I'm curious about this

[LamarLatrell]

Since many of the left in America feel that the melting pot idea is dead and America should be a nation of multicultural communities all retaining their identities, why do the people on the far left want to change the system in America? Why can't America exist as its own pocket within the world nation?

For instance, why don't the communists in America move to Cuba or Venezuela and be communists there?

Why don't the socialists move to Canada or France?

Is the United States not a sovereign nation, free to choose its desired political system?

The way Americans think it will never be a communist state ever so why try? Isn't it futile?

Do the communists just live for struggle where it doesn't exist? Is it a psychological fix for them to look at themselves as the downtrodden and unfortunate?

Seriously, I see it that these silver spoon communists wouldn't want to give up their luxuries they have in America. Over here in Europe, the idea of an American communist is considered a joke. They see America as the land of excess.

I think possibly communists from America or other more well off situatiuons would be better served trying to organize communism in a third world country somewhere.

thoughts?

[Freedom Works]

The melting pot idea was never real. People always choose people to live near based on their morals and ideas.

I think capitalists and freedom lovers should move to NH(http://freestateproject.org/), socialists move to California, religion pushers to Utah, etc.

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 28 2005, 06:55 PM
The melting pot idea was never real. People always choose people to live near based on their morals and ideas.

I think capitalists and freedom lovers should move to NH(http://freestateproject.org/), socialists move to California, religion pushers to Utah, etc.
It hasn't been real concerning blacks as much over the years but as far as Euro ethnicities it has most certainly been true. My grandparents were fresh off the boat, barely spoke any English but their kids considered themselves 100% American. They spoke perfect English and all served in the United States military. They wanted to fit in, wanted to be American. They had American nicknames to hide their European names.

Now,, when you see a bunch of Bosnians recently moved to America, they are working their asses off, opening businesses and trying to live the American dream. They appreciate it because they have never had it. There is no way in hell any of those people would tell you there is anything wrong with America or capitalism.

It's true, not everybody succeeds in American society. But everybody can if they want it bad enough. It's truly a shame that the American left has made it so people do not appreciate that merit based system.

All of those Euros, generations later are now simply American.

[sanpal]

For you attention - construction of communism does not contradict existence of capitalism. It will look as independent economic corporation making the whole spectrum of consumer goods and means of production. The part of made production will go on internal consumption of members of communistic sector of economy (inside of communistic corporation), and other part of made production will go on sale on market prices (outside of communistic corporation). If there will be more spectrum of made production for internal consumption so it is necessary less to sell production outside of communistic sector for purchase of missing consumer goods or means of production in the capitalist market. Between communist economic sector and capitalist one there will be normal economic competition.


For instance, why don't the communists in America move to Cuba or Venezuela and be communists there?
So why do you need to move American communists to others countries? Are you afraid of communist as a monster? It's only children's fear not more.

[LamarLatrell]

I don't need to do that, i was asking why they don't just go to a place more receptive to communism.

America is anti-communism. Always will be.

I get the feeling most of these alleged communists have not really lived much yet meaning they don't have families, homes etc. I chalk it up to naive youth, wanting to rebel. They'll change their tune once they have responsibilities and something to protect.

Communism is part of a chain in a theory that has yet to be proven, that is all. It's not a viable system.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:00 PM
I don't need to do that, i was asking why they don't just go to a place more receptive to communism.

America is anti-communism. Always will be.

I get the feeling most of these alleged communists have not really lived much yet meaning they don't have families, homes etc. I chalk it up to naive youth, wanting to rebel. They'll change their tune once they have responsibilities and something to protect.

Communism is part of a chain in a theory that has yet to be proven, that is all. It's not a viable system.
The U$ is anti-communism because they have been fed that shit for a long, long time. When more and more people in the U$ start thinking for themselves instead of listening mindlessly to their leaders, they may figure out that communism is the way to go.

Of course, the herd mentallity keeps the population down very well! :lol:

And fuck your "feelings", I'll bet I have had more life experience than you, in turn which has shown me that capitalism is evil and doesnt produce a world that gives a shit about anyone else.

If it hasnt been proven, you can not say it isnt viable.

[Ownthink]

And fuck your "feelings", I'll bet I have had more life experience than you, in turn which has shown me that capitalism is evil and doesnt produce a world that gives a shit about anyone else.

If it hasnt been proven, you can not say it isnt viable.
OWNED!

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 28 2005, 09:08 PM
The U$ is anti-communism because they have been fed that shit for a long, long time. When more and more people in the U$ start thinking for themselves instead of listening mindlessly to their leaders, they may figure out that communism is the way to go.

Of course, the herd mentallity keeps the population down very well! :lol:

And fuck your "feelings", I'll bet I have had more life experience than you, in turn which has shown me that capitalism is evil and doesnt produce a world that gives a shit about anyone else.

If it hasnt been proven, you can not say it isnt viable.
The world is supposed the give a shit about everyone? The world is supposed to be everybody's Mommy? LOL! That's ludicrous.

"Fuck" my feelings? I never said anything about feelings, I mentioned opinions.

As far as experience, I have lived overseas in 8 different countries. I live overseas now. I have plenty of worldly experience. How many countries have you lived in?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

America is anti-communism. Always will be.

A bold statement... care to back it up?


I get the feeling most of these alleged communists have not really lived much yet meaning they don't have families, homes etc. I chalk it up to naive youth, wanting to rebel. They'll change their tune once they have responsibilities and something to protect.

Oh no, you discovered our secret, we're just rebellious young kids :rolleyes:

Thanks for making unsubstantiated sweeping generalisations.


Communism is part of a chain in a theory that has yet to be proven, that is all. It's not a viable system.

If it's yet to be proven, how can it be considered viable or not?

[sanpal]

Originally posted by LamarLatre[email protected] 28 2005, 09:00 PM
I don't need to do that, i was asking why they don't just go to a place more receptive to communism.


Because they have families, homes etc.


America is anti-communism. Always will be.

Not obviously. The dialectics assumes existence of two opposite beginnings. The anti-communism is one of contrasts. But it is not forever.

[LamarLatrell]

Mensa, communism is part of a theory that has yet to be proven.

Communism has been tried in an artificial way. It's been proven it cannot work.

As far as America never being communist, well, that's just obvious. Maybe in 2000 years or so.

Damn this board is racist and fascist beyond all get out. I get my posts deleted. Is it because I'm black? Nothing surprises me anymore.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mensa, communism is part of a theory that has yet to be proven.

A theory that seems to only exist inside your head. Would you like to name it?


Communism has been tried in an artificial way.

Communism has never been attempted. Authoritarian socialism has, on the other hand, and been proven as a total failure.


As far as America never being communist, well, that's just obvious.

No it isn't, you merely stated your opinion as fact.


Damn this board is racist and fascist beyond all get out.

Proof?


I get my posts deleted. Is it because I'm black?

You're the one who bought up your ethnicity, not us.

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:15 PM

And fuck your "feelings", I'll bet I have had more life experience than you, in turn which has shown me that capitalism is evil and doesnt produce a world that gives a shit about anyone else.

If it hasnt been proven, you can not say it isnt viable.
OWNED!
Not quite. I have lived in 8 countries. She has lived in Canada. CANADA!

Canada!!!! Sorry, I'm lmfao over here!

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by sanpal+Aug 28 2005, 09:38 PM--> (sanpal @ Aug 28 2005, 09:38 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 09:00 PM
I don't need to do that, i was asking why they don't just go to a place more receptive to communism.


Because they have families, homes etc.


America is anti-communism. Always will be.

Not obviously. The dialectics assumes existence of two opposite beginnings. The anti-communism is one of contrasts. But it is not forever. [/b]
They have families? Why would a communist start a family in a capitalistic society? Does he want to put his family through hell?

I can't see how you can call yourself a communist, all the while owning private property all manufactured by capitalist corporations and companies.

Explain that one to me please.

There is no dialectic because communism has never existed, right? ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They have families? Why would a communist start a family in a capitalistic society? Does he want to put his family through hell?

You don't have to start a family to have one. You can be born into one. Funnily enough, one doesn't get to choose which countries their born in. That's why patriotism is stupid.


I can't see how you can call yourself a communist, all the while owning private property all manufactured by capitalist corporations and companies.

Because there's no other way to live in a capitalist society.


There is no dialectic because communism has never existed, right? ;)

Dialectics is utter crap.

[Camarada]

Is the United States not a sovereign nation, free to choose its desired political system?

Aren't we? Then why can't we (the people) of the United States be free to smash the capitalist system in favor of a system that works for everyone and not the ruling classes? Or is the United States only free to choose a system as long as it is favorable to the capitalists?



The way Americans think it will never be a communist state ever so why try? Isn't it futile?
No, it is not futile. Americans (as dumb as some of them can be) are not as brainwashed as they were 3 or 4 years ago, people are starting to question, people are starting to criticize the Bush regime.

[LamarLatrell]

You don't have to start a family to have one. You can be born into one. Funnily enough, one doesn't get to choose which countries their born in. That's why patriotism is stupid.

What a naive view. By this logic, if you were born into a communist country that you really believed in, feeling patriotic about it would be stupid. That's utter nonsense.


Because there's no other way to live in a capitalist society

More nonsense. Go live in a cave or better yet, MOVE.

Also, why do the black markets in Cuba and the former Soviet Bloc thrive? Why do/did people want all of that evil capitalist crap? Wasn't the government producing enough stuff for them?

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:37 PM


Is the United States not a sovereign nation, free to choose its desired political system?

Aren't we? Then why can't we (the people) of the United States be free to smash the capitalist system in favor of a system that works for everyone and not the ruling classes? Or is the United States only free to choose a system as long as it is favorable to the capitalists?



The way Americans think it will never be a communist state ever so why try? Isn't it futile?
No, it is not futile. Americans (as dumb as some of them can be) are not as brainwashed as they were 3 or 4 years ago, people are starting to question, people are starting to criticize the Bush regime.
Why would you want to smash a system that gives everybody a chance to do whatever they want?

Under communism you'd be told where you were going to work. It would be some mindless, factory-like job that would make you want to kill yourself after a year. You'd have to wait in line for 10 hours for a half loaf of bread and a few eggs. If a member of your family was sick, you'd have to wait in line some more. And then when you became old and useless, you'd be compassionately euthanized because the cost of feeding you was draining the system.

It's complete nonsense.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Under communism you'd be told where you were going to work" = I have never read a single piece of literature on communism in my life and I'm making bling assertions based on amerikan propaganda.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:41 PM
Communism has been tried in an artificial way. It's been proven it cannot work.
Actually, revolutionary Spain has already shown that libertarian socialism can work in practice. Communists aren't the unrealistic, day-dreaming idealists you think they are. In Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivized them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible and downright bloody civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian radicals. Indeed, in many collectivized areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalized or private sectors. This green shoot of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary that you could possibly provide.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:05 PM

It hasn't been real concerning blacks as much over the years but as far as Euro ethnicities it has most certainly been true. My grandparents were fresh off the boat, barely spoke any English but their kids considered themselves 100% American. They spoke perfect English and all served in the United States military. They wanted to fit in, wanted to be American. They had American nicknames to hide their European names.



All of those Euros, generations later are now simply American.
What are you Afrikan or European? You can't be both. And how does having a american nickname hide the fact that your black. Unless names have the power to change ones skin color also.

[bombeverything]

Why don't the communists in America move to Cuba or Venezuela and be communists there?

Why don't the socialists move to Canada or France?

1. These countries are not communist. 2. Uhh maybe because they don't want to move.


Is the United States not a sovereign nation, free to choose its desired political system?

It is pretty much the only nation that is.


Do the communists just live for struggle where it doesn't exist? Is it a psychological fix for them to look at themselves as the downtrodden and unfortunate?

Are you claiming that gross inequalities do not exist within the United States? You accept the status quo, we do not.

