lord of flies

They would work in local worker's communes or state-administrated business. I don't see what's so hard about this. There are many types of labor besides factory labor; computer programmers, for example, do labor despite rarely sweating over anything other than their large girth. Anything gambling done for more than simply personal enjoyment is definitely pushing it, in any society.

"Using it productively" (i.e. investing) is ultimately just taking from someone else's salary. Outside of minting, money is a zero sum game. The laborers in the company produce labor and goods, the company (and, by extension, the investors) skim labor off the top. They are stealing the money which rightfully belongs to the workers by using other money. They, who have the least need, are given the most.

You're not the only one. And yes, he supports Stalin, Mao, and all the rest of those psychos. I don't unconditionally support Stalin and Mao, but I do unconditionally support a more nuanced view of them. Yes, they had their bad points, but they also had their good points. I personally think the good outweighs the bad, since I'm not a dirty counter-revolutionary dog. The investment still isn't work. It still won't be work no matter how long you labor to get the capital to invest. The laboring to get capital is labor; the application of capital in investment is labor-skimming.

The death penalty for selling defective products which can kill their victims is perfectly sensible. There's the death penalty for murder, isn't there? Same thing. There is a difference between "having money" and "being rich." If I spend ten hours a day, working hard at my difficult job, then I certainly deserve the money I'll get. That's very different from, say, playing the stock market to "earn" that same amount. At least they'll have a reason to do it to you. INVESTMENT IS NOT LABOR.

Not a single thing on God's green Earth is worth a single thin red cent unless a human being had to work to produce or obtain it. Rich people are benefiting off of others' labor. Deal with it.

lol way to ignore the facts. China isn't communist! Many companies make poor long-term business decisions for short term gain, thus hurting you, the consumer! Tobacco companies purposefully suppressed the truth about its dangers for decades! IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE FOR A COMPANY TO HAVE ITS OWN BEST INTEREST AT HEART AND STILL SELL YOU DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS. If the probability of failure, times the expected legal costs from each failure, times the number of products, is greater than the cost of building new products, they have absolutely no reason not to sell it to you. WRONG. Being rich means that you have wildly disproportionate political influence, and are reliant on masses of poorer people's labor, stealing from their hard work for your own lazy profit. T.T

Pyongyang (Korea) Kolkata (West Bengal) Pokhara (Nepal) Dili (East Timor) Ceuta (Spain/Morocco) South Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo) Beijing (China) Feel free to volunteer your own ideas. Unless they suck, in which case don't.

Summary of points made in this topic: Businesses make money and give me things, ergo business is good! This, of course, ignores the fact that "my money!" is not always a good reason to support something. For example, tobacco companies make money when they give you cancer. Car companies make money when they sell you a defective car. Toy companies make money when they sell you toys covered in lead paint. Yes, there are then legal fees. But what if the legal fees don't measure up to the cost? What if the company decides the risk of legal fees is worth the profit from ****ty products? Governments are inherently untrustworthy, they hate me and want all my money! Ever heard of a little country called Sweden? Ever heard a bunch of stories from there about how the government invaded their privacy and stole all their things? No? That's because in Sweden, the working classes have united and overthrown the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. While the bourgeois elements of their society no doubt despise this and are trying to undo it (e.g. by joining the EU), the people of Sweden are happy, consistently employed, and don't need to worry about the wildly disproportionate power of corporations over their government. Oops, there goes your libertarian theories of evil governments! I am scared of the surveillance society. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, comrade. Do you have something to hide?

You did not say that it was freedom OR care; you said that it was the MAXIMUM amount of freedom or the MAXIMUM amount of care. The problem is freedom is wishy-washy nothingness. Which is the more free society: one where I can ban customers from my bar for being black, or one where I can go to any bar I like in indifference to my skin tone? The two are mutually exclusive. Whereas, care is something that can actually be identified and to a certain degree measured. People need things: food, water, shelter, friends, meaning, medical care, a retirement plan, etc. A society which gives them more of the things they need is therefore "more caring" and there's no mutually exclusive kinds of care.

Maximum amount of care.

Actually, he was shot in the front.

The ghost of Vladmir Lenin. And he's coming to collect.

The actual solution to the problem of the United States is simple: We must ban all lawyers and everyone who has ever held a high position in a large company from public office. By doing so, we get rid of all the parasites who take up public office and piss down our throats with their lies and amorality. Any reasonable, normal person who is approached with the figure of our national debt and told they're the one whose job it is to fix it would immediately begin to scramble to correct things. Politicians, being today little more than rich con men, instead deflect the problem into the indefinite future. Further, they look out for their own class interests (i.e. rich people interests), which removes one of the most obvious and viable sources of income. Most nations do not have the natural resources to support a modern economy without imports.

looks like another n00b doesn't understand the world system of capitalism. Okay, listen up, because I'm only going to say this once: the big capitalist countries are all on the same team, fighting against all economic and political threats to their combined supremacy. The United States and China both benefit from an economic system built upon the importation of raw resources (and some other things) from the "****ty" countries of the world (e.g. Sudan, Saudi Arabia). By fighting each other, they only worsen their future prospects and weaken their ability to reap economic rewards from the entire rest of the world. Economic competition between importing countries ensures all involved parties can compete to gain an edge without worrying about tying up huge amounts of assets in doing so. Furthermore, particularly in the case of US and China, it would disrupt both countries' industrial machinery, as we have come to rely upon each other.

China and Venezuela are closely economically tied to the United States and would be unlikely to pursue war with us. Iran is only a regional power, and no threat to the US proper. Russia is more busy worrying about things like 15% unemployment than to try to invade the United States. With what navy would they do so? Would they nuke us? (No) The Taliban, ooh, real scary, a bunch of bum**** goatfarmers on the other side of the planet, real threat. And terrorists can't be beaten by tanks and bomber jets, you lunatic, nor can they pose any realistic threat to the United States.

Here's the libertarian view of the role of the government, in the 21st century:

That's not socialism. Socialism is about political and economic egalitarianism. That's just government use of power. Ooh, look at that military, I'm sure it's being used to spread political and economic egalitarianism instead of promoting US interests abroad.

When we create a paradise, we must accept that some people are not fit to live in it.

I can guarantee you that within a week after PC release, this game will be cracked and on a torrent website, no matter what DRM they use. If anyone wants to take me up on this bet, I'll put twenty dollars down on it.

Mao is responsible for the emancipation of the Chinese people from Japanese imperialism and Nationalist military dictatorship. Stalin is responsible for mass industrialization and victory in the Second World War. Their successes outweigh their "crimes."

Top ten worst dictators (no particular order): 1) Hitler 2) Hong Xiuquan 3) Mussolini 4) Franco 5) Leopold II 6) Nicholas II 7) Chiang Kai-Shek Alexander Kerensky 9) Whoever was actually in charge of the Japanese armed forces during their invasion of China 10) Genghis Khan PS: MLK Jr. was a socialist. Deal with it.

lol yes, I had no idea that "burn" was coming. *rolls eyes* You have accepted that you don't know what you're talking about. So please, stop posting. For both our sakes. Okay, so one questionable thing ("brutally attacking opposition" isn't really on my top ten things a dictator does, unless we're talking murder here), and some crazy **** that will never happen except in Kalthorne's crazy fantasies where the Russkies are about to invade and 8 year old Palestinian war orphans deserve their situation.

"Socialist democracy" isn't very descriptive. "True" socialism requires of totalitarianism to even get started. Please refer to the umpteen previous threads on this topic for a more detailed explanation. Hmm, yes, except the opposite of the thing you just said. Was India under Nehru not socialist? Was it not a democracy? Please explain your views on why.

Venezuela is not a dictatorship. Iran doesn't have a socialist economy. Why do you keep posting when it's clear you don't know anything?

IMF neo-colonialist enforcement of market liberalism on an economy weakened by the loss of a major trade partner and changes in oil prices? What does that have to do with the successes/failures of state capitalism with respect to democracy?