Organ donation?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?

[Anarchist Freedom]

I dont think people understand property. Obviously clothes and misc items in your home are yours as no one is able to walk in and just take your stuff. It usually means that the means of production and other things are owned by all.

[Zingu]

Considering an "ideal" Communist society, religous beliefs would be gone. I think people would be more inclined to donating their body when they die. I mean, why not? It could be used as fertilizer for crops, for science, saving other peoples' lives. And, once your dead, you don't need that lump of flesh!

[Sabocat]

Organ donation? That's easy.

We'd just go to the special building where we'd keep all the die hard capitalists, and cut one out of them.

Seems simple enough to me.


What a stupid question.

[RedAnarchist]

Youre blurring the lines between private and personal property. Personal property would be things like your organs, your clothes etc. Private property is usally land or buildings.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:11 AM
How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?
You can have mine. When I've finished with them.

[Taiga]

Oh, ahhh_money_is_comfort, you may take mine if you want. When I die, of course. Though they both aren't healthy :(
As for organ donations, I think it's the problem of the capitalist society. Because only in a capitalist society may exist such thing as human organ market. Everything sells, right?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

I would like to point out that when people die as a result of poor organ performce due to disease or damage. Thus transplatable organs are not easy to find. That is why there are lots of transplants from LIVING people.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:06 PM
Organ donation? That's easy.

We'd just go to the special building where we'd keep all the die hard capitalists, and cut one out of them.

Seems simple enough to me.


What a stupid question.
Then your next.

If you notice, that when it come down to that, the revolution is over, and 'that is not communism'.

Good job commrade.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 16 2005, 03:20 PM--> (NoXion @ May 16 2005, 03:20 PM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 08:11 AM
How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?
You can have mine. When I've finished with them. [/b]
That is exactly why organ donation is difficult. When your done with your organs, your organs are done supporting viable life.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 16 2005, 12:56 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 16 2005, 12:56 PM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 03:06 PM
Organ donation? That's easy.

We'd just go to the special building where we'd keep all the die hard capitalists, and cut one out of them.

Seems simple enough to me.


What a stupid question.
Then your next.

If you notice, that when it come down to that, the revolution is over, and 'that is not communism'.

Good job commrade. [/b]
Obviously you have trouble with sarcasm.



Dolt.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+May 16 2005, 05:03 PM--> (Disgustapated @ May 16 2005, 05:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:56 PM

[email protected] 16 2005, 03:06 PM
Organ donation? That's easy.

We'd just go to the special building where we'd keep all the die hard capitalists, and cut one out of them.

Seems simple enough to me.


What a stupid question.
Then your next.

If you notice, that when it come down to that, the revolution is over, and 'that is not communism'.

Good job commrade.
Obviously you have trouble with sarcasm.



Dolt. [/b]
Then please stop trolling.

I didn't know there was personal property in communism? Can someone please advise?

[Sabocat]

Personal property is not private property.

[Professor Moneybags]

I dont think people understand property.

I don't think you do either.

My body is mine thus my labour is mine thus my money is mine and thus the factory I bought with that money is mine too.


Obviously clothes and misc items in your home are yours as no one is able to walk in and just take your stuff. It usually means that the means of production and other things are owned by all.

By that definition, there is no difference between a shovel and a factory. Why should "means of production" be any different from ordinary property ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:11 AM
How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?
Right to someone else's money. Right to someone else's house. Right to someone else's labour...

In a need-based economy, I'm sure the "right to someone else's organs" will show up sooner or later.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:07 PM
Youre blurring the lines between private and personal property.
There is no difference.

[T_SP]

My body is mine thus my labour is mine thus my money is mine and thus the factory I bought with that money is mine too.

But the people you need to exploit in the pursuit of profit are not! The profit you make is not yours therefore the money you make in your factory that buys your huge house,car etc. is not yours! Therefore the means of production are not yours!


Please Prof, enlighten us, and explain why the shirt on your back belongs to you but the pavement under your feet doesn't!

[Professor Moneybags]

But the people you need to exploit in the pursuit of profit are not!

Exploitation is not needed. Nor is what you describe exploitation.


Please Prof, enlighten us, and explain why the shirt on your back belongs to you but the pavement under your feet doesn't!

It does.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2005, 08:40 PM

But the people you need to exploit in the pursuit of profit are not!

Exploitation is not needed. Nor is what you describe exploitation.


No? Do you really want me to prove you wrong?

[NovelGentry]

By that definition, there is no difference between a shovel and a factory. Why should "means of production" be any different from ordinary property ?

It's not, and anyone here trying to tell you otherwise is wrong.


There is no difference.

This is, however, where you are wrong. The nature of personal vs. private property is a matter of the social condition set fourth by that property. Materially speaking there is no difference between a shovel or a factory if both are built by the same labor (exploited or free labor). Materially speaking they are both products, materially speaking they both contribute to further production, and socially speaking they can both be personal and they can both be private.


The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. -- Karl Marx

The nature of those products that are appropriated is not deemed by the product itself, but the nature in which it is appropriated and the social condition that it creates -- the haves and the have nots. This is of course the private nature of private property, and of course, a shovel can maintain this condition, any such necessity can maintain this condition. It is a condition where those who are in need of the product are forced to acquire it's use from those who are in control (in capitalism, those who own the product). That is the nature of private property, and that condition is what makes it private. It can exist for anything from factories, to food, to shovels, to a hammer, to clothing, etc.


Exploitation is not needed. Nor is what you describe exploitation.

No doubt whether or not exploitation is needed depends on whether you consider what we describe exploitation.

Exploitation maintains a very broad definition. In it's broadest terms it is defined as employing the greatest possible advantage, in more specific terms it is employing that advantage to a group of people or a single person.

Exploiting someones labor would then be employing the greatest possible advantage from that labor, in capitalist terms, consistently striving to get the most profit possible without watching the whole thing crumble. The weakest argument which is most frequently presented, and no doubt is upheld by you, Moneybags, is that there is an agreement between worker and employer, that the contract is mutual, and thus whatever advantage, whatever profit, is gained from that labor is well understood and well accepted by the worker. But how many people actually THINK about that when they're getting a job? Or are they just thinking... "I need money!"

Furthermore, the condition of private property determines that the have nots, the working class, are FORCED (because there is no other option) to acquire what they need from the haves. Whatever contract you previously deemed mutual is most far from it.

Of course you say, but the man with the factory worked to make that money, and then he bought the factory. Well yes, and if he bought the factory and that was that, there is no exploitation. He could even use it to create a non-profit business, and there would be no exploitation. The problem is of course when he derives profit from this acquisition. No matter how well he pays his workers, the only means by which he is able to build that profit is by charging more for their labor than what he gives them in return. That means that the value of their labor, what one person is willing to pay for what their labor produces, exceeds the value which the capitalist is going to pay them for their labor.

Of course you say, it is not only their labor. There are raw materials, the building itself which was the cost of someone elses labor. Indeed, you are right. The problem is that ALL of these products were built in exactly the same way. What you are left with now is a system where the final product is built up on extreme employment of advantage. That is to say, those who pay the workers to mine the raw materials employ the greatest possible advantage in their value exchanges to ensure the greatest profit. From there the factory owner who utilizes those raw materials employs the same advantage to his exchanges, and so on and so on.

Why is this NOT exploitation? Does the capitalist not benefit MORE from the exchange than the worker? More, does he not benefit from THEIR labor alone? Not only does he keep more of the use value of the product, but he contributes NOTHING so little to it's creation. Even the factory which he had bought was "skimmed," so that in contrast to the capitalist who owned the business that built the factory, the workers there too received far less than the value of their labor.

In no single transaction was the FULL value of the labor power granted to those who actually labored in the production of the product. In every instance, at every division of that products creation, at every cycle of reproduction of the means of production, of the raw materials, for each minute step where one needs a "business" to supply whatever the product or necessity is, someone other than the laborer has employed the greatest possible advantage to the exchange of their labor for money. It is not merely exploitation, it is SUPER exploitation.

[Publius]

I dont think people understand property. Obviously clothes and misc items in your home are yours as no one is able to walk in and just take your stuff. It usually means that the means of production and other things are owned by all.

But your body is a means of production.

Is it collectively owned?

[NovelGentry]

Is it collectively owned?

Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:49 PM




Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.

Hilarious.

So you're telling me that if I live by myself in a secluded area, fashion my own tools, grow my own food, hunt, fish, and generally subsist, I am STILL somehow supported by the labor of others?

You say that I would die in my youth? What if my parents lived this way?

If I don't own my body, how am I free? If I'm not free, what am I? A slave?

Can we equate communism with slavery then?

[Publius]

And if labor forms a web, if you will, as you suppose, can't it also be said that all of society is depending on me and my labor, and that I own all of society?

Sure, it's quite a stretch to think that one person controls of all society, but using our web here, we could show any single laboror could bring down massive portions of the metaphorical web, meaning that laborer effectively controls that portion of the web.

Does this mean that, instead of the individual serving society, society serves the individual, for without the (Any) individual, society as a whole would be altered, in at least a very minor form, meaning that the construct of society is truly dependent fully on every single individual, and not on society as whole, or as a collection of individuals?

[NovelGentry]

So you're telling me that if I live by myself in a secluded area, fashion my own tools, grow my own food, hunt, fish, and generally subsist, I am STILL somehow supported by the labor of others?

Were you raised by wolves? How did you live through infancy?


You say that I would die in my youth? What if my parents lived this way?

If your parents expended labor to bring you up, then you are of course supported by the labor of your parents. How were your parents brought up? What about their parents?


If I don't own my body, how am I free? If I'm not free, what am I? A slave?

Who said you didn't own your own body?


Can we equate communism with slavery then?

We can equate communism to a realization of the social nature of humans, of human production, of human sustenance. Far too many idiots like you would prefer communal ownership means everyone except for you owns everything , it makes your argument a lot easier.

I never expected you, or any other capitalist to be able to wrap their head around social ownership, so I'm not surprised when people think that somehow they are the only slave and everyone else is their slave master. You are so ingrained with class society, that you cannot even conceive of a system where no one is a slave, and no one is a slave master. You absolutely have to find out who owns your body, who owns the factories, who owns the land.... no one owns it and everyone owns it, get over it.

EDIT: reworded where the "except" part was for clarity.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:03 PM





Were you raised by wolves? How did you live through infancy?

Parents.



If your parents expended labor to bring you up, then you are of course supported by the labor of your parents. How were your parents brought up? What about their parents?

And what if we indeed manage to work our way back through history and find that my ancestors and I have always been totally self-sufficient, does that change anything?

Does that grant me the right to be excluded from this communal society?

And tell me, why does 'labor' matter so much? I never got the whole theory of labor value, it just never made any sense to me.



Who said you didn't own your own body?

Your body is a means of production, the means of production are collectively owned.

Do that math.



We can equate communism to a realization of the social nature of humans, of human production, of human sustenance. Far too many idiots like you would prefer communal ownership means everyone except for you owns everything , it makes your argument a lot easier.

I never expected you, or any other capitalist to be able to wrap their head around social ownership, so I'm not surprised when people think that somehow they are the only slave and everyone else is their slave master. You are so ingrained with class society, that you cannot even conceive of a system where no one is a slave, and no one is a slave master. You absolutely have to find out who owns your body, who owns the factories, who owns the land.... no one owns it and everyone owns it, get over it.

EDIT: reworded where the "except" part was for clarity.

It's not that I don't see it, it's that I find it repugnant. I find it horrific.

Tell me, how am I not society's slave?

How am I not subservient to every whim of society?

What is the difference between an individual in a communist society and chattel?

And you assume this is ingrained in human nature, can you prove this? Why isn't the natural advancement of humanity (The capitalist world) the reflection of innate humanity?

[NovelGentry]

Does that grant me the right to be excluded from this communal society?

You don't need lineage, just walk away.


And tell me, why does 'labor' matter so much? I never got the whole theory of labor value, it just never made any sense to me.

This isn't specifically labor, nor does it tie in so much with the labory theory of value. What is presented here is a mere realization of the actual relationships between humans in society. There need not be any formality to it, one nee not trace where every bit of one's labor goes to find out who is dependent on who and vice versa. It is only because you cannot drop this foolish idea of slave/master that you feel there is some necessity for this, that you feel you must somehow prove your freedom from society. If on some level you did not realize these relationships were real, you wouldn't be trying to sit here proving how you are the "complete individual" free from having ever taken advantage of and free from ever having been taken advantage of another member of society.

Like I said, get over it.


Your body is a means of production, the means of production are collectively owned.

There's no math to be done.


It's not that I don't see it, it's that I find it repugnant. I find it horrific.

Tell me, how am I not society's slave?

I'm quite certain you don't see it. If you had any understanding of what equality meant the word slave would not even have to enter into this discussion. You are equal, you cannot be equal if you are a slave, because to be a slave someone else has to be your master.


How am I not subservient to every whim of society?

You are always subservent to every whim of society, whether you like to believe you are or not. That is impossible to get away from regardless of the system, unless of course society did not exist.


What is the difference between an individual in a communist society and chattel?

Individuals in communist society are equal.


And you assume this is ingrained in human nature, can you prove this?

I do not assume it's ingrained in human nature, to assume such a thing would be to deny the existence of my own thoughts. I assume it's ingrained into you, and for that matter every other blabbering imbicile who comes on here and hears the word "equality" and all the sudden thinks slavery.

