You guys think communism is a holiday? [Archive]

apathy maybe

2nd October 2006, 12:53

Wait a minute you guys. This is what a lot of people out there in the "real world" tend to think. Or something along the lines of "of it sounds good in theory, but in practice ...".

On RevLeft we are lucky to be able to discuss and come into contact with a variety of different ideas, unfortunately the mainstream media and "popular" culture do not promote this. Thus we see many people with ideas like this. Just recently I saw a person who came here with ideas like the above, but then posted that his whole conception of communism had change, because he had been educated.

Insults are not going to convert people to your cause, a better response would be direct the person or people to where they can find more information.

So thisguyisatotaljerk, why don’t you have a look around the Learning forum (do a search for communism just in that forum). You’ll probably be restricted soon, but that shouldn’t stop you from asking questions in this forum.

The two people above me have a point, why would people spend so much time talking, discussing and thinking about communism if it is what you describe? Might it be that they have a different conception of what communism is?

Yes in the past there have been people that have done really nasty things in the name of communism, but so have people in the name of capitalism, Christianity, Islam etc. Do you also condemn all of them?

thisguyisatotaljerk

2nd October 2006, 13:00

Communism is a sucker's game. You play, you lose. Name a successful revolution for starters before you call me an idiot.

Yes in the past there have been people that have done really nasty things in the name of communism, but so have people in the name of capitalism, Christianity, Islam etc. Do you also condemn all of them?

I condemn Islam, Christianity and communism. I praise capitalism. Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists. If they don't respect people's property though, including the lives of their employers/employees and business partners, they are not political capitlaists, just jerks and phsychopaths - who are still going to be around to work wonders with your utopia btw.

apathy maybe

2nd October 2006, 13:14

OK people, I take what I said back. If this guy doesn't want to get educated, feel free to call him an idiot, a jerk, a fuckwit and a joke.

Look dude, go look in the learning forum for stuff on communism before you mouth off about it. You would not believe how many capitalists we get through here saying the same stuff, thinking that what they are saying is original. It isn't. It has been said before, and it doesn't get any better.

So forget it alright? If you don't at least want to educate your self about what we mean by the word (and we were here first so we get to decide the meaning of the word), then you can just fuck off. And don't come back before you want to discuss stuff with a bit of respect.

kaaos_af

2nd October 2006, 15:57

apathy maybe- a lot of people come here just looking to start an argument- they are close-minded and aren't interested in changing their opinions. For me, it's easy to tell from someone's post whether or not they are interested in having a reasonable conversation and being open to our ideas or just wanting to go off at us because they feel like a laugh.

I'm not going to defend Marxism-Leninism myself because I disagree with it theoretically-wise- but I have plenty of time for M'Ls and am always willing to have a healthy debate with them. But others are just going to repeat what they learnt in school and on CNN.

bezdomni

2nd October 2006, 18:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:01 AM
I praise capitalism. Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists. If they don't respect people's property though, including the lives of their employers/employees and business partners, they are not political capitlaists, just jerks and phsychopaths - who are still going to be around to work wonders with your utopia btw.
Yes, communism is a utopian ideology that puts way too much hope into people. People in power become corrupt, don't you people understand?

That isn't actually a description of capitalism at all!

Forward Union

2nd October 2006, 19:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:16 AM
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to work hard. Harder than you ever have in your life. The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned. Expect to be forced to go down a mine, or, if you're lucky you might be able to work on a collective farm. Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though. Expect to be carted off to Siberia or something. That's what communsim is like, see.
Wow you have never read this (http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html)

t_wolves_fan

2nd October 2006, 19:04

Originally posted by Love Underground+Oct 2 2006, 04:02 PM--> (Love Underground @ Oct 2 2006, 04:02 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 09:16 AM
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to work hard. Harder than you ever have in your life. The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned. Expect to be forced to go down a mine, or, if you're lucky you might be able to work on a collective farm. Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though. Expect to be carted off to Siberia or something. That's what communsim is like, see.
Wow you have never read this (http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html) [/b]
That defined utopia. Good job.

Forward Union

2nd October 2006, 19:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:05 PM
That defined utopia. Good job.
I disagree, some of that article is bollocks. But im glad you like it :)

bcbm

2nd October 2006, 21:37

Actually, people would probably "work" much, much less in a communist society.

OneBrickOneVoice

2nd October 2006, 21:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:01 AM

I condemn Islam, Christianity and communism. I praise capitalism. Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists. If they don't respect people's property though, including the lives of their employers/employees and business partners, they are not political capitlaists, just jerks and phsychopaths - who are still going to be around to work wonders with your utopia btw.

Of course it has. Capitalism is the sole reason for slavery, poverty, starvation, and everything else disgustin in this world. Even today capitalism enslaves people in Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and other countries in sweatshops where workers get paid next to nothing in terrible conditions and are often threatened and beaten if they don't work overtime. Capitalism exploits third world countries and cares nothing about the people. Even in the richest capitalist country in the world 20,000,000 kids go to sleep each night starving.

Communism on the other hand, or attempts at it, have rendered massive improvements in living standards. Russia was a peasant country where the people had nothing. They wanted clothes, they sewed it themselves. They wanted heat, they rubbed their hands together, they wanted a house, they had to build it themselves. People were living like it was the stone age! socialism, I use that term loosely, brought electricity, shelter, factories and in general industrialed a country that was backwards a hundred yeaers in 10 years.

OneBrickOneVoice

2nd October 2006, 21:42

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 2 2006, 06:38 PM
Actually, people would probably "work" much, much less in a communist society.
exactly because the bourgious leeches aren't stealing the fruits of you labor anymore.

t_wolves_fan

2nd October 2006, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:42 PM
Of course it has. Capitalism is the sole reason for slavery, poverty, starvation, and everything else disgustin in this world.
Problem: All of these things existed before capitalism.

How can it be that the symptoms existed before the alleged cause?

Connolly

2nd October 2006, 22:08

Problem: All of these things existed before capitalism.

How can it be that the symptoms existed before the alleged cause?

Solution: He said this world, meaning the present.

What else other than the capitalist system is at fault?

The initial cause might have been different, but the present cause remains - and is solo.

t_wolves_fan

2nd October 2006, 22:18

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 07:09 PM

Problem: All of these things existed before capitalism.

How can it be that the symptoms existed before the alleged cause?

Solution: He said this world, meaning the present.

What else other than the capitalist system is at fault?

The initial cause might have been different, but the present cause remains - and is solo.
That is a ridiculous response. It greatly discounts the past as a reason for the present, as if these things would have ended if only the economic system known as capitalism did not exist.

At this point you should seriously shake your head, realize you're being absurd, and go for a walk.

Actually, considering not every capitalist country has these problems, capitalism cannot be the sole reason they exist. You'd do better to look at the political structures of the countries that are the worst off.

Does that make sense to you, or would you like to continue spouting proclamations so you feel cool about fitting in with the rest of the campus commies?

VonClausewitz

2nd October 2006, 22:19

What else other than the capitalist system is at fault?

Well usually you lot blame the after-effects of British Imperialism for most things wrong with the world.

Connolly

2nd October 2006, 22:31

That is a ridiculous response. It greatly discounts the past as a reason for the present,

But it dosnt.

Im simply saying the cause - as of now (for which he referred).

Its initial cause is irrelevent at present. We must focus on the cause now.

At this point you should seriously shake your head, realize you're being absurd, and go for a walk.

Its good for the heart.

Actually, considering not every capitalist country has these problems, capitalism cannot be the sole reason they exist. You'd do better to look at the political structures of the countries that are the worst off.

And what defines the political structure?

Does that make sense to you, or would you like to continue spouting proclamations so you feel cool about fitting in with the rest of the campus commies?

:cool: :redstar2000:

cool as hell!!

Well usually you lot blame the after-effects of British Imperialism for most things wrong with the world.

British Imperialism was economic - and im still blaming the economic scenario of the world.

t_wolves_fan

2nd October 2006, 22:52

But it dosnt.

Yes it does.

Im simply saying the cause - as of now (for which he referred).

The cause is not capitalism, it is personal enrichment and the belief that because it worked in the past, it can work again.

Its initial cause is irrelevent at present. We must focus on the cause now.

The cause now is not capitalism, it is the policy choices of governments. Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

And what defines the political structure?

Generally a Constitution.

Avtomatov

3rd October 2006, 00:50

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 06:51 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 06:51 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:42 PM
Of course it has. Capitalism is the sole reason for slavery, poverty, starvation, and everything else disgustin in this world.
Problem: All of these things existed before capitalism.

How can it be that the symptoms existed before the alleged cause? [/b]
No he just said capitalism, when he should have said Class Society.

Cryotank Screams

3rd October 2006, 02:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:01 AM
Name a successful revolution for starters before you call me an idiot.

Mao-era China; you fucking idiot! Why don't you actually read the Manifesto, or some other Communist literature, and take a serious look at history before posting some bullshit bourgeoisie rhetoric.

RNK

3rd October 2006, 02:13

Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists.

Utterly biased and one-sided, and shows very well that you are nothing but a capitalist tool. I could just as easily claim that Communism has never been a nasty ideology although there have been some nasty Communists. I won't waste my time bothering with you.

Sadena Meti

3rd October 2006, 02:31

This subject contradicts itself into irrelevancy. Holiday derives from Holy Day, and as communism is atheistic, the concept is anathema. Therefore communism can neither be nor not be a holiday.

Just thought I'd share :)

Orion999

3rd October 2006, 07:52

Mao-era China; you fucking idiot! Why don't you actually read the Manifesto, or some other Communist literature, and take a serious look at history before posting some bullshit bourgeoisie rhetoric.

Ya, real successful moron. Millions dead from starvation and sixty years later the average chinese standard of living is still way below the average Americans. So what exactly was so successful about this revolution?

Compare the economies of China and Japan since 1950. Notice how the capitalist one (who's country was blown to bits after WW2) was the second richest country in the world in 1970, while the communists one still had people dying of mass starvation, and did'nt experience any signifigant economic growth until it began implementing capitalists policies.

If the communist revolution would have never taken place in China, it's people would be infinitely better off, and probably citizens of a country with more wealth than America

Why don't you take a serious look at history before posting some bullshit communist rhetoric.

R_P_A_S

3rd October 2006, 08:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:01 AM
Communism is a sucker's game. You play, you lose. Name a successful revolution for starters before you call me an idiot.

Yes in the past there have been people that have done really nasty things in the name of communism, but so have people in the name of capitalism, Christianity, Islam etc. Do you also condemn all of them?

I condemn Islam, Christianity and communism. I praise capitalism. Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists. If they don't respect people's property though, including the lives of their employers/employees and business partners, they are not political capitlaists, just jerks and phsychopaths - who are still going to be around to work wonders with your utopia btw.
fuck a cappie. his family and his dead homies.. (YAWN)

thisguyisatotaljerk

3rd October 2006, 11:02

fuck a cappie. his family and his dead homies.. (YAWN)
No thanks, you've probly got aids and I'll leave the necrophilia to you, which is where you got the said aids.

OK people, I take what I said back. If this guy doesn't want to get educated, feel free to call him an idiot, a jerk, a fuckwit and a joke.
So being educated means me instantly converting to communism? Wtf is this a freaken religion? O well i suppose it is. Hey, let me spare you the trouble, I already call myself a jerk so let's just leave it at that. O funny how no one named a successful revolution huh?

Jazzratt

3rd October 2006, 13:23

RevMARKSman

3rd October 2006, 13:59

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 3 2006, 05:24 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 3 2006, 05:24 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 10:01 AM
I praise capitalism. Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists.
Who can say "no true scotsman" :lol: [/b]
WARNING: LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY ALERT

if you claim that's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, so is our denoucement of Mao and Stalin :blink: as non-communists.

Jazzratt

3rd October 2006, 14:03

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Oct 3 2006, 11:00 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Oct 3 2006, 11:00 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:24 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 10:01 AM
I praise capitalism. Capitalism has never been nasty as a political ideology although it has had some nasty people claiming to be capitalists.
Who can say "no true scotsman" :lol:
WARNING: LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY ALERT

if you claim that's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, so is our denoucement of Mao and Stalin :blink: as non-communists. [/b]
Although Stalin's actions actually ran contratry to much of Marx an Lenin's theories. Whereas many of these capitalists actually subscribe to capitalist theory.

Nice try though.

Oh yeah and this can actually be objectivley discerened, through a reading and understanding of Marx and Lenin.

Orion999

3rd October 2006, 17:04

So being educated means me instantly converting to communism? Wtf is this a freaken religion? O well i suppose it is. Hey, let me spare you the trouble, I already call myself a jerk so let's just leave it at that. O funny how no one named a successful revolution huh?

That is because there never has been and never will be a successful revolution. This is one of many points that most commies avoid at all cost. They all scream for revolution against our evil capitalists masters, but you will never see any sensible plan for this revolution that won't result in a slave society with some evil dictator murdering us for our own good. Why will the next revolution not result in evil communists dictatorships just like all the rest? Is the risk of turning America into the next stalinist slave society really worth it?

Notice how no one had the balls to respond to my original post. The only successful revolution these idiots can point to is China which was anything but. They will say "Mao did'nt kill anyone" When 95% of people living in the "real" world know he did. Why does every chinese person who makes it out of China and to the west, hate Mao and the commies. Personally I'll take the word of people who were actually there instead of bullshit commie propaganda.

Here is the original post. The comparison of China And Japan following WW2 is all you really need to look at to realize how flawed communism is.

QUOTE

Mao-era China; you fucking idiot! Why don't you actually read the Manifesto, or some other Communist literature, and take a serious look at history before posting some bullshit bourgeoisie rhetoric.

Ya, real successful moron. Millions dead from starvation and sixty years later the average chinese standard of living is still way below the average Americans. So what exactly was so successful about this revolution?

Compare the economies of China and Japan since 1950. Notice how the capitalist one (who's country was blown to bits after WW2) was the second richest country in the world in 1975, while the communists one still had people dying of mass starvation, and did'nt experience any signifigant economic growth until it began implementing capitalists policies.

If the communist revolution would have never taken place in China, it's people would be infinitely better off, and probably citizens of a country with more wealth than America

Why don't you take a serious look at history before posting some bullshit communist rhetoric.

Cryotank Screams

5th October 2006, 00:38

Ya, real successful moron. Millions dead from starvation and sixty years later the average chinese standard of living is still way below the average Americans. So what exactly was so successful about this revolution?

Ah,..the eternal refrain of all anti-Maoists and anti-Communist, "he killed millions of people!" Prove to me millions died, and from an unbiased source at that!

I also think that all the systems of old have killed and oppressed far more people than Communism ever has, so I really don’t know why you try to use that argument.

Furthermore the Chinese technologically speaking, were way behind the west before the Communist revolution, hence why Mao called on of his policies the Great Leap Forward, because it was the Great Leap Forward for the Chinese people.

I dare say if it wasn't for the revolution, China would still be far behind.

was the second richest country in the world in 1970, while the communists one still had people dying of mass starvation, QUOTE]

I don't know why your feeling so high and mighty considering that in a capitalist system there is still starving people, and poor people as well, if not more so, and that in japan only the wealthy actually experience the true benefits of the wealth, and the majority, live in cramped working and living spaces, and work tedious hours.

Just because a country is wealthy, doesn’t mean the majority gets the wealth, Communism tries to bring all of society up to a high living standard, not just 3% of it, any country could look wealthy if the wealth was given to only a select few of the population.

[QUOTE]If the communist revolution would have never taken place in China, it's people would be infinitely better off, and probably citizens of a country with more wealth than America

Yes, living in a severely sexist, and severely oppressed society, that has barely evolved from a monarchist system and a feudalistic society, and that was far behind the west, and constantly oppressed by the west; a capitalists wet dream I'm sure.

Why don't you take a serious look at history before posting some bullshit communist rhetoric.

I have, why don't you remove your rose-colored spectacles and wipe your mildewed eyes and see history for what it really was, and not what the government has trained you to think?

Janus

5th October 2006, 07:23

Why does every chinese person who makes it out of China and to the west, hate Mao and the commies.
You're either joking or your defintion of "every Chinese person" must be one Taiwanese person.

How do you think a lot of mainland Chinese got out of the US? How do you think they got the opportunity to go to school and look for opportunities in the US?

The fact is that many Chinese, particularly those in the rural areas, would prefer a Maoist state to the government that is ruling now.

and did'nt experience any signifigant economic growth until it began implementing capitalists policies.
No, the PRC experienced major economic growth following 1949 except during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Notice how the capitalist one (who's country was blown to bits after WW2) was the second richest country in the world in 1975
Japan's economy was beefed up by the US so as to act as a counter against the perceived threat of Communism.

getoutofhere

5th October 2006, 11:51

cb9's_unity

9th October 2006, 07:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:05 PM
That is because there never has been and never will be a successful revolution. This is one of many points that most commies avoid at all cost. They all scream for revolution against our evil capitalists masters, but you will never see any sensible plan for this revolution that won't result in a slave society with some evil dictator murdering us for our own good. Why will the next revolution not result in evil communists dictatorships just like all the rest? Is the risk of turning America into the next stalinist slave society really worth it?

Notice how no one had the balls to respond to my original post. The only successful revolution these idiots can point to is China which was anything but. They will say "Mao did'nt kill anyone" When 95% of people living in the "real" world know he did. Why does every chinese person who makes it out of China and to the west, hate Mao and the commies. Personally I'll take the word of people who were actually there instead of bullshit commie propaganda.

first off i love how you cappies think that communist revolutions have always been happening and that for hundreds of years they havn't worked, but when in reality there have only been a few revolutions. These revolutions have also been based in counties that have still been in fuedalism or just coming out of it. If youv'e read anything about marxist theory(which you probably havn't) you would know that communist revolution has to come from a capitatlist society. This is why us living in capitalist nations are so eager to start a revolution. Also the reason why there have been revolutions in the past is because communists are usually the only ones who actually give a shit about the people.
Secondly about you comments on mao. i'll let it be known that i fucking hate stalin(weather or not he killed millions of people) and second i'm not a huge fan of mao(especially if western numbers are even close to true). but as for youre "real" world you've got to realize who fucking runs it... THE CAPITALISTS. and the capitalists give us nearly all of our information so ofcourse there not going to give us the full story. oh and all those people who are from china who hate mao, i'm sure some of them do but how do you explain the fact that the chinese government still considers maoism to be an official ideoligy? if the chinese really hated him that much wouldn't the capitalist government be happy to completly erase any connections? the fact is that still to many people mao represents communism and that represents hope.
so know what i'll take a look at the facts instead of youre cappie bullshit anyday

RedAnarchist

9th October 2006, 18:06

I think it's funny that the title makes it seem as if tgiatj actually knows something about communism and has lived in the USSR or something :lol:

OneBrickOneVoice

9th October 2006, 19:30

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 06:51 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 06:51 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:42 PM
Of course it has. Capitalism is the sole reason for slavery, poverty, starvation, and everything else disgustin in this world.
Problem: All of these things existed before capitalism.

How can it be that the symptoms existed before the alleged cause? [/b]
Those things all appeared only when societies developed social classes.

t_wolves_fan

9th October 2006, 20:28

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Oct 9 2006, 04:31 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Oct 9 2006, 04:31 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:51 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 06:42 PM
Of course it has. Capitalism is the sole reason for slavery, poverty, starvation, and everything else disgustin in this world.
Problem: All of these things existed before capitalism.

How can it be that the symptoms existed before the alleged cause?
Those things all appeared only when societies developed social classes. [/b]
1. Name some societies that have no social class.

2. Rate on a scale of 1-10 your personal desire to live in their conditions, because I'm betting most of them get their drinking water from their toilet/washing machine.

Criminal_Affinities

9th October 2006, 22:29

okay...now i know why people hate capitalism so much,you idiots don't know how to argue properly...insulting people on the internet doesn't do much does it? it just proves that you have a serious psychological problem...but anyway,that is not my concern...as far as the topic is concerned...stupid is not the word to describe it...if socialism has never worked...how do you know it's not a holiday?...you can't condemn something that's never been tried in it's true-est sense...which is exactly what communism is...it's never been tried...and capitalism too for that matter...name one purely capitalist state...there's are none...if you anyone says 'USA' i'll slap you accross your face....anyway...so the point is....that pointing fingers and telling each other that what you believe is in right and what someone else believes in is wrong....you should put forward the matter at hand in a respectable,logical way...free of your sexual fantasies being a part of your arguement.

and as for the whole 'China' & 'Mao' business...China is far from communist...it's just communist in name...it's like...i don't know...but China is not a communist state and it never was...the whole 'Cultural Revolution' is evidence to that.

t_wolves_fan

9th October 2006, 22:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:30 PM
okay...now i know why people hate capitalism so much,you idiots don't know how to argue properly...insulting people on the internet doesn't do much does it? it just proves that you have a serious psychological problem...
You seem to be asserting that only the capitalists have insulted people.

Jazzratt

9th October 2006, 22:52

Criminal_Affinities

9th October 2006, 23:24

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 9 2006, 07:44 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 9 2006, 07:44 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 07:30 PM
okay...now i know why people hate capitalism so much,you idiots don't know how to argue properly...insulting people on the internet doesn't do much does it? it just proves that you have a serious psychological problem...
You seem to be asserting that only the capitalists have insulted people. [/b]
well....all i'm saying is......if you're debating based on logic....trying to prove that communism is illogical or whatever it is that you're trying to prove....then it wouldn't be very logical for you to do that by calling every communist a c*nt would it?...what difference is that going to make? not much...it'll just make you look like a c*nt.....and there's no point telling the communists that because most of them,as you know,are angry teens...and it's not very logical to reason with someone who's communist just because a fellow with a ferrari stole his girlfriend......(communists,please not that i said 'most'...i'm not generalizing,there shall be no further pointless discussion about this)

Ol' Dirty

9th October 2006, 23:49

Originally posted by thisguyisatotal[email protected] 2 2006, 04:16 AM

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The same could be said of your ballocks arguments. <_<

You will have to work hard.

That doesn't seem much different than what most people are doing now.

Harder than you ever have in your life.

For some people, yes; but that also means that people who work hard already will work less and get more. It is a very efficient system.

The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned.

Socialism would merely take the material anarchy that most people live in out of our society. Entrepreneurs have no right to make their wealth off of the backs off of the poor, no matter who they are. It is the colletivization of the means of production, e.g. factories, farms, etc., which gives collective security to citizens of the society; true freedom.

Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though.

There's none of that in capitalism, either. Work or Die: that's their policy.

That's what communsim is like, see.

Define communism for me, please.

Cryotank Screams

9th October 2006, 23:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:30 PM
and as for the whole 'China' & 'Mao' business...China is far from communist...it's just communist in name...it's like...i don't know...but China is not a communist state and it never was...the whole 'Cultural Revolution' is evidence to that.
Can you argue about something without sounding like a prepubescent valley girl? I mean your whole argument for china not being Communist was;

it's like...i don't know...but

It is very apparent that you have not studied in depth Maoist thought, or really studied the revolution which to place in china; Mao-era china was Communist, modern day china is not.

t_wolves_fan

10th October 2006, 00:18

Originally posted by Criminal_Affinities+Oct 9 2006, 08:25 PM--> (Criminal_Affinities @ Oct 9 2006, 08:25 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:44 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 07:30 PM
okay...now i know why people hate capitalism so much,you idiots don't know how to argue properly...insulting people on the internet doesn't do much does it? it just proves that you have a serious psychological problem...
You seem to be asserting that only the capitalists have insulted people.
well....all i'm saying is......if you're debating based on logic....trying to prove that communism is illogical or whatever it is that you're trying to prove....then it wouldn't be very logical for you to do that by calling every communist a c*nt would it?...what difference is that going to make? not much...it'll just make you look like a c*nt.....and there's no point telling the communists that because most of them,as you know,are angry teens...and it's not very logical to reason with someone who's communist just because a fellow with a ferrari stole his girlfriend......(communists,please not that i said 'most'...i'm not generalizing,there shall be no further pointless discussion about this) [/b]
Well I can agree with you there. There is no good reason to call someone any name.

Tungsten

13th October 2006, 20:45

Muigwithania

Socialism would merely take the material anarchy that most people live in out of our society.Yeah, and replace it with a command economy.

It is the colletivization of the means of production, e.g. factories, farms, etc., which gives collective security to citizens of the society; true freedom.How's that going to guarantee security?

There's none of that in capitalism, either. Work or Die: that's their policy.How odd. You say "work or die" as if signaling disapproval, yet you say "there's none of that in capitalism either" as if admitting that it's a necessary evil under communism too. "Work or die" is generally a good policy for any system that wants to continue to exist.

If you don't believe that then won't any of us ever have to work under communism? Or will we be forced to work (or die) for the benefit of the collective? Or will we just be branded as slackers and thrown out of the commune (work or die again)? If we will, then how does that make communism any better than the capitalism you're so quick to denounce?

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 20:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:46 PM
If you don't believe that then won't any of us ever have to work under communism? Or will we be forced to work (or die) for the benefit of the collective? Or will we just be branded as slackers and thrown out of the commune (work or die again)? If we will, then how does that make communism any better than the capitalism you're so quick to denounce?
Robots will do all the work.

Tungsten

13th October 2006, 20:59

Oh yes, the robots. I forgot about those. :lol: How careless of me.

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 22:00

http://thedirtroad.net/jeff/images/rosie.jpg

:lol:

Whitten

13th October 2006, 22:48

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 23:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:49 PM

18 million people die every year from poverty related causes, which would never happen to the bourgeois. This is not counting those killed in wars, genocides or the like. Sure puts the supposed "crimes of communism" into perspective.

I find it ironic that what these capitalists picture communism as being, is actually what capitalism is like for most people, or for the most part, better... thats disturbing.
Well let's see.

In 1961 the population of China was around 655 million. Given that 20 million died in the 4 years of the Great Leap Forward, we'll assume communism killed 5 million a year, or .76% of the population.

In the 1930s, the population of the Soviet Union was around, oh, 200 million. The famine caused by Stalin's forced collectivization, executions and deportations killed around 9 million in the year from 1932 to 1933, or a whopping 4.5 percent of the population.

We'll be generous and say that between starvation, deportation and executions of the unbelievers, Communism will kill about 1 percent of the population annually.

Assuming the population of the planet is 6.55 billion, that means 65.5 million dead annually once the revolution goes global.

18 million don't sound too bad compared to that, sport.

Tungsten

13th October 2006, 23:46

Whitten

18 million people die every year from poverty related causes, which would never happen to the bourgeois.Poverty doesn't happen to one particular section of society, so that particular section must have caused it? That's lousy reasoning.

red team

14th October 2006, 06:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:01 PM
http://thedirtroad.net/jeff/images/rosie.jpg

Hey! I can build something like that! :)

Given a lab, a salary (energy credits can also work too) and lots of intelligent co-workers in the same field that is.

Note, intelligent co-workers not cow-orkers (http://members.optusnet.com.au/white_gold/) which pretty much excludes most of the desk jockey, paper shufflers you find in corporate (or government) offices now doesn't it, eh t_wolves_fan?

Whitten

14th October 2006, 13:28

Krypto-Communist

14th October 2006, 19:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:16 AM
That's what communsim is like, see.
Stupid troll post but I'll respond anyway.

If you own no means of production then someone who does has total control over you, at least if you want to live, so they can set the price of their labor at whatever is necessary for you to live and nothing more.

Capitalists can abuse you in all kinds of ways because they hold the key to your existence. The word freedom doesn't necessarily come to mind when I think of that situation!

In a natural setting for humans this doesn't happen. In a natural setting we'd live just like social animals and no one could entirely control the means of production. Freedom is living like animals. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way of living, but "ownership" is not freedom, it's only a way to organize society.

Think of it this way: If you could choose any country to live in the world, but everyone was a dictatorship, would that be fair? I hope you'd say no. Corporations are dictatorships, but they take it a step further, you need them for your survival. Capitalism is nothing more than being allowed to choose your dictatorship; however that's still an understatement, because you can't always "choose" your dictatorship. A well paying corporation can't accept everyone, and of course with more and more monopolies you will be left with fewer and fewer choices--which is a NATURAL trend in capitalism.

Is this your idea of freedom???

Tungsten

14th October 2006, 22:40

Krypto-Communist

If you own no means of production then someone who does has total control over you
Think through this logically. And answer this question: Does your boss control every aspect of your life, or merely what you do at work?

, at least if you want to live, so they can set the price of their labor at whatever is necessary for you to live and nothing more.
Theirs or yours? Can't you also set your labour at an unreasonable price? (Perhaps via a union).

Capitalists can abuse you in all kinds of ways because they hold the key to your existence. The word freedom doesn't necessarily come to mind when I think of that situation!
They're no more able to abuse you than you are to abuse them. Aren't you also holding the key to their existence?

