A true communist state when?

[Bourgeoisie]

So when is it going to happen? When are we going to see this Freedom loving Communist state? :huh:

I sure would like to know what its like to be free, what its like not to be poor, and most of not to be an oppressed slave. :D

Since every Communist state so far is somehow something else, am i supposed to take your word for it that Communism = Freedom? <_<

Until that day comes and i see it with my own eyes it is Freedom, shut it. :angry:

[Guest1]

No, you shut it, you&#39;re a tolerated nuisance here and nothing more.

Don&#39;t you ever forget it&#33;

[Bourgeoisie]

but i thought Communism was about Freedom and Equality? :huh:

Why am i restricted, and being oppressed? :o

[Forward Union]

So when is it going to happen? When are we going to see this Freedom loving Communist state?

When? when people are ready, when its time comes. It will depend on many circumstances, the process could be sped up or slowed down by world events, but it is inevitable. We have already seen the slow but steady progress toward the left, with the black rights, shorter work hours, unions..



I sure would like to know what its like to be free, what its like not to be poor, and most of not to be an oppressed slave.

So would I, but if your name is anything to go by you don&#39;t have to ever worry about beign a slave


Since every Communist state so far is somehow something else, am i supposed to take your word for it that Communism = Freedom?

Well, you can, but if you don&#39;t believe any of us when we tell you communism is freedom, then why don&#39;t you do something radical and intelligent and read about it. If you don&#39;t even understand the ideology why are you here arguing against it??


Until that day comes and i see it with my own eyes it is Freedom, shut it.

Make me cappie, it&#39;ll take more than a poorly constructed "argument" and a demand over the internet to silence me and any other comrade on these forums.

[Bourgeoisie]

Maybe its time to rise up?

RAISE THE FIST&#33;

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 4 2004, 08:26 AM

When? when people are ready, when its time comes. It will depend on many circumstances, the process could be sped up or slowed down by world events, but it is inevitable. We have already seen the slow but steady progress toward the left, with the black rights, shorter work hours, unions..




So would I, but if your name is anything to go by you don&#39;t have to ever worry about beign a slave



Well, you can, but if you don&#39;t believe any of us when we tell you communism is freedom, then why don&#39;t you do something radical and intelligent and read about it. If you don&#39;t even understand the ideology why are you here arguing against it??



Make me cappie, it&#39;ll take more than a poorly constructed "argument" and a demand over the internet to silence me and any other comrade on these forums.
Poorly constructed?

Its brilliant in its simplicity&#33;

BTW i have read quite a bit about Socailism/Communism.

I know why the French elite created it so long ago.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:38 AM
Poorly constructed?

Its brilliant in its simplicity&#33;

BTW i have read quite a bit about Socailism/Communism.

I know why the French elite created it so long ago.
Brilliant in its simplicity?, perhaps simplicity is brilliant to you, I prefer intelligence.

And if you have read about Socialism and Communism (in places other than the right wing leaflets they post around) then you should really try and get a grip on its philosophy before posting here.

[Bourgeoisie]

You know Communism reminds me of a MML scheme.

We we give you Freedom and equality through oppression and salvery. You just have to believe us, trust us, and work hard for the system, it will happen, in a 100 years or so. Just keep working and believing in the system, not what happening around you. Think torwards the future. :D

Yep just like a MML.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 4 2004, 08:46 AM
Brilliant in its simplicity?, perhaps simplicity is brilliant to you, I prefer intelligence.

And if you have read about Socialism and Communism (in places other than the right wing leaflets they post around) then you should really try and get a grip on its philosophy before posting here.
Oh so because i do not believe in the system i am not intelligent?

[Professor Moneybags]

What&#39;s MML ?

[cormacobear]

hey that&#39;s the U.S. Motto.
We we give you Freedom and equality through oppression and salvery. You just have to believe us, trust us, and work hard for the system, it will happen, in a 100 years or so. Just keep working and believing in the system, not what happening around you. Think torwards the future.

[DaCuBaN]

We we give you Freedom and equality through oppression and salvery. You just have to believe us, trust us, and work hard for the system, it will happen, in a 100 years or so. Just keep working and believing in the system, not what happening around you. Think torwards the future

That&#39;s not communism, chump. Go read a book. Alternatively, this (http://www.marxists.org) will do for now.

[Bourgeoisie]

Lol i was called a chump by some pimple faced 15 yr old named "DaCuBaN".

He must think hes l33t. :lol:

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 4 2004, 09:41 AM
What&#39;s MML ?
Multi Level Marketing.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:46 AM
Lol i was called a chump by some pimple faced 15 yr old named "DaCuBaN".


Bourgeoisie it&#39;s not considered polite to critisize your elders.

[socialistfuture]

Maybe its time to rise up?

RAISE THE FIST&#33;

you are welcome to attempt an uprising if u want - u would soon realise it is not a simple act and the repecisions are serious. most get crushed - eg the easter rising the Irish did or the July 26 on the Monarcho Barracks in Cuba.

U r obviously intrested in socialism and anarchism to be here - maybe u have a strange facination with it - or a hatred, or a mixture. we have an idea of why u dont like communism. tell us what you do like, what your dream society is. tell us what u see as the ills of today. enlighten us heathens

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:00 AM

you are welcome to attempt an uprising if u want - u would soon realise it is not a simple act and the repecisions are serious. most get crushed - eg the easter rising the Irish did or the July 26 on the Monarcho Barracks in Cuba.

U r obviously intrested in socialism and anarchism to be here - maybe u have a strange facination with it - or a hatred, or a mixture. we have an idea of why u dont like communism. tell us what you do like, what your dream society is. tell us what u see as the ills of today. enlighten us heathens
If you have an idea of why i don&#39;t like it then please tell me?


My dream society will never work with Communism. Because to me Idividuslism is important. I would never be a drone.

But i&#39;m no Anarchist.

[DaCuBaN]

Bourgeoisie it&#39;s not considered polite to critisize your elders.

Especially when you&#39;re well off the mark anyway :rolleyes: One look at my profile - if you had the mental capacity to reason such action - would have stopped you making a further arse out of yourself. Really, I don&#39;t hold any malice towards you - but you really, really come across as a &#39;chump&#39;


My dream society will never work with Communism. Because to me Idividuslism is important. I would never be a drone.

But i&#39;m no Anarchist.

You are still confused - GO READ A BOOK&#33; communism and individuality are not mutually exclusive: It is arguable that the phases outlined by many so-called communists prohibit individuality, but the ideology of communism has never been realised and so your objection here is about as substantial as mist.

Sad to say it, but some folks will never learn <_<

[socialistfuture]

If you have an idea of why i don&#39;t like it then please tell me?


My dream society will never work with Communism. Because to me Idividuslism is important. I would never be a drone.

But i&#39;m no Anarchist.

i was wasking for u to explain ure ideas - instead of just saying what u hate about communism.

as to my ideas on its shortcommings - ppl have to liberate themselves - it cannot be done for them - they need to take an active part .eg democratic socialism.

ignorance - a lot of people simply do not know what is going on or do not care.

fear - so many people belive they are unable to make a difference - and many only see what has gone wrong - we must learn form the past and attempt not to repeat mistakes.

our enemies - capitalism has very rich and powerful rulers and armies - and in times of desperation turns to fascism (neoliberalism - imperialism).

we need each other - and we need to work with each other for each other - simply put if we do nothing - we will get nothing. there is much inequality and pain in this world - to say that this that and something else went wrong in the past is NO reason to not care and try today&#33;

anyway my question remains - what do u think needs to be done to make a better world?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:28 AM
My dream society will never work with Communism. Because to me Idividuslism is important. I would never be a drone.


Its as if he excretes through his mouth...

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:44 AM

Especially when you&#39;re well off the mark anyway :rolleyes: One look at my profile - if you had the mental capacity to reason such action - would have stopped you making a further arse out of yourself. Really, I don&#39;t hold any malice towards you - but you really, really come across as a &#39;chump&#39;



You are still confused - GO READ A BOOK&#33; communism and individuality are not mutually exclusive: It is arguable that the phases outlined by many so-called communists prohibit individuality, but the ideology of communism has never been realised and so your objection here is about as substantial as mist.

Sad to say it, but some folks will never learn <_<
How idiotic of me. Everyone lists their age in their profile. ;)


Lol i&#39;m objecting to nothing because Communism does not exist. It almost did several times but something went very, very wrong. <_<

So who is the true Communist then? Trotsky, Lenin, Marx? Which one didn&#39;t sell out and is the pure Communist then? :D


Still i would rather not be part of the Hive collective.

[socialistfuture]

real communist? i dont think u wull ever get a straight answer it is like asking what is the real religion or what is the real form of christianity: the catholic will say me, the anglican - me, the quaker - me and so on.

for democratic socialits - the answer would be anyone who seeks to involve the people (the masses - the proleteriat - the working class - the peasants - ...everyone). the true communist is he who always questions authority and seeks truth - and seeks to make life better for the people. it isnt about symbols and slogans and theories (not soley) it is about the quality of life we are all living.

revolutionrevolutionrevolutionrevolutionrevolution revolutionrevolutionrevolutionrevolutionrevolution revolutionrevolutionrevolutionrevolutionrevolution revolutionrevolution revolution time

[New Tolerance]

but i thought Communism was about Freedom and Equality?

Why am i restricted, and being oppressed?

Revolutionary Democrats from 300 years ago also said that they were bringing freedom. But were they perfectly nice angels?


My dream society will never work with Communism. Because to me Idividuslism is important. I would never be a drone.


Individualism is a part of what Communism wants to rescue. When all these ideologies were made up about 100 years ago, most of the workers were being robbed of their individualism by having to subject to the will of their masters, reduced to a fragment of a human being, and turned into a part of the machine, and thus becoming like millions of other around them (losing their sense of being an individual, and its almost the same thing today, almost everyone in the workplace wear the same thing -> suits, have to take orders from above, and in existing in this system of order, lose their ability to innovate and think philosophically). In Communism, we believe that workers can be elevated into artists, and in doing so, maintain their productiveness, while liberating their mind. Is that what you oppose? The liberty of others?


So who is the true Communist then? Trotsky, Lenin, Marx? Which one didn&#39;t sell out and is the pure Communist then?

You are still thinking about Communism the wrong way. Asking who was a pure Communist, is like asking who was a pure Conversative. Well, Conversative in what sense? A Business Conversative? A Neoconservative? or some kind of Nationalist, or Monarchist?

The word Communism is more like a category than a single idea, you can&#39;t ask who was "The" pure communist.

However, you can answer this question more accurately by saying:

The pure Leninist is: Lenin (obviously)
The pure Stalinist is: Stalin (obviously)
The pure Marxist-Leninist is: Lenin (probably)
The pure Libertarian Socialist is: Noam Chomsky?
The pure Social Democrat is... etc etc

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:36 AM
You know Communism reminds me of a MML scheme.

We we give you Freedom and equality through oppression and salvery. You just have to believe us, trust us, and work hard for the system, it will happen, in a 100 years or so. Just keep working and believing in the system, not what happening around you. Think torwards the future. :D

Yep just like a MML.
Hmmm, sounds very familiar... Isn&#39;t that what the US are doing in Iraq right now? Communism? I am all mixed up:(

[DaCuBaN]

How idiotic of me. Everyone lists their age in their profile.

...yet you didn&#39;t even look. It speaks volumes of your character - you threw out an accusation without having the slightest clue as to the subject at hand - my age.

From this I would say it&#39;s safe to surmise that you retain an equal prejudice for everything else you don&#39;t understand/know - amongst which communism lies evident.


i&#39;m objecting to nothing because Communism does not exist. It almost did several times but something went very, very wrong.

Indeed it did - and in each case it is regarded as having failed for differing reasons. There is a mine of information on the web regarding this subject, and a substantial quantity on this site alone. I would suggest you relieve yourself somewhat by learning something in this manner.


So who is the true Communist then? Trotsky, Lenin, Marx? Which one didn&#39;t sell out and is the pure Communist then?

As far as I&#39;m concerned, no one figure can ever be a &#39;true&#39; communist as long as capitalism exist - hence the question is a moot point. As for &#39;selling out&#39;? It&#39;s a debatable issue, but my personal opinion is that in one way or another everyone sells out when they try to make theory reality - It&#39;s called compromise. With this in mind, only Marx didn&#39;t &#39;sell out&#39;.


Still i would rather not be part of the Hive collective.

Too late, man.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:27 AM
Still i would rather not be part of the Hive collective.
I think you&#39;ve been playing a little too much Alpha Centuri, I hope this isn&#39;t your "extensive reading" on communism.

Perhaps we should put a big banner on the top of OI saying "communism is statless," it doesn&#39;t seem to be getting through.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:02 AM
So when is it going to happen? When are we going to see this Freedom loving Communist state? :huh:

I sure would like to know what its like to be free, what its like not to be poor, and most of not to be an oppressed slave. :D

Since every Communist state so far is somehow something else, am i supposed to take your word for it that Communism = Freedom? <_<

Until that day comes and i see it with my own eyes it is Freedom, shut it. :angry:
I&#39;m afraid you will have become extinct by that time, one way or the other...

[commiecrusader]

if MML stands for Multi-Level-Marketing surely it should be MLM???

not that hard to work out surely, particularly for one with as extensive a knowledge as you clearly have??? :lol:

[GoaRedStar]

Communism has no state.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:02 AM
So when is it going to happen? When are we going to see this Freedom loving Communist state? :huh:

I sure would like to know what its like to be free, what its like not to be poor, and most of not to be an oppressed slave. :D

Since every Communist state so far is somehow something else, am i supposed to take your word for it that Communism = Freedom? <_<

Until that day comes and i see it with my own eyes it is Freedom, shut it. :angry:
You have proven that you don&#39;t know jack shit about Communism&#33; Communism cannot exist in a state. Communism is achieved when the state withers away, and the nation is ran by workers. There has never on this planet been a Communist nation. There has been Socialism, but not Communism. This is live proof that right-wing idiots like you only think the way the USA and its lapdogs want you to think. Perhaps if you really knew the concept of Communism, people like you wouldn&#39;t have been paranoid and squealing like a stuck pig about a Soviet invasion.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:32 PM

...yet you didn&#39;t even look. It speaks volumes of your character - you threw out an accusation without having the slightest clue as to the subject at hand - my age.

From this I would say it&#39;s safe to surmise that you retain an equal prejudice for everything else you don&#39;t understand/know - amongst which communism lies evident.


You know what, i did look, i had already posted but i just wanted to draw out a reaction from people.



You know what, i did look, i had already posted but i just wanted to draw out a reaction from people.

[Bourgeoisie]

Oh sorry my bad, Communism has no state. Call it what you will. A Society, world, collective, whatever.

But you still will have the ruling party to keep people in line and oppressed. A party that makes all the decisions for you, even if you think they are not in your best interest. A party that controls all the resources, and leaves you at their mercy.

An of course i bet all you elitists expect to be part of this ruling party, or group of overseers.

I&#39;m sure you know whats best for us. :D

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh sorry my bad, Communism has no state. Call it what you will. A Society, world, collective, whatever.

You obviously still don&#39;t understand why we call it classless. That means that there will be no ruling class. There will be no vanguard party in the final stages of communism.

And during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the ruling class will be the people. The only people who will be violently fought will be the former bourgeoisie. Fools like yourself who hang on to some outdated individualist ideology will also suffer oppression as everything which you value and are loyal to will be destroyed.

The working class will create a society in which they are free of oppression. This includes all entities in society which prevent the people from having collective autonomous power over society.

[commiecrusader]

put it in simple terms he can understand.

NOW: rich minority rules poor majority (this is c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m)

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT: shared wealth majority rule themselves (self-determination, what a lovely capitalist phrase). greedy arseholes get kicked out. (this is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism)

COMMUNISM: shared wealth everyone govern themselves. no greedy arseholes to fuck everything up.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:08 PM
if MML stands for Multi-Level-Marketing surely it should be MLM???

not that hard to work out surely, particularly for one with as extensive a knowledge as you clearly have??? :lol:
That was the typo i made, you ass.

BTW i noticed you have such strong Grammar skills&#33; :lol:

[commiecrusader]

BTW i noticed you have such strong Grammar skills&#33;

lol yes i couldnt think of how to express it better whilst keeping the number of words down for you. and before you ask yes i am actually english.

edit: that was also a typo im sure you made at least twice... a typo, or just you messing up with your clever argument?

[New Tolerance]

But you still will have the ruling party to keep people in line and oppressed. A party that makes all the decisions for you, even if you think they are not in your best interest. A party that controls all the resources, and leaves you at their mercy.

No we don&#39;t, very few of us actually want a oppressive ruling party.


An of course i bet all you elitists expect to be part of this ruling party, or group of overseers.

I&#39;m sure you know whats best for us.

When will you people stop listening to all that propaganda, and actually pick up some literature? Most of us don&#39;t want a vanguard party.

[Bourgeoisie]

"There will be no vanguard party in the final stages of communism."

And here is the problem. All the stages in between. How long will the oppression/murder stage last? How many generations? And will the ruling party ever want to give up power? After all they are just Humans. Did Marx ever take into account that Humans are after all Human?

[New Tolerance]

"There will be no vanguard party in the final stages of communism."

And here is the problem. All the stages in between. How long will the oppression/murder stage last? How many generations? And will the ruling party ever want to give up power? After all they are just Humans. Did Marx ever take into account that Humans are after all Human?

You do realize that we are not all advocating vanguard parties.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:40 PM

lol yes i couldnt think of how to express it better whilst keeping the number of words down for you. and before you ask yes i am actually english.

edit: that was also a typo im sure you made at least twice... a typo, or just you messing up with your clever argument?
You mean you couldn&#39;t?

Also is there something wrong with the CAP funtion on your keyboard? :lol:

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2004, 11:51 PM

You do realize that we are not all advocating vanguard parties.
Then wouldn&#39;t you suggest that the system is flawed? And Communism isn&#39;t the answer, and you need something else?

[commiecrusader]

Then wouldn&#39;t you suggest that the system is flawed? And Communism isn&#39;t the answer, and you need something else?
there are different interpretations of communism same as there are different religions. not all interpretations of communism involve vanguard parties, in the same way that not all religions involve buddha or whatever


Also is there something wrong with the CAP funtion on your keyboard?
no i was putting the stage names in NICE BIG LETTERS because i thought it might help you understand. obviously not.

[New Tolerance]

Then wouldn&#39;t you suggest that the system is flawed? And Communism isn&#39;t the answer, and you need something else?

Did you even read my post about the so called "Communism" as a category and not a single ideology? Or did you forget?

I&#39;m still a communist, I&#39;m just not a Marxist-Leninist. I never believed in Marxist-Leninism (I guess that means I think it is flawed), but Communism is not flawed, since not all Communists are Marxist-Leninists.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:56 PM


no i was putting the stage names in NICE BIG LETTERS because i thought it might help you understand. obviously not.
I guess you didn&#39;t get it, and you still don&#39;t. Just forget about it. <_<

Notice how my CAP funtion works fine throughout all my posts. :rolleyes:

[New Tolerance]

I see that you did not reply to the rest of our stuff.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2004, 11:58 PM

Did you even read my post about the so called "Communism" as a category and not a single ideology? Or did you forget?

I&#39;m still a communist, I&#39;m just not a Marxist-Leninist. I never believed in Marxist-Leninism (I guess that means I think it is flawed), but Communism is not flawed, since not all Communists are Marxist-Leninists.
So what branch of Communism are you then?

[New Tolerance]

So what branch of Communism are you then?

Libertarian Socialist.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 5 2004, 12:06 AM
I see that you did not reply to the rest of our stuff.
Well he did post right before you.

[commiecrusader]

enlighten me then, what is the CAP function of my keyboard?

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 5 2004, 12:11 AM

Libertarian Socialist.
So do think think we will be able to reach this Zen Society, without this transistion of Violence, Murder, and Oppression?

And remember we are all Humans not Machines you can program.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 12:12 AM
enlighten me then, what is the CAP function of my keyboard?
Just forget about it. You don&#39;t understand, move along.

[New Tolerance]

So do think think we will be able to reach this Zen Society, without this transistion of Violence, Murder, and Oppression?

And remember we are all Humans not Machines you can program.

Yes

We can start by democratizing labour. That can partially be done by nationalizing major industries (not forcibly, probably by "purchasing" those industries from the private sector). The managers of those industries will be democratically elected by the workers (from their own ranks if possible, so technically those industries are not controlled by some big government, but by their own labours), this will incite the workers to think about the big pictures of politics and economics since the fate of the industry is now in their own hands. In doing so they will become more intellectual (thus more rational),more philosophical (thus possiblely more innovative) and have taken their first steps towards liberty from mind-slavery (since as things are setup right now, they are emphasizing that you work, but not to think).

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:51 PM
You mean you couldn&#39;t?

Also is there something wrong with the CAP funtion on your keyboard? :lol:
FFS, stop critisisng each others spellings and grammar, its not important and is very petty.

Bourgeoisie:

And here is the problem. All the stages in between. How long will the oppression/murder stage last? How many generations? And will the ruling party ever want to give up power? After all they are just Humans. Did Marx ever take into account that Humans are after all Human?

Aren&#39;t you reading what we post? The dictator between now and then will be the people the proletariat, everyone regardless of anything, will be in control of the country. We call this Direct Democracy,

Direct democracy works off of consensus and more involves people expressing their ideas, opinions, concerns, criticism and suggestions about certain issues that effect that group of people. This is what makes direct democracy different from representative democracy. It eliminates all top-down hierarchical means of decision making. Many believe using consensus is naturally how humans work. For example, when you go out to see a movie with your friends you work on consensus.. You make a proposal by asking everyone, "what do you want to see?", and everyone decides. If there&#39;s a conflicting decision people usually talk about it. That&#39;s direct democracy. We do the same thing when we want to go out and eat for example. All these decisions effect us directly thus we engage in a format of a consensus decision making process so the decision can best fit our needs without excluding anyone&#39;s opinion or concerns from the group. This insures that everybody&#39;s voice is heard. Direct democracy also eliminates the top-down hierarchical in decision making format. People usually don&#39;t like it when another has the authority to make all decisions and boss everyone else around, therefore we naturally engage in consensus.

[Bourgeoisie]

New Tolerance


Yes

Too bad many do not believe that will work. And the Extremists will wield the power.



We can start by democratizing labour. That can partially be done by nationalizing major industries (not forcibly, probably by "purchasing" those industries from the private sector). The managers of those industries will be democratically elected by the workers (from their own ranks if possible, so technically those industries are not controlled by some big government, but by their own labours), this will incite the workers to think about the big pictures of politics and economics since the fate of the industry is now in their own hands. In doing so they will become more intellectual (thus more rational),more philosophical (thus possiblely more innovative) and have taken their first steps towards liberty from mind-slavery (since as things are setup right now, they are emphasizing that you work, but not to think).

Isn&#39;t this a form of privatization? Many workers and labour unions now have a share in power and own part of the companies. Many owners used to be workers themselves. And thats the great thing about the free market, you can be a worker and an owner. You can buy into the Company, direct investments, etc.

[Bourgeoisie]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 5 2004, 08:28 AM
FFS, stop critisisng each others spellings and grammar, its not important and is very petty.




Well he was the fool that called me out on my MLM typo. Turnabout is fair play.
:)

[socialistfuture]

money man - the gap between the rich and poor is expanding - what does that say about capitalism?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:17 AM
New Tolerance



Too bad many do not believe that will work. And the Extremists will wield the power.



Isn&#39;t this a form of privatization? Many workers and labour unions now have a share in power and own part of the companies. Many owners used to be workers themselves. And thats the great thing about the free market, you can be a worker and an owner. You can buy into the Company, direct investments, etc.


Too bad many do not believe that will work. And the Extremists will wield the power.

did you actually read what I posted? or was your head too far up your ass?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 5 2004, 12:11 AM
Libertarian Socialist.
There&#39;s no such thing. Socialism requires economic coercion and that is hardly libertarian.

[New Tolerance]

There&#39;s no such thing. Socialism requires economic coercion and that is hardly libertarian.

Does democratizing labour like I just described sound like coercion to you?


Too bad many do not believe that will work. And the Extremists will wield the power.

When will you people stop pulling things out of thin air? Lots of us do believe that it is possible.


Isn&#39;t this a form of privatization? Many workers and labour unions now have a share in power and own part of the companies. Many owners used to be workers themselves. And thats the great thing about the free market, you can be a worker and an owner. You can buy into the Company, direct investments, etc.

No, it is not a form of privatization. How many of those industries you&#39;ve described actually have a manager that&#39;s elected by its own workers?

Further more, if those unions has partial control of the company, then the company is not exactly private. (and not actually capitalist)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:06 PM
Oh sorry my bad, Communism has no state. Call it what you will. A Society, world, collective, whatever.

But you still will have the ruling party to keep people in line and oppressed. A party that makes all the decisions for you, even if you think they are not in your best interest. A party that controls all the resources, and leaves you at their mercy.
Are you sure you know what a state is?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 5 2004, 01:51 PM
There&#39;s no such thing. Socialism requires economic coercion and that is hardly libertarian.
Of course that is using your definition of socialism and your definition of libertarian both of which are completely different to the ones everyone else uses and have used for centuries before Ayn Rand started her little cult and chose to redefine them.

[Professor Moneybags]

Of course that is using your definition of socialism and your definition of libertarian both of which are completely different to the ones everyone else uses and have used for centuries before Ayn Rand started her little cult and chose to redefine them.

So give us your defintions then, and then we&#39;ll see who&#39;s right and who isn&#39;t.

(Also, Rand couldn&#39;t stand libertarians, but we&#39;ll leave that topic for another day.)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 5 2004, 02:26 PM
Does democratizing labour like I just described sound like coercion to you?
When the majority are free to steal from, and enslave a minority simply because they are a majority, then yes, it does. And yes, this can and will happen, as we see it happening today.

[Nyder]

Circular arguments:

Communism is crap -> "Prove it" -> Look at all the real world examples -> "They weren&#39;t really communist&#33;"

"The USA exploits the working class/creates wars/etc" -> But that&#39;s really the Government&#39;s policies -> "Capitalists need a government therefore the government is part of capitalism (?)"

:lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

While it&#39;s true that what you call real world examples weren&#39;t communist at all, they were by no means crap. Like it has been said before, the standard of living in China, the USSR, Cuba, etc. all increased a lot after socialism. They were true third world shit holes before socialism.

And by saying that something which isn&#39;t communism can prove that communism fails, is completely insane. I could point to an endless list of failed feudal societies and say that they prove that capitalism doesn&#39;t work, but it wouldn&#39;t really prove anything, would it, because they weren&#39;t even capitalist.

Get a real fucking argument, or fuck off, capitalist dickwad.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2004, 03:53 PM
So give us your defintions then, and then we&#39;ll see who&#39;s right and who isn&#39;t.
Then you will make comparisons between the two and declare that they are the same. You will make a link between socialism and "collectivism," probably a small innocuous similarity and claim that socialism is "collectivism" which is diametrically opposed to "individualism" which you will presume libertarianism to be the only form of.


