For All Of The Cappies Here

[elmo sez]

Do you believe in democracy ?

If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?

[Tigerman]

I'm not a big believer in democracy. I prefer a representative republic.



There would be no reason to violently oppose a 55% vote for communism.



It took just 80 years for the system to fail in the Soviet Union.


Likely communism would have collapsed in less than 50 years but the Russian people were driven by ideology and anti-Americanism.


They did their best to make communism work and the system still failed.


So with a track reacord like that, why would anyone have to resort to violence.


The best stragety would be to simply not participate.


But if the historic record is repeated then the option to not work for the communist state will not be available to me.



Neither Stalin nor Che permitted the option of not working. Che killed lots of refusniks. It was made illegal not to work. The Soviets had the gulag.


That is one of the fatal flaws of communism. It does not work even if 100% of the population were giving it their all. Without the pricing system of capitalism, there are no economic signals with which to judge if the public need or want your goods or service.


With a ratio of 45% of the people against the idea of working like dogs for nothing, any communist system voted into existance would be short lived or the people would have to be happy living in abject poverty while the Party member lived in luxury. They had special shopping store in the old Soviet Union where the privilidge could get Western good that were not availble to the general public.


So even if people vote themselves all the largess in the world, the problem of incentive to work would still exist. The Russians had a horrible problem with alcoholism. Russians prefered to sit home and get drunk for all the good going to work and pouring your back into would do for you. You didn't get paid any more than the shirker and the non productive.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:52 AM
Do you believe in democracy ?

If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?
as long as you abide by the consitution i am fine.

[Dyst]

But if the historic record is repeated then the option to not work for the communist state will not be available to me.

All your points (or attempts at points) is refuted by the fact that a communist society per definition has no State.

All societies with a State are non-communist. All societies with wage labour are non-communist. All societies with money are non-communist.

All societies with a less advanced mode of production than capitalism (or capitalist/state-capitalist societies themselves, clearly) are not communist.

All societies in which one class, or any group of people, rule over another, IS NOT COMMUNIST.

The end.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 28 2006, 03:41 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 28 2006, 03:41 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 11:52 AM
Do you believe in democracy ?

If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?
as long as you abide by the consitution i am fine. [/b]
Why should progressives abide by a reactionary document that was originally a set of laws intended to protect private property and the status of the rich white man?

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Jul 28 2006, 03:01 PM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Jul 28 2006, 03:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:41 PM

[email protected] 28 2006, 11:52 AM
Do you believe in democracy ?

If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?
as long as you abide by the consitution i am fine.
Why should progressives abide by a reactionary document that was originally a set of laws intended to protect private property and the status of the rich white man? [/b]
I absolutly concur with this opinion.


In fact it is easy enough to demonstrate that the people will not hold their government too the words written on paper anyway. Neither Canada nor America are governed acording to the paperwork. Like for instance, there was no provision for the state in either Canada or America's founding to tax income.

Karl Marx and Socialism that he expounded fell on receoptive ears and the entire premise of Canada and America changed. America most especially during the time of Lincoln and Canada right from the get go.


George W. Bush is the best example there is in the world of a government not constrained by Constitution. 95% of what the American government does today has no basis in the Constitution. On paper Congress declares war. In reality George W. Bush declared war on terrorism and George W. Bush introduced the Patriot Act. Americans might just as well wipe their rear end with the Constitution for all it is worth today. James Madison certainly would not recognize the America he intended.


Hans Hoppe has written a masterpiece in his wonderful book Democracy; the God that Failed.


Mr. Hoppe is the one who brought it to my attention that Americans might just as well wipe their butts with the constitution for all it is worth today.


The American people were not vigilant in their protection of liberty and they lost it. Too bad so sad.


That's why Mr. Hoppe argues for Anarcho-capitalism.

A state so minimalist it does not even exist.


Who really needs government anyway?

We would be better off all doing our own governing.

[MrDoom]

Capitalism doesn't require a state in the same way that a person doesn't require oxygen.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:12 AM
That's why Mr. Hoppe argues for Anarcho-capitalism.

Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. Take a look at the "anarcho"-capitalist's security companies. They are essentially states for hire.

[MKS]

Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?

I would, beacuse I dont want to live in a Communist society. I want to live free from any coercion, whether it is from a majority or a minority. I would rebel from the majority and try to form my own Deomcratic Confedration. Thinking that a Communist society would simply appear and thrive without a State is ludicrous, so with that in mind I would oppose the highly authoritave State Socialism that would more than likeley arise.

[General Patton]

You can bet on it.

[red team]

That's why Mr. Hoppe argues for Anarcho-capitalism.

A state so minimalist it does not even exist.

Water supply and sanitation standards, police force, ambulance service, postal service, transportation services and regulations, health and sanitation services, minimal safety codes, consumer protection from fraud and negligence, educational standards, construction standards, electrical distribution, Judicial and legislation enforcement...

in short everything necessary for a civilized life will be gone.

What is another name for that...

That is why Anarcho-Capitalism is not going to be a realistic universal option because of it's destructive effects. What's going to be implemented is Anarcho-Capitalism (actually barbarism) for the poor and highly regulated Capitalism for the rich. Wealthy restaurant customers want to ensure the food served on the table is meets sanitary standards enforced by government because it just not worth getting food poisoning when dining out in the "free market".

[red team]

I'm not a big believer in democracy. I prefer a representative republic.

And these "representatives" of the republic will pay the most attention to which group of people if they want to stay in power?


There would be no reason to violently oppose a 55% vote for communism.

Not if you have resources at stake that lets you live the "good life" without ever needing to work or seriously study a single day in your life. Then it's very much a concern because it's the end of the party for you if you don't violently oppose it.


It took just 80 years for the system to fail in the Soviet Union.

And that system was what? There was still privileges of power and money so it certainly wasn't Communism.


Likely communism would have collapsed in less than 50 years but the Russian people were driven by ideology and anti-Americanism.

They did their best to make communism work and the system still failed.

Funny. I never recalled the country being called the Union of Soviet Communist Republics.
I never recalled the workers having a say in how things were actually runned.


The best stragety would be to simply not participate.
But if the historic record is repeated then the option to not work for the communist state will not be available to me.


You're free to choose both options.


Neither Stalin nor Che permitted the option of not working. Che killed lots of refusniks. It was made illegal not to work. The Soviets had the gulag.

That was certainly a stupid strategy. In the west there's something called food stamps and rental allowances.


That is one of the fatal flaws of communism. It does not work even if 100% of the population were giving it their all. Without the pricing system of capitalism, there are no economic signals with which to judge if the public need or want your goods or service.

What's wrong with judging by quantity sold?


With a ratio of 45% of the people against the idea of working like dogs for nothing, any communist system voted into existance would be short lived or the people would have to be happy living in abject poverty while the Party member lived in luxury. They had special shopping store in the old Soviet Union where the privilidge could get Western good that were not availble to the general public.

"They had special shopping store in the old Soviet Union where the privilidge could get Western good that were not availble to the general public."

Special privileges means what? Communism? :lol:

They weren't actually working like dogs for nothing, lots of free services was provided, so it was a welfare state of sort. "Capitalist" countries have welfare too, so what's your point?


So even if people vote themselves all the largess in the world, the problem of incentive to work would still exist. The Russians had a horrible problem with alcoholism. Russians prefered to sit home and get drunk for all the good going to work and pouring your back into would do for you. You didn't get paid any more than the shirker and the non productive.


And in Capitalism, depending on which position you hold in a company you can retire early with a fortune so large you won't be able to spend it in a hundred lifetimes, so what's your point?

More to the point, if you rather get drunk at home than show up for even a few hours at work because you're comparing yourself to a shirker and the non-productive what does that really say about the nature of your job when the only thing motivating you to do it is to know that everyone else should share in the misery of working at that job in order to be rewarded with purchasing tokens (money)?

More than anything to do with economic systems be it Capitalism or Communism what does that say about work and the human motivation to do it if people hate doing it in the first place?

Sure there are lots of work that are unpleasant and people cannot be motivated into doing them unless given a bribe in the form of money that can be used to buy more goods, but what recent developments in technology have changed the situation now and will continually change the situation into the future?

You're using it right now and it can be used to do stupid, unpleasant work when given the right set of instructions.

[Jesus Christ!]

It's so funny what people consider to be communism. liek the idea" i dont want to live in a communist society because i want to be free." is hillarious to me. STATE SOCIALISM OR STATE CAPITALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. thanks.

[theraven]

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Jul 28 2006, 03:01 PM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Jul 28 2006, 03:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:41 PM

[email protected] 28 2006, 11:52 AM
Do you believe in democracy ?

If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?
as long as you abide by the consitution i am fine.
Why should progressives abide by a reactionary document that was originally a set of laws intended to protect private property and the status of the rich white man? [/b]
because its done an excllent job preserving this country. I would oppose any govenrmetn which attempts to overthrow the US constituion, but if they can make ammendments to it thats another story.

[Janus]

because its done an excllent job preserving this country
:lol:

So what was the Civil War over and what about the battles raging today concerning its interpretation?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:31 AM

because its done an excllent job preserving this country
:lol:

So what was the Civil War over and what about the battles raging today concerning its interpretation?
the civil war was won by the pro-consitutiaon side, and there is debate today, but no on is going to throw the thing out

[Zero]

Hey Jazzratt, I have a audiobook a friend of mine is making, it details a world in the future sounds exactly like an evolved form of Anarcho-Capitalism:

http://www.theafternow.com/

Episode 1 128k (http://www.theafternow.com/download.php?episode=1&bitrate=128) | Episode 1 16k (http://www.theafternow.com/download.php?episode=1&bitrate=16)

EDIT: Whoops, I mean red_team. Though Jazzratt may like it as well ^_^.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 04:14 PM
Hey Jazzratt, I have a audiobook a friend of mine is making, it details a world in the future sounds exactly like an evolved form of Anarcho-Capitalism:

http://www.theafternow.com/

Episode 1 128k (http://www.theafternow.com/download.php?episode=1&bitrate=128) | Episode 1 16k (http://www.theafternow.com/download.php?episode=1&bitrate=16)
Er thanks, but why the post to me in specific? :huh:

[Zero]

yeah, sorry. I thought red_team was you for some odd reason.

[red team]

An interesting graphic novel about the dystopian future we all face if people give in to their apathy. Pretty depressing stuff, but nobody said the world is pretty. Thanks for the link anyway.

[Publius]

Do you believe in democracy ?

I'll put it this way: I trust 'democracy' as much as I trust a random person on the street.



If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?

No, because they were a majority, I would probably lose.

Shades of Russell.

[Tungsten]

red team

Water supply and sanitation standards, police force, ambulance service, postal service, transportation services and regulations, health and sanitation services, minimal safety codes, consumer protection from fraud and negligence, educational standards, construction standards, electrical distribution, Judicial and legislation enforcement...

in short everything necessary for a civilized life will be gone.
According to you the private sector provides absolutely nothing and is capable of providing nothing. You statists and your delusions never cease to amaze me.

"There'd be no water, electricity, health or education or (commodity of your choice) if the state didn't provide it."

Oh wait, there was.

I guess the private sector does provide something after all. Seeing as it generates all the wealth, it indirectly provides everything.

Wealthy restaurant customers want to ensure the food served on the table is meets sanitary standards enforced by government because it just not worth getting food poisoning when dining out in the "free market".
You think people would piss in your soup if there wasn't a law banning it and you weren't rich? In your case, you might be right.

And the saddest part it all- these soup-pissers are the same people who you and others like you think will be willing to work for work's sake under communism. Talk about contradictory.

And in Capitalism, depending on which position you hold in a company you can retire early with a fortune so large you won't be able to spend it in a hundred lifetimes, so what's your point?
The one with the forture isn't usually living off others. As much you'd like to believe it.

Sure there are lots of work that are unpleasant and people cannot be motivated into doing them unless given a bribe in the form of money that can be used to buy more goods, but what recent developments in technology have changed the situation now and will continually change the situation into the future?

You're using it right now and it can be used to do stupid, unpleasant work when given the right set of instructions.
I love the way you default to "robots will do it" when issues of work motivation begin to arise, as if this will somehow represent an argument for communism.

[Loknar]

Actually I would oppose it. Because I wouldbe more worried about the back lash of a 1 party system.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 06:52 AM
Do you believe in democracy ?

If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?
yes. it wouldn't be that hard with 45% on my side.

[red team]

Water supply and sanitation standards, police force, ambulance service, postal service, transportation services and regulations, health and sanitation services, minimal safety codes, consumer protection from fraud and negligence, educational standards, construction standards, electrical distribution, Judicial and legislation enforcement...

in short everything necessary for a civilized life will be gone.

According to you the private sector provides absolutely nothing and is capable of providing nothing. You statists and your delusions never cease to amaze me.

"There'd be no water, electricity, health or education or (commodity of your choice) if the state didn't provide it."

Oh wait, there was.

I guess the private sector does provide something after all. Seeing as it generates all the wealth, it indirectly provides everything.


According to you the private sector provides absolutely nothing and is capable of providing nothing.

Never said it.

But, why should I trust business to be accountable to me? In their cost/benefit analysis, a worker with a limited income purchasing their products can afford to be poisoned, burned, mangled or ripped off if they make shoddy quality goods that saves them money on material and research costs. Besides, this mass-produced junk is meant for the low-income earners. the great unwashed masses, it's not as if they have a choice in the matter to purchase higher price alternatives. As a real life example, a few models of cars with rear gas tanks that ruptured and horribly burned to death the occupants of the car which was rear-ended in accident was never recalled because it was determined in the cost/benefit analysis of the company that it would be more affordable to pay settlements out of court than to recall the faulty model. Another famous example was the chemicals that were leaked into the ground water supply which had to fought legally to hold the company accountable, otherwise they would not accept responsibility.