In a natural setting for humans this doesn't happen. In a natural setting we'd live just like social animals and no one could entirely control the means of production.
In a natural setting, you could be bashed over the head with a piece of wood and forced to work for nothing if someone felt like following that course of action. Who wants that?

Freedom is living like animals. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way of living, but "ownership" is not freedom, it's only a way to organize society.
It's freedom to exclude others from taking or consuming something you've specifcally worked for or traded.

Think of it this way: If you could choose any country to live in the world, but everyone was a dictatorship, would that be fair? I hope you'd say no. Corporations are dictatorships,
Many of them do have political pull, but they're not dictatorships.

but they take it a step further, you need them for your survival.
I must be a dictator too, as I produce things necessary for people's survival- and I do it for a price. Isn't everyone a dictator if you look at it in that light?

bezdomni

15th October 2006, 00:14

Think through this logically. And answer this question: Does your boss control every aspect of your life, or merely what you do at work?

If I received a company health plan (which I don't), I would lose it if I was a smoker. I'd also be fired if I failed a drug test, talked about unionizing or did things that my boss didn't like outside of work and somehow found out about it.

A lot of your life outside of work is controlled by your life at work. Especially when you work to live and have little free time and disposable income.

Your labor should not be the means by which you life, it should be the manifestation of your life. My work has next to nothing to do with what I actually enjoy doing. This is true for most workers.

Anyway, why should an unelected autocratic despot control what I do EVER? Eight hours of my day, five days a week for the rest of my life is a hell of a lot of time spent being controlled.

Theirs or yours? Can't you also set your labour at an unreasonable price? (Perhaps via a union).
Uttering the word "union" in a non-unionized workplace is usually met by a little pink piece of paper requesting that you remove all of your personal belongings from the workplace by closing time and never return.

They're no more able to abuse you than you are to abuse them. Aren't you also holding the key to their existence?
The ruling class is the ruling class because they rule over others.

The workers do hold the key to the existence of the bourgeoisie. That is why the workers have the power and that is why socialism will triumph.

All they do is exploit us. We don't need them, but they need us.

In a natural setting, you could be bashed over the head with a piece of wood and forced to work for nothing if someone felt like following that course of action. Who wants that?

Communism =/= State of Nature.

Good try, Locke.

Freedom is living like animals. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way of living, but "ownership" is not freedom, it's only a way to organize society.

I suggest you re-think this.

Freedom is not primativism or complete and unfettered action without any consequence. This is contrary to nearly every form of political thought, including revolutionary communism. Living like animals, if anything, more closely resembles Capitalism than Communism.

Avtomatov

15th October 2006, 01:24

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 13 2006, 08:26 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 13 2006, 08:26 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 07:49 PM

18 million people die every year from poverty related causes, which would never happen to the bourgeois. This is not counting those killed in wars, genocides or the like. Sure puts the supposed "crimes of communism" into perspective.

I find it ironic that what these capitalists picture communism as being, is actually what capitalism is like for most people, or for the most part, better... thats disturbing.
Well let's see.

In 1961 the population of China was around 655 million. Given that 20 million died in the 4 years of the Great Leap Forward, we'll assume communism killed 5 million a year, or .76% of the population.

In the 1930s, the population of the Soviet Union was around, oh, 200 million. The famine caused by Stalin's forced collectivization, executions and deportations killed around 9 million in the year from 1932 to 1933, or a whopping 4.5 percent of the population.

We'll be generous and say that between starvation, deportation and executions of the unbelievers, Communism will kill about 1 percent of the population annually.

Assuming the population of the planet is 6.55 billion, that means 65.5 million dead annually once the revolution goes global.

18 million don't sound too bad compared to that, sport. [/b]
You really think capitalism is so appealing for the masses that we would have to kill 5 million people a year continually? You think after communism is established, that we will still need to kill people? Im not gonna lie, in order to establish communism some people need to die, just like the bourgeoise revolutions, but you know that those numbers are bollocks. But lets assume they are true, does capitalism continually kill 5 million feudal slave owners each year, even 200 years after capitalism is established? No it doesnt, once the revolution is established throughout the whole world, there is no need to kill the old masters, the old ruling class is dead. The bourgeoise killed the old ruling class too, so what? Its natural, and beneficial to humanity. You are ignoring WHY those people were killed (if they were killed at all). Capitalism continually kills millions annually, it is not the ruling class that they are killing (which happens in the initial stages of communism), but it is the oppressed class, it is the masses they are killing, and why? They do it so they can maintain there bourgeoise lifestyles.

t_wolves_fan

16th October 2006, 20:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:25 PM
They do it so they can maintain there bourgeoise lifestyles.

Yeah but the vanguard, which will never decide the revolution is complete, will kill 15-30 million dissenters a year to maintain their lifestyles.

Then when central planning of the world's food production inevitably screws up, you're looking at 50-100 million dead from starvation annually easily.

ZX3

17th October 2006, 00:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:15 PM

Think through this logically. And answer this question: Does your boss control every aspect of your life, or merely what you do at work?

If I received a company health plan (which I don't), I would lose it if I was a smoker. I'd also be fired if I failed a drug test, talked about unionizing or did things that my boss didn't like outside of work and somehow found out about it.

A lot of your life outside of work is controlled by your life at work. Especially when you work to live and have little free time and disposable income.

Your labor should not be the means by which you life, it should be the manifestation of your life. My work has next to nothing to do with what I actually enjoy doing. This is true for most workers.

Anyway, why should an unelected autocratic despot control what I do EVER? Eight hours of my day, five days a week for the rest of my life is a hell of a lot of time spent being controlled.

I am curious why you believe that a socialist economy will allow you to do whatever you please while at work.

Tungsten

17th October 2006, 19:28

If I received a company health plan (which I don't), I would lose it if I was a smoker.
Considering that they're under no obligation to provide you with one in the first place, the conditions are reasonable.

I'd also be fired if I failed a drug test,
Someone objects to you going to work pissed out of your brains or high on drugs and you consider it unfair?

talked about unionizing or did things that my boss didn't like outside of work and somehow found out about it.
If I was a black boss and I found out one of my employees was a Klansman, I wouldn't want him working for me. If I caught heard him talking about "lynching niggers", he'd be getting a pink slip too.

A lot of your life outside of work is controlled by your life at work. Especially when you work to live and have little free time and disposable income.
These are piss-poor examples.

Your labor should not be the means by which you life, it should be the manifestation of your life.
No it shouldn't. I work to live, I don't live to work. Anything else is just slavery.

My work has next to nothing to do with what I actually enjoy doing. This is true for most workers.
Welcome to reality: What the public are willing to pay you for might not coincide with what you enjoy doing. Expecting everyone else's life to revolve around your is simply unreasonable.

Anyway, why should an unelected autocratic despot control what I do EVER? Eight hours of my day, five days a week for the rest of my life is a hell of a lot of time spent being controlled.
From what you've said, I don't think you're not being controlled to any unreasonable degree. When they order your execution for arriving to work late, I'll consider it unreasonable.

The ruling class is the ruling class because they rule over others.
They're workers, like you. They just do different work.

The workers do hold the key to the existence of the bourgeoisie.
A minute ago, you were complaining about how they held the key to your existence.

That is why the workers have the power and that is why socialism will triumph.
This doesn't follow, and it's foolhardy to guarantee the inevitability or sucess of any system.

All they do is exploit us.
Then why do you go to them? Perhaps you do need them, and their labour, after all?

We don't need them, but they need us.

Socialist != Worker

A company might need labour, but seriously, what does a capitalist need a socialist for?

Jazzratt

17th October 2006, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:28 PM

talked about unionizing or did things that my boss didn't like outside of work and somehow found out about it.
If I was a black boss and I found out one of my employees was a Klansman, I wouldn't want him working for me. If I caught heard him talking about "lynching niggers", he'd be getting a pink slip too.
How the flying fuck are those two remotley similar you fucking mouth breather? You declare that SovietPants has come up with 'piss poor' examples and you spew this utter bullshit that not only shows you know utterly fuck all about unions and the nature of racial prejudice. Then again you know fuck all about near enough anything, because you're a cocking moron.

*PRC*Kensei

17th October 2006, 21:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:15 AM
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to work hard. Harder than you ever have in your life. The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned. Expect to be forced to go down a mine, or, if you're lucky you might be able to work on a collective farm. Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though. Expect to be carted off to Siberia or something. That's what communsim is like, see.
marx started his doctrine in the hope that the workers would have to work LESS and be LESS monotone. you are giving a discription of 19th century capitalism my friend :P

go take a look in cuba, people arnt working their backs of at all. things go relaxed there, i"ve been there.

t_wolves_fan

17th October 2006, 22:06

Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 17 2006, 08:47 PM
marx started his doctrine in the hope that the workers would have to work LESS and be LESS monotone. you are giving a discription of 19th century capitalism my friend :P

go take a look in cuba, people arnt working their backs of at all. things go relaxed there, i"ve been there.
Why didn't you stay, out of curiosity?

bezdomni

18th October 2006, 01:29

Considering that they're under no obligation to provide you with one in the first place, the conditions are reasonable.
But it is an example of my boss controlling my life outside of work.

Futhermore, it shows that capitalism doesn't take care of me or other workers. Why the fuck should we care about it?

Someone objects to you going to work pissed out of your brains or high on drugs and you consider it unfair?
No, that is reasonable.

But who said anything about going to work high? If I want to smoke pot on my own time outside of work, that's my own damned business. I am giving examples of my boss controlling my life OUTSIDE of work, just like you asked.

Quit applying things that are supposted occur outside of the workplace to inside of the workplace.

