If YOU want communism, YOU can move to Russia

[WeThePeople1911]

To all communists - I will buy you a one-way ticket to Russia if you promise never to come back.

Convert back to the USSR, stand in your mile lines for a loaf of bread, enjoy your poverty stricken land.

You can take your "from each according...to each according..." philosophy else where.

[Reds]

the ignorence of this statement proves that you have no real idea what communism is.

[More Fire for the People]

The Soviet Union was a joke, its only real use to the communist was funds and preventing militant-imperialism (but of course the Soviet's were social-imperialist).

[eukreign]

the ignorence of this statement proves that you have no real idea what communism is.
Yeah, it's a really dumb theory. Unfortunately I had to suffer through it growing up under the USSR until my parents immigrated to America.

Too bad you didn't go through the things i have to realize that 'redistribution' of wealth is death!

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:22 PM
The Soviet Union was a joke, its only real use to the communist was funds and preventing militant-imperialism (but of course the Soviet's were social-imperialist).

Oh, right, the Soviets killed people to get their way. Oh, wait, it says you are a REVOLUTIONARY socialist! But oh no, I'm sure YOU'RE not going to kill people to get your way, right?

[Pukuotas]

well... now Russia, is more capitalistic that US... and you know i live in the former USSR republic and communist are really hated here. Communist party is banned here too. So i am sure "Converting back" Soviet Union is simply imposible.

But you can buy plane ticked to Havana for me, although i am not commie :) i will thank you for it :D

[More Fire for the People]

Oh, right, the Soviets killed people to get their way. Oh, wait, it says you are a REVOLUTIONARY socialist! But oh no, I'm sure YOU'RE not going to kill people to get your way, right?
The only significant deaths during the existance of the Soviet Union were during Stalin's purges. The number is 1-4 million people, too many, but most of these probably brought it on themselves by refusing to work on farms and thus not having food.

[WeThePeople1911]

The only significant deaths during the existance of the Soviet Union were during Stalin's purges. The number is 1-4 million people, too many, but most of these probably brought it on themselves by refusing to work on farms and thus not having food.

I guess the other 30 million don't matter... :angry:

The absolute stupidity of that statement can only be attributed to tax-supported education, you had to have gone to a public college to say something so rediculous.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

An idiot's man logic. Suppose that the "founding fathers" of the US had kept to your "logic", then the US wouldn't even have existed. Suppose that people in history had kept to your logic, then there wouldn't have been no progress in history. We would still have a tribal political system. Don't you worry, capitalism's downfall will come, history is counting down.

BTW: newsflash: 1991 Russia officially became capitalistic.

[WeThePeople1911]

No country in the world is capitalist. Not one. they are all either dictatorships, or mixed economies.

[Dark Exodus]

The absolute stupidity of that statement can only be attributed to tax-supported education, you had to have gone to a public college to say something so rediculous.

Please be reasonable, by insulting someones intelligence or presuming something about their backround you are only weakening your own arguments.
People will be more inclined to be swayed by someone giving mature and logical arguments than someone who shouts insults.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:32 AM

The only significant deaths during the existance of the Soviet Union were during Stalin's purges. The number is 1-4 million people, too many, but most of these probably brought it on themselves by refusing to work on farms and thus not having food.

I guess the other 30 million don't matter... :angry:

The absolute stupidity of that statement can only be attributed to tax-supported education, you had to have gone to a public college to say something so rediculous.
30 million didn't die in the Soviet Union, that figure is bullshit that people say as anti-communist propaganda.



The absolute stupidity of that statement can only be attributed to tax-supported education, you had to have gone to a public college to say something so rediculous.
I'm in High School thank you very much, and America doesn't have public colleges -- students pay for college. By the way, the vast majority of what I know I acquired through my own research because the only information of worth the school system has ever taught was to read English (but unfortunately, they never really got a round to grammar).

[WeThePeople1911]

When someone says the only significant deaths of Stalin were during the pruge, which were 1-4 million. An intelligent rebutle is not needed.

[Publius]

now Russia, is more capitalistic that U

No they aren't.

They are a socialist authoritarian state.

They state-own a number of companies.

[eukreign]

Oh, right, the Soviets killed people to get their way. Oh, wait, it says you are a REVOLUTIONARY socialist! But oh no, I'm sure YOU'RE not going to kill people to get your way, right?
The only significant deaths during the existance of the Soviet Union were during Stalin's purges. The number is 1-4 million people, too many, but most of these probably brought it on themselves by refusing to work on farms and thus not having food.

You know what? I personally know family that died during these times and they worked their asses off. You know why they died? Because the 'people' needed more than 100% of what farmers were able to produce so they took everything and they had NOTHING to live on. Some where smart enough to stash away some of their crops. Unfortunately a lot of people were honest and they died!

You are talking out of your ass and I'm talking from experience. Why don't you go and start a commune if you are such a smartass and see how long you last.

You are an ignorant murderer!

[WeThePeople1911]

:D well, I am not going to debate with a communist highschooler.

However, I do recommend that you read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Enjoy!

[eukreign]

brought it on themselves by refusing to work on farms and thus not having food.

Isn't the point of communism that those you cannot work are supposed to be fed and sheltered?

What is the advantage of communism if you have to work your ass off AND everything you do is taken from you and then you die from hunger. This is the dumbest system!

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:48 PM
:D well, I am not going to debate with a communist highschooler.

However, I do recommend that you read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Enjoy!
Are you saying that because someone is in high school they are not able to give a sound argument.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:48 AM
:D well, I am not going to debate with a communist highschooler.

However, I do recommend that you read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Enjoy!
Sorry, but I don't read shitty writing written asswipes ;)

Why not debate with a communist softmore?
It's not as if I have less information on the subject, I certainly have more than you.
One of the perks of socialism is the abolition of age-discrimination, age is no measure of intellect or experience.

[eukreign]

One of the perks of socialism is the abolition of age-discrimination, age is no measure of intellect or experience.

So, you're going to go around shooting people who discriminate based on age?

Very nice.

[More Fire for the People]

The statement you made was so unbelievably ignorant I really don't know how to respond.

But simply, no.

[quincunx5]

One of the perks of socialism is the abolition of age-discrimination, age is no measure of intellect or experience.


IT is not? You do not gain more information by being around longer?

When you get older you will realize that you were a dumbass. I don't mean to insult you, it happens to everyone!

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:23 PM


One of the perks of socialism is the abolition of age-discrimination, age is no measure of intellect or experience.


IT is not? You do not gain more information by being around longer?

When you get older you will realize that you were a dumbass. I don't mean to insult you, it happens to everyone!
Not realy look at the hippies thay became repulicans when they got older

[eukreign]

The statement you made was so unbelievably ignorant I really don't know how to respond.

But simply, no.

How do you plan on abolishing something without actually enforcing it? You can't say don't do this and then when people do it look the other way, or is that your plan?

[Paradox]

The Soviet Union was not Communist. It was state capitalist. At the time of the revolution in Russia, capitalism had not yet developed. As such, Communism was not materially possible. State captialism was seen as a means to speed up the process of development so that the point where Communism could be established was reached more quickly. All Stalin did was develop capitalism, industrialize the nation. Of course, he did so at the cost of millions of lives. I do not deny that what happened in the Soviet Union was tragic. However, I also recognize that Communism did not exist in the Soviet Union ever, or in any other place for that matter. Communism has yet to be achieved and cannot exist in one nation.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To all communists - I will buy you a one-way ticket to Russia if you promise never to come back.

If I give you my street adress, would you send me the ticket?
'
You should know that we are not supportive of the system in Russia, at all. How much do you know about Russia?

[quincunx5]

Communism has yet to be achieved and cannot exist in one nation.


True capitalism has yet to be achieved and cannot exist in one nation.

[vision]

To all communists - I will buy you a one-way ticket to Russia if you promise never to come back.

This is a very typical version of the "America: Love it or leave it" clique argument.



BTW: I'll email you about my ticket can i transfer it to Cuba?...oh im not allowed to go there :(

[eukreign]

This is a very typical version of the "America: Love it or leave it" clique argument.

Which argument? You didn't quote anyone.

Why is that socialists automatically assume that if someone is not with you than they are automatically for the current government? Is that your best argument for socialism?

Guess what, I'm a capitalist and I think we need to do a lot more work towards becoming a free capitalist nation than we do to become a socialist one. To become a socialist one all we have to do is keep increasing the welfare and medcare benefits, right? To have a free capitalist society would require a total change in direction, we would need to reduce government to a tiny powerless constitutional one or eliminate it completely and we would need to give people the freedom to make their own decisions.

We are much closer to socialism right now than we are to capitalism.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:15 PM
How do you plan on abolishing something without actually enforcing it? You can't say don't do this and then when people do it look the other way, or is that your plan?
Are you saying its impossible to enforce something by means other than total violence?

Please think about what you are saying before posting in future, this will allow a logical conclusion to be reached faster.

[vision]

This is a very typical version of the "America: Love it or leave it" clique argument.


Which argument? You didn't quote anyone.

do i actually have to quote someone in particular whos pulled the "hey love it or leave it" one?


but your point of order is recognized ;)


capitalism aims to enslave us all, when it gets its way you end up with sweatshops and slavery, are you for those too?

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:15 PM
How do you plan on abolishing something without actually enforcing it? You can't say don't do this and then when people do it look the other way, or is that your plan?

Are you saying its impossible to enforce something by means other than total violence?

Yes, if someone does not want to do something than they are not going to do it unless they are forced to.

Are you telling me you have a way of getting people to do what you want without forcing them?

[eukreign]

capitalism aims to enslave us all, when it gets its way you end up with sweatshops and slavery, are you for those too?

I can say the same thing about communism and socialism. And you will argue that past examples were bad ones. So why don't you argue my point on a logical basis not on a hypothetical basis.

Just as you have a hunch that under capitalism people will become slaves I have a hunch that under communism people will become slaves. Although unlike you, I can actually rationalize why and it's very simple: Socialism requires that people work together and if someone does not want to work together they are forced to. When you use force to make someone work, that's slavery!

Capitalism is just people trading goods. It's LITERALLY impossible for capitalism to create slavery by definition. If you don't want to trade with someone they can't make you, that's freedom. So where do you get the definition that capitalism "AIMS" to enslave us? Capitalism is a process of transactions, it cannot slave anyone, only other people can enslave other people.

[spartafc]

"go back to russia!"

Have you not read a paper in the last 20 years?!
Amusing.

[eukreign]

'Till there's enough to go around
The men's scramble will continue
Fight to bring the system down'
- McCarthy

And what happens after you get your socialist society and the men want more than is available in your society?

If there was a mistake in the central planning and not enough food was produced. Food is distributed but the portions on their own are not enough to sustain a person, so people will steal from each other! What are you going to do than? Ask the capitalist nations for help?

Socialism is too narrow minded to work!

[KC]

...

[vision]

Capitalism is just people trading goods. It's LITERALLY impossible for capitalism to create slavery by definition.

The Slavers Create the slaves and a capitalist will surely trade in slaves right? why not?
capitalism has no concience. I'm all for free trade 100% but capitalists are running sweatshops right now as we speak, nike, walgreens and others and that is the way they like it. Im not down with that, are you?

capitalism is fine really, but i dont want it running my life. One person doesnt need 50 billion dollars while other starve, A capitalist will only capitalize on such a circumstance

[Freedom Works]

"Sweatshops" are governmental failure based on many things such as taxes, minimum wage, business regulations, etc. It makes people have to export business. Which is not good for people living in a country. Freedom works.

[vision]

No your missing the point.
NIKE is happy to utilize sweatshop labor ok HAPPY to, they are capitalists. if they were allowed to do it here they would in a heart beat. yes or no?

capitalism cares nothing for the life of humans outside of how to maximize proftis from them.

[WeThePeople1911]

When these young men exit puberty, and start actually paying taxes, they will finally see where all of this "free education" "free healthcare" and "free transportation" comes from. Case in point, they will learn that it is by no means "free."

Communism seeks to abolish property rights, that is its premise. When property rights go, all rights go with them.

No person can be free without property rights.

[vision]

No person can be free without property rights.
how do you feel about how the neo-cons have taken your right to own your house. Now they can take it from you if a larger capitalist can make alot of money from it

[madashell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:54 PM
When these young men exit puberty, and start actually paying taxes...
:lol: This one's funny, can we keep it?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:14 PM





Guess what, I'm a capitalist and I think we need to do a lot more work towards becoming a free capitalist nation than we do to become a socialist one. To become a socialist one all we have to do is keep increasing the welfare and medcare benefits, right? To have a free capitalist society would require a total change in direction, we would need to reduce government to a tiny powerless constitutional one or eliminate it completely and we would need to give people the freedom to make their own decisions.

We are much closer to socialism right now than we are to capitalism.
No.

That's not "socialism".

Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and having a centralized welfare state isn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

In order to achieve socialism, the proletariat need to seize the means of production and administer it themselves You cannot only add "welfare" to the current state to turn it socialist, thats democratic socialist bullshit. The only thing I would call near "socialism" would be the spanish collectives in the civil war and the Paris Commune.


Also, you libertarian market worshippers are brilliant. In fact, I would vote for you only because your politics would make it possible for a proletariat uprising. Abolishing the army and the state, those things that protect the capitalist property, brilliant!


Just as you have a hunch that under capitalism people will become slaves I have a hunch that under communism people will become slaves. Although unlike you, I can actually rationalize why and it's very simple: Socialism requires that people work together and if someone does not want to work together they are forced to. When you use force to make someone work, that's slavery!

If I don't work for capitalists, I die.

Isn't that a form of "slavery"?

Socialism isn't having a "centralized" government. So, if such "slavery" exists, it would probably at the submission of the mayority's will. So if you don't want to work, you would simply be ostracized by the mayority of people.


Capitalism is just people trading goods. It's LITERALLY impossible for capitalism to create slavery by definition. If you don't want to trade with someone they can't make you, that's freedom. So where do you get the definition that capitalism "AIMS" to enslave us? Capitalism is a process of transactions, it cannot slave anyone, only other people can enslave other people.
Yes it is slavery.

Most rich capitalists are like that because of luck, chance, and how to abuse other people. So because of that, most people need to be at the whim of them in order to survive.

If 5% of the people have 95% of the money, the other 95% of people need to submit to them in order to live.


If there was a mistake in the central planning and not enough food was produced. Food is distributed but the portions on their own are not enough to sustain a person, so people will steal from each other! What are you going to do than? Ask the capitalist nations for help?


There is no "central planning".

Socialism doesn't means three personns controlling everything.

[eukreign]

Originally posted by vision+Aug 13 2005, 09:41 PM--> (vision @ Aug 13 2005, 09:41 PM)
The Slavers Create the slaves and a capitalist will surely trade in slaves right?
[/b]

Slavers? What slavers? If someone has slave in my neighborhood than I will personally go over to this persons house and deman that he release the slaves, if he does not I will pull out my gun and shoot him. I will accept the consequence of my actions because I would rather die than live in an opressive society. And it's not possible to live freely when people next to you are enslaved.

So, no, I would never support any scheme where people are slaves.

Actually, I will preemptively answer a question: What would happen if someone signed a contract giving up their freedoms and became a slave? Answer: The contract cannot be binding because by definition you cannot take away anyones freedom in a free society. This would invalidate the contract on the principle that you are not following the rules of a free society and thus your contract which is supported by a free society is worthless.

So, in my 'vision' for a free society Slavers would be extinct.

Any kind of opression is bad and nobody should tolerate it, period.


Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:41 PM

capitalism has no concience.


It's not supposed to. Capitalism is just a word describing a situation where two people exchange goods and both come out ahead in the end. If one of them does not come out ahead than that's extortion and is punished. If one person offers another eggs for potatoes and says that the eggs are fresh but it turns out they are rotten, that's extortion and not capitalism.


Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:41 PM

I'm all for free trade 100% but capitalists are running sweatshops right now as we speak, nike, walgreens and others and that is the way they like it. Im not down with that, are you?


It's not ideal but see what happens if you kick out nike out of those countries... those people will just starve and die.

As a humanitarian you have two options: 1) Boycot nike, tell all your friends, constantly send letters to the media. There is money to be made in doing good things just as there is in doing bad things. Make it so that they are more profitable by doing good things, teach them that if they treat people well than they can advertise that on their commercials and people would be more likely to buy their shoes even if they will cost more because they would be supporting poor children in some foreign country. 2) Go over to that country and teach people how to improve their lives, teach them new skills so that they can get better jobs, teach them how to handle money (i recomend the book "Richest Man in Babilon" which teaches that you must save 10% of everything you earn and make that money work for you by investing it).


Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:41 PM
capitalism is fine really, but i dont want it running my life.

Capitalism will not ruin your life if you don't want it to. If you hate money get together with a bunch of people and start a farm where you can become completely self sufficient.

I am pro-capitalism but I am also striving to becomg as self sufficient as possible because capitalism is just a tool it is not an answer. You have to work and suffer in a capitalist system just as you do in a ANY other system. No system is perfect. One worthy advantage that comes from capitalism which even socialists and communists acknowledge is fast grow. Another important side affect is personal freedoms. You can saw whatever you want, you can own whatever you want and you can do whatever you want as long as you are not hurting anyone else.


[email protected] 13 2005, 09:41 PM
One person doesnt need 50 billion dollars while other starve, A capitalist will only capitalize on such a circumstance

But wealth is not limited. The guy can have a bazillion dollars, who cares?

Think about it logically. Let say someone has all the money in the world, does that mean everyone will suddenly not be able to get food and everyone will die? Of course not! People will just resort to trading until a new currency comes out and guess what? That guy with all the old money will suddenly become the poorest person on earth. All because capitalism is a process not a thing that can be hoarded. If someone hoards all the hammers in the world are you going to complain that there are no more hammers in the world or are you going start a factory and make your own hammers? Boy is that guy who was hoarding all the hammers going to feel stupid, especially when he tries to sell his hammers and everyone is going to shun him for all the bad things he did.

Also, please realize that the currency we have now in America is very very bad. First of all it's not backed by the government, the Federal Reserve is a private company. That's not good and is very bad for capitalism.

[WeThePeople1911]

how do you feel about how the neo-cons have taken your right to own your house. Now they can take it from you if a larger capitalist can make alot of money from it


*sounds of guns loading*

thats how I feel.

Communists confuse capitalists with facists.

They view capitalists as people who steal from the poor, rape women, and use government force to take money from small businesses.

But that just isn't the case.

People who use government force are not capitalists, they are facists.

For one to be a capitalist, he cannot advocate the use of government to achieve his personal desires. For example, wal-mart using government to steal the land from a small-business owner. That is not capitalism, that is facism.

[vision]

capitalism is fine in itself but we're living with a capitalist government, captlsm is fine for buisness but its making the laws now, ruling us. capitalist corporations shouldnt be interfereinng with government

[vision]

Communists confuse capitalists with facists.

well, a facist is a capitalist. but a capitalist is not necessarly a facist.

[WeThePeople1911]

Communists see capitalism as a system wherein the rich steal from the poor and force them to work in hot factories with no breaks and for little wages. But that is not capitalism. Capitalism is just a system wherein individuals trade goods and services.

Such a factory would not exist is a classical capitalist society for several reasons, the most obvious, being competition.

[vision]

Such a factory would not exist is a classical capitalist society for several reasons, the most obvious, being competition.

isn't that same competition creating those conditions in the first place?

[WeThePeople1911]

not sure what your saying...

Competition acts as a balance on mans rational self-interest (which is a good thing).

[vision]

the competition to create a product at the lowest cost so that it can compete in the market creates an incentive for poor conditions (which is a bad thing)

[WeThePeople1911]

Competition drives prices down, which is good for consumers, not bad.

However, in the market, there will be a demand for poor quality products at a low price, and high quality products at a fair price.

Thus, profit seeking individuals will try to supply the demand. There will be an asortment of products, good and bad.

[vision]

Competition drives prices down, which is good for consumers, not bad.
Wrong Bro! so Wrong... but i know what you mean

here is why it doesnt really work that way, they tell you that but check it out.

theyre goal is to maximize profits, that is literally their bottom line. Many times, often, lower prices can increace sales, IF THEY COULD ChARGE YOU MORE THEY DO! if they can pay you less the do. if they can buy their competition to raise the price they do, they will do anything possible to profit themselves not anyone else. the competition is toward higher prices and lower wages, the better you are at that then the better of a capitalist you are.
you have to admit this, you can come back with something anti communist and you may even be right, but its not going to make capitalism a good way to live

[WeThePeople1911]

Yes, but as you say, if they buy out competition, they will raise prices and lower wages. However, this is an incentive for more competition and so on.

This is an old anti-free market lie.

Monopolies are impossible to achieve in a free market.

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:15 PM
If 5% of the people have 95% of the money, the other 95% of people need to submit to them in order to live.

This is the dumbest argument all of you leftists constantly bring up. It's plain idiotic. Money is worthless without something backing it. If someone hoarded all the money, society would not sieze to exist, it would just stop using that money and change to some other currency and whoever hoarded all the money would suddenly become the poorest person. Why can't you get this?

If you grow crops on your farm and then go to the market and trade with someone for a television set, there was no exchange of money. The world did not end. What a novel concept. Money is just an invention that makes this process more flexible. Instead of trading directly you can get a piece of paper then go use it somewhere else as if you were trading with real goods.

So please stop spreading this buillshit about 95% of people having all the money. It's just so flawed that it boggles the mind that you don't see how simple all of this is.

And, no, the American dollar is not real money, it's FRAUD! It's not backed by anything! And it's not even printed by the government, instead the Federal Reserve is actually a private company!!!! That's the problem we have. Capitalism has nothing to do with this - it's a government problem.

[Freedom Works]

Also, you have to remember there is not an infinite supply of workers. If a worker feels he is not being paid enough, he can quit and start a business of his own, as would happen in an free society.

Worker's are in demand.

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:07 PM

Competition drives prices down, which is good for consumers, not bad.
theyre goal is to maximize profits, that is literally their bottom line. Many times, often, lower prices can increace sales, IF THEY COULD ChARGE YOU MORE THEY DO! if they can pay you less they do. if they can buy their competition to raise the price they do, they will do anything possible to profit themselves not anyone else. the competition is toward higher prices and lower wages, the better you are at that then the better of a capitalist you are.
you have to admit this, you can come back with something anti communist and you may even be right, but its not going to make capitalism a good way to live

We have to admit this? WTF kind of discussion is this? No wonder you commies are in a minority, you just EXPECT people to believe your lies!

