Thread: Your View Om Communism

thats why the russian civilians are immigrating to finland

Ba-da zihhh!

Putin is not communist. The only reason why russian civilians are immigrating to finland is because living in a wasteland where you don't get killed is better then living in a wasteland where you get killed. Jail or a wasteland, I would choose finland over jail anyday.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Putin is not communist. The only reason why russian civilians are immigrating to finland is because living in a wasteland where you don't get killed is better then living in a wasteland where you get killed. Jail or a wasteland, I would choose finland over jail anyday.

meh, im starting to get offended though "I would choose finland over jail anyday" is the closest to a compliment i got from you so far

Originally Posted by Snooze

meh, im starting to get offended though "I would choose finland over jail anyday" is the closest to a compliment i got from you so far

yea, it sucks to have your country ripped on, doesnt it.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

yea, it sucks to have your country ripped on, doesnt it.

mmhmm
and i cant fight back since 95% of u guys r americans

Only joking, Finland is one off the best places to live in Europe. It just you're killing commies post is a bit offensive espically because I'm a commie.

I would never live in america or even go their.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Only joking, Finland is one off the best places to live in Europe. It just you're killing commies post is a bit offensive espically because I'm a commie.

I would never live in america or even go their.

Ohhh , sorry then its the soviets i dont like actually, but those guys dont exist anymore so its all good

Ohhh , sorry then its the soviets i dont like actually, but those guys dont exist anymore so its all good

Nevermind, I would be pretty annoyed if the old soviets try to take over my country.

Great poll, and interesting results.

Communism's a beautiful idea in my opinion.

The 'problem' is that it hinges upon the transcendence from the 'dog eat dog', Darwinian nature of capitalism; I believe Darwinian systems are brought about by nature, and are NOT perfect; rather, concious beings can intelligently set up systems which are better, as nature is just the result of cold probability.

Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, it would seem that not all humans are responsible enough to make the effort.

Communism does work, if everybody in the state is truly a communist, I think. Stalin obviously had no respect for the ideology.

Originally Posted by Intended

Sure, if you work for money that’s true for you, but if you can’t imagine working for pleasure that’s really sad.

The vast majority of people work for money. Good luck changing that law of nature. Most inventions come about because of greed, and practically all big businesses, which greatly help the economy by the way, are the result of greed. Greed is what makes the United States the richest country in the world, which results in the most upscale poverty class in the world. Even our homeless people are fat. I wish all countries would become more capitalistic so everybody could be happier.

Originally Posted by Intended

Indeed, but it is unnatural for it to be as unequal as 1 to 1000000.

It would be unnatural for foxes, but not for a species as diverse as humans. Reaching for that kind of success is what makes the machine tick, and we have the most successful machine in the world. Before you call what I am saying "patriotic", please recognize that it is a relevant fact to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Intended

Indeed, hard work and sitting on a chair aren’t equal. But for some reason in capitalistic societies hard work costs less than mere sitting on a chair and banging your hands on the keyboard. See, the majority of people who sit on their chairs are parasites.

No, they create the things you enjoy, such as the computer and software you are using right now. The job of a man running Microsoft is worth more than the job of a man flipping some hamburgers. That is another law of nature we have to take into account when making economic policies.

Originally Posted by Intended

Only as long as you view success as being the one who’s 1000000 richer than 99% of others. It’s called greed, and if it’s greed that drives you, it makes no sense to talk to you.
.

If flipping hamburgers or hammering boards together were everybody's view of success, every country would be third world. Greed is the driving force that creates the most prosperous civilizations in which all classes are more prosperous than their corresponding classes in less capitalistic nations.

To some degree communism can be okay, but it isn't fair when lazy bums are equal with hard working people. I mean i think noone should have to be dirt poor, but I don't believe in ALL completley equal economy wise. This is just how the world goes, it will never happen.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Greed is what makes the United States the richest country in the world, which results in the most upscale poverty class in the world.

China might take away your supremacy pretty soon, and their people earn very little money yet. They have socialism, by the way.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

we have the most successful machine in the world. Before you call what I am saying "patriotic", please recognize that it is a relevant fact to this discussion.

See above.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

they create the things you enjoy, such as the computer and software you are using right now.

It's just design and plans. And who actually physically creates all things that are needed for this design to work? You underappreciate their work, thinking that it's worth very little. You're delighted with those who design, but my computer's details are from the East for some reason Nothing would exist if some people weren't busy making it, you know, not only in their heads (that's called fantasy).
As for design, anybody would eventually think that up, just like anybody had eventually thought up other things. It's the circumstances and later monopoly that makes you think that one country could think something up and others couldn't. That's self-delusion, at best. All technology works in the same way everywhere, it gets discovered in the same way everywhere, just because physical laws are the same everywhere.

Honestly, I don't know how you can have such a distorted view of life.
Well, I read in another thread that you can't give up on pot, and I knew enough people who did drugs to say that it's not just a time-filler. Both alcohol and drugs happen to really unhappy people. They can seem pretty happy normally, but the most honest of them acknowledge that if it was not for drugs, they wouldn't be able to cope with reality.
Why do you glorify the system that made your life so empty?

And please... you don't create masterpieces for money. You create if you love what you do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by LucidMike14

To some degree communism can be okay, but it isn't fair when lazy bums are equal with hard working people. I mean i think noone should have to be dirt poor, but I don't believe in ALL completley equal economy wise. This is just how the world goes, it will never happen.

Reposting myself:
If in capitalism the gap between the rich and the poor earnings can easily be 1 to 1000, in socialism it would be controlled to be 1 to 20 or something alike.
As a result, all the money that the rich normally take away from the society gets sorted more or less equally instead.
There’s another big difference. In socialism the people who do hard jobs get paid decently for their hard work, and those who sit on their chair in the office get paid less, because their jobs aren’t as hard.

Originally Posted by Intended

China might take away your supremacy pretty soon, and their people earn very little money yet. They have socialism, by the way.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

Originally Posted by Intended

It's just design and plans. And who actually physically creates all things that are needed for this design to work? You underappreciate their work, thinking that it's worth very little. You're delighted with those who design, but my computer's details are from the East for some reason Nothing would exist if some people weren't busy making it, you know, not only in their heads (that's called fantasy).
As for design, anybody would eventually think that up, just like anybody had eventually thought up other things. It's the circumstances and later monopoly that makes you think that one country could think something up and others couldn't. That's self-delusion, at best. All technology works in the same way everywhere, it gets discovered in the same way everywhere, just because physical laws are the same everywhere.

Technology works that same way in Ethiopia it does in the United States? That is false. The United States leads the world in technology. If you believe otherwise, you believe incorrectly.

Originally Posted by Intended

Honestly, I don't know how you can have such a distorted view of life.
Well, I read in another thread that you can't give up on pot, and I knew enough people who did drugs to say that it's not just a time-filler. Both alcohol and drugs happen to really unhappy people. They can seem pretty happy normally, but the most honest of them acknowledge that if it was not for drugs, they wouldn't be able to cope with reality.
Why do you glorify the system that made your life so empty?

Why do you feel the need to get personal? Are you really unhappy or something? I think anger is directing your views. I am a drug addict because I am a thrill seeker. I also love skydiving, high speed sailing, and lucid dreaming. When I was a kid, I loved to throw water balloons at cops so they would chase me. When I was younger than that, I was obsessed with spinning and making myself dizzy and anything else I could to alter my consciousness, and I was the happiest little kid you would have ever seen. I seek rushes and love mind alteration because it is fascinating. It's just that drugs get addictive if you have the right genes for drug addiction. And I don't blame my drug problem on my country. I blame it on my repeated decisions to do drugs. Washington, Franklin, Bush, and Reagan did not create the situations that led to my problem. Try arguing this without getting personal. It makes it look like you have a very angry agenda.

Originally Posted by Intended

And please... you don't create masterpieces for money. You create if you love what you do.

You are generalizing. Artists, like me, create for the love of creating. Big business people, like Bill Gates and Henry Ford, create for money. Without greed, the whole world is third world. I am glad I am not a money crazed shallow person, but I am damn glad we have those people. I love the luxuries and the social economic benefits they create. You do too, whether you realize it or not.

Originally Posted by Intended

In socialism... those who sit on their chair in the office get paid less, because their jobs aren’t as hard.

Then they are less obsessed with making money, so they are less obsessed with doing the things that make the machine happen. Socialism weakens the strong, but doesn't strengthen the weak. It pulls the plug on the water level for the whole society. That is why our capitalism kicks the ass of every socialist civilization there has ever been.

Technology works that same way in Ethiopia it does in the United States? That is false.

Sorry? Ethiopia has different laws of physics?

The United States leads the world in technology. If you believe otherwise, you believe incorrectly.

This is not a matter of who is leading. It wouldn't prove anything. There were many countries in history that were strong, where are they now? Some of them ceased to exist, some were thrown back.
I have already wrote about Tibet as an example of a country that has no chance to lead technologically at the moment, just to show that countries have very different circumstances for technological growth, depending on their geographical position, weather, neighbours, etc. You can't judge countries by their technological growth only, but if you want to, you should take into account that you can never judge objectively due to different circumstances.

Why do you feel the need to get personal?

But I don't get personal! If you didn't want those things to be discussed you wouldn't openly write about them in the forum.

I am a drug addict because I am a thrill seeker.

I've heard it too many times to believe it.
This is just a rational explanation, it doesn't explain anything. If you seek thrill, it means there's an absence of lively experiences, which means there's something vaguely oppressive in your life.

I seek rushes and love mind alteration because it is fascinating.

This I've heard too many times, too. It means that your life has felt empty.

I don't blame my drug problem on my country.

Sure, it's your responsibility, too. I was referring to the fact that you keep defending a way of life that obviously doesn't make you entirely content. Why do you care? I wonder what reasons you have to defend this way of life, other than patriotism.
Please understand me, it's very hard to discuss things with patriotic people objectively, almost impossible. They usually refuse to listen and behave like zombies.

Big business people, like Bill Gates and Henry Ford, create for money.

So when Gates created MsDos, he did it just for money? I'll never believe it.
You don't put so much effort if you merely want money, it's much easier to get it in other ways than actually create something on your own. You can use others as creators.
Sorry, but your argument that greed drives creators is flawed from the start. Humandkind always tried to create, always. And money didn't even always exist. Humankind got to its current level thanks to creators of different kinds, many of them never received much money for their work.

I love the luxuries and the social economic benefits they create. You do too, whether you realize it or not.

No, I don't. Love for luxuries shows that you can't respect yourself for what you are, that you need to own "super things" to respect yourself through owning them.
Usually love for luxuries is artificial, though. From TV and magazines "This car is for successful people!" slogans are pouring at you, they're trying to tell you what to eat and wear to make money from your pride and greed. Eventually you begin to think that you have to have this or that to respect yourself and to seem "cool". This is all so fake and ugly.

Socialism weakens the strong, but doesn't strengthen the weak.

This sounds like a beautiful empty slogan.

our capitalism kicks the ass of every socialist civilization there has ever been.

Technologically-wise and money-wise? I can repeat myself about China. And as for other aspects, like culture, this simply isn't true.
See, you're trying to prove that capitalism is better than socialism just because presumably technological growth is more rapid in capitalistic system. But do you remember USSR that was in a very bad state and developed good space and military technologies in a record time? USSR also managed to rival your capitalistic country for a long time before succumbing to inner problems, despite being very weak after ww2 and later despite of those existing inner problems.
I wish you didn't try to prove your point using your country as an example. This starts to look like a patriotic fight instead of a discussion.

Originally Posted by Intended

Sorry? Ethiopia has different laws of physics?

No. Why? I thought we were talking about technological development.

Originally Posted by Intended

This is not a matter of who is leading. It wouldn't prove anything. There were many countries in history that were strong, where are they now? Some of them ceased to exist, some were thrown back.
I have already wrote about Tibet as an example of a country that has no chance to lead technologically at the moment, just to show that countries have very different circumstances for technological growth, depending on their geographical position, weather, neighbours, etc. You can't judge countries by their technological growth only, but if you want to, you should take into account that you can never judge objectively due to different circumstances.

Who is leading does indicate who has the best sytem currently. Also, we have the richest poverty class in the world. Those are relevant facts.

Originally Posted by Intended

I've heard it too many times to believe it.
This is just a rational explanation, it doesn't explain anything. If you seek thrill, it means there's an absence of lively experiences, which means there's something vaguely oppressive in your life.

That's a false assumption. You don't have enough ground to assume that all thrill seekers are depressed. Lots of happy people love to increase their thrills. If you listen to a song you love, does it mean you are seeking pleasure because you are miserable? If you watch a comedy for the purpose of laughing, does it mean you are depressed? Happy people seek thrills too.

Originally Posted by Intended

But I don't get personal! If you didn't want those things to be discussed you wouldn't openly write about them in the forum.

Why would you even bother trying to lie about that? You talked about my drug addiction to be insulting right after getting personal by telling me I have "such a distorted view of life". You resorted to the initiation of personal attacks, which usually indicates a second agenda and lack of confidence in one's level of argumentative substance.

Originally Posted by Intended

This I've heard too many times, too. It means that your life has felt empty.

You didn't come to this site because you are into lucid dreaming? Every lucid dreamer here is empty? Again, the seeking of pleasure is not proof of emptiness. You are being much more personal than you are substantive even though we could be getting along just fine if you would respectfully disagree. But that fascinates me too. It helps me understand what kind of person I am talking to.

Originally Posted by Intended

Sure, it's your responsibility, too. I was referring to the fact that you keep defending a way of life that obviously doesn't make you entirely content. Why do you care? I wonder what reasons you have to defend this way of life, other than patriotism.
Please understand me, it's very hard to discuss things with patriotic people objectively, almost impossible. They usually refuse to listen and behave like zombies.

More personal attacks. My statements would be objectively true no matter who said them and even if nobody said them. I have been very responsive and on target, so your point is unreasonable. I never said that all Americans are completely content. I said we have the best system in the world. If I grew up in Canada, the truth would still be the truth. And for your information, I refuse to say the Pledge of Allegience or sing our national anthem. That patriotic crap is silly. You should stop leaping to conclusions. By the way, where do you live? You sound very angry at my country, so (since you want to make this personal) my guess is that either we defeated you in a war or you have an inferiority complex because you know we will protect you.

Originally Posted by Intended

So when Gates created MsDos, he did it just for money? I'll never believe it.
You don't put so much effort if you merely want money, it's much easier to get it in other ways than actually create something on your own. You can use others as creators.
Sorry, but your argument that greed drives creators is flawed from the start. Humandkind always tried to create, always. And money didn't even always exist. Humankind got to its current level thanks to creators of different kinds, many of them never received much money for their work.

Money was an advancement in the system, and Bill Gates is better at making it than anybody who has ever lived. Of course Bill Gates cares about money. He likes the business game too, but he obviously loves money. Without his greed for it, what would your computer life be like right now?

Originally Posted by Intended

No, I don't. Love for luxuries shows that you can't respect yourself for what you are, that you need to own "super things" to respect yourself through owning them.
Usually love for luxuries is artificial, though. From TV and magazines "This car is for successful people!" slogans are pouring at you, they're trying to tell you what to eat and wear to make money from your pride and greed. Eventually you begin to think that you have to have this or that to respect yourself and to seem "cool". This is all so fake and ugly.

Are you using a computer right now? Exactly. And no matter how much you despise the way money makes things happen, it is a law of human nature that it does, and the laws have to take that into account.

Originally Posted by Intended

This sounds like a beautiful empty slogan.

Is that the best argument you've got? Socialism is all about weakening the strong, and it doesn't work as well as capitalism, as I have illustrated.

Originally Posted by Intended

Technologically-wise and money-wise? I can repeat myself about China. And as for other aspects, like culture, this simply isn't true.
See, you're trying to prove that capitalism is better than socialism just because presumably technological growth is more rapid in capitalistic system. But do you remember USSR that was in a very bad state and developed good space and military technologies in a record time? USSR also managed to rival your capitalistic country for a long time before succumbing to inner problems, despite being very weak after ww2 and later despite of those existing inner problems.
I wish you didn't try to prove your point using your country as an example. This starts to look like a patriotic fight instead of a discussion.

The U.S.S.R. used its system of thievery to go into space and to wreck its own econonmy. You have a strange paranoia about your perceptions of patriotism. I live in the wealthiest civilization in history, and this started out as a conversation about intelligent economics, so I will continue to use my country as an example, no matter how hateful you are toward us. Again, I have been responsive and on-point, so your point is unreasonable, and it makes your end of the argument look like an anti-patriotic fight instead of a discussion.

I think we need to make a totaly new system. Just because the current system that is the best (capitalism) now, doesn't mean that there can be an even better system, waiting to be used.

Capitalism and communism both have there faults. While communisms sounds good, it just doesn't work. Thats the only problem with it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I thought we were talking about technological development.

We were talking about how any country would eventually create the same technology, because it's the same everywhere. The fact that one of them is leading is due to the circumstances, its system hasn't played the major role in it.

Who is leading does indicate who has the best sytem currently.

Wrong. See above.

You don't have enough ground to assume that all thrill seekers are depressed. Lots of happy people love to increase their thrills. If you listen to a song you love, does it mean you are seeking pleasure because you are miserable? If you watch a comedy for the purpose of laughing, does it mean you are depressed? Happy people seek thrills too.

That's different. There's a difference between those who seek thrill to forget about vague depression and those who seek thrill for unconscious pleasure. Everybody does the second thing, all the time. But if you know that drinking or smoking hurts you, if you feel bad when you don't do it and still can't give up, it speaks volumes.

Why would you even bother trying to lie about that? You talked about my drug addiction to be insulting right after getting personal by telling me I have "such a distorted view of life".

You're wrong, I didn't lie. I think all you write in the forums is meant for discussion, otherwise don't write these things.
As for insults, I always try to estimate what can offend people and what cannot. You sound very self-assured to the point of being arrogant sometimes, I really had no idea that "such a distored view of life" could hurt you.
Maybe I could write in a deliberately sweet way to everybody, but people don't normally appreciate it. So why waste time, I'd rather watch a person and make an estimation of how he speaks.

More personal attacks.

I reread what you quoted and found no personal attacks from myself. You seem to be taking everything too personally.

By the way, where do you live? You sound very angry at my country, so (since you want to make this personal) my guess is that either we defeated you in a war or you have an inferiority complex because you know we will protect you.

Do you want proof that you're fighting for patriotism rather than discussing?
You're writing "you sound very angry about my country", but I'm not, I'm discussing capitalism. I noticed that you like to blame people that they're angry, but I won't fall for that.

Are you using a computer right now? Exactly.

It isn't a luxury. Computers have become a necessity, just like telephones.

Without his greed for it, what would your computer life be like right now?

No big deal. Somebody else would have created a visual Operating System.

Is that the best argument you've got? Socialism is all about weakening the strong, and it doesn't work as well as capitalism, as I have illustrated.

I've already wrote things that could've changed your mind, you preferred to ignore them. So why must I repeat myself again, I'd rather say that it's a slogan. You repeat it without fighting my argument, so isn't is a slogan? It's true that socialism is about weakening the strong, but I failed to see you illustrate why it doesn't work as well. I illustrated why it does by meantioning examples about China and USSR, but again you ignored them.

The U.S.S.R. used its system of thievery to go into space and to wreck its own econonmy.

When a first man got sent in space, this technology was stolen from somebody?
See, a socialistic country in a bad state could do this quicker than anybody else. It makes the whole argument that technological development proves something faulty (unless you want to acknowledge that socialism is better based on this one example).
I don't understand why you argue only technologically anyway. There are things more important than technology, like culture and education that is closely linked with it. Traditions, relationship between people. "Entertainment industry" is also a mirror of these things. They're very important, they create an actual atmosphere you live in rather than mere physical comfort. Capitalism loses when it comes to these things, see, the moral values it glorifies are those that any Church would consider evil: greed is a good example.
----------

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

I think we need to make a totaly new system. Just because the current system that is the best (capitalism) now, doesn't mean that there can be an even better system, waiting to be used.

Socialism is supposed to be a development of capitalism. Communism is supposed to be a development of socialism. So maybe eventually all of us will naturally come to the best system.

Capitalism and communism both have there faults. While communisms sounds good, it just doesn't work. Thats the only problem with it.

They tried to create social-democracy as a hybrid. But it's capitalism that hands out a little free money, so it's not a real hybrid.

Originally Posted by Intended

We were talking about how any country would eventually create the same technology, because it's the same everywhere. The fact that one of them is leading is due to the circumstances, its system hasn't played the major role in it.

We are the business capital of the world. What a coincidence. That was my point. Saying that Ethiopians would have invented our current computer technology some day is beside the point, and I don't agree with you. Your point that the laws of physics are the same there proves nothing.

Originally Posted by Intended

Wrong. See above.

Wrong. See above.

Originally Posted by Intended

That's different. There's a difference between those who seek thrill to forget about vague depression and those who seek thrill for unconscious pleasure. Everybody does the second thing, all the time. But if you know that drinking or smoking hurts you, if you feel bad when you don't do it and still can't give up, it speaks volumes.

You've suddenly changed your argument. You said that people who seek thrills are automatically depressed. Now you are saying that people who are addicted to thrills are depressed. Once a person is addicted to a drug and doing it every day, the drug is no longer a thrill, so so much for your theory. It is a matter of brain chemistry and the craving of something the brain "thinks" it needs at that point.

Originally Posted by Intended

You're wrong, I didn't lie. I think all you write in the forums is meant for discussion, otherwise don't write these things.
As for insults, I always try to estimate what can offend people and what cannot. You sound very self-assured to the point of being arrogant sometimes, I really had no idea that "such a distored view of life" could hurt you.
Maybe I could write in a deliberately sweet way to everybody, but people don't normally appreciate it. So why waste time, I'd rather watch a person and make an estimation of how he speaks.

I never said I was hurt. I just challenged you to not be personal. You failed. Also, I didn't say my drug problem is off limits for discussion. I said that you threw it into this discussion to be insulting. That tells me what your agenda really is and puts your level of intellectual honesty into perspective.

Originally Posted by Intended

I reread what you quoted and found no personal attacks from myself. You seem to be taking everything too personally.

This conversation has become more about me than the pros and cons of socialism. But I enjoy this stuff, so don't assume I am not having fun with you. People like you are a riot to me. I just challenged you not to wage personal attacks, but you can't resist them. What was it you said earlier about how you can't believe I have "such a distorted view of life" before arguing with me about how empty and depressed I must be (as if that was relevant enough to prove that the other 300 million people in my country are)? And I believe you said something about how it's impossible to have discussion with people like me who are "patriotic", and maybe there was something in there about behaving like zombies? Okay, we can pretend you didn't get personal. Keep it up if you want to, though. I think this kind of shit is hilarious. The more I disprove your socialist praises, the more personal you are going to want to get, so I know what to expect.

Originally Posted by Intended

Do you want proof that you're fighting for patriotism rather than discussing?
You're writing "you sound very angry about my country", but I'm not, I'm discussing capitalism. I noticed that you like to blame people that they're angry, but I won't fall for that.

I know. You expressed no personal anger regarding my country. We can pretend that too.

Originally Posted by Intended

It isn't a luxury. Computers have become a necessity, just like telephones.

You are having this computer conversation with me right now because you have to? I kind of had the idea that you were engaged in a leisure activity. I know I am.

Originally Posted by Intended

No big deal. Somebody else would have created a visual Operating System.

Of course. The North Koreans were within inches of it because their system has them spitting out new technology left and right. Their entire poverty shit hole is reaping the benefits of it daily.

Originally Posted by Intended

I've already wrote things that could've changed your mind, you preferred to ignore them. So why must I repeat myself again, I'd rather say that it's a slogan. You repeat it without fighting my argument, so isn't is a slogan? It's true that socialism is about weakening the strong, but I failed to see you illustrate why it doesn't work as well. I illustrated why it does by meantioning examples about China and USSR, but again you ignored them.

They would have changed my mind if they were logical. I talked about both the U.S.S.R. and China, so stop lying. China is never going to catch us, and the Soviet Union crashed out of existence. Please tell me about the huge corporations and their pioneering technology in China and the Soviet Union. How's the Soviet Union coming along? Are the Chinese people feeling financially stable yet? I hear their poverty class is much better off than ours. I also don't see a problem with the amount of power their government has over the people, like busting into their houses and giving women abortions against their wills. More power to the government!!! Less power to the people!!!

Originally Posted by Intended

When a first man got sent in space, this technology was stolen from somebody?
See, a socialistic country in a bad state could do this quicker than anybody else. It makes the whole argument that technological development proves something faulty (unless you want to acknowledge that socialism is better based on this one example).
I don't understand why you argue only technologically anyway. There are things more important than technology, like culture and education that is closely linked with it. Traditions, relationship between people. "Entertainment industry" is also a mirror of these things. They're very important, they create an actual atmosphere you live in rather than mere physical comfort. Capitalism loses when it comes to these things, see, the moral values it glorifies are those that any Church would consider evil: greed is a good example.

I already told you that stealing from that many people got them quickly into space and a temporarily good military. But the government collapsed. Remember? Besides, I am talking primarily about private sector technology. That is what creates the wealth, along with the will to sell the technology and other things. Big business creates wealth, and advancing technology is a major part of the formula. That is my point. And our enterainment industry is by far the best in the world. It is also the most successful and job and wealth creating. I don't care if the church considers greed evil. I am an atheist, and I have told you all about how greed benefits civilizations greatly.

Originally Posted by Intended

Socialism is supposed to be a development of capitalism. Communism is supposed to be a development of socialism. So maybe eventually all of us will naturally come to the best system.

The U.S.S.R. wasn't so fortunate, for some reason.

Originally Posted by Intended

They tried to create social-democracy as a hybrid. But it's capitalism that hands out a little free money, so it's not a real hybrid.

Tried. But we tried to create a democratic-republic of capitalism, and it has been kicking ass for a long time. You said in another thread how much you want to fight poverty and hunger, right? We are the best at it, so spread the word on how we do things.

Where do you live?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Saying that Ethiopians would have invented our current computer technology some day is beside the point, and I don't agree with you.

Again you ignore what I wrote about circumstances.

Once a person is addicted to a drug and doing it every day, the drug is no longer a thrill, so so much for your theory.

Not true. It’s more thrill than ever, if you can’t live without it.

I said that you threw it into this discussion to be insulting.

No, just to make you wonder about your reasons for defending your world so strongly.

I believe you said something about how it's impossible to have discussion with people like me who are "patriotic", and maybe there was something in there about behaving like zombies?

You think that whatever people say they always talk about you?
I didn’t say “with people like you”, I was talking of certain type of people and my view of them. By saying that I was talking of you, you acknowledge that you consider yourself one of them.

You are having this computer conversation with me right now because you have to?

You talk on the phone because you have to? You can write letters.

The North Koreans were within inches of it because their system has them spitting out new technology left and right.

It’s late to create anything now because of monopoly. Look at Unix systems, they aren’t too popular for normal users. Programs and stuff is made for Windows, some of it wouldn’t work with Unix. Anybody who created a system first and spread it very wide would be able to gain this kind of monopoly.

I talked about both the U.S.S.R. and China, so stop lying. China is never going to catch us, and the Soviet Union crashed out of existence.

You talk as if you brush everything off. China is going to catch up with you soon, it’s a known fact, and you can’t brush it off. As for Soviet Union, I was talking of its past, saying it doesn’t exist is irrelevant.

More power to the government!!! Less power to the people!!!

You’re changing the topic, we weren’t discussing democracy.

And our enterainment industry is by far the best in the world.

I disagree. Things like culture or entertainment will always seem the best to those to whose country they belong to, because they aren’t familiar with the other. I’m not surprised that you consider yours best, but it’s a purely subjective point of view that has nothing to do with reality.

I already told you that stealing from that many people got them quickly into space and a temporarily good military. But the government collapsed.

It wasn’t stealing, it was socialism. So you sort of acknowledge that it was socialism that got them quickly into space, etc. Good.
The government collapsed for other reasons, though: as far as I know, prices for oil had much to do with it, as well as internal unease.

I don't care if the church considers greed evil. I am an atheist, and I have told you all about how greed benefits civilizations greatly.

If I wrote that by moral rules it’s evil you’d probably laugh, so I wrote the Church. Ok, now I write that by moral rules greed is ugly. You can’t disagree with that.

Where do you live?

As I said, I have a rule, if you don't want to discuss something don't write about it. This thread is not about my country, there's no reason to discuss it.

The U.S.S.R. wasn't so fortunate, for some reason.

It’s hardly possible for socialism to develop to communism unless all contries in the world try to do it at once. You can’t normally have no money at all in one country. Maybe in a very distant future.

You said in another thread how much you want to fight poverty and hunger, right? We are the best at it, so spread the word on how we do things.

You create poverty and hunger in other countries by killing people and making others run away, though. As for internal fight against poverty, every country is having it with various sucess, depending on its current wealth. Many things come into play, just as in case of Ethiopian "technology", by far not only the system.

Originally Posted by Intended

Again you ignore what I wrote about circumstances.

Disagreeing is ignoring?

Originally Posted by Intended

Not true. It’s more thrill than ever, if you can’t live without it.

I know from being a counsellor and from being a drug addict that your statement is false. A little bit of research would reveal the truth to you. As the obsession increases, the thrill diminishes, and the experience becomes pure maintenance. This isn't even subject to argument.

Originally Posted by Intended

No, just to make you wonder about your reasons for defending your world so strongly.

One person's drug addiction disproves the entire theory of capitalism? I don't think you were really arguing that because you believed it, but only you know for sure.

Originally Posted by Intended

It’s late to create anything now because of monopoly. Look at Unix systems, they aren’t too popular for normal users. Programs and stuff is made for Windows, some of it wouldn’t work with Unix. Anybody who created a system first and spread it very wide would be able to gain this kind of monopoly.

You were talking about people with labels that you had previously given me. Do you really want to argue otherwise?

Originally Posted by Intended

You talk on the phone because you have to? You can write letters.

So we both agree that it's not a necessity? Yes, it is often a luxury and a leisure activity.

Originally Posted by Intended

It’s late to create anything now because of monopoly. Look at Unix systems, they aren’t too popular for normal users. Programs and stuff is made for Windows, some of it wouldn’t work with Unix. Anybody who created a system first and spread it very wide would be able to gain this kind of monopoly.

Creation is over now in the United States? Sit back and watch it not be. But watch how much creation doesn't happen in North Korea.

Originally Posted by Intended

You talk as if you brush everything off. China is going to catch up with you soon, it’s a known fact, and you can’t brush it off. As for Soviet Union, I was talking of its past, saying it doesn’t exist is irrelevant.

The Soviet Union doesn't exist because its sytem was a failure. And you didn't tell me about the major corporations of China and their pioneering technology. You also didn't tell me why our poverty class is a big aristocracy compared to what they have. And sit back and watch China never have our level of technological advancement, wealth, or entertainment industry (which you said is an important aspect of a nation). Plus, look at what Chinese citizens have to endure from their government's level of power over them. China sucks.

Originally Posted by Intended

You’re changing the topic, we weren’t discussing democracy.

We were discussing socialism and communism, which are inferior systems compared to democracy in many ways, such as the level of power the government has over its people.

Originally Posted by Intended

I disagree. Things like culture or entertainment will always seem the best to those to whose country they belong to, because they aren’t familiar with the other. I’m not surprised that you consider yours best, but it’s a purely subjective point of view that has nothing to do with reality.

Man, people all over the world and in humongous numbers love our movies, musical acts, and television shows more than that of the corresponding entertainment from any other country. I know you know that's true. Tell me about the greatest musical acts and movies of China and how their popularity compares to the biggest from the United States. Look in the Guiness Book of World Records for the biggest movies and musical acts in history, and you will see that we have the movies and most of the music, while Britain has a lot of the music. Our television shows are enormous worldwide too. Do you really want to argue about this?

Originally Posted by Intended

It wasn’t stealing, it was socialism. So you sort of acknowledge that it was socialism that got them quickly into space, etc. Good.
The government collapsed for other reasons, though: as far as I know, prices for oil had much to do with it, as well as internal unease.

Socialism and communism are both forms of stealing. The Soviet Union's business was pathetic, and that had a lot to do with why they collapsed. Of course rotten economics will screw with the price of everything. It will also create internal unease. It will do many things that are terrible.

Originally Posted by Intended

If I wrote that by moral rules it’s evil you’d probably laugh, so I wrote the Church. Ok, now I write that by moral rules greed is ugly. You can’t disagree with that.

Creating an economic system for a nation and leaving greed out of the equation is immoral, as I have illustrated. Greed is a great thing for civilization, as I have illustrated. And I am not going to believe for two seconds that you are above greed.

Originally Posted by Intended

As I said, I have a rule, if you don't want to discuss something don't write about it. This thread is not about my country, there's no reason to discuss it.

We can discuss where you live. For one thing, I would like to talk about where you live and how it affects your view of the United States. Typing one or two words would have been much simpler than your long explanation for why you plead our 5th Amendment on where you live. Are you ashamed of where you live?

Do you live in Canada?

Originally Posted by Intended

It’s hardly possible for socialism to develop to communism unless all contries in the world try to do it at once. You can’t normally have no money at all in one country. Maybe in a very distant future.

That's a very extreme and unrealistic provision you have suddenly thrown into this. I don't think socialism could work under any conditions that will ever exist in our world, but if I agreed with your point, it would further my argument that socialism sucks.

Originally Posted by Intended

You create poverty and hunger in other countries by killing people and making others run away, though. As for internal fight against poverty, every country is having it with various sucess, depending on its current wealth. Many things come into play, just as in case of Ethiopian "technology", by far not only the system.

But guess who is doing the best at controlling its own poverty. That is a very important fact to consider in this. And we lead the world in liberation and foreign aid, among other things. It is because capitalism is such a powerful system against poverty.

Give me some examples of where socialism or communism has controlled poverty on the level that we do. Tell me about the most successful socialist and communist nations in history.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Disagreeing is ignoring?

Disagreeing isn't disproval, it's ignoring.

As the obsession increases, the thrill diminishes, and the experience becomes pure maintenance. This isn't even subject to argument.

As the thrill diminishes, you need more to get to the same level of thrill.

One person's drug addiction disproves the entire theory of capitalism? I don't think you were really arguing that because you believed it, but only you know for sure.

I just wonder why you care to defend the society you live in. Look, there's nobody else arguing in the thread

Yes, it is often a luxury and a leisure activity.

Luxury is rare, but almost everybody has a computer now. Times when it was a luxury are gone.

Creation is over now in the United States? Sit back and watch it not be. But watch how much creation doesn't happen in North Korea.

I don't know why you said this, it wasn't related to what I wrote. I explained why Korea or any other country isn't creating a new Operating System. And this, sorry, looks like a patriotic rave.

The Soviet Union doesn't exist because its sytem was a failure.

Sorry, were you brainwashed during the Cold war? Oil prices dropped down drastically.

you didn't tell me about the major corporations of China and their pioneering technology.

China has no need to waste time to create technology if it already exists. Wait.

You also didn't tell me why our poverty class is a big aristocracy compared to what they have.

You should've known! They did it to artificially keep low prices for their production. That's what permitted China to become rich, and what will happen later to their people we'll see.

And sit back and watch China never have our level of technological advancement, wealth, or entertainment industry (which you said is an important aspect of a nation).

Sorry, a patriotic rave again. Look at "sit back and watch China never have our level of". This doesn't resemble a discussion...

We were discussing socialism and communism, which are inferior systems compared to democracy in many ways, such as the level of power the government has over its people.

Socialism is an economical system, democracy is not. These are different things, not related to each other. There's no reason for socialism to be autho\tota\litarian, just as there's no reason for capitalism to be democratical.

Man, people all over the world and in humongous numbers love our movies, musical acts, and television shows more than that of the corresponding entertainment from any other country. I know you know that's true.

It means nothing, and it's quite normal. The product gets wide-spread if its quantities by far surpass its quantities in other countries.

Tell me about the greatest musical acts and movies of China and how their popularity compares to the biggest from the United States.

Chinese culture is one of the best in this world, because it's well-preserved. Did you know that East is very different from the West? Have you heard of enormous popularity of Eastern thought in other countries? Of things like buddhism, taoism, yoga, tai-chi, qi-gong? Well, if culture is only movies for you...
Again, if you think that only something acknowledged on international level can be called "best", that's false. Internationality dissipates cultures, because people who can't understand an alien culture will distort it.
As for movies, think what kind of propaganda movies carry. You know that movies feel different in different countries, right? That's because they carry different "message". Just an example: you don't call movies that appeal to low instincts masterpieces, although they can be very popular.
Education has a lot to do with culture, too.
But I don't wish to discuss culture with you, you've lost the cultural argument from the start by your own behaviour. Look at this:

China sucks.

What kind of educated person can say that the whole country "sucks"?

The Soviet Union's business was pathetic, and that had a lot to do with why they collapsed. Of course rotten economics will screw with the price of everything.

It was Saudi Arabia and United Arabic Emirates that screwed the prices for oil. You shouldn't speak of something you have no idea about.

Creating an economic system for a nation and leaving greed out of the equation is immoral, as I have illustrated. Greed is a great thing for civilization, as I have illustrated. And I am not going to believe for two seconds that you are above greed.

To be ungreedy is immoral? Great. If you can't even believe that there are ungreedy people, I feel sorry for you. I know a lot of such people, just as well as I know greedy people.

We can discuss where you live. For one thing, I would like to talk about where you live and how it affects your view of the United States. Typing one or two words would have been much simpler than your long explanation for why you plead our 5th Amendment on where you live. Are you ashamed of where you live?

No, thanx, we've discussed two countries already, and you showed your discussing abilities. You revealed no knowledge about them and even said "China sucks" about China. I have no desire to discuss my country with someone who'll distort everything about it.

That's a very extreme and unrealistic provision you have suddenly thrown into this.

That's not me. That was Karl Marx if I'm not mistaken...
Everything that I said about how capitalism turns into socialism and turns into communism is not my theory, as well as how communism can't happen only in one country. I'm not smart enough to make such assumptions on my own.

I don't think socialism could work under any conditions that will ever exist in our world

Proof, please.

But guess who is doing the best at controlling its own poverty. That is a very important fact to consider in this. And we lead the world in liberation and foreign aid, among other things.

By liberation and foreign aid do you mean killing people and making others poor to get richer yourself? Sure, a good cover in order to control internal poverty. Now I could jump to an interesting conclusion and say that a powerful capitalism always turns into faschism.

Give me some examples of where socialism or communism has controlled poverty on the level that we do. Tell me about the most successful socialist and communist nations in history.

Communism has never existed, and you mention it. It shows you still can't understand what it is even though I posted about it, and I must try to prove something to you?

I understand why you aren't posting anything anymore. And really, I agree.
I feel there's no point in talking further.
Let's just conclude. Sorry, but you showed that you hardly understand what this thread is about:
1) you compared socialism and democracy, although democracy isn't an economical system and they can't be compared at all (you said "socialism is inferiour to democracy", which sounds absurd), i.e. you don't know what these things are;
2) you asked to give you examples of existing socialistic or communistic successful countries, although communism never existed, which means you don't know what communism is;
3) you aren't aware of facts about China and USSR, and still you tried to argue against these countries.

You've already lost argument anyway:
Let me remind,
Your argument was that technological advance proves that the economical system of the most economically successful country is better. I reminded you that socialistic USSR sent the first man into space. Let me also remind you that they were not industrialized until socialism came, which means the full industrialization happened and the first man got sent into space in about 40 years overall. If you add ww2 to it, which dealt huge damage to the country, you can shorten this time: the war ended in 1945, the first man got into space in 1961. (Full industrialization took other countries about 100 years). I also took China as example, this country is predicted to become the most powerful country soon. They chose renewed reforms in 1979, 28 years from now. So using your own technologically based argument now, I can say that socialism is the best economical system.
But I don't think you can only look at technology while deciding such things, industrialization wasn't always present in history. People need many other things apart from technology.
I won this technological argument, now if you still want to argue that capitalism is better you cannot do it based on technological advance.

Both of you are right. This conversation has become very diluted. There is one main point.

Capitalism is ever-evolving. It changes with the will of the people. The light-speed US mobilization of WW2, ending the great depression is a perfect example. And for the US, we have a GREAT social structure. The majority of Americans are middle class.

Communism is too structured. It cannot change with the times. Combine that with the neglect of human nature, and you get the Soviet Union. Well, the "former" Soviet Union.

And for future reference, China is NOT communist anymore. They have switched to a more capitalist approach, and that is why they are catching up so fast.

Capitalism is great, and every country that uses it becomes great. Germany came from ashes with a wall down the middle of it, to greatness. I contribute that to capitalism.

I still cant understand why some people are so preoccupied with making everybody else happy rather than making themselves happy. Is it really about making everyone equal? To me the freedom to do-or-die is better than no freedom.

Intended, I have a life outside of this website, so I didn't post here yesterday. Stop jumping to conclusions. That is about all you have done in our conversation. I am bored out of my mind with responding to your 30 bits at a time threads, and this conversation has gotten very repetitive and is little more than a game of chasing your rationalizations. For example, your first sentence from two posts ago...

Originally Posted by Intended

Disagreeing isn't disproval, it's ignoring.

Disproving involves disagreeing. See, this conversations has gotten so absurd it's not even worth getting that much more into. Then you told me about more of your assumptions about drug addiction. You are arguing with somebody who has been through it. Have you even thought about that? When a drug addict relapses, the first high is the best high he has until he recovers and then relapses again. That first high is never reached during the binge that follows the relapse, and the effects of the drug become a matter of maintenance and very little pleasure, if any. The rest of your post is like that, and it is just silly. I'll make a few summary points.

Communism has been tried to the extent that anybody would even dare try it, and it has been a failure 100% of the time. The same goes for socialism. But capitalism kicks ass and, most relevant to this conversation, controls poverty better than any other economic system. Do you really think it is a coincidence that the United States is the wealthiest civilization in history? With democracy comes capitalism. When it comes down to it, people generally don't want the government to rob the shit out of them. Democracy is not the opposite of socialism, but the capitalism that tends to come with it is. The United States is a democratic republic, and again, we have the best system in the history of the world. Your rationalizations like, "Uh, but Taoism came from China and it's interesting," don't counter that point. Calling me patriotic doesn't counter the point either. When a socialist or communist country EVER has a system that fights poverty better than our system fights it, especially one that keeps resulting in luxuries you enjoy (such as computer technology, obviously) let me know. You admit that it has not happened yet. Also, let me know about some awesome Chinese movies and musical acts if there ever are any. I didn't see any in the list I requested. That won't happen because China sucks. So until then, my real world facts stand and your speculations have not been proven. Have fun in the country you are too ashamed of to name.

Half/Dreaming,

I still cant understand why some people are so preoccupied with making everybody else happy rather than making themselves happy.

If nobody should care for making everybody happy, than why should anybody care for making you happy?
All the rest were just cliches, you'd have to actually study these things to understand why they're wrong.

Universal Mind, you've showed your ignorance. Sorry, but I have no desire to waste time and discuss such things with someone who only caught their names in one-sided propaganda and keeps repeating propaganda sentences without listening to you.
That's just a little proof:

Communism has been tried to the extent that anybody would even dare try it, and it has been a failure 100% of the time. The same goes for socialism.

How many times do I have to say, communism never existed on this Earth?
It's just one of the facts you can't understand (because of being too brainwashed?) even though I've said it already. And they're vital, you can't discuss such topics if you have no idea of them and how they function. Sorry, but it's not my idea to argue with ignorant people full of propaganda cliches. A bit rude, perhaps, but such is the sad truth.