Shut up "Communists" [Archive]

Zero

25th October 2006, 05:33

Way to stereotype.

Originally posted by "CrazyModerate"+--> ("CrazyModerate")You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world.[/b]
Which is a perfect reason not to try?

Che was a washed up college pre-med, did that stop him from trying?

Originally posted by "CrazyModerate"+--> ("CrazyModerate")All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about. You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them.[/b]
How am I "out of touch" with myself? I work two jobs part-time, and attend community college. I eat, sleep, and breath computers, and give away repair services for free.

Because we are radical doesn't make us any less right, nor does it automaticly make us wrong. It simply means that we have a long term goal, what we do in the short term to achieve these goals is up to each of us individualy.

("CrazyModerate")All you do is whine about hierachies and corporations without having a real understanding of economics or sociology.[/b][/quote]
Some people; yeah, some others; no. Don't generalise, you just end up making yourself look stupid.

("CrazyModerate")You make actual progessives look bad by spouting bullshit about revolution. Newsflash, a very tiny percentage of the population is oppressed. You don't need a fucking revolution. You simply need more comprehensive social programs. Thats it. It works in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.[/b][/quote]
A very tiny percentage? Do you realise that Wal*Mart has more people in uniform in 3rd world countries then the United States military has enlisted?

Have you even taken a glance at the affects globalization has had on the people in the 3rd world? You can't just hope to reason with a corporation that has a larger income stream than most countries. You can't hope to litigate an industry built on running entire economies. International greed cant be stopped by words or speeches, it can only be stopped by removing it from the source.

("CrazyModerate")You complain about the people who work for peace and development because they work for large institutions. Get a clue, anarchists in San Francisco can't do shit for Africa by themselves.[/b][/quote]
Agreed. Though still, your generalising.

I intend on joining the Peace Corp after college so when I get back I'll have a launchpad for freelance IT consulting, and eventually opening my own cyber cafe. This doesn't mean that I intend on exploiting people, or dropping out to "fight the man". I oppose the current economic system of exploitation and individual greed, sacrificing the common gain for personal wealth. I intend on donating most gains to nonprofit revolutionary organizations... if I am able to do that at the time...

"CrazyModerate"@
ts called common sense and compromise. Marx's ideas are 150 years old. Mao and Stalin were corrupt blood thirsty monsters, just like Bush and Reagan. You don't need to be attached to ivory tower philosophies to encourage change. You aren't going to get change as a tiny minority fighting everyone. You need to compromise, and you need a majority for change.
Agreed.

"CrazyModerate"
Fuck the Soviet Union, fuck political persecution, and fuck your power trip. You;'re as bad as the fucking capitalists.
I suppose your reffering to the M-L here. But really, you need to stop stereotyping.

angus_mor

25th October 2006, 06:14

Oh yes, we, THE COMMUNISTS, are all a bunch of blood-thirsty, Stalinist, Ivory Tower Fascists. I guess actually being a member of the working class alienates me from the working class. And you're the smartest most intelligent social-democrat to grace the forums EVER, I don't know WHY I was so BRAIN-WASHED with revolution, and constantly whining about those POOR corporations and hierarchies that NEVER exploited ANYONE, not to mention *****ing about socio-economic stuff I don't know about! I mean, after all, attacking us with all those facts that apply so thoroughly to us all... MAN!

Lemme tell you something pal, I work full-time for minimum wage, I give honest work for dishonest pay, and no, I am not a college student, though I'd like to be. That's why I'm working full-time; so I can save up to do so. I have no benefits, no paid vacation, and certainly no job-security; you know how my manager motivates me? By threatening to terminate my employment. But hey, I guess I'm just some lazy blue-collar slob that deserves only this much, huh?

Of course, Marxist theory is outdated, I mean it's over 150 years old, has to be simply because of its age, no need to give a reasonable argument as to WHY! I mean he was totally wrong about Globalization, most of American jobs AREN'T being outsourced to India or anything like that. I guess GM didn't close almost all of their factories in Michigan and move 'em to Mexico back in 1989, right?

How could I have forgotten about all those perfect utopias in Europe! I mean, NONE of them are privatizing ANY of those GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED industries, and their Universal Healthcare, OH THEIR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS!

I agree with you on many things; we can't afford to lose our energy on sectarianism, it's ridiculous to believe that Leninists will lead the way to socialism. YES, the USSR was nothing more than totalitarian, and I'm glad it has dissolved, though it is much more depressing to look at what the USSR has become. YES, Stalin and Mao were reactionary fucktards. SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY, NEW DEMOCRACY?!! WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!

However, social democracy can only capitulate in the face of bourgeois corporatism; you forget that it is a bourgeois apparatus, it runs on their ideas, politicians, lobbyists, etc. They give out the campaign contributions, and their yes-men hand them their subsidies and tax breaks. On August 4th, 1914, Eduard Bernstein and the SPD voted FOR the war credits, starting World War I!!! The only members to vote against it were Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, who promptly split with the SPD forming the Communist Party of Germany. If they had all remained firm and voted against the war credits in solidarity, they could've easily voted it down. This may not have ultimately prevented WWI, but the SPD could've atleast heldfast to a core socialist principle; demilitarization.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use the democratic institutions and outlets presented to us, but we can't limit the struggle to bourgeois democracy alone; there's no true victory there. So in conclusion; FUCK Stalin AND Bernstein!!!

Marsella

25th October 2006, 06:51

HEY EVERYONE, THE HUMAN RACE IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS YEARS OLD! ITS OUTDATED, LET'S SUICIDE!

Rollo

25th October 2006, 07:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:51 pm
HEY EVERYONE, THE HUMAN RACE IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS YEARS OLD! ITS OUTDATED, LET'S SUICIDE!
Your logic is great. I wonder why I never thought of that :D

LoneRed

25th October 2006, 07:48

I must say that that was the most educated and intelligent post I've heard in a long time, oh wait, it was completely the opposite of that, do a little research before you spew your filth next time

LoneRed

25th October 2006, 07:50

Since the idea of capitalism was started over a hundred years ago, does that mean thats its outdated and not relevant. ha.

You are just another lackey of the established political order, a so called "social democrat", your place is in aiding oppression, not stopping it, that is quite evident.

A tiny part of the population is oppressed? do you even know what capitalism is? how it functions? obviously not

Forward Union

25th October 2006, 10:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:54 am
You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world.
Well off? :lol:

As for ideas about changing the world, your criticism holds some weight, our tactics clearly aren't very good, otherwise we'd be doing a bit better.

All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about

I hear this accusation alot. The assertion that we have no connection to real life, or real people. On the contrary, at least where I live, our involvement in local politics, in stopping housing developments on floodplanes, defending hospitals from closures, workers rights etc means that many people not only care, but depend on our direct action, we have a direct and positive connection to the majority, the working class. Though it's not what it could be, and should be improved. Your slander is clearly just that; slander. And has no mooring in reality. Which is understandable, your bold claims like "no one is oppressed" indicates your complete lack of connection with the majority of people.

My guess is you're like most other middle class yuppies, who travel in circles of like-minded people, patting eachother on the back for your remarkable tolerance, and appreciation of differing opinions, over sushi and red wine.

You complain about the people who work for peace and development because they work for large institutions. Get a clue, anarchists in San Francisco can't do shit for Africa by themselves.

Anarchists in San Francisco shouldn't have to do shit for the workers in Africa, they should be defending their own class in their own country. The Anarchists in Africa should be doing shit for themselves, and they fucking are. So take your charity and stuff it up your ass.

Marx's ideas are 150 years old.

and boring, like yours.

Whitten

25th October 2006, 15:10

I was under the impression that most of these stereo-types were also commonly launched at social-democrats and left-liberals. You will find most of the members here are born into proletarian families, and none of them are bourgeois (out of OI that is).

Morag

25th October 2006, 15:22

For something written as a rant, the argument is very well presented, which leads me to conclude that"Crazy Moderate" is likely a former radical who has sold their soul to some corporation and feels the need to justify that. By ranting. Someone needs to find a hobby.

Capitalist Lawyer

25th October 2006, 15:23

I oppose the current economic system of exploitation and individual greed, sacrificing the common gain for personal wealth.

You're forgetting the face that when someone strives for personal wealth, that in turn benefits the common good.

As long as it's played fair and no laws are broken.

Did the USA not prosecute those crooked Enron execs?

Adam Smith sums it up better than I can:

....by preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Book 4, Chapter 2)

It is also mentioned implicitly, as in:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. (Book 1, Chapter 2)

kaaos_af

25th October 2006, 16:37

I think he comes from an alternate dimension where the system really does work, police are nice, people are okay with being oppressed, Sweden has single-handedly halted the collapse of the environment and bosses care about their workers. If this is indeed where you are from, I agree with you.

If not, I think you should think more hard about what you're on about and perhaps who you are talking to.

bloody_capitalist_sham

25th October 2006, 16:52

You're forgetting the face that when someone strives for personal wealth, that in turn benefits the common good.

Personal wealth is created from the labor from people in the society.

That someone takes away wealth from the creators. Its an illusion of capitalism to say one man or woman can create vast wealth.

As long as it's played fair and no laws are broken.

Played fair usually means bonuses for bosses when they manage to get strikes crushed in the developing nations.

Laws are enforced on the workers in developing nations through capitalism. If your government protects its workers, then business will go to your neighboring country. And when these countries have debts to service saying no is not on the books.

Did the USA not prosecute those crooked Enron execs?

The Bourgeoisie doesn't want corruption. They want the "bad apples" (haha) out of business. They want to system to be institutionally squeaky clean, so capitalism "looks" legitimate.

EnragÃ©

25th October 2006, 16:59

You simply need more comprehensive social programs. Thats it. It works in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

no, it doesnt.
introducing forced solidarity into a capitalist system is like introducing racial equality in Nazi Germany.

doesnt work, people will take advantage of it and companies will prefer to go to other countries, making your country suffer economically for treating its citizens less murderous than other cappie countries.

Which is why social security is being cut back on from sweden to the netherlands to france.

angus_mor

25th October 2006, 17:03

I guess quoting an Enlightenment era laissez-faire crapitalist makes everything OK, doesn't it? It's absurd to suggest that someone who doesn't give a fuck about anything other than their own personal gain is indirectly benefiting the community. I suppose that's why the poverty rate is 12% in most of these Horatio Alger fantasy lands, and the rate of homelessness is catching up.

Enron is still a continuing case; most being charged are still awaiting trial, and many others involved have yet to be charged. The fact remains that statistically half of new corporations will break the law at the end of their first year in existence, why? Because liability is placed on the reified corporation itself, seeing as though it's a person of its own apparently. Not to mention the fact that more and more americans are working longer and longer hours with no benefits or a basic healthcare plan. How humane is commodified healthcare?! Not mention how democratic it is that two corporations with mostly the same board of directors counted 80% of the votes cast in the last US general election, now THAT'S democracy for ya! Yeah, there's just SO much potential for the proletariat through those COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS that we'll be able to implement through this bourgeois dictatorship you call freedom. Oh, and freedom it is too, how wonderful it is that we get to choose between coke and pepsi, and other multinational conglomerates that have our best interests at heart, even indirectly thanks to that blessed invisible hand of yours! Atleast we can choose WHICH greedy asshole gets to collect our commodified, crystalized labor! Right, ladies and germs?

Cryotank Screams

25th October 2006, 21:44

You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world.

Really? And here I thought I was a piercer and far from being well-off, please tell me more about my life, oh please.

All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about. You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them. All you do is whine about hierachies and corporations without having a real understanding of economics or sociology.

Proof? Or just baseless lies?

Newsflash, a very tiny percentage of the population is oppressed.

Where do you live? The garden of eden? An isolated cave perhaps?

You don't need a fucking revolution.

Why the fuck are you here? It's called revolutionary left for a reason.

Fuck the Soviet Union, fuck political persecution, and fuck your power trip. You;'re as bad as the fucking capitalists.

Oh really, well to me you seem like a FUCKING BRAINWASHED BOURGEOSIE who doesn't know anything about anything.

Marx's ideas are 150 years old.

And are increasingly more relevant and plausible.

Mao and Stalin were corrupt blood thirsty monsters

Yea, believe all the propaganda you read?

You need to compromise, and you need a majority for change.

Are you serious? Work with capitalists, and the bourgeoisie?

t_wolves_fan

25th October 2006, 22:04

I have to say that every ANSWER futile-fest I ever witnessed confirms this. Many a time I'd see the angry youth of America protesting outside the World Bank, completely oblivious to the homeless people who were milling around laughing at them. When they'd come to town I'd check out their agendas for the "action", and I don't recall once seeing any volunteer work at the shelter.

I do remember one march that involved banging on pots and pans (because that's what they do in some latin American country - how multicultural!) that was designed to "disrupt the warmongers and slave owners of DC in their offices" - that was planned for a Saturday.

Saturday...not...many...people...in...their...offi ces...folks.

You can't make this stuff up.

It's about angering parents, or the establishment (for those who don't grow up), and not much else.

Forward Union

25th October 2006, 22:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 09:04 pm
Many a time I'd see the angry youth of America protesting outside the World Bank, completely oblivious to the homeless people who were milling around laughing at them.
There's nothing funny about it, a large section of 'the left ' is only interested in the scene, I mean, it's a great place to meet friends and have street parties and fight cops. It has no connection to reality, all too often I've heard people propose "actions" on the basis that 'they will be fun' does my head in.

But surely you'd be more angry if we were making progress?

When they'd come to town I'd check out their agendas for the "action", and I don't recall once seeing any volunteer work at the shelter.

Yea because volunteer work is revolutionary!

More do-gooder liberal charity bullshit.

that was designed to "disrupt the warmongers and slave owners of DC in their offices" - that was planned for a Saturday.

Well, at least we can agree that these nutters are wasting their time, they might as well go home if they're not going to do anything worthwhile. I've been at large meeting where this sort of bullshit has been proposed along with "big card bulldozers" - because that's just so much fun to build. And when serious proposals are made, like office occupations, blockades, the pacifists cry murder...

...what im saying is don't tar us all with the same brush.

t_wolves_fan

25th October 2006, 22:33

There's nothing funny about it, a large section of 'the left ' is only interested in the scene, I mean, it's a great place to meet friends and have street parties and fight cops. It has no connection to reality, all too often I've heard people propose "actions" on the basis that 'they will be fun' does my head in.

I think the guys were mostly there to meet girls.

But surely you'd be more angry if we were making progress?

Which will happen right after the Cubs win the World Series.

Well, at least we can agree that these nutters are wasting their time, they might as well go home if they're not going to do anything worthwhile. I've been at large meeting where this sort of bullshit has been proposed along with "big card bulldozers" - because that's just so much fun to build. And when serious proposals are made, like office occupations, blockades, the pacifists cry murder...

...what im saying is don't tar us all with the same brush.

OK, you're nuts for different reasons.

Really, what impact do you really expect to have by taking over an office or two? Any, at all?

Ol' Dirty

25th October 2006, 22:43

You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world.

Ooh! OMG! Mudslinging! Hey, I can do that too! Watch this.

You are an ageist fucking moron: this is because you incinuate in your post that college students (if not all students) are ignorant and stupid. Fuck off.

Golly gee, that was fun! :)

All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about.

Why the hell aren't you restricted yet?

You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them.

And how much have you softcore "moderates" done? Not much.

All you do is whine about hierachies and corporations without having a real understanding of economics or sociology.

You have no idea of what you're talking about.

I don't have time for this. :angry:

Capitalist Lawyer

26th October 2006, 04:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:52 pm

Personal wealth is created from the labor from people in the society.

That's true....

And the capitalist or the employer in question is the one who hires people to perform the labor and are duly compensated for the work that they perform.

Now...I know what you're going to say next: "Well, they are only getting back a fraction of the wealth that they produce."

Guess what? That's because they are only CONTRIBUTING a fraction to the wealth that is being produced.

That someone takes away wealth from the creators. Its an illusion of capitalism to say one man or woman can create vast wealth.

Tell that to the small businessman/woman.

They also contribute to the labor process as well.

In fact, a small shop owner may put in as much as 16 hrs a day 5-6 days a week. Just remember, winners wake up when it's dark and drive home when it's dark..

Played fair usually means bonuses for bosses when they manage to get strikes crushed in the developing nations.

That's news to me, corporations crushing strikes themselves.

Got any evidence?

It's about angering parents, or the establishment (for those who don't grow up), and not much else.

Your quote reminded me of Robert Downey Jr. from the Rodney Dangerfield movie: Back to School back in the 1980's. He played the part of a Marxist who saw a capitalist/fascist conspiracy behind everything.

And Rodney told him: "You know, I think you just want to piss off your parents, that's what I think..."

Classic!

http://www.fast-rewind.com/backtoschool2.jpg

"Did you know that fraternities real role in society is to promote a neo-fascist student body right here on this campus!"

Gradualist Fool

26th October 2006, 04:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 04:17 am
As far as anti-communist rants go, thats got to be among the worst.
I agree.

dannie

26th October 2006, 10:50

First, this dude rants without any decent arguments, not even half-decent and next, he lets the cappies he hates so much debate...

I'm with the above comment

t_wolves_fan

26th October 2006, 14:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 09:50 am
next, he lets the cappies he hates so much debate...

Explain how he could prevent us from doing so.

t_wolves_fan

26th October 2006, 14:26

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2006 03:16 am
Your quote reminded me of Robert Downey Jr. from the Rodney Dangerfield movie: Back to School back in the 1980's. He played the part of a Marxist who saw a capitalist/fascist conspiracy behind everything.

And Rodney told him: "You know, I think you just want to piss off your parents, that's what I think..."

Classic!

"Did you know that fraternities real role in society is to promote a neo-fascist student body right here on this campus!"
One of the best movies ever, and filmed at my alma mater.

Communists are an interesting bunch. Youth is the main ingredient. Kids think they can change the world because it seems easy; they haven't been exposed to how things work, so idealism is natural. Throw in the anger (what teen isn't full of angst) and it's a powerful combination. Fight the powerful! Fight the state! Smash capitalism! Dye your hair purple!

It's no different than what I saw from the kids who think laissez-faire capitalism rules: they got an "A" in economics, which is easy to do, so the world should be similarly easy to run; and goddammit (here's the anger outlet) I don't want to have to pay for any lazy people.

It's all been said and done before. I wonder how many of my neighbors chuckle to themselves that they were punks hellbent on changing the world as they watch their wife pull into the driveway in the minivan with the two kids and the dog.

dannie

26th October 2006, 16:03

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 26, 2006 03:13 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 26, 2006 03:13 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2006 09:50 am
next, he lets the cappies he hates so much debate...

Explain how he could prevent us from doing so. [/b]
I expressed myself wrong, english isn't my primary language.

What I wanted to say was:"Let them the debating for him."

t_wolves_fan

26th October 2006, 16:12

Originally posted by dannie+October 26, 2006 03:03 pm--> (dannie @ October 26, 2006 03:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 03:13 pm

[email protected] 26, 2006 09:50 am
next, he lets the cappies he hates so much debate...

Explain how he could prevent us from doing so.
I expressed myself wrong, english isn't my primary language.

What I wanted to say was:"Let them do his work for him." [/b]
I see.

Where ya from?

dannie

26th October 2006, 17:57

western europe

Gradualist Fool

26th October 2006, 19:15

I mean, granted, I think the revolutionary Socialists here are insane, but at least I'd put forth some kind of argument.

You can't just come here and say, "SHUT UP YOU COMMUNISTS!" and not provide any support.

Messiah

27th October 2006, 07:30

Really, what impact do you really expect to have by taking over an office or two? Any, at all?

Of course, that's not the plan. The plan, as every plan regardless of the motive, is to be smart, start small and build from there. Squat in an office for the day, any effect? Probably not. Two offices? Same. Ten? Probably the same, though you'd probably be getting more coverage.

It's just a stupid argument all together. It's like saying to someone whose putting ten bucks into the bank, because they're saving for a down payment on a house, that ten dollars will never buy them that home! Well, duh. But that's to miss the point entirely.

Secondly, thise whole "corruptuable" youth bullshit is better left for 1950s propaganda films than any, even semi-serious, political discussion. One of the the things that the revoltuionary left has been dead on with since the beggining is their focus on young people. Why? Because they are the future, and they are the ones who have ensured that the ideas continue to stay alive.

Secondly, an internet forum is really not indicative of the actual demographics of the movement. There are a lot of young people here, and that's great, but anyone whose even had a mild experience with actual organizing can tell you it is not all "kids" out there. In fact, one of the first struggles is usually to get the "old guard" to loosen their grip on power. There are a lot of old timers out there, the smart ones of whom realize their role is to pass on the experience and let the young ones do the rest. Some of them still think they are God's gift to leftism but, that sort of attitude is to be found in every movement.

The myth of rev. leftists being all college kids is usually expoused by people who have never had any REAL contact with the movement. Maybe they saw some hackeyed protest over the weekend and all of a sudden think they know the damn project inside and out. Not likely, and an incredibly sad example of reductionist thinking.

At the end of the day though, the debates online are a good way to get started, the real change happens out there. The more people make the leap from armchair revoltuionarism (which is a good place to start, don't get me wrong) to actual organizing, the better.

Raj Radical

27th October 2006, 08:22

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 26, 2006 01:26 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 26, 2006 01:26 pm)
Capitalist [email protected] 26, 2006 03:16 am
Your quote reminded me of Robert Downey Jr. from the Rodney Dangerfield movie: Back to School back in the 1980's. He played the part of a Marxist who saw a capitalist/fascist conspiracy behind everything.

And Rodney told him: "You know, I think you just want to piss off your parents, that's what I think..."

Classic!

"Did you know that fraternities real role in society is to promote a neo-fascist student body right here on this campus!"
One of the best movies ever, and filmed at my alma mater.

Communists are an interesting bunch. Youth is the main ingredient. Kids think they can change the world because it seems easy; they haven't been exposed to how things work, so idealism is natural. Throw in the anger (what teen isn't full of angst) and it's a powerful combination. Fight the powerful! Fight the state! Smash capitalism! Dye your hair purple!

It's no different than what I saw from the kids who think laissez-faire capitalism rules: they got an "A" in economics, which is easy to do, so the world should be similarly easy to run; and goddammit (here's the anger outlet) I don't want to have to pay for any lazy people.

It's all been said and done before. I wonder how many of my neighbors chuckle to themselves that they were punks hellbent on changing the world as they watch their wife pull into the driveway in the minivan with the two kids and the dog. [/b]
I think the fact that when all else fails, you try to paint us as a 18 year old college white kids with trust funds and possible dreadlocks is funnier, but admittedly it is getting a bit old. Simply because its just not true, but I think you know that.

The people you are really trying to describe are too stoned to type or just living on communes.

Ad hominem! Its even in your signature. You do know these forums are for discussion, right?

t_wolves_fan

27th October 2006, 14:16

I think the fact that when all else fails, you try to paint us as a 18 year old college white kids with trust funds and possible dreadlocks is funnier, but admittedly it is getting a bit old. Simply because its just not true, but I think you know that.

I don't think you're all white rich college kids, but I think most of you are kids. Everytime, save once, I've checked a profile and a birthdate has been listed the birth year has been the mid or late 1980s.

Of course I'm sure many here are older than that.

The people you are really trying to describe are too stoned to type or just living on communes.

The slogans are the same.

Ad hominem! Its even in your signature. You do know these forums are for discussion, right?

Right, and that discussion can be entertaining from time to time, can't it? When the discussion merits seriousness, I oblige. When it becomes absurd, like one poster's slogan-fest on gas prices, then its only value is entertainment.

Marx Lenin Stalin

27th October 2006, 15:20

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25, 2006 02:23 pm
Adam Smith sums it up better than I can:

Adam Smith!?!? Fuck man! That guy's been dead for over 100 years! Think for yourself! His ideas are DEAD, got it?? So stop being some over the hill 55 year old who's angry that his job is being outsourced somewhere and doesn't know what to do so he spends all his free time hanging around internet forums. :lol:

(Since reasonable debate is not working, how about attacking them with their own lame "arguments"?)

Marx Lenin Stalin

27th October 2006, 15:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 09:04 pm
It's about angering parents, or the establishment (for those who don't grow up), and not much else.
Until it actually succeeds...

By the way, have you ever considered that many of our parents ARE Communists, socialists , radicals of some sort and actually approve of what we are doing? (Wait...doesn't fit to my bourgeois streotypes..cannot process...go back to streotypes...whew, ok I'm good again)

You know, we're either "college kids" or "burned out hippies" ; know-nothing idiots or elitist intellectuals...

We just can't win with you capitalist/bourgeois fanatics! We have to be something: everyone is young at one point and time, just as everyone is old. What you are describing seems to be more of the hippy/anarchist faction. Communists don't dye their hair purple or sing "koom ba-ya my lord" while smoking dope all day, when you think of the most famous Communists: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Engels, you think of full-grown men often wears suits and writing serious political works. That is a true Communist.

Sure there are sellouts, just as in any other political movement. How many right-wing moral values types are having affiars with a different woman every night and on their 4th or 5th divorce?

t_wolves_fan

27th October 2006, 15:52

Until it actually succeeds...

Long after we're dead, and/or the Cubs win the World Series.

By the way, have you ever considered that many of our parents ARE Communists, socialists , radicals of some sort and actually approve of what we are doing? (Wait...doesn't fit to my bourgeois streotypes..cannot process...go back to streotypes...whew, ok I'm good again)

Sure, I've seen enough aging burnouts and hippies to assume they probably have kids.

You know, we're either "college kids" or "burned out hippies" ; know-nothing idiots or elitist intellectuals...

Basically, yes. Which is ironic because when I argue with conservative screwjobs I'm the one labelled an elitist intellectual.

We just can't win with you capitalist/bourgeois fanatics! We have to be something: everyone is young at one point and time, just as everyone is old. What you are describing seems to be more of the hippy/anarchist faction. Communists don't dye their hair purple or sing "koom ba-ya my lord" while smoking dope all day, when you think of the most famous Communists: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Engels, you think of full-grown men often wears suits and writing serious political works. That is a true Communist.

Stereotypes persist for a reason, because they contain a nugget of truth. So you're not a pot-smoking bong-playing burnout, you're a suit-wearing "intellectual" who hasn't had a real job in your entire life; because you write about it in a blog, it must be possible.

:lol:

Sure there are sellouts, just as in any other political movement. How many right-wing moral values types are having affiars with a different woman every night and on their 4th or 5th divorce?

Pretty much all of them, which makes me glad I am not one.

Capitalist Lawyer

27th October 2006, 16:27

By the way, have you ever considered that many of our parents ARE Communists, socialists , radicals of some sort and actually approve of what we are doing?

Now that's creepy but also highly doubtful as I'm sure most of your parents aren't very political and spend more time caring about paying their bills and keeping their family intact.

If what you said is true, then I think that maybe it's about time your parents starting acting...like...welll.....PARENTS!

And not your friends!

(Kinda reminds of all of those "popular" kids in high school whose parents let them have parties and stay out all night on school nights.)

And look at how they turned out!

You know, we're either "college kids" or "burned out hippies" ; know-nothing idiots or elitist intellectuals...

A lot of you are college kids, for whatever reasons.

Burned out hippies? Not at all, although I'm curious as to why you take such a lax view on drug abuse, sex, and have such a distrust of morals and principles (secular or religious).

Know-nothing idiots? You're all a pretty smart bunch.

Elitist intellectuals? Bulls-eye!

You all pretty much look down on everybody in disgust who don't share your so-called "correct way of looking at the world".

If one believes in God or goes to Church, they are a "sucker".

If you love your family, you're an "asskisser".

If you choose not to indulge in drugs and sex on a regular basis (for whatever reasons), then you're a "neo-puritanical blowhard still living in the 1950's".

If you haven't read Marx, Lenin, or any other obscure history book, then you're a dumbass.

If you go to a community college or a state-school, then you're a dumbass.

(What's shocking is that communists would even remotely support someone going to college in the first place? After all, aren't they "bourgeois indoctrinating centers"?)

Lenin, Stalin, Engels, you think of full-grown men often wears suits and writing serious political works. That is a true Communist.

I thought they weren't true communists!?

Axel1917

27th October 2006, 18:00

A rather subsophomoric post used to "prove" that we are merely well-off college students.

Minority this, minority that. Blech. This person does not know how party building works. Not to mention that we can easily turn the tables by pointing out that revolutionaries in the colonies, abolitionists, etc. started out as tiny minorities.

Messiah

28th October 2006, 03:07

Now that's creepy but also highly doubtful as I'm sure most of your parents aren't very political and spend more time caring about paying their bills and keeping their family intact.

Do you actually have anything to add except assumptions about people there, Miss Cleo?

Are you somehow challanged as to not be able to pay bills AND be political? Oh god! Too...many...things...happening...during...one...d ay. *head asplodes*

You know, there are some really serious questions every radical needs to ask themselves. Many people on these boards are not asking these questions. Many others are. That intellectual and maturity gap is evident in many of the discussions.

But your critique is not really a critique at all, it's just slander. It's complaining that children aren't like their parents, that they are like their parents, that older people aren't acting like they are supposed to, that they are acting like they are suppossed to and so on.

You just throw everything out there, ocymorons, opposites and flat out lies in an effort to get those who are on the same level as you, expcept ideologically oppossed, to respond. Most intelligent people, of all political leanings, should see through this in a second. It's pure ad homiem, nothing else. There is no actual thought, or merit to anything that you say. That which you direct at us could in a second be used, with merely changing names, against conservatives, liberals, fascists, libertarians -- anyone and anything. It's something that should be left for the playground (you're a poo poo head!) and not any serious political discussion.

Then again, this was never a serious political discussion, so why don't you go play chicken with a diesel train? :wub:

EDIT:

I just had to say one more thing, about this:

If you haven't read Marx, Lenin, or any other obscure history book, then you're a dumbass.

Obscure history book!? Are you serious? You may not like Marx, or believe everything he says or whatever, but to call the Mnifesto or him as a figure "obscure" is just to show your own ignorance. In a really spectacular fashion. This is a text that more or less, influenced seemingly everypart of the next 150 years and still continues to influence the world. It's like calling the Bible or the Qu'ran a minor historical note. It's pure idiocy. It has nothing to do with where you stand on politics, but rather with if you have any knowledge of history WHATSOEVER. Clearly, you don't.

which doctor

28th October 2006, 04:19

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 27, 2006 09:26 am
Communists don't dye their hair purple or sing "koom ba-ya my lord" while smoking dope all day, when you think of the most famous Communists: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Engels, you think of full-grown men often wears suits and writing serious political works. That is a true Communist.
So a true communist must be a white male who dresses formally and writes serious political works?

:lol:

Good luck on finding enough of those to start your revolution!

Forward Union

28th October 2006, 10:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 09:33 pm
I think the guys were mostly there to meet girls.

Well, whatever, it makes the same point.

OK, you're nuts for different reasons.

Thanks :wub:

Really, what impact do you really expect to have by taking over an office or two? Any, at all?

In some cases it wouldn't have any effect, in other cases it can make a huge difference. Locking out delegates from their meetings is incredibly disruptive, and makes a stronger point than getting 10,000 people to march around with pots and pans.

Equally so, I would argue the sabotaging of military equipment and blockading of bases was a far more effective form of action than the antiwar marches.

Baring in mind that in the class war, we have no way of tackling the opposition head on, it's outside our capacity to wage war. Our actions are dramatically scaled down, to achievable goals. "Smashing the state" is fantastically unattainable at this time. Hooking up OAPs with illegal heating so they don'tdie in the winter, isn't.

uber-liberal

28th October 2006, 11:32

Originally posted by FoB+October 28, 2006 03:19 am--> (FoB @ October 28, 2006 03:19 am)
Marx Lenin [email protected] 27, 2006 09:26 am
Communists don't dye their hair purple or sing "koom ba-ya my lord" while smoking dope all day, when you think of the most famous Communists: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Engels, you think of full-grown men often wears suits and writing serious political works. That is a true Communist.
So a true communist must be a white male who dresses formally and writes serious political works?

:lol:

Good luck on finding enough of those to start your revolution! [/b]

True communists look at pay disparity between the executives of large corporations and the hourly workers and scream about the injustice because no one else seems to see it.
True communists are people of almost all walks of life. Personally, I've never heard of a rich communist. I'm pretty sure a dilletante like that would be outed pretty quickly.

By the way, have you ever considered that many of our parents ARE Communists, socialists , radicals of some sort and actually approve of what we are doing?

Now that's creepy but also highly doubtful as I'm sure most of your parents aren't very political and spend more time caring about paying their bills and keeping their family intact.

If what you said is true, then I think that maybe it's about time your parents starting acting...like...welll.....PARENTS!

Parenting is an act of love. If you love your children, you impart on them your most valueable ideas and beliefs. For many people, that would include their political beliefs. My father taught me about my Great-uncle, Neil, who died in Pennsylvania fighting for union labor laws in the coal mines as a member of the IWW. He was 22 years old. I won't find his name anywhere in American history, but he's a family hero and martyr for us.
If this is not acceptable to you to teach children about the world views of their family and community, than I beg you to call CPS everytime you see a young child attend church. Also, ask all school systems in the US to ban youth political groups, like communists, the Young Republicans (called Club Repub), young Dems, et al.

If one believes in God or goes to Church, they are a "sucker".
True, but it's your life. Do what you want with it. Most communists would think religion is wrong, but not all. Knock yourself out. No, really...

What's shocking is that communists would even remotely support someone going to college in the first place? After all, aren't they "bourgeois indoctrinating centers"?
What better way to tear the system down from the inside than to understand the mechanism?
I think you seriously misunderstand communism. It, as a philosophy, puts a heavy premium on knowledge and education. Be it a trade or an intillectual discipline, every cog in the engine plays a role, but ultimately NONE are more important that the others; not the Harmonic Balancer, not the rocker arms, not the push rods or the cam shaft. What is a piston without a sparkplug, and conversely, what is a sparkplug without the piston? The same answer comes both ways; useless.

Matty_UK

28th October 2006, 12:44

Matty_UK

28th October 2006, 12:47

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2006 03:27 pm
If you go to a community college or a state-school, then you're a dumbass.
Assuming a state-school is the American equivalent of a British comprehensive school (where you don't pay?) then that's a load of crap because all the leftists I know went to comprehensive schools and people in private/public schools seem to be the most anti-leftist people I've met. (and are real arseholes I also find)

Jazzratt

28th October 2006, 15:03

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2006 03:27 pm

By the way, have you ever considered that many of our parents ARE Communists, socialists , radicals of some sort and actually approve of what we are doing?

Now that's creepy but also highly doubtful as I'm sure most of your parents aren't very political and spend more time caring about paying their bills and keeping their family intact.
They do care about the bills, that's one of the reasons they are political you fucknut. I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society. Like the parents who have to give most of their wealth to fatcats who never do a day of real fucking work.

If what you said is true, then I think that maybe it's about time your parents starting acting...like...welll.....PARENTS! Why dio they have to subscribe to your view of what a parent should do?

And not your friends! Oh yes, having parents that hate you is a great idea :unsure: I hope you never have children you psychotic fuck.

(Kinda reminds of all of those "popular" kids in high school whose parents let them have parties and stay out all night on school nights.) Do you have some angst to sort out? Did you have strict parents that thought "raising your right" meant making sure you never enjoyed yourself? Did all the other kids make fun off you? Is that why you want to prove to the world that you have no compassion and desire only money?

And look at how they turned out! Well most of them that I know are now productive labourers and active union members.

You know, we're either "college kids" or "burned out hippies" ; know-nothing idiots or elitist intellectuals...

A lot of you are college kids, for whatever reasons. Fair point, but there is never a need to assume.

Burned out hippies? Not at all, although I'm curious as to why you take such a lax view on drug abuse, sex, and have such a distrust of morals and principles (secular or religious). I, personally, take a "lax view on drug abuse" because I know that people are logical enough to know what they are about to do to themselves when they embark on a drug taking, and those who don't or refuse to believe any evidence as to the likley outcome deserve what they get. I have a "lax view on sex" because I see no reason for people not to have sex with each other - again if any danger is present both parties should be aware of any precautions and risks. I have no distrust of morals and principals, they just differ from yours.

Know-nothing idiots? You're all a pretty smart bunch. :blush: awww shucks.

Elitist intellectuals? Bulls-eye! I've never understood how 'intellectual' is an insult, but I'm intrigued as to the reasoning behind the claim we are eltist.

You all pretty much look down on everybody in disgust who don't share your so-called "correct way of looking at the world". I beg to differ. The only people I've 'looked down on with disgust' have been extremist anti-communists. That is, one or two of the wankers on here, fascists and scabs.

If one believes in God or goes to Church, they are a "sucker". If one believes in God or goes to Church one is wrong and, yes, possibly suckered into a fools game.

If you love your family, you're an "asskisser". I love my fucking family, you fuckwit. I get on very well with my sister for example. I still refer to my greatest friends as my 'family', I just happen to think that the heirachical (definate spelling mistake there. I think anyway) structure of the family is harmful to most children.

If you choose not to indulge in drugs and sex on a regular basis (for whatever reasons), then you're a "neo-puritanical blowhard still living in the 1950's". If you choose not to induldge in drugs that's fine by me. If you tell anyone else that they should follow suit then you're being a neo-puritanical piece of shit. Even if you're a really cool straight edge kiddy.

If you haven't read Marx, Lenin, or any other obscure history book, then you're a dumbass. Only if you're constructing a strawman of the philosophies expounded by those authors.

If you go to a community college or a state-school, then you're a dumbass. Fuck off. I'm no fucking "dumbass", you got us wrong there - if you go to a private educational institution then you're a rich fuckwit that will be first against the fucking wall. If you teach at one then you're a traitor to the proffesion and a scab.

(What's shocking is that communists would even remotely support someone going to college in the first place? After all, aren't they "bourgeois indoctrinating centers"?) They are when they teach shit like 'citizenship' or teach a bourgeoise-biased curriculum in socialogy, philosophy, economics ect. But subjects like Languages, Music, Art & The Sciences cannot be used in such a way, and we will need Scientests post revolution, just as we will want writers, muscians other entertainers.

Lenin, Stalin, Engels, you think of full-grown men often wears suits and writing serious political works. That is a true Communist.

I thought they weren't true communists!? Depends who you ask. Personally I think Stalin was a mistake as far as leftism is concerned.

(Sorry about all the spelling mistakes, typos and so on - I'm not the worlds greatest typist and I don't have the time fro a proof reading.)

ZX3

28th October 2006, 16:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 02:03 pm
They do care about the bills, that's one of the reasons they are political you fucknut. I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society. Like the parents who have to give most of their wealth to fatcats who never do a day of real fucking work.

[QUOTE]

You must be noticing something that everyone has missed. Communist movements tend to be led and supported by the wealthiest, not the poorest. Its another of the grand theories of communism which simply do not correspond with the facts.

Jazzratt

28th October 2006, 17:43

Originally posted by ZX3+October 28, 2006 03:32 pm--> (ZX3 @ October 28, 2006 03:32 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2006 02:03 pm
They do care about the bills, that's one of the reasons they are political you fucknut. I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society. Like the parents who have to give most of their wealth to fatcats who never do a day of real fucking work.

You must be noticing something that everyone has missed. Communist movements tend to be led and supported by the wealthiest, not the poorest. Its another of the grand theories of communism which simply do not correspond with the facts. [/b]
What the shit are you talking about? Mao's forces, by way of example, were supported mainly by the poor and oppressed peasents. What about the Paris Commune or, more recently, Oaxaca?

Back up your assertions, for fuck's sake.

Capitalist Lawyer

28th October 2006, 19:11

They do care about the bills, that's one of the reasons they are political you fucknut. I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society.

All of you here and angry and poor then? If not, and you currently live a fairly comfortable life, then what made you receptive to communist ideas?

Guilt? Boredom? Wanting to piss off parents?

Like the parents who have to give most of their wealth to fatcats who never do a day of real fucking work.

All you want is that people should be payed better and no tyrannical bosses who aren't productive?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You can have that without communism!

Why dio they have to subscribe to your view of what a parent should do?

Don't overburden them and don't give in to everything that they fucking want.

Oh yes, having parents that hate you is a great idea

See above.

Did you have strict parents that thought "raising your right" meant making sure you never enjoyed yourself?

You fully support parents who buy their kids beer kegs, allow them to smoke marijuana in high school and buy them slasher movies and violent video games at a very young age?

That's your idea of "enjoying yourself"?

I don't mind if you sneak out of the house, buy beer, smoke cigarettes, have sex with your girlfriend or whatever...I just don't support parents who actively encourage that.

Understand?

Did all the other kids make fun off you? Is that why you want to prove to the world that you have no compassion and desire only money?

Given the nature of our system...yeah, you better desire money...otherwise you better find a nice box to sleep in or a friend who'll let you crash at their place.

Well most of them that I know are now productive labourers and active union members.

Yeah, well...that's anecdotal evidnece. The ones that I know are still living at home, dropped out of school and consider the mall the premier hang out spot.

Even in their mid 20s.

I, personally, take a "lax view on drug abuse" because I know that people are logical enough to know what they are about to do to themselves when they embark on a drug taking, and those who don't or refuse to believe any evidence as to the likley outcome deserve what they get.

How about telling them not to take drugs in the first place?

Talk about being an uncompassionate bastard?

I have a "lax view on sex" because I see no reason for people not to have sex with each other - again if any danger is present both parties should be aware of any precautions and risks. I have no distrust of morals and principals, they just differ from yours.

If you were a parent, you would fully support your adolescent child's decision to have sex on a regular basis?

I've never understood how 'intellectual' is an insult, but I'm intrigued as to the reasoning behind the claim we are eltist.

I had a professor tell me that "intellectuals are very unhappy people".

He was one himself.

If one believes in God or goes to Church one is wrong and, yes, possibly suckered into a fools game.

Truthfully, I'm agnostic on the former and defintely dont' participate in the latter but I don't see them as suckers or freak out at the prospect of people along with their families going to church.

Besides, it beats the alternative of indulging in video games, violent movies, indulging yourself with your credit card, doing drugs and what not.

If you choose not to induldge in drugs that's fine by me. If you tell anyone else that they should follow suit then you're being a neo-puritanical piece of shit. Even if you're a really cool straight edge kiddy.

Parents who tell their kids to stay away from drugs are being pieces of shit?

I dont' support the current drug laws by the way.

hey are when they teach shit like 'citizenship' or teach a bourgeoise-biased curriculum in socialogy, philosophy, economics ect.

Well, that's what they teach so I guess your SOL?

Except maybe at those weird, small private colleges in New England, that only rich kids can attend and there you can join groups like "Peace, Love and Communism" and participate in pointless mental masturbation exercises.

And the bright side is that you won't have to worry about actually working afterwards. As most of them get their advanced degrees and get a job in academia...you know REAL WORK!

But answer this question: Why is it that academic institutions that tend to lean far to the left tend to be the most expensive? I'm not talking about liberalism bur rather communism and anarchism?

Hypocrisy don't you think?

Zero

28th October 2006, 20:47

Originally posted by "Capitalist Lawyer"
Hypocrisy don't you think?
Way to distort reality.

Ivy League colleges pay oodles of money for the most renowned, the smartest, the fastest, etc. to teach students. Especially wanted are those who also do work on the side, who could possibly come in contact with mass-media; so that said college will benifit from recognition.

This is why many leftist teachers who are very intense at their research, and very well known rise to the top.

Remember, just because a school has primarally leftist teachers does not mean that the school agrees with this. They are doing this because the leftist knows what the fuck they're talking about.

R_P_A_S

28th October 2006, 21:01

im around the working class everyday fool! what the fuck u talking about?

Jazzratt

29th October 2006, 11:42

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28, 2006 06:11 pm

They do care about the bills, that's one of the reasons they are political you fucknut. I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society.

All of you here and angry and poor then? If not, and you currently live a fairly comfortable life, then what made you receptive to communist ideas?

Guilt? Boredom? Wanting to piss off parents?
How the fuck should I know? I only know, like, four members of this board personally and I've never asked or been told why they get into communism, although I suspect the main reason is that it's a good idea.

Like the parents who have to give most of their wealth to fatcats who never do a day of real fucking work.

All you want is that people should be payed better and no tyrannical bosses who aren't productive?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You can have that without communism! No, I want there to be no price system (no paying, "better pay" becomes irrelevant.) and no inherent exploitation in the labour arrangment.

Why dio they have to subscribe to your view of what a parent should do?

Don't overburden them and don't give in to everything that they fucking want. Sorry, what did this do have to do with my question, it began with why, which is traditionally followed by answer beggining with because.

Oh yes, having parents that hate you is a great idea

See above. That doesn't answer my question you pisspipe.

Did you have strict parents that thought "raising your right" meant making sure you never enjoyed yourself?

You fully support parents who buy their kids beer kegs, allow them to smoke marijuana in high school and buy them slasher movies and violent video games at a very young age? Sure, why not. As long as they have explained any long term consequences of drinking lots of beer.

That's your idea of "enjoying yourself"? Well, my parents used to buy me whisky and that ind of thing, although they never let me smoke (not that I wanted to, for a whole host of reasons.) and I did enjoy that. They also bought me books, which I also enjoyed. People can enjoy themselves in many ways my friend, many ways.

I don't mind if you sneak out of the house, buy beer, smoke cigarettes, have sex with your girlfriend or whatever...I just don't support parents who actively encourage that.

Understand? Not really, because that makes no fucking sense. You're encouraging parents to prevent their kids doing something you would support them doing, therfore you're fully behind family tensions and arguments? And I'm the one bringing down the "fine" institution of family?

Did all the other kids make fun off you? Is that why you want to prove to the world that you have no compassion and desire only money?

Given the nature of our system...yeah, you better desire money...otherwise you better find a nice box to sleep in or a friend who'll let you crash at their place. Ah so you were bullied at school. Was it because you were a rich spoilt ****?

Well most of them that I know are now productive labourers and active union members.

Yeah, well...that's anecdotal evidnece. The very nature of your statement required anectodatal evidence, in fact you go on to say:

The ones that I know are still living at home, dropped out of school and consider the mall the premier hang out spot.

Even in their mid 20s. As if it's any less anecdotal, you stupid shit.

I, personally, take a "lax view on drug abuse" because I know that people are logical enough to know what they are about to do to themselves when they embark on a drug taking, and those who don't or refuse to believe any evidence as to the likley outcome deserve what they get.

How about telling them not to take drugs in the first place? Why do that when you can describe all the effects of the drug, both good & bad then let the individual decide.

Talk about being an uncompassionate bastard? That's fucking rich coming from you.

I have a "lax view on sex" because I see no reason for people not to have sex with each other - again if any danger is present both parties should be aware of any precautions and risks. I have no distrust of morals and principals, they just differ from yours.

If you were a parent, you would fully support your adolescent child's decision to have sex on a regular basis? Why wouldn't I, as long as it was consentual?

I've never understood how 'intellectual' is an insult, but I'm intrigued as to the reasoning behind the claim we are eltist.

I had a professor tell me that "intellectuals are very unhappy people".

He was one himself. Nice anecdote, don't really see how "unhappy" is insulting though.

If one believes in God or goes to Church one is wrong and, yes, possibly suckered into a fools game.

Truthfully, I'm agnostic on the former and defintely dont' participate in the latter but I don't see them as suckers or freak out at the prospect of people along with their families going to church. When did I say they were freaks, yes they are suckers - and it may not be because they're less intellegient or whatever. Relgion, like most opiates, can get into anyone's life. Even mine, at one point.

Besides, it beats the alternative of indulging in video games, violent movies, indulging yourself with your credit card, doing drugs and what not. People who beleive in God and go to Church still do those things, they just lay off for an hour or two on a sunday. Also my current alternative to church is to sit around with my friends and just, y'know talk which isn't in any of those catergorys, except maybe "what not".

If you choose not to induldge in drugs that's fine by me. If you tell anyone else that they should follow suit then you're being a neo-puritanical piece of shit. Even if you're a really cool straight edge kiddy.

Parents who tell their kids to stay away from drugs are being pieces of shit? Yes. A parent should simply educate the child on risks and benefits of drugs.

I dont' support the current drug laws by the way. Good for you.

hey are when they teach shit like 'citizenship' or teach a bourgeoise-biased curriculum in socialogy, philosophy, economics ect.

Well, that's what they teach so I guess your SOL? If you read on you would see that subjects like the sciences and other such subjects.

Except maybe at those weird, small private colleges in New England, that only rich kids can attend and there you can join groups like "Peace, Love and Communism" and participate in pointless mental masturbation exercises. Never heard of them, ****stick - and since you have not provided any evidence of their existence I'll assume you're a liar.

And the bright side is that you won't have to worry about actually working afterwards. As most of them get their advanced degrees and get a job in academia...you know REAL WORK! Your rant has nothing to do with me.

But answer this question: Why is it that academic institutions that tend to lean far to the left tend to be the most expensive? I'm not talking about liberalism bur rather communism and anarchism?

Hypocrisy don't you think? See Zero's response.

Tungsten

29th October 2006, 14:24

Jazzratt

I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society.
Like poor, starving Marx, Engels and Lenin? Don't make me laugh.

Jazzratt

29th October 2006, 16:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 02:24 pm
Jazzratt

I don't know f you've noticed but communist movements tend to be made up by the angriest and poorest sections of society.
Like poor, starving Marx, Engels and Lenin? Don't make me laugh.
Oh yes, I forgot that they made up the movements, the mass of people during the communsit revolutions must have all been rich because the leaders and theorists were.

Don't be a tit all your life, mate.

Tungsten

29th October 2006, 17:24

Jazzratt

Oh yes, I forgot that they made up the movements, the mass of people during the communsit revolutions must have all been rich because the leaders and theorists were.
You give me a disgrunted worker and I'll raise you an middle-class ivy-league brat.

Don't pretend these don't exist. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/05/04/nriot04.html)

Don't be a tit all your life, mate.
I'm not your mate, tit.

Jazzratt

29th October 2006, 17:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:24 pm
Jazzratt

Oh yes, I forgot that they made up the movements, the mass of people during the communsit revolutions must have all been rich because the leaders and theorists were.
You give me a disgrunted worker and I'll raise you an middle-class ivy-league brat.

Don't pretend these don't exist. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/05/04/nriot04.html)
I'm not pretending they don't exist, I'm simply not suffering the delusion that they make up the majority of the leftist movement.

Don't be a tit all your life, mate.
I'm not your mate, tit. Colloquialism boy, colloquialism. "Mate" used there in the same way a mugger would use it, you fucking numpty.

Tungsten

29th October 2006, 17:47

Jazzratt

I'm not pretending they don't exist, I'm simply not suffering the delusion that they make up the majority of the leftist movement.
How do you know? Let's see statistics, not anecdotal evidence.

"Mate" used there in the same way a mugger would use it,
An ironically appropriate anology.

Jazzratt

1st November 2006, 20:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:47 pm
Jazzratt

I'm not pretending they don't exist, I'm simply not suffering the delusion that they make up the majority of the leftist movement.
How do you know? Let's see statistics, not anecdotal evidence.
You are aware of the history of the leftist movement, yes? You do know about groups like the Communist League and Class War, right - ones that don't take to kindly to rich fuckers?

"Mate" used there in the same way a mugger would use it,
An ironically appropriate anology. Ah yes, the old "emancipation is robbing the poor money-tyrants" chestnut, I got one thing to say to that, you little wanker:

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/sticksnew/YUP%20copy.jpg Watch your back, the proles aren't going to stand for your shit much longer.

Tungsten

2nd November 2006, 17:15

Jazzratt

Ah yes, the old "emancipation is robbing the poor money-tyrants" chestnut,
Liberating me from the tyrany of my wallet is emancipation, is it? I think this debate is over.

Watch your back, the proles aren't going to stand for your shit much longer.
What makes you think they're going to stand yours?
http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/sticksnew/YUP%20copy.jpg
"Give us your money or we'll throw ketchup at you."

Jazzratt

2nd November 2006, 17:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:15 pm
Jazzratt

Ah yes, the old "emancipation is robbing the poor money-tyrants" chestnut,
Liberating me from the tyrany of my wallet is emancipation, is it? I think this debate is over.
The emancipation bit was about the revolution you cappies often associate with mugging, for some fucking weird reason.

Watch your back, the proles aren't going to stand for your shit much longer.
What makes you think they're going to stand yours? Because I don't think my class is stupid, I don't think my class shuld be held down and I am aiming to free my class. THat is why.

"Give us your money or we'll throw ketchup at you." Your a fucking comic genius. I hope you get mugged, and I hope they kick your arrogant head in.

Djehuti

2nd November 2006, 17:53

You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world. All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about. You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them.

Oh really? I did not know that! What is your source for this "information"? An empty cliché mayhaps?

I cannot relate to what you are saying. My father was thrown out by his parent at low age, he did drugs and occasionally a job or two. Now he is dead, murdered. My mother held a job at an industry, but she lost it during the massiv industrial closures of the 90ies. And after 30 years of work, now shes got nothing. She is not even allowed to get a job by the social services. I myself work at an industry, manufacturing wash machines. Before that I worked with rims and tires. Most of my other more or less radical leftist friends also come from simple conditions. I don't even now any "well off collage students"! So fuck your prejudices!

Besides, I am not interested in "helping" the working class in any philantropical fashion. I am interested in activating my class by building up our class power together with other proletarians. Class power on the work places, on the streets and in every day life.

All you do is whine about hierachies and corporations without having a real understanding of economics or sociology.

"Real understanding", I guess that is reserved for the few and well educated?
Oh I think we understand society very well thank you, we don't need a Ph.D in sociology to know that society is fucked up.

You make actual progessives look bad by spouting bullshit about revolution. Newsflash, a very tiny percentage of the population is oppressed. You don't need a fucking revolution. You simply need more comprehensive social programs. Thats it. It works in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

Really? I live in Sweden. Sure, it is better than most places but it is getting worse for each passing day. Reformist socialism failed, it could not do what is promised to do. We are betrayed by what we though were our parties and our unions. When capital started it's global offensive c.a 30 years ago we were held back by the social democrats, we should not fight back but keep calm, "we are all in the same boat" and if we just waited calmly and patiently enough it will all end fine and well for everyone. I wonder, how long should we wait? I'd say that it's time to strike back. This time by ourselfs and not through some elitist party or the like.

Its called common sense and compromise. Marx's ideas are 150 years old.

Sooo? Most of our values and views are far older than that.

Mao and Stalin were corrupt blood thirsty monsters, just like Bush and Reagan.

They were even worse i'd say. Still, most communists have never held any positive views on neither Stalin nor Mao.

You aren't going to get change as a tiny minority fighting everyone. You need to compromise, and you need a majority for change.

I realize that. I do not intend to fight as a tiny minority.
I am sceptical toward compromises with the class enemy though, it brings no good in the long term. And we don't really need them or their "gifts", our class is much stronger than they are. We already hold all power in the world... to bad we have not realized it yet.

SmashCapitalism

3rd November 2006, 17:08

Well off college students? Sorry, but last time I checked, I was from a working class family, and which had at one point lived in a trailer and received gov. checks.

Forward Union

3rd November 2006, 17:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 05:15 pm
"Give us your money or we'll throw ketchup at you."
Well, if you're that confident, would you be brave enough to put your name and adressup, so I can write letters to you?

Tungsten

4th November 2006, 14:04

Jazzratt

The emancipation bit was about the revolution you cappies often associate with mugging, for some fucking weird reason.
Because that's what it usually consists of, only on a larger scale.

Your a fucking comic genius.
I know.

I hope you get mugged, and I hope they kick your arrogant head in.
I wish them luck; I don't even live in their area.
Love Underground

Well, if you're that confident, would you be brave enough to put your name and adressup, so I can write letters to you?
I get enough fan mail as it is.

nmlssone

4th November 2006, 22:25

Why is San Francisco always brought into thie. T_T

Johnny Anarcho

5th November 2006, 19:16

I'm in college...wow. Weird thing since my college is called Northwest High School :redstar2000: Anyway, we dont all believe in Socialism by revolution. I advocate an "evolution not revolution" stance myself. The problem is that you generalize that we all believe in the exact same things and agree on the exact way to fix it. Thats just not the case; some people here are Anarchists, others are Marxist-Leninists, and some are even Orthodox Marxists. The only thing we all agree on here is that something is wrong with the world and that Capitalism is to blame.

Jazzratt

5th November 2006, 20:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 02:04 pm
Jazzratt

The emancipation bit was about the revolution you cappies often associate with mugging, for some fucking weird reason.
Because that's what it usually consists of, only on a larger scale.
Brilliant reasoning. Still, what if it is? Mugging is only a crime if you respect the rights of the "mugged" individual (in this case the debt-tyrants) and property "rights" (what a crock of donkey shit those are).

Your a fucking comic genius.
I know. Another blinder, are you here all night?

I hope you get mugged, and I hope they kick your arrogant head in.
I wish them luck; I don't even live in their area. You live in an area with no muggers? Are there no poor people wiether? Are you in fucking cappie magic land?

ZX3

5th November 2006, 20:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 11:42 am

You can have that without communism! No, I want there to be no price system (no paying, "better pay" becomes irrelevant.) and no inherent exploitation in the labour arrangment.

[/quote]

Okay. So method replaces pricing as a method of allocating resources in a communist community?

Jazzratt

5th November 2006, 21:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:54 pm

You can have that without communism! No, I want there to be no price system (no paying, "better pay" becomes irrelevant.) and no inherent exploitation in the labour arrangment.

Okay. So method replaces pricing as a method of allocating resources in a communist community? [/quote]
Energy Accounting.

Tungsten

6th November 2006, 21:26

Jazzratt

Brilliant reasoning. Still, what if it is? Mugging is only a crime if you respect the rights of the "mugged" individual (in this case the debt-tyrants)
Only so-called debt-tyrants get mugged, do they? You'll find the common folk are the most common victims of it.

and property "rights" (what a crock of donkey shit those are).
Which presumably you don't agree with, so does that mean if someone mugs you, you won't complain?

You live in an area with no muggers?
I was referring to those "class war" losers you're advertising for.

BurnTheOliveTree

6th November 2006, 21:29

Tungsten - Just as a general point, I think the opposition of private property mainly means land and houses, in practice. So mugging isn't all that relevant really.

-Alex

worldtradeisadeathmachine

12th November 2006, 13:09

IronLion

12th November 2006, 18:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 04:17 am
As far as anti-communist rants go, thats got to be among the worst.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 15:58

The last time I checked I live on a council estate

What's a council estate?

Fuck capatalism, Fuck YOUR power trip, Fuck your opression, and go back to your Mother.

That's going on a sign at the next protest rally.

:lol:

Qwerty Dvorak

13th November 2006, 18:34

What's a council estate?
Are you joking?

t_wolves_fan

13th November 2006, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:34 pm

What's a council estate?
Are you joking?
No. Would you like me to?

Ol' Dirty

13th November 2006, 21:43

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 13, 2006 01:51 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 13, 2006 01:51 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2006 06:34 pm

What's a council estate?
Are you joking?
No. Would you like me to? [/b]
Not really. If this is you serious, I'd hate to see you joke.

Qwerty Dvorak

14th November 2006, 01:04

No. Would you like me to?
Not necessarily, but feel free to give it a try.

I wasn't trying to be "smart" or anything, I just didn't wanna explain it to you if you were actually joking and make an ass out of myself.

A council estate is an estate composed of council houses, a form of public housing found mainly in Europe. They are houses built by local councils and rented out very cheaply to less well off people and families. The quality of the houses is not great and because it is the poor who need council houses, council estates obviously have a very high concentration of poor and troubled people and families, and therefore a very high rate of crime and such.

worldtradeisadeathmachine

14th November 2006, 10:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:58 pm

The last time I checked I live on a council estate

What's a council estate?

Fuck capatalism, Fuck YOUR power trip, Fuck your opression, and go back to your Mother.

That's going on a sign at the next protest rally.

:lol:
I live on one in Cardiff

=]
capatalists= mummies boys

Rollo

14th November 2006, 11:14

You might want to remove your location, it could be used against you.

t_wolves_fan

14th November 2006, 15:16

Jazzratt

14th November 2006, 17:59

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 14, 2006 03:16 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 14, 2006 03:16 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 01:04 am

No. Would you like me to?
Not necessarily, but feel free to give it a try.

I wasn't trying to be "smart" or anything, I just didn't wanna explain it to you if you were actually joking and make an ass out of myself.

A council estate is an estate composed of council houses, a form of public housing found mainly in Europe. They are houses built by local councils and rented out very cheaply to less well off people and families. The quality of the houses is not great and because it is the poor who need council houses, council estates obviously have a very high concentration of poor and troubled people and families, and therefore a very high rate of crime and such.
Sounds awful. [/b]
It is, not just "sounds" but I guess you've got your privelege to protect you from having to do anything but hear about these places, after your years as "policy grand poobah" or whatever the fuck you're prtending your job was.

That's what generally happens in communities where the residents have a sense of entitlement and no sense of ownership. Jesus "a sense of entitlement" of course they feel entitled to a fucking home you **** biscuit, who the fuck are you to deny them a fucking home? Just another example of the pyschoisis of your beleifs. If somone wants a house they're suddenly fucking scroungers. What the fuck do you mean by a "sense of ownership"? Is a sense of ownership really what stops people being criminals? If we had no property rights would we decend into chaotic rioting?

<_< wanker.

Qwerty Dvorak

14th November 2006, 18:13

Sounds awful.

That's what generally happens in communities where the residents have a sense of entitlement and no sense of ownership.
That's one theory.

Another is that it is a result of society's less fortunate being crammed into over-populated, low quality housing estates which are horribly neglected in terms of opportunities and facilities. Without proper financial opportunities a lot of residents are forced to partake in other less savory methods of accumulating the wealth necessary to survive and feed one's family, such as theft, drug dealing, prostitution etc. Without proper recreational facilities, many residents (mainly youths) resort to illegal and antisocial acts or drug or alcohol abuse out of boredom or depression.

Rollo

14th November 2006, 18:17

I used to live in a ' housing co-op' place where the people who were too poor to buy a house were given shit houses. It was a bad neighbourhood, we had drug dealers left right and center, an alcohol who gave his kids booze and killed one of my dogs and a prostitute mother who left her kid in the rain for 4 hours while she had a gentleman caller.

t_wolves_fan

14th November 2006, 18:37

It is, not just "sounds" but I guess you've got your privelege to protect you from having to do anything but hear about these places, after your years as "policy grand poobah" or whatever the fuck you're prtending your job was.

I have no privilege, I took the steps one has to take to not need to live in what we Americans call the projects.

you **** biscuit,

Wow I sure take you seriously now.

who the fuck are you to deny them a fucking home? Just another example of the pyschoisis of your beleifs. If somone wants a house they're suddenly fucking scroungers. What the fuck do you mean by a "sense of ownership"? Is a sense of ownership really what stops people being criminals? If we had no property rights would we decend into chaotic rioting?

I'm not denying anyone a home who wants one, I'm saying people are not entitled to a home at my expense.

Do you understand the difference?

Why do you think it is that people who own homes take better care of those homes than renters do of their apartments or public housing residents do of their entitlement? Care to offer a theory?

Jazzratt

14th November 2006, 19:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:37 pm

It is, not just "sounds" but I guess you've got your privelege to protect you from having to do anything but hear about these places, after your years as "policy grand poobah" or whatever the fuck you're prtending your job was.

I have no privilege, I took the steps one has to take to not need to live in what we Americans call the projects.
""I have no privelege" that sentence is in the present tense meaning that were it accurate you would still be in the projects.

you **** biscuit,

Wow I sure take you seriously now. Irrelevant.

who the fuck are you to deny them a fucking home? Just another example of the pyschoisis of your beleifs. If somone wants a house they're suddenly fucking scroungers. What the fuck do you mean by a "sense of ownership"? Is a sense of ownership really what stops people being criminals? If we had no property rights would we decend into chaotic rioting?

I'm not denying anyone a home who wants one, I'm saying people are not entitled to a home at my expense. Almost sounds reasnable there doesn't it. Then consider that you have a society at their expense.

Do you understand the difference? Yes. One is a view borne of malice, the second borne of malicious greed and selfishness.

Why do you think it is that people who own homes take better care of those homes than renters do of their apartments or public housing residents do of their entitlement? Care to offer a theory? Care to offer evidence that this is the case?

Tungsten

14th November 2006, 21:01

Jazzratt

Jesus "a sense of entitlement" of course they feel entitled to a fucking home you **** biscuit, who the fuck are you to deny them a fucking home?
That's an interesting question. Everyone who's not involved in building council houses in technically "denying them a home", because they're doing something else. It's a safe bet that includes you. So who are you to deny them a home? I emphasise you, because seeing as you endorse this brilliant idea, the sucker who has to fulfil it had might as well be you. I hope you know how to lay bricks...

Just another example of the pyschoisis of your beleifs. If somone wants a house they're suddenly fucking scroungers.
Only if they expect other people to pay for it. That isn't reasonable.

What the fuck do you mean by a "sense of ownership"? Is a sense of ownership really what stops people being criminals? If we had no property rights would we decend into chaotic rioting?
Probably.

Almost sounds reasnable there doesn't it. Then consider that you have a society at their expense.
We don't. Even if the Marxian exploitation theory held water, it would only apply if the people in question were employed (which many of them aren't) and even then, the only ones living at their expense would be the bosses they were working for- not society at large (who are taxed to support them).

Yes. One is a view borne of malice, the second borne of malicious greed and selfishness.
Isn't expecting someone else to provide me with a house regardless of my willingness to pay also greedy and selfish?

Care to offer evidence that this is the case?
Go though any council estate and see it for yourself. Responsibility and the entitlement mentality don't exactly go hand in hand.

t_wolves_fan

14th November 2006, 21:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:37 pm

I have no privilege, I took the steps one has to take to not need to live in what we Americans call the projects.
""I have no privelege" that sentence is in the present tense meaning that were it accurate you would still be in the projects.

Well, I've certainly never had any privilege before, since my parents were probably just as poor as you when I was born, and I still have none. But perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean, because your statement makes no sense at all.

I'm not denying anyone a home who wants one, I'm saying people are not entitled to a home at my expense. Almost sounds reasnable there doesn't it. Then consider that you have a society at their expense.

I'm fairly certain that denizens of public housing in Europe have little if nothing to do with the society in which I live. I'm also fairly certain that society would continue were they to walk off their jobs (assuming they have one, which is a big gamble).

Do you understand the difference? Yes. One is a view borne of malice, the second borne of malicious greed and selfishness.

Incorrect. Everyone has a right to live wherever they want providing they pay for it; however they have no right to assume they are entitled to housing at my expense.

Get it?

Why do you think it is that people who own homes take better care of those homes than renters do of their apartments or public housing residents do of their entitlement? Care to offer a theory? Care to offer evidence that this is the case?

I think what's funniest about you is that your posts are nothing but rehashed boilerplate slogans but the instant someone makes a counterpoint, you demand evidence.

You're a hack and therefore you're likely to simply dismiss all evidence that remotely goes against your preconceived notions, but give this a shot, (http://www.newtowncdc.org/PDF/social_consequences_study.pdf) and at least consider allowing its findings to seep their way through the solid brick that is your skull.

"Through their investment in the home -- and therefore in the local neighborhood -- homeowners appear to be overall more involved in their communities. This involvement by homeowners generates benefits for their communities in addition to the benefits for their families. These spillover benefits suggest that the neighborhood homeownership rate itself may produce positive social consequences for communities."

Jazzratt

14th November 2006, 22:12

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 14, 2006 09:20 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 14, 2006 09:20 pm)

[email protected] 14, 2006 06:37 pm

I have no privilege, I took the steps one has to take to not need to live in what we Americans call the projects.
""I have no privelege" that sentence is in the present tense meaning that were it accurate you would still be in the projects.

Well, I've certainly never had any privilege before, since my parents were probably just as poor as you when I was born, and I still have none. But perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean, because your statement makes no sense at all. [/b]
You have privelege now you dumb fuck. You're clearly middle class, especially if you are as you claim a "grand high magister of policies" or whatever crap you pretend to be online.

I'm not denying anyone a home who wants one, I'm saying people are not entitled to a home at my expense. Almost sounds reasnable there doesn't it. Then consider that you have a society at their expense.

I'm fairly certain that denizens of public housing in Europe have little if nothing to do with the society in which I live. I'm also fairly certain that society would continue were they to walk off their jobs (assuming they have one, which is a big gamble). They are the workers just like many people on this board. When the workers are gone what do you think will happen? (I'll give you a clue, it won't improve society the way it would if the bosses all chose to fuck off.)

Do you understand the difference? Yes. One is a view borne of malice, the second borne of malicious greed and selfishness.

Incorrect. Everyone has a right to live wherever they want providing they pay for it; however they have no right to assume they are entitled to housing at my expense. So the poor have no right to housing. Of course you would think that wouldn't you. And you claim your more 'moderate' than the guys at protestwarrior.

Why do you think it is that people who own homes take better care of those homes than renters do of their apartments or public housing residents do of their entitlement? Care to offer a theory? Care to offer evidence that this is the case?

I think what's funniest about you is that your posts are nothing but rehashed boilerplate slogans but the instant someone makes a counterpoint, you demand evidence. I think it's funny that you accuse me of using slogans when near enough none of the sentences I 've typed have had any of the hallmarks of a slogan: simple langauge, short and conduicive to constant repetition, on the contrrary I've typed many complex, long and decidedly one shot respones to your "arguments", although characterising your "arguments" as such does give them far too much credit. Your 'counterpoint ' was merely a wild allegation as far as I was concerned at the time and responed exactly how I would to any wild assetion, darling.

You're a hack Oh fuck off you useless ****, I don't know why I bother with you. After all nearly all your respones to everyone I've seen you argue with have basically boiled down to "You're a hack" or "That's sloganeering" both of which are, ironically, very easy to take as a slogan. Or in your case some sort of mantra.
and therefore you're likely to simply dismiss all evidence that remotely goes against your preconceived notions, Unlike you with communism, socialism, anarchy, technocracy, social housing, free healthcare, public schooling and so on?
but give this a shot, (http://www.newtowncdc.org/PDF/social_consequences_study.pdf) and at least consider allowing its findings to seep their way through the solid brick that is your skull. Interesting article, aside from the lack of real original reasearch, the fact that every time I tried to look for the referenced sources I couldn't find them and the myopic test constituency.

"Through their investment in the home -- and therefore in the local neighborhood -- homeowners appear to be overall more involved in their communities. This involvement by homeowners generates benefits for their communities in addition to the benefits for their families. These spillover benefits suggest that the neighborhood homeownership rate itself may produce positive social consequences for communities." Typical self congratulation of the upper classes. Tell me, do you ever become sick of misanthropia?

t_wolves_fan

14th November 2006, 22:32

You have privelege now you dumb fuck. You're clearly middle class, especially if you are as you claim a "grand high magister of policies" or whatever crap you pretend to be online.

The only evidence there is that I have any privilege of any kind is that you proclaim I do. And unfortunately, that isn't very convincing.

I know that you really want and even need for me to have some kind of privilege in my life, but I don't. Unless, I guess, you're going to count parents who didn't have your defeatist attitude that life would never get any better and that it was up to society to make them equal to everyone else. If you'd like to label that a privelege, then yes I do have one small privilege. If you don't think that's privilege, then I have none. The choice is yours.

They are the workers just like many people on this board. When the workers are gone what do you think will happen? (I'll give you a clue, it won't improve society the way it would if the bosses all chose to fuck off.)

That's the problem - the workers won't be gone. Because for every worker like you who leaves because he thinks he's entitled to more than he's getting, someone who wants to improve their life will take your place.

So the poor have no right to housing.

Not what I said. Try it a third time.

I think it's funny that you accuse me of using slogans when near enough none of the sentences I 've typed have had any of the hallmarks of a slogan: simple langauge, short and conduicive to constant repetition, on the contrrary I've typed many complex, long and decidedly one shot respones to your "arguments", although characterising your "arguments" as such does give them far too much credit. Your 'counterpoint ' was merely a wild allegation as far as I was concerned at the time and responed exactly how I would to any wild assetion, darling.

And I see you continue to respond as such.

Interesting article, aside from the lack of real original reasearch, the fact that every time I tried to look for the referenced sources I couldn't find them and the myopic test constituency.

And there it is, the hallmark of the hack. At no point are people like you willing or able to consider the arguments contained in any evidence that you demand; you simply proclaim it insufficient or biased and it's done. No thought required, rinse repeat.

You're no different than the screwjob uber-capitalists at the aforementioned protestwarrior. As I've said before you're simply two different sides of the same brainless coin. Make an assertion, demand evidence, ignore said evidence and feel smug in your "victory".

Good lord you people are predictable. And what's worse, you're actually allowed to vote in some countries.

Typical self congratulation of the upper classes.

That would look great on a sign.

Serious question, do you even consider or have you ever considered that you might be wrong about any of this? Ever? At all?

Ol' Dirty

14th November 2006, 23:07

To the idiot who made this thread:

If we didn't care, we wouldn't be here.

Qwerty Dvorak

14th November 2006, 23:36

"Through their investment in the home -- and therefore in the local neighborhood -- homeowners appear to be overall more involved in their communities. This involvement by homeowners generates benefits for their communities in addition to the benefits for their families. These spillover benefits suggest that the neighborhood homeownership rate itself may produce positive social consequences for communities."

This seems to me to make perfect sense. You are obviously going to appreciate and respect something more if it belongs to you rather than some distant and hostile institution, in this case the government. Can you explain then why capitalism allows economic inequality and poverty to reach such a level that many people cannot afford private housing? And don't say that houses are perfectly affordable for those who work; claiming that 20% of the population of the UK are lazy scroungers is a bit pessimistic even for the more bitter capitalists, don't you think? Also, I'm not sure about the UK or America but certainly here in Ireland house prices are soaring at an alarming rate, especially in the city where most of the job opportunities are, and more and more often people are being forced to live in council houses and "affordable houses", which are quite similar, just so that they can get a job. And it's not just the lazy people or whatever, even the more well off (or at least the middle class) are having to live in these council estates, because they quite simply cannot afford to live in the opportunity-filled city otherwise.

So, keeping in mind the findings expressed in the quoted paragraph, don't you think the unplanned economy and economic inequality that are inherent parts of capitalism are having somewhat of a destructive effect on society in this regard?

uber-liberal

15th November 2006, 00:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 01:04 am

No. Would you like me to?
Not necessarily, but feel free to give it a try.

I wasn't trying to be "smart" or anything, I just didn't wanna explain it to you if you were actually joking and make an ass out of myself.

A council estate is an estate composed of council houses, a form of public housing found mainly in Europe. They are houses built by local councils and rented out very cheaply to less well off people and families. The quality of the houses is not great and because it is the poor who need council houses, council estates obviously have a very high concentration of poor and troubled people and families, and therefore a very high rate of crime and such.
We call them the projects here. Same crap, only the projects are usually set up like high-density apartment complexes. You can see the burned-out windows from crackheads and meth labs from across town some places. We used to make a game of counting them on the freeways when going cross-country.
Unfortunately, poverty and crime & drug/alcohol abuse go hand in hand, across all cultures. THEORETICALLY, you should pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and better yourself. But that's a road fraught with pitfalls and an unusually large percentage for bad luck. Shit rolls downhill, and when you're stuck in the gully it takes an almost predernatural skill and A LOT of luck to get out.
Good luck if you're an ethnic minority (Native American, African-American, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, etc...), because you're truly fucked at that point.

Can you explain then why capitalism allows economic inequality and poverty to reach such a level that many people cannot afford private housing? And don't say that houses are perfectly affordable for those who work; claiming that 20% of the population of the UK are lazy scroungers is a bit pessimistic even for the more bitter capitalists, don't you think? Also, I'm not sure about the UK or America but certainly here in Ireland house prices are soaring at an alarming rate,

Simple; supply and demand. You have a limited resource like land for residential development, combined with labor costs, building supplies, taxes and fees for installation of electric, city water and sewer (or septic system, which has a yearly surcharge here, and well water, which also has a yearly surcharge), not to mention your building permits ($$$$$$$$$$$$$) and property taxes. Take all that, plus add the realtors spinning the shit out of the housing market in order to make more money off of it. Presto chango, hillside rearrange-o!!!
I live on the west coast, where a new 3 to 4 bedroom houses are going for an average of $349,000, according to Century 21 Realtors. I'm a union flooring installer, and make over $40,000 a year. My wife works for the local food bank and makes slightly more than $32,000 a year. Now, with our 3 kids and all the cost of raising them involved, we would be looking at a mortgage of 8-9% on a 30-year loan, compounded annually. Our minimum payment a month would be over &1500 a month. Then you pay property taxes yearly to the tune of $1400 for a 1/3 acre plot. Then there's all the other fun stuff you have to have here when you're a working stiff, like home owner's insurance, your car and auto insurance, money for your kids' education, etc.
My sister lives up in New England, pays $2200 a month to RENT a 3 bedroom house and has no rights to the property. I keep telling her she's being raped financially, but her choices are VERY limited.

Goddamn, what a skreed. Private property ensures community involvement on some level, but it also ensures that "undesirables" will be excluded.

Qwerty Dvorak

15th November 2006, 00:50

EDIT: Never mind this post, it was a mistake. Read my last one.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 14:41

This seems to me to make perfect sense. You are obviously going to appreciate and respect something more if it belongs to you rather than some distant and hostile institution, in this case the government.

You listening Jazzrat?

Can you explain then why capitalism allows economic inequality and poverty to reach such a level that many people cannot afford private housing?

Because no system is perfect, for one. And capitalism does allow members of the lower class to purchase homes through a variety of means. First there are mortgage instruments, at least here in the United States, that bring monthly payments down below what a fixed rate mortgage would be. Second there are government programs that help low-income buyers. Third, the market provides plenty of homes at low cost. Finally, those who cannot afford a home now likely could afford a home in the future if they're smart with their finances.

Please don't try to tell me it cannot be done, because my family is evidence that it can be. The opportunities are there. Because some people fail to take advantage of them is not the system's fault.

And don't say that houses are perfectly affordable for those who work; claiming that 20% of the population of the UK are lazy scroungers is a bit pessimistic even for the more bitter capitalists, don't you think?

Sure, they're not all lazy. A lot of them are probably stupid too, preferring to spend their money on short-term materialist products instead of saving up for homeownership. And then quite a few probably are not in a financial position to purchase a home right now, but could be in the future. Where we disagree I think is that you think it's unfair that some people cannot own a home right now, while I do not.

Also, I'm not sure about the UK or America but certainly here in Ireland house prices are soaring at an alarming rate, especially in the city where most of the job opportunities are, and more and more often people are being forced to live in council houses and "affordable houses", which are quite similar, just so that they can get a job. And it's not just the lazy people or whatever, even the more well off (or at least the middle class) are having to live in these council estates, because they quite simply cannot afford to live in the opportunity-filled city otherwise.

This is a problem here in the United States as well, except in reverse. Today most job creation is happening in the suburbs while most of the low-price housing is in the inner-city. I think this problem can be overcome not with massive public housing projects or price controls or communism, but with improved public transportation and market-based incentives to produce more low-income housing. I'd certainly rather try those low-impact options first before I go screwing up the entire economy.

So, keeping in mind the findings expressed in the quoted paragraph, don't you think the unplanned economy and economic inequality that are inherent parts of capitalism are having somewhat of a destructive effect on society in this regard?

No, because economic inequality doesn't mean much with regard to purchasing a home (a poor person can purchase a home too), and the system allows people the opportunity to put themselves in a position to purchase a home at some point in the future.

Dr Mindbender

15th November 2006, 14:50

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 14:56

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 02:50 pm
Maybe they have a 'sense of entitlement' because its the working class that do all the 'work' . The clue's in the name.

Dumbass.
:lol:

Let me guess, since you've decided that the middle and upper classes don't "work", it's true, right?

Believe me, we work; and your opinion that we don't is irrelevant. But entertaining.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 15:00

Let me ask you a question.

Presumably, you are working class, right?

And presumably, since I am not "working class", you probably do not accept my opinion of what it's like to be working class, right?

50-50 odds you can see where this is going...

Dr Mindbender

15th November 2006, 15:02

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 15, 2006 02:56 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 15, 2006 02:56 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 02:50 pm
Maybe they have a 'sense of entitlement' because its the working class that do all the 'work' . The clue's in the name.

Dumbass.
:lol:

Let me guess, since you've decided that the middle and upper classes don't "work", it's true, right?

Believe me, we work; and your opinion that we don't is irrelevant. But entertaining. [/b]
No Im not saying the middle and upper classes dont work per se, merely that the way in which society rewards their contribution to society is by in large disproportionate. If there wasnt any builders to carry out the graft work, then the blueprints for the architects plans for your fancy mansions wouldnt be worth the paper theyre printed on. Hence the great flaw in the technocrats arguments.
The upper class is contrast, do the least work and conversely they reap the most benefit of the means of production.

Dr Mindbender

15th November 2006, 15:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 03:00 pm
Let me ask you a question.

Presumably, you are working class, right?

And presumably, since I am not "working class", you probably do not accept my opinion of what it's like to be working class, right?

50-50 odds you can see where this is going...
Absolutely. I am the product of a failed marriage and i spent the best part of my childhood in state owned housing. I unlike most of the other posters suffered capitalisms double whammy because i also spent the greater part of my life in a climate of sectarian conflict. Ive yet to hear an argument to convince me that the snobbish buffoons of middle britain deserve a better life than i do.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 15:09

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 03:02 pm
No Im not saying the middle and upper classes dont work per se, merely that the way in which society rewards their contribution to society is by in large disproportionate. If there wasnt any builders to carry out the graft work, then the blueprints for the architects plans for your fancy mansions wouldnt be worth the paper theyre printed on. Hence the great flaw in the technocrats arguments.
The upper class is contrast, do the least work and conversely they reap the most benefit of the means of production.
But conversely, if no developer takes the financial risk to plan the new homes, if the highly-trained and highly-skilled architect does not design the homes, and if the investment banker does not secure the financing for the project, then what jobs will the builders have?

You are apparently against technocracy which is good but how then would you suggest the economy be "planned" efficiently?

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 15:11

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 03:06 pm
Absolutely. I am the product of a failed marriage and i spent the best part of my childhood in state owned housing. I unlike most of the other posters suffered capitalisms double whammy because i also spent the greater part of my life in a climate of sectarian conflict. Ive yet to hear an argument to convince me that the snobbish buffoons of middle britain deserve a better life than i do.
How was capitalism to blame for your family situation?

Dr Mindbender

15th November 2006, 15:16

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 15, 2006 03:09 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 15, 2006 03:09 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 03:02 pm
No Im not saying the middle and upper classes dont work per se, merely that the way in which society rewards their contribution to society is by in large disproportionate. If there wasnt any builders to carry out the graft work, then the blueprints for the architects plans for your fancy mansions wouldnt be worth the paper theyre printed on. Hence the great flaw in the technocrats arguments.
The upper class is contrast, do the least work and conversely they reap the most benefit of the means of production.
But conversely, if no developer takes the financial risk to plan the new homes, if the highly-trained and highly-skilled architect does not design the homes, and if the investment banker does not secure the financing for the project, then what jobs will the builders have?

You are apparently against technocracy which is good but how then would you suggest the economy be "planned" efficiently? [/b]
The production of all capital comes from labour. In order for the developer to raise the capital in the first place, he needs to have used to labour of a manual worker to have made the money.

Theres several schools of thought within socialism of how to combat technocracy. One is the basis that if everyone 'chips in' then the work needed per person will be greatly reduced and it will liberate us to spend more time with our families and doing things we enjoy.
Another is the idea that with the advancement of science, it will herald new machinery to liberate men from the drudgery of manual labour hence giving us more time to develop our facilities.

Dr Mindbender

15th November 2006, 15:20

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 15, 2006 03:11 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 15, 2006 03:11 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 03:06 pm
Absolutely. I am the product of a failed marriage and i spent the best part of my childhood in state owned housing. I unlike most of the other posters suffered capitalisms double whammy because i also spent the greater part of my life in a climate of sectarian conflict. Ive yet to hear an argument to convince me that the snobbish buffoons of middle britain deserve a better life than i do.
How was capitalism to blame for your family situation? [/b]
I live in Northern Ireland, or as its known in anti imperalist circles the 'occupied 6 counties'. NI's crisis is largely thanks to beourgiouse intervention of the likes of William III and Elizabeth II during the 17th century. The situation was exacerbated in more recent through the policies of neo conservative theocrats such as Lord carson who pursed the anti home rule hegemony to preserve the status quo against Irish Roman Catholics.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 15:32

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 03:16 pm

The production of all capital comes from labour. In order for the developer to raise the capital in the first place, he needs to have used to labour of a manual worker to have made the money.

That is only partially true. Capital derived from the selling of goods or services produced with low-skill labor fit the criteria you speak of. However, plenty of capital is created in industries that involve no working class labor, such as the financial services industry (Wall Street) and the software industry. I'd be willing to bet that more capital is created in the financial services industry than in other product and service industries combined.

Still, even being partially true, the question is, so what? Almost every single laborer is either immediately or at some future point capable of becoming a capitalist. He/She need only find investors or borrow to become a capitalist. Or, more likely, he or she need only take advantage of opportunities to move into the middle or upper class or at the very least put his/her children in the position to do so.

Theres several schools of thought within socialism of how to combat technocracy. One is the basis that if everyone 'chips in' then the work needed per person will be greatly reduced and it will liberate us to spend more time with our families and doing things we enjoy.
Another is the idea that with the advancement of science, it will herald new machinery to liberate men from the drudgery of manual labour hence giving us more time to develop our facilities.

With all due respect, neither of these options seems viable at this point, do you agree?

I live in Northern Ireland, or as its known in anti imperalist circles the 'occupied 6 counties'. NI's crisis is largely thanks to beourgiouse intervention of the likes of William III and Elizabeth II during the 17th century. The situation was exacerbated in more recent through the policies of neo conservative theocrats such as Lord carson who pursed the anti home rule hegemony to preserve the status quo against Irish Roman Catholics.

Uhhh...your parents divorced over a disagreement about Lord Carson? I find that highly doubtful. There's also the problem that capitalism was not the economic system of the 17th century, rather it was mercantilism which is not the same thing. Capitalism, in it's purest sense, would be opposed to state intervention like that of which you speak.

I'm assuming that you're suggesting your parents broke up due to financial difficulties which were the fault of the capitalist system. My parents when I was young were also very, very poor and we lived in a capitalist system. Therefore I have to ask, if capitalism was the sole or primary cause of your parents' problems, why didn't my parents have similar problems?

:huh:

Jazzratt

15th November 2006, 15:33

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2006 03:16 pm
Theres several schools of thought within socialism of how to combat technocracy. One is the basis that if everyone 'chips in' then the work needed per person will be greatly reduced and it will liberate us to spend more time with our families and doing things we enjoy.
Another is the idea that with the advancement of science, it will herald new machinery to liberate men from the drudgery of manual labour hence giving us more time to develop our facilities.
Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit

Another is the idea that with the advancement of science, it will herald new machinery to liberate men from the drudgery of manual labour hence giving us more time to develop our facilities. Which sounds fairly fucking close to technocracy.

Qwerty Dvorak

15th November 2006, 16:57

Because no system is perfect, for one. And capitalism does allow members of the lower class to purchase homes through a variety of means. First there are mortgage instruments, at least here in the United States, that bring monthly payments down below what a fixed rate mortgage would be.
Can you link me to more information on these instruments?

Second there are government programs that help low-income buyers.
Isn't capitalism opposed to state intervention? The very measures that you are claiming capitalism uses in to support low-income earners would be decried as Socialist by many of your colleagues.

Third, the market provides plenty of homes at low cost.
Surely supply and demand dictates that the low-cost homes would be the more undesirable ones, which usually means the ones in areas with little or no job opportunities.

Finally, those who cannot afford a home now likely could afford a home in the future if they're smart with their finances.
And what if they're not? It's not their fault they're not particularly adept when it comes to finances. And it doesn't exactly take mental retardation to cause someone living in a poor area to slip up; many of the devastating financial vices suffered by these people, such as alcohol and drug addiction or staggering debt to loan sharks, are very easy to succumb to, and such vices usually take hold in one's youth, or in desperation. Sure, there will be a few Horatio Algers, but for every one Horatio there are much much more ordinary, vulnerable human beings, many of whom are of somewhat low intelligence, who are not going to be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

Sure, they're not all lazy. A lot of them are probably stupid too, preferring to spend their money on short-term materialist products instead of saving up for homeownership. And then quite a few probably are not in a financial position to purchase a home right now, but could be in the future. Where we disagree I think is that you think it's unfair that some people cannot own a home right now, while I do not.
I think where we probably also disagree is that you seem to see low intelligence as some sort of sin that deserves to be punished, while I do not. Many people, especially in poorer areas, are of a slightly more simple disposition than you are I, and as such are going to be naturally worse with their finances, more susceptible to consumerist campaigns by corporations which are going to cause them to spend their money on short-term materialist products, and less capable of performing highly complicated tasks. Because this is not their choice, we Communists do not believe they should be deprived of a decent standard of living. It seems however that this is an ethical difference, which is unfortunate as regards the livelihood of this debate.

This is a problem here in the United States as well, except in reverse. Today most job creation is happening in the suburbs while most of the low-price housing is in the inner-city. I think this problem can be overcome not with massive public housing projects or price controls or communism, but with improved public transportation and market-based incentives to produce more low-income housing. I'd certainly rather try those low-impact options first before I go screwing up the entire economy.
More public transport creates the same scenario with transportation as we have with housing; those who rely on the public transport for livelihood are given a sense of entitlement with no sense of ownership.

The ideas you have put forth would of course do a great deal to reduce the problem, however I don't think they would be sufficient to completely eradicate the problem of housing the less well off, because as long as there is economic inequality and and unplanned economy you will have housing prices shifting to favor the privileged.

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 17:37

Can you link me to more information on these instruments?

Do a google search for 3/1 ARMs, 5/1 ARMs or interest-only ARMs.

Isn't capitalism opposed to state intervention? The very measures that you are claiming capitalism uses in to support low-income earners would be decried as Socialist by many of your colleagues.

Yes capitalism is opposed to state intervention and yes I've been called a socialist for supporting such programs. This is the reason I am not a laissez-faire capitalist. I can support effective programs that help people buy houses.

Surely supply and demand dictates that the low-cost homes would be the more undesirable ones, which usually means the ones in areas with little or no job opportunities.

Yes, they will probably need work and not be in the best area of town. That's a tradeoff. But remember that if people buy in a crappy neighborhood and fix up their home and live ernestly, they will also have a positive impact on their neighborhood.

And what if they're not?

Then they're not.

It's not their fault they're not particularly adept when it comes to finances.

That's their problem. Someone would rather spend what little discretionary income they have on fancy clothes and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them that they didn't save up for a house? At what point, if any, do people bare any responsibility for their own choices?

And it doesn't exactly take mental retardation to cause someone living in a poor area to slip up; many of the devastating financial vices suffered by these people, such as alcohol and drug addiction or staggering debt to loan sharks, are very easy to succumb to, and such vices usually take hold in one's youth, or in desperation.

There are resources to recover from these problems, believe it or not. I would support some government intervention for such people (and these programs do exist already in many areas). However, after a few failures such people use up their chances and I have a hard time shedding a tear for them.

Sure, there will be a few Horatio Algers, but for every one Horatio there are much much more ordinary, vulnerable human beings, many of whom are of somewhat low intelligence, who are not going to be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

I'm sorry, I did not realize that it takes genius-level intelligence to figure out that showing up drunk to work or not showing up at all generally leads to not having a job and therefore no money. I also did not realize that it takes genius-level intelligence to look at the lack of funds in the checking account and realize it might have something to do with all of the alcohol and useless material possessions you've purchased. Yes, people deserve help and that help - believe it or not - is there. But eventually people do have to accept some responsibility for their choices, do they not?

You claim to have faith in humanity, yet your point is that people are too stupid to take care of themselves and need you to save them.

This is the human condition, the inability to overcome patterns. It's not stupidity that causes people to do it, it's human weakness that causes them to make stupid decisions. I've seen it in my family. I've asked certain family members repeatedly why they keep making the same mistakes. "I know, I know" they tell me, and then they go out and do it again. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? Because I don't. Why should I? Feeling sorry for them indicates I have some control over their actions, just like you communists and socialists feel if only you can set the rules of the game right you'll have just enough control over people to make them stop making bad choices. It isn't gonna happen.

I think where we probably also disagree is that you seem to see low intelligence as some sort of sin that deserves to be punished, while I do not.

I think by now you know this is not true. Living ernestly and staying out of trouble requires no great level of intelligence. I blame the human condition, not lack of intelligence.

Many people, especially in poorer areas, are of a slightly more simple disposition than you are I, and as such are going to be naturally worse with their finances, more susceptible to consumerist campaigns by corporations which are going to cause them to spend their money on short-term materialist products, and less capable of performing highly complicated tasks. Because this is not their choice, we Communists do not believe they should be deprived of a decent standard of living. It seems however that this is an ethical difference, which is unfortunate as regards the livelihood of this debate.

It is absolutely their choice. If they're succeptible to it once, shame on the advertizers. But again, does it take genius to notice your checkbook is low because you're spending all your money on things that aren't making your life any better? It isn't.

It's not an ethical debate. Your intentions are good, no question about it. But good intentions cause problems too. It's a debate over why people make bad choices. You blame it on society, I blame it on the people actually making the choices. It has been and always will be the source of the divide between "leftists" and whatever you'd call me.

More public transport creates the same scenario with transportation as we have with housing; those who rely on the public transport for livelihood are given a sense of entitlement with no sense of ownership.

:lol: Touche! But there are important differences between the two that make public transportation sensible but not public housing. Public transportation requires no effort on the part of the customer to maintain. All you have to do as a passenger is not trash the place. A house is different - you have to be at least moderately interested in maintaining it because you spend a lot more time there.

The ideas you have put forth would of course do a great deal to reduce the problem, however I don't think they would be sufficient to completely eradicate the problem of housing the less well off, because as long as there is economic inequality and and unplanned economy you will have housing prices shifting to favor the privileged.

Look at Paris. The kids out rioting have free housing. The problem cannot be eradicated. It's as simple as that.

worldtradeisadeathmachine

15th November 2006, 19:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:57 pm

Finally, those who cannot afford a home now likely could afford a home in the future if they're smart with their finances.
And what if they're not? It's not their fault they're not particularly adept when it comes to finances. And it doesn't exactly take mental retardation to cause someone living in a poor area to slip up; many of the devastating financial vices suffered by these people, such as alcohol and drug addiction or staggering debt to loan sharks, are very easy to succumb to, and such vices usually take hold in one's youth, or in desperation. Sure, there will be a few Horatio Algers, but for every one Horatio there are much much more ordinary, vulnerable human beings, many of whom are of somewhat low intelligence, who are not going to be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

I agree
the average house in the built up south wales area is £130,000+, and loads of people are only earling around 20k a year

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 20:09

Originally posted by worldtradeisadeathmachine+November 15, 2006 07:53 pm--> (worldtradeisadeathmachine @ November 15, 2006 07:53 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 04:57 pm

Finally, those who cannot afford a home now likely could afford a home in the future if they're smart with their finances.
And what if they're not? It's not their fault they're not particularly adept when it comes to finances. And it doesn't exactly take mental retardation to cause someone living in a poor area to slip up; many of the devastating financial vices suffered by these people, such as alcohol and drug addiction or staggering debt to loan sharks, are very easy to succumb to, and such vices usually take hold in one's youth, or in desperation. Sure, there will be a few Horatio Algers, but for every one Horatio there are much much more ordinary, vulnerable human beings, many of whom are of somewhat low intelligence, who are not going to be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

I agree
the average house in the built up south wales area is £130,000+, and loads of people are only earling around 20k a year [/b]
Well then I guess they either save up or they rent.

Capitalist Lawyer

15th November 2006, 22:04

And what if they're not? It's not their fault they're not particularly adept when it comes to finances. And it doesn't exactly take mental retardation to cause someone living in a poor area to slip up; many of the devastating financial vices suffered by these people, such as alcohol and drug addiction or staggering debt to loan sharks, are very easy to succumb to, and such vices usually take hold in one's youth, or in desperation. Sure, there will be a few Horatio Algers, but for every one Horatio there are much much more ordinary, vulnerable human beings, many of whom are of somewhat low intelligence, who are not going to be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

Look at the type/size of housing that's being built and it's pretty easy to figure out why. Living space has probably tripled since the 1960s.

My mom grew up in a family of seven (kids), in a two story 800 square foot house. I grew up in a family of five (kids) in a 1500 square foot house. My family (seven kids) lives in 2200 square feet (built in the early 70's) and it's a pretty small house compared to what is being built nowadays. My wife's mom grew up where three sisters shared a twin bed. Three of my daughters share a king size water bed. To say that they could not live just as happily with a twin bed ignores that it used to be done.

Bottom line is there are many ways our budgets could be cut back and we'd STILL be rich compared to the rest of the planet.

So... to look at increases in rents, consumer goods, and utilities and claim hardships is to ignore the obvious which is a huge increase in the standard of living.

Surely supply and demand dictates that the low-cost homes would be the more undesirable ones, which usually means the ones in areas with little or no job opportunities.

The question is why? I'd be willing to bet that the places with the most need of rental space are those places that have rent controls, and regulations AGAINST further developement of city neighborhoods.

because as long as there is economic inequality and and unplanned economy you will have housing prices shifting to favor the privileged.

You keep saying that, and you keep ignoring the continual increase in the standard of living.

I have to wonder if you'll use the " thanks to a boat load of credit card and mortgange debt" argument like what most communists do.

So what's your explanation to my claims about how you've got it all backwards in terms of ordinary peoples' lives?

uber-liberal

15th November 2006, 23:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 03:32 pm

That is only partially true. Capital derived from the selling of goods or services produced with low-skill labor fit the criteria you speak of. However, plenty of capital is created in industries that involve no working class labor, such as the financial services industry (Wall Street) and the software industry. I'd be willing to bet that more capital is created in the financial services industry than in other product and service industries combined.

Wall street is where the rich scrastch each other's backs to make a buck off of the labor of others. If the working class of thin nation just walked off the job one day,how much money would be lost in the fiancial markets? Would the NYSE have to put the brakes on, or NASDAQ or Amex? What about the FTSE or other international markets? How would the Euro or Yen hold up in this situation? How far would the ripple travel?

ALL paid labor affects ALL capital earnings. And the converse is also true; all capital earnings affect all paid labor. Someone has to guide the business, but not at the expense of the working classes and their blood, sweat and tears.
A couple of years ago, Forbes had an article outlining the pay disparraty between CEOs and their companies' hourly-pay workers. The average was around 300 times more for the CEO than the hourly workers.?

I'm sorry, I did not realize that it takes genius-level intelligence to figure out that showing up drunk to work or not showing up at all generally leads to not having a job and therefore no money. I also did not realize that it takes genius-level intelligence to look at the lack of funds in the checking account and realize it might have something to do with all of the alcohol and useless material possessions you've purchased. Yes, people deserve help and that help - believe it or not - is there. But eventually people do have to accept some responsibility for their choices, do they not?

You're right. People can't blame others for their problems, like alcoholism or drug addiction. However, if the society at large, like the government and conservatives calling people on foodstamps lazy for trying to feed their families, than maybe we wouldn't have so much of a problem, hmm? Perhaps the answer lies in treating people of all economic standings as equals instead of as the hired help, if you're lucky, or like scum invading the wealthy's perfect little world.

Also, one question of simple arithematic for you: if A) prices stay relaively static in regards to inflation, etc., and B) executive wages increase along with higher valued company stock, and C) outsourcing of jobs to other countries with fewer restrictions on things like slave wages is happening in ALL production and service fields, than where is all this extra money going, and why aren't prices falling?

t_wolves_fan

15th November 2006, 23:52

Wall street is where the rich scrastch each other's backs to make a buck off of the labor of others. If the working class of thin nation just walked off the job one day,how much money would be lost in the fiancial markets? Would the NYSE have to put the brakes on, or NASDAQ or Amex? What about the FTSE or other international markets? How would the Euro or Yen hold up in this situation? How far would the ripple travel?

Yes, obviously this would have a disastrous effect on the economy; however my point was that a good size chunk of the nation's overall capital - liquid, investable money - is made through investing, not strictly via labor.

ALL paid labor affects ALL capital earnings.

Yes but is ALL paid labor working class? Attorneys who make $500 an hour are paid labor, are they working class?

And the converse is also true; all capital earnings affect all paid labor. Someone has to guide the business, but not at the expense of the working classes and their blood, sweat and tears.
A couple of years ago, Forbes had an article outlining the pay disparraty between CEOs and their companies' hourly-pay workers. The average was around 300 times more for the CEO than the hourly workers.?

I agree with you here...however government cannot magically make CEOs pay their workers more. Wage controls and planned economies do not work. It takes a business ethic that has almost nothing to do with government.

You're right. People can't blame others for their problems, like alcoholism or drug addiction. However, if the society at large, like the government and conservatives calling people on foodstamps lazy for trying to feed their families, than maybe we wouldn't have so much of a problem, hmm? Perhaps the answer lies in treating people of all economic standings as equals instead of as the hired help, if you're lucky, or like scum invading the wealthy's perfect little world.

I highly doubt that the opinions of people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity have anything to do with people's choice to use drugs or abuse alcohol. And second, alcoholism and drug abuse occur in all economic strata, so socioeconomic class has little to do with whether people abuse drugs or alcohol or not. What is true is that the poor have far less margin for error. This is unfair but there is not a lot you can do about it besides try to help people who will accept it. If you take the consequences for bad behavior away from people, you merely provide an incentive for continuing that behavior.

lso, one question of simple arithematic for you: if A) prices stay relaively static in regards to inflation, etc., and B) executive wages increase along with higher valued company stock, and C) outsourcing of jobs to other countries with fewer restrictions on things like slave wages is happening in ALL production and service fields, than where is all this extra money going, and why aren't prices falling?

It's not happening in ALL production and service fields, and prices are not falling because people are still willing to pay the going rate.

Qwerty Dvorak

15th November 2006, 23:54

Shit. A lot to reply to here.

t_wolves

Yes, they will probably need work and not be in the best area of town. That's a tradeoff. But remember that if people buy in a crappy neighborhood and fix up their home and live ernestly, they will also have a positive impact on their neighborhood.

Having a positive impact on their neighborhood is not going to put food on their plate.

That's their problem. Someone would rather spend what little discretionary income they have on fancy clothes and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them that they didn't save up for a house? At what point, if any, do people bare any responsibility for their own choices?

It would take a hell of a lot of pairs of Nike shoes to save up for a house. Perhaps their overwhelming shopping fetish isn't the sole reason for their not being able to afford a house? Perhaps it is lack of high-paying job opportunities?

I'm sorry, I did not realize that it takes genius-level intelligence to figure out that showing up drunk to work or not showing up at all generally leads to not having a job and therefore no money. I also did not realize that it takes genius-level intelligence to look at the lack of funds in the checking account and realize it might have something to do with all of the alcohol and useless material possessions you've purchased. Yes, people deserve help and that help - believe it or not - is there. But eventually people do have to accept some responsibility for their choices, do they not?
Of course people have to take responsibility for their own actions. However, you must realize that not everyone is able to block out all social and chemical influences and conform to your standard of intelligence. Many people go through rehab and don't spend lavishly, and still end up living in council houses, because they are in debt, or because they can't get a high-paying enough job, or because they have a family to support, or because the way house prices are going it just wouldn't be economically advantageous to purchase their own house. These are all very realistic scenarios, and they are all products of capitalism (apart of course from having a family, which is a basic human right and something noone should suffer for). In these cases people do bare responsibility for their own actions, and still they are living in a house that is not their own, i.e. they have a sense of entitlement but no sense of ownership.

You claim to have faith in humanity, yet your point is that people are too stupid to take care of themselves and need you to save them.
No, it's that not all people are smart enough to work their way out of the gauntlet set for them by capitalism. In some places in the developed world, trying to move from a poor background to middle class conditions without being forced to deprive yourself and/or your family of your/their basic human rights is like the economic equivalent of Saw 2.

This is the human condition, the inability to overcome patterns. It's not stupidity that causes people to do it, it's human weakness that causes them to make stupid decisions. I've seen it in my family. I've asked certain family members repeatedly why they keep making the same mistakes. "I know, I know" they tell me, and then they go out and do it again. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? Because I don't. Why should I? Feeling sorry for them indicates I have some control over their actions, just like you communists and socialists feel if only you can set the rules of the game right you'll have just enough control over people to make them stop making bad choices. It isn't gonna happen.
Assuming that you are right and that the poverty and economic inequality experienced under capitalism is due to the human condition and to human weakness, then that implies that capitalism punishes you for being human, and is incompatible with human nature. Communism would not eliminate this human weakness or change the human condition, however it would "set the rules of the game" so that the mistakes and weaknesses that are, as you claim, an inherent part of the human condition would not be able to sabotage one's chances of a sustaining a decent living.

I think by now you know this is not true. Living ernestly and staying out of trouble requires no great level of intelligence. I blame the human condition, not lack of intelligence.
It does, however, require an immunity to the human condition, something which most humans are lacking.

It's not an ethical debate. Your intentions are good, no question about it. But good intentions cause problems too. It's a debate over why people make bad choices. You blame it on society, I blame it on the people actually making the choices. It has been and always will be the source of the divide between "leftists" and whatever you'd call me.

Actually I would blame both. It is true that many of the leftists on this board place the blame solely on society for the faults of a given individual (with some of the more idiotic ones placing it solely on the CEOs), however I disagree with this. Of course an individual is responsible to some extent for their own actions, but I also acknowledge that social and material conditions have a major influence on these actions, and it is likely that if the same individual was placed in different social and material conditions, he or she would act differently. It is with this in mind that I believe that there should be common (and, of course, decent) material conditions for all in society, which will influence in turn greatly influence social conditions, or at least as much as social conditions can possibly be influenced by the state. Under these conditions people will be able to act as individuals under as little negative influence as possible, and so those who still fuck up and wind up homeless drug addicts mugging people in alleyways will have noone to blame but themselves.

Touche! But there are important differences between the two that make public transportation sensible but not public housing. Public transportation requires no effort on the part of the customer to maintain. All you have to do as a passenger is not trash the place. A house is different - you have to be at least moderately interested in maintaining it because you spend a lot more time there.
But this isn't about maintaining the property, it is about being entitled to its use without actually owning it. How well the property is maintained is irrelevant. Council estates aren't facing the problems they are facing because people don't clean their houses enough.

Look at Paris. The kids out rioting have free housing. The problem cannot be eradicated. It's as simple as that.
Well I have a suggestion as to how it can be eradicated, but considering the time you're spent on here arguing with Communists I'd say you're probably heard it before...

:hammer: :redstar: :banner:

Capitalist Lawyer (sorry but I'm tired now, so you get the crap answers :P )

My mom grew up in a family of seven (kids), in a two story 800 square foot house. I grew up in a family of five (kids) in a 1500 square foot house. My family (seven kids) lives in 2200 square feet (built in the early 70's) and it's a pretty small house compared to what is being built nowadays. My wife's mom grew up where three sisters shared a twin bed. Three of my daughters share a king size water bed. To say that they could not live just as happily with a twin bed ignores that it used to be done.
Were your grandparents, your parents and you all poor? Did you all live in council houses? Local councils aren't really that arsed about giving the poor a decent standard of living, especially if it comes at the expense of the councils themselves. It is for this reason that council houses tend to be more or less uniform in size and cost, and that this size is modest enough as it is.

So... to look at increases in rents, consumer goods, and utilities and claim hardships is to ignore the obvious which is a huge increase in the standard of living.
Actually the rise in the standard of living for the poor isn't all that huge, especially once you take into account the increase in the prices of the things you mentioned. Also, you fail to address all the points made against the universal feasibility of upward mobility.

The question is why? I'd be willing to bet that the places with the most need of rental space are those places that have rent controls, and regulations AGAINST further developement of city neighborhoods.
Why? Because assuming supply stays the same, prices rise as demand rises, and demand rises the more job opportunities are to be found in the area. I'm not sure what you mean by rent controls, and while you have a very valid point about development of city neighborhoods, the fact remains that there is only so much land in the desirable area itself. In many places this area really has been developed as much as possible, or is being developed as much as possible, and the result is that more businesses relocate to these areas. This both raises demand for property in the area, driving prices higher still, and means less job opportunities for the less popular areas, which remain undeveloped and so fairly useless.

You keep saying that, and you keep ignoring the continual increase in the standard of living.
Em, no I don't. The house market shifting to favor the privileged has nothing to do with living standards in terms of actual numbers, the fact remains that those with a higher standard of living, i.e. those who are richer, are going to fill the more desirable land, which is going to attract more businesses to the area.

So what's your explanation to my claims about how you've got it all backwards in terms of ordinary peoples' lives?
What claims?

Capitalist Lawyer

16th November 2006, 00:52

My mom grew up in a family of seven (kids), in a two story 800 square foot house. I grew up in a family of five (kids) in a 1500 square foot house. My family (seven kids) lives in 2200 square feet (built in the early 70's) and it's a pretty small house compared to what is being built nowadays. My wife's mom grew up where three sisters shared a twin bed. Three of my daughters share a king size water bed. To say that they could not live just as happily with a twin bed ignores that it used to be done.

I have to be honest, I made this story up.....no wife and defintely no kids.

I was just determining if you guys were paying attention or not.

Ol' Dirty

16th November 2006, 01:29

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15, 2006 07:52 pm

My mom grew up in a family of seven (kids), in a two story 800 square foot house. I grew up in a family of five (kids) in a 1500 square foot house. My family (seven kids) lives in 2200 square feet (built in the early 70's) and it's a pretty small house compared to what is being built nowadays. My wife's mom grew up where three sisters shared a twin bed. Three of my daughters share a king size water bed. To say that they could not live just as happily with a twin bed ignores that it used to be done.

I have to be honest, I made this story up.....no wife and defintely no kids.

I was just determining if you guys were paying attention or not.
I wasn't excpecting an uberscrooge like you to have a great personal life.

t_wolves_fan

16th November 2006, 16:23

Shit. A lot to reply to here.

It was one of those days. :lol:

I’m going to paraphrase in the interest of avoiding mile-long posts.

With regard to homeownership in third world countries where sweatshop workers cannot afford homes. We have to ask, what was their situation before they worked in the sweatshop? The answer, in most situations, is that they were subsistence farmers or fishermen. While you may think working 12 hours a day for $6 is an insult, to them that may actually be an improvement. You need context, don’t you? Second, we have to ask, are they there voluntarily? If they left the village to work in the factory voluntarily, there is no problem as far as I can see. Would you rather they stayed in the village and eked out a living, perhaps starving to death, so you could feel better about their not working in a sweatshop?

Now, this is not to say sweatshops are always good. If they are not there voluntarily, that is wrong. If they are abused, that is wrong. But these conditions are not required by capitalism. They happen under capitalism, which is unfortunate, but life is not fair. Also, personally, I do not support a completely greedy profit-centered mindset. Were I to own a business or be a CEO I would gladly set my own pay at a level not that much higher than my workers.

With regard to living in council houses and personal responsibility. Serious question: in your system, how is personal responsibility enforced in any way? I ask because it seems I could happily abuse drugs and refuse to work and yet be granted public benefits.

Now, people who make mistakes and end up on public assistance. This is unfortunate. If they make their restitution and change their lives, they may very well end up in crappy public housing. They may not make it into the middle class right away, but they can put themselves in a position to better their life in the future. Again, this seems to be a major point of contention between us: you seem to think (correct me if I’m wrong) that it’s unfair that people cannot have a middle-class lifestyle right away while I am satisfied if they have the opportunity to better their lives eventually.

Second, these problems are not caused by capitalism. Rich people and middle class people abuse drugs and lose their jobs and family every day. Capitalism does not cause people to abuse drugs or abandon their responsibilities – the human condition does. I am willing to be that these problems would not be eradicated under your system; in fact they may be exacerbated if there is little or no incentive to improve your life if you share in societal rewards equally no matter what.

Capitalism does not punish you for being human – life punishes you for being human because life is not fair. Regardless of how you set the rules of the game, people are going to be punished for their poor choices. Your system may provide them a home and food, but in all reality what good is that if they simply don’t care about life at all? They get to sit around doing drugs abusing themselves and others in a home provided by the labor of people who don’t make those choices. Is that moral?

One need not be immune to the human condition because that’s impossible. One needs simply to make the best of their situation and they will be fine. It’s like being on the side of a mountain covered with snow. An avalanche is always possible, but some choices are like yelling and screaming at the top of your lungs regardless of the danger.

Now, with regards to the difference between public transportation and public housing. I need to clarify. Certainly they both have things in common, but they are very different. Having been a frequent passenger on a subway I can tell you that it does not engender a sense of entitlement that I’ve seen, probably because you have to pay to use it and because it’s not a terribly pleasurable experience. Housing on the other hand is presumably free or very close to it. You also spend far more time there, obviously. If you spend 20 minutes taking a trip on a public subway for which you paid $2, you don’t really have the time to develop the sense of entitlement you do if you’re living in a home provided to you whether you work or do drugs or not. Certainly you must understand that difference?

But that’s really an irrelevant argument. How would you eradicate the problems in Paris?

Dr Mindbender

17th November 2006, 12:08

That is only partially true. Capital derived from the selling of goods or services produced with low-skill labor fit the criteria you speak of. However, plenty of capital is created in industries that involve no working class labor, such as the financial services industry (Wall Street) and the software industry. I'd be willing to bet that more capital is created in the financial services industry than in other product and service industries combined.
No, its entirely true. You talk of all the office based 'financial services' but what of all the intensive primary sector factory based and call centre jobs that the white collars are dependent on?
Again none of the financial services you could care to mention would be operable without blue collars to manufacture your stationary, build your offices etc.

Still, even being partially true, the question is, so what? Almost every single laborer is either immediately or at some future point capable of becoming a capitalist. He/She need only find investors or borrow to become a capitalist. Or, more likely, he or she need only take advantage of opportunities to move into the middle or upper class or at the very least put his/her children in the position to do so.
The point is, the ordinary workers are responsible for raising the capital in the first place therefore they deserve an equal slice of it.
This idea that the 'opportunity' is there to 'become' a capitalist is by in large an illusion because the capitalist class makes a point of only affording them just enough to live on and the rest has to be handed back to the ruling class. usually in the form of rent to petit beourgiouse landlords, taxes to their government servants and in the form of bills to utility companies (so basically its a form of give with one hand and take with the other). Granted, some do make it out of the rat race but only to the cost of their former contempories that they leave behind. The grievance with capitalism is the way in which it preserves this state of misery in order to preserve the workers in a state of compliance and servitude.

With all due respect, neither of these options seems viable at this point, do you agree?

with all due respect no, and secondly why not?

Uhhh...your parents divorced over a disagreement about Lord Carson? I find that highly doubtful. There's also the problem that capitalism was not the economic system of the 17th century, rather it was mercantilism which is not the same thing. Capitalism, in it's purest sense, would be opposed to state intervention like that of which you speak.
I do apologise, I misunderstood your point in that i thought you were asking me why my country is (was) a fairly bad place to live because of capitalism per se, in that sense I was attempting to compress about half a millienium of irish history into a post in layman's terms.

I'm assuming that you're suggesting your parents broke up due to financial difficulties which were the fault of the capitalist system. My parents when I was young were also very, very poor and we lived in a capitalist system. Therefore I have to ask, if capitalism was the sole or primary cause of your parents' problems, why didn't my parents have similar problems?
Regardless of how you slice it, socio-economic problems can in some way or other indirectly or not, be laid at the door of the establishment class. Its not just a phenomenon limited to my country, but the world over be it through social peer pressure exerted through the media, bosses of companies demanding more time for less pay so we're forced to spend less time with families and a myriad of other factors you could care to think of.
Predominately, its the fault of pro-capitalist governments for preserving the existing status quo. Northern Ireland just happens to be one of the places in Europe most affected, because not only do we have a massive cross class divide, we also have cross community divides that have lingered for all of living memory which the establishment have made a pathetic attempt at solving. The reason I brought this up because it is they who are mostly to blame (british beourgiouse interference in the last millenium) and the international ruling class have made similar and in some cases even more damaging blunders.

Dr Mindbender

17th November 2006, 12:21

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.

ZX3

17th November 2006, 14:52

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.
Nobody with a four year degree says 'i deserve more because of the degree." What is said is that the labor of such a person is more valuable to the community than the labor of a less educated person, and thus it ought be reflected.

The reason why we do not have electric automobiles is because using those autos are less efficient (presently) than using gasoline powered autos.

uber-liberal

17th November 2006, 17:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 11:52 pm

(1)Wall street is where the rich scratch each other's backs to make a buck off of the labor of others. If the working class of this nation just walked off the job one day,how much money would be lost in the fiancial markets? Would the NYSE have to put the brakes on, or NASDAQ or Amex? What about the FTSE or other international markets? How would the Euro or Yen hold up in this situation? How far would the ripple travel?

Yes, obviously this would have a disastrous effect on the economy; however my point was that a good size chunk of the nation's overall capital - liquid, investable money - is made through investing, not strictly via labor.

(2)ALL paid labor affects ALL capital earnings.

Yes but is ALL paid labor working class? Attorneys who make $500 an hour are paid labor, are they working class?

(3)And the converse is also true; all capital earnings affect all paid labor. Someone has to guide the business, but not at the expense of the working classes and their blood, sweat and tears.
A couple of years ago, Forbes had an article outlining the pay disparraty between CEOs and their companies' hourly-pay workers. The average was around 300 times more for the CEO than the hourly workers.?

I agree with you here...however government cannot magically make CEOs pay their workers more. Wage controls and planned economies do not work. It takes a business ethic that has almost nothing to do with government.

(4)You're right. People can't blame others for their problems, like alcoholism or drug addiction. However, if the society at large, like the government and conservatives calling people on foodstamps lazy for trying to feed their families, than maybe we wouldn't have so much of a problem, hmm? Perhaps the answer lies in treating people of all economic standings as equals instead of as the hired help, if you're lucky, or like scum invading the wealthy's perfect little world.

I highly doubt that the opinions of people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity have anything to do with people's choice to use drugs or abuse alcohol. And second, alcoholism and drug abuse occur in all economic strata, so socioeconomic class has little to do with whether people abuse drugs or alcohol or not. What is true is that the poor have far less margin for error. This is unfair but there is not a lot you can do about it besides try to help people who will accept it. If you take the consequences for bad behavior away from people, you merely provide an incentive for continuing that behavior.

(5)lso, one question of simple arithematic for you: if A) prices stay relaively static in regards to inflation, etc., and B) executive wages increase along with higher valued company stock, and C) outsourcing of jobs to other countries with fewer restrictions on things like slave wages is happening in ALL production and service fields, than where is all this extra money going, and why aren't prices falling?

It's not happening in ALL production and service fields, and prices are not falling because people are still willing to pay the going rate.
Okay...

1) It's debatable whether or not the capital generated is investable, liquid assetts or fictitious in the FDR/New Deal economic sense. But Wall Street generates more capital AT THE BEHEST of labor-based companies and their shareholders.

2) No, I don't think so. While being a lawyer is a difficult job at times, and especially for the Public Defenders' Office and the countless A.D.A.'s out there, I refer more to the guy picking tomatoes for a nickel a piece, or the lady putting buttons in the hopper at the Osh Kosh factory.

3) Two words: MAXIMUM WAGE.

4) Socioeconomic class has a lot to do with it, actually. Those living in poverty have a statistically higher chance of becoming an alcoholic or addict than other economic classes. This isn't even debatable, it's established fact on file with the Beureau of Labor and Statistics, most state welfare/human services offices and even the DMV (occupation goes on the record for court cases, like DUI, possession with intent, etc...).
And while pundits probably get too much blame for what they say and don't do, guilting people into getting on welfare tends to not work. Rather, most people I know on TANF and/or EBT foodstamps find ways of dealing with that extra guilt, like drinking and using. I'm not justifying it, just saying what I see first-hand.

5) Unfortunately this leaves the poorer people of this nation, and across the globe, falling further and further behind the accepted middle class.

And you're right: it's not happening in every market. Casinos still need cocktail waitresses and dishwashers. Maybe Walt, a 20-year Boeing employee, can feed his family dealing Pai-Gow Poker at the local tribal casino, IF he gets approved to work there by the tribe. Or maybe he should go to McDonald's and flip burgers all day, then go wax floors all night, just to pay the mortgage.

There are no easy answers, but plenty of easy "reasons" if you care to listen to the diatribe of opinions out there. One thing is certain: we can't survive on this current path. Letting big business call the shots has put the entire globe at risk of becoming corporate states.

Oh God, can you imagine... the Republic of Banana Republic... the United States of Starbucks... Abercrombiestan & Fitchylvania... Yee-ikes...

uber-liberal

17th November 2006, 17:50

Originally posted by ZX3+November 17, 2006 02:52 pm--> (ZX3 @ November 17, 2006 02:52 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.
Nobody with a four year degree says 'i deserve more because of the degree." What is said is that the labor of such a person is more valuable to the community than the labor of a less educated person, and thus it ought be reflected.

The reason why we do not have electric automobiles is because using those autos are less efficient (presently) than using gasoline powered autos. [/b]
...or possibly because the oil industry as a whole is VREY heavily invested in the auto industry. Cars go electric, why would we need so much oil? THAT would be the best way to undermine Tehran, instead of this whole drilling in ANWR nonsense.

Dr Mindbender

18th November 2006, 12:31

Originally posted by ZX3+November 17, 2006 02:52 pm--> (ZX3 @ November 17, 2006 02:52 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.
Nobody with a four year degree says 'i deserve more because of the degree." What is said is that the labor of such a person is more valuable to the community than the labor of a less educated person, and thus it ought be reflected.

The reason why we do not have electric automobiles is because using those autos are less efficient (presently) than using gasoline powered autos. [/b]
By in large, people who go to Higher education do so out of pressure for the pursuit of status/wealth as opposed to the pursuit of knowledge. Granted, the motivation to endure 4 years of low income mediocre existence is required but that says more about the shortcomings of the present establishment than it does about the blueprints for a socialist alternative.
BTW you are saying that skilled workers are more valuable to you than manual workers? Let me make this point-
-How many times are you going to have your bins emptied this month?
-How many brain operations are you likely to have this month?
-Who is more valuable to you, the binman or brain surgeon?
I rest my case.
As for the point about cars, I was only using electric cars as an example. I could have mentioned various others, such as solar, hydrogen etc.

ZX3

18th November 2006, 14:14

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 18, 2006 12:31 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 18, 2006 12:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 02:52 pm

Ulster [email protected] 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.
Nobody with a four year degree says 'i deserve more because of the degree." What is said is that the labor of such a person is more valuable to the community than the labor of a less educated person, and thus it ought be reflected.

The reason why we do not have electric automobiles is because using those autos are less efficient (presently) than using gasoline powered autos.
By in large, people who go to Higher education do so out of pressure for the pursuit of status/wealth as opposed to the pursuit of knowledge. Granted, the motivation to endure 4 years of low income mediocre existence is required but that says more about the shortcomings of the present establishment than it does about the blueprints for a socialist alternative.
BTW you are saying that skilled workers are more valuable to you than manual workers? Let me make this point-
-How many times are you going to have your bins emptied this month?
-How many brain operations are you likely to have this month?
-Who is more valuable to you, the binman or brain surgeon?
I rest my case.
As for the point about cars, I was only using electric cars as an example. I could have mentioned various others, such as solar, hydrogen etc. [/b]
Most people in my community could properly dispose of my trash.

Most people in my community could not perform brain surgery.

That is why the labor of the brain surgeon is more valuable to the community- far fewer people can do it.

Electric or solar automobiles, it does not matter. They are not as efficient as gas powered engines. That is why they are not used, not because of some grand conspiracy.

Futants

19th November 2006, 07:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:54 am
You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world. All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about. You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them. All you do is whine about hierachies and corporations without having a real understanding of economics or sociology.

You make actual progessives look bad by spouting bullshit about revolution. Newsflash, a very tiny percentage of the population is oppressed. You don't need a fucking revolution. You simply need more comprehensive social programs. Thats it. It works in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

You complain about the people who work for peace and development because they work for large institutions. Get a clue, anarchists in San Francisco can't do shit for Africa by themselves.

Its called common sense and compromise. Marx's ideas are 150 years old. Mao and Stalin were corrupt blood thirsty monsters, just like Bush and Reagan. You don't need to be attached to ivory tower philosophies to encourage change. You aren't going to get change as a tiny minority fighting everyone. You need to compromise, and you need a majority for change.

Fuck the Soviet Union, fuck political persecution, and fuck your power trip. You;'re as bad as the fucking capitalists.
"You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world. All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about. You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them. All you do is whine about hierachies and corporations without having a real understanding of economics or sociology."

you're confusing an understanding of economics and sociology with delusional "understandings" by selfish and/or sociopathic people

"Newsflash, a very tiny percentage of the population is oppressed. "

you mean that a tiny percentage realizes they are being exploited and feel oppressed within the systems structure. If you are actually claiming that it's a small percentage of the population that are wage slaves, putting forth more work and effort to gain their employer more profits, then you're delusional !

"You complain about the people who work for peace and development because they work for large institutions. Get a clue, anarchists in San Francisco can't do shit for Africa by themselves."

that's how so many large peace and development orgs can get away with what they do.......let's excuse everything and keep brainwashing people to believe that we NEED corporations are large organizations to get anything done..........

"Its called common sense and compromise. Marx's ideas are 150 years old. Mao and Stalin were corrupt blood thirsty monsters, just like Bush and Reagan. "

what do Mao and Stalin have to do with communists?

"Fuck the Soviet Union, fuck political persecution, and fuck your power trip. You;'re as bad as the fucking capitalists."

how many times must it be said that the Soviet Union problem was not real communism in place, but rather govt takeover and manipulation/twisting of the ideology?.......much like Republicans have always used the "do you want the govt off your backs?" to sell themselves and then do the exact opposite

manic expression

19th November 2006, 08:03

Originally posted by ZX3+November 18, 2006 02:14 pm--> (ZX3 @ November 18, 2006 02:14 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2006 12:31 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 02:52 pm

Ulster [email protected] 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.
Nobody with a four year degree says 'i deserve more because of the degree." What is said is that the labor of such a person is more valuable to the community than the labor of a less educated person, and thus it ought be reflected.

The reason why we do not have electric automobiles is because using those autos are less efficient (presently) than using gasoline powered autos.
By in large, people who go to Higher education do so out of pressure for the pursuit of status/wealth as opposed to the pursuit of knowledge. Granted, the motivation to endure 4 years of low income mediocre existence is required but that says more about the shortcomings of the present establishment than it does about the blueprints for a socialist alternative.
BTW you are saying that skilled workers are more valuable to you than manual workers? Let me make this point-
-How many times are you going to have your bins emptied this month?
-How many brain operations are you likely to have this month?
-Who is more valuable to you, the binman or brain surgeon?
I rest my case.
As for the point about cars, I was only using electric cars as an example. I could have mentioned various others, such as solar, hydrogen etc.
Most people in my community could properly dispose of my trash.

Most people in my community could not perform brain surgery.

That is why the labor of the brain surgeon is more valuable to the community- far fewer people can do it.

Electric or solar automobiles, it does not matter. They are not as efficient as gas powered engines. That is why they are not used, not because of some grand conspiracy.[/b]
a.) The people who can do brain-surgery had opportunities that were undeniably out of the reach of "most people". Therefore, to value their work more than others' is to value privelege, and subsequently, injustice.

b.) The FACT is that those people do dispose of your trash, which makes their work integral to your community. That someone else could do the same does not negate this.

c.) All menial labour is extremely important to a community (arguably more than brain surgery). Since disposing of trash is a part of this, it is extremely valuable.

d.) Both practices are important, both contribute to the community. Due to the fact that they are both important, they should both be treated equally by the community.

On cars, what you say is pathetically myopic. Electric cars are quite effective in spite of the fact that no one in power wants to improve the technology. They would be even more effective had the powers that be invested in the technology even more. The same goes for solar-powered cars. Gas companies (and car companies) are raking in profits hand over fist, why would they ever want solar or electric cars to become part of the equation? Once again, capitalism doesn't care about what's best, capitalism cares about the bottom line, about profits, all at the expense of improvement and the common welfare. It is patently ridiculous to tell me that something is ineffective when, in reality, capitalism has greatly hindered its development in the first place and when the technology is still more than workable.

ZX3

19th November 2006, 21:51

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2006 08:03 am--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2006 08:03 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:14 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2006 12:31 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 02:52 pm

Ulster [email protected] 17, 2006 12:21 pm

Which paticular part of your "technocracy" strwman is this designed to 'combat' exactly? Especially this bit
By technocracy i meant the 'one-up-man ship' mentality among the middle class that ''I deserve more than you cause i spent 4 years getting this fancy university degree''
Theres this misconception among the reactionaries that socialism would immediately be a primitivist form of politics purely because it does not need or utilise currency as a form of transaction.
Quite the contrary, If you take the automobile industry for example its clear that the reason we still dont have a car that utilises renewable fuel (despite the abundance of alternatives available) Is because the petrol giants have been able to exert their influence and hegemony over elected govts. In other words, its a case of ''you keep electric cars under wraps for another year and we'll make sure next years party conference is well funded''
I dare say you could apply this concept to other industries, but this one is the most relevant since its linked to the biggest threat the world faces.
Nobody with a four year degree says 'i deserve more because of the degree." What is said is that the labor of such a person is more valuable to the community than the labor of a less educated person, and thus it ought be reflected.

The reason why we do not have electric automobiles is because using those autos are less efficient (presently) than using gasoline powered autos.
By in large, people who go to Higher education do so out of pressure for the pursuit of status/wealth as opposed to the pursuit of knowledge. Granted, the motivation to endure 4 years of low income mediocre existence is required but that says more about the shortcomings of the present establishment than it does about the blueprints for a socialist alternative.
BTW you are saying that skilled workers are more valuable to you than manual workers? Let me make this point-
-How many times are you going to have your bins emptied this month?
-How many brain operations are you likely to have this month?
-Who is more valuable to you, the binman or brain surgeon?
I rest my case.
As for the point about cars, I was only using electric cars as an example. I could have mentioned various others, such as solar, hydrogen etc.
Most people in my community could properly dispose of my trash.

Most people in my community could not perform brain surgery.

That is why the labor of the brain surgeon is more valuable to the community- far fewer people can do it.

Electric or solar automobiles, it does not matter. They are not as efficient as gas powered engines. That is why they are not used, not because of some grand conspiracy.
a.) The people who can do brain-surgery had opportunities that were undeniably out of the reach of "most people". Therefore, to value their work more than others' is to value privelege, and subsequently, injustice.

b.) The FACT is that those people do dispose of your trash, which makes their work integral to your community. That someone else could do the same does not negate this.

c.) All menial labour is extremely important to a community (arguably more than brain surgery). Since disposing of trash is a part of this, it is extremely valuable.

d.) Both practices are important, both contribute to the community. Due to the fact that they are both important, they should both be treated equally by the community.

On cars, what you say is pathetically myopic. Electric cars are quite effective in spite of the fact that no one in power wants to improve the technology. They would be even more effective had the powers that be invested in the technology even more. The same goes for solar-powered cars. Gas companies (and car companies) are raking in profits hand over fist, why would they ever want solar or electric cars to become part of the equation? Once again, capitalism doesn't care about what's best, capitalism cares about the bottom line, about profits, all at the expense of improvement and the common welfare. It is patently ridiculous to tell me that something is ineffective when, in reality, capitalism has greatly hindered its development in the first place and when the technology is still more than workable. [/b]

a. It can very well be denied that brain surgeons had opportunities others did not. It certainly cannot be declared carte blanche that they did. Such surgeons spend years studying their craft to be proficient It would be difficult to imagine this would not be the case in a socialist community.

b. Of course it matters if most people could remove trash. It means that the community does not need to expend as many resources in training such a person. And the pool to choose from is much larger.

c. Given a choice between having garbage picked up next Thursday, or having needed brain surgery, it is reasonable to surmise most people would forego having a trash pickup. But if your community insists that the latter is no more valuable than the former, I suspect your community would have a great many of the former, and very few of the latter. How the community benefits in such a circumstance is mysterious.

d. The brain surgeon spends years mastering the craft. the garbagmen not so long. If the comminity wishes to exploit the labor of the brain surgeon and treat his work as no great shakes, no doubt a community of garbagemen will exist.

Regarding autos: Electric cars do not run as efficiently as gas powered cars. That is the way it is. If the community wishes to foist inefficient electric cars on itself, then it is also responsible for the inefficiencies in the economy which result.

Naturally, there is no reason to suppose that electric automobiles cannot become more efficient than gas autos. Indeed, contemporary hybrids are far better than the electrical plug in models of the 80s. Naturally as well, such developments will continue to come about as a result of capitalism, since capitalism has the model to determine when such engines are worth the expenditures made upon them.

lithium

19th November 2006, 22:19

You are mostly well off college students who don't know what is actually needed to change the world. All you have is airy fairy ideas that noone cares about. You are so far out of touch with the actual working class that you could never really help them.

I am at college, but I am not well off. How is this? It's a product of an advancement towards a leftist, socialist society in my country. I am also an employee and I know what the differences are between classes.

You make actual progessives look bad by spouting bullshit about revolution. Newsflash, a very tiny percentage of the population is oppressed.

Eh, newsflash: educate yourself and maybe you won't make yourself look like an idiot. A very large percentage of the population is oppressed. Give me sources to your figures. In any capitalist society a small percentage are rich and the rest are oppressed by being made work for a wage much less than the value of the work or time put in. This is how capitalism works. If you think otherwise you're an idiot.

Get a clue, anarchists in San Francisco can't do shit for Africa by themselves.

No they can't. That's why there are Anarchists all over the world supporting them and each other. The same applies for Communists and Socialists.

Marx's ideas are 150 years old.

Wow. You're powers of stating the obvious astound me.

Mao and Stalin were corrupt blood thirsty monsters, just like Bush and Reagan.

Agreed.

You don't need to be attached to ivory tower philosophies to encourage change. You aren't going to get change as a tiny minority fighting everyone.

They're not ivory tower philosphies. Left-wing economics and politics benefit people much more than right-wing ideas.

Also, we're not a minority. Believe me when I tell you this: capitalism, fascism and imperialism are in serious danger. They will be wiped out very soon. You are blind if you can't see the drastic rise in leftism all over the world.

Fuck the Soviet Union, fuck political persecution, and fuck your power trip.

The USSR fell apart for various reasons. The main one being that it was run by a lot of people who were dictatorial and capitalist. Communism never occured in Russia because the people in charge of the USSR were just that: in charge. As long as there will be leaders like USSR or Europe or USA their societies will collapse.

You;'re as bad as the fucking capitalists.

Unlikely. We happen to give a shit about the people who are starving on the side of the street because they can't afford the clothes to look good in an interview; we give a shit about the children in El Salvador that were handed machine guns by the US army to fight a war; we give a shit about the farmers in Africa who are forced to work land that has been effectively turned to sand from overfarming and are paid little or nothing in return; we give a shit about employees in companies who are being paid crap money while their bosses and managers sit in offices, do nothing, and get paid millions.

You have just shown that you haven't got a clue about Communism or any leftist ideas. You are being spoonfed ideas from the media and you don't have the intelligence to either educate yourself or even take a look at the world around you.

manic expression

19th November 2006, 22:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 09:51 pm
a. It can very well be denied that brain surgeons had opportunities others did not. It certainly cannot be declared carte blanche that they did. Such surgeons spend years studying their craft to be proficient It would be difficult to imagine this would not be the case in a socialist community.

b. Of course it matters if most people could remove trash. It means that the community does not need to expend as many resources in training such a person. And the pool to choose from is much larger.

c. Given a choice between having garbage picked up next Thursday, or having needed brain surgery, it is reasonable to surmise most people would forego having a trash pickup. But if your community insists that the latter is no more valuable than the former, I suspect your community would have a great many of the former, and very few of the latter. How the community benefits in such a circumstance is mysterious.

d. The brain surgeon spends years mastering the craft. the garbagmen not so long. If the comminity wishes to exploit the labor of the brain surgeon and treat his work as no great shakes, no doubt a community of garbagemen will exist.

Regarding autos: Electric cars do not run as efficiently as gas powered cars. That is the way it is. If the community wishes to foist inefficient electric cars on itself, then it is also responsible for the inefficiencies in the economy which result.

Naturally, there is no reason to suppose that electric automobiles cannot become more efficient than gas autos. Indeed, contemporary hybrids are far better than the electrical plug in models of the 80s. Naturally as well, such developments will continue to come about as a result of capitalism, since capitalism has the model to determine when such engines are worth the expenditures made upon them.
a.) They studied for years because they had the money to pay for the education. In a socialist society, people with both the ability and desire to be brain surgeons would have this education provided to them, no questions asked.

b.) The resources expended in training and the pool of choice doesn't mean the person who is doing it isn't doing it. If the person who is disposing of trash is not disposing of trash, someone else would have to do it, meaning they could not do something else, therefore decreasing the effectiveness of a community. Their role is extremely important, period.

c.) The first part of this is that EVERYONE needs trash picked up ALL THE TIME. That is what gives a community the ability to function, whereas brain-surgery does not. Brain surgery is important, there can be no doubt, but if you were to eliminate one role, disposing of trash is far more important than brain-surgery. Clarify your second point, please.

d.) Again, those years of mastery are an option available to the brain surgeon precisely because of his wealth. This means that to value brain surgery more than disposing of trash is to value affluence over poverty, which has nothing to do with the individual. Second, the original point still stands that both roles contribute to the community, and so the community must treat both workers equally (did you even address this point?).

On cars, you are beyond wrong.

Electric cars run they way they do because no one invests in them, due to the fact that everyone is making so much money off of the short-sighted use of gas. THAT is the way it is. Capitalism is the problem here, as it is elsewhere.

In spite of this (in spite of capitalism's greedy folly) electric cars are very efficient, you simply tried to dance around this FACT. Electric cars work extremely well, but no one pursues the spread and further development of the technology solely because the people with the money want more money. It's not the community making the decision, it's rich corporations who simply don't give a sh*t about what's best for anyone but them. In addition, efficiency also means that the fuel is cheap and, well, efficient. Gas is not an efficient fuel, as it is unreplenishable and is ultimately detrimental.

Again, the reason electric cars are not widespread or further developed is because the rich corporations don't want them to be developed, since it would interfere with their profits. It has nothing to do with efficiency, it has everything to do with money and greed, and your stark ignorance to this changes nothing.

No, capitalism is, currently, stopping electric cars from becoming widespread. This is due to the fact that capitalism only responds to money, and since there is no money in doing what's best for society, for improvement, for progress, capitalism opposes it.

Dean

20th November 2006, 15:41

I agree with everything you've said except for the "tiny percentage is oppressed" part. It is well - known that globally most people live in terrible condistions.

That aside, people SHOULD do more to help people - by working with organizations like ChristianAid and Amnesty International.

ZX3

20th November 2006, 16:10

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 19, 2006 10:44 pm
a.) They studied for years because they had the money to pay for the education. In a socialist society, people with both the ability and desire to be brain surgeons would have this education provided to them, no questions asked.

b.) The resources expended in training and the pool of choice doesn't mean the person who is doing it isn't doing it. If the person who is disposing of trash is not disposing of trash, someone else would have to do it, meaning they could not do something else, therefore decreasing the effectiveness of a community. Their role is extremely important, period.

c.) The first part of this is that EVERYONE needs trash picked up ALL THE TIME. That is what gives a community the ability to function, whereas brain-surgery does not. Brain surgery is important, there can be no doubt, but if you were to eliminate one role, disposing of trash is far more important than brain-surgery. Clarify your second point, please.

d.) Again, those years of mastery are an option available to the brain surgeon precisely because of his wealth. This means that to value brain surgery more than disposing of trash is to value affluence over poverty, which has nothing to do with the individual. Second, the original point still stands that both roles contribute to the community, and so the community must treat both workers equally (did you even address this point?).

On cars, you are beyond wrong.

Electric cars run they way they do because no one invests in them, due to the fact that everyone is making so much money off of the short-sighted use of gas. THAT is the way it is. Capitalism is the problem here, as it is elsewhere.

In spite of this (in spite of capitalism's greedy folly) electric cars are very efficient, you simply tried to dance around this FACT. Electric cars work extremely well, but no one pursues the spread and further development of the technology solely because the people with the money want more money. It's not the community making the decision, it's rich corporations who simply don't give a sh*t about what's best for anyone but them. In addition, efficiency also means that the fuel is cheap and, well, efficient. Gas is not an efficient fuel, as it is unreplenishable and is ultimately detrimental.

Again, the reason electric cars are not widespread or further developed is because the rich corporations don't want them to be developed, since it would interfere with their profits. It has nothing to do with efficiency, it has everything to do with money and greed, and your stark ignorance to this changes nothing.

No, capitalism is, currently, stopping electric cars from becoming widespread. This is due to the fact that capitalism only responds to money, and since there is no money in doing what's best for society, for improvement, for progress, capitalism opposes it.
a. More than likely, they borrowed the money. The capitalist lenders, of course, asked questions. It would be rather silly for socialism to NOT ask whether the money, the time, the resources, invested in an aspiring brain surgeon would be best invested elsewhere.

b. There can be no doubt that removing of trash is important. And only you are suggesting that the community will have to choose between having garbagemen and having brain surgeons. But if your community wishes to insist there is no difference between training to be a brain surgeon, or training to be a garbageman, then your community will not have the benefits of having brain surgeons and garbagemen. The latter will proliferate.

c. Yes. Both garbagemen and brain surgeons contribute to society. But their professions are not equal in terms of needed training, skills ect. Why should the community pretend that they are?

Correct. people do not invest in electric cars because they cannot make money off it. Congratulations. Now:

1. making money, a profit, has to be the objective of socialist economies as well. A profit is no more than the value of a completed item beyond the value and costs of its component parts.

2. How does trhe economy benefit when it needs to use more resources to do the same type of work? it doesn't. Which is why nobody does (or few people, and increasing do, to be accurate). A socialist economy will not change this dynamic. However it can guarantee that the transition is more difficult, as it will insist on using more resources than neccessary, thus slowing the rate of profit, and gradually making the community poorer (or at least not growing as fast as it could).

3. gas engines, right now, are far more efficient than electric or solar are, right now. And as indicated, there is every reason to suppose that will not be the case in the years ahead.

4. Toyota, Ford, GM, Honda are all coming out with electric cars (hybrids). They are not selling well because they are expensive, difficult to maintain, and not as efficient as purely gas powered engines. It has nothing to do with rich corporations not wanting to sell the product. It has to do with everyone else not wishing to purchase the car because of the problems. Bugt again, there is no reason to suppose that those problems CANNOT be ironed out in the future.

manic expression

20th November 2006, 20:29

Originally posted by ZX3+November 20, 2006 04:10 pm--> (ZX3 @ November 20, 2006 04:10 pm)
manic [email protected] 19, 2006 10:44 pm
a.) They studied for years because they had the money to pay for the education. In a socialist society, people with both the ability and desire to be brain surgeons would have this education provided to them, no questions asked.

b.) The resources expended in training and the pool of choice doesn't mean the person who is doing it isn't doing it. If the person who is disposing of trash is not disposing of trash, someone else would have to do it, meaning they could not do something else, therefore decreasing the effectiveness of a community. Their role is extremely important, period.

c.) The first part of this is that EVERYONE needs trash picked up ALL THE TIME. That is what gives a community the ability to function, whereas brain-surgery does not. Brain surgery is important, there can be no doubt, but if you were to eliminate one role, disposing of trash is far more important than brain-surgery. Clarify your second point, please.

d.) Again, those years of mastery are an option available to the brain surgeon precisely because of his wealth. This means that to value brain surgery more than disposing of trash is to value affluence over poverty, which has nothing to do with the individual. Second, the original point still stands that both roles contribute to the community, and so the community must treat both workers equally (did you even address this point?).

On cars, you are beyond wrong.

Electric cars run they way they do because no one invests in them, due to the fact that everyone is making so much money off of the short-sighted use of gas. THAT is the way it is. Capitalism is the problem here, as it is elsewhere.

In spite of this (in spite of capitalism's greedy folly) electric cars are very efficient, you simply tried to dance around this FACT. Electric cars work extremely well, but no one pursues the spread and further development of the technology solely because the people with the money want more money. It's not the community making the decision, it's rich corporations who simply don't give a sh*t about what's best for anyone but them. In addition, efficiency also means that the fuel is cheap and, well, efficient. Gas is not an efficient fuel, as it is unreplenishable and is ultimately detrimental.

Again, the reason electric cars are not widespread or further developed is because the rich corporations don't want them to be developed, since it would interfere with their profits. It has nothing to do with efficiency, it has everything to do with money and greed, and your stark ignorance to this changes nothing.

No, capitalism is, currently, stopping electric cars from becoming widespread. This is due to the fact that capitalism only responds to money, and since there is no money in doing what's best for society, for improvement, for progress, capitalism opposes it.
a. More than likely, they borrowed the money. The capitalist lenders, of course, asked questions. It would be rather silly for socialism to NOT ask whether the money, the time, the resources, invested in an aspiring brain surgeon would be best invested elsewhere.

b. There can be no doubt that removing of trash is important. And only you are suggesting that the community will have to choose between having garbagemen and having brain surgeons. But if your community wishes to insist there is no difference between training to be a brain surgeon, or training to be a garbageman, then your community will not have the benefits of having brain surgeons and garbagemen. The latter will proliferate.

c. Yes. Both garbagemen and brain surgeons contribute to society. But their professions are not equal in terms of needed training, skills ect. Why should the community pretend that they are?

Correct. people do not invest in electric cars because they cannot make money off it. Congratulations. Now:

1. making money, a profit, has to be the objective of socialist economies as well. A profit is no more than the value of a completed item beyond the value and costs of its component parts.

2. How does trhe economy benefit when it needs to use more resources to do the same type of work? it doesn't. Which is why nobody does (or few people, and increasing do, to be accurate). A socialist economy will not change this dynamic. However it can guarantee that the transition is more difficult, as it will insist on using more resources than neccessary, thus slowing the rate of profit, and gradually making the community poorer (or at least not growing as fast as it could).

3. gas engines, right now, are far more efficient than electric or solar are, right now. And as indicated, there is every reason to suppose that will not be the case in the years ahead.

4. Toyota, Ford, GM, Honda are all coming out with electric cars (hybrids). They are not selling well because they are expensive, difficult to maintain, and not as efficient as purely gas powered engines. It has nothing to do with rich corporations not wanting to sell the product. It has to do with everyone else not wishing to purchase the car because of the problems. Bugt again, there is no reason to suppose that those problems CANNOT be ironed out in the future.[/b]
a.) You're making an unreasonable assumption. First, it's next to impossible to get into a position to even think about higher education when you come from poverty (that's a fact). These people are so far away from higher education it isn't even a viable option. Next, people who actually HAVE capital have far greater resources to gain a higher education (as in become a brain surgeon). Finally, borrowing money only goes so far, it's very difficult to borrow money for 8 years of college, and many students who don't have the money have to hope for a scholarship to continue school (this happens to many of my classmates who don't come from privileged and affluent backgrounds). In addition, this is hardly desirable, as it forces people to go to the people who have capital to get anywhere. They should be provided the education they need and the education they deserve by the community, not the big wigs.

b.) I am suggesting such a thing to prove a point. Given the choice, my point stands.

c.) No, they are not equal in training, but that has no bearing on importance. None. Since both contribute to their community immensely, it is ridiculous to put one above the other (in terms of wages, namely). In a socialist society, the community takes responsibility to train the surgeon. Why should one be valued more when both individuals are so invaluable? You have not addressed this point.

Thank you for admitting that capitalism is devestating the environment for petty profits.

1. Creating a society that is best for all is the objective of socialist societies. A community would invest in better transportation because it would be best for everyone. It is not about profit, it is about what's best.

2. It would not be a very difficult transition to better transportation. The sole barrier against this are the greedy individuals who put their own gain above the needs of all. Get rid of that barrier, and you can do that work without problems.

3. Years back, they introduced electric cars to certain parts of the country. Some models could get to 60mph in about 5-6 seconds (IIRC), which is exceptional. The technology was very effective and ultimately FAR more beneficial for everyone. However, this wasn't good for the profits of gas companies, so they were recalled and destroyed. Go back to your own admission:

"Correct. people do not invest in electric cars because they cannot make money off it."

THAT is the problem here.

4. The hybrids are not nearly enough. This should've been happening decades ago. If the economy was not a free-market, it is likely that such development would've occured years or even decades ago. However, the free market only caters to greed and exploitation, and so you have the rich reaping the profits instead of seeing improvement. The reason they are expensive is because those in power have not committed to it being accessible. That is the source of the problems you cite, and when we get rid of that source, we will have a better society.

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 20:42

c.) No, they (the garbage man and the brain surgeon) are not equal in training, but that has no bearing on importance. None. Since both contribute to their community immensely, it is ridiculous to put one above the other (in terms of wages, namely). In a socialist society, the community takes responsibility to train the surgeon. Why should one be valued more when both individuals are so invaluable? You have not addressed this point.

You are correct that the training of the garbage man and the brain surgeon don't have much to do with their value to society, but considering the services they provide your suggestion that they are equally valuable to society is patently absurd.

I could, if I had to, simply haul my own garbage to the dump. I could not perform brain surgery on myself.

1. Creating a society that is best for all is the objective of socialist societies. A community would invest in better transportation because it would be best for everyone. It is not about profit, it is about what's best.

The problem is that in a capitalist society consumers decide what's best for them, while in a socialist system you're deciding what's best for people. People tend to not like being told they can't have what they want because it's not good for them. Imagine the reaction of most people here if I said I was glad pot was illegal because it's bad for them? Yet somehow that would be different.

2. It would not be a very difficult transition to better transportation. The sole barrier against this are the greedy individuals who put their own gain above the needs of all. Get rid of that barrier, and you can do that work without problems.

Again, whose definition of better? Yours? Why do you get to choose? Maybe I'd rather be in my own car stuck in traffic listening to the radio instead of rubbing against someone on a packed subway?

It's funny how socialists think they're smarter than everyone else and should be given the authority to run others' lives for them, yet when people protest it's because they're greedy.

3. Years back, they introduced electric cars to certain parts of the country. Some models could get to 60mph in about 5-6 seconds (IIRC), which is exceptional. The technology was very effective and ultimately FAR more beneficial for everyone. However, this wasn't good for the profits of gas companies, so they were recalled and destroyed. Go back to your own admission:

"Correct. people do not invest in electric cars because they cannot make money off it."

THAT is the problem here.

That is the problem: not enough people wanted the damn cars to make it worth allocating the necessary resources to build them. If 95% of the people want gas powered cars, for whatever reason, then why not give them what they want?

4. The hybrids are not nearly enough. This should've been happening decades ago. If the economy was not a free-market, it is likely that such development would've occured years or even decades ago. However, the free market only caters to greed and exploitation, and so you have the rich reaping the profits instead of seeing improvement. The reason they are expensive is because those in power have not committed to it being accessible. That is the source of the problems you cite, and when we get rid of that source, we will have a better society.

It's not about those in power. The automakers are at the mercy of the buying public, not the other way around. That would be the reason that try as they might, the American car companies cannot get people to continue purchasing inferior automobiles.

People did not want electric cars because they were not powerful enough nor big enough. If I choose the gas-powered car because it better meets my needs, exactly who are you to be telling me I should not make that choice?

red team

20th November 2006, 21:31

You are correct that the training of the garbage man and the brain surgeon don't have much to do with their value to society, but considering the services they provide your suggestion that they are equally valuable to society is patently absurd.

I could, if I had to, simply haul my own garbage to the dump. I could not perform brain surgery on myself.

Brain surgeons are not theoreticians. They perform an operation after determining what to do beforehand. That means anybody with physical dexterity can do the operation after being given the procedures on how to do it beforehand or better yet with computer technology, guided through the procedures during the operation. All it takes is a steady hand. We're not exactly talking genius-level abstract thought here, especially during the actual procedures.

The problem is that in a capitalist society consumers decide what's best for them, while in a socialist system you're deciding what's best for people. People tend to not like being told they can't have what they want because it's not good for them. Imagine the reaction of most people here if I said I was glad pot was illegal because it's bad for them? Yet somehow that would be different.

But, the difference is you can grow your own pot for private use if it was made illegal for distribution. Much like you can make your own crystal meth or failing that simply buy nail polish or paint thinner to sniff. Substance abuse is more of a psychological problem than anything else and cracking down using laws is not going to solve it.

Further, there's nothing to prevent a Communistic system in responding to market demand for consumer goods. Prices would simply be set at physical cost of production and demand would be guaged through quantity of purchases. Therefore, no debts, no interests, no taxes, none of that redundant crap because the only thing limiting production would be quantity of physical resources.

People did not want electric cars because they were not powerful enough nor big enough. If I choose the gas-powered car because it better meets my needs, exactly who are you to be telling me I should not make that choice?

For the same reason that government requires catalytic converters installed in all cars to reduce pollution because the general public demanded a reduction in pollution because it was affecting their health. What's the next logical step? Gas engines are inherently polluting. Electric engines are inherently clean.

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 21:46

Brain surgeons are not theoreticians. They perform an operation after determining what to do beforehand. That means anybody with physical dexterity can do the operation after being given the procedures on how to do it beforehand or better yet with computer technology, guided through the procedures during the operation. All it takes is a steady hand. We're not exactly talking genius-level abstract thought here, especially during the actual procedures.

Well I tell you what Dr. McCoy, when we have such precision machines I'll have a brain tumor removed by the local bowling alley concession stand jockey. Until then, I will seek trained experts should the need ever arise. I'm sure most people will do the same.

Further, there's nothing to prevent a Communistic system in responding to market demand for consumer goods. Prices would simply be set at physical cost of production and demand would be guaged through quantity of purchases. Therefore, no debts, no interests, no taxes, none of that redundant crap because the only thing limiting production would be quantity of physical resources.

Yes, there is something preventing a communist system from meeting demand. I'm not sure which strain of communism you adhere too, but in a technocracy as it's been explained to me, decisions on making changes in production would have to travel through some kind of committee process so consensus can be reached. The change would, I imagine, have to meet with the approval of the workers, and assumes they'd always be happy to make any required changes (like say working later and harder to meet increased demand?).

Now, even companies in our system have bureaucracies and often they miss the boat. But good companies can essentially change production on a dime, something that cannot be reasonably expected if you're demanding "consensus" among several different entities.

It seems like you live in a Star Trek world where Brain the Supercomputer would just figure this stuff out and print out work orders every morning. If that's the case, I certainly cannot argue with what you dream will happen in 150 years.

For the same reason that government requires catalytic converters installed in all cars to reduce pollution because the general public demanded a reduction in pollution because it was affecting their health. What's the next logical step? Gas engines are inherently polluting. Electric engines are inherently clean.

Not the same thing. Catalytic converters still allow for the power and speed of the gas-powered engine, essentially still giving the consumer what he or she wants. An electric car as they existed up to now had neither of those things, which is why they were rejected by the public.

Zero

20th November 2006, 22:00

Originally posted by "t_wolves_fan"
Well I tell you what Dr. McCoy, when we have such precision machines I'll have a brain tumor removed by the local bowling alley concession stand jockey. Until then, I will seek trained experts should the need ever arise. I'm sure most people will do the same.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/15/1042520673704.html

Sorry, what did you say Spock?

t_wolves_fan

20th November 2006, 22:06

Originally posted by Zero+November 20, 2006 10:00 pm--> (Zero @ November 20, 2006 10:00 pm)
"t_wolves_fan"
Well I tell you what Dr. McCoy, when we have such precision machines I'll have a brain tumor removed by the local bowling alley concession stand jockey. Until then, I will seek trained experts should the need ever arise. I'm sure most people will do the same.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/15/1042520673704.html

Sorry, what did you say Spock? [/b]
Great. And I presume they'll let just about anyone program and operate this machine?

manic expression

20th November 2006, 22:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:42 pm

c.) No, they (the garbage man and the brain surgeon) are not equal in training, but that has no bearing on importance. None. Since both contribute to their community immensely, it is ridiculous to put one above the other (in terms of wages, namely). In a socialist society, the community takes responsibility to train the surgeon. Why should one be valued more when both individuals are so invaluable? You have not addressed this point.

You are correct that the training of the garbage man and the brain surgeon don't have much to do with their value to society, but considering the services they provide your suggestion that they are equally valuable to society is patently absurd.

I could, if I had to, simply haul my own garbage to the dump. I could not perform brain surgery on myself.

1. Creating a society that is best for all is the objective of socialist societies. A community would invest in better transportation because it would be best for everyone. It is not about profit, it is about what's best.

The problem is that in a capitalist society consumers decide what's best for them, while in a socialist system you're deciding what's best for people. People tend to not like being told they can't have what they want because it's not good for them. Imagine the reaction of most people here if I said I was glad pot was illegal because it's bad for them? Yet somehow that would be different.

2. It would not be a very difficult transition to better transportation. The sole barrier against this are the greedy individuals who put their own gain above the needs of all. Get rid of that barrier, and you can do that work without problems.

Again, whose definition of better? Yours? Why do you get to choose? Maybe I'd rather be in my own car stuck in traffic listening to the radio instead of rubbing against someone on a packed subway?

It's funny how socialists think they're smarter than everyone else and should be given the authority to run others' lives for them, yet when people protest it's because they're greedy.

3. Years back, they introduced electric cars to certain parts of the country. Some models could get to 60mph in about 5-6 seconds (IIRC), which is exceptional. The technology was very effective and ultimately FAR more beneficial for everyone. However, this wasn't good for the profits of gas companies, so they were recalled and destroyed. Go back to your own admission:

"Correct. people do not invest in electric cars because they cannot make money off it."

THAT is the problem here.

That is the problem: not enough people wanted the damn cars to make it worth allocating the necessary resources to build them. If 95% of the people want gas powered cars, for whatever reason, then why not give them what they want?

4. The hybrids are not nearly enough. This should've been happening decades ago. If the economy was not a free-market, it is likely that such development would've occured years or even decades ago. However, the free market only caters to greed and exploitation, and so you have the rich reaping the profits instead of seeing improvement. The reason they are expensive is because those in power have not committed to it being accessible. That is the source of the problems you cite, and when we get rid of that source, we will have a better society.

It's not about those in power. The automakers are at the mercy of the buying public, not the other way around. That would be the reason that try as they might, the American car companies cannot get people to continue purchasing inferior automobiles.

People did not want electric cars because they were not powerful enough nor big enough. If I choose the gas-powered car because it better meets my needs, exactly who are you to be telling me I should not make that choice?
By all means, go ahead and haul your garbage to the dump. However, for real-life societies, there is a need for people to dispose of garbage. Without this service, societies could not function. There's a reason sanitary worker unions are so powerful, it's because if they strike, the city is screwed. Have fun hauling your trash down to the dump, we'll be here working to create a better community.

The point is that if we didn't have brain surgeons, the community could still function fine. The same is not true with garbagemen.

No, corporations decide what is best for them and only them. They look for profit and nothing more. Consumers have very little say, because corporate power inevitably takes control and gives consumers little to no choice. Do you think consumers dictate corporate policy? Please, that's just laughable. In capitalism, the rich (bourgeoisie) dictate society, not the other way around.

A car that does not use unreplenishable resources is better, and anyone who says gas is "better" than alternative fuel in the long run is simply wrong. It's not just my opinion, it's a fact. Furthermore, public transportation accessible to all and far more efficient (in terms of resources), and so a society MUST invest in this. It is the responsibility of the community to provide accessible and effecient transportation to everyone. Your position boils down to selfishness and short-sightedness.

No, socialists KNOW that what benefits the whole community benefits everyone. Do the math if you don't believe me. To despise the community and the equal and just use of resources is to be unmistakably greedy.

No, it wasn't offered to a wide range of people, and so a literal handful of people had the chance to use them (before they were pulled and destroyed). Do you think people want to stay with gas when prices are this high? Of course not. Anyone with a brain can tell you that improving alternative fuel is extremely beneficial for all of society and all of the world. However, capitalism isn't about this at all, and that is the problem.

Of course it's about those in power. They have the means to improve and distribute better means of transportation, but they don't, because it's not in their selfish interests. Even though people presently don't want to pay such prices for gas and even though gas is running out, the insipid capitalist automakers keep churning out H2's and ridiculous SUV's in spite of the reality of the situation. Capitalism is at the mercy of money and money only, nothing more. It is not at the mercy of what would benefit anyone BESIDES those who are making money. And as I said, the cars wouldn't be so "inferior" (and they are quite good already) if people invested in them, but capitalism does not allow this to happen because it wasn't in the interests of the rich. People are not given the choice of having good and affordable electric cars because the rich didn't want to produce them. THAT, not your "choice", is the reason we are in the sad state that we see today.

Oh, and a socialist community would tell you that you cannot buy an unnecessary gas-guzzling car, because it is detrimental to the community and against the interests of the people (for a myriad of reasons). Individuals should not have the option to put their selfish, greedy and myopic aims over the welfare of all. If you don't like it, you can throw a temper-tantrum, but that does nothing to change the FACT that it is better for everyone.