And please tell me who this they person is? I want to know! Is it some kind of alien from outer space? You speak of these beings as if they are some superior super natural life form controlling us all? My wife is a pretty ordinary person and she started a business a few months ago, is she all of the sudden an Evil They trying to take over the world and enslave everybody?

Do you realize how stupid your fear of "them" is?

For fucks sake, we're all just people!

YOU can start a business and treat your employees better! Why don't you do that instead of complaining about how the EVIL BUISNESSES OF DOOM ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD! It's just so silly!

[WeThePeople1911]

the only way business can take over the world is with the help of government.

Otherwise, it is not possible.

[vision]

Monopolies are impossible to achieve in a free market.


what about duopolies? triopolies? do you want examples or do you get the point? youre arguments ignore reality. capitalism in its pure, perfect, form is yes, perfect. The capitalism we live with is shitty. baically I'd like to know if youre supporting the system we have thinking that its going to fix all its problems; Or if the capitalism youre reppin doesnt exist yet?

and why do you keep calling me a commie?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 13 2005, 11:21 PM
Also, you have to remember there is not an infinite supply of workers. If a worker feels he is not being paid enough, he can quit and start a business of his own, as would happen in an free society.
With what?


Worker's are in demand.

If you ment to say "workers are in demand" [without 's] : why don't you take a peek at some stats which can tell you what uneployment rate is right now?

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:31 PM
baically I'd like to know if youre supporting the system we have thinking that its going to fix all its problems; Or if the capitalism youre reppin doesnt exist yet?

Today we have a constitutional dictatorship with very very heavily regulated capitalism. So, no, we currently do not live in a capitalist society. And I'm an anarch-capitalist, so we sure as hell aren't living in an anarchist society.

[eukreign]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 13 2005, 11:32 PM
If you ment to say "workers are in demand" [without 's] : why don't you take a peek at some stats which can tell you what uneployment rate is right now?

Right now we are living in a constitutional dictatorship with very very heavily regulated capitalism with huge taxes. What's your point?

[vision]

eukreign what was it about my argument are you disagreeing with?
the they me and we the people were talking about are the capitalists.
FYI: I am a buisness owner and have been for years.

[Freedom Works]

With what?
Disposible income. You assume that people don't have disposible income because of capitalism (a market failure) when in reality it is because of taxes and regulations (governmental failure). To deny this is silly and shows how ignorant you truly are. Do a little research into anarcho-capitalism. I highly recommend http://mises.org/.



why don't you take a peek at some stats which can tell you what uneployment rate is right now?
Why don't you do a bit of research and learn why? It's because of the huge government stealing, oh yes, I meant taxing its "citizens". America's tax rate is over 50% (of the income for someone) for certain, and probably higher than that because of the nastiest tax, inflation. Inflation is not natural, folks. When over 50% of your money is being taken from you, it makes it much harder to support yourself, and your family. Thus, you get poverty. This causes irrational folks like the communists on this board to support "government" (or the majority of people) supporting the minority.

It's not because of lack of government(which is just a company that regularly and massively extort's its "customers" for a "service").

[Lamanov]

Oh, I get it, it's the "Republicans are idiots, us Democrats will solve the problem by lower taxes" or some shit like that rethorics.
By your logic "governmental faliure" has nothing to do with the faliure of the whole economic system. It's an isolated thing for you idiots.

Who's ignorant? :lol:

Any sociology book will do for you, for beginning. Later we'll move further.

:lol: :hammer:

[KC]

To all communists - I will buy you a one-way ticket to Russia if you promise never to come back.

I'd love to go to see what it's like; I've never been there and it seems like a very unique land and culture. If it was a round trip ticket or if I was out of college I'd consider it.



Convert back to the USSR, stand in your mile lines for a loaf of bread, enjoy your poverty stricken land.

Why would we convert back to the USSR? The USSR was abominable. It was a complete disaster. They aren't our mile-long lines; we're communist, not state capitalist. It's not our poverty stricken land; we're communists. As the definition of communism is a classless, stateless society, the USSR clearly wasn't communist. There were distinct classes (the well-off bureaucracy vs. the peasantry/workers) and it was obviously a state.



You can take your "from each according...to each according..." philosophy else where.

You can take your ignorance and poorly aimed hatred elsewhere.



Yeah, it's a really dumb theory. Unfortunately I had to suffer through it growing up under the USSR until my parents immigrated to America.

Actually you didn't suffer through it. This proves even further how little you know about communism. Just because you grew up in a country that claimed socialism and is called communist doesn't mean that you know anything about communism, as you nor anyone else has ever experienced communism.



Too bad you didn't go through the things i have to realize that 'redistribution' of wealth is death!

The redistribution of wealth you speak of was the handing over the power of the Tsars to the new ruling class; it has nothing to do with communism.



Oh, right, the Soviets killed people to get their way. Oh, wait, it says you are a REVOLUTIONARY socialist! But oh no, I'm sure YOU'RE not going to kill people to get your way, right?

If someone was about to kill you, and you had to kill them to live, would you? Your claim that all violence is bad is generalized and simply wrong. Also, the Soviets killed people after their system was put in place. Nobody here advocates that, unless they deserve it (i.e. they break a law; however, all countries have this). Yes, we advocate revolution, but the revolution is completely different than the system after it is in place. Revolutionary violence is necessary; that doesn't mean that we enjoy the idea of violence.



I guess the other 30 million don't matter... mad.gif

What 30 million? I'd also like to add that socialist russia was a great improvement on Tsarist russia.


No country in the world is capitalist. Not one. they are all either dictatorships, or mixed economies.

Capitalism is an economic term; dictatorship is a political term and can also be attributed to a type of government. Also, please see this link (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm). Most countries are capitalist, and those which aren't still follow a capitalist line. You don't have to be orthodox capitalist to be capitalist.



Please be reasonable, by insulting someones intelligence or presuming something about their backround you are only weakening your own arguments.
People will be more inclined to be swayed by someone giving mature and logical arguments than someone who shouts insults.

Please, adhere to this. I'd like to see what you can add to the discussion, instead of what you can take from it.


When someone says the only significant deaths of Stalin were during the pruge, which were 1-4 million. An intelligent rebutle is not needed.

He said only 1-4 million in response to you saying 30 million. In relation to 30 million, 1-4 million isn't that much. That is why he said only. 1-4 million is still a lot of people, and it was still a tragedy, but it is a lot better than 30 million. You're arguing semantics here, and nothing more.




You know what? I personally know family that died during these times and they worked their asses off. You know why they died? Because the 'people' needed more than 100% of what farmers were able to produce so they took everything and they had NOTHING to live on. Some where smart enough to stash away some of their crops. Unfortunately a lot of people were honest and they died!


That's horrible. I really am sorry to hear of such atrocities; they shouldn't happen.



You are talking out of your ass and I'm talking from experience.

What experience do you have with communism? Living in the USSR is no experience; it clearly wasn't communist.



Why don't you go and start a commune if you are such a smartass and see how long you last.

People have done that, and they have lasted for a very long time. I don't know what you're trying to argue here.



You are an ignorant murderer!

You are the ignorant one. You know nothing of marxism yet you claim that by living in a supposed socialist/communist state that you know everything about marxism. Maybe you should study marxism and become more educated on the subject before you make such assumptions.

And why are we murderers? Because we advocate revolution? Do you call all revolutionaries murderers? What about the American revolutionaries? The british? The cuban? The list goes on... Successful revolution usually improves the quality of life in a country, considering the workers know what they need better than their rulers.


biggrin.gif well, I am not going to debate with a communist highschooler.

Why not? Afraid that you will be defeated by someone younger than you? Just because someone is in highschool doesn't mean that they're less educated than you.



However, I do recommend that you read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.


Never heard of it; however, I'll check it out.




Isn't the point of communism that those you cannot work are supposed to be fed and sheltered?

No.



What is the advantage of communism if you have to work your ass off AND everything you do is taken from you and then you die from hunger. This is the dumbest system!

That isn't communism.




So, you're going to go around shooting people who discriminate based on age?


Only as much as you go around shooting slave owners.




IT is not? You do not gain more information by being around longer?

When you get older you will realize that you were a dumbass. I don't mean to insult you, it happens to everyone!

Yes but you don't gain specific knowledge on a given subject by just being around longer. You have to study that subject. Therefore a highschooler that has studied communism can have more knowledge on the subject than say a 30 year old.



How do you plan on abolishing something without actually enforcing it? You can't say don't do this and then when people do it look the other way, or is that your plan?

How does society abolish something now? It declares it illegal and arrests anybody that participates in it and punishes them according to the law. That is not unfair.


You should know that we are not supportive of the system in Russia, at all. How much do you know about Russia?

Sounds like he doesn't know much.



True capitalism has yet to be achieved and cannot exist in one nation.

Sure it has been.



Why is that socialists automatically assume that if someone is not with you than they are automatically for the current government? Is that your best argument for socialism?

He never said anything of the sort.


To become a socialist one all we have to do is keep increasing the welfare and medcare benefits, right?

Nope.


To have a free capitalist society would require a total change in direction, we would need to reduce government to a tiny powerless constitutional one or eliminate it completely and we would need to give people the freedom to make their own decisions.

That is what conservative republicans think will work; it obviously doesn't.



We are much closer to socialism right now than we are to capitalism.

Really? Are more businesses state-owned than privately owned? Are wages equal? Has there been agrarian reform?



Yes, if someone does not want to do something than they are not going to do it unless they are forced to.

Are you telling me you have a way of getting people to do what you want without forcing them?

Forcing someone doesn't always involve violence. Could you tell me how you keep a thief from stealing in our current society? Is violence always needed? No; the thief is arrested and punished when he commits a crime. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.



I can say the same thing about communism and socialism. And you will argue that past examples were bad ones. So why don't you argue my point on a logical basis not on a hypothetical basis.

Okay. How about there has never been a socialist or communist state? How can you argue on something other than a theoretical basis when what we are talking about here is pure theory?



Just as you have a hunch that under capitalism people will become slaves I have a hunch that under communism people will become slaves.

Then explain yourself.


Although unlike you, I can actually rationalize why and it's very simple: Socialism requires that people work together and if someone does not want to work together they are forced to.

Socialism requires no such thing. Did you mean communism here?


When you use force to make someone work, that's slavery!

Really? How about we don't force them to work. How about if we said "you don't work, you don't get everything and you die." Do you think that's bad? Because in a socialist state that could happen; some even think in a communist society (but I don't). Now, if you think this is bad, then you must realize that in every society the choice is either work or die. If you don't work in this society you die; you can't buy food. Unless, of course, you're for a welfare state.



Capitalism is just people trading goods.

Capitalism isn't just anything. The basis of capitalism is people trading goods; but this also has many, many, many, many, many (a lot!) implications. If you simplify capitalism to "people just trading goods" then you can simplify communism to saying "Communism is just where everything is free for everybody."


t's LITERALLY impossible for capitalism to create slavery by definition.

Depends what definition you use. There are so many different definitions because the capitalist system of "people just trading goods" has many, many externalities that can't be described in just one definition.


If you don't want to trade with someone they can't make you, that's freedom.

That's not what communists find as the problem. This isn't relevant.


So where do you get the definition that capitalism "AIMS" to enslave us?

We can make this conclusion by studying the evolution of capitalism. Before the government put regulations on work hours, minimum wage, etc... People were barely able to feed their family from 14 hour work days. Once the regulations were enforced, conditions immediately improved. Nowadays, however, since many companies that rule the world are corporations (which are driven by profit), they have to compete with each other, and they will do whatever needed to drive down the prices of their goods to increase their profit margin. They don't care about morals. The only reason that the government regulates is because if they didn't there would probably be an immense uprising.


Capitalism is a process of transactions, it cannot slave anyone, only other people can enslave other people.

Capitalism is a process of transactions, but a completely possible externality is slavery (which happened in the past, before the practice was outlawed).



And what happens after you get your socialist society and the men want more than is available in your society?


What do you mean they want more? Then they make more. And do you mean communism here?



If there was a mistake in the central planning and not enough food was produced.

What if they always produced a surplus, and what went unused they sold to other countries? What if they produce food according to how it is bought? There is still money in a socialist society.


Food is distributed but the portions on their own are not enough to sustain a person, so people will steal from each other! What are you going to do than? Ask the capitalist nations for help?

Yes that is what happens when there is a food shortage. But there are many ways to prevent a food shortage. Just because past "socialist" nations handled this problem poorly (which I'd love to see you give me an example) doesn't mean that it can't be handled correctly.



Socialism is too narrow minded to work!

You're too narrow minded to think!


"Sweatshops" are governmental failure based on many things such as taxes, minimum wage, business regulations, etc. It makes people have to export business. Which is not good for people living in a country. Freedom works.

Freedom works? Is that why when a government introduces workplace regulations (at the demand of the people; if they didn't demand it the government wouldn't institute it because they lose money from putting those laws into place) companies flee to countries without these regulations? You can't just look at the countries with regulations. And if you call sweatshop freedom then you're a nut.


When these young men exit puberty, and start actually paying taxes, they will finally see where all of this "free education" "free healthcare" and "free transportation" comes from. Case in point, they will learn that it is by no means "free."

Of course it's not "free." I think everybody here knows what free education/healthcare/transportation means. You don't have to argue this point as everybody knows that this is a tax increase.



Communism seeks to abolish property rights, that is its premise. When property rights go, all rights go with them.

All bourgeois rights, yes.



No person can be free without property rights.

Not in the bourgeois sense, no.



Slavers? What slavers? If someone has slave in my neighborhood than I will personally go over to this persons house and deman that he release the slaves, if he does not I will pull out my gun and shoot him.

Good job, hypocrit.


And it's not possible to live freely when people next to you are enslaved.


So how are you living freely if Mexicans are wage-slaves?


The contract cannot be binding because by definition you cannot take away anyones freedom in a free society.

The government can. And actually, you are able to waive your rights voluntarily.
(Proven by Publius in the right to drive thread)



Any kind of opression is bad and nobody should tolerate it, period.

We agree on something!


Capitalism is just a word describing a situation where two people exchange goods and both come out ahead in the end.

Externalities, externalities, externalities, externalities, externalities.......


If one of them does not come out ahead than that's extortion and is punished.

Actually that's just bad luck. If I sell you stock right before it goes down, I come out ahead and you come out behind. If I rip you off by selling something for more than it's worth that's your own damn fault.



It's not ideal but see what happens if you kick out nike out of those countries... those people will just starve and die.


Or they can farm on the property that was once owned by the companies.


But wealth is not limited. The guy can have a bazillion dollars

Theoretically that's possible, yes, but it's not practical. You can't offer up that argument because it doesn't happen. Everybody can't be millionaires.




*sounds of guns loading*

thats how I feel.

So you'll resort to violence?



Communists confuse capitalists with facists.

Quit it with the generalizing and unfounded statements.



They view capitalists as people who steal from the poor, rape women, and use government force to take money from small businesses.


Capitalists are everybody that believes in the capitalist system. We don't believe that all capitalists are like that. We believe that the bourgeoisie are somewhat like that, only they rape women "economically". :P



But that just isn't the case.

How isn't it?



People who use government force are not capitalists, they are facists.

All bourgeois are fascists. Have you ever noticed that capitalism works most efficiently in fascist nations?



For one to be a capitalist, he cannot advocate the use of government to achieve his personal desires.

Why not? Are you using your own personal definition here?


capitalism is fine in itself but we're living with a capitalist government, captlsm is fine for buisness but its making the laws now, ruling us. capitalist corporations shouldnt be interfereinng with government

But they always will, and that is why capitalism is flawed. It makes profit the only motivation, even in government.


Communists see capitalism as a system wherein the rich steal from the poor and force them to work in hot factories with no breaks and for little wages.

Those are externalities of people "just trading goods".


But that is not capitalism.

It is caused by capitalism.


Capitalism is just a system wherein individuals trade goods and services.

Externalities..



Such a factory would not exist is a classical capitalist society for several reasons, the most obvious, being competition.

What the hell does this mean? Could you edit this so I can understand it please?




Competition acts as a balance on mans rational self-interest (which is a good thing).

Self-interest is an externality of capitalism! You can't justify capitalism with capitalism.


Competition drives prices down, which is good for consumers, not bad.

Good for consumers, bad for workers. And workers are consumers. Hence, bad for the consumers (aside from the bourgeois sect). This means that workers (consumers) work longer for less, and thus bad for consumers (the majority; the proletariat).


Yes, but as you say, if they buy out competition, they will raise prices and lower wages. However, this is an incentive for more competition and so on.

Competition is bad for the worker, and bad for the majority of consumers. It is a vicious cycle. Also, when there is less competition, it is harder to create competition (it's harder for me to start a fast food restaurant now than in the 60s or 70s).


instead the Federal Reserve is actually a private company!!!!

So where is their competition? :D


If a worker feels he is not being paid enough, he can quit and start a business of his own, as would happen in an free society.

Not true at all. Many workers can't afford to start a business, much less afford to take the risk.



And please tell me who this they person is?

The bourgeoisie!



YOU can start a business and treat your employees better!

No I can't. He probably can't either. Again, not everybody can afford to start a business or to take the risk.


the only way business can take over the world is with the help of government.

Otherwise, it is not possible.

And? Why do they have to take over the world anyways?



Today we have a constitutional dictatorship with very very heavily regulated capitalism. So, no, we currently do not live in a capitalist society.

We do live in a capitalist society. Here's (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capitalism) the definition we're using.

And this is for the creator of this topic (Wethepeople911). I think you are blaming communism for what happened to Russia when there are so many other factors you need to take into account. One factor that you should take into account was the mistake of the vanguard (created by Lenin) in the revolution and the post-revolutionary society. Also, thank Lenin for the polarization in politics in 1905 and the splitting of the Marxist Social Democrats into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Lenin isn't the only source of the problem. These two problems, however, laid the groundwork for the future oppression of the USSR.

[Mujer Libre]

Wow Lazar, I admire your dedication. :P

And there's a reason why Ayn Rand has been ignored by philosophers...

The capitalists here seem to think that capitalism is "just free trade." That's a REALLY shallow analysis. What happens when individuals become more powerful than others? Firstly they wield more power in a society and secondly they need to protect their property, which involves the use of force. By definition this cannot be anarchy; which makes anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron. Also, think about people using force to defend property... Sound like the re-emergence of the state?

[Freedom Works]

"It has forever seemed perplexing to me how, to this day, the economic collapse of the Societ Union is celebrated as a victory for the American way, yet we apparently aspire to the very collectivist economic model leading to their failure. Do people not understand the collapse of the Soviet Union was economic? It wasn't a victory of democracy over totalitarianism. It was a victory of free market capitalism over government-managed collectivism. It's like Washington is in a mad rush to smother the greatest economic engine in human history in a dusty old entitlement balnket. Collective economic systems are simply unsustainable." -The Third Revolution

"Sweden and Denmark are not serious examples of effectively working socialist systems. Come on, they barely qualify as countries. They're really just very exclusive, ethnically and racially uniform, limited membership communes. Sort of like Vermont. Hell, you can do anything with a couple of thousand people - live in teepees, sit around the campfire, share the women, share the wine - the whole bit. But if you're an outsider, try to become a citizen of one of those countries, and see how easy it is to get full membership benefits. Or, if your'e a Swedish company, just try to relocate to another country to avoid the perpetual cradle-to-grave responsibilities you assume when you hire somebody. Oh, you can leave...they won't stop you at the border. But you're going to have to leave your company and your money behind. They are no more countries than is the Mafia - it takes a lifetime commitment to get in, and no one gets out. ... Besides, they're lousy examples because they're not working. They're failing states. Over 30 percent of all employment in Sweden is public sector. The remainder is a farm industry staggering on the balls of its ass since the European Union reduced farm subsidies across the board, and an inductrial sector moving to China along with everybody else's. All they're left with is a government taxing its own civil servants to pay their own salaries. Not exactly a visionary plan for stoking the economic engine.

I don't see the U.S. ever rolling back entitlements. Free stuff is a one-way street; you only get more of it, never less. Why take less when somebody else is paying? It's just not in out political DNA. So all we're left with is what history tells us will eventaully happen - total systematic economic callpse, per East Germany, the Societ Union, every South American neo-socialist government and the soon-to-be collapse of Western Europe. The writing is on the wall; look, even the economy of New York City has been unsustainable without state and federal subsidies for the past 20 years. Too much fixed overhead in the local government, too many civil servants, a school system accepting practically every parental responsibility associated with raising children and failing at almost all of them, too many people on the public payrol - either directly, other salaries, or indirectly, through entitlement programs - and by the shirinking percentage of productive members of their society. Think about it. The economy of the largest, greatest city in this country is unsustainable on its own, and nobody seems the least bit bothered by it. Well, the truth is, the taxpayers of New York City pay more than enough in taxes, if you could what they pay out to their state and federal government. If they could hang on to their own money, they'd be in fine shape. But then the state and federal officials wouldn't be able to pass out the free cookies to people in other jurisdictions. ... But isn't that just symptomatic of the overall entitlement Ponzi scheme? It may take 40 years, it may take 60 years, but only one result awaits this nation if we continue down this path - total, catastropic, economic failure. Once we get there, it'll be easy to end entitlements - they'll be insufficient jobs, a dwindling tax base, not enough money going to the government, so no checks coming back from the government. Maybe then we can start over." -The Third Revolution

[KC]

I'm not reading that. Learn to paraphrase and link to the source. Also, link to the source.

[Publius]

Never heard of it; however, I'll check it out.

It's not worth it, it's Randian trash.

If you would a decent book on capitalism I can help you out.

Rand knew jack-shit about economics. She argued from a philosophical standpoint. You won't accept any of her axioms so reading any of her work would be pointless.

[KC]

I'm always interested in all kinds of books. The problem is that my reading list is so long that I probably won't be able to get to it for a year.

[Publius]

I'm always interested in all kinds of books. The problem is that my reading list is so long that I probably won't be able to get to it for a year.

I don't think you understand.

It's not like Rand was a good writer with mediocre ideas.

She was a horrific writer with mediocre ideas.

I can roughly explain the Randian notion of capitalism to you if you would like, but as I said, you won't be receptive to it.

[quincunx5]

Well, the truth is, the taxpayers of New York City pay more than enough in taxes, if you could what they pay out to their state and federal government. If they could hang on to their own money, they'd be in fine shape.


No fucking kidding.

[KC]

I don't think you understand.

It's not like Rand was a good writer with mediocre ideas.

She was a horrific writer with mediocre ideas.

I can roughly explain the Randian notion of capitalism to you if you would like, but as I said, you won't be receptive to it.

I wasn't really responding to that; I assumed it was a crock of shit. I was responding more to this:


If you would a decent book on capitalism I can help you out.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:19 PM

This is the dumbest argument all of you leftists constantly bring up. It's plain idiotic. Money is worthless without something backing it. If someone hoarded all the money, society would not sieze to exist, it would just stop using that money and change to some other currency and whoever hoarded all the money would suddenly become the poorest person. Why can't you get this?

If you grow crops on your farm and then go to the market and trade with someone for a television set, there was no exchange of money. The world did not end. What a novel concept. Money is just an invention that makes this process more flexible. Instead of trading directly you can get a piece of paper then go use it somewhere else as if you were trading with real goods.

So please stop spreading this buillshit about 95% of people having all the money. It's just so flawed that it boggles the mind that you don't see how simple all of this is.

And, no, the American dollar is not real money, it's FRAUD! It's not backed by anything! And it's not even printed by the government, instead the Federal Reserve is actually a private company!!!! That's the problem we have. Capitalism has nothing to do with this - it's a government problem.
No it isn't.

I would LOVE that money would be completely obliterated, however, when you have opressive tools defending property, such as the army, it is pretty difficult!



If you grow crops on your farm and then go to the market and trade with someone for a television set, there was no exchange of money. The world did not end. What a novel concept. Money is just an invention that makes this process more flexible. Instead of trading directly you can get a piece of paper then go use it somewhere else as if you were trading with real goods.

Money makes it easier to pay those who harvest the means of production much less of what they created.

Nobody here is against trading. We are against A MINORITY WHO DOESN'T WORKS having the means of production.


So please stop spreading this buillshit about 95% of people having all the money. It's just so flawed that it boggles the mind that you don't see how simple all of this is.

Well, today our form of currency is MONEY. Even if they where apples, dogs, or blueberries, it would be the same thing!


And, no, the American dollar is not real money, it's FRAUD! It's not backed by anything! And it's not even printed by the government, instead the Federal Reserve is actually a private company!!!! That's the problem we have. Capitalism has nothing to do with this - it's a government problem.

It is a government problem. However, I actually trust the government more than PRIVATE ENTERPRISES who love to create sweatshops at the third world.

[Publius]

Here's a good introduction to Randian capitalism: www.capitalism.org/tour

[KC]

Haha that's pretty much garbage.

[Publius]

I wasn't really responding to that; I assumed it was a crock of shit. I was responding more to this:

Fair enough.

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is a good start but you probably know most of it.

It also leaves out 'externalities' and would likely seem incomplete to you as it's pro-capitalist.

A better book would be In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati to show you the actual effect capitalism is having around the world.

[Publius]

Haha that's pretty much garbage.

Yep.

There are MUCH better defenses of capitalism than hokey psuedo-philosophy.

[Publius]

I forgot just how funny this thing is.

For example:

A society where...

A society where one man's gain is never at someone else's sacrifice, but at best is to the mutual benefit of both.









A society where art is not a disorganized pile of scratches, scribbled by a drug-induced hippie with his eyes closed, but is an enlightening masterpiece, showing man as he could be and should be: a hero.

A society where being an "individual" is not some superficial trait, such as wearing your pants backwards, or having five rings through your nose, but refers to something important: to being a producer, a creator, a thinker -- a moralist.

A society where the evil is not rewarded, but punished, and the good is admired, and praised. A society where virtue is not a weakness, but a strength.

A society where a life of imaginable riches and wealth, is a possibility -- for everyone who is willing to think.



Why must all objectivists write in the style of the people who create the blurbs on the back of movie boxes or write comic books for a living?

[quincunx5]

It is a government problem. However, I actually trust the government more than PRIVATE ENTERPRISES who love to create sweatshops at the third world.


Fool! It is the third world's government that creates sweatshops.

Private enterprises do not build sweatshops. They are built by oppressive governments who allow CERTAIN private enterprises to ship stuff in and out of them.

If the government had any respect for its people why would they allow that? Hmm...

BAD GOVERNMENT!

[KC]

So if someone lets someone else do something bad, then that first someone is responsible? They're both responsible. Face it. Deal with it. Move on in the debate.


I love how my giant post went unreplied to. I guess it's too much of a beast for anyone to tackle.

[Freedom Works]

I love how my giant post went unreplied to. I guess it's too much of a beast for anyone to tackle.

Answer mine and I will answer your's.

[KC]

If you show me yours I'll show you mine.

[Freedom Works]

I made the offer first.

[KC]

Lol then ur the gay one; unless I agree, then it's just exploring.

[Freedom Works]

Talk about cop outs....

[KC]

Pretty much.

I don't want to read that!!

Plus I don't know where it's coming from or what it means as you didn't provide a source or an explanation of what it means and why you presented it.

[quincunx5]

I love how my giant post went unreplied to. I guess it's too much of a beast for anyone to tackle.


You know I've tackled yours before......

Some of my posts have been unanswered too, deal with it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:03 AM


It is a government problem. However, I actually trust the government more than PRIVATE ENTERPRISES who love to create sweatshops at the third world.


Fool! It is the third world's government that creates sweatshops.

Private enterprises do not build sweatshops. They are built by oppressive governments who allow CERTAIN private enterprises to ship stuff in and out of them.

If the government had any respect for its people why would they allow that? Hmm...

BAD GOVERNMENT!
Well, let me rephrase it.

I wouldnt love enterpirses that use SWEATSHOPS, is that better?

The enterprises using the seweatshops prove my point that corporations don't give a shit for people .

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:13 PM
To all communists - I will buy you a one-way ticket to Russia if you promise never to come back.

Convert back to the USSR, stand in your mile lines for a loaf of bread, enjoy your poverty stricken land.

You can take your "from each according...to each according..." philosophy else where.
Nice try, Bucko....
Standing in line for bread is still what we do in Capitalist countries...just look at the poor. Your anti-Socialist/Communist approach does not shake me what so ever. It is actually pathetic. I've worked with the Cuban Government in their Education programs for schools...it is really impressive. And oh yeah,, funny how your should critise Socialism/Communism when it has actually helped bring the people of Cuba to be vastly more prepared in school than Americans. I mean the stats are so abvious... America is in the 30th position and Cuba is 12th when it comes to literacy rates, and overall performace level by age. Cuba still continues to have the highest literacy rates in Latin America. Humm, something to be said for a strong Socialist system, eh.

Long live Socialism!

[Freedom Works]

That is a very narrow minded way to look at things, Marmot.

The reason they create sweatshops is because of taxes, minimum wage, regulations....etc that make it incredibly hard to create a business that do not have to goto a different region.

[KC]

The reason they create sweatshops is because of taxes, minimum wage, regulations....etc that make it incredibly hard to create a business that do not have to goto a different region.

So you admit that capitalism pushes businesses to do anything to increase their profit margins? Do you think that the companies are responsible for the sweatshops?

[Freedom Works]

No, Im saying the exact opposite. State protectionism, and mercantilism force businesses to do anything to increase their profit margins.

Do I think they are responsible? I do not think that corporation law is a good thing.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 14 2005, 05:17 AM
That is a very narrow minded way to look at things, Marmot.

The reason they create sweatshops is because of taxes, minimum wage, regulations....etc that make it incredibly hard to create a business that do not have to goto a different region.
True "capitalism" is an INTERNATIONAL THING.

Besides, what is so bad about minimum wage, what would THE ELIMINATION OF IT make it better for workers. Sorry, but Pinochet lowered alot the wages and guess what, it didnt help.

You are still admitting that corporations would try to increase profit regardless of the human lives being negatively affected by it. Thats how competition works chap, welcome to capitalism!

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 14 2005, 05:38 AM
No, Im saying the exact opposite. State protectionism, and mercantilism force businesses to do anything to increase their profit margins.

Do I think they are responsible? I do not think that corporation law is a good thing.
You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.

Because corporations have all out best interests at heart. ;)

[quincunx5]

You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.


Right of the top of my head:

Ford - 1910's: No minimum wage laws back then, but they paid by far the highest in the industry. Managers thought Ford was crazy.

Toyota and Honda in the US, late 1990's - today: No Unions, yet well paid.

American Apparel - today: 2xminimum wage, free food, medical coverage

[madashell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:05 AM


You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.


Right of the top of my head:

Ford - 1910's: No minimum wage laws back then, but they paid by far the highest in the industry. Managers thought Ford was crazy.

Toyota and Honda in the US, late 1990's - today: No Unions, yet well paid.

American Apparel - today: 2xminimum wage, free food, medical coverage
Annecdotal evidence is useless, can we have some statistics now please?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:05 AM


You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.


Right of the top of my head:

Ford - 1910's: No minimum wage laws back then, but they paid by far the highest in the industry. Managers thought Ford was crazy.

Toyota and Honda in the US, late 1990's - today: No Unions, yet well paid.

American Apparel - today: 2xminimum wage, free food, medical coverage
From the top of my head:

Pinochet actually abolished minimum wages and denied trade unions rights. Results?

the wages decreased 40% and unemplyment increased 4.5%.

Interesting, huh?

[quincunx5]

Annecdotal evidence is useless


Tell that to others too!

[quincunx5]

From the top of my head:

Pinochet actually abolished minimum wages and denied trade unions rights. Results?

the wages decreased 40% and unemplyment increased 4.5%.

Interesting, huh?


Ok, I'll accept these as facts.

I gave you US examples and you gave me Chile examples.

Two different countries, with two different governments, with two different histories and cultures produce different affects.

Is anyone shocked by this?

EDIT:
I gave you what corporations did and you gave me what government did.

[Freedom Works]

True "capitalism" is an INTERNATIONAL THING.
Nations do not exist, so that's a bit of a silly statement.


Besides, what is so bad about minimum wage, what would THE ELIMINATION OF IT would make it better for workers.
Minimum wage on the surface looks like a good idea, but it does not raise everyones wages. Here are some things minimum wage laws do:
1: Tell people what can be in their contracts between each other.
2: Creates a bar that if your time is not worth more than it, you will be unemployed unless someone has enough extra benevolence(and where force is used, benevolence is very far away)
For instance, it is good for mentally retarded people to work, as it gives them something to do and helps their mind. When you raise the minimum wage, a business is not allowed to not hire someone whose productivity was below what the minimum wage is.


You are still admitting that corporations would try to increase profit regardless of the human lives being negatively affected by it. Thats how competition works chap, welcome to capitalism!
Supply and demand is still in effect with workers. You do no HAVE to work, you can live off the land or work somewhere you like.


You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.
I am not an ignorant capitalist. I feel you are, because you do not realize that workers are scarce, so the effect of supply and demand is in effect.

[WeThePeople1911]

The communists goal is never reached. It cannot be reached, human nature and basic economics forbids it and they know it, but they clamor on about their noble goal that could one day be achieved if everyone would just give up their rights. *shakes head* they can argue microeconomics all day long, but the case in point comes down to this fact. In order for communism to ""work""(i use that term loosely), everyone ('cept the central planners of course) has to give up their right to private property.



You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.

:rolleyes: I love how communists fear business so much...when it was a business that produced the computer they are using to type on, and a business that produced the food they eat... :D

[KC]

Please, read the whole thread before you post.



Marx was a mislead fool, a bright eyed dreamer. He never worked a day in his life.


How was he mislead? And so what if he never worked a day in his life. He doesn't need to work to understand the system. That's like saying to understand science I have to be a scientist.



The evidence has been placed infront of the collectivists for years, yet they still cling onto their dated religion.

What evidence is that?



A religion based on the elimination of private property rights (the violation of human rights).


Maybe you should learn what marxists mean when they use the term private property. You should also learn the difference between private property and personal property.


The communists goal is never reached. It cannot be reached, human nature and basic economics forbids it. Self Interest.

No such thing as human nature. People are taught to be greedy because they grow up in a society that teaches them to be greedy. Which basic economics are we talking about? You can't study communism with capitalist economics, remember.

[WeThePeople1911]

What evidence is that?

Where people have more economic freedom, general life is better. See John Stossel "Is America Number One?"



How was he mislead? And so what if he never worked a day in his life. He doesn't need to work to understand the system. That's like saying to understand science I have to be a scientist.

I didn't say that he had to work to understand the system, lol :D

Nice job putting words in my mouth.

He was just a lazy fuck who wanted other people goods so he developed communism.


No such thing as human nature. People are taught to be greedy because they grow up in a society that teaches them to be greedy. Which basic economics are we talking about? You can't study communism with capitalist economics, remember.

If you work 6...7...8 hours per day, for 5 days per week, trust me, it is in your nature that you are going to want something for your labor.

In fact...I am going to try raising my kid that way...lol, I'll let you know how that turns out. :rolleyes:

[KC]

He was just a lazy fuck who wanted other people goods so he developed communism.

Have you seen the amount of literature he has written? Do you know how much time he spent on all of that? Do you think that a lazy person would have done that?

What about everything else I said?

[WeThePeople1911]

I replied to everything.

thats just it...

YOU have SEEN some of his books...

I have READ some of his books...

lol

I was just name calling man, it flowed with the sentence, do you actually want to debate me for calling marx lazy? ;)

[KC]

If you work 6...7...8 hours per day, for 5 days per week, trust me, it is in your nature that you are going to want something for your labor.

In fact...I am going to try raising my kid that way...lol, I'll let you know how that turns out. rolleyes.gif

What the hell? So you're justifying what I'm saying? That doesn't really help your argument.

[WeThePeople1911]

No such thing as human nature. People are taught to be greedy because they grow up in a society that teaches them to be greedy. Which basic economics are we talking about? You can't study communism with capitalist economics, remember.

I did reply to this.

The other one...well, I have a feeling that is just going to get me into a word game, which is a game that i am not willing to play.

We must continue this another time.

I bid you a good nights rest.

[KC]

Originally posted by The Communist Manifesto

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

This is what I was talking about.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:21 AM

I gave you what corporations did and you gave me what government did.
What!

I gave you what the deregularization of capital flow did, therefore, what corporation in Chile did.

The government actually became less authoritarian in what is capital flow.

You gave me the examples of few corporations, I gave you the examples of a whole country .

Which holds more credit?

[Freedom Works]

Some people are silly.

Some of these people think that CEO's do less work than blue collar workers, but writer's do more work than both of them.

[anomaly]

Ah, the cries of an Ayn Rand disciple! No nations are 'capitalistic'(referring to 'Wethepeople)!! I suppose the fact that every nation in the world uses wage labor and has some private property is of no importance!

It seems that some cappies need some info on what communism is. Communism is, first and foremost, the withering away of the state, and the destruction of capital and thus class. Let us now look at the so-called 'Communist' Soviet Union. The only thing the Soviet Union did differently was to nationalize the economy. It did not wither away the state (it was a nation-state!), it did not destroy capital, and it did not destroy class. One economist claims that the USSR 'overthrew the rule of capital', but this describes nationalization. In summary, the USSR was nothing close to communism!! I share everyone's hatred of the old USSR. To hate the USSR is to hate tyranny, not communism.

[quincunx5]

You gave me the examples of few corporations, I gave you the examples of a whole country .


You think like a collectivist. You gave me an average real wage decrease, and an absolute increase in unemployment.

Was there not a single corporation that raised it's wages? Not a single corporation that increased its employment?



Which holds more credit?


My argument.

I gave pricely the answer to the question: That corporations can pay decent wages way above minumum wage (one example (ford) when there was no min wage), without any external incentives.

Again -- different countries, different governments, different cultures yields different effects (expecially when taken as a whole - which is what you did).

My examples were at diverse times with different fiscal and monetary policies in different economic conditions. You lumped your argument into one period of time.

[quincunx5]

Some of these people think that CEO's do less work than blue collar workers, but writer's do more work than both of them.


Indeed. Some of these people feel that if one flips a hamburger they're entitled to a substantial portion of the price a customer paid.

[anomaly]

If they made the hamburger, why shouldn't they collect the sales? If a factory produces an airplane, why shouldn't the workers alone be compensated for the task they alone completed? The capitalist did not labor, and yet he is rewarded most substantially.

[Freedom Works]

Because he DOES labor. He has to organize them and make it more efficient, all while competeing with other businesses for workers and prices.

To deny this is to deny reason.

[quincunx5]

If they made the hamburger, why shouldn't they collect the sales?


Because he did not provide the ingredients, the grill, the place, nor the customer.
He did not train himself either.

If anything he added a small fraction of a cent to it's value.

EDIT: He's also a clutz who broke the grill twice, overcooked the meat, and doesn't wash his hands after using the toilet.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:48 AM


You gave me the examples of few corporations, I gave you the examples of a whole country .


You think like a collectivist. You gave me an average real wage decrease, and an absolute increase in unemployment.

Was there not a single corporation that raised it's wages? Not a single corporation that increased its employment?



Which holds more credit?


My argument.

I gave pricely the answer to the question: That corporations can pay decent wages way above minumum wage (one example (ford) when there was no min wage), without any external incentives.

Again -- different countries, different governments, different cultures yields different effects (expecially when taken as a whole - which is what you did).

My examples were at diverse times with different fiscal and monetary policies in different economic conditions. You lumped your argument into one period of time.
No, again you are wrong,

I am sure there are corporations out there that are "better" than the others, but that doesn't mean, they are the MAYORITY.

Therefore, they are just EXCEPTIONS.

If a country abolished the minimum wage, and the wages decreased, most of the corporations decreased the wages

I don't care for a minority, I care for the mayority.

Besides, that "different culture bullshit" is a bad point because, most of those corporations that rised in chile where actually managed by foreigners.


Because he DOES labor. He has to organize them and make it more efficient, all while competeing with other businesses for workers and prices.

Bullshit.

Most of the time, bosses actually pay other people to manage their enterpises.

Besides, someone who "panificates" deserves the same thing as someone who actually harvests the material. The one who "supervises" to make the industry more efficient cannot work without the laborers-

The worker s at a certain degree, can actually produce something.

I don't mean that workers should get more than engineers, administrators, etc. The others, in order to have an efficient society, are needed too.

Because he did not provide the ingredients, the grill, the place, nor the customer.
He did not train himself either.

The ingredients where harvested by workers.

The grill and the place where built by other workers.

The trainer was probably another worker.

Again, what did the boss do?

[quincunx5]

I don't care for a minority, I care for the mayority.


That's the fucking problem with people like you.



Besides, that "different culture bullshit" is a bad point because, most of those corporations that rised in chile where actually managed by foreigners.


The workers were foreign too? I didn't think so. Are you surprised that the modernization of Chile shifted the workforce to jobs they weren't prepared to do?



Again, what did the boss do?


He created work for people to do.

They were just sitting around doing nothing.

Or they were doing something, but decided it would be beneficial to them to work for "the boss".

[black magick hustla]

That's the fucking problem with people like you.

Hah

If you think that People should have a shitty life because of a minority then you are fucking wrong.

The mayority of people deciding is democracy.



The workers were foreign too? I didn't think so. Are you surprised that the modernization of Chile shifted the workforce to jobs they weren't prepared to do?

The workers where paid by foreigners. Even if the workers weren't foreigners, the decision of their payment wasn't theirs.

Also, what are you talking about. Pinochet did make other capitalist fatcats to come to chile, but they never invested in the production. There wasn't any form of new INDUSTRIALIZATION .Most of the ocuppied jobs in the Pinochet regime weren't more "modernized" or "different".


He created work for people to do.

They were just sitting around doing nothing.

Or they were doing something, but decided it would be beneficial to them to work for "the boss"

The boss "created" jobs because he has the means of production. A person who lacks the means of production can't create much jobs.

They decided to work for that boss, because the other one, who also owns part of the means of production was shittier.

That doesn't means both are shitty and that their means of production should be seized.

[quincunx5]

If you think that People should have a shitty life because of a minority


Decrease in wages = shitty life?

I think people should have a shitty life if they choose to have a shitty life. If their government is oppressing them then revolt! Distribute the wealth.

And then start with capitalism again!
Because it's the only thing that works.
It works best with the most freedom.



The boss "created" jobs because he has the means of production.


What? He had to build the means of production.

He can own a fucking factory, and it means jack shit if no one wants to go inside and work.

He would have lost money on his means of production if no one was willing to work for him.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:41 AM


Decrease in wages = shitty life?

I think people should have a shitty life if they choose to have a shitty life. If their government is oppressing them then revolt! Distribute the wealth.

And then start with capitalism again!
Because it's the only thing that works.
It works best with the most freedom.
.
Nonsense.

Its like saying, that in the middle ages there were many peasant revolts, but most of them didn't advance from feudalism, therefore, feudalism is the only possibility -

I ain't a castro fan, but I can tell you that, even if his system is awfully flawed, He is much better than that capitalist fuckball of Batista.

That can be applied to former USSR too.

I am an anarchist, but I can tell you that those revolutions who held the socialist banner made much better the life of their people.

Besides, capitalism is slavery to those who have the means of production, it isn't freedom and it will never be.



What? He had to build the means of production.

He can own a fucking factory, and it means jack shit if no one wants to go inside and work.

He would have lost money on his means of production if no one was willing to work for him.

He didn't built the means of production.

The workers built it.

IF workers didn't work for them, the workers would die. They need to receive products, and those products are made from the means of production, which are owned by a small group of capitalist fatcats,

[Raisa]

Originally posted by eukreign+Aug 13 2005, 05:25 PM--> (eukreign @ Aug 13 2005, 05:25 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 05:22 PM
The Soviet Union was a joke, its only real use to the communist was funds and preventing militant-imperialism (but of course the Soviet's were social-imperialist).

Oh, right, the Soviets killed people to get their way. Oh, wait, it says you are a REVOLUTIONARY socialist! But oh no, I'm sure YOU'RE not going to kill people to get your way, right? [/b]
Ultimately "the capitalists" kill people to get their way too. Or work them away in a life style that they can barely care about their own health or eat a decent meal before they have to go back to work to be underpayed and get insureance that doesnt really help their medical needs enough from the damage done.

I can go on and on.
Im not gonna "defend" the USSR, but shit, just cause youre enjoying capitalism and living "freely" in it doesnt mean that most of the world really is.


"If they made the hamburger, why shouldn't they collect the sales?




Because he did not provide the ingredients, the grill, the place, nor the customer.
He did not train himself either.

If anything he added a small fraction of a cent to it's value."

When someone makes a hamburger, making dozens of them for hours, that company has hundreds to sell and make hundreds of dollars off of.
Now the company has 100 dollars in an hour, that they wouldnt have without that man making hanburgers.
Yet the hamburger maker is going to get 6 dollars out of all of that money when his work was obviously crucial to the company.

I dont think you really have respect for workers. you think their work is only worth one cent. But workers make everything you enjoy in life and I hope you rethink your honor for all they do for the little their getting.

[quincunx5]

Its like saying, that in the middle ages there were many peasant revolts, but most of them didn't advance from feudalism, therefore, feudalism is the only possibility -


A more primitive form of Capitalism existed then. It failed because of precisely what I told you: Capitalism works best with the most freedom for the most people.



I can tell you that those revolutions who held the socialist banner made much better the life of their people.


But they made it far better for themselves and their close friends.



He didn't built the means of production.

The workers built it.


Pricesly! The workers built it and they got paid for it. Meanwhile the Capitalist lost big time because he couldn't get anyone inside to work.



IF workers didn't work for them, the workers would die.


Yep, everything is black and white with people like you.

[quincunx5]

Ultimately "the capitalists" kill people to get their way too.


Ultimately the socialist will kill people who do not agree to their utopian vision.



just cause youre enjoying capitalism and living "freely" in it doesnt mean that most of the world really is.


Most of the world is oppressed by their government to the maximum extent.



I dont think you really have respect for workers. you think their work is only worth one cent.


Read my posts carefully. I said the value the worker added to ONE hamburger might be something like 1 cent for a 79 cent hamburger. Especially if he's cooking several at a time. It's really easy to cook burgers on a good grill.



But workers make everything you enjoy in life and I hope you rethink your honor for all they do for the little their getting.


I respect the work that workers produce. I am a worker too.

But just because I respect their work they does not mean that they are entitled to a portion of my work output.

[Freedom Works]

But just because I respect their work they do does not mean that they are entitled to a portion of my work output.

Unless it was in your contract.

[quincunx5]

Unless it was in your contract.


I wasn't thinking from that angle. I meant my taxes going to them (hamburger flippers)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:36 AM


You CANNOT honestly be that naive that you think if there were NO minimum wage laws corporations would actually pay workers a decent wage, give them holidays etc.

:rolleyes: I love how communists fear business so much...when it was a business that produced the computer they are using to type on, and a business that produced the food they eat... :D
No, it was humans and nature who made those things. Business' just stole the idea, packaged it and sold it at huge prices to make a profit.

[quincunx5]

No, it was humans and nature who made those things. Business' just stole the idea, packaged it and sold it at huge prices to make a profit.


Humans and Business are mutually exclusive? WOW!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:38 PM
Capitalism is just a system wherein individuals trade goods and services.
By exploiting the fact that other human beings need to sell their labour in order to survive. Also, this process of capitalists buying other peoples time, which they structure [wage-system] in such a way they only pay out the lowest amount needed in order to create the highest amount possible, creates alienation; as human beings become nothing but commodities. This psychology effects society at large.

Selling your labour so someone else can make a profit in a mind numbing job only existing to better a process of profit is not what human beings exist to do. This process of selling and buying services is also protected by a massive force which when questioned repress' brutally that dissent.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:41 AM


No, it was humans and nature who made those things. Business' just stole the idea, packaged it and sold it at huge prices to make a profit.


Humans and Business are mutually exclusive? WOW!
What's your fucking point? I'm not interested in any cryptic bullshit. If you have something to say, say it and say it clearly.

[quincunx5]

What's your fucking point? I'm not interested in any cryptic bullshit. If you have something to say, say it and say it clearly.


A little edgy are we?

Businesses are run by Humans.

Business is not a third party that comes over and fucks everything up.

[Freedom Works]

"Government" is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:56 AM
A little edgy are we?
Only with stupid pricks.


Businesses are run by Humans.

So? What has that got to do with my point?


Business is not a third party that comes over and fucks everything up.

Business is designed to make profit and usually in order to make profit things or people need get fucked up or fucked over.

[quincunx5]

You haven't made any point.
You haven't added anything new to the discussion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:56 PM
You haven't made any point.
You haven't added anything new to the discussion.
I'm sorry that your to inept to get passed the "capitralism rules!1!1!!1!!" stage but if you bare with me...

Your pal seemed to imply that business' were the cause of development and therefore were integral to human survival or progress. We shouldn't be scared of business' because they create our society he implies, when actually a business is usually a hierarchical institution designed specifically to create a profit.

Human development does not happen because business' exist, it happens because humans have brains. We would have development and progress whether business exists or not.

Does that make sense? I can type it out phonetically if it will help.

[Freedom Works]

We would have development and progress whether business exists or not.
Well, that depends on your definition of devolopment, progress and business. But in lay sense, you are incorrect.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 14 2005, 01:14 PM

We would have development and progress whether business exists or not.
Well, that depends on your definition of devolopment, progress and business. But in lay sense, you are incorrect.
How am I incorrect?

Business' are designed to make profit and the situation in the world stands as a testament to how destructive that is.

If you think the world is "developed" and "progressed" then you have never watched the news, never read a newspaper and never been out of your white suburban neighbourhood.

[Freedom Works]

Business' are designed to make profit and the situation in the world stands as a testament to how destructive that is.
Businesses are designed to perform a function people want, and they seek to perform it in most ecological, economical, and humanitarian way possible. But then "government" steps in and starts regulation, steals people's wealth, and orders people around.


If you think the world is "developed" and "progressed" then you have never watched the news, never read a newspaper and never been out of your white suburban neighbourhood.
If you think the reason a portion of the world is regressing is because of capitalism, you are sorely mistaken, and need to vastly cut back on your portion of propaganda per day. Countries are regressing because of government.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:45 PM

now Russia, is more capitalistic that U

No they aren't.

They are a socialist authoritarian state.

They state-own a number of companies.
Capitalism does not equal a free market liberal democracy, if that's what you think. I do not care about what capitalism is according to some fine liberal ideal, I only care about what capitalism is in reality.

It is irrelevant that the state owns a numer of companies (the state owns a number of companies in EVERY capitalist society. Please point out a single capitalist nation where the state has not owned a single company...please.), heck it would be irrelevant for the question even if the state owned every company. The USSR for example was without doubt capitalist.

What is really important is not who is administrating the capital, but that capital is being administrated. Ask your self. Did commodity production exist in the USSR? Yes.
Did wage labour exist in the USSR? Yes. Did capital relations exist in the USSR? Yes.

I understand, accept and respect that you don't like many forms of capitalism, but to claim that these are no forms of capitalism just because you don't like them...well, thats wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 14 2005, 01:29 PM

Business' are designed to make profit and the situation in the world stands as a testament to how destructive that is.
Businesses are designed to perform a function people want, and they seek to perform it in most ecological, economical, and humanitarian way possible. But then "government" steps in and starts regulation, steals people's wealth, and orders people around.
That's an absurd statement!

Take for example BP in Nigeria who not only have destroyed vast areas of landscape impoverishing local people but use cheap labour in its factories. Shell in Latin America have forcibly evicted families from their lands in order to build Oil pipes!

Gap use child labour to make its clothes, as does Nike, building massive factories which are a cause for climate change.

Let's take Coca-Cola who employed right-wing mercenary militias and government security agencies to forcibly sack workers, break strikes and murder and intimidate Trade Union officials.

And what about Exxon Mobil who destroy vast areas of land to build pipe lines or Enron where the bosses stole billions of dollars. Let's take Gate Gourmet as a recent example who threatened thousands with job loses, when their workers went on strike, sacked them, including mothers on maternity leave.

Let's take the natural resource companies in Indonesia who have used military forces to murder and evict primitive tribes on land they want to use.

How is all this ecological or humanitarian?

Business' are designed to make a profit. Arguably there are people who are more conscious than others in their drive to make money, but the vast majority of people who start business' do so under the express believe that they are in charge and they will do anything to rake in the cash. Otherwise, what's the point?


If you think the reason a portion of the world is regressing is because of capitalism, you are sorely mistaken,

Then what is the reason for the fact that money and food aid is not being sent to Africa in the quantities needed? Why are people still dieing of hunger? Why is it that Sub-Saharan African countries are not allowed to produce a cheaper version of HIV/AIDS drugs?

Why are people not getting clean water? Why are people dying of curable diseases or never receiving a basic education? Why is it that we have massive unemployment, strike actions, low wages? Why is it that 3million people in Britain alone are living under the EU poverty line?

Answer each of these questions and tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not the system of profit that has created this mess?

Propoganda indeed! :rolleyes:

[Publius]

Capitalism does not equal a free market liberal democracy, if that's what you think. I do not care about what capitalism is according to some fine liberal ideal, I only care about what capitalism is in reality.

The form of the state is irrelevent, as long as the state does not interefere with the economy.

What 'capitalism' is 'in reality' is a mixed economy, either somewhat close to capitalism (As in the U.S. and most of Western Europe) or mixed economy closer to socialism.

Alternatively, it could be a command economy, which fits the U.S.S.R perfectly.

It had aspects of capitalism, but the definition 'socialism' (Or whatever you would prefer. State capitalism, whatever.) MORE ACCURATELY reflects it's system.

Blithely saying "The U.S.S.R was capitalist" and then saying "Hong Kong" is capitalist because both share some prototypical traits of capitalism is like saying both cats and dogs are dogs because they have fur.


It is irrelevant that the state owns a numer of companies (the state owns a number of companies in EVERY capitalist society. Please point out a single capitalist nation where the state has not owned a single company...please.), heck it would be irrelevant for the question even if the state owned every company. The USSR for example was without doubt capitalist.

It's irrelevent that the state owns of a number of companies?

What definition of capitalism are you using? 'An economic system that isn't communism'?

cap·i·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "capitalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


In a state where every company is state-owned, the means of production are PUBLIC.

It cannot be called capitalism BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION.

Countries can be more or less capitalistic just as paintings can be more or less red.

Just because a giant painting has one sqaure inch of red paint on it does not mean you can keep saying 'it's a red painting' and pointing it out.

You're ignoring everything else and you know it.

And the fact that states have owned industry in almost all 'capitalistic' states only lends credence to our arguments.



What is really important is not who is administrating the capital, but that capital is being administrated. Ask your self. Did commodity production exist in the USSR? Yes.
Did wage labour exist in the USSR? Yes. Did capital relations exist in the USSR? Yes.

But to say the commodity production, 'wage labour' and capital relations bore any noticalbe or meaningful relationship to the ones in capitalist countries is, again, to misrepresent the truth.

You can make up whatever term you like, socialism, state-capitalism, mercantalism, I don't care, but that is NOT capitalism.


I understand, accept and respect that you don't like many forms of capitalism, but to claim that these are no forms of capitalism just because you don't like them...well, thats wrong.

I don't like, don't respect and do understand why you feel the need to label everything 'capitalism' when it can be easily shown that the specific case in question was lacking MANY of the prerequisites for calling something 'capitalism'.

Capital for instance.

The bourgiousie didn't own the means of production.

Just because the USSR sucked does not mean it was capitalist and just because Russia now sucks does not mean it's capitalist.

It's capitalist (Nowadays) to a large degree, but it is still not there yet.

[quincunx5]

Take for example BP in Nigeria who not only have destroyed vast areas of landscape impoverishing local people but use cheap labour in its factories. Shell in Latin America have forcibly evicted families from their lands in order to build Oil pipes!


Corrupt governments.



Gap use child labour to make its clothes, as does Nike, building massive factories which are a cause for climate change.


Bollocks! The government sets up export zones, and allows Nike and Gap to ship stuff in and out of them. No export zones - no sweat shops.

Sweat shop factories cause climate change?



Let's take Coca-Cola who employed right-wing mercenary militias and government security agencies to forcibly sack workers, break strikes and murder and intimidate Trade Union officials.


Trade Union = Corporation



Let's take the natural resource companies in Indonesia who have used military forces to murder and evict primitive tribes on land they want to use.


They used government military forces to do their job.



Then what is the reason for the fact that money and food aid is not being sent to Africa in the quantities needed?


Because it will just be used by the government regime to oppress their own people.
There is vast number of failed public works projects all over Africa.



Why is it that Sub-Saharan African countries are not allowed to produce a cheaper version of HIV/AIDS drugs?


Because there are Anti-Dumping laws. Government again.



Why are people not getting clean water?


Because they are reproducing too fast for their natural resources.



Why are people dying of curable diseases or never receiving a basic education?


Because someone has to provide those services.



Why is it that 3million people in Britain alone are living under the EU poverty line?


EU poverty line? HA - you are so funny. Being below EU poverty line is nothing like the other examples you mentioned. They are only poor in relation to other people in their nation.



Answer each of these questions and tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not the system of profit that has created this mess?


No profit = No progress.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:15 PM

One of the perks of socialism is the abolition of age-discrimination, age is no measure of intellect or experience.

So, you're going to go around shooting people who discriminate based on age?

Very nice.
Please stop posting, you are embarrassing.

[WeThePeople1911]

Communists will never understand that the market is the only entity that can properly distribute earnings. A central planner will never be able to do it. NEVER.

The reason people in Africa are starving is because we are sending them food based on what some planner says they need.

If the African people were permitted to keep what they earn and start businesses, and be economically free. You would see a 180 degree turn within 10 years.

[WeThePeople1911]

Another thing.

Communists always degrade businesses because they are "out to make a profit."

But...there is not one fucking thing wrong with that. Man's rational greed built civilization. it is altruism that is destroying it.

[WeThePeople1911]

what's wrong with age discrimination?

Would you want an 78 year old life guard? Sure, he may be able to save someones life, and hell, he may even be in better physical shape than most 40 year olds, but he is 78.

He could be in great shape, and still have a heart attack without a moments notice. But I do support the pool owners right to hire anyone based on anything, or to fire anyone based on anything. It is his property, and if he doesn't want you on it, you had better just jolly well accept it.

Seriously... :rolleyes:

lol...this is great entertainment.

[Commie-Pinko]

The reason people in Africa are starving is because we are sending them food based on what some planner says they need.

If the African people were permitted to keep what they earn and start businesses, and be economically free. You would see a 180 degree turn within 10 years.

No. The reason why people are starving in Africa is not due to central planning. It's due to corrupt dictators who take food/supplies, etc and hoard it for their personal use, friends, and military industrial complex cronies. The same applies to other nations, such as N. Kraporea, where problems COULD be fixed, had Kim Small Dong actually used supplies for something other than the military.

In Africa, you had and have dipshits like Mugabe who take food and resources and stockpile it for military use to maintain power. That's wrong.

Africa is also a craphole because of their primitive cultures. Africa sucks because as well because of the vast imperialism that stripped them of many resources and paved the road for dictatoral control.

I do, agree, however, that a moderated free market WOULD improve the situation somewhat, but that would not end the problems by a long shot. You are also right that "command" economies do have problems (shortages or surpluses). It's almost impossible for people to determine what the demand will be ahead of time and order for it, but that's not the major problem in many african nations. That's ONE problem.



what's wrong with age discrimination?

Would you want an 78 year old life guard? Sure, he may be able to save someones life, and hell, he may even be in better physical shape than most 40 year olds, but he is 78.

He could be in great shape, and still have a heart attack without a moments notice. But I do support the pool owners right to hire anyone based on anything, or to fire anyone based on anything. It is his property, and if he doesn't want you on it, you had better just jolly well accept it.

Seriously... rolleyes.gif

lol...this is great entertainment.

There's nothing wrong with legitimate age discrimination. One important aspect of egalitarianism is to treat people equally, but this does not logically follow that people must be treated equally under all circumstances, regardless of their physical/mental state or consquences. You obviously cannot have an 80 year old life guard, because he does not have the merit necessary for the job. That's a valid criterion for discrimination.


Communists always degrade businesses because they are "out to make a profit."

But...there is not one fucking thing wrong with that. Man's rational greed built civilization. it is altruism that is destroying it.

You are right. THere's nothing intrinsically wrong with profit. The problem asserts itself when businesses think that profit is the ONLY thing they must consider. Unrestricted practices lead to unacceptable social consequences. You want people to make a profit, but you don't want that to be the sole concern.

Businesses which don't give a shit about ANYTHING but pure profit are doing society a great disservice. It might be cheaper and profititable to dump your toxic waste in some location, thus causing localized ecological damage, but is that right? Is that good?

It might be cheaper to deny your workers healthcare and retirement plans (which is happening rapidly in the USA), but is that right? Is that good?

Businesses assume that they only have responsibility to the executives and shareholders. That's false. They have a social responsibility as well.

Do you know that there are corporations that hand out baby formula to primitive tribes in africa and asia under the guise of "ethics" and "charity?" What happens in reality, however, is that these companies addict those people to easy sources of baby nutrition, which causes the mothers to forgo milk production. When the "charity formula" runs out, the mothers can no longer produce milk for their children. Either facing death or malnutrtion, the mother's must become indebted to the corporations for their childrens' sustenence, or they must appeal to the community to purchase more formula, thus making the company a profit, while enslaving the community.

Why do companies do this? To many money. Those types of corporations are vile, but not all are like that.

Where do you get this bullshit that altruism is evil and destroying society? From Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Stupidity..I mean Selfishness? She's a bad philosopher, just like Karl Marx.

It's also patently false to claim that greed helps society but altruism destroys it. Both can help society directly and indirectly, and nothing's wrong with altruism. altruism means voluntarily giving of one's self, or giving through selfless action. You must not equal Communism with altruism either, for they aren't the same. You must have taken that bullshit claim out of the Ayn Rand Handbook. Take your Virtue of Selfishness elsewhere.

[WeThePeople1911]

to each his own.

I don't agree with everything Rand says. For example, the source of man's rights.

Doing good is good. But expecting and forcing people to sacrifice for the good of others is monsterous.


There's nothing wrong with legitimate age discrimination. One important aspect of egalitarianism is to treat people equally, but this does not logically follow that people must be treated equally under all circumstances, regardless of their physical/mental state or consquences. You obviously cannot have an 80 year old life guard, because he does not have the merit necessary for the job. That's a valid criterion for discrimination.

Once thing is clear through all of that.

Each Property owner has a rights to exclude people from being on his land, he can base this on any reason he wishes;
-fat
-long hair
-too thin
-wierd
It doesn't matter.

Won't disagree with you on most of the Africa part. Corrupt government's are destorying that country as well.


It might be cheaper to deny your workers healthcare and retirement plans (which is happening rapidly in the USA), but is that right? Is that good?

What if I don't want healthcare? What if I want to be paid in full? Are you going to pass a law demanding that my employer give me health care when I don't want it.?
There are several reasons why workers are losing high wages and benefits. They all revolve around statist government policy, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon...on and on.


Do you know that there are corporations that hand out baby formula to primitive tribes in africa and asia under the guise of "ethics" and "charity?" What happens in reality, however, is that these companies addict those people to easy sources of baby nutrition, which causes the mothers to forgo milk production. When the "charity formula" runs out, the mothers can no longer produce milk for their children. Either facing death or malnutrtion, the mother's must become indebted to the corporations for their childrens' sustenence, or they must appeal to the community to purchase more formula, thus making the company a profit, while enslaving the community.

Sounds terrible, but the solution is not to stop the companies from giving babies nutrion, but rather, to allow the people the economic freedom to create wealth and raise their children.


Businesses which don't give a shit about ANYTHING but pure profit are doing society a great disservice. It might be cheaper and profititable to dump your toxic waste in some location, thus causing localized ecological damage, but is that right? Is that good?

Thats a violation of property rights if a company pours toxic waste onto someone elses land or water, or in their water if it runs down stream into mine.



Businesses assume that they only have responsibility to the executives and shareholders. That's false. They have a social responsibility as well.

No. Businesses are just a collection of individuals, they have no social responsibility. They have one responsibility, not to violate other people natural rights. Don't pour toxic waste onto my land and don't use government to evict me from my land.

Government exists to keep people in their boundries. Those boundries are the equall rights of others.

[Commie-Pinko]

Doing good is good. But expecting and forcing people to sacrifice for the good of others is monsterous.

Why? You ought to do what's the greatest good. Acting in your own self interest when it's hurting everyone else I think is wrong. What makes you more important that 10 other people who are suffering because of your actions?

Let us have an experiment: You are in a burning building, and you can only save one group of people, because they are in opposite areas of the building. In room A. You have your only daughter. In group B, you have 5 healthy toddlers that belong to a neighbor. Whom do you save? DO you go for rational self interrdyt and say "fuck the toddlers?" Or do you do save the room filled with helpless children? Tick toc tick toc.

I know what I would do. If you save the room filled with toddlers, you are saving 5 lives, but losing one. This means you are in the black by 4 individuals. It's wrong to let 5 people die to save one, simply because you have some relation to the one. 5 > 1. Letting the 5 die causes more misery and suffering, ergo, it's the inferior choice. You ought to save the toddlers. It's the right thing to do. Saving your own daughter is the wrong thing to do.


What if I don't want healthcare? What if I want to be paid in full? Are you going to pass a law demanding that my employer give me health care when I don't want it.?
There are several reasons why workers are losing high wages and benefits. They all revolve around statist government policy, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon...on and on.

If you don't want it, then you don't need to get it, just so long as your exit will not cause others to lose theirs. It's odd, however, since it would be irrational not to want employer healthcare. That's how a lot of healthcare is delt with in the united states. Most people want and need their employer to give them healthcare and some retirement security. One problem in the united states (healthcare in particular) is that employers are giving increasily shitty healthplans, which leads to poor overall preventitive healthcare.

If you don't want your healthcare, then you don't have to get it. However, other's need it. Sadly, employers aren't giving them any.



Sounds terrible, but the solution is not to stop the companies from giving babies nutrion, but rather, to allow the people the economic freedom to create wealth and raise their children.

It is very terrible. This is where I have to disagree, though. Companies should never be allowed to engage in this type of exploitation of primitive cultures. These people don't even understand what's happening to themselves. Half the time, they think "demons" are causing their breast's to stop making milk. All the while, the companies are laughing as they gauge villages.

I don't think food corporations should be able to do the above any more than I think child slave labour should be legal.

It's very difficult to create economic freedom and wealth in sub-saharan africa. It's a poor region that's not rich in resources, and it's also a region under the iron fist of petty military dictatorships. Saying "give them freedom" is not a practical solution to the problem. There's no way to give them that freedom. Even if they did have the freedom, they still couldn't afford to buy truckloads of high priced baby formula.



Thats a violation of property rights if a company pours toxic waste onto someone elses land or water, or in their water if it runs down stream into mine.

They shouldn't be able to do it even on the own property. And you are right. Dumping it does violate rights and harm people, yet companies still freely (and secretly) dump waste into rivers, which ends up causing people cancer or other diseases.

Let's have another example in Ford MOtor Copmany. Ford created the Pinto, a car so dangerous that it killed a myriad of people, and potentially threatened the lives of many more. Do you know what Ford did? Instead of recalling the cars and fixing them, Ford decided because it was cheaper to have the people die and then pay lawsuits and funeral costs, than it was just to fix the damn cars! Needless to say, the cars were largely unrecalled, and the company simply stopped making them. That's appaling! Hundreds were dead and injured, and the only thing the company cared about was cheapness.


No. Businesses are just a collection of individuals, they have no social responsibility. They have one responsibility, not to violate other people natural rights. Don't pour toxic waste onto my land and don't use government to evict me from my land.

Not violating other people's rights is a social responsibility. They should be accountable for their actions. It's not violating your rights to produce medicines that kill people, by accident. However, the company still is responsible. This is the entire concept behind limited liability. The actions of corporations have social consequences. Like individuals themselves, collections of individuals are not exempt from consequences.



Government exists to keep people in their boundries. Those boundries are the equall rights of others.

It's highly illogical to say that government exists for the sole purpouse of protecting the rights of the people.

A. Rights don't intrinsically exist. There are no natural rights. There are only socially bequeathed rights. Rights are imaginary concepts that were conjured up by social/ethics philosophers.

B. It is evident that government has many purpouses insofar as government has existed for over 5000 years, and rights have not. If Rights are B, and government is A, it's impossible for B to be the purpouse of A, when A existed before B. Rights-based ethics is a product largely of the 18th century enlightenment.

[WeThePeople1911]

It sounds like we fundamentaly disagree. And we are entitled to our own opinions.

However, I want to respond to a few of your posts.



Not violating other people's rights is a social responsibility. They should be accountable for their actions. It's not violating your rights to produce medicines that kill people, by accident. However, the company still is responsible. This is the entire concept behind limited liability. The actions of corporations have social consequences. Like individuals themselves, collections of individuals are not exempt from consequences.

Many of the medicines which are recalled or delayed help millions of people, but because one person took a drug he or she shouldn't have and died from taking it, they get recalled. Should the company be held responsible because one person made a stupid move and put something into their body that they shouldn't have?

No, of course not, think of "the greater good" my friend. Aren't more people saved?

Of course, I'm not basing my view on some arbitrary premise of commonwealth, I am basing my view on individual choice and natural rights.


They shouldn't be able to do it even on the own property.

You don't acknowledge property rights, so this coming from you is no surprise.

It is their land, they can de-forest it, they can rape the animals, and they can pour their shit on it. They just can't de-forest my land, rape my animals, and stink up my land with their shit.


It's highly illogical to say that government exists for the sole purpouse of protecting the rights of the people.

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

I would presume, since you are a communist, that you loathe that quote and the document fro which it derives. But I challenge you to run for office on the platform "You have no rights!"


A. Rights don't intrinsically exist. There are no natural rights. There are only socially bequeathed rights. Rights are imaginary concepts that were conjured up by social/ethics philosophers.

If thats the case, I am going to convince 51% of society that you should be taken out to the 50 yard line and raped.


B. It is evident that government has many purpouses insofar as government has existed for over 5000 years, and rights have not. If Rights are B, and government is A, it's impossible for B to be the purpouse of A, when A existed before B. Rights-based ethics is a product largely of the 18th century enlightenment.

Rights have always existed in some form or another. In the least, the right to life. (Cain and Able - Cain was punished for violating Able's right to life) This was before any government or even any real civilization.

It was only in recent years (past 270) that man began to firmly grasp the concept of natural rights. That doesn't mean rights didn't exist prior, just that we now had a name for them, and a better understanding of them.

[KC]

Many of the medicines which are recalled or delayed help millions of people, but because one person took a drug he or she shouldn't have and died from taking it, they get recalled. Should the company be held responsible because one person made a stupid move and put something into their body that they shouldn't have?


If you could provide some evidence that would be great. Also, why not instead of focusing on the example focus on what he tried to illustrate with the example? The example can be easily changed to a fast food chain accidentally contaminating its meat and then selling it. Focusing on the example is avoiding the topic at hand.



No, of course not, think of "the greater good" my friend. Aren't more people saved?

Think of the topic, not the example.



Of course, I'm not basing my view on some arbitrary premise of commonwealth, I am basing my view on individual choice and natural rights.

What rights are "natural"? What does "natural rights" mean?



It is their land, they can de-forest it, they can rape the animals, and they can pour their shit on it. They just can't de-forest my land, rape my animals, and stink up my land with their shit.

When they dump that shit on their land, it seeps into the drinking supply and poisons your water. When they deforest their land, the runoff from storms can affect your land. Rape the animals? I didn't think that was legal. They can perfectly well stink up your land with their shit; the source just has to be on their property (i.e. they can have a compost heap on their property, and the smell will travel to yours). Property rights are bullshit as private property isn't isolated from other private property. All property affects its neighbors.



"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

I would presume, since you are a communist, that you loathe that quote and the document fro which it derives. But I challenge you to run for office on the platform "You have no rights!"


He said for the sole purpose. Learn to read.



If thats the case, I am going to convince 51% of society that you should be taken out to the 50 yard line and raped.


Yes, because you can convince people that live in a society where rape is wrong that it's right. :rolleyes: See? Rights are created by society. If there were "natural rights" then where were they during feudalism? During autocracy?




Rights have always existed in some form or another. In the least, the right to life. (Cain and Able - Cain was punished for violating Able's right to life) This was before any government or even any real civilization.

Cain and Able? Isn't that a story? What does "the right to life" mean? The right to be alive? Then why have people starved to death, or died from dehydration. Right to life (in the sense I described; not sure if you meant something else) hasn't ever existed as that would mean everybody having access to the essentials (food, water and shelter). This doesn't even happen in capitalist society.



It was only in recent years (past 270) that man began to firmly grasp the concept of natural rights. That doesn't mean rights didn't exist prior, just that we now had a name for them, and a better understanding of them.

Please, tell me what the "natural rights" are.

[Bishop]

Just wondering, under communism, could the government just take my belongings because they need it somewhere else, like say my compter. Because I dont think i'd like to give it up.

[KC]

Just wondering, under communism, could the government just take my belongings because they need it somewhere else, like say my compter. Because I dont think i'd like to give it up.

Nope.

First, there isn't really a "government" in a communist society. Government means that there has to be a state for it to run, and communism is a "classless, stateless society." Therefore, there can't really be government in a communist society (not in the normal sense of the word). The only kind of government would be workers councils whose sole purpose is to make sure that everybody is fully provided for.

Second, there is a difference between private and personal property that not many people (not many OI individuals, at least) can grasp. That computer is yours; nobody's taking it from you.

[Bishop]

If you don't mind trying to explain it, what is the difference between personal and private property.

Also, what would keep these worker councils from becomming too powerful, since it seems they can decided things that are needed, they could withold items to gain power.

[WeThePeople1911]

If you could provide some evidence that would be great. Also, why not instead of focusing on the example focus on what he tried to illustrate with the example? The example can be easily changed to a fast food chain accidentally contaminating its meat and then selling it. Focusing on the example is avoiding the topic at hand.

Asprin kills 15k per year.


Think of the topic, not the example.

Think. :rolleyes:


What rights are "natural"? What does "natural rights" mean?

Rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

All rights are natural. They are a limitation on people. They protect freedom of action and do not impose obligations on others, other than of course, the obligation not to violate them.

But you really arent looking for an answer.


When they dump that shit on their land, it seeps into the drinking supply and poisons your water.

I live about 4 miles away from a lagoon of shit, no poisoned drinking water here.


When they deforest their land, the runoff from storms can affect your land.

And if the mud from their land comes rolling down onto mine, I will take them to court for fucking up my land.


They can perfectly well stink up your land with their shit; the source just has to be on their property (i.e. they can have a compost heap on their property, and the smell will travel to yours).

"They can perfectly well shoot up your land with their bullets, the source just has to be on their property (i.e. they can have a minigun shooting the shit out of your house)"

:rolleyes: Nice logic. If it is damaging my property, I'll take em to court.


Property rights are bullshit as private property isn't isolated from other private property. All property affects its neighbors.


Is your body your property? Ope, nope, no private property here.

When communism rules the world, I am gonna hop onto to the "worker councils" and order you to the gallows.

[KC]

If you don't mind trying to explain it, what is the difference between personal and private property.


Here's an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto. Better to hear it directly from Marx/Engels than from me.



In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.



Also, what would keep these worker councils from becomming too powerful, since it seems they can decided things that are needed, they could withold items to gain power.

A workers' council (better known as a soviet) is a council that "governs" (for lack of a better word) the commune. The real power is in the people as direct democracy is used to make decisions. The council is merely an administrative body. I haven't studied council communism enough to go into detail, but perhaps another board member could help out. You could check wikipedia also, probably.




Asprin kills 15k per year.

Did you miss the rest of that quote? Or did you just choose to not respond to it?



Think. rolleyes.gif

Learn to read.



All rights are natural.

Definition of natural:
Established by moral certainty or conviction.

Who decides what is moral? If natural rights are based on moral conviction then who decides what is moral? It is subjective. Therefore "natural rights" (which are based on moral conviction) are also subjective.



But you really arent looking for an answer.

Sure I am! I'd love to see your list of "natural rights."




I live about 4 miles away from a lagoon of shit, no poisoned drinking water here.


4 miles is pretty far, genius.




And if the mud from their land comes rolling down onto mine, I will take them to court for fucking up my land.

They didn't fuck up your land. They did nothing wrong. They have property rights! They have a right to do whatever they want with their land according to you. So why would you take them to court? Are you being a hypocrit?



"They can perfectly well shoot up your land with their bullets, the source just has to be on their property (i.e. they can have a minigun shooting the shit out of your house)"

rolleyes.gif Nice logic. If it is damaging my property, I'll take em to court.


Comparing the smell of a compost heap to a gun shooting is pretty funny. Now you're just going into gun laws. And we're talking about smell here.




Is your body your property? Ope, nope, no private property here.

When communism rules the world, I am gonna hop onto to the "worker councils" and order you to the gallows.


Learn the difference between private and personal property genius.

[WeThePeople1911]

Thanks for the explanation.


direct democracy

also known as mob rule.

also known as hell.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:57 AM
Thanks for the explanation.


direct democracy

also known as mob rule.

also known as hell.
Wow, you have a remarkably low opinion of human intelligence. That explains why you see the need for people to think for us and rule us, huh?

[Bishop]

Ok, so is the differnce in the use of the property then, such as property used in the production of goods is private property while everything else is considered personal property?

[KC]

Also known as mob rule.

Hardly an ochlocracy. What you should have said is "Also known as majority rule."




Also known as hell.

Why would you say that?


Ok, so is the differnce in the use of the property then, such as property used in the production of goods is private property while everything else is considered private property?

Uhhh....What?

[WeThePeople1911]

Wow, you have a remarkably low opinion of human intelligence. That explains why you see the need for people to think for us and rule us, huh?

hmmm...I hate government, people need to think for themselves.


Hardly an ochlocracy. What you should have said is "Also known as majority rule."

mob rule is majority rule.

I hate both.

We live in a republic. oh yeah!

Well I'm out.

[KC]

So you'd rather have the minority deciding what's best for the majority than the majority deciding what's best for itself?

Why don't you respond to anything else I said?

[Brandon]

I think what he is saying, is that he wants every individual to decide what is best for his or her self.

I've been watching the conversation between you two. Very nice. :)

I am still not understanding the differnce between private property and personal property, and I don't think Bishop is either.

[KC]

Bishop, I don't know what you meant from what you said last (typo maybe?), but I think this will help you:


Property, or ‘property relations’ are fundamental social relations in which the relations between people are expressed in the relation between people and things. Thus the existence of property alienates people from social relations and puts them into relations with objects. In general therefore, a person cannot be the object, but only the subject of a property relation. If a person is owned, as in slave society, then in the given society that person is not regarded as a person at all, but rather as an object, property.

The ownership of property constitutes a social relation when that ownership affects the lives of other people. So, for example, a labourer in capitalism is the owner of their own capacity to work, but when they sell it on a day to day basis, it becomes the property of a capitalist who obtains the right to use it, and the right to profit from it. Ownership the means of production, is the most important social relation, since it gives to the class owning the means of production exclusive control over the labour process, and thereby the power they have over all laborers.

Communist society removes the existence of property as discussed here; it does not remove the form of property which we have over ourselves, our own choices and thoughts, our own expressions and ideas. In Communist society, while all people wholly own themselves individually, they also own in common the means of production. Communist society does away with distinctively capitalist property relations; while in the human sense it strengthens property relations. See also: Freedom.
Source (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#property)

The abolition of private property constitutes the emancipation of humanity as the relation of person to person is immediate rather than mediated through things.

In a capitalist society, everything is sold. If you buy it, then it is your private property. When capital is converted into common property, this means that everything is free; when you take it from the store and bring it to your home it is your personal property. There is no private property for people to have as to have private property you need to buy it. Thus we are left with common property (what you can take) and personal property (what is yours).

Hope this helps!

[Brandon]

I kinda new to this. But...is my laptop private property? and would I not own it in a communist state? Can you give me an example?

[Bishop]

I corrected it right after i posted it, but u must have quoted it quicker than I could change it.

I'm still not quite understanding this concept, could you give examples of both types? Thanks.

[KC]

I kinda new to this. But...is my laptop private property? and would I not own it in a communist state?

Your laptop is private property, as you bought it with your money (unless you stole it :P ). In a communist state, it would be personal property. You'd still own it.

Try combining what I said above with the quote I put down from the Manifesto on the last page.

[Freedom Works]

Some points about Commie-Pinko's utilitarianism:


Why? You ought to do what's the greatest good. Acting in your own self interest when it's hurting everyone else I think is wrong.
Key word, HURTING. If you aren't doing the hurting, you aren't responsible. You aren't required to go save everyone who is in fire, and if you don't you are somehow responsible for their deaths.


Let us have an experiment: You are in a burning building, and you can only save one group of people, because they are in opposite areas of the building. In room A. You have your only daughter. In group B, you have 5 healthy toddlers that belong to a neighbor. Whom do you save? DO you go for rational self interrdyt and say "fuck the toddlers?" Or do you do save the room filled with helpless children? Tick toc tick toc.
You are not responsible for them. I would go for my daughter, that doesn't mean I am somehow killing the toddlers cause I didn't save them. Stupid.


I know what I would do. If you save the room filled with toddlers, you are saving 5 lives, but losing one. This means you are in the black by 4 individuals. It's wrong to let 5 people die to save one, simply because you have some relation to the one. 5 > 1. Letting the 5 die causes more misery and suffering, ergo, it's the inferior choice. You ought to save the toddlers. It's the right thing to do. Saving your own daughter is the wrong thing to do.
Says the utilitarian. The problem is, you don't have a "god's eye view" so you don't know if the 5 toddlers you save will die the next week, as opposed to your daughter who will cure cancer. Sorry, utilitarianism is silly, because we are human, and don't know how it will all pan out.

[Brandon]

So...what about my house and my land? This concept seems very different...

I am used to working, taking home my earnings, and saving or spending. I mean, I really don't have a problem with that...do you?

[KC]

So...what about my house and my land? This concept seems very different...

How's that different from a laptop?



I am used to working, taking home my earnings, and saving or spending. I mean, I really don't have a problem with that...do you?

Yes I do. Acquaint yourself with surplus value. There is another topic here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39061) where you can go to and educate yourself and discuss this very topic.

[Brandon]

How's that different from a laptop?

I didn't mean that the laptop was different, I meant that communism is different.

So if my house, my land, and my laptop are private/personal property, and I can keep them and use them, how is it different from capitalism?


Yes I do.

Why do you have a problem with that?

[KC]

I didn't mean that the laptop was different, I meant that communism is different.

So if my house, my land, and my laptop are private/personal property, and I can keep them and use them, how is it different from capitalism?

Let me answer that with what I previously posted:

Private property and what is wrong with it:

Property, or ‘property relations’ are fundamental social relations in which the relations between people are expressed in the relation between people and things. Thus the existence of property alienates people from social relations and puts them into relations with objects. In general therefore, a person cannot be the object, but only the subject of a property relation. If a person is owned, as in slave society, then in the given society that person is not regarded as a person at all, but rather as an object, property.

The ownership of property constitutes a social relation when that ownership affects the lives of other people. So, for example, a labourer in capitalism is the owner of their own capacity to work, but when they sell it on a day to day basis, it becomes the property of a capitalist who obtains the right to use it, and the right to profit from it. Ownership the means of production, is the most important social relation, since it gives to the class owning the means of production exclusive control over the labour process, and thereby the power they have over all laborers.

Communist society removes the existence of property as discussed here; it does not remove the form of property which we have over ourselves, our own choices and thoughts, our own expressions and ideas. In Communist society, while all people wholly own themselves individually, they also own in common the means of production. Communist society does away with distinctively capitalist property relations; while in the human sense it strengthens property relations.



Why do you have a problem with that?


Surplus value.

[Brandon]

OK, I am starting to understand...reading through these differnt posts.

A Capitalist believes that profit is to be acheived by mutual trade and appealing to the self-interest of others, thereby helping the sellers self-inerest (which is to make money).

A Communist believes that profit is to be acheived by exploitation of the workers.

But, the way I am seeing things, is that...for example, if an employee is being exploited (long hours, poor wages, poor conditions) he should be free to leave and find employment at another place so long as there isn't a law forbidding a person to leave his work...which seems to me to be a bad law.

I have to go to sleep, good night.

[KC]

A Capitalist believes that profit is to be acheived by mutual trade and appealing to the self-interest of others, thereby helping the sellers self-inerest (which is to make money).

A Communist believes that profit is to be acheived by expliotation of the workers.

Are you citing two different views? Or citing the different ways that they look at the same system? Because communists certainly don't believe that profit should be achieved by exploitation of the workers. I think I'm interpreting this wrong, though.



But, the way I am seeing things, is that...for example, if an employee is being explioted (long hours, poor wages, poor conditions) he should be free to leave and find employment at another place so long as there isn't a law forbidding a person to leave his work...which seems to me to be a bad law.

The problem isn't long hours, poor wages, poor conditions. The problem is surplus value (or, simply, profit). As all businesses must make a profit to provide for the owners, this profit is money that is taken away from the workers. Let me quote a post made by Anomaly in a different topic that fits this perfectly:


Originally posted by Anomaly

Obviously, we, as laborers, created the value, and yet we are not due full compensation for our efforts under capitalism. Instead, most of the profits would go towards the capitalist [bourgeoisie]. But the capitalist [bourgeoisie] did not create the value, we did. And yet he has 'earned' more than we have. Do you see the oddity? Why should a capitalist, who does no production labor, be compensated for work that we have done?

Bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production (business owners). Workers create the product, thereby creating the value. The bourgeoisie takes the product and sells it for more than what it pays the laborer, which is profit. Since the worker created the value, why is he not entitled to it; why should the owner be allowed to take what I made and sell it and not give me the full value of my work?


Also, I hope this solves the question of being able to go somewhere else. As a business has to run at a profit, it is inherent in all businesses! No matter where the worker goes, he will be exploited.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Anomaly

Obviously, we, as laborers, created the value, and yet we are not due full compensation for our efforts under capitalism. Instead, most of the profits would go towards the capitalist [bourgeoisie]. But the capitalist [bourgeoisie] did not create the value, we did. And yet he has 'earned' more than we have. Do you see the oddity? Why should a capitalist, who does no production labor, be compensated for work that we have done?


Bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production (business owners). Workers create the product, thereby creating the value. The bourgeoisie takes the product and sells it for more than what it pays the laborer, which is profit. Since the worker created the value, why is he not entitled to it; why should the owner be allowed to take what I made and sell it and not give me the full value of my work?


Also, I hope this solves the question of being able to go somewhere else. As a business has to run at a profit, it is inherent in all businesses! No matter where the worker goes, he will be exploited.


Wow.

Ok first off, I have been a worker (and never a business owner) so I am very much aware how important we are, but:

You are completely ignorant if you think the worker is the only one responsible for creating all the wealth regarding any given product, b/c that is simply not the case - it's not even a matter of opinion; there are so many other factors that make up the price of a product. The price of labour / hr. is just one. What about marketing? Shipping? Planning? Design? Supply? Demand? etc. etc... There are laws of economics that make up the said price for any item.

Who goes out and puts all their money on the line? who does all the leg work and must deal w/ the general operation of the company on a day to day basis?? The company owner, that's who.
I have worked for many different places, and yes, I've *****ed and moaned about my wages but I really wouldn't want to be a business owner given all the personal risk that's involved. They can literally lose the shirt off their back if the company goes under. Talk about stressful. What happens to the worker? Well, it's rough, they lose their job, but there is no way they can literally go bankrupt as a direct result if the company goes bankrupt.
If you hate your job, then quit, it's that simple. Do you really think any business owner even owes you a job? He is the one that put all his effort and money into even starting the business, it's his creation, not yours.
I have worked for other companies where I was very happy w/ my wages and working conditions, so to say it's always "exploitative" to work for someone is completely and absolutely wrong. If two people agree on the conditions, then that is not exploitation.
The bottom line is, whoever creates and bears most of the risk in the business is the one who should have most (or all) of the say. And if you don't like it, find a job where you're happy w/ the wage. I have, and it worked for me.

[Freedom Works]

The problem isn't long hours, poor wages, poor conditions. The problem is surplus value (or, simply, profit). As all businesses must make a profit to provide for the owners, this profit is money that is taken away from the workers.
Surplus value is a myth. The money is not being taken away, it is being given away, because the worker desided to work for something less then the equilibrium.

[fernando]

I know why these workers and people in the Third World countries are poor...they just picked the lousy jobs and dont own creditcards :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:03 PM


Take for example BP in Nigeria who not only have destroyed vast areas of landscape impoverishing local people but use cheap labour in its factories. Shell in Latin America have forcibly evicted families from their lands in order to build Oil pipes!


Corrupt governments.
Which these businesses exploited and used for their [violent] purpose.




Gap use child labour to make its clothes, as does Nike, building massive factories, which are a cause for climate change.


Bollocks! The government sets up export zones, and allows Nike and Gap to ship stuff in and out of them. No export zones - no sweat shops.

Granted, they don't use child labour, but they still pay massively low prices i.e. $1 per day to their workers.


Sweatshop factories cause climate change?

Read the fucking sentence dickhead. Massive Factories is what I said.




Let's take Coca-Cola who employed right-wing mercenary militias and government security agencies to forcibly sack workers, break strikes and murder and intimidate Trade Union officials.


Trade Union = Corporation

What does that even mean?

Are you saying that it's ok for coca-cola to murder Trade Union officials?




Let's take the natural resource companies in Indonesia who have used military forces to murder and evict primitive tribes on land they want to use.


They used government military forces to do their job.

Yes, they employed military forces to do their job.





Then what is the reason for the fact that money and food aid is not being sent to Africa in the quantities needed?


Because it will just be used by the government regime to oppress their own people.
There is vast number of failed public works projects all over Africa.

What has that got to do with anything? If these businesses are so progressive, why haven't they found a solution? Why don't the work with agencies to use their profit to find other ways? If they're so humanitarian, surely that goes without saying?




Why is it that Sub-Saharan African countries are not allowed to produce a cheaper version of HIV/AIDS drugs?


Because there are Anti-Dumping laws. Government again.

No, I think you'll find it's patent laws. Huge American pharmaceutical companies have patented their products, which means other countries can't reproduce cheaper versions...Very humanitarian.




Why are people not getting clean water?


Because they are reproducing too fast for their natural resources.

Considering the child death rate in Sub-Saharan Africa is 45% for every 1000 births, that's almost half of every 1000 children born die.




Why are people dying of curable diseases or never receiving a basic education?


Because someone has to provide those services.

Why aren't these businesses doing it?




Why is it that 3million people in Britain alone are living under the EU poverty line?


EU poverty line? HA - you are so funny. Being below EU poverty line is nothing like the other examples you mentioned. They are only poor in relation to other people in their nation.

No, the EU poverty line is £7 a day. For such "progressed" and "developed" countries this seems beyond belief.




Answer each of these questions and tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not the system of profit that has created this mess?


No profit = No progress.

How are you measuring progress?

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:13 PM
To all communists - I will buy you a one-way ticket to Russia if you promise never to come back.

Convert back to the USSR, stand in your mile lines for a loaf of bread, enjoy your poverty stricken land.

You can take your "from each according...to each according..." philosophy else where.
:lol:

Russia is capitalist, you idiot

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:38 PM
No country in the world is capitalist. Not one. they are all either dictatorships, or mixed economies.
most of the world's countries are capitalist. your statement is just so idiotic

[Bishop]

I think what he was trying to say was that we are not a pure capitalist society because of government restrictions, bans, regulations, and other policies that restrict the free trade. Its the same way that Russia wasn't a true communist society. Neither are completely given to one ideology or the other, so they are a mixed economy.

What we are in the US is a mix of capitalism, command economy, and communism.

[Brandon]

True Bishop.

[WeThePeople1911]

Russia is capitalist, you idiot

:rolleyes:

I'll just ignore that one, I think Bishop said it well enough anyways.

Communists are constantly giving examples of businesses that use force to acheive their profit. In a Laissez-Faire society, the unwanted initiation of force is banned from relationships. I say unwanted because many people don't mind it if force is used against them (boxers, football players, hocky...etc).

People using force against others is not a problem of an economic system, it is a problem of humanity

[KC]

I think what he was trying to say was that we are not a pure capitalist society because of government restrictions, bans, regulations, and other policies that restrict the free trade. Its the same way that Russia wasn't a true communist society. Neither are completely given to one ideology or the other, so they are a mixed economy.

What we are in the US is a mix of capitalism, command economy, and communism.

Actually russia was nowhere near communism. Neither is the United States. How were either just a "little communist"? Communism: "classless, stateless society". Since both of those weren't even close to that definition, neither were remotely communist.



Communists are constantly giving examples of businesses that use force to acheive their profit. In a Laissez-Faire society, the unwanted initiation of force is banned from relationships. I say unwanted because many people don't mind it if force is used against them (boxers, football players, hocky...etc).

What examples?



People using force against others is not a problem of an economic system, it is a problem of humanity

It's caused by the economic system, genius.



Surplus value is a myth. The money is not being taken away, it is being given away, because the worker desided to work for something less then the equilibrium.

Surplus value exists. Another word for surplus value is profit. It exists. In today's society the worker has no other choice than to settle for less than equilibrium. All businesses have to run at a profit, therefore they will pay their worker less than what their work is worth.

EXAMPLE: Let's use that table thing again. Say I get a job at a table making company. It takes me 5 hours to make a table. That table is worth 5 hours of work. The value of that table is 5 hours of work, since that is how long it took to make it. Now my employer takes that table and sells it for $30. The table, which is worth 5 hours of work, is also now worth $30. So 5 hours of work is worth $30. Divide that up, and I should be getting $6 an hour; that is, after all, the value of my work. But I don't. I get paid less and the company keeps the rest (which is profit, or surplus value). That is exploitation. Why? Remember, the value of my labor is $6 an hour for this table. Let's say my employer pays me $4.80 an hour. That means that from making that table, I only get $24 (5 hours of work). The employer keeps the extra $6. Since the value of my work was $6 an hour, and I got paid $4.80 an hour, after the 4th hour I am working for nothing (because I have made the value of what I am getting paid til the 4th hour - $24 - the 5th hour I am working purely for the profit of the company). This means that the company is exploiting my labor for its own gain.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:19 PM

Russia is capitalist, you idiot

:rolleyes:

I'll just ignore that one
But it is capitalist.

It certainly isn't a communist country.

[WeThePeople1911]

We have 9 of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto in this country. with the abolishment of private property (wich is the goal) as the exception.



But it is capitalist.

NO! It isn't you fool.

It is socialist.

[fernando]

Hmm Russia being communist...this probably comes from a person who probably believes that Bill Clinton was a left wing leader..encountered those before :blink:

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:39 PM
We have 9 of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto in this country. with the abolishment of private property (wich is the goal) as the exception.
Please, put those 10 'planks of the communist' manifesto here and explain how the current Russian state fits in with those.

[Bishop]

Your right, that we certainly not a stateless or classesless society, but what I was refering to was the planks of communism by engles. It seems that we are practicing most of them in part or whole.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:39 PM

But it is capitalist.

NO! It isn't you fool.

It is socialist.
No it isn't...

I would accept it being called State capitalism, but it certainly isn't socialist in any definition I have ever encountered. If you have another definition that proves Russia to be a Socialist country, please show us.

[WeThePeople1911]

ok.

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

[WeThePeople1911]

No it isn't...

I would accept it being called State capitalism, but it certainly isn't socialist in any definition I have ever encountered. If you have another definition that proves Russia to be a Socialist country, please show us.


...State capitalism...

:rolleyes:

I'm done talking to you. You invent systems of government.

They are by no means a free-markert, which is what all of us mean when we say "capitalist."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:51 PM

No it isn't...

I would accept it being called State capitalism, but it certainly isn't socialist in any definition I have ever encountered. If you have another definition that proves Russia to be a Socialist country, please show us.


...State capitalism...

:rolleyes:

I'm done talking to you. You invent systems of government.

They are by no means a free-markert, which is what all of us mean when we say "capitalist."
I didn't invent it, Trotsky did you fucking moron.

I wish you'd take the time to use our extensive resources before making comments because you end up looking like a ****.

read and learn (http://http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=21255)

[WeThePeople1911]

State capitalism.

*Shakes Head*

Good for trotsky.

Anyway to disguise what communism really bring about. :rolleyes:

Your an anarchist?

[The Feral Underclass]

My bad...I meant Tony Cliff...Freudian slip you understand...oh what a faux pas.

Yes, State Capitalism..That could be argued is what is in Russia now, but it isn't socialism and definitely isn't communism as communism is a society which is stateless and classless and that certainly isn't what Russia is, or ever was.

Yes I'm an anarchist, of the communist variety.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:35 PM

I think what he was trying to say was that we are not a pure capitalist society because of government restrictions, bans, regulations, and other policies that restrict the free trade. Its the same way that Russia wasn't a true communist society. Neither are completely given to one ideology or the other, so they are a mixed economy.

What we are in the US is a mix of capitalism, command economy, and communism.

Actually russia was nowhere near communism. Neither is the United States. How were either just a "little communist"? Communism: "classless, stateless society". Since both of those weren't even close to that definition, neither were remotely communist.



Communists are constantly giving examples of businesses that use force to acheive their profit. In a Laissez-Faire society, the unwanted initiation of force is banned from relationships. I say unwanted because many people don't mind it if force is used against them (boxers, football players, hocky...etc).

What examples?



People using force against others is not a problem of an economic system, it is a problem of humanity

It's caused by the economic system, genius.



Surplus value is a myth. The money is not being taken away, it is being given away, because the worker desided to work for something less then the equilibrium.

Surplus value exists. Another word for surplus value is profit. It exists. In today's society the worker has no other choice than to settle for less than equilibrium. All businesses have to run at a profit, therefore they will pay their worker less than what their work is worth.

EXAMPLE: Let's use that table thing again. Say I get a job at a table making company. It takes me 5 hours to make a table. That table is worth 5 hours of work. The value of that table is 5 hours of work, since that is how long it took to make it. Now my employer takes that table and sells it for $30. The table, which is worth 5 hours of work, is also now worth $30. So 5 hours of work is worth $30. Divide that up, and I should be getting $6 an hour; that is, after all, the value of my work. But I don't. I get paid less and the company keeps the rest (which is profit, or surplus value). That is exploitation. Why? Remember, the value of my labor is $6 an hour for this table. Let's say my employer pays me $4.80 an hour. That means that from making that table, I only get $24 (5 hours of work). The employer keeps the extra $6. Since the value of my work was $6 an hour, and I got paid $4.80 an hour, after the 4th hour I am working for nothing (because I have made the value of what I am getting paid til the 4th hour - $24 - the 5th hour I am working purely for the profit of the company). This means that the company is exploiting my labor for its own gain.
Lazar, would you please go and educate yourself on the laws of economics. Your view that the price of any given item is based solely on the worker producing it is simply wrong.

Ask any business owner - they can tell (and even prove this to you, if need be).

I will re-post what I said earlier (I assume you missed it)

Wow.

Ok first off, I have been a worker (and never a business owner) so I am very much aware how important we are, but:

You are completely ignorant if you think the worker is the only one responsible for creating all the wealth regarding any given product, b/c that is simply not the case - it's not even a matter of opinion; there are so many other factors that make up the price of a product. The price of labour / hr. is just one. What about Marketing? Shipping? Planning? Design? Supply? Demand? etc. etc... These are all factors within the laws of economics that make up the said price for any item. The cost of the worker's wage is simply one part, but there are obviously others. There is simply no controversy here.

Who goes out and puts all their money on the line? who does all the leg work and must deal w/ the general operation of the company on a day to day basis?? The company owner, that's who.
I have worked for many different places, and yes, I've *****ed and moaned about my wages but I really wouldn't want to be a business owner given all the personal risk that's involved. They can literally lose the shirt off their back if the company goes under. Talk about stressful. What happens to the worker? Well, it's rough, they lose their job, but there is no way they can literally go bankrupt as a direct result if the company goes bankrupt.
If you hate your job, then quit, it's that simple. Do you really think any business owner even owes you a job? He is the one that put all his effort and money into even starting the business, it's his creation, not yours.
I have worked for other companies where I was very happy w/ my wages and working conditions, so to say it's always "exploitative" to work for someone is completely and absolutely wrong. If two people agree on the conditions, then that is not exploitation.
The bottom line is, whoever creates and bears most of the risk in the business is the one who should have most (or all) of the say. And if you don't like it, find a job where you're happy w/ the wage. I have, and it worked for me.

So, yes, worker exploitation is certainly a very real and possible thing, but if an employee shops around they can most definitely find a decent wage for their work.

You must also understand employers MUST make a profit - unless they are a charity. You don't understand that profit does not equal exploitation - but slave wages do.

It's sad, I really try and understand the basis for communism, but when they can't even understand basic ecomomic and natural law, they really make it difficult for others to consider their POV.

[WeThePeople1911]

Lazar, have you ever seen John Stossel's "Greed."

It's good, you should check it out.

[WeThePeople1911]

BTW, on the subject of Africa Poverty.

Their lack of natural resources isn't a problem, as resources can be imported.

What they need is the ability to trade. What they need is freedom.

Countries where people have less economic freedom are poorer. Countries where the slightest hint of private property exists are richer.

With economic freedom, unrestricted supply and demand determines wages and prices, while "greedy" corporations have to compete for economic profits, or suffer loses.

Government planning or "worker councils" GUARANTEES a less productive nation as planning always leads to totalitarianism. Worker planning is sub-par, the law of supply and demand is the only mechanism that efectivly "distributes" resources and wealth.

"a society without private property degenerates into economic chaos." Murray n. Rothbard

[KC]

What about Marketing? Shipping? Planning? Design? Supply? Demand?

Marketing is done by workers, no? That is what the marketing department of a company is! Shipping; also done by workers. Planning done by workers. Design done by workers. Supply and demand are irrelevant as a company needs to profit to survive, regarldess of supply and demand. Yes they might come out ahead or they might come out behind when they sell their product. But what you must realize is that a company can't run at a loss or it will go under. If they lose money, they must gain it back; if they keep losing money they will go out of business. They need to run at a profit. Supply and demand is great for individual transactions, but doesn't keep the company alive. Profits do.



Who goes out and puts all their money on the line? who does all the leg work and must deal w/ the general operation of the company on a day to day basis?? The company owner, that's who.

The company owner doesn't have to do anything! They can sit and let their company make/lose money. The company owner puts his money into the company, yes, but this does not mean that he should be allowed to take the money of others for this reason.


I have worked for many different places, and yes, I've *****ed and moaned about my wages but I really wouldn't want to be a business owner given all the personal risk that's involved. They can literally lose the shirt off their back if the company goes under. Talk about stressful. What happens to the worker? Well, it's rough, they lose their job, but there is no way they can literally go bankrupt as a direct result if the company goes bankrupt.

Yes, it's hard/risky work stealing money from others. :rolleyes:


If you hate your job, then quit, it's that simple.

It's not that simple. Where am I going to get the money to live then? Go to another job? They are all exploitative. They need to profit to survive.


Do you really think any business owner even owes you a job? He is the one that put all his effort and money into even starting the business, it's his creation, not yours.

He doesn't owe anyone a job. But he does need workers. The business owner needs the workers. The workers don't need the owner.


I have worked for other companies where I was very happy w/ my wages and working conditions, so to say it's always "exploitative" to work for someone is completely and absolutely wrong. If two people agree on the conditions, then that is not exploitation.

So because you like the company you work for, that means they can't steal from you? Nice logic. And it is exploitative to work for someone - ALWAYS. Again, companies need to profit to survive. If they don't profit then the owners wouldn't be able to live off the company's profits and would close down the company. If one person agrees on the conditions because there is no other alternative, that is exploitation.



The bottom line is, whoever creates and bears most of the risk in the business is the one who should have most (or all) of the say. And if you don't like it, find a job where you're happy w/ the wage. I have, and it worked for me.


You really are an idiot, arent you?



So, yes, worker exploitation is certainly a very real and possible thing, but if an employee shops around they can most definitely find a decent wage for their work.

Where they're still exploited. It's not about low wages, genius. Don't you get it? Profit. It's about profit.



You must also understand employers MUST make a profit - unless they are a charity. You don't understand that profit does not equal exploitation - but slave wages do.

Exactly. You just pointed out exactly what is wrong with the system! The profit you speak of belongs to the workers, not the owners. Profit does equal exploitation because the workers created it on their own time! For nothing!



It's sad, I really try and understand the basis for communism, but when they can't even understand basic ecomomic and natural law, they really make it difficult for others to consider their POV.

You're doing a horrible job of understanding the "basis for communism". Everybody understands basic economics here.



Government planning or "worker councils" GUARANTEES a less productive nation as planning always leads to totalitarianism. Worker planning is sub-par, the law of supply and demand is the only mechanism that efectivly "distributes" resources and wealth.

Explain yourself. How does it guarantee a less productive nation? How does it always lead to totalitarianism. Why is it sub-par? If supply and demand effectively distributed resources and wealth then there wouldn't be poverty, no?

[Bishop]

I have a job. I'm not being exploited. I'm treated and paid fairly. I don't see whats wrong with this.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:34 PM




Government planning or "worker councils" GUARANTEES a less productive nation as planning always leads to totalitarianism. Worker planning is sub-par, the law of supply and demand is the only mechanism that efectivly "distributes" resources and wealth.

Explain yourself. How does it guarantee a less productive nation? How does it always lead to totalitarianism. Why is it sub-par? If supply and demand effectively distributed resources and wealth then there wouldn't be poverty, no?

I never said that, please properly quote me next time.

ugh. you are completely missing the point. I'm not sure if you don't understand it, or you're simply trying to cloud the issue.

The price of any given product has more than just what a worker did to build it.
Wood in and of itself has value. So do no nails, so does glue. Now when a worker puts these together in a reasonable and sturdy matter; combined they all have greater value.

ok, you have just displayed you do not understand economic law regarding the price of a product:

"Supply and demand are irrelevant"? haha... that is completely WRONG. Period.

dude, why does a burger king burger cost less than one at your local diner? It's b/c of supply and demand. burger king burgers are mass produced on an assembly line, they can put out more in the same amount of time (greater supply) than can your local diner.

Now if suddenly a huge portion of cattle in the US were desimated by mad cow the supply of beef would decrease dramatically, thus raising the price of the final product.

But you know, if suddenly it was proven that beef would kill you in a few months what happen to the price??? It would fall, if not go to zero. So it doesn't matter, an employer could try and make and produce them, and if no one's buying them then, as a worker, your work is worth absolutely nothing. Why? b/c no one is willing to buy it. It's that simple. No body owes you a damn thing, only what the market states.

You are going on the notion that profit in and of itself is wrong. No, it is not. Yes, if you're working for 3 bucks an hour working on an oil rig, you're indeed being exploited - but that's why you do market research and get an idea of what the avg. wage is for that type of work. Furthermore, who the hell would volunteer to work for such shitty wages in a free market society? The employers would smarten up and offer a much higher wage.

Wake up, supply and demand are the final factors affecting the price of any given product. That is undeniable fact.

[WeThePeople1911]

Exactly. You just pointed out exactly what is wrong with the system! The profit you speak of belongs to the workers, not the owners. Profit does equal exploitation because the workers created it on their own time! For nothing!

Okay that is just bullshit. I am not even going to reply with a structured argument.

Just one sentence, try running a giant company without a board of directors or a CEO. Ben and Jerry tried it, and it didn't work.


How does it guarantee a less productive nation?

Because the desicions are too slow and not accurate. Where as when each individual plans the economy with his or her purchases, it is much more effectice. basically, a planning council would make a handfull of desicions each day, whereas market forces make trillions.


How does it always lead to totalitarianism.

Have you ever read a history book. Too much government always leads to totalitarianism...ehh, I'm sorry, we would be ruled by worker councils, not city councils or government.


Why is it sub-par? If supply and demand effectively distributed resources and wealth then there wouldn't be poverty, no?

No, many people, as there are today, will choose to be poor and homeless, also many others will choose lesser paying jobs. Others just don't have the capacity to do a skilled job.

The market forces simply guerantees that what YOU earn, YOU get to keep and use how YOU see fit.

I have talked to minimum wage workers about that, and they love the idea. They don't like it when their money is stolen from them by some up high council. Be it worker or government.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:52 PM
I have a job. I'm not being exploited. I'm treated and paid fairly. I don't see whats wrong with this.
There is nothing wrong w/ it, at all.

Commies go on the notion that profit in and of itself is wrong - that no matter what you do, you will always be exploited. How ignorant.

They don't understand the laws of economics, that the price of any given is indeed influenced by the worker, but the bottom line is if there's no demand, the price will be worth much less. It's simple.

[Commie-Pinko]

I can see there is little arguing with you, since you will think Utility is silly, even though you know little about it..but:


You are not responsible for them. I would go for my daughter, that doesn't mean I am somehow killing the toddlers cause I didn't save them. Stupid.

Ethically, you are responsible for them. You sat by and allowed far more suffering than could have been prevented pragmatically. You are only absolved under egoism, which is a laughable ethical system.

Sitting by and allowing surplus suffering when you can prevent it is immoral just as much as it would be immoral if you saw someone being raped to death and you went on your merry way, not calling the police. It's the same net result--increased suffering that could have easily been prevented.


You are responsible by proxy. It's the good smaritan law.


Says the utilitarian. The problem is, you don't have a "god's eye view" so you don't know if the 5 toddlers you save will die the next week, as opposed to your daughter who will cure cancer. Sorry, utilitarianism is silly, because we are human, and don't know how it will all pan out.

That's irrelevant. You don't need to be omniscient. YOu need only look into the utility as is pragmatically foreseeable. It is forseeable that 5 > 1 and more suffering results from more deaths, therefore, with the given information, the net result is superior.

Utilitarianism is silly at all. It's one of the most widely used and effective ethical system. Utiltarianism is highly influential in engineering practices, the treatment of the sick, animal and human testing, abortion, research and bioethics, etc.

Utilitarianism is criticial in crime and punishment as well.

Remember, you cannot argue from a fact to a normative statement. Just because human nature is both altruistic and egoistic does not mean that it ought to be that people strive toward that. If you think you can go from an IS to an OUGHT, you are committing the naturalistic fallacy and violating Hume's Law.

[Commie-Pinko]

Let's do another experiment: You say that if you are not actively doing the hurting, then you are not responsible for the suffering and death.


Ok. A mother is drowing her child in the bathtub, and you walk passed and see it, starring, while doing nothing. If the mother kills her child, you are just as morally reprehensible for sitting there doing nothing as you would be if you were holding the child's head under the water.

"It's not my job" is not a defense. Sitting by and doing nothing is just as much a crime as doing the deed.

[WeThePeople1911]

That's irrelevant. You don't need to be omniscient. YOu need only look into the utility as is pragmatically foreseeable. It is forseeable that 5 > 1 and more suffering results from more deaths, therefore, with the given information, the net result is superior.

yes, but lets say that those 5 children are homless and have no parents, while your child is loved by many, and her death would cause great suffering, and perhaps even a divorce between the father and mother because the spouse chose the 5 homless kids. That divorce could then lead to alcohol addiction and abbuse towards towards the dead child's brother, when then abuses his children, which cause his children to retaliate and murder their father, which then puts them in a orphanage, the angry and formerly abused kid then bullies the other orphans around...etc...

Yeah...Utility is silly.


Ok. A mother is drowing her child in the bathtub, and you walk passed and see it, starring, while doing nothing. If the mother kills her child, you are just as morally reprehensible for sitting there doing nothing as you would be if you were holding the child's head under the water.

I would save the child. But there shouldn't be a law.

[Commie-Pinko]

yes, but lets say that those 5 children are homless and have no parents, while your child is loved by many, and her death would cause great suffering, and perhaps even a divorce between the father and mother because the spouse chose the 5 homless kids.


Let's but say nothing about that, because the above scenario is absurd. With Utility you deal with empirical facts, not totally unknowable potentials that you have no idea of being able to occure. You are putting this faaaaaaaaar into a hypothetical future which is unnecessary and obfuscating. According to your logic, there's no point in helping the dying children because something bad might happen in the future to negate the act of helping them. That's absurd, since according to your logic, we might as well not help people who get into car accidents or have heart attacks, since something might happen to them as soon as they get well, thus negating the useage of medical resources. That's patently absurd reasoning.

If you think Utility is stupid, then your a retard, since Utilitarianism was an important component in the development of capitalism. I can't believe you're a capitalist and you don't believe in Utility theory.

I guess all that Utility theory that goes into crime, punishment, engineering, and bioethics is also silly eh! Please. Think about what you're saying.



That divorce could then lead to alcohol addiction and abbuse towards towards the dead child's brother, when then abuses his children, which cause his children to retaliate and murder their father, which then puts them in a orphanage, the angry and formerly abused kid then bullies the other orphans around...etc...

Same as above. This would be totally unknowable, thus unimportant in the calculation. However, if you were omniscient and you knew that was going to happen in the first place, then yes, the quality would outweigh the quanity.




I would save the child. But there shouldn't be a law.

Why would you save the child? Would you feel responsible if you sat there and watched the mother kill her child, but did nothing to stop it?

You are saying there shouldn't be a law that prevents people from standing by and watching someone be murdered? Wow. Ok. And you think that's ethical?

[KC]

I have a job. I'm not being exploited. I'm treated and paid fairly. I don't see whats wrong with this.

Sure you are. Read my example earlier in the thread.




I never said that, please properly quote me next time.

You didn't say that. Someone else did, dumbass.


The price of any given product has more than just what a worker did to build it.

Untrue.


Wood in and of itself has value. So do no nails, so does glue.

Yes, they were all created by labor as well. They are all products of labor. Learn to read the whole thread; you obviously didn't.


Now when a worker puts these together in a reasonable and sturdy matter; combined they all have greater value.

Yes, when the worker takes the materials (all products of labor) and puts it together, it creates another product of labor - the chair.



ok, you have just displayed you do not understand economic law regarding the price of a product:


You have just displayed a complete lack of comprehension for what anyone here has said. Or the fact that you didn't read any of it.



"Supply and demand are irrelevant"? haha... that is completely WRONG. Period.


Ugh. Supply and demand is regarldess because it dictates how much profit is made. How much profit doesn't matter. That is why supply and demand isn't relevent. The fact is that there is profit is the problem.



dude, why does a burger king burger cost less than one at your local diner? It's b/c of supply and demand. burger king burgers are mass produced on an assembly line, they can put out more in the same amount of time (greater supply) than can your local diner.


And? Regardless of what the amount of profit is, the problem is profit itself.



Now if suddenly a huge portion of cattle in the US were desimated by mad cow the supply of beef would decrease dramatically, thus raising the price of the final product.

And changing the amount of profit.



But you know, if suddenly it was proven that beef would kill you in a few months what happen to the price??? It would fall, if not go to zero. So it doesn't matter, an employer could try and make and produce them, and if no one's buying them then, as a worker, your work is worth absolutely nothing. Why? b/c no one is willing to buy it. It's that simple. No body owes you a damn thing, only what the market states.

Profit goes to zero, and therefore no company is willing to sell it as there is no profit and they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Without profit a company won't exist.



You are going on the notion that profit in and of itself is wrong.

Hey, you displayed some intelligence!


. No, it is not.

Sure it is.


Yes, if you're working for 3 bucks an hour working on an oil rig, you're indeed being exploited - but that's why you do market research and get an idea of what the avg. wage is for that type of work. Furthermore, who the hell would volunteer to work for such shitty wages in a free market society? The employers would smarten up and offer a much higher wage.

You're still grappling with the problem of the margin of profit. The margin isn't the problem. Pay attention! The profit margin isn't the problem. Profit is! Profit margin isn't the problem. Profit is! (Should I keep going?)



Wake up, supply and demand are the final factors affecting the price of any given product. That is undeniable fact.

Which affects the amount of profit. Which doesn't matter.



Just one sentence, try running a giant company without a board of directors or a CEO. Ben and Jerry tried it, and it didn't work.


Okay. I'd love to. What happened to Ben & Jerry's anyways? I heard a little about it but didn't hear about what happened. Could you link me to a news story or something?



I have talked to minimum wage workers about that, and they love the idea. They don't like it when their money is stolen from them by some up high council. Be it worker or government.

What's this got to do with anything?




Commies go on the notion that profit in and of itself is wrong - that no matter what you do, you will always be exploited. How ignorant.


This so far is the first step in understanding what we're saying. However, it isn't ignorant. Check out my table example earlier in the thread. If you can handle finding it. Also, what would really benefit your debating skills would be to read the whole thread!

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:42 AM

I have a job. I'm not being exploited. I'm treated and paid fairly. I don't see whats wrong with this.

Sure you are. Read my example earlier in the thread.




I never said that, please properly quote me next time.

You didn't say that. Someone else did, dumbass.


The price of any given product has more than just what a worker did to build it.

Untrue.


Wood in and of itself has value. So do no nails, so does glue.

Yes, they were all created by labor as well. They are all products of labor. Learn to read the whole thread; you obviously didn't.


Now when a worker puts these together in a reasonable and sturdy matter; combined they all have greater value.

Yes, when the worker takes the materials (all products of labor) and puts it together, it creates another product of labor - the chair.



ok, you have just displayed you do not understand economic law regarding the price of a product:


You have just displayed a complete lack of comprehension for what anyone here has said. Or the fact that you didn't read any of it.



"Supply and demand are irrelevant"? haha... that is completely WRONG. Period.


Ugh. Supply and demand is regarldess because it dictates how much profit is made. How much profit doesn't matter. That is why supply and demand isn't relevent. The fact is that there is profit is the problem.



dude, why does a burger king burger cost less than one at your local diner? It's b/c of supply and demand. burger king burgers are mass produced on an assembly line, they can put out more in the same amount of time (greater supply) than can your local diner.


And? Regardless of what the amount of profit is, the problem is profit itself.



Now if suddenly a huge portion of cattle in the US were desimated by mad cow the supply of beef would decrease dramatically, thus raising the price of the final product.

And changing the amount of profit.



But you know, if suddenly it was proven that beef would kill you in a few months what happen to the price??? It would fall, if not go to zero. So it doesn't matter, an employer could try and make and produce them, and if no one's buying them then, as a worker, your work is worth absolutely nothing. Why? b/c no one is willing to buy it. It's that simple. No body owes you a damn thing, only what the market states.

Profit goes to zero, and therefore no company is willing to sell it as there is no profit and they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Without profit a company won't exist.



You are going on the notion that profit in and of itself is wrong.

Hey, you displayed some intelligence!


. No, it is not.

Sure it is.


Yes, if you're working for 3 bucks an hour working on an oil rig, you're indeed being exploited - but that's why you do market research and get an idea of what the avg. wage is for that type of work. Furthermore, who the hell would volunteer to work for such shitty wages in a free market society? The employers would smarten up and offer a much higher wage.

You're still grappling with the problem of the margin of profit. The margin isn't the problem. Pay attention! The profit margin isn't the problem. Profit is! Profit margin isn't the problem. Profit is! (Should I keep going?)



Wake up, supply and demand are the final factors affecting the price of any given product. That is undeniable fact.

Which affects the amount of profit. Which doesn't matter.



Just one sentence, try running a giant company without a board of directors or a CEO. Ben and Jerry tried it, and it didn't work.


Okay. I'd love to. What happened to Ben & Jerry's anyways? I heard a little about it but didn't hear about what happened. Could you link me to a news story or something?



I have talked to minimum wage workers about that, and they love the idea. They don't like it when their money is stolen from them by some up high council. Be it worker or government.

What's this got to do with anything?




Commies go on the notion that profit in and of itself is wrong - that no matter what you do, you will always be exploited. How ignorant.


This so far is the first step in understanding what we're saying. However, it isn't ignorant. Check out my table example earlier in the thread. If you can handle finding it. Also, what would really benefit your debating skills would be to read the whole thread!
Ok, so you don't like profit - it's "evil and exploitative". :rolleyes: You are indeed entitled to your purely emotionally-based opinion.

Yet, when you say such things that are simply untrue and go against the most basic form of economics, well, we obviously can not carry on a legitimate discussion.

You originally said Supply and Demand are irrelevant, then I refuted you, and you tried changing your own words (or maybe you realized you are wrong).
you said:
"Supply and demand is regarldess because it dictates how much profit is made. How much profit doesn't matter. That is why supply and demand isn't relevent. The fact is that there is profit is the problem."

Ok, you either made a type-o upfront, or you simply don't even know what you are trying to say. First you said it's relevant, now it's irrelevant? What I am saying is (and what is also fact) is that Supply and Demand ultimately are responsible for the final price of any given product. Do you really honestly deny this? Ever see what happens to Christmas decorations on Boxing Day? They drop dramatically in price. Why? B/c the demand has dropped dramatically. Seriously, you don't even have to understand high school economics to understand that, it's common sense.

Guess what? It is completely irrelevant how long any worker toiled to fabricate a plastic christmas tree - if there is no demand for it, it is worth NOTHING. Period. Hey, it might not seem fair, but that's life. You can say no all you want, but this is how the REAL world works.

Next -
I said: "
The price of any given product has more than just what a worker did to build it.
you said


Untrue.


NO - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. YOU ARE INDEED 100% WRONG.
You again displayed your ignorance regarding economics and how the real world operates. As I've proven, the value of any given product is only what the MARKET states. This may be hard to swallow, but is again 100% fact - you can witness this everyday in any store.

If you continue to deny irrefutable economic law, then I am sorry we can not have any kind of rational discussion. Accept the fact that the price of any item is determined by the market and that profit is REQUIRED for incentive to build any said item in said market.

Your opinion "profit is bad" is completely without base, and is completely refutable in regards to production and price determinization.

[quincunx5]

You again displayed your ignorance regarding economics and how the real world operates. As I've proven, the value of any given product is only what the MARKET states. This may be hard to swallow, but is again 100% fact - you can witness this everyday in any store.


Getting lazar to understand what value is? Ha!

[KC]

Ok, so you don't like profit - it's "evil and exploitative". rolleyes.gif You are indeed entitled to your purely emotionally-based opinion.


Please, point out where I said it was evil. My argument is in no way based on emotion. If you want to think exploitation is "evil" then that's your opinion.



Yet, when you say such things that are simply untrue and go against the most basic form of economics, well, we obviously can not carry on a legitimate discussion.

We can not carry on a legitimate discussion when you can't even understand what I'm saying (seen later). I didn't go against any economics whatsoever.



You originally said Supply and Demand are irrelevant, then I refuted you, and you tried changing your own words (or maybe you realized you are wrong).
you said:
"Supply and demand is regarldess because it dictates how much profit is made. How much profit doesn't matter. That is why supply and demand isn't relevent. The fact is that there is profit is the problem."

Ok, you either made a type-o upfront, or you simply don't even know what you are trying to say. First you said it's relevant, now it's irrelevant?

Okay, what is said the first time was "irrelevant" and what I said the second time was "not relevant". Sorry I didn't use the same word to get the exact same concept across.


What I am saying is (and what is also fact) is that Supply and Demand ultimately are responsible for the final price of any given product.

I agree with that. But what does that have to do with anything? Supply dictates the price, and therefore the amount of profit the company makes.


Do you really honestly deny this?

Of course not!


Ever see what happens to Christmas decorations on Boxing Day? They drop dramatically in price. Why? B/c the demand has dropped dramatically. Seriously, you don't even have to understand high school economics to understand that, it's common sense.

Yes, it's very simple.



Guess what? It is completely irrelevant how long any worker toiled to fabricate a plastic christmas tree - if there is no demand for it, it is worth NOTHING.

If there was no demand for it, the company which employs this worker wouldn't exist! There is no profit to be made so there wouldn't be such a company!




NO - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. YOU ARE INDEED 100% WRONG.
You again displayed your ignorance regarding economics and how the real world operates. As I've proven, the value of any given product is only what the MARKET states. This may be hard to swallow, but is again 100% fact - you can witness this everyday in any store.

Yes, the market (supply and demand) dictates the price of a product. Now follow me on this, please. A company wouldn't exist if its products didn't make them a profit, correct? A company might run at a loss temporarily, but overall the company must profit. If they didn't profit then the owners wouldn't be making any money and the motivation to own a business is zero. The business wouldn't exist if there wasn't any profit to be made. Agree with me so far? Now, the company must sell the product of the worker for more than what they pay the workers for to make a profit. Still with me? Okay. So, let's say the company pays the worker "X". The company takes the commodity that the worker made and sells it at market price. This market price is X+Y. As X is the amount the workers are paid (let's say this is constant, as it usually is), Y is profit. Y is a variable amount. If Y=0 then the company isn't profitable, and wouldn't exist. Still with me? Okay. Supply and demand dictates the price of "X+Y" which is the price of the commodity. Since X is constant, supply and demand dictates Y. Supply and demand dictates the amount of profit.

But who made the commodity which is sold at X+Y? The workers did. Still with me? Okay, the workers created the commodity which has a value of X+Y. Correct? So, since they created the commodity with the value of X+Y (which is dictated by supply and demand; or rather, Y is), they therefore created X+Y. They created the commodity which is sold as X+Y. The value of their work - the product they made - is worth X+Y (market price).

What the employer does is take this commodity with a value of X+Y, whose value was created by the workers by merely creating it, and sells it for X+Y (as the market dictates). They take Y and give the workers X. The workers created X+Y, yet they are left over with X. How is that fair?



If you continue to deny irrefutable economic law, then I am sorry we can not have any kind of rational discussion.

I think you've just been misunderstanding what I've been saying. Above, I've tried to simplify what I've been saying using these basic economic laws and a simple description of the point that I am trying to get across.


Accept the fact that the price of any item is determined by the market and that profit is REQUIRED for incentive to build any said item in said market.


I have accepted that fact. I don't think I ever rejected it. I just said that it is irrelevent because the market price isn't the issue. Profit is. (The amount of Y isn't the problem as much as the fact that the owners keep Y for themselves and the workers see none of it). Also, of course profit is required to build any commodity. If there was no profit in the creation of a commodity, no company would exist to create that commodity. We agree on this, stop throwing it in my face like we don't.



Your opinion "profit is bad" is completely without base, and is completely refutable in regards to production and price determinization.


Profit isn't necessarily bad; it's who it goes to that's the problem.

[WeThePeople1911]

Okay. I'd love to. What happened to Ben & Jerry's anyways? I heard a little about it but didn't hear about what happened. Could you link me to a news story or something?


Ben and Jerry, because they are commies and didn't understand supply and demand economics, promised never to pay their top CEO more than 5 times the rate of their lowest employee, but the CEO's they got sucked really bad, so then they paid the new CEO 10 times the amount, and he didn't cut it, so they went to 14 times, and it worked.

[KC]

Ben and Jerry, because they are commies and didn't understand supply and demand economics, promised never to pay their top CEO more than 5 times the rate of their lowest employee, but the CEO's they got sucked really bad, so then they paid the new CEO 10 times the amount, and he didn't cut it, so they went to 14 times, and it worked.

Okay, so what does communism have to do with paying their CEO less? It's obvious that that wouldn't've worked.

[quincunx5]

lazar, you are neglecting the 'Surplus Value' thread that you yourself started.

The company IS the worker that puts the product on the market. So the owner(s) they get to keep the whole market value - materials - labor.

Natural Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Your Labor -> Market -> (<- Your companty profit here)
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
Materials -> Labor -> Market ->
...
...
Materials -> Labor -> Market -> Last Use -> Natural Materials (alternate form)

You understand? The more complex the product the longer this list goes on.
In reality this list would be branched -- I did this for simplicity.

By your reasoning only the first workers are entitled to everything. But this cannot be because they have no idea what their product is worth to other people.

[KC]

What? Are you saying that because the first products are products of the first people&#39;s labor that those people should own everything? So the product of other people&#39;s labor don&#39;t count? Is that what you&#39;re saying? Otherwise I have no idea what all that is.



The company IS the worker that puts the product on the market.

The company is a body of workers owned by a certain individual or group of individuals. What does this have to do with anything?

Sorry, your post just makes no sense to me. Could you reword it please?



By your reasoning only the first workers are entitled to everything.

The first workers weren&#39;t even involved in a capitalist system, so this doesn&#39;t matter.

[quincunx5]

What? Are you saying that because the first products are products of the first people&#39;s labor that those people should own everything? So the product of other people&#39;s labor don&#39;t count? Is that what you&#39;re saying? Otherwise I have no idea what all that is.


IDIOT&#33; That&#39;s what your saying. Anyone agree?



The first workers weren&#39;t even involved in a capitalist system, so this doesn&#39;t matter.


Come again? Those that extract RAW materials from nature can be construed as first workers. Capitalism is everywhere, remember? Capitalism is progress. Communism is stagnation.



The company is a body of workers owned by a certain individual or group of individuals. What does this have to do with anything?


Think what your saying. If a company is owned by a certain individual, then it can be said that the individual is the company. The individual/company is WORKING in the market. This individual&#39;s job is to work in the market, that is the job that best suits him. Hence he is a worker just like any other person.


P.S.
IF there is only one thing I did not make clear it&#39;s that my diagram only follows one final product, the product that is then destroyed (ie..turned into an undesirable form)

[KC]

IDIOT&#33; That&#39;s what your saying. Anyone agree?

Please, tell me where I said that only the first people that created products with their labor is the only labor that counts.




Come again? Those that extract RAW materials from nature can be construed as first workers. Capitalism is everywhere, remember?

Are you retarded? Seriously, you are horrible at this. Capitalism is everywhere now; it hasn&#39;t always existed in the past. Where were the first workers? In the past. Before capitalism was around. God you&#39;re an idiot.


Capitalism is progress. Communism is stagnation.

Yes, way to throw some random crap into the conversation that doesn&#39;t mean everything and has no basis.




Think what your saying. If a company is owned by a certain individual, then it can be said that the individual is the company.

No it can&#39;t. The company is also made up of workers, genius. So you can say that the company is the owner and the workers; or, everybody employed by the company plus whoever owns it.


The individual/company is WORKING in the market. This individual&#39;s job is to work in the market, that is the job that best suits him. Hence he is a worker just like any other person.

The owner is the owner, not the worker. The owner does nothing. The owner of the company has people employed to handle the job of working with the market. That is what a marketing department is. Hence he isn&#39;t a worker because he does no work, he just owns.



IF there is only one thing I did not make clear it&#39;s that my diagram only follows one final product, the product that is then destroyed (ie..turned into an undesirable form)

What? How is the product destroyed? You mean loses its value for some reason? How about a company that sells 2x4&#39;s? The 2x4&#39;s are the final product for the company. They sell the 2x4&#39;s to somone who wants to build a house. The individual builds a house and sells it. How is the wood the final product? Also, what&#39;s the point of even stating this?

[quincunx5]

lazar, for now I&#39;ll ignore your comments and ask you some simple questions.

If a company earn profits it is because of it&#39;s success on the market.
If it was successful on the market this year, all-externalities aside, we can say that it will be successful on the market next year. This is just an example of what happens all the time. Accept it.

What is the right balance of sharing profits with the current workers, more workers, more materials?

Try to see the other end of the market - the consumers that desire the product.
The next year, word has spread and the consumers demand more products to be produced.

If you say that the workers should get everything, how will more of these products be produced if the workers took all the profits that would have gone into extra materials and extra workers?


This example leaves out competition of other companies making the same products.

[KC]

Yes, please disregard my replies to your comments for no reason at all.



If a company earn profits it is because of it&#39;s success on the market.
If it was successful on the market this year, all-externalities aside, we can say that it will be successful on the market next year. This is just an example of what happens all the time. Accept it.

If a company earns profit it is because Y is greater than zero. Because the market dictated that Y should be greater than zero. And if it&#39;s successful this year, what if demand changes? It won&#39;t be as successful next year, if successful at all. I don&#39;t know where you&#39;re going with this.



What is the right balance of sharing profits with the current workers, more workers, more materials?


What? Is this a comma splice or something? Could you use proper grammar please? I seriously can&#39;t understand this sentence. But all profit should go to workers, as they created it.



Try to see the other end of the market - the consumers that desire the product.
The next year, word has spread and the consumers demand more products to be produced.

If you say that the workers should get everything, how will more of these products be produced if the workers took all the profits that would have gone into extra materials and extra workers?

Okay, so the company takes Y, and uses it to make more materials and hire more labor to make more Y. The fact still remains that the company is taking Y from the workers for its own benefit (creating more Y by creating more products). The workers should be deciding what to do with the money.

Please, oblige me, respond to my last post.

[quincunx5]

Yes, please disregard my replies to your comments for no reason at all.


Can&#39;t you read? I said "for now I&#39;ll ignore your comments".



If a company earns profit it is because Y is greater than zero. Because the market dictated that Y should be greater than zero. And if it&#39;s successful this year, what if demand changes? It won&#39;t be as successful next year, if successful at all.


Again same problem. I gave you conditions for my example: "all-externalities aside", "This is just an example of what happens all the time. Accept it.".
Just accept it.



What? Is this a comma splice or something? Could you use proper grammar please? I seriously can&#39;t understand this sentence.


I don&#39;t want to fight about this so I will clarify:

What is the proper way to split the profit between current workers and future investments? Future investments being either more workers, more materials, or a combination of both.

Please re-read the last post and this one before answering.

[KC]

Can&#39;t you read? I said "for now I&#39;ll ignore your comments".

Yes I saw that. You still ignored them for no reason.



Again same problem. I gave you conditions for my example: "all-externalities aside", "This is just an example of what happens all the time. Accept it.".
Just accept it.

Okay, if a company earns profit it is because of its success on the market. Okay, so if it is successful this year it will be successful next year in your example. I still don&#39;t get what this has to do with anything.



I don&#39;t want to fight about this so I will clarify:

Good&#33; I didn&#39;t want to either.



What is the proper way to split the profit between current workers and future investments? Future investments being either more workers, more materials, or a combination of both.

There is no "proper way" to do this in the capitalist system. That is why capitalism exploits workers. It needs to take money from them to sustain itself. Businesses have to take the profit to sustain themselves. That is why there is no solution to this problem in capitalism. Profit shouldn&#39;t be "split". It belongs to the workers.

[quincunx5]

There is no "proper way" to do this in the capitalist system. That is why capitalism exploits workers. It needs to take money from them to sustain itself. Businesses have to take the profit to sustain themselves. That is why there is no solution to this problem in capitalism. Profit shouldn&#39;t be "split". It belongs to the workers.


Awesome&#33; I got exactly what I wanted from you.

EDIT: This discussion is over.

[Commie-Pinko]

Why does profit all belong to the workers, when it is the entrepreurial skill that started the business, provided the initial capital, and it is the the risk of the entreprenure to start the business. If it fails, he loses. If he succeeds, he gives all the profit to the workers? That&#39;s a poor idea.

If I had to choose between taking a big economic risk by starting a businesses or doing so, but having to give up all the profit to someone who didn&#39;t have to do that, I wouldn&#39;t make the business.

The Entreprenure is the head to the to business body. He&#39;s the brains, the initial investement source, and the responsible individual. His share of the profits shouldn&#39;t be denied. Workers are nothing without the innovator, inventor, and businessman.

In capitalism, profits are placed back into the business endeavour for expansion, given to the shareholders, given to the entreprenure, and also to the worker. There&#39;s no valid reason to give all profit to the workers, since they aren&#39;t the only one&#39;s responsible for the success and failure of the business.

Workers deserve respect, but not all the power, prestige, and profit.

[quincunx5]

Thank goodness someone else showed up.

Pinko, He does not understand investment nor does he understand in general how humans progress.

He thinks that all the profits should go to workers.
He thinks that no expansion should take place.
He thinks that the rise in demand of the consumers should go unfulfilled.

He also does not see that people put value into whatever they want to (this was concluded on other threads).

He prefers the worker&#39;s needs to the consumer&#39;s needs.

[Commie-Pinko]

I am pretty leftist, but at least I understand that a business isn&#39;t just workers on top of more workers. There&#39;s more at stake than just workers slapping out the products. If it weren&#39;t for the shareholders and the entreprenure, the businesses wouldn&#39;t exist or go anywhere in the first place.

It just seems fairly obvious that the entreprenure should get enough profit to make creating a business worthwhile. Who the hell would start a business just to have most of it go to someone else? Let someone else start the business and take it from him then.

I would love if we all could all share resources and grasp hands around a campfire and sing koom-bai-ya, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s gonna happen =D

[quincunx5]

Pinko, I have explained the same thing to him several times.

EDIT: Others have too.

[OleMarxco]

What if, I say, in counter-retort, If YOU want Capitalism, YOU can move to China - The prime example of Socialism gone wrong. Atleast somewhere ;)

Heck, even Russia&#39;s more of a cappie-place now. Not the place to go for a Commie, unless you wanna lick the &#39;lid o&#39;re tomb o&#39;Lenin, which isn&#39;t more of a Commie but a invidual-worshiper. I&#39;d rather go to Cuba, the place pretendin&#39; to be...and "closest". Or Venezuela, who cares? Even &#39;tho &#39;rat, isn&#39;t exactly what we and I have in mind. But &#39;neways; Whatever you had to "endure" trough Russian sovietian-Rule, is, well, the sole problem of leadership, not an ideology :P

Goin&#39; back a few pages, I also read this, that, accordin&#39; to "Commie Pinko",
we&#39;re "just as guilthy as the perpetiator if we sit around doing nothin&#39; as the
one holdin&#39; the child underwater". Yup, that, and it&#39;s not them soldier&#39;s down
in IraQ huntin&#39; IraQi&#39;s, but me, &#39;cuz I&#39;m not stoppin&#39; them so I really have to be
the one guilthy since I&#39;m innocent and neutral to the whole conflict. Which, I
technically am, even if I oppose the U.S&#39;s occupation and support the IraQi&#39;s
resistance (as far as we can trust&#39;em..not to be religious fanatics? Who knows?
But it&#39;s a risk we "have to take", as if it&#39;s a choiche. It&#39;s their land, anyways,
not America&#39;s. An invasion - is just that, an invasion&#33;) :D

[spartafc]

And what happens after you get your socialist society and the men want more than is available in your society?

Why would this be the case? At the moment we have an amazingly WASTEFUL society - do some research on &#39;food dumping&#39;. We have an amazingly wasteful soceity where people aren&#39;t getting things they need, things that would prevent them for dying.

Our point is that if we planned production on a GLOBAL level we believe we would be able to better utilise the food and resources we do have. There are great opportunities - at the moment we aren&#39;t utilising these. We have a self-destructive system that results in just what you mention - the men want more then is available - this is a perfect description of capitalism.



If there was a mistake in the central planning and not enough food was produced. Food is distributed but the portions on their own are not enough to sustain a person, so people will steal from each other&#33; What are you going to do than? Ask the capitalist nations for help?

this quote highlights the POINT of marxism - it&#39;s international. Communism can&#39;t be an island within a sea of capitalism - it has to be international so that communist states can utilise the benefits of this global solidarity. IF you have single communist states within a global capitalist system - of course this is going to lead to a very degenerated communist state. The point is that we fight for revolution on a global level because we are all fighting for the same things. We wouldn&#39;t need to ask any &#39;capitalist nations&#39; for anything within a global communist system.

[KC]

Why does profit all belong to the workers, when it is the entrepreurial skill that started the business, provided the initial capital, and it is the the risk of the entreprenure to start the business.

Because they created it. I thought you were communist?


If he succeeds, he gives all the profit to the workers? That&#39;s a poor idea.

That&#39;s why capitalism can&#39;t solve its own problem.



If I had to choose between taking a big economic risk by starting a businesses or doing so, but having to give up all the profit to someone who didn&#39;t have to do that, I wouldn&#39;t make the business.

That&#39;s why capitalism can&#39;t solve its own problem.



The Entreprenure is the head to the to business body. He&#39;s the brains, the initial investement source, and the responsible individual. His share of the profits shouldn&#39;t be denied.

We aren&#39;t talking about petty bourgeois. We are talking about the bourgeoisie.



In capitalism, profits are placed back into the business endeavour for expansion, given to the shareholders, given to the entreprenure, and also to the worker.

Yes, the worker&#39;s money (profit) is taken from them to expand the business to benefit the owner(s).


There&#39;s no valid reason to give all profit to the workers, since they aren&#39;t the only one&#39;s responsible for the success and failure of the business.

They&#39;re the ones that created the value of the commodity that is sold. They create all the profit for the company to grow. They keep it alive.



Workers deserve respect, but not all the power, prestige, and profit.

Wrong.



Pinko, He does not understand investment nor does he understand in general how humans progress.

Care to attempt to explain this one? :rolleyes:



He thinks that all the profits should go to workers.

Yes I do.


He thinks that no expansion should take place.

No I don&#39;t. Where the hell did I say that?


He thinks that the rise in demand of the consumers should go unfulfilled.

No I don&#39;t. Where&#39;d I say that?



He also does not see that people put value into whatever they want to (this was concluded on other threads).


You&#39;re an idiot.



He prefers the worker&#39;s needs to the consumer&#39;s needs.

The workers are the consumers you fucking moron.


I am pretty leftist, but at least I understand that a business isn&#39;t just workers on top of more workers. There&#39;s more at stake than just workers slapping out the products. If it weren&#39;t for the shareholders and the entreprenure, the businesses wouldn&#39;t exist or go anywhere in the first place.

So that means that just because they own a business, they are allowed to steal?



It just seems fairly obvious that the entreprenure should get enough profit to make creating a business worthwhile.

Petty bourgeois can be considered proletariat because they usually end up working alongside the workers. We are talking about bourgeoisie. The ones that just own the business and do nothing.


Who the hell would start a business just to have most of it go to someone else?

Its not their money to take.


Aren&#39;t you a communist? Apparently not.


Pinko, I have explained the same thing to him several times.


You still haven&#39;t responded to my post. And nobody has responded to my example with X and Y. Stop talking about petty bourgeois like that&#39;s what we&#39;re arguing about.

[Commie-Pinko]

Because they created it. I thought you were communist?


So if you create something physically, but not intellectually, you should get all the profit from it? If someone didn&#39;t invent it, organize it, and innovate upon it, you wouldn&#39;t be making it in the first place.


Why would I be communist? I never said I was communist. I am a Technocratic Socialist. I support social programmes like welfare, public education, universal healthcare etc, but I am not a communist.


Yes, the worker&#39;s money (profit) is taken from them to expand the business to benefit the owner(s).

So you think an expanding business doesn&#39;t also help the workers at all?


We aren&#39;t talking about petty bourgeois. We are talking about the bourgeoisie.

The dictionary defines them as both members of the middle class and middle class--in that order. So we are not talking about the members of the middle class, rather the middle class in general?

I don&#39;t know.. I am talking about the entreprenures, not middle class white collar workers.


They&#39;re the ones that created the value of the commodity that is sold. They create all the profit for the company to grow. They keep it alive.


So you think workers create the value of the product, and not the desirability and need for the product? Ok.


So that means that just because they own a business, they are allowed to steal?

This is oxymoronic. You cannot steal what you already own. That&#39;s called using.


Now excuse me. I&#39;m off to the country club with my bourgeoise golfing buddies. Chow.

[KC]

Why would I be communist? I never said I was communist. I am a Technocratic Socialist. I support social programmes like welfare, public education, universal healthcare etc, but I am not a communist.

Bad assumption on my part.



So you think an expanding business doesn&#39;t also help the workers at all?

If I steal your money, and go and buy something nice for you, does this help you at all? It could, sure, but the point is that I still stole from you.



The dictionary defines them as both members of the middle class and middle class--in that order. So we are not talking about the members of the middle class, rather the middle class in general?

I don&#39;t know.. I am talking about the entreprenures, not middle class white collar workers.

You have used the wrong definitions. Here, this is from wikipedia:


Petit-bourgeois or Anglicised petty bourgeois is a French term that originally referred to the members of the lower middle social-classes in the 18th and early 19th centuries. They were seen as servants of the bourgeois class who in turn were seen as servants of the aristocracy. In the context of a perceived oppressive system, the bourgeoisie denoted a label of someone in collaboration with the ruling aristocracy&#39;s lieutenants.

Starting from the mid-19th century, the term was used by Karl Marx and Marxist theorists to refer to a social class that included shop-keepers and professionals. Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petty bourgeois remain members of the proletariat rather than the haute bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petty bourgeois do buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the bourgeoisie they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.




So you think workers create the value of the product, and not the desirability and need for the product? Ok.

Yes. I think you&#39;re interpreting me wrong, though. The market dictates the value of a product. I&#39;m sure we can agree on that. The workers create this value (which is dictated by the market) by creating the product. Let&#39;s say a chair is worth &#036;20. The workers take the wood and nails and create the chair. Since the chair is worth &#036;20, the workers created something worth &#036;20. By creating the chair, they created something with a value of &#036;20, or rather &#036;20 if you take the product itself out and focus on the finances. Their labor was worth &#036;20.

[Commie-Pinko]

You have used the wrong definitions. Here, this is from wikipedia:


You trust wikipedia? The global stickypad of knowledge? A source that&#39;s non-academic and alterable by anyone with a keyboard and half a brain? I don&#39;t.

Wikipedia isn&#39;t a reliable source. Many-a-time, it&#39;s wrong factually. We are talking about an organization that allowed pepole to post a picture of Emperor Palpatine on top of Cardinal Ratzinger as well as alterations to the text, claiming him to be Emperor Ratzinger.

And no one caught it till a bit later.

There are many other sites where information is patently wrong, including information on the canadian legislative system.

[Commie-Pinko]

I see the value to be extrinsic to the creation of the item. Items themselves are worthless. People put value into them. You can have a worker that creates an item that&#39;s worth absolutely nothing, because there&#39;s no demand for it. The act of working doesn&#39;t make something valuable. The value of the chair fluctuates.

The way I see it is that consumers demand something, the workers must meet that demand by making enough products. It&#39;s the combination of providing supply to the demand the makes the value.

For example, take world of warcraft. It&#39;s an online RPG. There are pixels in the game which represent weapons, gold, items etc. These things have no intrinsic value, and they are produce by no one, yet they are sold and traded as valuable (for real money on ebay etc). It is the desire of the people that gives the item it&#39;s value, not what went into making it. YOu can spend 5 billion dollars making a car, but if no one wants it, it has no value.

If a machine did the same thing as the human, it would be the same way.

[KC]

Just so you know, that excerpt from wikipedia is correct.


I see the value to be extrinsic to the creation of the item. Items themselves are worthless. People put value into them. You can have a worker that creates an item that&#39;s worth absolutely nothing, because there&#39;s no demand for it. The act of working doesn&#39;t make something valuable. The value of the chair fluctuates.

The way I see it is that consumers demand something, the workers must meet that demand by making enough products. It&#39;s the combination of providing supply to the demand the makes the value.

For example, take world of warcraft. It&#39;s an online RPG. There are pixels in the game which represent weapons, gold, items etc. These things have no intrinsic value, and they are produce by no one, yet they are sold and traded as valuable (for real money on ebay etc). It is the desire of the people that gives the item it&#39;s value, not what went into making it. YOu can spend 5 billion dollars making a car, but if no one wants it, it has no value.

If a machine did the same thing as the human, it would be the same way.

Maybe I&#39;m saying this wrong. The market dictates the price of the product. The workers create the product. The product is sold at market price. The workers created the object which is sold for market price. They created the profit for the company. Therefore the money from the product of their labor (i.e. the product) should be theirs.

[quincunx5]

Lazar you are a confused little boy. If the workers get all the profit, how is the expansion supposed to take place?

Even if the workers labored 24/7/365 they could not create all the products to satisfy customer needs.

For expansion to take place they would need to reinvest the profit into extra materials and/or extra workers. But it all went to the current workers. Which is what you support.

Nobody wants to talk about your X + Y, we&#39;d rather slap you around a bit, we find it amusing that you just don&#39;t get it.

[KC]

Lazar you are a confused little boy. If the workers get all the profit, how is the expansion supposed to take place?

Even if the workers labored 24/7/365 they could not create all the products to satisfy customer needs.

For expansion to take place they would need to reinvest the profit into extra materials and/or extra workers. But it all went to the current workers. Which is what you support.

Nobody wants to talk about your X + Y, we&#39;d rather slap you around a bit, we find it amusing that you just don&#39;t get it.

Apparently you don&#39;t get it. I believe the worker gets all the profit. Yes, this means that expansion can&#39;t take place in a capitalist society. That&#39;s why capitalism can&#39;t solve its own problem. That&#39;s where communism comes in, genius. God you&#39;re fucking stupid.

[quincunx5]

Ha ha ha

[KC]

Yeah it&#39;s hilarious that you tried making me sound like an idiot but instead you end up sounding like one. Instead of putting "hahaha" why not try making an intelligent post?

[quincunx5]

I would but you&#39;d just continue with the same bullshit.

Why don&#39;t you go back and try to solve mine/others questions that all the collectivists seem to be avoiding.

Most importantly is: loss (as opposed to profit).

[Commie-Pinko]

Hold on. Let me try to use logic to figure this out.

If the problem in a capitalist society is expansion, and you want to give all the profit to the workers, and capitalists investing in the company to hire more workers, give better benefits, pay workers more, and get more capital (IE. Machinery) is bad, then

In Communism, if you were to give all profit to the workers, they would also spend the profits on expansion just like the capitalists to hire more workers and purchase more capital.

If the workers who got the profit didn&#39;t use some of that profit to expand, it woudl fail, just as if capitalists didn&#39;t use the profits to get more capital.


Just for reference (Capital is anything that is used to maintain and produce something else)

It&#39;s the same deal, except you are switching the person who purchases the capital.

[KC]

I would but you&#39;d just continue with the same bullshit.

And you&#39;ve done nothing to prove what I said wrong.



Why don&#39;t you go back and try to solve mine/others questions that all the collectivists seem to be avoiding.

Most importantly is: loss (as opposed to profit).

Okay, if all the workers have the profit, then they all have the loss (which is just negative profit). But that doesnt matter. Why? Because a capitalist society can&#39;t exist if the workers get all the profit (as proven by yourself when you said that there would be no expansion; which is true). Since the capitalist society can&#39;t exist that way, then why does it matter?



If the problem in a capitalist society is expansion, and you want to give all the profit to the workers, and capitalists investing in the company to hire more workers and get more capital (IE. Machinery) is bad, then

In Communism, if you were to use all profit given to the workers, they would spend the profits on expansion just like the capitalists to hire more workers and purchase more capital.

It&#39;s the same deal, except you are switching the person who purchases the capital.

There is no money in communism. That means that there can&#39;t be profit. Profit doesn&#39;t exist in a communist society. Neither does money.

[quincunx5]

n Communism, if you were to use all profit given to the workers, they would spend the profits on expansion just like the capitalists to hire more workers and purchase more capital.


Yes indeed. This is what I hoped lazar would conclude. But he did not. He had to hide behing his bullshit Marxist terms.

But you see there is indeed no profit because the workers took it all. If profit is to be realized a portion of the worker&#39;s earnings would have to be reinvested. This is a decision that they will make. One they decide what that amount to take out this can be thought of as their profit. In theory one could say that the worker is now exploiting himself. But that would be silly, because "exploitation" does not exist.

So now if that reinvestment went into extra workers or extra materials, expansion can take place. So in essence communism will practice capitalism.

cap·i·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "capitalism" P Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

What&#39;s key is the last part: and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

[KC]

Uhhhh.... There&#39;s no money in a communist society. What "bullshit marxist terms"? There&#39;s no money in a communist society, so none of that post matters&#33;

[quincunx5]

Okay, if all the workers have the profit, then they all have the loss (which is just negative profit). But that doesnt matter. Why? Because a capitalist society can&#39;t exist if the workers get all the profit (as proven by yourself when you said that there would be no expansion; which is true). Since the capitalist society can&#39;t exist that way, then why does it matter?


It matters because you lack understanding of what a capitalist does. He keeps the profit, but you get paid regardless of whether there is one.

The workers can directly sell to the market themselves. But then they would be capitalists too. You need the buregoise/proletariat divide as a basis for all your conclusions.

[KC]

It matters because you lack understanding of what a capitalist does. He keeps the profit, but you get paid regardless of whether there is one.

And what&#39;s your point? He gets to keep my money because he takes a bigger risk? Am I allowed to keep all the money I steal from a bank because I took a risk in getting it?



The workers can directly sell to the market themselves. But then they would be capitalists too. You need the buregoise/proletariat divide as a basis for all your conclusions.

The bourgeoisie/proletariat divide exists. Why does it matter if that&#39;s the foundation for my argument if it&#39;s true?

What was that post up before my last one about anyways? Or did you just not know that a communist society lacks money?

[quincunx5]

Uhhhh.... There&#39;s no money in a communist society. What "bullshit marxist terms"? There&#39;s no money in a communist society, so none of that post matters&#33;


Uhm yes it does. Money is nothing more than an arbitrary measure of value. Value is whatever people give it, it is never constant. Even if there may be no paper currency, it will result in something else used as a basis for comparison, like gold, diamonds, batteries, cigarattes, mouse pads, headphones.

Are you telling me people will not be trading goods?

[KC]

Uhm yes it does. Money is nothing more than an arbitrary measure of value. Value is whatever people give it, it is never constant. Even if there may be no paper currency, it will result in something else used as a basis for comparison, like gold, diamonds, batteries, cigarattes, mouse pads, headphones.

Are you telling me people will not be trading goods?

Yes. Why would they trade goods if it&#39;s all free?

[quincunx5]

The bourgeoisie/proletariat divide exists. Why does it matter if that&#39;s the foundation for my argument if it&#39;s true?


Do I really need to answer that?

You even say that the petty burgeois is irrelevant just to strengthen that divide.

You did not discuss what I said about banks, bonds, stocks, mutual funds, etc...?