Silly question?

[Mogwai]

Sorry if this sounds like a very simple question and has been answered somewhere else, but im a bit of a political n00b and fairly new to communism :)

but, my question:

if we embrace communism, do we sacrifice our individuality? because from my little exposure to these ideas so far, i think this may be why people are afraid of communism?

if every man, woman and child is provided with communist-brand beige training shoes, would we not lose some of our motivation? to work is to achieve something, a nice car, nice clothes, these material possessions that define who the modern man is in relation to his peers...


even a man living below the poverty line in a run down american town may fear communism, because he may think that he would have to sacrifice his freedom so succeed and to be an individual ?


once again, sorry if this is highly basic and n00bish behavior, but there doesnt seem to be a forum for people just starting out :(

[Felicia]

I have no problem with drab, fashion is ridiculous.

So you wouldn&#39;t get little skaters and punkers in school.... whoa, what a big loss to humanity. <_<

There are things about "communism" that may cause us to give up pieces of our individuality in order to become a whole, unified people...... but I think that you&#39;re talking about more than clothes and appearance.


and I&#39;d also like to say that posting this in opposing ideologies may or maynot have been a good idea..... there are poeple in here who will try and rip the communist out of you, don&#39;t listen to them eh, listen to me :D :lol:

[Mogwai]

lol, im not a communist yet, as such. im reading...a lot, maybe too much :)

i&#39;ll make up my mind when chomsky is finished with me :D

[Felicia]

ahh, he&#39;s more anarchist.....

I know that you&#39;re not fully on our side..... but they&#39;ll try and place doubts in what you&#39;ve gained from all of this, and your reading..... don&#39;t let them do that, they&#39;re just conservative schmucks who wouldn&#39;t care less if they screwed you over. Maybe I&#39;m giving them too much credit, but some of them are real dicks, just wait for it, they&#39;ll be in this thread soon..... I guess this means I&#39;m "starting" something with them first, oh well..........bring it if thee shall cometh......

lalala :)

[Mogwai]

lol, not quite on your side, but if i didnt have a stong interest in it i wouldnt be here :)

and dont wory about me turning to the dark side, i may not know if im a communist yet, but i definately know i dont want to be one of, urgh, them

you&#39;ll find no slave of enron here :D

[Felicia]

ahhh, good good :D :lol:

[F_Hayek]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 09:05 PM
Sorry if this sounds like a very simple question and has been answered somewhere else, but im a bit of a political n00b and fairly new to communism :)

but, my question:

if we embrace communism, do we sacrifice our individuality? because from my little exposure to these ideas so far, i think this may be why people are afraid of communism?

if every man, woman and child is provided with communist-brand beige training shoes, would we not lose some of our motivation? to work is to achieve something, a nice car, nice clothes, these material possessions that define who the modern man is in relation to his peers...


even a man living below the poverty line in a run down american town may fear communism, because he may think that he would have to sacrifice his freedom so succeed and to be an individual ?


once again, sorry if this is highly basic and n00bish behavior, but there doesnt seem to be a forum for people just starting out :(
Look at history and learn. Though you say you don&#39;t know a lot you have already captured the major flaws in the doctrine. :D

[apathy maybe]

Not everyone would be creating beige shoes, so not everyone would be wearing them.
The idea of communism is equality in opportunities and also equality in life in general. Even if you don&#39;t want to work, you still can get food and survieve quite well.
Don&#39;t worry about not losing your inderviduality. You get to expand it.

[187]

"Even if you don&#39;t want to work, you still can get food and survieve quite well."

What?&#33; Somebody who just "doesn&#39;t want to work" should get nothing.

Why should the people that do work take care of the lazy?

[Vinny Rafarino]

laziness is a symptom of the bourgeois mentality. Those who choose not to work will be re-educated in what it means to be a communist as they have obviously not understood what it means to be a new model of man.

People who lack the necessary ambition to work for the sake of working when all you require is provided to you still suffer from the one main sickness that communism strives to cure; greed.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

comrade raf i couldnt have said it better.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 01:44 PM
"Even if you don&#39;t want to work, you still can get food and survieve quite well."

What?&#33; Somebody who just "doesn&#39;t want to work" should get nothing.

Why should the people that do work take care of the lazy?
Sounds like capitilism

[elijahcraig]

No, capitalism allows the poor an unfair chance, while the rich can inherit their riches without working. My father worked for 25 years in a mill, he got fired a month ago. Now we&#39;re in debt 25,000 dollars because our credit rolled over and our town&#39;s in a depression. What is happening at the same time? The capitalists are getting richer&#33; Under socialism, everyone gets a fair chance. No one has an excuse not to work, because it is fair. Other than elderly and disabled.

I&#39;m not sure about "re-education". They could be "re-educated", whatever that means...or they could just be let to see what it was like to not work and not be supported. And see if they a)starve or b)come around. After that if they are on the verge of starvation, then the can be "re-educated".

Under socialism, the first phase of communism, this would be a must. Under "complete communism", the people would be at such an interpdependent level, that we wouldn&#39;t have this problem.

[YKTMX]

Starving people to make them work. Ah, bring on Utopia, I&#39;m ready.

[sliverchrist]

Sorry if this sounds like a very simple question and has been answered somewhere else, but im a bit of a political n00b and fairly new to communism

but, my question:

if we embrace communism, do we sacrifice our individuality? because from my little exposure to these ideas so far, i think this may be why people are afraid of communism?

if every man, woman and child is provided with communist-brand beige training shoes, would we not lose some of our motivation? to work is to achieve something, a nice car, nice clothes, these material possessions that define who the modern man is in relation to his peers...


even a man living below the poverty line in a run down american town may fear communism, because he may think that he would have to sacrifice his freedom so succeed and to be an individual ?


once again, sorry if this is highly basic and n00bish behavior, but there doesnt seem to be a forum for people just starting out :(

I have not been able to obtain all the literature that I want on communism in general, so I am not as well versed as I would like to be on the matter, but...

I don&#39;t understand why the idea of communism sparks this idea of loosing individuality, uniforms, rationing food, getting what everyone else has, no choices. This does not entail communism.

From what I gather, communism is an economic structure that all to often is built into a religion with a para-military grin. At the core though what is there is the urge to account for everyone who is willing, but without the power.

It takes a truly selfless soul to actually apply communism, becuase it runs contrary to our nature.

Loosing individuality is a myth <getting back on the subject> to keep people in america as far away from communism as is possible. Same as the godless myth, its all for capitalistic safety.

Anyway, I don&#39;t know if that helps at all. Drop me a line if you want, the community has my email.

[sliverchrist]

shit, sorry about leaving your original post at the top of my post, I was using it for a reference.

[elijahcraig]

X, it sounds like you want an unfair society based on hardworkers supporting lazy ass motherfuckers. The latter half sound like capitalists. I don&#39;t want that. I want equality based on hard work, not lazy *****es whining while they eat their food provided to them by their neighbor.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:19 PM
Starving people to make them work. Ah, bring on Utopia, I&#39;m ready.
No food for you Mr. X.


Mr. Silver,


Homever told you that one must "sacrifice" their individuality in order to be communist is full of poop.

The working class will "work" for the benefit of society. When they are not working, they are free to become versed in the arts, literature, sciences etc. If a person want&#39;s to go bowling and drink beer when they are not working, they are free to do so. It would be absolutely impossible to create a robotic mass of "worker ants" that focus on nothing else but work from the human race. Basic human psychology would prevent this.

The indeal os a loss of individuality was not created by communist. One guess on what party is responsible for this rumour....

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 03:45 PM
shit, sorry about leaving your original post at the top of my post, I was using it for a reference.
How&#39;s the post now? I turned it into a quote :)

Ahh, the power :P

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 07:44 PM
X, it sounds like you want an unfair society based on hardworkers supporting lazy ass motherfuckers. The latter half sound like capitalists. I don&#39;t want that. I want equality based on hard work, not lazy *****es whining while they eat their food provided to them by their neighbor.
Why is it that if someone is not prepared to work for society, that we question the person before the society? I don&#39;t believe anybody is born lazy, so anybody who chooses not to work under socialism, who objects to society, had the right to do so. Surely to force these people and people like them to work would be Alienation, which is one of the worst tenets of capitalist society. A persons right not to work is just as important as their right to work.

[elijahcraig]

Why is it that if someone is not prepared to work for society, that we question the person before the society?

In the development of socialism from capitalism, there will undoubtedly be excpetions to your formula.


I don&#39;t believe anybody is born lazy, so anybody who chooses not to work under socialism, who objects to society, had the right to do so.

And they can starve, the society WILL NOT support them.


Surely to force these people and people like them to work would be Alienation, which is one of the worst tenets of capitalist society.

No, there laziness would alienate them. Unless they are reeducated and turned into people who are unalienated, they will be lazy and stay that way.



A persons right not to work is just as important as their right to work.

And they also have the right to choose: Work=food...or Lazy=no food. Simple equation.

Maybe you should stop listening to Rage...and go learn some Marxism.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 08:43 PM

Why is it that if someone is not prepared to work for society, that we question the person before the society?

In the development of socialism from capitalism, there will undoubtedly be excpetions to your formula.


I don&#39;t believe anybody is born lazy, so anybody who chooses not to work under socialism, who objects to society, had the right to do so.

And they can starve, the society WILL NOT support them.


Surely to force these people and people like them to work would be Alienation, which is one of the worst tenets of capitalist society.

No, there laziness would alienate them. Unless they are reeducated and turned into people who are unalienated, they will be lazy and stay that way.



A persons right not to work is just as important as their right to work.

And they also have the right to choose: Work=food...or Lazy=no food. Simple equation.

Maybe you should stop listening to Rage...and go learn some Marxism.
I Am in agreement with you, although people should be able to do a job they enjoy as long as they are qualified to do so as people doing jobs they like improves efficiency.

[YKTMX]

And they can starve, the society WILL NOT support them.

What happened to, to each according to their need?


No, there laziness would alienate them. Unless they are reeducated and turned into people who are unalienated, they will be lazy and stay that way.

What is this bizaare fetish you and other comrades have with re-education. If we believed everything that was said during "education", a lot of people wouldn&#39;t be here


And they also have the right to choose: Work=food...or Lazy=no food. Simple equation.

Ahh, so the unemployed deserve to starve do they. What a great socialist you are, I hear your dad was recently layed off?


Maybe you should stop listening to Rage...and go learn some Marxism.

Ahh, you&#39;ve stumped me there, you evil genuis. I can see you are one to lecture on Marxism. I loved the paragraph in &#39;The Poverty of Philosophy&#39; where Marx advocates "Urban Guerilla Warfare" if a countries working class has become "labor aristocracy"&#33;

[elijahcraig]

QUOTE
And they can starve, the society WILL NOT support them.


What happened to, to each according to their need?

It is still at the end of "each according to ability". :lol:



QUOTE
No, there laziness would alienate them. Unless they are reeducated and turned into people who are unalienated, they will be lazy and stay that way.


What is this bizaare fetish you and other comrades have with re-education. If we believed everything that was said during "education", a lot of people wouldn&#39;t be here

What&#39;s your solution? Right, you don&#39;t have one, you want a bunch of lazy fucks sitting around getting provided for.



QUOTE
And they also have the right to choose: Work=food...or Lazy=no food. Simple equation.


Ahh, so the unemployed deserve to starve do they. What a great socialist you are, I hear your dad was recently layed off?

What unemployed? Socialism offers a job to EVERYONE.



QUOTE
Maybe you should stop listening to Rage...and go learn some Marxism.


Ahh, you&#39;ve stumped me there, you evil genuis. I can see you are one to lecture on Marxism. I loved the paragraph in &#39;The Poverty of Philosophy&#39; where Marx advocates "Urban Guerilla Warfare" if a countries working class has become "labor aristocracy"&#33;

No, read Carlos Marighella&#39;s "Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla" for that. Look into Maoist Internationalist Movement if you want to know what "labor aristocracy" means.

