Prove that capitalism is wage slavery

[t_wolves_fan]

One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.

[SonofRage]

If you don't sell your labor power for a wage, you'll pretty much starve and die. Since workers don't own anything (the means of production) they have no other choice than to sell their labor. Hence, they are wage-slaves.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:33 PM
If you don't sell your labor power for a wage, you'll pretty much starve and die. Since workers don't own anything (the means of production) they have no other choice than to sell their labor. Hence, they are wage-slaves.
Hmmm...

Homeless people exist without wages.

Many people pool their savings or borrow and start their own business.

All at their own choice.

What of these circumstances?

[Colombia]

Then they become the means of getting money.

Basically they then become the people with the whips whipping the slaves to work or lose.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:49 PM
Then they become the means of getting money.

Basically they then become the people with the whips whipping the slaves to work or lose.
But slaves generally are not free to become slavemasters themselves, are they?

Aren't wage employees free to leave their place of employment anytime?

[Guest1]

The reality is, it's quite naive to consider becoming a slavemaster an option for the vast majority.

The "rags to riches" stories are anomalies, not even a trend.

Wage slaves are different than just plain slaves. But capitalism forces those who aren't owners to sell themselves for a wage. That's just fact.

[Pawn Power]

Frederick Engels said:

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

t wolves fan, don't be ridiculous even most right-wingers understand that wage slavery exists

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 3 2005, 08:49 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 3 2005, 08:49 AM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 01:33 PM
If you don't sell your labor power for a wage, you'll pretty much starve and die. Since workers don't own anything (the means of production) they have no other choice than to sell their labor. Hence, they are wage-slaves.
Hmmm...

Homeless people exist without wages.

Many people pool their savings or borrow and start their own business.

All at their own choice.

What of these circumstances? [/b]
These groups are a very small percentage of the population at large, and they must exist in order for the system to work.

Becoming homeless, is not an option most people strive for. You assume people want to be homeless. Rather as George Carlin says... they exist to scare the shit out of everyone and keep them showing up to those jobs.

The even smaller percentage of the population that is somehow able to save enough to work for themselves, exist to give hope to everyone else that there is perhaps something they can strive for.

The fact is in the United States, "Class mobility" is working backwards. People who grew up in middle class America are finding more and more that they will not be able to afford the lifestyle they grew up in.

In addition, recent studies have shown that it is not simply the poorest workers that suffer from economic instability but also highly skilled and highly payed workers are finding more and more that they may suffer an economic depression due to their job being downsized or sent offshore.

You must also take into account that the overall majority of small busnesses fail within the first two years.

[Domingo]

Slave is a powerful word.

I dont mean to really defend capitalism, but that is wrong to call a worker in a capitalistic setting a slave.

Look up slave, comrade. It has a deeper meaning. Someone indentured to serving without pay (and without benifits if chosen not to).

You are not a "slave to capitalism" because you can easily quit and go on welfare. The last time I checked, slaves did not have such choices.

[STI]

Slave is a powerful word.

Good thing we're not saying proletarians are slaves.


I dont mean to really defend capitalism, but that is wrong to call a worker in a capitalistic setting a slave.

We're not.


Look up slave, comrade. It has a deeper meaning. Someone indentured to serving without pay (and without benifits if chosen not to).

"Wage-slave" is a seperate word entirely. We're not saying "Proletarians are slaves lol". The word could be "jibber-jabbers" and we could be fighting for "liberation from jibber-jabberness", but that's not the word. The word is "wage-slave". We didn't choose it.

You have to keep in mind that the term "wage-slave" is entirely seperate from "chattel slave". You aren't making the distinction.


You are not a "slave to capitalism" because you can easily quit and go on welfare.

Funny how "welfare-to-work" programs are becoming more and more popular all the time.

And welfare doesn't even give enough to pay for an apartment, food, clothes, etc. When you crunch the numbers, a single mother (as most welfare recipients are) is simply not given enough money to get by.

So no, welfare isn't a serious option.


The last time I checked, slaves did not have such choices.

If you start thinking of "slaves" as "chattel slaves", which they are, it makes more sense to refer to proletarians as "wage slaves". The "chattel" part is the difference. The manditory labour is what ties the two together.

And, as it turns out, wage slaves don't have such choices either.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:25 PM
Slave is a powerful word.

I dont mean to really defend capitalism, but that is wrong to call a worker in a capitalistic setting a slave.

Look up slave, comrade. It has a deeper meaning. Someone indentured to serving without pay (and without benifits if chosen not to).

The use of the term "Wage Slave" is quite old when speaking about Capitalism. Many early Marxists (Including Marx Himself) use the term.

The use of the term "Wage Slave" Is a metaphor so to speak. As Daniel Deleon explained it... Northerners felt all felt it was their patriotic and nobel duty to go down south and fight a war to free the slaves, yet they came back up north and found themselves and their families bound to jobs where their masters profited off the abolision of slavery, and they now had to fight for those jobs among the very people they freed.

Deleon explained, as did many after him, that to own a slave one had to pay for their existance. Enough to eat, live, for their families and children, take care of the medical etc and still worry about them trying to get away.

With wage slavery you don't have to be concerned if you pay them enough to exist, you only have to pay them enough to keep them working for you. And even then... at the time the term was first used immigration gave employers a steady streem of employees so that if you wouldn't work for the low wages they would find someone fresh off a ship from Europe that would. This is one reason the minimum wage was adopted, for employers found that if together they all lowered wages than workers would have no choice but work for less.


You are not a "slave to capitalism" because you can easily quit and go on welfare. The last time I checked, slaves did not have such choices.

Welfare is not an "Opt out" program for people too lazy to work! Most people do not stay on welfare more than 4 years. The goal is to get people back to work which is why they have the new welfare to work programs started under Clinton where people on welfare work it off.

[Domingo]

I appreciate your corrections.

Please explain this "wage-slave" or atleast define it.

Now, welare is a source of money (even if it is a low one). I was just saying it was an option. :P

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:45 PM
I appreciate your corrections.

Please explain this "wage-slave" or atleast define it.

Now, welare is a source of money (even if it is a low one). I was just saying it was an option. :P
1 entry found for wage slave.
wage slave
n.
A wage earner whose livelihood is completely dependent on the wages earned.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

I love this!

the class of workers is a class of wage-slaves, a worker is not necessaraly a wage slave however.

I however dislike capitalism for monopolies, which prohibits even the well-to-do workers to begin any sort of economic freedom at all.

[edit]

That is, in some places (mostly developed countries) I believe that workers do quite well under capitalism, but nevertheless the world is full of poor people who are being horribly treated, and which are often also the cause of the riches of the developed countries.

[communistfuture]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:15 PM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
Idiotic formulation. Idiotic reasoning.

[bed_of_nails]

I am going to try and simplify this as much as I can, personally because I think it is easiest to express that way. I do not claim that my argument will be completely logical, or correct at all, because I am far from an expert on this.

I shall try and extend the points previously made by my Comrades.

