Enslave the Poor Options

[Dogmeat]

It's really dawned on me that the poor, be they white, black, mexican, eskimo, french, who or whatever ..

Essentially contribute nothing to society.

They're lazy, they have bad attitudes, they aren't motivated, and generally speaking are just leeches on the rest of us who are actually attempting to be productive in life.

The problem with slavery in the past is that it targeted people by race, relegion or other politically incorrect classifications.

I propose that with the last century of what I'll call "Civil Rights Development" in mind, we re-instate slavery however we only enslave those who are jobless.

In essense, we can find everyone a job and then provide them with healthcare, etc, if they are enslaved.

It would be bad business for us to not take care of our slaves, however, the price for us taking care of them will be their slavery.

IE, they will work when, where, and how we tell them to work.

Eventually, once they've worked long and hard enough and are able to support themselves, they will be free of slavery, and than can own their own slaves.

I mean think about it ..

The poor in the ghettos, trailer parks, igloos, whatever... are poor, dejected, on drugs, etc ... they hate where they are, yet somehow, they refuse to leave.

I say we make em leave the shitholes they live in. If they won't get out on their own, we'll make them, enslave them, and force them to better themselves..

All the while contributing to the economy ... we'll have a society of productive people who aren't lazy anymore.

Sound good? I think so.

Dogmeat for President!

[FORSAKENR320]

has been done.

ever heard of indentured servitude?

[Dogmeat]

has been done.

ever heard of indentured servitude?

Yeah but that only targeted blacks didn't it? I wanna just enslave the poor as a whole...we'll have a melting pot of slaves

[FORSAKENR320]

Yeah but that only targeted blacks didn't it? I wanna just enslave the poor as a whole...we'll have a melting pot of slaves

Indentured Servitude in Colonial America
By Deanna Barker, Frontier Resources


One half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants. At times, as many as 75% of the population of some colonies were under terms of indenture. Even on the frontier, according to the 1790 U.S. Census, 6% of the Kentucky population was indentured.

Citizens of the colonies would deal with indenture on a daily basis. My intent is to give the reenactor or interpreter some of the background about working beside, owning or having been an indentured servant.

This was a labor system, not a system of apprenticeship. (Galenson, 6) The historic basis for indenture grew out of English agricultural servitude and began because of labor shortages in England and in the colonies. It developed at a time when England had a great number of people being displaced from farming. This led to an early growth of the indentured labor system.

The importation of white servants under contracts known as indentures proved more profitable as a short-term labor source than enslaving Indians or using free labor. Eventually, the final attempt to ease labor shortages was enslavement of Africans. Wherever you find slavery, you first find indentures.

A labor-intensive cash crop such as tobacco required a large work force. The earliest indentured servants were brought to Virginia as farm laborers. The importance of indenture can be seen in Virginia, where in 1618 the colony offered a headright, a grant of 50 acres per servant, as an incentive to planters to import more servants from England. The headright became the property of the owner, not the servant. (Galenson, 12) According to Galenson, "the basic elements of the system were in use by the Virginia Company by 1620, and may have been worked out earlier ..."(3)

In practice, the servant would sell himself to an agent or ship captain before leaving the British Isles. In turn, the contract would be sold to a buyer in the colonies to recover the cost of the passage. The crossing in steerage was grim. One indentured servant, Thomas Morally, was given three biscuits a day to eat and each mess of five men was given three pints of water per day.

Criminals convicted of a capital crime in England could be transported in lieu of a death sentance (for the theft of an item with a cost of as little as one shilling). Servitude also could result from indebtedness, where a person, their spouse or parents owed money, and the person was sold into servitude to recover the debt. In other cases, a parish indentured orphans in order to keep them off the poor roles. Plus, the poor sometimes sold themselves into indenture just to survive.

In most cases, the work of the indentured servant would be household or agricultural unskilled labor. There was also a great demand for skilled craftsmen. If an indentured servant had a skill that was in demand, like weaving, smithing or carpentry, the change of negotiating a shorter contract was quite good.

In theory, the person is only selling his or her labor. In practice, however, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of the servant was harsh and often brutal. In fact, the Virginia Colony prescribed "bodily punishment for not heeding the commands of the master." (Ballagh, 45) Half the servants died in the first two years. As a result of this type of treatment, runaways were frequent. The courts realized this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers. (A.E. Smith 264-270).

If a servant worked their full indenture, they received freedom dues, which were based on Hebrew law from the Old Testament. (Deut. 15:12-15) Many colonies also granted land to the newly freed servant.

As reenactors of the eighteenth century, every one of us would interact with indentured servants on a daily basis. A fairly large number of us would have been servants at one time. Yet, at most reenactments, this institution is noticeably lacking, along with travel papers and identification papers. As an early Virginian, John Pory, put it, "Our principal wealth ... consisteth in servants." (Galenson 3)

http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html



also:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant


is the main reason why i hate black people bitching about slavery. white people had the same shit happen to them they were "free" but without anyoptions to do anything else... so in my opinion, still slaves.

[impala454]

The reason black people bitching about slavery bugs me is that none of them were slaves. The whole "your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa wronged my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa" crap gets old. So by their reasoning, if someone dies in jail before their sentence is up, should their kids be forced to take their place?

[Testm0nkey]

impala has a black person ever approached you and complained about slavery? sitting in school and learning about black history in february doesnt count...

[Dogmeat]

impala has a black person ever approached you and complained about slavery? sitting in school and learning about black history in february doesnt count...

I've actually had mexicans bitch to me about slavery before of all people that shit was so sad it was funny, they thought their grandfathers were slaves

I almost cried it was so funny

[James]

impala has a black person ever approached you and complained about slavery? sitting in school and learning about black history in february doesnt count...

I have had that happen before. It's kind of awkward.

