The poverty level in America [Archive]

Jazzratt

24th February 2007, 18:55

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24, 2007 04:34 pm

capitalists do have a clear cut agenda and that is to stay in power.

No, their objective is to satify the public and their shareholders better than their competitors, it has nothing to do with power.
That's more of a method than a goal and they don't even do that well. Generally they'll be okay to the shareholders but they generally try to get the cheapest (i.e shoddiest) product they can make out for the highest (most extortionate) price. Consumers can go hang.

What don't you guys understand about capitalism?

We're not anarchists or fascists. We're free-market CAPITALISTS (or supporters of free-market capitalism). Property rights still must be protected by the rule of law.

That's EVERYONE'S property rights from the initiation of force or corruption from people who seek to violate our rights. Whether it be from other capitalists, employees, or corrupt state officials. We all understand capitalism very well, that's why we're fucking disgusted by it, the exploitative nature of it nauseates me.
"Property rights" sound wonderful in principal, but what do they really amount to? The right of the leeching class to keep their land deeds, their factories and all that 'property'. A tool for the rich to get richer and to bring their heavy foot down on those who dare to be poorer than them. All your property, all your affluence - it's all an hallucination you have bought into, it's a meaningless nothing that has somehow, perversely, captured our imagination and kept billions of us in chains.

Putting all of this nonsense aside, let me ask you a question--it's a real simple one to answer.

Would you really wanna be a "ruling class capitalist who has power"? Let me think: On the one hand I would be living a luxurious and piss easy life on the backs of those below me, I'd have all the cigars I could smoke and all the booze I could drink - it would be the fucking gravy train for life. On the other hand I'll be one of the leeching class ****s I utterly despise. Seeing as it is not in my interest to despise myself I would choose not to be ruling class, even if the option were there, which, and listen to this bit because it's important, IT ISN'T.

If no, then who gives a shit what "they" do. Quite a lot of people you empty headed ****. What they do is of a very real interest to us because it affects our lives, their choices in industrial methods for example are causing environmental damage and unemployment, their choices in terms of the law stifle our free speech, our ability to organise and keep us from living (benefit "reforms" anyone).
That's the beauty of freedom. You have the freedom to accumulate massive amounts of wealth or just a little or you don't have to acquire anything at all and you can live accordingly to your principles. I bet you got all misty-eyed writing that ode to your "freedom". So we're free to be poor, we're free to be destitute? Brilliant! What a fucking great system, everyone is free to starve to death. Look arseface, and take your time over this it may be a difficult concept for you to grasp, even though you say anyone can become rich in your casino of a system this does not make it true, for every captain of industry there are thousands of struggling workers, failed businesspeople and indolent geniuses that are crushed under the yoke of your system. For every great invention capitalism produces dozens remain undiscovered because the minds that could develop them are caged in poverty with no access to education, no motivation and no hope of escape - certainly no time for innovation.

Within the rule of law. This would be the law that, to paraphrase a great quote "forbids both the wealthy and the destitute from sleeping under bridges"?
Most laws are really fucking laughable anyway I am a criminal because I take things people have thrown away, I am a criminal because I have inhabited a building that no one was using, I am a criminal because I ingested a variety of toxins before the government's arbitrary "milestone" age for the purchase and consumption of these toxins, I am a criminal because I've smoked a joint and yet the owner of a factory where dozens of workers are exploited is not a criminal, the head of a massive corporation that represses unions around the world and owns hundreds of sweatshops is not a criminal and the people who beat and confine people who break these farcical 'laws' are certainly not criminals, they are paragons of justice is your absurd system.

colonelguppy

24th February 2007, 19:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:16 pm
Of course I know that they're people. Actually, capitalists do have a clear cut agenda and that is to stay in power.
they're usually more concerned with their own business doing well than the actual capitalist system, and this means they're usualy at conflict with their competitors. thats why subsidies exist, it has nothing to do with the free market, but lobbyists get it done.

err yah

and it shows that in comparison to the most wealthy in the US the most poor in the US are well...dirt poor.

now how is that justifiable?

because dirt poor now alot better than dirt poor a few decades ago, and alot better than dirt poor a century ago. i don't know though, any time some asks me to "justify" somethign it usually leads to a pointless ethics debate.

Fawkes

24th February 2007, 20:44

If no, then who gives a shit what "they" do. That's the beauty of freedom. You have the freedom to accumulate massive amounts of wealth or just a little or you don't have to acquire anything at all and you can live accordingly to your principles.
Others have already addressed your other points so I'll address this one. You say that everyone has the freedom to get as wealthy as they please, but where do you think wealth comes from? Not everyone in the world can be wealthy. For someone to stay wealthy, hundreds of others have to stay poor. There can never be equality in capitalism because it would not be able to function without class divisions.

they're usually more concerned with their own business doing well than the actual capitalist system, and this means they're usualy at conflict with their competitors. thats why subsidies exist, it has nothing to do with the free market, but lobbyists get it done.
Their main concern is still maintaining the power that they have obtained.

Ol' Dirty

24th February 2007, 20:47

It would be within my best interests to a capitalist; I'm affluent, I'm relatively well-read, hell, most people can't tell that I have African ancestery. I could get any number of jobs. I could be one of those people that strikes it rich.

There's just one problem with that, and that would be that I abhore having to see people live in squalor. I don't enjoy people in destitution. I really don't like seeing mothers holding their dead babies in their arms on the nightly news. It goes against my... well. conscience. I also don't like believing that those people don't have a chance. This is because I do think they have a chance, if we didn't abandon them.

I suppose that makes an apoligist.

Call me nieve. Go ahead. Whatever. I'm okay with that, as long as capitalists acknowledge that the system we have in place now leaves hundreds of millions of people poor, and acknoledge that they're okay with that.

ZX3

25th February 2007, 01:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:55 pm
That's more of a method than a goal and they don't even do that well. Generally they'll be okay to the shareholders but they generally try to get the cheapest (i.e shoddiest) product they can make out for the highest (most extortionate) price. Consumers can go hang.

Socialists have never quite explained how a socialist community benefits by using more resources than a capitalist community to produce the same item.

colonelguppy

25th February 2007, 02:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm

they're usually more concerned with their own business doing well than the actual capitalist system, and this means they're usualy at conflict with their competitors. thats why subsidies exist, it has nothing to do with the free market, but lobbyists get it done.
Their main concern is still maintaining the power that they have obtained.
but usually that doesn't have alot to do with with using the government to make the market less restricted.

for instance, walmart advocates minimum wage raises, because they already pay above the federal level, but alot of their small business competitors don't. capitalists have conflicts of interest because they're competitors.

Jazzratt

25th February 2007, 14:03

Originally posted by ZX3+February 25, 2007 01:47 am--> (ZX3 @ February 25, 2007 01:47 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:55 pm
That's more of a method than a goal and they don't even do that well. Generally they'll be okay to the shareholders but they generally try to get the cheapest (i.e shoddiest) product they can make out for the highest (most extortionate) price. Consumers can go hang.

Socialists have never quite explained how a socialist community benefits by using more resources than a capitalist community to produce the same item. [/b]
It's not a case of using more resources, prick. It's a case of making better quality items.

EnragÃ©

25th February 2007, 16:47

because dirt poor now alot better than dirt poor a few decades ago, and alot better than dirt poor a century ago. i don't know though, any time some asks me to "justify" somethign it usually leads to a pointless ethics debate.

Err no.
The point i was making is that the wealthy are wealthy because the poor produced the wealth for them. Now, as we can see, in comparison to the wealthy the actual producers are dirt poor. No matter how much todays dirt poor is better than yesterdays' dirt poor, doesnt change the fact that the poor are robbed blind.
No ethics, fact.

Also, social exclusion exists whether or not dirt poor today is better than dirt poor yesterday, since the wealthy can still do a shit load more, therefore still have alot more opportunities than the poor.
Having a colour tv does not mean that you are inherently more rich than you are when you had a black n white one, since, rich and poor are always relative, its effects are also based not on absolute numbers but on relative ones (save for the fact that you need to have a certain amount of wealth to stay alive, but in the west we surpassed that stage a long long time ago),

colonelguppy

25th February 2007, 21:50

The point i was making is that the wealthy are wealthy because the poor produced the wealth for them. Now, as we can see, in comparison to the wealthy the actual producers are dirt poor. No matter how much todays dirt poor is better than yesterdays' dirt poor, doesnt change the fact that the poor are robbed blind.

and what about the business owners who fail and are indebt? is that the workers debt too? no ones being robbed, that would be slavery.

No ethics, fact.

your using ehtical judgements to make it out to be a bad thing.

Also, social exclusion exists whether or not dirt poor today is better than dirt poor yesterday, since the wealthy can still do a shit load more, therefore still have alot more opportunities than the poor.

to assume that eveyrone should have they same oppertunities is to asusme that everyone has the same abilities.

Having a colour tv does not mean that you are inherently more rich than you are when you had a black n white one, since, rich and poor are always relative, its effects are also based not on absolute numbers but on relative ones (save for the fact that you need to have a certain amount of wealth to stay alive, but in the west we surpassed that stage a long long time ago),

i think the difference between color and black and white tv is easily measurable and should not be discounted just because some poeple are currently doing better than others.

ZX3

25th February 2007, 22:26

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 25, 2007 09:03 am--> (Jazzratt @ February 25, 2007 09:03 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:47 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 01:55 pm
That's more of a method than a goal and they don't even do that well. Generally they'll be okay to the shareholders but they generally try to get the cheapest (i.e shoddiest) product they can make out for the highest (most extortionate) price. Consumers can go hang.

Socialists have never quite explained how a socialist community benefits by using more resources than a capitalist community to produce the same item.
It's not a case of using more resources, prick. It's a case of making better quality items. [/b]

The general failure of socialism seems correlated with socialists general ignorance of economics.

Of course, it would be nice to produce items without any cost. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.

Jazzratt

25th February 2007, 22:31

Originally posted by ZX3+February 25, 2007 10:26 pm--> (ZX3 @ February 25, 2007 10:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:03 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:47 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 01:55 pm
That's more of a method than a goal and they don't even do that well. Generally they'll be okay to the shareholders but they generally try to get the cheapest (i.e shoddiest) product they can make out for the highest (most extortionate) price. Consumers can go hang.

Socialists have never quite explained how a socialist community benefits by using more resources than a capitalist community to produce the same item.
It's not a case of using more resources, prick. It's a case of making better quality items.

The general failure of socialism seems correlated with socialists general ignorance of economics.

Of course, it would be nice to produce items without any cost. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. [/b]
Cost is basically there price of another person procuring or working on a resource, no? And if there is no price surely it follows that they would be no cost?

Naturally we would still be limited by the amount of available resources but we wouldn't need a silly measure like "cost" to keep track of this.

ZX3

25th February 2007, 23:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:31 pm
Cost is basically there price of another person procuring or working on a resource, no? And if there is no price surely it follows that they would be no cost?

Naturally we would still be limited by the amount of available resources but we wouldn't need a silly measure like "cost" to keep track of this.
Cost can certainly be labor. But it also can be the use of resources.

Why use resources to produce "X" when one can use those resources to produce "Y?"

colonelguppy

26th February 2007, 02:25

you don't have to have curreny to have a "cost"

Guerrilla22

26th February 2007, 07:54

Property rights still must be protected by the rule of law.

Yes, to ensure that the ruling class retains its wealth. Which is the reason the US constitution was established in the first place.

Jazzratt

27th February 2007, 14:40

Originally posted by ZX3+February 25, 2007 11:09 pm--> (ZX3 @ February 25, 2007 11:09 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 05:31 pm
Cost is basically there price of another person procuring or working on a resource, no? And if there is no price surely it follows that they would be no cost?

Naturally we would still be limited by the amount of available resources but we wouldn't need a silly measure like "cost" to keep track of this.
Cost can certainly be labor. But it also can be the use of resources.

Why use resources to produce "X" when one can use those resources to produce "Y?" [/b]
X is more useful than Y.

Your ****ish questions are getting boring.

Capitalist Lawyer

27th February 2007, 23:05

if satisfying the public and their shareholders gets them that, they will do that, if imposing a monopoly, bribing state officials, hiring assasins to wipe out the opposition gets them that...they will do that.

We're talking about the market economy which is owned by no one. We're not talking about specific markets or industries, so your monopoly quip falls flat on its face.

Bribing state officials? It's ok for unions and other activists to do that right? And if some state official is tried and convicted in a COURT OF LAW then that person in question is punished within the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.

Hiring assassins? I think you have been reading too many Russian spy novels.

government interference goes against the principle of a free market

Enforcing laws and property rights isn't government interference in the free market but rather protection of the free market.

i thought the invisible hand would take care of it all?

Unfortunately, you missed the section on the protection of property rights...i.e. everybody's property rights.

by imposing a monopoly so there's no one who can compete against you forcing you to lower prices.

There are laws forbidding monopolies which is why there aren't any.

Oligopolies? I won't deny their existence, but competition still exists and business empires rise and decline every decade and in every year.

That's more of a method than a goal and they don't even do that well.

Some do and some don't and there are consequences for that...it's called bankruptcy.

Generally they'll be okay to the shareholders but they generally try to get the cheapest (i.e shoddiest) product they can make out for the highest (most extortionate) price.

Wrong. The highest quality products they can make out for the lowest cost to produce it.

Inferior businesses can go hang.

We all understand capitalism very well, that's why we're fucking disgusted by it, the exploitative nature of it nauseates me.

If that's the case, then it's true that patients exploit doctors as well.

Doctors are paid to work and workers are paid to work. But wait, doctors are workers too...so fuck...they're being exploited! So are the business owners (read: Capitalist class) who are in fact part of the labor process as well.

They're exploiting their own labor and you seem to have a problem with this.

"Property rights" sound wonderful in principal, but what do they really amount to?