You are forced to work. Let me finish before you begin quoting me and saying Commies dont work.

There are economic situations people can be put in that prevent the person in question from going to higher levels of schooling, and getting a better job.

If you are in a position where you cannot go to school you are now stuck working the best job you can find with your expertise, until something better comes along (if something does. You are playing Russian Roulette with your future).

This person is forced into a job below their possibilities because Capitalism told them it was time to get out into the work force and go support good old Uncle Sam.

This really doesnt fall under wage-slavery that well now that I look back at it, but it is still an interesting point to dwell on while we are bringing up something similar to it.

On a second note, I need to shave my face.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:15 AM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
:lol: I didn't know you where so deeply affected by our discussion.

That quote seems rather out of context but it works well enough.

I don't know why you are suddenly holding everyone else here to the standard you have been combating all along... good to see you are trying to put those concepts into practice though.

Where did the topic of "wage-slavery" come from anyway? A particular interest of yours?

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm all for high standards my friend.

On this notion that one is a "wage slave" because he/she is dependent for life on his wages, it's been suggested that in a socialist or communist system, people would have to work or they'd die anyway.

So what exactly is the difference?

[bed_of_nails]

The difference is the quality of life.

People in a communist/socialist society can get better products because they are no longer buying on a budget (or as much of one in a Socialist society). This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night.

That is also the reason I am for Communism/Socialism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:56 PM
The difference is the quality of life.

People in a communist/socialist society can get better products because they are no longer buying on a budget (or as much of one in a Socialist society). This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night.

That is also the reason I am for Communism/Socialism.
I see. So if buget and spending power are unlimited, how do you plan to ration resources?

And, if you're still dependent upon your own labor for survival, you're still a slave, you just have better living conditions, eh?

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:56 PM
This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night..
What bills? There is no money, right.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

For me, the most important difference is non-authoritarian workplaces. As wage-slave in a capitalist corporation I have to do without question whatever the bosses decide to demand of me or hit the road, with very little chance of finding another job. In an anarchist/communist society I have a voice on things that affect on me and if I still strongly oppose the decision after it has been made, I can leave the workplace without fear of poverty and just join another collective.

[colombiano]

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism

According the ASI (Anti Slavery Institute) as many as 400 million men , women , and children (almost 7% of humanity) live in conditions that amount to slavery.
ASI distinguishes 4 types of slavery. First, Chattel Slavery , in which one person actually owns another. The number of Chattel Slaves is difficult to estimate becuase the practice is against the law almost everywhere. However the buying and selling of people still takes place in Africa , Asia and the Middle East.
the second is Child Slavery, in which desperately poor familiels are forced to send children to the streets to do anything to survive.
The Third is Debt Bondage, the practice by which employers hold workers captive by paying them to little to meet their debts. In this case worker receive a wage , but it is too small to cover food and housing provided by the employer; for practical purposes they are enslaved. Many Workers in sweatshops in poor countries fall into this category. It should also be noted that this type of slavery practice takes place on US soil(more specifically SAIPAN) to benefit US Big Money Interest and little is said or done .
The 4th is Servile forms of Marriage. This occurs Thailand , India and some African Countries where some families marry off women against their will. Many end up as slaves performing work for their husband's family; some are forced into prostitution.

You asked about the slavery in capitalism , well "Debt Bondage" is without a doubt one that can be directly linked to the US and more specifically Capitalism.

[Enragé]

"the buying and selling of people still takes place in Africa , Asia and the Middle East"

its still happening everywhere. Children are being sold into prostitution even in the western world.

About the whole wage slave thing: the difference is a workers gets what he needs, and works to his ability in communism. He/she is not a slave, because he/she works because he/she wants to further the community. If a community cares for its inhabitants, the inhabitants will care for the community.

[OleMarxco]

Not that it is meant as "human nature" impelling and/or forcing it to be changed, or whatever. It will just put people in a position where the surroundings of THEIR society will sooner or "force" them to act, or watch conditions degrade. Therefore, the will be compelled to take action and work for their society - since they get a cleared understanding it AFFECTS THEM TOO if resources go low: Everyone gets less, equally. They will also get the benefit of getting everything for free with rations coming parelled with the more you are productive for society. If they, or everyone, decides to laze around...then that's their fate. If they die...then they have been totally incapable of realizing the simple formula....no work = no resources = everyone die :che:

Also. Worker-Owned collectives should be a cause to fight for. No seperation between owners and/or those who work there!

[STI]

On this notion that one is a "wage slave" because he/she is dependent for life on his wages, it's been suggested that in a socialist or communist system, people would have to work or they'd die anyway.

So what exactly is the difference?

A person probably wouldn't starve in communism if s/he didn't work, provided there was enough food to go around (as is usually the case).

If a person didn't work, that person would be looked at as a jerk and treated as such. There's no rule in communism saying you have to be nice to people.

[Comrade Ryan]

I believe capitalism places a worker in a situation similar to slavery, but it is not truly slavery. The debt bondage definition even says it is "for practical purposes enslvavement". Practical for whose purposes? Ours? Analagous relationships, such as the conditions of workers to that of slaves, is fine and dandy, but please everyone, do be careful with language. It is one thing we ought to dominate the right with. Our words are powerful enough and already strike to the core of most people's hearts without needed any type of manipulation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:31 PM

The Third is Debt Bondage, the practice by which employers hold workers captive by paying them to little to meet their debts. In this case worker receive a wage , but it is too small to cover food and housing provided by the employer; for practical purposes they are enslaved. Many Workers in sweatshops in poor countries fall into this category. It should also be noted that this type of slavery practice takes place on US soil(more specifically SAIPAN) to benefit US Big Money Interest and little is said or done .

You asked about the slavery in capitalism , well "Debt Bondage" is without a doubt one that can be directly linked to the US and more specifically Capitalism.
You make a very good point here. Seriously. It reminds me of the book Nickeled and Dimed where the author took a job at Wal Mart. Because she was charged for her own uniform, her first paycheck was $0.00. She framed it for posterity.

Obviously such a practice is wrong and obviously capitalism creates the conditions for it to happen.

That being said, I find it hard to attribute this phenomenon strictly to capitalism or to accept the idea that this always happens under capitalism. Capitalism might create the conditions, but it does not force employers to use these practices or the employees to work for these companies.

I find this to be a political problem - a political system in a capitalist state could easily outlaw this practice, or social convention could end it by making it unacceptable.

Very good point though.

[Enragé]

"
That being said, I find it hard to attribute this phenomenon strictly to capitalism or to accept the idea that this always happens under capitalism. Capitalism might create the conditions, but it does not force employers to use these practices or the employees to work for these companies."

in capitalism profit is most important. By using this phenomenon, profits are higher. Therefore capitalism pushes employers to use it.

"a political system in a capitalist state could easily outlaw this practice, or social convention could end it by making it unacceptable."

it wouldnt because the companies control the government. In the early 70's in my country a social democratic government was installed with great popular support. They promised to decrease corporate influence, make the gap between rich and poor smaller etc...however, and this is a fact, disputed by virtually no one..the companies threatened to leave our country etc if we pushed these plans ahead...and the government folded

No my country isnt Ecuador, Honduras or Nigeria...its the Netherlands.

