Log in

View Full Version : Communism inevitably fails



Proud and Selfish Capitalist
14th December 2003, 16:55
Read the following story and post your opinions/interpretations.

------------------------------------------------------------

"FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED"

(An extract from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand):


This is the story of what happened at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which put the above slogan into practice—as told by one of the survivors.



Well there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know... we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil— plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make—and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven...

Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor’s supper—for his wife’s operation—for his child’s measles— for his mother’s wheel chair—for his uncle’s shirt—for his nephew’s schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end...

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...

We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don’t all get a bellyache—together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings is all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room?

Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family,’ and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest among six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty per cent, in that first half-year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. They voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been human? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence—it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip meals just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records— ‘personal luxury,’ they called it. But at that same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight-year-old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was ‘medical need,’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you always supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that, or a major disease.

It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.

God help us! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we’d been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it—for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man’s dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of law of goodness? We were a pretty decent bunch of fellows when we started. There weren’t many chiselers among us. We knew our jobs and we were proud of it and we worked for the best factory in the country, where old man Starnes hired nothing but the pick of the country’s labor. Within one year under the new plan, there wasn’t an honest man left among us. That was the evil, the sort of hell-horror evil that preachers used to scare you with, but you never thought to see alive. Not that the plan encouraged a few bastards, but that it turned decent people into bastards, and there was nothing else that it could do—and it was called a moral ideal!

What was it we were supposed to want to work for? For the love of our brothers? What brothers? For the bums, the loafers, the moochers we saw all around us? And whether they were cheating or plain incompetent whether they were unwilling or unable—what difference did that make to us? If we were tied for life to the level of their unfitness, faked or real, how long could we care to go on? We had no way of knowing their ability, we had no way of controlling their needs—all we knew was that we were beasts of burden struggling blindly in some sort of place that was half-hospital, halfstockyards —a place geared to nothing but disability, disaster, disease— beasts put there for the relief of whatever whoever chose to say was whichever’s need.

Love of our brothers? That’s when we learned to hate our brothers for the first time in our lives. We began to hate them for every meal they swallowed, for every small pleasure they enjoyed, for one man’s new shirt, for another’s wife’s hat, for an outing with their family, for a paint job on their house—it was taken from us, it was paid for by our privations, our denials, our hunger. We began to spy on one another, each hoping to catch the others lying about their needs, so as to cut their ‘allowance’ at the next meeting. We began to have stool pigeons who informed on people, who reported that somebody had bootlegged a turkey to his family on some Sunday—which he’d paid for by gambling, most likely. We began to meddle into one another’s lives. We provoked family quarrels, to get somebody’s relatives thrown out. Any time we saw a man starting to go steady with a girl, we made life miserable for him. We broke up many engagements. We didn’t want anyone to marry, we didn’t want any more dependents to feed.

In the old days, we used to celebrate if somebody had a baby, we used to chip in and help him out with the hospital bills, if he happened to be hardpressed for the moment. Now, if a baby was born, we didn’t speak to the parents for weeks. Babies, to us, had become what locusts were to farmers. In the old days, we used to help a man if he had a bad illness in the family. Now—well, I’ll tell you about just one case. It was the mother of a man who had been with us for fifteen years. She was a kindly old lady, cheerful and wise, she knew us all by our first names and we all liked her—we used to like her. One day, she slipped on the cellar stairs and fell and broke her hip. We knew what that meant at her age. The staff doctor said that she’d have to be sent to a hospital in town, for expensive treatments that would take a long time. The old lady died the night before she was to leave for town. They never established the cause of death. No, I don’t know whether she was murdered. Nobody said that. Nobody would talk about it at all. All I know is that I—and that’s what I can’t forget!—I, too, had caught myself wishing that she would die. This—may God forgive us!—was the brotherhood, the security, the abundance that the plan was supposed to achieve for us!

Was there any reason why this sort of horror would ever be preached by anybody? Was there anybody who got any profit from it? There was. The Starnes heirs. I hope you’re not going to remind me that they’d sacrificed a fortune and turned the factory over to us as a gift. We were fooled by that one, too. Yes, they gave up the factory. But profit, depends on what it is you’re after. And what the Starnes heirs were after, no money on earth could buy. Money is too clean and innocent for that.

Eric Starnes, the youngest—he was a jellyfish that didn’t have the guts to be after anything in particular. He got himself voted as Director of our Public Relations Department, which didn’t do anything, except that he had a staff for the not doing of anything, so he didn’t have to bother sticking around the office. The pay he got—well, I shouldn’t call it ‘pay,’ none of us was ‘paid’—the alms voted to him was fairly modest, about ten times what I got, but that wasn’t riches. Eric didn’t care for money—he wouldn’t have known what to do with it. He spent his time hanging around among us, showing how chummy he was and democratic. He wanted to be loved, it seems. The way he went about it was to keep reminding us that he had given us the factory. We couldn’t stand him.

