Actually, it all comes down to who you believe creates wealth. It is not the workers in a factory. It is not the machines in a factory. Wealth has but one source - the human mind.

For example, there would be no assembly lines to work, if not for the mind of Henry Ford. Should those who he had created jobs for, have had an equal share of the product of his mind? Make no mistake about the indentities of those "who actually create the wealth".

Of course not. That wouldn't be a very good selling point. Nevertheless, that's the reality in a Marxist system. When everyone receives the same compensation regardless of their effort, then everyone will work no harder than the absolute minimum.

You got me there - just look at Paris Hilton. But I comfort myself with the adage that "a fool and his money are soon parted".

You have no idea.

I would argue that incentives are too perverse in a bourgeois state for it to create a healthy society with less influence from responsible governing (I'm assuming here that by less governing you are suggesting a laissez-faire philosophy.)

I would argue that the recent trend contradicts this history.

Seems like that could change quickly if democracy and freedom become an unfavourable economic force... or dare I say it, commodity.

We never needed 'millionaries'. We knew we were never as rich as the US, but we were content. If you'd ever watched a movie from Russia, you would see that we weren't as impoverished as you may have thought.

Admittedly, it will be told, it came to an end from internal pressure. But people understand what they neglected, and we now have the means to avoid making such mistakes again.

By the way, if you think millionaires did it all through hard work...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

All the evidence taken together would seem to suggest this. I judge 'theories' by how well and realistically they explain the events, and how well they allow me to anticipate future events. In a society where self-indulgence is encouraged to no end (consumerism, endless advertising and corporate indoctrination of the youth) and bribery is systematically condoned ("campaign contributions"), it seems too naive to rely on a government to always act in the peoples' best interests, as only a certain WEALTHY and INFLUENTIAL minority would really decide.

They would only act in the best interests of the people when it provides a convenient premise for them to further their interests.

Mmm? I've heard numerous stories of suspects being detained for reasons of skin tone or appearance.

It would seem to imply that the US is militarizing for a reason? I'm not one to make such predictions, but I think the US is expecting an internal conflict in the near future.

Mmm... could you summarize that?

All of the news was pretty much filtered and slanted in favour of the president. And you can't exactly say that the presidency has been the least bit objective (as opposed to subjective) in their public addresses. (Speaking of which, have you ever heard any of Stalin's speeches? Not as poetic as in the west, but a lot more meaningful and informative.)

Because these things were allowed to happen, I really wouldn't call it a true democracy. More of an opportunistic dictatorship. And bringing global economics into the picture, a parasitic one at that.

But progress will prevail, I have no doubt about it. People want what is best; it can only be regressed by a minority that subjugates the vast majority of the world through the carrot or, failing that, the stick. But progress is inevitable.

Umm... I think it's a hyperbole?
Shouldn've said something; I'm not prepared to defend this claim.
But with my leaning, I would be more than willing to listen to someone who has a better standing on this subject.

We should see with the result of this coming election.

I could be wrong, yes. We shall see.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a dialectical materialist analysis.

As the world's only superpower, the US government practically controls the rest of the world through puppets and corruption. It's only convenient to have a premise that serves to reshape spheres of influence for one's own greedy agenda.

I don't know if I should really feel happy. He would commit atrocities, and for what? So society degenerates even further? 'Fast food', toxic 'colas', 'disposable' products, whitebread idiots... I despise the predominent American culture... and I don't get it from my mother.

Stop mocking me! And you didn't understand me. Of course corporate America wants it better anywhere else other than Cuba.

It only makes sense that they do everything in their power to stop Cuba from becoming a progressive society. And this notion only becomes more realistic the more you start to research and investigate.

Miami has the backing of the world's only superpower. And take a look at the rest of Latin America -- what does your "democracy" and "freedom" do there?

The rights of individuals were protected in the constitution. What do you expect? It's hard to hold Stalin responsible for the acts of his officers. People had a duty to defend the principles of their motherland. Betrayel of these principles was against everything the worker's revolution stood for.

Spetsnaz, I am going to limit myself to one quote from your post, out of courtesy to others viewing this thread - our posts have gone from long to unwieldy! Besides I wouldn't want it on my conscience that I caused you to fail your exams.

As I've said before, it is quite irrelevant that the U.S.S.R protected individual rights on paper, since it made no attempt to do so in reality. Tell me, does any version of the Soviet Constitution (I believe there were 4) mention gulags and secret police? Because those were a reality. And if Stalin was not repsonsible for the acts of his officers, then would you mind telling me who was?

Finally, to shorten these posts, I would like to try and condense our arguments to a few sentences: Unless I am mistaken, I think you, as a Communist, would say that government's function is to "take care" of the people - to feed them, clothe them, house them, educate them, and provide them with medical care.

I, as a Capitalist, say that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual. I want and expect nothing from the government. I would much rather take pride in providing the things I need for myself and my family. I realize that this kind of freedom includes the freedom to fail, but I accept that.

To me an appropriate metaphor is an animal in the zoo, compared to one in the wild. The zoo provides everything the animal needs but freedom. The one in the wild has nothing but its freedom - but that's enough - its instinct, after all, is to provide for itself.

The question is this: Do you want to be a beast in a gilded cage, or do you want to take responsibilty for creating your own destiny? Communism or Capitalism?

I appreciate it.

I don't know. Does your constitution mention anything about prisons?

Thing is, the GULAG was a productive-labor prison for murderers, thieves, and other common criminals (yes, including political dissidents, I admit), which I think makes more sense than the wasteful prison system.

And while we're on the topic, have you ever heard that North Korea doesn't have any prisons? Not even a police force (besides the occassional traffic officer)?

