Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/10/06 05:12 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 6/10/06 04:33 PM, therealyoda wrote:

Captialism does destroy the poor. Capitalism is about making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. This is why there is an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have nots. Profits only come from the exploitation of the working class, and in Capitalism, profit is king.

Yes, because the people who work at Wal*Mart are so being exploited.

You have to realise that it is those who have everything that do nothing, while those who do everything earn nothing. Everything any worker produces is stolen by their employer, and they are given a pittance in return.

Those who have everything came from people who had nothing.

Only some of them or very few of them nowadays are like that. You have no understanding that only implies to people a few centuries or decades ago. Now it's a maricle of someone can become rich and stay rich. And it's because of capitalism.

Ok, here's one. I dont want to have a hard job and work hard and still get paid the same as someone who has an easy job who decides to do jackshit.

But it happens all the time in the United States and the United States is capitalistic.

Umm okay get it like this with socialism.

In a social business, everyone has a say on things that occur. And if one member decides to go lazy he can get fired because he is lazy and his fellow employees don't like him, because he makes their jobs much harder to do. But in a capitalist society, he might be of a minority and because he is a minority that business doesn't have to worry about being taxed by the government. And this is true, regardless of how shitty it appears to you.

You seem to be so misinformed as to think Communism is a political procces, when in reality it is simply an economic structure. It's quite possible to have a dictatorship and a communism.

At 6/10/06 05:41 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: You seem to be so misinformed as to think Communism is a political procces, when in reality it is simply an economic structure. It's quite possible to have a dictatorship and a communism.

Uhh redudant information anyone?

I knew all of that. Why even start saying something like that?

But communism can be a political process in terms of becoming an economic structure. Sheesh...

Does anyone understand one of the fundamental elements to the definition of socialism?

At 6/10/06 05:43 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Uhh redudant information anyone?

I knew all of that. Why even start saying something like that?

"true communism was not what russia had at all. that was a straight up dictator ship. In true communisim some one would not have as much power as the numerous leaders of Russia."

Uhh.... maybe, dipshit, because I wasn't fucking talking to you? Christ, arn't we full of our selves.

At 6/10/06 05:12 PM, AccessCode scrawled:

Yes, because the people who work at Wal*Mart are so being exploited.

I don't know how Wal*Mart became part of the conversation, but if you want the specifics, I'd suggest familiarising yourself with the Labour Theory of Value, and maybe some basic political economy. Without knowledge you are obviously incapable of arguing anything

Those who have everything came from people who had nothing.

You won't have to do much research for this one, just try reading what I already posted

I'd like for one of you to make a concise and intelligent argument against Socialism, or for Capitalism.

Ok, here's one. I dont want to have a hard job and work hard and still get paid the same as someone who has an easy job who decides to do jackshit.

Nobody said everyone would be paid equally, or that they'd be paid at all for that matter. You seem to have some bizarre conception of Socialism, Capitalism, and the world in general. The entire concept of payment and selling your time for money comes from Capitalism.

At 6/10/06 05:34 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Only some of them or very few of them nowadays are like that. You have no understanding that only implies to people a few centuries or decades ago. Now it's a maricle of someone can become rich and stay rich. And it's because of capitalism.

It is hardly a miracle. I'm not talking about your celebrities, I'm talking about the major corporations and entire countries that built and preserve their wealth on the exploitation of others. I'll recommend you the Labour Theory of Value as well, so you can understand the level at which the exploitation occurs. The extent of it is the entire world. Why do you think entire continents struggle, while others strive? It's not because they're more hard-working or righteous, it's because of subsidies, embargos, colonialism, occupation; all things driven by capitalism, for the gains of the capitalists

Ok, here's one. I dont want to have a hard job and work hard and still get paid the same as someone who has an easy job who decides to do jackshit.

But it happens all the time in the United States and the United States is capitalistic.

That's because wages under Capitalism have no relation to work done, they're just the lowest the capitalist can get away with

Umm okay get it like this with socialism.