Gerald Starnes was our Director of Production. We never learned just what the size of his rake-off—his alms—had been. It would have taken a staff of accountants to figure that out, and a staff of engineers to trace the way it was piped, directly or indirectly, into his office. None of it was supposed to be for him—it was all for company expenses. Gerald had three cars, four secretaries, five telephones, and he used to throw champagne and caviar parties that no tax-paying tycoon in the country could have afforded. He spent more money in one year than his father had earned in profits in the last two years of his life. We saw a hundred-pound stack—a hundred pounds, we weighed them—of magazines in Gerald’s office, full of stories about our factory and our noble plan, with big pictures of Gerald Starnes, calling him a great social crusader. Gerald liked to come into the shops at night, dressed in his formal clothes, flashing diamond cuff links the size of a nickel and shaking cigar ashes all over. Any cheap show-off who’s got nothing to parade but his cash, is bad enough—except that he makes no bones about the cash being his, and you’re free to gape at him or not, as you wish, and mostly you don’t. But when a bastard like Gerald Starnes puts on an act and keeps spouting that he doesn’t care for material wealth, that he’s only serving ‘the family,’ that all the lushness is not for himself, but for our sake and for the common good, because it’s necessary to keep up the prestige of the company and of the noble plan in the eyes of the public— then that’s when you learn to hate the creature as you’ve never hated anything human.

But his sister Ivy was worse. She really did not care for material wealth. The alms she got was no bigger than ours, and she went about in scuffed, flat-heeled shoes and shirtwaists—just to show how selfless she was. She was our Director of Distribution. She was the lady in charge of our needs. She was the one who held us by the throat. Of course, distribution was supposed to be decided by voting—by the voice of the people. But when the people are six thousand howling voices, trying to decide without yardstick, rhyme or reason, when there are no rules to the game and each can demand anything, but has a right to nothing, when everybody holds power over everybody’s life except his own—then it turns out, as it did, that the voice of the people is Ivy Starnes. By the end of the second year, we dropped the pretense of the ‘family meetings’—in the name of ‘production efficiency and time economy,’ one meeting used to take ten days—and all the petitions of need were simply sent to Miss Starnes’ office. No, not sent. They had to be recited to her in person by every petitioner. Then she made up a distribution list, which she read to us for our vote of approval at a meeting that lasted three-quarters of an hour. We voted approval. There was a ten minute period on the agenda for discussion and objections. We made no objections. We knew better by that time. Nobody can divide a factory’s income among thousands of people, without some sort of a gauge to measure people’s value. Her gauge was bootlicking. Selfless? In her father’s time, all of his money wouldn’t have given him a chance to speak to his lousiest wiper and get away with it, as she spoke to our best skilled workers and their wives. She had pale eyes that looked fishy, cold and dead. And if you ever want to see pure evil, you should have seen the way her eyes glinted when she watched some man who’d talked back to her once and who’d just heard his name on the list of those getting nothing above basic pittance. And when you saw it, you saw the real motive of any person who’s ever preached the slogan: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’

This was the whole secret of it. At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination—when five minutes of thought should have told them what would happen if somebody tried to practice what they preached. Now I know that they didn’t do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice—it’s because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell. And we weren’t so innocent either, when we voted for that plan at the first meeting. We didn’t do it just because we believed that the drippy old guff they spewed was good. We had another reason, but the guff helped us to hide it from our neighbors and from ourselves. The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue something that we’d be ashamed to admit otherwise. There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted—that was the truth of it—but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

Well, we got what we asked for. By the time we saw what it was that we’d asked for, it was too late. We were trapped, with no place to go. The best men among us left the factory in the first week of the plan. We lost our best engineers, superintendents, foremen and highest-skilled workers. A man of self-respect doesn’t turn into a milch cow for anybody. Some able fellows tried to stick it out, but they couldn’t take it for long. We kept losing our men, they kept escaping from the factory like from a pesthole—till we had nothing left except the men of need, but none of the men of ability.