[t_wolves_fan]

in capitalism profit is most important. By using this phenomenon, profits are higher. Therefore capitalism pushes employers to use it.

Profit is not the most important nor only important factor in capitalist society.

Your blanket assertion is simple-minded and therefore weak.


it wouldnt because the companies control the government. In the early 70's in my country a social democratic government was installed with great popular support. They promised to decrease corporate influence, make the gap between rich and poor smaller etc...however, and this is a fact, disputed by virtually no one..the companies threatened to leave our country etc if we pushed these plans ahead...and the government folded

That is a failure of your political system, not capitalism.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:13 PM
Profit is not the most important nor only important factor in capitalist society.


:lol:

What could possibly be more important ?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+May 5 2005, 04:17 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ May 5 2005, 04:17 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 04:13 PM
Profit is not the most important nor only important factor in capitalist society.


:lol:

What could possibly be more important ? [/b]
Family
Community
Loyalty
Occupation choice (you might be surprised to find that in a capitalist system, people choose their occupation)
Location
Values
Politcal persuasion

[Redmau5]

And you suddenly think they would disappear if capitalism disappeared ?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:34 PM
And you suddenly think they would disappear if capitalism disappeared ?
No, but that's not the point, is it?

[OleMarxco]

Seems so. But you're obviously not a cynic yet....or any realistic ;)
Seriously. Do you think that a capitalistc society gives a SHIT about all that?
"Loyality"? "Community"? "Occupation"? Go ask a Capitalist if he give a FUCK in anything else but profit. It's in the MINDSET. I refuse that argument all togheter, it is a part of burgeouise-propaganda "utopian picture" - When companies lay down working places and sack off their own country's workers to move to a foreign country to drive a multinational industry there with people who have no class conscience and/or knowledge of better working-conditions willing to live off shit wages in poor countries..

DO YOU THINK -STILL- THAT THE CAPITALISTS ARE ANY LOYAL TO THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM? They'd sooner and rather hire a poor worker from a third world country who don't demand as much as a sloppy expensive one from their own country, no national feeling at all! Believe it or not, in a true communistic society, people would TOO choose their occupation - only withouth bosses forcing them to slave for wages so they can't BE necessarily what they want! :castro:

And then don't give me that retorting about Communism also being "utopian". That is only a image projected by the idealists - I am not that, I am realistically an Communist for a realistic reason. That reason being a worker-driven factory (them deciding rules and who gets to work there by "voting" on who should go or stay) sounds both plausible...and "fair", no matter how that sounds a subjective human-nature stuff-thingy. And Soviet? Naught but a total turn-coat of thy truesth Socialism :D

[Enragé]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 5 2005, 04:32 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 5 2005, 04:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:17 PM

[email protected] 5 2005, 04:13 PM
Profit is not the most important nor only important factor in capitalist society.


:lol:

What could possibly be more important ?
Family
Community
Loyalty
Occupation choice (you might be surprised to find that in a capitalist system, people choose their occupation)
Location
Values
Politcal persuasion [/b]
those things have endured DESPITE of capitalism. Those things arent part of capitalism, unless they can be used to further capitalism (to make more profit); loyalty to a company for example.

[KC]

I see. So if buget and spending power are unlimited, how do you plan to ration resources?

A limited amount of land per person means a limited amount of space. Therefore, people won't be taking an unlimited amount of stuff like you have suggested, since that just wastes the space that they have. They'll take what they want, but they won't hord simply because:

1) It's a waste of space and
2) It's free so there's no point in hording.



And, if you're still dependent upon your own labor for survival, you're still a slave, you just have better living conditions, eh?

I hope you meant wage-slave when you said slave; if not then this sentence isn't relevant. There will be no such thing as wage-slavery in a communist society because instead of being paid the bare minimum required to keep your job, you will earn as much as everyone else. There won't be money, but what you are earning is getting whatever you want for free.

[Andy Bowden]

I believe capitalism has a far more degrading effect on family than Socialism - children denied education and forced to work in sweatshops, or fathers made unemployed by recession, etc.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Jersey Devil+May 4 2005, 02:17 PM--> (Jersey Devil @ May 4 2005, 02:17 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 01:56 PM
This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night..
What bills? There is no money, right. [/b]
Obviously you have some sort of vendetta with me since I previously disagreed with you. Understanding my sentence required reading between the lines.

Lets look at my sentence. People with poor, hungry children and piles of bills. The piles of bills dissapear, and the children are fed!

How did this happen? Well with Communism, people no longer pay bills and can have rationed amounts of food. :o:o:o

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:33 AM
Well with Communism, people no longer pay bills and can have rationed amounts of food. :o:o:o
With no government, who determines the family's rations?

[Livetrueordie]

With no government, who determines the family's rations?
Were talking about Communism not anarchy, Democracy

[Enragé]

"That is a failure of your political system, not capitalism"

No it is not, ITS CAPITALISM INTERFERING WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. AND DONT THINK THIS DOESNT GO ON IN YANQUILAND

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 4 2005, 02:08 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 4 2005, 02:08 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 01:56 PM
The difference is the quality of life.

People in a communist/socialist society can get better products because they are no longer buying on a budget (or as much of one in a Socialist society). This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night.

That is also the reason I am for Communism/Socialism.
I see. So if buget and spending power are unlimited, how do you plan to ration resources?

And, if you're still dependent upon your own labor for survival, you're still a slave, you just have better living conditions, eh? [/b]
Dude just quit it. Don't you get it? There are no wage slaves in communism. Everyone is going to migrate to work they want to do for thier own personal benefit without being tied to make a 'living'.

That is why I'm going to migrate to being a porn star and race car driver.

[bed_of_nails]

QUOTE (t_wolves_fan @ May 4 2005, 02:08 PM)
QUOTE (bed_of_nails @ May 4 2005, 01:56 PM)
The difference is the quality of life.

People in a communist/socialist society can get better products because they are no longer buying on a budget (or as much of one in a Socialist society). This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night.

That is also the reason I am for Communism/Socialism.


I see. So if buget and spending power are unlimited, how do you plan to ration resources?

And, if you're still dependent upon your own labor for survival, you're still a slave, you just have better living conditions, eh?


Dude just quit it. Don't you get it? There are no wage slaves in communism. Everyone is going to migrate to work they want to do for thier own personal benefit without being tied to make a 'living'.

That is why I'm going to migrate to being a porn star and race car driver.

But you need good looks and talent for those!

How can you be a porn star if human genitals physically dissapear every time you drop your pants?

Masturbation isnt porn, otherwise I am confident you would be a millionaire.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:00 AM

QUOTE (t_wolves_fan @ May 4 2005, 02:08 PM)
QUOTE (bed_of_nails @ May 4 2005, 01:56 PM)
The difference is the quality of life.

