What Is YOUR Definition Of Communism?

[Malleus Malificarum]

Let's hear 'em. :)

[Hiero]

Communism is communism, it doesnt matter what you think it is.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:35 AM
Communism is communism, it doesnt matter what you think it is.
Do you have an answer or not?

[leftist resistance]

:huh:
Communism is already defined

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:13 AM
:huh:
Communism is already defined
I want you people to stop being lazy, and give me your personal definitions of Communism. I also want the coward above me to put in for a name. Display some sense of individuality, at least. :rolleyes:

[Latifa]

Since most of us havent writen a personalised manifesto, we don't have personal definitions of communism. Does that answer your question?

[Zingu]

An classess and stateless society completely devoid of the capital market and run by labor power and the abolishment of wage slavery resulting in the joy of labor.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:20 AM
Since most of us havent writen a personalised manifesto, we don't have personal definitions of communism. Does that answer your question?
Are you admitting that you have no real conception of what Communism is?

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:21 AM
An classess and stateless society completely devoid of the capital market and run by labor power and the abolishment of wage slavery resulting in the joy of labor.
Okay, there's one. Now: has that ever been achieved in a large industrialized nation? Can it be achieved without resulting in massive human rights abuses?

Give me more.

[leftist resistance]

Originally posted by Malleus Malificarum+Dec 4 2004, 05:17 AM--> (Malleus Malificarum @ Dec 4 2004, 05:17 AM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 05:13 AM
:huh:
Communism is already defined
I want you people to stop being lazy, and give me your personal definitions of Communism. I also want the coward above me to put in for a name. Display some sense of individuality, at least. :rolleyes: [/b]
That's my preference you asshole.Instead of that crappy 'name' you have

[Latifa]

Are you admitting that you have no real conception of what Communism is?
No, my definition of communism mirrors that of Marx's. So it isn't MY definition as such.

Can it be achieved without resulting in massive human rights abuses?
Human rights abuse? What human rights abuse?

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:29 AM

Are you admitting that you have no real conception of what Communism is?
No, my definition of communism mirrors that of Marx's. So it isn't MY definition as such.

Can it be achieved without resulting in massive human rights abuses?
Human rights abuse? What human rights abuse?
So you prefer to go through your life on this board as a drone. I see.

[Malleus Malificarum]

No, my definition of communism mirrors that of Marx's. So it isn't MY definition as such.

So you refuse to think for yourself? To formulate your own impression?


Human rights abuse? What human rights abuse?

How many people were killed in the Cuban Communist revolution? Add them to the numbers killed in the Soviet revolution. Add those to the between 7 and 11 million Ukrainian farmers who were put to death by mass starvation under Stalin. You don't consider murder on that scale to constitute a violation of human rights? So I take it the Holocaust is perfectly ethical in your opinion?

[Latifa]

Add them to the numbers killed in the Soviet revolution. Add those to the between 7 and 11 million Ukrainian farmers who were put to death by mass starvation under Stalin. You don't consider murder on that scale to constitute a violation of human rights? So I take it the Holocaust is perfectly ethical in your opinion?
We were talking about Cuba.....


So you refuse to think for yourself? To formulate your own impression?I've thought hard about improvements to the theory, I am yet to find one.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 05:50 AM

So you prefer to go through your life on this board as a drone. I see.
My life is not this board. Although your life may be attention seeking behind your computer screen, that does not hold true for the rest of us.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1/ Communism refers to a stateless society based on a pure-gift economy.

2/ Historically, communist praxis has been rather peaceful - it's reactionaries aiming to preserve existing order who tend to introduce violence into the situation (e.g. Diggers/English Civil War)

[Forward Union]

Malleus Malificarum, you don't even know what communism is? Im presuming from the fact that your restricted, you've already stated an opposition to it. Its the true mark of ignorance, to you oppose an idea you don't even understand.

But for your own sake, read Redstar2000 papers' explanation of What communism is (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

But everyone has their own interpretations of certain aspects of communism, if you want to hear them you have to be a little more specific.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, check out What is Socialism? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Intifada]

How many people were killed in the Cuban Communist revolution? Add them to the numbers killed in the Soviet revolution. Add those to the between 7 and 11 million Ukrainian farmers who were put to death by mass starvation under Stalin.

"When capitalists and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, Class Privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the paris commune, slavery, the spanish-american war, the boer war, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the first world war, flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the soviet intervention, the armenian genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the great depression, hunger marches, nazism, the spanish civil war, militarism, asbestosis, radiation death, the massacre of Nanking, the second world war, belsen, dresden, hiroshima, racism, the mafia, nuclear weapons, the korean war, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, thalidomide, the rape of the third world, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the vietnam war, the military suppression of greece, india, malaya, indonesia, chile, el salvador, nicaragua, panama and turkey, the gulf war, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, exxon valdez, deforestation, organised crime, the heroin and cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the ozone layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then - and only then - will I consider apologising for the errors of socialism."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 03:18 AM
Let's hear 'em. :)
As it's already been said, communism is already defined. There are no interpretations of it.

Communism is the idea of a stateless, classless society based on the economic maxim "from each according to ability to each according to need."

In a classical Marxist sense communism is the final stage of a of a two stage period from capitalism to communism. Marx said that there was a transitional period called socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat where, theoretically the working class take control of the means of production and regulate society and defend the revolution, at which point the state withers away and you are left with a communist society.


Display some sense of individuality, at least.

1+1 = 2. There is no individuality or interpretation of the answer. 1 + 1 always equals 2.


Can it be achieved without resulting in massive human rights abuses?

What do you mean by human rights abuses? Human rights as it stands now are defined within a very narrow interpretation of the world.

The working class, being the last oppressed and exploited class in society will eventually understand their situation and demand that it is changed, or at least that's what history suggests.

The workers being the majority are numerically in the right. The simple answer; more people who think one way hold more of a right than those who do not.

Unfortunately, those people who will oppose the majority of workers demands for societal change hold the monopoly on power. The army, police etc, so we are forced at some point to confront the ruling class and the need for violent confrontation occurs, at which point "human" rights may be violated. Depending on how you define human rights.



QUOTE
No, my definition of communism mirrors that of Marx's. So it isn't MY definition as such.

So you refuse to think for yourself? To formulate your own impression?

Either you're stupid or you're purposely trying to provoke a negative reaction. It's clear that this isn't what is meant by the sentence.

Karl Marx defined communism as being what it is! If you interpret it as something else it no longer is communism.

Scrambled eggs are made from eggs! If you substitute the eggs for apples it's no longer scrambled eggs, is it?


How many people were killed in the Cuban Communist revolution?

Many hundreds of soldiers. Soldiers who were defending a corrupt, oppressive dictatorship.

Furthermore Cuba is not a communist country. It was in the second stage of the Marxist transitional phase, but that has arguably passed a long time ago. It is now on the path to returning to capitalism.


Add them to the numbers killed in the Soviet revolution.

The Russian revolution was relativly bloodless. It was the civil war that turned into a bloody mess. The violence only happens when the old ruling class attempt to remain in control, forcing the workers to defend their gains. If they simply did as we asked, there would be no need for violence.


Add those to the between 7 and 11 million Ukrainian farmers who were put to death by mass starvation under Stalin.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that 11 million people died?

===========

I can't work out whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether you genuinely are this ignorant. Either way this place is for sensible debate. If you want to understand what communism is or learn about communist history pay attention and stop being needlessly provocative. Either that, or fuck off!

[New Tolerance]

Let's hear 'em.

The democratization of the economy. Ie the labours vote for their managers. And the replacement of geographic nations placed on racist ethnical differences with an economic organization of society based on social cooperation.

[Malleus Malificarum]

There's another one, and now it's your turn to answer these questions: Has it ever been achieved by any industrialized nation that attempted it? Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?

[Malleus Malificarum]

"When capitalists and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, Class Privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the paris commune, slavery, the spanish-american war, the boer war, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the first world war, flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the soviet intervention, the armenian genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the great depression, hunger marches, nazism, the spanish civil war, militarism, asbestosis, radiation death, the massacre of Nanking, the second world war, belsen, dresden, hiroshima, racism, the mafia, nuclear weapons, the korean war, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, thalidomide, the rape of the third world, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the vietnam war, the military suppression of greece, india, malaya, indonesia, chile, el salvador, nicaragua, panama and turkey, the gulf war, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, exxon valdez, deforestation, organised crime, the heroin and cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the ozone layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then - and only then - will I consider apologising for the errors of socialism."

Wrong tactic to try with me, boychik. If you want to claim moral high ground for socialism or Communism, you need to demonstrate to me that either theory has earned that high ground. Your concession that it has not is accepted. Now wire me your life savings and do everything I say, because I know what's best for you.

[Malleus Malificarum]

We were talking about Cuba.....

No, we are talking about Communism. Do at least try to keep up.


I've thought hard about improvements to the theory, I am yet to find one

I can think of one, right off the top of my head: Abandoning it after recognizing it for the monstrous engine of destruction and oppression it has invariably shown itself to be each and every time it is put into practice..

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 06:20 PM
There's another one, and now it's your turn to answer these questions: Has it ever been achieved by any industrialized nation that attempted it? Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?
#1 - No
#2 - Yes

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Dec 4 2004, 11:34 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Dec 4 2004, 11:34 PM)
Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 06:20 PM
There's another one, and now it's your turn to answer these questions: Has it ever been achieved by any industrialized nation that attempted it? Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?
#1 - No
#2 - Yes [/b]
1. Correct.
2. Incorrect. Marx's own Manifesto (since you children are all hung up on capitalized letters) makes clear the need for a "dictatorship of the Proletariat", and by all accounts, he's not using "dictatorship" as a euphemism. A dictatorship cannot, by definition, occur without violating civil rights.

[New Tolerance]

There's another one, and now it's your turn to answer these questions: Has it ever been achieved by any industrialized nation that attempted it? Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?

1: No, no industrialized nation has ever attempted it.
2: Yes, addressing your last post, you made a reference to Marx. But the idea of socialism/communism existed before Marx came along, he just added his ideas to it. Just because we are communists, doesn't necassarily mean we follow Marx by the exact words. I don't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Marx's own Manifesto (since you children are all hung up on capitalized letters) makes clear the need for a "dictatorship of the Proletariat", and by all accounts, he's not using "dictatorship" as a euphemism. A dictatorship cannot, by definition, occur without violating civil rights.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the opposite of capitalism. The public as a whole becomes the ruling class in opposition to the former capitalist ruling class, the clergy, racist movements, and all reactionary tools of the bourgeoisie.

It is no more negligent of civil rights than capitalism, in fact, much less so. Because socialism suppresses the subjugation of the masses. It established freedom, by removing the capitalists from power. And to perpetuate class society is only in the interest of the ruling elites. Socialism essentially seeks to remove class society altogether, then.

Socialism (or the dictatorship of the proletariat) is the subjugation and oppression of the few by the many. Capitalism (or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie =D ) is the subjugation and oppression of the many by the few.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 5 2004, 12:27 AM

There's another one, and now it's your turn to answer these questions: Has it ever been achieved by any industrialized nation that attempted it? Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?

1: No, no industrialized nation has ever attempted it.
2: Yes, addressing your last post, you made a reference to Marx. But the idea of socialism/communism existed before Marx came along, he just added his ideas to it. Just because we are communists, doesn't necassarily mean we follow Marx by the exact words. I don't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
So without a dictatorship, how do you propose to commit theft en masse (which, let's be honest, is what any brand of Communism really is) without encountering a nation who would rather stomp the revolutionaries to death and piss on their corpses?

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 01:04 AM

Marx's own Manifesto (since you children are all hung up on capitalized letters) makes clear the need for a "dictatorship of the Proletariat", and by all accounts, he's not using "dictatorship" as a euphemism. A dictatorship cannot, by definition, occur without violating civil rights.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the opposite of capitalism. The public as a whole becomes the ruling class in opposition to the former capitalist ruling class, the clergy, racist movements, and all reactionary tools of the bourgeoisie.

It is no more negligent of civil rights than capitalism, in fact, much less so. Because socialism suppresses the subjugation of the masses. It established freedom, by removing the capitalists from power. And to perpetuate class society is only in the interest of the ruling elites. Socialism essentially seeks to remove class society altogether, then.

Socialism (or the dictatorship of the proletariat) is the subjugation and oppression of the few by the many. Capitalism (or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie =D ) is the subjugation and oppression of the many by the few.
Except that in a real society such as the one we live in, everyone has the freedom to act as a Capitalist. Each of us rules himself.

And when you talk about "removing the Capitalists from power," how exactly is that done without violating their rights? Redistribution of wealth? There's a simpler word for that, and it's theft.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's certainly the violation of rights - bourgeois rights. Bourgeois "rights" are actually non-rights. They allow for the infringement of freedom of the working class by the economic elite. This is called tyranny.


Except that in a real society such as the one we live in, everyone has the freedom to act as a Capitalist. Each of us rules himself.

Not true.
By definition, only those who wield capital are capitalists. An not everyone can do such. There is no room for everyone at the top.

You don't rule yourself. You're subdued by capital. By the fact that you have no political power, and your class opponents do.

[Malleus Malificarum]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the opposite of capitalism. The public as a whole becomes the ruling class in opposition to the former capitalist ruling class, the clergy, racist movements, and all reactionary tools of the bourgeoisie.

Really. And how do you propose to justify your claim that there is a "ruling class" in Capitalist society? In point of fact, consumers are the closest thing to a ruling class, and in a Capitalist society, everyone (with the exception of the incarcerated) is a consumer, and rules by the choices they make in the marketplace.


It is no more negligent of civil rights than capitalism, in fact, much less so.

Wrong. In a capitalist society, you're free to dissent against capitalism without fear of incarceration, deprivation or death.


Because socialism suppresses the subjugation of the masses. It established freedom, by removing the capitalists from power. And to perpetuate class society is only in the interest of the ruling elites.

"Class society" as you call it, is nothing more than an extension of natural laws in human social interaction. The only revolution which will ever change that fact will be the abolition of Nature itself, or the extinction of our species.


Socialism essentially seeks to remove class society altogether, then.

Which is an impossibility, making it then vividly clear why no attempt at socialism has ever achieved it.


Socialism (or the dictatorship of the proletariat) is the subjugation and oppression of the few by the many.

So you do admit that some will be subjugated and oppressed. Concession accepted.


Capitalism (or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie =D ) is the subjugation and oppression of the many by the few.

Wrong. It is a system under which the many dictate the choices of the few by informing the few as to the needs of the many; further, the few are drawn from the many based on their ability to achieve. The freedom to succeed or fail based on one's own ability is the natural process by which the best and brightest produce the best products and ideas for the advancement of human civilization, and to abolish that natural process delivers a civilization into a state of stagnation which must inevitably degenerate and ultimately destroy any civilization so arrogant and foolish as to attempt it.

[LSD]

Wrong. It is a system under which the many dictate the choices of the few by informing the few as to the needs of the many; further, the few are drawn from the many based on their ability to achieve. The freedom to succeed or fail based on one's own ability is the natural process by which the best and brightest produce the best products and ideas for the advancement of human civilization, and to abolish that natural process delivers a civilization into a state of stagnation which must inevitably degenerate and ultimately destroy any civilization so arrogant and foolish as to attempt it.

So without a dictatorship, how do you propose to commit theft en masse (which, let's be honest, is what any brand of Communism really is) without encountering a nation who would rather stomp the revolutionaries to death and piss on their corpses?

"Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding thru the glen; Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men;"

Under capitalism, the minority control the majority of the wealth. Communism redistributes that wealth, so that for the vast majority, it won't be "theft en masse"!

"steals from the rich, gives to the poor; Robin Hood... Robin Hood... Robin Hood."

It is only the economic elite who will feel "robbed from", but that tiny group will not be sufficient to "revolutionaries to death and piss on their corpses" as you so eloquently put it.

You see for communism to truly occur it is the "nation" that will rise up and institute it. A "band or revolutionaries" should not and can not create a "communist state" without the support of the population at large, the kind of hypothetical you are imagining is simply not realistic.

"Robin Hood... Robin Hood...Robin Hood!!!


"Class society" as you call it, is nothing more than an extension of natural laws in human social interaction. The only revolution which will ever change that fact will be the abolition of Nature itself, or the extinction of our species.

Which is an impossibility, making it then vividly clear why no attempt at socialism has ever achieved it.

That is a claim which you will have to back up.

Animals murder one another frquently, does that mean that because it's part of "nature" we should not punish it? Surely as humans we are expected to do more than mimic "nature", we are expected to think.

[Malleus Malificarum]

It's certainly the violation of rights - bourgeois rights. Bourgeois "rights" are actually non-rights. They allow for the infringement of freedom of the working class by the economic elite. This is called tyranny.[/quote]

You are often wrong, I see. So you callously objectify a major portion of your fellow human beings; you are also, then, a monster. But back to why you are wrong -- The "working class", as you so haughtily describe the majority of people in industrialized society -- are free to rise to the ranks of the financial elite. Only a glaring indifference to the histories of those "elite" can possibly lead you to believe otherwise.



Except that in a real society such as the one we live in, everyone has the freedom to act as a Capitalist. Each of us rules himself.

Not true.
By definition, only those who wield capital are capitalists.

And the majority of people in America, for example, do wield capital. Further, no one is denied the opportunity to wield capital.


And not everyone can do such. There is no room for everyone at the top.

Both very true -- but while not everyone is able to achieve success, no one is denied the opportunity to do so. Again, people are free to succeed in a Capitalist society, but they are also free to fail. Stephen Hawking is only one example of such an individual.


You don't rule yourself. You're subdued by capital.

I, sir, am subdued by nothing. Why? Because I do not mislead myself about the reality of the world in which we live. Because I take personal responsibility for my own success or failure. No one can succeed or fail on my behalf. I master my world, not the other way around. But I suppose I'm not the kind of man Communism appeals to; Communism appeals to one of two types of people -- the sheep, and the wolves who would feed on them. And of those two groups, guess whose idea Communism was.


By the fact that you have no political power, and your class opponents do.

I have a vote, just like everyone else. I also have a vote in the market. I can choose one competitor, or another, thereby punishing or even helping to destroy merchants based on my choice. Communism would actually deprive me of that power.

[Malleus Malificarum]

<snip gibberish>Under capitalism, the minority control the majority of the wealth. Communism redistributes that wealth, so that for the vast majority, it won&#39;t be "theft en masse"&#33;

Theft is never theft in the eyes of the thief. Try again.


<snip more babbling>
It is only the economic elite who will feel "robbed from", but that tiny group will not be sufficient to "revolutionaries to death and piss on their corpses" as you so eloquently put it.

Oh, you wouldn&#39;t think so -- but the majority have seen the "glory" of Communism enough times to know what it means for them, as well, and so I think that minority wouldn&#39;t be quite as minor as you hope.


You see for communism to truly occur it is the "nation" that will rise up and institute it. A "band or revolutionaries" should not and can not create a "communist state" without the support of the population at large, the kind of hypothetical you are imagining is simply not realistic.

I know it isn&#39;t -- but it isn&#39;t my hypothetical, but that of most Communists.


<snip... yawn>


"Class society" as you call it, is nothing more than an extension of natural laws in human social interaction. The only revolution which will ever change that fact will be the abolition of Nature itself, or the extinction of our species.
Which is an impossibility, making it then vividly clear why no attempt at socialism has ever achieved it.

That is a claim which you will have to back up

Which part? The bit about Communism (or "Socialism", as it is known in its verbal ski mask) never succeeded? Or the part about Nature being stratified into best/better/good/fair/poor/bad/worse/worst spectra at every level of existence? As for the former, read your history. As for the latter, go to a jewelry store and insist to the jeweler that all of the gems are of exactly the same quality. First, because you may learn something. Second, because someone deserves the chance to laugh in your face in person.


Animals murder one another frquently, does that mean that because it&#39;s part of "nature" we should not punish it? Surely as humans we are expected to do more than mimic "nature", we are expected to think.

Wait, you start out defending Communism, and now you want to start thinking? Well, then -- concession accepted.

[Invader Zim]

Malleus, may I suggest in future when you create &#39;quote&#39; [tags], you use upper case.

[LSD]

I have a vote, just like everyone else. I also have a vote in the market. I can choose one competitor, or another, thereby punishing or even helping to destroy merchants based on my choice. Communism would actually deprive me of that power.

Except, of course, by that model, Bill Gates has about a billion times as many votes as you&#33; :o

Hardly democratic&#33; :lol:


Both very true -- but while not everyone is able to achieve success, no one is denied the opportunity to do so. Again, people are free to succeed in a Capitalist society, but they are also free to fail. Stephen Hawking is only one example of such an individual.

People are ostensibly "free to succede", but how do you explain the reality in which environment, wealth, family, surroundings, location, etc... seem to indicate outcome nearly every time.

Sure there are the occasional "American Dream" stories, but in statistics we call those "outliers".

Statistical results that are so few as to be negligable and ignorable.


Or the part about Nature being stratized into best/better/good/fair/poor/bad/worse/worse spectra at every level of existence?... go to a jewelry store and insist to the jeweler that all of the gems are of exactly the same quality. First, because you may learn something. Second, because someone deserves the chance to laugh in your face in person.

You justify your defense of an oppressive system ... by comparing people to stones? :blink:

:lol:

Stones arre intrinsically different, people are not born better or worse than anyone else.


Wait, you start out defending Communism, and now you want to start thinking? Well, then -- concession accepted.

Cop out.

Answer the question.

If we are to shape society on how "nature" is instead of on a rational assesment of what would be the best society, than why is murder illegal?

Just like your "diamond" analogy, nature is rife with violence and death... so why not human society?

I think the answer is obvious.


Theft is never theft in the eyes of the thief. Try again.

I never said it wasn&#39;t "theft" from a capitalist perspective, I merely said it was justified: "Under capitalism, the minority control the majority of the wealth. Communism redistributes that wealth, so that for the vast majority, it won&#39;t be "theft en masse"&#33;"

Try to keep up.


I know it isn&#39;t -- but it isn&#39;t my hypothetical, but that of most Communists.

No it isn&#39;t.

Most communists seek to educate so that, ultimately, the masses rise up. "Vanguardism" is a thing of the past.

[Malleus Malificarum]

I have a vote, just like everyone else. I also have a vote in the market. I can choose one competitor, or another, thereby punishing or even helping to destroy merchants based on my choice. Communism would actually deprive me of that power.

Except, of course, by that model, Bill Gates has about a billion times as many votes as you&#33; :o

How many did he have before he used his talents to found Microsoft? Oo&#33; Oo&#33; I know the answer to this&#33; (Actually, fourth-graders know the answer to this...) The same number I do.



Both very true -- but while not everyone is able to achieve success, no one is denied the opportunity to do so. Again, people are free to succeed in a Capitalist society, but they are also free to fail. Stephen Hawking is only one example of such an individual.

People are ostensibly "free to succede", but how do you explain the reality in which environment, wealth, family, surroundings, location, etc... seem to indicate outcome nearly every time.

That&#39;s exactly how I explain it -- reality. How does Communism provide more opportunity than Reality itself? It doesn&#39;t. It can only take away the opportunity to determine one&#39;s own success or failure.


