|
|
Post by Tracy on Aug 20, 2004 5:15:26 GMT -5
*bursts out laughing* That's great. XD Anyhow, I'll just say something. Communism, I dislike. One of the things off the top of my head? Destroys ambition. If you're going to be the same as everyone else anyway, why bother trying anything? Trying to excel in life and live a dream life...nah. It causes a stagnation of culture, IMO. I was about to say that ^^;; Someone gave me a really good example; If you're a brain surgeon, and you're living on your own, you'd get less money than say... a street cleaner with a wife and two kids. You're going to feel a bit angry that all your training and years in college have been wasted, as you could have just become something easy and menial. Society would be flipped around, people would be scrounging around for the lesser jobs. Nobody would want to be a teacher, a dentist, a doctor, because you'd have to train, and still get the same income. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 20, 2004 7:58:41 GMT -5
*walks in with the red flag* ;D Mwa. But anyways. What about socialism? Isn't it somewhat different from communism? I read in a textbook somewhere that it took ideas from both to make a...super ism of sorts. And technically, under capitolism, someone always has to be poor.  Personally, I'm fond of anarchy. Can't wait for the world to nuke each other until there's nothing left but three people, to rule the tattered ruins of world as they please! I'm in favour of cockroachery - that cockroaches will eventually come to rule the world ^^ Technically, what was in the Soviet Union/USSR was socialism. Socialism is like a softer form of Communism, and what the USSR aimed to achieve first. It's the transition stage. The main difference is that socialism hands out stuff according to deeds (quality/quantity of work) and Communism according to need. Technically, both the USSR and China were only ever socialist. Another difference is that socialism allows accquistion of private properties, eg clothing etc, but takes away privately owned companies eg clothing factories. And I think socialism allows some form of government, whereas Communism believes government will become unecessary. Or so I think :/ The truth is that socialism failed anyway. It still gave people no motivation to work hard; it still didn't run efficiently. We have quite unbiased history lessons, in a way, and we make positive and negative points about the USSR - we still found the negative list at least five times as long. And the reasons why it failed were kind of unsolvable. By the end, they were trying to encourage small private businesses and trade and private farms just to keep the economy alive - a return to capitalism in a way. The failures of Communism/socialism have all been rather bloody and brutal. Human nature will win out. As to the poor, the definition of poverty shifts constantly though. It's technically set as the lowest so-so-much percent of the population earning x amount. So people are always technically poor. At least we have support systems, so that no one has to starve or live without shelter, even though some still do :/ If you're a brain surgeon, and you're living on your own, you'd get less money than say... a street cleaner with a wife and two kids. You're going to feel a bit angry that all your training and years in college have been wasted, as you could have just become something easy and menial. Society would be flipped around, people would be scrounging around for the lesser jobs. Nobody would want to be a teacher, a dentist, a doctor, because you'd have to train, and still get the same income. Oh, yeah, another thing about the USSR was they tried to let everyone go to university. So there was a huge surplus of people with degrees that could barely get paid and they left the country. That situation might not have been helped by the fact that Stalin decided to purge anyone intelligent or ambitious :/ (He purged (ie shot/sent to gulags, which are prison camps) all his own doctors so when he finally fell ill, there was no one to help him live ^^) |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Aug 20, 2004 20:32:12 GMT -5
I was about to say that ^^;; Someone gave me a really good example; If you're a brain surgeon, and you're living on your own, you'd get less money than say... a street cleaner with a wife and two kids. You're going to feel a bit angry that all your training and years in college have been wasted, as you could have just become something easy and menial. Society would be flipped around, people would be scrounging around for the lesser jobs. Nobody would want to be a teacher, a dentist, a doctor, because you'd have to train, and still get the same income. It's funny you should say that - as it is, teachers get less pay than many people who go through less training. I guess that's just proof that not everyone is selfish in that way. It would be a better world if rats were a more prominent species. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 22, 2004 0:47:57 GMT -5
Capitalism, with laws and limits, is great. Money's good, too. It can go wrong pretty easily, though--the Pullmans and Rockefellers of the world need to be contained. The strong should be allowed to shine, but they shouldn't be allowed to rule. Actually, under capitalism, nobody has to be poor. Sure, there will be people on the low-end, but they should all have the ability to work and at least live life and anyone can take hold of that dream. But they need to strive for it more than anything. I'm a big fan of Personal Responsibility. And I think a lot of the problems in the US with the bad communities could be taken care of if there was more personal responsibility involved. That's NOT true. There are people who are pretty well sunk under pure capitalism. What happens to a middle-aged woman with no obvious disability--no pity value whatsoever--who has, among other disabilities, a bad back (and no ability to sit in most chairs for very long), a chronic pain disorder (the pain pills keep it mostly bearable, although occasionally she has to take so many they put her to sleep), a vocal cord injured in a surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ (the bad vocal cord means she can't speak very long or very loudly; the missing organ means she dies after two days without medication), and two children under sixteen to support? I know a woman like that. She did her best to work, and I remember the hell it put her through; she isn't the lazy bum you seem to be making her out to be, and if you think she is, I envy whatever sheltered life you've lived. You tell me how that woman could SURVIVE by her own labor, and then maybe we can talk. Until then, I'm going to be fighting for Social Security and our corrupted imitation of capitalism. (If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. This is a bit of a personal subject for me, and while any trouble I have known has certainly not been as severe as that of many others, I don't think the NTWF is evenly distributed along economic lines.) |
