A Type of "Communism" that Works

[Budguy68]

Been meaning to make this post for a while. I am not going to get into anythign deep here. I am just going to describe a certain type of "communism" that looks like it works.

Anyways a couple of weeks ago I saw a youtube video of a community the size of a small town who all worked to support each other without pay. Basically you had people who were in charge of making and producing the food. Others were in charge of fixing houses and buildings and installign new stuff and so on and on. They worked together and they alsio ate together on a large table. They didn't look like they were rich or anything but they it did look like things were working out well for them.

Why did this work? Well the "leader" who also looks like he does a lot of manual labor mentioned it. Bascially the reason their type of "Communism" works is because They Kick Out All the Lazy Unproductive People.

Another different these peopel had is that They bought and produced their means of production and goods. They don't try to take it away from someone thse though the use of force like many of you advocate.

Anyways I may be an anarcho cap but I am completely in favor of people separating from society and building up their own communities without bloody revolutions and without stealing from others.

I'll try to find the video when I get home.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Been meaning to make this post for a while. I am not going to get into anythign deep here. I am just going to describe a certain type of "communism" that looks like it works.

Anyways a couple of weeks ago I saw a youtube video of a community the size of a small town who all worked to support each other without pay. Basically you had people who were in charge of making and producing the food. Others were in charge of fixing houses and buildings and installign new stuff and so on and on. They worked together and they alsio ate together on a large table. They didn't look like they were rich or anything but they it did look like things were working out well for them.

Why did this work? Well the "leader" who also looks like he does a lot of manual labor mentioned it. Bascially the reason their type of "Communism" works is because They Kick Out All the Lazy Unproductive People.

Another different these peopel had is that They bought and produced their means of production and goods. They don't try to take it away from someone thse though the use of force like many of you advocate.

Anyways I may be an anarcho cap but I am completely in favor of people separating from society and building up their own communities without bloody revolutions and without stealing from others.

I'll try to find the video when I get home.

Lazy unproductive people don't need to be kicked out, though it ought to be up to the individual commune (and I know other communists agree with your point).

I personally visualise a commune where labour is democratically rewarded. In other words, people reap the true value of their labour. Those who don't work don't get the goods and services from society.

We can't have small communes in an ancap system because hostile monopolies would intervene militarily. Private property must be abolished - it needs to be communal for socialism to function.

[RGacky3]

my I ask what town this is? The name of it? THere are a lot of these "utopian" stype socialist communes around.

But sure its a great model, but thats like saying a couple ex-slaves made a slaveless society somewhere, thats great, but we want to abolish slavery.

But then again this stuff is good to see as a model, did he say how many people they "kicked out?"

[trivas7]

I personally visualise a commune where labour is democratically rewarded. In other words, people reap the true value of their labour. Those who don't work don't get the goods and services from society.

But without price mechanisms this is impossible. This is the holy grail Marx never found. Only subjective valuation determines valorization.

[Budguy68]

We can't have small communes in an ancap system because hostile monopolies would intervene militarily. Private property must be abolished - it needs to be communal for socialism to function.

I disagree with you on the first and 3rd paragrahp but Iam only goign to argue the 3rd paragraph.

Anyways I don't think the corporations would go after indiviual communities with their private armies. They might try to sell them something by sending them special offers in the mail or some ninja sales man.

What these indiviual communs have to worry about is the Government.

If more and more people start doing this that means less power and less tax payers for the government. So the government will probably be the ones going after them.

Already the government is trying to pass a law that makes growing your own food illegal. There are lobbyist too but they are also part of the government.

[RGacky3]

Anyways I don't think the corporations would go after indiviual communities with their private armies.

Why would'nt they???

[Budguy68]

my I ask what town this is? The name of it? THere are a lot of these "utopian" stype socialist communes around.

But sure its a great model, but thats like saying a couple ex-slaves made a slaveless society somewhere, thats great, but we want to abolish slavery.

But then again this stuff is good to see as a model, did he say how many people they "kicked out?"

as I said, ill try to find the vid when I get home. youtube is blocked at work)I know its somewhere within the states.

I am not a slave. People need to work in order to survive. Thats a fact of life.

If I hire someone to wash my car for 6 dollars THAT IS NOT SLAVERY
If I pointed a gun at someone and make him wash my car then YES THAT IS Slavery

you commies are amazing.

[Budguy68]

Why would'nt they???

Bad for business. If Walmart went to Iraq and kill 1 million people a lot less people would shop at walmart.

Governments are the ones who attack and not businesses.

furthermore what does a business like walmart or google gain by attackign this small commune? They would probably make better customers with they werent slaughtered

[Sosa]

Bad for business. If Walmart went to Iraq and kill 1 million people a lot less people would shop at walmart.

Governments are the ones who attack and not businesses.

Governments backed by big business who profit from attacking people. Halliburton anyone?

Dont forget Blackwater

[Budguy68]

Governments backed by big business who profit from attacking people. Halliburton anyone?

Dont forget Blackwater

These companies were contracted out.

Anyways, the solution is the decress the size of government and not let it be a world police.

Vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul will stop all wars and pull out our military from 100 different countries all over the world.

[RGacky3]

Bad for business. If Walmart went to Iraq and kill 1 million people a lot less people would shop at walmart.



THey do do that, hell look at Coca-colas history in latin America, theres tons of examples.

Also don't be silly, have some imagination, they woud HIRE a private security firm to take care of it for them, so no one would know.


furthermore what does a business like walmart or google gain by attackign this small commune? They would probably make better customers with they werent slaughtered

Take their property, put it on the market, force all the people there to become consumers.


I am not a slave. People need to work in order to survive. Thats a fact of life.

If I hire someone to wash my car for 6 dollars THAT IS NOT SLAVERY
If I pointed a gun at someone and make him wash my car then YES THAT IS Slavery

you commies are amazing.

My point was'nt that, my point was that setting up a society outside the system does'nt get rid of the system, which is what we want to do.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Bad for business. If Walmart went to Iraq and kill 1 million people a lot less people would shop at walmart.

Why would they? Shell have been polluting Nigeria for a decade and people and they have seen record profits as people still carry on buying their oil at the other end.

What is to stop a corporation from acting like a government under anarcho-capitalism?

[Budguy68]

Why would they? Shell have been polluting Nigeria for a decade and people and they have seen record profits as people still carry on buying their oil at the other end.

What is to stop a corporation from acting like a government under anarcho-capitalism?


Thats not an attack.

My AR15 for one.

First you most show me an instance where a large cap corproation like wal mart bought an army and used it to kill of people.

The closes thing you'll get are the drug empires who hire merchs. But drug wars exisit because of free trade restrictions made against trading drugs.

[Budguy68]

THey do do that, hell look at Coca-colas history in latin America, theres tons of examples..

I see nothign wrong with a corp using force and extortion onyl if force and extortion is beign used against them.




Take their property, put it on the market, force all the people there to become consumers.


Corps are people too and they have a lot more to lose then a small town of communalist.

My point here is that the corps would be the ones who would have to watch out for the mobs more then the people watchin out for the corps. What does a small town have that would benefit a multi hundred billion dollar company? not much.

How would the company's image look if people found out they attacked that small town?




My point was'nt that, my point was that setting up a society outside the system does'nt get rid of the system, which is what we want to do.

It seems that you rather just take from others and impose yoru ideas on others then build your own and let people accept your idea voluntary.

Thats what i wanted to show on this thread.

[Sosa]

I see nothign wrong with a corp using force and extortion onyl if force and extortion is beign used against them.
:blink:

[Burn A Flag]

Honestly it's not really stealing for workers to expropriate the means of production in which they work. After all, the means of production was created and maintained by workers, therefore the owner has no labor input in most cases.

Also, BudGuy68 should probably be restricted since he claims to be an anarcho cappie.

[PoliticalNightmare]

...

Anarcho-capitalism is a good way to have large scale warfare with privatised corporations bribing military forces to invade geographical locations with weaker protection agencies in order to capitalise on the wealth in said geographical locations.

I hear this all the time from ancaps: war is not profitable and won't happen in the free market.

Of course it will happen in the free market. In fact a non-socialised market where there is no government intervention whatsoever will be a more probable cause of war.

Sure it would be great if we could have the type of anarcho-capitalist society you seem to think is probable with people peacefully organising communes as described in communist literature however it is neither practical nor possible to have small isolated examples of communism. There will be hostility from the surrounding worldwide capitalist market.

Also you think your AR15 is going to save you from a collaboration of privatised protection agencies that have been organised for a specific cause: namely to deplete the oil reserves in your community so they can sell it off at extortionate prices in big cities like London?

Capitalists are only half right when they say war is caused by statism: war is caused by both statism and capitalism.

Also, communism is voluntary as people can live under the political system they desire: there just won't be a source of wealth to be privately accumulated and capitalised upon.

Also, companies have made attacks on small communities all over the world (Shell, Coca-Cola, McDonalds etc.) which have affected their public image but at the end of the day it doesn't affect their profits. Why? Because Bill doesn't care if McDonalds are depleting the rainforest in the Amazon for farming purposes: he just wants a damned burger!

Edit: Also, of course I cannot give an example of a corporation behaving like a government - that is because state intervention in the markets prevents that sort of thing!

[Ele'ill]

First you most show me an instance where a large cap corproation like wal mart bought an army and used it to kill of people.


They don't need a conventional military force to kill or remove people. They have trade policies and their friends at the WTO, WB and IMF.

If there's too much resistance and they cannot economically assassinate the threats they will then engage in activities such as hiring paramilitary forces to stop unionizing activities (and anything else that's a 'barrier to trade).


You cannot exist within the system on a happy little island devoid of capitalism and exploitation you will be forced to participate in it and compete within it.

[ComradeMan]

They don't need a conventional military force to kill or remove people. They have trade policies and their friends at the WTO, WB and IMF.

If there's too much resistance and they cannot economically assassinate the threats they will then engage in activities such as hiring paramilitary forces to stop unionizing activities (and anything else that's a 'barrier to trade).


You cannot exist within the system on a happy little island devoid of capitalism and exploitation you will be forced to participate in it and compete within it.

War is economics by other means, therefore economics may be seen as war without guns! :thumbup1:

[Budguy68]

Anarcho-capitalism is a good way to have large scale warfare with privatised corporations bribing military forces to invade geographical locations with weaker protection agencies in order to capitalise on the wealth in said geographical locations.!











Of course it will happen in the free market. In fact a non-socialised market where there is no government intervention whatsoever will be a more probable cause of war.

Yet drug wars are happening precisely because restriction on drug trade. Millions have died because of this and countless more have suffered. Drug lords have made a lot of money out of makign drugs illegal. Our government has more control over us because of this.

The same exact thing was happening during prohibation. The mobs had a lot of power



A centralized government authority would probably be the most dangerous thing in the world.




Sure it would be great if we could have the type of anarcho-capitalist society you seem to think is probable with people peacefully organising communes as described in communist literature however it is neither practical nor possible to have small isolated examples of communism. There will be hostility from the surrounding worldwide capitalist market.

I seriosuly doubt that the armies of google and walmart will go aroudn destroying everything. Furthermore people can protect themselves just find.

I'd be more afraid of the hungry mobs then corporations.



Also you think your AR15 is going to save you from a collaboration of privatised protection agencies that have been organised for a specific cause: namely to deplete the oil reserves in your community so they can sell it off at extortionate prices in big cities like London?

You can use your weakness to an advanatage and make their strenght into a weakness. Their big size makes them large slow targets. Being a small force means youre fast and harder to kill.






Also, communism is voluntary as people can live under the political system they desire: there just won't be a source of wealth to be privately accumulated and capitalised upon.


So I wont be able to even setup a lemonaid stand or be able to sell my skills. Wow that sounds very voluntary....



Also, companies have made attacks on small communities all over the world (Shell, Coca-Cola, McDonalds etc.) which have affected their public image but at the end of the day it doesn't affect their profits. Why? Because Bill doesn't care if McDonalds are depleting the rainforest in the Amazon for farming purposes: he just wants a damned burger!

Seems very rare. These attacks are nothing in comparrsion to the attacks states have made on other states or people. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler. Event he US

It also seems that these places you're talking about are already full of violence, and murders.




Edit: Also, of course I cannot give an example of a corporation behaving like a government - that is because state intervention in the markets prevents that sort of thing!

And what prevents a state from doign evil? What would prevent a world communist government from doing such things?

Probably rightwingers who vote from roof tops.

[Ele'ill]

[quote]Bascially the reason their type of "Communism" works is because They Kick Out All the Lazy Unproductive People.
That sounds like the opposite of communism.Do they have any members that are disabled? Mentally ill? Elderly? What were the ages? Pregnancies? Injuries?Medical care? What were the skills required to be a resident here? Who had the say in who was forced out? How did the initial group meet?