It was brought up by that guy who wants to be a porn star but doesn't have the big enough dick or whatever. He couldn't understand how he could have control over his own labor, and yet other people did not have to supply him with race cars, tires for the cars, cameras for making porn, etc. NO ONE HAS TO DO ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THEY DO.


Why isn't the natural advancement of humanity (The capitalist world) the reflection of innate humanity?

The same reason feudalism wasn't. It has nothing to do with "innate humanity." This is not about the will of humans or even the nature of humans other than that we produce to survive, and as Marx would say, then the first act of man is of course to produce so that he can make more acts, and this is history. If we do not satisfy ourselves as material beings, we do not move on. Before we can think about anything else, we must first be alive, and in order to be alive we must have sustained the production of our material necessity -- Thus, before human nature or will comes into any of this, we must first recognize the advancement of the productive forces that keeps us here, how we as individuals and how our society relates to those forces, how we manage them, how they maintain society as a whole.

I do not argue that communism is a system at the heart of every individual. It is a system that will come about, just as feudalism did, just as capitalism did, by the advancement of these means and thus by changes in our relationship to them, and thus our shared relationship to one another through them. You and I have no say in this, nor does anyone.

[Publius]

You don't need lineage, just walk away.

Sounds great.





This isn't specifically labor, nor does it tie in so much with the labory theory of value. What is presented here is a mere realization of the actual relationships between humans in society. There need not be any formality to it, one nee not trace where every bit of one's labor goes to find out who is dependent on who and vice versa. It is only because you cannot drop this foolish idea of slave/master that you feel there is some necessity for this, that you feel you must somehow prove your freedom from society. If on some level you did not realize these relationships were real, you wouldn't be trying to sit here proving how you are the "complete individual" free from having ever taken advantage of and free from ever having been taken advantage of another member of society.

Like I said, get over it.

I'm not denying that there are relationships between people in society, that's obvious, I'm denying that the relationships progress in the manner you describe.

Example, why is the collective relationship better than that of a capitalist and a worker?

They both achieve roughly the same thing, but we find them to be qualitively different.


I'm quite certain you don't see it. If you had any understanding of what equality meant the word slave would not even have to enter into this discussion. You are equal, you cannot be equal if you are a slave, because to be a slave someone else has to be your master.

Call me skeptic, I just don't think this a) likely b) possible or c) desirable

I don't think everyone can be equal, because everyone isn't equal in terms of qualities, characteristics, personality or numerous other traits.

Tell me, why is equality desirable?



You are always subservent to every whim of society, whether you like to believe you are or not. That is impossible to get away from regardless of the system, unless of course society did not exist.

How is impossible to get away from the whims of society in a libertarian state designed to do just that?


Individuals in communist society are equal.

Equal to chattel, right.


I do not assume it's ingrained in human nature, to assume such a thing would be to deny the existence of my own thoughts. I assume it's ingrained into you, and for that matter every other blabbering imbicile who comes on here and hears the word "equality" and all the sudden thinks slavery.

It was brought up by that guy who wants to be a porn star but doesn't have the big enough dick or whatever. He couldn't understand how he could have control over his own labor, and yet other people did not have to supply him with race cars, tires for the cars, cameras for making porn, etc. NO ONE HAS TO DO ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THEY DO.

Ahh, abuse, very constructive.

I thought you commies were for equality and treating people nicely and all that shit?



The same reason feudalism wasn't. It has nothing to do with "innate humanity." This is not about the will of humans or even the nature of humans other than that we produce to survive, and as Marx would say, then the first act of man is of course to produce so that he can make more acts, and this is history. If we do not satisfy ourselves as material beings, we do not move on. Before we can think about anything else, we must first be alive, and in order to be alive we must have sustained the production of our material necessity -- Thus, before human nature or will comes into any of this, we must first recognize the advancement of the productive forces that keeps us here, how we as individuals and how our society relates to those forces, how we manage them, how they maintain society as a whole.

I do not argue that communism is a system at the heart of every individual. It is a system that will come about, just as feudalism did, just as capitalism did, by the advancement of these means and thus by changes in our relationship to them, and thus our shared relationship to one another through them. You and I have no say in this, nor does anyone.

Can you quantify this?

WHY is communism the natural evolution? What makes it so? God? How can humans be programmed when a programmer doesn't exist?

How can you know communism is the next stage, not nihilism, or back to fuedalism or something?

[NovelGentry]

Example, why is the collective relationship better than that of a capitalist and a worker?

They both achieve roughly the same thing, but we find them to be qualitively different.

One may find that the collective relationship creates equality amongst the individuals where the capitalist and worker relationship is completely dependent on the capitalist having something the worker needs and does not have, if that was not the case, the worker would have no reason to sell his labor.

The question of "better" obviously implies some moral argument, which is something I generally don't bother giving for why communism will happen. Communism isn't going to happen cause it's "better" or "right."


Call me skeptic, I just don't think this a) likely b) possible or c) desirable

I don't think everyone can be equal, because everyone isn't equal in terms of qualities, characteristics, personality or numerous other traits.

Tell me, why is equality desirable?

At least your admitting now that not everyone under capitalism is equal.

I don't feel one has to be equal in terms of qualities, characteristics, personality, etc, in order to maintain socio-economic equality, which is of course the equality we talk about. There are and probably always will be aspects of human existence that are out of our control, that no matter how hard we try, we are unable to make people equal. Nor should we seek to have equal (and thus monotonous) personalities, characteristics, and qualities. I'm not sure anyone would want to live in such a bland world.

Socio-economic equality, however, is completely within our control. It is something we can do, furthermore, the inequality is a construct we uphold long after we've acquired the ability to do away with it.

Equality is never desirable for those who are on the top of an unequal system. More than it being desirable though, it is not something we can really avoid if we are going to continue along the path of science and technology which we currently have. Eventually there becomes no reason to maintain the property relations we do and attempting to do so may even become detrimental to society as a whole.


How is impossible to get away from the whims of society in a libertarian state designed to do just that?

Society outnumbers the individual -- if society wants any individual or minority portion of itself to do something, it will ensure they do. This is outside of law, morality, whatever. It is simply a mater of force.


Ahh, abuse, very constructive.

I thought you commies were for equality and treating people nicely and all that shit?

Where the hell did I ever say a damn thing about treating people nicely? I don't know why you idiots always have to assume there is some moral justification for this, and I'm not sure why a moral justification for socio-economic equality has to equate to "treating people nicely." When you act like idiots, I will treat you as such.


Can you quantify this?

WHY is communism the natural evolution? What makes it so? God? How can humans be programmed when a programmer doesn't exist?

How can you know communism is the next stage, not nihilism, or back to fuedalism or something?

For the billionth time, it has nothing to do with humans being programmed, this is not about human nature or even human desire. It is about technological progression, the changes in material conditions that allow our society to advance as they have, and will allow it to advance towards what we are talking about.

Capitalism drives towards increasing profits right? Profit means lowering production costs. This means, lower wage, more efficient and cheap productive methods (machines if possible). Increase the amount of labor a single person can do by aiding them with a machine. So they advance technology. Technology makes things easier, cheaper, faster to produce, until one day production cost is essentially 0, with so few people working to make it possible, that everyone has moved into a total services industry. The job market is saturated there, prices drive down as service becomes more expensive than the product and one day we are all just sitting there paying one another to make each others coffee.

There is no sustainability in a system that seeks to destroy everything that is fundamental to that system. Destroy workers jobs with machines. Destroy consumers if you destroy workers (no money made is no money spent). Destroy production costs to maximize profit. Destroy wage to maximize profit. Destroy consumer spending if you destroy producer wages (no money made is no money spent).

How exactly do you believe capitalism CAN last forever? Unless technological advancement is destroyed in full every so many decades you move beyond the point where the system makes sense, plain and simple. And along with the system flies out it's property relations, because at the point everything can be made so quickly, cheaply, and efficiently, there is no more need to maintain private ownership.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:30 PM







One may find that the collective relationship creates equality amongst the individuals where the capitalist and worker relationship is completely dependent on the capitalist having something the worker needs and does not have, if that was not the case, the worker would have no reason to sell his labor.

The question of "better" obviously implies some moral argument, which is something I generally don't bother giving for why communism will happen. Communism isn't going to happen cause it's "better" or "right."

How does a collective relationship create equality? It breeds dependancy and apathy, and by proxy, derision and inequality.

And the capitalist/worker relationship isn't as one-sided as you make it out to be. The worker very obviously has something the capitalist wants as well.

And it's probably best you don't try to use moral terms.




At least your admitting now that not everyone under capitalism is equal.

I don't feel one has to be equal in terms of qualities, characteristics, personality, etc, in order to maintain socio-economic equality, which is of course the equality we talk about. There are and probably always will be aspects of human existence that are out of our control, that no matter how hard we try, we are unable to make people equal. Nor should we seek to have equal (and thus monotonous) personalities, characteristics, and qualities. I'm not sure anyone would want to live in such a bland world.

Socio-economic equality, however, is completely within our control. It is something we can do, furthermore, the inequality is a construct we uphold long after we've acquired the ability to do away with it.

Equality is never desirable for those who are on the top of an unequal system. More than it being desirable though, it is not something we can really avoid if we are going to continue along the path of science and technology which we currently have. Eventually there becomes no reason to maintain the property relations we do and attempting to do so may even become detrimental to society as a whole.

So tell me, should everyone be equal in regards to the labor they put in, or equal to everyone else, regardless of labor?

Either one is inherently unequal, in that either you are payed relative to your work, therefore some accumulate more wealth, or that you have the same wealth, regardless of work.

Both some unequal and unfair in different regards.



Society outnumbers the individual -- if society wants any individual or minority portion of itself to do something, it will ensure they do. This is outside of law, morality, whatever. It is simply a mater of force.


Might makes right, some society.


Where the hell did I ever say a damn thing about treating people nicely? I don't know why you idiots always have to assume there is some moral justification for this, and I'm not sure why a moral justification for socio-economic equality has to equate to "treating people nicely." When you act like idiots, I will treat you as such.

Is it like a tenant of communism, that you have to be an asshole?

Honestly, I've yet to talk to a commie I enjoyed talking to.


For the billionth time, it has nothing to do with humans being programmed, this is not about human nature or even human desire. It is about technological progression, the changes in material conditions that allow our society to advance as they have, and will allow it to advance towards what we are talking about.

Capitalism drives towards increasing profits right? Profit means lowering production costs. This means, lower wage, more efficient and cheap productive methods (machines if possible). Increase the amount of labor a single person can do by aiding them with a machine. So they advance technology. Technology makes things easier, cheaper, faster to produce, until one day production cost is essentially 0, with so few people working to make it possible, that everyone has moved into a total services industry. The job market is saturated there, prices drive down as service becomes more expensive than the product and one day we are all just sitting there paying one another to make each others coffee.

There is no sustainability in a system that seeks to destroy everything that is fundamental to that system. Destroy workers jobs with machines. Destroy consumers if you destroy workers (no money made is no money spent). Destroy production costs to maximize profit. Destroy wage to maximize profit. Destroy consumer spending if you destroy producer wages (no money made is no money spent).

How exactly do you believe capitalism CAN last forever? Unless technological advancement is destroyed in full every so many decades you move beyond the point where the system makes sense, plain and simple. And along with the system flies out it's property relations, because at the point everything can be made so quickly, cheaply, and efficiently, there is no more need to maintain private ownership.

How can capitalism last forever? Very simple really, this point of optimum production can never be reached. What, in the entire course of human history, leads you to believe there will be a time when the economy is running so absolutely perfectly, it cannot be improved upon and requires no human effort?

Has technology made our lives easier up to this point? Not really. We still work long hours and still work for wages.

You're leaving out a part of the equation. You mention how technology will increase production; it will, but you leave out how technology will increase demand. If we assume they stay at roughly equal levels, there's no telling how long it could last. We could continue producing newer, better, bigger goods until we invariably run out of resources and die.

I think humanity will die before any such point of production is reached, simply for the fact that humans manage to fuck everything up eventually.

[NovelGentry]

How does a collective relationship create equality? It breeds dependancy and apathy, and by proxy, derision and inequality.

I see no problem with collective dependency, most of us are already far too dependent on a system that doesn't even keep us in mind. Where you get apath, derision and inequality from... I'm not sure, apparently because you say it makes it so.


And the capitalist/worker relationship isn't as one-sided as you make it out to be. The worker very obviously has something the capitalist wants as well.

Unfortunately the worker has no means to survive outside of his dependence on what the capitalist has. The capitalist has what he, and the worker both need to survive. Land, the means to work the land, the means to build proper shelter, the means make proper clothing. Unless you're gonna sit here and vouch that we can all become wood-dwellers (some lifestyle primitivist collective that you'd like to see the world convert to maybe), there is no means for the working class to do so.

Even if we were to find land that we could hand farm and hunt/gather food, is is not OUR land, and the risk of it's loss looms over head every day.

The capitalist on the other hand has the land, has the means, or at least the other means which he could already sell for land and the means, and in turn could survive quite easily off his own labor. He has the machinery to make his labor reasonable and efficient to sustain not only himself, but a family. The land he acquires is his land, and regardless of how excessive it is, any use of that land by anyone else is something he has every right to prevent from happening, and no doubt would do so as long as he could make some extra bucks off you by employing you to work that land. That is, of course, what he does.


And it's probably best you don't try to use moral terms.

I have absolutely no qualms about using them, but it's unnecessary to make a point. Inequality is not a feeling you have for someone, it is measurable. The means by which the system works and the means by which exploitation occurs is measurable. The way in which this system will be overcome is measurable.

Pity is not.


So tell me, should everyone be equal in regards to the labor they put in, or equal to everyone else, regardless of labor?

Under communism all should be equal regardless of labor. While the material conditions that create the class antagonisms we see today, and while the remaining generations who sustain those class antagonisms are in existence, there would be another far more formal and objective means which we measure equal production for consumption.


Either one is inherently unequal, in that either you are payed relative to your work, therefore some accumulate more wealth, or that you have the same wealth, regardless of work.

Well no, they are not inherently unequal. And again you make my point about NEEDING exploitation clear.

No one HAS to work under communism. To be unequal one group would have to work while another would be allowed to freeload. You work completely according to your will. If you do not choose to work, you do not have to, thus there is nothing inequal about it. If you feel you're being taken advantage of, STOP WORKING.

Everyone is free to not work if they choose.


Might makes right, some society.

I never said anything about it being right. Nor did I say anything about this being the way communism worked. I said that this exists REGARDLESS of what form society takes, whether it is "right" or "wrong" is a completely different question. Might makes what it wants, period.


Is it like a tenant of communism, that you have to be an asshole?

No, just utterly realistic.


How can capitalism last forever? Very simple really, this point of optimum production can never be reached. What, in the entire course of human history, leads you to believe there will be a time when the economy is running so absolutely perfectly, it cannot be improved upon and requires no human effort?

"The economy" doesn't have to run perfectly. At no point can capitalism run perfectly, assuming you define perfectly as having equal production/consumption of goods and services. There is always overproduction, underconsumption, or overconsumption and underproduction. So "the economy" that is in play now will never be perfect.

What I propose is not that it has to be perfect, rather that it's productive capacity overcomes the mechancism and the principles upon which the current economy is constructed. This is why capitalism came into existence -- historically speaking there is an extremely plentiful example of such productive capacity overcoming the human will. Given that capitalism actually seeks to advance technology and the productive forces to expand as much as possible, there doesn't see much that shows otherwise.


Has technology made our lives easier up to this point? Not really. We still work long hours and still work for wages.

You're trying to make this far to simple. Of course we work long hours... sometimes people work double shifts making coffee! They still work for wages too, why wouldn't they? There is still private property is there not? But what happened to all the textile factories that used to exist near my home town? What happened to the 8 year old children working 14 hours a day alongside their mothers?

They moved. They moved to less advance nations/regions. Places that if you went to now, you may think was the US 90+ years ago. Places that in 50 years will probably look quite similar to the way the US looks now. That is what capitalism does, it advances things.

Do accountants have the same hardships before now with all the computer software they can use?

What about engineers? Are they facing all the same problems modelling their work on paper before the advent of 3D/Cad software?

No doubt bio-chem and pharmeceutical work hasn't gotten any easier. Not like we mapped out human DNA or anything.

What about the cost of producing much of these things? Microchips, even plastic casings for devices? What about 3D printer technology, what will happen when it has advanced? What will the cost of printing iPods be? How bout the cost of creating music and distributing it? No doubt software has become more expensive too... oh... open source. Surely it costs the same to build a house now... nope, that's cheaper too. Well what about energy? -- well, can't win everything, there are still some places that profit by staying in the dark ages.

The point is of course that we are still not there yet, if we were, we'd already see these property relations obsoleted. But you can watch the capitalist grasp at the idea of private property in the face of new technology. Look up the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and check out some of the subsequent cases it spawned.


You're leaving out a part of the equation. You mention how technology will increase production; it will, but you leave out how technology will increase demand. If we assume they stay at roughly equal levels, there's no telling how long it could last. We could continue producing newer, better, bigger goods until we invariably run out of resources and die.

No, the problem is that I looked at all of the equation, and unlike you I've already accounted for the fact that in order for the demand to increase people still have to have the money to buy it, and in order for that to be maintained companies can't just produce newer, better, bigger -- because the newer, the better, and the bigger they get, the less people are maintaining a role in making them.

It is not a single product that advances, but all products, side by side, and they feed each other. The bourgeoisie makes this their way, they make they very things that destroy/replace their labor force and thus destroy/replace their markets. They make computers, and they want to sell computers... hell, they sell them to each other. But now computers replace 10 workers... shame. Computer creates more precise models with amazing and blazingly fast floating point calculations... so they say, well why not get the computers to control the cuts/holes.... computers now replace manufacturing workers.... shame. So on, and so on, and so on... and so on.

I'm not sure if you've ever worked making coffee for other people, but the pay is not so good as to allow you to consistently buy newer, better, bigger goods. And that's where we're all headed.


I think humanity will die before any such point of production is reached, simply for the fact that humans manage to fuck everything up eventually.

I think Marx had a lot more and a lot stronger arguments for why what he believed would happen would happen than you are presenting for your theory. You've done little more than make some half-assed statements not even accounting for the complex and dynamic nature of capitalism.

You think that things can just produce and that magically technology will make consumption possible. Technology may very well increase demand, the problem is for all the interest it creates in a commodity, technology has replaced two fold the workers who would have been able to afford it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:49 PM

Is it collectively owned?

Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.


HOOOOOLD IT RIGHT THERE.

Let me be sure I understand you:

I don't own my body or my organs?

Do you know what the impact of what you are saying to this?

It means that I have to will to decide the destiny of my organs if some 'collective authority' wishes to harvest my organs.

[DaCuBaN]

My body is mine thus my labour is mine thus my money is mine and thus the factory I bought with that money is mine too.

Or, the abridged version:


...mine...mine...mine...mine...

So...


How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?

The simple answer is no: Just like I would not own the shovel I helped build the road with, nor would I (in my opinion) own the clothes on my back nor the field from which I harvested the crops - they would simply be mine until another needed them more than I did, or rather could make better use of them. Who is to judge this? Ah, now that's where we hit a problem... One to which I'm afraid I have no definitive answer. To allow some unknown authority such power is appalling, so indeed such decisions could only be down to the individual.

As far as I'm concerned, if you needed an organ (or anything else for that matter) for some reason within a communist society, you'd just better hope your comrades like you and have the necessary "spares" and skills to facilitate the transfer. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say but you'd be up shit creek.

Better look after yourself then, eh? :P

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:59 PM

My body is mine thus my labour is mine thus my money is mine and thus the factory I bought with that money is mine too.

Or, the abridged version:


...mine...mine...mine...mine...

So...


How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?

The simple answer is no: Just like I would not own the shovel I helped build the road with, nor would I (in my opinion) own the clothes on my back nor the field from which I harvested the crops - they would simply be mine until another needed them more than I did, or rather could make better use of them. Who is to judge this? Ah, now that's where we hit a problem... One to which I'm afraid I have no definitive answer. To allow some unknown authority such power is appalling, so indeed such decisions could only be down to the individual.

As far as I'm concerned, if you needed an organ (or anything else for that matter) for some reason within a communist society, you'd just better hope your comrades like you and have the necessary "spares" and skills to facilitate the transfer. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say but you'd be up shit creek.

Better look after yourself then, eh? :P
I'm sorry, but do you know what you just described?

A market and a scarce resouce.

A demand and a supply.

Capitalism wins.

Now multply this with any other thing a person may want and can not get.

Can you think of anything else I may want to obtain that will be rare in a communist system?

I can think of one: Fast cars.

[DaCuBaN]

A market and a scarce resouce.

A demand and a supply.

Correct - but the means of transfer? Gifting! It doesn't matter how much of a particular item you try to acrue, it won't ever get you a "better deal" than the next man.

You carefully avoided interpreting the important part of this text:


...if you needed [something] within a communist society, you'd just better hope your comrades like you and have the necessary "spares" and skills to facilitate the transfer.

...because if they don't, you ain't gonna get it!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:33 PM

A market and a scarce resouce.

A demand and a supply.

Correct - but the means of transfer? Gifting! It doesn't matter how much of a particular item you try to acrue, it won't ever get you a "better deal" than the next man.

You carefully avoided interpreting the important part of this text:


...if you needed [something] within a communist society, you'd just better hope your comrades like you and have the necessary "spares" and skills to facilitate the transfer.

...because if they don't, you ain't gonna get it!
Sorry, that was just a blur and I really didn't realize it was important.

That does not sound like 'gifting' to me. It sound like bartering.

People who need organs, probably place value in organs. Do you agree?

Does that mean people who need them will compeat for them? I think so.

[Professor Moneybags]

My body is mine thus my labour is mine thus my money is mine and thus the factory I bought with that money is mine too.

Or, the abridged version:


...mine...mine...mine...mine...

So my body is not mine, nor my labor. I guess it must be someone elses...

Communism is not slavery. I repeat : Communism is not slavery.


The simple answer is no: Just like I would not own the shovel I helped build the road with, nor would I (in my opinion) own the clothes on my back nor the field from which I harvested the crops - they would simply be mine until another needed them more than I did, or rather could make better use of them. Who is to judge this? Ah, now that's where we hit a problem... One to which I'm afraid I have no definitive answer.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people on hand to give you that answer, or to force it on you at gunpoint.


To allow some unknown authority such power is appalling, so indeed such decisions could only be down to the individual.

Why should the individual make it when he doesn't own himself or his labor ?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

HMMMMMM.

I think I just uncovered something here. What is it? The possibility of a BLACK MARKET.

Yes oragans are rare, people will want them. To get them I have to convince someone to gift one to me? Why then don't I gift them with something the want back? Will someone be more likely to gift me an organ if I gift them with something too? Sounds to me like a value exchange? Hmmmm.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Publius+May 17 2005, 08:54 PM--> (Publius @ May 17 2005, 08:54 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 08:49 PM




Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.

Hilarious.

So you're telling me that if I live by myself in a secluded area, fashion my own tools, grow my own food, hunt, fish, and generally subsist, I am STILL somehow supported by the labor of others?

You say that I would die in my youth? What if my parents lived this way?

If I don't own my body, how am I free? If I'm not free, what am I? A slave?

Can we equate communism with slavery then? [/b]
Nah by that logic you are not a part of society then. You sound like someone who is living apart from society and since you take nothing from society it doesnt need you to give anything back.
Have fun in the woods.

And yes, in communism you own your own bodies!

But fi you want to live in society with your bodies you need to work in it too.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:55 AM
Nah by that logic you are not a part of society then. You sound like someone who is living apart from society and since you take nothing from society it doesnt need you to give anything back.
Have fun in the woods.
There's one problem there: I'm not taking anything from society or giving anything back and I'm not living in the woods either.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Raisa+May 21 2005, 06:55 AM--> (Raisa @ May 21 2005, 06:55 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:54 PM

[email protected] 17 2005, 08:49 PM




Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.

Hilarious.

So you're telling me that if I live by myself in a secluded area, fashion my own tools, grow my own food, hunt, fish, and generally subsist, I am STILL somehow supported by the labor of others?

You say that I would die in my youth? What if my parents lived this way?

If I don't own my body, how am I free? If I'm not free, what am I? A slave?

Can we equate communism with slavery then?
Nah by that logic you are not a part of society then. You sound like someone who is living apart from society and since you take nothing from society it doesnt need you to give anything back.
Have fun in the woods.

And yes, in communism you own your own bodies!

But fi you want to live in society with your bodies you need to work in it too. [/b]
You see the problem here?

"Have fun in the woods"........

Is someone going to force me into the woods? Is the system going to allow me to starve to death? Is the system going to make me to the equalvant of a homeless person?

Then I don't see any advantage over a free market system. You know, there are going to be people like me. How do you deal with it?

Or

Is "have fun in the woods" is that a secret term for 'take him to the secret mass grave and put a bullet in his head'?

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 12:36 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 12:36 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:54 PM

[email protected] 17 2005, 08:49 PM




Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.

Hilarious.

So you're telling me that if I live by myself in a secluded area, fashion my own tools, grow my own food, hunt, fish, and generally subsist, I am STILL somehow supported by the labor of others?

You say that I would die in my youth? What if my parents lived this way?

If I don't own my body, how am I free? If I'm not free, what am I? A slave?

Can we equate communism with slavery then?
Nah by that logic you are not a part of society then. You sound like someone who is living apart from society and since you take nothing from society it doesnt need you to give anything back.
Have fun in the woods.

And yes, in communism you own your own bodies!

But fi you want to live in society with your bodies you need to work in it too.
You see the problem here?

"Have fun in the woods"........

Is someone going to force me into the woods? Is the system going to allow me to starve to death? Is the system going to make me to the equalvant of a homeless person?

Then I don't see any advantage over a free market system. You know, there are going to be people like me. How do you deal with it?

Or

Is "have fun in the woods" is that a secret term for 'take him to the secret mass grave and put a bullet in his head'? [/b]
I don't see no problem with that.