|
|
|
Post by Stal WHERES MY PC on Aug 22, 2004 10:53:12 GMT -5
Capitalism, with laws and limits, is great. Money's good, too. It can go wrong pretty easily, though--the Pullmans and Rockefellers of the world need to be contained. The strong should be allowed to shine, but they shouldn't be allowed to rule. That's NOT true. There are people who are pretty well sunk under pure capitalism. What happens to a middle-aged woman with no obvious disability--no pity value whatsoever--who has, among other disabilities, a bad back (and no ability to sit in most chairs for very long), a chronic pain disorder (the pain pills keep it mostly bearable, although occasionally she has to take so many they put her to sleep), a vocal cord injured in a surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ (the bad vocal cord means she can't speak very long or very loudly; the missing organ means she dies after two days without medication), and two children under sixteen to support? I know a woman like that. She did her best to work, and I remember the hell it put her through; she isn't the lazy bum you seem to be making her out to be, and if you think she is, I envy whatever sheltered life you've lived. You tell me how that woman could SURVIVE by her own labor, and then maybe we can talk. Until then, I'm going to be fighting for Social Security and our corrupted imitation of capitalism. (If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. This is a bit of a personal subject for me, and while any trouble I have known has certainly not been as severe as that of many others, I don't think the NTWF is evenly distributed along economic lines.) Well, I will point out I said I didn't say all, I said a lot. I'm referring more to the thousands and thousands of people who abuse things like social security, welfare, and so forth. And don't tell me they don't exist because you know they do. Taking a step further, though, if there was more personal responsibility involved with those types of people, the people who really needed it could get the help they really need without the leaches. I realize there is a case of this. My mom had really bad Rheumatoid Arthritis and if my dad had died during that time, she couldn't have worked at all and so forth. Thankfully it went into remission and hasn't been giving her too much trouble. Especially since she's found this herbal pill of some sort (and she despises those to begin with, so that shows how much trust she has in this) called MSM (short for some scientific name). Helps her out a lot and now she's running her own Interior Decorating Consultation business. ^__^ |
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 22, 2004 13:03:44 GMT -5
While we're on the issue of health, what about 'socialized' medicine? Universal healthcare? We're one of a very few wealthy countries who don't actually provide it. The only, even. And admit it, the American health care system right now kind of really sucks.
Don't you think all of us deserve equal care, even if we don't have equal funds? Or would that just ruin some dramatic plot twists for ER? Pharmaceutical companies are running amuck and screwing everyone over on medication prices. There are lots of mentally ill, elderly, and sick but poor people who have to choose between eating, supporting their family, and having a home or getting their medication and seeing the doctor.
I personally don't think health shouldn't be an issue of wealth, as most things in this economic system we have turn out to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 22, 2004 14:57:21 GMT -5
While we're on the issue of health, what about 'socialized' medicine? Universal healthcare? We're one of a very few wealthy countries who don't actually provide it. The only, even. And admit it, the American health care system right now kind of really sucks. Don't you think all of us deserve equal care, even if we don't have equal funds? Or would that just ruin some dramatic plot twists for ER? Pharmaceutical companies are running amuck and screwing everyone over on medication prices. There are lots of mentally ill, elderly, and sick but poor people who have to choose between eating, supporting their family, and having a home or getting their medication and seeing the doctor. I personally don't think health shouldn't be an issue of wealth, as most things in this economic system we have turn out to be. Funnily enough, I was reading something criticising America's stance on that. Very, very few other "rich" countries have health care like that. Britain has national healthcare. Sure, it is really, really terrible in some places. My dad has been prescribed medicine he's severely allergic to three times, and my brother was put on antibiotics for three days longer than necessary while they did his blood test, and it killed his immune system for ages :/ Lots of people die of MRSA, a superbug that can be prevented just by washing your hands, and waiting times are appalling. The government pours money into it, but it does nothing - a 30% rise in budget resulted in only a 2% cut in the list of patients waiting. But would I rather have that than none at all? Yes! I had my orthodontics done on NHS - it's been wonderful, with no problems, and it would have cost thousands privately. National healthcare is really important, even if it does kind of suck occasionally. It just needs good organisation. (Random fact - our NHS has more managers than beds o_0) |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 23, 2004 4:00:08 GMT -5
The basis of Communisim will never work. How many people have never known Greed? Envy? I men humans are simply greedy by nature. Tjough some can control it. Still in every government some one has to be incharge. That is where there is also inequality from the start. I mean if someone up there rules you is that equal? No it isn't. And if everyone was ruler then it is just Anarchy. total chaos. So in the end stick with what is pretty screwed up but still works. Democracy, Which only fails when people don't vote or when the officials fudge ballots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Aug 23, 2004 8:43:04 GMT -5