In a social business, everyone has a say on things that occur. And if one member decides to go lazy he can get fired because he is lazy and his fellow employees don't like him, because he makes their jobs much harder to do. But in a capitalist society, he might be of a minority and because he is a minority that business doesn't have to worry about being taxed by the government. And this is true, regardless of how shitty it appears to you.

- No one gets sacked in Socialism
- What do you mean by minority? Opinion, ethnic, religious, wealth?
- Why would a capitalist be taxed for sacking someone?

At 6/9/06 02:21 PM, JadedSoB wrote: First of all: "People get paid regardless" is a stupid idea off the fringe. Some people are naturally lazy, like dyslexics and will not produce as much high quality of work as the next joe.

dude dyslexics are not lazy there just ineffient due to mental disablitys, oh yeah i'm dyslexic too.

The russians had stalinism but american dumb-fucks called it communism. and the commi system work only in a perfect world, whihc this is not.

At 6/9/06 03:01 PM, arz756 wrote: How exactly does it reward the rich, or destroy the poor. There are plenty of ways of paying off going to college through scholarships and payment options. As crazy as this may sound the colleges want you to go to them and they understand that if they charge too much they make less money.

Communism is not a perfect idea. It is inherently resistant to progress. It is a romanticized theory of the greatness of a system where everyone is equal. And besides a system designed for humans that is not compatible with humans is flawed at the start.

capitalism is a snow ball due to debt you get a loan, which has intrest which causes debt, and so on. this kills the poor and middle class, but the rich get a round this, and the rich are helped by taxes, and some rich people don't deserve it and get helped while some poor people don't deserve it and get crushed by the system

At 6/10/06 08:29 PM, civIII wrote: capitalism is a snow ball due to debt you get a loan, which has intrest which causes debt, and so on. this kills the poor and middle class, but the rich get a round this,

then don't go into debt if you can't afford the intrest, and how exactly do the rich get around this?

and the rich are helped by taxes, and some rich people don't deserve it and get helped while some poor people don't deserve it and get crushed by the system

http://en.wikipedia...upply_side_economics

The top 5% of people in terms of income pay roughly 50% of the income tax, while the bottom 50% pay roughly 5% of the income tax. Is it fair that the rich are being punished for success.

At 6/9/06 02:21 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Communism is imperfect and was wrought by a nut-job who has no idea how the real world works. Capitalism still remains almost perfect.

Then why is it that most people who are very much pro-capitalism really seem out of touch with what it's like to be in the working class? Or how the job market works? Or how basic human psychology works? And why do they say people aren't equal one minute, and say that capitalism is great because it gives them equal opportunity to "Work hard" the next? And why do they put the ideal of "hard work" before human well being and even life?

Communism isn't the greatest idea. Luckily, said nutjob did a kind of half-way marker that people took and developed into something interesting - modern socialism.

At 6/10/06 08:50 PM, arz756 wrote:
then don't go into debt if you can't afford the intrest, and how exactly do the rich get around this?

the rich pay of the debt before intrest has chance to strike. and if 1) poor and middle class people buy let's say a home the won't pay it in one go and get draged in to debt,2) or if the go to college and get a college loan. if they don't go to college they PROBABLE don't get a good job and get pulled into situation 1

At 6/10/06 08:50 PM, arz756 wrote: Blah blah blah blah
blah blah www.wikipropaganda.com

"cites a source from a webpage that can worded by anyone and I mean anyone."

Yeah I mean who's really dumb enough to source something entirely off of wikipedia.

But allow me to show you some facts, bub.

http://www.commondre../views06/0502-30.htm

http://www.newscient..article.ns?id=dn7107

Of course the rich are suppose to spending more money in terms of income tax, becasue they have the majority of the money.

http://upload.wikime..apitalist_System.gif

http://www.fairecono..h/wealth_charts.html

And this was in 2001. 1% of the United States has almost a third of the total wealth. 10% of the population or just roughly 25 million people have almost 70% of the total wealth. Meanwhile 90% of the total population in the United States or roughly 225,000,000 people have roughly just 30% of the total wealth in the United States.

Does that answer your concern and lack of understanding the poor?

By the way arz756, who happens to have two accounts here on Newgrounds, you wouldn't happen to be an aristocrat now would you?

At 6/10/06 04:17 PM, CaptinChu wrote:

At 6/9/06 01:48 PM, BAMFbeaver wrote: Ok before you all start to tell me how I am a communist peice of shit, can I at least explain it? true communism was not what russia had at all. that was a straight up dictator ship.

Communism is an economic system. Dictatorship is a governmental system. It is very possible for a democracy to have a communistic economy, except most have a free market enterprise.

True Communism was what Russia had. However, it also had a true dictatorship, a governmental system that is often interpreted to be hand in hand with communism. Would America be better with a communistic economy than a free-market enterprise?

I was with you up to where you said True Communism is what Russia had. I know there are several types of communism, a major one being marcsism(sp?) but I'm pretty sure Russia didn't have "True Communism". In fact I don't think any nation has ever come close to what you're talking about.

At 6/9/06 01:48 PM, BAMFbeaver wrote: Ok before you all start to tell me how I am a communist peice of shit, can I at least explain it? true communism was not what russia had at all. that was a straight up dictator ship. In true communisim some one would not have as much power as the numerous leaders of Russia. In fact nearly all of the communist society's are actually dictatorship. In real communism it dose work by giveing everyone what they need to survive. Everyone is paid the same no matter what and everyone has work. also In true communism the goverment has a system of checks and balances that keep it from becomeing a dictatorship. Communism is perfect but because of man's imperfections communism shall never succcede. So before you slander it think of what it really is.

Oh great! .......... Another dumb-ass 15 year-old trying to post that what happened in Russia wasn't REAL Communism. This is the most pathetic excuse to try to paint Communism in a positive light that I've ever seen. What happened in Russia was Communism, get over it! I did........ when my parents and I were exiled from there with just the cloths on our backs, because dad made the horrifying mistake of saying he didn't think the Communist government was doing a good job!

Seriously! What the f**k is with you young teenagers and your love for a bull$#^t form of government that fails horribly, when applied in the real world! Put down the f**king books written by left-wing morons who never even set foot into a communist nation. Go to the community centers or churches that are filled with adults who SURVIVED Communism, and ask them what it's REALLY like! You want to fantasize, you want to play pretend; go play the latest Final Fantasy game. And put those make-believe, pro-Communism books in the fiction section; where they belong. How the f**k can you believe a book written by a dumb-ass who never lived under a Communist nation?! Pretentious fools.

At 6/10/06 08:02 PM, therealyoda wrote:

At 6/10/06 05:34 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Only some of them or very few of them nowadays are like that. You have no understanding that only implies to people a few centuries or decades ago. Now it's a maricle of someone can become rich and stay rich. And it's because of capitalism.

It is hardly a miracle.

Oh it's a maricle all right. Nearly everyone who becomes rich suddenly loses their wealth almost instantly.

I'm not talking about your celebrities, I'm talking about the major corporations and entire countries that built and preserve their wealth on the exploitation of others.

Which are what? Centuries or decades old? You know it's quite easy to become wealthy in certain countries when you own every business in the land.

I'll recommend you the Labour Theory of Value as well, so you can understand the level at which the exploitation occurs.

Oh goody another book I have already studied. Would you care to share another one while you are at it?

The extent of it is the entire world. Why do you think entire continents struggle, while others strive?

Easy some countried benefit off of the weak. They don't have to try harder, they just happen to know what to do and have the man power behind them to succeed. This man power is the military and the constantly working middle class and poor that want more money to help themselves to survive. But instead of receiving anything, they gain absolutely nothing more than if the owners and executives had no desire to gain a single thing. Painful as it is of course.

It's not because they're more hard-working or righteous, it's because of subsidies, embargos, colonialism, occupation; all things driven by capitalism, for the gains of the capitalists (aristocrats).

Um ehhh yeah I know that. I never said anything about that. I normally said the hard working benefit hardly anything at all. So umm... what's your point again?

Ok, here's one. I dont want to have a hard job and work hard and still get paid the same as someone who has an easy job who decides to do jackshit.

But it happens all the time in the United States and the United States is capitalistic.

That's because wages under Capitalism have no relation to work done, they're just the lowest the capitalist can get away with

That is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"Wages under capitalism have no relation to the work that is done"

Oh please, if that was true then not working at all would have no effect on your wage. I dare you to try that and see if you can prove your point. Go and get hired and just lay back and do nothing for the entire time you are working there. Come on, unless you know you were wrong about this and just wanted to spat out shitiness, accept the challenge just so I'll shut up about this whole thing. But I bet you won't do it, why? Because you know nothing and are completely absorbed with your egotism.

It is true that capitalism through it's definition has no effect on your wages. But it does share a relation to it. Not by working harder, but by working more favorable or simply being more favorable to your boss's expectations.

Umm okay get it like this with socialism.

In a social business, everyone has a say on things that occur. And if one member decides to go lazy he can get fired because he is lazy and his fellow employees don't like him, because he makes their jobs much harder to do. But in a capitalist society, he might be of a minority and because he is a minority that business doesn't have to worry about being taxed by the government. And this is true, regardless of how shitty it appears to you.

- No one gets sacked in Socialism

Alot of people get fired in a socialist society. Why wouldn't they? In a socialist society people can become as unfriendly as in a capitalist society, especially when someone doesn't do their job. You've just proven you have no understanding about people, about anything, and about socialism. Thanks for showwing just how stupid you are.

- What do you mean by minority? Opinion, ethnic, religious, wealth?

Hmm you just confirmed what I has suspected, your allegation that I am just spatting nonesense.

Especially when you added in "opinion" with ethnic, religious, and wealth.

You know what I meant, unless you are really that stupid.

- Why would a capitalist be taxed for sacking someone?

Sacking? I never said they were being taxes for firing someone. Oh no no, my mentally retarded friend, I said they weren't being taxed when they hire people who are in the minority. There is a big difference between those statements and what they express.

But it would be futile to explain it to you, since you are caught up in the moment with attacking me senselessly for some unknown reason.

At 6/11/06 04:35 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/10/06 08:02 PM, therealyoda wrote:

At 6/10/06 05:34 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

- What do you mean by minority? Opinion, ethnic, religious, wealth?

Hmm you just confirmed what I has suspected, your allegation that I am just spatting nonesense.

Especially when you added in "opinion" with ethnic, religious, and wealth.

You know what I meant, unless you are really that stupid.

Man, calm down, if you wanna prove your point then do it, but swearing isn't helping.
And you didn't actually answer the question.

At 6/11/06 05:30 AM, Laduguer_Fisto wrote:

You know what I meant, unless you are really that stupid.

Man, calm down, if you wanna prove your point then do it, but swearing isn't helping.
And you didn't actually answer the question.

So stupid is a swear word? Umm okay... Mr. overly-sensitive. Opps sorry, I didn't mean to curse.

And well for your information I did answer his question, I said, "you know what I mean."

At 6/11/06 05:37 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/11/06 05:30 AM, Laduguer_Fisto wrote:

You know what I meant, unless you are really that stupid.

Man, calm down, if you wanna prove your point then do it, but swearing isn't helping.
And you didn't actually answer the question.

So stupid is a swear word? Umm okay... Mr. overly-sensitive. Opps sorry, I didn't mean to curse.

I believe it was in an earlier post.

And well for your information I did answer his question, I said, "you know what I mean."

That's not answering the question. That's dodging it. If you actually know what you meant by minority why not answer it?

At 6/11/06 04:35 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/10/06 08:02 PM, therealyoda wrote:

At 6/10/06 05:34 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Only some of them or very few of them nowadays are like that. You have no understanding that only implies to people a few centuries or decades ago. Now it's a maricle of someone can become rich and stay rich. And it's because of capitalism.

It is hardly a miracle.

Oh it's a maricle all right. Nearly everyone who becomes rich suddenly loses their wealth almost instantly.

I'm not talking about your celebrities, I'm talking about the major corporations and entire countries that built and preserve their wealth on the exploitation of others.

Which are what? Centuries or decades old? You know it's quite easy to become wealthy in certain countries when you own every business in the land.

I'll recommend you the Labour Theory of Value as well, so you can understand the level at which the exploitation occurs.

Oh goody another book I have already studied. Would you care to share another one while you are at it?

The Labour Theory of Value is not a book

The extent of it is the entire world. Why do you think entire continents struggle, while others strive?

Easy some countried benefit off of the weak. They don't have to try harder, they just happen to know what to do and have the man power behind them to succeed. This man power is the military and the constantly working middle class and poor that want more money to help themselves to survive. But instead of receiving anything, they gain absolutely nothing more than if the owners and executives had no desire to gain a single thing. Painful as it is of course.

Profiting from others' weaknesses is disgusting and immoral, I don't know how it can be tolerated on such a large scale. Success does not have to mean besting someone else, we have the ability to co-operate and make everyone happy

It's not because they're more hard-working or righteous, it's because of subsidies, embargos, colonialism, occupation; all things driven by capitalism, for the gains of the capitalists (aristocrats).

Firstly, there is a great deal of difference between capitalists and aristocrats. Secondly, you should avoid misquoting, it's unbecoming.

Um ehhh yeah I know that. I never said anything about that. I normally said the hard working benefit hardly anything at all. So umm... what's your point again?

So you both know, have never said anything about it, and say the hard-working don't benefit; please make up your mind

Ok, here's one. I dont want to have a hard job and work hard and still get paid the same as someone who has an easy job who decides to do jackshit.

But it happens all the time in the United States and the United States is capitalistic.

That's because wages under Capitalism have no relation to work done, they're just the lowest the capitalist can get away with

That is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"Wages under capitalism have no relation to the work that is done"

Oh please, if that was true then not working at all would have no effect on your wage. I dare you to try that and see if you can prove your point. Go and get hired and just lay back and do nothing for the entire time you are working there. Come on, unless you know you were wrong about this and just wanted to spat out shitiness, accept the challenge just so I'll shut up about this whole thing. But I bet you won't do it, why? Because you know nothing and are completely absorbed with your egotism.

A man can clean break his back cleaning the sewers while I'm paid a higher wage to laze about at a computer. There -- not only have I accepted your challenge, but I have been accomplishing it for nearly two years. I entreat you to "shut up about this whole thing".

It is true that capitalism through it's definition has no effect on your wages. But it does share a relation to it. Not by working harder, but by working more favorable or simply being more favorable to your boss's expectations.

It is a life of working to make your employer rich(meet his expectations, as you say) that is revolting. Human labour can, and ought to, be put to much better use.

Umm okay get it like this with socialism.

In a social business, everyone has a say on things that occur. And if one member decides to go lazy he can get fired because he is lazy and his fellow employees don't like him, because he makes their jobs much harder to do. But in a capitalist society, he might be of a minority and because he is a minority that business doesn't have to worry about being taxed by the government. And this is true, regardless of how shitty it appears to you.

- No one gets sacked in Socialism

Alot of people get fired in a socialist society. Why wouldn't they? In a socialist society people can become as unfriendly as in a capitalist society, especially when someone doesn't do their job. You've just proven you have no understanding about people, about anything, and about socialism. Thanks for showwing just how stupid you are.

Since we have not yet established socialism, I find this first point interesting. You must realise that Socialism isn't just a change in your paycheque, but the abolition of the paycheque along with the capitalist who hands it to you.

- What do you mean by minority? Opinion, ethnic, religious, wealth?

Hmm you just confirmed what I has suspected, your allegation that I am just spatting nonesense.

Especially when you added in "opinion" with ethnic, religious, and wealth.

You know what I meant, unless you are really that stupid.

- Why would a capitalist be taxed for sacking someone?

Sacking? I never said they were being taxes for firing someone. Oh no no, my mentally retarded friend, I said they weren't being taxed when they hire people who are in the minority. There is a big difference between those statements and what they express.

Once you've established what you mean by a minority, I'll attack that point.

But it would be futile to explain it to you, since you are caught up in the moment with attacking me senselessly for some unknown reason.

What I wrote was not in the slightest bit an attack on you. You are certainly an angry little fellow, and it's not helping the discussion

I've heard a bit about the debate of Communism.
People didn't have power, but they couldn't hurt themselves and could live normally. that was created in russia.
then when the Nazis and Cuba etc. made a Communist coutnry (dictatorship) they took it too far, relieving everyone of basic rights.
Is that right?
no, i won't call you a piece of shit.
i thnk my info here is right.
still... i have some doubts, but i'm not sure

At 6/9/06 01:48 PM, BAMFbeaver wrote: Ok before you all start to tell me how I am a communist peice of shit, can I at least explain it? true communism was not what russia had at all. that was a straight up dictator ship. In true communisim some one would not have as much power as the numerous leaders of Russia. In fact nearly all of the communist society's are actually dictatorship. In real communism it dose work by giveing everyone what they need to survive. Everyone is paid the same no matter what and everyone has work. also In true communism the goverment has a system of checks and balances that keep it from becomeing a dictatorship. Communism is perfect but because of man's imperfections communism shall never succcede. So before you slander it think of what it really is.

Actually in communism no one is paid. In communism everyone does what they want, there is no government. Communism is a system of anarchy, where there are no leaders, but people "behave well".

*Cough* communisem was invented in france over 130 years ago.. but no1 iked it there

I know it is given a hard time. if youi think about it its a choice bwteen

Freefom=war
Safety=Not much freedom

And some nations chose safety to freedom.

(of course there are MY belfes on the topic)

so, we've established that
1. communism works on paper
2. communism works in small groups (debated?)

And it only took us two pages to do it! congrats NG. (lol)

I have an interesting situation, in that my grandfather worked all his life, is a hardworking man, and is reasonably intelligent (he still suprises me with his random genious), but never got above lower middle class. Take my father though, very similar to my grandfather, intelligent, hardworking buisnessman, paid his way through college, went to an OK school, etc. started a buisness roughly 10 years ago, almost went bankrupt thrice, but is finally starting to see a profit from his job. Both of these men had pretty much the same opportunities, but one benefited more from capitalism. It has shown to me that two things matter most in caitalism, luck, and who your daddy was.
sorry, just thought I'd share that point, resume flami- discussing with each other.

At 6/11/06 05:54 AM, Laduguer_Fisto wrote:

At 6/11/06 05:37 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/11/06 05:30 AM, Laduguer_Fisto wrote:

You know what I meant, unless you are really that stupid.

Man, calm down, if you wanna prove your point then do it, but swearing isn't helping.
And you didn't actually answer the question.

So stupid is a swear word? Umm okay... Mr. overly-sensitive. Opps sorry, I didn't mean to curse.

I believe it was in an earlier post.

Then you should have posted that now shouldn't ya?

And well for your information I did answer his question, I said, "you know what I mean."

That's not answering the question. That's dodging it.

No it isn't. Because I'm allowing him to come to his own conclusions and just dropping the whole thing. Technically that's almost the direct opposite of dodging it.

If you actually know what you meant by minority why not answer it?

I did answer it.

Communism IS a bad thing *sarcasm*

Well hey mabye ur right my Communist friend.
Well those Russians had it very wrong then.

At 6/11/06 03:41 PM, therealyoda wrote:

At 6/11/06 04:35 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/10/06 08:02 PM, therealyoda wrote:

At 6/10/06 05:34 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Only some of them or very few of them nowadays are like that. You have no understanding that only implies to people a few centuries or decades ago. Now it's a maricle of someone can become rich and stay rich. And it's because of capitalism.

It is hardly a miracle.

Oh it's a maricle all right. Nearly everyone who becomes rich suddenly loses their wealth almost instantly.

I'm not talking about your celebrities, I'm talking about the major corporations and entire countries that built and preserve their wealth on the exploitation of others.

Which are what? Centuries or decades old? You know it's quite easy to become wealthy in certain countries when you own every business in the land.

I'll recommend you the Labour Theory of Value as well, so you can understand the level at which the exploitation occurs.

Oh goody another book I have already studied. Would you care to share another one while you are at it?

The Labour Theory of Value is not a book

Then why is there a book out on it? http://www.amazon.co..=glance&n=283155

The extent of it is the entire world. Why do you think entire continents struggle, while others strive?

Easy some countried benefit off of the weak. They don't have to try harder, they just happen to know what to do and have the man power behind them to succeed. This man power is the military and the constantly working middle class and poor that want more money to help themselves to survive. But instead of receiving anything, they gain absolutely nothing more than if the owners and executives had no desire to gain a single thing. Painful as it is of course.

Profiting from others' weaknesses is disgusting and immoral.

But Americans and the British do it all the time.

I don't know how it can be tolerated on such a large scale.

Because in capitalism the only thing that matters is wealth.

Success does not have to mean besting someone else, we have the ability to co-operate and make everyone happy

In a socialist or socialist like society yes, because you have morals instead of greed.

It's not because they're more hard-working or righteous, it's because of subsidies, embargos, colonialism, occupation; all things driven by capitalism, for the gains of the capitalists (aristocrats).

Firstly, there is a great deal of difference between capitalists and aristocrats. Secondly, you should avoid misquoting, it's unbecoming.

I don't care. Because I know I'm right. The only people that are truely capistalistic are aristocrats. So technically they aren't so different after all.

Um ehhh yeah I know that. I never said anything about that. I normally said the hard working benefit hardly anything at all. So umm... what's your point again?

So you both know

Who?

have never said anything about

What?

and say the hard-working don't benefit; please make up your mind

I have a hard time understanding who or what you are talking about.

That is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard.

"Wages under capitalism have no relation to the work that is done"

Oh please, if that was true then not working at all would have no effect on your wage. I dare you to try that and see if you can prove your point. Go and get hired and just lay back and do nothing for the entire time you are working there. Come on, unless you know you were wrong about this and just wanted to spat out shitiness, accept the challenge just so I'll shut up about this whole thing. But I bet you won't do it, why? Because you know nothing and are completely absorbed with your egotism.

A man can clean break his back cleaning the sewers while I'm paid a higher wage to laze about at a computer.

Actually you aren't lazying about. You are in fact doing less work, but you are suppose to be doing something. Otherwise your boss would fire you. It doesn't matter how much work you do, as long as you are contributing to something and following your boss's expectations. Don't you dare make an attempt on using this information in your own little sick and disturbed way.

There -- not only have I accepted your challenge, but I have been accomplishing it for nearly two years. I entreat you to "shut up about this whole thing".

OH please... Where is your proof, dofus? Surely you can't just expect me to be satisfied with just plain out BS. You need proof.

It is a life of working to make your employer rich(meet his expectations, as you say) that is revolting.

But it's true. Just because it is disturbing, doesn't mean it's not true. The world is a very sick and disturbed place. Why don't you think that if aliens do exist that they don't suddenly just appear at the White House? Well the truth is that there was some siting over the whitehouse during Truman's time in office. But... that's about it.

Human labour can, and ought to, be put to much better use.

Welcome to socialism. Where labour helps benefit society, instead of just one or a group of people.

Since we have not yet established socialism.

But we have promoted socialist like programs.

I find this first point interesting. You must realise that Socialism isn't just a change in your paycheck, but the abolition of the paycheck along with the capitalist who hands it to you.

It's the abolition of being paid simply by how your capitalist friend sees fit. Nothing more, nothing less.