Those that themselves ordered it. I can't continue this hypothetical argument because I do not understand what specific case we are discussing.

Yes, those are some of the resonsibilities of a planned economy.

Yes, I agree. I'm content to live in capitalist Canada. Just that I worry it may all wind down the wrong path and we may end up thinking otherwise. I don't know if it will continue like this with the recent global trends. :/

That's not a metaphor, it's a simile. I hate similes.

I admit, it parallels your argument nicely, but I take arguing by any type of analogy to be more poetic than meaningful.

If I argue by your analogy, I could say that a care-free life in the zoo would be more rewarding than a struggle to survive.

On the other hand, when I break apart the analogy, you would see the unlimited possibilities if you, no longer having to worry about supplying for your needs, could pursue more ambitious endevours.


Before I go, I'll quote Mr. Krutov for those that care to read:

http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_f...ism_edited.htm

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...04-245398.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/19...oviet_bloc.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/03/06/44126.html

...but I'm going to have to call it quits in responding to you. Your last post was far too lengthy, and was mostly just meaningless propaganda. I found the last line particularly unsettling...
It seems that a man named Adoph Hitler said something very similiar about seventy years ago.

I will summarize what I have learned from you...

- Individual rights were protected in the Soviet Union.
- Democratic reforms in Russia killed more Russian people than were killed by the Nazis.
- Cuba is some kind of workers' paradise.
- The U.S. has kidnapped many Cubans from this paradise and somehow brainwashed them into not wanting to return.
- Bush is planning on declaring himself president for life.
- Stalin represents progress.
- Stalin was not responsible for the atrocities committed by his subordinates.
- People don't get rich through hard work.
- The media is slanted in favor of the president.
- The U.S. rules the world through puppets.

and my personal favorite...

- There are no prisons in North Korea.

I know you're only 14, but come on, you don't really believe this stuff, do you? I mean if you do, someone'e really done a number on you, and you're beyond my power to de-program. Too bad... you're obviously a bright kid.

Before I go, I can't resist imparting to you at least one piece of truth - please do yourself a favor and verify it:

Yes, there are prisons in North Korea.

Here's about a half dozen or so links that prove there are. Please read one of them - if for no other reason, than to refute me. Who knows? Maybe it will touch off a chain reaction and you'll start investigating all these other "truths" you've been taught.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110004200
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=31996
http://www.worldviewmagazine.com/iss...99/story2.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ld/3440771.stm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/16/nkorea8445.htm
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000076.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/

Good luck to you.

I concede that an individual may develop a concept, but that concept is the result of the intellectual (and physical) toil of thousands of people over thousands of years.

I am not sure that the individual contribution of Bill Gates should be rewarded 48 billion times more than a subsistence farmer in the third world.

Cheers,

Trot

This is an interesting point...

I agree that it only makes sense that each generation builds on the achievements and discoveries of the previous generation. As Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

I disagree however, with the implication that progress is something that just happens, given enough time and generations. This simply isn't true. Europe experienced a Dark Age lasting 1,000 years, where progress was virtually stopped. It was the Renaissance - the re-birth caused by the great minds of individuals - that finally moved society forward.

Despite Newton's quote above, do you suppose anyone could have replaced him? or Leonardo, or Copernicus, or Michaelangelo, etc...?

And I'm not sure that some American basketball players should receive 14 million dollars a year for putting a ball through a hoop. That's more than 70 times the salary of a typical surgeon!

But the point is, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide what is fair compensation for someone else. To use the example above, no one is forced at gun-point to buy a ticket to a basketball game.

Even with these examples of exorbitant salaries, I think it would be a far less desirable situation to have a government agency deciding how much an individual can and cannot earn.

[quote="MerlinX";p="27025"]First point, of course someone else would have found what are self evident scientific facts. These people did not act in isolation.

For example, every society created language and most developed numerical systems in isolation from one other and astronomy and agriculture etc etc.


Second point, a capitalist economy in almost every case results in the accumulation of most of the wealth by a very small minority while the majority fight over the small percentage left.

Does that presuppose that that small majority are somehow so much smarter or work so much harder than the majority?

There are so many reasons why that situation arises, non the least of which is the enormous political power that the very rich possess who do every thing in their power to ensure the status quo remains.

Cheers,

Trot

Perhaps, perhaps not. If the knowledge were so self-evident, why did the Dark Ages last so long? The ability to create a steam engine was "self-evident" - why then were there over 1,700 years between Heronas of Alexandria (1st century BC) and inventor Thomas Savery (169. Don't dismiss genius so easily, for it is the mark of a great idea when we say, "How obvious! Why didn't someone think of this before?"

And actually, I think you could say a lot of the thinkers of the Renaissance did work in isolation. There simply weren't a lot of other scholars with whom they could collaborate.

No. A lot of rich people inherited their wealth, and many quite frankly aren't worthy of it. But this is no great concern - as I quoted before, "a fool and his money is soon parted". No, what is truly disturbing is a government that thinks it has the right to sieze and re-distribute any individual's wealth.

And one thing is for certain: the smart and the hard-working are more productive, and consequently contribute more in capitalist society, than in a communist one. This is because in a capitalist society, they can actually reap the rewards of their efforts.

I'm not sure that the rich possess as much political power as people think, at least in the U.S. For example, a man named Michael Huffington spent 40 million dollars to become governor of California a few years back. He was soundly defeated in the election. Also, the rich in the U.S. pay a much higher percentage of their income than those with lower earnings. You would think if they had as much power as you say, they would fix this detail.

Amen Brother.