Do you even know

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

After reading alot of the post the past few days and seeing the average age of the typical memeber (no i'm not trying to belittle your opinions so just save it) I want to know you're past experiences/education on such topics as communist societies and such. What happened that made you feel that the US and the rest of the world is past the point of reform? I myself still believe in this country and democracy...I think that we need to bring values back into politics and not the ones that Dubya speaks of, there is a huge difference between ture Christian values of peace and tolerance and the ones that Bush and his buddies are pulling out of their asses. so just to wrap things up i want to know how at such a young age (again not putting your opinion down so don't even start w/ that crap) you all feel that we can't change things w/o a revolution and change of government?

[Clarksist]

Name a single moment in history where some violence wasn't needed to make a gigantic change.



Give up?

See, its not that I wouldn't love to peacefully change society. In fact, I think that's how we need to start the change. But it comes down to the hungry trying to get food, but the food is coming out of the bougeois' hands.

See the conflict of interest?

The problem is, we aren't making a violent revolution, the bourgeois is putting us in a place where that is the only way to make the needed changes.

As for your belief in this country and its "democracy" list off every single President this country has EVER had.

They are all either rich, backed by major corporations, or had the proper "connections". All meaning that they owed their position to, you guessed it, the bourgeois. That or they are the bourgeois themselves.

Thats about as blunt as I can put it at 3 PM.

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

About you're argument about the Presidents...yes they are all elite members of society but thats where REFORM comes in. We need to prevent it from being a two party system. How? I'm not totally sure but i'm not beaten yet and i'm not going to give up.

[danny android]

It's not so much that the amerikan form of government is undemocratic or corupt (which it is). But the economic system which we live in is itself corrupt (capitolism). People should not be devided by class, no one should be above anybody else. The capitolist system itself is based around greed and exploitation and therefore is evil and must be crushed.

[LSD]

What happened that made you feel that the US and the rest of the world is past the point of reform?

Historical experience.


I myself still believe in this country and democracy..

And if the US were a democracy that would be valid.

Unfortunately the US, and all other capitalist countries, are functionaly incapable of democracy. So long as the political system is grafted upon an economic system predicated on inequality, political equality is impossible.

As communists, we seek to create actual democracy. That means all people will have equal say in all things, as opposed to merely the elites. That's the nature of a classless society!


there is a huge difference between ture Christian values of peace and tolerance and the ones that Bush and his buddies are pulling out of their asses

Really?

Like what?

I've read the Bible cover to cover and it seems to jive quite well with Bush and co.'s rhetoric. Inequality, prejeduce, sexism, heterosexism, mysogeny, imperialism, elitism, etc... they're all there.

In all honesty, I'd say that Bush is much more "peaceful and tolerant" than the Bible.

Bush, you see, isn't trying to reinstate slavery!


(no i'm not trying to belittle your opinions so just save it)

(again not putting your opinion down so don't even start w/ that crap)

Do you think he doth protest too much?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:58 PM
About you're argument about the Presidents...yes they are all elite members of society but thats where REFORM comes in. We need to prevent it from being a two party system. How? I'm not totally sure but i'm not beaten yet and i'm not going to give up.
Ahh, so the people who want/need change (the poor, or at least poorer) are going to take down the rich and powerful... through voting. Well how are we going to get the message across to everyone? Believe it or not, in capitalism it takes *GASP* capital to run a campaign. Capital is something all of the MIDDLE CLASS combined can't match when it comes to the bourgeois.

You can't pray in one hand and shit in the other. You gotta do something. And frankly, plutocracy isn't our way. They've (the bourgeois) decided to make this system where they get power, and we propose a system where EVERYONE shares power. That is where the conflict of interest comes in. They have the power, and we want some of it. And they aren't exactly going to "give" it away on goodwill.

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

You people are just spouting the same tired ideas that I've seen thoughout history that still are not being practiced in particularly organized, industrilized countries. you preach about what you see in history as what makes you feel the U.S. is past reform? Well tell me this...tell me anywhere were mainline communism is in a country that many of its people are happy. and also the orginal question which i'll have to look back to remember. Also tell me whoever can't see the difference between Bush's values and intelligent faithful christians. There are obiously extremes to every belief, look at this forum...do you all consider yourself the far left? Well my ideas i'm derived from the scripture is that we are taught to turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers and mainly to care for the poor. NONE OF WHAT BUSH HAS DONE! yea sounds real passionate. You judge everything you think is wrong as the extreme b/c that is all you see. You have to have faith in people...is that not why we fight for what we think is right!? I have enough faith in people to believe that eventually people will see past the lies when they are tried of being thought of as fools. I believe in God but please don't ever say that Bush and I share the same values. Oh this answer isn't directed to everyone just the one who said they didn't see a difference, i just can't remember they're name. But i hope that all of you take something from this with you.

[jvs]

voiceoftheriot,
in an ideal world, the US could be reformed without a violent revolution. but we dont live in an ideal world.
you're opinion on US democracy is the same as most people think. i recommend u read the satires of juvenal, the ancient roman writer. he basically says, in regards to democracy, that democracy fails when people realise they can vote for the countries' treasure. today that means that people vote for which leader gives them the best tax deal, the best social security, education etc. Americans, in general, don't care about the common good, or the good of the country. they care about themselves.

half of america are eating themselves to death
the other half of them are battling to feed their family

there is no way that the bourgeois are going to give power to the proletariat, so as clarksist says, they have put us in a position where there is no other option

[redstar2000]

Moved to Opposing Ideologies and title edited to reflect topic.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[A Free Mind]

Democracy could work in a country that was Capitalistic Athens and others proved the point hell we have the tec all we need the desire to be awakened in the people and the goverment would follow (new leaders)

[KC]

About you're argument about the Presidents...yes they are all elite members of society but thats where REFORM comes in. We need to prevent it from being a two party system. How? I'm not totally sure but i'm not beaten yet and i'm not going to give up.

Once you figure that out let us know and we'll be sure to discredit it.


Well tell me this...tell me anywhere were mainline communism is in a country that many of its people are happy.

Well tell me this...tell me anywhere where "mainline communism" existed. In about 100% of your guesses you will be wrong.


Also tell me whoever can't see the difference between Bush's values and intelligent faithful christians.

Bush might be crazier than you, but you're all psychopathic, blind fools nonetheless. :rolleyes:


Well my ideas i'm derived from the scripture is that we are taught to turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers and mainly to care for the poor.

Really? You needed religion to teach you that? You didn't know that before religion got to you? Before religion you were a barbaric, warmaking, greedy person? I doubt it. You don't need religion to teach you anything. You just want it because you can't handle existence on your own. It takes some pressure of life off your shoulders. It's like a drug! (Religion is the opiate of the masses).


I have enough faith in people to believe that eventually people will see past the lies when they are tried of being thought of as fools.

People don't care enough about the lies to even think there's something wrong. As long as they're safe and secure they're happy. They won't even think of the lies unless they feel that something is completely wrong with society. And when the ruling class creates enough propaganda that say that everything is alright, whatever is said negatively about the system is wrong, people tend to not question it.


I believe in God but please don't ever say that Bush and I share the same values.

Bush and you share the same values. In fact, the two of you aren't that different from each other. You're both fools that can't see the forest for the trees. You can't see the fact that the christian god is completely illogical. You can't see the hundreds of contradictions that are inherent in the christian - in all - religion. If you want to debate the existence of god, start a new thread.


Democracy could work in a country that was Capitalistic Athens and others proved the point hell we have the tec all we need the desire to be awakened in the people and the goverment would follow (new leaders)

Could you please add some punctuation and correct the spelling in this? I can't understand it at all.

[jvs]

QUOTE
Democracy could work in a country that was Capitalistic Athens and others proved the point hell we have the tec all we need the desire to be awakened in the people and the goverment would follow (new leaders)



Could you please add some punctuation and correct the spelling in this? I can't understand it at all.

i cant understand it either, but here's my best guess at it:

Democracy could work in a country that was Capitalistic Athens and others proved the point. hell we have the tec(hnology), all we need the desire to be awakened in the people, and the goverment would follow (subsequently), and result in new leaders

something about democracy in ancient greece, maybe regarding me mentioning juvenal?? even though he was roman.

there should be some kind of minimum number of full stops in a sentence per words. or free grammar classes on the website.

[A Free Mind]

I was responding Lysergic Acid's earlier post which stated "the US, and all other capitalist countries, are functionaly incapable of democracy". I was trying to say that democracy was possible in a capitalist nation/state as was proven by Ancient Athens. I then went on to say (very unclearly) that all that is needed to install real democracy in the USA or else where is the will of the people as new leaders will champion the cause of democracy in order to get into power.

Sorry about the previous post I must not have been thinking clearly.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:54 PM
See, its not that I wouldn't love to peacefully change society. In fact, I think that's how we need to start the change. But it comes down to the hungry trying to get food, but the food is coming out of the bougeois' hands.

See the conflict of interest?
If there is every any conflict of interest between people, at least one of the parties is being irrational, usually the party that initiates the use of force. When you consider that there is no such thing as a free lunch, it's easy to see who that is.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 21 2005, 08:54 PM
People should not be devided by class, no one should be above anybody else.
We're not.


The capitolist system itself is based around greed and exploitation and therefore is evil and must be crushed.

Another unquestioned, unexamined premise with a conclusion to match.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 22 2005, 02:44 AM
Historical experience.
This is presumably the same historical experience that tells you that communism is a good idea and is going to work wonderfully ?

[KC]

This is presumably the same historical experience that tells you that communism is a good idea and is going to work wonderfully ?


You're pretty much the biggest fucking idiot I've ever heard of.

[LSD]

If there is every any conflict of interest between people, at least one of the parties is being irrational

What kind of nonsense is that!?

Which was the "party being irrational" in, say, the Mexican-American war?

Certainly you could say that one side was "wrong" and one side was "right", but both parties were rationaly pursuing their particular goals. In one case imperialism, in the other territorial integrity.


This is presumably the same historical experience that tells you that communism is a good idea and is going to work wonderfully ?

It is.


We're not [devided by class].

Moneybags, are you claiming that class doesn't exist?

That there's "no such thing" as working class? :blink:

Wow, you are to the way way way way fringe aren't you.

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

Whoa, I'm sorry that I use the christian text as a guide for living my life. I guess i was born on a wednesday so i wasn't blessed w/ all knowing power such as you all. Well I guess I'll be thanking you when the revolution begins and changes the world. Could you give me a time table as to when you're radical ideas might come into play? eh? Oh and how long have you all been "organizing" this incredible change for society on this forum? weeks? months? years? Is there anywhere i can look and see your ideas being practiced now? Ahhh no i think not, I must say...i can see that a majority of the members here are young ones. call me once you've experienced your rude awakening.

[OleMarxco]

Heh, Communism was, in fact, my "rude awakening"...and it shook me as a horrendous vision where shit was headin'...TO THE CARGET BIN! TRASH CAN! WUAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH, whatever your word. 'Neways, we aren't bound by time table's and routines, stop thinkin' yer fuckin' best-citizenry way. This is not a game of Jeopardy. However, I am sure YOU would have hard time adjustin' to the new society, but all in time I guess. Only you don't turn out to be REACTIONARY...then we will be killin' each-other, friend! :o The plans are in our heads...

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:24 AM
You have to have faith in people...is that not why we fight for what we think is right!?
we do have faith in people, why would we be persuing a world where the average person decides what goes on. we dont have faith in people who have abused power. so what do we do? destroy power, and as a lot of people would like to, destroy those peope too.

[codyvo]

Voice of the riot: I actually have to agree with you on a few things, a peaceful change is the best way to go, and that not all christians share the same values, Jerry Falwell is definately not the same as you or any other left wing christian.
But I disagree that elections would work, we would need to have some other peaceful way of bringing about change and I guess it could be possible to use some local elections to our advantage. I suggest you read "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" by Noam Chomsky.
I also disagree with you saying that the younger members of the board have a worse sense for what the rest of the world is like. I am probably one of the youngest members here but I feel that I have a fairly good understanding of what the world is like. I don't think age is the way to measure what someone's knowledge on this would be, someone could be a college graduate from Yale, be 59, have twin daughters that got caught with fake ID's, have a happy family that is rich and lives in a big house that is white and still have no idea what it is like.

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

wow, that was, seriously, a really good intelligent reply...it is nice to see that there are still thoughtfull people who do care...not just the loudest voices on either side of the issue

[danny android]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 22 2005, 02:16 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 22 2005, 02:16 PM)
danny [email protected] 21 2005, 08:54 PM
People should not be devided by class, no one should be above anybody else.
We're not.
[/b]
hmm. Ok so you are just going to deny something that any socialogist would tell you was complete fact. I'd like to see some proof of your claim, or atleast somekind of argument to back it up. Otherwise you are just talking non-sense.

[LSD]

Whoa, I'm sorry that I use the christian text as a guide for living my life.

As well you should be!

It's one of the most disgusting moral codes around. :angry:


I guess i was born on a wednesday so i wasn't blessed w/ all knowing power such as you all.

No one here is claiming omniscience. We merely have ideas which we believe to be good and valid. We are willing to debate and dicuss these ideas. You, however, refuse to engage in a serious discussion and resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.

Calling us "young" doesn't distract from your failure to defend a single one of your assertions.

You have claimed that communism opposes "human nature" ...but have offered no evidence.

You have claimed that people innately "will not" work for others ...but have offered no evidence.

You've even made bizzarre historical assertions like that Castro was planning the mass deportation of Cuban children ...again with nothing to back it up.

Are you actually prepared to back up your various positions or are you only here to spam and flame? We are more than willing to tolerate questions and disagreement, but this kind of petty rigidity is a waste of everyones time.

You say that you oppose communism. Fine, why? What are the reasons, and can you defend those reasons. If so, we can have a conversation. But, please, leave the childish namecalling out.


Is there anywhere i can look and see your ideas being practiced now? Ahhh no i think not

And was there anywhere, in 1500, that one could look to see republicanism in practice?

Just because something has not yet been realized, it does not mean that it is unattainable.


I must say...i can see that a majority of the members here are young ones. call me once you've experienced your rude awakening.

Again with the personal attacks.

If you have actual arguments against communism, please present them. But ranting about "young ones" and "rude awakenings" contributes nothing.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 22 2005, 07:41 PM
hmm. Ok so you are just going to deny something that any socialogist would tell you was complete fact.
I'd like either you or these "sociologists" (who are probably singing from the same hymn sheet as yourself) to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that we're living in some sort of "caste" system.


I'd like to see some proof of your claim, or atleast somekind of argument to back it up. Otherwise you are just talking non-sense.

You want me to prove that something doesn't exist ? That argument sounds familiar...

[KC]

Wow now you're disagreeing to what most capitalists would claim as common sense.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:23 AM
Wow now you're disagreeing to what most capitalists would claim as common sense.
Is supposed to be some sort of argument ?

[KC]

Not really. I'm not going to argue with you with what you're giving me. Since you don't even have the knowledge of the average person on the subject I kwow it's not worth it. If you want to see if class exists or not, go ask a sociologist. Go ask anyone. I've seen you go low, moneybags, but I didn't think you'd go this low.

[LSD]

I'd like either you or these "sociologists" (who are probably singing from the same hymn sheet as yourself) to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that we're living in some sort of "caste" system.

Not a "'caste system", a class system.

Do try and keep up.

Social_class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class)


You want me to prove that something doesn't exist ?

No, we want you to provide some evidence for your claim of nonexistance of a social phenomenon which the vast majority of sociologists and economists say exists.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2005, 06:32 PM
Social_class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class)

Which part of this supposedly refutes what I've said ? I've explained countless times why there is no such thing as "economic class"- it's all relative. There's certainly no political classes either- you get one vote like everyone else (assuming you're even old enough to do so).


No, we want you to provide some evidence for your claim of nonexistance of a social phenomenon which the vast majority of sociologists and economists say exists.

The onus lies with those asserting the positive. That's you. It's no defence to say sociologist say such and such- let's see their (non contradictory) evidence.


Not really. I'm not going to argue with you with what you're giving me. Since you don't even have the knowledge of the average person on the subject I kwow it's not worth it.

You mean I don't agree with you and you can't back up your arguments with any objective evidence.


If you want to see if class exists or not, go ask a sociologist. Go ask anyone. I've seen you go low, moneybags, but I didn't think you'd go this low.

Translation : I can't argue my point, so I'll resort to the "everybody knows" fallacy.

[LSD]

Which part of this supposedly refutes what I've said ?

The part where it says that class exists refutes your statement that it doesn't.


I've explained countless times why there is no such thing as "economic class"

Is this the "I've already covered this, so don't ask me to actually defend my assertions" fallacy?

Sorry, but I have yet to see where you've even begun to "explain" how economic class does not exist.

Surely class is a complex issue, but a nonexistant one? You'll have to provide some actual argumentation to defend the counterintuitive assertion that a CEO and a manual labourer have the same relation to the means of production.


There's certainly no political classes either- you get one vote like everyone else

That's so ridiculously naive.

Surely you're not so blind as to not realize that those with means are able to influence the decisions of politicians more than those without. Or that those who can afford it can broadcast their opinions whereas others cannot. Or that the vast majority of politicians are themselves rich or have above average wealth.

The way that capitalism works is that you "vote with your dollars". How can a political system them exists within a capitalist framework not be affected by that framework?

The idea that money "doesn't intersect" with politics is ludicrous on face.


It's no defence to say sociologist say such and such- let's see their (non contradictory) evidence.

Well, here are some quick and easy peer-reviewed articles on the subject from various sides of the issue:

Economic Cleavages in the American Working Class
William Form; George Putnam
The British Journal of Sociology > Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 1-33

Class Struggle American Style: Unions, Strikes and Wages
Beth A. Rubin
American Sociological Review > Vol. 51, No. 5 (Oct., 1986), pp. 618-633

Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise
Erik Olin Wright
The American Journal of Sociology > Vol. 105, No. 4 (Jan., 2000), pp. 957-1002

[jvs]

this is just an observation on moneybags....

he seems to be against not only every single socialist ideal, but every single ideal on the entire left side of the political spectrum.

with a name like 'professor moneybags', i've got a good feeling he's a capitalist who joined this website to spread his bourgeois propaganda.

[tondraal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:54 PM
Name a single moment in history where some violence wasn't needed to make a gigantic change.

Ahem, liberatian of India by Gandhi. ;)

[LSD]

Ahem, liberatian of India by Gandhi.

Ghandi didn't "liberate" anyone. He was an important part of the Indian independentist movement. But the reason that that movement succeded was because of the greatest instance of violence in human history, World War II.

Besides, England's pull out was hardly a "gigantic change". It was merely a change in political leadership. The same economic powers, mainly British, still dominated, and it would take about 50 years before that gradually changed ...to being American dominated.

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

wow, LSD sure is quite the firecracker

[KC]

Don't spam.

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

Huh? son don't use that crazy lingo w/ me

[KC]

If you keep spamming you will be banned.

[OleMarxco]

And if you keep threathening people you will be killed.
How that's for fair -n'- square? Sounds like a deal to me :wub:

[VoiceOfTheRiot]

Ha ha OH GOD NO...NOT BANNED

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2005, 12:41 AM

Which part of this supposedly refutes what I've said ?

The part where it says that class exists refutes your statement that it doesn't.

Did you learn to deabate at a pantomime ? Tip : Other people saying "classes exist" isn't evidence.


Is this the "I've already covered this, so don't ask me to actually defend my assertions" fallacy?

You're the one making the assertion; prove it exists. At what point does one become "capitalist class" and one become "working class" ?


Sorry, but I have yet to see where you've even begun to "explain" how economic class does not exist.

The onus isn't on me to disprove anything until accurate evidence has been presented to prove the case.


Surely class is a complex issue, but a nonexistant one? You'll have to provide some actual argumentation to defend the counterintuitive assertion that a CEO and a manual labourer have the same relation to the means of production.

There is still a lack of definition attached to what you call "means of production".



It's no defence to say sociologist say such and such- let's see their (non contradictory) evidence.

Well, here are some quick and easy peer-reviewed articles on the subject from various sides of the issue:

Economic Cleavages in the American Working Class
William Form; George Putnam
The British Journal of Sociology > Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 1-33

Class Struggle American Style: Unions, Strikes and Wages
Beth A. Rubin
American Sociological Review > Vol. 51, No. 5 (Oct., 1986), pp. 618-633

Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise
Erik Olin Wright
The American Journal of Sociology > Vol. 105, No. 4 (Jan., 2000), pp. 957-1002

Sounds very much like they accept the existence of class as a premise, rather than a hypothesis to be proven.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:19 AM
this is just an observation on moneybags....

he seems to be against not only every single socialist ideal, but every single ideal on the entire left side of the political spectrum.


Because most of it is based on unquestioned premises and bad philosophy.


with a name like 'professor moneybags', i've got a good feeling he's a capitalist who joined this website to spread his bourgeois propaganda.

Do you see me posting links to "bourgeois" websites ?

[LSD]

At what point does one become "capitalist class" and one become "working class" ?

Depending on ones relation to the means of production. If one owns/controls them then one is a capitalist. If one works them then one is a worker.

Simple, no?


There is still a lack of definition attached to what you call "means of production".

Means_of_production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production)


Sounds very much like they accept the existence of class as a premise, rather than a hypothesis to be proven.

They provide in-depth analysis of what class means, how it operates, how it is defined, how it interacts, etc... from various perspectives, including ardently capitalist.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 04:58 PM

At what point does one become "capitalist class" and one become "working class" ?

Depending on ones relation to the means of production. If one owns/controls them then one is a capitalist. If one works them then one is a worker.

Simple, no?
Erm....No.

"The means of production are physical, non-human, inputs used in production. This includes factories, machines, tools and materials, along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital - in other words, the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital or labor."

This is almost infinitely vague. Isn't a shovel a means of production ? What about a privately-owned drill ? Is everyone with a DIY kit a "capitalist" ? Will the revolution consist of raiding people's garden sheds too ? If not, where's the distinction ?

Or is it deliberately open-ended ? <_<

[LSD]

Moneybags, don&#39;t be obtuse.

It is implied that we are talking about owners of significant means of production, not a guy a with a shovel.


where&#39;s the distinction ?

If you own your own tools/materials and work them, you are not a capitalist, you&#39;re a petty-bourgois.

If you labour on someone else&#39;s tools/materials then you are a worker.

If you own tools/materials but others work them for you then you are a capitalist.

[Publius]

Using that definition, most everyone has been a capitalist and proletarian at some point.

[Mr America]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 21 2005, 08:54 PM
It&#39;s not so much that the amerikan form of government is undemocratic or corupt (which it is). But the economic system which we live in is itself corrupt (capitolism). People should not be devided by class, no one should be above anybody else. The capitolist system itself is based around greed and exploitation and therefore is evil and must be crushed.
Who&#39;s gonna crush it? You? ROFL foolish commies. You will never rule our great nation.

[Ele'ill]

Who&#39;s gonna crush it? You? ROFL foolish commies. You will never rule our great nation.

It goes beyond ruling the nation and this is where it gets tricky. Seeing how america has it&#39;s hands on the rest of the world economically and politically if the US should be crushed then any influence in other nations will be crushed as well.
Is this a good thing?
What are some consequences we can think of in reguards to this issue?

[KC]

Who&#39;s gonna crush it? You? ROFL foolish commies. You will never rule our great nation.

Glad to know that people like you are alive to support your "great nation" through such "tragedies" as the Abu Ghraib scandal, globalization, exploitation, etc...

On edit, please try to explain why our nation is so great.

[Martyr Machine]

America is not, nor was it ever, a democracy. The founding fathers abhored democracy. And for good reason, democracy is nothing more than the totalitarian rule of the majority.

[LSD]

democracy is nothing more than the totalitarian rule of the majority.

As opposed to what? Totalitarian rule of the minority?

You know what Madison said, "the opulant few"... <_<

[Martyr Machine]

As opposed to what? Totalitarian rule of the minority?

Yes. We call that "oligarchy".

[LSD]

um.. are you saying that you&#39;re an "oligarchist"? :lol:

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 05:06 AM
um.. are you saying that you&#39;re an "oligarchist"? :lol:
No. I support a republic. I want a government who&#39;s only purpose is to defend property rights.

[LSD]

No. I support a republic.

Right, that&#39;s called oligarchy. Didn&#39;t we just do this?


I want a government who&#39;s only purpose is to defend property rights.

Oh, so you&#39;re a crazy person&#33; In that case, welcome to Opposing Ideologies.

[Martyr Machine]

Right, that&#39;s called oligarchy. Didn&#39;t we just do this?

Not necessarily. Oligarchy is dictatorship, it requires that a select group of people be given total control, which would defeat the entire purpose of a republic.

[KC]

So oligarchism is like fascism except with a group of people ruling instead of one.

[LSD]

Oligarchy is dictatorship, it requires that a select group of people be given total control

Which is what a republic is. Granted, the specific members of the rulling elite are rotated every couple of years or so, but the people never get to really have any say in decision making.


which would defeat the entire purpose of a republic.

The "entire purpose of a republic", at least as your Consitution&#39;s "father" put it, is to protect the "oppulant few" against the "masses" who, you know, want some of their stuff.

Republican forms of government are about preserving status and maintaining privilege. That aim is completly compatible with "dictatorship".

The only reason that republics aren&#39;t more "overt" in their dictatorialism, is that those same "masses" it aims to oppress wouldn&#39;t stand for it. Propaganda only goes so far, but make no mistake, if they could the rulling class would dispense with the formality of "voting". It&#39;s just that at this time it&#39;s politically convienient to keep it.

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:18 AM
So oligarchism is like fascism except with a group of people ruling instead of one.
More or less, yes.
Oligarchy refers to the distribution of power. Whereas fascism refers to how said power is used.

Power distribution can generally be classified as follows..

Monarchy - Rule of the one
Oligarchy - Rule of the few
Democracy - Rule of the many

Fascism is, of course, a form of monarchy. Whereas communism (in theory) is a form of democracy.

Democracy of course, will always (Always. Every single time. 100%. No exceptions) collapse into fascism when he majority discovers it can strip the minority of its rights, which is precisely why communism fails.

[Martyr Machine]

The "entire purpose of a republic", at least as your Consitution&#39;s "father" put it, is to protect the "oppulant few" against the "masses" who, you know, want some of their stuff.

Republican forms of government are about preserving status and maintaining privilege. That aim is completly compatible with "dictatorship".

The only reason that republics aren&#39;t more "overt" in their dictatorialism, is that those same "masses" it aims to oppress wouldn&#39;t stand for it. Propaganda only goes so far, but make no mistake, if they could the rulling class would dispense with the formality of "voting". It&#39;s just that at this time it&#39;s politically convienient to keep it.

A true rights based republic is an illogical form of government, it does not fit in to the typical power distribution model, as it stresses that the only purpose of government is to defend rights, and all individuals hold absolute dominion over their property (which does not necessarily refer to land, as socialists believe)

[KC]

Democracy of course, will always (Always. Every single time. 100%. No exceptions) collapse into fascism when he majority discovers it can strip the minority of its rights, which is precisely why communism fails.

What minority? The economic minority? There is none&#33;

[LSD]

Democracy of course, will always (Always. Every single time. 100%. No exceptions) collapse into fascism when he majority discovers it can strip the minority of its rights

Because, of course, they want to do so. :rolleyes:

The problem with this argument is that, in theory anyways, the same is true of republicanism. If enough Americans wanted to ammend the constitution to, I don&#39;t know, reintroduce slavery, they could do so. It would take longer than in a democracy, but they could still do so.

The simple truth is that you can&#39;t have it both ways. Either the government is "of the people", or it isn&#39;t. If the people make the laws then they have to be able to make the laws.

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:28 AM

Democracy of course, will always (Always. Every single time. 100%. No exceptions) collapse into fascism when he majority discovers it can strip the minority of its rights, which is precisely why communism fails.

What minority? The economic minority? There is none&#33;
By the minority I mean "them". "Them" of course, refers top whatever scapegoat society/government creates at any given time.

Of course there is no ecenomic minority, everyone is so poor you&#39;d hardly be able to differenciate between the classes. (this is the unltimate goal of communism, equality through poverty)


If enough Americans wanted to ammend the constitution to, I don&#39;t know, reintroduce slavery, they could do so. It would take longer than in a democracy, but they could still do so.


Of course its possible. In a democracy of course, the government would bow to the majority and enslave "them" (the scapegoat) The job of a republic however, is to step in and give the majority a sharp kick in the ass whenever this happens. Granted, the system is not perfect, and its entirely possible for the majority to instigate revolution. But the difference is that the republic would fight against the majority instead of fighting with it.

[KC]

Of course there is no ecenomic minority, everyone is so poor you&#39;d hardly be able to differenciate between the classes. (this is the unltimate goal of communism, equality through poverty)

How can people be poor if there is no money? Better yet, how can people be poor if everything is free, so they can have whatever they want? Maybe you should give me your definition of "poor". And in communism there are no classes. You are uneducated/miseducated.

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:34 AM


Of course there is no ecenomic minority, everyone is so poor you&#39;d hardly be able to differenciate between the classes. (this is the unltimate goal of communism, equality through poverty)

How can people be poor if there is no money? Better yet, how can people be poor if everything is free, so they can have whatever they want? Maybe you should give me your definition of "poor". And in communism there are no classes. You are uneducated/miseducated.
People dont work for nothing. The entire ecenomic structure of the nation would collapse.

[KC]

People dont work for nothing. The entire ecenomic structure of the nation would collapse.

Here we go again....

Why wouldn&#39;t people work for nothing? Because they don&#39;t have any economic incentive? :lol:

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:37 AM


People dont work for nothing. The entire ecenomic structure of the nation would collapse.

Here we go again....

Why wouldn&#39;t people work for nothing? Because they don&#39;t have any economic incentive? :lol:
You make the assumption that someone will train for years to become an doctor when they can work as a janitor for the same benefits. Granted, the odd person will, but not enough to sustain society.

[KC]

You make the assumption that someone will train for years to become an doctor when they can work as a janitor for the same benefits. Granted, the odd person will, but not enough to sustain society.

