Commies Are In Trouble

[rachstev]

I am a layman when it comes to so many matters raised by discussions exapmled by those recently given.

I appreciate all of the information, but it still isn't getting to the heart of my issue:

I don't know whether I am a cappie, though I do support the existance of the United States of America and its achievements throughout its history.

After stating this, I am told that I should stop supporting an exploiting class, etc., and come on board with a new, socialist way of thinking.

OK, I got that part.

But my issue being raised is that, if I am to give up the Bill of Rights, Judicial Review, and great autonomy in my personal life, why should I do so when every experiment at this socialism has been turned into a capitalism without the rights mentioned above.

You commies are in trouble, especially if, after Castro kicks the bucket, Cuba becomes more capitalistic. It would mean that only a personality could hold together a revolution beyond the life of the early part of the revolution.

There are somethings I know that will happen, as sure as the sun will set:


On January 20, 2009, George W. Bush will no longer be President.

If the American people want to end the war in Iraq, they can stop finding it through Congress and President Bush could do nothing about, as he needs Congress to pass appropriation bills to pay for things.

Those parts of our laws which are offensive to the Bill of Rights will be declared unconstitutional, and this has, for example, already occurred in the case of two sections of the Patriot Act.

The Fourth Amendment and habeus corpus prevents incredible amounts of mischief by the state authorities, personal annecdotes from people posting here aside.



I don't see why I should trade this for a USSR, East Germany, China, or Vietnam, which appear to have the many of the same values in their economics, with none of the personal freedoms in the United States. Yes, we have corporations which are too powerful, but compared to the Omnipresent influence of the Party and Army in China and Vietnam, they are nothing.

You can brag about recent circumstances in Venezuela, but then we're back to personalities, aren't we. I mean, what's to stop the people of that nation from not re-electing the guy? Or, what's to assure me that after he's gone, another oppressive person won't come along?

Having faith that the next socialist leader won't go ga-ga, no thanks. I'll stick to our imperfections in the United States of America anyday.

Rachstev

[quincunx5]

I don't know whether I am a cappie, though I do support the existance of the United States of America and its achievements throughout its history.


America might have been freer than any other place, but it certainly is not as great as it can be. And in case you didn't notice the US is following the Socialist path.

The constituion was nothing but a sham emanting from the remaining loyal statists.



But my issue being raised is that, if I am to give up the Bill of Rights, Judicial Review, and great autonomy in my personal life, why should I do so when every experiment at this socialism has been turned into a capitalism without the rights mentioned above.


The Bill of Rights is hardly a gurantee of anything. It has been violated repeatedly since it's inception.

Judicial Review means nothing when it's in the hands of a monopolist.



If the American people want to end the war in Iraq, they can stop finding it through Congress and President Bush could do nothing about, as he needs Congress to pass appropriation bills to pay for things.


If the American people want to end state-mandated wars, they should just get rid of the president and congress all together.

[rachstev]

quincunx5,

You haven't addressed my major issue: Why should what we have be replaced, when, enentually, any Revolution of the socialist kind will be betrayed and become capitalism.

You notice this place is called RevolutionaryLeft.com. So, if you wish to convince people to become left, but all of the history shows that lefties merely become capitalistic and oppressive WITHOUT any rights that you believe are a sham, you have a major problem.

Can this be addressed?

Rachstev

[quincunx5]

You haven't addressed my major issue.


I had no intention to. Your correct view is obvious to me.



You notice this place is called RevolutionaryLeft.com. So, if you wish to convince people to become left,


The last thing I want is to convince people to become left.



but all of the history shows that lefties merely become capitalistic and oppressive
WITHOUT any rights that you believe are a sham, you have a major problem.


Why do you believe that these rights need to be secured by one central body.

Why do we need democracy in general, as it has shown to be nothing but tyranny of the majority?

[LSD]

There are somethings I know that will happen, as sure as the sun will set:


On January 20, 2009, George W. Bush will no longer be President.

Probably not, but then, as I recall, even Hitler had term limits.

Comparing politics to physics is never a good idea. ;)


If the American people want to end the war in Iraq, they can stop finding it through Congress and President Bush could do nothing about, as he needs Congress to pass appropriation bills to pay for things.

That assumes that the American people are in a position to make rational judgments based on all the facts. Furthermore, it assumes that the American election system is free and uncorrupt.

Clearly, neither is true.


I don't see why I should trade this for a USSR, East Germany, China, or Vietnam, which appear to have the many of the same values in their economics, with none of the personal freedoms in the United States.

You shouldn't.


But my issue being raised is that, if I am to give up the Bill of Rights, Judicial Review, and great autonomy in my personal life, why should I do so when every experiment at this socialism has been turned into a capitalism without the rights mentioned above.

You shouldn't "give up" those rights, you should inprove them!

Of course adopting Leninist "socialism" is never a good idea. At this point, that pretty much goes without saying.

But, by the same token, capitalist republicanism's flaws are equally apparent.

Judicial review, the bill of rights, all the protections you mention, they're all ways of reigning in the arbitrary power of the state. Leninists want to increase that power, they just want to change who holds it.

The more rational among us want to eliminate that power such that protections are no longer needed!

The fact is that all the legal mechanisms you cite are all, ultimately, only temporary solutions. They are an attempt to smooth out the implicit imbalance of power that comes with republicanism.

...and with capitalism.

On this front, your Constitution doesn't even begin to deal with the very real oppression that emerges from an economic system predicated on personal accumulation of wealth.

A "right to speech" is effectively meaningless when affective speech can only be delivered by those with "money".


If the American people want to end state-mandated wars, they should just get rid of the president and congress all together.

So instead of state-mandated wars, we'd have financially sponsored ones.

Good job.


Why do we need democracy in general, as it has shown to be nothing but tyranny of the majority?

Because it beats the tyranny of the minority, the only possible outcome of a libertarian or minarchist society.

[rachstev]

LSD,

I agree with one of your major points, that money imbalances what should be a more equal plaing field, and no one ahs been able to solve this problem, as the Supreme Court has linked money with speech. I don't believe they do this becuase they are cappie judges, but because they don't know where and how to draw the line, without better language to draw from within the Constitution.

I would like you to expound upon how President Bush could extend his term in office. I have heard this before and laugh at it. Remember, we don't have a parlimentarian system like Germany had and still has.