And the few of us who were still any good, but stayed on, were only those who had been there too long. In the old days, nobody ever quit the Twentieth Century—and, somehow, we couldn’t make ourselves believe that it was gone. After a while, we couldn’t quit, because no other employer would have us—for which I can’t blame him. Nobody would deal with us in any way, no respectable person or firm. All the small shops, where we traded, started moving out of Starnesville fast—till we had nothing left but saloons, gambling joints and crooks who sold us trash at gouging prices. The alms we got kept falling, but the cost of our living went up. The list of the factory’s needy kept stretching, but the list of its customers shrank. There was less and less income to divide among more and more people. In the old days, it used to be said that the Twentieth Century Motor trademark was as good as the karat mark on gold. I don’t know what it was that the Starnes heirs thought, if they thought at all, but I suppose that like all social planners and like savages, they thought that this trademark was a magic stamp which did the trick by some sort of voodoo power and that it would keep them rich, as it had kept their father. Well, when our customers began to see that we never delivered an order on time and never put out a motor that didn’t have something wrong with it—the magic stamp began to work the other way around: people wouldn’t take a motor as a gift, if it was marked Twentieth Century. And it came to where our only customers were men who never paid and never meant to pay their bills. But Gerald Starnes, doped by his own publicity, got huffy and went around, with an air of moral superiority, demanding that businessmen place orders with us, not because our motors were good, but because we needed the orders so badly.

By that time, a village half-wit could see what generations of professors had pretended not to notice. What good would our need do to a power plant when its generators stopped because of our defective engines? What good would it do to a man caught on an operating table when the electric light went out? What good would it do to the passengers of a plane when its motor failed in mid-air? And if they bought our product, not because of its merit, but because of our need, would that be the good, the right, the moral thing to do for the owner of that power plant, the surgeon in that hospital, the maker of that plane?

Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth. If this is what it did in a single small town where we all knew one another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale? Do you care to imagine what it would be like, if you had to live and to work, when you’re tied to all the disasters and all the malingering of the globe? To work—and whenever any men failed anywhere, it’s you who would have to make up for it. To work—with no chance to rise, with your meals and your clothes and your home and your pleasure depending on any swindle, any famine, any pestilence anywhere on earth. To work—with no chance for an extra ration, till the Cambodians have been fed and the Patagonians have been sent through college. To work—on a blank check held by every creature born, by men whom you’ll never see, whose needs you’ll never know, whose ability or laziness or sloppiness or fraud you have no way to learn and no right to question—just to work and work and work—and leave it up to the Ivys and the Geralds of the world to decide whose stomach will consume the effort, the dreams and the days of your life. And this is the moral law to accept? This—a moral ideal?

Well, we tried it—and we learned. Our agony took four years, from our first meeting to our last, and it ended the only way it could end: in bankruptcy. At our last meeting, Ivy Starnes was the one who tried to brazen it out. She made a short, nasty, snippy little speech in which she said that the plan had failed because the rest of the country had not accepted it, that a single community could not succeed in the midst of a selfish, greedy world—and that the plan was a noble ideal, but human nature was not good enough for it. A young boy—the one who had been punished for giving us a useful idea in our first year—got up, as we all sat silent, and walked straight to Ivy Starnes on the platform. He said nothing. He spat in her face. That was the end of the noble plan and of the Twentieth Century.

(*
14th December 2003, 17:00
Nobody is going to read that lengthy article. Especially considering the author.

It would be more practical to post a summary of what it says, and then post your opinions.

Intifada
14th December 2003, 17:37
(An extract from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand):

:lol:

elijahcraig
14th December 2003, 17:46
Ah, the foul stench of Randian trenchcoat farts.

Get out.

Don't Change Your Name
14th December 2003, 17:58
I took the job of reading it and I'm almost asleep...anyway, this doesnt say much, it's just FICTION, and with a clear CAPITALIST INFLUENCE, which means CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA, which usually tries to touch the normal person and accept those few "good things" the system gives them . Let's see:

- The one who is speaking doesnt want to say how they were able to "drink"...
- It's a company who tries this inside capitalism
- I saw in some part of it a mention of how angry they felt when they saw someone with a "new hat". Does people NEED a hat? This proves that was a capitalist corporation, because in a leftist society people wont spend resources on such a useless thing as a hat.
- Why did they have to send that "smart kid" to work overtime? That's not what we advocate, in fact that's what capitalists usually try to do with their more able workers to gain efficiency.
- The "needs" this people had, as I said, were stupid. Example: they couldnt send one's kid to school because they first had to have enough to send all the kids to school. We (those you call Communist and sometimes "utopians") dont want private school, which means everyone gains free access to school. So there's no need to pay for it, in fact most of those who come here want an economy without money, so the only thing you need for a school system are those things you need for schools and teachers, things you get for free (teachers are paid their food and other needs of course, real needs not like the ones of some of this idiots of this boring story)
- What was Ayn Rand's job after all? Please... she was a fiction writer! Wow! She lived in a fantasy world. I think she lived in yanquiland where he was promised the "American dream".

Theres more to this but this boring tale made me feel asleep so I'm leaving this post now.

The Feral Underclass
14th December 2003, 18:00
I always thought it was Lenin who coined the phrazie "Each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...in state and revolution.

Bolshevika
14th December 2003, 18:31
No it was another, utopian Socialist, I believe his name was Blanc. Not sure though.

And Ayn Rand is a lunatic. Why is she considered a theorists?

The Feral Underclass
14th December 2003, 18:55
why is she a lunatic?

Nobody
14th December 2003, 19:43
Ayn Rand is a story teller. She makes stuff up for the amusement of other people. What you PaSC have done is called over anylzing something, which is similar to when you find plot holes in Stars Wars.

Bring us a real theorist, and then we can debate.

Cheers.

elijahcraig
14th December 2003, 19:48
RAF?

Nobody
14th December 2003, 19:50
Why did you say RAF?

elijahcraig
14th December 2003, 19:52
Thought you were someone else I suppose.

Nobody
14th December 2003, 19:54
You thought I was Comrade RAF?!

I'm honored!!!

Good to see back, sorry it took so long to say Elijah.

elijahcraig
14th December 2003, 19:59
It was the "Cheers" that conjured up the idea.

Urban Rubble
14th December 2003, 21:20
Why did you say RAF ? ? That mans name is nobody, not RAF.

Anyway, I took the time to read that article. If you actually think that is a blow at Socialism then that is very indicative of your objectivity.

Xvall
14th December 2003, 22:23
Ok. I'll reply to your copy-and-paste post with a copy-and-paste post of my own.


Customers at Anchorage's Saturday Market have been noticing a new item recently -- and you can shuck them yourself.
"What you do is go in at the hinge. Insert slow, steady pressure, and then kind of rotate your knife."
That's easy enough.
Now, if only growing oysters was that easy.
Across Kachemak Bay from the Homer Spit, a string of buoys marks a small niche in Alaska's fresh food market -- an oyster farm.
Up from the clean, cold waters of Peterson Bay, hundreds of oysters are tended by two retired school teachers, now veteran oyster farmers.
"If it's mussel-laden, it can weigh 300 or 400 pounds," says Ron Bader, as he winches up the net.
Ron and Marie Bader own Moss Island Oyster Farm, one of the 13 such farms that sell oysters to businesses in Homer and Anchorage.
"We can't keep up with demand," says Ron. "The supply-demand curve, I think, is out of hand in terms of our production, and that's all right. It's grassroots labor."
Grassroots labor isn't easy. Before oysters are shipped, each must be carefully scrubbed, measured, sorted and then allowed to sit for a few days to recover from the shock.
But that's after oysters have sat in lantern nets, feeding off plankton for three years or more. These are Pacific oysters. They're not native. So when the Baders first decided to try farming, there were no manuals to turn to, and they made their share of mistakes. Like the time they scrubbed every oyster, only to see them soon covered in barnacles.
"So we learned, the hard way, you do not wash your oysters in the spring until the barnacle set is over," says Marie.
With 11 years of oyster farming experience, Ron, who grew up on a Midwest farm, has decided the work is similar to farming but, "this is probably more husbandry than farming. There's more here to watch and take care of than with true farming. And, of course, it's a three-year crop. Some of it may even go to five years, so you don't have an instant return. Even coming from a farming background, that's difficult to accept."
It's not a big-money operation. The Baders earn about 50 cents an oyster and try to harvest about 50,000 a year.
"OK, Edi, we need more oysters."
But Marie says it isn't about the money. She just loves working outside, just a short ride from her summer cottage.
"I can envision myself being an 80-year-old woman and still, in some capacity, doing my oyster farm and having people coming to get oysters from Old Lady Bader's farm, you know?"
So the next time you see someone prying and struggling to open an oyster, you'll know, that's the easy part.
The farms are the last stop for oyster-growing. They're raised up to thumbnail size in Halibut Cove. Before that, the spat can come from either Seward or Bellingham.
Once oysters reach Anchorage, the price goes up dramatically. For instance, at Simon and Seafort's, a dozen on the half-shell will run $20.

Stephan
14th December 2003, 22:51
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 08:43 PM
Ayn Rand is a story teller. She makes stuff up for the amusement of other people. What you PaSC have done is called over anylzing something, which is similar to when you find plot holes in Stars Wars.

Bring us a real theorist, and then we can debate.

Cheers.
Nobody, your post is completely incorrect. I've read non-fiction books by Ayn Rand that go into incredible depth on Capitalism and specifically the philosophy behind Capitalism. Her novels are accompanied by journals worth of work outlining the numerous themes present in her works, and even more essays and "theoretical" work as you would say.

As such, I think Ayn Rand can be called a "real theorist."

Also, why is Ayn Rand a lunatic? Noone has answered this question.

redstar2000
15th December 2003, 00:21
It's the central premise that's wrong, of course.

Communism is presented as a "gift" from three "benevolent capitalists".

What does any sensible worker do when--on those incredibly rare occasions--s/he receives an unexpected "gift" from capitalists? You grab it and run like hell before they get a chance to take it back.

The workers in Rand's scenario did not struggle for and win communism...in fact, they still lived in an otherwise capitalist environment.

In Rand's world-view, workers are fundamentally incapable of "running things"...she treats capitalists in almost the same way as the Nazis regarded Aryans--as "naturally superior" and to all intents and purposes "a master race".

Thus, her lengthy "critique" of communist practice "works" only if you accept her premise...that "inferior" people will always seize the chance to be "parasites" on "superior people".

(Guess which category she thinks she's in?)

Rand, by the way, was a refugee from the USSR and really hated it there. She assumed it was an accurate representation of Marx's ideas...never bothering to read Marx or any other communist theoretician. Anarchist theory was a "closed book" to her.

Consequently, most intelligent lefties consider her a scribbler of bourgeois fiction...unworthy of being considered a serious opponent of communist or anarchist ideas. She did have a cult of followers back in the 60s (Alan Greenspan was one of her disciples), but it splintered apart after her death--accompanied by the usual accusations of theft, misappropriation of funds for personal use, etc., etc.

I suppose, in a sense, she could be considered one of the philosophical pioneers of the Libertarian Party (USA)...but as this group seems very unlikely to ever amount to anything of significance, it hardly matters. Modern capitalism needs a bigger, more powerful state to contain its internal contradictions and keep its restless proletariat under control...thus "Randianism" is pretty much a "dead end".

A kind of historical footnote to late capitalism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Proud and Selfish Capitalist
15th December 2003, 01:35
In a communist society, are people free to leave the country and go elsewhere?

If so, all the people with ability with flee to the freest country available to them, because that's where they will be rewarded most for their efforts. This will mean that the country is rid of all the people of ability, leaving only the people of need. If you think Rand was only into fiction, then perhaps you'd better look at your own fictions first--such as the idea that the people of ability will work out of "love for mankind" when the country next door offers a bigger salary, a better car and a longer lifespan. If people can leave a communist country, it will collapse in ruins as a "brain drain" occurs.

If the people are not allowed to leave the country, the only way to enforce this is at gunpoint. Thus the true nature of communism is revealed--it is not a system of benevolence, but a system of violence. There is a fundamental difference between acting out of love for one's own life (such as in a capitalist society), and acting out of fear for one's own life (such as in a communist society). It is not primarily an issue of practicality, but an issue of morality. It is an issue of force vs freedom.

Jesus Christ
15th December 2003, 01:48
mmm ayn rand
my favourite *****

New Tolerance
15th December 2003, 03:22
Originally posted by Proud and Selfish [email protected] 15 2003, 02:35 AM
In a communist society, are people free to leave the country and go elsewhere?

If so, all the people with ability with flee to the freest country available to them, because that's where they will be rewarded most for their efforts. This will mean that the country is rid of all the people of ability, leaving only the people of need. If you think Rand was only into fiction, then perhaps you'd better look at your own fictions first--such as the idea that the people of ability will work out of "love for mankind" when the country next door offers a bigger salary, a better car and a longer lifespan. If people can leave a communist country, it will collapse in ruins as a "brain drain" occurs.

If the people are not allowed to leave the country, the only way to enforce this is at gunpoint. Thus the true nature of communism is revealed--it is not a system of benevolence, but a system of violence. There is a fundamental difference between acting out of love for one's own life (such as in a capitalist society), and acting out of fear for one's own life (such as in a communist society). It is not primarily an issue of practicality, but an issue of morality. It is an issue of force vs freedom.
But in captialism the people with ability don't easily get rewards (or money). It's those that already has money that easily get more money.

elijahcraig
15th December 2003, 04:03
I'll post something I wrote on this issue on my forum a while back, which addressed numerous Rand points I found on a website dedicated to her objectivism:


Randian philosophy is based on “objectivism”, these are the “Essentials of Objectivism” I obtained from a Rand site (http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html) :

Quote:
Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:


Quote:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism


Quote:
She then translated those terms into familiar language:


Quote:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”


We are nature, everything we do is nature, there is no such thing as “unnatural”. So there is one thing wrong with this “objectivism”, it skips the subjective “I am”/”I think”, and goes right on ahead to something abstracted from that subjective mind.

Quote:
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”


I happen to agree that reason is a good quality. Any notion of directly objective knowledge is idiotic though. Everything is changing, there is no “pure knowledge.” There is Truth and the “truth” that we defend at this time.

Quote:
“Man is an end in himself.”


I’ll answer this down later.

Quote:
“Give me liberty or give me death.”


I agree with the statement, but it has no correlation to “capitalism”.

The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:

Quote:
Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are — and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.


The “fact” that the earth was flat used to exist. Now we “know” that is not correct. The “fact” is that what she says is positing foundationless rubbish, things that Plato and Aristotle nearly said in their philosophy.

This has been discredited by simple subjective logic—the only logic which exists.

Quote:
Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).


I have to agree with this rather obvious point.

Quote:
Human Nature
Man is a rational being.


First off, this is false; Humans cannot be defined as “rational” beings. This idea went out when existentialism, or even Descartes, developed their theories.

Quote:
Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).


The rest, except for the obvious correct points, is mere speculation based on wishful thinking.

Marxism shows economic effects on nature of man—this does not disprove it on any ground other than Rand’s own “logic”. Ah! Proof man isn’t a rational being! Rand herself!

From http://elijahcraig.proboards2.com/index.cg...&num=1065800039 (http://elijahcraig.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1065800039)

Don't Change Your Name
15th December 2003, 04:25
Originally posted by Proud and Selfish [email protected] 15 2003, 02:35 AM
In a communist society, are people free to leave the country and go elsewhere?

If so, all the people with ability with flee to the freest country available to them, because that's where they will be rewarded most for their efforts. This will mean that the country is rid of all the people of ability, leaving only the people of need. If you think Rand was only into fiction, then perhaps you'd better look at your own fictions first--such as the idea that the people of ability will work out of "love for mankind" when the country next door offers a bigger salary, a better car and a longer lifespan. If people can leave a communist country, it will collapse in ruins as a "brain drain" occurs.

If the people are not allowed to leave the country, the only way to enforce this is at gunpoint. Thus the true nature of communism is revealed--it is not a system of benevolence, but a system of violence. There is a fundamental difference between acting out of love for one's own life (such as in a capitalist society), and acting out of fear for one's own life (such as in a communist society). It is not primarily an issue of practicality, but an issue of morality. It is an issue of force vs freedom.
In first place, what you describe is an authoritarian socialist society, not a communist one.

In capitalism no one rewards your efforts, only how much you work or how much you could possibly give to the capitalist owner. I suggest you to check this site: http://www.parecon.orghttp://www.parecon.org. This modern leftist theory gives a lot of importance to rewarding effort.

And that thing you say about that a "communist" country will run out of "people of ability" is pure bullshit. In fact in my country with the neo-liberalism unemployment rised up a lot, and nowadays most people from my age have doubts about their future, many leave to Europe or Yanquiland because:
- there are not many workplaces (many factories close down and there arent many business hiring people)
- those in the government are a disaster
- those professionals who have studied hardly have no jobs because there isnt demand for their professions.
So I come to the conclusion that the "brain drain" with capitalism happens everywhere in the world EXCEPT IN THE U$ (and sometimes Europe)

You definately have never heard about Anarchism, you dont know what Communism really is and as most cappies you exagerate everything trying to make communism look like a new religion where god punsihes you if you dont help your brothers.

And how can you claim capitalism is freedom? The only freedom capitalism defends are those "individual rights", which are useless for the common human, but the most important things for the capitalist exploiter.

redstar2000
15th December 2003, 10:39
In a communist society, are people free to leave the country and go elsewhere?

Change of subject, eh?

Ok, first of all, there won't be "countries" in the sense that you're thinking of them...nation-states with borders, closed economies, customs agents, etc. People might indeed move around quite a bit and tend to gravitate towards the more pleasant parts of the planet.

But it won't have anything to do with "reward differentials"...because "to each according to his needs" means that rewards will be pretty much the same everywhere.

There might indeed be a "brain drain" from the Arctic Circle to the South Pacific...but it will be because most sensible people would prefer a tropical paradise to a freezing desert.


If so, all the people with ability will flee to the freest country available to them, because that's where they will be rewarded most for their efforts.

That's the capitalist error: "freedom = wealth". It is only under capitalism itself that the equation is valid. It is historically specific...not a "general truth" valid at all times in all places.


It is not primarily an issue of practicality, but an issue of morality.

And another typical capitalist dogma: "morality = wealth". You (and Rand) have an extraordinarily narrow view of human possibilities. To put it crudely, you look about you and say: "this is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be".

Even a nodding acquaintance with history would teach you otherwise...if you made the effort to learn.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Hoppe
15th December 2003, 11:04
That's the capitalist error: "freedom = wealth". It is only under capitalism itself that the equation is valid. It is historically specific...not a "general truth" valid at all times in all places.

That is true. But to achieve wealth (monetary or intellectual) an individual needs to be free (from coercion). If an individual is free then he can chose himself how to achieve his ends, all based on voluntary cooperation. You needn't be a historian to acknowledge this. It is only that your freedom is defined differently than mine. Yet if freedom from coercion or association exist you can do whatever you like with whomever you like.

I personally am not a fan of objectivism and morality is something which should be kept out of the discussion, except when it applies to freedom vs. coercion.

Stephan
16th December 2003, 02:34
There is no dichotomy between politics and morality - or politics and philosophy in general.

Tell me what your political beliefs are, and, if you've been consistent (which most people have), I'll tell you what your metaphysical views, epistemological views, and ethical views are.

The break down of any philosophy goes like this:

Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics & Aesthetics

Politics is derived from the primary foundation of a philosophy, that is, it is a product of a philosophers metaphysics, epist. and ethics.

Therefore, I do not understand why so many people on this forum constantly disregard morality as irrelvent to the discussion. Whether a political system is moral or not is the only important factor in whether it is suitable for man.

Is it moral for you to force me to pay for services I have not asked for?
Is it moral for me to be denied the freedom to open my own business?
Is it moral for a government to force my children to go to their schools?
Is it moral for someone to make a claim on my life, simply because they cannot provide for themselves?
Is it moral for an individual to crucify himself for people he doesn't know or care about?

These are the types of questions that should be talked about. However, before doing this, you'd all need to discover morality, what it is, it's purpose, and which set of ethics is valid.

If interested, let's make a new thread! (Maybe I can stray from this "Opposing Idealogies" section, into the philosophy section. Is that okay commissar Redstar?)

:lol:

Proud and Selfish Capitalist
16th December 2003, 03:57
Well said, Stephan.



Is it moral for an individual to crucify himself for people he doesn't know or care about?
If he does so by choice - but communism doesn't give him any choice in the matter. A better way of putting it would be:

Is it moral for an individual to be forced to crucify himself for people he doesn't know or care about?

I guess a communist would still say yes, either way.

redstar2000
16th December 2003, 04:01
But to achieve wealth (monetary or intellectual) an individual needs to be free (from coercion). If an individual is free then he can chose himself how to achieve his ends, all based on voluntary cooperation.

Believe it or not, that is what both real communists and anarchists seek to achieve.

But, in my view, you must understand that "ends" are not some abstract, Platonic entity...they are also historically specific.

Many of the finest minds of the "Middle Ages" were preoccupied with the goal of "salvation". In our era, they are preoccupied with the goal of accumulating wealth. In communist/anarchist society, they will have still other goals in mind.


Yet if freedom from coercion or association exist[s], you can do whatever you like with whomever you like.

Again, it seems to me that you are raising an abstract formula to the level of "universal truth". The fact that we grow up in a specific historical era and learn the ideas that happen to prevail in that era means that we are "coerced", like it or not. History itself "coerces" us.

The "universal truth" that you endorse does not, like "god", really exist.


Therefore, I do not understand why so many people on this forum constantly disregard morality as irrelevant to the discussion. Whether a political system is moral or not is the only important factor in whether it is suitable for man.

I disregard "morality" because of its metaphysical nature...it's based on someone's unproven assertions that this or that is "right" or "wrong".

And, of course, real practical "morality" mostly reflects the interests of the ruling class of any particular era. You think that capitalist morality is "universal"...because you are either born to the ruling class or have a sufficiently enhanced opinion of yourself that you think you'll end up there. Go back two or three centuries and you'll find that your "universal morality" would be almost unanimously condemned as "the work of the Devil".

Go forward two or three centuries, and your "universal morality" will have the same status as cannibalism or witch-burning.

Times change.


Maybe I can stray from this "Opposing Ideologies" section, into the philosophy section. Is that okay, commissar Redstar?

Nope. This is the forum for pro-capitalists. I know that policy is disliked by some...but that's just the way we do things here.

Commissar Redstar2000 :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Hoppe
16th December 2003, 10:00
Believe it or not, that is what both real communists and anarchists seek to achieve

Oh, but those advocating this I haven't met here, except for you now :)

But then I do not know how a purely anarchistic society can be achieved. End in my opinion are subjective and based on freedom of associaton you could have an anarchopluralistic world with different types of communes. The only logical way for communist anarchism to evolve would be this.


The "universal truth" that you endorse does not, like "god", really exist.

