Peace for capitalist

[Arlekino]

Hello comrades
Somebody told me if Stalin would be in this time we all leftist would be killed by Stalin regime. Well as I answered probably yes or not nobody knows but I think we don't get eliminate because we consuming for capitalist that seems we are ok for capitalist society. So what would be if we stop consuming? Do leftist organisations would be end of or shall I see would be future Civil Wars. Sorry for English grammar.
Regards

[RGacky3]

So what would be if we stop consuming? Do leftist organisations would be end of or shall I see would be future Civil Wars. Sorry for English grammar.


If we stop consuming completely we starve to death and freeze in the winter, suffocate in the summer, and don't have a place to live.

So thats not really and option.

Also, if people as a whole consume less (which is what happens during a reccession or depression, not out of choice, just out of nessesity and economic insecurity), the Capitalist will make less profit (if their industry is one that requires unnessesary consumption) and they will take that out on the workers, i.e. layoffs, they won't take the hit at all.

[Bud Struggle]

Somebody told me if Stalin would be in this time we all leftist would be killed by Stalin regime.

Nobody knows who Stalin would or would not kill--but he was pretty strict with what flavor of Communism the USSR followed.

[Arlekino]

Yes we need some consuming in some degree. Well the hard options if we stop consuming that mean workers out of jobs, if we do consuming we still feeding capitalist and they are stronger than workers. Seems there is no way out.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think that feudalism generally ended because nobles and monarchs were starved to death.

[RGacky3]

if we do consuming we still feeding capitalist and they are stronger than workers. Seems there is no way out.

Except there are other options than that.

Such as revolution, syndicalism, popular uprisings, community organizing, and so on and so forth.

[#FF0000]

Yes we need some consuming in some degree. Well the hard options if we stop consuming that mean workers out of jobs, if we do consuming we still feeding capitalist and they are stronger than workers. Seems there is no way out.

Within capitalism, no, there's no way out. That's why we're Communists ans socialists and advocate for a revolution.

[Comrade Anarchist]

What is is that you all can't understand. The employer has a product made by workers who he in turned paid using the money gained by selling the product. Nowhere in there is some scheme to make everyone starve to death or become slaves to the capitalist system. To consume or in reality exchange a service or good for another service or good does not fuel some megalithic capitalist empire, all it is is a voluntary exchange. To stop consuming would mean to become self sufficient which is an asinine thought. Workers aren't being exploited they are being paid in exchange for the service they provide, labor.

[#FF0000]

What is is that you all can't understand. The employer has a product made by workers who he in turned paid using the money gained by selling the product. Nowhere in there is some scheme to make everyone starve to death or become slaves to the capitalist system. To consume or in reality exchange a service or good for another service or good does not fuel some megalithic capitalist empire, all it is is a voluntary exchange. To stop consuming would mean to become self sufficient which is an asinine thought. Workers aren't being exploited they are being paid in exchange for the service they provide, labor.

Are the workers in a position that they have a choice to not sell their labor?

[Volcanicity]

What is is that you all can't understand. The employer has a product made by workers who he in turned paid using the money gained by selling the product. Nowhere in there is some scheme to make everyone starve to death or become slaves to the capitalist system. To consume or in reality exchange a service or good for another service or good does not fuel some megalithic capitalist empire, all it is is a voluntary exchange. To stop consuming would mean to become self sufficient which is an asinine thought. Workers aren't being exploited they are being paid in exchange for the service they provide, labor.
Yeah how dare those children working 12 hour days for a few pennies a week ,and having to sleep on the warehouse floor moan they are not being exploited at all.

[Thug Lessons]

Workers aren't being exploited they are being paid in exchange for the service they provide, labor.
No kidding, this is basic Marxism. The problem is that it's an unequal exchange. Capitalists would have no reason to employ workers unless they could make more money off the workers' labor than they pay out in wages. That's why capitalists are parasites, and one day they will have to choose between working like everyone else or having their head attached to the business end of a pike.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Are the workers in a position that they have a choice to not sell their labor?

Yah there is always a choice. If the worker doesn't want to sell his labor then he can do something else that doesn't require him do that labor. If the worker wishes instead of working to instead start up his own business then nothing is stopping him from finding investors and creating this business, so now he doesn't have to sell his labor.


