Capitalism vs. Communism

[Zortaw]

Not suprisingly since you select quite oppressive options.

May be because I'm a radical Bolshevik-thinker, a Leninist and an anti-theist...

*tallies*

Number 2,983 is here guys!

[Britennene]

You can convince them to donate to charity. That's compassion.

What's wrong with pointing out that some people are more talented than others at certain things?

Nothing, in fact it should be encouraged. But many poor people are very talented and unable to show their talent.

Example:
Jeff is a poor boy of 15, living off his parents' jobseeker's bonus. He is an amazing violin player, good enough to be famous, but he has no oppertunity to show the world his skill. He spends his life in poverty striken anonimity, even though he clearly deserves otherwise.

Frank, on the other hand, was born into a very wealthy family, but is incredibly stupid and has no real value to society. When his father died, he left Frank his fortune, and Frank spends the rest of his life basking in a life of undeserved grandeur.

Does this seem fair? Indeed not. Things like this happen in a capitalist society.

Capitalism: the road of success.
Communism: the road to success.

I remember the Soviet Realism poster of this. One of the only accurate posters they produced.

[Britennene]

May be because I'm a radical Bolshevik-thinker, a Leninist and an anti-theist...

*tallies*

Number 2,983 is here guys!

Do you see that many authoritarian Lefts here?

EDIT: Argh! I meant non-anarcho-communists. I'm certainly not authoritarian.

[Zortaw]

You can convince them to donate to charity. That's compassion.

What's wrong with pointing out that some people are more talented than others at certain things?

Nothing, in fact it should be encouraged. But many poor people are very talented and unable to show their talent.

Example:
Jeff is a poor boy of 15, living off his parents' jobseeker's bonus. He is an amazing violin player, good enough to be famous, but he has no oppertunity to show the world his skill. He spends his life in poverty striken anonimity, even though he clearly deserves otherwise.

Frank, on the other hand, was born into a very wealthy family, but is incredibly stupid and has no real value to society. When his father died, he left Frank his fortune, and Frank spends the rest of his life basking in a life of undeserved grandeur.

Does this seem fair? Indeed not. Things like this happen in a capitalist society.

Capitalism: the road of success.
Communism: the road to success.

Or: Jeff joins the army, enjoys the nice education offers, and he makes himself rich.

[Britennene]

Nothing, in fact it should be encouraged. But many poor people are very talented and unable to show their talent.

Example:
Jeff is a poor boy of 15, living off his parents' jobseeker's bonus. He is an amazing violin player, good enough to be famous, but he has no oppertunity to show the world his skill. He spends his life in poverty striken anonimity, even though he clearly deserves otherwise.

Frank, on the other hand, was born into a very wealthy family, but is incredibly stupid and has no real value to society. When his father died, he left Frank his fortune, and Frank spends the rest of his life basking in a life of undeserved grandeur.

Does this seem fair? Indeed not. Things like this happen in a capitalist society.

Capitalism: the road of success.
Communism: the road to success.

Or: Jeff joins the army, enjoys the nice education offers, and he makes himself rich.

1.Violence-phobia.
2. Gunphobia.
3. Pacifism.
4. Homophobia. Many armies are homophobic.
5. Etc.

[Sibirsky]

And that's coercion and theft. That's full of fraud. That's massively inefficient. That has perpetuated the problem.


Fact: Some people are more talented than others.

Myth: Sib said that all poor people are talentless.

Not necessarily. Many people happily pay taxes, knowing that it helps the unfortunate. Especially in Nordic nations.

Not true. Lower their tax rates and they will pay less in taxes. Not many of them will voluntarily donate more money to the government. Willing to pay, is not the same as happy to pay.

Yes, some are. But do you have to speak of the unfortunate like that. They're not all non-talented. Why do you speak of the "Talentless", when you mean the poor?

I wasn't speaking of the poor though. I was specifically speaking of some people that deserve to be paid less.

The poor? Too large a group to comment on. Some of them have gotten a raw hand in life and were unable to use their talents to earn more income. Some of them may have a medical condition that prevents them from working. Some of them, just haven't found the right opportunity yet, but will find it and escape poverty.

There are thousands of different reasons.

[Zortaw]

Or: Jeff joins the army, enjoys the nice education offers, and he makes himself rich.

1.Violence-phobia.
2. Gunphobia.
3. Pacifism.
4. Homophobia.
5. Etc.

Administrative functions, anyone?

[Sibirsky]

*tallies*

Number 2,983 is here guys!

Do you see that many authoritarian Lefts here?

EDIT: Argh! I meant non-anarcho-communists. I'm certainly not authoritarian.

There are plenty.

[Britennene]

Not necessarily. Many people happily pay taxes, knowing that it helps the unfortunate. Especially in Nordic nations.

Not true. Lower their tax rates and they will pay less in taxes. Not many of them will voluntarily donate more money to the government. Willing to pay, is not the same as happy to pay.

Yes, some are. But do you have to speak of the unfortunate like that. They're not all non-talented. Why do you speak of the "Talentless", when you mean the poor?

I wasn't speaking of the poor though. I was specifically speaking of some people that deserve to be paid less.

The poor? Too large a group to comment on. Some of them have gotten a raw hand in life and were unable to use their talents to earn more income. Some of them may have a medical condition that prevents them from working. Some of them, just haven't found the right opportunity yet, but will find it and escape poverty.

There are thousands of different reasons.

I've asked people. Who wouldn't be happy to help the nation which gave you everything? They do not donate money to the government, but the unfortunate.

Not everyone can find that opportunity. There are many holes in that.

[Zortaw]

The funny thing is is that, when taxes are lowered, people are allowed to spend more to their liking. This also raises the demand of products and leads to a better income of factory workers, farmers etc.

[Britennene]

Do you see that many authoritarian Lefts here?

EDIT: Argh! I meant non-anarcho-communists. I'm certainly not authoritarian.

There are plenty.

There seem to be more anarcho-communists. Perhaps I'm just noticing only anarchists.

[Sibirsky]

I've asked people. Who wouldn't be happy to help the nation which gave you everything? They do not donate money to the government, but the unfortunate.

Government is not charity. What you are now describing is charity.

Not everyone can find that opportunity. There are many holes in that.

I did not say every can, or will find the opportunity.

[Britennene]

The funny thing is is that, when taxes are lowered, people are allowed to spend more to their liking. This also raises the demand of products and leads to a better income of factory workers, farmers etc.

The funny thing is too, that who wants to give money to the poor without tax? Certainly not the people who enjoy the lowering of the taxes.

[Sibirsky]

There are plenty.

There seem to be more anarcho-communists. Perhaps I'm just noticing only anarchists.

Yeah it's true. But there are some very authoritarian leftists on here.

[Sibirsky]

The funny thing is is that, when taxes are lowered, people are allowed to spend more to their liking. This also raises the demand of products and leads to a better income of factory workers, farmers etc.

The funny thing is too, that who wants to give money to the poor without tax? Certainly not the people who enjoy the lowering of the taxes.

What? Charities do exist. Charities do raise hundreds of billions of dollars. People do care and are compassionate.

[Britennene]

I've asked people. Who wouldn't be happy to help the nation which gave you everything? They do not donate money to the government, but the unfortunate.

Government is not charity. What you are now describing is charity.

Not everyone can find that opportunity. There are many holes in that.

I did not say every can, or will find the opportunity.

Giving money to the government, so that it can give it to Social Welfare Companies, which will help the unfortunate.

You didn't, but you seem to think that way.

[Zortaw]

The funny thing is is that, when taxes are lowered, people are allowed to spend more to their liking. This also raises the demand of products and leads to a better income of factory workers, farmers etc.

The funny thing is too, that who wants to give money to the poor without tax? Certainly not the people who enjoy the lowering of the taxes.

The even more funny thing is is the fact that:

1) the taxes of the poor are also lowered
2) So they can buy more
3) Demand of more products means more jobs
4) Demand of more products means more jobs; thus more demand for workers; thus higher salary.

[Sibirsky]

Government is not charity. What you are now describing is charity.


I did not say every can, or will find the opportunity.

Giving money to the government, so that it can give it to Social Welfare Companies, which will help the unfortunate.

Which would be force. You seem to confuse government and charity.

You didn't, but you seem to think that way.

No I don't.

I am poor. And I know plenty of others who are poor yet are very talented.

[Britennene]

The funny thing is too, that who wants to give money to the poor without tax? Certainly not the people who enjoy the lowering of the taxes.

What? Charities do exist. Charities do raise hundreds of billions of dollars. People do care and are compassionate.

Indeed, they do. But Social Welfare has a bigger affection. It gives them food, shelter and clothing. In charity they can just spend their money to booze. Most don't, but there are ones who do. Truly compassionate will pay taxation to welfare and give money to charity. That would have an even bigger affection.

Oh, and many charity raises go to wrong pockets.

[Britennene]

There seem to be more anarcho-communists. Perhaps I'm just noticing only anarchists.

Yeah it's true. But there are some very authoritarian leftists on here.

Maybe.

[Britennene]

The funny thing is too, that who wants to give money to the poor without tax? Certainly not the people who enjoy the lowering of the taxes.

The even more funny thing is is the fact that:

1) the taxes of the poor are also lowered
2) So they can buy more
3) Demand of more products means more jobs
4) Demand of more products means more jobs; thus more demand for workers; thus higher salary.

1) The taxes of the poor=Lower. The Taxes of the rich=Higher.
2) They don't need to buy new crap.
3) Not always.
4) Not always.

[Sibirsky]

What? Charities do exist. Charities do raise hundreds of billions of dollars. People do care and are compassionate.

Indeed, they do. But Social Welfare has a bigger affection. It gives them food, shelter and clothing. In charity they can just spend their money to booze. Most don't, but there are ones who do. Truly compassionate will pay taxation to welfare and give money to charity. That would have an even bigger affection.

Charities can and do provide food, shelter and clothing.

In the case of direct cash transfer payments in welfare, or cash handouts by charities, those people deserve to spend that money as they see fit.

Oh, and many charity raises go to wrong pockets.

And that is a much bigger problem with the government. Tens of billions of dollars are lost due to fraud. Due to incompetence. Due to bureaucracy. Due to inefficiency. Due to corruption. Due to cronyism.

[Britennene]

Giving money to the government, so that it can give it to Social Welfare Companies, which will help the unfortunate.

Which would be force. You seem to confuse government and charity.

You didn't, but you seem to think that way.

No I don't.

I am poor. And I know plenty of others who are poor yet are very talented.

Government=/=Social Welfare. The government takes Taxation to give to Welfare Programs. This is very minimal in USA. It's not force to take 20-30% off someone's income, since they got that money straight from the government.

You're poor? Then how do you own a computer? Then why do you speak of the talentless?

[Sibirsky]

Yeah it's true. But there are some very authoritarian leftists on here.

Maybe.

What do you mean maybe? I've spoken with them.

[Zortaw]

What? Charities do exist. Charities do raise hundreds of billions of dollars. People do care and are compassionate.

Indeed, they do. But Social Welfare has a bigger affection. It gives them food, shelter and clothing. In charity they can just spend their money to booze. Most don't, but there are ones who do. Truly compassionate will pay taxation to welfare and give money to charity. That would have an even bigger affection.

Oh, and many charity raises go to wrong pockets.

The money to Haïti brought up 5,3 billion dollars of financial aid