You have been...

http://www.rit.edu/~bxw3064/ali-owned.jpg

[187]

"A persons right not to work is just as important as their right to work."

You&#39;re inviting an unproductive society by promising anyone who chooses not to work just as much as those who do... Now think about the ramifications of that. People aren&#39;t going to appreciate taking care of people who can work but don&#39;t.

I don&#39;t think anyone should be forced to work, but if they choose not to work, they&#39;ve chosen to survive on their own.

[YKTMX]

It is still at the end of "each according to ability". :lol: ?

Oh dear, laughing at our own jokes are we?



What&#39;s your solution? Right, you don&#39;t have one, you want a bunch of lazy fucks sitting around getting provided for.


Yes. That&#39;s individual liberty for you. The idea of the state ordering people to work and then starving them if they refuse isn&#39;t any kind of socialism I&#39;ve ever seen. Though I suppose when you&#39;re calling Stalin and Mao "socialists" anything will go eh?


What unemployed? Socialism offers a job to EVERYONE.?

Yes, and liberty offers them the chance to refuse.


No, read Carlos Marighella&#39;s "Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla" for that. Look into Maoist Internationalist Movement if you want to know what "labor aristocracy" means."&#33;

Yeah, I said Marxist, not Maoist. Bit of a diffirence there. You, us Marixsts believe in all kinds of akward stuff like "self emancipation" and "mass movement". Maybe you&#39;ll learn one day



You have been...

Oh dear...

[elijahcraig]

QUOTE

It is still at the end of "each according to ability". ?


Oh dear, laughing at our own jokes are we?

You&#39;ve been beaten X. Sorry.



QUOTE

What&#39;s your solution? Right, you don&#39;t have one, you want a bunch of lazy fucks sitting around getting provided for.



Yes. That&#39;s individual liberty for you. The idea of the state ordering people to work and then starving them if they refuse isn&#39;t any kind of socialism I&#39;ve ever seen. Though I suppose when you&#39;re calling Stalin and Mao "socialists" anything will go eh?

This is the bottom line of this subject: IF THE PERSON DOES NOT WORK, HE GETS NOTHING. PERIOD. That is the POINT of socialism. You have the equal opportunity, if you choose to lay out of a job when it is presented to you, it is your loss. Everyone agrees with me here, except you.



QUOTE
What unemployed? Socialism offers a job to EVERYONE.?


Yes, and liberty offers them the chance to refuse.

And their refusal offers them the right to not be provided for by those who DO work hard.



QUOTE
No, read Carlos Marighella&#39;s "Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla" for that. Look into Maoist Internationalist Movement if you want to know what "labor aristocracy" means."&#33;


Yeah, I said Marxist, not Maoist. Bit of a diffirence there. You, us Marixsts believe in all kinds of akward stuff like "self emancipation" and "mass movement". Maybe you&#39;ll learn one day

I believe in those things too. Unfortunately, you are so incompetent when it comes to Marxist theory you do not understand Maoism.




QUOTE
You have been...


Oh dear...

OWNED&#33;

[YKTMX]

Yes, your amazing intellect has overcome me. I will now retire to think over some your profound statements.

[elijahcraig]

Your illogical statements on "right not to work, but still get provided for" are non-Marxist and nonsensical. Please explain how you would keep a socialist society functioning if everyone could sit around on their asses and still get their pay. No one would work, there would be nothing to "provide" with. Everyone would starve. That&#39;s the way it works. People will take advantage if they can. Provide some evidence against this and we can continue the debate. Otherwise, I will write you off as an imbecile.

[187]

"Sounds like capitilism"

Is this backing up what I said, or are you telling me I sound like a Capitalist?

[elijahcraig]

Are you referring to me 187? I agree with you. X does not.

[187]

No, I was addressing apathy maybe.

[Vinny Rafarino]

"the freedom to choose NOT to work, yet still have what you need POVIDED TO YOU"


Simple anarchist drivel created by rich kids with nothing better to do with their time.

[Don't Change Your Name]

That reeducation things sounds like brainwash to me.

And in a communist society everyone will have to work, for the reasons some comrades already said. There will be a need for having more workers, that will bring obvious benefits.

Lazyness makes me remember to those stupid capitalist who say the people that they exploit are lazy. IT IS ONLY A STUPID PRETEXT TO MAKE WORKERS WORK AT THEIR BEST so that they can gain more. Sometimes it seems that those capitalist persons are the laziest.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 12 2003, 05:48 AM
That reeducation things sounds like brainwash to me.

And in a communist society everyone will have to work, for the reasons some comrades already said. There will be a need for having more workers, that will bring obvious benefits.

Lazyness makes me remember to those stupid capitalist who say the people that they exploit are lazy. IT IS ONLY A STUPID PRETEXT TO MAKE WORKERS WORK AT THEIR BEST so that they can gain more. Sometimes it seems that those capitalist persons are the laziest.
It sounds like brainwashing because it is brainwashing. Washing the brain free of petty bourgoise ideals that have been firmly planted and will resist every effort to be removed.

[apathy maybe]

Things will be so organised so that people would only have to work 3 days a week. Let machines do the work.

187, I was saying you sound like a capitilist. As does elijahcraig.

There would be no NEED for everyone to work. Have you ever heard of volunters? They don&#39;t get paid. They get the satisfaction of a job well down. The only punishment for those who don&#39;t work would be the scorn of the rest of community. It works a wonder for most other things.

[Mogwai]

...i&#39;d be a dirty liar if i said that i followed most of that :lol:

but anyway, thanks silver + others that helped answer my question, much obliged :)

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 12 2003, 06:20 AM

It sounds like brainwashing because it is brainwashing. Washing the brain free of petty bourgoise ideals that have been firmly planted and will resist every effort to be removed.
What ideals are these? Freedom of choice? Perhaps, the right of individuals to reject society? When you go to collect welfare payments, does the system ask whether you agree with capitalist society in order to receieve them? No. And neither should we, the only way to create a better society is to jugde it against the old. And in this respect, we should be confident enough to accept dissenters, and indeed embrace dissent as a human trait.

[elijahcraig]

Things will be so organised so that people would only have to work 3 days a week. Let machines do the work.

And? You STILL have to work in order to get your share. Eventual build-up in luxury and decrease in hourse will come. But at the beginning, everyone will need to work very very hard to get the rising socialist state functioning better.


187, I was saying you sound like a capitilist. As does elijahcraig.


No, I don&#39;t. I think you misunderstood me.


There would be no NEED for everyone to work. Have you ever heard of volunters? They don&#39;t get paid. They get the satisfaction of a job well down. The only punishment for those who don&#39;t work would be the scorn of the rest of community. It works a wonder for most other things.

If you don&#39;t contribute, you get nothing. Capitalism is based on the workers holding up the lazy capitalists. Under the system you advocate, the workers would hold up the lazy workers. It is not fair. "Volunteer"? Yes, there could be volunteer jobs, etc., but your luxury in life will not be based on "volunteer" work...well, simply because "volunteer" work does not involve getting paid, hence the term. You will be provided for if you are a contributer to society. This is the only way for this to work. Fuck&#33; If you are an anarchist, read "Communist Anarchism" by Alexander Berkman, he says that the society does not need to provide for those who do not contribute.

RAF, I don&#39;t know what this "re-education" or "brainwashing" would actually involve...how would this be done? I don&#39;t really think that would be necessary, though I may have a wrong picture of what you are advocating.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Aug 12 2003, 06:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Aug 12 2003, 06:18 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 12 2003, 06:20 AM

It sounds like brainwashing because it is brainwashing. Washing the brain free of petty bourgoise ideals that have been firmly planted and will resist every effort to be removed.
What ideals are these? Freedom of choice? Perhaps, the right of individuals to reject society? When you go to collect welfare payments, does the system ask whether you agree with capitalist society in order to receieve them? No. And neither should we, the only way to create a better society is to jugde it against the old. And in this respect, we should be confident enough to accept dissenters, and indeed embrace dissent as a human trait. [/b]
I disagree completely. To allow subversion is to allow the greed and materlialism to remain in place. It must be uprooted completely. You are an anarchist, you have your views. I am not an anarchist and I have mine. All you babbling about "personal freedoms" will not help the human species evolve into the next stage of human development. Your ideals are based completely in the past and are therefore archaic.

Great change requires great action.


I do not expect you to understand nor do I really care if you do.

[elijahcraig]

RAF, I don&#39;t quite understand what you mean by "brainwashing". Just how do you go about "re-educating" someone?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 12 2003, 06:20 AM
It sounds like brainwashing because it is brainwashing. Washing the brain free of petty bourgoise ideals that have been firmly planted and will resist every effort to be removed.
Wow, it seems you are very much into changing the world&#33;
But I believe that instead of trying to convince people it would be better to give them correct information, not propaganda, because it will show better what you want people to know.

[lokigreeny]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 08:11 AM
Your illogical statements on "right not to work, but still get provided for" are non-Marxist and nonsensical. Please explain how you would keep a socialist society functioning if everyone could sit around on their asses and still get their pay. No one would work, there would be nothing to "provide" with. Everyone would starve. That&#39;s the way it works. People will take advantage if they can. Provide some evidence against this and we can continue the debate. Otherwise, I will write you off as an imbecile.
okay, so what about artists that do not contribute to the harvest? musicians? people in education? the disabled? the sick? the old? the retarded? People that want a break from the mindless grind that your brand of capitalism enforces? ugh, in socialism we have a chance to break away from conformism, and get into true liberty. The liberty to expect (and rightly so) that society will support you if you decide to expand your mind, not the crop cycle. and for fucks sake, socialism does NOT have to provide a job for everyone. (sorry if you didnt say that, i cant remember who did.) socialism means that we all take a turn at doing the jobs that need dpoing for the COMMON GOOD. the common good is not sitting in a fucking cubicle all day making the same old shoes, or bullets to shoot non-conformists with. It takes one man one day a week to work a field that will supply ten people. apart from that, his time can be his own.

so, sorry, but i do NOT see that everyone has to be "productive" in a material way.

Oh, and to mogwai, as to your original question, its not silly, becaus e that is the way communism is sometimes portrayed. It doesnt have to be like that. What is stopping you from making your own clothes? that is the best brand there is. its called independence. make your own style, do your own thing. that is not conflicting with socialism.

[elijahcraig]

okay, so what about artists that do not contribute to the harvest?

Do you consider agriculture the only job?


musicians?

Also have jobs.


people in education?

Education is free, maybe an allowance could be given, such as in Cuba.


the disabled? the sick? the old? the retarded?

All are provided for by the state, they are unable to work.


People that want a break from the mindless grind that your brand of capitalism enforces?

Capitalism? You really need to study up on socialism, you have no idea what you are talking about.


ugh, in socialism we have a chance to break away from conformism, and get into true liberty. The liberty to expect (and rightly so) that society will support you if you decide to expand your mind, not the crop cycle.

I have never said anything against this.


and for fucks sake, socialism does NOT have to provide a job for everyone.

Yes, socialism DOES provide everyone with a job.


(sorry if you didnt say that, i cant remember who did.)

I said it, rightly so.


socialism means that we all take a turn at doing the jobs that need dpoing for the COMMON GOOD. the common good is not sitting in a fucking cubicle all day making the same old shoes, or bullets to shoot non-conformists with.

I have never advocated conformity. Only hard work in whatever career you choose.


It takes one man one day a week to work a field that will supply ten people. apart from that, his time can be his own.

Once again, agriculture is NOT the only job.


so, sorry, but i do NOT see that everyone has to be "productive" in a material way.

