You all love capitalism [Archive]

Nyder

1st December 2003, 13:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:05 PM
Just because we do it, doesnt mean we love it.

You take shits, don't you? But do you LOVE taking shits? No, Im sure you don't (Unles you happen to be a fecaphiliac), but you take them because you HAVE to.

Unfortunately, we must make sue with the times, but rest assured my misguided friend, your kind, your Capitalist Distopia, will collapse soon enough.

And to be honest, I BUILT my computer from spare parts, I havent bought an article of clothing in about a year (In fact, most of my clothes are either birthday or X-Mas Gifts), My food is all no-name brand (Because, its just the same as Name Brand crap, just reasonably priced), My Music is all pirated, Most of my books are gifts (Except the Communist Manifesto, I liberated that from my Oppressive High School's library [They had more than one copy, and I doubt anyone would have read it anyway...Its a Cappy school:(]). In recent memory, the only thing I purchase that isn't vital to my survival as a human being is bus fare, to get to and from College.

Proven WRONG
Ravenfan84,

You must live very basically then and are un-extravagant in your lifestyle if what you claim is true. Maybe if earned a higher income you would seek out and buy the things that you desire.

As for your analogy, it is inappropriate. Defecating is a necessity like eating in order to survive and live in good health.

Many things offered in a capitalist society are not necessary in order for my survival. Such as when I have paid to go and watch a movie at the local cinema purely for my entertainment. Yet billions of people all around the world desire these non-essential things everyday.

Have you ever made a consumer purchase that was not borne out of necessity for your own survival? If you have then you support capitalism.

Nyder

1st December 2003, 13:18

Isn't it ironic that non-supporters of communism will always have to be forced into living under such a society that has to use force in order subjugate people into its collective will....

However, in a capitalistic society, even your most avid communist fundamentalist will willingly make the effort to travel to a retail store; and under their own free will and conscious thought they will hand over money to a business (knowing that some of this money goes to profit the capitalist pigs) -> all in the name for their very own selfish desire to own or use this non-essential (for their own health or survival) good or service.

Hence I would say that most of the people posting at this board actively support capitalism and if they lived under a communist society in the future they would secretly wish for the luxuries they once enjoyed under capitalism.

So, fellow comrades, take my advice and don't ever again buy any product from a business. This way you are not supporting capitalism. Live as basically as possible - grow your own food, travel everywhere by walking (unless you can build a vehicle using natural materials obtained in a way that does not harm the environment and that you make sure you have the permission from the collective to use these as well as the food you grew).

Anastacia

1st December 2003, 13:29

It is sure that sometimes I have to support capitalism. But that don't mean I love it. I try to avoid supporting capitalism as much as I can. I don't think this is a good system and I don't give a shit if everything costs more if all humans have a right to live like human.

CASTRO_SUCKS

1st December 2003, 14:14

Originally posted by RavenFan84+Dec 1 2003, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RavenFan84 @ Dec 1 2003, 01:05 PM) You take shits, don't you? But do you LOVE taking shits? No, Im sure you don't.....but you take them because you HAVE to.[/b]

Obviously that "no-name-brand" food you're eating is keeping you constipated. I have to agree with tomorrowsparties (probably for the first and only time) nothing like a good healthy dump when you're about to blow! Eat more...you'll find this out for yourself!

[email protected] 1 2003, 01:05 PM
Unfortunately, we must make sue with the times, but rest assured my misguided friend, your kind, your Capitalist Distopia, will collapse soon enough.

So far (without bloodshed):
Soviet Union: Communism collapsed
East Germany:Communism collapsed
Venezuela:In the process of deterring a cuba-style government

Nyder:Good post!

Comrade of Cuba

1st December 2003, 15:36

Well irun Linux on my computer. Which is only a free OS. So it isn't as capitalistic as Microsoft or Apple. I buy the cheapest clothes (so with no special brand) cheap food. But of course a perfect communist way of life is impossible in a capitalistic country.

Pete

1st December 2003, 16:00

To live in a capitalist society one must divulge in capitalism, whether or not they like it. That is the way thigns are...

If ignorance is bliss you must be smiling behind your self?

dannie

1st December 2003, 17:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:43 PM
I ask you - who was the computer you're using brought from? Where did you buy your clothes you are wearing? Who did you buy your dinner from? What music do you listen to? What books are you reading? What movies have you watched? Ever went to a shop and brought something?

You all support capitalism unless you live like a peasant! ;)

I ask you - who was the computer you're using brought from?

it was bought second hand from a store wich buys overstock from company's that go bankrupt

Where did you buy your clothes you are wearing?

second hand from a small store in antwerp from a guy trying to make a living, t-shirt from an aid organisation called friends of cuba, the profit of these t-shirt is used to send containers with medicine, clothes, etc. to cuba, my socks come from the belgian army (these are old models wich they sold to army-stocks) and i don't know where my boxershort came from

Who did you buy your dinner from?

as it is neccesary to purchase food for my family this comes from a supermarket

What music do you listen to?

i mostly listen to metal but to other kinds of music too? but what does this have to do with capitalism, its been 2 years ago i bought a cd (before i got reading about communism)

What movies have you watched?

i've watched a lot of movies but it's been a couple of years ago i payed to see one

Ever went to a shop and brought something?

why else would i go to a shop??? <_<

it's not because we support capitalism we are capitalists, there is no way around supporting capitalism if you live in a capitalistic state

i live pretty basics, in comparisson to other people my age, but that doesn't make me feel bad or anything, it actually learns me alot

Misodoctakleidist

1st December 2003, 17:18

Al Creed

1st December 2003, 17:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:07 AM
You must live very basically then and are un-extravagant in your lifestyle if what you claim is true. Maybe if earned a higher income you would seek out and buy the things that you desire.

As for your analogy, it is inappropriate. Defecating is a necessity like eating in order to survive and live in good health.

Many things offered in a capitalist society are not necessary in order for my survival. Such as when I have paid to go and watch a movie at the local cinema purely for my entertainment. Yet billions of people all around the world desire these non-essential things everyday.

Have you ever made a consumer purchase that was not borne out of necessity for your own survival? If you have then you support capitalism.
I dont need to buy things to be happy. You know what makes me happy? Hiking in forests. Seeing wildlife that has yet to be destroyed by greedy asswipes like you. You know what also makes me happy? Seeing the smiling face of the woman I love when we're together. Thats what makes me happy.

I'm happy with the way I live. Im happy with who I am. If you think that all it takes to be happy, is buying superfulous crap, then you will never know true happiness.

And to answer your question, I only spend my money out of necessity, yes.

YKTMX

1st December 2003, 17:42

I've seen (and put forward :lol: ) some paper thin arguements in my time but that takes the biscuit.

It is also unfortunately used alot against socialists by those on the right, a kind of "love it or leave it argument". The idea that "we" should submit ourself to misery because "you" have made the world a shithole is odd in the extreme.

As it is the working class that produces everything in society surely we (as members and "leaders") have more claim to it than anybody.

