Communism vs. other ideologies

[bdw]

The difference is that liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc, can all be good friends together regardless of their political differences. However, I don't think any of these people could befriend a communist, because the communist automatically wants to "liquidate" anyone who actually works for a living. Come to think of it, that in itself is quite ironic: communists are against the death penalty, yet they support a bloody revolution to take power! Go figure. I should also point out that the Castro regume ruthlessly applies the death penalty to those who so much as question government policies.

[bdw]

This was supposed to be in the 'Opposing Ideologies' board, not here. Sorry about that.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:46 AM
anyone who actually works for a living. .
Who do you mean by this "anyone who works for a living"?

Anyone who works for a living as opposed to who?

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by "bdw"+--> ("bdw")because the communist automatically wants to "liquidate" anyone who actually works for a living.[/b]

What? Why would an ideology that promotes the cause of the worker do that?


"bdw"
Come to think of it, that in itself is quite ironic: communists are against the death penalty, yet they support a bloody revolution to take power!

I'm not at all opposed to the death penalty: I'm a promoter of it, actually. And abortion, and revolution, and...

[synthesis]

However, I don't think any of these people could befriend a communist, because the communist automatically wants to "liquidate" anyone who actually works for a living.

No, communists want to liquidate those who make a living without working for it.


I should also point out that the Castro regume ruthlessly applies the death penalty to those who so much as question government policies.

This is a total lie. The regime does discriminate against the most outspoken dissidents, but forty years of terrorist attacks, bombings, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations, and full-scale military invasions from the outside-on-in can tend to make a vanguard pretty paranoid.

[bdw]

Capitalism will ALWAYS reward those who are willing to work. Bill Gates worked for his living. Without capitalism, there wouldn't be computers nor the internet. Are you using Microsoft Windows on your computer? What a hypocrite. What type of car do you drive? Were these cars not made by "oppressed" workers? Again, you are a hypocrite. Unless you live out in the woods, eat wild animals, and wear deer skins as clothes, you are a blatant hypocrite.

As for those who do not work for their living, get over it. Some people have advantages in life. What country do you live in? Obviously not America where even the "poor" people are, by global standards, quite wealthy. Either that, or you are so full of envy and hate that you don't know which end is up. I'll let you figure that one out.

[synthesis]

BDW: What would you think of a system exactly like that which we have now, except that inheritance is completely abolished and the ensuing funds are devoted to allowing everyone equal opportunity of education?

[bdw]

Inheritance is necessary. Consider the struggle of a small family business. They work for years to make it a success, hoping to pass it down to their children. But when they die the children are faced with a 90% tax on inheritance. That is not right.

Some people are blessed with advantages in life. If not financially, then physically, or mentally. As for education, that is why we have the public education system. Those who want to continue onto college must work to get there, prove themselves by getting good grades, and if they are poor, there are plenty of scholarships and student loans. Or they could get a couple part-time jobs and work through college, as millions of people have done in the past.

By the way, I am actually against the system we have now. I believe excessive regulation have strangled the economy, resulting in fewer opportunities for American workers. I believe in getting rid of corporate welfare, corporate reform to take away their "person" status, cutting Federal spending by at least 50%, getting rid of the income tax, and establishing private retirement accounts (with a full refund of payroll taxes) for workers. Over all, I am an advocate Australian economics, except that I value protectionism for the sake of protecting American workers from the unfair competition of slave-wage labor in China and other dictatorships. I oppose Keynesian economics, though I am a firm believer in welfare when a person is truly unable to work.

I am not evil. I am not part of a conspiracy. I just want what is best for America, and will fight for what I believe would accomplish that. I'm sure you feel the same way about your beliefs. And while I strongly disagree with communism more than anything else I've ever heard, you have a right to believe in it. Don't let anyone tell you that you don't have the right to believe whatever you want.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:03 PM
Capitalism will ALWAYS reward those who are willing to work. Bill Gates worked for his living. Without capitalism, there wouldn't be computers nor the internet. Are you using Microsoft Windows on your computer? What a hypocrite. What type of car do you drive? Were these cars not made by "oppressed" workers? Again, you are a hypocrite. Unless you live out in the woods, eat wild animals, and wear deer skins as clothes, you are a blatant hypocrite.

As for those who do not work for their living, get over it. Some people have advantages in life. What country do you live in? Obviously not America where even the "poor" people are, by global standards, quite wealthy. Either that, or you are so full of envy and hate that you don't know which end is up. I'll let you figure that one out.
A large slice of people here have ditched Bill Gates' bullshit and started to use Linux and Open Office. Many others, including myself, have dispensed with Adobe's bullshit and gotten the GIMP.

But either way, you can't avoid buying things like cars and things in a capitalist society.

Some people have advantages in life. Indeed they do. And it is the duty of every socialist and communist to do their utmost to strip them of those advantages.

[synthesis]

Inheritance is necessary. Consider the struggle of a small family business. They work for years to make it a success, hoping to pass it down to their children. But when they die the children are faced with a 90% tax on inheritance. That is not right.

Ridiculous. How about the kids earn their own money?

I think it's hilarious how all these capitalists accuse us of being 'trust-fund kids' and whatnot, and then scream and sweat storms whenever we propose abolishing inheritance :rolleyes:


I am not evil. I am not part of a conspiracy.

Thanks for clarifying :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

The difference is that liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc, can all be good friends together regardless of their political differences

What do you mean can be friends?

All of the people that matter in those parties are friends!

It's only the dim wits at the bottom that fight among themselves like schoolchildren.

Tthey all sit back at the club and laugh at you dolts on the television, I'm sure they may even place a wager or two.

Here's your dollar Mortimer. :lol:


However, I don't think any of these people could befriend a communist, because the communist automatically wants to "liquidate" anyone who actually works for a living

Actually we prefer marching up and down the square silly!


Come to think of it, that in itself is quite ironic: communists are against the death penalty,

Who has time for thinking about the death penalty? We have millions of matching jumpsuits to sew! :lol:


I should also point out that the Castro regume ruthlessly applies the death penalty to those who so much as question government policies

Lie.

[The Sloth]

The difference is that liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc, can all be good friends together regardless of their political differences. However, I don't think any of these people could befriend a communist, because the communist automatically wants to "liquidate" anyone who actually works for a living.

Yes, I want to kill all my friends and all my high school teachers. Plus my parents.


Come to think of it, that in itself is quite ironic: communists are against the death penalty, yet they support a bloody revolution to take power! Go figure.

During this "bloody revolution," the only individuals that will have to be suppressed are those that are doing the exploitation. The owner of DeBeers who has Africans' hands cut off and bodies mutilated when they mine diamonds for Europe and America comes to mind. I think he deserves a bullet right in the head.

And, oh, would you mind telling us how to "take power" without revolution? I wouldn't want to resort to squeezing a pistol to keep the exploiters in check, to keep their army in check, to keep the police off my back, etc. so maybe you have a better idea?


I should also point out that the Castro regume ruthlessly applies the death penalty to those who so much as question government policies.

Yes, and that should make us question communism, because as you well know, according to Marxist economic theory, the "death penalty" plays a pivotal role! Plus, Fidel Castro is some sort of prophet on par with Jesus Christ (except Castro actually existed, of course) who cannot be questioned. :rolleyes:

Just like the capitalists Mussolini, Pinochet, Popa Doc, Baby Doc, and Adolf Hitler killed millions as it's an integral part of capitalism: "to achieve a free market, you have to exterminate Jews, kill peasants, and refuse to allow your country to prosper as all profit should be turned over to the United States." :rolleyes:

Right? Right?!?!

:rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

bdw, we do see a fair number of truly idiotic posts on this forum...but you seem to be trying real hard for the championship.


Bill Gates worked for his living.

$50 billions worth of "work"?


Without capitalism, there wouldn't be computers or the internet.

:lol:


Unless you live out in the woods, eat wild animals, and wear deer skins as clothes, you are a blatant hypocrite.

And you are simply a fool.


As for those who do not work for their living, get over it. Some people have advantages in life.

A bit of autobiographical detail here?


Either that, or you are so full of envy and hate that you don't know which end is up. I'll let you figure that one out.

You have a problem with envy and hate?

As to your question, the answer is clear: your end is "up" and my end is "down".

Envy and hate seem to me to be the appropriate response for all the "down" folks.

Especially hate! :D

:redstar2000:

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

[bdw]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:23 AM
A large slice of people here have ditched Bill Gates' bullshit and started to use Linux and Open Office. Many others, including myself, have dispensed with Adobe's bullshit and gotten the GIMP.

But either way, you can't avoid buying things like cars and things in a capitalist society.

Some people have advantages in life. Indeed they do. And it is the duty of every socialist and communist to do their utmost to strip them of those advantages.
Linus Travalds made Linux on a computer produced by capitalism. Sorry to bust your bubble.

My point is that if you are using products produced directly/indirectly by "oppressed" workers, then you are an oppressor and, by your own "logic," should be shot in the head. ;)

Ok, so you want to take away all advantages. Well, I have an IQ of approximately 144, which is 44 points above the average. Would you give electro-shock treatments to people like me so they can be dumb like you, thus removing the advantage? Well?

[bdw]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 8 2004, 01:59 PM

Yes, I want to kill all my friends and all my high school teachers. Plus my parents.



During this "bloody revolution," the only individuals that will have to be suppressed are those that are doing the exploitation. The owner of DeBeers who has Africans' hands cut off and bodies mutilated when they mine diamonds for Europe and America comes to mind. I think he deserves a bullet right in the head.

And, oh, would you mind telling us how to "take power" without revolution? I wouldn't want to resort to squeezing a pistol to keep the exploiters in check, to keep their army in check, to keep the police off my back, etc. so maybe you have a better idea?



Yes, and that should make us question communism, because as you well know, according to Marxist economic theory, the "death penalty" plays a pivotal role! Plus, Fidel Castro is some sort of prophet on par with Jesus Christ (except Castro actually existed, of course) who cannot be questioned. :rolleyes:

Just like the capitalists Mussolini, Pinochet, Popa Doc, Baby Doc, and Adolf Hitler killed millions as it's an integral part of capitalism: "to achieve a free market, you have to exterminate Jews, kill peasants, and refuse to allow your country to prosper as all profit should be turned over to the United States." :rolleyes:

Right? Right?!?!

:rolleyes:
You are an unbelievable idiot. Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, etc, where socialists, as in LEFT WING, not right-wing nor capitalist! :D Set down your manifesto for one moment and open a freaking history book. Hitler nationalized many corporations, particularly the major means of production. Mussolini did the same, along with the others you mentioned. (Though I'm not sure about Popa/Baby Doc -- never heard of them). Hitler and Mussolini were in favor of gun control and abortion rights. In fact, during the Nuremburg Trials, several Nazi government officials were punished for allowing abortion! Hiter and Mussolini both had a fascination with the accult; never was religious, nor Christian. In fact, they hated Christianity and religion. Both men also had a strong sense of nationalism -- the same type of nationalism seem from every communist country. Rows and rows of snap-stepping soldiers, cannons firing, the national anthem playing... I can almost hear it now... there was extreme nationalism in the USSR, and it remains as strong in North Korea as it was in Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. My whole point? Mussolini and Hitler were hardly right-wing, let alone capitalist. Taking over all industry is not capitalist. If you think I'm wrong, whatever, proof is on my side.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
--Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

[Hoppe]

BDW,

Let me "educate" you, since I have seen enough of these discussions already.

According to most of the people here they were all capitalist, if only for the reason that German-style socialism was not according to the textbook examples of "how it's supposed to be". For the same reason you cannot debunk communism because "according to the Book, communism has never existed".

Oh, and do remember that Hayek and all the other austrians were crazy lunatics.

[bdw]

According to most of the people here they were all capitalist, if only for the reason that German-style socialism was not according to the textbook examples of "how it's supposed to be".

I see. So everyone who isn't a by-the-book communism is automatically a capitalist pig. :D That sheds light on many things.


For the same reason you cannot debunk communism because "according to the Book, communism has never existed".

True. I argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat will never lead to pure communism. As George Orwell said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would also argue that socialism has failed through "democratic" means, as demonstrated by Greece as well as countless African nations.


Oh, and do remember that Hayek and all the other austrians were crazy lunatics.

:D I'll have to give that some consideration.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are an unbelievable idiot. Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, etc, where socialists, as in LEFT WING, not right-wing nor capitalist! :lol:

An IQ of onefortywhat? :lol:

Dolt. Look at the year it was written. Even small school children know that Hitler gained power by promising socialism and only delivered fanatical capitalism.

The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (1934)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (1935)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (1936)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (1937)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight (1939)


144 huh?

That test must have been on the bell curve. :lol:

[bdw]

RAF, Hitler and Mussolini both nationalized the major means of production. You are ignorant of this, and that is not my fault. It is your own fault that you are an uneducated twit.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:58 AM
Ok, so you want to take away all advantages. Well, I have an IQ of approximately 144, which is 44 points above the average.
$10 says he got this off one of those "Internet IQ tests."

[redstarshining]

Some of the "kriegswichtige" ( which roughly translates to "import for the war" )companies had to fulfill certain production quotas, maybe that's what you mean. But most of the major industry was still in private hands (Krupp, Thyssen, IG-Farben etc.).

[Louis Pio]

Yes indeed.
Or else they wouldn't have supported Hitlers and Mussolinis rise to power. It seems bdw is the ignorant one here.
German industry made lots of profits on the war (slave labour etc), nothing socialist about big business making profits.
The old myth bdw is telling is nothing more than crap.

[Vinny Rafarino]

RAF, Hitler and Mussolini both nationalized the major means of production. You are ignorant of this, and that is not my fault. It is your own fault that you are an uneducated twit.


You are incredibly confused about the differences between a socialist economy, a free market economy and an economic fascist economy (specifically the Italian Corporatist System)

I recommend you do a little research kiddo so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

For someone of your limited intellectual capacity, I suggest "economics for dummies".

Good luck son!

[bdw]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 8 2004, 09:04 PM

You are incredibly confused about the differences between a socialist economy, a free market economy and an economic fascist economy (specifically the Italian Corporatist System)

I recommend you do a little research kiddo so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

For someone of your limited intellectual capacity, I suggest "economics for dummies".

Good luck son!
cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

__________

"Corporations" in Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were owned by the government. In other words, major means of production were controlled by the state, aka the "people" as a communist would say. If you are so enlightened, then please tell me how you can consider Nazi Germany to be capitalist. There is virtually no difference between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.

[Raisa]

<<And while I strongly disagree with communism more than anything else I&#39;ve ever heard, you have a right to believe in it. Don&#39;t let anyone tell you that you don&#39;t have the right to believe whatever you want. >>

Well thanks for your permission :)

[bdw]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:55 PM
<<And while I strongly disagree with communism more than anything else I&#39;ve ever heard, you have a right to believe in it. Don&#39;t let anyone tell you that you don&#39;t have the right to believe whatever you want. >>

Well thanks for your permission :)
I said that because many communists here have expressed the opinion that I have no right to believe as I do.

[Louis Pio]

"Corporations" in Mussolini&#39;s Italy and Nazi Germany were owned by the government. In other words, major means of production were controlled by the state, aka the "people" as a communist would say. If you are so enlightened, then please tell me how you can consider Nazi Germany to be capitalist. There is virtually no difference between Nazi Germany and Stalin&#39;s USSR.

No, actually your way off. As redstarshinning already explained the companies were in private hands. IG Farben, BMW, Krupps etc. Many leading German capitalists were even members of the NSDAP. Now they wouldn&#39;t have been that if the government took their profits nor would they have helped Hitlers rise to power.

http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a386be0077964.htm

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:09 PM
You are an unbelievable idiot. Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, etc, where socialists, as in LEFT WING, not right-wing nor capitalist&#33; :D Set down your manifesto for one moment and open a freaking history book. Hitler nationalized many corporations, particularly the major means of production. Mussolini did the same, along with the others you mentioned. (Though I&#39;m not sure about Popa/Baby Doc -- never heard of them). Hitler and Mussolini were in favor of gun control and abortion rights. In fact, during the Nuremburg Trials, several Nazi government officials were punished for allowing abortion&#33; Hiter and Mussolini both had a fascination with the accult; never was religious, nor Christian. In fact, they hated Christianity and religion. Both men also had a strong sense of nationalism -- the same type of nationalism seem from every communist country. Rows and rows of snap-stepping soldiers, cannons firing, the national anthem playing... I can almost hear it now... there was extreme nationalism in the USSR, and it remains as strong in North Korea as it was in Nazi Germany and Mussolini&#39;s Italy. My whole point? Mussolini and Hitler were hardly right-wing, let alone capitalist. Taking over all industry is not capitalist. If you think I&#39;m wrong, whatever, proof is on my side.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today&#39;s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
--Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
God-damn, you&#39;re a fool.

First of all, it is unfortunate that the other members on this board replied to your "proof" that Hitler and Mussolini were "socialists" before I did. &#39;Tis my favorite argument to refute, you know&#33; Go ahead and check their fucking points and their links.

Second, I don&#39;t understand why it is so important to you that Hitler and Mussolini were "socialists" (which, of course, isn&#39;t the case) unless the fact that their policies is supposed to further associate socialism with evil. If that&#39;s the case, then "get a fucking clue" if that&#39;s the best you can do in terms of arguing the "inferiority" of a socialist system.

Third, I&#39;ll just provide you with this before I go:

So Mussolini was a socialist, then?

Alright, alright...

You must understand that "the fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners."

According to the fascist Italian newspaper, Popolo d&#39;Italia, "The corporative state directs and integrates the economy, but does not run it, which, given a monopoly of production, would be nothing but collectivism."

- June 11, 1936

"The corporative state is nothing but the sales clerk of monopoly capital...Mussolini takes upon the state the whole risk of the enterprises, leaving to the industrialists the profits of exploitation."

- Feroci

"If I desired to establish in Italy - which really has not happened - state socialism, I would possess today all the necessary and sufficient objective conditions."

- Mussolini

The latter part of the last statement, of course, is inccorect; Mussolini depended too much on the private owners of industry and capital to actually establish "state socialism." He would have never received their support.

Think of a fascist state as a capitalist state with some government intervention, where private property is protected to a much greater extent: stricter laws and crueler police officers.


Fuck you. Thank you.

[Nyder]

Mussolini and Hitler were&#39;nt capitalists. :rolleyes: If they were anywhere close they would have de-regulated industry and allowed voluntary trade, globalisation, freedom of association and free markets. They would have reduced taxes and Government spending. In fact no politician can be called a capitalist anyway because politicians use force (police, courts) to make money - just like robbers, muggers, thieves, etc - they are not capitalists.

And I&#39;m sick of hearing that capitalists need Government to protect their property. The pinkos on this site think somehow that since capitalists NEED Government to protect their property (which is false), that therefore, full capitalism=Government + capitalism. Capitalists can protect their own property. And Governments take away property in the form of taxes and regulation so go figure.

[Shredder]

I don&#39;t think any of these people could befriend a communist, because the communist automatically wants to "liquidate" anyone who actually works for a living.

We only want to liquidate those who own for a living.

Last I checked, Bill Gates works pretty hard, using 2x computers simultaneously. He clearly has earned a living. However, at this point he could never get out of bed again, never doing any work again, yet hit profits would keep growing ad infinitum. This is because the earnings from working, even on 2x computers simultaneously, pales in comparison to the earnings of simply sitting back and providing little green permission slips with presidents&#39; faces on them. Yes, it is in the selfish interest of the vast majority to &#39;liquidate&#39; this flaw.

[Krogher]

Why should Bill Gate&#39;s fortune be liquidated? HE earned it. While the worker working in a factory which packages his Windows program will never be as rich as him, why should Bill be punished for that? He saw opportunity, and his intellect and drive are reaping the benefits. The factory worker has the same options, theoretically, but his own intellect, situation, circumstance, or drive have not allowed him to reap the same benefits. However, I bet that he goes home at night, sits down to a dinner, and watches T.V. Life isn&#39;t fair, and it should never be. No one enjoys starving children, but a person shouldn&#39;t be made to feed them. Rather, rich folks, such as Bill Gates, can become philanthropists, and give to charities, or hospitals, or can start food shelters to help these down and outs. However, the government should not make him do so. Even if he does it because of the tax breaks, he is still doing it&#33; Why do you think tax breaks are given to charitable donations? Because it encourages help for the downtrodden, and it gives back to the economy.
~Michael

[robob8706]

Come to think of it, that in itself is quite ironic: communists are against the death penalty, yet they support a bloody revolution to take power&#33; Go figure.

Communists don&#39;t advocate violence. They advocate justice and the justifiable means of restoring power to the proletariat.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:23 PM

Communists don&#39;t advocate violence. They advocate justice and the justifiable means of restoring power to the proletariat.
Nice euphemism for advocating violence. :rolleyes:

[Louis Pio]

Actually many revolutions haven&#39;t been bloody.

Btw Nyder don&#39;t act as if you don&#39;t support violence, you my lil freind does indeed support violence.

[Shredder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:08 PM
Why should Bill Gate&#39;s fortune be liquidated? HE earned it.
I have explained this numerous times.

Why shouldn&#39;t it be liquidated?

He only "earned" insofar as we allow him to have it. It is not in my interest, or the interest of probably anyone here, to allow Gates to have his fortune. As I stated earlier, his earnings from working two computers simultaneously are not the problem. His &#39;earnings&#39; from simply owning are the problem. There is no reason to give him rights to the spoils of others&#39; labour.

Give me one good reason why the poorest 90% of the population shouldn&#39;t form a lynch mob and steal from the richest 10%. I want a reason that appeals to rational self-interest and does not use arbitrary words like "earn," "right," or "freedom." You can&#39;t do it. And yet stealing is not even what I want to do&#33; I simply want to replace existing property relations. I merely want the means of production to be shared and employed in a democratic fashion so that the spoils of labour can go to the labourers like Bill Gates the programmer, instead of private property owners like Bill Gates the CEO. Your labour will add a certain amount of value to a given commodity, and you will be paid an amount of equal value in return.

[Professor Moneybags]

He only "earned" insofar as we allow him to have it.

(A rule which could apply to pretty much anyone ?) I suppose he lives only insofar we decide not to kill him too ?


Give me one good reason why the poorest 90% of the population shouldn&#39;t form a lynch mob and steal from the richest 10%.

The same reason the richest 10% shouldn&#39;t steal off the poorest 90%. The same reason Germany shouldn&#39;t have invaded Poland.


I want a reason that appeals to rational self-interest and does not use arbitrary words like "earn," "right," or "freedom." You can&#39;t do it.

You mean don&#39;t want a reason, but want to argue on your own "might makes right" terms ? A threat isn&#39;t an argument.


And yet stealing is not even what I want to do&#33; I simply want to replace existing property relations.

In other words, steal. Thank you for being so very explicit in your ideas.

[Shredder]

You mean don&#39;t want a reason, but want to argue on your own "might makes right" terms ? A threat isn&#39;t an argument.

Told you you couldn&#39;t do it.

You insist that the many should blindly bow down to the few. But you will never be able to give us a reason to.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:18 PM
I have explained this numerous times.

Why shouldn&#39;t it be liquidated?

He only "earned" insofar as we allow him to have it. It is not in my interest, or the interest of probably anyone here, to allow Gates to have his fortune. As I stated earlier, his earnings from working two computers simultaneously are not the problem. His &#39;earnings&#39; from simply owning are the problem. There is no reason to give him rights to the spoils of others&#39; labour.

Give me one good reason why the poorest 90% of the population shouldn&#39;t form a lynch mob and steal from the richest 10%. I want a reason that appeals to rational self-interest and does not use arbitrary words like "earn," "right," or "freedom." You can&#39;t do it. And yet stealing is not even what I want to do&#33; I simply want to replace existing property relations. I merely want the means of production to be shared and employed in a democratic fashion so that the spoils of labour can go to the labourers like Bill Gates the programmer, instead of private property owners like Bill Gates the CEO. Your labour will add a certain amount of value to a given commodity, and you will be paid an amount of equal value in return.
So Mr Gates should invest his capital and resources, hire workers (who work voluntary, i.e. they actually wanrt the job, and get paid whether he makes a profit or not), make the decisions on how to proceed with processes, take all of the risk, and then everyone who sat back and watched should share the spoils?

That makes perfect sense.

This evokes thoughts of the great capitalist parable of the "little red hen".



Give me one good reason why the poorest 90% of the population shouldn&#39;t form a lynch mob and steal from the richest 10%.

This really says it all for communist apologism and class envy.


Your labour will add a certain amount of value to a given commodity, and you will be paid an amount of equal value in return.

We discussed this earlier in a post of mine that you didn&#39;t comprehensively respond too. You actually help makemy point with this statement, you will be paid an amount of equal value in return

The value of the physical ablity to screw a motherboard to a panel is not worth as much as the cognitive ability necessary to actually design the motherboard. Labor, like any commodity, derives value from it&#39;s rarity. Thsu, such capability should be awarded in equal value, just as you said.

[synthesis]

get paid whether he makes a profit or not

This simply isn&#39;t true. If corporate executives aren&#39;t making a profit off your work, you&#39;ll get "downsized" - unless you have family connections or something of the sort.


Give me one good reason why the poorest 90% of the population shouldn&#39;t form a lynch mob and steal from the richest 10%.

Because whenever the ruling class sees this as a distinct possibility, they immediately lose all pretense of supporting liberal democracy and press straight for a fascist police state to "protect their private property." You can see this everywhere from Germany to Greece to Guatemala.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:31 PM

This simply isn&#39;t true. If corporate executives aren&#39;t making a profit off your work, you&#39;ll get "downsized" - unless you have family connections or something of the sort.




Yes, this can happen but he is compensated for hours worked.

Also, corporate executives can get "downsized" just as easily as well.

[Hot Dog Day #84]

when i was a silly marxist i kept my non marxist friends.

you just have to not take politics too seriously, if you look hard enough you will find with anyone disagreements in beliefs. its possible to lose friends over politics no matter what your political views.

for example one friend of mine feels the &#39;anybody but bush&#39; bandwagon is good, i disagree. if we were to keep arguing and talking about it seriously it might damage our friendship. but it doesnt because really its not that important to either of us.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 05:12 PM

Told you you couldn&#39;t do it.

You insist that the many should blindly bow down to the few. But you will never be able to give us a reason to.
I&#39;m not bowing down to anyone, least of all Bill Gates. Stop this absurd notion that someone with more money than you "owns" you. They don&#39;t.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:23 PM

Communists don&#39;t advocate violence.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Man, that was good. Hold on, hold on, let me read it again...



Communists don&#39;t advocate violence.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

man, that was gold

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:40 PM
&#036;10 says he got this off one of those "Internet IQ tests."
LOL, OK , that was a good shot, dude.