How are we a dictatorship?

[crazyman]

How is Bush a dictator??
He dose not have all the power the American people put him in office.
Yet you always say that "Bush is a dictator" Why?

[LSD]

Bush is not a dictator.

He's a murderous, lying, hypocritical, fanatical, evangelizing, theiving, manipulative, cruel, oppressive, disgusting, war criminal thug, but he isn't a dictator.

...at least not personally.

[crazyman]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 12:26 AM
Bush is not a dictator.

He's a murderous, lying, hypocritical, fanatical, evangelizing, theiving, manipulative, cruel, oppressive, disgusting, war criminal thug, but he isn't a dictator.

Happy?
Yeah that makes a little more sense.

[NovelGentry]

I never claimed Bush was a dictator... for all purposes though, the Bourgeoisie is.

[rice349]

Bush is not a dictator at all, like LSD said, he is all those other things. However, i think when people use the term they mean it in a more symbolic frame of mind. For instance, it would be much more credible for the average black man or immigrant trying to maintain economic stability in the capitalist system dominated by a minority of wealthy individuals and opportunists to make reference to America as being a type of "dictatorship" in which they see no means of escaping or control over their lives. This is drastically different than the 17 year old writing in his web blog, claiming how he hates the american dictatorship while listening to green day or anti-flag on his 6 disc-changer cd player, sitting at his new Dell notebook, without the most basic understanding of global hegemony or the severity of exploitation.


for all purposes though, the Bourgeoisie is

yes.

[LSD]

I never claimed Bush was a dictator... for all purposes though, the Bourgeoisie is.

Exactly. Bush is merely a small part of the massive machine of capitalism. If Bush were gone tomorrow he would be replace by someone new, but that new person would serve the same interests and the same class as Bush does. The "dictatorship" is that of the rulling class, but it is far more nuanced than a fascist or classical dictator.

Because it isn't as simple as say fascism, however, it's harder to recognize. This confusion allows the rulling class to easily disguise their rule, but don't kid yourself, it's very real.

[crazyman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:30 AM
I never claimed Bush was a dictator... for all purposes though, the Bourgeoisie is.
Isn't a dictatorship ruled by one person?

[LSD]

Isn't a dictatorship ruled by one person?

Typically, but used more broadly it can mean any authoritarian system.

"A dictatorship is a government headed by a dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government." -Wikipedia

"1) The office or tenure of a dictator.
2) A state or government under dictatorial rule.
3) Absolute or despotic control or power."
-Dictionary.com

And besides, what NovelGentry meant was that the Bourgoisie as a class rule dictatorially. That is, the class as a unit has the social role of a classical dictator.

[Free Spirit]

Isn't a dictatorship ruled by one person?
It can be, but it can also be ruled by a group of people, four or five. There’s no rule of how many people can dictate over a same country and same thing but there's a limit of how much they can handle of sharing power because they are humans.

[crazyman]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 01:08 AM
3) Absolute or despotic control or power."
If the Bourgeoisie has so much power how the hell is a revolution going to happen?

[aberos]

i have a problem with everyone who complains about bush being in power. i have a problem with everyone who advocates the spread of communism, but not military revolution. i have a problem with everyone who is a jack communist. but most importantly, i have a problem with people who claim that there is an american ruling class dictatorship. the fact is that america represents a succeeding capitalist society, and the people, for the most part, therein, are capitalists. now do not mistake my rage and point of view as that of a right wing conservative because i am anything but that, but do try to listen to what i am saying. the fact is that the majority of the american people wanted the evil bastard known as bush in office. the fact is that in order for communism to ever take strong root in a world so firmly entrenched in capitalist despotism, military revolution such as those in cuba and china are unavoidable. as che once said, "we must create many vietnams all over the world." the fact is that all of those teeny bopper wannabe communists claiming to advocate the fall of capitalism while they drive their suv's that mommy and daddy bought for them to the local mall so that they can buy the latest in overpriced "punk" streetwear while talking on their brand new nokia cell phones are fucking disgusting. i fully understand that you have to take a certain part in the system as long as you live in the usa, but try to make it minimal for chrissake.

[NovelGentry]

i have a problem with everyone who complains about bush being in power. i have a problem with everyone who advocates the spread of communism, but not military revolution. i have a problem with everyone who is a jack communist. but most importantly, i have a problem with people who claim that there is an american ruling class dictatorship. the fact is that america represents a succeeding capitalist society, and the people, for the most part, therein, are capitalists. now do not mistake my rage and point of view as that of a right wing conservative because i am anything but that, but do try to listen to what i am saying. the fact is that the majority of the american people wanted the evil bastard known as bush in office. the fact is that in order for communism to ever take strong root in a world so firmly entrenched in capitalist despotism, military revolution such as those in cuba and china are unavoidable. as che once said, "we must create many vietnams all over the world." the fact is that all of those teeny bopper wannabe communists claiming to advocate the fall of capitalism while they drive their suv's that mommy and daddy bought for them to the local mall so that they can buy the latest in overpriced "punk" streetwear while talking on their brand new nokia cell phones are fucking disgusting. i fully understand that you have to take a certain part in the system as long as you live in the usa, but try to make it minimal for chrissake.

"suceeding capitalist society" -- yes, in the sense that every other capitalist nation is a succeeding capitalist society.

Your post generally shows a horrible misunderstanding of class struggle. And despite the romanticism you have and the obvious moral obligation you feel to revolution... you simply do not understand it.

For one finer point, you claim a majority of Americans wanted Bush in office.... this is completely false.

Assume 90% of Americans are registered to vote (that's probably an optimistic estimate).

Then Assume 60% of Americans actually voted (also probably an optimistic estimate).

Then realize only 51% of them voted for Bush.

