oneshare.com: the stupidest thing I've seen today.

Originally posted by Affectation:
Full time, Mr. I need to edit every post that I make?

yeah, i was pretty sure you weren't going to have an answer for that one. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

Originally posted by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller:
yeah, i was pretty sure you weren't going to have an answer for that one.

Do you have problems with valid answers? Roosevelt's First and Second New Deal had nothing to do with communism. It was a temporary attempt to fix the economic recession of the '30s. Like I posted earlier, "Of course anything can work temporarily."

Originally posted by Affectation:
Do you have problems with valid answers? Roosevelt's First and Second New Deal had nothing to do with communism. It was a temporary attempt to fix the economic recession of the '30s. Like I posted earlier, "Of course anything can work temporarily."

Can you please tell me how temporary the following major New Deal programs were:

Social Security
FDIC bank insurance
Securities and Exchange Commission
Minimum Wage Act

Originally posted by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller:
Can you please tell me how temporary the following major New Deal programs were:

Social Security
FDIC bank insurance
Securities and Exchange Commission
Minimum Wage Act

Good point. However none of these are completely communistic/socialistic in nature. Most of them simply made people feel a little bit better about what tomorrow would bring. And once again, as I said earlier, Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is a great deal better than the other options. You can work hard for your own outcome, or you can do a half assed job of doing everything for the better of the whole. People aren't as willing to work their asses off when it really doesn't benefit them more than doing a shitty job.

I'll come back to this debate in about an hour. I have to reinstall 2K on one of my production machines.

I'm enjoying this very much. Who are you, Mr. Restroom TP Refiller?

To quote Frank Zappa: "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

Originally posted by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller:
Can you please tell me how temporary the following major New Deal programs were:

Social Security

i'll take my company's 401k over this anyday

Originally posted by Affectation:
Good point. However none of these are completely communistic/socialistic in nature. Most of them simply made people feel a little bit better about what tomorrow would bring. And once again, as I said earlier, Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is a great deal better than the other options. You can work hard for your own outcome, or you can do a half assed job of doing everything for the better of the whole. People aren't as willing to work their asses off when it really doesn't benefit them more than doing a shitty job.

I disagree that, under socialism, people won't work their asses off. They do work their asses off, but they don't do it for themselves. Human are animals. Like you said, human instinct is to strive to be the best. This goes for all humans, whether its those in a capitalistic society or those in a socialistic/communistic society. Look at Russia, they were Communist but still strived to get to the moon before us. The problem is that capitalism is a ME centered society. Look at ME, worship ME, give ME attention, follow ME, look how much better I can be than you. Capitalism works under the premise that if those who are the best show off and rub it into the faces enough of those who not as good, then those "lesser" people will work harder to become just like them, so that they, in turn, will eventually one day be able to show off and rub it into the faces of those under them. But that doesn't work. It just makes people envious and pissed off. And then when those who are the best and have everything not only rub it in, but then start stealing from those less fortunate, as is happening right now with stocks, then you have a divided country that goes down the shitter.

Under socialism, there is no showing off. If someone thinks they are better at something, they will immediately share that idea or talent with their peers, and they gain satisfaction knowing that they were able to help their peers become better at something. What socialism does is basically CIVILIZE the animalistic human species into doing things that progress the human race as a whole. People are more concerned with security and making others better than accumulating wealth. There is true love between people, TRUE love. Unlike in capitalism, where love is defined as: the more money you spend on ME, the more you must truly love ME.

Socialists are not just concerned about their physcial security but financial as well. Total government ownership of the economy provides a security that corporations cannot, because if the economy starts going to shit, the government is better able than private businesses to obtain however much money they need to keep things going. Look at Russia, they just borrowed something like $20 billion from the World Bank a few years back. Do you think they are ever going to pay it back? Hell no. But could a business or a collection of businesses ever pull off something like that? No way. So there is a true safety net that the government provides. People don't have to worry about losing all their life savings to stupid, crook CEO's, and then having to go work at McDonald's when they're 75.

Edit(oops again): So the problem with capitalism is that it demands that people trust their lives to people who are instilled with this ME notion. And that is just stupid, because those entrusted will always look out for themselves first, obviously. I personally will never pay into any retirement account except Social Security, no matter who much the employer matches it, because you cannot trust people who look out for themselves first, and others second.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller (edited 07-20-2002).]

Originally posted by Affectation:
I'm enjoying this very much. Who are you, Mr. Restroom TP Refiller?

Why, I am the Restroom Toilet Paper Refiller. Without my undying commitment, you might find yourself trapped in a stall only armed with your newspaper. Like a brave soldier, I storm hostile territory delivering much needed supplies to my men. Because if I don't do my business, you can't do yours.

I've been around the block a few times.

Originally posted by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller:
I disagree that, under socialism, people won't work their asses off. They do work their asses off, but they don't do it for themselves. Human are animals. Like you said, human instinct is to strive to be the best. This goes for all humans, whether its those in a capitalistic society or those in a socialistic/communistic society. Look at Russia, they were Communist but still strived to get to the moon before us. The problem is that capitalism is a ME centered society. Look at ME, worship ME, give ME attention, follow ME, look how much better I can be than you. Capitalism works under the premise that if those who are the best show off and rub it into the faces enough of those who not as good, then those "lesser" people will work harder to become just like them, so that they, in turn, will eventually one day be able to show off and rub it into the faces of those under them. But that doesn't work. It just makes people envious and pissed off. And then when those who are the best and have everything not only rub it in, but then start stealing from those less fortunate, as is happening right now with stocks, then you have a divided country that goes down the shitter.

Under socialism, there is no showing off. If someone thinks they are better at something, they will immediately share that idea or talent with their peers, and they gain satisfaction knowing that they were able to help their peers become better at something. What socialism does is basically CIVILIZE the animalistic human species into doing things that progress the human race as a whole. People are more concerned with security and making others better than accumulating wealth. There is true love between people, TRUE love. Unlike in capitalism, where love is defined as: the more money you spend on ME, the more you must truly love ME.

Socialists are not just concerned about their physcial security but financial as well. Total government ownership of the economy provides a security that corporations cannot, because if the economy starts going to shit, the government is better able than private businesses to obtain however much money they need to keep things going. Look at Russia, they just borrowed something like $20 billion from the World Bank a few years back. Do you think they are ever going to pay it back? Hell no. But could a business or a collection of businesses ever pull off something like that? No way. So there is a true safety net that the government provides. People don't have to worry about losing all their life savings to stupid, crook CEO's, and then having to go work at McDonald's when they're 75.

Edit(oops again): So the problem with capitalism is that it demands that people trust their lives to people who are instilled with this ME notion. And that is just stupid, because those entrusted will always look out for themselves first, obviously. I personally will never pay into any retirement account except Social Security, no matter who much the employer matches it, because you cannot trust people who look out for themselves first, and others second.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller (edited 07-20-2002).]

sooooo you say that people should just be faceless and have no chance of striving in stead of being free to?

try looking at people as being people, not mere animals

That is probably the biggest mistake that you will ever make. Social Security is probably not going to be around when you are old enough to take out. It's nice to see every dime that you put in there disappear.

You are under the false premise that capitalism revolves around self centered fucks. It doesn't. It revolves around people that strive to make life better for themselves.

You have said nothing that eludes to communism being a more stable socio-economic system than capitalism. All you have done is pointed out the faults of capitalism. Did you have a good time thinking up all of the bad aspects that you believe are detrimental to society? Good job!



[This message has been edited by Affectation (edited 07-20-2002).]

Originally posted by Affectation:
His/Her "points" are irrelevant. They are preaching about the greatness that communism "could" become.

That "point" was not to claim that communism is great but that it is unproven. I wanted you to show me examples of communism failing entirely on its own accord, which you couldn't or chose not to do. I said repretedly that communism, despite its external difficulties in the last 50 years may still be unworkable, but we haven't seen it fail purely on its own merits. THAT is not being pro-communist, and it's not being anti-capitalist. It's called basing a beleif on what has played out on history. Just because communism hasn't worked doesn't imply that it can't work. It more than likely can't, but it is unproven.

Originally posted by Affectation:
It's human nature to strive to become ones best.

It's also human nature to be a political animal, to work in a community (hmmm etymology) for the benefit of the whole before the self. As the cornerstone of western philosophy I think we'll just discount Aristotle as just another Commy.

Originally posted by Affectation:
Something that is never going to happen.

I agree with you there. But only in that it will never fail on its own merits.

Originally posted by Affectation:
It can't work because the structure is flawed.

because we're naturally striving for selfish ends ?

Originally posted by Affectation:
And this is the example that pro communists (like slunky_whateverthefuck) use.

pro-communist ? Throw the labels around. I'm pro-democratic (meaning if people elect a communist system then they deserve to have that system run its course). How many pro communists use phrases like "That's not to say Communism can work" ? I'm just prepared to accept that it is a work in progress. That won't please the anti-communists (since we're drawing lines in the sand) since they'll think we're wasting time "thinking" when we could be buying shares in McDonalds and making the world better.

Originally posted by Affectation:
It doesn't work because it can't. Not because it's been interrupted.

And yet after all this you can't name one location where communism has failed 100% because of its actual deficiency. Something that "can't" work seems to need an awful lot of help in failing. You might be right with your "it would have failed in the long run" argument, but we don't know and I guess that is why I'm the "pro-communist", because I'd rather know for sure, than think I know.

eating shit for breakfast everyday hasnt been proven to be bad for you, but we can pretty much guarantee it isnt

Very fine points.

As I've already stated, it's a self fulfilling answer to the question of whether or not Communism would work.

I can't give you an example of where communism has failed 100%. Civil war plays a large part pretty much every time. Can you say Yugoslavia? In the late eighties Communist States were about 1/3 of the world. Nearly all of these have failed. Plain and simple.

Let me say this again, plain and simple.

It's not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

Originally posted by bittertrance:
eating shit for breakfast everyday hasnt been proven to be bad for you, but we can pretty much guarantee it isnt

Great argument.

Everyone seems to be an authority on what is best for everyone else. There must be something wrong in leaving people to do what they want with their democratic process and to live with the consequences and failures that result.

I think some of you people equate anything that isn't capitalist as being some form of tyranny or repression. Maybe people are right when they talk of western impreialism. Several hundred years ago Europeans looked at the rest of the world as somewhere that needed to be enlightened, realligned with their own ideas.

Originally posted by slunky_munky:

Everyone seems to be an authority on what is best for everyone else.

No, they are the authority on what is best for themselves.

Originally posted by slunky_munky:


Everyone seems to be an authority on what is best for everyone else. There must be something wrong in leaving people to do what they want with their democratic process and to live with the consequences and failures that result.

cool you just proved yourself wrong

Originally posted by Affectation:
Very fine points.
I can't give you an example of where communism has failed 100%.

So at best you can only assume that it is a system doomed to failure ? You are more than likely right but the evidence shows that communism has always been brought down by other factors that arn't necessarily linked to the political system itself.

Look at Eastern Europe, it wasn't the most democratic place after the war was it ?
East Asia ? lots of nice western troops running around playing the righty's and lefty's off against each other. I dare say the US policy in the region made it damned near impossible for any communist system to rule undisturbed. Need I tell you of the proscription lists supplied by the US to Indonesia ?

Originally posted by Affectation:
Civil war plays a large part pretty much every time. Can you say Yugoslavia? In the late eighties Communist States were about 1/3 of the world. Nearly all of these have failed. Plain and simple.

If the communist government wasn't elected then I'm not going to defend it. I don't care for tyranny and people need to seperate communism from that. People have and do elecet communist systems on their own free will.
Those unelected systems deserve to fail regardless of their intentions. I'm defending communist systems elected by the public. Where civil wars occur in these places we have to consider what backing is given to the pro-capitalist factions. And remember, often the official backing by London or Washington on "anti-communist" factions in civil wars is simply for the most pro-western/capitalist side, they might still have communist credentials. I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples of two equally communist sides fighting for control in a civil war and the victor is the one that whores themselves out to western support. Consider Sukarno and Suharto. As for Yugoslavia, its breakup hardly came at a time of communism. Yugoslavia was viewed by the west as a "progressive" and newly enlightened nation. The German and US manipulation of nationalism within its factions spelt the breakup more than anything else.

I am a hopeless liberal, but even I recognize the inherent ... well, basically, animalism in human nature that prevents communism from ever really taking hold.

Can there be a society with more governmental control than what America has now? Sure. Half of Europe has it right now. But pure communism? No way in hell.

And I don't necessarily think capitalism is, in and of itself, wrong or a bad system. However, unchecked capitalism is, and right now, we are definitely heading in that direction if we already aren't charging towards it full steam ahead. Economic disparity is growing at an alarming rate, and nobody's doing a damn thing about it. That's where capitalism goes wrong.

Originally posted by slunky_munky:
1. I'm defending communist systems elected by the public.

2. The German and US manipulation of nationalism within its factions spelt the breakup more than anything else.

1. Something that will never happen.
2. Bullshit.

There is no way to prove, using your logic, that communism can work.

Originally posted by bittertrance:

cool you just proved yourself wrong

how ?

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:

Economic disparity is growing at an alarming rate, and nobody's doing a damn thing about it. That's where capitalism goes wrong.

come one man stop being a doomsday liberal!

the market will go up and the market will go down does no one know this anymore?

Originally posted by Affectation:
1. Something that will never happen.

Care to explain how ? Or do you know what is best for other people, like what I said further up ? How do you know it is impossible for a communist party to be democratically elected ? Granted we have shades of communism throughout the world but these parties wouldn't exist in democratic countries without support and membership. France has a strong communist following. Some places may never have enough communist support but its a matter of pursuasion. Communist parties are popular at times and in certain places. This fact alone means it isn't impossible.

Originally posted by Affectation:
There is no way to prove, using your logic, that communism can work.

I don't see your point, but if I take it as truth, then the same goes for capitalism and all other systems. They can't be proven, there will never be a pure experiment to validate them, and to my original point, communism remains untested, unproven and undefeated. It has yet to succeed, but like all systems, at what point do you decide that goals have been acheived ?

If you believe communism is a closed book, can't be worked and is a waste of time you are basing your idea on gut feeling over fact. History shows communism hasn't worked so far. That isn't the same as it being a proven failure.

It's about agrument. You might be right about it being unworkable but there's no solid basis for drawing any conclusions as to its ultimate viability. Unless you have the ability to attack the source, but when people continually talk about human instinct they seem to miss the boat completely with this idea of ruthless selfism.

It's like saying a dog is a mammal because it has 4 legs. Everything there is right but there's no valid argument. Communism can't work because it hasn't yet worked is the same. Might be 100% right but it's not an argument.

Originally posted by bittertrance:

come one man stop being a doomsday liberal!

the market will go up and the market will go down does no one know this anymore?

yet they were talking about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor. We all know capitalism is supposed to get wealth flowing downwards but when the wealth is bulking up at the higher end of the system cynicism sets in.

Let's look at this scientifically. If you perform an experiment three hundred times, and every time it ends the same way, it's fair that you can come to a near certain conclusion.

Communism is only attractive to the lowest class of people. The people that want everything taken care of for them. People that don't want to work for themselves. Successful people aren't supporters of communism. Quit being so red.

Originally posted by bittertrance:
sooooo you say that people should just be faceless and have no chance of striving in stead of being free to?

try looking at people as being people, not mere animals

Nowhere did i say that socialism prevents people from striving, but I did say the opposite. Try reading it again. And also, don't try to separate humans from animals. Humans are an evolved animal species. There really isn't anything that we do that other animal species don't do, but there are some things that we do better.

Originally posted by Mr. Restroom TP Refiller:
Humans are an evolved animal species. There really isn't anything that we do that other animal species don't do, but there are some things that we do better.

Here are 49:

1. Writing and reading.

2. Mathematical calculation.

3. Making and playing of musical instruments.

4. Creating and using a calendar.

5. Engaging in commerce.

6. The practice of law.

7. The practice of medicine and veterinary medicine.

8. Pyrotechnics.

9. Cooking food.

10. Studying.

11. Tracking the movements of celestial bodies.

12. Whale watching.

13. The use of graphic arts.

14. Provision of artificial light.

15. Provision of artificial heat.

16. Home decoration.

17. Modeling clothing.

18. Making jewelry.

19. Fashion design.

20. Plumbing.

21. Telegraphy.

22. Telephony.

23. Broadcasting.

24. Furniture design.

25. The practice of religion.

26. Storytelling.

27. Kindling fire.

28. Body decoration.

29. Printing.

30. Musical notation.

31. The presentation of argument.

32. Photography.

33. Inducing or utilizing abstract principles.

34. Going on a vacation.

35. Construction of wheels for transportation.

36. Construction of artificial wings for flying.

37. Planning for retirement.

38. Sailing.

39. Investment.

40. Farming and ranching.

41. Mechanical engineering.

42. Transportation and use of stored power.

43. Mailing or shipping.

44. Piloting craft.

45. Recording music.

46. Inventing games.

47. Distilling alcohol.

48. Shopping.

49. Avoiding or inhibiting the spread of natural diseases.

Originally posted by Affectation:
Let's look at this scientifically. If you perform an experiment three hundred times, and every time it ends the same way, it's fair that you can come to a near certain conclusion.

Communism is only attractive to the lowest class of people. The people that want everything taken care of for them. People that don't want to work for themselves. Successful people aren't supporters of communism. Quit being so red.

Well to be fair, it's more like performing an experiment 300 times, and having someone run into the lab each time and knock over all the test tubes. There have been socialist and communist governments elected numerous times - look at countries which use proportional representation to see their influence. I don't think it's necessarily solely attractive to the lower classes, although anyone who relies on welfare as an excuse to never do anything for themselves would definitely appreciate the benefits of a socialist state. Capitalism is competetive - watch your back, take advantage of everyone and claw your way to the top. Communism is about everyone doing their best to help the group - isn't that something to aspire to? If the world was about pooling resources and helping each other up, our civilization would advance at a much faster rate. Communism's one fatal flaw is that some people are power hungry, and as such they need to be controlled - and more control means less freedom. It would be great to see a Communist nation actually develop naturally and find a balance, instead of getting screwed over by foreign interests

Originally posted by Affectation:
That is probably the biggest mistake that you will ever make. Social Security is probably not going to be around when you are old enough to take out. It's nice to see every dime that you put in there disappear.

Social Security will not be around in the same form that it is now, but there will be some kind of government system that provides retirement and medicaid benefits for retired people. Do you really think we would ever get to the point where retired people are left to starve and freeze in their homes, and where old sick people are refused treatment because their insurance ran out? There's no way that would ever happen. Ever. If it got bad enough, then we would just adopt a more socialistic-style government, that's all. Japan will have to deal with this kind of situation long before we will, let's see how they do first.

You are under the false premise that capitalism revolves around self centered fucks. It doesn't. It revolves around people that strive to make life better for themselves.

False. Perhaps capitalism consists mostly of good-willed people who strive to make life better, but it certainly revolves around the self centered fucks because they are the ones who shape U.S. policy. They are the ones with all the power. They are the ones who hold those powerful CEO and COO positions, and who can buy members of Congress on just about any issue. Capitalism is little more than rule by the self-centered elite.

You have said nothing that eludes to communism being a more stable socio-economic system than capitalism. All you have done is pointed out the faults of capitalism. Did you have a good time thinking up all of the bad aspects that you believe are detrimental to society? Good job!

It really isn't that difficult to fathom Communist systems elected by the people. You could, for example, have a multi-party Communist system with term limits, just like you can a 2-party capitalist system in the U.S. with term limits. Not all communists think alike, you know. There are political variations of Communist philosophy just like there are variations in capitalistic thought. This way, with 2 or 3 parties, there would not be this single entity in power that grows stronger and eventually strips citizens of all freedoms, like you see in China.

And I've already said why a democratically-elected Communist government would be more stable than a capitalistic one: because every aspect of the country is controlled by an entity that is accountable to the people. Whereas here in the U.S., big business is not accountable to the people and are therefore inclined to do what suits THEM best, not the nation as a whole.