Perhaps you could find someone willing to waste their time trying to explain political concepts to you.



(Also, Rand couldn&#39;t stand libertarians, but we&#39;ll leave that topic for another day.)

Her ideology was libertarian though, even if her personal views were socially conservative.

[New Tolerance]

When the majority are free to steal from, and enslave a minority simply because they are a majority, then yes, it does. And yes, this can and will happen, as we see it happening today.

Did you even look closely at my example?

When we nationalize the industries, they are BOUGHT from the private sector. Is buying now a form of stealing? Afterwards the government hands the control over to the labours by using direct elections, where is the stealing in that one?


Circular arguments:

Communism is crap -> "Prove it" -> Look at all the real world examples -> "They weren&#39;t really communist&#33;"



How many times do I have to explain this? Most of the time when when people say that these so call communist states are not communist means that we do not support them, and that they did not implenement policies that we wish to see implenemented. You can be Isamlic and still believe that Iran (the so called "Isamic Republic") is actually a spawn of the devil.



"The USA exploits the working class/creates wars/etc" -> But that&#39;s really the Government&#39;s policies -> "Capitalists need a government therefore the government is part of capitalism (?)"


How does government policies exploit the working class?

[socialistfuture]

the history of class war isnt pretty, unions have betrayed people, labour governemnts have betrayed people, &#39;communist countries&#39; have betrayed their ideals - sold out their promises, and turned against their own people -

many people on this site are anarchist or partially anarchist and libertarian - meaning they do not want governments or they do not want strong governments - communism of the authoritarian kind is dirctly opposed to this.

so when u say a &#39;true communist state&#39; u need to be a bit more clear and define what type of communist state. the majority here do not support stalinism and a lot prefer &#39;democratic socialism&#39; meaning they seek the establisment of socialism throught democratic means - not necasarily non-violent means - but they seek the support of the people and to be the voice of the people and indeed for the people to also be their own voice (eg. mass assembelies - voting on committees etc). both local democracy (towns, councils, village etc) and on a larger scale.

many here seek to restore democracy in this world that is being increasingly privatized and undemocratic. we seek for the people to be heard and listened to and involved in politics. we do not seek to build new communist super-states - we learn from what has been done wrong (george orwell is a great example of a socialist writing against what he sees as communist mistakes).

we seek a better world - indeed many people seek a better world, you could say that it is not worth doing because of past mistakes or possible mistakes of the future but then it would be worth doing anythin because of the fear of failure.

dictators and empires always come and go - the people and the land remains behind - i seek the abolishment of all empires - a true communist state to me - is when we all work together instead of against each other - when our enemies are finally our friends - maybe that is utopian,

as has been said before: we have a world to win, and nothing to loose but our chains&#33;

[Nyder]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 6 2004, 10:24 PM
How does government policies exploit the working class?
I can&#39;t fucking believe how much lefties like you ***** about capitalism yet you conveniently ignore one very crucial fact:

MOST PEOPLE GET ALMOST HALF OF THE WEALTH THAT THEY EARN TAKEN OFF THEM BY GOVERNMENTS&#33;



Forget your &#39;labour theory of value&#39; or any other crap - I can&#39;t believe that most leftists simply ignore this fact. How fucking obvious is it? The working poor either get a huge chunk of their wealth taken off them or they get huge marginal tax rates&#33;&#33;&#33;

I bet the pinkos are still scratching their heads - still blaming the capitalists while the true culprit goes undetected.

[Comrade Zeke]

Hey Bourgeoisie
You know how you said

We we give you Freedom and equality through oppression and salvery. You just have to believe us, trust us, and work hard for the system, it will happen, in a 100 years or so. Just keep working and believing in the system, not what happening around you. Think torwards the future.

About Communism you remember that.....Why does it sound like a farmilar system? hmmmmmmm

You work for God, spread his Kingdom, he give your give you freedom and eqaulity through slavery.....and in a 100 years the appoclysp will happen and all the good hard working people will go to heaven yep your mistaking Communism with Christainity. Become a Pagan its better.....no slavery ;)

Comrade Zeke

[Professor Moneybags]

Then you will make comparisons between the two and declare that they are the same. You will make a link between socialism and "collectivism," probably a small innocuous similarity and claim that socialism is "collectivism" which is diametrically opposed to "individualism" which you will presume libertarianism to be the only form of.

Perhaps you could find someone willing to waste their time trying to explain political concepts to you.

I&#39;ll take that cop-out as being an admission that you were talking nonsense in your last post and I was right.

[Professor Moneybags]

When we nationalize the industries, they are BOUGHT from the private sector. Is buying now a form of stealing? Afterwards the government hands the control over to the labours by using direct elections, where is the stealing in that one?

It wasn&#39;t the buying part I was referring to- it was the "democracy" part.

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:10 AM
I can&#39;t fucking believe how much lefties like you ***** about capitalism yet you conveniently ignore one very crucial fact:

MOST PEOPLE GET ALMOST HALF OF THE WEALTH THAT THEY EARN TAKEN OFF THEM BY GOVERNMENTS&#33;



Forget your &#39;labour theory of value&#39; or any other crap - I can&#39;t believe that most leftists simply ignore this fact. How fucking obvious is it? The working poor either get a huge chunk of their wealth taken off them or they get huge marginal tax rates&#33;&#33;&#33;

I bet the pinkos are still scratching their heads - still blaming the capitalists while the true culprit goes undetected.
and are governments not filled with bourgeois motherfuckers who like to fuck people in the ass? yeah they are. governments are also filled with capitalists. you do nothing to counter-argue.

[New Tolerance]

It wasn&#39;t the buying part I was referring to- it was the "democracy" part.

How was the democracy part as I described a form of stealing? (and answer by referencing to my example directly)


I can&#39;t fucking believe how much lefties like you ***** about capitalism yet you conveniently ignore one very crucial fact:

MOST PEOPLE GET ALMOST HALF OF THE WEALTH THAT THEY EARN TAKEN OFF THEM BY GOVERNMENTS&#33;



Forget your &#39;labour theory of value&#39; or any other crap - I can&#39;t believe that most leftists simply ignore this fact. How fucking obvious is it? The working poor either get a huge chunk of their wealth taken off them or they get huge marginal tax rates&#33;&#33;&#33;

I bet the pinkos are still scratching their heads - still blaming the capitalists while the true culprit goes undetected.

Hahahhahahahhahaha&#33;&#33;&#33; Almost half of the worker&#39;s income is taken from them as taxes?&#33;?&#33;&#33; What planet do you come from? We&#39;ve got progressive taxation just incase you haven&#39;t noticed. The workers barely get taxed at all from where I come from - Canada, and in fact the government actually provides them with support.

And if the taxes are what hurts the labours the most, then why is it that there are the labour unions (emphasize labour, formed by the labours themselves) formed primarily to combat their employers and not the government?

Another example: Multinationals hire exploited workers in 3rd world countries, and pay them to do 11 hours for 2 dollars a day. Are these workers being taxes? I have no offical sources saying that they aren&#39;t, but I doubt it.

[Osman Ghazi]

MOST PEOPLE GET ALMOST HALF OF THE WEALTH THAT THEY EARN TAKEN OFF THEM BY GOVERNMENTS&#33;


Retard Alert.

In Canada, a &#39;socialist&#39; country according to you, people who make over 100,000 bucks a year (maybe 5% of the total pop) get only 40% taken. For people who make over 60,000 but less than 100,000, only 27%. Only 15% for more than 8000 but less than 60,000.People who make less than 8000 don&#39;t pay any income taxes.

So, where do you get off saying &#39;most&#39;? A very small minority (maybe 15%) has a large portion of their wealth taken from them by the government.

[New Tolerance]

and further more, it&#39;s not like the government just sucks up the money and make it disappear into thin air. They redistrutube it to the working class from the rich. So technically you could argue that the rich are being exploited, but the workers being exploited by taxes?&#33;&#33; Stop dreaming it&#39;s not your bedtime.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:28 AM
My dream society will never work with Communism. Because to me Idividuslism is important. I would never be a drone.


Communism has nothing to do with being a drone.
What makes you think that so many people are not living as drones right now?
Work, eat, sleep, and do it again and again and again. You are forgetting that most people do not have the freedom that youre talking about all the time. Instead they are drones, with rare time to participate in their governments, smell the flowers or apreciate the society that is created with their labor before they have to wake up and go to work again.

[Professor Moneybags]

and further more, it&#39;s not like the government just sucks up the money and make it disappear into thin air.

That&#39;s got to be the funniest thing I&#39;ve read this week.


They redistrutube it to the working class from the rich. So technically you could argue that the rich are being exploited, but the workers being exploited by taxes?&#33;&#33; Stop dreaming it&#39;s not your bedtime.

Taking money from one person without permission and giving it to another ? We used to call that stealing.

[Nyder]

Hahahhahahahhahaha&#33;&#33;&#33; Almost half of the worker&#39;s income is taken from them as taxes?&#33;?&#33;&#33; What planet do you come from?

