Property "rights" in action

[RGacky3]

This is the "freedom (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/foreclosure-grandma-swat-team_n_844348.html)" libertarians are talking about. You can justify it all you want, how the hell is this a freedom? If only a handful of corporations and the super rich have this freedom and that freedom hurts everyone else and damages everyone else, how the hell is that a freedom? Its like saying me not being allowed to push old ladies in the mud is restricting my freedom.

Property rights are not rights, they are not valid rights, they hurt society, they are detrimental to real freedom, and they are only a privilege for a small elite few.

Heres the video from the article
e2axN1zsZno

[Communist Guy]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Evicting a grandmother? WTF! It's disgusting.

[Bud Struggle]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Evicting a grandmother? WTF! It's disgusting.

And that kitty that was evected--the one with the SAD EYES. :(

[#FF0000]

And that kitty that was evected--the one with the SAD EYES. :(

so are you gonna try to justify this whole thing or what

[#FF0000]

Anyway, a thing I think is interesting about this is that if the wife is the one who died, the husband would have 0 problem keeping that house.

[Hexen]

And that kitty that was evected--the one with the SAD EYES. :(

Do you have any empathy at all?


Anyway, a thing I think is interesting about this is that if the wife is the one who died, the husband would have 0 problem keeping that house.

If so then it would be one pure example that sexist double standards still exist in our society. "Post-Sexism" my ass for sure.

[RGacky3]

And that kitty that was evected--the one with the SAD EYES. :(

Classy Bud, real christian of you, the type of guy that would drive in a puddle just to splash mud on a homeless person becuase it makes you feel tough.


Anyway, a thing I think is interesting about this is that if the wife is the one who died, the husband would have 0 problem keeping that house.

I really doubt that, money is money.

(btw, prior to fannie mae being privatized in the 1970s and turned into a for profit company, this sort of thing did'nt happen).

[Bud Struggle]

Do you have any empathy at all?

Yea.
It sucks. It was one instance of some assholes doing some bad stuff. Not disimilar to some Cambodian kid telling about how bad Communism was when Pol Pot was in power. All a completely an indutive decent fron the particular to the general.

Just Gacky being Emo.

[RGacky3]

Just Gacky being Emo.

Keep at it bro, it'll catch on soon.

[Bud Struggle]

Keep at it bro, it'll catch on soon.

It's your usual crappy argument. You find some BAD Capitalist doing some BAD stuff and then you say ALL Capitalism is that. But mention Stalin--it's "oh, oh, that's not US we are differnt kinds of Communists!"

What you see is what you get from Capitaism--but also what you have seen is what you get from Communism.

Same rules, Brother. :)

[Ele'ill]

It's your usual crappy argument. You find some BAD Capitalist doing some BAD stuff and then you say ALL Capitalism is that. But mention Stalin--it's "oh, oh, that's not US we are differnt kinds of Communists!"

What you see is what you get from Capitaism--but also what you have seen is what you get from Communism.

Same rules, Brother. :)

This entire statement is false.

[RGacky3]

This is not Bad Capitalists doing bad stuff its good Capitalists doing EXACTLY what they are mandated to do, make money, maximise profits.

Also these people are following Capitalism exactly as it is in theory, the principles of Capitalism are at work here.

Leninist states were not following the basic principles of socialism, when those principles of socialism WERE put into practice they turned out as expected.


However, if your gonna post in this thread, post about the thread, if your gonna defend Capitalism defend this, this IS capitalism, this is the way it works AS DESIGNED, this is capitalism when you follow the instructions of how to do capitalism, so defend it, this bullshit arguemnt of "well people who called themselves communists did this so blahhh" is not an argument, its been disproven over and over and over and over again, but you keep bringing it up, because its all you have.

(I should just copy this and save it in a word file and then just paste it after 90% of Buds responses)

[StalinFanboy]

It's your usual crappy argument. You find some BAD Capitalist doing some BAD stuff and then you say ALL Capitalism is that. But mention Stalin--it's "oh, oh, that's not US we are differnt kinds of Communists!"

What you see is what you get from Capitaism--but also what you have seen is what you get from Communism.

Same rules, Brother. :)
Capitalism existed in the USSR. Stalin was actually one of you :)

And it isn't about bad capitalists being bad, because there are certainly some nice capitalists out there. The problem is that their interests as capitalists are in direct conflict with the interests of working people. People seem to forget this simple fact and delve into a whole bunch of shit about capitalism is evil and bad and immoral and all this shit.

It's like cops. I've met some really nice cops. One time I got pulled over for going over 90 in a 65 zone, but the cop just gave me a fix-it ticket and signed it right there (I had old tags on my plates, but the new tags in my glove box). Cool as shit, and nice about the whole thing too. But this doesn't change the fact that he still locks people up, creates misery in their lives, and protects and upholds private property. So fuck 'em, even the "nice" ones.

[RGacky3]

Btw, anyone thinking of writing Bud a detailed rebuttle to his post, save your time, its been done, the guy is either to stupid to get it, or is just a troll.

[L.A.P.]

This is my hometown! Rochester, New York!:thumbup:

This is part of a small protest movement in Rochester called Take Back the Land-Rochester. They have also shown support for squatters.

Ixjk0teEH0U

[ComradeMan]

In mitigation for Bud, I think he does not see "capitalism" as a system or ideology in the same way as he views communism. Capitalism has no Marx, has no "Book" as such. Capitalism has no symbols- capitalism is just the way things are. I think that's how he sees things- not necessarily as he would want them to be but rather resigned to a reality of how things are- or at least how he perceives them to be. The challenge is to demonstrate to Bud, politely, how this is not the case.

Fundamentally, albeit a crude analysis- it boils down to this:-

Means of production privately owned and run for profit.

or

Means of production commonly owned and run for public benefit.

You choose and state why.

[Bud Struggle]

This is not Bad Capitalists doing bad stuff its good Capitalists doing EXACTLY what they are mandated to do, make money, maximise profits.

Also these people are following Capitalism exactly as it is in theory, the principles of Capitalism are at work here.

Leninist states were not following the basic principles of socialism, when those principles of socialism WERE put into practice they turned out as expected.


However, if your gonna post in this thread, post about the thread, if your gonna defend Capitalism defend this, this IS capitalism, this is the way it works AS DESIGNED, this is capitalism when you follow the instructions of how to do capitalism, so defend it, this bullshit arguemnt of "well people who called themselves communists did this so blahhh" is not an argument, its been disproven over and over and over and over again, but you keep bringing it up, because its all you have.

(I should just copy this and save it in a word file and then just paste it after 90% of Buds responses)

As if there were actual rules.:rolleyes::lol:

The kind of stuff you post is pure emotionalism. It has nothing to do with Communism per se. Nothing. You continually post sad eyed kitty stories about how the BAD Capitalists--in this instance--evected some old lady, or some cat, or watever. It'ssad, but it doesn't speak to the issue. You think there are RULES for any of this? There aren't. there are no rules for Communsm or Capitalism or anything else.

Lenninism is Communism as it exists in the world. No Successful Revolutionary is reading some textbook on Socialism. No successful Capitalist is reade books on classical Capitalsim. Everything is AS IT IS. there is nothing other. Communists aren't idealists--they live in reality not some idealized beliefs of fairyland where everyone plays by certain rules.

Capitalsim is what it is. Sometimes good sometimes bad it lives with and by it's mistakes. Communism is the same--what you saw in the world is EACTLY what Communism look like when tried in real life. Want to change it for the better--well maybe? But if you do you have to rise above sad stories that tug at people's heart strings and get into the problems of real life.

No, it's always got to be about the sad puppy and evil Capitalist.

There aren't any rules. Ever. There is only what is.

(It's pretty sad that I'm the one arguing Materialism and the Communists are the ones arguing Idealism. :D )

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Damn, I was right!
:cool:

[Bud Struggle]

In mitigation for Bud, I think he does not see "capitalism" as a system or ideology in the same way as he views communism. Capitalism has no Marx, has no "Book" as such. Capitalism has no symbols- capitalism is just the way things are. I think that's how he sees things- not necessarily as he would want them to be but rather resigned to a reality of how things are- or at least how he perceives them to be. The challenge is to demonstrate to Bud, politely, how this is not the case.

Fundamentally, albeit a crude analysis- it boils down to this:-

Means of production privately owned and run for profit.

or

Means of production commonly owned and run for public benefit.

You choose and state why.

Capitalism is the present default position of planet earth and the people on it. There may be other plans--but they are--"other."

[ComradeMan]

Capitalismis the present default position of planet earth and the people on it. There may be other plans--but they are--"other."

Indeed....


But, my friend- these other plans are our plans!

Hasta la Victoria Siempre!

Capitalism is a phase, a development- the problem is when people resist the next phase and thus bring about wars, starvation, inequality and bad neighbourliness in a selfish act of preservation and greed.

[danyboy27]

throwing senior out of their house is something that, beside being utterly disgusting, is fiscally irresponsable bud.

You are a cappie, so i will speak with words that are able to understand :D

if you throw someone out of his house, especially if this person is disabled or elderly, you have to take care of him/her.

this mean paperwork, governement bureaucracy, shelter and food cost, maintenance of the building in wich this person is sheltered.

if his/her family decide to take care of him/her, well, it mean those two person wont be able to use their money to lets say, finance their children college education, or buying useless shit to make the economy ''work''

if you throw this person in the street, making him/her homeless, you will create a social problem that will require even more money to ''fix'' not to mention the risk of spreading infection and other disease to the whole population by letting her/him live in horrible condition.

It would be more fiscally responsable to let her/him keep the house and leave non-profit organisation or a governement sponsored food distribution organisation feed her/him.

Less costly than institutionalisation, (50k and more a year for that), will not needlessly clog the homeless aid program who are already verry busy and will not put his/her own family in financial trouble.

[Bud Struggle]

Indeed....


But, my friend- these other plans are our plans!

Hasta la Victoria Siempre!

Capitalism is a phase, a development- the problem is when people resist the next phase and thus bring about wars, starvation, inequality and bad neighbourliness in a selfish act of preservation and greed.

Ah yes, and I see Capitalism, throught refinements and changes going on forever, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.


BUT.........

xZbKHDPPrrc

:)

[Bud Struggle]

throwing senior out of their house is something that, beside being utterly disgusting, is fiscally irresponsable bud.

You are a cappie, so i will speak with words that are able to understand :D

if you throw someone out of his house, especially if this person is disabled or elderly, you have to take care of him/her.

this mean paperwork, governement bureaucracy, shelter and food cost, maintenance of the building in wich this person is sheltered.

if his/her family decide to take care of him/her, well, it mean those two person wont be able to use their money to lets say, finance their children college education, or buying useless shit to make the economy ''work''

if you throw this person in the street, making him/her homeless, you will create a social problem that will require even more money to ''fix'' not to mention the risk of spreading infection and other disease to the whole population by letting her/him live in horrible condition.

It would be more fiscally responsable to let her/him keep the house and leave non-profit organisation or a governement sponsored food distribution organisation feed her/him.

Less costly than institutionalisation, (50k and more a year for that), will not needlessly clog the homeless aid program who are already verry busy and will not put his/her own family in financial trouble.

Yes it is all bad and it all sucks. And you're right--it's BAD CAPITALISM. So these people aren't really Capitalists at all.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes it is all bad and it all sucks. And you're right--it's BAD CAPITALISM. So these people aren't really Capitalists at all.

To take up dannyboy's argument - so fiscally irresponsible capitalism is no capitalism at all?
Interesting.

[#FF0000]

Ah yes, and I see Capitalism, throught refinements and changes going on forever, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

I thought you said you were a materialist you silly guy

[Bud Struggle]

To take up dannyboy's argument - so fiscally irresponsible capitalism is no capitalism at all?
Interesting.

No it's BAD capitalsim. Just as Stalinism was bad Communism.

[Bud Struggle]

I thought you said you were a materialist you silly guy

I personally think it is the energizer Bunny. It will just keep going--because there is nothing WORKABLE that is better.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Everything is AS IT IS. there is nothing other. Communists aren't idealists--they live in reality not some idealized beliefs of fairyland where everyone plays by certain rules.

Capitalsim is what it is. Sometimes good sometimes bad it lives with and by it's mistakes.


Yes it is all bad and it all sucks. And you're right--it's BAD CAPITALISM. So these people aren't really Capitalists at all.

You aren't being consistent here, Bud. You obviously do have some idealized version in your head of how capitalism should work. It is ok for humans to have ideals. I wouldn't believe anybody who said they didn't. What you are doing when you say "there's good capitalists and there's bad, thats just how it works", is lazily turning a blind eye to the capitalist ideals that you and everyone here knows you have. If you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for capitalism, you need to either:

a) Explain why and how the event in the article is a deviation from capitalism and what measures can be taken to avoid these things so that market forces will do what they are ideally supposed to do (provide for the general welfare)

OR

b) Admit that this stuff happens all the time under capitalism (which is what it seems like you are doing), and try to justify it from a utilitarian or moralistic perspective.

OR

c) Admit that this stuff happens all the time under capitalism and explain what measures can be taken to avoid these things so that market forces can be curbed and the economy can do what it is ideally supposed to do (provide for the general welfare).

[Bud Struggle]

You aren't being consistent here, Bud. You obviously do have some idealized version in your head of how capitalism should work. It is ok for humans to have ideals. I wouldn't believe anybody who said they didn't. What you are doing when you say "there's good capitalists and there's bad, thats just how it works", is lazily turning a blind eye to the capitalist ideals that you and everyone here knows you have. If you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for capitalism, you need to either: It's not about ideals. It's about how things are.


a) Explain why and how the event in the article is a deviation from capitalism and what measures can be taken to avoid these things so that market forces will do what they are ideally supposed to do (provide for the general welfare)

OR

b) Admit that this stuff happens all the time under capitalism (which is what it seems like you are doing), and try to justify it from a utilitarian or moralistic perspective.

OR

c) Admit that this stuff happens all the time under capitalism and explain what measures can be taken to avoid these things so that market forces can be curbed and the economy can do what it is ideally supposed to do (provide for the general welfare).

You miss the point. None of this really MATTERS. Capitalism just is what it is. If we want it to be more compassionate--then it can be. It's not about the system at all. It's about some bastard in this case doing things that are not fitting with the common mores on how to behave. It's not about some economic system.

Same with bad Communist leaders--it's not about what Marx wrote--it's about how particular people used Marx's ideas in the world. And Communism is really beautiful in the book, So is Capitalism, so is Christianity--everybody loving one another, so is Islam. Big deal--all we have is what individual people do. The system is just putty in the hands oif individual actors.

Now some systems tend to produce better results than others--communism hasn't done to well in practice abd now it's gone for the most part, that's just a fact. And Capitalism doesn't do that well either.

Right now there is no serious competition to Capitalism.

[Baseball]

The journalist suggested the problem began when the lady's husband died without a will (ie. a tool which would have transferred ownership to his wife. In other words, a mechanism which would determine why that lady should live in that house as opposed to those squatters from that other video posted).

Naturally, absent "property rights" a socialist system would need to have a justification for why she was living in that house "for years," why she and her husband were entitled to it in the first place. Socialism cannot complain about the evils of her being evicted without explaining how she winds up in that house originally, as opposed to somebody else. But as usual, socialism simply looks at one aspect of the problem, and ignores the rest.

From a journalist angle, it was a piss-poor report. It doesn't explain why her name was not on the house deed (which would have protected her right to the house far more effectively than a socialist system which, after all, says she cannot own it). It sounds like the battle with Fanny Mae meant she was not paying her mortgage, and that her husband did not have life insurance, or perhaps she did not use for the mortgage.

[#FF0000]

bureaucracy - it's okay when rich people do it

[danyboy27]

Yes it is all bad and it all sucks. And you're right--it's BAD CAPITALISM. So these people aren't really Capitalists at all.

The problem is, in order to be fiscally responsable, most of the element of what actually make capitalism should be abolished, the result would be something in between socialism and capitalism.

For instance the sacro-saint dogma of private property would have to be abolished now and then in order to avoid fiscally unresponsable decision by the other capitalism, that would mean the state would have to be in a constant state of war with landowner and capitalists in order to force the shit out of them to be fiscally responsable.

But if you look at what capitalism is in reality, in its essence, for real, its not about being fiscally responsable, its not about giving a shit about the state, its about making money, owning land and workers, and living on it, it dosnt really matter what happen to the people around, what matter is having more and controling more.

Look at your country bro, do you really think IBM or GE really care about the state, being fiscally responsable, actually financing the infrastructures they are using in order to benefit from it? nope, what they really do want is to dismantle, purchase and run them for a buck.

they want their cake and charge the avearge joe for that slim piece they are willing to ''share'' with them.

kinda remember me a poem from a black plantation worker in the deep south during the slavery period.


we sow their weat,
they give us corn.
we make the bread,
they give us the crumb,
we skim the pot,
they give us the liquor,
and they say,
its just enough for a nig*er.

[Bud Struggle]

The problem is, in order to be fiscally responsable, most of the element of what actually make capitalism should be abolished, the result would be something in between socialism and capitalism.- And you are setting yourself up as lord and master of the world. Deciding what should and what should not be.


For instance the sacro-saint dogma of private property would have to be abolished now and then in order to avoid fiscally unresponsable decision by the other capitalism, that would mean the state would have to be in a constant state of war with landowner and capitalists in order to force the shit out of them to be fiscally responsable. Well that's most likely not going to happen.


But if you look at what capitalism is in reality, in its essence, for real, its not about being fiscally responsable, its not about giving a shit about the state, its about making money, owning land and workers, and living on it, it dosnt really matter what happen to the people around, what matter is having more and controling more. You are trying to make an economic plan do what people can't seem to do on their own. If people aren't willing to behave the way you feel is responsible then no economic system ever devised is going to do it for them. It's ultimately not about some system. It's about people.


Look at your country bro, do you really think IBM or GE really care about the state, being fiscally responsable, actually financing the infrastructures they are using in order to benefit from it? nope, what they really do want is to dismantle, purchase and run them for a buck.Look at the USSR , same stuff. Look at China, Look at everwhere Communism has been tried, it's not a hell of a lot different then where Capitalism has been tried. Ultinamely it's about humanity not economic systems.


they want their cake and charge the avearge joe for that slim piece they are willing to ''share'' with them. Except mostpeople in the US work for a company--and they are quite happy with their lot in life. People CAN read anything they please. This isn't Cuba that prohibits freedom of the press.

Here read all about it: http://socialistparty-usa.org/


kinda remember me a poem from a black plantation worker in the deep south during the slavery period.


we sow their weat,
they give us corn.
we make the bread,
they give us the crumb,
we skim the pot,
they give us the liquor,
and they say,
its just enough for a nig*er.

Except you and me aren't poor plantation workers.

[Revolution starts with U]

Im neg repping every "look what communism did" post from Bud from now on. He just won't give it up.
It's one of his only two arguments; look what Stalin did, and ra ra america.

[#FF0000]

Look at the USSR , same stuff. Look at China, Look at everwhere Communism has been tried, it's not a hell of a lot different then where Capitalism has been tried. Ultinamely it's about humanity not economic systems.

that's because these states have been, effectively capitalist ones.

so there you go.

[Bud Struggle]

Im neg repping every "look what communism did" post from Bud from now on. He just won't give it up.
It's one of his only two arguments; look what Stalin did, and ra ra america.

But this thread is "look how bad Capitalism is." :D But seriously Rev, that isn't what I was saying. I really don't care about Stalin--but you don't know what you end can end up with if you change the system. At least now in America we have a pretty workable system. That's why there is little interest in changing it.


that's because these states have been, effectively capitalist ones.

so there you go. My point is that it doesn't matter how good the system--it just decays into whatever humans to with it. It isn't the economic system--it's the people.

[Revolution starts with U]

No this thread is "look at the logical outcome of private property."

[Bud Struggle]

No this thread is "look at the logical outcome of private property."

I don't think so. It's all about a bunch of screw ups that made some unfortunate things happening. Further the reportage was pretty half assed in that it leaves alot of questions unanswered as Baseball pointed out.

It was a sensational piece used to garner emotion--not actually investigative journalism. Most property rights by far have littleto do with evictions or tricking people unjustly. It's just people using property as a source of income to make a couple of bucks.

[#FF0000]

My point is that it doesn't matter how good the system--it just decays into whatever humans to with it. It isn't the economic system--it's the people.

Mhm. I mean, no one's talking about a perfect system here. We're just pointing that after 200 something years, capitalism is still awful.

[StockholmSyndrome]

It's not about ideals. It's about how things are.



You miss the point. None of this really MATTERS. Capitalism just is what it is. If we want it to be more compassionate--then it can be. It's not about the system at all. It's about some bastard in this case doing things that are not fitting with the common mores on how to behave. It's not about some economic system.

Same with bad Communist leaders--it's not about what Marx wrote--it's about how particular people used Marx's ideas in the world. And Communism is really beautiful in the book, So is Capitalism, so is Christianity--everybody loving one another, so is Islam. Big deal--all we have is what individual people do. The system is just putty in the hands oif individual actors.

Now some systems tend to produce better results than others--communism hasn't done to well in practice abd now it's gone for the most part, that's just a fact. And Capitalism doesn't do that well either.

Right now there is no serious competition to Capitalism.

This fits into option B. You are taking the moralistic route. Ultimately, I guess it comes down to: people suck and Jesus is our only hope, right?

[danyboy27]

And you are setting yourself up as lord and master of the world. Deciding what should and what should not be.

I am not, i am just explaining what i think would be a capitalist system fiscally responsable according to the laws of logic.




Well that's most likely not going to happen.
.
Well of course that not going to happen, the deep contradiction within such system would make it collapse on itself really quickly.
The U.S used to be Fiscally responsable, you know, when the republican used to believe in public healthcare and public road, it didnt last for a reason, some folks had vested interest in changing the way things where going.




You are trying to make an economic plan do what people can't seem to do on their own. If people aren't willing to behave the way you feel is responsible then no economic system ever devised is going to do it for them. It's ultimately not about some system. It's about people.
.
a single individual holding nearly unlimited power is more likely to fuck up than a group of people bud, that a fact. that why capitalism is deeply flawed and not adapted to human nature. People can look after themselves and their collegues, a single individual with complete control over them cannot. Its capitalism that dosnt understand human nature, not communism or socialism.




Look at the USSR , same stuff. Look at China, Look at everwhere Communism has been tried, it's not a hell of a lot different then where Capitalism has been tried. Ultinamely it's about humanity not economic systems.

The problems with those systems where the same that the capitalist system always had bud, the concentration of unlimited power in the hand of a fews, of course they fucked up bud, of course. That why elitism is flawed and not sustanable. Beccause one day or another, pitchfork and torch will destroy everything they tried to build.



Except mostpeople in the US work for a company--and they are quite happy with their lot in life. People CAN read anything they please. This isn't Cuba that prohibits freedom of the press.
Here read all about it: http://socialistparty-usa.org/

Freedom dosnt mean anything if you are not allowed to control the press, or the media.
Most people arnt quite happy at the moment, they are scared shitless of loosing their job, they are overworked, stressed out, tired, they are affraid.

Despite what they would like us to believe, deep down inside, something fucking wrong, they know that, but they are mostly resigned to their fate. i am not.



Except you and me aren't poor plantation workers.
Well, no we are not, but the deal the big capitalist want us to take is quite similar. While we work our ass off , 50 hours a week, we will get less service, a 80 dollars tax cut while those folks will got fucking billion of bailout and tax cut from the governement.

i think the analogy is fitting, we are merely slave in the plantation of the freemarket, almost doomed to become the slave of someone, some give more perk than other, but bottom like, we got the crumb, and those guy think its perfectly fine for us, while they got most of the cake for themselves.

[RGacky3]

As if there were actual rules.:rolleyes::lol:

The kind of stuff you post is pure emotionalism. It has nothing to do with Communism per se. Nothing. You continually post sad eyed kitty stories about how the BAD Capitalists--in this instance--evected some old lady, or some cat, or watever. It'ssad, but it doesn't speak to the issue. You think there are RULES for any of this? There aren't. there are no rules for Communsm or Capitalism or anything else.

Lenninism is Communism as it exists in the world. No Successful Revolutionary is reading some textbook on Socialism. No successful Capitalist is reade books on classical Capitalsim. Everything is AS IT IS. there is nothing other. Communists aren't idealists--they live in reality not some idealized beliefs of fairyland where everyone plays by certain rules.

Capitalsim is what it is. Sometimes good sometimes bad it lives with and by it's mistakes. Communism is the same--what you saw in the world is EACTLY what Communism look like when tried in real life. Want to change it for the better--well maybe? But if you do you have to rise above sad stories that tug at people's heart strings and get into the problems of real life.

No, it's always got to be about the sad puppy and evil Capitalist.

There aren't any rules. Ever. There is only what is.

(It's pretty sad that I'm the one arguing Materialism and the Communists are the ones arguing Idealism. :D )

WHo said anything about rules, when you have an eocnomy based on private property, markets and the profit motive THIS is what you get.

Your not making any arguments here, nor are you making any argumetns about how leninism is communism in the actual world, your juts saying it is.

These are not BAD capitalists, this is the result of capitalism, its not some sad puppy story ITS FUCKING LIFE FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.


But this thread is "look how bad Capitalism is." :D But seriously Rev, that isn't what I was saying. I really don't care about Stalin--but you don't know what you end can end up with if you change the system. At least now in America we have a pretty workable system. That's why there is little interest in changing it.


Bud the US is the richest country in the world with the worst poverty, healthcare, hunger and so on in the industrialized world, the American system is pretty much the worst there is amung the first world nations.


