My love of corporations and capitalism

[ComradeTom]

I was attracted your idiotic utopian ideals once at the young tender age of 15 where I read marxist literature of anarchist literature alike. One day I called myself a Leninists, then one day I called myself a spectacular council communist, then I moved to anarcho-syndicalism. Into my age of 18, I was participating in protests and throwing my fist in the air and spitting on soldiers who were visting families after fighting at a local mall. I was a educated individual for once in my life, and then I started to read capitalist literature to explain how exploitive my system was, but as this talk of economics continued it had a reverse affect and I discovered that a socialist system will likely fail, as it has failed in the past.
Socialism, is when the means of production production is controlled by the laborers rather than a boss. The state is a hierarchy that governs over a group of people. All of us know these two things like the back of our hand, but it is impossible to go on without these two bodies of economic development and politics. I will give you some reasons why:

1. Socialism cannot work economically- The centralization of all goods and services under the state slows down production. With the creation of the soviet system production grew in some sectors but the state was unable to properlly manage the output of the goods coming out of these factories and they lacked a significant labor force to create a large proletariat class that is needed under the socialist transformation. Lenin created the NEP, or a move onto capitalism in order to create a socialist society, but this only backfired when they were unable to create a labor force. Socialism in the third world has proved to be unable to create a proletariat class with the means of permenant revolution. To modernize in a country of a socialist revolution, forced labor was needed In Russia, after the failure of socialism in Russia under the NEP that was unable to create a labor force or make profit off of various goods, Stalin started to send people to forced labor camps, by the millions.
The centralization of goods in all countries of socialist revolution throughout history has been proven to fail. It has created a new ruling class of goverment officials rather than a classless society. If you can say their was one successful Leninist revolution as of right now, I will give you all of the money the capitalist system owns because the belief of man is widely greed, and if you concide power to just a few individuals under the vangaurd party and give them the key to the economy and grant them the riches of the former capitalist system, they are likely not to spread it amongst the masses but do what people who win the lottery do: A person would win 800,000,000 dollars, and they would take 3/4s of it for themselves and family and 1/4 of it for donation. The true nature of the soviet system and chinese system as well was mass corruption and lack of control of good production.

I can rabble on and on about the wrongs a centralized planned economy.

As for the anarchist, decentralized, moneyless, society, I have to say that there has been successful anarchist revolutions that have been proven to live up to what they have preached, but eventually bourgeois elements would arise! Its as simple as that! When state was first created and it ended the thousands of years of tribal communalism it was created by the more smarter people who used the means of worships of right of divinity to rise themselves to the top. Franco won in Spain due to the bourgeois elements of Spain. People who are obsessed with money will win over the good masses and a moneyless economy will never end. I think that in a time of great economic growth with the expansion of corporations overseas, that we will never see a great anarchist revolution anywhere in the world today.

2. Socialism has killed millions- We all know what communism has done, over 100,000,000 dead in the past 100 years due to the sins of the "workers" state.

Anarchism has killed thousands. Spain, the main anarchist revolution in the eyes of each and every one of you anarchists was the most disgusting of all revolutions since the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. Anarchists ran into churches and places of worship and slaughtered inhabitants. They shot preists, then gutted their bodies with feathers. They unearthed dead, decaying, nuns and danced with them in the streets in a jokingly manor. They decapitated civillians attracted to fascism and walk around the streets with their heads on pikes.

3. It is a utopian idea- Socialism has been put forth throughout history, and when certain capitalist opposition on the site bring this argument foward, they declare every socialist revolution of the world as " The dictatorship and state capitalism of Fidel" or the " Degeneration of the socialist revolution in Russia under Stalin" or " The degeneration to state capitalism in China ". Were these not socialist revolutions, why weren't they successful? Why can't Leninists provide a good argument for their theories that have been put into practice.

As for Leninists and Trotskyists, you call the move into Stalinism and the oppression of the Russian people under him a product of the civil war, famine, and revolution. But Lenin wrote in a pamphlet sometime in 1919 that " all successful revolutions have went through foreign interventions and civil war " then Leninism contradicted itself. If Leninism in Russia due to the social conflict of the times according to Leninists, then they are saying that they are failing themselves. Its purely a utopian idea that has instead degenerated into a corrupt economic system of forced labor and abuse of the working man.