On a side note, zero mention of Black History Month has been made at my school. Wonder if it's because we have maybe 5 black kids in the entire school.

[RitalinJunkie]

I had someone bitching to me about how their ancesters were all oppressed and made slaves by white people.....My family was 1) Irish (discriminated against) 2) anti slave) and 3) I showed them a text i had from US history comparing the conditions of African slaves to to Irish immigrants.....which in many cases were worse for the Irish (being tricked basically into the indentured servant system as soon as they were off the boat).



btw....Turns out her family is not even from Africa, but the carribean and didnt come over until after slavery had been abolished......stupid cunt

[Testm0nkey]

... there were black slaves in the carribean as well, smarty pants

were they adults? ive made my whole life without having that situation happen in real life. hm i wonder what the difference between us are about that

[FORSAKENR320]

... there were black slaves in the carribean as well, smarty pants

were they adults? ive made my whole life without having that situation happen in real life. hm i wonder what the difference between us are about that

I'VE ACTUALLY HAD THIS HAPPEN TO ME BEFORE... and yes, there was ALOT of slaves in the caribbean, forced to work the cane fields. cuba too. alot of those islands were just relay points for ships. drop some off, pick some up, inbetween destinations.

but i am confused by what glen said, did they come FROM the islands to america after slavery was abolished? or do you mean they went to the islands after slavery was abolished?

[Oasis]

Speaking of black people, I really want a pet monkey. Not one of those spider monkeys though, they jump around too much and I don't want my stuff fucked up at my house. Just one of those black cuddly looking monkeys that like jumping up and hugging people.

[FORSAKENR320]

Speaking of black people, I really want a pet monkey. Not one of those spider monkeys though, they jump around too much and I don't want my stuff fucked up at my house. Just one of those black cuddly looking monkeys that like jumping up and hugging people.

ALL MONKEYS/BLACK PEOPLE WILL FUCK YOUR STUFF UP

[pebkac]

I'VE ACTUALLY HAD THIS HAPPEN TO ME BEFORE...

You were enslaved in a Caribbean island nation?

Speaking of black people, I really want a pet monkey. Not one of those spider monkeys though, they jump around too much and I don't want my stuff fucked up at my house. Just one of those black cuddly looking monkeys that like jumping up and hugging people.

Screw that. I plan on getting a pet midget. If I train it right, it will pick shit up FOR ME and not fuck shit up.

[FORSAKENR320]

You were enslaved in a Caribbean island nation?

ya mon

id be crazy 'ard libbin' on dee i-land

[impala454]

impala has a black person ever approached you and complained about slavery? sitting in school and learning about black history in february doesnt count...

Yeah, I had a black roommate when I was in college and he'd bitch about it all the time. Not to mention you see people on TV and those jokers like farakhan. It's not like black people are just going to walk up to me and say "OMG GIMME MY REPARATIONS CHECKS BITCH!"

[The Fanatic]

SHUT THE FUCK UP MONKEY! I HAVE COMPANY!

Actually poor people are already enslaved, wage slaves.


and AMEN Glenn. I don't know how many black people I have had to tell "My ancestors were poor and Irish we did not have any slaves!!!!"

[impala454]

Actually poor people are already enslaved, wage slaves.

not hardly. nobody is forcing anyone to work low wage jobs.

[Testm0nkey]

circumstance can also be a force. not necessarily just a gun to someones head

[impala454]

right. that's not everyone else's fault though.

[The Fanatic]

not hardly. nobody is forcing anyone to work low wage jobs.

There are only so many high paying jobs. The system "forces" individuals to work low wage jobs because corporations have to make the bottom line. It is not direct coercion but merely the way the game is played. I'm not advocating complete socialism and wage equality because there will always be individuals who are born to die in the shit of others. Although I reject the commonly held conservative notion that every person has equal opportunity to succeed and escape their circumstances. If you are born in the inner city without a stable family life and no one to look up to sometimes the only viable option is to join a gang.

The problem is cultural conditioning and circumstance; blaming everything on individual choice is foolish. Do you think anyone would honestly choose to live in the inner city and smoke meth/crack/other stimulants if they had other options and opportunities? It is a vicious circle: drugs help individuals escape reality while at the same time maintaining the poor status quo.

No one is forcing anyone to work low wage jobs but the economy and the populace demands a value menu...

[impala454]

There are only so many high paying jobs.

there is not some set number of jobs out there. hell you can create your own job. this notion that people are tied to some specific way of life with no possible way out is bullshit, and does nothing but breed people of the same attitude. "Well I can't ever amount to anything, so I won't bother trying." Saying that the only option is to do drugs or join gangs is utter bullshit.

You're right though, you don't choose where you're born or who your parents are. But everything you do from then on is all you and only you.

The economy demanding a dollar menu doesn't mean any one specific person is required to man those positions. Whether it's a 16 year old kid raising money for a car, or a 47 year old drugged up poor person who can't hold any other jobs because they have zero ambition.

Therin lies the difference between Socialists & Caplitalists. One society is driven by ambition, the other is satisfied with a mediocre life.

[The Fanatic]

there is not some set number of jobs out there. hell you can create your own job. this notion that people are tied to some specific way of life with no possible way out is bullshit, and does nothing but breed people of the same attitude. "Well I can't ever amount to anything, so I won't bother trying." Saying that the only option is to do drugs or join gangs is utter bullshit.

You're right though, you don't choose where you're born or who your parents are. But everything you do from then on is all you and only you.

The economy demanding a dollar menu doesn't mean any one specific person is required to man those positions. Whether it's a 16 year old kid raising money for a car, or a 47 year old drugged up poor person who can't hold any other jobs because they have zero ambition.

Therin lies the difference between Socialists & Caplitalists. One society is driven by ambition, the other is satisfied with a mediocre life.

Choices are limited by circumstance. And I would argue that capitalism provides most citizens with mediocrity or poverty.


There are a limited number of jobs out there because we depend on finite resources (IE money, food, gas, infrastructure etc)

This post has been edited by The Fanatic: Feb 25 2008, 04:33 PM

[Testm0nkey]

Therin lies the difference between Socialists & Caplitalists. One society is driven by ambition, the other is satisfied with helping others

theres a little edit for you. impala you cant be sure you wouldnt turn out to be a meth smoking innercity white adult working minimum wage had you grown up in worse circumstances. because from my understanding, thats not your background. so dont be so harsh

[impala454]

Choices are limited by circumstance.

but circumstances often occur due to choices.

And I would argue that capitalism provides most citizens with mediocrity or poverty.

This makes no sense at all. Are you now saying that "most citizens" in our society are in a medicore life or in poverty!??

There are a limited number of jobs out there because we depend on finite resources (IE money, food, gas, infrastructure etc)

That's a stupid statement. The number of jobs in our country changes constantly. I could go start a company tomorrow, or someone else could lose their company. I could quit my job and go flip burgers, or not have a job at all. Or that bum on the road could go get a job as a janitor. To say there's not enough jobs and that's why there's poor people is utterly stupid.

[impala454]

theres a little edit for you.

"Helping people"? You think socialism helps people?!?! Make everybody miserable so nobody is extremely miserable. What a wonderful way to live life.

impala you cant be sure you wouldnt turn out to be a meth smoking innercity white adult working minimum wage had you grown up in worse circumstances. because from my understanding, thats not your background. so dont be so harsh

But by the same token, how can you be sure I would have been a meth smoking adult working minimum wage? The point is, the opportunity is there.

[Psykopath]

"Helping people"? You think socialism helps people?!?! Make everybody miserable so nobody is extremely miserable. What a wonderful way to live life.
But by the same token, how can you be sure I would have been a meth smoking adult working minimum wage? The point is, the opportunity is there.

So, how do you have a first hand account of democratic socialism (which is what I assume people are arguing for here)? When did you live in a western European nation, or study there systems so extensively?

I mean, you seem to know so much about them to be able to say they are 100% evil and wrong!
That...or your spitting out right-wing propagandized knowledge on the subject which you milked from some Fox News lackey. (Same goes on the opposite spectrum for those that defend pure socialism)

[impala454]

All you need to know is what the world socialism means. Would you live a happy life if you knew that whatever job you currently have is all you would ever be allowed to amount to by the government?

Sure, some people in communist countries are/were probably happy. Because they never knew anything else.

[Psykopath]

All you need to know is what the world socialism means. Would you live a happy life if you knew that whatever job you currently have is all you would ever be allowed to amount to by the government?

Sure, some people in communist countries are/were probably happy. Because they never knew anything else.

You're oversimplifying the varying shades of socialism into one propagandized term.

Read my above post. I think I've already pointed out this inconsistency in regards to Aaron/Dogmeat.

Nobody here is arguing in favor of pure socialism, which is what you seem to assume we are, as well as what you think is all that exists in that spectrum.

Sure, some people in communist countries are/were probably happy. Because they never knew anything else.

And GODDAMMIT: Communism and Socialism are not the same.
Marx argued that "Socialism was a stage on the road to Communism." Key difference?: Socialism has a State, Communism does not.
And again I emphasize: Nobody here is arguing for pure Socialism (on the vein of Marx's definition in the very least).

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Feb 25 2008, 05:16 PM

[impala454]

You're oversimplifying the varying shades of socialism into one propagandized term.

Read my above post. I think I've already pointed out this inconsistency in regards to Aaron/Dogmeat.

Nobody here is arguing in favor of pure socialism, which is what you seem to assume we are, as well as what you think is all that exists in that spectrum.

What does it matter whether it's "pure" socialism? Why do you need the government to control any aspect of your life whatsoever?

[Psykopath]

What does it matter whether it's "pure" socialism? Why do you need the government to control any aspect of your life whatsoever?

A--HA!
So you're against wire-taps? The Patriot-Act? Selective Service? etc. etc. etc...



And if you can't understand the different terminology that is being addressed here then you have absolutely no clue wtf you're trying to argue against or for in this thread.

[The Fanatic]

Wow nice retort impala


Saying my ideas are stupid blows them right out of the water


The truth is there are pros and cons to all economic systems. And yes you can read, but you have trouble with comprehension, I did say that most of our citizens are either living with mediocrity or are poverty stricken.

Yeah we don't need government control and regulation

DOWN WITH MINIMUM WAGE AND CHILD WORK SAFETY LAWS BLAHHHHHHHHHH!

Pure capitalism is brutish and inhumane; doing everything you can get away with at the lowest cost.

The bottom line.

I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to understand: Not everyone can go out and make a million dollars because there is a LIMITED amount of capital. For one to be rich there have to be a million under him that are poor. Billions of dollars are made off of the sweat and labor of many.


Socialism is not about control it is about human decency and class equality. Control is the realm of governments not socio economic systems.

[impala454]

A--HA!
So you're against wire-taps? The Patriot-Act? Selective Service? etc. etc. etc...

how does the patriot act decide what job you are to work? or what doctor you're allowed to see? or what states you're allowed to visit? I fail to see any correlation there bud.

And if you can't understand the different terminology that is being addressed here then you have absolutely no clue wtf you're trying to argue against or for in this thread.

you'll have to be specific about what terminology I apparently "can't" understand

[The Fanatic]

Why do you need the government to control any aspect of your life whatsoever?

[Testm0nkey]

denmark/sweden/northern europe are some of the most "communist" evil places according to impala i am guessing. the people must be in so much need and must be absolutely miserable! that explains why they are so damn happy all the time and americans love traveling there. because its such a miserable place

"helping" people even a welfare state is not "controlling" people.

[impala454]

Wow nice retort impala
Saying my ideas are stupid blows them right out of the water

Don't pin me as some witless retard. I called your statement stupid, and then proceeded to tell you why I felt it was.

The truth is there are pros and cons to all economic systems.

That's an amazing conclusion /golfclap

And yes you can read, but you have trouble with comprehension, I did say that most of our citizens are either living with mediocrity or are poverty stricken.

Well it's pretty difficult to comprehend something that doesn't make any sense. What exactly gives you the idea that "most americans live in mediocrity or are poverty stricken"? 8.6% of americans make less than $10,000. 21.6% make less than $20,000. How you turn that into "most" americans is incomprehensible.

Yeah we don't need government control and regulation

DOWN WITH MINIMUM WAGE AND CHILD WORK SAFETY LAWS BLAHHHHHHHHHH!

If you really took what I said as "do away with minimum wage and child work safety laws" or think from my posts that's what I believe, then I've severely failed to correctly assume your level of intelligence. I will try to connect the dots for you in my future debates with you.

Pure capitalism is brutish and inhumane; doing everything you can get away with at the lowest cost.

Agreed

I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to understand: Not everyone can go out and make a million dollars because there is a LIMITED amount of capital.

It's not hard for me to understand it at all, but it's not what you were saying. You were saying there's a limited amount of jobs. There's not. People can do whatever they want. And you don't have to make a million dollars to not be poor. And again, one doesn't necessarily need to be rich in order to not be poor.

For one to be rich there have to be a million under him that are poor. Billions of dollars are made off of the sweat and labor of many.

You think every single job in existence must lead to a poor person doing all the "sweat and labor"? I can name jobs all day where that's not the case.

Socialism is not about control it is about human decency and class equality. Control is the realm of governments not socio economic systems.

There are no "classes" in socialism. Everyone is one and the same. You have no ambition, no strive to be better than you are, or to excel at what you do. It is truly the definition of mediocrity. It saddens me that college educated american citizens can believe this is a legitimate way of life.

[impala454]

denmark/sweden/northern europe are some of the most "communist" evil places according to impala i am guessing. the people must be in so much need and must be absolutely miserable! that explains why they are so damn happy all the time and americans love traveling there. because its such a miserable place

I don't know anything about denmark/sweden/northern europe. I do know America they are not.

"helping" people even a welfare state is not "controlling" people.

Sure it is, they're taking my money and giving it to someone else.

[Testm0nkey]

Everyone is one and the same. You have no ambition, no strive to be better than you are, or to excel at what you do. It is truly the definition of mediocrity.


-
thats absolutely wrong.

[blaarg]

I don't know anything about denmark/sweden/northern europe. I do know America they are not.

Well I know a little bit about Denmark...

Here is a funny story. There were three Chinese people they were "protesting" in the town square and they had a banner with all the problems/grievances with Scandanavia countries (ruled by monarchy, etc... it was written pretty illegibly but it was easy to see they were bashing them) and then one of them was holding a portrait of Mao. And anyways written at the bottom was the line "The only way to prosperity and happiness is through the teachings of Mao."

Anyways as I was passing, a group of Danish people was like, "happiness?!? we are the happiest country in the world!" and then tried to proceed to give one of the people a hug, but she decline.

Anyways, after living over here it is pretty apparent that they know what's going on and are pretty content with how they live. I mean almost all definitely think government is in the job of genuinely helping people, which if you had to contrast that with America I bet it is considerably lower (I mean, look at the approval rating of congress/president I would find it hard if a majority of people tihnk government genuinely helps people...I bet more thinks it in the business of corruption). I think this is the major difference. People are more accepting of handing over more tax money because they think that they are genuinely going to be helping people (which I think the Danish government does do a pretty good job of that).



But yeah, would I like to live here...probably not (because I have a hard time understanding what they fuck they are saying in Danish). Is it an evil bad place where everything is fucked up because the government is involved in a lot of things and everyone pays 50% taxes: not in the least.

[Testm0nkey]

democratic socialism is like a fucking workable utopia

[blaarg]

A side part of the lack of motivation in a socialist setting.

In Denmark there is not really a major wage discrepancy between workers (i.e. a postman doesn't earn that much less than say an engineer). Most people would think "well if they don't earn more why would anyone have a motivation to take some of the harder professions, I mean if everyone is making the same amount of money why isn't everyone a postman?"

However, the Danes approach it in a different fashion, "well there is not much difference, so why not do what I want to be doing." So everyone has reasons for doing the type of the job they want to do rather than financial motives. Engineers are engineers because they like it. Doctors are doctors because they want to help people. Postmen/women do what they do probably for reasons like they don't want to take their work home with them, etc... I mean I saw an interview with a garbage man, and he said he likes his job because he has no problem going to all of his daughter's school events in the afternoon/evening time.

[Testm0nkey]

hahaha i saw that same 20/20 or cnn report or whatever it was that you are talking about. i was thinking of posting about that garbage man! he loved being a garbageman because he knew how important his job was and he liked interacting with the people.

[blaarg]

Anyways, that's my observation. If anyone has any statements/questions about what it means to live in probably one of the most socialist countries in the devloped world, I think I can probably answer them a llittle better than a lot of other people on the boards

[Testm0nkey]

hey ive been there too

[blaarg]

hey ive been there too

that may be true, but I'm living there....

[pebkac]

What does it matter whether it's "pure" socialism? Why do you need the government to control any aspect of your life whatsoever?

WOW...

This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've ever read.

I personally love the fact that the government controls the whole people not murdering and stealing from me part. But I guess I'm just a hippy in that respect.

[impala454]

Well I know a little bit about Denmark...

Here is a funny story. There were three Chinese people they were "protesting" in the town square and they had a banner with all the problems/grievances with Scandanavia countries (ruled by monarchy, etc... it was written pretty illegibly but it was easy to see they were bashing them) and then one of them was holding a portrait of Mao. And anyways written at the bottom was the line "The only way to prosperity and happiness is through the teachings of Mao."

Anyways as I was passing, a group of Danish people was like, "happiness?!? we are the happiest country in the world!" and then tried to proceed to give one of the people a hug, but she decline.

Anyways, after living over here it is pretty apparent that they know what's going on and are pretty content with how they live. I mean almost all definitely think government is in the job of genuinely helping people, which if you had to contrast that with America I bet it is considerably lower (I mean, look at the approval rating of congress/president I would find it hard if a majority of people tihnk government genuinely helps people...I bet more thinks it in the business of corruption). I think this is the major difference. People are more accepting of handing over more tax money because they think that they are genuinely going to be helping people (which I think the Danish government does do a pretty good job of that).
But yeah, would I like to live here...probably not (because I have a hard time understanding what they fuck they are saying in Danish). Is it an evil bad place where everything is fucked up because the government is involved in a lot of things and everyone pays 50% taxes: not in the least.

I should probably clarify, when I said "America they are not" I meant as far as infrastructure, sheer numbers of people, expanse of land, power, etc. Interesintg anecdote on them though. It sounds like it works for them. The real question is though, do you really think the US is some evil bad place where everything is fucked up because the government blah blah etc etc?

[impala454]

hahaha i saw that same 20/20 or cnn report or whatever it was that you are talking about. i was thinking of posting about that garbage man! he loved being a garbageman because he knew how important his job was and he liked interacting with the people.

Yeah so socialising America would make all the lazy ass people who dont work or work shit jobs enjoy their job and suddenly realize how important their burger flipping job is?

[impala454]

WOW...

This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've ever read.

probably because you didn't understand what I was saying. partially my fault, partially your fault. and I highly doubt it's the dumbest post you've ever read.

I personally love the fact that the government controls the whole people not murdering and stealing from me part. But I guess I'm just a hippy in that respect.

I'm not talking about simple law. Being murdered is not part of your everyday life. I'm talking about taking half your money, telling you where you must go to a doctor, telling you what job you have to work, what school you go to, where you can live, how big your family can be, forcing you to do things that should be your decision. Obviously killing and stealing is not a valid "choice" in your life, but all the other things I listed should be. Hillary & others want to begin taking those choices from you. Perhaps the automatons of denmark can be brainwashed into enjoying taking out the garbage, or going through years of school to become an engineer, only to make the some life as a garbage man, but I will not be. And I suspect most Americans feel the same way. It's our given right as American citizens to have as shitty, or as great a life as we make for ourselves.

I don't let many things scare me as far as politics goes, but forced socialized healthcare like what Canada has scares me. It really scares me. I have had 3 surgeries in my life, and I know that if I had not been able to choose the doctors that operated on me, I'd be in really bad shape right now.

[FORSAKENR320]

circumstance can also be a force. not necessarily just a gun to someones head

at least someone understood why i said indentured servants are the same as slaves....

[Testm0nkey]

Yeah so socialising America would make all the lazy ass people who dont work or work shit jobs enjoy their job and suddenly realize how important their burger flipping job is?

if this all happened tomorrow, no. but that would never happen and we arent talking about just waking up one morning and having everything flipped around and different

do you think americans are just a lost cause?

[Oasis]

I still want a pet monkey. Goddammit

[The Fanatic]

probably because you didn't understand what I was saying. partially my fault, partially your fault. and I highly doubt it's the dumbest post you've ever read.
I'm not talking about simple law. Being murdered is not part of your everyday life. I'm talking about taking half your money, telling you where you must go to a doctor, telling you what job you have to work, what school you go to, where you can live, how big your family can be, forcing you to do things that should be your decision. Obviously killing and stealing is not a valid "choice" in your life, but all the other things I listed should be. Hillary & others want to begin taking those choices from you. Perhaps the automatons of denmark can be brainwashed into enjoying taking out the garbage, or going through years of school to become an engineer, only to make the some life as a garbage man, but I will not be. And I suspect most Americans feel the same way. It's our given right as American citizens to have as shitty, or as great a life as we make for ourselves.

I don't let many things scare me as far as politics goes, but forced socialized healthcare like what Canada has scares me. It really scares me. I have had 3 surgeries in my life, and I know that if I had not been able to choose the doctors that operated on me, I'd be in really bad shape right now.

Impala, do you oppose all forms of socialized medicine or just nationalized health care? (i realize you definitely oppose nationalized like we see in Canada and the UK) Would you support a federal insurance company that would enable citizens to use that plan while at the same time giving them the right to opt out and purchase private insurance?

[Testm0nkey]

impala wtf. your scenario just doesnt happen. people in denmark and no one is suggesting that people go to school for something but are told they are going to be something else. whered you get that idea. and no hillary and people are not trying to limit the number of kids people can have, where they can live and where they go to school. thats not democratic socialism

[The Fanatic]

Yeah, I also don't think those Governments tell citizens which family practitioner to visit.

This post has been edited by The Fanatic: Feb 26 2008, 05:49 PM

[impala454]

Impala, do you oppose all forms of socialized medicine or just nationalized health care? (i realize you definitely oppose nationalized like we see in Canada and the UK) Would you support a federal insurance company that would enable citizens to use that plan while at the same time giving them the right to opt out and purchase private insurance?

I would support 100% (in fact, encourage) any plan which allowed citizens to purchase health insurance at a group rate. I would completely oppose any plan which used tax money to completely pay for anyone's health insurance.

[impala454]

impala wtf. your scenario just doesnt happen. people in denmark and no one is suggesting that people go to school for something but are told they are going to be something else. whered you get that idea. and no hillary and people are not trying to limit the number of kids people can have, where they can live and where they go to school. thats not democratic socialism

I didn't say Hillary was going to limit the number of kids you can have. But that kind of control (along w/the other things I mentioned) does occur in socialist countries. It bothers me that people like Hillary (& many other democrats) exhibit a desire for more control over our everyday lives.

[Spectatrix]

I don't like the idea of government having control over the minutiae of our daily lives, but that's not what I'm worried about with Democrats. I'm concerned about over-spending and excessive bureaucracy.

I wouldn't be so against socialized medicine, socialized education, etc. if our government didn't have such a piss-poor track record. They have a history of pouring more and more money into things, with little to show for it. Why? Partially because they have carte blanche from the taxpayers. Partially because there's no competition.

That's not to say that the current health system isn't broken. It is, due to lack of competition among insurance providers (the most affordable option is always the one or two plans subsidized by your employer), due to restrictions on pharmaceutical imports, due to the huge amount of marketing dollars that the pharmaceutical companies pump out, etc...

[Hartmann]

I don't like the idea of government having control over the minutiae of our daily lives, but that's not what I'm worried about with Democrats. I'm concerned about over-spending and excessive bureaucracy.

I wouldn't be so against socialized medicine, socialized education, etc. if our government didn't have such a piss-poor track record. They have a history of pouring more and more money into things, with little to show for it. Why? Partially because they have carte blanche from the taxpayers. Partially because there's no competition.

That's not to say that the current health system isn't broken. It is, due to lack of competition among insurance providers (the most affordable option is always the one or two plans subsidized by your employer), due to restrictions on pharmaceutical imports, due to the huge amount of marketing dollars that the pharmaceutical companies pump out, etc...

This.

I don't want the government in charge of my healthcare. Tom Coburn's plan is one that appeals to me the most. And reading through it you learn some interesting facts, such as the number of uninsured people in the U.S. is an inflated number. About 1/3 of the 46 million uninsured are covered by Medicaid, around another 1/3 are people who are wealthy and pay for healthcare out of pocket. That leaves 1/3 of 46 million people without any healthcare options.

His plan suggests that you have the right to choose your insurer, your doctor, etc. and it creates the needed markets. Doctors will lower their prices because they are "competing" in a way.

[Testm0nkey]

I didn't say Hillary was going to limit the number of kids you can have. But that kind of control (along w/the other things I mentioned) does occur in socialist countries. It bothers me that people like Hillary (& many other democrats) exhibit a desire for more control over our everyday lives.

by socialist countries you mean China? thats communism.

if americans needs more control by a good honest government to stop being idiotic im all for it

[impala454]

by socialist countries you mean China? thats communism.

newsflash: Communism is a form of socialism. and before you come back with it (and I know you would) no, I did not just say socialism = communism. note the difference.

if americans needs more control by a good honest government to stop being idiotic im all for it

how would controlling citizens more make less idiots??

[impala454]

His plan suggests that you have the right to choose your insurer, your doctor, etc. and it creates the needed markets. Doctors will lower their prices because they are "competing" in a way.

I'm not really sure I understand how this is different than what we have right now.

[Hartmann]

I'm not really sure I understand how this is different than what we have right now.

There are a good portion of employers that lock you into their carrier. You are unable to decline coverage. His plan would do away with this.

A lot of what he has planned is for medicare and HSAs.

[Psykopath]

newsflash: Communism is a form of socialism. and before you come back with it (and I know you would) no, I did not just say socialism = communism. note the difference.

I've already pointed out how this is wrong.

Communism and Socialism are not the same.
Marx argued that "Socialism was a stage on the road to Communism." Key difference?: Socialism has a State, Communism does not.
And again I emphasize: Nobody here is arguing for pure Socialism (on the vein of Marx's definition in the very least).

[Testm0nkey]

newsflash: Communism is a form of socialism. and before you come back with it (and I know you would) no, I did not just say socialism = communism. note the difference.
how would controlling citizens more make less idiots??

because the nonidiotic americans would not suffer because of all the asshats that dont know any better. i am also one of those people that does not believe paying higher taxes to make sure everyone is granted healthcare and a good education is a horrible thing

ie. higher government control on fuel efficiency and pollution = me having less risk of cancer and having a better environment in which to live

[impala454]

There are a good portion of employers that lock you into their carrier. You are unable to decline coverage. His plan would do away with this.

A lot of what he has planned is for medicare and HSAs.

But you're not "locked" into any provider. You can choose whichever provider you want. You just may have to pay for it out of pocket. It should be up to the company what provider they pay for IMHO.

[impala454]

I've already pointed out how this is wrong.

We just said the same thing. Read it again.

Unless you see some huge difference between these two statements:

1. Communism is a form of Socialism
2. Socialism is a stage on the road to Communism.

I see zero difference in those two statements.

[impala454]

because the nonidiotic americans would not suffer because of all the asshats that dont know any better.

You're going to have to explain this. I'm having a hard time making any sense out of this sentence. I really did try.

i am also one of those people that does not believe paying higher taxes to make sure everyone is granted healthcare and a good education is a horrible thing

So when some family (citizens or otherwise) next door to you pops out eight kids and nobody has a job except the husband who lays bricks and doesn't pay taxes, you're perfectly fine with paying more taxes so those eight kids can have free healthcare and education? If so, this is the type of tolerance that keeps illegal immigration at record highs. What happens when it just keeps getting worse and worse? Just keep raising taxes?

ie. higher government control on fuel efficiency and pollution = me having less risk of cancer and having a better environment in which to live

Again that type of thing isn't what I'm talking about. It's something that effects everybody, not just you. I am all for regulations that keep one person from doing something that effects another person negatively (i.e. public smoking ordinances, etc). Your health effects you and you alone. What you eat, where you work, what you do with your life effects you only.

[Psykopath]

We just said the same thing. Read it again.

Unless you see some huge difference between these two statements:

1. Communism is a form of Socialism
2. Socialism is a stage on the road to Communism.

I see zero difference in those two statements.

I'll take a page from your playbook:




Pure socialism is a stage on the road to Communism... Not the other way around. That's like saying Conservatism and Totalitarianism are the same.
Socialism has a state, Communism does not...KEY DIFFERENCE.

And again, I stress: Nobody here is arguing in favor of pure Socialism, yet you seem to think that is all that exists on that spectrum. Really boggles my mind why you can't understand this, but whatever.

[impala454]

I'll take a page from your playbook:


Pure socialism is a stage on the road to Communism... Not the other way around. That's like saying Conservatism and Totalitarianism are the same.

It's like there's an echo in here. Please read post #61, and no I did not edit it.

Socialism has a state, Communism does not...KEY DIFFERENCE.

I don't really care to debate terms & definitions, but really, the difference is not as "key" as you're putting it. One calls it a "state" the other calls it a "party" or group or whatever the hell else you want to call it. It's all semantics. Either way, it's an illusion of "power to the people" when they in fact have no power whatsoever.

And again, I stress: Nobody here is arguing in favor of pure Socialism, yet you seem to think that is all that exists on that spectrum. Really boggles my mind why you can't understand this, but whatever.

I have not once accused anyone here of being in favor of "pure" socialism. I simply feel that the ideas that many of the democrats propose are generally socialist. Would you disagree? If you're going to pull Marxist theory on me, then sure, "pure" socialism is "a stage on the road" to communism. Well then let me ask, what is "a stage on the road" to pure socialism?

[Psykopath]

*bangs...head...on...desk*


I'm going back to the dojo now, Impala.

Your oversimplification and selective reading has angered me yet again.

[chook]

I'd say communism is a human attempt at socialism.

[impala454]

*bangs...head...on...desk*
I'm going back to the dojo now, Impala.

Your oversimplification and selective reading has angered me yet again.

I didn't partially read anything in your post, I quoted and addressed the whole thing. And allow me to finish up my thought since you didn't answer it, maybe give ya some more dojo motivation? Maybe you can just print out this thread and tape it to your punching bag

Well then let me ask, what is "a stage on the road" to pure socialism?

Well what a great question self, I must say that a "stage on the road" to pure socialism must in fact be, partial socialism!

[Inferia]

newsflash: Communism is a form of socialism. and before you come back with it (and I know you would) no, I did not just say socialism = communism. note the difference.
how would controlling citizens more make less idiots??

Actually, I think communism refers to a political system, whereas socialism refers to an economic system. Though most of the time the two are intertwined, but one can exist with out the other.

[impala454]

Actually, I think communism refers to a political system, whereas socialism refers to an economic system. Though most of the time the two are intertwined, but one can exist with out the other.

So how exactly would a communist regime work without a socialist economy? And how would a socialist economy work without the political structure in place to support it?

[pebkac]

According to Marx, Communism is a more radical form of Socialism. He spends plenty of time pointing out previous Socialist movements and why they failed.

His idea was that society would progress from varying levels of government control until society eventually becomes so communal that the government is no longer necessary.

In modern use, Communism is used to refer to a Soviet-style system without free elections whereas Socialism is used to refer to a system with free elections where workers have more choice.

Personally, I would argue that they're just different versions of the same thing. (and both are used WAY too much as "devil words" that are supposed to make an opposing argument immediately wrong)

[Testm0nkey]

(and both are used WAY too much as "devil words" that are supposed to make an opposing argument immediately wrong)

thats the only thing this thread has been about since page 1

[impala454]

According to Marx, Communism is a more radical form of Socialism. He spends plenty of time pointing out previous Socialist movements and why they failed.

His idea was that society would progress from varying levels of government control until society eventually becomes so communal that the government is no longer necessary.

In modern use, Communism is used to refer to a Soviet-style system without free elections whereas Socialism is used to refer to a system with free elections where workers have more choice.

Personally, I would argue that they're just different versions of the same thing. (and both are used WAY too much as "devil words" that are supposed to make an opposing argument immediately wrong)

Damn we need some fabric sound dampening panels in this thread or something. The echo is horrendous... like psycho, please see post #61.

[pebkac]

Damn we need some fabric sound dampening panels in this thread or something. The echo is horrendous... like psycho, please see post #61.

Ok... So then we agree?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[impala454]

Yeah looks that way

I thought you were doing what psycho was and trying to disagree with me by agreeing

[Psykopath]

Yeah looks that way

I thought you were doing what psycho was and trying to disagree with me by agreeing

wow


May want to read more than World of Warcraft manuals sometime.


I pointed out how your exaggerated statements were wrong...and you know what?
Fuck it. You're doing the fingers-in-the-ears blah blah i'm-right-you're-wrong thing yet again.

[impala454]

May want to read more than World of Warcraft manuals sometime.

I have.

I pointed out how your exaggerated statements were wrong...

No you didn't. You were explaining to me the exact same concept I had explained in post #61, hence why I pointed you to that post.

[Psykopath]

I have.
No you didn't. You were explaining to me the exact same concept I had explained in post #61, hence why I pointed you to that post.

To put it simply, you're oversimplifying political terms to fit your personal definitions.

But hey, what do I know about political science?

[impala454]

To put it simply, you're oversimplifying political terms to fit your personal definitions.

In what way did I oversimplify? I said communism is a subset of socialism. "My personal definitions"??? I didn't "personalize" any definitions. I went straight to the damn dictionary.

But hey, what do I know about political science?

Oh geez... are you one of those people who wasted their $40k on a poli sci degree? I guess that makes you the poli sci expert with the ability to google marx quotes that much better than me.

