Coexistence?

[Gaius]

Can radical anarchists, communists and socialists envisage an eventual utopia where Communists, socialists, anarchists and capitalists can live side by side?

For example, could you allow the existence of capitalist regions within a communist land? I.E- Allow workers form their communes etc. and let capitalists have their own private property etc.? If Communism was so great and capitalism so bad then surely the people will come over to the communist communes and abandon capitalism.

What do you think?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Anarchists, sociaists and communists could live together easily. There is no real difference except in means of achieving free and equal society. Unless you mean socialist to mean somone that wants to live under socialism, but not communism :blink: ?

Anyway, the problem is capitalism as it can only function to the extent that people would desire in modern society, on a large scale. Small scale capitalism is a little pointless in my oppinion, and would only be the choice of groups such as social Darwinists.

[cyu]

If Communism was so great and capitalism so bad then surely the people will come over to the communist communes and abandon capitalism.

In theory, in an anarcho-syndicalist society, you could have pockets of democratic companies and pockets of authoritarian companies, assuming everyone was there willingly. You could have pockets of slavery too, assuming the slaves actually want to be slaves. But then again, if they had the choice to leave slavery anytime they wanted (and didn't just have a choice between which slave master to live under), they wouldn't really be slaves.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:59 PM
For example, could you allow the existence of capitalist regions within a communist land? I.E- Allow workers form their communes etc. and let capitalists have their own private property etc.? If Communism was so great and capitalism so bad then surely the people will come over to the communist communes and abandon capitalism.


Society doesn't really work that way...read Marx! You would enjoy it.

[Fascist-Hunter]

Capitalism needs slaves. If you think that communist/socialist/anarchist regions could coexist with capitalist countries you are wrong. There is a thing we call imperialism that means if the cappies can't find new markets or new slaves they simply start a war and invade these regions. The same goes for Nazis. I would say if someone wants to be an idiot let him be. But on the other hand I realize that these people will never let us live in freedom and equality. Therefore we need a kind of "zoo" for nazis... you know, like that movie "Escape from New York". We put all cappies and nazis on an island, put barbed wire around it, some mines and then they can have fun there, while normal people can live in peace.

[Gaius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:38 AM
Capitalism needs slaves. If you think that communist/socialist/anarchist regions could coexist with capitalist countries you are wrong. There is a thing we call imperialism that means if the cappies can't find new markets or new slaves they simply start a war and invade these regions. The same goes for Nazis. I would say if someone wants to be an idiot let him be. But on the other hand I realize that these people will never let us live in freedom and equality. Therefore we need a kind of "zoo" for nazis... you know, like that movie "Escape from New York". We put all cappies and nazis on an island, put barbed wire around it, some mines and then they can have fun there, while normal people can live in peace.
Thats the sort of thing that scares me. We don't have the right to force an idealogy on other people, and if we forced them on these people then this is called authoritarianism, however, if people do it of their own free wil then this is called Libertarianism

Treating them like animals is counterproductive and says a lot about the integrity of the poster.

[red team]

If a profit system doesn't profit then the profit system collapses.

If Capitalism cannot compel economically desperate workers to accept working for less than the full value of the products of their labour then Capitalism being a system that runs on profit collapses.

So if a new system which does not make a layer of people economically desperate enough to accept any conditions of work for the owners of wealth, why would people want to stick around being desperate peons to the rulers of the old system?

The profit system is being globalized right now from the ease of communications and travel so any social revolution would necessarily mean a global one because of the above mentioned factors.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Can radical anarchists, communists and socialists envisage an eventual utopia where Communists, socialists, anarchists and capitalists can live side by side?

Of course, we all WANT to live in communism.



For example, could you allow the existence of capitalist regions within a communist land? I.E- Allow workers form their communes etc. and let capitalists have their own private property etc.? If Communism was so great and capitalism so bad then surely the people will come over to the communist communes and abandon capitalism.

The point of communism is that capitalism is outdated. It's no longer a good system to live under. You dont see any feudalist parts of America do you?

Capitalist pockets couldnt exist. Who would they trade with, the communes probably wouldnt trade with them. You would also have to explain the fact that if a country is in revolution, why a pocket of wage slaves would want to remain that way? I think thats ridiculous and not likely at all.

[~*HastaLaVictoriaSiempre*~]

well there really could be no "capitalist pockets" mostly because

1.capitalism usaully opereates better on a large scale so other comapanies would compete with eachother to make more money, i cant imagine that a "capitalist pocket" would grow so large in a communist society that companies would develop and start trading with one anoher

2.Most communsits especially the leader of that communist government hates capitalists guts; therefore any word of a "pocket" growing would be quickly be tracked down and over thrown

thank you for posting your thread in a constructive way rather than a remark or an insult

[Fascist-Hunter]

Thats the sort of thing that scares me. We don't have the right to force an idealogy on other people, and if we forced them on these people then this is called authoritarianism, however, if people do it of their own free wil then this is called Libertarianism

Treating them like animals is counterproductive and says a lot about the integrity of the poster.

Your arguments are ridiculous. Fascist and capitalists kill people every day (yes, thats exactly what they are doing). In order to prevent them from stealing from the workers and from killing innocent people we have to think about a solution that fits all. Some time ago a little wannabe revolutionary called my ideas "structural antisemitism". He pointed out that if i wanted to send nazis to an island I would be doing exactly the same thing which hitler once tried to do to the jews when he thought of sending them to Madagaskar. The people in the camps had no chance to make any kind of decision; they were regarded as minor beings and killed just because the were born with the wrong kind of religion. The situation would be different in communism because usually you decide on your own to become a fascist. By the way, on this island there would be capitalism. The same situation which we have today, with the exception that you will only find people there that have decided to live their lives that way. Barbed wire is just used to prevent them from entering the communist/anarchist/whateverwillbe regions. if they want a police state or if they want to work 15 hours a day thats perfectly ok for me as long as they don't molest other people with their inhuman ideology. It's not me who treats people "like animals" as you call it. It is just their own decision or to be precise their own ideology. you should be aware of the fact that living as a slave is the fundamental idea behind fascism (no matter if it is racist, religious, nationalist or any other kind of fascism) and I'm not talking about killing people or doing any harm to them like hitler did. All I say is: If you want to live under capitalism you get the chance. But leave the others alone and let them live in peace.

[Comrada J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:38 PM
Therefore we need a kind of "zoo" for nazis... you know, like that movie "Escape from New York". We put all cappies and nazis on an island, put barbed wire around it, some mines and then they can have fun there, while normal people can live in peace.
That's a good idea, comrada. We should remember to do that. :)


Some time ago a little wannabe revolutionary called my ideas "structural antisemitism". He pointed out that if i wanted to send nazis to an island I would be doing exactly the same thing which hitler once tried to do to the jews when he thought of sending them to Madagaskar.

I&#39;ve coped a lot from some liberals for suggesting similar same things. Although, I have yet to hear of a much better solution. <_<

[Gaius]

Those two gentlemen sound very similar to Josephy Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Its like they are the product of a weird hybrid of evil.

The political Compass measures me as:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.03

According to this I&#39;m probably about as anarcho-communistic as they come. I believe communism must be implemented by consensus rather than revolution. If it came by revolution I would be first among the conuter-revolutionaries.

[redcom]

even if a utopia was achieved with anarchists,socialist,and communists anarchists are similar and diffirent to socialist and communist in the same way they are different and similar to capitalists because they basically believe that themselves and only themselves should have a say if they are allowed to do something or not kinda like a small child throughing a fit because they where told NO this would lead to failure

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:32 PM
Society doesn&#39;t really work that way...read Marx&#33; You would enjoy it.
Only if you do not take it as the begining and end of all wisdom as some do unfortunatly.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:15 AM
According to this I&#39;m probably about as anarcho-communistic as they come. I believe communism must be implemented by consensus rather than revolution. If it came by revolution I would be first among the conuter-revolutionaries.
Then, no matter what some internet quiz says, you are not communist.

[Tungsten]

(The amusingly named) "Fascisthunter"

Capitalism needs slaves.
I have a feeling replying to this is going to be a waste of time, but here we go...

There is a thing we call imperialism that means if the cappies can&#39;t find new markets or new slaves they simply start a war and invade these regions.
That&#39;s called mercantilism, not capitalism. Capitalism needs property rights to function.

I would say if someone wants to be an idiot let him be. But on the other hand I realize that these people will never let us live in freedom and equality.
Whose guaranteeing that you&#39;ll be free in a communist society?