Everyone is productive in socialism...be it fulfillment of need in arts and entertainment, food, water, electricity, etc etc etc. You are misunderstanding the whole premise of "contribution".

[187]

"187, I was saying you sound like a capitilist."

Explain to me why a person who chooses not to work(or contribute anything to society) should be provided for? And don&#39;t tell me "that&#39;s what it&#39;s all about" I want a real logical answer, why?

And please, I would LOVE to see how you poorly link my statements to capitalist thought.

You&#39;re a fool if you think anyone(or any society) is going to carry able bodied or minded men through life.

[lokigreeny]

because capitalism sees human beings as a means of production, whereas socialism doesnt have to. Why should people be supported when they are not working? becase who are you to say the I will not work when im tenty six, even though im not working when im sixteen? Instead I am choosing to learn new things, expand my mind etc. I accept that everyone should give something back to their community, even if their community is just their family, but that "something" can be anything. From shoes to crops to stories about the far away places they have gone - when they have been "non-productive"

Elijahcraig, you said that socialism provides everyone with a job. thats as maybe, but does everyone need to provide socialism with a job? look, i agree with your contribution thing, but you were talking, repeatedly, about jobs, jobs, jobs. im talking about contribution. and contribution means things go both ways.

yes from each according to their ability, but a healthy socialist society should be able to make the needs placed on individuals less, so that they can go and do whatever with their lives, not their roles as a producer.

agriculture the only job? no, i was using that as an example. but the basic requirements of life, and therefore society are brought about through cultivation. no-pne can think non-selfishly while they remain hungry.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 12 2003, 07:35 PM


I disagree completely. To allow subversion is to allow the greed and materlialism to remain in place. It must be uprooted completely. You are an anarchist, you have your views. I am not an anarchist and I have mine. All you babbling about "personal freedoms" will not help the human species evolve into the next stage of human development. Your ideals are based completely in the past and are therefore archaic.

Great change requires great action.


I do not expect you to understand nor do I really care if you do.
What makes you presume I am a an anarchist? I am far from it comrade. To quote Gorbachev "I am a confirmed Leninist", as any anti-Stalinist must be. As to your "point", I&#39;d like to think I did understand (although I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll say I didn&#39;t). I have never seen trying to create communism for the first time in history as trying to "evolve" humanity, that is a very weighty term. All we are obliged to do, is to free humanity from the chains of exploitation (by capitalist&#39;s OR otherwise) and let history take it&#39;s course. Sure, it is up to us revolutionaries to convey ideas to the people, it is not our place to shape humanity, we are not god. I must say, your ideas had their day in the past, and have been discarded like a bad dream, it is YOU that is archaic and none of your rhetoric or propaganda will make a diffirence to that.

[elijahcraig]

because capitalism sees human beings as a means of production, whereas socialism doesnt have to. Why should people be supported when they are not working? becase who are you to say the I will not work when im tenty six, even though im not working when im sixteen? Instead I am choosing to learn new things, expand my mind etc. I accept that everyone should give something back to their community, even if their community is just their family, but that "something" can be anything. From shoes to crops to stories about the far away places they have gone - when they have been "non-productive"

I&#39;ve explained this already, if you are this stupid, you might as well not respond.


Elijahcraig, you said that socialism provides everyone with a job. thats as maybe, but does everyone need to provide socialism with a job? look, i agree with your contribution thing, but you were talking, repeatedly, about jobs, jobs, jobs. im talking about contribution. and contribution means things go both ways.

Jobs? Contribution? If you are "contributing" my sitting on your ass...then NO you will not be provided for. Writer? Painter? etc? That&#39;s a job.


yes from each according to their ability, but a healthy socialist society should be able to make the needs placed on individuals less, so that they can go and do whatever with their lives, not their roles as a producer.

I&#39;ve never said anything against this.


agriculture the only job? no, i was using that as an example. but the basic requirements of life, and therefore society are brought about through cultivation. no-pne can think non-selfishly while they remain hungry.

And you will work in your selfishness in order to not become hungry. Be it writing, art, etc etc etc, it&#39;s all contributing to society.


What makes you presume I am a an anarchist?

Because you are acting like a utopian fool with your statements.


I am far from it comrade. To quote Gorbachev "I am a confirmed Leninist", as any anti-Stalinist must be.

Wow. Now we KNOW how stupid you are. :lol:


As to your "point", I&#39;d like to think I did understand (although I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll say I didn&#39;t). I have never seen trying to create communism for the first time in history as trying to "evolve" humanity, that is a very weighty term. All we are obliged to do, is to free humanity from the chains of exploitation (by capitalist&#39;s OR otherwise) and let history take it&#39;s course. Sure, it is up to us revolutionaries to convey ideas to the people, it is not our place to shape humanity, we are not god. I must say, your ideas had their day in the past, and have been discarded like a bad dream, it is YOU that is archaic and none of your rhetoric or propaganda will make a diffirence to that.

"Us revolutionaries"? Yeah...you&#39;re scheduled for a much needed purge next Thursday.

"we are not god"? What is this? Do you think a workers government is going to provide for lazy fucks who sit around all day and don&#39;t contribute? NO&#33; If that was possible...NO ONE WOULD WORK&#33; Idiot.

[F_Hayek]

"we are not god"? What is this? Do you think a workers government is going to provide for lazy fucks who sit around all day and don&#39;t contribute? NO&#33; If that was possible...NO ONE WOULD WORK&#33; Idiot.

Oh no, instead of a slave to the capital, I&#39;ll be a slave of society. :o

So what if everyone decides to be an musician in your utopian state, wouldn&#39;t there be a tiny problem? Or are you going to coerce them back into the coalmines?

[elijahcraig]

Hayek, that&#39;s a pathetic question. Do you actually think 6+ billion people are ALL going to be musicians? or artists? or writers? No, certain people are naturally better at these things, and there are also always people who are not as smart and are better at manual labor.

Slave to society? Wow, now that&#39;s pathetic. You produce for the society in capitalism, whether you like it or not. Only under capitalism you produce for the society without a fair chance at prospering without destroying someone else. In socialism, you are a part of society, prospering together equally. At least, those who are part of society who contribute.

[YKTMX]

Wow. Now we KNOW how stupid you are. :lol:

Here&#39;s some advice, instead of making glib remarks that make you sound stupid, why don&#39;t you concentrate on saying something coherent, that makes you sound less like a facist. I assumed most people would have guessed my Gorbachev statement was tongue in cheek, but obviously not.


"we are not god"? What is this? Do you think a workers government is going to provide for lazy fucks who sit around all day and don&#39;t contribute? NO&#33; If that was possible...NO ONE WOULD WORK&#33; Idiot.

How did you come to that conclusion. If the revolution that has made a new society has been created by mass movement, then most people will GLADLY work. Your ignorance is matched only by your narrow mindedness

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 08:34 PM

Slave to society? Wow, now that&#39;s pathetic. You produce for the society in capitalism, whether you like it or not. Only under capitalism you produce for the society without a fair chance at prospering without destroying someone else. In socialism, you are a part of society, prospering together equally. At least, those who are part of society who contribute.
Your understanding of capitalism is abysmal&#33; Ofcourse you don&#39;t produce for society under capitalism&#33; You produce for the capitalist&#33; Who then sells what you made.

[elijahcraig]

QUOTE
Wow. Now we KNOW how stupid you are.


Here&#39;s some advice, instead of making glib remarks that make you sound stupid, why don&#39;t you concentrate on saying something coherent, that makes you sound less like a facist. I assumed most people would have guessed my Gorbachev statement was tongue in cheek, but obviously not.

Yes, I got that. I found it unbelievably stupid.



QUOTE
"we are not god"? What is this? Do you think a workers government is going to provide for lazy fucks who sit around all day and don&#39;t contribute? NO&#33; If that was possible...NO ONE WOULD WORK&#33; Idiot.


How did you come to that conclusion. If the revolution that has made a new society has been created by mass movement, then most people will GLADLY work. Your ignorance is matched only by your narrow mindedness

Then what the fuck is the problem??? If everyone works, everyone gets something&#33; Those who don&#39;t get nothing&#33;



QUOTE (elijahcraig @ Aug 13 2003, 08:34 PM)

Slave to society? Wow, now that&#39;s pathetic. You produce for the society in capitalism, whether you like it or not. Only under capitalism you produce for the society without a fair chance at prospering without destroying someone else. In socialism, you are a part of society, prospering together equally. At least, those who are part of society who contribute.

Your understanding of capitalism is abysmal&#33; Ofcourse you don&#39;t produce for society under capitalism&#33; You produce for the capitalist&#33; Who then sells what you made.

X, that&#39;s the whole point of capitalism, and why socialism is possible. Production and exhange of products is a social relation (producing for the society). Only under capitalism, the products are not distributed equally, they all go to the rich. It&#39;s not hard to understand. Read Capital.

[Moskitto]

As far as i can see, the best solution to this is you&#39;re either studying to make you do your future job better (which should be encouraged) or you&#39;re doing a job you enjoy making you productive in that job, there&#39;s no reason why in your spare time you can paint, write music, do sport, whatever, and if you&#39;re particularly good at those fields and are making a contribution in them, consideration should be made that to improve you need to practice more, I hear so many people saying they don&#39;t want to find a job because "lottery funding lets me train more" but they don&#39;t see how lottery funding&#39;s completely destroyed my sport.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 05:37 AM
because capitalism sees human beings as a means of production, whereas socialism doesnt have to. Why should people be supported when they are not working? becase who are you to say the I will not work when im tenty six, even though im not working when im sixteen? Instead I am choosing to learn new things, expand my mind etc. I accept that everyone should give something back to their community, even if their community is just their family, but that "something" can be anything. From shoes to crops to stories about the far away places they have gone - when they have been "non-productive"

Elijahcraig, you said that socialism provides everyone with a job. thats as maybe, but does everyone need to provide socialism with a job? look, i agree with your contribution thing, but you were talking, repeatedly, about jobs, jobs, jobs. im talking about contribution. and contribution means things go both ways.

yes from each according to their ability, but a healthy socialist society should be able to make the needs placed on individuals less, so that they can go and do whatever with their lives, not their roles as a producer.

agriculture the only job? no, i was using that as an example. but the basic requirements of life, and therefore society are brought about through cultivation. no-pne can think non-selfishly while they remain hungry.
You mate are spot on. If you wont work why the fuck shpuld I work for you.

People calling themselves socialist who believe otherwise deserve shootinmg.

Socialism gives you the right not to be exploited when negotiating your reward for contributing. It does not (or should not) provide you with a surrogate mummy who will allow you to do whatever you please.

Nobody has the right to my production whether they are rich or poor. It belongs to me.

[elijahcraig]

My god, these so-called "socialists" are extremely pathetic.

The point of socialism is equality...equality is based on EQUAL RIGHTS&#33; Not one person working so he can provide others who don&#39;t work with supplies.

"No one ain&#39;t got no rights to my goods&#33;" OMG. That&#39;s just pathetic.

[sc4r]

Was that last note addressed at me ?

If So I&#39;ll stand by it. Nobody at all has any rights to any part of what I produce except me. It is the fundamental basis of both socialism and capitalism. You dont have rights to it because you can negotiate from a position of greater strength or because you would just like it.

but having said that any practical Socialist will recognise that society as a whole is a real entity (just as both genmes and ogranisms are both real). Most would recognise that society as well as the individuals within it has to be maintined and kept happy. All bit the idjits would recognise that doing so also benefits most individuals.

So society wot actually in a practical sense allow an individual to really keep every part of his/her own production. To do so would leave no &#39;nourishment&#39; for society.