This is approximately 28% of Americans. So your so called majority that actually wanted him in office represents less than 1/3 of Americans.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i have a problem with people who claim that there is an american ruling class dictatorship.

Why?

You seem to be under the impression that (1) most Americans voted for Bush and (2) these people are actually enjoying the benefits of his right-wing policies.

Few of the approximately 28% (see above) who voted for Bush actually benefit from capitalism. A vast majority of those simply voted for him because they don't like paying taxes that fund shit that they don't use and they subscribe to conservative, repressive Judeo-Christian moral standards.

The truth is that voting for Bush or failing to do so has no impact at all.
They could have voted for Kerry, or nobody at all (as millions do in every election) and the result would have been the same.

Most Americans condone the status quo. This is the real problem. Whether they like republicans over democrats because republicans spend less on schools and more on guns or because democrats like gay marriage doesn't matter.

They condone the status quo because due to imperialism, sweatshop labor, and the exploitation of the third world, Americans (excluding minorities, of course) can afford a historically high standard of living. This doesn't mean, however, that they enjoy political and social power and the ownership of their own labor.

Point being: just because Americans vote for Republicans and may condone the status quo, doesn't mean they're benefiting from it.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:26 AM

If the Bourgeoisie has so much power how the hell is a revolution going to happen?
Same way the aristrocracy fell to the bourgeoisie.

They'll sell the very rope the proletariat will hang them with; I know, Stalin said that, but its true.
Once Capitalism runs its course; it will find itself outmoded in a changing world; the old system of a new society; just like Feudalism; it will pushed away by the force of progressive change.

Remember; the capitalists need the workers to operate and run the factories, mills, power stations and pretty much everything. And what will happen when the working class realizes this power and is fed up with capitalism? You can guess probably.

[NovelGentry]

Remember; the capitalists need the workers to operate and run the factories, mills, power stations and pretty much everything. And what will happen when the working class realizes this power and is fed up with capitalism? You can guess probably.

While I won't deny this, it's much more interesting to look at property relations as technology changes.

There was a thread on 3D printing where I went over this fairly well (at least I think I did).

This maintains the material argument of WHY they will become conscious of oppression. As the means of production and distribution will change. The internet has done wonders for this.

When you've shifted some of these things into the hands of the proletariat, they become the tools. Computers were self defeating to the borgeoisie software companies, and open source proved this. In the future, you might see the cost of printing your own books fall to the equivalent of buying books printed from the bourgeois means of production. You might see the cost of producing a LOT of your own things fall below these costs -- and technology becomes easier or more automated to the point anyone can do it.

Production's next step is logically in the hands of the people who actually expend the labor to produce it to begin with. The bourgeoisie will no doubt try and STOP this -- and this is when you will see an amazing increase in consciousness.

[Thomas]

"They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power; gain our freedom when we learn
That the Union makes us strong."

Solidarity Forever (Thanks to Raisa for sending me it!)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:23 AM
How is Bush a dictator??
He dose not have all the power the American people put him in office.
Yet you always say that "Bush is a dictator" Why?
You presume that such a claim was intended to make sense. It wasn't. It was intended to provoke an emotional reaction in people to whom thinking is not a habit.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:51 AM
This is approximately 28% of Americans. So your so called majority that actually wanted him in office represents less than 1/3 of Americans.
How many of people voted for communism/socialism ?

[NovelGentry]

How many of people voted for communism/socialism ?

Where/In which instance?

Note: My post was not designed to remove the validity of George Bush's election -- it was only to counter the idea that he was voted in by a majority. If I wanted to attack it's validity it'd take me a hell of a lot longer than that, as I've got a lot more arguments.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:25 AM
In the future, you might see the cost of printing your own books fall to the equivalent of buying books printed from the bourgeois means of production. You might see the cost of producing a LOT of your own things fall below these costs -- and technology becomes easier or more automated to the point anyone can do it.

Congratulations; you now own the means of production and are now fair game for those who don't. You're not longer proletariat.


Production's next step is logically in the hands of the people who actually expend the labor to produce it to begin with.

The next step is for those who claim to have created your means of production to sieze them and anything you created with them. Not quite the revolution you hoped for.


The bourgeoisie will no doubt try and STOP this -- and this is when you will see an amazing increase in consciousness.

No they won't; they will have no legal means to do so providing property rights still exist.

[NovelGentry]

Congratulations; you now own the means of production and are now fair game for those who don't. You're not longer proletariat.

Again, the bourgeoisie will oppose this. This is when consciousness steps forward.


The next step is for those who claim to have created your means of production to sieze them and anything you created with them. Not quite the revolution you hoped for.

No, the next step is to overthrow the bourgeoisie so we can keep them.


No they won't; they will have no legal means to do so providing property rights still exist.

But property rights will not exist for the proletariat under capitalism. Surely they will be on paper -- but they will not exist. The same way I can buy a song and have no right to do whatever I want with that song. The same way I can buy a computer, and I have no right to program my computer to watch the DVD I bought. The same way I can buy an XBox... and a Mod chip... and I have no right to install one into the other so that I can run alternative software on it.

These are examples of places where production and distribution have already been turned over, at least in part, and regardless of my ownership I carry none of the rights of ownership.


EDIT: I clarified the sentence "But property rights will not exist for us" by changing it to "But property rights will not exist for the proletariat under capitalism." To help t_wolves_fan and other people, who cannot infer from the context of a full body of work what is actually being said.

[colombiano]

Dictator no.
Oligarchy , a plausible arguement.

[t_wolves_fan]

But property rights will not exist for us.

Yay! I cannot wait until you force me out of my home and into the People's Glorious Apartment Complex #321.

My consciousness will certainly rise then. I will be so proud to be just like everyone else who had everything taken away.

Sign me up!