Sure there are the occasional "American Dream" stories, but in statistics we call those "outliers".

And in Communism, there are never such stories... except for those who are in the real "ruling elite" the State.


Statistical results that are so few as to be negligable and ignorable.

Only in the eyes of the ignorant.



Or the part about Nature being stratized into best/better/good/fair/poor/bad/worse/worse spectra at every level of existence?... go to a jewelry store and insist to the jeweler that all of the gems are of exactly the same quality. First, because you may learn something. Second, because someone deserves the chance to laugh in your face in person.

You justify your defense of an oppressive system ... by comparing people to stones?

No, I justify it by invoking empirical evidence and objective fact.



Wait, you start out defending Communism, and now you want to start thinking? Well, then -- concession accepted.

Cop out.

Answer the question.

If we are to shape society on how "nature" is instead of on a rational assesment of what would be the best society, than why is murder illegal?

Because murder depletes a system (the family or extended family/tribal unit) of resources (individuals).


Just like your "diamond" analogy, nature is rife with violence and death... so why not human society?

Have you seen the Middle East lately? Concession accepted again.



Theft is never theft in the eyes of the thief. Try again.

I never said it wasn&#39;t "theft" from a capitalist perspective, I merely said it was justified: "Under capitalism, the minority control the majority of the wealth. Communism redistributes that wealth, so that for the vast majority, it won&#39;t be "theft en masse"&#33;"

So you repeat your justification for theft, as a way to reinforce your justification of theft. This is very telling.



I know it isn&#39;t -- but it isn&#39;t my hypothetical, but that of most Communists.

No it isn&#39;t.

Most communists seek to educate so that, ultimately, the masses rise up. "Vanguardism" is a thing of the past.

Oh, not remotely, son, and I&#39;m living proof of that. As long as human beings have the capacity to think for themselves, Communism will always require force for it to be inflicted on a people.

[Latifa]

Sure there are the occasional "American Dream" stories, but in statistics we call those "outliers".

And in Communism, there are never such stories... except for those who are in the real "ruling elite" the State.
"Sucess" doesn&#39;t have to mean making huge sums of money, if thats what you are making reference to.

[LSD]

*deleted*

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:22 AM


Sure there are the occasional "American Dream" stories, but in statistics we call those "outliers".

And in Communism, there are never such stories... except for those who are in the real "ruling elite" the State.
"Sucess" doesn&#39;t have to mean making huge sums of money, if thats what you are making reference to.
No, it doesn&#39;t. But the point is not what "success" means, the point is whether or not everyone has the freedom to choose their own path to success, and what success means to them -- rather than some centralized authority choosing it for them.

[LSD]

How many did he have before he used his talents to found Microsoft? Oo&#33; Oo&#33; I know the answer to this&#33; (Actually, fourth-graders know the answer to this...) The same number I do.

Wrong.

Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family and so from birth, he had more "votes" than you.

But even in some magical make-believe land in which he didn&#39;t, how does writing computer software justify it? There are, literally, billions of people who worked harder and longer, why should one person bennefit because he happened to channel his talents into the right area at the right place at the right time?


And in Communism, there are never such stories... except for those who are in the real "ruling elite" the State.

In communism there is no state.


Only in the eyes of the ignorant.

..sigh...

Your insults notwithstanding, the fact is that it is scientific method to ignore results which are statistically insignificant.


Have you seen the Middle East lately? Concession accepted again.

:lol:

No one is denying that human society is replete with violence, the question is should it be? If we are to follow your lead, if it&#39;s in "nature" than it should be in human society as well&#33;


Because murder depletes a system (the family or extended family/tribal unit) of resources (individuals).

That&#39;s it&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? :blink:

Murder is wrong for .... depletion of resources?&#33;?&#33;?

I&#39;ve heard of "reducing people to captal", but that one takes the cake. It&#39;s good to know you have no regard for human life beyond their value to the "system".

But, regardless, if you&#39;re arguing to not mimic nature in the case of murder, why not in the case of communism.

That is, if " but its in nature" isn&#39;t a justification for legalized murder, than how can you use it as one for class society?

""Class society" as you call it, is nothing more than an extension of natural laws in human social interaction. The only revolution which will ever change that fact will be the abolition of Nature itself, or the extinction of our species."

Muder is a part of nature, but no one claims that it will take the "abolition of nature" to prevent murder&#33;


So you repeat your justification for theft, as a way to reinforce your justification of theft. This is very telling.

Um, yes.... it&#39;s called argument.

You reinforce your position by providing justifications for that position... that&#39;s how logic works...


Oh, not remotely, son, and I&#39;m living proof of that. As long as human beings have the capacity to think for themselves, Communism will always require force for it to be inflicted on a people.

More unfounded assumptions.

Since the introduction of communism would bennefit the majority at the cost to the minority, it is an assumption which quickly falls.


No, I justify it by invoking empirical evidence and objective fact.

The "objective fact" that some people are "better than others"?

I know a certain German dictator who would agree with that contention.

[Malleus Malificarum]

How many did he have before he used his talents to found Microsoft? Oo&#33; Oo&#33; I know the answer to this&#33; (Actually, fourth-graders know the answer to this...) The same number I do.

Wrong.

Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family and so from birth, he had more "votes" than you.

Oh, I see... so his consumer choices somehow relieve me of my ability to make choices, too?


But even in some magical make-believe land in which he didn&#39;t, how does writing computer software justify it? There are, literally, billions of people who worked harder and longer, why should one person bennefit because he happened to channel his talents into the right area at the right place at the right time?

Because that is how the strongest and smartest survive in Nature, as well as in natural human society. He earned his success through skill and intelligence.



And in Communism, there are never such stories... except for those who are in the real "ruling elite" the State.

In communism there is no state.

More. Bullshit. Oh, wait -- you&#39;re talking about the mythical Communism which has never existed, and never can.



Only in the eyes of the ignorant.

..sigh...

Your insults notwithstanding, the fact is that it is scientific method to ignore results which are statistically insignificant.

Wrong. The scientific method involves making logical analysis of empirical evidence derived from objective premises arising from testable evidence.



Have you seen the Middle East lately? Concession accepted again.

:lol:

No one is denying that human society is replete with violence, the question is should it be? If we are to follow your lead, if it&#39;s in "nature" than it should be in human society as well&#33;

Congratulations, you just arrived at a logical conclusion. How was it for you?



Because murder depletes a system (the family or extended family/tribal unit) of resources (individuals).

That&#39;s it&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? :blink:

Murder is wrong for .... depletion of resources?&#33;?&#33;?

From an objective, logical level, yes. The emotional repercussions are obviously more far-reaching.


But, regardless, if you&#39;re arguing to not mimic nature in the case of murder, why not in the case of communism.

Because Communism is not only in direct opposition to natural processes, it is more destructive than it is constructive. That&#39;s why.



""Class society" as you call it, is nothing more than an extension of natural laws in human social interaction. The only revolution which will ever change that fact will be the abolition of Nature itself, or the extinction of our species."

Muder is a part of nature, but no one claims that it will take the "abolition of nature" to prevent murder&#33;

Yes, it does.



So you repeat your justification for theft, as a way to reinforce your justification of theft. This is very telling.

Um, yes.... it&#39;s called argument.

No, it&#39;s called ignorance. You ignore my rebuttal and simply repeat your claim. That is not an argument.


You reinforce your position by providing justifications for that position... that&#39;s how logic works...

Correct -- however, that is not what you did.

The rest tomorrow. tor who would agree with that contention.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 11:20 PM
Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?
Can capitalism exist without the loss of liberty and life?

[LSD]

Wrong. The scientific method involves making logical analysis of empirical evidence derived from objective premises arising from testable evidence.

True enough, but when there lone results which are significantly different from a vastly superior majority, those lone results are dismissed as "outliers", so we must do with capitalist "success stories".

There are just so few of them.


