To those who have "switched side"

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To you who were once one the far-left.

Why did you abandon your stance?
What made you change?

[Niemand]

They were brainwashed, they hurt their heads badly in an accident? Who knows why someone would go to the right, I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Ownthink]

Most likely, they became angry, bitter assholes through life as they got older and realized that they were really greedy cappies all along.

Money IS the root of all evil.

[Ater Sanguis]

I could see impatient leftists getting frustrated because nothing major is happening as they might have hoped. So they just give up.

[bombeverything]

To you who were once one the far-left.

Why did you abandon your stance?
What made you change?

Don't you fall into this category?

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:19 PM
Most likely, they became angry, bitter assholes
:lol: i actually felt that way as a leftist , I feel 100% better about myself now that I am true to myself.

The reason why I "pulled a truthaddict" was because I came to realize that capitalism offers the best oppurtunities to better myself and has the freedoms that other economic systems don't offer. I dont consider myself "right-wing" or "left-wing" or become an idealouge of liberal or conservative politics I have both conservative views on some things and liberal views on others. And contrary to what my sub-title says I have not made it "big time" I am still wondering which admin put it there, I assume it was AT but I may be wrong :P

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 20 2005, 10:14 PM--> (truthaddict11 @ Sep 20 2005, 10:14 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 07:19 PM
Most likely, they became angry, bitter assholes
:lol: i actually felt that way as a leftist , I feel 100% better about myself now that I am true to myself.

The reason why I "pulled a truthaddict" was because I came to realize that capitalism offers the best oppurtunities to better myself and has the freedoms that other economic systems don't offer. I dont consider myself "right-wing" or "left-wing" or become an idealouge of liberal or conservative politics I have both conservative views on some things and liberal views on others. And contrary to what my sub-title says I have not made it "big time" I am still wondering which admin put it there, I assume it was AT but I may be wrong :P [/b]
So, you've always been an angry bitter asshole? That explains it.

[truthaddict11]

no, when I was a leftist and believed in that stuff I was angry and bitter, since I have decided to support capitalism, I am not bitter and angry anymore. if you read the second part of that sentence you would see that

[Led Zeppelin]

no, when I was a leftist and believed in that stuff I was angry and bitter, since I have decided to support capitalism, I am not bitter and angry anymore.

Hit the jackpot eh?

[Anarchist Freedom]

Since Ive become a leftist my life and views on the world have been filled with nothing but love and compasion for the proletariet and the resistance against capitalism.

But class traitors dont get any respect from me none.

[truthaddict11]

how am I a class traitor? does everybody who does not agree with communism and leftism a class traitor?

[Sa'd al-Bari]

The thing about "leftists" who have "switched sides" that I find to happen in most cases is that they never had a really good grasp on Leftist politics, economics or philosophy. I think anyone developed in those areas could easily spot out the truth behind bits of capitalist word play such as "freedom" or "social mobility" with relative ease. The only people I can see really excepting those are those who live in an imperialist center and examine things in a national vacuum that has been conveniently been cleaned up by bourgeois ideology. Most of these people float in, fail to rethink much of anything they’ve previously learned, and then float out again. There’s no special "realization" behind any of this, it’s basically just accepting the standardized bourgeois ideology whereas you disregarded it earlier.

Also, if you ask me, following my current line of thought feels great. It feels good to develop your own line of thought based on your own experience that you live comfortably with rather than just blindly swallowing the idiot pills handed out regularly by the bourgeois cultural hegemony.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:07 AM
how am I a class traitor? does everybody who does not agree with communism and leftism a class traitor?
What the fuck? Did you lose all your brain cells? At least you remember what class struggle is?

[EneME]

Simple answer: IGNORANCE IS BLISS!

Especially when you don't have to actually have to SEE or LIVE REAL poverty. When your every waking existence isn't saturated with imperialist oppression. When you don't have to feel hunger or see death and war on a daily basis. When exploitation isn't written on your own face and on your family members.


when I was a leftist and believed in that stuff

If someone believes that being a leftist is like picking a favorite food, color, or joining some arbitrary team; then that person never WAS anti-capitalist or a real "leftist" in the first place. I am glad you stopped fooling yourself and everyone else. While I can respect you more for being your REAL self now, I cannot respect someone who KNOWS about exploitation and has STUDIED/RESEARCHED the true nature of imperialism and DECIDES to turn their back on the inhumanity in this world. I can somewhat understand ignorance, but I cannot understand a complete disregard to the suffering in this world. <_<

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 20 2005, 10:07 PM--> (truthaddict11 &#064; Sep 20 2005, 10:07 PM) how am I a class traitor? [/b]
Well; only by the definition of what you have done.


[i]Originally posted by trai•tor (trā&#39;tər)@

One who betrays one&#39;s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.


Sa&#39;d al&#045;Bari
The thing about "leftists" who have "switched sides" that I find to happen in most cases is that they never had a really good grasp on Leftist politics, economics or philosophy. I think anyone developed in those areas could easily spot out the truth behind bits of capitalist word play such as "freedom" or "social mobility" with relative ease. The only people I can see really excepting those are those who live in an imperialist center and examine things in a national vacuum that has been conveniently been cleaned up by bourgeois ideology. Most of these people float in, fail to rethink much of anything they’ve previously learned, and then float out again. There’s no special "realization" behind any of this, it’s basically just accepting the standardized bourgeois ideology whereas you disregarded it earlier.

Also, if you ask me, following my current line of thought feels great. It feels good to develop your own line of thought based on your own experience that you live comfortably with rather than just blindly swallowing the idiot pills handed out regularly by the bourgeois cultural hegemony.

I agree; basically these "drop in, drop out" people never really internalized the ideological reasoning of the left. You can really see this in people that go right through the Stalinist “stage” and become fascists. They are infatuated with the cult of personality not any consistent ideological worldview.

Basically, these people are initially dissatisfied with the capitalist system, so they keep their basic ideological mindset and invert themselves according to the social standards, modeling themselves after what they see as the superficial qualities of a leftist.