In resolving such contradictory dynamics lies real politics and socio economics. Any damned fool can demand absolutism. Most idjiyts demand it from both perspectives without seemingly realising that it is a competing dynamic requiring optimisation. Such quacks can sound awfully convincing and attractive because they can of course promise the best of all possible worlds; they&#39;ll never actually give proper explanation how it can be delivered of course.

practicllity is all. Something our more nonsensical folllowers should paya little more attention to rather than doing an internet search to find a few slogans they can cite and names they can drop.

[elijahcraig]

Lenin went over this in State and Revolution.

[lokigreeny]

I am sorry, I have not bored myself to death reading leftist literature.

Can you explain yourself without naming titles, and without insulting or patronising me, please?

Oh, and i thought a new example of an exception for you; parents who wish to take a big role in their childrens lives from an early age?

You started off saying that everyone has to have "a job" otherwise society will not suport them, because they dont contribute to society. al the people i have pointed out to you, you have accepted as exceptions. including artists and craftsman who do not add anything to the material capital of the society.

so i think your argument is sort of dodgy... plus i agree with you on the general principle that everyone should contribute at some stage to society.

oh yes, one last thing. you have NO right to call me stupid, just becasue I disagree with you. I would appreciate an apology. Intelligence is not knowledge, intlligence is the ability to form logical opinions from the information you have at the time. :blink:

[elijahcraig]

I am sorry, I have not bored myself to death reading leftist literature.

Haven&#39;t read the texts? Why are you posting if you know nothing of what you speak of?


Can you explain yourself without naming titles, and without insulting or patronising me, please?

Explain? What? Why everyone must work in order to be rewarded?

Socialism is based on equality, not inequality. Making some work to get their "needs", and letting others become lazy and sit around all day and still get their "needs" is not equality, it is inequality.




Oh, and i thought a new example of an exception for you; parents who wish to take a big role in their childrens lives from an early age?

You&#39;ll have to explain this better for me to reply.


You started off saying that everyone has to have "a job" otherwise society will not suport them, because they dont contribute to society. al the people i have pointed out to you, you have accepted as exceptions. including artists and craftsman who do not add anything to the material capital of the society.

Art is an essential part of human life. They contribute to society a part which is mental, emotional, psychological, etc.

Craftsman? That is a job, same as an artist or writer, engineer etc.


so i think your argument is sort of dodgy... plus i agree with you on the general principle that everyone should contribute at some stage to society.

Dodgy? I&#39;ve replied to this several times.


oh yes, one last thing. you have NO right to call me stupid, just becasue I disagree with you. I would appreciate an apology. Intelligence is not knowledge, intlligence is the ability to form logical opinions from the information you have at the time.

From the bourgeois liberal pacifist? Nice one.

[lokigreeny]

so much for "equality" i suppose, if you wont apologise to me becasue i am a "bourgeois liberal pacifist".

as i explained, i am posting here, even though i havent read up on everything, precisely becasue i dont think i have to be able to quote marx or lenin in order to form an opinion.

well, i disagree with your definition of equality, in this context, but i do agree that everyone should have to contribute to society in some way, at some stage. so we agree on that. can you give me a break and stop trying to pick a fight? cause thats what it feels like to me.

i wasnt sure what you considered a "job".

you must remember that no-one enjoys doing nothing. people like doing things, wether it is planting a garden or writing a story. i doubt wether anyone would willingly do nothing all of the time. ALL being the operative word.

my example of the parents; if a mother (or father, or both) choose to spend as much time as possible with their child, they may not have time to put in enough hours for a net production. is that all right, or should they put their child down in order to increase their productivity. and also, what about people taking vACations? is that acceptable, or not?

[elijahcraig]

so much for "equality" i suppose, if you wont apologise to me becasue i am a "bourgeois liberal pacifist".

Stop whining nugget.


as i explained, i am posting here, even though i havent read up on everything, precisely becasue i dont think i have to be able to quote marx or lenin in order to form an opinion.

You don&#39;t have to be able to quote, just to have an overall or general understanding.


well, i disagree with your definition of equality, in this context, but i do agree that everyone should have to contribute to society in some way, at some stage. so we agree on that. can you give me a break and stop trying to pick a fight? cause thats what it feels like to me.

Picking a fight? With a pacifist? :lol:


i wasnt sure what you considered a "job".

Fine.


you must remember that no-one enjoys doing nothing. people like doing things, wether it is planting a garden or writing a story. i doubt wether anyone would willingly do nothing all of the time. ALL being the operative word.

Well, then we have no problem. If anyone DOES laze around all the time, they can expect nothing in return.


my example of the parents; if a mother (or father, or both) choose to spend as much time as possible with their child, they may not have time to put in enough hours for a net production. is that all right, or should they put their child down in order to increase their productivity. and also, what about people taking vACations? is that acceptable, or not?

Vacations, all that is fine. Working hours a day with everyone contributing would be down to 3-4 hours&#33; That&#39;s nothing&#33; If you can&#39;t put in 3 hours a day WITH VACATIONS, then you are a pathetic individual. Plus, luxury for everyone increases as everyone contributes as well.

[lokigreeny]

nug·get ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngt)
n.
A small, solid lump, especially of gold.
A small compact portion or unit: nuggets of information.

hmm, yes, good insult. i feel so...violated :lol:

you are seriously starting to piss me off; why cant you just argue without giving me shit? :angry:

as for the "general idea" just becasue my opinions are not the same as yours, or for that matter Marx&#39;s, does that mean i dont understand the general idea?

but cant you just give somebody a break, if they decide "no, i dont feel like working today"? i would have thought that socialsim could supply that luxury, especially if the hours were paid back eventyually. or am i just being "naive" again?

i do actually agree with you generally, and i would be happy working a four hour day. i enjoy working in the garden, as i think most people would if they got the chance to keep what they made/grew. I suppose I was just thinking along utopian lines...hmmmm. you didnt actually answer my example of parenting though. a mother who wants to have an intenisve relationship with her child cannot work in a factory/farm/kitchen four hours a day (as small a labour time as that is)EDIT: i should have added that im only talking about new born children here...

[elijahcraig]

nug·get ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngt)
n.
A small, solid lump, especially of gold.
A small compact portion or unit: nuggets of information.

hmm, yes, good insult. i feel so...violated

you are seriously starting to piss me off; why cant you just argue without giving me shit?

:lol:


as for the "general idea" just becasue my opinions are not the same as yours, or for that matter Marx&#39;s, does that mean i dont understand the general idea?

Yes, it does by the way you post.


but cant you just give somebody a break, if they decide "no, i dont feel like working today"? i would have thought that socialsim could supply that luxury, especially if the hours were paid back eventyually. or am i just being "naive" again?

3-4 hours a day with vacations, and luxury increases? Boy, they&#39;ve got it hardddd... :lol:


i do actually agree with you generally, and i would be happy working a four hour day. i enjoy working in the garden, as i think most people would if they got the chance to keep what they made/grew. I suppose I was just thinking along utopian lines...hmmmm. you didnt actually answer my example of parenting though. a mother who wants to have an intenisve relationship with her child cannot work in a factory/farm/kitchen four hours a day (as small a labour time as that is)EDIT: i should have added that im only talking about new born children here...

Then her partner can work. No one is so obsessed with their child that they can&#39;t do something. No one.

[lokigreeny]

lost cause i know, but...

would you apologise please? at least explain how my opinions are so infantile... :blink:

[elijahcraig]

Pacifism? It is bourgeois liberalism. A real revolutionary realizes the need for violence at some point or the other. Try leading a "pacifist" revolution in Peru...yeah, ok. You&#39;d be slaughtered. Gandhi tried, India lives in the worst class system in the world. He should&#39;ve took up arms, and made a socialist country.

[lokigreeny]

ok...so is that the only reason you&#39;re treating me like pond slime?

the fact that im not a revolutionary, according to you, doest neccecarily mean that my opinions on the theory of socialism are any less valid.

[elijahcraig]

Stop taking me seriously, I am joking.

[lokigreeny]

oh, ok... sorry. :D just me being a dumbarse again. i thought you were being such an arsehole...

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 02:46 PM
Pacifism? It is bourgeois liberalism. A real revolutionary realizes the need for violence at some point or the other. Try leading a "pacifist" revolution in Peru...yeah, ok. You&#39;d be slaughtered. Gandhi tried, India lives in the worst class system in the world. He should&#39;ve took up arms, and made a socialist country.
This is right on the money (no cappie pun intended). But i would personally have it more accuratley as &#39;no violence, unless extreme circumstances bring forth such a need&#39;. In this context, I see violence as a las t result &#39;extreme circumstances&#39;.

It must also be noted that revolution results from oppression of the majority (whether this is entirely proletarian or not), as a minority action similar to this would be a coup detat.

[elijahcraig]

Links on violence:

My Webpage (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/philviolence.html)

My Webpage (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/violence.html)

[apathy maybe]

"187, I was saying you sound like a capitilist."

Explain to me why a person who chooses not to work(or contribute anything to society) should be provided for? And don&#39;t tell me "that&#39;s what it&#39;s all about" I want a real logical answer, why?

And please, I would LOVE to see how you poorly link my statements to capitalist thought.

You&#39;re a fool if you think anyone(or any society) is going to carry able bodied or minded men through life.
Under total capitalism (not the mix that is in most/all developed countries) if some one does not work and they don&#39;t have money, they don&#39;t survieve. In the USA (or so I am lead to believe, I don&#39;t live there) you can only get welfare for 6 weeks or something before you are cut off.
As to why someone who is quite capable to contribute to society but chooses not to, I think they should be looked after because we can&#33; There will always be enough people to man the plows (an example only I should add, not a litural (sp?) thing which I am sure elijahcraig would take it for if I didn&#39;t say this) to look after everyone. That is how various charities etc work, volunteers get nothing but the feeling of a job well done and the gratitude of the society. I can not help it that you would not work if you were not forced to but there are plenty of people who would. And as I have already said, the disaproval of the society is a strong weapon.
Do you know the quote about the fool and the wise man? Here it is anyway.(or at least an aproximation).

A wise man and a fool went into the desert, they found they didn&#39;t have any water. any way the fool says "Who is the fool now? I came into the desert with a wise man, but you did not"
Now that is not the compleat quote and it is awful in they way it was presented but still.

The fool is the wiseman who keeps the king in check.
What I am saying with these quotes is that I may be a fool but your the real fool.
The whole system of capitalism is that the workers carry the capitilists "able bodied or minded men" through life.

[elijahcraig]

Under total capitalism (not the mix that is in most/all developed countries) if some one does not work and they don&#39;t have money, they don&#39;t survieve. In the USA (or so I am lead to believe, I don&#39;t live there) you can only get welfare for 6 weeks or something before you are cut off.
As to why someone who is quite capable to contribute to society but chooses not to, I think they should be looked after because we can&#33; There will always be enough people to man the plows (an example only I should add, not a litural (sp?) thing which I am sure elijahcraig would take it for if I didn&#39;t say this) to look after everyone. That is how various charities etc work, volunteers get nothing but the feeling of a job well done and the gratitude of the society. I can not help it that you would not work if you were not forced to but there are plenty of people who would. And as I have already said, the disaproval of the society is a strong weapon.
Do you know the quote about the fool and the wise man? Here it is anyway.(or at least an aproximation).

All "volunteer" and "charity" work would not exist except through the state. Thus, they are jobs.

"We can&#33;" No, if everyone feels they can be provided for no matter what, they will become lazy, and take it for granted, and quit working, like anyone who is human would.


What I am saying with these quotes is that I may be a fool but your the real fool.
The whole system of capitalism is that the workers carry the capitilists "able bodied or minded men" through life.

Yes, and under your brand of socialism, the workers would carry the "able bodied or minded men" who choose not to work "through life." That&#39;s not fair, and anyone who says it is is being illogical.

[187]

"As to why someone who is quite capable to contribute to society but chooses not to, I think they should be looked after because we can&#33;"

Socialism is not a charity for the lazy. People will not enjoy working for those who don&#39;t. The majority will either quit working altogther and join the easy life, or revolt.

"There will always be enough people to man the plows"

Why when they see their neighbor sitting around all day doing whatever and getting the same damn thing everyone else does? Do you think people are stupid enough to ignore that?

"I can not help it that you would not work if you were not forced to but there are plenty of people who would."

This is not about being forced to work. This is about about working for those who choose not to work because they "don&#39;t feel like it". No one will ever work to provide for the lazy, unless they were forced.

"What I am saying with these quotes is that I may be a fool but your the real fool."

<_<

"The whole system of capitalism is that the workers carry the capitilists "able bodied or minded men" through life."

So I guess that would make you the one having closer resemblance to Capitalist thought, because you condone the workers working for those who simply elect not to.

A fair society is not built around people working for those who don&#39;t.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:49 PM



What&#39;s your solution? Right, you don&#39;t have one, you want a bunch of lazy fucks sitting around getting provided for.


Yes. That&#39;s individual liberty for you. The idea of the state ordering people to work and then starving them if they refuse isn&#39;t any kind of socialism I&#39;ve ever seen. Though I suppose when you&#39;re calling Stalin and Mao "socialists" anything will go eh?


LOL.... I think its now you elijahcraig who has been: -

http://knightdesigns.net/comedy/matador-owned.jpg

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:56 PM


QUOTE

It is still at the end of "each according to ability". ?


Oh dear, laughing at our own jokes are we?

You&#39;ve been beaten X. Sorry.



QUOTE

What&#39;s your solution? Right, you don&#39;t have one, you want a bunch of lazy fucks sitting around getting provided for.



Yes. That&#39;s individual liberty for you. The idea of the state ordering people to work and then starving them if they refuse isn&#39;t any kind of socialism I&#39;ve ever seen. Though I suppose when you&#39;re calling Stalin and Mao "socialists" anything will go eh?

This is the bottom line of this subject: IF THE PERSON DOES NOT WORK, HE GETS NOTHING. PERIOD. That is the POINT of socialism. You have the equal opportunity, if you choose to lay out of a job when it is presented to you, it is your loss. Everyone agrees with me here, except you.



QUOTE
What unemployed? Socialism offers a job to EVERYONE.?


Yes, and liberty offers them the chance to refuse.

And their refusal offers them the right to not be provided for by those who DO work hard.



QUOTE
No, read Carlos Marighella&#39;s "Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla" for that. Look into Maoist Internationalist Movement if you want to know what "labor aristocracy" means."&#33;


Yeah, I said Marxist, not Maoist. Bit of a diffirence there. You, us Marixsts believe in all kinds of akward stuff like "self emancipation" and "mass movement". Maybe you&#39;ll learn one day

I believe in those things too. Unfortunately, you are so incompetent when it comes to Marxist theory you do not understand Maoism.




QUOTE
You have been...


Oh dear...

OWNED&#33;
You&#39;ve been beaten X. Sorry.

Actually no he hasnt, he just came back and made you look a fool... however from personnal experiance that rarely proves to be a challange.

This is the bottom line of this subject: IF THE PERSON DOES NOT WORK, HE GETS NOTHING. PERIOD. That is the POINT of socialism. You have the equal opportunity, if you choose to lay out of a job when it is presented to you, it is your loss. Everyone agrees with me here, except you.

What about the disabled, the elderly, those who live in sparcly populated area&#39;s with few empolyers? These people cant get a job, do they starve... Ohh yes you are a stalinist... silly question. The answer is: -------

FAMINE

I believe in those things too. Unfortunately, you are so incompetent when it comes to Marxist theory you do not understand Maoism.


MY GOD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; How rich is that coming from you who quite possibly knows less than most capitalists I have talked to. Even people such as Dark Capitalist and SN know more marxist theory than you do.





Working or starving is one of THE most major capitalist principal in existance. It leaves workers right open to exploitation. If the alternative is starvation then a person will do anything to avoid it, which means that the empolyer can give a shitty wage or allocation of recource with no fear of loss of labour. While they rake in that workers profits, use your fucking common sense. Just because this would be a socialist state does not mean that such gaping holes should be left open for capitalists in times of hardship.


I see your point though why should one person who works there ass off provide for a lazy sonofa***** who wont work. The answer is simple give these people the recourses in which they can survive, just with out the standard benefits of a normal socialist state, a bread and water diet, rather than meat and veg diet. But dont make them starve though. Perhaps they do not work because they wish to be a computer technition but all those places are filled, and only a toilet cleaners place is left. It is hardly that persons fault if there skilled position is unavailable, hense the reason why they choose to remain unemployed.

As for the education point made earlier I will expand on that. Say a person stays in University and does a PHD, say they wish to stay on and do a different course after they have finnished, or even stay in education permanantly. So this person will never work, these are the people who fuel sociotys advancment in culture and learning and hold a place equil to any farm labourers. Should they starve?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 05:15 AM
Pacifism? It is bourgeois liberalism. A real revolutionary realizes the need for violence at some point or the other. Try leading a "pacifist" revolution in Peru...yeah, ok. You&#39;d be slaughtered. Gandhi tried, India lives in the worst class system in the world. He should&#39;ve took up arms, and made a socialist country.
The term "bourgeois liberalism" is an oxymoron. You cannot get it it is a contradiction in terms, the bourgeoisie have traditionaly and historicaly been against liberal reform. I have mentioned this on another forum, i will say it again here: -

Historically they were a group in the rich upper middle classes. They were just below the aristocracy, it is a common mistake amongst leftists to assume that the bourgeoisie is the aristocracy. They instigated the French revolution and killed or forced the aristocracy to leave the country. The fleeing aristocarats became known as the émége&#39;s. the bourgeoisie stood for the values which supported there contiuing prosperity. As such they dominated the French governing system&#39;s, such as the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Peers, they were in a position to influence country policy in there favour. So by reforming the system to allow for a more liberal class achiving an increased level of power they were damaging their own prosperity. It is there for Illogical to assume that liberalism and refomism are bourgeois ideals.

If you had any fucking clue about the historical groups you talk about then maybe ypu avoid saying the bullshit you mentioned earlier.

Try leading a "pacifist" revolution in Peru...yeah, ok. You&#39;d be slaughtered.

Try leading a revolution in the USA, you would get slaughtered.

[elijahcraig]

You&#39;ve been beaten X. Sorry.

Actually no he hasnt, he just came back and made you look a fool... however from personnal experiance that rarely proves to be a challange.

He has no idea what he&#39;s talking about, everyone who is a Marxist on this thread has agreed with me. You people sound like capitalists.



This is the bottom line of this subject: IF THE PERSON DOES NOT WORK, HE GETS NOTHING. PERIOD. That is the POINT of socialism. You have the equal opportunity, if you choose to lay out of a job when it is presented to you, it is your loss. Everyone agrees with me here, except you.

What about the disabled, the elderly, those who live in sparcly populated area&#39;s with few empolyers? These people cant get a job, do they starve... Ohh yes you are a stalinist... silly question. The answer is: -------

I&#39;ve already answered this jackass. They all get provided for. They have no "ability" to work. Nice uninformed reply though.




I believe in those things too. Unfortunately, you are so incompetent when it comes to Marxist theory you do not understand Maoism.

I&#39;m not a Maoist.



MY GOD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; How rich is that coming from you who quite possibly knows less than most capitalists I have talked to. Even people such as Dark Capitalist and SN know more marxist theory than you do.


Wtf are you talking about? You are a fucking utopianist&#33; If you can&#39;t even read my replies to the questions you ask you have no right to insult me&#33;





Working or starving is one of THE most major capitalist principal in existance. It leaves workers right open to exploitation. If the alternative is starvation then a person will do anything to avoid it, which means that the empolyer can give a shitty wage or allocation of recource with no fear of loss of labour. While they rake in that workers profits, use your fucking common sense. Just because this would be a socialist state does not mean that such gaping holes should be left open for capitalists in times of hardship.

I highly doubt anyone would turn down a 3-4 hour job a day with vacationand being supported by the society for starvation. It&#39;s just not going to happen.



I see your point though why should one person who works there ass off provide for a lazy sonofa***** who wont work. The answer is simple give these people the recourses in which they can survive, just with out the standard benefits of a normal socialist state, a bread and water diet, rather than meat and veg diet. But dont make them starve though. Perhaps they do not work because they wish to be a computer technition but all those places are filled, and only a toilet cleaners place is left. It is hardly that persons fault if there skilled position is unavailable, hense the reason why they choose to remain unemployed.

I think I was being a little exaggerated with the "starvation" line, I don&#39;t believe that would ever happen. Would YOU turn down a 3-4 hour a day job with vacations for starvation?


As for the education point made earlier I will expand on that. Say a person stays in University and does a PHD, say they wish to stay on and do a different course after they have finnished, or even stay in education permanantly. So this person will never work, these are the people who fuel sociotys advancment in culture and learning and hold a place equil to any farm labourers. Should they starve?

Definetely not, as I said before..."education is provided by the state". Being a professor is also a job. So is "advancements in culture" etc, they are all contributions to society.


The term "bourgeois liberalism" is an oxymoron. You cannot get it it is a contradiction in terms, the bourgeoisie have traditionaly and historicaly been against liberal reform. I have mentioned this on another forum, i will say it again here: -




Historically they were a group in the rich upper middle classes. They were just below the aristocracy, it is a common mistake amongst leftists to assume that the bourgeoisie is the aristocracy. They instigated the French revolution and killed or forced the aristocracy to leave the country. The fleeing aristocarats became known as the émége&#39;s. the bourgeoisie stood for the values which supported there contiuing prosperity. As such they dominated the French governing system&#39;s, such as the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Peers, they were in a position to influence country policy in there favour. So by reforming the system to allow for a more liberal class achiving an increased level of power they were damaging their own prosperity. It is there for Illogical to assume that liberalism and refomism are bourgeois ideals.

Reformism and the liberalism which it brings are illusions of the capitalist class to avoid revolution. Democrats, republicans, etc. They are all false prophets.




Try leading a "pacifist" revolution in Peru...yeah, ok. You&#39;d be slaughtered.

Try leading a revolution in the USA, you would get slaughtered.

Many would yes. But force should be met with force, not laying down and being slaughtered.

[187]

Can anyone give me a logical reason why working people should support the lazy?

I&#39;ll ask that you put some reasoning behind your thought, and not say "just because we can"

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 11:58 PM
Can anyone give me a logical reason why working people should support the lazy?

I&#39;ll ask that you put some reasoning behind your thought, and not say "just because we can"
Can you give me a logical reason why we should support the unproductive? There is no reason to, the Nazi&#39;s saw this a massacred them, so you my friend are very close to the Nazi way of thinking, is that a good enough reason?

I&#39;ve already answered this jackass. They all get provided for. They have no "ability" to work. Nice uninformed reply though.

Yes you backpeddled when the holes in your argument were highlighted. As for my reply it is far from uninformed quite the oppersit, its actually historically accurate.

Wtf are you talking about?

Its hardly difficult to understand, I am saying that your knowladge of socialism is so sparse that even capitalists know more than you do. Hardly rocket science.

You are a fucking utopianist&#33;

Actually no I am not, I refuse to be tied down to any actual ideology as they are all flawed in some way, I just happen to respect some utopian leaders. That does not mean I completely and utterly abide by there theorys. Infact I would Imagine I am a democratic socialist or libertarian socialist.

However even if I were tied to that ideology, I still know far more theory that you do.

And the term is Utopian. As in you are a "utopian". Rather than utopianist.

I think I was being a little exaggerated with the "starvation" line, I don&#39;t believe that would ever happen.

Finnaly, you have become: -

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/obvious.jpg

Being a professor is also a job

I was refering to those who remain a permanant student, rather than a proffessor or teacher.

Reformism and the liberalism which it brings are illusions of the capitalist class to avoid revolution. Democrats, republicans, etc. They are all false prophets.


How about you actually try backing up that ridiculous statment.

Many would yes. But force should be met with force, not laying down and being slaughtered.

I am saying you would lose, period.

[elijahcraig]

Can you give me a logical reason why we should support the unproductive? There is no reason to, the Nazi&#39;s saw this a massacred them, so you my friend are very close to the Nazi way of thinking, is that a good enough reason?

Boy, now that&#39;s a reason. Nice dodge. Nazis have nothing to do with this.




I&#39;ve already answered this jackass. They all get provided for. They have no "ability" to work. Nice uninformed reply though.

Yes you backpeddled when the holes in your argument were highlighted. As for my reply it is far from uninformed quite the oppersit, its actually historically accurate.


I answered this directly two or three times in this thread, if you are too lazy to go through it and find the answers I provided, it is your problem.

I have never "backpeddled", I have always said that the elderly, sick, disabled, etc should be provided for. It&#39;s not a hard conclusion to come to.
Wtf are you talking about?


Its hardly difficult to understand, I am saying that your knowladge of socialism is so sparse that even capitalists know more than you do. Hardly rocket science.

Alright, just stop this nonsense. I have nearly all of Lenin&#39;s 49+ volumes, Capital, Manifesto, and much of Marx/Engels works, though not all.


Actually no I am not, I refuse to be tied down to any actual ideology as they are all flawed in some way, I just happen to respect some utopian leaders. That does not mean I completely and utterly abide by there theorys. Infact I would Imagine I am a democratic socialist or libertarian socialist.

Fine.


However even if I were tied to that ideology, I still know far more theory that you do.

Really? Aren&#39;t you an arrogant ****.


And the term is Utopian. As in you are a "utopian". Rather than utopianist.

Man, you are one stupid jackass.



I think I was being a little exaggerated with the "starvation" line, I don&#39;t believe that would ever happen.

Finnaly, you have become: -

Then why the fuck did you make such a big deal out of it if it was "obvious".

You have provided no answer to 187&#39;s question, backpeddling?

[Invader Zim]

Boy, now that&#39;s a reason. Nice dodge. Nazis have nothing to do with this.


So avoiding the Nazi line on issue&#39;s is not a good enough reason for you? Perhaps we should call you adolfcraig.

I answered this directly two or three times in this thread,

After you were called out on it, yes. Hense why I said you back peddled, you changed your entire stance when some one exposed the flaws of your arguments, and then tried to cover.

Alright, just stop this nonsense. I have nearly all of Lenin&#39;s 49+ volumes, Capital, Manifesto, and much of Marx/Engels works, though not all.

And you still havent got a fucking clue, which suggests you have boaught them just not bothered reading them.

Really? Aren&#39;t you an arrogant ****.

Yes, and Im still right.

Man, you are one stupid jackass.

The fealing is mutual I assure you.

Then why the fuck did you make such a big deal out of it if it was "obvious".

Because it is obvious. Anyway do you not like the picture? Fealing Hurt?

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/boofuckinhoo.jpg

You have provided no answer to 187&#39;s question, backpeddling?

I did provide an answer. If you want another answer, then how about just basic human rights that any individual has the right to food and water. Or that any person has the right to withdraw there labour?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Aug 13 2003, 12:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Aug 13 2003, 12:55 AM)
COMRADE [email protected] 12 2003, 06:20 AM
It sounds like brainwashing because it is brainwashing. Washing the brain free of petty bourgoise ideals that have been firmly planted and will resist every effort to be removed.
Wow, it seems you are very much into changing the world&#33;
But I believe that instead of trying to convince people it would be better to give them correct information, not propaganda, because it will show better what you want people to know. [/b]
"propaganda" does not mean "false information".


AK47,


I&#39;m glad to see your hypocracy knows no bounds. I suppose you now regret breaking my balls about posting a picture in OI.

AK47- "As for the pic there is a place for that stuff, its called chit chat, not OI"


Whoooooops&#33;&#33; So soon they forget.

[187]

"Can you give me a logical reason why we should support the unproductive? There is no reason to, the Nazi&#39;s saw this a massacred them"

This isn&#39;t a logical explaination as to why society should support the lazy. You avoided answering the question by asking me one. But I&#39;ll still answer your question... There isn&#39;t any logical reason to support the unproductive, but humanity has something called compassion for those who&#39;s lives were blessed with disability, and suffering. You see, these people have no choice when it comes to productivity, but the lazy or abusers do.

"so you my friend are very close to the Nazi way of thinking"

My way of thinking involves choice, did the nazi&#39;s?
My way of thinking doesn&#39;t involve exterminating the lazy, instead giving them their entire life to change their ways, did the nazi&#39;s?
My way of thinking provides support to those who can not work, did the nazi&#39;s?

Please AK, go into further explaination as to how my thought equates that of the nazi&#39;s, because I&#39;m having trouble finding a close correlation.

"If you want another answer, then how about just basic human rights that any individual has the right to food and water."

Do basic human rights mention anything about people being entitled to steal from other peoples food and water?

"Or that any person has the right to withdraw there labour?"

Retirement is a completley different issue.

[synthesis]

Socialism is emphatically not "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their deeds."

You wouldn&#39;t get anything like the Hilton sisters under socialism, I&#39;ll tell you that much.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by F_Hayek+Aug 10 2003, 10:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (F_Hayek @ Aug 10 2003, 10:02 AM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 09:05 PM
Sorry if this sounds like a very simple question and has been answered somewhere else, but im a bit of a political n00b and fairly new to communism :)

but, my question:

if we embrace communism, do we sacrifice our individuality? because from my little exposure to these ideas so far, i think this may be why people are afraid of communism?

if every man, woman and child is provided with communist-brand beige training shoes, would we not lose some of our motivation? to work is to achieve something, a nice car, nice clothes, these material possessions that define who the modern man is in relation to his peers...


even a man living below the poverty line in a run down american town may fear communism, because he may think that he would have to sacrifice his freedom so succeed and to be an individual ?


once again, sorry if this is highly basic and n00bish behavior, but there doesnt seem to be a forum for people just starting out :(
Look at history and learn. Though you say you don&#39;t know a lot you have already captured the major flaws in the doctrine. :D [/b]
WOW&#33; I liked how you just copied the work of someone else and manipulated it to be your own. Way to go CAPITALIST&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Aug 16 2003, 07:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Aug 16 2003, 07:38 PM)
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 13 2003, 12:55 AM

COMRADE [email protected] 12 2003, 06:20 AM
It sounds like brainwashing because it is brainwashing. Washing the brain free of petty bourgoise ideals that have been firmly planted and will resist every effort to be removed.
Wow, it seems you are very much into changing the world&#33;
But I believe that instead of trying to convince people it would be better to give them correct information, not propaganda, because it will show better what you want people to know.
"propaganda" does not mean "false information".


AK47,


I&#39;m glad to see your hypocracy knows no bounds. I suppose you now regret breaking my balls about posting a picture in OI.

AK47- "As for the pic there is a place for that stuff, its called chit chat, not OI"


Whoooooops&#33;&#33; So soon they forget. [/b]
Sorry, grand dad, I was responding to elijahcraig who felt the need to put in his favourate "owned" pic in. However I do feal bad for lowering my self to your level of thinking.

This isn&#39;t a logical explaination as to why society should support the lazy. You avoided answering the question by asking me one.

Actually no thats a statment: -

"There is no reason to, the Nazi&#39;s saw this a massacred them,"

Can you see a question mark, in that part of the statement?

However Later I did give other reasons to in a later post: -

If you want another answer, then how about just basic human rights that any individual has the right to food and water. Or that any person has the right to withdraw there labour?

My way of thinking involves choice, did the nazi&#39;s?

Your way has no real choise at all. Stave and die, or work? That is forced labour, one step away from slave labour. Its what the capitalists do in third world countrys. People have to take the jobs at 1&#036; a day or starve, so what do you prefer, the extermination line of the capitalist "cheep" slave labour line? I can do both.

My way of thinking doesn&#39;t involve exterminating the lazy

Actually starving the lazy, seams to, me like extermination.

instead giving them their entire life to change their ways, did the nazi&#39;s?

There whole live&#39;s? What all 1 week of it before they die of dehydration? Or whole month before they die from malnutrition?

Please AK, go into further explaination as to how my thought equates that of the nazi&#39;s, because I&#39;m having trouble finding a close correlation.


Work or death... sounds very much like totalitarian Nazism to me. Rather like the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz, apart from the germans shot and gased the Jews who failed to work. You just starve them, well your way saves bullets and cyanide.

"If you want another answer, then how about just basic human rights that any individual has the right to food and water."

Do basic human rights mention anything about people being entitled to steal from other peoples food and water?

Reminds me of when some American in the 20&#39;s-30&#39;s said that ant employer who paid over the minimum wage was stealing from his share holders. Even the capitalists have more humanity than you do, ever heard of the dole? Financial support?

It is a sad day when, so called "socialists" fail to even meet capitalist levels of humanity.

"Or that any person has the right to withdraw there labour?"

Retirement is a completley different issue.

Who said anything about retirement? What happens if a computer expert just does not want to be a mason, but thats the only job available? So instead of living off income support and waiting until the job he will be most productive in has a place for him to fill, he has to work in a job he hates or starve and die?

Yes I can see you thought this through. Your regime would be built on slave labour around fear of starvation. And you calame this is nothing like Nazism? Well perhaps your right, it sounds more like Imperial Roman Empire depotism.

[elijahcraig]

Boy, now that&#39;s a reason. Nice dodge. Nazis have nothing to do with this.

So avoiding the Nazi line on issue&#39;s is not a good enough reason for you? Perhaps we should call you adolfcraig.

Do you really think someone would choose the life of outcast and living without society&#39;s support over the life of 3-4 hour work days with vacation?



I answered this directly two or three times in this thread,

After you were called out on it, yes. Hense why I said you back peddled, you changed your entire stance when some one exposed the flaws of your arguments, and then tried to cover.

Show me a flaw and I&#39;ll take this seriously. If it is not obvious that you don&#39;t let the persons unable to produce starve, then you aren&#39;t too bright. They WOULD being doing "according to their ability", because they have no ability, and they would get "according to their need" because they HAVE done what their ability allows them to do. It&#39;s not a hard concept.



Alright, just stop this nonsense. I have nearly all of Lenin&#39;s 49+ volumes, Capital, Manifesto, and much of Marx/Engels works, though not all.

And you still havent got a fucking clue, which suggests you have boaught them just not bothered reading them.

I borrowed the Manifesto, bought Capital, and read the rest off the internet. These petty insults really aren&#39;t any way to debate AK, if you are incapable of the process, then don&#39;t post a reply.



Really? Aren&#39;t you an arrogant ****.

Yes, and Im still right.

Well, since you say so...it&#39;s obviously right. :lol:



Man, you are one stupid jackass.

The fealing is mutual I assure you.

That&#39;s what you&#39;re here for.



Then why the fuck did you make such a big deal out of it if it was "obvious".

Because it is obvious. Anyway do you not like the picture? Fealing Hurt?

What&#39;s with the "fealing" misspellings?



You have provided no answer to 187&#39;s question, backpeddling?

I did provide an answer. If you want another answer, then how about just basic human rights that any individual has the right to food and water. Or that any person has the right to withdraw there labour?

Do you really think, once again, that a person will choose the easy life over the nonsensical one? I highly doubt it.


Your way has no real choise at all. Stave and die, or work? That is forced labour, one step away from slave labour. Its what the capitalists do in third world countrys. People have to take the jobs at 1&#036; a day or starve, so what do you prefer, the extermination line of the capitalist "cheep" slave labour line? I can do both.

Wow, now that certainly is a spinning of the topic. Forced labor? So now we are calling basic consideration for others, such as avoiding putting extra weight on the others who actually do work, "forced labor"? Stealing isn&#39;t a bad thing as well?



My way of thinking doesn&#39;t involve exterminating the lazy

Actually starving the lazy, seams to, me like extermination.

Do you really think a person would actually starve instead of producing some sort of contribution to society?



instead giving them their entire life to change their ways, did the nazi&#39;s?

There whole live&#39;s? What all 1 week of it before they die of dehydration? Or whole month before they die from malnutrition?

MY GOD, can you EVER answer a question without acting like a complete moron???



lease AK, go into further explaination as to how my thought equates that of the nazi&#39;s, because I&#39;m having trouble finding a close correlation.

Work or death... sounds very much like totalitarian Nazism to me. Rather like the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz, apart from the germans shot and gased the Jews who failed to work. You just starve them, well your way saves bullets and cyanide.

Once again, someone sitting in their house, instead of starving, would they not work? They can either contribute to society, and live prosperously, or become an agent of capitalism, and live in shambles.




"If you want another answer, then how about just basic human rights that any individual has the right to food and water."

Do basic human rights mention anything about people being entitled to steal from other peoples food and water?

Reminds me of when some American in the 20&#39;s-30&#39;s said that ant employer who paid over the minimum wage was stealing from his share holders. Even the capitalists have more humanity than you do, ever heard of the dole? Financial support?

There would be no exploitation of the workers, there would be no "share holders"...only one class working together equally to produce for themselves. You are not in touch with the subject.


It is a sad day when, so called "socialists" fail to even meet capitalist levels of humanity.

Yes, it is AK, you should be ashamed of yourself.




"Or that any person has the right to withdraw there labour?"

Retirement is a completley different issue.

Who said anything about retirement? What happens if a computer expert just does not want to be a mason, but thats the only job available? So instead of living off income support and waiting until the job he will be most productive in has a place for him to fill, he has to work in a job he hates or starve and die?

Yes I can see you thought this through. Your regime would be built on slave labour around fear of starvation. And you calame this is nothing like Nazism? Well perhaps your right, it sounds more like Imperial Roman Empire depotism.

Computer expert and mason issue? I would say he could be given an allowance from the state like they do in Cuba for university students until the job opened up.

AK, what would be your solution if everyone decided they simply did not want to work? Because...they would be provided for anyway. Yet there would be no one to provide for "everyone". This is the problem.

[Saint-Just]

Part of the socialist character is that one wants to work for the collective benefit of society. This of course takes a long time to achieve. Those who do not want to work are trying to shirk the responsibility they have to society, they are trying to negate the idea that everyone in society is part of society, negating this idea is impossible yet harmful to others, and deserves punishment.

[187]

"Actually no thats a statment: -"

Actually no, this is a question or dodge:

"Can you give me a logical reason why we should support the unproductive? "

"Can you see a question mark, in that part of the statement?"

Yes I can.

"Your way has no real choise at all. Stave and die, or work? That is forced labour, one step away from slave labour. Its what the capitalists do in third world countrys. People have to take the jobs at 1&#036; a day or starve, so what do you prefer, the extermination line of the capitalist "cheep" slave labour line? I can do both."

The choice is they can refuse to work and survive on their own, or work in society. Stealing from society is not an acceptable choice.

"Actually starving the lazy, seams to, me like extermination."

But they&#39;re making the choice whether or not they want to starve.

"There whole live&#39;s? What all 1 week of it before they die of dehydration? Or whole month before they die from malnutrition?"

If they would rather die of dehydration and malnutrition simply because they&#39;re too lazy to work, then there is probably something seriously wrong with them.

"What happens if a computer expert just does not want to be a mason, but thats the only job available? So instead of living off income support and waiting until the job he will be most productive in has a place for him to fill, he has to work in a job he hates or starve and die?"

If he&#39;s a computer expert, he will be found a computer expert job, otherwise society has failed him, and he has not failed society. This is not laziness.

"It is a sad day when, so called "socialists" fail to even meet capitalist levels of humanity."

It&#39;s a sad day when so called "socialists" fail to even realise that a system that allows pampering of the lazy is not only extremley unfair but also will not survive.

"Yes I can see you thought this through. Your regime would be built on slave labour around fear of starvation."

Your society however, with the working class supporting those who refuse to work sounds much more fair. Go into further detail about how a society where the lazy can live eqaully with the hardworking will prosper? Explain to me why people will ignore those who choose not to work? Explain to me how society in the long run can function and survive with people given the free will to leech off of it, while giving nothing back?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 17 2003, 07:52 PM
Part of the socialist character is that one wants to work for the collective benefit of society. This of course takes a long time to achieve. Those who do not want to work are trying to shirk the responsibility they have to society, they are trying to negate the idea that everyone in society is part of society, negating this idea is impossible yet harmful to others, and deserves punishment.
Is it right to punish those who protest the structure of society? If they do not work to better society, they will not better themselves, they will fail and everyone will see them as an example of what becomes of those who defy a society that works toward the advancement of human rights and social justice.
They will punish themselves, if we interfere, we may look oppressive and inhumane.

[elijahcraig]

Is it right to punish those who protest the structure of society?

Under socialism, those are called "capitalists", "bourgeois tendency", and "pro-Imperialist counter-revolutionaries". They should be punished.


If they do not work to better society, they will not better themselves, they will fail and everyone will see them as an example of what becomes of those who defy a society that works toward the advancement of human rights and social justice.

And that could very well be a form of punishment.


They will punish themselves, if we interfere, we may look oppressive and inhumane.

That&#39;s debatable.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 17 2003, 10:18 PM

They will punish themselves, if we interfere, we may look oppressive and inhumane.
That&#39;s an attribute to these people. They seem to judge themselves by revolutionary zeal, which is measured by their inhumanity and cruelty. Thankfully it will never happen, bit if god forbid these people lead the revolution, I&#39;d be happy to call myself an counter revolutionary. All this stuff about forcing people to work, punishment, brain washing and starving people is where their Stalinist backgrounds are crystalized into a rather profound mis understanding of society, and human nature.

[elijahcraig]

WE would starve no one, they are the ones turning down a 3-4 hour job in their interests with vacation. Frankly, if you are that LAZY, you have no place in a socialist society.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:07 PM
WE would starve no one, they are the ones turning down a 3-4 hour job in their interests with vacation.
Hahaha. Well, Elijah, not only have planned the hours we would work, you&#39;ve fitted in some convenient yet sensible vacations&#33; Perhaps your right, anyone who turned that down, would have to be REALLY unreasonable.

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m sick of debating this with morons, please provide a reasonable alternative to my view of what would occur instead of making illogical statements without one.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:13 PM
I&#39;m sick of debating this with morons, please provide a reasonable alternative to my view of what would occur instead of making illogical statements without one.
I think I have offered my alternative to your "no work, no food" idea several times already in this thread. I am simply trying to inject some joviality, because you&#39;re half assed Stalinism is stifling me.

[Saint-Just]

Thankfully it will never happen, bit if god forbid these people lead the revolution

These kind of people have led many revolutions.

Is it right to punish those who protest the structure of society? If they do not work to better society, they will not better themselves, they will fail and everyone will see them as an example of what becomes of those who defy a society that works toward the advancement of human rights and social justice.
They will punish themselves, if we interfere, we may look oppressive and inhumane.

You are right to a large extent I think.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 17 2003, 11:24 PM
Thankfully it will never happen, bit if god forbid these people lead the revolution

These kind of people have led many revolutions.


.
Yes, that is true. Although, I would hope we could improve on the kind of societies they created.

[elijahcraig]

I think I have offered my alternative to your "no work, no food" idea several times already in this thread. I am simply trying to inject some joviality, because you&#39;re half assed Stalinism is stifling me.

I have read through this whole thread just now, and you have done NOTHING of the sort. You have ONLY insulted me and my views, you have NEVER offered an alternative way of doing things.

[YKTMX]

Well, I have said that we should be confindent enough to food and clothe people who disagree with, or don&#39;t want to participate in a new socialist society for whatever reason. With the proviso that the new society is genuinely socialist and democratic, these people should be few and far between, therefore arbitrary hostility and violence towards these people would be both pointless and self defeating.

Whereas you think that people who don&#39;t want to work, or participate in society should be excluded from society and even made outcasts off.

A society that cannot accept dissent is unsure of itself. Surely, if we can learn anything from capitalist society, it is that the state using violence only alienates more people. Whereas if you are civilised to these people, and don&#39;t feel that every single dissenter is somehow a threat to society, then you avoid the inconvenience of mass murder and show to people that the revolution was a step forward. Not some excuse to get paranoid on a mass scale.

Let me just say, this is my attitude towards dissent and non-participation AFTER the revolution and after some inevitable battle with the dethroned class, I would wholly accept that violence is a tactic of the enemy and therefore we must react in kind during times of war or revolution.

Barbarism and totalitarianism however has no place in socialism, it is something we should reject in all forms, or we might one day wake and find ourselves unable to think or speak for ourselves.

[elijahcraig]

Well, I have said that we should be confindent enough to food and clothe people who disagree with, or don&#39;t want to participate in a new socialist society for whatever reason. With the proviso that the new society is genuinely socialist and democratic, these people should be few and far between, therefore arbitrary hostility and violence towards these people would be both pointless and self defeating.

I have never advocated "violence" towards anyone. I have said this: If you do not contribute to the best of your ability, then you don&#39;t get your needs.


Whereas you think that people who don&#39;t want to work, or participate in society should be excluded from society and even made outcasts off.

If everyone quit working because they knew they would get provided for anyway, what would you do?


A society that cannot accept dissent is unsure of itself. Surely, if we can learn anything from capitalist society, it is that the state using violence only alienates more people. Whereas if you are civilised to these people, and don&#39;t feel that every single dissenter is somehow a threat to society, then you avoid the inconvenience of mass murder and show to people that the revolution was a step forward. Not some excuse to get paranoid on a mass scale.

Once again, no violence have I advocated. I am all for attempting to get these people to come around to their society by education and help through any means. But, in the end, if these people will not work for the better of society, they are not involved in society, and therefore against it.


Let me just say, this is my attitude towards dissent and non-participation AFTER the revolution and after some inevitable battle with the dethroned class, I would wholly accept that violence is a tactic of the enemy and therefore we must react in kind during times of war or revolution.




Barbarism and totalitarianism however has no place in socialism, it is something we should reject in all forms, or we might one day wake and find ourselves unable to think or speak for ourselves.

I have never said anything near barbarism or totalitarianism, only fairness to the individuals within society. Do you want to work all day, then have to give half to a lazy middle aged man who can work, but will not? Of course not.

[YKTMX]

I have never advocated "violence" towards anyone. I have said this: If you do not contribute to the best of your ability, then you don&#39;t get your needs.

Well, maybe this is where we disagree then, obviously.



If everyone quit working because they knew they would get provided for anyway, what would you do?


As I have said repeatedly, I think most people would cotton onto the idea that work, in some form at least, is needed for socialist society to sustain itself (although I don&#39;t think EVERYBODy would need to work, as we already over produce anyway, and machines could become more prevalent). So I don&#39;t think people would refuse to work on mass. It would only be a select few who disagreed with society on an "moral" or "ideological" basis, as we ourselves do now.


Once again, no violence have I advocated. I am all for attempting to get these people to come around to their society by education and help through any means. But, in the end, if these people will not work for the better of society, they are not involved in society, and therefore against it.