People in a communist/socialist society can get better products because they are no longer buying on a budget (or as much of one in a Socialist society). This means that the Nurse supporting her three children and deciding which bills to pay while her children go hungry some nights, can have her children fed every night.

That is also the reason I am for Communism/Socialism.


I see. So if buget and spending power are unlimited, how do you plan to ration resources?

And, if you're still dependent upon your own labor for survival, you're still a slave, you just have better living conditions, eh?


Dude just quit it. Don't you get it? There are no wage slaves in communism. Everyone is going to migrate to work they want to do for thier own personal benefit without being tied to make a 'living'.

That is why I'm going to migrate to being a porn star and race car driver.

But you need good looks and talent for those!

How can you be a porn star if human genitals physically dissapear every time you drop your pants?

Masturbation isnt porn, otherwise I am confident you would be a millionaire.
I don't understand. I want to be a porn star, isn't that enough? I'm migrating to the work that I deem I am suited for.

[Redmau5]

Well you don't decide whether you're suited for it, your community does.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:08 PM
I want to be a porn star, isn't that enough? I'm migrating to the work that I deem I am suited for.
That's perfectly acceptable. If you want to be a porn star, you can be a porn star. But if you want to be able to take from society, food, accomodation etc, you must contribute your fair share to it. If you want to find the job which best suits you in that contribution, you can, otherwise work will be allocated to you.

Once you have done that, you can be and do whatever you want, providing it doesn't effect the freedom of others.

[1936]

Each according to hes ability, each according to hes need

If you were in supreme pyshichal form and had a huge shlong you can be a porn star.

But hey! were not all blessed like myself.

Im sure youd make a great hat rack.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 7 2005, 03:31 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 7 2005, 03:31 PM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 04:08 PM
I want to be a porn star, isn't that enough? I'm migrating to the work that I deem I am suited for.
That's perfectly acceptable. If you want to be a porn star, you can be a porn star. But if you want to be able to take from society, food, accomodation etc, you must contribute your fair share to it. If you want to find the job which best suits you in that contribution, you can, otherwise work will be allocated to you.

Once you have done that, you can be and do whatever you want, providing it doesn't effect the freedom of others. [/b]
I don't understand. I control my own labor.

[LSD]

I don't understand..

How true.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 12:29 AM

I don't understand..

How true.
So I control my own labor but I have to work a quota for the commune?

That is a funny concept to me. Sound like, almost like, pretty much like, shall I say it? WAGE SLAVERY.

[Enragé]

"I control my own labor."

You do, but since you also consume the labour of others, you have the moral obligation to pay them back. Also, when you not-working just fucking people in a porn flick harms the people (if they starve because you are horny), ofcourse they can force you to make some fuckin shit to eat. Look, you can be as free as you can AS LONG AS this does not deminish the freedom of others; This by the way is an accepted fact in alot of philosophies during the Renaissance, which are the source for, among other things, the american revolution against the english.

[NovelGentry]

So I control my own labor but I have to work a quota for the commune?

That is a funny concept to me. Sound like, almost like, pretty much like, shall I say it? WAGE SLAVERY.

The problem is you seem to have a problem accepting that others control their own labor too. While they work together and help to meet each others needs, all you do is demand new tires, a race car, a camera, and people to have sex with on film. Why do you suspect they will provide you with such things if you are unwilling to help them maintain the needs of society?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:27 AM
"I control my own labor."

You do, but since you also consume the labour of others, you have the moral obligation to pay them back. Also, when you not-working just fucking people in a porn flick harms the people (if they starve because you are horny), ofcourse they can force you to make some fuckin shit to eat. Look, you can be as free as you can AS LONG AS this does not deminish the freedom of others; This by the way is an accepted fact in alot of philosophies during the Renaissance, which are the source for, among other things, the american revolution against the english.
"pay them back"

Just think for a minute. Does that sound funny to a communist. Pay them back with what? 'Pay them back' is a capitalist concept that does not exist. Even if I could, how much 'pay back' do I give? There is no concept of value for my labor, there is no concept of value for anything. So how do I 'pay back'?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:43 AM

So I control my own labor but I have to work a quota for the commune?

That is a funny concept to me. Sound like, almost like, pretty much like, shall I say it? WAGE SLAVERY.

The problem is you seem to have a problem accepting that others control their own labor too. While they work together and help to meet each others needs, all you do is demand new tires, a race car, a camera, and people to have sex with on film. Why do you suspect they will provide you with such things if you are unwilling to help them maintain the needs of society?
I am helping. I am producing porn and racing cars. That is the product of my labor.

[Enragé]

have you no other reaction to my post but to argue fucking semantics?

You pay back so just like you didnt starve because some other fuck just wanted to make porn flicks, other people dont starve because you want to. Have some sense of responsability!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:04 AM
have you no other reaction to my post but to argue fucking semantics?

You pay back so just like you didnt starve because some other fuck just wanted to make porn flicks, other people dont starve because you want to. Have some sense of responsability!
Hey common give me a break here. The concept of 'pay back' does no exist. For me to do so means there is a value exchange. I am contributing. My labor is racing cars and making porn. That is what i gravitate to. My labor is in driving the race car, that is hard work. Have you seen NASCAR? Drivers loose a lot of weight in water. I'm going to be working hard at porn too. I'll even work extra shifts just for the good of the commune to produce more than my fair share of labor.

Plus I control my own labor, right? I'm going to control my efforts to be directed at making porn and racing cars.

[robob8706]

QUOTE (SonofRage @ May 3 2005, 01:33 PM)
If you don't sell your labor power for a wage, you'll pretty much starve and die. Since workers don't own anything (the means of production) they have no other choice than to sell their labor. Hence, they are wage-slaves.


Hmmm...

Homeless people exist without wages.

Many people pool their savings or borrow and start their own business.

All at their own choice.

What of these circumstances?


Yes it's true, our capitalist societies allow the proletariet a chance to become part of the rich, by rising up through the corporate latter and becoming property owners. I have three points.

One:

This idea of allowing the poor to become rich allows the poor a better life. But not an equal life to those of the rich elite. Why must a poor person struggle so hard in school, and in work, so that he/she may find a corporate job that allows that person a better life, when a family who is rich passes their elite status to all of their offspring. It's easier to buy a company, than to create one from dirt poor scratch.

Two:

This idea of allowing the poor to become rich through hard work and determination exists only in the mother country. In my case, the US. American corporations who outsource to countries lesser in wealth do not allow their labor a chance to rise the corporate ladder. That is the incentive behind outsourcing, in a way a sort of mercantilism. The incentive is a large labor force, willing to work for a lower wage than others, for the prosperity of the few who are in control in the mother country. So American's have the privilige to become richer through the company, but a large part of the labor force doesn't.

Three:

Capitalism requires a class system in which the labor force is poorer in relation to the higher rich class. Yes, America allows it's citizens the oppertunity to rise out of classes. For instance a poor person can work really hard in school and in work and he/she can become either part of the middle class, or the upper class if they are lucky. This idea that anyone has the chance to rise up out of their class is faulty. Capitalism requires a poor labor force in that, if the majority of the poor were to work hard and become rich, then they would have no labor force to command over from their company. If the poor lower class is eliminated or the balance of a large poor labor force is eliminated capitalism collapses. And following this theory all class societies work this way. The only way to sustain a high standard of living while remaining classless for everyone is to eliminate wages and wage incentive, and focus on jobs in which number one: are productive to society, and number two: jobs that people want to perform, not out of want for a higher wage, but because they either like doing those jobs or feel a duty to them.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:15 AM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
Do you deny that wage-slavery exists? Also why should we prove it? Why don't you disprove it. Beyond reasonable doubt too.

There is also a difference between proving something for which there exists no objective evidence and proving something for which there does exist evidence.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god, but there is evidence that most people who take a wage-paying job are to some extent slaves under the present system. If welfare did not exist and a situation such as is wanted by many liberals and other minimalist statists occurs then they would be slaves to a far greater extent, because they would not have any choice but to starve.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+May 8 2005, 06:57 AM--> (Apathy Maybe @ May 8 2005, 06:57 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 01:15 AM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
Do you deny that wage-slavery exists? Also why should we prove it? Why don't you disprove it. Beyond reasonable doubt too.

There is also a difference between proving something for which there exists no objective evidence and proving something for which there does exist evidence.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god, but there is evidence that most people who take a wage-paying job are to some extent slaves under the present system. If welfare did not exist and a situation such as is wanted by many liberals and other minimalist statists occurs then they would be slaves to a far greater extent, because they would not have any choice but to starve. [/b]
I got a logical reason to believe in God. Do you want to hear it?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:02 AM
I am helping. I am producing porn and racing cars. That is the product of my labor.
If people really like what you do and there's no shortage of labour power for production of the essentials of life, they might allow you to spend all your time making porn. But if everyone else is working their asses of to get people fed, clothed and housed, why should they feed, cloth and house you if you do not contribute to this? If you really do not want to contribute just a few hours a day, or few days a week, or one or two weeks a month, or some months a year to the common good, you could be given a small plot of land where to grow your own food. You're free from moral obligations to society then, but let's see if you have the time and energy to make porn anymore!

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 8 2005, 02:50 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 8 2005, 02:50 AM)
Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 8 2005, 06:57 AM

[email protected] 4 2005, 01:15 AM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
Do you deny that wage-slavery exists? Also why should we prove it? Why don't you disprove it. Beyond reasonable doubt too.

There is also a difference between proving something for which there exists no objective evidence and proving something for which there does exist evidence.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god, but there is evidence that most people who take a wage-paying job are to some extent slaves under the present system. If welfare did not exist and a situation such as is wanted by many liberals and other minimalist statists occurs then they would be slaves to a far greater extent, because they would not have any choice but to starve.
I got a logical reason to believe in God. Do you want to hear it? [/b]
sure

[OleMarxco]

I bet the C in my username that it is; "Because who else could've made the universe?" implying it'd is God who is the creator of the universe ;)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+May 8 2005, 02:36 PM--> (comrade_mufasa @ May 8 2005, 02:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 8 2005, 06:57 AM

[email protected] 4 2005, 01:15 AM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
Do you deny that wage-slavery exists? Also why should we prove it? Why don't you disprove it. Beyond reasonable doubt too.

There is also a difference between proving something for which there exists no objective evidence and proving something for which there does exist evidence.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god, but there is evidence that most people who take a wage-paying job are to some extent slaves under the present system. If welfare did not exist and a situation such as is wanted by many liberals and other minimalist statists occurs then they would be slaves to a far greater extent, because they would not have any choice but to starve.
I got a logical reason to believe in God. Do you want to hear it?
sure [/b]
How about cost benefit?

Even if I were a non-believer, I would still want to live my life with Christian tenets of behavior. I think you do to. Then for just an extra effort of believing, I get the potential pay off someday of seeing my grandparents again. For just the little extra effort I will get to see everyone who I loved again after I die.

If I don't believe, I die, and that is it. Keep in mind that I would still want to live my life with Christian tenets of behavior, then the extra step of belief really is an insignifant investment for the possibility of an enormous pay off. If I'm wrong. OK. I really don't loose out.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the mind+May 8 2005, 09:33 AM--> ((R)evolution of the mind @ May 8 2005, 09:33 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 05:02 AM
I am helping. I am producing porn and racing cars. That is the product of my labor.
If people really like what you do and there's no shortage of labour power for production of the essentials of life, they might allow you to spend all your time making porn. But if everyone else is working their asses of to get people fed, clothed and housed, why should they feed, cloth and house you if you do not contribute to this? If you really do not want to contribute just a few hours a day, or few days a week, or one or two weeks a month, or some months a year to the common good, you could be given a small plot of land where to grow your own food. You're free from moral obligations to society then, but let's see if you have the time and energy to make porn anymore! [/b]
That is not commuism that you just described.

My contribution is porn and racing cars. I'm producing things that people will want to consume.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 8 2005, 04:01 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 8 2005, 04:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 8 2005, 06:57 AM

[email protected] 4 2005, 01:15 AM
One of your members, 313C7 iVi4RX, claims that any statement or belief not backed up by PROOF is illogical. i.e.: " You cannot prove it exists, as you cannot prove god exists and so you have no logical reason to believe in god."

Therefore, I ask you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those who take wage-paying jobs are slaves in capitalism.
Do you deny that wage-slavery exists? Also why should we prove it? Why don't you disprove it. Beyond reasonable doubt too.

There is also a difference between proving something for which there exists no objective evidence and proving something for which there does exist evidence.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god, but there is evidence that most people who take a wage-paying job are to some extent slaves under the present system. If welfare did not exist and a situation such as is wanted by many liberals and other minimalist statists occurs then they would be slaves to a far greater extent, because they would not have any choice but to starve.
I got a logical reason to believe in God. Do you want to hear it?
sure
How about cost benefit?

Even if I were a non-believer, I would still want to live my life with Christian tenets of behavior. I think you do to. Then for just an extra effort of believing, I get the potential pay off someday of seeing my grandparents again. For just the little extra effort I will get to see everyone who I loved again after I die.

If I don't believe, I die, and that is it. Keep in mind that I would still want to live my life with Christian tenets of behavior, then the extra step of belief really is an insignifant investment for the possibility of an enormous pay off. If I'm wrong. OK. I really don't loose out. [/b]
if the only reason to believe is to not go to hell then you will go to hell anyways, as i already explained in another topic.

"That is not commuism that you just described"
why not

[LSD]

Even if I were a non-believer, I would still want to live my life with Christian tenets of behavior.

Why?

Sexism, racism, anti-semtism, heterosexism, intolerance...

Do you really not want to have sex until you're married?
Do you really want to waste your time and money on Church?


Then for just an extra effort of believing, I get the potential pay off someday of seeing my grandparents again.

How so?

If Christianity is wrong ...it's wrong. Believing that it's true doesn't make it so!

Arguing that you should believe something because you'd like it to be so is an inherently ridiculous position.

It's like me "believing" that I'm the hereditary king of England because I'd like to rule Britain!


For just the little extra effort I will get to see everyone who I loved again after I die.

No you won't... you'll just delude yout self into thinking that you will.

Look at it this way. There are more nonChristians in the world than Christians, based purely on statistical majoritarianism, then, there is a greater chance that Christianity is wrong than that it is true. Therefore your belief in a Christian God will, more likely, anger a nonChristian God than satisfy a Christian one.

That means that even if there is a God, he probably isn't Christian and so you won't bennefit from your "little extra effort".

You see, even if a "God" really exists... he has nothing to do with religion!

Although we can't "prove" that God does not exist, we can prove that the Bible et al., were written by very mortal hands. Hence "believing" in such religions, even if there really is a God, doesn't help you "get in his good graces!"

...but, again, since there's no proof for any God, the obvious question is why believe at all?


If I don't believe, I die, and that is it.

Yes but if you do believe, you die and that is it.

Remember, if there is a God, your belief won't change that ...and if there isn't a God, your belief won't change that. Therefore you have to make the most rational choice you can make. And according to all the available evidence, there is no reason to believe in God.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 05:12 PM

Even if I were a non-believer, I would still want to live my life with Christian tenets of behavior.

Why?

Sexism, racism, anti-semtism, heterosexism, intolerance...

Do you really not want to have sex until you're married?
Do you really want to waste your time and money on Church?


Then for just an extra effort of believing, I get the potential pay off someday of seeing my grandparents again.

How so?

If Christianity is wrong ...it's wrong. Believing that it's true doesn't make it so!

Arguing that you should believe something because you'd like it to be so is an inherently ridiculous position.

It's like me "believing" that I'm the hereditary king of England because I'd like to rule Britain!


For just the little extra effort I will get to see everyone who I loved again after I die.

No you won't... you'll just delude yout self into thinking that you will.

Look at it this way. There are more nonChristians in the world than Christians, based purely on statistical majoritarianism, then, there is a greater chance that Christianity is wrong than that it is true. Therefore your belief in a Christian God will, more likely, anger a nonChristian God than satisfy a Christian one.

That means that even if there is a God, he probably isn't Christian and so you won't bennefit from your "little extra effort".

You see, even if a "God" really exists... he has nothing to do with religion!

Although we can't "prove" that God does not exist, we can prove that the Bible et al., were written by very mortal hands. Hence "believing" in such religions, even if there really is a God, doesn't help you "get in his good graces!"

...but, again, since there's no proof for any God, the obvious question is why believe at all?


If I don't believe, I die, and that is it.

Yes but if you do believe, you die and that is it.

Remember, if there is a God, your belief won't change that ...and if there isn't a God, your belief won't change that. Therefore you have to make the most rational choice you can make. And according to all the available evidence, there is no reason to believe in God.
Why?

It is good advise. Kindness, humility, and decent behavior is good advise regardless of religion. I'd do it even without religion.

I am gambling. I am gambling a small effort for a large potential pay off. The pay off is everlasting life in heaven. If I win the gamble I win big. If I loose, hey no big deal to me.

[bed_of_nails]

We actually agree on one thing.

I view religion as fate insurance.

"What if I am wrong and there is a god? Ehhh, I am covered!"

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:58 PM
We actually agree on one thing.

I view religion as fate insurance.

"What if I am wrong and there is a god? Ehhh, I am covered!"
I'm sorry I don't understand. "If there is a God you are covered"- I do't understand that concept. To be covered if there is a God you have to believe.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ®evolution of the mind+May 8 2005, 09:33 AM--> (®evolution of the mind @ May 8 2005, 09:33 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 05:02 AM
I am helping. I am producing porn and racing cars. That is the product of my labor.
If people really like what you do and there's no shortage of labour power for production of the essentials of life, they might allow you to spend all your time making porn. But if everyone else is working their asses of to get people fed, clothed and housed, why should they feed, cloth and house you if you do not contribute to this? If you really do not want to contribute just a few hours a day, or few days a week, or one or two weeks a month, or some months a year to the common good, you could be given a small plot of land where to grow your own food. You're free from moral obligations to society then, but let's see if you have the time and energy to make porn anymore! [/b]
Back to this. I don't recall anything in Marx about this. By any chance will this small plot of land to grow vegtables have barbwire around it? With machineguns pointing inside?

If not, I'll just drive the race car to the commune and take what I need.

[Enragé]

everyone shall recieve to his need, AND WORK TO HIS ABILITY!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:34 PM
everyone shall recieve to his need, AND WORK TO HIS ABILITY!
Who decides what is needed and who decides if someone has worked to his ability?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 9 2005, 03:50 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 9 2005, 03:50 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 03:34 PM
everyone shall recieve to his need, AND WORK TO HIS ABILITY!
Who decides what is needed and who decides if someone has worked to his ability? [/b]
I do.

I control my own labor. I know what I need.

I need lots of low profile and low drag tires.

I'll make porn when I'm able. Sometimes I'll be too busy racing. Don't forget I'm living on a piece or isolated property with NO barbwire around it, since it is not a concentration camp. I'll probably have to drive a lot to get what I need from the collective.

[KC]

Back to this. I don't recall anything in Marx about this. By any chance will this small plot of land to grow vegtables have barbwire around it? With machineguns pointing inside?

That has nothing to do AT ALL with Marxism

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:47 AM

Back to this. I don't recall anything in Marx about this. By any chance will this small plot of land to grow vegtables have barbwire around it? With machineguns pointing inside?

That has nothing to do AT ALL with Marxism
Well if I'm to be banned to a plot of land, what is to stop me from going to a collective and take what I need? Unless this plot of land has barbwire around it.

[KC]

whoever said anything about banning you to a plot of land? or not letting you take what you need?

[bed_of_nails]

I like Nascar because its funny to watch those idiots crash and burn to horrible firey deaths :)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:56 AM
whoever said anything about banning you to a plot of land? or not letting you take what you need?
I don't know , it was some commie. Will the commie who wants to ban me to ban me to a plot of land please help out this fellow and explain this to him?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:16 AM
I like Nascar because its funny to watch those idiots crash and burn to horrible firey deaths :)
I like to race cars because chicks dig it. The more crashes, the more chicks left for me.

[synthesis]

Good luck petitioning the automobile commune to build your lazy ass a race car. And the A/V commune to build you a video camera. I would also suspect that girls interested in porn would gravitate towards males able to please them the most, and something leads me to doubt you would be in this demographic.

To do what you want to do in communism, unless your ambitions amount to foraging and sleeping under the trees, you will require products of the labor of others. As labor is to be freely wielded, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to procure the necessities required for your intended pursuits unless you have proven that you have done something to deserve it.

That is, unless you're able to sweet-talk the communes out of it - and I wish you the best of luck with that. Hell, good luck getting the raw materials to make your own.

For the rest of us, we will have to amass a list of contributions worthy enough to prove we are worthy of the amenities we desire and the materials we need to take up the pastimes that appeal to us.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:52 PM
Good luck petitioning the automobile commune to build your lazy ass a race car. And the A/V commune to build you a video camera. I would also suspect that girls interested in porn would gravitate towards males able to please them the most, and something leads me to doubt you would be in this demographic.

To do what you want to do in communism, unless your ambitions amount to foraging and sleeping under the trees, you will require products of the labor of others. As labor is to be freely wielded, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to procure the necessities required for your intended pursuits unless you have proven that you have done something to deserve it.

That is, unless you're able to sweet-talk the communes out of it - and I wish you the best of luck with that. Hell, good luck getting the raw materials to make your own.

For the rest of us, we will have to amass a list of contributions worthy enough to prove we are worthy of the amenities we desire and the materials we need to take up the pastimes that appeal to us.
Sounds like you're just replacing one ruling class for another.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:52 PM
Good luck petitioning the automobile commune to build your lazy ass a race car. And the A/V commune to build you a video camera. I would also suspect that girls interested in porn would gravitate towards males able to please them the most, and something leads me to doubt you would be in this demographic.

To do what you want to do in communism, unless your ambitions amount to foraging and sleeping under the trees, you will require products of the labor of others. As labor is to be freely wielded, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to procure the necessities required for your intended pursuits unless you have proven that you have done something to deserve it.

That is, unless you're able to sweet-talk the communes out of it - and I wish you the best of luck with that. Hell, good luck getting the raw materials to make your own.

For the rest of us, we will have to amass a list of contributions worthy enough to prove we are worthy of the amenities we desire and the materials we need to take up the pastimes that appeal to us.
There will always be someone who wants my variety of porn. Have you seen some of the small endowed and ugly men banging hot babes? All I need is my audience.

Race car driving. Ever see NASCAR? Lots of people will want to consume my product, which is watching me drive fast.

I'm not taking, I'm giving.

[synthesis]

Sounds like you're just replacing one ruling class for another.

What?


There will always be someone who wants my variety of porn. Have you seen some of the small endowed and ugly men banging hot babes? All I need is my audience.

Race car driving. Ever see NASCAR? Lots of people will want to consume my product, which is watching me drive fast.

Communism is not a free market. The fact that you think everyone wants to see you driving cars and satisfying women is irrelevant if you can't convince the rest of the community that it's worth their time and effort to build you a car and assemble a videocamera for you.

You have to contribute somehow. If the requisite communes don't think that your race car driving or lady-sexing in and of themselves will be worth the time it takes to construct the necessary equipment, then you can sew clothes, build houses, or harvest grain in order to notify the communes that you deserve the amenities you desire.

Getting the women for your films, however, will be a different (and probably rather depressing) situation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Sounds like you're just replacing one ruling class for another.

What?

Instead of asking the capitalists for a job or for capital to start my own business, now I have to ask the workers for their goods which they may reject at their own whim.

So now I am a slave to them instead of to the capitalists. My situation has not improved.



Communism is not a free market. The fact that you think everyone wants to see you driving cars and satisfying women is irrelevant if you can't convince the rest of the community that it's worth their time and effort to build you a car and assemble a videocamera for you.

You have to contribute somehow. If the requisite communes don't think that your race car driving or lady-sexing in and of themselves will be worth the time it takes to construct the necessary equipment, then you can sew clothes, build houses, or harvest grain in order to notify the communes that you deserve the amenities you desire.

Getting the women for your films, however, will be a different (and probably rather depressing) situation.

Actually this sounds exactly like the free market: If I have something to sell that nobody wants, I'm going to go out of business. I've got to convince people that they need or want my product or service.

So, in your system, I've got to convince a given commune that I deserve their goods.

To get from them what I want, I have to give them something they want.

Big picture, there is no difference.

By the way, these two statements are not compatible:

1>From each based on ability, to each based on need

2>"The fact that you think everyone wants to see you driving cars and satisfying women is irrelevant if you can't convince the rest of the community that it's worth their time and effort to build you a car and assemble a videocamera for you."


If I think I need a video camera or a car, then according to statement 1 I should get it, so long as I do the work. But statement 2 says I'll only get the camera or the car if the workers want to give it to me.

Which is it?

Who determines need?

[synthesis]

Instead of asking the capitalists for a job or for capital to start my own business, now I have to ask the workers for their goods which they may reject at their own whim.

Horror of horrors! :o


My situation has not improved.

It certainly hasn't improved if you don't want to do the work necessary to justify the labor of others.

But you know what? If you really want that race car, you can put in some serious time farming or counseling autistic children. If the commune feels that you have made enough decent contributions to your society, then your request will be placed at a higher priority.

This is completely different from the free market or capitalist society. Right now, you can do practically anything as long as someone is willing to pay you for it; that money is then universally useable. A dollar earned through wildlife restoration and a dollar inherited from one's grandparents are completely equal.

Which deals with this...


To get from them what I want, I have to give them something they want.

You aren't catching on at all. As no one is dependent on capital to survive, they are free to distribute their labor to assist individuals whose work does not generate 'capital' but is still productive socially or culturally. If people like hearing the music you make, they will be induced to create the supplies you require to make more. If you prefer creating music that tends towards the avant-garde, you can still support your passion in other ways.

It is not a barter system. It is a system of free activity so long as you are able to convince those whose free activity you require to pursue your free activity to assist you. Your method of convincing them will often include an admirable record of serving your community.

If they know that your work has contributed to the overall pool from which they draw their food, clothing, and shelter, or their other amenities, they will provide you with that which you desire because their own lack of productivity would preclude other communes from sending them the supplies that they themselves seek after.

It is a system based on voluntary cooperation that all parties engage in because it will be in their own best interests to do so.


If I think I need a video camera or a car, then according to statement 1 I should get it, so long as I do the work. But statement 2 says I'll only get the camera or the car if the workers want to give it to me.

Which is it?

Who determines need?

'Need' is defined as the material objects necessary to live a healthy and dignified life. Health-related needs are universal - food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. Dignity-related needs will likely be a standard decided on by the community based on supply: fresh food is preferable to packaged food, but if the expenses of transporting fresh food to a particularly distant community prove prohibitive, then the food will likely be wrapped in plastic.

In other words, 'need' is defined first by objective requirements for survival, then by communal decision-making. Everything else desired by the individual is 'want', which is subjective and is determined by the individual, which means that the community as a whole has no overarching duty to satisfy them. But everyone has wants, so it's in all people's interests to see that wants are satisfied as that is what keeps the system moving.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:42 PM

Sounds like you're just replacing one ruling class for another.

What?


There will always be someone who wants my variety of porn. Have you seen some of the small endowed and ugly men banging hot babes? All I need is my audience.

Race car driving. Ever see NASCAR? Lots of people will want to consume my product, which is watching me drive fast.

