Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/1/07 08:44 AM, Kenzu wrote: Socialism is the GAY to go!

Fixed for great justice.

The actual , literal, definition of Communism is: Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

Jesus Criest allmight I cant believe we're still talking about this. Its the same crap every time someone post a thread about communism. And no thats not saying the saying the lords name in vain because the with allmighty at the end it doesnt count.

At 9/1/07 02:24 PM, Kenzu wrote: without a strong interventionist government the world would end up with one huge corporation owning everything dictating the price while many people were homeless.

Wrong, that's all there is to it.

Anyone who supports capitalism should spend one year at the bottom of capitalism society.
If that happened everyone would support socialism. EVERYONE!

Right than, define bottom of the capitalist society. Besides that no they wouldn't, take my family for example, was just around the bottom there for many years, and my parents are both Objectivists. I'm not going to explain it but you have to be like mega-pro capitalism to be able to consider yourself an objectivist. At least in a capitalist society you can move UP instead of staying at the same level like in socialism. On an unrelated note, I'm not objectivist but I want capitalism, it tastes good, why? I can get more cookies that way.

At 9/1/07 10:16 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Wrong, that's all there is to it.

The very existence of monopolies within the market who exploit people and the fact that corporations can quite easily influence the policies of major world powers can be used as evidence that without government intervention we'd all be run by banks or god knows what.

At least in a capitalist society you can move UP instead of staying at the same level like in socialism.

Why is it that people don't seem to understand the concept of socialism and communism properly?

There are NO levels in true socialism so saying the fact that you can move up them in capitalism is not a valid point to show capitalism is better as ther eis no comparison to make as one has classes and the other is classless.

At 9/1/07 06:19 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Thats not true, when dealing with lower class schools you have worse teachers than say an upper class school. The education is the same, but the application is not.

The application of the education is just as important as what they are taught. Just because they are taught the same things does not mean they receive the same education. If a rich school has access to a better library with more books on the American civil war it's students will have more access to knowledge than a poor school with less books on the subject. This means that whilst they are being taught the same thing the education is different. The rich kids will learn more as they have access to more things thus making their education better.

Not to mention you're dealing with students who (normally) don't see themselves as going to college. Now that might be a stereotype, but it is a factor.

It s a factor but that's irrelevant to my point. I'm happy to admit that those with motivation can do as well within a poor school but it doesn't disprove my rants about inequality within the education system.

Thats right, but just because a student might have less incentive to learn and get a better education doesn't mean they wont. If a student wants to go to college, or get a good education they don't need a great teacher. All they need is the information, which they can get.

They don't need a great teacher, they do just need information, but in general the richer schools have a greater access to that information. They have better libraries, better for computers with which to surf the web for tid bits of information which increases the amount of information available to the students and thus icnreases the overall level of their education.

Like I said, its easier for rich students, but its not impossible for poor students.

Agreed.

Which is life.

It may be life, but it certainly isn't fair. I'm not one of those rabid socialists screaming for total equality, but I do think equality of opportunity is a very important thing.

At 9/1/07 02:24 PM, Kenzu wrote: without a strong interventionist government the world would end up with one huge corporation owning everything dictating the price while many people were homeless.

i said without a dictator, or did you just mean the government

At 9/2/07 04:53 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The very existence of monopolies within the market who exploit people and the fact that corporations can quite easily influence the policies of major world powers can be used as evidence that without government intervention we'd all be run by banks or god knows what.

I don't think I said that government intervention couldn't exist, I agree that to a point it's needed, but only to the point where the government is still in control, but if they go overboard that's a bit on the bad side.

There are NO levels in true socialism so saying the fact that you can move up them in capitalism is not a valid point to show capitalism is better as there is no comparison to make as one has classes and the other is classless.

Okay I admit I worded that wrong, I understand that it's classless. Also you have a point about the no comparison. But I'm trying to say as a personal preference I'd like to be able to get ahead of other people, it's not a matter of having more power or anything, just knowing that if I want to I CAN get ahead of others, that's all.

Oh and wait I'm saying about "True Socialism" is that it CAN NOT happen simply because of human nature. People will find ways to get themselves in positions of power where they can more or less be above others, thus ruining the classless society. It doesn't work, if humans weren't the way we are than it would.

At 9/1/07 08:58 AM, LabBattle wrote:

At 8/30/07 08:59 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

So what youre saying is that because they spend less on health care that makes them better than our system,

What i meant was they spend less per capita. And it makes their system better considering the World Healthcare Organization ranks them at 23 whereas the u.s is at 37, just two positions above cuba.

How much do they spend on medical research?

I'm talking about universal healthcare vs privatized. Medical research is conducted by drug companies, universities, private institutions not just the government. Not to mention most expenses are due to actual health care claims not r+d

As for that , in comparison how much does any country spend on medical research and development compared to the US? Its easy to spend less when when half the work is done for you.

Not enough to justify the difference in expenditure on healthcare.

At 9/2/07 05:06 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: It may be life, but it certainly isn't fair

Well theres also that people in lower class areas pay lower taxes, if they payed more money for property tax then the school would be better funded.

So it may not be fair, but its capitalism.

It's weird, I've been thinkin about communism lately and what most ppl are saying is true, Communism is a better ideology then actual practice for the simple reason that in order to have perfect communism the entire system of people would have to be morally perfect. No one could cheat/ steal or the portion stolen would come from someone else's profit and thus cause a cycle of stealing just to make ends meet. Well at least that sort of thing. Also, communism provides no promise for advancement. It's like life was a horse race and if you work hard enough you get the carrot. Communism takes away the carrot and splits it evenly for all the competeors even if one came first and one didn't show up for the race. Capitalism isn't even a good opposing idea for communism, the idea's aren't really opposing just a different view. Also, communism is a form of government while capitalism is a form of economy. With communism everything from culture, to education, to economy would become stagnant and fall apart (ex. USSR) Not saying that a capitalist driven democracy is by far superior to a communist government, just more practical.

At 9/2/07 06:51 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Well theres also that people in lower class areas pay lower taxes, if they payed more money for property tax then the school would be better funded.

Or you could stop the waste in the others areas of government spending such as the military, sort out other problems and then shove all that money into the education system thus making it possible to take the education system better without raising taxes for those that can' afford it.

OR

We could tax the super rich fairly.

Just a thought.

At 9/1/07 02:34 PM, LabBattle wrote:

At 9/1/07 02:24 PM, Kenzu wrote: without a strong interventionist government the world would end up with one huge corporation owning everything dictating the price while many people were homeless.

Anyone who supports capitalism should spend one year at the bottom of capitalism society.
If that happened everyone would support socialism. EVERYONE!

Whats funny is that no matter how you want to spin it, in a capitolist society, everyone has the chance to succeed, it just depends on how bad you want it. I lived in the inner city in atlanta, my dad sold plazma for 50 bucks a week so my family could eat, I made the best of my life through hard work, i didnt ask for handouts, or look for someone else to take care of me, i was dirt poor, I lived more than half my life at the bottom and i completely disagree with communism/socialism. Personal responcibility, nobody wants to take responcibility for thier choices in life, if you are poor and make bad decisions, you probabbly wont be anything but poor your whole life. If you apply yourself and work hard, the opportunities are out there, it just takes work, its easy to be lazy.

The problem with capitalism is such that although many people work hard, only few people get rich. Capitalism doesnt make people rich based on how hard they work, but based on how lucky they are and how good they can exploit others.

I prefer a society where everyone who works hard earns a similiar amount of money and those who aren't able to work dont starve to death.

At 9/3/07 09:28 AM, Kenzu wrote:

At 9/1/07 02:34 PM, LabBattle wrote:

At 9/1/07 02:24 PM, Kenzu wrote:

The problem with capitalism is such that although many people work hard, only few people get rich. Capitalism doesnt make people rich based on how hard they work, but based on how lucky they are and how good they can exploit others.

I prefer a society where everyone who works hard earns a similiar amount of money and those who aren't able to work dont starve to death.

So you think a ditch digger and a doctor should be payed similarly, Both are hoard work, the difference is the work put into getting to getting there, its easy to become a ditch digger all you need is a shovel, it takes hard work and self initiative to become a doctor regardless of whether you are rich or poor you still have to pass school. If you dont apply yourself why should you be payed as much as someone how does. I dont think those who cannot work through some grevious and or extreme circumstance should starve, however those to lazy to make something of them selfs have no one to blame buy themselves, and i shouldn't have to pay for their laziness.

At 9/3/07 09:41 AM, LabBattle wrote: however those to lazy to make something of them selfs have no one to blame buy themselves, and i shouldn't have to pay for their laziness.

You are forgetting one additional, critically important difference:
Training of Ditchdigger: $0, 5 seconds
Training of Doctor: $100,000+, 6+ years

Becoming a doctor is a very large investment, and in an equal-pay system, the doctor is simply unable to repay his investment, or the years of potential work he invested, so not only is there no incentive for anyone to become a doctor, but you are actually strongly discouraging anyone from filling key medical roles necessary to the well-being of our society.

Wanted to say that, but couldnt word it properly, thanks

At 9/3/07 10:02 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 9/3/07 09:41 AM, LabBattle wrote: however those to lazy to make something of them selfs have no one to blame buy themselves, and i shouldn't have to pay for their laziness.

You are forgetting one additional, critically important difference:
Training of Ditchdigger: $0, 5 seconds
Training of Doctor: $100,000+, 6+ years

Becoming a doctor is a very large investment, and in an equal-pay system, the doctor is simply unable to repay his investment, or the years of potential work he invested, so not only is there no incentive for anyone to become a doctor, but you are actually strongly discouraging anyone from filling key medical roles necessary to the well-being of our society.

Becomming a digger is no investment. University has no fees. Where I live its only 400 Euros per semester, but if you are poor it is for free. All it takes is 6 years time.

A doctor should earn twice or trice the amount of a "dich-digger", but not 10 or 1000 times more. No one should earn more than 5 times of the lowest pay.

lets say the lowest you could get would be 1000 Euros, the maximum would be 5000.
But plenty of things would be cheap/free anyway...

(like health care)

At 9/3/07 04:48 PM, Kenzu wrote: University has no fees. Where I live its only 400 Euros per semester, but if you are poor it is for free. All it takes is 6 years time.

head........ explode.............

Personally, I believe a communist goverment will never succeed. It has a profound effect on economy, and will never work on a developing nation. The reason for such is, if the government sets a standarized price on a certain object, and miscalculates its worth it will cause a giant influx on economy.

Communism looks good on paper and is even better as toiletpaper.

At 9/3/07 05:08 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 9/3/07 04:48 PM, Kenzu wrote: University has no fees. Where I live its only 400 Euros per semester, but if you are poor it is for free. All it takes is 6 years time.

head........ explode.............

Explain! [asuming you're head hasn't exploded yet]

I don't accept answers to questions with the excuse being the proclamation of another persons idiocy.

At 9/3/07 08:53 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 9/3/07 05:08 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

head........ explode.............

Explain! [asuming you're head hasn't exploded yet]

fees = cheap?

I don't understand the concept of 'If You're Poor it's Free'

What's the point of having money if everything is free without it; you might as well live the john lenon lifestyle of 'imagine a world with no posession'

You may call me a dreamer....

At 9/3/07 09:48 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I don't understand the concept of 'If You're Poor it's Free'

What's the point of having money if everything is free without it; you might as well live the john lenon lifestyle of 'imagine a world with no posession'

You may call me a dreamer....

i dunno maybe his govt. is going on the whole basis of equal opportunity

Your right. Communism is good if it's done properly maybe they could change the leadership in communism to some Council of People ruled by everyone similar to the methods used in ancient Greece except with evereyone being able to vote/be in Council. They would still have everything else just this so the Communism doesn't turn into a Despot/Dictatorship. Everything would be done by voting from the council and maybe a Living Wage so people can't be starving? and the most basic design of housing (still fair accomodation) could be free, but for the better designs of housing you would have to pay money. ( and everyone will be asigned jobs unless they are disabled.)

At 9/2/07 04:53 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 9/1/07 10:16 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Wrong, that's all there is to it.

The very existence of monopolies within the market who exploit people and the fact that corporations can quite easily influence the policies of major world powers can be used as evidence that without government intervention we'd all be run by banks or god knows what.

At least in a capitalist society you can move UP instead of staying at the same level like in socialism:

Why is it that people don't seem to understand the concept of socialism and communism properly?

There are NO levels in true socialism so saying the fact that you can move up them in capitalism is not a valid point to show capitalism is better as ther eis no comparison to make as one has classes and the other is classless.

There is no such thing as true socialism. It doesn't matter what Marx said, all socialist and communist goverments end in full goverment overtake, the killing of anyone who differs, stop believing in fairytales, in Spain, Letonia, Russia, Cuba, China and wherever there is communism,it failed. Why don't communist don't want to accept that?

At 8/29/07 07:57 PM, Buckdich wrote:

At 8/29/07 07:15 PM, Transkar wrote: Communsim will never work on humans. Once again, its good in theory, bad in practice. It always ends up a police state as well.

I wouldn't say it's great in theory. Wouldn't a system in which you get out what you put in be better than a system where people always get the same share despite wether they contributed more to the general stock or not?

Communism doesn't have to mean everyone get excactly the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Of course you can own your car, and of course you could have a high income. The difference is that the car factory and your income is decided democratically.