Why Do You Hate Freedom?

[A Pict]

Answer me straight. Don't give me any economic freedom vrs. political freedom, as that is total bullshit. Economic freedom comes at the expense of others and their political freedom. We already have economic freedom, to the best of our abilities.

And don't say its a way of preserving freedom. That is also bullshit. Taking away my right to work at a job or at a rate or telling me how to live my life or spend my money is authoritrianism no matter how many pretty, but worthlessly vague words you stick to it.


EDIT:

Tried to put Why do you hate freedom as title.

[Pete]

I don't hate freedom. I think its grand. The problem is our system has little freedom in it, from a parlimentary system that gives those with the minority of the vote a large deal of power, an economic system that gives those at the top free riegn over those at the bottom, and a social system that supports both.

The bullshit, here, is with you, not us. Read about the world outside the West. See how well freedom is operating there. Also see how well capitalism is helping the people of Chipias, or the piqueros in Argentina. Blindly believing that what you were raised in is the best is not freedom, it is the chains of the ages.

-Pete

[Pete]

Fixed the thread title for you, though it is a very ill imformed title at that. Seems a bit angsty if nothing else.

As to your second question, is the son of a homeless man really going to be the President of the United States? Is he really free to do what he wants? Or do economic and social conditions dictate his reality?

Communism is not authoriarian, some socialists are and have been. Remember communism is a classless stateless society. Explore the other sections of this site, other debates, and you will see that their are many shades of red here. If the lie that communism is authoritarian is all that is keepign you right, then I think you just need to reeducate yourself from the propaganda shoved down your throat.

-Pete

[A Pict]

I don't hate freedom. I think its grand. The problem is our system has little freedom in it, from a parlimentary system that gives those with the minority of the vote a large deal of power,

I must agree that our government is far too invasive. The problem is not in democracy, but rather in government engaging in the looting of some of its citizens for the benefit of their dirty pull-peddlers.


an economic system that gives those at the top free riegn over those at the bottom, and a social system that supports both.

You are forgetting about one word that drops the bomb on that foolish little arguement; Consent. They CONSENT to work at the jobs they do. They CONSENT to recieve the wages they get. And CONSENT is the basis for freedom, not compulsion.

Frankly, the ones who benefit from the capitalistic system the most are the retarded mop-pushers, the delightfully irrational violent beasts you call the precious "proletriat". Think of the standard of living they enjoy from pulling a lever, a job a monkey (or a machine if the governemnt would let the Prime Movers do it) could perform.





The bullshit, here, is with you, not us. Read about the world outside the West. See how well freedom is operating there. Also see how well capitalism is helping the people of Chipias, or the piqueros in Argentina.

Pure capitalism does not operate by force. So are these people being screwed by a statist governemnt (such as one you are advocating?) or are they being screwed by consent?





Blindly believing that what you were raised in is the best is not freedom, it is the chains of the ages.

Aye, I agree. I was raised to believe i was a slave and sacrificial animal to the filthy code of death known as alturism which you so wantonly proport. Your belief system is the rational result of that moral code; thankfully I found an alternative. Mysticism is indeed the chain of the ages.

[Bolshevika]

Tell me "A Pict" what "Freedoms" does the working man have when you and your cronies exploit him? What "choices" does the working man have when he has no choice but to labour for the bourgeoisie or starve?

He is forced into your system, hence he is not free in any way or shape or form. We fight for the emancipation of the toiling masses and aim for true liberty.

I very much support freedom... for the proletarian masses. The bourgeois deserves no civil liberties since they are the lowest form of life on this planet.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:21 PM
I don't hate freedom. I think its grand. The problem is our system has little freedom in it, from a parlimentary system that gives those with the minority of the vote a large deal of power, an economic system that gives those at the top free riegn over those at the bottom, and a social system that supports both.

The bullshit, here, is with you, not us. Read about the world outside the West. See how well freedom is operating there. Also see how well capitalism is helping the people of Chipias, or the piqueros in Argentina. Blindly believing that what you were raised in is the best is not freedom, it is the chains of the ages.

-Pete
To say their is capitalism in Mexico or in Argentina is a lie. I alrteady wrote a post that no one responded to saying why latin america is not capitalist and I gave many examples.

[A Pict]

Communism is not authoriarian, some socialists are and have been. Remember communism is a classless stateless society. Explore the other sections of this site, other debates, and you will see that their are many shades of red here. If the lie that communism is authoritarian is all that is keepign you right, then I think you just need to reeducate yourself from the propaganda shoved down your throat.

O, I know of the shades of red. But you certainly cannot take the anarch-communists seriously; just ask them " If you don't have a Market or Command economy, Excatly how will it work?" and watch their incredibly ignorant rambling come to a halt.

Whats keeping me right is I enjoy the concept of owning myself. Frankly, im not right in the traditional sense. I am one of the invading libbies from www.utopia-politics.com



Tell me "A Pict" what "Freedoms" does the working man have when you and your cronies exploit him? What "choices" does the working man have when he has no choice but to labour for the bourgeoisie or starve?


Consent. Drop him on a island and ask him to make a living and watch his amazing lever pulling ability serve him without the guidance of my mind.



He is forced into your system, hence he is not free in any way or shape or form. We fight for the emancipation of the toiling masses and aim for true liberty

If he tried to leave, who would stop him?

[Pete]

They CONSENT to recieve the wages they get. And CONSENT is the basis for freedom, not compulsion.

The consent, yes, because if they didn't they would starve. That is what we like to call duress.


the ones who benefit from the capitalistic system the most are the retarded mop-pushers, the delightfully irrational violent beasts you call the precious "proletriat". Think of the standard of living they enjoy from pulling a lever, a job a monkey (or a machine if the governemnt would let the Prime Movers do it) could perform

Ignorance is bliss eh? You are a judgemental classist I see. Go back to daddy now, let the grown ups do the talking. *sigh*


are these people being screwed by a statist governemnt (such as one you are advocating?) or are they being screwed by consent

I advocate niether government nor private enterprise.

