Capitalism vs Communism

[Death Aflame]

Freedom of expression is a right inherent in every individual. From your description of your country, it sounds as though the government takes very good care of its citizens; I think that's great. However, why do they still feel the need to silence those who speak against them? Why should they worry if they're so perfect? This answer still eludes me, and I cannot bring myself to support such a system.

'Marxist'-Leninists often justify such actions by claiming they are quelling a possible capitalist/aristocrat/fascist counter-revolution, which must be stopped at all costs of course.

The truth is though that this is not the case as can be seen in countless censorship examples under totalitarian 'communism' as practiced in the East.

State socialism is a failure historically and as both a theory and practice the sooner it is abandoned the better. One cannot violate liberty so soundly in the 'short term' and expect it to flourish later on (as seen in the so-called 'withering away principle' of the state as it has been practiced).

I put liberty over security.

As a comment on the current political situation in the West I agree, though in absolute terms I don't know how diametrically opposed each are to the other as your statement assumes. Terms need to be defined and arguments made, but that is more work than I am willing to do at this point in time.

 

[Dak]

As a comment on the current political situation in the West I agree, though in absolute terms I don't know how diametrically opposed each are to the other as your statement assumes. Terms need to be defined and arguments made, but that is more work than I am willing to do at this point in time.

In the context provided by the earlier post, I mean that in this case : I will take a fight for a possibly lower standard of living if I have the freedom to think/speak/move over being handed my living but I can't think/speak/move on my own.

 

[razoredge]

So again as we see, both ideals are extremely flawed, time to create a new one that makes considerations for all. We are not free in current capitolism unless you got the money... and guess what, few have it.

You all acting like speaking out against government is a written constitution of condemnation by socialism, but its not, that is simply applied human will of those in charge, nothing say it has to be that way. At the same time in the reverse there are those in the "free" world that need to have thier tongues cut out as they are little more than attention whores and rable rousers. Freedom of speach does not equal freedom to be an asshole. Freedom does not equate to being free to abuse people or ones social, influence and monetary statis. Once this is applied, others have their freedom removed... yet are not free to kill those that suppress them. Dont sit here as a citizen of the United States and even try to proclaim we are "free", if you are you probably have less than 10 years of adult experience and came from families of monetary means.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure what stance you're trying to take razor. Are you saying that freedom of speech is overrated? I agree that some "protestors" are just spouting nonsense, but this should not deter us from still seeking the right to say as we please.

I just watched the HBO documentary "Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech" the other day; I thought it was very good. In no way could a film like that be made in a totalitarian country.

I understand that human beings in a capitalist society aren't completely "free;" but human beings in no society are completely free. Society requires sets of laws and regulations to be made, and individuals have to follow these laws; however, it is true in America that anyone (poor or rich) has the right and the means express themselves (opinions on government, society, politics, economy, etc.). You don't have to be wealthy to exercise your freedom of speech.

 

[Death Aflame]

I understand that human beings in a capitalist society aren't completely "free;" but human beings in no society are completely free. Society requires sets of laws and regulations to be made, and individuals have to follow these laws

In theory (and in practice in select cases) anarchism ought to provide the most freedom for people.

however, it is true in America that anyone (poor or rich) has the right and the means express themselves (opinions on government, society, politics, economy, etc.). You don't have to be wealthy to exercise your freedom of speech.

This is true, but wealth goes a long way to getting your voice heard. Critics like Noam Chomsky are extremely rare in public discourse for a reason--the views that confirm the status quo are backed by mainstream media, and those in power and thus get the vast majority of the forum to disseminate there perspectives.

In other words, while we do have freedom of speech, it's ability to be expressed effectively is severely hampered by the capitalist nature of contemporary liberal democracies.

 

[razoredge]

No Im saying freedom of speach is abused by attention whores

Yes its overrated as a freedom. you can speak all you want and it will get nothing. Would one suggest that our government and corporation leaders and other puppet masters dont know the better half of our population thinks they are all assholes, greedy, selfish, destructive, self serving scanks ? Yet nothing will ever change, apply free speach all you want, they might produce a new well thought and paid for smoke screen to sooth everyones hopes for a bit but all will return to business as usual. One would have to be independantly wealthy and dedicate their life to lobbying for one change,,, that most likely would never take place. Theres no benefit to "freedom" there.

theres no freedom of speach in a court room. Its not man to man shooting straight from the hip to resolve an issue. Its all games and mandated procedures that have nothing to do with the words and honor of men. theres no freedom there.

Freedom of the press, those assholes can shove cameras and microphones in anybodys face harassing them to get thier latest drama for the sole purpose of daily ratings... yet there is no freedom to shove their microphones down their throats........ thats not freedom.

We are not free to assassinate those puppet masters that have totally fucked up this world... thats not freedom.

We had a constitution that gave freedoms and liberties and then "lawmakers" spent a few centuries making laws to protect themselves and their capitalistic pig cronies from their well deserved wrath.

Freedom my ass, a train of deception Im not boarding

 

[monoxide_child]

No Im saying freedom of speach is abused by attention whores

if you mean shows like "punk'd" and "Borat" and "Bruno", then yeah, i agree with you

 

[razoredge]

It is in movies, song lyrics, rap, Stern, Lamebah (thats what I call him and dont know how to spell his real name) Freedom of speach was not intended to insult people or verbally abuse them or for its shock value. It was just so people could freely speak about important issues, not to make money for being total assholes. they were far different and more dignified times, it didnt end up being used for its intended value.

 

[monoxide_child]

It is in movies, song lyrics, rap, Stern, Lamebah (thats what I call him and dont know how to spell his real name) Freedom of speach was not intended to insult people or verbally abuse them or for its shock value. It was just so people could freely speak about important issues, not to make money for being total assholes. they were far different and more dignified times, it didnt end up being used for its intended value.

wow
you finnally made a post that i completely agree with

 

[monoxide_child]

Lamebah (thats what I call him and dont know how to spell his real name)

the guy's name is spelled L-I-M-B-A-U-G-H
and yes i agree with you that he's a jackass that's abusing free speech

 

[razoredge]

helps to lighten up

 

[The_Walrus]

No Im saying freedom of speach is abused by attention whores

Yes its overrated as a freedom. you can speak all you want and it will get nothing.

Disagreed. I would die for freedom of speech. The first and fundamental freedom of speech is the ability to criticise religion. Who wants to go back to a pre-enlightenment dark age?

The very people that you don't want to have free speech and claim are the ones that you must allow it to.

 

[The_Walrus]

What is implied by the "vs"? If it is bodycount, the Capitalist system has claimed far more lives than the Communist.

Communism is a lost cause but it may be that due to the brankrupcy of capitalism right now, it might be possible for people to form a new kind of "communal" government that risks as much as was risked in Russia, but this time prospers. Who can say that risks are never worth taking?

Certainly most are tired of a society which relies on rich investors and stockbrokers. They are cynics. All of them. Bet none of them know love or family. Bet they are proud of it. A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

A communal society has no place for cynics.

 

[Einherjar86]

Certainly most are tired of a society which relies on rich investors and stockbrokers. They are cynics. All of them. Bet none of them know love or family. Bet they are proud of it. A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

But is this morally contemptible? That's the real question.

This country has taken several significant steps towards a more "communal" society; I, for one, am not fond of some of these measures. From a humanitarian perspective we may be making progress; but from a libertarian perspective, we're losing the right to choose.

 

[monoxide_child]

which society structure is more morally acceptable?
capitalism, or comunism?

 

[Dak]

Communism is immoral as hell in my book regardless how it's done.

Capitalism done without a military to back it up (like the British and American "empires" are guilty of) is about as moral as you can get.

 

[Death Aflame]

And why exactly is it 'immoral as hell?'

 

[tutpeyst023]

How can it be immoral? Take Communism as this. There are two hungry dogs and suddenly a piece of meat fell upon, from the heavens. Then they started fighting like crazy over it. In communism the State acts as a mediator between the two greedy entities. Communism is sharing the meat so that nobody gets hungry. The struggle to practice it had many excesses thus putting it always in bad light but Communism in its true sense is that nobody gets left behind. Btw the first post was wrong in the first place and its wonder that it heated up like this. Pozner said in his introduction of Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto clearly said that Communism was only a spectre that hunted Europe. Communism never materialized.

 

[derek]

In response to something said - how can one abuse free speech exactly?

 

[Einherjar86]

How can it be immoral? Take Communism as this. There are two hungry dogs and suddenly a piece of meat fell upon, from the heavens. Then they started fighting like crazy over it. In communism the State acts as a mediator between the two greedy entities. Communism is sharing the meat so that nobody gets hungry.

In real communism, the State gives each dog one tenth of the meat and keeps the rest for itself. In this way, it gives the dogs just enough to survive and fuel the economic machine, but not enough to make it on their own. Communism decreases individual rights because it relies on the neediness of its citizens to survive; it's a self-perpetuating, recycling monster. It appeals to people's sense of security, which it provides; but it denies them rights in the process.