Obviously you cannot just change ideological positions overnight or even have anything more than a gradual change unless you are "free-floating" and don&#39;t really have a critical understanding of your supposed ideology, no "roots" to speak of.

I have seen how these "side switchers" address topics; as their opponents would at an earlier date and they are still handling the issues they never considered but as "leftists," should have held as the very core of their ideology.

EneME is right to say that their venture into leftism simply wasn&#39;t real to them; it was a "phase," something they dabbled in without any materialist measure in reality.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:20 PM
no, when I was a leftist and believed in that stuff I was angry and bitter, since I have decided to support capitalism, I am not bitter and angry anymore. if you read the second part of that sentence you would see that
Thats excactly why. You were angry and bitter, rather then calm and conscious. It&#39;s the people who think of society in Marxist terms, who use a social science who view the world as a proccess are the ones who will stay true.

Its like a little kid, they may cry and whinge, but if you give them a lollypop they will forgot everything and shut up.

When you give your self titles like leftist or Communist because you believe that appeals to you most, you will not last. People come in here so much and give themselves a description "I dont like authority and everyone should be free LOL FUCK AUTHORITY". These people are fools, Communist theory is a social science on its own, it is a science because it is a method to understanding the world. Much like science itself, its about observing and discovering the truth.

Its like trying to turn coal into gold, and calling youself a scientist. Then when it doesn&#39;t turn into gold saying you gave up on science because YOU didnt get what YOU wanted.

When you are a Communist its because you choose to view the world in all its proccess and all social relations. You then go beyond the everyday social sceintist and act on the theory in a political way.

Everytime i see someone new come in her and say "fuck bush, the US is FASCIST BUDDHISM IS SOO COOL, THE US IS REVOLUTION", i know they are not going to last, all they need is a lollypop.

Seriously you need to think why have change from a "leftist" to what you are now. If the answer is because you "like it", well you got some thinking to do.

[Jaded Revolutionary]

There was once a saying "Socialists at 18, Capitalists at 30" Basically, when people get older and acquire material possessions, they change their left-wing tendecies. That&#39;s the basic reason for it. I mean I could be all "it&#39;s because they become selfish and stop caring about other people&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;1 Cappie bastards&#33;&#33;&#33;" but it&#39;s my first day here, don&#39;t want to make enemies already. =P

[RedAnarchist]

Personally, i&#39;m a "Capitalist at 15, Socialist at 19 and onwards" sort of person. I don&#39;t want to return to my previous views as they are those of the oppressors, the imperialists and the ignorant.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 05:07 AM
how am I a class traitor? does everybody who does not agree with communism and leftism a class traitor?
No.

But you claim to have understood the nature of capitalism and calss struggle yet ignore it for personal gains. That qualifies you as a class traitor. But you probably don&#39;t care, right?

You haven&#39;t given any ciritque on whether you think capitalism exploits or opress. In fact, you don&#39;t care.

Maybe you never understood the nature of capitalism, and that&#39;s why you feel so easy to slip into it. Being "true to yourself" was probably you realising that your a self interested person who never understood class politics to start with.

The system you support has created the world you live in. Are you honestly, on the level now, telling me that this is a fair, decent world?

[TheKingOfMercy]

I simply grew (as my tastes and life-path developed) out of being part of the liberal left.

I didn&#39;t drop in and drop out, I have two uncles who are ardent communists, and a family around me that would take to the barricades given half a chance. I was brought up with the red flag waving behind me, and all the theory wafting around the proverbial room.

Someone said earlier "Those who have never experienced REAL poverty". This I do believe is bull, as a poor man in one country can be a rich man in another, and vice-versa. I lived in a 2 bedroom, terraced house in an area of heavy industry, never having much appart from a roof, four walls and food. Not much in the way of luxury PC&#39;s and expensive everything that a lot of you will have had.

But I never felt right supporting this cause over the evil oppressors. Partly because it&#39;s the 21st century, and in my country, that happend a couple of hundred years ago really. The rise of industrialisation destroyed the aristocracy and the monarcy and the landed elite. A man from the gutter can make a few quid, live a comfortable life. It&#39;s far easier in England than in America, where the system hasn&#39;t yet accepted that blacks and asians Are NOT space aliens.

But I still aspire to one day putting my feet up beside the fireplace of a big stately home, rolls royce in the drive and staff running the house. I grew up in a shithole, I have absolutely no desire to stay in one.

I&#39;ve worked in factories, I&#39;ve worked cleaning shit off engines, and now I have my place at university, I am the first in my family to go, I can hopefully realise my dreams. I&#39;ve done my time if you will, I&#39;ve never had much money, just enough to get me by, I still spend a lot of time paying off debts.

My reason for being &#39;a class traitor&#39; is simply that I think life is far too short for politics. You fine people can wave the flags and sing the songs, and generally piss off the people with the money, but I won&#39;t ruin and waste my life for something like that.

[Commie Girl]

staff running the house

:angry: so, do unto others....is that your philosophy?

You dont believe it is worth fighting for those that haven t had the chances you had? Each to his own?

A shame.

[TheKingOfMercy]

I&#39;d much rather have worked in a big house instead of a grimy factory, plus, well, they&#39;d be payed staff, it&#39;s a decent wage really, not 17th century slaves. ;)

If they want the work, they have the work. Ye can&#39;t force people into a job. If I was in the position where people worked for me, in whatever capacity, I&#39;d treat them like I&#39;d like to have been treated when I was desperate for work and money - with a decent level of human respect and dignity.

I might be the enemy, but at least I&#39;d be decent about it. Coming up from the ranks as it were, gives you the tools to deal with employees in a decent manner, and not in the shit way I and a lot of my friends were treated.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Sa&#39;d al&#045;[email protected] 21 2005, 04:23 AM
The thing about "leftists" who have "switched sides" that I find to happen in most cases is that they never had a really good grasp on Leftist politics, economics or philosophy. I think anyone developed in those areas could easily spot out the truth behind bits of capitalist word play such as "freedom" or "social mobility" with relative ease. The only people I can see really excepting those are those who live in an imperialist center and examine things in a national vacuum that has been conveniently been cleaned up by bourgeois ideology. Most of these people float in, fail to rethink much of anything they’ve previously learned, and then float out again. There’s no special "realization" behind any of this, it’s basically just accepting the standardized bourgeois ideology whereas you disregarded it earlier.

Also, if you ask me, following my current line of thought feels great. It feels good to develop your own line of thought based on your own experience that you live comfortably with rather than just blindly swallowing the idiot pills handed out regularly by the bourgeois cultural hegemony.
I largely agree with this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:57 PM
I simply grew (as my tastes and life-path developed) out of being part of the liberal left.
How can you understand the nature of exploitation and then give it up? Did you suddenly realise that capitalism doesn&#39;t exploit people, or did you just stop careing?

[truthaddict11]

[/QUOTE]


you claim to have understood the nature of capitalism and class struggle yet ignore it for personal gains. That qualifies you as a class traitor. But you probably don&#39;t care, right Capitalism is about self interest and individualism, I put myself and my well being above others, as you do Capitalism, capitalism give the economic freedom for lower class to move up ecomomicly. There is no "oppression" in modern capitalist counties. Workers have a lot more freedom than in socialist economies.


Maybe you never understood the nature of capitalism, and that&#39;s why you feel so easy to slip into it of course the marxist answer or in your case the only right answer is "oppression" and "exploitation" the labor.



You haven&#39;t given any ciritque on whether you think capitalism exploits or opress. In fact, you don&#39;t care maybe if there were more topics in OI besides moronic topics by non restricted members there would be more discussion on economics and Capitalism, besides a politcial arguement of "oppressed workers"


The system you support has created the world you live in. Are you honestly, on the level now, telling me that this is a fair, decent world? Yes I do

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 06:42 PM
Capitalism is about self interest and individualism,
Right, which achieves its prosperity through exploitation.


capitalism give the economic freedom for lower class to move up ecomomicly.

Why are there so many poor people then?


There is no "oppression" in modern capitalist counties.

Except for hierarchy, patriarchy, homophobia, nationalism, racism, jingoism, alienation and sexism.


Workers have a lot more freedom than in socialist economies.

Freedom to do what? Buy the latest DVD player or get a bigger car? Is that how you quantify freedom? Having more stuff to spend your money on?


of course the marxist answer or in your case the only right answer is "oppression" and "exploitation" the labor.

Why do you think that answer&#39;s wrong?


maybe if there were more topics in OI besides moronic topics by non restricted members there would be more discussion on economics and Capitalism, besides a politcial arguement of "oppressed workers"

Why don&#39;t you start one. I&#39;m interested to hear why you think capitalism is so wonderful now?



The system you support has created the world you live in. Are you honestly, on the level now, telling me that this is a fair, decent world? Yes I do

So how do you explain, drug addiction, war, violence, famine, genocide, sweat shops, selfishness, poverty and class division? Are you saying that those things symbolise or quantify a "decent world"?

[quincunx5]

Why are there so many poor people then?


That&#39;s a very simple question. World population growth exceeds growth of capital. Why is this? Because the market is not free. The various governments through the world suppress their people and their abilities to engage in free enterprise.



Freedom to do what? Buy the latest DVD player or get a bigger car? Is that how you quantify freedom? Having more stuff to spend your money on?


You have the freedom to by the latest DVD player or bigger car, yes.
Freedom is not quantifiable. There is no Freedom Units.

You really hate freedom don&#39;t you? Why not just join a cult of freedom-haters? Oh wait...



So how do you explain, drug addiction, war, violence, famine, genocide, sweat shops, selfishness, poverty and class division?


Drug addiction: Drug Laws (government)
War: government
Violence: human folly, governments
Famine: governments, natural disasters
Genocide: purely government
Sweat Shops: gain of wealth, or government mandate
Selfishness: Human interest in self
Poverty: Government
Class Division: Natural tendecy of human mind to stratify



Are you saying that those things symbolise or quantify a "decent world"?


No such thing can exist. It&#39;s purely subjective.

[TheKingOfMercy]

To The Anarchist Tension,

I suppose I should have been more clear. I haven&#39;t suddenly thought capitalism is so wonderfull, I haven&#39;t really embraced that system, more drifted into a good spot of political apathy, because I can see my uncles, excellent men, have wasted their lives fighting this great demon, and have simply achieved nothing but lonliness and what can only be described as poverty. A 43 year old man still living with his mother can only be described as a waste really.

I couldn&#39;t be that self-destructive, and with it not being the 1970&#39;s anymore, there aren&#39;t really all that many people in my area that care, the heavy industry that I grew up around is dying on it&#39;s feet, and the offices and pen-pushers are moving in, and they won&#39;t have any complaints. The bastards have air-conditioning.

When I&#39;m in any relative position of influence, I&#39;ll do my bit if I can, help out people who&#39;re stuck where I was, but without the chance to climb out.

I just can&#39;t, in my own mind, dedicate my entire life to a political struggle.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:26 PM
You really hate freedom don&#39;t you? Why not just join a cult of freedom-haters? Oh wait...
Okay; that&#39;s it. I&#39;m starting a "Stupidest Cappie Statement on Revleft" thread.

[quincunx5]

Sounds good, but please quote it in context.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:17 PM
Sounds good, but please quote it in context.
That is a completely inane statement; there is no "context," it has no connection to what you were saying.

Do you want me to say TAT was saying we need freedom and you suggested he hated freedom because of it? No; adding this "context" gives you an unfair advantage in the contest :lol:

[saint max]

I think I&#39;d sell out for a solid gold rocket-car and time machine. Cuz, fuck the rev if I can go back in time and have sex with abraham lincoln or punch columbus in the cock or something...Or maybe solid gold rocket time machine AND immortality AND the ability to make others immortal&#33; You hear that 10,000 yr old over-lords who eat the will of the powerful?

I think my politics are more bleeding-heart right wing extremism, or super villanry...I switched over cuz Leftism is kind of boring. Where as the above, totally gets me laid more with hip art fags, not just stank ass white rastas and punks.

cheers,
-max

[quincunx5]

Do you want me to say TAT was saying we need freedom and you suggested he hated freedom because of it? No; adding this "context" gives you an unfair advantage in the contest


No, he was questioning what freedom was. To be fair you would quote as follows:







Workers have a lot more freedom than in socialist economies.

Freedom to do what? Buy the latest DVD player or get a bigger car? Is that how you quantify freedom? Having more stuff to spend your money on?

You have the freedom to by the latest DVD player or bigger car, yes.
Freedom is not quantifiable. There is no Freedom Units.

You really hate freedom don&#39;t you? Why not just join a cult of freedom-haters? Oh wait...


Regardless if you think my statement can stand alone, you should quote the whole thing.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:10 PM
No, he was questioning what freedom was. To be fair you would quote as follows:

Regardless if you think my statement can stand alone, you should quote the whole thing.
Alright; I looked at what he said again and you are wrong, I&#39;m fairly sure but if you can prove his statement was "questioning what freedom was," then I will add the "context" for you. Otherwise it isn&#39;t needed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:26 PM
The various governments through the world suppress their people and their abilities to engage in free enterprise.
There is no possibility of capitalism existing if everyone was able to "engage" in it in any "prosperous" way. Capitalists need people to generate a profit.

The government oppresses people in order to maintain the system of profit, of which these people are necessary.


You have the freedom to by the latest DVD player or bigger car, yes.
Freedom is not quantifiable. There is no Freedom Units.

Actually it is. Freedom is only limited in terms of not limiting the freedom of someone else. Capitalism doesn&#39;t operate in that way. It will limit the freedom of anyone if it risks loosing a profit. Capitalism claims that people can be rich etc, but there are no conditions for that to happen.

In fact, it&#39;s a contradiction. If everyone was able to be the same capitalist, then you couldn&#39;t have capitalism. How could a profit maintain if there was no one to generate it?


You really hate freedom don&#39;t you? Why not just join a cult of freedom-haters? Oh wait...

I hate the idea that freedom is based on how much "stuff" you can buy, yes.


Drug addiction: Drug Laws (government)

The government created drug addiction? How did drug laws make drug addicts? Are you saying that the government made laws restricting drugs so everyone became a drug addict?


War: government

In order to maintain capitalism.


Violence: human folly, governments

You claim that gang violence, muggings etc are human follies or some government conspiracy?


Famine: governments, natural disasters

There is enough money and resources in the world to stop any natural disaster of famine from happening? It doesn&#39;t happen because giving money and food away for free isn&#39;t how capitalists who have to provide these [free] services make money.


Sweat Shops: gain of wealth, or government mandate

I.e. capitalism.


Selfishness: Human interest in self

Caused by what?


Poverty: Government

Like I said before, there is enough money and resources for poverty not to exist. Yes, it may be governments, but only insofar as they do not take money from billionaire corporations to ensure the end of poverty.

There are individuals who own billions of dollars and people who own nothing. There are the capitalists and the poor. Poverty exists because capitalism refuses to equitably redistribute wealth.


Class Division: Natural tendecy of human mind to stratify

But class is based on a material analysis. It has nothing to do with "natural tendencies." There is such a thing called "the means of production" and there are sections of society who have different relations to that. Capitalists and working class being the main two relationships.


No such thing can exist. It&#39;s purely subjective.

But there is a process to objectify it. If you got everyone in the world into a big room and found the common denominators of what we need for life, you would get something like this:

Everyone wants to be secure
Everyone wants to have enough food to survive
Everyone wants to be able to have a home
Everyone wants to be able to have water
Everyone wants to be able to pursue "their" interests.
Everyone wants to be able to maintain modern essential services

Is there really anyone who isn&#39;t mentally disabled who would not want those things?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:55 PM
I just can&#39;t, in my own mind, dedicate my entire life to a political struggle.
Who is asking you to?

[quincunx5]

There is no possibility of capitalism existing if everyone was able to "engage" in it in any "prosperous" way. Capitalists need people to generate a profit.


Prosperity is unequal, but nontheless, it&#39;s there.

The perfect capitalist situation would be everyone working for everyone else, to benefit themselves first.



The government oppresses people in order to maintain the system of profit, of which these people are necessary.


No. The government engages in free market distortion by first extracting it&#39;s funding unequally from the market itself (people)- and then spending it disproportionately in the market (goods and services) in an arbitraty fashion. Get rid of government, and free market capitalism will continue to flourish.



Actually it is. Freedom is only limited in terms of not limiting the freedom of someone else. Capitalism doesn&#39;t operate in that way. It will limit the freedom of anyone if it risks loosing a profit. Capitalism claims that people can be rich etc, but there are no conditions for that to happen.


Where is your beautiful quantification?



I hate the idea that freedom is based on how much "stuff" you can buy, yes.


So what is your magnificent interpretation of freedom? How much stuff you can stop people from buying? How much stuff you can stop people from creating?



The government created drug addiction? How did drug laws make drug addicts? Are you saying that the government made laws restricting drugs so everyone became a drug addict?


The government created a profitable bussiness for organized crime syndicates and other legal defectors. Drugs are dirt cheap, there is not profit to be made if it was legal.

Drug addiction existed, but statistically in every place that banned drugs, drug addiction has increased (per capita).



You claim that gang violence, muggings etc are human follies or some government conspiracy?


Violence betwen nations are government created problems. Anything else is human folly.



There is enough money and resources in the world to stop any natural disaster of famine from happening?


We don&#39;t have the money or technology to control the earth&#39;s surface entirely.



It doesn&#39;t happen because giving money and food away for free isn&#39;t how capitalists who have to provide these [free] services make money.


Someone had to work to prepare the food. They should just hand it over?

The capitalist paid the worker to create the food. If the capitalist now has to give it away for free, why did he bother paying the worker?

The capitalist can&#39;t make a profit, and the worker can&#39;t make a profit because there is no capitalist.

If you still insist on getting the food out for free, you are basically enslaving this worker.



Like I said before, there is enough money and resources for poverty not to exist. Yes, it may be governments, but only insofar as they do not take money from billionaire corporations to ensure the end of poverty.

