Herman Cain: It's Your Fault if You're Unemployed

[Coito ergo sum]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

[Coito ergo sum]

What about the fat cats who didn't labor?

Maybe she's the rich one, and he's just hung like a stallion?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Oh, shit -- I thought we were imagining a Communist society, where all the hot chicks are evenly divided among the guys...that way we all have an equal chance at the smokin' hot babes....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, shit -- I thought we were imagining a Communist society, where all the hot chicks are evenly divided among the guys...that way we all have an equal chance at the smokin' hot babes....

I've had more than my fair share, you so take the next 3 or 20.

[MattShizzle]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

It does indeed say the workers will get their share of the profits. And even getting according to their "need" would be way better than getting whatever some rich cocksucker decides to pay them and if they don't like it they can starve. I do think every CEO type should be executed, possibly tortured to death, and their money redistributed. Again, success is nearly entirely due to luck and an individual has nearly no control whatsoever over how succesful he or she is in life. The idea of hard work leading to success is a right wing myth. The poor work harder than anyone and make the least. Rich motherfuckers do next to nothing and make a fortune on the work of others. If a rich person is in favor of capitalism they should be executed for greed. If a poor person is in favor of capitalism they should go to a mental hospital because they are obviously insane.

[MattShizzle]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

But having individuals or collections thereof allowed to own means of production just by having money is indeed capitalism so what I said is true.

[Hermit]

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Same thing in Australia. That's why so many of us keep voting for our Tory party, which disguises itself by the assumption of the name "Liberal party." In a previous election our then Labor leader tried to win over the middle income bracket, which he actually called "the aspiring class" by bribing it with tax cuts.

[Hermit]

That's because end-state Communism is an impossible utopian delusion

That's because end-state Communism is an impossible utopian dystopian delusion

It would only be "utopian" if it would be a good thing if it actually became reality.[/quote]Actually, utopia is closer to Seth's intended meaning. It comes from the Latin word 'topia', meaning place. By adding the 'u', the meaning becomes the opposite: No such place. Dystopia, on the other hand, means "imaginary bad place". I would think that the bad places like the USSR were very real. [/pedantry]

[Seth]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

It does indeed say the workers will get their share of the profits.

No, it does not, because under idealized Communism there ARE NO "profits" at all. In this utopian ideal no one profits from labor, all share equally, according to their need, and all contribute equally, according to their ability. There is no commerce because no one owns anything and therefore cannot profit from the transfer of those goods.

And even getting according to their "need" would be way better than getting whatever some rich cocksucker decides to pay them and if they don't like it they can starve.

And who's going to provide all this stuff people "need" if there is no profit motive for doing so and when everyone is a dependent class recipient and no one is a productive class creator of wealth?

I do think every CEO type should be executed, possibly tortured to death, and their money redistributed.

And when you've done so, who will run the companies that create the wealth that provides the stuff you need? Nobody, that's whom. Which means that you won't have any stuff (like food) because nobody will dare to excel and create that stuff, lest they be tortured, executed and their property redistributed.

You might want to make note of the fact that this has been tried many times, most recently in Cuba, and even Raul Castro has given up on hard-line Marxist communism and is delving into capitalism as we speak.

Again, success is nearly entirely due to luck and an individual has nearly no control whatsoever over how succesful he or she is in life.

Ignorant nonsense.

The idea of hard work leading to success is a right wing myth.

Marxist propaganda drivel.

The poor work harder than anyone and make the least.

Depends on what you mean by "work harder." Is picking onions or making steel "harder" than guiding a company to economic success? Physically, perhaps, but as should be obvious, the leadership skills and knowledge required to pilot Apple to economic success is quite "hard" to obtain and apply, even if not physically so.

The poor make what they deserve to make based on their skills and abilities. Unless you want to pay $500 for every slice of tomato on your hamburger that is.

Rich motherfuckers do next to nothing and make a fortune on the work of others.

And they risk all of their capital in doing so. And risking capital is deserving of reward, because without capital nobody has a job, even the Communists.

If a rich person is in favor of capitalism they should be executed for greed.

You only say that because you aren't rich and you're jealous and envious of those who are.

If a poor person is in favor of capitalism they should go to a mental hospital because they are obviously insane.

Or, they understand that under capitalism they have an equal opportunity to forge their own economic success free of government constraints and discrimination and dependent on their willingness and ability to be successful, whereas under Communism they have absolutely no hope of ever having more than someone else, and less than they want or need...forever.

I'd say it's the latter, based on our historical experience with Marxism. Only idiots and jealous children believe in that fiction today.

[JimC]

OK, I don't side with MattShizzle, but that's your argument? Seriously?

It's not even wrong.

You obviously don't know the proper usage of "it's not even wrong."

I didn't make an argument. You'll want to look up what an "argument" is.

I gave a list of examples of people who moved up the socioeconomic ladder. It was very easy, and believe me, I can keep going. These are just prominent ones. There are many others, like my father, who aren't noteworthy, but also made significant jumps. if MattShizzle is right and that people are effectively serfs, why do we see economic advancement to far greater degrees in capitalism-based economies than in communism-based economies?

What is it that you find troubling about a list of concrete, real life, examples of socioeconomic advancement?

Is there more socioeconomic advancement under Communism? Where is the proof of that?

While it is true that there are real opportunities for advancing yourself in terms of wealth and power, it is still almost certainly true that statistically speaking, it is harder for a person whose parents are poor to end up in a high socio-economic postion than someone with wealthy parents, given equal intellectual capacity. It is attacking a straw man to suggest that socialists or liberals claim that people are "locked into serfdom". We know thay are not, but we also know that being born to wealthy parents is an enormous benefit.

That's why programs designed to assist people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to do further studies are so vital.

[PsychoSerenity]

But the "land of opportunity" is not a theoretical talking point, it's real.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/1 ... 01788.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, shit -- I thought we were imagining a Communist society, where all the hot chicks are evenly divided among the guys...that way we all have an equal chance at the smokin' hot babes....

I've had more than my fair share, you so take the next 3 or 20.

I'm on my last one, and the one that I think trumps all others. So, I'm out of the game.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, shit -- I thought we were imagining a Communist society, where all the hot chicks are evenly divided among the guys...that way we all have an equal chance at the smokin' hot babes....

I've had more than my fair share, you so take the next 3 or 20.

I'm on my last one, and the one that I think trumps all others. So, I'm out of the game.

So many good lines here.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pretty much every country that exists it Capitalist. There has never been a country where the government owned the means of production and the workers shared the profits.

That's not correct. Most countries have highly controlled economies, where the means of production is controlled by the State.

Also, Communism does not involve workers "sharing in profits." Communism doesn't promise workers profits. It promises workers that they will get according to their "need."

It does indeed say the workers will get their share of the profits.

Can't be. There are no "profits." Workers get according to their need. If a worker needs less, then he gets less. If that same worker has disproportionate ability. he gives disproportionately (according to his ability).

And even getting according to their "need" would be way better than getting whatever some rich cocksucker decides to pay them and if they don't like it they can starve.

Actually, that's not how it works. Under capitalism, each people can achieve more than what they "need" - and most do, as is evident from the lifestyles of folks in the capitalism-based countries of Europe and the US. The West lives with far more than their needs, and even most of the poor in the US and Europe are well fed and entertained. The "workers" in capitalism have much more than what they need. Therefore, if Communism promises to each according to his need, then that's less than what capitalism offers. QED.

Marx was right about one thing: "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism."

And, what they want is "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." So, you can't own property, and you rent your home from the State. How's that? The State wants more money - they just raise the rent, and you need to pay it. You can't go anywhere else. You can escape a rotten landlord. You can't escape the State. And, we've seen how the State runs State-run housing projects. The State is the ultimate slum-lord.

"Abolition of all right of inheritance." - Absolutely no ability to provide for your children after death. Done. All are wards of the State.

"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." -- LOL - just like the Soviet Union did. You wanna move to another county....fffffffuuuuuckkkkk you!!!! We take all your property. And, if you speak out against the government, you are a "rebel" and you will lose all your stuff, just like we've seen happen in Venezuela with raids on private news outlets that don't tow the party line...they are enemies of the State - rebels, spreading lies....

"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." All communications, controlled by the State.

"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State" -- you can't start a lemonade stand.

"Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." - you know how armies were formed in Marx's time? Conscription. The State conscripts you into the industrial army - you want to be writer, painter or poet, but the state thinks you are better able to be a member of the "industrial army" you will work, and you will work as you are told - if you don't like it - see the principle above about "rebels."

"Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country." You can't even live where you want. When they abolish the distinction between town and country, you will move where you are told to move, probably as part of the "industrial army," and you'll work to pay your rent to the State.

"They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." They will achieve their ends by violence, and they come right out in say it. If you don't like their ultimate goals, they'll fucking kill you.

I do think every CEO type should be executed, possibly tortured to death, and their money redistributed.

Every CEO type? You mean like a guy who is CEO of a business employing five people grossing $500,000 a year and allowing the CEO to rake in a salary of $75,000?

You want to execute the owner of the laundromat, pizzeria, and local coffee shop? The deli and the hot dog stand? And, you want him tortured? Nice. Communism doesn't allow people to own hot dog carts, sell hot dogs at a profit, and keep the money.

Again, success is nearly entirely due to luck

If that were true, then the lazy would be equally represented among the successful. They aren't. QED.

and an individual has nearly no control whatsoever over how succesful he or she is in life.

Again, if that were true, then there would be no statistical difference between successful lazy people, and successful hard working people. Hard working people are far more successful than the lazy and idle.

The idea of hard work leading to success is a right wing myth.

The idea of it not is left wing claptrap. Try working hard at something you want to do. You might prove yourself wrong.

The poor work harder than anyone and make the least.

Some do. Those that really do work hard, and manage their money, don't stay poor. Many poor people don't work very hard, though.

There is also a different understanding, sometimes, about what constitutes "hard work." Some people think hard work means waking up at 8am, getting into work at 9:15am, 15 minutes late, working at a moderate pace, taking a long lunch, and leaving 15 minutes early, and calling in sick when they're not. I've seen those people in action.

Rich motherfuckers do next to nothing and make a fortune on the work of others.

Like who? the tiny percentage of trust fund babies?

Or, do you mean the guy who busts his ass 16 hours a day to build a business? That guy is the bulk of business owners in the US today.

If a rich person is in favor of capitalism they should be executed for greed. If a poor person is in favor of capitalism they should go to a mental hospital because they are obviously insane.

If anyone is in favor of Communism, they likely don't know what it is. For as bad as you claim capitalism to be, communism does not even offer an improvement. No pretense is even made that the lot of the average person in the US or Europe would get better under communism. Quite the opposite. Communism today says that we live too good. We are the rich that need to be taken down a peg.

[Coito ergo sum]

But the "land of opportunity" is not a theoretical talking point, it's real.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/1 ... 01788.html

It is, relative to any communism-based country you can name, and relative to the theoretical "true" communism (at least until someone describes that unicorn with any degree of specificity such that it can be judged).

[Coito ergo sum]

OK, I don't side with MattShizzle, but that's your argument? Seriously?

It's not even wrong.

You obviously don't know the proper usage of "it's not even wrong."

I didn't make an argument. You'll want to look up what an "argument" is.

I gave a list of examples of people who moved up the socioeconomic ladder. It was very easy, and believe me, I can keep going. These are just prominent ones. There are many others, like my father, who aren't noteworthy, but also made significant jumps. if MattShizzle is right and that people are effectively serfs, why do we see economic advancement to far greater degrees in capitalism-based economies than in communism-based economies?

What is it that you find troubling about a list of concrete, real life, examples of socioeconomic advancement?

Is there more socioeconomic advancement under Communism? Where is the proof of that?

While it is true that there are real opportunities for advancing yourself in terms of wealth and power, it is still almost certainly true that statistically speaking, it is harder for a person whose parents are poor to end up in a high socio-economic postion than someone with wealthy parents, given equal intellectual capacity.

Yes, true. But, communism does not offer improved odds, but rather reduced odds. In fact one of the purposes of communism is to limit advancement altogether, and limit people to satisfaction of their basic needs, and to work to the fullest extent of their ability, as specified by the State. Which do you prefer? A small chance? Or, no chance?

Moreover, I was discussing on another thread about what system is in place in Europe. I was scolded for suggesting that it is more socialist than capitalist. I was told that Europe is basically capitalist. Which is it?

It is attacking a straw man to suggest that socialists or liberals claim that people are "locked into serfdom".

I didn't claim that socialists or liberals claim that. MattShizzle claims that. I don't know what he is, but he seems to think Communism is a great idea and the CEOs deserve torture and death.

We know thay are not, but we also know that being born to wealthy parents is an enormous benefit.

Sure is. So is being born with an IQ of 150 or higher and a huge cock. If what people are suggesting is that all disparities in the world be eliminated, then I just think that's a pipe dream, and ultimately not even desirable. Diversity - including disparity in intelligence, talent, strength, cunning, and charisma, etc. - all are part of being human. I wouldn't begrudge someone who was born more intelligent than me doing better in school than me. Would you?

That's why programs designed to assist people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to do further studies are so vital.

I agree. I'm not against government assistance per se. I have said exactly the opposite. I have specifically, and flat out, said that I think the disabled, handicapped and disadvantaged should be helped, and even the able bodied, able minded, non-disabled who are down on their luck should be helped. The only things I disagree with on this thread are the ludicrous, ridiculous notions that "everyone should be paid the same no matter what they do, even if they do nothing," and the scurrilous, horrid notion of "Communism."