4. Capitalism works for anyone.

Capitalism is the right of free enterprise, the right to form your own buisness and to exchange goods and services for your fellow men in exchange of capital. ANYONE can afford private property if they worked hard enough for it, its been proven throughout time as the former impoverished african americans have started to arise out of their problems. Its not even capitalism that is the problem, its the state that truley enslaves the lower class by underfunding education systems and allowing lower class citizens to move on to a higher education. If the state fully funded the educational process then many of this so called proletariat class would be able to arise out of its problems simply and become the common bourgeoisie.

I use to live in the inner city, and my dad was also a teacher at a inner city school who knew these lower class kids. Some strived to work and my dad did not have the resources to help many of them, the schools had no after school help programs, no tutoring programs, etc. etc. My dad described some of these kids as "very lazy" and "Unable to function in society" this is the lower class. I am in now way promoting the slavery of a lower class, but there will always be a lower class as long as their is boredom, laziness, hard working peoples, racism, a underfunded education system, etc.

Corporations, which have been demonized by the left as a massive unstoppable monster has contributed to America. They have put goods into the houses of all Americans, they do this for profit of course, and if none of you leftist don't own one thing made by a corporation, you must be crazy. Even a homeless man lives in a box made by a corporation somewhere to ship there goods to various places. Corporations have proved themselves able to actually help third world countries they are implanted in. Corporations have helped modernize the third world from their peasantry class they formerly belonged in!

5. Darwinism Rocks.

The theories of Marx, such as the material contraception of history has shouted out that the proletariat will eventually own all means of production and that the majority will be in control in the near future, what a funny utopian prediction! This has been proven wrong as Marxists-Leninists have only proved social darwinism correct rather than Marxism correct.

Social Darwinism is the belief that the stronger always control things, which in my opinion is true. If you are a strong lower class citizen, you will work everyday of your life and become a upper class citizen. If you are a ethnic group controlled by a oppressor, you will resist hard enough to declare your own nation. There will never be equality due to the fact that a strong smart minority will be a force of power and control a whole majority.

Am I a supporter of nationalism, you bet your sweet ass I am.

Am I a supporter of sweat shops because the stronger have proven themselves to the weaker.





IF YOUR DAMN "PROLETARIAT" ARE AS STRONGER AS THEY SAY THEY ARE. GIVE ME A REVOLUTION AND PROVE YOURSELF TO BE STRONG AND WILL CALL MYSELF A NATIONALIST TO YOUR PROLETARIAT RATHER THAN AMERICA.

[which doctor]

I suggest you to look to the future instead of to the past. Nationalism is an ideology of the past. Communism is an ideology for the future.

[ComradeTom]

Scrap that, I love patriotism. I misused my words on nationalism.

[bcbm]

eventually bourgeois elements would arise! Its as simple as that!

No, it wouldn't! Its as simple as that!

... Sounds assinine, doesn't it?


When state was first created and it ended the thousands of years of tribal communalism it was created by the more smarter people who used the means of worships of right of divinity to rise themselves to the top.

A possible theory. Its also likely that pre-existing authoritarian structures within settled societies simply developed further as agriculture became the dominant mode of food production, or wars forced power into the hands of a leader. The problem with comparing that to an anarchist society is that in an anarchist society, people would be predisposed to rejecting such grabs for power.


Socialism has killed millions- We all know what communism has done, over 100,000,000 dead in the past 100 years due to the sins of the "workers" state.

And capitalism and imperialism haven't killed just as many, all across the globe? Get real.


Anarchists ran into churches and places of worship and slaughtered inhabitants.

Source?


They shot preists, then gutted their bodies with feathers.

Source? How does one gut someone with a feather? And you are aware of the relationship between the Catholic church in Spain, and the authoritarians and reactionaries?


They unearthed dead, decaying, nuns and danced with them in the streets in a jokingly manor. They decapitated civillians attracted to fascism and walk around the streets with their heads on pikes.


Sources, sources, sources?


Capitalism is the right of free enterprise, the right to form your own buisness and to exchange goods and services for your fellow men in exchange of capital. ANYONE can afford private property if they worked hard enough for it, its been proven throughout time as the former impoverished african americans have started to arise out of their problems.

No. Capitalism cannot function without the existence of an under class to do the "dirty work." There has to be low wage employment, there has to be a working class. Furthermore, doesn't most current sociological data suggest class mobility is on the decline? What you're saying now is just as "utopian" as the Leninists and others you bash.


IF YOUR DAMN "PROLETARIAT" ARE AS STRONGER AS THEY SAY THEY ARE. GIVE ME A REVOLUTION AND PROVE YOURSELF TO BE STRONG AND WILL CALL MYSELF A NATIONALIST TO YOUR PROLETARIAT RATHER THAN AMERICA.

Judging from your attitude, you probably wouldn't get very far when the proletariat rose up.

[Fascist-Hunter]

short answers to dumb statements:

1. Socialism cannot work economically ---> no one was has ever been able to prove that statement.

2. Socialism has killed millions ---> capitalism has killed more. right now, while I'm typing, capitalism is killing children in Africa or Asia.

3. It is a utopian idea ---> a) see 1. b) I don't know if you have ever read "Galileo Galilei" by Brecht. If I remember correctly at the end of the book there are some children discussing that it is impossible for humans to fly because of gravity. Or imagine you would have asked a king in the middle ages if he thought that one day people will have human rights and that he cannot treat people like he did before. he would have laughed and have you hanged. Nearly everything was regarded as "utopian" by conservatives unless it was achieved.

4. Capitalism works for anyone. ---> you should be precise: anyone, who is rich or who lives in a rich country.

5. Darwinism Rocks. ---> Darwinism is a theory that can be applied to animals but not to complicated social structures such as society or humans in general. social darwinism was invented by the nazis and has been proven wrong.


IF YOUR DAMN "PROLETARIAT" ARE AS STRONGER AS THEY SAY THEY ARE. GIVE ME A REVOLUTION AND PROVE YOURSELF TO BE STRONG AND WILL CALL MYSELF A NATIONALIST TO YOUR PROLETARIAT RATHER THAN AMERICA.

we don't need nationalists among the proletariat; it is an international movement. You have to wait afew years, you will see the revolution coming.

[bombeverything]

As for the anarchist, decentralized, moneyless, society, I have to say that there has been successful anarchist revolutions that have been proven to live up to what they have preached, but eventually bourgeois elements would arise! Its as simple as that!

Please elaborate on this, especially in relation to how these elements "arose". What actual proof do you have of this?


When state was first created and it ended the thousands of years of tribal communalism it was created by the more smarter people who used the means of worships of right of divinity to rise themselves to the top.

Replace smarter with powerful and I might agree with you.


Franco won in Spain due to the bourgeois elements of Spain.

But how did this occur?


People who are obsessed with money will win over the good masses and a moneyless economy will never end.

In a capitalist society, yes they are.


Spain, the main anarchist revolution in the eyes of each and every one of you anarchists was the most disgusting of all revolutions since the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. Anarchists ran into churches and places of worship and slaughtered inhabitants

Anarchists have not killed anywhere near as many people as that who have died at the hands of the state. As for Spain, in 1936 67% of the land was in the hands of just 2% of all landowners. The Church supported the bosses. The wealthy Priests lived in luxury whilst the peasants starved. Is it any wonder why the church was hated?


Capitalism is the right of free enterprise, the right to form your own buisness and to exchange goods and services for your fellow men in exchange of capital.

Capitalism is the right to starve.


ANYONE can afford private property if they worked hard enough for it

Yeah maybe if everyone could work.


I am in now way promoting the slavery of a lower class, but there will always be a lower class as long as their is boredom, laziness, hard working peoples, racism, a underfunded education system, etc.

Why? Where do you think these things come from, such as racism?


They have put goods into the houses of all Americans, they do this for profit of course, and if none of you leftist don't own one thing made by a corporation, you must be crazy.

Yeah the houses of rich Americans.


Even a homeless man lives in a box made by a corporation somewhere to ship there goods to various places.

Oh and he should be oh so grateful for that.

:rolleyes:


Social Darwinism is the belief that the stronger always control things, which in my opinion is true.

Aha! Here we go. Social Darwinism has been proven wrong. I wonder why it is still promoted by the bourgeoisie?


Am I a supporter of nationalism, you bet your sweet ass I am.

I am sure you are. You support Social Darwinism so why not nationalism as well! By the way, you sound a bit like a Nazi, are you?

[DisIllusion]

He does have a bit of a point with Capitalism. It is definitely harder for Socialism/Communism/Anarchism to work in this era of globalization, (which is occuring, whether we like it or not.) The leftist political ideals have been slandered by Capitalist-ruled countries, just look in any government/history class in any level of schooling. However, it is unfair to say that just because it has failed in the past, that it should never be attempted again. I understand that it might be safer to stay with Capitalism, since any political/economic turmoil could have unprecendented effects on the entire world. And there are definitely bigger stakes, you are playing with not only your life, but everybody under your new economy. Still, if people really want to go with the controlled economy, they will have to think it out first, and actually plan the planned economy.


Nationalism is only a tool to keep people in line. Telling people that they should follow orders or they are not "patriotic" is hardly a good practice.

[S G-Bang]

the fact that you post here and proudly display the hammer and sickle proves the desire of people to belong to something.

you can't complain about nationalism if you honestly look at yourself.

god, you people are tools

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by S G-[email protected] 18 2006, 11:06 PM
the fact that you post here and proudly display the hammer and sickle proves the desire of people to belong to something.

you can't complain about nationalism if you honestly look at yourself.

god, you people are tools
Once again, your post does nothing to argue against what i've said or even do anything useful besides just flaming.

If you actually took the time to see what I said, you would see that I was talking about globalization and it's effect on the possibility of controlled markets. Nothing to do with Nationalism.

[S G-Bang]

you said, "Nationalism is just a tool to keep people in line"

or did I imagine that?

nationalism is something that governments desire, sure. but the people desire it too.

people like to believe in things, the same way all the fake KKKommies here think they believe in KKKommunism.

But why they would believe in such a spiritually repressive ideology is somewhat of a mystery. with its track record of failure, I don't know how anybody would buy into it.

on a small scale, sure it can work. there have been successful KKKommunes. But where are they now? Yeah, they've disappeared. why? because they can't last.

all the KKKommies have to do is take over. if the movement is so great and just, well, it would have to prevail, right? :lol:

[DisIllusion]

Sorry about that. Forgot what I had said earlier. :lol:


nationalism is something that governments desire, sure. but the people desire it too.

Perhaps. Nationalism does give you the same safety cushion with the belief that someone higher than you will take care of you, kind of like religion.


But why they would believe in such a spiritually repressive ideology is somewhat of a mystery. with its track record of failure, I don't know how anybody would buy into it.

I could say the same about Nationalism. Look at Mussolini's Italy, look at Hitler's Germany, look at Caesar's Rome.

[ComradeTom]

I would like for you all to know that once was in a poor family. I lived in the inner city area, my dad worked at the nearest inner city school. My dad was the only one who was able to get to go to college, and he could hardly afford it. He was ONLY able to go to college due to the thing known as:

Scholarships

With this we are able to get a higher education if we worked hard enough. The poor of the world are weak, lazy, people who don't work hard enough to advance themselves through the classes. Its easily possible for the poor of America to advance out of their current social condition.

I am the personal defeater of the idiots belief of a class struggle. I lived in a small slum like apartment, later when I was 12 my dad got enough money from his shitty school to move to nice townhouse on the border of the bad neighborhood. I went to the shittiest school ever. I had no after school programs, went to summer school 3 years in a row and I had a learning disability that halted me from succeding. But by senior year that shocking results were revealed: I GOT A $20,000 SCHOLARSHIP! I now live in a nice apartment and have a great job has a young small buisness owner of paint and various home improvement objects. So I am a example of the exploitation of the capitalist system? I am a self made man.

Most of you sadly cannot say your capitalists. Because none of you worked hard enough or have seen the true nature of hard work. If have worked hard all my life. My grandfather was a black man who worked in a steel mill down in Pittsburgh, I had a series of great aunts and uncles who have died in poverty. That poverty was inherited, but look at me now! I am out of the shithole. I am the true soul of the african american!

I HAVE PROVED, THAT CAPITALISM IS NOT THE RIGHT TO STARVE. I AM THE PROLETARIAT THAT HAS CONQUERED WHAT YOUR LEFTIST BULL CRAP HAS ANNOUNCED!


AS for imperialism and all that shit:

There is a direct difference in deporting people to camps and forcing them to work until they are dehidrated, hungry and tired to function anymore and fall over and die, AND invading a country to protect economic interests. Most American imperialist adventures of the late 1800s and early 1900s have seen little, if even none casualties. I am a hater of the slaughter of the indians, but I sure as hell support Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and other recent millitary interventions. If we get goods onto our supermarkets or gas stations that the consumer can buy to survive, I support it a hundred percent.

