A question for Communists and Patriots

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Okay I've been shocked and scared by the militant mentality on this board from both the left and the right. I have one question for you-all.

Leftists
If you had to shoot one common man or woman, innocent, a mother or a father of a children, liked and loved among friends to implant your utopia on this planet, would you do that?

(American-)Patriots
The same question as above but then to destroy all what you refer to as terrorism and to shape the world to your "great democracy"?

[hotsexygrl42]

I would shot my real dad because he was a asshole

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:28 AM
I would shot my real dad because he was a asshole
I was talking about a normal decent and innocent (wo)man you do not know, you just needed to pick one from the street and put a bullet through his/her head. Is it just to take away the individual's right to life to implant your ideals?

[Guerrilla22]

I would shoot half the country to achieve a utopian state. certain sacrafices are needed in order to accomplish a revolution.

[CubanFox]

Well, yes.

If one person must die to bring happiness to millions, then, so be it.

I'm assuming that the ideals will all collapse if the person in question is not put up against the wall.

[New Tolerance]

Leftists
If you had to shoot one common man or woman, innocent, a mother or a father of a children, liked and loved among friends to implant your utopia on this planet, would you do that?

Never would I shoot someone to with only my ends as a justification. We are here to help everyone, not the majority.

unless you mean shoot them in the arm or something...

[VukBZ2005]

If i had to kill my mother or Someone respectable to Achieve Real Communism i
Would if they were preventing it's Success.

[New Tolerance]

I would like to point out that everyone here has probably got a different (and specific) scenario in mind where the killing would be highly justified. Please don't mistake this with a scenario that you may have in mind for them.

[synthesis]

I would go to pretty extensive lengths to achieve the emancipation of the proletariat.

[DaCuBaN]

Never would I shoot someone to with only my ends as a justification. We are here to help everyone, not the majority.

unless you mean shoot them in the arm or something...

Yeah, I'll ditto that :lol:

I draw the line at wasting any life but my own: it is the only life I have to give.

[Y2A]

I'm surprised that they'd kill their parents!





























NOT!

[Subversive Pessimist]

I would give my life away if that is what it takes. And yes, certain sacrifices must be made. People are dying in this society anyways. So yes, I would kill some people in order to stop the killing and starvation of millions.
Sometimes you have to make it worse in order to make it better.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

So you believe that a common man has no right to live and is less worthy than your ideals?
When this Utopia of yours is realised, would you do the same in that utopia with people who disagree a with you?

[Karo de Perro]

"Leftists
If you had to shoot one common man or woman, innocent, a mother or a father of a children, liked and loved among friends to implant your utopia on this planet, would you do that? ? " ... Fuck NO!

What a fucked up thing to ask ... hell,its exactly for the common man that we as true revolutionaries wish to fight and die,moreover,it can only be by a peoples tribunal that executions are to be carried out and this of known traitors and those opposed to the socialist cause.

By this what cause would there be to execute someone completely innocent? ... again,the very question you pose is nonsensical and I address it only as a means to expose the stupidity of the entire premise.

[Subversive Pessimist]

So you believe that a common man has no right to live and is less worthy than your ideals?

My ideals are ending starvation, poverty, and exploitation. If to kill a man, or myself is neccesary, so be it. In a revolution, people are most likely to die. Millions of people are dying because of starvation, malnutrition, lack of proper food, water and medicine. We have the opportunity to change it, but most people refuse. They would rather have a wide screen TV, instead of saving thousands of lifes.



When this Utopia of yours is realised, would you do the same in that utopia with people who disagree a with you?


No.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:28 AM
I would shot my real dad because he was a asshole
whoa, looks like we have a stripper in the making

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:38 AM
I would shoot half the country to achieve a utopian state. certain sacrafices are needed in order to accomplish a revolution.
Wow, man, what a hardcore revolutionary!!! LOL

There must be something in Colorado water that makes people want to go on shooting rampages.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:16 AM
I would go to pretty extensive lengths to achieve the emancipation of the proletariat.
Wow, what a radical!

[Capitalist Imperial]

For the people who said "yes", I wonder if they would maintain their stance if they found that it was them that must die.

By the way, don't bother playing the hero and screaming out "I would die for the cause". Theory and application are quite different, particularly with regards to your life. Claims on an internet chatboard are worthless. Only in a real life/death scenario would the truth about the extent of your convictions be seen.

[Danton]

I'd shoot anyone for fifty pence and a bag of grapes...

[canikickit]

I'd slap humanity on the ass for the price of a DVD rental from Xtra Vision...

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 02:19 PM
whoa, looks like we have a stripper in the making
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 07:27 AM
For the people who said "yes", I wonder if they would maintain their stance if they found that it was them that must die.

By the way, don't bother playing the hero and screaming out "I would die for the cause". Theory and application are quite different, particularly with regards to your life. Claims on an internet chatboard are worthless. Only in a real life/death scenario would the truth about the extent of your convictions be seen.
Answer this question: Yes or no. But don't answer yes!

[Sasha]

Daniel Karssenberg has brought up an excellent point:


When this Utopia of yours is realised, would you do the same in that utopia with people who disagree a with you?

If you truly think that the ends justify the means, and that it's okay to kill one person to (supposedly) bring happiness to millions, why wouldn't you do the same when the utopia has been realized? Why not kill the next ambitious capitalist, for the sake of society, to stop him from bringing back his "evil" system? (I hope "Justice" answers this question since he answered "No" to the above).

[Daniel Karssenberg]

As long as humanity exists there will always be Capitalists, and too Christians. So even within YOUR utupia people might still disagree, in not slightly, or just want to overthrow the communist system. Are you going to murder them as well? After all it is for the collective good, I mean if you killed Capitalist Imperial and like-minded that would make it far easier for you all.
Many say you would kill innocents, so I suppose you'd even do that in your Utopia.

[CubanFox]

Unlike many, I do not support massacring tens of thousands of people based on a misguided hope of "ideological purity".

Indeed, if you kill everyone who ever worked for a Fortune 500 company, or any "exploitationist" company, you would have an "ideologically pure" society.

You'd also have provided people set to bring you down with all the ammunition they could ever need. The media would be full of pictures of dead bodies next to smiling, machine gun toting comrades with red stars emblazoned on their caps.

Besides the fact that killing people in general is an affront to human decency, there is also the fact that massacres are simply bad PR.

So I must say, people who would "wipe out half the country" to achieve communism, what is wrong with you? Killing the very people you are meant to be creating a paradise for?

If I had to deal with people like CI, I'd just deport them somewhere. From the moral perspective, it means you can be rid of them without staining your hands with their blood. From the psychotic "kill them all" perspective, it saves on bullets and wages for the people in the watchtowers.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 16 2004, 12:18 PM
So you believe that a common man has no right to live and is less worthy than your ideals?
When this Utopia of yours is realised, would you do the same in that utopia with people who disagree a with you?
:o I didn't see that coming!

I'm sure if asked people whether they'd kill one person to save a million, the responses amongst communists and non-communists would be pretty similar so don't try to turn this into somekind of ideologiocal thing.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 17 2004, 12:42 PM
As long as humanity exists there will always be Capitalists, and too Christians. So even within YOUR utupia people might still disagree, in not slightly, or just want to overthrow the communist system.
No, there won't.

If there is communal ownership then there can't be capitalists. Are you suggesting that someone could decide that they own a factory and start collecting profits?

If you mean people who believe in a capitalist ideology then they would pose little threat as would christians and would just be ignored.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why not kill the next ambitious capitalist, for the sake of society, to stop him from bringing back his "evil" system?

Why would you ever kill a capitalist in communist society? It's wholly unnecessary. I mean, imagine someone came up to you and said "Umm, ya, so I was thinking I'd like to become a capitalist. You wouldn't happen to want to be a wage-slave, would you?" Of course, the answer would come back "Go fuck yourself!".

You don't realize that capitalism requires a steady sup[ly of wage-slaves to function, something that will not exist (with any luck) in post-capitalist society.


As long as humanity exists there will always be Capitalists, and too Christians.

Just like there will always be worshippers of Zeus and Mithras? Religions come and go, like the ebb and tide my friend. However, when the working class overthrows their masters and finally take control of their own destiny, I can't see what useful purpose they could have for Christianity and the fairy tales it tells of.

Also, to say that is to say that there will always be slavers and aristocrats. It may take a while, but you really have to grasp that human societies really do change over time.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Were most Germans nazis or alleged nazis before 1920s?

[Karo de Perro]

Daniel is correct in pointing out that there will always be capitalists and Christians,this is simply an unavoidable reality which no amount of denial will ever nulify.

We have seen the outcome of the efforts of repressive regimes such as in the former USSR with its attempts to eradicate the Christian faith,all such behavior merely drives such religions underground for a time and by this makes religious faith more intense and indestructible ... simply consider the response of Christians to the Roman empire.

A person should never be sought out,persecuted and butchered solely on the grounds of his/her personal faith,its only when such faith causes one to commit anti-social crimes that such would come under investigation and even then it must be first and foremost the singular perpetrators and never the religion as a whole.

My skin-tone does not match every skin-tone and no amount of wishful thinking will ever make all humanity to possess like skin,height,weight,etc ... thus we must come to accept all mankind aside these petty variations and the same holds as true in matters of personal faith.

As I stated earlier,its only when one uses their personal faith as a means to manipulate and abuse others that such people would be convicted as offenders of the state and always the apprehension of the separate violators rather than an all-out attack upon a particular religious body of believers,only this - every religion must comply with the fundamental tenets of such a socialist state.

As for capitalists,of course there will be isolated pockets of such people within a socialist society just as today there are socialists,communists,anarchists,etc existing within a capitalist society,the task will be to minimize their numbers and control what influence they have upon society as a whole.

Moreover,within a truly socialist state one should not be afforded the leisure and opportunity to infiltrate the public majority with their jargon and rhethoric by means of propaganda aimed at undermining the state apparatus and by this disrupting social order.

Of course it should be understood that laws would be established and enforced by which to deal with preachers of sedition whose sole aim is to replant and stir up the master-slave mentality.

Daniel ask,"Were most Germans nazis or alleged nazis before 1920s?" ...

Nazi's were members of the National Socialist German Workers Party(NSDAP) which had emerged from a strong sense of German nationalism having taken root around the turn of the century,especially in Austria where there was a great conflict due to the Austro-Hungarian empire and with what most seen as a threat of the country becoming over-run by foreigners,etc.

This phenomenon also stemmed from the desire for German unification in that Germany at that time was beginning to emerge as a strong competitor on the world market,likewise there was the growing threat(as Germans viewed it)of the spread of communism and thus a longing began to take root for a 'German messiah' as the man who would unify and deliver greater Germany from what came to be considered a 'Jewish' threat in that Germans held communism to be a solely Jewish invention due to Marx himself being of Jewish origin,etc.

However,as for your question ... no,for until the NSDAP had finally emerged as a recognizable political party there were NO nazi's in Germany though there certainly were proto-nazi's existing long before this.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Why would christianity exist forever? That's absurd!

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Why would you ever kill a capitalist in communist society? It's wholly unnecessary. I mean, imagine someone came up to you and said "Umm, ya, so I was thinking I'd like to become a capitalist. You wouldn't happen to want to be a wage-slave, would you?" Of course, the answer would come back "Go fuck yourself!".[/b]

In other words, you're relying on the hope that there won't be any capitalists to kill in the first place. PLEASE don't evade the question.


Osman Ghazi
You don't realize that capitalism requires a steady suply of wage-slaves to function, something that will not exist (with any luck) in post-capitalist society.

If by wage slaves you mean a group of people working voluntarily for a salary, then yes, capitalism requires wage slaves.

Perhaps the real "wage slaves" are the ones who will have to give up their hard-earned money to the collective whole. You cannot ignore the possibility that enough of these people will get together and decide to bring down society with the concept of "freedom". So I ask the question again: Why wouldn't you kill off these rebels and save society from the horror of the capitalist system?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:38 AM
I would shoot half the country to achieve a utopian state. certain sacrafices are needed in order to accomplish a revolution.
So another words you're a Nazi.




I wouldn't kill any innocent person to achieve anything, period. If you're talking about achieving some sort of long term social change, like Communism or Anarchism, I would recommend to avoid using violence against anyone, all that will do is undermine the Revolution. I'm not a pacifist, but it's pretty hard to imagine a military person conducting themselves in a way that will promote some sort of radical left ideology, there's too much control involved.

[Osman Ghazi]

In other words, you're relying on the hope that there won't be any capitalists to kill in the first place. PLEASE don't evade the question.


The environment in which communism would exist would be one in which capitalism would not be a tolerated idea. It would have the stigma that Nazism has now. It might be a danger early on but after a while it would lose its power to beguile the masses. If they are determined enough to overthrow the state, surely they are capable of seeing through the lies in capitalist society. Why would they ever want to return to that?


If by wage slaves you mean a group of people working voluntarily for a salary, then yes, capitalism requires wage slaves.


No, by wage slaves I mean everyone for whom the option of being a capitalist is not possible. Therefore, these people must slave away to someone. They may get to pick who they work for, but the difference between bosses is seldom great.


Perhaps the real "wage slaves" are the ones who will have to give up their hard-earned money to the collective whole.

How so? Wages will not exist in communist society, nor will money. That's kind of the whole point. The real definition of communism is the abolition of wage-slavery. The concept is that people will gravitate to the types of jobs they like to do.


You cannot ignore the possibility that enough of these people will get together and decide to bring down society with the concept of "freedom".

As I said before, it might even be a danger during the first years after the revolution. And, if people were caught militating on behalf of the capitlaist cause, they would probably be executed. However, the idea is that ten or fifteen years down the road, it would be as remote of a possibility as Nazis taking over would be now. No one would believe in it anymore, not once they've seen threw the lines already and overthrown capitlaist society.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)The environment in which communism would exist would be one in which capitalism would not be a tolerated idea. It would have the stigma that Nazism has now. It might be a danger early on but after a while it would lose its power to beguile the masses. If they are determined enough to overthrow the state, surely they are capable of seeing through the lies in capitalist society. Why would they ever want to return to that?[/b]

You're still evading the question. I don't care if you think capitalism is on par with Nazism. This is a hypothetical situation: Either early on or late into the "revolution", will you be okay killing (peaceful) capitalist rebels for the sake of society? Why would you answer "yes" to this thread's original question, and "no" to the one I'm asking?


Originally posted by Osman [email protected]
No, by wage slaves I mean everyone for whom the option of being a capitalist is not possible. Therefore, these people must slave away to someone. They may get to pick who they work for, but the difference between bosses is seldom great.

You're talking about those who have only their labor to sell, those who don't have the money to start their own business. Why does capitalism "rely" on this? All it "relies" on is enough people willing to work for others.

The situation you describe is an unfortunate economic one, but the only time when it is "not possible" to escape it is when you have no initiative to or don't want to. Capitalism always allows the possibility for rags-to-riches success.


Osman Ghazi
How so? Wages will not exist in communist society, nor will money.

Sorry, let me rephrase. Perhaps the real "wage slaves" are the ones who will have to give up their goods and services for free to the collective whole. It might be more appropriate to call them "labor slaves".

[Misodoctakleidist]

Sasha, I think you've missed the point that was made earlier in this thread; capitalists wouldn't be a threat.

As Peter Kropotkin said; there can be no rich unless there is poor. Why would anyone work for a capitalist for substinance wages unless they were poor and propertyless?

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+--> (Misodoctakleidist)Sasha, I think you've missed the point that was made earlier in this thread; capitalists wouldn't be a threat.[/b]

I didn't miss it at all. In fact, that's the only answer yet given in response to my question. You keep asserting that everyone will just -obviously- see the flaws in capitalism so it will never rise again. This is a hypothetical question, one that you cannot evade by saying it will never happen: Would you use force to stop a rising capitalist movement to save society from it?

As a side note, I will answer your question. But please don't respond only to this part of my post:


Misodoctakleidist
As Peter Kropotkin said; there can be no rich unless there is poor. Why would anyone work for a capitalist for substinance wages unless they were poor and propertyless?

Because some people don't want to start a business. Actually, most don't. Many people like to teach, to fix cars, to make computer programs, to fish; All of these jobs will have someone senior to them, handing out the wages. It's true that many must do a job they don't like in order to support their family, but you can't expect to have someone else pay for your life. You can only hope that a free economy will be flexible enough to provide exhilarating work for most people.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I didn't miss it at all. In fact, that's the only answer yet given in response to my question. You keep asserting that everyone will just -obviously- see the flaws in capitalism so it will never rise again.

So then you did miss the point? The point being that capitalists wouldn't be able to do anything that qould be a threat to society.


Because some people don't want to start a business. Actually, most don't. Many people like to teach, to fix cars, to make computer programs, to fish; All of these jobs will have someone senior to them, handing out the wages. It's true that many must do a job they don't like in order to support their family, but you can't expect to have someone else pay for your life. You can only hope that a free economy will be flexible enough to provide exhilarating work for most people.

So would you explain why let's say a coal miner would leave his job at the commune coal mine to go and work for a capitalist, who somehow managed to come into possesion of a coal mine, for starvation wages?

[Osman Ghazi]

will you be okay killing (peaceful) capitalist rebels

NO! Peaceful cappies won't be able to do anything. Armed cappies will get shot for sure.


Why would you answer "yes" to this thread's original question, and "no" to the one I'm asking?


Because I wouldn't kill someone if I didn't have to. The way the original question was posited, it seemed that it was as if it was necessary.


You're talking about those who have only their labor to sell, those who don't have the money to start their own business. Why does capitalism "rely" on this? All it "relies" on is enough people willing to work for others.


Imagine if everyone owned their own business. The entire capitalist system would collapse. It relies on poorer people working for richer ones. If anyone could just be a capitalist, why the hell wouldn't they?


The situation you describe is an unfortunate economic one, but the only time when it is "not possible" to escape it is when you have no initiative to or don't want to. Capitalism always allows the possibility for rags-to-riches success.


So 90% of the population is lazy? Or maybe they just prefer having less money? Please, so naive.


Sorry, let me rephrase. Perhaps the real "wage slaves" are the ones who will have to give up their goods and services for free to the collective whole. It might be more appropriate to call them "labor slaves".

But the whole point is that they get whatever they need in return. Besides which, the aveage person would do much less labour than now anyways.


You keep asserting that everyone will just -obviously- see the flaws in capitalism so it will never rise again.

Why else would they overthrow capitalist society unless they understood its evils?

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Moreover,within a truly socialist state one should not be afforded the leisure and opportunity to infiltrate the public majority with their jargon and rhethoric by means of propaganda aimed at undermining the state apparatus and by this disrupting social order.

This scares me you know… Read it again. This leads to censorship, the elimination of freedom of speech and expression thus totalitarianism.



However,as for your question ... no,for until the NSDAP had finally emerged as a recognizable political party there were NO nazi's in Germany though there certainly were proto-nazi's existing long before this.

That meant a minority accomplished to either get a majority on their side and oppress the others, why dont you believe such a situation will happen in a socialist state as well?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

This scares me you know… Read it again. This leads to censorship, the elimination of freedom of speech and expression thus totalitarianism.

I can not express my views on FOX news, so why should you be able to express yours on state run media at the people's expense?

[Invader Zim]

I dont know, and thats the only answer I think I could ever give, quite thought provoking really...

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+--> (Misodoctakleidist)So then you did miss the point? The point being that capitalists wouldn't be able to do anything that qould be a threat to society.[/b]

Remember, hypothetical situation. How can you just wave the question off by suggesting they won't be a threat?


Misodoctakleidist
So would you explain why let's say a coal miner would leave his job at the commune coal mine to go and work for a capitalist, who somehow managed to come into possesion of a coal mine, for starvation wages?

Maybe they were evil enough to want something in return for the work the gave at the mines. Maybe they were fed up with the destitute, unmotivated conditions of the commune. How would I know?

[Vinny Rafarino]

This scares me you know… Read it again. This leads to censorship, the elimination of freedom of speech and expression thus totalitarianism.



Of course it leads to censorship! "freedom of speech" is a bourgeois concept.

Our goal is to not only sensor the ruling class but to also suppress and occasionally eliminate them.

Again and again we go through this..It's totalitarian! It's totalitarian! Good grief, according to the bourgeois everything that even hints to socialism is "totalitarian".

What a crock, bourgeois definitions of words are only good to the bourgeoisie. They mean nothing to us.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)NO! Peaceful cappies won't be able to do anything. Armed cappies will get shot for sure.[/b]
I know at least one skinny, bald old man from india who would disgree with you about the power of peaceful revolt.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Because I wouldn't kill someone if I didn't have to. The way the original question was posited, it seemed that it was as if it was necessary.[/b]
Why would the original question make it seem necessary? It is always possible to bring about communism through the normal process of popular support.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
Imagine if everyone owned their own business. The entire capitalist system would collapse. It relies on poorer people working for richer ones. If anyone could just be a capitalist, why the hell wouldn't they?
Any system would collapse if everyone suddenly decided they want to have a desk job running the show. At least, in the capitalist system, they wouldn't have a chance to. There would be no money to make in a business already meeting demand, so their hopes of starting a business would be shattered by lack of finance. I guess that's what you call "oppression".


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
So 90% of the population is lazy? Or maybe they just prefer having less money? Please, so naive.
Don't confuse "possiblility" with "guarantee". There may be plenty of people who want to start a business, or just get a better-paying job, and in the capitalist system it is always possible for them to do so. Most of them won't ever make it, for any number of reasons.


Osman [email protected]
But the whole point is that they get whatever they need in return. Besides which, the aveage person would do much less labour than now anyways.
Many people want more than the necessities. Many earned more than the necessities. Others may just say video games and yachts are necessities. Things are starting to look ugly :/


Osman Ghazi
Why else would they overthrow capitalist society unless they understood its evils?
Maybe a small minority were always against the revolution, or maybe a few of the next generation grew to resent it. How would I know? (de ja vous)

[Sasha]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+--> (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr)I can not express my views on FOX news, so why should you be able to express yours on state run media at the people's expense?[/b]

Because the people should be the ones to decide if it is at the people's expense, not the government. After all, they're the ones paying for it.


Comrade RAF
Of course it leads to censorship! "freedom of speech" is a bourgeois concept.

Our goal is to not only sensor the ruling class but to also suppress and occasionally eliminate them.

Same thing to you too, bub. I don't care if it favors the "ruling class" or your grandma, the integrity of an idea shouldn't be decided by the government.

[redstar2000]

Leftists

If you had to shoot one common man or woman, innocent, a mother or a father of a children, liked and loved among friends to implant your utopia on this planet, would you do that?

This is stolen from Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor"...I think it ran "if you could establish eternal human happiness by torturing to death one innocent child, would you do it?"

Dostoevsky was a Russian Orthodox reactionary, of course, and wished by this pseudo-question to "demonstrate" the "monstrous immorality" of any attempt to change the traditional social order of the Russian Empire.

He carefully overlooked, of course, the actual daily torture and murder that were as characteristic of Russia in the 19th century as of America now.

Typical!


As long as humanity exists there will always be Capitalists, and too Christians.

Most unlikely.

But I will agree that as long as humanity exists there will be people who utter nonsense as if they were engraving stone inscriptions.


Daniel is correct in pointing out that there will always be capitalists and Christians, this is simply an unavoidable reality which no amount of denial will ever nullify.

More a-historical nonsense.

What are you really trying to say here? That proletarian revolution "would be a bloodbath"? That innocent people might get killed?

I think a non-Marxist, Mark Twain, had the proper response.

"People talk much of the four years of terror inflicted by the people on the French aristocrats; they say nothing about the thousand years of terror inflicted on the French people by the aristocracy."

Save your sympathies for the real victims of class society.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Same thing to you too, bub. I don't care if it favors the "ruling class" or your grandma, the integrity of an idea shouldn't be decided by the government.

You're right bucko, the "integrity" of a idea sould be decided by the people. A luxury the West has not had for a long, long time.

I am however interested in what else that favours the ruling class is "okay in your book" skippy.

Care to fill us in?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 02:22 PM
Wow, man, what a hardcore revolutionary!!! LOL

There must be something in Colorado water that makes people want to go on shooting rampages.
Yeah and the funny thing is the capitalist will sell me the very fire arms that I will eventually turn on them and the NRA and all your right-wing, lobbyist buddies will protect my right to keep arms so that I can eventually turn them on them as well. Talk about irony.

[RedCeltic]

If you had to shoot one common man or woman, innocent, a mother or a father of a children, liked and loved among friends to implant your utopia on this planet, would you do that?

No, because I believe the revolution will be won, not by violent means but by simply the workers organizing as a class and putting their hands in their pockets... using their power that makes the "world turn" to gain control of the fruits of their own labor. (in otherwords a nationwide or worldwide general strike)

If this man however was a member of the National Guard, a Scab, a boss, etc.. he wouldn't be innocent, and the worker, like anyone has the right to defend himself against such criminals.

[Karo de Perro]

hola Redstar2000

It seems that no matter how many times I come to this site and regardless the alias I use you always tend to become my arch-nemesis,nevertheless to respond to this latest disagreement you have with my thoughts ...


"More a-historical nonsense.

What are you really trying to say here? That proletarian revolution "would be a bloodbath"? That innocent people might get killed?" ...

a-historical? ... what the hell do you mean by this?

As for revolution of any kind ... its an allout display of violence in the extreme.

Revolution isnt a bunch of hombres sittin about like a gaggle of old women harping on things they neither know nor actually give a damn about,neither is revolution an exercise in pretentious bullshit wherein cowards fling up all sorts of schemes and jargon based on nothing more than their hopes to impress and feel mentally superior to others ... as I said,revolution is violence ... plain and simple.

As for,"Save your sympathies for the real victims of class society." ... when did I remotely speak of any sympathies at all? ... besides,who am I that anyone would need or desire my sympathies?

I consider myself a practical man and as such I know and realize that any existing government will not simply roll over and play dead thus allowing the people to effect the society they long to establish,nor will such a government be dissolved by parliamentary or electorial process.

Thomas Jefferson himself once wrote that,'the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots' ... this then is the only recourse of a discontented people who are afforded no other avenue by which to level their grivances.

Sure,the U.S. constitution stipulates that as citizens we have the right to petition the government to address such grivances but again,being practical,I know and understand that the only ones which are given this right are the very ones which keep the power-structure of corporate America in place ... the very ones which every true socialist recognizes as the enemy.

Did you notice that in this post I did not set about to attack you personally? nor did I attempt to mock your comments ... rather I simply addressed those things you yourself blurted out for whatever reason ... trust me on this,I do not wish to wake you from your pipedream in that you seem to be too sedated to be aroused from your sleep ... but there are those who are not yet so greatly beguiled ... its to them that I speak.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:55 PM
So another words you're a Nazi.




I wouldn't kill any innocent person to achieve anything, period. If you're talking about achieving some sort of long term social change, like Communism or Anarchism, I would recommend to avoid using violence against anyone, all that will do is undermine the Revolution. I'm not a pacifist, but it's pretty hard to imagine a military person conducting themselves in a way that will promote some sort of radical left ideology, there's too much control involved.
:lol: Well you think you know everything, so you must be right, I am a Nazi! Damn, finally exposed! :lol:

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+--> ( MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr)I can not express my views on FOX news, so why should you be able to express yours on state run media at the people's expense?[/b]

Because everyone should be free to say and write and broadcast what he wants, the state must not have any control on this.


Originally posted by Comrade Raf+--> (Comrade Raf)Of course it leads to censorship! "freedom of speech" is a bourgeois concept. [/b]

In that case there’s a huge fundamental (cultural?) difference between us.


[email protected]
Dostoevsky was a Russian Orthodox reactionary

I didn’t steal this sentence from him, as a matter of fact I didn’t even know this guy.


redstar2000
"People talk much of the four years of terror inflicted by the people on the French aristocrats; they say nothing about the thousand years of terror inflicted on the French people by the aristocracy."

I doesn’t justify anything.

[Guerrilla22]

Daniel karssenberg= Colorado State student

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Your arguments against my posts seem become more and more valuable every time dear!

Daniel Karssenberg = Dutch student

[Guerrilla22]

wow, impressive...

[redstar2000]

It seems that no matter how many times I come to this site and regardless the alias I use you always tend to become my arch-nemesis...

Perhaps that's because it's more difficult to disguise bad ideas than it is to change one's username.


a-historical? ... what the hell do you mean by this?

A-historical means outside of history.

Statements that "there will always be Christians" ignore the historical fact that religions die.

When someone asserts that "what is will always be", they ignore the fact that things change.

Thus, a-historical.


As for revolution of any kind ... its an all out display of violence in the extreme.

No, actually revolutions historically have rarely been "bloodbaths". If the revolution results in a civil war...that's different -- civil wars are bloodbaths. Since neither side has any way of knowing "who to trust", the easiest solution is to kill them.

We know also from history that overthrown elites will try to start a civil war if they can...often depending on how much foreign support they can muster.

Consequently, it's prudent for revolutionaries to deal harshly with the former elite...a few months of "red terror" may avert years of civil war and millions of casualties.

This is not an easy lesson for revolutionaries to grasp...they have a "humanitarian bias" which naturally recoils from what may appear as gratuitous cruelty.

And I would be surprised if there were not occasional excesses; at the time of revolution, there may be and probably will be a lot of pent-up class resentment and simple desire for revenge...which will manifest itself in superficially-motivated class violence. In the weeks after February 1917 in Petrograd, a "well-dressed" pedestrian risked a sound beating "on general principles". Naturally, a workers' militia would, in the process of restoring order, minimize such excesses over time. But it would be naive to expect them not to happen at all.


As for,"Save your sympathies for the real victims of class society." ... when did I remotely speak of any sympathies at all? ... besides,who am I that anyone would need or desire my sympathies?

The implication of this entire thread is that "because" some innocent people will likely die in the course of a proletarian revolution, our sympathies should be "with them" and "therefore" proletarian revolution is "a bad idea".


Did you notice that in this post I did not set about to attack you personally? nor did I attempt to mock your comments ... rather I simply addressed those things you yourself blurted out for whatever reason ... trust me on this,I do not wish to wake you from your pipedream in that you seem to be too sedated to be aroused from your sleep ... but there are those who are not yet so greatly beguiled ... it's to them that I speak.

I'm afraid your remarks here are too cryptic to elicit a response...I have no idea what you are babbling about.


I didn’t steal this sentence from him, as a matter of fact I didn’t even know this guy.

Well, you should read Dostoevsky then...you would like him. Your question appears, if I'm not mistaken, in The Brothers Karamazov.


I doesn’t justify anything.

I "doesn't" understand.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Well, you should read Dostoevsky then...you would like him. Your question appears, if I'm not mistaken, in The Brothers Karamazov.

I'm not sure, I am not were much in favour of pre-Revolution Russia.


I "doesn't" understand.
Sorry I forgot the "t", it had to be it doesn't justify anything, thanks for pointing that out, though I hope you DID get that :P.

[redstar2000]

Very well. You are suggesting that the thousand years of terror against the French people by the aristocracy does not "justify" the four years of terror against the French aristocracy, is that correct?

What would justify it?

Two thousands years of terror?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Because everyone should be free to say and write and broadcast what he wants, the state must not have any control on this.

Ok then, why can't I be heard on a mass media network? You mean to tell me I have to broadcast my own or get some big publishing corporation to print my material? I thought even you would understand that only a handful of billionaires have a complete monopoly over all the information any person watching TV or reading a magazine would recieve by the media.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Nobody stops you from going on the streets and tell everybody your story...

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 12:29 AM
Maybe they were evil enough to want something in return for the work the gave at the mines. Maybe they were fed up with the destitute, unmotivated conditions of the commune. How would I know?

You don't know much about Communism. The sort of arguement you are giving is one that is made in a way where it is supposed to state that Communism will never come into existance. You're saying the system for those reasons is inefficeint, and therefore will not work when implemented. That is a false way to state your arguement. There is no such thing as a Communist (or for that matter Anarchist) scenario that could possibly come out that way. In such a situation, it was a failure to carry out Communism, not the inefficiency of Communism. Please try stating your arguements correctly, you [from what I have interpreted from your posts], believe for the reasons you mentioned, Communism can never be carried out. It may sound like a tedious, small difference, but the distinction is significant in my opinion.

If you're wondering where the information comes from, just look at the numerous writings of Marx and other such figures. One of the fundamental arguements against Capitalism is that the system of wage labor prevents most people from being able to carry out motivations. Marx and many others say, that wage labor forces workers into a state of minimal creativity, where they are working in alienated labor due to work being external, meaning it is not fully under their control but largely for pursuing wages, and turns individuals into nothing more than machines, depriving people of conscious activity, and estranges from him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process. Marx once said (perhaps someone else can find the exact quote) that, under Communism, labor will not only become a means of life, but also the highest want in life. Therefore, we need Communism to end these problems. As I said earlier, you can't say, for the reasons you mentioned, that Communism, if carried out will be inefficeint, but that it can never be carried out.

I happen to think that arguement presented by Marx and many others is right. It is degrading and unmotivating to do something under the control of someone else, or under the control of certain conditions. Those are inevitable in a Capitalist society. To me, that means Capitalism is not the proper system for human beings. I know plenty of people who would hate being a construction worker, or gardener, or whatever, but that doesn't stop them from doing hard labor in their spare time for their own relaxation, satisfaction, or enjoyment. In situations like this, where the workers are able to decide what they do, how they do it, who benefits from it, etc. creativity is stimulated, and the worker is able to produce whatever he/she wants to produce more efficiently, and will not be doing it in a way they are so alienated that the work itself loses all meaning, and thus they become nothing more than a machine, but rather they do what they, as human beings, should do.

Capitalists constantly bring up motivation and creativity, but that arguement 'reeks' of absurdity. The only motivation involved in the system they advocate is "do better than this guy," beat him, crush him, gain wealth. That sort of motivation crushes Democracy, and leads inevitably to a system where certain people do what they can to crush and beat others, which leads to massive wasting of resources, the inevitable crushing and exploiting of others to carry out these goals, and the pervertion and addiction of wealth. That is a very unhealthy system. Again, that "motivation" only works for certain people, while most others do not benefit from it. The point of wage labor is to crush creativity, to make jobs quick in response to consumer cultures, to make them open to varieties of people by cutting out human and personal distinctions, creating a system that fights against motivation, at least for most individuals. The decline of creativity does not increase motivation, it causes it to steadily drop. This is a simple point, that anyone can quickly grasp if they actually sit down and think about it, if they choose to disregard the state religion and actually think about the issues themselves.

To move to another subject, it has constantly been asked in this thread that, if a Communist system was implemented, what would happen to the Capitalists? Would you kill them? Many have quickly questioned the plausibility of the scenario, and stated that this problem will not exist in a Communist society. The question is pursued continuously, asking "what if?", it is after all a hypothetical question. In that case we can come up with all sorts of scenarios. So for example, what if they use, or attempt to use, coercion or violence to in some way challenge the Communist system. Would there be resistance? Would they be killed? The answer to the first question should be yes, as I very much think it would be. In regards to the second, maybe, maybe not, it's difficult and pointless to be so hypothetical on tactics, but it is important to acknowledge the possibility of that individual or people being killed as a result of this, as it is important to acknowledge that some other way to defeat that person could be used. But in such a case, that is legitimate resistance, not murder. But what if the person in some other way tries to conquer the Communist system, through the means of say, education and debate? In that case, the means of resisting that are obvious, education and debate. Another one of the main points of a Communist society is to have a highly-organized, politically-active, industrial society. In my view, such a society would expect both sides to have very large amounts of evidence for their claims, and it would be the job of both sides to do so. What would happen after that? The question is one we can't know, but I tend to think the Communist would be overwhelmingly considered correct, and that the views of the Capitalist would, if not fade away entirely(which is quite a possibility), become invisible, remote, and completely unpowerful in all sections of the Communist society. One could ask this hypothetically, what if the Capitalist won? Well, that would mean the failure of the Communist system, period. It's all a matter of opinion on what would happen, but as I have said, I tend to think it's the Capitalist system which will/would fail.

The above paragraph is a bit different than the simple question: in a Communist society, what would happen to the Capitalists? Again, aside from the above scenarios, nothing. They would become a part of society just like modern-day Communists are forced to contribute to Capitalist systems, and participate in the system with no distinctions in their labor and rights from anyone else. But I should stress that that is completely hypothetical, not factual or logical, and that I personally don't believe such people would exist in any significant sense, in a Communist society.

Daniel Karssenberg offers the arguement in response to another user's complaint of the control of information from the mass media with the statment: "Nobody stops you from going on the streets and tell everybody your story..." In general, that's a true statement. But does that give him equal opportunity, and the equal power to control information or indoctrinate? The answer to anyone not in denial is clearly 'no, it puts the individual on the streets at a huge disadvantage.' In itself, that alone proves that the control of information is unequal, and in my opinion, therefore proves that the current system of mass media has no right to exist, simply because it has better control than others to indoctrinate, mislead, and trick. But there's another question, and it's not a profound one: What right does anyone have to indoctrinate anyone else? Ask that to yourself, but to me, no one has that right, and therefore, the problem isn't giving equal rights for people to fool, mislead, and control information, but to do all possible to eliminate those possibilities. The answer isn't to use some sort of dictatorial methods to cut out all that's alleged to be fraud or lies, that's hampering free speech. But, in a highly organized, politically active, industrial society, with media run Democratically as it should be, it will be more likely for people to have the ability and information to expose and repudiate the lies, while heavily stimulating healthy debate.

Yet another Capitalist arguement is offered: Any system would collapse if everyone suddenly decided they want to have a desk job running the show. At least, in the capitalist system, they wouldn't have a chance to. There would be no money to make in a business already meeting demand, so their hopes of starting a business would be shattered by lack of finance. I guess that's what you call "oppression". Those are Sasha's words. What Sasha fails to grasp, is that his/her(?) concept of "business" and labor is not the only one. There is nothing necessary or natural about having one person be the head of something which is completely run by others, with the head getting most of the benefit. Or more generally, that there is nothing necessary or natural about hierarchy. The point of Communism, is for those people to work together, own, and equally enjoy the benefits of that workplace(I don't like the word business, it doesn't apply to Communism). Communist societies are not subject to the so-called supply/demand and consumer culture necessities that are part of Capitalism. Therefore, these words typed by Sasha are a failure, the alleged arguement isn't actually an arguement, because the assumptions it bases itself on are completely false and superficial. Please try again.

I have one last point to make, and I address it to Guerilla22. Going to genocidal extremes to create a particular kind of world, which is percieved to be better for those who survive the horrors of the violence, is exactly the nature of Nazism, or fascism if you like. Therefore, you are a fascist.


I'm dying to hear any serious arguements to any of these points, I urge someone to address them, because I haven't heard these points debated in a healthy atmosphere ever, and wish for that to change.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:28 AM
Yeah and the funny thing is the capitalist will sell me the very fire arms that I will eventually turn on them and the NRA and all your right-wing, lobbyist buddies will protect my right to keep arms so that I can eventually turn them on them as well. Talk about irony.
Actually, the irony is that NRA and right-wingers will likely tend to be better armed than you, as well as be more accomplished gun-handlers and marksmen than you.

It is likely that in a showdown, the left would be taken down quikly, especially in the USA.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 12:38 AM
Actually, the irony is that NRA and right-wingers will likely tend to be better armed than you, as well as be more accomplished gun-handlers and marksmen than you.

It is likely that in a showdown, the left would be taken down quikly, especially in the USA.
yeah ... right, puke. :ph34r:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...pic=26990&st=20 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26990&st=20)

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)You're right bucko, the "integrity" of a idea sould be decided by the people. A luxury the West has not had for a long, long time.[/b]

Who do you think is deciding it right now? I live in America, a beautiful country without a single government-owned media outlet. So who do you think decides what goes on FOX, CNN, MSNBC? They don't just put whatever they want. In the private business, they have to say what we want to hear. They represent the majority of our voices.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)I am however interested in what else that favours the ruling class is "okay in your book" skippy.[/b]

Whatever respects individual rights is okay in my book, whoever it ends up favoring.


[email protected]
Ok then, why can't I be heard on a mass media network? You mean to tell me I have to broadcast my own or get some big publishing corporation to print my material?

Of course. Nobody is going to get down on their knees and fulfill whatever desire you might have. If you want to get your idea out there, you've got to work just as hard as all the big-time execs did. Oh, and you've got to have good ideas.


MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
I thought even you would understand that only a handful of billionaires have a complete monopoly over all the information any person watching TV or reading a magazine would recieve by the media.

You make it seem like you hate how successful these people have been. Would you still be complaining if they had a tremendous left-wing bias?

[Sasha]

Originally posted by LuZhiming+--> (LuZhiming)
Originally posted by Sasha+--> (Sasha)Maybe they were evil enough to want something in return for the work the gave at the mines. Maybe they were fed up with the destitute, unmotivated conditions of the commune. How would I know?[/b]You don't know much about Communism. The sort of arguement you are giving is one that is made in a way where it is supposed to state that Communism will never come into existance. You're saying the system for those reasons is inefficeint, and therefore will not work when implemented. That is a false way to state your arguement. There is no such thing as a Communist (or for that matter Anarchist) scenario that could possibly come out that way. In such a situation, it was a failure to carry out Communism, not the inefficiency of Communism.[/b]

I know full well the distinction between communism and the dead-awful socialism that it always seems to turn out to be. I also know that they have something in common, namely that we musn't expect our gains to match how much work we put out and how much we satisfy our customers. You and I can't really say for sure if pure communism would share the same problems as socialism; it's never even existed! So take that quote of mine with a grain of salt. I can only rely on my philosophical objections to it, which I've already spoken about it in this thread (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27003&st=0).


Originally posted by LuZhiming
One of the fundamental arguements against Capitalism is that the system of wage labor prevents most people from being able to carry out motivations. Marx and many others say, that wage labor forces workers into a state of minimal creativity, where they are working in alienated labor due to work being external, meaning it is not fully under their control but largely for pursuing wages, and turns individuals into nothing more than machines, depriving people of conscious activity, and estranges from him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process. Marx once said (perhaps someone else can find the exact quote) that, under Communism, labor will not only become a means of life, but also the highest want in life.

Good God am I glad they are forced to go where the money is, instead of frolicking in whatever desire they wish. It's the price you have to pay for living in an interdependent society. You can't just create whatever the heck you want; if it isn't something useful, nobody will want it. You have to make a product or provide a service that is in demand.

Oh, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that these restrictions are "depriving people of conscious activity" and "forcing minimal creativity". I'm beginning to think you're all just a bunch of starving artists :-)


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I happen to think that arguement presented by Marx and many others is right. It is degrading and unmotivating to do something under the control of someone else, or under the control of certain conditions.

I don't see why. I've never known anyone who felt degraded by the fact that he has less decision-making power than the CEO who leads the company he works for.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
In situations like this, where the workers are able to decide what they do, how they do it, who benefits from it, etc. creativity is stimulated, and the worker is able to produce whatever he/she wants to produce more efficiently, and will not be doing it in a way they are so alienated that the work itself loses all meaning, and thus they become nothing more than a machine, but rather they do what they, as human beings, should do.

It does not turn you into a machine. It does, however, force you to make or do something that people want. There's no injustice in the life of a starving artist; what can I say, nobody wants his junk!


Originally posted by LuZhiming
The only motivation involved in the system they advocate is "do better than this guy," beat him, crush him, gain wealth. That sort of motivation crushes Democracy, and leads inevitably to a system where certain people do what they can to crush and beat others, which leads to massive wasting of resources, the inevitable crushing and exploiting of others to carry out these goals, and the pervertion and addiction of wealth. That is a very unhealthy system.

Oh bologna. Money forces you to make or do something that people want. Competition forces you to do it well.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Again, that "motivation" only works for certain people, while most others do not benefit from it.

Unsuccessful people don't necessarily lose the motivation to succeed.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Daniel Karssenberg offers the arguement in response to another user's complaint of the control of information from the mass media with the statment: "Nobody stops you from going on the streets and tell everybody your story..." In general, that's a true statement. But does that give him equal opportunity, and the equal power to control information or indoctrinate? The answer to anyone not in denial is clearly 'no, it puts the individual on the streets at a huge disadvantage.' In itself, that alone proves that the control of information is unequal, and in my opinion, therefore proves that the current system of mass media has no right to exist, simply because it has better control than others to indoctrinate, mislead, and trick.

You expect to have an equal capability to spread ideas, right off the bat? Those media companies worked hard and earned the spot where they are, and you have to do the same if you want to get where they are.


[email protected]
There is nothing necessary or natural about having one person be the head of something which is completely run by others, with the head getting most of the benefit. Or more generally, that there is nothing necessary or natural about hierarchy.

Look at the highly hierarchial wolf groups and compare them to the highly collective, non-heirarchial ant colonies. There definitely is something natural about heirarchy. Species of considerable intelligence and long life spans have certain members with more experience and wisdom than other members. There are certain humans who worked hard to get to a high position; they earned the extra rewards they get. There are certain humans who have proven themselves capable of leadership and decision-making. And boy am I glad that our companies are run by those people, and not a cafeteria full of blue-collar workers.


LuZhiming
Communist societies are not subject to the so-called supply/demand and consumer culture necessities that are part of Capitalism.

I would LOVE to hear what kind of witchcraft you plan on concocting to get rid of supply/demand. A bunch of people making and taking whatever they want without a price attached is certainly not escaping it. If anything, it is a suicidal disregard for it.

[redstar2000]

Look at the highly hierarchal wolf groups and compare them to the highly collective, non-hierarchal ant colonies. There definitely is something natural about hierarchy. Species of considerable intelligence and long life spans have certain members with more experience and wisdom than other members. There are certain humans who worked hard to get to a high position; they earned the extra rewards they get. There are certain humans who have proven themselves capable of leadership and decision-making. And boy am I glad that our companies are run by those people, and not a cafeteria full of blue-collar workers.

Classical self-serving capitalist bullshit.

We should save this classic prose for inscription on a monument after the revolution...or perhaps at the entrance to a memorial for all the victims of your "leaders" and "decision-makers".

We couldn't use the line about wolves, of course. Comparing capitalists to wolves is a libel on wolves.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

So who do you think decides what goes on FOX, CNN, MSNBC?

The individuals that have a controlling interest, or investment within a specific financial area or market control what goes on these stations.

That is why different station lean towards different parties. CNN is a more liberal outlet where Fox is insanely conservative. That's what privitisation is about.



They don't just put whatever they want. In the private business, they have to say what we want to hear. They represent the majority of our voices.


Are you for real? :lol:

The will of the "little" people mean nothing if they do not control the majority of the wealth.

I take it you are not very familiar with economic and political policy.



Whatever respects individual rights is okay in my book, whoever it ends up favoring.
.

As long as it ends up "favouring" the ruling class that is. You're not fooling anyone.

[Karo de Perro]

I really got to get in on this one ... "Look at the highly hierarchal wolf groups and compare them to the highly collective, non-hierarchal ant colonies. There definitely is something natural about hierarchy. Species of considerable intelligence and long life spans have certain members with more experience and wisdom than other members. There are certain humans who worked hard to get to a high position; they earned the extra rewards they get. There are certain humans who have proven themselves capable of leadership and decision-making. And boy am I glad that our companies are run by those people, and not a cafeteria full of blue-collar workers." ...

Can you say 'Bullshit'? ... I knew you could.

The hierarchal structure as a phenomena among humans is entirely one of invention rather than some psuedo-natural endowment.Its quite clever how you injected some truth into this post by stating the idea of intelligence along with the fact of experience and wisdom ... however,intelligence,experience and wisdom should always be employed for the common good rather than personal advancement in which case such ceases to be these and becomes rather cunning in the art of manipulation.

As for this bullshit regarding those humans who worked hard to get a high position ... that would make a fuckin cat laugh!

I myself have worked in the lumber yards and in coal mines and have witnessed these 'hard-working' brown-nosers ... they re a bunch of fucking sorry-asses who know how to stroke their immediate supervisors,they sit on their ass drinkin coffee and smoking cig after cig til they see the boss coming at which they sprang to their feet and act as if they ve been busting their back.

This is the natural pay-off in a capitalist society - 'the more work you do the less benefits you receive' ... as its said,'Those who cant use their heads are destined to use their backs'.

I still let my mind wonder back to one incident in particular,this occurred in Hilton Head S.C. ... I couldnt help noticing two pale-faced pencil-pushers behind a hotel desk with their fake smiles and arrogant disposition,especially toward those they looked down upon as inferiors due to these people having jobs requiring strain and sweat.

This then brings me to the next situation I witnessed at this hotel,there were these two pettite Latina ladies whose job it was to attend the rooms,laundry,etc ... I watched as these two tiny little women pulled and pushed a large laundry cart heaped over with linens and such,to me it appeared like two ants tryin to move a refrigarator ... and all the while I considered the injustice of it all.

Of course these two Latina ladies were gettin paid the lowest wage allowed by law while those front desk attendents,etc made much more by comparison,its the same throughout the entire structure of the capitalist system ... I have said time and again that burger-flippers and broom-pushers do far more than those who have cushion-jobs and are paid outrageous saleries.

Having said all this let me sum up here ... Fuck all the do-nothing Cappies ... fuck them and the horse they rode in on ... the hell with such self-made bastards.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Sasha+Posted on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM--> (Sasha @ Posted on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM)I know full well the distinction between communism and the dead-awful socialism that it always seems to turn out to be. I also know that they have something in common, namely that we musn't expect our gains to match how much work we put out and how much we satisfy our customers. You and I can't really say for sure if pure communism would share the same problems as socialism; it's never even existed! So take that quote of mine with a grain of salt. [/b]

..... So another words you refuse to address the comments I have made. I didn't even bring up the difference between Communism and what you laughably call 'Socialism.' Although if you want to talk about the totalitarian Lenninist and other such systems that came into power, if you look at basic history, you would know very quickly that none of the societies you are talking about were attempts to create Communism. The Bolsheviks in Russia consolidated their power by crushing all Socialist elements which had formed in Russia in opposition to the Tzar, namely the Factory Committees created by workers, while they began a system of not wage labor, but simple forced slave labor. The dictators of North Korea basically came into power as Soviet despots who didn't do much aside from enriching themselves. The Cuban Revolution, again, never even attempted to form Communist elements, from the very beginning the plans of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara planned to make Cuban industries state run, they never wanted to give them worker's control. Romania was basically the same as North Korea, a corrupt dictatorship came to power which spent most of its time ignoring social problems and oppressing its people. Yugoslavia you can't even call a leftist country, it always had many Capitalist elements from the beginning. So please, don't post this 'Communism in pratice," rubbish, because as anyone should know, none of them had any interest in Communism. You say, "You and I can't really say for sure if pure communism would share the same problems as socialism; it's never even existed!" quite a way to twist my words. I never suggested I knew what would happen if a Communist society came into existance, only you have done that, I was merely making the simple, and quite underwhelming point that you worded your arguement incorrectly, thus misleading the reality. And I really could care less about your philosophical objections to Communism, unless you can state them in a way somehow relivant to the discussion.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
Good God am I glad they are forced to go where the money is, instead of frolicking in whatever desire they wish. It's the price you have to pay for living in an interdependent society. You can't just create whatever the heck you want; if it isn't something useful, nobody will want it. You have to make a product or provide a service that is in demand.

Hahaha, so simpled minded you are. I never suggested that workers should or would simply do whatever they want, which basically means they become dictators in a barely-organized, un-Democratic society. I suggested that the system should be a highly-organized, Democratic society, meaning people do what you're supposed to do in a Democracy, organize and work together. Decide what everyone needs and should do. That's how you avoid waste. But addressing your response that way isn't satisfying to me, I reject your assumptions, in my view, it is much more motivating for humans to do services that benefit other people.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
Oh, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that these restrictions are "depriving people of conscious activity" and "forcing minimal creativity". I'm beginning to think you're all just a bunch of starving artists :-)

I'm very interested in hearing your explanation for this. Especially the bit on creativity, I can't imagine what you will try to concoct to explain that arguement. As you know, the Capitalist wage labor system is made in a way where workers are easily replaced by others, mass production is promoted, not time and creativity. That's one of the fundamental realities of the current Capitalist sytem, you are going to have some time explaining how that isn't so.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
I don't see why. I've never known anyone who felt degraded by the fact that he has less decision-making power than the CEO who leads the company he works for.

I won't pursue what I believe are lies here, but instead I'll merely give you an important example. Anyone who has read anything on labor history would know that what I have described is something workers in the United States and elsewhere have been expressing for years. So take a famous labor history book, by Norman Ware, called The Industrial Worker, 1840-1860, The Reaction of American Industrial Society to the Advance of the Industrial Revolution. It's an important and rare study on the subject, anyone talking about such subjects should read it. It's rather enlightening, it's basically excerpts from what used to be a free press in the United States in Massachusetts, which involved what were called factory girls and people like that, and they basically said what I described earlier, that renting yourself to someone else for wages is degrading, and in their words, they condemned the "new spirit of the age" what they described as: "gain wealth, forgetting all but self." What's interesting is that these people are just normal working people, they weren't Marxists or anything like that. It also worth noting that, as you would know if you chose to spend more time reading my posts rather than inserting your own words in them, I never suggested the main or only reason was that the CEO has more decision-making. That has a role, but there is much more to it than that. For example, the fact that the CEO benefits more from it is a part. Or that the CEO doesn't have to do as much work. Or simply the fact that it is degrading to rent yourself to someone else. By the way, it's quite an understatement to simply assert that the CEO has more decision-making, if the CEO wants, he generally has all decision making.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
It does not turn you into a machine.

.....And that's all. Could you explain why? But even if you don't want to nitpick on the word machine, you can address the issues that lead to the conclusion, creativity, motivation, etc.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
It does, however, force you to make or do something that people want. There's no injustice in the life of a starving artist; what can I say, nobody wants his junk!

Unfortunately you don't understand the concept of Democracy. See above, the solution to this is what Marx for one has said over and over, create a highly-organized, Democratic society or dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, your claim that these wage labor systems force people to create things people want is quite a laughable claim. Most of the things, meaning waste, produced are created wants. People don't naturally want all sorts of digital state-of-the-art, handheld bullshit, those wants are created by massive efforts of forcing people to be lonely, meaningless atoms of consumption, otherwise known as commercial advertising.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
Oh bologna. Money forces you to make or do something that people want. Competition forces you to do it well.

No, money, not forces, but convinces you to obsess over gaining as much of it as possible, and wasting it on as much as possible. People don't naturally want video games and trash like that. They're created wants. Even in present-day society, people would much rather hvae higher wages, less working hours, or things like that than have a McDonalds on every corner, or a huge collection of video games, or a big-screen tv, or to be able to choose from a huge list of expensive and wasteful Hollywood movies to go see every week, etc. But it is crammed in their head over and over and over and over and over all day long to consume, to spend their money on wasteful things like this. But there's nothing natural about it, in fact it takes a lot of coercion to make these feelings become expressions. Lastly, there is no competition, and you clearly have no arguement to prove otherwise. There are numerous studies on this, one of the main complaints of workers is that they cannot perfect their work. That is even a problem before people are adults, the same is true of schools too, kids hate having to do the same thing over and over to learn something in a particular way that many of them don't like. People who work at a McDonalds don't put massive effort into trying to make the burgers taste a little better, garbage men don't try to be more efficeint with their labor, workers at Wal-Mart don't attempt to make cash registers more efficient. Is it because people are lazy? No, it's because they hate their jobs, and that their jobs do not allow them to creativity or much incentive. Some jobs do have more creativity, control, and motivation(sometimes competition) than others, namely the ones at the elite level, like college professors, scientists, medical researchers, etc. You will be much more likely to find a college professor dedicated to doing his work efficiently and excellently, with creativity and some control. Why? Is it competition? The answer is no, they have more chances to actually carry out their jobs the way they want, so they naturally want to do it better. And furthermore, we have examples of this right before us. So take medical researchers in Cuba. As I said, Cuba is by no means a Communist society or an attempt to create one, but at the same time, one cannot accuse its workers of competing with eachother. Some people who are subjected often to Capitalist dogma may find the dedication and efforts of Cuban medical researchers shocking. Cuban medical researchers and doctors have made outstanding accomplishments being under the disadvantages they are, and have had incredible devotion. Just recently Cuba is going to offer its expertise in AIDS prevention to other Carribean nations, and promises to give scholarships to 50 doctors a year in hospitals, proposes to build training centers in neighboring islands, and sell its home-produced anti-retroviral drugs to other nations. This isn't surprising, considering Cuba has one of the lowest rates of aid infection in the world. The health statistics in Cuba alone, don't take my word for it, try taking a look yourself, are comparable to a lot of Western European nations. Cuba produced and now sells a meningitis-B vaccine to other nations which have helped control epidemics in countries like Brazil and Argentina. Now the vaccine is even being sold in Europe, and perhaps the United States one day. In total it has exported the product to more than 30 nations, and is widely-regarded as more efficient than the Belgian and U.S.-produced vaccines. Right now, Cuban technology in the medical field is being sent in joint-ventures to China and Russia. Cuba has also produced a truly impressive product for neck and breast cancer, which have recently been licensed to the higly-developed country, Germany. Cuba has produced so many efficient anti-retroviral medicines for AIDS victims, that it rapidly changed the amount of lives saved. The estimate of 25% for death in AIDS victims proved to be 7%. In Cuba, all HIV-positive mothers are treated freely with prophylactic AZT therapy up to delivery and then the babies are delivered by caesarean section. Cuba, which has been strangulated and isolated for so long, could not even ever afford the anti-retroviral medicines where are produced in developed countries, but even with such small resources, Cuba created their own. That's quite an accomplishment. Incidentally, none of what I am saying here about Cuba is even contraversial. For example, you can read it right on the BBC website, try doing a little search, the stories on this are numerous, "Cuba to help Caribbean fight Aids," "Cuba sells its medical expertise," "Cuba leads the way in HIV fight" etc. Cuban doctors have freely went to hundreds of countries to help the poor in such ways, even though they do not benefit from doing this at all. So again, all of what you're saying is false, it has been proven otherwise many times, including right in front of our eyes if we choose to read the news.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
You expect to have an equal capability to spread ideas, right off the bat? Those media companies worked hard and earned the spot where they are, and you have to do the same if you want to get where they are.

I recommend that you actually study the history before making such comments. The United States had a free press for many years. It used to have very articulate labor, Anarchist, Communist, religious, etc. press, which were independent and Democratic. But these were finally crushed in the late 50's by repression, and corporations were given control of them by courts. So please, don't spew this "they worked hard," crap, because the elementary facts say the exact opposite.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
Look at the highly hierarchial wolf groups and compare them to the highly collective, non-heirarchial ant colonies. There definitely is something natural about heirarchy. Species of considerable intelligence and long life spans have certain members with more experience and wisdom than other members. There are certain humans who worked hard to get to a high position; they earned the extra rewards they get. There are certain humans who have proven themselves capable of leadership and decision-making. And boy am I glad that our companies are run by those people, and not a cafeteria full of blue-collar workers.

What a stupid arguement. Comparing humans to other species in this sense is foolish, unlike them, humans have the ability to carry out individual ideas, they aren't comparable in any sense. And you're going to have a very hard time explaining how hierarchy is natural, considering humans have spent most of their existance in egalitarian socieites which practice reciprocity with no hierarchy. For most of human's existance, we haven't even believe in land ownership. That's one of the first lessons you learn in a High-School anthropology class. :rolleyes:


[email protected] on Jul 18 2004, 10:58 PM
I would LOVE to hear what kind of witchcraft you plan on concocting to get rid of supply/demand. A bunch of people making and taking whatever they want without a price attached is certainly not escaping it. If anything, it is a suicidal disregard for it.

Well we're not talking about my plans, so I can disregard this, we're talking about Marx's plans in fact. If you still don't understand, read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, since you still seem to lack basic knowledge omitted in these works.

[robob8706]

If i had to die so that millions of people would be happier, then i would accept it as my unselfish destiny. My sacrifice would better the rest of the world. Thats how everyone should view their own mortality.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by redstar2000 +--> (redstar2000 )The individuals that have a controlling interest, or investment within a specific financial area or market control what goes on these stations.

. . .

The will of the "little" people mean nothing if they do not control the majority of the wealth.[/b]

What would you say is the will of the little people? Our country, according to the polls, is split down the middle between the major political parties, Republican and Democrat. That is reflected by the fact that these two ideologies dominate the media. You will not convince me that there is some secret communist majority being repressed by the Rich White Man.


Originally posted by Karo de Perro+--> (Karo de Perro)The hierarchal structure as a phenomena among humans is entirely one of invention rather than some psuedo-natural endowment.Its quite clever how you injected some truth into this post by stating the idea of intelligence along with the fact of experience and wisdom[/b]

That was a *bit* more than an injection. Intelligence is the key to the idea of heirarchy. With large populations of dumb animals like ants, the behavior is more self-organized. As animals become bigger, with bigger brains accordingly, they develop dominance heirarchies and group leaders by necessity. It has become such a natural thing for us, that our prejudice towards it was a main topic in Michael Crichton's entertaining novel "Prey", in which nanobots get loose and start the self-organizing behavior that baffles the humans:

Human beings expected to find central command in any organization. States had governments. Corporations had CEOs. Schools had principals. Armies had generals. Human beings tended to believe that without central command, chaos would overwhelm the organization and nothing signifiant could be accomplished.
From this standpoint, it was difficult to believe that extremely stupid creatures with brains the size of pinheads were capable of construction projects more complicated than any human project. But in fact, they were.
African termites were a classic example. These insects made earthen castlelike mounds a hundred feet in diameter and thrusting spires twenty feet into the air. To appreciate their accomplishment, you had to imagine that if termites were the size of people, these mounds would by skyscrapers one mile high and five miles in diameter. And like a skyscraper, the termite mound had an intricate internal architecture to provide fresh air, remove excess CO2 and heat, and so on. Inside the structure were gardens to grow food, residences for royalty, and living space for as many as two million termites. No two mounds were exactly the same; each was individually constructed to suit the requirements and advantages of a particular site.
All this was accomplished with no architect, no foreman, no central authority. Nor was a blueprint for construction encoded in the termite genes. Instead these hige creations were the result of relatively simple rules that the individual termites followed in relation to one another. (Rules like, "If you smell that another termite has been here, put a dirt pellet on this spot.") Yet the outcome was arguably more complex than any human creation.

Well, apart from these near-mindless creatures and the communists who aspire to be like them, I stand by my statement that heirarchy is a natural requirement to get anything done.


Originally posted by Karo de Perro
however,intelligence,experience and wisdom should always be employed for the common good rather than personal advancement in which case such ceases to be these and becomes rather cunning in the art of manipulation.

My bold. I love pointing out the little words embedded in communist posts that reveal their supposed "moral imperative" that I should sacrifice my mind and labor to the ends of others.


Karo de [email protected]
I myself have worked in the lumber yards and in coal mines and have witnessed these 'hard-working' brown-nosers ... they re a bunch of fucking sorry-asses who know how to stroke their immediate supervisors,they sit on their ass drinkin coffee and smoking cig after cig til they see the boss coming at which they sprang to their feet and act as if they ve been busting their back.

That's the fault of unscrupulous, weak-kneed bosses, NOT of capitalism.


Karo de Perro
I have said time and again that burger-flippers and broom-pushers do far more than those who have cushion-jobs and are paid outrageous saleries.

Hard physical labor is not the only measurement of how much money one deserves. It's all about satisfying the most people, whether you do it pencil-pushing or not, that determines how much cash you make.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, apart from these near-mindless creatures and the communists who aspire to be like them, I stand by my statement that heirarchy is a natural requirement to get anything done.


Well I could 'stand by my statement' that the world is flat. However, whether I stand by it or not, the earth isn't flat. Likewise, you can stand by your statement, but without any evidence it won't be true. Why exactly is hierarchy necessary? If three people decide to build a house, does one of them have to be 'in charge'. What if it were two people, or four? I'd be interested to see your response.

[The Ranting Radical]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 02:27 PM
For the people who said "yes", I wonder if they would maintain their stance if they found that it was them that must die.

By the way, don't bother playing the hero and screaming out "I would die for the cause". Theory and application are quite different, particularly with regards to your life. Claims on an internet chatboard are worthless. Only in a real life/death scenario would the truth about the extent of your convictions be seen.
i would die just to see what its like man i could honestly care less because i belive in reincanation

i live to die thats my purpos and i will die nomatter what as will every 1 that posts on the fourms its just a matter of when :D

[redstar2000]

As animals become bigger, with bigger brains accordingly, they develop dominance hierarchies and group leaders by necessity.

And what might that "necessity" consist of? And why, in particular, should it apply to humans??


African termites were a classic example. These insects made earthen castlelike mounds a hundred feet in diameter and thrusting spires twenty feet into the air. To appreciate their accomplishment, you had to imagine that if termites were the size of people, these mounds would by skyscrapers one mile high and five miles in diameter.

No, if termites were the size of people, they would be dead. Termites, like all insects, have no lungs nor would a human-sized termite even be able to stand up without mechanical assistance...their legs would be far too thin to support them.

(And, by the way, while a mile-high building could probably be constructed, there's no rational reason to do so. From an engineering standpoint, a 50-story building is the pragmatic limit...anything over that is just some corporation wasting resources to claim "the biggest dick" title.)

Michael Crichton spins a good yarn, but keep in mind that he is a writer of fiction...and the science in his novels is quite poor.


...their supposed "moral imperative" that I should sacrifice my mind and labor to the ends of others.

Unless you have sufficient net worth to refuse wage-slavery, "sacrificing your mind and labor" is what you will do or else...you can try living on the streets and dining from dumpsters.


..., I stand by my statement that hierarchy is a natural requirement to get anything done.

"Natural"? Lots of things have been thought to be "natural" in the past...and yet we got rid of them and are none the worse for their loss.

Cannibalism was "natural" once.

So was slavery.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Sasha]

Hi, I'm back. I couldn't connect to the site yesterday.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Why exactly is hierarchy necessary? If three people decide to build a house, does one of them have to be 'in charge'. What if it were two people, or four?[/b]

If it only takes three people to build a house, I am guessing it is of relatively simple and primitive construction. More complex projects, like building a full-fledged insulated suburban home, requires preparation, blueprints, consulting experts, etc. In this case, there needs to be management to organize everything and make sure everything goes smoothly. The Egyptian pyramids could not have been created by thousands of people getting together and just discussing what to do. The dialogue would never end, and the decisions, undoubtedly not well-informed considering the common folk who made them, would take far too long to make. Inevitably, a small group of planners will get together and tell people what to do.

Another example of where it is needed is in combat. Do you really expect a bunch of conscripts to just get together and work well without central command?


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)And what might that "necessity" consist of? And why, in particular, should it apply to humans??[/b]

We aren't born pre-programmed to perform large feats like skyscrapers. They require careful planning by a small group of people, who then hire workers to build it. Similarly, we don't have the telepathic capability to orchestrate complex maneuvers on the battlefield. They require a small group of people to plan and make orders. See more, above.


Originally posted by redstar2000
No, if termites were the size of people, they would be dead. Termites, like all insects, have no lungs nor would a human-sized termite even be able to stand up without mechanical assistance...their legs would be far too thin to support them.

Agreed.


Originally posted by redstar2000
(And, by the way, while a mile-high building could probably be constructed, there's no rational reason to do so. From an engineering standpoint, a 50-story building is the pragmatic limit...anything over that is just some corporation wasting resources to claim "the biggest dick" title.)

Agreed again. However, I do consider those overly-large skyscrapers as great, inspirational monuments of human accomplishment.


[email protected]
Michael Crichton spins a good yarn, but keep in mind that he is a writer of fiction...and the science in his novels is quite poor.

Oh, I would never base my argument solely on fictional writings. I wrote that quote from his book because it was worded well (apart from the typos I introduced). I actually figured my argument was based on common sense; we see management all around us, and it serves a very important purpose.


redstar20000

...their supposed "moral imperative" that I should sacrifice my mind and labor to the ends of others.
Unless you have sufficient net worth to refuse wage-slavery, "sacrificing your mind and labor" is what you will do or else...you can try living on the streets and dining from dumpsters.

Not true; you may have only you labor to sell, but it will never be a sacrifice if you are getting something in return.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by LuZhiming+--> (LuZhiming)..... So another words you refuse to address the comments I have made. I didn't even bring up the difference between Communism and what you laughably call 'Socialism.'[/b]
You didn't mention the difference, but I figured your criticism was that I didn't know it. I must have misunderstood you.


Originally posted by LuZhiming+--> (LuZhiming)Although if you want to talk about the totalitarian Lenninist and other such systems that came into power, if you look at basic history, you would know very quickly that none of the societies you are talking about were attempts to create Communism.[/b]
So do you deny that some sort of big government is needed to redistribute the wealth before true communism can be made? I thought that was a basic idea for you guys.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I never suggested I knew what would happen if a Communist society came into existance
"There is no such thing as a Communist (or for that matter Anarchist) scenario that could possibly come out that way."

Yes, you did.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I never suggested that workers should or would simply do whatever they want, which basically means they become dictators in a barely-organized, un-Democratic society.
Oh! So they should have restrictions on what they can make/do. But, instead of money being the force that restricts them...


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I suggested that the system should be a highly-organized, Democratic society, meaning people do what you're supposed to do in a Democracy, organize and work together. Decide what everyone needs and should do. That's how you avoid waste.
...everyone will just get together and talk through what the current needs are! And they'll just agree to satisfy those needs for no other reason than the public good! And this is supposed to be less wasteful!

Money is a great way to show what the current demands are. Why throw it away in favor of imperfect human guessing games?


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I'm very interested in hearing your explanation for this. Especially the bit on creativity, I can't imagine what you will try to concoct to explain that arguement. As you know, the Capitalist wage labor system is made in a way where workers are easily replaced by others, mass production is promoted, not time and creativity. That's one of the fundamental realities of the current Capitalist sytem, you are going to have some time explaining how that isn't so.
It's true that workers will need to be layed off when they are no longer needed (what a novel idea), and mass production is certainly a necessity, but these things do not squelch creativity, they just make the business process more efficient. Human creativity will always be a necessity if we are to meet the demand with better and better products. We'll always need that creative mind to design the car before it goes into mass production.

I think your problem is that there is little room for innovation on the blue-collar level, when the car has already been designed and only needs the repetitive process of building it. You can say this is a bad thing, but you are ignoring the fact that many people prefer physical work over analytic work, or perhaps just don't have the education for the latter. Anyway, it is a necessary part of the engineering process. If you're going to demand that no company lay off an employee, and that we go back to pre-industrial production methods so blue-collar work can be more "interesting", you can kiss your first-world living standards goodbye.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
It's rather enlightening, it's basically excerpts from what used to be a free press in the United States in Massachusetts, which involved what were called factory girls and people like that, and they basically said what I described earlier, that renting yourself to someone else for wages is degrading, and in their words, they condemned the "new spirit of the age" what they described as: "gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"Renting" is a weird term. They give labor, the boss gives money. It is a trade on an equal level. I've never heard anyone call it "degrading". It also seems weird that you are pulling this info from people who lived in the 1800s -- women, no less. Could the conditions of factory work and social conitions of womanhood have something to do with it? Further, how do I know this was a majority opinion?


Originally posted by LuZhiming

It does not turn you into a machine.
.....And that's all. Could you explain why? But even if you don't want to nitpick on the word machine, you can address the issues that lead to the conclusion, creativity, motivation, etc.

Refer to my 6th quote.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Unfortunately you don't understand the concept of Democracy.
A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority; a society where the majority opinion rules.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Also, your claim that these wage labor systems force people to create things people want is quite a laughable claim. Most of the things, meaning waste, produced are created wants. People don't naturally want all sorts of digital state-of-the-art, handheld bullshit, those wants are created by massive efforts of forcing people to be lonely, meaningless atoms of consumption, otherwise known as commercial advertising.

I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories about "created wants". Some people may buy that "handheld bullshit" for no other reason than the pleasure of having it, but that it their perogative -- It's their money! Of course, when the majority dictates all, you may find that perogative disappearing.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
No, money, not forces, but convinces you to obsess over gaining as much of it as possible, and wasting it on as much as possible.
We can argue about this forever. I agree that money is the key goal in any business, but I think this is a good thing; when you're on a budget, you are forced to be productive and frugal, not wasteful.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
People don't naturally want video games and trash like that. They're created wants.
What do you have against video games? They are pleasureable for some people, including me. You're going to have a hard time explaining the psychological reasons why that pleasure is really just a "created want".

BTW you should play Battlefield Vietnam, it's great. I recommend you play the capitalist side (US + S. Vietnam), tho. They have better weapons.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Lastly, there is no competition, and you clearly have no arguement to prove otherwise. There are numerous studies on this, one of the main complaints of workers is that they cannot perfect their work.
This has nothing to do with lack of competition. If blue-collar workers are dissatisfied with work they cannot perfect, maybe their bosses need to lighten up on the restrictions. At the same time, they need some boundries to ensure efficiency.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I recommend that you actually study the history before making such comments. The United States had a free press for many years. It used to have very articulate labor, Anarchist, Communist, religious, etc. press, which were independent and Democratic. But these were finally crushed in the late 50's by repression, and corporations were given control of them by courts.
I wouldn't be surprised if such crimes against free speech actually occured during the cold war era. But we live in a different world now. There are no laws stopping you from starting your own press.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Comparing humans to other species in this sense is foolish, unlike them, humans have the ability to carry out individual ideas, they aren't comparable in any sense.
The ability to carry out individual idea puts them at an even greater need for heirarchy. We act more on reason than instinct; we have no inbuilt nature to guide us collectively like termites. See my previous post in this thread.


[email protected]
And you're going to have a very hard time explaining how hierarchy is natural, considering humans have spent most of their existance in egalitarian socieites which practice reciprocity with no hierarchy.
What proof do you have that there was no heirarchy?


LuZhiming
Well we're not talking about my plans, so I can disregard this, we're talking about Marx's plans in fact. If you still don't understand, read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, since you still seem to lack basic knowledge omitted in these works.
Don't point me to your leader. If you don't know how to get rid of supply/demand, just admit it.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Sasha+Posted on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM--> (Sasha @ Posted on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM)So do you deny that some sort of big government is needed to redistribute the wealth before true communism can be made? I thought that was a basic idea for you guys. [/b]

I would ask you to expand on that. I don't even know what exactly you're talking about when you say "some sort of big government." Marxists believe in taking control of the Capitalist state and turning it into a workers revolutionary state, which eventually would cause the destruction of the state and the forming of a new society, if that's what you mean.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
"There is no such thing as a Communist (or for that matter Anarchist) scenario that could possibly come out that way."

Yes, you did.

Try reading my words. If you read that whole paragraph, I was simply pointing out your ignorance of Communist theory. I was pointing out how you're response: "Maybe they were evil enough to want something in return for the work the gave at the mines. Maybe they were fed up with the destitute, unmotivated conditions of the commune. How would I know?" to another user's ridicolous question, was one which was worded improperly. It is part of Communist theory, or Communism, that the liberation of workers will change them from being what Marx called "machines," to organized and motivated people, and I explained why. You think that workers would never have the sort of motivations and organization as Marx wanted, and said that such a scenario would come up if what you called a "Communist" society was created. I simply pointed out that you were a bit off, if those motivations and organization were not successfully created, then it wasn't ever a Communist society. Do you understand? The issue I was trying to make you understand is that if your predictions are true, Communism can never come into existance, not that it would never work efficiently if it came into existance. Without that motivation and successful organization there is no Communism, therefore what you were really saying is that Communism can never come into existance, not that it would not work efficiently after it did come into existance. That isn't predicting the future, that's simply applying Communist principles.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
Oh! So they should have restrictions on what they can make/do. But, instead of money being the force that restricts them...

No, as is becoming common, you're putting words into my mouth. I never suggested anyone had the right to force restrictions on others. I said that people would work together Democratically and decide together what to do. That's pretty simple, worker's organization, participation, and liberation are basically the entire point of Communism.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
...everyone will just get together and talk through what the current needs are! And they'll just agree to satisfy those needs for no other reason than the public good! And this is supposed to be less wasteful!

That is merely your opinion, which is fine, but it is in no way a good arguement against Communism, it has only a large amount of pure subjectivity and narrowmindedness. But I'm not quite sure what you're implying when you say that this system would be as wasteful or more wasteful, since you offer no explanation to anything you say here and merely respond with mindless dribble.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
Money is a great way to show what the current demands are. Why throw it away in favor of imperfect human guessing games?

Once again, this is nothing but mindless dribble. You offer no explanations or arguements here. You do not give an arguement for how money is a great way to show what current "demands" are, you don't even bother to explain how what you call "imperfect human guessing games" are really imperfect human guessing games. You're merely asserting things here and there and using nothing to back them up with.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
It's true that workers will need to be layed off when they are no longer needed (what a novel idea), and mass production is certainly a necessity, but these things do not squelch creativity, they just make the business process more efficient. Human creativity will always be a necessity if we are to meet the demand with better and better products. We'll always need that creative mind to design the car before it goes into mass production.

Of course, there's another question, and it isn't a very profound one: Why do all those cars have to be the exact same? Why do they need one person to design them all? Why is only creativity from a fraction of the population the only creativity to be accepted? You in fact have not in any way addressed my comments. From your comments above, you apparently agree with the comments that only a small, elite amount of people are allowed to have any creativity, and that therefore the only motivation or incentive for the rest is profit. And therefore that creates a system where the goal in life is to "gain wealth, forgetting all but self," where workers are pitted against eachother, and the motives I described as "crush him" etc. are the only incentives. So what exactly are you saying? That this very ruthless system is the best that can be created? You do not dispute the factors I describe as ruthless.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
I think your problem is that there is little room for innovation on the blue-collar level, when the car has already been designed and only needs the repetitive process of building it. You can say this is a bad thing, but you are ignoring the fact that many people prefer physical work over analytic work, or perhaps just don't have the education for the latter. Anyway, it is a necessary part of the engineering process. If you're going to demand that no company lay off an employee, and that we go back to pre-industrial production methods so blue-collar work can be more "interesting", you can kiss your first-world living standards goodbye.

First off, it's not a fact that most people prefer physical work over analytic work. You may think that is so, but it's pretty arrogant and stupid to pretend that that is somehow a fact. Also, your simplicity in dividing what you call "physical work" and "analytic work" is ridicolous, it's a bit more complicated than that. Don't you think the two combine? Or to give you a more clear question, can't someone doing physical work come up with their own way to build that car, even if in the same design as that one person created? Again, it's no wonder you are so confident of Capitalism with such overly-simplistic thinking.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
"Renting" is a weird term. They give labor, the boss gives money. It is a trade on an equal level.

Hahaha, the person who owns the business gives you a job and pay, you do work. A person gives a another who owns a house pay, and he gives them their house. In the latter case you rent the house, in the former you rent yourself. That's pretty easy to understand.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
I've never heard anyone call it "degrading".

No need to repeat yourself, I can just as easily say my personal experiences differ from yours.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
It also seems weird that you are pulling this info from people who lived in the 1800s -- women, no less.

Please, try thinking. It makes sense that I picked selections from the time of the Industrial Revolution in Massachusetts, at a time when workers had a labor press. Once again, that's easy to understand.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
Could the conditions of factory work and social conitions of womanhood have something to do with it?

:rolleyes: You're not reading. They were pretty clear about what they were saying, and I gave you a few quotes, it takes great dedication to ignore them. They condemned the "new spirit of the age" which they described as "gain wealth, forgetting all but self." They also said for example, that people who work in a mill ought to own it. It had nothing to do with "working conditions" and other fantasies you create to back up your own wonderful arguement, which you base on personal experiences, truly convincing.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
Further, how do I know this was a majority opinion?

You don't, but it's not exactly relivant is it?


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories about "created wants". Some people may buy that "handheld bullshit" for no other reason than the pleasure of having it, but that it their perogative -- It's their money! Of course, when the majority dictates all, you may find that perogative disappearing.

Then why have so much advertising? Why so much focus on creating superficial realities where everybody's doing it and such? It's pretty obvious why, you try to force people to want something stupid and useless, to try to keep them alone and wasteful to be little more than an atom of consumption. By the way, referring to ideas as "conspiracy theories" is not a good way to debate them.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
We can argue about this forever. I agree that money is the key goal in any business, but I think this is a good thing; when you're on a budget, you are forced to be productive and frugal, not wasteful.

Right, so are pizza guys, workers at McDonalds, and trashmen really trying to be "productive and frugal"? Do you actually believe that? But then there are other things money can convince people to do in the name of competition. Like, for example, creating misleading and dishonest advertisements to attract customers to beat out the next guy. Or to temporarily cut prices to attract more customers while making huge profits to drive everyone else in the field out of business, and then remake everything in crappy quality to save money or force people to buy more of the products, which in turn becomes extremely successful because previous methods have created a monopoly on that service. Don't tell me it hasn't happened. Are all of those things good too?


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
What do you have against video games? They are pleasureable for some people, including me. You're going to have a hard time explaining the psychological reasons why that pleasure is really just a "created want".

Indeed I would have a hard time, but luckily I wouldn't go that far. I'm merely saying that these are unhealthy, unnatural, and created wants. It's much more natural for people to enjoy, for example, spending time with other people, a very uncostly activity, than to become materialist as fuck and spend all they can to buy video games and things like that over and over and over. But those things succeed in making a person an atom of consumption. So priorities change. Tons of time is spent on this thing, and much priority is put on getting to the next level or whatever, but the reality is that it is incredibly unimportant. And it's generally very temporary. You like it for a short time, and then you quit doing it, and buy another one. The same is not true of what I would call natural pleasures. There are others way to have pleasure besides mass consumption. I am not against pleasure itself, but against wasteful, unproductive, temporary, massive, and unimportant created pleasures.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
This has nothing to do with lack of competition. If blue-collar workers are dissatisfied with work they cannot perfect, maybe their bosses need to lighten up on the restrictions. At the same time, they need some boundries to ensure efficiency.

Yeah, some boundaries need to be made to ensure efficiency, but then you have another guy who has higher production but less creativity, perhaps he has better advertising too, so you have to throw out more creativity to compete and beat that person, and then it becomes barely any or no creativity. I am dying to hear your explanations for how a person working at McDonalds, or a trashman, or even a person working at a bank is engaging in creativity, without breaking those boundaries which ensure efficiency. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if such crimes against free speech actually occured during the cold war era. But we live in a different world now. There are no laws stopping you from starting your own press.

That part is true, there are no laws. There are plenty of independent media out there, but my point, which was asked in the form of a question, was a simple one: do they have equal access to indoctrinate? Well, no they don't. But then you say that you have to work to get there. There comes the problem. When you control the way people think, it's very difficult for others with much less advantages to be able to change that, thus they will often be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" and the like. But then again, is it healthy at all to have competition and make businesses out of media? Doesn't that hamper free speech and the truth? Are businesses ever going to dedicate themselves to telling the truth? The answer is no, they are going to follow the laws of Capitalism, by dedicating themselves to making profits. So there goes free speech and freedom of the press. And besides, you're still going to have to explain your little theory about 'working to get to the top,' since none of the current mainstream media newspapers, television channels, radio stations, and others ever worked to get anywhere, they were simply given corporate rights by courts.

And even this is still ignoring the question of MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr: "Ok then, why can't I be heard on a mass media network? You mean to tell me I have to broadcast my own or get some big publishing corporation to print my material? I thought even you would understand that only a handful of billionaires have a complete monopoly over all the information any person watching TV or reading a magazine would recieve by the media." That's a good question. Why? Is it for the economy? What about free speech and freedom of the press?


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
The ability to carry out individual idea puts them at an even greater need for heirarchy. We act more on reason than instinct; we have no inbuilt nature to guide us collectively like termites. See my previous post in this thread.

No it doesn't, you missed the point. Since humans do not act on instinct, but on reason, another words they have a choice on how they live, you can't compare them to wolves, who don't have a choice, but who have instinct. What you were doing is just loony. Termites are forced to work collectively, wolves are forced to work "seperately." But humans are not forced, we don't have that sort of instinct, we have a choice. The question is, since we can all carry out individual ideas, can we somehow equally decide together how to carry out our ideas and create a successful, healthy, and better system by this? You obviously don't think so, but I do, and I think it's worth a lot of effort.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
What proof do you have that there was no heirarchy?

It's basic knowledge, it's a fact. For a long time, people used to not have leaders, they were bands, they lived usually off hunting or fising, and everyone was forced to share everything to live(reciprocity). Things changed and developements were made, and bands turned into tribes, and tribes later turned into chiefdoms, and chiefdoms turned into civilizations. And in each one there became more and more of a hierarchy. That's simply factual. Like I said, it's one of the first lessons you would learn in a High School Cultural Anthropology class.


[email protected] on Jul 20 2004, 05:30 PM
Don't point me to your leader. If you don't know how to get rid of supply/demand, just admit it.

Pttfff, "my leader", how ignorant of you. If you are just going to dedicate time to distracting the discussion with crap like this, just admit you have no interest in debating real issues.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What would you say is the will of the little people? Our country, according to the polls, is split down the middle between the major political parties, Republican and Democrat

The polls have never, nor will ever, contrue what the "will of the people" is.

It will only reflect the will of the "voting public". The 33 million people in the USA living below the poverty line do not bother to vote; they are too busy trying to make sure their children do not starve or freeze to death.

In addition, you do realise that the differance between a republican and a democrat are negligible, and according to a communists are nil?

BOTH parties support the exploitation of surplus value from the masses to maintain profit.

BOTH parties religious domination of the will of the masses.

BOTH parties have nothing to gain yet everything to lose by introducing a socialist economic platform.

Furthermore, we both know that the "polls" most truly represent only one ideology; those that have the luxury of counting the votes.


You will not convince me that there is some secret communist majority being repressed by the Rich White Man.


Secret?

Quite the contrary.

The US government (yes, they most certainly are rich, white guys; unless of course you are blind to reality) has been more than forthcoming and incredibly public about their repression of the communist movement for decades. Where have you been? Pluto?

[redstar2000]

. However, I do consider those overly-large skyscrapers as great, inspirational monuments of human accomplishment.

I do not understand how egotistical stupidity, if on a sufficiently grand scale, becomes "inspirational".


I actually figured my argument was based on common sense; we see management all around us, and it serves a very important purpose.

We certainly do see it all around us; however its purpose, other than dick-waving, is rather obscure.

Granting decision-making authority to one person or a small group of people does not, in fact, work very well at all...it does "get things done" but the things that get done mostly range from the incredibly stupid to the horrifyingly atrocious.

What are the "good management decisions" that you can "match up" against two world wars, the Holocaust, two atomic bombs detonated over cities, raging environmental pollution, etc., etc., etc.???

If you want to invoke "common sense", please explain to me why "the people in charge" do not deserve summary execution for a nearly endless list of crimes against humanity.

Not to mention monumental incompetence and grand theft, of course.


Not true; you may have only your labor to sell, but it will never be a sacrifice if you are getting something in return.

How little will you accept? That's what every employer is interested in.

In America, a growing number of minimum-wage workers live in their cars.

Something to look forward to, eh?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Daymare17]

"If you had to shoot one common man or woman, innocent, a mother or a father of a children, liked and loved among friends to implant your utopia on this planet, would you do that?"

Yes I would. However, the point is, I cannot see ANY situation in which that would help the revolution! To base means correspond base ends.

Here is a quote from Trotsky's Their Morals And Ours (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936/1936-mor.htm), probably the best work on Marxist morality. It tackles your point right on.

"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.

“We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?’ sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. It irreconcilably counteracts not only religious dogma but every kind of idealistic fetish, these philosophic gendarmes of the ruling class. It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws.

“Just the same,’ the moralist continues to insist, "does it mean that in the class struggle against capitalists all means are permissible: lying, frame-up, betrayal, murder, and so on?’ Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle. Precisely from this it flows that not all means are permissible. When we say that the end justifies the means, then for us the conclusion follows that the great revolutionary end spurns those base means and ways which set one part of the working class against other parts, or attempt to make the masses happy without their participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organization, replacing it by worship for the "leaders". Primarily and irreconcilably, revolutionary morality rejects servility in relation to the bourgeoisie and haughtiness in relation to the toilers, that is, those characteristics in which petty bourgeois pedants and moralists are thoroughly steeped.

These criteria do not, of course, give a ready answer to the question as to what is permissible and what is not permissible in each separate case. There can be no such automatic answers. Problems of revolutionary morality are fused with the problems of revolutionary strategy and tactics. The living experience of the movement under the clarification of theory provides the correct answer to these problems.

Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end. The immediate end becomes the means for a further end. In his play, Franz von Sickingen, Ferdinand Lassalle puts the following words into the mouth of one of the heroes:

..... ‘Show not the goal
But show also the path. So closely interwoven
Are path and goal that each with other
Ever changes, and other pathe forthwith
Another goal set up.”
Lassalle’s lines are not at all perfect. Still worse is the fact that in practical politics Lassalle himself diverged from the above expressed precept—it is sufficient to recall that he went as far as secret agreements with Bismark! But the dialectic inter-dependence between means and end is expressed entirely correctly in the above-quoted sentences. Seeds of wheat must be sown in order to yield an ear of wheat.

Is individual terror, for example, permissible or impermissible from the point of view of ‘pure morals"? In this abstract form the question does not exist at all for us. Conservative Swiss bourgeois even now render official praise to the terrorist William Tell. Our sympathies are fully on the side of Irish, Russian, Polish or Hindu terrorists in their struggle against national and political oppression. The assassinated Kirov, a rude satrap, does not call forth any sympathy. Our relation to the assassin remains neutral only because we know not what motives guided him. If it became known that Nikolayev acted as a conscious avenger for workers’ rights trampled upon by Kirov, our sympathies would be fully on the side of the assassin. However, not the question of subjective motives but that of objective expediency has for us the decisive significance. Are the given means really capable of leading to the goal? In relation to individual terror, both theory and experience bear witness that such is not the case. To the terrorist we say: it is impossible to replace the masses; only in the mass movement can you find expedient expression for your heroism. However, under conditions of civil war, the assination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror. If, we shall say, a revolutionist bombed General Franco and his staff into the air, it would hardly evoke moral indignation even from the democratic eunuchs Under the conditions of civil war a similar act would be politically completely expedient. Thus, even in the sharpest question -- murder of man by man—moral absolutes prove futile. Moral evaluations, together with those political, flow from the inner needs of struggle.

The liberation of the workers can come only through the workers themselves. There is, therefore, no greater crime than deceiving the masses, palming off defeats as victories, friends as enemies, bribing workers’ leaders, fabricating legends, staging false trials, in a word, doing what the Stalinists do. These means can serve only one end: lengthening the domination of a clique already condemned by history. But they cannot serve to liberate the masses. That is why the Fourth International leads against Stalinism a life and death struggle."

[Sasha]

Originally posted by LuZhiming+--> (LuZhiming)I would ask you to expand on that. I don't even know what exactly you're talking about when you say "some sort of big government." Marxists believe in taking control of the Capitalist state and turning it into a workers revolutionary state, which eventually would cause the destruction of the state and the forming of a new society, if that's what you mean.[/b]
Right, but before you destroy the state, you need to redistribute the wealth (I’m being careful not to use the word “money”). This means you need to have big government before no government. I’ve always thought that aspiring communists (or pseudo-communists) got to the big part and never left it.


Originally posted by LuZhiming+--> (LuZhiming)I simply pointed out that you were a bit off, if those motivations and organization were not successfully created, then it wasn't ever a Communist society. Do you understand? The issue I was trying to make you understand is that if your predictions are true, Communism can never come into existance, not that it would never work efficiently if it came into existance.[/b]
I understand loud and clear, though the implications of what you’re saying are outrageous. It means that no matter how much they wanted to be communist, and how much preperation they put into becoming communist, if their state ends up not meeting their expectations, they can shove it off as simply not being communism and try again. For the sake of mankind, you need to accept the possibility that the outcomes expected by Marx are not compatible with the system that will supposedly get them there.


Originally posted by LuZhiming

Oh! So they should have restrictions on what they can make/do. But, instead of money being the force that restricts them...
No, as is becoming common, you're putting words into my mouth. I never suggested anyone had the right to force restrictions on others. I said that people would work together Democratically and decide together what to do.
I can see why it seems like I put words in your mouth, tho it wasn’t my intention. I understand that you don’t seek to apply actual physical force to get people to make/do useful things. But you do need some way to get them to, and it seems that you’re saying they will just *agree* to it. I think money is a greater motivation. I’ll explain in the next few quotes.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
But I'm not quite sure what you're implying when you say that this system would be as wasteful or more wasteful, since you offer no explanation to anything you say here and merely respond with mindless dribble.
You’re right that I didn’t provide an explanation. I sometimes will wrongfully assume that you understand me.

Anyway, my explanation is that if people are to simply gather together and discuss their needs, it will be plagued with the same problems that any central economic planning has ever had. Without money, you will need a small group of people to analyze polls or other statistical methods to find out what the needs area. It is complex, and its flexibility is limited to how often these people get together. If you can think of another way for democratic economic planning to work, be prepared to say it in your reply.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
You do not give an arguement for how money is a great way to show what current "demands" are
Again the same apologetic disclaimer as above.

Greed is good, because it makes you gravitate towards profitable ventures. i.e. the ones in greatest demand. That is why money “forces” businessmen and investors to constantly seek to meet peoples’ needs. If you start selling a useless product or invest in a useless business, you’ll lose money. Money encourages you to be frugal as well, because whether you’re the businessman or the consumer, being frugal saves you money. Those capitalists who aren’t at all frugal just aren’t greedy enough.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Why do all those cars have to be the exact same? Why do they need one person to design them all?
Again, if you want people to make each car individually, going back to pre-industrial production methods, cars (and other products) will be extremely expensive. The businesses will either go out of business (all the workers losing their jobs in the process), or be forced to switch back to mass production.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
From your comments above, you apparently agree with the comments that only a small, elite amount of people are allowed to have any creativity, and that therefore the only motivation or incentive for the rest is profit.
Yep. When you are poor, you literally cannot afford engaging in non-profitable work.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
First off, it's not a fact that most people prefer physical work over analytic work. You may think that is so, but it's pretty arrogant and stupid to pretend that that is somehow a fact.
I didn’t say “most”, I said “many”. Many people prefer physical work because they have different personalities. Those who don’t, but need to do the work anyway to survive, are out of luck. They’ve just got to strive to escape poverty by working hard.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Don't you think the two combine? Or to give you a more clear question, can't someone doing physical work come up with their own way to build that car, even if in the same design as that one person created?
Not if they are poor. Combining these two will undoubtedly not be profitable, so only relatively well-off people who can afford the profit loss can do it.


Originally posted by LuZhiming

"Renting" is a weird term. They give labor, the boss gives money. It is a trade on an equal level.
Hahaha, the person who owns the business gives you a job and pay, you do work. A person gives a another who owns a house pay, and he gives them their house. In the latter case you rent the house, in the former you rent yourself. That's pretty easy to understand.
You’re right, “renting” makes sense. Tho, it loses its “degrading” meaning when you consider that everyone who works for someone else is actually renting themselves. Are you ready to claim that most, or even a noticable fraction, of those who “rent” themselves to their employers, feel degraded?


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Please, try thinking. It makes sense that I picked selections from the time of the Industrial Revolution in Massachusetts, at a time when workers had a labor press.

Originally posted by LuZhiming
They condemned the "new spirit of the age" which they described as "gain wealth, forgetting all but self." . . . It had nothing to do with "working conditions" and other fantasies you create to back up your own wonderful arguement, which you base on personal experiences, truly convincing.
Understood; working conditions and social conditions had absolutely nothing to do with their psychological feeling of being degraded. Their feelings were caused solely by the “new spirit of the age” (greed?), meaning their thoughts should still exist among today’s workers.

You know why this doesn’t make sense? Degradation isn’t compatible with greed. Degradation means a loss of self-esteem, a feeling of belittlement. Greed means self-serving behavior; you ask for a job for selfish reasons, the employer accepts you for selfish reasons. How does the latter have anything to do with the former?


Originally posted by LuZhiming

Further, how do I know this was a majority opinion?
You don't, but it's not exactly relivant is it?
If it was held by the majority, it would prove that these feelings of being degraded were not an anomoly of this particular factory, of this particular group of girls.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Then why have so much advertising? Why so much focus on creating superficial realities where everybody's doing it and such?
You have shown no evidence that this is what they’re focusing on. I see plenty of commercials that focus on utilitarian reasons why you should buy their product. Certainly people will sometimes buy things because they are in, tho I’m guessing this is a natural desire to be part of the group, not a cause of capitalism.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
Right, so are pizza guys, workers at McDonalds, and trashmen really trying to be "productive and frugal"?
They are forced to work at a certain level of efficiency or lose their job. You should go to McDonalds sometime and witness the amazing productivity level they have there. The businessmen behind it certainly made it a priority to their success. Of course, the poor quality of their food is what keeps them from putting fine restaraunts out of business.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
But then there are other things money can convince people to do in the name of competition. Like, for example, creating misleading and dishonest advertisements to attract customers to beat out the next guy. Or to temporarily cut prices to attract more customers while making huge profits to drive everyone else in the field out of business, and then remake everything in crappy quality to save money or force people to buy more of the products, which in turn becomes extremely successful because previous methods have created a monopoly on that service. Don't tell me it hasn't happened. Are all of those things good too?
I hope you know, fraud is considered a form of force, thus companies aren’t allowed to lie through their teeth in their commercials.

As for cutting prices and killing competition, that’s the beauty of capitalism. If you can’t match their prices, you’re out! If they lower the quality of the product, the competition won’t go away, for the same reasons that McDonalds doesn’t make fine restaurants go away.

I wouldn’t dream of saying that monopolies haven’t happened. Oh, they have. But the only explanation for their existence is government subsidies. As long as the govt doesn’t give hand-outs to certain companies, it will always be possible to compete with them. Just make a cheaper or better-quality product/service.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
It's much more natural for people to enjoy, for example, spending time with other people, a very uncostly activity, than to become materialist as fuck and spend all they can to buy video games and things like that over and over and over.
I agree, too much of anything is bad. Anyone who plays video games as much as you’re implying is unhealthy. I wouldn’t go so far as saying it is a failure of the capitalist system. I am completely healthy, and I’m not alone. Parents need to take more responsibility in raising their children. Such responsibility has waned over time due to big-government leftists who try to make the government take some of that responsibility with all kinds of “positive rights”.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
I am dying to hear your explanations for how a person working at McDonalds, or a trashman, or even a person working at a bank is engaging in creativity, without breaking those boundaries which ensure efficiency.
They aren’t engaging in creativity. These are blue-collar jobs meant to bring home the bacon, not stimulate you intellectually. The hope is that not many people will have to stay at this level their whole lives.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
When you control the way people think, it's very difficult for others with much less advantages to be able to change that, thus they will often be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" and the like.
So your problem is that you just can’t convince anyone, right? This isn’t something you can complain to anyone about. If your idea isn’t represented in the mainstream media, your only option is a grassroots movement with local clubs and websites like this one.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
But then again, is it healthy at all to have competition and make businesses out of media? Doesn't that hamper free speech and the truth? Are businesses ever going to dedicate themselves to telling the truth? The answer is no, they are going to follow the laws of Capitalism, by dedicating themselves to making profits.
And to get profits, you must build up an audience that trusts you. And you can be sure that your competition is going to be looking for any half-truths in your reporting. There are plenty of motivations not to lie.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
And besides, you're still going to have to explain your little theory about 'working to get to the top,' since none of the current mainstream media newspapers, television channels, radio stations, and others ever worked to get anywhere, they were simply given corporate rights by courts.
The “corporate rights by courts” thing is news to me, but even if it is true, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to get where they are without the courts nudging you along. My proof is that it happens all the time in every other sector. Why should it be different for the media?


Originally posted by LuZhiming
And even this is still ignoring the question of MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr: "Ok then, why can't I be heard on a mass media network? You mean to tell me I have to broadcast my own or get some big publishing corporation to print my material? I thought even you would understand that only a handful of billionaires have a complete monopoly over all the information any person watching TV or reading a magazine would recieve by the media." That's a good question. Why? Is it for the economy? What about free speech and freedom of the press?
You guys always confuse positive and negative rights. Freedom of speech/press means you can say what you want within your own powers without violating the rights of others, not that you can appear on any show or newspaper you want. If FOX or CNN doesn’t want you on, too bad.


Originally posted by LuZhiming
But humans are not forced, we don't have that sort of instinct, we have a choice. The question is, since we can all carry out individual ideas, can we somehow equally decide together how to carry out our ideas and create a successful, healthy, and better system by this?
Right, and my argument for why collective decision-making is made is that post (now two posts back) when I mention the pyramids.


[email protected]
For a long time, people used to not have leaders, they were bands, they lived usually off hunting or fising, and everyone was forced to share everything to live(reciprocity). Things changed and developements were made, and bands turned into tribes, and tribes later turned into chiefdoms, and chiefdoms turned into civilizations.
So you’re talking about very small groups of people? Although I’m still skeptical that they didn’t have any ruling heirarchy, it’s easy to see why heirarchy would’ve been more apparent as the societies grew. Large construction projects and other jobs must have needed leaders to guide the processes.


LuZhiming
Pttfff, "my leader", how ignorant of you. If you are just going to dedicate time to distracting the discussion with crap like this, just admit you have no interest in debating real issues.
Um, so you’re not going to answer me? It’s okay if you’re not, I just don’t like it when people evade like cowards. If you admit that you have no way of eliminating the factor of supply/demand, everything will be kool :)

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)The polls have never, nor will ever, contrue what the "will of the people" is.[/b]
If you don't trust the polls, how about the elections? Look at every single election held in the US, and you will come to understand that the majority opinion lies parallel with what ideologies are represented in the media.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)It will only reflect the will of the "voting public". The 33 million people in the USA living below the poverty line do not bother to vote; they are too busy trying to make sure their children do not starve or freeze to death.[/b]
First of all, this doesn't say anything about whether or not they are communist. Secondly, that's still a minority. According to the the FEC (http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm), voter turnout last election was 105,586,274. Obviously, most of them voted for one of the two major parties. Considering the many millions who also align themselves with the reps or dems, but didn't vote, there is overwhelming evidence of what the prevailing opinions in our country are.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF
In addition, you do realise that the differance between a republican and a democrat are negligible, and according to a communists are nil?
I differentiate them as follows: Republicans want to control your personal life, but not your economic life. Democrats want to control your economic life, but not your personal life. I regard both as both as bad, but republicans are better capitalists, so I like them more.


Originally posted by Comrade RAF
The US government (yes, they most certainly are rich, white guys; unless of course you are blind to reality) has been more than forthcoming and incredibly public about their repression of the communist movement for decades. Where have you been? Pluto?
Of course there has been repression, but that doesn't mean there really is a sizeable amount of communist sentiment.


Originally posted by redstar2000
I do not understand how egotistical stupidity, if on a sufficiently grand scale, becomes "inspirational".
Remember, buddy, I'm a capitalist. When it comes to humanity, I'm as egotistical as it gets. I'm proud to be a human, and even prouder to be an American. Now, I've never lived in a big city, so I've never actually stood at the base of a skyscraper. But I bet I'll be in awe when I do. It encapsulates the extent of our abilities, and I always experience a delightful emotional reaction to such things. Of course, it's easy to see why you guys seek to eliminate such emotions. You don't like success and accomplishment. You derive your respect of a man from the extend of his suffering.


[email protected]
Granting decision-making authority to one person or a small group of people does not, in fact, work very well at all...it does "get things done" but the things that get done mostly range from the incredibly stupid to the horrifyingly atrocious.

What are the "good management decisions" that you can "match up" against two world wars, the Holocaust, two atomic bombs detonated over cities, raging environmental pollution, etc., etc., etc.???
Yes, it can go both ways. With central planning, we've been able to accomplish everything, and destroy everything too. Do you want to eliminate the latter, at the expense of the former? Do you want to handicap everyone from doing anything, in fear that what they may do will be bad? War is hell, and those who initiate it should be punished, but they will surely take advantage of central planning no matter how much you restrict it. Getting rid of it will do nothing but punish those who mean good, those who seek large-scale accomplishment.


redstar2000

Not true; you may have only your labor to sell, but it will never be a sacrifice if you are getting something in return.
How little will you accept? That's what every employer is interested in.
I'd ask the same question if I was an employer. That is, unless there's a labor shortage, in which case they'd be asking me how much I'm willing to pay. I wonder if your bleeding heart would give a sh** about me then.

[Louis Pio]

Remember, buddy, I'm a capitalist.

Not unless you own a factory or some firm giving you some good profits

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:30 PM

Not unless you own a factory or some firm giving you some good profits
Sorry, Teis, you are absolutely wrong on this one.

Again, I advise you leftists to look up "capitalist" in a dictionary, or go to dictionary.com and look up the word "captialist". There are multiple definitions for "capitalist" that fit the capitalists on this board.

I've cut/pasted the definition too many times already, I don't want to continue spoon-feeding the facts to you.

Do your homework before you post, sir.

[Karo de Perro]

I could go off on a rant filled with volumes of pretenious words,could point out this and that as means to validate myself as one of the great pontificators of socialist thought but why the hell would anyone knowingly do this? ... well the answer is simple - ego!

Therefore let me cut to the chase and point out one thing at a time,in this case the thing is machinery,we live in a mechanized society and capitalism is fueled by the manipulation of the few who service and operate their slave-masters machinery ... in a society where a machine does the work of fifty men then its time to destroy the machine.

[Louis Pio]

Well my point was that he probably just supports capitalism and thus calls himself capitalist. That is indeed a wrong way to use the word. I don't know if the word has gotten another meaning in America, but that doesn't make it more right.
A capitalist is someone who employs people and get a surplus value from their work. (roughly)
One could also assert that a stockbroker is a capitalist since he gambles with the stocks and get some value out of the work other people do.

Edit, dictionary on capitalist: capitalist

\Cap"i*tal*ist\, n. [Cf. F. capitaliste.] One who has capital; one who has money for investment, or money invested; esp. a person of large property, which is employed in business.

And here's a more dubious one: capitalist

adj 1: of or relating to capitalism or capitalists; "a capitalist nation"; "capitalistic methods and incentives" [syn: capitalistic] 2: favoring or practicing capitalism [syn: capitalistic] [ant: socialistic] n 1: an advocate of capitalism [syn: rugged individualist] 2: a person who invests capital in a business (especially a large business)


Anyway the original meaning of the word capitalist, which was in fact invented by the socialists is one that accumulates wealth. The change of meaning of the word into someone who also supports it, is from a linguistic point of view rather dubious.

[Louis Pio]

in a society where a machine does the work of fifty men then its time to destroy the machine.



No, the machine should be used for the good of all instead of dreaming ourselves back to feudal times.

[Karo de Perro]

"No, the machine should be used for the good of all instead of dreaming ourselves back to feudal times." - Teis.

I tell you what friend,you keep the machine ... but tell me this ... why? and who really shall profit from it? ... its owner of course.

Use the machine for the good of all? ... really? ... while the machine is clankin away,spittin and sputtering,the gears turnin and the oil heatin there shall be men deprived of the work which this damn machine does.

Does a machine have muscles in need of exercise? ... does it have a sense of self-worth which becomes debased at the thought of not being able to defend its integrity by hard work? ... does this damn machine have a wife and children to support? ... Fuck NO!

So you keep this damn machine ... but were a truly socialist society to emerge then your fuckin machine shall rust away from idleness and you shall whither away in this madness of thinking that a mechanized world is the answer to mankinds problems.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:35 PM
Well my point was that he probably just supports capitalism and thus calls himself capitalist. That is indeed a wrong way to use the word. I don't know if the word has gotten another meaning in America, but that doesn't make it more right.
A capitalist is someone who employs people and get a surplus value from their work. (roughly)
One could also assert that a stockbroker is a capitalist since he gambles with the stocks and get some value out of the work other people do.
By definition, someone who supports capitalism is a capitalist.

It is a common myth among those who don't truly understand the American free maret that investing is synonomous with gambling. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. As opposed to the purely statistical-probability of casino games, dice, or cards, true investment takes into account a lot of variables, incuding, but not limited to, research based on historical data, industry considerations, currency fluctuations, emerging markets, market conditions, and world economic fluctuations.

I would say that successful investors never make money by "letting it ride".

[Louis Pio]

Shit man you are truely more reactionary than even capitalist imperial.

How do you propose we feed all of the population of the world without using machines?

Use the machine for the good of all? ... really? ... while the machine is clankin away,spittin and sputtering,the gears turnin and the oil heatin there shall be men deprived of the work which this damn machine does.


Yes and people can use their time on other things. That's the aim of socialism, not that we should work even more as you envisions.


Does a machine have muscles in need of exercise? ... does it have a sense of self-worth which becomes debased at the thought of not being able to defend its integrity by hard work? ... does this damn machine have a wife and children to support? ... Fuck NO!


No but what's your point? If a socialist society uses the machine for the good of all then there is no problem.


So you keep this damn machine ... but were a truly socialist society to emerge then your fuckin machine shall rust away from idleness and you shall whither away in this madness of thinking that a mechanized world is the answer to mankinds problems.

Sorry but you are indeed weird. You want to turn the wheels of time back. All the progress we have made you want to throw in the thrascan. Medicine etc. Your society would be one of hunger, disease and short living age.

[Louis Pio]

It is a common myth among those who don't truly understand the American free maret that investing is synonomous with gambling. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. As opposed to the purely statistical-probability of casino games, dice, or cards, true investment takes into account a lot of variables, incuding, but not limited to, research based on historical data, industry considerations, currency fluctuations, emerging markets, market conditions, and world economic fluctuations.


But it's still a form of gambling. Further more it destabalises the economy by creating bubbles and leading to inflation.
A good article on the subject The class struggle and the economic cycle (Once again on the World Economy) (http://www.marxist.com/Economy/class_struggle_and_econ.html)


By definition, someone who supports capitalism is a capitalist.


Not by the original definition. Using the word in such a sense even creates a mishmash because some people then ends up being both workers and capitalists. Of course if it makes you better using that definition just do it, i'll stick to the original. (which is still the same in most other languages).

[Capitalist Imperial]

But it's still a form of gambling. Further more it destabalises the economy by creating bubbles and leading to inflation.
A good article on the subject The class struggle and the economic cycle (Once again on the World Economy) (http://www.marxist.com/Economy/class_struggle_and_econ.html)



Not by the original definition. Using the word in such a sense even creates a mishmash because some people then ends up being both workers and capitalists. Of course if it makes you better using that definition just do it, i'll stick to the original. (which is still the same in most other languages).

Not by the original definition. Using the word in such a sense even creates a mishmash because some people then ends up being both workers and capitalists. Of course if it makes you better using that definition just do it, i'll stick to the original. (which is still the same in most other languages).

[QUOTE] But it's still a form of gambling.
No, its not.


Further more it destabalises the economy by creating bubbles and leading to inflation.

No it doesn't, it creates wealth and strengthens the economy through individual investment in enterprise.


Not by the original definition. Using the word in such a sense even creates a mishmash because some people then ends up being both workers and capitalists. Of course if it makes you better using that definition just do it, i'll stick to the original. (which is still the same in most other languages).


Show me where your definition is "the original". As far as I'm concererned, there has always been more than one, and I've produced it, with source, on this board multiple times. Produce yours and cite your source.

[Karo de Perro]

"Shit man you are truely more reactionary than even capitalist imperial.' ...

"Sorry but you are indeed weird. You want to turn the wheels of time back." - Teis." ...

What the hell did you expect? ... revolutionaries are fuckin radicals and I see no cause for shame in this!

[DaCuBaN]

Freedom of speech/press means you can say what you want within your own powers

So in otherwords, this 'right' actually counts for about as much as a piss in the ocean?


in a society where a machine does the work of fifty men then its time to destroy the machine

No machine, just like humans, can be entirely independant - to retain your own analogy: the oil must be changed; gears must be lubed; belts must be inspected and changed and countless other tasks

The problem is not the machine, but mans inability to 'keep up' with technology - perhaps this is tied to the increased lifespan we have attained? In truth, I'm merely hyopthesising...


Does a machine have muscles in need of exercise? ... does it have a sense of self-worth which becomes debased at the thought of not being able to defend its integrity by hard work? ... does this damn machine have a wife and children to support?

And what of the machines designer? Why is this even a problem if the machines are owned by their operators.


the original meaning of the word capitalist, which was in fact invented by the socialists is one that accumulates wealth

Different words mean different things to different people - If I asked Capitalist Imperial and Comrade RAF to both fill their pants with custard (and they agreed), I'd get entirely different results.


It is a common myth among those who don't truly understand the American free maret that investing is synonomous with gambling. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. As opposed to the purely statistical-probability of casino games, dice, or cards, true investment takes into account a lot of variables, incuding, but not limited to, research based on historical data, industry considerations, currency fluctuations, emerging markets, market conditions, and world economic fluctuations.


'Stocks' are in fact gambling more than the act itself: In gambling (such as roulette) you are facing simple mathematical odds as to the 'chance' of the ball landing on the right spot. With the stocks system you have no such mathematical certainty and hence you are taking a risk: ergo, gambling.



I would say that successful investors never make money by "letting it ride".

I would say that succesful gamblers never make money by 'letting it ride' - the odds of getting the same number on a roulette wheel twice in a row are stupendous - only a madman would do such a thing.

Perhaps roulette isn't the greatest analogy here: Draw Poker, as an example could function - You get dealt your hand and you choose which cards to buy... sometimes you win, sometimes you lose...

So yes, stocks are a form of gambling: no amount of sidestepping will avoid this issue. It may be infinitely more complex, but that's worse - it turns it into eliteist gambling.


it creates wealth and strengthens the economy through individual investment in enterprise

Tell me where the money is then? Every government in the world is in the red as are a vast quantity of it's citizens.

I'm beginning to think none of it even exists... and given that it's an intellectual construct in the first place, that's something!


revolutionaries are fuckin radicals and I see no cause for shame in this!

Perhaps, but bear in mind that I for example work in electronics and computers - such a system would leave me with no work, despite the fact that a lot of what I do could save a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of time.

Besides, Messr Pot, you tried this once before. Guess what happened? ;)

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Sasha+Jul 21 2004, 04:09 AM--> (Sasha @ Jul 21 2004, 04:09 AM)Right, but before you destroy the state, you need to redistribute the wealth (I’m being careful not to use the word “money”). This means you need to have big government before no government. I’ve always thought that aspiring communists (or pseudo-communists) got to the big part and never left it. [/b]

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "big." A government involving all of the people would be "big" (I think), I do not see a reason why it cannot redistribute the wealth.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
I understand loud and clear, though the implications of what you’re saying are outrageous. It means that no matter how much they wanted to be communist, and how much preperation they put into becoming communist, if their state ends up not meeting their expectations, they can shove it off as simply not being communism and try again. For the sake of mankind, you need to accept the possibility that the outcomes expected by Marx are not compatible with the system that will supposedly get them there.

....And if that's the case, Communism cannot exist. Your general example is funny, don't you think if someone failed to create a Communist state, others could say it failed, and try again? A failure does not prove something an impossibility, that will not change whether or not they think they failed because they carried out Communism inefficiently or because they realize they failed to carry out Communism. I never suggested that the possibility of the outcomes expected by Marx proving not to be compatible with the "system" and the methods used to get there. I was only saying that, if that is the case in a particular example, then Communism was not carried out in that example, and that if it's the case for all attempts, then Communism can never be carried out. There is nothing outrageous about that, in fact I would say most Capitalists tend to agree with that statement, in my experience most Capitalists tend to believe that Communism can never be carried out because it's against human nature. But arguing that the ideas of Communism are inefficient once carried out, to me, sounds outrageous.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
I can see why it seems like I put words in your mouth, tho it wasn’t my intention. I understand that you don’t seek to apply actual physical force to get people to make/do useful things. But you do need some way to get them to, and it seems that you’re saying they will just *agree* to it. I think money is a greater motivation. I’ll explain in the next few quotes.

No, I don't think people are just going to agree to anything, it will require sacrifices from everyone, but not forced ones. So how do you get that far, and why would people want to? I personally think the fact that this system would be better, that it will make workers enjoy their jobs more, that it will make the world better, and general solidarity and common humanity is what will convince, not force, the people to agree to the system and its demands. It is really that simple. If workers believe the system will make their life better, I think they will naturally choose to make sacrifices for it, it doesn't take much to get slaves to want to free themselves from slavery if they think they can actually do it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Anyway, my explanation is that if people are to simply gather together and discuss their needs, it will be plagued with the same problems that any central economic planning has ever had. Without money, you will need a small group of people to analyze polls or other statistical methods to find out what the needs area. It is complex, and its flexibility is limited to how often these people get together. If you can think of another way for democratic economic planning to work, be prepared to say it in your reply.

Very true, you will need a small group of people to analyze. For the record, I am not suggesting that thousands of people get together and argue in a room, that won't work, but that a group of people on particular issues of economic planning will elect a representative to best articulate their views on the issue. Furthermore, yes, you will need a small group of people to find out what the exact needs are, but that isn't at all comparable to centrally planned economies. In centrally planned economies, big brother decides what to do, period. The problem in centrally planned economies isn't that the people counting the votes get extra power from this responsibility, but that there are no votes at all. I really do not see the problem with having small amounts of people counting votes, that's simply their job. Also, I don't think it's as complex as you think. I'm now speaking hypotheticallyk, it isn't as if people will have to get together every day and decide what everyone does, many of these things will be decided on in the beginning of the Revolution with long-term planning, and when some of those things prove to be problematic, then those issues will be addressed. There will be plenty of mistakes to be dealt with, but I nonetheless believe that the complexity of it is nothing like you would suggest it is.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Greed is good, because it makes you gravitate towards profitable ventures. i.e. the ones in greatest demand. That is why money “forces” businessmen and investors to constantly seek to meet peoples’ needs. If you start selling a useless product or invest in a useless business, you’ll lose money. Money encourages you to be frugal as well, because whether you’re the businessman or the consumer, being frugal saves you money. Those capitalists who aren’t at all frugal just aren’t greedy enough.

But here's the problem that at least, I think will exist, what's in demand is not always what's 'good.' You can mislead and trick people into wanting things. "Useless" is quite subjective after all.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Again, if you want people to make each car individually, going back to pre-industrial production methods, cars (and other products) will be extremely expensive. The businesses will either go out of business (all the workers losing their jobs in the process), or be forced to switch back to mass production.

That's only the case under the assumption that production will be lower. And that is not necessarily the case. There are plenty of people who are simply unemployed in Capitalism already. There are plenty of people whose only "job" is to put these cars on the market in some way, or to advertise them, or to sell them directly to a customer, or to do the work with the contracts, etc. I think all of that is unnecessary and wasteful, and without those pointless occupations, and with full employment and eliminating of other wasteful occupations, there would be plenty of production for whatever is necessary, there are certainly plenty of people in the world to do so. When you say cars will become extremely expensive, you're still talking about Capitalist systems, Communists believe in the abolition of capital.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Not if they are poor. Combining these two will undoubtedly not be profitable, so only relatively well-off people who can afford the profit loss can do it.

Again, we're talking about Communism, that "not if they are poor" statement does not cut it when the discussion is about a classless society. Anyway, why won't it be profitable?


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Tho, it loses its “degrading” meaning when you consider that everyone who works for someone else is actually renting themselves. Are you ready to claim that most, or even a noticable fraction, of those who “rent” themselves to their employers, feel degraded?

That in no way lessens the belief, the whole reason it's degrading is because the person is working for someone else and not getting equal beneifts from whatever they're doing. In regards to your question, I don't want to "claim" it, since I don't mean to imply I literally know that for sure, but I do believe most if not all people do feel degraded renting themselves to other people.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Understood; working conditions and social conditions had absolutely nothing to do with their psychological feeling of being degraded. Their feelings were caused solely by the “new spirit of the age” (greed?), meaning their thoughts should still exist among today’s workers.

You know why this doesn’t make sense? Degradation isn’t compatible with greed. Degradation means a loss of self-esteem, a feeling of belittlement. Greed means self-serving behavior; you ask for a job for selfish reasons, the employer accepts you for selfish reasons. How does the latter have anything to do with the former?

How are they not compatible? "Self-serving" is not self-confident. And let me elaborate on what I meant by "degrading" since the word can be interpreted a few ways. Degradation isn't just being put into a state of having lack of self-esteem, it could be into disrepute. That's what I meant, you might say "disgraceful" is a better way of putting it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
If it was held by the majority, it would prove that these feelings of being degraded were not an anomoly of this particular factory, of this particular group of girls.

Right, just like you saying you have never heard someone refer to renting oneself as degrading, does not mean those people were in the majority. But for the record I was just throwing in an easy example since you said "never." Frankly, I highly doubt any of us have evidence that a majority holds either opinion. That's a subjective judgement.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
You have shown no evidence that this is what they’re focusing on. I see plenty of commercials that focus on utilitarian reasons why you should buy their product. Certainly people will sometimes buy things because they are in, tho I’m guessing this is a natural desire to be part of the group, not a cause of capitalism.

Wait a second, utilitarian reasons certainly exist, but those are for useful products of course, someone advertising what's needed will certainly use those. But that doesn't apply to what we were talking about, like video games for the example. There's nothing utilitarian about advertisements for those. Not one avertisement focuses on the usefulness of video games. And it's understandable why, it wouldn't work, there are no advertisements saying how video games will stimulate focus or something like that, because their stupid arguements which don't work for video games. You laughably say this is part of a natural desire to be part of the group, but advertisement is how those "groups" are created. Rarely do they get together and make a conscious decision to all buy a certain product, trends don't work that way.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
They are forced to work at a certain level of efficiency or lose their job. You should go to McDonalds sometime and witness the amazing productivity level they have there. The businessmen behind it certainly made it a priority to their success. Of course, the poor quality of their food is what keeps them from putting fine restaraunts out of business.

:lol: I have been to plenty of McDonalds and none of them have had all of their workers doing their best to produce this food quickly. The level of efficiency they are forced to work at is very low, like you can't take 30 minutes to produce this food, or you can't get caught pissing the the food, but rarely is anyone seriously trying very hard to do anything in these places. Again, no one is allowed to try to for example, improve the quality of the food.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
I hope you know, fraud is considered a form of force, thus companies aren’t allowed to lie through their teeth in their commercials.

:rolleyes: Oh please, anyone can make a misleading advertisement without getting into trouble. You generally have to be incredibly blatant and stupid to actually make an advertisement which would get one into trouble.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
As for cutting prices and killing competition, that’s the beauty of capitalism. If you can’t match their prices, you’re out! If they lower the quality of the product, the competition won’t go away, for the same reasons that McDonalds doesn’t make fine restaurants go away.

Right, and when "you're out" you experience to beauties of Capitalism by starving. But you're not taking into account private power, you're trying to think of this scenario in "the beginning" with two businesses with equal opportunities competing against eachother. But that's not how it works! Since there wasn't equality when Capitalism formed, there was not equal opportunity, and so the sort of lowering prices and other tactics will be easiest to use from the business or person who starts off with more resources, and so the only option for the person with weaker resources(unless the other ones repeatedly makes foolish mistakes) usually is to use some kind of dirty tactic, like misleading advertising.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
I wouldn’t dream of saying that monopolies haven’t happened. Oh, they have. But the only explanation for their existence is government subsidies. As long as the govt doesn’t give hand-outs to certain companies, it will always be possible to compete with them. Just make a cheaper or better-quality product/service.

You're actually right here, government subsidies do help to increase the likelyhood of monopolies. But how is Capitalism going to work without government subsidies? It has never existed any other way. The whole Capitalist system would collapse without government subsidies. All of the Fortune 500 corporations have massive government subsidies. A lot of the things in the U.S. now hailed as great accomplishments of the "free market" like aviation, telecommunications, electronics etc. and computers in general are all heavily subsidized industries. The whole system would fall apart without government subsidies in this system.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
I agree, too much of anything is bad. Anyone who plays video games as much as you’re implying is unhealthy. I wouldn’t go so far as saying it is a failure of the capitalist system. I am completely healthy, and I’m not alone. Parents need to take more responsibility in raising their children. Such responsibility has waned over time due to big-government leftists who try to make the government take some of that responsibility with all kinds of “positive rights”.

All I'm saying in this particular part is that your claim of businesses being forced to give people what they want is ridicolous, businesses decide what people want in many cases.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
They aren’t engaging in creativity. These are blue-collar jobs meant to bring home the bacon, not stimulate you intellectually. The hope is that not many people will have to stay at this level their whole lives.

Who on earth do you expect to have most people not work at such jobs? Overwhelmingly most jobs are not ones that stimulate people intellectually.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
So your problem is that you just can’t convince anyone, right? This isn’t something you can complain to anyone about.

No, the problem is that you don't have equal access to convincing people.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
And to get profits, you must build up an audience that trusts you. And you can be sure that your competition is going to be looking for any half-truths in your reporting. There are plenty of motivations not to lie.

Oh really? So how come CNN and Fox News both have 99% of their information from highly-publicized official press releases from U.S. authorities? How come they don't actually investigate anything? How come for example, neither CNN or Fox News didn't broadcast the story of the recent Iraqi puppet Allawi personally executing six prisoners? They couldn't possibly have missed it, it was literally all over the foreign press.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
The “corporate rights by courts” thing is news to me, but even if it is true, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to get where they are without the courts nudging you along. My proof is that it happens all the time in every other sector. Why should it be different for the media?

It's "different" in the media because the media is highly elitist, with no opportunities. When was the last time a new mainstream media group formed which competed with the others? Well, there was Fox News..... Owned by Fox, an already rich corporation. There are no opportunities in the media. But it's not that unusual, there is no chance for new arms corporations to compete with others if you want another example.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
You guys always confuse positive and negative rights. Freedom of speech/press means you can say what you want within your own powers without violating the rights of others, not that you can appear on any show or newspaper you want. If FOX or CNN doesn’t want you on, too bad.

Freedom of the press also means the government cannot shut down labor press and the like to ensure only huge corporations can control information. Again, the very fact that the labor press and the Socialist press no longer exists is proof of the anti-free speech methods of the government.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
So you’re talking about very small groups of people?

That's so vague it's completely unanswereable. Each of the advances had a higher population if that's what you mean.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Although I’m still skeptical that they didn’t have any ruling heirarchy, it’s easy to see why heirarchy would’ve been more apparent as the societies grew. Large construction projects and other jobs must have needed leaders to guide the processes.

You can be "skeptical" all you want, but it's a fact. And then of course, you once again distract the discussion, I was simply making a small point that hierarchy is not natural and gave an example, and now you use that example to "prove" that hierarchy must be better. Of course, that's another point, and it's an extremely narrowminded and overly-simplistic reasoning, there's nothing to prove humans can't advance even further, by bringing back equality and making civilization advance even more, since there are other ways besides competition to carry out developements.


[email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 AM
Um, so you’re not going to answer me? It’s okay if you’re not, I just don’t like it when people evade like cowards. If you admit that you have no way of eliminating the factor of supply/demand, everything will be kool

Don't be so arrogant, you simply took out a small fraction of a part of my statement and mislead it. I said Communist system are not subjected to the "so-called supply demand" and consumer culture systems which you speak of so happily, meaning they don't have corporations and other tyrannical powers to supply what they decide to make in demand.