We have the Twenty-Second Amendment, and is has never been violated. How could it anyway. This is going to sound silly, but to get on the ballot in each state, one has to provide a sworn affidavit that one has not been president for two terms or more than six years (I'd give you the details on this but it's pretty boring stuff.) So G.W. Bush CAN'T get on any of the 50 state ballots in 2008, CAN'T collect electoral votes and therefore, CAN'T become president.

There has been several times a bill introduced to abolish the 22nd Amend, but it has not been introduced into one state house (you need 3/4 of them to approve of the bill, and 45% are controlled by the Democratic party, just do the math). You also need it to pass 2/3 of each theHouse of Representitives and Senate, and THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

I am waiting for someone to put their name behind a scenario that they believe is likely for the next 2 years that would allow G. W. Bush to be on the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT in 2008. That process has to begin by 2007. So those who believe our president will create an emergency and declare himself dictator (the army would't listen to him anyways, neither would the governors, or the Congress, or the American people).

Come on, LSD, take on this challenge.

Anyway, thanks for a very well reasoned response.

Rachstev

[quincunx5]

So instead of state-mandated wars, we'd have financially sponsored ones.
Good job.


There is no financial gain in destruction. It's antithetical to wealth accumulaton.

Means of production have many owners. They vote. They will vote for the biggest profit. Yet war will not bring them that, so they will channel their money into peaceful free enterprises.

Think about the difference of scale for example. Bill Gates has a total net worth of $48 billion. While the US spends $300+ billion in a YEAR! Plus the US has the power to print as much currency as it wants.



Because it beats the tyranny of the minority, the only possible outcome of a libertarian or minarchist society.


There is no tyranny. There is no minority, only free indivuals engaged in voluntary exchanges.
There is no monopoly legal system. You don't like where you are you just go somewhere else.
You are secured with private property.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 06:08 PM
America might have been freer than any other place, but it certainly is not as great as it can be.
Sorry but this comment caught me, but America is not the beacon of free trade it may claim to be, it is not number one in those terms either.

Rachstev, to your initial point: I guess I will just have to do the usual boring pointing out that Communism didn't exist in those countries if we are being true to the word. Similarily, the free market has never been established, ths mish-mash has proved fairly horrible. Capitalism is a system existing where workers are exploited by their employer. Marx coined the term, and systems falling under his umbrella, within reason, fit this term.

I guess what I am trying to say is that all that is wanted at least at the moment is the overthrow of the current system, the left and right wingers disagree about what would be best to employ as a system but the left do as well. Speaking up and keeping alive a sense of disent, in face of unjust systems, is pretty much the most that we can be said to hang on to at the moment. There is no unfied movement as such, and this is why places to discuss finer details exist, such as here.

The arguments proposed do not all seem perfect to me, but there is a tendency in what I agree with which is why I hold values I do. There are people taht live a very nice liestyle at the moment, but unfair inequality is the main problem.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The Fourth Amendment and habeus corpus prevents incredible amounts of mischief by the state authorities, personal annecdotes from people posting here aside.

COINTELPRO is a "personal annecdote"?

[h&s]

rachstev:

Having faith that the next socialist leader won't go ga-ga, no thanks. I'll stick to our imperfections in the United States of America anyday.

No true socialist relies on a great leader or a party to fix everything for them.
Socialism is about the rightful owners of a nation's wealth and production - the working class - being in control of that wealth and society as a whole.
Who says that this needs a large government to do this?
You fail to see that this needs the people to seize power themsleves - they do not need to pass it over completely to a party or a 'personality.,' hence that is why none of the countries you have mentioned are, or have been (except early Russia) socialist.
It is only when counter-revolution takes hold that the party becomes all-powerful and undemocratic, which unfortunatly happened in Russia.
However, today the ideas of Marx are widespread all over the globe. There are Marxists on every corner of the earth, and the chances are that when the first revolution happens, workers in other countries will be ready to back this up and seize power there aswell.
When that happens couter-revolution will have a large uphill struggle, as more and more workers see seizing power as the only solution.
That way no oppressive leader can take over, as the workers simply won't have any of it.
There will be no lack of freedom.

[LSD]

I agree with one of your major points, that money imbalances what should be a more equal plaing field

Unfortunately, that will always be the case within capitalism.


and no one ahs been able to solve this problem, as the Supreme Court has linked money with speech. I don't believe they do this becuase they are cappie judges, but because they don't know where and how to draw the line, without better language to draw from within the Constitution.

Well, for one thing, of course they're "cappie judges". That's not a derogatory statement, merely an expression of the univerally accepted fact that every member of the US Supreme Court is a capitalist.

If they weren't, they certainly never would have been confirmed!

They are operating from a capitalist paradigm within which the aforementioned "problem" never can be solved! There is no solution to wealth disparity within capitalism because capitalism iteslf is predicated on it. That means that, from their operating framework, this really is an insoluble problem, and it means that no matter how long they deliberate, they will never be able to come up with a remedy.

Neither will the Senate or the House or the President or any other institution which operates from within a capitalist republican world view. The government of the United States is itself an oppressive institution. Not as oppressive as the governments of, say, China or Pakistan, but oppressive nonetheless.

All governments are, by definition, the monopolization of force by an elite, regardless of how that elite justifies its position or how the members of the elite are appointed. The Senate cannot vote itself out of existance any more than a King can will himself into a pauper. Beyond the practical diffculties, they'll just never do it.

The same goes for capitalism. Those with power in the US, owe that power largely to capitalism. The politically successful get money and bennefit, the finnncially successful gain influence and bennefit.

Those who make the decisions are those who profit from the statue quo and, accordingly, will never act for change.

That's why this board is called Revolutionary Left. Not because we have any particular love for violence or chaos, but because we recognize the historical fact that for oppression to end it must be the oppressed who act.

No one else will.


I would like you to expound upon how President Bush could extend his term in office.

Oh, I don't think that he will.

I am firmly of the opinion that George Bush will be no longer be president come inauguration 2008. My point was merely that it is unrealistic to ever be "certain" in politics.

It's highly unlikely that Bush will manage to extend his term, but it's far more likely than that the earth will stop orbiting the sun.


So those who believe our president will create an emergency and declare himself dictator

Never going to happen. The US is far too subtle for that.

Besides, Bush himself is insignificant. He's merely the current representative for an ideological faction in Washington, one with far more willing spokespeople.

It honestly doesn't matter who sits in 1600 Pennsylvania, it matters what they believe.


There is no financial gain in destruction.

There's no net gain, but there's very often personal profit to be made.

If it takes a few deaths and some scortched earth to take over a particularly profitable mine or oilfield or factory, so what? In the end, it's a profitable venture.

It's called long-term investment. You pay now in terms of capital (guns) and human resources (dead soliders), but in the end you earn it back several times over. It's the hallmark of capitalism.


Means of production have many owners.

Sometimes. Sometimes there's one. Sometimes a majority is owned by a small rich elite.

Remember, 51% is still a majority. If that 51% is owned by a couple of people with a motivation to war ...we war.


Think about the difference of scale for example. Bill Gates has a total net worth of $48 billion.

48 Billion buys a lot of guns. In a state-less socity, it would also buy a lot of soliders.


There is no tyranny. There is no minority, only free indivuals engaged in voluntary exchanges.

And not so voluntary exchanges, as well.

Honestly, what's to stop the rich from exerting massive control without a state apparatus to reign them it?

If there's no non-commercial entity, what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people? If all security is on the market, then all security is on the market. Justice becomes a rich man's luxury.

As long as the economic system is predicated on the accumulation of material wealth, then people's priorities will be the accumulation of material wealth. It's not about "human nature", it's about economics. If there are no police, no courts, and no laws, why can't I kill anyone I want to? If I can afford to protect myself, who can touch me?

If people need to have money to live, to eat, to have shelter, if the only way that they can get things that they want is to accumulate money, then they will accumulate money. If they're desperate enough or antisocial enough, they'll even do terrible things to accumulate it. That's something that we see every day. Organized crime is as old as crime, do you really think that it would stop if the government went away? If we take away its only real opponent?

I mean, how are we even having this conversation? You want to keep private property, keep money, keep the market ...but not have any checks on it? You want to keep capital but remove law?


There is no monopoly legal system. You don't like where you are you just go somewhere else.

Assuming that you have the means to do so.

Besides, what says that anywhere else would be better? Different region, different warlord ...or should I say "CEO".

[quincunx5]

Sometimes. Sometimes there's one. Sometimes a majority is owned by a small rich elite.

Remember, 51% is still a majority. If that 51% is owned by a couple of people with a motivation to war ...we war.


Sometimes is not good enough. You think that sometimes there will be no wars under anarcho-communism?

I choose not to make such absurd claims. Humans are fallible regardless of what system they operate in.

OK, let's pretend the war is engaged. Knowing that everyone is different, do you think that everyone will put in as much money as the next? Do you think they will support one mode of combat over another?

At any point, they wish to stop the war, they merely STOP contributing to it!

Profiteers act quickly, Politicans act slowly. The moment anyone feels that the war is not going to bring them profit as they have hoped, they will pull out. There is no commitment. Don't pretend that a group of investors has the same goal - this only happens in politics.



There's no net gain, but there's very often personal profit to be made.


There is no net gain, but there is personal gain? This makes no sense, unless you mean "psychological" profit.



If it takes a few deaths and some scortched earth to take over a particularly profitable mine or oilfield or factory, so what? In the end, it's a profitable venture.


How exactly is that a profitable venture?

What you are saying is someone comes in to acquire an operating business, takes it over threw bloodshed, and continues to operate the business.

Why the need to do this? When you can just obtain the end products of the mine or oilfields?
Or why not just buy them out?

There is only profit in producing goods and services. By destroying some goods and services to later make the same goods and services is basically idiotic. Any profiteer can see this.



48 Billion buys a lot of guns. In a state-less socity, it would also buy a lot of soliders.


That's great and all, but if the trigger factory decides to object to war, you have no new guns. Same goes for all the other components that weapons require. Did you forget how division of labor works?

But let's assume that the individual component firms don't stop production. In fact they see that demand for weapons is on the rise. Well they will just jack up the price. Bill is going to find an army of 100s of armed soldiers, not 10000s.

This is what the markets can do, whereas the state can not.



Honestly, what's to stop the rich from exerting massive control without a state apparatus to reign them it?

If there's no non-commercial entity, what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people? If all security is on the market, then all security is on the market. Justice becomes a rich man's luxury.

As long as the economic system is predicated on the accumulation of material wealth, then, yeah, people's priorities will be the accumulation of material wealth. It's not about "human nature" it's about economics. If there are no police, no courts, and no laws, why can't I kill anyone I want to? If I an afford to protect myself, who can touch me?


There will be police, courts, and laws. But they would be on the market just like other services.
All of these will respect private property rights.

Don't tell me the elite will have all the force. The combined wealth of the elite (say, top 5%) is never any match for the rest of the population, especially in a society with high division of labor.

In fact, in such a society, getting extremely wealthy compared to others is very difficult. There are no monopolies created by the will of the state. The media will not spew statist propangda, because the air waves will not be centrally licensed and regulated.



If people need to have money to live, to eat, to have shelter, if the only way that they can get things that they want is to accumulate money, then they will accumulate money. If they're desperate enough or antisocial enough, they'll even do terrible things to accumulate it. That's something that we see every day.


People are free to find and claim private property on their own, as long as someone else hasn't.
Should you have no success in the big city, pack your bags and go to the open country.

Money accumulation doesn't come from the printing press, it comes from serving as many people as possible for the best price.



Organized crime is as old as crime, do you really think that it would stop if the government went away? If we take away its only real opponent?


Oh please, modern government is biggest crime syndicate known to mankind.
So yes, the biggest organized crime sysndicates would go away if we abolished them.

There is only one real law to follow - do not violate another person's private property (including self). This is something the market can provide and has indeed provided in the past.



I mean, how are we even having this conversation? You want to keep private property, keep money, keep the market ...but not have any checks on it? You want to keep capital but remove law?


The market checks itself. The market has always had it's own laws, and the result has been benefitial to mankind.

Creating a system above the market, creates a monopoly in the market. So there is no real assurance of "checks" there either. The point is if you are not satisfied with one area of the market, you move somewhere to your liking.



Assuming that you have the means to do so.


Everyone does. And everyone can get a loan to do so. You wouldn't move if you didn't think it to be benefitial.



Besides, what says that anywhere else would be better? Different region, different warlord ...or should I say "CEO".


I can't explaint the benefits of an unhampered market if you assume that it consists of nothing but monopolies.

Do you really think that TWO RICH men always agree? Get real.

[rachstev]

h&s,

Yeah, yeah, bladdie bladdie bladdie, we all know that. we all know WHAT marxism and socialism is supposed to be,

and yes, LSD, we know there would be no rulers or tyranny, blah, blah, blah...


What a beautiful picture all of you paint.

BUT,

Remember...

There were others who read all of these books, too...

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and they all grabbed the power.

While I KNOW, let me say again, I KNOW, that any Marxist leader will eventually grab the power and exploit it and abuse it (American thinkers argued this also in the 1780's which is why they argued to cheque one power against another power).

What I never expected was just how many would turn to capitalism. That's the real mind-bender.

Oh, well...

May be one day we'll have a commie that stays a commie.

Rachstev

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:21 PM


While I KNOW, let me say again, I KNOW, that any Marxist leader will eventually grab the power and exploit it and abuse it (American thinkers argued this also in the 1780's which is why they argued to cheque one power against another power).

What I never expected was just how many would turn to capitalism. That's the real mind-bender.

Oh, well...

May be one day we'll have a commie that stays a commie.

Rachstev
lsd is an anarchist. that means no hierarchy, as in no way for mao or stalin to gain power. the americans thinkers were afraid of power? well yes they were, they were afraid of a single ruler, and they were afraid of democracy, at first you had to own land to vote. sounds to me like a semi-feudal faction rule, the faction is ironic since they were against that too.

[Freedom Works]

Anarchy does not mean no heirarchy, it means no rulers (defined as someone you cannot seceed from).

[LSD]

rachstev,


and yes, LSD, we know there would be no rulers or tyranny, blah, blah, blah...

I see you've given up on the rational part of rational debate.

:(


Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and they all grabbed the power.

Yes they did. So what?

There have been dictators who claimed to be communist, there have been dictators who claim to be capitalist, there have been dictators who claim to be democrats, there have been dictators who claim to be populists.

Again, so what?


While I KNOW, let me say again, I KNOW, that any Marxist leader will eventually grab the power and exploit it and abuse it

Your obvious hyperbole notwithstanding, that's precisely the reason that we should not abide rulers of any form.

It doesn't take a "Marxist" leader to exploit and abuse power, just a leader.


quincunx5,


You think that sometimes there will be no wars under anarcho-communism?

Not to the same scale as today, no.

Without the need to accumulate capital, it will be virtually impossible to conivince soldiers to fight for you.


At any point, they wish to stop the war, they merely STOP contributing to it!

That's assuming that they are "contributing to it".

Again, in your "ideal", it's only the rich who have a vote. The poor, the homeless, the people who stand to actually suffer from war, don't have a say.


There is no net gain, but there is personal gain? This makes no sense, unless you mean "psychological" profit.

There is no net gain for society, but there is potential personal gain for the person who started it. They can, for instance, gain great political power which is often a reward in and of itself.

They may honestly not care if it costs them a couple of billion dollars to exert their control over a sizeable chunk of land. After all, once they have an army and land, they can start giving orders.

Answer me, if General Bill Gates wants to build himself a personal army and take over Seattle, what's to stop him? If he's got planes and tanks and troops and guns, what the hell is the civilian population going to do about it?

Well, don't hurt yourself wondering, because we have 5,000 years of human history to look upon. They'll surrender.

It's called a warlord, and it can be found across the world and across history. In parts of Africa, they are no more than guys with jeeps and AK47s but it's enough if they scare and coerce and pay enough people to fight for them.

If there is no central authority with a monopoly on force, how can such influence be resisted?

If General Gates is offering 60k a year plus bennefits to join his squad and my job at the plant is only paying me 30, why wouldn't I sign on? How about for the truly desperate, you know, the unemployed? Why wouldn't they jump at the chance for a paying job and a good life?

If you have money, you have power. That's always true in capitalist societies. Taking away the government only makes money stronger. That means flowers and puppy dogs for the rich, warlords for the rest of us.


Why the need to do this? When you can just obtain the end products of the mine or oilfields?
Or why not just buy them out?

Because if the item in question really is that profitable, it will quite possibly be cheaper to take it by force than to buy it.

...or maybe it just seems that way.

Remember, humans are falible and make mistakes. If a particularly brutish fellow thinks that it's a good idea to use his considerable wealth to build up an army and take by force ...who's going to stop him?

It doesn't matter if he's incorrect in his profit analysis, the point is that it will happen sooner or later. And when it does, you have no mechanism in place to control it.


That's great and all, but if the trigger factory decides to object to war, you have no new guns.

The "factory" doesn't get a say, only the owner of the factory does. And he stands to make a tiddy profit from the war. He can, as you said, raise prices to accomodate new demand. Why on earth would he object to that!?


There will be police, courts, and laws. But they would be on the market just like other services.

:lol:

Well, that's just plain ludicrous!

court for sale? :P

Exactly what's to stop these "courts" and "laws" from being entirely in the pockets of those with the cash to bribe them?

More importantly, exactly what will stop those with said cash from killing anyone who gets in their way?

Seriously, if I'm a billionaire and I hire a hitter to take out my business rival and then retire to my private estate, who can touch me? Since you can't violate my "private property" you can't arrest me. Since the courts are on the market, you can't indite me, and since the police are all for sale, they won't touch me.

The only remedy available to my other competitors, who are know worried aobut their safety, is to try to take me out too ...by any means available.

Oh look, chaos. <_<


There is only one real law to follow - do not violate another person&#39;s private property (including self).

And who will enforce this law?


This is something the market can provide and has indeed provided in the past.


How and when?


I can&#39;t explaint the benefits of an unhampered market if you assume that it consists of nothing but monopolies.

I don&#39;t, I assume that it is predicated on inequality and that capitalism, by definition, creates loosers and winners.

That is, some people will always have more money than others, and in a society in which "everything is on the market", those people with money have more power than those without.

Political power doesn&#39;t "go away" if you eliminate government. Governance still needs to be done; decisions still need to be made. If you eliminate the state, but maintain fundamental inequalities in society, then the important decisions will transfer from state deputies to "captains of industry".

Not exactly an improvement.


Don&#39;t tell me the elite will have all the force. The combined wealth of the elite (say, top 5%) is never any match for the rest of the population

It doesn&#39;t need to be. It just needs to be a match for the rest of the population individually.

Unless you&#39;re talking about some kind of popular revolution, that is. ;)


The market checks itself.

No, it most assuredly doesn&#39;t.

Ever heard of a little compnay called Enron?

What&#39;s to stop scams like that in the "unregulated" market? What&#39;s to stop more serious crimes like Coke&#39;s war on civil rights in the third world?

What&#39;s to stop companies from killing union leaders who pose a threat to their profits?

Christ, man, they are doing it today&#33; You really think that they would stop if you eliminate government?


Oh please, modern government is biggest crime syndicate known to mankind.

Yes it is, but at least it keeps the little ones in check.

You eliminate government (and keep capitalism) and all those "little" crime syndicates will grow and grow and grow until one day they&#39;re pretty damn big themselves.

Organized crime (the not state-sponsored kind) isn&#39;t going to go away if we eliminate institutionalized governance, it&#39;s going to thrive.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 22 2005, 05:14 PM
Anarchy does not mean no heirarchy, it means no rulers (defined as someone you cannot seceed from).
no rulers, as in no one ruleing you, as in YOU RULE YOURSELF. want isnt anti hierarchy about that?

[Freedom Works]

Anarcho-capitalism is against involuntary hierarchy, which is not crazy.
Anarcho-collectivism is against hierarchy, which is crazy, as division of labor necessarily is hierarchical.

[LSD]

Anarcho-capitalism is against involuntary hierarchy

No it isn&#39;t. Capitalist hierarchy isn&#39;t "voluntary", you&#39;re born into it.

Capitalism needs hierarchy to survive, regardless of whether people "volunteer" for it or not.

[quincunx5]

Not to the same scale as today, no.

Without the need to accumulate capital, it will be virtually impossible to conivince soldiers to fight for you.


Since we both preach for truly free societies, there is nothing to stop inviduals from acting in their best interests. That is under anarchy, you will be free to engage in communism and/or capitalism. You will find that under anarchy, capitalism would be the prefered form. Capitalism has enriched the lives of everyone practicing it, this you can not deny. History clearly shows that capitalism has lifted us by the bootstraps.

You on the one hand feel that communism ascends from capitalism and makes everything better. I on the other hand do not think that capitalism needs to end - it will continue to improve our lives, as long as government is at it&#39;s weakest.

What would prevent individuals in a anarcho-communist society from engaging in war? Mere written laws?



That&#39;s assuming that they are "contributing to it".

Again, in your "ideal", it&#39;s only the rich who have a vote. The poor, the homeless, the people who stand to actually suffer from war, don&#39;t have a say.


Any enterprise that engages in killing its customers is going to find itself in financial ruin.



There is no net gain for society, but there is potential personal gain for the person who started it. They can, for instance, gain great political power which is often a reward in and of itself.


There is no politics in anarcho-capitalism. There is no "policy" to be set. You do not control the actions of your consumers, they have the free will to go to another business. And I assure you they will go to the ones that don&#39;t wage wars.



It&#39;s called a warlord, and it can be found across the world and across history. In parts of Africa, they are no more than guys with jeeps and AK47s but it&#39;s enough if they scare and coerce and pay enough people to fight for them.


You call Africa a capitalist society with private property rights? Get real. The warlords are supported by corrupt governments. The same ones we keep giving foreign aid to. The confused leftists don&#39;t understand this, but I think you do.



If there is no central authority with a monopoly on force, how can such influence be resisted?


IF there is a central authority with monopoly on force, how can such power be trusted?
We should just trust them by the "laws" the monopolist sets?



If General Gates is offering 60k a year plus bennefits to join his squad and my job at the plant is only paying me 30, why wouldn&#39;t I sign on? How about for the truly desperate, you know, the unemployed? Why wouldn&#39;t they jump at the chance for a paying job and a good life?


You are not seeing the bigger picture. 90% of Gates&#39; wealth is tied up into one asset: Microsoft.
One measely missle will destroy his financial wealth. It won&#39;t matter how many soldiers he&#39;s got.

Oh, and one more thing. His squad has no obligation to perform their duties. The free market courts will support their action not to engage in violating private property rights of others.

In free market courts, you have no idea who the judge or the jury will be ahead of time. There is no officials to bribe, and there will be numerous appeals, if you are not satisfied with the ruling. But I assure you that respect of others&#39; private property will be the general rule of law accross the land.



If you have money, you have power. That&#39;s always true in capitalist societies. Taking away the government only makes money stronger. That means flowers and puppy dogs for the rich, warlords for the rest of us.


Yes, but you get your money by satisfying your customers, not killing them.

Indeed, taking away the government&#39;s power to print money, does make money stronger. But this is a good thing. The poor are always the ones who suffer the most from inflation.



Remember, humans are falible and make mistakes. If a particularly brutish fellow thinks that it&#39;s a good idea to use his considerable wealth to build up an army and take by force ...who&#39;s going to stop him?

It doesn&#39;t matter if he&#39;s incorrect in his profit analysis, the point is that it will happen sooner or later. And when it does, you have no mechanism in place to control it.


There are many market mechanisms to stop him. His wealth is still contingent on satisfying his consumers.

There is no mechanism in anarcho-communism, except to fight back. But that option is always present in any society.



The "factory" doesn&#39;t get a say, only the owner of the factory does. And he stands to make a tiddy profit from the war. He can, as you said, raise prices to accomodate new demand. Why on earth would he object to that&#33;?


Raising prices does not raise revenue. Your buyer can still only allocate a fixed number of capital. This buyer will get less. Then his buyer will get less, etc. until your army is practically non-existant.

Again, your soldiers have no moral obligation to fight for you. They can just take your money and leave. Today&#39;s soldiers do not have that option. The government will just tax the people or inflate the money supply to pay for capturing these "deserters". A "warlord" will not have such means.



Exactly what&#39;s to stop these "courts" and "laws" from being entirely in the pockets of those with the cash to bribe them?


Because judges will be controlled by the public. Just like the electronic market has "reviews" and "ratings" so too will judges. Should they wish to continue their profession they will have to be accepted by the public as fair and impartial judges.



More importantly, exactly what will stop those with said cash from killing anyone who gets in their way?


Nothing. What is to stop them now? or in anarcho-communism?
Writing a law on a piece of paper does not deter this activity.



Seriously, if I&#39;m a billionaire and I hire a hitter to take out my business rival and then retire to my private estate, who can touch me? Since you can&#39;t violate my "private property" you can&#39;t arrest me. Since the courts are on the market, you can&#39;t indite me, and since the police are all for sale, they won&#39;t touch me.


Don&#39;t be stupid. You can violate someone&#39;s "private property" if they violated someone else&#39;s.
My apologies for not making this clear earlier.



Ever heard of a little compnay called Enron?


