Evidence of 'Greed-less' societies

[Freedom Works]

Know of any?

[Amusing Scrotum]

"Greed less societies." I will assume you are referring to collective societies, as calling something a "greed less society" is a silly statement. You should have said "do you know of any societies that do not promote individual greed over the collective good."

Anyway, this is an extract from "How Marxism Works" by Chris Harman -


For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scien*tists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers. The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.
The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of ‘war’. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them.


This is a start. Also one could refer to pre civilisation societies, in which groups of people roamed together and acted for the collective good of that group, not the individual good. This form of society is often refered to as "Primitive Communism". Personally I don't like this description but it certainly has some basis in logic.

[Publius]

For instance, competitiveness, which is taken for granted in our society, hardly existed in many previous societies. When scien*tists first tried to give Sioux Indians IQ tests, they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers.

First of all, I find this to be a tendentious claim.

It's quite likely that they simply didn't understand test-taking procedures at all.

How would they know how to take a test when they've never taken one before?

Obviously anyone would help their friends out on a test if they were allowed to, but that doesn't mean we're 'collective' in our thinking.

And also, 'friendship' and 'tribesmanship' are both very selfish things.

They exist only because humans cannot live and reproduce individually.



I so The society they lived in stressed cooperation, not competition.
The same with aggressiveness. When Eskimos first met Europeans, they could not make any sense whatsoever of the notion of ‘war’. The idea of one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people seemed crazy to them.

Because the Eskimos (Inuits) were likely the only group of people in that area.

Whom would they fight?

The prime reason for fighting is land, as in agricultural land; Eskimos didn't grow much.

Futhermore, ancient societies were exorbitantly more violent than modern ones, with murder rates 100s of times higher than ours and casualty rates in war over 20 times ours.

Every ancient tribe that's been studied has been violent or has known of violence.

Quite simply, I think this is completely made up.

Violence has been an integral part of the human existence for 200,000 years. It's part of who we are.



This is a start. Also one could refer to pre civilisation societies, in which groups of people roamed together and acted for the collective good of that group, not the individual good. This form of society is often refered to as "Primitive Communism". Personally I don't like this description but it certainly has some basis in logic.

It wasn't 'communistic', it was 'poor'.

What are you going to keep for yourself when you have nothing? They had no wealth to own.

Spears had to be made and used and handed out to all members of the tribe so YOU could eat. Arrowheads had to be made so YOU could eat. Food had to be shared by you, becuase if you failed to catch anything tommorow, you had to be assured you'd have food.

Every single action had one express goal: survival.

Saying early man was communistic is like saying bonobos or dogs are communistic.

[Amusing Scrotum]

First of all, I find this to be a tendentious claim.

It's quite likely that they simply didn't understand test-taking procedures at all.

How would they know how to take a test when they've never taken one before?

Obviously anyone would help their friends out on a test if they were allowed to, but that doesn't mean we're 'collective' in our thinking.

If you look it says "they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers." It does not say that they didn't understand the principles of taking a test, its says they could not understand the competitiveness the test procedure promoted. Theres a huge difference.


And also, 'friendship' and 'tribesmanship' are both very selfish things.

They exist only because humans cannot live and reproduce individually.

Thats a very cynical view to take of human relationships and ignores how friendships usually are unbalanced and have a less able party. How can you be selfish if you are helping someone less fortunate?


Because the Eskimos (Inuits) were likely the only group of people in that area.

Whom would they fight?

The prime reason for fighting is land, as in agricultural land; Eskimos didn't grow much.


They could easily have warred with one another for territory. They could have wished to gain control of land on which animals lived which they hunted. They didn't.


Futhermore, ancient societies were exorbitantly more violent than modern ones, with murder rates 100s of times higher than ours and casualty rates in war over 20 times ours.

Every ancient tribe that's been studied has been violent or has known of violence.

Quite simply, I think this is completely made up.

Violence has been an integral part of the human existence for 200,000 years. It's part of who we are.


Oh the human nature argument that says "people are all violent blah, blah, blah." This does not take in to account people who are not violent and the countless intellectuals who have found that certain factors promote violence while others do not. If you remove the factors that help promote violence, then you substantially reduce the chance of there being violence.


It wasn't 'communistic', it was 'poor'.

What are you going to keep for yourself when you have nothing? They had no wealth to own.

Spears had to be made and used and handed out to all members of the tribe so YOU could eat. Arrowheads had to be made so YOU could eat. Food had to be shared by you, becuase if you failed to catch anything tommorow, you had to be assured you'd have food.

Every single action had one express goal: survival.

Saying early man was communistic is like saying bonobos or dogs are communistic.


As I said I don't particularly like this opinion that early societies were Primitive Communist. However it does show that people can survive without bosses or other institutions which guide them. If collectivism was possible pre civilisation, surely it means it is possible now.

[Publius]

If you look it says "they found that the Indians could not understand why they should not help each other do the answers." It does not say that they didn't understand the principles of taking a test, its says they could not understand the competitiveness the test procedure promoted. Theres a huge difference.

But an IQ test isn't 'competitive', any more than a reading test or a math test is.

It's a measure of your individual aptitutude. Yes, the statistics can be used in that manner, but that's not the point.

Also, an IQ test is a psychological test. It makes no sense to aid someone one a test to decide of their insane does it? Why is this different?

The test procedure does not imply any competition, which leads me to believe they simply didn't understand the procedures.

They ostensibly didn't know the purpose of the test. Without more information, I really cannot say, but to say a test that is not in the least way 'competitive' and use it an example is wrong-headed.



Thats a very cynical view to take of human relationships and ignores how friendships usually are unbalanced and have a less able party. How can you be selfish if you are helping someone less fortunate?

If they share some of your genes, or can help you spread your genes.

Evolution can and does account for charity and altruism, but it's rather convuluted.

And our destiny is not set-in-stone. Humans are born to reproduce for example, but many choose not to.



They could easily have warred with one another for territory. They could have wished to gain control of land on which animals lived which they hunted. They didn't.

They were nomadic and isolated.

They didn't have 'territory' and they had none to fight with.



Oh the human nature argument that says "people are all violent blah, blah, blah." This does not take in to account people who are not violent

Sure it does.

People are naturally violent (To a certain degree. People aren't bloodthirsty savages, but people are often prone to violence. We had to fight to survive, remember.) just as they are naturally born to reproduce, yet some people avoid violence and some people avoid reproduction.

These aren't iron-clad statements, just simple truths.

But the fact is, humans are and have always been violent, in every single human society. It stems from our genetics.



and the countless intellectuals who have found that certain factors promote violence while others do not. If you remove the factors that help promote violence, then you substantially reduce the chance of there being violence.

Agreed.

But there is a limit to this.

For example, crime went UP sharply after the Great Society was instituted, as poverty was going down and wages up; people were gettinr richer and were still being violent.

Crime went up in the 80's but down in the 90's. Can you explain why?

Yes, there are certain factors that promote violence, but it's important to remember that there always will be violence.

Reducing risk factors does reduce crime, yes, but don't be so presumptious to think that you or anyone else can actually figure out these factors and truly reduce them. It's a difficult task.




As I said I don't particularly like this opinion that early societies were Primitive Communist. However it does show that people can survive without bosses or other institutions which guide them. If collectivism was possible pre civilisation, surely it means it is possible now.

People can SURVIVE, yes, but can they be wealthy? Or happy?

[Freedom Works]

Crime went up in the 80's but down in the 90's. Can you explain why?
Abortion was legalized.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 09:34 PM



Abortion was legalized.

Not quite.

http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm

I would say it had some effect, yes, but not all or even most.

[Chuck]

People can SURVIVE, yes, but can they be wealthy? Or happy?

Wealth and happiness are not inclusive.

[Freedom Works]

Wealth and happiness are not inclusive.

Technically, yes they are, as the measure of wealth is in the eye of the beholder, as is happiness.

[Amusing Scrotum]

But an IQ test isn't 'competitive', any more than a reading test or a math test is.

It's a measure of your individual aptitutude. Yes, the statistics can be used in that manner, but that's not the point.

Also, an IQ test is a psychological test. It makes no sense to aid someone one a test to decide of their insane does it? Why is this different?

The test procedure does not imply any competition, which leads me to believe they simply didn't understand the procedures.

They ostensibly didn't know the purpose of the test. Without more information, I really cannot say, but to say a test that is not in the least way 'competitive' and use it an example is wrong-headed.


If tests, IQ tests included, are in no way competitive then why do people revise for them. Granted the IQ is not competitive in itself but the society we live in puts a competitive value on the results. The society the Sioux Indians lived in did not put a competitive value on tests. See its not about whether the test itself is competitive, thats irrelevant, its whether society puts a competitive value on the test score. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in my earlier posts.


If they share some of your genes, or can help you spread your genes.

Evolution can and does account for charity and altruism, but it's rather convuluted.

And our destiny is not set-in-stone. Humans are born to reproduce for example, but many choose not to.


Then why would a man be friends with another man if the only purpose of friendship is for evolutionary purposes. Are all same sex friendships anomalies that go against the natural order of things?


They were nomadic and isolated.

They didn't have 'territory' and they had none to fight with.


Something could always be found which people could of fought over. Some of the "tribe" could of had nicer boots or jackets which others would have taken exception too and fought over. Therefore the tribe could have been split into two warring factions.

The fact is the Eskimos did not do this as they found war a silly idea, the same way they did not fight off the foreign explorers like other native tribes did in other parts of the world. The Eskimos for some reason or another were to a large extent non violent, which disproves the idea that all humans are naturally violent.


Sure it does.

People are naturally violent (To a certain degree. People aren't bloodthirsty savages, but people are often prone to violence. We had to fight to survive, remember.) just as they are naturally born to reproduce, yet some people avoid violence and some people avoid reproduction.

These aren't iron-clad statements, just simple truths.

But the fact is, humans are and have always been violent, in every single human society. It stems from our genetics.


Again you make the generalisation that all humans have violent tendencies and seem to discount non violent people as a break in the cycle. Violence has been proven to be, in most cases, a product of society and nurture. Therefore with a certain amount of social engineering and a change in society, violence will become virtually non existent.


Agreed.

But there is a limit to this.

For example, crime went UP sharply after the Great Society was instituted, as poverty was going down and wages up; people were gettinr richer and were still being violent.

Crime went up in the 80's but down in the 90's. Can you explain why?

Yes, there are certain factors that promote violence, but it's important to remember that there always will be violence.

Reducing risk factors does reduce crime, yes, but don't be so presumptious to think that you or anyone else can actually figure out these factors and truly reduce them. It's a difficult task.


The arguments you use regarding the "Great Society" and violence are the same arguments the Neo Conservative arguments are based on. You and they fail to notice that during the sixties there were race riots and the civil rights movement, the most violent and biggest anti war movement ever etc. Obviously the causes of violence, injustice, racism etc. were not removed by the "Great Society".

As for the crime being up in the 80s and down in the 90s, well I'd say with a slightly more Liberal President and Administration in the 90s, more money was spent on social programs which decreased injustice slightly where as in the 80s there was a general obsession with crime and punishment by the budding Fascists in the Reagan Administration, who spent less on social programs and therefore crime went up.

Of course I am not suggesting that there will be no violence in a Communist society. What I am saying is that if you bring about economic equality you eliminate poverty, which is the single biggest cause of crime.


People can SURVIVE, yes, but can they be wealthy? Or happy?


Are you honestly suggesting for people to be happy and wealthy they need an authoritarian person or institution guiding them?


Abortion was legalized.


Of course, how I didn't realise this I don't know because obviously crime went down because all those black babies from useless drug addict parents were being aborted, therefore sparing the world from all those future criminals.

Four words, fuck off you twat.

[Freedom Works]

Of course, how I didn't realise this I don't know because obviously crime went down because all those black babies from useless drug addict parents were being aborted, therefore sparing the world from all those future criminals.

Just one unintended benefit of freedom.



Four words, fuck off you twat.
Let's see if you get a warning point for that!

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:41 PM




Wealth and happiness are not inclusive.

I said OR not AND.

[Publius]

If tests, IQ tests included, are in no way competitive then why do people revise for them. Granted the IQ is not competitive in itself but the society we live in puts a competitive value on the results. The society the Sioux Indians lived in did not put a competitive value on tests. See its not about whether the test itself is competitive, thats irrelevant, its whether society puts a competitive value on the test score. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in my earlier posts.

So they didn't put a competitive value on tests? That's most likely becaue the entire concept of a 'test' was foreign to them.

Again, this is no evidence that their society was collectivistic overall.

The Sioux were a warring tribe; they were most assuredly competitive.



Then why would a man be friends with another man if the only purpose of friendship is for evolutionary purposes. Are all same sex friendships anomalies that go against the natural order of things?

No. Answer me this: Does 'friendship' aid your chances of survival, evolutionarily?




Something could always be found which people could of fought over. Some of the "tribe" could of had nicer boots or jackets which others would have taken exception too and fought over. Therefore the tribe could have been split into two warring factions.

People don't just go around looking for fights; there are reasons for them.

How would these fights have aided their survival at all?

Answer: They wouldn't have, so they weren't likely.




The fact is the Eskimos did not do this as they found war a silly idea, the same way they did not fight off the foreign explorers like other native tribes did in other parts of the world. The Eskimos for some reason or another were to a large extent non violent, which disproves the idea that all humans are naturally violent.

Humans in every group or tribe ever studied have been violent. There has never been any evidence of 'peaceful' tribes without violence.

They simply do not exist.

Human beings ARE natrually violent, for certain reasons. Greed happens to be one of them.




Again you make the generalisation that all humans have violent tendencies and seem to discount non violent people as a break in the cycle.

'All' people do have violent tendancies. The percentage of people who have thought about murdering someone else is over 90%.

Is that not a violent tendancy?

Yes, not everyone is violent, but not everyone has a reason to be.



Violence has been proven to be, in most cases, a product of society and nurture. Therefore with a certain amount of social engineering and a change in society, violence will become virtually non existent.

Not so fast.

What kind of 'change in society'?

Capitalism has reduced the murder rate hundreds fold. How?

What sorts of social engineering and changes in society? Can you prove they would be effective?

How much violence will naturally occur regardless of measures? Remember, 4% of people are psychopaths and many people will kill if provoked in a certain way.


The arguments you use regarding the "Great Society" and violence are the same arguments the Neo Conservative arguments are based on. You and they fail to notice that during the sixties there were race riots and the civil rights movement, the most violent and biggest anti war movement ever etc. Obviously the causes of violence, injustice, racism etc. were not removed by the "Great Society".

I was just providing an example.

Race and injustice were certainly not the issues in the 80's, but crime went up.

Poverty is moving up slightly, but crime is still going down.




As for the crime being up in the 80s and down in the 90s, well I'd say with a slightly more Liberal President and Administration in the 90s, more money was spent on social programs which decreased injustice slightly where as in the 80s there was a general obsession with crime and punishment by the budding Fascists in the Reagan Administration, who spent less on social programs and therefore crime went up.

Remember Welfare Reform under Clinton.

I'm not arguing that a sound macro-economy reduces crime; that's pretty obvious.



Of course I am not suggesting that there will be no violence in a Communist society. What I am saying is that if you bring about economic equality you eliminate poverty, which is the single biggest cause of crime.

You're making the assumption that the economy would work and would achieve this.

I rather doubt it.

People are always going to commit crimes, in numbers larger than you will care to admit.

People just aren't as 'good' as you seem to think they are.



Are you honestly suggesting for people to be happy and wealthy they need an authoritarian person or institution guiding them?

No.

I'm just noting the fact that the only times people have been wealthy or happy has been when an 'authoritarian' influence (However you want to define that) has been guiding them.

It's not that I like 'authority'; it's that I understand it's never going away.

It's why religion is popular and will always be popular. It's why people like the government, and like big corporations, and like celebrities and other cults of personality.

People like authority, and authority likes authority.

[CrazyModerate]

Not all people like authority. And there are definite examples of people wanting lesser degress of authority as time goes on.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Let's see if you get a warning point for that!


Why, did you report me you sensitive soul?


So they didn't put a competitive value on tests? That's most likely becaue the entire concept of a 'test' was foreign to them.

Again, this is no evidence that their society was collectivistic overall.

The Sioux were a warring tribe; they were most assuredly competitive.


It doesn't say they didn't understand the test procedure, it says they couldn't understand the competitiveness involved in the procedure. Without further sources disputing this, we must work on the assumption that they understood the procedure, however what they didn't understand was the competitiveness. It was an alien concept to them.

This does therefore show a form of collectivism within the tribe and therefore shows a society can disregard competitiveness and individual greed. Which means that collectivism on a large scale is neither impossible or un workable. That they warred with other tribes is irrelevant, as it is the dynamics of the tribes interactions with itself that are interesting.


No. Answer me this: Does 'friendship' aid your chances of survival, evolutionarily?


Having male friends in no way helps me reproduce, neither does it really help me survive. Especially if I am the dominant and most able friend.


People don't just go around looking for fights; there are reasons for them.

How would these fights have aided their survival at all?

Answer: They wouldn't have, so they weren't likely

Having a thicker coat would not have aided an Eskimo's chance of survival in the cold?

The point of the Eskimo example is not so much to show a greed less society, it is to show different societies can develop in a completely different manner to what is considered the "norm" in the Western world. The Eskimos' prove to a certain extent that a war less society can be produced even though there would still have been things to war over.

Quick question, do you ever think that a point will be reached when we will no longer have wars?


Humans in every group or tribe ever studied have been violent. There has never been any evidence of 'peaceful' tribes without violence.

They simply do not exist.

Human beings ARE natrually violent, for certain reasons. Greed happens to be one of them.


I think we need to clarify what we both mean by violence. Are you referring to violence as to men having a fight after a few beers or as one man murdering another for his property or a country or group going to war?

The first type of violence will always happen, the second type can be significantly reduced and the third type can be completely eradicated.


'All' people do have violent tendancies. The percentage of people who have thought about murdering someone else is over 90%.

Is that not a violent tendancy?

Yes, not everyone is violent, but not everyone has a reason to be.


Again I think the clarification of the term violence is needed here. Do you mean violent tendency as in someone who wants to beat up the man his wife is having an affair with because again this type of violent tendency will always be around. Or do you mean violent tendency as someone who is willing to kill a couple of people in the process of robbing a bank. This type can more or less be removed completely through economic equality.


Not so fast.

What kind of 'change in society'?

Capitalism has reduced the murder rate hundreds fold. How?

What sorts of social engineering and changes in society? Can you prove they would be effective?

How much violence will naturally occur regardless of measures? Remember, 4% of people are psychopaths and many people will kill if provoked in a certain way.


Capitalism has reduced the murder rates because it is a progression on the previous systems. It has brought greater economic equality and political equality than previous models, it has also improved the standards of living of many people.

Communism is the next step in the line, it is the next progression and will bring with it complete economic and political equality. Then we will see another great reduction in crime and people will be saying "Oh look how barbaric the people under Capitalism were, Communism has reduced the murder rates hundreds fold."

Communism is no more than another step along the line.

As for violence, when I talk about it I am referring to crimes that are driven by greed, which is the majority of crimes. I obviously realise that motiveless crimes committed by the genetically unbalanced won't be solved by a change in the economic system, they will be solved, hopefully, by science. Though the argument is there that under certain economic systems this science and treatment will be more easily available, but thats another debate which I'm sure you've been involved many times here already.


I was just providing an example.

Race and injustice were certainly not the issues in the 80's, but crime went up.

Poverty is moving up slightly, but crime is still going down.

Race and injustice are always issues, they might not have been such big issues in the 80s but don't kid yourself that the swamp of injustice that spews out criminals was not made bigger during the Reagan years.

As for the present day crime rates I'd say there are two main factors. The first is a public binded together by patriotism and extreme nationalism combined with an incredibly authoritarian police force works well to reduce crime in budding Fascist states. The second is that I'd say that less people are reporting crime. This happens a lot in areas where poverty is extremely high, the police either don't bother with those areas much or the victims are either to scared or to detached from the police to report the crime.


Remember Welfare Reform under Clinton.

I'm not arguing that a sound macro-economy reduces crime; that's pretty obvious.


I don't know to much about welfare reform in America but I'd guess that Clinton either spent more money on social projects or spent the money more efficiently. I mean Bush spends money on social costs but his methods are terribly inefficient. For example he gives money to Christian based rehabilitation programs which don't do much for the addict. If I was a heroin addict and I was given a choice between heroin and God, I probably keep heroin as my addiction. :lol:


You're making the assumption that the economy would work and would achieve this.

I rather doubt it.

People are always going to commit crimes, in numbers larger than you will care to admit.

People just aren't as 'good' as you seem to think they are.

Your making the assumption the economy won't work, I rather doubt this. And as I said earlier people will commit silly emotional crimes, even serious emotional crimes and motiveless crime will only be solved by science. However greed inspired crime, which is the biggest type of crime, can be drastically reduced or maybe even completely eradicated through economic equality.


No.

I'm just noting the fact that the only times people have been wealthy or happy has been when an 'authoritarian' influence (However you want to define that) has been guiding them.

It's not that I like 'authority'; it's that I understand it's never going away.

It's why religion is popular and will always be popular. It's why people like the government, and like big corporations, and like celebrities and other cults of personality.

People like authority, and authority likes authority.


People are always moaning about the Government and other authoritarian institutions. What they don't yet realise is that they can get rid of these institutions.

[Publius]

Not all people like authority. And there are definite examples of people wanting lesser degress of authority as time goes on.

Again, I'm speaking generally.

It doesn't matter if 5-10% of the people don't like authority. They simply aren't relevent.

As long as a lot of people WANT authority (Not even a majority) and people want authority, there will be authority.

[Freigemachten]

I read somewhere about South pacific tribes whose language doesn't have possesive adjectives like "mine". They also don't understand the concept of wanting, they know of necesities, but out side fo what they need they have no desire for extraneous possessions. I'll try to find where I read about this and post it for you but it's been a while so I don't know if I will be able.

[Freedom Works]

Doubt they had much division of labor.

[black magick hustla]

Oh, many native american tribes didn't have anything resembling private property. Sure, there were tribes fighting each other, but this doesn't disproves the fact that large amounts of people can live without being obsessed with capital.

The short lived communes of Paris and Shanghai are other examples. While they didn't last much, they were crushed by outer forces, not by inner ones.

Anarchist communes in spain were there for more than one year. Decisions were made in workers' councils, and many buisnesses were collectivized.


While certainly, they weren't completely greed less, their lives wasn't centered around the myth that competition and fucking other people is inherent in human nature.

[Publius]

I read somewhere about South pacific tribes whose language doesn't have possesive adjectives like "mine". They also don't understand the concept of wanting, they know of necesities, but out side fo what they need they have no desire for extraneous possessions. I'll try to find where I read about this and post it for you but it's been a while so I don't know if I will be able.

It was probably false anyway, don't bother.

A number of these stories of the 'Nobel Savage' have turned out to be fabrications.

People are inherently self-centered.

That a being concerned solely with passing on its genetic information (For that is what we are) would have no concpet of 'mine' is laughably absurd.

The only purpose we have is to pass on our genes and all beheviour exists to achieve this goal.

[Publius]

Oh, many native american tribes didn't have anything resembling private property. Sure, there were tribes fighting each other, but this doesn't disproves the fact that large amounts of people can live without being obsessed with capital.

They probably didn't have agriculture either.

How can they be obsessed with capital if they didn't HAVE capital?!

"Since Amoeba didn't have private property, and we evolved from them, we shouldn't have it either!".

Things change; advances are made.

IF the price you're willing to pay for 'equality and lack of property' is destitute poverty, than by all means, go ahead.

But leave me out.




The short lived communes of Paris and Shanghai are other examples. While they didn't last much, they were crushed by outer forces, not by inner ones.

Except the ones that were.

The average length of success for socialist communes was 2 years.

They fall apart on their own.




Anarchist communes in spain were there for more than one year. Decisions were made in workers' councils, and many buisnesses were collectivized.


Well if it sort of works in one place in time for somewhat over a year, during extreme circumstances, it must work anywhere and everywhere, right!?

Governmental control of the economy works during wartime, for instance, but fails otherwise.




While certainly, they weren't completely greed less, their lives wasn't centered around the myth that competition and fucking other people is inherent in human nature.

No, their lives were quite centered in the fact.

All humans have ever done is compete. Life is competition.

[black magick hustla]

i still fail to see how COMMUNISM is an attack against INDIVIDUALISM. Working on what you LIKE and find ENRICHING is much better than working in lifeless alienated labor.

I don't see how WORKING IN A FUCKING CUBICLE or in a fucking factory enriches you individually.

So yeah, that argument about humans being self centered is not an argument against communism.

[upstanding conservative]

With all this greedy society stuff are you saying that if i work hard and make 10 times what my neighbor makes that my money should be taken from me and redistributed thru the goverment to my neighbor and others that dont make as much so that everyone has the same amount regardless of who earned it,worked harder or just has a better higher paying job?

[upstanding conservative]

So you are all extreme communist?Whats your opinion of mao zedung?Is that someone you look up to?Do you hope to have someone like that running the country?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

With all this greedy society stuff are you saying that if i work hard and make 10 times what my neighbor makes that my money should be taken from me and redistributed thru the goverment to my neighbor and others that dont make as much so that everyone has the same amount regardless of who earned it,worked harder or just has a better higher paying job?

No, where saying that in classless, stateless, moneyless society, you don't have to constantly have your nose at the grindstone in order to make a living.
Increasing automisation means that a lot of boring jobs are being taken up by machines. It's not unreasonable to assume that one day only the interesting jobs will be left for humans to do.

[upstanding conservative]

So be more specific as to what your goal is?By a classless moneyless society do you mean money i have earned and the house i live in can be taken from me and redistibuted to others?
Regardless of the hard work i have done to earn myself a above average life because a drug addicted loser,a lazy person who doesn't work as hard or a person that just does not have as good of a job and makes significantly less money and does not have the things i have such as a house,2 cars,and money in the bank my stuff should be taken from me so that i have nothing more than a fast food worker?Is that what you peaple are advocateing?
Does this count for peaple who don't work at all as well?Should someone who doesn't work at all get a percentage of my check just cause there is no reason i should have more than anyone else?Or do you mean i would work for no money doing what the goverment told me to do and given a ration from the goverment the same as everyone else with just the bare necessitys?
You peaple are advocateing that the goverment controll everything and strip everyone of there freedoms.I thought you left wing vermin were obsessed with freedoms and indivual rights or is that only if it applys to minorities,homeless bums,felons,illegal aliens,terrorist and the poor?I see how you operate this board how can you say you stick up for the freedom of speech when you revoke posting rights to anyone with an opposeing viewpoint or that doesn't speak to your absurd level of political correctness?2 to 3 pages of the sodomites complaining about the word gay?Are you radicals trying to have the word banned now?That offends you but it is no problem to wish death on american soldiers and applaud the treasonous scum that threw a grenade at u.s. troops while being part of our military?YOU PEAPLE ARE THE ENEMY'S OF AMERICA JUST AS MUCH AS THE ARAB TERRORIST SCUM RESPONCEIBLE FOR 911!I suppose you can have me hung from a lampost for being a right wing capitalist conservative that doesn't agree with and speaks out against the communist philosophy.That is if you psychopaths ever gain any power.If you stalins ever gain power you could execute half the population for disagreeing,speaking out against communisn or promoteing capitalism.Then the country would be better.Eliminate the death penalty protect the lives of child molesters but if you are a capitalist you get hung from a meathook that makes sence.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 05:21 PM
So be more specific as to what your goal is?By a classless moneyless society do you mean money i have earned and the house i live in can be taken from me and redistibuted to others?
No there won't be money or earnings in a communist society for you to be concerned with.


Regardless of the hard work i have done to earn myself a above average life because a drug addicted loser,a lazy person who doesn't work as hard or a person that just does not have as good of a job and makes significantly less money and does not have the things i have such as a house,2 cars,and money in the bank my stuff should be taken from me so that i have nothing more than a fast food worker?Is that what you peaple are advocateing?

Equality, Freedom, Democracy.


Does this count for peaple who don't work at all as well?Should someone who doesn't work at all get a percentage of my check just cause there is no reason i should have more than anyone else?Or do you mean i would work for no money doing what the goverment told me to do and given a ration from the goverment the same as everyone else with just the bare necessitys?

"Work" in the traditional sense will be abolished.



You peaple are advocateing that the goverment controll everything

No, we are advocating the destruction of Government, and control of everything by everyone.


and strip everyone of there freedoms.

On the contrary


I thought you left wing vermin were obsessed with freedoms and indivual rights or is that only if it applys to minorities,homeless bums,felons,illegal aliens,terrorist and the poor?
How can certain principals be bias toward different classes of people in a society where these classes do not exist?



I see how you operate this board

We do not run this board in a communist way.


YOU PEAPLE ARE THE ENEMY'S OF AMERICA JUST AS MUCH AS THE ARAB TERRORIST SCUM RESPONCEIBLE FOR 911!I

Damn right Im the enemy of America. But im certainly not a terrorist. and I don't think Arabs are scum.


suppose you can have me hung from a lampost for being a right wing capitalist conservative that doesn't agree with and speaks out against the communist philosophy.

You've been ranting on about government and tax's, not much to do with communism.


That is if you psychopaths ever gain any power.

We want to remove power. Hardly anyone here wants power.


Eliminate the death penalty protect the lives of child molesters but if you are a capitalist you get hung from a meathook that makes sence.

What? who mentioned eliminating the Death penalty? who mentioned executions?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 08:34 AM
With all this greedy society stuff are you saying that if i work hard and make 10 times what my neighbor makes that my money should be taken from me and redistributed thru the goverment to my neighbor and others that dont make as much so that everyone has the same amount regardless of who earned it,worked harder or just has a better higher paying job?
No. That is nothing remotly fucking near what we are saying.

[RebelOutcast]

w00t, I say BAN for upstanding conservative.

**Edit** This guy seems to be one of the materialistic idiots who wouldn't be able to survive without his PC and TV, he's probably never seen anything but the suburbs and cringes at the idea of living "rough" or "wild". He's just another spoilt upper-middle class brat.
We shouldn't entertain his attention seeking, reactionary, racist tendancies here.
So again I say BAN HIM!

[Forward Union]

He's only made ONE refernce to Arabs being "terrorist scum" :lol:

Racist dumbfuck.
But seriosly, it's too subtle to warrent any real action, I think anyway. Wait for more people to comment.

[upstanding conservative]

I was not saying arabs are terrorist scum i said the arab terrorist scum responceible for 911.
surely you are not gonna argue that those responceible for 911 are not terrorist are you?They were also arabs that is just a fact to an event that happened and not meant as an attack on any group of peaple.
Or is that part supposed to be left out of all mentioning of the event?

[RebelOutcast]

I'd also like to think that most people on this forum consider themselves enemies of imperialist, fascist americana.

**points out that there's no evidence that al-qaeida(sp?) even exists, let alone that people of arabic descent were responsible for the 9/11 attacks**

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 06:00 PM
I was not saying arabs are terrorist scum i said the arab terrorist scum responceible for 911.
surely you are not gonna argue that those responceible for 911 are not terrorist are you?They were also arabs that is just a fact to an event that happened and not meant as an attack on any group of peaple.
Or is that part supposed to be left out of all mentioning of the event?
Their ethnicity is irrelevant. You mentioned the fact they were arabs as if it contributed to their list of atrocities. If they were WASPs (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) would you have said "WHITE TERRORIST SCUM"? didn't think so.

Regardless of the fact you try to hide the racism, it shines through.

*Added*
There's overwhelming evidence to suggest the US are responsible for the strike on the Pentagon. But I won't go into it.

[upstanding conservative]

IN RESPONCE TO REBEL OUTCAST
I live a good life that i worked hard to achieve.I grew up in a tough poor new york neighborhood in the bronx.So you are way off with your comments and dont know a thing your talking about.

[RebelOutcast]

Poor as in, "I don't get cable and have to put up with VHS"?
Eh, I can stereotype just as easily as you did when you said "arab terrorist scum".

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 06:06 PM
I live a good life that i worked hard to achieve.
Explain.

[upstanding conservative]

IN RESPONCE TO ADDITIVES FREE
You dont know what i would of said if they were white terrorist scum.you are just makeing a judgement to what i would of wrote based on nothing.you are calling me a racist which i expect from you left wing radicals because anyone that disagrees with you is a racist in your minds.you claim anyone thats conservative is racist which is a false claim you can not back up with anyone except others on your realm of insanity.
And if ethicity doesnt make a difference how come if a white scumbag does something horrible its posted on the front page of the paper with a picture of the purpatraitor but if a minority(muslim,black,illegal alien)does the same thing it is burried in the paper back to page 12 with no picture of the purpitraitor.Even when there printing a description of a suspect wanted by police they refuse to include race or ethnicity unless the suspect is white.

[KC]

IN RESPONCE TO ADDITIVES FREE
You dont know what i would of said if they were white terrorist scum.you are just makeing a judgement to what i would of wrote based on nothing.you are calling me a racist which i expect from you left wing radicals because anyone that disagrees with you is a racist in your minds.

Well when you say "arab terrorist scum" it does raise suspicions. I mean, what is the relevance of adding their race in there? All you wanted to do was turn the attention of the "terrorist scum" to their race, which is arab. There is no other reason for you to put race in there.


you claim anyone thats conservative is racist which is a false claim you can not back up with anyone except others on your realm of insanity.

We don't have to back it up! Why? Because nobody said it!


And if ethicity doesnt make a difference how come if a white scumbag does something horrible its posted on the front page of the paper with a picture of the purpatraitor but if a minority(muslim,black,illegal alien)does the same thing it is burried in the paper back to page 12 with no picture of the purpitraitor.

Because the media is racist.



Even when there printing a description of a suspect wanted by police they refuse to include race or ethnicity unless the suspect is white.

Not true.

[Forward Union]

You dont know what i would of said if they were white terrorist scum.

No but I can speculate.


you are just makeing a judgement to what i would of wrote based on nothing.

Based on my judgements.


you are calling me a racist which i expect from you left wing radicals because anyone that disagrees with you is a racist in your minds.

Firstly, im not a leftist. Left and Right are based on peoples perceptions of how government should work, I don't think government should work. And secondly, I don't make the conclusion that you are a racist on the grounds that you disagree with me.


you claim anyone thats conservative is racist which is a false claim you can not back up with anyone except others on your realm of insanity.

Nope I don't claim "anyone thats conservative" is racist. Just people that make racist statements.


And if ethicity doesnt make a difference how come if a white scumbag does something horrible its posted on the front page of the paper with a picture of the purpatraitor but if a minority(muslim,black,illegal alien)does the same thing it is burried in the paper back to page 12 with no picture of the purpitraitor.

I think that in reality that situation is the other way round. And that is due to racism.


Even when there printing a description of a suspect wanted by police they refuse to include race or ethnicity unless the suspect is white.

Do you read the papers? because reality paints a different picture.

[RebelOutcast]

To Upstanding Conservative:

Firstly, your spelling and grammar are appalling, please improve it as it leads me to believe that you haven't even started to shave yet.


You dont know what i would of said if they were white terrorist scum.

But we can make an educated guess based on previous experience of characters of your type.


you are calling me a racist which i expect from you left wing radicals because anyone that disagrees with you is a racist in your minds.

If certain other members of this forum (of whom I will refrain from naming) had called you racist just for dissaggreeing with them, and had you not said "arab terrorist scum" I may be inclined to agree with you here, but I personally know Additives Free and know that he doesn't do such things.


you claim anyone thats conservative is racist which is a false claim you can not back up with anyone except others on your realm of insanity.

No one has claimed that Conservatives are inherently racist, Black, White, Asian, Arabic, Jewish and Eastern European peoples can be conservative.
I can't personally argue against your claims of insanity, but I know that many people on this forum are perfectly stable and functional individuals.


you are just makeing a judgement to what i would of wrote based on nothing.

As I said, it's an assumption based on previous experiences, it proves to be accurate 99% of the time.


And if ethicity doesnt make a difference how come if a white scumbag does something horrible its posted on the front page of the paper with a picture of the purpatraitor but if a minority...does the same thing it is burried in the paper...with no picture of the purpitraitor. Even when there printing a description of a suspect wanted by police they refuse to include race or ethnicity unless the suspect is white.

The media and police do this to dissuade litigation should our institutionally racist society decide to lash out against the minorities. The mob is stupid you know.

Anymore pointless assertations?

[upstanding conservative]

IN RESPONCE TO ADDITIVE FREE

"explain"
I grew up in a tenament building in the bronx with little money and no luxaries.I didnt have a computer.I was once stabbed for being a white person walking down the wrong street.I was surrounded by the dregs of humanity on a regular basis.Crack addicted bums recently let out of prison that abuse the system and neglect there children on every street.Gun toteing gang members that sell drugs rob and murder peaple on a regular basis in front of every store on allmost every corner.Haveing to fight allmost everyday at school because i was one of only a few white peaple in the school.I dont whine and complain about it or think society owes me something i worked hard to get out of that madness.I could of easly made the wrong decision and resorted to crime packing guns and selling drugs but i didnt.
I got a job and a edjucation that landed me a better job and a even better job after that.You dont start out at the top you start at the bottom and work hard to move your way up.society doesn't owe you anything.
And contrary to what most leftist claim not only white peaple are racist.Me being stabbed for walking down the street while white is racism.I suppose you peaple figure its okay for them to be racist against white peaple though because the productive straight white male is your number one enemy.

And in responce to the post that said thats not true about the post i wrote about how newspapers handle writeing a desription of a suspect read how the new york times or the daily news would print the story and desription than try to argue with me about it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 06:55 PM







I grew up in a tenament building in the bronx with little money and no luxaries.

My grandfather grew in utter poverty as an indigenous in Mexico. However he worked hard and he has turned into an opressive person.

Many Kings descend from chieftains who "worked hard" too.

Does that means they deserve to opress other people?


I got a job and a edjucation that landed me a better job and a even better job after that.You dont start out at the top you start at the bottom and work hard to move your way up.society doesn't owe you anything.

Many people already start at the top. Remember inheritance?
I don't think you worked hard in comparison to all the children who work at sweatshops in South America.

What is the point anyway? Working countless of hours in dead, tedious and boring jobs in order to buy three televisions and a nice car?

What a horrible way to live!


And contrary to what most leftist claim not only white peaple are racist.Me being stabbed for walking down the street while white is racism.I suppose you peaple figure its okay for them to be racist against white peaple though because the productive straight white male is your number one enemy.

Nobody claims white people are the only racists, especially here.


And in responce to the post that said thats not true about the post i wrote about how newspapers handle writeing a desription of a suspect read how the new york times or the daily news would print the story and desription than try to argue with me about it.

Oh god, use commas and punctuation.

Stop typing by slapping your face to the keyboard.

[upstanding conservative]

So if your saying there wouldn't be no money or earnings or goverment or police that means you could riot in the streets,break store windows with rocks and loot whats inside,murder the person across the street because they had something you didnt?THATS MADNESS! WHAT KIND OF INSANE SOCIETY IS IT where a stranger could walk into my house and take whats on my table for dinner and one of my tv's because they dont have one and that is accepted and tollerated in the society.
This is the madness that the mental disorder of liberalism is trying to push us to.If you want communism go to cuba or china or somewhere cause it will never happen in america.

[upstanding conservative]

IN RESPONCE TO MARMOT
Does working hard or haveing a good life for yourself make you a oppresive person?Am i supposed to feel bad or be concerned that i have things that those that dont work as hard as me dont?
Who said anything about children working at sweatshops in South America?I dont live there and have nothing to do with that.I live in a civilized country that does not allow that kind of slave labor to occour.
And what is wrong with growing up with wealth or gaining inheritance?If you can start at the top good for you but not everyone can.

[Tungsten]

RebelOutcast


**points out that there's no evidence that al-qaeida(sp?) even exists, let alone that people of arabic descent were responsible for the 9/11 attacks**

Somebody's been reading too many of those Michael Moore comics.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 07:12 PM
So if your saying there wouldn't be no money or earnings or goverment or police that means you could riot in the streets,break store windows with rocks and loot whats inside,murder the person across the street because they had something you didnt?THATS MADNESS! WHAT KIND OF INSANE SOCIETY IS IT where a stranger could walk into my house and take whats on my table for dinner and one of my tv's because they dont have one and that is accepted and tollerated in the society.
This is the madness that the mental disorder of liberalism is trying to push us to.If you want communism go to cuba or china or somewhere cause it will never happen in america.
Sir I think you should open some of Marx's books in order to know what "communism" is. Saying that Cuba and China is communist is pretty ignorant and betrays your obvious ignorance on the subject.

Nobody said their won't be "authority" in communist countries. Of course there would be, but the authority would be organize and commanded by the people themselves, not by an elitist class trying to protect its obviously opressive way of life. There won't be police in the sense that a rich ruling class would use it as to protect its hide though.

Also, instead of making shitty speculations of what a "revolutionary society" would be, you should open some history books and read about the Paris Commune, Spanish Anarchism in 1936, and the shanghai commune.

[upstanding conservative]

If thers no evidence that al qaeida even exist then whats that gap in the new york city skyline?And what are those tapes being broadcasted on al jazeera with those rats claiming responceability and encourageing the murder of american citizens?
If i'm not supposed to condemb al qaeida even though there IS evidence that you leftist do everything you can to cover up and im supposed to ignore how can you claim america and george bush are the symbol for all that is evil and oppressive without any evidence to prove your claims?America defeated hittler and if it wasn't for us most of you liberals would be a lampshade right now.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 07:22 PM
IN RESPONCE TO MARMOT




Does working hard or haveing a good life for yourself make you a oppresive person?Am i supposed to feel bad or be concerned that i have things that those that dont work as hard as me dont?

Owning a part of the means of production makes you opressive. You are the sole reason why most of the population needs to sell themselves as part time slaves in order to survive and not die of starvation


Who said anything about children working at sweatshops in South America?I dont live there and have nothing to do with that.I live in a civilized country that does not allow that kind of slave labor to occour..

The sole reason you probably have a ludicrous life is that your american buisnessmen buddies go to south america in order to get your GAP TSHIRTS being made at abysmal prices.

We live in a capitalist world, were internatioanl ties between the bourgeosie has united all into a big battleground.

Don't give me the shit about I LIVE IN ANOTHER NATION, that is illusory.


And what is wrong with growing up with wealth or gaining inheritance?If you can start at the top good for you but not everyone can.

Kings grew up in wealth through the inheritance of a chieftain who probably sacrificed alot.

What is wrong with it?

Don't tell me you are a freaking monarchist.

[Freedom Works]

No, where saying that in classless, stateless, moneyless society, you don't have to constantly have your nose at the grindstone in order to make a living.
And in a society were we have wands with majick, we will not have to constantly have our noses at the grindstone in order to make a living.

Do you see why this is an absurd statement?


It's not unreasonable to assume that one day only the interesting jobs will be left for humans to do.
No it's not, but it is unreasonable to assume that we will get there faster if we adopt Collectivism.

[upstanding conservative]

It seems to me that you peaple are just lazy and dont want to work.Why else would you want a system that takes from those that have things and limits what one can achieve or own.
You want what i worked for but you dont want to work yourself for it so a system that prevents my ownership and supplies to you who did nothing to earn it would benifut your lazy ass.This communism is nothing but a welfare society of handouts to lazy bums.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 08:16 PM
It seems to me that you peaple are just lazy and dont want to work.Why else would you want a system that takes from those that have things and limits what one can achieve or own.
You want what i worked for but you dont want to work yourself for it so a system that prevents my ownership and supplies to you who did nothing to earn it would benifut your lazy ass.This communism is nothing but a welfare society of handouts to lazy bums.
Not really.

We want to get the output of our work COMPLETELY, we don't want a parasite capitalist to take a huge part as his profit.

At the end, all of us are kinda lazy though. We don't want to work ALL THOSE HOURS in order to survive, because it isn't necessary. If we would get the whole fruits of our labor, without a leech getting a profit, we would have to work much less hours.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Jesus, what a poor brainwashed! I pity you.

[KC]

It seems to me that you peaple are just lazy and dont want to work.

It seems to me that you are just lazy and don't want to form a coherent argument.


Why else would you want a system that takes from those that have things and limits what one can achieve or own.

It is the capitalist that takes money from the workers. How does communism limit what one can acheive or own? Do you know what communism is? Communists are against power. Power means power of one individual over others. No matter how hard you work, you don't deserve this. Nobody does.


You want what i worked for but you dont want to work yourself for it so a system that prevents my ownership and supplies to you who did nothing to earn it would benifut your lazy ass.This communism is nothing but a welfare society of handouts to lazy bums.

We don't want what you work for. We want you to get all the money you are entitled to for your work. You, apparently, are content with having money stolen from you. We (the workers) did nothing to earn it? How about creating the wealth in the first place? The business owners are the lazy asses. They do nothing but take money from their workers. You should read up on communism; you seem to have a very basic understanding of what it is; it sounds like all you know is what you've heard, which is probably bourgoeis propaganda.

[upstanding conservative]

Im oppressive to the bums of society because i have a nice home,2 cars and money in the bank?Im supposed to feel bad for these drug addicted losers?I DONT! I DONT GIVE A RATS BEHIND ABOUT THEM!
Maybe if they got there act together and stopped selling and useing drugs leaving hypodermic needles on playgrounds where children play while blaiming a oppressive and racist society for there problems and demanding handouts from those that work for a liveing they could pull themselves out of the gutter.These sewer rats dont want to do anything to better themselves and thats why these disgusting bums are still walking around stained in there own vomit.
AND DONT BLAIM RACISM its not racism with affirmative action a minority that applys himself has a better shot than a white guy of the same or even higher qualifications.Peaple need to take personel responcibility for there actions and choices they made that put them at what level they are at in society.Allthough some peaple may have just had bad cercomestances that got them where they are Not everyone is a victim no matter what the liberals tell ya.Liberals killed personal responceability and burried it right next to common sence.

[black magick hustla]

you already described me............ a sewer rat loser who injects himself heroine and fucks with horses everyday,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
i am a crackwhore that aborts children everyday :rolleyes:

[upstanding conservative]

I didnt say anything about horses.And i dont know you or what you do.Do you expect handouts?My description is of the majority of the peaple i grew up around in the bronx.These are the worst society has to offer.And i made sure to point out in my post that im not reffering to just the poor.Poor is not the peaple im describeing cause i know alot of hard working decent peaple that grew up or still are poor.Most of the peaple i was describeing in the above post are mentally ill diseased bums that should be rounded up and thrown in a mental institution.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 08:16 PM
It seems to me that you peaple are just lazy and dont want to work.


I work


Why else would you want a system that takes from those that have things and limits what one can achieve or own.

The system I advocate doesn't take anything from anyone.


You want what i worked for

No. I want what I worked for.

Let me explain. The working class, or the Proletariat. PRoduces everything that is used by society. These people made everything, the Computer your working on (or the machines that made the computer) the Chair your sitting on, the clothes your wearing, the house around you, the carpets wallpaper/paint. Everything. They make it all, and yet remain at the bottom of society. Without them there wouldn't be a society for them to be at the bottom of. Whereas the annoying spongers, sit in their office chairs sipping their champagne, smoking their cigars living off the work of the many. No one has become rich through their own hard work alone. And most get rich through the exploitation of others. Regardless of how people get rich. The system that allows them to get rich also requires the Exploitation and Death of hard working people.


but you dont want to work yourself

I'd love to work for myself!! The point is that if I work for a company, Im actually working to make the bosses richer.


a system that prevents my ownership

A confused notion. Because money is an unnatural construct, and (if you are rich) has most likely been acquired unfairly. I ask you what natural law compels you to be the owner of a possession? what makes something yours??? The answer is jack shit. Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves!


and supplies to you who did nothing to earn it would benifut your lazy ass. This communism is nothing but a welfare society of handouts to lazy bums.

If you are annoyed at people doing jack shit and getting money from the hard working people, then your probably a communist. We need to stop these Rich class prats living off the work of the prolatariat!

As for communism being a welfare state. No, because there's no redistribution of anything.

[RebelOutcast]

I think the major problem here is that people believe the cold war propaganda that communism is a system where people will be able to do anything and everything, when and where they want, that people will be able to take what they want, rape and pillage and that communism is just a complete lack of order and complete chaos.

It isn't.

These idiots seem to have shown a distinct lack of ownthink and have lapped up every word of poison that the bourgeoisie, imperialist governments have produced.

Communism is about communities, about people making direct gains from what they produce, be that raw materials, commodities, luxuries, or tertiary services.
Everyone in the community would get what they need to live and give what they could, even people unable to "work" in the conventional sense would be able to give something, no matter how small.
Communism is about everyone giving what they can to keep the community working, not about people taking what they want like you materialistic right-wingers seem to think.

Idiots, read up on something before you put it down.

[KC]

Im oppressive to the bums of society because i have a nice home,2 cars and money in the bank?Im supposed to feel bad for these drug addicted losers?I DONT! I DONT GIVE A RATS BEHIND ABOUT THEM!

Who said any of this?



Maybe if they got there act together and stopped selling and useing drugs leaving hypodermic needles on playgrounds where children play while blaiming a oppressive and racist society for there problems and demanding handouts from those that work for a liveing they could pull themselves out of the gutter.These sewer rats dont want to do anything to better themselves and thats why these disgusting bums are still walking around stained in there own vomit.

Again, nobody said anything of this.


AND DONT BLAIM RACISM its not racism with affirmative action a minority that applys himself has a better shot than a white guy of the same or even higher qualifications.Peaple need to take personel responcibility for there actions and choices they made that put them at what level they are at in society.Allthough some peaple may have just had bad cercomestances that got them where they are Not everyone is a victim no matter what the liberals tell ya.Liberals killed personal responceability and burried it right next to common sence.

Are you capable of sticking to one topic? That is a very useful skill to have when debating. Or anything. It's useful to have when living.

[RebelOutcast]

Why does everything come back to drugs and racism with this guy? Specifically why does he keep relating drugs and us "lazy bum leftists"?
Maybe he's running out of insults and/or cappie propagandaspeak to throw at us.
Hopefully he realises how futile his situation is, although it makes me wonder how stupid he must have to be to register on a PROGRESSIVE LEFT WING forum and start spouting right-wing bullshit.
It's amazing how long our comrades have put up with this idiot.

[upstanding conservative]

SO are you peaple saying my tv that i paid money for is not mine but everyones?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And in a society were we have wands with majick, we will not have to constantly have our noses at the grindstone in order to make a living.

If you call the intelligent application of technology and the abolishment of obsolete political and economic systems is majick, then so be it.


Do you see why this is an absurd statement?

Maybe you're just not thinking this through properly. However, if you'll actually care to explain...


No it's not, but it is unreasonable to assume that we will get there faster if we adopt Collectivism.

Individualism vs Collectivism is a false dichotomy - elements of both will always exist in society. And your superstitious and irrational fear of collectivism is noted.

[upstanding conservative]

If you peaple took over the country overthrew the goverment and put a communist sytem in place would i still have my large 2 story house,my 3 cars,my 6 big screen plasma tv's and other collectible possesions i obtained over the years or would i lose most of that stuff?Explain what you would do and how or if my quality of life would go down?

[KC]

If you peaple took over the country overthrew the goverment and put a communist sytem in place would i still have my large 2 story house,my 3 cars,my 6 big screen plasma tv's and other collectible possesions i obtained over the years or would i lose most of that stuff?Explain what you would do and how or if my quality of life would go down?

You would receive an equal amount of land as everyone else. You can have whatever you want; it's just that the status attributed to these objects will be gone. Big screen plasma tv's will be free. Cars will be free, although I would rather see a massive public transportation system set up.

[Freedom Works]

Maybe you're just not thinking this through properly. However, if you'll actually care to explain...
A society with wands and majick is more likely than a stateless, classless, moneyless society. They simply require each other.


Individualism vs Collectivism is a false dichotomy - elements of both will always exist in society.
The keyword is elements the goal is freedom from all illegitimate rule, which is simply any rule that you did not consent to.


And your superstitious and irrational fear of collectivism is noted.
Do you even know what superstitious means?

Anyway, your irrational fear of money is noted. Money by the way, is simply wealth that can be easily traded.

[tunes]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 01:19 AM
Money by the way, is simply wealth that can be easily traded.


Money is a tool for accumulating wealth.

[Freedom Works]

Money is a tool for accumulating wealth.
Wealth (be it apples, knives, or cars) is a tool for accumulating wealth, so your statement is correct, but it does not explain anything.

All progress comes from previous progress.

[tunes]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 01:50 AM
Wealth (be it apples, knives, or cars) is a tool for accumulating wealth, so your statement is correct, but it does not explain anything.
My explanation is this: Money is not simply a means of exchange - it is also a tool for amassing wealth. I suppose I could go on and try and explain that workers don't simply produce goods in capitalism, but are also a tool for amassing wealth by the rich. But you seem to be familiar with economics enough to understand this kind of connection, so that is probably unnecessary.

[KC]

But you seem to be familiar with economics enough to understand this kind of connection, so that is probably unnecessary.

Don't count on it. This wacko's the idiot that believes the means of production is reason!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A society with wands and majick is more likely than a stateless, classless, moneyless society. They simply require each other.

Wow, a blanket, unsupported statement. I am impressed. :rolleyes:


The keyword is elements the goal is freedom from all illegitimate rule, which is simply any rule that you did not consent to.

Who said anything about goals? I was merely refuting your idiotic dichotomy.


Do you even know what superstitious means?

Anyway, your irrational fear of money is noted. Money by the way, is simply wealth that can be easily traded.

Wealth shouldn't have to be traded in the first place, since trade represents an inequality in resources.

[Freedom Works]

Money is not simply a means of exchange - it is also a tool for amassing wealth.
Yes, but because money is easily transferable wealth, you are saying 'wealth is a tool for amassing wealth'. This is correct, but doesn't tell us anything.


I suppose I could go on and try and explain that workers don't simply produce goods in capitalism, but are also a tool for amassing wealth by the rich.
What is the workers are 'rich'?


Wow, a blanket, unsupported statement. I am impressed.
Sorry, Marx got it wrong, there is no exploitation of the workers, thus there is no class struggle, so the State will not 'wither away'.


Who said anything about goals? I was merely refuting your idiotic dichotomy.
It's not idiotic.


Wealth shouldn't have to be traded in the first place, since trade represents an inequality in resources.
'Inequality of resources' is subjective; people are going to always trade to increase their wealth.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 11:14 PM
If you peaple took over the country overthrew the goverment and put a communist sytem in place would i still have my large 2 story house,my 3 cars,my 6 big screen plasma tv's and other collectible possesions i obtained over the years or would i lose most of that stuff?Explain what you would do and how or if my quality of life would go down?
No, you wouldn't they would now belong to everyone, including you.

Quality of life is not measured in material possessions.

[Luís Henrique]

Im oppressive to the bums of society because i have a nice home,2 cars and money in the bank?

No. There is nothing oppressive in owning a nice home, two cars, and "money" in the bank. Even if having two cars seems quite stupid for anyone who follows Newtonian physics laws.

Ownership of means of consumption is never "opressive". Ownership of means of production is.

If you asked,


Im oppressive to the bums of society because i have a factory, 2 plantation farms and real money in the bank?

Then the answer would be, "yes".

Luís Henrique

PS. Your grammar and spelling, however, are quite oppressive to those of us who are used to proper English...

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 11:09 AM
Sorry, Marx got it wrong, there is no exploitation of the workers, thus there is no class struggle, so the State will not 'wither away'.
Another unsupported statement. That is also wrong.


It's not idiotic.

It is


'Inequality of resources' is subjective; people are going to always trade to increase their wealth.

not if the notion of 'wealth' is abolished. In my ideal society, 'wealth' would be a largely obsolete term. As all the wealth would be owned by all the people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sorry, Marx got it wrong, there is no exploitation of the workers, thus there is no class struggle, so the State will not 'wither away'.

I'd say union leaders being killed is an example of class struggle & exploitation.


It's not idiotic.

It is, since humans are neither a a hive mind nor a loner species. We are social animals.


'Inequality of resources' is subjective; people are going to always trade to increase their wealth.

One man having enough food and the other not having enough food to live is not subjective.

[Apka]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 12:32 PM
Know of any?

The problem with liberalism is that it neglects a central part of human nature, envy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think I know what you mean, but could you explain to make sure?

[bunk]

My grandfather grew in utter poverty as an indigenous in Mexico. However he worked hard and he has turned into an opressive person.

Many Kings descend from chieftains who "worked hard" too.

Does that means they deserve to opress other people?

Working hard has nothing to do with it. He may have worked hard but to rise out of poverty the major factor is luck a profitable idea. Poor people work hard but mostly never rise out of poverty.

[Freedom Works]

No, you wouldn't they would now belong to everyone, including you.
In belonging to everyone, they belong to noone, and this is where the productivity ceases.


Quality of life is not measured in material possessions.
Quality of life cannot be measured except subjectively, thus any attempt to equalize quality of life will result in oppression.


Ownership of means of consumption is never "opressive". Ownership of means of production is.
For it to be remotely oppressive, I would have to be stealing your means of production. Because I have traded my wealth to earn my means of production, they are not yours. If you argue that they are not, infact, mine, then I shall ask you to prove it. Upon doing so, you shall recieve the means of production. If you cannot prove that I have illegitimately aquired that which I have, then it is mine. Such is life, and prosperity.


Another unsupported statement. That is also wrong.
The completely just proposition that the worker is to receive the entire value of his product can be reasonably interpreted to mean either that he is to receive the full present value of his product now or that he is to get the entire future value in the future. But Rodbertus and the socialists interpret it to mean that the worker is to receive the entire future value of his product now. - Böhm-Bawerk (Critique of the Exploitation Theory of Interest (http://www.mises.org/story/1680))



not if the notion of 'wealth' is abolished. In my ideal society, 'wealth' would be a largely obsolete term. As all the wealth would be owned by all the people.
It does not matter. Your ideal society is a utopian fantasy, because society cannot be run - from the bottom up or the top down.


I'd say union leaders being killed is an example of class struggle & exploitation.
I'd say tax is a great example of exploitation. Besides, you try to make it sound like the workers are all kind and nonviolent, while capitalists are greedy and evil. The fact is, union law is absurd.


It is, since humans are neither a a hive mind nor a loner species. We are social animals.
Being social has nothing to with being asocial: utilizing the State's power. Abolish the State and humanity will prosper.


One man having enough food and the other not having enough food to live is not subjective.
What is 'enough'? That is the subjective part.


The problem with liberalism is that it neglects a central part of human nature, envy.
Which is the very reason the State must be abolished: so the envious cannot use the power to steal from the productive.
http://mises.org/story/1952


Working hard has nothing to do with it. He may have worked hard but to rise out of poverty the major factor is luck a profitable idea. Poor people work hard but mostly never rise out of poverty.
If we use force against the entrepreneurs to give to those that are not entrepreneurs, noone would have the the incentives to excell. Would you try to be productive if anything you did what stolen from you to give to others?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd say tax is a great example of exploitation. Besides, you try to make it sound like the workers are all kind and nonviolent, while capitalists are greedy and evil. The fact is, union law is absurd.

Oh yeah, those workers sure are evil for wanting fair pay and decent working hours :rolleyes: Why do you think unions arose in the first place?


Being social has nothing to with being asocial; utilizing the State's power. Abolish the State, and humanity will prosper.

If corporations and the wealthy cannot be trusted in the presence of a State, how the hell do you think they will behave if the state is non-existant?


What is 'enough'? That is the subjective part.

Enough to live healthily. Are you that fucking dense? A healthy diet is not a matter of taste, and besides, we produce enough food to feed everybody on a diet of their choosing.

[Freedom Works]

Why do you think unions arose in the first place?
Greed.



If corporations and the wealthy cannot be trusted in the presence of a State, how the hell do you think they will behave if the state is non-existant?
'Trust'? Trust is not the issue. The initiation of force is.



Enough to live healthily. Are you that fucking dense? A healthy diet is not a matter of taste, and besides, we produce enough food to feed everybody on a diet of their choosing.
I am not dense, the point is the 'healthily' is subjective, and thus there will be continuous altercations over the issue.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 08:26 PM

Why do you think unions arose in the first place?
Greed.


Holy fucking shit.

Are you joking? I thought you were smarter than that.

Forgive me, but I don't think that protesting because you can barely live by working fifteen daily hours is "greed" at all!

You seriously think workers should have been passive even if their only method of surviving was transforming themselves practically into slaves?

You are disgusting.

[Freedom Works]

I was merely answering the query. What would you call it? Greed by any other name is just as helpful to the society.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 11:34 PM
I was merely answering the query. What would you call it? Greed by any other name is just as helpful to the society.
So, a slave who liberates himself does it for greed?

Why can't we just call it self defense?

[Freedom Works]

So, a slave who liberates himself does it for greed?
Yes, he wants his freedom: thus he is greedy. Why does greed == bad to you?


Why can't we just call it self defense?
Because workers voluntarily choose.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 11:59 PM

So, a slave who liberates himself does it for greed?
Yes, he wants his freedom: thus he is greedy. Why does greed == bad to you?


Why can't we just call it self defense?
Because workers voluntarily choose.
I get your point. I still don't agree though.

It doesn't matter.

It just seemed to assholish to call someone greedy because he was fighting for his liberation.

Sorry!

[Freedom Works]

Well, sorry. That was not my intention. I was trying to point out the facts.

[Apka]

Originally posted by FreedomWorks
Which is the very reason the State must be abolished: so the envious cannot use the power to steal from the productive.

It still neglects it, I could very well refer to anarcho capitalism, in fact that theory neglects it at a higher level. You'r answer is actually quite ironic.

[Freedom Works]

Capitalism's incentives are based upon the individual wanting more (to help people, to be happy, to have more leisure time with the family...). Envy does nothing but progress this and strengthen it.

[Apka]

You don't get it do you?

[Luís Henrique]

Quality of life cannot be measured except subjectively, thus any attempt to equalize quality of life will result in oppression.

This being the reason communists aren't trying to "equalise quality of life".


For it to be remotely oppressive, I would have to be stealing your means of production. Because I have traded my wealth to earn my means of production, they are not yours. If you argue that they are not, infact, mine, then I shall ask you to prove it. Upon doing so, you shall recieve the means of production. If you cannot prove that I have illegitimately aquired that which I have, then it is mine. Such is life, and prosperity.

Good argument. It quite means, however, that any landed property is theft. Do you agree with this?


Besides, you try to make it sound like the workers are all kind and nonviolent, while capitalists are greedy and evil. The fact is, union law is absurd.

Nonsense. Workers are not morally better than capitalists. Class struggle is not a fight between Good and Evil.


Being social has nothing to with being asocial: utilizing the State's power. Abolish the State and humanity will prosper.

Agreed. There is a prerequisite, though: the abolition of private property. Without it, State is unavoidable.


http://mises.org/story/1952

Look, are you misinterpreting Mises as if he was an "anarcho-capitalist"? Because if so, you are completely mistaken. But don't trust me in the issue. Ask Publius.


Would you try to be productive if anything you did what stolen from you to give to others?

Of course. I try to be productive, though anything I do is stolen from me to be given to others.

Luís Henrique

[CarlTheCommie]

Futhermore, ancient societies were exorbitantly more violent than modern ones, with murder rates 100s of times higher than ours and casualty rates in war over 20 times ours.

Every ancient tribe that's been studied has been violent or has known of violence.


As a African with Native ancestry I can say without a doubt that this is pure hyperbole. Every study that has been done on Natives were done by Euros with an agenda to portray us as "savages" and "heathens", as a way to justify genocide and slavery, which is the basis of the American capitalist system.

Fortunately for us, our history is preserved through our own traditions; and our own way. Violence was not how we related to ourselves or other tribes, despite what the European "historians" say.

My suggestion for you is for you to read "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Frederick Engels. It is a study of ancient Native societal structure, WHICH COMMUNISM IS BASED ON.

[Columbia]

Where you find greedless people, you'll find a greedless society. But as greed is like love, hate, kindness, meanness and a lot of other things, it's part of the human conditionl, and can't be "legislated" or "revolutioned" away.

But keep trying. We're all rooting for you. Seriously.

[Tungsten]

CarlTheCommie

As a African with Native ancestry I can say without a doubt that this is pure hyperbole. Every study that has been done on Natives were done by Euros with an agenda to portray us as "savages" and "heathens",

It wasn't for the want of evidence, though was it? It's wrong to brand people of a particular country as "all the same", but in most cases it true because savagery is a state that every country was once at. It's something undesirable to be driven out, not encouraged, boasted about, or apologised for as some people do.


as a way to justify genocide and slavery, which is the basis of the American capitalist system.

Now whose putting forward the hyperbole? At least America can collectively say that genocide and slavery are now confined to it's history books. In Africa, these things are an every day occurence and have been throughout history. Tribal warfare is commonplace.


Fortunately for us, our history is preserved through our own traditions; and our own way. Violence was not how we related to ourselves or other tribes, despite what the European "historians" say.

What about this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,1...1187836,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1187836,00.html)

I'm afraid Pubilus was right. Tribal utopias populated by "noble savages" are pure fiction.

[Columbia]

Violence was not how we (Africans) related to ourselves or other tribes, despite what the European "historians" say.

This may win the prize for the most outrageous falsehood posted at this forum.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Europeans did not "import" violence to Africa.

First of all, there was an Africa before Europeans got around to it. Africa, like the rest of the world, had an ancient and medieval period. Both had kingdoms, empires, large scale wars and small skermishes. They were obsessed with gold on levels we can only imagine, second only, perhaps to the Incas, and were fiercly proud of their warrior traditions.

When you make such a sweeping statement that you made, you, in fact, do not honor Africa properly.

There was a time when many European scholars, and Americans following in their teachings, believed and argued that Africans were "childlike", incapable of commerce, strategy, long term planning, resource management and war. This is so idiotic it boggles the brain. Do not follow in their footsteps. Africa had ALL of these things, and they were distinctly African.

Which should be no suprise to anyone.

[Publius]

As a African with Native ancestry I can say without a doubt that this is pure hyperbole.

No you can't say that at all.

Well, you can, but you'd be absurdly wrong.

Your ancestry doesn't matter at all.



Every study that has been done on Natives were done by Euros with an agenda to portray us as "savages" and "heathens", as a way to justify genocide and slavery, which is the basis of the American capitalist system.

EVERY single one?

Shit man, you should publish your findings! You'll win a fucking Nobel prize for that revalation!

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean you get to poison the well.

The fact is, many of these studies were conducted by communists looking to PROVE that ancient societies were not violent.

Guess what they found out? They were. Vastly so.

This were communists, like you, trying to prove people like me wrong, and they failed.

Like you're doing.



Fortunately for us, our history is preserved through our own traditions; and our own way. Violence was not how we related to ourselves or other tribes, despite what the European "historians" say.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

So when we Americans are fed bullshit history, you call it 'revionist' and 'bourgeious'.

When you are fed bullshit history, you eat it up like a sucker.

If the American history books said 'we didn't use violence' it would self-evidently be bullshit.

Your bullshit is just as bad.




My suggestion for you is for you to read "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Frederick Engels. It is a study of ancient Native societal structure, WHICH COMMUNISM IS BASED ON.

Yeah, Engles the great anthropologist.

I'll pass.

[black magick hustla]

Greed is a very subjective term.

What is greed anyway? Desire for infinite accumulation of material wealth? Having enough free time to stimulate yourself physically and mentally?

We communists fight for self interest. While we can feel empathy for our comrades, at the end, we fight for a secured way of life that gives us the ability to actually live a life. We don't want to have two jobs in order to survive, we don't want our kids to suffer the harshness of the capitalist system.

I would rather have time to chat with comrades, drink, and make love, rather of boring myself to death by working numerous hours in order to buy stupid televisions and cars.

What a horrible atomization of creativity and life!

That is what you capitalists, who find fullfillment in the ability of accumulating infinite useless commodities can't understand us.


The fact is, many of these studies were conducted by communists looking to PROVE that ancient societies were not violent.
I don't think so. Sources?

[Columbia]

Yeah, Engles the great anthropologist.

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

[CarlTheCommie]

Actually I not a proud person; I am willing to admit that I am wrong if you can post information about Native tribes' proclivity towards violence from a non european source.

Me: ...Euros with an agenda to portray us as "savages" and "heathens",[/as a way to justify genocide and slavery, which is the basis of the American capitalist system.

You: Now whose putting forward the hyperbole?

It is a historical fact that when the issue of morality and slavery crept up in the conscience of Euros, they justified slavery using two methods:

1. A group of scientists called the "American School" conducted a series of bogus "scientific" tests that concluded that Africans and Natives (Americans) had smaller brains than those of the Euros and this proved the Euros right to rule over them.

2. Appealing to the religion of most of Euro settlers, a false interpretation of scripture was fashioned in which blacks in particular were deemed the descendents of Ham, who was cursed by God, which is why Africans skin "turned" dark.

I am certain that I don't have to remind you that the free labor of slavery and the mass displacement of Natives through genocide and broken treaties and the subsequent land grab generated huge profits for the ruling class and made today's capitalist "democracy" possible.

[CarlTheCommie]

I am immediately struck by the tone of your response to my original post. Not that I feel anything substantive was aired, quite the contrary, but by the immediate parallel I drew to white supremacists and the way they convey their ideology. It is one and the same.

"Violence was not how we (Africans) related to ourselves or other tribes, despite what the European "historians" say."

This first thing I noticed about my 'quote' was that you added (African) to it. My original quote was actually refering to the indigenous of this land, the former Turtle Island, according to my maternal grandfather. In your haste to respond, it seems that you forgot to read my post for understanding. That's okay. It happens to the best of us.

Anywho, as I had written above to the other poster, I am not a proud person, I am more than willing to admit to a mistake. If you can show me how ancient Africa was more violent than today's America using non-european (African) sources, I will admit that I overstated my claim. Thanks in advance.

[CarlTheCommie]

edit

[CarlTheCommie]

Pubius,

Hi.

I enjoy conversing about political/economic/historical issues and facts but I have a very low tolerance for namecalling and nastiness, as I feel neither are conducive to a fruitful build and shows a lack of a cogent argument. Having stated that, I just want to let you know up front that will I not respond to any of your subsequent posts if you continue to convey a condescending tone. This is not some control issue I have or me trying to project my personal ideas on to you, its just that my time is very valuable to me and I refuse to spend it on fruitless flame wars.

My challenge to you is the same as the two others; I am not vain to the point where I am not able to admit that I've oversimplified or overstated something. If you can provide proof of indigenous tribes being more brutal than today's society from a non-european (Native or African sources, please) I would appreciate it.

[CarlTheCommie]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 11:59 PM

So, a slave who liberates himself does it for greed?
Yes, he wants his freedom: thus he is greedy. Why does greed == bad to you?


Why can't we just call it self defense?
Because workers voluntarily choose.
Actually:

greed n.

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: “Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett).

(italics and bolds are mine, of course


Surely, you are not saying that blacks who fought for their right to be free, fought for more than what they needed or deserved.

Or are you?