Ask me about Communism.

[Oblarg]

Again you have missed the point. It's getting ridiculous.

 

Okay, nobody said capitalism is flawless, and I even point that out in my post. But we aren't discussing capitalism, as this is the "Ask me about Communism" thread. But even if we were, communism isn't more justified or less of an unattainable utopy because capitalism is flawed. Two wrongs don't make one right and stuff.

 

"Attempting to solve world poverty"... that's a good one, only you weren't joking. Did you ask Santa for that too, or just world peace?

 

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

[Nightshape]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

 

Yeah, old Winston said it better than I ever could.

[Pidesco]

You do know that Churchill was one of the most incompetent leaders GB ever had, especially in matters of economy?

[Hurlshort]

You do know that Churchill was one of the most incompetent leaders GB ever had, especially in matters of economy?

 

That is a bit of a stretch. He played a critical role in World War II turning out the way it did. He was a master orator and one of the earliest leaders to push for war against Germany.

 

You can find major flaws in all famous leaders throughout history, but lets give credit where credit is due.

[Pidesco]

Well, his better speeches were done by an actor, he was one of the main people responsible for Gallipoli, and his stint as Chancellor of the Exchequer was a disaster. As for his support of war and criticisms of appeasement prior to the war, I really don't see how England, at the time, had any choice but to appease Germany. If they had pushed for war too early, they would have been crushed by the Germans as quickily as the rest of Europe and what good would that have done. In any case, his disdain of appeasement derived mostly from his romantic, nationalist view of England as the strong, imperialist nation of Victorian times, which had very little to do with actual fact.

 

 

Oh yeah, and he was a big fan of Mussolini.

[Meshugger]

Well, his better speeches were done by an actor, he was one of the main people responsible for Gallipoli, and his stint as Chancellor of the Exchequer was a disaster. As for his support of war and criticisms of appeasement prior to the war, I really don't see how England, at the time, had any choice but to appease Germany. If they had pushed for war too early, they would have been crushed by the Germans as quickily as the rest of Europe and what good would that have done. In any case, his disdain of appeasement derived mostly from his romantic, nationalist view of England as the strong, imperialist nation of Victorian times, which had very little to do with actual fact.

 

 

Oh yeah, and he was a big fan of Mussolini.

 

In the spirit of this thread, if Churchill would have adopted the tenets of socialism as a domestic and foreign policy, would great britain have won the war earlier and made it even more prosperous? Or even better, would this potential agenda have unmade nationalsocialism and the war as a whole?

 

And Churchill being fond of Mussolini would've made him liberal by the standards of those days. Other "great" men of that time we're quite fond eugenics, nationalism, racism and even nordicisim. Like Lovecraft and Charles Lindbergh. We should actually thank Hitler and nationalsocialism for making racism something for the fringe groups of society.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, his better speeches were done by an actor, he was one of the main people responsible for Gallipoli, and his stint as Chancellor of the Exchequer was a disaster. As for his support of war and criticisms of appeasement prior to the war, I really don't see how England, at the time, had any choice but to appease Germany. If they had pushed for war too early, they would have been crushed by the Germans as quickily as the rest of Europe and what good would that have done. In any case, his disdain of appeasement derived mostly from his romantic, nationalist view of England as the strong, imperialist nation of Victorian times, which had very little to do with actual fact.

 

 

Oh yeah, and he was a big fan of Mussolini.

Amazing ignorance of history. It was Germany that was extremely weak at the time, German troops were under orders to withdraw if confronted during the occupation of Rheinland.

[Pidesco]

Do not confuse the remilitarization of Rhineland with the actual period of appeasement under Chamberlain. The Munich agreement was in 1938, two years after Rhineland, at a time when the Wehrmacht was already much stronger and still growing. Besides Rhineland was considered German territory, so remilitarizing it wasn't exactly considered an act of aggression.

 

Here's an interesting graph, by the way.

[Zoraptor]

Churchill also advocated the use of poison gas against people so long as they were brown and had a funny religion (well, "uncivilised tribes" at least- Saddam was not the first person to gas Iraqis, WSC thought dropping mustard on Iraqis from planes was an absolutely fantastic new innovation). He was good as a figurehead leader, but pretty much everything he himself developed like the aforementioned Gallipoli was a dreadful failure of the highest order.

[Dark_Raven]

Whatever gets the job done aye? Chemical, biological, guns, knives, nuclear devices etc.

 

Churchill was a great leader, what his country at that time. He even kept a stiff upper lip when he had to meet that Red Stalin. Now that was a fellow who gave a meaning to mass killings, even ran circles around what Hitler did.

[lord of flies]

Greed isn't inherently bad. In fact, one could argue, much as I am doing now, that it is the natural result of millenia of Darwinian evolution.

Incorrect. Human behavior is mostly social, capitalism deforms this natural tendency into insane, self-destructive behavior. People have historically proven themselves perfectly capable of egalitarian self-rule, as can be seen in the practical effectiveness of (for example) the peasant commune in Russia. "The Tragedy of the Commons" is a myth.

The "public welfare and common good" are, much like everything else, relative: at least factory workers have jobs, and are making more money than they would be if not for the influence of capitalism.

I would rather be a black slave in 1770s Virginia than an Irish urban worker in 1870s New York. Neither has the possibility for rising in social class without violence, but at least a slave will probably have all their fingers at the end of their life. The crimes perpetrated by our society against the proletariat are huge and undeniable, unless you prefer a most vile form of historical revisionism.

the whole point is that companies do NOT intentionally "mistreat" their workers since that would ultimately lead to a lack of workers. you think they do, but cannot offer up any proof of widespread mistreatment. it fits your ideology, therefore it must be true?

Fish cutters at a Canning Co in Maine. Ages range from 7 to 12. They live near the factory. The 7 year old boy in front, Byron Hamilton, has a badly cut finger but helps his brother regularly. Behind him is his brother George, age 11, who cut his finger half off while working. Ralph, on the left, displays his knife and also a badly cut finger. They and many youngsters said they were always cutting themselves. George earns a $1 some days usually 75 cents. Some of the others say they earn a $1 when they work all day. At times they start at 7 a.m. and work all day until midnight.

And in fact slavery has been illegal for centuries now.

Incorrect.

Ah, irony. All this global warming scare is going to bring about tougher regulations on businesses which will = more third world slave labor.

Actually, all the bourgeois corporatists will allow this "global warming scare" (i.e. the real threat of climate change) to do is become yet another tool in their brutal economic repression and rape of the third world.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Do not confuse the remilitarization of Rhineland with the actual period of appeasement under Chamberlain. The Munich agreement was in 1938, two years after Rhineland, at a time when the Wehrmacht was already much stronger and still growing. Besides Rhineland was considered German territory, so remilitarizing it wasn't exactly considered an act of aggression.

 

Here's an interesting graph, by the way.

Yes, that graph shows the longer UK waited to fight, the worse off they became, and the war was inevitable anyway, unless they wanted to become a German vassal. That was Churchill's point.

 

Churchill also advocated the use of poison gas against people so long as they were brown and had a funny religion (well, "uncivilised tribes" at least- Saddam was not the first person to gas Iraqis, WSC thought dropping mustard on Iraqis from planes was an absolutely fantastic new innovation). He was good as a figurehead leader, but pretty much everything he himself developed like the aforementioned Gallipoli was a dreadful failure of the highest order.

He was going to use poison gas if Germans invaded Britain also. Everyone used poison gas in WWI, and the only reason they didn't in WW2 was fear of retaliation, not moral principles. Churchill made many mistakes, but he also did many things right and brilliantly, he was a real risk taker. For example he was instrumental in the development of the tank, and came up with the floating harbors, the Mulberrys, used in the Normandy invasion. As far as Gallipoli, he was more responsible for the Dardanelles, which was the naval operation, while Gallipoli was a land operation, since he was the First Lord of the Admiralty. Even there, if the war cabinet made the decision to attack Dardanelles when Churchull first proposed it, and thus the Turks wouldn't had the time to mine them, the operation would've succeeded. But no question Churchill had a lot of hare brained ideas. Someone said he had 100 ideas a day, 4 of which were good. And of course his leadership did save Britain, when everyone thought they were finished, and he was a very strong leader, certainly not a figurehead at all.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Nice photo LOF, now why don't you start living in the 21st century.

 

Also, I am kind of curious of where in the United States that slavery is legal. Please tell us.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

Nice photo LOF, now why don't you start living in the 21st century.

He claims that corporations would never hurt their own employees. Doesn't matter whether it's today or a century ago, if corporations would do it then, they'd do it today. The only reason they don't do it (as much) in the United States is because it is against the law. Labor law violations still exist, however.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Ah, irony. All this global warming scare is going to bring about tougher regulations on businesses which will = more third world slave labor.

Actually, all the bourgeois corporatists will allow this "global warming scare" (i.e. the real threat of climate change) to do is become yet another tool in their brutal economic repression and rape of the third world.

Phew! Thanks for setting that straight! I was worried something bad would come of the 'global warming scare'.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Labor law violations still exist, however.

 

So does murder.

So does rape.

So does armed robbery.

So does arson.

So does kidnapping.

So does assault.

 

As long as humans exist there will be laws and there will be people willing to break the laws.

 

Your point being, LoF?

[lord of flies]

Your point being, LoF?

That corporations will, in fact, screw over their own workers, despite the fact that taks believes it's "not in their best interest" (hint: it is).

Phew! Thanks for setting that straight! I was worried something bad would come of the 'global warming scare'.

No, I mean all that the bourgeois statists will do is **** over the third world some. It will doubtless have wildly negative effects on the world economy, especially in the third world.

[Walsingham]

I can't believe the downer you goons have on Churchill. I really don't think you're being very understanding of the context for his bad decisions, or the context for his good ones.

 

I especially don't think Gallipolli is a very good example of him being a cretin. At a time when everyone else was saying we just had to keep piling men into the trenches in France he pointed out that it was bloody silly and we HAD to try somewhere else. Yes it failed, but to the best of my knowledge it was operational implementation that failed, rather than the strategic decision which was his responsibility.

 

However, what's more startling is that good space is still being wasted on this topic.

[Killian Kalthorne]

LoF, the point of business is to make money. The corporation purpose is to make money for its owners and its stockholders. That is their primary mission. Everything and anything else is secondary. The workforce have a choice. If the place they work for does not live up to their expectations they can leave and find a better job, or form a union and set up a strike. If the corporation abuses their workforce they will find that they will not have a workforce and thusly will not make any money.

 

Prime example of that happened a few years ago where I live. This company which ran the McDonald's restaurants via franchise was abusing their workforce, and they were doing this to both the burger flippers and lower management. Long hours, little or no raises, and overall crappy benefits. Other fast food places got wind of this and started to increase base pay, added benefits, and whatnot. The employees got wind of this and migrated to Culver's, Burger King and Wendy's. Bereft of a quality workforce sales plummeted, and they even had to permanently close one of the restaurants in a college student infested area where they should have been doing the most business. In the end the company lost its franchise rights and the restaurants went under corporate control, but have yet regained their status.

 

The workforce will do what is in its best interest and so will the corporation, as it should.

[Gromnir]

"The workforce will do what is in its best interest and so will the corporation, as it should. "

 

not true. workforce and corporations is myths. ultimately, people make decisions, not workforce or corporations. golden parachutes and quarterly report myopia is not in the best interest of a corporation, but it may be best for the members o' the board. 'course, individual workers is no less greedy and self serving than capitalists. middle-class socialist punks who has never worked a +10 hour day doing back-breaking manual labor has some pretty peculiar notions 'bout workers. is the problem with both communism and capitalism: they fail to adequately consider human nature. as between the two, communism would seem to be more grounded in naivety than capitalism, but capitalism also ignores some obvious truths about human nature and human intelligence.

 

even so, there IS a functional insurmountable gulf between capital producing and resource producing Nations, but your average modern socialist is 'bout 100 years out of touch.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 28, 2009 by Gromnir

[taks]

(hint: it is).

bull****. you have no proof of this, nor can you find any. there is not even a theoretical reason it should be true. you simply make things up and declare them as some "fact" simply because your ideology tells you so. if you had a reason, you'd be able to show it.

 

taks

[taks]

to be fair, there were widespread mistreatment o' U.S. workers during the depression era.

of course. we're talking about an extreme circumstance in which the demand for goods dropped to almost nothing, and the supply of workers shot through the roof. when 20%+ of your workforce is suddenly on the streets, there will be problems with any system.

 

is not that big business were consciously trying to mistreat employees, but if there is a surplus o' labor the motivation for employers to treat their employees well decreases.

exactly. this, of course, has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

taks

[taks]

heh, i could link you to a ton of articles (nestle, finnish paper companies, shell, diamonds in africa, banana companies etc. etc.) about big business intentionally mistreating their workers,

anecdote. two parts that you need to reconcile in order to prove your point: a) widespread, not just isolated cases, b) connect it to captalism. oops.

 

who by the way cannot sue because the countries they live in don't have a working justice system, because they can make more profits by treating their sweat shop workers like poo and because the price of a human life in the 3rd world is less than what you spend a week for groceries.

oooh, there you go, you disproved yourself in your second sentence. "don't have a working justice system." see, in a capitalist society, there is a working justice system since that's government's sole job: to protect the rights of the people.

 

really, you're not doing very well.

 

also big business often mistreats its workers in countries that have a working justice system when they think they can get away with it (firing people for joining a union, paying less than the minimum wage, hiring illegals so they dont have to pay extra costs and less wages etc.).

so they're breaking the law? how is that the result of capitalism?

 

there has been many big scandals in finland lately, and i'm sure this is even more widespread in the us. often the workers do sue, but only if they get enough people to sue.

you think?

 

a single person cannot sue a big company because the company can to spend millions on on the trial and often just get the case to get postponed so many times that the claimant just gives up due to lack of funds.

again, you're using evidence of a broken system against capitalism. try to apply evidence of capitalist failures to prove your point.

 

this thread is honestly hilarious, not once have i said anything positive about communism on these boards yet you people spout all this nonsense about me being a commie.

i realize you don't understand how silly your comments are, but they are. whether you directly support communism or not is immaterial since everything you have said is in support of collectivism, or in opposition to the only counter, capitalism.

 

also your view of communism (or moderate socialism, or even centrism) is woefully inaccurate, based on the propaganda i'm sure your head gets filled with since childhood.

what have i actually said about communism that is innacurate? show me, or shut up. furthermore, exactly what have i been taught since childhood?

 

i realise that you feel anger towards me taks, since i've pointed out the many inaccurasies and outright stupidities you've posted, but could you please refrain from childish namecalling? i'm sure it's against the board rules anyway.

if the shoe fits. post something legitimate rather than something you simply made up, and i'll treat you with respect. till then, act the part of the fool and i'll call you a fool.

 

taks

[taks]

Give it a break. The e-mails are not that damning. Although it is true that Gore sometimes distorts data and uses scare tactics.

i'd pick a different link for analysis of the "emails" and what is wrong with them, if i were you. i skimmed it and noted several innacuracies rather quickly - the first was the repetition of the "hacked" meme in the title. there is no evidence to support this, and in fact, CRU has laid low on that meme as well - so far, the evidence appears to imply someone working within CRU released the file. another is a discussion of the "trick," and this author misses the point as does every other "analysis" attempting to smooth things over.

 

besides that, there is a deeper problem that none of the defenders of the faith want to admit: there was 150 MB of data released, too. that's where the substance lies, particularly when coupled with the emails in the context in which they were written.

 

taks

[lord of flies]

bull****. you have no proof of this, nor can you find any. there is not even a theoretical reason it should be true. you simply make things up and declare them as some "fact" simply because your ideology tells you so. if you had a reason, you'd be able to show it.

Although I don't enjoy the language of economic rationalism, I suppose I'll have to resort to it here. Companies which treat their workers poorly, through low wages, no benefits, et cetera, have an advantage over those that do: they have less overhead costs. Workers who are thrust into these situations do not always have the ability or willingness to strike or appeal. Wal-Mart goes to great lengths to ensure its workers do not unionize, and illegal immigrants (a popular choice of workforce in a country with a dwindling manufacturing sector) can't exactly do so either.

 

You have never offered an actual reason why companies would not want to pay their workers less, give them less benefits, etc, just blandly attempted to keep to your nonsense position where, of course they'll be nice to their workers! Higher wages and shorter hours are in their self-interest!