Yeah how dare those children working 12 hour days for a few pennies a week ,and having to sleep on the warehouse floor moan they are not being exploited at all.

Are they being forced to work? NOT BY THE CAPITALIST. They have the ability to quit. If they are being forced then it is by their parents which that is a personal problem not mine or if they are being forced by a government they are technically slaves and are being exploited in a collusion between state-capitalists and the government and that isn't a free market.


No kidding, this is basic Marxism. The problem is that it's an unequal exchange. Capitalists would have no reason to employ workers unless they could make more money off the workers' labor than they pay out in wages. That's why capitalists are parasites, and one day they will have to choose between working like everyone else or having their head attached to the business end of a pike.

No shit sherlock b/c if the capitalist paid the worker all the money he earned then he wouldn't have any money to purchase the materials need to make his product. Without the product no capitalist without the capitalist no work.

[Bud Struggle]

No shit sherlock b/c if the capitalist paid the worker all the money he earned then he wouldn't have any money to purchase the materials need to make his product. Without the product no capitalist without the capitalist no work.

That unfortunately is where the Communist run into trouble. They somehow think the entire worth of something is the work that a worker put into it. There is also the idea, and the raw materials, and the investment, and the machine, and the sales that go into the thing, too. The work is an important part of making a thing--not the only thing.

[#FF0000]

That unfortunately is where the Communist run into trouble. They somehow think the entire worth of something is the work that a worker put into it. There is also the idea, and the raw materials, and the investment, and the machine, and the sales that go into the thing, too. The work is an important part of making a thing--not the only thing.

Value doesn't mean "price" in the LTV. Just want to make that clear.


Yah there is always a choice. If the worker doesn't want to sell his labor then he can do something else that doesn't require him do that labor. If the worker wishes instead of working to instead start up his own business then nothing is stopping him from finding investors and creating this business, so now he doesn't have to sell his labor.

so everybody on the planet can create their own business?


No shit sherlock b/c if the capitalist paid the worker all the money he earned then he wouldn't have any money to purchase the materials need to make his product. Without the product no capitalist without the capitalist no work.

So this means that capitalism necessarily compensates the worker for less than the full value of their labor.

Derp.

[Bud Struggle]

so everybody on the planet can create their own business?


Nietzsche's Hawks and Lambs--starts at the bottom of page 146.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W9sXRG3z-lgC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=hawks+and+lambs&source=bl&ots=wfi1QrkX4x&sig=iKKpi6DHWjHjW43SHHHX9xCt7zU&hl=en&ei=-liBTNC_KYHGlQfCg4UY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=hawks%20and%20lambs&f=false

Just substitute Communist lambs for Christian lambs and you have the idea. Capitalists are hawks.

[#FF0000]

Nietzsche's Hawks and Lambs--starts at the bottom of page 146.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W9sXRG3z-lgC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=hawks+and+lambs&source=bl&ots=wfi1QrkX4x&sig=iKKpi6DHWjHjW43SHHHX9xCt7zU&hl=en&ei=-liBTNC_KYHGlQfCg4UY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=hawks%20and%20lambs&f=false

Just substitute Communist lambs for Christian lambs and you have the idea. Capitalists are hawks.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

[Bud Struggle]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Capitalist are the hawks--they do what they do. They build businesses, they harness capital and people and materials and they MAKE things. They take what they take and they do what they want. The Proletariat are lambs, they are weak--they can't start companies. They can't control their own lives. They aren't the masters of their own fate. So they band together and discuss what is "fair" and make the hawks feel "socially responsible" and pass laws to tax the rich.

So to answer your question above--not everyone can start their own business. And it's not limited by resources--it's limited by the people themselves.

[#FF0000]

Capitalist are the hawks--they do what they do. They build businesses, they harness capital and people and materials and they MAKE things. They take what they take and they do what they want. The Proletariat are lambs, they are weak--they can't start companies. They can't control their own lives. They aren't the masters of their own fate. So they band together and discuss what is "fair" and make the hawks feel "socially responsible" and pass laws to tax the rich.

So to answer your question above--not everyone can start their own business. And it's not limited by resources--it's limited by the people themselves.

Yeah but that isn't entirely true. Capitalism just flat out needs an underclass. If everyone on the planet was a perfect worker or a good business person, there would still be an underclass just out of necessity.

[revolution inaction]

That unfortunately is where the Communist run into trouble. They somehow think the entire worth of something is the work that a worker put into it. There is also the idea, and the raw materials, and the investment, and the machine, and the sales that go into the thing, too. The work is an important part of making a thing--not the only thing.

the raw materials and the machinery only exist because of past work, and the same goes for the resources the capitalist invests. I've not sure what you mean by sales.

[communard71]

First of all, Bud Struggle, your hero-worship of Nietzsche is in poor taste and his views on the different segments of society (hawks and lambs) is archaic, oversimplified, mid-nineteenth century Sturm und Drang German romanticism prattle. I know it’s tempting to see life like Zarathustra, but the world is way grayer than your boy Friedrich thought.
Next, capitalists don’t make a damn thing; they own the means to make things, 101 stuff here.
Finally, to call proletarians weak is ridiculous. Again, some 101 history would help you a bit. We have fought all the wars, suffered through centuries of exploitation, and survived. Since there is no such thing as fate, we realize capitalists have exploited us through the barrels of guns and the power of banks. The capitalist class had an organized class-consciousness before other classes, which is they’re great advantage. It’s not because a capitalist owner is an Übermensch, it’s because he has Pinkertons.
Like I said, it’s really tempting to go through life with Nietzsche colored glasses on and assume we live in socio-cultural-economic vacuums where anything is possible if we simply will it, but then we get past adolescence and realize Nietzsche, despite his genius and flare, was a pampered bourgeois boy who studied theology and philosophy at Bonn and Leipzig while millions of Germans were suffering and dying in industrialization and war. Choose your heroes carefully.

[Bud Struggle]

You misunderstand Nietzsche.


First of all, Bud Struggle, your hero-worship of Nietzsche is in poor taste and his views on the different segments of society (hawks and lambs) is archaic, oversimplified, mid-nineteenth century Sturm und Drang German romanticism prattle. I know it’s tempting to see life like Zarathustra, but the world is way grayer than your boy Friedrich thought. I might certainly agree with what you say if you applied that to ALL nineteenth century German prattlers. :D


Next, capitalists don’t make a damn thing; they own the means to make things, 101 stuff here. But that owning is the prime movement in the doing of anything. Capitalist do for their own reasons and employ the Proletarians to work for them. Without the Capitalists the Proletarians would have nothing to do.


Finally, to call proletarians weak is ridiculous. Again, some 101 history would help you a bit. We have fought all the wars, suffered through centuries of exploitation, and survived. They fought the wars they were TOLD to fight. Proletarians suffer and die and new ones are born every day.


Since there is no such thing as fate, we realize capitalists have exploited us through the barrels of guns and the power of banks. As there is no such thing as fate there is no such thing as "exploitation." That's a word the Proletarians made up to make the Capitalist accountable to them. If Capitalist USE Proletarians--then they just do. Nothing good about it, nothing bad about it. They just do what they do.


The capitalist class had an organized class-consciousness before other classes, which is they’re great advantage. It’s not because a capitalist owner is an
Übermensch, it’s because he has Pinkertons. But that is just the most effecient way for the Capitalist to do what he wants done. He has many tools at his disposal and Pinkertons are just one of those.


Like I said, it’s really tempting to go through life with Nietzsche colored glasses on and assume we live in socio-cultural-economic vacuums where anything is possible if we simply will it, but then we get past adolescence and realize Nietzsche, despite his genius and flare, was a pampered bourgeois boy who studied theology and philosophy at Bonn and Leipzig while millions of Germans were suffering and dying in industrialization and war. Chose your heroes carefully. The thing is (there seems to be lots of different type floating around this post) the thing is that it is ONE way of looking at the world. No better no worse than Communism or Christianity or Capitalism. It's not as if anyone one these ways is more true or more real than another.

[communard71]

It is one way of looking at the world, but the Nietzsche I so obviously misunderstand is the way you apparently look at the world, which means you’ve made a value judgment to view things predominately from his point-of-view. Just look at your Conan quote, Nietzsche would love it.

Now, I believe that without the capitalists, proletarians could exist for themselves and each other. I know what you would say: then why haven’t they done so yet? It’s obvious you don’t believe they are even capable of such a feat as self-rule and self-fulfillment and you like the idea that certain people are simply meant to lead others and others are fated to follow, even into war. What a strange view to hold on revleft.

Your viewpoint about the “reality” of capitalist exploitation (“If Capitalist USE Proletarians--then they just do. Nothing good about it, nothing bad about it. They just do what they do.”) Is akin to saying: cancer is a disease in which metastasizing cells kill or invade other parts of the body, nothing good or bad about it, they just do what they do. Forget it! If we aren’t dedicated to ending something which exists but which is obviously terrible, then you are simply helping the capitalists by being they’re apologist.

[Bud Struggle]

It is one way of looking at the world, but the Nietzsche I so obviously misunderstand is the way you apparently look at the world, which means you’ve made a value judgment to view things predominately from his point-of-view. Just look at your Conan quote, Nietzsche would love it. But that is MY value judgment--and I have every right to it, just as you have yours to a Communist (I assume) point of view. You are no more or less right an I am.


Now, I believe that without the capitalists, proletarians could exist for themselves and each other. I know what you would say: then why haven’t they done so yet? It’s obvious you don’t believe they are even capable of such a feat as self-rule and self-fulfillment and you like the idea that certain people are simply meant to lead others and others are fated to follow, even into war. What a strange view to hold on revleft. I would it LIKE if Proletarians could exist for themselves. I just don't believe it is possible to do so on any scale. I tend to believe that if it could be done it would have happened already. But what you get when you have a Proletarian Revolution--is what you always get: Stalins and Maos and USSRS and North Koreas. I'm kind of lukewarm to all of that. Also, I'm a proud member of the OI (Opposing Ideology) of RevLeft so it's my swarn duty to disagree with all comers who uphold the Red Flag of Communism (and other similar ideologies.)


Your viewpoint about the “reality” of capitalist exploitation (“If Capitalist USE Proletarians--then they just do. Nothing good about it, nothing bad about it. They just do what they do.”) Is akin to saying: cancer is a disease in which
metastasizing
cells kill or invade other parts of the body, nothing good or bad about it, they just do what they do. Forget it! If we aren’t dedicated to ending something which exists but which is obviously terrible, then you are simply helping the capitalists by being they’re apologist. Well yea. Cancer is just cancer. Poisonous snakes are poisonous snakes--they have no intrinsic moral value one way of the other--you as a human IMPOSE your values on those things. You have every right to hold an opinion of such things--but the things in themselves have no meaning or moral value of their own. YOU give them their value and I and everyone else gives them their value and all such values are in the end equal.

And I personally am a card carrying member of the Bourgeoisoie.

Welcome to RevLeft.

[Amado]

Are they being forced to work?Yes, they are.

The worker can't survive in capitalist society unless he plays by the capitalist rules, which is to say, he has to be involved in commodity exchange. If he is hungry, he can't simply walk into Wal-Mart, pick an apple and eat it - he will be beaten up by the enforcers of property rights. His course of action is restricted by force - if he wishes to survive, his only option is to sell himself to the capitalist. All other courses of action he might take in order to survive, even those that don't harm anyone (such as eating an apple from Wal-Mart without paying) will be punished.

Workers have to play the piper, and the piper is the capitalist state. If they don't play the piper - pick the apple into Wal-Mart and eat it, instead of slaving there to get money to trade for the apple from Wal-Mart and then eat it -, they get beaten up.

So yes. It's force. Your ideology fails its own standard.

[RGacky3]

That unfortunately is where the Communist run into trouble. They somehow think the entire worth of something is the work that a worker put into it. There is also the idea, and the raw materials, and the investment, and the machine, and the sales that go into the thing, too. The work is an important part of making a thing--not the only thing.

Fine, then put compensation up to a popular vote, if managers and executives end up with the same compensation and workers end up with the same though a popular one man one vote election, we communists will shut up forever.

Until then our point stands, its exploitation.


Without the Capitalists the Proletarians would have nothing to do.

Without nobles peasants would have nothing to do (same thing)

I guess they would just starve if no one told them to do stuff.


If Capitalist USE Proletarians--then they just do. Nothing good about it, nothing bad about it. They just do what they do.


And if workers get rid of Capitalist property, they just do, nothing good, nothing bad.


It's not as if anyone one these ways is more true or more real than another.

Actually yes there is, either there is a God or there is not, thats for christianity.

As for Capitalism and socialism, either one would have everyone better off, or it would be the other one.


Capitalist are the hawks--they do what they do. They build businesses, they harness capital and people and materials and they MAKE things. They take what they take and they do what they want. The Proletariat are lambs, they are weak--they can't start companies. They can't control their own lives. They aren't the masters of their own fate. So they band together and discuss what is "fair" and make the hawks feel "socially responsible" and pass laws to tax the rich.

So to answer your question above--not everyone can start their own business. And it's not limited by resources--it's limited by the people themselves.

I want everyone to take note.

This is the world view of the Capitalists, this is how Capitalists think.

(it just so happens to be the same way monarchs and nobility thought in the middle ages, and also happens to be a rather sick viewpoint imo).


But what you get when you have a Proletarian Revolution--is what you always get: Stalins and Maos and USSRS and North Koreas. I'm kind of lukewarm to all of that. Also, I'm a proud member of the OI (Opposing Ideology) of RevLeft so it's my swarn duty to disagree with all comers who uphold the Red Flag of Communism (and other similar ideologies.)

I would think it would be your duty to be reasonable and thoughtful.

But again, I'm not gonna bring up the Stalins and Maos and North koreas, because its been discussed over and over again, everytime it is, you concede, then wait to bring it up again.


I would it LIKE if Proletarians could exist for themselves. I just don't believe it is possible to do so on any scale. I tend to believe that if it could be done it would have happened already.

You realize slavery existed for 200 years right? With less revolts than there are worker revolts today.


but the things in themselves have no meaning or moral value of their own. YOU give them their value and I and everyone else gives them their value and all such values are in the end equal.


So not only have you given up social democracy, you've given up christianity.

[Bud Struggle]

Fine, then put compensation up to a popular vote, if managers and executives end up with the same compensation and workers end up with the same though a popular one man one vote election, we communists will shut up forever.

Until then our point stands, its exploitation. If people like Keyser Soso can say there is no such thing as Totalitarianism--why can't I say there is no such thing as Exploitation? It seems only fair.


Without nobles peasants would have nothing to do (same thing)

I guess they would just starve if no one told them to do stuff. I guess you could say that the Capitalists took the place of the nobles. They really do just about the same job.


And if workers get rid of Capitalist property, they just do, nothing good, nothing bad. I agree.


Actually yes there is, either there is a God or there is not, thats for christianity. I agree there, too. The thing is with an objective morality, i.e. Christianity you can talk about "fair" and "exploitation." But without God none of that matters. Communists TAKE power from the Bourgeois because they will to--not for any other reason. All this nonsense about Scientific Materialism is just a sugar coating for people exercising their WILL. It'd amasing for all their avowed athesim how few Communists can actually accept this fact.


As for Capitalism and socialism, either one would have everyone better off, or it would be the other one. Outside of religion--why is any of this my concern?


I want everyone to take note.

This is the world view of the Capitalists, this is how Capitalists think.

(it just so happens to be the same way monarchs and nobility thought in the middle ages, and also happens to be a rather sick viewpoint imo). You are welcome! It is a good example. And from what I've seen of people in the business world, it does reflect how today's society operates. Why that is, is up to speculation.


But again, I'm not gonna bring up the Stalins and Maos and North koreas, because its been discussed over and over again, everytime it is, you concede, then wait to bring it up again. But then again you have to concede that groups like the ESLN aren't really Communist either. When it comes to Communism I'm not an Athiest--I'm an Agnostic. I would like to believe Communism COULD exist--I just don't see any proof for it. As a Christian I think it would be a better way. But that's my Christian hope talking--but then again hopes and wishes don't always come true. I have to say that as a Christian I'm a pretty half-assed hawk, if I wasn't a Christian I'd be the real thing. And that maybe why people like the "Family" work so hard to distort Christ's message--they want their cake and eat it too.


You realize slavery existed for 200 years right? With less revolts than there are worker revolts today. I agree--things do change. But I think that point about Hawks and Lambs may be the way of Human Nature (yea I know, Human Nature--another thing that doesn't exist.:rolleyes:)


So not only have you given up social democracy, you've given up christianity. I'm not giving that up--as I said, I'm hopeful.

[communard71]

I know I give things value, that was my point. As human beings, we assign value intrinsically, sorry, but some things are simply better for the species as a whole and capitalism is not one of them. All the moral relativism in the world cannot save you from that reality.

[Comrade Anarchist]

so everybody on the planet can create their own business?
YEs and no. EVeryone can change their life under free market capitalism. Without government starting up a new business would incredibly easy and more accessible. NOt everyone can though b/c not everyone is qualified to start and run a business.



So this means that capitalism necessarily compensates the worker for less than the full value of their labor.

No the worker is compensated for the amount their work is deemed for. WOrkers may be the backbone of the business but they are not the whole business. All the money made in revenue does not belong all to the worker only a certain percentage, the rest go to other fields within the business that help it to grow and succeed. According to your statement all revenue made belongs to the wokers but it doesn't, they are paid what is theirs and the rest is used to buy materials, invest, research, etc. It is impossible to pay the wokers all the revenue made no matter the system and all the revenue made doesn't even belong to them.




Yes, they are.

The worker can't survive in capitalist society unless he plays by the capitalist rules, which is to say, he has to be involved in commodity exchange. If he is hungry, he can't simply walk into Wal-Mart, pick an apple and eat it - he will be beaten up by the enforcers of property rights. His course of action is restricted by force - if he wishes to survive, his only option is to sell himself to the capitalist. All other courses of action he might take in order to survive, even those that don't harm anyone (such as eating an apple from Wal-Mart without paying) will be punished.

Workers have to play the piper, and the piper is the capitalist state. If they don't play the piper - pick the apple into Wal-Mart and eat it, instead of slaving there to get money to trade for the apple from Wal-Mart and then eat it -, they get beaten up.

So yes. It's force. Your ideology fails its own standard.

That apple doesn't magically grow in unlimited supplies so it isn't free. The worker isn't forced to do anything. If someone chooses to never work their whole life and never take part in any voluntary exchange then that is their choice, if they starve or revert back to hunting and gathering then so be it. The capitalist system does not force anyone to do anything.

Your problem is that you don't see the fact that workers are not being forced to do anything. People who work are given money that they EARNED. They exchange their labor to be rewarded. With their award they go to the supermarket to buy an apple. He now has subsentence to eat. Walmart now has his money to pay their workers and to buy more apples, etc. You keep thinking that people are forced to exchange their labor, they're not. IF you don't want to then don't.

Free-market capitalism is the only system in which individual liberty and individualism can prosper. They are the backbone of the system b/c it is individuals that think up new ideas that usher in new products, new arts, new technology. Both of the two dominant systems on this board, communism and anarcho-communism, both fail b/c they have no incentive to work. In communism you are forced to work or die by the state's hands. If in capitalism if you choose to not work then no one kills you but yourself. In anarcho-communism there is no incentive whatsoever. Without any incentive to work and create no products are created and instead society must revert back to a more primitive era with massive starvation. Even in anarcho-syndicalism a new state would inevitably rise and force workers to work. In capitalism there is no one that forces you to work. If you wish to work and be compensated for that work and act in voluntary exchanges with others then you will be much more likely to succeed, but if you choose not to work then no one is stopping you.

[Amado]

The worker isn't forced to do anything.He is. I showed why and you didn't address that in any way whatsoever.


The capitalist system does not force anyone to do anything. It does. I showed why and you didn't address that in any way whatsoever.


Your problem is that you don't see the fact that workers are not being forced to do anything.They are. I showed why and you didn't address that in any way whatsoever.


You keep thinking that people are forced to exchange their labor, they're not.They are. I showed why and you didn't address that in any way whatsoever.

Come back when you have more than lolbertarian clichés to spit out.

[#FF0000]

If people like Keyser Soso can say there is no such thing as Totalitarianism--why can't I say there is no such thing as Exploitation? It seems only fair.

Well the difference here is that whether the relations between worker and boss are exploitative is up to perspective and interpretation.

The whole "Nazi germany and Soviet Union are both this thing called Totalitarianism" is wrong because the differences between the German government and the USSR are so great.

The former is based on an interpretation of an actual relationship and the latter is based on pure fantasy and historical inaccuracy.

[#FF0000]

The worker isn't forced to do anything.

Giving someone a choice between doing something and poverty/starving is coercive. Explain to me why it is not.

[Dean]

YEs and no. EVeryone can change their life under free market capitalism.

...

No the worker is compensated for the amount their work is deemed for.

...

That apple doesn't magically grow in unlimited supplies so it isn't free. The worker isn't forced to do anything. If someone chooses to never work their whole life and never take part in any voluntary exchange then that is their choice, if they starve or revert back to hunting and gathering then so be it. The capitalist system does not force anyone to do anything.

...

Your problem is that you don't see the fact that workers are not being forced to do anything. People who work are given money that they EARNED. They exchange their labor to be rewarded.

This is what I love about you guys. You ***** about the state, claim that the state is the primary reason for any centralized system of economic control (such as monopolies and cartels) which you also claim hurts workers and keeps the "little guy" from self-determination.

And then you go on to describe this exact system as "free," money acquired as "justly earned for labor" and the like, apparently ignoring the presence of the very forces you claim harm the working class.

It's pretty obvious that you simply support hierarchical economics, and that's it. You'd never make any serious assertion about defending the working class from the "evil state and its monopolies" in your own circle because the fact is that that's just a facade to attack the communist milieu with.

[Thug Lessons]

No shit sherlock b/c if the capitalist paid the worker all the money he earned then he wouldn't have any money to purchase the materials need to make his product. Without the product no capitalist without the capitalist no work.
You're not even a good free market shill. If there was nothing left over after paying for wages, materials and all other expenses, there'd be nothing left over to pay the bosses, executives and investors. You're supposed to claim that the rich deserve a share of the employee's earnings because their work vastly more than anyone else's and therefore they deserves MILLIONS, no, BILLIONS in income. Which is just as stupid, but at least it's coherent.

[RGacky3]

If people like Keyser Soso can say there is no such thing as Totalitarianism--why can't I say there is no such thing as Exploitation? It seems only fair.

Because Keyser Soso is wrong and just playing with semantics. Stop being a child, its not "if he does it then I can do it," if he's wrong he's wrong, if your wrong your wrong too. Unless your accepting his argument as true (which is rediculous) then your wrong.


I guess you could say that the Capitalists took the place of the nobles. They really do just about the same job.

Yeah, and are you ok with that?


I agree there, too. The thing is with an objective morality, i.e. Christianity you can talk about "fair" and "exploitation." But without God none of that matters. Communists TAKE power from the Bourgeois because they will to--not for any other reason. All this nonsense about Scientific Materialism is just a sugar coating for people exercising their WILL. It'd amasing for all their avowed athesim how few Communists can actually accept this fact.


Without a God you can too. But it has to do with consistancy, if you believe one thing is fair, then your either consistant, or no one will take you seriously.

Even with a God, you could just say "god says so" and I could still say "so what," ultimately with a god morality comes from the same place.


But I think that point about Hawks and Lambs may be the way of Human Nature (yea I know, Human Nature--another thing that doesn't exist.:rolleyes:)


Human nature does exist, but not in a way where you can talk about it like that. (actual scientists, not libertarian hacks, actually find that under most conditions humans would rather cooperate than compete, so your wrong there too.)


Outside of religion--why is any of this my concern?

Because thats what most poeple would define as "better."

But also, there is no outside your religion, either you have that morality or you don't.


It is a good example. And from what I've seen of people in the business world, it does reflect how today's society operates. Why that is, is up to speculation.

Keep note, In the buisiness world, why that is is the same as any one in power, they have to self justify their power.


But then again you have to concede that groups like the ESLN aren't really Communist either.

Why would I hae to concede that? Words have meanings you know.

(strickly speaking they arn't, but their much more democratic and thus socialistic than and leninist regiem will ever be).


And that maybe why people like the "Family" work so hard to distort Christ's message--they want their cake and eat it too.

You hit it right on the nose.


I'm not giving that up--as I said, I'm hopeful.

Considering you argue against any type of christian morality, or any type of social-democracy consistantly, it seams like it.

[Bud Struggle]

Because Keyser Soso is wrong and just playing with semantics. Stop being a child, its not "if he does it then I can do it," if he's wrong he's wrong, if your wrong your wrong too. Unless your accepting his argument as true (which is rediculous) then your wrong. The smiley meant that I wasn't to be taken too seriously on that point.


Yeah, and are you ok with that? I'm not OK with lots of things--but it seems to be the way they are.


Without a God you can too. But it has to do with consistancy, if you believe one thing is fair, then your either consistant, or no one will take you seriously.I've said what I believe a million times. What I'm interested in is when Athiests proclaim morality--I keep wondering where it comes from. When the Communist says: "that's wrong" or "that's unfair" or "that's exploitation" or "that's immoral" what objectivity do they have to go in? It is just their jubjective judgment--which is equal to Donal Trump;s or anyone elses subjective judgment.


Human nature does exist, but not in a way where you can talk about it like that. (actual scientists, not libertarian hacks, actually find that under most conditions humans would rather cooperate than compete, so your wrong there too.) I agree it exists--just a lot of people around here think otherwise.


Because thats what most poeple would define as "better."

But also, there is no outside your religion, either you have that morality or you don't. I agree there to--but my interest is how Communists define morality. They keep going on and on about "fair" and :equal" and all of that--when those terms are completely meaningless and completely subjective. Materialistic Communism has nothing to do with that. The Proletarians will take over from the Capitalists because they will have the POWER. What Marx talks about has nothing to do with fairness--he talks about the flow of power. He's not a sweet man.


Keep note, In the buisiness world, why that is is the same as any one in power, they have to self justify their power. And the Proletarians can have that kind of power too if they take it. That's why the dislike Revisionism so much--it takes nothing is sharing and giving. Revolutions take.


Why would I hae to concede that? Words have meanings you know.[/URL]

(strickly speaking they arn't, but their much more democratic and thus socialistic than and leninist regiem will ever be). OK maybe you don't but some pretty good points have been made on why they aren't. Not that I care--it's not my fight. FWIW--I don't think anything will be perfect Communism, but if we do get a Communist system I would like it to be as benign as possible. An interesting link on the Zapatistas:

[URL]http://libcom.org/library/commune-chiapas-zapatista-mexico (http://libcom.org/library/commune-chiapas-zapatista-mexico)



Considering you argue against any type of christian morality, or any type of social-democracy consistantly, it seams like it.Again my problem is when materialist Communists couch their reasons for justifying Communism in Christian moral terms. I wonder if they really understand what they are getting in to.

[RGacky3]

The smiley meant that I wasn't to be taken too seriously on that point.




:)


I'm not OK with lots of things--but it seems to be the way they are.

But you think the system is the best doable one? Which means your ok with it.


When the Communist says: "that's wrong" or "that's unfair" or "that's exploitation" or "that's immoral" what objectivity do they have to go in? It is just their jubjective judgment--which is equal to Donal Trump;s or anyone elses subjective judgment.

Their own personal sense of morality and justice, which for the most part, tends to be universal.


They keep going on and on about "fair" and :equal" and all of that--when those terms are completely meaningless and completely subjective. Materialistic Communism has nothing to do with that. The Proletarians will take over from the Capitalists because they will have the POWER. What Marx talks about has nothing to do with fairness--he talks about the flow of power. He's not a sweet man.


Thats a flaw in ultra-orthadox materialism.


That's why the dislike Revisionism so much--it takes nothing is sharing and giving. Revolutions take.

Revisionism? YOu mean post Stalin USSR?


Again my problem is when materialist Communists couch their reasons for justifying Communism in Christian moral terms. I wonder if they really understand what they are getting in to.

Morality can come from just a personal sense of justice.