There are enough people that will become doctors for the love of their profession than for the economic incentive. Many countries don&#39;t pay their doctors nearly as well as the US does and they experience no shortage.

[LSD]

A true rights based republic is an illogical form of government

Tell me about it&#33; :lol:


Of course there is no ecenomic minority, everyone is so poor you&#39;d hardly be able to differenciate between the classes.

There wouldn&#39;t be any classes to differenciate between.


(this is the unltimate goal of communism, equality through poverty)

That&#39;s what&#39;s called an assertion. On this board, we encourage people to provide justification for their random assumptions. But don&#39;t worry, stick around and I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll get the hang of it. :)


Of course its possible. In a democracy of course, the government would bow to the majority and enslave "them" (the scapegoat)

Again, assuming that a majority of people want to enslave anyone&#33;


The job of a republic however, is to step in and give the majority a sharp kick in the ass whenever this happens.

Protecting the "oppulant few", eh?

As I said, a republic is about protecting the elite minority against the disenfranchised majority. It is an intrinsically oppressive form of governance.


But the difference is that the republic would fight against the minority instead of fighting with it.

How so? Again, in theory, if the majority wante slavery, they&#39;d "vote in" pro-slavery candidates and BINGO, the republic&#39;s on "their side".


People dont work for nothing.

Sure they do. They&#39;re called hobbies.


The entire ecenomic structure of the nation would collapse.

Because people only work for material incentives... <_<

Arguing with a capitalist is like talking to a cabbage.


You make the assumption that someone will train for years to become an doctor when they can work as a janitor for the same benefits.

Yeah, because being a janitor kind of sucks, and bein a doctor is far more interesting, rewarding, etc...

In a society in which money did not exist, people are free to pursue education for its own bennefit. That means going into medicine, because you enjoy it, not to "pay the bills".

By the way, this is what I love about capitalists on this baord. Half of them agree with you and say that there will be no doctors, the other half say that everyone will be a doctor. It&#39;s a constant reminder that people are different, and a constant reinforcement that communism will work&#33;

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Martyr Machine+Aug 8 2005, 05:41 AM--> (Martyr Machine @ Aug 8 2005, 05:41 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 05:37 AM


People dont work for nothing. The entire ecenomic structure of the nation would collapse.

Here we go again....

Why wouldn&#39;t people work for nothing? Because they don&#39;t have any economic incentive? :lol:
You make the assumption that someone will train for years to become an doctor when they can work as a janitor for the same benefits. Granted, the odd person will, but not enough to sustain society. [/b]
Firstly, as other posters have said, doing work like being a doctor is its own reward. It&#39;s interesting and stimulating. And people are different anyway, what satisfies them varies a whole lot from person to person.

You&#39;re also missing the point that the very nature of work in a communist society would be very different. For example, people would not necessary be restricted to doing janitorial work all the time if they didn&#39;t like to. Say, if I was a doctor I could choose to take a day where I&#39;d commit my time to maintaining my community in some way; I could look after public gardens or something.

[Martyr Machine]

Firstly, as other posters have said, doing work like being a doctor is its own reward. It&#39;s interesting and stimulating. And people are different anyway, what satisfies them varies a whole lot from person to person.

Absolutely. But is the intrinsic reqard enough to warrant spending aslmost a decade in school when one could be a janitor for the same extrinsic reward. Like you commies love to point out, people are greedy. This will not change just because you want it to (unless you kill off the middle class, which is generally what happens under communism)


You&#39;re also missing the point that the very nature of work in a communist society would be very different. For example, people would not necessary be restricted to doing janitorial work all the time if they didn&#39;t like to. Say, if I was a doctor I could choose to take a day where I&#39;d commit my time to maintaining my community in some way; I could look after public gardens or something.

Sure, a doctor could take a day off and work as a janitor, but a janitor cant take a day off and work as a doctor without spending a decade in school. People will take the easy road.

[Hank Rearden]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:28 AM

Democracy of course, will always (Always. Every single time. 100%. No exceptions) collapse into fascism when he majority discovers it can strip the minority of its rights, which is precisely why communism fails.

What minority? The economic minority? There is none&#33;
Ha&#33; No persecuted minority in communism? A system that lives by the saying "From each according to his ability" cannot exist without a minority (the producers) from which wealth is expropriated for nothing in return but the point of a gun. That the most is taken from those who deserve the most in communism is precisely the reason why it is one of the most vile and disgraceful ideals ever devised by mankind.

[LSD]

A system that lives by the saying "From each according to his ability" cannot exist without a minority (the producers)

What you&#39;re failing to realize is that in communism everyone is producing something, therefore this "minority" is in actuallity the entire society.


from which wealth is expropriated for nothing in return but the point of a gun.

"wealth is expropriated"?

"Expropriated" by whom?

The point of a communist society is that all that is produced is shared equally. There is no hierarchy, as there is in capitalism, that dictates and controls distribution based on nebulous "market demands".


That the most is taken from those who deserve the most in communism

"Deserve the most"?

And why do they "deserve the most"? Because they&#39;re "better"? :o

Maybe these "better" people should be given control of the "state" as well? After all if they truly "deserve the most"... <_<


is precisely the reason why it is one of the most vile and disgraceful ideals ever devised by mankind.

:rolleyes:

Welcome to Opposing Ideologies.

[Martyr Machine]

And why do they "deserve the most"? Because they&#39;re "better"?

Because they work harder.

[KC]

This guy already sounds like what moneybags used to sound like right before he was banned.

[Hank Rearden]

What you&#39;re failing to realize is that in communism everyone is producing something, therefore this "minority" is in actuallity the entire society.

The same amount, right? The man who works a machine has produced just as much as the man who invented it or the man who invested in it, right? Intellectual contribution is precisely what you commies cannot understand. A man who moves his hand 6 inches on a desert island accomplishes nothing. A man who pulls a lever in a factory operates a machine. Now tell me, how did that machine get there? From men with ideas, who will always produce more than working men. For that reason and nothing else are they entitled to more money.


"wealth is expropriated"?

"Expropriated" by whom?

The point of a communist society is that all that is produced is shared equally. There is no hierarchy, as there is in capitalism, that dictates and controls distribution based on nebulous "market demands".


What if a "greedy capitalist" decided not to share wealth that he is responsible for producing? That&#39;s what I thought.


"Deserve the most"?

And why do they "deserve the most"? Because they&#39;re "better"? ohmy.gif

Maybe these "better" people should be given control of the "state" as well? After all if they truly "deserve the most"...

Again, your failure to acknowledge that a man who digs ditches has done just as much as the man who invented or invested in the dulldozer is precisely why you are a communist. Hint: ideas are not a "natural resource". Muscles are.

When did I ever say that anyone should be granted the power to initiate physical force on others? It is for this reason that I am a capitalist. Your failure to understand the difference between economic and political power is why you are a communist.

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:53 AM
This guy already sounds like what moneybags used to sound like right before he was banned.
Why was he banned? Disagreed with you did he? Inconsiderate bastard, how dare he.

[KC]

Why was he banned? Disagreed with you did he? Inconsiderate bastard, how dare he.

Actually it was because he no longer had the ability to have any intelligent debate. I love debating with people that disagree with me, as long as they can do so intelligently and open-minded&#33;

Also, Hank, do you think that only certain people are able to have innovative ideas and that many workers aren&#39;t able to?

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:00 AM

Why was he banned? Disagreed with you did he? Inconsiderate bastard, how dare he.

Actually it was because he no longer had the ability to have any intelligent debate. I love debating with people that disagree with me, as long as they can do so intelligently and open-minded&#33;
Fair enough. Just dont turn into some idiot MRD member and we&#39;ll get along just fine............unless we discuss politics, or if you&#39;re a My Chemical Romance fan (may God help you if you&#39;re a My Chemical Romance fan...)

[KC]

What&#39;s MRD?

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by Lazar+Aug 9 2005, 02:04 AM--> (Lazar @ Aug 9 2005, 02:04 AM) What&#39;s MRD? [/b]
Music Row Democrats, its another forum. Words cannot express my hatred for them...this is literally what it&#39;s like to debate them:


Originally posted by Martyr_Machine"+--> (Martyr_Machine")Answer my question&#33; You accused me of worshiping Bush, where have I ever said that I support Bush?[/b]

("7Blades")Baaaaaaaaah goes the fascist[/b][/quote]


"Martyr_Machine"@
Answer my question or shut up. How am I a Bush supporter?

------------------------------------Later on----------------------------------------


"7Blades"
So typical of you fascists, you come here and refuse to debate us and instead use ad hominems. Get the hell off our forum

^actual conversation^

[Hank Rearden]

Originally posted by Martyr Machine+Aug 9 2005, 02:10 AM--> (Martyr Machine @ Aug 9 2005, 02:10 AM)
Originally posted by Lazar+Aug 9 2005, 02:04 AM--> (Lazar &#064; Aug 9 2005, 02:04 AM) What&#39;s MRD? [/b]
Music Row Democrats, its another forum. Words cannot express my hatred for them...this is literally what it&#39;s like to debate them:

(Martyr_Machine")Answer my question&#33; You accused me of worshiping Bush, where have I ever said that I support Bush?[/b]

("7Blades")Baaaaaaaaah goes the fascist[/b][/quote]


"Martyr_Machine"@
Answer my question or shut up. How am I a Bush supporter?

------------------------------------Later on----------------------------------------


"7Blades"
So typical of you fascists, you come here and refuse to debate us and instead use ad hominems. Get the hell off our forum

^actual conversation^ [/b][/quote]
Hahahahaha. Their forum is STILL down you know. (For anyone else reading this, we did not do anything malicious to their site. Some hackers from like Hungary or something screwed up their forums awhile back and they&#39;ve been down ever since.)

But yeah, that 7Blades tard was so messed up. At least the leftists on here actually admit that they&#39;re communists, unlike the compromising dipshits at MRD who were like "Duhrrrr, I&#39;m not Communist or Socialist, I&#39;M JUST REALLY LIBERAL LOL&#33;&#33;1"

[LSD]

The same amount, right? The man who works a machine has produced just as much as the man who invented it or the man who invested in it, right?

No he produced much more. The man who "invested" in it didn&#39;t produce anything, he just "owns" it.


A man who moves his hand 6 inches on a desert island accomplishes nothing. A man who pulls a lever in a factory operates a machine. Now tell me, how did that machine get there?

Because workers built it. Workers tranported the materials, drove the trucks, laid the bricks, molded the metal, etc...

The fact that they did this "for" a "man with ideas" is irrelevent. If "he" hadn&#39;t had this idea, someone else would have. What was indispensible was the human labour that actually did the work.


What if a "greedy capitalist" decided not to share wealth that he is responsible for producing?

Firstly there are no "capitalists" in a communist society. No "owners", no "bosses", no "upper management". Production is done, operated, and controlled by the workers themsevles. And they have absolutely no motivation to not share their product. After all, in a non-capital economy, what else would they do with the surplus?

Without money or trade, no one is going to "buy" anything, besides which the only point in making things is so that others can enjoy them.

Your problem is that you&#39;re trapped in a capitalist framework, seeing production as a matter of "money" and "wealth". That works in economic analyses of capitalist economies, but it doesn&#39;t work in looking at post-capitalist models. You have to brush away all the macro-economic bullshit and take a more basic view.


Again, your failure to acknowledge that a man who digs ditches has done just as much as the man who invented or invested in the dulldozer is precisely why you are a communist.

I don&#39;t just "fail to acknowledge" that, I adamently deny it&#33;

I will, however, concede that the man who invented the bulldozer did work. Indeed he created something useful, he produced something. Something which you cannot say for the "investor"&#33; And yet, somehow, it is the "investor" who ends up on top, who ends up controlling the product. I wonder how that happened... <_<

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Hank [email protected] 8 2005, 09:53 PM

What you&#39;re failing to realize is that in communism everyone is producing something, therefore this "minority" is in actuallity the entire society.

The same amount, right? The man who works a machine has produced just as much as the man who invented it or the man who invested in it, right? Intellectual contribution is precisely what you commies cannot understand. A man who moves his hand 6 inches on a desert island accomplishes nothing. A man who pulls a lever in a factory operates a machine. Now tell me, how did that machine get there? From men with ideas, who will always produce more than working men. For that reason and nothing else are they entitled to more money.


"wealth is expropriated"?

"Expropriated" by whom?

The point of a communist society is that all that is produced is shared equally. There is no hierarchy, as there is in capitalism, that dictates and controls distribution based on nebulous "market demands".


What if a "greedy capitalist" decided not to share wealth that he is responsible for producing? That&#39;s what I thought.


"Deserve the most"?

And why do they "deserve the most"? Because they&#39;re "better"? ohmy.gif

Maybe these "better" people should be given control of the "state" as well? After all if they truly "deserve the most"...

Again, your failure to acknowledge that a man who digs ditches has done just as much as the man who invented or invested in the dulldozer is precisely why you are a communist. Hint: ideas are not a "natural resource". Muscles are.

When did I ever say that anyone should be granted the power to initiate physical force on others? It is for this reason that I am a capitalist. Your failure to understand the difference between economic and political power is why you are a communist.
1. fine if you think those who invent machines are worth more than the people that &#39;pull the levers&#39; get rid of all lever puller&#39;s and see how far you get.

2. He would be shot during the revolution if he tried to resist using violence, and he didnt produce the wealth, he arranged other people to do it for him the best way for him to make the most money

3. As a capitalist you let bosses give a wage to a producer that is less than what he produces, and when this producers resists, he is taken out by any means necessary, whether it be fired, jailed, etc.

[Martyr Machine]

2. He would be shot during the revolution if he tried to resist using violence, and he didnt produce the wealth, he arranged other people to do it for him the best way for him to make the most money

So Bill Gates, who designed an OS compatible with nearly every peice of software in existence, did not earn his wealth? I sure as hell hope you&#39;re using a MAC.

[Hank Rearden]

No he produced much more. The man who "invested" in it didn&#39;t produce anything, he just "owns" it.

It wouldn&#39;t be there in the first place if not for the man who invested in it. The man who operates it offers no intellectual contribution and is only able to do anything productive by the grace of the thinking men who devised that the machine should be there. Every man has muscles, not every man has ideas. The man that only has a job by the grace of a man with an idea should, and will, never be paid more than the latter. To say otherwise is to advocate slavery.


Because workers built it. Workers tranported the materials, drove the trucks, laid the bricks, molded the metal, etc...

The fact that they did this "for" a "man with ideas" is irrelevent. If "he" hadn&#39;t had this idea, someone else would have. What was indispensible was the human labour that actually did the work.

What if there were no architects, scientists, metallurgists, or investers? What would their brute labor accomplish? What if the workers employed the same amount of manual labor to just start pushing boulders around? What it make buildings, machines, cars, etc? No. Physical labor is only valuble when it is guided by purpose. The only reason there is a purpose for manual labor is because of architects, scientists, metallurgists, investers, etc, not workers. They devised and laid out the plans, workers only followed.

Manual labor is indispensable? That&#39;s ridiculous. Ask anyone in the steel industry, for instance, who is easier to replace, a worker, or a CEO. If no one showed up to work, the men of the mind could operate the machines themselves. It&#39;s called a small business. Without the workers, the men of the mind would have a more difficult time without workers, but without the men of the mind, the workers would starve to death.

What does it matter "who" came up with the idea? No matter which particular man invented or invested in something, without that man, physical labor would be worthless. Ideas are not a natural resource. Purpose doesn&#39;t grow in the ground.


Firstly there are no "capitalists" in a communist society. No "owners", no "bosses", no "upper management". Production is done, operated, and controlled by the workers themsevles. And they have absolutely no motivation to not share their product. After all, in a non-capital economy, what else would they do with the surplus?

Where did the capitalists go? Oh yeah, you killed them all. A system that eliminates the men that create a purpose for physical labor in the first place is immoral, stagnant, and parasitic. "Paradise" indeed.


Without money or trade, no one is going to "buy" anything, besides which the only point in making things is so that others can enjoy them.

Therefore, the ones that produce the most are the ones that are stolen from the most. I know, it&#39;s "voluntary", right? Nothing is voluntary if there isn&#39;t an alternative. You people cannot understand basic value judgements. So the entire point of writing a symphony is so others can wrench it from your grasp, prevent you from ever enjoying it for yourself, and claim it as their own? Yeah, that&#39;s utopia.


Your problem is that you&#39;re trapped in a capitalist framework, seeing production as a matter of "money" and "wealth". That works in economic analyses of capitalist economies, but it doesn&#39;t work in looking at post-capitalist models. You have to brush away all the macro-economic bullshit and take a more basic view.

Hint: wealth isn&#39;t just "money". It is anything that is of value to anyone. Take away gold, and people will start trading with cigarettes. There is no post-capitalist system. Capitalism is the fairest system that ever will exist.

[KC]

I&#39;m sorry to break it to you, Hank, but EVERYBODY has ideas when they&#39;re given a chance to develop them.

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:43 AM
I&#39;m sorry to break it to you, Hank, but EVERYBODY has ideas when they&#39;re given a chance to develop them.
Granted, but not everyone has GOOD ideas. FDR thought it would be a good idea to abolish the gold standard, and he wound up practically causing the great depression. (if you look at the DOW chart, you will see that the economy suffered greatly under his regime)

[KC]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:24 AM
Yes but everybody has ideas, and Hank&#39;s generalization that NO workers have good ideas is laughable.

I fail to see where he made any such generalization.

[quincunx5]

The fact that they did this "for" a "man with ideas" is irrelevent. If "he" hadn&#39;t had this idea, someone else would have. What was indispensible was the human labour that actually did the work.


And if one worker didn&#39;t do it another would have. Of course if this worker wasn&#39;t told what to do he would do nothing&#33;

You are telling me that physical labour is that much better or prestigious than thinking and having ideas?

Did it ever occur to you that the inventor build the prototype himself? He just just thought he could use his skills better at designing than building it. So he hired someone that was great at building but terrible at designing.

The inventor labored too. He tried many times until he got it right. But he unfortunately happens to be old and needs someone young and strong to do it for him.

In your view people are one dimensional. You didn&#39;t mention the fact that this laborer does other things, besides building the inventor&#39;s invention.