The Problem with Instituting Marxism in the U.S.

[America]

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. - Artilcle I, Section 10, Clause 1, United States Consitution

One of the greatest obsticles to socialism in the United States is the obligation of contracts. This, combined with the Supreme Court's decisions of individuals having the implied right of trade and profession allow individuals the ability to commerce within their own abilities. Such a freedom is an anathma to any form of state socialism, let alone Marxist government.

American have always enjoyed the free exchange of trade amongst themselves, and would be loath to extinguish it, regardless of how class consious the political left would have them become.

How would any Marxist propose dealing with this obsticle? Please do not answer with some moronic discussion regarding educating the poor. The poor contract freely just as much. I would appreciate a serious attempt at this puzzle.

Thanks,

America

On a lighter note (and only concerning the six of you involved), my fiance and I have decided the swing party will be in early March, hosted by friends of ours in Redondo Beach. Couples only. Resond directly to [Edited by Che y Marijuana: please do not post your e-mail address publicly]. (There will be three rooms from mild to wild, and a chamber room after 1 a.m.)

Banshee

[Paradox]

http://worldsocialism.org/wsm-pages/moneysuu.html

A critique of commerce and money. Don't know if it answers your question, but I hope its insightful in some way. ;)

[Zingu]

There are different "methods" of invoking revolution in the United States.

The USA does not have a big proletarian base, thanks to its Imperialist practices and the creation of the labor aristrocracy (A Leninist Theory), which makes the middle class quite content.

One method, would be to smash the system that keeps this labor aristrocracy afloat. AKA revolution or anti-Imperialist movements in countries affected by American Imperialism, examples of this would be Iraq, Venezuela or recently; Belize and Bolivia.

Once the flow of global capital, which is huge; is disrupted or even smashed by this movement; material conditions in the US will start to fall, the labor aristrocracy will unravel; the middle and lower classes will start to lose in material living value and conditions; eventually causing dissent which will grow as this new division of wealth will become more polarized. When the conditions are worse enough; revolution could start in the US.

Again, we could just wait for oil in the Middle East to run dry (approx. 40 years) that will send shockwaves through the economy; that would help hasten the collapse of Imperialism.

EDIT- I'm actually going to be writing a paper on this subject once I get the economical information (Thanks to ComradeRed).

[NovelGentry]

One of the greatest obsticles to socialism in the United States is the obligation of contracts. This, combined with the Supreme Court's decisions of individuals having the implied right of trade and profession allow individuals the ability to commerce within their own abilities. Such a freedom is an anathma to any form of state socialism, let alone Marxist government.

Such "freedom" is the violation of others freedom. Not sure why you think a Supreme Court decision is going ot matter after a revolution. You're a riot.

[redstar2000]

After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:15 AM
American have always enjoyed the free exchange of trade amongst themselves, and would be loath to extinguish it, regardless of how class consious the political left would have them become.

How would any Marxist propose dealing with this obsticle? Please do not answer with some moronic discussion regarding educating the poor. The poor contract freely just as much. I would appreciate a serious attempt at this puzzle.

Oh they have enjoyed it now have they?

I think that if you bring socialism to any of the brutally opressed areas of America, it would clearly show them that there is much more freedom in the end to a 'free' market.

To me it's not a puzzle, just make sure you pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:47 AM
The USA does not have a big proletarian base, thanks to its Imperialist practices and the creation of the labor aristrocracy (A Leninist Theory), which makes the middle class quite content.

Is there something wrong with that?

I don't understand how could this be a problem in the USA? Please advise.

There is also another problem. Legally, communism is illegal in the USA. Owning property is a right under the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment.

Basically if it is mine, you can not take it from me, and it is law. That is a serious obstable. Simply saying that the Constitution is not relevant is a ostrich argument. There are lots of people with guns here who make the Constitution relevant.

A quick visit to a local gun range wil sample a very large majority, almost close to 100%, very patriotic and very anti-communist people.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 1 2005, 03:34 AM

Oh they have enjoyed it now have they?

I think that if you bring socialism to any of the brutally opressed areas of America, it would clearly show them that there is much more freedom in the end to a 'free' market.

The USA does not have a big proletarian base, thanks to its Imperialist practices and the creation of the labor aristrocracy (A Leninist Theory), which makes the middle class quite content. - Zingu


That is how people have enjoyed capitialism and it is a problem isn't it? It is a system that makes lots of people quite content and you are basically proposing to dismantle that system.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:51 AM

One of the greatest obsticles to socialism in the United States is the obligation of contracts. This, combined with the Supreme Court's decisions of individuals having the implied right of trade and profession allow individuals the ability to commerce within their own abilities. Such a freedom is an anathma to any form of state socialism, let alone Marxist government.

Such "freedom" is the violation of others freedom. Not sure why you think a Supreme Court decision is going ot matter after a revolution. You're a riot.
There is one problem. With your text.

1) Contracts (buying and selling) is considered a right.

2) Your concept of rights, if you allow me to guess what it is based on my education here, is NOT a right. Your concept of rights in this country is not legally recognized. Your concept of contract rights violating workers does not legally exist as a legal doctrine they way you understand it.

