CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the Democratic Party really the Communist Party of USA?
Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love and cherish her? In sickness and in health? For better or for worse? Until death do you part?
Nothing is wrong with communism... in theory. In a real world application, however, things start to get ugly. Just take the USSR for example, everything SOUNDED great but then it turns out that someone has to have all the riches. Stalin turned out to be that someone. As of now, there is no way as of now to perfectly support the ideas of Marx and the others, but if someone got it right, there probably wouldn't be anything wrong with it.
Communism's main failure in practice comes from the failure of a centralized economy to function. Though socialists often attribute it to problems elsewhere, the simple reason behind this occurrence is the mathematics and physical impossibility of managing an economy from a centralized form. One of communism's main ideals is complete control over industries.
Failure in Theory MOST IMPORTANT
As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.
Middle Class
A third order was coming to power and it would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy. This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution to be followed by an "equality" of all classes.
The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the first place!
Free will cannot be suppressed
Communism attempts the impossible: to control human individualism by making a society of inherently individual people uniform. Thought is free and independent and, no matter how hard anyone tries, can never be fully controlled.
I think Communism has gotten a bad-rap from a hyped up propaganda machine that has used the disastrous history of self-titled "Communist" dictatorships (we should be honest and admit that it doesn't matter what you call a dictatorship: whether it be "Monarchism", "Fascism" or "Stalinism", they all look the god damn same) to its advantage.
If Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam (etc.) can be used as examples of the abject failure of Communism, then North Korea can be used as a legitimate example of the abject failure of Democracy - after all, it is a "Democratic People's Republic" - and we should all hate Democracy or Republicanism for its historical treachery and shortcomings.
But we don't.
Anyone who is intellectually honest would recognize and admit without hesitation that North Korea is neither a Republic nor a Democracy - no matter how it labels its statehood. And there are very few people who would dispute this. But when it comes to Communism, propaganda rules because very few people are exposed to its literature and underpinnings, its methods and solutions - a form systemic discipline - and are thus susceptible to repeating falsehoods about it without much contention because they don't know any different.
If Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam (etc.) can be used as examples of the abject failure of Communism, then North Korea can be used as a legitimate example of the abject failure of Democracy - after all, it is a "Democratic People's Republic"
All political systems fit nicely into two categories, Monarchy and Republic.
Therefore, whether communist or totalitarian, both are a republic.
North Korea is not a failure of Democracy because it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship.
But when it comes to Communism, propaganda rules because very few people are exposed to its literature and underpinnings, its methods and solutions - a form systemic discipline - and are thus susceptible to repeating falsehoods about it without much contention because they don't know any different.
As noted in other post with the problems with communism.
A Kritarchy is rule by a council of judges. Corporatocracy is indirect rule by wealthy businesses. Panarchism is a strange form of anarchy. Theocracy is rule by a Church not any one individual but groups of priests. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy.
That is because it is officially a socialist republic that many consider to be a Stalin dictatorship.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1878[2] – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician and head of state who served as the first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953.
Just like the Industrial Revolution and modern Free Markets.
Failure in Theory MOST IMPORTANT
Interesting parallel with free markets too.
As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding.
Communism ultimately moves to eliminate wage labour and private property. In effect, you are provided for. Guess you didn't know that.
Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle.
Not everyone is defined by their job. When you are a great singer, you work hard to become better against other singers. Besides, communism may eliminate wage labour.
Communism attempts the impossible: to control human individualism by making a society of inherently individual people uniform. Thought is free and independent and, no matter how hard anyone tries, can never be fully controlled.
I would argue that if you're provided for, and removed from the need to toil for survival your individuality may blossom since you have time to find yourself.
See Stalin and Mao Zedong.
Don't forget all the kids killed and maimed working in factories in the capitalist golden era.
Also, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In capitalist world, socialism will fail. EX. Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam.
Socialism isn't communism. Besides, what about all the failed capitalist states in South America and Africa?
Just like the Industrial Revolution and modern Free Markets.
The Industrial Revolution was the most prosperous economically time ever for all classes.
*"The industrial revolution, as the transformation came to be known, caused a sustained rise in real income per person in England and, as its effects spread, in the rest of the Western world. Historians agree that the industrial revolution was one of the most important events in history, marking the rapid transition to the modern age." IR
Interesting parallel with free markets too.
No, free markets are superior.
Communism ultimately moves to eliminate wage labour and private property. In effect, you are provided for. Guess you didn't know that.
Again, I did know that. I did read The Communist Manifesto.
Plus, it appears that you would love the idea of big daddy government taking care of you by changing your diapers, spoon feeding you, and wiping your ass.
Not everyone is defined by their job. When you are a great singer, you work hard to become better against other singers. Besides, communism may eliminate wage labour.
You don't see your own stupidity. Singers work to become better singers than others because the ultimate goal is more mainstream attention and more listeners, which means big appearances such as the Super Bowl, which means more money.
I would argue that if you're provided for, and removed from the need to toil for survival your individuality may blossom since you have time to find yourself.
There is no individuality in communism. It is about control and making society into people of all the same, yet you promote diversity. Communism is far from diversity.
Don't forget all the kids killed and maimed working in factories in the capitalist golden era. Also, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Another disappointing and weak argument.
First, North Korea is a SOCIALIST REPUBLIC that turned to a dictatorship.
Second, at the most, 10,000 children will killed or maimed in the factories.
Third, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin killed some 100 million men, women and children.
Besides, what about all the failed capitalist states in South America and Africa?
The Industrial Revolution was the most prosperous economically time ever for all classes.
Economy =/= Social standards (rights, equality, etc)
No, free markets are superior.
At causing instability, maybe.
Again, I did know that. I did read The Communist Manifesto.
So if you knew that, why did you make an argument built on a false premise?
You don't see your own stupidity. Singers work to become better singers than others because the ultimate goal is more mainstream attention and more listeners, which means big appearances such as the Super Bowl, which means more money.
If money loses its meaning, because everyone's needs are accounted for and private property is abolished, then a great singer just wants to make it to his country's version of the super bowl.
There is no individuality in communism. It is about control and making society into people of all the same, yet you promote diversity. Communism is far from diversity.
Only if you think owning things is the way to be different.
First, North Korea is a SOCIALIST REPUBLIC that turned to a dictatorship.
It calls itself a democracy, just like China called itself communist.
Second, at the most, 10,000 children will killed or maimed in the factories.
You're joking, right?
The Industrial Revolution happened over a period of about 150 years, and child labour was common during this period. Population estimates I read put England's figures from just under ten million at 1800 to over twenty million at around 1890. It was a common occurrence that children died while working, and I read figures that estimate that as many as fifty percent of child labourers didn't survive to adulthood.
You completely underestimated the number of deaths. I would estimate the numbers of dead and mutilated combined to exceed several million, but the simple fact is that it's hard to find good numbers from that era so it could range from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions all depending on what the average percentage of dead and mutilated children was per year, and how many children worked over that era (millions).
Third, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin killed some 100 million men, women and children.
Was it because of communism or because they were paranoid dictators?
What states in particularly so I can refute it?
Here's an example:
Chile has economic trouble implementing socialist programs, the USA dislikes this and pressures the country to destabilise it, installs a dictator Pinochet and his privatised programs produce very unstable results.
So if you knew that, why did you make an argument built on a false premise?
It wasn't.
If money loses its meaning, because everyone's needs are accounted for and private property is abolished, then a great singer just wants to make it to his country's version of the super bowl.
How boring? There is no incentive. What reward?
Only if you think owning things is the way to be different.
Wrong, if someone were to a have a mohawk or piercings or some other personal affect, those are all abolished under communism because there is no individuality.
The Industrial Revolution happened over a period of about 150 years, and child labour was common during this period. Population estimates I read put England's figures from just under ten million at 1800 to over twenty million at around 1890.
Where is the proof with a link? Not some government lie?
Was it because of communism or because they were paranoid dictators?
Oh, please, was it because of communism?
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton
Thus, when one has as much as power in a communist society, power will not only corrupt, it will corrupt absolutely and turn into a dictatorship. HENCE, NORTH KOREA.
Chile has economic trouble implementing socialist programs, the USA dislikes this and pressures the country to destabilise it, installs a dictator Pinochet and his privatised programs produce very unstable results.
The USA was wrong for destabilizing Chile politically and econmically.
The implementation of capitalist polices were abrupt, and caused a shock into the system, and ultimately failed due to the bad decisions made by the US government and the Chile dictator.
As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding.
This statement doesn't apply to communism.
How boring? There is no incentive. What reward?
Not every incentive is monetary. Recognition, social approval, accolade, are all huge incentives. Why am I even telling you this? You're human, right? You know this already.
Wrong, if someone were to a have a mohawk or piercings or some other personal affect, those are all abolished under communism because there is no individuality.
So let me get this straight. According to you there is no individuality in communism. Your reason why? Because there is no individuality.
Part of reasoning means you establish evidence then let that lead to a conclusion, if you just have the conclusion "there is no individuality in communism" and work from there to support it, you aren't getting anywhere, yet this is just what you did.
Where is the proof with a link? Not some government lie?
Try searching 18th and 19th century population statistics from google, and try looking for historical rates of child death. It takes a lot of digging.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton
Thus, when one has as much as power in a communist society, power will not only corrupt, it will corrupt absolutely and turn into a dictatorship. HENCE, NORTH KOREA.
Argument by quotation?
When you make an argument that isn't an aphorism, let me know.
The USA was wrong for destabilizing Chile politically and econmically.
It did this across the world to communist and socialist states, hence why we're so hated internationally. Much of South America suffered dictatorships thanks to us meddling. Not to mention Africa and South Asia (I think we were in support of Khmer Rouge too, but don't quote me on that).
The implementation of capitalist polices were abrupt, and caused a shock into the system, and ultimately failed due to the bad decisions made by the US government and the Chile dictator.
Perhaps. However it is now a hybrid system and seems to be doing quite well, for a South American country anyway.
Then general consensus is that England had between 10 million and 30 million from 1800 to 1900, that accidents and deaths were very common in factories that employed children, and that there was a callous disregard for the poor and injured.
Of course, you approve of child labour, so you would like to think that a mere 10000 children lost their lives out of the many millions that worked.
WHY? Again, the full burden of proof falls onto your shoulders because the fact remains that 10 million children didn't die from working in factories.
Those sources are almost laughable because after reading through them, guess what, none made ONE reference that 10 to 30 million children died due to working in factories. ZERO
Unlike your exaggerated claims without a shred of evidence, factual evidence shows that communist regimes murder where Mao and Joesph killed some 100 million people.
Those sources are almost laughable because after reading through them, guess what, none made ONE reference that 10 to 30 million children died due to working in factories. ZERO
As I said, it requires digging and I expect that the mortality rates simply were not recorded. Therefore we make an inference: a population of tens of millions of people, with as much as 25% (a reasonable estimate, it could be higher actually, especially if we include the 20-24 age bracket) of the population being of childrens' age, the working class occupying about 80% (within the range mentioned in those texts) or so of the population, and of the working children accidents were extremely common (so this must mean between 20% and 50%, also hinted at in the texts).
Also remember that this period spanned over more than a century. So where does that place us?
Between 4% and 10% of the population was dying or injured due to work injuries.
Let's just take the rough estimate of England's population towards the end of the 19th century, around 30 million. This means, between 1.2 million and 3 million were injured or dead. This forgets the fact that we need to add the birthrates and immigration rates together for each year (and subtract those who died under age 5, and those who emigrated), for over a century, to get the total number of people who lived in England during the Industrial Revolution, which is going to be a lot more than a mere thirty-million. I don't have this data but it is easily in the hundred millions.
Unlike your exaggerated claims without a shred of evidence, factual evidence shows that communist regimes murder where Mao and Joesph killed some 100 million people.
Also the Industrial Revolution happened in the United States, a country with a giant population compared to England. So if England had only a few million who were injured and dead in the late 19th century, I wonder how many were injured and dead in the States?
Of course, the Industrial Revolution wasn't a war, so the deaths caused by it are largely ignored as uninteresting or incidental.
As I said, it requires digging and I expect that the mortality rates simply were not recorded.
Digging by your part. Good Luck because it doesn't exit.
Between 4% and 10% of the population was dying or injured due to work injuries.
You really pulled this out of your ass. There is absolutely no factual evidence to any of this rant except for population statistics.
If the working conditions were as bad as you suggest and told to millions of primary and secondary schools across America, wouldn't it make sense to further propagate and disseminate this information by telling how many children died due to the evil capitalists and how horrible people they are?
Well, there isn't. Because 10-30 million didn't die due to working conditions in factories. You are exaggerating the number of children working in factories.
Aforementioned, most parents refused to force their child into labor while it was foster children forced into labor by government officials.
Also the Industrial Revolution happened in the United States, a country with a giant population compared to England. So if England had only a few million who were injured and dead in the late 19th century, I wonder how many were injured and dead in the States?
Where is the documentation? Surely, death records have been recorded with cause of death since at least 1850 in the United States.
You really pulled this out of your ass. There is absolutely no factual evidence to any of this rant except for population statistics.
Did you bother to read where the numbers come from?
25% comes from a population pyramid. It is well-within normal parameters (between 20% and 30% which are typical).
80% comes from one of my sources which suggested that that was how much of the population was working class.
20% to 50% comes from repeated mentions in the sources of injuries being very common, hints that as much as 50% of a child workforce had injuries, others mentioned that in coalmines all the child workers died by the age of 24 due to diseases caused by the coal but I excluded this due to the lack of quantified information on coalworkers.
If the working conditions were as bad as you suggest and told to millions of primary and secondary schools across America, wouldn't it make sense to further propagate and disseminate this information by telling how many children died due to the evil capitalists and how horrible people they are?
What, you think that'd get by the conservative, creationist Texas Schoolboard? You're dreaming.
Well, there isn't. Because 10-30 million didn't die due to working conditions in factories. You are exaggerating the number of children working in factories.
My sources, if you read them, suggested that factories employed as many as 70% child labourers with the rest, presumably, adults. They also mentioned that the children were repeatedly exposed to unshielded and unprotected machinery, while sleepy because of long workdays (up to 16 hours), and beaten regularly if they were caught sleeping, were late to work, not working, etc. In some cases they were forced to wear heavy weights as punishment. We are talking about very unsafe working conditions and practices, with a labour force comprised chiefly of children, who were paid almost nothing. That is what society was like in these times.
Where is the documentation? Surely, death records have been recorded with cause of death since at least 1850 in the United States.
I believe it is under census.gov but I couldn't bear to read hundreds of pages of tables, the PDF files were over 100mb each. Even if I did you'd just call me a commie or socialist for reporting the obvious statistics of high mortality associated with unsafe working conditions.
Did you bother to read where the numbers come from?
YES, I looked. It was a population pyramid, big deal. It doesn't prove anything.
25% comes from a population pyramid. It is well-within normal parameters (between 20% and 30% which are typical).
80% comes from one of my sources which suggested that that was how much of the population was working class.
20% to 50% comes from repeated mentions in the sources of injuries being very common, hints that as much as 50% of a child workforce had injuries, others mentioned that in coalmines all the child workers died by the age of 24 due to diseases caused by the coal but I excluded this due to the lack of quantified information on coalworkers.
It is all conjecture without one source providing these percentages as factual.
Where is the documentation? Maybe it is a government conspiracy. Wait, why would government hide secrets when they are on our side? OH, weird.
What, you think that'd get by the conservative, creationist Texas Schoolboard? You're dreaming.
Maybe not in the South, but in the North you liberal hippies would soak that right up...Oh wait, you already did, and it didn't even happen.
My sources, if you read them, suggested that factories employed as many as 70% child labourers with the rest, presumably, adults.
Where? Put them in "QUOTES. That is absurd.
Besides none of them pronounce 10 million children died in the factories.
Why you can't find it? Cause it never happened just as the exaggerated number of children forced into labor.
Most children weren't forced to work in labor.
I believe it is under census.gov but I couldn't bear to read hundreds of pages of tables, the PDF files were over 100mb each.
Well, Good luck.
Even if I did you'd just call me a commie or socialist for reporting the obvious statistics of high mortality associated with unsafe working conditions.
No, I won't because 10 million children didn't die from factories.
YES, I looked. It was a population pyramid, big deal. It doesn't prove anything.
It shows an example of population distribution.
It is all conjecture without one source providing these percentages as factual.
Read the sources I provided. One of them estimates that 80% of the population was in the working class. 25% is an estimate based on real data, and the injury/deathrate comes from testimony from people who oversaw the factories.
(1) Sir Samuel Smith worked as a doctor in Leeds. He was interviewed by Michael Sadler's House of Commons Committee on 16th July, 1832.
Question: Is not the labour in mills and factories "light and easy"?
Dr. Samuel Smith: It is often described as such, but I do not agree at all with that definition. The exertion required from them is considerable, and, in all the instances with which I am acquainted, the whole of their labour is performed in a standing position.
Question:What are the effects of this on the children.
Dr. Samuel Smith: Up to twelve or thirteen years of age, the bones are so soft that they will bend in any direction. The foot is formed of an arch of bones of a wedge-like shape. These arches have to sustain the whole weight of the body. I am now frequently in the habit of seeing cases in which this arch has given way. Long continued standing has also a very injurious effect upon the ankles. But the principle effects which I have seen produced in this way have been upon the knees. By long continued standing the knees become so weak that they turn inwards, producing that deformity which is called "knock-knees" and I have sometimes seen it so striking, that the individual has actually lost twelve inches of his height by it.
Where is the documentation? Maybe it is a government conspiracy. Wait, why would government hide secrets when they are on our side? OH, weird.
Unguarded machinery was a major problem for children working in factories. One hospital reported that every year it treated nearly a thousand people for wounds and mutilations caused by machines in factories. A report commissioned by the House of Commons in 1832 said that: "there are factories, no means few in number, nor confined to the smaller mills, in which serious accidents are continually occurring, and in which, notwithstanding, dangerous parts of the machinery are allowed to remain unfenced."
The report added that he workers were often "abandoned from the moment that an accident occurs; their wages are stopped, no medical attendance is provided, and whatever the extent of the injury, no compensation is afforded."
In 1842 a German visitor noted that he had seen so many people in the streets of Manchester without arms and legs that it was like "living in the midst of the army just returned from a campaign."
(1) Dr. Ward from Manchester was interviewed about the health of textile workers on 25th March, 1819.
When I was a surgeon in the infirmary, accidents were very often admitted to the infirmary, through the children's hands and arms having being caught in the machinery; in many instances the muscles, and the skin is stripped down to the bone, and in some instances a finger or two might be lost. Last summer I visited Lever Street School. The number of children at that time in the school, who were employed in factories, was 106. The number of children who had received injuries from the machinery amounted to very nearly one half. There were forty-seven injured in this way.
(4) John Allett started working in a textile factory when he was fourteen years old. Allett was fifty-three when he was interviewed by Michael Sadler and his House of Commons Committee on 21st May, 1832.
Question: Do more accidents take place at the latter end of the day?
Answer: I have known more accidents at the beginning of the day than at the later part. I was an eye-witness of one. A child was working wool, that is, to prepare the wool for the machine; but the strap caught him, as he was hardly awake, and it carried him into the machinery; and we found one limb in one place, one in another, and he was cut to bits; his whole body went in, and was mangled.
Maybe not in the South, but in the North you liberal hippies would soak that right up...Oh wait, you already did, and it didn't even happen.
The Texas Board of education basically dictates through market demand what the other states will use as books.
It's remarkable that you call people who accept the gruesomeness of child labour "hippies" as though one deserves ridicule for feeling sorrow towards mangled and mutilated children. I would chastise you for having no empathy, but this has been clear ever since you cheerfully proclaimed your callousness in a prior debate about child labour, and so my denouncement of you would go unreflected.
However in the 19th century at least 80% of the population was working class. In order to be considered middle class you had to have at least one servant. Most servants were female. (Male servants were much more expensive because men were paid much higher wages). Throughout the 19th century 'service' was a major employer of women.
Besides none of them pronounce 10 million children died in the factories.
Remember what I said:
25% comes from a population pyramid. It is well-within normal parameters (between 20% and 30% which are typical).
80% comes from one of my sources which suggested that that was how much of the population was working class.
20% to 50% comes from repeated mentions in the sources of injuries being very common, hints that as much as 50% of a child workforce had injuries,
Britain had a population of over ten million, that means over a century many more people were born and died than the extant population figure, in other words a population of thirty million living people over a century should easily represent a total population of near 100 million or so, most lost at an early age or due to old age, violence, etc.
Why you can't find it? Cause it never happened just as the exaggerated number of children forced into labor.
It's fairly obvious if you bother to actually look into the history of child labour. Millions of children working in factories, over a period of at least a century, with the conditions being completely unsafe, leads to death.
(1) Sir Samuel Smith worked as a doctor in Leeds. He was interviewed by Michael Sadler's House of Commons Committee on 16th July, 1832.......
This is inconclusive evidence because it doesn't pinpoint any quantity in the number of children. It could have been 15 or 100, but it is certainty not millions.
Unguarded machinery was a major problem for children working in factories. One hospital reported that every year it treated nearly a thousand people for wounds and mutilations caused by machines in factories. A report commissioned by the House of Commons in 1832 said that: "there are factories, no means few in number, nor confined to the smaller mills, in which serious accidents are continually occurring, and in which, notwithstanding, dangerous parts of the machinery are allowed to remain unfenced."
Again, where is the 10-30 million deaths of children? Nowhere.
25% comes from a population pyramid. It is well-within normal parameters (between 20% and 30% which are typical).
80% comes from one of my sources which suggested that that was how much of the population was working class.
20% to 50% comes from repeated mentions in the sources of injuries being very common, hints that as much as 50% of a child workforce had injuries,
Again, this is pure speculation.
Since you know 10-30 million children were killed in factories, you should write a book. Wait... you all have in accounts of thousands of only injuries and hundreds of deaths. There are still thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths today.
This is inconclusive evidence because it doesn't pinpoint any quantity in the number of children. It could have been 15 or 100, but it is certainty not millions.
Again, where is the 10-30 million deaths of children? Nowhere.
These pieces of testimony indicate a very dangerous and harmful environment, which lasted over a hundred years. They are critical for estimating the scale of death and injury in this time.
Again, this is pure speculation.
It is reasonable inference based on indirect data. Just like the deaths in war times are based on indirect sampling and estimation. What, you didn't think that Stalin kept books on each unperson did you?
This debate is over.
I am satisfied that any open-minded person reading what I've written will find it convincing and if there are objections on academic grounds it would be due to better data sources. My reasoning is not poor.
I don't feel bad for failing to convince you, neither did I expect to. You are a rigid ideologue. You toe the party line.
I am satisfied that any open-minded person reading what I've written will find it convincing and if there are objections on academic grounds it would be due to better data sources.
There doesn't need to be data in books. All there needs to be is physical evidence.
What, you didn't think that Stalin kept books on each unperson did you?
Of course not, seriously, are you that dense? It was the government, so Stalin covered it up, so it is not difficult to keep books off the record because they destroyed anything that showed they existed as if they never existed, but it is more difficult to hide 25 million dead bodies. This is physical evidence.
With all the 10-30 million dead children, DON'T you think someone would have found them? Apparently, you have no idea what 10 or 30 million is.
WHERE ARE THE BODIES? Where is the real physical evidence? NOWHERE!
Even Mao, Stalin and Hitler couldn't hide 90 million dead bodies.
I don't feel bad for failing to convince you, neither did I expect to. You are a rigid ideologue. You toe the party line.
I don't care because you haven't convinced anyone but yourself.
I have a rigid ideologue. Look at yourself. Party Line? Maybe Libertarian.
OH, wait, here comes another government conspiracy or it is a business conspiracy.
"These days, nearly 80 percent of deaths happen in hospitals, not in the home, so we are removed from this process," said Christ. "In London, in 1830, the average life span for middle to upper-class males was 44 years, 25 for tradesman and 22 for laborers. Fifty-seven of every 100 children in working class families were dead by five years of age."
All sorts of this kinds of evidence exists. Reports of high mortality amongst the workers and the poor.
With all the 10-30 million dead children, DON'T you think someone would have found them? Apparently, you have no idea what 10 or 30 million is.
They were buried in graves, and from what I read those graves were very common. Death was a common thing back then, so common that most were indifferent towards it. They weren't hiding anything. You also missed the part where I quoted and sourced testimony that the streets looked like a warzone from all the injured children.
WHERE ARE THE BODIES? Where is the real physical evidence? NOWHERE!
Even Mao, Stalin and Hitler couldn't hide 90 million dead bodies.
The population of England at that time was about 10 million. According to my estimates that means about 1 million would be injured or dead. This forgets the deaths which were commonplace for infants, and children younger than 5, too young to work. They might be buried in yards, and the numbers of actually dead children from factories wasn't all at once. Remember that we're dealing with many thousands of dead children over the course of almost two centuries (with the incidence rate growing with the population). In other words the burial of the dead children would be like what we see now with auto accidents: low profile, relatively small numbers per year, but adding up over a long time.
I have a rigid ideologue. Look at yourself. Party Line? Maybe Libertarian.
I think for myself. I have no party.
OH, wait, here comes another government conspiracy or it is a business conspiracy.
It would be a conspiracy now, but back then nobody cared. They were poor and deserved their life, because this is how Victorians viewed poverty: a product of your own doing.
Yet you want us to return to it and advocate sweatshops, which were the cause of this malady.
Of course! Stalin is still alive (with Elvis) and is hiding somewhere near
Nashville. He will be attending the next Democratic convention. What idiots right-wing nuts are asking these questions? Do they really believe President
Obama is a Kenyan, socialist-communist about to subvert the glorious USA?
By the way, if you like economic success, you should be a Democrat or
a communist-- look at China who soon will be the world's
China will be the number one economy, but China is progressively moving from a agrarian to industrial economy, so the 500 million workforce is a major contributor, and China will continue to be a third world country with its low GDP per capita.
China has gained the world economic top spot by the rapid growth, probably unprecedented in history, of manufactured goods exports.
Because of globalization and recognition of the power of free markets.
It has amassed enormous amounts of foreign reserves and ,economically, it holds the States by the throat.
The catch 22 goes both ways. America could just not import the junk that China produces.
And so I believe GDP per capita tells little of the story, and the term
'third world country' is misleading.
Unforunately, this is where you are wrong and misinformed.
GDP is a criteria that gives us an indication about how well or poorly our nation's economy is doing. What is GDP per capita and why is it such a primary economic indicator? Gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product (GNP) and net national income (NNI), all are indicators of a country's economic power. Many scholars and critics argue that economic components that are included in calculating GDP per capita are unscientific and lack various critical aspects of the economy. Nevertheless, in almost all countries, GDP per capita is used as a benchmark for measuring nation's economic progress.
I am interested in what you think what third world country means? Because my guess is that it is wrong.
China is a communist country, so it isn't a free market there, yet it's whipping out capitalist butts in terms of production.
Are you tired of being wrong? When will the embarrassment end?
Since trade is the voluntary exchange of goods, services and commodities, for it is the major mechanism of the market, China has free market tendencies due to its trade policy with many countries around the world because even communists understand the importance of the market.
In terms of production, China is winning in terms of production not because of centrally planned economy, it is out producing America because of two reasons, global demand and labor.
Since trade is the voluntary exchange of goods, services and commodities, for it is the major mechanism of the market, China has free market tendencies due to its trade policy with many countries around the world because even communists understand the importance of the market.
I suppose the irony of a communist authoritarian state producing enough cheap goods to outperform a number of heavily capitalist states in the west is lost on you.
In terms of production, China is winning in terms of production not because of centrally planned economy, it is out producing America because of two reasons, global demand and labor.
I suppose the irony of a communist authoritarian state producing enough cheap goods to outperform a number of heavily capitalist states in the west is lost on you.
It is also lost on you that the majority of production in China are America companies investing in China. It is called Forgiven Direct Investment.
Neither ironic and amusing because without Foreign Direct Investment of capital investment from private companies abroad, China wouldn't be anything close to that of what it is today. Think back to pre 1991 compared to 1992 with the start of globalization.
This graph shows the sudden increase of FDI in China after 1991. After 1991 The graph clearly shows while under controlled economy there is only linear grow in FDI, but while with free market capital investment, there is exponential growth.
Since communist countries are traditionally isolationists, again, even China understands the importance of trade, and trade is the fundamental mechanisms for capitalism.
The huge expansion of China's economy isn't due to centrally planned economy, it is due capital markets deprived from FDI.
Globalization, forced privatization, the power of so-called free markets, have hurt socially and economically many countries-- most of Africa and large parts of Asia
have regressed. Why hasn't India progressed as much as 'communist' China or
social democratic Brazil?; progress is political as well as economic.
China produces 'junk'? They're orbiting telecommunication satellites, manufacturing airplanes and high speed railways . They're catching up in high-technology; and as of late, China is investing heavily in African development.
'Third world' is a term that isn't used anymore--it's not 'politically correct' and doesn't mean anything. We don't say 'retarded' or 'underdeveloped', but rather
'challenged'( I guess)! The United Nations uses various indices to classify countries, the most common being the ' human development index'.
GPD per capita is misleading because it is a statistical average. In addtion, GDP does not take into account many important social factors , such as education, health, pollution, etc.. In general, well-being or quality of life measurement is complex, and is not adequately reflected in pure economic data.
For U.N. data concerning economic development, you can refer to a pdf document 'Human Devlopment Index' that ranks countries into 5 groups, the U.S. being #13 and China #81 (2008).
a communist party headed by wall street bankers? neil kashkari, tiny tim geitner, ben bernanke, larry sommers, rahm emanuel. go figure. since when do communist parties have 35% maximum income tax? danmark has a maximum of 60%, and they are largely regarded as a CAPITALIST country.
You know this as much as I do that there is no religion in a communist society.
It was a tongue-in-cheek mockery of how Christianity resembles communism more than your portrayal of the Democratic Party, despite communism being philosophically atheistic. You know the part where Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than a rich person to enter the gates of heaven (Matthew 19:24)? Also the part where Jesus washes his disciples' feet and tells Peter that despite being Lord they are equal as men (John 13:1-20). Also what about Jesus' desire to eliminate personal property by telling a man to sell all his possessions (Matthew 19:21)?
You know the part where Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than a rich person to enter the gates of heaven (Matthew 19:24)? Also the part where Jesus washes his disciples' feet and tells Peter that despite being Lord they are equal as men (John 13:1-20). Also what about Jesus' desire to eliminate personal property by telling a man to sell all his possessions (Matthew 19:21)?
Oh boy, do I agree! See my following statements. Since when was most of Europe communist? In Europe Social democracy is a liberal , modern and humane system, not a winner takes all business jungle.
The Tea party bunch tend to be racists, as shown by their frequent attempt
at intimidations of minorities during their public meetings. For the economy, they emphasize the conservative mantra , ie., cutting taxes for the wealthy and reducing much needed public investments. Although many of these right wingers belong to the middle class, they are going against their own self-interests and stupidly shooting themselves in the foot.
They plan nothing for our dilapidated infrastructure-- schools,roads, hospitals,investments for the future of the country. They want to
cut social programs, ignoring the terrible social costs of 10% unemployment,
foreclosures and poverty. About 45 million american live below the poverty
line. Lastly, when asked where the cuts in federal spending should come from,
these kneejerk tax-haters can't really answer, except: keep defense spending
at ever increasing levels and bail out Big Business when the sacred, unregulated Market fails, which happens cyclically and often, causing great
social miseries not only in the US., but throughout the world.
Can anyone call this good and responsible government
The Tea party bunch tend to be racists, as shown by their frequent attempt
at intimidations of minorities during their public meetings.
This is what liberal media spouts.
Although I am libertarian, the tea party still encourages minorities to join.
they emphasize the conservative mantra , ie., cutting taxes for the wealthy and reducing much needed public investments.
The only public investments are police, courts and military.
schools,roads, hospitals,investments for the future of the country.
Public schools cost more than private schools and provide lower quality of education, have you driven on government roads lately, what a disaster, public hospitals are the worst quality care. Correct, we did good investment of infrastructure, but it must be in the private sector.
Social Security must be fixed.
About 45 million american live below the poverty line.
You can thank GOVERNMENT for that. Nobody else is to blame because of bad policies. Only government makes the laws.
Unregulated market don't fail, they only fail with government interference with regulations.
What is so bad about the Tea Party? They want a responsible government.
The TEA Party formed out of resentment and hostility towards government spending, lack of religion in politics, Obama being black, etc., which exists to further the religious right, which had a rift with the republican party.
i don't think that communist would be the right word to describe the democratic party but out of the main parties in the USA wouldn't the democratic one be the closest for isn't their main idea to give our money back to the government?
Communism is chiefly concerned with the elimination of class, private property and the community ownership of production.
The Democratic Party is chiefly concerned with social progressiveness, government intervention to fight social inequality, and progressive taxes.
This is at odds with business interests (who prefer a flat tax - better for their profits), the wealthy (who can afford a flat tax more than the poor), the religious right (social inequality has become their platform for dividing voters and keeping a support base), and small government conservatives (who probably just hate regulations most of the time because of how suffocating they have become especially with regards to tax codes).
Libertarians hate communism because it abolishes the thing that they seek most - the ability elevate themselves above their peers using wealth.
Libertarians hate socialism because it keeps them from paying their workers slave wages, forces them to jump through hoops to fire someone, prevents them from dumping waste cheaply, and disallows them from cutting corners.
Libertarians hate Democrats because they hate the health care reform bill, because they think that Insurance ought to be as profitable to the Insurance companies as possible, and they hate the idea that they might one day be forced into health care equality, I.E. where a man off the street receives the same urgency and quality of care as a middle-class man.
As a Social Democrat living in Europe (16 and born in the States),
I completely agree. I believe health care for all should be available,
and no one should die or go bankrupt because they or their family are
seriously ill. I believe that the financial industry should be regulated so
we avoid the social miseries caused by depressions and recessions. I believe
in achieving social fairness and justice through opportunities for all
in education ( at all levels). Business interests are contributing to
the destruction of the environment and should also be strongly regulated.
A fair tax code as well as strong and democratic unions should be able to act as a countervailing power to wealth and corporate interests, in order to protect workers ( I include the middle class).
Contrary to what somebody said elsewhere, I believe that libertarians
are right wingers who defend corporate interests under the mask of liberty.
They believe in the survival of the strongest in the jungle of unrestrained, 'everything goes' markets.
Corporations are legally people, so yes libertarians believe in personal (corporate) liberty.
Wait, I though you were for big corporations because you support big government, and voluminous regulations, which onlys lead to big corporations.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
If you can read, which I assume so, there is no mention of corporation in this preamble.
Wait, I though you were for big corporations because you support big government, and voluminous regulations, which onlys lead to big corporations.
No, that's The Libertarian Party. They support lax regulations and tax cuts for big businesses.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
I thought I'd modify that to reflect your party's actual agenda:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of corporate liberty; a world in which all businesses are sovereign over their employees and none are forced to sacrifice his or her profits for the benefit of others.
If you can read, which I assume so, there is no mention of corporation in this preamble.
Because all shady organisations and movements state their objectives outright.
No, that's The Libertarian Party. They support lax regulations and tax cuts for big businesses.
You are the one who supports big government, so you support big business.
THAT IS CORPORATISM.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of corporate liberty; a world in which all businesses are sovereign over their employees and none are forced to sacrifice his or her profits for the benefit of others.
Well, your modification is inaccurate.
Because all shady organizations and movements state their objectives outright.
Just the Democrats, liberals and Obama Administration and their SOCIALIST AGENDA.
While Democrats seem to prefer Socialism over Capitalism, they don't strike me as the Communist Party. That would be more like the Green Party (although even they are not extreme enough).
That would be more like the Green Party (although even they are not extreme enough).
Or - y'know - the actual Communist Party of America (>_>). The Green Party is the Green Party, they have their own platform working for them - and they ain't Communist.
I'm a member of the Socialist Party USA.... They aren't ^&@ing close at all! Number of reasons...
1.) Duverger's law pretty much prevents a far-right/left party from gaining power in a 'winner take all' type of electoral system. Like the United States, unlike the EU (thus why many parties are available). While there are some exceptions to the law, the USA isn't one of them.
Think of it like this (highly simplified)... If you have one fascist party that will get 70,000 votes (for a single seat), and two more parties that want freedom and hate fascism; that will both get 50,000 votes (for a single seat), they will be beaten unless they set aside their differences for a common desire. That is why all the large progressive parties and traditionalist parties set aside their differences to become part of a party that as a similar goal. It gives their politicians a chance of winning and inputing their policies, while making one party larger, while all the time it is seemed to be the same mindset. (Thus why some socialists go to the Democrats, larger chance of victory; even if you have to restrain a little.)
2.) Huge economic differences, The democratic party is more of a subscriber of the nordic model than of marxism-leninism. I'll let you guys read those on your own, as I think #1 is the big one.
3.) Least convincing argument I've ever is this.
Their names are spelled different, therefore they are different!!!1!* (PLEASE DON"T TAKE THAT seriously).
no because Democrats and Republicans are to centralized. and they are for a reason. if one side radicalized people will tend to then shift gear to the other "centralized" side. thats why the Republicans or Democrats rarely take solid stone positions on subjects like abortion or gun control. that is left to the people in the party, not the party. in each party you then have people who are more radicalized in something (conservatives and liberals).
To even suggest that America has a political party which is so much as left wing is ridiculous. You have to look on it in a historical sense, not the immediate sense, because this sense is always distorted and perverted by the current circumstance.
We take America with its two major political parties, Reps and Dems. Both wholly concerned with corporate interests.
So, now look at the parties in their immediate, non-historical position in the political spectrum. Yeah, the Dems may be more toward the left, than the Reps. But they are still incredibly right wing, in a historical sense. Communism can only be observed in a historical position. Because it has never existed. In theory it is to the extreme left, the Dems and Reps are both to the extreme right, again, in a historical outlook. So to even link those two together is ridiculously absurd.
Maybe this will help in terms of Immediate and historical human ideology.