I'm agnost . :P

Of course I know it doesn't exist as such and you can give a thousand explanations for it. But you cannot base an ideology on pragmatism.

apathy maybe
16th December 2003, 12:02
Personally I've always found the idea of "from each ... to each ..." to be rather stupid. But I've also thought that machines can do the work, and what work needs to be done by humans can be done in a short time.
I've also thought that we would have this rappant growth rate. 6 thousand million people are too many for this planet, (even if We can feed them and clothe them etc with current technology, but capitalism prevents us), a population of at most 1 thousand million people would be a lot better (we can have the current 'balence' of the various "races" too).

redstar2000
16th December 2003, 16:17
But then I do not know how a purely anarchistic society can be achieved.

In a way, that controversy is the key to "understanding" this board.

It's widely asserted that the failures of 20th century "communism" (really Leninism) mean that we have reached "the end of history"...what exists now is what will always exist in the future.

Obviously, that's foolishness.

What we really argue about here more than anything else is the shape of post-capitalist society and the best way to get there from here.


But you cannot base an ideology on pragmatism.

No you cannot...but it's an extraordinarily useful tool to rid your ideology of overt nonsense. I think, for example, that it's a very good supplement to Marxism--far superior to "dialectics" and other Hegalianisms.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

peaccenicked
18th December 2003, 00:57
Did anyone see Ayn Rand kindergarden episode of the "Simpsons"
The music was from the Great Escape.? Hows that for a poke in the eye to Libertarian cappies.
:lol: :lol: :lol:


For aside hre is a quote from the Critique from the Gotha Programme
By Karl Marx.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "

Jimmie Higgins
18th December 2003, 02:58
Originally posted by Proud and Selfish [email protected] 15 2003, 02:35 AM
In a communist society, are people free to leave the country and go elsewhere?

If so, all the people with ability with flee to the freest country available to them, because that's where they will be rewarded most for their efforts. This will mean that the country is rid of all the people of ability, leaving only the people of need. If you think Rand was only into fiction, then perhaps you'd better look at your own fictions first--such as the idea that the people of ability will work out of "love for mankind" when the country next door offers a bigger salary, a better car and a longer lifespan. If people can leave a communist country, it will collapse in ruins as a "brain drain" occurs.

If the people are not allowed to leave the country, the only way to enforce this is at gunpoint. Thus the true nature of communism is revealed--it is not a system of benevolence, but a system of violence. There is a fundamental difference between acting out of love for one's own life (such as in a capitalist society), and acting out of fear for one's own life (such as in a communist society). It is not primarily an issue of practicality, but an issue of morality. It is an issue of force vs freedom.
You talk about "ability" as if it were a gene some people posses and the rest do not.

If there were a worker's revolution and all the men of "ability" in capitalism left, society would not be crippled by "brain-drain". The "ability" that these people hold is the ability to make profit in the capitalist system and the ability that people will need in a socialist society would be how to meet all of our needs with production. After a worker's revolution the skills and experience that will be important are not the skills and experience that makes someone good at making companies profit; the game will have changed so being skilled at golf dosn't mean you'll be skilled for football.

Communism is a system of violence eh. Read what most people on this site mean when they are talking about communism. Communism as many of the anarchists and socialists are talking about it has no state and no classes, so a nonexistant state can not use violence against people.

Violence comes into play whenever a ruling minorety is in power and must controll the majorety of the population. This was true in the Soviet Sattelites and it was true in El Salvadore where a weak ruling class had to assert its rule through the use of force and violence. In the US, luckily for the ruling class, the majorety of people are not united and so it is easier for our rulers to play factions, races, documented and undocumented workers, native and immigrent against eachother because each part is weaker. But when people have fought back and asserted their power over the power of business and the government, then our rulers have not hesitated to use violence against us to reassert their power and rule. Take the strikes and political struggles of the 1930, 1880s, late 1910's, where companies hired armed thugs and the government sent out police and the military. Also look at Bush's threat to dockworkers who were considering going on strike when the companies locked them out; he threatened to enact his power to send the national gaurd out to force the dockworkers to go back to work.... thus the true nature of the free market is revealed--you are free to work for us or you are free to be attacked by us.

As long as some minorety ruling class organizes society for their intrests and to the detrament of the rest of the people (the people who have to actually do the labor to produce the vast wealth that the rulers then get to enjoy and control) then that ruling group will have to repress the rest of the population in one way or another to maintain their conroll; at the same time, the opressed majorety will engage in some form of fight-back and this is part of the reason and part of the tension, within the system itself, that may cause capitalism to collapse.

cubist
18th December 2003, 13:57
i noticed one key factor,

it still shows that the human races self obbsession with compettition and being better brings it down.

the issue is that they developed this in this system in the capitalist economy it is encouraged

peaccenicked
18th December 2003, 14:46
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/bushcabinet.jpg