I don't think so. It's all about a bunch of screw ups that made some unfortunate things happening. Further the reportage was pretty half assed in that it leaves alot of questions unanswered as Baseball pointed out.

It was a sensational piece used to garner emotion--not actually investigative journalism. Most property rights by far have littleto do with evictions or tricking people unjustly. It's just people using property as a source of income to make a couple of bucks.

No Bud, this shit happens all the time, this is not sensationalism, its actually the outcome of private property and profit motive (i.e. capitalism), I suggest you also read the article.


You miss the point. None of this really MATTERS. Capitalism just is what it is. If we want it to be more compassionate--then it can be. It's not about the system at all. It's about some bastard in this case doing things that are not fitting with the common mores on how to behave. It's not about some economic system.


No Bud its about the economic system, its not like people are just more dickish in the US, what kind of moronic analysis is that "its just people are mean." This is the logical outcome of Capitalism (markets, profit motive and private property).

[RGacky3]

BTW, juts to point out Bud has not made ONE argument about the event itself, not ONE argument about the actual eviction problem, not ONE about the effects of private property laws and the profit motive.

He does'nt have ANY arguments, just clownish rants that are irrelivant to the discussion, your an intellectual child Bud.

[#FF0000]

BTW, juts to point out Bud has not made ONE argument about the event itself, not ONE argument about the actual eviction problem, not ONE about the effects of private property laws and the profit motive.

He does'nt have ANY arguments, just clownish rants that are irrelivant to the discussion, your an intellectual child Bud.

my favorite part of this is that you are the one saying it.

[RGacky3]

my favorite part of this is that you are the one saying it.

Come back when you have a point.

[#FF0000]

Come back when you have a point.

you are a guy who flips the fuck out and jumps to insulting people (read: Bud) all the time so you shouldn't be lecturing people on intellectual maturity.

I mean granted literally everybody flames everybody but when you do it it's more like a tantrum.

[Bud Struggle]

WHo said anything about rules, when you have an eocnomy based on private property, markets and the profit motive THIS is what you get. And when one attempts Communism one gets--Leninism. Both are nothing more than observable facts.


Your not making any arguments here, nor are you making any argumetns about how leninism is communism in the actual world, your juts saying it is. Yes in the same way that people are saying that this video is Capitalism in the real world. They observe and they comment.


These are not BAD capitalists, this is the result of capitalism, its not some sad puppy story ITS FUCKING LIFE FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. You are preaching here.


Bud the US is the richest country in the world with the worst poverty, healthcare, hunger and so on in the industrialized world, the American system is pretty much the worst there is amung the first world nations. It is byfar the largest of First World Nations. It's not some little botique country with little botique troubles. And of course things go wrong--but the US is quite a successful place for the vast majority of Americans.


No Bud, this shit happens all the time, this is not sensationalism, its actually the outcome of private property and profit motive (i.e. capitalism), I suggest you also read the article. As much as gulags and secret police are the result of Communism,I suppose.


No Bud its about the economic system, its not like people are just more dickish in the US, what kind of moronic analysis is that "its just people are mean." This is the logical outcome of Capitalism (markets, profit motive and private property). No some people are mean--not all people. Again you have your beliefs, but what you see as obvious isn't all that obvious to most people--at least in America.

[ComradeMan]

It is byfar the largest of First World Nations. It's not some little botique country with little botique troubles. And of course things go wrong--but the US is quite a successful place for the vast majority of Americans.

Hmm... at what cost to the rest of us?

[#FF0000]

And when one attempts Communism one gets--Leninism. Both are nothing more than observable facts.

Man, I hate how folks are using "Leninism" now as a catch-all for shit they don't like or whatever without actually knowing a thing about what Leninism really is.

Seriously, I get the feeling that Gacky's never read Lenin, but rather, has read what other people (Probably Chomsky. Just Chomsky)have said about Lenin.

So cut it out, because Lenin's work isn't necessarily this totalitarian nightmare dystopia stuff you associate with Stalin. You realize there are left-communists who are heavily influenced by Lenin, right? Ever hear of Bordiga? He was an Italian communist who criticized the USSR as a capitalist society. And, unless I'm totally wrong, they used to say the dude was "More Leninist than Lenin".

So cut it out.

Note: This isn't directed at Bud or Gacky or anyone in particular. Maybe Gacky.

[ComradeMan]

Man, I hate how folks are using "Leninism" now as a catch-all for shit they don't like or whatever without actually knowing a thing about what Leninism really is.

Seriously, I get the feeling that Gacky's never read Lenin, but rather, has read what other people (Probably Chomsky. Just Chomsky)have said about Lenin.

So cut it out, because Lenin's work isn't necessarily this totalitarian nightmare dystopia stuff you associate with Stalin. You realize there are left-communists who are heavily influenced by Lenin, right? Ever hear of Bordiga? He was an Italian communist who criticized the USSR as a capitalist society. And, unless I'm totally wrong, they used to say the dude was "More Leninist than Lenin".

So cut it out.

Note: This isn't directed at Bud or Gacky or anyone in particular.


But Bordiga did not really do the whole idea of "working class" but cared only about the likeminded people of the party, I am not too keen on him to be honest.

[danyboy27]

your logic is flawed bud.

if a multiple number of individual in life have tried to put out a fire with gasoline, does it mean that its somehow wrong to try to put out a fire?

no, it only mean you can use fuel to put out a fire.

Its the same thing with communism.

[RGacky3]

you are a guy who flips the fuck out and jumps to insulting people (read: Bud) all the time so you shouldn't be lecturing people on intellectual maturity.

I mean granted literally everybody flames everybody but when you do it it's more like a tantrum.

Buds been doing the same bullshit strawmen the whole time he's been here, his argumetns get debunked and he just repeats them, so I insult him, and yeah, I lecture him on intellectual maturity.


So cut it out, because Lenin's work isn't necessarily this totalitarian nightmare dystopia stuff you associate with Stalin. You realize there are left-communists who are heavily influenced by Lenin, right? Ever hear of Bordiga? He was an Italian communist who criticized the USSR as a capitalist society. And, unless I'm totally wrong, they used to say the dude was "More Leninist than Lenin".


Every argument I've had with LEninist has been based on what LENIN did, and the outcome of his policies.


And when one attempts Communism one gets--Leninism. Both are nothing more than observable facts.


No Bud, when one attempts Leninism that is what one gets, just because you say its true does'nt make it true.


Yes in the same way that people are saying that this video is Capitalism in the real world. They observe and they comment.


I've made arguments linking the structure of Capitalism and the outcome all the time, and its obvious, you hav'nt done the same about socialism once, not once, and its because you can't.


You are preaching here.


Thats not preaching Bud, its pointing out a fact that you fail to grasp.


It is byfar the largest of First World Nations. It's not some little botique country with little botique troubles. And of course things go wrong--but the US is quite a successful place for the vast majority of Americans.


WIth a Giant per Capita GDP, so that does'nt matter, and its cut into much smaller segmants, also no the US is not quite a successful place for the majority of Americans, 1% controlling more than the bottom 90% is a failure. The US has the largest economy, but the policy it has with it is shit, and its been proven to be. The US is becoming a third world country yet your still trying to hold it up as successful.


As much as gulags and secret police are the result of Communism,I suppose.


Make the link, other than a country CALLED itself communist, thats all you have, you don't have a link between socialist economic structures and gulags, you can't make one, because there IS NONE. If you made one thats an actual argument, (here I"m lecturing you on intellectual maturity).

THe way it works is I point out Capitalist structures that lead to certain outcomes (capitalist structures are not just "they call themselves capitalist"), if you want to make a serious argument you have to do the same.


No some people are mean--not all people. Again you have your beliefs, but what you see as obvious isn't all that obvious to most people--at least in America.

Yeah some people are mean, but is that your explination for the problems in Capitalism? Such as this? I hope not, because if it is its kind of stupid.

If the success or poverty of people is based on whether or not some people are mean or nice, then you have a crappy system.

Also you have no idea what is obvious to most people in America, and you reject the only evidense avialable to check that (i.e. polls and the such), becuase they don't work in your favor, facts are stubbern things Bud and they are troublesome when you have an ideology such as yours.

[Bud Struggle]

No Bud, when one attempts Leninism that is what one gets, just because you say its true does'nt make it true. No they try Communism. It just all turns out the same. It's how Ho Che Min and Kim IL Sung and Tito and every attempt at Communism turns out. So will all the other attempts at Communism. It's what Communism is in real life. Jist like Capitalism is what the United States is in real life.


I've made arguments linking the structure of Capitalism and the outcome all the time, and its obvious, you hav'nt done the same about socialism once, not once, and its because you can't. I really don't care much about what you SAY is the structure of anything. AllI know is what I see--I see the USA, and the USSR and China and North Korea.


Thats not preaching Bud, its pointing out a fact that you fail to grasp. You preach.


WIth a Giant per Capita GDP, so that does'nt matter, and its cut into much smaller segmants, also no the US is not quite a successful place for the majority of Americans, 1% controlling more than the bottom 90% is a failure. The US has the largest economy, but the policy it has with it is shit, and its been proven to be. The US is becoming a third world country yet your still trying to hold it up as successful. There are problems. There are always problems. Capitalisn't static it has problems and rises and falls and then rises again. It's just society and economics works. It's not a fairyland.


Make the link, other than a country CALLED itself communist, thats all you have, you don't have a link between socialist economic structures and gulags, you can't make one, because there IS NONE. If you made one thats an actual argument, (here I"m lecturing you on intellectual maturity). It is what Communism looks like IN THE REAL WORLD. Not you dream world of happy union workers in Socialistland. Communism has been tried 50 times and it is always ends quite similar. Your "ideal" of Communism has never existed and probably never will--you are comparing the REAL United States to some fairly land that only exists in your (and a few other's) mind.


THe way it works is I point out Capitalist structures that lead to certain outcomes (capitalist structures are not just "they call themselves capitalist"), if you want to make a serious argument you have to do the same. But you are the one with the fantasy ideal.


Also you have no idea what is obvious to most people in America, and you reject the only evidense avialable to check that (i.e. polls and the such), becuase they don't work in your favor, facts are stubbern things Bud and they are troublesome when you have an ideology such as yours. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that people are smart and they have the ability to vote any way they want--they aren't the sheep you suppose--if they want change they can get it every two years.

People that won't organize to votew--won't organize to Revolt. The media for the Left is there on line--right next to the media from the right, all just a click away. The only poll that mattersis the vote. And for that matter, all you Cosmo polls and such are not scientific--they are fluff.

Gack--you are deluded. Not a bad thing if you keep it to one or two subjects, but your idea of the future is highly improbable, at least for a long longtime.

[RGacky3]

I really don't care much about what you SAY is the structure of anything. AllI know is what I see--I see the USA, and the USSR and China and North Korea.


Thus your a Child intellectually, if you can't analyse the structure of a system, and you just go by the labels, I can't help you. Your an idiot, or you just refuse to go deeper into actual policies because your on the loosing side.


No they try Communism. It just all turns out the same. It's how Ho Che Min and Kim IL Sung and Tito and every attempt at Communism turns out. So will all the other attempts at Communism. It's what Communism is in real life. Jist like Capitalism is what the United States is in real life.


No Bud,
Lets try this again.

Those countries ,did they ahe workers control of indsutry? NO, did they have a democratic economy? NO, MEANING BY DEFINITION THEY WERE NOT SOCIALIST.

Does the US have a market system, yes, private property? yes, is the economy mainly for profit? Yes, THUS BY DEFINITION IT IS CAPITALIST.

If you can't grasp that, and instead just see the red flags and the stars and stripes, then I can't help you.


Yet you refuse to acknowledge that people are smart and they have the ability to vote any way they want--they aren't the sheep you suppose--if they want change they can get it every two years.

People that won't organize to votew--won't organize to Revolt. The media for the Left is there on line--right next to the media from the right, all just a click away. The only poll that mattersis the vote. And for that matter, all you Cosmo polls and such are not scientific--they are fluff.

Gack--you are deluded. Not a bad thing if you keep it to one or two subjects, but your idea of the future is highly improbable, at least for a long longtime.

And you refuse to acnowledge that the AMerican democratic system is rigged, that most people (for good reason) don't vote, and that politicians follow buisiness leaders policies anyway.

Bud, your deluded, your the one that things AMerica works, that its doing fine.

By the way if your judging public opinion, you don't go by elections, you go by actual scientific polls and actual scientists and people that study public opinion use.

But clearly you have NO interest in facts, science, structures, or really anything. Either your just not intelligent at all, or so entrenched in your narrative that your blind to facts.

Now be an adult, and adress the actual point of the thread.

[Revolution starts with U]

No they try Communism. It just all turns out the same. It's how Ho Che Min and Kim IL Sung and Tito and every attempt at Communism turns out. So will all the other attempts at Communism. It's what Communism is in real life. Jist like Capitalism is what the United States is in real life.


No, they don't.


I really don't care much about what you SAY is the structure of anything. AllI know is what I see--I see the USA, and the USSR and China and North Korea.