Or basically any concept you have of contract rights violating the freedom of others does not exist in the USA. Commerce and exchange of money is a fundamental right and freedom. Your concept of 'violated' simply does not exist in the frame work of US legal and democratic doctrine.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:58 AM

There is also another problem. Legally, communism is illegal in the USA. Owning property is a right under the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, blah blah blah blah.....
Really, we don't give a damn about the constitution, yes, there will be people with guns who want to uphold it, the counter-revolutionaries; and thats why a revolution is bound to be violent.



1) Contracts (buying and selling) is considered a right.

2) Your concept of rights, if you allow me to guess what it is based on my education here, is NOT a right. Your concept of rights in this country is not legally recognized. Your concept of contract rights violating workers does not legally exist as a legal doctrine they way you understand it.

Or basically any concept you have of contract rights violating the freedom of others does not exist in the USA. Commerce and exchange of money is a fundamental right and freedom. Your concept of 'violated' simply does not exist in the frame work of US legal and democratic doctrine.



You realize that these rules were made up by the burgeoise? Not by the workers?

Our concept of "violated" is not something we have in old dingy legal codes which are placed in dingy courtrooms.

Again, we don't give a damn on what the fine text states, as redstar2000 said, its better off being toilet paper.


That is how people have enjoyed capitialism and it is a problem isn't it? It is a system that makes lots of people quite content and you are basically proposing to dismantle that system.

Look at the other part of the world, that must carry the burden on their backs; a majority of people don't enjoy capitalism, they suffer from it. We don't want to "dismantle" it, we want to smash it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort
A quick visit to a local gun range wil sample a very large majority, almost close to 100%, very patriotic and very anti-communist people.

Their grand-children will support the revolution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Independants]

On a lighter note (and only concerning the six of you involved), my fiance and I have decided the swing party will be in early March, hosted by friends of ours in Redondo Beach. Couples only. Resond directly to [Edited by Che y Marijuana: please do not post your e-mail address publicly]. (There will be three rooms from mild to wild, and a chamber room after 1 a.m.)

....... :blink: Right.

[Paradox]

There is also another problem. Legally, communism is illegal in the USA. Owning property is a right under the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment.

Property? Private property will be abolished. It's part of the problem. The capitalist class "owns" the means of production, they "own" what the working people produce and sell it for a profit. Communal ownership is the objective.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:03 PM

There is also another problem. Legally, communism is illegal in the USA. Owning property is a right under the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment.

Property? Private property will be abolished. It's part of the problem. The capitalist class "owns" the means of production, they "own" what the working people produce and sell it for a profit. Communal ownership is the objective.
If property is communally owned, what defense will I have against oppressive search and seizure (or, I guess, eviction) by the government or society?

[Paradox]

http://worldsocialism.com/wsm-pages/ownership.html

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:44 PM

Really, we don't give a damn about the constitution, yes, there will be people with guns who want to uphold it, the counter-revolutionaries; and thats why a revolution is bound to be violent.


Bring it on. The patriotic Americans I hang out with at the gun ranges can use some trigger time on commies. Don't forget while your in the lounge reading political ideas, were at the rifle range getting ready for deer season. Ever go deer hunting? You got to be able to put bullets into a a disk about 6 inches at 100-200 yards to harvest your buck. You know a disk about the size of your head.

Rights made up by the who?

Again you forget, the people in this country are quite content with how we define our rights, even if they are by the burgeoise. I recommed you do give a damn. Because these people are quite happy with the system and they own guns.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 1 2005, 04:41 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 1 2005, 04:41 PM)
ahhh_money_is_comfort
A quick visit to a local gun range wil sample a very large majority, almost close to 100%, very patriotic and very anti-communist people.

Their grand-children will support the revolution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Prove it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:03 PM

There is also another problem. Legally, communism is illegal in the USA. Owning property is a right under the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment.

Property? Private property will be abolished. It's part of the problem. The capitalist class "owns" the means of production, they "own" what the working people produce and sell it for a profit. Communal ownership is the objective.
The private property you speak of is owned by a very large group of people who own very little total percentage of the private property, yet are quite happy that way. Not only are they happy that way, but they own guns, and would be even happier to shoot at commies.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:03 AM
The USA does not have a big proletarian base, thanks to its Imperialist practices and the creation of the labor aristrocracy (A Leninist Theory), which makes the middle class quite content. - Zingu


That is how people have enjoyed capitialism and it is a problem isn't it? It is a system that makes lots of people quite content and you are basically proposing to dismantle that system.
I find it hard to believe that Zingu is right about that. True there is a large population of content middle class people. That would indeed pose a problem. I garantee though that it is nothing in comparisson to the population of downtrodden farming communities, and neglected city people.

[Publius]

These are communists, they don't have to think!

After killing any dissenters things like "rules" and "logic" go out the window.

Viva la revolucion!

Sieg Heil!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly Pop+Feb 1 2005, 09:24 PM--> (Discarded Wobbly Pop @ Feb 1 2005, 09:24 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 06:03 AM
The USA does not have a big proletarian base, thanks to its Imperialist practices and the creation of the labor aristrocracy (A Leninist Theory), which makes the middle class quite content. - Zingu


That is how people have enjoyed capitialism and it is a problem isn't it? It is a system that makes lots of people quite content and you are basically proposing to dismantle that system.
I find it hard to believe that Zingu is right about that. True there is a large population of content middle class people. That would indeed pose a problem. I garantee though that it is nothing in comparisson to the population of downtrodden farming communities, and neglected city people. [/b]
But, a revolution from farms?

That is not communism. Communist doctrine does not have the revolution happening from agriculture based societies.

Why is this a problem? There are happy people here. Let me tell you what I believe they would say to you if you tried to 'help' them with a revolution: piss off.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:40 AM
Let me tell you what I believe they would say to you if you tried to 'help' them with a revolution: piss off.
A revolution from cities, the farms will follow by virtue of democracy.

The fact is that they aren't happy they just don't know why. A revolution today would not get through to them, but one day it likely will.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Feb 1 2005, 02:50 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Feb 1 2005, 02:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:41 PM

ahhh_money_is_comfort
A quick visit to a local gun range wil sample a very large majority, almost close to 100%, very patriotic and very anti-communist people.

Their grand-children will support the revolution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Prove it. [/b]
How does one "prove" the future?

You live long enough, you find out.

Duh.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[America]

Gentlemen:

Thank you for your responses to my topic. I have read each of them and can clarify some things:

First, all of the comment relating to the Fourth Amendment are misguided. That amendment deals w/ searches and seizures, and has never been used to perpetuate private ownership of property. It is not the issue I was placing on the table.

I was referring to the daily activity of private exchange or service for a valuable consideration. This is done all over the world, and done more by poor people than by rich people, simply because there are more poor.

When you ask someone to fix the leak in your roof because you cannot do so yourself, and promise to exchange the service for a dozen eggs from your hens, you are not fortifying capitalism as much as solving a daily need. There is no Adam Smith v. Karl Marx at work here, merely human interaction.

Natuarally the courts do not enforce all contracts. Illegal contracts, those against public policy and adhesionary contracts are not necessarily enforced, and Art. I, Section 10 will give these agreements no quarter. But the vast majority of the right to promise for another promise (that is the heart of a contract) is supported by the Constitution. And my puzzle was based on the notion that despite any revolution (which most of you know I believe will not happen, and in fact more nations will embrace American examples of freedom and liberty) people will still engage in these activities.

I suppose the only way to remove this right are the notions that have been raised that the Constitution will be abolished, ignored or made usless by a revolution based upon socialism. This of course will never occur, regardless of how much or how little oil there is on the planet. Americans value their individual freedoms far too much to allow morons the ability to squash their freedoms.

Even the poor. (One can argue the poor have just as much to insure these freedoms as the rich.)

But we now come to the meat of the matter. How will this "revolution" be effected? I'm not asking why it would happen, general disaffection for the status quo I assume is your argument, and then the people follow Jeffersonian "right to abolish their government" theory. But what organization will do what, who will give it authority and how will they triumph?

'Independants': Please do not make rude comments about our swing party. If you're not able to attend, or, more likely, don't have a girl, that's not our problem.

Also, there has been no response to my prediction that the Superbowl will achieve the overs (48 to win), and I would very much like to hear your views on that matter as well.

Remember everyone to fly the Stars and Stripes especially on Superbowl Sunday.

America

[Eastside Revolt]

"I was referring to the daily activity of private exchange or service for a valuable consideration. This is done all over the world, and done more by poor people than by rich people, simply because there are more poor.

When you ask someone to fix the leak in your roof because you cannot do so yourself, and promise to exchange the service for a dozen eggs from your hens, you are not fortifying capitalism as much as solving a daily need. There is no Adam Smith v. Karl Marx at work here, merely human interaction."

What the hell does that have to do with an argument?^

Daily human interaction is exactly what we're talking about here. If someone breaks his leg, and needs technical help in recovering from this, and there is someone with the knowledge available to help them with that; you are not so much fortifying capitalism, or communism, so much as solving a problem.

"I suppose the only way to remove this right are the notions that have been raised that the Constitution will be abolished, ignored or made usless by a revolution based upon socialism. This of course will never occur, regardless of how much or how little oil there is on the planet. Americans value their individual freedoms far too much to allow morons the ability to squash their freedoms.

Even the poor. (One can argue the poor have just as much to insure these freedoms as the rich.)"

Yes even the poor love the freedom to be persecuted racially or otherwise on a daily basis. They love the freedom to starve. The love the freedom to have no choices in life. They really, really love their individual freedoms.

But we now come to the meat of the matter. How will this "revolution" be effected? I'm not asking why it would happen, general disaffection for the status quo I assume is your argument, and then the people follow Jeffersonian "right to abolish their government" theory. But what organization will do what, who will give it authority and how will they triumph?

I don't know for sure how this revolution will carry out, atleast in a place like the entire United States, but I suppose that's the real problem with the left these days :D . I'd imagine, for it to really be successful: on a tactical level it would have to start in cities and towns, it would also be important to take the west coast (close to the alot of the military muscle). On a sociological level, it would need the mandate of the greatest numbers in mass (hence the need to take cities). The farming communities might be a problem seeing as so many are religious, but then again communism is a stateless society, and you now how those country bumpkin's hate the pesky government gettin' all in their biz.

[America]

Red Canada,

Thank you for that absurd, nonsensical response. It appears you made it all the way to 8th grade. When will revolution take place in your nation?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by America
When will revolution take place in your nation?

I was thinking March 1, 2071 would be good for me...it would be my 129th birthday. :D

I believe, by the way, that the "unders" have turned out to prevail more often than not in the Superbowl...so I would bet that fewer than 48 total points will be scored.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:31 AM
After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Particluarly the parts about freedom of speech and self-ownership.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 2 2005, 11:17 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 2 2005, 11:17 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 03:31 AM
After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Particluarly the parts about freedom of speech and self-ownership. [/b]
no only the part about freedom of speech will stay the rest will be cut out.

[praxus]

After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously!

Is this before or after the revolutionaries find themselves on the end of a firing squad?


Yes even the poor love the freedom to be persecuted racially or otherwise on a daily basis. They love the freedom to starve. The love the freedom to have no choices in life. They really, really love their individual freedoms.

I agree, anyone who says something I deam as racial should be shot, anyone who I deem to be starving I'll give a gun and help him kill 5 innocent people to feed his family. Sounds like a plan to me!

[Publius]

Is this before or after the revolutionaries find themselves on the end of a firing squad?

After the leftists figure out they don't have any guns and everyone they oppose does, so yes, after the firing squads.

If it's "leftists" revolting, I'm not worried, they're the least imposing people in the world.

[praxus]

After the leftists figure out they don't have any guns and everyone they oppose does, so yes, after the firing squads.

If it's "leftists" revolting, I'm not worried, they're the least imposing people in the world.

True.

[Right_is_right]

Once the flow of global capital, which is huge; is disrupted or even smashed by this movement; material conditions in the US will start to fall, the labor aristrocracy will unravel; the middle and lower classes will start to lose in material living value and conditions; eventually causing dissent which will grow as this new division of wealth will become more polarized. When the conditions are worse enough; revolution could start in the US.

So what you are proposing is, start a problem so that communism could come and fix it. hmmm.... i only used to think communism wouldn't work.... if that is what communism is about then i am starting to feel negatively towards it....

[Liberalista Classico]

What would the revolution do to people like me who oppose it? Do I not have the freedom to persue my own path?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:52 PM

So what you are proposing is, start a problem so that communism could come and fix it. hmmm.... i only used to think communism wouldn't work.... if that is what communism is about then i am starting to feel negatively towards it....
Its already a problem,


such an action would happen by itself if the conditions are right, even if I never mentioned or even though of it. So we wouldn't be "causing" a problem, the world would take its course, and if Lenin's theory was true; it could very well happen that the defeat of Imperialism would be the first step to smashing capitalism.

But such a claim is contested, even among Communists. I'm thinking of the subject currently myself. :)

[New Tolerance]

What would the revolution do to people like me who oppose it? Do I not have the freedom to persue my own path?

Well, that's a interesting question. It would be more interesting to answer the following:

What would a liberal democratic revolution do to tyrannical feudal aristocrats who oppose the revolution? Do they not have the freedom to choose their own path? (sarcasm) <- for literary purposes only, no hard feelings intented

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Liberalista [email protected] 2 2005, 11:01 PM
What would the revolution do to people like me who oppose it? Do I not have the freedom to persue my own path?
The question is, will you oppose when it begins? A revolution depends on the people; who must have a revolutionary conscience.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 2 2005, 11:11 PM

What would the revolution do to people like me who oppose it? Do I not have the freedom to persue my own path?

Well, that&#39;s a interesting question. It would be more interesting to answer the following:

What would a liberal democratic revolution do to tyrannical feudal aristocrats who oppose the revolution? Do they not have the freedom to choose their own path? (sarcasm) <- for literary purposes only, no hard feelings intented
This is personal, not how the ruling class would be affected, how would it affect me?

I have a small business and its doing fine. I depend on markets for my materials etc. I am hardly an aristocrat. I live very modestly but better than those who did not chose to get an education. I work hard for my pay and make my own choices. These are some of my dearest values.

Under the revolution, what would be my future... as a workingman&#39;s capitalist?

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Zingu+Feb 2 2005, 11:14 PM--> (Zingu @ Feb 2 2005, 11:14 PM)
Liberalista [email protected] 2 2005, 11:01 PM
What would the revolution do to people like me who oppose it? Do I not have the freedom to persue my own path?
The question is, will you oppose when it begins? A revolution depends on the people; who must have a revolutionary conscience. [/b]
I would prefer to keep my business and make my own choices. What would happen if I

1) Oppose the revolution wishing to keep my control on my destiny -or-
2) Not oppose. What would happen to my way of making a living? I understand the revolution would not permit me to keep my business. What would happen to me then?

[New Tolerance]

This is personal, not how the ruling class would be affected, how would it affect me?

I have a small business and its doing fine. I depend on markets for my materials etc. I am hardly an aristocrat. I live very modestly but better than those who did not chose to get an education. I work hard for my pay and make my own choices. These are some of my dearest values.

Under the revolution, what would be my future... as a workingman&#39;s capitalist?

Well, you will supposed continue to do what you are already doing if that&#39;s what you want, as long as no one is exploited in the process. Relations with former "public" institutions will change somewhat. (ie there will supposed be no more tax, that&#39;s because the major industries will be ran differently, they will be worker controlled, and thus these industries will fund the social programs themselves, they will in the end be cooridnated by social-industrial committees of sorts)

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 2 2005, 11:31 PM

Well, you will supposed continue to do what you are already doing if that&#39;s what you want, as long as no one is exploited in the process. Relations with former "public" institutions will change somewhat. (ie there will supposed be no more tax, that&#39;s because the major industries will be ran differently, they will be worker controlled, and thus these industries will fund the social programs themselves, they will in the end be cooridnated by social-industrial committees of sorts)
So in a sense I will get to keep my business as long as I charge exactly what it costs me to produce a product. Is that right?

EX:
&#036;1000 for parts
&#036;500 for 10 units of labor

could I charge &#036;3000 if I want &#036;1500 for my same 10 units of labor and expertise? I believe that is what I am worth as I have more knowledge than the worker. Would some committee tell me that my earnings have to be the same as the ordinary worker?

[New Tolerance]

So in a sense I will get to keep my business as long as I charge exactly what it costs me to produce a product. Is that right?

EX:
&#036;1000 for parts
&#036;500 for 10 units of labor

could I charge &#036;3000 if I want &#036;1500 for my same 10 units of labor and expertise? I believe that is what I am worth as I have more knowledge than the worker. Would some committee tell me that my earnings have to be the same as the ordinary worker?

Well, no. Profit isn&#39;t exploitation. (in terms of charging for a product if this is what you are getting at) Exploitation results from profit making incentive, but it doesn&#39;t necessarily have to.

In short you can still charge the &#036;3000 for your products if you want (unless the currency system has been modified so much that we no longer talk in those terms).

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 2 2005, 11:52 PM

So in a sense I will get to keep my business as long as I charge exactly what it costs me to produce a product. Is that right?

EX:
&#036;1000 for parts
&#036;500 for 10 units of labor

could I charge &#036;3000 if I want &#036;1500 for my same 10 units of labor and expertise? I believe that is what I am worth as I have more knowledge than the worker. Would some committee tell me that my earnings have to be the same as the ordinary worker?

Well, no. Profit isn&#39;t exploitation. (in terms of charging for a product if this is what you are getting at) Exploitation results from profit making incentive, but it doesn&#39;t necessarily have to.

In short you can still charge the &#036;3000 for your products if you want (unless the currency system has been modified so much that we no longer talk in those terms).
Can you expand a little on "Exploitation results from profit making incentive?"

Where is the line between earning a profit and exploitation? How is it determined? And what if I decide that I am worth more than &#036;1500, could I freely charge &#036;3500 if the customer is willing?

[New Tolerance]

Exploitation is the employment of a worker in such a way that his sole purpose of work is none other than survival. Which may simply be stopped with a reduction in profit (or maybe not even), not an end to profit.

Profit is just trading an item of lesser value for one of greater value.

You can make the price of a thing whatever you want.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 3 2005, 12:25 AM
Exploitation is the employment of a worker in such a way that his sole purpose of work is none other than survival. Which may simply be stopped with a reduction in profit (or maybe not even), not an end to profit.

Profit is just trading an item of lesser value for one of greater value.

You can make the price of a thing whatever you want.
Where is the line between earning a profit and exploitation? How is it determined?

But who decides the point at which the worker is being paid at the level of survival? In my example, the worker is paid &#036;500. Lets add this: he could live off of &#036;250. Under a communal system, could I reduce his earnings (providing he was willing to continue employment) to say &#036;250.01?

[New Tolerance]

Where is the line between earning a profit and exploitation? How is it determined?

You are missing my point, these are two different things, they don&#39;t exist at the same end of one spectrum.


But who decides the point at which the worker is being paid at the level of survival? In my example, the worker is paid &#036;500. Lets add this: he could live off of &#036;250. Under a communal system, could I reduce his earnings (providing he was willing to continue employment) to say &#036;250.01?

The point is not so that you are paying them at some "level" of survival. The point is so that they work for a &#39;reason&#39; other than survival.

Are you afraid that they will keep asking you for a raise? If you decide that you don&#39;t want this, then you can just fire them, they have public industries to go to as an alternative.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 3 2005, 12:59 AM

Where is the line between earning a profit and exploitation? How is it determined?

You are missing my point, these are two different things, they don&#39;t exist at the same end of one spectrum.