That's the great lie at the heart of capitalism. Just because "you" sold it to us doesn't mean it belonged to "you". It simply means that the world is a strange upside down state where the people who do the least get the most. Not for long though :)

Desert Fox

1st December 2003, 17:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:43 PM
I ask you - ? Where did you buy your clothes you are wearing? Who did you buy your dinner from? What music do you listen to? What books are you reading? What movies have you watched? Ever went to a shop and brought something?

You all support capitalism unless you live like a peasant! ;)
Who was the computer you're using brought from?

My mate put it together with boosted gear :-)

Who did you buy your dinner from?

From the farmer, living outdoors is great ...

What music do you listen to?

Kashmir, Feeder , ...

What books are you reading?

Haha, me reading :lol:

What movies have you watched?

Kill Bill, Vertical Limit

Ever went to a shop and brought something?

Sure

You all support capitalism unless you live like a peasant! ;)

What is wrong with peasants <_<

synthesis

2nd December 2003, 00:41

I can't remember who made this analogy, but major props go out to them. I heard it awhile back and it has stuck with me since.

In the Roman days, it was considered a status symbol if you could afford the luxury of feasting on the tongues of hummingbirds. Did they taste good? Who knows. Clearly, you ate them because they made you feel more powerful to do so.

Does anyone eat the tongues of hummingbirds now? I doubt it. Either way, if you did, it wouldn't imply status at all, probably the other way around. Same with these fucking $100,000 SUVs, no one is going to give a shit in a hundred years; in fact, people are going to think you're a dipshit for using valuable capital on materialist nonsense.

However, in many Native American societies, it was a status symbol to give away almost everything you owned to benefit the community. The more you gave, the higher this reflected on your status. I don't see why a Communist society couldn't function any differently.

Al Creed

2nd December 2003, 00:45

That is true, DyerMaker. Just look at the Indians of the Pacific Northwest (IE: Haida, ect)

They called their gift giving ceremony the Potlatch. When one was held, a grand feast was prepared, and gifts of (to them) unimaginable wealth were given away to guests. Sometimes, gifts were even destroyed.

Europeans had it all wrong. It didnt matter how much you had, it was how much you could give away.

Pete

2nd December 2003, 00:47

The Brits even made potlachs illegal :angry:

As I said in a nother thread, the ways of life held by the natives of N. America seem to be a beacon, but one in the past. We should learn from them, as well as from the mistakes of the 20th Century (and successes) to create a light for the future :)

IHP

2nd December 2003, 01:34

The argument that we use capitalist prducts in a capitalist society is flawed and simplistic at best. It's like saying that in Prison you love the food because you eat it.

In a capitalist society, using the products made unavoidable.

I can't believe you started a thread about this.

Nyder

2nd December 2003, 02:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 05:00 PM
To live in a capitalist society one must divulge in capitalism, whether or not they like it. That is the way thigns are...

If ignorance is bliss you must be smiling behind your self?
No you don't.

No one is stopping you from setting up a commune somewhere and living the communist lifestyle. ;)

Nyder

2nd December 2003, 02:28

Isn't it ironic that non-supporters of communism will always have to be forced into living under such a society that has to use force in order subjugate people into its collective will....

Why does it have to use force?!! could you please explain this to me nyder because you say it at least 10 times a day and never have a reponse when i critisice you.

Communism has to use force because it forbids people to own private property and trade unrestricted in a free market. The only way to stop people engaging in these activities is to use force (threat and/or application of violence).

If people were free to own private property and engage in mutually beneficial trade then it wouldn't be communism.

Free will? what other option is there, i dont see any communist retail stores where all the proceeds got to helping communism.

If you want to give your money to Castro, Kim Jong Il, the communist party or any of the various left revolutionary groups such as the ones operating in South America and Asia then that is your choice. If I would you I would just make a donation to your local Communist Party. ;)

Why do you presume there will be no luxuries in communism? 90% of the population of a country such as Britain or the USA would have a more money, a great deal more, its only the ultra-rich minority who lose out. Your perception of communism is based on capitalist properganda which you gobble up like the ignorant unquestioning moron that you are. Take a look at the USSR under communism the living conditions of 99% of the population of russia were vastly improved as prior to this 1% of the populatioin had owned 99% of the wealth, since the collapse of the Soviet union living conditions have been on the slide, there are over 1 million people starving to death homeless, or living in basements, on the streets of moscow alone, a great number of whome are children but of couse the TV only shows you the upper class who have fancy cars and big houses at the expence, and often the lives, of the vast majority of the population.

There will be no luxuries under communism as it would take away a person's incentive to produce goods and services that were previously enjoyed under capitalism.

If you take all of the money off the rich by force and give it to the poor, then no one will ever try and be successful as they will be punished and everyone will be reduced to the same level. Everyone will be equal - equally poor (except for the communist government in power).

As for the USSR, I'm sure that the millions of people (in fact even greater than were killed in WW2) who died of starvation, lived in extreme poverty and who were slaughtered by Stalin for being opposed to his regime lived such great lives. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'great life'. :lol:

Nyder

2nd December 2003, 02:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 02:34 AM
The argument that we use capitalist prducts in a capitalist society is flawed and simplistic at best. It's like saying that in Prison you love the food because you eat it.

In a capitalist society, using the products made unavoidable.

I can't believe you started a thread about this.
Inappropriate analogy. In prison, you have no alternative but to eat the prison food. You eat what you are given and you have no choice in the matter.

When you go to a retailer and purchase something - you do that of your own choice and free will.

Pete

2nd December 2003, 02:48

Originally posted by Nyder+Dec 1 2003, 10:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nyder @ Dec 1 2003, 10:14 PM)
[email protected] 1 2003, 05:00 PM
To live in a capitalist society one must divulge in capitalism, whether or not they like it. That is the way thigns are...

If ignorance is bliss you must be smiling behind your self?
No you don't.

No one is stopping you from setting up a commune somewhere and living the communist lifestyle. ;) [/b]
Yes yes I must. I cannot get my food or clothing from a noncapitalist source. Even if I was to make them, the materials would be coming from a capitalist.

Wouldn't that just be selfish of me? Setting up a commune yet leaving the rest of the world to filth like you?

dancingoutlaw

2nd December 2003, 03:08

Nyder does make a good point, What do you not enjoy about the products of capitalism? Even Marx was enthralled by the effeciency and progress made by the private sector. All that I have seen in argument to this post are the excessive nature of capitalism. I consider myself capitalist but I live a fairly meager life compared to that of someone of the same status in the same place. I am pretty frugal. I buy clothes of lesser price. I buy food of lesser price. I buy the things that are within the budget I set for myself (or I try my hardest to do at least)

I see the arguments of of the Pacific Northwest natives who would give away or destroy their goods as an example of communistic behavior. Why do you think they did such things? It was not out of love for their bretheren, it was to impress their status upon others. It was saying that I can afford to live without these things because I am so important. Something that you are all against.

So the question remains. American culture (one of the most successful capitalist ventures of them all) is reviled across the globe and is perhaps sadly vapid, yet remains a constant draw (like a black hole)of money towards it. If someone can explain the constant abhorrance and simultaneous purchase of America please do.

Peace

Maynard

2nd December 2003, 03:12

I don't see why on earth, I have to justify my lifestyle to you. Whether I do or do not support capitalism, it doesn't make my own thoughts on an alternative any less valid.
You are a Libertarian, yet you pay taxes and you will pay taxes, you probably have supported government owned enterprises or business helped by government spending. You use the roads that were payed for by the government, not the product of "private enterprise". Why do you do it ? Because it's the system in which you live, it's our duty if we disagree with the system, to change it even if it means "supporting" it in the mean time. Our ideas are much more important on how much disposable income we spend on products borne out of capitalism. Lenin said something like "The capitalists will sell us the rope to hang him by".

You must live very basically then and are un-extravagant in your lifestyle if what you claim is true. Maybe if earned a higher income you would seek out and buy the things that you desire.

Perhaps he doesn't desire an extravagant lifestyle, it is not that unusual. What benefits does it bring to live in such a way ?

Isn't it ironic that non-supporters of communism will always have to be forced into living under such a society that has to use force in order subjugate people into its collective will....

No, It doesn't. They are free to start there own enterprise if they desire and try to sell things at a profit. The fact is, they would never succeed if there is an alternative between "free" goods or goods made for profit.

all in the name for their very own selfish desire to own or use this non-essential (for their own health or survival) good or service.

Nice trick trying to make us look as selfish, when you would be just the same if not more so.

So, fellow comrades, take my advice and don't ever again buy any product from a business. This way you are not supporting capitalism. Live as basically as possible - grow your own food, travel everywhere by walking (unless you can build a vehicle using natural materials obtained in a way that does not harm the environment and that you make sure you have the permission from the collective to use these as well as the food you grew).
Communism isn't about peasantry at all. Like YKTMX said, The people who create these goods are more entitled to actually owning them, than any one else.

So far (without bloodshed):
Soviet Union: Communism collapsed
East Germany:Communism collapsed
Venezuela:In the process of deterring a cuba-style government

I don't know how many times it needs to be explained but the Soviet Union and East Germany were not communist countries, how can something collapse when it never existed ?
Chavez won in a democratic election, explain what he has done illegally ?

No one is stopping you from setting up a commune somewhere and living the communist lifestyle
Setting up a commune involves land, land needs money to purchase and to get that money, we will probably be "supporting" capitalism.

There will be no luxuries under communism as it would take away a person's incentive to produce goods and services that were previously enjoyed under capitalism

What about the luxuries that were already produced ? There are also incentives rather than just the profit motive. Not everything has been "invented" because of the profit motive and the incentive to produce these goods, would be because there is a demand for them. So, if there is a collective demand for goods, they will be produced. There may not be as many luxuries but I don't see that as a problem at all.

If you take all of the money off the rich by force and give it to the poor, then no one will ever try and be successful as they will be punished and everyone will be reduced to the same level. Everyone will be equal - equally poor (except for the communist government in power).

Communist government is an oxymoron. There wouldn't be taking any money off the rich, there would be simply no money in a communist society. What is your definition of "successful" making as much money as possible ?

Inappropriate analogy. In prison, you have no alternative but to eat the prison food. You eat what you are given and you have no choice in the matter.

Yes but they have a choice whether to eat the food or not. They choose that , because they need to survive and if we live in a capitalist country, there is no way we could survive without supporting the system.

Hawker

2nd December 2003, 03:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 03:28 AM

If you take all of the money off the rich by force and As for the USSR, I'm sure that the millions of people (in fact even greater than were killed in WW2) who died of starvation, lived in extreme poverty and who were slaughtered by Stalin for being opposed to his regime lived such great lives. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'great life'. :lol:
Okay listen up the USSR wasn't communist and so was Stalin.He was an Authoritorian Left,he stole the position of chairman from Lenin when he was recovering from a stroke and yes there was mass poverty and death during Stalin's rule,but that was him,he was a ruthless dicatator.

Maynard

2nd December 2003, 04:02

Okay listen up the USSR wasn't communist and so was Stalin.He was an Authoritorian Left,he stole the position of chairman from Lenin when he was recovering from a stroke and yes there was mass poverty and death during Stalin's rule,but that was him,he was a ruthless dicatator.
Noooooooooo! I feel a "Stalinist" /"Trotkyiste" debate coming on. These type of things should not be encouraged, personally I think it's one of the greatest things holding back the communist movement. What Stalin did or do not do, doesn't help us now. It's time to move on past that and look towards the future. Though to be completely hypocritical, I will say that the mass poverty was lessened by Soviet rule and these deaths were more than likely lessened than under Tsar rule. That doesn't mean it's "good" but I still think it was better under Soviet rule with regards to most issues.

synthesis

2nd December 2003, 05:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 05:02 AM

Okay listen up the USSR wasn't communist and so was Stalin.He was an Authoritorian Left,he stole the position of chairman from Lenin when he was recovering from a stroke and yes there was mass poverty and death during Stalin's rule,but that was him,he was a ruthless dicatator.
Noooooooooo! I feel a "Stalinist" /"Trotkyiste" debate coming on. These type of things should not be encouraged, personally I think it's one of the greatest things holding back the communist movement. What Stalin did or do not do, doesn't help us now. It's time to move on past that and look towards the future. Though to be completely hypocritical, I will say that the mass poverty was lessened by Soviet rule and these deaths were more than likely lessened than under Tsar rule. That doesn't mean it's "good" but I still think it was better under Soviet rule with regards to most issues.
This is an excellent way to put things. I support Stalin over the Tzar, I support Mao over Kai-Shek, I support Ho Chi Minh over French imperialism, I support Castro over Batista, and I support the DDR over the NSDAP. It doesn't mean I support the methods either taken or espoused by Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, or DDR - it just means that I think they were the best option their people had at that time.

I don't think anything can truly function as a substitute for genuine proletarian revolution; I merely think that Leninism, although totalitarian, is better as an alternative for the people of the nations it has taken place in because it is authoritarian socialism rather than authoritarian capitalism.

It is pointless to compare Bolshevik Russia with America or industrialized Europe because it was impossible for Russia to industrialize without Bolshevism; it would have been in a continual stasis through Western European exploitation.

So stop making pointless comparisons, Nyder; they are misleading.

Nyder

2nd December 2003, 06:03

I don't see why on earth, I have to justify my lifestyle to you. Whether I do or do not support capitalism, it doesn't make my own thoughts on an alternative any less valid.
You are a Libertarian, yet you pay taxes and you will pay taxes, you probably have supported government owned enterprises or business helped by government spending. You use the roads that were payed for by the government, not the product of "private enterprise". Why do you do it ? Because it's the system in which you live, it's our duty if we disagree with the system, to change it even if it means "supporting" it in the mean time. Our ideas are much more important on how much disposable income we spend on products borne out of capitalism. Lenin said something like "The capitalists will sell us the rope to hang him by".

Another inappropriate analogy. I have no choice to pay taxes, unlike my choice to buy and product or service that is produced on the market. If I don't pay taxes, the Government will force punishment on me. The same thing won't happen if I don't buy a particular brand.

You must live very basically then and are un-extravagant in your lifestyle if what you claim is true. Maybe if earned a higher income you would seek out and buy the things that you desire.

