Why would you work in a commune

[bur372]

Had this debate with a cappie

Personally I think you would work for the advancement of the human race and therfore yourself. Anyone else have any ideas?

[eyedrop]

You would work for the respect of the other members of the commune.

A lazy non-working member would maybe be viewed as we now view homeless and drug addicts. I know that I would have been working to avoid being in such a position.

Peer pressure can be quite strong, look at how people now spend horrendous amounts of cash on fancy shoes and other useless things.

[Seneca]

A lazy non-working member would maybe be viewed as we now view homeless and drug addicts. I know that I would have been working to avoid being in such a position.

Edward Bellamy's Equality, (sequel to the far more popular Looking Backward), actually bases most of the functioning of his Utopian Christian-Socialist society on this exact principle. I didn't buy it in the novel, and I'm skeptical it would work, at least on a completely voluntary basis. I think even Bellamy's utopia had provisions for expelling malcontents, though its been a bit since I've read it.

Peer pressure can be quite strong, look at how people now spend horrendous amounts of cash on fancy shoes and other useless things.

The problem here is that while the people are spending their own money, admittedly stupidly, I have no sense that I am being taken advantage of. Quite a different situation from where I work and you don't and we get the same benefits.

[Enragé]

People will work because, contrary to what happens in capitalism, the worker works for the good of the entire community, and therefore for his own good.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Blah blah blah. I got news for you folks. None of what you think will happen exists anywhere in any human society or group for any length of time that is considered stable, with one exception: hippie communes.

That is reality of your vision if it comes to reality: hippies.

[Publius]

Surely you would work, but would you work hard?

Would you work as hard as you possibly could? Anything close? How could the others judge you when they did the same thing?

What do you get for giving it your all? What do you get for slacking off?

[Urban Rubble]

Blah blah blah. I got news for you folks. None of what you think will happen exists anywhere in any human society or group for any length of time that is considered stable

Jesus, you really do get dumber the more you post.

First off, there are many well thought out criticisms of Communism (or whatever, Anarchism), but I have never seen you bring one of them up. Instead you ignore history and spout the most easily refuted arguments I've ever seen on a political message board.

Here is why you are ignoring history:

1. You are saying a communal society won't work because it hasn't yet existed (again, what a stupid fucking argument), correct? Doesn't that strike you as, well, predicting the future? Have you ever thought of how many European kings laughed at the idea of a Liberal Democracy because, just as you're saying, it hadn't yet existed? I mean, there was a point in history where a successful Republic had never existed, right? Either you're arrogant enough to think that we have reached the apex of human civilization, or you're saying that no change can ever occur in society (because, again, most changes in society have to happen for a first time).

2. There have been numerous examples of a society where communities and people work together for society as a whole. Remember all those Native Americans that we killed to build our glorious Republic? Even your pal Thomas Jefferson admitted that the libertarian style society of the Native Americans was preferable to a corrupted Republic.

I won't go into a defense of why I believe what I believe, it is obvious you aren't here to debate. You're here to make weak wisecracks (just like with the criticisms, there are plenty of good ways to make fun of us, but you seem to always miss them) and make yourself laugh with shitty, over used sarcastic comments like "Dude, in communism my job will be to like, surf the internet for porn, can I do that?" harharhar, really funny stuff. I'm sure your fat wife and 3 kids are proud of that wit.

By the way, good luck on the promotion, you've got middle management written all over you, pal.

[violencia.Proletariat]

ive been pondering this question too. of course if there was a revolution yadda yadda, lets say post revolution, lots of people would be willing to work. everyone would have a job, 4 hour or less workday. but yes overtime, how would you stop someone from not working? just not offering them any help? i think propaganda would work well but, i wouldnt worry so much. i mean even lazy people can put in 3 or 4 hours of work everyday. im not sure though


*edit* i just read a section of kropotkins "conquest of bread" and i have decided that lazyness wouldnt be a problem. many people are misplaced in work and therfore do not want to work, yet let them have freedom of the workplace and they will put their heart into their work. especially wtih todays technology there is not so much boring factory work. it would be a society where all useful work is celebrated as being great. children from a young age would not be pushed to learn useless aand boring things but let them be interested in what they are interested in, therefore making work as they grow up much more interesting to them. kropotkin also used this example(i kinda skimmed but i think he was saying) that the upper class while they may not like it over leasure will work their few hours to be able to hold their power, so why can it not be the other way? the workers wanting to keep their freedom of the workplace, will work as they need. they will also prevent others sloppy work because it hinders theirs. but also they will make sure their fellow person is working well because if the lazy worker will not leave on his way to do whatever she/he wants, they are a threat of bringing back punishment for not working, prison, cops, and of course wage slavery becuase many people think its the only way to make people work. yet it is unproductive work in bad conditions that make many people not want to work.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 16 2005, 02:36 AM
1. You are saying a communal society won't work because it hasn't yet existed (again, what a stupid fucking argument), correct?
No, we're saying it won't work because few would want to live in it. I can see the attraction of capitalism to one living in feudalism, but what has your commune got going for it ?


2. There have been numerous examples of a society where communities and people work together for society as a whole. Remember all those Native Americans that we killed to build our glorious Republic?

The ones who lived in the stone age and practiced slavery. Yeah, I remember them.


I won't go into a defense of why I believe what I believe

Perhaps you should...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:40 AM
but yes overtime, how would you stop someone from not working? just not offering them any help?
Not helping ? What happened to "each according to his needs" ? How laissez-faire can you get ?

You're another one who will need re-educating, my friend.

<snip the utopianisms>

[spartafc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:21 PM
Blah blah blah. I got news for you folks. None of what you think will happen exists anywhere in any human society or group for any length of time that is considered stable, with one exception: hippie communes.

That is reality of your vision if it comes to reality: hippies.
you really like the hippies, huh?
I personally think our solutions need to be set to a wider scale.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:01 PM
Had this debate with a cappie

Personally I think you would work for the advancement of the human race and therfore yourself. Anyone else have any ideas?
Not to downplay your plans or anything, but I don&#39;t think working in a commune will "advance the human race". (What do you mean by advance, anyways?)

[Enragé]

What do you get for giving it your all? What do you get for slacking off?

The furtherment of yourself, the community, and eventually the entire human race.

Now what do you get for giving it all in capitalism? THE FURTHERMENT OF YOUR BOSSES BANK ACCOUNT, and oh yeah, you can have some crumbs

[Enragé]

and well, whats wrong with hippie communes ? :)

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:07 PM
and well, whats wrong with hippie communes ? :)
they&#39;re a product of weak social revolution. They were destined to never really amount to anything...

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:07 PM
and well, whats wrong with hippie communes ? :)
They don&#39;t have enough drugs.

[Urban Rubble]

No, we&#39;re saying it won&#39;t work because few would want to live in it. I can see the attraction of capitalism to one living in feudalism, but what has your commune got going for it ?

No, that&#39;s actually not what he was saying. He basically said "What you are fighting for will never happen because it has never existed for a long period of time". That is what he said, what you just said is entirely different. What you said was an actual argument, what he said was just idiotic.

Now, as for what society not based on greed has "going for it", well, to those of us who actually care about other people it&#39;s got quite a lot going for it. It is my belief that there will be a majority of poor people as long as Capitalism is around. I think a large disparity between rich and poor is inherent in the system. Thus the benefit of communal living would be that nobody is left to starve, everybody has (at least) the basic neccessities. That is the benefit of my system, equality, or at least equal oppurtunity.

Now, when you look at it in terms of "How will I profit from this system", then your argument makes sense, of course communal living will not make you rich or get you a new Ferrari. But I am looking the end of my own nose. Ending world poverty and giving other people some dignity would be a benefit for me.


The ones who lived in the stone age and practiced slavery. Yeah, I remember them.

Yes, because the fact that they practiced slavery (which they actually didn&#39;t do, except in isolated cases) means that everything else about them should be thrown away. Boy, if that&#39;s what you&#39;re judging on you must hate our country and the rest of the developed world.

[Publius]

Per usual, my questions go ignored.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:22 PM
Per usual, my questions go ignored.
:huh: i answered them

[Che1990]

People would work in a commune to help themselves and others. That&#39;s the point.

Work=decent standard of life for all including yourself

Don&#39;t work=crap standard of life for all including yourself

Get it? Everyone helps each other. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." to quote the great Charlie himself&#33; :D

People would want to work in a commune because they know from working they are getting a decent standard of life and not being exploited. Why has this system never worked? BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 16 2005, 03:36 AM

Blah blah blah. I got news for you folks. None of what you think will happen exists anywhere in any human society or group for any length of time that is considered stable

Jesus, you really do get dumber the more you post.

First off, there are many well thought out criticisms of Communism (or whatever, Anarchism), but I have never seen you bring one of them up. Instead you ignore history and spout the most easily refuted arguments I&#39;ve ever seen on a political message board.

Here is why you are ignoring history:

1. You are saying a communal society won&#39;t work because it hasn&#39;t yet existed (again, what a stupid fucking argument), correct? Doesn&#39;t that strike you as, well, predicting the future? Have you ever thought of how many European kings laughed at the idea of a Liberal Democracy because, just as you&#39;re saying, it hadn&#39;t yet existed? I mean, there was a point in history where a successful Republic had never existed, right? Either you&#39;re arrogant enough to think that we have reached the apex of human civilization, or you&#39;re saying that no change can ever occur in society (because, again, most changes in society have to happen for a first time).

2. There have been numerous examples of a society where communities and people work together for society as a whole. Remember all those Native Americans that we killed to build our glorious Republic? Even your pal Thomas Jefferson admitted that the libertarian style society of the Native Americans was preferable to a corrupted Republic.

I won&#39;t go into a defense of why I believe what I believe, it is obvious you aren&#39;t here to debate. You&#39;re here to make weak wisecracks (just like with the criticisms, there are plenty of good ways to make fun of us, but you seem to always miss them) and make yourself laugh with shitty, over used sarcastic comments like "Dude, in communism my job will be to like, surf the internet for porn, can I do that?" harharhar, really funny stuff. I&#39;m sure your fat wife and 3 kids are proud of that wit.

By the way, good luck on the promotion, you&#39;ve got middle management written all over you, pal.
Middle management? You are absolutely right and just a few years in the labor market. In the real world YOU would probably be working for me. There is a lot of truth in those wise cracks. So then how would YOU deal with lazy people? Yes communal societies do work, as I have stated, they are hippie colonies. Communist does not equal liberal democracy. Much smarter men made liberal democracy. Get over it, Marx was an idiot. Once you accept that, rejecting communsim will be much easier. Marx never made or produced anything in a factory, Marx never managed workers, Marx never managed money well, and Marx never held a leadership role; and somehow he is a genius at all these? Ridiculus.

[Enragé]

Marx was a philosopher and created a social, economic and political theory. This theory has inspired many around the world, and no one has ever been able to refute his theory.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:48 PM
Marx was a philosopher and created a social, economic and political theory. This theory has inspired many around the world, and no one has ever been able to refute his theory.
This is a joke, right ?

[Enragé]

no :)

[bur372]

Professer moneybags are you saying that some people are born lazy. Because personally I belive that its to do with the enviroment your in your upbringing etc.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:26 PM




People would work in a commune to help themselves and others. That&#39;s the point.

That&#39;s why people work in capitalism. So they&#39;re the same?



Work=decent standard of life for all including yourself

Don&#39;t work=crap standard of life for all including yourself

So if you work and none else does, everyone is rich, and if you don&#39;t work and everyone else does, everyone is poor?


Get it? Everyone helps each other. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." to quote the great Charlie himself&#33; :D

Can you meaningfully define &#39;abilities&#39; and &#39;need&#39;? Can you prove I don&#39;t need a TV or prove I&#39;m able to work?


People would want to work in a commune because they know from working they are getting a decent standard of life and not being exploited. Why has this system never worked? BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED.

People work in a capitalst society for a decent standard of living and are not being exploited.

We&#39;ve arrived&#33;

[Publius]

Marx was a philosopher and created a social, economic and political theory. This theory has inspired many around the world, and no one has ever been able to refute his theory.

The guy in my avatar did.

[Enragé]

"That&#39;s why people work in capitalism. So they&#39;re the same?"

In capitalism you work for a tiny amount of money compared to what you actually produce. The rest of the money goes to your boss and the elite in general. This is why the idea is so widespread that people will only work if they get paid themselves, because in a capitalist system that is all you get back from the work you do. In communism however the reward for your labour is the advance of the entire community and therefore yourself.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:13 PM
Professer moneybags are you saying that some people are born lazy. Because personally I belive that its to do with the enviroment your in your upbringing etc.
Maybe it&#39;s both, but who cares ?

[Enragé]

its a big difference. If you believe its only about upbringing, you can make it so there are no lazy people.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:16 PM
Would you work as hard as you possibly could?
Sure hope not. We work too hard now. Astonishingly few vacations compared to much of the world. Astonishingly long hours and few vacations compared to most of human history. A medieval peasant would be appalled.

One answer to the question is: same reason you help your friends move their furniture, now.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:48 PM
Marx was a philosopher and created a social, economic and political theory. This theory has inspired many around the world, and no one has ever been able to refute his theory.
It is soooooo obvious you are an anti-revolutionary. You need to be re-educated before you spread more lies. Marx was NOT a philosopher. According to the very well informed people on communism here Marx was a SCIENTIST.

Philosophers don&#39;t have theories. Theories are for science. Philosophies are for philosophers. Marx was a scientist. Isn&#39;t that right? When he developed his theories on worker management, factory productivity, and and economics; he used scientific method, right? Although I don&#39;t know what Marx&#39;s sceintific background or training is from, he is a scientist. Although I don&#39;t know he ever practiced the scientific method, he is a scientist. Although I don&#39;t know he if trained under scientist, he is a scientist. It is just obvious although he as far as I know never had any training in the scientific method, his thoeries are scientific.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is soooooo obvious you are an anti-revolutionary. You need to be re-educated before you spread more lies. Marx was NOT a philosopher. According to the very well informed people on communism here Marx was a SCIENTIST.

Marx was a philosopher with a scientific outlook. He paid lip service to dialectics but when he was actually analysing the world he used the scientific method.


Philosophers don&#39;t have theories. Theories are for science. Philosophies are for philosophers. Marx was a scientist. Isn&#39;t that right? When he developed his theories on worker management, factory productivity, and and economics; he used scientific method, right? Although I don&#39;t know what Marx&#39;s sceintific background or training is from, he is a scientist. Although I don&#39;t know he ever practiced the scientific method, he is a scientist. Although I don&#39;t know he if trained under scientist, he is a scientist. It is just obvious although he as far as I know never had any training in the scientific method, his thoeries are scientific.

You don&#39;t have to have a PhD to use the scientific method, you clot.

[Che1990]

Originally posted by Publius+Jun 18 2005, 06:26 PM--> (Publius @ Jun 18 2005, 06:26 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 03:26 PM




People would work in a commune to help themselves and others. That&#39;s the point.

That&#39;s why people work in capitalism. So they&#39;re the same?



Work=decent standard of life for all including yourself

Don&#39;t work=crap standard of life for all including yourself

So if you work and none else does, everyone is rich, and if you don&#39;t work and everyone else does, everyone is poor?


Get it? Everyone helps each other. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." to quote the great Charlie himself&#33; :D

Can you meaningfully define &#39;abilities&#39; and &#39;need&#39;? Can you prove I don&#39;t need a TV or prove I&#39;m able to work?


People would want to work in a commune because they know from working they are getting a decent standard of life and not being exploited. Why has this system never worked? BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED.

People work in a capitalst society for a decent standard of living and are not being exploited.

We&#39;ve arrived&#33; [/b]
Please think before you speak. If one person works and no-one else does everyone would have a poor quality of life. The point is that every does their share to help the society as a whole. Capitalism means people who work 16hrs a day get paid sweet FA whereas people who have people working for them get millions. Exploitation? Yes.

Peace out.

[Publius]

In capitalism you work for a tiny amount of money compared to what you actually produce. The rest of the money goes to your boss and the elite in general. This is why the idea is so widespread that people will only work if they get paid themselves, because in a capitalist system that is all you get back from the work you do. In communism however the reward for your labour is the advance of the entire community and therefore yourself.

None of that makes any sense.

You only get less than your labor produces because you agree to it.

Why should you get all of what you produce, when you use machines you don&#39;t own, in a factory you didn&#39;t build, to make that produce?

Without the capitalist &#39;stealing&#39; your labor (Which is non-sensical, you can&#39;t steal anything that was given to you), the factory itself wouldn&#39;t exist.

[Publius]

Sure hope not. We work too hard now. Astonishingly few vacations compared to much of the world. Astonishingly long hours and few vacations compared to most of human history. A medieval peasant would be appalled.

One answer to the question is: same reason you help your friends move their furniture, now.

They key word is friends.

Strangers aren&#39;t friends waiting to be met, they&#39;re rapes waiting in a dark alley.

I don&#39;t like people.

Look at the news, all those rapes, robberies, murders and assualts were commited by people.

I don&#39;t trust people I don&#39;t know.

If you do, you&#39;re an idiot.

Communism will just magically make people worth trusting, right?

Why would I work for these people? Why &#39;share&#39; with these people? I want to know who I deal with, I want to know who&#39;s furniture I move.

I don&#39;t owe anything to society and I don&#39;t like society. Individuals in society? Some of them, but the collective masses? No.

Sorry if I seem cynical, I&#39;m listening to Cage right now.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:52 PM





Please think before you speak. If one person works and no-one else does everyone would have a poor quality of life. The point is that every does their share to help the society as a whole. Capitalism means people who work 16hrs a day get paid sweet FA whereas people who have people working for them get millions. Exploitation? Yes.

Peace out.

Obviously. I was pointing out the absurdity of what he said.

That isn&#39;t exploitation at all.

[Enragé]

None of that makes any sense.

You only get less than your labor produces because you agree to it.

Why should you get all of what you produce, when you use machines you don&#39;t own, in a factory you didn&#39;t build, to make that produce?

Without the capitalist &#39;stealing&#39; your labor (Which is non-sensical, you can&#39;t steal anything that was given to you), the factory itself wouldn&#39;t exist.


In capitalism you are forced to agree with it, if you do not, you starve or become poor.

Who made the machines? THE PROLETARIAT
Who built the factory? THE PROLETARIAT

The factory would exist, but just not as the property of one individual, but as the property of the community. Which makes perfect sense because the community built the factory, made the machines and works in the factory

[Publius]

In capitalism you are forced to agree with it, if you do not, you starve or become poor.

So in communism none has to do any work and we&#39;ll all be rich&#33;?


Who made the machines? THE PROLETARIAT
Who built the factory? THE PROLETARIAT

The entire proletariat or just a few of them?

The people that built the factory were paid for it. They built the factory for money.

It was a 1 to 1 trade, nothing lost on their part.



The factory would exist, but just not as the property of one individual, but as the property of the community. Which makes perfect sense because the community built the factory, made the machines and works in the factory

It would only make sense if the entire community built it and agreed to this entirely.

Why even build a factory in a communistic society?

It seems like a waste of time.

[Professor Moneybags]

In capitalism you are forced to agree with it, if you do not, you starve or become poor.

Quite right, you have to live by your own efforts and not someone else&#39;s. Terrible isn&#39;t it ?

(Cue the "bosses live off the workers" charade.)


Which makes perfect sense because the community built the factory, made the machines and works in the factory

But it didn&#39;t, so it doesn&#39;t.

[Enragé]

So in communism none has to do any work and we&#39;ll all be rich&#33;?


No. I never said nobody should work or anything. You just said that the workers agreed on being payed a certain amount, well, they have to except such a insanely low wage (compared to what they contribute) or else they&#39;re fucked.


The entire proletariat or just a few of them?

The people that built the factory were paid for it. They built the factory for money.

It was a 1 to 1 trade, nothing lost on their part.


A few built the factory, that much is true, but where did they get the materials to build it from? From mines or factories where the other proletarians made the materials. In the end, the entire proletariat contributes to the making of the factory, even agricultural workers, because you cant work if you dont eat. See? The entire community is involved.

And no it wasnt 1 on 1 trade, they also get a insanely low wage compared to the money the factory actually makes when its finished&#33;


It would only make sense if the entire community built it and agreed to this entirely.

Why even build a factory in a communistic society?

It seems like a waste of time.


As i explained before, the community is involved. They all contribute, in one way or another to the production process.

And well, if the people want to build a factory, they do so, if they do not, they do not. Quite simple isnt it.

[Publius]

No. I never said nobody should work or anything. You just said that the workers agreed on being payed a certain amount, well, they have to except such a insanely low wage (compared to what they contribute) or else they&#39;re fucked.

But that doesn&#39;t make any sense at all.

Most workers in the capitalist west make plenty of money, drive nice cars, and live happy lives.

You must live in some fantasy world.


A few built the factory, that much is true, but where did they get the materials to build it from? From mines or factories where the other proletarians made the materials. In the end, the entire proletariat contributes to the making of the factory, even agricultural workers, because you cant work if you dont eat. See? The entire community is involved.

And no it wasnt 1 on 1 trade, they also get a insanely low wage compared to the money the factory actually makes when its finished&#33;

The entire community is not involved.

That makes absolutely no sense.

If I sell you wood, and you build a house with it, can take your house? No, because I didn&#39;t trade my wood for the house you were going to build, I traded it for the money you gave me.

That was the trade.

Whatever you do with the wood is up to you, I have no claim to it, unless it was stipulated in the agreement.

How many farmers do you that sell their food with a contract that states "I get to keep the product of the labor of whoever eats this food"?

IF that stipulation is not part of the contract, the community has no hold over that factory anymore than I have claim to your house if I gave you the wood to build it.

And how are they &#39;insanely low&#39; when they are mutually agreed apon. The wage YOU agree to, is neither low, nor high, it is exactly right, by definition.




As i explained before, the community is involved. They all contribute, in one way or another to the production process.

And well, if the people want to build a factory, they do so, if they do not, they do not. Quite simple isnt it.

But why build a factory? Will someone just say "Let&#39;s build a lightbulb factory today&#33; Come on comrades&#33;" and build one?

Why do that when you can sit on your ass and do nothing?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:58 AM
Strangers aren&#39;t friends waiting to be met, they&#39;re rapes waiting in a dark alley.
Well, isn&#39;t that special.

[Enragé]

Most workers in the capitalist west make plenty of money, drive nice cars, and live happy lives.


depends on what you call plenty, and what you call happy. On top of that, this is only so because the unions etc made it so (without the threat of revolution, no change would&#39;ve occurred)


The entire community is not involved.

That makes absolutely no sense.

If I sell you wood, and you build a house with it, can take your house? No, because I didn&#39;t trade my wood for the house you were going to build, I traded it for the money you gave me.

That was the trade.

Whatever you do with the wood is up to you, I have no claim to it, unless it was stipulated in the agreement.

How many farmers do you that sell their food with a contract that states "I get to keep the product of the labor of whoever eats this food"?

IF that stipulation is not part of the contract, the community has no hold over that factory anymore than I have claim to your house if I gave you the wood to build it.

DUDE, we were talking about COMMUNIST "COMMUNES" not about the system we are in now.


And how are they &#39;insanely low&#39; when they are mutually agreed apon. The wage YOU agree to, is neither low, nor high, it is exactly right, by definition.

You do not simply agree on your wage, you are forced to do so, if you do not you dont get money, thus your life in this system is fucked.


But why build a factory? Will someone just say "Let&#39;s build a lightbulb factory today&#33; Come on comrades&#33;" and build one?

Why do that when you can sit on your ass and do nothing?


Because the other "comrades" might see the use in building a factory. "Yeah alright, we need lightbulbs or else we cant see at night or we&#39;d have to use torches".

[Publius]

depends on what you call plenty, and what you call happy. On top of that, this is only so because the unions etc made it so (without the threat of revolution, no change would&#39;ve occurred)

How did unions do that when unions all comprised 30% of the workforce at their peak, in the 50s, which was long after these horrible conditions you describe.

It very obviously wasn&#39;t unions.



DUDE, we were talking about COMMUNIST "COMMUNES" not about the system we are in now.

That&#39;s because you have no response to this.



You do not simply agree on your wage, you are forced to do so, if you do not you dont get money, thus your life in this system is fucked.

Tell that to all the working class people making 60 and 70 thousand dollars a year.




Because the other "comrades" might see the use in building a factory. "Yeah alright, we need lightbulbs or else we cant see at night or we&#39;d have to use torches".

Would you rather build a factory of have someone else do it?

[Enragé]

That&#39;s because you have no response to this

no it isnt:

you said:
If I sell you wood, and you build a house with it, can take your house? No, because I didn&#39;t trade my wood for the house you were going to build, I traded it for the money you gave me.

That was the trade.

Whatever you do with the wood is up to you, I have no claim to it, unless it was stipulated in the agreement.

How many farmers do you that sell their food with a contract that states "I get to keep the product of the labor of whoever eats this food"?
"

Well, in communism there is NO TRADE. ok.


How did unions do that when unions all comprised 30% of the workforce at their peak, in the 50s, which was long after these horrible conditions you describe.

It very obviously wasn&#39;t unions.



notice the ETC after the unions moron.


Tell that to all the working class people making 60 and 70 thousand dollars a year.


those would be hard to find. That would mean they earn 5.000 dollars a month. My mother doesnt even earn that much though she has an average-slightly above average wage (of about 2.300 dollars a month, 1900 euros)


Would you rather build a factory of have someone else do it?


if you dont build the factory no one will.

[Publius]

Well, in communism there is NO TRADE. ok.

I agree, there is no trade in communism, only thievery.



notice the ETC after the unions moron.

If the etc. were as stupidly wrong as your mention of unions, there&#39;s no need to take them into account.

Just out of curiosity, what were the etcetera?



those would be hard to find. That would mean they earn 5.000 dollars a month. My mother doesnt even earn that much though she has an average-slightly above average wage (of about 2.300 dollars a month, 1900 euros)

Average income in this country is about 35-40k, putting aggregate household income at about 60k.

I should have said family, it&#39;s much more useful for debunking your claims.




if you dont build the factory no one will.

I&#39;ve not yet built a single factory yet thousands exist.

[OleMarxco]

Simple; Because it is a means to the necessery survival of the society, and eventually too, in the end, you and me - What happens in the collective, the commune, effects all, so if I slack, I need no punishment to keep me going: I will see the effects on the society and how it will hurt me too, and by facing the raw truth, I will work to strive help it in any way, since it needs all help it can, but there is no restriction on how you could help and in what job - So we&#39;ll all be a bit of "this and that".

While Capitalism is inefficent because it always aims to produce more and more surplus than what is really needed, and worker&#39;s seem to give no shit they produce shit for no-one...but now, they can produce when they feel for it and they need it...them, and others, is the same, the collective :D


Originally posted by "Publicized (Unfurtonately) Publius"
I agree, there is no trade in communism, only thievery.

"Thievery" is pretty subjectival. If you have to get technical, we could say thievery is "legalized"...but also, at the same time, the need for doing such acts abolished (GIFT ECONOMY&#33;) Shit, someone&#39;s argument got blowed to bits- Even &#39;tho they could still fuckin&#39; steal but WHY? The "thief" and "victim" could both just go down to the fuckin&#39; distrubition centah and GET A REPLACEMENT, baby ;)

[Enragé]

Just out of curiosity, what were the etcetera?

Parties, (temporary) loose groups of workers, that kind of shit.


I should have said family, it&#39;s much more useful for debunking your claims.


Great, more mouths to feed.

Anyways, the average says nothing because in capitalism you have those who make millions a month and those who make virtually nothing.

[Publius]

Simple; Because it is a means to the necessery survival of the society, and eventually too, in the end, you and me - What happens in the collective, the commune, effects all, so if I slack, I need no punishment to keep me going: I will see the effects on the society and how it will hurt me too, and by facing the raw truth, I will work to strive help it in any way, since it needs all help it can, but there is no restriction on how you could help and in what job - So we&#39;ll all be a bit of "this and that".

So that&#39;s why communal work was so successful in the Soviet Union&#33;

Oh wait...

Quite simply, that&#39;s a load of bullshit. None is going to think "I better go work today, the good of society depends on it&#33;", people are going to think "There are 120 million workers in this country, if I don&#39;t show up, it won&#39;t make a difference".


While Capitalism is inefficent because it always aims to produce more and more surplus than what is really needed, and worker&#39;s seem to give no shit they produce shit for no-one...but now, they can produce when they feel for it and they need it...them, and others, is the same, the collective :D

Capitalism is hyper-efficient because it forces people to reduce costs.

Tell me, do you think cars in a communistic society would have become as good as they are today?

Do you think communism can match the &#39;man hours to produce a car&#39; figure that capitalism can produce?




"Thievery" is pretty subjectival. If you have to get technical, we could say thievery is "legalized"...but also, at the same time, the need for doing such acts abolished (GIFT ECONOMY&#33;) Shit, someone&#39;s argument got blowed to bits- Even &#39;tho they could still fuckin&#39; steal but WHY? The "thief" and "victim" could both just go down to the fuckin&#39; distrubition centah and GET A REPLACEMENT, baby ;)

Yeah, I remember now&#33; That &#39;gift economy&#39; worked so well in the Soviet Union&#33; They could go down to the replacement center and get something any time, due to the miracle of cooperative production. Everyone worked as hard as they possibly could, FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY&#33;

Right?

[Publius]

Parties, (temporary) loose groups of workers, that kind of shit.

So essentially, labor unions.




Great, more mouths to feed.

Anyways, the average says nothing because in capitalism you have those who make millions a month and those who make virtually nothing.

How many people make &#39;virtually nothing&#39; in this country?

I find that I often provide claims backed up with factual numbers, wheras you and the rest of the pinkos just give vague &#39;lots&#39;s and &#39;many&#39;s, seemingly as if you don&#39;t know what the hell you&#39;re talking about.

[Enragé]

So essentially, labor unions.

not really, a group of plumbers who sabotage the plumbing of some EU official, isnt a trade union action. (this happened about a month ago in France).


I find that I often provide claims backed up with factual numbers, wheras you and the rest of the pinkos just give vague &#39;lots&#39;s and &#39;many&#39;s, seemingly as if you don&#39;t know what the hell you&#39;re talking about.

virtually nothing means below the poverty line,
United States,32,791,272 people, of which 11.9% lives below the official poverty line

worldwide:

The percentage of people in poverty (2001):

In the US: 11.9%
In Nicaraugua: 50%
In Argentina: 37%
In Belgium(with long time leftist government): 4%
In Ukraine: 29%
In Laos: 40%
In Mali: 64%
In Mozambique: 70%


http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:35 PM
virtually nothing means below the poverty line,
United States,32,791,272 people, of which 11.9% lives below the official poverty line


"Poverty line" is subjective nonsense that can be placed at any level.

Not only that, it tells us nothing. I know many idiots on the dole who try to live they&#39;re not and end up suffering for it. Who&#39;s fault is that ?


In Belgium(with long time leftist government): 4%

:lol:


In Laos: 40%

...with communist government since 1975.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:35 PM






virtually nothing means below the poverty line,
United States,32,791,272 people, of which 11.9% lives below the official poverty line


...which actually means they are quite well off.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm


worldwide:

The percentage of people in poverty (2001):

In the US: 11.9%
In Nicaraugua: 50%
In Argentina: 37%
In Belgium(with long time leftist government): 4%
In Ukraine: 29%
In Laos: 40%
In Mali: 64%
In Mozambique: 70%


Number of thes countries that are predominantly capitalist/have been capitalist for a number of years?

I count 1 aside from the US, and I&#39;m sure Belgiums poor are quite well off.

For my example, note how Vietnam is getting vastly richer since turning away from its communism and embracing capitalism.

It&#39;s set to grow at 6.8% this year. As the Economist says "The private sector will drive growth"

IF those countries had a working capitalist economy for a few yars, how do you think they would look?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:57 PM
"Thievery" is pretty subjectival. If you have to get technical, we could say thievery is "legalized"...but also, at the same time, the need for doing such acts abolished (GIFT ECONOMY&#33;)
Great &#33; Whereabouts do you live ?

I&#39;ll come to collect my "gifts" this weekend.

[Enragé]

...which actually means they are quite well off.


MORON


For my example, note how Vietnam is getting vastly richer since turning away from its communism and embracing capitalism.


the elite yes. I havent got numbers on vietnam, but i know for a fact since previous degenerate workersstate of the "People&#39;s" Republic of China turned to capitalism, millions have become homeless.

[Publius]

MORON

The &#39;poor&#39; of today, in the Western world, are better off than the rich were, 100 years ago.


the elite yes. I havent got numbers on vietnam, but i know for a fact since previous degenerate workersstate of the "People&#39;s" Republic of China turned to capitalism, millions have become homeless.

Don&#39;t back those claims up or anything, I wouldn&#39;t want that.

[Enragé]

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/conte...04/s1108983.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1108983.htm)

[elche08]

i believe vietnam is actually called the SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM...........its still communist, those improvements were made under communism.

The conditions you are talking about in the communes in the U.S.S.R. are not valid considering that at the time it was run by a dictator, therefore it is not the type of communism we are discussing.

Thirdly along the topic of laziness, my theory, you don&#39;t work, you don&#39;t eat&#33; and i think thats fair.

[Urban Rubble]

i believe vietnam is actually called the SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM...........its still communist, those improvements were made under communism.

Good Lord, keep quiet kid.

The "Socialist" Republic of Vietnam is about as Socialist as China (hint: which means they aren&#39;t very Socialist). These recent "growths" ("growth" meaning massive profits for multinational corporations and a few select Vietnamese elite) have indeed come from Capitalist style reforms.

Not that I blame the Vietnamese Communists for not achieving much, kind of hard to do when your country is reduced to rubble and the world&#39;s largest superpower spends 30 years doing everything it can to keep the place that way.


The &#39;poor&#39; of today, in the Western world, are better off than the rich were, 100 years ago.

And how does that relate to Capitalism? Generally as large spans of time pass human civilization progresses.

But hey, I won&#39;t deny that Capitalism creates wealth, it most certainly does. That still doesn&#39;t mean it is justified. There is a "clause" in your system which demands there be a massive disparity between the wealthy and the......not.

[elche08]

my bad

[Publius]

Sorry, double.

[Publius]

And how does that relate to Capitalism? Generally as large spans of time pass human civilization progresses.

But hey, I won&#39;t deny that Capitalism creates wealth, it most certainly does. That still doesn&#39;t mean it is justified. There is a "clause" in your system which demands there be a massive disparity between the wealthy and the......not.

Humans 9,000 years ago were really no better off than humans 10,000 years ago, but humans 100 years ago were infinitely poorer than todays poor.

The catalyst in this rapid advancement is capialism, or to be more specific, industrial capitalism.

Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? If the &#39;poor&#39; get richer, and the &#39;rich&#39; get even richer, how is that a bad thing if both sides are getting richer?

[comrade_mufasa]

Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? If the &#39;poor&#39; get richer, and the &#39;rich&#39; get even richer, how is that a bad thing if both sides are getting richer?
Becouse compared to the rich the poor will still be poor. The rich would still have the money thus the control. The poor maybe better off but the rich still are way better off then the poor.

[Urban Rubble]

Becouse compared to the rich the poor will still be poor. The rich would still have the money thus the control. The poor maybe better off but the rich still are way better off then the poor.

Exactly. It&#39;s about power and control.

I mean, I&#39;m not going to disagree that there have been positive aspects of Captialism. Obviously it has industrialized, brought much wealth and advanced technology, I&#39;m not going to deny that.

But the thing is, no matter how many TV&#39;s and air conditioning units the working class gets, their lives are still being controlled with those who own the majority of the Capital. And that is the problem. I&#39;m not saying that the accumulation of material goods is what&#39;s wrong with Captialism, that&#39;s great that working people are living comfortable lives. But no matter how rich the working class becomes, they will always be lower class in comparison the small minority who holds the capital, and thus the power.

I think you&#39;ve misunderstood our reasons for opposing Capitalism. It isn&#39;t about standards of living, it&#39;s about the system of power which we live under. People cannot have freedom, no matter how nice their house is, when they don&#39;t have the right to control their lives.

[cormacobear]

Yes the technological advances of the last hundred years have certainly raised the standard of living for many. In all likelyhood if the advances had not been so grossly mismanaged by greedy capitalists in imperialistic competitons over land and recources, for example, enough energy and resources have been wasted to have brought the entire worlds population to the standard of living enjoyed by westerners.

I would work communally because it gives my offspring the best chance for a happy healthy life where they are not held back by the limitations of class.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:15 PM
Becouse compared to the rich the poor will still be poor. The rich would still have the money thus the control.
"Control" of what ? Money only equals spending power, not political power.

Unless you are in a mixed economy...


The poor maybe better off but the rich still are way better off then the poor.

So if everyone is better off, but some are better off than others, then this is unjust ? You really are the jealous sort, aren&#39;t you ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 23 2005, 04:14 PM
I think you&#39;ve misunderstood our reasons for opposing Capitalism. It isn&#39;t about standards of living, it&#39;s about the system of power which we live under. People cannot have freedom, no matter how nice their house is, when they don&#39;t have the right to control their lives.
Who is denying anyone the right to control their lives ? How is it being denied ?

[MarxItUpSome]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 23 2005, 04:33 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 23 2005, 04:33 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 03:15 PM
Becouse compared to the rich the poor will still be poor. The rich would still have the money thus the control.
"Control" of what ? Money only equals spending power, not political power.

Unless you are in a mixed economy...


The poor maybe better off but the rich still are way better off then the poor.

So if everyone is better off, but some are better off than others, then this is unjust ? You really are the jealous sort, aren&#39;t you ? [/b]
Money does equal political power, especially in the USA. Don&#39;t you wonder why the huge businesses that break law after law are not punished?

Ever heard of inflation? If everyone has more money, prices will rise - someone will have to lose out unless you are in a totally economically equal society. The people that most often lose out are those in the third world... but you don&#39;t give a damn about them... right?

A lot of the other posts have said the quality of living in the western world has improved - that I will not deny. It is, however, at the expense of the third world that this occurs, big businesses exploit workers in other countries to grow food or produce mechanical items for the people in the west for outrageously small wages. Is this justice?

[Publius]

Becouse compared to the rich the poor will still be poor. The rich would still have the money thus the control. The poor maybe better off but the rich still are way better off then the poor.

How does money = control?

The poor get richer, live longer, better, healthier, happier lives, but since &#39;inequality&#39; got worse, they are dont bad?

[Publius]

Exactly. It&#39;s about power and control.

The power is much more even than you think.


I mean, I&#39;m not going to disagree that there have been positive aspects of Captialism. Obviously it has industrialized, brought much wealth and advanced technology, I&#39;m not going to deny that.

That&#39;s the only thing that matters.


But the thing is, no matter how many TV&#39;s and air conditioning units the working class gets, their lives are still being controlled with those who own the majority of the Capital. And that is the problem. I&#39;m not saying that the accumulation of material goods is what&#39;s wrong with Captialism, that&#39;s great that working people are living comfortable lives. But no matter how rich the working class becomes, they will always be lower class in comparison the small minority who holds the capital, and thus the power.

So if everyone were living in golden mansions in Hollywood Hills, they would be &#39;poor&#39; if someone lived in Louis XVI&#39;s castle?

I&#39;m talking in absolute&#39;s, you&#39;re talking in relatives.



I think you&#39;ve misunderstood our reasons for opposing Capitalism. It isn&#39;t about standards of living, it&#39;s about the system of power which we live under. People cannot have freedom, no matter how nice their house is, when they don&#39;t have the right to control their lives.

People have no freedoms? What freedoms don&#39;t you have? How can&#39;t you control your life?

[Publius]

Yes the technological advances of the last hundred years have certainly raised the standard of living for many. In all likelyhood if the advances had not been so grossly mismanaged by greedy capitalists in imperialistic competitons over land and recources, for example, enough energy and resources have been wasted to have brought the entire worlds population to the standard of living enjoyed by westerners.

How have advances been mismanaged by capitalists?

Give me specific examples.




I would work communally because it gives my offspring the best chance for a happy healthy life where they are not held back by the limitations of class.

Sure you would.

I mean, everyone did in the Soviet Union.

[Publius]

Money does equal political power, especially in the USA. Don&#39;t you wonder why the huge businesses that break law after law are not punished?


Have you listened to a single argument I or other capitalists have presented? If things were run the way we want to run them, money would have no control over political power.



Ever heard of inflation? If everyone has more money, prices will rise - someone will have to lose out unless you are in a totally economically equal society. The people that most often lose out are those in the third world... but you don&#39;t give a damn about them... right?


Have you comprehended a single thing I or other capitalists have said? Under a truly capitalist society, there would be no inflation, or it would be negligable (Far less than a percent a year).



A lot of the other posts have said the quality of living in the western world has improved - that I will not deny. It is, however, at the expense of the third world that this occurs, big businesses exploit workers in other countries to grow food or produce mechanical items for the people in the west for outrageously small wages. Is this justice?

Except that the standard of living in the &#39;third world&#39; is rising at an astronomical rate as well.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:59 PM

Simple; Because it is a means to the necessery survival of the society, and eventually too, in the end, you and me - What happens in the collective, the commune, effects all, so if I slack, I need no punishment to keep me going: I will see the effects on the society and how it will hurt me too, and by facing the raw truth, I will work to strive help it in any way, since it needs all help it can, but there is no restriction on how you could help and in what job - So we&#39;ll all be a bit of "this and that".

So that&#39;s why communal work was so successful in the Soviet Union&#33;

Oh wait...

Quite simply, that&#39;s a load of bullshit. None is going to think "I better go work today, the good of society depends on it&#33;", people are going to think "There are 120 million workers in this country, if I don&#39;t show up, it won&#39;t make a difference".

BLAH BLAH BLAH the fuckin&#39; BLAH&#33; So that&#39;s why THE SOVIET ARGUMENT was so successful...

Oh wait....
It was repeated so many times someone did some research and found out there&#39;s more to the case than that. *WOW* I&#39;m -so- fuckin&#39; impressed, I just shit my pants and had a sandwhich of Publius ;)

First of all, there were no communal work in the Soviet Union. Or wait - well, there was "communal" work - Society-help punishment and forced-labor camps, DAMNED proletar-friendly of them wasn&#39;t it? To fuel on the hoax that were so friggin&#39; communal, they even made fake ceremonial bodies of "Soviets" - russian word for communes...just wait, it&#39;s gettin&#39; BETTER.....then there&#39;s this VANGUARD party who just happen to be, technically, the only legitimate power that makes all &#39;rese fancy communes obsolote, y&#39;see? Then this Stalin comes along and decides, "Well, if that&#39;s the case, why can&#39;t I rule and be an total obsence piece of ass?"

As for what you said next, yes, technically, it would&#39;ve been a load of bullshit if it were only for "society&#39;s-better" spirit, but it works on human nature...not to imply on empathy, which some may lack, but the natural egocy of everyone...to aid self..and in this society, the raw truth I presented earlier but you shrugged off in your basical "rugged invidual style" (Damn tough of you, I might send this to Maddox as a sketch for a dialogue in his comics) people would sooner than later..or by a painful lesson they would if they slack too much...learn the natural cause and effect; You can take what you want and work when you want, but if you don&#39;t aid and this balance sets society out of sustaining the few slackers...almost just like welfare, eh?..you and society will suffer equally. And for the best of it, I would&#39;ve given a hand to restore things. If 120 millions work and I don&#39;t make a difference, then I don&#39;t get the fuckin&#39; problem, then I would slack off I guess? BAH&#33;

And renember, withouth a state there would be only worker&#39;s council...Luxembourg&#33; :blink:

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:01 AM


How have advances been mismanaged by capitalists?

Give me specific examples.


475 billion dollars spent on the US military so far this year. the year is half over. Do you know how many homes could have been built rather than destroyed. How many wind farms could have been built creating jobs and lower oil reliance. That&#39;s gross mismanagemant.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:08 PM
475 billion dollars spent on the US military so far this year.
Defending ones own counry is hardly a waste of money.

[Invader Zim]

The catalyst in this rapid advancement is capialism, or to be more specific, industrial capitalism.

Wrong the advance was technology.

[Publius]

475 billion dollars spent on the US military so far this year. the year is half over. Do you know how many homes could have been built rather than destroyed. How many wind farms could have been built creating jobs and lower oil reliance. That&#39;s gross mismanagemant.

Yes, it is gross mismanagement.

But it&#39;s governmental, not private.

[Publius]

The catalyst in this rapid advancement is capialism, or to be more specific, industrial capitalism.

Wrong the advance was technology.

Modern technology is inseperable from modern capitalism.

All the modern technologies were created and advanced upon by companies, corporations and capitalists.

Technology, capitalist is like chicken, egg.

You can&#39;t have capitalism without industrial production, and you can&#39;t have (effective) industrial production without capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:53 PM
The catalyst in this rapid advancement is capialism, or to be more specific, industrial capitalism.

Wrong the advance was technology.
Funny how there was none of this technology before capitalism. But then inventing and development can be awfully difficult when your property rights aren&#39;t protected and when your money is subject to random siezure.

[Enragé]

Technology, capitalist is like chicken, egg.

I have to point out here that historically he is right, the technology increased because the bourgeoisie wanted to make more money, mor quickly...at the expense of the working class.
However, these advancements could have also been made in a more communal system, but since none existed at the time and has never truly existed, we cant tell for sure. The point is, communism isnt about gaining as much wealth as possible, its about living as happily as possible. Ofcourse a degree of wealth, and especially knowing that you will have food tomorrow etc, will be necessary. This is what communism provides. Capitalism exploits the working class by giving it a small percentage of the wealth they actually produce, capitalism makes the people depend on their jobs, and thus their bosses. Working becomes the number one reason of life on its own. Communism stops all this, in communism you work for the community and thus yourself and it integrates working into the rest of your life, ensuring you of food and wealth, thus making it possible for people to concentrate on the advancement of not only their own lives (for instancein a social way) but also the general advancement of the entire community (for instance in a scientific way). So, wealth is not the goal of communism, a happy life is, ensuring people of basic necessities in order to let them live their lives however they want, and concentrate on the important stuff, not just working day in, day out, especially when this day in day out working only furthers your boss and not yourself nor your community.

[OleMarxco]

&#39;Sides, why the hell do we need any more technology now, huh? Yeah, I know what, Capitalism has "created" alot of new technology because of greed as a driving force since science was funded and profitable, etc...etc..Some could say it was because of Scientist&#39;s wish for common good, and joined the cause..tec..etc..and it was really human nature behind it all since technology = money for the Capitalists... but now we don&#39;t need that shit no more perhaps except a Cure for Cancer, and we&#39;re all set&#33; The system&#39;s around only for bullshit and inequality fer by now, and the only thing it supports, is driving around the world lookin&#39; for new markets to exploit. Dominate. Globalize&#33;

And the press on scientists and proles of machinery to create more and more technology for the goddamn market to sell and shit, like cell-phones etc., can only serve on the thing...PROFITS, WORK-BOREDOM AND "TECHNOLOGY" caged in a cell for a marketin&#39; genius wantin&#39; more FANCY inventions to sell, SELL, sell and earn, buy, reinvest - While we will, instead, open science up for everyone to decide in, which direction they will take, and likely, the will of the people will aim us to cancer-cure in our own speed - not profit (Frankly, as a matter of fact, "cancer-cure" is counter-capitalist since the insurance companies will earn less but the pharmacy companies, well, that&#39;s another story) Yee-haw, let&#39;s make more stash to kill with, Bradley.

Money power equals political power HOW = One word, lobbyists- And if we don&#39;t work for&#39;em, we&#39;ll loose money and all that is good with it - And "welfare" can&#39;t solve that, nor our consumeric lifestyles - so there we need a new society, where science is not decided by a "democratic" elite where we, everyone and the people - can go in and alter the technology to our whim :D


Great&#33; Whereabouts do you live?

I&#39;ll come to collect my "gifts" this weekend.

Kammen 64, 7083 Leinstrand, Trondheim, Norway.
Be sure to hit by the free distrubution center on the way, by the way&#33;
Nevermind you could just stop there and get your "gifts" for free,
Nevertheless, no need to go for me. Not like it&#39;s allowed, or if it matters.


Originally posted by "Professor Moneybags"
Defending ones own counry is hardly a waste of money.

And neither is attacking foreign countries and being paranoid, eh? ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected]n 25 2005, 03:58 PM
Money power equals political power
Yeah, you neighbor earning twice your salary "rules over you". :lol:

[Enragé]

it is a fact that the candidate with the most money in the US presidential race almost ALWAYS wins