Youth Communist Movement On The...

[General Patton]

Most kids are rejecting their parent's liberalism. If you haven't noticed, we are in a reactionary period. This is largely due to the failure of the left during and post Vietnam. The younger generation is waking up and rejecting the Marxism that people like John Lennon, and their parents, espoused. In fact, many hail John Lennon's death as a sad day for America; when, in fact, it was a great day for rationalism, logic and capitalism, a great day for American principles. "Imagine" is pop culture's call to the communist manifesto. Every time I hear it I feel urged to join a militia.

Copyright 2006

[which doctor]

What is this supposed to mean?

Is it pro-capitalism or pro-communism?

Even if some of our parents were "hippies" at one time, the majority of them have sold out and become conservative.

[General Patton]

the majority of them have sold out and become conservative.

That would support the notion that with age comes wisdom.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 20 2006, 03:42 AM

the majority of them have sold out and become conservative.

That would support the notion that with age comes wisdom.
Or, that conservativism and individualism offers the best protection to personal wealth obtained after they 'sold out'.

[General Patton]

Or, that conservativism and individualism offers the best protection to personal wealth obtained after they 'sold out'.

Oh no! Not individuality! Only those people cursed with mediocrity fear individuality.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 20 2006, 04:02 AM

Or, that conservativism and individualism offers the best protection to personal wealth obtained after they 'sold out'.

Oh no! Not individuality! Only those people cursed with mediocrity fear individuality.
I should have known you would have only seen the root-word and start knee-jerking all over the place.

My mistake, I meant objectivism.

[General Patton]

The same holds true for people who fear objectivism and disagree with one of the fundamental conditions for freedom, which is the right to pursue and own personal property.

[Morag]

Well, I'd like to use my individuality, and disagree that the "right" to hold personal property could possibly stand as the foundation of freedom. How is that even possibly the most important "right", if you don't mind explaining? And then explain why people with that right are more free than in my country, which doesn't enshrine the right. Nasty fascists that we are...

[Eleutherios]

Both my parents are hippies who never really espoused the revolutionary idea. They both support the Democratic Party, and tend to have rather bourgeois liberal ideals. I discovered communism and later anarchism through my peers, not my parents, where I find it to be much more widespread than in my parents' generation.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 20 2006, 04:15 AM
The same holds true for people who fear objectivism and disagree with one of the fundamental conditions for freedom, which is the right to pursue and own personal property.
There is a difference between personal property and industrial private property

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 20 2006, 04:15 AM
The same holds true for people who fear objectivism
No one can fear objectivism. It is a joke philosophy. You do know it's history right? Ayn Rand (as an aside she was abad author too, I could only get through the first chapter of 'Atlas Shat' or whatever it was called.) pretty much scrawled her half baked ideas into various books, she never wrote anything that was submitted to peer review, she never really debated her philosophy. Objectivism is so weak that one can quote Nietzsche, a philospher that predates the objectivist philsophy, and demolish pretty much everything it rests on. And Nietzsche wasn't a great philosopher.


and disagree with one of the fundamental conditions for freedom, which is the right to pursue and own personal property. I love the way you capitalists make this sound so reasonable, as if personal property was not in any way exploitative. It's like those White Nationalist cretins who say things about 'preserving diversity in races' when what they mean is 'limiting who can reproduce with whom'. You know that when you say 'personal property' what you mean is pretty much exploitation - you are not talking about property in terms of the worker owning what they make, you are talking about the boss stealing from the worker and selling on their illicit goods.

Also you are aware that Liberalism and Communism are two extremely different political philosophies which often conflict with one another? Also - John Lennon's death was a good thing? You're a fairly bloodthirsty bloke aren't you? I mean "I am the walrus" was a little wierd but I don't think he should have been put to death for it (mainly because I like it ;)).

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

rationalism, logic and capitalism

paradox of the day

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 20 2006, 03:42 AM

the majority of them have sold out and become conservative.

That would support the notion that with age comes wisdom.

Nah, it just means they went senile. Fuck the Baby Boomers.

[Si Pinto]

Most kids are rejecting their parent's liberalism

Depends whether your referring to Liberalism as a political theory or as a modern practicality, modern 'Liberalism' is all about sitting on the fence and not rocking too many boats to enable the status quo to continue.

In which case 'liberalism' certainly hasn't died and is alive and kicking.


If you haven't noticed, we are in a reactionary period. This is largely due to the failure of the left during and post Vietnam.

Don't agree with that sentiment at all. If todays youth are more reactionary than previous generations it has far more to do with the media's approach to showing what's going on.

This is now a media controlled planet and as such reactionary elements are inevitable.


The younger generation is waking up and rejecting the Marxism that people like John Lennon, and their parents, espoused.

What the fuck has John Lennon got to do with anything? Since when was he the spokesperson for marxism?

So, because he sang a few anti-war songs and one song that rejects religion, racism, property and national boundaries, he is some sort of 'public enemy' as far as you are concerned?

That says more about your lack of reading and understanding of marxist theory than proof of todays youth rejecting Marx.


In fact, many hail John Lennon's death as a sad day for America; when, in fact, it was a great day for rationalism, logic and capitalism, a great day for American principles.

What principles are those? Kill anyone who rocks the boat?

Your a vindictive little runt aren't you.


"Imagine" is pop culture's call to the communist manifesto. Every time I hear it I feel urged to join a militia.


:lol:

So what's stopping you?

Imagine is just a song written by someone who had seen and been party to both sides of the class divide and yet still felt the need to proclaim his rejection of religion and materialist dogma.

In other words...despite being one of the richest people on the planet..he didn't lose his values...in fact his beliefs were strengthened.

Just because they're not your values isn't a reason to dig into him for keeping his.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 19 2006, 11:15 PM
The same holds true for people who fear objectivism and disagree with one of the fundamental conditions for freedom, which is the right to pursue and own personal property.
The right to own personal property would be fully present in a socialist society. Private property would not.

Personal property is property that is owned by an individual that takes responsibility to the item. Any person would have the right to consume, purchase and create whatever they want. Apliances, Electronics, Houses, and other things would be yours to own.

Private property, on the other hand, is the property aquired by one class over the other (e.g. the bourgoise controlling the labor of the proletariat), as with Wal-Mart, major corporations, the capitilast state, and others. Only this would be abolished.

As for "pursuit of that fundemental freedom, private property," what is more important, the right to an LCD TV moniter, or a woman's right to have an abortion, or a person's right to healthcare?

It is pretty obvious to me. :)

I'm saying that moral freedoms, mostly, take prescedent over the right to won a Humvee. In a true Socialist Sciety, people would have far more freedom than that which comes with a mainstream liberal one.
No one on this board oposes the right to personal property, hopefully. If you thought that we did, get over it. It's not true.

[Dean]

The death of a man is by no means a good event, regardless of the context. At best, it can serve a good interest, as in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of JFK, but it is still wrong to say that the deaths of JFK, Lennon, or even Hitler were good events.

To claim that rationalism flourishes when love amongst humans becomes despised says more about the alienation of your own personality than the concepts you attack.

[General Patton]

Is it pro-capitalism or pro-communism?

We have a real genius here. Does it sound pro-communist?

[Tungsten]

Morag

Well, I'd like to use my individuality, and disagree that the "right" to hold personal property could possibly stand as the foundation of freedom. How is that even possibly the most important "right", if you don't mind explaining?
Perhaps not the most important, but if you don't have the right to your own property, you're virtually a slave.

And then explain why people with that right are more free than in my country, which doesn't enshrine the right.
If your government or anyone else can deprive you of your property legally, then you are less free that someone who isn't in that situation.
Jazzratt

she (Rand) never wrote anything that was submitted to peer review, she never really debated her philosophy.
Even as a critic of Rand, I know that to be false. But then, what goes for Rand also goes for you- you have a joke philosophy too; the absurdity of dialectics on which communism rests have been discussed enough on this forum not to warrant any further comment. In fact, the whole of philosophy has been a running joke for the past two thousand years. What's it good for? Not a lot. What does it teach us? Jack shit. What can I do with a Phd in Philosophy? Uh...teach philosophy? What irrelevent rubbish. Academic pedantry aside, your philosophy is no better; it's been put into practice many times and has been found wanting in pratically every department.

I love the way you capitalists make this sound so reasonable, as if personal property was not in any way exploitative.
How is personal property exploitative? Who's being exploited?

You know that when you say 'personal property' what you mean is pretty much exploitation - you are not talking about property in terms of the worker owning what they make, you are talking about the boss stealing from the worker and selling on their illicit goods.
Is this where we're supposed to pretend that working for a living is some form of slavery and the alternative is better because it involves another form of slavery that isn't really slavery if we refuse to call it such?
Muigwithania

The right to own personal property would be fully present in a socialist society. Private property would not.
There's no logically consistent difference between the two.

Personal property is property that is owned by an individual that takes responsibility to the item.
Isn't private property? Isn't personal property privately owned?

Private property, on the other hand, is the property aquired by one class over the other (e.g. the bourgoise controlling the labor of the proletariat),
No, it isn't.

As for "pursuit of that fundemental freedom, private property," what is more important, the right to an LCD TV moniter, or a woman's right to have an abortion, or a person's right to healthcare?
If it's my money that's on the line, my right to an LCD TV is more important if I say it's more important. My money - the reward for my labour- is not yours to spend, it's mine and I will decide how it is spent. That's freedom. While we're on the subject, what happened to people's "right to consume, purchase and create whatever they want"? How can I have these things if I'm being dictated to by some authority that these other "morally superior" (i.e other people's healthcare) things are to take priority instead?

I'm saying that moral freedoms, mostly, take prescedent over the right to won a Humvee.
It sounds like your freedom is nothing more than the freedom to serve others and little else besides.

[Sabocat]

Fuck the Baby Boomers.

Fuck you.

[red team]

Perhaps not the most important, but if you don't have the right to your own property, you're virtually a slave.


Not necessarily.

Everybody has a right to public property, but nobody "owns" it. The government may maintain it, but if proper democratic laws are enacted they have no right of exclusion because it's not the government's property. it's public property.

It somebody or something has the right of exclusion then it's no longer public property.


If your government or anyone else can deprive you of your property legally, then you are less free that someone who isn't in that situation.

For certain situations yes, but what if you deprive others from your property in which you have no possible way of using for your own utilitarian purposes? If you can't personally benefit from your exclusive use of a property then what's the purpose of enforcing that exclusion? How do you justify it morally? If you enforce that exclusion aren't you depriving someone else of the usefulness of that property for no other reason other than to gain an advantage for yourself by dictating the terms of trade to be more favourable to yourself?

As examples of this sort of injustice masquerading as liberty please attempt to justify: factory and shop lockouts, arable farmland left fallow, throwing away of obviously useful products like food and clothing (which are locked in trash bins), price gouging for temporary shortages (with no compensation afterwards), property speculation which is an indirect form of price gouging, which again is not compensated by using the surplus gained from the artificially high price to produce more at a lower price.

Absolute right to private property seems more of an instrument of the powerful to enforce artificial scarcity for the poor than it is anything to do with true liberty.


Even as a critic of Rand, I know that to be false. But then, what goes for Rand also goes for you- you have a joke philosophy too; the absurdity of dialectics on which communism rests have been discussed enough on this forum not to warrant any further comment. In fact, the whole of philosophy has been a running joke for the past two thousand years. What's it good for? Not a lot. What does it teach us? Jack shit. What can I do with a Phd in Philosophy? Uh...teach philosophy? What irrelevent rubbish. Academic pedantry aside, your philosophy is no better; it's been put into practice many times and has been found wanting in pratically every department.

Two thousand years ago, there was no such thing as Communism or Capitalism. There were slave empires and after that Feudalism. Seems you need more academic knowledge than most of us here judging by your responses.


it's been put into practice many times and has been found wanting in pratically every department.

It wasn't put into practice because what was practice was dictated welfare statism, but even then it was a step up from the socially tyrannical regimes and culturally backward societies it replaced, but we all know you don't mind kings, tsars, mobsters and warlords as long as they leave you to run your "operations" and let you keep your loot.

The real criteria here is social control of wealth and more specifically which class has that control and not whether this or that regime is "totalitarian". You'll gladly make your business deals with them while ignoring the "cultural peculiarities". The course of actual historic events is a testament to that.


How is personal property exploitative? Who's being exploited?

Those who have the power of exclusion to property and therefore dictate more favourable terms of trade for themselves over those that do not have this power.


Is this where we're supposed to pretend that working for a living is some form of slavery and the alternative is better because it involves another form of slavery that isn't really slavery if we refuse to call it such?

Working for a living means to have all benefits as a result of work be returned to yourself. No exceptions.

Trading for a living means exluding others from using property that you can't personally use yourself for all practical purposes in the hopes of gaining an advantage in trade from the legal imposition of artificial scarcity of often life critical resources.

See the difference?


There's no logically consistent difference between the two.

Sure there is.

A handful of people cannot personally use an entire factory or supermarket or ocean liner or....

I can personally use my computer, house and car.

See the difference?


Isn't private property? Isn't personal property privately owned?

Nope, you could care less how your private property is runned in day to day operations. That's not your responsibility and you won't be fired for it if it's runned poorly. Like most Capitalists you'll take a multi-million dollar severance pay if you quit.




Private property, on the other hand, is the property aquired by one class over the other (e.g. the bourgoise controlling the labor of the proletariat),

No, it isn't.


There's two types of people in this world. Those who "make a living" trading resources (including people) for wealth and those who "make a living" by getting traded into doing work for those who trade resources to "make a living".


If it's my money that's on the line, my right to an LCD TV is more important if I say it's more important. My money - the reward for my labour- is not yours to spend, it's mine and I will decide how it is spent. That's freedom. While we're on the subject, what happened to people's "right to consume, purchase and create whatever they want"? How can I have these things if I'm being dictated to by some authority that these other "morally superior" (i.e other people's healthcare) things are to take priority instead?

"My money - the reward for my labour- is not yours to spend,"

change the word spend to profit and you get my sentiments exactly.

While we're on the subject, money doesn't measure wealth. It never has otherwise there would be no need to be "rich" as measured against poverty. Wealth comes from the relative exclusion from material production which Capitalism operates on which prevents everbody from consuming, purchasing and creating whatever they want.

"How can I have these things if I'm being dictated to by some authority that these other "morally superior" (i.e other people's healthcare) things are to take priority instead?"

Because artifical scarcity from using the power of exclusion in order to profit won't be tolerated anymore. The only criteria for producing abundance would be available resources including labour which will be far less than is needed today from the obsolescence of materially and mentally useless work.




I'm saying that moral freedoms, mostly, take prescedent over the right to won a Humvee.
It sounds like your freedom is nothing more than the freedom to serve others and little else besides.

It sounds like the freedom to work for a living while producing useful work as a result. Serving others need not be as bad as you make it to be. And besides, whoever is needed to serve me music or serve me knowledge or serve me the internet? They're labour of doing those things are done once and never have to be done again because they can be automated with computers and endlessly copied. That's the thing with progress.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 20 2006, 03:34 AM
Most kids are rejecting their parent's liberalism. If you haven't noticed, we are in a reactionary period. This is largely due to the failure of the left during and post Vietnam. The younger generation is waking up and rejecting the Marxism that people like John Lennon, and their parents, espoused. In fact, many hail John Lennon's death as a sad day for America; when, in fact, it was a great day for rationalism, logic and capitalism, a great day for American principles. "Imagine" is pop culture's call to the communist manifesto. Every time I hear it I feel urged to join a militia.

Copyright 2006
Then go join a militia, you stupid fucking hillbilly. And follow that with some incest and a meth lab explosion.

[Tungsten]

red team

For certain situations yes, but what if you deprive others from your property in which you have no possible way of using for your own utilitarian purposes?
Let's not beat about the bush- we're not talking about seizing property some of us have no way of using, but whatever can be grabbed.

As examples of this sort of injustice masquerading as liberty please attempt to justify: factory and shop lockouts, arable farmland left fallow, throwing away of obviously useful products like food and clothing (which are locked in trash bins), price gouging for temporary shortages (with no compensation afterwards), property speculation which is an indirect form of price gouging, which again is not compensated by using the surplus gained from the artificially high price to produce more at a lower price.

Absolute right to private property seems more of an instrument of the powerful to enforce artificial scarcity for the poor than it is anything to do with true liberty.
Here we go again with the fictional "deliberate scarcity" and "surplus value". There's no point to creating "deliberate scarcity". It doesn't make you richer.

Two thousand years ago, there was no such thing as Communism or Capitalism. There were slave empires and after that Feudalism. Seems you need more academic knowledge than most of us here judging by your responses.
The idea that someone's gain must automatically involve someone else's loss is ancient nonsense that long predates communism, but which communism accepts as the truth.

The real criteria here is social control of wealth
This isn't relevent criterion in the eyes of a libertarian. We're not here to champion social control of wealth the hands of any "class". We're not advocating social control of wealth period.

Those who have the power of exclusion to property and therefore dictate more favourable terms of trade for themselves over those that do not have this power.
Tough. If "those that do not have this power" can deprive me of property that I worked to buy then they have near total control of me. This doesn't sound like equality to me. Nor does it sound fair.

Working for a living means to have all benefits as a result of work be returned to yourself. No exceptions.

Trading for a living means exluding others from using property that you can't personally use yourself for all practical purposes in the hopes of gaining an advantage in trade from the legal imposition of artificial scarcity of often life critical resources.

See the difference?
Omit the hyperbole and we'll find there isn't much of one at all.

Sure there is.

A handful of people cannot personally use an entire factory or supermarket or ocean liner or....

I can personally use my computer, house and car.

See the difference?
Why use the word "entire"? I can't use an "entire" house either. You're looking for excuses more than giving reasons.

Nope, you could care less how your private property is runned in day to day operations. That's not your responsibility and you won't be fired for it if it's runned poorly.
It'll shut down if it's run poorly and there goes my paycheck.

Like most Capitalists you'll take a multi-million dollar severance pay if you quit.
From where? A bankrupt company?


There's two types of people in this world.
There aren't.

"My money - the reward for my labour- is not yours to spend,"

change the word spend to profit and you get my sentiments exactly.
But you change whole context of the argument in the process.

While we're on the subject, money doesn't measure wealth. It never has otherwise there would be no need to be "rich" as measured against poverty. Wealth comes from the relative exclusion from material production which Capitalism operates on which prevents everbody from consuming, purchasing and creating whatever they want.
And that's preciely why it works whereas communism does not. It doesn't allow rampant consumption or allow someone to consume more than they've produced.

Because artifical scarcity from using the power of exclusion in order to profit won't be tolerated anymore.
Do you realise what you're saying? Will anyone doing anything other than work will be accused of "creating artificial scarcity" and "not be tolerated"?

The only criteria for producing abundance would be available resources including labour
By the way, my fucking spare time is an "available resource", which will not be sacrificed for anyone's benefit other than that which I deem worthy. It's what I would expect others to do, too.

It sounds like the freedom to work for a living while producing useful work as a result. Serving others need not be as bad as you make it to be.
It is when it's enforced at the barrel of a gun.

And besides, whoever is needed to serve me music or serve me knowledge or serve me the internet?
Poor example. Try the socialised healthcare example, which was mentioned. You won't be endlessly duplicating that or automating that any time soon. And as I've said before, techno-socialism is a cop-out. In such a world it would not matter who controlled the means of production. Socialism would be a redundancy. If we ever do get there, we'll get there a lot quicker by letting people keep the money they earn and not taking it off them and spending it on pork.

[red team]

Let's not beat about the bush- we're not talking about seizing property some of us have no way of using, but whatever can be grabbed.


Whoever said that? Who would want to steal my house or car from me which I am clearly using for utilitarian purposes? Besides, if they take those things away from me then I won't be able to use it so it would be redistributing scarcity which is far from what Communism (or Technocracy) advocates.

Not so with a factory or supermarket which is clearly not used for utilitarian purposes, but have artificial hiring and budget quotas set by managers so that they can be runned for the profit of the owners. Profit and hoarding to create artificial scarcity is inevitable with a system runned on debt tokens.

Even for the seriously flawed social revolutions that have taken place in third world countries where conditions of both educational and resource development for the general population have been hampered due to imperialist looting there were no testimonies of personal property of practical utility being taken away. There's lots of moaning and whining about factories, mines and large shops being taken over and turned into public property. There's lots of moaning and whining about being "forced" to make a living doing some real work like working at a construction site or something. But, I've yet to hear from former Capitalists of which I have personally met some in my lifetime about personal residences being taken over.


Here we go again with the fictional "deliberate scarcity" and "surplus value". There's no point to creating "deliberate scarcity". It doesn't make you richer.

And the reason that Capital equipment is left idle when there is demand for both employment and products is...
And the reason that large companies that could clearly afford to pay their existing workforce, but chooses instead to save even more money and downsize their workforce is...
And the reason that thrown away products of obvious practical utility is locked up in waste bins is...
And the reason that most of the equipment (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/cali-j26.shtml) in the North American electricity grid is more than 80 years old is...
And the reason that productivity in robotics (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1224293.htm) is matched with an increased growth of unemployment, loss of income and therefore personal bankruptcy and poverty is...

Even if we take your questionable claim that price speculation on property is justified because harder to come by goods (that is scarce) should be more expensive then this implies that the increase in prices is justified as a natural market derived tax on the purchase and use of scarce goods. I can easily rip this justification for price speculation to shreds, by the simple fact that this "scarcity tax" of higher than average market prices is rarely used to fuel production of scarce goods so as to make them more abundant. In the real world the proceeds of increased prices are pocketed for consumption by the wealthy who can afford to use the market as their own private casino.


The idea that someone's gain must automatically involve someone else's loss is ancient nonsense that long predates communism, but which communism accepts as the truth.

If I regularly work for a wage in order to not be physically extinct, but you don't have to because you take finished products and sell them to people like me that have to work in order to avoid physical extinction then your gain from being able to sell finished products is my loss in needing to finish them for you in order to have the income you pay me so I can live.

If you can't sell the products I finish for you then you fire workers and stop production no matter how materially productive your assets are. Having legal ownership of productive assets that you can halt or start anytime regardless of actual physical demand for production is your advantage and my disadvantage.


This isn't relevent criterion in the eyes of a libertarian. We're not here to champion social control of wealth the hands of any "class". We're not advocating social control of wealth period.

Nope. The investor (Capitalist) class that is the monopoly holders of value in society is in social control of physical wealth. Investors can stop production and influence the sacking or hiring of workers simply by taking their investment money to the firm with the highest return on investment regardless of how destructive the policies of the company are. The company could be concentration camps, arms makers, narcotics trafficers or sweatshop owners. Anything will do as long as it returns profit. The privileged group of people who are able to invest for profit in these firms instead of work for a wage in these firms are called...

Let's swap places so you work and I invest shall we... ? A very good lesson in the reality of classes.



Those who have the power of exclusion to property and therefore dictate more favourable terms of trade for themselves over those that do not have this power.

Tough. If "those that do not have this power" can deprive me of property that I worked to buy then they have near total control of me. This doesn't sound like equality to me. Nor does it sound fair.


What did your "work" to buy? Can you use it personally or do you need to hire people in order to "use" it. If you need to hire people to "use" it then you are not really using it are you? What gives you the justification that you can say: "get lost! I don't care if you want or need what can be produced using this machinery!". Scarcity? Nope, the machinery, energy and will to run it is all there. Again, for you financial profitability for yourself takes precedence over practical needs even with an abundance of productive resources. The "sacredness" of private property is only a fig-leaf and rather poor one at that since we don't and have never advocated the expropriation of personal property that can be used for practical, utilitarian purposes.

"they have near total control of me"

Nope. They only have as much control as is necessary to run productive assets that cannot possibly be used practically by the few wealthy owners of those assets.

"This doesn't sound like equality to me. Nor does it sound fair."

And hoarding of productive assets that can be arbitrarily shutdown regardless of actual physical need is equality and fairness? :rolleyes:




Sure there is.

A handful of people cannot personally use an entire factory or supermarket or ocean liner or....

I can personally use my computer, house and car.

See the difference?
Why use the word "entire"? I can't use an "entire" house either. You're looking for excuses more than giving reasons.

Is your house a 100 room dwelling? I can certainly use my entire house at various times during the day. I can use the kitchen for cooking meals, the living room for recreation, the dining room for eating, the bedroom for sleeping, the washroom, the laundry room, the basement and/or attic for storage or personal office space. Most poor people of the world use a cardboard box or wooden shack for all these things, so contrast to luxurious 100 room dwellings that is not personally used, but rented for private gain...? So again, do you or a few investors capable of personally using all the rooms of a hotel or mansion. Are they capable of personally operating a ocean liner or factory or mine or...

No? then what's the justification for the arbitrary setting of fees, wages, hiring quotas and firing decisions for those capable of using it as a social group?


It'll shut down if it's run poorly and there goes my paycheck.




Like most Capitalists you'll take a multi-million dollar severance pay if you quit.

From where? A bankrupt company?

Looking after your own interests, you'll make sure you save up your sizable nest egg before you leave the sinking ship.
Again, this only happens when you can save things up like money. The bigger question is that the physical assets of the company are still very much usable with an abundance of both workers and energy needed to run it so why this closing up of the shop? Answer: an obsolete monetary system coupled with an over-productive high-tech society.



While we're on the subject, money doesn't measure wealth. It never has otherwise there would be no need to be "rich" as measured against poverty. Wealth comes from the relative exclusion from material production which Capitalism operates on which prevents everbody from consuming, purchasing and creating whatever they want.

And that's preciely why it works whereas communism does not. It doesn't allow rampant consumption or allow someone to consume more than they've produced.


I like most everybody else like rampant consumption! Let's have more of it especially for poor people. And I hardly need to consume more than I produce knowing that what "I" produce is simply a small part of the sum total of society-wide mechanized production. And with automation, I can simply sit down in an air conditioned office monitoring machines doing all the actual work. Again, where does money come into this? Production can simply be made to be limited to available resources and the energy to transform them into useful goods. We don't need all this complicated accounts of owning and owing debts which essentially what money accounting is.




Because artifical scarcity from using the power of exclusion in order to profit won't be tolerated anymore.

Do you realise what you're saying? Will anyone doing anything other than work will be accused of "creating artificial scarcity" and "not be tolerated"?

Nope. Because productive technologies in manufacturing and logistics have reduced necessary labour to a fraction of what was previously needed with manual work to produce more than what can possibly be consumed for personal utility. All scientific world studies on the potential of productive technologies made years ago have confirmed this fact. Therefore, you can lay around in your house or the beach all day with all necessities like food, heat, water, clothing and transportation supplied to you and you won't affect actual cost of production to a significant degree. The thing is money is not a measure of the cost of production. Idle factories, idle mines, fallow fields, dilapidated infrastructure, unemployment, overemployment in useless "make work" like mass-marketing is a testament to that fact.




The only criteria for producing abundance would be available resources including labour

By the way, my fucking spare time is an "available resource", which will not be sacrificed for anyone's benefit other than that which I deem worthy. It's what I would expect others to do, too.

Funny thing is there are many people unemployed or underpaid, but have absolutely no problem purchasing products using credit cards for goods and services that are produced with no great sacrifice anyway. Machines in factories keep churning them out in an endless stream. So again, is it a problem in "not enough" resources or lack of will or is it an obsolete debt accounting system because there's certainly no problem on the manufacturing side of it. Technologies, factories, resources and will to work are all available. What's the problem?




It sounds like the freedom to work for a living while producing useful work as a result. Serving others need not be as bad as you make it to be.

It is when it's enforced at the barrel of a gun.


Fine. Lie around at home for all I care. All necessities will be provided for free. The productive potential of modern technologies insures that it won't cost anything significant.




And besides, whoever is needed to serve me music or serve me knowledge or serve me the internet?

Poor example. Try the socialised healthcare example, which was mentioned. You won't be endlessly duplicating that or automating that any time soon. And as I've said before, techno-socialism is a cop-out. In such a world it would not matter who controlled the means of production. Socialism would be a redundancy. If we ever do get there, we'll get there a lot quicker by letting people keep the money they earn and not taking it off them and spending it on pork.


And you've never thought about people taking away wages as taxes are the same people who have an interest in paying big private corporations through the government? :rolleyes:

Oh, and for healthcare: NurseBot (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/16/pearl-nursebot-lives-to-serve-the-elderly/)

[General Patton]

Let's not beat about the bush- we're not talking about seizing property some of us have no way of using, but whatever can be grabbed.

Yeah, it's called stealing. When I catch people stealing from me on my personal property, I shoot them. Come and get it.