Canada must be the lucky country if the only tax they take is income tax. But no, income tax is not the ONLY tax that Governments rob off people. There are a MASSIVE amount of other fees that must be taken into account - ie: registration fees, licence fees, rates, fines, consumption taxes, tariffs, levies, tolls and all hidden taxes.


We&#39;ve got progressive taxation just incase you haven&#39;t noticed. The workers barely get taxed at all from where I come from - Canada, and in fact the government actually provides them with support.

Progressive taxation is a big hoax. It actually hurts the poor more. As soon as you start earning a decent salary, you lose all your government benefits and start paying tax rates of about 20-30% (not including all the other taxes). So really it hurts the poor more because they are paying huge marginal tax rates by losing all their benefits as soon as they start earning money.

ADD to that high taxes on the rich will cause them to invest less in production, thereby providing fewer jobs and stimulus to the economy. People will also not bother to earn above what they are earning because it will get taken away by the taxman.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 11:42 PM

Retard Alert.

In Canada, a &#39;socialist&#39; country according to you, people who make over 100,000 bucks a year (maybe 5% of the total pop) get only 40% taken. For people who make over 60,000 but less than 100,000, only 27%. Only 15% for more than 8000 but less than 60,000.People who make less than 8000 don&#39;t pay any income taxes.

So, where do you get off saying &#39;most&#39;? A very small minority (maybe 15%) has a large portion of their wealth taken from them by the government.
I&#39;m referring to where I live - Australia. Those marginal tax rates you quoted are a lot better then here. Still, 40% is a huge dis-incentive to create wealth.

[New Tolerance]

That&#39;s got to be the funniest thing I&#39;ve read this week.

Indeed, indeed.


Taking money from one person without permission and giving it to another ? We used to call that stealing.

Yes, as I said, that&#39;s debatable, I&#39;m not a social democrat, and I don&#39;t exactly like taxes either.

But that has nothing to do with the democratization of labour example I gave.


Canada must be the lucky country if the only tax they take is income tax. But no, income tax is not the ONLY tax that Governments rob off people. There are a MASSIVE amount of other fees that must be taken into account - ie: registration fees, licence fees, rates, fines, consumption taxes, tariffs, levies, tolls and all hidden taxes.

Your point?


Progressive taxation is a big hoax. It actually hurts the poor more. As soon as you start earning a decent salary, you lose all your government benefits and start paying tax rates of about 20-30% (not including all the other taxes). So really it hurts the poor more because they are paying huge marginal tax rates by losing all their benefits as soon as they start earning money.

The only reason many of the poor managed to get out of that hell hole called being poor is because of government benefits. Free education for their children etc.


ADD to that high taxes on the rich will cause them to invest less in production, thereby providing fewer jobs and stimulus to the economy. People will also not bother to earn above what they are earning because it will get taken away by the taxman.

Bush provided lots of tax cuts no? There yet there is still a total net job loss over his whole term. Thatcher cut taxes in Britain no? Unemployment went up to the unprecendented 3.5 million. In Chile, when Mr. Augusto started neo-liberal reforms unemployment went up to over 20 percent, in... need I go on?


I&#39;m referring to where I live - Australia. Those marginal tax rates you quoted are a lot better then here. Still, 40% is a huge dis-incentive to create wealth.

Most people are not enterprenuers, so having 40% of their money taxed does not reduce the actual amount of work they actually do. (and as for the taxes on corporations, read the employment paragraph I posted above)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In the first place, we communists do not support your capitalist governments by any means. Whatever taxes they&#39;re collecting, are being used to fight for the interests of the ruling class.


Progressive taxation is a big hoax. It actually hurts the poor more. As soon as you start earning a decent salary, you lose all your government benefits and start paying tax rates of about 20-30% (not including all the other taxes). So really it hurts the poor more because they are paying huge marginal tax rates by losing all their benefits as soon as they start earning money.

Working class people, in general, do not get very many significant promotions, so I don‘t think that‘s a big problem. And it certainly doesn’t deter them from trying harder.
And the working class is always the one to benefit from taxes.
They&#39;re the ones receiving social assistance, public schooling, public healthcare, government protection, improved public buildings and roads, etc. And they usually only pay a small portion of the government’s income.

I&#39;m not saying that I condone government taxation. I&#39;m just saying that the general public benefits from them as opposed to complete laizzes-faire capitalism.


ADD to that high taxes on the rich will cause them to invest less in production, thereby providing fewer jobs and stimulus to the economy. People will also not bother to earn above what they are earning because it will get taken away by the taxman.

That theory of trickle-down economics is ridiculous and has been proven to not be true various times. You can see that it doesn&#39;t work by looking at just about any society on the planet. The ruling class has always been and is still today extremely wealthy. However, most people in the past and still today live in terrible poverty. Just because the rich folks have money, doesn&#39;t mean that the poor benefit.

More jobs may possibly be created, but that will just place more power in the hands of the ruling class. It&#39;s the foundation of fascism: to give the entire power of production and cater to an elite capitalist class. You&#39;re taking capital produced by society, and, by not taxing it, you&#39;re giving it directly to the capitalists, as opposed to distributing that money to the people who allowed it to exist in the first place.

If failing to tax rich people gave power to poor people, the rich would be taxed immensely. What I&#39;m saying is that the government, a simple political arm of the bourgeoisie, would never give power to their class opponents.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

That theory of trickle-down economics is ridiculous and has been proven to not be true various times

I&#39;m sure it&#39;s been thoroughly demonstrated before on this board many times that members of the lowest quintile don&#39;t stay there very long and same for the upper quintile.

Probably the facts, truth and logic is what confused you.

As far as "trickle down" is concerned, you&#39;re just illustrating your ignorance again by using the term at all. Here... this might help you (or confuse you more given that it is a rational column:


Jobs and snow jobs: Part II
Thomas Sowell (back to web version) | email to a friend Send

September 10, 2004

Our current unemployment rate -- 5.4 percent -- is one of the lowest in the world and one of the lowest in our own history. Why then the hysteria about jobs? Because this is an election year and Senator Kerry is desperate for some issue that will rescue his faltering campaign.

According to the Kerry campaign, President Bush has "lost" over a million jobs since taking office. This of course assumes that jobs are Presidents&#39; to win or lose.

Both in political rhetoric and media hype, Presidents are credited or blamed for all sorts of economic developments that they have had little or nothing to do with. Back in the 1980s, it was "the Reagan deficit" and in the 1990s it was "the Clinton surplus."

In both these administrations, as in all other administrations in the history of the United States, all spending bills originated in the House of Representatives. Both Reagan and Clinton faced a House of Representatives controlled by the opposite party.

Neither President could create a deficit or a surplus.

Even further back, President Herbert Hoover was blamed for the Great Depression of the 1930s and President Franklin D. Roosevelt was credited with getting us out of the Depression. Virtually no recognized economist believes that today.

Some of Hoover&#39;s policies may have made matters worse and FDR carried those policies even further, making things much worse. But there is little that is positive that any President can do, except recognize how little he can do -- and therefore not get in the way of the market&#39;s natural tendency to rebound.

President George W. Bush came into office inheriting an economic downturn that began at the end of the Clinton administration. Then the September 11th attacks and the reactions to them disrupted the economy.

Have we forgotten about the drastic reduction in travel after 9/11, which plunged the airline industry into huge losses and dealt a blow to hotels and vacation resorts across the country? Jobs decline when the economy declines.

President Bush&#39;s tax cuts have been blamed for our economic woes by those who believe in high taxes. But the economy&#39;s decline began before taxes were cut and we now have a strong recovery without the tax rates being raised.

Few things have been more grossly distorted than tax cuts. Liberals in politics and the media seem to think that what matters is what happens to the money. In reality, what matters is how the cut in tax rates affects people&#39;s behavior.

Time and again, lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues. That is because lower tax rates make it profitable to take money out of tax shelters like municipal bonds and put it into something that is more productive, now that taxes are no longer taking such a big bite.

When more money is invested in more productive economic activities, more output results -- and more jobs are created while generating that increased output. That is the whole point.

People who hate to see tax cuts picture an entirely different scenario. Such people see "tax cuts for the rich" being done because of some theory that the money received by the rich will eventually "trickle down" to the poor.

No economist in the entire history of economics has ever had any such "trickle-down" theory. It is a complete straw man.

If you want to argue about the effects of any given cut in tax rates, that is fine. But those who dream up a "trickle-down theory" obviously do not want to confront the real arguments for tax cuts or the actual effects of these cuts.

Evading issues instead of debating them has become the hallmark of an election campaign that has degenerated into a raucous dispute about what two young lieutenants did or didn&#39;t do more than 30 years ago.

Senator Kerry&#39;s making his Vietnam war record the central theme of his campaign was itself an evasion of the record of his decades in politics since then. Senator Zell Miller&#39;s devastating criticism of that record has likewise been evaded by talking about Senator Miller&#39;s tone or emotions, instead of the substance.

Jobs hysteria is only the latest in a series of evasions and distractions.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.




It&#39;s the foundation of fascism: to give the entire power of production and cater to an elite capitalist class


See... your entire concept is upended assumptions. No one GIVES the power of production to anyone.



You&#39;re taking capital produced by society, and, by not taxing it, you&#39;re giving it directly to the capitalists, as opposed to distributing that money to the people who allowed it to exist in the first place.


Not taxing it? The big mystery to me is, how can our economy function under the full weight and burden of all the taxes that are levied, to SLOW DOWN the capitalism.

Lets look at an example, you go down to the store, and buy a box of paper clips.

From the miner who digs up the iron ore, to you paying your sales tax on the box of paper clips, how many times is that product taxed?

Be honest, and list them all.

And again... no one DISTIBUTES money... people EARN it. There&#39;s a difference.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2004, 03:09 PM
Taking money from one person without permission and giving it to another ? We used to call that stealing.
So you would rather live in a world with no maintainance at all?

When you pay your taxes what do you think happens to that money? Do you think it gets placed into a secret account and just stored for years and years? No it goes into investing in the public services you take for granted.

Of course you could privatise all these services, and lower your taxes, but you would still end up paying considerably more than you did before. Why? Because private companies need to make a profit. The state has no such requirement, all it needs to do is balance the books.

It is always cheeper to pay for services through the state, if the state mechanism is run efficently.

If you think paying taxes is stealing then your even more ignorant than I had ever anticipated.

[New Tolerance]

Capitalist Lawyer, I found that "rational" article to be somewhat interesting, let&#39;s break it down and analyze it:


Jobs and snow jobs: Part II
Thomas Sowell (back to web version) | email to a friend Send

September 10, 2004

Our current unemployment rate -- 5.4 percent -- is one of the lowest in the world and one of the lowest in our own history. Why then the hysteria about jobs? Because this is an election year and Senator Kerry is desperate for some issue that will rescue his faltering campaign.

Just as a side note, if you count the number of people who quit finding jobs because there aren&#39;t any, the real unemployment rate of the US is actually at 9%.

Source: a recent book called: "The European Dream"

you can listen to a talk show about it:
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/08...0818_b_main.asp (http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/08/20040818_b_main.asp)

they will mention the unemployment figures.


According to the Kerry campaign, President Bush has "lost" over a million jobs since taking office. This of course assumes that jobs are Presidents&#39; to win or lose.

Both in political rhetoric and media hype, Presidents are credited or blamed for all sorts of economic developments that they have had little or nothing to do with. Back in the 1980s, it was "the Reagan deficit" and in the 1990s it was "the Clinton surplus."

In both these administrations, as in all other administrations in the history of the United States, all spending bills originated in the House of Representatives. Both Reagan and Clinton faced a House of Representatives controlled by the opposite party.


Ah hahahahahahahha&#33; So in fact the congress should be credited with all the US policies, wait a minute, but that means:

It were the Democrats who destroyed the Soviet Union, not Ronald Reagan.
It were the Democrats who liberated Eastern Europe
It were the Democrats who ended the Cold War (but created the Reagan myth)
It were the Democrats who rescued the United States from the energy and economic crisis of the 70s

It were the Republicans who implenemented Clinton&#39;s "third path" policies
It were the Republicans who bombed the former Yugoslavia
and since the Recession started before Bush entered office (mentioned later), It were the Republicans who were responsible for the recession (thanks alot)

But wait&#33; Our current President is REPUBLICAN&#33; and all three branches of government are REPUBLICAN&#33; So why did this dude even bring up the fact that presidents has little power because the congress is controlled by the opposite party? (When this is not the case right now) Bush has significantly more power due to the fact that his party controls all of the government.

Was our author typing this at 1am? Did so immerse himself in the &#39;fascinating&#39; depth of American political history that he forgot he&#39;s living in the America of 2004 and not of 1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996?

O well, at least he gave me a chance to crown the Democrats with the credit of slaying the beast of Leninism. (thank YOU very much...) ;)


Neither President could create a deficit or a surplus.

Even further back, President Herbert Hoover was blamed for the Great Depression of the 1930s and President Franklin D. Roosevelt was credited with getting us out of the Depression. Virtually no recognized economist believes that today.


No recognized economist believe that today? Any sources?


Some of Hoover&#39;s policies may have made matters worse and FDR carried those policies even further, making things much worse. But there is little that is positive that any President can do, except recognize how little he can do -- and therefore not get in the way of the market&#39;s natural tendency to rebound.


A contradictory paragrah.

Look at his points:

>FDR implemented policies that made things worse.
>Presidents don&#39;t have the power to do anything

According to this, FDR did NOT make things "worse", since according to the second arguement, he couldn&#39;t do anything, because he has no power and therefore can&#39;t do anything, and therefore did not implement any actual policies. And therefore, he had nothing do to with things becoming worse.

Further more, he failed to explain how exactly we "rebounded" out of the great depression other than by using the New Deal.


President George W. Bush came into office inheriting an economic downturn that began at the end of the Clinton administration. Then the September 11th attacks and the reactions to them disrupted the economy.

Have we forgotten about the drastic reduction in travel after 9/11, which plunged the airline industry into huge losses and dealt a blow to hotels and vacation resorts across the country? Jobs decline when the economy declines.

Yet another inconsistent arguement. Let&#39;s take a look:

>recession already started before Bush was in office
>recession should be blamed on 9/11 not Bush&#39;s policies (9/11 was after Bush was in office)

Do I even have to explain how this one is contradictory to you?


President Bush&#39;s tax cuts have been blamed for our economic woes by those who believe in high taxes. But the economy&#39;s decline began before taxes were cut and we now have a strong recovery without the tax rates being raised.


Strong recovery? The numbers are still lower than expectations mind you, and we still have a net loss of jobs since Bush took office.


Few things have been more grossly distorted than tax cuts. Liberals in politics and the media seem to think that what matters is what happens to the money. In reality, what matters is how the cut in tax rates affects people&#39;s behavior.

Time and again, lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues. That is because lower tax rates make it profitable to take money out of tax shelters like municipal bonds and put it into something that is more productive, now that taxes are no longer taking such a big bite.


Time and time again? I would like to see some examples of this time and time again.


When more money is invested in more productive economic activities, more output results -- and more jobs are created while generating that increased output. That is the whole point.

Do I have to tell him that the US has much higher crime rates then Europe? Thanks to the lack of social democraticism and that the costs of fighting crime (producing guns, equipments, training and maintain the police, the hospitals who take care of the victims, and the repair of the damage done by the crime) actually beats down the so called "more output result" at the other end?


People who hate to see tax cuts picture an entirely different scenario. Such people see "tax cuts for the rich" being done because of some theory that the money received by the rich will eventually "trickle down" to the poor.

No economist in the entire history of economics has ever had any such "trickle-down" theory. It is a complete straw man.


So are you calling Ronald Reagan an idiot? (since he said it)


If you want to argue about the effects of any given cut in tax rates, that is fine. But those who dream up a "trickle-down theory" obviously do not want to confront the real arguments for tax cuts or the actual effects of these cuts.

I believe that this is aimed up conservatives, since they are the ones that actually believe this theory.


Evading issues instead of debating them has become the hallmark of an election campaign that has degenerated into a raucous dispute about what two young lieutenants did or didn&#39;t do more than 30 years ago.

Again, aimed at conservatives.


Senator Kerry&#39;s making his Vietnam war record the central theme of his campaign was itself an evasion of the record of his decades in politics since then. Senator Zell Miller&#39;s devastating criticism of that record has likewise been evaded by talking about Senator Miller&#39;s tone or emotions, instead of the substance.

What does that have to do with economics?&#33;

This guy has the same kind of writer&#39;s block as me. Bad conclusions.


Jobs hysteria is only the latest in a series of evasions and distractions.

Yet he does not mention what we are being distracted from. hmm...

[DaCuBaN]

Err, you can keep this debate :lol: I just want to cover one little thing:


From the miner who digs up the iron ore, to you paying your sales tax on the box of paper clips, how many times is that product taxed?

Yes, it&#39;s silly: The system is currently designed to hide the sheer amount of tax you pay, even in a lesser-mixed economy like the US (compared to the UK) - In the UK if you take the example of Oil, it&#39;s taxed at four different levels, and twice on the last one meaning that five different taxes go into it.

I&#39;m not against the taxes being there as such; I&#39;m against the fact that they dishonestly charge you it (We pay approximately 80% tax on Petroleum here, I&#39;d rather they just did this in one giant bite): But if people try to &#39;play&#39; the system by moving their income accounts to tax-havens and such like, governments have little choice but to &#39;swindle&#39; people in this way.

Dishonesty is met with dishonesty: Be honest, what did you expect?

[Professor Moneybags]

So you would rather live in a world with no maintainance at all?

I never said that. I support maintainence through non-coercive means.


When you pay your taxes what do you think happens to that money? Do you think it gets placed into a secret account and just stored for years and years? No it goes into investing in the public services you take for granted.

It gets wasted through government corruption.


Of course you could privatise all these services, and lower your taxes, but you would still end up paying considerably more than you did before. Why? Because private companies need to make a profit. The state has no such requirement, all it needs to do is balance the books.

...by making you pay more taxes ? :rolleyes:


It is always cheeper to pay for services through the state, if the state mechanism is run efficently.

The idea that government can run industry better than private companies is a joke. I&#39;d love to see the evidence.


If you think paying taxes is stealing then your even more ignorant than I had ever anticipated.

Not paying them, just demanding them by force. If you can&#39;t see how that is stealing, you&#39;re even more anti-conceptual than I ever imagined. Not to mention peddling a double standard.

[New Tolerance]

It gets wasted through government corruption.

Specifically, what government corruption are you refering to?


The idea that government can run industry better than private companies is a joke. I&#39;d love to see the evidence.

and I love to see the evidence which shows the opposite.


Not paying them, just demanding them by force. If you can&#39;t see how that is stealing, you&#39;re even more anti-conceptual than I ever imagined. Not to mention peddling a double standard.

To debate that we will have to address the concept of property, why don&#39;t you start by giving us your definition of property?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I noticed how you ignored my other comments New Tolerance?

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 03:56 PM
I noticed how you ignored my other comments New Tolerance?
They were not addressed to me, and I do not agree with that other comrade you quote on some of those issues anyways. If you have anything specific you want to talk to me about, then list them.

[Subversive Pessimist]

It will depend on many circumstances, the process could be sped up or slowed down by world events, but it is inevitable.


Prove it, please.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I forget who I was responding to but feel free to refute my statements below:

no one DISTIBUTES money... people EARN it. There&#39;s a difference.


I&#39;m sure it&#39;s been thoroughly demonstrated before on this board many times that members of the lowest quintile don&#39;t stay there very long and same for the upper quintile.

No one GIVES the power of production to anyone.

[socialistfuture]

i dunno bout where u live but here there are people that are rich all their lives - from when they are a baby to when they die - because they are born into a walthy family - while there are people who are poor all their lives. yeah some can swap -

they are poor for a while then get rich - or they are rich then loose or spend all their money. but the gap is widening - the rich get richer and the poor have a harder time. the general trend it university is expensive - things are getting privitised (costing more in the long run) and its getting hard for a lot of people.

a lot of people will never be able to buy in their own home. heaps of people have to work shits jobs with long hours. say anything about communism but the reality for capitalism today is not pleasant for a LOT of people. heaps of those in the left don&#39;t want the &#39;communism&#39; of the past - an athoritarian super state that has central planning and low freedom of speech - we want local democracy and to be able to control our own lives and homes - like the zapatistas.

there is always going to be an &#39;enemy&#39; in capitalism - something that stops the powers that be from making everything alright - butcause capitalism cannot be alright - there is always a crisis. from religion to communism to terrorism to ...

we see what a true capitalist state is everyday - its got corruption - its got councils that make decisions the local ppl dont want - its got wars.. endless wars... its got pollution in all forms... it is a system that is robbing our decendents of a future, and stealing out present. it is system of mass inequality - with slums right beside apartments, it keeps some people poor and criminilizes its own people.
and it aint getting any better&#33;

[New Tolerance]

no one DISTIBUTES money... people EARN it. There&#39;s a difference.


That&#39;s a highly abstract concept. Go down the abstraction line.

Couldn&#39;t you argue that managers of a private business "distibutes" money in the sense that: the company makes a revenue and the boss has to determine what the pay for the employees will be and pass the money down. (and therefore is "distibuting" a share of the company&#39;s income to the employees)



I&#39;m sure it&#39;s been thoroughly demonstrated before on this board many times that members of the lowest quintile don&#39;t stay there very long and same for the upper quintile.


really? I haven&#39;t seen anything of that nature being displayed, maybe I missed the conservations, but you bring the evidence for that up again so I can look at it?



No one GIVES the power of production to anyone.


That I agree, but what does that have to do with anything?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Again, if you count the number of people who quit finding jobs because there aren&#39;t any, the real unemployment rate of the US is actually at 9%.

A perfect example of why you have no credibility.

Unless the way unemployment rates have CHANGED, then 5.4% now is pretty much the same as 5.4% when Clinton was running. Also... given that it is a relative change, it clearly shows that things are better than they were months/years ago. Does it mean that it is accurate out to nine decimal places? Nope.




So in fact the Congress should be credited with all the US policies, wait a minute, but that means:


You&#39;ve brought up multiple points on how Congress should be given credit for policy decisions that were NOT based in who holds the purse strings. THAT was the point being made... in case you missed it.




So why did this dude even bring up the fact that presidents has little power because the congress is controlled by the opposite party? (When this is not the case right now) Bush has significantly more power due to the fact that his party controls all of the government.

In order to educate the ignorant that the President has very little control or effect on the economy.




FDR implemented policies that made things worse.
Presidents don&#39;t have the power to do anything.

That&#39;s not what he said. It&#39;s pretty much a strawman tactic to mis-represent what someone has said and then tear it down while jumping up and down in a victory dance... all for tearing down a statement that wasn&#39;t made.




Yet another inconsistent arguement. Let&#39;s take a look:

recession already started before Bush was in office
recession should be blamed on 9/11 not Bush&#39;s policies (9/11 was after Bush was in office)


Again... more strawman.

Downturn started before Bush was nominated. Recession WORSENED by 9/11 and the prospect of war.

Is it really so difficult to interpret the facts?



So is he calling Ronald Reagan an idiot?

Your argument MIGHT have some credibility IF you had included some statements from Reagan actually touting "trickle-down."

Do you have any?



That I agree, but what does that have to do with anything?

Aren&#39;t you the guy who said that government GIVES the means of production to the ruling class which constitutes as fascism?

[New Tolerance]

A perfect example of why you have no credibility.

Unless the way unemployment rates have CHANGED, then 5.4% now is pretty much the same as 5.4% when Clinton was running. Also... given that it is a relative change, it clearly shows that things are better than they were months/years ago. Does it mean that it is accurate out to nine decimal places? Nope.


"Unless the way unemployment rates have CHANGED"

(This sentence doesn&#39;t make much sense)

Now, you ought to improve your grammer and restate your point before I answer this. I don&#39;t want to jump to conclusions about what you are saying by playing with word jigsaw. So please clarify your point.


You&#39;ve brought up multiple points on how Congress should be given credit for policy decisions that were NOT based in who holds the purse strings. THAT was the point being made... in case you missed it.

I didn&#39;t miss that point at all, in fact I completely agree with it. I blame capitalism, not Bush in particular for the economy. I don&#39;t challenge his point, all I was doing was pointing out a few side-effects this guy&#39;s arguements would have if it was proven to be true. Side-effects that Republicans may not accept (such as the Democrats are responsible for defeating the Soviet Union)


In order to educate the ignorant that the President has very little control or effect on the economy.

Did you miss my point about Republicans controlling all three branches of the government at this time? (and therefore the examples he gave were really quiet pointless) or are you ignoring it?...


That&#39;s not what he said. It&#39;s pretty much a strawman tactic to mis-represent what someone has said and then tear it down while jumping up and down in a victory dance... all for tearing down a statement that wasn&#39;t made.


So enlighten me, what DID he say?


Again... more strawman.

Downturn started before Bush was nominated. Recession WORSENED by 9/11 and the prospect of war.

Is it really so difficult to interpret the facts?

I don&#39;t dispute the facts. I said that just incase he was playing the blame game.


Your argument MIGHT have some credibility IF you had included some statements from Reagan actually touting "trickle-down."

Do you have any?

Yes, but not from Reagan personally, but definately from his chief economic advisor David Stockman, who was one of the key heads in Reagan&#39;s administration:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...own%20economics (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Trickle-down%20economics)

Further more, if you argue that there never was a trickling-down theory, then are you saying that you acknowledge that tax-cuts don&#39;t help the poor?


Aren&#39;t you the guy who said that government GIVES the means of production to the ruling class which constitutes as fascism?

Really??&#33; I said that? where? where? find it for me will you? Because I certainly can&#39;t find it... I don&#39;t even know where to start, since as far as I know, I NEVER said that.

[Osman Ghazi]

Aren&#39;t you the guy who said that government GIVES the means of production to the ruling class which constitutes as m?

The ruling class already has the means of production. That is the defining quality of being a member. They also already control the government. That&#39;s kinda the whole point.

m is simply when the ruling class chooses to end the facade of democracy and keep themselves on top using pure force, usually because capitalism has become unstable(economic downturn, majour labour disputes, etc.)

[cubist]

In order to educate the ignorant that the President has very little control or effect on the economy.

IN ORDER TO EDUCATE ONESELF ONE WOULD HAVE TO READ A BOOK OR TWO. I believe it would be hypocritical of bush to educate anyone but himself


and tax cuts very rarely benifit the poor more often than not they benifit the presidents "peers"

[Osman Ghazi]

no one DISTIBUTES money... people EARN it. There&#39;s a difference.


Actually, the difference is very slight. Either way, whether people have &#39;earned&#39; it or not (a very subjective concept), money is distributed throughout all sectors of an economy, whether they be public, private or illegal.

The only difference between the two terms is that the first is objective(i.e. there is empirical evidence that money is distributed in an economy) whereas the second is subjective (the word &#39;earn&#39; denotes that the person repaid the money with a valuable service. Value of course is a subjective concept.)


I&#39;m sure it&#39;s been thoroughly demonstrated before on this board many times that members of the lowest quintile don&#39;t stay there very long and same for the upper quintile.


Oddly enough, those are the two quintiles which have the most permanency: fabulous wealth and destitution. Considering that the United States now has a worse GINI rating (a measure of the GDP percentage taken by the lowest and highest decile) than China however, this is unsurprising.

Also, a question: If there is no trickle-down effect, why the hell do you want tax cuts?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 05:57 PM

Actually, the difference is very slight. Either way, whether people have &#39;earned&#39; it or not (a very subjective concept), money is distributed throughout all sectors of an economy, whether they be public, private or illegal.

The only difference between the two terms is that the first is objective(i.e. there is empirical evidence that money is distributed in an economy) whereas the second is subjective (the word &#39;earn&#39; denotes that the person repaid the money with a valuable service. Value of course is a subjective concept.)




That&#39;s funny, you seem to ignore that value is subjective when talking about your precious labour theory of value - which Marx himself couldn&#39;t even properly define.

And while value is subjective - it is objective based on the mind&#39;s use of reason. For example, I won&#39;t be willing to pay &#036;100 for a box of cereal because cereal is not worth that much, considering value of the dollar, supply of cereal, price of alternatives, value to buyer, etc.

Also remember - you can only get things out of 3 ways: trading, giving or force. Your &#39;perfect&#39; communist society would consist only of giving, which is obviously ludicrous and impossible. Which brings us to using force - the only way to socialism and also to poverty and oppression.

So it has to be trading, which leads to capitalism. There is no other logical choice, comrades.

[Osman Ghazi]

That&#39;s funny, you seem to ignore that value is subjective when talking about your precious labour theory of value - which Marx himself couldn&#39;t even properly define.


While I have defended the LTV in the past, it was mostly out of the cappie vs. commie mentality. I still don&#39;t understand it, except as a vague economic theory. I&#39;ll admit, it has a lot of wholes in it, but so does every economic theory. Even you have to admit that cutting taxes doesn&#39;t work all the time. The thing is this: economics in general is about 90% . It is difficult to apply economic theory to real life because humans are irrational. They never behave the same way twice.


Your &#39;perfect&#39; communist society would consist only of giving, which is obviously ludicrous and impossible.

Capitalism is ludicrous and impossible. Wow, look at me, I&#39;m a master debater. Seriously though, you offer no evidence why &#39;giving is impossible&#39;. What prevents a gift economy from functioning?

The way I figure it, stuff would be produced and then shipped to a central location, like maybe an old Wal-Mart or something big like that. Then people would come and pick up whatever they need.

[Nyder]

Because no one would bother working if they could just get it for free. You would need to threaten everyone with death and beatings just to make them work.

[Nyder]

Because no one would bother working if they could just get it for free. You would need to threaten everyone with death and beatings just to make them work.

[Nyder]

Because no one would bother working if they could just get it for free. You would need to threaten everyone with death and beatings just to make them work.

[Nas]

can someone reply to Nyder ?

what Nyder is trying to say , why would there be a need to work hard under communism? what would the incentive be? now if you dont have to work hard ........... there is a problem

[Nas]

can someone reply to Nyder ?

what Nyder is trying to say , why would there be a need to work hard under communism? what would the incentive be? now if you dont have to work hard ........... there is a problem

[Nas]

can someone reply to Nyder ?

what Nyder is trying to say , why would there be a need to work hard under communism? what would the incentive be? now if you dont have to work hard ........... there is a problem

[NovelGentry]

A man without hobbies is a sad shell of a man. You&#39;re assuming there&#39;s nothing people enjoy that is applicable to "work"... like that I can&#39;t possibly enjoy working with computers and would thus like to do it for the community. Have you ever heard of Open Source software? Why do people write that? Do you use Firefox, mozilla? Ever heard of GIMP, Linux? These are all things that people actively code for free. There are of course commercial interests now, but it was not always that way, and even if all commercial interests dropped it would not stop the progress of the software. It might slow it&#39;s position in the world market, but it would not stop people wanting to write software like that.

People do things cause they want to. Instead of half-assed doctors in it for the money you&#39;re going to see people who are truly interested in medicine and helping people. Scientists who actively want to understand science rather than just use it for a living.

You&#39;re ignoring the idea that anyone can be interested in doing something for any other reason than money. If that is the case then I can only assume you are personally driven by money and money alone, and in that case you must be a very sad individual with little to no knowledge outside your chosen career.

[NovelGentry]

A man without hobbies is a sad shell of a man. You&#39;re assuming there&#39;s nothing people enjoy that is applicable to "work"... like that I can&#39;t possibly enjoy working with computers and would thus like to do it for the community. Have you ever heard of Open Source software? Why do people write that? Do you use Firefox, mozilla? Ever heard of GIMP, Linux? These are all things that people actively code for free. There are of course commercial interests now, but it was not always that way, and even if all commercial interests dropped it would not stop the progress of the software. It might slow it&#39;s position in the world market, but it would not stop people wanting to write software like that.

People do things cause they want to. Instead of half-assed doctors in it for the money you&#39;re going to see people who are truly interested in medicine and helping people. Scientists who actively want to understand science rather than just use it for a living.

You&#39;re ignoring the idea that anyone can be interested in doing something for any other reason than money. If that is the case then I can only assume you are personally driven by money and money alone, and in that case you must be a very sad individual with little to no knowledge outside your chosen career.

[NovelGentry]

A man without hobbies is a sad shell of a man. You&#39;re assuming there&#39;s nothing people enjoy that is applicable to "work"... like that I can&#39;t possibly enjoy working with computers and would thus like to do it for the community. Have you ever heard of Open Source software? Why do people write that? Do you use Firefox, mozilla? Ever heard of GIMP, Linux? These are all things that people actively code for free. There are of course commercial interests now, but it was not always that way, and even if all commercial interests dropped it would not stop the progress of the software. It might slow it&#39;s position in the world market, but it would not stop people wanting to write software like that.

People do things cause they want to. Instead of half-assed doctors in it for the money you&#39;re going to see people who are truly interested in medicine and helping people. Scientists who actively want to understand science rather than just use it for a living.

You&#39;re ignoring the idea that anyone can be interested in doing something for any other reason than money. If that is the case then I can only assume you are personally driven by money and money alone, and in that case you must be a very sad individual with little to no knowledge outside your chosen career.

[Osman Ghazi]

Because no one would bother working if they could just get it for free. You would need to threaten everyone with death and beatings just to make them work.


Nyder, you&#39;re a retard, plain and simple. And what&#39;s more, you&#39;re ignorant too.

Have you ever heard of someone named Douglas McGregor? He was a capitalist management theroist who proved, 50 years ago no less, the false hood of &#39;Theory X&#39;, or the theory that people don&#39;t like work, must be closely watched by their supervisors and must be constantly threatened to be efficient.

Instead, he formulated &#39;Theory Y&#39;, which says that people will work, hard too, at things that they gain satisfaction from. It also says that people work better in autonomous work groups of 10-12 people, where social attitudes have a normalizing affect on workers.

So, really, all you are doing is spouting off a disproven and moronic theory that has at its roots, classical scientific management, whose core value is that a human being is a tool, and a dumb one at that.

In conclusion, maybe you should read a book or two about this &#39;human nature&#39; thing that you purport to understand so well.

[Osman Ghazi]

Because no one would bother working if they could just get it for free. You would need to threaten everyone with death and beatings just to make them work.


Nyder, you&#39;re a retard, plain and simple. And what&#39;s more, you&#39;re ignorant too.

Have you ever heard of someone named Douglas McGregor? He was a capitalist management theroist who proved, 50 years ago no less, the false hood of &#39;Theory X&#39;, or the theory that people don&#39;t like work, must be closely watched by their supervisors and must be constantly threatened to be efficient.

Instead, he formulated &#39;Theory Y&#39;, which says that people will work, hard too, at things that they gain satisfaction from. It also says that people work better in autonomous work groups of 10-12 people, where social attitudes have a normalizing affect on workers.

So, really, all you are doing is spouting off a disproven and moronic theory that has at its roots, classical scientific management, whose core value is that a human being is a tool, and a dumb one at that.

In conclusion, maybe you should read a book or two about this &#39;human nature&#39; thing that you purport to understand so well.

[Osman Ghazi]

Because no one would bother working if they could just get it for free. You would need to threaten everyone with death and beatings just to make them work.


Nyder, you&#39;re a retard, plain and simple. And what&#39;s more, you&#39;re ignorant too.

Have you ever heard of someone named Douglas McGregor? He was a capitalist management theroist who proved, 50 years ago no less, the false hood of &#39;Theory X&#39;, or the theory that people don&#39;t like work, must be closely watched by their supervisors and must be constantly threatened to be efficient.

Instead, he formulated &#39;Theory Y&#39;, which says that people will work, hard too, at things that they gain satisfaction from. It also says that people work better in autonomous work groups of 10-12 people, where social attitudes have a normalizing affect on workers.

So, really, all you are doing is spouting off a disproven and moronic theory that has at its roots, classical scientific management, whose core value is that a human being is a tool, and a dumb one at that.

In conclusion, maybe you should read a book or two about this &#39;human nature&#39; thing that you purport to understand so well.