Your arguments are ridiculous. Fascist and capitalists kill people every day (yes, thats exactly what they are doing).
So do you people and for the stupidest of reasons. Cry me a river.

In order to prevent them from stealing from the workers and from killing innocent people we have to think about a solution that fits all.
It&#39;s unlikey a system in which property rights are enforced will endorse stealing from anyone.

The situation would be different in communism because usually you decide on your own to become a fascist. By the way, on this island there would be capitalism. The same situation which we have today, with the exception that you will only find people there that have decided to live their lives that way.
I&#39;ve got a better idea- send the communist/anarchist/whateverwillbe regions to the island where you can all live happily in full equality.

if they want a police state or if they want to work 15 hours a day thats perfectly ok for me as long as they don&#39;t molest other people with their inhuman ideology.
You&#39;d need a police state to enforce this.

It&#39;s not me who treats people "like animals" as you call it.
Yes, you do. You advocate the imprisonment of people who haven&#39;t necessarily done anything to anyone. That&#39;s an inhuman ideology.

and I&#39;m not talking about killing people or doing any harm to them
Yes, you are. You&#39;re an authoritarian.

All I say is: If you want to live under capitalism you get the chance. But leave the others alone and let them live in peace.
Who are you to set the terms, Adolf?
Gaius

Thats the sort of thing that scares me. We don&#39;t have the right to force an idealogy on other people, and if we forced them on these people then this is called authoritarianism,
The true nature of his ideology laid bare, huh?
red team

If a profit system doesn&#39;t profit then the profit system collapses.
Every system is a profit system- except for a slave state where no one works unless they&#39;re forced by those in charge. You wouldn&#39;t be planning on doing that by any chance, would you?

If Capitalism cannot compel economically desperate workers to accept working for less than the full value of the products of their labour then Capitalism being a system that runs on profit collapses.
You mean market failiure? That&#39;s caused by individuals, not capitalism.

The profit system is being globalized right now from the ease of communications and travel so any social revolution would necessarily mean a global one because of the above mentioned factors.
A revolution everywhere on Earth, all at once? Like that&#39;s going to happen.

[KC]

That&#39;s called mercantilism, not capitalism.

Mercantilism is a specific protectionist economic theory where imports are taxed and exports are encouraged. Imperialism is a specific epoch of a historic stage, described in Lenin&#39;s Imperialism. Capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. Mercantilism was an economic theory of the old aristocracy, and gave rise to nation-states. It has nothing to do with capitalist imperialism.

[red team]

If a profit system doesn&#39;t profit then the profit system collapses.

Every system is a profit system- except for a slave state where no one works unless they&#39;re forced by those in charge. You wouldn&#39;t be planning on doing that by any chance, would you?


Thank you for showing your ignorance of what the term profit means. Profit only exists only if full value is not paid to a direct producer. And value in the form of prices including the price of labour which we called wages is in turn arbitrarily determined by the human abstraction of desire.

Pay workers the full value of their wages and you have no more profit. But since value is arbitrarily determined this is only an interim solution until society achieves self sufficiency from non-labour systems where pricing is obsolete and automation technology is highly advanced.

As you may have noticed, I have nothing but contempt for economic shell games and psychological manipulation through punishment/reward systems. Therefore, it is my belief that the only free society is where the tools do their own work.




If Capitalism cannot compel economically desperate workers to accept working for less than the full value of the products of their labour then Capitalism being a system that runs on profit collapses.

You mean market failiure? That&#39;s caused by individuals, not capitalism.


And how are those individual actions determined other than from the material motivation of the external environment? Unless someone is clinically insane, he responds to events in the world that affects him which in turn influences his actions. Nobody just does something without a purpose, otherwise it&#39;s called insanity.




The profit system is being globalized right now from the ease of communications and travel so any social revolution would necessarily mean a global one because of the above mentioned factors.

A revolution everywhere on Earth, all at once? Like that&#39;s going to happen.


Economic systems all over the world are highly integrated. One falling domino starts the whole chain off. The only places in the world where this is not affected is where global financial markets have not penetrated into. Where in the world are those places?

[Fascist-Hunter]

@Tungsten:

you should really go and see a doctor :huh:


edit: anyway, I&#39;ll try to explain it to you again. As an Anarchists I respect other peoples believe. Stalinist would maybe shoot them after the revolution, maybe other communists groups would use them as labour slaves or whatever. Thats a horrible idea in my eyes. On the other hand I&#39;m very well aware of the fact that fascist won&#39;t let other people live in peace. Therefore we need "two worlds" (if you don&#39;t like the word "zoo", take reservations or something like that), one for the freedom-loving persons and one for the cappies. They will find exactly the same conditions which we have on this planet today (capitalism) with one little exception: Workers who don&#39;t want to live in capitalism are freed and therefore do not have to suffer anymore from exploitation. All the others who believe in exploiting other people can live together in one place. So we have finally reached paradise; for the workers AND for the cappies.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

^^ yeah , what else? the communist will uncover the lost city of Atlantis? :rolleyes: while the cappies turn into a promiscuous society :lol: .

Your really good, try out for science fiction novels you might make it ;)

[Fascist-Hunter]

Look, Fist of Blood has already told me about my mistake. I&#39;m no english native speaker and in my langugae there are only compound nouns, therefore I used to write "kitchentable" instead of "kitchen table". - I&#39;ll have that name changed. Anyway, i don&#39;t care what certain people think about me. Comparing Adolf to Stalin shows me that you haven&#39;t the slightest idea what you are talking about.


Whose guaranteeing that you&#39;ll be free in a communist society?
In communism there are no countries. There are no leaders and no slaves. Freedom is the most important thing for real anarchists and communists. to cut a long story short and to answer your question: logic guarantees my freedom. I wouldn&#39;t support a movement of authoritarian people, for example stalinists. north korea (to give another example) is not communism even though many people think it is.


So do you people and for the stupidest of reasons. Cry me a river.
I have never killed a person in my whole life.


It&#39;s unlikey a system in which property rights are enforced will endorse stealing from anyone.
Stealing can be done in many different ways. If you let a person work for you and use that person to increase your wealth you are stealing from that person, for example his life time.


I&#39;ve got a better idea- send the communist/anarchist/whateverwillbe regions to the island where you can all live happily in full equality.
That&#39;s ok. We will have two parts of the world, that&#39;s exactly what I said. If there are fewer Anarchists/Communists than Nazis or Cappies we take the island and you get the rest of the planet. But that won&#39;t happen.


Yes, you do. You advocate the imprisonment of people who haven&#39;t necessarily done anything to anyone. That&#39;s an inhuman ideology.

No, I don&#39;t. All I say is that we have to keep them in a seperated area where they can&#39;t do any harm to other people (therefore baberd wire, fences etc). Among themselves they can go on living in a capitalist society, nationalist society, theocratic society, a mixture of all these or whatever they like. Just like some people think we should imprison rapists to protect society I think we should keep freedom haters seperated.


Yes, you are. You&#39;re an authoritarian.
No. All I say is: you can be free, but you are not free to enslave other people. We create two worlds, one for you people, one for us freedom fighters. We don&#39;t want your inhuman ideology in our area. Therefore we keep you out with fences etc. I&#39;m not talking about killing anyone or taking away their freedom - in fact you get your freedom. Or to be precise what you think is freedom (see below)


Who are you to set the terms, Adolf?
I don&#39;t set terms, logic does. And of course sanity.


The true nature of his ideology laid bare, huh?
yes. The true nature of YOUR ideology (see above). I always thought that you guys thought that capitalism is freedom. If you are against my ideas it just shows me that you think you have the right to exploit people. We won&#39;t take anything away from you - in fact you get anything you ever wanted. With the exception of slaves/workers. These people are not your property, therefore you will have to work for yourself to keep capitalism going on or find another way to survive. You will experience what it&#39;s like to work all your life and getting exploited by others (in this case: your own friends, the cappies). And maybe one day you will understand that capitalism and nationalism are always WRONG.

[Tungsten]

red team

Pay workers the full value of their wages and you have no more profit.
The value of their wages is determined by what is decided beforehand. Your argument relies on circular logic; you&#39;re using the LTV to prove the validity of the LTV.

As you may have noticed, I have nothing but contempt for economic shell games and psychological manipulation through punishment/reward systems.
Pretty much every human relationship can be reduced to a "punishment/reward" system.

And how are those individual actions determined other than from the material motivation of the external environment?
Oh look, another determinist.

Unless someone is clinically insane, he responds to events in the world that affects him which in turn influences his actions. Nobody just does something without a purpose, otherwise it&#39;s called insanity.
What&#39;s this got to do with the issue on hand? Either they agree to a trade or they don&#39;t. There&#39;s nothing more to it.

And your avatar is irritating.

Fascisthunter

Stalinist would maybe shoot them after the revolution, maybe other communists groups would use them as labour slaves or whatever. Thats a horrible idea in my eyes.
You&#39;re just content with locking them up/segregating them without a good reason.

On the other hand I&#39;m very well aware of the fact that fascist won&#39;t let other people live in peace. Therefore we need "two worlds" (if you don&#39;t like the word "zoo", take reservations or something like that), one for the freedom-loving persons and one for the cappies.
And the capitalists are "freedom hating", right? :rolleyes:

In communism there are no countries. There are no leaders and no slaves.
That remains without historical evidence to back it up.

Stealing can be done in many different ways. If you let a person work for you and use that person to increase your wealth you are stealing from that person, for example his life time.
No, you&#39;re not. There&#39;s that small matter known as "constent" that keeps getting in your way.

No, I don&#39;t. All I say is that we have to keep them in a seperated area where they can&#39;t do any harm to other people (therefore baberd wire, fences etc).
Yeah, like a prison. :rolleyes:

The true nature of YOUR ideology (see above). I always thought that you guys thought that capitalism is freedom. If you are against my ideas it just shows me that you think you have the right to exploit people.
What sloppy thinking. I don&#39;t consider what you call "explotation" to be exploitation.

By the way, I&#39;ve heard precious little about your own ideology and what you actually support. Let&#39;s hear it, so I can point out how "freedom loving" you really are.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

I&#39;m no english native speaker and in my langugae there are only compound nouns

first of all what i said wasn&#39;t refering to your spelling, i can care less about how you spell, i was only being sarcastic because your theory of creating 2 worlds bla bla bla please keep dreeming, thats why i said you should try writing science fiction novels; and by the way your language only uses compund nouns? wtf? what language is that? native american language?

[cyu]

Pay workers the full value of their wages and you have no more profit.
The value of their wages is determined by what is decided beforehand.

Let&#39;s say slavery exists and there are two slave-owners. The slave-owners decide one day to allow their slaves to choose which slave-owner to serve. 70% of the slaves choose owner A, 30% of the slaves choose owner B. Would you argue that the slaves have no claim to freedom because they&#39;ve "agreed" to serve under their current slave-owner?

The same is true of capitalism. The means of production (equipment, land, raw material buildings) are owned by the few. You "agree" to serve under an owner only because you don&#39;t have access to your own capital. But just because employees had an agreement some time in the past doesn&#39;t mean they now have no right to throw off their shackles, claim the means of production and their own freedom.

[Gaius]

first of all what i said wasn&#39;t refering to your spelling, i can care less about how you spell, i was only being sarcastic because your theory of creating 2 worlds bla bla bla please keep dreeming, thats why i said you should try writing science fiction novels; and by the way your language only uses compund nouns? wtf? what language is that? native american language?


So I take it you would rather force communism on people? Thats not very utopian and is completely alien to the ideals of communism.

As to what a person said earlier on in this thread, just because I&#39;m not bloodthirsty doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m not communist. I&#39;m a realist and I also have a heart, someone which unfortunately very few communists seem to have.

[Tungsten]

cyu

Let&#39;s say slavery exists and there are two slave-owners.
In other words, let&#39;s say capitalism is slavery and start with it as a primary. Let&#39;s not, and analyse this assumption.

The slave-owners decide one day to allow their slaves to choose which slave-owner to serve. 70% of the slaves choose owner A, 30% of the slaves choose owner B. Would you argue that the slaves have no claim to freedom because they&#39;ve "agreed" to serve under their current slave-owner?
What a completely false anology. A slave isn&#39;t given a choice- he&#39;s compelled to work by political force. A worker isn&#39;t under that compulsion- he needn&#39;t work for anyone. The fact that he might be dependent on working for someone as a means of survival if he can&#39;t manage on his own doesn&#39;t make him a slave.

The same is true of capitalism.
It isn&#39;t because workers aren&#39;t slaves. I know why you continue to deny this fact- because it&#39;s axiomatic to your ideology. Without it, there would be nothing to justify the revolution and nothing to justify socialism.

The means of production (equipment, land, raw material buildings) are owned by the few. You "agree" to serve under an owner only because you don&#39;t have access to your own capital.
I don&#39;t have the means to grow my own food. Does that mean that I&#39;m a slave to a farmer?
I don&#39;t have the means to manufacture a car either. Does that mean if I buy one then I&#39;m a slave to automotive workers and car salesmen? Ridiculous.

But just because employees had an agreement some time in the past doesn&#39;t mean they now have no right to throw off their shackles, claim the means of production and their own freedom.
You don&#39;t have a claim to the means of production, just as owners don&#39;t have a claim to your labour. There are no shackles, real or metaphorical, to throw off; you are not a slave.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Gaius i was refering to Fascisthunter, his idea that communist will live in one side and the capitalist in another or whatever, his idea of creating this dual society, thats bull, that is UTOPIAN&#33;&#33; im not a communist man, HELLO im a restricted member&#33;

[Gaius]

All it would take is one dissatisfied rich guy. He/she could buy property, invite communists to live over in a commune and voila&#33; We have equal ownership of the commune. It would spread from there until eventually it became mainstream and capitalism went on the defensive. This is my version of reformism. Using capitalism to kill capitalism, just like Hitler used democracy to kill democracy (Its slightly odd that this would be an adoption of a tactic used by THAT man)

[S G-Bang]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:38 AM
Capitalism needs slaves. If you think that communist/socialist/anarchist regions could coexist with capitalist countries you are wrong. There is a thing we call imperialism that means if the cappies can&#39;t find new markets or new slaves they simply start a war and invade these regions. The same goes for Nazis. I would say if someone wants to be an idiot let him be. But on the other hand I realize that these people will never let us live in freedom and equality. Therefore we need a kind of "zoo" for nazis... you know, like that movie "Escape from New York". We put all cappies and nazis on an island, put barbed wire around it, some mines and then they can have fun there, while normal people can live in peace.
thanks for the laugh. :lol:

how anybody could believe any of what you just typed is absurd.

grow up.

[red team]

As you may have noticed, I have nothing but contempt for economic shell games and psychological manipulation through punishment/reward systems.

Pretty much every human relationship can be reduced to a "punishment/reward" system.


And that&#39;s why they fail and will always fail. Your dream of a stable Capitalism where the greed and self-interest of everybody can be regulated and diverted into useful ends died 35 years ago in 1971. The best economic minds of the "free" world tried to design the best international system of trade for Capitalism in history just at the end of World War 2 and how did that end up? Any hope of controlling "rational" greed died with the collapse of the Bretton Woods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system) agreement. What ever happened sinced then was a slow-motion collapse of civilization as we know it with the accompanying rise of a super-wealthy plutocracy and mass impoverishment of the many.




And how are those individual actions determined other than from the material motivation of the external environment?

Oh look, another determinist.


Unless someone is clinically insane, he responds to events in the world that affects him which in turn influences his actions. Nobody just does something without a purpose, otherwise it&#39;s called insanity.

What&#39;s this got to do with the issue on hand? Either they agree to a trade or they don&#39;t. There&#39;s nothing more to it.


Since this segment of the post was originally about individual actions leading to market collapse then please explain the terms: panic selling or speculative bubble or how about this irrational exuberance. What are these other than someone responding to the material motivation of the external environment? Tell you what. You invest in something and next time there&#39;s a panic sell-off you stick around until you lose your shirt.



And your avatar is irritating.


Well, that&#39;s really reflective of my life-style as a free spirit, which I might add nobody should give a rat&#39;s ass about. But let&#39;s say if I wear a funny shirt or hat to my corporate job then I&#39;ll be asked to either change into a suit or lose my job&#33; :o Rich libertarian assholes are always hypocrites.

[S G-Bang]

Capitalism isn&#39;t stable.

Nothing in life is stable.

Social engineering is a proven failure.

Communism is a proven failure.

[red team]

Originally posted by S G&#045;[email protected] 19 2006, 01:02 AM
Capitalism isn&#39;t stable.

Nothing in life is stable.

Social engineering is a proven failure.

Communism is a proven failure.
Thankyou for proving the classic Marxist prediction that Capitalism will degenerate into Barbarism. I guess you better join a gang and get your guns ready because when the rickety economy finally collapses it&#39;s going to get nasty.

[S G-Bang]

Originally posted by red team+Mar 19 2006, 01:12 AM--> (red team @ Mar 19 2006, 01:12 AM)
S G&#045;[email protected] 19 2006, 01:02 AM
Capitalism isn&#39;t stable.

Nothing in life is stable.

Social engineering is a proven failure.

Communism is a proven failure.
Thankyou for proving the classic Marxist prediction that Capitalism will degenerate into Barbarism. I guess you better join a gang and get your guns ready because when the rickety economy finally collapses it&#39;s going to get nasty. [/b]
We don&#39;t have a completely free economy.

And sure, things may nasty sooner or later. But at least I&#39;ll have lived my life by my decisions and choices and not under a repressive communist system.

communism cannot work on a large scale. This is as easy to see as 2+2 =4

great in theory, impossible in reality

[KC]

We don&#39;t have a completely free economy.

Capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. Laissez-faire isn&#39;t any "more" capitalist than a mixed economy.




communism cannot work on a large scale. This is as easy to see as 2+2 =4

great in theory, impossible in reality


I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto, the Principles of Communism, and various "What is communism" threads, flyers, blog entries, etc...

[Fascist-Hunter]

You&#39;re just content with locking them up/segregating them without a good reason.
There is a very good reason for that; I don&#39;t want people to be locked up, but I&#39;m very well aware of fact that capitalism needs to expand (no time to discuss imperialism now; it would go too far) and therefore the capitalist areas would not let us live in peace. So we have to make sure they get no chance to invade the freedom loving regions. In addition to the fences we have to make sure that they don&#39;t build any war machines (I forget to mention that before).



And the capitalists are "freedom hating", right?
Not quite. They love freedom, but not real freedom (like it was defined by Bakunin) The love the freedom to exploit people and the freedom to enslave others. Which is unacceptable.


That remains without historical evidence to back it up.
Since we haven&#39;t seen Communism on this planet we simply don&#39;t know exactly how it is going to be like. I can&#39;t give you a historical evidence for a "thing" that has never existed. What we have seen was state capitalism or some kind of state socialism.


No, you&#39;re not. There&#39;s that small matter known as "constent" that keeps getting in your way.
Whatever. It remains the same.


Yeah, like a prison. rolleyes.gif
Not really. They are free to do what ever they want in their society. After the revolutionaries have freed the world from slavery people can decide whether they want to live among us or among the cappies/nazis/theocrats. all we do is keeping them out from our area (by the way, this is done by nearly every state in these days. every state has borders with fences etc. no one seems to have a problem with that, it is regarded as "normal"). I think by the time the revolution comes we will have about 90% communists/anarchist and 10% cappies. IF there should be more cappies (lets say 50%, which I highly doubt) you would get half of the world.


What sloppy thinking. I don&#39;t consider what you call "explotation" to be exploitation.
Look at the third world countries. Facts remain facts. It is exploitation.


By the way, I&#39;ve heard precious little about your own ideology and what you actually support. Let&#39;s hear it, so I can point out how "freedom loving" you really are.

well, I don&#39;t even have a sort of "fixed" ideology. I believe in Freedom, Justice, Humanity, Equality and of course Sanity. When time has come I know that I will support the movement which fits these criteria ( no matter if anarchist, socialist, communist or whatever.) I often call myself an anarchist which is only half true; I&#39;m more what people call a anarchosyndicalist or a anarchocommunist if you like.

I have just stated what I think about coexistence. Coexistence is fine for me; as long as the cappies are on their own and live their lifes parallel to us (without disturbing or enslaving us). Coexistence next to each other (trading etc.) is not possible.

[S G-Bang]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:27 AM


We don&#39;t have a completely free economy.

Capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange. Laissez-faire isn&#39;t any "more" capitalist than a mixed economy.




communism cannot work on a large scale. This is as easy to see as 2+2 =4

great in theory, impossible in reality


I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto, the Principles of Communism, and various "What is communism" threads, flyers, blog entries, etc...
you can read all you want, it won&#39;t change the FACT that human beings can never be happy under communism.

never

therefore, it will never work.

figure out a way to eliminate desire and greed and maybe you&#39;ll be on to something

good luck.

hey btw, I&#39;m broke, will you send me 100 bucks? help me out Komrade.

[Fascist-Hunter]

you can read all you want, it won&#39;t change the FACT that human beings can never be happy under communism.


maybe we would believe you if you could just prove your funny statement. :D

[S G-Bang]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:24 AM

you can read all you want, it won&#39;t change the FACT that human beings can never be happy under communism.


maybe we would believe you if you could just prove your funny statement. :D
which statement, that everybody here is full of crap?

[KC]

you can read all you want, it won&#39;t change the FACT that human beings can never be happy under communism.

never

therefore, it will never work.

figure out a way to eliminate desire and greed and maybe you&#39;ll be on to something

good luck.

The thirst for power, the desire for material objects, etc... aren&#39;t human nature. If you would like to prove so, as you are making this outrageous claim, you are welcome to provide evidence backing up your claim about what human nature is. Until you do so, your assertion is wrong by default.

[S G-Bang]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:11 AM


you can read all you want, it won&#39;t change the FACT that human beings can never be happy under communism.

never

therefore, it will never work.

figure out a way to eliminate desire and greed and maybe you&#39;ll be on to something

good luck.

The thirst for power, the desire for material objects, etc... aren&#39;t human nature. If you would like to prove so, as you are making this outrageous claim, you are welcome to provide evidence backing up your claim about what human nature is. Until you do so, your assertion is wrong by default.
all you have to do is send me some of your money to prove your point?

or are you not willing to give your hard-earned cash to somebody else?

yeah, don&#39;t feel bad. Nobody actually believes in KKKommunism, it just makes people feel as though they are compassionate.

you&#39;ll grow out of it

[KC]

all you have to do is send me some of your money to prove your point?

or are you not willing to give your hard-earned cash to somebody else?

yeah, don&#39;t feel bad. Nobody actually believes in KKKommunism, it just makes people feel as though they are compassionate.

you&#39;ll grow out of it

Proving that people in a given socio-economic system aren&#39;t able to change their viewpoints doesn&#39;t prove that the thirst for power is inherent in human nature; it merely proves that it is inherent in that given socio-economic society. It proves nothing regarding human nature.

Someone could have made the same argument for the infallibility of feudalism in the 1500&#39;s. And I&#39;m sure we both know how that turned out.

[red team]

great in theory, impossible in reality


A functional industrialized economy that uses money is great in theory, but impossible in reality.

Let say somebody pay you for doing some work in money which is justified by the fact that you did some useful work or produced an useful good. So far so good, you get what you worked for. But then when you exchange your money for goods you want to purchase how does it make any sense that somebody else can keep the money that is representative of your labour for future purchases unless money is not representative of your labour?

Using money to pay for labour makes as much sense as driving a car from point A to point B and then after you&#39;ve reached your destination have the amount of gasoline you&#39;ve spent magically appear in someone else&#39;s gas tank&#33; In other words, how can you exchange labour&#33; It&#39;s impossible. Labour is spent in the act of you buying back what you&#39;ve worked for.

[cyu]

I don&#39;t have the means to grow my own food. Does that mean that I&#39;m a slave to a farmer?
I don&#39;t have the means to manufacture a car either. Does that mean if I buy one then I&#39;m a slave to automotive workers and car salesmen? Ridiculous.


Do you even know the difference between a consumer and a producer? Look them up in a dictionary.

The criticism that anti-capitalists have of capitalism is over the relationship between the employee and the shareholder. The employee does not own the means of production; the shareholder does. So even though the shareholder isn&#39;t doing any work, he is richer than the employee. If all the shareholders of the world were employees instead, the economy would still work. If all the employees of the world became shareholders, the economy would collapse because nobody would be doing any work.


You don&#39;t have a claim to the means of production, just as owners don&#39;t have a claim to your labour.

Are you referring to divine laws and rights? Employees only don&#39;t have a claim to the means of production only because of present law. If the laws change, then they would in fact have a claim to the means of production. The real question is, which laws better promote the general welfare of the population.