America in the Middle-East

[Malchik]

OMG - Peregrine do you really believe what you are saying or are you playing devil's advocate? I am not a believer as you know but the Christian Ethic (indeed the ethical position of most religions are very similar) is very close to the communist ethic. (I might add I am not a communist either.) Both emphasise that all human beings must accept shared responsiblity for each other. Also these ethics do not say that 'all' means all Christians as you suggest but all people of whatever faith. The restriction is an interpretation put upon it by polarised fundamentalists who have lost any idea of what their religion is all about.

 

Your assessments of both christian and communist ideologies are flawed by judging them on evidence of apparent practice. But true communism and christianity have never existed and probably never can for the reason that human beings are flawed. We were designed before the Kite Mark was introduced.

 

You may validly criticise both for being unrealistic but your other arguments are not logically based.

 

As for implying capitalism is an ideal to which the world should be striving you are supporting the view that to the haves shall be given and the havenots taken away. On this basis the poor who cannot pay for expensive education have no hope to better themselves. Those who live in countries where wages per annum are lower than the average US weekly wage will never be able to buy the medicine that might allow them to develop. This is a profoundly inhuman and callous way to view the world. The 'I'm on the right side sod the rest of you' approach strikes me as evil. But as has been said elsewhere evil and good are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Elements of both ideology are necessary for the world to work IMO. We need the motivation of capitalism and collective responsibility of communism in the current political climate. It is the absence of the latter in the US at the moment that is slowly reducing the country from its once powerful status to an also ran and alienating it from the rest of the world. And no, the US is not the only culprit but it makes by far the most noise!

[ThetaOrionis01]

And anyway, what would you like to do about it? Destroy US industry and cripple the economy? Should protecting the environment take priority over keeping a decent standard of living for our citizens?

 

Decent standard of living? Decent? By comparison with the average global standard of living the average US citizen is obscenely wealthy. Each US citizen consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, more so than the citizens of any other country in the developed world. This 'decent' standard of living, as you put it, is not sustainable in the long term, and sustainable in the short term only at the expense of those living in the 3rd world.

 

 

If you're really concerned about pollution, you should be demanding that developing countries build things cleaner. There's where a difference can be made, because it can be done from the beginning. In the near future, the US is going to be a lot smaller percentage, and you'll have the pleasure of knowing you did absolutely nothing to stop its replacements.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Outright hypocrisy. 'Ok, so the society I live in has vulked up the planet with our rampant consumerism and wasteful lifestyle, but hey, let those guys in the 3rd world sort it out'. That's a totally obscene remark, Peregrine.

 

On the one hand, pollution control you claim would destroy US industry and cripple the US economy - yet on the other hand the developing nations whose economies are already crippled by debt and whose citizens don't even enjoy a fraction of the standard of living you take for granted are meant to save the planet for you....

 

Pure, utter selfishness. No wonder communism hasn't got a chance.

[Abramul]

What we need is to lose a war. Then we could rebuild stuff the way it SHOULD be built, rather than having the ineffecient (SP!) systems we have today.

 

P.S. When did this become a CapCom thread (Capitalism vs. Communism)?

[draighox]

To White Wolf

 

Firstly, since when did you care about people being killed? You seem to think it is perfectly OK for us to kill people, just as long as it's not as many as the other guy.

 

Secondly, you haven't answered the question - how is the Allies invading Germany in WW2 giving power to ONE country when the Allies are SEVERAL countries?

Did you read my posts? I am saying that the number of victims must be reduced, while you are saying that it should remain as high as it is.

The fact that you care whether one or several countries would get power when there are people being killed, clearly shows that the only thing important to you is blaming USA for everything they have ever done. Its getting popular nowadays.

 

Such as? For a start, forget Stalin. He had no intention of establishing communism. He was quite happy to be the ultimate ruler of Russia during his reign.

China, Chile, Cambodia, N. Vietnam and many more.