"Have fun in the woods" sounds very tempting to me.
Especially since it sounds vaguely like a badly-hidden sexual algoritim :lol:

No-one is going to force you into the woods, of course. You -could- go there on your own, or you go hitch-hike someone to take you there. In Cuba, for example, meanwhile it is a bloated &#39;socialistic&#39; land deeply poisoned by Capitalism, has a rule of thumb; If you happen to own a truck and drive by some hitchikers, you HAVE to pick them up if they wave after your care. Not that they HAVE to go in, of course, silly - But it&#39;s a good law, nevertheless - Something which a capitalistic never would do because it would be deemed "unprofitable" to the gas it costs for a truck to stop and move again.... bah - Profit over people again&#33; <_<

The system doesn&#39;t "allow" you to starve to death....it can "let you do it", sort of, to a way. If you prefer to take suicide that way, then so be it. But you seem to forget one thing: You don&#39;t HAVE to do so under a communistic society. For what are you forgetting? The gift economy, of course. Work is voluntarly, and if you WANT something, you can head down to the local distrubution center and TAKE it. That simple. How the hell is that "allowing" you to starve to death, huh? ANSWER ME THAT, cappie&#33;

Certainly not would this make you a EQUIVALENT to a homeless person. Just because you are refusing to cooperate doesn&#39;t mean we will kick you out of a residence or not give you one, because that would be cruel and inhumane. But you would have to tend to it, for yourself. No-one would leave you no choiche but to settle in the wood, because if you don&#39;t contribute you will only get things beside basic sustenance (which you, yes, can decide what should be under the usual terms food, drink, etc. For the invidual and the commune togheter to decide. Nothin&#39; fancy.) a bit later than others who do, but also those who hoard up on things will get things later than others, too. If you want something for your residence, then go an&#39; TAKE IT.

If you don&#39;t see the advantage with this...over the "free market"-system of use (or rather, abuse) a.k.a. "freedom of the market-owners"-system, then you must be thoroughly blind, or atleast looking in the wrong direction, blind-folded by a burgeouise mindset. Of course there will be people like you, who, will futily resist this freedom, and they are called for "reactionaries"; A.k.a. people who don&#39;t know what&#39;s best for them (And NO, don&#39;t come dragging with Soviet here - I am anti-Authotiarian and for no leaders - I just don&#39;t trust &#39;em&#33;)...or others - don&#39;t want them to have it. We will perhaps deal with it with subduing, or, if you don&#39;t lay off the resistance, a fuckin&#39; shotgun blast to the gut. You and the workers&#39; militias decide.

If "have fun in the woods" was a code-name for "take him to the secret mass grave and put a bullet in his head (in "the woods", then it would be rather inconvienient as the opposite order would be more...practical. But it&#39;s all for the community to decide, and you - as an invidual - if you want to RISK that...if they REALLY decide to do that. By this we speak of a time when people like you would be the minority. I doubt anyone would do that - They&#39;d take you to the secret mass grave and NOT put a bullet in your head, and just burry you right ahead. That&#39;d be FUN IN THE WOODS, wouldn&#39;t it, materialist-fool? :angry:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by OleMarxo+May 23 2005, 07:35 PM--> (OleMarxo @ May 23 2005, 07:35 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:54 PM

[email protected] 17 2005, 08:49 PM




Why not? Without the labor of society your body would die rather quickly in its youth.

Hilarious.

So you&#39;re telling me that if I live by myself in a secluded area, fashion my own tools, grow my own food, hunt, fish, and generally subsist, I am STILL somehow supported by the labor of others?

You say that I would die in my youth? What if my parents lived this way?

If I don&#39;t own my body, how am I free? If I&#39;m not free, what am I? A slave?

Can we equate communism with slavery then?
Nah by that logic you are not a part of society then. You sound like someone who is living apart from society and since you take nothing from society it doesnt need you to give anything back.
Have fun in the woods.

And yes, in communism you own your own bodies&#33;

But fi you want to live in society with your bodies you need to work in it too.
You see the problem here?

"Have fun in the woods"........

Is someone going to force me into the woods? Is the system going to allow me to starve to death? Is the system going to make me to the equalvant of a homeless person?

Then I don&#39;t see any advantage over a free market system. You know, there are going to be people like me. How do you deal with it?

Or

Is "have fun in the woods" is that a secret term for &#39;take him to the secret mass grave and put a bullet in his head&#39;?
I don&#39;t see no problem with that.

"Have fun in the woods" sounds very tempting to me.
Especially since it sounds vaguely like a badly-hidden sexual algoritim :lol:

No-one is going to force you into the woods, of course. You -could- go there on your own, or you go hitch-hike someone to take you there. In Cuba, for example, meanwhile it is a bloated &#39;socialistic&#39; land deeply poisoned by Capitalism, has a rule of thumb; If you happen to own a truck and drive by some hitchikers, you HAVE to pick them up if they wave after your care. Not that they HAVE to go in, of course, silly - But it&#39;s a good law, nevertheless - Something which a capitalistic never would do because it would be deemed "unprofitable" to the gas it costs for a truck to stop and move again.... bah - Profit over people again&#33; <_<

The system doesn&#39;t "allow" you to starve to death....it can "let you do it", sort of, to a way. If you prefer to take suicide that way, then so be it. But you seem to forget one thing: You don&#39;t HAVE to do so under a communistic society. For what are you forgetting? The gift economy, of course. Work is voluntarly, and if you WANT something, you can head down to the local distrubution center and TAKE it. That simple. How the hell is that "allowing" you to starve to death, huh? ANSWER ME THAT, cappie&#33;

Certainly not would this make you a EQUIVALENT to a homeless person. Just because you are refusing to cooperate doesn&#39;t mean we will kick you out of a residence or not give you one, because that would be cruel and inhumane. But you would have to tend to it, for yourself. No-one would leave you no choiche but to settle in the wood, because if you don&#39;t contribute you will only get things beside basic sustenance (which you, yes, can decide what should be under the usual terms food, drink, etc. For the invidual and the commune togheter to decide. Nothin&#39; fancy.) a bit later than others who do, but also those who hoard up on things will get things later than others, too. If you want something for your residence, then go an&#39; TAKE IT.

If you don&#39;t see the advantage with this...over the "free market"-system of use (or rather, abuse) a.k.a. "freedom of the market-owners"-system, then you must be thoroughly blind, or atleast looking in the wrong direction, blind-folded by a burgeouise mindset. Of course there will be people like you, who, will futily resist this freedom, and they are called for "reactionaries"; A.k.a. people who don&#39;t know what&#39;s best for them (And NO, don&#39;t come dragging with Soviet here - I am anti-Authotiarian and for no leaders - I just don&#39;t trust &#39;em&#33;)...or others - don&#39;t want them to have it. We will perhaps deal with it with subduing, or, if you don&#39;t lay off the resistance, a fuckin&#39; shotgun blast to the gut. You and the workers&#39; militias decide.

If "have fun in the woods" was a code-name for "take him to the secret mass grave and put a bullet in his head (in "the woods", then it would be rather inconvienient as the opposite order would be more...practical. But it&#39;s all for the community to decide, and you - as an invidual - if you want to RISK that...if they REALLY decide to do that. By this we speak of a time when people like you would be the minority. I doubt anyone would do that - They&#39;d take you to the secret mass grave and NOT put a bullet in your head, and just burry you right ahead. That&#39;d be FUN IN THE WOODS, wouldn&#39;t it, materialist-fool? :angry: [/b]
Wow, that is quite high and progressive of you.

What is the difference between your attitude towards me and &#39;go into the woods&#39; and a homeless man in capitialism?

Sounds like there is going to be the same social injustice in communism too.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:11 AM
How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?
As I am aware people in modern day society rarley sell vital organs. What they do, is state that upon death the authorities can have free reign to raid your body forwhatever material they see fit to pinch, either that, or they give them willingly. Hospitals in the UK do not allow staff to tell doners, etc, the people who have recieved/provided the organ which will be used in the operation.


I see it no different from when people give blood, or state that upon death they wish for their organs to be used in such a manner.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 24 2005, 02:21 AM--> (Enigma @ May 24 2005, 02:21 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 09:11 AM
How would organ donation work in a communist system? If there is no property ownership, does a person even own his own organs?
As I am aware people in modern day society rarley sell vital organs. What they do, is state that upon death the authorities can have free reign to raid your body forwhatever material they see fit to pinch, either that, or they give them willingly. Hospitals in the UK do not allow staff to tell doners, etc, the people who have recieved/provided the organ which will be used in the operation.


I see it no different from when people give blood, or state that upon death they wish for their organs to be used in such a manner. [/b]
Even with that? Are there enough organs?

That is the problem. Not enough organs? Then you have something of value. Then you don&#39;t have communism.

[Professor Moneybags]

If you happen to own a truck and drive by some hitchikers, you HAVE to pick them up if they wave after your care. Not that they HAVE to go in, of course, silly - But it&#39;s a good law, nevertheless - Something which a capitalistic never would do because it would be deemed "unprofitable"

Try "dictatorial".


If you don&#39;t see the advantage with this...over the "free market"-system of use (or rather, abuse) a.k.a. "freedom of the market-owners"-system,

There is no "market owner". Prices are not arbitarily decided (except under socialism) by some government or dictator, but by people&#39;s needs and wants.


then you must be thoroughly blind, or atleast looking in the wrong direction, blind-folded by a burgeouise mindset.

So you have a problem with the free market, so what do you want instead ? A command market ?


Of course there will be people like you, who, will futily resist this freedom, and they are called for "reactionaries";

What you are offering isn&#39;t freedom at all. It&#39;s dictatorship (see above).


A.k.a. people who don&#39;t know what&#39;s best for them (And NO, don&#39;t come dragging with Soviet here - I am anti-Authotiarian and for no leaders - I just don&#39;t trust &#39;em&#33;)...

You preaching from the same authoritarian/paternalist hymn book as the Soviets. Yes, you are an authoritarian; it makes little difference if it&#39;s a single dictator or your "workers" mob who happens to be digging the mass graves- they&#39;re still being dug and for the same reasons.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

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

If you happen to own a truck and drive by some hitchikers, you HAVE to pick them up if they wave after your care. Not that they HAVE to go in, of course, silly - But it&#39;s a good law, nevertheless - Something which a capitalistic never would do because it would be deemed "unprofitable"

Try "dictatorial".


If you don&#39;t see the advantage with this...over the "free market"-system of use (or rather, abuse) a.k.a. "freedom of the market-owners"-system,

There is no "market owner". Prices are not arbitarily decided (except under socialism) by some government or dictator, but by people&#39;s needs and wants.


then you must be thoroughly blind, or atleast looking in the wrong direction, blind-folded by a burgeouise mindset.

So you have a problem with the free market, so what do you want instead ? A command market ?


Of course there will be people like you, who, will futily resist this freedom, and they are called for "reactionaries";

What you are offering isn&#39;t freedom at all. It&#39;s dictatorship (see above).


A.k.a. people who don&#39;t know what&#39;s best for them (And NO, don&#39;t come dragging with Soviet here - I am anti-Authotiarian and for no leaders - I just don&#39;t trust &#39;em&#33;)...

You preaching from the same authoritarian/paternalist hymn book as the Soviets. Yes, you are an authoritarian; it makes little difference if it&#39;s a single dictator or your "workers" mob who happens to be digging the mass graves- they&#39;re still being dug and for the same reasons.
Yes this guy has exposed himself as an anti-revolutionary. He most definately does not abide by communist tenets. He must be agressively re-educated or dealth with in the comming revolution.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:12 PM
Yes this guy has exposed himself as an anti-revolutionary. He most definately does not abide by communist tenets. He must be agressively re-educated or dealth with in the comming revolution.
You know, your always blurting on about how communists want to kill people...they don&#39;t&#33;&#33;&#33; You have this illusion that all we want to do is hang and kill and rip apart everything you like. This is a terrible misconception, I presume you&#39;ve been obsessing over the Black book of "communism" which ironically lists the casualties of socialist nations in the 20th century.

You know why there&#39;s no black book fo Capitalism? because a) it wouldn&#39;t sell well enough and b) it would be impossible to calculate, since something like 92 thousand children die every day from being over worked to pay the national debt.

Stop worrying about who might die, and start thinking about who IS dying.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 27 2005, 11:43 AM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 27 2005, 11:43 AM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 11:12 PM
Yes this guy has exposed himself as an anti-revolutionary. He most definately does not abide by communist tenets. He must be agressively re-educated or dealth with in the comming revolution.
You know, your always blurting on about how communists want to kill people...they don&#39;t&#33;&#33;&#33; You have this illusion that all we want to do is hang and kill and rip apart everything you like. This is a terrible misconception, I presume you&#39;ve been obsessing over the Black book of "communism" which ironically lists the casualties of socialist nations in the 20th century.

You know why there&#39;s no black book fo Capitalism? because a) it wouldn&#39;t sell well enough and b) it would be impossible to calculate, since something like 92 thousand children die every day from being over worked to pay the national debt.

Stop worrying about who might die, and start thinking about who IS dying. [/b]
Hey comrade, I know YOU don&#39;t want to kill and destroy. It is to &#39;other&#39; revolutionaries we have to watch out for. You know who they are, they intellecutally understand communism and social justice, but really don&#39;t practice it in thier hearts. These people must be agressively rooted out and dealt with to preserve the revolution. These people if allowed to have influence will not only dominate the revolution, but will produce more Pol Pots, Stalins, and Maos. Then you know what that means for you and me, it is re-education for you and me.