[colombiano]

t wolves fan if I may ask a question. I am in no way making a personal attack. However I noticed in other threads that you are avid in regards to religous freedom. Are you a Religous person? If so May I ask of what religion?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:11 PM
t wolves fan if I may ask a question. I am in no way making a personal attack. However I noticed in other threads that you are avid in regards to religous freedom. Are you a Religous person? If so May I ask of what religion?
Yes, I am generally in favor of "religious freedom". That includes expression. People seem to think they have some right to never witness religion - such a right is impossible to guarantee along with freedom to expression, and I value expression more than freedom "from" something.

I am Lutheran. I rarely go to church and when I do it's usually a catholic church, since I've had the luck to date/marry only catholic girls. I do not buy into most of the tradition per se, but I value the lessons and the spirituality.

[colombiano]

but I value the lessons and the spirituality.
In my observations and reading your posts you seem to put great value in Your Individual rights as a person to free markets , the ability to have and own nice cars , plasma Tv's , nice apartments, etc etc , etc. Yet being someone who values religion perhaps you should take note from your own good book.

See it in Proverbs 14:31, "He who oppresses the poor, degrades one's Maker, he who is in solidarity with the poor exalts one's Maker." Micah 6:8, "Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with thy God." The fifth chapter of Amos: "Let justice roll down like water, righteousness like a mighty stream."

Now to me the Individualistic self- rightous teachings of capitalist dogma can be viewed as a Direct Contradiction to the Bible and teachings of Christ. One of the worst things the older generation did was to tell us for 25 years, Be successful, be successful, be successful, as opposed to Be great, be great, be great. There is a qualitative difference. Success is very individualistic, privatistic, concerned only with one's own upward mobility. Just remember one thing , It is Much Easier to wear a cross around your neck Than Carry one on Your Back.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:41 PM

but I value the lessons and the spirituality.
In my observations and reading your posts you seem to put great value in Your Individual rights as a person to free markets , the ability to have and own nice cars , plasma Tv's , nice apartments, etc etc , etc. Yet being someone who values religion perhaps you should take note from your own good book.

See it in Proverbs 14:31, "He who oppresses the poor, degrades one's Maker, he who is in solidarity with the poor exalts one's Maker." Micah 6:8, "Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with thy God." The fifth chapter of Amos: "Let justice roll down like water, righteousness like a mighty stream."

Now to me the Individualistic self- rightous teachings of capitalist dogma can be viewed as a Direct Contradiction to the Bible and teachings of Christ. One of the worst things the older generation did was to tell us for 25 years, Be successful, be successful, be successful, as opposed to Be great, be great, be great. There is a qualitative difference. Success is very individualistic, privatistic, concerned only with one's own upward mobility. Just remember one thing , It is Much Easier to wear a cross around your neck Than Carry one on Your Back.
If I didn't know better I'd swear you were trying to catch me in a contradiction.

It is entirely possible to value religious teachings and also value individualism. If you're looking to argue with a religious fundamentalist who thinks we need to establish a christian theocracy, you've got the wrong person.

Because I value religious freedom, I value people's individual freedom to accept religious values towards the poor (illustrated in the quotes you provide) to whatever degree they choose. I think people should have the right to be atheist, so what good would my religious values or the quotes you provide be to them? They wouldn't at all, nor should they be.

Just as I don't think the state should force everyone to be Christian, so I don't think the state should force people to "stand in solidarity" with the poor. If someone wants to be atheist and greedy and materialistic, so be it. If someone wants to be a bad Catholic and be greedy and materialistic, so be it. The only way to stop them is through the use of the government.

I agree with you on the mistakes of the past generation, and I agree with most people on this board that in general Americans are too materialistic and too greedy. But I do not agree that the state has the responsibility nor the right to tell them they may not be so. That is why I value the right of people to express their values - religious or otherwise - in the free marketplace of ideas to try to convince the greedy and selfish that there is more to life than possessions.

The reason I think the government should stay out of trying to either force the rich to share more or to provide everything under the sun is that I've seen how inefficient, wasteful, and resistant to change the government is. I work with it nearly every day. That does not mean I view government as bad, necessarily, I just think that the more control and responsibility that individuals are given, the better.

Any other questions?

[rice349]

The reason I think the government should stay out of trying to either force the rich to share more or to provide everything under the sun is that I've seen how inefficient, wasteful, and resistant to change the government

The government neeeds to do more than force them to share, the government needs to complete seize every bit of property, belonging, even personal valuables that won't mean shit to anybody else; not only as a means of wealth distribution, but of retribution towards the capitalist bourgeois class for their exploitations of the working class. When class consciousness becomes more aware to the working classes they will develop a hatred for the bourgeois that hopefully will end with their ceasing to exist (the bourgeois of course) either by complete wealth distribution or total anihilation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:18 PM

The reason I think the government should stay out of trying to either force the rich to share more or to provide everything under the sun is that I've seen how inefficient, wasteful, and resistant to change the government

The government neeeds to do more than force them to share, the government needs to complete seize every bit of property, belonging, even personal valuables that won't mean shit to anybody else; not only as a means of wealth distribution, but of retribution towards the capitalist bourgeois class for their exploitations of the working class. When class consciousness becomes more aware to the working classes they will develop a hatred for the bourgeois that hopefully will end with their ceasing to exist (the bourgeois of course) either by complete wealth distribution or total anihilation.
People like you are scary. You're not content to have your opinion and debate it with others, you'd use the coercive power of the state to force it on them.

You're no different from the theorcratic religious right that I'm sure you despise.

Frankly I think there is little behind your opinion besides anger and a sense of self-entitlement. If people like you were ever in charge, you'd make Stalin or Mao look good.

Fortunately people who think like you represent .0004% of the population. Perhaps that makes you angrier, which is downright funny.

[colombiano]

Frankly I think there is little behind your opinion besides anger and a sense of self-entitlement

sense of self-entitlement Sounds like Capitalism to me.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:06 PM

Frankly I think there is little behind your opinion besides anger and a sense of self-entitlement

sense of self-entitlement Sounds like Capitalism to me.
Yeah but in capitalism you have to go out and earn it.

This nutjob thinks the government should run roughshod over everyone to make his beliefs reality.

I hope you can appreciate the difference from my perspective.

[Professor Moneybags]

When class consciousness becomes more aware to the working classes

I think pretty much everyone knows what "class" they are in.

[Andy Bowden]

True - but I think what this comment means is when people become aware of the power of their class (presumably the working class). When the working class are united and organised there is no force on earth that can stop them :D

[aberos]

Your post generally shows a horrible misunderstanding of class struggle. And despite the romanticism you have and the obvious moral obligation you feel to revolution... you simply do not understand it.


i am sorry, but i could not quite tell if i was being belittled or not. i do not understand, eh?

well let us take your statistics of the people who put bush in office and see if we are able to discover anything.


For one finer point, you claim a majority of Americans wanted Bush in office.... this is completely false.

Assume 90% of Americans are registered to vote (that's probably an optimistic estimate).

Then Assume 60% of Americans actually voted (also probably an optimistic estimate).

Then realize only 51% of them voted for Bush.

This is approximately 28% of Americans. So your so called majority that actually wanted him in office represents less than 1/3 of Americans.

okay, let us say that it was, indeed, only 28% of americans who put him in office. that means that only around 26% can be definitely against him being in office. so then we are left with 46% percent of americans who did not vote. on top of the fact that since the highest voter turnout was in democratic sectors, not in republican, we could assume that a majority of those who did not vote probably would have gone red, it does not matter. since those 46% did not make their voices heard, the can only be assumed to be in favor of the american majority. this would mean that not 28%, but, rather, 74% of americans put bush in office.

again, do not misjudge my intentions because i personally hope that bush burns in hell, but the fact is that the american public...no the american majority put him there.

and even if he did not win, who would have been better to be in power? kerry? he was more of a bastard than bush was. maybe someone would have knocked him off and put edwards in office though. edwards is a good man.

to shift back to me being told that i have a horrible misunderstanding of the class struggle though. what exactly is my false belief? my belief that armed revolution is necessary because you can never truly throw an oppressor from your back without throwing him? or is it that i believe that the class struggle as it exists in most places is just a bunch of pissy overprivileged brats who want to show mommy and daddy who is boss? or is it perhaps my belief that america is a succeeding capitalist society that millions of people are drawn to in search of a life where they are not starved and murdered by their home governments? maybe, perhaps, the best way to upstart a resurgence of global communism is by throwing of the oppressors around the world by force when necessary so that peoples of the world do not have an unwarranted bias against communism because of capitalist biases. UNTIL WE PROVE OURSELVES, WE CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE STATUS QUO.

[NovelGentry]

Yay! I cannot wait until you force me out of my home and into the People's Glorious Apartment Complex #321.

My consciousness will certainly rise then. I will be so proud to be just like everyone else who had everything taken away.

Sign me up!


You know, you really don't know how to read, and it's pissing me off. I'm talking about Capitalism. The proletariat does not have the freedom and rights of private property granted to the bourgeoisie.

The bosses are the biggest criminals out of the whole stack, but they're not touched, and if they are they are touched with angel's hands. They don't have to respect the things I buy under their system... they can impose rules and laws which permit me from doing what I want with these things.

Within the context of capitalism: WE (the proletariat) DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT THE BOURGEOISIE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Argue away, but don't try and pretend I'm saying something I'm not. This system is shit and as time progresses those who create the property will not even be able to uphold their right to do whatever the hell they want with it, even if they "own" it.

[NovelGentry]

I think pretty much everyone knows what "class" they are in.

There is a lot more to class consciousness than that, in fact, I wouldn't even consider that part of class consciousness. That is part of your individual consciousness. The relative same for class consicousness would be to know what position your class is in (with relation to the other classes).

[NovelGentry]

Also... to Moneybags. You seemed to have avoid the argument I made above about the stripped property rights of the working class and our so-called "ownership" of it. Indeed you just let t_wolves_fan completely fuck up any meaningful rebuttal because he failed to read it in the context of the argument and assumed I was talking about socialism/communism.

So let me ask you directly. How do you propose to avoid this situation in capitalism?

Do you believe if someone buys a product they have a right to change, modify, extend, reverse engineer, sell, give, share, or break that product?

There will have to be a merge of the usual phsycial property and this new "intellectual property" -- where the bourgeoisie seeks to protect both, and in doing so will create massive forces in the interest of protecting intellectual property, on top of the already existing forces to protect physical property.

Our relation to this property is changing. We were told all our lives that if we buy something, we can do what we want with it. We even had so-called fair use laws which both protected the bourgeoisie from these new property relations, but protected our rights to at least do some things with it. Now fair use laws are being shot to shit -- and the protection of intellectual property will violate your rights and ownership to physical property when they confinscate your computer and inflict fines so damaging as to rob you of any chance at ever being able to say "I own this, it is mine till I willfully give it up."

[colombiano]

The bosses are the biggest criminals out of the whole stack, but they're not touched, and if they are they are touched with angel's hands. They don't have to respect the things I buy under their system... they can impose rules and laws which permit me from doing what I want with these things.
NAIL MEET HAMMER!
The system in place created by the elite to benefit the elite, because there is no accountability, no answerability, no responsibility. You can steal a billon dollars – nobody takes responsibility. Welfare mother steals a hubcap – put her on the front page; she ought to be responsible.
Plutocracy at it's finest.

[Commie Rat]

bush has cut the rights of american citizens majorly with the PATRIOT Act (I and II)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:43 PM
WE (the proletariat) DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT THE BOURGEOISIE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.