Being the ultimate ruler of Russia wasn't enaugh for Stalin. Why did he support all communist revolutions? Why did he occupy half of Europe? Why did he convince Hitler to start WW2? You know, apart from the statement that communism is better than capitalism, this post about Stalin might be the most stupid thing in this thread.

 

Only purely as a side-effect. In this analogy, the fact that you knocked a guy unconcious simply because he was in your way makes you an arrogant, violent turkey. The fact you then tried to claim you knocked him unconcious because he was mugging me only makes you a deceitful, arrogant, violent turkey.

Yes. The fact I saved you makes me a complete turkey.

 

You still don't get it, do you? If the US and UK are to truly to give these people what was promised them, it wouldn't be a case of 'less torturings', it would be a case of 'NO torturings'. Currently, it's a case if 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

Once again you showed that you don't care about tortured people, all you care is throwing up to USA. Less torturings is BETTER than no less torturings.

 

This is nothing personal, I'm just in bad mood today.

 

To Theta Orionis

 

So your argument is that communism is evil because revolution is evil, and revolution is a necessary part of communism?

So you think Hitler's fascism is evil because killing jews is evil, and killing jews is a necessary part of Hitler's fascism?

 

I don't know what fairytale-version of capitalism you seem to worship, but this is not how business in the real world works. Companies aren't in business for altruistic reasons of providing people with gainful employment in fulfilling jobs - they are in business to make money. And frequently, the best way to make money is by employing fewer people. What do you think happens when a company has to pay less tax? Will they rejoice and start employing more people? Aye right. They'll pay their directors and shareholders a greater dividend, and continue replacing staff with automated production processes. They'll continue transferring production to countries where workers are paid a pittance to save on cost and maximise profits.

You live in capitalistic country and yet it seems that you know nothing or don't want to know anything about capitalism. Capitalism protects private property, which Christ completely approved. It definitely isn't about abusing others.

Any reasonable businessman understands that employing more workers increases production, which increases profit.

 

Decent standard of living? Decent? By comparison with the average global standard of living the average US citizen is obscenely wealthy. Each US citizen consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, more so than the citizens of any other country in the developed world. This 'decent' standard of living, as you put it, is not sustainable in the long term, and sustainable in the short term only at the expense of those living in the 3rd world.

Well, show us all a good example and start living in a cave. People like talking how bad everything is, but they don't do anything about it.

 

To Darnoc

 

You get the symbology wrong. The hammer stands for the teachings of Marx, the real communistic ideology. The person abusing the hammer is someone like Stalin or Mao. People aren't killed to get the hammer, for the hammer is already there. People get killed, because the hammer is used in a way never to be intended.

People are killed to establish the hammer then. Same thing. It makes establishing hammer evil.

 

Bad news:

4. True. But it isn't a terrible thing.

5. Complete nonsence. Communists in N. Vietnam rose into revolt and occupied it in 1954. In 1956 they atacked S. Vietnam with Vietcong. Almost all soldiers were from N. Vietnam. USA interfered (like in Kuweit.)

How could USA install a "catholic dictatorship" in S. Vietnam when they didn't have army there?

6. All of these "social-democrats" were true communists.

8. Well, I would defend myself if somebody tried to kill me.

9. And removing Saddam is not a reason?

10. USA wouldn't send chemical weapon to somebody, who might use it against them later.

11. And it is also known that USA is cloning aliens beneath the White House.

12. So tell us how to do it.

 

You think it flawless, when a belief states that you should do anything in order to gain personal profit? When a belief states that the only thing which counts is yourself? Personally, I am disgusted by capitalism. How can someone believe something like that?

Yeah, and you love communism, which has killed 100 millions of people (not encluding those, who died in wars, started by communists) and destroyed half of the world's economy. There was no regime that was more cruel and disgusting than communism, even fascism was better.

[Zmid]

Wrong. Communism is evil, because its entire purpose is to create equality by bringing everyone down to the lowest level. Communism encourages you to harm people because they dare become more successful than you.

