- 19 Jun 2004 19:18
#193270
Well he's a liberal, obviously. US liberals favor a mixed economy, with some socialism and some capitalism. They hate the extremes.
You mean its done in what you think is the interest of the people. I happen to think pure capitalism is in the interests of the people. Does that make it okay to conquer the world in the name of capitalism?
Everyone thinks their own idealogy is in the best interest of the people.
The sad reality is that nuclear warfare would murder millions of people. But you still advocate it. If you only want to destroy the military bases, why not advocate mini-nukes or conventional warfare?
You are right, I don't see a whole lot of difference. That is because I look at the world from a point of view of what limits and what enhances freedom. Communism limits personal freedom by limiting your ability to freely trade with your neighbors. Nazism does that as well, just for a different reason (glory of the state or race or whatever). Both seem to me to be militant idealogies that advocate use of brute force to make people conform to their idea of the ideal society.
I would advocate helping them through peaceful and voluntary ways (i.e. charity). If socialists and communists devoted their energies to helping people through charity, rather than through violence, they would do a lot more good for the poor.
Replacing government with "voluntary cooperation" is utopian, it has no basis in reality. How would you get everyone to voluntarily cooperate? Kill all those with opinion different than yours? What would you do if someone chose not to cooperate?
The fact is that communism leads to dictatorship of some sort. It requires massive amounts of coercion to control the entire economy. Whether that is dictatorship of the few or the many makes little difference to the individual who is being oppressed by it.
I've read parts of it. Evidence for the failure of utopian idealogies is everywhere. Free market capitalism is not utopian. It does not claim to eliminate poverty or anything. What it does claim is to give people opportunity to advance themselves. The problem of poverty is something to be solved by good-will and willingness to give up some of your time to help others. Not by militant idealogies. The thing about capitalism is that it gives people enough prosperity so that they actually have the extra time and money to help the poor. That is why Americans gave $250 billion to charity in 2002 (no doubt they would give more if the government didn't take away almost half their money).
The difference between us is that I believe people are naturally good. They will help the poor if they have the chance. You believe that people are naturally selfish and evil, and must be forced to help the poor.
I don't believe the ends ever justify the means (unless the survival of the human race was at stake or something). Rights should always be respected - the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. No goal can justify violating those.
Damien wrote:Haven't read it, but thats very true. I don't think any country is headed in a more right-wing direction. That is because politicians rarely give up power, they always want more. And moving in a left-wing direction generally gives them more power, while moving in a right wing direction gives them less.
And George Soros still isn't a true capitalist. He may have been strongly against communism, but he is also clearly against free market capitalism.
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology ... apital.htm
Very interesting. So what is he then?
It's no wonder that the folks over on the Final Phase Forum hate Soros and in fact call him a "red capitalist"!
Well he's a liberal, obviously. US liberals favor a mixed economy, with some socialism and some capitalism. They hate the extremes.
Damien wrote:As I have already said and made clear: Red Imperialism is actually more than acceptable in my books - because is done in the simple interests of the people.
You mean its done in what you think is the interest of the people. I happen to think pure capitalism is in the interests of the people. Does that make it okay to conquer the world in the name of capitalism?
Everyone thinks their own idealogy is in the best interest of the people.
Damien wrote:Tis the sad reality of nuclear warfare
The sad reality is that nuclear warfare would murder millions of people. But you still advocate it. If you only want to destroy the military bases, why not advocate mini-nukes or conventional warfare?
Damien wrote:This is just outlining your obvious opinions of Marx and Marxism as a right-wing American, and comparing it to German Nazism.
You are right, I don't see a whole lot of difference. That is because I look at the world from a point of view of what limits and what enhances freedom. Communism limits personal freedom by limiting your ability to freely trade with your neighbors. Nazism does that as well, just for a different reason (glory of the state or race or whatever). Both seem to me to be militant idealogies that advocate use of brute force to make people conform to their idea of the ideal society.
Damien wrote:Maybe a suitable alternative is in fact in order instead then: how would you go about freeing the workers of the world, or would they in fact stay oppressed at the bloody hands of capitalism forever under your ideals?
I would advocate helping them through peaceful and voluntary ways (i.e. charity). If socialists and communists devoted their energies to helping people through charity, rather than through violence, they would do a lot more good for the poor.
Damien wrote:Yes - but not if we get to the stage of separating people and government. This has been one of the big flaws of communism - if not the biggest - in its practice in the Twentieth Century that the right-wing anti-communists of both the West and the East have in fact picked-on on many a time and on many an occasion.
Replacing government with "voluntary cooperation" is utopian, it has no basis in reality. How would you get everyone to voluntarily cooperate? Kill all those with opinion different than yours? What would you do if someone chose not to cooperate?
The fact is that communism leads to dictatorship of some sort. It requires massive amounts of coercion to control the entire economy. Whether that is dictatorship of the few or the many makes little difference to the individual who is being oppressed by it.
Damien wrote:Have you ever read Thomas More, and Utopia? He basically wrote that it should ideally really be a case of preventing the people of society - by peaceful means - from in fact falling below the highest common denominator. This is where Trotsky wanted to openly take communism eventually, but the major main problem society was not - and socialism was ultimately not - ready at all for that stage yet. Utopianism. Or true communism.
I've read parts of it. Evidence for the failure of utopian idealogies is everywhere. Free market capitalism is not utopian. It does not claim to eliminate poverty or anything. What it does claim is to give people opportunity to advance themselves. The problem of poverty is something to be solved by good-will and willingness to give up some of your time to help others. Not by militant idealogies. The thing about capitalism is that it gives people enough prosperity so that they actually have the extra time and money to help the poor. That is why Americans gave $250 billion to charity in 2002 (no doubt they would give more if the government didn't take away almost half their money).
The difference between us is that I believe people are naturally good. They will help the poor if they have the chance. You believe that people are naturally selfish and evil, and must be forced to help the poor.
Damien wrote:Freeing the workers from their unjust, capitalist chains is "evil"?
"The ends justify the means".
I don't believe the ends ever justify the means (unless the survival of the human race was at stake or something). Rights should always be respected - the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. No goal can justify violating those.