Capitalism can not eradicate poverty
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
You're rewarding the student because he showed up, it certainly could not have been for his excellent answer.
NeWs FlAsH The Tribes aren't the ones with the guns and the fences. Hire them as security in stores to stop shoplifters and they can run the pawn shops that the new comers (former ISIS members, let's not kid ourselves) will be sucked into using until the price of admittance has been paid off.
All I was trying to say is that communism and tribalism aren't that much different. Capitalism hides its dictates behind curtains of public relations designed to assure you that your choices are enhanced when in fact only the colours differ.
Nobody has yet mentioned the ill effects that happens to any model when 'middlemen' get involved.
Sure, see how long the 'employee owned company' decides to stay in business once their human nature takes over and they ask the question as to why they should do all that work and take on all the risk.
On the upside though, there won't be a 500% mark-up on items as no 'items' will exist
You have to admit that it was a clever answer
In all honestly, I do agree 100% with what you have stated, however, you'll notice that I have been careful to recognize (communist) nations as opposed to communities.
The communistic model can only work (theoretically) on a micro basis... The moment that the 'community' reaches out and treats with outside communities, the entire basis of the communism of community 'A' is upended
lotsa isms come and go. People still can't get along regardless of what ism people pull outa their a$$
For sure.............we're getting further and further from World Peace by the day. It will be a lot worse after Justin's imports arrive!
Can you tell the difference between your as* and a hole in the ground?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
As taxslave points out, there are many companies that are entirely employee-owned. And I note that you haven't said a word about my other examples. They are:
1. Co-ops
2. Partnerships
3. Family businesses worked by the family.
4. Family farms worked by the family.
Instead, you picked the one you thought you could refute (though you were wrong), and ignored everything else.
Let's see. . .
1. You got a Book.
2. You got a doctrine.
3. You got a special vocabulary.
4. Your Truth is unsupported by evidence.
5. Your system can only work if everybody participates, freely or by force.
6. When your system is in place, eternal bliss for all will be the reward.
In what way is this not a religion?
I agree. So what?
Exactly. I was using the definition of communism provided by Stanford U.'s dictionary. It is pretty much the same definition the Oxford U.'s definition is: "A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
Besides being extremely unlikely to attain a truly communist country, I doubt anyone would be happy with having no individualism at all. Some dude at the other end of the country would have as much say as you over what colour you painted your house, for example. And some lazy dude who barely puts in any effort to getting to work on time, let alone working, would be paid the same as the dude who puts in 100% effort.
Marx and Engels were not the people that came up with the idea of communism. The concept goes way back to Aristotle et al. The difference being that Aristotle and pals were not discussing entire countries. They were considering small communities and cities at the grandest scale.
Last edited:
I understand about small employee-companies. They are rare, and every study points to them being more successful. You aren't helping your argument. :lol:
This can just as easily be applied to Capitalism, lol.
So your implication that this is inherent in socialism/communism is nonsense. An oligarchy is a product of a capitalist system, in a communist system material wealth is not highly valued.
As I said before, there are actually quite a few companies that are completely owned by the workers. Stamping your little feets, pouting, yelling, and holding your breath till you turn blue cannot change that fact. Here, kid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies
You only say that because you have obviously not read anything about the philosophy on communism that started way back when Aristotle and others were discussing stuff. What you have done is similar to reading a title of a book on philosophy and running with it, instead of reading the book from cover to cover.
First of all, individualism is a cancerous ideology that hypocrites like Ayn Rand propped up. The fact is, our advances in humanity came from society working together, not a few working alone. But at the same time, this doesn't mean you aren't your own person and can't make your own decisions, especially on trivial things like painting your own home (wth are you talking about now).
Now your hypothetical "lazy dude", will only get enough for the bare necessities of life, where others who put in the work could get more, not equal pay. No one should be forced to work to live - which is what capitalism has us do for the benefit of the very wealthy.
It's rare and if you looked through some of those companies, they aren't all workers owning the means of production.
What the hell are you talking about now. Your misunderstanding of all these things has nothing to do with me not reading Aristotle.
I've proven sufficient knowledge where you haven't, you've only spewed liberal narratives.
Prove it.
Here, I will finish that sentence for you ..... "An oligarchy is a product of a capitalist system, in a communist system material wealth is not highly valued except by the individual." The more humans you involve in your little utopia, the less chance it has of actually working. As you sarcastically but ignorantly put it earlier, "blah bla human nature blah blah", or something to that effect. You poor brainwashed, little kid, unless you can get rid of the human hunger for power, comfort, and laziness, the sooner you will achieve your ideal. Until then, reality defeats your pathetic little arguments and people like me will keep aiming reality at you.
The problem is you think traits which aren't inherent in humans, are. You've got a flawed understanding of what human nature is. What is learned in a system that does have bad traits inherent in it like greed, and what is actually biologically inherent.
hehe Sorry, but when the first two human met, individualism was invented. Humans are not bees or ants.
That is not entirely true so it cannot be fact. It would be more like SOME advances were brought about by cooperation, some were not, and some were an individual effort.
Your communism would strip people of individualism. I thought that would be blatant, but apparently you cannot think in depth.
Sorry, child, but now you are not talking about communism.
First you said employee-owned companies cannot happen in capitalist countries. Now you say that it is rare.
Perhaps you should read the Greek philosophers' ideas and discussions instead of posting your inane little rants and raves in here.
That is a cute and quaint little dream you have going there, child. But it is still a dream.
roflmbo
As soon as a fetus grows enough brain, its entire existence is all about gratifying its own needs.
For fµck sakes, you not only have a shallow grasp of philosophies, you cannot grasp biology or psychology. Did you get all your little pile of knowledge from Marx and Engels?
"Meaning worker ownership of the means of production" - that is essentially the definition of socialism in my opinion and if that exists to an extent in "so-called capitalist countries" to what extent does it exist in so-called communist countries?
It's amazing how well you can say the opposite of what you want to say. I don't understand how you can possibly believe you made sense with this post as it contradicts itself so much that it actually supports my point.
How can you have functioning communist state if it fails on every level? And how do you think you're convincing me that these states are in fact communist if you say my idea of communism is theoretical and that these states failed totally even on the theoretical level?