this is for the "restricted members"

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

do you think it is fair or right for 50% of the worlds wealth to be in the hand of only 5% of the world population?

[theraven]

give me a reason why not

[LSD]

It's societally counterproductive.

That much concentrated wealth nescesitates mass starvation and misery which in turn nescessitates conflit.

The only way for society to serve its purpose of bennefiting all members is for societal resources to be more equitably distributed.

I understand that for one coming at this from a "property right" pesrpective, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive. But you need to realize that the "right to property" is as artifical as the "right to govern" or the "divine right of kings".

That a rich American has upwards of several billion times what a poor African has solely by virtue of the country of his birth and the luck of his decisions, is undeniably abhorent.

And, from an entirely pragmatic perspective, is entirely untenable in terms of stability.

Eventually that poor African will get together with several million of his poor friends and take those billions from the rich American and his friends.

Not "fair"? Not "right"? Perhaps by your standard, but do you really think that anybody cares about your petty moralism? These people are desperate and they will rise up and take what they need!

International capitalism is unstable by nature and it will inevitably collapse under its own disparity. And when that happens, you will undoubtably be among the reactionary few calling for a return of "real" capitalism and "markets".

I doubt you'll have much support, but good luck. I have a feeling you'll need it! :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:49 AM
It's societally counterproductive.

That much concentrated wealth nescesitates mass starvation and misery which in turn nescessitates conflit.

The only way for society to serve its purpose of bennefiting all members is for societal resources to be more equitably distributed.

I understand that for one coming at this from a "property right" pesrpective, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive. But you need to realize that the "right to property" is as artifical as the "right to govern" or the "divine right of kings".

That a rich American has upwards of several billion times what a poor African has solely by virtue of the country of his birth and the luck of his decisions, is undeniably abhorent.

And, from an entirely pragmatic perspective, is entirely untenable in terms of stability.

Eventually that poor African will get together with several million of his poor friends and take those billions from the rich American and his friends.

Not "fair"? Not "right"? Perhaps by your standard, but do you really think that anybody cares about your petty moralism? These people are desperate and they will rise up and take what they need!

International capitalism is unstable by nature and it will inevitably collapse under its own disparity. And when that happens, you will undoubtably be among the reactionary few calling for a return of "real" capitalism and "markets".

I doubt you'll have much support, but good luck. I have a feeling you'll need it! :lol:
just becuase most popele odnt' live in luxuray doesnt' mean they can't surivive. the fact is even the wrost people in the world live better today thanks to capitlism. also part of that inequality allows fo the inequality to remain, afterall if you control the guns its hard to be rvoeld agaisnt

[LSD]

just becuase most popele odnt' live in luxuray doesnt' mean they can't surivive.

Obviously not, but the thing about the world today is that lots of people aren't "surviving"!

All your macroeconomics 101 crap aside, the reality of the situation is that real world capitalism is not only disparic, it's grossely so.

And despite the rhetoric of libertarians and neoliberals everywhere, "open markets" are not "leveling the playing field", they are only fattening businessmens' wallets.

Eventually, this situation has to come to a head, and current world events would suggest that it's probably going to be sooner rather than later. Now, obviously I cannot predict when the current global hegemony will hit a crisis that it can't handle, but the way things are going it could be any day now.

The only really important question is what will happen next? Will the workers realize their power and rise up? Will the bourgeoisie realize their vulnerability and react as they did in the 1930s with fascism and oppression?

Obviously, I know where my loyalty lies. But when this "capitalism" that you love so dearly finally collapses, raven, I wonder which side you will join.

Notwithstanding your "beliefs" in the "power" of the "market", in the real non-textbook world, when the choice is between worker liberation and totalitarianism ...where will you stand?

Will you stand by the capitalists to the end? Will you sacrifice your life for their money? :unsure:


the fact is even the wrost people in the world live better today thanks to capitlism

Live better than whom? It doesn't get much worse than starving and "starving" describes a good couple hundred million people on this poor earth.

And in terms of average living conditions, of course they're better than a few hundred years ago. In 1500 they were better than 1000, and in 1000, things were better than in 500.

That's called social evolution, but it didn't mean that feudalism was the "end of the line" in 1500 and it doesn't mean that capitalism is the end today.

We are nowhere near the end of our evolution as a society and to stagnate here would be absolute foolishness.

Capitalism has served its purpose, it's time to move on.


afterall if you control the guns its hard to be rvoeld agaisnt

Tell that to Nicholas II! :lol:

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:07 AM
give me a reason why not
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/Capitalism%20Geopolitical/320die20from20hunger.jpg

[theraven]

Obviously not, but the thing about the world today is that lots of people aren't "surviving"!

All your macroeconomics 101 crap aside, the reality of the situation is that real world capitalism is not only disparic, it's grossely so.

And despite the rhetoric of libertarians and neoliberals everywhere, "open markets" are not "leveling the playing field", they are only fattening businessmens' wallets.

Eventually, this situation has to come to a head, and current world events would suggest that it's probably going to be sooner rather than later. Now, obviously I cannot predict when the current global hegemony will hit a crisis that it can't handle, but the way things are going it could be any day now.

no it really couldnt. in order for their to be a reovlt their would need some sort of orginization. I agree global capitlsm migth fall, but if it did, i would bet it would be a theocratic one or a some sort of toltariao government.


The only really important question is what will happen next? Will the workers realize their power and rise up?

if history is any indicaion no, and if they do tey will rpobably end up in a dictatroship


Will the bourgeoisie realize their vulnerability and react as they did in the 1930s with fascism and oppression?


Im sure any leftists totalirain ideolgoy well be countered by a rightest counter part


Obviously, I know where my loyalty lies. But when this "capitalism" that you love so dearly finally collapses, raven, I wonder which side you will join.

the sides don't even exist yet, how would i choose?


Notwithstanding your "beliefs" in the "power" of the "market", in the real non-textbook world, when the choice is between worker liberation and totalitarianism ...where will you stand?


um, buddy tottalatiranism goes both ways



Live better than whom? It doesn't get much worse than starving and "starving" describes a good couple hundred million people on this poor earth.


less percnnet people starve then any time in history


And in terms of average living conditions, of course they're better than a few hundred years ago. In 1500 they were better than 1000, and in 1000, things were better than in 500.

That's called social evolution, but it didn't mean that feudalism was the "end of the line" in 1500 and it doesn't mean that capitalism is the end today.

no, because afterall peole got wrose after the fall of rome.

We are nowhere near the end of our evolution as a society and to stagnate here would be absolute foolishness.

Capitalism has served its purpose, it's time to move on.


im sure if a better idea comes a long we'll try it out.



Tell that to Nicholas II! laugh.gif

he didnt' control the guns

[red team]

Not to mention that the value of money is questionable because it quantifies nothing and it measures nothing and is only valuable if it is scarce. Take diamonds for instance. They're very valuable in terms of monetary value because they're scarce, but what do they do in terms of utility except look shiny? Well, aluminum foil is shiny, but that doesn't count because aluminum is plentiful whereas diamonds are not.

So do you know how many Africans get paid barely sustenance wages, or in other words work in virtual slavery for these shiny stones? What should one of rational mind have anything but contempt for such a nonsensical economic system.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+Apr 25 2006, 04:16 AM--> (Red Brigade @ Apr 25 2006, 04:16 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 02:07 AM
give me a reason why not
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/Capitalism%20Geopolitical/320die20from20hunger.jpg [/b]
1) source
2) how many people died of hunger in 1900? 1800?

[Ariev]

Originally posted by theraven+Apr 25 2006, 04:27 AM--> (theraven @ Apr 25 2006, 04:27 AM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 04:16 AM

[email protected] 25 2006, 02:07 AM
give me a reason why not
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/Capitalism%20Geopolitical/320die20from20hunger.jpg
1) source
2) how many people died of hunger in 1900? 1800?[/b]
"In 2003 it was estimated that each year, 40 million people die of hunger worldwide."
Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/food)

[overlord]

"In 2003 it was estimated that each year, 40 million people die of hunger worldwide."
Wikipedia Article

In which countries? You won't find any democratic capitalist ones in this bunch. These ones surely only include North Korea and assorted third world utopias in Africa lacking in the political stability and property rights necessary for widespread food production.


It's societally counterproductive.

That much concentrated wealth nescesitates mass starvation and misery which in turn nescessitates conflit.

The only way for society to serve its purpose of bennefiting all members is for societal resources to be more equitably distributed.


That wealth wouldn't be around in the first place under policies of re-distrbution and would quickly ahem 'disappear' if such policies were implemented.

[Seong]

Red Brigade makes an excellent and very large point.


In which countries? You won't find any democratic capitalist ones in this bunch. These ones surely only include North Korea and assorted third world utopias in Africa lacking in the political stability and property rights necessary for widespread food production.

He said WORLDWIDE - meaning in no particular country.

And anyway what the hell is a third world Utopia? Does your very fucked up vision of paradise include malnutrition?
There is poverty and death a plenty in 'Western' civilizations. It may not be on a scale of equal magnitude or half as publicised but it's still there. America, paragon of the 'civilized' world is a good example of this.

And if Western countries would stop slapping trade embargos here there and everywhere or sticking their damn fingers in other people's pie, developing nations might actually have a chance to gain political/societal stability.

[Connolly]

give me a reason why not

Would you agree with my actions if I broke into your "gaff" and cleared the place out - TVs, DVDs - anything thats valuable?

