What do you find wrong with communism?

[{GR}Raine]

Im sure this topics been done before, but I thought asking the OI guys would be best to prepare for my debate. If I can refute anything of theirs, then I know I can beat some 15 year old girl.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by {GR}[email protected] 19 2005, 12:21 AM
Im sure this topics been done before, but I thought asking the OI guys would be best to prepare for my debate. If I can refute anything of theirs, then I know I can beat some 15 year old girl.
I find two primary problems with communism. My experiences on this board and the statements by pro-Communist board members make these problems clear as day, every day.

The first is that it's impossible economically, at least in the present time. In my arguments with NovelGentry and others, it is clear that most communists have little understanding of basic economics. They like to pretend, naively, that local "communes" of workers will all somehow agree on how much and of what to produce in a way that meets demand. Communists' economic principles rest on a fantasy that a community's population or the world's population will one day simply be happy with very basic, very bland products that are all pretty much the same.

Since such a global attitude is extremely unrealistic, the economic system that communists advocate simply won't work. Demand will skyrocket when things are free, production will decline when labor is completely voluntary and/or production is centralized. A central economic "planning" board cannot possibly plan for production and distribution efficiently, nor can a series of independent, locally-based communes.

The second problem is that I see little tolerance among the local practicing communists for differing opinions or individual rights. The result of the revolution would be that the more hardcore members would band together and kill the "realistic" members and take complete control. The "hard core" crowd I speak of advocate forced secularism, taking children away from parents, and a tyranny of the majority. Each and every time they are asked if people would be "allowed" to practice religion, or what would happen to people who think differently, the responses are along the lines of "society would ostracize them", "their religion will be banned", "they will be killed in the revolution", or my personal favorite "they can leave".

Unrealistic economic system based on a fantasy of global consensus + almost psychotic intolerance for differing opinions = system that made Nazi Germany look like a picnic.

Fortunately, communists are mostly angry teenagers whose primary concern is their parents telling them to "turn that goddamn music down" and to get a job instead of sitting on the computer smoking weed all day. Which is what makes debating them both sort of scary and very entertaining at the same time.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:08 PM





The first is that it's impossible economically, at least in the present time. In my arguments with NovelGentry and others, it is clear that most communists have little understanding of basic economics. They like to pretend, naively, that local "communes" of workers will all somehow agree on how much and of what to produce in a way that meets demand. Communists' economic principles rest on a fantasy that a community's population or the world's population will one day simply be happy with very basic, very bland products that are all pretty much the same.

Rubbish, you have failed to present any reasoning as for why this idea will simply not work. On a basic level, communes of farmers require materials from factory communes, and this will trigger a form of trade. You suggestion that people will have to live on the most basic of products is unfounded, since whatever is in production today, will still be within our capabilities to produce tomorrow.


Since such a global attitude is extremely unrealistic, the economic system that communists advocate simply won't work. Demand will skyrocket when things are free, production will decline when labor is completely voluntary and/or production is centralized. A central economic "planning" board cannot possibly plan for production and distribution efficiently, nor can a series of independent, locally-based communes.

When things are free, demand cannot rocket, with no stock market; how will demand be measured? and who will they be demanding to? themselves? they hold the means of production, and therefor it will be up to them to produce. If people refuse to work, then simply they will die.


The second problem is that I see little tolerance among the local practicing communists for differing opinions or individual rights. The result of the revolution would be that the more hardcore members would band together and kill the "realistic" members and take complete control. The "hard core" crowd I speak of advocate forced secularism, taking children away from parents, and a tyranny of the majority. Each and every time they are asked if people would be "allowed" to practice religion, or what would happen to people who think differently, the responses are along the lines of "society would ostracize them", "their religion will be banned", "they will be killed in the revolution", or my personal favorite "they can leave".

Absolute bollux, I think I speak for almost all communists when I say that in such a society, anyone who pursues a vendetta against someone for their beliefs will be dealt with by the people. The philosophy behind this kind of tolerant society is that everyone is free to have their own beliefs. However, if the beliefs of one person prevent someone else from having their beliefs, then they must not be allowed to practice their beliefs. Religion will not be banned, Children wont be taken anywhere, I wont eat your cat, and people can leave if they want.


Unrealistic economic system based on a fantasy of global consensus + almost psychotic intolerance for differing opinions = system that made Nazi Germany look like a picnic.

This is amusing ,and most other members wouldn't give you a serious finnish considering how invalid yo uabove "points" have been.


Fortunately, communists are mostly angry teenagers whose primary concern is their parents telling them to "turn that goddamn music down" and to get a job instead of sitting on the computer smoking weed all day. Which is what makes debating them both sort of scary and very entertaining at the same time.

I have to hand it to you, observing us closly enough to steryotype with your head that far up your ass is a real talent. But coming up with a deacent and valid poin't once in a while wouldn't be a bad idea.

[t_wolves_fan]

Rubbish, you have failed to present any reasoning as for why this idea will simply not work. On a basic level, communes of farmers require materials from factory communes, and this will trigger a form of trade. You suggestion that people will have to live on the most basic of products is unfounded, since whatever is in production today, will still be within our capabilities to produce tomorrow.

Read my thread on the "Most Basic Economic Question" and my debate with NovelGentry.

Whatever is in production today is not guaranteed to be within our capabilities tomorrow. Under communism, with no ownership, the tragedy of the commons becomes a major concern.


When things are free, demand cannot rocket, with no stock market;

So your understanding of economics is essentially zero then.

The stock market is irrelevant and is only an indicator of demand (if that, it's more of an indicator of belief in a company's future performance). But it's an indicator only for those who pay attention to it. The price of a product is what everyone pays attention to.

When you go shopping, does a company's stock price factor into your decision about whether or not you can afford a good or service?

If stock price is your only measurement, how do you determine if you can afford goods or services offered by companies that are not publicly traded?

Maybe read one of these sometime:

http://www.audiobooksonline.com/shopsite/media/0786196025_M.jpg


how will demand be measured? and who will they be demanding to? themselves?

The line outside the factory door.

"Guess what folks, money has been abolished. Everything in the store is free."

Ever seen a crowd of women at a shoe sale? Pitcure that times 100.


they hold the means of production, and therefor it will be up to them to produce. If people refuse to work, then simply they will die.

Really. So if I want toast with jam and butter, two scrambled eggs, orange juice, and grapes for breakfast, it will be up to me to produce it all?



Absolute bollux, I think I speak for almost all communists when I say that in such a society, anyone who pursues a vendetta against someone for their beliefs will be dealt with by the people.

Have you seen the Religion forum?


The philosophy behind this kind of tolerant society is that everyone is free to have their own beliefs. However, if the beliefs of one person prevent someone else from having their beliefs, then they must not be allowed to practice their beliefs.

Soooo....if I and some friends believe that its our duty, under our faith, to stand on a street corner and preach, and some of the communists from the Religion forum come along and force me into my own home (acting on their stated belief that religion MUST be private and NEVER public), are you going to prevent them from practicing their beliefs? After all, the are the ones PREVENTING people from having/excercising their beliefs, right?


Religion will not be banned, Children wont be taken anywhere, I wont eat your cat, and people can leave if they want.

Then your argument is with your fellow communists on this board, not me.


I have to hand it to you, observing us closly enough to steryotype with your head that far up your ass is a real talent. But coming up with a deacent and valid poin't once in a while wouldn't be a bad idea.

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. I can provide direct quotes if you really want, but all you need to do is peruse the Religion thread.

[Urban Rubble]

the tragedy of the commons becomes a major concern.

The tragedy of the commons was an attack on Laisseze Faire Capitalism, not Communism.

The men who owned the sheep were private businessmen. The tragedy of the commons becomes a non issue once the profit motive is gone. If there is no profit to be made these sheep herders have no reason to exploit the land.

[JazzRemington]

That, and it assumes that people who own the land WON'T manage it. If the people who own the land also manage it, the tragedy of the commons won't have any basis.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:08 PM


The second problem is that I see little tolerance among the local practicing communists for differing opinions or individual rights. The result of the revolution would be that the more hardcore members would band together and kill the "realistic" members and take complete control. The "hard core" crowd I speak of advocate forced secularism, taking children away from parents, and a tyranny of the majority. Each and every time they are asked if people would be "allowed" to practice religion, or what would happen to people who think differently, the responses are along the lines of "society would ostracize them", "their religion will be banned", "they will be killed in the revolution", or my personal favorite "they can leave".

Unrealistic economic system based on a fantasy of global consensus + almost psychotic intolerance for differing opinions = system that made Nazi Germany look like a picnic.


I hate to say this; but t wolf fan's statement here has a little truth in it; I have noticed that the left can get kind of stiff and very,very intolerant and orthodox sometimes. I think we have the problem on living on the dogma of 150 year old theory, its time we re-evaluate it as well....

Just my 2 cents.

[bed_of_nails]

However, if the beliefs of one person prevent someone else from having their beliefs, then they must not be allowed to practice their beliefs. Religion will not be banned, Children wont be taken anywhere, I wont eat your cat, and people can leave if they want.


He may not eat your cat, but I will.

I am horrified at your assumption that my parents reprimand me for my music volume, and that has lead to my choosing communism as my political party. If you are interested, I hold two jobs, pay for all of my own hobbies/needs/car crap, and still manage to take advanced placement and college classes.

I do not smoke weed, I am one of the few people who will often violently oppose the usage of drugs and alchahol.

[guerillablack]

I agree wit t wolves on most part, especially in the religion forum. Ive heard people also say children will be taken away, and people will be killed if they dont agree or try to setup a mosque/church.

[LSD]

I agree wit t wolves on most part, especially in the religion forum. Ive heard people also say children will be taken away, and people will be killed if they dont agree or try to setup a mosque/church.

I don't know if anyone actually advocated murder.... but weren't you the guy who said that the Quran was the literal word of God and homosexuality was a "sin"?

:o

It's hardly surprising, then, that youd be agreeing with t_wolves_fan. I guess small minds think alike...

[Forward Union]

Whatever is in production today is not guaranteed to be within our capabilities tomorrow. Under communism, with no ownership, the tragedy of the commons becomes a major concern.

If you still wish for a certain product go make it your self, you have the technological capabilities of the human race. All you need is intelligence in a specific field.


So your understanding of economics is essentially zero then.

The stock market is irrelevant and is only an indicator of demand

Which is exactly what I said "with no stock market; how will demand be measured?"


When you go shopping, does a company's stock price factor into your decision about whether or not you can afford a good or service?

If stock price is your only measurement, how do you determine if you can afford goods or services offered by companies that are not publicly traded?

This is largely irrelevant to the original point, as in the form of society that I advocate consumerism will be totally and utterly abolished.


The line outside the factory door.

"Guess what folks, money has been abolished. Everything in the store is free."

Ever seen a crowd of women at a shoe sale? Picture that times 100.

The way in which this has been asserted is so far from a feasible scenario. You presume that the transition from Capitalism to Communism will be instantaneous, and that people will be so shocked from this transformation that all the commodities will be looted. Rubbish, think about what your saying, before making such ridiculous statements.


Really. So if I want toast with jam and butter, two scrambled eggs, orange juice, and grapes for breakfast, it will be up to me to produce it all?

If that is something you wish to do? then sure, but necessary elements of survival (like food and water) will most likely be produced by those with the best knowledge of how to do so, in return for your services, or your communities services.


Have you seen the Religion forum?

Yes, and the fact is that certain Religions seek to oppress peoples freedoms and may provoke forms of xenophobia. It is therefor not a bad thing to prevent this being put into practice, though like I said, its no ones problem as long as their opinions are respective and not aggressive.


Soooo....if I and some friends believe that its our duty, under our faith, to stand on a street corner and preach, and some of the communists from the Religion forum come along and force me into my own home (acting on their stated belief that religion MUST be private and NEVER public), are you going to prevent them from practising their beliefs? After all, the are the ones PREVENTING people from having/excercising their beliefs, right?

No because that would not necessarily happen. Your forgetting that in a communist society, communist wouldn't rule, no one would. And everyone would be entitled to 100% freedom. If you began to force weak minded people into your faith and then used them as servants, or sacrifice or something, then it would be the people who would uphold morality, no matter if they are communists, anarchists, humanists, muslims, it doesn't matter.


Then your argument is with your fellow communists on this board, not me.

No, it's with both of you.


I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. I can provide direct quotes if you really want, but all you need to do is peruse the Religion thread.

Although I hate and reject the idea of organised religion as much as any other communist on this board, I don't see any reason why people should not be allowed to believe in a higher being. As long as they show no sign of actively enforcing any principals of their faith on others, there's nothing anyone can do. No matter how hard anyone tries, its impossible to eradicate and idea. And thus anyone who tries to do so, is simply expressing their insecurity.

[t_wolves_fan]

I understand that your model of an economy would work only after a pretty radical transformation away from consumerism. Should that transformation ever take place, then your system would be practical. Maybe. I also do not accept that this transformation is inevitable. Humans have seeked possession of that which is rare since the beginning of history.

I hope you accept in return that based on people's attitude today, your system could not work. Yes, the stock market is AN indicator; it is not THE indicator.

How long do you think it will take to eradicate consumerism? How do you think it will happen?

[comrade_mufasa]

The first is that it's impossible economically, at least in the present time.
If one understands communism then this is clearly known.


They like to pretend, naively, that local "communes" of workers will all somehow agree on how much and of what to produce in a way that meets demand.
There would be systems put into place so that this could be worked out. Capitalism does this now so that they do not produce surpluce or under produce.


Demand will skyrocket when things are free
Why will demand skyrocket. If all computer screens are free all the time then what would be the point in hording them when I could just go pick one up when I need one.


The second problem is that I see little tolerance among the local practicing communists for differing opinions or individual rights. The result of the revolution would be that the more hardcore members would band together and kill the "realistic" members and take complete control. The "hard core" crowd I speak of advocate forced secularism, taking children away from parents, and a tyranny of the majority. Each and every time they are asked if people would be "allowed" to practice religion, or what would happen to people who think differently, the responses are along the lines of "society would ostracize them", "their religion will be banned", "they will be killed in the revolution", or my personal favorite "they can leave".
Well you have to take into account that alot of communist on this board are esialy pissed of by capitalist that come here, as it looks to me at least. So thier more millitant side comes out when debating. While I'm not saying that they may or may not actually belive in what they are saying. Its just a point to remember. What would be the point in taking kids from thier parents.


Fortunately, communists are mostly angry teenagers whose primary concern is their parents telling them to "turn that goddamn music down" and to get a job instead of sitting on the computer smoking weed all day. Which is what makes debating them both sort of scary and very entertaining at the same time.
I dont know how to take this statment. I am a teenager, 17, I dont belive I'm angry. My primary concern is far from my parents telling me to turn down my music. Probly becouse I listen to my music with my headphones and my parents dont mind my music at all. I have a job and I dont smoke weed all day. If you are a communist becouse your parents tell you to turn down your music then you might want to acctualy turn off the music and do some real thinking.


Soooo....if I and some friends believe that its our duty, under our faith, to stand on a street corner and preach, and some of the communists from the Religion forum come along and force me into my own home (acting on their stated belief that religion MUST be private and NEVER public), are you going to prevent them from practicing their beliefs? After all, the are the ones PREVENTING people from having/excercising their beliefs, right?
This kind of crap would not happen. It would be most likly that the communist would be delt with becouse they were the ones bothering people. Unless you were in the way of a busy sidewalk or something then you would not be bothering people.


I understand that your model of an economy would work only after a pretty radical transformation away from consumerism. Should that transformation ever take place, then your system would be practical. Maybe. I also do not accept that this transformation is inevitable. Humans have seeked possession of that which is rare since the beginning of history.
It is called socialism. Before a real communist system can be put into place thier must be a socialist transistion period to propare society for communism.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:23 PM






I hope you accept in return that based on people's attitude today, your system could not work. Yes, the stock market is AN indicator; it is not THE indicator.

"Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Errico Malatesta


How long do you think it will take to eradicate consumerism? How do you think it will happen?

Well remember that my opinions don't neciserraly refelct or represent all that I stand for.

Capitalism today, cannot continue. Like the man that invented wings and jumped off a cliff, he thought he was flying; being so far off the ground, but he must have realised the ground was getting nearer, and that his wings could only work for so long. This is the case with capitalism, exploited class made a post a while ago, explaining the algebra behind the self destructive nature of global capitalism. All we need to do is teach people, and lay the seeds of the new society within the shell of the old. How long? we cannot be certain, probably not in our lifetimes. How? through revolution, the rich class will hold on even after their system crumbles, and then, if they do not surrender, they must be forced to do so; through blood and fire and anguish.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+Apr 20 2005, 08:22 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ Apr 20 2005, 08:22 PM) "Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Errico Malatesta [/b]
True enough, but please do not argument with quotes. That is silly. Anyknowhows, I agree: Working towards anarchism in any way: By promoting it, by humanizing it, speaking warm of it and making it seem realistic, and of course....FIGHT for it. And then I don't mean throwing a few bricks in the government buildings, now do I? Perhaps helping people with a secular motive of preaching is the solution. I don't work towards Anarchism but Communism, but, if THAT is your motive,I suggest dropping the extra windows with quotes of Errico Malatesta and START WORKIN' goddamnit. ORGANIZE for Anarchism :lol:


T_Wolves_Fan
Ever seen a crowd of women at a shoe sale? Pitcure that times 100.

Yes, and the same number of woman will be forced to make the new shoes at the factory the following today, so their consumerist attitudes will HAVE to be abolished unless they always want to come to empty stores. I know that shit 'bout the demand, but fuck the stock market argument: Yes I know the demand of the masses for a product, but if they were forced to make it themselves if they got it for free, they would certainly regulate themselves so we don't need that "economy"-way of thinking, renember: It is obsolote under ocmmunism, so...just...LET GO OF THE CAPITALIST THINKING, comrade - I harbor no ill faith for your misguidings ;)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by OleMarxco+Apr 20 2005, 08:46 PM--> (OleMarxco @ Apr 20 2005, 08:46 PM)
Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 20 2005, 08:22 PM
"Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Errico Malatesta
True enough, but please do not argument with quotes. That is silly. Anyknowhows, I agree: Working towards anarchism in any way: By promoting it, by humanizing it, speaking warm of it and making it seem realistic, and of course....FIGHT for it. And then I don't mean throwing a few bricks in the government buildings, now do I? Perhaps helping people with a secular motive of preaching is the solution. I don't work towards Anarchism but Communism, but, if THAT is your motive,I suggest dropping the extra windows with quotes of Errico Malatesta and START WORKIN' goddamnit. ORGANIZE for Anarchism :lol:


T_Wolves_Fan
Ever seen a crowd of women at a shoe sale? Pitcure that times 100.

Yes, and the same number of woman will be forced to make the new shoes at the factory the following today, so their consumerist attitudes will HAVE to be abolished unless they always want to come to empty stores. I know that shit 'bout the demand, but fuck the stock market argument: Yes I know the demand of the masses for a product, but if they were forced to make it themselves if they got it for free, they would certainly regulate themselves so we don't need that "economy"-way of thinking, renember: It is obsolote under ocmmunism, so...just...LET GO OF THE CAPITALIST THINKING, comrade - I harbor no ill faith for your misguidings ;) [/b]
Sorry, but I don't understand the concept of "but if they were forced to make it themselves if they got it for free, they would certainly regulate themselves"

Especially the part about 'forced'.

Do you mean is there a police force checking to make sure I work a quota?

[Hiero]

I find two primary problems with communism. My experiences on this board and the statements by pro-Communist board members make these problems clear as day, every day.

You shouldn't taken everything said in this website serious. There is a lack of ideological understanding on this board.

[Le Revolutionary]

all i can say to t wolf is wow i dont think i can agree with anything you say. Im with bed of nails i dont smoke weed i think its a complete waste of time, life, and money and what relevance does "loud" music have to a political party? So you think communsist are stoners who are mad at their parents????

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:04 AM






Sorry, but I don't understand the concept of "but if they were forced to make it themselves if they got it for free, they would certainly regulate themselves"

maybe because its incoherent and you pulled it out of your ass?


Do you mean is there a police force checking to make sure I work a quota?

Urm, there won't be quotas, or a police force. The only things forcing you to work will be, necessity and self fulfilment.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+Apr 24 2005, 08:55 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ Apr 24 2005, 08:55 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 06:04 AM






Sorry, but I don't understand the concept of "but if they were forced to make it themselves if they got it for free, they would certainly regulate themselves"

maybe because its incoherent and you pulled it out of your ass?


Do you mean is there a police force checking to make sure I work a quota?

Urm, there won't be quotas, or a police force. The only things forcing you to work will be, necessity and self fulfilment. [/b]
Cool.

I want to be a porn star, a race car driver, an actor, or a painter. You woun't have to force me to do any of that commrade. Just give me the keys to a fast car and I will drive it fast for sake of the commune. Plus I'll eve work an extra shift as a porn star. I'll do that for the commune.

[NovelGentry]

I want to be a porn star, a race car driver, an actor, or a painter.

So why aren't you all these things under capitalism?

You and others like you have long maintained the point that capitalism builds incentive for labor -- your incenstive in capitalism is money, and last I checked -- with the exception of a painter, all these "careers" would make you some pretty sweet coin.

Your incentive argument just blew out the window.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:46 AM

I want to be a porn star, a race car driver, an actor, or a painter.

So why aren't you all these things under capitalism?

You and others like you have long maintained the point that capitalism builds incentive for labor -- your incenstive in capitalism is money, and last I checked -- with the exception of a painter, all these "careers" would make you some pretty sweet coin.

Your incentive argument just blew out the window.
I don't want to work at 'real work'. I just want to do the 'good scenes' in porn. Then drive off in a fast car when I'm done. Then take it easy, paint a few pictures, then do some more scenes. My contributions to porn should entitle me to a fair share from the collective. Isn't that pretty reasonable of me to expect me to get this from the collective? I think I deserve it.

Stop spending so much time on the internet. My car needs new tires and I need you to make them.

[NovelGentry]

I don't want to work at 'real work'. I just want to do the 'good scenes' in porn. Then drive off in a fast car when I'm done. Then take it easy, paint a few pictures, then do some more scenes. My contributions to porn should entitle me to a fair share from the collective. Isn't that pretty reasonable of me to expect me to get this from the collective? I think I deserve it.

If you're referring to communism, you don't have to do any of this. You don't even have to do what little work you propose you would be doing. But "I don't want to work at 'real work'" is not an answer to my original question.

It is apparent that you would find these types of "jobs" appealing, and thus you would feel that this could be your "contribution to the collective." So I'm asking you, quite simply, why aren't you doing these things under capitalism if you find it so enjoyable?



Stop spending so much time on the internet. My car needs new tires and I need you to make them.

No, you do not control my labor.

[Commie Rat]

there was a post not long ago about how pornography would work in a coomunist society, some of the points inculded;
how it was immoral
it was degrading to weomen
it isonly odne now as prostitution

[1936]

If you think about it porn and strip clubs are more degrading to men.

[Black Dagger]

If you think about it porn and strip clubs are more degrading to men.

Because they demean and objectify women?

[1936]

No because it shows the weakness of men having to lear at women. No self control.

Men PAY money to view sexual acts, and business's exploit this weakness of ours. And the women do gain crazy profits from this need of ours.

Would you rather be a woman geting paid for being in excellent pysichal form or a man that has to pay to get kicks?

[Black Dagger]

So you're saying that the direct exploitation and degradation of women as pure 'sex objects' is LESS demeaning than exploiting those same women?
Who is more 'degraded' in our society, the capitalist or the worker?


Would you rather be a woman geting paid for being in excellent pysichal form or a man that has to pay to get kicks?

I'd rather i didnt live in a society where women or people generally, have to sell their bodies AS WELL as their labour, to avoid starvation. A society that treats women as objects, to be 'bought' and used, or where men condone this exploitation.

[1936]

Avoiding the question.

Does porn degrade the person performing or the person that must pay to watch?

[Black Dagger]

Does porn degrade the person performing or the person that must pay to watch?

That's just a different write-up of your last question. My answer would be the same, how about answering my question! :P

[1936]

Your question is completly diversery and this has nothing to do with capitalsm.

Is a fat sweaty man jerks of to a video he paid 20 quid for, in more of a degrading position then a woman thats of such lust to men that she was paid thousands to screw some guy with a moustache.

[Black Dagger]

My question(s) are completely relevant.

1.) Are you saying that directly exploiting and degrading women as pure 'sex objects' is MORE demeaning than actually being the victims of that exploitation?

2.) How are men victims by exploiting women?

3.)Who is more 'degraded' in our society, the capitalist or the worker?

ie. The capitalist, by your logic (if i understand it correctly), is 'demeaned' because they have to employ the labour of other people (exploit) them, because they cant get/or do something themselves (make lots of $$$). Because they're in a position where they have to exploit others, that somehow becomes a de facto 'demeaning' of themselves.

[1936]

1) Your completely over complicating this, its not indo chinese workshops.

2) Who mentioned victamisation?

3) Economics is irrelavent

The woman that gets paid to provide entertainment is no where near as degraded as the man that must pay to watch it! simple!

You laugh at fat perverts before you laugh at pornstars.

[Black Dagger]

1) Your completely over complicating this, its not indo chinese workshops.

Evasion #1



2) Who mentioned victamisation?

Evasion #2



3) Economics is irrelavent

Evasion #3



The woman that gets paid to provide entertainment is no where near as degraded as the man that must pay to watch it! simple!

That's not an 'argument' even less a counter-argument, you're just repeating yourself without addressing any of my points.



You laugh at fat perverts before you laugh at pornstars.

I dont laugh at pornstars in the same way i dont laugh at other workers who have to sell their labour to others, to survive.

[1936]

Ahh but you fail to realise that while your saying "evasion 1" "evasion 2" your evading my points.

And my points i rasied at the begining of the topic are still unasnwerd, so i must answer nothing until you stop evading the original post in question.

[Black Dagger]

Ahh but you fail to realise that while your saying "evasion 1" "evasion 2" your evading my points.

Um, if your response is an evasion, there's nothing for me to evade in return, 'evading an evasion' is a non-sensical charge.

Answer the three questions, or don't bother replying to my post.


And my points i rasied at the begining of the topic are still unasnwerd, so i must answer nothing until you stop evading the original post in question.

Which questions? Post them, and as along as i havent already answered them i'll answer them in my next post.

I think the problem with your line of argument is that you're completely ignoring the POWER disparity inherent in this relationship (men vs. strippers). I would argue that the same logic can be applied to an extent to the capitalist vs. worker binary. Women in this case representing the 'workers' obviously. That is, men have complete power over strippers, if a tstripper doesnt demean herself (or himself as the case may be) and submit themselves to objectification (if that's a word), they wont get paid.
The person throwing money at the stripper is not demeaned as they are choosing to do participate in this dynamic, moreover, in societal terms there is not a really significant stigma attached to their behaviour. Conversely a person who is a stripper is stigmatised, which only completes their degradation.

I honestly can't believe i'm having this discussion on a 'revolutionary left' forum. That somehow men are more demeaned by strippers and porn stars than the women (and men) who sell their bodies to live (and are exploited by adult-industry capitalists), that being treated as 'meat' is not as demeaning as watching others being treated as such.

[1936]

STOP OVER COMPLICATING IT!

the question is, who is more degraded, a woman that is paid to be lusted at or the man that pays to lust. It is not about capitalsm, sexism or anything less then there are 2 positions.

Position 1 - Providing the service to of which they are paid highly, and arnt poorly convinienced

Position 2 - Must resort to paying for this service, and is therfor a cunsomer of the productivity of position 1

The only reasons this debate is still going on is either, your a crazy ass stuborn feminist who plays golf, or your 3 months away from etting to year 2!

DO NOT RAISE ANOTHER ANGLE OF OUTLOOK UNTILL YOU ADDRESS IN FULL THIS POST!

[NovelGentry]

The issues of pornography, prostitution, strip clubs, etc... have all come up before.

Keep in mind there are some people who simply enjoy doing this. The question of why they enjoy it is obviously up for debate, and whether or not that reason would disappear in communist society is not something we probably have the total foresight to see. Would such things be a means to survive on? No. If everyone was a porn "star" we'd all die.

Does this mean people are going to stop taking videos of themselves having sex? Does this mean women are going to stop giving themselves to men for something in return? etc.

Remember there are male porn stars, male prostitutes, and male strip clubs too.

The struggle and the need for money certainly play a role in many of these cases, but not all... and making it simply a gender socio-economic issue is an over simplification of how humans perceive sex. It has become a market under capitalism and thus a means to survive, but at the same time it IS something built into us too that gives it the attraction it has, it can derive pleasure for both parties, and thus any instance where it does would be hard to refute as impossible under any society.

[Paradox]

No because it shows the weakness of men having to lear at women. No self control.

Would you rather be a woman geting paid for being in excellent pysichal form or a man that has to pay to get kicks?

If being attracted to women is a "weakness," then damn, I am weak. Self control? Control of what? Natural biological processes? Ever heard of reproduction and the propagation of species? Admittedly, it can get out of hand, i.e. subjugation and objectification of women.


Men PAY money to view sexual acts, and business's exploit this weakness of ours. And the women do gain crazy profits from this need of ours.

The women earn wages, good wages perhaps, but it's the porn industry that controls them that makes the profits.


a woman geting paid for being in excellent pysichal form

Objectification of women. The woman's personality, her intellectual capacity, etc. are not what the person viewing porn is thinking about. The viewer is only thinking about sex based purely on the woman's physical appearance. The woman may as well be an inanimate object. And don't forget about the stereotypes and ridicule that goes with being a porn star or stripper. They're labeled "sluts," "loose," and so on. Perhaps they do make "good money," but I hardly think subjecting yourself to sexual acts and derogatory labels takes away from the fact that they're exploited. Think about it. Are the women in porn doing it because they like it and want to? Or is it because they NEED the money?


or a man that has to pay to get kicks?

Not all men who view porn have to "pay to get kicks." Porn is almost seen as normal for men, and not just those who don't have luck in real life. I know many who don't have to "pay to get kicks" who view porn and go to strip clubs. It has more to do with reinforcing stereotypical "machismo" and masculinity than with "paying to get kicks." In any case, with the possible exception of when money is NOT a factor, and all participating members are CONSENTING, porn subjects and objectifies women, thereby reinforcing patriachal society REGARDLESS of how much the women get paid.

[1936]

Objectification of women. The woman's personality, her intellectual capacity, etc. are not what the person viewing porn is thinking about.

This is what the whole basis of your arguments comes down to. Women being purely objets of pleaure.

WEEEEEEEEEELL im going to film a video of some man hunting....but wait! this is saying men are only hunting objects that provide food! and a woman cooking is showing women are only goo for cooking.

Ya see?

[NovelGentry]

porn subjects and objectifies women, thereby reinforcing patriachal society REGARDLESS of how much the women get paid.

I'm not denying objectification of women. But what would you say about male porn stars? Women who watch porn? Are they too objectifying men? Are they reinforcing a matriachal society? Are men in such movies not objectified? What about homosexuals and bisexuals?

I'm not big into dialectics, but it's pretty funny when you think about how the extent of sex in capitalism has almost come to transcend these roles. Do these problems still exist? Yes. But it's a lot different than say 50 years ago.

Overall I think human sexuality is overcoming a good portion of these roles and will fully overcome them as time moves on.

It seems to me that many leftists get stuck on issues that are something ingrown to the movement as a whole. We push for equality of all, not just equality of men/women, black/white. Our goals are inclusive of fighting sexism, racism, nationalism, but at the same time we go BEYOND THAT. We are more than feminists, civil rights promoters, and attackers of super-patriot nonsense. When you destroy classism in general, and when you seek to transform society as a whole, as we do, you destroy all previous class division as well -- you MUST, or else we cannot ever claim to have achieved what we say we're trying to achieve.

These are the divisions created amongst the social classes we are willing to recognize, so recognize these divisions, but recognize the greater division of society which superscede all of them. I am not a feminist, labeling myself as such is a severe understatement of what I stand for. I am a communist.

[Paradox]

I'm not denying objectification of women. But what would you say about male porn stars? Women who watch porn? Are they too objectifying men? Are they reinforcing a matriachal society? Are men in such movies not objectified? What about homosexuals and bisexuals?

My post was in response to the question about whether or not the women are being objectified in porn. Notice, I mentioned that there is the exception in the case of where ALL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS ARE CONSENTING AND MONEY IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR. And yes, there are women who watch porn, and in such cases men would be objectified. But I think for the male porn stars it's less of an issue, as they get to have sex with many different women, again playing off "machismo" and masculine stereotypes (of course this is debatable, and money is also probably a key determining factor). They are still exploited of course, as are all workers under capitalism. Women who enjoy porn are seen as somewhat strange, again being stereotyped as "loose" or "sluty." So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner. Overall though, I think you made a good point with your last post and I agree with you.

[Paradox]

So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner.

Playing off my own post, could this be explained by the superficial tendencies of attraction? Attraction based on physical appearance? And so could those who look down on the women and consider them "inappropriate" because of their sexual expression, really just be jealous (same could go for men)? With the emphasis on good looks, beauty, and such as portrayed daily in magazines, tv shows, etc., is this attitude toward those who are more open with their sexuality-particularly when they're females -in part caused by this emphasis on physical appearance? I know it's not a universal thing, but it seems like a major factor from the looks of things. Just think of all the people worried about their looks, getting plastic surgery, breast implants, botox, and all of that stuff that people are willing to do in order to be physically attractive. Of course there are fat women/men in porn as well, but overall, could this negative attitude towards sexuality have more to do with jealousy based on physical appearance than on morality? Any thoughts?

[NovelGentry]

Notice, I mentioned that there is the exception in the case of where ALL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS ARE CONSENTING AND MONEY IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR.

I did notice this, but it has little to do with objectification. Both participants are still objectified if it's intent is PORN. That is afterall what porn is... it's not art. But nothing says money has to be involved, it is strictly for the sake of sexual enjoyment, in which case objectification of both men and women would have to be considered equal. You say that no one is sitting there thinking about the intellectual qualities of the woman she is merely an "object" -- well so is the man.


But I think for the male porn stars it's less of an issue, as they get to have sex with many different women, again playing off "machismo" and masculine stereotypes (of course this is debatable, and money is also probably a key determining factor).

But the women are in the same position to "have sex with many different men." Your issue is not so much with porn as much as it is the attitude itself.

The problem as you see it has nothing to do with the actual nature of the porn or even the actions therein, but has to do with how it is viewed. If a woman in a porno film is having sex with multiple guys she (unless there is a role being played where she is dominent) is understood to be a "slut." While the guy with multiple women is considered to be one lucky guy.

But again, from the perspective of objectification it is completely the same. The difference comes in from the very subjective views and thus intellectual nature of the work and more importantly, the person viewing it. That is to say, if someone was never introduced to that sexist bias, they would see both and think of them equally -- not that the girl is a big slut and doing something bad and that the guy is lucky... but very simply that they are either both big sluts or they are both very lucky.

In itself, the issue has little to do with pornography itself. Pornography does objectify both men and women. The issue, however, is within the very subjective reasoning of the viewer, which because of existing gender roles, is played out as it is.

My previous point, however, is that human sexuality is transcending this. A woman in a pornographic film with multiple partners in many cases may not be viewed as a "slut" -- and depending on the nature of the film, she may actually be seen as dominant. A mistress if you will, getting what she wants by playing off the stupid males who are just too horny to care about any meaningful sex. In that sense the woman becomes "machismo," she is no longer the one "being played," but has transcended the role and has become the "player."

And no doubt there is a market in porn that takes dominant women roles even HIGHER and some men are TURNED ON by this. These kinds of things, however, are more open now than they were in the past (although I would argue they may have existed in both the same time frames). And as they grow more open, people begin to see this as more acceptable. And again, the roles themselves are transcended to the point where it is PURE objectification. It no longer matters if it's a guy with a girl or two girls with a toy.


Women who enjoy porn are seen as somewhat strange, again being stereotyped as "loose" or "sluty." So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner.

And this is what I said before. This point you see as a reinforcement, when in reality it has begun to become overcome by whatever reinforcement was once visible. Is it completely gone? No.

But much like the bourgeoisie creates the proletariat, the class that will put it's reign to an end. The open and increasing role of women in such positions makes it far more acceptable and more subtle, until eventually that mindset is completely overcome and it simply become OK. It is no longer inappropriate or wrong but simply a two way street where either men or women are expected to have such sexual conquests.

Again, I don't really uphold dialectics, but it's rather ironic that the reasoning itself can be applied to this aspect of society as a portion of the overall. We see both thesis and antithesis quite clearly in this and the synthesis in essence puts an end to both of those polar opposites. Social roles both in life as a whole and now specifically sex are becoming or will become, given what we see today, genderless.

[Paradox]

it is strictly for the sake of sexual enjoyment, in which case objectification of both men and women would have to be considered equal. You say that no one is sitting there thinking about the intellectual qualities of the woman she is merely an "object" -- well so is the man.

I did contradict myself there somewhat, didn't I? :P Yes, seems I forgot, whether or not the people in the porn consent to it or not, the people watching are objectifying those participants.


But the women are in the same position to "have sex with many different men." Your issue is not so much with porn as much as it is the attitude itself.

I suppose it is. Seems porn in of itself is objectifying either way, but the attitudes expressed towards those who view it (and the gender roles it reinforces) is subject to stereotypes. But, as you say:


And this is what I said before. This point you see as a reinforcement, when in reality it has begun to become overcome by whatever reinforcement was once visible.

I don't know. Perhaps my eyes are closed, but I haven't seen any drastic changes. Yes women are more open with their sexuality, but I still see the stereotypes against them for being open with it, and that "machismo" crap with friends who think being a player is good, and basically make women seem like sex objects. But yeah, things are changing, which is good. Perhaps I just need to pay more attention. :lol:


And no doubt there is a market in porn that takes dominant women roles even HIGHER and some men are TURNED ON by this. These kinds of things, however, are more open now than they were in the past (although I would argue they may have existed in both the same time frames). And as they grow more open, people begin to see this as more acceptable. And again, the roles themselves are transcended to the point where it is PURE objectification. It no longer matters if it's a guy with a girl or two girls with a toy.