If I was a black boss and I found out one of my employees was a Klansman, I wouldn't want him working for me. If I caught heard him talking about "lynching niggers", he'd be getting a pink slip too.
But you just said bosses don't control people's lives outside of the workplace.

Plus, a klansman would probably not work for a black boss without doing something incredibly stupid in the workplace that would warrant firing him.

These are piss-poor examples.
No, you just have piss-poor reasoning skills.

No it shouldn't. I work to live, I don't live to work. Anything else is just slavery.
I meant you should do what you enjoy, not do shit you hate just to get money to get food to keep on working.

Welcome to reality: What the public are willing to pay you for might not coincide with what you enjoy doing. Expecting everyone else's life to revolve around your is simply unreasonable.
Yes, it is far more reasonable to assume that I would consent to turning a bolt for 8 hours a day so a rich guy that doesn't care about my well being can make more money off of me doing a job that I hate.

Welcome to reality: People don't like being exploited.

From what you've said, I don't think you're not being controlled to any unreasonable degree. When they order your execution for arriving to work late, I'll consider it unreasonable.

Spend a little time in Latin America. People are killed for wanting unions.

Labor conditions are far worse in third world countries.

They're workers, like you. They just do different work.
If by work you mean show up every now and then and tell me to work harder or cut my hair or do something else that's stupid, then sure.

Then why do you go to them? Perhaps you do need them, and their labour, after all?

People work because they have stomachs.

Socialist != Worker

A company might need labour, but seriously, what does a capitalist need a socialist for?

What does a socialist need a capitalist for?

Or what does a worker truly need an owner for?

Are you arguing that slaves are idle unless they have masters?

*PRC*Kensei

18th October 2006, 09:39

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 17 2006, 09:06 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 17 2006, 09:06 PM)
*PRC*[email protected] 17 2006, 08:47 PM
marx started his doctrine in the hope that the workers would have to work LESS and be LESS monotone. you are giving a discription of 19th century capitalism my friend :P

go take a look in cuba, people arnt working their backs of at all. things go relaxed there, i"ve been there.
Why didn't you stay, out of curiosity? [/b]
cause my girlfriend lived in belgium :)
+ i cant become a cuban all of a sudden
+ i dont know spanisch.

Rollo

18th October 2006, 10:50

Originally posted by *PRC*Kensei+Oct 18 2006, 06:39 PM--> (*PRC*Kensei @ Oct 18 2006, 06:39 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:06 PM

*PRC*[email protected] 17 2006, 08:47 PM
marx started his doctrine in the hope that the workers would have to work LESS and be LESS monotone. you are giving a discription of 19th century capitalism my friend :P

go take a look in cuba, people arnt working their backs of at all. things go relaxed there, i"ve been there.
Why didn't you stay, out of curiosity?
cause my girlfriend lived in belgium :)
+ i cant become a cuban all of a sudden
+ i dont know spanisch. [/b]
Whapish! Why didn't she come to Cuba? Cuba > Belgium and spanish is the easiest language in the world to learn.

*PRC*Kensei

18th October 2006, 12:02

Originally posted by Rollo+Oct 18 2006, 09:50 AM--> (Rollo @ Oct 18 2006, 09:50 AM)
Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 18 2006, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:06 PM

*PRC*[email protected] 17 2006, 08:47 PM
marx started his doctrine in the hope that the workers would have to work LESS and be LESS monotone. you are giving a discription of 19th century capitalism my friend :P

go take a look in cuba, people arnt working their backs of at all. things go relaxed there, i"ve been there.
Why didn't you stay, out of curiosity?
cause my girlfriend lived in belgium :)
+ i cant become a cuban all of a sudden
+ i dont know spanisch.
Whapish! Why didn't she come to Cuba? Cuba > Belgium and spanish is the easiest language in the world to learn. [/b]
cause she broke up with me a month ago :mellow: thx for asking. :ph34r:

anyway i think it's clear the question that was asked to me was ment like "if kapitalism was so bad, why did you come back" , not out of interest.

Rollo

18th October 2006, 12:04

I was actually genuinly interested. It's great there. Vintage cars, uncrowded surf and friendly people.

Tungsten

18th October 2006, 18:52

Jazzratt

How the flying fuck are those two remotley similar you fucking mouth breather?
Since you're too thick to tell what they have in common, let me enlighten you:

A communist wants to overthrow/kill the capitalist. Who in their right mind wants to employ someone who wants to overthrow/kill them?

A klansman wants to overthrow/kill people of other races. Which person of colour in their right mind wants to employ someone who wants to overthrow/kill them?

Get it? You wouldn't employ me, I wouldn't employ you.

You're blinded by your own ideology and all you're displaying is lack of intelligence.

SovietPants

But it is an example of my boss controlling my life outside of work.
No it isn't. You take the offer or leave it.

Futhermore, it shows that capitalism doesn't take care of me or other workers. Why the fuck should we care about it?
Capitalism is a system, not a person. Neither workers nor bosses have any obligation to provide you with this and you don't have the right to force them.

But who said anything about going to work high? If I want to smoke pot on my own time outside of work, that's my own damned business. I am giving examples of my boss controlling my life OUTSIDE of work, just like you asked.
You just don't tell him you smoke pot. If you don't want to work for some prick who tests you for drugs at work, then don't work there.

I meant you should do what you enjoy, not do shit you hate just to get money to get food to keep on working.
You can't unless someone is willing to pay you for doing what you enjoy. Good luck in finding them.

Yes, it is far more reasonable to assume that I would consent to turning a bolt for 8 hours a day so a rich guy that doesn't care about my well being can make more money off of me doing a job that I hate.

Welcome to reality: People don't like being exploited.
You're evasion skills aren't too good. We're not talking about fucking exploitation, we're talking about that small matter known as "consent": What the public are willing to pay you for might not coincide with what you enjoy doing.
And if the public aren't willing to pay you for doing what you enjoy, then what? Are you going to force them? Can they force you to pay them to do something they enjoy doing too?

Spend a little time in Latin America.
No thanks, I'll stick to countires where I have rights.

What does a socialist need a capitalist for?
Because socialists have stomachs?

Or what does a worker truly need an owner for?
Becuase they can't survive or it would be less convenient to live on their own?

*PRC*Kensei

18th October 2006, 21:43

dude if the state employ's us we need no capitalists.

end o story.

Ol' Dirty

19th October 2006, 01:42

Muigwithania

Socialism would merely take the material anarchy that most people live in out of our society.
Yeah, and replace it with a command economy.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I believe that what you are trying to say is that I want a state-controlled, non-democratic authoritarian "communist" paridise, right?

If so, go away. I have no time for such nonsense.

In fact, this is such a waste of my time, I'm not going to respond to the rest of your horseshit arguments.

Bye. :)

Salvador Allende

23rd October 2006, 23:58

First of all, there was no famine or any of the sort under Comrade Stalin, the "Ukraine famine" was part of a mass-propaganda scheme by the Germans against the Soviet state, no one at the time saw anything of the sort, similarly, the West and Social-Imperialist Soviet Union claimed "famine" in China, but no one who went there saw anything and we know it never occured. The famine argument is the easiest one to make, because you can simply claim it and then say they have covered it up, without showing any sort of evidence!

Socialism is the state of the workers, where the workers and peasants rule and the Capitalists are not free to oppress them, despite the claims by many now against Socialism and the claim by the modern revisionists that modern Capitalist states such as Vietnam and China are Socialist, any Marxist-Leninist can see otherwise. Socialism is very democratic, far more so than the Capitalist democracy, where vote-buying wins and the people lose. A Democracy for the Bourgeois can never be truly Democratic, because the Bourgeois will never be the majority, only Proletarian Democracy in a Socialist state can provide the people with true rights and a freedom to build society and their own destinies free of exploitation.

Socialism is not simply a reaction to commodity-fetishism or anything else. Socialism exists because of the class antagonism between the Proletariat and the Bourgeois, and this contradiction is ultimately solved by the Proletarian Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In the exact same way that the contradiction between the feudalists and bourgeois was solved by the Bourgeois Revolution and its Dictatorship.

A command economy, as you like to call it, is the economy of the people. Where their needs are met and they recieve housing, clothing, food, healthcare, education all free or virtually free and are guaranteed employment. Where the people can take command and through their labour build a new society that is theirs and the people can truly build their own destiny through their work and release their creativity in a way that Capitalism would never allow, independant of Imperialism and Reaction and fully conscious of their class-interest.

The contradiction between the Bourgeois and Proletariat, between the Imperialists and Workers, will never cease to exist as long as these forces are around, despite what post-1953 and current China have said. It is an antagonistic contradiction which, as all antagonistic contradictions, must be solved and its solution is the Revolution, which we can see now in Nepal, the Philippines and Colombia and which has been brilliantly carried through by People's Korea and some would argue in Cuba.

t_wolves_fan

24th October 2006, 14:42

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 23, 2006 10:58 pm
First of all, there was no famine or any of the sort under Comrade Stalin, the "Ukraine famine" was part of a mass-propaganda scheme by the Germans against the Soviet state,
You actually believe everything you just posted, don't you.

Pallawish

28th October 2006, 14:20

Tungsten

29th October 2006, 14:09

Muigwithania

Don't put words in my mouth.

I believe that what you are trying to say is that I want a state-controlled, non-democratic authoritarian "communist" paridise, right?
Right. You want a world free from "market anarchy"- or as I call it, a free market. The opposite of which is a controlled market - a command economy. It doesn't matter whether the commanding is done democratically, or whether it comes from some central dictator. The results are the same.

You and comrade Salvador don't consider that- you think it's possible to achieve economic freedom by taking away that freedom. You're too thick to see the contradiction.

Ol' Dirty

29th October 2006, 18:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:09 am

You and comrade Salvador don't consider that- you think it's possible to achieve economic freedom by taking away that freedom. You're too thick to see the contradiction.
Muigwithania

Don't put words in my mouth.

I believe that what you are trying to say is that I want a state-controlled, non-democratic authoritarian "communist" paridise, right?

Right.

:lol:

Wow. You really have been watching 1950's Propaganda movies, haven't you? Wow. I din't think people like you existed anymore. Funny shit. Funny shit.

To be frank, that's really not what I want at all.

What I want is a worker controlled, democratically elected state, in which the means of production are nationalized. Free healthcare, free food, and free schooling. Yup. A holiday. Whatever you want to believe.

You want a world free from "market anarchy"- or as I call it, a free market.

No one should be free to make money off of the backs of others. No one.

It doesn't matter whether the commanding is done democratically, or whether it comes from some central dictator.

It kind of does, dude.

Look at the difference between Venezuela and the former USSR! God, man, look at the difference between the literacy rates of the U.S. and Cuba!

Tungsten

30th October 2006, 20:41

Muigwithania

What I want is a worker controlled, democratically elected state, in which the means of production are nationalized. Free healthcare, free food, and free schooling. Yup. A holiday. Whatever you want to believe.
This been tried before in varying degrees with generally undesirable consequences. If think that's going to take you down the road to utopia, then you're mistaken. Don't believe me? Read your next comment:

No one should be free to make money off of the backs of others. No one.Is that right? Fair enough, but that leaves you with a problem: How to achieve that "free healthcare, free food, and free schooling".

People who provide those things have to be paid. Who by? The taxpayer. Yes, that might not be making money of the backs of others, but the consumers of these services are sure living off the backs of others. People don't all consume these things, or at the same level (nor do they produce at the same level), so some will be ripped off, while others will be getting something for nothing.

It kind of does, dude.

Look at the difference between Venezuela and the former USSR! God, man, look at the difference between the literacy rates of the U.S. and Cuba!
The tired old argument of "Mussolini was good for Italy because he made the trains run on time".

God, man, look at the difference between the literacy rates of the U.S. and Cuba!
Look at the difference between the literacy rates of Cuba and other industrialised countries, such as those in Europe. No difference- are they all communist too?

Ol' Dirty

1st November 2006, 01:15

This been tried before in varying degrees with generally undesirable consequences.

I agree. The death of the Paris Communards and the Republicans of the Spainish Civil anything but a desirable end for them. This is all the more reasojn to fight harder for the rights of workers.

What I want is a worker controlled, democratically elected state, in which the means of production are nationalized. Free healthcare, free food, and free schooling. Yup. A holiday. Whatever you want to believe.

Don't believe me? Read your next comment:

No one should be free to make money off of the backs of others. No one.

Is that right? Fair enough, but that leaves you with a problem: How to achieve that "free healthcare, free food, and free schooling".

Must I truly be redundant with you? Really? Fine. By free, I mean:

Publicly supported: free education.

It's sad that you really are that dense.

Tungsten

1st November 2006, 14:54

Muigwithania

Must I truly be redundant with you? Really? Fine. By free, I mean:

Publicly supported: free education.
If it's free, why does it need to be publicly funded? If I pay for something through taxation, then I'm still paying for it by proxy. Ergo, it's not free. You should know by now that when dealing with libertarians like me, such weasel-worded bullshit tends to get called out for what it is.

It's sad that you really are that dense.
It's sad that you haven't yet learned the correct definition of the word "free", or are honest enough to call these schemes for what they are- pork.

Ol' Dirty

1st November 2006, 20:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 09:54 am

Must I truly be redundant with you? Really? Fine. By free, I mean:

Publicly supported: free education.

If it's free, why does it need to be publicly funded? If I pay for something through taxation, then I'm still paying for it by proxy.

You're really fucking stupid.

There are multiple defs. of the word, asshole. Look it up!

It's sad that you really are that dense.

It's sad that you haven't yet learned the correct definition of the word "free", or are honest enough to call these schemes for what they are- pork.

I got it from dictionary.com- pork.

http://www.answers.com/free&r=67

Edit- I've seen stupid posts by even stupider capitalists before, but you're fucking amazing.

Pish posh, go away... come again never.

red team

2nd November 2006, 05:08

If it's free, why does it need to be publicly funded? If I pay for something through taxation, then I'm still paying for it by proxy.

But, you're also the one that support the use of money which is nothing more than motivational fiction. In other words, a psychological con game, so why shouldn't we con some "professional" teachers to instruct students using the same motivational fiction?

Tungsten

2nd November 2006, 17:41

Muigwithania

You're really fucking stupid.

There are multiple defs. of the word, asshole. Look it up!
And you're using the definition of the word in one context and applying it to another. It should be quite clear by now that I'm not going to get away with it. If you or someone else has to pay, the bottom line says: it isn't free. Ok?

I got it from dictionary.com- pork.
Perhaps you should try this instead- Pork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel)
red team

But, you're also the one that support the use of money which is nothing more than motivational fiction.
It's fiction? I've seen people work for money lots of times, it's definitely real. They can even use it to buy stuff afterwards. And the stuff is real, too.

In other words, a psychological con game,
How it is it a con? Should everyone just work for work's sake? Or are we going into one of those LTV-based robotic fantasy worlds again that you can't even guarantee you'll be in control of?

Ol' Dirty

2nd November 2006, 19:47

You're really fucking stupid.

There are multiple defs. of the word, asshole. Look it up!

And you're using the definition of the word in one context and applying it to another.

Contextualy, my arguments are sound. That was what I meant in the first place, not "free" as in "without cost", but "free" as in publicly supported.

It should be quite clear by now that I'm not going to get away with it.

Get away with what? Punching through your arguments? :huh:

If you or someone else has to pay, the bottom line says: it isn't free. Ok?

Not according to dictionary.com.

:)

I got it from dictionary.com- pork.

Perhaps you should try this instead- Pork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel)
Actually, I was calling you a fat, bourgoise asshole, but I suppose one learns something new everyday, eh? :rolleyes:

red team

But, you're also the one that support the use of money which is nothing more than motivational fiction.
It's fiction? I've seen people work for money lots of times, it's definitely real. They can even use it to buy stuff afterwards. And the stuff is real, too.

What I believe red is trying to say is that people work not for coinage or paper, but for the power that comes behind them.

red team

2nd November 2006, 23:17

It's fiction? I've seen people work for money lots of times, it's definitely real. They can even use it to buy stuff afterwards. And the stuff is real, too.

So why do people gamble since the odds can be shown to be clearly against them? The gambling industry is one of the biggest in the world. It is because people want to believe that they will win the game. I'm just clearly demonstrating that money itself is an article of faith that can only exist as a valuable medium of exchange if people have confidence in the game.

Different people react differently when it is shown to them or it dawns on them that they're playing a fool's game. Some people want to be masters of the game by accumulating enough money that they don't have to do any real work at all, but to get the suckers who want to believe in the wage-work equivalency lie and the production-wealth equivalency lie to keep on believing in them and engage in low-paying, repetitive, manual grunt work as "good honest work". Well, two can play at that game. If repetitive, labour intensive, manual grunt work is "good honest work" then the opposite position of having a job of lending people fictional debt tokens and then gain wealth from sitting in your office chair and letting the interest roll in should be "bad dishonest work" shouldn't it?

In the situation where you pay me enough to pay for necessities and I pay you (people who sell things for a living) for those necessities, who's going to be permanently rich and who's going to be permanently working for a wage to pay you to be rich? This also explains that most institutions in Capitalist society serves the primary purpose of social differentiation and regimentation. The game is not about progress or making life better in general, but about pigeon-holing people into roles where they can fulfill their specific social function in a static, unchanging society where the only class of people who have any semblance of control over their lives is people who can afford to pay other people for work. The whole way the monetary system is structured would also mean that anything that was paid out as wages for work would boomerang back to the same class of rich folks.

lvleph

3rd November 2006, 00:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:15 am
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to work hard. Harder than you ever have in your life. The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned. Expect to be forced to go down a mine, or, if you're lucky you might be able to work on a collective farm. Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though. Expect to be carted off to Siberia or something. That's what communsim is like, see.
Wow, sounds like my current job. I guess I will be in a similar boat, except wait I would be able to gt the food I need for my family, and the health care we need.

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 15:16

Originally posted by lvleph+November 03, 2006 12:12 am--> (lvleph @ November 03, 2006 12:12 am)
[email protected] 02, 2006 11:15 am
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to work hard. Harder than you ever have in your life. The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned. Expect to be forced to go down a mine, or, if you're lucky you might be able to work on a collective farm. Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though. Expect to be carted off to Siberia or something. That's what communsim is like, see.
Wow, sounds like my current job. I guess I will be in a similar boat, except wait I would be able to gt the food I need for my family, and the health care we need. [/b]
Would it be worth it when you're carried off to be executed for making counter-revolutionary statements?

Rollo

3rd November 2006, 15:54

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 04, 2006 01:16 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 04, 2006 01:16 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 12:12 am

[email protected] 02, 2006 11:15 am
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to work hard. Harder than you ever have in your life. The work will furthermore be of a monotonous and boring nature since entrepreneurship is banned. Expect to be forced to go down a mine, or, if you're lucky you might be able to work on a collective farm. Don't expect any leniency for slacking off though. Expect to be carted off to Siberia or something. That's what communsim is like, see.
Wow, sounds like my current job. I guess I will be in a similar boat, except wait I would be able to gt the food I need for my family, and the health care we need.
Would it be worth it when you're carried off to be executed for making counter-revolutionary statements? [/b]
Why would he make counter-revolutionary statements?

lvleph

3rd November 2006, 15:58

You are deluded in believing that communism must be a dictatorship. Also, not all of us are communist. I myself am an Anarchist.

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 16:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:54 pm

Why would he make counter-revolutionary statements?
He might not, the ruling clique might just need some scapegoats.

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 16:35

You are deluded in believing that communism must be a dictatorship.

I feel comfortable with my judgement considering historical patterns.

Also, not all of us are communist. I myself am an Anarchist.

Anarchy would last about 6 minues, or however long it some charismatic leader with a lot of guns built an army.

lvleph

3rd November 2006, 16:35

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 03, 2006 04:31 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 03, 2006 04:31 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 03:54 pm

Why would he make counter-revolutionary statements?
He might not, the ruling clique might just need some scapegoats. [/b]
I am going to have to ask you to move your desk as far back as possible. We are going to need to store some boxes in your cubicle. Oh there is that stapler.

TheDifferenceEngine

3rd November 2006, 16:38

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 03, 2006 04:31 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 03, 2006 04:31 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 03:54 pm

Why would he make counter-revolutionary statements?
He might not, the ruling clique might just need some scapegoats.[/b]
I'm getting pissed off with you.

READ THIS WRITING.

THERE WILL BE NO RULING CLIQUE

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 16:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:38 pm

I'm getting pissed off with you.

READ THIS WRITING.

THERE WILL BE NO RULING CLIQUE
Because you say so.

:lol:

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 16:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:35 pm
I am going to have to ask you to move your desk as far back as possible. We are going to need to store some boxes in your cubicle. Oh there is that stapler.
:lol:

So you're not all bad.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd November 2006, 18:43

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 03, 2006 01:52 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 03, 2006 01:52 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2006 04:38 pm

I'm getting pissed off with you.

READ THIS WRITING.

THERE WILL BE NO RULING CLIQUE
Because you say so.

:lol: [/b]
Because mobilized workers won't allow that to happen.
Note that in past socialist efforts, at no point were the workers mobilized independently of these cliques.

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 19:10

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 03, 2006 06:43 pm
Because mobilized workers won't allow that to happen.
Note that in past socialist efforts, at no point were the workers mobilized independently of these cliques.
The workers will not mobilize without a clique to lead them, which is your problem.

I know in the fantasy land in your head thousands, millions or even billions of people can all think alike at the same time and come to the same conclusion about something as complex and important as the political economy, but that doesn't make it likely or even sensical.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd November 2006, 20:25

We will all achieve the same conclusion because of our material conditions in class society. And there will only be one logical solution -- overthrowing capitalism.
More and more people believe in some form of socialism. But many still believe that bourgeois states can achieve it. This is the problem.

Millions of workers are mobilized. You're talking as if workers generally cannot mobilize. This is a falsehood.

t_wolves_fan

3rd November 2006, 20:35

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 03, 2006 08:25 pm
We will all achieve the same conclusion because of our material conditions in class society. And there will only be one logical solution -- overthrowing capitalism.
More and more people believe in some form of socialism. But many still believe that bourgeois states can achieve it. This is the problem.

Millions of workers are mobilized. You're talking as if workers generally cannot mobilize. This is a falsehood.
And you'll all magically agree on how everything will work, and it will just happen to be precisely what you believe, and the little fairies and leprechauns will sprinkle us all with their magic dust, and all will be right with the world.

Ahhhhhh. So delightful.

:lol:

Rollo

4th November 2006, 01:31

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 04, 2006 06:35 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 04, 2006 06:35 am)
Dr. [email protected] 03, 2006 08:25 pm
We will all achieve the same conclusion because of our material conditions in class society. And there will only be one logical solution -- overthrowing capitalism.
More and more people believe in some form of socialism. But many still believe that bourgeois states can achieve it. This is the problem.

Millions of workers are mobilized. You're talking as if workers generally cannot mobilize. This is a falsehood.
And you'll all magically agree on how everything will work, and it will just happen to be precisely what you believe, and the little fairies and leprechauns will sprinkle us all with their magic dust, and all will be right with the world.

Ahhhhhh. So delightful.

:lol: [/b]
More like this

After bloody revolt and much fighting the workers will pick up where they left off.

TheDifferenceEngine

4th November 2006, 15:46

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 03, 2006 08:35 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 03, 2006 08:35 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 03, 2006 08:25 pm
We will all achieve the same conclusion because of our material conditions in class society. And there will only be one logical solution -- overthrowing capitalism.
More and more people believe in some form of socialism. But many still believe that bourgeois states can achieve it. This is the problem.

Millions of workers are mobilized. You're talking as if workers generally cannot mobilize. This is a falsehood.
And you'll all magically agree on how everything will work, and it will just happen to be precisely what you believe, and the little fairies and leprechauns will sprinkle us all with their magic dust, and all will be right with the world.

Ahhhhhh. So delightful.

:lol:[/b]
belive it or not you lobotomised exxon puppet, all people have essentially the same morals, It's human nature.

You weren't expecting THAT were you?

Wanted Man

4th November 2006, 17:30

a tropical paradise maybe?
No, that would be much too hot for me. I'll have a temperate paradise, kthxbai.

t_wolves_fan

6th November 2006, 19:34

Originally posted by TheDifferenceEngine+November 04, 2006 03:46 pm--> (TheDifferenceEngine @ November 04, 2006 03:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 08:35 pm

Dr. [email protected] 03, 2006 08:25 pm
We will all achieve the same conclusion because of our material conditions in class society. And there will only be one logical solution -- overthrowing capitalism.
More and more people believe in some form of socialism. But many still believe that bourgeois states can achieve it. This is the problem.

Millions of workers are mobilized. You're talking as if workers generally cannot mobilize. This is a falsehood.
And you'll all magically agree on how everything will work, and it will just happen to be precisely what you believe, and the little fairies and leprechauns will sprinkle us all with their magic dust, and all will be right with the world.

Ahhhhhh. So delightful.

:lol:
belive it or not you lobotomised exxon puppet, all people have essentially the same morals, It's human nature.

You weren't expecting THAT were you? [/b]
Really.

So tell me, how do you plan to convince people to follow these same basic morals that you have decided are followed by all?

What about those morals not practiced by all?

BurnTheOliveTree

6th November 2006, 19:49

T Wolves Fan - In Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he mentions an experiment carried out by some moral philosophers and some scientists. They found that when presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma(sp?), most agree on what is to be done, and this transcends culture, nationality, etc etc. For example, they asked the classic one of there being a train about to kill 5 people, you can divert it, but you'll kill 1 on the diverted track if you do. The dilemma is that you let 5 people die, or outright murder 1. As I recall, there was about 93 percent agreement that you should divert the train. However, when faced with it in a different way, say, 5 people will all die soon from failing organs. There is one guy with all 5's healthy organs in him, do you kill him to save the five or let the five die and leave him? In this case, most agree that you should not kill the 1 to save the 5.

They repeated the experiment for tribes in africa, in Iran, USA, everywhere conceivable(perhaps), and though they changed the specifics slightly, i.e. for one tribe they used crocodiles and canoes instead of a train, the principles remained the same.

I would give a direct quote, but I stupidly lent my copy of the book to my science teacher, in exchange for a hard-core quantum physics book that I cannot even begin to comprehend. You'll just have to believe me. :)

-Alex

ZX3

6th November 2006, 20:48

Originally posted by Rollo+November 04, 2006 01:31 am--> (Rollo @ November 04, 2006 01:31 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:35 am

Dr. [email protected] 03, 2006 08:25 pm
We will all achieve the same conclusion because of our material conditions in class society. And there will only be one logical solution -- overthrowing capitalism.
More and more people believe in some form of socialism. But many still believe that bourgeois states can achieve it. This is the problem.

Millions of workers are mobilized. You're talking as if workers generally cannot mobilize. This is a falsehood.
And you'll all magically agree on how everything will work, and it will just happen to be precisely what you believe, and the little fairies and leprechauns will sprinkle us all with their magic dust, and all will be right with the world.

Ahhhhhh. So delightful.

:lol:
More like this

After bloody revolt and much fighting the workers will pick up where they left off. [/b]
Well, no... because the workers "left off" in a capitalist environment.

One would think that after a "bloody" revolution, the system will different. Indeed, socialists insist it will be. yet when it comes time to describe how this system will function, well now, as t-wolves puts it, the leprechauns and magic dust explanations come about.

t_wolves_fan

6th November 2006, 21:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 07:49 pm
T Wolves Fan - In Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he mentions an experiment carried out by some moral philosophers and some scientists. They found that when presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma(sp?), most agree on what is to be done, and this transcends culture, nationality, etc etc. For example, they asked the classic one of there being a train about to kill 5 people, you can divert it, but you'll kill 1 on the diverted track if you do. The dilemma is that you let 5 people die, or outright murder 1. As I recall, there was about 93 percent agreement that you should divert the train. However, when faced with it in a different way, say, 5 people will all die soon from failing organs. There is one guy with all 5's healthy organs in him, do you kill him to save the five or let the five die and leave him? In this case, most agree that you should not kill the 1 to save the 5.

They repeated the experiment for tribes in africa, in Iran, USA, everywhere conceivable(perhaps), and though they changed the specifics slightly, i.e. for one tribe they used crocodiles and canoes instead of a train, the principles remained the same.

I would give a direct quote, but I stupidly lent my copy of the book to my science teacher, in exchange for a hard-core quantum physics book that I cannot even begin to comprehend. You'll just have to believe me. :)

-Alex
I want to read that book and I've heard of that experiment.

But you have to understand that that moral dilemma, and many like it, don't correspond to universal consensus on a polical-economy. Diverting a train is a one-time act and a hypothetical. Try telling people that because killing one to save five in that example is widely agreed upon, they should give up their private property and their wages and work will be set by the government. Prepare to run, fast.

BurnTheOliveTree

6th November 2006, 21:20

Sure, you're right, there's no direct link I grant you.

But, the deeper point of the experiment is that present in each of us is a kind of moral intuition if you like, an ethical compass rooted deep in our psyche. Most people agree that communism would be nice if it worked, but in reality it's just a pipe-dream.

Now, practical theory debates aside, this indicates to me, and I think the experiment backs this up, that most people already want total equality, less exploitation, etc etc. They don't need any convincing. Most objections centre around "You'll never get everyone to work for nothing but the common good". It's interesting to note that everbody says this. Everbody is cynical about everybody else! But individually, privately, most people have an innate liking of the communist values, and, were everbody else helping out, would probably work for those values.

-Alex

t_wolves_fan

7th November 2006, 15:25

Now, practical theory debates aside, this indicates to me, and I think the experiment backs this up, that most people already want total equality, less exploitation, etc etc.

No, they really don't because total equality is unattainable. Sure, we all want less exploitation. We want people to be given a chance. But for a lot of us, our patience runs out with people who expect life to be handed to them on a silver platter, people who always make excuses, people whose own behavior lands them in the situations they find themselves in. You'd lose agreement on "equality" the moment you pointed to these people and said, "they deserve some of the fruits of your labor to be made totally equal to you."

They don't need any convincing. Most objections centre around "You'll never get everyone to work for nothing but the common good". It's interesting to note that everbody says this. Everbody is cynical about everybody else! But individually, privately, most people have an innate liking of the communist values, and, were everbody else helping out, would probably work for those values.

We dream about it the same way we dream about being a famous major league all star. Your problem is that you take a dream and try to make it into reality. You know how much major league baseball would suck if every guy like me were required to be given playing time? Communism is the same thing. The only way you can take everyone and make them equal is to make them equally miserable.

BurnTheOliveTree

7th November 2006, 16:42

No, they really don't because total equality is unattainable. Sure, we all want less exploitation. We want people to be given a chance. But for a lot of us, our patience runs out with people who expect life to be handed to them on a silver platter, people who always make excuses, people whose own behavior lands them in the situations they find themselves in. You'd lose agreement on "equality" the moment you pointed to these people and said, "they deserve some of the fruits of your labor to be made totally equal to you."

That's all well and good, but you assume we would allow slackers. Someone who sits on their fat arse all day long gets no sympathy from me. If, on the other hand, they work for you and for society, then you and society also work for them. There are exceptions, such as the disabled, elderly, anyone unable to work for whatever reason. But that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

I'm sure there are varied opinions on slackers. Some might advocate forcing them to work, but without a state it's perhaps difficult to avoid them just telling everyone to fuck off. In which case, they simply are denied the fruits of everyone else's labour.

Total equality in the philosophical, absolute sense is not possible. Economic equality is very realistic though.

Your problem is that you take a dream and try to make it into reality

I think you've found us a new slogan. "Communism: Where dreams come true." :)

The only way you can take everyone and make them equal is to make them equally miserable

-Alex

t_wolves_fan

7th November 2006, 17:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 04:42 pm

No, they really don't because total equality is unattainable. Sure, we all want less exploitation. We want people to be given a chance. But for a lot of us, our patience runs out with people who expect life to be handed to them on a silver platter, people who always make excuses, people whose own behavior lands them in the situations they find themselves in. You'd lose agreement on "equality" the moment you pointed to these people and said, "they deserve some of the fruits of your labor to be made totally equal to you."

That's all well and good, but you assume we would allow slackers. Someone who sits on their fat arse all day long gets no sympathy from me. If, on the other hand, they work for you and for society, then you and society also work for them. There are exceptions, such as the disabled, elderly, anyone unable to work for whatever reason. But that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

I'm sure there are varied opinions on slackers. Some might advocate forcing them to work, but without a state it's perhaps difficult to avoid them just telling everyone to fuck off. In which case, they simply are denied the fruits of everyone else's labour.

Total equality in the philosophical, absolute sense is not possible. Economic equality is very realistic though.

Your problem is that you take a dream and try to make it into reality

I think you've found us a new slogan. "Communism: Where dreams come true." :)

The only way you can take everyone and make them equal is to make them equally miserable

-Alex
I think communism's slogan should be my last sentence about equal misery.

I guess you're going to have to have a fight with your fellow communists over slackers immediately after the revolution, because there are plenty here who think a minimum annual income simply for being alive is part of the deal.

BurnTheOliveTree

7th November 2006, 18:32

Well, fight them I shall.

I meant to ask for evidence about your equal misery thing in my last post, but I'm revising science at the same time as RevLeft, and my mind's caught between gift economy and semi-lunar valves in the atriums of the heart. lol. :)

-Alex

t_wolves_fan

7th November 2006, 18:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 06:32 pm
Well, fight them I shall.

I meant to ask for evidence about your equal misery thing in my last post, but I'm revising science at the same time as RevLeft, and my mind's caught between gift economy and semi-lunar valves in the atriums of the heart. lol. :)

-Alex
Well the evidence is this.

There are not enough resources on the earth, nor the production capability, to produce enough of every good at the highest quality to give to everyone equal. Nor, for that matter, is there enough resources to give everyone half-way decent quality of every good. As a result, government or the technocracy or the council or the commune or who/whatever would ration everything at medim to mediocre quality and limit the number of goods produced.

Then, there's intangible equality. Do we really pretend the stupid are equal to the smart, the slow to the fast, or the lazy to the productive? Because you're going to have some loons demanding that they be considered so. Maybe they can be the first folks you purge.

Good luck with your biology; I hope you're a better studier than you are a philosophizer.

;)

TheDifferenceEngine

7th November 2006, 19:07

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 07, 2006 06:39 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 07, 2006 06:39 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2006 06:32 pm
Well, fight them I shall.

I meant to ask for evidence about your equal misery thing in my last post, but I'm revising science at the same time as RevLeft, and my mind's caught between gift economy and semi-lunar valves in the atriums of the heart. lol. :)

-Alex
Well the evidence is this.

There are not enough resources on the earth, nor the production capability, to produce enough of every good at the highest quality to give to everyone equal. Nor, for that matter, is there enough resources to give everyone half-way decent quality of every good. As a result, government or the technocracy or the council or the commune or who/whatever would ration everything at medim to mediocre quality and limit the number of goods produced.

Then, there's intangible equality. Do we really pretend the stupid are equal to the smart, the slow to the fast, or the lazy to the productive? Because you're going to have some loons demanding that they be considered so. Maybe they can be the first folks you purge.

Good luck with your biology; I hope you're a better studier than you are a philosophizer.

;) [/b]
Then everyone gets middle quality goods.

All people ARE equal; there are a lot of human qualities and no-one is perfect or useless:
for example I have a friend who is weak, has a below average IQ and generally embarassing in any kind of social situation. But here's the thing- he is possibly the bravest, most loyal and morally rightous guy I know.

So you can keep the elitist shit to yourself, adolf.

And get that cold war propaganda bunch of crap out of your tiny mind, we don't go around killing innocent people in "purges."

t_wolves_fan

7th November 2006, 19:12

Then everyone gets middle quality goods.

Precisely, we're equally miserable being stuck using shitty products so that you can feel good about yourself.

All people ARE equal; there are a lot of human qualities and no-one is perfect or useless:
for example I have a friend who is weak, has a below average IQ and generally embarassing in any kind of social situation. But here's the thing- he is possibly the bravest, most loyal and morally rightous guy I know.

So you can keep the elitist shit to yourself, adolf.

So any group of people who wanted to keep your embarassing friend out of their group in your system woud.....(complete the sentence)

And get that cold war propaganda bunch of crap out of your tiny mind, we don't go around killing innocent people in "purges."

Sure you would, your kind would waste innocent people who didn't want your revolution, you'd simply label them "counterrevolutionary" instead of innocent.

TheDifferenceEngine

7th November 2006, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 07:12 pm

Then everyone gets middle quality goods.

Precisely, we're equally miserable being stuck using shitty products so that you can feel good about yourself.

Middle quality goods are shitty? well look whos a rich whiteboy.

All people ARE equal; there are a lot of human qualities and no-one is perfect or useless:
for example I have a friend who is weak, has a below average IQ and generally embarassing in any kind of social situation. But here's the thing- he is possibly the bravest, most loyal and morally rightous guy I know.

So you can keep the elitist shit to yourself, adolf.

So any group of people who wanted to keep your embarassing friend out of their group in your system would have to put up with him

And get that cold war propaganda bunch of crap out of your tiny mind, we don't go around killing innocent people in "purges."

Sure you would, your kind would waste innocent people who didn't want your revolution, you'd simply label them "counterrevolutionary" instead of innocent.

If they pick up a weapon and start shooting at me, then I'll label them "counterrevolutionary" and "purge" them.
If someone (like you) starts mouthing off against the revolution, well- they are just words. If a dumbass wants to pick up a gun and fight against us for what they belive in, THEN they are counterrevolutionary. 'till then though- they're just hot air.
screw you.

BurnTheOliveTree

7th November 2006, 21:04

T Wolves - Hey, sorry for the delay in reply.

You could be right about the global lack of resources issue, I know little about it on a global level. Perhaps you could give me a source to check that out, that would be cool. :)

That said, a lack of resources is not relevant to this discussion. A global lack of resources/labour force is a problem for every single economic system there is, not just communism. If it were only an issue in communism, I might see your point. However, this just isn't the case. All that means is that in capitalism, the already poor resources are divided in a grossly unfair manner, and in communism the already poor resources are divided equally.

Thanks for the good luck. I've spent like, 4 hours on it today. :( Before I logn I'll be eating, drinking, sleeping and deffocating the circulatory system. *sniff*

-Alex