The freedom to do what you want with it, within the rule of law.

The right of the leeching class to keep their land deeds, their factories and all that 'property'. A tool for the rich to get richer and to bring their heavy foot down on those who dare to be poorer than them. All your property, all your affluence - it's all an hallucination you have bought into, it's a meaningless nothing that has somehow, perversely, captured our imagination and kept billions of us in chains.

If you feel that your rights as an individual are being violated, then take it up with the courts. If you prove your case effectively, then you can break free of those chains if you want.

Quite a lot of people you empty headed ****. What they do is of a very real interest to us because it affects our lives, their choices in industrial methods for example are causing environmental damage and unemployment, their choices in terms of the law stifle our free speech, our ability to organise and keep us from living (benefit "reforms" anyone).

You just don't understand...

Jobs aren't a right. You're not entitled to one.

And if your boss wants you to stick your finger in your ear and give raspberries to his customers, then that's what you do.

The employee is free to work anyplace else that he feels is a less restrictive environment. The employer is faced with dealing with a reduced employee pool or changing his expectations.

Is this instance weird? Absolutely. Should there be a law against it?

Not in a free marketplace.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I bet you got all misty-eyed writing that ode to your "freedom".

Employers do NOT have freedom of association. Employees do. In the USA, employees have more rights than businesses.

Employers can be the victim as well. Back in the Jim Crow days, blacks were only considered suitable for certain types of work. An employer might have felt a black person would be a big asset in a certain position, his employees and customers may have felt differently. If hiring a individual could put an employer out of business because of that person's color, is the employer free?

Look at it this way. You as a buyer can discriminate against Wal-Mart for ANY reason you see fit. You don't like their color scheme, selection, employers, price, suppliers, charitable practices... etc, and you can choose not to purchase from them. You certainly limit who you will purchase from buy such discrimination, but that is most certainly free market.

Another example would be if you hired a plumber or electrician to come into your home for a job. You can choose to not have them come back for your next job for ANY reason you choose. You have, in fact, fired them. You also have limited your available employee pool. Discriminatory, most certainly. Also, most certainly free market. It would NOT be free market if the law FORCED you to have that same plumber return for your next job.

For every great invention capitalism produces dozens remain undiscovered because the minds that could develop them are caged in poverty with no access to education, no motivation and no hope of escape - certainly no time for innovation.

A free market does NOT mean that ALL people have an equal shot at ALL transactions. No one's going to hire me as a brain surgeon because I'm not one. Employers need to be free to hire on any basis they deem fit (usually social) because it allows much faster processing of Human Resources. By restricting such transactions, employers are forced to spend resources researching potential hires.

You're not going to purchase EVERY brand of corn on the shelf when making a decision to change brands. You might even go with your buddy's or significant other's recommendation rather than going through that enormous amount of work. Same thing.

But when wer're talking about the market place where each side of a transaction is owned by the owner.

Namely YOUR labor power and the company's production outfits.

The business is owned by the property owner and is therefore up to the property owner to decide how to run. It is not a restriction of freedom for a business owner to disclose that which they do not want to disclose. It is, in fact, an infringement of the freedom of the business owner. Just as you as the home owner can and should be the only one to "infringe on the freedoms of others" by only allowing in who you choose.

This would be the law that, to paraphrase a great quote "forbids both the wealthy and the destitute from sleeping under bridges"?

Interesting descriptions of an unachievable (if not undesirable) perfect world. I know what you are alluding to so I'll respond.

What you want is a world free of risk. A world free of risk that rules out what is so beneficial about the profit and loss system (see capitalism)... which is better ideas survive while stagnation dies a natural death. (Please think figuratively here).

Laser discs, typewriters, punch card operating systems are a thing of the past..why?

Because of better ideas.

But what about the workers in those industries? Do you think for a moment that those workers just keel up and die, the moment they are unemployed? No, they move on to other jobs in other industries or within the same industry.

There is a reason for those safety nets that I think are important, and they are not to reduce the worst aspects of capitalism, but to nurture the wonderful aspects of capitalism, mainly industrial growth and innovation. If a certain product is no longer available, it's because a better product out competed it in the marketplace.

We can allow whole industires to leave us while making sure the human element is taken care of. Do these aid programs violate the free market in anyway?

Absolutely not.

They protect it.

EnragÃ©

1st March 2007, 23:26

and what about the business owners who fail and are indebt? is that the workers debt too? no ones being robbed, that would be slavery.

the failed bourgeoisie falls down the ranks and becomes a member of the working class.
As for the wealth produced that either gets destroyed (if through natural disaster the bourgeois fails, or war) or it is absorbed by another bourgeois (if the bourgeois is competed away, or failed due to hostile takeover)

We're talking about the market economy which is owned by no one. We're not talking about specific markets or industries, so your monopoly quip falls flat on its face.

No, not the point.
In a market economy, yes, then other rules applies, then competition makes it so that they cant just do anything they want. However, since making money is the ultimate goal, a market economy will always gravitate towards monopolism, since establishing a monopoly gets you the most money.
The only way to prevent the creation of monopolies is through outside, ie government interference.
Which is against the idea of a free market economy.
Therefore a free market economy contradicts itself and is bound to fail.

Bribing state officials? It's ok for unions and other activists to do that right? And if some state official is tried and convicted in a COURT OF LAW then that person in question is punished within the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.

Not the point.
The point is that the sole concern of a business owner is to make as much money as possible. Adherence to laws, or moral of any sort does not come into it.
Therefore, whatever gets the business' owners money, that is what the business owners will do.

Hiring assassins? I think you have been reading too many Russian spy novels.

Havent read a single one.
Have read articles on union leaders getting shot though.
The point is that, as said earlier, capitalists will do anything which gets them money, regardless of morals, even those professed by the great philosophers of capitalism, ie if the free market economy becomes a hinderance to a capitalist's quest for money, he will simply fuck it up.

Enforcing laws and property rights isn't government interference in the free market but rather protection of the free market.

i thought capitalism, the free market was man's natural sort of society, "the results of human action, not of design" (Hayek).

But yeh, you proved it now
capitalism and the free market only exist because State Power keeps it in existance

Unfortunately, you missed the section on the protection of property rights...i.e. everybody's property rights

The idea of "property" is a hollow concept.

"Laws on property are not made to guarantee either to the individual or to society the enjoyment of the produce of their own labor. On the contrary, they are made to rob the producer of a part of what he has created, and to secure to certain other people that portion of the produce which they have stolen either from the producer or from society as a whole. When, for example, the law establishes Mr. So-and-So's right to a house, it is not establishing his right to a cottage he has built for himself, or to a house he has erected with the help of some of his friends. In that case no one would have disputed his right. On the contrary, the law is establishing his right to a house which is not the product of his labor; first of all because he has had it built for him by others to whom he has not paid the full value of their work, and next because that house represents a social value which he could not have produced for himself. The law is establishing his right to what belongs to everybody in general and to nobody in particular. The same house built in the midst of Siberia would not have the value it possesses in a large town, and, as we know, that value arises from the labor of something like fifty generations of men who have built the town, beautified it, supplied it with water and gas, fine promenades, colleges, theatres, shops, railways, and roads leading in all directions. Thus, by recognizing the right of Mr. So-and-So to a particular house in Paris, London, or Rouen, the law is unjustly appropriating to him a certain portion of the produce of the labor of mankind in general. And it is precisely because this appropriation and all other forms of property bearing the same character are a crying injustice, that a whole arsenal of laws and a whole army of soldiers, policemen, and judges are needed to maintain it against the good sense and just feeling inherent in humanity.

Half our laws,the civil code in each country,serves no other purpose than to maintain this appropriation, this monopoly for the benefit of certain individuals against the whole of mankind. Three-fourths of the causes decided by the tribunals are nothing but quarrels between monopolists--two robbers disputing over their booty. And a great many of our criminal laws have the same object in view, their end being to keep the workman in a subordinate position towards his employer, and thus afford security for exploitation.

As for guaranteeing the product of his labor to the producer, there are no laws which even attempt such a thing. It is so simple and natural, so much a part of the manners and customs of mankind, that law has not given it so much as a thought. Open brigandage, sword in hand, is no feature of our age. Neither does one workman ever come and dispute the produce of his labor with another. If they have a misunderstanding they settle it by calling in a third person, without having recourse to law. The only person who exacts from another what that other has produced, is the proprietor, who comes in and deducts the lion's share. As for humanity in general, it everywhere respects the right of each to what he has created, without the interposition of any special laws.

As all the laws about property which make up thick volumes of codes and are the delight of our lawyers have no other object than to protect the unjust appropriation of human labor by certain monopolists, there is no reason for their existence, and, on the day of the revolution, social revolutionists are thoroughly determined to put an end to them. Indeed, a bonfire might be made with perfect justice of all laws bearing upon the so-called "rights of property." All title-deeds, all registers, in a word, of all that is in any way connected with an institution which will soon be looked upon as a blot in the history of humanity, as humiliating as the slavery and serfdom of past ages. "
- Kropotkin, Law and Authority

There are laws forbidding monopolies which is why there aren't any

Again, capitalism is supposed to be the natural consequence of human nature, of human self interest of all.
By pointing to the fact that capitalism can only survive through means of the state and its armed thugs, you admit that capitalism is an authoritarian unfree society held together by force.
Good you see it our way :)

cormacobear

4th March 2007, 08:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:17 pm
Any sites that give a ratio of rich/poor in a given country? Or a more detailed description of the various incomes and living standards in a country?
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31014

http://www.growinggap.ca/

ZX3

7th March 2007, 12:51

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 27, 2007 09:40 am--> (Jazzratt @ February 27, 2007 09:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:09 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 05:31 pm
Cost is basically there price of another person procuring or working on a resource, no? And if there is no price surely it follows that they would be no cost?

Naturally we would still be limited by the amount of available resources but we wouldn't need a silly measure like "cost" to keep track of this.
Cost can certainly be labor. But it also can be the use of resources.

Why use resources to produce "X" when one can use those resources to produce "Y?"
X is more useful than Y.

Your ****ish questions are getting boring. [/b]
"useful" determined how? By what mechanisms?

Ol' Dirty

10th March 2007, 17:49

We're getting quite off-topic.

How do liberals plan on fixing the poverty-level in America?

colonelguppy

10th March 2007, 18:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:49 pm
We're getting quite off-topic.

How do liberals plan on fixing the poverty-level in America?
promoting a setting for optimum levels of productivity and growth, the only reliable way to improve living standards in a country over a long period of time.

Roy Batty

10th March 2007, 23:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:05 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0223-09.htm

I don't find it surprizing that the richest country in the world has a huge poor population. Or that Connecticut, the richest state in the Union, has sovreignty over the second poorest city in America. The rich get richer...

And the poor get screwed.

This country isn't copletely bad, but the amount of problems with it are legion. The freigtening part of this issue is that liberals seem toacknoledge, accept, condone, hell, even promote this kind of horseshit.

Word to yo' motha, *****es.

I fully agree. As for the Liberals...I can respect a true cappie or a true commie. The Liberal is a type of worm.

A SCANNER DARKLY

13th March 2007, 05:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:16 am
Of course I know that they're people. Actually, capitalists do have a clear cut agenda and that is to stay in power.
Stay in power? What, like socialism is knocking down our doors? :lol:

The least of our worries are staying in power. Americans know capitalism is the best path to prosperity. So staying in power isn't an issue.

Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here?

Jazzratt

13th March 2007, 14:25

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 13, 2007 04:16 am
Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here?
It's not America you need to worry about matey-boy, it's the third world countries that hold up its bloated economy. That's where anti-capitalism is growing and that is where ti is most important. No need to be so national-chauvinistic now is there?

A SCANNER DARKLY

13th March 2007, 17:36

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 13, 2007 01:25 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 13, 2007 01:25 pm)
A SCANNER [email protected] 13, 2007 04:16 am
Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here?
It's not America you need to worry about matey-boy, it's the third world countries that hold up its bloated economy. That's where anti-capitalism is growing and that is where ti is most important. No need to be so national-chauvinistic now is there?[/b]
So what exactly is your role in this international cause?

RNK

13th March 2007, 17:55

There are laws forbidding monopolies which is why there aren't any.

Do you seriously believe this?

colonelguppy

13th March 2007, 19:58

it's not like there even really need to be laws.

A SCANNER DARKLY

13th March 2007, 21:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:55 pm

There are laws forbidding monopolies which is why there aren't any.

Do you seriously believe this?
Name some.

RNK

13th March 2007, 21:44

A much, much easier question would be to ask which commercial and/or industrial sectors are not at present monopolized by an individual or group of corporations. I'm not trying to side-step your question, but, well.. it's rather vague, and the sheer amount of possible answers is daunting.

But here's a generalized answer. The oil industry.

Jazzratt

13th March 2007, 21:46

Originally posted by A SCANNER DARKLY+March 13, 2007 04:36 pm--> (A SCANNER DARKLY @ March 13, 2007 04:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:25 pm

A SCANNER [email protected] 13, 2007 04:16 am
Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here?
It's not America you need to worry about matey-boy, it's the third world countries that hold up its bloated economy. That's where anti-capitalism is growing and that is where ti is most important. No need to be so national-chauvinistic now is there?
So what exactly is your role in this international cause? [/b]
Why is this relevant?

Dominick

14th March 2007, 11:33

Originally posted by A SCANNER DARKLY+March 13, 2007 04:16 am--> (A SCANNER DARKLY @ March 13, 2007 04:16 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 01:16 am
Of course I know that they're people. Actually, capitalists do have a clear cut agenda and that is to stay in power.
Stay in power? What, like socialism is knocking down our doors? :lol:

The least of our worries are staying in power. Americans know capitalism is the best path to prosperity. So staying in power isn't an issue.

Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here? [/b]
Simple reform is a threat to power, as it creates the perception that one may actively change what it would have the populace believe are natural and eternal. As such, defeating reform or integrating further neoliberal polices are acts of cementing power, because it reaffirms the latter part of my previous sentence. As to Americans knowing capitalism is the best system, this position may merely be transient and the shift in conciousness will not be recogniseable until struggle is occurring.

ZX3

14th March 2007, 12:22

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 13, 2007 08:25 am--> (Jazzratt @ March 13, 2007 08:25 am)
A SCANNER [email protected] 13, 2007 04:16 am
Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here?
It's not America you need to worry about matey-boy, it's the third world countries that hold up its bloated economy. That's where anti-capitalism is growing and that is where ti is most important. No need to be so national-chauvinistic now is there? [/b]
Lenin & Stalin & Trotsky all argued that the colonies of the "imperialist" powers is what sustained capitalism. So that explains in part the USSR's support for the "liberation" movement. And now that the colonies weere freed... the capitslists countries were stronger yet.

You make an old argument Jazz, one that is as wrong today as it was then.

Jazzratt

14th March 2007, 12:49

Originally posted by ZX3+March 14, 2007 11:22 am--> (ZX3 @ March 14, 2007 11:22 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:25 am

A SCANNER [email protected] 13, 2007 04:16 am
Who exactly is opposing capitalism in the U.S? What groups? What are their numbers? Are there large amounts of Americans opposing capitalism? How big are the 'socialist' and 'communist' parties here?
It's not America you need to worry about matey-boy, it's the third world countries that hold up its bloated economy. That's where anti-capitalism is growing and that is where ti is most important. No need to be so national-chauvinistic now is there?
Lenin & Stalin & Trotsky all argued that the colonies of the "imperialist" powers is what sustained capitalism. So that explains in part the USSR's support for the "liberation" movement. And now that the colonies weere freed... the capitslists countries were stronger yet. [/b]
They were "freed" were they? Call me naive if you will but I don't think having a major economic power come over at set up sweatshops in your country is free, do you? Without the cheap labour and resources provided by third world countries Western capitalism would be incredibly different, claiming otherwise is dishonesty.

You make an old argument Jazz, one that is as wrong today as it was then. Except it's not wrong and it wasn't wrong then either. Simply being no longer called a "colony" does not make a country free, economic imperialism is an incredibly powerful force.

I'm sure you think you're very intelligent, I don' know maybe some of your friends (I assume you have at least one, even if they are inanimate objects) have been backing up this delusion, but I'm sorry you're one of the most idiotic trolls we have here. You make baseless assertions, drag out the most annoying oft-quoted, oft-disproved assertions about communism, anarchism, technocracy and socialism and finally you decide to call the entire leftist spectrum "socialism" and imagine that every country that has had a leader that described themselves or their party as Communist has in fact been a communist nation. If I were you I'd develop a new catchphrase too, one that doesn't make you sound like a monolithic ****, "prove socialism" is second only to t_wolves_fan's use of "hack" in the 'irritating hollow catchphrases used by irritating hollow clusterfuck cretins on internet messageboards' stakes.

ZX3

14th March 2007, 13:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:49 am
Lenin & Stalin & Trotsky all argued that the colonies of the "imperialist" powers is what sustained capitalism. So that explains in part the USSR's support for the "liberation" movement. And now that the colonies weere freed... the capitslists countries were stronger yet.
They were "freed" were they? Call me naive if you will but I don't think having a major economic power come over at set up sweatshops in your country is free, do you? Without the cheap labour and resources provided by third world countries Western capitalism would be incredibly different, claiming otherwise is dishonesty.

You make an old argument Jazz, one that is as wrong today as it was then. Except it's not wrong and it wasn't wrong then either. Simply being no longer called a "colony" does not make a country free, economic imperialism is an incredibly powerful force.

I'm sure you think you're very intelligent, I don' know maybe some of your friends (I assume you have at least one, even if they are inanimate objects) have been backing up this delusion, but I'm sorry you're one of the most idiotic trolls we have here. You make baseless assertions, drag out the most annoying oft-quoted, oft-disproved assertions about communism, anarchism, technocracy and socialism and finally you decide to call the entire leftist spectrum "socialism" and imagine that every country that has had a leader that described themselves or their party as Communist has in fact been a communist nation. If I were you I'd develop a new catchphrase too, one that doesn't make you sound like a monolithic ****, "prove socialism" is second only to t_wolves_fan's use of "hack" in the 'irritating hollow catchphrases used by irritating hollow clusterfuck cretins on internet messageboards' stakes. [/quote]
Socialists seem to be at their best when they bluster and rant.

Socialists like to say that socialism will result in a better community for the majority of people. Fine. And when i ask "prove it" you go apeshit. Why? One cannot prove a theory until one has lived it? Bullshit.

Would the western capitalist world be different without poorer counttries to send jobs to? Of course. They, and those countries, would be poorer. Why socialists would be against societies becoming wealthier apparently must remain a mystery.

Jazzratt

14th March 2007, 14:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:08 pm
Socialists seem to be at their best when they bluster and rant.
I'm sure they are. I'm not a socialist.

Socialists like to say that socialism will result in a better community for the majority of people. Great for the socialists. What about communists?
Fine. And when i ask "prove it" you go apeshit. Why? One cannot prove a theory until one has lived it? Bullshit. Yes, the way you prove a theory, once it is found to be sound, is to carry out an experiment. Our experiment involves a revolution, in which people like you will be shot. In the head.

Would the western capitalist world be different without poorer counttries to send jobs to? Send jobs to? SEND FUCKING JOBS TO?! I recommend you take on some of these wonderful jobs, go out their and work your fingers to the fucking bone making trainers for stupid wankers who believe that what you're doing is "freedom".
Of course. They, and those countries, would be poorer. Why socialists would be against societies becoming wealthier apparently must remain a mystery. We're against this increase in wealth at the expense of others. A wealthy country is very poor indeed when it is inhabited by impoverished people, exploited to breaking point just so a bunch of ****s in suits can have a more comfortable life.

ichneumon

14th March 2007, 14:34

Yes, the way you prove a theory, once it is found to be sound, is to carry out an experiment. Our experiment involves a revolution, in which people like you will be shot. In the head.

you forgot "dragged out into the street and charged with Crimes Against the People". of course, for me, that would involve folks who don't recycle, but revolutions do tend to get out of hand at times. ah, the joys of empiricism! ;)

seraphim

14th March 2007, 14:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:55 pm

That's the beauty of freedom. You have the freedom to accumulate massive amounts of wealth or just a little or you don't have to acquire anything at all and you can live accordingly to your principles. I bet you got all misty-eyed writing that ode to your "freedom". So we're free to be poor, we're free to be destitute? Brilliant! What a fucking great system, everyone is free to starve to death.
I second that, next this idiot will be claiming that prostetution is great because all women are free to be prostetutes!

seraphim

14th March 2007, 14:54

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2007 11:05 pm

by imposing a monopoly so there's no one who can compete against you forcing you to lower prices.

There are laws forbidding monopolies which is why there aren't any.

Oligopolies? I won't deny their existence, but competition still exists and business empires rise and decline every decade and in every year.

Which in itself is the result of a capitalist system a continuous cycle of boom and bust. You guys are just lucky that it hasn't happened in this decade yet because when your economy went in to recesion China was there to prop up the world just as the US did previously. When China goes into recession the world economy is fucked again much like in the 80's and 90's

ZX3

14th March 2007, 15:44

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 14, 2007 08:16 am--> (Jazzratt @ March 14, 2007 08:16 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 12:08 pm
Socialists seem to be at their best when they bluster and rant.
I'm sure they are. I'm not a socialist.

Socialists like to say that socialism will result in a better community for the majority of people. Great for the socialists. What about communists?
Fine. And when i ask "prove it" you go apeshit. Why? One cannot prove a theory until one has lived it? Bullshit. Yes, the way you prove a theory, once it is found to be sound, is to carry out an experiment. Our experiment involves a revolution, in which people like you will be shot. In the head.

Would the western capitalist world be different without poorer counttries to send jobs to? Send jobs to? SEND FUCKING JOBS TO?! I recommend you take on some of these wonderful jobs, go out their and work your fingers to the fucking bone making trainers for stupid wankers who believe that what you're doing is "freedom".
Of course. They, and those countries, would be poorer. Why socialists would be against societies becoming wealthier apparently must remain a mystery. We're against this increase in wealth at the expense of others. A wealthy country is very poor indeed when it is inhabited by impoverished people, exploited to breaking point just so a bunch of ****s in suits can have a more comfortable life. [/b]
As always JR, its a pleasure to read your posts, and have it confirmed that communists can bluster and rant with the same vigor as socialists.

As usual:

The theory is that as the result of the revolution, people's lives are made better (unless the revolution is for the sake of revolution. But i don't think it is). People are wealthier, healthier, wiser and freer because of the glorious revolt.
But I am sorry to bust your bubble-spontaneous generation is a disproven scientific principle; and faith never was scientific. And that is all that you ever present.

Bcause a criticism of capitalism says NOTHING about the viability of socialism, communism, or the glorius revolution. That has to be argued on its own terms, which most of the revlefters seem unwilling to do.

t_wolves_fan

16th March 2007, 03:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:05 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0223-09.htm

I don't find it surprizing that the richest country in the world has a huge poor population. Or that Connecticut, the richest state in the Union, has sovreignty over the second poorest city in America. The rich get richer...

And the poor get screwed.

This country isn't copletely bad, but the amount of problems with it are legion. The freigtening part of this issue is that liberals seem toacknoledge, accept, condone, hell, even promote this kind of horseshit.

Word to yo' motha, *****es.
Compare the poor of Connecticut with the poor of Venezuela and tell me which you'd rather be.

It's a simple A or B question.

Get back to me.

Fawkes

16th March 2007, 04:36

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 15, 2007 09:10 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 15, 2007 09:10 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 10:05 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0223-09.htm

I don't find it surprizing that the richest country in the world has a huge poor population. Or that Connecticut, the richest state in the Union, has sovreignty over the second poorest city in America. The rich get richer...

And the poor get screwed.

This country isn't copletely bad, but the amount of problems with it are legion. The freigtening part of this issue is that liberals seem toacknoledge, accept, condone, hell, even promote this kind of horseshit.

Word to yo' motha, *****es.
Compare the poor of Connecticut with the poor of Venezuela and tell me which you'd rather be.

It's a simple A or B question.

Get back to me. [/b]
Your point? Considering how long you've been on this board for, I'm surprised that you have yet to realize that very few of us view Chavez as the proletariat's ticket to communism. Also, even if we did feel this way, Chavez has only been in power for around a decade (I don't remember exact dates).

Ol' Dirty

21st March 2007, 20:49

How do liberals plan on fixing the poverty-level in America?
promoting a setting for optimum levels of productivity and growth, the only reliable way to improve living standards in a country over a long period of time.

In the case I guess you're suggesting, in which "the corporations are beholden to their stockholders," and all of that jazz, then that's the same thing we're doing now, and that system is proven to create a population of millions of severely poor people.

My question is: how do how do you plan to fix -or significantly reduce the size of-the problem?

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 15, 2007 09:10 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 15, 2007 09:10 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 10:05 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0223-09.htm

I don't find it surprizing that the richest country in the world has a huge poor population. Or that Connecticut, the richest state in the Union, has sovreignty over the second poorest city in America. The rich get richer...

And the poor get screwed.

This country isn't copletely bad, but the amount of problems with it are legion. The freigtening part of this issue is that liberals seem toacknoledge, accept, condone, hell, even promote this kind of horseshit.

Word to yo' motha, *****es.
Compare the poor of Connecticut with the poor of Venezuela and tell me which you'd rather be.

It's a simple A or B question.

Get back to me.[/b]

Yet again, you dodge my question. I'll answer yours anyway.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1785

As shown, things are getting better in Venezuela for the poor, and have been getting better since Chavez came into office, which is most likely due to his socialist politcal reforms. In Hartford, things are getting worse.

Statisticaly, I'd rather be in Caracas than in Hartford.

Also...

http://www.worldcrops.org/images/content/a....sized.ka12.gif (http://www.worldcrops.org/images/content/americas.regions.sized.ka12.gif)

The US is up north. Venezuela is far south of the US. Do not get the two confused; stop dodging the question at hand: how do you plan on changing the poverty problem in America?

BurnTheOliveTree

21st March 2007, 20:56

T Wolves:

Venezuela.

Ignoring the line of argument you want to hear and attack, here's another angle:

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that income has no effect on self-reported happiness, due to the adaptation principle. So actually, in a purely economic sense, it doesn't matter where I am, i'll be just as happy.

Venuzuela has an outside chance of getting to socialism. Something that has definitely been proven to have a positive effect on self reported happiness is social stability. I think that socialism would be more stable, so... Venezuela. :)

-Alex

t_wolves_fan

22nd March 2007, 03:57

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 10, 2007 06:39 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 10, 2007 06:39 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 12:49 pm
We're getting quite off-topic.

How do liberals plan on fixing the poverty-level in America?
promoting a setting for optimum levels of productivity and growth, the only reliable way to improve living standards in a country over a long period of time. [/b]
Which government or any other central planning agency cannot do.

And I say this as a government employee.

Thus, you seem to describe utopia.

t_wolves_fan

22nd March 2007, 04:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:56 pm

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that income has no effect on self-reported happiness, due to the adaptation principle. So actually, in a purely economic sense, it doesn't matter where I am, i'll be just as happy.

Venuzuela has an outside chance of getting to socialism. Something that has definitely been proven to have a positive effect on self reported happiness is social stability. I think that socialism would be more stable, so... Venezuela. :)

-Alex
I agree with you absolutely about income and happiness.

I would think that happiness entails being able to speak your mind freely even if those in power disagree.