 

Nope. Communism states that everyone is equal. That should sound familiar from somewhere. Where communism diverges from the values of the USA is that, in communism, it is expected that you use any money/resources/whatever else you gain by being successful to help everyone else. In the USA, nothing is expected, so, if you do use your success to help others, fine, but if you are selfish and keep it all for yourself, equally fine. Human nature is such that the latter happens much more than the former.

 

And that's ignoring the fact that it doesn't work, and trying to make it work only leads to abuses. Supporting communism is the same as supporting those abuses, because they inevitably go together.

 

This I totally 100% agree with. Communism is a nice idea. Unfortunately, human beings are so egocentric, it would never work. Sooner or later, someone would gain a position of some kind of power, then abuse that position for his own gain.

 

EDIT:

 

Did you read my posts? I am saying that the number of victims must be reduced, while you are saying that it should remain as high as it is.

 

No, I'm saying a way should be found and implemented to eliminate the number of victims. Considering how we are supposed to be a 'free, civilised society', that shouldn't be difficult. The fact this hasn't happened is just a measure of the hypocrisy in Iraq.

 

The fact that you care whether one or several countries would get power when there are people being killed, clearly shows that the only thing important to you is blaming USA for everything they have ever done. Its getting popular nowadays.

 

Nope. I blame the UK just as much as the US for the Iraq debacle.

 

By the way, I'm British.

 

China, Chile, Cambodia, N. Vietnam and many more.

 

And when, exactly, were these revolutions to bring about communism? The nearest they all got was they started a revolution to bring a person into power who was intending to bring about communism at some undetermined point (or claimed that, anyway), but that was as close as was ever gotten. What actually happened was that either socialism or a dictatorship was set up, and things remained that way, and the promised 'communism' never really arrived.

 

Being the ultimate ruler of Russia wasn't enaugh for Stalin. Why did he support all communist revolutions? Why did he occupy half of Europe?

 

For the expansion of HIS power, which has nothing whatsoever to do with communist ideals.

 

You know, apart from the statement that communism is better than capitalism, this post about Stalin might be the most stupid thing in this thread.

 

No, your question is:

 

Why did he convince Hitler to start WW2?

 

Stalin had NOTHING to do with convincing Hitler to start WW2. Hitler always planned to invade both Europe AND the USSR. The only thing that Stalin persuaded Hitler on is to invade Europe first by signing the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939. When Hitler broke this pact himself by invading the USSR, Stalin fought against Hitler. The only notable thing about it was that Stalin was caught by surprise as he expected Hitler to finish with Europe first.

 

Yes. The fact I saved you makes me a complete turkey.

 

No, the fact you knocked a guy out purely because he was in your way makes you an turkey. The fact you saved me in the process is purely incidental.

 

Once again you showed that you don't care about tortured people, all you care is throwing up to USA. Less torturings is BETTER than no less torturings.

 

How? People are still being tortured.

 

This is nothing personal, I'm just in bad mood today.

 

I never take anything said in a debate personally. :grin:

[Ancalagon]

Unfortunately, human beings are so egocentric, it would never work. Sooner or later, someone would gain a position of some kind of power, then abuse that position for his own gain.

 

This be the heart of the problem with all types of government, not just communism. Every type of government is, sooner or later, bound for self-destruction. Why? It's simple, human error. To be trite, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutly. The most blatant proof of this in our nation (USA)? The establishment of Checks and Balances amongst the major Governmental Branches and the establishemnt of a Free Press. When writing the constitution the founding fathers took human error and hubris very seriously. They could have not established checks and balances and a free press, but because they knew that the "honor system" is a moot point in any type of governmental establishment they put in C&B and FP as a safeguard for the people.

 

This act alone speaks for itself, that the FF knew sooner or later that someone would attempt to abuse the power vested to them by the people, and attempt total ownership of the press. This alone prooves that people, in the end, are not fit to govern themselves or others. The Human Ego (Ambition, Hubris, Greed, etc.) eventually overshadows the needs of the people. I'm not suggesting Anarchy as an alternate means of government (it would never work anyways) but what I am saying is that in the long run, we simply are not fit to govern ourselves. Corruption inevitably will rear it's head in any form of establishment. For such a leader to exist who completley lacks all those vices that were listed, is not possible because they would have to be non-human.

