I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?

[oktalist]

Here's an idea: communism is actually a shitty idea on paper too. Why? Because other people get to benefit from my work without my permission. Work is time, and time is life. So other people get to steal my life from me. I don't care about the masses, they're a statistic. I care about the people close to me and myself and I would much rather donate my life to people I care about than have it forcibly taken from me to benefit someone I don't even know.

How is that different to working for Wal-Mart, for example? Don't tell me capitalism doesn't force millions of people to work in shitty jobs just to make ends meet.

If communism broke out tomorrow, nobody would force you to contribute your work to society. You'd be free to run your own little capitalist enclave, but you'd soon see that everyone else was having a much better life, including those close to you who you claim to care so much about.

We'd all be better off if we stopped trying to hoard as much treasure as we possibly can for ourselves and just let it be freely exchanged from person to person. That way, you always have access to as much treasure as you want, but whenever you're not using it, someone else can be having the benefit of it, too. It's an over-simplification, but this is just a web forum after all.

I don't think many of you understand Communism.

If you did not work, you would not be paid.

You get what you put in.

Huh? That's capitalism. In communism, no-one gets paid, because there's no such thing as money.

 

[haloman13]

Social liberal here and another guy that doesn't like moore, and seriously if your going to go on ''a killing spree'' have the decency to do it at a furcon and to shoot yourself when your done.

 

[marfin_]

Here's an idea: communism is actually a shitty idea on paper too. Why? Because other people get to benefit from my work without my permission. Work is time, and time is life. So other people get to steal my life from me. I don't care about the masses, they're a statistic. I care about the people close to me and myself and I would much rather donate my life to people I care about than have it forcibly taken from me to benefit someone I don't even know.

How is that different to working for Wal-Mart, for example? Don't tell me capitalism doesn't force millions of people to work in shitty jobs just to make ends meet.

If communism broke out tomorrow, nobody would force you to contribute your work to society. You'd be free to run your own little capitalist enclave, but you'd soon see that everyone else was having a much better life, including those close to you who you claim to care so much about.

We'd all be better off if we stopped trying to hoard as much treasure as we possibly can for ourselves and just let it be freely exchanged from person to person. That way, you always have access to as much treasure as you want, but whenever you're not using it, someone else can be having the benefit of it, too. It's an over-simplification, but this is just a web forum after all.

I know there are some people posting here that would love for the US to actually try Communism or some form of Socialism (and we already are using certain aspects of socialism) for today?s economy to fix the current problems, but unfortunately I think it would only make new problems. We all can agree that there are idiots working for our government today whether you believe it is Obama, or was Bush or a certain Congressman we can agree that idiots are present. One of the most prominent defining features of communism is all of the control it gives the government. In a communist society someone needs to distribute the wealth, plan the prices and decide what to manufacture and what society needs. Why on earth would you want those idiots to decide these things for you? And then there are some that say, well we don't need the government to step in, the people can make the decisions. Wouldn?t that require everyone to be involved so no one was left out? People can't even get out of they house long enough to vote, even less so to make such economic decision that could ultimately make or break the country. In the perfect society will Communism only exist and not slow the economy to a halt or repress it's citizens.

 

[Gearran]

I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are an animal, as is every other human being. Hundreds of years of science has proved that.

So, fortunately, even your 'enlightened' communism will never happen.

1) If we are all animals, all morality and thought is void. Believing you are an animal turns you into an animal. Trying hard enough to be a Human turns you into a Human. We distinguish between sentient and non-sentient for a reason.

2) The suggested impotence of Humanity is not fortunate. I know you are influenced by popular opinion to say such things, but I still know I must correct you on it in case it might help.

Being an animal and being nonsentient are not the same things. "Animal" is a classification that means "we aren't plants or rocks." We are "sentient" because we are capable of forming high-level brain functions like complex emotions, logic, and abstract thought, not because we aren't "animals."
After reading your definition of communism, I'm afraid to say that, without significant artificial modification of human behavior (like wide-spread lobotomy), such a social construct will never come to pass (and, in my humble opinion, good riddance). Your argument hinges around the concept of "enlightenment," which you say means treating humans as peers and all working toward a common goal. You also point out that this is not a hivemind.

This is incorrect.

The classic definition of hive mind is a society/group in which all members work toward a common ideal with no competition, variation, or individuality, for the good of "the whole." Human behavior is distinctly anathema to this construct (and, by your own definition, to Communism) because, while we do form societies, we are also individuals within a group. Each person follows his or her own goals, needs, desires, and fears, which (almost invariably) may work against another person's goals, needs, etc. This means we are a fractious, conflict-prone species, but it also means that we will continue to advance as individuals and as a people. Thankfully, there are no hiveminds in existence today (with the possible exception of North Korea). Your "enlightenment" seems to be a destruction of the "self" in humanity, tying all individuals into a cohesive whole while destroying their individuality (at the risk of being sensationalist, you want us to become the Borg). And while the end of conflict may be a nice dream to reach for, the price that you're asking is far too high. I'll pass and keep being, as you put it, an "animal."

OT: I can honestly say I'm not interested in seeing what Michael Moore has to say because, while he was successful once, he's let that fame and popularity go to his head and fuel his own personal delusions. While he may have a point, I'm not going to waste my time sifting through his latest tangle of propaganda, shock-hunting, and inconsistencies to find that little nugget of truth. I'd rather use my own brain and deal with issues I can perceive and combat, instead of succumbing to the sensationalism and reactionary fear/outrage that he craves.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper.

Not even that. You can clearly see it will not work without having to put it into practice.

Im seriously tired of kids who keep stating communism will not work just BECAUSE. Please, at least put some effort into your post and explain why you think it wouldnt work. Hell, im not even what you would call a communist per se, it still pisses me off.

I dont know about you, maybe you actually put some thought into the matter, but a lot of people nowadays seem to say communism would never work because they heard some "expert" say it on TV or they overheard their parents say it and want to appear cool.

I have thought about it for years without the help of THE MEDIA. I have spoken to ex-communists and they agree with me that it just doesn't work. People believe in communism like a fairy-tale gone wrong. I have read the communist manifesto and I believe it was designed for a perfect society. Unfortunately humans are not perfect, not even Carl Marx. So it ultimately fails in human society, because nothing on earth is perfect not even earth itself.

 

[oktalist]

1. Everyone keeps saying that one of the biggest problems with Capitalism is that rich people are inordinately greedy. This is true in SOME cases, but most of the "greed" is really just wanting a better life.

Yes, that's what greed means. Wanting something better for yourself. Like a better life. Of course rich people are greedy - that's how they got rich. It doesn't necessarily follow that all greedy people are rich, obviously. I think pro- and anti-capitalists can all agree that capitalism rewards greed. It's just that some see this as an advantage, and some as a disadvantage.

2. Some have asserted that the rich prevent others from being rich.

If you can only point to one or two examples of self-made billionnaires, you've kind of debunked your own argument. Hard work and good ideas my arse. They got rich by lying, cheating, stealing and generally being ruthless bastards.

It's a mathematical constant that as long as there are rich people there will be poor people. If everyone woke up tomorrow with as much money as Bill Gates, inflation would see to it that by mid-afternoon, we'd all have as much money as an Indian telemarketer. It's a zero sum game.

3. Part of the reason for the recent economic troubles...

Whatever it was that finally toppled the house of cards, whether it was a breeze or someone brushing past or sneezing, the house of cards was highly unstable to begin with, and its collapse was inevitable sooner or later. Free market stability is kind of like a perpetual energy generator; there's this little thing called entropy that means it'll always be a pipedream.

4. Someone mentioned something along the lines of "money = political power today." This is nothing new and as long as someone influential wants something, there will be someone willing to give it to them, for a price.

Unless you get rid of the whole concept of price, and money.

5. I'm not an expert on Communism, but I've always understood that the problem with it is that to be brought about, it needs a huge, very powerful government to intentionally set the stage before it is eventually weakened if not outright abolished.

No, that may have been part of the reason why attempts ostensibly to introduce communism in the past have failed, and I think that approach is clearly always destined to fail (it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about what communism is). The problem getting in the way of real communism right now is getting enough people to realise that it would be a good idea. Because you need the majority of people to vote for it, and to get involved. It can't be brought about from the top, that's the whole point of what it's trying to abolish, it has to be grassroots.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Eh, Michael Moore doesn't seem to be the most reliable...
I'll pass.

Totally agree. I can trust Michael Moore about as far as I can throw him, but with not being able to lift him and all...ah well you get the point.

I'm reminded of a very liberal ex-hippie professor I once had in a class. It was during the election between Bush and Kerry, oh that was misery listening to him spout on. But one thing that happened is that he talking about the glory that is Michael Moore. He asked if anybody in class had watched or liked any of his movies and nobody raised their hands. He said he was surprised because he thought their would be a Michael Moore youth cult by now.

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

For me it isn't that Socialism and Communism are exactly alike, it is that they are the same in one respect that is most important to me that I want to protect: Personal freedoms

Now that Socialism is a no no term for a majority of the US, the people in power like Obama, have cut it down and say social, though in most cases they say progressive.

I don't call taking extra money from me to give to other people as progressive, it is forced charity.

There is also the plan that Obama wants to put in where kids in high school will be forced to preform a certain number of hours of community service before they can graduate. Again, it is forced charity.

These things that the government "wants" people to help with, are things that are to be left for people to do what they want with it. If I don't want to give money to help other people, that should be my right. It is my money and if I feel I need it, even if it is sitting unused in case of an emergency, then it should stay with me. If my kid doesn't feel like helping other people and wants to just come home and do homework and play instead of having to take extra time helping others, then that should be my kid's choice. Though they probably want to implement it into a free hour in high school, but even that is stupid as well. I know I loved having my free hour during each year of high school. I used it to relax and keep sane for the rest of the day, or I used it to complete work so I didn't have to take it home and ruin my free time.

Socialism is about taking things from the people to help other people. It doesn't matter if the things taken away could help the people they were taken away from in the future, or it would help those people live the lives they want to live.

Socialism may look good in theory, but in the end it only helps a small amount of people, and hinders the lives of others.

If the government really wants to help people in need, it should start up a charitable donation sector, where if people are charitable and give money to the government charity, those people get some kind of tax break.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Eh, Michael Moore doesn't seem to be the most reliable...
I'll pass.

Totally agree. I can trust Michael Moore about as far as I can throw him, but with not being able to lift him and all...ah well you get the point.

I'm reminded of a very liberal ex-hippie professor I once had in a class. It was during the election between Bush and Kerry, oh that was misery listening to him spout on. But one thing that happened is that he talking about the glory that is Michael Moore. He asked if anybody in class had watched or liked any of his movies and nobody raised their hands. He said he was surprised because he thought their would be a Michael Moore youth cult by now.

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

For me it isn't that Socialism and Communism are exactly alike, it is that they are the same in one respect that is most important to me that I want to protect: Personal freedoms

Now that Socialism is a no no term for a majority of the US, the people in power like Obama, have cut it down and say social, though in most cases they say progressive.

I don't call taking extra money from me to give to other people as progressive, it is forced charity.

There is also the plan that Obama wants to put in where kids in high school will be forced to preform a certain number of hours of community service before they can graduate. Again, it is forced charity.

These things that the government "wants" people to help with, are things that are to be left for people to do what they want with it. If I don't want to give money to help other people, that should be my right. It is my money and if I feel I need it, even if it is sitting unused in case of an emergency, then it should stay with me. If my kid doesn't feel like helping other people and wants to just come home and do homework and play instead of having to take extra time helping others, then that should be my kid's choice. Though they probably want to implement it into a free hour in high school, but even that is stupid as well. I know I loved having my free hour during each year of high school. I used it to relax and keep sane for the rest of the day, or I used it to complete work so I didn't have to take it home and ruin my free time.

Socialism is about taking things from the people to help other people. It doesn't matter if the things taken away could help the people they were taken away from in the future, or it would help those people live the lives they want to live.

Socialism may look good in theory, but in the end it only helps a small amount of people, and hinders the lives of others.

If the government really wants to help people in need, it should start up a charitable donation sector, where if people are charitable and give money to the government charity, those people get some kind of tax break.

Listen to me.
Most kids in America do absolutely nothing. They don't do homework, practice an instrument, read or anything else - they hang out with their friends.
I had the same thing in Israel and I did community service.

It was glorious.

I must tell you that I would have never known about the veterans club that I had in the neighborhood. I spent hours there, even after I've done my community service.
I've also joined a group unlike scouts, where you travel Israel, learn about it and then guide other smaller students in various trips. Spectacular.
You're wrong. When you force your kid to do homework, you are taking away his freedom!
You see that? You could apply it to everything on parenting. Children NEED this badly, the current youth in america is rotten. I learned it from a few friends I keep that live in Florida, N. York and California.

 

[Rainforce]

i'm gonna ignore it. he must be anti-capatilist

but a lot of people are anti-catapultist...or something. D:

also, for all the facts I know about how silly and ignorant mankind is: killing spree? ANY TIME.
although I also must agree that Moores depiction of reality are a bit oversimplified and onesided.
(but I'm also anti-capitalistic: considering all the pros and cons, I would sacrifice economic growth for the sake of everyones life.)
EDIT: also, "freedom" is in some way, an illusion. You are always shaped by the things that surround you, so you are NEVER truly free.

 

[oktalist]

One of the most prominent defining features of communism is all of the control it gives the government. In a communist society someone needs to distribute the wealth, plan the prices and decide what to manufacture and what society needs. Why on earth would you want those idiots to decide these things for you?

OK, you scolded me once for calling you wrong without explaining why (I'm just getting tired of having to spell it out every time one of these threads appears) so I'll try and explain this time why you're wrong. Communism isn't central control. It's true self-governance by the people... oh wait, I see you've addressed this below. OK, on to the next point.

And then there are some that say, well we don't need the government to step in, the people can make the decisions. Wouldn?t that require everyone to be involved so no one was left out?

Yes. Well, not everyone, I mean if you didn't want to get involved in decision making, no-one would force you to. But yes, everyone would have the right to an equal say in decision making, if they wish to exercise that right, and it's assumed that a great many people would so wish (at least on decisions that directly affect them).

People can't even get out of they house long enough to vote, even less so to make such economic decision that could ultimately make or break the country.

With a more rational division of labour, people would probably have more time spare to devote to things like taking an active part in organising their community services.

Communism is so different of a paradigm from what we're used to that it's often difficult to envision just how so many changes in our societal systems and ways of life would enable even more changes that we couldn't imagine happening in the present system.

 

[5-0]

Havn't watched it, I am pretty tired of Michal Moore.

You can also watch "The Inside Job", which also is about the financial crisis. Its pretty good.

This. I'm not going to say "Inside Job" is better, cause I haven't seen "Capitalism". However, I would thoroughly recommend for anyone wanting to understand the financial crisis better, and of course to watch bankers squirm under tough interview questions

 

[Skratt]

Eh, Michael Moore doesn't seem to be the most reliable...
I'll pass.

Agreed. He's a shockumentary maker.

Granted, this doesn't invalidate everything he says...but he far too often oversimplifies extremely complex issues and relies on an emotional appeal to earn the sympathy of his viewers.

Agreed. As to why there is no public outcry about this: Ignorance and Credibility. Michael Moore is certainly not the first to use shock & awe, but some of the crap he pulls calls into question his credibility, which detracts from his overall message, which is unfortunate.

