Someone said I'd be restricted

[ponycelest]

One of your frequent posters who regularly pesters me with marx2mao.com said I'd be restricted/banned from here if I posted my ideology, so here it goes (Different opinions will be respected, thought out, and responded to).

I'm pro-capitalist (I've worked/founded small startup companies and had good fortunes doing so), but I acknowledge the fact that it's not good for many people's mentality.

I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, and think the Houghes amendment of 86 should be abolished. I support taxation, but only for public safety OR well being initiatives (Roads or homeless shelters). I don't believe it should be legal for the federal government to get involved in any social issues, however, States should be allowed to dictate their own laws regarding social issues.

I believe state law should override federal law at the discretion of the state's supreme court.

Communism doesn't make sense to me. I see it as an unsustainable goal, and see some class warfare as necessary to drive innovation. But I do believe in a common wage of the poverty line, so people can at least afford to eat/survive.

I believe welfare needs to be abolished, unless it's related to working benefits. For example, Child welfare needs to stop. All it does is encourage the worst of our nation to reproduce, while workers compensation/unemployment keeps the skilled workers afloat.

I've lived in very diverse neighborhoods (Black neighborhoods with multiple shootings, stabbings, robbings, home invasions, car jackings, drug distribution... All in the course of 1 year), and believe there should be NO racial identification used for any public purpose whatsoever (aside from taking diversity studies, census, or drivers licenses/identification). To that end, people should be treated the same way regardless of what they look like, and any race-specific benefits should be abolished (School aid/welfare/donations/loans/housing grants).

I believe in the traditional gender roles, but respect that others don't want them followed. To each their own, essentially.

I believe the stock markets should have slightly more safeguards. I believe high frequency trading is fine, however, stock investors should be entitled to 100% full disclosure on company payroll and earnings, with no exceptions.

I'm not a nationalist at all, and believe the people who make up the country are way more important then the country's identity itself.

I believe minimum wage should be determined by the poverty line. The common wage should get everyone to, or near the poverty line, and minimum wage should be enough to elevate at least 15% above that.

I'm not an isolationist by any means, I believe we (Humanity, not my country) have a duty to increase quality of life globally, as quality of life is way more important then money, and a global capitalism with high quality of life is pretty much utopia in my opinion.

Anti capitalist measures are OK depending on who they benefit. Patents and copyrights are pretty much necessary, however, Copyrights should be restricted to 20 years, which should be plenty of time for a company to turn a profit on an intellectual idea. Trademarks should last for as long as the company/owner is alive. Barriers to entry should be abolished. Not restricted, abolished. In other words, it should be a state felony for the individuals responsible to restricting competition.

I believe people should be able to opt out of our society. They should be allowed to own property, yet pay no taxes IF they don't use ANY public funds. This includes roads/drivers licenses, medical care, food/water. Pretty much, if people want to go off the grid and make their own communities, they should be allowed to with no repercussions.

That's the basics of it, feel free to comment or offer dissenting opinions/questions, and I'll respond.

[#FF0000]

I believe welfare needs to be abolished, unless it's related to working benefits. For example, Child welfare needs to stop. All it does is encourage the worst of our nation to reproduce, while workers compensation/unemployment keeps the skilled workers afloat.

I wonder what you mean by "the worst of our nation" here. I was only able to eat as a young child because of programs like WIC.

It's also entirely baseless to say any welfare program encourages people to have children -- because the numbers simply don't support that. People who receive benefits have the same number of kids on average as people who do not (Around 1.95)


I've lived in very diverse neighborhoods (Black neighborhoods with multiple shootings, stabbings, robbings, home invasions, car jackings, drug distribution... All in the course of 1 year), and believe there should be NO racial identification used for any public purpose whatsoever (aside from taking diversity studies, census, or drivers licenses/identification). To that end, people should be treated the same way regardless of what they look like, and any race-specific benefits should be abolished (School aid/welfare/donations/loans/housing grants).


Do you think ethnic minorities in general are treated entirely fairly in modern society? Do you think that someone who is born black has the same opportunities in America, 2013 as someone who is born white?

[Ele'ill]

I believe in the traditional gender roles, but respect that others don't want them followed. To each their own, essentially.

what do you mean by 'traditional'

[ponycelest]

I wonder what you mean by "the worst of our nation" here. I was only able to eat as a young child because of programs like WIC.

That's because minimum wage is pathetic, and there's no common wage in the USA. With a common wage at, or just above the poverty line, there would be no reason for benefits like these, unless the class in question is over producing.


It's also entirely baseless to say any welfare program encourages people to have children -- because the numbers simply don't support that. People who receive benefits have the same number of kids on average as people who do not (Around 1.95)

True. And that's a problem. In a capitalist society, there should be very little incentive for the underclass to reproduce.


Do you think ethnic minorities in general are treated entirely fairly in modern society? Do you think that someone who is born black has the same opportunities in America, 2013 as someone who is born white?

Absolutely. I've lived in ghetto areas for parts of my life, and there's nothing (That I could tell you) that encourages them to act the way they do, except for their micro-culture, which would go away if we properly enforced laws and penalties (Oh yeah, I'm against parole by the way). We're already seeing the effects of this. The black population in the USA is declining compared to others because the amount of people we have in our prisons, however, we eventually let them out early for "Good behavior".


what do you mean by 'traditional'

Traditional as in having 2 parents, having one parent be a breadwinner, and one taking care of the children, and teach them proper values/how to behave. Usually this works out to be male breadwinner/female housewife, but there can and have been exceptions to this. I think marriage itself is an incredibly important social construct (In modern society), and it should be encouraged, while divorce should be extremely discouraged by society.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Traditional as in having 2 parents, having one parent be a breadwinner, and one taking care of the children, and teach them proper values/how to behave. Usually this works out to be male breadwinner/female housewife, but there can and have been exceptions to this. I think marriage itself is an incredibly important social construct (In modern society), and it should be encouraged, while divorce should be extremely discouraged by society.

Just fuck off you piece of shit and spare us the trouble of restricting you, filth.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Just fuck off you piece of shit and spare us the trouble of restricting you, filth.

There's no need to be mean.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There's no need to be mean.

There bloody well is, though I can see why you'd think differently. Zero tolerance for fuckwits sprouting this inane shit.

[Comrade #138672]

This kind of thinking reminds me of Fascism. (@TS)

[Fourth Internationalist]

There bloody well is, though I can see why you'd think differently. Zero tolerance for fuckwits sprouting this inane shit.

No. Your attitude is petty and immature. Rather than whine about someone being wrong, like most people in the world are, convince them that your position is right.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No. Your attitude is petty and immature. Rather than whine about someone being wrong, like most people in the world are, convince them that your position is right.

I have no intentions of convincing some troll of anything. Arguments don't mean anything, arguments don't win squat.

[Comrade #138672]

No. Your attitude is petty and immature. Rather than whine about someone being wrong, like most people in the world are, convince them that your position is right.Isn't that a bit idealistic?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I have no intentions of convincing some troll of anything. Arguments don't mean anything, arguments don't win squat.

And petty insults don't help either.

[Hermes]

No. Your attitude is petty and immature. Rather than whine about someone being wrong, like most people in the world are, convince them that your position is right.

An outspoken capitalist, believes the poor are the worst of our nation, believes that every minority is treated equally in our society and wishes the end to affirmative action-type policies, etc, that the state should actively help reproduce reactionary gender norms that are harmful to society.

Nah, you're right, I have no idea why anyone wouldn't want to act kindly toward him. Couldn't be the fact that he's spelled out that he thinks the majority of us are scum or anything.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Isn't that a bit idealistic?

People do it all the time. How else does public opinion change?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I stopped at "underclass"

[Fourth Internationalist]

An outspoken capitalist, believes the poor are the worst of our nation, believes that every minority is treated equally in our society and wishes the end to affirmative action-type policies, etc, that the state should actively help reproduce reactionary gender norms that are harmful to society.

Nah, you're right, I have no idea why anyone wouldn't want to act kindly toward him. Couldn't be the fact that he's spelled out that he thinks the majority of us are scum or anything.

You've just described over half of the upper working class, and probably most of America. How do petty insults help?

[#FF0000]

True. And that's a problem. In a capitalist society, there should be very little incentive for the underclass to reproduce.

There is no incentive to reproduce though. If anything it's just a straight up penalty.

Plus, you know, whether or not someone's above the poverty line is a fluid thing. About 20% of people who receive welfare benefits are on there for the short term. Another chunk (20% again, I believe) are people who themselves grew up in deep poverty. It doesn't make sense to talk about "incentive" here. "Incentives" will not break cycles of poverty.


Absolutely. I've lived in ghetto areas for parts of my life, and there's nothing (That I could tell you) that encourages them to act the way they do, except for their micro-culture, which would go away if we properly enforced laws and penalties (Oh yeah, I'm against parole by the way). We're already seeing the effects of this. The black population in the USA is declining compared to others because the amount of people we have in our prisons, however, we eventually let them out early for "Good behavior".That's a pretty weird way to look at it considering black neighborhoods are specifically targeted for enforcement (for things like drug laws, mainly) despite drug use being about the same among black and white populations. I live in a real patchwork sort of area, with a lot of people from different income stratas and races and religions and all that, and I went to a high school that reflected that. We had about as much trouble as you'd expect in a high school with the occasional fight and some drugs here and there -- but we had cops combing our halls and a police station built right next door. Meanwhile the other, lily-white school in our district had issues with guns and knives and serious violence but never managed to gain a reputation. Ours had one before it was even open.

That's anecdotal, of course, but you could even just look at the numbers for convictions and punishment in the court system according to race. You'd find that black convicts are generally given harsher penalties than white convicts who have committed similar crimes.

You could also look at things like access to things like schools and benefits according to race -- where black children are most often herded into the worst, most underfunded and understaffed schools in the worst parts of the neighborhood.

And even that's without touching the wildly destructive prison system in the United States, which simply fail to prevent crime and, if anything, fuel recidivism.

I mean, yeah, you almost sort of recognize cycles of violence and poverty (talking about these "micro-cultures") but it's silly to think that of all things the American criminal justice system, one of the most violent institutions in the country, is what we need to break them.

[Hermes]

You've just described over half of the upper working class, and probably most of America. How do petty insults help?

How do they hurt, esp. when this board is supposed to be a revolutionary space, and he blatantly attacks several of our members with his post?

Or do you also think that fascists should be able to organize, MRA's should be allowed into safe spaces for women, etc?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

People do it all the time. How else does public opinion change?

Public opinion is a reflection of culture and material conditions, not a product of arguments. An argument in a vacuum is a fart in space. But I think the troll achieved his goals, for, here we are, arguing amongst one another. That is of course what brings them oh-so-much amusement, for in their drab pony-suit fucking lives little else brings the equal amount of laughs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yawn

[Ele'ill]

Traditional as in having 2 parents, having one parent be a breadwinner, and one taking care of the children, and teach them proper values/how to behave. Usually this works out to be male breadwinner/female housewife, but there can and have been exceptions to this. I think marriage itself is an incredibly important social construct (In modern society), and it should be encouraged, while divorce should be extremely discouraged by society.

can you explain how this is traditional, how far back does all this go and what makes this 'right'

[Fourth Internationalist]

How do they hurt, esp. when this board is supposed to be a revolutionary space, and he blatantly attacks several of our members with his post?

Okay I'll rephrase. They are not helpful to discussion.


Or do you also think that fascists should be able to organize, MRA's should be allowed into safe spaces for women, etc?

It fascinates me that you think because I think criticism should be constructive, I want fascists to organize. Do you have anything constructive to add, or just more absurd claims?

[Zaza]

Every capitalist is a troll?

[Tim Cornelis]

People on revleft really need to learn the definition of troll (hint: it's not synonymous with "bourgeois" or "reactionary").

[ThatGuy]

Well, I don't think you'll get banned, since I have been having constructive debates on this board for a few days now and am myself an anarcho-capitalist.

However I must say that some of the thing you wrote made me cringe a bit, since they sound a bit contradictory or illogical. Let me list & comment them:


I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, and think the Houghes amendment of 86 should be abolished. I support taxation, but only for public safety OR well being initiatives (Roads or homeless shelters). I don't believe it should be legal for the federal government to get involved in any social issues, however, States should be allowed to dictate their own laws regarding social issues.

Been there. I also started out with the assumption that states have a positive role to play in society. Turns out they don't. States are what's wrong with society nowadays, and there's no true solution to the problems they create but abolishing them. Even if they provide some goods to society, like roads, healthcare and security, all of this could be provided much more efficiently by the market and there wouldn't be all the problems that arise now from the monopolization of justice an police.


I believe welfare needs to be abolished, unless it's related to working benefits. For example, Child welfare needs to stop. All it does is encourage the worst of our nation to reproduce, while workers compensation/unemployment keeps the skilled workers afloat.

All welfare makes bad economical situations more agreeable and encourages people to don't resist those situations as much as they would normally. That said, welfare can be a good thing for society if done right, but to do it right, the state must be taken out of it.


I believe the stock markets should have slightly more safeguards. I believe high frequency trading is fine, however, stock investors should be entitled to 100% full disclosure on company payroll and earnings, with no exceptions.

This would just mean, that industrial espionage just got a LOT easier and I fail to see what good it would do. People have a right to demand this when buying stock of course, but it's up to the companies what they will disclose and what they won't.


I believe minimum wage should be determined by the poverty line. The common wage should get everyone to, or near the poverty line, and minimum wage should be enough to elevate at least 15% above that.

Minimum wage is bad for the poor. It restricts entrance to the job market to people with little education and/or work experience, which usually means poor people. Also if you push minimum wage above someone's productive potential, they will be unhireable, because they will cost more than they earn their employer. I often use minimum wage to show people how not everything that is done to help the poor actually help them and that it's usually the other way around.


I'm not an isolationist by any means, I believe we (Humanity, not my country) have a duty to increase quality of life globally, as quality of life is way more important then money, and a global capitalism with high quality of life is pretty much utopia in my opinion.

I agree that capitalism is the best system for a productive economy, but I wouldn't force people to adopt it. They may actually be against it for ideological reasons, like the people on this board and pushing it on them is simply counterproductive and immoral.


Anti capitalist measures are OK depending on who they benefit. Patents and copyrights are pretty much necessary, however, Copyrights should be restricted to 20 years, which should be plenty of time for a company to turn a profit on an intellectual idea. Trademarks should last for as long as the company/owner is alive. Barriers to entry should be abolished. Not restricted, abolished. In other words, it should be a state felony for the individuals responsible to restricting competition.

Patents are highly counterproductive. They restrict entry to the market to smaller businesses and keep obsolete multi-nationals, who are the only ones that can afford to register them afloat. Copyrights are not as bad, but they create another problem, because copyright holders force the rest of us to pay for the persecution of people who infringe them. This means that instead of changing their unsustainable business model, the tax payer gets to pay for it. If copyright holders had to pay their own police, all this internet file sharing controversy would instantly disappear.


I believe people should be able to opt out of our society. They should be allowed to own property, yet pay no taxes IF they don't use ANY public funds. This includes roads/drivers licenses, medical care, food/water. Pretty much, if people want to go off the grid and make their own communities, they should be allowed to with no repercussions.

I'm also for being able to opt out of society, but the way you put it makes it highly illogical. If you can't leave your property basically, doesn't that make you a prisoner of the state? Even if your whole neighborhood block decided to opt-out, you still couldn't leave it, because it's probably encircled by roads or public land. A much more viable opt-out option would be to be able of opting out of those government projects you chose so you could opt out of healthcare, social security, overseas interventions, but you could keep the ones that you need and that don't have market alternatives. The government could still ruin your day through regulations, but it would be a start.

[Zaza]

@ThatGuy,
yet you are restricted. Just like me.
This board can't handle my kemalistic bourgeois supporting facism.

[Tifosi]

I believe welfare needs to be abolished, unless it's related to working benefits. For example, Child welfare needs to stop. All it does is encourage the worst of our nation to reproduce, while workers compensation/unemployment keeps the skilled workers afloat.

I hate this disgusting attitude. My home town was one of the most deprived areas in the north of Scotland and you would hear this shit every fucking day. Small community were everyone knew everyone, so just imagine to horrible rumours aimed at certain people and families. Uh :cursing:

In 2011 there were 1,354,280 families who had one or more children and claimed some sort of out of work benefit in the UK. Out of this 77% (1,042,795 families) had only one or two children (which fits with your stupid 'traditional' family size). Only 14% (189,599 families, a drop in the ocean) had 3 children and from there on the numbers get ridiculously small. Only 6771 families in 2011 had five or more children and claimed out of work benefits out of population of some 63 million! There just an easy target.

You hear the 'horror' stories of the state giving families £100,000 in housing benefits but these are extraordinary cases that the political class use to beat down everyone. In 2010 only 3 families got this but if you listen to some people you would think it was thousands of families.

The money that the vast bulk of families get is very little and no where near enough to life a decent life or give your children basic things like a healthy meal. It doesn't encourage laziness or work shyness.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739

These numbers will be a bit of date. Today more people are getting fucked over and the benefits have shrunk.

[Comrade #138672]

Where do all those Ancaps keep coming from? They seem to be everywhere.

[Skyhilist]

That's because minimum wage is pathetic, and there's no common wage in the USA. With a common wage at, or just above the poverty line, there would be no reason for benefits like these, unless the class in question is over producing.

This is ridiculous. Suppose the common wage is at the poverty line. You're still going to have unemployment. Suppose that I'm a young kid with a single, unemployed parent. If we go with your proposal and all benefits are wiped out (because the common wage is at the poverty line) I have literally no means of eating except a reliance on charities, which is inadequate at best. That's an awful idea.

[Comrade Samuel]

People on revleft really need to learn the definition of troll (hint: it's not synonymous with "bourgeois" or "reactionary").

This.

Honestly its kinda nice having an OI section on here because if there was not then the discussion on revleft would only consist of tendency wars and regurgitated opinions on current events. It makes us consider why we hold the opinions that we do and sharpens our ability to defend them.

As far as capitalists go around here ponycelest has been more than decent about outlining his/her beliefs and allowing radicals like ourselves to ask some questions which is what makes comments such as...


Just fuck off you piece of shit and spare us the trouble of restricting you, filth.

...unwarranted and flat out mean.

[Fred]

Yawn

Here's a person that actively insults the working class and poor, who is seriously backward about gender roles. And you yawn? How come you're not screaming insults at him and calling him a capitalist/patriarchal apologist.

BTW, I don't think he should be banned, but perhaps restricted to OI. He is after all, by his own declaration, on the wrong side of the class line. What is there really to discuss with him?

[Zaza]

Why restrict someone?
There are always topics where even non communists should feel free to express their opinion.

[G4b3n]

I have no intentions of convincing some troll of anything. Arguments don't mean anything, arguments don't win squat.

It is anti-intellectual authoritarians like you that give leftism a bad name among the general population.

[hatzel]

So how exactly did the question of whether or not you'd be accepted on some website come up in conversation, and why would you care enough to find out? What's the backstory here?

[ponycelest]

Wow, I had no idea my post would elicit this much controversy. Sorry if I offended anyone, I had no intention of doing so.


There is no incentive to reproduce though. If anything it's just a straight up penalty.

The incentive is biological, most people feel the need to reproduce, and it will basically always exist. I was talking more about economic incentives (Whether it be child support, future security (Kids take care of their parents usually)).


Plus, you know, whether or not someone's above the poverty line is a fluid thing. About 20% of people who receive welfare benefits are on there for the short term. Another chunk (20% again, I believe) are people who themselves grew up in deep poverty. It doesn't make sense to talk about "incentive" here. "Incentives" will not break cycles of poverty.

Yep, of course the poverty line is fluid, however, in a capitalist society GDP per capita SHOULD rise, and with it, the poverty line. At that point, common wage would be increased accordingly. How would you recommend breaking that cycle then?


That's a pretty weird way to look at it considering black neighborhoods are specifically targeted for enforcement (for things like drug laws, mainly) despite drug use being about the same among black and white populations. I live in a real patchwork sort of area, with a lot of people from different income stratas and races and religions and all that, and I went to a high school that reflected that. We had about as much trouble as you'd expect in a high school with the occasional fight and some drugs here and there -- but we had cops combing our halls and a police station built right next door. Meanwhile the other, lily-white school in our district had issues with guns and knives and serious violence but never managed to gain a reputation. Ours had one before it was even open.

I went to a mostly white/asian/jewish highschool, and we barely had any issues. I moved from a mostly white area to a more diverse area, and there have been shootings/muggings nonstop. While it's true that police often profile minorities more, it's because they're trying to make quota, and it's usually in more diverse areas where problems occur.


That's anecdotal, of course, but you could even just look at the numbers for convictions and punishment in the court system according to race. You'd find that black convicts are generally given harsher penalties than white convicts who have committed similar crimes.

The big issue with that is that it represents a failure to be given a "jury of your peers", as well as allowing judges to form their own sentencing guidelines. I strongly favor min/max sentences for most crimes, with increasing penalties based on past offenses.


You could also look at things like access to things like schools and benefits according to race -- where black children are most often herded into the worst, most underfunded and understaffed schools in the worst parts of the neighborhood. This is true, however, This is because there are more blacks in inner city environments, where schools tend to be worse.

With a common wage, and increasing quality of life, this would most likely become way less of an issue.


And even that's without touching the wildly destructive prison system in the United States, which simply fail to prevent crime and, if anything, fuel recidivism.

I'm a believer that the prison system is too lenient, and focuses on the wrong problems. For example, If you murder someone in the second degree, I don't think you should ever be given a meaningful chance to interact with society, unless you fully serve your time. Not getting parole after 10 years on a 30 year sentence...

Of course, by the same token, Drug use really shouldn't get you locked away with violent criminals for 10 years of your life, that will only make you more apathetic/violent.

And then, there's the issue of prison culture itself, where people who go in are grouped with violent offenders who radicalize them. Basically, it needs an overhaul. Instead of locking them together and letting them act like animals, we should break their culture with work, and have steep penalties for stepping out of line, to show them how civilized people should behave.


I mean, yeah, you almost sort of recognize cycles of violence and poverty (talking about these "micro-cultures") but it's silly to think that of all things the American criminal justice system, one of the most violent institutions in the country, is what we need to break them.

I think the prison system should effectively remove the violent from our society, while punishing those who have temporary lapses.


can you explain how this is traditional, how far back does all this go and what makes this 'right'

I can't really say that I've studied how far back the tradition starts of having 1 breadwinner, and a housekeeper.

As I said, that's just what I believe to produce the best/most talented offspring, and it's what myself and my girlfriend are doing. But as I said, to each their own, and people shouldn't be faulted for doing what they want instead.




Been there. I also started out with the assumption that states have a positive role to play in society. Turns out they don't. States are what's wrong with society nowadays, and there's no true solution to the problems they create but abolishing them. Even if they provide some goods to society, like roads, healthcare and security, all of this could be provided much more efficiently by the market and there wouldn't be all the problems that arise now from the monopolization of justice an police.

I used to think like that, but there's just certain things I can't see functioning without some form of state in a capitalist environment. For example preventing monopolies, or having an armed defense force. The last thing I'd want is a privately run army looking to boost their manufacturing contracts with a show of force.


All welfare makes bad economical situations more agreeable and encourages people to don't resist those situations as much as they would normally. That said, welfare can be a good thing for society if done right, but to do it right, the state must be taken out of it.

I'm confused how there could be any welfare without the state? Charity?


This would just mean, that industrial espionage just got a LOT easier and I fail to see what good it would do. People have a right to demand this when buying stock of course, but it's up to the companies what they will disclose and what they won't.

True that companies can choose to disclose this if they want to, but very often they don't disclose full news to all of their investors (Leading to insider trading). If they were forced to say "Our CEO sold 2,000 shares this morning" instead of saying "Last quarter an investor sold 2,000 shares", it would remove a LOT of insider trading from the market, making it more fair for everyone.


Minimum wage is bad for the poor. It restricts entrance to the job market to people with little education and/or work experience, which usually means poor people. Also if you push minimum wage above someone's productive potential, they will be unhireable, because they will cost more than they earn their employer. I often use minimum wage to show people how not everything that is done to help the poor actually help them and that it's usually the other way around.

Absolutely true, if there's no common wage. In the situation of a detrimental worker, they will never be hired, BUT they will always be in a livable condition from their common wage. Minimum wage would put them above poverty level.


I agree that capitalism is the best system for a productive economy, but I wouldn't force people to adopt it. They may actually be against it for ideological reasons, like the people on this board and pushing it on them is simply counterproductive and immoral.

I'm not saying we should force people to become capitalist, I simply meant that if we can increase quality of life, we (as humanity), we have a duty to. For example, if a fascist state is killing it's own civilians, we should intervene and remove that state from power.


I'm also for being able to opt out of society, but the way you put it makes it highly illogical. If you can't leave your property basically, doesn't that make you a prisoner of the state? Even if your whole neighborhood block decided to opt-out, you still couldn't leave it, because it's probably encircled by roads or public land. A much more viable opt-out option would be to be able of opting out of those government projects you chose so you could opt out of healthcare, social security, overseas interventions, but you could keep the ones that you need and that don't have market alternatives. The government could still ruin your day through regulations, but it would be a start.

Public land would still be free for anyone to use. What you propose would be ideal, honestly.

Really, not giving people an option to opt out of their society is abhorrent in my opinion.


I hate this disgusting attitude. My home town was one of the most deprived areas in the north of Scotland and you would hear this shit every fucking day. Small community were everyone knew everyone, so just imagine to horrible rumors aimed at certain people and families.

My point of view would indicate that the reason for that is that there's no common wage keeping you in a livable situation.


This is ridiculous. Suppose the common wage is at the poverty line. You're still going to have unemployment. Suppose that I'm a young kid with a single, unemployed parent. If we go with your proposal and all benefits are wiped out (because the common wage is at the poverty line) I have literally no means of eating except a reliance on charities, which is inadequate at best. That's an awful idea.

Your parents common wage would support you. Instead of receiving welfare, you would instead be provided for by a common wage.

The benefit of this system is that everyone would have the common wage, not just people who apply for welfare. As such, any money you or your parent makes would put you above the poverty line.

[MarxArchist]

I'm pro-capitalist (I've worked/founded small startup companies and had good fortunes doing so), but I acknowledge the fact that it's not good for many people's mentality.

Yep, it fosters a sense of inhumanity as we see in the rest of the content of your post.


I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, and think the Houghes amendment of 86 should be abolished.

Capitalism without regulation and guns everywhere. Picture the Italian mafia or Mexican cartels on a massive scale. Wait a minute.....that's what the state is. Oh snap. I think we just exposed that capitalism creates violence no matter what! There goes the "it's human nature, or, it's those darn people of color" argument's.


I support taxation, but only for public safety OR well being initiatives (Roads or homeless shelters). I don't believe it should be legal for the federal government to get involved in any social issues, however, States should be allowed to dictate their own laws regarding social issues.

Homeless shelters are a social issue. Also, capitalism as a system cannot exist under full employment. It's also the only system in human history that creates an even bigger unemployed population via the boom/bust cycle that would exist in some imaginary "free" market as well. The "free" market isn't some system that tends to the needs of all via the invisible hand. Some reading material that you will no doubt ignore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29

The actual book:

http://uncharted.org/frownland/books/Polanyi/POLANYI%20KARL%20-%20The%20Great%20Transformation%20-%20v.1.0.html


Also, slavery and the subsequent vile racism after slavery was abolished had/has a long lasting effect on the black community. The black community as a whole has been intentionally held back but I do agree the current standard of social reforms isn't cutting it. People of color NEED free and equal access to the means of production. They also, within their community, need to curb the culture which has arisen since the 1980's but this culture by in large is a result of not having equal access to the means of production. If it "were left up to the states" we'd still have chattel slavery in the south. Black people aren't the only ones on welfare anyhow, just the target of you conservatives.

The alternative?

kIjo-dWE1Jg

Some people, and rightly so, don't want to or simply can't work 3 jobs in order to survive (which comes to your minimum wage argument).





I believe state law should override federal law at the discretion of the state's supreme court.This sounds great and all and I support decentralization but with our current atmosphere of social relations that capitalism creates what little democracy we do have can be used to oppress people. Lets say, Alabama votes to segregate black people into different schools and then votes to cut funding to black schools- oh wait- this already happens in most US states. Bad example. Lets say, in Alabama people vote to criminalize "homosexual behavior" as they would call it. Hell, maybe they'd even give a 6pm curfew for people of color. All they'd need to justify it is a majority of the racist homophobic assholes who live there to vote on it. The backwards state judge? Sure, why not? You see, democracy and capitalism are oil and water for many reasons not just because at the end of the day capital controls the democratic process but also because the "superstructure" that the capitalist economic "base" creates is reactionary.

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



Communism doesn't make sense to me. I see it as an unsustainable goal, and see some class warfare as necessary to drive innovation. But I do believe in a common wage of the poverty line, so people can at least afford to eat/survive.

Fordism. What a philanthropist you are. The answer to that issue has been to create credit/value where there is none. Welcome to the 2007/2008 housing crisis and larger global crisis. A system where profit is becoming harder and harder to maintain as production has been outsourced as the more "advanced" capitalist nations transferred largely to service sector economies. There is no reversing this trend and it's not "the states" fault it's systemic. The state is simply trying to put its fingers into leaking holes in the dam.



I believe welfare needs to be abolished, unless it's related to working benefits. For example, Child welfare needs to stop. All it does is encourage the worst of our nation to reproduce, while workers compensation/unemployment keeps the skilled workers afloat.

Social Darwinism. Great. Read my post concerning the great transformation. Capitalism creates and also depends on a large unemployed population. The Obama administration agrees with you about cutting welfare as they're cutting food stamps billions of dollars each year. I think it's 2 billion a year and are also making qualification for food stamps next to impossible. But with you as was the case with psychopaths like Jeremy Bentham poverty, as Adam Smith also concluded, is the result of laziness, ignorance and vice (which can indeed be the case in some cases) but the systemic causes are ignored by "free market" capitalists and classical liberals. This is why Bentham proposed prison like structures to put those lazy bastards to work. Oh wait, prison industry is a booming business in the USA. You should invest in "Corrections Corporation Of America". There's only room for mass expansion of profits in that industry!

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




I've lived in very diverse neighborhoods (Black neighborhoods with multiple shootings, stabbings, robbings, home invasions, car jackings, drug distribution... All in the course of 1 year), and believe there should be NO racial identification used for any public purpose whatsoever (aside from taking diversity studies, census, or drivers licenses/identification). To that end, people should be treated the same way regardless of what they look like, and any race-specific benefits should be abolished (School aid/welfare/donations/loans/housing grants).

Maybe if racism didn't exist or the systemic impacts of racism didn't exist and certain groups weren't targeted for attack then certain groups wouldn't need targeted defense.



I believe in the traditional gender roles, but respect that others don't want them followed. To each their own, essentially.

You can have your reactionary beliefs but as soon as your views impact another human being in a negative way they become a detriment to the safety and well being of others. People of color being dragged behind trucks, trans women being murdered in the streets, a "house wife" stuck in an abusive relationship because she has no job skills etc.



I believe the stock markets should have slightly more safeguards. I believe high frequency trading is fine, however, stock investors should be entitled to 100% full disclosure on company payroll and earnings, with no exceptions.

No one here cares about how the stock market should operate. There should be no stock market.



I'm not a nationalist at all, and believe the people who make up the country are way more important then the country's identity itself.

And the people who make up the country make the countries identity- nationalists also think the people who make up the country are more important than anything.



I believe minimum wage should be determined by the poverty line. The common wage should get everyone to, or near the poverty line, and minimum wage should be enough to elevate at least 15% above that.

Profits would be made impossible and capitalism would crumble. At least in the USA where the US has elected itself to take the necessary role of global capitalist police which costs huge amounts of money in the form of taxes. Smaller European nations that have a "progressive" tax and wage system can only do so because the US has taken the burden of mass militarization off their backs. What the US gains from this is global primacy in how the worlds resources/wealth are divided, as in, it goes to the top US companies who end up skipping out on mist taxes anyway. No this isn't an argument for free market capitalism.




I'm not an isolationist by any means, I believe we (Humanity, not my country) have a duty to increase quality of life globally, as quality of life is way more important then money, and a global capitalism with high quality of life is pretty much utopia in my opinion.

That's what we're doing in the middle eat. Spreading democracy and "free markets". You should join the military and pilot one of the drones yourself. Maybe soon they'll hook up the drones to peoples XBOX ones? You won't even have to leave your house in order to create this utopia.



Anti capitalist measures are OK depending on who they benefit.

The capitalist. In your "libertarian" view they must benefit the small to medium sized capitalist.





I believe people should be able to opt out of our society.

Capitalism depends on people not being able to opt out of wage labor, rent and interest bearing loans (usury). This is why they fight just the threat of any other economic system rising or even a hunter gatherer/live off the land system. Because it would give people choice and this choice would make profits impossible. The process is called dispossession. It took place almost completely in Europe so people fled to "the new world" (America pre 1776). One could escape servitude to a boss, landlord, bank and the semi feudal state (King) who taxed everyone into submission.

The merchants who ended up leading the revolution understood, as did Adam Smith who wrote wealth of nations in 1776, that this system of profit depended on there being a work force and an employer class. A working class and bourgeois class. These social relations cannot be voluntary. This is why the new American state continued the process of dispossession which subsequently took place in Europe (if they didn't capitalism would have been impossible). The state bought up land or made baseless claims to land all based in force/coercion/trickery, put native Americans in reservations on infertile land, sold land to the rich in what was basically a hundred year process of old enclosure policies. The "wild west" was the last to go. A brief history below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/16/a-short-history-of-primitive-accumulation/

[MarxArchist]

No. Your attitude is petty and immature. Rather than whine about someone being wrong, like most people in the world are, convince them that your position is right.

Lets see how far that gets. I just wasted 5 minutes typing the above response. If the poster decides to respond A. they wont understand or will refuse to understand half of what I said B. all sorts of "free market" theories will be promoted in one way or another C. his reactionary views, through continued conversation, will further be exposed and criticized which will simply result in him/her latching onto them even tighter as a person would latch onto a life preserver in a sinking ship.

You can go ahead and walk your talk though. Dedicate the next few days of your life to "debating" this person. If you convince him of becoming a card carrying communist I'll give you a cookie. Maybe a gold star for a job well done. Perhaps a condescending pat on the head.

[Decolonize The Left]

Everybody knows this is a classic troll thread right? Ok, good, just checking. Now please go back to debating the OP's inane filth.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No. Your attitude is petty and immature. Rather than whine about someone being wrong, like most people in the world are, convince them that your position is right.

I wouldn't say that they're wrong, and we're right, it's just that our standpoints are completely irreconcilable and are probably the product of differing objective interests.

And look, I think that too many arguments on this site are "solved" by resorting to administrative measures, and that members are increasingly unwilling to politically struggle against certain ideas. But, and let's be honest here, if ponycelest is not part of the proletariat or a specially oppressed group, their standpoint is perfectly consistent with their social position and no amount of argument will do. If they are not, then we should appeal to their objective interest, not abstract arguments (a scientific argument can demonstrate, for example, that capitalism is unstable and doomed - but to the consistent bourgeoisie this does not matter - after them, the flood). And nothing they have said thus far would indicate that they are.

Furthermore, sorry, you simply can't expect people to talk about "underclasses", people on welfare being "worst of the nation", and "traditional gender roles", without our members being offended.

[Ele'ill]

we should abolish OI

[Ismail]

we should abolish OIWe should have every Maoist member of this website made its moderators so that they can collectively exercise a people's democratic dictatorship over it.

[MarxArchist]

We should build a shrine to Stalin, a giant straw man, fill it with reactionaries and set it on fire.

UEOQqnHMSMc

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No. Elect Bolsheviks-Leninists to all administrative posts in order to exercise an all-round dictatorship of the fighting propaganda group bureaucratic sect.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yeah, OP, you'll be restricted for being a capitalist and, if you're a troll, banned. In the meantime, thread closed.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

we might as well sit around a campfire with a few cases of beer and sing union songs.

at least that'll be fun.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As I said, thread is now closed. I have a bad habit of making the post announcing this before I close the thread, which is how the above user posted after me. Doh!

[Sam_b]

I don't normally pay much attention to OI (hiya, enemies!) but thought I should nip this in the bud just in case.


Why restrict someone?
There are always topics where even non communists should feel free to express their opinion.

You know what Zaza, I sort of agree with that second sentence, at least in the sense of liberals, our opponents etc; but it really isn't the point. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of forums on the internet where people can just discuss politics, ideology, whatever. But we're not here to cater to everyone discussing just politics - we're here so leftists and revolutionaries can debate and talk amongst themselves on strategy, viewpoint and action. This isn't a forum where some leftist will post a thread and instead of discussing with comrades has to spend every second post arguing with a pro-capitalist or liberal. Revleft is here for our community, and our community doesn't comprise of our class enemies.

Reactionaries are more than welcome to post on Revleft in OI, as long as they stick to the rules (no fasicsts, etc). But they should not expect to be allowed into the rest of the forum.

Now that's been said, that particular issue should be seen as answered and resolved. These threads in OI are not here to debate restrictions or their functions, and users are reminded that the 'Unfair Restrictions' thread is the only place where members should challenge their restriction - and again, by doing so by the rules set out of the thread.

I'm saying this now in order to stop this thread degenerating into a debate about OI.

Also, users who are just using this thread as a post count magnet to say one-liners about how OP is a loser/reactionary/whatever should stop trying to stir things up. OP is speaking nonsense - we know.

Edit - Sorry Boss, I was writing a response while you closed the thread so didn't see that you had taken this action. Let me know if you want this post removed.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No it's fine Sam. For all users - OP was banned for being a troll.