why not

[Sheep]

why not?

why shouldn't i compete with my fellow man? or should i ask; why can't i compete with my fellow man?

if i want to... i will.

a communist state wont change that.

i will do what i want.

you will not change that.

why should someone else get what they have not earned?

do you get food/shelter/life by simply being born?

no.

you earn food/shelter/life through staying alive.

communism is nice... but i like beating my enemies... not feeding them.


life in not an inalienable right... you have to earn it... and maintain it.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Yeah you get food/shelter/life for being born if you have the right parents. Do you believe someone who is born to wealthy parents has mor right to life as someone born to impoverished parents?

Does this go for corporations also? The current sytem that we live under gives an awful lot to those that least need it. Capitalism is not honest competition because it skewed in the favor of a small percentage of the population.

Life is and should be an inalienable right.

You were born in the wrong time period you would have made a great caveman :)

[Dyst]

Co-operation > competition.

[RebelOutcast]

Because living your life through beligerance and conflict is not a sensible way to do things, in the end there is always someone bigger/stronger/better than you.
So why thrive off of other people's weakness when you can thrive off of each others strengths? Co-operation is better than competition and much more is accomplished with it.
Should this person be restricted, as he seems to be an opposing ideologue?

[Connolly]

Restriction?


why shouldn't i compete with my fellow man? or should i ask; why can't i compete with my fellow man?

if i want to... i will.

a communist state wont change that.

i will do what i want.

you will not change that.

Try read some other previous topics on this exact issue before blurting out tripe.

Your actions and thoughts are defined by your material conditions.

What you want and can do is limited by these material conditions, and so, you cant just do what the hell you want to do.


why should someone else get what they have not earned?

Our point exactly.

The class who produce the wealth and goods should gain - not the ruling class (who gain (profit), yet do not produce the goods and man the machinary etc.)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 8 2006, 03:43 PM
The class who produce the wealth and goods should gain - not the ruling class (who gain (profit), yet do not produce the goods and man the machinary etc.)
Thats it in a nutshell. Well said :)

[Big Boss]

It's better to unite with each other rather than stepping on each other to get ahead in life. :)

[Nathe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:57 AM
why not?

why shouldn't i compete with my fellow man? or should i ask; why can't i compete with my fellow man?

if i want to... i will.
you can, if you want to, as things only have value as you take to them. communism allows this. the thing that it dosent do is force people to compete, which capitalism does quite well. is sheep a refrence to you blindly following the masses belief in capitalism. following a blind mass is never a good idea


[b]do you get food/shelter/life by simply being born?

no.

you earn food/shelter/life through staying alive.
yes you do get food/shelter/life by simply being born. being born implies coming to life. and a newborn baby recieves the option of shelter and food from its parents as soon as it is born. i dont see a baby do 8 hours in a factory for its mothers milk. but i dont see that supporting your point. by that premise, you should feed your enemies because they have stayed alive and therefore have earned their food/shelter/life.


communism is nice... but i like beating my enemies... not feeding them.
this is the biggest problem of capitalism. it causes people to look at each other as enemies, like you have to be competing or you dont survive. wheras co-operation is a much friendlier, less destructive, and therefore more efficient way of working things.
as keiza said, Co-operation > competition.

btw, what actually was your original point... it seems a bit fuzzy

[Zingu]

“Communism deprives no-one of the power to appropriate products from society; all it does is deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.”

Karl Marx

[Tungsten]

Zingu

“Communism deprives no-one of the power to appropriate products from society; all it does is deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.”

Karl Marx
This doesn't quite add up when you think about it, does it?
How do you think those products come into being? If I have unlimited power to confiscate the products of people's labour, then what am I doing, other than subjucating their labour to my own wants and needs?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:57 AM
why not?

why shouldn't i compete with my fellow man? or should i ask; why can't i compete with my fellow man?

if i want to... i will.
Hey, nobody here wants to abolish sports...


a communist state wont change that.

Of course it wont, ficititious political systems can't change things, because, since they can't exist, they can't be used.


i will do what i want.

you will not change that.

Good. I'm sure your victims will be glad with your "freedom".


why should someone else get what they have not earned?

Good to see you oppose the "right" a small part of the population has under capitalism to inherit extraordinary ammounts of wealth they never "earned".


do you get food/shelter/life by simply being born?

no.

Actually, for most people the answer is yes. Their parents usually make an amazing effort to feed them.

I a great idea: let's prohibit parents from feeding their babies! :lol:


you earn food/shelter/life through staying alive.

Nonsense


communism is nice... but i like beating my enemies... not feeding them.

:lol:


life in not an inalienable right... you have to earn it... and maintain it.

Good...so I guess you oppose capitalism, since it gives a minority of the population a huge ammount of wealth just because their parents were rich, right? In some cases they won't even have to "earn" any for the rest of their lives, and the police "mantains" it for them.