I suspect not.

Why then, should you agree when the capitalist class steal the labour and wealth of the vast majority - for which the capitalist himself did not produce?

Because its legal?
Because its justified by "democracy" and the "democtatic state"?
Because the capitalist "worked" his way to his/her position and therefore deserves his position?
Because there is no other system suitable?

Why do you defend one type of robbery over another?

[theraven]

Would you agree with my actions if I broke into your "gaff" and cleared the place out - TVs, DVDs - anything thats valuable?

I suspect not.

Why then, should you agree when the capitalist class steal the labour and wealth of the vast majority - for which the capitalist himself did not produce?


becuase their not stealing...if you pay for it and the person agres to give it to to you then its not stealing.

[Tungsten]

LSD

That much concentrated wealth nescesitates mass starvation and misery
Care to prove this claim?

I understand that for one coming at this from a "property right" pesrpective, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive. But you need to realize that the "right to property" is as artifical as the "right to govern" or the "divine right of kings".
Or the right to equality, or the labour theory of value and all the other theories of "static" wealth. Rights are only what the government enforces, but some work and some don't. Yours don't and it's that that's led us to the pork barrel society we live in today.

Eventually that poor African will get together with several million of his poor friends and take those billions from the rich American and his friends.
Oh very funny. Does that poor African not realise he can be vapourised- literally- at the push of a button? If you think might makes right, then I suggest you jump ship.

But on the other hand, I fully welcome our African brothers and sisters to come to the west and claim back their stolen posessions. Just let them point out which cars, computers, aircraft, factories, houses and skyscrapers (as well as the paychecks of every western worker) they had stolen from them, complete with proof, and they can have them back with pleasure.

Not "fair"? Not "right"? Perhaps by your standard, but do you really think that anybody cares about your petty moralism?
That's okay. We don't really care about yours - or the poor African's- either.

These people are desperate and they will rise up and take what they need!
Oh sure. Let them try.

International capitalism is unstable by nature and it will inevitably collapse under its own disparity. And when that happens, you will undoubtably be among the reactionary few calling for a return of "real" capitalism and "markets".

I doubt you'll have much support, but good luck. I have a feeling you'll need it!
If you think the working masses are going to happily hand over their paychecks to Africans with a smile on their face and that you'll be supported for insisting on it, then your dreaming. Besides, handing over wealth to people who haven't earned it is societally counterproductive.
The RedBanner

Would you agree with my actions if I broke into your "gaff" and cleared the place out - TVs, DVDs - anything thats valuable?
Wealth is made by production, not stealing. Nothing gets made by stealing. Or redistribution. Why do you assume that the top 5% get their by stealing?

Why do you defend one type of robbery over another?
More to the point- why do you?

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

you fail to recognize that most of the "industrialized" nations of today didnt get this way through some sort of divine right. it was because of colonialism, and the united states is guilty of this as much as europe. as marx said, this is the "original sin" of capitalism. i dont go for that theory that if you redistributed all the wealth in the world equally that in 2 years it would be concentrated in the hands of the people who had it in the first place again. and if so it is because we lack the audacity, theivery, and greediness of them. face it, the "1st world" wouldnt be where it is today if it wasnt for overseas imperialism.

besides there is NO REASON in todays world that people should be starving. we are sending satellites through space, this is the age of discovery and "enlightment", but 40 million of us are starving. there is more than enough food. there is no neo-liberal capitalist argument that can convince me that this is ok. try it

[Connolly]

becuase their not stealing...if you pay for it and the person agres to give it to to you then its not stealing.

Unfortunately, we dont live in la la land, and the overwhelming majority of the population (for which society should reflect), does not have a choice whether or not they want to work and be exploited by the capitalist. They are forced into giving over the wealth for which they have produced to those minority who have not produced it - and this system is justified and defended by the bourgeois state. It is ROBBERY.

Do the workers, be it in impoverished countries, choose not to want their fare share of the cake?, or is it that they have no choice due to their economic predicament.



Wealth is made by production, not stealing. Nothing gets made by stealing. Or redistribution. Why do you assume that the top 5% get their by stealing?

So why should those who have not produced gain, while those who produce the wealth "through production" do not recieve the full value of their labour?

Where did Bill Gates get the vast wealth he has accumulated?.........did he create all the software himself, man all the CD production machines, man all the lorries of distribution, clean and manage all the various manufacturing plants?...........Is he that great and GOD like?

It is not an assumption - but a fact. Your definition of stealing is based on the capitalist systems justification by state and law. You do not take into consideration that people are forced to sell their labour in such a manner - without choice. Such a system does not represent the needs and wants of the vast majority and is therefore a bourgeoisie dictatorship - to be overthrown by force.


More to the point- why do you?

Explain.

[Tungsten]

hassan monwar al-moudjahid

you fail to recognize that most of the "industrialized" nations of today didnt get this way through some sort of divine right.
They got there through industrialisation.

it was because of colonialism,
No, industrialisation.

and the united states is guilty of this as much as europe.
Every conutry was guilty of it at one time or another, in varying degrees of sucess.

as marx said, this is the "original sin" of capitalism.
I don't entertain such stupid notions, but if there was such a thing as an original sin, it was one that capitalism inherited, but didn't commit.

While we're on the subject, why don't we discuss the "original sin" of socialism: utopianism and the semi-religious fervor that utopianism generates.

i dont go for that theory that if you redistributed all the wealth in the world equally that in 2 years it would be concentrated in the hands of the people who had it in the first place again.
We wouldn't still be equal, that's for certain.

and if so it is because we lack the audacity, theivery, and greediness of them.
*Laughter* Oh come now. Don't put yourself down like that. Of course you have.

face it, the "1st world" wouldnt be where it is today if it wasnt for overseas imperialism.
What about the many first world countries who didn't have, or didn't benefit from any kind of empire?

besides there is NO REASON in todays world that people should be starving. we are sending satellites through space, this is the age of discovery and "enlightment", but 40 million of us are starving. there is more than enough food. there is no neo-liberal capitalist argument that can convince me that this is ok. try it
Making the 1st world a slave the 3rd won't bring your utopia any closer.
The RedBanner

Unfortunately, we dont live in la la land, and the overwhelming majority of the population (for which society should reflect), does not have a choice whether or not they want to work and be exploited by the capitalist.
You make too a big a deal out of it and filling the truism that if someone can't work for themselves, then they have to work for others (or face their fate) with hyperbole doesn't alter the fact that it's still a truism.

They are forced into giving over the wealth for which they have produced to those minority who have not produced it
You're having difficulty figuring out this voluntary work/trade thing and working out what the real alternative involves, aren't you?

Do the workers, be it in impoverished countries, choose not to want their fare share of the cake?,
Our cakes are as large as each of us invidividually make it. Theirs is small, because they produce little.

or is it that they have no choice due to their economic predicament.
I wouldn't call it a purely economic predicament.

So why should those who have not produced gain, while those who produce the wealth "through production" do not recieve the full value of their labour?
There's a fact I suggest you get used to: economic values are subjective. It is foolhardy to speak of "full values" of something subjective. They already are paid the full value of their labour- what the buyer is willing to pay for it.

Where did Bill Gates get the vast wealth he has accumulated?.........did he create all the software himself, man all the CD production machines, man all the lorries of distribution, clean and manage all the various manufacturing plants?...........Is he that great and GOD like?
That doesn't matter one bit.


It is not an assumption - but a fact. Your definition of stealing is based on the capitalist systems justification by state and law.
Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without the constent of the owner. There isn't any other meaningful definition.

You do not take into consideration that people are forced to sell their labour in such a manner - without choice.
You don't have a choice of whether to work or not if you wish to carry on living. That's not a threat- that's a fact.

Such a system does not represent the needs and wants of the vast majority
I don't agree.

and is therefore a bourgeoisie dictatorship - to be overthrown by force.
See what I mean, Hassan?

[LoneRed]

hey the raven, could you make an attempt to spell decently, also. it doesnt help your case.

[Connolly]

You make too a big a deal out of it and filling the truism that if someone can't work for themselves, then they have to work for others (or face their fate) with hyperbole doesn't alter the fact that it's still a truism.

Its right. (fullstop). Your comment was unneccessary.


You're having difficulty figuring out this voluntary work/trade thing and working out what the real alternative involves, aren't you?

You are having difficulty understanding that the majority cannot own the systems of production under the capitalist system. And that because of this - people are FORCED due to their circumstance to accept wage slavery.


Our cakes are as large as each of us invidividually make it. Theirs is small, because they produce little.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes - Bill Gates "produced" that wealth all by himself - without the labour and assistance of other individuals. Just what he made of it.

All those living in poverty around the world are not poor because of their particular situation within the capitalist system, but because of the stupidity and inferiority of their races - they just cant make anything out of themselves :lol: :lol:

Your comment is ...... :lol:


They already are paid the full value of their labour- what the buyer is willing to pay for it.

The full value of their labour is what they have produced - not what the buyer is willing to pay for it. A little thing called surplus value.


Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without the constent of the owner.

What if the owner does not have a choice of consent. Its not exectly "agreeing" with or accepting what is being taken.

If I had a legal mandate to take all of your possessions and property away without any reason - in your mind - would I be stealing them?...........Or would you just consent to me taking them :lol: (not that you would have a choice).


You don't have a choice of whether to work or not if you wish to carry on living. That's not a threat- that's a fact.

Great isnt it. Well worth defending <_<

It would help though if we got what we deserve for our labour applied - its full value.


I don&#39;t agree.

No? why not.

[red team]

They already are paid the full value of their labour- what the buyer is willing to pay for it.


You mean what the boss is willing to pay for it. Suppose I was the consumer (the buyer) doing the purchasing in which all wealth from Capitalism is realized. I don&#39;t get to choose what proportion of the product&#39;s price gets distributed to to whom. I would rather have the full price of the product returned to the workers who actually made it because I know damn well that they did all the work in making the product, not some investors/bosses who contributed nothing of value in the final product.

Here&#39;s an idea. Consumers should drive up to the back of the factory and do some direct purchasing with factory workers thereby skipping the parasitical middlemen.

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

You are having difficulty understanding that the majority cannot own the systems of production under the capitalist system. And that because of this - people are FORCED due to their circumstance to accept wage slavery.
Those circumstances are not man-made, so your argument falls flat in trying to blame people for it. The system of production is only what each of us makes for ourselves, so what&#39;s stopping you?

Yes - Bill Gates "produced" that wealth all by himself - without the labour and assistance of other individuals.
Not relevent. Those other individuals have been paid for their part in it.

All those living in poverty around the world are not poor because of their particular situation within the capitalist system,
Most of them have never known the capitalist system. Blaming a natural phenomenon on a political system that took no part in creating it smacks of religious nuttery.

but because of the stupidity and inferiority of their races
Don&#39;t be so pathetic.

they just cant make anything out of themselves
If they can&#39;t, then there&#39;s a reason for it. It&#39;s not a simple or straightforward one.

The full value of their labour is what they have produced
Which is what? Worked out how?

A little thing called surplus value.
Which is what? Worked out how?

If I had a legal mandate to take all of your possessions and property away without any reason - in your mind - would I be stealing them?
Legally no, technically yes. Legal definitions are whatever the government want them to be, so they&#39;re not much good.

...........Or would you just consent to me taking them (not that you would have a choice).
I had this argument with the other guy. You can&#39;t be robbed with consent. There is no such thing. It&#39;s like you can&#39;t have "rape with consent", where rape is non-consentual sex. This isn&#39;t semantics, it&#39;s just common sense. It doesn&#39;t happen. Think about it.

red team

You mean what the boss is willing to pay for it.
He&#39;s a buyer isn&#39;t he?

Suppose I was the consumer (the buyer) doing the purchasing in which all wealth from Capitalism is realized. I don&#39;t get to choose what proportion of the product&#39;s price gets distributed to to whom. I would rather have the full price of the product returned to the workers who actually made it because I know damn well that they did all the work in making the product, not some investors/bosses who contributed nothing of value in the final product.
You&#39;d do nothing more than break even- if you were lucky.

Here&#39;s an idea. Consumers should drive up to the back of the factory and do some direct purchasing with factory workers thereby skipping the parasitical middlemen.
They would have no right to the factory unless the workers built their own. Then they could do it as much as they wanted.

[Connolly]

Those circumstances are not man-made, so your argument falls flat in trying to blame people for it.

Who made them then?........."mother nature"?.....God?.......Monkeys?

Can we not change these circumstances? or should we as a proletarian class just accept our faith?

And Publius calls me fatalistic :lol: - he should take a look at you.


The system of production is only what each of us makes for ourselves, so what&#39;s stopping you?

In case you havnt noticed - we are no longer living under the feudal system of production, but socialized production - it is what WE, as a group of workers combined - make for the capitalist and society - for which he takes his undeserved portion of what the workers have produced.

Whats stopping me? I cant make anything for myself - I do not own or have the ability to produce "for myself". Hence, a fundamental characteristic of the capitalist system.


Not relevent. Those other individuals have been paid for their part in it.

Yes - not the value for which they have produced. Something which they should recieve. Its exploitation.


Most of them have never known the capitalist system. Blaming a natural phenomenon on a political system that took no part in creating it smacks of religious nuttery.

The capitalist system is a GLOBAL "phenomenon". Those countries such as japan Usa, Britain, France Germany Directly rely on those countries which do not have advanced systems of production in order to maintain their economic position.

They DO know capitalism - more than youll ever know.


Which is what? Worked out how?

The value of what they have produced against what they recieve of that value.

What the workers produce versus what the capitalist produces and the share each get of the overall value when the produce is sold on the market.


Legally no, technically yes. Legal definitions are whatever the government want them to be, so they&#39;re not much good.

Definitions are set by use of majority. When the workers develop class consciousness and realise they are not gaining from their labour - the word STEALING can be used.

I never asked you legally or technically - but mentally. In your mind would it be unjust and theift?


You can&#39;t be robbed with consent. There is no such thing. It&#39;s like you can&#39;t have "rape with consent", where rape is non-consentual sex. This isn&#39;t semantics, it&#39;s just common sense. It doesn&#39;t happen. Think about it.

How can you have consent when there is no alternative option but to accept the conditions? I suppose slaves and child labourers "consent" to their exploitation?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

guys, the reality of the world is that leftist ideals have not worked, well actually they have, lol and quite well... look at Mao&#39;s reforms , sure they worked, only to kill 30? naaa more like 60 million fucking chinese&#33;&#33;&#33;

what are you guys talking about? the fact is most people in the world are being more and more integrated into the "middle class", only in poor backwards countries does the real poverty still exist, like in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Why? because these countries have always been backwards, you can&#39;t expect Zimbabwe to have it&#39;s people up and running like say a European country when there are still freaking communities living as tribes like they did 500 years ago&#33;&#33; see the difference? plus all of these 3rd world countries are fuicking themselves up, with dictator after dicator after corrupt government after corrupt government after civil war after famine after everything that could go fucking wrong&#33;&#33;

[Connolly]

and quite well... look at Mao&#39;s reforms , sure they worked, only to kill 30? naaa more like 60 million fucking chinese&#33;&#33;&#33;

Maybe, maybe more. Im not defending Mao or any other centralised dictatorship of a vanguard.

Marxism is an understanding of class relations and the systems of production of past societies and using this understanding to come to a most probable conclusion about societies next phase. Using this probable conclusion, we can fight to advance the interests of the proletarian class.


the fact is most people in the world are being more and more integrated into the "middle class", only in poor backwards countries does the real poverty still exist

Middle class as in what - in relation to the means of production or just wealth? In relation to the means of production - the middle class is not growing.


you can&#39;t expect Zimbabwe to have it&#39;s people up and running like say a European country when there are still freaking communities living as tribes like they did 500 years ago&#33;&#33; see the difference? plus all of these 3rd world countries are fuicking themselves up, with dictator after dicator after corrupt government after corrupt government after civil war after famine after everything that could go fucking wrong&#33;&#33;

Nor would I expect such countries to advance to capitalistic systems of production anytime soon. We could break the old feudal class relations to give it a try at capitalim though - ie, NEPAL.

What was the point of your post?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 26 2006, 06:29 PM
guys, the reality of the world is that leftist ideals have not worked, well actually they have, lol and quite well... look at Mao&#39;s reforms , sure they worked, only to kill 30? naaa more like 60 million fucking chinese&#33;&#33;&#33;
You could look at say Somalia, they don&#39;t work and they have a market economy. Therefore all countries with market economies are destined to fail. Right? Well according to your own critique of the left-wing, if we follow the same logic that means the right-wing is destined to fail based upon Somalia&#39;s example. But then you&#39;d try and say no, that country is led by corrupt leaders, and has fallen to bad circumstances and my provide better results in the future. Which can both be used to explain the failure of the rare instances a left-wing system has tried to be implemented. Not to mention that only a very specific branch of the left-wing has ever retained power for a protracted period of time, with other ideologies within the leftist current having never experienced a trial.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

you talk as if industrialization is the salvation of the world. what about its negative effects? such as alienation, break-up of family and social ties, not to mention the toll it take on the environment. u cant expect the 3rd world to conform to your western standards of what "development" is.

For example, in Papua New Guinea there is an indigenous tribe called the Maisin. Their whole net worth is 0, they dont use money. they live off the land, and none of them are starving. they arent "backward", in fact most of them previously tried the city life in Australia and they worked in the mines and in the factories and even white-collared work. but this wasnt rewarding to them, they felt as robots working for a higher diety whom they depended on for their lively-hood. they wanted to guide their own destiny so they came back to papua new guinea to live as maisin again. it was a communal society where everybody had the same status no matter what their role was. they had no problems until globalization reared its ugly head and accused them of not contributing anything to the global economy. their lifestyle was in danger because they were faced with loggers who wanted to destroy everything they worked for. who are we to say the "industrialized" way is better. the west has destroyed numerous civilizations on the pretext of "social darwinism", and that god chose them to show the savages the way to true salvation. before the arrival of the spaniards and anglos in the americas, native americans from the sioux to the inca had communal societies, and guess what? IT WORKED FOR THEM&#33; what a shocker. it was only AFTER the imperialism of the west that the so-called 3rd world became the wretched of the earth.

[Salvador Allende]

Certainly it is not fair and the situation will be solved once the Revolution sweeps the world.

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

Who made them then?........."mother nature"?.....God?.......Monkeys?
The famines in question were caused by various ecological phenomenons, or in the case of Zimbabwe, a government that has prevented food production.

Can we not change these circumstances?
You could do, but I don&#39;t imagine for a second your ideas are going to work for you any more than they&#39;re working for Mugabe.

In case you havnt noticed - we are no longer living under the feudal system of production, but socialized production - it is what WE, as a group of workers combined
Did you boys have a revolution and forget to tell us? I thought this was a division of labour society.

Whats stopping me? I cant make anything for myself - I do not own or have the ability to produce "for myself". Hence, a fundamental characteristic of the capitalist system.
What&#39;s stopping you from purchasing the ability to produce for yourself?

The capitalist system is a GLOBAL "phenomenon". Those countries such as japan Usa, Britain, France Germany Directly rely on those countries which do not have advanced systems of production in order to maintain their economic position.
How? When was the last time you saw a computer with a "Made in Ethiopia" sticker on it?

The value of what they have produced against what they recieve of that value.
The value is determined by what the purchaser was willing to pay for it. The purchaser in this case being the factory owner, not the final consumer. If you sell me your car and then I sell it on to someone else at a higher price, I haven&#39;t taken anything from you, because at the time that I sold it, the car was no longer yours. Do you see now?

What the workers produce versus what the capitalist produces and the share each get of the overall value when the produce is sold on the market.
The capitalist produces? That&#39;s one hell of thing for a socialist to admit.

Definitions are set by use of majority. When the workers develop class consciousness and realise they are not gaining from their labour - the word STEALING can be used.
No it can&#39;t. That would be a misuse of the word, like in an Orwell novel.

I never asked you legally or technically - but mentally. In your mind would it be unjust and theift?
No.

How can you have consent when there is no alternative option but to accept the conditions?
Because consent has nothing to do with the position you&#39;re in. If you were a subsistence farmer, you&#39;d have to work on your famr or you&#39;d starve. Consent doesn&#39;t come into it- there&#39;s nothing to consent to.

I suppose slaves and child labourers "consent" to their exploitation?
That&#39;s a completely different situation, forced on them by people, not environmental conditions.
Fistful of Steel

You could look at say Somalia, they don&#39;t work and they have a market economy.
Only in your fevered imagination. They don&#39;t have any kind economy or government. Who enforces the trade agreements? Who protects property? Who prevents fraud?
hassan monwar al-moudjahid

you talk as if industrialization is the salvation of the world.
It salvated us.

what about its negative effects? such as alienation, break-up of family and social ties,
I wasn&#39;t aware of the breakdown of the family being anything other than a very recent phenomenon. There wasn&#39;t anything like that fifty years ago.

not to mention the toll it take on the environment. u cant expect the 3rd world to conform to your western standards of what "development" is.
Why not?

they had no problems until globalization reared its ugly head and accused them of not contributing anything to the global economy.
They must be distraught.

who are we to say the "industrialized" way is better.
The fact that we&#39;re living far longer than many of those without and have the means to do so. Where are you going to get a heart transplant in the jungle?

the west has destroyed numerous civilizations on the pretext of "social darwinism",
Only the west? What a narrow, politically correct outlook you have.

before the arrival of the spaniards and anglos in the americas, native americans from the sioux to the inca had communal societies, and guess what? IT WORKED FOR THEM&#33; what a shocker.
Maybe it did work for them, in a blood-stained, cut-your-heart-out-for-the-gods kind of way. I don&#39;t remember anything about the incas being a communal society. A dictatorship run by a king perhaps, but not communal. Is this what you&#39;re defending from the bogeyman of western imperialism? I recommend you choose your examples more carefully in future. It was no better and no worse.

[cyu]

The value is determined by what the purchaser was willing to pay for it. The purchaser in this case being the factory owner, not the final consumer. If you sell me your car and then I sell it on to someone else at a higher price, I haven&#39;t taken anything from you, because at the time that I sold it, the car was no longer yours. Do you see now?

If almost all the means of production is owned by a small fraction of the population, that doesn&#39;t give those without capital much choice but to sell their labor and agree to the conditions of work set by those who do own the means of production. This relationship results in a class of people who do little real work and yet are rewarded much more than those who are doing real work. It&#39;s not exactly a system that gives a lot of incentive for hard work. Don&#39;t pro-capitalists always complain when there aren&#39;t incentives to work?

If the means of production were owned by those who use them, then we wouldn&#39;t have the problem of rewarding so much money to people who aren&#39;t doing any real work.

[Connolly]

The famines in question were caused by various ecological phenomenons, or in the case of Zimbabwe, a government that has prevented food production.


Sorry, what? It appears you have lost track of exactly what it is we are discussing here.

It is one of the most fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, it being socialized production, that the majority cannot own the systems of production.

Nothing to do with famine and environmental causes considering we have the knowledge to prevent such problems. These problems are infact unsolvable by the capitalist systems "Pyramid scheme" and its inability to apply production advancements to those at the bottom of the pyramid - hence the third world.


You could do, but I don&#39;t imagine for a second your ideas are going to work for you any more than they&#39;re working for Mugabe.

Of course not, over the last two centuries the bourgeois have simply, from their own soft warm hearts, ended child labour, created the 40 hour week, created unions and reduced labour intensity - how kind of them.

The ideas of proletarian advancement have and will work.

What are my ideas you claim will not work?


Did you boys have a revolution and forget to tell us? I thought this was a division of labour society.

But the end product of modern production has been achieved through a variety of steps involving many workers - it is rare for a single worker to "make" something for themself.


What&#39;s stopping you from purchasing the ability to produce for yourself?

Money.


How? When was the last time you saw a computer with a "Made in Ethiopia" sticker on it?

When was the last time you saw coffee made in Switzerland? Bannanas grown in Britain? Diamonds found in Germany? Glass made in Ireland?

Certain foods can only be grown in third world countries viably due to their climate. Certain metals can only be found and extracted in third world countries. Certain types of energy can only be mined viably in third world countries. Certain commodities can only be made in third world countries viably.

Its a little thing called globalization.


The capitalist produces? That&#39;s one hell of thing for a socialist to admit.

Capitalists dont shit now?................fuck youll go to lengths to defend them :lol:

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

It is one of the most fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, it being socialized production,
The capitalist mode of production isn&#39;t socialised.

Nothing to do with famine and environmental causes considering we have the knowledge to prevent such problems. These problems are infact unsolvable by the capitalist systems "Pyramid scheme" and its inability to apply production advancements to those at the bottom of the pyramid - hence the third world.
Famines are prevented by producing food. Is this what you believe capitalism is supposedly "incapable of doing"? Then why are we not starving? Why are the people at the bottom of our "pyramid" not starving either? And who is supposed to be applying these "production advancements"? I don&#39;t remember any centralised world government being set up to govern such production.

Of course not, over the last two centuries the bourgeois have simply, from their own soft warm hearts, ended child labour, created the 40 hour week, created unions and reduced labour intensity - how kind of them.
Luxuries which are only found in a industrial society. Perhaps we ought to be thanking industrialisation.

The ideas of proletarian advancement have and will work.

What are my ideas you claim will not work?
The conditions that bought about the luxuries you list were not caused by socialism.

When was the last time you saw coffee made in Switzerland? Bannanas grown in Britain? Diamonds found in Germany? Glass made in Ireland?
I was unaware our economy was dependent on bannanas and coffee. And glass? Are you taking the piss?

Certain foods can only be grown in third world countries viably due to their climate.
What century are you living in?

Certain metals can only be found and extracted in third world countries.
Very few.

Certain types of energy can only be mined viably in third world countries.
How do you "mine" energy?

Certain commodities can only be made in third world countries viably.
Some, not all, and it&#39;s not essential.

[Dyst]

Tungsten, I am gonna reply in an idiotic manner, like yours.


The conditions that bought about the luxuries you list were not caused by socialism.
Per definition, socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. We live now in a capitalist time. Wether or not you believe it will or not, it obviously doesn&#39;t exist yet. Besides, we are talking about economic structures. "Luxuries brought about" by that and that "system" is obviously not in any way relevant.

The human race advances and we have created many nice things, indeed.


What century are you living in?
What century are you living in? You smell like the 90&#39;s.


How do you "mine" energy?
I am sure you would not be able to participate in the process, if it was possible. Considering you don&#39;t even understand what he meant.


Some, not all, and it&#39;s not essential.
Alot of components are made in third world countries and so called "developing" countries (as if not all countries are constantly developing.) Obviously the finished commodities are generally produced in "industrial" countries. It is essential.

[Tungsten]

Keiza

Tungsten, I am gonna reply in an idiotic manner,
No change there, then.

Per definition, socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. We live now in a capitalist time.
Not anymore. Transitions only go as far as governments and the people will allow them. There&#39;s nothing "inevitable" about communism or any other system.

Wether or not you believe it will or not, it obviously doesn&#39;t exist yet. Besides, we are talking about economic structures. "Luxuries brought about" by that and that "system" is obviously not in any way relevant.
Erm, yes it is very relevent. No one spoke of 40 hour weeks or putting an end to child labour three hundred years ago. Everyone would have starved. The economic conditions required to produce those conditions didn&#39;t exist. It&#39;s funny how all these things suddenly became feasible by the end of the 19th century, but not before.

Alot of components are made in third world countries and so called "developing" countries (as if not all countries are constantly developing.) Obviously the finished commodities are generally produced in "industrial" countries. It is essential.
If you can make components there, then there&#39;s nothing stopping you from making them here too. Being able to transfer production to the third world at a lower cost in convenient, but not essential.

[Connolly]

The capitalist mode of production isn&#39;t socialised.

It does help when you know what is meant by socialized production.


1.To place under government or group ownership or control.
2.To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3.To convert or adapt to the needs of society.

This definition is a bit fluffy, I know - in other words, the socialization of production being the bringing of many workers together to work under the one roof. A large, socialized, factory for example - something rare, uncommon under the feudal mode of production.


Famines are prevented by producing food. Is this what you believe capitalism is supposedly "incapable of doing"?


Very much so. It has the production potential, but no balls.

Under the present system, for example here in Ireland, huge quantities of milk is poured straight down the gutter. Elsewhere in Europe and the rest of the world, tens of thousands of tonnes of food is destroyed each year.

And thats only the overproduced food that actually got overproduced, farmers and factories are limited by milk quotas and production by what can be sold - not by actual human demand.

Why?........well what happens if Ireland produces too much milk?........What happens when something is overproduced?..........What if a factory produces too much of a product and cannot sell it (even though the human demand is there)?

Its value falls.

Value falling + incapable of selling product = wasted production = capitalists loss.

The present system is wasteful of our actual potential production capacity. And as humans develop even better production methods, the capitalist system just wont be able to keep up with human advancement. Just like the feudal system, itll be nothing but history.


Then why are we not starving?

Assuming you live in the west, we just happen to live on the other side of the coin - while the rest of the world just scrape a living.


Why are the people at the bottom of our "pyramid" not starving either?

:lol:

That bloody media, its a Jewish conspiracy im telling yeah. Yes, yet again, Tungsten is right - there are no people starving.



And who is supposed to be applying these "production advancements"? I don&#39;t remember any centralised world government being set up to govern such production.


Well, firstly, socialism will not occur in the third world without developing capitalistic forms of production first.

[to rephrase] Whats stopping these capitalistic forms of production from developing in the third world?

[I cant but help answer with an answer :lol: ] How far would you get with one weeks wages if those who produced all the goods, food and luxuries you consume were paid the same as you?...........not very far I would imagine.


Luxuries which are only found in a industrial society. Perhaps we ought to be thanking industrialisation.

Well said. Now lets all kneel and kiss Mr. Bush&#39;s ass and thank him and the elite class he represents. After all, where would we be without our darling Queen, who gives so many of us employment cleaning her wonderfull jax, scraping the shit off the wheel of her Rolls Royce and taking a few digs of anger when Charles pisses her off every once in a while. God save our Queen.


The conditions that bought about the luxuries you list were not caused by socialism.

I never said it was "caused" by socialism, not that it has ever existed.

But it was caused by class struggle, proletarian struggle.


I was unaware our economy was dependent on bannanas and coffee. And glass? Are you taking the piss?

"Our" economy is dependent on countless resources.

We no longer live in caves eating rabbit shit - at least I dont. Im not so sure about you though, I thought everyone was addicted to coffee.


What century are you living in?

You doubt this?


How do you "mine" energy?

My mistake again. :blush: We grow coal from seeds these days.


Some, not all, and it&#39;s not essential

YES IT BLOODY IS ESSENTIAL.


Not anymore. Transitions only go as far as governments and the people will allow them. There&#39;s nothing "inevitable" about communism or any other system.

And who are the "people"? I mean during a time of unrest, were class consciousness is developed I suspect, the bourgeois minority want to maintain the system, while the proletarian majority want to advance the system.

So if the people in your words, are the majority, and the majority are the proletariat - then the people must allow it?

Im not saying anything is inevitable - just most probable.


If you can make components there, then there&#39;s nothing stopping you from making them here too. Being able to transfer production to the third world at a lower cost in convenient, but not essential.

It appears you simply dont have a clue as to what you are defending.

There is something stopping you making it here - your rival is making it "over there".

And if you dont up and go, your product just wont survive on a competitive market.

You have this nice little idealist fantasy going on - keep it up - your no loss.

And in the quote above - replace convenient with profitable. And we all know how important it is to keep up a growing profit dont we?

[theraven]

And who are the "people"? I mean during a time of unrest, were class consciousness is developed I suspect, the bourgeois minority want to maintain the system, while the proletarian majority want to advance the system.

So if the people in your words, are the majority, and the majority are the proletariat - then the people must allow it?

Im not saying anything is inevitable - just most probable.


your assuming servealr things here:

1) during times of troubel people will grow along class councious rather then racial or religous or national councious
2) that even if they are class cousnsion they will see communism as the best one for them.

[overlord]

Getting back to the original question, There ain&#39;t nothing wrong with the wealth being concentrated.

If the wealth wasn&#39;t concentrated:

-Who would build the factories who employ so many?
- Who would build the industry necessary for modern technology?
- Who would donate to the charities necessary for feeding the turd-world?

Without wealth concentration:

No indutrial revolution = No modern technology = No sitting in front of the computer typing idiotic comments supporting Socialism.

The world would just be a backward farm economy with continuous famine like North Korea and then where would we be? Dead?

[Connolly]

your assuming servealr things here:

1) during times of troubel people will grow along class councious rather then racial or religous or national councious
2) that even if they are class cousnsion they will see communism as the best one for them.

Yep, pretty much.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 12:51 PM

your assuming servealr things here:

1) during times of troubel people will grow along class councious rather then racial or religous or national councious
2) that even if they are class cousnsion they will see communism as the best one for them.

Yep, pretty much.
those are VERY big presupmtions that are definetly not certinaties

[Connolly]

those are VERY big presupmtions that are definetly not certinaties

Nothing can be certain. Just probable.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 05:28 PM

those are VERY big presupmtions that are definetly not certinaties

Nothing can be certain. Just probable.
your theory of a proliterain revolot is less probabale then theorys of revolts based on racial or religous lines, as in recent times (past fifty years) those two have been far more unifying factors then class.

[Connolly]

your theory of a proliterain revolot is less probabale then theorys of revolts based on racial or religous lines, as in recent times (past fifty years) those two have been far more unifying factors then class.

Our theory of proletarian revolution is based on the position that the capitalist mode of production will become obsolete when the productive forces become too great. And since classes, in the marxian sense, are our relation to the mode of production, it is the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisies which will decide whether we remain in the past or not. This class struggle is continuous as long as these classes exist to have different demands on one another.

Class struggle is existant today more than any other form of struggle. it can be indirect and specifically unknown to the person taking the action.

For example, these racial tensions you mention. Recently enough we have seen the race riots in France. Were these solely about colour and ethnicity?.....or was there an underlying CLASS conflict involved, sparked by the poverty and inequity within the society?

We believe in a catastrophic revolution, something that will spark off suddenly and get the ball rolling for societal change. The catastrophic nature of our revolution can be seen today, where out of no where, out of regular civil society, tension and fighting can errupt suddenly.

you see, in the last 50 years, there has been no change in the mode of production - so you cant take the last 50 years as your reference.

[theraven]

define "mode of productin"

[Connolly]

define "mode of productin"

Mode of Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production)

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 07:28 PM

define "mode of productin"

Mode of Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production)
ok, in that case you are very wrong, the mode of production has changed drasticly in the past 50 years. 50 years ago the technology invovlied in production was vastly different then the modern set. so you are in fact wrong that the mode of production has not changed, thus the last 50 years are indeed an accurate time to look at.

[Connolly]

Ok. This is a simple misunderstanding, on your part.

Note the following lines in the link.

"""In the writings of Karl Marx and the Marxist theory of historical materialism, a mode of production (in German: Produktionsweise, meaning &#39;the way of producing&#39;) is a specific combination of:"""

A SPECIFIC COMBINATION.

Inputting one number on a combination lock dosnt open it.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 10:03 PM
Ok. This is a simple misunderstanding, on your part.

Note the following lines in the link.

"""In the writings of Karl Marx and the Marxist theory of historical materialism, a mode of production (in German: Produktionsweise, meaning &#39;the way of producing&#39;) is a specific combination of:"""

A SPECIFIC COMBINATION.

Inputting one number on a combination lock dosnt open it.
no but it does change the combination. some aspects will change, others will not. if you have a recipe for food that is flour baking soda and chocalate, and you replace flour with water is it the same food?

[Connolly]

no but it does change the combination. some aspects will change, others will not. if you have a recipe for food that is flour baking soda and chocalate, and you replace flour with water is it the same food?

Thats the funniest analogy iv seen in a long time :D

Yes, of course each part of the combination will have effects on the other, it still dosnt change the complete structure though.

If you add just a tiny amount of flour to th baking soda and chocolate - is it the same structure?

Is a Mars Bar a Snickers when it "may contain traces of nut"?

No.

It needs significant changes to transform the structure.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 10:25 PM

no but it does change the combination. some aspects will change, others will not. if you have a recipe for food that is flour baking soda and chocalate, and you replace flour with water is it the same food?

Thats the funniest analogy iv seen in a long time :D

Yes, of course each part of the combination will have effects on the other, it still dosnt change the complete structure though.

If you add just a tiny amount of flour to th baking soda and chocolate - is it the same structure?

Is a Mars Bar a Snickers when it "may contain traces of nut"?

No.

It needs significant changes to transform the structure.
you don&#39;t think technolgoy has made any significant changes? the internet? not to mention the many engineering advancess.

[Connolly]

you don&#39;t think technolgoy has made any significant changes? the internet? not to mention the many engineering advancess.

I agree, to me, science has made huge steps - engineering too.

But thats relative.

But whats significant enough to change the mode of production to another can be difficult to judge.

Its like adding different quantities of flour to the recipe without ever tasting what it is you are making.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 10:37 PM

you don&#39;t think technolgoy has made any significant changes? the internet? not to mention the many engineering advancess.

I agree, to me, science has made huge steps - engineering too.

But thats relative.

But whats significant enough to change the mode of production to another can be difficult to judge.

Its like adding different quantities of flour to the recipe without ever tasting what it is you are making.
So really the modes of productin HAVE changed, but still no worker revolt. now you may argue it wasn&#39;t the right kind of change, but since you have no idea what change would be nessacary thats a flawed argument. so despite changed in the mode of production people still organize largely on lines other then class.

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

Why?........well what happens if Ireland produces too much milk?........What happens when something is overproduced?..........What if a factory produces too much of a product and cannot sell it (even though the human demand is there)?
Are you referring to demand in a particualr country? I can&#39;t see why they can&#39;t just give away what they&#39;re not able to sell. It&#39;s not like they&#39;re losing anything. Why are people producing what they can&#39;t sell? No one with any sense would do that unless they were being subsidised by the government.

The present system is wasteful of our actual potential production capacity. And as humans develop even better production methods, the capitalist system just wont be able to keep up with human advancement. Just like the feudal system, itll be nothing but history.
You can bet that your right to exist for your own sake will be nothing but history too. Socialising production demands some unpleasant things; things which I&#39;m not prepared do for any level of alleged "efficiency".

Assuming you live in the west, we just happen to live on the other side of the coin - while the rest of the world just scrape a living.
That&#39;s not the answer to the question I asked. I asked "Why are we not starving?"

That bloody media, its a Jewish conspiracy im telling yeah. Yes, yet again, Tungsten is right - there are no people starving.
I thought we "lived on the other side of the coin"? Please make your mind up.

Well, firstly, socialism will not occur in the third world without developing capitalistic forms of production first.
When they develop better means of production, then their production problems will be solved. Some of them are starting to do that now.

[to rephrase] Whats stopping these capitalistic forms of production from developing in the third world?
Lack of capitalism/proper government?

[I cant but help answer with an answer :lol: ] How far would you get with one weeks wages if those who produced all the goods, food and luxuries you consume were paid the same as you?...........not very far I would imagine.
We didn&#39;t do too badly before globalisation.

Well said. Now lets all kneel and kiss Mr. Bush&#39;s ass and thank him and the elite class he represents.
I don&#39;t remember Bush building any factories.

After all, where would we be without our darling Queen, who gives so many of us employment cleaning her wonderfull jax,
I don&#39;t remember the queen building any factories.

scraping the shit off the wheel of her Rolls Royce and taking a few digs of anger when Charles pisses her off every once in a while. God save our Queen.
I still don&#39;t have a clue what this has to do with industrialisation.

I never said it was "caused" by socialism, not that it has ever existed.

But it was caused by class struggle, proletarian struggle.
Only in your fevered imagination. Stuff, and the conditions to produce that stuff have to be available before anyone can "stuggle" for it. Socialism takes away the incentive to provide that stuff.

My mistake again. :blush: We grow coal from seeds these days.
Now what are you going on about?

YES IT BLOODY IS ESSENTIAL.
If you can&#39;t back it up, don&#39;t post a reply.

And who are the "people"? I mean during a time of unrest, were class consciousness is developed I suspect, the bourgeois minority want to maintain the system, while the proletarian majority want to advance the system.
"Class consciousness" my arse. Show me one person who isn&#39;t aware of what "class" they&#39;re in. The working class have as much to lose from socialism as the capitalist and you&#39;re wrong to think that the working class acts together and for mutual interest. Pork barrelling proves that some workers are as much likey to prey on other workers as capitalists, when given the opportunity.

It appears you simply dont have a clue as to what you are defending.

There is something stopping you making it here - your rival is making it "over there".

And if you dont up and go, your product just wont survive on a competitive market.
If the cheap labour didn&#39;t exist "over there", then my competitors wouldn&#39;t be able use it either, would they? :rolleyes:

[Connolly]

Look, this discussion is getting ridiculous.

If you really want to argue on this - go find out what the mode of production is before you go saying it has changed.

If you ask me If I bought a new car and I say "nope, I still have my Nissan Micra". That dosnt mean I havnt bought a new sterio system or spoiler. It just means the car, as a whole has not changed.

If I say, as I did, that the mode of production has not changed, I mean the mode of production as a whole.

Of course the mode of production changes internally - but at what point do I stop calling the Micra a Micra when I continuously change the parts. This is were catagorisation comes in. We catagorise certain characteristics of something, to create a whole catagory.


but since you have no idea what change would be nessacary thats a flawed argument.

Not flawed at all. I dont know what changes are necessary. We can though, based on historical understanding, act and fight for the class which history suggests will "inherit the earth".


so despite changed in the mode of production people still organize largely on lines other then class.

Class struggle, as i said, is continuous. It is the greatest struggle, and if I were to stretch it abit, the only struggle "happening".

All these other "struggles" you mention such as racial, are infact class struggles underneath.

[theraven]

Look, this discussion is getting ridiculous.

If you really want to argue on this - go find out what the mode of production is before you go saying it has changed.

If you ask me If I bought a new car and I say "nope, I still have my Nissan Micra". That dosnt mean I havnt bought a new sterio system or spoiler. It just means the car, as a whole has not changed.

If I say, as I did, that the mode of production has not changed, I mean the mode of production as a whole.

Of course the mode of production changes internally - but at what point do I stop calling the Micra a Micra when I continuously change the parts. This is were catagorisation comes in. We catagorise certain characteristics of something, to create a whole catagory.

right, but just because it sthe same model car doesn&#39;t mean its the same. and we aren&#39;t talking some minor tinking and tampering. we are talking major change,things like the internet, nuclear power, the jet engine, rockets, statialte communication. this is like replacing the whole engine, adding a body kit and buying new wheels. yea sure some of the old parts are still there, but its a big change.


Not flawed at all. I dont know what changes are necessary. We can though, based on historical understanding, act and fight for the class which history suggests will "inherit the earth".

how?


Class struggle, as i said, is continuous. It is the greatest struggle, and if I were to stretch it abit, the only struggle "happening".

All these other "struggles" you mention such as racial, are infact class struggles underneath.

you could argue, but then explain why a rich man (osama bin laden) would attack other rich men (the people in th wtc)?

[Connolly]

Are you referring to demand in a particualr country?

No. The demand of a particular wealth bracket of people - those who cannot purchase the products.


I can&#39;t see why they can&#39;t just give away what they&#39;re not able to sell. It&#39;s not like they&#39;re losing anything

Firstly, the capitalist is losing something by producing these products that cannot be sold. Production costs money, expenditure = loss of profit.

Secondly, putting the products that have been overproduced into the social arena means the value of existing products on the market will decline. Again - a loss for the capitalist.

Thirdly, putting the overproduced products into the social arena means potential future sales of products will be affected. Loss for the capitalist.

Im far from any sort of Marxian economist, so there are probably many more factors of putting overproduced products into the social arena.


Why are people producing what they can&#39;t sell?

1. Productive forces are too great.
2. The capitalist cannot know for sure whether the product produced will be bought.
3. There is an anarchy in capitalistic production.
4. The rival competitors could put "better" products out on the market, reducing demand for yours.


You can bet that your right to exist for your own sake will be nothing but history too. Socialising production demands some unpleasant things; things which I&#39;m not prepared do for any level of alleged "efficiency".

You didnt go into specifics, so I dont have a clue what your talking about.


That&#39;s not the answer to the question I asked. I asked "Why are we not starving?"

You happen to be born in a nation capable of accelerated industrialization, maybe due to its geographic location, maybe due to its abundance of necessary resources to create and sustain its present position. Because of this accelerated industrialization, your nation has been capable of establishing global corporate hegemony over other, less developed nations - stopping them from creating their own home grown industries. Also, within the nation itself, the bourgeoisie have been capable of "rewarding" its workers by a temporary wealth trickle to the lower class - necessary for stopping any popular uprisings and keeping the proletariat "lumpen", yet fed.


I thought we "lived on the other side of the coin"? Please make your mind up.

You stated that people were not starving. You clearly must have referenced this within the imaginary societal boundaries of your nation. I am however, aware that the capitalist system is a global one, and that my society is that of the third world too.


When they develop better means of production, then their production problems will be solved. Some of them are starting to do that now.

Who? Are these nations starting with home grown industries or multinationals?


We didn&#39;t do too badly before globalisation.

explain.


Stuff, and the conditions to produce that stuff have to be available before anyone can "stuggle" for it. Socialism takes away the incentive to provide that stuff.

The struggle has existed since the emergence of classes. It didnt disappear and then reappear after industrialization, but has been continuous since the days of the development of agriculture and animal cultivation.

And here we go with the stupid "argument" of "incentive". :lol:


If you can&#39;t back it up, don&#39;t post a reply.

But I did back it up. I just dont like to write the same thing over and over again.


"Class consciousness" my arse. Show me one person who isn&#39;t aware of what "class" they&#39;re in. The working class have as much to lose from socialism as the capitalist and you&#39;re wrong to think that the working class acts together and for mutual interest. Pork barrelling proves that some workers are as much likey to prey on other workers as capitalists, when given the opportunity.

Again, just like raven - it would help if you understood what class consciousness is first.


If the cheap labour didn&#39;t exist "over there", then my competitors wouldn&#39;t be able use it either, would they?

More idealist rubbish. Cheap labour does exist - end of.

[Connolly]

right, but just because it sthe same model car doesn&#39;t mean its the same. and we aren&#39;t talking some minor tinking and tampering. we are talking major change,things like the internet, nuclear power, the jet engine, rockets, statialte communication. this is like replacing the whole engine, adding a body kit and buying new wheels. yea sure some of the old parts are still there, but its a big change.

again I must repeat - that is relative.

The bloody car could have 4000 engines for all I know, and changing what seems to you and me a big job, the engine, would be insignificant.

ITS RELATIVE


how?

If your to lazy to educate yourself with Marxist theory then tough. This whole message board is based around the question you have asked - and im certainly not going to answer it. Read up on it.


you could argue, but then explain why a rich man (osama bin laden) would attack other rich men (the people in th wtc)?

Without using any conspiracy theories as to whether Osama works for bush or not, let me ask what he is bombing for?

Using the regular view - it is because of religion.

Why does religion exist? Why do people follow religion?......its due to their material conditions, and in terms of society, their material conditions are defined by the economic mode of production. Therefore, its a class struggle.

[theraven]

again I must repeat - that is relative.

The bloody car could have 4000 engines for all I know, and changing what seems to you and me a big job, the engine, would be insignificant.

ITS RELATIVE


the point is the modes of producno ahve changed bro



If your to lazy to educate yourself with Marxist theory then tough. This whole message board is based around the question you have asked - and im certainly not going to answer it. Read up on it.

lol ook



Without using any conspiracy theories as to whether Osama works for bush or not, let me ask what he is bombing for?

Using the regular view - it is because of religion.

Why does religion exist? Why do people follow religion?......its due to their material conditions, and in terms of society, their material conditions are defined by the economic mode of production. Therefore, its a class struggle.

religion existgs to fill a personal void.not a material void that more stuff would fix, most people like to know there is something more out there many o fthe terrostis in al-queda, including OBL and the leader of the 9/11 hijakcers mohhamda atta were well off. its clearly not a class conflict.

[Connolly]

the point is the modes of producno ahve changed bro

NO. The capitalist mode of production has not changed.

[for what is meant, - please read my other posts]


religion existgs to fill a personal void.not a material void that more stuff would fix, most people like to know there is something more out there many o fthe terrostis in al-queda, including OBL and the leader of the 9/11 hijakcers mohhamda atta were well off. its clearly not a class conflict.

Start a new thread in the religion section - debete it there.

[theraven]

NO. The capitalist mode of production has not changed.

[for what is meant, - please read my other posts]

so all those changes that happened weren&#39;t changes? what?

[Connolly]

The actual mode of production has not changed to another in the last 50 years.

[im not arguing with you any more raven, iv made my point clear

you simply choose to ignore and interpret it different :angry: ]

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:21 PM
religion existgs to fill a personal void.not a material void that more stuff would fix
Wouldn&#39;t this also be the definition of booze, cigarettes, television and escapist luxuries of that sort?

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 04:29 PM
The actual mode of production has not changed to another in the last 50 years.

[im not arguing with you any more raven, iv made my point clear

you simply choose to ignore and interpret it different :angry: ]
well then how about give me an exampel of when the mode of production did change?

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

Not flawed at all. I dont know what changes are necessary. We can though, based on historical understanding, act and fight for the class which history suggests will "inherit the earth".
Not only does this smack of religious preaching, it sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If it&#39;s going to "inherit the earth", then why do you need to "act and fight" for it?

Class struggle, as i said, is continuous. It is the greatest struggle, and if I were to stretch it abit, the only struggle "happening".

All these other "struggles" you mention such as racial, are infact class struggles underneath.
So next time we hear about some white supremacist killing a black guy, we can put that down to class warfare can we? What complete nonsense.

Firstly, the capitalist is losing something by producing these products that cannot be sold. Production costs money, expenditure = loss of profit.
So what, when they&#39;re losing anyway? This is a moot point anyway. Overproduction is ultimately bought about by inadequate planning on part of the producer. If overproduction produces a loss, then why would they do it?

1. Productive forces are too great.
What&#39;s that supposed to mean?

2. The capitalist cannot know for sure whether the product produced will be bought.
If they&#39;re supid, which most of them aren&#39;t.

3. There is an anarchy in capitalistic production.
What&#39;s that supposed to mean?

4. The rival competitors could put "better" products out on the market, reducing demand for yours.
How is reducing the demand for my products going to cause me to overproduce? The only way would be if I ignored the demand, which would be stupid.

You didnt go into specifics, so I dont have a clue what your talking about.
I don&#39;t need to go into the "specifics", I&#39;m talking generally. You don&#39;t honestly think that a command economy is going to care what you "want", do you? You don&#39;t think you&#39;re going to be working for your own benefit do you? And don&#39;t think that you&#39;ll be doing it voluntarily.

You happen to be born in a nation capable of accelerated industrialization,
Every nation is capable of industrialisation to some extent, but thank you for confirming that industrialisation was the cause.

maybe due to its geographic location, maybe due to its abundance of necessary resources to create and sustain its present position. Because of this accelerated industrialization, your nation has been capable of establishing global corporate hegemony over other, less developed nations -
Being capable of doing something and actually establishing it are two different things, and why is it necessarily a bad thing? And why necessarliy corporate?

stopping them from creating their own home grown industries.
Why do they necessarily need their own?

Also, within the nation itself, the bourgeoisie have been capable of "rewarding" its workers by a temporary wealth trickle to the lower class - necessary for stopping any popular uprisings and keeping the proletariat "lumpen", yet fed.
I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean by this, or how they&#39;re supposedly keeping them "lumpen".

You stated that people were not starving. You clearly must have referenced this within the imaginary societal boundaries of your nation.
I can assure you that it&#39;s not imaginary.

I am however, aware that the capitalist system is a global one, and that my society is that of the third world too.
Our society does not resemble the third world anymore than a rainforest resembles antarctica.

Who? Are these nations starting with home grown industries or multinationals?
It is such a big deal?

The struggle has existed since the emergence of classes. It didnt disappear and then reappear after industrialization, but has been continuous since the days of the development of agriculture and animal cultivation.
I couldn&#39;t care less when this imaginary struggle supposedly began- you haven&#39;t addressed the fact that:

"Stuff, and the conditions to produce that stuff have to be available before anyone
can "stuggle" for it."

There&#39;s little to struggle for under socialism because little will be produced.

And here we go with the stupid "argument" of "incentive". :lol:
Well it would be stupid to you. Like most advocates of command economies, you&#39;re probably a fan of labour-at-gunpoint. Who needs an incentive? :lol:

I&#39;m sure you&#39;re one of these people who think that workers will happily waste their lives working for work&#39;s sake. If you think that, then you&#39;re going to be in for a rude awakening.

But I did back it up. I just dont like to write the same thing over and over again.
You backed up what, this?

YES IT BLOODY IS ESSENTIAL.
You certainly haven&#39;t explained why it&#39;s "bloody essential". Not once. If I&#39;ve missed it, then do point it out.

Again, just like raven - it would help if you understood what class consciousness is first.
If I&#39;m wrong, then why don&#39;t you explain it? I&#39;m sure it&#39;s not difficult.

More idealist rubbish. Cheap labour does exist - end of.
No shit sherlock, I never said it didn&#39;t. Now why is it essential?

"Cheap labour exists".

"Cheap labour is essential."

Spot the difference. The latter of the two you have not proven, merely asserted. Or is this assumption part of the Marxist canon?

[Connolly]

well then how about give me an exampel of when the mode of production did change?

Feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production.

I take it then, since you ask this question, you havnt even read anything of Marx - communist manifesto ? Socialism, Utopian and scientific? anything?

Aint it funny how those who are so anti-communist dont even know anything about it :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 05:51 PM

well then how about give me an exampel of when the mode of production did change?

Feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production.

I take it then, since you ask this question, you havnt even read anything of Marx - communist manifesto ? Socialism, Utopian and scientific? anything?

Aint it funny how those who are so anti-communist dont even know anything about it :lol:
by that argument the only way we&#39;ll have anothe mode of production change si when we go to socalism..which is only possible with revolution..whihc is only possibel with a change in the mode of producion

lmao..quite a quandry for ya

and no I have not read all of marx (though i have read some) Im sure i&#39;ll read more for classes and such, but hoenstly i don&#39;t see him as relevant today.

[Connolly]

Not only does this smack of religious preaching, it sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is no logical reason to support any religion or any God.

There is logic to history, and based on an accurate understanding of historical events, we can come to probable conclusions.


If it&#39;s going to "inherit the earth", then why do you need to "act and fight" for it?

Well if everyone sat back and did nothing, and accept their exploitation as a proletarian class, even though class consciousness exists - then that class would inherit nothing.

Since we believe in historical materialism, and history being a set of logical events, the fact that Marx "stumbled" across his discoveries, means we would have found this understanding at some point in history - whether by Marx or not.

As this was a logical step, it is for the proletariat to use these advances in knowledge, it being an understanding of human society, to advance themselves.

Just, as it was for the "discovery" of the gun, to be used for the advancement of various sides in warfare throughout the ages.

We need to build on discoveries to advance. Since Marxism is a discovery, if we want to advance, then we must build on this discovery - or dont advance at all.

This is why communism is not inevitable, as some people say.

We need to fight for it.


So next time we hear about some white supremacist killing a black guy, we can put that down to class warfare can we? What complete nonsense.

No. They are acting based on particular material conditions present.

If the army attack the workers during some strike etc., thay are acting in defence of the ruling class - yet they are workers themselves. They are taking actions within the class struggle, be it on the right side, or the wrong.

So when the fascist white supremacist takes such an action, he is infact taking an action of class struggle - be it for the wrong side of the class struggle.


So what, when they&#39;re losing anyway? This is a moot point anyway. Overproduction is ultimately bought about by inadequate planning on part of the producer. If overproduction produces a loss, then why would they do it?

Ill answer this in the following points.


What&#39;s that supposed to mean?

It means, that if the productive forces can produce more than can be sold, then the capitalist, through his own needs, is restraing the possible productive capacity.


If they&#39;re supid, which most of them aren&#39;t.

similar to point 4


What&#39;s that supposed to mean?

Look it up.


How is reducing the demand for my products going to cause me to overproduce? The only way would be if I ignored the demand, which would be stupid.

You dont reduce demand for your products, but other producers do. If nobody buys your product because someone else can make it better, then you have overproduced - since you cannot sell them :rolleyes:


I don&#39;t need to go into the "specifics", I&#39;m talking generally. You don&#39;t honestly think that a command economy is going to care what you "want", do you?

Who said anything about a command economy?


You don&#39;t think you&#39;re going to be working for your own benefit do you? And don&#39;t think that you&#39;ll be doing it voluntarily.

Where is it enscribed in stone that people only work for themselves.


Every nation is capable of industrialisation to some extent, but thank you for confirming that industrialisation was the cause.

No. Bourgeois economics is the problem. We have the ability to eliminate the problem. Yet we dont.


Being capable of doing something and actually establishing it are two different things, and why is it necessarily a bad thing? And why necessarliy corporate?

When a nation does not have its own industries, and is held by corporate hegemony, it loses its ability to determine its own future and is held ransom by multinational corporate demand.


And why necessarliy corporate?

Explain.


I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean by this, or how they&#39;re supposedly keeping them "lumpen".

Incapable of acting in a large scale revolutionary manner without class consciousness. Why?.......They are rewarded by bourgeoisie wealth keeping them passive - getting them by.


I couldn&#39;t care less when this imaginary struggle supposedly began- you haven&#39;t addressed the fact that:

"Stuff, and the conditions to produce that stuff have to be available before anyone
can "stuggle" for it."

There&#39;s little to struggle for under socialism because little will be produced.

Ask the question in a more communicative manner and I may be able to address your point. Stuff could be anything, shit, god, thoughts, coke.


Well it would be stupid to you. Like most advocates of command economies, you&#39;re probably a fan of labour-at-gunpoint. Who needs an incentive?

So very correct. A man works better with a gun to his head :lol:


I&#39;m sure you&#39;re one of these people who think that workers will happily waste their lives working for work&#39;s sake. If you think that, then you&#39;re going to be in for a rude awakening

People act based on their material conditions, their material conditions, in terms of society, are defined by the mode of production. If that mode of production requires them to work in such a manner - they will.



You certainly haven&#39;t explained why it&#39;s "bloody essential". Not once. If I&#39;ve missed it, then do point it out.

You said "some, not all" products can be made in third world countries viably. Now, in the next few lines, I will address this - unless you want me to write it twice.


If I&#39;m wrong, then why don&#39;t you explain it? I&#39;m sure it&#39;s not difficult.

I dont need to. Others have. CC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness)



No shit sherlock, I never said it didn&#39;t.

I never said you did, I said you were idealising over this unlikly scenario.


Now why is it essential?

"Cheap labour exists".

"Cheap labour is essential."

Spot the difference. The latter of the two you have not proven, merely asserted. Or is this assumption part of the Marxist canon?

Its an asserted truism :lol:

If your too stupid to know why it is essential for many products, if not most, to be made were there is cheap labour - then......I wont use my French :lol:

[Connolly]

by that argument the only way we&#39;ll have anothe mode of production change si when we go to socalism..which is only possible with revolution..whihc is only possibel with a change in the mode of producion

Yep.


and no I have not read all of marx (though i have read some) Im sure i&#39;ll read more for classes and such, but hoenstly i don&#39;t see him as relevant today.

Well you wouldnt find him relevent if you havnt read him.

[theraven]

Yep.


so since you need both to get eahc other you can&#39;t get either..which means capitislm is perpetual :)

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner


So next time we hear about some white supremacist killing a black guy, we can put that down to class warfare can we? What complete nonsense.

No. They are acting based on particular material conditions present.
And what material conditions might those be?

Who said anything about a command economy?
I did. That&#39;s what you advocate in preference to the "anarchy" of the free market.

Where is it enscribed in stone that people only work for themselves.
Don&#39;t worry, after the revolution you won&#39;t be. Ever.

When a nation does not have its own industries, and is held by corporate hegemony, it loses its ability to determine its own future and is held ransom by multinational corporate demand.
Hyperbole.

Explain.
Why do the companies investing in those countries have to be corporations?

Incapable of acting in a large scale revolutionary manner without class consciousness. Why?.......They are rewarded by bourgeoisie wealth keeping them passive - getting them by.
Passive as in wealthy? You see that as a "problem"?

Stuff could be anything, shit, god, thoughts, coke.
Products.

So very correct. A man works better with a gun to his head
Thank you for displaying your true intentions. I hate it when you pretend to be benevolent.

People act based on their material conditions, their material conditions, in terms of society, are defined by the mode of production. If that mode of production requires them to work in such a manner - they will.
They don&#39;t live in such a society and are likely to resist- therefore they won&#39;t.

Its an asserted truism

If your too stupid to know why it is essential for many products, if not most, to be made were there is cheap labour - then......I wont use my French
If you can&#39;t back it up with evidence, then don&#39;t post.

[cyu]

Who said anything about a command economy?
I did. That&#39;s what you advocate in preference to the "anarchy" of the free market.

If you wanted real freedom, then employees would have the freedom to assume democratic control over their companies. They would still be operating in a free market, except companies would be self-ruled.

[Connolly]

And what material conditions might those be?

Each individuals varies.


I did. That&#39;s what you advocate in preference to the "anarchy" of the free market.

Well I didnt.


Don&#39;t worry, after the revolution you won&#39;t be. Ever.

:wub:


Hyperbole.

:lol:


Why do the companies investing in those countries have to be corporations?

Ask God


Passive as in wealthy? You see that as a "problem"?

No. Just temporary.


Products.

Shit is a product?...........God is a product?..........Thoughts are products?


Thank you for displaying your true intentions. I hate it when you pretend to be benevolent.

Glad to be of service.


They don&#39;t live in such a society and are likely to resist- therefore they won&#39;t.

:blink:


If you can&#39;t back it up with evidence, then don&#39;t post.

Oh I could - but I couldnt be arsed.

[Connolly]

so since you need both to get eahc other you can&#39;t get either..which means capitislm is perpetual

One big massive perpetual motion machine. Thats it.

Round and Round it goes.

Nothing ever changes or comes out of it - Just round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round it goes.

Forever&#33;&#33;&#33;

:lol:

[whatfor]

kill them all and let&#39;s see what they can do. why do we need to complain? why don&#39;t we just kill them all? what can 5% do to 95%?

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:49 AM
kill them all and let&#39;s see what they can do. why do we need to complain? why don&#39;t we just kill them all? what can 5% do to 95%?
:o :blink:

Wow man......that&#39;s was DEEP&#33;

:lol:

I look forward you reading more of your incredibly profound posts Mr. Junior Stalin.&#33;&#33;

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 5 2006, 07:19 AM

so since you need both to get eahc other you can&#39;t get either..which means capitislm is perpetual

One big massive perpetual motion machine. Thats it.

Round and Round it goes.

Nothing ever changes or comes out of it - Just round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round it goes.

Forever&#33;&#33;&#33;

:lol:
well lets examine your logic

point one:

mode of production must change for economis system to change from capisltism to socalislm

mode of production occurs only when economc system change from capslit to socialism.

so essaitnlly were on an endless loop there...which means that either

a) you have no idea what your talking about

or

b) capilsitim is indeed a perputal motion machine

[Connolly]

well lets examine your logic

point one:

mode of production must change for economis system to change from capisltism to socalislm

mode of production occurs only when economc system change from capslit to socialism.

so essaitnlly were on an endless loop there...which means that either

a) you have no idea what your talking about

or

b) capilsitim is indeed a perputal motion machine

Well, using your "logic", I think ill choose both a and b. :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 6 2006, 09:51 PM

well lets examine your logic

point one:

mode of production must change for economis system to change from capisltism to socalislm

mode of production occurs only when economc system change from capslit to socialism.

so essaitnlly were on an endless loop there...which means that either

a) you have no idea what your talking about

or

b) capilsitim is indeed a perputal motion machine

Well, using your "logic", I think ill choose both a and b. :lol:
do you have any refuatations?

[Matt_from_California]

I think it&#39;s disgusting, I&#39;m no capitalist.