But who decides the point at which the worker is being paid at the level of survival? In my example, the worker is paid &#036;500. Lets add this: he could live off of &#036;250. Under a communal system, could I reduce his earnings (providing he was willing to continue employment) to say &#036;250.01?

The point is not so that you are paying them at some "level" of survival. The point is so that they work for a &#39;reason&#39; other than survival.

Are you afraid that they will keep asking you for a raise? If you decide that you don&#39;t want this, then you can just fire them, they have public industries to go to as an alternative.
Basically what I am getting from this discussion is using my private business as an example:
NOW: I am free to charge what I want
Comm: I am free to charge what I want
NOW: I have to pay the worker enough to live to work for me
Comm: I have to pay the worker enough to live to work for me plus some small amount
NOW: The worker can tell me to shove it and go work for a communially owned enterprise (the government)
Comm: The worker can tell me to shove it and go work for a communially owned enterprise (community "government" owned operations)

Whats the difference for me then?

Here is where I know I would run into trouble.
I understand there is a difference between profit and exploitation. My definition of exploitation is to use someone unfairly. But who defines fair? I would say what ever they are willing to work for.

Here is one on profit: What if my profits make me grow richer than my less productive neighbors, can they take it from me?

[New Tolerance]

Whats the difference for me then?

There is no big difference for you for the most part, that&#39;s why you shouldn&#39;t really bother opposing it.


But who defines fair?

It is not defined, if you think that I am trying to make things "fair" then you are mistaken. I don&#39;t care about "fairness", I care about freedom.


Here is one on profit: What if my profits make me grow richer than my less productive neighbors, can they take it from me?

No.

[Liberalista Classico]

There is no big difference for you for the most part, that&#39;s why you shouldn&#39;t really bother opposing it.

For the most part? What are the minor "details" that this system would make me conform too?



It is not defined, if you think that I am trying to make things "fair" then you are mistaken. I don&#39;t care about "fairness", I care about freedom.

Then why I am not free to pay employees what I want (providing there are workers willing to accept less)?



Here is one on profit: What if my profits make me grow richer than my less productive neighbors, can they take it from me?

No.

Then under a communal system, I could persue enough wealth to build a 35 room castle??? I find that hard to believe.
Would the new system of justice protect my right to keep my palace?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Liberalista [email protected] 2 2005, 11:28 PM

I would prefer to keep my business and make my own choices. What would happen if I

1) Oppose the revolution wishing to keep my control on my destiny -or-
2) Not oppose. What would happen to my way of making a living? I understand the revolution would not permit me to keep my business. What would happen to me then?


http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.n...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Zingu+Feb 3 2005, 02:23 AM--> (Zingu &#064; Feb 3 2005, 02:23 AM)
Liberalista [email protected] 2 2005, 11:28 PM

I would prefer to keep my business and make my own choices. What would happen if I

1) Oppose the revolution wishing to keep my control on my destiny -or-
2) Not oppose. What would happen to my way of making a living? I understand the revolution would not permit me to keep my business. What would happen to me then?


http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.n...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)[/b]

Not only will the old ruling class be deprived of all their "rights"...they&#39;ll be damn lucky if they escape summary execution.

I know that sounds "harsh"...but go back and read what happened to the workers of Paris after the Commune was defeated by the French army.

You&#39;ll see what I&#39;m getting at.

Out right advocation of Murder.


But that&#39;s not true. Power is in the hands of the armed workers...why can&#39;t they also take care of this matter as well?

The presses are in their hands; why can&#39;t they simply refuse to print capitalist or other reactionary shit? Likewise for radio and television.

Free speech? No need for that anymore.


Let me ask you this: how much "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press" has the capitalist class ever given us?
If there were none, the writer of this would be in the gulag and the site would be deleted.

If (1) the working class effectively controls access to all the media; and (2) the capitalist class is deprived of their wealth...making it impossible to hire people to spread their views; then you have effectively suppressed "free speech" for reactionaries...without ever saying that you&#39;re doing that.

I can live with that.
Choice qoute for obvious reasons


When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.
Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?

.... I&#39;ll read the reat later. But really, you wonder why decent people oppose this stuff? Now these guys may not represent 100% of y&#39;all but its a good indicator of what would come to us if you looters ever took power.

[comrade_mufasa]

When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.
Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?
if you have ever tried to debate with Nazi then at some point it will become violent even if you dont want it to be.


.... I&#39;ll read the reat later. But really, you wonder why decent people oppose this stuff? Now these guys may not represent 100% of y&#39;all but its a good indicator of what would come to us if you looters ever took power.
well you will never have to worry about us looters coming into power becouse there will be no few people in power. All power to all people. Leninism is what you are thinking of and true communist know that Leninism is bad.

[truthman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:31 AM
After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So, in other words, the Bill of RIghts will mean nothing. And no one will exist to protect the rights of others, because the reality is that most people are not willing to die for the right to free speech. One only needs to see France, Germany and Italy in WWII.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by truthman+Feb 3 2005, 05:09 AM--> (truthman @ Feb 3 2005, 05:09 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 03:31 AM
After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So, in other words, the Bill of RIghts will mean nothing. And no one will exist to protect the rights of others, because the reality is that most people are not willing to die for the right to free speech. One only needs to see France, Germany and Italy in WWII. [/b]
We gotta have the Bill of Rights&#33;

[truthman]

Originally posted by Ruby+Feb 3 2005, 05:22 AM--> (Ruby @ Feb 3 2005, 05:22 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:09 AM

[email protected] 1 2005, 03:31 AM
After the revolution, the U.S. constitution will have all the relevance and effect of used toilet paper.

Obviously&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So, in other words, the Bill of RIghts will mean nothing. And no one will exist to protect the rights of others, because the reality is that most people are not willing to die for the right to free speech. One only needs to see France, Germany and Italy in WWII.
We gotta have the Bill of Rights&#33; [/b]
Especially the Second. Without which, freedom is impossible.

[New Tolerance]

For the most part? What are the minor "details" that this system would make me conform too?

No one will "make" you "conform" to them. In a metaphorical sense, the changes should not be viewed as if some new laws are implemented and you have to follow them, but rather as if the dollar had crashed and became worthless, and your &#036;90000 might have became 90 cents instead. Now, would acknowledging the market exchange rates of your currency be something that someone "make" you "conform" to?


Then why I am not free to pay employees what I want (providing there are workers willing to accept less)?

When did I say that you can&#39;t?


Then under a communal system, I could persue enough wealth to build a 35 room castle??? I find that hard to believe.
Would the new system of justice protect my right to keep my palace?

I find that hard to believe too. Why would anyone bother living in a 35 room castle?

You can keep it (it&#39;s a pretty pointless thing to do if you ask me), but I think it&#39;s pretty unlikely that anyone will ever get enough wealth to build one anyways.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 3 2005, 08:20 PM



For the most part? What are the minor "details" that this system would make me conform too?

No one will "make" you "conform" to them. In a metaphorical sense, the changes should not be viewed as if some new laws are implemented and you have to follow them, but rather as if the dollar had crashed and became worthless, and your &#036;90000 might have became 90 cents instead. Now, would acknowledging the market exchange rates of your currency be something that someone "make" you "conform" to?
So there are no differences. Cmmunism=capitalism. There is no longer a need for this site. I am willing to live with the ups and downs of the economy rather than the bland uniformity of a group think community.


Then why I am not free to pay employees what I want (providing there are workers willing to accept less)?

When did I say that you can&#39;t?
Bull shit, you said I had to pay just above survival. Its not my job to tell what is a survival rate. If I offer a job at a particular rate, its up to the worker to take it or not. I think you already admitted this point cannot be defined. Well the market does not either, its a dynamic point that fluctuates based on private interactions.



Then under a communal system, I could persue enough wealth to build a 35 room castle??? I find that hard to believe.
Would the new system of justice protect my right to keep my palace? ?
I find that hard to believe too. Why would anyone bother living in a 35 room castle?You can keep it (it&#39;s a pretty pointless thing to do if you ask me), but I think it&#39;s pretty unlikely that anyone will ever get enough wealth to build one anyways.
I would. And the community can take a hike if they dont like it. And who cares if I dont get it under any system, I want the right to strive for it.

[Liberalista Classico]

Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?
if you have ever tried to debate with Nazi then at some point it will become violent even if you dont want it to be.
Thats no excuse. Violence is not the answer unless you are threatened physically. Using Brown Shirt tactics makes you just like them.


well you will never have to worry about us looters coming into power becouse there will be no few people in power. All power to all people. Leninism is what you are thinking of and true communist know that Leninism is bad

Then leave my corporations alone. They are made of people who volentarily group together for mutual benifit and trade. Let them be free to organize as they want. If you don&#39;t like capitalism, don&#39;t participate.

[New Tolerance]

So there are no differences. Cmmunism=capitalism. There is no longer a need for this site. I am willing to live with the ups and downs of the economy rather than the bland uniformity of a group think community.

Well, by your defination I guess not. No more need for opposition right?


Bull shit, you said I had to pay just above survival. Its not my job to tell what is a survival rate. If I offer a job at a particular rate, its up to the worker to take it or not. I think you already admitted this point cannot be defined. Well the market does not either, its a dynamic point that fluctuates based on private interactions.

I would like you to give me the quote.


I would. And the community can take a hike if they dont like it. And who cares if I dont get it under any system, I want the right to strive for it.

You&#39;ll have it.

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:42 AM


When Nazis in San Francisco opened the "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" (early 80s), people did not demonstrate or go to the Board of Supervisors and ask for some statute to shut it down or hire lawyers to find some technicality in the city code that could be used against the Nazis, etc.

They just burned it to the ground.
Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?
if you have ever tried to debate with Nazi then at some point it will become violent even if you dont want it to be.


.... I&#39;ll read the reat later. But really, you wonder why decent people oppose this stuff? Now these guys may not represent 100% of y&#39;all but its a good indicator of what would come to us if you looters ever took power.
well you will never have to worry about us looters coming into power becouse there will be no few people in power. All power to all people. Leninism is what you are thinking of and true communist know that Leninism is bad.
Thats the entire point behind having a freedom of speech. So that all wackos can express their opinions and then people can decide for themselves what they think. Forcing ideologies upon people is wrong, as such there is only one country which has not done that throughout history.