We should be up in arms about the debt ceiling thing right now too. I mean literally damn near burning down the capital city, but we haven't made a peep. Honestly, I hope gas hits $10 a gallon. I hope that people with variable rate mortgages get hit with 20% interest. Maybe then people will wake the fuck up and pay attention. But then again, maybe not...

 

[Giest4life]

It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things

Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper. In real life though it never really worked well for anybody not ruling the country.

The same can be said of Capitalism. The world elite get the majority of the money while the real people have to either live in poverty or sacrifice their ideals and work for corrupt corporations to make any headway.

Please get your information from someone else other than Michael Moore, go read a book about it. The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that Capitalism provides great economic growth. In 1820 to 1998 the world economy grew 50-fold in capitalist regions like Europe and US. Capitalism also provides more freedom within our own economy and allows people to organize their own economy which provides a better environment for entrepreneurs. Socialism on the other had endorses a planned economy, which was similar to what the United States did during WW1 and 2 with war bonds... do you want to have an economy in which you always use war bonds? Other things like personal property would be viewed as means of production and would have no place in a Socialistic society. Don't kid yourself that there is a perfect system out there because there?s not. Even Capitalism has some major flaws, but its the best we have and we have been making it work since the 1800's at least. Just remember as long as humans have created it, it will always be flawed.

Europe, Capitalist? You, sir, need to brush up on your history. The European economic growth was fueled by imperialism--they found vast untapped markets. And even then the free market principles did not apply. Each colonial power used mercantile policies in their colonies (and motherstate). Obtaining raw materials for colonies at next-to-nothing costs, processing them in factories back home, and selling that stuff domestically and on to their colonies. The British, for example, did not allow competition in India (not even from Indian manufacturers), and resorted to extreme measures to keep it so. They, literally, cut off the hands of thousands of home-factory family cotton producers to eliminate competition.

And in America, the South was the cotton powerhouse, which surprise, surprise, was powered by cheap labor i.e. slavery. One of the reasons the South fought so damn hard against Abolition.

Capitalism is a myth; capitalist policies, however, are not.

Well yes that certainly explains the how certain resources were acquired, but what do you think happened to them once they were shipped back home? It took people who knew what to do with the materials and entrepreneurs to make those new technologies and ideas a reality. The economy did not become greater just from acquiring more resources. That was beautifully illustrated by Spain during the 16th century in which it had held wealth equivalent to 1 trillion US dollars in gold and silver from its colonies and had abruptly lost nearly all of it due to ?investments? which did not help Spain's long-term economic integrity and ultimately led to inflation.

See, I agree with that. Certain capitalist policies catapulted European economies far above everyone else. But, we give capitalist policies too much credit. The governments actively intervened in the system to give their companies the edge.

Also, Spain's economy collapsed because they did not grasp economics 101 (supply and demand of currency, in this case, gold and silver). Supply and demand are not exclusive to capitalism. Supply and demand is the theory which capitalism is based on. It's a nuanced difference; socialist/communist countries can also operate on supply demand, such as by raising taxes, tariffs, quotas, and etc.

 

[Araxiel_1911]

Michel Moore might overuse emotions and simplfy issues. But that's what he's doing. And he says that. And what he is saying is not wrong.
I rather have a thousand Moore's than one Fox News. And what a fitting clip by Jon Steward:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-26-2011/armadebtdon-2011---call-congress

Well, I guess I will read a few of the narrowminded replies here and answer to them in a moment.
And what a fitting captcha: beats me. It does indeed beats me how some people see Socialism = complete soviet Communism.

 

[Eumersian]

Michael Moore, dare I say it, is like the FOX news of the Left-Wing. He's quick to blow things out of proportion and while his antics can be entertaining, he's not especially the most reliable in terms of documentary films about stuff.

 

[Kair]

I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are an animal, as is every other human being. Hundreds of years of science has proved that.

So, fortunately, even your 'enlightened' communism will never happen.

1) If we are all animals, all morality and thought is void. Believing you are an animal turns you into an animal. Trying hard enough to be a Human turns you into a Human. We distinguish between sentient and non-sentient for a reason.

2) The suggested impotence of Humanity is not fortunate. I know you are influenced by popular opinion to say such things, but I still know I must correct you on it in case it might help.

Being an animal and being nonsentient are not the same things. "Animal" is a classification that means "we aren't plants or rocks." We are "sentient" because we are capable of forming high-level brain functions like complex emotions, logic, and abstract thought, not because we aren't "animals."
After reading your definition of communism, I'm afraid to say that, without significant artificial modification of human behavior (like wide-spread lobotomy), such a social construct will never come to pass (and, in my humble opinion, good riddance). Your argument hinges around the concept of "enlightenment," which you say means treating humans as peers and all working toward a common goal. You also point out that this is not a hivemind.

This is incorrect.

The classic definition of hive mind is a society/group in which all members work toward a common ideal with no competition, variation, or individuality, for the good of "the whole." Human behavior is distinctly anathema to this construct (and, by your own definition, to Communism) because, while we do form societies, we are also individuals within a group. Each person follows his or her own goals, needs, desires, and fears, which (almost invariably) may work against another person's goals, needs, etc. This means we are a fractious, conflict-prone species, but it also means that we will continue to advance as individuals and as a people. Thankfully, there are no hiveminds in existence today (with the possible exception of North Korea). Your "enlightenment" seems to be a destruction of the "self" in humanity, tying all individuals into a cohesive whole while destroying their individuality (at the risk of being sensationalist, you want us to become the Borg). And while the end of conflict may be a nice dream to reach for, the price that you're asking is far too high. I'll pass and keep being, as you put it, an "animal."

OT: I can honestly say I'm not interested in seeing what Michael Moore has to say because, while he was successful once, he's let that fame and popularity go to his head and fuel his own personal delusions. While he may have a point, I'm not going to waste my time sifting through his latest tangle of propaganda, shock-hunting, and inconsistencies to find that little nugget of truth. I'd rather use my own brain and deal with issues I can perceive and combat, instead of succumbing to the sensationalism and reactionary fear/outrage that he craves.

I use classical views on Human and Animal for this discussion.
Hivemind has an emphasis on the 'mind' part. It makes more sense to assume it is a collective mind. If you do not wish to define it this way, we should find a better word to use.

And it makes me frustrated when you say that to produce enlightened Humans you need lobotomy. It did not require lobotomy to enlighten me, nor the thousands of free thinkers before me.

In truth, one of the more important reasons we can't progress towards Communism now is because people keep inventing new reasons not to. It's like I am constantly telling people to go get the mail but they say things like "No, it might rain outside", "My roommate/spouse/family member won't do it, so why should I?" and "I'll let someone else do it.", which are all stupid reasons to people who see things objectively. Yes, it is this ridiculous how people will not work towards the future of Humanity.

What people should instead be realizing is "By saying these stupid things I am creating a self-fulfilling loop of impotence.". It is that important, by saying stupid things you make the lives of millions of people yet to be born a lot worse. Just like people 100 years before you made your life worse by not standing up to the church.

 

[an874]

I would start a killing spree

.......

Eh, Michael Moore doesn't seem to be the most reliable...
I'll pass.

Agreed. He's a shockumentary maker.

Granted, this doesn't invalidate everything he says...but he far too often oversimplifies extremely complex issues and relies on an emotional appeal to earn the sympathy of his viewers.

Ahhh. Good to see I'm not the only person who does not like Moore.

So no, I don't plan on watching this movie. But thanks

Pretty much the same. The only half way decent movie he's made is Bowling for Columbine, and I'm not even sure about that one anymore, to be honest.

 

[poppabaggins]

Here's an idea: communism is actually a shitty idea on paper too. Why? Because other people get to benefit from my work without my permission. Work is time, and time is life. So other people get to steal my life from me. I don't care about the masses, they're a statistic. I care about the people close to me and myself and I would much rather donate my life to people I care about than have it forcibly taken from me to benefit someone I don't even know.

Tough shit when your wife falls ill with cancer and you cant afford the treatment, or you stay away from hospital and treat a broken leg at home because you cant afford to do anything else.

Yes, I know - "I dont give a shit, in this system anyone can make it if they try and if they dont its their own fault" - I have heard it before. And when someone in the family does turn terminally ill, suddenly the whole world is shit. If you cant see that our way of living is flawed down to the very roots, well, I wont say anything, I will just tell you to look around.

If your seemingly extremely narrow perspective only allows the point that its your life, your business, you dont need anything else, fine. But then thats all I have to say to you and there is nothing left to discuss. You come up front with an aggressive tone and bad arguments, which is why I have absolutely no problem with dismissing your opinion as useless and not to be taken seriously. If you had approached this differently, I would have too.

**Originally in Spoiler**
if work is time, and time is life, how do you justify working at all? whats the difference between a government stealing your life, and a big company? has that crossed your mind?
**/Originally in Spoiler**

Working is the process by which I trade my life for money, which affords me a better quality of living.

I was going to address the government and taxes, but considered it a related, but not core, point. No I'm not pleased by all the taxes I pay, but is anyone? I'm not saying ALL taxes are unnecessary, but I certainly believe that a great deal of tax money has been wasted. Can I do anything about it? I can vote but, being American, I have to deal with a broken two-party system (suggestion: something more parliamentary). But this was a thread on economic systems, not government, though they're often (always?) interrelated.

About the whole cancer/broken leg thing? I have friends and family I could ask for help if necessary. I can take out loans, I can setup my life to prepare for shit like that. I don't expect strangers to take care of me when they have their own problems. It's just plain selfish to expect people to care for you without anything in return, when they know NOTHING about you. I'm selfish in many ways (surprise!) but not in this way. I'm thinking that Capitalsim/Communism can be broken down to HOW people are selfish, not IF they are.

And as for my "narrow view" that consists of myself and those around me, I defy you to argue that ANYONE lives for everyone else before themselves. I can assure you that you can't feed someone for very long without feeding yourself. Hell, even Gandhi and MLK had their own personal aspirations. They also believed (and I would agree with them, as I'm sure most people would) that what they were doing would make the world a better place. A better place for them and the people they cared about.

And that's where I disagree with the idea of communism. I DON'T think it would make the world a better place. I intend to live by my own merit and work to improve my much smaller world to the best of my ability. Does this mean that I aim to step on other people? No. I'm not a conniving bastard like Gordon Gecko, I'm just a bastard that doesn't care if other people aren't able to get to my level (and I am fully aware that I will never be able to get to the level of others). If you choose to support communism (or whatever it is for which you're arguing), then that's great for you, since at least you know what you believe in. It does, however make us ideological enemies, since your view strives to break down what my whole life has been spent building and my view aims to directly elevate my world as far as I can above the billions of others. It also explains why we won't move one another a single inch.

My tone wasn't intended to be aggressive, but your response was also guilty of everything of which you accused me. At least that's how I see it. Then again, this IS the internet, and we can apply whatever tone we want to whatever we read, which is especially easy to do when we read something that directly attacks our personal beliefs. You could have been sipping a cup of tea while typing, while I could have been petting a puppy. Text is easily misinterpreted.

Have a good day, and good luck in your endeavors to defeat my world, for I will fight tooth and nail for it.

 

[peruvianskys]

If communism broke out tomorrow, nobody would force you to contribute your work to society. You'd be free to run your own little capitalist enclave, but you'd soon see that everyone else was having a much better life, including those close to you who you claim to care so much about.

Yeah, because that's totally how it went in Cambodia...er, I mean Vietnam...er, I mean Ukraine...I mean China...oops.