Another different these peopel had is that They bought and produced their means of production and goods. They don't try to take it away from someone thse though the use of force like many of you advocate.So you mean they were self sustaining? Great, where did they get that kind of money? Is this a communism only for those that can afford it? Is this some sort of weird business venture akin to the wealthy buying islands to 'live on'?

It would be far easier, cheaper and beneficial for me to take back the place where I've spent the majority of my life. My place of work.




Anyways I may be an anarcho cap but I am completely in favor of people separating from society and building up their own communities without bloody revolutions and without stealing from others.
.I'm fairly certain that the main difference is that leftists want equality for everyone and not just those who can afford it.

[Ele'ill]

War is economics by other means, therefore economics may be seen as war without guns!

Regarding corporations- I highlighted two distinct scenarios and one that was unrelated.

Corporations benefiting from war and the fact that they don't need this necessarily.

They can engage in economic warfare which is paper and pens or they can hire out actual military or paramilitary.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Been meaning to make this post for a while. I am not going to get into anythign deep here. I am just going to describe a certain type of "communism" that looks like it works.

Anyways a couple of weeks ago I saw a youtube video of a community the size of a small town who all worked to support each other without pay. Basically you had people who were in charge of making and producing the food. Others were in charge of fixing houses and buildings and installign new stuff and so on and on. They worked together and they alsio ate together on a large table. They didn't look like they were rich or anything but they it did look like things were working out well for them.

Why did this work? Well the "leader" who also looks like he does a lot of manual labor mentioned it. Bascially the reason their type of "Communism" works is because They Kick Out All the Lazy Unproductive People.

Another different these peopel had is that They bought and produced their means of production and goods. They don't try to take it away from someone thse though the use of force like many of you advocate.

Anyways I may be an anarcho cap but I am completely in favor of people separating from society and building up their own communities without bloody revolutions and without stealing from others.

I'll try to find the video when I get home.

LOL. I want some of what you're smoking

[PoliticalNightmare]

But without price mechanisms this is impossible. This is the holy grail Marx never found. Only subjective valuation determines valorization.

Value can be determined democratically by the citizens who voluntarily make up the communes. Since such a decision is democratic I believe it would be fairer than the profit incentive method of calculation.


Yet drug wars are happening precisely because restriction on drug trade. Millions have died because of this and countless more have suffered. Drug lords have made a lot of money out of makign drugs illegal. Our government has more control over us because of this.

In regards to restrictions on the drug trade and prohibition, yes these things caused crime and I (being an anarchist) would agree with you. However under a libertarian system of communism the drug (and alcohol) trade would be legalised but stay regulated namely to prevent violent crimelords exerting force. As for a centralised government, well I don't advocate it anymore than you do however, unlike privatised corporations, it is democratically accountable for.

You have yet to explain how "mobs" would be able to defend themselves against private protection agencies and the following doesn't really explain:


You can use your weakness to an advanatage and make their strenght into a weakness. Their big size makes them large slow targets. Being a small force means youre fast and harder to kill.


So I wont be able to even setup a lemonaid stand or be able to sell my skills. Wow that sounds very voluntary....

Yes, you could organise this with communes and be democratically rewarded for your contribution to society or else rely on immediate donations, money (under mutualism) or otherwise for selling your lemonade.


Seems very rare. These attacks are nothing in comparrsion to the attacks states have made on other states or people. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler. Event he US

Yeah they're rare and thats because the state intervenes in the market but imagine what it would be like in a free market.


It also seems that these places you're talking about are already full of violence, and murders.

And by establishing a freer market economy in the west, there would be less to prevent corporations from causing such attacks abroad in countries with less democratic rights.


And what prevents a state from doign evil? What would prevent a world communist government from doing such things?

I don't like the idea of a "communist" government anyway.

[RGacky3]

I see nothign wrong with a corp using force and extortion onyl if force and extortion is beign used against them.


What??????? Whos using force and extortion against cocacola in latin America? Union Organizers?

And yeah, corporations ONLY use that stuff when its completely justified, clearly, jeez.



Corps are people too and they have a lot more to lose then a small town of communalist.


No they arn't.


My point here is that the corps would be the ones who would have to watch out for the mobs more then the people watchin out for the corps. What does a small town have that would benefit a multi hundred billion dollar company? not much.


If they are producing anything or have resrouces they have that.

THey would have to watch out for mobs, but thats why they have private security forces :).


How would the company's image look if people found out they attacked that small town?



THe same as coca colas, i.e. they'll just make sure it does'nt get connected or known, it happens all the time.


It seems that you rather just take from others and impose yoru ideas on others then build your own and let people accept your idea voluntary.

Thats what i wanted to show on this thread.

I'm absolutely fine with voluntary communism, AND voluntary capitalism (which means no coercive property laws), if your willing to give up property laws then fine. A capitalist can have whatever people will let him have.

Capitalism IS taking from others.

And you
1. just proposed that corporations would never use force unless morally justified, your an idiot. I can't believe you actually proposed that.

2. You also proposed that workers, poor people in Latin America are victimizing COCACOLA through force and extortion, are you out of your mind.

3. You also proposed that "corps are people too," really?

[PoliticalNightmare]

And you
1. just proposed that corporations would never use force unless morally justified, your an idiot. I can't believe you actually proposed that.

2. You also proposed that workers, poor people in Latin America are victimizing COCACOLA through force and extortion, are you out of your mind.

3. You also proposed that "corps are people too," really?

I know, aren't ancappies just great? :D

[Leonid Brozhnev]

That sounds like the opposite of communism.Do they have any members that are disabled? Mentally ill? Elderly? What were the ages? Pregnancies? Injuries?Medical care? What were the skills required to be a resident here? Who had the say in who was forced out? How did the initial group meet?

I think he's talking about this -

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-american-heartland-t144715/index.html

[Amphictyonis]

Anyways I may be an anarcho cap but I am completely in favor of people separating from society and building up their own communities without bloody revolutions and without stealing from others.
.

What the hell do you think private property is if not theft? You obviously don't understand expropriation and have used Proudhon as toilet paper. You're not an anarchist in any sense of the word as you advocate a hierarchical society based on theft. What compels a human being to work for and create wealth for another human being while that other human being (capitalist) sits on their ass?

Read this and get back to us-

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/expropriation.html


If you can't stomach Kropotkin's explanation of expropriation the read Rousseau's criticism of private property in 'The Social Contract'-

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm


Another thing you need to understand is, industry cannot be held in private hands without a state. It takes the power of a state (public or private) to legitimize and enforce private property law. It takes COERCION. Why? Because theft is never voluntary.

Besides all of the actual anarchist/socialist critiques of property and the state you need to realize even Marx saw capitalism as a progressive stage necessary to create the industrial means of production. Whats not excusable is the perpetuation of this system. It's excusable if you're a capitalist and declare 'an end top human history' (and progression) but some people aren't that short sighted. Capitalism is not the end of human progression nor is it a plateau of equal rights and freedom. Mankind can progress further but not under conditions private property/capitalism creates.


Your precious privatized state-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency

[Revolution starts with U]

Yet drug wars are happening precisely because restriction on drug trade. Millions have died because of this and countless more have suffered. Drug lords have made a lot of money out of makign drugs illegal. Our government has more control over us because of this
Who put these restrictions in place? Why? (Dupont, protect their interests in chemical markets... just to name one example)



The same exact thing was happening during prohibation. The mobs had a lot of power

Weren't the mobs the ones out there drinking? Wasn't prohibition such a problem because so many people were drinking? What are you talking about "the mobs having too much power?"




A centralized government authority would probably be the most dangerous thing in the world.

Or a government only beholden to its shareholders, and not to the people democratically.



I seriosuly doubt that the armies of google and walmart will go aroudn destroying everything. Furthermore people can protect themselves just find.

They would. They don't have to now, because they can get already existing governments to do it for them. Nike execs couldn't get rich if there wasn't a genocide in East Timor. Plain and simple. (Of course, Nike's could still be made, possibly even for the same price. Just the people at the top wouldn't be able to get exorbitantly rich.)


I'd be more afraid of the hungry mobs then corporations.

Of course the aristocrats hide in their castles eating cake while the masses starve outside their doors. And then, to top it off, they cry foul when they see the guillotine... what a joke.



You can use your weakness to an advanatage and make their strenght into a weakness. Their big size makes them large slow targets. Being a small force means youre fast and harder to kill.

Sage advice Lao Tzu. The americans were able to beat the British Empire, so of course what the British were doin was perfectly fine.... right? Amirite?




So I wont be able to even setup a lemonaid stand or be able to sell my skills. Wow that sounds very voluntary....

You're fine with your little lemonade stand. If you hire workers you will be obliged to give them a say in the direction of the company and to pay them the value of their labor. Just as a feudal lord can still own land, he can't have autocratic, private control over people's political lives, so can an entrepreneur carry on his business without private, autocratic control of people's economic lives.



Seems very rare. These attacks are nothing in comparrsion to the attacks states have made on other states or people. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler. Event he US

The Trail of Tears. East Timor. Apartheid, and all the history leading up to it. Blood diamonds. Iraq 1. Iraq 2. Vietnam.
It also seems that these places you're talking about are already full of violence, and murders. Basic history of south america. Korea. Spanish American war. Mexican-american war.
I could go on. These are what it takes to maintain the capitalist structure.



And what prevents a state from doign evil? What would prevent a world communist government from doing such things?

To the first question; who said anything does? Do you assume socialists are automatically pro-state?
To the second, democratic control would temper it.
To your follow up; democracy does not mean majority rule. It means power by the people.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=PoliticalNightmare;1931102]Value can be determined democratically by the citizens who voluntarily make up the communes. Since such a decision is democratic I believe it would be fairer than the profit incentive method of calculation.

This sort of answer completely ignores the issue. Nobody denies that the citizens of a commune can set up systems to democratically vote as to the value assigned to product "X." The question is 'What is the unbiased, consistent information used' by the voters of the commune when making their democratic decision? Simply because because the electorate has democratically decided to assign the value of $5 per unit of Product "X" doesn't make that value "fair."

[RGacky3]

Simply because because the electorate has democratically decided to assign the value of $5 per unit of Product "X" doesn't make that value "fair."

More fair than if it was just the desicion of the market (i.e. according to wealth).

[Baseball]

More fair than if it was just the desicion of the market (i.e. according to wealth).

Why?

[RGacky3]

democracy = 1 man 1 vote.

THe maket = 1 dollar 1 vote, some people have much much much more dollars than most others.

Democracy wins in fairness ;)

[Baseball]

democracy = 1 man 1 vote.

THe maket = 1 dollar 1 vote, some people have much much much more dollars than most others.

Democracy wins in fairness ;)

You have not shown that the value of Product "X" is more fair at $3 rather than $5 beyond declaring that 50% + 1 says it is.

[NecroCommie]

http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=174576965902541

[RGacky3]

You have not shown that the value of Product "X" is more fair at $3 rather than $5 beyond declaring that 50% + 1 says it is.

50% + 1 is more likely to make a fair desicion than 5% with 90% of the wealth.

[Budguy68]

LOL. I want some of what you're smoking

So you don't believe there are lazy unproductive people out there?

[NecroCommie]

Yet drug wars are happening precisely because restriction on drug trade. Millions have died because of this and countless more have suffered. Drug lords have made a lot of money out of makign drugs illegal. Our government has more control over us because of this.

The same exact thing was happening during prohibation. The mobs had a lot of power
No one is denying that the current affair of things is bad. Hell! We are in a forum filled with anti-statists. Still, what you said gives us no reason to believe anarcho-capitalism would fare any better. You just pointed out that current way is bad, not that anarcho-capitalism is good.



A centralized government authority would probably be the most dangerous thing in the world.

You will learn that most communists would agree on this. Still, anarcho-capitalism would propably not fare any better.


I seriosuly doubt that the armies of google and walmart will go aroudn destroying everything.
Not now when they would have to answer to someone, no. There is no reason to believe, however, that they wouldn't if they got away with it. Corporations have an impressive track record of doing every imaginable moral crime they can possibly get away with.

And even in the modern world, US foreign policy really has just one coherent element. It has been systematically hostile to anyone not supportive to their corporations, and friendly to anyone supportive of the US economic imperialism. Political, ideological and other factors have played minor roles. Similar things can be observed on part of the EU, Russia and other world powers.

Furthermore people can protect themselves just find.
Observations from the real world show this has little to no basis in reality. Small militias are not known for their succesful defences against international imperialist powers, at least not without help from other similar powers.



I'd be more afraid of the hungry mobs then corporations.

There is no reason to think mere distribution of ownership can magically spark famines.



You can use your weakness to an advanatage and make their strenght into a weakness. Their big size makes them large slow targets. Being a small force means youre fast and harder to kill.


A true monument to your ignorance when it comes to warfare. Your industries, infrastructure and masses of population are not "small forces".



So I wont be able to even setup a lemonaid stand or be able to sell my skills. Wow that sounds very voluntary....

Selling in participatory economics do not hold the same meaning as in monetary economies. You are indeed allow to sell anything, but you would not be able to make a living with it.


Seems very rare. These attacks are nothing in comparrsion to the attacks states have made on other states or people. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler. Event he US

Irrelevant. Since the point was to show corporations are completely willing and capable of murder, and the point was proven, it is your response to state that: "other's do it as well"?



It also seems that these places you're talking about are already full of violence, and murders.

Hardly counts as a justification.

And what prevents a state from doign evil? What would prevent a world communist government from doing such things?
There is no "world communist government" in communism. There is no state in communism. The argument for communism is not that it is more peaceful, or that it is more productive, those are both arbitary values of bourgeois political sphere. Communism is ethically superior because everyone is compensated according to their input in the co-operation of labor.

[NecroCommie]

So you don't believe there are lazy unproductive people out there?
Ofcourse there are, but last time I checked secular humanism did not judge people according to how much they worked. People have the right to live whether or not they work hard or not. It is merely the job of the society to provide for all, and to motivate people to work as much as they possibly can. I want to stress that "motivate" part. "Motivate them", as in: "not force them".

[Rusty Shackleford]

Those are some mean hippies.

[RGacky3]

So you don't believe there are lazy unproductive people out there?

Not nearly enough for them to be a problem.

[Budguy68]

What??????? Whos using force and extortion against cocacola in latin America? Union Organizers?

And yeah, corporations ONLY use that stuff when its completely justified, clearly, jeez.

You're idea of communism depends entirely on the use of force and extortion to make people do whatever the collective representives decide what is to be done.




No they arn't.


Well Lizard People from Planet X have rights too..




THe same as coca colas, i.e. they'll just make sure it does'nt get connected or known, it happens all the time.


People are more likely to fall victims to crimianls, gangs or abusive government authority then corps when it comes to direct violence attacks.



I'm absolutely fine with voluntary communism, AND voluntary capitalism (which means no coercive property laws), if your willing to give up property laws then fine. A capitalist can have whatever people will let him have.

So there would be no way for anyone to really get ahead in anything as far as wealth goes since everyone will be equal.

And who represents the people and their needs? Obviosuly it'll take too long for a million people to decide and agree on many different things so more then likely you'll end up having a small group or one person represeting what the majority wants which will end up just becoming another corrupt authoritarian government that only caters to speical interest.



Capitalism IS taking from others.

No Capitlist is the idea that people have a right to make money off of shit and exhange shit.

IE: I Exchange 1 hour of my labor for 14 dollars.

If I had a lot of time on my hands and no money I would probably benefit from this. If the employer had money, too much work and little time he would benefit from this as well. We take from each other. But its voluntary and we both benefit.

And peopel are all different. Some are smarter, dumber, more skilled etc etc. So the value of their labor is different from person to person. Supply and Demand also dictate what is worth what.

So if there is a large supply of people who know how to mop floors chances are the demand for them will be low hence why the labor cost of people who mop floors will be low.




And you
1. just proposed that corporations would never use force unless morally justified, your an idiot. I can't believe you actually proposed that.


Happens pretty rarely. Thugs and gangs, IE the peopel you commies always say are the victims are mroe dangerous. I use to live ina poor neighborhood. And I came to find out that poor people mostly steal from each other.


2. You also proposed that workers, poor people in Latin America are victimizing COCACOLA through force and extortion, are you out of your mind.

Never said that. I said Unions can act like thugs as well.


3. You also proposed that "corps are people too," really?

They are organizations. Organaizations are made up of people. When you attack the corps you end up just attacking other people.

In America we got the biggest corps so one would imagine there would be more murders and mass killings from the corps but there hardly aren't any...

[NecroCommie]

You're idea of communism depends entirely on the use of force and extortion to make people do whatever the collective representives decide what is to be done.
This is not an argument against communism. This is an argument against the will of majority, a concept communism is not dependant on.



Well Lizard People from Planet X have rights too..

Saying that capitalists have rights too, is like saying slave owners have rights too. Both might be right, but the existence of both groups is still immoral.



People are more likely to fall victims to crimianls, gangs or abusive government authority then corps when it comes to direct violence attacks.

Says you. Still, it's highly irrelevant considering that livelyhood through ownership is still parasitic behaviour.



So there would be no way for anyone to really get ahead in anything as far as wealth goes since everyone will be equal.

Not equal. There would obviously be differences, but they would be nowhere near as dramatic. No one would be allowed to live through ownership for example, so "getting ahead" in the way you mean it would certainly be history.


And who represents the people and their needs? Obviosuly it'll take too long for a million people to decide and agree on many different things so more then likely you'll end up having a small group or one person represeting what the majority wants which will end up just becoming another corrupt authoritarian government that only caters to speical interest.

Direct democracy is not intented to work on a state level, and as a matter of fact has worked myriad times in history. I know you will try to attack the direct democracies of the past on economic or political grounds but that was not the subject, now was it? The point is, as history shows, direct democracy, as a decision making method, works.




No Capitlist is the idea that people have a right to make money off of shit and exhange shit.

Which is why it is wrong. Money is propably one of the poorest ways to measure value.

The faults of monetary economy are countless, but in the name of example, here is one: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=167496529947520&id=100000407870822&ref=notif&notif_t=share_comment#!/notes/marxist-leninist-theory/value-price-and-profit-v-wages-and-prices-karl-marx/174836345876603



If I had a lot of time on my hands and no money I would probably benefit from this. If the employer had money, too much work and little time he would benefit from this as well. We take from each other. But its voluntary and we both benefit.

And peopel are all different. Some are smarter, dumber, more skilled etc etc. So the value of their labor is different from person to person. Supply and Demand also dictate what is worth what.

The myth of mutual benefit is a lie. And even if people had different sets of skills and intellect, it would not justify their poorer conditions. Last time I checked, secular humanism did not differentiate the rights of a stupid man from the rights of an intelligent one. Besides, in the culture of division of labor has rendered all requirements of skill and intellect useless for a vast majority of population.
Marx:


Suppose the wages of the labour employed in the production of a commodity to be ten. If the rate of profit was 100 per cent, to the wages advanced the capitalist would add ten, and if the rate of rent was also 100 per cent upon the wages, there would be added ten more, and the aggregate price of the commodity would amount to thirty. But such a determination of prices would be simply their determination by wages. If wages in the above case rose to twenty, the price of the commodity would rise to sixty, and so forth. Consequently all the superannuated writers on political economy who propounded the dogma that wages regulate prices, have tried to prove it by treating profit and rent as mere additional percentages upon wages. None of them were, of course, able to reduce the limits of those percentages to any economic law. They seem, on the contrary, to think profits settled by tradition, custom, the will of the capitalist, or by some other equally arbitrary and inexplicable method. If they assert that they are settled by the competition between the capitalists, they say nothing. That competition is sure to equalize the different rates of profit in different trades, or reduce them to one average level, but it can never determine the level itself, or the general rate of profit.
What do we mean by saying that the prices of the commodities are determined by wages? Wages being but a name for the price of labour, we mean that the prices of commodities are regulated by the price of labour. As “price” is exchangeable value — and in speaking of value I speak always of exchangeable value — is exchangeable value expressed in money, the proposition comes to this, that “the value of commodities is determined by the value of labour,” or that “the value of labour is the general measure of value."
But how, then, is the “value of labour” itself determined? Here we come to a standstill. Of course, we come to a standstill if we try reasoning logically, yet the propounders of that doctrine make short work of logical scruples. Take our friend Weston, for example. First he told us that wages regulate the price of commodities and that consequently when wages rise prices must rise. Then he turned round to show us that a rise of wages will be no good because the prices of commodities had risen, and because wages were indeed measured by the prices of the commodities upon which they are spent. Thus we begin by saying that the value of labour determines the value of commodities, and we wind up by saying that the value of commodities determines the value of labour. Thus we move to and fro in the most vicious circle, and arrive at no conclusion at all.
On the whole, it is evident that by making the value of one commodity, say labour, corn, or any other commodity, the general measure and regulator of value, we only shift the difficulty, since we determine one value by another, which on its side wants to be determined.
The dogma that “wages determine the price of commodities,” expressed in its most abstract terms, comes to this, that “value is determined by value,” and this tautology means that, in fact, we know nothing at all about value. Accepting this premise, all reasoning about the general laws of political economy turns into mere twaddle. It was, therefore, the great merit of Ricardo that in his work on the principles of political economy, published in 1817, he fundamentally destroyed the old popular, and worn-out fallacy that “wages determine prices,” a fallacy which Adam Smith and his French predecessors had spurned in the really scientific parts of their researches, but which they reproduced in their more exoterical and vulgarizing chapters.

So if there is a large supply of people who know how to mop floors chances are the demand for them will be low hence why the labor cost of people who mop floors will be low.
And this justifies... what exactly? That because there is a lot of cleaners, cleaners deserve to have a lousy pay?


Happens pretty rarely. Thugs and gangs, IE the peopel you commies always say are the victims are mroe dangerous. I use to live ina poor neighborhood. And I came to find out that poor people mostly steal from each other.

Ah, so because you have seen poor people who steal then all poor people must be thieves? Yes, that adds up, I can't imagine I have been communist all this time! This totally proves that these poor peoples are all murdering thieves who deserve to serve us übermensch!


Never said that. I said Unions can act like thugs as well.

Irrelevant. Companies are know to chronically avoid all morality as best as they can. Unions however are responsible for most of our human rights today.


They are organizations. Organaizations are made up of people. When you attack the corps you end up just attacking other people.

I doubt you are a pacifist yourself, and can therefore understand the concept of justified violence as a mean of defense. I know you don't think we are defending anything, but I do, so there we go.

In America we got the biggest corps so one would imagine there would be more murders and mass killings from the corps but there hardly aren't any...
Also, the decreasing number of pirates totally correlate with the greenhouse effect. That's why I dress like a pirate.

[Budguy68]

Not nearly enough for them to be a problem.

I disagree

I personally know a lot of people who sit on their ass all day smoking weed, drinking, partying and basically live with their parents. They barely even manage to hold a job. Some just pop out a bunch of kids and live off welfare. The state pays you 400 bucks a month if your kid is foudn to have ADD. You think workign people like me like payign for this shit? Fuck no. Thats why you see a lot of angry rightwingers.

You might say "well they dont have the oppunities"
I say BS

They went to the same school I did. I grew up poor as well. They can at least go to their local community college which is easy as fuck to pass and get their education though finical aid.

One friend in particular has a GI of 50grand that he can use to go to school. But he doesn't.

Meanwhile the friends that i know who are dedicated to their job, work full time, keep their nose clean, went to college, etc etc do a lot better.

America is the land of oppunity because we have freedom. those capitlist you dont consider human create jobs, create affordable products that you use everyday and a means to make a living. But we are losing this freedom due to those who want to chain everyone to everyone else.

Freedom means that we are Not our brothers keeper. We are not obligated to take care of each other. Thats what you call slavery.

[Property Is Robbery]

Bad for business. If Walmart went to Iraq and kill 1 million people a lot less people would shop at walmart.

Governments are the ones who attack and not businesses.

furthermore what does a business like walmart or google gain by attackign this small commune? They would probably make better customers with they werent slaughtered
Walmart contributes to the exploitation and death of thousands.. and fat fuck Americans still shop there

[RGacky3]

I personally know a lot of people who sit on their ass all day smoking weed, drinking, partying and basically live with their parents. They barely even manage to hold a job. Some just pop out a bunch of kids and live off welfare. The state pays you 400 bucks a month if your kid is foudn to have ADD. You think workign people like me like payign for this shit? Fuck no. Thats why you see a lot of angry rightwingers.


Do you really? You don't think they've looked for a job? Maybe not.

But given that their only option is probably dead end boring jobs sure. In a society where everyone has an opportunity for a fulfilling job I'm sure that number will go down.

But let me ask you something, in Norway you don't have to work to live a comfortable decent life, why does Norway only have around 2% unemployment?

In the US did everyone suddenly get lazy? why is unemployment at 12% now?

Did you know for every Job available there are 5 applicants?

I submit to you, that you don't know what your talking about, and these people you supposedly know don't really count for shit when talking about the big picture.


America is the land of oppunity because we have freedom. those capitlist you dont consider human create jobs, create affordable products that you use everyday and a means to make a living. But we are losing this freedom due to those who want to chain everyone to everyone else.


They don't create jobs, they control them, they don't create jobs in the same way the Emperor of Rome did'nt build roads. You don't know what your talking about. Kings built castles, did they? No they just commanded them to be built, and had it not been for them resources could be used for stuff thats much more useful.

The same today, Capitalists just command, thast it, they command with their dollars, without them, we could create affordable housing, food for everyone, things that actually benefit society as a whole, rather than just for profit.

I'm sure you know Jesus' illustration of the slave that begs the king for mercy on money he owes (something like 1000 talents or whatever), when the king grants him clemancy he goes to a lesser slave demanding money owed to him (something like 100), when he can't pay it he has the lesser slave arrested. When the king finds out he has the lesser slave released and the other one put away until he can pay back his 1000. Thats kind of the attitude I find libertarians like yourself have, you suck up to power, and people underneath you, you just spit on, its really kind of sad and cowerdly, people like you worship anyone above you and dispise those below you, it really is revealing of the mindset of libertarians.

[RGacky3]

You're idea of communism depends entirely on the use of force and extortion to make people do whatever the collective representives decide what is to be done.


You did'nt anwer the question, HOW IS COCACOLA IN COLOMBIA BEING EXTORTED OR WHERE ARE THEY THREATENED BY FORCE? Where they would be justified in murdering union activists.


Well Lizard People from Planet X have rights too..


What does that mean? I said corporations are not humans, and thus don't have human rights.


People are more likely to fall victims to crimianls, gangs or abusive government authority then corps when it comes to direct violence attacks.


So what.


So there would be no way for anyone to really get ahead in anything as far as wealth goes since everyone will be equal.


WHy would wealth be equal?


And who represents the people and their needs? Obviosuly it'll take too long for a million people to decide and agree on many different things so more then likely you'll end up having a small group or one person represeting what the majority wants which will end up just becoming another corrupt authoritarian government that only caters to speical interest.


Its the same way democracy works, there are plenty of examples out there.


No Capitlist is the idea that people have a right to make money off of shit and exhange shit.

IE: I Exchange 1 hour of my labor for 14 dollars.

If I had a lot of time on my hands and no money I would probably benefit from this. If the employer had money, too much work and little time he would benefit from this as well. We take from each other. But its voluntary and we both benefit.

And peopel are all different. Some are smarter, dumber, more skilled etc etc. So the value of their labor is different from person to person. Supply and Demand also dictate what is worth what.

So if there is a large supply of people who know how to mop floors chances are the demand for them will be low hence why the labor cost of people who mop floors will be low.



All people are different, which is why things should be democratic rather than determined just by the rich.

Keep in mind what supply and demand really means, supply from those who have, demand from those who can afford.

But again, I'm fine with Capitalism as long as its entirely voluntary, i.e. NO PROPERTY LAWS, NO PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT, you ok with that Budguy?


Happens pretty rarely. Thugs and gangs, IE the peopel you commies always say are the victims are mroe dangerous. I use to live ina poor neighborhood. And I came to find out that poor people mostly steal from each other.


Why do you live ina poor neighborhood? Just work hard and get rich?

Happens pretty rarely? Ever heard of the banana republics? Do you know the history of Africa? Are you an idiot?

But again, I want to point out the mindset, they dispise powerless people while they glorify powerfull people, without considering any of the conditions behind it, its pathetic really.


Never said that. I said Unions can act like thugs as well.


Against cocacola in columbia?


They are organizations. Organaizations are made up of people. When you attack the corps you end up just attacking other people.

In America we got the biggest corps so one would imagine there would be more murders and mass killings from the corps but there hardly aren't any...

I'm attacking tyrannica institutions of power that are run by people, the same way I would be attacking monarchies, even though those are also, organizations made up of people.

As for your second point, thats because they do it abroad, and they also use governments to do it for them.


But I'm gonna ask you BUD, voluntary capitalism, you ok with that? No enforcement of property laws?

[Havet]

Vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul will stop all wars and pull out our military from 100 different countries all over the world.

Ron Paul will also tell you that non-americans aren't humans, they have no right entering the USA

[Rafiq]

Bad for business. If Walmart went to Iraq and kill 1 million people a lot less people would shop at walmart.

Governments are the ones who attack and not businesses.



:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


Please tell me you are just joking

[Havet]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


Please tell me you are just joking

It is better to explain to people why you think they are wrong instead of just mocking him. This is one of the reasons why Solipsists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) are still rampant on the internet; nobody takes them seriously enough to actually debate them

[Ele'ill]

Typical capitalists- missing the first crime because it benefited them and then attacking the victim afterward for defending themselves.

[ComradeMan]

Typical capitalists- missing the first crime because it benefited them and then attacking the victim afterward for defending themselves.


Typical people....before you cast out the speck in thy neighbour's eye.....?;)

[Ele'ill]

Yes but to an entirety- capitalists.

[Revolution starts with U]

I personally know a lot of people who sit on their ass all day smoking weed, drinking, partying and basically live with their parents. They barely even manage to hold a job. Some just pop out a bunch of kids and live off welfare. The state pays you 400 bucks a month if your kid is foudn to have ADD.
Your anecdotal evidence means nothing. First, you know "a lot" of people who do this. And for everyone you know there are 10 more who don't. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.
I actually grew up poor, like food bank poor. And my father worked 12hrs a day 6 days a week while my mom went back to school to pay for us. And that was normal for our neighborhood. Most poor people, and this can and has been shown empirically (unlike your anectdotes) work full-time or multiple part-time jobs. Productiveness has nothing to do with getting ahead in american capitalism (even your precious capitalist theorists agree douche, get with the times. Getting ahead is done by creating value.)

You think workign people like me like payign for this shit? Fuck no. Thats why you see a lot of angry rightwingers.
Well, I don't really value the political musings of those who don't see evolution as fact. But...
Most working people have used, will use, or know someone who uses these services. Good thing they normally get refunds on their income taxes, meaning they don't pay for it at all... really. Poor people's taxes are burdened upon them hiddenly; cutting services, inflation, deregulation, price fixing, etc.



You might say "well they dont have the oppunities"
I say BS

Or you could say they just don't have the desire. Maybe they're fine with being a janitor... does that mean they should starve to death? They don't deserve a standard of living?


They went to the same school I did. I grew up poor as well. They can at least go to their local community college which is easy as fuck to pass and get their education though finical aid.

You don't know what poor is. Most americans don't, especially capitalist ones living in their little bubbles. I grew up "poor," food line poor, and that is still rich compared to those on the outskirts (columbia, brazil, vietnam, etc) who allow our system to provide is with what little luxuries we have.



Meanwhile the friends that i know who are dedicated to their job, work full time, keep their nose clean, went to college, etc etc do a lot better.

Yep, exactly. And that is most working people. This has been proven, empirically. Most working people are responsible. Right wing scum such as yourself just take the rare case and straw man it into the norm.

America is the land of oppunity because we have freedom. those capitlist you dont consider human create jobs, create affordable products that you use everyday and a means to make a living.
Would that stop if there were no (large) gaps between those at the top and those at the bottom? People would just stop investing in their communities and progress? The only advances we make our because of the elite's desire to make more money? Get over yourself (actually not yourself because I doubt you're a capitalist at all [meaning as a means of making money] nor wealthy. So.. get over your envy; tool]).


But we are losing this freedom due to those who want to chain everyone to everyone else.

What "freedom?" Regular people wouldn't continue to make these investments were they given the oppurtunity? Are you saying there is something biological seperating the rich from the poor? Get out of the 19th century friend.


Freedom means that we are Not our brothers keeper. We are not obligated to take care of each other. Thats what you call slavery.

:drool: That was the most retarded thing I have ever read since I tried Hannity's book. Wtf?!


You're idea of communism depends entirely on the use of force and extortion to make people do whatever the collective representives decide what is to be done.

Your idea of capitalism depends entirely on the use of force and extortion to protect property rights and maintain hegemonic control of foreign markets; to do whatever those with large purchasing power (and only purchasing power) decide is to be done.
Someone quotes me in one of my posts saying "if violence weren't necessary, we'd all be reformists." Because it is. And to think violence isn't natural and necessary is naivety beyond that of a child thinking Santa Clause delivers presents to all the boys and girls of the world.
Grow up noob. WHethere you force, or hire someone to do it for you, it's still force.



Well Lizard People from Planet X have rights too..

Yes! Lizard PEOPLE! Corporations are not people (natural people, they are called "legal persons") and as such should not have the rights of a person. They are community chartered enterprise (originally) designed to collaborate on some collective interest.



People are more likely to fall victims to crimianls, gangs or abusive government authority then corps when it comes to direct violence attacks.

1. victims of the system just trying to protect themselves. unskilled labor has to find some means of income when markets are in high profit mode [times of high unemployment].
2. same thing, only these victims banded together to protect themselves from other bandits
3. works for the capitalists anyway



So there would be no way for anyone to really get ahead in anything as far as wealth goes since everyone will be equal.

Surely you can see that sentence makes dick for sense, correct?
But no, to what you are implying. In our system you would get ahead by actually being productive and valuable, not merely having recieved payment sometime in the past, possibly by being productive and valuable, but not necessarily.

And who represents the people and their needs? Obviosuly it'll take too long for a million people to decide and agree on many different things so more then likely you'll end up having a small group or one person represeting what the majority wants which will end up just becoming another corrupt authoritarian government that only caters to speical interest.
Wow. So you actually can ask valid questions? Good for you :rolleyes:
Most likely there would be constitutional legislatures. But the majority of decisions would be made on smaller community levels and some kind of syndacalism.



If I had a lot of time on my hands and no money I would probably benefit from this. If the employer had money, too much work and little time he would benefit from this as well. We take from each other. But its voluntary and we both benefit.

One guy will starve without the job, the other will not. Voluntary?


And peopel are all different. Some are smarter, dumber, more skilled etc etc. So the value of their labor is different from person to person. Supply and Demand also dictate what is worth what.

So because someone is dumber than you, they deserved to be treated as less than human by you. So what about someone who's smarter than you, can he just spit on you as you walk bye? Does he have the right to see you as some animal? You're certainly no humanitarian, that's for sure.



Happens pretty rarely. Thugs and gangs, IE the peopel you commies always say are the victims are mroe dangerous. I use to live ina poor neighborhood. And I came to find out that poor people mostly steal from each other.

And that's not a product of their environment, right? They are naturally like that? There is a biological difference between the rich and the poor?
Typical right winger, mistakes the forest for the trees.
Thugs and gangs are a product of ownership societies.



They are organizations. Organaizations are made up of people. When you attack the corps you end up just attacking other people.

So are plantations. They're just organizations made up of people; the owner, his family, the crackers. Sometimes, some people need attacked. Tho it isn't necessarily their fault, they are victims of circumstance. They can easily stop the attackes by stopping defending the coercive power structures and legal systems that allow them to be exploiters.


In America we got the biggest corps so one would imagine there would be more murders and mass killings from the corps but there hardly aren't any...

Have you ever heard of the Iraq war? What do you think is the point behind that? Stop seperating the government from the class that controls it.
Ever heard of the drug war and the prison industrial complex?
Ever heard of Coke Kills, east Timor, or any of the other places where corporations work hand in hand w/ oppressive governments to bring genocide upon those who don't cooperate?
Grow up. The world isn't all roses and daisies when we fart.
:crying::crying::scared::laugh:
:cool:

[Ele'ill]

I disagree

I personally know a lot of people who sit on their ass all day smoking weed, drinking, partying and basically live with their parents. They barely even manage to hold a job. Some just pop out a bunch of kids and live off welfare. The state pays you 400 bucks a month if your kid is foudn to have ADD. You think workign people like me like payign for this shit? Fuck no. Thats why you see a lot of angry rightwingers.

You might say "well they dont have the oppunities"
I say BS

They went to the same school I did. I grew up poor as well. They can at least go to their local community college which is easy as fuck to pass and get their education though finical aid.

One friend in particular has a GI of 50grand that he can use to go to school. But he doesn't.

Meanwhile the friends that i know who are dedicated to their job, work full time, keep their nose clean, went to college, etc etc do a lot better.

America is the land of oppunity because we have freedom. those capitlist you dont consider human create jobs, create affordable products that you use everyday and a means to make a living. But we are losing this freedom due to those who want to chain everyone to everyone else.

Freedom means that we are Not our brothers keeper. We are not obligated to take care of each other. Thats what you call slavery.

You're not restricted yet?

[Revolution starts with U]

I've asked the same question 3 times. I'm not really the biggest supporter of the restriction system. But if it's going to exist; how did this guy get through it? I've not seen him say one thing that was leftist. :confused:

[Rafiq]

It is better to explain to people why you think they are wrong instead of just mocking him. This is one of the reasons why Solipsists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) are still rampant on the internet; nobody takes them seriously enough to actually debate them

Wal Mart has committed a shit load of atrocities, yet no one cares.

If walmart killed 987098789768768997908690870979867 people, there customers would stay the same

[Havet]

Wal Mart has committed a shit load of atrocities, yet no one cares.

If walmart killed 987098789768768997908690870979867 people, there customers would stay the same

Say that to him, not me.

BTW, it might be important to link to some of walmart's atrocities

[Rafiq]

http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/2006/WalmartsSweatshops.html

[Baseball]

50% + 1 is more likely to make a fair desicion than 5% with 90% of the wealth.


Why is that?

[RGacky3]

Is that a real question? DO you actually believe that 5 out of a hundred would make a more fair desicion, than a democratic desicion? DO you HONESTLY believe that? IF you do then I'll have that argument, but first I want you to go out there and say that so that people see that, that is your actual viewpoint (because thats a retarded viewpoint).

Use of the word "retarded" is absolutely not acceptable - Best Mod

[ComradeMan]

Is that a real question? DO you actually believe that 5 out of a hundred would make a more fair desicion, than a democratic desicion? DO you HONESTLY believe that? IF you do then I'll have that argument, but first I want you to go out there and say that so that people see that, that is your actual viewpoint (because thats a retarded viewpoint).

Can we please stop using the word "retarded" as an insult all the time. Not just Gacky, but in general.

The form of communism that "works" is..... communism, that was never implemented because no one, for many reasons, ever managed to get to that stage. The problem we have is convincing people that a theory that was never implemented would work/does work a priori, especially in light of the miserable failures of the past.

Communism is a solution, a goal, and end-objective, not the process.

[Revolution starts with U]

Either way; 50% + 1 is by far the crudest form of democracy, and is basically a right wing straw man.

[Bud Struggle]

Either way; 50% + 1 is by far the crudest form of democracy, and is basically a right wing straw man.


Best let central committee of soviet decide! Great decisions from delegate members much in line with Communist threory of Glorious Marx and Lenin!

[ComradeMan]

Best let central committee of soviet decide! Great decisions from delegate members much in line with Communist threory of Glorious Marx and Lenin!

But the central committe of the soviet was not really what communism was about, or at least not what it was meant to be about. The vanguard party seizing power and then holding on to it "in the name" of the proletariat despite all else is not what anyone really considers to be true communist-democracy.

The problem is with the reasons why the vanguard party remained at that stage.

[RGacky3]

Best let central committee of soviet decide! Great decisions from delegate members much in line with Communist threory of Glorious Marx and Lenin!


STFU Bud, your not helping. Don't try, Comrademan, he's not trying to have a real discussion.

[Bud Struggle]

But the central committe of the soviet was not really what communism was about, or at least not what it was meant to be about. The vanguard party seizing power and then holding on to it "in the name" of the proletariat despite all else is not what anyone really considers to be true communist-democracy.

The problem is with the reasons why the vanguard party remained at that stage.


STFU Bud, your not helping. Don't try, Comrademan, he's not trying to have a real discussion.

All I know is what I see. I'm not interested in what Communism's problems are--I could care less. Pie in the Sky--"We Are All Brothers." Make it WORK and you have a fan. Keep on creating Frakenstein monsters like the Soviet Union and Maoist China---and dude, you have a problem with me. Communist are still talking about the wonders of POL POT!!!

Solve your problems FIRST then we can chat--seriously. ;) :)

[Ele'ill]

yeah, I think Bud could stop with the petty comments.

[RGacky3]

All I know is what I see.

Thats because your dumb and you don't know how to analyse things or actually look at context or reasons things happen, learn how to do these things and maybe you'll understand the world a bit more.


Solve your problems FIRST then we can chat--seriously. ;) :)

Learn how to follow a discusssion and make real arguments and have real viewpoints based on facts and relevant to the thread and then post--seriously.

[Ele'ill]

i.e. stop trolling

[Ele'ill]

Communist are still talking about the wonders of POL POT!!!

Solve your problems FIRST then we can chat--seriously. ;) :)


While we're living capitalism. Spare me. :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Deleted - A little over the top there.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats because your dumb and you don't know how to analyse things or actually look at context or reasons things happen, learn how to do these things and maybe you'll understand the world a bit more. I'm not dumb. I took the Capitalist world and kicked it's ass and make it work for me. I'll do the same for the Communist.


Learn how to follow a discusssion and make real arguments and have real viewpoints based on facts and relevant to the thread and then post--seriously. Woah, woah, woah. I'm the one making it in the real world. You guys are just dreaming.

[Ele'ill]

"Well they communists had a bad guy that wsn't quite communist at all but he did bad things and killed lots of people- communists are terrorists because they're not like me- i do gud thngs like sent christian literature to starving children"

*CARPETBOMB'
*CARPETBOMB*
*CARPETBOMB*
*CARPETBOMB*

*MUSHROOMCLOUD*

[Bud Struggle]

Deleted - A little over the top there.

Fine with me.

:thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

Woah, woah, woah. I'm the one making it in the real world. You guys are just dreaming.

Again, theres a discussion going on, and if you don't know how to follow an argument and decypher whats going and then post accordingly then don't post, your wasting your own time and everyone elses.


I'm not dumb. I took the Capitalist world and kicked it's ass and make it work for me. I'll do the same for the Communist.


I only know what I see, and what I see is a dude that does'nt understand basic concepts of context or causality and does'nt know how to understand a common thread in a discussion and post something that has anything to do with that thread but still feels the need to troll some pointless bullshit, and I call that dude and dumb dude.

Seriously bud, don't post in a thread when you have no idea whats being talked about.

[Bud Struggle]

While we're living capitalism. Spare me. :rolleyes:

I SAW Communism in real life--how 'bout you?

[Ele'ill]

I'm not dumb. I took the Capitalist world and kicked it's ass and make it work for me. I'll do the same for the Communist.

Woah, woah, woah. I'm the one making it in the real world. You guys are just dreaming.

To be honest with you, the majority of the working class think those sucessful people taking advantage of capitalism are cheap thugs or cheaters who found a loop hole in a system and don't deserve what they got. They know which camp is the harder working. ;)

[Ele'ill]

I SAW Communism in real life--how 'bout you?

No you didn't- cut the theatrical craptasticness. Please. :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Stop Mari3l, your just encouraging him, if Bud wants to go over the same shit that he's been over a million times, and been prooven wrong a million times, let him make a new thread about it, you really don't need to argue him in this, its not gonna help, the guy has amnesia, he'll forget and repost the same thing tommorow in some thread about South African shanty town movements saying "YEAH, but duuurrrr, Stalin was Bad!!!"

[Bud Struggle]

Again, theres a discussion going on, and if you don't know how to follow an argument and decypher whats going and then post accordingly then don't post, your wasting your own time and everyone elses.



I only know what I see, and what I see is a dude that does'nt understand basic concepts of context or causality and does'nt know how to understand a common thread in a discussion and post something that has anything to do with that thread but still feels the need to troll some pointless bullshit, and I call that dude and dumb dude.

Seriously bud, don't post in a thread when you have no idea whats being talked about.

Gack if you take the discussion and make it PERSONAL and call someone a NAME then it is YOU that sidetrack the discussion.

Keep you nasty comments TO YOURSELF and then we won't run into this problem.

NOBODY CALL YOU NAMES.

[RGacky3]

If you don't want to be called dumb, then stop making trollish posts that make you look dumb.

[Ele'ill]

Gack if you take the discussion and make it PERSONAL and call someone a NAME then it is YOU that sidetrack the discussion.

Keep you nasty comments TO YOURSELF and then we won't run into this problem.

NOBODY CALL YOU NAMES.

I'd say that your posts, Bud, are more harmful than Gacky's 'name calling' and let's not forget that Gacky's name calling was in response to your harmful posts. ;)

[ComradeMan]

Come on guys. Lighten up. He's provoking you and you are falling for it. If you don't like his comments, ignore them and move on with the debate. We'll have Crimson Bud back soon, his alter-ego and he'll be denouncing us all as bourgeois reactionaries.


What Bud does, in his facetious Buddish way, is raise all the objections a lot of cappies do in real life, we need to answer them without getting heated up.

On the other hand, Bud, come on- you can come up with better arguments than these, you aren't stupid, I know you aren't.... ;)

[RGacky3]

What Bud does, in his facetious Buddish way, is raise all the objections a lot of cappies do in real life, we need to answer them without getting heated up.


When someone raises a stupid question, we answer them, when he raises it again, you answer it again, then another time, after the hundreth time you start getting a little annoyed, when he asks it again, even though being answered a hundred times in the middle of an intelligent discussint, he's being a troll, and deserves to be called out for being stupid, because what else do you call that?

[Ele'ill]

Come on guys. Lighten up. He's provoking you and you are falling for it. If you don't like his comments, ignore them and move on with the debate. We'll have Crimson Bud back soon, his alter-ego and he'll be denouncing us all as bourgeois reactionaries.

I can't- you see- I am Mari3L Destroying Angel- Mari3L will be back shortly as well. :sleep:



What Bud does, in his facetious Buddish way, is raise all the objections a lot of cappies do in real life, we need to answer them without getting heated up.

Most of those objections have been answered five minutes ago in another thread, with bud. The issue isn't objections, it's raising objections in order to troll.

The thing about bud is that he will troll, but then genuinely get upset when someone makes fun of him or offers a clever rebuttal.

[Bud Struggle]

If you don't want to be called dumb, then stop making trollish posts that make you look dumb.

Listen: I could make fun of your language, your spelling your bad gramatical stements. I don't. And I defend you when people take issue with you on those topics.

You are not well educated--and that's pretty obvious, and if I were meaner or nastier I could slant you on every mistake you make.

I don't.

I always treat you and your comments with respect. I disagree, I argue, I make my point, but I never belittle you.

Ever.

I treat you with respect--you don't respect me.

And in the end--that is why people like you will always loose to people like me.

Brother Gacky--FWIW: I know Communism and the Mexican people better than you. :D :D :D

[Ele'ill]

Listen: I could make fun of your language, your spelling your bad gramatical stements. I don't. And I defend you when people take issue with you on those topics.

You are not well educated--and that's pretty obvious, and if I were meaner or nastier I could slant you on every mistake you make.

I don't.

I always treat you and your comments with respect. I disagree, I argue, I make my point, but I never belittle you.

Ever.

I treat you with respect--you don't respect me.

And in the end--that is why people like you will always loose to people like me.

Brother Gacky--FWIW: I know Communism and the Mexican people better than you. :D :D :D

So much so that you have to vouch for yourself. Seems a bit suspicious.


Posts like that are useless. :bored:

[RGacky3]

Whatever Bud, just stop trolling, which means don't post unless you have something to contribute to the discussion and stop bringing up irrelivent stuff that we go over every other thread.

As far as the Mexican people and Communism thing, make a new thread all about it and dazzle everyone.

[Bud Struggle]

Wha
As far as the Mexican people and Communism thing, make a new thread all about it and dazzle everyone.

You are out of touch--Brother. :D

[RGacky3]

Theres a perfect example of your inability to understand how to have a conversation.

[Bud Struggle]

Theres a perfect example of your inability to understand how to have a conversation.

DON'T insult. OK?

[ComradeMan]

Guys- this isn't chit chat/chatter.

Let's keep it on topic or move somewhere else.

Bud- from a cappie point of view, and without being silly... :cool:

What do you think went wrong with communist revolutions in the past?

[RGacky3]

In a different thread, one that everyone who's seen his questions over and over again can just ignore and continue with real discussion with people that want to have intelligent discorse.

[Ele'ill]

I second or third that separate thread option

[Bud Struggle]

Guy
What do you think went wrong with communist revolutions in the past?

You never stopped Capitalism/Feudalism. It was always there. In the religion, the culture, the black market. Communism was always something you "suffered under." It never was the soul, the breath, the true existiance of the community.

Catholicism was in it's time, it still is in places. So is Islam. People BRETHE ISLAM. ComradeMan--you're in Italy--GO TO CHURCH watch the people. See what a belief looks like. You have any Communst's like that?


Communism has never captured the soul of the people you waat to affect.

Tell me how you are going to change that.

[Ele'ill]

If this new topic is going to be for RGacky and Bud it should get it's own thread- otherwise I am going to forget and comment on stuff.

[RGacky3]

He can make a new thread about it for people that hav'nt been here long enough to know the guy has the memory of a goldfish and still think the guy is here for actual honest discussion, and has sincere questions.

[Bud Struggle]

He can make a new thread about it for people that hav'nt been here long enough to know the guy has the memory of a goldfish and still think the guy is here for actual honest discussion, and has sincere questions.


Just insults--for no particular reason--insults.

[ComradeMan]

You never stopped Capitalism/Feudalism. It was always there. In the religion, the culture, the black market. Communism was always something you "suffered under." It never was the soul, the breath, the true existiance of the community.

Catholicism was in it's time, it still is in places. So is Islam. People BRETHE ISLAM. ComradeMan--you're in Italy--GO TO CHURCH watch the people. See what a belief looks like. You have any Communst's like that?


Communism has never captured the soul of the people you waat to affect.

Tell me how you are going to change that.

Communism is a socio-economic system. Most of the communists I know are Catholics and quite a lot of them go to church- strange eh? They just ignore the stupid stuff.

[Bud Struggle]

Communism is a socio-economic system. Most of the communists I know are Catholics and quite a lot of them go to church- strange eh? They just ignore the stupid stuff.

AH! Same for the Catholics that I know that are Communist--they just ignore the stupid stuff, too!!! :D

[Baseball]

Is that a real question? DO you actually believe that 5 out of a hundred would make a more fair desicion, than a democratic desicion? DO you HONESTLY believe that? IF you do then I'll have that argument, but first I want you to go out there and say that so that people see that, that is your actual viewpoint.


It would be more accurate to say that a 50% + 1 decision is not is automatically more fair.

[RGacky3]

It would be more accurate to say that a 50% + 1 decision is not is automatically more fair.

A broken clock is right twice a day as well. Either way, Democracy is overall going to be much more fair than plutocracy (i.e. the market).

[ComradeMan]

A broken clock is right twice a day as well. Either way, Democracy is overall going to be much more fair than plutocracy (i.e. the market).

Is it?

And is it democracy in the true sense of the word?

Out of curiosity, do you support proportional representation...?

[RGacky3]

Is it?

Yup, a broken clock, shows the right time, twice a day.


Out of curiosity, do you support proportional representation...?

When I talk about democracy, I'm talking about the principle, I'm in favor of all types of democracy, the more 'democratic' the better.

As for your question it depends on the situation, like as far as moder states are concerned? Yeah, I mean I support it in situations where it makes sense, and in the modern state situation it makes sense, in other situations it might not.

However I don't see democracy as a system perse, where there is one type of democracy and thats what exists, I consider it a form of collective desicion making, certain desicions are collective, certain ones are individual, collective desicions should be made collectively.

I like the concepts of consunsus democracy and perticipatory democracy, I think the more direct control and the more loose a democratic system is the better.

Democracy in the true sense of the word means "people rule" so there is no PURE democracy, democracy is a principle.

[ComradeMan]

Yup, a broken clock, shows the right time, twice a day.



When I talk about democracy, I'm talking about the principle, I'm in favor of all types of democracy, the more 'democratic' the better.

As for your question it depends on the situation, like as far as moder states are concerned? Yeah, I mean I support it in situations where it makes sense, and in the modern state situation it makes sense, in other situations it might not.

However I don't see democracy as a system perse, where there is one type of democracy and thats what exists, I consider it a form of collective desicion making, certain desicions are collective, certain ones are individual, collective desicions should be made collectively.

I like the concepts of consunsus democracy and perticipatory democracy, I think the more direct control and the more loose a democratic system is the better.

Democracy in the true sense of the word means "people rule" so there is no PURE democracy, democracy is a principle.


I see. I haven't heard the broken clock metaphor before- but I see what you mean.

Nevertheless, is there not a counter argument that total direct democracy without class consciousness or some leap in human consciousness in general runs the risk of turning into mob rule, or at best tyranny of the majority?

Democracy was not always spoken of so highly- the "demos" does not really been the "people" in our sense of the word but originally was closer to the concept of the "mob".

I don't disagree with you BTW - but these are issues that also need to be discussed.

What happens when personal decisions clash with collective decisions?

[RGacky3]

Nevertheless, is there not a counter argument that total direct democracy without class consciousness or some leap in human consciousness in general runs the risk of turning into mob rule, or at best tyranny of the majority?


Whats that argument? For you to make that argument your gonna have to make the argument that a few "enlightened" people are more fit to rule the people than the people themselves. The tyranny of the majority has never been proven, infact the more democratic a society, generally speaking, the less tyrannical it has been, so in my opinion thats a strawman, if your arguing against democracy due to some hypothetical "tyranny of the majoirty" then what are you arguing for? Your then arguing for an ACTUAL tyranny.


What happens when personal decisions clash with collective decisions?

Why would personal desicions be subject to collective desicions, personal desicions are MUCH more likely to be respected under a democracy rather than an ologarchy. Simply because the desicion makers would generally want to be allowed to make his own desicions, if you have a ruling class, their desicions are gonna by personal no matter what, but what do they care if they take that right away from others.

Also, this Majority tyranny thing is a strawman, it assumes that 50%+1 will awlays agree on everything, which is absurd.

[ComradeMan]

Whats that argument? For you to make that argument your gonna have to make the argument that a few "enlightened" people are more fit to rule the people than the people themselves. The tyranny of the majority has never been proven, infact the more democratic a society, generally speaking, the less tyrannical it has been, so in my opinion thats a strawman, if your arguing against democracy due to some hypothetical "tyranny of the majoirty" then what are you arguing for? Your then arguing for an ACTUAL tyranny.

Err... did you read the post? I wasn't actually arguing that was I?

The tyranny of the majority has never been proven, infact the more democratic a society, generally speaking, the less tyrannical it has been

Prove it quantatively. What do you define as a tyrannical society? Seeing as many of us live in fairly "democratic" societies does that mean that our societies aren't really all that bad- so what are we even doing here at RevLeft?

When there was the referendum in Switzerland about the mosques....? For example? The point that you fail to grasp is that direct democracy without class consciousness and any kind of brake could be very dangerous.


Why would personal desicions be subject to collective desicions, personal desicions are MUCH more likely to be respected under a democracy rather than an ologarchy. Simply because the desicion makers would generally want to be allowed to make his own desicions, if you have a ruling class, their desicions are gonna by personal no matter what, but what do they care if they take that right away from others.

BTW the word is "oligarchy"-

You keep positing hypothetical arguments a priori based on nothing. Words like "likely" and "would generally"- the rest is pretty incoherent to be honest...


Also, this Majority tyranny thing is a strawman, it assumes that 50%+1 will awlays agree on everything, which is absurd.

What are you talking about? The fucking word democracy itself has been translated as that very term- I'm not defending that position I am seeking to look into it.

However- if 50+1 "agree" on electing the ruling party then for between 4-5 years they get what that ruling party decides, don't they? Whether they fundamentally agree with every policy after voting day is a different matter but in a sense the other 49% could argue that was indeed a tyranny of the majority.

You also have to factor in- the people who are eligibile to vote, the ones who actually do vote and then you'll see that in terms of the whole population there is a tyranny of the.... minority:confused: ... based on a majority of course.

You also forget that a lot of democracies don't work on the US/UK models- here there are inevitable coalitions, with all the "sectarianism" and in-fighting that means nothing ever gets done.

These are problems that have to be discussed.... if you are actually willing to discuss things and not just shout at people for not echoing you.

[Noinu]

When there was the referendum in Switzerland about the mosques....? For example? The point that you fail to grasp is that direct democracy without class consciousness and any kind of brake could be very dangerous.


I know this might be a bit off topic but nvm.

I was very sad when that happened, as quite a large majority vote, I was well devastated to be honest. But I have to say I am extremely glad that:
a. there is a referendum on everything, seriously even the most unimportant matters can get a referendum, and even I'm allowed to vote on them.
b. the government never decides against the people's vote. I know in this case, I would have been happy for them to decide against the majority, but the problem would then be that they would start doing that in everything, which I'm glad they don't.

[ComradeMan]

I know this might be a bit off topic but nvm.

I was very sad when that happened, as quite a large majority vote, I was well devastated to be honest. But I have to say I am extremely glad that:
a. there is a referendum on everything, seriously even the most unimportant matters can get a referendum, and even I'm allowed to vote on them.
b. the government never decides against the people's vote. I know in this case, I would have been happy for them to decide against the majority, but the problem would then be that they would start doing that in everything, which I'm glad they don't.

You see that's the dilemma- that's the problem with these things that sound great in theory "the people have spoken"- consensus does not necessarily mean that things are right. On a technicality Mussolini was "elected" to the position from which he seized power (undemocratically) and he also had popular support. Fulgencio Batista in Cuba was also "democratically" elected in 1940 and had been endorsed by the .... Cuban Communist Party.... :crying:

[Noinu]

You see that's the dilemma- that's the problem with these things that sound great in theory "the people have spoken"- consensus does not necessarily mean that things are right. On a technicality Mussolini was "elected" to the position from which he seized power (undemocratically) and he also had popular support. Fulgencio Batista in Cuba was also "democratically" elected in 1940 and had been endorsed by the .... Cuban Communist Party.... :crying:

Then again (in the current system of government), the option is to do something like Finland, which I think is much worse. People never get asked, just a bunch of politicians doing idiotic decisions that only help themselves and no one else. So in that sense, I'd rather have the people decide something wrong, when they're at least been asked.

I don't think either is very good, I'm just saying in the current system, I actually like the Swiss model more.

[ComradeMan]

Then again (in the current system of government), the option is to do something like Finland, which I think is much worse. People never get asked, just a bunch of politicians doing idiotic decisions that only help themselves and no one else. So in that sense, I'd rather have the people decide something wrong, when they're at least been asked.

I don't think either is very good, I'm just saying in the current system, I actually like the Swiss model more.

Yes, I hear what you say. I don't really know about the Finnish system to speak in all honesty. But it seems like we always have to choose between the lesser of evils- but evils they remain.:confused:

[Noinu]

Yes, I hear what you say. I don't really know about the Finnish system to speak in all honesty. But it seems like we always have to choose between the lesser of evils- but evils they remain.:confused:

Agreed.

[Baseball]

I know this might be a bit off topic but nvm.

I was very sad when that happened, as quite a large majority vote, I was well devastated to be honest. But I have to say I am extremely glad that:
a. there is a referendum on everything, seriously even the most unimportant matters can get a referendum, and even I'm allowed to vote on them.
b. the government never decides against the people's vote. I know in this case, I would have been happy for them to decide against the majority, but the problem would then be that they would start doing that in everything, which I'm glad they don't.

OK. So here is an example of democracy in action-- the majority of the people democratically vote to restrict the freedoms of the minority of the people.

The conclusion seems to be that its better to curtail liberties, than curtail the right of the majority to curtail liberties.

I would think to defend freedom and liberty, one would deny the right of majorities to restrict liberties of people. And thus that restricting the rights of the majority is not a restriction of liberty

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1935694]Whats that argument? For you to make that argument your gonna have to make the argument that a few "enlightened" people are more fit to rule the people than the people themselves.

Is medical self-help better than consultation with a physician?


The tyranny of the majority has never been proven, infact the more democratic a society, generally speaking, the less tyrannical it has been,

The more supporting liberty, the less tyrannical it has been.



Why would personal desicions be subject to collective desicions,

Without a market, that is absolutely what will happen


personal desicions are MUCH more likely to be respected under a democracy rather than an ologarchy. Simply because the desicion makers would generally want to be allowed to make his own desicions,

No, because the idea of democracy is that the majority rules the minority. The "collective" is what is paramount.


if you have a ruling class, their desicions are gonna by personal no matter what, but what do they care if they take that right away from others.

It could be. But there is no reason to suppose why 50% +1 would rule based upon their personal issues. In fact, that is what is required. Democracy is by its very nature oligarchial.


Also, this Majority tyranny thing is a strawman, it assumes that 50%+1 will awlays agree on everything, which is absurd.

No. 50% +1 IS the majority. What is a strawman is this talk of democracy and "rule of the people." Its "rule of the majority over the minority." Happy talk of "collective decision making" is simply a way of dodging that reality- somebody will always rule, and somebody will always be ruled.

[RGacky3]

Err... did you read the post? I wasn't actually arguing that was I?

As far as I could see you were playing devils advocate, and I was playing the guy arguing against teh devils advocate.


Prove it quantatively. What do you define as a tyrannical society? Seeing as many of us live in fairly "democratic" societies does that mean that our societies aren't really all that bad- so what are we even doing here at RevLeft?


Most of us don't, the United States is an extremely undemocratic society, its a corporatist society. There are some societies that are more democratic than others, and generally speaking those societies are better off.

Remember you have to include the economic system as well as the political, they aer one in the same.



When there was the referendum in Switzerland about the mosques....? For example? The point that you fail to grasp is that direct democracy without class consciousness and any kind of brake could be very dangerous.

Tell me about the mosque referendum or link me to an article.

As for your second point, I don't get what your saying, whats the alternative? Also is'nt class consciousness entirely dependant on the type of society? Are you saying democracy is dangerous unless people are "ready for it" Who decides when they are ready for it?

I think what is MUCH MORE dangerous is the idea your talking about, i.e. that you need a ruling class until someone decides the people are "ready" for democracy, and who would those people be? The ruling class? Some enlightened elite? Thats much more dangerous.


BTW the word is "oligarchy"-

You keep positing hypothetical arguments a priori based on nothing. Words like "likely" and "would generally"- the rest is pretty incoherent to be honest...


I use those words because people like to argue on the exception, which is not really a good argument.

If you disagree with my point make the argument, do you believe that an oligarchy of any kind would be more fair than a democracy?


However- if 50+1 "agree" on electing the ruling party then for between 4-5 years they get what that ruling party decides, don't they? Whether they fundamentally agree with every policy after voting day is a different matter but in a sense the other 49% could argue that was indeed a tyranny of the majority.


I suppose they could, but not really, considering that 51% is never really a solid block, and the 49%s vote still counts and the "party" still has to listen to them, because all it takes is a couple swing voters.

However the type of democracy your takling about is the crudest, and barely democracy, that system could be fixed significatnly, also what does this "ruling party" control? Everything? There are many different aspects of society, so again thats a straw man.


You also forget that a lot of democracies don't work on the US/UK models- here there are inevitable coalitions, with all the "sectarianism" and in-fighting that means nothing ever gets done.

These are problems that have to be discussed.... if you are actually willing to discuss things and not just shout at people for not echoing you.

Those examples are terrible examples of democracy, because their hands are tied by corporate controls, and there is no real accountability, in the US for example, I would'nt call that a democracy at all.

Voting DOES NOT EQUAL democracy.

examples of democracy would be more collective workplaces, the popular assemballies in Oaxaca, ANarchist spain. Of coarse these are small scale, but I personally don't think there needs to be a big centralized institution, or if there is, it don't think it needs to be that big or powerful.

Even within Capitalist states, Norway is much more democratic than the US, if not simply because more of the economy is subject to democratic control.


These are problems that have to be discussed.... if you are actually willing to discuss things and not just shout at people for not echoing you.

I'm making arguments.


Is medical self-help better than consultation with a physician?

No but thats voluntary, nothing to do with rulership.


The more supporting liberty, the less tyrannical it has been.

Yeah, and democracy produces more liberty than a market.


Without a market, that is absolutely what will happen

Why? You gotta make an argument, not just statements.

With a market it will happen too, its just called something else, personal liberty is sold.


No, because the idea of democracy is that the majority rules the minority. The "collective" is what is paramount.


No its not, again, statements are not arguements.

I can make baseless claims too, but they won't get you anywhere.


It could be. But there is no reason to suppose why 50% +1 would rule based upon their personal issues. In fact, that is what is required. Democracy is by its very nature oligarchial.


you think that 50 plus one would would all have the same idea of how to run their personal life? You think they'd have that much agreement that they'd want to force it on anyone else?

Thats a strawman, what youre raelly saying is that the more centralized the power the more liberty would be allowed. Which is kind of rediculous.


No. 50% +1 IS the majority. What is a strawman is this talk of democracy and "rule of the people." Its "rule of the majority over the minority." Happy talk of "collective decision making" is simply a way of dodging that reality- somebody will always rule, and somebody will always be ruled.

No its not, collective desicion making is exactly that, collective desicion making. But again, Youd rather be ruled by the rich I presume, and have no say, unless your rich, I'd rather have a say, even if that means i don't get my way everytime.

But look up consensus democracy and participatory democracy and then get back.

[ComradeMan]

That sounds like the opposite of communism.Do they have any members that are disabled? Mentally ill? Elderly? What were the ages? Pregnancies? Injuries?Medical care? What were the skills required to be a resident here? Who had the say in who was forced out? How did the initial group meet?

I don't think they mean people who through no fault of their own could not work, and deemed them lazy. I also think it falls into the trap of stigmatising such people as unproductive and unable to make any kind of contribution to society. Again, not what they were saying. However, lazy people who don't want to work when they can are parasites and I think it was leninist principle, although I can't remember, "don't work, don't eat". But work is not just manual work in a factory or field is it?

It would be far easier, cheaper and beneficial for me to take back the place where I've spent the majority of my life. My place of work.


It would be far easier, cheaper and beneficial for me to take back the place where I've spent the majority of my life. My place of work.

for me - true altruism :lol:

Why did it belong to you before?

[Noinu]

OK. So here is an example of democracy in action-- the majority of the people democratically vote to restrict the freedoms of the minority of the people.

The conclusion seems to be that its better to curtail liberties, than curtail the right of the majority to curtail liberties.

I would think to defend freedom and liberty, one would deny the right of majorities to restrict liberties of people. And thus that restricting the rights of the majority is not a restriction of liberty

Sadly I don't think that the current alternative of a selected few denying the rights of almost everyone, is any better.
I'm not saying there aren't any other alternatives, I think we all can agree they exist, I am only saying that in the current system of government I would rather be restricted by the majority, than a couple of old goons.

[Revolution starts with U]

As long as the debate is framed in 50+1 meaning democracy, than the argument is set to fail from the start. Democracy is not 50%+1. Sure, some crude forms of democracy may use that. But that leaves out 2/3's majorities, constitutional protections, proportional representation, etc.
People (at least hte one's w citizenship under democracies) have generally had far more freedom, and economies have been far more progressive, when their societies have been given democratic control.
The problems we have in western societies are terrible, to be sure. But it is miles above ancient Rome, or even early industrial Brittain.

[Sturzo]

In India, each representative in parliament represents two million people. I'm doubtful of direct democracy mainly because even in communist utopia land there will still be conflicts between minorities and majorities, need to pave that highway through a group's special ground? Who decides that, the majority?

"Class consciousness" isn't a proper excuse in dealing with the individual interests of everybody, even if everyone becomes a dedicated revolutionary, there will still be conflict within groups about who gets what, and what goes where.

[Revolution starts with U]

The thing is there will always be such conflict.. meaning always. And who should decide such conflicts; a small oligarchy, or the people at large? A mix of both? The individual himself? All three of those? Space aliens?

[Ele'ill]

I don't think they mean people who through no fault of their own could not work, and deemed them lazy. I also think it falls into the trap of stigmatising such people as unproductive and unable to make any kind of contribution to society. Again, not what they were saying. However, lazy people who don't want to work when they can are parasites and I think it was leninist principle, although I can't remember, "don't work, don't eat". But work is not just manual work in a factory or field is it?

I'm talking about this example specifically and I was criticising it.






for me - true altruism :lol:

Why did it belong to you before?

Word games such as this are for children. Seriously, grow up.

It was my place of work. The place where I work. My job is at 5th and Street Rd.

Obviously a body of people taking back their work place would be viewing this specific wording as I am taking back my work place......with my coworkers.

Glad I could help you out with this asininely easy to understand logic.

[Bud Struggle]

I am taking back my work place......with my coworkers.

You have nothing to "tale back". You never "owned" it in the first place.

Create your own business--you OWN workplace. And there will be no need to take anything back--you will own it from the beginning. Create something youself--don't be a Vampire on someone elses creativty.

[Ele'ill]

You have nothing to "tale back". You never "owned" it in the first place.

Create your own business--you OWN workplace. And there will be no need to take anything back--you will own it from the beginning. Create something youself--don't be a Vampire on someone elses creativty.


As a worker I own it by default- it's been stolen and I mean to take it back.... ;)

[Bud Struggle]

As a worker I own it by default- it's been stolen and I mean to take it back.... ;)

Best you just leave and invent something of your own.

The guy (or woman)that started the business, thought of the idea, invested money, found the location, paid the lease, bought the equipment, hired the staff, trained the staff, paid for the start up----

---and you serve a couple of cookies and a latte and the place is YOURS?!?!?

In the real world (even Proletarians) would think your claim rediculous.

got something better than that? :D

[ComradeMan]

As a worker I own it by default- it's been stolen and I mean to take it back.... ;)

What about if a Native American came and told you they owned your house/flat because it was "stolen" from them?

Would you still be singing the same tune?

[Revolution starts with U]

I would. Of course natives have far more right to land in the US than any whitey. C'mon.

[Bud Struggle]

And just to clarify, in England do Angles have more fight to the land than Saxons or do Normans have more right to the land the Gaeles or Picts?

[ComradeMan]

And just to clarify, in England do Angles have more fight to the land than Saxons or do Normans have more right to the land the Gaeles or Picts?

Exactly- our political genius couldn't even offer the sound response of- actually the land belongs to everyone together no one individually and no one has a genetic right to it.

[Ele'ill]

What about if a Native American came and told you they owned your house/flat because it was "stolen" from them?

Would you still be singing the same tune?


Why wouldn't I help them out?

[Ele'ill]

Exactly- our political genius couldn't even offer the sound response of- actually the land belongs to everyone together no one individually and no one has a genetic right to it.


This isn't IRC.


:rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Gaels and picts have the most right. For real man. We're the true people of the british isles :cool:
(^ racism?)

[RGacky3]

Create your own business--you OWN workplace. And there will be no need to take anything back--you will own it from the beginning. Create something youself--don't be a Vampire on someone elses creativty.

Bud, do you know how Capitalism works? The whole system runs on vampires feeding off other peoples labor and creativity.


The guy (or woman)that started the business, thought of the idea, invested money, found the location, paid the lease, bought the equipment, hired the staff, trained the staff, paid for the start up----



See all the things in Bold, see a common thread? Its money.

THe other stuff, finding the location, training the staff, hell even thining off the idea was probably also paid for.

So no, take it back. Workers created the world, so we should take it back.


What about if a Native American came and told you they owned your house/flat because it was "stolen" from them?

Would you still be singing the same tune?

The Native Americans did'nt have a concept of property :).


In the real world (even Proletarians) would think your claim rediculous.


Really Bud? Have you asked them? Because I have, and generally, the idea of workers being able to fire their boss, having more control of their workplace, and having a bigger share of the pie is pretty popular with workers.

Stop pretending you know what workers want "in the real world," you personally, don't know jack more than anyone else here personally, so if your gonna make a claim like that you better have statistics.

[ComradeMan]

Bud, do you know how Capitalism works? The whole system runs on vampires feeding off other peoples labor and creativity.

That a cutting and astute analysis- when I made a similar point the other week you disagreed with it until I pointed out that it was taken from Zygmunt Bauman. :rolleyes:

Capitalism works because we aren't hunter-gatherers or nomads, or even all agrarian societies. This creates markets for food and goods, we are not and cannot be self-sufficient and this creates the role of industry and work etc. It's very complicated.

But even a tribal hunter-gatherer society if you don't work or don't hunt you don't eat.



The Native Americans did'nt have a concept of property :).

For a start, which Native Americans? The ones that had small cities, houses and urban development along with agriculture? Or the plains tribes etc... so you need to be careful with the sweeping generalisations.

Secondly- that was part of the point- that went over Mari3L's head....

Thirdly- if the land belongs to no one, there is no concept of property- but there was a concept of rights to use that land, sacred land, hunting land, fishing rights and so on....


Really Bud? Have you asked them? Because I have, and generally, the idea of workers being able to fire their boss, having more control of their workplace, and having a bigger share of the pie is pretty popular with workers. Stop pretending you know what workers want "in the real world," you personally, don't know jack more than anyone else here personally, so if your gonna make a claim like that you better have statistics.

What happens to the fired boss? Does he become a worker too? Or does he withdraw all his own money that he put into the business over the years and go and live in Grand Cayman or Bermuda?

Now, I am not defending capitalism, but what I am saying is that these arguments are just a bunch of outdated slogans.

Industrialisation itself is a product of capitalism- that's part of the problem.

[RGacky3]

That a cutting and astute analysis- when I made a similar point the other week you disagreed with it until I pointed out that it was taken from Zygmunt Bauman. :rolleyes:


No ..... still disagreed with you ....


Capitalism works because we aren't hunter-gatherers or nomads, or even all agrarian societies. This creates markets for food and goods, we are not and cannot be self-sufficient and this creates the role of industry and work etc. It's very complicated.


Except capitalism does'nt work. Of coarse you cannot be self-sufficient, the question is are you gonna organize it in a tyrannical way (Capitalism) or a democratic way (socialism).


But even a tribal hunter-gatherer society if you don't work or don't hunt you don't eat.


There is'nt a leftist that has ever lived that has argued that work does'nt need to be done.


For a start, which Native Americans? The ones that had small cities, houses and urban development along with agriculture? Or the plains tribes etc... so you need to be careful with the sweeping generalisations.


Most of the North American tribes, even the ones with agriculture.


Thirdly- if the land belongs to no one, there is no concept of property- but there was a concept of rights to use that land, sacred land, hunting land, fishing rights and so on....


All those things were a given, until Europeans came and the natives had to secure those rights.


What happens to the fired boss? Does he become a worker too? Or does he withdraw all his own money that he put into the business over the years and go and live in Grand Cayman or Bermuda?


We'll if he wants he can become a worker, as far as his money? Most likely he did'nt put any money into it (VERY VERY VERY little of the economy is a dude that made a company with his own money and hired people), but I'm sure the workers will give him a generous severance package.

If its a socialist society, he'll find a way to be useful in society :).


Industrialisation itself is a product of capitalism- that's part of the problem.

One could argue that agriculture is a product of slavery, you could also argue that it is a product of monarchies. But your right, but thats history, and that does'nt mean that industrialization CAN ONLY be the result of capitalism, we are looking to the future.


Now, I am not defending capitalism, but what I am saying is that these arguments are just a bunch of outdated slogans.


No they arn't, they are principles to go forward with.

But BTW, that post was pointing out that Bud's folksy Fox-News vision of how america is, is false, and not based on any fact.

[ComradeMan]

No ..... still disagreed with you ....

Well, hate appeals to authority, but let me think... it's a tough one, Zygmunt Bauman or Gacky?


Except capitalism does'nt work. Of coarse you cannot be self-sufficient, the question is are you gonna organize it in a tyrannical way (Capitalism) or a democratic way (socialism).

LOL!!! You call yourself a socialist? Well, I suppose your heart's in the right place at least.

Capitalism does work- it works for capitalists or it wouldn't still be around. It works pretty damn well and efficiently.

You don't seem to get this do you? The problem with something is necessarily the fact that it works or not, but whether it is right or not.

Capitalism is a vicious and destructive system in my opinion, but in an economic sense it does work and it will continue to work until the "species" becomes a victim of its own success or something is done about it- but the issue is not on its efficiency or ability to serve the interests of capitalists.


There is'nt a leftist that has ever lived that has argued that work does'nt need to be done.

Yeah, which means therefore that a degree of social-responsibility and discipline are needed too. Not just blurting out slogans all the damn time and defending the positions of people who may do little or nothing to help their own causes as well.


Most of the North American tribes, even the ones with agriculture.
All those things were a given, until Europeans came and the natives had to secure those rights.

Nonsense- you don't know what you are talking about. Those societies were very rigid in some respects with distinct hierarchies and rules, they were by no means homogenous either. Who decides on the right to use land and how?



We'll if he wants he can become a worker, as far as his money? Most likely he did'nt put any money into it (VERY VERY VERY little of the economy is a dude that made a company with his own money and hired people), but I'm sure the workers will give him a generous severance package.

Most likely he did... especially somewhere like the US. Most big companies do indeed start with some small guy with a workshop or store and they take it from there. What happens afterwards is the problem. But whether you like that fact or not, that's how it is. There's no point inventing lies and half-truths to defend your cause, because all you do is damage it.


One could argue that agriculture is a product of slavery, you could also argue that it is a product of monarchies. But your right, but thats history, and that does'nt mean that industrialization CAN ONLY be the result of capitalism, we are looking to the future.

One could argue that of course but one would be completely wrong as agricultural development predates slavery. Of course slavery did follow- but you can see the difference.

BTW- the future it seems, will be post-industrial. Technological development is heading in the direction of a world in which we don't need and won't have a huge industrial labour force anyway. What's your answer Yoda?


But BTW, that post was pointing out that Bud's folksy Fox-News vision of how america is, is false, and not based on any fact.

Yeah, but the problem is that your the damn equivalent- it's like a leftwing version of FOX- we might agree with the sincerity and the principle but the argumentation is idiotic and fallacious.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism does work- it works for capitalists or it wouldn't still be around. It works pretty damn well and efficiently.

You don't seem to get this do you? The problem with something is necessarily the fact that it works or not, but whether it is right or not.


Well, it works for Capitalists, but I don't consider that working.


Capitalism is a vicious and destructive system in my opinion, but in an economic sense it does work and it will continue to work until the "species" becomes a victim of its own success or something is done about it- but the issue is not on its efficiency or ability to serve the interests of capitalists.


Hell, in that case everything works.


Yeah, which means therefore that a degree of social-responsibility and discipline are needed too. Not just blurting out slogans all the damn time and defending the positions of people who may do little or nothing to help their own causes as well.


Sure, I agree. But waht it does'nt need is people going around telling poor people that they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when there are boots keeping them down.

You can critisise the fact that I have principles (which you cal slogans), but what are you doing to make stuff better? Other than ripping on poor people, for not making the best (in your opinion) of their poverty.


Those societies were very rigid in some respects with distinct hierarchies and rules, they were by no means homogenous either. Who decides on the right to use land and how?


Not compared to european societies, at least not in most of North America, they were not homogenous, no, which is why I said "most."

Who decides? The people that live there, how? By mutual consensus, but like I said, "land use" was a given, you don't need some a theory to have it.


Most likely he did... especially somewhere like the US. Most big companies do indeed start with some small guy with a workshop or store and they take it from there. What happens afterwards is the problem. But whether you like that fact or not, that's how it is. There's no point inventing lies and half-truths to defend your cause, because all you do is damage it.


The Majority of executives in corporations don't have a majority financial interest in the corporation that they are the executives in. Even many small companies get mostly outside investment.

Btw, as far as most big companies starting with some small guy? Most big companies start with the government :P, or some really really wealthy person, but thats a moot point, most monarchial dynasties started with a warrior trying to take power.

I'm not inventing lies and half truths at all, if I am, point them out, and give me facts to show where I was wrong.


One could argue that of course but one would be completely wrong as agricultural development predates slavery. Of course slavery did follow- but you can see the difference.


Advanced agriculture in mesopotamia grew along with slavery.


Technological development is heading in the direction of a world in which we don't need and won't have a huge industrial labour force anyway. What's your answer Yoda?


You don't need to be Yoda, you just gotta be slightly intelligent.

Everyone gets to work less, at least thats how a socialist society would handle it.


Yeah, but the problem is that your the damn equivalent- it's like a leftwing version of FOX- we might agree with the sincerity and the principle but the argumentation is idiotic and fallacious.

Wheres the sincerity and the principle in Fox news???

Also, my argumentation has all been pretty much basic stuff, your argumentation has been essencially running with capitalist presumptions that are not at all true in the real world.

Like the idea of the "euntrepreniour" as the main movers of the economy. Most of the capital and resources in the world economy are run by giant multinationals, which are run by CEOs, that are board members in many other corporations, and that have their money in various investments, most of which is not tied to the company they are running, and who's jobs are really just check writers and money movers.

Thats the real world, not the fairytale land where people work hard, build a company with their own sweat and blood and take risks and make it, I'm not saying that does'nt happen, I'm saying its an tiny tiny part of the world economy.

[Baseball]

Thats the real world, not the fairytale land where people work hard, build a company with their own sweat and blood and take risks and make it, I'm not saying that does'nt happen, I'm saying its an tiny tiny part of the world economy.

That is not entirely true. In the USA small business is responsible for most economic growth.

But even if it were true, why ARE you lamenting it? You have already indicated
that even a situation where people work hard and build a company with their "sweat" has no particular claim to the fruits of that labor.

[RGacky3]

http://www.stwr.org/multinational-corporations/key-facts.html

Out of the 100 biggest economies 51 are corporations, 49 are countries, I wonder how many are small buisinesses.


"Seventy percent of world trade is controlled by just 500 of the largest industrial corporations, and in 2002, the top 200 had combined sales equivalent to 28% of world GDP. However, these 200 corporations only employed 0.82% of the global work force.
In the US, ninety-eight percent of all companies account for only 25 percent of business activity; the remaining two percent account for nearly 75 percent of the remaining activity. The top 500 industrial corporations, which represent only one-tenth of one percent of all US companies, control over two-thirds of the business resources in the US and collect over 70 percent of all US profits."

So yeah, it is true.


that even a situation where people work hard and build a company with their "sweat" has no particular claim to the fruits of that labor.

I think people have a claim to the fruits of their labor, absolutely, but that does not entail proparty laws, which end up taking away the claim to the fruits of labor for the majority of the population, because that claim is overturned by property laws.

What I'm lamenting is a tyrannical economy based on property. This fruits of your labor stuff, is not the argument, because capitalism dose'nt give you the fruits of your labor, it gives you the fruits of your property.

[Revolution starts with U]

Capitalism does work- it works for capitalists or it wouldn't still be around. It works pretty damn well and efficiently.

You don't seem to get this do you? The problem with something is necessarily the fact that it works or not, but whether it is right or not

If it will lead to its own self-destruction, how can you say that works? You can say it works for some.



Yeah, which means therefore that a degree of social-responsibility and discipline are needed too. Not just blurting out slogans all the damn time and defending the positions of people who may do little or nothing to help their own causes as well.

Democracy now! Workers of the world unite! Slogans are good, Comrade.
(This coming from the guy who appeals to Che every chance he gets :rolleyes:)




Nonsense- you don't know what you are talking about. Those societies were very rigid in some respects with distinct hierarchies and rules, they were by no means homogenous either. Who decides on the right to use land and how?

I actually do know what I'm talking about. ANd your ability to find a legalized concept of property amongst the natives, even as far as the complex civilizations, will be nil. Whatever concepts of the use and districution of items, it wasn't a legal concept for the most part. And we all know "property" is a social concept; property requires property rights. Other than that you're just the user.


One could argue that of course but one would be completely wrong as agricultural development predates slavery. Of course slavery did follow- but you can see the difference.
You can prove that? Slavery does predate the written record. True, it may seem that large population densities would be required. But there is small forms of light slavery amongst some hunter-gatherer societies.

[Nicholas Popov]

as I said, ill try to find the vid when I get home. youtube is blocked at work)I know its somewhere within the states.

I am not a slave. People need to work in order to survive. Thats a fact of life.

If I hire someone to wash my car for 6 dollars THAT IS NOT SLAVERY
If I pointed a gun at someone and make him wash my car then YES THAT IS Slavery

you commies are amazing.
The slave works for an slaveholder for soup and a lodging for the night. The slaveholder relaxes on the ranch. IT IS SLAVERY.
Your salary is equal to payment for a food and residing. The owner went to Hawaii. IT IS NOT SLAVERY.
Homo sapiens differs presence of brains: MONEY IS THE TOOL ONLY.

[Revolution starts with U]

What's the difference between a slave state, and a guy with a job that won't pay for a plate?

[Bud Struggle]

What's the difference between a slave state, and a guy with a job that won't pay for a plate?

:confused:

[Robert]

What's the difference between a slave state, and a guy with a job that won't pay for a plate?

It's about like the state that plates for a slave but won't guy for a pay.

More or less.

[Revolution starts with U]

I heard it and undestood it immediately... am I some kind of genius?

A plate (of food)

[Bud Struggle]

I heard it and undestood it immediately... am I some kind of genius?

A plate (of food)

OHHHHH!!!!!!

I was thinking, I don't know--maybe like a metal plate in his head or something. I wasn't sure.

Thanks, now it makes sense.

[Revolution starts with U]

:laugh: I heard it at some underground hip hop show here in Akron. Probably the only good t hing from the night really :thumbup1:

[Robert]

I heard it and understood it immediately... am I some kind of genius?

Yes.

[Nicholas Popov]

Lazy unproductive people don't need to be kicked out, though it ought to be up to the individual commune (and I know other communists agree with your point).

I personally visualise a commune where labour is democratically rewarded. In other words, people reap the true value of their labour. Those who don't work don't get the goods and services from society.

We can't have small communes in an ancap system because hostile monopolies would intervene militarily. Private property must be abolished - it needs to be communal for socialism to function.
One day robots will replace you because they more cheaply.

[Nicholas Popov]

"A six-time convicted criminal, Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin) had right away understood what possibilities the MONOPOLY of a " religion for the sheep" called "communism' opens for the Power maniacs: "The Great Helmsman" Mao, "The Master of the House" Stalin; enthusiasm in spite of eternal poverty and millions of victims deemed "enemies of the People" by "Communist tin gods" - emperors who were presumed to be the guardian angels of people's needs and desires? Or was it illusions?.."