"Doesn't capitalism lead to wars?

As history has shown, the greatest period of world peace was during 19th century predominantly capitalist America. Please observe that in the 20th century the major world wars were all started by the anti-capitalist collectivist countries."
--http://www.capitalism.org/faq/war.htm

<--is that crap or is it just me?

Hmmm.. in a way, that's true.. but no matter who started it, our capitalist asses jumped in how many times in the century? Five? We're no better than the people who may have provoked the conflicts.

P.S.- Five = WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War. Did I miss any?

Yeah, Grenada and Kosovo.

Kosovo? Kosovo wasn't a conflict, it was target practice.
America had a lot to do with provoking the gulf, there might not have been a conflict if not for america's involvement.

[This message has been edited by Crevan (edited 03-04-2001).]

Nazis were capitalists.

Nazi
Proper name; NSDAP

National socialista deutch arbeits partei

National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.

...Care to repeat that.

[This message has been edited by Alan Smithee (edited 03-04-2001).]

If the Nazi's were really a bunch of socialist, would you really think that they would give big German corporations like Krupp and IG Farben such a free reign with how they used slave labor. Trust me, the Nazis' were from the extreme right.

Bongman,

If you want to take over a continent you need money. Such were the Nazis.

Don't try that here.

But but but, my history teacher said....

She said that capitalist germany hated the communists.

Germany hated russia because russia decided they didn't really wanna be invaded again. I don't give a damn what the political affiliation of the guy with the rifle pointed at my head is, he's not my friend.

germany wasn't socialist.

germany wasn't capitalist.

germany wasn't communist.

germany was a dictatorship.

the whole reason for the war was to bring germans to the homeland and perfect the master race.

that's why they invaded poland was to get german kids out and make laborers out of the others.

that's the reason they went to every country they did.

especially the nordic countries where everybody was blond haired and blue eyed.

their reasons for going into russia were actually pretty noble. they wanted to liberate the german-russians(who they felt were superior) because they were being persecuted by the atheist communist government for believeing in god.

how do i know this you ask.

my great grandparent were german-russian immigrants to america who sought asylum from religious persecution after the bolshevik revolution.

my grandfather was "smuggled" into this country in a suitcase;

the germans wanted to put the german-russians who were being persecuted in power in russia.

Nazis had nothing to do with socialism. Nazis hated Marxism. Nazis are like America in 10 years.

In fact, I think I'd rather be known as a filthy jew than as a filthy bolshevic.... actually, no I wouldn't.

The Nazi's were Socialistic However unlike the Russian International socialism which was opposed to nationalism, German national socialism held the tenant of aryan superiority. Examples of german socialist programs were the autobahn and volkswagon.

Okay, so the Nazis were socialists. But was Nazi Germany a right-wing or left-wing government.

Buy the way, the Germans invaded Russia for the land. They wanted to replace all the Slavic people in the farms in Ukraine by Aryan people so that they could reproduce themselves because they were the superior race. They sent the Slavs to toil as slave labor in the factories in Germany, work that was deemed unsuitable for the superior race.

"the germans wanted to put the german-russians who were being persecuted in power in russia."

isn't that what i said?

NAZI'S WERE A DICTATORSHIP.

are you solidly left or right wing?

do you know anybody who is?

even america's foundation of right and left wing politics is based on the party's agenda not the individuals within the party.

nazi's may have been the ruling power in germany but they were led by hitler whose word was law.

that's not a socialist government.

that's not a communist government.

that's not a capitalist government.

it's a dictatorship.

most dictators conceal their power in the form of a government because dictators have a bad name.

don't believe me ask fidel castro and saddam hussein(who like hitler use the military to enforce their power)

Yeah, it was a dictatorship but when you try to control something as big as a country, you have to make decisions based on your political ideals. Eventhought Stalin was a dictator, his policy was much more towards the left.

the third reich was more of a socialistic system than anything else however In that dictatorship it was closer to comunism than capitalism. Oh and the germans invaded Russia for many reasons none of which was to put german citizens in power that is just bullshit that hitler said to make it sound alright when he invaded he treated those poor mutha-fuckas just as bad as the rest except jews.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

um...

excuse me ** taps on shoulder **

did you read what i said?

the "russians" on the eastern front were not fully "russians";

they were GERMAN-russians; and by that part of the master race(according to hitler).

of which i am descended since my ancestors left this region and came to america seeking religious asylum from the atheistic bolsheviks who came to power.

if hitler would've taken russia; who do you think he would've left in charge?

polynesians?

GERMANS.

So according to you, Lostmind, Hitler invaded Russia to "liberate" the germans that were persecuted by the communists. Did he also invade France, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Poland, Checosovakia, Greece, Hungary, Rumania and Egypt to "liberate" the germans who were "persecuted" in those contries. Let's face it, Hitler was a barbarian who just wanted more power.

On a second note, Nazi Germany was a capitalist country because Hitler gave a lot of liberties to many companies in Germany like Krupp and I.G. Farben and he was also anti-union.

the history channel

Histories Mysteries

episode: "Hitler's Perfect Race"

direct quote unknown;

the nazi's invaded poland to steal the children of those who could prove german descent.

YES THAT'S FUCKING EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING!!!

Yea thats why he did it to liberate the people! Thats why he starved mis-treated and persecuted them. There were German-Russians however do you really think that Hitler wanted to free these people "If you are going to lie, Lie BIG" -Adolf HItler. Nah see the problem was that hed thought that the British were no longer a threat and he wanted his so called "living space" even though he really did'nt need it. The number one reason was to get rid of the so called "undesirables." Really the cocky bastard may of preached his shit saying that he wanted "living space" what he meant was 'I am gonna take it over and fuck with the people there aryan or not' Oh and the reason that he left the Krupps alone was because he realized that the state would make the output of the factory, they had quite a confusing economic system which would of never worked out in the real world because it sent to many opposing messages. By the way whats a Bolshlevic? I don't know and I want to know. Thanks

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

Germany was a socialist state, the state commanded large portions of the economy. They were anti-union, so was the soviet union, remember solidarity in poland. Germany gave liberties to krup steal, They were socialists not stupid, krup was the backbone of the german economy/wareffort.

the bolshevik revolution that put the communists in charge in russia.

and i didn't say he wasn't trying to erase other cultures.

but he wanted his perfect race; and that's what he was going to lead; all others he didn't consider true humans;

he wanted pure germans(aryans) to be the only ones to exist in the world.

sinse when was this discussion on germany?
personally, i think capitalism, while being certainly better than some govt.s, still is not ideal. its whole system works because of conflict and oppression, as opposed to peace and prosperity. the dialectic systems, while having a good outcome sometimes, cannot be that good of a govt. because there is always a struggle for power. i think that only with equal status with all social classes (hence getting rid of the boiguasi vs. proletariat struggle and mybe even the castes in completion), as socialism and some kinds of communism suggests would work to make EVERYone peacefull and prosperous. i would like to know why you think capitalism results in p & p, though.

socialism is truly the best system because it is nearly the perfect in all regards. It still rewards the more productive but also protects those that are productive yet simply have been taken advantage of. Communism does not work becasue of the room for fuck-ups and no matter what not all men are created equal. See 'enemy at the gates' the propoganda officer makes an awsome speech on the short falls of communism before he fets his brains blown out. In short there is no perfect system unless the people of earth lose all emotion.

Non Gratum Anus Rodentum

Socialism is inferior to capitalism. If you want socialism move to Europe 10-15% unemployment on average, what a paradise. Government interference in the economy is rarely beneficial. Every function they provide, save for the minimum requisites of infrastructure and sovereignty are provided better by private charitable and profit driven organizations. Government social programs and income taxing are at one level or another backed with the threat of force, in a word extortion. also the tired rhetoric of bourgeoisie oppression of the preliterate is outdated, in America over half the population is Bourgeoisie.

i know that much. thats why im not there. imreferring to a theoretical true socialism which has not been acheived yet. i know, wishfull thinking, but who says things cant change?

More like impossible thinking.

In a country of millions, it would take just a few greedy individuals to start a domino effect that made the whole system collapse.

Try getting rid of all the greedy people. Even if you could, then a few others would develop greed, and the same thing would happen.

before Communism (the ultimate form of government) will work first you must change peoples morals and fundamental belifs, and that a bloody hard thing to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by j0662:
before Communism (the ultimate form of government) will work first you must change peoples morals and fundamental belifs, and that a bloody hard thing to do.

---

yup, but it would fuckin worth it. then we'd be able to go on with our ACTUAL work.

technology made communisme obsolete.

communism is great on a small scale but it can only work on a large scale with mindless drones.

mindless drones? in the original way of working within communism, technology would be incorporated to make only 2-3 hours of "grunt work" per person, leaving time for creative and (as opposed to mindless) intellectually stimulating activities.

yes;

but what would motivation would there be to become the scientist who planned the landing on another planet when you get paid the same as the guy who knew "lefty loosey righty tighty" for the bolts on the ship that would take them there?

Pride, and more than that, fame. Money and perks come with fame, even if the paycheck's the same as the other guys.

I'm not sure that'd be enough to get many people interested in being the big head scientist.. but it does motivate.

governments are instituted amoung men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the PEOPLE to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new governmen, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its power in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safty and happiness.-THE UNITED SNAKES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 1776

the course of the worlds events, for the first time in history is now largely controlled by a centralised global regime.

the regime has been consolidationg its power ever since ww II and is now formalising that into a colection of centralised institutions and a new system of international 'order'

top western political leaders are participants in this global project, and the strong western nation state is rapidly being dismantled and destablilised.

the global regime serves the ELITE CORPORATE interest exclusively. IT HAS NO PARTICUL REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,reprosentative governments, human welfare, OR THE HEALTH OF THE FUCKING ENVIRONMENT, capitalism the only .g.o.d(gold or dollars)of this regime is the g.o.d of wealth accumulation.

you really wont to go into capitalism, because i would love too................

------------------
profanatory irreverence

what you think-is weak
what know-is useless
what your are-is both!!!

that might do it for some people spiffy;

but be real;

it's human nature to get by doing as little as possible;

and if you could work with no stresses washing windows;

why would you want to oversee a big company with global implications to reinforce your countries economy and give a bigger cut to everybody?

and as for fame;

unless you are a movie star or high profile political figure;

the only people that will know who you are; are those in your field.

you may know the nobel peace prize winner;

but can you name another?

without looking it up on the net.
hell i'd be happy if you could name a senator or congressman from the state of north dakota?

fame wouldn't do it.

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 03-26-2001).]

That's what I said.

A history teacher I once had said that the capitalist system has to lead to wars to fight recessions.

wars kickstart any economy no matter what type it is.

more jobs in almost every field to satisfy the war effort;

and open positions that were left by those who went to fight.

any government system thrives under war;

unless of course you're losing.

Yeah, I like your idea lostmind. Let's fight te comming recession by creating a war! Not a real one because with all our luck ,we'll wind up with another Viet-nam so how about a fake war. We create a war with a made up contry, one with a name like, i don't know, eurasia or eatasia. And we can incite everybody else to work harder by telling them how well this fake war is going on TV...

orwell truly was a prophet wasn't he;

wave at the camera next time you buy a soda;

remember it's not only watching you but the person behind the counter as well.

your elite rulers did not lead you into tyranny and environmental collapse because they are evil people, but because they were forced to by the nature of CAPITALISM

capitalist economies must continually grow in orde to survive. if "investers"have no where to increase THEIR funds then they stop investing and the whole system collapses like a house of cards(hahah)

each phase in the development of capitalism-including imperialism and later globilisation,has been required to enable successive cycles of capital growth.

humanity can do better than this???much better!!! and there is reason to hope that the time is right for us to bring about fundamental changes. for the past 200 years capitalism has employed an unbeatable formula to maintain its strangle hold over the world. that formula has been based on the relative contenment of western popuilations , particularly the middle classes.

popular support maintained westerned regimes and those regimes had military might? to domninate /polute the rest of the world. that formular reached its culmination in the post war years when western prosperity reached unprecedented heights. with neoliberalism and globalization, this successful formular is being abandoned.

western populations are being sacrificed(hahah) to market forces and WTO tyranny-and your elite rulers have bet their future on the success of their centralised WTO!!!!! new world order regime. the political support base for capitalism has been fatally weakened, and that creats the conditios from which a mass movement for fundamental change is likly to emerge.

ill talk more of this if some one other than a hen answers.......

Capitalism is a great system where you have to work your hardest to pay your bills, pay for all the poor people that are lazy, pay for all of the goverments bills , then spend what little money you have left on worhtless stuff that you dont even need, just so that you can say you have the best stuff for this week until next week when all of that stuff is outdated.

Listen to Tool much?

maintaining the status quo is no longer an option for us-the nature of capitalism is forcing revolutionary changes.

in a few years the global regime may be so thoroughly established that it will be invincible.

THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAVE A CHOICE.

on one hand we can surrender to global tyranny so that capitalism can continue its insane and destructive growth, on the other hand we can assert our rights as free? people.

WE CAN OUST THE ELITES FROM POWER

and recongnise our societies so that they serve the needs of the people instead of facilitatiing the endless accumulation of wealth by a fucking few.

this is our revolutionary imperative, not an imperative to violent revolution(pah pigs arse haha i am ready) but an imperative to do some thing even more revolutionary, to set humanity on a set course using peace full means(kill them all)

the current regime is serving the interests of only a tiny elite, the rest of you and me have nothing TO LOOSE but our chains(yank yank yankkkk) and we have a livable world to GAIN. I will discuss decentralisation a fucking paradigm for self rule, next !!!!

We could also sit back and laugh at the corporate slaves.

I love American Beauty. Everyone should see it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sckbch:
Listen to Tool much?

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay, nihilistic, we oust the elite, then what do we do? You have to realize that both the French and the Russians have done this before and failed to get a better system.

nihilistic would be right if the poor were meant to stay poor; which is what occurs in every system but a capitalist one.

if you are born into poverty; you can excel at school and get financial aid to a good college.

in capitalism it all comes down to drive and desire.

there's nothing i hate more than somebody who bitches about the success of others while sitting on the couch with their feet up drinking a beer.

maybe if you got off your ass and did that little bit extra you could be successful.

what i love about capitalism is that instead of waiting for your ship to come in; expecting it in other words.

you can build your own ship; and when it's finished and your sucking margaritas on some island paradise it's a lot better because it comes with a sense of accomplishment.

nothing wrong with the sense of accomplishment, but in capitolism, it leaves scares from its accomplishments, its cool red its on the way read on.

DECCENTRALISATION A PARADIGM FOR SELF RULE...

the original budda-nature of all living beings is like the bright moon in the sky-it is only because it is covered by floating clouds that it cannot appear-zen master fenyang.

for the last ten thousand years, ever since the discovery of agriculture and HERDING,societies have been increasingly dominated by hierarchical power structures

nations,empires,corperations-these are ALL HIERARCHICAL ORGANISATIONS CONTROLL BY THE"TOP"

so in the past two centuries,elected government hierarchies continued largly in elite hands.governments have gone under many names,but they have all amounted to one form or the other,of TYRANNY: A CENTRALIZED FUKEN GLOBAL GOVERNMENT UNDER FIRM CONTROLL OF ONE PARTICULAR ELITE.

humanity has been dominated by hierarchies for so long that we might asume hierarchy is inherent in human societies, perhaps part of human nature........it self?

BUT ten thousand years ,though it seems like a long time, is l;ess then one persent of homo(lokil and sch bch) sapiens has been living in societies.by evolutionary standards, civilization?? has been but a blink of an eye.

for essentially all of our history as a species, we have lived in small HUNTER GATHERER societies.

if we want to understand any thing about human nature,and about stable freaken societal structure (g.o.d damm it) we learn more by looking at hunter gatherer societies than we do by investergating our behaviour during our recent CONFINMENT IN HIERACHICAL FREAKNE CAGES MAN.

we have an immense amount of infomation about hunter gatherer societies, and some of the most usefull is about the NATIVE american societies(redrover),because?? they were studied extensively and documented while they were functioning intact? on a large scale.(by the way were is the dood that posted this thread,)

THE AZTEC AND INVA empires are of no interest to us here,nor are any other societies based on agriculture(cool shit)

what were interested in are the EXAMPLES that match 99 per cent of our hunter gatherer HISTORY?. our interest is not in hunter gatherer ECONOMIES!!!!-there are far too many of us today to return to that(thin the freaken herd man-ah sorry)

RATHER we are interested in how these societies FUNCTIONED politically, particularly THOSE THAT WERE ORGANISED IN A DECENTRALISED WAY. look at the striking degree of diversity amoung these pre-agriculture societies!!!!,even amoungst ones that interacted with one another regularly.

there were warrior tribes,peacful, nomatic tribes, and even settled communities, when fish were plentiful enough. a considerable number of these tribes has EGALITARIAN AND NON HIERACHICAL STRUCTURES of non trivial complexity, the ones i have loked at and you should as well are the oglala sioux.

there were elders, and there wee cheifs,but they had no authority or command,they were looked too for guidence,but were only folowed when their suggestions met with general approval.when a trial decision was to be made, it was made by CONSENSUS?, and the chief didnt have more weight than others, unless throiugh persuasion of WISDOM.

okay perhaps more interesting-since we must deal with today with the scale of poulations,is the manner in which siox nation of tribes reached decisions for collective action. the INVASION OF THE FREAKEN EURO colonist forced the sioux to make frequent use of this collective mechanism, but it was already in place-the result of millennia of societal evolution.

i need to go to training now, i will return with the continuem...........

Middle-age Europe had decentralized government- fiefs.

In those places, all the little castles had general rule over the land they held, although they did have to answer to a king. But there were lords, vassals, and serfs. The top few ruled the bottom many. Some did it for the betterment of the group, some didn't.

If the government fell apart, and we reverted to decentralized, community-based rule, the same thing would most likely happen. You would see instances where it was great (good leaders), and instances where it sucked ass (bad leaders).

Basically, there will be a few leaders and many followers. That's just the way humans are. No matter what you set up as a new government for any kind of people, any number of people, etc., how well it works is going to be based on the leaders of those people and how good they are. In that case, it might actually be better to at least start out with a strong central government, as a few wise leaders could have a monumental impact. Then again, a few wise leaders in the governments we have now could do the same- everything's just too corrupt for them to gain any real power.

again;

hunter-gatherer was good at the time.

technology has made that impossible;

although if the mayans are right;

the human race will start all over again on december 21, 2013; that's the end of the age to them when the evil of man makes his creations turn on him until he is reverted to starting all over again until he gets it right.

their atlantis tale that 25,000 years ago man had a great civilization and then his inventions rebelled against him;

this cycle repeats every 25,000 years until man gets it right then their god (forget the name right now, the winged serpent) will return and rule paradise.

why do so many cultures have stories of great civilizations that crumbled.

why do so many cultures associate the winged serpent with a deity(egypt and china(dragon)).

why does the mayan date for the end of the age fall so closely to the hebrew of 2008-2018; almost right in the middle;

the most incredible the mayans spanning a 25,000 year period with 365 1/4 days and the hebrew 7,000 years and 337 days i believe.

Lostmind, you're wrong. A capitalist governemnt is one of the hardest places to move up the economical ladder.