There is a thing called immigration, that allows citizens of the world to arrive in America and start life out of their terrible countries. I love the fact that everyone is leaving Cuba to get a nice new life in the free America. If these people oppose America and capitalism so much, why is over 1,000,000 immigrants flouting over the border every year? Exactly. None of you can come up with a significant argument over the immigration base.


ON THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR:

Just because there was Catholic Church was one of great nobility almost, that doesn't mean you have to slaughter them in such a grotesque way that the Spanish Civil War would turn into the horror movie Saw. I have heard too many gruesome stories from the anarchist side on what they did to these " bourgeoisie" citizens. You are as evil as hell if you support the slaughter of any group of people. I am a atheist also, but does that mean I support gruesome attacks on innocent civillians, of course not!

[bcbm]

I would like for you all to know that once was in a poor family. I lived in the inner city area, my dad worked at the nearest inner city school. My dad was the only one who was able to get to go to college, and he could hardly afford it. He was ONLY able to go to college due to the thing known as:

Scholarships


And? You need certain qualifications to get scholarships, and not everyone in a poor area can have those. Even if every poor person in a given ghetto worked as hard as they could, they couldn't all go to college on a scholarship. Therefore, your example isn't really important. There are also a number of other factors working against people in poorer areas, such as the qualities of the schools, the lack of real role models, the negative influence of those around them and so on. Its simple sociology to note that people from these circumstances are going to have a harder time, period, and not all of them will be able to rise, EVEN IF THEY TRY, period.


poor of the world are weak, lazy, people who don't work hard enough to advance themselves through the classes.

Yes, if only those people working 16 hour days in sweatshops would just work a little harder and stop being so lazy. :rolleyes:


Its easily possible for the poor of America to advance out of their current social condition.


All of them? No. And what about the poor in the rest of the world?


I HAVE PROVED, THAT CAPITALISM IS NOT THE RIGHT TO STARVE. I AM THE PROLETARIAT THAT HAS CONQUERED WHAT YOUR LEFTIST BULL CRAP HAS ANNOUNCED!


All you've conquered are stupid strawman arguments you set up as "our beliefs," which they aren't. Social mobility is possible in a capitalist society, but it is not widespread, especially outside of the first world, and capitalism REQUIRES an underclass, as I ALREADY MENTIONED.


There is a direct difference in deporting people to camps and forcing them to work until they are dehidrated, hungry and tired to function anymore and fall over and die, AND invading a country to protect economic interests.

It is the same difference between stabbing someone in the heart or shooting them in the head. :rolleyes:


Most American imperialist adventures of the late 1800s and early 1900s have seen little, if even none casualties.

Nonsense. Haven't you seen the piles of skulls from the US' time in the Phillipines? Not to mention the countless hundreds of thousands, probably millions, who've died as a result of US meddling in Central and South America through el Jefes, dirty wars, filibustering and other methods of authoritarian control.


I am a hater of the slaughter of the indians, but I sure as hell support Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and other recent millitary interventions. If we get goods onto our supermarkets or gas stations that the consumer can buy to survive, I support it a hundred percent.


But wait, later on you say:

You are as evil as hell if you support the slaughter of any group of people. I am a atheist also, but does that mean I support gruesome attacks on innocent civillians, of course not!


Which is it, you fucking hypocrite?


If these people oppose America and capitalism so much, why is over 1,000,000 immigrants flouting over the border every year? Exactly. None of you can come up with a significant argument over the immigration base.

Sure we can. American (first world) wages are higher, and the US previous and continued rape of Latin America has forced them to follow their resources into the US.


Just because there was Catholic Church was one of great nobility almost, that doesn't mean you have to slaughter them in such a grotesque way that the Spanish Civil War would turn into the horror movie Saw.

I am still waiting for sources to your claims.

[DisIllusion]

I would like for you all to know that once was in a poor family. I lived in the inner city area, my dad worked at the nearest inner city school. My dad was the only one who was able to get to go to college, and he could hardly afford it. He was ONLY able to go to college due to the thing known as: Scholarships

I think my business teacher put it best when he made this example:

CEO: Are you doing your best?

Incompetent Worker: Yes!

CEO: How about you?

Lazy Worker who still produces more than Incompetent Worker: No.

CEO: Well Lazy Worker, you're hired.


Corporations don't care whether you're trying your hardest or not, just if you're producing more output. Simple.

[ComradeTom]

I don't support the intentional slaugter of people you twit.

AS for Spain:
" There were massacres of Catholic clergy and churches, monasteries and convents were burned with severe impact to the rich Spanish historical and artistic heritage. Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were murdered. [1] In the wake of the war, both sides initiated a mass killing of opponents where house searches were carried out, and unwanted individuals were often jailed or killed. "
Thanks Wikipedia!

On getting yourself out of the lower class:

Well, I applied myself. I worked hard. I believe that if the third world immigrants don't like their living conditions, that they can come over and work here. Immigrants of the past have been able to integrate themselves over time, and this was before the labor laws of the 1930s also that forced buisnesses to provide for the worker.


I don't care if people are put under terrible working conditions elsewhere within capitalism. Its a free thing, if you are dirty and evil enough anybody can rise to the top. I don't care how evil capitalism is in the eyes of anybody, as long as I receive my profits I will not care about anything else.

[DisIllusion]

Well, I applied myself. I worked hard. I believe that if the third world immigrants don't like their living conditions, that they can come over and work here. Immigrants of the past have been able to integrate themselves over time, and this was before the labor laws of the 1930s also that forced buisnesses to provide for the worker.

Well I applaud your hard work and your ability to rise to the top amid difficult odds. However, it is not usually actually in America where workers are being exploited. (Besides Wal-Mart). In third-world countries, they have no other choice. Their governments are trying to keep up with globalization and so have to ramp up output in order to stay out of bankruptcy. The only option for those governments is cheaper labor, usually forced.

You have a point with immigration, however, most of the poor people in other third-world countries can't really immigrate legally, and have to sneak in. This is harder than it sounds, and many decide not to risk it and end up getting stuck in the sweatshops for most of their lives.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:49 PM
I don't support the intentional slaugter of people you twit.
Yes, you do: "I sure as hell support Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and other recent millitary interventions."

What were those, if not the intentional slaughter of people? You also voiced clear support for early American imperial adventures, which were most certainly intentional slaughters of (lots of) people. You don't care as long as you get your goods and profit, right? :rolleyes:


AS for Spain:
" There were massacres of Catholic clergy and churches, monasteries and convents were burned with severe impact to the rich Spanish historical and artistic heritage. Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were murdered. [1] In the wake of the war, both sides initiated a mass killing of opponents where house searches were carried out, and unwanted individuals were often jailed or killed. "
Thanks Wikipedia!

There were some abuses, yes, but hardly comparable to those commited by capitalism and imperialism. I also don't see anything in that quote about gutting people with feathers or murdering entire congregations. The church sided with the reactionaries and they were dealt with accordingly. Its revolution, not a dinner party.

And Wikipedia isn't considered a valid source.


Well, I applied myself. I worked hard. I believe that if the third world immigrants don't like their living conditions, that they can come over and work here. Immigrants of the past have been able to integrate themselves over time, and this was before the labor laws of the 1930s also that forced buisnesses to provide for the worker.

Yes, many immigrants from the third world are coming to the United States. Unfortunately, the 4 billion people living on less than one dollar a day throughout the world will probably not fit into the continental United States, nor find adequate work. :rolleyes:


I don't care if people are put under terrible working conditions elsewhere within capitalism. Its a free thing, if you are dirty and evil enough anybody can rise to the top.

So you don't care about people suffering, or being slaughtered. Which is what I said earlier. So how exactly are you trying to criticize us for doing that, if you're guilty of it yourself?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade Tom
IF YOUR DAMN "PROLETARIAT" ARE AS STRONGER AS THEY SAY THEY ARE. GIVE ME A REVOLUTION AND PROVE YOURSELF TO BE STRONG AND WILL CALL MYSELF A NATIONALIST TO YOUR PROLETARIAT RATHER THAN AMERICA.

In other words, you'll be a capitalist as long as capitalism works...and when the time for communism rolls around, you'll switch sides.

That's a very "American" attitude; I'm in favor of "whatever works for me."