 

As an aside, I find it amusing that Communism (pure) cannot exist without accepting some capitalistic ideals, and Capitalism (pure) cannot exist without accepting some Socialistic or Communist ideals. Both need each other in order to survive; the USSR didn't realize this until it was too late whereas China figured it out. That's why (IMMHO) China is the last "Communist" state, because it accepted some capitalistic ideals to survive, as did the US during the Depression. Social Security? That idea is a Socialistic idea, as are the other reforms that went on during that time. The only reason why we are where we are is because we switched from a pure Capitalistic state to a sort of "Diet Capitalism". If we had continued with the Lassiez Faire(sp) aproach and mentality the US would have collapsed much like the USSR. Not right away, but sooner or later it would have crumbled from the inside.

[ThetaOrionis01]

You know, apart from the statement that communism is better than capitalism, this post about Stalin might be the most stupid thing in this thread.

 

Actually, that award has to go to your collected rantings in this thread.

 

 

 

 

So your argument is that communism is evil because revolution is evil, and revolution is a necessary part of communism?

So you think Hitler's fascism is evil because killing jews is evil, and killing jews is a necessary part of Hitler's fascism?

 

Non-sequitur. By what tortured and twisted logic does your statement relate to mine?

 

But then I've given up on finding anything resembling logic in your posts.

 

You live in capitalistic country and yet it seems that you know nothing or don't want to know anything about capitalism. Capitalism protects private property, which Christ completely approved. It definitely isn't about abusing others.

Any reasonable businessman understands that employing more workers increases production, which increases profit.

 

And where, pray tell, did you acquire your supreme wisdom? I'm afraid with every one of your posts you manage to generate new astonishment as to the depths of your ignorance...

 

I have studied both micro- and macro-economics to some degree, and I can tell you that you don't know the first thing about capitalism.

 

Profit is increased by maximising output while minimising costs. Wage costs are substantial, and the more a business can cut wage expenditure the more profit they stand to make.

Instead of hiring extra workers they will first look to increasing efficiency by introducing new working methods and automation - usually leading to the loss of jobs. Should a production process require high levels of manual labour, it is usually out-sourced to low-wage economies.

 

What has religion to do with capitalism? Religion does not come into this.

 

Capitalism isn't about abusing others? What planet do you live on?

Ever heard of the slave trade? Exploitation of child labour in the 3rd world? Appallingly unsafe working conditions endangering workers' lives to save on costs? Cutting corners to increase profits and endangering the lives of others?

 

Capitalism is about one thing - money.

 

Where on earth do you get your information from? The output of the Walt Disney corporation?

 

Well, show us all a good example and start living in a cave. People like talking how bad everything is, but they don't do anything about it.

 

Show us all a good example and stop talking about things you know nothing about. You know precisely nothing about my lifestyle, my environmental principles, my ethics or morals. You have no idea what my personal contribution towards limiting my impact upon the environment is, or what political affiliation I have.

 

And, unlike Peregrine, I certainly don't expect the developing countries to bail out the first world from the environmental mess we're getting the planet into.

 

So, as with most of your contribution to this thread, you're talking complete shite.

[Peregrine]

Malchik, congratulations for being the only one to realize I wasn't entirely serious with a lot of that. The point I was trying to make was that communism isn't some ideal paradise, and neither is christianity (and I have no idea how religion got into this, because it makes no sense in this context). The argument that communism is good because it is like christianity is flawed because the comparision can easily be made to other economic systems as well, if you don't mind bending the truth a bit.

 

 

====================================

 

 

Wrong again. The communistic ideology doesn't intend to bring everyone to a low level. The communistic ideology intends to bring everyone to an equal high level.

