«

[_r.u.s.s.]

this is prejudiced opinion.
you say that capitalism is bad becouse "capitalists" makes slaves of workers
while communistic centre can do the same (+it even did)

and by the way in capitalism people who work harder can make more money than somebody who's just lazy. in communisn is produce collectivised, so i can try 100 times harder than soembody who just makes his duty and i won't be richier, i won't have better life i have worked for

[Fruit Pie Jones]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Elon Yariv @ Jun 1 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]233661[/snapback]</div>

If people will take only what they need and wont persute after the lesures, most of the sorrow and egoney in this world will stop.[/b]

That's an odd statement to make on a video-game forum, don't you think?

[Mighty Midget]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_r.u.s.s. @ Jun 1 2006, 08:14 PM) [snapback]233675[/snapback]</div>

and by the way in capitalism people who work harder can make more money than somebody who's just lazy. in communisn is produce collectivised, so i can try 100 times harder than soembody who just makes his duty and i won't be richier, i won't have better life i have worked for
[/b]

(r.u.s.s.: I use the quote, but this goes to any reader, not you in particular)

You need to work hard for a better life for yourself when wages -> money is what it takes to get a better life, whatever that means. Someone may be lazy because he figures that he can't make enough money with a decent job, to get him this 'better life'. You also state that you are the one that have to work hard to get you a better life. Fair enough, but I'd rather go for a society where better life for all, me included comes through the labour of all, me included. That allows me to be down with sickness or a broken leg without having my life deteriorate due to lack of my own hard work. Think of it as a parallell to the idea behind birth of the Internett Mk I. If one computer went down, the 'labour' wasn't all that missed, because the total sum of work being done would be roughly the same. AND this sum would be to the benefit of all computers in that network.

Money vs no money? Who cares! Money itself says nothing other that "you owe me". Fine. Economy, on the other hand, should be done radically different. I have no answers, but I find it obvious that today's system is faulty, destructive, rotten to the core and is being designed for abuse.

Wages? Today. you need wages to pay your bills, because the bills come no matter what. Change the economic system alltogether, voila, (could mean: ) no bills -> no need for wages (extremly simplified, I know).

The point is: Nothing is set, fixed or static exept the need for labour itself. No need to go all ancient about it and sacrifice a wallet to Neptune just to cath a fish. Get yourself a net, or pole, and get the sucker. Labour. See? Now, how do we want to organize this? Should each and every one of us enjoy the fruits of our own labour (single, off line computer), or should everybody enjoy the fruits of the total sum of labour (online, network computer)?

And don't give me that cr*p that if we abandoned today's system, 'the invicible hand' would wave the 'invicible wand' and we'd all wake up in a cave, wearing nowt but hide, ready to hunt a mammoth. It's all up to us and what we want. Do we want scientific breakthroughs? Labour! No rituals or sacrifices or money or anything. Just good old fashion hard work. Why, if no money? Because we wanted it.

[Havell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_r.u.s.s. @ Jun 1 2006, 09:14 PM) [snapback]233675[/snapback]</div>

and by the way in capitalism people who work harder can make more money than somebody who's just lazy. in communisn is produce collectivised, so i can try 100 times harder than soembody who just makes his duty and i won't be richier, i won't have better life i have worked for[/b]

That's not true, it is the case that you won't get any money if you don't work it capitalism but there is no link between the amonut you have to work and the money you get.

A farmer in Africa will work his entire life and will remain dirt poor for his entire life, no matter how hard he works.

Someone in a wealthy nature, soembody who owns a business will be making an enormous amount of money of money and will do a fraction of the work. Take any millionaire, did they, personally, produce millions of pounds worth of goods? No, other people produced the goods and the millionaire took the money, paying the worker only a fraction of what the goods they produced are worth.

[Tulac]

Capitalism is the system where 1% people of the don't need to work, and those 1% have 99% of capital...

[_r.u.s.s.]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 1 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]233687[/snapback]</div>

That's not true, it is the case that you won't get any money if you don't work it capitalism but there is no link between the amonut you have to work and the money you get.

A farmer in Africa will work his entire life and will remain dirt poor for his entire life, no matter how hard he works.
[/b]

you didn't get me
from your example i mean:
a farmer in africa who works more would get more than his neighbour farmer who works less..

[Havell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_r.u.s.s. @ Jun 1 2006, 10:48 PM) [snapback]233690[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 1 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]233687[/snapback]

That's not true, it is the case that you won't get any money if you don't work it capitalism but there is no link between the amonut you have to work and the money you get.

A farmer in Africa will work his entire life and will remain dirt poor for his entire life, no matter how hard he works.
[/b]

you didn't get me
from your example i mean:
a farmer in africa who works more would get more than his neighbour farmer who works less..
[/b][/quote]

But they'd both be desperately poor. And you can be sure that there will be somebody buying the coffee/sugar/tobacco they produce, selling it on for much more and living a life of luxury even though they produce nothing. The bourgeois (that's the group of people at the top of a capital economy, the ones wh oown the factories and companies, and who make huge amonut of cash) produce nothing, but live off the back of those who work for them.

[plix]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 1 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]233683[/snapback]</div>

The point is: Nothing is set, fixed or static exept the need for labour itself. No need to go all ancient about it and sacrifice a wallet to Neptune just to cath a fish. Get yourself a net, or pole, and get the sucker. Labour. See? Now, how do we want to organize this? Should each and every one of us enjoy the fruits of our own labour (single, off line computer), or should everybody enjoy the fruits of the total sum of labour (online, network computer)?[/b]

You're talking about what is required for production, though you seem to have forgotten the other factors: land and capital. Labor alone doesn't accomplish anything in the absence of the other two. Communism simply shifts control of the unmentioned two to the public (by abolishing private ownership).

[Mighty Midget]

To the above: The reason an African farmer stays poor no matter how hard he works is because, regardless of what system he has in his comunity, the worldwide capitalist system dictates that he must stay poor. He probably is the first in the chain called the multinational production line. The income raises according to the place you have in that chain, the last joints (traders, stock brokers, CEOs aso) getting the most out of it. And even if he wants to stay 'outside the world', he'll still need goods from around the globe (oil, gas, electricity, spare parts, a cheese grinder for all I know), meaning he is stuck with the capitalist rules.

Capitalism has nothing to do with your wage/sallary, but is defind by the fact that a single person/a small group of people own the means of production, the workers and the goods. The fruits of labour is therefore not a public property, but private property.

And I don't see how you can make a 'no money at all' society a capitalist society. That's a contradictions of terms.

[Elon Yariv]

R.U.S.S I said that both the capitalisim and communism the stronger ones enslave the weaker and dumb ones. It always happened and always will until the weaker ones will become smarter and not as blind as some are.

I agree with you that the soviet communism was bad and stalin enslaved the russian people. You shuold read a book called "The darkness in the afternoon".(not sure if thats the right name in english) It's exectly on the evilness of the soviet govorment. After stalin took over his country and won the civil war he started killing everyone that helped him rise to his position and justified his murders by ecusing the ones who he'll send to their death with crimes they didn't commit. In that book the hero was acused of trying to assainate number 1(stalin of course) this way the people were enraged and wanted his death.

The pure communist idea that Karl Marx invented was good, unlike the pure libiral idea that says: The goverment shouldn't do anything about it's people, each one will get what he earned. This way the goverment usally does anything to keep the powerful ones in its country and spending as less money on the 'useless' ones. For example: Sometimes the country wont pay for the medicnes and sell for free for the public, it will keep the money for itself and by that condeming the people that don't have money to buy those medicens to death.

If a country doesn't have enough money to do these things it shouldn't raise the taxes for the poor but for the richer ones. They should raise it maybe as high as half of the rich ones salary: If you get 20,000$ per month then why can't you say good bye to half of that fortune and have only 10,000$ per month?(which is still a tidy sum)