No, it&#39;s called ignorance. You ignore my rebuttal and simply repeat your claim. That is not an argument.

You didn&#39;t make a claim.

I wrote: "I never said it wasn&#39;t "theft" from a capitalist perspective, I merely said it was justified: "Under capitalism, the minority control the majority of the wealth. Communism redistributes that wealth, so that for the vast majority, it won&#39;t be "theft en masse"&#33;"

This was in response to your claim that I wasn&#39;t "calling it theft" and in defense of my statement that "under capitalism the minority control the majority of the wealth. Communism redistributes that wealth, so that for the vast majority, it won&#39;t be "theft en masse"&#33;.

Which was in turn a rebuttal to your ludicrous statement that the majority would fight against a potential communist rebellion.

Before you critisize my lack of "rebuttal", I would advise you to refute my initial claim that communism serves as a general redistribution and therefore most people would, in fact, not view it as theft.


The rest tomorrow. tor who would agree with that contention.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


Yes, it does.

It will take the "abolition of nature" to prevent murder?&#33;

That&#39;s an awfully dim view of humanity you have there.


Congratulations, you just arrived at a logical conclusion. How was it for you?

That would be that "if it&#39;s in "nature" than it should be in human society as well&#33;"?&#33;? :o

That&#39;s what you call a "logical conclusion"? :blink:

So rape, assault, murder, patricide, infanticide, cannibalism, etc... these are all "fine" with you?

I think you need to seriously reconsider your "logic".


Because Communism is not only in direct opposition to natural processes, . That&#39;s why.

Communism may be in "direct opposition to natural processes", but who cares?

As sentient beings we can do better then nature.


it is more destructive than it is constructive

Really...

Communism seeks to liberate and emancipate all of humanity. So far, you&#39;ve advocated living "according to nature" (Because that is how the strongest and smartest survive in Nature, as well as in natural human society) and some sort of bizzarre social Darwinism (Nature [is] stratified into best / better / good / fair / poor / bad / worse / worst spectra at every level of existence).

No offence, but the kind of society you&#39;re envisaging scares me a whole lot more.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 05:54 AM
How many people were killed in the Cuban Communist revolution? Add them to the numbers killed in the Soviet revolution. Add those to the between 7 and 11 million Ukrainian farmers who were put to death by mass starvation under Stalin. You don&#39;t consider murder on that scale to constitute a violation of human rights? So I take it the Holocaust is perfectly ethical in your opinion?
Human rights? Do you even care about human rights? Do you know anything about mass starvation? The real question is: how many thousands of people must die every day (largely of starvation) to repress revolution and support capitalism.

Also, FUCK YOU for not mentioning their countless deaths while stopping in to judge us. You might as well be a supporter of the Holocaust; that death toll is a drop in the bucket compared to the bloodshed you don&#39;t even care to cite.

[The Feral Underclass]

Malleus Malificarum: I&#39;m interested to know why you ignored my post?

[NovelGentry]

Just on a note about Microsoft, Bill gates never channeled any of his talents into the right place at the right time, he has one talent and one talent alone, using other people to get what he wants. Early Microsoft was founded on the adaptations Paul Alan made to an operating system that bill just sorta pulled out of thin air. What really happened is that Bill bought the rights to DOS (a clone of CP/M) from a guy in Seattle who originally was going to sell straight away to IBM but was offered more (yes, more than IBM) for it at the time. Bill decided that instead of taking the OS and selling it to IBM he would license it so that IBM never really controlled it, and he would be paid for every system it came on.

Without the initial money he had, he would be nowhere. Microsoft was founded on little more than a lucky investment and mediocre business intelligence. From there IBM created the Microsoft monopoly, not Microsoft.

[no_logo]

Because Communism is not only in direct opposition to natural processes, it is more destructive than it is constructive. That&#39;s why.


Communism is in opposition to nature? How about ants? do they have a ruling elite class that imposes rules upon them? In fact, i would go so far as to say that they constitute the ultimate communist society within nature. Each ant is responsible for gathering food and has a responsibility to uphold as regards the means of production. Even the "queen" (whose name was probably given by a capitalist) has a responsibility towards the means of production; she produces the workers who gather the food. No ant can escape the fact that he must work to survive, and thus no ant gets to be lazy or rich, but instead always contributes to the overall wellbeing of his society.

THAT my friend is communism in nature at its best.



That would be that "if it&#39;s in "nature" than it should be in human society as well&#33;"?&#33;? ohmy.gif

That&#39;s what you call a "logical conclusion"? blink.gif

So rape, assault, murder, patricide, infanticide, cannibalism, etc... these are all "fine" with you?

I think you need to seriously reconsider your "logic".


To be noted: all of the crimes of which you speak require some degree of reasoning behind them that renders them absolutely wrong. No animal can be convicted of murder or rape because animals cannot pursue such activities with specific motive and intent. As well, humans do have a much higher degree of logical thought than 99% of all animals (you constitute the 1% exception to the rule), and as such are expected to be able to refrain from such behaviors that are ultimately more harmful to society than beneficial.

On the other hand, capitalism does comprise assaults on foreign nation states, murder of various civilians from said states, infanticide and patricide are thus obviously subsets of the overall state of murder... cannibalism is the only one we can leave out, but then again it wouldn&#39;t surprise me if you had some nasty habit like that...

Going back to the question of Bill Gates; assuming it is fair to say that the man did make a remarkable step forward for society (if you don&#39;t count the fact that he didn&#39;t actually create MsDos, he bought it for 14 000&#036; from a former classmate), but the fundamental flaw of capitalism is that 99% of his money is in a bank and contributes NOTHING to the greater society in which he lives. In essence he is robbing society as a whole of the benefit of the means of production. Had billy spent the money he earned the economy would have greatly benefited and things like wars for oil and more money would become obsolete because there would be no want for money...

Of course, within capitalist societies such practices are not possible because otherwise you end up with the "deutchemark" effect, wherein capital is no longer a scarce resource and thus becomes devalued... although the means of production are still present. The problem is, then, that the equation of scarcity with value is absurd, or irrespective of reality at least.

If you want my opinion on what communism is (because that&#39;s what the board is about in the first place) i&#39;d say it&#39;s any society in which the means of production are not valued by their scarcity but by their importance. For example, diamonds are scarce but relatively useless... water is scarce in many parts of the world, accordingly in water-deprived communities the price of water is continung to escalate, while in Canada people pay next to nothing for fresh water.

[no_logo]

BTW, about bill gates&#39; acquisition of MsDos, IBM could not afford to pay Gates at the time, they were virtually bankrupt. Read "Who Says Elephants Can&#39;t Dance" it&#39;s by a former CEO of IBM who is responsible for saving the company from bankruptcy.

[Professor Moneybags]

1/ Communism refers to a stateless society based on a pure-gift economy.

Something for nothing, in other words.


2/ Historically, communist praxis has been rather peaceful - it&#39;s reactionaries aiming to preserve existing order who tend to introduce violence into the situation (e.g. Diggers/English Civil War)

:lol: "Interesting" testimony there.

Hitlers invasion of Europe was peaceful, it was only those warmongering "reactionaries" in Poland and France who spoilt it all by defending themselves :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

"When capitalists and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, Class Privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the paris commune, slavery, the spanish-american war, the boer war, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the first world war, flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the soviet intervention, the armenian genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the great depression, hunger marches, nazism, the spanish civil war, militarism, asbestosis, radiation death, the massacre of Nanking, the second world war, belsen, dresden, hiroshima, racism, the mafia, nuclear weapons, the korean war, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, thalidomide, the rape of the third world, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the vietnam war, the military suppression of greece, india, malaya, indonesia, chile, el salvador, nicaragua, panama and turkey, the gulf war, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, exxon valdez, deforestation, organised crime, the heroin and cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the ozone layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then - and only then - will I consider apologising for the errors of socialism."

Most of those are the errors of socialism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Bourgeois "rights" are actually non-rights. They allow for the infringement of freedom of the working class by the economic elite.

Care to explain how they are restricting your freedom ?


This is called tyranny.

In practice, your rights are no better than the right to enslave, as I have explained at least half a dozen times.

[New Tolerance]

So without a dictatorship, how do you propose to commit theft en masse (which, let&#39;s be honest, is what any brand of Communism really is) without encountering a nation who would rather stomp the revolutionaries to death and piss on their corpses?

It will take a slow democratic transition. We will nationalize industries by purchasing them from the private sector and then reforming them from within.


Care to explain how they are restricting your freedom ?

Well, private property rights is different from all the other rights such as free speech. In free speech, two people can speak at the same time without stopping each other from speaking, in other words everyone can exercise this right at the same time. In private property however, if something is mine it can&#39;t be yours, in other words, the fact that I have the right to a piece of property prevents someone else from having this right. Need I continue?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 5 2004, 01:40 PM

2/ Historically, communist praxis has been rather peaceful - it&#39;s reactionaries aiming to preserve existing order who tend to introduce violence into the situation (e.g. Diggers/English Civil War)

:lol: "Interesting" testimony there.

Hitlers invasion of Europe was peaceful, it was only those warmongering "reactionaries" in Poland and France who spoilt it all by defending themselves :rolleyes:
Stop spitting crap.

Hitler was as peacefull as the US has been to socialist and/or left leaning democratic elected governments.

[Malleus Malificarum]

Originally posted by Raisa+Dec 5 2004, 04:54 AM--> (Raisa @ Dec 5 2004, 04:54 AM)
Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 11:20 PM
Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?
Can capitalism exist without the loss of liberty and life? [/b]
No -- but then again, it doesn&#39;t make such promises. It doesn&#39;t attempt to claim that moral high ground. Communism does, and proponents of it must substantiate that claim.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Malleus Malificarum+Dec 5 2004, 05:55 PM--> (Malleus Malificarum &#064; Dec 5 2004, 05:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:54 AM

Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 11:20 PM
Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?
Can capitalism exist without the loss of liberty and life?
No -- but then again, it doesn&#39;t make such promises. It doesn&#39;t attempt to claim that moral high ground. Communism does, and proponents of it must substantiate that claim. [/b]
Are you ignoring me because I am intellectually more superior than you? You&#39;re afraid of looking like a twat aren&#39;t you? I wouldn&#39;t bother worrying, you already look like a twat.

Go on, answer my points...I&#39;m daring you&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Malleus Malificarum+Dec 5 2004, 05:55 PM--> (Malleus Malificarum @ Dec 5 2004, 05:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:54 AM

Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 11:20 PM
Can it be done without loss of liberty and life?
Can capitalism exist without the loss of liberty and life?
No -- but then again, it doesn&#39;t make such promises. It doesn&#39;t attempt to claim that moral high ground. Communism does, and proponents of it must substantiate that claim. [/b]
Actually, it does. Capitalists would have us believe that should we all follow the ideology you follow that we will all live in &#39;liberty&#39;, and if only those damn lefites would back off with their &#39;liberal&#39; policies, and allow the capitalists to run the economy of the world then, we would all live in moderate wealth.


Also it must be pointed out that capitalists are always screachin about having the moral high ground, telling us that Stalin killed a 60,000,000 people or some other such nonsense from Rummel. The figure is conisiderably lower than that, and totally irrelevant as Stalin was communist.

Capitalists, according to Malleus, not claiming the moral high ground: -

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_04.gif


But please, live in your little fantasy, while we live in reality.

[leftist resistance]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 5 2004, 12:45 PM

"When capitalists and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, Class Privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the paris commune, slavery, the spanish-american war, the boer war, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the first world war, flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the soviet intervention, the armenian genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the great depression, hunger marches, nazism, the spanish civil war, militarism, asbestosis, radiation death, the massacre of Nanking, the second world war, belsen, dresden, hiroshima, racism, the mafia, nuclear weapons, the korean war, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, thalidomide, the rape of the third world, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the vietnam war, the military suppression of greece, india, malaya, indonesia, chile, el salvador, nicaragua, panama and turkey, the gulf war, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, exxon valdez, deforestation, organised crime, the heroin and cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the ozone layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then - and only then - will I consider apologising for the errors of socialism."

Most of those are the errors of socialism.
If you care to research each of them,you&#39;ll find out that all of them were caused by capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Wrong.

Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family and so from birth,

I don&#39;t think so. Cite evidence.


he had more "votes" than you.

You haven&#39;t even attempted to explain this nonsense, just repeated the claim. How does he have more "votes" than anyone else ?


It&#39;s good to know you have no regard for human life beyond their value to the "system".

That&#39;s how communists view the capitalist.


Since the introduction of communism would bennefit the majority at the cost to the minority,

A bit like Nazi Germany then, where the majority (Germans) benefited from killing and subsequently looting the minority (Jews). We all know where that went...


The "objective fact" that some people are "better than others"?

I know a certain German dictator who would agree with that contention.

Whose philosophy and methods you clearly advocate. Oh dear.

[Professor Moneybags]

Human rights? Do you even care about human rights? Do you know anything about mass starvation? The real question is: how many thousands of people must die every day (largely of starvation) to repress revolution and support capitalism.

The right to demand the products and work of farmers/butchers/other food producers without their permission is nothing more than the right to steal and the right to enslave.

How about pausing for a moment to consider that ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 5 2004, 02:56 PM
In private property however, if something is mine it can&#39;t be yours, in other words, the fact that I have the right to a piece of property prevents someone else from having this right. Need I continue?
Your right to do whatever you want providing you does not initiate the use of force against others conflicts with my right to rape you.

What&#39;s that, you say ? I don&#39;t have the right to rape you ? I guess I don&#39;t have the right to someone else&#39;s property any more than someone else&#39;s body, then.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Malleus [email protected] 4 2004, 05:54 AM
How many people were killed in the Cuban Communist revolution? Add them to the numbers killed in the Soviet revolution.
The "argument from revolutionary death tolls". This is irrelevant. Tons of leftists were killed by counter-revolutionaries, especially in the Spanish Civil War, on fascist dictatorships in Chile and Argentina, in fascist Italy, in Vietnam and of course on those same revolutions, and I&#39;m forgetting many other cases.
You see, a change will not please the pigs, so they will try to kill us. And we&#39;ll have to fight back.


Add those to the between 7 and 11 million Ukrainian farmers who were put to death by mass starvation under Stalin.

I&#39;m sure there are still stalinists around here willing to argue this.


You don&#39;t consider murder on that scale to constitute a violation of human rights? So I take it the Holocaust is perfectly ethical in your opinion?

You cappies are stupid. You try to lead arguments into claiming that "communism = nazism" while of course ignoring all the cases I&#39;ve mentioned above. According to you, the Cuban and Soviet revolutions equal the Holocaust, but the Argentinian "dirty war", Franco&#39;s dictatorship and the Vietnam war DON&#39;T. Give me a rational explanation for that. If you try to argue that those are reactions against communist acts, then explain me how was property created in first place.
Following this argument, if a slaves kill their owners because it&#39;s necessary for their freedom they are nazis. And if their owners fight back it&#39;s justified for them to do so.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:27 PM
But please, live in your little fantasy, while we live in reality.
No, you don&#39;t live in reality. Communism is unrealisable.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 06:16 AM
If you care to research each of them,you&#39;ll find out that all of them were caused by capitalism.
No thanks, I&#39;ll leave the burden of proof on the person making the claim.

Well, got the evidence ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 6 2004, 02:09 PM
If you try to argue that those are reactions against communist acts, then explain me how was property created in first place.

People were sick to death of Barbarian Bill and his buddies taking what they hadn&#39;t earned or produced. (There was no "cabal".)


Following this argument, if a slaves kill their owners because it&#39;s necessary for their freedom they are nazis.

True. I&#39;m fighting against slavery to communism and that apparently makes me a "nazi", according to you lot.

[NovelGentry]

About Bill Gates being born into wealth:

Born on Oct. 28, 1955, Gates grew up in Seattle with his two sisters. Their father, William H. Gates II, is a Seattle attorney. Their late mother, Mary Gates, was a schoolteacher, University of Washington regent, and chairwoman of United Way International.

Gates attended public elementary school and the private Lakeside School. There, he discovered his interest in software and began programming computers at age 13.

In 1973, Gates entered Harvard University as a freshman

From his biography on the microsoft.com website.... The third child of a lawyer, private lakeside school, Harvard? I always thought it was fairly well know that he was born into an upper class family.

There&#39;s no reason to believe that his initial buy on DOS was not cash out of a trust fund his daddy set up... if I&#39;m not mistaken it cost him somewhere around &#036;50,000 (but I could be horribly off)... I&#39;m not sure how many nonwealthy people who are dumping money into harvard university have &#036;50,000 lying around to buy an OS in their early 20s.

[NovelGentry]

I guess I don&#39;t have the right to someone else&#39;s property any more than someone else&#39;s body, then.

Private property among the working class in capitalism is an illusion.

(if you want futher explaination of why just ask and I&#39;ll be happy to give, but it&#39;s a long story and the rest of this reply I suspect will be a decent size aswell, so I don&#39;t want to burden the thread yet will a full explaination, but I can if you need it)

As far as the private property of the ruling class, it is private property which has been generated from the accumulated wealth of the working class. It is no more their property than it is the workers who they exploited to gain it, in fact I would argue it&#39;s much more the property of the workers they exploited. Given this a proletariat revolution (the idea most of us are here for and believe so strongly in) is simply the taking back of said property. This property is put back in the hands of the proletariat as a whole who are put in power by the revolution. And yes, the proletariat as a whole has direct say where this reacquired capital goes as it will be their state. Granted in some lines of communist thought the state is simply a representation of these proletariat who "decide what is good for them," in which case your statement makes sense assuming they acquire this capital and use it for their own ends and not to the benefit of the proletariat. The only point in which they are stealing is when they use it for their own ends.

Capital is most frequently presented as the means of production, as many other services and goods are only temporary agents of such. It is not difficult to keep producing these goods if the means of production are in the hands of the proletariat. As such if the means of production are the accumulated labour of the proletariat and the means of the production are made available to all, nothing has been stolen.

[New Tolerance]

Your right to do whatever you want providing you does not initiate the use of force against others conflicts with my right to rape you.

What&#39;s that, you say ? I don&#39;t have the right to rape you ? I guess I don&#39;t have the right to someone else&#39;s property any more than someone else&#39;s body, then.

Could you clearify your point? I don&#39;t want to jump to conclusions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Here&#39;s one for you Moneybags - the difference between property and possesion. While certainly, no coherent ideology would deny me the right to deprive other of my toothbrush, or my nutella - they&#39;re things in my possesion, which I am personally using - property is entirely different, and conflicting, matter. That is, how many members of the owning class actually posses the means of production? How many bosses are laying hands on the source of their wealth? I&#39;m willing to bet the percentage is almost negligable - however, their right to "property" is a means of depriving those who are actually in possesion of, using, and creating wealth through the means of production.

On a somewhat related note, I&#39;d like to politely ask that people who, evidently, have no grasp of Nazi ideology stop bringing Hitler into discussions where "he just don&#39;t fit." When we start talking about reactionary populism - alright, let&#39;s look at the nazis. Until then . . .

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:22 PM
About Bill Gates being born into wealth:

Born on Oct. 28, 1955, Gates grew up in Seattle with his two sisters. Their father, William H. Gates II, is a Seattle attorney. Their late mother, Mary Gates, was a schoolteacher, University of Washington regent, and chairwoman of United Way International.

Gates attended public elementary school and the private Lakeside School. There, he discovered his interest in software and began programming computers at age 13.

In 1973, Gates entered Harvard University as a freshman

From his biography on the microsoft.com website.... The third child of a lawyer, private lakeside school, Harvard? I always thought it was fairly well know that he was born into an upper class family.

There&#39;s no reason to believe that his initial buy on DOS was not cash out of a trust fund his daddy set up... if I&#39;m not mistaken it cost him somewhere around &#036;50,000 (but I could be horribly off)... I&#39;m not sure how many nonwealthy people who are dumping money into harvard university have &#036;50,000 lying around to buy an OS in their early 20s.
So he wasn&#39;t born the richest man on earth. Nothing like it.

So much for the inheritence argument.

[Professor Moneybags]

Here&#39;s one for you Moneybags - the difference between property and possesion.

There isn&#39;t one. Property means possessing something and owning the right to it&#39;s disposal.


While certainly, no coherent ideology would deny me the right to deprive other of my toothbrush, or my nutella - they&#39;re things in my possesion, which I am personally using

Don&#39;t count on it.


That is, how many members of the owning class actually posses the means of production?

Means of production are possessions. A mere spade is a means of production, like a factory, lathe, computer, pen...need I go on.


How many bosses are laying hands on the source of their wealth? I&#39;m willing to bet the percentage is almost negligable - however, their right to "property" is a means of depriving those who are actually in possesion of, using, and creating wealth through the means of production.

So if pay you to deliver something for me, you are claiming the right to steal whatever vehicle I lend you to deliver it with ?

Where do you people dream this stuff up ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Private property among the working class in capitalism is an illusion.

No, it isn&#39;t. The law (should) protect the property of all. By and large, it does just that.


As far as the private property of the ruling class, it is private property which has been generated from the accumulated wealth of the working class.

You suggest that it has been taken by force. That makes the above a lie. The workers work for a wage via contractual agreement. That is all.


It is no more their property than it is the workers who they exploited to gain it,

Lie (see above). It is also begging the question.


in fact I would argue it&#39;s much more the property of the workers they exploited.

Non-sequitur (see above).


Given this a proletariat revolution (the idea most of us are here for and believe so strongly in) is simply the taking back of said property.

They&#39;re not taking back anything, as it was never theirs to begin with. They&#39;re just taking (i.e. stealing) it.


As such if the means of production are the accumulated labour of the proletariat and the means of the production are made available to all, nothing has been stolen.

It has been stolen from it&#39;s legitimate owner because has been made freely available and he must now seek permission of others in order to use it. He has been deprived of control of his property. That is stealing; ownership without control is meaningless. How would you like it if some gang came along and did the same to your house/computer/wife ?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, it isn&#39;t. The law (should) protect the property of all. By and large, it does just that.

The law is a tool of the capitalist class, and as such it protects the private property of the capitalist class.

Private property only exists as a very, very rare commodity among the working class. The capitalists own most land - residential, agricultural, industrial, and commercial. Furthermore, the little land that belongs to workers is never "bourgeois property". That means property that can be used to generate wealth. That land is concentrated in the hands of the elite economic class. Yes, even in the US.


You suggest that it has been taken by force. That makes the above a lie. The workers work for a wage via contractual agreement. That is all.

But why must they work for the capitalists? Because the capitalists own what?

Capital, you say? Yes, very good.

There is no other choice but to conform to the demands of those who own everything you need. And why do they own everything? Surely their ancestors were not born with everything. Answer: they stole it.


Lie (see above). It is also begging the question.

You&#39;re implying that the ownership of capital exempts people from the crime of robbery. This is absurd.

People are entitled to what they work for. Just because you have money shouldn&#39;t mean that you&#39;re entitled to what other people work for. That is capitalism.


Non-sequitur (see above).

No it&#39;s not.
The fact that what one manufactures belongs to that person disproves your claim that it belongs to the ir boss.


They&#39;re not taking back anything, as it was never theirs to begin with. They&#39;re just taking (i.e. stealing) it.

If the land you live and work on belongs to someone else, you are essentially subject to that person&#39;s will. Thus negating freedom to the vast majority of the working class.


It has been stolen from it&#39;s legitimate owner because has been made freely available and he must now seek permission of others in order to use it. He has been deprived of control of his property. That is stealing; ownership without control is meaningless. How would you like it if some gang came along and did the same to your house/computer/wife ?

This rubbish has been refuted above.
Now I&#39;m just curious as to why you consider your spouse your property? I hope your "significant other" doesn&#39;t learn about this. :lol:

[NovelGentry]

So much for the inheritence argument.

The "inheritance argument" has nothing to do with being born the riches man on earth... it has to do with being born into wealth, and from that being able to generate more wealth. This is the condition of capital, in which if you&#39;re born into a family who already has a decent amount of capital that capital can be used to submit more workers to the generation of more capital.

For example, say I am born and I have approx. 500,000 to do with as I please when I am 18 or 20... as was given to me by my family. This 500,000 allows me to do a lot of things, including start my own company in order to generate more money. This is something non-wealthy people do not have the option of doing, they must consistently work in order to survive, at no point are they able to drop their things and start a company which will sustain their life indefinitely (assuming it&#39;s run right).

Gates got luckier in the sense that he entered into a new market where he would not be a small player, but a very large player. It would have been much more difficult for Gates to compete had say, Novell already had a serious footing in the OS market. In which case Novell upon realizing the threat from Microsoft would concentrate it&#39;s energies on destroying it as a business. Microsoft has created this reality for many smaller software companies because they were in that position from the start.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
That is stealing; ownership without control is meaningless. How would you like it if some gang came along and did the same to your house/computer/wife?

Wife???

How are things on the "wife-market" these days, Moneybags?

Are retail prices for imported wives going up in response to the decline in the value of the American dollar?

What about the sales-curve? Are more men buying wives these days or fewer?

How about the market for "factory-reconditioned" wives...can a guy really save serious money going that route?

What about lease-purchase?

Will there be more de-regulation of the wife-market under the second Bush administration?

Moneybags, you are a really funny guy. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Osman Ghazi]

No, you don&#39;t live in reality. Communism is unrealisable.

:lol: :lol: And I suppose LFC is just around the corner? :lol:


No, it isn&#39;t. The law (should) protect the property of all. By and large, it does just that.


Except that it costs money to go to court. Thus, if you have money (at least a good &#036;2000 or so), you can afford to go to court, whereas if you don&#39;t, like say, everybody, you can&#39;t afford it.


You suggest that it has been taken by force. That makes the above a lie. The workers work for a wage via contractual agreement. That is all.


Interesting, you said &#39;contractual&#39; instead of your usual &#39;voluntary&#39;. Is it possible that an agreement can be contractual but not voluntary? Hmmm?


So he wasn&#39;t born the richest man on earth. Nothing like it.

Are you retarded? He went to fucking Harvard&#33; I think that proves rather conclusively that he was a spoiled brat. Now, I&#39;ll grant, he is a smart spoiled brat, much smarter even than I (is it possible?). However, without the chance to study computers at that young age, it would have been awfully hard to develop an interest in them. And without the degree from Harvard (is it the most expensive in the world or the US?) it is unlikely that he could have developed DOS.

[JudeObscure84]

Are you retarded? He went to fucking Harvard&#33; I think that proves rather conclusively that he was a spoiled brat. Now, I&#39;ll grant, he is a smart spoiled brat, much smarter even than I (is it possible?). However, without the chance to study computers at that young age, it would have been awfully hard to develop an interest in them. And without the degree from Harvard (is it the most expensive in the world or the US?) it is unlikely that he could have developed DOS.

I don&#39;t think Bill Gates even graduated. I know for a fact Michael Dell recieved no degree what so ever. And so what? I attend Rice University and its fairly expensive and believe me, I am not rich.

[Professor Moneybags]

The law is a tool of the capitalist class, and as such it protects the private property of the capitalist class.

It protects the private property of eveyone. It is not limited to any "class".


Private property only exists as a very, very rare commodity among the working class.

Nobody has houses, cars, TV&#39;s...?


But why must they work for the capitalists? Because the capitalists own what?

They don&#39;t have to.


There is no other choice but to conform to the demands of those who own everything you need. And why do they own everything?

"They" don&#39;t.


Surely their ancestors were not born with everything. Answer: they stole it.

I should have seen this coming. Stolen from whom ? What a cheap, question begging rationalisation.


You&#39;re implying that the ownership of capital exempts people from the crime of robbery. This is absurd.

I have not implied that anywhere.


No it&#39;s not.
The fact that what one manufactures belongs to that person disproves your claim that it belongs to the ir boss.

No, what they manufacture doesn&#39;t belong to that person unless it is stated in the contractual agreement. What you are arguing against is the whole concept of the contactual agreement.


If the land you live and work on belongs to someone else, you are essentially subject to that person&#39;s will. Thus negating freedom to the vast majority of the working class.

Not this again. Can I graffiti all over you house ? Can I steal your TV ? Can I torch your car ?

No ?

Not fair &#33; You&#39;re negating my "freedom" &#33;


Now I&#39;m just curious as to why you consider your spouse your property? I hope your "significant other" doesn&#39;t learn about this. :lol:

I don&#39;t. But I bet she considers her body her own property.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:52 PM
Gates got luckier in the sense that he entered into a new market where he would not be a small player, but a very large player. It would have been much more difficult for Gates to compete had say, Novell already had a serious footing in the OS market. In which case Novell upon realizing the threat from Microsoft would concentrate it&#39;s energies on destroying it as a business. Microsoft has created this reality for many smaller software companies because they were in that position from the start.
I know that inequality is considered a terrible injustice to a socialist, but this is due to the static wealth theory, which has been refuted. The rich getting richer in no way affects the quality of those who didn&#39;t.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:58 PM
Wife???

How are things on the "wife-market" these days, Moneybags?

Are retail prices for imported wives going up in response to the decline in the value of the American dollar?

What about the sales-curve? Are more men buying wives these days or fewer?

How about the market for "factory-reconditioned" wives...can a guy really save serious money going that route?

What about lease-purchase?

Will there be more de-regulation of the wife-market under the second Bush administration?

Moneybags, you are a really funny guy. :lol:
I might have guessed that some idiot would make a straw man out of that. Oh what a surprise- it&#39;s Redstar2000. :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

:lol: :lol: And I suppose LFC is just around the corner? :lol:

This has nothing to do with whether or not it is realisable.


Except that it costs money to go to court. Thus, if you have money (at least a good &#036;2000 or so), you can afford to go to court, whereas if you don&#39;t, like say, everybody, you can&#39;t afford it.

The courts should be government run, Kazi, like the military and the police.


Interesting, you said &#39;contractual&#39; instead of your usual &#39;voluntary&#39;. Is it possible that an agreement can be contractual but not voluntary? Hmmm?

No.


Are you retarded? He went to fucking Harvard&#33; I think that proves rather conclusively that he was a spoiled brat

How many of the richest men on earth are Harvard graduates ?


And without the degree from Harvard (is it the most expensive in the world or the US?) it is unlikely that he could have developed DOS.

You put far too much emphasis on academia. It&#39;s not the be-all and end-all of life.

[NovelGentry]

How many of the richest men on earth are Harvard graduates ?

Harvard is not the most telling sign for me, personally... I find it much more interesting that he went to a lakeside private school. Harvard is certainly achievable through extremely hard work and a full scholarship in a lot of less than wealthy circumstances.


And without the degree from Harvard (is it the most expensive in the world or the US?) it is unlikely that he could have developed DOS.

Once again, he didn&#39;t develop DOS.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:27 PM

Once again, he didn&#39;t develop DOS.
Please elaborate. MS-DOS ( the MS is for MICROSOFT ) wasn&#39;t a pre-existing OS.