What we are For, what we are against

[RGacky3]

We arn't fighting for higher taxes, we arn't fighting for more entitlements.

We don't think we should all have the same compensation, we don't think people who work harder or contribute more or spend more time getting education should get paid the same.

Here is what we want ... ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.

Do you know what a cooperative is? Yeah, its where the workers, all of them, decide what to do with the profits rather than just a board of directors, (that means that probably some people, like managers perhaps, will get paid more), We think doctors should get paid more, and in a democratic system they WOULD be.

We want a system where when the system is profitable EVERYONE benefits, not juts teh executives and shareholders.

There is ONE law that could change it largely toward a socialist system, corporations (which are products of the state btw, and could not exist without the state) from now on have their board of directors elected by the workers .... plain and simple.

Also most of us believe that things that are of common interest should be under common control, i.e. you don't get to own a powerplant for profit that effects everyone, everyone should have a say over it.

And here is why we are against capitalism, first and formost, IT DOES'NT WORK, whether or not you think its fair, its riddled with internal contradictions that are causing it to fail.

We arn't ASKING anyone for anything, we organize and we take what is ours.

So you rightwingers, enough with the strawmen.

eGOA2WedIQo

[00000000000]

Well put. Doubt you'll be quoted favourably by FOX though..

'These loony liberal socialists want committees to decide if you get power or not. They want shop workers to spend half their day sitting around voting and debating whether or not they get paid lunch breaks instead of doing their job and providing a service.'

Silly right-wing rabbits

[DinodudeEpic]

I do agree that we head towards economic democracy.

But, I want to go a step further and want economic direct democracy. Workers will be paid the same from the cooperative's profit, but the real differences in payment would be based on employee of the month awards (Decided democratically.) and such.

Basically, there wouldn't be managers nor board of directors.

Of course, RGacky is just talking about a transitional phase that would head towards Socialism (Similar to John Stuart Mill's concept of democratically elected board of directors). I say that we that make a law, through an economic constitution, that would make all businesses direct democratic in structure, aka cooperatives.

Of course, RGacky wants direct democratic cooperatives and syndicates, but he thinks the state's collapse would create such entities through the indirect fall of the corporations through the lack of property laws.

I know the merit to that, property laws. But, wouldn't the corporations just want and try to reestablish the state under a more authoritarian face? They can build up an 'anarcho'-capitalist society with private security forces.

Of course, these differences are mostly semantic in nature, and it is really more of a difference between minarchism and anarchism. (Note that I don't support Objectivist/Libertarian styled minarchies. The minarchism I'm talking about is democratic and is anti-capitalist.)

Neverminding the differences, I honestly agree with the post quite a bit.

[Night Ripper]

"Capitalism doesn't work", he types on his computer, over the Internet while sitting inside an air conditioned room.

[DinodudeEpic]

"Capitalism doesn't work", he types on his computer, over the Internet while sitting inside an air conditioned room.

Capitalism isn't what distributed the internet, air-conditioning, or computers to all.

Free markets and democracy help create such devices. What at least I want is a free market socialist economy based on the principles of democracy and liberty.

[Black_Rose]

"Capitalism doesn't work", he types on his computer, over the Internet while sitting inside an air conditioned room.

He lives in Northern Europe and it's January. I doubt he has air conditioning.

[#FF0000]

"Capitalism doesn't work", he types on his computer, over the Internet while sitting inside an air conditioned room.

As the world economy collapses. As millions starve while farms are told not to produce or to destroy their crops to keep prices under control. As 80% of the world population gets by on less than $10 a day. As 3.5 million suffer homelessness in America while almost 20 million houses sit empty.

[feral bro]

against everything, for nothing. duh.

[Night Ripper]

As the world economy collapses. As millions starve while farms are told not to produce or to destroy their crops to keep prices under control. As 80% of the world population gets by on less than $10 a day. As 3.5 million suffer homelessness in America while almost 20 million houses sit empty.

Which has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with interference with the market. Also, 3.5 million homeless? I call BS on that.

[#FF0000]

Which has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with interference with the market. Also, 3.5 million homeless? I call BS on that.