Perhaps he doesn't desire an extravagant lifestyle, it is not that unusual. What benefits does it bring to live in such a way ?

It doesn't matter what benefits that it brings, if someone wants to live a particular lifestyle that's their prerogative.

Isn't it ironic that non-supporters of communism will always have to be forced into living under such a society that has to use force in order subjugate people into its collective will....

No, It doesn't. They are free to start there own enterprise if they desire and try to sell things at a profit. The fact is, they would never succeed if there is an alternative between "free" goods or goods made for profit.

And how exactly are goods going to be made 'free'?

I'll answer for you - the only way they can be free is if have one producer (the government) distributing food as it sees fit. And everyone works to produce for the government. In other words - a slave society with everyone living in poverty.

Communism isn't about peasantry at all. Like YKTMX said, The people who create these goods are more entitled to actually owning them, than any one else.

The person or persons who purchased the inputs into the production has the rights to the final product. For example, if you pay someone to assemble a chair for you that you purchased the materials for; that doesn't mean that the person who assembled the chair owns the final product (unless there was an agreement that if said person assembled the chair he would get to own it).

I don't know how many times it needs to be explained but the Soviet Union and East Germany were not communist countries, how can something collapse when it never existed ?

Because it isn't possible without having a large state to enforce it's ideology.

Setting up a commune involves land, land needs money to purchase and to get that money, we will probably be "supporting" capitalism.

Only in the interim. ;) Then you can get all your communist buddies who will leech off your land and eat your home-grown food (unless you use the threat of violence to make them work).

What about the luxuries that were already produced ? There are also incentives rather than just the profit motive. Not everything has been "invented" because of the profit motive and the incentive to produce these goods, would be because there is a demand for them. So, if there is a collective demand for goods, they will be produced. There may not be as many luxuries but I don't see that as a problem at all.

It is pure logic. Why would I produce something if in the end my time and labour amounted to nothing? Why would I buy anything for amount X and sell it for the same amount? I might as well put in all the hard work and give it away for free. Doing that under free will is insanity. Doing it under force is slavery.

Communist government is an oxymoron. There wouldn't be taking any money off the rich, there would be simply no money in a communist society. What is your definition of "successful" making as much money as possible ?

Then how will value be determined and what will be bartered? Money is used because it is an efficient store of value to trade with.

Yes but they have a choice whether to eat the food or not. They choose that , because they need to survive and if we live in a capitalist country, there is no way we could survive without supporting the system.

You are incorrect you could produce the food yourself or you could move to a communist country if you can't stand capitalism so much. ;) The fact is no one is forcing you to buy from any capitalist producer. You make the choice yourself.

The Feral Underclass

2nd December 2003, 06:11

However, in a capitalistic society, even your most avid communist fundamentalist will willingly make the effort to travel to a retail store; and under their own free will and conscious thought they will hand over money to a business (knowing that some of this money goes to profit the capitalist pigs) -> all in the name for their very own selfish desire to own or use this non-essential (for their own health or survival) good or service.

Why should I stop buying CD's? Why should I stop going to the cinema? What would be the point of this. You have an over simplified view of communism and capitalism. You seem to have this inate idea about what communist is. IT IS NOT THE SUBJUGATION OF PEOPLE INTO COLLECTIVES!!! You don't seem to believe me, but you're just going to have to get over that !

I could stop giving money to capitalism, but I would die! I could stop buying CD's or going to the cinema. But then i'd have no enjoyment in my life. And for what reason would i stop. As some kind of principled act that really has no consequence to it. The idea is not to stop buying CD's and going to the cinema. But destroy the system which means I have no control over the CD's I buy or the cinemas I go too.

It is also very interesting how you put selfishness and non-essential good or service in the same sentance. Since when has it been a selfish act to want to listen to some music or watch a film.

Of course there are principled stands people should take, such as not eating mcdonalds, or drinking coca-cola, but even then there is no real point to it. Oil companies that run your buses are probably far worse than mcdonalds but then it just becomes stupid. The point is smashing the bosses of these companies and allowing the workers to control them.

Communism has to use force because it forbids people to own private property and trade unrestricted in a free market. The only way to stop people engaging in these activities is to use force (threat and/or application of violence).

I will say it one more time so you dont have an excuse. COMMUNISM IS NOT ABOUT USING FORCE!!! NO MATTER WHAT YOU READ IN A HISTORY BOOK!!!

Maynard

2nd December 2003, 07:48

Another inappropriate analogy. I have no choice to pay taxes, unlike my choice to buy and product or service that is produced on the market. If I don't pay taxes, the Government will force punishment on me. The same thing won't happen if I don't buy a particular brand.

That's my point, we have no choice either because there are no alternatives to the way I live at this point of time. I can't live a "communist" lifestyle on my own nor would I want too. I could try but what good would that do ? I want communism for everyone not just myself. It's a fact that use have to use the system to change the system, that's the way it's always been. I could be satisfied that I was living a "communist" lifestyle but in the end what good would that ever do ?

It doesn't matter what benefits that it brings, if someone wants to live a particular lifestyle that's their prerogative
It's also our prerogative to live our lifestyle, why does this suddenly matter to you ?

And how exactly are goods going to be made 'free'?

By not charging any money. Have you need heard of the say "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability".

I'll answer for you - the only way they can be free is if have one producer (the government) distributing food as it sees fit. And everyone works to produce for the government. In other words - a slave society with everyone living in poverty

Your "answer" is based on the false assumption there is a government, when there isn't. So, your answer is entirely false.

The person or persons who purchased the inputs into the production has the rights to the final product. For example, if you pay someone to assemble a chair for you that you purchased the materials for; that doesn't mean that the person who assembled the chair owns the final product (unless there was an agreement that if said person assembled the chair he would get to own it).

Yes but the point is, capitalists basically all the means of production in society, they "own" or "control" the inputs. So, how can anyone who disagrees not support it ?

Because it isn't possible without having a large state to enforce it's ideology.

That really has little to do with my quote but it's funny how you put such a strange word , such as enforce in. You don't think all governments "enforce" there ideology on the people ?

Only in the interim. Then you can get all your communist buddies who will leech off your land and eat your home-grown food (unless you use the threat of violence to make them work).

The concept of "my" land and "my" food, would be hard to justify in a commune but it doesn't matter if a commune was started, we'd still support capitalism. To "make' food, we will need capital which is unfeasible to make in a little commune. I don't see how it will help in any case.

It is pure logic. Why would I produce something if in the end my time and labour amounted to nothing? Why would I buy anything for amount X and sell it for the same amount? I might as well put in all the hard work and give it away for free. Doing that under free will is insanity. Doing it under force is slavery.

It is not for nothing, in fact it would be a lot more rewarding than what we have now, to get the minority even richer. Goods would be produced because society need's them to be produce, the incentive to produce would be to have that product in a society. This "hard work" ensures that you will get what you need. It's not under force at all, if someone doesn't want to work it comes at there own and societies disadvantage, if they do it's for there own advantage. If they want to try private enterprise, go ahead. The fact is it wouldn't be viable. The vast majority would reject it and rightfully so.

Then how will value be determined and what will be bartered? Money is used because it is an efficient store of value to trade with

There would be no values on good except for what the person themselves places in there priority. If someone wants to barter, that's fine I guess but everyone's needs and wants as effectively as possible would be satisfied for free. Wants would most likely take on a new shape in a communist society.

You are incorrect you could produce the food yourself or you could move to a communist country if you can't stand capitalism so much. The fact is no one is forcing you to buy from any capitalist producer. You make the choice yourself.

How could I produce food for myself without using any form of capitalist product, when the purchase of the land to produce the food is supporting Capitalism. How could I also "move" to a communist country, when one doesn't exist ? Why should I have to move ? How would me moving enhance the ideology I am trying to promote ?

shakermaker

2nd December 2003, 09:12

isn't it hard to NOT support the capitalism in a capitalistic country?! yeees it is...
whatever you do and wherever you go you support capitalism, it's impossible to not support it in today's world!

How could I also "move" to a communist country, when one doesn't exist ?.
create your own one. :D sorry

Misodoctakleidist

2nd December 2003, 18:16

Isn't it ironic that non-supporters of communism will always have to be forced into living under such a society that has to use force in order subjugate people into its collective will....

Why does it have to use force?!! could you please explain this to me nyder because you say it at least 10 times a day and never have a reponse when i critisice you.

Communism has to use force because it forbids people to own private property and trade unrestricted in a free market. The only way to stop people engaging in these activities is to use force (threat and/or application of violence).

If people were free to own private property and engage in mutually beneficial trade then it wouldn't be communism.

Why would you need to use force to stop someone from selling something, you could just fine them the profit they made. How exactly does one go about engaging in the activity of owning something that belongs to the state? They'll just say "no you don't" and that'll be the end of it since it would be backed up by the legal system. By your arguments capitalism would need to use force to stop me from owning your house.

Free will? what other option is there, i dont see any communist retail stores where all the proceeds got to helping communism.

If you want to give your money to Castro, Kim Jong Il, the communist party or any of the various left revolutionary groups such as the ones operating in South America and Asia then that is your choice. If I would you I would just make a donation to your local Communist Party. ;)

Yes i could but they aren't seeling me food and clothes are they? In order to obtain anything i have to trade with capitalists.

There will be no luxuries under communism as it would take away a person's incentive to produce goods and services that were previously enjoyed under capitalism.

If you take all of the money off the rich by force and give it to the poor, then no one will ever try and be successful as they will be punished and everyone will be reduced to the same level. Everyone will be equal - equally poor (except for the communist government in power).

Why would it take away these incentives, people are still payed to do the same jobs except they are payed by the state and not by capitalists and therefor paid more so surely, if anything, there would be more incentive. Luxuries aren't invented by business owners, they are usually invented by designers who are employees who are paid a fixed wage. Your comment about equally poor flies in the face of the statistics i provided you with, infact the very statistics which you quote and are meant to be criticising, in most wester societies about 50% of the wealth is owned by about 1% of the people and about 90% by about 10% of the people and in poorer countries these statistics are even more extreme, there is more than enough to go round for everyone to be relitivly well off, certainly rich enough to buy luxeries.

As for the USSR, I'm sure that the millions of people (in fact even greater than were killed in WW2) who died of starvation, lived in extreme poverty and who were slaughtered by Stalin for being opposed to his regime lived such great lives. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'great life'. :lol:

My point was not that their lives were great but that they were economically better off, this was in reponse to your suggestion that communism made everyone poor. The USSR is a goos example of how people become richer under communism not poorer, unless you are a millionaire you only stand to gain through communism. I wouldn't suggest for a minute that Stalinist russia was some kind of paradise but this does not represent communism it is just one rather poor attempt.

LuZhiming

2nd December 2003, 23:45

So let me get this straight, your arguement is that we all love Capitalism because we participate in it? If one doesn't like Capitalism, and lives in a Capitalist country, I don't think that means they have to make their life completely miserable. You pose such a ridicolous arguement.

Nyder

3rd December 2003, 00:36

That's my point, we have no choice either because there are no alternatives to the way I live at this point of time. I can't live a "communist" lifestyle on my own nor would I want too. I could try but what good would that do ? I want communism for everyone not just myself. It's a fact that use have to use the system to change the system, that's the way it's always been. I could be satisfied that I was living a "communist" lifestyle but in the end what good would that ever do ?

You want to force everyone to live a communist lifestyle? What if there are people who don't want to live this lifestyle?

And how exactly are goods going to be made 'free'?

By not charging any money. Have you need heard of the say "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability".

But if I don't get anything in return for producing goods and services, why would I produce anything?

I'll answer for you - the only way they can be free is if have one producer (the government) distributing food as it sees fit. And everyone works to produce for the government. In other words - a slave society with everyone living in poverty

Your "answer" is based on the false assumption there is a government, when there isn't. So, your answer is entirely false.

No it isn't. How else would a communist society work where no one is allowed to trade to make a profit. No one would produce so you would need everyone producing just the basics in order to survive and this would need some administration which would take the form of a government.

Yes but the point is, capitalists basically all the means of production in society, they "own" or "control" the inputs. So, how can anyone who disagrees not support it ?

'Capitalists' are just people who produce goods and services to trade on the market. Either they own or manage the means of production or both. If you have ever been in employment, that is a form of production. You produced a service (labour) and sold it to an employer for an agree price. It's not just a simple case of a few old men in business suits owning everything (which is what you appear to assume).

If you disagree then don't trade with anybody. You can try stealing or robbery. Because like I said, the only way to get something is through trading, stealing/robbery or by receiving gifts.

That really has little to do with my quote but it's funny how you put such a strange word , such as enforce in. You don't think all governments "enforce" there ideology on the people ?

Yes, governments use force. Free entreprise doesn't. Free enterprise uses voluntary trade.

The concept of "my" land and "my" food, would be hard to justify in a commune but it doesn't matter if a commune was started, we'd still support capitalism. To "make' food, we will need capital which is unfeasible to make in a little commune. I don't see how it will help in any case.

Don't ask me - talk to someone who has run a commune. ;)

It is not for nothing, in fact it would be a lot more rewarding than what we have now, to get the minority even richer. Goods would be produced because society need's them to be produce, the incentive to produce would be to have that product in a society. This "hard work" ensures that you will get what you need. It's not under force at all, if someone doesn't want to work it comes at there own and societies disadvantage, if they do it's for there own advantage. If they want to try private enterprise, go ahead. The fact is it wouldn't be viable. The vast majority would reject it and rightfully so.

And who is to decide what 'society needs' to produce? How is this to be decided? Will they take into account the demands of everyone?

What makes you think that the 'vast majority' would reject private enterprise?

Also, why should I live my life subservient to everyone else?

There would be no values on good except for what the person themselves places in there priority. If someone wants to barter, that's fine I guess but everyone's needs and wants as effectively as possible would be satisfied for free. Wants would most likely take on a new shape in a communist society.

So you have never wanted any good produced by free enterprise? Free enterprise works by catering to people's needs and wants because there is an incentive to produce those goods and services because there is a strong demand and people willing to pay for them. Without this, how are needs and wants going to be provided for the many different types of people who desire different things?

How could I produce food for myself without using any form of capitalist product, when the purchase of the land to produce the food is supporting Capitalism. How could I also "move" to a communist country, when one doesn't exist ? Why should I have to move ? How would me moving enhance the ideology I am trying to promote ?

If you really want to help the poor, why don't you contribute to a charity or do voluntary work? There are plenty of those in capitalist societies.

IHP

3rd December 2003, 01:13

"Inappropriate analogy. In prison, you have no alternative but to eat the prison food. You eat what you are given and you have no choice in the matter.

When you go to a retailer and purchase something - you do that of your own choice and free will."

Firstly, it was a simile, not an analogy. Good grasp of the english language!

I see you cannot discern relativity, so I will bust it down a knotch for you. In a capitalist society, what products are available to be purchased from a retailer? They're products, like in any other countries with their own economic structures. As I live in Australia, an essentially capitalist nation, the only products I can buy are created from capitalism. I have no choice. It's not at all my free will.

Also, under capitalism, choice is limited, not expanded. While I can go to the supermarket and find ten brands of corn flakes, I can't find ten brands of guava flavoured flakes. You may say that is because the market has spoken but I may counter that it's because of subsidized agribusiness, which, because of influence in the social arena, finds corn to be more profitable. Choice is limited, not expanded by capitalism.

Don't Change Your Name

3rd December 2003, 01:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 12:43 PM
I ask you - who was the computer you're using brought from? Where did you buy your clothes you are wearing? Who did you buy your dinner from? What music do you listen to? What books are you reading? What movies have you watched? Ever went to a shop and brought something?

You all support capitalism unless you live like a peasant! ;)
MOST STUPID CAPITALIST ARGUMENT EVER
You are not supporting capitalism with that. Of course you cappies want us to live in poorness so we die and you rule the world without smart people talking against you.

Don't Change Your Name

3rd December 2003, 02:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 03:28 AM
Communism has to use force because it forbids people to own private property and trade unrestricted in a free market. The only way to stop people engaging in these activities is to use force (threat and/or application of violence).

If people were free to own private property and engage in mutually beneficial trade then it wouldn't be communism.
It seems that for you there are two paths in life: "individual rights" (private property, right to own a business, representative "democracy" and other lies that promote stealing to the society and making people live in a constant economical war) and communism (or fascism, the same thing for you, authoritarian lazy dictators which control all your movements by a strategy game)

As for the USSR, I'm sure that the millions of people (in fact even greater than were killed in WW2) who died of starvation, lived in extreme poverty and who were slaughtered by Stalin for being opposed to his regime lived such great lives. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'great life'. :lol:

Yeah Stalin killed many...but I heard a couple of times that the end of "communism" in the USSR caused 3 millions of deaths. If that's true...then that's a worst rate for such a small time, especially considering that now there will be more poorness over there.

Nyder

3rd December 2003, 02:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 02:13 AM

"Inappropriate analogy. In prison, you have no alternative but to eat the prison food. You eat what you are given and you have no choice in the matter.

When you go to a retailer and purchase something - you do that of your own choice and free will."

Firstly, it was a simile, not an analogy. Good grasp of the english language!

You don't think that you comparing being fed in prison to having to buy from capitalists for your needs is using an analogy? Look up the definition again:

a·nal·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

I see you cannot discern relativity, so I will bust it down a knotch for you. In a capitalist society, what products are available to be purchased from a retailer? They're products, like in any other countries with their own economic structures. As I live in Australia, an essentially capitalist nation, the only products I can buy are created from capitalism. I have no choice. It's not at all my free will.

Bullshit. No one is forcing you to buy anything. You don't have to listen to music or watch movies which are produced by capitalists. You all do that of your own free will.

Also, under capitalism, choice is limited, not expanded. While I can go to the supermarket and find ten brands of corn flakes, I can't find ten brands of guava flavoured flakes. You may say that is because the market has spoken but I may counter that it's because of subsidized agribusiness, which, because of influence in the social arena, finds corn to be more profitable. Choice is limited, not expanded by capitalism.

Nice example. :rolleyes:

Subsidies are given by Government, not capitalists. Subsidies are the result of collectivism. Choice has been limited by Government, not free enterprise.

Maynard

3rd December 2003, 07:10

You want to force everyone to live a communist lifestyle? What if there are people who don't want to live this lifestyle?

Who said anything about being "forced" into it ? No one did. Communism can only happen and work if the vast majority accept it and welcome it. Otherwise the problems just become too large. I'm not forcing anybody into anything. I said "want" and if you don't "want" people to believe what you believe , then you can hardly hold much of a belief. If they don't support it, they can take your advice to us, start there own capitalist movement but just as living a communist lifestyle would not work under capitalism, neither would capitalism under communism. It would be exactly the type of thing you are trying to make us feel bad about.

But if I don't get anything in return for producing goods and services, why would I produce anything?

You do get something , If you produce goods and services you will receive these goods and services for free. The incentive to produce is to increase your own "standard of living", which it is now. The more goods and services that are produce the more likely your own wants and needs will be met.

No it isn't. How else would a communist society work where no one is allowed to trade to make a profit. No one would produce so you would need everyone producing just the basics in order to survive and this would need some administration which would take the form of a government.

It isn't ? You are telling my beliefs have changed without me knowing ? If there is a state, there communism doesn't exist there. It's that simple.
What do you mean "No one will produce", You think people will think "Oh no, I can't get profit, well I may as well just die then" people will produce goods because they need or want them. There may be small administrative details but I wouldn't call that being a state.

'Capitalists' are just people who produce goods and services to trade on the market. Either they own or manage the means of production or both. If you have ever been in employment, that is a form of production. You produced a service (labour) and sold it to an employer for an agree price. It's not just a simple case of a few old men in business suits owning everything (which is what you appear to assume).

I am well aware with textbook economics, I study economics at university. Capitalists are those who own the factors of production and sell there product for profit. Goods are produced by these means of production, so how can I gain any product which does not involve this ? You tell me.
How is it I appeared to assume that ? In what way ? Communists are dunderheads when it comes to economics, the majority understand capitalism and what it involves and they reject it.

Yes, governments use force. Free entreprise doesn't. Free enterprise uses voluntary trade.

Capitalism is an ideology and so those who adminstartor this ideology "force" it on the people , which includes those behind free enterprise. If you don't agree with free enterprise in a purely capitalism system,you have to support it or you will die. That's what I would regard as forcing or maybe out of own "will" but there are no feasable alternatives.

If you disagree then don't trade with anybody. You can try stealing or robbery. Because like I said, the only way to get something is through trading, stealing/robbery or by receiving gifts.

Yes exactly, you are proving my point here, there is no alternatives to the system of trading in the current system, so how can you say we "love" capitalism, when there is no other choice. How can we not trade ? Just as it's the same with you with taxes, we trade because we have too or would be punished otherwise.

Don't ask me - talk to someone who has run a commune
I don't think I asked you anything there but you were the one who suggested it and I pointed out, how logically inconsistent it was because we would still be supporting capitalism either way. You can't deny that.

And who is to decide what 'society needs' to produce? How is this to be decided? Will they take into account the demands of everyone?

The people in the society, just as there is now. If there is a demand for something, it will be known and if enough people demand it, resources will be shifted to meet this demand. It won't be like today's system where demand is trying to be created by companies, it will be demanded because people really want it. I don't think "everyone's" demand can be met, not can it under capitalism, if everyone demanded spaceships at one time , could they be produced ? If there is demand for a yacht, it would be hardly justifiable creating it for a select few and others miss it, so it will be produced to satisfy the demand of the community. Economic choices will have to be prioritised so that the most people can be satisfied in there wants.

What makes you think that the 'vast majority' would reject private enterprise?

Because it makes sense, if you had a choice between two similar goods. One being for free one not, you will choose the free option, nearly everyone would. Why wouldn't you ? and without customers private enterprise collapses.

Also, why should I live my life subservient to everyone else?

Explain how this is more the case is communism than capitalism ?

So you have never wanted any good produced by free enterprise
Did I ever say anything like that ?

Free enterprise works by catering to people's needs and wants because there is an incentive to produce those goods and services because there is a strong demand and people willing to pay for them. Without this, how are needs and wants going to be provided for the many different types of people who desire different things?

Again, I don't need the economics lesson. I know how free enterprise works nut goods will be produced because people desire them, there is a demand there so society will reflect that demand in there production. Those wants can be satisfied by anyone having the means of production to produce those goods themselves or the want can be communicated and if it's viable, it'll be produced.

If you really want to help the poor, why don't you contribute to a charity or do voluntary work? There are plenty of those in capitalist societies.
Not that it's anyone's business but I do contribute to charities and have worked voluntarily as a carer to blind children and working at the RSPCA. The fact is, these charities are plughole solutions, the best way to help poor people is by changing the system so there no longer has to be any poor people. That makes sense to me.

Desert Fox

3rd December 2003, 18:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 03:34 AM
The argument that we use capitalist prducts in a capitalist society is flawed and simplistic at best. It's like saying that in Prison you love the food because you eat it.

In a capitalist society, using the products made unavoidable.

I can't believe you started a thread about this.
I concur, that is why I answerd to his silly questions. Most capitalists use this argument and I have heard it so much. However nothing is flawless but this argument has more flaws that meets the eye ...

canikickit

3rd December 2003, 18:51

Bullshit. No one is forcing you to buy anything. You don't have to listen to music or watch movies which are produced by capitalists. You all do that of your own free will.

What nonsense Nadir (appropriate name, by the way).
We are forced to buy capitalist products because the significant majority of products are produced by capitalist companies.

We don't have to buy CDs or watch films, but why the hell should we not?

This isn't a game, capitalism doesn't "score points" when we buy capitalist products.
We want to end the exploitation of man by man, not play games with silly little fuckers who want to "prove" that we support capitalism.

CASTRO_SUCKS

3rd December 2003, 19:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 05:02 AM
Noooooooooo! I feel a "Stalinist" /"Trotkyiste" debate coming on. These type of things should not be encouraged, personally I think it's one of the greatest things holding back the communist movement. What Stalin did or do not do, doesn't help us now. It's time to move on past that and look towards the future.
It SHOULD NOT be encouraged? So you're saying we should just live with past mistakes, and move on without learning from them...doomed to inevitably repeat them? How is THAT helpful to your cause? How is THAT beneficial to the future? :blink:

CASTRO_SUCKS

3rd December 2003, 19:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 04:12 AM
Chavez won in a democratic election, explain what he has done illegally ?

.
Yeah....we'll see after this country-wide signature drive if in fact as many people voted for him as HE claimed in the beginning!

The smart money says, Chavez will do whatever he can to thwart this campaign by THE PEOPLE! He KNOWS very well, if he doesn't, he'll be on his way OUT!!!!

CASTRO_SUCKS

3rd December 2003, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:05 PM
Just because we do it, doesnt mean we love it.

And to be honest, I BUILT my computer from spare parts, I havent bought an article of clothing in about a year (In fact, most of my clothes are either birthday or X-Mas Gifts), My food is all no-name brand (Because, its just the same as Name Brand crap, just reasonably priced), My Music is all pirated, Most of my books are gifts (Except the Communist Manifesto, I liberated that from my Oppressive High School's library [They had more than one copy, and I doubt anyone would have read it anyway...Its a Cappy school:(]). In recent memory, the only thing I purchase that isn't vital to my survival as a human being is bus fare, to get to and from College.

Proven WRONG
Correct me if I'm wrong....but aren't the RAVENS a national sports team owned by a CAPITALIST CORPORATION? :blink: Hmmmmm.....

canikickit

3rd December 2003, 21:01

aren't the RAVENS a national sports team owned by a CAPITALIST CORPORATION?

So what?
It wouldn't matter to me.

RevolucioN NoW

3rd December 2003, 22:58

Yeah....we'll see after this country-wide signature drive if in fact as many people voted for him as HE claimed in the beginning!

The smart money says, Chavez will do whatever he can to thwart this campaign by THE PEOPLE! He KNOWS very well, if he doesn't, he'll be on his way OUT!!!!

Ok, so the 'people' of venezuala, the upper and middle class, want Chavez gone, he has provided no benifits to them, he has only helped the poor by providing food co-ops staffed by the military and raising wages as well as standing up to long time US involvment.

The country wide signature drive, a device instituted by Chavez, is flawed as the opposition parties have been bringing in unregistered voters from columbia, and there have been reports of large scale fraud. As far as I know, Chavez is a democratically elected ruler.... and i realise that this entire response is very off topic.

Nyder,

Your interpretion of Communism is incorrect, your main argument seems to be that communism will involve repression in order to make people work, well my question is Repression by whom, when there is no state, how can repression take place.

You also claim that the profit motive is all that makes people work, but profit is only a symptom of capitalism, forced on people in order to live. Communism will only happen when the overwhelming majority of people reject capitalism and profit as a viable means of exchange.

Nyder

3rd December 2003, 23:55

For the last time you need to have a state in a communist society to forbid people from owning private property and exchanging freely on the market.

It is very naive to say that everyone will automatically adopt communism. Stalin sent millions of dissidents to the gulag death camps yet he still could not force everyone to mindlessly adopt communist ideology.

Nyder

3rd December 2003, 23:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 07:51 PM

Bullshit. No one is forcing you to buy anything. You don't have to listen to music or watch movies which are produced by capitalists. You all do that of your own free will.

What nonsense Nadir (appropriate name, by the way).
We are forced to buy capitalist products because the significant majority of products are produced by capitalist companies.

We don't have to buy CDs or watch films, but why the hell should we not?

This isn't a game, capitalism doesn't "score points" when we buy capitalist products.
We want to end the exploitation of man by man, not play games with silly little fuckers who want to "prove" that we support capitalism.
Exploitation comes from force and tyranny, not voluntary exchange in a free market. Capitalism is freedom of association.

Under communism there is no CDs or movies like there is now. Remember - each according to his ability to each according to their needs - only the basic means of survival are produced. Without the profit incentive you are not going to have mass marketing and distribution by independent companies. Say goodbye to popular music and movies that you once enjoyed. :(

synthesis

4th December 2003, 02:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 12:55 AM
For the last time you need to have a state in a communist society to forbid people from owning private property and exchanging freely on the market.

