Sorry for the delay in response -- my provider has had some problems
as of late.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions
> are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where
> they are living and want to move).
Thats fine -- but then be fair and don't condemn a system that one
knows nothing about. Anything less is bullshit propaganda.
> Talk about your broad brushes. I know a lot of Americans who have read
> the "Manifesto" long enough to be revolted by it. But Joe Sixpack
> also lives by its tenets without realizing that what they are.
...
> Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current
> lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass.
Agreed. That is precisely my point -- and yet they condemn it with all
of the passion that the state says a good citizen should.
10 minute hate sound familiar?
> Lets be real up front here. Unless you have been out to lunch recently
> Communism is an experiment that failed so miserably it exterminated
> almost 100 million human beings last century. If that were a disease
> we would have government funded programs to wipe it out. Actively
> trying to infect people with it would land you in jail.
Agreed. And I'm not a communist. I'm not arguing for communism; in
fact, I would argue AGAINST it .. but:
I would not propose to wipe out a disease without having properly studied
it to see whether it was worth wiping out to begin with!
Neither should men condemn communism if they know nothing about it.
> Wow. People making choices and seeing what happens. If you don't think
> that basket weaving is a good profession, do something else so that you
> can make more money. Else don't complain.
Good idea -- too bad it isn't always so easy to just up and change your
profession, or go back to school when you have 3 kids.
Sometimes people make bad choices, I agree -- but I don't agree that one
should have to pay for the rest of their life because of it.
> > since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to
> > keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency.
> >
>
> Buy your own goddamn benefits. Last time I checked they were $3000/year
> for a nominal family of 3. Benefits are not free. That are not free to
> provide.
No. Let the companies pay for them. If I am going to give them my sweat,
time away from my loved ones and the fruit of my talents and labor the
least they can do is make my life a little more cushy .. or give me
more green up front.. either is acceptable. But if you are going to
scale down the wage, then be prepared to compensate the worker in other
ways.
> > Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford
> > to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs
> > to help the honest, working poor.
>
> And communism can give the working poor a decent wage?
Strawman. I never said that, and it isn't implied. There is a world of
difference between full blown communism and government-sponsored social
programs to help the poor.
And note, that I said government-sponsored not taxpayer-sponsored ..
it is entirely feasible for the government to get their money in
other ways.
> > "The answer to our question (what do we do about the poor) is simple:
> > nothing. We need an impoverished working class to supply cheap labor to
> > our corporations. They must, after all, turn a profit."
>
> These people need low wage jobs because without them you have capital
> flight to China (home of your beloved socialists) where the average
> worker makes a hell of a lot less. Of course thats because they are
> virtual slaves to the "People's Army". And that is the system you
> would prefer?
Never said that, did I?
> > Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
> > "Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
>
> Indeed. You need to take a course in formal logic (propositional calculus)
> as you don't see the implications of your own quotes.
HAH! I have never once made an argument for Communism. I never once said
I wanted to live in China. I simply support a few large, organized social
programs for our poor -- most probably government run; but Gates certainly
has the resources to start up a wonderful system.
Thats all. Charity. You are the one that claims that I am a socialist,
which I am not.
For a fan of formal logic, you build up a fine army of strawmen.
My point is merely that I would rather have people who oppose communism
because they understand it, and do not agree, rather than a populace that
hates communism because the State tells them too.
That latter is what we have now. That was my original claim. That American
people should not rally against that which they do not understand in the
least.
> Juvenal is saying "who watches the elites?". In any communist system "those
> who know best" must be watched. Of course as soon as you watch them you
> start your vacation in beautiful sunny Siberia. And that is a one-way
> ticket.
First, I'd like to see you argue from the foundations of communism that
socialism/communism REQUIRES such a tyrannical rule. Don't argue history.
Anyone who knows anything about Marx knows he would have hated the USSR
and China.
Failing that, the above comment is best rephrased as 'in any communist
state we have seen "those who know best" ...'
And that is hardly a conclusion, given a cursory read of a history book.
There are also those that would argue that a straight-out balls to the
wall tyranny is preferred to the subtle theft-of-liberty that we see
here in America .. simply because it is easier to see such a tyranny
coming, and easier to fight (one can rally supporters easier and give
them guns, other nations cannot so easily turn a blind eye, etc).
>From a militarist's POV, I can understand the argument .. of course,
personally, I'd rather vote in vain here in the States than get
shot in China.
Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