While we're on the issue of health, what about 'socialized' medicine? Universal healthcare? We're one of a very few wealthy countries who don't actually provide it. The only, even. And admit it, the American health care system right now kind of really sucks. Don't you think all of us deserve equal care, even if we don't have equal funds? Or would that just ruin some dramatic plot twists for ER? Pharmaceutical companies are running amuck and screwing everyone over on medication prices. There are lots of mentally ill, elderly, and sick but poor people who have to choose between eating, supporting their family, and having a home or getting their medication and seeing the doctor. I personally don't think health shouldn't be an issue of wealth, as most things in this economic system we have turn out to be. It's interesting Al brings this up. I watched a program a few weeks ago that spelled out step by step the American healthcare system and why it's collapsing in on itself. Although I I won't go into detail how, just believe me - the system is going broke, and it can't stay on this course much longer. I'm all for personal responsibility, but this just needs to stop - we need a National Healthcare System. America is one of the few - if not only - industrialized countries in the world without some type of NHS. Not only that, we're the only industrialized country without some sort of cap or limit on drugs prices (which is why drugs cost twice as much here as in other countries). Not only do we not cap limits on drugs, for programs such as Medicad and Medicare (health programs for seniors and poor people - the closeest thing we have to a NHS), it is illegal to negotiate prices for drugs. The government is not allowed to go to the drug companies and say "We don't like this price. Charge us less, or we'll buy our drugs elsewhere." We have to pay what they charge for the drugs our old and poor people get. It was part of a bill that was signed into law that was supposed to help rework Medicare and Medicad. And does anyone know which President signed that bill into law? George W. Bush. |
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Aug 23, 2004 18:13:18 GMT -5
After 2 years of studying Communism you think I would have something to say but not really. All I can say is Communism has never worked and I can't ever see it working. People just can't do it. Communism may look good on paper but humans always want the best and they always want a leader (except for those pathetic Anarchists like my brother- such idiots.)
|
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 23, 2004 20:18:37 GMT -5
After 2 years of studying Communism you think I would have something to say but not really. All I can say is Communism has never worked and I can't ever see it working. People just can't do it. Communism may look good on paper but humans always want the best and they always want a leader (except for those pathetic Anarchists like my brother- such idiots.) Hey, low hit there. I have anarchist friends, you know. These kind of systems may seem impossible, but lots of anarchists and communists have dreams for better things and trust in the goodness of human decency and base goodness to prevail, and it's not fair to dismiss ALL of them as idiots. Unless you're only referring to anarchists who are like your brother. In which case, I wouldn't know anything about your brother, and couldn't say much of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Aug 24, 2004 4:37:28 GMT -5
Hey, low hit there. I have anarchist friends, you know. These kind of systems may seem impossible, but lots of anarchists and communists have dreams for better things and trust in the goodness of human decency and base goodness to prevail, and it's not fair to dismiss ALL of them as idiots. Unless you're only referring to anarchists who are like your brother. In which case, I wouldn't know anything about your brother, and couldn't say much of anything. No, I generally don't like any Anarchists. I know it is unfair to 'dismiss ALL of them as idiots' but I really think Anarchists are losers. And my brother isn't really an Anarchist. He is like 'I listen to the S*x Pistols thefore I am an Anarchist.' Which makes him even more pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Aug 24, 2004 8:42:19 GMT -5
No, I generally don't like any Anarchists. I know it is unfair to 'dismiss ALL of them as idiots' but I really think Anarchists are losers. Hey, I happen to know of a few people who believe in Anarchy, one of whom is a good friend of mine. I believe his point of view is an uneducated one, but he's still a great guy. Far from being what I would call a "loser". I happen to think that many of the people who believe in Anarchy do so because they think it's "cool". Kind of like being a Goth - people aren't goths because they're really depressed, they just think it's cool. At least, as far as I've seen (and of course, I can't speak for all goths in the world). But again, I don't hate Anarchists (or goths, for that matter). I just happen to think that many of them, based on the people I've seen, believe such a way because they think it's cool or something. But then, I've never heard a good argument for Anarchy, so I suppose I'm liable to write it off as a ridicoulous notion... |
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Aug 24, 2004 9:08:55 GMT -5
Hey, I happen to know of a few people who believe in Anarchy, one of whom is a good friend of mine. I believe his point of view is an uneducated one, but he's still a great guy. Far from being what I would call a "loser". I happen to think that many of the people who believe in Anarchy do so because they think it's "cool". Kind of like being a Goth - people aren't goths because they're really depressed, they just think it's cool. At least, as far as I've seen (and of course, I can't speak for all goths in the world). But again, I don't hate Anarchists (or goths, for that matter). I just happen to think that many of them, based on the people I've seen, believe such a way because they think it's cool or something. But then, I've never heard a good argument for Anarchy, so I suppose I'm liable to write it off as a ridicoulous notion... Yeah that's a good way of putting it. And don't get me wrong I love my brother but I think the whole Anarchy thing is pretty pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 24, 2004 14:49:52 GMT -5
It's really best not to prejudge all anarchists based off a few. This is an old and respectable theory. There have been many anarchist movements throughout history, and just because right now serious anarchists are hard to find doesn't mean that they're all dead.
|
|