Not after a period of socialism. Did you not read my Marxism primer?

Nyder

4th December 2003, 06:41

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Dec 4 2003, 03:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Dec 4 2003, 03:29 AM)
[email protected] 4 2003, 12:55 AM
For the last time you need to have a state in a communist society to forbid people from owning private property and exchanging freely on the market.

Not after a period of socialism. Did you not read my Marxism primer? [/b]
This 'period of socialism' - is when Governments take full control of the economy then suddenly dissolve themselves to have a stateless communism - am I correct?

What makes you certain that a Government with full control of the economy would all of sudden just vote itself out of existence? How come this hasn't happened yet despite some communist countries being in existence for over half a century?

The Feral Underclass

4th December 2003, 08:13

Nyder

For the last time you need to have a state in a communist society to forbid people from owning private property and exchanging freely on the market.

If this existed it would not be communism

It is very naive to say that everyone will automatically adopt communism. Stalin sent millions of dissidents to the gulag death camps yet he still could not force everyone to mindlessly adopt communist ideology.

For a start Stalin was not a communist. Secondly, achieving a communist society has to come about through consciousness. This being a mass of workers, conscious of their material conditions who want to create such a society.

What makes you certain that a Government with full control of the economy would all of sudden just vote itself out of existence? How come this hasn't happened yet despite some communist countries being in existence for over half a century?

If you are referring to the dictatership of the proletariat, it wont fade out of existance. It will get stronger and stronger and end up with stalin, mao etc etc. The point of any confrontation with capitalism has to be to destroy the state all together. You do this through mass conscious class action.

Nyder

4th December 2003, 12:53

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2003, 09:13 AM

For the last time you need to have a state in a communist society to forbid people from owning private property and exchanging freely on the market.

If this existed it would not be communism

Then you have to agree that it is a theoretical impossibility.

It is very naive to say that everyone will automatically adopt communism. Stalin sent millions of dissidents to the gulag death camps yet he still could not force everyone to mindlessly adopt communist ideology.

For a start Stalin was not a communist. Secondly, achieving a communist society has to come about through consciousness. This being a mass of workers, conscious of their material conditions who want to create such a society.

So you are saying, communism cannot be forced - it must universally accepted and adopted unquestionably by everyone. That is a little urealistic don't you think? What are you going to do to those who resist?

What makes you certain that a Government with full control of the economy would all of sudden just vote itself out of existence? How come this hasn't happened yet despite some communist countries being in existence for over half a century?

If you are referring to the dictatership of the proletariat, it wont fade out of existance. It will get stronger and stronger and end up with stalin, mao etc etc. The point of any confrontation with capitalism has to be to destroy the state all together. You do this through mass conscious class action.

You contradicted yourself here. You say that the dictatorship of the proletariat will end up with oppressive regimes like Stalin and Mao - which are state dictatorships - and end up with abolishment of the state? WTF? :huh:

Again, how are you going to achieve this mass conscious class action. I think you forget that average standard of living is quite high in Western countries and that most people work in the service sector - not in factories. You are also forgetting that perhaps the method of distributing profits to the workers was not adopted because workers would have to take company losses as well, which is probably why they prefer a flat rate.

The Feral Underclass

4th December 2003, 14:24

Then you have to agree that it is a theoretical impossibility.

No I do not agree.

So you are saying, communism cannot be forced - it must universally accepted and adopted unquestionably by everyone. That is a little urealistic don't you think? What are you going to do to those who resist?

Yes, it is exactly what I am saying. Your mind is stuck in this mode of thought that concludes that everything is black and white. That there is no other possibility to change society than making one decision or another. You make it sound as if I expect everyone to suddenly wake up one day and decide to be an anarchist. Of course that is unrealisitc. Look at any movement they grow through awarness. Capitalism is wrong. It exploits people and it creates divisions and alienation. People only have to made aware of these contradictions and they will want to change. I did, my friends did, most of the people on this board did. We are no different to any other normal person.

You contradicted yourself here. You say that the dictatorship of the proletariat will end up with oppressive regimes like Stalin and Mao - which are state dictatorships - and end up with abolishment of the state? WTF?

no i dont contradict myself. i never supported this theory. I'm an anarchist. it's quite normal not to agree with the dictatership of the proletariat. This DoP exists as a theory because Marx believe that you can not go from capitalism straight to communism, you must have a transitional period. none as the dictatership of the proletariat where the state would control everything on behalf of the workers. As history has shown it does not work. And in fact is completely unnecessary. Workers can organize themselves. They do not need a leadership.

Again, how are you going to achieve this mass conscious class action. I think you forget that average standard of living is quite high in Western countries and that most people work in the service sector - not in factories.

Throughn dedication and commitment. Dedication to the ideal and commitment to realising it. Look at any movement that has existed. Plack panthers, gay rights, suffragetes, vietnam anti-war movement. They have grown through indevidauals taking the time and energy to fight and campaign for them. it is the same here. Of course you can go into details but it isnt relevant here.

As for people who work in service sectors. These people are the new factories. Call centres etc are just like 19th century sweat shops. Although the exterior is different the purpose of them is the same. Agreeable people are more comfortable in their exploitation. But they are still exploited.

synthesis

5th December 2003, 01:38

Originally posted by Nyder+Dec 4 2003, 07:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nyder @ Dec 4 2003, 07:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 03:29 AM

[email protected] 4 2003, 12:55 AM
For the last time you need to have a state in a communist society to forbid people from owning private property and exchanging freely on the market.

Not after a period of socialism. Did you not read my Marxism primer?
This 'period of socialism' - is when Governments take full control of the economy then suddenly dissolve themselves to have a stateless communism - am I correct?

What makes you certain that a Government with full control of the economy would all of sudden just vote itself out of existence? How come this hasn't happened yet despite some communist countries being in existence for over half a century? [/b]
Did you read the post? That's all I'm asking. If you did, your questions would be answered and we could get to the point.

nezvanova

6th December 2003, 00:18

I don't want to seem arguementative by fueling the fire and arguing that I dont support the system, because I can't deny that I do. It's unnavoidable in my situation. I try to be somewhat self sufficient (hunting for food, growing vegetables in my garden) but, I still have to buy things from the system in order to get by.

But you seem to have some confusion regarding communism. It's not something that can just happen overnight. Like everything, it takes time. In theory, the evolution of government goes something along the lines of: fuedalism, imperialism, capitalism, socialism, and then communism. It has to be acheived in gradual steps, otherwise the vast majority won't (and is yet to) accept it. And, like many others in this discussion have pointed out, there has been no true communist countries yet. There have been countries with strong socialist influences, and many that claimed to be communist, but by design, they are not communist; just the same as America 'claims' to be democratic, but in reality, it is flawed and Look at our own government! there are many socialist influences (moreso in Canada than in the United States) During the great depression, on the key elements in pulling the USA out of the depression was Roosevelt ensuing Socialst elements into the capitalist system...

Anyway, thats just my two cents, I don't mean to be arguementative by any means....