You know, all you do is make assertions based on your opinion and not fact, and it's starting to piss ME off.

This is just a plain stupid assertion. Everyone who owns property has the same rights.

Put up some evidence or admit you have ZERO basis for shouting this stupid slogan.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:36 PM

People like you are scary.....
If people like you were ever in charge, you'd make Stalin or Mao look good.

rice349 is a Stalinist by the way.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Zingu+Mar 29 2005, 02:27 PM--> (Zingu @ Mar 29 2005, 02:27 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 05:36 PM

People like you are scary.....
If people like you were ever in charge, you'd make Stalin or Mao look good.

rice349 is a Stalinist by the way. [/b]
Even worse, it means as you try to put your good intentions to work, he'll probably have you purged.

[NovelGentry]

You know, all you do is make assertions based on your opinion and not fact, and it's starting to piss ME off.

This is just a plain stupid assertion. Everyone who owns property has the same rights.


Well, it's not just the rights over the property itself which were expressed in my original quote, but it is actually whether or not I'm in a position to afford such rights to begin with. For example, it's quite easy for a bourgeois individual to buy the licensing to create DVD playing software, it is effectively impossible for the proletarian. And well, you might say "you have no right to that technology." But it is not the technology that we steal... we create the technology, from scratch On the computers we own, and then we watch the DVDs we own using the software we created and the DVD drives we own-- and this is illegal... strange.

Here's my original digital age example:


The same way I can buy a song and have no right to do whatever I want with that song. The same way I can buy a computer, and I have no right to program my computer to watch the DVD I bought. The same way I can buy an XBox... and a Mod chip... and I have no right to install one into the other so that I can run alternative software on it.

My statement from earlier... where are my property rights in this? Do I not own these things when I pay for them?

They cannot advance technology much further before changing the nature of all property rights -- eventually the means of production outpace the ability for the bourgeoisie to control it -- but they try to control it, again, the same way the feudal aristocracy attacked the machines which gave rise the petty-borgeois handicraftsmen.

Where we can settle material needs through new means of distribution, we try. Example being medication imported from Canada or bought directly online -- and the bill (currently either in draft or having just been proposed at the 109th congress) to ban this type of sale "until they can ensure quality control."

AKA: Until the bourgeoisie here can control it.

Indeed there are thousands of examples where the bourgeoisie seeks to control things which they never worrid about in the past when technology was fairly limited. Earlier examples of the modern digital example I gave include the Home Recording act (not just for ensuring fair use, but also for ensuring limited control over property you supposedly own). But other aspects which actually limit our ability to survive outside the capitalist system. For example, did you know it's actually illegal in most states to keep livestock on anything less than a 5 acre lot (I'm sure it varies from state to state, but I doubt you'd find a state to go under 1).

The average household even in the suburbs where land is "moderate" is probably a quater acre. A half acre would be more than enough to raise a host of livestock and maintain even a moderate sized house. Imagine the shit you would get from FDA in actually trying to market it!

Hey, you remember that time Biodiesel was made illegal in the US? Neither do I, cause thankfully we expand our oil markets just like Marx pointed out as a coping mechanism for the bourgeoisie. See, as long as they do this, they can "settle the masses" by loosening the restrictions... but guess where it WAS made illegal, and where gas prices are a hell of a lot higher after their imperialist empire fizzled a bit -- that's right, our good ol' friend the United Kingdom!

The bourgeois individual is afforded more freedoms, simply because he can buy more freedoms. The minute an alternative presents itself as a threat to the almighty profit, the rights and options available to the proletariat go flying out the window. This exists for all current areas where the means of production and distribution outpace the limitations of capitalist society without threateneing their very property relations.

If I didn't already mention it here, search about for the "3D printing" thread or maybe it was "3D printer" -- anyway, we talked a lot about this.

What exactly do you think is going to happen to certain industries when the technology exists to overturn them? For example... say I have my own 3D printer -- all the sudden I can print integrated circuits and plastic housing to build my own embedded devices... couple that with a CPU and a small LCD, and what happens?

Now all the sudden, and before you know it patent law is preventing me... the proletarian, who for once in his life has something with respect to the means of production from actually producing anything useful -- cause god knows I don't have the money to get a lawyer to make sure a) I'm not infringing on any existing patents and b) to protect me if I accidentally do.

These examples are surrounding us, or are on the verge of surrounding us very quickly -- and I do suspect there's gonna lead to some major restriction going on. At best (and as I've said 1,000,000 times before) we'll see the bourgeoisie invoke one of their coping mechanisms and spread the consumer market towards the third world while attempting to shift our market towards something new... but what the hell else is there after you've reached the point where you can print 3D and functioning plastic/lightmetal widgets?

As Marx said... capitalism bares the tools of it's own destruction. It advances these means so far, so beyond it's own capabilities to handle them, that it must turn pretty hardline to keep us in check -- and indeed attempt to "further exploit old markets" (that's us) to maintain the almighty profit. Things will get worse here, better elsewhere, then worse there, and by this time we'll porbably just about had enough.

Capitalism will both create and attempt to withold our very own livlihood from us -- which is in essence held in these means of production. And we will want them back.

If you can consider these examples, as well as the obvoius sustaining arguments as "mere assertion" then maybe you have a point... but I think it's a bit more than "mere assertion" -- of course, the burden of proof is on me, and you decide when I've proven it. Don't expect me to be too worried and actually try to convince you further if you don't want to believe me this time around. Honestly, I don't care if you see where this is headed, once we get there, you will.


If you want to show me some example of a local government using eminent domain to kick people out of their homes to prove your point, I'll show you an example of a local government doing the same to a rich person or the federal government telling a rich property owner he may not build a new deck because some protected fruit fly lives in his yard. I'll show you the federal government forcing people to sell their business to pay off inheritance taxes, I'll show you a local government taking huge revenues from property taxes on rich people's property, I'll show you the federal government creating an undending sea of regulations and requirements on how property may or may not be used.

This isn't really strictly about that, maybe I should have worded my "stupid slogan" better -- In essence though, it is very much whether the same abilities are allowed, and thus the same freedoms and rights as they relate to private property AS a means of production.

But I can have all of the ability in the world to produce my own software -- and my software is illegal, while the software they produce is legal.

I can have all the ability in the world to produce meats, dairy, etc -- and surely my food will be a violation to their codes... as will the medicine produced in Canada that can be acquired here.

I can acquire and or produce a fuel that is cheaper and (probably?) cleaner -- and surely I will still be forced to use their supply.

As shitty as I may have made this argument (no sleep in a long time, going there right after I'm done typing this) -- you cannot deny the bourgeois limitation of proletarian production -- oh, and just for the fuck up it let me throw in the European Patent issue on software patents.... Certainly they have no more right than me when it pertains to THEIR way of doing things. We both have equal right to say... acquire gas and we may even pay the same thing... but the bourgeoisie is free to produce such fuel while the proetariat is not.

To see this as NOT being the case, and to believe anything other than that the longer capitalism exists the worse this will get is rather foolish if you ask me. But again, I don't really care what you think all that much (especially right now) and I don't really care if you think what I think has any validity.

Good luck in the future, your kind is gonna need it.

EDIT: Good luck I didn't actually argue the shit that you put in that longer paragraph... you seemed to have deleted it for some reason, could it be that you've found examples contradicting what was said there? The fact is, even if this is the case... I'm not gonna bother. It shoulldn't be necessary.

[colombiano]

In regards to eminent domain here is an interesting read.


SOURCE (http://www.coalitionforredevelopmentreform.org/blog/archives/2005_02.php)




"But increasingly government deploys eminent domain in an attempt to create "high-valued," meaning taxable, development. That goal often supplements the desire to benefit local elites, usually with the connivance of the usual civic boosters, including the media. Greenhut dissects how journalists routinely fail to question even the most obvious eminent domain abuses."

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:06 PM




You know, all you do is make assertions based on your opinion and not fact, and it's starting to piss ME off.

This is just a plain stupid assertion. Everyone who owns property has the same rights.


Well, it's not just the rights over the property itself which were expressed in my original quote, but it is actually whether or not I'm in a position to afford such rights to begin with. For example, it's quite easy for a bourgeois individual to buy the licensing to create DVD playing software, it is effectively impossible for the proletarian. And well, you might say "you have no right to that technology." But it is not the technology that we steal... we create the technology, from scratch On the computers we own, and then we watch the DVDs we own using the software we created and the DVD drives we own-- and this is illegal... strange.[/quote]

Not strange. Go develop your own software.

You don't have a "right" to have the means of purchasing property provided to you. That's an entitlement, not a right.

Next!

[rice349]

Frankly I think there is little behind your opinion besides anger and a sense of self-entitlement. If people like you were ever in charge, you'd make Stalin or Mao look good.

No, equality and liberation of the working class has always been the basis of my opinions.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:47 PM

Frankly I think there is little behind your opinion besides anger and a sense of self-entitlement. If people like you were ever in charge, you'd make Stalin or Mao look good.

No, equality and liberation of the working class has always been the basis of my opinions.
That's nice, but I don't think that's a goal that is worth killing a billion people and forcing the rest out of their homes.

Equality of outcomes is only realistic when everyone is a slave.

[LSD]

Not strange. Go develop your own software.

:lol:

I think you missed the point. We can't develop our own software, because without prior lisencing agreements, it's "illegal" to do so. NovelGentry wasn't talking about the MPAA owning specific DVD software but owning the "right" to make any DVD software.


That's nice, but I don't think that's a goal that is worth killing a billion people and forcing the rest out of their homes.

Perhaps not, but it is still worth fighting for.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:53 PM
Equality of outcomes is only realistic when everyone is a slave.
Or a corpse.

[Professor Moneybags]

I think you missed the point. We can't develop our own software, because without prior lisencing agreements, it's "illegal" to do so.

How exactly do these prevent you from developing your own programs ?

[LSD]

How exactly do these prevent you from developing your own programs ?

Because it's illegal.

I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking how would you get caught? or do you genuinely not understand how the law works..

If the former than you'd be surprised how easy it is these days for the government to discover what you're doing on your computer. If you share the program you wrote, or tell someone else how you wrote it, or tell someone else how to write their own, or even tell someone that you wrote one... the gov't can find out.

[Ele'ill]

If the former than you'd be surprised how easy it is these days for the government to discover what you're doing on your computer. If you share the program you wrote, or tell someone else how you wrote it, or tell someone else how to write their own, or even tell someone that you wrote one... the gov't can find out.

Then don't tell anyone about it.
The knowledge of coding is readily available. That is where the power has settled.

[rice349]

I highly doubt it will take the lives of billions to reach communism...just my opinion.

[Ele'ill]

Maybe not billions but what's the quota set for acceptable losses? Who is going to make this decision? What right do they have?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:26 PM
Maybe not billions but what's the quota set for acceptable losses? Who is going to make this decision? What right do they have?
I don't believe anybody has such a right . . .

. . . but anybody who defends the current murderous system is hypocritical presenting such an argument.

Pick a set of rules and stick to it, cappies. If you're a-OK with current structures of violence and coercion, then you get very little sympathy when you accuse others of employing similar methods (though arguably toward a much more justifiable end then the idiocy of sustaining structures solely for their own sake).

[Ele'ill]

Pick a set of rules and stick to it, cappies. If you're a-OK with current structures of violence and coercion, then you get very little sympathy when you accuse others of employing similar methods (though arguably toward a much more justifiable end then the idiocy of sustaining structures solely for their own sake).