There are individuals who own billions of dollars and people who own nothing. There are the capitalists and the poor. Poverty exists because capitalism refuses to equitably redistribute wealth.


No. Poverty exists because of government statistcs. Poverty is viewed objectively, when in actuality it&#39;s subjective.



Caused by what?


Being a member of the animal kingdom.





Sweat Shops: gain of wealth, or government mandate

I.e. capitalism.


So capitalism forced people to work in a sweat shop?
Or did some people choose to work in one?



But there is a process to objectify it. If you got everyone in the world into a big room and found the common denominators of what we need for life, you would get something like this:

Everyone wants to be secure
Everyone wants to have enough food to survive
Everyone wants to be able to have a home
Everyone wants to be able to have water
Everyone wants to be able to pursue "their" interests.
Everyone wants to be able to maintain modern essential services

Is there really anyone who isn&#39;t mentally disabled who would not want those things?


You are not being specific enough. Your analysis is too narrow.

What is security?
What is "enough" food to survive? People are different remember?
What is a home? How should it look like? Does it need to have indoor plumbing, or in an outhouse ok? # of bedrooms? What&#39;s inside the house?
How much water?
Pursuing interests doesn&#39;t neccesarily mean you are doing something valuable that others can enjoy.
What modern essential services?

But yes there are mentally disabled people who have no need for "homes" . Some prefer mobile homes to stationary ones. Some prefer apartments over houses.

When you get down to the details, things become subjective.
If you got everyone into a room you&#39;d have nothing but disagreement. Should you actually puts things to a vote, you will nothing but angry bitter people ripping each others&#39; head off.

No where do you provide an answer as to who will provide these goods and services. And no where do you make it clear why they will do it if they couldn&#39;t profit.

[The Feral Underclass]

I&#39;ve taken this as a debate.


Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:53 AM
What is security?
From violence, from want and from persecution.


What is "enough" food to survive? People are different remember?

I think this is a bit of an odd question.

"Enough food to survive" does what it says on the tin: Enough food to survive. Yes people are different, but that doesn&#39;t stop you from needing "enough food to survive."


What is a home? How should it look like? Does it need to have indoor plumbing, or in an outhouse ok? # of bedrooms? What&#39;s inside the house?
How much water?

The house would reflect your needs. If you were a single person, you would have a one-bedroom appartment, maybe. If you were a family of 6 then your house would reflect that.


How much water?

We have the technology to provide continuous water to every house.


Pursuing interests doesn&#39;t neccesarily mean you are doing something valuable that others can enjoy.

So?


What modern essential services?

Health service, fire service, electricity, sewage, refuse collection, road repairs etc


But yes there are mentally disabled people who have no need for "homes" . Some prefer mobile homes to stationary ones. Some prefer apartments over houses.

Probably. But we&#39;re not trying to find preferences here. We&#39;re trying to find the lowest common denominators [of necessity.]


When you get down to the details, things become subjective.

Only if we start getting into the idea of preference. People might prefer to have a Ferrari, but so what? If they want one, they should make one themselves. We&#39;re talking about need.


If you got everyone into a room you&#39;d have nothing but disagreement. Should you actually puts things to a vote, you will nothing but angry bitter people ripping each others&#39; head off.

But you said that a decent world was subjective. I&#39;m proving to you that determining a decent world can be objectified. In order to do that you have to find the lowest common denominators based on need.

If you got people into a room and asked them to say the very basics of what they needed to have in order for their world to be decent; not taking everyone’s opinion on everything, but finding the lowers common denominators, this would be the list that would come up.

Then you have an objective list of things that people quantify a decent world as being.


No where do you provide an answer as to who will provide these goods and services.

Human beings.


And no where do you make it clear why they will do it if they couldn&#39;t profit.

Because they need it.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You have the freedom to by the latest DVD player or bigger car, yes.

No, I do not.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:42 PM


You have the freedom to by the latest DVD player or bigger car, yes.

No, I do not.
Screw that; I would be happy to have a good job and a reasonable place to live.

[Publius]

To you who were once one the far-left.

Why did you abandon your stance?
What made you change?

Economics.


They were brainwashed, they hurt their heads badly in an accident? Who knows why someone would go to the right, I know I sure as hell wouldn&#39;t.

I realized how the world actually worked and moved past my pre-conceptions.

[Elect Marx]

I merged your posts Publius; stop double posting one-liners.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Economics.

Please elaborate.


I realized how the world actually worked and moved past my pre-conceptions.

Please elaborate.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Screw that; I would be happy to have a good job and a reasonable place to live.

Yes, me too.

I simply commented it because the whole presumtation he presented, is wrong. Who the hell wants a SUV, anyways, beside showing off?

[quincunx5]

There is no doubt that &#39;Collectivism&#39; may sound good.

But unfortunately it just doesn&#39;t work, will never work, and is not based on anything scientific.

I thought it was when I was young and naive, but it simply was not so. I have read books of practically every political ideology, and I personally discovered that the libertarian view is the only one that is ideologically consistent. I think I was 17 at the time.

The whole collectivist ideology rests upon unsound economics and unscientific views of human beings.

I have made my choice, and I will always defend it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:31 PM
There is no doubt that &#39;Collectivism&#39; may sound good.

But unfortunately it just doesn&#39;t work, will never work, and is not based on anything scientific.

I thought it was when I was young and naive, but it simply was not so. I have read books of practically every political ideology, and I personally discovered that the libertarian view is the only one that is ideologically consistent. I think I was 17 at the time.

The whole collectivist ideology rests upon unsound economics and unscientific views of human beings.
Your thesis is very lacking. If you are going to attack collectivism on scientific grounds, you could at least use scientific proof to make your point :rolleyes:


I have made my choice, and I will always defend it.

Ah, an idealist explanation. Who do you think is being inconsistent here?

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by quincunx5
and I personally discovered that the libertarian view is the only one that is ideologically consistent.

The problem is that the libertarian notion of justice, often neglects the use of justice as fairness. It&#39;s often based on the &#39;natural rights&#39;, and it&#39;s here the whole moral theory collapses.

[quincunx5]

If you are going to attack collectivism on scientific grounds, you could at least use scientific proof to make your point


I have the proof, but it&#39;s too long to fit in the margin.



Who do you think is being inconsistent here?


The communists.



The problem is that the libertarian notion of justice, often neglects the use of justice as fairness. It&#39;s often based on the &#39;natural rights&#39;, and it&#39;s here the whole moral theory collapses.


Fairness? What the fuck is that?

[No. 355728]

Fairness? What the fuck is that?

A word.


Note: I think it&#39;s quite obvious to what political theory I’m referring to, and I would also combine it with a vague form of utilitarianism. I don&#39;t have much time to reply, because I’m going to a military recruit camp on the 2nd of October (early in the morning), so if you would like to engage in a brief discussion, skip the rhetorical nonsense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:30 PM

I have the proof, but it&#39;s too long to fit in the margin.


Then provide a link, not excuses.

[quincunx5]

I can&#39;t provide a link to every book I&#39;ve read.

You can start with mises.org.

[Elect Marx]

Who do you think is being inconsistent here?

The communists.
Bullshit, you just used an idealist explanation for your "scientific" case.


Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:47 PM
I can&#39;t provide a link to every book I&#39;ve read.

You can start with mises.org.

It&#39;s basic theory, if there really is that great a flaw in the left you should be able to explain it in two paragraphs (the extended version).

Fuck your site, do your own work or stop lying.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:47 PM
I can&#39;t provide a link to every book I&#39;ve read.

You can start with mises.org.
If it requires every book you&#39;ve ever read to explain why collectivism cannot work, then your theory is a heap of shit because it obviously requires obfuscation to explain.

If mises.org has a link to a serious scientific study, then show it.

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:19 AM
Most likely, they became angry, bitter assholes through life as they got older and realized that they were really greedy cappies all along.

Money IS the root of all evil.
The lack of money is the root of all evil.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Korol Aferist+Sep 27 2005, 04:09 PM--> (Korol Aferist @ Sep 27 2005, 04:09 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 12:19 AM
Most likely, they became angry, bitter assholes through life as they got older and realized that they were really greedy cappies all along.

Money IS the root of all evil.
The lack of money is the root of all evil. [/b]
Are you calling the poor evil or are you calling the rich evil for hoarding wealth?

[Freedom Works]

The hate of money is the root of all evil.


Are you calling the poor evil or are you calling the rich evil for hoarding wealth?
Yeah, the rich hoard wealth all right. Because wealth SURELY is limited.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 27 2005, 04:41 PM
The hate of money is the root of all evil.
:lol:, yes, that and freedom.



Are you calling the poor evil or are you calling the rich evil for hoarding wealth?
Yeah, the rich hoard wealth all right. Because wealth SURELY is limited.

Sounds about right.

[quincunx5]

Sounds about right.


There you go ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the idiot who thinks wealth is fixed.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:32 PM


Sounds about right.


There you go ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the idiot who thinks wealth is fixed.
That&#39;s nice; at least I understand the warning point system. I am giving you a warning point for that flame.

Oh, and don&#39;t bother to prove any point :rolleyes:

[quincunx5]

Oh, and don&#39;t bother to prove any point


I can&#39;t prove anything to you if you sincerely believe that wealth is fixed.

You are wrong, You know, I know, and the audience knows it.

You&#39;re so desperate that you had to give me a warning point.

This thread asked the simple question of why people have "switched sides".
I answered it.

[KC]

I can&#39;t prove anything to you if you sincerely believe that wealth is fixed.

Wealth is fixed in the short term.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:30 PM


Oh, and don&#39;t bother to prove any point


I can&#39;t prove anything to you if you sincerely believe that wealth is fixed.
Right, you cannot prove me wrong if I am "wrong" :lol:


You are wrong, You know, I know, and the audience knows it.

It would seem you are wrong, as Lazar knew exactly what I meant.


You&#39;re so desperate that you had to give me a warning point.

You can dilute yourself and I cannot stop you but expect to get at least a warning point when you don&#39;t respect the RevLeft Guidelines.


This thread asked the simple question of why people have "switched sides".
I answered it.

You replied with a baseless assertion, as usual.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If wealth isn&#39;t fixed, why are there poor people?

[quincunx5]

Wealth is fixed in the short term.


Yes, wealth is not increasing on a second by second basis. No doubt if you took a snapshot
of wealth, it would indeed be static. Duh.

Wealth is not fixed. Total wealth can increase and decrease on a daily basis (like stock trading). It&#39;s only after a longer period of time (a year) that we can say that such-and-such percentage of growth occured.



If wealth isn&#39;t fixed, why are there poor people?


Very simple.

People are oppressed by their governments. They are not given private property rights. There is no uniform private property rights system that exists in the third world that covers everyone.

That is why the bulk of the economy in third world nations is in the black market. IIRC, it&#39;s over 90% in Egypt and over 70% in Haiti.

Read &#39;Mystery of Capital&#39; by Hernando de Soto. He estimates, with confirmation of other economists, that there is approximately 10 trillion dollars of wealth in the black market. That is equivalent to the wealth of the US, the wealth of Europe, or the wealth of China+Korea+Japan.

He also did a study of how long it takes to establish a formal business (small retail store) in various countries. A typical business can get started in Peru after 19 years after performing over 270 bureaucratic steps&#33;&#33;&#33; That is precisely the kind of bureaucracy that stops poor people from engaging in business in the legal sector.

Another reason why there are poor people is because of this lack of private property rights, the economic growth is much less than the population growth.

Wealth is NOT fixed, never was, and never will be. If it was fixed, why would people bother investing? Why would there be banks? Why would there be stock markets? Why mutual funds?
Why even save at all?

---

Thinking that wealth is fixed is just about the oldest piece of socialist propaganda. It has led to more violence and death than any "exploitative" capitalist can even imagine.

[KC]

Yes, wealth is not increasing on a second by second basis. No doubt if you took a snapshot
of wealth, it would indeed be static. Duh.

Wealth is not fixed. Total wealth can increase and decrease on a daily basis (like stock trading). It&#39;s only after a longer period of time (a year) that we can say that such-and-such percentage of growth occured.


What you fail to understand is that wealth is limited. You&#39;re such a ***** about definitions it gets to the point where people don&#39;t even want to debate with you.

[quincunx5]

What you fail to understand is that wealth is limited.


Where is your great scientific evidence?

You can&#39;t have any, because science is a major factor of growing wealth.

Why have we not reached this limit?
Any guess as to when we will reach it?

Wealth is unlimited. Pure and simple.



You&#39;re such a ***** about definitions it gets to the point where people don&#39;t even want to debate with you.


Definitions? I give practical examples of real life, you give me nothing except complaints.

No one asked you to debate me, feel free to stop participating any time.

[KC]

The point that wealth is unlimited right now is a load of shit, and that is what we are arguing. At a fixed point, wealth is limited. Someone can&#39;t earn &#036;5 google; why is that? Because there isn&#39;t enough wealth in the world. So saying that wealth is unlimited just because wealth fluctuates over time is retarded.

[quincunx5]

The point that wealth is unlimited right now is a load of shit, and that is what we are arguing.


Not at all.



At a fixed point, wealth is limited.


Well yes. Duh.



Someone can&#39;t earn &#036;5 google; why is that? Because there isn&#39;t enough wealth in the world.
So saying that wealth is unlimited just because wealth fluctuates over time is retarded.


Not taking time into account is retarded. Wealth is increased over time. Be it material wealth (goods and services) or human capital wealth (knowledge).

You can not rule out time&#33;

Wealth does not exist, it must be created.

[KC]

So do you think that it is possible for someone to have &#036;5 googol dollars?
If so, how?
If not, why not?

[quincunx5]

So do you think that it is possible for someone to have &#036;5 google dollars?
If so, how?
If not, why not?


Give me &#036;5 google dollars and I&#39;ll tell you. I&#39;m dead serious.

[RedCeltic]

There are many reasons why individuals become interested in class struggle, however essentially one can boil them down into two categories. Those inspired by personal struggle and strife and those motivated by intellectual curiosity and fads.

For people like me who belong in the first category, the writing has always been on the wall even though we haven’t always known what the solution is. You grow up seeing your parents struggling to get by from day to day and put food in your mouth. You see your neighbors evicted and thrown out in the street because their jobs have been moved overseas and they can’t find work. You see your friend’s mother pass away because she can not afford her medication and makes too much to get government assistance.

Everyday you see good hard working people harassed and treated like criminals because they possibly may not have papers to prove they have a right to work in this country. Than one day, war breaks out and you see your friends, (maybe even you) go off to kill some people in a foreign land. But when they come back things seem to be much worse for them yet to get any kind of help for illness cause by military service will take decades of court battles because our government isn’t ever wrong. Than your dear friend whose mother passed away and turned to heroine to deal with the pain is diagnosed with AIDS but any kind of cure is far off because GOD tells our president that he is punishing a deviant lifestyle.

Than one day you pick up a pamphlet or a book by some socialist thinker or other and a little switch in your head is clicked and a light goes on. Suddenly you see the writing on the wall that has always been there for you to see. (Mind you that the above are just examples and do not reflect any particular individual.)

The second category which is comprised of both the intellectual and the fad follower are not really from the working class yet have dove head first into ideology. Now to be fair, I have known some of this category that have been apt enough to see the writing on the wall. Most however seem to take to Marxism as others do to religion. Perhaps they like punk rock and were told that true punk rock fans are all anarchists, or perhaps they like the band Rage Against The Machine a bit more than is healthy. Whatever their reasons, for some the experience may be a profound one that can change their lives and perhaps define it like individuals such as Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Yet sadly, for many of them it is simply a phase in their lives they will look back on with amusement such as I do to the time I had long hair and an earring.

[KC]

Give me &#036;5 googol dollars and I&#39;ll tell you. I&#39;m dead serious.

ANSwer the question you fucking idiot

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:26 AM
ANSwer the question you fucking idiot
I know; that really annoyed me too but please reframe from flaming.

[quincunx5]

ANSwer the question you fucking idiot


I did, and I did it too well.

IF you want to know, then pay me &#036;5 for my services. Upon doing so, your question will be immediately solved.



I know; that really annoyed me too but please reframe from flaming.


Much kinder to your fellows, eh?

[KC]

I know; that really annoyed me too but please reframe from flaming.

I was drunk.



I did, and I did it too well.

IF you want to know, then pay me &#036;5 for my services. Upon doing so, your question will be immediately solved.


You still have yet to answer the question.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:41 PM
Much kinder to your fellows, eh?
You have a history of flaming and should know better; he was upset because you where avoiding the debate like usual. You have no case.

[quincunx5]

You have a history of flaming and should know better; he was upset because you where avoiding the debate like usual. You have no case.


That&#39;s brilliant. I didn&#39;t have a history until I got warning points. I have the perfect case: I answered his question, repeatedly.



You still have yet to answer the question.


Are you drunk again, or can you see that I have answered your question.

I can not earn &#036;5, until you give me the opportunity. You are not employing me.
The moment you employ me is the moment you will have your answer&#33;

Of course, in case you have not noticed, you employing me is taking quite some time.

[KC]

I said &#036;5 googol. I asked you if you think it&#39;s possible for someone to earn &#036;5 googol.


EDIT: Sorry, spelled "googol" wrong.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:06 PM
That&#39;s brilliant. I didn&#39;t have a history until I got warning points. I have the perfect case: I answered his question, repeatedly.
Bullshit&#33; I&#39;ve given you a verbal warning before and seen you consecutively flame. Again; PM me if you have proof otherwise, back to the topic (stop sidetracking).

[quincunx5]

I said &#036;5 googol. I asked you if you think it&#39;s possible for someone to earn &#036;5 googol.


No. Wealth must be created. Since that kind of wealth does not exist, it is simply not possible to earn it (assuming current price standards).

&#036;5 googol does not mean much. Ideally prices are set to some commodity standard.

If we set &#036;1 googol to be the price of bread, then yes today it&#39;s very easy for someone to earn 5 loaves of bread.

The only way this is possible is to offer a service to another human being in exchange for money to buy bread from a third party. Another way is for one to create the wealth themselves and trade it for the bread.

To clealy illustrate the concept of wealth, go back 400 years and offer a king his kingdom for your car. He might just accept such an offer.

No quincunx5, I&#39;ve been lenient; bring this up again and you get another warning point. Like I said, PM me if you have proof I am wrong and I will retract my statement. The history is in your post log for anyone to see.

[Marxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:07 AM
how am I a class traitor? does everybody who does not agree with communism and leftism a class traitor?
Yes , they are class traitors :angry: and we hate them

[Freedom Works]

To be a class traitor, classes would have to exist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 2 2005, 12:58 PM
To be a class traitor, classes would have to exist.
Stop spamming; make a point or don&#39;t make absurd assertions (esp. ones previously made&#33;).

[KC]

No. Wealth must be created. Since that kind of wealth does not exist, it is simply not possible to earn it (assuming current price standards).

&#036;5 googol does not mean much. Ideally prices are set to some commodity standard.

If we set &#036;1 googol to be the price of bread, then yes today it&#39;s very easy for someone to earn 5 loaves of bread.

So then wealth is limited.

[Freedom Works]

You have to read between the lines to realize I was trying to prompt y&#39;all to prove they exist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom Works+Oct 2 2005, 01:06 PM--> (Freedom Works &#064; Oct 2 2005, 01:06 PM) You have to read between the lines to realize I was trying to prompt y&#39;all to prove they exist. [/b]

Exactly, and that was already done but here you go:

social class

Social class refers to the ranking of people into a hierarchy within a culture. The idea of social class entered the English lexicon about the 1770&#39;s, with no specific originator. Many sociologists and historians see that "higher" classes control subordinate classes. At times, social class can be related to elitism, and those in the higher class are usually known as the "social elite". This ranking may be legal, as in former Indian castes, or abstract.

Various schools of sociology differ in postulating which social traits are significant enough to define a class. The relative importance and definition of membership in a particular class differs greatly over time and between societies, particularly in societies that have a legal differentiation of groups of people by birth or occupation. In the well-known example of socioeconomic class, many scholars view societies as stratifying into a hierarchical system based on economic status, wealth, or income.

[Freedom Works]

That doesn&#39;t prove anything, it&#39;s just an appeal to authority because some scholars think such things.

[quincunx5]

So then wealth is limited.


Someone can earn 5 loaves of bread, hence wealth is limited?

I do not follow your lack of logic. Unless your logic is lack of logic - then I get it.

[KC]

Let me rephrase that question:

Can someone earn &#036;5 googol in 2005USD?

[quincunx5]

Can someone earn &#036;5 googol in 2005USD?


How many times do you have to be told?

&#036;5 googol means nothing. Wealth is good and services.

One person can&#39;t earn more wealth today than exists today.

[KC]

So wealth is limited.

[Freedom Works]

Is creativity limited?

[quincunx5]

So wealth is limited.


I&#39;m working on a piece of software that will reduce my work time, allowing me to do other things with my time. I will have created wealth for myself. Has my wealth deprived you in any way?

Wealth is directly proportional to the amount of goods and services and the number of associations among the constituents that produce these goods and services.

The moment someone creates something new, there is a TIME factor of how long it will take to have this creation be placed in to the market, and how this new creation will assymetrically affect the individuals. This constant redistribution of human capital is a wealth generating machine.

Can you understand that knowledge is gained assymetrically and disproportionately?

[KC]

Can someone have &#036;5 googol at one point in their life? Answer the question. It&#39;s a yes or no question. It&#39;s quite simple.

[quincunx5]

No. It&#39;s meaningless.

[KC]

So then wealth is limited.

[quincunx5]

So then wealth is limited.


You&#39;re hopeless. Now answer:

Is creativty limited?

Is wealth created?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To be a class traitor, classes would have to exist.


True.

But let us hear from those who have switched side.

[KC]

You&#39;re hopeless. Now answer:

Is creativty limited?

Is wealth created?


Creativity is limited in the sense that one person can only be so creative in one lifetime. Wealth is created, but it is limited in the sense that it can only be created so fast. That is why I asked you if someone can have &#036;5 googol.

You agreed with me that wealth is fixed on any given day. So to a certain extent wealth must be limited not only on a daily basis, but also on a monthly basis, a yearly basis, a century basis, etc... This doesn&#39;t mean that wealth is fixed. This means that wealth is limited in the fact that it can only be created so fast. You asked me to prove that wealth is limited and that is just what I have done.

[quincunx5]

Creativity is limited in the sense that one person can only be so creative in one lifetime. Wealth is created, but it is limited in the sense that it can only be created so fast. That is why I asked you if someone can have &#036;5 googol.


A rate limit is not a absolute limit.

Creativity is multipled by all agents that take part in it. Creativity does not form in a vaccum.

&#036;5 googol has no meaning at all.



You agreed with me that wealth is fixed on any given day. So to a certain extent wealth must be limited not only on a daily basis, but also on a monthly basis, a yearly basis, a century basis, etc... This doesn&#39;t mean that wealth is fixed.


But what is the point of calling something limited if the limit is never reached? That is humans have never seemed to have reached it. Wealth keeps growing.

Should we give up all hope now because there is a given limit of mass & energy in the universe?



This means that wealth is limited in the fact that it can only be created so fast.


Different areas in different times had varying degrees of wealth creation. It&#39;s not uncommon
to have 50% economic growth in an area that was previosly devasted by war. During peace-time wealth creation is usually much less, about 2-4%.

The limitation of expansion is limited by our human abilities.



You asked me to prove that wealth is limited and that is just what I have done.


Not at all. You don&#39;t understand abstract concepts.

It used to be that a UNIX based OS had a limit to how many processes it can run concurrently. This was a 16 bit number, so the limit was 65536. Recently, this arbitrary limit was removed, it is now possible to have an unlimited number of processes in the abstract sense. The limit is still there, but it&#39;s the limitation that the computer itself imposes. In 10 years, a new computer will be able to handle more tasks. You see the diff?

Wealth is the number of processes that can run concurrently.