What you'll find on this board is people for whom capitalism didn't work. You can "blame us" if you like...we didn't "work hard enough", or failed to kiss the right ass with sufficient enthusiasm, or were just plain unlucky.

But we grew up in circumstances not all that different from yours...and in some cases even worse. We heard the same promises that you did. In our cases, capitalism didn't deliver the goods!

So I suggest that you just go on ahead with your plan to be a successful small businessman. When you land in the shit, you can come back and talk to us again.

Oh, and your pissing and moaning about anarchists killing priests and bishops, etc., in Spain is...unseemly. They should have killed them all! You referred to those bastards as "innocent people"? About as "innocent" as the Nazi SS! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Redeye]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:49 PM



I don't care if people are put under terrible working conditions elsewhere within capitalism. Its a free thing, if you are dirty and evil enough anybody can rise to the top. I don't care how evil capitalism is in the eyes of anybody, as long as I receive my profits I will not care about anything else.



Thats more or less the point of destroying capitalism you drongo.

[ComradeTom]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Mar 19 2006, 08:12 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Mar 19 2006, 08:12 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 01:49 PM
I don't support the intentional slaugter of people you twit.
Yes, you do: "I sure as hell support Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and other recent millitary interventions."

What were those, if not the intentional slaughter of people? You also voiced clear support for early American imperial adventures, which were most certainly intentional slaughters of (lots of) people. You don't care as long as you get your goods and profit, right? :rolleyes:


AS for Spain:
" There were massacres of Catholic clergy and churches, monasteries and convents were burned with severe impact to the rich Spanish historical and artistic heritage. Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were murdered. [1] In the wake of the war, both sides initiated a mass killing of opponents where house searches were carried out, and unwanted individuals were often jailed or killed. "
Thanks Wikipedia!

There were some abuses, yes, but hardly comparable to those commited by capitalism and imperialism. I also don't see anything in that quote about gutting people with feathers or murdering entire congregations. The church sided with the reactionaries and they were dealt with accordingly. Its revolution, not a dinner party.

And Wikipedia isn't considered a valid source.


Well, I applied myself. I worked hard. I believe that if the third world immigrants don't like their living conditions, that they can come over and work here. Immigrants of the past have been able to integrate themselves over time, and this was before the labor laws of the 1930s also that forced buisnesses to provide for the worker.

Yes, many immigrants from the third world are coming to the United States. Unfortunately, the 4 billion people living on less than one dollar a day throughout the world will probably not fit into the continental United States, nor find adequate work. :rolleyes:


I don't care if people are put under terrible working conditions elsewhere within capitalism. Its a free thing, if you are dirty and evil enough anybody can rise to the top.

So you don't care about people suffering, or being slaughtered. Which is what I said earlier. So how exactly are you trying to criticize us for doing that, if you're guilty of it yourself? [/b]
First off,
Which coversation seems more likely:
" Lets kill Koreans and Vietnamese, lets drop bombs on their villages and send them to labor camps. "

or

" Lets stop the spread of communism. "

I think you would chose the second one.

Second off,

So your saying? If a day care of infants said " I will side with the fascists. " they will be considered reactionary and shot up to little peices?

Third off,

Well, thats what imperialism and globalization is for. We help modernize countries. We build oil refineries in African countries that help their revenue. We bring wal-mart shopping centers and great American goods oversees. As I have said, they should find some way to get to this wonderful country, they might not be able to hitch a ride her, but we are in open arms to their citizenship.

Fourth off,

Its free enterprise, its a free market, anybody is able to compete in the market. A poor man in Bronx is able to buy 1 stock and make money off of that. Besides, every revolution that has developed from Marxist-Leninist areas have failed and those countries developed into authortarianism. Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, even Cuba have all joined the market with the fall of communism in USSR, the economic reforms in the late 70s in CHina and Vietnam, and the privatization of the tourist industry in Cuba. Don't make excuses, they failed, period.

[black magick hustla]

It makes me sick your disregard for millions of vietnamese peasants while being concerned with fascists or priests siding up with franco.



Seriously, fuck you.

Generally the people who become serious well read leftists in their youth are pretty nice as people, even if later they become capitalists. They don't have such a big disregard for humanity or such utilitarian thoughts. They don't come with thoughts like "i dont care for other people within capitalism, anyone who is evil or dirty enough can rise up".

Take my father, he was pretty much a socialist in his youth. Today he is a capitalist because he finds socialism obsolete. However he still retains the human decency most socialists have.

I don't know how the fuck anarchism appealed you.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:13 AM
First off,
Which coversation seems more likely:
" Lets kill Koreans and Vietnamese, lets drop bombs on their villages and send them to labor camps. "

or

" Lets stop the spread of communism. "

I think you would chose the second one.
Does it matter which conversation occured? The end result was the wholesale slaughter of millions of people. And in Vietnam this came after the Vietnamese had already suffered to get rid of the French imperialists, and been denied their right to free elections for their government, instead being stuck with a Catholic fascist dictator propped up by the US. Whatever you believe the intentions were in those places, only death resulted.


Second off,

So your saying? If a day care of infants said " I will side with the fascists. " they will be considered reactionary and shot up to little peices?


Are you brain dead or something? The Catholic church in Spain materially and physically supported the fascists and were a primary piece in the maintaining of the feudal system that existed in Spain into the 20th century. The people shot the priests and nuns because they had been oppressors, not to get their fucking rocks off.


Third off,

Well, thats what imperialism and globalization is for. We help modernize countries. We build oil refineries in African countries that help their revenue. We bring wal-mart shopping centers and great American goods oversees.

Nonsense. Corporations move into foreign countries to take their land, resources and labor as cheaply as possible and make money for themselves, not for the people in those countries. Once the resources are gone, the land is too polluted to be of us or the laborers start demanding more protections, everything is packed up and moved to a new country and continues as it was. That's been the cycle for some time now.


As I have said, they should find some way to get to this wonderful country, they might not be able to hitch a ride her, but we are in open arms to their citizenship

As I said, four billion people aren't going to fit into the United States, or be able to find employment.


Fourth off,

Its free enterprise, its a free market, anybody is able to compete in the market. A poor man in Bronx is able to buy 1 stock and make money off of that. Besides, every revolution that has developed from Marxist-Leninist areas have failed and those countries developed into authortarianism. Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, even Cuba have all joined the market with the fall of communism in USSR, the economic reforms in the late 70s in CHina and Vietnam, and the privatization of the tourist industry in Cuba. Don't make excuses, they failed, period.

When did I make excuses for any of those places? I've no love of authoritarian "interpretations" of Marxism, sorry. Of course they're switching to capitalism, its the only way for authoritarian states with their minds set on increasing their power and influence. That's why the workers need to overthrow them and start managing things for their benefit, not for their masters'.

[rouchambeau]

To save everone some time I would like to sum up Tom's argument:



LOOK EVERYONE I WENT TO COLLEGE. EVEN THOUGH I AM ONLY ONE PERSON THIIS MEANS THAT CAPITALISM CAN WORK FOR EVERY PERSON LOL.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected]Mar 20 2006, 03:45 PM
To save everone some time I would like to sum up Tom's argument:



LOOK EVERYONE I WENT TO COLLEGE. EVEN THOUGH I AM ONLY ONE PERSON THIIS MEANS THAT CAPITALISM CAN WORK FOR EVERY PERSON LOL.
:lol:

That made my day.

[cyu]

I don't care if people are put under terrible working conditions elsewhere within capitalism. Its a free thing, if you are dirty and evil enough anybody can rise to the top. I don't care how evil capitalism is in the eyes of anybody, as long as I receive my profits I will not care about anything else.


This is hilarious. If I didn't read the rest of your posts, I'd have thought you were a joke account somebody created just to make pro-capitalists look bad.

[Zingu]

Sounds like someone's rebellion stage went from anti-establishmentarianism to fascism.

Its funny how to claim people would be lazy in communism...you're right! We are going to be damn lazy. In capitalism, work for most people has become an alienantory, boring and dull experince where we do not enjoy the fruit of their own labors, but only little green slips of paper. The capitalist wants them working as much as possible because he "owns" their labor, resting would be "robbing" the capitalist of his "rightful posession"! :o

Its a natural incentive, do the least amount of work possible for the most money, since thats all you're getting out of that miserable, montonous activity. The paradox in capitalism is that it must keep producing...it has to keep the production lines moving constantly, creating overproduction of products we don't even need.


Now, if we lived in a society that based itself on each individual receiving the fruit of his own unalienated labor, and we produced just what we needed or desired, we would see a drastically better society.