Can't find the numbers so don't quote me on that -- but the idea of having any homeless at all in a country with so many empty houses is absurd.

And no, I'm sorry, government interference in the market is part of capitalism. I'd say capitalism would be in an even sorrier state without it -- judging by history.

[Night Ripper]

Can't find the numbers so don't quote me on that -- but the idea of having any homeless at all in a country with so many empty houses is absurd.

It's not absurd. There are people that refuse to be productive and you can't reward that behavior. If I work hard to get a house and someone that does nothing also gets a house, I'm the idiot for wasting my time working when I can get a house no matter what.

[#FF0000]

It's not absurd. There are people that refuse to be productive and you can't reward that behavior. If I work hard to get a house and someone that does nothing also gets a house, I'm the idiot for wasting my time working when I can get a house no matter what.

This is implying that people are mainly or mostly homeless because they don't want to work for a house, which is completely untrue.

[Night Ripper]

This is implying that people are mainly or mostly homeless because they don't want to work for a house, which is completely untrue.

Show me some numbers.

[Per Levy]

It's not absurd. There are people that refuse to be productive and you can't reward that behavior. If I work hard to get a house and someone that does nothing also gets a house, I'm the idiot for wasting my time working when I can get a house no matter what.


Causes

"In 2004 the United States Conference of Mayors... surveyed the mayors of major cities on the extent and causes of urban homelessness and most of the mayors named the lack of affordable housing as a cause of homelessness.... The next three causes identified by mayors, in rank order, were mental illness or the lack of needed services, substance abuse and lack of needed services, and low-paying jobs. The lowest ranking cause, cited by five mayors, was prisoner reentry. Other causes cited were unemployment, domestic violence, and poverty."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#cite_note-51)



Can't find the numbers so don't quote me on that


Total Number

As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#cite_note-SAMHSA-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#cite_note-17) Most were homeless temporarily. The chronically homeless population (those with repeated episodes or who have been homeless for long periods) fell from 175,914 in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#cite_note-hud.gov-5)



both from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States

[#FF0000]

Show me some numbers.

what numbers, exactly?

EDIT: per levy owns.

[Rooster]

Workers will be paid the same from the cooperative's profit, but the real differences in payment would be based on employee of the month awards (Decided democratically.) and such.

Why keep wage labour? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I was sure that communists are for the abolition of wages, the alienation of labour, commodity production, etc.


Of course, RGacky is just talking about a transitional phase that would head towards Socialism

Amazing that a restricted self declared market socialist understands that there's a transitional phase before socialism. You should just declare yourself a Stalinist (with the market socialism and all) and get yourself unrestricted.


"Capitalism doesn't work", he types on his computer, over the Internet while sitting inside an air conditioned room.

Mostly because saying that doesn't mean anything. Capitalism works just as well as feudalism and just as well as ancient slave society. We're not dealing with neat categories here but with the forces that are behind those categories.

[Night Ripper]

surveyed the mayors of major cities on the extent and causes of urban homelessness and most of the mayors named the lack of affordable housing as a cause of homelessness

If you ask me why I'm homeless and I say it's because ninja's killed my parents does that mean anything at all? No. You can't ask people why they are homeless and expect anything reliable at all. This isn't even firsthand but just some mayors giving talking points. Of course they're not going to say it's because people are lazy. If you can't see that this data is worthless then it's probably because it agrees with what you want to believe.

Also, for the sake of argument, let's say affordability is an issue. That still doesn't make sense. If you refuse to work for a living, if you never learned a skill, even $100 a month isn't affordable. Like I said, you can't let people skate by and expect them to ever change their ways.

[DinodudeEpic]

Why keep wage labour? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I was sure that communists are for the abolition of wages, the alienation of labour, commodity production, etc.



Amazing that a restricted self declared market socialist understands that there's a transitional phase before socialism. You should just declare yourself a Stalinist (with the market socialism and all) and get yourself unrestricted.



Mostly because saying that doesn't mean anything. Capitalism works just as well as feudalism and just as well as ancient slave society. We're not dealing with neat categories here but with the forces that are behind those categories.