And yes I do agree that debating nazis might become violent but the point is where do we draw the line on surpressing the freedom of speech. It isn&#39;t absolute, especially if it can cause direct harm to someone, but in terms of being offended by something that someone else says, there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. Why not just let everyone decide what they want to believe and not force people to think about one ideology. If we ever reach a point where we force people to accept only one ideology then that is exactly the dark path that every dictatorship in history has done.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 06:11 PM


Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?
if you have ever tried to debate with Nazi then at some point it will become violent even if you dont want it to be.
Thats no excuse. Violence is not the answer unless you are threatened physically. Using Brown Shirt tactics makes you just like them.
I ment that Nazis become very violent very fast and they start to throw fist first.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 3 2005, 11:17 PM






So there are no differences. Cmmunism=capitalism. There is no longer a need for this site. I am willing to live with the ups and downs of the economy rather than the bland uniformity of a group think community.

Well, by your defination I guess not. No more need for opposition right?

But I am getting to many conflicting opinions on the concept of collecivist societies. You seem to be selling it like a used car salesman.

No opposition? If anyone pushes either communism or socialism on this country, don&#39;t expect me to roll over.



Bull shit, you said I had to pay just above survival. Its not my job to tell what is a survival rate. If I offer a job at a particular rate, its up to the worker to take it or not. I think you already admitted this point cannot be defined. Well the market does not either, its a dynamic point that fluctuates based on private interactions.

I would like you to give me the quote.

Why not? Kindly include a link as well.



I would. And the community can take a hike if they dont like it. And who cares if I dont get it under any system, I want the right to strive for it.

You&#39;ll have it.

I know, thru my own efforts, not my neighbor&#39;s.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 4 2005, 01:50 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 4 2005, 01:50 AM)
Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 06:11 PM


Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?
if you have ever tried to debate with Nazi then at some point it will become violent even if you dont want it to be.
Thats no excuse. Violence is not the answer unless you are threatened physically. Using Brown Shirt tactics makes you just like them.
I ment that Nazis become very violent very fast and they start to throw fist first. [/b]
Certainly. But who is worse? The one burns books in 2005 or the ones that burn books in 1940?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Certainly. But who is worse? The one burns books in 2005 or the ones that burn books in 1940?

Speaking of which, how about the McCarthyite mobilization against Ward Churchill?

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 5 2005, 01:12 AM

Certainly. But who is worse? The one burns books in 2005 or the ones that burn books in 1940?

Speaking of which, how about the McCarthyite mobilization against Ward Churchill?
Does not matter. If the university wants to fire them after under threat of losing contributions from offended doners, let them.

IMO, he is a filthy POS that is not qualified to teach ass-wiping. I would feel the same if he were spreading Nazi propaganda rather than ignorant distortions of reality. A teacher is there to teach and use facts to invoke thought, not use fakery to make students think. He is a fraud.

[New Tolerance]

But I am getting to many conflicting opinions on the concept of collecivist societies. You seem to be selling it like a used car salesman.

socialism is collectivist, communism is not. and what is the point of the car salesman statement?


Why not? Kindly include a link as well.

This reply doesn&#39;t make any sense (or it&#39;s just completely unclear), did you read my post correctly?

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Liberalista Classico+Feb 4 2005, 08:02 PM--> (Liberalista Classico @ Feb 4 2005, 08:02 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:50 AM

Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 06:11 PM


Now I hate Nazis as much as many of you but violence is not the answer, why not intellectually challenge their perverted ideas? Looks like there was a good old book burning in SF. Ironic?
if you have ever tried to debate with Nazi then at some point it will become violent even if you dont want it to be.
Thats no excuse. Violence is not the answer unless you are threatened physically. Using Brown Shirt tactics makes you just like them.
I ment that Nazis become very violent very fast and they start to throw fist first.
Certainly. But who is worse? The one burns books in 2005 or the ones that burn books in 1940? [/b]
There will be no book buring. I cant fathom where you are getting your info on true communism from. You are yet again mixing true communism with Stalin and Mao.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:26 PM
These are communists, they don&#39;t have to think&#33;

After killing any dissenters things like "rules" and "logic" go out the window.

Viva la revolucion&#33;

Sieg Heil&#33;
May I ask if you have anything constructive too say, or just troll and spam?

What did you post then, that was even slightly constructive?

They are made of people who volentarily group together for mutual benifit and trade.

Mutually beneficial for who though?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 2 2005, 07:37 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 2 2005, 07:37 AM)
America
When will revolution take place in your nation?

I was thinking March 1, 2071 would be good for me...it would be my 129th birthday. :D

I believe, by the way, that the "unders" have turned out to prevail more often than not in the Superbowl...so I would bet that fewer than 48 total points will be scored.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
The superiority of the Marxist understanding of social reality is demonstrated once again.

New England 24, Philadelphia 21 = 45 total points. Unders win.

Hope you didn&#39;t lose too much. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif