The First World War

If you believe that the only item on socialist agenda is abolishing private property, you are misinformed and utterly wrong. That's like saying all that the Republicans want to do is get rid of free healthcare.

No, it describes any government policy that deals with social issues.

No, I typed too fast and made an error because I didn't bother to reread my post. Claiming I was confused about the meaning of the word is absurd, and makes me sound like a 3rd grader.

I already explained I made the mistake by typing too fast.

I don't think anyone besides you is going to argue that capitalists insult communists more than communists insulting capitalists. Or rather you just insult leftists in general Kali. Lets see, you seem to have a personal vendetta against @Chelsea366, @Imperial1917, @ComradeLer, and @Karakoran.

Free food, healthcare, housing, education, and mass transportation would be main policies of this hypothetical country. The government would control the main monopolies and largest companies. The government would own many factories and have a major say in any and all trade coming into and out of the company. However, medium and small scale businesses would still be privately owned, and even encouraged. There would be a complete democratic government in place with a constitution. Also, look up state socialism, which I found out last night is the ideology I agree with and support.

No, for me its grey. My mum is British. My father is in the military and never had time to teach me anything. Therefore, I learned much of my speaking and spelling from both school and my mum, giving me a weird style of speaking, spelling, and pronunciation.

I didn't draw that conclusion. It just made me believe more in what I believe because it helped me sort out exactly what I do believe.

Another insult, no matter how you meant it. You are either calling me unrefined, or you are calling me a simple commoner. If you meant it to call me a commoner, may I ask as opposed to whom? You?

The natural state of mankind is a sort of Socialism. Everyone lives in a tribe with everyone producing and sharing their products. People naturally don't bargain to the extent that Capitalism entails with given prices and otherwise. If you look at every tribe that Western culture discovered during their explorations they were "Socialist". In other words, Capitalism is unnatural. To say Socialism isn't couldn't be farther from the truth.

Actually it definitely was. It's undisputed by any real basis.

@everything else you said

My comments:
Ya, it is scary how little you care for other people. I'm almost certain if you were given a chance to be rich and have everyone else in poverty or have everyone else be rich or live in poverty you would take the former option. Judging by your arguments human life is more of a means to an end. A tool for manipulation like any brash animal.

When someone brings up a stupid argument 15 times it's not ridiculous to send a minor and half-hearted insult. I'm not trying to hurt his feelings, I'm just telling him to shut up about it already.

Ler's comments:
You mean things from a spamming venture in protest of the Moderators? Ok sure, he did say some bad stuff. And he apologized. I have yet to see Toast, for instance, apologize. Nor will he ever. I think you need to just let some things go Kali. It's bad for your health to hold grudges like that.

Che's comments:
Che was a socialist only in name. The majority of his dedication was towards people like Gaddafi and Kim Jung Il, rather than towards the ideology they supported. Either way, his comments are irrelevant. Not only because Che is not the average Leftist, but also because they are outdated.

I know right?

BTW communism is bad..they lie to you and kill your family.

Convinced to think other than the Leftist ideology by society and also not properly informed on modern Leftism. Neither you nor I have much grounds to say why Pedro is no longer a Socialist, so I don't believe we should argue such a topic.

Look at the Policemen who commit abuse. Most of them are age 20-40. Clearly men aged 20-40 are batshit crazy.

Have you been on the forum recently?

For the most part they chose to shut out Socialist ideals and refused to maintain informed on Socialism. They are, for the most part, uninformed.

Look at the bloody definitions yourself. Normal is often used as a like word to natural. And of course the opposite of Capitalism is Leftism thus Leftism must be abnormal and thus unnatural. Thus, Leftists must be abnormal and unnatural. You don't seem to grasp the implications of your statements.

You know, there's a synthesis and anti-thesis and they form something unimaginable and better than either extremity. At least that's the idea, I don't believe it myself.

Read above.

Read above.

Because the average Joe has been indoctrinated for Socialism. How many people read the Communist Manfiesto and then get a lecture about how Capitalism is doomed? None. How many people read Animal Farm and then get a lecture about how Anarchism is doomed? Pretty much everyone. Our Society conforms people to Capitalism.

In order to make them appear foolish and naive. In fact you used the word naive yourself.

It's not. Socialists are called that as an insult. At least they were until the mods had a crackdown. Toast and Link were the major offenders, though Kali was no help.

I feel like you've never even browsed the forums before.

lolwut is acceptable only for minor debates. When posts get so long as a third of a page as they do now, lolwut is not socially accepted. You should not use it.

Yes, people are entitled to their beliefs. And while you may want to believe that you are not greedy the very fact that you would stick up for a natural amoral ideology like Capitalism shows it. You're no where near as bad as Kali, but you're not exactly a proper Saint.

Because it's a fact of nature.

You literally can't live on a dollar a day. You will die if you try to live on a dollar a day. I mean like you wont be able to buy water to drink if you live on a dollar a day. I also mean you could fucking hold a sign in a street that says "Give me money for booze" and you could make more than a dollar a day.

This isn't the fucking Congo. Impoverished means a lot more here than it does there. Just like how a lump of horse flesh is rich if you're in a besieged city.

That's stupid and a direct falsification of the facts. I demand a link to where this is stated.

Are you really going to try and argue that a poor kid from the ghetto gets the same education as a rich kid?

You do have an obligation because you are naturally obligated to help your fellow humans. You have an obligation to stop your car and help someone if you run them over while they're jaywalking. They shouldn't have been jaywalking, but you don't decide that because they were jaywalking they're on their own in the middle of the street.

His education and genetic intelligence was beyond his control and it is because they were lackluster that he dropped out of high school. By extension, it was beyond his control. It was beyond his control where he would end up the day he was born. Unless you want to argue someone deserves to have to work harder for being born into a poor family.

Then perhaps Marx was not wrong when he said Capitalism was so horrible that it severed ties between the family itself. That you would let your own father flounder shows it.

Wow, instead of it being 8% it's only 6.6%. A whole 1.4%, how amazing. Sure they're more popular, but that's not a "surge".

A downward trend then does not prove a lower number now. You can only loosely infer that.

Yes, but over half of that number isn't married at all. Again, it means that only ~35% is married and not in the Nuclear Family and thus only ~35% lumps into what you're saying. If your grand argument that people wont have to work two jobs because now both the wife and husband work then it is disproven. Only about a third of Americans are lumped into that.

Didn't you say small businesses were flourishing around you? I think you live in the Economic Garden of Eden or something because literally every number seems to conflict with your town.

That's because the start of the recession tends to be mapped as the highest point of unemployment or just before it. Thus everything is the the lowest point of unemployment.

No matter what happens you say someone should've had a back-up plan and seen it far in advance.

The number one cause of debt is unexpected medical expenses, mainly because people can't afford health insurance but also because health insurance companies are infamous for screwing over people and saying they'll only pay a third of the cost or some shit because of a vague line of text. But I suppose when they lose everything because of some greedy bastard's never ending desire of wealth, it'll be their fault, right?

That's not fully industrialized in the fucking slightest.

Yes, the point is that it lasted a very long time to spite being utterly screwed. The main point way back when was that Anarchism isn't helpless, it's just put in helpless situations.

Because I'm not unknown to positions of power. It's not hard to get one if you show a little aggression.

Mark my words, the recession will last longer than 5 years. Perhaps not a decade though.

Yes.

I'm not going house hunting for you. Especially not for a stupid argument like where the cut off between rich and middle class is.

Ok then, you can discredit absolutely no one who is stupid because a child does not choose his parents or his education. In fact, you should help them out like you would help out someone who was handicapped.

Einstein spent his school life pissing around and he was intelligent. Charlemagne couldn't read yet he was reasonably intelligent. Maybe you don't realize that everything you learn in school is not the extent of your intelligence, it's merely its use.

Yes, it should be mandatory. But that's not the point.

Well yes and again it should be mandatory. Yet at the same time there are still perfectly reasonable human beings who simply haven't finished high school. It is foolish of you to try and call them, not only stupid, but deserving of any impoverishment Capitalism forces upon them.

They are human beings no less than you.

No, they're either:
A: Indoctrinated. Think people who believe that Communists are basically the same as followers of the Anti-Christ. Too ridiculous to argue with.
B: Uninformed. Think people who haven't read a lick of Leftist writing in their life or merely scratched the top.
C: Fools or somehow mentally different from the general human populace (think, with no sense of empathy).

Though it's no where near final. It's stupid to even consider it to be. That would be like saying that only the 10 Commandments are sins. In fact, you're jumping to quite a conclusion by saying such. I dare say you do it for the sake of trying to discredit my argument.

It is right for you to be called out, as it is right for me to be called out. What use is an ideology or belief if it is not tested?

So everyones either brainwashed, an idiot or a fool?

Have you?

So because I disagree with you, I am uninformed?

You don't seem to grasp how I am using the term.

Read above.

Read above.

Animal Farm was written by a communist first of all.

Again, you are saying, they are wrong just because they disagree with you.

What? The mods cracked down on it because Lennins beard and toast and link were calling each other autistic.

look who's all of a sudden politically correct.

Again, all you are saying is everybody who disagrees with your ideology is an immoral greeedy asshole.

The correct answer to both of your questions is yes. Although both of you seem to interpret things totally differently.

Well that's what hes saying. In my opinion, your uninformed because you have not read communist literature. To understand communism you must put yourself into their shoes and look at the literature yourself and form your own opinion. You can't just take other people's word on it.

When you say first of all you imply you were going to say more, yet you didn't. Well, actually Animal Farm was written by a democratic socialist, which Kali assures us is not real socialism. Second of all, have you ever read Animal Farm? It depicts events in Russia with Lenin and Stalin, except it uses the analogy of a farm and farm animals. It was an attack against Stalin's dictatorship, not an attack against socialism or communism.

No, the mods cracked down on it because it was turning into an accepted insult.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. How is saying "lolwut" is wrong politically correct? Look it up in the dictionary, "lolwut" has never been a word. He is right, you should stop using it because it makes you sound absolutely immature. Say, "I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?" It sounds much more professional.

No, hes saying anyone who disagrees with certain parts of his ideology are immoral. Which is wrong, but hes not saying everyone who disagrees is immoral and greedy.

By the way, you can respond to the other parts of his post too, even if you can't quote them because he screwed up and made it all a massive quote. I'm sure you can decipher whats a quote and whats not and I'm sure @Karakoran will fix that next time hes on.

So I have to read communist literature to form an opinion on communism?

When did I ever say it was an attack against socialism or communism?

Used only by toast, link, and lennins beard.

Since when was sounding proffessional a requirement for a forum? lolwut? has been used by most members on the forums at least once. And yes, even in political debates.

Yes he is.

Meh.[/quote]

Yes. That is the only way to form a well thought out and researched opinion. Without reading communist literature and not getting it from biased second hand sources, you are uninformed. Now, if you have read the communist manifesto and other communist/socialist works, and you still dislike communism, then I accept and value your criticism. But if, like most people that have "grown up" you have not read a word of the communist manifesto in your life, and continued to get your information from biased sources, then Kara is right, you are simply uninformed.

You implied it. The book shows that Stalinism could never work. You didn't seem to know this, you, like many people uninformed on the subject took it to mean all socialism/communism could never work. You then said it was written by a socialist so that implies that you thought a socialist was writing a book about how socialism could never work. This is what your statement implied.

Lets not forget Kali and Lamp and others.

Its not a requirement. But it makes it hard to take you seriously when you sound like a 13 year old girl. For your information, I have never once used "lolwut?".

I already said he's not saying exactly that. He's not right anyways.

It seems like you are ignoring it because that is beneficial to you. By the way, he responded to you saying you see no Olive Gardens shutting down. Well of course you don't, the nearest to our town is half an hour. And the closest after that is an hour. Therefore, you probably only know of the locations of two. Only one of which you may go to maybe once a month. Meaning, it doesn't matter if you see no Olive Gardens shutting down. They are too spread out for you to make an accurate statement about them that means anything unless you frequently drive all around the East Coast.

Also, he fixed it (or a mod did) so you can quote it now. So now you have no excuse. Or are you just going to ignore it?

I feel demoralized. I just made a giant post and everything got deleted because i hit the backspace button.

Yeah that's right, continue to ignore the leftists!

I'll repost it in a sec.

So then, you are misinformed on capitalism because you never read capitalist literature, and thus, can not make a rational opinion on capitalism.

I have read Animal Farm. Then I looked up George Orwell, and it said he was a communist. He was not a socialist advocating that socialism could never work, he was arguing that Stalin wasn't communist and that Trotsky was a true communist.

Where has Lamp used the word autistic to insult a communist/socialist?

I said most

At least we agree on something.

I never actually read it, because I thought it was a mistake. I'll reply to it in a minute, I just wanna make sure I get this part on before I hit backspace again.

edit:

Prove it.

Living on a dollar a day is described as impoverished. I guarantee you most highschool dropouts do not fit that criteria.

You are the one trying to prove that genetics plays a part. Thus you are the one that must provide a link.

Nope.

Says who?

Yes because I hit them.

I should attend to him/her and get help, yes. But other than that, I don't have to do squat for them, because they were jaywalking.

Stop bringing genetics into the discussion until you can prove it plays a part.

What?

That was withing a couple months. If the trend continues, then yes, it is a surge.

If something is going down, you can pretty solidly say, it will continue to go down.

And still climbing.

Small businesses are doing pretty well around my town. There are not many small businesses in my area though to start with.

The unemployment is still going down no matter how you look at it.

I am all for free, universal healthcare.

which makes it even more embarrassing that they have so many more factories than us.

If anarchism is always in a helpless situation, then it is helpless...

Tell me how it goes when you graduate college and try to become a manager right off the bat.

No more than 5 years tops.

I'll chalk that one down as a victory.

Yeah, you should help children out. Once they become adults though, they are on their own.

And look, he didn't end in poverty.

A lot of people couldn't read back then. Your point?

That's why there are things called the internet and libraries.

If everyone graduates highschool, they have a much better chance of finding a job.

They are not impoverished.

Survival of the fittest.

So basically they are brainwashed, idiots, or have a mental disorder. And I'm the immoral one?

According to the bible, the ten commandments are sins.

Ok.

Two things. One, could you name me a piece of capitalist literature? Because I'm pretty sure there is no basic book for capitalists...Two, I live in a capitalist country, and I have for my entire life. I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to make an opinion on capitalism. Have you ever lived in a socialist country? Have you ever read any of Marx's (or Engels/other major socialists) works? If neither of those is true, then you are misinformed because you get your information from biased 2nd party sources.

George Orwell was a democratic socialist.

I wasn't talking about insulting communists/socialists anymore. Although Kali has, I believe. And Shaw may have too.

I'm pretty sure most haven't. In fact, I'm pretty sure most forum members don't have more than 5 posts...

Can you prove it doesn't?
Because I have two sources proving it at least has a considerable effect. One of them is trustworthy. The other, well it seems a little biased but it still seems scientific. Although the way it ties in race sets off alarm bells.
http://www.rationality.net/intelligence.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-intelligence-in-our-genes

Statistics don't work the same way as physics mon ami.

Actually there are like no small businesses.....There are a couple inns in Mt. Holly and then the Olde World bakery. Nothing else I can think of. Actually no, one more thing. Pepes. And I never see anyone go there anymore, he charges too much.

You heard it here first folks, the recession will be over by 2013!!!

A minor and quite irrelevant one.

Yeah...no. Everyone is human. That's like saying sure we should admit children to hospitals but adults, lets not do that they are on their own.

Exactly. He dicked around in high school, which you say is so important, and then became a top scientist, arguably one of the best ever. Say something about his genetics, maybe?

Another uneducated person who made something of himself. Because he was born into a more favorable situation than many others, and its not right to just dismiss people born in an unfavorable situation.

Wrong, it will just add more people to the job market. We don't have enough jobs for those who are graduating college, and you propose they have a better chance of finding a job after graduating high school? No. They will be hired for completely unskilled labor, which an uneducated person has just as much of a chance at getting. If high school students are looking at it that way then why would they even want to graduate?

Could you find a source that lays out exactly what constitutes being in poverty in the US? In the US, not the world.

We aren't cavemen anymore, we are civilized human beings. We don't follow survival of the fittest on a personal scale anymore. Actually its more like survival of the most skilled or intelligent.

Well you certainly seem a bit immoral right now.

How is that relevant? He said, "That would be like saying only the Ten Commandments are sins."

http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html
I'll reply to the rest when I get back from school, but this site basically says, it is still an on-going debate where neither side has been able to prove they are right or the other side is wrong. In other words, it is largely irrelevant to this discussion, because the results are inconclusive.

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Though I also recommend you watch The pursuit of Happyness.

You haven't, so what makes you so sure of Socialism?

While that is an absurd argument, neither have you read Capitalist literature.

I have never once called a single person on the forums, or even in real life, autistic as an insult or otherwise. And I don't believe Kali has. Now you're just pulling shit out your ass to discredit us.

There are plenty of small businesses where I live, and I doubt there are none where you live.

It isn't as bad as you think it is.

It's nothing like that. At all.

No. It means that for any myriad of reasons, he is smart.

So really fucking smart people should be given the same as really fucking stupid people who can't do as much, for the sake of equality? That's unfair.

Since I just jumped in this conversation I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds stupid.

Poverty in the US is nothing like how all you upper class socialist wannabes think it is.

The most skilled and intelligent are the most fit to succeed in today's world. Fittest doesn't mean strongest.

Whatever you're talking about, morals aren't important.

I have never heard of Adam Smith. And I hardly think a movie has anything to do with any legitimate political debate. Although it was a good movie.

I have studied it and my preferred form of socialism has never been installed in a country, therefore its quite impossible for me to live in one.

I live in a capitalist country. I see capitalism and participate in capitalism every single day firsthand. That makes me qualified to decide for myself whether or not I prefer capitalism over socialism.

Well, considering Kali hasn't responded in a couple days and you just introduced yourself back into the argument, I hardly think arguing I'm trying to discredit you is valid.

Do you live where I live? No. Have you ever lived where I live. No. Do you even know exactly where I live? Again, no. I live in an area where small businesses simply wouldn't flourish or succeed. And I never said there was no small businesses, I in fact named some. We just don't have many and you're completely unqualified to argue that point.

I think its getting better. I think we will be out of it within the next few years. But definitely not by 2013.

Its exactly like that. He said we should help children but once they're adults they're on their own.

Would you be so good as to specify those reasons or are you just going to stick with a broad statement.

Irony. You seem to think its fair to completely dismiss people by the situation they were born into. Think of it this way. Twins are born and put up for adoption. One is adopted by a responsible and caring family who live in a middle class suburban neighborhood with a house and a pool. This is kid A. The other is adopted by an irresponsible family who live in a run down ghetto. This is kid B.
Kid A goes to elementary school, and is pushed hard by his parents and does well. Kid B goes to elementary school, but this one is old and run down just like the neighborhood. Kid B's adopted father is laid off and they have to move to an even more run down apartment and live off unemployment and the mother's salary as a housekeeper. Kid B can't concentrate in school, and as both kids move to middle school, kid B is falling quickly behind kid A. Kid A continues to do well. Kid B continues to be ignored by his parents, and ends up skipping school to hang with friends. The kids move to high school. In 9th grade, both kids continue to go on as they did before. Then they get into 10th grade, and Kid A lets his grades slip a little, but because he is in a better high school and has caring parents, he quickly brings it back up. Kid B is introduced and becomes addicted to drugs and alcohol. In 11th grade, Kid A aces all his classes and begins looking at colleges. Kid B is arrested for possession of drugs, and sentenced to mandatory rehab. In 12th grade, Kid A continues acing classes and is accepted to Yale to study medicine, he wants to be a doctor. Kid B, after a spell of rehab, begins to try and do his best in school. However, after all those years of just scraping by because of little motivation and bad teachers, he just barely graduates. Kid B goes on to become an unskilled worker at a Wal-Mart. Kid A goes through college and med school, and becomes a fairly wealthy doctor.

Does this sound implausible to you guys? Two kids, identical in genes, who go on to different situations. One is forgotten by the system, the other flourishes.

If you have no idea what I'm responding to, then don't fucking respond with your two sense.

Sly was the one saying poverty in the US is a dollar a day.... This is the US, poverty levels are higher than that. I'm pretty sure the US census bureau defines poverty as under 25,000 dollars a year.

True. But I think its a wrong to just leave people behind because they aren't "fit to live in our world". Everyone has a use.

Why is it that every time you, Kali, or Sly post it makes Kara make a little more sense when he says people that disagree with socialism are immoral? I didn't think it was true, but it seems to me the only people going against it on this thread continue saying things like, "morals are irrelevant" or "some people are better than others".

Did you even watch the pursuit of happyness? Also, how the hell can you try to argue against capitalism, without ever even hearing about Adam Smith?!?!?

No.

I live in a capitalist country. You are qualified to make an opinion on something based on two things. A.)You have read extensively and studied the subject, and decided you think the theory at least deserves a shot, or B.)You live in a country or conditions in which that theory is in place, and therefore you live it everyday. You know what something is if you have lived in it for your entire life up to this point. You don't have to study it, as for you its no longer a theory, its reality.

They difinitely do not measure it by less than a dollar a day.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/index.html
That source says in 2010, 46 million people living in the US were considered to be "in poverty". Now I highly doubt that 46 million people in the US were living on less than a dollar a day in 2010. In fact don't you think a number probably around 20,000 - 30,000 dollars a year is a fair estimate with those numbers? However they don't measur it just by income, there are a whole lot of complicated factors.

You can live in a capitalist country and have no fucking clue what capitalism is, or stands for. Just because you live in one, does not mean that you know what capitalism is. By your logic, any random Joe living in a country that claims to be communist should be able to form an opinion on communism. The fact that you never even heard of Adam Smith, not the fact that you never read anything from him, is what leads me to believe you do not know as much as you think you do about capitalism.
They difinitely do not measure it by less than a dollar a day.

From Wikipedia

Actually thats true....because if they live in any country today that claims to be communist, he has been thoroughly indoctrinated and educated in communism. But he is also indoctrinated not to believe in capitalism, and since he does not live in a capitalist country and this average joe had probably never read any capitalist literature, he is not qualified to make an opinion on capitalism. And what are you talking about? Of course I'm educated on capitalism! We are taught in school how great it is and how much socialism sucks! If I wasn't educated on capitalism in America, we would have a problem. I don't have to read capitalist theory to know what capitalism is. Although, as Viking Socrates has done, I will look up his and other capitalist writers books and read up on capitalist theory.

Of course they don't, because we are talking about the US here. I'm pretty sure there is no one in the US living on less than a dollar a day. That's not how Americans measure poverty because we are a first world country, our people aren't starving on the streets.

Key word. Extreme poverty. As I said before, I guarantee there is no one living in extreme poverty in the US. You could make more than a dollar a day sitting on the street with a stained and dented bucket. Not to mention all the temporary jobs in cities that pay a 100 dollars for a good days work (construction jobs).