There's an example right there, right? I do need to pay more attention!

I never can escape you, can I Gent!?! :lol: Not that I'd want to escape. These discussions are always entertaining and enlightening.

Not to get off topic, but seeing that porn isn't "an art," would you say that simple physical attraction in everyday life is itself objectifying? You know how there are those people who hold up the female body as a work of art, does that attitude go along with this? The emphasis on beauty? Same for when women are physically attracted to men, or men to men, women to women, whatever your preference, does physical attraction in itself objectify human beings? And does this claim I'm making make any sense? I'm going on practically no sleep for the past 2 days, so please don't take anything I say too seriously right now! :lol:

[NovelGentry]

Not to get off topic, but seeing that porn isn't "an art," would you say that simple physical attraction in everyday life is itself objectifying?

I would. I don't particularly see objectification as the problem. No one can tell you specifically what you should find sexy. Certainly capitalism creates a market for what they want to sell, and thus you get into a position where people who don't fit that look generally feel less of themselves. But for all the people who adhere to this standard there is another group that will completely disagree, and still another group, which I would include myself in, who could never base attraction solely on physical appearance.

There was a photographer by the name of Robert Mapplethorpe, to which one may consider what he did art, but others would oppose it simply as vulgar pornography. So with one of his exhibits he took the "disturbing" images (photographs) which included sexual acts of the most extremed degree and would place them next to images of natural beauty, such as flowers, that maintained the same shape and form of the images. In the end the viewer really has a decision to make, and a realization to come to, that what is on display is mere "objects" and thus is a simple objectification of the people in the sexual photographs and the only thing which turns it into something vulgar is the existing subjective position of the viewer.



You know how there are those people who hold up the female body as a work of art, does that attitude go along with this?

One of my favorite kinds of photography is black and white nudes. Not simply female, but males, large people, skinny people, whatever. I find there is a complexity to the human body which is rarely found in man made things. Along with that complexity you come to find a certain consistency... the body just "flows," so to speak. Indeed I would consider myself to be objectfiying the subject, but I do not see this as anything bad... because it is not that I see this as the only thing the human body (and thus the mind) is good for.

The problem is when the subject becomes an object in all walks of life. A model (of any sorts) really is in this position to the rest of the public, but in that sense, most of us are. Unless we are well known for our intellectual contributions etc, we are merely things to look at for most people.

Again, I don't consider this bad, so long as we understand there is more to a person than that. But when I view said photography, I'm NOT thinking about that, because that is not what it is about. When I'm watching a movie, the actors who play the characters present both of these aspects. They are often times objectified to a degree to uphold a certain form or style, but at the same time, there is more to the character itself, and obviously more to the person playing the character.

So really I think it's primarily dependent on the medium. I don't think anyone should be watching a porno and critiquing it on how poor the acting was... although no doubt people do. And I would say such individuals are, at least to some extent, not completely objectifying people, however, they are doing that where the design and the goal is essentially to objectify people as much as possible.



Same for when women are physically attracted to men, or men to men, women to women, whatever your preference, does physical attraction in itself objectify human beings?

Again, no doubt, but at the same time a person with depth realizes there is more to people than just that.

Sometimes you meet a person who is less than perfect physically, but after having talked with them, after having listened to who they are, they become the most beautiful person in the world. And just the same, you may meet someone who to you is physically stunning, but the minute they open their mouth you become so disgusted with who they are.

Realizing that there is more to people than just the physical is important, but in some instances it's not required or even wanted.


And does this claim I'm making make any sense? I'm going on practically no sleep for the past 2 days, so please don't take anything I say too seriously right now!


It makes perfect sense and as I have said, I agree completely with it in many instances. But at the same time, these instances are not so simplified as mere physical attraction. Pornography, however, is.

There is a fine line that gets drawn between say pornographic images and images which are art, as was the case with Mapplethorpe's controversy. I think what it boils down to is mainly intent. Either way, in the case that a human is presented as a piece of that work, whether it be art or pornography, photos, movies, whatever, they can and are objectified in both. Art, however, maintains at least the intent of getting the viewer to *think* about it's meaning, but that doesn't mean they are particularly thinking about the model... simply the work as a whole.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:26 PM

I don't want to work at 'real work'. I just want to do the 'good scenes' in porn. Then drive off in a fast car when I'm done. Then take it easy, paint a few pictures, then do some more scenes. My contributions to porn should entitle me to a fair share from the collective. Isn't that pretty reasonable of me to expect me to get this from the collective? I think I deserve it.

If you're referring to communism, you don't have to do any of this. You don't even have to do what little work you propose you would be doing. But "I don't want to work at 'real work'" is not an answer to my original question.

It is apparent that you would find these types of "jobs" appealing, and thus you would feel that this could be your "contribution to the collective." So I'm asking you, quite simply, why aren't you doing these things under capitalism if you find it so enjoyable?



Stop spending so much time on the internet. My car needs new tires and I need you to make them.

No, you do not control my labor.
Sorry. You are right. I would not control your labor. So could you please point me in the right direction where I could pick up my low profile, high speed rated, performace racing tires? I am just going to take them from a 'collective' because I need them. I do a lots of driving at speed and around corners you know. I wear out labor and material intensive tires very quickly.

Why am I not a porn star today? Isn't simple? I need to eat and pay rent, but I still want to be a pron star. I'm just going to make all the porn and can do and just take what I need from the collective, which is: a place to stay, food, and racing tires.

[t_wolves_fan]

Bascially you just need to look at the people who advocate communism to answer the central question.

If they can't even figure out how a shower works, how the hell could they plan an economy?

[Paradox]

If they can't even figure out how a shower works, how the hell could they plan an economy?

WTF is a shower???

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:29 PM

If they can't even figure out how a shower works, how the hell could they plan an economy?

WTF is a shower???
:lol:

[rice349]

If they can't even figure out how a shower works, how the hell could they plan an economy?

Your assumptiong that all who advocate communism are dirty, pot-smoking hippies with too mcuh time on your hands you are not only incorrect, but your argument is composed of complete lunacy. Most true marxists-leninists reject this type of self-decadence and individualistic behavior. If you look around at most marxist-leninists they don't have long hair or wear che t-shirts or smoke pot and talk about revolution as if it was some kind of role-playing game. No, these are just western petit-bourgeois liberals dicking around with something they couldn't possibly understand.

AMongst the marxist-leninist movement there are both educated and non-educated people. While commanding an economy is far from an easy task, to make retarded generalizations, particularly based on those who aren't even communists, is in its own completely imbecilic....

[rice349]

Sorry. You are right. I would not control your labor. So could you please point me in the right direction where I could pick up my low profile, high speed rated, performace racing tires? I am just going to take them from a 'collective' because I need them. I do a lots of driving at speed and around corners you know. I wear out labor and material intensive tires very quickly.

Why am I not a porn star today? Isn't simple? I need to eat and pay rent, but I still want to be a pron star. I'm just going to make all the porn and can do and just take what I need from the collective, which is: a place to stay, food, and racing tires.

What you're referring to is some hippie commune reminiscent of the 1960's in the United States. First off, you should be re-educated so your love of racing high speed cars is no longer in existance. Secondly, don't mistake the working poor for those who are just simply not willing to work. Communism isn't for those who are not willing to work; it's for the working class and peasants whom do not receive what they need despite the fact they work. You would not be allowed to simply take what you want from the collective for your own individualistic, self-decadent needs. Your nonsensical attitude of taking whatever you need whenever you want is precisely what will be dealt with and eliminated during a socialist transitional period, in which there is a powerful socialist state present. The government will have to take decisive actions towards these types of misunderstandings.

[Paradox]

Calm down rice, he was being sarcastic about the shower.


If you look around at most marxist-leninists they don't have long hair or wear che t-shirts or smoke pot and talk about revolution as if it was some kind of role-playing game.

I have long hair and I wear Che shirts, but I ain't no Leninist and that's for damn sure. Role-playing games? You mean like which one of you Leninists gets to play Lenin?


If you look around at most marxist-leninists they don't have long hair

So even female Leninists don't have long hair??? Sorry, I prefer women with long hair. ;)

Anyways, lighten up, it was just a sarcastic joke. The part about not understanding economics, now that you can refute.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:57 PM

If they can't even figure out how a shower works, how the hell could they plan an economy?

Your assumptiong that all who advocate communism are dirty, pot-smoking hippies with too mcuh time on your hands you are not only incorrect, but your argument is composed of complete lunacy. Most true marxists-leninists reject this type of self-decadence and individualistic behavior. If you look around at most marxist-leninists they don't have long hair or wear che t-shirts or smoke pot and talk about revolution as if it was some kind of role-playing game. No, these are just western petit-bourgeois liberals dicking around with something they couldn't possibly understand.

AMongst the marxist-leninist movement there are both educated and non-educated people. While commanding an economy is far from an easy task, to make retarded generalizations, particularly based on those who aren't even communists, is in its own completely imbecilic....
Wait a second? I don't understand you harping on 'self-decadence and individualistic behavior'. What happened to the concept of people migrating to work that is more with more fulfillment and more suited to what they do best and control of indivudals own labor? I think I'm best at making porn and racing cars. That is what I should be doing. That sounds very individualist behavior to me? I don't think you understand the theory very well. Us real communist understand that individuals control thier own labor and will 'migrate' into thier proper jobs that allow them to more productive members of society. By more control of your own individual labor, that is real communism. Don't forget that. I'm gravitating towards porn star and race car driver. While commanding the economy, we can force certain parts of the economy to produce more or less. Thus controling labor and production, but of course individuals are still in control of thier labor. Don't forget that. Maybe you should try harder to understand. It is such a simple concept.

