the day. I prefer the Roman Republic over the Roman Empire, and I'd rather live in an American Republic, then an American Empire.

[quote=the_intrepid]

Originally Posted by "bad manners":3lvt0oa5

Any defence is shallow when you're outnumbered by tactically superior enemy.

You don't have to outright defeat a tactically, technologically, numerically superior enemy. All you have to do is not give up, and manage to inflict some casualties and cause the enemy to give up vasts amounts of resources in order to crush the rebellion.[/quote:3lvt0oa5]
What is that supposed to mean w.r.t. the UK and Nazi Germany? The only reason why the UK managed to make it was because Hitler himself was half-hearted about invading Britain. Which was due to exclusively moral and political reasons, as he regarded the Brits as a "kin nation" and, moreover, believed in a stabilizing role of the British empire worldwide (refer to the "Dunkirk miracle" for an example of his attitude). His objective was to secure peace with Britain, not to crush her defence (which he was more than able to do in 1940). More important was that already before the air offensive he was focused on invading Russia, and that was ultimately the factor that saved Britain, because he gave up his idealistic perception of the British very quickly.

Originally Posted by bad manners

What is that supposed to mean w.r.t. the UK and Nazi Germany? The only reason why the UK managed to make it was because Hitler himself was half-hearted about invading Britain. Which was due to exclusively moral and political reasons, as he regarded the Brits as a "kin nation" and, moreover, believed in a stabilizing role of the British empire worldwide (refer to the "Dunkirk miracle" for an example of his attitude). His objective was to secure peace with Britain, not to crush her defence (which he was more than able to do in 1940). More important was that already before the air offensive he was focused on invading Russia, and that was ultimately the factor that saved Britain, because he gave up his idealistic perception of the British very quickly.

You make some good points, but you're misconstruing one thing; the Nazis lacked the sustained Naval capability to carry out an amphibious assault on the island.

It's kind of difficult to establish what Hitler would have done if he had the capability of invading Great Britain with any chance of ultimate victory, but you're probably on the right track. It's easy for me to say why Hitler probably would have crushed Britain if he was capable of doing so, but I'm sure some of you can figure it out.

Ultimately, Hitler saw a better (and not necessarily safer or easier) target in Russia... and well, we all know what happened there.

If you go back in this thread, then you will see that my original remark about being "outnumbered by tactically superior enemy" was in reply directly to "That's very shallow invasion defense" and, indirectly, to "That [the Navy] is one of the major shortcomings of the Brits." My statement boils down to two things:

1. The Brits did have a Navy superior to that of Germany.
2. The Navy alone would not shield Britain -- in fact, it was the air power that proved decisive both in the "Battle of Britain" and later in the "Battle of the Atlantic". During the latter, the Royal Navy and general British shipping had been on their way to oblivion until the USA entered the war and provided air cover with their super long-range aircraft, thus regaining the upper hand tactically.

But if we go back to your previous statement, then I shall say again that it is meaningless. Britain alone would not have survived even with Hitler's taking on Russia. The submarine blockade would have killed her even if the air assault had failed (as it did). Conversely, if Hitler had not attacked Russia and focused on killing off Britain, he would have succeeded irrespective of any American help to Britain.

BM, the amount of true knowledge you have is what makes the "Devil Advocate" theory about you very convincing.
Germany had a better force, but as we all seam to agree on, had very limited resources for actually getting them on British ground which is an outright necessity.
A few well armed citizens crushed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union who at the time, only had manpower and one good tank going for them, which they were very quick to use un-sparingly.
Through my studies on the in depth details about the situation, my guess is that had Germany invaded Britain, they would have had an upscaled Stalingrad on their hands ( thanks to the NRA ) where their big guns would crush Britain but armed citizens would win the day.
To truly hold victory, you don't have to just have the ground taken, but you have to control it as well, and you can't do that when you have a sniper under no ones orders hiding under every bush and pile of rubble.
The Japanese admitted in their own words that this was the reason why they never invaded the US.
No matter how big your guns are, it eventually gets down to the individual citizens and as long as they are armed and willing to die for their homes and loved ones, an invasion army can never control the ground they stand on.
A smart conqueror will first disarm the citizens from within before taking on the military, hence, America today.