Anarchist catalonia? Ansanto?
Plus, why only the US (and maybe some other white countries)? What about Brazil? Pinochet? Thailand? Saudi Arabia?
You're a blind ideologue. You've been told the same things 5 million times and yet you continue to harp on about nothing.



You preach.

Preaching would be pointing out you're going to hell. "Lo, it is harder to pass a camel through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven." :D



It is what Communism looks like IN THE REAL WORLD. Not you dream world of happy union workers in Socialistland. Communism has been tried 50 times and it is always ends quite similar. Your "ideal" of Communism has never existed and probably never will--you are comparing the REAL United States to some fairly land that only exists in your (and a few other's) mind.

See above.



Yet you refuse to acknowledge that people are smart and they have the ability to vote any way they want--they aren't the sheep you suppose--if they want change they can get it every two years.

Gacky consistently points out that the left loses when less people vote. But you're such a blind ideologue all you hear is "everybody's a leftist or brainwashed."
He's saying most people are disenfranchised, not stupid.



Gack--you are deluded. Not a bad thing if you keep it to one or two subjects, but your idea of the future is highly improbable, at least for a long longtime.

Bud-- you are deluded. What are those Ohio lottery numbers again?

[Tim Finnegan]

And when one attempts Communism one gets--Leninism.
...Pardon? :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

...Pardon? :confused:

Juche? :D

[Bud Struggle]

Let's do this Gacky style. :D

Thus your a Child intellectually, if you can't analyse the structure of a system, and you just go by the labels, I can't help you. Your an idiot, or you just refuse to go deeper into actual policies because your on the loosing side. The problem with you Gacky is that you have never escaped the first level of Pre school understanding of anything political. You feel that sucking someone elses thumb is the sucking your own because all thumbs belong to all people. Your understanding of who is the possessor of who's thumb is totally superficial.




No Bud,
Lets try this again. No Gacky--you need to understand how Communism works in the real world. There is not nor has there eve been any sort of "Communism" as you in your fantasy describe it. It is nothing more than your delusion.


Those countries ,did they ahe workers control of indsutry? NO, did they have a democratic economy? NO, MEANING BY DEFINITION THEY WERE NOT SOCIALIST. Theycalled themselves Socialist. They had "Socialist" in their name. Who is some Chicano in Norway to tell billions of people that they were wrong. I don't give a damn what your dream Communism looks like--they thought they were Socialist. Billions to one--I believe them.


Does the US have a market system, yes, private property? yes, is the economy mainly for profit? Yes, THUS BY DEFINITION IT IS CAPITALIST. Fine--they never said they weren't.


If you can't grasp that, and instead just see the red flags and the stars and stripes, then I can't help you. Never said they weren't. The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics--never said they weren't Socialist. See how easy it is?


And you refuse to acnowledge that the AMerican democratic system is rigged, that most people (for good reason) don't vote, and that politicians follow buisiness leaders policies anyway. The American system works for those who play it. If you sit on the sidelines you always loose. ALWAYS.


Bud, your deluded, your the one that things AMerica works, that its doing fine. I an the son of Immigrants--I played the system to my advantage. You are just making excuses for being lazy.


By the way if your judging public opinion, you don't go by elections, you go by actual scientific polls and actual scientists and people that study public opinion use. Opinion polls don't count. Your opinion of Socialism doesn't count--all that counts is REALITY. The USSR and American elections they are real--all the rest is your delusion.


But clearly you have NO interest in facts, science, structures, or really anything. Either your just not intelligent at all, or so entrenched in your narrative that your blind to facts. Fact--Obama is President. Fact--the Tea Party won a mandate and is using it. You have any other facts?


Now be an adult, and adress the actual point of the thread. :)

[Tim Finnegan]

Fact--the Tea Party won a mandate...
:confused:

[RGacky3]

Notice, Bud in his ENTIRE post, has'nt made one argument defending any Capitalist structure, or defining any socialist structure and attacking it, nothing, he has'nt made any argument. The best he can come up with is they called them self socialist (as far as billions of people you don't have a clue what your talking about, you don't know billions of poeple, billions of people get that North Korea is'nt socialist).

You can't make an argument, you don't know how capitalism works so you can't defend it.

YOu hav'nt used any facts except what happened to you personally, you hav'nt explained why its actually failing for most of the people..

You hav'nt made an argument about why the USSR was socialist, or how the bad things that happened were an outcome of whatever socialism was there, all you have is the name, you doubtfully have ANY idea how the system actually worked.

YOu ignored most of my post explaining what Capitalism is, how it leads to problems, what socialism is, and how it was'nt implimented in the USSR, you ignore it.

Look Bud, you can keep posting here if you want, just don't expect any one to respect your posts, because you can't make arguments.


Fact--Obama is President. Fact--the Tea Party won a mandate and is using it. You have any other facts?


Fact, Obama won running on an exteremely progressive ticket, but refused to enact it due to wallstreet pressure (bowing to them).

Fact, Tea party won an a really really low voter turnout caused by Obamas failure to actually be progressive.

Fact, the American electoral systesm is the least democratic in the western world and thus is the most inefficient way to cause any change.


Opinion polls don't count. Your opinion of Socialism doesn't count--all that counts is REALITY. The USSR and American elections they are real--all the rest is your delusion.


Yes, so why not talk about how the USSR and the US REALLY worked.

YOur the only person in the world that think words like socialism have no meaning and can be applied ot anything that calls itself socialism.

Your hte only person in the world that thinks that elections in a highly corrupt system are a better gague of public opinion than actual scientific polls.

Your alone there Bud.


Theycalled themselves Socialist. They had "Socialist" in their name. Who is some Chicano in Norway to tell billions of people that they were wrong. I don't give a damn what your dream Communism looks like--they thought they were Socialist. Billions to one--I believe them.


Your a fucking idiot.

I'll repeat myself.

"Those countries ,did they ahe workers control of indsutry? NO, did they have a democratic economy? NO, MEANING BY DEFINITION THEY WERE NOT SOCIALIST."

That is the accepted definition of socialism by pretty much EVERYONE, so if the USSR was not that then it is by definition not socialist, your best argument is the name ...

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Baseball]

I've made arguments linking the structure of Capitalism and the outcome all the time, and its obvious, you hav'nt done the same about socialism once, not once, and its because you can't.

One of the problems which non-socialists have in discussing socialism with people who insist they are socialist, is that such socialists will often deny the other person claiming to be a socialist is not a socialist. "that's not what I believe" is the chorus.



THe way it works is I point out Capitalist structures that lead to certain outcomes (capitalist structures are not just "they call themselves capitalist"), if you want to make a serious argument you have to do the same.

Non-socialists have done this. However, the response tends to be as above- "that's not what I believe."



If the success or poverty of people is based on whether or not some people are mean or nice, then you have a crappy system.

Ok. So to get back to the original thread, what is the SOCIALIST explanation, within the sphere of socialism, for this grandmother to continue living in this house? Clearly it cannot be "property rights." Now gacky, you haver often said socialism is about "democracy." So might this be the justification for her to continue to live in this house? I can see no other. But doesn't that mean that the majority of the people have to be nice; that her living in this particular house is based only upon the kind-heartedness of people?

[RGacky3]

One of the problems which non-socialists have in discussing socialism with people who insist they are socialist, is that such socialists will often deny the other person claiming to be a socialist is not a socialist. "that's not what I believe" is the chorus.


II make it abundently clear what I support and what I do not, and its not based on names, its based on defining principles, so if your going to debate me, you can't make up a soviet strawman.


Clearly it cannot be "property rights." Now gacky, you haver often said socialism is about "democracy." So might this be the justification for her to continue to live in this house? I can see no other. But doesn't that mean that the majority of the people have to be nice; that her living in this particular house is based only upon the kind-heartedness of people?

Well the whole system of housing should be public, i.e. protected by public institutions, banks should not be able to take some ones house, plain and simple. Its not based on kind-heartedness, its based on mutual benefit, a community has nothing to gain from kicking someone out of their house, a bank, has lots of money to gain, infact that bank MUST kick her out if they can if it gets them more money. Housing should be a public right (if it was, as it is in other places, this sort of thing would'nt happen).

[#FF0000]

One of the problems which non-socialists have in discussing socialism with people who insist they are socialist, is that such socialists will often deny the other person claiming to be a socialist is not a socialist. "that's not what I believe" is the chorus.


Non-socialists have done this. However, the response tends to be as above- "that's not what I believe."

Well, yeah. Marxism-Leninism and Maoism aren't the only branches of Leftist thought and even Marxists-Leninists will tell you that the USSR, for it's faults, was more or less a product of its situation (that is - Russia was a backwards agrarian society just before the revolution, as opposed to the advanced industrial societies everywhere else in Europe).

So, yeah. I don't see what's wrong with saying "That's not what we believe" when it isn't what we believe.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2070410]II make it abundently clear what I support and what I do not, and its not based on names, its based on defining principles, so if your going to debate me, you can't make up a soviet strawman.

Yes. Which is what I said-- the other fellow is not a real socialist.




Well the whole system of housing should be public, i.e. protected by public institutions, banks should not be able to take some ones house, plain and simple.

In such a "public" situation, it is doubtful that one would obtain housing via a bank.
Which is what I asked about earlier: In a socialist system, how does this woman ORIGINALLY wind up in THAT house?


Its not based on kind-heartedness, its based on mutual benefit, a community has nothing to gain from kicking someone out of their house,

Sure it does-- look at the situation. That house was a nice sized house; probably has three or four bedrooms. Even a small private backyard. Yet the only person being evicted is the grandmother, from which one can reasonably conclude she is the only person residing there. But are we to conclude there is NOBODY in the community who can benefit from living in a three or four bedroom house? There are no young parents with small kids or parents expecting kids in the entire city? Is it to the community's benefit that those kids grow up in a larger house, or a small apartment?


a bank, has lots of money to gain, infact that bank MUST kick her out if they can if it gets them more money.

Foreclosure is expensive for the banks. They would much rather have somebody stay in the house than evict 'em.


Housing should be a public right (if it was, as it is in other places, this sort of thing would'nt happen).

There is no reason to believe this would be true. Upon what basis would that grandmother have a RIGHT to live in THAT house, in a socialist system (as opposed to a generic "right" to have housing)?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Upon what basis would that grandmother have a RIGHT to live in THAT house, in a socialist system (as opposed to a generic "right" to have housing)?

Upon the same basis that you currently have the RIGHT to a lawyer if you have to go to court. It's not just a "generic right to counsel". You cannot legally be denied counsel. If you can't afford it for yourself, the state must provide it for you. Understand?

[Bud Struggle]

Notice, Bud in his ENTIRE post, has'nt made one argument defending any Capitalist structure, or defining any socialist structure and attacking it, nothing, he has'nt made any argument. The best he can come up with is they called them self socialist (as far as billions of people you don't have a clue what your talking about, you don't know billions of poeple, billions of people get that North Korea is'nt socialist). "Notice O Romans, Cato's argument falls to dust!" Nice bit of rhetoric 101.


You can't make an argument, you don't know how capitalism works so you can't defend it. The "You are so STUPID" argument. :rolleyes:


YOu hav'nt used any facts except what happened to you personally, you hav'nt explained why its actually failing for most of the people.. It is what it is.


You hav'nt made an argument about why the USSR was socialist, or how the bad things that happened were an outcome of whatever socialism was there, all you have is the name, you doubtfully have ANY idea how the system actually worked. If the USSR wasn't Socialist--then there is no such thing as Socialist. Then it's a figment of some people's imagenation. Then Socialism is Utopia or fairyland. Maybe the fairyland explaination works better for you. Maybe in Socialism there will be dragons and unicorns. Me, I'm a realist.


YOu ignored most of my post explaining what Capitalism is, how it leads to problems, what socialism is, and how it was'nt implimented in the USSR, you ignore it. I just think it's fantasy to believe all those attempts at Comminism A) weren't sincere and B) just the way things ALWAYS tun out when people try Communism. You haven't explained why the USSR is ALWAYS the way Communism happens.


Look Bud, you can keep posting here if you want, just don't expect any one to respect your posts, because you can't make arguments. Yea. No one ever responds to my posts. I guess I'll continue to live in isolation as I always have. Another delusion of yours. ;)


Fact, Obama won running on an exteremely progressive ticket, but refused to enact it due to wallstreet pressure (bowing to them). Fact: he was a Democrat and it was time the Democrats won.


Fact, Tea party won an a really really low voter turnout caused by Obamas failure to actually be progressive. Fact: there is no progressive vote.


Fact, the American electoral systesm is the least democratic in the western world and thus is the most inefficient way to cause any change. Fact: the American electorial system can be whatever the voters wish iot to be. It's wish is what it is now.


YOur the only person in the world that think words like socialism have no meaning and can be applied ot anything that calls itself socialism. They are what they say they are.


Your hte only person in the world that thinks that elections in a highly corrupt system are a better gague of public opinion than actual scientific polls. Vanity Fair is NOT Scientific. Really.


Your alone there Bud. Maybe on RevLEft--but on planet earth--I'd do quite well. :D


Your a fucking idiot. Emo. :D


I'll repeat myself. Not the first time.


"Those countries ,did they ahe workers control of indsutry? NO, did they have a democratic economy? NO, MEANING BY DEFINITION THEY WERE NOT SOCIALIST." Who cares what YOUR definition is? Really.


That is the accepted definition of socialism by pretty much EVERYONE, so if the USSR was not that then it is by definition not socialist, your best argument is the name ... There were just Russians in disguise, I guess.


How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? GREAT RANT, Bro! :D

[Revolution starts with U]

Notice O Romans, Cato's argument falls to dust!" Nice bit of rhetoric 101.

The "You are so STUPID" argument. :rolleyes:

Well, to be fair... you are stupid. :lol:


It is what it is.

If the USSR wasn't Socialist--then there is no such thing as Socialist. Then it's a figment of some people's imagenation. Then Socialism is Utopia or fairyland. Maybe the fairyland explaination works better for you. Maybe in Socialism there will be dragons and unicorns. Me, I'm a realist.

Socialism means democratic worker control of the economy. If you can show how the USSR had that, you're right to call it socialist. If you were really a realist you would call these things "attempts at socialism" (altho that could be refuted as well).
Capitalism means private control of the economy, which is what we have (albeit tempered by the public somewhat, hence why they call it a "mixed economy.).
We're saying it is what it is. You're saying it is what was attempted.
Of course you'll just continue saying the same thing because you don't know what learning is; hence "you're stupid." This would be fine if you would ever give a counter argument. BUt you don't. You just repeat the same fallacy ad infinitum (or w/e. Comrademan can correct my Latin).



I just think it's fantasy to believe all those attempts at Comminism A) weren't sincere and B) just the way things ALWAYS tun out when people try Communism. You haven't explained why the USSR is ALWAYS the way things happen.

Anarchist Catalonia.


Yea. No one ever responds to my posts. I guess I'll continue to live in isolation as I always have. Another delusion of yours. ;)

He said respect, not respond. Hence, "you're stupid."


Fact: he was a Democrat and it was time the Democrats won.

That makes no sense. You're basically saying all votes come down to destiny... maybe you want to clarify this statement?



Fact: there is no progressive vote.

Except for, you know, what Obama ran on. Or Kucinich, or Sanders...



Fact:the American electorial system can be whatever the voters wish iot to be. It's wish is what it is now.

Except for when politicians run on progressive/conservative tickets but continue to govern exactly as the rich want them to....



They are what they say they are.

ICP says they're immortal....



Vanity Fair is NOT Scientific. Really.

That's just being flat out disengenous. So now, you're a stupid liar. :D



Your a fucking idiot.

I'll repeat myself.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, to be fair... you are stupid. :lol: And I read no further. :)

[#FF0000]

There is no reason to believe this would be true. Upon what basis would that grandmother have a RIGHT to live in THAT house, in a socialist system (as opposed to a generic "right" to have housing)?

To be honest, even if she didn't get to stay in THAT house, at the very least, socialism guarantees her a house, which is way more than what we can say for Capitalism.

[Baseball]

Upon the same basis that you currently have the RIGHT to a lawyer if you have to go to court. It's not just a "generic right to counsel". You cannot legally be denied counsel. If you can't afford it for yourself, the state must provide it for you. Understand?


You have a right to a lawyer; but not a right to representation from the Chief Justice.

[Baseball]

To be honest, even if she didn't get to stay in THAT house, at the very least, socialism guarantees her a house, which is way more than what we can say for Capitalism.


Then all the tears shed in the OP were crocodile... The socialist system may also evict her from the home.

[#FF0000]

Then all the tears shed in the OP were crocodile... The socialist system may also evict her from the home.

No. It is impossible to say whether or not a socialist system would evict her as none exist. A hypothetical socialist system might, but it also might not. What I do know is that the system we have, right here, right now, would not only do this, but would not guarantee the person a place to live, which any society that can call itself socialist most certainly would.

[Revolution starts with U]

And I read no further. :)

Being able to read, and reading comprehension are two different things. One of those you lack. I didn't expect you to comprehend what I was writing in the first place. :rolleyes:

It's sad that a grown man cries in a corner because someone called him a bad name :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

It's sad that a grown man cries in a corner because someone called him a bad name :rolleyes:

I don't really think it's a problem to object to that kind of thing in a discussion.

[Ele'ill]

Stop the name calling. Thanks.

[RGacky3]

If the USSR wasn't Socialist--then there is no such thing as Socialist. Then it's a figment of some people's imagenation. Then Socialism is Utopia or fairyland. Maybe the fairyland explaination works better for you. Maybe in Socialism there will be dragons and unicorns. Me, I'm a realist.


Norway is more socialist, so is Venezuela, so Is Bolivia, so is Anarchist spain, so was anarchist ukraine, so are the argentine worker takeovers, so is Zapatista territory, so are the Kibbutz. There are tons of examples, that meet simply the BASIC principles of socialism.

The USSR as I said, I'm gonna re post this for the last time, I suggest you read it, re-read it, and continue until you understand it.

Socialism = ACCORDING TO EVERYONE, worker controlled workplaecs, publicly controlled democratic economy, non profit economy

Capitalism = ACCORDING TO EVERYONE, Open markets, private property, and the profit motive.

The US meets every definition of Capitalism, the USSR does not meet the defintion of Socialism.


Fact: he was a Democrat and it was time the Democrats won.


Fact: Does'nt make a shread of difference, Democrats are corporatists that play on populism to get elected.


Fact: there is no progressive vote.


Fact: Because there was no progressive option, because progressive don't get corporate support, which is a HUGE part of American democracy.


They are what they say they are.


THen I'm Jesus Christ, and Batman.


Vanity Fair is NOT Scientific. Really.


Well, that is one of many many polls, and that, along with all of them, was accepted by everyone but you.

But thats your best argument, one of my polls if from a magazine you don't like, even though every one else including the right wing does'nt dispute it.

(Btw, Nobel Peace Prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz just wrote a great article on the economic reprecussions of inequality in ... vanity fair, and no one is dismissing it because of where it is, except for you, because its all you got.)


Fact: the American electorial system can be whatever the voters wish iot to be. It's wish is what it is now.


Fact: Thats not at all true, the US democratic system is the least representative system in the western world, if your gonna claim that you might as well say that the USSR system was what the soviet people wanted it to be. Do you have ANY concept of how power structures work?


Who cares what YOUR definition is? Really.


Its everyones definition on the planet Bud, plus if you want to discuss with me, then discuss with me.


And I read no further. :)

Good, leave the real discussions to the adults here that have analytical skills and basic intelligence.


Then all the tears shed in the OP were crocodile... The socialist system may also evict her from the home.

We'll we can test it, do countries with more public control (and similer levels of economic advancement) have MORE evictions? Before I check would you like to place your bets?

[Bud Struggle]

Norway is more socialist, so is Venezuela, so Is Bolivia, so is Anarchist spain, so was anarchist ukraine, so are the argentine worker takeovers, so is Zapatista territory, so are the Kibbutz. There are tons of examples, that meet simply the BASIC principles of socialism.

The USSR as I said, I'm gonna re post this for the last time, I suggest you read it, re-read it, and continue until you understand it.

Socialism = ACCORDING TO EVERYONE, worker controlled workplaecs, publicly controlled democratic economy, non profit economy

Capitalism = ACCORDING TO EVERYONE, Open markets, private property, and the profit motive.

The US meets every definition of Capitalism, the USSR does not meet the defintion of Socialism.

My point is when Socialism is tried. When there is that REVOLUTION that everyone is hopeing for happens--what results is that thing that is the USSR and Communist China and Communist East Germany and Communist Poland and Communist Romania, etc. There always is some Glorious Leader to guide and protect the country. Communism looks like on thing inb theory--but is another thing in real life.

All I am conderned with is real life--not definitions from a book.


Fact: Does'nt make a shread of difference, Democrats are corporatists that play on populism to get elected. There are Probressives, Sanders, Kisinitch, etch in the party (or at least around it.) They get some play--but not a lot.


Fact: Because there was no progressive option, because progressive don't get corporate support, which is a HUGE part of American democracy. Corporate support is important--but corporations don't vote. People do.


Well, that is one of many many polls, and that, along with all of them, was accepted by everyone but you.

But thats your best argument, one of my polls if from a magazine you don't like, even though every one else including the right wing does'nt dispute it. I'm sure there are things that people would like to be changed--even in the more Socialist direction. And they will be changed in time. But not one is for scrapping the entire system.


(Fact: Thats not at all true, the US democratic system is the least representative system in the western world, if your gonna claim that you might as well say that the USSR system was what the soviet people wanted it to be. Do you have ANY concept of how power structures work? Just because the guy is a Nobel Prize winner doesn't make any particular article in a popular magazine a work of science.


Its everyones definition on the planet Bud, plus if you want to discuss with me, then discuss with me. It's a book definition--I'm talking about real life.


Good, leave the real discussions to the adults here that have analytical skills and basic intelligence. And those adults would be the people that call other posters idiots and morons? ;) :D

[RGacky3]

My point is when Socialism is tried. When there is that REVOLUTION that everyone is hopeing for happens--what results is that thing that is the USSR and Communist China and Communist East Germany and Communist Poland and Communist Romania, etc. There always is some Glorious Leader to guide and protect the country. Communism looks like on thing inb theory--but is another thing in real life.

All I am conderned with is real life--not definitions from a book.


My pooint is that socialism was'nt tried .... You might as well say that the democratic republic of north korea is what happens when democracy is tried, its a non point.

That was NOT socialism in real life, I just gave you examples in real life but you ignored them because you want to fight against a strawman.


There are Probressives, Sanders, Kisinitch, etch in the party (or at least around it.) They get some play--but not a lot.


Again, because corporatists hate them, even a broken clock is right twice a day.


Corporate support is important--but corporations don't vote. People do.
¨

Corporate support plays a much higher role than voting.

People voted in the USSR too.


I'm sure there are things that people would like to be changed--even in the more Socialist direction. And they will be changed in time. But not one is for scrapping the entire system.


Of coarse, thats never been an option.


Just because the guy is a Nobel Prize winner doesn't make any particular article in a popular magazine a work of science.


No, but a scientific poll done by CBS and vanity fair does'nt make it unscientific because its done by vanity fair, but oyu know what, forget that poll, what about EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC POLL???


It's a book definition--I'm talking about real life.


Me too, just because the Nazis called themselves national socialists, does'nt mean you can use them in an argument against me just because of their name, thats ALL your doing.


And those adults would be the people that call other posters idiots and morons? ;) :D

They would be the people making actual arguments based on whats being talked about.

Please Bud, read this before posting http://www.revleft.com/vb/just-so-yall-t152690/index.html

[#FF0000]

If the USSR wasn't Socialist--then there is no such thing as Socialist. Then it's a figment of some people's imagenation. Then Socialism is Utopia or fairyland. Maybe the fairyland explaination works better for you. Maybe in Socialism there will be dragons and unicorns. Me, I'm a realist.

I just think it's fantasy to believe all those attempts at Comminism A) weren't sincere and B) just the way things ALWAYS tun out when people try Communism. You haven't explained why the USSR is ALWAYS the way Communism happens.

Well I think the Russian Revolution was a legitimate socialist revolution. I don't think the Chinese Revolution was, though.

What other countries besides the USSR are you talking about, by the way?



My point is when Socialism is tried. When there is that REVOLUTION that everyone is hopeing for happens--what results is that thing that is the USSR and Communist China and Communist East Germany and Communist Poland and Communist Romania, etc. There always is some Glorious Leader to guide and protect the country. Communism looks like on thing inb theory--but is another thing in real life.Oh, those countries. Aside from China, every country you mentioned was a part of the USSR, so that explains why they turned out... like the USSR :mellow:

Anyway, I think it's really silly to say that the USSR is just how socialism turns out. There were a lot of people with different ideas that were never implemented, and the USSR had a lot of huge obstacles to overcome that other countries with advanced industry didn't have. Communism in America 2011 would look very different than Communism in Russia 1930

[Bud Struggle]

My pooint is that socialism was'nt tried .... You might as well say that the democratic republic of north korea is what happens when democracy is tried, its a non point.

That was NOT socialism in real life, I just gave you examples in real life but you ignored them because you want to fight against a strawman.

So Norway had a Revolution? Chavez isn't a Glorious Leader, Caqstro ist's a Glorious Leader? Anarchist Ukraine and Anarchist Spain really never existed as countries. And the Zapatistas are a glorified town--not much different than the Amish communities.



Again, because corporatists hate them, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Hey, is they want to take control--they have their work cut out for them. But then again--they really don't wantchange badly enough. So things stay the same.


Corporate support plays a much higher role than voting. Because people aren't dissatisfied enough to change it.


No, but a scientific poll done by CBS and vanity fair does'nt make it unscientific because its done by vanity fair, but oyu know what, forget that poll, what about EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC POLL??? If swomeone comes to people'sw houses and pays them $10 to answer some questions--you might get these answers. But if people actually have to have to actually haul their butts out of bed and work for a change--well they just don't want it that bad, do they?


Me too, just because the Nazis called themselves national socialists, does'nt mean you can use them in an argument against me just because of their name, thats ALL your doing. The Plan you are talking about never existed and even if there was a Revolution--there is a GREAT chance that it would be coopted by the Leninists or the Maoists or the Trotskyists ar even the Fascists. You just don't know.


They would be the people making actual arguments based on whats being talked about. With all due respect you and Rev are like second graders with all of your name calling. Same with your Ciceronian rhetorical addresses to the populace. I'm sure you know that.


Please Bud, read this before posting http://www.revleft.com/vb/just-so-yall-t152690/index.html

Could say the same about you, Brother. :)

[#FF0000]

Norway is more socialist

no

[RGacky3]

So Norway had a Revolution? Chavez isn't a Glorious Leader, Caqstro ist's a Glorious Leader? Anarchist Ukraine and Anarchist Spain really never existed as countries. And the Zapatistas are a glorified town--not much different than the Amish communities.


Norway had huge working class movements, as did most social democracies. Chavez is not a Glorious leader, niether really is castro (but I did'nt even mention Cuba), Anarchist Ukriane did'nt exist as countries ... BECAUSE THEY ARE ANARCHIST NUMBNUTS, but htey were absolutely autonomous societies. Zapatists are a big cunk of Chiapas, and they beat Mexico, and so on and so forth.

Either way ... and what? What their outcome was soceitily and economically was what they said they would be.


Hey, is they want to take control--they have their work cut out for them. But then again--they really don't wantchange badly enough. So things stay the same.


If a state responds to corporate interests and not public interests, and the public has to WANT it enough (meaning almost have a damn revolution), then its not a democracy is it? monarchies also respond to damn near revolutions.


Because people aren't dissatisfied enough to change it.


You can make that argument with every state in history for most of their history.


If swomeone comes to people'sw houses and pays them $10 to answer some questions--you might get these answers. But if people actually have to have to actually haul their butts out of bed and work for a change--well they just don't want it that bad, do they?


So your defense is, the US rocks, because a revolutoin has'nt happened yet .... Thats your defense?


The Plan you are talking about never existed and even if there was a Revolution--there is a GREAT chance that it would be coopted by the Leninists or the Maoists or the Trotskyists ar even the Fascists. You just don't know.


If your gonna quote my post, RESPOND TO IT, I juts shot down your stupid argument that the USSR was socialist just because they said so.


With all due respect you and Rev are like second graders with all of your name calling. Same with your Ciceronian rhetorical addresses to the populace. I'm sure you know that.


You mean making actual arguments?


Could say the same about you, Brother. :)

Except it would'nt make sense, beause I make actual arguments using logic and facts.

Seriously Bud, Respond to the OP, why is what happened there justified? OOORRR, how is it not the direct outcome of Capitalism?? Make an actual argument pertinent to the OP.

[RGacky3]

no

It has a functioning democracy, and most of the economy is public, so yeah, people also can join indendant unions.

[#FF0000]

It has a functioning democracy, and most of the economy is public, so yeah, people also can join indendant unions.

1) lol democracy
2) oh neat a lot of shit is nationalized. Still ain't socialist, bro
3) so what

[RGacky3]

Can we have this argument somewhere else?

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey, is they want to take control--they have their work cut out for them. But then again--they really don't wantchange badly enough. So things stay the same.

Because people aren't dissatisfied enough to change it.

If swomeone comes to people'sw houses and pays them $10 to answer some questions--you might get these answers. But if people actually have to have to actually haul their butts out of bed and work for a change--well they just don't want it that bad, do they?

So basically the slaves were slaves because they were too lazy to free themselves :rolleyes:
And you keep wondering why I call you disgusting.



With all due respect you and Rev are like second graders with all of your name calling. Same with your Ciceronian rhetorical addresses to the populace. I'm sure you know that.

Give me a break. You run around here calling Gacky stupid, emo, and a crybaby all the time. But someone turns the tables and all of a sudden it's a big deal.
What's good for the goose is good for the Gander, Mr Blackpot.

And rhetoric works. Deal with it.

[RGacky3]

So basically the slaves were slaves because they were too lazy to free themselves :rolleyes:
And you keep wondering why I call you disgusting.


We're not allowed to do name calling, but seriously, what else do you call someone that makes arguments like that?

[Bud Struggle]

We're not allowed to do name calling, but seriously, what else do you call someone that makes arguments like that?

Gacky.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you could substantiate one time gacky said slaves were slaves because they were too lazy to free themselves... or even one time he said anything even close to that... I'll give you my entire bank account.

[Bud Struggle]

If you could substantiate one time gacky said slaves were slaves because they were too lazy to free themselves... or even one time he said anything even close to that... I'll give you my entire bank account.
No he twisted an argument to suit his own purposes.

Oops, I thought that was what you were talking about. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

No, he didn't just make it up himself.
No, things aren't just what they say they are; actions speak louder than words.
Nothing wrong with having ideals.

[Bud Struggle]

No, he didn't just make it up himself.
No, things aren't just what they say they are; actions speak louder than words.
Nothing wrong with having ideals.

As Communists we are materialists. It's not about what it is right--it's about the ultimate flow of history. You and the Gack are just Liberals--ultra Liberals, but Liberals none the less.

[#FF0000]

You and the Gack are just Liberals--ultra Liberals, but Liberals none the less.

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

[Bud Struggle]

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

Yea, calling someone a Liberal is a worse insult than calling someone an idiot. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

No, actually I learned in the 2nd grade that nifty little lesson; sticks and stones. I don't need a box of tissues when someone labels me as something.
My views are my views, you can call me a racklaflagal for all I care.
And please stop the disengnous "we as communists" bullshit. You're not. You're a liberal with somewhat leftist views sometimes, until it threatens your position in society you know you don't deserve.
Nothing wrong with having ideals.

[Revolution starts with U]

PS, nice ninja edit backtrack.
/facepalm

[RGacky3]

As Communists we are materialists. It's not about what it is right--it's about the ultimate flow of history. You and the Gack are just Liberals--ultra Liberals, but Liberals none the less.

I love this, Bud, is trying to use Marxist lingo, Marxist lingo which he could'nt actually explain or understand if his life depended on it, to attack up and The Revolution starts with you, really?

You don't have any idea what Marxist Materialism is, its like when you jumped into the 0 growth economy argument and started spouting off shit about the Soviet Union and bread lines, without even knowing what a 0 growth economy is ..... Your embarrasing yourself on every thread requiring knowledge and reasoning and yet you keep going, just stop Bud, your not doing anyone any good.

[progressive_lefty]

I might get in trouble for saying this, but theoritically some concepts in capitalism do make some sense, but realistically, capitalism does not work at all. If the free market did work, why is that big corporations are now starting to dominate the market place? What is the difference between a so-called society dominated by 'big government', or a society dominated by big corporations? Would you rather have corporations controlling everything? Or would you rather a society run by a democratically elected government, where government agencies represent the people and are selected democratically by the people.

[Revolution starts with U]

besides, im not a marxist. so it's 1 big straw man anyway

[RGacky3]

BTW: This woman is getting support from some democratic congressmen, and it looks like she'll get it back.

Civil disobedience works, community organizing works, resistance works.

THIS is how you make the establishment pay attention, not just wearing a "hope" t-shirt and voting for the least dispicable corporatist. THIS is what revolutoin means

[Revolution starts with U]

Interestingly enough the advertisement on the top of this page is selling "t-shirts of the revolution." :laugh: disgusting :crying:

[Baseball]

No. It is impossible to say whether or not a socialist system would evict her as none exist. A hypothetical socialist system might, but it also might not. What I do know is that the system we have, right here, right now, would not only do this, but would not guarantee the person a place to live, which any society that can call itself socialist most certainly would.


So much for the alleged moral superiority of socialism over capitalism-- socialism "might" evict somebody. Then the question has to be asked what might those circumstances be? And since a person would not have the protection of "property rights" in the socialist system, one can easilly see how capricious such evictions would be.

[Revolution starts with U]

If it was absolutely unfeasible for her to maintain a house far too large for her own good, she might be relocated to a more fitting domicile. But I can tell you this; the prices she would have to pay to maintain the house would only be the prices she has to pay to maintain the house. She would not have to pay fees, rents, and overhead to people who do nothing other than claim ownership over said house.
In all likelihood, she would still be able to afford the house. She was late on her mortgage, not her bills.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2071271]Norway is more socialist, so is Venezuela, so Is Bolivia, so is Anarchist spain, so was anarchist ukraine, so are the argentine worker takeovers, so is Zapatista territory, so are the Kibbutz. There are tons of examples, that meet simply the BASIC principles of socialism.


More socialist than the USA, or USSR?

How does Venezuala count as being more socialist? They have been nationalizing private property. Or Norway? Most of their industry and property is privately held.




Socialism = ACCORDING TO EVERYONE, worker controlled workplaecs, publicly controlled democratic economy, non profit economy

Capitalism = ACCORDING TO EVERYONE, Open markets, private property, and the profit motive.

The US meets every definition of Capitalism, the USSR does not meet the defintion of Socialism.


The problem remains is that your definition is biased-- its based only upon success. There is no wiggle room, no analysis as to whether socialism CAN succeed. If things don't work out, then it was never socialism.

[Baseball]

If it was absolutely unfeasible for her to maintain a house far too large for her own good, she might be relocated to a more fitting domicile. But I can tell you this; the prices she would have to pay to maintain the house would only be the prices she has to pay to maintain the house. She would not have to pay fees, rents, and overhead to people who do nothing other than claim ownership over said house.
In all likelihood, she would still be able to afford the house. She was late on her mortgage, not her bills.

For just her good only? What if she could afford to reside alone in such a house, but there are other people who would have greater "need" for a large house? I thought socialism was all about a people's "needs" first?

[Revolution starts with U]

No, if it was democratic control of the economy and it failed, it was failed socialism.
If it wasn't democratic control of the economy it wasn't socialism.
If control of the economy cannot be democratic, then socialism is impossible (sic).
It's pretty simple and falsifiable.

[Revolution starts with U]

For just her good only? What if she could afford to reside alone in such a house, but there are other people who would have greater "need" for a large house? I thought socialism was all about a people's "needs" first?

Actually it's about "from each according to their ability" first :cool:
(Also, see: private v personal property)

EDIT: that does bring up a good point tho... were I her, I would have just rented out an extra room or two. But perhaps she is a tad more private than me.

[RGacky3]

More socialist than the USA, or USSR?

How does Venezuala count as being more socialist? They have been nationalizing private property. Or Norway? Most of their industry and property is privately held.


If oyu have a monarchy, and you nationalize private property, you don't have socialism at all, if you have a oligarchy that does the same, not socialism. Nationalization does not = Socialism.

Having public control over the economy and worker control over industry is socialism. Meaning a democratic state with large public industrial sector and worker involvement in decision making (through strong unions or German worker board of directors type laws) means more socialistic.


The problem remains is that your definition is biased-- its based only upon success. There is no wiggle room, no analysis as to whether socialism CAN succeed. If things don't work out, then it was never socialism.

No, you can have a democratic economy and have it collapse, you can have non-profit economies that fail, you can have worker controled economy that collapses.

What it means, is if it is NOT a democratic economy, then its NOT socialism.

If I have a state run economy, call it capitalism and if fails does'nt make it a failure of actual capitalism.

[Baseball]

EDIT: that does bring up a good point tho... were I her, I would have just rented out an extra room or two. But perhaps she is a tad more private than me.[/QUOTE]


If she had the "ability" to rent out a room or two, should her privacy concerns trumped this?
And why should she exploit the housing issues of somebody else? Would the socialist system be opposed to this?

[RGacky3]

Thats a hypothetical situatoin where we did'nt have ENOUGH housing, right now we have empty houses owned by banks and people homeless outside, we have public housing being knocked down to build mansions and golf courses.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2072338]If oyu have a monarchy, and you nationalize private property, you don't have socialism at all, if you have a oligarchy that does the same, not socialism. Nationalization does not = Socialism.

Venezuala is not a monarchy.


Having public control over the economy and worker control over industry is socialism. Meaning a democratic state with large public industrial sector and worker involvement in decision making

Now you are demanding two things:
1. Democratic control.
2. Freedom within that democratic control.

The two do not have to go hand in hand.

[Revolution starts with U]

If she had the "ability" to rent out a room or two, should her privacy concerns trumped this?
And why should she exploit the housing issues of somebody else? Would the socialist system be opposed to this?

There are no rents in socialism. Try again when you have an actual argument to make.

(Once again; private v personal property)

[Baseball]

Thats a hypothetical situatoin where we did'nt have ENOUGH housing, right now we have empty houses owned by banks and people homeless outside, we have public housing being knocked down to build mansions and golf courses.

No, No, No... You can't switch up the argument to fit your needs. The questions remains the same: Does this woman have a RIGHT to live in THAT house, in a socialist system? Now, if you wish to claim it depends upon the housing situation in the community at the time the question is asked, then the answer is "no."

[Revolution starts with U]

Meaning a democratic state (emphasis mine)

Socialism doesn't necessarily entail that at all Gack. Just pointing that out.

[Baseball]

There are no rents in socialism. Try again when you have an actual argument to make.

(Once again; private v personal property)

So the question remain unanswered... Does she have a RIGHT to LIVE in THAT house, in a socialist system?

[RGacky3]

Venezuala is not a monarchy.


exactly, which is why you can call it somewhat socialist.


Now you are demanding two things:
1. Democratic control.
2. Freedom within that democratic control.

The two do not have to go hand in hand.

For a democracy to be an ACTUAL democracy you need to have freedom of speech.

I just gave you the definition of socialism that EVERYONE accepts, why are you arguing semantics?


No, No, No... You can't switch up the argument to fit your needs. The questions remains the same: Does this woman have a RIGHT to live in THAT house, in a socialist system? Now, if you wish to claim it depends upon the housing situation in the community at the time the question is asked, then the answer is "no."

My answer is yes, she has the right to a home, if, for some strange reason (half of the city burned down), she has to share her house, then that can be something that can happen.

But your argument is based on a rediculous premis.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, No, No... You can't switch up the argument to fit your needs. The questions remains the same: Does this woman have a RIGHT to live in THAT house, in a socialist system? Now, if you wish to claim it depends upon the housing situation in the community at the time the question is asked, then the answer is "no."

Aside from the fact that you are attempting to compare apples to oranges.


If it was absolutely unfeasible for her to maintain a house far too large for her own good, she might be relocated to a more fitting domicile. But I can tell you this; the prices she would have to pay to maintain the house would only be the prices she has to pay to maintain the house. She would not have to pay fees, rents, and overhead to people who do nothing other than claim ownership over said house.
In all likelihood, she would still be able to afford the house (in a socialist society). She was late on her mortgage, not her bills.


But it's still comparing apples to oranges.

[RGacky3]

Baseball let me put it this way, a bank would NOT have the right to kick someone out of their house because it would make them more money to do so.

[Revolution starts with U]

So the question remain unanswered... Does she have a RIGHT to LIVE in THAT house, in a socialist system?

You're asking a non-sense question. This isn't a socialist system.
I know, you think you will trap us with it. But you haven't yet, so why persist?

[Baseball]

For a democracy to be an ACTUAL democracy you need to have freedom of speech.

Is the UK a democracy, or monarchy? How about Norway? Do they not have freedom of speech in those countries?


I just gave you the definition of socialism that EVERYONE accepts, why are you arguing semantics?

I am not questioning semantics. What I am suggesting is that the understanding of the terms may not be quite what is meant.




My answer is yes, she has the right to a home,

Not "A" home, but rather "THAT" home.

[Baseball]

You're asking a non-sense question. This isn't a socialist system.
I know, you think you will trap us with it. But you haven't yet, so why persist?


Yeah, but you want to create a socialist system. So why is it a "trap" to ask some questions about how things might reasonably function in a socialist system? You know, analysis ect ect.

[RGacky3]

Is the UK a democracy, or monarchy? How about Norway? Do they not have freedom of speech in those countries?


They are relatively democratic (at least Norway, moreso than the UK), but so what, whats your point? I don't get what your trying to say.


I am not questioning semantics. What I am suggesting is that the understanding of the terms may not be quite what is meant.


Your really just playing semantics.


Not "A" home, but rather "THAT" home.

Not really, but unles there is some catastrophy, I don't see why anyone would have to or want to kick her out, thats the point.

Its not about having a right to the home, its about the bank NOT having the power and the right to kick someone out of their house because they get more money, and the system that they operate in being an immoral system that gives them that power and right.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not really, but unles there is some catastrophy, I don't see why anyone would have to or want to kick her out, thats the point.

Yup.


Yeah, but you want to create a socialist system. So why is it a "trap" to ask some questions about how things might reasonably function in a socialist system? You know, analysis ect ect.
Im starting to think you're just being outright dishonest now. Once agian I will post for you:

If it was absolutely unfeasible for her to maintain a house far too large for her own good, she might be relocated to a more fitting domicile. But I can tell you this; the prices she would have to pay to maintain the house would only be the prices she has to pay to maintain the house. She would not have to pay fees, rents, and overhead to people who do nothing other than claim ownership over said house.
In all likelihood, she would still be able to afford the house (in a socialist society). She was late on her mortgage, not her bills.

But either way you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2072377]They are relatively democratic (at least Norway, moreso than the UK), but so what, whats your point? I don't get what your trying to say.

I was just responding to a comment of yours Re: what nationalising industry means in a monarchy.





Not really, but unles there is some catastrophy, I don't see why anyone would have to or want to kick her out, thats the point.

I made the suggestion a while ago: Why she should live alone in a house with three or four bedrooms when there young families with kids who could arguably claim to have a greater "need" for it?


Its not about having a right to the home, its about the bank NOT having the power and the right to kick someone out of their house because they get more money, and the system that they operate in being an immoral system that gives them that power and right.

OK. So your objection is that the bank can kick her out, not that she could also be kicked out, in a socialist system?
At this point, one needs to lo analyse the possible circumstances in both systems and determine which is more "moral" than the other.

[Revolution starts with U]

I made the suggestion a while ago: Why she should live alone in a house with three or four bedrooms when there young families with kids who could arguably claim to have a greater "need" for it?

Private v personal property; look it up.



OK. So your objection is that the bank can kick her out, not that she could also be kicked out, in a socialist system?
More specifically his assertion is that she couldn't arbitrarily be removed from the house because someone else needs to make a profit.
But as I have shown, aside from the fact that a house is personal property, aside from the fact that we're comparing apples to oranges, she would have far more of a right to said house under a socialist system than a capitalist one.


At this point, one needs to lo analyse the possible circumstances in both systems and determine which is more "moral" than the other.

Morals are nonsense.

EDIT: by nonsense I mean, my definition of which is more moral will differ largely from yours, and probably even Gacky's.

[RGacky3]

I was just responding to a comment of yours Re: what nationalising industry means in a monarchy.


It was analogy to show that nationalizatoin does not mean socialization.


I made the suggestion a while ago: Why she should live alone in a house with three or four bedrooms when there young families with kids who could arguably claim to have a greater "need" for it?


Sure, but I seriously doubt that a small community would kick an old lady out of her home, so that a young family could get a bigger home, sure a bank would, because it makes them money and they don't have to actually see the old lady. Also under socialism a young family would already have a home, so it would'nt be an issue.


OK. So your objection is that the bank can kick her out, not that she could also be kicked out, in a socialist system?
At this point, one needs to lo analyse the possible circumstances in both systems and determine which is more "moral" than the other.

except she WOULD NOT be kicked out.

At this point, thats what we are doing, the possible circumstances that she would be kicked out in a socialist system are miniscule, in the capitalist system, the likely hood is ... well ... look around.


Morals are nonsense.

In the sense that which one has the more positive effect.

[#FF0000]

I think you're kind of missing something here, though, Baseball. Even if she was evicted in a socialist system, she would have somewhere to live. In the society we live in now, however, there is no such guarantee, which is why eviction is such an awful prospect.

[Baseball]

Sure, but I seriously doubt that a small community would kick an old lady out of her home, so that a young family could get a bigger home

But a large one would?

,
sure a bank would, because it makes them money


It doesn't make them money.


Also under socialism a young family would already have a home, so it would'nt be an issue.

Truly? How does that come about?




At this point, thats what we are doing, the possible circumstances that she would be kicked out in a socialist system are miniscule,

And those circumstances are?

[Baseball]

she would have far more of a right to said house under a socialist system than a capitalist one.


What is the basis of her right to THAT house, in socialism?

[Revolution starts with U]

It doesn't make them money.

No, it doesn't make them money to evict somoene. What happens is they lose money with someone not paying their mortgage. They make the money when someone else buys the house.


Truly? How does that come about?
Production based on need before wants.



And those circumstances are?

Arbitrary and hypothetical.


What is the basis of her right to THAT house, in socialism?

I've answered that question numerous times. Engage my answer in some effect. EIther agree, or give reasons for why I am mistaken. But please don't just continue asking the same already answered question like some disengenous troll.

[RGacky3]

What is the basis of her right to THAT house, in socialism?

... She lives in it, and she's live in it for a long time ... and people are generally not ass holes, what would be the incentive for a community to kick her out?

This is a stupid premis, that she needs a RIGHT to that home under socialism, the only reason she got kicked out under Capitalism was because some bank would make a profit from it.


It doesn't make them money.


Obviously it does.


But a large one would?


No, but a bank would.


Truly? How does that come about?


People build houses for people to live in them rather than to try and make a profit from evicting people.

Do you really think the housing problem in America is due to just not enough homes being available???


And those circumstances are?

She has a tourture chamber in her house .... I don't know, what circumstance can you think of for a neighborhood organization, or a community organization to kick and old lady out of her house???

Your missing the point of socialism, i.e. the principle of democracy, I dont' get to make this shit up.

My point is they would have no real incentive to kick her out, but a bank does.

[#FF0000]

What is the basis of her right to THAT house, in socialism?

That isn't the point. The issue isn't that she can't live in that house. It's that she was evicted from it over some bureaucratic nonsense and now may not have a place to live.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2072836]No, it doesn't make them money to evict somoene. What happens is they lose money with someone not paying their mortgage. They make the money when someone else buys the house.

Not if the house is not worth the amount originally lent



Production based on need before wants.

Yes. Needs before wants. As in "the need for a larger family to reside in a larger house trumps the wants of a smaller family to live in a larger house."


Arbitrary and hypothetical.

You conceded that people can be removed from a house if it was "unfeasible" for continued habitation there. I simply asked for further explanation.




I've answered that question numerous times.


I have seen various notes saying she can stay, could not be evicted for profit ect. Nothing which sought to explain the basis of her right to reside in that house.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2072846]... She lives in it, and she's live in it for a long time ... and people are generally not ass holes, what would be the incentive for a community to kick her out?

This is a stupid premis, that she needs a RIGHT to that home under socialism,


Then why does she get to live there, as opposed to somebody else? How does she get that house originally?


the only reason she got kicked out under Capitalism was because some bank would make a profit from it.

Banks generally make profits when people stay in the house, not after a foreclosure.


People build houses for people to live in them rather than to try and make a profit from evicting people.

Building houses takes a lot of time and a lot of resources. In other words, it costs a lot. Does it not make more sense to assign existing larger homes to larger families?




Your missing the point of socialism, i.e. the principle of democracy, I dont' get to make this shit up.

OK. So why does the "principle of democracy" preclude the people from democratically evicting a person from their home? If anything, it would be "undemocratic" to prevent that effort.


My point is they would have no real incentive to kick her out, but a bank does.

The only way a bank has an incentive to evict somebody, is as a result of that person not paying the mortgage. In socialism i.e democracy: Plenty of reasons. Or no reason.

[RGacky3]

Then why does she get to live there, as opposed to somebody else? How does she get that house originally?


Does it matter?


Banks generally make profits when people stay in the house, not after a foreclosure.


Obviously they made more of a profit in this case, and many others around the country.


Building houses takes a lot of time and a lot of resources. In other words, it costs a lot. Does it not make more sense to assign existing larger homes to larger families?


Re-read my previous post, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the housing problem is due to LACK of physical houses?


OK. So why does the "principle of democracy" preclude the people from democratically evicting a person from their home? If anything, it would be "undemocratic" to prevent that effort.


Perhaps some sort of constition, or basic agreed apon rights, an democratic process, and so on.

But again, why would they do that? What precident is there for that stuff happening?


The only way a bank has an incentive to evict somebody, is as a result of that person not paying the mortgage. In socialism i.e democracy: Plenty of reasons. Or no reason.

No, or if they'd make more profit flipping the house, or if they've bundled those houses sold them to someone else and then hedged against them .... i.e. the last couple years.

In socialism, give me an incentive .... What one is there?

[Baseball]

Does it matter?


Of corse it matters how people are housed in a socialist system




Obviously they made more of a profit in this case, and many others around the country.

You don't know (at least based upon the news story originally cited). Most likely they lost money. That has been the problem.



Re-read my previous post, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the housing problem is due to LACK of physical houses?

Socialism cannot rely upon consuming wealth created by capitalism.




Perhaps some sort of constition, or basic agreed apon rights, an democratic process, and so on.

But again, why would they do that? What precident is there for that stuff happening?

as socialists like to say, "There has never been a socialist community, so we cannot really what would happen." The rejoinder remains the same; Socialist principles as stated have to be applied to draw conclusions on how things might function.




No, or if they'd make more profit flipping the house, or if they've bundled those houses sold them to someone else and then hedged against them .... i.e. the last couple years.

One cannot foreclose on a house for the hell of it. There is a contract involved; The bank lends $X to the prospective buyer, those $$$ go the seller, the new owned pledges to pay the bank $X per month for X years. The bank cannot change those terms on a whim. Even if the bank sells the mortgage to another, that bank is bound by that contract.


In socialism, give me an incentive .... What one is there?[/QUOTE]

Need of the community.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not if the house is not worth the amount originally lent
It normally is. This is the business I work in, cleaning up and inspecting houses after foreclosures. 9/10 the houses are perfectly fine and have another family in them within months.




Yes. Needs before wants. As in "the need for a larger family to reside in a larger house trumps the wants of a smaller family to live in a larger house."

Private v personal property. Start being honest or I'm calling you out as a troll.



You conceded that people can be removed from a house if it was "unfeasible" for continued habitation there. I simply asked for further explanation.

Yes, and those reasons would be arbitrary and hypothetical. Start honestly assessing our responses or Im calling you out as a troll.



I have seen various notes saying she can stay, could not be evicted for profit ect. Nothing which sought to explain the basis of her right to reside in that house.

Because she's been living there.



You don't know (at least based upon the news story originally cited). Most likely they lost money. That has been the problem.

the banks were never "losing" money, as in operating in the negative. They were losing profit shares, and that has been the problem.



Socialism cannot rely upon consuming wealth created by capitalism.

But yet capitalists survive by consuming the wealth created by the workers...



Need of the community.

Private v personal property. Start honestly assessing our responses or I'm calling you out as a troll.

[Bud Struggle]

I dont' get to make this shit up.
:D It's all kind of made up at this point. A Socialist future is all guesses and fortune telling. There is no certanty what the future looks like--if there will be Socialism or even if there is Socialism what kind it would be.

All this is wishful thinking.

[RGacky3]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/property-rights-action-t152540/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif It's all kind of made up at this point. A Socialist future is all guesses and fortune telling. There is no certanty what the future looks like--if there will be Socialism or even if there is Socialism what kind it would be.

All this is wishful thinking.

No, there is historical president, and logic.


Of corse it matters how people are housed in a socialist system


I mean does it matter how she origionally got there, btw, let me ask you, why in other socialized systems? Has this never been a problem.


You don't know (at least based upon the news story originally cited). Most likely they lost money. That has been the problem.


I doubt it, considering lots of payments have probably been made at that point, PLUS they get the house, based on the news story, she could pay the payments, but they prefered the house (they did'nt want to tell her how she could make them).


Socialism cannot rely upon consuming wealth created by capitalism.


If more houses are needed, then who's to stop people from building more houses, your arguing 1 dimensionally here.


as socialists like to say, "There has never been a socialist community, so we cannot really what would happen." The rejoinder remains the same; Socialist principles as stated have to be applied to draw conclusions on how things might function.

I don't say that, I say the USSR rwas not socialist, but there have been examples of socialism in action, socialism WITHIN a capitalist system, and socialism on a smaller scale, and even socialism on a relatively large scale.

I'll use the example of Norway, most of the housing in Norway is private, however the banking system is mostly socialized, its mostly public, you don't have that same type of problem, of predatory lending, of banks having incentives to take over, to kick people out, to maximize profits, or we can take the third world example of the Shack movement in south Africa, where the housing is essencially community controlled, yet you don't have communities kicking out old ladies just because.


One cannot foreclose on a house for the hell of it. There is a contract involved; The bank lends $X to the prospective buyer, those $$$ go the seller, the new owned pledges to pay the bank $X per month for X years. The bank cannot change those terms on a whim. Even if the bank sells the mortgage to another, that bank is bound by that contract.


Of coarse ... There is a process, but look at the results in practice.

[Baseball]

I doubt it, considering lots of payments have probably been made at that point, PLUS they get the house, based on the news story, she could pay the payments, but they prefered the house (they did'nt want to tell her how she could make them).

If she COULD make the payments, then there would not have been a problem. There is nothing the bank could have done- or wanted to do.

I
f more houses are needed, then who's to stop people from building more houses, your arguing 1 dimensionally here.

The same type of non-economic reasons which occur under capitalism-- don't build a house in that pristine field. Then of course are the same sort economic choices which capitalism faces-- do we use resources to build or some other needed good?




but there have been examples of socialism in action, socialism WITHIN a capitalist system,


All that occurs here is socialism relying upon capitalism to provide it with wealth to allocate.



I'll use the example of Norway, most of the housing in Norway is private, however the banking system is mostly socialized, its mostly public, you don't have that same type of problem, of predatory lending, of banks having incentives to take over, to kick people out, to maximize profits,

Right. Its tougher to get a mortgage for a house in Norway than in the USA. There are obvious disadvantages to that (but as well as advantages)

[Baseball]

Private v personal property. Start being honest or I'm calling you out as a troll.

A meaningless distinction



Yes, and those reasons would be arbitrary and hypothetical. Start honestly assessing our responses or Im calling you out as a troll.

In capitalism, the reasons are not arbitrary or hypothetical. Sounds like capitalism is more responsive and secure than socialism.



Because she's been living there.

Spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.





But yet capitalists survive by consuming the wealth created by the workers...

Change the system and the results change. Gacky's dismissed the concerns because houses already exist.

[RGacky3]

A meaningless distinction


HUUUGGGGEEEE difference, you should know that by now, you want me to explain?


In capitalism, the reasons are not arbitrary or hypothetical. Sounds like capitalism is more responsive and secure than socialism.


Responsive to what, thats the question, responsive to money, which is'nt really good for society when the top 1% control about 50% of the wealth.


Spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.


My point is, at that point, in that hypothetical situation, it would'nt matter.


Change the system and the results change. Gacky's dismissed the concerns because houses already exist.

Thats not why I dismissed the concerns, what I was pointing out was that the housing problem under capitalism has NOTHING to do with lack of housing.

Under socialism I'm sure you'll have to build houses sometimes, but it'll be based on if people need houses to live in.


If she COULD make the payments, then there would not have been a problem. There is nothing the bank could have done- or wanted to do.
¨

Read the article!!!


The same type of non-economic reasons which occur under capitalism-- don't build a house in that pristine field. Then of course are the same sort economic choices which capitalism faces-- do we use resources to build or some other needed good?


... So you think a society would prefer people being homeless, then to build a house, really? You really think that would be the decision, it would be for corporations if that housing won't make a profit.


All that occurs here is socialism relying upon capitalism to provide it with wealth to allocate.


Here being the US?


Right. Its tougher to get a mortgage for a house in Norway than in the USA. There are obvious disadvantages to that (but as well as advantages)

Which of the countries has a major forclosure problem?

[Revolution starts with U]

A meaningless distinction

Care to offer a reason why? As far as I know, the lady wasn't using her house to siphon value out of the workers for personal gain.



In capitalism, the reasons are not arbitrary or hypothetical. Sounds like capitalism is more responsive and secure than socialism.

No, that rigidity is exactly what is wrong with capitalistic legal structures. As Gacky said, it responds to money, not time and circumstance.



Spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.

I don't get your point.



Change the system and the results change. Gacky's dismissed the concerns because houses already exist.

No. You're talking about an existing lady, in an existing house, in existing capitalism. Then you're asking us to take that to a hypothetical socialist situation. Then falling back on the "socialism cannot rely on capitalism."
But in this situation, it has to. Everything in this situation is based off existing things.
Seemed like capitlaism relying on existing feudal property relations worked out for it.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2075070]Care to offer a reason why? As far as I know, the lady wasn't using her house to siphon value out of the workers for personal gain.


Sure she was-- she insists upon living in a house which is far too lodge and for whom others would have greater "need."




No. You're talking about an existing lady, in an existing house, in existing capitalism. Then you're asking us to take that to a hypothetical socialist situation. Then falling back on the "socialism cannot rely on capitalism."
But in this situation, it has to. Everything in this situation is based off existing things.

I'm sorry. I was not clear.
Look-- its not sufficient to simply critique capitalism. If the OP has any meaning, then:
1. In a socialist community, people will NEVER be involuntarily removed from their homes.

or

2. The circumstances for involuntary removal are very small, rare and noble of purpose.

Otherwise what's the point of the complaint?

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2074962]HUUUGGGGEEEE difference, you should know that by now, you want me to explain?

I do know that socialists like to claim there is a distinction.




Responsive to what, thats the question, responsive to money, which is'nt really good for society when the top 1% control about 50% of the wealth.

Money is a measurement.




My point is, at that point, in that hypothetical situation, it would'nt matter.

It always matter. It has to matter in socialism as well.






Under socialism I'm sure you'll have to build houses sometimes, but it'll be based on if people need houses to live in.

Which is what occurs under capitalism.




... So you think a society would prefer people being homeless, then to build a house, really?

Its not that simple.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sure she was-- she insists upon living in a house which is far too lodge and for whom others would have greater "need."

She may be indirectly having a negative effect on some workers with large families. BUt she probably had a large family at one time which justfied having said house. And now, as long as she's not using it to directly siphon wealth off the worker... I have no problem with it.



I'm sorry. I was not clear.
Look-- its not sufficient to simply critique capitalism. If the OP has any meaning, then:

Actually it is, though. Most of us socialists are united solely in our opposition to capitalism. We have widely different viewpoints on what socialism is, or will be. And that's a good thing. It leaves it open for the people to decide what socialism is, provided it is based on worker self-,management, and economic democracy.


1. In a socialist community, people will NEVER be involuntarily removed from their homes.

I tend to refrain from saying never. Perhaps there is some circumstance, like using it to siphon wealth from another, that would call for your forcible removal from a house.



2. The circumstances for involuntary removal are very small, rare and noble of purpose

They would be small, if in existence at all, and rare. But we could hem and haw all day about "noble purpose."



Otherwise what's the point of the complaint?

To stand up for someone which has been unjustly thrown out of her house. You don't even have to be a socialist to know throwing an old lady out on the street is wrong.



I do know that socialists like to claim there is a distinction.

You don't use personal property to create things, or siphon wealth off someone else's work.
That's how we define private property around here; a piece of property used for the purpose of making things which siphons wealth for the "owner" off the work of the workers.
A worker owned franchise, even one in a free market, is not private property.


Money is a measurement.
A very poor one. One dollar one vote < One person one vote.



Which is what occurs under capitalism.
Not exactly. Capitalism responds to the consumer demands of the monied interests. "Need" in capitalism is based on purchasing power.

[RGacky3]

I do know that socialists like to claim there is a distinction.


Everyone makes that claim ... Its the difference between Capital/land and personal property, economics 101.


Money is a measurement.


.... Yes, you ignore my point though.


It always matter. It has to matter in socialism as well.


No it does'nt matter, because at the point to where an old lady has lived in a house for 50 years, I seriously doubt the neighborhood assembally (or a similar organization) would care about the exact details of where she got it, because they, unlike the bank, are not looking for a reason to kick her out and make a profit.


Which is what occurs under capitalism.


WHich is NOT what occurs under Capitalism, which is why there are thousands of empty houses and tons of homeless people at the same time.

Money is the measure of demand, yet, the top 1% control more than the bottom 90%, so what demand is it really measuring?


Sure she was-- she insists upon living in a house which is far too lodge and for whom others would have greater "need."


Thats not exploiting labor, and no there was no one that had a greater need, no one is living in that house, its empty and the bank owns it.


1. In a socialist community, people will NEVER be involuntarily removed from their homes.

or

2. The circumstances for involuntary removal are very small, rare and noble of purpose.

Otherwise what's the point of the complaint?

Its number 2, and I think we've made it pretty clear that the socialist system would have much less of this type of thing if it happened at all.

[Skooma Addict]

That's how we define private property around here; a piece of property used for the purpose of making things which siphons wealth for the "owner" off the work of the workers. That isn't the definition though.

[Revolution starts with U]

We are masters of language, not the other way around.

[Bud Struggle]

We are masters of language, not the other way around.

RevLeft is one big exercize in defining "what exactly is Communism."

[#FF0000]

RevLeft is one big exercize in defining "what exactly is Communism."

No. It's more an exercise in figuring out how to get there.

[#FF0000]

I do know that socialists like to claim there is a distinction.

There is, though, and it's pretty clear.

You can't easily exploit someone if you own every ipod on earth (personal property) as long as access to the factories to make them (private property) are free for all to use.

[StalinFanboy]

That isn't the definition though.
according to who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property#Roles_of_private_property_in_soci ety

[Bud Struggle]

No. It's more an exercise in figuring out how to get there.

But that's after a bunch of drinking.

[Ele'ill]

:D It's all kind of made up at this point. A Socialist future is all guesses and fortune telling. There is no certanty what the future looks like--if there will be Socialism or even if there is Socialism what kind it would be.

All this is wishful thinking.

I'd like to point out that this is a troll post. This is what you want to never do, for those of you new to the forum.