Why Did You Ban Fwft

[raiin]

Could you not debate fwft? Seriously, why not have redstar him/herself or any of the mods debate him/her. Instead you banned fwft, just like he said you would. Perhaps he's right and you can't handle logical criticism. Seriously, if you're so right then struggle with him/her and set the record straight. Instead you look like a coward who stands on an ideological base of sand.

If anyone wants to continue the debate that was taking place before FWFT and the one person that displayed sympathy for his/her line were banned, then goto http://www.smashclass.proboards77.com.

I hope everyone realizes that the mods decided to ban fwft rather than even attempt to logical tackle the subjects that were being discussed.

In any case, here is FWFT's reply, he/she told he that the fwft account was banned while this was being written. Again, if you want a logical debate away from the patrairchal mods and admins who can't even put up a debate themselves, then go to: http://www.smashclass.proboards77.com/.

Here's the reply to Sentinel that he/she asked me to post.

Sentil said,

A slightly higher living standard does by no means negate the fact that the first world proletariat is still forced to sell its labor, is governed by the capitalist class, and thus very much exists.

Do the math. If one worker is getting paid 10 dollars an hour to finish off a product started by another worker who got paid $.50 an hour... Lets say they each put an hour in. The labour value is $10.50. Now if the product of this process (two labour hours) is exchanged at $20 then the net exhange value is $10 for each hour of labour.(ya, I know that was simply, but I was keeping it short) Hence, the first worker is exploited at a value of zero. Not exploited equals not proletarian. When you are exploited to the level that the second worker was/is, then it is called super-exploitation. At the very best, the first world masses consists of oppressed semi-proletarian, but if you ask me they‘re a labour aristocracy.


It's sad that guys like you (mimites?) don't grasp this, since the world revolution must indeed begin here.

Why? this is nothing more than trot dogma and first world chauvinism. Amerikkka relies on labour from all over the third world. Idealistically speaking, If that labour successfully drops out of the ‘free market‘ client state system, then the Amerikkkan economy is fucked. Essentially we’d either have to go to war to keep them are virtual slaves or drastically change every bit of our lifestyles. So again, I ask why must a world revolution begin in Amerikkka.

The more secular Europe is more likely than the US if you ask me, though.

Again, what reason do you have to say this beside its so called secularism????

Revolutions happen in the third world all the time, yes. How many of those revolutions has led to communism so far? Zero.

I can think of a few that reached socialism before being crumbled by both internal (newly developed bourgeousie and long standing petty bourgeoisie influences, which mao attempted to correct through cultural revolution, but failed) and external (imperialist aggression) pressures. The fact that you expect a nation to jump right into communism shows your anarchistic tendencies.

Will the socialism created by those revolutionary governments eventually transform into communism? Not likely as long as the first world is governed by the imperialists.

And that’s why imperialism must be overthrow, not the abstract capitalism which is so often referred to in this board.

The reason for this is that there is no ordinary capitalism because it is all affected by imperialism, whether you live in the first world or the third. Some people benefit a little from it, some people benefit a lot (amerikkkan middle classes spectrum), and then there are the people that reap in the most. Meanwhile, there are those that starve or die of malnutrition(24,000+ a day). Everyone is affect by imperialism, there is a major first world privilege and even though the third world is filled with natural resources and labour, it is sold out by the comprador class and third world national bourgeoisie to imperialist demands. In your version of socialism, FW nations turn socialist and then go out and rescue the world (as if that’s very different from the rhetoric used by imperialists today). I‘ve already heard it plenty of times. But it‘s backwards, you expect the very populations that are choking the third world masses to flip switch and volunteer their capital and labour (which the FW has more of the former) to fixing the very problems that those FW benefit from.

Can you see the dialectical nature of this problem??

Fortunately, the first world has, or will very soon have the material conditions and technology level required to move on to communism with either a short one or no transitionary phase at all.

You sound like a social democrat that thinks technology developed by the bourgeoisie will lift the whole world from poverty. That could have happened years ago if you are correct.

Modern capitalism is a necessary evil of a step on the route to communism, as it develops a country. It creates a society able to deliver to each according to need in practice.

Just like in Amerikkka where we import or rely on(25%) migrant labour for food (of which nearly a third gets thrown away and don’t forget the subsides that U.$. farmers get). Ya, Amerikkka sure is on the verge of supporting its own weigh via socialist revolution. Seriously, you would actually need some sort of major cultural revolution in order Amerikkkans to accomplish what you say it can (each accord….).

After the revolution in the first world, the new early-communist "nation" might be able to speed up the process or even help countries skip the capitalist phase in their development, but this remains to see.

I’ve heard this line from nearly every single First Worldist (I.e. Trot) that I’ve encountered. There has never been any evidence that this has happened or will in the future. In fact, Trotsky and Luxembourg put there hopes on Germany, saying that it had the technological advancement necessary to kick off a world revolution. Less the 15 years later, there was a revolution: a national socialist revolution. The point being is that if anything First World nations, especially when they hit an economic downturn, can be quite reactionary. This is called historical materialism. You should read and analyze read rather than philosophize. .

In addition: You've just totally confused communism with socialism here and totally negated any sort of dictatorship of the proletarian (after all, communism is the withering away of classes AND the state) Also, you fail to take into account the parasitic quality of First World Nations in comparison to the Third World. This is a failure of dialectics on your part because you do not conceive the division of labour as global and having national characteristics.



It's all about development and progress.

You could have made the same abstract statement 50 years ago. Seriously, you could have.


PS. I‘m attempting I logical debate here. I‘m sure I‘ll hear a lot of annoying posts, seeing as how some posters have already set the precedent (such as the Red Alert comment. I‘m not even sure what that game is and it was an obvious pig style bait). I plead with the mods and admin to surprise me and not ban me from the message board. It would show an obviously weakness of line on your part. Like I said, I’m attempting a logical debate here.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The forum bans people who fail to conform to the guidelines. As far as I know, he agreed to those guidelines upon joining.

[Avtomatov]

fwft for the win!

[raiin]

Exaclty what part of the guidlines did he/she violate? It seems like an excuse to avoid debating him/her to me.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:33 PM
Exaclty what part of the guidlines did he/she violate? It seems like an excuse to avoid debating him/her to me.
The sock puppet part.

[raiin]

I missed that part. Quote from the guidelines they violation that fwft made.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by raiin+Jul 6 2006, 07:41 PM--> (raiin @ Jul 6 2006, 07:41 PM) I missed that part. Quote from the guidelines they violation that fwft made. [/b]

RevLeft Guidelines
Duplicate Accounts

Members registered on this board are not permittted to create additional accounts. Any duplicate accounts found will be unconditionaly banned

[Avtomatov]

We cant count on the workers who are part of the aristocracy, they will only do whats in their interest. American workers are part of the aristocracy. American workers may be oppresses. But what are they not able to do because of this oppression, they cant become rich, so what. They are workers not business men. American workers support the business men because if world communism were established they would have less.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If you are banned from this forum, any new accounts you make will also be banned if you are caught.

[raiin]

General is right.

Bloody Capitalist, banning me does nothing to prove your erroneos line, but in fact only shows its weaknesses

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Generalissimo+Jul 6 2006, 07:45 PM--> (Generalissimo @ Jul 6 2006, 07:45 PM) We cant count on the workers who are part of the aristocracy, [/b]
:lol: Workers who are part of the aristocracy? are you serious? Biggest oxymoron EVER!


Originally posted by Generalissimo Posted on Jul 6 [email protected] 07:45 PM
they will only do whats in their interest.

No shit! What do you think class war is about?


Generalissimo Posted on Jul 6 [email protected] 07:45 PM
American workers support the business men because if world communism were established they would have less.

They would have more you dolt, you make it sound as if every American lives in a house of gold, just shows how much you know.

[raiin]

why such a reluctance to debate. I thought this was the oppossing ideologies board???

[Avtomatov]

No the american workers would have less. 60 trillion dollars divided by 6 billion people, it all equals 10 000 dollars per capita. An american worker makes more then 10 000 US dollars.

Communism is about WORLD COMMUNISM. Its true if america only was socialist, then the american worker would have more. But not if the whole world was.

[raiin]

haha, generalissimo just explained it a lot easier than i could have. He is right though. The average worker world wide makes about $4.15/hr. So after socialism, we'll just create more wealth and everyone will be happy right???(the obvious trot retort)

[raiin]

BTW, Lenin described a labour aristocracy or worker aristocracy more than once and the term goes all the way back to the late 19th century prior to his use.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:55 PM
No the american workers would have less. 60 trillion dollars divided by 6 billion people, it all equals 10 000 dollars per capita. An american worker makes more then 10 000 US dollars.

Communism is about WORLD COMMUNISM. Its true if america only was socialist, then the american worker would have more. But not if the whole world was.
Yes because a monetary system would exist in world communism. :rolleyes:

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by raiin
Bloody Capitalist, banning me does nothing to prove your erroneos line, but in fact only shows its weaknesses

Hello Fwft, good-bye!

[raiin]

money is just the embodiement of labour. What was that last statement supposed to prove????

[raiin]

afraid to debate. Go ahead ban me. As if a bunch of FWers on a computer are the main vehicle of revolution anyways

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:02 PM
money is just the embodiement of labour. What was that last statement supposed to prove????
There would be no monetary system in world communism because it would lead to the creation of class all over again.

[theraven]

You're both wrong

1)raiin-if money is divided up evenly, it will eventualy reform into the previous struction

2)skinz-without money how do we detemerien who gets waht? the whole reason for money is that it is a currency that replaces bartering.

this is awesome. Commies trying to debate each other!

::sits back and enjoys the fireworks

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 08:14 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 08:14 PM) 2)skinz-without money how do we detemerien who gets waht? the whole reason for money is that it is a currency that replaces bartering. [/b]
People can get what they want/need.


theraven Posted on Jul 6 [email protected] 08:14 PM
this is awesome. Commies trying to debate each other!

I thought it wouldn't be long before you cappies could smell blood. :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

raiin isn't a communist.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 6 2006, 08:20 PM
raiin isn't a communist.
Good point.

[Avtomatov]

Number 2 is right. But number one you offer no justification for that beleif.

And money wouldnt be divided up completely equally. Certain people deserve a bit more. IMO, Classes are not different groups of people who share a similar wage, In my opinion classes are different groups of people who have similar opportunities.

People are not born equal and some people make better choices, IMO they should pay for their choices. Inequality of opportunity is what creates classes that oppress the other class.

We shouldnt let the disabled die. But we also need to recognize that some people do more for society. It makes sense to give them a bit more, just not more opportunity.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:23 PM
Number 2 is right. But number one you offer no justification for that beleif.

And money wouldnt be divided up completely equally. Certain people deserve a bit more. IMO, Classes are not different groups of people who share a similar wage, In my opinion classes are different groups of people who have similar opportunities.

People are not born equal and some people make better choices, IMO they should pay for their choices. IMO, inequality of opportunity is what creates classes that oppress the other class.

We shouldnt let the disabled die. But we also need to recognize that some people do more for society. It makes sense to give them a bit more.
I'm not even going to bother arguing that crock of shit statement.

You dont know a thing about Communism, do you?

[Avtomatov]

Im speaking more about socialism then communism.

[theraven]

People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?


raiin isn't a communist.

not your type, but thats not his problem.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:

[Avtomatov]

That doesnt meen everyone will get what they want. Computers? Health Care? Caviar? I can go on and on.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:41 PM
That doesnt meen everyone will get what they want. Computers? Health Care? Caviar? I can go on and on.
Why not?

[Avtomatov]

Because there is a limited supply. Im beginning to think some of you are utopian socialists.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:43 PM
Because there is a limited supply. Im beginning to think some of you are techno-utopianists. Or whatever you call it.
Please explain this "limited supply" ? and before you do look at my response to theraven.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Skinz+Jul 6 2006, 07:35 PM--> (Skinz @ Jul 6 2006, 07:35 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol: [/b]
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.

[theraven]

btw-I was reading this guys OP and I noticed this but forgot to mention it originally.

where is redstar? usually he came around here to argue with US and do his little smokey thing? where'd he go?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 08:48 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 08:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim. [/b]
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Skinz+Jul 6 2006, 07:50 PM--> (Skinz @ Jul 6 2006, 07:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear. [/b]
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 08:55 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 08:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things. [/b]
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Skinz+Jul 6 2006, 07:57 PM--> (Skinz @ Jul 6 2006, 07:57 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them. [/b]
and who would work those factories and why? who would build them and why?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 03:07 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 03:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them.
and who would work those factories and why? who would build them and why? [/b]
1. People who like making televisions or like technology, because they want to.
Although, the capitalist system is currently advancing things fast enough so that the means of production could be completely automated by the time of the revolution. In that case, robotic components would do most of the work.

2. People who like building things, because they want to.

[KC]

Do the math. If one worker is getting paid 10 dollars an hour to finish off a product started by another worker who got paid $.50 an hour... Lets say they each put an hour in. The labour value is $10.50. Now if the product of this process (two labour hours) is exchanged at $20 then the net exhange value is $10 for each hour of labour.(ya, I know that was simply, but I was keeping it short) Hence, the first worker is exploited at a value of zero. Not exploited equals not proletarian. When you are exploited to the level that the second worker was/is, then it is called super-exploitation. At the very best, the first world masses consists of oppressed semi-proletarian, but if you ask me they‘re a labour aristocracy.

This is most definitely untrue. Let's say Worker A is creating a part for a product, and Worker B is putting all the parts together to create the finished product. Let's say that this part that Worker A is creating is worth $5. So Worker A is creating $5 in product, yet getting paid only $0.50. There is $4.50 in surplus value being extracted from Worker A.

Worker B takes this part, and the others, and puts them together to create a product worth $20. Worker B gets paid $10 per product, yet the product is being sold for $20. There is $10 in surplus value being extracted from Worker B.

Now, what determines value? Cost of production. The sum of the value of raw materials, wages, and upkeep of the means of production, as well as profit, constitute the value of this commodity. We know that the part that Worker A made is worth $5, and that Worker B got paid $10. The other $5 is divided up between the value of the rest of the raw materials, the upkeep of the means of production, and profit.

What raiin is saying is that the value of this commodity is:

Raw materials of the part + Worker A's wage + Upkeep of A's MoP + Profit from Part + Raw materials of product + Worker B's wage + Upkeep of B's MoP + Profit from product.

We are left with the following equation:
X + 0.50 + Y + $0 + $5 + $10 + $5 = $20.50 + X + Y

X = Raw materials of the part
Y = Upkeep of Worker A's MoP

Since we're already above raiin's set price of $20 (and we didn't even add in the value of the other parts that made up this product!), we can see that raiin's situation simply doesn't exist.

I JUST PROVED MIM'S "THEORY" OF A LABOUR ARISTOCRACY FALSE!!!:cool:

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 09:07 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 09:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them.
and who would work those factories and why? who would build them and why? [/b]
To add to MonicaTTmed post, people will work in the factorys because they want televisions, and the people who build them will have the same reason.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Skinz+Jul 6 2006, 08:16 PM--> (Skinz @ Jul 6 2006, 08:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them.
and who would work those factories and why? who would build them and why?
To add to MonicaTTmed post, people will work in the factorys because they wat televisions, and the people who build them will have the same reason. [/b]
wow-but they need to farm for food, and plus lets face it tvs are a luxury.

also monica who likes builiding tvs? i doubt its enough to provide the world with tvs.

and no a techncoratic communist society is as likely as a dog falling form the sky and doing the hokey pokey.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 03:20 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 03:20 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them.
and who would work those factories and why? who would build them and why?
To add to MonicaTTmed post, people will work in the factorys because they wat televisions, and the people who build them will have the same reason.
wow-but they need to farm for food, and plus lets face it tvs are a luxury.

also monica who likes builiding tvs? i doubt its enough to provide the world with tvs.

and no a techncoratic communist society is as likely as a dog falling form the sky and doing the hokey pokey. [/b]
Which, in an infinite universe, and infinite time, is mathematically inevitable.

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jul 6 2006, 08:21 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jul 6 2006, 08:21 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:35 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM



People can get what they want/need.


how? what about limited supply?

What do you mean by "limited supply"? There is enough food for everyone, enough land so that everyone can live on, there are vast amouns of resources on this planet, what will we run out of anytime soon?

Dont say oil, humanity will have to work around that. :lol:
Yes, everyone can subsist without money, however it would be like living on maybe midevil technology, famines would occur often, trade would cease....it would be much worse then capitisim.
Just becasue there is no money doesn't mean that technology will dissapear.
but then we come into limits again. it requires materials to prodcuce the goods, engineers to work them, and so on. these technolgis require a lot of skill and work to produce, thus their will be a limited suply (especially if everyone is responeblf or their own food). thus money will be esstinal, or else you can tell me another way to produce these things.
Why can't people produce them, just because there is no money doesn't mean that work will stop, if we cant make enough televisions (for example) then build another factiory to make them.
and who would work those factories and why? who would build them and why?
To add to MonicaTTmed post, people will work in the factorys because they wat televisions, and the people who build them will have the same reason.
wow-but they need to farm for food, and plus lets face it tvs are a luxury.

also monica who likes builiding tvs? i doubt its enough to provide the world with tvs.

and no a techncoratic communist society is as likely as a dog falling form the sky and doing the hokey pokey.
Which, in an infinite universe, and infinite time, is mathematically inevitable. [/b]
sure, but not nessecarliy here, or anytime soon.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 08:31 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 08:31 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 08:21 PM
Which, in an infinite universe, and infinite time, is mathematically inevitable.
sure, but not nessecarliy here, or anytime soon. [/b]
Not here? Who are you to say? Anytime soon, maybe you're right there - doesn't mean we shouldn't start.

Also: FUCKING QUOTE TRAINS! ARGH!

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 6 2006, 08:53 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 6 2006, 08:53 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:21 PM
Which, in an infinite universe, and infinite time, is mathematically inevitable.
sure, but not nessecarliy here, or anytime soon.
Not here? Who are you to say? Anytime soon, maybe you're right there - doesn't mean we shouldn't start.

Also: FUCKING QUOTE TRAINS! ARGH! [/b]
well its not very likely here thats fore sure.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 6 2006, 10:23 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 6 2006, 10:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:31 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 08:21 PM
Which, in an infinite universe, and infinite time, is mathematically inevitable.
sure, but not nessecarliy here, or anytime soon.
Not here? Who are you to say? Anytime soon, maybe you're right there - doesn't mean we shouldn't start.

Also: FUCKING QUOTE TRAINS! ARGH!
well its not very likely here thats fore sure. [/b]
The world isnt static, things change, what is certain today might not be certain tomorrow.

[Avtomatov]

Utopian Socialism died a long time ago.

People dont work because they like to.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:03 PM
Go ahead ban me. As if a bunch of FWers on a computer are the main vehicle of revolution anyways
...and you are...?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A lot of you seem to be forgetting the role of automation and developing technology in reducing the amount of work hours and human intervention needed. By the time classless society is a social possibility, the question of work may be moot. Indeed, classless society may arise as a result of a conflict between the workers and the owners of the means of production over automation.

Of course, we as a society might someday have the capability for near-total automation without actually having implemented it for various reasons.

I'm actually skeptical of the idea of people working because they enjoy it, especially when it comes to manufactured goods and other products and services where the work is repetitive, boring and best done by machines. More often than not, the type of work that is actually enjoyable is the type of work that is very hard to automate.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Jul 6 2006, 09:41 PM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Jul 6 2006, 09:41 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 07:03 PM
Go ahead ban me. As if a bunch of FWers on a computer are the main vehicle of revolution anyways
...and you are...? [/b]
I assume he is drudging through the forests of Argentina with his laptop, but what do we know? We are just first worlders.