Yes, they may very well be against it. I don&#39;t see that as sufficient to justify making them outcasts. I also reject any form of re-education, it has too many nasty connotations to bare thinking about. In socialist schools, I imagine teachers teaching Marx and Lenin, but I also imagine them teaching Keynes and Shakespeare.


I have never said anything near barbarism or totalitarianism

I&#39;m afraid you&#39;re guilty by association on that one.


Do you want to work all day, then have to give half to a lazy middle aged man who can work, but will not? Of course not.

I don&#39;t imagine anyone working all day under socialism. Most people who work all days are people working in sweatshops or stock brokers on Wall St. And, under socialism, I live for the sake of my fellow man, "particiapator" or not.

[elijahcraig]

QUOTE
I have never advocated "violence" towards anyone. I have said this: If you do not contribute to the best of your ability, then you don&#39;t get your needs.


Well, maybe this is where we disagree then, obviously.

OK.



QUOTE
If everyone quit working because they knew they would get provided for anyway, what would you do?



As I have said repeatedly, I think most people would cotton onto the idea that work, in some form at least, is needed for socialist society to sustain itself (although I don&#39;t think EVERYBODy would need to work, as we already over produce anyway, and machines could become more prevalent). So I don&#39;t think people would refuse to work on mass. It would only be a select few who disagreed with society on an "moral" or "ideological" basis, as we ourselves do now.

I have no sympathy for pro-capitalists, their deaths or exiles are not a bad thought.



QUOTE
Once again, no violence have I advocated. I am all for attempting to get these people to come around to their society by education and help through any means. But, in the end, if these people will not work for the better of society, they are not involved in society, and therefore against it.


Yes, they may very well be against it. I don&#39;t see that as sufficient to justify making them outcasts. I also reject any form of re-education, it has too many nasty connotations to bare thinking about. In socialist schools, I imagine teachers teaching Marx and Lenin, but I also imagine them teaching Keynes and Shakespeare.

Teach everything.



QUOTE
I have never said anything near barbarism or totalitarianism


I&#39;m afraid you&#39;re guilty by association on that one.

Sorry, I am not.



QUOTE
Do you want to work all day, then have to give half to a lazy middle aged man who can work, but will not? Of course not.


I don&#39;t imagine anyone working all day under socialism. Most people who work all days are people working in sweatshops or stock brokers on Wall St. And, under socialism, I live for the sake of my fellow man, "particiapator" or not.

No one gets what my labor produces unless they also produce with their labor. Period.

[YKTMX]

OK, we&#39;ll agree to disagree.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 17 2003, 11:24 PM
Thankfully it will never happen, bit if god forbid these people lead the revolution

These kind of people have led many revolutions.

Is it right to punish those who protest the structure of society? If they do not work to better society, they will not better themselves, they will fail and everyone will see them as an example of what becomes of those who defy a society that works toward the advancement of human rights and social justice.
They will punish themselves, if we interfere, we may look oppressive and inhumane.

You are right to a large extent I think.
All of which have ended in abject failure may I add.

I have no sympathy for pro-capitalists, their deaths or exiles are not a bad thought.

Not everybody who disagree&#39;s with you is a capitalist, they may just have an ounce of common sense.

I have read through this whole thread just now, and you have done NOTHING of the sort. You have ONLY insulted me and my views, you have NEVER offered an alternative way of doing things.

Perhaps, but I on the other hand have offered an alternative.

I&#39;m sick of debating this with morons, please provide a reasonable alternative to my view of what would occur instead of making illogical statements without one.

The only moron in this thread is you. As I pointed out above I have answered what you said.

Do you really think someone would choose the life of outcast and living without society&#39;s support over the life of 3-4 hour work days with vacation?

I doubt that those conditions would exist even under a perfect socialist system. However I see what you mean... In answer there are wierdo&#39;s in every socioty. Starving them is very harsh though.

They WOULD being doing "according to their ability", because they have no ability, and they would get "according to their need" because they HAVE done what their ability allows them to do. It&#39;s not a hard concept.

It is a consept I fully grasp and accept and wish to see introdused. However those who disagree with me shold not be forced to follow the system through fear of starvation.

What&#39;s with the "fealing" misspellings?

LOL run out of arguments and resort to spelling attacks. What a dumb ass.

So now we are calling basic consideration for others, such as avoiding putting extra weight on the others who actually do work, "forced labor"? Stealing isn&#39;t a bad thing as well?

No, and you are doing the only spinning is this discussion, such as the above. It also isnt stealing dumb ass, unless you call all the alcaholics, unemployed and Junkys thieve&#39;s. You really are beggining to sound more like a stuck up conservative every post you make.

There would be no exploitation of the workers, there would be no "share holders"...only one class working together equally to produce for themselves.

I never said there would be, it called making a comparison of a situation, showing a parody. God you really are slow...

Yes, it is AK, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Ohh dear now you are trying to be witty... my advise is; dont. You are not doing your self any favours.

Computer expert and mason issue? I would say he could be given an allowance from the state like they do in Cuba for university students until the job opened up.

This person could already have a fucking PHD, in computer science. It is irrelevant as they want to work as a computer specialist, not go to fucking university. READ WHAT IS SAID.

AK, what would be your solution if everyone decided they simply did not want to work? Because...they would be provided for anyway. Yet there would be no one to provide for "everyone". This is the problem.


The same could be said for capitalism, if every one went on strke today the world would fall apart... yet people still work even with the dole to support them... rather shows your entire argument to be bollocks, doesnt it. However in answer to yor question I have already addressed this earlier in the thread. Try reading it, that is if you can read.

"Actually no thats a statment: -"

Actually no, this is a question or dodge:

"Can you give me a logical reason why we should support the unproductive? "

"Can you see a question mark, in that part of the statement?"

Yes I can.

That was a referance to your own question: -

"Can you give me a logical reason why we should support the unproductive?"

My answer was: -

"There is no reason to, the Nazi&#39;s saw this a massacred them"

IT WAS YOUR QUESTION.

The choice is they can refuse to work and survive on their own, or work in society. Stealing from society is not an acceptable choice.

Its funny, but the exact same arguments were used by capitalists when welfare for the unemployed was introdused. Has socioty collapsed? I think that more than answers your entire argument.

But they&#39;re making the choice whether or not they want to starve.

Most sane people would consider that no choise.

If they would rather die of dehydration and malnutrition simply because they&#39;re too lazy to work, then there is probably something seriously wrong with them.

If some one believes that it is morraly acceptable to starve a person to death for not working, then thee is something seriously wrong with them. Its called sadism.

If he&#39;s a computer expert, he will be found a computer expert job, otherwise society has failed him, and he has not failed society.

What if he lives in an area with already high unemployment such as sheffield and all the jobs are taken. I find it remarkably easy to spot the impracticalitys of what you suggest.

It&#39;s a sad day when so called "socialists" fail to even realise that a system that allows pampering of the lazy is not only extremley unfair but also will not survive.

I am not the one who thinks forcing people to work under the threat of death is a good thing.

Go into further detail about how a society where the lazy can live eqaully with the hardworking will prosper?

Who said they should live equily to those who work hard. Try reading what is said, rather than what you want me to have said.

Explain to me how society in the long run can function and survive with people given the free will to leech off of it, while giving nothing back?


Again read what has been said rather than making assumptions.

Some lyrics from a song which sum&#39;s up your entire idea of socioty. The song is called slave to the wage: -


It&#39;s a maze for rats to try
It&#39;s a maze for rats to try
It&#39;s a race, a race for rats
A race for rats to die

[187]

AK, as long as we can both agree, that the lazy should not be treated on the same level(or even remotley close) as those who actually work, we should have nothing to argue about. We can agree on that right?

[apathy maybe]

AK, as long as we can both agree, that the lazy should not be treated on the same level(or even remotley close) as those who actually work, we should have nothing to argue about. We can agree on that right?
I agree, the lazy should not be treated on the same level. But do remember the quote "If someone isn&#39;t working, the system isn&#39;t" this not only applies to those who can work but can not find it, but to those who can&#39;t work and to those who choose not to. Work of some kind can be found for everyone. Even if it is sitting in front of a TV and recording what shows they watch.
But everybody must be provided for if they want to be provided for. It must be enough to live on and it must be indefinate for everyone. Some will however, get slightly more then others, for some work is more skilled then other work. All work is more skilled then no work.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 07:33 AM
AK, as long as we can both agree, that the lazy should not be treated on the same level(or even remotley close) as those who actually work, we should have nothing to argue about. We can agree on that right?
Well obviously, I just dont think you should be inhumane and starve them. There is a big differeance between a drop in quality of life and starvation.

[elijahcraig]

I don&#39;t consider "anyone who disagrees" a capitalist. I do consider those who expect their laziness to be rewarded in the same manner as those who work their very hardest.

Starvation or cut in living standard? Either way, it will work. Who would starve as opposed to working a 3-4 hour shift? :lol:

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:15 PM
Starvation or cut in living standard? Either way, it will work. Who would starve as opposed to working a 3-4 hour shift? :lol:
You&#39;re right, very few people. There will be those who do not want to starve and will try and in many cases succeed in avoiding a 3-4 hour shift. In these cases the two ideas you mentioned are used as punishment. I think starvation is a bad idea, you may as well execute them. I would suggest that if someone was caught avoiding working at all they should be forced to work but never starved.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:15 PM


Starvation or cut in living standard? Either way, it will work. Who would starve as opposed to working a 3-4 hour shift? :lol:
That&#39;s not the point. The point is, WHY would someone starve instead of working 3-4 hours. Maybe they don&#39;t want to work for socialism because they are not socialists, maybe they are opposed to the goverment. Not everyone drops their opinion at the first sight of someone who disgarees with them, Elijah.

[elijahcraig]

This quote from the Manifesto should sum this up:


Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.

[elijahcraig]

That&#39;s not the point. The point is, WHY would someone starve instead of working 3-4 hours. Maybe they don&#39;t want to work for socialism because they are not socialists, maybe they are opposed to the goverment. Not everyone drops their opinion at the first sight of someone who disgarees with them, Elijah.

Here&#39;s another quote from the Manifesto to sum this up:


You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 08:12 PM

That&#39;s not the point. The point is, WHY would someone starve instead of working 3-4 hours. Maybe they don&#39;t want to work for socialism because they are not socialists, maybe they are opposed to the goverment. Not everyone drops their opinion at the first sight of someone who disgarees with them, Elijah.

Here&#39;s another quote from the Manifesto to sum this up:


You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Not everyone who opposes socialism is a capitalist or even remotly related to the Bourgeoisie, and should therefor be silenced. That is the kind of attitude which has made socialists internationaly hated. Basically its reactionary people like you who are holding socialism back, instead of quoting the Manifesto or some other Marx quote like popes preach the bible, try thinking for your self about how these outdated and outmoded attitudes could be changed to benefit the movment.

AK47

[elijahcraig]

Those lines apply now just as they did then. Anyone who thinks someone should be "subjugated" to another through labor, is of the "bourgeois mindset". Or the "capitalist way of thinking". I&#39;ve debated what? 6 pages on this? I&#39;ve quoted Marx ONCE. Maybe twice? I&#39;m not sure. This is a dead topic as far as I&#39;m concerned, it&#39;s over. Anyone who thinks others should be "subjugate" others&#39; labor to their benefit while doing nothing, is a joke to me.


I stand by the Marx quote about bourgeois.


Not everyone who opposes socialism is a capitalist

Anyone who claims to be a socialist like those on this board, yet think others should be able to laze around while hard workers have to provide for them ARE involved in CAPITALIST THOUGHT.

[apathy maybe]

"Anyone who claims to be a socialist ..., yet think others should be able to laze around while hard workers have to provide for them ARE involved in CAPITALIST THOUGHT."
So I guess you perhapes misunderstood what we are saying, or maybe not.
We should probably just agree to disagree.