Everything in business is about the bottom line which means anything else including safety and/or prices for both the worker and consumer can be sacrificed, especially if the consumer has limited financial means of fighting back using the legal system. And seriously, a relatively poor worker/consumer versus a corporate conglomerate in a lawsuit? Who do you think would win? The answer is easy to see as demonstrated whenever workers goes on strike. With a war chest of a few billions who do you think can afford to wait it out? Or if one side loses patience who can afford to buy the police into beating up the other side and throwing them in jail? More to the point why do I need to continuously engage in legal wrangling over something as basic as consumer safety and fair working wages? So, that I spend more of what I'm already underpaid with to make the "legal professionals" rich?

Simply stated, there is no guarantee for business left to their own to serve the general public honestly, without overpricing and with guaranteed safety. So what makes you think it's not in my best interest to have something else like the government for example, threaten them with fines and business closure if they couldn't be held up to their word in giving me quality products that would not put my health and safety at risk or to deny me access to something as basic as water if they couldn't make a large enough profit from it?


You think people would piss in your soup if there wasn't a law banning it and you weren't rich? In your case, you might be right.

And the saddest part it all- these soup-pissers are the same people who you and others like you think will be willing to work for work's sake under communism. Talk about contradictory.

Yes, it's quite contradictory isn't it? If I was underpaid, unappreciated and hate my job I would be tempted to do the same thing. Besides, I wouldn't care how my work turn out if I hate my job would I? Why should I?

How do you get out of this problem? There's not enough people who like to wake up everyday doing repetitive work they would rather not do if they had the choice to do something else. You cannot deny this as there are lots of people who have jobs they hate. This doesn't change either with Communism or Capitalism.

Alright then, take away all of the unnecessary make-work like unsolicited sales which only serves to intrude into personal privacy and annoy people. Next take away all the public relations and product marketing jobs that only serves to prey on people's insecurity to create a need for a product to cover-up what is in fact a deeper psychological problem and to make companies who only care about profits appear to be ethical and socially responsible. Next take away the huge arms industry and rehabilitate the prisoners and give them jobs training.

Invest research into automation and with the huge surplus of now idle workers we can have what? 3 hours? maybe 2 hours of work per day? If it wasn't such a huge sacrifice for people as expected of workers now who have to work 40 hours a week just to pay the rent, bills and food maybe they wouldn't be so upset as to be tempted to piss in a bowl of soup. Make sense?

Of course you would object to this and in any case the current economic system cannot make such a solution realizable. It is runned on creating artificial "needs" as much as introducing artificial scarcity.


The one with the forture isn't usually living off others. As much you'd like to believe it.

If you have in ownership wealth beyond what you can actually spend for personal consumption you have many more choices and lot more freedom of action than those who don't have this choice, so in a way you are living off of others since people who do not have this choice have to provide goods and services to you because of the disparity of wealth between you and them. They desire what you have, but you are the only one who have the luxury of not having to labour for it while acquiring goods and services in exchange.

But that is really beside the point. Business cannot operate without earning a profit. A business that continuously breaks even is not a business. With every business operating on profit returned to owners and investors would wages alone be able to cover what is sold? Nope. That's why I've got loans and credit cards. The present ruling class is smart enough to know that if I'm kept out of trouble, they keep themselves out of trouble unlike amateurish libertarian-cappies. They rather would want me as a happy customer than an angry revolutionary.


I love the way you default to "robots will do it" when issues of work motivation begin to arise, as if this will somehow represent an argument for communism.

And why not robots leading toward Communism? The whole point of accumulating money and working for it and profitting off of it is that you want to get into position where you can have an exchange for material goods. The ultimate goal would be to accumulate so much as to not need to work another day in your life, but have enough tickets to exchange for all that you possibly want while letting every other working peon desire what you pay out in return.

Alright then. Let me ask you this. How would such a system survive if there's nobody to desire what you want since robots don't desire anything. They just work continuously. And also nobody who's sane wants to go to the job they hate doing, but only do it for money which they don't need now because robots don't desire money?

At both ends. Both the workers and wealthy employers money would be no motivation at all. So again, Capitalism would survive in a highly automated economy? :huh:

[Publius]

Do you believe in democracy ?

No.



If so , then if there was an election tomorrow on weither or not we should begin working towards communism ( highly unlikely but just go with this ). Theyre is a 55% in favour of communism , the turn out was 100 % . would you violently oppose this ?

No, because I'd lose if I were in the minority.

I would try my best to make the system work. Then if (when?) it failed, I could say I told you so.

Either way, being the 'best comrade you can be' is the best thing to do: If things go well, you're viewed as a hero, if things go poorly, you can blame someone else.

If you can't tell, I'm much more practical than ideological. My survival and success is paramount to any heady talk of theory.