They are being screwed not by free willing consent, but by consent that if they don't work they will be worse off, and they are unable to ask for more because their are enough guys who don't have a job as such and are willing to work for less than you.


Mysticism is indeed the chain of the ages.

Yes, and your statement about 'retarded moppushers' proves to use that you are stuck in your own mysticism. Just because you are on the top means taht you are right in anyway. Perhaps if you where a 'retarted moppusher' you would have a different opinion?


To say their is capitalism in Mexico or in Argentina is a lie. I alrteady wrote a post that no one responded to saying why latin america is not capitalist and I gave many examples.

Any attempts at it, with the IMF and the WTO to enforce the free market, have lead to greater impoverment. It is true, pure capitalism does not exist anywhere, but I don't see you presenting any other name for me to call the system of economics that exists today. I would like to call it neocolonialism, though that may not be completely true etiher. Can you suggets a term for me to use?

-Pete

[SonofRage]

Wage-slavery is hardly voluntary. What other choice do people have? They do not have contol of the mean's of prodcution so they have no choice but to sell their labor.

[Ahura Mazda]

Can you suggets a term for me to use?


Command capitalism. Not as laissez-faire as it should be.

[A Pict]

The consent, yes, because if they didn't they would starve. That is what we like to call duress

That is oversimplification. They could open their own business, find a new method, etc, etc. IF that oversimplicifaction bullshit propoganda was true, how excatly have individuals such as Ben franklin, carnagie, edision, etc, happen? Didn't they have to work or starve?


Ignorance is bliss eh? You are a judgemental classist I see. Go back to daddy now, let the grown ups do the talking. *sigh*

Nope, im just saying they enjoy a higher standard of living then they could ever achieve on their own.


They are being screwed not by free willing consent, but by consent that if they don't work they will be worse off, and they are unable to ask for more because their are enough guys who don't have a job as such and are willing to work for less than you.

So, they corporations are allowing these people to live better then they could on their own, and for this you damn them?

[Bradyman]

That is oversimplification. They could open their own business, find a new method, etc, etc. IF that oversimplicifaction bullshit propoganda was true, how excatly have individuals such as Ben franklin, carnagie, edision, etc, happen? Didn't they have to work or starve?


Yes, in a capitalist system there are some winners. Do you honestly believe that only these few people are the hardest working bunch? Do you not believe that in the time of Carnegie there were thousands of others working day in and day out trying to live? Perhaps he was in the right place at the right time. For every Rockefeller and Carnegie, there must be thousands of others who move down the social ladder.


So, they corporations are allowing these people to live better then they could on their own, and for this you damn them?

No, we damn them because they give no options for the worker. Work for us at terrible wages, in terrible working conditions or rot a little bit more in the streets. The worker complains, he's thrown out on the street to die. Keep in mind that a large business has an incredibly large amount of say in the worker's life.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:49 PM


Any attempts at it, with the IMF and the WTO to enforce the free market, have lead to greater impoverment. It is true, pure capitalism does not exist anywhere, but I don't see you presenting any other name for me to call the system of economics that exists today. I would like to call it neocolonialism, though that may not be completely true etiher. Can you suggets a term for me to use?

-Pete
mercantilism: where there is a lot of goverment intervention in the economy and the gov. protects industries from competition creating monopolies, some of those monopolies are privately owned others are state owned and others are owned by people who are in the gov.
That is no where near true capitalism.
Another great example is how long it takes to start a business in latin america, In most places it takes months whlie in the USA it only takes about 2 days. Im talking about a small or large business.

Also look at what country has been more "capitalist" in Latin America. Chile, and they have by far the best economy in Latin America.
This happened in Mexico with Telmex, where they go protection from competition for so many years that the majority owner of telmex has a fortune of 7 billion.
And it has and still happens all through Latin America from Mexico to argentina. There are so many examples of this in Laitn America, too many to post.

[Pete]

Mercantalism also implies nationalism, tarifs, and colonization. The colonies are only supposed to trade with the mother country, not anyone who is willing to pay and bleed a little.

[Misodoctakleidist]

a pict, do you know anything about politics which you didn't read in an ayn rand book?

[A Pict]

Yes, in a capitalist system there are some winners. Do you honestly believe that only these few people are the hardest working bunch? Do you not believe that in the time of Carnegie there were thousands of others working day in and day out trying to live? Perhaps he was in the right place at the right time. For every Rockefeller and Carnegie, there must be thousands of others who move down the social ladder.

No, not necessarily the hardest working. just the smartest and most deserving. Do you know who agrees with me? Everyone else in the market. That is why the consumers GAVE (unlike in your system, where the only way to get money is to TAKE it) them their money, for the services they provide.


For every Rockefeller and Carnegie, there must be thousands of others who move down the social ladder

This line here is most telling of your violent persuasion. You see money and the economy as base sum, with money just changing hands via clubbing one another. This is farther from the truth than the other lies propagated by your irrational brethern. Tell me, if the wealth was static, why do we live better then our great-grandfathers? Money is made by business who provide values for trade. Those people did not make their fortune by stealing (although the club is the only mode you can comprehend) but rather by creating. millions of workers got wealthier because of those individuals, not poorer. Although this is irrelevent, as property rights trump need anyday of the week (for a rational individual who doesn't want to live as a slave).




No, we damn them because they give no options for the worker. Work for us at terrible wages, in terrible working conditions or rot a little bit more in the streets.

Once again, already addressed. Oversimplification. Also, those two lines contradict each other.



we damn them because they give no options for the worker


Work for us at terrible wages, in terrible working conditions or rot a little bit more in the streets

emphasis mine.

[A Pict]

a pict, do you know anything about politics which you didn't read in an ayn rand book?

baseles ad hominiun (or however you spell it).

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 3 2004, 08:36 PM
Tell me, if the wealth was static, why do we live better then our great-grandfathers?
That's a horrible argument. The standard of living for slaves was better in the early 19th century than in the early 18th century. Is that an argument for slavery?




Money is made by business who provide values for trade. Those people did not make their fortune by stealing (although the club is the only mode you can comprehend) but rather by creating. millions of workers got wealthier because of those individuals, not poorer.

[A Pict]

That's a horrible argument. The standard of living for slaves was better in the early 19th century than in the early 18th century. Is that an argument for slavery?


So.. lets get this straight. You are, indeed, sayign we are just as rich as any other people in history. The fact that we can support an unprecendented population, with the highest life expecatancy, a greater variety of diet, better housing and medical care, million of contrapactions to increase our free time so we can waste it argueing with mystics of muscle on the internet... and you are saying we have just as well as say an egytian did 4,000 years ago?

If you can say that, and actually believe something that is so blantantly and stupidly wrong, how can anyone argue with you ? If you regret reason, how can you be reasoned with?


The worker doesn't make shit. The machine made that mans products. Ask the worker to go pull his lever in his house and see what pops up. Holy Crap! Products don't magically appear! Who designed the machines made everyoen of the products, the worker is just a leech who ungratefully benefits from the engineers mind.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Drop him on a island and ask him to make a living and watch his amazing lever pulling ability serve him without the guidance of my mind.

I'd like to you on an island, your daddy's crad cards wont work there. What great abilities do you have that would allow to survive?

[Al Creed]

Is freedom having 5 major, private Coroprations own most of the media in The US? (7 if you include Canada, when looking at a North American scale)

Is freedom having 45 million Americans, not to mention, countless billions around the world, not being able to afford basic healthcare?

Is freedom having 1% of the population own 90% of the wealth?

Is freedom having your small business smashed to bits by Wal Mart or McDonalds or Microsoft?

Is freedom having two political parties who, w/ SOME few exceptions, operate as one, in the "Land of the Free?"

Is freedom the mistreatment and abuseof minority groups all around the world?

Is freedom, being afraid to voice your true opinion on an issue, in fear of being labled an Enemy of the State?

Is freedom, being held in perpetual debt to a G8 nation, running into the BILLIONS in dollars?

and finally,

Is freedom, being judged by the content of your bank account, rather than your character?

If that's freedom, to you, you are a sad, strange human being.

As well, you, along with almost any other Capitalist I've seen post, confuse Stalinism with Communism.

As stated before, Communism isn't totalitarianism. Read the Communist Manifesto. Sure, Marx calls for Temporary dictatorship, but this is simply a measure for stability.

Absolute power can corrupt, but only those who are selfish.

And for the record, what I think freedom is, is:

-being able to be free to read or watch TV, or WALK DOWN THE STREET, without being blitzed by advertising

-Being able to live my life, free of wage slavery, having to dedicate myself to a job when I have absolutely no chance of promotion or enjoyment.

-living in a world, where the human race is free of Economic and political oppression, debt, famine, pestilence and war.

-being free to go to a hopsital, whenever needed, and recieve treatment, without being gouged.

--

I know someone will disagree, and bring up The "Free" Market, and "Freedom of Choice" ... Is it really?

If so, why do Gasoline companies offer Gasoline at their stations, ALL at roughly the same price?

Food for Thought.

[A Pict]

. What great abilities do you have that would allow to survive?

I can create, and not just say " I either work for person x or starve".

When you take away person x, what will your proletariat do after half of his so-called options are taken away?


Is freedom having 5 major, private Coroprations own most of the media in The US? (7 if you include Canada, when looking at a North American scale)

Why isn't it? Is it freedom if the government can come to your house, put a gun to your head and take your possessions? Because that is what you are advocating when you argue for "breaking up" the media moguls.


Is freedom having 45 million Americans, not to mention, countless billions around the world, not being able to afford basic healthcare?

Freedom is choice. Is it freedom to come to my home and hold a gun to my headunless i submit to robbery for their health care?


Is freedom having your small business smashed to bits by Wal Mart or McDonalds or Microsoft?


Is it freedom to FORCE (again, we have consent being the basis for freedom) consumers to buy from small, inefficant, shitty businesses?


Is freedom having 1% of the population own 90% of the wealth


It is if they deserve it. And without property rights, there can be no human rights.



Is freedom having two political parties who, w/ SOME few exceptions, operate as one, in the "Land of the Free?"


I believe our political system does need a overhaul. I am a radical conservative (i know it sounds a bit contradictory). It gives far too many hand outs to pull peddlers and welfare queens.


Is freedom the mistreatment and abuseof minority groups all around the world?

I don't recall advocating this. Also of note, some of the greatest atrocities against minorites were committed in countries with communist governments. ALL ahve been commited by groups in STATIST governemnts, which you desire.



Is freedom, being afraid to voice your true opinion on an issue, in fear of being labled an Enemy of the State?

I don't recall argueing for censorship. Odd this is coming from members of THIS board.



Is freedom, being judged by the content of your bank account, rather than your character?


Isn't this what YOU are argueing for? Things like weighted income tax that hurt groups DIFFERENTLY, which socialists so desire, aren't they excatly judging people by their bank accounts?




As stated before, Communism isn't totalitarianism. Read the Communist Manifesto. Sure, Marx calls for Temporary dictatorship, but this is simply a measure for stability.

Absolute power can corrupt, but only those who are selfish.


The very fact that they are supposed to be "unselfish" makes communists all the more chilling. What is selflessness, but a moral blank check. Any actions goes and deuces are wild, just so long as you don't directly benefit. Hitler was selfless. He did it for the good of the "aryan race". Stalin was selfless. He did it for the "Dictatorship of the Proletrait". Pol Pot was selfless. Wackos tend to be irrational and isn't that just what selfless is?

THE SELF is what makes decisions and reasons.

If you are selfless, you are reasonless, and mindless.


So you want a irrational dictator to tell you how to live your life. Its a wonder why communism seems to always fail. Miserably.




being able to be free to read or watch TV, or WALK DOWN THE STREET, without being blitzed by advertising


So the right to censor others is freedom to you? But i thought you didn't like censorship!



Being able to live my life, free of wage slavery, having to dedicate myself to a job when I have absolutely no chance of promotion or enjoyment.


Whose forcing you to?




living in a world, where the human race is free of Economic and political oppression, debt, famine, pestilence and war


Curiously enough, EVERY one of those things you listed are a major problem in every comunist country, EVER!.



being free to go to a hopsital, whenever needed, and recieve treatment, without being gouged.

So free to gouge the doctors? And others who didn't so stupidly get hurt themselves?


If so, why do Gasoline companies offer Gasoline at their stations, ALL at roughly the same price?

Because the government makes them, you flipping idiot.

[Ahura Mazda]

I will add to the pict's argument by stating that no attempt at communism has ever been successful; in the process of setting up the communist gov't, the required temporary dictatorship always seems to be prolonged...until the gov't collapses. Is a system which can be hijacked so easily worth believing in? Something so fragile that it relies on faith in the selflessness in people that cannot possibly be selfless?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 3 2004, 08:53 PM

That's a horrible argument. The standard of living for slaves was better in the early 19th century than in the early 18th century. Is that an argument for slavery?


So.. lets get this straight. You are, indeed, sayign we are just as rich as any other people in history. The fact that we can support an unprecendented population, with the highest life expecatancy, a greater variety of diet, better housing and medical care, million of contrapactions to increase our free time so we can waste it argueing with mystics of muscle on the internet... and you are saying we have just as well as say an egytian did 4,000 years ago?

If you can say that, and actually believe something that is so blantantly and stupidly wrong, how can anyone argue with you ? If you regret reason, how can you be reasoned with?


I didn't say that, I only said that your argument is a poor one and irrelevant. You seem more interested in spouting your nonsense than actually reading people's responses.




The worker doesn't make shit. The machine made that mans products. Ask the worker to go pull his lever in his house and see what pops up. Holy Crap! Products don't magically appear! Who designed the machines made everyoen of the products, the worker is just a leech who ungratefully benefits from the engineers mind.

First of all, an engineer is a worker. Secondly, the notion that the workers are not producing everything is nonsense. If the workers walked out, the capitalist wouldn't be able to do a damned thing with all his machines.



I will add to the pict's argument by stating that no attempt at communism has ever been successful; in the process of setting up the communist gov't, the required temporary dictatorship always seems to be prolonged...until the gov't collapses. Is a system which can be hijacked so easily worth believing in? Something so fragile that it relies on faith in the selflessness in people that cannot possibly be selfless?

It is the Marxist-Leninist model that has been the failure.

[A Pict]

I didn't say that, I only said that your argument is a poor one and irrelevant. You seem more interested in spouting your nonsense than actually reading people's responses


??????


have you already forgotten the original arguement? SO YOU AGREE THAT THE AMOUNT OF WEALTH HAS INCREASED, CORRECT?


Therefore, the amount of wealth is NOT STATIC, correct?

Therefore the precept which guides a lot of you thought is NOT CORRECT, correct?

[Pete]

When you take away person x, what will your proletariat do after half of his so-called options are taken away?

First of all, the proletariat belongs to no one, but people can belong to it. It is a social grouping, not a possession.

Secondly, this has happened before, in Argentina to state one example. The management and owners were going bankrupt/went bankrupt and left. The workers said 'fuck this' and occupied the factories, and ran them many times better and more effectively than they did with the management and owners breathing down their necks. The owners saw this and wanted back in, but the workers, logically, refused knowing that the quest for profit would drive them into the shithole again, were as working to live had made them prosperous. Equally prosperous that is, as each worker got paid relatively equal amounts and the management and owners were not their gauging their unfairly unequal portions from it.

Thirdly, in your response to RavenFan84 you show yourself an idiot. You do not know what communism is, I doubt you know what socialism is. If you want, check out the Manifesto. Or perhaps browse the site a little with an open mind and see what leftism today is. Not many people here have a love affair with Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and their ways. Thinking that they do shows you out of your own waters. Grow up rich boy.

-Pete

[Pete]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 3 2004, 10:01 PM

I didn't say that, I only said that your argument is a poor one and irrelevant. You seem more interested in spouting your nonsense than actually reading people's responses


??????


have you already forgotten the original arguement? SO YOU AGREE THAT THE AMOUNT OF WEALTH HAS INCREASED, CORRECT?


Therefore, the amount of wealth is NOT STATIC, correct?

Therefore the precept which guides a lot of you thought is NOT CORRECT, correct?
Your arguement is irrevelvant, get off your high horse.

[Y2A]

No capitalist confuses stalinism with communism, we say that marxism and other forms of authoritarian leftism leads to stalinism even though the original thought it with good intentions.

[A Pict]

First of all, the proletariat belongs to no one, but people can belong to it. It is a social grouping, not a possession.


I am aware of this. I was being obnoxious.



Secondly, this has happened before, in Argentina to state one example. The management and owners were going bankrupt/went bankrupt and left. The workers said 'fuck this' and occupied the factories, and ran them many times better and more effectively than they did with the management and owners breathing down their necks. The owners saw this and wanted back in, but the workers, logically, refused knowing that the quest for profit would drive them into the shithole again, were as working to live had made them prosperous. Equally prosperous that is, as each worker got paid relatively equal amounts and the management and owners were not their gauging their unfairly unequal portions from it.


Link



Thirdly, in your response to RavenFan84 you show yourself an idiot. You do not know what communism is, I doubt you know what socialism is. If you want, check out the Manifesto. Or perhaps browse the site a little with an open mind and see what leftism today is. Not many people here have a love affair with Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and their ways. Thinking that they do shows you out of your own waters.


I view taxes are robbery. Never forget behind those piles of paper is a gun pointed at your head. That should clear up some of my responses.


Grow up rich boy.

Stop being a violent mediocrity.


Your arguement is irrevelvant, get off your high horse

Is it indeed?


Lets see the connotations.

1. wealth CAN be created.

2. Therefore, the wealthy did not become so the EXPENSE of the poor, but they created the wealth themselves.

3. Therefore, the solution to suffering is the not the punishment of those who CREATE wealth, but rather (if anything) the ENCOURAGEMENT of it.

[A Pict]

Y2A, what you just said is the essense of evil, and that allows the irrationality of cretins to win the only way it can; by default.



even though the original thought it with good intentions


Any person whose express goal is the enslavement of his fellow man does not have good intentions. You still think the "common good" at the expense of the "uncommon good' is morally justifiable, and its by this appeasment and only by this appeasement can the worshipers of death (Collectivists) stand a chance on the battlefield of ideas.

[Pete]

Your links, I only browsed them, so they may not be direct but I trust the source and I know I've read atleast one of them thoroughly (the site has a lot of good material out almost daily which I try to read as much as possible).

The work of changing minds Recovered factories in Argentina (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=42&ItemID=4702)

Argentina and Parecon (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=3995)

Brukman Workers Continue To Fight For Factory (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=42&ItemID=3750)

Yes the arguement is irrelevant. The world is not infinite, thus wealth is finite. Remember that, unless you play with numbers enough that you can create products and goods out of thin air, then wealth is finite and the world will only sustain capitalist destruction for so long. (Capitalist if you will, or neoliberalism or neomercantalism if you wont).

-Pete

[A Pict]

Yes the arguement is irrelevant. The world is not infinite, thus wealth is finite. Remember that, unless you play with numbers enough that you can create products and goods out of thin air, then wealth is finite and the world will only sustain capitalist destruction for so long. (Capitalist if you will, or neoliberalism or neomercantalism if you

1st thing-- Is human knowledge finite? Because that is what is spurning on a increase of wealth. If we were just producing for consumption, then indeed the fact that the earth is finite would pose a problem. Think of this; 300 years ago, you could cram how many people per square mile in a city, and how many can you safely and hygenically put in a city today? Human knowledge is infinite, therefore my point is not irrelevent.

Not to mention space. This firmly makes my point correct and relevent, but it is really overkill.



Your links, I only browsed them, so they may not be direct but I trust the source and I know I've read atleast one of them thoroughly (the site has a lot of good material out almost daily which I try to read as much as possible).


Blegh, incredibly biased, but i think making that statement is a cheap way out. What was preventing these workers for doing this earlier and peacefully (ie starting their own factory)?

[A Pict]

Also, if the workers can run their own factory and beat the other captilists, good for them. They can do within the system and not have to resort to violence to do it too. It proves they dont' have the 2 options of "Work for person x or starve".

Ha ha! You guys prove my points for me!

[Pete]

You should know better than that. I'll give you three reasons:

1) no capital, since they are workers and have never been payed enough in the first place to be able to afford to advance them selves

2) traditional brainwashing (one of the articles states this if you take the time to read them)

3) they were never in the situation before


Your arguement is pointless, regardless of what you argue the fact is still that those at the top have more than those at the bottom for reasons that are almost completely out of the hands of anyone at the top, and they wish to see no change. You yourself are walking proof.

-Pete

[A Pict]

And you should know better then that conditioned response. Ill crush your three points.

1). They have LITTLE capital. Im sure each of them has a LITTLE, but if they incorporated they would have a decent amount. Then there are these fantastic institions known as banks which (this hte kicker, you must have been absent the day they mentioned these) loan capital! Get a mortagage on the crap and start cranking that shit out.


2). Traditional Brainwashing? yes, since everyday in classes teachers say "all of you with blue-collar fathers will grow up to be blue-collar, and theres nothing you can do about it!!!!" In fact, most teachers tended to be downright socialistic (seeing as they were supported by the state). Brainwashing doesn't make sense at all.

3).
they were never in the situation before


Something tells me you only thought of 2 points, hehehe.

EDIT




Your arguement is pointless, regardless of what you argue the fact is still that those at the top have more than those at the bottom

So you wont' be satisified until everyone has the same? The zero of monotomy is what you crave?


reasons that are almost completely out of the hands of anyone

So the reason why the factories produced who were taken over by the workers was random luck? You can't have it both ways.



You yourself are walking proof.


Uh huh, what excatly do you know about me? To prevent a freudian bullshit frenzy next post, ill sumarize for you "Absolutely nothing. I have just read about 30 of your posts on some message board on the internet"

[Pete]

Read the links, they support my first two points and the third (when you are not in the position to question something most people usually don't, which is the logic behind the third) I thought was capable of standing alone, though it is also found within those links.

I hate to tell you, Argentina is different than America, and the availablity of loans for the middle class is vastly different than that for the lower classes.


Uh huh, what excatly do you know about me? To prevent a freudian bullshit frenzy next post, ill sumarize for you "Absolutely nothing. I have just read about 30 of your posts on some message board on the internet"

I know that you are a feverent rightwinger who enjoys the status quo. The way you refer to the people at the bottom of the social pyramid (or upside down funnel) allows me to assume you are not from that class. Anything else about your personal life, like how many siblings you have, your middle name, and where you live don't matter much. You support the system, and that was what I was refering to.


So you wont' be satisified until everyone has the same? The zero of monotomy is what you crave?

Baseless assumption. Leftists enjoy diversity (most of us atleast) to a greater extend than any rightist. Remember where the most feverent racists stand.


So the reason why the factories produced who were taken over by the workers was random luck? You can't have it both ways.

Quote me in context or don't quote me at all.

[A Pict]

Read the links, they support my first two points and the third (when you are not in the position to question something most people usually don't, which is the logic behind the third) I thought was capable of standing alone, though it is also found within those links.


They are long. I started on one, and the bias gave me a head ache. I had trouble just skimming it.




I hate to tell you, Argentina is different than America, and the availablity of loans for the middle class is vastly different than that for the lower classes.

I hate to tell you about international loans. Or other organizations (for profit too (which is probably why they work)) which give low capital loans to entrepeneurs with good ideas.



I know that you are a feverent rightwinger who enjoys the status quo

I am actually a feverent objectivist who wishes to change the system in the opposite direction that you wish to change it. But i am quite radical none-the-less when compared to my right-wing friends.



The way you refer to the people at the bottom of the social pyramid (or upside down funnel) allows me to assume you are not from that class

Or that i disdain those who propogate the concept of class.



Baseless assumption. Leftists enjoy diversity (most of us atleast) to a greater extend than any rightist. Remember where the most feverent racists stand.


They are statists? Like yourself?

Also, i am refering to economic sameness (although i can't see why i would want half the crap that my neighors have).



Quote me in context or don't quote me at all.


I am refering to you inconsistancy. Or are you saying everyone who gets rich as an individual does it by luck, and everyone who gets rich as a group does it by superior skill?

[Pete]

I am not a statist at all.


Or that i disdain those who propogate the concept of class.

It is a reality you must come to grips with. It is at the very base of your misunderstandings of leftism. Class does exist if you open your eyes (which you claim are already open). This is the point of contention, nothing else you say matters, or we for that matter, if you do not believe that class exists.

[A Pict]

Fine ignore that part. Respond to the rest.

[Pete]

As I said, nothing else matters. My ideology is based on the acceptance that class exists, yours is in rejection to that obvious truth. The fact that CEO's get paid in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and the average worker gets paid in the tens of thousands is proof of this.

Your arguements are based on the fact that you are superior to us, an arrogance I am sure we share in a similar incarnation, and that class does not exist. That is immature to believe in the nonexistance of class. It is essential to the running of the current system. Their are global classes (first world, third world) and national classes within those.

Simply, until you accept that class does exist any more discussion with you is a waste of time, as your ignorance will sink yourself.

-Pete

[A Pict]

Okay. Since you cannot respond to any of my points and are thus evading the issue (hardly surprising), ill move onto your concept of class.


What excatly is a "class". Is it solid? Is there a set amount of individuals in any class? Can the wealth of any of the classes improve? When excatly does one become middle class, or upper class? Can these lines change?

[Pete]

I am not evading, to put it simply enough for your mind to understand it I am avoiding needless arguements, as you are too ignorant to place anything valid, and have the wrong attitude to be debated with.



Alright. What is class? Class is a group of people in our society that is different than another group of people. I like to base this more or less on wealth. The highclass are those who have the highest incomes, the low class those with the lowest. Get it? Sure they can change, but the American Dream is hardly a reality. Some wish it was, and we are socialized to believe it is, but the stark reality is that those born at the bottom are severly disadvantadged to those born at the top. This is neither just nor fair. One cannot deny that class exists without showing their lack of knowledge of the current socio-political-economic realities of today. Willfull blindness is no excuse. Class does exist.

[A Pict]

Alright. What is class? Class is a group of people in our society that is different than another group of people.


Ah, so you believe in government discrimination? Or just against the rich? Pretty soon we have start defending businessmen under the civil rights legislature (..equal protection from the law would be nice, if it wasn't for the wantonly destructive Sherman Ack!-t)




I like to base this more or less on wealth. The highclass are those who have the highest incomes, the low class those with the lowest.

On income? What if I am a worthless playboy, who inherited my wealth (ive never denied that they exist)? I draw no INCOME, but i am wealthy enough to piss away the dead virtue that is my inheritated money? I could be low class too! In fact, this sounds AWFULLY like many of the campus-communists I know.

Come on, you know where you have to take this definition- your a marxist. Ill help you out since you obviously dont' know enough of the blind rhetoric yet-- means of production. But capital is given out far more freely then you could imagine. Also, what does the average american worker make-- 20,000 ish dollars? Get a bunch togther and incorporate, sell stocks and open their own joint. Hell, that is how SOME corporations come into existance! And thats fine to be employee owned, as long as you have to compete.

Seriously, I don't think you have ever considered your line of reasoning.

Thought- Monopoly Is Bad

Solution- Make the Government Give out a Monopoly!




Get it? Sure they can change, but the American Dream is hardly a reality. Some wish it was, and we are socialized to believe it is, but the stark reality is that those born at the bottom are severly disadvantadged to those born at the top.

Ugh- ive crushed this enough by now, yes?


This is neither just nor fair.

Ah Justice and Fairness! Finally some common ground for us. So you like fair, yes? Do you believe that everyone should get excatly what they deserve?


One cannot deny that class exists without showing their lack of knowledge of the current socio-political-economic realities of today. Willfull blindness is no excuse. Class does exist.

Appeal to Ridicule.


Heres something to help you out and cut down on the amount of spam you post.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

[SonofRage]

This is pretty funny. It's been a while since such a delusional cappie has come here :D

[A Pict]

I posted above in the wrong, thread, recheck for EDIT in a sec.

Also--- AD HOMINEM.

Seriously, something tells me you haven't participated in a formal debate. Not many communists have, as there beliefs cannot stand on the battlefield of reason.

[suffianr]

Seriously, something tells me you haven't participated in a formal debate. Not many communists have, as there beliefs cannot stand on the battlefield of reason.

You receive -20 Brownie Points for constructive criticism.

[synthesis]

Thought- Monopoly Is Bad

Solution- Make the Government Give out a Monopoly!

Umm, we are not liberals. We are not Keynesians or any other kind of capitalists you wish us to be. Most of us are revolutionary Communists or Anarchists. We believe in public ownership and democratic control over the means of production. None of this reformist bullshit you seem to be ascribing to us.


This is pretty funny. It's been a while since such a delusional cappie has come here

LOL, seconded.


So you like fair, yes? Do you believe that everyone should get excatly what they deserve?

Socialism: From each according to their ability, to each according to their deeds.

Nothing like Capitalism: From each according to their place in the corporate hierarchy, to each an amount inversely proportional to the work they actually do.

[A Pict]

Socialism: From each according to their ability, to each according to their deeds.

That is incorrectly written. So if i do no deeds in Socialism, I starve to death?

Here is what you meant to say:


Socialism: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.


How you treat slaves and animals. Charming.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You have a very narrow definition of NEED.

In your eyes, need is the bare essentials to survive: just enough clothes to keep you from freezing, just enough food to keep you alive.

That's all you NEED in your view.

But we definately NEED more than that.
We need to be entertained, we need to be kept busy or we develop insomnia, losing much NEEDED sleep,
we NEED variety in the food we eat, we NEED enough food to fill our bellies, we NEED clothing that is comfortable and hard-wearing and doesn't just cover the naughty bits, we NEED physical and mental stimulation.

see the differences between your 'need' and my 'need'?


So if i do no deeds in Socialism, I starve to death?

I don't know about socialism, but in communism you wouldn't instantly be refused food and clothing if you flat out refused to work... peer pressure will be gruadually and increasingly applied... until eventually nobody will give you anything because you're such a lazy sod.

[A Pict]

You have a very narrow definition of NEED.

In your eyes, need is the bare essentials to survive: just enough clothes to keep you from freezing, just enough food to keep you alive.

That's all you NEED in your view.

But we definately NEED more than that.
We need to be entertained, we need to be kept busy or we develop insomnia, losing much NEEDED sleep,
we NEED variety in the food we eat, we NEED enough food to fill our bellies, we NEED clothing that is comfortable and hard-wearing and doesn't just cover the naughty bits, we NEED physical and mental stimulation.

see the differences between your 'need' and my 'need'?


And im saying the last time the western world was run on collectivism the way "need' was addressed was universal. Look at the dark ages, the first attempt of communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look at the dark ages, the first attempt of communism.

This actually made me laugh.
How exactly is wealth in land and serfs communism? It's not even collectivism, each serf/peasant got a piece of land to farm, and in return for farming the lord's land, he could keep 10% of the crop produced

And of course not a red flag anywhere. :lol:

[A Pict]

This actually made me laugh.
How exactly is wealth in land and serfs communism? It's not even collectivism, each serf/peasant got a piece of land to farm, and in return for farming the lord's land, he could keep 10% of the crop produced

And of course not a red flag anywhere.


Um, if you knew the definition of serfs one of the things was THEY INDEED DID LIVE COLLECTIVELY. They could NOT own land, but rather the land owned them. The lord got everything, and gave back what was "needed". The lord was the protector of the "common good", the state embodied in a person. THIS IS YOUR COMMUNISM. And that is why we must never let it spread again.

[LSD]

Um, if you knew the definition of serfs one of the things was THEY INDEED DID LIVE COLLECTIVELY. They could NOT own land, but rather the land owned them. The lord got everything, and gave back what was "needed". The lord was the protector of the "common good", the state embodied in a person. THIS IS YOUR COMMUNISM. And that is why we must never let it spread again.


wow...that's deep..... really... oh wait.....

Communism is Feudalism?!?!?!? What??????

Beyond your diatribe, effectively your argument is such:

Feudalism was not capitalist
Communism is not capitalist
Feudalism is communism

Brilliant.


They could NOT own land, but rather the land owned them

No, the lord owned them, land can't own anyone. They were forced to work on his land or they would starve. Sounds a great deal more like capitalism than communism (the workers not controlling the means of production et al.)


The lord got everything, and gave back what was "needed"

Your own quotation marks indicate that you are well aware that the lord did not give what was needed, rather he gave back just enough so that they would not starve. NoXion already explained how need is more than bare subsistance so I won't go into it again. Suffice it to say that under communism the people truly do receive what they need, there is no lord hording to building palaces.


The lord was the protector of the "common good", the state embodied in a person

Again, look at your own sarcasm. We both know that the lord didn't give a damn about the well being of the serfs under him, save that they live long enough to get him richer, sounds a lot like capitalism... on the other hand communal government is made up of the people it looks after therefore it does care about the common good.



THIS IS YOUR COMMUNISM. And that is why we must never let it spread again.


If this is how you percieve communism all I can say is that your perception is extremely warped. Communism is not Feudalistic, if anything capitalism is. So that terrible evil that "must never spread again," it's already spread and it's called capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They could NOT own land, but rather the land owned them.

I said the GOT a piece of land to farm. I didn't say the were sold or given the piece of land.


The lord got everything, and gave back what was "needed". The lord was the protector of the "common good", the state embodied in a person

How many time do you have to be told? ANARCHIST COMMUNISM IS TO ABOLISH THE STATE. COMPLETELY.
There will be no 'protectors of the common good'.
Material conditions were different then. there was no easy access to what was back then luxury items (Cotton, tropical fruits, certain spices). There was no high-speed communication.
THERE WERE NO WAGE SLAVES.


THIS IS YOUR COMMUNISM

No it isn't.


And that is why we must never let it spread again.

How can it spread if it never took root?

[A Pict]

Serf

n : (medieval Europe) a person who is bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord


(www.dictionary.com)



Feudalism was not capitalist
Communism is not capitalist
Feudalism is communism

Actually, i did not argue at all how feudalism was not capitalistic. But hey, nice Strawman.


No, the lord owned them, land can't own anyone. They were forced to work on his land or they would starve. Sounds a great deal more like capitalism than communism (the workers not controlling the means of production et al.)

As ive countered in numerous threads, you can't have it both ways. If indeed the capitalistic workers options are 1. Work for person X or 2. Starve, then what will be left after you take away person X (as your communism advoactes?)

You counter-Make collectives, etc. Then you see, there is not two options, as no one would impede a non-violent collective being created in a capitalistic society.


Your own quotation marks indicate that you are well aware that the lord did not give what was needed, rather he gave back just enough so that they would not starve

It shows that i am well aware of the problems of distribution through "need".


Suffice it to say that under communism the people truly do receive what they need, there is no lord hording to building palaces.

Such as a worthless space program, excessively large armies, or hoarding to cause a fake-famine...



Again, look at your own sarcasm. We both know that the lord didn't give a damn about the well being of the serfs under him,

Why will the new lords you wish to enact give a damn about you?


on the other hand communal government is made up of the people it looks after therefore it does care about the common good

You mean a few people (I don't think you mean everyone will be a poliitian--although by your leaps of economic logic it wouldn't surpise me if you did) will make the government, which for some reason will all of a sudden stop using thier powers (which you invest aboslutily in their control) for non-abusive purposes, history, logic, etc aside?



I said the GOT a piece of land to farm. I didn't say the were sold or given the piece of land.

Whatever. Semantics. Their agrian communites were indeed communal, as were the traditions (harvest movements etc). Hell, a lot of early communists were dark ages symphasizers who adores the communal nature of them.



How many time do you have to be told? ANARCHIST COMMUNISM IS TO ABOLISH THE STATE. COMPLETELY


By empowering the state! Completely! HAHAHA



Material conditions were different then. there was no easy access to what was back then luxury items (Cotton, tropical fruits, certain spices).

I wonder why in those 800 ish year in the absence of capitalism there were no acess to luxury items....


Maybe its because distribution was based on subsidence (err production for consumption) and need.



There was no high-speed communication

As explained in other threads, who discovers technologies?



THERE WERE NO WAGE SLAVES

Nope, just good ole fashioned, run of the mill true slaves.

Also, are you advocating that the middle ages, were indeed superior to the modern age?

[LSD]

As ive countered in numerous threads, you can't have it both ways. If indeed the capitalistic workers options are 1. Work for person X or 2. Starve, then what will be left after you take away person X (as your communism advoactes?)


There are two options within a capitalism framework. You're right, if you just took away the jobs without changing the system, people would starve. The point, however, is to change the system.


You counter-Make collectives, etc. Then you see, there is not two options, as no one would impede a non-violent collective being created in a capitalistic society.

Think about what you're saying. You're advocating that within, say, the United States, a group of workers could create a collective. Except they would still be subject to a capitalistic environment. i.e., they'd have to buy/rent the land, tools, supplies. They will have to pay taxes to the government regardless. Taxes, which from a communist collectivist perspective can't come from anywhere as money doesn't exist. To pay these fees would require reselling goods/services outside of the collective thereby draining resources, thereby putting certain people in charge of such arangements (because someone has to actually physically go there to sell) and thereby creating classes which undermines the entire idea.


It shows that i am well aware of the problems of distribution through "need".

This had already been addressed. If you have something new to add please do so. You distribute such that every member of society shares equally. But there is no central permanent government/ruler.



Such as a worthless space program, excessively large armies, or hoarding to cause a fake-famine...

I'm assuming you're making a not-too-subtle reference to the Soviet Union, but again that is not a model of a true communist country, due to its statist and state-capitalist policies.


Why will the new lords you wish to enact give a damn about you?

No lords, no government, no state. I used the term 'government' to indicate that the collective would collectively (hence the word 'collective') make decisision, but there will be (deja vu) no central permanent government/ruler.


I don't think you mean everyone will be a poliitian

yes I absolutely do. There will be no career politicians, but everyone will share equally in making decisions for the collective.




How many time do you have to be told? ANARCHIST COMMUNISM IS TO ABOLISH THE STATE. COMPLETELY

By empowering the state! Completely! HAHAHA

What? Will you get it out of your mind that communism wants to create an authoritarian state, here let me quote from above "ABOLISH THE STATE. COMPLETELY", that is a radically different thing (the opposite in fact) from "empowering the state"


I wonder why in those 800 ish year in the absence of capitalism there were no acess to luxury items....

Maybe its because distribution was based on subsidence (err production for consumption) and need.

Or maybe it's because it was 1100 years ago and what they considered luxuries are no longer categorized as such. Again, for most of human history, capitalism did not exist, what are you saying that luxuries did not exist until 300 years ago???


As explained in other threads, who discovers technologies?

Who discovered the wheel?? Was he a capitalist?
Again, technology is not depdendent on any economic system.

[Guest1]

Funny how you talk about strawman arguments, when your repsonse to Anarcho-Communism is that it would empower the state.

More of us know about debating than you think, but none of us hide behind it like you do.