Rightwingers/religious right - Mentally insane

[Karl Marx's Camel]

They don't want younger people to get vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, viruses etc., because they say it will encourage promiscuity.

So they would rather have people dying.

How fucked up is that?

[Kuro Morfos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:08 AM
They don't want younger people to get vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, viruses etc., because they say it will encourage promiscuity.

So they would rather have people dying.

How fucked up is that?
They certainly are. They are the worst aspect of this country. They are so oppressive, they make corrupt capitalists seem liberating in comparison. I hate Christian Conservatives, they are a sexually transmitted disease.

[overlord]

I must admit that advanced capitalist nations denying potentially life saving medical treatment on religious grounds is kinda low. :angry:

[BobKKKindle$]

I must admit that advanced capitalist nations denying potentially life saving medical treatment on religious grounds is kinda low

But it is perfectly legitimate for the ruling class of such nations (You included, as a self-described Capitalist) to advocate Child labour, no free education or healthcare system whatsoever in the interests of ruthless free market efficiency, wage rates of 50 cents an hour in third world countries, and the imperialist exploitation of poor nations by the governments of MEDCs? You are a hypocrite. Whether you are a ruthless Capitlaist or a right wing nutjob, you will all look the same when you are lying on the ground bleeding.

[overlord]

Whether you are a ruthless Capitlaist or a right wing nutjob, you will all look the same when you are lying on the ground bleeding

Please Bob, whatever your greivances, whether they be genuine or nay, and I have no reason to say nay; how can violence solve anything but promote itself as a newly manifested violent post-revolutionary society, such as Robespiere's France?

[BobKKKindle$]

Violence can remove the group of people that prevent the workers from Owning and Controlling the means of production, thereby establishing a Socialist economy and taking the first step towards a socialist society. Unless you would be willing to voluntarily give them up Overlord...but I highly doubt that is the case of affairs. I dont't think that violence will automatically lead to terror and more violence. Whilst it is certainly true that after the revolution, it will be necessary to defend the revolution from those who wish to destroy worker's power, this defense will be organised through worker's militias, organised on the basis of worker's democracy, like the Factory Soviets, so there would be no possibility of terror and persecution descending after the period we call 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', because these militia will be answerable to the workers, not to a state authority or party vanguard. The Reason why the French revolution (depsite its glory) devolved into terror was that the 'committee of public safety' of which Robespierre was head (essentially a 'Cheka') was answerable to the newly formed Bourgeois State, not the masses.

[Tungsten]

bobkindles

But it is perfectly legitimate for the ruling class of such nations (You included, as a self-described Capitalist) to advocate Child labour, no free education or healthcare system whatsoever in the interests of ruthless free market efficiency,
You can't mandate these things in a free market, Bob, otherwise the market would no longer be free. Efficiency has nothing to do with it.

[overlord]

Violence can remove the group of people that prevent the workers from Owning and Controlling the means of production, thereby establishing a Socialist economy and taking the first step towards a socialist society. Unless you would be willing to voluntarily give them up Overlord...but I highly doubt that is the case of affairs.
I dunno. There is lots of capitalists who give up their fortunes eventually. Look at Gates. Buffett too will give it all awya and leave just a few mil for kiddies.



I dont't think that violence will automatically lead to terror and more violence. Whilst it is certainly true that after the revolution, it will be necessary to defend the revolution from those who wish to destroy worker's power, this defense will be organised through worker's militias, organised on the basis of worker's democracy, like the Factory Soviets, so there would be no possibility of terror and persecution descending after the period we call 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', because these militia will be answerable to the workers, not to a state authority or party vanguard.

The touble I suppose is ensuring democracy. What will stop a central gov disarming the factory soviets as the soviets disarmed the kronstadt mutiny?



The Reason why the French revolution (depsite its glory) devolved into terror was that the 'committee of public safety' of which Robespierre was head (essentially a 'Cheka') was answerable to the newly formed Bourgeois State, not the masses.

The Bolsheviks helped drive revolutionary momentum, along with all the other mensheviks, social revolutionaries and anarchiests, then somehow manages to steal it away for themselves. Revolutions in other communist countries were likewise driven by the masses and those countries are now controlled harshly by tiny cliques. What will prevent this?

[BobKKKindle$]

I dunno. There is lots of capitalists who give up their fortunes eventually. Look at Gates. Buffett too will give it all awya and leave just a few mil for kiddies

A Few Million? That is enough to give one hundred single-parents families a comfortable life for a year! What do you mean 'just' a few million? No, I am afraid that setting up a charity or not giving your whole fortune to your children does not qualify you to become a friend of the workers. We want the lot. All the Forces of production. All the money. Just as you have stolen from the workers since the start of wage labour, the workers will take back what is rightly theirs - if necessary, through force.


The touble I suppose is ensuring democracy. What will stop a central gov disarming the factory soviets as the soviets disarmed the kronstadt mutiny?

The Soviets did not choose to crush the Kronstadt Rebellion. The Soviets were subject to strict control from the party, and in reality were not examples of workers democracy, but in fact were ograns of the Politburo. In fact, I gather that one of the demands made by the Sailors was the liberation of these Soviets. The tight control of the soviets stemmed from the concept of the 'Vanguard Party' whereby a small group of revolutionaries would guide the revolution independent of the wishes of the people. If the Soviets were really representitive, and had control over the armed forces, then any rebellion would be subject to a vote by the workers before it was crushed. The VP is a strictly Leninist idea, mind.


The Bolsheviks helped drive revolutionary momentum, along with all the other mensheviks, social revolutionaries and anarchiests, then somehow manages to steal it away for themselves. Revolutions in other communist countries were likewise driven by the masses and those countries are now controlled harshly by tiny cliques. What will prevent this?

See: Vanguard Party. And I think you will find that very few of the revolutions in the 20th century were a result of mass action, more often than not they were imposed from Moscow and operated through a CP that was a puppet of the USSR CCp.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:08 AM
They don't want younger people to get vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, viruses etc., because they say it will encourage promiscuity.

So they would rather have people dying.

How fucked up is that?
It really ought to be qualified as insanity: it endangers the physical well-being and stresses the absolute and superlative existence of a metaphysical realm. This creates insanity, entirely consistent with the definition.

They even go so far as to say "we can ruin this Earth or live miserably because this world is temporary and unimportant to the "afterlife" and/or the rapture will take us all away and to hell with the people left over."

I just wish these people didn't believe in the need to reproduce...

[Kuro Morfos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:44 AM
I must admit that advanced capitalist nations denying potentially life saving medical treatment on religious grounds is kinda low. :angry:
America is not an "advanced" Capitalist country.

Advanced: Highly developed or complex.


Although we are highly developed, we are far from complex. We are rogue Capitalists, and our free market ideaology is both very old, dogmatic and extremely flawed, at the same time we still believe in pre-Capitalist superstitions. Its actually the pre-Capitalist superstitions associated which it I hate, rather than the economic system itself. America is does not have an advanced economic system, its just lucky to have two major oceans, a ton of land, a diverse range of biomes and climates, alongside being around for a long time. There is nothing "advanced" about our political social economic structure, in fact it is very backwards. <span style='color:green'>[eg: half of Americans deny evolution, Americans still believe in 12th century superstitions, American Capitalism is one of the oldest most primative forms of Capitalism, America has a more primative democratic process, etc...] America is successful, not advanced. There is a clear distinction between the two that most who live here do not realize.</span>

[overlord]

A Few Million? That is enough to give one hundred single-parents families a comfortable life for a year&#33; What do you mean &#39;just&#39; a few million?
You thinka a few million is a lot? Its nothing trust me. You obviously dont have even one million or you would not write that.



No, I am afraid that setting up a charity or not giving your whole fortune to your children does not qualify you to become a friend of the workers. We want the lot.
But that would make the workers richer? Initially perhaps. But later on? I don&#39;t know? I mean I&#39;m all in favour of making the workers richer and improving their lot but i don&#39;t know if revolution will do it? What happens when there is no cash left to re-distribute and what has been re-distributed has been spent?


We want the lot. All the Forces of production. All the money. Just as you have stolen from the workers since the start of wage labour, the workers will take back what is rightly theirs - if necessary, through force.
Fair enough I suppose. If the workers produced it they should get it back I suppose.

Oh, and Kuro, can I ask in relation to....(or anyone else who wishes to answer)


America is not an "advanced" Capitalist country.

Advanced: Highly developed or complex.

Is Europe more advanced than the US due to its secular and social nature and if so, is it closer to revolution?

[BobKKKindle$]

You thinka a few million is a lot? Its nothing trust me. You obviously dont have even one million or you would not write that

It may not be a lot for you, but that is because you are a Capitalist that has never known what it is not to have large quantities of money avaliable to put the rent and put meals on the table - A Decadent Bourgeois. The Average GDP/Capita of the US is, according to wikipedia, 43,000. 1,000,000 / 43,000 = 23 . By Capitalist standards, 1 million is a small fortune - but through siezing that, we would be able to provide 23 families a decent life for for a year. Now, a year is not a tremendously long length of time - but if the same thing were done with the means of production, and commodities were produced and allocated on the basis of need, rather than mere income, we could destroy poverty and deprivation as never before. Would it not be incredible to simply give caviar and champagne out to those who need it to rescue them from starvation and allow them to sample good cuisine, even if they dont have the money to purchase these products on the market? Every commodity would be dealt with in this way under Socialism. HUmanity above profit. And no, I do not have that money. Our family is lower-middle class.


But that would make the workers richer? Initially perhaps. But later on? I don&#39;t know? I mean I&#39;m all in favour of making the workers richer and improving their lot but i don&#39;t know if revolution will do it? What happens when there is no cash left to re-distribute and what has been re-distributed has been spent?

Obviously money siezed from the rich could not garuentee wealth and wellbeing eternally. Commodities would need to be produced, work would need to be done. More important that siezing money, which is really nothing more than an exchange commodity, we would sieze the apparatus used to produce things - the Means of production - and produce and allocate according to the desires of workers councils. If there is a starving child - to hell with profitability - give him food and clothing. If there is a need of hospitals or houses - build them. While mansions are being built for entrepeneurs, people are lying cold in the streets&#33; How can you support such a system? Resources will be used for Human needs, not to reward a select group of Capitalists with profits.


Fair enough I suppose. If the workers produced it they should get it back I suppose

I am pleasantly suprised. Now that you admit that the system through which you epxloit the workers and earn your income as a capitalist is unfair, are we to take it that you are now some converted Socialist? If the workers have produced the commodities, why should you gain the benefits simply because you own the MoP?

[SmithSmith]

Yes, very insane and they will soon own the world through mindless procreation.

[Herman]

How fucked up is that?

VERY fucked up.

[Tungsten]

bobkindles

A Few Million? That is enough to give one hundred single-parents families a comfortable life for a year&#33;
It would do today. If it was evenly distributed among everyone, it would&#39;nt.

No, I am afraid that setting up a charity or not giving your whole fortune to your children does not qualify you to become a friend of the workers. We want the lot. All the Forces of production. All the money. Just as you have stolen from the workers since the start of wage labour, the workers will take back what is rightly theirs - if necessary, through force.
I trust you think you&#39;ll be entitled to a share: What have you done to warrant a share in Bill Gate&#39;s fortune? Do you work for him? Did you help develop his software or build his manufacturing plants? I doubt it.

If there is a starving child - to hell with profitability - give him food and clothing.
I don&#39;t think you appreciate the consequences of this. Unless you&#39;re some sort of nationalist socialist, I&#39;m assuming you want this to be applied internationally. In which case, the workers of the first world will be exposed to far lower standards of living in an attempt to raise the standard in the third. I can really see them tolerating that.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don&#39;t think you appreciate the consequences of this. Unless you&#39;re some sort of nationalist socialist, I&#39;m assuming you want this to be applied internationally. In which case, the workers of the first world will be exposed to far lower standards of living in an attempt to raise the standard in the third. I can really see them tolerating that.

The US is currently imposing tarrifs on China&#39;s textile imports for fear of further deepening its Current account defecit. As a result, millions of shirts and stuck in transit warehouses. Yet at the same time, people across the world are without clothing&#33; What is wrong with simply giving these shirts out to people across the third world? Would it affect the first world&#39;s living standards? No, it would not. And clothing is just one example. Corporations often limit their production on the grounds that it would not be profitable to produce more than a given amount of any commodity. Yes, the market system makes perfect sense.

Imagine for a moment the standard market economic graph in youe heard tungsten. Price on the Y axis, quantity demanded and supplied on the X axis. The demand curve goes from top left to bottom right, the supply curve goes from bottom left to top right. The equilibrium price is where the quantity demanded and supplied are equal. Yet &#39;quantity demanded&#39; is not those who want the product, it is those who form effective demand - those who want the produce and are able to pay for it. But what about those who are unable to pay for any given commodity? They are disenfranchised under Capitalism. They do not get the commodity because they cannot pay for it. Under Socialsim we would give commodities out on the basis of need - shock horror - even if it was not market profitable to do so?&#33; ZOMFG?&#33;

[Tungsten]

bobkindles

The US is currently imposing tarrifs on China&#39;s textile imports for fear of further deepening its Current account defecit. As a result, millions of shirts and stuck in transit warehouses. Yet at the same time, people across the world are without clothing&#33; What is wrong with simply giving these shirts out to people across the third world?
Good question. Why don&#39;t you start by giving your clothes away? Charity begins at home.

Would it affect the first world&#39;s living standards? No, it would not. And clothing is just one example.
Precisely- you&#39;re talking about giving away more than a few items of clothing.

Corporations often limit their production on the grounds that it would not be profitable to produce more than a given amount of any commodity. Yes, the market system makes perfect sense.
What&#39;s the point in making something no one is going to buy? What would be the point?

Imagine for a moment the standard market economic graph in youe heard tungsten. Price on the Y axis, quantity demanded and supplied on the X axis. The demand curve goes from top left to bottom right, the supply curve goes from bottom left to top right. The equilibrium price is where the quantity demanded and supplied are equal. Yet &#39;quantity demanded&#39; is not those who want the product, it is those who form effective demand - those who want the produce and are able to pay for it.
You don&#39;t say.

But what about those who are unable to pay for any given commodity?
They don&#39;t get it.

They are disenfranchised under Capitalism. They do not get the commodity because they cannot pay for it.
Would you hand over your car, house or labour to a person who couldn&#39;t pay for it? Why should anyone else?

Under Socialsim we would give commodities out on the basis of need - shock horror - even if it was not market profitable to do so?&#33; ZOMFG?&#33;Now imagine that person mentioned above was entitled to your labour, house or car by right...can you see where your system leads?

[BobKKKindle$]

Good question. Why don&#39;t you start by giving your clothes away? Charity begins at home.

If I did give away the few spare clothes I have, that would be a total of about maybe 15 shirts. My ambitions stretch slightly further than clothing just one african village thank you.


What&#39;s the point in making something no one is going to buy? What would be the point?

Not buy Does not Equal not need. Simple.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

Good question. Why don&#39;t you start by giving your clothes away? Charity begins at home.

:wacko:
Charity might begin at home, but how does giving a away a few clothes, which we NEED, consitute reforming the capitalist system? Aren&#39;t there better more pressing issues to worry about, like US Imperialism for instance?


Would you hand over your car, house or labour to a person who couldn&#39;t pay for it? Why should anyone else?


I would gladly hand over these possesions to one in need. It is all about the spirit of community which communism requires.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

Good question. Why don&#39;t you start by giving your clothes away? Charity begins at home.

:wacko:
Charity might begin at home, but how does giving a away a few clothes, which we NEED, consitute reforming the capitalist system? Aren&#39;t there better more pressing issues to worry about, like US Imperialism for instance?


Would you hand over your car, house or labour to a person who couldn&#39;t pay for it? Why should anyone else?


I would gladly hand over these possesions to one in need. It is all about the spirit of community which communism requires.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

Good question. Why don&#39;t you start by giving your clothes away? Charity begins at home.

:wacko:
Charity might begin at home, but how does giving a away a few clothes, which we NEED, consitute reforming the capitalist system? Aren&#39;t there better more pressing issues to worry about, like US Imperialism for instance?


Would you hand over your car, house or labour to a person who couldn&#39;t pay for it? Why should anyone else?


I would gladly hand over these possesions to one in need. It is all about the spirit of community which communism requires.