That isn't wage labor. Wage labor is just the capitalist giving workers money INDEPENDENT of profit, instead giving it on the basis of a job. What I'm saying is that the workers would take up the role of the capitalist, which means that there wouldn't be wage labor. In total, there wouldn't be capitalists.

By transtitional phase, I meant reforms that would improve the state according to this
There is ONE law that could change it largely toward a socialist system, corporations (which are products of the state btw, and could not exist without the state) from now on have their board of directors elected by the workers .... plain and simple.

And I was talking about what I disagree with. I want immediate socialism, revolutionary socialism, not transitional phases.

Finally, Stalinism is only 'socialism' because it hates markets. It also is the opposite of what I proposed. (Totalitarian dictatorships are the near opposite of minarchistic direct democracies.) Plus, I think that Stalin probably would crack down on the nearest instance of cooperatives, calling it 'Utopian Proudhonist Socialism'.

In total, you don't know what in the fucking world you're talking about.

[#FF0000]

If you ask me why I'm homeless and I say it's because ninja's killed my parents does that mean anything at all? No. You can't ask people why they are homeless and expect anything reliable at all. This isn't even firsthand but just some mayors giving talking points. Of course they're not going to say it's because people are lazy. If you can't see that this data is worthless then it's probably because it agrees with what you want to believe.

Iiiiiii dunno if that's good criticism considering the fact that substance abuse and mental illness are also pretty high up there as a cause for homelessness. I don't see why people would be honest about crack ruining their life but then lie and say "yeah houses just aren't affordable".

I dunno where you live guy, but where I've been, it makes perfect sense. Houses are expensive compared to the wages people get. I've been trying my damndest to move out into my own place for a couple years now, and even with two people working full time, the jobs around here either 1) don't pay enough, or 2) pay well, but are on an extremely temporary basis.

And this is the case almost everywhere in America at this point, ESPECIALLY in New York City.

Honestly I'm kind of stunned you don't know this already.

[Night Ripper]

Iiiiiii dunno if that's good criticism considering the fact that substance abuse and mental illness are also pretty high up there as a cause for homelessness. I don't see why people would be honest about crack ruining their life but then lie and say "yeah houses just aren't affordable".

I dunno where you live guy, but where I've been, it makes perfect sense. Houses are expensive compared to the wages people get. I've been trying my damndest to move out into my own place for a couple years now, and even with two people working full time, the jobs around here either 1) don't pay enough, or 2) pay well, but are on an extremely temporary basis.

And this is the case almost everywhere in America at this point, ESPECIALLY in New York City.

Honestly I'm kind of stunned you don't know this already.

This is all moot anyways because the current system isn't a free market system. It's crippled by government regulations. If you say the current system doesn't work, I agree but don't say the current system is capitalism and expect me to believe you. What we have is corporatism or fascism.

[#FF0000]

This is all moot anyways because the current system isn't a free market system. It's crippled by government regulations. If you say the current system doesn't work, I agree but don't say the current system is capitalism and expect me to believe you. What we have is corporatism or fascism.

No, I'm sorry, this is still a capitalist system that employs the capitalist mode of production. This is also a country with one of the most laissez-faire economic attitudes on the planet. This is also a country with very poor quality of life compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Not to say that social democracies aren't themselves capitalist and don't also suck shit.

And honestly, I don't know what to tell a person who says the problem is regulation. Regulation of capitalism certainly isn't the answer, but this crisis we're in now was caused in large part due to de-regulation of the financial sector.

[Night Ripper]

Regulation of capitalism certainly isn't the answer, but this crisis we're in now was caused in large part due to de-regulation of the financial sector.

Imagine that there is a regulation that all cars are required to have poor quality brakes. Also, imagine that there is a regulation that everyone has to drive really slow. Since people are driving slow, the mandatory poor quality brakes work well enough. Now, the government "deregulates" cars by allowing them to drive really fast. Yet, it leaves the other regulation in place that requires cars to have poor quality brakes. Suddenly, the number of deadly car crashes goes through the roof. Predictably, the anti-free market crowd dances in joy over how awful and evil deregulation is. They ignore the fact that it's not deregulation that caused the problem. It's that it was only done partially.

Deregulation didn't cause anything. The regulations left in place did.

[#FF0000]

Imagine that there is a regulation that all cars are required to have poor quality brakes.

I don't think you know the point of regulations

[Night Ripper]

I don't think you know the point of regulations

It's an analogy. I guess it's just easier for you to pretend you don't understand it.

[Rooster]

That isn't wage labor. Wage labor is just the capitalist giving workers money INDEPENDENT of profit, instead giving it on the basis of a job. What I'm saying is that the workers would take up the role of the capitalist, which means that there wouldn't be wage labor. In total, there wouldn't be capitalists.

Wage labour creates profit. It isn't independent of it. Labour theory of value anyone? Exploitation? No? The second part of your paragraph makes no sense. If workers are capitalists then why aren't workers' capitalists instead of there being no capitalists?


By transtitional phase, I meant reforms that would improve the state according to this

You'd still fit in nicely with the Stalinist ranks.


And I was talking about what I disagree with. I want immediate socialism, revolutionary socialism, not transitional phases.

Awesome. Now we just need to come to an agreement on what socialism is and what capitalism is and what revolution means.


Finally, Stalinism is only 'socialism' because it hates markets. It also is the opposite of what I proposed. (Totalitarian dictatorships are the near opposite of minarchistic direct democracies.) Plus, I think that Stalin probably would crack down on the nearest instance of cooperatives, calling it 'Utopian Proudhonist Socialism'.

Probably, but go ask Rodrigo and Runemaster. They'll fill you in on why there should still be wage labour and commodity production under socialism even if socialism means there's no longer any classes.


In total, you don't know what in the fucking world you're talking about.

In total, you're nothing to me. I'm just using you as an example to lampoon market socialists and state-capitalists.

[Rooster]

It's an analogy. I guess it's just easier for you to pretend you don't understand it.

Why use a poor analogy when you have real life? Oh wait, maybe because real life doesn't match up with the fantasy world you live in.

[Night Ripper]

Why use a poor analogy when you have real life?

Why is it a poor analogy? What does it miss? Do you even have a reason for the hostility or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?

[#FF0000]

It's an analogy. I guess it's just easier for you to pretend you don't understand it.

It's a shitty one and goes off the assumption that people who say "hey we should regulate shit" believe that all regulations are good.

[Night Ripper]

It's a shitty one and goes off the assumption that people who say "hey we should regulate shit" believe that all regulations are good.

No, it doesn't. It shows that deregulation doesn't imply that everything happens is because of those missing regulations. It can also be the case that the regulations that remain are the real problem.

[DinodudeEpic]

Wage labour creates profit. It isn't independent of it. Labour theory of value anyone? Exploitation? No? The second part of your paragraph makes no sense. If workers are capitalists then why aren't workers' capitalists instead of there being no capitalists?



You'd still fit in nicely with the Stalinist ranks.



Awesome. Now we just need to come to an agreement on what socialism is and what capitalism is and what revolution means.



Probably, but go ask Rodrigo and Runemaster. They'll fill you in on why there should still be wage labour and commodity production under socialism even if socialism means there's no longer any classes.



In total, you're nothing to me. I'm just using you as an example to lampoon market socialists and state-capitalists.

*Facepalm*

What I'm saying is that the workers would divide the surplus of revenue (selling goods and services) and expense (paying for maintenance, new machines, anything to increase productivity.) equally.

Now, maybe I said the wrong word when calling that surplus "Profit", but the point is that the workers are the owners of the business. That's what I'm saying.

And, the whole point is the Labor Theory of Value. I want the workers to get the fruits of their labor, which they don't get under capitalism or Stalinist state capitalism.

And, no I don't fit with Stalinists. Stalinists want a planned economy, and I want free markets. The two are complete opposites. One wants planned economy and wage labor, the other wants cooperatives and free markets. Opposites if you ask me.

And finally, I meant that the workers would own the businesses instead of the capitalists. Basically, SOCIALISM!

You want wage labor, I don't. I want workers to earn the money through the free market instead of relying on the capitalist's wages. They sell goods and services, and they pay to keep and/or increase productivity. The surplus would go straight into their pockets, unlike capitalist where that surplus goes to the capitalist's pockets and they pay workers small bits of money called wages.

Finally, in no way do I support transitional phases. I criticized RGacky for exactly that, in that post. But, you misread my stating of RGacky's points as my word.

And, you ignored several of my points, that effectively disprove your idiotic assumption that I am a Stalinist.

I'm not even a Marxist for damn sakes. Read this to understand more about how cooperatives function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

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

[Revolution starts with U]

And here I was thinking computers and the internet were almost completely developed by the government... what was I thinking? :confused:

It's funny that the most technological and economic progress for US came after both the strong era of labor struggle and the later response to that (things like the New Deal), that the era of laissez faire only really improved things for wealthy people (workers were no better off than peasants, really), and yet we are supposed to accept that this was all the cause of laissez faire capitalism and that we should return to that.

Wait that's not funny... that's infuriatingly dense! :sneaky:

[Night Ripper]

And here I was thinking computers and the internet were almost completely developed by the government... what was I thinking? :confused:

The government brought mainframe computers, the kind that take up an entire office building. The fact that you can buy cheap commodity PC's, iPads, etc was not brought to you by the government.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, I'm sure you're right, and none of that R&D money for the PC came from the government. Good point. I'm also sure you're right that small computers only came out when they went public, they didn't exist in universities and military bases first or anything.

(Note that the US Government is a capitalist government. Market v government is not a capitalism v socialism argument; it's a market v government argument)

[Rooster]

Why is it a poor analogy? What does it miss? Do you even have a reason for the hostility or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?

What's the point in using an analogy about regulation when there are real life examples of regulation? Especially within the car industry. You're just pulling out stupid straw men arguments because you have no argument.

[Night Ripper]

Ya, I'm sure you're right, and none of that R&D money for the PC came from the government. Good point. I'm also sure you're right that small computers only came out when they went public, they didn't exist in universities and military bases first or anything.

I like how you avoid making any actual claims so you don't have to back up anything. However, the last time I checked Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, Apple and Tandy weren't government agencies.

[Tim Cornelis]

We arn't fighting for higher taxes, we arn't fighting for more entitlements.

We don't think we should all have the same compensation, we don't think people who work harder or contribute more or spend more time getting education should get paid the same.

Here is what we want ... ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.

Do you know what a cooperative is? Yeah, its where the workers, all of them, decide what to do with the profits rather than just a board of directors, (that means that probably some people, like managers perhaps, will get paid more), We think doctors should get paid more, and in a democratic system they WOULD be.

We want a system where when the system is profitable EVERYONE benefits, not juts teh executives and shareholders.

There is ONE law that could change it largely toward a socialist system, corporations (which are products of the state btw, and could not exist without the state) from now on have their board of directors elected by the workers .... plain and simple.

Also most of us believe that things that are of common interest should be under common control, i.e. you don't get to own a powerplant for profit that effects everyone, everyone should have a say over it.

And here is why we are against capitalism, first and formost, IT DOES'NT WORK, whether or not you think its fair, its riddled with internal contradictions that are causing it to fail.

We arn't ASKING anyone for anything, we organize and we take what is ours.

So you rightwingers, enough with the strawmen.

Are you sure you are an anarchist? Because what you propose is not the negation of hierarchy, but a democratization of the economy.

Democratically electing board of directors is still hierarchy.

And I don't think doctors deserve more pay. Doctors have a much more fulfilling work than most. Moreover, Cuban doctors only earn 25$ a month and yet Cuba has the highest rate of physicians.

This may be semantics, but workers' self-management sounds much more appropriate than economic democracy.


And here is why we are against capitalism, first and formost, IT DOES'NT WORK, whether or not you think its fair, its riddled with internal contradictions that are causing it to fail.

From earlier comments I know you believe in Marxist economics. Yet you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to also believe in the perpetuation of the market economy albeit with worker cooperatives, no?

[Night Ripper]

What's the point in using an analogy about regulation when there are real life examples of regulation?

Analogies are often used even when there are real world examples. They make things easier to understand. If can explain how the analogy doesn't apply, go for it. I doubt you can.

[Revolution starts with U]

I like how you avoid making any actual claims so you don't have to back up anything. However, the last time I checked Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, Apple and Tandy weren't government agencies.

You're right. I make no claims because I don't know the history of the PC. But I'm willing to put money that says every single one of those companies (maybe not Atari) received healthy government investments for R&D, and still do.

[Ocean Seal]

Capitalism isn't what distributed the internet, air-conditioning, or computers to all.

Free markets and democracy help create such devices. What at least I want is a free market socialist economy based on the principles of democracy and liberty.

Again with your liberal bullshit. Free markets and democracy can't load computers, routers, acs into trucks, drive them, or build them. Workers did that, not free markets, not capitalism, not socialism. That's the bottom line.

[Night Ripper]

You're right. I make no claims because I don't know the history of the PC. But I'm willing to put money that says every single one of those companies (maybe not Atari) received healthy government investments for R&D, and still do.

Do you think that proves without them computers wouldn't exist?

[Revolution starts with U]

Just from a quick Wikipedia search:



In what was later to be called The Mother of All Demos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos), SRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International) researcher Douglas Engelbart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart) in 1968 gave a preview of what would become the staples of daily working life in the 21st century - e-mail, hypertext, word processing, video conferencing, and the mouse. The demonstration required technical support staff and a mainframe time-sharing computer that were far too costly for individual business use at the time.
By the early 1970s, people in academic or research institutions had the opportunity for single-person use of a computer system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINC) in interactive mode for extended durations, although these systems would still have been too expensive to be owned by a single person.


What is SRI?



SRI International (SRI), founded as Stanford Research Institute, is one of the world's largest contract research institutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_institutes). SRI, based in Menlo Park, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_Park,_California), was established by the trustees of Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) in 1946

[Revolution starts with U]

Do you think that proves without them computers wouldn't exist?

Did I say that?

I'm dealing with the real world. Why are you dealing with hypotheticals?

[Night Ripper]

Did I say that?

I'm trying to figure out what your point is.

[Revolution starts with U]

The point is that your idea that market exchange is the driver of all innovation is bogus; in other words, tho capitalism did create the PC and the internet, your idea of capitalism did not

And the USSR was the first in space. Your argument is bunk.

[rylasasin]

And the USSR was the first in space. Your argument is bunk.

And the first to send an animal into space
and the first to send a man into outer space.
And the first to send a Woman into outer space.
And the first to accomplish a successful spacewalk.
And the first to have an interplanetary probe
And the first to crash land an unmanned probe on the moon.
And the first to softland an unmanned probe on the moon

... no wonder there are people who think we (the USA) didn't land on the moon. :lol:

[Night Ripper]

The point is that your idea that market exchange is the driver of all innovation is bogus; in other words, tho capitalism did create the PC and the internet, your idea of capitalism did not

And the USSR was the first in space. Your argument is bunk.

Strawman. Use the quote feature to avoid that.

[DinodudeEpic]

Again with your liberal bullshit. Free markets and democracy can't load computers, routers, acs into trucks, drive them, or build them. Workers did that, not free markets, not capitalism, not socialism. That's the bottom line.

What I meant is that an open society produces more ideas then a closed society.

Competition between ideas facilitates growth of products.

And, I understand that the workers were the ones who actually done the work. (Which actually validates my point that workers should rightfully own their businesses.)

[Rafiq]

Capitalism does 'work' and can sustain itself. But for how long?

[Revolution starts with U]

Strawman. Use the quote feature to avoid that.

Like this?


"Capitalism doesn't work", he types on his computer, over the Internet while sitting inside an air conditioned room.

Are you saying that if he sent this from space, you would credit him for saying it, since communists invented space travel and communications?

Or am I right in saying you were ignorantly trying to say that if it weren't for capitalism we would all be writing letters to the editors in feathered ink pens?

[Aphex]

Hey Rgacky3, you seem like a pretty decent guy, but maybe you shouldn't say "we" when speaking about these things because if you haven't noticed you're surrounded by a bunch of brainwashed Bolsheviks who are not simply after 'economic democracy' as you call it ...