I have another good idea which fits your ignorant rant: I'll put a gun against your head and shoot, and then steal all your money. Haha, you couldn't "earn" and "mantain" your "life"! :lol:


I sincerely hope you don't think this teenager rant can be considered a serious philosophical attempt to "debunk" "communism".

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by sheep
why shouldn't i compete with my fellow man? or should i ask; why can't i compete with my fellow man?

Ernesto "Che" Guevara said some wise words on competition in the capitalist society in his Man and Socialism in Cuba. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm)


The Invisible Laws of Capitalism

The laws of capitalism, invisible and blind for most people, act upon the individual without his awareness. He sees only the broadness of a horizon that appears infinite. Capitalist propaganda presents it in just this way, and attempts to use the Rockefeller case (true or not) as a lesson in the prospects for success. The misery that must be accumulated for such an example to arise and the sum total of baseness contributing to the formation of a fortune of such magnitude do not appear in the picture, and the popular forces are not always able to make these concepts clear. (It would be fitting at this point to study how the works of the imperialist countries gradually lose their international class spirit under the influence of a certain complicity in the exploitation of the dependent countries and how this fact at the same time wears away the militant spirit of the masses within their own national context, but this topic is outside the framework of the present note).

In any case we can see the obstacle course which may apparently be overcome by an individual with the necessary qualities to arrive at the finish line. The reward is glimpsed in the distance and the road is solitary. Furthermore, it is a race of wolves: he who arrives does so only at the expense of the failure of others.

A flawed system unable to provide the majority of people freedom and happiness.

Since you fail to comprehend what communism is about, shown by the usage of phrases like "communist state", Man and Socialism in Cuba might be an interesting read for you.

Apart of this passage, it is about the nature of man and competition in marxist-leninist socialism, the form of government you think of as "communism", and counters the capitalist lies about this issue quite well by the way. ;)

[RebelOutcast]

I love the way he's failed to reply to any of us, it's like he relises he's been beaten.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:57 AM
why not?

why shouldn't i compete with my fellow man? or should i ask; why can't i compete with my fellow man?

if i want to... i will.

a communist state wont change that.

i will do what i want.

you will not change that.

why should someone else get what they have not earned?

do you get food/shelter/life by simply being born?

no.

you earn food/shelter/life through staying alive.

communism is nice... but i like beating my enemies... not feeding them.


life in not an inalienable right... you have to earn it... and maintain it.
In capitalism you dont benifit from "competition". You benifit from exploiting people instead. There is nothing wrong with competition, but if there are rescources in the area that people need to live, if everyone is worknig for the good of the country they deserve access no matter how good you compete. Cause youre not shit without your own fellow country men who do their own special jobs to make the place and the world you live in what it is.

In capitalism people do not get what they earned. People get the least possible thing a capitalist has to pay them alot of times. So let me ask you...who determines what you "earn" or what amount of money your work is worth. In socialism and communism the cost of living determines it but in capitalism it is determined by the minimum wage law. Minimum wage is not enough to live on either....you are letting a fortunate ritch man tell you what you have earned for the day. He is the only one who is really earning.

Its cool if you care about his earnings but the truth is my friend, most of the world is not earing like he is, infact most of us do not earn enough money at all.
In capitalism someone will always get what you earn and you will get an hourly wage back from it, unless you are the capitalist. But we dont care about a few of them we care about the majority of the world who isnt earning what they need, which you will most likely be a part of soon.

[Tungsten]

RebelOutcast
I love the way my post hasn't been addressed either.

[Connolly]

RebelOutcast
I love the way my post hasn't been addressed either.

I wouldnt respond either.

Who gives a shit about the interpretation of two lines?

Nobody in opposition responded to my post!! Im not going to go whining about it though!!!!

[cyu]

If I have unlimited power to confiscate the products of people's labour, then what am I doing, other than subjucating their labour to my own wants and needs?

So are you referring to taxes collected by a government? Or profit collected by the shareholder? Both?

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

I wouldnt respond either.

Who gives a shit about the interpretation of two lines?
Because I've just pointed out a glaring contradiction in your ideology. But then, that assumes that you care whether or not you contradict yourself.
cyu

So are you referring to taxes collected by a government?
Yes. Same difference.

Or profit collected by the shareholder?
Shareholders aren't confiscating other people's labour.

[cyu]

Shareholders aren't confiscating other people's labour.

So if the employees get together and decide democratically that they aren't going to pay the shareholder anymore, but split the money among themselves, are they confiscating the shareholder's labor?

[Tungsten]

cya

So if the employees get together and decide democratically that they aren't going to pay the shareholder anymore, but split the money among themselves, are they confiscating the shareholder's labor?

-It's not their money.

-They don't pay the shareholders.

-If a group of people democratically decide to enslave you, are they not still confiscating your labour?

[cyu]

If a group of people democratically decide to enslave you, are they not still confiscating your labour?

Enslavement actually involves confiscation of labor since the slave does work, unlike a shareholder. C'mon, both you and I know it's the employees that are doing the work. The cut given to the shareholder is confiscation of their labor.

[Tungsten]

cyu

Enslavement actually involves confiscation of labor since the slave does work, unlike a shareholder. C'mon, both you and I know it's the employees that are doing the work. The cut given to the shareholder is confiscation of their labor.
But that doesn't mean they're confiscating the labour of workers. I'm not confiscating the labour of someone who I pay to mow my lawn.

[encephalon]

"It's my body, I do what I want!"

You're the greatest caricature of yourself that you've ever met.

[encephalon]

But that doesn't mean they're confiscating the labour of workers. I'm not confiscating the labour of someone who I pay to mow my lawn.

You are confiscating the value with which their labor departs. If you had to pay them the actual worth of their labor, then there's no reason you'd pay them to do it instead of yourself in the first place.

[cyu]

But that doesn't mean they're confiscating the labour of workers. I'm not confiscating the labour of someone who I pay to mow my lawn.

You're confusing the customer with a shareholder. Do you know what the difference is?

The only reason the employee needs the shareholder is because he doesn't own the equipment and buildings necessary to do his job. If the shareholder disappeared, the employee would be no worse off. The buildings, equipment, and land are still there for him to use. In other words, the shareholder isn't necessary for the economic well-being of an economy. They're just there as parasites, living off the labor of other people.

The richest people in the world didn't get there because of any great feats of labor - they got there from being shareholders. The amount of resources (raw materials, equipment, labor) used to support just them could have supported lots more people if they weren't devoted to serving the wealthy few who aren't even needed for an economy to function well. The economy would function even better if they didn't exist.

[Tungsten]

encephalon

You are confiscating the value with which their labor departs.
No, I'm not. It's generally not part of the working contract and labour isn't the sole source of wealth creation.

If you had to pay them the actual worth of their labor,
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Not this again...how many more times?
cyu

The only reason the employee needs the shareholder is because he doesn't own the equipment and buildings necessary to do his job. If the shareholder disappeared, the employee would be no worse off.
I could enslave you and I'd probably be no worse off, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate course of action.

The buildings, equipment, and land are still there for him to use. In other words, the shareholder isn't necessary for the economic well-being of an economy.
There are many people are "aren't necessary" to the economy- many of them from your side of the field, but I don't sit here plotting your annihilation, though.

They're just there as parasites, living off the labor of other people.
I'd argue that that's what the unemployed and people on welfare are too. You're planning on denouncing them, too, I hope.

The richest people in the world didn't get there because of any great feats of labor -
Not in the conventional sense. Capital instuments create wealth just as labour does.

The amount of resources (raw materials, equipment, labor) used to support just them could have supported lots more people if they weren't devoted to serving the wealthy few who aren't even needed for an economy to function well.
Just think how much better off the poor would be if you were spend the rest of your life working for their benefit (at gunpoint). Would you accept that as a valid course of action? It's the same in principle as what you're advocating- someone just redistributing "resources" (which includes your money, property, labour and time (including you leisure time) to people the rulers see as deserving of it.

I'm not in favour of that and neither should you be.

[cyu]

Just think how much better off the poor would be if you were spend the rest of your life working for their benefit (at gunpoint). Would you accept that as a valid course of action? It's the same in principle as what you're advocating- someone just redistributing "resources" (which includes your money, property, labour and time (including you leisure time) to people the rulers see as deserving of it.

You've never heard of anarcho-syndicalism I suppose. No one is going to be redistributing resources other than the market economy. No one is pointing a gun at you forcing to work. You work to make a living, just as in a capitalist economy. The only difference is that companies are run democratically. If there exists a non-democratic company which the employees wish to run democratically, then there's no law preventing them from doing so. Shareholders of that company are just out of luck and will have to get jobs like everyone else to earn a living.

The "redistribution" that happens will occur naturally - as democratic companies are more likely than authoritarian ones to have more equal levels of pay and the major way of earning far more than everyone else (being a shareholder) is made a thing of the past.

[red team]

The amount of resources (raw materials, equipment, labor) used to support just them could have supported lots more people if they weren't devoted to serving the wealthy few who aren't even needed for an economy to function well.

Just think how much better off the poor would be if you were spend the rest of your life working for their benefit (at gunpoint). Would you accept that as a valid course of action? It's the same in principle as what you're advocating- someone just redistributing "resources" (which includes your money, property, labour and time (including you leisure time) to people the rulers see as deserving of it.


Yeah right, we're advocating a zero-sum shell game. That's what Communism must be. :rolleyes: