Is Destiny Over One's Life Possible? [Archive]

overlord

4th June 2006, 09:37

Where could one control their own destiny "better"? In 1962 America or 1962 USSR? Presuming you're one who believes you have SOME control over your life, where would you rather have lived?

Gee, that's a tough one, let me think

Without getting too Star Trekkie on everyone here, I have had that conversation with myself on many levels: Sometimes I feel that I'm powerful, and sometimes I feel I'm tossed by the fates.

If you havn't already you SO should read Napoleon Hill 'Think and grow rich'. Plenty of online versions. There's this thing called "The Secret" hidden inside which you can use to stop getting tossed about by the waves, and start taking control. But it isn't willpower, it's FAITH. Anyone who has ever done anything important has said they worked hard but knew they would achieve what they did. The doubters of course failed.

AND HERE IS ONE OF THE DOUBTERS!
REDSTAR

The capitalist myth to which I was referring is the one that parents teach their kids: In America you can be anything you want if you just try hard enough. It is not true and has never been true.

And you'll get what you want by not trying? :huh: In fact, its not about trying. To try is to fail. You must merely 'do'. Sounds funny but the difference in psychology is vitally important.

redstar2000

4th June 2006, 16:37

Originally posted by overlord
If you havn't already you SO should read Napoleon Hill 'Think and grow rich'. Plenty of online versions. There's this thing called "The Secret" hidden inside which you can use to stop getting tossed about by the waves, and start taking control. But it isn't willpower, it's FAITH.

When I was a small child, there was a little kid's book called The Little Engine that Could which featured a train engine that pulled disproportionately heavy loads by saying to itself over and over again "I think I can, I think I can", etc., etc.

This is called magical thinking which is what capitalist ideas are often based upon.

It's the "rags to riches" fairy tale that capitalists tell us over and over again.

Anyone who has ever done anything important has said they worked hard but knew they would achieve what they did. The doubters of course failed.

AND HERE IS ONE OF THE DOUBTERS!
REDSTAR

Yes, I am a "doubter" and I don't think one can be said to be rational without the element of informed skepticism. Without the ability to doubt, one is reduced to being a gullible sucker for any bullshit that comes down the road.

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

MurderInc

4th June 2006, 18:14

Redstar,

I think you're placing a lot of importance in money as being the object of one's desires. Most people who want to grow up to be "rich" will probably be disappointed in ANY country, based on the law of averages.

I was thinking more like: CAREER, WHERE YOU LIVE (BEACH, CITY, DESERT, COUNTRY), WHO YOU WILL SPEND YOUR LIFE WITH, THE CONSTRUCT OF YOUR LIFE, ETC.

These things are ultimatly more important that how much $$ you have in your pocket.

Most medium level capitalists and businessmen who were the happiest have stated that they used money as a tool. Those who have been more unhappy have persued money as an end in and of itself.

We all know that story about marrying the boss's daughter and growing up to own the company after being poor is more or less a bunch of bullshit. Cappies who preach that crap need their heads examined.

But whether one was or wasn't drafted in '62, that wouldn't define their entire lives beyond the service period. Eventually they would think beyond the draft if they knew they were going to be drafted.

Perhaps I have better framed the question at this point.

Tungsten

4th June 2006, 18:32

redstar2000

The capitalist myth to which I was referring is the one that parents teach their kids: In America you can be anything you want if you just try hard enough. It is not true and has never been true.
You're right it's never been true and you're wrong that we claim it is. Some people have done alright for themselves (without harming anyone) with relatively little effort. Effort doesn't guarnatee success. Effort must be used wisely and directed cleverly.

ummProfessional

4th June 2006, 23:08

i asked how so? and nobody anwsered...

the fact is the idea of you controlling your own destiny, literally thats pretty impossible, simple because you don't know the things life is going to throw at you, so you can be extremely rich and pretty much have your desteny defined of no hardships but you never know what might happen, somehow you might loose it all etc... BUT... what redstar said is IN THE USA, and im going to have to disagree, if there is one country where you actually have more control of your destiny because of opportunities, that will be the USA.....the reason why it is said that you can be whatever you want to be is simply because of the amount of opportunities available in this country which are not available in every country in the world...and this can be see simply by the sheer amount of billionares and millionares this country has compared to the next that follows on the list...

redstar2000

5th June 2006, 04:04

Originally posted by ummProfessional+--> (ummProfessional) I asked how so? and nobody answered...[/b]

Because as Engels pointed out, the laws of capitalism are the laws of chance...how we end up "making a living" depends on chance, as does whether or not we are "successful".

BUT... what redstar said is IN THE USA, and im going to have to disagree, if there is one country where you actually have more control of your destiny because of opportunities, that will be the USA.....the reason why it is said that you can be whatever you want to be is simply because of the amount of opportunities available in this country which are not available in every country in the world...and this can be see simply by the sheer amount of billionares and millionares this country has compared to the next that follows on the list

No one counts the number of people who tried to become "billionaires" or "millionaires" and didn't make it. Capitalism in the U.S. is like a casino...a few winners and a huge number of losers.

It's all a matter of how the dice roll.

MurderInc
I think you're placing a lot of importance in money as being the object of one's desires. Most people who want to grow up to be "rich" will probably be disappointed in ANY country, based on the law of averages.

When people in America talk about "working hard to improve themselves", they are talking about getting richer. The wealth at your disposal determines where you will be able to live and what career paths are open to you.

In the old USSR, your connections with the party elite played an equally important role.

But whether one was or wasn't drafted in '62, that wouldn't define their entire lives beyond the service period. Eventually they would think beyond the draft if they knew they were going to be drafted.

Getting drafted was catastrophic in its implications. I can tell you what it felt like...like living on "death row" just waiting for them to tell you your execution date! :o

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

ummProfessional

5th June 2006, 04:30

It's all a matter of how the dice roll.

true, hence why i said you never know what life is going to throw at you, but you don't need Engles to tell you that it's all chance, this is so in every aspect of life whether under capitalism or not...the fact is that at least in the USA there are opportunities at your disposition and these are your lifelines...

you have to be skilled, know the market etc.. you have to invest in things that sell, if i invest on buying say an appartment building, i know im going to be able to repay my debt quickly and then quickly afterwords gain revenues, because EVERYONE NEEDS A PLACE TO LIVE!!! this is the same with foods etc..

and what you said about the masses that don't make it as a millionare etc..well of course, this is impossible but it's not like a Casino or winning the lottery, like i said the chances are there...you don't need to be a millionare to live well, and living well are the majority of americans, don't count immigrants because that's what they are immigrants who come here to work the undesirable jobs, but even they would agree that they come here for a better life, and although it looks pretty shitty to us it's like living like a king compared to where they come from...and in contrary to many might think immigrants come to settle very well in this country and progress and become middle class, rich, millionares etc... something they can't do anywhere else, i mean why do immigrants want to come to this country if the American dream was bullshit? it's only logical...

theraven

5th June 2006, 05:54

No one counts the number of people who tried to become "billionaires" or "millionaires" and didn't make it. Capitalism in the U.S. is like a casino...a few winners and a huge number of losers.

It's all a matter of how the dice roll.

perhaps if you talking about people born rich or who wint he lotto. most people become millionaries through hard work and intellegence. sam walton wasn't "lucky" he was smart. same with rockefeller and carnegie.

MurderInc

5th June 2006, 07:23

I refuse to believe that the vast majority of men who found they were drafted between Korea and Vietnam, during peacetime, said to themselves, "My life is over, I refuse to dream dreams of any kind, or make plans at all.

The number ONE topic of all draftees has always been, "Here's what I'm going to do after my enlistment (peace time) OR the war (war time) is over.

red team

5th June 2006, 08:10

Rockefeller and Carnegie were smart in which way? Smart as in figuring out some new way to improve people's material conditions as in Tesla, Edison or Einstein or "smart" as in figuring out a way to screw over people for their wealth and labour so they can live like kings like Caesar, Bush, Gates or well, Rockefeller?

As for the "American Dream" it's hard to dream when you're sharing your prison cell with some brutal 200 pound semi-human who uses you as a sex toy and guards who uses you as a punching bag now is it?

America now imprisons more people than any country in history. 1 in 100 people.
Welcome to the land of the free (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/pris-j05.shtml)

redstar2000

5th June 2006, 11:00

Originally posted by ummProfessional+--> (ummProfessional)you have to invest in things that sell, if I invest on buying say an appartment building, I know I'm going to be able to repay my debt quickly and then quickly afterwords gain revenues, because EVERYONE NEEDS A PLACE TO LIVE!!! this is the same with foods etc..[/b]

Apartment buildings cost a lot of money...you have to have that money in order to "invest" in one

Yes, you can "gain revenues" by raising the rents...there's a reason why people are homeless in America.

I mean why do immigrants want to come to this country if the American dream was bullshit? Because where they live now things really suck! Also, because you don't know what a place is really like until you live and work there. They believe that they're going to prosper when they come here. Some do...a little...most don't...

theraven
Sam Walton wasn't "lucky" he was smart. same with Rockefeller and Carnegie.

BS. Sam got lucky because his business model happened to coincide with the emergence of sweat-shop factories in Central America and in Asia. In the 1950s, he would have gone broke. Rockefeller and Carnegie both got lucky...and were murderous bastards which undoubtedly helped them gain their fortunes.

I refuse to believe that the vast majority of men who found they were drafted between Korea and Vietnam, during peacetime, said to themselves, "My life is over, I refuse to dream dreams of any kind, or make plans at all.

For a lot of them, their life was over. What kinds of dreams are you going to dream without legs? What dreams do dead men dream?

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

overlord

5th June 2006, 12:43

QUOTE (ummProfessional)
you have to invest in things that sell, if I invest on buying say an appartment building, I know I'm going to be able to repay my debt quickly and then quickly afterwords gain revenues, because EVERYONE NEEDS A PLACE TO LIVE!!! this is the same with foods etc..

Apartment buildings cost a lot of money...you have to have that money in order to "invest" in one

I am SICK of these attitudes from you guys. You know what? My dad was a SLAVE on a farm in NAZI Germany. He impressed everyone by taking on the work of three men and was treated reasonably well. On coming to Australia WITH NOTHING, (which is a lot less than you guys have) AS A REFUGEE, he applied the same work ethic and today my family are multimillionaires many times over.

Buying rental buildings is an EXCELLENT idea for wealth accumulation. You may only get like 7-11% compounding per year but that is on a good deal of money and in twenty years you're set. Plus inflation eats the loan but not the property :D

Yes, you can "gain revenues" by raising the rents...there's a reason why people are homeless in America.

Why raise the rent if you have good customers? I only raise the rent if I want to get rid of some trash. Some places have not been raised in seven years. You lose money if tenants move away while you look for new ones. The market looks after everything. And you think people are not greedy? I'm in the small claims tribunal tomorrow to recover $300 from a real bullshitartist. Pray for me capitalists!

BS. Sam got lucky because his business model happened to coincide with the emergence of sweat-shop factories in Central America and in Asia. In the 1950s, he would have gone broke. Rockefeller and Carnegie both got lucky...and were murderous bastards which undoubtedly helped them gain their fortunes.

But Sam did start almost in the 50's and I'm sure the only way to build a global empire is to alter business tactics over time. You guys follow Darwin? The fittest is he who adapts to change.

BobKKKindle$

5th June 2006, 17:25

Capitalists like yourself often point to the extroadinarily rich and so called 'self made millionaires' as evidence of how fair and prosperous your system is. One Thing: wake Up. All Wealth is socially created. That is all there is to it. So Why Should A few people be able to take the biggest share, so to speak?

It is through his private propety 'rights' that the capitalist recieves the benefit of the commodities in the form of profit. He justifies this on the basis that he has organised the factors of produciton and invested in industry, and hence is 'self made'. However, this rests upon the assumption that the world in which we live is simply composed of freely operating autonomous individuals independant of all others. This is not the case. The Economy is in fact a complex web, involving many different groups of workers cooperating to produce goods and services. Let us examine a pizza delivery buisness. The Entrepeneur that set up the business will be described as a self made man. But he relies on many others for production and sale of his products - he relies on farm labourers, for his ingriedients, a skilled work force, to man his outlets, an educated mass of consumers, to buy his products, road repair crews, to ensure that the infrastructural system upon which his buisness relies functions correctly. This is just a simple example, but it demonstrates how the economy is an organic body, reliant upon many different individuals - so reliant, in fact, that all wealth is socially created - through the actions of all society - not through the actions of one group of individuals. Therefore, the means of production used to produce commodities, should be socially owned, an under the control of workers councils - for it is they who form the base of the productive basis and they invest their labour power into commodities. All of society should recieve the benefits of production, not a select group of people. This concept applies to all 'propety' including land, factories, machinery, and patents.

And Thats not even to begin to discuss the issues regarding surplus Value and Alienation. perhaps this amusing Joke/Story that was posted in the practise forum will help you out:

A capitalist is walking through his factory with a friend.

Friend asks, "What did you tell that man just now?"

"I told him to work faster", answers the capitalist.

"How much do you pay him?" asks the friend.

"Fifteen dollars a day" answers the capitalist.

"Where do you get the money to pay him?" asks the friend.

"I sell products", answers the capitalist.

"Who makes the products?" asks the friend.

"He does", answers the capitalist.

"How many products does he make in a day?" asks the friend.

"Fifty dollars worth", answers the capitalist.

"Then", concludes the friend, "Instead of you paying him, he pays you thirty-five dollars a day to tell him to work faster".

"Huh", and the capitalist quickly adds, "Well, I own the machines".

"How did you get the machines?" asks the friend.

"I sold products and bought them", answers the capitalist.

"And who made those products?" asks friend.

To which the capitalist can only respond—to his friend, but also to the media and to the schools—"Shut up! He might hear you".

----

MurderInc

5th June 2006, 20:09

Redstar,

First of all, I categorically dismiss your notion that in 1962, millions of draftees did NOTHING but worry about their legs being blown off during peacetime, and being so fearful of this, that none of them achieved anything but constant worry.

Neither the USA or USSR had any "mass fear" movement, such that no work was done on any base, no babies wre born, no homes were bought, etc...

To some of you posting on this thread:

You have confused becoming a millionaire with the question of one's having control over one's destiny.

WHO CARES HOW MANY PEOPLE GET RICH, GET INCOME PROPERTIES, OR GET INHERITENCES?!? STOP THIS ABSURD OBSESSION!

Tungsten

5th June 2006, 20:16

bobkindles

One Thing: wake Up. All Wealth is socially created.
Even if the communist postulate that "labour is the source of all wealth" was true, your statement is absurd. Labour - and therefore wealth - would come from individual members of society. That's why we call them individuals. They operate individually, and are capable of operating without others.

It is through his private propety 'rights' that the capitalist recieves the benefit of the commodities in the form of profit. He justifies this on the basis that he has organised the factors of produciton and invested in industry, and hence is 'self made'. However, this rests upon the assumption that the world in which we live is simply composed of freely operating autonomous individuals independant of all others.
We're all freely operating individuals. This isn't a bee hive.

The Entrepeneur that set up the business will be described as a self made man. But he relies on many others for production and sale of his products - he relies on farm labourers, for his ingriedients, a skilled work force, to man his outlets, an educated mass of consumers, to buy his products, road repair crews, to ensure that the infrastructural system upon which his buisness relies functions correctly. This is just a simple example, but it demonstrates how the economy is an organic body, reliant upon many different individuals - so reliant, in fact, that all wealth is socially created - through the actions of all society - not through the actions of one group of individuals.
It's the hoary old argument that there's no such thing as a self-made man because he doesn't literally do everything himself. It's ironic too, because it's this same technique that some corporations use to screw inventors out of their patents. Let's say you invent a car that runs on water instead of petroleum. The breaker would say "You can't patent this, it's just a car with four wheels, like any other car, did this guy invent the wheel? Did he invent the steel the car was made of? So how can this car be his invention? It's just a rip off of everyone else's idea. This inventor is nothing but an exploiter." This is ridiculous because if it had "all been done before", someone would have done it before.

The people he's 'dependent' on are paid for their labour at the price they're willing to work for. That's where their contributions end. An inventor's inventions belong to him, not to the guy who cleans his toilet who happens to be associated him by some arbitrary coincidence.

All of society should recieve the benefits of production, not a select group of people.
What about your "worker's councils", are they not a select group of people? Other than that, I'm all in favour of it. I'd be more than happy to sit at home all day watching TV while recieving the benefits of production. I think I'm going to have a lot of company.

And Thats not even to begin to discuss the issues regarding surplus Value and Alienation.
Let's not. Surplus value is meaningless because value is subjective.

"Then", concludes the friend, "Instead of you paying him, he pays you thirty-five dollars a day to tell him to work faster".
No, he doesn't. The worker was paid to work for specific sum of money. If the boss can sell that work to the consumer for a profit, it's no business of the worker's. If worker feels exploited, he can go and make his own means of production and work independently of the employer.

If I purchase your car for a certain sum of money and then I sell it on to someone else for a larger sum of money, will you be coming to me to demand your "share"? Think about your answer and how it relates to your scenario...

MurderInc

5th June 2006, 21:21

Tungsten:

Some of the foundation of your thinking reminds me of Rand and Heinlein. They were both solid thinkers of the individual and the notion that there is no such thing as a collective mind.

This is of course true, and some of my socialist buddies would do well to understand that majority will and desire does not translate into individual buy in.

One of the weaknesses of your understanding is the value of labor. (Sorry, I spell the word the good old American way, not the faggy Eurotrash way.)

Generally, Marx was right about a great principle: That all comodities exchange equally EXCEPT for labor.

Let's stick with your analogy of a car: A ton of iron costs the market rate of a ton of iron. There may be a discount for a bulk purchase, but that's the same discount anyone would get for their bulk purchase. It's still an equal trade. You won't find, let's say, Grade II Tungsten at 1/2 price as you buy the stuff. Minor fluxuatons, but of no real benefit to profit. The price of rubber is the price of rubber. $100 of fiberglass costs, get this, $100.

Now, the individual DESIGNS a model. She did it on her own, and it's hers.

But, if she wants to BUILD the thing, she's got one of two choices. She and her closest friends can take two years and make a few of these car things, OR she can use mas production to achieve her ends of hundreds of thousands of them.

Now, here's where it gets weird: For reasons unknown to anyone but Adam Smith, she believes that she should be paid A WHOLE LOT MORE for her talents than those who helped to build the thing in mass production. She will also get offended if she is told by an outside source, like the Communist Committee No. 7, or the State, or Ted Kennedy, how much she should charge for the things. Her argument will be, "Hey, they don't have to buy them! Everyone's a free agent! Ayn Rand! Robert Heinlein! The Trilateral Commission!"

But this is not the only side of the story. While she was building the things, she worked hard to support certain politicians, certain policies, certain bills in Congress. And you wake up one day, and find that She and her compeditors have altered the landscape of the surroundings such that one DOES need a car thingie...Not out of choice, but out of necessity.

Then one day you make babies, and they're born into a world where they are already in debt about $170,000 to the Chinese "Communists" on interest borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, 35 years before that baby was born.

Whatcha think?

Tungsten

5th June 2006, 22:30

MurderInc

One of the weaknesses of your understanding is the value of labor. (Sorry, I spell the word the good old American way, not the faggy Eurotrash way.)
First of all, I spell "labour" like that and I'm neither a fag nor Eurotrash. Secondly, the value of labour is decided no differently to the value of goods. Why should it be different?

Now, here's where it gets weird: For reasons unknown to anyone but Adam Smith, she believes that she should be paid A WHOLE LOT MORE for her talents than those who helped to build the thing in mass production.
Why not? There wouldn't be any of the thing in mass production otherwise.

She will also get offended if she is told by an outside source, like the Communist Committee No. 7, or the State, or Ted Kennedy, how much she should charge for the things.
I'm not surprised. Values are subjective and these people have no right to dictate to her what her values are.

Her argument will be, "Hey, they don't have to buy them! Everyone's a free agent! Ayn Rand! Robert Heinlein! The Trilateral Commission!"
You could have been nice enough to add the guy in my avatar, too.

But this is not the only side of the story. While she was building the things, she worked hard to support certain politicians, certain policies, certain bills in Congress. And you wake up one day, and find that She and her compeditors have altered the landscape of the surroundings such that one DOES need a car thingie...Not out of choice, but out of necessity.

Then one day you make babies, and they're born into a world where they are already in debt about $170,000 to the Chinese "Communists" on interest borrowed by the U.S. Treasury, 35 years before that baby was born.

Whatcha think?
I don't know, because I don't know what you're getting at.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

5th June 2006, 23:20

Basic philosophy should be taught throughout high school ... it really is a lost art. For you libertarian capitalist types, read up on determinism (a philosophical theory). The arrogance people have over their so called "accomplishments" is unfounded - things happen as a result of environmental circumstances. Stop blaming individuals for their problems to make yourself think you deserve a luxurious lifestyle and start making a difference. Rampant individualism is quite disgusting - only one of many flaws capitalists typically have.

redstar2000

5th June 2006, 23:44

Originally posted by Murder Inc+--> (Murder Inc)First of all, I categorically dismiss your notion that in 1962, millions of draftees did NOTHING but worry about their legs being blown off during peacetime, and being so fearful of this, that none of them achieved anything but constant worry.[/b]

1962 was not "peacetime"...the war in Vietnam was well underway.

Believe me, every draft-age male knew he was in deep shit in 1962.

WHO CARES HOW MANY PEOPLE GET RICH, GET INCOME PROPERTIES, OR GET INHERITANCES?!? STOP THIS ABSURD OBSESSION!

Read the other posts by the pro-capitalists...They care! The accumulation of wealth is all they really care about. Understandably so. In a capitalist society, the wealth you've managed to accumulate determines how much "control" you have over your future. Under capitalism, money = freedom.

overlord
I am SICK of these attitudes from you guys. You know what? My dad was a SLAVE on a farm in NAZI Germany. He impressed everyone by taking on the work of three men and was treated reasonably well. On coming to Australia WITH NOTHING, (which is a lot less than you guys have) AS A REFUGEE, he applied the same work ethic and today my family are multimillionaires many times over.

If he really "started with nothing" then the only reasonable explanation is that he caught some kind of lucky break along the way. Perhaps made friends with some guy who steered him to a "good deal". You can't really make any serious money "starting with nothing but hard work"...that's not how the system works.

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

ummProfessional

6th June 2006, 00:20

You can't really make any serious money "starting with nothing but hard work"...that's not how the system works.

really? tell that to my parents, immigrants, and now we are not rich or anything, but i would say we are middle class, living well, and like us is every family that is from my parents village from their native country, they came and they prospered...you see capitalism rewards skills and hard work and work ethics....if you don't have either of the 3, than yeah your screwed, and there is no safety net with capitlism, and that is what you guys protest all the time, but it's true, it's a bit naive to be then attacking the "rich" the ones who have made it and live well and better than you, what fault do they have?? if i become rich now i guess im an evil person to you guys?? it's pretty absurd thing don't you think?

MurderInc

6th June 2006, 00:27

Redstar: We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're way off on this one.

Tungsten: How can you NOT get where I'm getting at. Why did I even think that the I.O. board had much too offer.

To the commies: I am sorry to say this but people's achievements are not merely the sum of their environment, parents, genes and society "giving" them stuff.

Let me share with you a piece of advice and understanding by Bernard Shaw, a bit of a leftie himself:

Reasonable people see the world the way it is and adapt themselves to it.
Unreasonable people see the world the way it is and adapt it to themselves.
Therefore, all progress, is dependent on the unreasonable man.

Both Lenin and Patton would agree with this. (For those who didn't know, Gen. Patton came from a very wealthy military family.)

Henry Ford didn't "accidentally" do what he did. Nor Edison, nor Lincoln, nor King. Nor Beethoven, nor Hitler for the matter of that.

What we've always done poorly is socialism is being able to handle individual achievement. We should admit that genius is genius, and a hell of a lot of sweat and time and tears. Those who wrote that anyone would eventually invent the lightbulb can go and try and invent the x-ray glasses. Do it TODAY! Now! When it doesn't exist. Don't wait 15 years from now when it is invented and say, "Oh, of course it was going to be invented. It was inevitable." Garbage!

On second thought, I don't wear a lead bra, so don't invent the thing.

Now for you cappies: You're throwing away what little you have left. All of this individualism v. the needs of society is nice and tidy in the abstract, but when the richest nation in the world can't create a medical plan for 40% of its people, all this talk won't matter. It's falling to pieces. And no one will rescue it because lawyers and politicians will talk about people's rights to own stuff until we socialists come and bite you one the ass.

That's what I'm getting at Tungsten. Labor is the only commodity that doesn't exchange for its value. It is the basis of all profit. Only by paying labor less than its value can you have profit. You can use any other words about it, but that's that.

red team

6th June 2006, 04:15

you see capitalism rewards skills

Depends on what the market wants which does not necessarily mean what people want.

Does the use of those skills increase general happiness or decrease general happiness?

If those skills decrease general happiness then those are useless skills.

Hitler's and Patton's skills decreases general happiness doesn't it?

and hard work

Is your hard work paying off in terms of increasing general happiness or decreasing general happiness.

If it decreases general happiness then it's probably better that you don't do all that "hard work"

and work ethics

Are those "work ethics" necessary to increase general happiness or are they necessary for purposes other than to increase happiness, like for example to out compete and corner the market in your particular area of work which leads to (possibly) an increase in happiness for yourself, but general decrease in happiness for the rest of the people you've beaten?

Which leads me to another question. Does unnecessary and destructive competition in the form of excluding your vanquished foes from the production process (even if they are "productive" though not as "productive" as you) increase happiness or increase resentment?

MurderInc

6th June 2006, 05:49

Which leads me to another question. Does unnecessary and destructive competition in the form of excluding your vanquished foes from the production process (even if they are "productive" though not as "productive" as you) increase happiness or increase resentment?

Well Redteam, the theroy over this one was never to make the losing competition happy or unhappy, but cause them to improve and in the end the consumer gets a better product or service.

There is some good sense in this. For example, you want an airlines to have standards. No one wants to fly International Loser Airlines to make them "feel better". I sure don't want to board that plane.

But in a less scary scenario: Let's say that there are five Italian eateries to choose from in a socialist city and one of them makes crappy food. But there are political constraints to keep the place open. In a capitalist restaurant, if you make poor food, no one goes there, even if your brother's the governor. No one keeps the place open through subsidies. A socialist society would have to find a way to say to the guy who's making the crummy food "It's time you stopped your business." In some ways the "dollar vote" is more rational than the community vote.

Just pointing out that socialism, though I support it, has its flaws.

redstar2000

6th June 2006, 08:02

Originally posted by ummProfessional
if I become rich now I guess I'm an evil person to you guys??

I think you already qualify as an "evil person" in our eyes. By your own testimony, you already are from a rich family and they will give you a "boost up the ladder".

See this thread...

Want to Become a Billionaire? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49512)

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

Capitalist Lawyer

6th June 2006, 08:38

Now you guys are making flawed assumptions.

I am not a total Laissez-faire capitalist and I believe that our economy in the US is essentially a socialist economy even though we prefer not to see it that way. You indicate that we refuse to accept any merit in Marx, but you seemingly refuse to accept any merit in anything other than Marxism.

I contend that there is quite a bit of Marxist inspired policy in the US because the Big Money Capitalist were in danger of completely losing out to a growing socialist movement in the latter part of the 1800's. In the US people are only "wage slaves" to the extent that they are willing to be. At the same time, we are all economically "slaves" to something--wages, stocks, real estate, govt spending, market prices, etc.

The reality is that the world is not static and your spewing from some theory without acknowledging that your theory has its flaws is sophomoric at best. You constantly attack others' positions but you cannot debate the issue meaningfully because you refuse to acknowledge anything that requires the application of theory to reality.

red team

6th June 2006, 08:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:50 AM

Which leads me to another question. Does unnecessary and destructive competition in the form of excluding your vanquished foes from the production process (even if they are "productive" though not as "productive" as you) increase happiness or increase resentment?

Well Redteam, the theroy over this one was never to make the losing competition happy or unhappy, but cause them to improve and in the end the consumer gets a better product or service.

There is some good sense in this. For example, you want an airlines to have standards. No one wants to fly International Loser Airlines to make them "feel better". I sure don't want to board that plane.

But in a less scary scenario: Let's say that there are five Italian eateries to choose from in a socialist city and one of them makes crappy food. But there are political constraints to keep the place open. In a capitalist restaurant, if you make poor food, no one goes there, even if your brother's the governor. No one keeps the place open through subsidies. A socialist society would have to find a way to say to the guy who's making the crummy food "It's time you stopped your business." In some ways the "dollar vote" is more rational than the community vote.

Just pointing out that socialism, though I support it, has its flaws.
Yes, but poor service and shoddy goods decreases general happiness doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Alright then, what is the solution? Increase more unhappiness by throwing people out of jobs and livelihoods. Yeah, and how would that resolve the problem of bad service or goods to begin with? The jobless people will now magically acquire skills to make better products and perform better services?

No, training and education like everything else is a commodity (often high-priced) in this economy so they're out of work and shit out of luck if they don't even have the money for the rent now aren't they? Most unhappy people "solve" their problems by making other people unhappy by engaging in unhappy acts that land them in a place full of locked-up terminally unhappy people.

Again, brilliant solution to the problem by making the problem worse. :rolleyes:

So now we're so... unhappy together!

BobKKKindle$

6th June 2006, 14:47

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 6 2006, 05:39 AM

I am not a total Laissez-faire capitalist and I believe that our economy in the US is essentially a socialist economy even though we prefer not to see it that way.

You obviously dont have the slightest idea of What socialism entails, or you are totally ignorant of the state of the American Economy. I will give you a quick run down: Socialism calls for social ownership of the means of production, and placing human wants above profits for Capitalists (to be brief)

You talked about the importance of Reality over Dry theory. Ok then - Lets Look at some concerete facts, grounded in reality.

15% of the Population lives in Poverty
The Top 1% of Income Earners earn more than the bottom 40%
The US Military Budget accounts for more than the Civil Budget (including education and healthcare)

So, You have grossly equal income, poverty amongst affluence, and your government would rather Slaughter Iraqis than let children have a good education.

Meanwhile, the US has refused to Sign the Kyoto Protocol, and invades countries in order to access raw materials and markets for its commodities. Your Society Values Nike Shirts over the Starving Indonesian kid that made them. If this is socialism, I wanna be a fascist.

Enough Reality for you?

Please Dont call the US Socialist, its bad enough having the USSR and DPRK labbelled as 'socialist' without the world's biggest Rouge State being thrown into the deal ;)

Tungsten

6th June 2006, 17:21

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

Basic philosophy should be taught throughout high school ... it really is a lost art. For you libertarian capitalist types, read up on determinism (a philosophical theory).
A false theory too. I suspect that many adhere to it because on cursory examination, it appears to be "scientific".

The arrogance people have over their so called "accomplishments" is unfounded - things happen as a result of environmental circumstances.
Have you got proof of this?

Stop blaming individuals for their problems
This sounds like an attempt to shirk responsibility for your actions.

and start making a difference.
Why should I? I'm not responsible for what happens if I don't. I'm just a product of my environment.
MurderInc

How can you NOT get where I'm getting at.
Try explaining what you mean.
bobkindles

You obviously dont have the slightest idea of What socialism entails, or you are totally ignorant of the state of the American Economy. I will give you a quick run down: Socialism calls for social ownership of the means of production, and placing human wants above profits for Capitalists (to be brief)
People's wants are infinite, profits and production are only finite. Spot the obvious problem.

15% of the Population lives in Poverty
Absolute poverty or relative poverty?

The Top 1% of Income Earners earn more than the bottom 40%
This is only a problem to a believer in equality and the labour theory of value.

Meanwhile, the US has refused to Sign the Kyoto Protocol,
Stuff the Kyoto Protocol. It's a scam.

and invades countries in order to access raw materials and markets for its commodities.
Invasion in not necessary to access raw materials and markets and whether it was doing it for that purpose is still debatable.

Your Society Values Nike Shirts over the Starving Indonesian kid that made them.
What is it with you and starving kids?

ummProfessional

6th June 2006, 19:41

I think you already qualify as an "evil person" in our eyes. By your own testimony, you already are from a rich family and they will give you a "boost up the ladder".

WHAT THE HECK!!!! :blink: wow im truly just dumbfounded by this comment!
first of all when did i say i came from a rich family? in fact if you read all of my comments i have repitedly said that my family were IMMIGRANTS! for god's sake, who work hard, set a goal for themselves upon coming here, and worked very hard to be what we are now which is middle class in my opinion , we are nowhere near rich...we just live well......what is your argument? that my family should have stayed poor? i thought you guys want to end poverty!? :rolleyes: make up your mind...ohh that's right, you don't really care what you want is a revolution (that won't happen) so that then you can become the new Stalin, or Castro...

but what exactly is your point???? seriously! redstar explain! and NO im not going to go to another thread to read anything, the point is here!!! so if i am rich in fact, and if i come from a rich family indeed that would make me an "evil" person? WTFF! so now economic wealth determines your personality!! hahahahahhaa jesus what other analogies do you communists come up with so that i can just laugh at!?? and yeah if i come from a rich family they will give me a boost up the ladder! what's your point? sound like your a little jelous to me! what do you want? for them to give you a boost too? have you ever heard that life is not fair? maybe not , you must be 10 years old, because this is obvious if you haven't found out in life already!

i mean im totally just dumbfounded by this!? i don't understand!? what fault would it be for Bill Gates children that their father is a billionare? so? in your eyes they are EVIL!? :lol: ohh god im just through with this i can't take it hahahahha

by the way, what he means by US being socialist, in a way it is very true, this country is a mixed economy, it borrows both socialist and capitalist ideals and mixes them together to form what i see in my eyes the best economic system in the world...hence why we are the most powerful country in the world......

15% of the Population lives in Poverty
The Top 1% of Income Earners earn more than the bottom 40%
The US Military Budget accounts for more than the Civil Budget (including education and healthcare)

yes 15% according to American standards (btw im not even sure it's 15% i would need to see real proof of that #) while those 15% compared to world standards are RICH!!! they have more material posetions than most people around the world...i mean how would you measure poverty? i think is by material commodeties, access to safe water, electricity and so on...in America everyone has the access to both water and electricity while being the people with the most material posetions per capita in the world...

yes US military Budget is the highest in the world by any nation, and you know what that does?? simple, it keeps us in the #1 spot, it used to be said that whoever controlled the seas ruled the world, well we take that to the new level and control even the sky...and this is all thanks to the military budget....but even so what are you talking about!? our highway systems is the best in the world, our infrastructure is the best in the world! we have more computers, televisions, and so on in classrooms than any country in the world! sure our health care system sucks, but in a hospital the best service is ours....

yeah sure we value NIKE shirts more than the kids who made them, who might i add are 4000 miles away, now just by that most humans beings dont even care about what's going on in the country next to them, that's reality, tell me..do you care about the genocide that is going on right now in Darfur and Congo? well i just asked you and if you were a sane person you would obviously say YES! of course i care about genocide, BUT there is no way your googling up information about this day in day out reading news stories, and taking action against it, protesting for government to take actions so on....you see such is the nature of the selfish greedy animals called humans, and it's not only in America, it's in Europe, Asia, and anywhere there are humans............by the way those indonesian kids are earning more money and living a better life than before the NIKE company came to their town, so trust me they are more than happy with it...

MurderInc

6th June 2006, 20:36

Redstar quoted ummProfessional:
QUOTE (ummProfessional)
if I become rich now I guess I'm an evil person to you guys??

Redstar's Response:
I think you already qualify as an "evil person" in our eyes. By your own testimony, you already are from a rich family and they will give you a "boost up the ladder".

My Response to this:
This is one of the most rediculous comments imaginable.
There is nothing evil about being born into a family of wealth. That's goofy. And you use the word "us". Are you supposedly speaking for the board? The administrators? All socialists of the world? I bet most of them don't believe that a baby born into a rich family is "evil".

As a baby, you are brought up to nearly worship your parents. They are your concept of "GOD" until you are about 2. Children generally fall into the views and ideals of their parents. It is totally normal. As people grow up, they create in their minds a construct of what is right and wrong. The majority do what their parents do. This is nature. And nature works in a world of averages and high numbers. If 75% survive as opposed to 50%, nature is happy. And natre could give a rat's ass whether any of us are commies or cappies or Democrats or Republicans or Peace and Freedom or Liberatarians.

To go against your parents does happen, but overall in very small numbers.

Rich people are not to be pittied. They're not to be hated. Why would one give up wealth and power if their whole lives it was their norm?

Our job, as socialists, is to radically alter the system in which they operate. So they wake up ne morning and find that 1) they are no longer rich, and 2) WHAT they DO is valued as highly as the next guy or gal. That second statement is to me the basis of socialism.

The idea that parents would give their child a "leg up" isn't horrible, but normal. Do you think that after the revolution parents will raise their kids and say to them, "Hey, we're socialists. We don't help our children, give them the benefit of our knowledge, or suggest to them how to get a date with Wendy or Bobby.

I don't see the need to call someone evil for being born. Change is the answer.

Noah

6th June 2006, 20:47

Invasion in not necessary to access raw materials and markets and whether it was doing it for that purpose is still debatable.

If your referring to Iraq...Then It certainly wasn't for Iraqi's justice because my family still don't get electricity or water but under Saddam at least they got running water and a few hours of electricity! :rolleyes: , I wonder what the other debatable points are, weapons of mass destruction?? :blink: . George Bush doesn't care about the Iraqis, we're all just an investment aren't we? <_<

You must be as blind as a plank to not be able to recognise the link between raw materials, such as oil and America's power lust (money).

ummProfessional

6th June 2006, 23:21

it's called survival of the fittest, and guess what!? it doesn't constitue only to animals!

yeah, America probably doesn't give a rats ass about Iraq, which of course as an American i think it's wrong, but..c'mon guys, let's get real, you guys know how politics work and this isn't new neither with America nor with any other Superpower/country/kingdom/entity that has existed in human history...everybody does things for their own interest, this is only normal, it's called HUMAN NATURE! why doesn't America invade a crippled old man who has talked shit about America for 40+years brought us almost to nuclear war and is only 90miles from our shores!!!!!!! simple, CUBA DOESN'T HAVE OIL!!!! so yes we know Bush had bad blood with Saddam, and sure he was a fucking horrible monster dicatator who committed genocide, and sure he probably would of given safe haven to terrorist groups and so on, but ultimately we really did it for the oil, or should i say for our own interest, not just for oil but because Iraq is a strategic location right on the Persian Gulf, and this would be for any nation who is trying to implement it's power in the world a strategic place to die for , something politicians wet their pants for..... so yeah!? is it wrong? umm yeah, is it good? umm yeah! because it's natural....it's a rough and brutal world out there guys and it's reality....

Tungsten

6th June 2006, 23:58

Noah

You must be as blind as a plank to not be able to recognise the link between raw materials, such as oil and America's power lust (money).Whether there is a link or not is immaterial. There are easier ways to get hold of oil than invading Iraq and keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been far cheaper. So much for the alleged power lust.

BobKKKindle$

7th June 2006, 11:42

UmmProfessional

yes US military Budget is the highest in the world by any nation, and you know what that does?? simple, it keeps us in the #1 spot, it used to be said that whoever controlled the seas ruled the world, well we take that to the new level and control even the sky...and this is all thanks to the military budget....but even so what are you talking about!? our highway systems is the best in the world, our infrastructure is the best in the world! we have more computers, televisions, and so on in classrooms than any country in the world! .

Your Infrastructure is the best?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137552 (from your capitalist run media, I might add...oh the Irony)

Your Education System is Superior?

Your Government (if it can be described as such) spends 91,817 million Us dollars on education (from your budget) Thats barely a fifth of your military budget! So, presumabely, killing iraqis and making bombs is more important than giving a good education...

You may also wish to examine the following data:

The NALS found a total of 21-23 percent - or 40-44 million - of the 191 million American adults (defined as age 16 or older) at Level 1, the lowest literacy level. Although many Level 1 adults could perform many tasks involving simple texts and documents, all adults scoring at Level 1 displayed difficulty using certain reading, writing, and computational skills considered necessary for functioning in everyday life.

NALS =national Adult Literacy Survey

Maybe the education system is responsible for your expert knowledge of your country in relation to the rest of the world...god Bless America! Sieg Hiel!

sure our health care system sucks, but in a hospital the best service is ours...

What is that even suppossed to mean?! 40% of Your Population is without adequate health insurance. So much for the Success of Privatised Health Care.

And as for your military budget and foreign policy..if you think having troops stationed in over 200 locations around the world, labelling countries the 'axis of evil' because they do not submit to your hegemony, and invading sovereign states for access of resources makes for a peaceful and stable globla environment, then you are truly deluded.

Tungsten

7th June 2006, 16:52

bobkindles

What is that even suppossed to mean?! 40% of Your Population is without adequate health insurance.
What's "adequate" supposed to mean?

So much for the Success of Privatised Health Care.
You judge the sucess of a healthcare program based on the number of people who have access to it?

redstar2000

7th June 2006, 17:36

Originally posted by ummProfessional+--> (ummProfessional)There is nothing evil about being born into a family of wealth.[/b]

I'm afraid there is. Where do you think the cappie arguments on this board come from? From people who've been raised in privilege and sincerely believe they are "fundamentally superior" to everyone else.

That's where all the "human nature" bullshit comes from...and the "survival of the fittest" garbage. The believe they are "more fit"...and in their arrogance will stop at nothing to "stay on top".

It's a rough and brutal world out there guys and it's reality.... and you'll use that kind of "reasoning" to justify any atrocity.

If you're not "evil", then I don't know what would be.

Originally posted by Murder [email protected]
There is nothing evil about being born into a family of wealth. You have an example right in front of your own eyes...what does it take?

Here's what he says...

ummProfessional
have you ever heard that life is not fair? Yeah, that pious pissant Jimmy Carter says it all the time. The people born into privilege always say it like a magic formula to "justify" their privilege.

you don't really care what you want is a revolution (that won't happen) so that then you can become the new Stalin, or Castro...

To be perfectly honest, I would certainly deal with you "princes" of the aristocracy of capital in a way that Stalin would recognize. Murder Inc. naively believes that you could be "changed" into decent human beings...I don't!

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

Tungsten

7th June 2006, 23:48

redstar2000

I'm afraid there is. Where do you think the cappie arguments on this board come from? From people who've been raised in privilegeWhat
An outlandish claim. I wasn't raised in privelage.

and sincerely believe they are "fundamentally superior" to everyone else.
And that bothers you? You do have a fragile ego, don't you?

To be perfectly honest, I would certainly deal with you "princes" of the aristocracy of capital in a way that Stalin would recognize.
I believe you.

Murder Inc. naively believes that you could be "changed" into decent human beings...I don't!
What is decency to someone who's willing to murder people who haven't done anything to him, thinks that anyone who has more money than he does is somehow in control of him and intends to silence all dissent after the revolution by any means necessary?

Capitalist Lawyer

8th June 2006, 00:00

Thats barely a fifth of your military budget! So, presumabely, killing iraqis and making bombs is more important than giving a good education...

It is the federal govt's job to ensure defense as it is outlined and explicitly written in the constitution? There's no provision in the Constitution for job training and education. There's a reason for that. The state and local gov'ts can't defend the nation as a whole, and the central national gov't can't provide education to the masses of infinately varied needs.

MurderInc

8th June 2006, 01:05

Murder Inc. naively believes that you could be "changed" into decent human beings

Redstar, you are a nitwit!

READ, READ, READ...SIMPLE, BASIC, EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF MY STATEMENT. HERE'S WHAT I WROTE:

Our job, as socialists, is to radically alter the system in which they operate.

Every socialist I know of and has read of believes this. There is no need to focus on the individual capitalist if we fundumentally change the SYSTEM!!!

What is wrong with you? Are you so caught up in your own importance that you can't read plain language and understand it?!?

BobKKKindle$

8th June 2006, 01:33

It is the federal govt's job to ensure defense as it is outlined and explicitly written in the constitution? There's no provision in the Constitution for job training and education. There's a reason for that. The state and local gov'ts can't defend the nation as a whole, and the central national gov't can't provide education to the masses of infinately varied needs.

There is a difference between providing adequate defence and imposing imperialism around the world and encouraging the growth of the military industrial complex. And access to a job and education is a fundamentla inallienable right, and failure to provide either signifies a failure of the system.

And For MurderInc: Adequate means actually have. So 40% of your Population is without health insurance. As For the Health System as a whole; yes health care is genreally judged on the basis of avaliability - or Do you want to take a look at quality?

ummProfessional

8th June 2006, 01:35

From people who've been raised in privilege and sincerely believe they are "fundamentally superior" to everyone else.

huh? you do realize this is not 16th century France right? we are in the year 2006 in the 21st Century! seriously man where the heck do you get this from? lmao i would imagine this guy is actually scared of rich people and shit hahaha wtF

That's where all the "human nature" bullshit comes from...and the "survival of the fittest" garbage. The believe they are "more fit"...and in their arrogance will stop at nothing to "stay on top"

prove how human nature is bullshit, prove how survival of the fittest is garbage
ill give you a head start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

so this is how rich people think they are "more fit" and they are arrogant, i think your watching too many movies and soap operas, lmao i mean what's next? the rich people are responsible for the violent reactions that go on in the sun, i mean with the way you present yourself and talk here i wouldn't be surprised if you actually thought that lol

and you'll use that kind of "reasoning" to justify any atrocity.

If you're not "evil", then I don't know what would be.

so because i tell it how it is, because i speak the truth, that the world is a place of hypocrisy, that every nation acts with it's own interest (which proves human nature) some how im evil? lol CALL ME DR.EEEEEVIL!!! BUAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah, that pious pissant Jimmy Carter says it all the time. The people born into privilege always say it like a magic formula to "justify" their privilege.

why do you think me and Tungsten for example are rich? born into privilege? because we challenge your idiology? wow that's pretty ignorant, first of all for the 100th times MY PARENTS WERE IMMIGRANTS!!!!!!!!!!! im not rich, im middle class, and i don't feel in any way at all "superior" like you say to anyone with less economic situation than me, i mean you have FLAWED written all over you..and if you think life is fair, than that would be the biggest oxymoron , because im sure your just beating yourself about the fact that your idology is a minority amongst the citizens of the world, "BUT THATS NOT FAIR!" lmao

To be perfectly honest, I would certainly deal with you "princes" of the aristocracy of capital in a way that Stalin would recognize. Murder Inc. naively believes that you could be "changed" into decent human beings...I don't!

and then you wake up, lol like i have said before, your going to have to wait for hell to freeze over like 4 times before your beloved revolution occurs :lol:

Capitalist Lawyer

8th June 2006, 01:39

There is a difference between providing adequate defence and imposing impeialism around the world and encouraging the growth of the military industrial complex. And access to a job and education is a fundamentla inallienable right, and failure to provide either signifies a failure of the system.

Not that I support it, but that's not what the constitution says. If you would like it to say it, explicitly, then write to your congressman and ask them to propose an amendment to the constitution.

Do a Google search for: Jesse Jackson, Jr. I believe he is the most outspoken congressman about this issue that you are up in arms about.

Noah

8th June 2006, 01:44

Whether there is a link or not is immaterial. There are easier ways to get hold of oil than invading Iraq and keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been far cheaper. So much for the alleged power lust.

It may seem so in the short-term however the future prospects look healthier for America by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and taking control of the country themselves.

The Americans had many opportunities to take out Saddam's regime after Gulf War 1 by assassination through Saddam's generals. But guess who let the bodyguards down? It would have been a much cheaper method that way too but hell that wouldn't get them the oil :rolleyes:

And if you refute the fact that America have a lust for power then the claim in my prior post was more than correct!

BobKKKindle$

8th June 2006, 01:45

so because i tell it how it is, because i speak the truth, that the world is a place of hypocrisy, that every nation acts with it's own interest (which proves human nature) some how im evil?

No, Its because you will stand in our way when we change the world, in order to protect your class interests. it will simply be another episode of class struggle - the exploited and the exploiters. And you had better run when the revolution happens.

huh? you do realize this is not 16th century France right? we are in the year 2006 in the 21st Century! seriously man where the heck do you get this from? lmao i would imagine this guy is actually scared of rich people and shit hahaha wtF

We get that opinion from talking to class representitives like you on the internet.

Not that I support it, but that's not what the constitution says. If you would like it to say it, explicitly, then write to your congressman and ask them to propose an amendment to the constitution.

Thankfully I Dont live in your sorry excuse for a country. However, such a resolution will never pass, becaise it is in the interests of the ruling class to keep the masses ignorant so as to prevent them from gaining a collective class consciousness. As SHown by your education budget. Your government would rather invade other countries.

prove how human nature is bullshit, prove how survival of the fittest is garbage

I dont think anyone has ever said that SoF is 'garbage' per say. What Socialists believe is that the way in which indidivuals view themselves, act towards others and their environment - their nature persay - is determined by the material conditions in which they live and the economic system that goes with those conditiions. If you think Human Nature is based upon greed etc, I invite you to examine prinitive communist societies, where people were forced to work together in order to survive.

ummProfessional

8th June 2006, 03:09

I dont think anyone has ever said that SoF is 'garbage' per say. What Socialists believe is that the way in which indidivuals view themselves, act towards others and their environment - their nature persay - is determined by the material conditions in which they live and the economic system that goes with those conditiions. If you think Human Nature is based upon greed etc, I invite you to examine prinitive communist societies, where people were forced to work together in order to survive.

that it's not garbage PER SAY, well i dare you to challenge redstar on that one ;)

the way we view ourselves, the way we act towards others in our environment is determined by our material conditions in which we live? well, sure, Paris Hilton is not as humble as me for example or you, because our parents are not multimillionares and we are not spoiled etc..but you see that's the conditioning, in fact it's the environment which changes you, and this is human nature, the ability for humans to change say their personality , because of the environment they were brought up on, is an example of human nature....if i was brought up with a pack of wolfs it would only be natural for me not to act the same way you do don't you think? i don't think you could say the same for a wolf brought up domestically in contrast to one brought up in the wild, the difference i don't think would be much......and greed is an emotion, it's as natural as feeling love, or envy, or jelousy because they are part of human emiotions they are natural to us, you don't really think a dog feels greed do you? LMAO! hence why greed is universal to all humans.....and dude you said it yourself these communist societies (not really sure on that , im sure they had some sort of chief etc..) were FORCED! to work together, just like if im in a deserted island with you im not gonna say FUCK you find food on your own, shit im human i have a brain and 2 brains are better than 1, 4 hands are better than 2 and so on, so it's a matter of survival, i think we ought to stay together.......now watch if we are already settled in the island, no preocupations of survival, watch when you and i start disputing about how more coconuts you have than me and so on...

anyways, seriously read the link i gave redstar..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
really interesting actually ;)

ummProfessional

8th June 2006, 03:17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior

another article dismissing the fact that human behavoir is determined by material conditions

ummProfessional

8th June 2006, 03:21

Marx says that two of the three aspects of social activity which ground history is the tendency of humans to act to fulfill their needs, and thereafter, the tendency to generate new needs [2]. This human tendency, for Marx, is what drives the continuing expansion of productive power in human civilisation.

even Marx himself understood it, "the tendency of humans to fulfull THEIR NEEDS", meaning greedy slefish ANIMALS! ME ME ME ME and ME! HUMANS! you see we do things in our own interests, Marx thought a new society could change this...but i just don't think anything can change human emotion...

MurderInc

8th June 2006, 03:47

This postinf is for the Constitutionally challenged:

And access to a job and education is a fundamentla inallienable right, and failure to provide either signifies a failure of the system.

Someone wrote this. I forgot who and don't care.

OK, So everyone knows:

The federal constitution was written in 1787. The word education does not appear in it. Not because of some great conspiracy to prevent the masses from knowing anything. It simply wasn't on the radar of Americans. Or the French. Or the Arabs. Or the Chinese. Or the South American countries. OR ANY OF THE WORLD AT THAT TIME.

There were various education programs since the dawn of time, but they were narrow and served a select few.

Interesting, for you American bashers out there, the U.S. was the FIRST nation where several of its states (at different times during the 19th Century) created a mandatory education program. It continued to get larger and cover greater years. The U.S. was the first to have mandatory high school (again various states at various times). The U.S. is ONE OF THE ONLY, IF NOT THE ONLY nation in the world that mandates through court decision that children in the U.S. illegally can't be turned away from public education.

One final note: The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that if a state DOES have an education system that is public (and all do) that denying students that education violates their equal protection of the law.

Now, we can all talk about the quality of the education, the funding and so forth, that is VERY POOR and NEAR CRUMMY.

Someone wrote on this post that we have some poor excuse for a counrty in relation to education. Just thought I'd set that idiot straight about what the U.S. has accomplished in this area.

One day the fact that I'm not an America basher might get me banned to I.O. Unitl then, I'll tell it like it is.

ummProfessional

8th June 2006, 04:27

good job Murder..

yeah dude, i think if a child is absent from school mysteriously for like a week or something , police can actually be sent to their house..

either way, there is no comparasion between an american classroom and anywhere else int he world, just the sheer number of computers, televisions, books and so on per school are more than any other countries schools and classrooms...our students have more access to knowledge than any other

redstar2000

8th June 2006, 09:14

Originally posted by ummProfessional+--> (ummProfessional)yes US military Budget is the highest in the world by any nation, and you know what that does?? simple, it keeps us in the #1 spot.[/b]

No surprise that a rich middle-class brat identifies with the Empire, is it?

yeah, America probably doesn't give a rats ass about Iraq, which of course as an American i think it's wrong, but..c'mon guys, let's get real, you guys know how politics work and this isn't new neither with America nor with any other Superpower/country/kingdom/entity that has existed in human history...everybody does things for their own interest, this is only normal, it's called HUMAN NATURE!

Here's some "human nature" for you: imperial asswipes like you need to be permanently removed from the surface of this planet!

Originally posted by Murder [email protected]
Redstar, you are a nitwit!

And you are a cretin! You imagine that reactionary turds like um professional are going to "transform themselves" into really nice guys on the day after the revolution.

What is wrong with you?

What's wrong with you?

um professional
huh? you do realize this is not 16th century France right?

There are marked resemblences.

prove how human nature is bullshit

There is zero reputable scientific evidence for the existence of "human nature". No one has ever rigorously demonstrated any links between human behavior and human genetics. That's just social Darwinist crap invented to "justify" privilege.

If you're born to rich parents, the "reason" they're rich is "because" they're "genetically superior" and that's supposed to mean that you're "born superior" and "have a right to be rich". Well fuck you, asswipe! Take your superiority and shove it!

prove how survival of the fittest is garbage As an explanation of human societies, it is a dumb idea that assumes what it purports to "explain".

so because i tell it how it is, because i speak the truth, that the world is a place of hypocrisy, that every nation acts with it's own interest (which proves human nature) some how im evil? lol CALL ME DR.EEEEEVIL!!! BUAHAHAHAHAH

No, I'll just call you Turdblossom.

why do you think me and Tungsten for example are rich? born into privilege?

Because your posts reek of affronted privilege. Your imperial arrogance screams unmerited privilege. The hardest work you dickwads ever did in your lives was crawling out of your rich mommy's birth canal.

overlord

8th June 2006, 10:29

No surprise that a rich middle-class brat identifies with the Empire, is it?

Jeeze man, I think he told everyone like three times he's middle class.

And you are a cretin! You imagine that reactionary turds like um professional are going to "transform themselves" into really nice guys on the day after the revolution.

Transform into a real nice guy :wub: like you huh? :lol:

There is zero reputable scientific evidence for the existence of "human nature". No one has ever rigorously demonstrated any links between human behavior and human genetics.

If you went into certain slums in the cities of the world you could get killed by some degenerate for a nickel and your watch. Proof enough if you don't deny it?

That's just social Darwinist crap invented to "justify" privilege.

I don't think people actually like social darwinism. I think capitalists just say 'hmm, if people are going to screw each other all the time, let them, lets run society by greed and have a highly efficeint civilisation. Hence today.

Because your posts reek of affronted privilege. Your imperial arrogance screams unmerited privilege. The hardest work you dickwads ever did in your lives was crawling out of your rich mommy's birth canal.

You must have been really screwed around at school age or something to make you hate the rich so much. Rich people are ok, what's wrong with them? They are Satan like ummProfessional? :lol: HE'S NOT A RICH IMPERIALIST MAN! GET A GRIP!

redstar2000

8th June 2006, 15:03

Originally posted by overlord
If you went into certain slums in the cities of the world you could get killed by some degenerate for a nickel and your watch. Proof enough if you don't deny it?

I've lived in some of those "infamous slums" and nobody bothered me.

You must have been really screwed around at school age or something to make you hate the rich so much. Rich people are ok, what's wrong with them?

They walk around like their shit don't stink. They expect people to defer to them.

Not to mention always whining about "how hard they've worked" and that if you're not rich, it's your own damn fault.

Piss on 'em! :angry:

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

BobKKKindle$

8th June 2006, 16:10

The federal constitution was written in 1787.

The Bible Was Written, what, 2000 years ago! Do the Majority of Christians follow it word-for-word, literally, with no alternative interpretations, with no room for addiiton to meet changing material cirucmstances? No, that do not. The Same goes for a constitution. This is 2006 - The US, and every other country, is faced with changing material conditions, and so ideology must change with those conditions. That is the dialectic is it not? A Continual Combinaiton of Thesis and Antithesis to achieve a better understanding of the world?

our students have more access to knowledge than any other

Prove it please. Blind Assertions prove nothing. International test results say something different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior

I am sure you can find many articles saying what you believe. I can probably find a document / documentary etc that argues any viewpoint on a multitude of issues. Do you expect the Mass Media under Capitalist Society, with its system of prescrbied emotional and intellectual reactions, to give a fair portrayal? Particuarly wikipedia, which is freely edited. On these boards, we prefer real discussion.

Later: if you are going to post links that 'prove' your arguement, at least read them first to check they say what you want.

I quote from your article:

Factors affecting Human Behavior

Attitude – It is the degree to which the person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior in question.
Social Norms – This is the influence of social pressure that is perceived by the individual (normative beliefs) to perform or not perform a certain behavior.

That comes down on our side Capitalist Fool! Not that we Socialists 'prove; our arguments through random articles. We are above that.

Tungsten

8th June 2006, 19:45

bobkindles

And access to a job and education is a fundamentla inallienable right, and failure to provide either signifies a failure of the system.
The system isn't supposed to be there for any reason other than to let you live your life without interference.

So 40% of your Population is without health insurance. As For the Health System as a whole; yes health care is genreally judged on the basis of avaliability - or Do you want to take a look at quality?
Of course quality is more important than quantity. Not that lack of either indicates a failure of "the system". The system isn't there to provide you with healthcare. It's there to provide you with defence.
redstar2000

Because your posts reek of affronted privilege.
Bruised ego at twelve o'clock. Cry me a fucking river.

Your imperial arrogance screams unmerited privilege.
Umerited by who? You? When did you crown yourself king?
overlord

You must have been really screwed around at school age or something to make you hate the rich so much. Rich people are ok, what's wrong with them? They are Satan like ummProfessional? HE'S NOT A RICH IMPERIALIST MAN! GET A GRIP!
He can't concieve of a worker being anything other than a radical Marxist or that anyone might consider the whole idea of communism to be a scam. A demonstration of his intellectual shortcomings for sure.

ummProfessional

8th June 2006, 19:55

Here's some "human nature" for you: imperial asswipes like you need to be permanently removed from the surface of this planet!

yesssss yessss it's working! hahahaha good job redstar, your like my little experimental rat, your obviously a very angry person, and it's your human nature to want to KILL me hahahaha since i don't share your pathetic view of the world

And you are a cretin! You imagine that reactionary turds like um professional are going to "transform themselves" into really nice guys on the day after the revolution.

reactionary? do i look like ultra conservative Pat Robertson to you you moronic parasitical excrement!! how am i opposed to liberty, progress and so on? im not the one here who supports COMMUNISM!! reactioanry!? pfff ahahhahahahaa
because i react to your prehistoric cave men comments don't mean im a reactionary you idiot, which by the way proves human nature once again, gosh how many times!! lol, you make your stupid comments it's only human for me to not sit by and reply to shut you damn viruses off

There are marked resemblences.

tell me how 16th century France is so much like 2006 World!

There is zero reputable scientific evidence for the existence of "human nature". No one has ever rigorously demonstrated any links between human behavior and human genetics. That's just social Darwinist crap invented to "justify" privilege

show me where it says there is no evidence, and how ? who says this is genetics? genetics is how your going to look, if your going to have cancer or not, and sure it probably would determine your personality, but ultimately everyone has the universal emotions of greed, jelousy, love, hate and so on, or are you going to tell me that an Elephant feels these things? HAHAHAHAHA :lol: :rolleyes:

If you're born to rich parents, the "reason" they're rich is "because" they're "genetically superior" and that's supposed to mean that you're "born superior" and "have a right to be rich". Well fuck you, asswipe! Take your superiority and shove it!

what? when did you get this twisted view man? seriously? rich people feel they are "genetically" supirior to others!! WTFFFFFFF!??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol: that is just halarious and im waiting for you to prove such a thing, im dying to hear how you can prove this....

As an explanation of human societies, it is a dumb idea that assumes what it purports to "explain".

thank you very much, you lost that argument, and survival of the fittest still stands strong until redstar or any other retard here wants to explain how this is not true!?

No, I'll just call you Turdblossom.

UUUUU, your BAAD! lol, im glad i was able to shut you up on that one, and it's human nature for an ignorant child who has lived his entire life since he was raped by some "rich" guy, in the basement of his house, and thus when looses an argument doesn't have anything constructive to do and says such wonderful words as "TURDBLOSSOM"....

Because your posts reek of affronted privilege. Your imperial arrogance screams unmerited privilege. The hardest work you dickwads ever did in your lives was crawling out of your rich mommy's birth canal.

how many times do i have to tell this freek that im not FUCKIN RIIIIIIICH!!! you don't know me man, iv worked since i was 17 years old you cow fetus! you really are an idiot..

I've lived in some of those "infamous slums" and nobody bothered me.

because you were a poor bastard like them, what are they going to steal from you? LMAO! :rolleyes: and just because your an example doesn't mean it doesnt go on, are you actually that dillusional tha you belive because it didn't happen to you it doesnt happen! wow i give up right NOW!

Prove it please. Blind Assertions prove nothing. International test results say something different.

prove how we dont! i told you we have more televisions, when 9/11 happened we were all watching it from our classrooms, can a kid in Turkey say the same? every classroom has computers, at least 4 or 5 per class or something, can any other country say that? every school from elementary to the University, has a library, with thousands of books, can any other country say that for all of their schools? so if that doesn't look like to you like the best "access" (note that word, don't cofuse it now with anything else) to knowledge, than i don't know what is?

I am sure you can find many articles saying what you believe. I can probably find a document / documentary etc that argues any viewpoint on a multitude of issues. Do you expect the Mass Media under Capitalist Society, with its system of prescrbied emotional and intellectual reactions, to give a fair portrayal? Particuarly wikipedia, which is freely edited. On these boards, we prefer real discussion

so now it's PROPAGANDA!!, ahh yes that beautiful word used by leftists to describe anything that contradicts or challenges their ideas, wow i wish i could do the same, but thankfully im not as lame...but wait, you actually use something to try to make me look foolish?:

Attitude – It is the degree to which the person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior in question.
Social Norms – This is the influence of social pressure that is perceived by the individual (normative beliefs) to perform or not perform a certain behavior.

That comes down on our side Capitalist Fool! Not that we Socialists 'prove; our arguments through random articles. We are above that

does it?fool! lol, you think everything is black and white? capitlist communist? this things attitude and social norms don't differentiate between capitlism and communism, they are the same for everything because they are human nature, the influence of social pressure, if i deny that than im surely a fool, everyone knows this, hence why gay people "stay in the closet" and so on...but anyways funny how you didn't label the other FACTORS AFFECTING BEHAVIOR lol ;)

red team

9th June 2006, 06:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:06 PM

Murder Inc. naively believes that you could be "changed" into decent human beings

Redstar, you are a nitwit!

READ, READ, READ...SIMPLE, BASIC, EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF MY STATEMENT. HERE'S WHAT I WROTE:

Our job, as socialists, is to radically alter the system in which they operate.

Every socialist I know of and has read of believes this. There is no need to focus on the individual capitalist if we fundumentally change the SYSTEM!!!

What is wrong with you? Are you so caught up in your own importance that you can't read plain language and understand it?!?
That's all irrelevant because if there's going to be a revolutionary situation, that impies that there is no class peace. If there is class peace then there no reason for there to be a revolution. The fact that RedStar2000 and most people on this board and the fact that this board exists at all shows this class antagonisms exists and is intensifying because the system cannot afford class peace anymore.

It's the same with every unsustainable economic and social system be it Slavery or Capitalism.

For example, which would be actually better: "Nice Slavery" (http://www.archives.state.al.us/teacher/slavery/lesson3/doc3f.html) or working 14 hour shifts at 41 cents an hour in a Chinese sweatshop? "Sweat Shop Labor" (http://www.nlcnet.org/news/china/pdfs/05_01_06/Full_Report.pdf)

The question is irrelevant, but at least in "Nice Slavery" the slaves were well-fed and were worked "moderately". But it all becomces irrelevant when the economic system becomes unsustainable and the majority of bosses can't afford to be nice.

The example of "Nice Capitalism" of the long postwar American boom is long OVER. Bosses can't afford to be "nice" anymore and we can't afford to be "nice" to them.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 07:10

ummmProfessional

'if i deny that than im surely a fool'

Well Capitalism rests upon the assertion that HUman beings are inherently filled with greed, malice, and distrust. So by admitting that Social preassure (ie the Society around us) also determines the way in which we act to a large extent, you have conceded something very important.

'prove how we dont'

Firstly, access to technology does not entail a good education. Your Students may spend hours every day watching pseuod-documentaries produced by corporations, but is that a good education? Secondly, where are you plucking these assertions from - for example 'we have the most computers and televisions per student' etc.

MurderInc

9th June 2006, 08:29

red team,

Nothing of what you wrote changed my belief that a baby born into a rich family is not evil. I do not believe the majority here believe that.

The violence that the revolution will bring will not call for the killing of babies. It's not like Russia 1917, etc. Once people are deprived of their private property and their private police forces lose, their children will not view themselves as a "royalty" needing to grow up and revenge or take back anything. I'm not saying they'll be happy, I'm saying that you can control such people through force without this evil nonsense.

I'm sick to death of classifying babies as evil. There are other discussion boards such as "It's Right to Rebel", where this idiot is always talking about forcing all Americans out of America and send them to Africa as Third World Slaves, have their children taken from them, blah blah blah. They need their heads examined.

overlord

9th June 2006, 11:09

Yeah, how on earth are rich people evil? Let's say someone is born rich. They are evil because presumably they don't give away their riches when they grow up. Now consider a poor child. They made the same crime of being born in a randomised manner into a poor family. Let's say they also don't give away any riches. Are they evil? Will Redstar give me his money? If not, he's one of the evil ones. EVIL EVIL EVIL!

Redteam:

For example, which would be actually better: "Nice Slavery" or working 14 hour shifts at 41 cents an hour in a Chinese sweatshop? "Sweat Shop Labor"

Those ungrateful bastards are getting a good deal. In Indonesia the rate is 20 cents and 5 cents in Vietnam! HAHAHHAAHHAHA so much for communism! I suppose all those dead Vietnamese were REALLY worth it! They knew what they were fighting for!

ummprofessional

what? when did you get this twisted view man? seriously? rich people feel they are "genetically" supirior to others!! WTFFFFFFF!??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is just halarious and im waiting for you to prove such a thing, im dying to hear how you can prove this....

Yeah, rich people aernt NAZI's. The rich are just financially superiorior, which means we know what money is and how to accumulate it and compound that. What's so superior about that. If the ability to make money and not lose it is 'superior' , which is a pretty basic talent, even squirrels can hoard nuts, than perhaps yes, we are superior and you are worse than squirrels. HAHAHAHHAHA!

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 16:29

Those ungrateful bastards are getting a good deal

I am really starting to warm to Stalinism here...just kidding. But in some ways you are right; at least they can go to work and be exploited without fear of getting shot - the same cannot be said of Iraqi civlians huh? No, they are not getting a good deal, it is imhumane to subject anybody to that kind of treatement simply to provide profit for Capitalists in the US. How can anybody advocate this?!

how to accumulate it

Sitting at home and watching Workers produce Commodities for you must be very difficult to do...is that what you are taught to do during 'Buisness Management' Courses at university? I am sorry to disillussion this, but Workers are perfectly capable of owning and managing the MoP themselves, they do not need some Capitalist to allow them to use the MoP that he owns before he takes the Commodities they produce to sell for his benefit. Commodities are Stores of Labour Value, not a Capitalists 'ability to accumulate'

Tungsten

9th June 2006, 18:32

red team

The fact that RedStar2000 and most people on this board and the fact that this board exists at all shows this class antagonisms exists and is intensifying because the system cannot afford class peace anymore.
Your presence on here doesn't "prove" there are any meaningful class antagonisms any more than the existence of Stormfront "proves" the existence of white supremacy.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 18:41

Your presence on here doesn't "prove" there are any meaningful class antagonisms any more than the existence of Stormfront "proves" the existence of white supremacy.

Those Respective Websites show that the ideologies of Revolutionary leftism and Aryan nationalism exist. Ideologies are based on our observations and experiences in the real world (according to Marx) and hence the fact that some people (Socialists like ourselves) want to see an uprising or the Proletariat, and a society based upon 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' shows that there must exist some form of class antagonism! People do not advocate Revolution if they are satisfied with the present system! In addition to the existance of Political Websites, one only needs to look to strikes and the labour movement as a whole to see that workers and Cappies are in conflict.

'The History of all hitherto societies a history of class struggle'

Tungsten

9th June 2006, 19:26

bobkindles

hence the fact that some people (Socialists like ourselves) want to see an uprising or the Proletariat, and a society based upon 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' shows that there must exist some form of class antagonism!
And this little phenomenon is known as conformation bias.

overlord

10th June 2006, 10:49

bobkindles

QUOTE
hence the fact that some people (Socialists like ourselves) want to see an uprising or the Proletariat, and a society based upon 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' shows that there must exist some form of class antagonism!

And this little phenomenon is known as conformation bias.

Or we can just call it jealosy. Communists want to steal the intellectual labour of the entrepreneur. NO! Let them build their own factories if it is really the workers who build them! Come on, start building! Love to see what that factory would look like...

red team

10th June 2006, 12:11

steal the intellectual labour of the entrepreneur

Oh, this is a really good one! Your "intellectual labour" is over with once you've finished thinking up the solution to the problem. You get paid for your work like everybody else. This nonsensical clap-trap about "intellectual labour" is easily disproved everytime you turn on your computer. You think the programmers who wrote the damn program you over-privileged cappies have the luxury of using need to re-perform their intellectual labour all over again? Computer programmers like any other worker gets paid for their time of labour while the richest person in the world gets paid for "intellectual property". You want to call that "stealing" hypocrite?

Tungsten

10th June 2006, 14:10

red team

Oh, this is a really good one! Your "intellectual labour" is over with once you've finished thinking up the solution to the problem.
It's over when they've sold the rights to it. If they haven't sold the rights to it, and are recieving royalties instead, then it isn't.

JimmyC

10th June 2006, 21:00

Yes...If you're a Red Sox fan, your destiny is in the toilet.

red team

11th June 2006, 00:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:11 AM
red team

Oh, this is a really good one! Your "intellectual labour" is over with once you've finished thinking up the solution to the problem.
It's over when they've sold the rights to it. If they haven't sold the rights to it, and are recieving royalties instead, then it isn't.
That's why I don't get too upset when I hear news about people ripping off Micro$oft software.

Note to well meaning computer users out there: You're not giving to all those hard-working programmers actually making the software you use! You're only making the richest man in the world yet more richer!

So you admit it!
Labour has no correlation to wealth!
That Capitalist myth of being financially successful from hard work is just a myth
The richest man in the world can gain more wealth from the time spent in taking a nap than the average worker in an entire lifetime!
The cappie is wealthy because he takes a piece of your labour and sell it as his own private property, not because he does labour (wealth is not correlated to labour remember)!

So go ahead workers and steal it all back! Because you know they stole it from you to be that super-wealthy!

Better yet we won't use their money to measure their fictitious wealth. We'll burn it!!!
Everybody who works will get a labour card to be filled with labour credits to be cancelled out in the act of consumer purchases.

Goodbye financial manipulation by the lords of Capital because no more Capital! Goodbye bankers! and goodbye money, commodity or labour traders!

Can your say GOODBYE... GOODBYE... GOODBYE... :lol:

But, I would really expect you former cappies to be terrorist "freedom fighters" to regain back your privileged positions and to reinstate Capitalism. You know what you will get when we catch you in the act...

The Resistor

11th June 2006, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:00 AM

In America you can be anything you want if you just try hard enough. It is not true and has never been true.

humm, how so?
Do u still have blacks and poor people in your country who want to be stuff but they aren't ,,, thats how so,,,,,,,or do u not know your society...pleae be better informed this is the second time i have to tell you

Tungsten

11th June 2006, 11:11

red team

That's why I don't get too upset when I hear news about people ripping off Micro$oft software.
Another fool who doesn't read the EULAs.

So you admit it!
Labour has no correlation to wealth!
It's only a single factor, so no.

That Capitalist myth of being financially successful from hard work is just a myth
I think I've replied to this same argument about four times in the past two days.

The cappie is wealthy because he takes a piece of your labour and sell it as his own private property, not because he does labour (wealth is not correlated to labour remember)!
Have you forgotten the car anology I told you about? You never did refute it.

Everybody who works will get a labour card to be filled with labour credits to be cancelled out in the act of consumer purchases.
But there's more to production than labour, as myself and others have explained to you already.

But, I would really expect you former cappies to be terrorist "freedom fighters" to regain back your privileged positions and to reinstate Capitalism. You know what you will get when we catch you in the act...
Stop embarassing yourself.

red team

11th June 2006, 21:02

The cappie is wealthy because he takes a piece of your labour and sell it as his own private property, not because he does labour (wealth is not correlated to labour remember)!

Have you forgotten the car anology I told you about? You never did refute it.

What analogy? The car magically acquires more value when it's in your possession than it is in mine? Similarly, the products of my labour suddenly becomes more valuable when you claim ownership by slapping a brand name on it after I've made it? Wow, that's some magical powers you have there. Tell me, can you lay golden eggs too?

I don't have to refute a damn thing because there's nothing to refute. Your justification for profit making simply demonstrates your preference for a negotiable monetary system where wealth can be gain from manipulation and swindling rather than work.

Again, don't try to bring supply and demand into this as this can be satisfied with people buying more or less in quantity of a product under a constant price. You've never refuted that argument.

But, I would really expect you former cappies to be terrorist "freedom fighters" to regain back your privileged positions and to reinstate Capitalism. You know what you will get when we catch you in the act...

Stop embarassing yourself.

What embarassment? You think the Cubana airliner that was blown up wasn't done by a "freedom fighter" much loved by the American ruling class? Like I said before I would really expect you disgruntled cappies to be Terrrorist "Freedom Fighters" (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/abril/vier1/15posada.html) after the overthrow this rotten system.

Tungsten

12th June 2006, 00:44

red team

What analogy? The car magically acquires more value when it's in your possession than it is in mine?
Not magic, subjectivism of value. The alternative is to impose you own set of values on people. I'm not into imposing my personal preferences on people or dictating to them what they should or shouldn't value. I'll leave that to you totalitarians.

Your justification for profit making simply demonstrates your preference for a negotiable monetary system where wealth can be gain from manipulation and swindling rather than work.
"I'll give you £5 for the item."
"But it's £10."
"£7.50 or nothing."
"Deal."
This is manipulation and swindling, is it? Then how does a non-negotiable monetary system work? Probably an arbitary edict from some centralised authority, no different to Soviet communism in practice.

Again, don't try to bring supply and demand into this as this can be satisfied with people buying more or less in quantity of a product under a constant price.
What about when there's not enough of a product to go around? Have you thought that through?

What embarassment?
For the mixture of evangelical hubris and death threats that usually accompany your posts. You don't sound clever or scary, you just sound lame.

red team

12th June 2006, 01:45

Then how does a non-negotiable monetary system work? Probably an arbitary edict from some centralised authority, no different to Soviet communism in practice.

True cost of quantity of labour, materials and energy. How subjective is that? No edicts necessary.

Contrast some rich brat born into a rich family who can buy an entire city block from accumulated interest in his bank account alone.

What about when there's not enough of a product to go around? Have you thought that through?

With today's productive technologies? Only thing limiting building more is artificial scarcity imposed by greed not physical or technical constraints.

But, of course instead of using technical know-how to solve the problems of producing enough for everybody you want something like this instead:

You demand the goods I supply the labour (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/indi-j08.shtml)

So how's your economic shell game of supply and demand working out for third world child labourers? Don't respond we already know the answer to that one.

redstar2000

12th June 2006, 04:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:30 AM
red team,

Nothing of what you wrote changed my belief that a baby born into a rich family is not evil. I do not believe the majority here believe that.

The violence that the revolution will bring will not call for the killing of babies. It's not like Russia 1917, etc. Once people are deprived of their private property and their private police forces lose, their children will not view themselves as a "royalty" needing to grow up and revenge or take back anything. I'm not saying they'll be happy, I'm saying that you can control such people through force without this evil nonsense.

I'm sick to death of classifying babies as evil. There are other discussion boards such as "It's Right to Rebel", where this idiot is always talking about forcing all Americans out of America and send them to Africa as Third World Slaves, have their children taken from them, blah blah blah. They need their heads examined.
You are perfectly free to "believe" whatever you like. That does not change the class outlook of people raised in privilege...as seen by the cappie posts in this forum.

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