[Psykopath]

In what way did I oversimplify? I said communism is a subset of socialism. "My personal definitions"??? I didn't "personalize" any definitions. I went straight to the damn dictionary.
Oh geez... are you one of those people who wasted their $40k on a poli sci degree? I guess that makes you the poli sci expert with the ability to google marx quotes that much better than me.

Sure did waste $40k on a degree that's a perfect set-up for either grad school or law school, or the other job options I'm currently exploring.
I forgot that only a degree in WoW skills was valuable this day and age. (oh no, smilies!!)

You're oversimplifying in that you believe that communism and mainly socialism have but one definition...no subsets, no divisions, no scales...just one definition. That is wrong. I've told you why it is wrong, but you just don't care to hear/read anything that disagrees with your views on the way the world works.

[blaarg]

I am curious how many on the boards have:

1) Read Marx and Engels
2) Actually comprehend everything they were saying.

I have to admit that I can claim (1) but not entirely (2).

[Psykopath]

I am curious how many on the boards have:

1) Read Marx and Engels
2) Actually comprehend everything they were saying.

I have to admit that I can claim (1) but not entirely (2).

1.) Yes, several times/several readings.
2.) Only Marx and Engels could ever fully understand Marx and Engels.

[chook]

1.) Yes, several times/several readings.
2.) Only Marx and Engels could ever fully understand Marx and Engels.

1. Who would want to?
2. Who would want to?

I'll point at my old roommate.

[Psykopath]

1. Who would want to?
2. Who would want to?

I'll point at my old roommate.

Come cuddle.

[FORSAKENR320]

Come cuddle.

SO... WHAT? NOW I'M THE 3RD WHEEL?

[chook]

SO... WHAT? NOW I'M THE 3RD WHEEL?

Only on this trike of LOVE!!


for dogmeat
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marines_2-12-2008/

[pebkac]

I am curious how many on the boards have:

1) Read Marx and Engels
2) Actually comprehend everything they were saying.

I have to admit that I can claim (1) but not entirely (2).

1) yes
2) Well, I understand what they were saying from a sociological standpoint (former Soc major).

[FORSAKENR320]

Only on this trike of LOVE!!

GIGGITY GIGGITY I CAN LIVE WITH THAT

[impala454]

You're oversimplifying in that you believe that communism and mainly socialism have but one definition...no subsets, no divisions, no scales...just one definition. That is wrong.

That's not what I said at all. Read post #61 for the umpteenth time. I don't understand why you keep skewing what I clearly said and then call me wrong.

Newsflash:

WE ARE SAYING THE SAME DEFINITIONS, JUST WITH DIFFERENT WORDS

[impala454]

I forgot that only a degree in WoW skills was valuable this day and age. (oh no, smilies!!)

hell a WoW degree prob would be worth more than poli sci

[Psykopath]

hell a WoW degree prob would be worth more than poli sci

lolz sure thing. *page from Impala's playbook*

newsflash: Communism is a form of socialism. and before you come back with it (and I know you would) no, I did not just say socialism = communism. note the difference.

Socialism has a state.
Communism does not.

Read post # blah blah blah for the "umpteenth time" as well to see where I said you're oversimplifying definitions.
All I am saying it that the definitions are not quite that simple or black-and-white for these two very complex political terms

[The Fanatic]

The communist ideology and connotation has been corrupted by Leninism and Stalinism. While originally Marx's notion of the communism form of government as Zach has pointed out was the ultimate goal of men and parties who called themselves socialists, communists, or international worker's groups. The only problem now is that there has been quite a blending of many different economic, political, and sociological backgrounds in the formation of new "gray" states that can not be categorized quite so easily. A prime example of this is the people's republic of China which was formed out of the core beliefs of stalinism and agrarian communist principles, yet today it is dominated by a capitalist globalized economy. Culture can better explain why the principles of Marx differed from one nation to another. When Marx's principles were applied in western europe they were done so democratically because of the route and history that those states had established in determining the proper socio economic reforms needed to better the people. In places like China and Russia (Russia with it's history of reactionary totalitarian tsarist regimes and China with it's history of emperor worship, huge imperial bureaucracies, and corruption) led these nations to corruptly and in most cases incorrectly apply the concepts of Marx and Engels through massive economic reforms aimed at quickly establishing an industrial capitalist economy. Being as Capitalism was a necessary part of the economic evolution to the eventual communist utopia, these agrarian peasant economies were "forced" to displace and kill millions in order to achieve their goals. To conclude, I would argue that while originally both terms were synonymous, in that socialism was a natural precursor and step (as zach said) to the communist "utopia", these terms do not accurately represent the original ideology set forth. Today, most socialists reject the notion of the "utopia" set forth by Marx realizing that socialist principles of economic redistribution and equality can be achieved within a capitalist framework. Also, communist can no longer be described from a purely philosopical or politcal framework without mentioning the corruption that is Stalinism. So while I would argue that both system came from the same ideology they are no longer synonymous and invoke very different political, social, and economic institutions.

[impala454]

lolz sure thing. *page from Impala's playbook*
Socialism has a state.
Communism does not.

Read post # blah blah blah for the "umpteenth time" as well to see where I said you're oversimplifying definitions.
All I am saying it that the definitions are not quite that simple or black-and-white for these two very complex political terms

Ironic that you can say the defintions are not quite that simple or black-and-white, and in the same post define them with seven words total.

[Psykopath]

Ironic that you can say the defintions are not quite that simple or black-and-white, and in the same post define them with seven words total.

You don't get it, and you refuse to get it/will continue to refuse understanding the point others and myself are trying to make.



And Spivey hit the nail on the head with an f'n sledgehammer. Right on!

[Dogmeat]

I want to see a CuddleWrestling match between zach and impala to see if impala can cuddle with zacn until he turns republican and if zach can cuddle with impala until he turns democrat