If you are refering to me as a cappie then you are wrong; which as it looks, makes your whole paragraph null. I am not employing any methods. I am not a capitalist. I am someone that is worried.



I don't believe anybody has such a right . . .

. . . but anybody who defends the current murderous system is hypocritical presenting such an argument

Once again I do not defend the current system. I am against the one being offered as an alternative, I am against many of the people who are offering the idea, and I am against the means in which we arrive at that offered idea. Much different than being for the current system ;)

[Commie Rat]

oi man thunder wolves are gay ultramarines and blood angels will kick your ass

[Ele'ill]

eh?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 29 2005, 11:40 PM
oi man thunder wolves are gay ultramarines and blood angels will kick your ass
Please put down the crack pipe.

[LSD]

Then don't tell anyone about it.
The knowledge of coding is readily available. That is where the power has settled.

It doesn't change the fact that the proletarians have to keep it secret or face jail time while the bouregois can "buy" a liscense! It's still classism, no matter how you look at it.


If you are refering to me as a cappie then you are wrong; which as it looks, makes your whole paragraph null. I am not employing any methods. I am not a capitalist.

Clearly we were confused because you seemed to be opposing communism and you're a "Restricted Member".

You deny being a capitalist, so what are your political/economic/social leanings?

[NovelGentry]

Not strange. Go develop your own software.

You don't have a "right" to have the means of purchasing property provided to you. That's an entitlement, not a right.

Next!

I'm not talking about entitlement... I'm not saying these things should be provided for us. You say "go develop your own software." But I CANNOT develop the things I want to develop, at least not legally.

What I said has nothing to do with entitlement. We're talking about the right to property that does not physically exist -- ideas.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:46 AM
But I CANNOT develop the things I want to develop, at least not legally.


How so?

[LSD]

How so?

um..have you even read the previous posts?

Originally posted by NovelGentry
Well, it's not just the rights over the property itself which were expressed in my original quote, but it is actually whether or not I'm in a position to afford such rights to begin with. For example, it's quite easy for a bourgeois individual to buy the licensing to create DVD playing software, it is effectively impossible for the proletarian. And well, you might say "you have no right to that technology." But it is not the technology that we steal... we create the technology, from scratch On the computers we own, and then we watch the DVDs we own using the software we created and the DVD drives we own-- and this is illegal... strange.

[NovelGentry]

How so?

Frivolous Patents (and for that matter patent law in general) and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

I have, for once in my life, a portion of the means of production and distribution -- a computer and the internet. Yet I do not have the right to freely produce and distribute.

[Ele'ill]

Clearly we were confused because you seemed to be opposing communism and you're a "Restricted Member".

You deny being a capitalist, so what are your political/economic/social leanings?

Thank you for asking.
I'm a free thinker and practicer of logical reasoning. I agree with many aspects of say anarchism and would love to live in such a society if it were to be as wonderful as it is layed out to be. It wouldn't be. The reason i'm a restricted member is because I don't see eye to eye, generally with the means to arrive at these systems and I have been proven guilty of rational thinking many times. I question most of the people on this board which should be allowed although I accept the restricted members title as a sign of intelligence on my part. After all, some of you may be leading a revolution or some massive reform in the near future. This often frightens me so I question you. I guess if this board is your pre-revolution warm up, I can consider the Restricted members title the same as an execution.



it doesn't change the fact that the proletarians have to keep it secret or face jail time while the bouregois can "buy" a liscense! It's still classism, no matter how you look at it.

You will see this type of patenting fade into the future with the coming of more open source type os's and with them software. You can still accomplish say writing your own dvd burning software you just can't brag about it. Which I guess would be a strike to one's ego but it's tolerable.

[NovelGentry]

You will see this type of patenting fade into the future with the coming of more open source type os's and with them software. You can still accomplish say writing your own dvd burning software you just can't brag about it. Which I guess would be a strike to one's ego but it's tolerable.

If recent history has shown us anything we will see this type of patenting get worse and worse in the future, and open source will be attacked by those with the power to attack it. See: SCO's attempt to charge licensing for the Linux kernel. SCO attacked both companies supporting Linux as well as large user bases including autozone and daimler chrystler. What is extremely interesting about the attempts is that it is bourgeoisie vs. bourgeoisie.

My question to you is the following -- why do you think companies like IBM are supporting Linux? Linux is in essence a piece of software that is out of their hands. Where they do develop anything directly related to it's core technology, they have to release it back to the world -- so what do they gain?

What they gain is leverage which cannot be attacked by the bourgeoisie itself. That is to say, there is an internal fight between the various bourgeoisie controllers of the IT business -- and one side has chosen a traditional weapon, welded within the hands of it's paid laborers... the other has chosen a weapon welded by the hands of free laborers. Why? Very simply those who have chosen the weapon welded by the free laborers are fighting essentially with double the force. To deafeat them the opposing side my defeat not only the bourgeois competitor, but the free laborer.

This is a temporary tool which is being grasped for the sake of market control -- and the minute this one side of the bourgeoisie gains the upper hand, they will completely seek for the same end to the free laborer as the other has.

But they are stupid -- they are stupid to think that free laborer is just going to lie down. They are stupid to think that the likes of DVD-Jon will stop -- and this is why the one side is not only stupid, but it is smart. It knows the will of these people, and it intends to use it to crush it's competitor -- but in doing so they will only crush themselves.

This, of course, is only a single market -- it is a market that with any hope will lead to a similar end to the bourgeoisie in other markets, as it is a market which dominates nearly all others. But in their dying breaths, the tool of patents will not fade, but only grow stronger.

If the open source movement dies, it will do so only to rise up again with the rest of the proletariat.
If the open source movement succeed in definitely, it will do by the death of a certain section of the bourgeoisie, and will only inspire the rest of the proletariat to do the same -- and in doing so, that is when things begin to get really interesting.

[Ele'ill]

That is basically what I was saying. The patenting will fade as the open source community grows. They will never be put down, thus the patenting will be illegitimate.

[NovelGentry]

Then we will oppose the bourgeois mechanisms which uphold capitalism. When patent's are destroyed, it's only a matter of time before copyright is destroyed and thus the whole of intellectual property is destroyed -- then we cut back down to physical property -- and it's only a matter of time before we oppose that nonsense too.

So what you're saying is basically: As technology progresses it changes the concepts of property and breaks the bounds of the ruling class's control... so eventually these former property relations become obsolete, nay, non-existent.

How Marxist of you. Now all you need to do is realize that the bourgeoisie will not allow this to happen peacefully.

[Ele'ill]

So what you're saying is basically: As technology progresses it changes the concepts of property and breaks the bounds of the ruling class's control... so eventually these former property relations become obsolete, nay, non-existent.

How Marxist of you. Now all you need to do is realize that the bourgeoisie will not allow this to happen peacefully.

I don't claim allegience to any ideology. What I was saying was fact. Open source projects are giving corporations that rely on patents a hard time. These corporations have been trying to combat it without much success. This is not a current event it's quite dated actually. So far, the 'bourgeoisie' cannot stop it. I do not know what the future holds. ;)

[NovelGentry]

As technology progresses it changes the concepts of property and breaks the bounds of the ruling class's control... so eventually these former property relations become obsolete, nay, non-existent.

Agree or disagree? No excuses, agree or disagree. One word answer.

[Ele'ill]

I choose not to answer such a complex question with one word that the asker has demanded I present. Do you let someone choose your answers for you?
The patents will not be broken down causing an entire collapse of the system. It hasn't so far and we are talking about the area on the tech timeline where unix was slightly aged where open source was first pondered. The system hasn't collapsed yet, every time a patent or law is passed it is bent and simply side stepped with ease. This is the true nature of technology.

[NovelGentry]

The patents will not be broken down causing an entire collapse of the system. It hasn't so far and we are talking about the area on the tech timeline where unix was slightly aged where open source was first pondered. The system hasn't collapsed yet, every time a patent or law is passed it is bent and simply side stepped with ease. This is the true nature of technology.

Unix effectively was open source before the internet. If you look at the history of unix, the concept of sharing code is not new, and was founded initially in it's creation and evolution, particularly as it spread out of Berkely after AT&T. And what do you know... we still have systems based on Berkely Unix today called BSD.

But let me address that I am not talking specifically about intellectual property or IT or tech... or any of this. I'm talking about technology in general.

What happens when all of the sudden we can program cheap machines to build houses? Or better... PRINT a house? You might think this technology is sci-fi nonsense, but this is where human progression is headed. And it is headed there rapidly thanks to the bourgeoisie, who is constantly trying to produce things cheaper and easier and maintain profitability.

What happens when we have this technology though? And more... what happens when this technology is cheap? Do the products become equally as cheap? What happens when they market it for people to buy in their homes? "Produce your own hydoren fuel for your car with General Electric's hydrogen fuel cell recharger!"

This improvement of technology will bring about the ends of controlling the means of production. The reason we only see it in computers as of now is because computers are really the first self-replicating means of production. Programs produce Programs.

So really, the statement is completely valid -- and you agree this is happening in the realm of computers... so why don't you feel it will happen when such productive technology is introduced elsewhere?

Why don't you think it will happen across the board? And do you believe the bourgeoisie is just going to give it all up peacefully ?

[Ele'ill]

Unix effectively was open source before the internet. If you look at the history of unix, the concept of sharing code is not new, and was founded initially in it's creation and evolution, particularly as it spread out of Berkely after AT&T. And what do you know... we still have systems based on Berkely Unix today called BSD.

In terms of open source reguarding distribution via the internet. And yes BSD is fun.



So really, the statement is completely valid -- and you agree this is happening in the realm of computers... so why don't you feel it will happen when such productive technology is introduced elsewhere?

Why don't you think it will happen across the board? And do you believe the bourgeoisie is just going to give it all up peacefully ?

Does the restricted memebers title throw you off? I do not believe the bourgeoisie are going to give it up peacefully. It is starting in these past 15+ some years with patents and the side stepping but it may grow more hostile, I simply do not know or try to pretend to know. I can only state what i've seen so far.



so why don't you feel it will happen when such productive technology is introduced elsewhere?

I didn't mention anything of the sort. Although i'm not quite sure which thread this is at this point.

[NovelGentry]

Does the restricted memebers title throw you off? I do not believe the bourgeoisie are going to give it up peacefully. It is starting in these past 15+ some years with patents and the side stepping but it may grow more hostile, I simply do not know or try to pretend to know. I can only state what i've seen so far.

No, it doesn't throw me off. I don't pretend people are restricted here for the reasons they might think they are. I doubt you would add very much to any debate amongst communists -- and certainly you would question the vailidity of the concepts in general, rather than trying to propose the proper interpretation and understanding of them. As you have said here "you simply do not know" -- we think we do know, and thus, we get on with our business aswell as tending to this one.


I didn't mention anything of the sort. Although i'm not quite sure which thread this is at this point.

Then you agree. I'm not saying anything about violent opposition -- but the property relations become obsolete, and eventually non-existent (somehow).

[Commie Rat]

no readig it afteri posted it it makes absolutly noe sense asit did when i wrote it :lol:

[Ele'ill]

Then you agree. I'm not saying anything about violent opposition -- but the property relations become obsolete, and eventually non-existent (somehow).

I think technology will continue to evolve yet the same pattern in resistance from either side will stand firm. I don't think there will be any major break throughs in patents, or restrictions that will last more than a year before being side stepped.