[Freedom Works]

1. These countries are not communist. 2. Uhh maybe because they don't want to move.
1. Wouldn't it be easier to force communism on a smaller number of people, rather than a large number?
2. Oh my god, communists not wanting to do something!? Impossible.


It is pretty much the only nation that is.
Barely. Collectivism has collected the power into few, and those few make it very hard for new people to become elected.



Are you claiming that gross inequalities do not exist within the United States?
Gross inequalities? The burden of proof is upon you.


You accept the status quo, we do not.
Very few accept the status quo in reality. Power is scary when you are looking down the barrel of a cop's gun, though.

[bombeverything]

Barely. Collectivism has collected the power into few, and those few make it very hard for new people to become elected.

What? I was referring to the role of the United States internationally.


Gross inequalities? The burden of proof is upon you.

Yes, inequalities between the rich and the poor. A claim that this does not exist would be absurd.


Very few accept the status quo in reality. Power is scary when you are looking down the barrel of a cop's gun, though.

You are defending the status quo and claiming that anyone who does not want to accept the system should leave the country.

[Freedom Works]

What? I was referring to the role of the United States internationally.
Yes, and I was referring to the US not being free.


Yes, inequalities between the rich and the poor. A claim that this does not exist would be absurd.
No, it would be absurd to suggest their is a 'rich' and 'poor'. In reality there is no such things, it is all relative.


You are defending the status quo and claiming that anyone who does not want to accept the system should leave the country.
Um, how exactly? Because I think people should stop trying to force their particular ideologies on me? I'm commited to moving for freedom, why aren't you commited to moving for communism?

[bombeverything]

Yes, and I was referring to the US not being free.

No, you were referring to domestic politics.


No, it would be absurd to suggest their is a 'rich' and 'poor'. In reality there is no such things, it is all relative.

So everyone has the same amound of money? I am talking about material wealth.


Um, how exactly? Because I think people should stop trying to force their particular ideologies on me? I'm commited to moving for freedom, why aren't you commited to moving for communism?

Uh, by saying that all communists should move to another country.

What freedom, the freedom to starve?

[Moonfire]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:15 PM

You don't have to start a family to have one. You can be born into one. Funnily enough, one doesn't get to choose which countries their born in. That's why patriotism is stupid.

What a naive view. By this logic, if you were born into a communist country that you really believed in, feeling patriotic about it would be stupid. That's utter nonsense.


Because there's no other way to live in a capitalist society

More nonsense. Go live in a cave or better yet, MOVE.

Also, why do the black markets in Cuba and the former Soviet Bloc thrive? Why do/did people want all of that evil capitalist crap? Wasn't the government producing enough stuff for them?

What a naive view. By this logic, if you were born into a communist country that you really believed in, feeling patriotic about it would be stupid. That's utter nonsense.

When there is communism there is no state, so patriotism wouldn't exist.


More nonsense. Go live in a cave or better yet, MOVE.

Yes, when you don't agree with something you should run away from it, thats much better than standing up to it :rolleyes:

And once again, some people cannot move because of the fact that they have family here.

[Freedom Works]

No, you were referring to domestic politics.
What an oblivious fellow you are:

Is the United States not a sovereign nation, free to choose its desired political system?
My answer is that this is barely true, because of the concentration of wealth that comes with a mercantilist economy.


So everyone has the same amound of money?
No, no one has the same amount of wealth. Why is everyone having the same amount preferable to wealth creation?


Uh, by saying that all communists should move to another country.
Wow, a communist dodging questions! Never seen THAT before!


What freedom, the freedom to starve?
The freedom to live your life the way you see fit.

[bombeverything]

No, no one has the same amount of wealth. Why is everyone having the same amount preferable to wealth creation?

What is the point of wealth creation if it is not of any benefit to the majority?


The freedom to live your life the way you see fit.

Even if this "freedom" infringes on someone else’s freedom? i.e. the right to exploit?

[KC]

Since many of the left in America feel that the melting pot idea is dead and America should be a nation of multicultural communities all retaining their identities, why do the people on the far left want to change the system in America? Why can't America exist as its own pocket within the world nation?

I don't know anyone that wants that.



For instance, why don't the communists in America move to Cuba or Venezuela and be communists there?


1.) Those aren't communist.
2.) The "love it or leave it" argument is retarded.
3.) Why don't the capitalists in America move to third world countries where capitalism is developing the fastest?



Why don't the socialists move to Canada or France?

Why should they? Why can't everybody else move? Because they're the minority? With that logic, everybody should leave every country because in one way or another everybody is a minority.



Is the United States not a sovereign nation, free to choose its desired political system?


:lol: Please tell me how the United States is free to choose its political system.



The way Americans think it will never be a communist state ever so why try? Isn't it futile?


The way Americans think now isn't the way they thought 10 years ago and won't be the way they think 10 years from now. There is no such thing as a communist state. It's a contradiction.



Do the communists just live for struggle where it doesn't exist? Is it a psychological fix for them to look at themselves as the downtrodden and unfortunate?

No.



Seriously, I see it that these silver spoon communists wouldn't want to give up their luxuries they have in America. Over here in Europe, the idea of an American communist is considered a joke. They see America as the land of excess.


I wouldn't wanna give up anything I have. I earned it. You have to play by the system or you die. And I don't wanna die.



I think possibly communists from America or other more well off situatiuons would be better served trying to organize communism in a third world country somewhere.

Communism in third world countries doesn't work, as if a communist revolution happened and a socialist state was set up, it would be crushed by more developed nations. The only reason Cuba has survived is because of a lot of luck, they haven't provoked the US or any other superpower in decades, and because of this lack of scapegoat to invade, the US is content to just play Castro off as an "evil dictator".

A communist revolution will happen first in the most developed countries, as these workers are going to be the first to feel the tension from the contradiction that capitalism creates; that contradiction is profit/competition vs. workers rights. Once globalization sets in and all these poor countries develop more, corporations will have nowhere to go for cheap labour. That is when the problems will start.



Now,, when you see a bunch of Bosnians recently moved to America, they are working their asses off, opening businesses and trying to live the American dream. They appreciate it because they have never had it. There is no way in hell any of those people would tell you there is anything wrong with America or capitalism.

Of course not. In relation to where they come from, America is great. Capitalism isn't as developed in Bosnia, and so when Bosnians come over to America it is much better because it is a more developed country. Capitalism isn't necessarily bad in itself; it completely depends on what you compare it to. Capitalism is better than what came before it (this is why more developed countries are better than less developed ones); capitalism is worse than what will come after it.



It's true, not everybody succeeds in American society. But everybody can if they want it bad enough.

Not true.



All of those Euros, generations later are now simply American.

What's your point?


I don't need to do that, i was asking why they don't just go to a place more receptive to communism.


Because those places aren't where the communist cause will be most important.



America is anti-communism. Always will be.

Of course it is. As the most developed nation in the world, it is a capitalist powerhouse. America has a lot to lose from a communist revolution. Much more than any other country. This is why it is anti-communist.

Now when you said America, and when I said it, I interpreted that as the government, bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie, as these are the ruling class in American society. Will the workers always be anti-communist? Of course not.



I get the feeling most of these alleged communists have not really lived much yet meaning they don't have families, homes etc. I chalk it up to naive youth, wanting to rebel. They'll change their tune once they have responsibilities and something to protect.


Yes, the age/experience card. What you don't understand is that, while communists advocate revolution, this doesn't mean they don't have to live in capitalist society. They will defend their private property as much as anyone else; they have to live in the system or they die. And they don't want to die.

I think you are confused about communism. From "...something to protect" do you mean that if there was a communist revolution, all this would be taken away? That property would be collective property? Is that what you believe? Because if so, you have to realize that communism advocates the abolition of private property, not personal property.



Communism is part of a chain in a theory that has yet to be proven, that is all. It's not a viable system.


Communism hasn't even been attempted, so yes it has yet to be proven. And of course it's a viable system.



The U$ is anti-communism because they have been fed that shit for a long, long time. When more and more people in the U$ start thinking for themselves instead of listening mindlessly to their leaders, they may figure out that communism is the way to go.


Which is what will happen when capitalism begins to fall in on itself.



Of course, the herd mentallity keeps the population down very well! laugh.gif


When people are content they just don't give a shit about anything as long as they can stay content.



If it hasnt been proven, you can not say it isnt viable.

Good point!



The world is supposed the give a shit about everyone? The world is supposed to be everybody's Mommy? LOL! That's ludicrous.


What? The world is everybody's "Mommy"! Mother Earth!



"Fuck" my feelings? I never said anything about feelings, I mentioned opinions.


You said "I get the feeling..."



As far as experience, I have lived overseas in 8 different countries. I live overseas now. I have plenty of worldly experience. How many countries have you lived in?

What countries were those? And how long did you live there? I always wanted to do something like that.



Communism has been tried in an artificial way. It's been proven it cannot work.


It wasn't even an attempt at communism. It was an attempt at socialism. It's been proven that Leninism cannot work.



As far as America never being communist, well, that's just obvious. Maybe in 2000 years or so.


Try between 10 and 20. If you think capitalism is going to last that long, you're a joke. It's only been around for about 250 years and it's about to crumble to pieces.



Damn this board is racist and fascist beyond all get out. I get my posts deleted. Is it because I'm black? Nothing surprises me anymore.

Who said anything racist? Why are we fascist? If you got a post deleted it's because you violated board rules, which are quite fair. Please, read the rules before you make some remark about them being "fascist".



They have families? Why would a communist start a family in a capitalistic society? Does he want to put his family through hell?


Can you please use your head instead of your ass? It makes intelligent debate a whole lot easier.



I can't see how you can call yourself a communist, all the while owning private property all manufactured by capitalist corporations and companies.

Again with this shit!




There is no dialectic because communism has never existed, right? wink.gif

There is dialectic. Dialectics and dialectical materialism aren't communist theory, genius. It's marxist philosophy which has been widely accepted in the philisophical community, as well as having piles of scientific evidence to back it up.



What a naive view. By this logic, if you were born into a communist country that you really believed in, feeling patriotic about it would be stupid. That's utter nonsense.

No such thing as a communist state. And patriotism is always stupid. Who cares what country you're born into? It's more about the region you're born into, as your culture exists in a region and not a state.




More nonsense. Go live in a cave or better yet, MOVE.


Stop thinking with your ass.



Also, why do the black markets in Cuba and the former Soviet Bloc thrive? Why do/did people want all of that evil capitalist crap? Wasn't the government producing enough stuff for them?

The black market in the former USSR is because of Leninism, Stalinism and totalitarianism which led to its failure. Could you please provide some evidence of this Cuban black market? Stop bringing up socialist states as evidence against communism. It doesn't work that way. They're apples and oranges.



Why would you want to smash a system that gives everybody a chance to do whatever they want?


It doesn't give everybody a chance to do whatever they want.



Under communism you'd be told where you were going to work.

You're horribly uneducated on communism. Under communism you choose what job you want. Education is free so you are free to switch between professions whenever you want, as long as you receive the education required.


It would be some mindless, factory-like job that would make you want to kill yourself after a year.

That sounds more like capitalism to me! The division of labour created the boredom of factory jobs (assembly-line jobs, stuff like that). The division of labour was created by capitalism.


You'd have to wait in line for 10 hours for a half loaf of bread and a few eggs.

No. You'd go down to the store and take whatever you want for free. Stop comparing a communist society to the USSR. It doesn't work like that.


If a member of your family was sick, you'd have to wait in line some more.

Only if the doctors are busy with other people that are sicker than your family member. In capitalism, if you don't have the money to get treated, you die or go into mountains of debt.


And then when you became old and useless, you'd be compassionately euthanized because the cost of feeding you was draining the system.

There is no cost. There is no money. Everything is free. God, could you please at least read up on what communism is before you criticize it? I mean cmon, you're talking about the USSR; guess what? IT WASN'T COMMUNIST. IT WAS A SHITHOLE. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. Learn about what communism is before you disagree with it. Normal people would educate themselves on a topic before forming an opinion.