Yes. The investors were the first to recognize that someting fishy was going on. Not the government. Third party courts would have sided on the part of the outside investors. Judge&#39;s again will have to submit to generic market standards (controlled by people) of what constitutes fraud.



That is, some people will always have more money than others, and in a society in which "everything is on the market", those people with money have more power than those without.


And what can one do with this magical "power"? Bring more goods and services on the market&#33;

The "power" only remains so long as you keep satisfying your customers.



What&#39;s to stop companies from killing union leaders who pose a threat to their profits?


Companies are under no obligation to hire or keep unionized labor. They don&#39;t have to kill anyone.

There are no "patents", so the unionized labor is free to engage in its own commmunal free enterprise.



What&#39;s to stop more serious crimes like Coke&#39;s war on civil rights in the third world?


Well since our government supports it, and foreign governments support it, it continues.
Without their support, the third party judges will rule in favor of supporting private property rights. This is a win for the third world.



You eliminate government (and keep capitalism) and all those "little" crime syndicates will grow and grow and grow until one day they&#39;re pretty damn big themselves.

Organized crime (the not state-sponsored kind) isn&#39;t going to go away if we eliminate institutionalized governance, it&#39;s going to thrive.


Why does organized crime exist? The point of organized has never been to kill people (it&#39;s not profitable to kill), it&#39;s always been to provide a good or service that
the government arbitrarily chose to take away.

When the government takes away a person&#39;s right to pay for a good or service, it invites people who give two shits about the law to come in and charge whatever fucking price they want for the good or service.

Consider some examples:

The bootleggers made their fortunes from providing alcohol during the prohibition. This was actually the big emergence of organized crime syndicates in the US.
Is selling alcohol a really profitable bussiness worth killing some for? The liquor store owner down the street from me doesn&#39;t seem to be raking in big time, and I&#39;m sure neither is any other liquor merchant.

In the US, 60% of Crime is drug-related. Why is that? Drug Laws. By prohibiting people from buying drugs, you invite the organized crime syndicates to come in and provide it. Because of the highly addictive nature of drugs, and because of the high prices that one has to pay to get it -- they will commit other crimes like burglary and petty theft to pay for it. They may even kill for it. Repeal the drug laws, and you will find that no syndicates need to come in, and no crime will need to get commited to purchase the dirt cheap drugs.

Making prostitution illegal has put the sellers on the street instead of special houses or clubs.

Making gambling illegal in one place but not another, has concentrated wealth in the area where it&#39;s legal. Las Vegas was not built purely by the market, it was lawfully decreed.

Victimless crimes should not be crimes. Crime syndicates can&#39;t "thrive" if everything victimless is legal.



No it isn&#39;t. Capitalist hierarchy isn&#39;t "voluntary", you&#39;re born into it.
Capitalism needs hierarchy to survive, regardless of whether people "volunteer" for it or not.


You think you will eliminate hierarchy in anarcho-communism?

One can always come up with theoretical "hierarchies" of sorts to suit their debating needs.

In an anarcho-capitalist society you are free to claim unused land to make it your private property. Let&#39;s say you do so somewhere in the open country. You have farming and grazing space. Are you still under some hierarchy (by your definition)?

[LSD]

That is under anarchy, you will be free to engage in communism and/or capitalism.

Unfortunately, that isn&#39;t true.

One cannot "engage" in communism in a capitalist society. For one thing, most of the key resources are held by the very capitalists from which one is trying to escape. The same is true for most of the land and infastructure.

That isn&#39;t to say that we wouldn&#39;t try, however&#33; If this libertarian revolution (and, yeah, it would have to be a revolution) ever happened, believe you me, we&#39;d be right there to set up a truly free society.

Don&#39;t kid yourself, though. They&#39;ll always be two societies, freedom and exploitation can never coexist&#33;


What would prevent individuals in a anarcho-communist society from engaging in war?

Again, without the nescessity for accumulating wealth, there is no concievable way to coerce potential soldiers to fight and die.



Any enterprise that engages in killing its customers is going to find itself in financial ruin.

Not nescessarily. It depends on how many it kills, why it does so, and the results of said killing.

If killing 100 people means the destruction of a rival company and the addition of 1000 customers, then it most certainly was worth it.

That&#39;s the problem with the "market", it&#39;s all a matter of numbers, and in real life very often killing people helps the numbers.


There is no politics in anarcho-capitalism.

Of course there is. Politics cannot be eliminated, they can only be dispersed.

Rules still need to be made, society still needs to be goverened. Whether its done by consensus or plebiscide or representative or monarch or the "market", politics will always exist.


The warlords are supported by corrupt governments.

Sometimes, but usually not.

Look at Somalia in the 90s, for example. No government, no state, plenty of warlords. The same is true for much of Afghanistan durring the same period.

Warlords do not need external funding to operate. Again, sometimes they&#39;re just a guy with a jeep and a rifle. If he&#39;s charismatic enough or brutal enough or lucky enough (and has some spare cash lying around), he can get himself a chunk of land.


IF there is a central authority with monopoly on force, how can such power be trusted?

It can&#39;t&#33;

The state is an inherently corrupt and coercive institution which is only nescessary because the nature of capitalism requires it.

If we get rid of the latter, we can get rid of the former.

Otherwise, we&#39;re pretty much stuck with it. A centralized monopoly on force may not be "trustworthy" but it&#39;s a hell of a lot better than the chaos of anarcho-capitalism.

An organized police force may be undersirable, I&#39;ll grant you that, but it&#39;s more preferrable than the random vigilante justice and warlord rule of a society without law but inherent inequality.

Look at it this way, capitalism creates inequality by definition. The state serves to counterbalance these inequalities by, at least in theory, treating each member of society equally. Therefore certain rights and privileges are afforded to everyone regardless of position or station or wealth.

Without that institutionalized state, position and station and wealth becomes all that matters.


You are not seeing the bigger picture. 90% of Gates&#39; wealth is tied up into one asset: Microsoft.

So, as you&#39;re so fond of telling us, he can take out a loan.


Oh, and one more thing. His squad has no obligation to perform their duties.

Of course they do. They stop following orders, they stop getting paid. They stop getting paid, they starve.

Isn&#39;t that the "material incentive" you cappies are so proud of?


The free market courts will support their action not to engage in violating private property rights of others.

So what? Are they going to pay our hapless soldier more than the 60k (plus dental) he&#39;s getting from Herr General Gates?


In free market courts, you have no idea who the judge or the jury will be ahead of time.

Why not? Someone has to make the assignments. Why wouldn&#39;t they let old Gatesey know before the trial? You know, put a few grand in their pockets. It&#39;s not like they can be charged with bribery&#33;


There is no officials to bribe

um... the judge?


and there will be numerous appeals

Which will be entirely meaningless, seeing as this "free market" court is utterly without power&#33;


There are many market mechanisms to stop him. His wealth is still contingent on satisfying his consumers.

Which he&#39;ll do.

People won&#39;t stop using windows just because he&#39;s declared himself warlord, if anything it will increase sales&#33;


Raising prices does not raise revenue. Your buyer can still only allocate a fixed number of capital. This buyer will get less. Then his buyer will get less, etc. until your army is practically non-existant.

If that scenario were true, then nothing would ever be sold ever.

Haven&#39;t you ever heard of the equilibrium point? The price of the commodity in question balances out such that both the producer and consumer are willing.

In this case, the gun maker will indeed raise prices, but no unrealistically high that the buyer will move to a different factory. The factory owner needs to make a profit too, remember.


Again, your soldiers have no moral obligation to fight for you. They can just take your money and leave.

But then they&#39;ll never get paid again, so what&#39;s the point?

If you&#39;re that concerned that they&#39;ll jump ship, you can just pay them weekly. That way they never make enough at one time to run.

Honestly, you&#39;re not making sense. If, under capitalism, workers (be they soldiers of widget-makers) had no motivation to keep working ...why would they keep working?

Isn&#39;t your entire ideolgical theory predicated on the assumption that people only will work for personal material gains?


Because judges will be controlled by the public.

These judges, the "market" ones, who pays for them?


Nothing. What is to stop them now?

Nothing&#33; :lol:

...well, except the fear of jail / execution, of course.

Yeah, it happens now, but not nearly as much as it could. Take away government and keep capitalism and just watch the bodycount rise.


or in anarcho-communism?

Anarcho-communism is an equal society. No one has the ability to coerce others to kill for them nor to escape justice should they kill themselves.

In an libertarian society, those with money can easily hire others to kill enemies, while those without can only be killed.


Don&#39;t be stupid. You can violate someone&#39;s "private property" if they violated someone else&#39;s.

Says who?

How am I any more able to violate in response to violation than in initiation?

That is, if force is entirely dispersed, then my ability to violate your "rights" are not contingent on ...anything&#33;

If I have the stronger force I can do it anytime I damn well please, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

This idealistic moralism you have is cute, but completely impractical. Don&#39;t you understand that if there is not central authority, any laws, any rules, any principles, are entirely at the whim of money. If I have a bigger axe than you ...you die, and there is absolutely no legal system to put me away.


And what can one do with this magical "power"? Bring more goods and services on the market&#33;

There&#39;s nothing magic about it.

Mao may have been an imperialist prick, but he was right about one thing. Political power does spring from the barrel of a gun. In your "ideal", it will be the right with all the barrels. Political power will inevitable follow.

What will they use this power for? Well, whatever they want to&#33;


Companies are under no obligation to hire or keep unionized labor. They don&#39;t have to kill anyone.

:lol:

Do you think that Coke is killing union leaders because they&#39;re "obligated" to hire unions? They&#39;re doing it because these leaders are trying to unionize their workers.

It&#39;s much cheaper to take out one "rabble-rouser" then to have to hire a whole new floor.


Victimless crimes should not be crimes.

On this, at last, we entirely agree.


Crime syndicates can&#39;t "thrive" if everything victimless is legal.

"victimless" is the key word here. Organized crime will simply move on to crimes with victims.

You know, theft, stock scams, intimidation, extortion, loansharking, murder for hire, etc...


You think you will eliminate hierarchy in anarcho-communism?

That&#39;s the general idea, yeah.


In an anarcho-capitalist society you are free to claim unused land to make it your private property.

There&#39;s hardly any unused land now&#33; How much left do you think there will be after 20 years of your conquistador policy? ...then what?

[bed_of_nails]

The American people cannot stop the war in Iraq by not funding congress. Nobody gets the freedom to say "I dont agree with what this country is doing. I will stop paying taxes".

[bezdomni]

Freedom. A very strange idea.

Freedom in America is merely an illusion. Americans have always thought of their country as a great beacon of freedom. Then they allowed people to practice or not practice religion freely. Then they stopped enslaving africans and muslims. Then people were sometimes allowed to say bad things about the government.Then they allowed black people to vote. Then they allowed women to vote. Then they allowed some workers to organize. Then they allowed people to drink again. Then people were able to talk bad about the government again.

These "freedoms" that commies such as myself apparently "take for granted" are constantly changing. You think you are free today? Come back in 500 years. You still think you are free today? Go back 200 years&#33; Everybody thought they had the right to own slaves, that women had no rights to vote and that nobody had the right to not practice the protestant christian faith.

The only true doctrine that allows for freedom is the socialist doctrine. We don&#39;t worship dictators who say they are communist nearly as much as you worship the people that you "elect" to oppress you who say they allow freedom.

The first country on Earth that allowed all people to vote was Bolshevik Russia. However, this right was somewhat compromised with the Stalinist "coup" of central democracy.

North Korea, Vietnam, China...all of these places are jokes. They use communism to justify their actions just as Bush uses the war against terrorism to justify his. There is no difference in their actions, only the justifications thereof.

[rachstev]

OK,

I’ve been having fun writing this “Opposing Ideologies” forum for a couple of weeks now and have decided to leave.

Recently, I received a third “point” for being a bad boy, and was warned by NoXion about bringing harm to the members. I was also suspended for 48 hours, but, ironically, I didn’t know about it beause it happened on Friday afternoon and I didn’t return to the forum until Monday morning.

It had the effect of the suspension that never was.

I am now at 60% warning and have no interest in being so outragiously deferential, especieally where I can’t “defend myself” by commenting back in similar fashion, that I will not hang around here and become some kind of whipping boy for this forum, where things can be herld at me, but I am unable to return a blow.

While I realize the place is RevolutionaryLeft.COM (there’s something weird abou that, isn’t there, Revolutionary Left, dot COM. And they sell t-shirts. Wonder what Che would think of that? There is a profit margin there, me thinks) the organizers did put up the OI area for, presumably, people such as myself.


After reading many of the previous posts I have come to the conclusion (I don’t care it this sounds like a conceit) that the board is not prepared for someone such as myself.

I think that OI has been created for commies to rant on cappies, and that where an educated cappie brings up issues that cappies can’t resolve, they freak, and get mad, and take their toys and go home.

Consider the forum leader, VoteForMarx, with a bunch of letters for his handle. He is angry about a lot of stuff, and gets even more angry where someone disgrees with him. He has intelligence and well reasoned postions, but his anger over American’s mere existance has clouded every question I have put to him. Where I point out to him that there are non-European Americans once exploited by others (decendants or former slaves, Mexican-Americans, etc.) he simply puts them down as class traitors.

Listen, 3XLGBT-CP3O-Vote-4-Marx, your main problem is that you ONLY see the United States through workers v. the power structure, and American has that aspect, but is not only about that.

Your biggest blunder, in your exibiting your own misunderstanding of your own nation, is that we are NOT a story of workers v. capital, regardless of what you, Howard Zinn, and your sounding board. It is amazing that someone so intelligent has missed one of the greatest understandings about the United States, and perhaps to a lesser degree, Europe.

In your final comments to me you constantly interjected that workers caused progressive movement in the United States. Any, ANY, social scientist who has studied the history of the United States will tell you that the liberal, middle class, led by the upper middle class, have been responsible for social progress in America.

Major examples include: 1) ending child labor; 2) abolitionsim in northers states; 3) creation of the eight hour day (granted, aided by labor protest); 4) the end of TB in the U.S.; 5) the spread of information about birth control; 6) public education; 7) women’s federal right to vote (though it may havee come earlier in your state, Nebraska, as it came to Wyoming in the 1800’s, remember this is a state decision before 1920); 8) urban planning...THE LIST IS ENDLESS&#33;&#33;&#33; The civil rights movment was designed and implimented by the middle class blacks and more affluent whites. PERIOD. The “workers” of American were not leading the way to end Jim Crow.

I could go on but you get the point. Whether you wish to accept it is anohter thing. (Didn’t they require this in college??&#33;? Every educated person knows this about American history.) As I stated, your hatred of the United States has blinded you. I am sorry for that. You are very smart, but it clouds your judgment.

I have decided to continue flying my flag. I have made this decision of the basis of the following:

1. I recently took a walk through a community of homes in Carson, California, as my son, he is 8 BTW, had a football game there. Many people were plying their flags. Carson is a city known for great ethnic and financial diversity.

2. Did you see the pre-game show of the San Diego Chargers v. the Pittsburgh Steelers? That was fucking awsome&#33;

3. I don’t think you could make a beer commercial without an American flag. I don’t know why this is true, but is seems to be the case.

I wish you good luck, CP3O. And good fortune.

If you are interested, I happen to beieve that, in fact, there is a battle coming over the secession of certain areas of the United States. I will personally lead the army that will destroy any actions by such traitors. Perhaps we will meet on such a field.

Until that time,

[email protected]



NoXion,

You, Sir, are an asshole. There, give me two more marks and ban me. I love your attitude. You call me a cum stain while disagreeing with my point of view, then give me a bad boy point and tell me not to abuse members, where you will not identify them.

I can only presume that you were “punishing” me because I wrote the humorous comment that Commie Girl’s keyborad was broken, as she keeps typing U&#036; for US. I even joked myself about this by signing it Rach&#036;tev.

Commie Girl, who needs no protection by the way, and she and I have exchanged mail w/ one another, wishes I become more of a world view person. I wrote quite elloquently on defending the authority of the United States Constitution, and how its authority, as interpreted by the Supreme Court WAS THE AUTHORITY of the land.

It is a lost cause for Commie Girl that I become more worldly, and that I accept the Constitution as being less that what it is.

I suppose here is my cardinal sin and reason for my continuously receiveing points, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU WILL WRITE OR REPLY:

You wish the OI board only have “preachers”, idiots who spout off pro-American crap and dicks showing pics othemselves in t-shirts who live in trailers in red states.

The fact that someone uses the constitution to demonstrate the absurdity of your attempt to leftist revolution probably bothers you beyond measure.

As I don’t expect you to turn your point of view into action, but presume you will be cowaring in your bed when the Revolution comes to Wales, let alone fight in America (unless there’s a video game version of Revolution In America, then I suppose you’ll win in Virtual Reality world.)

I don’t worry about you stabbing your bayonet into anything.

I think your problems stem from one or more of the following:

1. two inches

2. have not been laid in years (see 1)

3. you need to upgrade your Scotch to a better brand

4. you were turned down in requesting to participate in Beltane festival in Scotland this year (I was not turned down, and yes, it was a fucking orgy) (see 1)

5. you didn’t pass eighth grade promotion exam. Again.

6. you’re not an American (probably the root of many issues you have)

7. you take yourself and your cause seriously

8. the Royal Family keeps fucking up

9. no American flag ot fly (contact Vote4Mrax, he’s hording them to sell for bonfires.)

10. your boyfriend left you (see 1)


I’d wish you good luck, but you’d squander it.



To the rest of you, the very best. I enjoyed the fun.

Rachstev

[ComradeOm]

We&#39;ve lost a capi? But they&#39;re so cute with their outdated ideas and willingness to oppress :(

[Xvall]

And in case you didn&#39;t notice the US is following the Socialist path.

Lol.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You, Sir, are an asshole. There, give me two more marks and ban me. I love your attitude. You call me a cum stain while disagreeing with my point of view, then give me a bad boy point and tell me not to abuse members, where you will not identify them.

If you&#39;re upset by random strangers on the internet insulting you, you need to grow some thicker fucking skin.


I can only presume that you were “punishing” me because I wrote the humorous comment that Commie Girl’s keyborad was broken, as she keeps typing U&#036; for US. I even joked myself about this by signing it Rach&#036;tev.

You PMed a member with a bullshit message about broken keyboards. CG contacted me expressing concerns over your behaviour, with which I concurred. You were being an annoying prick by PMing her about her "broken keyboard". I gave you points for that, and you decide to throw a hissy fit. Not my problem.


Commie Girl, who needs no protection by the way, and she and I have exchanged mail w/ one another,

Liar.


As I don’t expect you to turn your point of view into action, but presume you will be cowaring in your bed when the Revolution comes to Wales, let alone fight in America (unless there’s a video game version of Revolution In America, then I suppose you’ll win in Virtual Reality world.)

Baseless assumptions.


I think your problems stem from one or more of the following:

<snip bullshit>

More unsubstantiated assertions. You know fuck all about me, so drop the pathetic Freud act.

Here&#39;s to your own insecurities not overwhelming you.