Look at the United States. If really everybody in a capitalist system had the same chances to excel, wouldn't their be a bigger number of black, korean and other non-whites at the head of the country. Can you name me a black president? Or how about a black billionaire?

In a more socialist state, good education is easy to get for poor people, meaning that the smart and the resourcefull can get ahead of the others.

uhh,

correct me if i'm wrong.

don't we have free education k-12. if they don't want to take advantage of it;

fuck them.

how about michael jordan.

if jesse jackson could keep his pecker in his pants he might be there as well.

besides jesse jackson name one black man that ran for president.

or are you saying that the racial profiling we call affirmative action will soon take place in elections and your vote really won't matter; and we'll have to 20 years of a black president 16 of a woman; and 8 of "other" as president to make the quota right.

colin powell did well for a black man;

how about eddie murphy, michael jackson; magic johnson; kareem abdul jabbar; the juice; bill cosby; bo jackson; chris rock; b.b. king; chuck berry; dr. dre; ice-t; will smith; halle berry; janet jackson; jon cheney(head coach of temple); stevie wonder; laurence fishburn; samuel l. jackson;

just to name a few; how many others are doctors; lawyers; own their own business;

MAKE MORE THAN YOU.

our leaders are chosen by the people; and only one has ever ran.

our education is offered free; it is not forced upon you; whether or not you want to learn is entirely up to you.

in socialism and communism these people would probably have been soldiers in the military or cleaning toilets;

or if their talent was discovered they might end up in a trade they are good at.

i admit michael jordan would've probably made the olympic team in a communist or socialist country.

what else would he have achieved?

would he be part owner of the washington wizards;

doubt it.

capitalism is not about leadership;

it's about coming from someplace; and doing what you can do advance to a better place.

tell me i'm wrong again.

true spiff, only with a system in place like that but this is what i will point out soon, lost i wont tell you your wrong, ill attempt to show you alternatives, and lets not get to far off the subject,. doing well so far...

the continuem...

a tribal council would be called by one of the tribes. each tribe would then hold its own consensus session to decide its position regarding the issue at hand. A CONTINGENT from each tribe. led by the cheif,would then go to the tribal council-where another consensu session would be held.

a cheif had no authority to agree with any thing contrary to what had been established locally.

if he exceeded his authority, his tribe would simply not back him up. on the other hand if the tribe had agreed to purse some venture,then the chief knew he could promise the tribes cooperation and that they would follow through.

TRUST WORTHINESS IS(WAS) a cardinal virtue in most native american societies, a mutual trust is what permitted their DECENTRALISED systems? to function reliably.

IN THIS WAY COLLETIVE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN be planned and coordinated, with out their being any centralised authority, what was deklergated to the chief WAS NOT DECISION MAKEIONG POWER,but rather the authorisation TO SAY ON OUR BEHALF THAT WHICH WE HAVE AGREED.this is an all important distinction, it makes the difference between hierachey and local controll.

between centralised and decentralised power-between tyranny and self rule.

the sioux were not an isolated example, by the way, the pattern was a common one, and the interaction between unrelated tribes also exchibited the success of various kinds of consenual relationships.

the iroquois nation was studied bt the american"FOUNDING FATHERS" and SOME historians believe this influenced the design of the us constitution.

these kinds of non hierachical,non federated tribal nations persisted stably FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME LOST.(forget the past people and senses of what they related they saw-the serpent for now though)

they were able to function collectively as nations with considerable effectiveness and coherence when the need arose, wioth out the need for hierachical government of any kind, RATHER THAN BEING CONTRY TO HUMAN NATURE.

I SUBMITT, that self rule may be at the very heart of human nature,and that it appears prominatly on every page of HUMAN HISTORY LOST.,except for that most recent page which began only an evolutionary instant ago, and which is called 'civilisation haha'(AND WHICH MAY BE FUCKEN CALLED(BETTER) DOMESTICATION OF THE SPECIES.

once stored surpluses came into existance,with agriculture and herding, then it became possible to maintain professional soldiers, and so the tools of conquest and emopire building became availible.

it required only one society to pursue this path,,AND THEN ALL THE REST WERE DOOMED-sooner or LATER.....-to either emulate or be dominated by their more aggressive neighbours. once the infection of the hierachical domination begins, the dynamics of its spread are all too apparent and INEVITABLE....

BUT... people have forgotten how to coperate,(sch bch hahaha) despite every attemp of our culture(what is american culture??not answer that yet) to inculcate competitiveness and selfish ness,both in education and in the societal reward system. therre are all sorts of organisations and associations that are entirely voluntary(mine included) and for a mutial benifit.

some ae hierachical, and others are NOT...

the recent 10 000 years conditioning has not unlearned the lessons....ingrained by millions of years of evolution, we may have forgotten the social structures we invented formally, because!!! those can only pass on culturally, but our ability to function in freedom within decentralised structures remains in tact.


OKAY SO WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE WANT TO BUILD, THE DISCUSSION NEXT...................

Call me overly pessimistic if you will, but look around you. I believe most of the people in the world are generally trustworthy; but they trust nobody else. It would probably be after we're dead and gone of old age that a decentralized system could take hold, even if the switch started today, because people wouldn't trust each other. The only other thing that could happen is if something drastic (like a nuclear holocaust) happened to force everyone to trust each other. Even then, it might not happen.

You know what the best type of government is, potentially?

A monarchy.

A ruler with total control could effect wide-sweeping changes the likes of which no other type of government could. If that leader is wise, with a good heart and the needs of the people in mind, the impact he or she could have to improve people's lives is incredible.

Of course, the possibility of a poor ruler makes it potentially the worst, too.

If you want an absolutist state, the best way to go is platonic republic.

excellent angle spiffy, shock works for me man, ahah,but seriously,hang on first, wow wait up smithie, check this shit first

WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE WANT TO BUILD???

moderation in all things-classical greek wisdom.

the future arrives at its own accord;progress does not-poul henningsen,designer and social nut, ur em sorry critic.

it would be easy for me to write down a description of my own personal utopia, as you spiffy, and the rest(alan) or to wish for a world in which every one has magically become enlightened and public spirited.

it is much more difficult to come up with a vision that can appeal to all segments of the world population,and which accepts that people are unlikly to change their basic natures or beliefs in the NEAR FUTURE.

it is even more difficult to make that vision one which is coherent and which lays the foundations for a SYSTEM? that can work effectively in practice.

okay permit me to offer my humble proposal for such a unifying vision.......

it is based on seven fundamental principles

and it has been developed through dialogue with hundreds of people and groups, in person and various email lists, the sven principles are

1.personal liberty.
2.a voice for ever one in society's governance.
3)decentralisation.
4)harminisation instead of factionalism
5)ECONOMIC VITALITY
6)SUSTAINA FEAKEN BILITY
7)WORLD FUKEN PEACE

1)personal liberty=
whin in the limits of respecting the liberty and well respecting of others(sch bch not included),every individual should be free to persue their lives more or less than they see fit, if they choose to submitt them selfs to the dictates of a religion,to cultural traditions, or what ever,then so be freaken it,BUT SUCH CHOICES SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY NOT SUBJUGATION.

NO single principle, how ever,can be interpreted in isolation-each must be kept in balance with others,personal liberty does NOT MEAN that a community has no right to prohibit anti -social behaviour,according to local customs.nor does it mean that a healthy individual can choose to sit around all day amd thenm demand that society support them. personal liberty must be BALANCED AGAINST PERSONAL RESP[ONSIBILITY, and it MUST be kept in reasonable harmony with the welfare of society.

at the same time, the principle of personal liberty serves to counter balance an excessive application of other priciples

in china for example,large numbers of people have been forced against their wil to work on agricultural labour crews,so as to full fil the centralised government economic objectives, and in your country the united snakes, men have frequently been forced against their will to FIGHT IMPERIALIST WARS, ON THE PRETEXT OF DEFENDIN 'NATIONAL FREAKEN G.O.D DAMM INTEREST'

the the principle of personal freedom aims to pretect the INDIVIDUAL? against such excessive intrusions by society? at large.,and from any tyranny of the MAJORITY.

in a livable world,society may pretect it self from anti social individuals(sch bch-the little man) but it does not seek to accomplish its objectives through COERCION.

A LIVABLE SOCIETY IS FOR THE FREAKEN LOVERLY PEOPLE NOT OVER THE PEOPLE.

okay ill discuss the other six points next,time for a breather ......

quote:

---

Originally posted by nihilistic:
1.personal liberty.
2.a voice for ever one in society's governance.
3)decentralisation.
4)harminisation instead of factionalism
5)ECONOMIC VITALITY
6)SUSTAINA FEAKEN BILITY
7)WORLD FUKEN PEACE

---

1- you said it pretty well.

3's been mentioned. If you get 3, you'll get 2 by default. The internet is proof of that- the smaller the group, the more important each individual voice is. If you had a decentralized system of government, it wouldn't be necessary to make a point of giving everyone a greater voice, because they would have it already.

4- For awhile, this might hold. But eventually, someone will disagree with someone else, sides will be taken, and the harmony will start to wane. It could take a long time for that to happen.. it could be that it might happen between two small groups, and everyone else stays nice and happy.. but if a new government were set up, decentralized in nature, care would have to be taken to avoid this for as long as possible in order for the system to set in.

5, 6, 7- These mostly would rely on factors that wouldn't be known until after the government was created. Some educated guesses could be made, but flexibility in how to accomplish these things would be of the utmost importance.

quote:

---

1.personal liberty.
2.a voice for ever one in society's governance.
3)decentralisation.
4)harminisation instead of factionalism
5)ECONOMIC VITALITY
6)SUSTAINA FEAKEN BILITY
7)WORLD FUKEN PEACE

---

1. personal liberty - fine...but dont let it get out of hand like it is now when fucking morons are making websites about doing something that will piss someone off and start something (not TOTSE or anyhthing, but rather the little fucks who make websites about killing teachers and blowing up schools...if you want freedom of speech then act mature enough to necessitate it)....im tired of that

2.yeah throw some democracy/republicanism in there...make em happy

3.decentralization....doesn't fall under number 2?

4&5. dont be nieve...everyone is NEVER going to get along and no your economy is never going to be perfect...but maybe if you didnt let stupid people put their money into tech stocks then we wouldnt have to hear them complain when they realized they fucked up....sure its okay to take risks but come on you didnt see that coming?

6. what did you say?...no im serious...what is that?

7.the only thing peace can lead to is war...dont be stupid....we know war is going to happen...the only thing we do by trying to prevent it is set the stage for some huge fight so we can live like the people in the game fallout (that'd be cool...cows with two head...whoops wrong forum)

yeah

el privo

Peace leads to war?
Not really. When was the last time there was a war in the U.S.? Not some piddly shit little police action, but a real war?

There are ways to avoid wars. Here's a couple of obvious ones

1) Complete military dominance
This works simply because you can inforce the peace. Sure there will be the occasional moron like Hussein who needs to be fought, but basically, peace will prevail. This works especially well with a government run by the people, like a democracy.

2) Learn to get along
No, this is not a joke. There are a lot of countries who have simply learnt that they don't have to fight. Costa Rica is a good example, I've never heard of a fucking war in Costa Rica. Also, as time goes on, there are becoming less and less wars, people are deciding that they are bad, and so peace is prevailing.

3) Perfect balance/dangerous weapons
This is a cold war, pretty much. If there is a perfect or near perfect military balance, or if two sides have weapons capable of causing enough damage, war becomes less profitable. This isn't a permanent solution, but it seems to work for shorter periods of time, until another solution can be found.

I'm sure if you scratch your brain you could find a couple other ways to obtain and maintain peace, there are quite a few.

We may not have fought against the U.S.S.R. for real during the Cold War, but that certainly wasn't peace.

it was pretty close. Drastic difference inbetween that and a real war.

i am impressed and pleased with all of you, i see promotion of thought, i am only here at and totse to throw a rock in the river and see where it goes, and motivate...all are doing well so far, i will touch on what you all said after i finish the other examples, so do me a favour and hold onto your asses first and read the whole lot before going into the final thought ok ppls.

number 1-example given onto

number 2)A VOICE FOR EVERY ONE IN SOCIETIES GOVERNANCE.

a livable society is not only for the people
but also of the ppl. our current society's have a pretence of reprosentation, but does not in practice provide a voice for the ppl. we get candidates WHO SELL SELL them selves on tv 'mas' derbating issues which have little relervamce to essential matters-and then when their in office they GENERALLY IGNORE their constituencies and devote their energies to promoting the corperate neoliberal FrEAKEN AGENDA.

okay this may be less true in local elections. but! it is very true at the top levels of major western governments, where big capitalist decisions are made.

our surposedly 'opposing' political parties go to great lengths to convince us that they differ in their philosophies, but in practice the 'BIPARTISAN'(Supported by both sides-for sch bch the doppy disabled) corporate program is what get implemented, regardless of who gets elected(hello- g.bush)

whenit comes down to it what could we expect from a system where the only input from the ppl is an 'x' every 4 years or 8., next to the name of one personality or other?

how could that possibly convey the will of the people???????

the word democracy comes from the greeks, who where first to study governmental structures in a systematic way.

their basic catagories of governance wew 'aristocracy' ;tyranny' and 'democracy'

in fact

these are all forms of tyranny as far as the man inthe street is concerned.

the only difference between them is who administers THE REGIME.

with tyranny it is a self-appointed dictator
with aristocracy it is a property owing class
with democracy it is some party or candidate which has convinced voters that it is LESS OBJECTIONABLE THAN THE ALTERNATIVES.

okay i see i wil have to work on this with you all.

the literal translation of the greek 'demokratia' rule 'buy' the people is basically a good idea.

but the implications of democracy starting with the greeks has emophasised the 'rule' and left out the ppl.

in fact electral politics always becomes a GAME.. of power-brokers and DEMAGOGUES.

leading to a tyranny of the majority-which really means tyranny by the party that best succeeds in FOOLING THE PPL.

for 10 000 years our LIVES have been increqasingly dominated by hierachies, after such loing term subjugation it may be scary for you all to think of running society our selves?? but who else should we trust insteed?

even if your answr is G.o.d(gold or dollors) then it is up to you to reprosent that WISDOM?? in the body politic.

with the dawning of the 21 century.
i say it is time for humanity to GROW THE FUCK UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for it self
we are now 21.

there are manty precedents, both historucal and current., which provide effective models for involviong people in the decisions that effect theri lives-for putting resonsibility where it freaken belongs.

the models are based on harminisation of INTERESTS, rather than on competition amoung political parties and social factions.

and they are models which begin the problem solving process AT THE FREAKEN LOCAL LEVEL.-not in the halls of some remote central government.

okay next 3)DECENTRALISATION

feel free to comment so far.

Putting more power at the local level is a nice idea- and I'd personally like to see it, myself- but have you taken into consideration that people bicker, piss, and moan just as much when it's small-time as they do when it's big-time? Giving them more power would only exacerbate the problem. So, I'm curious, how would you keep the government from changing from a centralized, self-interested, little-gets-done government to a decentralized government with lots of voices where some places thrive, but most go to hell because no one has decent leadership abilities?

no society will ever achieve sustainability,

it will always either degrade or improve,

sustainability could be another word for stagnant which is a state almost as improbable as perpetual motion.

or is change itself a 'form' of perpetual motion?

In the end mankind will subde to the idiots who think that one political party is good for everyone. It has been proven time and time again that certain types of goverments don't work well in certain areas. That is why nationalism is so popular throughout the world, you make laws and shit based on the laws of your creed and religons however the weakpoint of this system is that very few new ideas come along and the fact that these people end up starting wars based on racial hatred in their asshole of a country. A dedicated ruling class who have actual concern the agglomeration of society would be the best answer however human behavior does not allow that because people will never care about something that they do not see on a day to day basis. Hence we should all kill ourselves and call it the best day of the history of mankind.

If I Was A Girl For A Day
I Would Finger Myself Raw

Lot's of talk but it's all a waste of time. The Game is over we lost.
Read 'Rule By Secrecy'(J Marrs) and weep for us all...

All of this shit you're complaining about is essentially caused by a drive for globalization. This has been in progress for a very long time. So you can bitch about the commies or the capitalist "pigs" or whatever. It does not matter. Our "leaders" are preparing a "third-way" and we are in the crosshairs. The drive for world government, unfortunately, is coming from the United States. I hate to say this but it's true. The form of government we now know is NOT the form of government we were promised by our founding document. So I suppose we can sit around and shoot the shit about capitalism vs. whatever ass backwards form of Marxism but in the end we're just sittin' here with our thumb up our collective ass. So when the shit hits the fan (and it will) what will you do? Ask the gentleman in black with the H&K MP5 what his thoughts are on capitalism/socialism or will you nail that son of a bitch?
Keep debating fellas. A new world order is being born right in front of you.

I meant to write this post a while ago, but then I got busy and didn't come back. I had a whole shitload of good points to make, but they're gone now.

Anyway,
Hitler was on the extreme right. In the political spectrum, from left to right you have revolutionaries (new gov'ts), liberals (change), moderates, conservatives (preservation), and reactionaries who actually wish to return to the past.

A dictatorship is a reactionary form of government.

Hitler was a dictator.

Nihil's idea that gov't should follow the native american example is a great one. There are only two problems. 1) The indian populations were smaller than ours is today. I make population plural because there was no big indian government. Tribes were relatively tiny. 2) Native Americans had an extremely different value system than Europeans do. I cannot explain why, either because of environment, or maybe even genetics, but as a whole, indians appear to have been much less greedy and much less concerned with money - rather they were concernered with honor and the like. Their honor was their currency and so they worked to gain and retain it - today's currency is the opposite of that and actually spawns dishonesty.

Factions occur naturally in society. Sooner or later opinions are formed and parties will emerge. When the US was founded, parties were looked at as machines of evil, but as people realized they were inevitable, party participation spread like wildfire. During the gilded age, the era of party corruption, when the parties were most corrupt and run by a few irish party leaders, (ie: tammany hall), the voter participation percentage was the highest ever. See The Federalist Papers... I believe it was 10 and 54.. but I'm not sure, I might be off by one.

Finally, a post holocaust world where people could trust each other? I highly doubt it. Read the Stand. King has a great understanding of human nature and there are not many that would disagree that humans, even after a nuclear holocaust, would trust each other. They would in fact be much more prone to distrust, knowing that there is no government or society to protect them, besides the fact that most of us would be pretty shook up.

okay cool, i am just hangen back letting some of you doods speak your mind before i continue with some stuff for you to judge for your self, ill do some more this weekend.

fuck it always spins me out when a topic like this comes out ,you see the real people.

okay i have been hangen back for a few weeks to see some of your opinions and now is time for the continum.

NO 3 DECENTRALISATION

in a livable society, local communities should be free to make the decisions that effect them directly"sound like you?"

why the fuck should some one else tell them how to live their lives,how late they can keep their pubs open, or what kind of schools they can run for their children.

why the fuck should that be the business out side the community? okiay, there have been cases, to be sure where local minorities have been supressed,and central governments have come to their rescue. but IN A LIVABLE SOCIETY where every one has an effective voice in their communities,and the liberty to express it,there should be little need for that kind of central interventionism.

AND AGAIN!!, this principle needs to be balanced against others, a community cannot pollute the water source of other communities,nor can it be alowed to scuander recklessly-forcing its fucking people eventually to make demands on the resources of others- the lambs.

and the community cannot be allowed to violate liberty of its citizens(sch bch, editing pots,would/ cannot be part of this the wimp)

to ignore their political voice!!,nor to use its children as free labour instead of giving them an education?.

there are clearly problems that need to be dealt with on a larger scale than a single community,and there are probl;ems that can only be delt with ona global basis.

BUT IN A LIVABLE SOCIETY.
decisions are made locally when ever possible,and larger scale decisions are made in participation WITH THOSE EFFECTED.

okay, in our society/yours today,decisions by unacountable CENTRALIZED BUREACRACIES HAVE BNECOME THE PRIMARY MEANS BY WHICH YOUR WORLD /SOCIETY? IS RUN.

in a livable society the power and responsibility pyramid is turned the other way round.

understand, consider how the international postal system operates,each nation has full sovereignty over how it delivers mail,and what kind of postal office system it wants to set up.

*start paying attension now*

there is no centralised global postal authority that has jurisdiction over the internal operations of national postal systems.

all fucking nations(except in time of conflict) have always agreed to deliver the mail passed onto them by other nations-based on mutual benifit and TRUST.

THE INTERNET THAT YOU ALL ARE ADDICTED TOO WORKS MUCH THE SAME WAY.

each internet provider is like a local post office,and the providers voluntarily collaberate in exchange of MAIL.

based on mutual benmifit and trust. the in ternational rail system is yet anothe familiar example.

these systems are not fully decentralised.

each natinal post office is itself a hierachical bureaucracy,and international postal standards are set by a centralised agency.

none the fucking less.the over all system structure is a decentralised one,national post offices are run atonomously.they cooperate according to agreed procedures,BUT THEY ARE NOT UNDER ANY CENTRAL MANAGMENT.

so as these examples prove lambs,a decentralised structure can be very reliable,and it can evolve over time as new cercumstances arise. where it can be more efficently optimised for local conditions. the over all administration over head is less than a centralised system,administration is closer to its users,and different societies can choose to have DIFFERENT QUALITIES of l;ocal service,depending on what they can affod and WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE.

in a decentralised SYSTEM.

un fucking responsive, and inflexable fucking bureacracies are minimised.

in addition to these many many advantages,de centralised systems provide some thing EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.

they facilitate INNOVATIVE EVOLUTION,

lets surpose that the swedish post office develops a mail sorter that is more efficent than those used elswhere, very fucking soon,other nations will emulate sweden,(nice chicks) perhaps modifying OR REFINING the design in the process,

in a centralised system,the research and development function is also centralised and innovation is constrained through a narow pipe line(bchs arse is definatly not that)

in a decentralised system

each party can takle risks on their own, with their fucking own NEW IDEAS.

ans if they fail... no one else need emulate them.

in a livable world,decentralised systems are to be prefered,where ever they can be successfully employed. be sides their advantages in terms of systems provide a political benifit.

they transfer responsibility and controll top the lowest possible level, in many cases the local community itself,. to the extent that liberty and responsibility can be successfully combined and concentrated at the community level.

we can hope to atcheive a livable human ,world.

where every ones voice is expressed and listened to(even the sch bch the handy cap anorexic midget fairy wimp piss ant-the rain man with out the math sense)

such a society would be very well ordered.

but.

that order would be a harmony of individual voices,not the regimeted order imposed by fucking cetral government.

THERE IS EVERY FUCKING REASON TO BELEIVE THAT INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES WOULD THRIVE UNDER DECENTRALISATION.

for that is how all humans during nearly all of our time on earth.

next up-harmonisation insteas of factionalism.

opinions please.

-------------------------
totally nihilistic

So, you decentralize as much as possible, and leave the central government to take care of only what the local communities can't do themselves. Fine. What do you think the central government would need to do in this setup?

I agree with whoever stated that democracy can be thought of as a typer of tyranny, a.k.a. rule by the most wealthy, in this case (see our current pres.), so , quickly steeping back to the ORIGINAL topic, i believe that capitalism IS a good form of ECONOMIC SYSTEM, however, it is not when coupled with a democratic government.

It shouldn't be in cooperation witha democracy BECAUSE, in a democracy the central(there u go nil, centralization is bad) government has too much power to change the lives of the people that supposedl make up the government, WITHOUT the consent of those selfsame people. the "excuse" that outr government makes is that" political leaders CAN"T go against the will of the people, because then they will be disposed of." Well taht may be true, but even if/when they are desposed of THE SAME TYPE OF PERSON RISES UP TO TAKE THEIR PLACE! politicians are all set form the same basic mold, and the one or two different ones, have no power against the collective whole.

So, democracy,as CURRENTLY practiced, can be seen as a twisted form of aristocracy, where instead of landowners, the power holders are POLITICIANS.

So i believe taht capitalism is good(everyone should have to work to get there own ship to come in) however when it is practised by a democratic government, it is corrupted into a system where the power holders(politicias) can keep from, and/or make the, fortune of anyone they want. Going back to the "ship" anolagy, the are national "harbormasters" telling the ship's captains when they can come in , or that they cant at all.

gtg, bt next post will deal with what i think should REPLACE democracy for a capitalist country.....

comments appreciated.

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

you know you just described capitialism pretty good.

these people are not thrown into their positions of power as politicians.

they are elected.

sure the one with most money wins.

but show me one card game where this isn't the case.

or would you prefer they lead just because they have money; or land; as is the case in so many other societies?

i haven't heard one thing yet to say capitalism sucks;

legitimately that is.

you people who are bitching about it; would be in the same place in some other society.

except you would be stuck there your whole life.

here you can get an education; you can get involved in community policy(last i heard city council meetings were always open to the public); you can run for office in your community and get a start somewhere and if you make good policies and smart decisions(that is if you do your job) you can get a name for yourself; elected to higher office.

and actually be one of the people you now complain about.

but this takes a lot of hard work; and if you think bush had it easy just because of his father and his money you are sorely mistaken.

he may have had his foot in the door to begin with; but it was all up to him to completely step through.

or you can work at the service station and bitch about your ship not coming in.

i personally would rather have the guy with the most money run the country.

he has the most to lose.

whereas a homeless bums first order of business before congress would be 5 cent forties.

who would you want as your leader.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
i personally would rather have the guy with the most money run the country.

he has the most to lose.

whereas a homeless bums first order of business before congress would be 5 cent forties.

who would you want as your leader.

---

The best guy for the job.

hold up spiff ill answer that in the continum, i am gonna bitch slap lost mind if he misses the point after all is said.

------------------------
totally nihilistic

ello all, im back and gonna give this another shot....
continuing where i left off....

WHAT GOES WELL WITH CAPITALISM?
anarchy.

Anarchy is not, destruction, and "fight the system" that little middle school punks think it is. Anarchy is the only TRUE government "of the people, by the people and for the people" becuase the governers themselves ARE the people. There is no one to tell you when or where to put your "ship".

in an anarchial-capitalistic society(henceforth to be refered to as "anarchocapitalism" or AC for short) The true measure of a mans worth WOULD be his wealth(however wealth ids defined...) becuase there would be no corruption for him to overcome, or benefit from, for every person he could bribe/fight/conquer/scare, there would be another man, on his own, armed with only his intellect and whatever assets he has been able to previously gather, to compete against for a higher palce in society.

an anarchy is the best form of government, yes it is a form of government, just like black is a color(the ABSENCE of it) anarchy is a government(see above). in an anarchist state the rules are determined by whoever has the power to enforce them at the moment. eventually leaders woould rise to the top(because such is the wont of humans) but they coudl always be pulled down by any one man, for in the absence of laws, NOTHING is illegal, save what one person decided for them self that they will not do.

Anarchy means that another being cannot tell u what to do, and expect obedience, YOU HAVE A CHOICE, even if that choice is to obey or die. The point of having an anarchial CAPITALISM rather than having no set economic system to go along with no set gov. is that in a capitalism, enlighted self interest(or base self interest) will in most cases compel a person to do what ever helps THEIR situation, and since labor is and will always(most likely) be a necessity, killing everyone is not likely to help ones situation much. and if you are alive, you can ALWAYS change your postion , for better or worse, depending on how smart(or conversely, stupid) you are/act.

so rather than succeding or failing due to the whims of whatever politician(::spits: is currently in power, the place of any given man will be determined by how well he has managed his life and what ever assets he has managed to gather to his person during his/her life.

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

You're insane.

Ever read stories about the world run by corporations, not governments? That's what you're describing.

Now find one where the general population is happy.

okay so what u are saying el_hombre is that if a capitalist leader came to power and said "you are going to work for me or get tortured" and he said " if you try and escape you will be tortured and killed" that a smart person/a person who acts smartly will be better off than a stupid person/a person who acts like an idiot?

what i am saying is that if someone said that to you, you should be able to say "no" if u cant, its your own damn fault, nobodies ganging up on you to make you what you are, in an anarchy if you arent strong enough to say "no" sucks for you, you shoulda tried harder.

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

But then am I allowed to kill somebody because I am strong enought to say no when he asks me to spare his life?

There are too many twisted people out there for anarchy to work.

dang, el hombre, good pt. thats tyte

peace all

yes rover you are, if he cant protect himself, its his own damn fault, he shoulda worked harder to gain the rescources he needs to protect himself, of course since YOU are the only one making laws for YOURSELF, you might not want to kill him. A perfect civilization can only exist if the people that make it up are perfect, humans ARE NOT. Anarchy like YOU think it would be (everyone killing everyone else) would be chaos, but although humans arent perfect, they're not THAT bad, but, back to the point, its darwinism at its finest, he's not smart enough to protect himself, hes outa the gene pool, future generations will be smarter for it.

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

quote:

---

There are too many twisted people out there for anarchy to work.[/B]

---

yes, there ARE a lot of twisted people out there, but they would be there no matter what, in a democracy, one terrorist can kill hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, but in an anarchy, were each citizen is effectively THEIR OWN COUNTRY, responsible for THERE OWN PROTECTIOn, they have only themselves to depend on and would therefore br MORE CAREFUL, and if any one can kill you for an reason, ud be a lot less likely to piss them off by say, KILLING SOMEONE THE MIGHT KNOWdecide what u want, thats how i see it.



------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

capitalism is flawed and this will become more apparant over the coming years.

It is NOT environmentally responsible, just look at Bush's refusal to sign that environment treaty thing. In short capitalism is destroying our planet because it is based around supply and demand and us greedy bastards want more and more.

It is NOT socially responsible, those who are poor have little chance of success bcos the skools they go to r crap, because the teachers r crap cos no one wants to work there. there is no way out...

im working on a document outlining my own political theories on how to make things work which will be posted shortly

A_UK

anarchy, could you possibly EXPLAIN why you believe capitalism to be the 'big bad bogeyman, who's making everyone's life miserable? And, BTW, capitalism is NOT socially or econmically responsible because it IS A FORM OF ECONOMIC SYSTEM, its not sentient! it can't be responsible for ANYTHING, damn man, the people are to blame, for those reasons, there probably ARE reasons to hate capitalism, but you can't attribute to it a non-existing sapient quality and then attack that same nonexistent quality, its like blaming a banana peel you slip on, it didnt do anything, its not responsible, whoever LEFT IT THERE ir responsible.

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

when you have to result to insults it doesnt really say much for your ability to argue a point. Russia is a capitalist society dumb fuck, maybe thats why its full of corruption and poverty.

capitalism has no room for social or environmental responsibility. Dont take things so literally.

I cannot believe what i just hear, it was "russia is a capitalism" right, hey IDIOT russia (although technically non-existing at this point) was never FURTHER from a capitalism, it was a SELF- ACKNOLEDGED communism, while admittedly there was much corruption at the higher levels of its bueracracy, the normal working class, COULD NOT EVEN OWN PROPERTY, everything was owned b y the state so your previous statement is not only STUPID, and UNEDUCATED, but completely FALSE!

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

I was reffering to the USSR but since you called me dumb fuck Im not taking back the Alphabet soup thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anarchist_UK:
[B]when you have to result to insults it doesnt really say much for your ability to argue a point. Russia is a capitalist society dumb fuck, maybe thats why its full of corruption and poverty.
B]

---

not u smithee, that is the comment i was going into an apoplectic fit over.
P.S. what do u have against alphabet soup anyway?::sounds of slurping::


------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

el hombre, have you been in a coma??

Communism in the ussr collapsed you fool. It is now a capitalist society where no-one can be arsed to pay taxes

It collapsed under the weight of the unresponsive communist system. Then High ranking communist officials and beurocrats seized control turning the contry into a functional oligarcy. I've been abroad I've seen mans attempt at creating utopian socialism and on the whole I have been unimpressed.

call me a capitalist pig.

at least i go get what i want.

instead of bitching about what i don't have.

i wouldent say piG, i would say SLAVE.

FEW MORE comments then im continuing.

slave to the grind, not capitalism.

but it pays off in the end.