Once you've established what you mean by a minority, I'll attack that point.

Oh please... why should I? You wouldn't understand.

What I wrote was not in the slightest bit an attack on you.

Oh really... I beg to differ. I think you don't even know what an attack is.

You are certainly an angry little fellow, and it's not helping the discussion

I'm not angry, dumbass. Sure I rant and I throw insults. But that doesn't mean I'm not enjoying ranting and throwwing insults.

At 6/9/06 01:48 PM, BAMFbeaver wrote: ...Russia had at all. that was a straight up dictator ship.

No… there was nothing dictatorial or totalitarian about the USSR if anything it was more closely related to an Oligarchy. But what Russia really was, was Socialism.

:In true communisim some one would not have as much power as the numerous leaders of Russia.

Yes, this is a theoretical truth…

:In true communism the goverment has a system of checks and balances that keep it from becomeing a dictatorship.

In true communism there IS no government. Everyone works for the good of the whole and there is no individualism. About as close to true communism you will ever see is Star Trek Next Generations main enemy the Borg… but even they ended having a controlling factor.

:Communism is perfect but because of man's imperfections communism shall never succcede.

There is nothing perfect in expecting sentient beings to become bumble bees without a queen. Which is what would be required for TRUE communism to work.

:So before you slander it think of what it really is.

Before you tell us what WE should do I recommend you read the works of the main individual that created the concept of communism; Karl Marx’s – Communist Manifesto.

I also recommend you read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

At 6/9/06 01:48 PM, BAMFbeaver wrote: ...Russia had at all. that was a straight up dictator ship.

No… there was nothing dictatorial or totalitarian about the USSR if anything it was more closely related to an Oligarchy. But what Russia really was, was Socialism.

In true communisim some one would not have as much power as the numerous leaders of Russia.

Yes, this is a theoretical truth…

In true communism the goverment has a system of checks and balances that keep it from becomeing a dictatorship.

In true communism there IS no government. Everyone works for the good of the whole and there is no individualism. About as close to true communism you will ever see is Star Trek Next Generations main enemy the Borg… but even they ended having a controlling factor.

Communism is perfect but because of man's imperfections communism shall never succcede.

There is nothing perfect in expecting sentient beings to become bumble bees without a queen. Which is what would be required for TRUE communism to work.

So before you slander it think of what it really is.

Before you tell us what WE should do I recommend you read the works of the main individual that created the concept of communism; Karl Marx’s – Communist Manifesto.

I also recommend you read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

At 6/11/06 12:01 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: "cites a source from a webpage that can worded by anyone and I mean anyone."

Yeah I mean who's really dumb enough to source something entirely off of wikipedia.

That was not a source. I pointed it out for his lack of understanding of the current economics used by conservatives. It wasn't related to anything I said. capitalist economics, which don't affect socialism in anyway.

But allow me to show you some facts, bub.

http://www.commondre../views06/0502-30.htm

http://www.newscient..article.ns?id=dn7107

Wow, I wonder why rich people get richer, because they use their money to make more money. Is it a rich person's fault if a poor person thinks that they don't need to worry because they have their welfare.

Of course the rich are suppose to spending more money in terms of income tax, becasue they have the majority of the money.

http://upload.wikime..apitalist_System.gif


http://www.fairecono..h/wealth_charts.html


And this was in 2001. 1% of the United States has almost a third of the total wealth. 10% of the population or just roughly 25 million people have almost 70% of the total wealth. Meanwhile 90% of the total population in the United States or roughly 225,000,000 people have roughly just 30% of the total wealth in the United States.

So that justifies that a person's personal success should be leeched off of them?

Does that answer your concern and lack of understanding the poor?

Nope i'm just too misguided.

By the way arz756, who happens to have two accounts here on Newgrounds, you wouldn't happen to be an aristocrat now would you?

Nope i'm not. Many "rich people" end up being socialists anyway. Whats my other account? I don't remember making one. Though I most likely did.