It's complete nonsense.

What you're arguing is complete nonsense, sure. But you're not even arguing against communism. You're arguing against Stalinism. None of us are Stalinist.



Actually, revolutionary Spain has already shown that libertarian socialism can work in practice. Communists aren't the unrealistic, day-dreaming idealists you think they are. In Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivized them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible and downright bloody civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian radicals. Indeed, in many collectivized areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalized or private sectors. This green shoot of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary that you could possibly provide.


Do you know any good books I could pick up on the Spanish Civil War (which I'm guessing is what you're talking about)?



1. Wouldn't it be easier to force communism on a smaller number of people, rather than a large number?
2. Oh my god, communists not wanting to do something!? Impossible.

Who's forcing?



Barely. Collectivism has collected the power into few, and those few make it very hard for new people to become elected.


That is why Leninism fails.



Gross inequalities? The burden of proof is upon you.


Do you recognize that everybody can be classified into two categories (those who own the means of production, those who dont)?



No, it would be absurd to suggest their is a 'rich' and 'poor'. In reality there is no such things, it is all relative.


Everything is relative. It's absurd to suggest that something is moving and something isn't. In reality, it's all relative. Wanna start debating now?



Um, how exactly? Because I think people should stop trying to force their particular ideologies on me? I'm commited to moving for freedom, why aren't you commited to moving for communism?

Freedom? Everybody is for moving for freedom. Why don't you just tell us what you're committed to. Freedom is a vague word.

[Freedom Works]

Why should they? Why can't everybody else move? Because they're the minority? With that logic, everybody should leave every country because in one way or another everybody is a minority.
They should move if they truly give a shit, if not, don't force me to work in your commune.


I wouldn't wanna give up anything I have. I earned it. You have to play by the system or you die. And I don't wanna die.
Hahahaha! YOU earned it, but fat capitalist pigs haven't?
Hypocrisy.
You have to play by the system or it will KILL YOU. That is no fault of capitalism, but rather of big "government".



A communist revolution will happen first in the most developed countries, as these workers are going to be the first to feel the tension from the contradiction that capitalism creates; that contradiction is profit/competition vs. workers rights.
Workers do not have rights. Humans do.


Once globalization sets in and all these poor countries develop more, corporations will have nowhere to go for cheap labour. That is when the problems will start.
Ignorance, by then production will be done primarily by robots.


Education is free so you are free to switch between professions whenever you want, as long as you receive the education required.
How do you plan to know how much education should be required? Use capitalist nations as a template?


You'd go down to the store and take whatever you want for free.
How would the store operators know how much to produce?


Only if the doctors are busy with other people that are sicker than your family member.
How do you determine exactly how 'sick' someone is?


There is no cost. There is no money. Everything is free.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


Who's forcing?
What do you think "government" is? Force.


Do you recognize that everybody can be classified into two categories (those who own the means of production, those who dont)?
Not at all, because I recognize people are means of production, and they own themselves.


Everything is relative.
Ok, but my point is that it is not simply 'rich' vs. 'poor'. It is taxpayer vs. taxconsumer, and the taxconsumer's have bigger guns.


Freedom? Everybody is for moving for freedom.
Not the people who don't move. They use "government" to force their collectivist ideas on others.


Why don't you just tell us what you're committed to. Freedom is a vague word.
I am talking about moving so you can enjoy the benefits of negative liberty.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 29 2005, 08:20 AM
I am talking about moving so you can enjoy the benefits of negative liberty.

You are the one who wants negative liberty. Do you know what that term actually means? Negative liberty is what is desired by neoliberals: e.g. freedom from government interference. Positive liberty refers to the freedom to actually be able to do something, e.g. go to school or university. Please get your terms right.


They should move if they truly give a shit, if not, don't force me to work in your commune.

You wouldn't be forced to do anything.


Workers do not have rights. Humans do.

What we are saying is that workers and bosses have different interests. The more they pay us, the less money they make.


How would the store operators know how much to produce?

There wouldn't be any store operators. It would be run by a collective. They would produce as much as people need. Store owners today are the ones that have no idea how much to produce.


How do you determine exactly how 'sick' someone is?

You would probably go by how close they are to death.

[KC]

They should move if they truly give a shit, if not, don't force me to work in your commune.


Why should they move? Who's forcing you to do anything? You sure make a lot of assumptions.



Hahahaha! YOU earned it, but fat capitalist pigs haven't?

Of course they haven't. They stole it from their workers.



You have to play by the system or it will KILL YOU. That is no fault of capitalism, but rather of big "government".


You have to play by the system or you die. If you don't sell your labour, or own the means of production, you die. Government doesn't do that. Capitalism does. Also, trying to separate government from capitalism is impossible because you need someone to protect property rights (private security companies can't make laws).



Workers do not have rights. Humans do.

Workers are humans.



Ignorance, by then production will be done primarily by robots.


That doesn't matter. Companies still need to compete.



How do you plan to know how much education should be required? Use capitalist nations as a template?


Do you understand how to set up coursework for a given major? It's not that hard.



How would the store operators know how much to produce?


Based on how much people take.



How do you determine exactly how 'sick' someone is?


Stop arguing that point. That's what happens in hospitals now. So stop trying to argue it.



There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Sure there is.



What do you think "government" is? Force.


So the government is forcing communism on people? What an incoherent remark.



Not at all, because I recognize people are means of production, and they own themselves.


Labour isn't part of the means of production (and don't try arguing it is; the definition we use as "means of production" are the tools and raw material). Labour is a commodity.



Not the people who don't move. They use "government" to force their collectivist ideas on others.


Yeah? Government is enforcing communism? Does this even need a reply? (Hint: No)



I am talking about moving so you can enjoy the benefits of negative liberty.

1.) Why don't you move then.
2.) Instead of saying you're for freedom why don't you say you're for anarcho-capitalism and people will actually know what you mean.


Could you please tell me how anarcho-capitalism would work without government? It would be hell. Literally mob rule. And the mobs would be different competing companies. And it would turn bloody (as there is no government to have a monopoly on violence). And people would die.

[Zingu]

America is anti-communism. Always will be.

I get the feeling most of these alleged communists have not really lived much yet meaning they don't have families, homes etc. I chalk it up to naive youth, wanting to rebel. They'll change their tune once they have responsibilities and something to protect.

Being determines counsciness, material reality is what determines a person's stance on such things. All that is nessecary is the destruction the material conditions that cause anti-communism and people will be singing a different tune, once they see that their alienation is extremely evident.

[Free Palestine]

They should move if they truly give a shit, if not, don't force me to work in your commune.

Your ignorance is really showing here. There is no "forced collectivization" under any form of libertarian socialism. Individuals who do not wish to join syndicates will be able to work for themselves.

If you want to be a capitalist wannabe in a Marxist society it's perfectly within your capabilities but who the hell would want to allow you exploit them? You would find nobody to work for you, since other workers, having a right to the means of production and being free to work on their own as an equal with others in the large organizations of production, would not want to be exploited by a small employer like you.

And, assuming that you did find someone willing to work for you, you would have to provide such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce your profits to near zero. Moreover, you would have to face workers whose neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for even better conditions and pay, including workers' control and so on. No one will volunteer to work for your enrichment.

[EagleEyeNuñez]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 29 2005, 08:02 PM

They should move if they truly give a shit, if not, don't force me to work in your commune.

Your ignorance is really showing here. There is no "forced collectivization" under any form of libertarian socialism. Individuals who do not wish to join syndicates will be able to work for themselves.

If you want to be a capitalist wannabe in a Marxist society it's perfectly within your capabilities but who the hell would want to allow you exploit them? You would find nobody to work for you, since other workers, having a right to the means of production and being free to work on their own as an equal with others in the large organizations of production, would not want to be exploited by a small employer like you.

And, assuming that you did find someone willing to work for you, you would have to provide such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce your profits to near zero. Moreover, you would have to face workers whose neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for even better conditions and pay, including workers' control and so on. No one will volunteer to work for your enrichment.
In other words, you will do as you're told and be just like everybody else.

What a crock of shit.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by EagleEyeNuñ[email protected] 29 2005, 08:21 PM
In other words, you will do as you're told and be just like everybody else.

What a crock of shit.
Well that&#39;s certainly not a trait witnissed in the Communist/Anarchist ideology. Pulling things out of your ass? <_<

[EagleEyeNuñez]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Aug 29 2005, 09:08 PM--> (Additives Free @ Aug 29 2005, 09:08 PM)
EagleEyeNuñ[email protected] 29 2005, 08:21 PM
In other words, you will do as you&#39;re told and be just like everybody else.

What a crock of shit.
Well that&#39;s certainly not a trait witnissed in the Communist/Anarchist ideology. Pulling things out of your ass? <_< [/b]
There&#39;s no individuality under these wacko leftist systems. You go where the state tells you to go.

[Free Palestine]

As I said, there is no "forced" collectivization. I already showed you how weak this argument of yours was so I&#39;m not sure why you continue to have such delusions.

[Freedom Works]

Why should they move? Who&#39;s forcing you to do anything? You sure make a lot of assumptions.
What do you think revolution is, bunnies, candy and rainbows?



Of course they haven&#39;t. They stole it from their workers.
Ignorance or indoctrination. This is only possible with the taxconsumers, who really do steal wealth from the taxpayers. Capitalists do not steal anything from the worker, because the worker does not have to work.


Workers are humans.
And humans all have the same amount of rights, workers do not have a right to not die from starvation, but they do have a right to be from from the initiation of force or fraud.


You have to play by the system or you die.
Life is the #1 cause of death.


If you don&#39;t sell your labour, or own the means of production, you die.
Means of production is stupid. Everyone owns themselves, and can do whatever they want withthemselves, as long as it is not violating the rights of other people.

Also, trying to separate government from capitalism is impossible because you need someone to protect property rights (private security companies can&#39;t make laws).
Haha, you just admitted communism will not work, I guess you are too thick to see that. Private security makes laws for the property it owns.


That doesn&#39;t matter. Companies still need to compete.
Yes, but where will the worker oppression be then?


Labour isn&#39;t part of the means of production (and don&#39;t try arguing it is; the definition we use as "means of production" are the tools and raw material). Labour is a commodity.
How is a human body not both &#39;tools and raw material&#39;? (Hint: It is.)


Do you understand how to set up coursework for a given major? It&#39;s not that hard.
What happens if it is the wrong amount; shortages of doctors so long lines, or too many and they are bad?


Based on how much people take.
What happens if people take more than the land can produce? Long lines?


Yeah? Government is enforcing communism? Does this even need a reply? (Hint: No)
I did not say communist, I said collectivist. What do you think welfare is?


1.) Why don&#39;t you move then.
I am. I guess I love freedom more than you love communism, ey?


2.) Instead of saying you&#39;re for freedom why don&#39;t you say you&#39;re for anarcho-capitalism and people will actually know what you mean.
Because while I am an anarcho-capitalist, I believe people have the freedom to be in a commune, as long as they are not forcing people to be there.



Could you please tell me how anarcho-capitalism would work without government?
-_-


It would be hell. Literally mob rule.
Mob rule is democracy, not anarcho-capitalism.


And the mobs would be different competing companies.
What an incoherent remark.


And it would turn bloody (as there is no government to have a monopoly on violence).
"Government" doesn&#39;t kill people?


And people would die.
People already die.



Your ignorance is really showing here. There is no "forced collectivization" under any form of libertarian socialism. Individuals who do not wish to join syndicates will be able to work for themselves.
In THEORY. But there has always been force with large-scale collectivism, and most likely there always will be.



If you want to be a capitalist wannabe in a Marxist society it&#39;s perfectly within your capabilities but who the hell would want to allow you exploit them?
Maybe someone who doesn&#39;t want to starve after the economy collapses? Collectivist economies are simply unsustanible.


You would find nobody to work for you, since other workers, having a right to the means of production and being free to work on their own as an equal with others in the large organizations of production, would not want to be exploited by a small employer like you.
Until they figured out that collectivism does not work on a large scale, and I gave them a job.


And, assuming that you did find someone willing to work for you, you would have to provide such excellent conditions and pay such good wages as to reduce your profits to near zero.
Haha, that is a good one&#33; Public places kept in better shape than private ones? Bullshit. Nope, workers would be rushing to get jobs, because their public work places would be shit, and they want better conditions.

[uote]Moreover, you would have to face workers whose neighbours would be encouraging them to form a union and strike for even better conditions and pay, including workers&#39; control and so on. No one will volunteer to work for your enrichment.[/quote]
This isn&#39;t even ignorance, it is plain stupidity.


As I said, there is no "forced" collectivization. I already showed you how weak this argument of yours was so I&#39;m not sure why you continue to have such delusions.
Oh, you SAID it&#33; That must make human nature just go away then, ey?

[bombeverything]

What do you think revolution is, bunnies, candy and rainbows?

A revolution is necessary.


Capitalists do not steal anything from the worker, because the worker does not have to work.

Yes we do have to work. How else are we meant to survive? Capitalists steal everything that the workers produce, but we do have to work. We live in a consumer society if you haven&#39;t yet figured this out.


And humans all have the same amount of rights, workers do not have a right to not die from starvation, but they do have a right to be from from the initiation of force or fraud.

What? I thought the right to basic food was part of the declaration of human rights. Or do you ignore that part?


Means of production is stupid. Everyone owns themselves, and can do whatever they want withthemselves, as long as it is not violating the rights of other people.

This is stupid. No one can produce anything without the help of others. Labour is social. It is impossible to exploit the labour of another without violating their rights.


Haha, you just admitted communism will not work, I guess you are too thick to see that. Private security makes laws for the property it owns.

No. There is no private property to protect in a communist society. Talk about idiotic.


I am. I guess I love freedom more than you love communism, ey?

No you are just a moron.


Because while I am an anarcho-capitalist, I believe people have the freedom to be in a commune, as long as they are not forcing people to be there.

As I said, no one would be forced to do anything. However they cannot expect anything in return if they do not contribute.


Oh, you SAID it&#33; That must make human nature just go away then, ey?

What is &#39;human nature&#39;?

[quincunx5]

As I said, no one would be forced to do anything. However they cannot expect anything in return if they do not contribute.


This is my favorite commie argument. I love it everytime I see it.

HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM CAPITALISM?

[MitchellStyron]

RACK ^^^

these fucksticks here have NO CLUE

Goddamn, communism is a laugh a minute, unless you live under it and then you&#39;ll be thrown in prison&#33;

look what happens here&#33;&#33;&#33; You post an opposing viewpoint and you&#39;re immediately BANNED&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

And these fucktards can&#39;t put 2 x 2 together&#33;&#33;&#33;

IDIOTS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:04 AM


As I said, no one would be forced to do anything. However they cannot expect anything in return if they do not contribute.


This is my favorite commie argument. I love it everytime I see it.

HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM CAPITALISM?

If there is no difference why then are you opposed to it? If you see no difference between capitalism and communism there is no point continuing this debate. I was simply noting that people do not have to join the collectives if they don&#39;t want to, but that they would gain more by doing so.

There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism.


Goddamn, communism is a laugh a minute, unless you live under it and then you&#39;ll be thrown in prison&#33;

Try to find out what communism actually is before posting and you might remain on the board.

[quincunx5]

I was simply noting that people do not have to join a capitalist society if they don&#39;t want to, but that they would gain more by doing so.



There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism.


Ha ha ha. Anarchy only works with capitalism.

There is no such thing as anarcho-communism.

[bombeverything]

I was simply noting that people do not have to join a capitalist society if they don&#39;t want to, but that they would gain more by doing so.

You are forgetting that it is impossible for everyone to benefit from participation in capitalist society. There are winners and losers. Participation in capitalism requires competition. People join out of necessity, and most gain little, if nothing.



Ha ha ha. Anarchy only works with capitalism.

If you believe this you are not an anarchist.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:47 AM
Ha ha ha. Anarchy only works with capitalism.

There is no such thing as anarcho-communism.
You&#39;re an idiot.


Seriously, in capitalism, there is still economic hierarchy; the owners and the non-owners, hence creating the dictatorship of the burgeoisie.


Read some Proudhoun, Marx and Bakunin. I&#39;ve looked through all your posts, and you have no clue what you are talking about..... :unsure:

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:04 PM
Over here in Europe, the idea of an American communist is considered a joke. They see America as the land of excess.


America has a far higher poverty rate than western Europe and the gap continues to grow. Many comrades here either were born out of poverty or currently live in it (though I&#39;m not sure how some could afford a computer). Land of excess, partly true, only when you look at the Paris Hilton types.

[quincunx5]

You&#39;re an idiot.

Seriously, in capitalism, there is still economic hierarchy; the owners and the non-owners, hence creating the dictatorship of the burgeoisie.


You are the idiot. Lookup what anarchy is. Lookup what capitalism is. Neither is what your think it is.



Read some Proudhoun, Marx and Bakunin. I&#39;ve looked through all your posts, and you have no clue what you are talking about...


You are a fucking liar of the highest caliber. I refuse to believe you read all 200+ of my posts.
You would see that I have read from all of these authors.


You have lost all credibility for lying like this.

[quincunx5]

EDIT: Removed. Accidental double post.

[Correa]

What is your political alignment quincunx5?

[quincunx5]

What is your political alignment quincunx5?


What do you mean?

I will argue in favor of libertarianism, minarchy, and anarcho-capitalism depending on the discussion.

[Correa]

Just curious so that I can better understand your ideals. Would you call yourself a Libetarian Conservative? In any case don&#39;t you have a corporation to run? Surely you are not of the lower or middle class.

[quincunx5]

Just curious so that I can better understand your ideals. Would you call yourself a Libetarian Conservative?


I have told you what I argue for.



In any case don&#39;t you have a corporation to run? Surely you are not of the lower or middle class.


No. If there was such a thing as class, I would be in the lower-middle.

[Correa]

Well the problem is niether Libetarianism nor minarchism indicate left or right, it only advocates less government intervention in someone&#39;s personal life. However Anarcho-Capitalism is designed to leave people in famine and poverty off the bat. Why would you support such ideals especially as a member of the "lower-middle class." Suicide could be accomplished by far easier and quicker means if that is the case. As for there no being such a thing as classes. Pick up any Sociology (not socialist) text book and you will be proven wrong. Of course if you do not believe in science(s) then I&#39;m just wasting my breath.

[Freedom Works]

Well the problem is niether Libetarianism nor minarchism indicate left or right, it only advocates less government intervention in someone&#39;s personal life.

Personal life and business life are inseperable. True libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism.

[quincunx5]

Well the problem is niether Libetarianism nor minarchism indicate left or right, it only advocates less government intervention in someone&#39;s personal life.


Yes, and this is precisely what leads to anarcho-capitalism.



However Anarcho-Capitalism is designed to leave people in famine and poverty off the bat. Why would you support such ideals especially as a member of the "lower-middle class."


There is no design to anarcho-capitalism. Duh. It&#39;s anarch-communism that has "from each according to ability to each according to need" as it&#39;s basic design princple.

What exactly is wrong with being in the "lower-middle class". Nothing has been stolen from me, and I have certainly not stolen anything from anyone.



Suicide could be accomplished by far easier and quicker means if that is the case. As for there no being such a thing as classes. Pick up any Sociology (not socialist) text book and you will be proven wrong. Of course if you do not believe in science(s) then I&#39;m just wasting my breath.


One could use &#39;scientific&#39; methods to draw conclusions from these hypothetical classes. But again, Sociology takes social classes as axioms.

If it&#39;s in books, it must be true&#33;

Should I become religious because some books tell me to?
Should I become a communist, merely because there are books about it?

[Correa]

Hmmm....you make an interesting case. You do not speak for me, but I suppose to each his own, eh?

[KC]

What do you think revolution is, bunnies, candy and rainbows?

If the revolution succeeds then a majority of the people want it and you&#39;re fucked.


Capitalists do not steal anything from the worker, because the worker does not have to work.

Well, he could die I guess. :rolleyes:


And humans all have the same amount of rights, workers do not have a right to not die from starvation, but they do have a right to be from from the initiation of force or fraud.

I think saying "work for what you&#39;re told or starve" is pretty much forcing people to work.


Life is the #1 cause of death.

Nice dodge.


Means of production is stupid. Everyone owns themselves, and can do whatever they want withthemselves, as long as it is not violating the rights of other people.

You&#39;re stupid. The means of production aren&#39;t people. Stop avoiding the topic with some generalizations.


Haha, you just admitted communism will not work, I guess you are too thick to see that.

How so?


Yes, but where will the worker oppression be then?

A lot more visible than it is now.


How is a human body not both &#39;tools and raw material&#39;? (Hint: It is.)

Tools are what workers operate with their labour to make products out of raw materials. Stop arguing semantics; you know what I mean.


What happens if it is the wrong amount; shortages of doctors so long lines, or too many and they are bad?


What does this have to do with what we were discussing?


What happens if people take more than the land can produce? Long lines?


How would that happen? Are they going to hoard? What&#39;s the point in that?


I am. I guess I love freedom more than you love communism, ey?


I love how you throw the word freedom around just as much as Bush. What a word to use; it&#39;s so vague and meaningless yet you use it because it instills a certain reaction in people.


Mob rule is democracy, not anarcho-capitalism.

Mob rule in the literal sense (by mobs, or gangs).


People already die.

Many more.




This is my favorite commie argument. I love it everytime I see it.

HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM CAPITALISM?

If you don&#39;t know how communism is different from capitalism (which is what you&#39;re stating) then you really need to leave and educate yourself.



You are a fucking liar of the highest caliber. I refuse to believe you read all 200+ of my posts.
You would see that I have read from all of these authors.


I have read them all. And he&#39;s right.



Personal life and business life are inseperable. True libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism.

True freedom is communism.


Nothing has been stolen from me

Profit.

[quincunx5]

Nothing has been stolen from me

Profit.


Profit was not mine to being with. Coincidentally, financially speaking every place I have worked at, during the time I was working there, was LOSING. Yet I have kept my job, leaving only for something better when I felt like it.

I did over simplify my statement. There was something that was actually stolen from me. The stealing was done by the government in the form of taxes.





This is my favorite commie argument. I love it everytime I see it.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM CAPITALISM?

If you don&#39;t know how communism is different from capitalism (which is what you&#39;re stating) then you really need to leave and educate yourself.


Perhaps you should read the entire discussion, before making stupid comments. My response was directed at this:


As I said, no one would be forced to do anything. However they cannot expect anything in return if they do not contribute.


Which is exactly like capitalism: if you do not work, you should not expect anything back either.

[Correa]

I can&#39;t wait until they have a forum for Anarcho-Capitalist. :D

[quincunx5]

There are several. I haven&#39;t bothered looking though them.

[Warren Peace]

America is anti-communism. Always will be.

Not true. You&#39;re only thinking of America as one generation. Anti-communism was drilled into them by the government because they grew up during the Cold War. The government is now focused on being anti-Islam instead. When the current generation grows old and dies, they will be replaced by the youth of today, and that anti-communist sentiment will wither away.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Sep 2 2005, 08:42 PM

America is anti-communism. Always will be.

Not true. You&#39;re only thinking of America as one generation. Anti-communism was drilled into them by the government because they grew up during the Cold War. The government is now focused on being anti-Islam instead. When the current generation grows old and dies, they will be replaced by the youth of today, and that anti-communist sentiment will wither away.
This man makes lots of sense.


Nice, RevoltNow&#33;

[Freedom Works]

One day the lands of the world will be free, and when that day comes, and free thought reigns over political power, the benefits of freedom will teach children the correct way: decentralized. And with that shall come the downfall of collectivism.