Communism is not a free market. The fact that you think everyone wants to see you driving cars and satisfying women is irrelevant if you can't convince the rest of the community that it's worth their time and effort to build you a car and assemble a videocamera for you.

You have to contribute somehow. If the requisite communes don't think that your race car driving or lady-sexing in and of themselves will be worth the time it takes to construct the necessary equipment, then you can sew clothes, build houses, or harvest grain in order to notify the communes that you deserve the amenities you desire.

Getting the women for your films, however, will be a different (and probably rather depressing) situation.
Common. Horney guys don't want porn? All guys want porn. Getting women? Not a problem. Chicks dig guys with fast cars, ergo the race car. Plus women will WANT to make porn for the good of the commune. They will make a product that will make other members of the commune happy.

Ever see NASCAR? There are even more people who will watch me drive fast than in a porn.

My efforts are giving to the commune, not taking.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:42 PM

Sounds like you're just replacing one ruling class for another.

What?


There will always be someone who wants my variety of porn. Have you seen some of the small endowed and ugly men banging hot babes? All I need is my audience.

Race car driving. Ever see NASCAR? Lots of people will want to consume my product, which is watching me drive fast.

Communism is not a free market. The fact that you think everyone wants to see you driving cars and satisfying women is irrelevant if you can't convince the rest of the community that it's worth their time and effort to build you a car and assemble a videocamera for you.

You have to contribute somehow. If the requisite communes don't think that your race car driving or lady-sexing in and of themselves will be worth the time it takes to construct the necessary equipment, then you can sew clothes, build houses, or harvest grain in order to notify the communes that you deserve the amenities you desire.

Getting the women for your films, however, will be a different (and probably rather depressing) situation.
Why would I have to convince someone to give me something? It is no skin off thier nose? It is not like they are loosing out or getting cheated. It is not like I'm taking advantage of them. To do so, I would have to take something of value from them. There is no such thing in communism.

[bed_of_nails]

Disclosure: I am sorry I have stooped to this level of stupidity.

I think we should have a picture of AMIC and then a poll to see how many women on this board would actually do anything with him in front of a camera.

My theory on this is that they would be less inclined to do it in front of a camera, because that would be evidence they actually slept with him :)

[synthesis]

Why would I have to convince someone to give me something?

I honestly don't see how you could be asking me this question if you had read my post, but you obviously did.

You must convince the person whose labor can produce that which you desire that you are somehow worthy of that labor (i.e. that you have contributed labor of your own or will use the product to contribute labor in the future) because labor is voluntary in communism. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

[STI]

Oh, DM. You havn't caught on yet, have you?

You have to talk in caveman-talk.


Uuugh ooh ugh ugh grrrngh.

There. Now he's a communist.

[t_wolves_fan]

Instead of asking the capitalists for a job or for capital to start my own business, now I have to ask the workers for their goods which they may reject at their own whim.

Horror of horrors! :o

When you get down to it, is it any better to ask the workers? I mean either way you have to go hat in hand to request something from someone.

What's the difference?

And in capitalism, you still have to get the workers to work for you anyway. No worker is required to work for you.



It certainly hasn't improved if you don't want to do the work necessary to justify the labor of others.

I haven't done any work? Do you realize how much work is required to invent a product or start a business?

Are you under the impression that buildings remodel themselves, capital shows up in unmarked suitcases, and business licenses can be obtained by waiting in line and forking over $20?


But you know what? If you really want that race car, you can put in some serious time farming or counseling autistic children. If the commune feels that you have made enough decent contributions to your society, then your request will be placed at a higher priority.

Can you guarantee I'll get my racecar though?


This is completely different from the free market or capitalist society. Right now, you can do practically anything as long as someone is willing to pay you for it; that money is then universally useable. A dollar earned through wildlife restoration and a dollar inherited from one's grandparents are completely equal.

Sounds like people have individual freedom in this system then, so I fail to see the problem.


You aren't catching on at all. As no one is dependent on capital to survive, they are free to distribute their labor to assist individuals whose work does not generate 'capital' but is still productive socially or culturally. If people like hearing the music you make, they will be induced to create the supplies you require to make more. If you prefer creating music that tends towards the avant-garde, you can still support your passion in other ways.

Which is no different than what we have now. People like you music, they pay you for it. Same thing. Your music doesn't sell, you wait tables to support yourself. Same deal.


It is not a barter system. It is a system of free activity so long as you are able to convince those whose free activity you require to pursue your free activity to assist you. Your method of convincing them will often include an admirable record of serving your community.

What if I am travelling? Do I get a printed receipt of all the good deeds I have done so that when I am at the supermarket 500 miles away, where nobody knows how useful or useless I am, I can prove that I am indeed useful to society? If not, how do I convince people who know nothing about my usefulness or uselessness to give me the things I need?


If they know that your work has contributed to the overall pool from which they draw their food, clothing, and shelter, or their other amenities, they will provide you with that which you desire because their own lack of productivity would preclude other communes from sending them the supplies that they themselves seek after.

So it is a barter system, really. You're trading your productivity for theirs.


It is a system based on voluntary cooperation that all parties engage in because it will be in their own best interests to do so.

Which is what we have now.


'Need' is defined as the material objects necessary to live a healthy and dignified life. Health-related needs are universal - food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. Dignity-related needs will likely be a standard decided on by the community based on supply: fresh food is preferable to packaged food, but if the expenses of transporting fresh food to a particularly distant community prove prohibitive, then the food will likely be wrapped in plastic.

In other words, 'need' is defined first by objective requirements for survival, then by communal decision-making. Everything else desired by the individual is 'want', which is subjective and is determined by the individual, which means that the community as a whole has no overarching duty to satisfy them. But everyone has wants, so it's in all people's interests to see that wants are satisfied as that is what keeps the system moving.

See my post in my thread about the central economic question.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:10 PM

Instead of asking the capitalists for a job or for capital to start my own business, now I have to ask the workers for their goods which they may reject at their own whim.

Horror of horrors! :o
You want a society run on whims ?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:47 AM

Why would I have to convince someone to give me something?

I honestly don't see how you could be asking me this question if you had read my post, but you obviously did.

You must convince the person whose labor can produce that which you desire that you are somehow worthy of that labor (i.e. that you have contributed labor of your own or will use the product to contribute labor in the future) because labor is voluntary in communism. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
I don't see why I have to convince someone to exchange labor, because don't you see it is a VALUE EXCHANGE.

I give something worthy and get something back worthy. Not only that I have to barter for it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:43 AM
Disclosure: I am sorry I have stooped to this level of stupidity.

I think we should have a picture of AMIC and then a poll to see how many women on this board would actually do anything with him in front of a camera.

My theory on this is that they would be less inclined to do it in front of a camera, because that would be evidence they actually slept with him :)
Women will gladly give thier labor for the collective. Thier labor is to be infront of the camera with me. It is for good of society, so it will not be just for me, it will be for the benefit of society. This product will make lots of people happy and they will want to consume it. Don't forget I will be a race car hero. That should count for something in attractiveness. I don't even have to be a good driver. I just have to race the car.