 

Good intentions, which simply don't work. Human beings are egoistic and there is nothing which can change that. That is why capitalism is such a success.

 

Wrong. Communism wants to take things away from the successful as its method of equalizing the situation. Instead of turning the failures into successes, it simply destroys success and claims victory. Yes, the lowest elements get some improvement, but overall society is brought to a lower level.

 

Wrong again. The intention of communism is that everyone works for the better good of society, not the better good of himself. When everyone would do that, so the theory, the situation of everyone would be better. Of course, this doesn't work, because human beings naturally do everything for themselves and not for others.

 

I'm absolutely right. Under communism, everyone is entitled to the same benefits no matter how much or how little they contribute. Therefore if I can get the same benefit by sitting around being lazy all day as I could contributing to society with hard work, why would I do the work?

 

And when the majority of society does exactly that, nothing gets done. Everyone is "equal", because everyone is equally poor.

 

Sorry, you didn't read the bible correct. The bible clearly states that you should love everyone, even when someone doesn't share your belief. The fundamentalistic bible-belt guys of the USA are plain idiots who do not deserve the name "Christians". The only group of persons Jesus Christ did renounce where the fundamentalists of his time.

 

Sorry, you didn't read the bible correctly. Maybe you missed the parts where God orders entire civilizations destroyed for daring to believe in the wrong god? Is genocide love by your definition?

 

If love is all there is, why are those parts of the bible still included? Why does every single bible printed still contain god's orders for murder in his name?

 

You already know the answer. Just like communism, you have a flawed, and dangerous ideology with a transparent and meaningless skin of "good" covering its evil core.

 

You think it flawless, when a belief states that you should do anything in order to gain personal profit? When a belief states that the only thing which counts is yourself? Personally, I am disgusted by capitalism. How can someone believe something like that?

 

Perhaps you missed the "in comparison" part of that statement? Yes, capitalism is flawed. But compared to "kill your neighbor and send him to hell if he doesn't agree with you", "make a profit off your neighbor" is a kind and benevolent idea.

 

 

Jesus Christ personally said that his belief includes suffering. He said that you had to leave everything behind you, let go of everything. Reward will come later, after you died, but not in this life. Capitalism states the exact oposite.

 

My point exactly. As a good minion of capitalism, you should accept your place in life and look to heaven for your reward. You shouldn't complain about being exploited for cheap labor! Suffering is good for you!

 

Communism on the other hand, contradicts this statement by focusing on mortal concerns. Instead of accepting your place in life and waiting for heaven, you are encouraged to work for mortal gains. Communism says that god's plan for you and his intended reward isn't good enough.

 

Perhaps you recall the following verse:

 

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

 

It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for anyone to enter heaven, so that statement doesn't mean much.

 

The ultimate goal of communism is that everyone should have an equally good life, not an equally bad life. The theory states that if everyone helps the others, everyone will benefit. Capitalism states that some will benefit, when everyone tries to look for himself.

 

So, which ideology has better intentions?

 

Capitalism, because it actually considers human nature. A capitalist society has the intention of providing some degree of benefits in a system that works. A communist one has the intentions of being hopeless idealists and making abstract philosophical statements with no connection to reality.

 

Both Christianity and communism base on the same principle: when everyone helps everyone else, everyone will benefit.

 

Except for when "help" is defined as "kill them so they can't sin anymore"?

 

Again, read your bible, not just the sections you like. Just like communism, the "noble intentions" are just a fake act, not the real meaning of the ideology.

Capitalism bases on the following: everyone tries to make a living for himself and some get better off than others.

 

Your point? That's human nature. If you don't accept it, you become one of the people who pay the price for our improvement. Otherwise, you accept it and improve yourself.

 

Yes. Our world lasts for much longer than any society. It must last also for our successors. Societies are short living, they come and go. They are not important. Compared to the whole world, one society is nothing.

 

Then you are a hopeless idealist that I am thankful has no access to political power. Our possible successors mean less than nothing compared to the people we have now.

I demand that too. But third world countries aren't as wealthy as we are. We have much more ressources to develop clean energy than the third world. Therefore we are the ones who must change first.

 

Then you obviously don't understand the problem. Clean energy is only a tiny part of the problem. What about the factories and industry? Should we destroy all of that?

 

And it's people like you that are preventing us from having clean energy. Every time someone wants to build a nuclear reactor, you whine about radiation (with no knowledge of facts). Every time someone wants to build a dam for hydroelectric power (perfectly clean), you whine about fish.

 

Just what energy form would be acceptable?

 

 

Call it the "principle of sacrifice". If it takes the destruction of one society (in this case our western society) to save the rest, so be it.

 

Fine. A god has presented you the following offer:

 

It will torture and murder every person alive right now (yourself included) in the most unimaginably painful way possible. In exchange, it will create a new human society to replace it, one that will produce no damage at all to the environment.

 

Do you take the offer?

[ThetaOrionis01]

This is not a debate on religion - so please refrain from turning it into one.

[Peregrine]

Decent standard of living? Decent? By comparison with the average global standard of living the average US citizen is obscenely wealthy. Each US citizen consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, more so than the citizens of any other country in the developed world. This 'decent' standard of living, as you put it, is not sustainable in the long term, and sustainable in the short term only at the expense of those living in the 3rd world.

 

Yes, we're successful. Sorry for not wanting to be "equal" by lowering ourselves to the rest of the world.

 

And you're a hypocrite in this. How can you lecture me on living at the expense of the 3rd world, when you do exactly the same? Why not act on your principles instead of just talking about them? You don't need internet access to survive. Stop paying for it, sell your computer, sell your house and buy a smaller one, sell your car, etc. Then give the money to those poor people you say I'm living at the expense of.

 

But I doubt you'll do it. It's always easier to talk about having principles than to actually follow them.

Outright hypocrisy. 'Ok, so the society I live in has vulked up the planet with our rampant consumerism and wasteful lifestyle, but hey, let those guys in the 3rd world sort it out'. That's a totally obscene remark, Peregrine.

 

Apparently you missed the entire point of my argument. I never said the US shouldn't have to do anything about the problem. We should, and we do make attempts to cut some of our damage.

 

But it's meaningless anti-America ranting if you object to our actions, but completely forgive and/or ignore the problems of pollution elsewhere. And that's what I see, both here and elsewhere. Everyone focuses on the US and completely ignores the future problem developing countries will become. Therefore they are infinitely more concerned with protesting the US than with actually getting results.

On the one hand, pollution control you claim would destroy US industry and cripple the US economy - yet on the other hand the developing nations whose economies are already crippled by debt and whose citizens don't even enjoy a fraction of the standard of living you take for granted are meant to save the planet for you....

 

It's a lot easier and cheaper to make the kind of dramatic changes people like Darnoc love to demand when you're still in the process of building your industry. But go ahead, ignore the problem. Someday in the future, the US won't be producing 25% of the pollution. Too bad it'll be because those third world countries are now producing double our share instead.

 

 

=======================================

 

 

What we need is to lose a war. Then we could rebuild stuff the way it SHOULD be built, rather than having the ineffecient (SP!) systems we have today.

 

Oh, brilliant idea. How many people would you like to die for this idea? Would you like to volunteer to be one of the casualties in this war? Maybe your friends, or your family? Maybe having every major city nuked would be a good way of starting the rebuilding?

 

 

========================================

 

So you think Hitler's fascism is evil because killing jews is evil, and killing jews is a necessary part of Hitler's fascism?

 

*stares in confusion, then gives up*

 

Let me help you here. This is what you meant to say:

 

Yes, communism is evil, partly because violent revolution is a necessary part of it. Unlike in abstract philosophy, communism in the real world can not be put into place without destroying the previous system. The violent revolutions that inevitably are a part of real-world communism are evil acts. Therefore communism shares that evil, because it demands evil acts be done.