I got an idea of what to do with those petit-borgeois, lets just 'dispose' these people into secret mass graves. These people are counter productive to the revolution and simply 'don't get it' and never will.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:02 PM

Sorry. You are right. I would not control your labor. So could you please point me in the right direction where I could pick up my low profile, high speed rated, performace racing tires? I am just going to take them from a 'collective' because I need them. I do a lots of driving at speed and around corners you know. I wear out labor and material intensive tires very quickly.

Why am I not a porn star today? Isn't simple? I need to eat and pay rent, but I still want to be a pron star. I'm just going to make all the porn and can do and just take what I need from the collective, which is: a place to stay, food, and racing tires.

What you're referring to is some hippie commune reminiscent of the 1960's in the United States. First off, you should be re-educated so your love of racing high speed cars is no longer in existance. Secondly, don't mistake the working poor for those who are just simply not willing to work. Communism isn't for those who are not willing to work; it's for the working class and peasants whom do not receive what they need despite the fact they work. You would not be allowed to simply take what you want from the collective for your own individualistic, self-decadent needs. Your nonsensical attitude of taking whatever you need whenever you want is precisely what will be dealt with and eliminated during a socialist transitional period, in which there is a powerful socialist state present. The government will have to take decisive actions towards these types of misunderstandings.
Re-educated?

Your don't control my labor.

Sorry. I won't work at being re-education. Try again. You need to review the theory some more. Peasants are in agriculture based societies. The revolution is in industrial and technological societies. A revolution in a peasant based society is not communism.

Can you explain 'powerful' and 'decisive'? Do you mean like Stalin and Mao? Decisive as in the power to make people disappear into secret mass graves?

I think your concept of 'decisive' and 'powerful' is NOT communist. That is oppresive. In the meantime I'm going to gravitate towards making more porn and racing cars.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:26 PM
Bascially you just need to look at the people who advocate communism to answer the central question.

If they can't even figure out how a shower works, how the hell could they plan an economy?
You're pathetic

[rice349]

What happened to the concept of people migrating to work that is more with more fulfillment and more suited to what they do best and control of indivudals own labor? I think I'm best at making porn and racing cars. That is what I should be doing. That sounds very individualist behavior to me? I don't think you understand the theory very well. Us real communist understand that individuals control thier own labor and will 'migrate' into thier proper jobs that allow them to more productive members of society.

LOL, it's not that i misunderstood the concept, it's that i reject it when it comes to certain individualists like yourself. I don't believe communism can come immediately, it will take decades and decades of transition under a socialist state. At this point, the individual becomes subservient to the state itself. Your ideas of individuals migrating to whatever work best suits them is perfect for communism, not for socialism. Communism cannot be obtained with first the existance of a vastly powerful socialist state.


Re-educated?

Your don't control my labor.

Sorry. I won't work at being re-education. Try again. You need to review the theory some more. Peasants are in agriculture based societies. The revolution is in industrial and technological societies. A revolution in a peasant based society is not communism.

Where the hell do you get this shit? I advocate anti-revisionist marxism-leninism, i have no idea what the hell you are espousing.


Can you explain 'powerful' and 'decisive'? Do you mean like Stalin and Mao? Decisive as in the power to make people disappear into secret mass graves?

If certain people disappear into secret mass graves i will not lose any sleep over it. I've said before I have no moral or ethical objections to using state power to eliminate those whom disagree with me, depending on how much they get in m way: all religious persons,trotskyites, anarchists, syndicalists, social-democrats, capitalists, bourgoies/petit-bourgeois, the list goes on.... :angry:

[Paradox]

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.41

Judging from the following statement, your political compass is waaaayyy off!!! :lol:


If certain people disappear into secret mass graves i will not lose any sleep over it. I've said before I have no moral or ethical objections to using state power to eliminate those whom disagree with me, depending on how much they get in m way: all religious persons,trotskyites, anarchists, syndicalists, social-democrats, capitalists, bourgoies/petit-bourgeois, the list goes on....

[RedLenin]

If certain people disappear into secret mass graves i will not lose any sleep over it. I've said before I have no moral or ethical objections to using state power to eliminate those whom disagree with me, depending on how much they get in m way: all religious persons,trotskyites, anarchists, syndicalists, social-democrats, capitalists, bourgoies/petit-bourgeois, the list goes on....

Wow...just...wow. I am sorry but mass murder and a state that destroys all that gets in its way is not going to lead to a stateless society!! You dont seem to advocate communism at all, you are just a stalinist. There is no way stalinism can ever lead to communism. So your goal is to kill all the people who actually desire to bring about communism, ie council communists, anarchists, syndicalists, etc? So just keep some red-flag-waving fascists (stalinists) and kill everybody else? Yeah we will acheive communism for sure! Just reading this is horribly deppressing.

Yeah paradox his compass is more suitable at -10.00, 10.00. Mass murder, nationalism, and no workers control. Long live communism! :rolleyes:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:24 PM

What happened to the concept of people migrating to work that is more with more fulfillment and more suited to what they do best and control of indivudals own labor? I think I'm best at making porn and racing cars. That is what I should be doing. That sounds very individualist behavior to me? I don't think you understand the theory very well. Us real communist understand that individuals control thier own labor and will 'migrate' into thier proper jobs that allow them to more productive members of society.

LOL, it's not that i misunderstood the concept, it's that i reject it when it comes to certain individualists like yourself. I don't believe communism can come immediately, it will take decades and decades of transition under a socialist state. At this point, the individual becomes subservient to the state itself. Your ideas of individuals migrating to whatever work best suits them is perfect for communism, not for socialism. Communism cannot be obtained with first the existance of a vastly powerful socialist state.


Re-educated?

Your don't control my labor.

Sorry. I won't work at being re-education. Try again. You need to review the theory some more. Peasants are in agriculture based societies. The revolution is in industrial and technological societies. A revolution in a peasant based society is not communism.

Where the hell do you get this shit? I advocate anti-revisionist marxism-leninism, i have no idea what the hell you are espousing.


Can you explain 'powerful' and 'decisive'? Do you mean like Stalin and Mao? Decisive as in the power to make people disappear into secret mass graves?

If certain people disappear into secret mass graves i will not lose any sleep over it. I've said before I have no moral or ethical objections to using state power to eliminate those whom disagree with me, depending on how much they get in m way: all religious persons,trotskyites, anarchists, syndicalists, social-democrats, capitalists, bourgoies/petit-bourgeois, the list goes on.... :angry:
Oh I get it now.

It is YOU who is the enemy of humanity. It is YOU who is evil. It is YOU who is the next Adolf Hitler.

I don't really matter. People don't really matter. All that matters is you achive your goals and your dreams of megalomania.

It does not matter weather or not people are right or wrong, just or injust, good or bad, what matters is they offend YOU. That is measure of earning a bullet in the back of the head and a secret grave, is that someone has offended YOU.

Your sick a person.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:18 PM

So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner.

Playing off my own post, could this be explained by the superficial tendencies of attraction? Attraction based on physical appearance? And so could those who look down on the women and consider them "inappropriate" because of their sexual expression, really just be jealous (same could go for men)? With the emphasis on good looks, beauty, and such as portrayed daily in magazines, tv shows, etc., is this attitude toward those who are more open with their sexuality-particularly when they're females -in part caused by this emphasis on physical appearance? I know it's not a universal thing, but it seems like a major factor from the looks of things. Just think of all the people worried about their looks, getting plastic surgery, breast implants, botox, and all of that stuff that people are willing to do in order to be physically attractive. Of course there are fat women/men in porn as well, but overall, could this negative attitude towards sexuality have more to do with jealousy based on physical appearance than on morality? Any thoughts?
Actually attraction is universal.

Several studies have shown that men across the world, even in societies with little or no access to modern media, favor young women with broad hips and narrow waists. Women favor taller men with square jaws and broad shoulders.

I always wondered whether or not you guys were into whacko feminism, it appears it has seeped into your thinking a bit.

:rolleyes:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 4 2005, 11:42 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 4 2005, 11:42 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 09:18 PM

So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner.

Playing off my own post, could this be explained by the superficial tendencies of attraction? Attraction based on physical appearance? And so could those who look down on the women and consider them "inappropriate" because of their sexual expression, really just be jealous (same could go for men)? With the emphasis on good looks, beauty, and such as portrayed daily in magazines, tv shows, etc., is this attitude toward those who are more open with their sexuality-particularly when they're females -in part caused by this emphasis on physical appearance? I know it's not a universal thing, but it seems like a major factor from the looks of things. Just think of all the people worried about their looks, getting plastic surgery, breast implants, botox, and all of that stuff that people are willing to do in order to be physically attractive. Of course there are fat women/men in porn as well, but overall, could this negative attitude towards sexuality have more to do with jealousy based on physical appearance than on morality? Any thoughts?
Actually attraction is universal.

Several studies have shown that men across the world, even in societies with little or no access to modern media, favor young women with broad hips and narrow waists. Women favor taller men with square jaws and broad shoulders.

I always wondered whether or not you guys were into whacko feminism, it appears it has seeped into your thinking a bit.

:rolleyes: [/b]
Is this an example of 'class'? As long as humans value good looks, then some people will be 'worth' more than others. People 'worth' more are of a different class. Can there really be a classless society when good looking people are viewed differently?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 4 2005, 03:04 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 4 2005, 03:04 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:42 AM

[email protected] 1 2005, 09:18 PM

So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner.

Playing off my own post, could this be explained by the superficial tendencies of attraction? Attraction based on physical appearance? And so could those who look down on the women and consider them "inappropriate" because of their sexual expression, really just be jealous (same could go for men)? With the emphasis on good looks, beauty, and such as portrayed daily in magazines, tv shows, etc., is this attitude toward those who are more open with their sexuality-particularly when they're females -in part caused by this emphasis on physical appearance? I know it's not a universal thing, but it seems like a major factor from the looks of things. Just think of all the people worried about their looks, getting plastic surgery, breast implants, botox, and all of that stuff that people are willing to do in order to be physically attractive. Of course there are fat women/men in porn as well, but overall, could this negative attitude towards sexuality have more to do with jealousy based on physical appearance than on morality? Any thoughts?
Actually attraction is universal.

Several studies have shown that men across the world, even in societies with little or no access to modern media, favor young women with broad hips and narrow waists. Women favor taller men with square jaws and broad shoulders.

I always wondered whether or not you guys were into whacko feminism, it appears it has seeped into your thinking a bit.

:rolleyes:
Is this an example of 'class'? As long as humans value good looks, then some people will be 'worth' more than others. People 'worth' more are of a different class. Can there really be a classless society when good looking people are viewed differently? [/b]
I doubt it.

Obviously, the answer is to force everyone to look the same.

There was some book I read in school a long time ago about a society where short people wore shoes with huge soles so that everyone was equal height, fast people were weighed down by weights so that they were just as slow as the slow people, and so on.

Any idea what book that was?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 4 2005, 03:17 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 4 2005, 03:17 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:42 AM

[email protected] 1 2005, 09:18 PM

So in that sense, reinforcing matriachal society doesn't make a lot of sense because female sexual expression is seen as "wrong" or "inappropriate," whereas with men, it's more or less normal and expected; sexual "conquests;" men can be players and have many partners, whereas a female who has been with many men is seen in a negative manner.

Playing off my own post, could this be explained by the superficial tendencies of attraction? Attraction based on physical appearance? And so could those who look down on the women and consider them "inappropriate" because of their sexual expression, really just be jealous (same could go for men)? With the emphasis on good looks, beauty, and such as portrayed daily in magazines, tv shows, etc., is this attitude toward those who are more open with their sexuality-particularly when they're females -in part caused by this emphasis on physical appearance? I know it's not a universal thing, but it seems like a major factor from the looks of things. Just think of all the people worried about their looks, getting plastic surgery, breast implants, botox, and all of that stuff that people are willing to do in order to be physically attractive. Of course there are fat women/men in porn as well, but overall, could this negative attitude towards sexuality have more to do with jealousy based on physical appearance than on morality? Any thoughts?
Actually attraction is universal.

Several studies have shown that men across the world, even in societies with little or no access to modern media, favor young women with broad hips and narrow waists. Women favor taller men with square jaws and broad shoulders.

I always wondered whether or not you guys were into whacko feminism, it appears it has seeped into your thinking a bit.

:rolleyes:
Is this an example of 'class'? As long as humans value good looks, then some people will be 'worth' more than others. People 'worth' more are of a different class. Can there really be a classless society when good looking people are viewed differently?
I doubt it.

Obviously, the answer is to force everyone to look the same.

There was some book I read in school a long time ago about a society where short people wore shoes with huge soles so that everyone was equal height, fast people were weighed down by weights so that they were just as slow as the slow people, and so on.

Any idea what book that was? [/b]
Ok now you touched on a linear extension of what I'm trying to say. How about talents?

A person who is a good muscian? It is going to pretty obvious differences between really really talented muscians and so-so muscians. Are people going to look upon these people equally? Pay them the same respect? Idolize them differently? Treat them differently? I think so.

How about a good mechanic? Are people going to treat a good mechanic vs someone who just does not do the job right the same? Are they going to be looked upon differently? I think so.

Is this the a 'classification' of people?

[t_wolves_fan]

Near as I can tell, after the glorious revolution, people will not be accorded accolades based on their talent. I think a communist would say people would be revered based on what they give to the community. So, a guy who puts in 16 hours at the shoe factory so that all the kids get shoes would be more of a hero than Michael Jordan.

Now, in and of itself, I don't disagree. I think teachers and people who work hard should earn more societal respect than celebrities and sports stars. But, since anyone who has a few days training can work 16 hours in a shoe factory but very people could hit a 3-pointer in front of 20,000 fans as the buzzer goes off, it probably ain't going to happen.

I read these posts about "how it would work" and frankly I wish it could be so a lot of the time, except when the loonier of the loons talk about killing religious people and taking children away from parents. The problem is, I don't see it happening without enforcement. Maybe in 1,000 years of human evolution, but probably not anytime soon.

Communists still have to explain how the economy would work too. So far, they say it would work because everything would be free, there would be plenty of everything, and nobody would overconsume. Again, maybe in 1,000 years, but not anytime soon.

[Soviet sally]

Can i just verify.

The views and opions of the gulag happy nazi they call "rice" dosent represent the left wing revolution....more of a right wing mass genocide.


It is YOU who is the enemy of humanity. It is YOU who is evil. It is YOU who is the next Adolf Hitler.

Yes your correct...stalinists are all of the above...not left wing revolutionaries

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by Soviet [email protected] 4 2005, 04:16 PM
Can i just verify.

The views and opions of the gulag happy nazi they call "rice" dosent represent the left wing revolution....more of a right wing mass genocide.


It is YOU who is the enemy of humanity. It is YOU who is evil. It is YOU who is the next Adolf Hitler.

Yes your correct...stalinists are all of the above...not left wing revolutionaries
It doesn't matter, they're still part of your revolution. They will be there after your revolution. Unless you find a way to deal with them, your revolution will always fail.

[Soviet sally]

Well if the revolution came im sure the nazis would be dealt with.

Why not the stalinists?

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Because they're fighting for the same thing you are.

[Soviet sally]

Im fighting for a classless society, justice and freedom

They want oppression, murder and poverty

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Soviet [email protected] 4 2005, 04:35 PM
Im fighting for a classless society, justice and freedom

They want oppression, murder and poverty
They'll fight with you and then slit your throat from behind when you're not looking.

[Soviet sally]

Thats why i dont trust stalinists

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

For them, oppression, murder, and poverty are the means to achieving the stateless classless society. So their goal is still the same as yours.

[1936]

All soviets posts were me by the way. Had to use mates acount but mines working now....me being elmo

[1936]

For them, oppression, murder, and poverty are the means to achieving the stateless classless society. So their goal is still the same as yours.

I dont plan to oppress anyone...and the point is the people will be lifted from poverty.

[1936]

And stalin didnt want classless society.

He might have said thats what he wanted!....but id say he was pretty happy en-*****ing the workers.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Any Stalinist will tell you otherwise.

Their means to achieving communism will make them fail every time but you cannot get rid of them because they are fighting for the same thing as you are. It doesn't matter what you believe their true intentions to be. They honestly believe that they are right. Their think their way is the only way and will never recognize it as being oppressive or as a guaranteed path to failure. This is why I said that unless you find a way to deal with them somehow, revolution will always fail.

[1936]

Well if the revolution came im sure the nazis would be dealt with.

Why not the stalinists?

I have ABSOLUTLEY no problem with "dealing" with stalinists.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Then what makes you any better than them? They'd certainly have no problem killing you either.

[1936]

Well the socialst movement is a serious and big populated community in which holds serious grounds.

But the stalinist community is 6 star wars fans in the parents basement endulging in chronic masturbation

[trotsky4ever]

Oh I get it now.

It is YOU who is the enemy of humanity. It is YOU who is evil. It is YOU who is the next Adolf Hitler.

I don't really matter. People don't really matter. All that matters is you achive your goals and your dreams of megalomania.

It does not matter weather or not people are right or wrong, just or injust, good or bad, what matters is they offend YOU. That is measure of earning a bullet in the back of the head and a secret grave, is that someone has offended YOU.

Your sick a person.

I'm not the next Adolf Hitler, far from it bub. I'm the next liberator of the working class!!! :D Whether any of you like it or not!



Well the socialst movement is a serious and big populated community in which holds serious grounds.

But the stalinist community is 6 star wars fans in the parents basement endulging in chronic masturbation

Good one retard. I hate star wars, live in a dorm at college, and have a girlfriend who does my masturbating for me. If anything appears unclear here i'll gladly come over there to england and spell it out for you dumbass.

[OleMarxco]

.....And now, since when did this become a popularity contest? Communism disregard all kinds of "attempts" to become 'better' than your fellow man in reputation short of doing something for gaining that reputation, but not MAKING yourself so.

I see too that you swallow over hard. You, but ONE MAN, shall liberate the workers, eh? Good, go on....SHOW ME HOW! I'm waiting for the results, I am IMPATIENT y'know. And a Trotskyist that gets offended at Stalinists getting attacked!? :D

That's kind of ironic doesn't you think. I'd wager a trotskyist would with glee join any anti-Stalinist against Stalinists because Stalin was the man who got Trotsky killed! But NOOOOOOO...Not'n even on yer radio! I don't give shit who has a girlfriend, who hates star wars or who gets hand jobs under the table. Personally, you could be a loser-clown with no friends at all and it wouldn't make a damn much of a difference. This ain't no goddamn "Look at how my big dick is"-contest.

So calm down. I'm not even from England, and yes, even if you're not the next Adolph Hitler...you're probably the next Stalin, if you even succeed at that...so you'd end up as a second B-Adolf. Or perhaps you meant "doing the masturbation for you" as in you being incompetent in doing so, therefore she does it on herself FOR you in your name. Meheheh, nevertheless, all you're aimin' for is bein' a despot and a "popular guy", I'd wager - And a true communist would have nothing of that, but an unselfish people's hero who sacrifices themselves and has no time for big talk of themselves! ACTIONS, NOT WORDS ;)

[1936]

If anything appears unclear here i'll gladly come over there to england and spell it out for you dumbass.

Righty oh! Over you come then.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:35 PM

Oh I get it now.

It is YOU who is the enemy of humanity. It is YOU who is evil. It is YOU who is the next Adolf Hitler.

I don't really matter. People don't really matter. All that matters is you achive your goals and your dreams of megalomania.

It does not matter weather or not people are right or wrong, just or injust, good or bad, what matters is they offend YOU. That is measure of earning a bullet in the back of the head and a secret grave, is that someone has offended YOU.

Your sick a person.

I'm not the next Adolf Hitler, far from it bub. I'm the next liberator of the working class!!! :D Whether any of you like it or not!



Well the socialst movement is a serious and big populated community in which holds serious grounds.

But the stalinist community is 6 star wars fans in the parents basement endulging in chronic masturbation

Good one retard. I hate star wars, live in a dorm at college, and have a girlfriend who does my masturbating for me. If anything appears unclear here i'll gladly come over there to england and spell it out for you dumbass.
Welcome back Rice.

[1936]

Rice come on live chat.

We can converse polietly of your holiday to England

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:35 PM

Oh I get it now.

It is YOU who is the enemy of humanity. It is YOU who is evil. It is YOU who is the next Adolf Hitler.

I don't really matter. People don't really matter. All that matters is you achive your goals and your dreams of megalomania.

It does not matter weather or not people are right or wrong, just or injust, good or bad, what matters is they offend YOU. That is measure of earning a bullet in the back of the head and a secret grave, is that someone has offended YOU.

Your sick a person.

I'm not the next Adolf Hitler, far from it bub. I'm the next liberator of the working class!!! :D Whether any of you like it or not!



Well the socialst movement is a serious and big populated community in which holds serious grounds.

But the stalinist community is 6 star wars fans in the parents basement endulging in chronic masturbation

Good one retard. I hate star wars, live in a dorm at college, and have a girlfriend who does my masturbating for me. If anything appears unclear here i'll gladly come over there to england and spell it out for you dumbass.
So then the measure of why someone should receive a bullet in the back of the head is that they offend YOU and not some common agreed upon law or system of justice. What matters is that YOU want them dead and that is the measure of why they should receive a bullet in the back of the head.

That makes you a sick megalomanic.

So I ask you, who made you King? To decide which person receives a bullet in the back of the head and a secret mass grave.

[NykylaiHellray]

quote by rich 349

f certain people disappear into secret mass graves i will not lose any sleep over it. I've said before I have no moral or ethical objections to using state power to eliminate those whom disagree with me, depending on how much they get in m way: all religious persons,trotskyites, anarchists, syndicalists, social-democrats, capitalists, bourgoies/petit-bourgeois, the list goes on.... mad.gif


Lol why does this now seem to be like a facist trait you have collected rich.

Hey I am not complaining if I was in power, anyone who stands in my way will have to be eradicated. Man I would get rid anyone who dissagrees to bulding my huge pyramid palace that is coated in obsiadian, why I sit in my throne of gold, and witness my rule over the earth.

(let ya know that is sycasim)

[RedAnarchist]

Sarcasm is a lot better when you spell correctly. :P

[NykylaiHellray]

Oh well, can't win them all ^_^

[internationalesoviet]

Lol why does this now seem to be like a facist trait you have collected rich.

Hey I am not complaining if I was in power, anyone who stands in my way will have to be eradicated. Man I would get rid anyone who dissagrees to bulding my huge pyramid palace that is coated in obsiadian, why I sit in my throne of gold, and witness my rule over the earth.

(let ya know that is sycasim)
he won't be able to respond, he's been banned for life :o

[red_orchestra]

true Communism simply creates a society that lives as a unit. There is sharing of resources, and life is sustained by a common goal, belief in the good for the state. There is no need for competitive dividing attitudes...

How can Communism be insituted: by force, or by the will of the people--- gradual change from Socialism to a more concrete form. I prefere the later.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:18 PM
true Communism simply creates a society that lives as a unit. There is sharing of resources, and life is sustained by a common goal, belief in the good for the state. There is no need for competitive dividing attitudes...

How can Communism be insituted: by force, or by the will of the people--- gradual change from Socialism to a more concrete form. I prefere the later.
The reality is it happens by force. More correctly the force just continues until the revolution is 'not communism'.

See post by Rice above. Does such a personality do well to rise quickly in a communist revolution?

I think people like him do and do so quite well.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:39 PM

Lol why does this now seem to be like a facist trait you have collected rich.

Hey I am not complaining if I was in power, anyone who stands in my way will have to be eradicated. Man I would get rid anyone who dissagrees to bulding my huge pyramid palace that is coated in obsiadian, why I sit in my throne of gold, and witness my rule over the earth.

(let ya know that is sycasim)
he won't be able to respond, he's been banned for life :o
There is a partial truth is the sarcasim:

"I have no moral or ethical objections to using state power to eliminate those whom disagree with me" - Rice May 3 2005, 03:24 PM

It is not about justice or the revolution. It is about Rice extracting vengance on people who disagree with "me". That is the measure of who gets 'eliminated'. People who 'disagree with me' get eliminated. It is not about social justice, it is about wonton and undisciplined killing. This reality has played out time and time again.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:15 PM
Well the socialst movement is a serious and big populated community in which holds serious grounds.

But the stalinist community is 6 star wars fans in the parents basement endulging in chronic masturbation
I wish you were right. The reality is there will always be a Stalinist doing very well for himself in a the revolution, then before you know it, he is running he whole show.

[CheJoni]

it is not possible to live in a state with communism.
Because the humans want to be better than their neighbour. They want a higher rang or level than other, because of material things. All the state with communsim are washed-up. Or look at china, it this system a good one? The people live like in slavery. <_<
Or look at Stalin, what did he? He killed millon of people, in conzerntration camps, like Hilter and why? Because of poltic , they were the opositin. He killed mens womens and children , in order that he could control the Soviet Union. And so his own money grows bigger and bigger. Is this your opinion about a good system?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:23 PM
it is not possible to live in a state with communism.
Because the humans want to be better than their neighbour. They want a higher rang or level than other, because of material things. All the state with communsim are washed-up. Or look at china, it this system a good on? The people live like in slavery. <_<
Or look at Stalin, what did he? He killed millon of people, in conzerntration camps, like Hilter and why? Because of poltic , they were the opositin. He killed mens womens and children , in order that he could control the Soviet Union. And so his own money grows bigger and bigger. Is this your opinion about a good system?
Yea man yeah.

Don&#39;t forget to eat red meat, worship God, and have a good time.

[Professor Moneybags]

*Deleted*

(Poster has been banned so there was no point.)

[Soviet sally]

See post by Rice above. Does such a personality do well to rise quickly in a communist revolution?

Rice does not, and never has represented a communist revolution.

[OleMarxco]

Aslong as there is revolutionionary consciousness among the revolutionaries of what the theory says and there is no "monopoly" on who is "educated" to lead the revolution , a Stalinist couldn&#39;t STEP not one fuckin&#39; move out of line&#33; :angry:

That goes for Trotskyists too - I don&#39;t CARE &#39;bout what you label yourself, if what you&#39;re doing is bad for the workers -- practically -- and there should no vanguard, because if so, it would be harder to rid of the state then... and decentralize the power, like a good council Communism should <_<

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Soviet [email protected] 14 2005, 12:54 PM

See post by Rice above. Does such a personality do well to rise quickly in a communist revolution?

Rice does not, and never has represented a communist revolution.
I think he does.

I think there is an such opportunity for abuse of power in communist revolutions that there will always be another evil dictator stepping up to bat and taking control.

May I point out that the batting average for communist revolutions producing a single man in the highest authority is pretty much 100%. I can not think of any revolution that has not produced a single man at the very top of government, a single man who rules for life. Can you help me here, can you name any communist revolution that occupied a country that did not produce a single man at the top of the government for life?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Soviet [email protected] 14 2005, 12:54 PM
Rice does not, and never has represented a communist revolution.
My quote collection suggests otherwise.

[Rage]

The fact that everyone gets the same amount of money which is controled by the goverment.


But then again with Capitalism everyone is in poverty...


/,,/
Rock on&#33;

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 15 2005, 11:30 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 15 2005, 11:30 AM)
Soviet [email protected] 14 2005, 12:54 PM
Rice does not, and never has represented a communist revolution.
My quote collection suggests otherwise. [/b]
I have only to look upon the social experiments that have come before in the last 100 years. The result? Some one like Rice running a communist state.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:08 AM
A central economic "planning" board cannot possibly plan for production and distribution efficiently
And I suppose a serieies of uncooperative owner executives can? Oh look at that not enough food but a sufficient supply of bobble-heads.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by cormacobear+May 16 2005, 05:37 PM--> (cormacobear @ May 16 2005, 05:37 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 08:08 AM
A central economic "planning" board cannot possibly plan for production and distribution efficiently
And I suppose a serieies of uncooperative owner executives can? Oh look at that not enough food but a sufficient supply of bobble-heads. [/b]
That explains why everyone in the US is starving, as opposed to everyone in North Korea.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:59 PM

But then again with Capitalism everyone is in poverty...


/,,/
Rock on&#33;
Really? Everyone?

[1936]

Hes bhuddist...probaly means "in capitalsm were all in poverty EMOTIONALLY" or something saft like that.

[Shogun]

equality for equals not everyone