- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Re: Socialism liberates everyone : I DON'T THINK SO

Posted by: CAP ( Capitalism Defender, U.S.A ) on July 03, 1997 at 15:01:00:

In Reply to: Socialism liberates everyone posted by Red Deathy on July 02, 1997 at 19:21:28:

: : It seems like the debate about Capitalism boils down to a more
: : basic question about what constitutes a good society.

: : For those who feel the ideal society is one where no one is very
: : bad off, even if achieving this means pulling back the successful
: : elements of society, Socialism or Communism appears the fairest
: : system.

: This is a fallacy for starters- capitalism pulls down the creative powers of a majoirty of qworkers by demanding that they waste their time in nigh on useless labour, or in mechanical alienatiing tasks. Further, capitalists all work together to keep a grip on what they have, and keep other people from achieving what they can- solely to protect their interests....

First of all, let me say something to you Red. Your knowledge in capitalism and socialism is just like your spelling, horrible! It is only in a capitalistic society that the technology of a society advances where in a socialist society, the rate of progress is extremly slower, almost primative, because the government gives all the money to economic goods rather than capital goods which eventually leads to the obsolescence and destruction of a socialist society. You cannot have an advance in technology without an advance in creativity, so you idiot, do not say that capitalism nothing changes. People are able to acquire new jobs with new technology as well and everyone profits.

: : For those who feel that the ideal society is one in which the
: : hard working, successful, and fortunate have the opportunity to
: : achieve (nearly) anything, at the expense of those unwilling or
: : unable to work, then Capitalism is the answer.

: Most capitalists do not deserve their privellege- no one makes a million pounds out of their own labour- it can only be done on the backs of others, and by exploitation and dow right theft. Further- most capitlsits do not work as hard as they pretend to to make their money- did the son of Bush get rich by hard work and personal endevour- or by being the son of Bush? The same goes for many millionaires.
: And them as work hard under capitalism-the bin men, the miners, the shit shovelers- they do hard and useful work, and are paid a pittance. Capitalism rewards the ruthless and the devious only- not tyhe industrious...

Again, your ignorance clouds your view on reality Red. Today, your need a brain make a million, and that is what all the rich have. The world does not need workers who slave all day for nothing, the world has machines and new technology, something the rich have capitalized on. There is no demand for a minor or a shit-shoveler, there are tractors, automatic shovelers, etc. Why should you pay money to someone who works slow, strikes all day, who has to sleep, and complains when you have a machine that will do the same work 100 times faster, in larger amounts, and who only requires gas and repairs? If you choose the worker and not the machine, then you are out of business. Lets be realistic please, the world wants to make life easier, with capitalism you progress and profit, in socialism, you die, either from obsolecence or starvation. A suggestion for you Red, come out of the dinosaur age and join the present. Or like socialism, you want to remain in the past and eventually become extinct. Capitalims rewards the smartest and look who is on top of the world, Bill Gates, R. Murdock, and many others. They are the industrious.

: : That said, I often wonder what would happen if some all-powerful
: : force took all the money in the US and doled it out in equal amounts
: : to every citizen (this question could apply to other places, it's
: : just that I'm sticking to the country I know). It seems likely that
: : not a year later, the overwhelming majority of those who were rich
: : before would, through intelligence, hard work, and cunning, have
: : returned to their status.

: Well- for starters socialism would abolish money- secondly if the capitalists still own all the factories and themenas of production then they certainbly will get rich again. Thirdly- even if money did gravittate into the hands of a few again- I doubt very much it wouldbe the hands of the capitalist parascites from before. But- if the means of production, the factories, the places of work and the means by which society live- were kept in the ahnds of everyone- then I suspect that they would stay that way, and tha market system would disapear for ever.

: Socialism does not pull the best down- it liberates everyone....

If I could read your writing then I will respond to you. Ah! now I can. WHAT!! Liberate everyone? Is that supposed to be funny? You cannot do shit in a socialist country! You can only do what the government (central) allows you. That is the defintion of socialism. Either you go back to school and learn some economics or else I am not going to talk to you anymore, because it is pointless talking to a ignorant, narrow-minded, brick-wall of a person. If you don't go back to school, pick a issue of 'Newsweek' or the business section of the daily paper and see for yourself the shitty conditions the people of socialist countries are in! As for your silly response to the privious person's quesition, I have a quesition for you. If socialism takes away the money people have earned and gives it the less deserving, who really are the thieves?

Please write back. I will be waiting. Oh, one request on behalf of everyone in this club, learn how to spell or type.



Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup