Rich people are humans too.

[Muzk]

I must say I have encountered a lot of rich and bourgeoise haters.

That's unacceptable, they are human beings just like anyone else - hating someone because of their person is bad. Note that with hating I mean everything that comes from it such as torture, discrimination.

Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.
You can take away their power, not the human rights.

Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.


Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'

Everything has a cause - nothing comes from itself. Every human is bound to the factors that determine decisions, your look, your attitude - such as hormones, feelings, memories - and, really, noone can change how things go, hence why the people who we know ARE wrong shouldn't be punished because of useless reasons such as vengeance - it is just not right. (And bad for our case)


Read something about materialism - it can really change your life, your beliefs, how you act. And is possibly the only way to see the earth from a clear point of view.

[Conquer or Die]

Property Capitalists and Imperialists can join in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Muzk]

...Okay. That so helped the non existant discussion in this thread.


Besides that, I hope noone goes on a Stalin rush to purge all those. (While or after a revolution)

[danyboy27]

do you think the SS shouldnt be hated?
beccause your reasonnement goes in that dirrection.

i am not trying to trap you, personally, i try not to hate peoples in general, but you gotta be coherent.

[Muzk]

Hate what you want, if you are so bound to your instincts. But hating on them will never get you to a point where you can do an objective decision.

But, the reason why they shouldn't be hated is much more complicated and is probably a philosophic thing

[Skooma Addict]

Note that with hating I mean everything that comes from it such as torture, discrimination.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? I don't think I understand what your saying here.


Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.

Why? If Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, why must I only hate his actions, and not him as a person? I see no reason why I should not hate both.


You can take away their power, not the human rights.

Right, but that has nothing to do with hating a person.


Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.


Science has not taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault.



Everything has a cause - nothing comes from itself. Every human is bound to the factors that determine decisions, your look, your attitude - such as hormones, feelings, memories - and, really, noone can change how things go, hence why the people who we know ARE wrong shouldn't be punished because of useless reasons such as vengeance - it is just not right. (And bad for our case)

Except it is not true that people have no control over their actions. So it is not wrong for us to punish people who murder/rape/steal.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Why not hate the bourgeoisie? They create suffering and death worldwide with their selfish desires for power and money.

[Lyev]

I totally agree, hate people's actions not people. Although, thinking about it I can't help thinking about people like Nick Griffin or Margaret Thatcher without anger... However I do think sometimes the whole object of hating someone like Nick Griffin is defeated by hating him. He is a figure of such vehement hate that you sort of become what you're hating, you know, because of your own hate? Having said that, if I saw Nick Griffin in the street I'd probably throw something at him, he's such a nob. I guess we're only human, I can't help hating fucking twats.

[Muzk]

Let me put it like this: Don't let subjective hatred influence your objective decisions.


That pretty much brings it to the point

[kharacter]

Well the only rich person that I've ever heard of who is any good is 11 and named Chiyo, and she's not even real.

[Bud Struggle]

Great post.

The Bourgeoise can't help what they are--they are products of the dialetctic. They are just as much a tool of history as the Proletariat.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I must say I have encountered a lot of rich and bourgeoise haters.

That's unacceptable, they are human beings just like anyone else - hating someone because of their person is bad. Note that with hating I mean everything that comes from it such as torture, discrimination.

Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.
You can take away their power, not the human rights.

Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.


Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'

Everything has a cause - nothing comes from itself. Every human is bound to the factors that determine decisions, your look, your attitude - such as hormones, feelings, memories - and, really, noone can change how things go, hence why the people who we know ARE wrong shouldn't be punished because of useless reasons such as vengeance - it is just not right. (And bad for our case)


Read something about materialism - it can really change your life, your beliefs, how you act. And is possibly the only way to see the earth from a clear point of view.

At the risk of appearing as an anarcho-kiddie out to shock everyone on the internet.

http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/classwar-new-homes-rich.gif

[Bud Struggle]

^^^^Ouch:D

[Muzk]

Durr. You burry them with a cross ontop? Christians... Give their flesh to our animals - which then serve as food for us!


Seriously, burrying people with such ceremonial things as today is... well it doesn't serve the case - it's pretty bourgeoise too, you know how rich those funeral directors are?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Which is why we expropriate the rich, and then they can live side by side and see how real work is done.

[Bud Struggle]

Which is why we expropriate the rich, and then they can live side by side and see how real work is done.

Or maybe the Bourgeoise could teach the Proletariat how the REAL work is done.

[Muzk]

Yes! Sitting on your butt and making HARD decisions... which could end in firing lots of people! But who cares? I'll keep my job!

[Robert]

Or maybe the Bourgeoise could teach the Proletariat how the REAL work is done.

We're gonna get mail.:lol:

[Comrade B]

The idea is not to punish people, it is to create equality, and to do that we have to take away from the bourgeoisie. Sometimes they fight back, and to win we must continue past their resistance.

[Skooma Addict]

Let me put it like this: Don't let subjective hatred influence your objective decisions.

Why? Why shouldn't we let our hatred of a person influence our decisions? If I hate a woman, I am not going to marry her. My subjective hatred influenced my decision not to marry her. What is so wrong with this?


The idea is not to punish people, it is to create equality, and to do that we have to take away from the bourgeoisie. Sometimes they fight back, and to win we must continue past their resistance.

Why do you want equality?

[genstrike]

First, there is a difference between rich people and the bourgeoisie. Rich people have a lot of money. The bourgeoisie posess capital and use it to reproduce capital in an exploitative manner. If you win the powerball, that doesn't automatically make you a capitalist. If you win the powerball and use that money to buy a factory to make more money, then you are a capitalist.

As to this:


Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'

What about the daily violence perpetrated on the working class by the bourgeoisie? The problem is systemic, so we can't stop the bourgeoisie through peaceful actions or moral arguments to convince them the error of their ways. We need to eradicate the capitalist system of violence and exploitation, and as the bourgeoisie aren't going to be giving up their privileged positions willingly, I think some violence is sadly going to be necessary. Making the decision not to end the violent capitalist system by any means necessary is condoning the violence inherent in the system, and therefore is not necessarily a less violent decision than to use violence to destroy capitalism and the state so we can build a society without violence and exploitation.

Look at it this way: what is the less violent action - shooting an SS guard or letting him gas thousands of people?

As to "they are human too", I completely agree. They can work like the rest of us.

As to hating people, I like to say "Don't hate the playa, hate the capitalist system" in general, as the problem is not a few people being assholes but a system that allows for and rewards the assholery of the bourgeoisie, but some people are either so representative of the systems of oppression that we face and have such power in implementing them (Margaret Thatcher), or are just fucking assholes (Nick Griffin), that it's easy to resent them.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm pretty sure the proletariat would love to be paid millions in bonuses to sit in a chair and decide whether or not to build in section a or section b.

[Jack]

OP is a rich kid.

[Muzk]

OP is a rich kid.Subjective and stupid. (And wrong)


What about the daily violence perpetrated on the working class by the bourgeoisie?The point is, that USELESS violence is wrong. Do what is needed, no more, no less.
If you look at everything simply from your own point of view, you are no better than an individualist.



Look at it this way: what is the less violent action - shooting an SS guard or letting him gas thousands of people?You havn't read it all. Kill them if you know it's needed - not simply because 'that's wrong!' but because you've looked at it in another point of view - not your own, but the objective type where real, objective decisions are made: A huge bonus that really every politician needs. (And if they had they'd all be communists)


Why do you want equality? .................................................. ......................................:rolleyes:

[Slapstiq]

.................................................. ......................................:rolleyes:
Not that I want to argue with you about it but I think it's a fair question. Nature does not afford us equality so the positive statement (requiring justification) is why man should alter the course of nature. The only justification I've ever heard is axiomatic, and apparently the non-objective is something you object to.

[Muzk]

Not that I want to argue with you about it but I think it's a fair question. Nature does not afford us equality so the positive statement (requiring justification) is why man should alter the course of nature. The only justification I've ever heard is axiomatic, and apparently the non-objective is something you object to.

http://godknowswhat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/objection2.jpg

why man should alter the course of nature. cough nuclear physics cough coal mines cough
By the way, youre practically saying ill people shouldn't get help because it's the course of nature. Last time I've heard such a thing was from a christian.

By the way equality is what all communists strive for - maybe you are wrong on this board as a pro capitalist?

[Slapstiq]

why man should alter the course of nature. cough nuclear physics cough coal mines cough
You're assuming that I agree with the justification for those alterations, or that they weren't a part of (mans) nature.


By the way, youre practically saying ill people shouldn't get help because it's the course of nature. Last time I've heard such a thing was from a christian.
Ill people do get help, because it's in our nature to be sympathetic and suchlike. You're strawmanning me, though; I'm open to convincing on why I should change the way I behave (via objective argumentation). Just like the men before me were convinced of nuclear energy and coal mines.


By the way equality is what all communists strive for - maybe you are wrong on this board as a pro capitalist?
It's opposing ideologies, and you're again assuming that I am pro capitalist. Technically I'm a voluntarist, but either way it would be no fun to post on a forum full of people who agree with me.

[Muzk]

Your choice. You want the best for yourself, be greedy and shit on all those poor people or do something

Depends on you. Memories, hormones, whatever...

[Slapstiq]

Your choice. You want the best for yourself, be greedy and shit on all those poor people or do something How does voluntarism shit on poor people if they're allowed to pick a society at their preference. I'm asking why we should enforce your view of the optimum society when we can just as well allow people to choose it for themselves. Since utility is subjective and all.

And I'm only asking because you said in this thread that we should think objectively. An axiomatic claim that all humans should be equal isn't a form of objective reasoning.

[Muzk]

How does voluntarism shit on poor people if they're allowed to pick a society at their preference.

Because one of the choices does this?...

[Slapstiq]

How does voluntarism shit on poor people if they're allowed to pick a society at their preference.

Because one of the choices does this?...
Then people won't choose it? Are you suggesting poor people aren't intelligent enough to make that choice or something? Many of them seem to like the idea of socialism already, despite the implied capitalist brainwashing.

[Muzk]

You make me rage

you dont have a fucking choice

poor people will always stay poor, or have a hard time getting out of the death cycle

You're a dirty pro-cappie, thinking the propaganda shit like 'boo hoo everyone can get rich by working hard' is actually right.

Go home.

ALSO, MEGA OFF TOPIC NOW.

[Slapstiq]

You don't have a choice now, but right now isn't voluntarism. The whole point of voluntarism is making it so that people do have a choice.

i.e. free movement of people between socialist/communist and capitalist societies. Simply moving people is not an expensive (in the non monetary sense) process, and there's no reason a communist state wouldn't help potential immigrants out with it anyway.

I don't see how it can be argued that people should not have a choice of ideology.

[Radical]

Why must I choose not to hate somebody that is oppressing the poor and supporting poverty?

This ideal you have reminds me very much of Pacifism. A Revolution is not a bed of roses. People must be punnished for the years of misery they have put to the oppressed.

[The Bear]

I must say I have encountered a lot of rich and bourgeoise haters.

That's unacceptable, they are human beings just like anyone else - hating someone because of their person is bad. Note that with hating I mean everything that comes from it such as torture, discrimination.

Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.
You can take away their power, not the human rights.

Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.


Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'

Everything has a cause - nothing comes from itself. Every human is bound to the factors that determine decisions, your look, your attitude - such as hormones, feelings, memories - and, really, noone can change how things go, hence why the people who we know ARE wrong shouldn't be punished because of useless reasons such as vengeance - it is just not right. (And bad for our case)


Read something about materialism - it can really change your life, your beliefs, how you act. And is possibly the only way to see the earth from a clear point of view.

We (most of us) believe that all evil of this world comes from people's greed and egoism... Socialists and leftists value the community , cooperation and mutual coexistence of humans. That all people should live on their work , and fullfill each other except exploit each other. This need for social justice will exist as long as there are people who have more then they need and those who are starving , those who are disscriminated , and those who are above the laws and others , people for who the traffic is blocked and crowds are beaten to make them way , people who can sell your position and workplace to other people...

Being rich by exploiting cant be just tolerated as long as person adds in charity from time to time

[Led Zeppelin]

This thread is strange and the original post is absurd. There is nothing inherent to "people" that makes them infallible. In fact, far from it.

A Nazi concentration camp guard was also "a human being", who the fuck cares? We judge people by their actions and their position in society, not by the type of biological organism they are.

[Muzk]

, not by the type of biological organism they are.

Why would one have a reason to torture a human with feelings then? It won't change nothing but give you a good feeling.

[RGacky3]

People must be punnished for the years of misery they have put to the oppressed.

Thats assuming its the PEOPLE that cause the misery and oppression, not the system, if that were true, why not just repace the system with nice people.

[Skooma Addict]

You make me rage

you dont have a fucking choice

poor people will always stay poor, or have a hard time getting out of the death cycle

You're a dirty pro-cappie, thinking the propaganda shit like 'boo hoo everyone can get rich by working hard' is actually right.

Go home.

ALSO, MEGA OFF TOPIC NOW.

And yet you still haven't explaind why all humans should be equal. But anyways, true equality is impossible. So a true egalitarian society can never happen.

[AntifaAustralia]

LOL you guys are funny.

Hey muzk, DEATH TO THE RICH, not physically kill them brother, i just want to kill their riches by robbing them, and make em equal.

I dont know, is greed a non desirable trait of communism? capital punishment for Greedy non-altruistic peoples? Should we PRACTICE EUGENICS? hmm, is that right?

to be humanists or anti-humanists.

[Dean]

I must say I have encountered a lot of rich and bourgeoise haters.

That's unacceptable, they are human beings just like anyone else - hating someone because of their person is bad. Note that with hating I mean everything that comes from it such as torture, discrimination.

Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.
You can take away their power, not the human rights.

Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.


Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'

Everything has a cause - nothing comes from itself. Every human is bound to the factors that determine decisions, your look, your attitude - such as hormones, feelings, memories - and, really, noone can change how things go, hence why the people who we know ARE wrong shouldn't be punished because of useless reasons such as vengeance - it is just not right. (And bad for our case)


Read something about materialism - it can really change your life, your beliefs, how you act. And is possibly the only way to see the earth from a clear point of view.

A bit simplistic, but I generally agree with you. :)

[RGacky3]

I wonder why this is even an issue, rich peoples lives arn't really at danger now, however, millions of poor people and oppressed people who are being killed because of rich peoples greed are in danger.

[Skooma Addict]

I wonder why this is even an issue, rich peoples lives arn't really at danger now, however, millions of poor people and oppressed people who are being killed because of rich peoples greed are in danger.

The poor are not being killed and oppressed by "rich peoples greed". They are being killed and oppressed by their governments policies. Policies that favor the politically well connected, not the rich in general.

[Havet]

The poor are not being killed and oppressed by "rich peoples greed". They are being killed and oppressed by their governments policies. Policies that favor the politically well connected, not the rich in general.

government policies end up favoring all the rich in general...

[Ele'ill]

I must say I have encountered a lot of rich and bourgeoise haters. That's unacceptable, they are human beings just like anyone else -

I try to understand what people do based on their own past experiences with life. Not based on their wealth. However wealthier people may have similar experiences and impoverished people may have similar experiences. Both based on their class.

I am an anarchist. There are a lot of anarchists that I cannot stand. There are a lot of anarchists that I cannot stand because I am fairly passionate when it comes to political and social issues and their own passion rubs me the wrong way. I cannot stand them because of their political beliefs.

Do I hate them? Some severely annoy me.







Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.

Unfortunately, there is no convenient separation between a person and a person that is doing.





Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.


:lol:



Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'

This right here could have been the only thing you posted. I agree with you on this point. Violence is often the most taxing option to get what you want. Its not the most practical in most situation and for this reason alone it should be avoided.



Read something about materialism - it can really change your life, your beliefs, how you act. And is possibly the only way to see the earth from a clear point of view.

How does this fit into your post?

[brigadista]

if they agree to a redistribution of their wealth and to join the proletariat then im not hating on them..

[kharacter]

.................................................. ......................................:rolleyes:
my sentiments exactly, i don't understand why anyone would thank a post which questions the importance of equality

[Slapstiq]

So what you're saying is you don't have an answer to the question so you're going to claim its stupid and that everyone knows it's stupid.

In a thread about objective reasoning, no less.

[Skooma Addict]

government policies end up favoring all the rich in general...

Government policies often hurt certain rich people, and help other rich people. Other government policies (such as the minimum wage) hurt some poor people, and benefit other poor people. I don't think the government simply helps "the rich" at the expense of "the poor".



my sentiments exactly, i don't understand why anyone would thank a post which questions the importance of equality

Still waiting to hear why we should strive for equality.

[RGacky3]

Government policies often hurt certain rich people, and help other rich people. Other government policies (such as the minimum wage) hurt some poor people, and benefit other poor people. I don't think the government simply helps "the rich" at the expense of "the poor".

Overall, in general, yes they do. Sure everynow and then they let a rich person under the buss, however in general, its the rich and priviledge that get the governments love at the expense of everyone else.

[Skooma Addict]

Overall, in general, yes they do. Sure everynow and then they let a rich person under the buss, however in general, its the rich and priviledge that get the governments love at the expense of everyone else.

It is only the politically well connected rich who benefit from the government at the expense of everyone else on a regular basis. It is not the entire upper class. The people over at Goldman Sachs often receive government support at the expense of the poor and the rich alike.

[RGacky3]

It is only the politically well connected rich who benefit from the government at the expense of everyone else on a regular basis. It is not the entire upper class. The people over at Goldman Sachs often receive government support at the expense of the poor and the rich alike.

Yes, becausae the policies put in place effect everyone, even those without connections. For example a few wealth constituents might lobby for lower property taxes, but everyone benefits.

Government subsidies also are generally industry wide, and they benefit those who invest in the industry as well. So its much much more than simple behind close doors government and capitalist meetings.

[Manifesto]

Teh, the rich people I know (which is extended family members) are the most selfish people I know and even at their child's birthday they use that as a business opportunity.

[AntifaAustralia]

Please somebody reply to my question.

Should we practice hardline punishment in society to eliminate Greediness/selfishness? use Jails? execute? sounds like eugenics:(. we have problems everywhere with tax evaders.

My mother is greedy, damn. :( she got a mercedes benz suv gas guzzler, fuck! :cursing: (2nd hand though) still tis disgusting :cursing:

[Havet]

Please somebody reply to my question.

Should we practice hardline punishment in society to eliminate Greediness/selfishness? use Jails? execute? sounds like eugenics:(. we have problems everywhere with tax evaders.

My mother is greedy, damn. :( she got a mercedes benz suv gas guzzler, fuck! :cursing: (2nd hand though) still tis disgusting :cursing:

Whats wrong with being greedy, provided its not at the expense at someone else?

[NecroCommie]

I will stop hating the rich when they start treating me as a human being.

End of discussion on my part.

[Manifesto]

Please somebody reply to my question.

Should we practice hardline punishment in society to eliminate Greediness/selfishness? use Jails? execute? sounds like eugenics:(. we have problems everywhere with tax evaders.

My mother is greedy, damn. :( she got a mercedes benz suv gas guzzler, fuck! :cursing: (2nd hand though) still tis disgusting :cursing:
No we should not kill people just for being greedy. Seems very hard to do in communism anyways.

[Lyev]

I have a question kind of linked to this topic, after a socialist revolution what is to be done with the bourgeoisie?

[Muzk]

I have a question kind of linked to this topic, after a socialist revolution what is to be done with the bourgeoisie?


They aren't bourgeoise anymore afterwards...

[danyboy27]

I have a question kind of linked to this topic, after a socialist revolution what is to be done with the bourgeoisie?

i guess it depend if your political ideology.

[Comrade B]

Why do you want equality?
It doesn't matter if it is against our nature to be compassionate and supporting people, nature is cruel and based on survival, we should make our goal to improve things.
Animals rape each other, shit all over, monkeys kill each other for food. If you want to argue that it is ok to do this shit just because it is natural to survival... no offense... but you are bat shit crazy.

[Skooma Addict]

It doesn't matter if it is against our nature to be compassionate and supporting people, nature is cruel and based on survival, we should make our goal to improve things.
Animals rape each other, shit all over, monkeys kill each other for food. If you want to argue that it is ok to do this shit just because it is natural to survival... no offense... but you are bat shit crazy.

All I am asking is what makes you think equality is desireable. If everyone were dirt poor and starving, that would be a step towards equality. So equality itsself is not necessarily a good thing.

I also don't think it is against our nature to be compassionate and supporting. But that is beside the point.

[Comrade B]

All I am asking is what makes you think equality is desireable. If everyone were dirt poor and starving, that would be a step towards equality. So equality itsself is not necessarily a good thing.
Why should one person be able to profit while the rest suffer? What makes them more important.
That is only a hypothetical situation anyway, in the real world, there are enough natural resources that if they were socialized, the world would not be dirt poor, it would be moderately comfortable for everyone.

[Bud Struggle]

Why should one person be able to profit while the rest suffer? What makes them more important.
That is only a hypothetical situation anyway, in the real world, there are enough natural resources that if they were socialized, the world would not be dirt poor, it would be moderately comfortable for everyone.

Yea, but you have to take into account the survival of the fittest. Some people are just "better" than other people at finding a way to survive, or gain wealth, or at developing their boodline.

It's NATURE that some people die out and some survive.

[Comrade B]

Yea, but you have to take into account the survival of the fittest. Some people are just "better" than other people at finding a way to survive, or gain wealth, or at developing their boodline.

It's NATURE that some people die out and sume survive.

It doesn't matter if it is against our nature to be compassionate and supporting people, nature is cruel and based on survival, we should make our goal to improve things.
Animals rape each other, shit all over, monkeys kill each other for food. If you want to argue that it is ok to do this shit just because it is natural to survival... no offense... but you are bat shit crazy.
.

[Bud Struggle]

.

That of course--is your opinion.

[Misanthrope]

Rich people are humans too.

Wrong

[Muzk]

Wrong


Stalinist!

And you spam

[LOLseph Stalin]

Stalinist!

And you spam

Yes, because Stalinists are totally Anarchist now. :p

[Skooma Addict]

Why should one person be able to profit while the rest suffer? What makes them more important.
That is only a hypothetical situation anyway, in the real world, there are enough natural resources that if they were socialized, the world would not be dirt poor, it would be moderately comfortable for everyone.

I see nothing wrong with voluntary relationships. In order to force equality on everyone, you are no longer acting on a voluntary basis. You must force everyone to conform to your standard of equality, whether or not they agree with you.

But still, I don't think equality itself is desirable. If we were all dying of cancer, we would be more equal. Such an event would be terrible not because we are closer to equality, but because we all have cancer. If we were all wealthy and happy, we would have taken a step towards equality. But such an event would be desirable not because we are closer to equality, but because we are all wealthy and happy. Is there anything about equality itself that you find desirable?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why not hate the bourgeoisie, some of you ask. Replace bourgeoisie with reactionary workers. Why not hate reactionary workers? Why not hate everyone who votes for capitalist politicians? Because they're not the enemy. It's in fact not even they're fault. They're cogs in the machine just like the rest of us. The enemy is the system, not the people. I would go as far as to say that hating members of the bourgeoisie personally is counter productive. You can do all you want against them as individuals, and our problem still won't be solved. We need to focus our attention on actions and positions that will yield concrete results. Hating the bourgeoisie is utterly pointless.

[Bud Struggle]

Why not hate the bourgeoisie, some of you ask. Replace bourgeoisie with reactionary workers. Why not hate reactionary workers? Why not hate everyone who votes for capitalist politicians? Because they're not the enemy. It's in fact not even they're fault. They're cogs in the machine just like the rest of us. The enemy is the system, not the people. I would go as far as to say that hating members of the bourgeoisie personally is counter productive. You can do all you want against them as individuals, and our problem still won't be solved. We need to focus our attention on actions and positions that will yield concrete results. Hating the bourgeoisie is utterly pointless.

Good post. The problem is that in your plan--the system controls the individual will--and it takes another force of "system" for people to dislocate themselves from one way of thinking.

It kind of makes people the slaves of their political enviornment. I kind of thing people are better than that.

[communard resolution]

The enemy is the system, not the people. I would go as far as to say that hating members of the bourgeoisie personally is counter productive. You can do all you want against them as individuals, and our problem still won't be solved. We need to focus our attention on actions and positions that will yield concrete results. Hating the bourgeoisie is utterly pointless.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that hating members of the bourgeoisie is counterproductive, but it's certainly irrelevant.

As BudStruggle rather triumphantly declared in an earlier post, they're also just a "tool of history". Marx claimed nothing to the contrary: in the Communist Manifesto, he didn't write that the bourgeoisie consisted of intrinsically evil people who enjoy oppressing the goodie-goodie members of the proletariat.

What Marx says is that throughout history, classes struggle against classes until eventually the old ruling class is overthrown and another class establishes its power. Hence the bourgeois revolutions against the absolutist feudal order. Hence the inevitablity of the eventual overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.

Do I hate individual members of the bourgeoisie? I probably do hate some - I'm only human and cannot help it. But the point is not revenge or bloodshed, the point is to work towards a situation where my class can establish its rule and do away with a system that faciliates its exploitation.

So, if I happen to live to the beautiful morning when we take power, will I catch the first bus to BudStruggle's suburb so I can personally slit his throat? I would like to think that I won't - I'm not a sadist and BudStruggle is a nice guy (though he's been flogging some very dodgy social darwinisms lately - how very un-Christian of him!). As long as he doesn't take up arms to defend his private property and the system that protects it, I can't imagine why anyone would want to treat him badly. If he resists, his resistance will have to be broken by whatever means are necessary. Simple.

I don't think anyone becomes a communist because they're a particuarly hateful or vindictive person. They are just acting in their interests and in the interests of their class.

[Bud Struggle]

So, if I happen to live to the beautiful morning when we take power, will I catch the first bus to BudStruggle's suburb so I can personally slit his throat? I would like to think that I won't - I'm not a sadist and BudStruggle is a nice guy (though he's been flogging some very dodgy social darwinisms lately - how very un-Christian of him!). As long as he doesn't take up arms to defend his private property and the system that protects it, I can't imagine why anyone would want to treat him badly. If he resists, his resistance will have to be broken by whatever means are necessary. Simple.


And I would claim nothing. Take the keys to the house, the land, the cars. It's all yours. I argue for nothing, take it all. It belongs to the people. And in a few years I will have it all back. The house the land the cars--all in the name of the people. I will earn it as a "servant of the people" or whatever.

I'll get it all back under Communism and even more so. There are winners and loosers in this world--and no economic or political system is ever going to change that.

[kharacter]

So what you're saying is you don't have an answer to the question so you're going to claim its stupid and that everyone knows it's stupid.

In a thread about objective reasoning, no less.


All I am asking is what makes you think equality is desireable. If everyone were dirt poor and starving, that would be a step towards equality. So equality itsself is not necessarily a good thing.


Equality is fairness, fairness is morality, and morality is among the few things that mark this species as having worth, therefore it is severely important.

I would rather have everyone living like the Zapatistas, (dirt poor but alive) if that means everyone gets to satisfy their needs to the same extent. You say that if we were all dying of cancer it'd be more equal, well unlike taking away from the rich to help the poor, giving cancer to the healthy does not give anything to the sick. When trying to achieve equality, you only take away when it betters others' situation, for this is the progressive approach. The progressive approach sees that overall state of the people is never worsened in the name of equality. Under any other circumstance, the first statement in this post applies.

[Bud Struggle]

Equality is fairness, fairness is morality, and morality is among the few things that mark this species as having worth, therefore it is severely important.

Thanks for the imput, "Jesus". How does ANYTHING you say follow from what your say before it?

[kharacter]

Thanks for the imput, "Jesus". How does ANYTHING you say follow from what your say before it?
It's an answer to the first comment I quoted. I tried to highlight the importance of equality in my personal opinion, rather simply saying that I disagree with questioning equality ;)
And unless you're incredibly slow, how can you not see how it relates to the rest of the post anyway.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Good post. The problem is that in your plan--the system controls the individual will--and it takes another force of "system" for people to dislocate themselves from one way of thinking.

It kind of makes people the slaves of their political enviornment. I kind of thing people are better than that.

Like nero said that you said, these individuals and social classes are all tools of history. That's what I meant with the cogs in the machine metaphor. My main point was that these people individually are not at fault. They cannot be personally held accountable for the circusmtances.

[Bud Struggle]

It's an answer to the first comment I quoted. I tried to highlight the importance of equality in my personal opinion, rather simply saying that I disagree with questioning equality ;)
And unless you're incredibly slow, how can you not see how it relates to the rest of the post anyway.

Yea I see all of that--but how do such thing FOLLOW? Why is equality fair? What does fairness have to do with equality? What is there about""morality" that means anything to any particular person at all?

I may be slow--but you are ASSUMING connections that may or may not be there.

Explain yourself.

[Bud Struggle]

Like nero said that you said, these individuals and social classes are all tools of history. That's what I meant with the cogs in the machine metaphor. My main point was that these people individually are not at fault. They cannot be personally held accountable for the circusmtances.

Fine. Let's do lunch.

[kharacter]

Yea I see all of that--but how do such thing FOLLOW? Why is equality fair? What does fairness have to do with equality? What is there about""morality" that means anything to any particular person at all?

I may be slow--but you are ASSUMING connections that may or may not be there.

Explain yourself.

I'll admit that the statement "Equality is fair" is completely subjective . I, for, example, believe that the statement "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is absolutely fair, but my classmate thinks that people who can do more (even if it is by abilities dictated from birth by luck) deserve to get more, and he considers that fair. I think it would be redundant to say "but this is only my opinion" in everything everyone posts, for this forum's sole purpose is to express opinion (for the most part leftist opinion, but opinion nevertheless). The majority of quotable statements are not scientific facts, but biased musings, and they don't make a point to clarify that because it should be obvious and taken with skepticism. In addition, I think morality is important to any particular person because I am against social Darwinism, and believe that any successful society will arise only as a product of rationalized morality.

[Skooma Addict]

Equality is fairness, fairness is morality, and morality is among the few things that mark this species as having worth, therefore it is severely important.

Equality is not necessarily fairness, and fairness is not necessarily moral.


I would rather have everyone living like the Zapatistas, (dirt poor but alive) if that means everyone gets to satisfy their needs to the same extent. You say that if we were all dying of cancer it'd be more equal, well unlike taking away from the rich to help the poor, giving cancer to the healthy does not give anything to the sick.

But still, if everyone were dying of cancer, we would be more equal. So equality is not necessarily a good thing. Agreed?


When trying to achieve equality, you only take away when it betters others' situation, for this is the progressive approach. The progressive approach sees that overall state of the people is never worsened in the name of equality. Under any other circumstance, the first statement in this post applies.

How do you know if the overall state of the people is worsened in the name of equality? Since it is impossible to measure utility, I don't know how you could possibly know.

[Bud Struggle]

I'll admit that the statement "Equality is fair" is completely subjective . I, for, example, believe that the statement "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is absolutely fair, but my classmate thinks that people who can do more (even if it is by abilities dictated from birth by luck) deserve to get more, and he considers that fair. I think it would be redundant to say "but this is only my opinion" in everything everyone posts, for this forum's sole purpose is to express opinion (for the most part leftist opinion, but opinion nevertheless). The majority of quotable statements are not scientific facts, but biased musings, and they don't make a point to clarify that because it should be obvious and taken with skepticism. In addition, I think morality is important to any particular person because I am against social Darwinism, and believe that any successful society will arise only as a product of rationalized morality.


Well explained. Thank you.

[kharacter]

Equality is not necessarily fairness, and fairness is not necessarily moral.
I agree, but in my opinion (which ultimately is the only one I can trust, just like you hold yours highest) it is




But still, if everyone were dying of cancer, we would be more equal. So equality is not necessarily a good thing. Agreed?

Agreed, but it doesn't stop from being a crucial thing to keep mind (I'll reiterate this is only my opinion)


How do you know if the overall state of the people is worsened in the name of equality? Since it is impossible to measure utility, I don't know how you could possibly know.
Well in the instance of giving cancer to people, it is obvious that the state will be worsened. I suppose you cannot always know, and I'll repesct that possibility, but we can make an educated guess.

Truce?

[Misanthrope]

Stalinist!

And you spam

I am not a Stalinist. I oppose all reptilian ideologies. Don't straw man me

[Comrade B]

That of course--is your opinion.
. isn't an opinion, it is the 1 character required to make a post


If we were all dying of cancer, we would be more equal.
You are giving the idiotic archetypal anti-communist shit of "oh we will need to share everything, even our wives!" it is stupid, has nothing to do with politics, and unrealistic.
We do not create problems, we distribute everyone a fair share of the problem, everyone having weak, weak cancer which they will all be able to beat is better than a couple dying of it. Everyone being a little poor is better than a large chunk being intensely impoverished while others live in ridiculous and intolerable

[black magick hustla]

communism entails a moral outlook of universal emancipation, not bourgeois justice (which is vengeance). theres a ton of people here who fetishize violence and who's ideal revolution is a bunch ofrich people's heads rolling. violence in marxist discourse is a tool, not an act of retribution.

[NecroCommie]

communism entails a moral outlook of universal emancipation, not bourgeois justice (which is vengeance). theres a ton of people here who fetishize violence and who's ideal revolution is a bunch ofrich people's heads rolling. violence in marxist discourse is a tool, not an act of retribution.
Nothing exactly states that it could not be that also.

[black magick hustla]

maybe, but i think human emancipation has very little do with acts of violent retribution, which only makes people suffer in order to make some few dogmatics drunk of blood.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, yes, and I don't support killing men to end patriarchy. Capitalists harm people because of capitalism, one can't cure the problem with 'better capitalists', or ones who are less 'greedy' or so on. Hell, I don't even know many capitalists, so I really have no right to accuse them all of having a shitty personality, and one of those I do know is actually a pretty decent guy. Capitalists have to exploit workers, struggle to lower wages and so on in order to keep ahead of competition and therefore remain a capitalist rather than going bankrupt or having to end your business and so on. Now, it seems rather strange that people who decry the condition of the working class claim that not wanting to be absorbed into it is 'greedy'. After all, we wish to abolish the working class, so how can we say that not wanting to be working class is 'greedy' and 'selfish' (in a bad way, since otherwise people from the working class being communist are quite often going to be doing it for 'selfish' reasons, and there is nothing wrong with that, despite the ICC saying that, "Revolutionary militancy also demands a loyal, disinterested dedication to the proletarian cause")? And since when is being greedy deserving of punishment? After all, the objective of punishment should be to prevent recurrence of the crime, I really do not see how killing capitalists is any more effective at preventing them from being capitalists than simply the expropriation of the expropriators, removing whatever allows them to be capitalists (eg. private property), but not, say, their house, pencils, hair, genitals or life. And killing capitalists has the disadvantage of killing people who may well be cool guys, upsetting their family, friends, etc, and making you into an asshole (rather than a badass). So yeah, I do find the whole 'capitalists and politicians are fair game' attitude (and really, Czolgosz did it, and it accomplished nothing, except helping to give an excuse to discredit the socialist movement) strange, and, of course, capitalists are people too, and, as such, three-dimensional. I'm sure that some commies are far greater assholes than most capitalists could even comprehend.

[Robert]

Capitalists have to exploit workers, struggle to lower wages and so on in order to keep ahead of competition

A few things: are you including in this category of "capitalists" all sole proprietors who own the means of production but have no employees? I think of shoemakers, saddle makers, artisans, handymen, and seamstresses who have no employees.

What about partnerships?

Finally, this idea of suppressing wages "to beat the competition" is suspect. There are way too many wage slaves making double and triple the minimum wage for this to be true.

Also, the inclination to lower wages may be operative in increasing profits or satisfying shareholders in large corporations, but I don't see how it helps beat the competition.

Sales beat the competition.

[red cat]

I must say I have encountered a lot of rich and bourgeoise haters.

That's unacceptable, they are human beings just like anyone else - hating someone because of their person is bad. Note that with hating I mean everything that comes from it such as torture, discrimination.

Hate the things they do - not the persons behind the actions.
You can take away their power, not the human rights.

Science taught us that no thing on earth is anyones fault, things go the way they go - future can't be changed, nor seen.

If nothing can be changed, then why are you bothering to change our attitude towards the Bourgeoisie?

Moreover, if future cannot be seen or changed, what is the motivation behind your post? Recreation?


Therefore, useless violence can't even be excused if it's used on people you think who are 'scum'Why should you "excuse" it? Nothing is anyone's fault, remember?


Everything has a cause - nothing comes from itself. Every human is bound to the factors that determine decisions, your look, your attitude - such as hormones, feelings, memories - and, really, noone can change how things go, hence why the people who we know ARE wrong shouldn't be punished because of useless reasons such as vengeance - it is just not right. (And bad for our case)This time you are correct! The socio-economic condition of the Proletariat determine its actions by its effect on the memory, hormones, feelings etc. of the vast majority of workers. This leads to a violent revolution... and correct again in this context: YOU CANNOT CHANGE HOW THINGS GO. In other words, the world revolution is inevitable.



Read something about materialism - it can really change your life, your beliefs, how you act. And is possibly the only way to see the earth from a clear point of view.Again, your version of science teaches us that nothing can be changed, so why engage in the futile attempts to "change" our lives by reading when we can murder a Bourgeois or two instead?

[ZeroNowhere]

A few things: are you including in this category of "capitalists" all sole proprietors who own the means of production but have no employees? I think of shoemakers, saddle makers, artisans, handymen, and seamstresses who have no employees.No, classes are determined by social relations rather than simply relations to machines and such (and screw you, Vonnegut). Though, of course, relationships between people in capitalism are embodied in the form of the relationship of people to objects such as money, the means of production and so on, thus I said 'simply'.


Finally, this idea of suppressing wages "to beat the competition" is suspect. There are way too many wage slaves making double and triple the minimum wage for this to be true.Notice that I said 'struggle'. While the relationship is hardly equal, and, for example, immigrants and so on are used as cheap labour where possible, workers will still resort to striking and so on. While this can be remedied by scabs, for many jobs this won't be possible (thus why some 'white-collar' jobs are paid better than 'physical labour'). Also, workers will often have to drive to work, work on a computer at home, not starve and die, and so on, so it would be necessary to pay for that.


Also, the inclination to lower wages may be operative in increasing profits or satisfying shareholders in large corporations, but I don't see how it helps beat the competition.It allows one to invest more money capital into increasing production and so on, as well as R&D and such, and, of course, somebody with an old-style loom is going to be able to produce less than somebody using modern technology to produce cloth, and assuming that sales beat the competition, is also going to sell less. The increased profits also accumulate. It also allows one to buy out companies, if you're into that kind of thing.


If nothing can be changed, then why are you bothering to change our attitude towards the Bourgeoisie?He didn't say that nothing can be changed. I would guess that what he's saying is a crass formulation of the idea that, since we don't have free will, nothing is anybody's fault. While the word 'fault' is also often used to mean that somebody did something, rather than an ethical attitude, he's basically saying that since their actions are determined by what has happened before, rather than them choosing of their own 'free will' to be bastards or whatever people think capitalists are, killing them would make one an asshole, as they can't be blamed (in an ethical sense) for whatever. Since killing them would be completely unnecessary to prevent them redoing their 'crime', and punishment should be aimed towards preventing the crime being repeated (and therefore is not necessary if it doesn't help with that), it's just some bizarre taste for vengeance or something like that. While I don't think it was at all put well, or is an especially relevant argument, 'the future can't be changed' does not translate into 'nothing can change in the future'.

Though, of course, the future can be changed, and saying that it can't is rather silly wording, though it can be understood in the context of his post. He puts it rather crappily, but on a forum where people go around ranting about how things are 'anti-working class' (as if commies aren't), it's excusable. Hell, I generally even let that go, unless they happen to be misinterpreting somebody else in the same post.


Why should you "excuse" it? Nothing is anyone's fault, remember?He was quite clearly referring to the action being inexcusable, that is, without justification (justification in a moral sense, rather than 'explainable').


The socio-economic condition of the Proletariat determine its actions by its effect on the memory, hormones, feelings etc. of the vast majority of workers. This leads to a violent revolution... and correct again in this context: YOU CANNOT CHANGE HOW THINGS GO. In other words, the world revolution is inevitable.It does not follow from determinism that world revolution (let alone 'violent revolution', and note that most of the fighting in one would be against other workers, rather than the bourgeoisie, unless you're expecting Bill Gates to come out and start throwing money at you or something) is inevitable. Nor does it follow from the fact that socio-economic condition influence the actions of people that there will be a revolution, let alone a violent one.

[Muzk]

If nothing can be changed, then why are you bothering to change our attitude towards the Bourgeoisie?



Even that is part of the dialectics

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, what.

[red cat]

Even that is part of the dialectics
Please explain.






He didn't say that nothing can be changed. I would guess that what he's saying is a crass formulation of the idea that, since we don't have free will, nothing is anybody's fault. While the word 'fault' is also often used to mean that somebody did something, rather than an ethical attitude, he's basically saying that since their actions are determined by what has happened before, rather than them choosing of their own 'free will' to be bastards or whatever people think capitalists are, killing them would make one an asshole, as they can't be blamed (in an ethical sense) for whatever. Since killing them would be completely unnecessary to prevent them redoing their 'crime', and punishment should be aimed towards preventing the crime being repeated (and therefore is not necessary if it doesn't help with that), it's just some bizarre taste for vengeance or something like that. While I don't think it was at all put well, or is an especially relevant argument, 'the future can't be changed' does not translate into 'nothing can change in the future'.

By the same argument, even the person who has killed the capitalist cannot be blamed, because the act of annihilation was not out of his "free will" as well. Since both are equally choiceless, it is useless to ask the working class to stop retaliating violently (Ahem.. why do you always choose the working class to bestow your teachings? In spite of what Muzk says, I think both of you have had a glimpse of the future and it is haunting you like a nightmare).



Though, of course, the future can be changed, and saying that it can't is rather silly wording, though it can be understood in the context of his post. He puts it rather crappily, but on a forum where people go around ranting about how things are 'anti-working class' (as if commies aren't), it's excusable. Hell, I generally even let that go, unless they happen to be misinterpreting somebody else in the same post.

He was quite clearly referring to the action being inexcusable, that is, without justification (justification in a moral sense, rather than 'explainable').

It does not follow from determinism that world revolution (let alone 'violent revolution', and note that most of the fighting in one would be against other workers, rather than the bourgeoisie, unless you're expecting Bill Gates to come out and start throwing money at you or something) is inevitable. Nor does it follow from the fact that socio-economic condition influence the actions of people that there will be a revolution, let alone a violent one.1) In class struggle, everything boils down to the oppressing class trying to keep power and the oppressed class trying to seize power. Here, torture and execution optimizes the interests of the class using them, as in the sense they can extract information and intimidate the other class.

2) Wherever separate classes exist and do not tend to merge, violent class contradiction also exists, and the discontinuation of violent methods by any class definitely leads to the victory of the other class in class struggle, and the other class must vanish, or remain permanently subjugated, or resume violent methods.

3) Since the Proletariat is too numerous compared to the Bourgeoisie, it tries to prevent an all out rebellion by concealing its real actions and intentions on one hand, and trying to stop the Proletariat from adopting violent methods by singing out its deceitful hymns of peace on the other.

4) Since the human population is too big, some of the people do succeed in countering the moves of the Bourgeoisie and conducting the revolution.

5) Due to lack of knowledge of the tactics adopted by the Bourgeoisie after the revolution, the Proletariat fails to save the first revolutions. But as it learns from its previous mistakes, and as class contradictions intensify after the failure of each revolution, the Proletariat ultimately makes the World Revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

By the same argument, even the person who has killed the capitalist cannot be blamed, because the act of annihilation was not out of his "free will" as well. Since both are equally choiceless, it is useless to ask the working class to stop retaliating violentlyHow does it follow from the fact that the worker can't be blamed for it that we can't try to reduce the action? After all, the absence of 'free will' doesn't mean that people can't influence other people through their actions, so it could very well be useful to ask them to stop killing people. And just because people can't be condemned for their actions, it doesn't follow that the actions can't be condemned, and we can't attempt to reduce it. In fact, it could be argued that by shifting our view away from condemning people for their actions to what causes those actions and how they can be reduced, we could have a more effective system of law.


Ahem.. why do you always choose the working class to bestow your teachings?What teachings are you referring to? If you are talking about why socialists generally propagandize to the working class, it's because they can carry out socialist revolution.


In spite of what Muzk says, I think both of you have had a glimpse of the future and it is haunting you like a nightmareI am Nostradamus,
Do you believe?
I am Nostradamus,
That I Conceive.

Shit album, though.


In class struggle, everything boils down to the oppressing class trying to keep power and the oppressed class trying to seize power.Really? Last I remembered, the workers going on strike a few streets away were doing it for higher wages.


Here, torture and execution optimizes the interests of the class using them, as in the sense they can extract information and intimidate the other class.I'm sorry, I think you're thinking of what is called the 'Cold War'. Our topic of discussion is 'class struggle'. But seriously, 'extract information about the bourgeoisie'? I mean, come on, what the hell are you expecting, "Bill Gates is a wanker?" The ruling class do not just go and sit down around a table to work out how to oppress the working class, and even if they did... I still can't see what use this would be, or how it would give the proletariat an 'advantage'. See, knowing tactics can help with victory in war. In class struggle... Huh? "If they continue the strike, I'm hiring scabs." "Woah."


2) Wherever separate classes exist and do not tend to merge, violent class contradiction also exists, and the discontinuation of violent methods by any class definitely leads to the victory of the other class in class struggle, and the other class must vanish, or remain permanently subjugated, or resume violent methods.

3) Since the Proletariat is too numerous compared to the Bourgeoisie, it tries to prevent an all out rebellion by concealing its real actions and intentions on one hand, and trying to stop the Proletariat from adopting violent methods by singing out its deceitful hymns of peace on the other.

4) Since the human population is too big, some of the people do succeed in countering the moves of the Bourgeoisie and conducting the revolution.

5) Due to lack of knowledge of the tactics adopted by the Bourgeoisie after the revolution, the Proletariat fails to save the first revolutions. But as it learns from its previous mistakes, and as class contradictions intensify after the failure of each revolution, the Proletariat ultimately makes the World Revolution.Um, I'm not sure why I was assuming that this post was serious. Anyhow, assertions are like assholes: they're overrated. I could just as well assert that violent revolution can never succeed, you are really a dinosaur, or rs2k was the goddess Lyssa.

[red cat]

How does it follow from the fact that the worker can't be blamed for it that we can't try to reduce the action? After all, the absence of 'free will' doesn't mean that people can't influence other people through their actions, so it could very well be useful to ask them to stop killing people. And just because people can't be condemned for their actions, it doesn't follow that the actions can't be condemned, and we can't attempt to reduce it. In fact, it could be argued that by shifting our view away from condemning people for their actions to what causes those actions and how they can be reduced, we could have a more effective system of law.

What teachings are you referring to? If you are talking about why socialists generally propagandize to the working class, it's because they can carry out socialist revolution.

Your teachings are specifically aimed at the disarmament of the working class. Either you have some misconception about revolution or you are consciously working for the Bourgeoisie.



I am Nostradamus,
Do you believe?
I am Nostradamus,
That I Conceive.

Shit album, though.
Well, if you are, that raises suspicion over your real intentions.



Really? Last I remembered, the workers going on strike a few streets away were doing it for higher wages.

I'm sorry, I think you're thinking of what is called the 'Cold War'. Our topic of discussion is 'class struggle'. But seriously, 'extract information about the bourgeoisie'? I mean, come on, what the hell are you expecting, "Bill Gates is a wanker?" The ruling class do not just go and sit down around a table to work out how to oppress the working class, and even if they did... I still can't see what use this would be, or how it would give the proletariat an 'advantage'. See, knowing tactics can help with victory in war. In class struggle... Huh? "If they continue the strike, I'm hiring scabs." "Woah."Class struggle is war. When class struggle escalates, it turns into an open war; just as in Philippines or Peru or India.




Um, I'm not sure why I was assuming that this post was serious. Anyhow, assertions are like assholes: they're overrated. I could just as well assert that violent revolution can never succeed, you are really a dinosaur, or rs2k was the goddess Lyssa.Assertions??Overrated??? The first four are observations from human history for the last couple of centuries. And as for the last one, given the increasing success of communists with time, it is indeed a correct deduction.

And as for your statements regarding social science and other scientific principles in general, I just think that you need to read a bit more before making them.

[Solzhenitsyn]

I see nothing wrong with voluntary relationships. In order to force equality on everyone, you are no longer acting on a voluntary basis. You must force everyone to conform to your standard of equality, whether or not they agree with you.

But still, I don't think equality itself is desirable. If we were all dying of cancer, we would be more equal. Such an event would be terrible not because we are closer to equality, but because we all have cancer. If we were all wealthy and happy, we would have taken a step towards equality. But such an event would be desirable not because we are closer to equality, but because we are all wealthy and happy. Is there anything about equality itself that you find desirable?

Good line of reasoning here. Equality or rather egalitarianism isn't necessarily desirable or good in and of itself and can actually be destructive. One glaring fault about egalitarianism is it must treat groups unequally to achieve an equal outcome. For example:

It's well known that men have a substantially lower life expectancy than women. To achieve parity in life expectancy between the sexes we would need to treat men differently than women by giving them (relative to women) longer vacations, better health care, better nutrition, lower stress jobs, shorter work weeks and so forth. Does that strike any one here as fair?

[Havet]

Good line of reasoning here. Equality or rather egalitarianism isn't necessarily desirable or good in and of itself and can actually be destructive. One glaring fault about egalitarianism is it must treat groups unequally to achieve an equal outcome. For example:

It's well known that men have a substantially lower life expectancy than women. To achieve parity in life expectancy between the sexes we would need to treat men differently than women by giving them (relative to women) longer vacations, better health care, better nutrition, lower stress jobs, shorter work weeks and so forth. Does that strike any one here as fair?

There's a difference between wanting to achieve equality of opportunity and wanting to achieve "natural" equality (equality in all natural aspects, such as vision, height, weight, skills, etc).

One is a good thing to have, the other is idiotic. Can you guess which?

EDIT: And no, we don't have equality of opportunity now.


COM.: "Then free competition. Why do you make that demand? Isn't competition free now ?"

INDV.: '. No. But one of the three factors in production is free. Laborers are free to compete among themselves, and so are capitalists to a certain extent. But between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means. For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?"

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont hate rich people for what they are per se; i hate the way many of them squander their ability to alleviate the suffering of those around them and in many cases even sustain and promote suffering via wage slavery or the marketing of military equipment.

Besides which i think the OP is confusing 'rich people' with 'ruling class'. While often synomonous, they are not one in the same. Many rich people live very noble and admirable existances.

[Havet]

I dont hate rich people for what they are per se; i hate the way many of them squander their ability to alleviate the suffering of those around them and in many cases even sustain and promote suffering via wage slavery or the marketing of military equipment.

Besides which i think the OP is confusing 'rich people' with 'ruling class'. While often synomonous, they are not one in the same. Many rich people live very noble and admirable existances.

Good post.

[Dr Mindbender]

Good post.

*cough* green blobs! *cough*

ugggh! *shudder* i feel dirty now.

[Havet]

*cough* green blobs! *cough*

ugggh! *shudder* i feel dirty now.

Sorry, what do you mean?

[Dr Mindbender]

Sorry, what do you mean?

I mean the Romeo to the Echo to the Papa!

top right corner.

sorry i cant be any more obvious than that without being a total creep.

[Havet]

OI'ers can't rep

Sorry Ulster...:(