<p>I guess a large part of this debate is belief in the human soul. Personally, among other reasons, I am a capitalist because I believe in such a concept. Working hard and maintaining one’s pride- not handouts and forced “equality.”</p>
<p>As I believe Churchill said, capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, and communism is the equal sharing of miseries.</p>
<p>That’s a very nice quote!</p>
<p>I find the two-pronged nobody will want to give up their money and money doesn’t make people happy argument interesting.</p>
<p>
But, as I have said, Churchill was a <strong><em>ing murderous </em></strong>*.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>giving money up won’t condemn someone to unhappiness - it will only make them unhappy in the short term (and quite unhappy), and that’s why it’s so hard. People feel they’e earned it, spent their whole lives making it, etc., and can’t fathom that their life wouldn’t actually end if they gave it away. </p>
<p>Receiving money makes people happy, having money does not. Not having money does not make people unhappy, giving away money does.</p>
<p>
The people with too much are few in comparison to the many with too few; if the proletariat had a mind to rise, the rich wouldn’t have much of a choice.</p>
<p>You know, Billy, just because a man may or may not be murderous doesn’t necessarily preclude the truth value of what he says.</p>
<p>For example, consider this quote:</p>
<p>By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.</p>
<p>Which is undoubtedly true, history has proven it. Guess who said it? Adolf Hitler, who I’m sure we can all agree is a sack of ****.</p>
<p>And Billy, we’ve all seen what happens when the proletariat gets fed up with economic conditions and rises up- the French Revolution gave rise to Napoleon, the Russian Revolution gave rise to Lenin…you give up one dictator for another. Was Napoleon any better than Louis XVI? Was Lenin any better than Czar Nicholas?</p>
<p>
Yet Churchill’s quote was both incorrect AND he was a *</em></strong>ing murderous *******.</p>
<p>
Napoleon wasn’t as bad as the Bourbon kings, Lenin wasn’t as bad as the Czars. However, I would have said “Stalin” if I were you, since he was the real oppressive prick. However, it didn’t have to end that way; if Lenin lived or Trotsky took power, things would have been very different. Though as it has already been noted, Russia was unprepared for a Marxist revolution.</p>
<p>Then here, a quote from Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, a man we both know never killed a man in his life:</p>
<p>Liberty, not communism, is the most contagious force in the world.</p>
<p>And that is why capitalism is so prevalent. And, in the words of dear old Ronald Reagan, don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.</p>
<p>
A quote means little. Communism means economic liberty; the “communism” claimed by the Soviets was a lie. Propaganda, to use a word from before.</p>
<p>
Reagan was an *******, too. And he’s wrong; the weak will benefit if the strong are brought down, as it is those who use their strength to oppress the weak.</p>
<p>But it is the rich who make the economy run, like it or not.
Let’s have a social experiment. Let’s eliminate the top 1% of wage earners in the USA. Reduce their salaries and bank accounts to zero. Now, we give this money to the bottom 1% of society, distributed equally. What would happen?</p>
<p>Well, let’s examine the bottom 1% of wage earners. Assuming our experiment applies only to legal American citizens, we see that the poorest among us are either those who are lazy, unmotivated, and willing to accept such government handouts, or they are those who are just down on their luck. So all these billions go to these two groups. Giving money to those who are unmotivated leeches on the system will do nothing. The money will be squabbled on drugs, alcohol, and pleasures of the flesh. Those who are down on their luck who receive this money will be relieved, for it is as if they are given a fresh start. With restored confidence, they attempt to return to the workplace.</p>
<p>But here’s the problem. There is no workplace.</p>
<p>When we deprived the top 1% of all their money, we laid waste to the vast majority of big business. Gone are the phone companies and the software companies and the insurance firms, gone are the chain stores and retailers. With all their funds dried up, the companies flounder. The number of jobs lost is astounding. The economic repercussions are staggering.</p>
<p>Bottom line: Don’t pull down the rich, go out and get a ****ing job and stop being a dreg on society.</p>
<p>
In a capitalistic economy, yes, by definition; hence the proposal to replace it with a communist economy.</p>
<p>
That would be pretty stupid; you would still have 1% of the people controlling most of the wealth; thus, it would be against communism.</p>
<p>
Again, this isn’t what would happen. Anyway, communism is a world system, and everyone would get theirs, not just top/bottom 1%.</p>
<p>
You seem to be confusing communism with “capitalism but we just kill off the top 1%.” The workers take over most every industry; some directly controlled by the workers’ republic, others owned collectively and equally by everyone who works there.</p>
<p>
I’ll pass this on to the starving children, oppressed underpaid workers, and dying poor the world over; I’m sure they’ll be thrilled at all the opportunity your words open for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already gave mention to the fact that not all poor people are like this. And the ones who genuinely are impoverished by no fault of their own are deserving of some form of aid.</p>
<p>But the reason capitalism doesn’t always work is primarily because people don’t contribute. Not the genuinely poor, the lazy poor.</p>
<p>We wouldn’t have such high unemployment right now if people just went out and got a ****ing job. Lazy bums are bringing this country down.</p>
<p>
The vast majority of poor people (I’m talking billions of people here) are unable to rise out of poverty because the rich have so many of the world’s resources it becomes physically impossible for everyone to have enough.</p>
<p>
It doesn’t work because it is an oppressive oligarchy of the rich. The rich stand upon the back of the poor, who, lying prostrate in the dirt, have the power to rise, but simply lack the will. For now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly what I’m saying. Capitalism only works when everyone contributes.</p>
<p>You know Billy, you seem to remind me of a certain…gentleman who said what you just said in not so many words: A new specter is haunting Europe- the specter of communism!
I actually own a copy of the Manifesto…I really do need to get around to reading it, just to remind myself why I am a capitalist.</p>
<p>
TCBH was being very sarcastic. Unemployment only measures those who are actively looking for jobs and seeking employment; thus, high unemployment means many people want work but can’t get it.</p>
<p>
May it haunt the world!</p>
<p>
Marx’s ideas have influenced public schools, medicare, social security, child labor laws, minimum wage, labor unions, working conditions, and many other government practices.</p>
<p>I’m not saying social and economic reform is bad- although at the moment I am a conservative, had I lived in the latter half of the 19th century I probably would have been a Progressive- the life of a worker was disgusting. I would have been all in favor of 90% of the Progressive program, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Being liberal is all good to a certain degree, but when you reach the desired end point you have to say alright that’s good, let’s be conservatives.</p>
<p>Rereading that, my syntax is rather convoluted. Ah well.</p>