So again, same question. Venezuela or Connecticut?

Jazzratt

22nd March 2007, 12:12

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 22, 2007 03:00 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 22, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 07:56 pm

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt that income has no effect on self-reported happiness, due to the adaptation principle. So actually, in a purely economic sense, it doesn't matter where I am, i'll be just as happy.

Venuzuela has an outside chance of getting to socialism. Something that has definitely been proven to have a positive effect on self reported happiness is social stability. I think that socialism would be more stable, so... Venezuela. :)

-Alex
I agree with you absolutely about income and happiness.

I would think that happiness entails being able to speak your mind freely even if those in power disagree.

So again, same question. Venezuela or Connecticut? [/b]
By that criterion? Venezuela - I'll be free to speak my mind and I won't start getting watched as a "terror suspect".

Tungsten

22nd March 2007, 19:18

By that criterion? Venezuela - I'll be free to speak my mind and I won't start getting watched as a "terror suspect".
It would be safer to speak Chavez's mind, or you might end up with a free holiday in jail.

I see Chav boy is ammending the constitution so he can make himself president for life.

BurnTheOliveTree

22nd March 2007, 20:26

Well, if you can give me some evidence of a negative consequence of criticising Chavez's government, I might be swayed.

Until then, the patriot act is enough to scare me away from Connecticut.

-Alex

t_wolves_fan

23rd March 2007, 02:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:26 pm
Well, if you can give me some evidence of a negative consequence of criticising Chavez's government, I might be swayed.

I don't pretend you'll keep your word:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/07/18/venezu6239.htm

You can stand in front of the White House with a sign declaring that Bush is Hitler and Secret Service will only laugh at you as the office joke that you are. It appears you'll get 39 months in prison in Venezuela.

So please, ignoring the fact that you agree with Chavez and so would have no reason to insult him, consider for a moment the difference between disagreeing with power in the United States and disagreeing with power in Venezuela.

I await your justifications with bemusement.

chimx

23rd March 2007, 02:57

Why do alleged materialists take such a moralistic stance when debating self-affirmed capitalists? Free market economies have a greater tendency to have higher gini-indexes. When you have a less equitable distribution of wealth, there is a general tendency to regain economic equality and social stability. This can be anything from a rise of government intervention (e.g.: the breaking up of trusts in the early 1900s) to social revolution to undo the old order.

Idealism has never acted as a driving for in the way of history. Why do people insist on relying on it to win their arguments? I don't understand it.

Ol' Dirty

23rd March 2007, 03:58

Ignorrrs! Answer my fucking questione!

t_wolves_fan

24th March 2007, 04:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:58 am
Ignorrrs! Answer my fucking questione!
I didn't originally see your question.

Do you know why Venezuela's economy is getting better, sport? It's because Chavez is using oil revenues - paid mostly by us Americans - to subsidize nearly every other industry, therefore subsidizing jobs and prices. It's the reason gas costs a few cents a gallon, and why Venezuelans are buying gas-guzzling SUVs like hotcakes.

Would you like to comment on the morality of subsidizing people's living by selling fossil fuels which contribute to climate change?

Would you like to guess what happens if the oil runs out or, more likely in the short term, oil prices fall through the floor?

Yes, things are getting worse for the poor here in the United States. I for one blame our current administration and our former congress for most of that.

So, the choices are as follows:

Live in a country with a decent chance I might be poor (though I may still be richer than a poor person in the other country), where I stand a decent chance of moving into a better class, and where I can criticize and even insult the dear leader without being jailed for 3+ years,

or

Live in a country where my job and the low prices I pay are likely subsidized by the selling of oil, a source of income that could be taken away or reduced at any time, and where I'll be dragged into prison for speaking my mind.

I'll choose the first. Every single time.

Now you pick.

Ol' Dirty

24th March 2007, 04:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:12 pm

Would you like to comment on the morality of subsidizing people's living by selling fossil fuels which contribute to climate change?

No. I don't want to say anything about morality at all. I go by logic, not morals.

What I do want is for you to answer my goddamned question. That'd be great.

Now you pick.

I did.

t_wolves_fan

24th March 2007, 04:34

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+March 24, 2007 03:22 am--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ March 24, 2007 03:22 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 10:12 pm

Would you like to comment on the morality of subsidizing people's living by selling fossil fuels which contribute to climate change?

No. I don't want to say anything about morality at all. I go by logic, not morals.

Now you pick.

I did. [/b]
Then I presume you have no opinion on climate change, global warming or alternative fuels since the overriding logic seems to be it's most important to subsidize the economy by whatever means necessary.

I mean if you're opposed to fossil fuel use or the purchase of SUVS, that'd make you one heck of a hypocrite.

You could be happy in a place where you cannot even criticize those in power? You're very useful to those who seek power, then.

But, whatever.

BurnTheOliveTree

25th March 2007, 18:49

Apologies for the delayed reply, I've been away this weekend.

It's very disappointing, obviously, that they've enacted this ridiculous law that says insulting the government officials is worthy of a hefty prison sentence.

But, you're painting it blacker than it is. That article mentions nothing of simple criticism of the Chavez government, so I'll infer that this is still legal. It is closer to home that it is outright ad hominem attack on government officials that is punished. Not quite as bad, I'm sure you'll agree.

Now, to the U.S. How about the FBI having that kid, Thomas somebody, thrown out of college and his art teacher fired for painting a picture of Bush with tape round his mouth, and some political caption? I only have a vague recollection, but I'm pretty sure it was well publicised. In this case, his criticism rises above Ad Hominem and is more of an intellectual attack. Bush's government would not tolerate it, making them substantially more culpable than Chavez&Co.

-Alex

Ol' Dirty

25th March 2007, 20:17

Would you like to comment on the morality of subsidizing people's living by selling fossil fuels which contribute to climate change?

No. I don't want to say anything about morality at all. I go by logic, not morals.

Then I presume you have no opinion on climate change, global warming or alternative fuels since the overriding logic seems to be it's most important to subsidize the economy by whatever means necessary.

Hmm? :huh: Why would you pressume...?

Oh. Because I'm not a moralist, you think I don't care. Good for you. The thing is that I do care very much about the environment. Go read a book. Or ten...

And I don't mean Dick and Jane. :)

Besides, the US is a country that heavily uses subsidization to support its goals. Venezuela's subsidization of government is like a blade of grass in a wheat field compared to more capitalist countries. Also, Venezuela is basicaly subsidizing it's poor, while the U.S subsidizes major corporations -in both its own borders and the rest of the world-.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=venezuela+subsidize

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=america+subsidize

You could be happy in a place where you cannot even criticize those in power? You're very useful to those who seek power, then.

If you are accusing me of being a political conformist, then yes. That's why I am so outspoken about my dumbfoundedness at the status quo andgo out every week and protest our current government.

Right. That. :rolleyes:

:lol:

I mean if you're opposed to fossil fuel use or the purchase of SUVS, that'd make you one heck of a hypocrite. But, whatever.

If you are such an antiparticle of hypocrisy, why do you keep telling me that I'm not answering your questions when you fail to answer mine?

Why won't you answer my question? I'll repeat the question again:

How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?

A SCANNER DARKLY

25th March 2007, 21:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially.

BurnTheOliveTree

25th March 2007, 21:25

What's the point of Ad Hominems? Let's hear an argument for the impossibility of solving poverty, not insults.

-Alex

RebelDog

25th March 2007, 21:29

Originally posted by A SCANNER DARKLY+March 25, 2007 08:19 pm--> (A SCANNER DARKLY @ March 25, 2007 08:19 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially. [/b]
What a pathetic post. Instead of acting like a anti-social prick, explain to us all why the human race cannot get rid of poverty and explain what you propose to do, to "lower it substantially."

A SCANNER DARKLY

25th March 2007, 21:53

Originally posted by The Dissenter+March 25, 2007 08:29 pm--> (The Dissenter @ March 25, 2007 08:29 pm)
Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 25, 2007 08:19 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially.
What a pathetic post. Instead of acting like a anti-social prick, explain to us all why the human race cannot get rid of poverty and explain what you propose to do, to "lower it substantially."[/b]
I call him a twat and you call me a prick. I guess I'm the only one being 'anti-social.'
:lol:

The hypocrisy reeks.

Ol' Dirty

25th March 2007, 22:04

Originally posted by A SCANNER DARKLY+March 25, 2007 03:19 pm--> (A SCANNER DARKLY @ March 25, 2007 03:19 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially. [/b]
I've heard that the first to cast ill words is the first to run out of logical arguments.

A SCANNER DARKLY

25th March 2007, 22:10

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+March 25, 2007 09:04 pm--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ March 25, 2007 09:04 pm)
Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 25, 2007 03:19 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially.
I've heard that the first to cast ill words is the first to run out of logical arguments. [/b]
You have to be one naive person if you think poverty can be solved. But please enlighten me, tell me how you would solve poverty.

Ol' Dirty

25th March 2007, 22:17

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+March 25, 2007 04:04 pm--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ March 25, 2007 04:04 pm)
Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 25, 2007 03:19 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially.
I've heard that the first to cast ill words is the first to run out of logical arguments. [/b]
Communism, socialism, Anarchism, or what have you. That's my answer, now go away, meanie-head.

*Pokes A SCANNER DARKLY*

[Edit]: Also, you're ceding that your system can't -at least mostly- eliminate and prevent poverty. Great job. :)

A SCANNER DARKLY

25th March 2007, 22:18

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+March 25, 2007 09:17 pm--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ March 25, 2007 09:17 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:04 pm

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 25, 2007 03:19 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm
How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
You unrealistic twat. Poverty cannot be solved. Get it through your thick skull. We can however fight it and lower it substantially.
I've heard that the first to cast ill words is the first to run out of logical arguments.
Communism, socialism, Anarchism, or what have you. That's my answer, now go away, meanie-head.

*Pokes A SCANNER DARKLY* [/b]
Is your ideology all your going to hide behind? :lol: Give me real arguments. Tell me exactly how poverty will be solved.

Ol' Dirty

25th March 2007, 22:24

No thanks. I'm good. REad my recent posts in other forums -the last 100 or so- and read some of my propositions.

I'm just a twat, after all, right?

;)

RebelDog

25th March 2007, 22:32

A SCANNER DARKLY

Please answer the question I asked you. How do you propose to lower poverty substantially?

Pawn Power

25th March 2007, 22:44

You have to be one naive person if you think poverty can be solved. But please enlighten me, tell me how you would solve poverty.

Is your ideology all your going to hide behind? Give me real arguments. Tell me exactly how poverty will be solved.

Well, first you must understand that poverty is not simply a neutral occurrence but comes about because of massive disparities in personal capital.

Some of the arguments start with a bit of wealth redistribution.

“The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.”

Pioneering Study Shows Richest Two Percent Own Half World Wealth (http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-press-release-5-12-2006.htm)

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?

*edit- link fixed

ZX3

26th March 2007, 13:19

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:44 pm

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?
No.

Pawn Power

26th March 2007, 14:06

Originally posted by ZX3+March 26, 2007 07:19 am--> (ZX3 @ March 26, 2007 07:19 am)
Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:44 pm

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?
No. [/b]
How can one dispute such logic? :rolleyes:

ZX3

26th March 2007, 14:22

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 26, 2007 08:06 am--> (Pawn Power @ March 26, 2007 08:06 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 am

Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:44 pm

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?
No.
How can one dispute such logic? :rolleyes: [/b]
Because a stationary economy cannot exist.

Pawn Power

26th March 2007, 16:11

Originally posted by ZX3+March 26, 2007 08:22 am--> (ZX3 @ March 26, 2007 08:22 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 08:06 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 am

Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:44 pm

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?
No.
How can one dispute such logic? :rolleyes:
Because a stationary economy cannot exist. [/b]
I never mentioned a stationary economy. Try to think a bit broader, outside of a narrow understanding of society through bourgeois economics.

2% of the world's population own half of the wealth.

This occurs because of a market system that allows for mass accumulation of capital by a few and the desire to actually do so.

Because they have more, others have less. Even if an economy is not "stationary" it is not compulsory to have gross discrepancies in wealth ownership.

External to your limited knowledge of how economies work is a society where resources for the masses exist but which are purposefully amassed by a small minority.

ZX3

26th March 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 26, 2007 10:11 am--> (Pawn Power @ March 26, 2007 10:11 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:22 am

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 08:06 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 am

Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:44 pm

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?
No.
How can one dispute such logic? :rolleyes:
Because a stationary economy cannot exist.
I never mentioned a stationary economy. Try to think a bit broader, outside of a narrow understanding of society through bourgeois economics.

2% of the world's population own half of the wealth.

This occurs because of a market system that allows for mass accumulation of capital by a few and the desire to actually do so.

Because they have more, others have less. Even if an economy is not "stationary" it is not compulsory to have gross discrepancies in wealth ownership.

External to your limited knowledge of how economies work is a society where resources for the masses exist but which are purposefully amassed by a small minority. [/b]
"Because they have more, others have less."
False.
Making such a claim is in fact arguing from a stationary economy view. A dynamic economy is constantly changing and adjusting and growing. In such a circumstance, one is not going to have an even slice of the pie.

Pawn Power

27th March 2007, 03:47

Originally posted by ZX3+March 26, 2007 11:59 am--> (ZX3 @ March 26, 2007 11:59 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 10:11 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:22 am

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 08:06 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:19 am

Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:44 pm

Now, don’t you think if the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, possessed less, those at the bottom might possibly be able to have more?
No.
How can one dispute such logic? :rolleyes:
Because a stationary economy cannot exist.
I never mentioned a stationary economy. Try to think a bit broader, outside of a narrow understanding of society through bourgeois economics.

2% of the world's population own half of the wealth.

This occurs because of a market system that allows for mass accumulation of capital by a few and the desire to actually do so.

Because they have more, others have less. Even if an economy is not "stationary" it is not compulsory to have gross discrepancies in wealth ownership.

External to your limited knowledge of how economies work is a society where resources for the masses exist but which are purposefully amassed by a small minority.
"Because they have more, others have less."
False.
Making such a claim is in fact arguing from a stationary economy view. A dynamic economy is constantly changing and adjusting and growing. In such a circumstance, one is not going to have an even slice of the pie. [/b]
It is important to remember that you are talking of a dynamic capitalist economy.

And while it is obviously not stagnant (like nearly everything), if examined at a moment in time the disparities are still there and they are by no means natural or haphazard. These disparities occur because certain people, habitually those with previous material and social capital, accumulate and withhold a tremendously disproportionate amount of wealth. You cannot simply take actors out of a system that was very much created by humans and functions under human influence by saying “dynamic economy” does not allow for an “even slice of the pie.” Capitalism does indeed lead to “unevenly cut pie slices” but that does not negate that human actors are in fact involved in the process, accumulating disproportionate shares that in reality other could have.

chimx

27th March 2007, 05:33

A dynamic economy is constantly changing and adjusting and growing. In such a circumstance, one is not going to have an even slice of the pie.

Communism is not about equal distribution of wealth, but rather equal availability of wealth based on individual need (from each->ability; to each->need). Societal needs are in constant flux. How is that not dynamic?

ZX3

27th March 2007, 09:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:33 pm

A dynamic economy is constantly changing and adjusting and growing. In such a circumstance, one is not going to have an even slice of the pie.

Communism is not about equal distribution of wealth, but rather equal availability of wealth based on individual need (from each->ability; to each->need). Societal needs are in constant flux. How is that not dynamic?
Societal needs may be in constant flux, so the economic structures which support them must also be in constamt flux. That is what needs to be dynamic.

What is the objective which is to be met: Needs are satisfied, or that the proceeds from doing so, are evenly distributed (or close to evenly) amongst the workers?

ZX3

27th March 2007, 09:44

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 09:47 pm
It is important to remember that you are talking of a dynamic capitalist economy.

And while it is obviously not stagnant (like nearly everything), if examined at a moment in time the disparities are still there and they are by no means natural or haphazard. These disparities occur because certain people, habitually those with previous material and social capital, accumulate and withhold a tremendously disproportionate amount of wealth. You cannot simply take actors out of a system that was very much created by humans and functions under human influence by saying “dynamic economy” does not allow for an “even slice of the pie.” Capitalism does indeed lead to “unevenly cut pie slices” but that does not negate that human actors are in fact involved in the process, accumulating disproportionate shares that in reality other could have.
An economy is dynamic because needs and wants are constantly changing. This is not going to change in a socialist economy. Your focus seems not to be on satisfying needs and wants of people, but in providing that the workers who provide such needs have as close to an even share as possible. But such an approach will always lead to a stationary economy, since it is far more difficult to be constantly adjusting production, and to distribute the proceeds as close to evenly as possible, than it is to simply to leave production "as is" and then devise systems to distribute the proceeds amongst the workers.

chimx

27th March 2007, 13:24

Societal needs may be in constant flux, so the economic structures which support them must also be in constamt flux. That is what needs to be dynamic.

Certainly. But even the planned economies of "socialist" states like the USSR were constantly changing from year to year, and thus dynamic. The ability to determine ever changing need is certainly important, as is evidenced by the former USSR's massive black market. :)

What is the objective which is to be met: Needs are satisfied, or that the proceeds from doing so, are evenly distributed (or close to evenly) amongst the workers?

It is 6AM, so perhaps I am reading this wrong, but what is "from doing so". Is it the proceeds from satisfying needs?

Regardless, the satisfaction of individual needs is the objective (though this is obviously inclusive of intellectual, emotional, and phsyical needs). Equal distribution is not, unless magically there is an equal distribution of need.

Commodity's which still remain a scarcity may necessarily follow a different equation though, granted. Presumably, scarcity will decline once profit-motives are done away with.

Pawn Power

27th March 2007, 20:26

Originally posted by ZX3+March 27, 2007 03:44 am--> (ZX3 @ March 27, 2007 03:44 am)
Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 09:47 pm
It is important to remember that you are talking of a dynamic capitalist economy.

And while it is obviously not stagnant (like nearly everything), if examined at a moment in time the disparities are still there and they are by no means natural or haphazard. These disparities occur because certain people, habitually those with previous material and social capital, accumulate and withhold a tremendously disproportionate amount of wealth. You cannot simply take actors out of a system that was very much created by humans and functions under human influence by saying “dynamic economy” does not allow for an “even slice of the pie.” Capitalism does indeed lead to “unevenly cut pie slices” but that does not negate that human actors are in fact involved in the process, accumulating disproportionate shares that in reality other could have.
An economy is dynamic because needs and wants are constantly changing. This is not going to change in a socialist economy. Your focus seems not to be on satisfying needs and wants of people, but in providing that the workers who provide such needs have as close to an even share as possible. But such an approach will always lead to a stationary economy, since it is far more difficult to be constantly adjusting production, and to distribute the proceeds as close to evenly as possible, than it is to simply to leave production "as is" and then devise systems to distribute the proceeds amongst the workers. [/b]
There is no aim to distribute “proceeds as close to evenly as possible.” Obviously people have different needs and wants cross culturally and even within the same community. Under the capitalist economy production seeks to maximize profits, regardless of human actual needs or want. This is not an arbitrary process.

It seems that you are trying to remove human involvement from a system that was very much created by and functions under human influence. The “invisible hand of the market” does not act independently of the actors involved. Some win, some loose. And this is because both human actors desire to accumulate wealth as well as a economic system that allows them to. Though a “dynamic market” means production and consumption flux it does not mean that 2% of the population must have half of the wealth. The production of goods and services are purposefully and disproportionately consumed by a small minority.

The service to human needs and wants are desired in a socio-economic system above capitalism, not absolute equal distribution, because remember human needs and wants are diverse. In are society, most people cannot possible have what they want, not less then what they need because there is that 2% that owns enough capital to service another 48%. Do that small minority desire that much wealth? Probably. Should they have it while others are lacking basic human needs? No!

Should we allow the “invisible hand of the market” to decide that 2% of the human race should have multiple estates, cars, plans, etc. and at the same time have others (the majority who work twenty fold of that of the 2%) be homeless, mal nurtured, over worked, under slept, and deprived of basic pleasures?

ZX3

28th March 2007, 11:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:24 am

Societal needs may be in constant flux, so the economic structures which support them must also be in constamt flux. That is what needs to be dynamic.

Certainly. But even the planned economies of "socialist" states like the USSR were constantly changing from year to year, and thus dynamic. The ability to determine ever changing need is certainly important, as is evidenced by the former USSR's massive black market. :)

What is the objective which is to be met: Needs are satisfied, or that the proceeds from doing so, are evenly distributed (or close to evenly) amongst the workers?

It is 6AM, so perhaps I am reading this wrong, but what is "from doing so". Is it the proceeds from satisfying needs?

Regardless, the satisfaction of individual needs is the objective (though this is obviously inclusive of intellectual, emotional, and phsyical needs). Equal distribution is not, unless magically there is an equal distribution of need.

Commodity's which still remain a scarcity may necessarily follow a different equation though, granted. Presumably, scarcity will decline once profit-motives are done away with.
The "black market" of the USSR was an illegal market which sprung up due to the inability of that socialist economy to provide for that society's needs.

Scarcity will always exist, as there are always a limited amount of resources which can be used at a given time.

I am asking what is the objective of production in a socialist community: To satisfy needs and wants of the consumers who may want the product, or to satisfy the needsd and wants of the workers making the product?

ZX3

28th March 2007, 12:00

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 27, 2007 02:26 pm--> (Pawn Power @ March 27, 2007 02:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:44 am

Pawn [email protected] 26, 2007 09:47 pm
It is important to remember that you are talking of a dynamic capitalist economy.

And while it is obviously not stagnant (like nearly everything), if examined at a moment in time the disparities are still there and they are by no means natural or haphazard. These disparities occur because certain people, habitually those with previous material and social capital, accumulate and withhold a tremendously disproportionate amount of wealth. You cannot simply take actors out of a system that was very much created by humans and functions under human influence by saying “dynamic economy” does not allow for an “even slice of the pie.” Capitalism does indeed lead to “unevenly cut pie slices” but that does not negate that human actors are in fact involved in the process, accumulating disproportionate shares that in reality other could have.
An economy is dynamic because needs and wants are constantly changing. This is not going to change in a socialist economy. Your focus seems not to be on satisfying needs and wants of people, but in providing that the workers who provide such needs have as close to an even share as possible. But such an approach will always lead to a stationary economy, since it is far more difficult to be constantly adjusting production, and to distribute the proceeds as close to evenly as possible, than it is to simply to leave production "as is" and then devise systems to distribute the proceeds amongst the workers.
There is no aim to distribute “proceeds as close to evenly as possible.” Obviously people have different needs and wants cross culturally and even within the same community. Under the capitalist economy production seeks to maximize profits, regardless of human actual needs or want. This is not an arbitrary process.

It seems that you are trying to remove human involvement from a system that was very much created by and functions under human influence. The “invisible hand of the market” does not act independently of the actors involved. Some win, some loose. And this is because both human actors desire to accumulate wealth as well as a economic system that allows them to. Though a “dynamic market” means production and consumption flux it does not mean that 2% of the population must have half of the wealth. The production of goods and services are purposefully and disproportionately consumed by a small minority.

The service to human needs and wants are desired in a socio-economic system above capitalism, not absolute equal distribution, because remember human needs and wants are diverse. In are society, most people cannot possible have what they want, not less then what they need because there is that 2% that owns enough capital to service another 48%. Do that small minority desire that much wealth? Probably. Should they have it while others are lacking basic human needs? No!

Should we allow the “invisible hand of the market” to decide that 2% of the human race should have multiple estates, cars, plans, etc. and at the same time have others (the majority who work twenty fold of that of the 2%) be homeless, mal nurtured, over worked, under slept, and deprived of basic pleasures? [/b]
of course there is an objective in socilaislm to distribute goods and services as evenly as possible. If not, why complain about 2% owning half the wealth, or claim that one man is poor because another is wealthy (which as you recall was your claim which i responded to)? Unless the complaints are to be seen as merely idle comments of which there is to be no expectation of being "solved."

I certainly do not seek to remove the human element froom the market. The human element is the market. Their economic activity, or non-economic activity, is what directs production in a capitalist community.

Pawn Power

28th March 2007, 15:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:00 am

of course there is an objective in socilaislm to distribute goods and services as evenly as possible. If not, why complain about 2% owning half the wealth, or claim that one man is poor because another is wealthy (which as you recall was your claim which i responded to)? Unless the complaints are to be seen as merely idle comments of which there is to be no expectation of being "solved."

I certainly do not seek to remove the human element froom the market. The human element is the market. Their economic activity, or non-economic activity, is what directs production in a capitalist community.
You must see the difference between what you claim is the goal of distributing things “as evenly as possible” and removing the tremendously large gaps it wealth (i.e. 2% owning ½ the wealth). Contrary to what you think, I have no ambitions in sketching out an ideal society. I do however want to contest the grotesquely lopsided capital ownership.

The “dynamic market” does not randomly or indiscriminately dispense capital. To be sure, the dominance of wealth by one class functions through a “dynamic market,” however that is not the reason for the disproportion, it is merely the means. The actual source for the discrepancy is that some have more (be it people, corporations, or nation-states). Remember we are dealing with percentages or parts of a whole (even if it is fluctuating). While the economy does facilitate the mass accrual of capital it is not the raison d'être. The more fundamental basis is that some simply have more. Other factors add to this as well, like resource misuse, squandering, etc., but it boils down to capital accumulation.

This can be demonstrated by the differences of wealth division in different areas. In some nation-state the top 2% own only 20% of the wealth while in others it could be as high as 80%. Often the “pie slices” are comparatively uneven to the relative available capital. Though it becomes complicated with global market exchanges, I think some corollary can be made. The larger the “pie slice," for lets say the top 2%, the smaller it is for the rest. The market facilitates this and the slices are always in flux but that broad imbalance is what deprives the rest of a decent livelihood.

chimx

28th March 2007, 19:01

I am asking what is the objective of production in a socialist community: To satisfy needs and wants of the consumers who may want the product, or to satisfy the needsd and wants of the workers making the product?

Why both!

wtfm8lol

28th March 2007, 19:15

Why both!

you do realize they generally don't line up, right?

RebelDog

28th March 2007, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:15 pm

Why both!

you do realize they generally don't line up, right?
Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done.

colonelguppy

28th March 2007, 21:23

Originally posted by The Dissenter+March 28, 2007 03:11 pm--> (The Dissenter @ March 28, 2007 03:11 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 06:15 pm

Why both!

you do realize they generally don't line up, right?
Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done. [/b]
profit already indirectly measures what is needed by society. i'm sure workers know exactly what they want, but that's not the issue. the issue is how to go about producing those things, workers only have knowledge about the specified tasks they do every day.

wtfm8lol

28th March 2007, 21:36

Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done.

nice job trying to pass off horse shit as an argument. individual workers dont magically know what other every other worker needs just through both being workers.

Pawn Power

28th March 2007, 22:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:23 pm

profit already indirectly measures what is needed by society. i'm sure workers know exactly what they want, but that's not the issue.
Oh please! What neoliberal bullshit.

It does nothing of the sort.

Needs like hundreds of varieties of toothpaste, inefficient automobiles, unsanitary foodstuffs, random and often defective appliances, dog sweatshirts, placebo medicines for fictional illnesses etc. There is a tremendous amount of worthless goods that are made for profit that have no real need. You are confused; just because a person buys it doesn’t mean it is needed. And furthermore products are often made as poorly as possible to cut down of costs regardless of what people actually want. On a larger scale, 70% of Americans want the war in Iraq to be done with but it will continue…for the profit of the weapons industry and other corporations raking in billions! Profit does not serve human needs it serves the wants of the ruling class.

RebelDog

28th March 2007, 22:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:36 pm

Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done.

nice job trying to pass off horse shit as an argument. individual workers dont magically know what other every other worker needs just through both being workers.
I think most people on this forum are capable of understanding that individual workers will not decide what is produced, the collective proletariat will run society and its needs. The debate gets slowed down all the time so you can understand basic details.

colonelguppy

28th March 2007, 23:34

Oh please! What neoliberal bullshit.

It does nothing of the sort.

Needs like hundreds of varieties of toothpaste, inefficient automobiles, unsanitary foodstuffs, random and often defective appliances, dog sweatshirts, placebo medicines for fictional illnesses etc. There is a tremendous amount of worthless goods that are made for profit that have no real need. You are confused; just because a person buys it doesn’t mean it is needed.

who are you to tell people what they need? are we really going to base what we can and cannot produce off some arbitrary notion of necessity that you seem to possess? are you telling me that communism will only produce items of necessity?

some people like toothpaste with tartar control, others with cavity control, others which help with bad breath. some people like effecient automobiles, some people like large cars that are less effecient. some people want dog sweatshirts. there are markets to provide for all of these. if no one wants it, it doesn't get made, or atleas tnot for long.

And furthermore products are often made as poorly as possible to cut down of costs regardless of what people actually want.

people are often willing to sacrifice quality for affordability, if they weren't then that wouldn't happen. do you continue to buy products you are unsatisfied with? i know i don't.

On a larger scale, 70% of Americans want the war in Iraq to be done with but it will continue…for the profit of the weapons industry and other corporations raking in billions! Profit does not serve human needs it serves the wants of the ruling class.

the military industrial complex isn't the reason why we are still in iraq, it has more to do with securing political stability in the region. once they see this is unlikely the military will leave. i'll give it untill the next presidential election.

EnragÃ©

28th March 2007, 23:40

profit is only an indication of what is needed in so far as it measures what is needed by the most capital, by which i mean the dude who makes 10.000 a month is 10 times as important in deciding what is "needed" as someone who makes a thousand.
which makes the dude with 10.000 literally 10 times more worth as the dude with a thousand.

the inequality of capitalism

if we were to for example transpose this difference to votes, that would mean that the first dude has 10 votes, and the other just 1

democracy? i think not.

colonelguppy

29th March 2007, 02:13

perhaps the guys job is 10 times more productive. economics is not politics. i wouldn't assume anyone to be equal simply because they exist.

wtfm8lol

29th March 2007, 02:33

I think most people on this forum are capable of understanding that individual workers will not decide what is produced, the collective proletariat will run society and its needs. The debate gets slowed down all the time so you can understand basic details.

yes, but the collective proletariat is made up of individual workers who do not know what other workers want. so say i want a toothpaste that fights cavities and this toothpaste doesn't already exist, i have to let everyone know i want this kind of toothpaste and convince the majority to make it. by the time i get my toothpaste, my teeth will be filled with cavities and i will be out of luck.

RebelDog

29th March 2007, 03:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:33 am

I think most people on this forum are capable of understanding that individual workers will not decide what is produced, the collective proletariat will run society and its needs. The debate gets slowed down all the time so you can understand basic details.

yes, but the collective proletariat is made up of individual workers who do not know what other workers want. so say i want a toothpaste that fights cavities and this toothpaste doesn't already exist, i have to let everyone know i want this kind of toothpaste and convince the majority to make it. by the time i get my toothpaste, my teeth will be filled with cavities and i will be out of luck.
Where proper scientific advances in the effectiveness of 'types' of toothpaste are made, there is no reason they will not be produced. Its the many different brands of the same thing that would suffer. Keeping with your toothpaste example, walk done the isle that hosts toothpaste in your local supermarket and tell if there is any practical need for lots of different brands of the same thing, many of which are needlessly and wastefully imported. We could produce the best quality one of each type if thats whats needed although I think much of the difference in 'types' of toothpaste is simple marketing hype.

At present, if a worker sees something that needs to be produced he/she is powerless to change this because he/she has no ownership/control over what is produced. Your power to influence society and its running would be greater in a communist society. It should be everybody's right to have toothpaste and all the other things that make life better.

Why would you have such an insight in to this great new type of toothpaste anyway? Maybe you could work in the toothpaste industry after the revolution. I myself am in dire need of a dentist but I can't afford one because the NHS dentists, that the public paid to train, are increasingly switching to private clinics and charging the earth for dentistry. Maybe I shouldn't have campaigned against the closing of NHS clinics and begged some capitalist to produce a wonderful new toothpaste.

chimx

29th March 2007, 03:50

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 28, 2007 08:23 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 28, 2007 08:23 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 28, 2007 03:11 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 06:15 pm

Why both!

you do realize they generally don't line up, right?
Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done.
profit already indirectly measures what is needed by society. i'm sure workers know exactly what they want, but that's not the issue. the issue is how to go about producing those things, workers only have knowledge about the specified tasks they do every day. [/b]
Certainly. Profit is the current preferred manner in measuring societal need. Other models have been applied in the past. For example, the bureaucratic planned economies of Russia attempted to predict societal needs based on prior consumption rates. This would of course lead to shortages on some items, while an over-abundance of others. Although it was dynamic, it was not fluid enough.

But as has been already mentioned, and generally agreed upon, the profit model is not perfect. The point is to try to find better ways of managing the economy so as to maintain a dynamic economy, but allow for equal access based upon individual need.

I would hope that we can all agree that in the end, we all want to live in a community that maximizes our quality of life.

Ol' Dirty

29th March 2007, 17:22

Response, please?

wtfm8lol

29th March 2007, 18:47

Where proper scientific advances in the effectiveness of 'types' of toothpaste are made, there is no reason they will not be produced.

how about this one: no one particularly feels like developing a new toothpaste at that time.

Its the many different brands of the same thing that would suffer. Keeping with your toothpaste example, walk done the isle that hosts toothpaste in your local supermarket and tell if there is any practical need for lots of different brands of the same thing, many of which are needlessly and wastefully imported.

yes, there is. they all have different tastes, different textures, different effectiveness in different areas, and are made by different people. people like variety and thats why it exists.

We could produce the best quality one of each type if thats whats needed although I think much of the difference in 'types' of toothpaste is simple marketing hype.

what if the majority can't come to a consensus on which is the best?

At present, if a worker sees something that needs to be produced he/she is powerless to change this because he/she has no ownership/control over what is produced.

bullshit. the worker can suggest new types to tooth-paste producers, whereas he would have to suggest his new type to the entire community, most of whom dont give a shit about toothpastes, and get them to agree to allocate resources to the production of the new toothpaste.

Maybe you could work in the toothpaste industry after the revolution.

I still need consent from the majority to use the resources to make my new toothpaste.

I myself am in dire need of a dentist but I can't afford one because the NHS dentists, that the public paid to train, are increasingly switching to private clinics and charging the earth for dentistry. Maybe I shouldn't have campaigned against the closing of NHS clinics and begged some capitalist to produce a wonderful new toothpaste.

this is me caring about your problems. :lol:

ichneumon

29th March 2007, 20:08

what if the government produces its own brand of basic necessities - food, clothing, whatnot, while allowing capitalist systems to go on producing luxury goods? personally, i'd buy the cheap, well-made, nonbrand gov't items, knowing they are made by well paid and supported workers.

yum, Prole-Chow!

pusher robot

29th March 2007, 20:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:08 pm
what if the government produces its own brand of basic necessities - food, clothing, whatnot, while allowing capitalist systems to go on producing luxury goods? personally, i'd buy the cheap, well-made, nonbrand gov't items, knowing they are made by well paid and supported workers.

yum, Prole-Chow!
They already do this! The goods are available for purchase at your local army/navy surplus store.

ZX3

30th March 2007, 12:05

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 28, 2007 09:43 am--> (Pawn Power @ March 28, 2007 09:43 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 06:00 am

of course there is an objective in socilaislm to distribute goods and services as evenly as possible. If not, why complain about 2% owning half the wealth, or claim that one man is poor because another is wealthy (which as you recall was your claim which i responded to)? Unless the complaints are to be seen as merely idle comments of which there is to be no expectation of being "solved."

I certainly do not seek to remove the human element froom the market. The human element is the market. Their economic activity, or non-economic activity, is what directs production in a capitalist community.
You must see the difference between what you claim is the goal of distributing things “as evenly as possible” and removing the tremendously large gaps it wealth (i.e. 2% owning ½ the wealth). Contrary to what you think, I have no ambitions in sketching out an ideal society. I do however want to contest the grotesquely lopsided capital ownership.

The “dynamic market” does not randomly or indiscriminately dispense capital. To be sure, the dominance of wealth by one class functions through a “dynamic market,” however that is not the reason for the disproportion, it is merely the means. The actual source for the discrepancy is that some have more (be it people, corporations, or nation-states). Remember we are dealing with percentages or parts of a whole (even if it is fluctuating). While the economy does facilitate the mass accrual of capital it is not the raison d'être. The more fundamental basis is that some simply have more. Other factors add to this as well, like resource misuse, squandering, etc., but it boils down to capital accumulation.

This can be demonstrated by the differences of wealth division in different areas. In some nation-state the top 2% own only 20% of the wealth while in others it could be as high as 80%. Often the “pie slices” are comparatively uneven to the relative available capital. Though it becomes complicated with global market exchanges, I think some corollary can be made. The larger the “pie slice," for lets say the top 2%, the smaller it is for the rest. The market facilitates this and the slices are always in flux but that broad imbalance is what deprives the rest of a decent livelihood. [/b]
The claim here seems to be that wealth and poverty, class ect. is fixed. Someone born poor will always be poor; someone born rich will always be rich. That is simply not the case.

ZX3

30th March 2007, 12:11

Originally posted by The Dissenter+March 28, 2007 04:47 pm--> (The Dissenter @ March 28, 2007 04:47 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 08:36 pm

Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done.

nice job trying to pass off horse shit as an argument. individual workers dont magically know what other every other worker needs just through both being workers.
I think most people on this forum are capable of understanding that individual workers will not decide what is produced, the collective proletariat will run society and its needs. The debate gets slowed down all the time so you can understand basic details. [/b]

I am quite sure indeed the workers will have NO say in what is produced in a socialist community. neither, it aoppears, will the consumers.

ZX3

30th March 2007, 12:15

Originally posted by chimx+March 28, 2007 09:50 pm--> (chimx @ March 28, 2007 09:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:23 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 28, 2007 03:11 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 06:15 pm

Why both!

you do realize they generally don't line up, right?
Need will determine what is produced, not profitability. Workers are both producers and consumers so they know better than anyone what needs to be done.
profit already indirectly measures what is needed by society. i'm sure workers know exactly what they want, but that's not the issue. the issue is how to go about producing those things, workers only have knowledge about the specified tasks they do every day.
Certainly. Profit is the current preferred manner in measuring societal need. Other models have been applied in the past. For example, the bureaucratic planned economies of Russia attempted to predict societal needs based on prior consumption rates. This would of course lead to shortages on some items, while an over-abundance of others. Although it was dynamic, it was not fluid enough.

But as has been already mentioned, and generally agreed upon, the profit model is not perfect. The point is to try to find better ways of managing the economy so as to maintain a dynamic economy, but allow for equal access based upon individual need.

I would hope that we can all agree that in the end, we all want to live in a community that maximizes our quality of life. [/b]
Nobody has ever suggested, "profit" is perfect.

Nothing is perfect.

What has been suggested is that the systems which socialism claim will be used, will NOT lead to the ends desired.

ZX3

30th March 2007, 12:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:40 pm
profit is only an indication of what is needed in so far as it measures what is needed by the most capital, by which i mean the dude who makes 10.000 a month is 10 times as important in deciding what is "needed" as someone who makes a thousand.
which makes the dude with 10.000 literally 10 times more worth as the dude with a thousand.

the inequality of capitalism

if we were to for example transpose this difference to votes, that would mean that the first dude has 10 votes, and the other just 1

democracy? i think not.
Profit meaures what is the more urgent need. Socialism will have to produce for profit as well, as it to needs methods to determine what products are more in need than others.

RebelDog

1st April 2007, 06:09

how about this one: no one particularly feels like developing a new toothpaste at that time.

And why would this be the case?

yes, there is. they all have different tastes, different textures, different effectiveness in different areas, and are made by different people. people like variety and thats why it exists.

People like variety so there is no need for duplication of products.

what if the majority can't come to a consensus on which is the best?

It would be absurd to have referenda on toothpaste. The skilled workers can decide.

bullshit. the worker can suggest new types to tooth-paste producers, whereas he would have to suggest his new type to the entire community, most of whom dont give a shit about toothpastes, and get them to agree to allocate resources to the production of the new toothpaste.

What a load of pap. Have you suggested your new toothpaste? Is your life not worth living without it? If someone was so obsessed with toothpaste (you) then that person could go to see the workers at toothpaste plants and plead their case. Maybe the fact that I and others would have access to a dentist in a communist society would help as the toothpaste obsessed person could consult their dentist.

I still need consent from the majority to use the resources to make my new toothpaste.

You would first need to prove it had a benefit to people. If it did then it would be produced.

this is me caring about your problems.

But you still think other people should care about your teeth and your new wonderful toothpaste. Your nothing but a selfish capitalist bastard.

chimx

1st April 2007, 07:58

What has been suggested is that the systems which socialism claim will be used, will NOT lead to the ends desired.

I can certainly respect, if not sympathize with your skepticism. We should learn from history and be wary of mistakes made by other "socialist" economies done in the name of the dispossessed and downtrodden. But at the same time, lets not let the constraint of our current political paradigm limit us seeing newer and better horizons elsewhere.

Ol' Dirty

1st April 2007, 20:43

I don't mean to be rude or annoying, but could some-one please answer my question?

chimx

2nd April 2007, 05:43

what was your question?

colonelguppy

2nd April 2007, 05:52

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 21, 2007 09:57 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 21, 2007 09:57 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:39 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 12:49 pm
We're getting quite off-topic.

How do liberals plan on fixing the poverty-level in America?
promoting a setting for optimum levels of productivity and growth, the only reliable way to improve living standards in a country over a long period of time.
Which government or any other central planning agency cannot do.

And I say this as a government employee.

Thus, you seem to describe utopia. [/b]
i should have said by "aiming towards promoting". i'm aware of your background.

Red Tung

3rd April 2007, 09:02

"Profit meaures what is the more urgent need."

Said the pompous, smug Capitalist.

from which the Jester reply: "In only so much that the people with the money to buy whatever is *ahem* needed actually needs it for the intended purpose of consumer utility"

So there you go, Profit as a measure of "urgent need" is only applicable to people with the money for purchase of an item which may not be actually needed ($100,000 luxury cars and $1,000,000 private jets anyone?) and may not even be a measure of people even "needing" it for utility purposes if they sell it off at a higher price after driving prices up for goods produced in limited quantities. So much for "urgent need" wouldn't you say? :lol:

t_wolves_fan

3rd April 2007, 22:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:52 am

i should have said by "aiming towards promoting".
Even worse in a lot of cases.

t_wolves_fan

3rd April 2007, 22:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:17 pm

How do you plan to solve the poverty problem in america in a non-socialistic way?

Well?
I don't because the problem cannot be solved. Stupid people will consistently make stupid decisions and those people deserve the results of those decisions.

When it comes to those in need who will make good decisions and take proper advantage of the help given, I advocate plenty of government and charitable assistance from health care to child care to job training.

Thanks for making my point a few pages back. I asked if you could be happy in a country that doesn't let you speak your mind and you said you couldn't. Therefore, it seems you'd be happier in the U.S. than in Venezuela.

I wonder, if we took a poll of new immigrants to the U.S. who are just starting out and therefore at the lower rungs of the economic ladder, would they have your same attitude? I doubt it. I've heard consistently that new immigrants to this country are amazed at the opportunity they have to better their lives vis-a-vis their homeland. Unlike people with your sense of entitlement, they recognize that being poor in the U.S. still makes one rich compared to the poor in most other countries.

Does that satisfy your need to have your question answered?

t_wolves_fan

3rd April 2007, 22:41

Originally posted by Pawn Power+March 28, 2007 09:45 pm--> (Pawn Power @ March 28, 2007 09:45 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 03:23 pm

profit already indirectly measures what is needed by society. i'm sure workers know exactly what they want, but that's not the issue.
Oh please! What neoliberal bullshit.

It does nothing of the sort.

[/b]
Yes it does.

Needs like hundreds of varieties of toothpaste,

People want varieties of toothpaste because they taste different.

Your opinion that they should all be happy with one taste is irrelevant.

inefficient automobiles,

People want or need inefficient automobiles. Like toothpaste, your opinion that they should want or need only what you think they should want or need is irrelevant.

unsanitary foodstuffs,

Good luck inventing a 100% safe food supply.

There is a tremendous amount of worthless goods that are made for profit that have no real need.

What if people want all that worthless crap?

Please list your qualifications to be appointed Global Decider of What People Should Want. Maybe we'll call you in for an interview.

Rawthentic

3rd April 2007, 22:50

Thanks for making my point a few pages back. I asked if you could be happy in a country that doesn't let you speak your mind and you said you couldn't. Therefore, it seems you'd be happier in the U.S. than in Venezuela.

I wonder, if we took a poll of new immigrants to the U.S. who are just starting out and therefore at the lower rungs of the economic ladder, would they have your same attitude? I doubt it. I've heard consistently that new immigrants to this country are amazed at the opportunity they have to better their lives vis-a-vis their homeland. Unlike people with your sense of entitlement, they recognize that being poor in the U.S. still makes one rich compared to the poor in most other countries.
Freedom of the press and speech is for those who can afford to have it heard. The capitalists who own the means of production are the ones whose ideas are the ruling ones and are deeply ingrained in the minds of the oppressed. In Russia right after the Revolution, workers were provided with all the means to express themselves freely, with printing presses, paper and all, plus the means to freely assemble with buildings, lighting, and heating.

And about the US having better economic opportunity than the poorer countries, I agree. But you ignore that the US is the chief world power and that its riches come from the exploitation of "third-world" resources and labor.

Lenin II

3rd April 2007, 23:51

Capitalism has always has huge divides between classes. The best example of this is Britain during the 1800s, the days of Charles Dickens. The Industrial Age was a time when the gap between the classes, the haves and the have-nots, became more apparent than ever. With the poverty level on the rise thanks to the repubs spending, perhaps we are looking at something of a French Revolution brewing. Or maybe I'm just paranoid. I don't know. You tell me.

ZX3

3rd April 2007, 23:53

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 03, 2007 03:02 am

"Profit meaures what is the more urgent need."

Said the pompous, smug Capitalist.

from which the Jester reply: "In only so much that the people with the money to buy whatever is *ahem* needed actually needs it for the intended purpose of consumer utility"

So there you go, Profit as a measure of "urgent need" is only applicable to people with the money for purchase of an item which may not be actually needed ($100,000 luxury cars and $1,000,000 private jets anyone?) and may not even be a measure of people even "needing" it for utility purposes if they sell it off at a higher price after driving prices up for goods produced in limited quantities. So much for "urgent need" wouldn't you say? :lol:
:rolleyes:

With all due respect, you seem to be unaware that socialism will need to make economic choices. It will have to choose between grain to produce bread, or using that grain to feed livestock. It will have to choose between allocating steel to produce airplanes versus using that steel to build schools.

Your community will need a mechanism for making these determinations, for informing the citizenry so they can make an informed vote. All the denials, all the talk of "theory" does not change this basic, undeniable fact. The longer socialists refuse to recognise this reality, the longer it will take for socialists to understand the cause of their failure during the 20th Century.

It has nothing to do with choosing to build luxury cars or luxury items (the hard reality is, one can make tons of money making cheap crap for poor people), or being "smug." It has to do with having a system of ideas which guides people in allocating resources. Tht socialists have no system is not a source of strength, but of weakness.

Ol' Dirty

3rd April 2007, 23:59

It's in my first post and one down the line on the first page. Just edited it to make the question a bit more clear.

RNK

4th April 2007, 00:04

The longer socialists refuse to recognise this reality, the longer it will take for socialists to understand the cause of their failure during the 20th Century.

Socialists have not refused to recognize this reality. You have refused to recognize our recognition. You're just wasting time asking a question whose answer you can't seem to comprehend.

ZX3

4th April 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:04 pm

The longer socialists refuse to recognise this reality, the longer it will take for socialists to understand the cause of their failure during the 20th Century.

Socialists have not refused to recognize this reality. You have refused to recognize our recognition. You're just wasting time asking a question whose answer you can't seem to comprehend.

the answer are shades of "the people will figure it out." As it is safe to assume posters here are "people" (and most of 'em socialists to boot!), and since the revolution is not going to break out anytime soon (thus there is no press of time), some deeper exploration is certainly warranted.

t_wolves_fan

4th April 2007, 01:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:50 pm
Freedom of the press and speech is for those who can afford to have it heard.
The city park is totally free, a blog on the internet is practically free.

Our media in the United States has become incredibly fragmented for the second reason above.

And in fact, you may not have heard, but Fox News and MSNBC can be...get this!...turned off. Yes it's amazing, we proles are now allowed to turn off our telescreens on occasion.

Your complaint holds no water.

t_wolves_fan

4th April 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:51 pm
Capitalism has always has huge divides between classes.
There have been huge divides since long before capitalism.

You'd think that would make something clear to you.

Jazzratt

4th April 2007, 01:37

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 04, 2007 12:19 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 04, 2007 12:19 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 10:51 pm
Capitalism has always has huge divides between classes.
There have been huge divides since long before capitalism.

You'd think that would make something clear to you. [/b]
It tells me that Marx's analysis of history is accurate.

You should look it up: Historical Materialism. While you're at it you should look up Material Reality, it will be a lesson to you.

colonelguppy

4th April 2007, 01:45

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 03, 2007 04:28 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 03, 2007 04:28 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 04:52 am

i should have said by "aiming towards promoting".
Even worse in a lot of cases. [/b]
the best we can do is by giving our best effort derived from and educated debate, it sounds cliche but it's true. either way, finding ways to achieve the things i described actually is the best way to improve linving conditions, that we might fail is a seperate issue.

t_wolves_fan

4th April 2007, 02:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:37 am

It tells me that Marx's analysis of history is accurate.

You should look it up: Historical Materialism.
I've read about it. Not the worst thing in the world, though I do remember Marx saying it wasn't the end-all, be-all guide to history, remember.

While you're at it you should look up Material Reality, it will be a lesson to you.

I've got to know your version of Material Reality. Please, do tell.

Red Tung

4th April 2007, 09:00

With all due respect, you seem to be unaware that socialism will need to make economic choices. It will have to choose between grain to produce bread, or using that grain to feed livestock. It will have to choose between allocating steel to produce airplanes versus using that steel to build schools.

Which means making those choices from the perspective of the genuine needs of a human being. This means that luxury items like another shade of lipstick after 100 shades of lipstick is already available is not a need nor is another over-priced fashion item that is only worth as much as the label that is printed on it a need.

But, being that I'm also not puritanical, luxury items that are not needs gets any resources left over after everything else that is a need is produced. Well, what is a need and what is a luxury? If you really can't answer that then give yourself an object lesson in what a need is by going homeless and without money for a few days. Things, that are actually needs will quickly become quite clear to you.

Your community will need a mechanism for making these determinations, for informing the citizenry so they can make an informed vote. All the denials, all the talk of "theory" does not change this basic, undeniable fact. The longer socialists refuse to recognise this reality, the longer it will take for socialists to understand the cause of their failure during the 20th Century.

While you're right that the community would need a mechanism to make allocation determination, money isn't it. For one thing money is simply the reverse side of debt and for any kind of money to be valuable another person must go into debt, but how do you use debt to allocate something that is not debt namely physical resources. The short answer is you can't and no amount of wrangling with something that wasn't intended to be used for physical resource accounting will change that.

If everybody has clothes and food then everybody would be warm and well fed, but if everybody has the same amount of money then everybody would be poor. If you can't see the obvious absurd contradiction of the above statement then you're either blind or stupid.

You're getting close, but I'm not a Socialist. Not the traditional, orthodox meaning of the term anyway. I believe in the rule of the skilled. Ever wonder why democracy doesn't work? It's because skill and expertise is not dependent on personal popularity. Competence is not a popularity contest. Nor should it resemble a contest game show as it now with job interviews from people hiring skilled workers because they are less competent than the people they are supposedly "superior" over. Like when I refer to my bosses as fucking "superiors". How about that, huh? :lol: From fucking stupid twits that need my skills and expertise because they're too stupid to do it themselves and I'm dependent on my "boss" for means of participating in the economy? How's that for turning the word "superior" on it's head? :P

4th April 2007, 17:06

I've read about it. Not the worst thing in the world, though I do remember Marx saying it wasn't the end-all, be-all guide to history, remember.

Actually, it was Engels who said that the materialist conception of history is "merely a guide from which to study". What he meant was that a mechanistic interpretation of it is wrong and will lead to wrong conclusions; the same is true for any historico-sociological theories.

ZX3

5th April 2007, 11:27

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 03:00 am

With all due respect, you seem to be unaware that socialism will need to make economic choices. It will have to choose between grain to produce bread, or using that grain to feed livestock. It will have to choose between allocating steel to produce airplanes versus using that steel to build schools.

Which means making those choices from the perspective of the genuine needs of a human being. This means that luxury items like another shade of lipstick after 100 shades of lipstick is already available is not a need nor is another over-priced fashion item that is only worth as much as the label that is printed on it a need.

But, being that I'm also not puritanical, luxury items that are not needs gets any resources left over after everything else that is a need is produced. Well, what is a need and what is a luxury? If you really can't answer that then give yourself an object lesson in what a need is by going homeless and without money for a few days. Things, that are actually needs will quickly become quite clear to you.

Your community will need a mechanism for making these determinations, for informing the citizenry so they can make an informed vote. All the denials, all the talk of "theory" does not change this basic, undeniable fact. The longer socialists refuse to recognise this reality, the longer it will take for socialists to understand the cause of their failure during the 20th Century.

While you're right that the community would need a mechanism to make allocation determination, money isn't it. For one thing money is simply the reverse side of debt and for any kind of money to be valuable another person must go into debt, but how do you use debt to allocate something that is not debt namely physical resources. The short answer is you can't and no amount of wrangling with something that wasn't intended to be used for physical resource accounting will change that.

If everybody has clothes and food then everybody would be warm and well fed, but if everybody has the same amount of money then everybody would be poor. If you can't see the obvious absurd contradiction of the above statement then you're either blind or stupid.

You're getting close, but I'm not a Socialist. Not the traditional, orthodox meaning of the term anyway. I believe in the rule of the skilled. Ever wonder why democracy doesn't work? It's because skill and expertise is not dependent on personal popularity. Competence is not a popularity contest. Nor should it resemble a contest game show as it now with job interviews from people hiring skilled workers because they are less competent than the people they are supposedly "superior" over. Like when I refer to my bosses as fucking "superiors". How about that, huh? :lol: From fucking stupid twits that need my skills and expertise because they're too stupid to do it themselves and I'm dependent on my "boss" for means of participating in the economy? How's that for turning the word "superior" on it's head? :P
The "genuine needs" eh? Why is the socialist/anarchist/communist conception of the world that we all need to be dragged down to the lowest levels before one can move forward?

Your critique of democracy is actually very good. Democracy is simply majority ruling the minority. There is no requirement that the rulers have any particular skill or knowledge. Heck, barbers require training before they are allowed to be a barber. But the rulers in a democracy? Any tom, dick or harry will do (though I do wonder about your sneering of your "bosses" who probably know a great deal more of your profession then you think they do).

You have done anice job of critiquing capitalism method of allocating of resources. I guess even non orthodox socialists have that skill. What they seem to continue to lack is their own ideas of how resources will be allocated in a socialist communist, even in a non-orthodox one.

Rawthentic

5th April 2007, 18:18

The city park is totally free, a blog on the internet is practically free.

Our media in the United States has become incredibly fragmented for the second reason above.

And in fact, you may not have heard, but Fox News and MSNBC can be...get this!...turned off. Yes it's amazing, we proles are now allowed to turn off our telescreens on occasion.

Your complaint holds no water.

Hmm..I wonder why people believe that this is how life just is, maybe because we are lied to. I wonder why people believe that communism is about a one-man dictatorship and tyranny. Because we are lied to. It is this type of indoctrination and education that is necessary for the continuation of the capitalist system. Gladly, capitalist wars being fought, mainly Iraq, are arousing class consciousness in that people are seeing the real nature of the system.

Its no "coincidence" that proletarians are so apathetic to politics or the idea of a better world.

Ol' Dirty

5th April 2007, 19:40

Waiting.

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:40 pm
Waiting.
When "poverty" is defined as occupying some bottom percentage of the income brackets, it is not a problem that can be solved, by definition.

It's as nonsensical as saying that everyone should be above average.

Rawthentic

9th April 2007, 17:26

If thats how you want to define it.

But poverty is a characteristic of capitalism, and by destroying that root you can destroy the material conditions that cause poverty.

colonelguppy

9th April 2007, 18:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:26 am
If thats how you want to define it.

But poverty is a characteristic of capitalism, and by destroying that root you can destroy the material conditions that cause poverty.
all you're doing there is destroying the way that poverty can be gauged because there is nothing to compare it to. eliminating poverty in that sense doesn't necessarilly mean that people are better off.

Rawthentic

9th April 2007, 18:11

Of course they are better off. Those poor wouldnt have to work shit jobs for shit hours, or maybe they wouldnt have to live on the streets.

Its quite simple. Since the means of production rest in such few hands there are many in need.

Everybody owns the means of production and production is for human need, not profit, then poverty is eliminated.

Its like A-B-C. :D

9th April 2007, 18:16

When "poverty" is defined as occupying some bottom percentage of the income brackets, it is not a problem that can be solved, by definition.

I don't think that's how we (or anyone, for that matter) define it when we say "get rid of poverty".

colonelguppy

9th April 2007, 18:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:11 pm
Of course they are better off. Those poor wouldnt have to work shit jobs for shit hours, or maybe they wouldnt have to live on the streets.

Its quite simple. Since the means of production rest in such few hands there are many in need.

Everybody owns the means of production and production is for human need, not profit, then poverty is eliminated.

Its like A-B-C. :D
shit jobs disapear with capitalism? suddenly, goods of a high quality are consistently available just because the capitalist system is gone? and the masses somehow find effecient ways of ensuring all of this?

eliminating the capitalist system doesn't create any wealth. in all likely hood, it would probably destroy it through the process of a violent revolution and the fact that much of the worlds production is geared towards a capitalist system.

Rawthentic

9th April 2007, 18:30

Yeah, the "shit" part of them do.

suddenly, goods of a high quality are consistently available just because the capitalist system is gone? and the masses somehow find effecient ways of ensuring all of this?
They are available to all, not to just to those who can afford it. And yes, the "masses" find ways through collective organization in workplaces and neighborhoods.

No shit the destruction of the capitalist system doesn't create any wealth; it makes it available for all.

Haha, how would all of the wealth in the world be destroyed through a violent revolution? :wacko:

pusher robot

9th April 2007, 18:34

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 09, 2007 05:16 pm

When "poverty" is defined as occupying some bottom percentage of the income brackets, it is not a problem that can be solved, by definition.

I don't think that's how we (or anyone, for that matter) define it when we say "get rid of poverty".
What exactly do you mean, then?

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 03:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:18 pm

The city park is totally free, a blog on the internet is practically free.

Our media in the United States has become incredibly fragmented for the second reason above.

And in fact, you may not have heard, but Fox News and MSNBC can be...get this!...turned off. Yes it's amazing, we proles are now allowed to turn off our telescreens on occasion.

Your complaint holds no water.

Hmm..I wonder why people believe that this is how life just is, maybe because we are lied to.
No, because that's actually how life is.

I know you really want to believe you've found the "truth" that we're all either brainwashed to reject or too stupid to see, but the fact is you're nothing special.

I wonder why people believe that communism is about a one-man dictatorship and tyranny. Because we are lied to.

No, because that's what it leads to.

Stalin. Mao. Castro. Kim. Chavez. Guys like them are the result, every time. I know you theorists like to claim that it doesn't have to be that way, and then it ends up that way. Every single time. It's like you've got some recipe you say will turn into a cake but it turns into crap, every single time.

This is related to your complaint above. You're incapable of learning from history. Capitalism sucks but it's better than the alternatives. We've all learned that, you haven't. Because you think you're special.

It is this type of indoctrination and education that is necessary for the continuation of the capitalist system.

Indoctrination and education would be required to continue any system, even yours.

Gladly, capitalist wars being fought, mainly Iraq, are arousing class consciousness in that people are seeing the real nature of the system.

:lol: The problem with Iraq is not class-based, it's culture and religion-based. Class has almost nothing to do with the resistance to the war in Iraq.

What's beautiful is that the people who are resisting the United States are doing so for reasons that you should also reject - mainly religion. But so long as they're fighting the United States, you're willing to overlook that, aren't you?

Its no "coincidence" that proletarians are so apathetic to politics or the idea of a better world.

Because your idea of a "better world" through communism is nothing but utopian dreaming that results in tyranny every single time.

I'm sorry that you've haven't yet accepted that your sense of enlightenment is false. You're not smarter than the lot of us, you're just naive and idealistic. When you stop confusing the two, you'll be at peace.

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 03:30

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 08:00 am

Which means making those choices from the perspective of the genuine needs of a human being. This means that luxury items like another shade of lipstick after 100 shades of lipstick is already available is not a need nor is another over-priced fashion item that is only worth as much as the label that is printed on it a need.

This is why communism fails, because you think you know what everyone else really needs. You don't. Nobody knows what other people need, and nobody can determine for someone else what they need.

Plus, you seem to think peoples' wants are irrelevant. It's real hard to get people to buy into a system where their wants are ignored. You actually seem to think you and your teen friends are somehow smart enough to overcome that problem, which is absolutely hilarious in its absurdity.

ou're getting close, but I'm not a Socialist. Not the traditional, orthodox meaning of the term anyway. I believe in the rule of the skilled.

A person skilled in public policy would not make the arguments you make for the reasons above. What are you skilled in, if anything? Whatever it is, and it's not related to public policy, you should stick to it.

Do you kind of at least grasp the concept that people will tend to decide for themselves what they need and want, and when that conflicts with what you think they should need and want, you're going to have problems? I mean at all? Or are you actually arrogant/naive enough to think you can just overcome that because you're "enlightened" enough? If that's the case, can I just refer to you as Jesus Christ Himself from now on?

luxemburg89

10th April 2007, 03:41

You actually seem to think you and your teen friends are somehow smart enough to overcome that problem, which is absolutely hilarious in its absurdity.

and you seem to think you are smart enough to criticise us.

Because your idea of a "better world" through communism is nothing but utopian dreaming that results in tyranny every single time.

HAHA You are an idiot. If it is 'nothing' but dreaming then how come it would result in tyranny - wouldn't that mean it would come to pass and be reality; therefore would be something more than 'dreaming'. Opposing ideologies always throws up someone like you who is good to laugh at.

RNK

10th April 2007, 04:37

This is why communism fails, because you think you know what everyone else really needs.

This is where your criticism of communism (and the entire ideological base of that criticism) fails.

No legitimate communist claims to think they know what everyone needs. We claim to think that everyone knows that they themselves need. Communism isn't about an elite group of progressive, "know-it-all" intellectuals who take over society and plan it according to their belief of what is right and wrong. Communism puts power into the hands of the people. If in your neighbourhood there is a shortage of a commodity it's something you yourselves would manage, not some mythical central authority 3000 miles away.

t_wolves_fan

11th April 2007, 16:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:41 am

You actually seem to think you and your teen friends are somehow smart enough to overcome that problem, which is absolutely hilarious in its absurdity.

and you seem to think you are smart enough to criticise us.

Because I am.

Because your idea of a "better world" through communism is nothing but utopian dreaming that results in tyranny every single time.

HAHA You are an idiot. If it is 'nothing' but dreaming then how come it would result in tyranny - wouldn't that mean it would come to pass and be reality; therefore would be something more than 'dreaming'. Opposing ideologies always throws up someone like you who is good to laugh at.

Oh lord.

The utopian outcome of worldwide consentual communist democracy is the dream, the tyranny is the actual outcome.

Nice try though.

t_wolves_fan

11th April 2007, 16:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:37 am

This is why communism fails, because you think you know what everyone else really needs.

This is where your criticism of communism (and the entire ideological base of that criticism) fails.

No legitimate communist claims to think they know what everyone needs.
I'll believe this when I stop seeing people on this site complain about how many "unneeded" products and brands are on the market.

Until then, you have no credibility.

luxemburg89

11th April 2007, 19:13

Because I am.

hehe :D .

funny, just looking at your signature...

"It'll work because I believe in it" seems to be that you are "Better than us" because you believe you are.

nice try though.

t_wolves_fan

13th April 2007, 03:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:13 pm

Because I am.

hehe :D .

funny, just looking at your signature...

"It'll work because I believe in it" seems to be that you are "Better than us" because you believe you are.

nice try though.
Your hair-brained answers and candy-land fantasies about how great the world would be if everyone would just listen to you are the evidence that, at the very least, I've given this whole thing a little more thought than have you.

Whether I'm actually smarter, I don't know. Based on your simplistic and childish arguments, I'd say there's a good bet.

Rawthentic

13th April 2007, 04:16

Your hair-brained answers and candy-land fantasies about how great the world would be if everyone would just listen to you are the evidence that, at the very least, I've given this whole thing a little more thought than have you.
Ignorance.

Communism is about the working-class acting in its concrete, material needs and interests. Anything or anybody that denies is either:

1. Doesn't know or understand.
2. Understands it but refuses to accept it.

So face it, the working class will always be fighting for a better world, and thus negates your utopian bullshit.

Its in fact utopian to believe that capitalism won't fall.

Phalanx

13th April 2007, 05:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:16 am
Communism is about the working-class acting in its concrete, material needs and interests. Anything or anybody that denies is either:

1. Doesn't know or understand.
2. Understands it but refuses to accept it.

So face it, the working class will always be fighting for a better world, and thus negates your utopian bullshit.
You forgot #3: Understands it, believes it to be a good idea, but knows with a fair degree of certainty that it's not possible.

Communism is utopian: There has never been a sustained peroid of time where anything you'd accept as real communism successfully existed and there probably never will be. It certainly won't replace capitalism as the next economic system.

Its in fact utopian to believe that capitalism won't fall.

I don't think any capitalist here believes that capitalism is the greatest system. If it does fall, the system replacing it will probably be one based on tribal affiliations and sacrifice to the sun gods.

Rawthentic

13th April 2007, 05:07

Sorry bro, but your mixed up.

If you call yourself a pro-capitalist, then you clearly fail to understand that capitalisms dynamics lay the groundwork for communism.

But you can say whatever you want, it just shows you need to do a little more real-world observation and studying as well.

Lenin II

13th April 2007, 05:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:02 am
You forgot #3: Understands it, believes it to be a good idea, but knows with a fair degree of certainty that it's not possible.

Communism is utopian: There has never been a sustained peroid of time where anything you'd accept as real communism successfully existed and there probably never will be.
This argument is self-refuting. If there has never been a communist system, how could you know that it isn’t possible?

Phalanx

13th April 2007, 21:42

This argument is self-refuting. If there has never been a communist system, how could you know that it isn’t possible?

I don't know it's not possible, but I'm taking an educated guess with a fair degree of certainty that it's not possible. What evidence makes you think it's possible?

If you call yourself a pro-capitalist, then you clearly fail to understand that capitalisms dynamics lay the groundwork for communism.

Am I? Show me how I'm mixed up then.

Rawthentic

14th April 2007, 01:37

Its possible because class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

The class struggle will at one point or another have to lead, in our times, to the victory of the working class and communism, or the end of humanity. And this isnt some apocalypse shit, its taking a look at our material reality.

Phalanx

14th April 2007, 05:07

The class struggle will at one point or another have to lead, in our times, to the victory of the working class and communism, or the end of humanity. And this isnt some apocalypse shit, its taking a look at our material reality.

Care to try to prove any of your claims?

Rawthentic

14th April 2007, 22:09

Sure. Fascism, imperialist wars, nuclear buildups, global warming.

And thats just a few.

ZX3

15th April 2007, 03:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:37 pm
Its possible because class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

The class struggle will at one point or another have to lead, in our times, to the victory of the working class and communism, or the end of humanity. And this isnt some apocalypse shit, its taking a look at our material reality.
No, it is "just some apocalypse shit."

Just like a cult.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 03:42

Nope.

Imperialist wars have their logical ending in a nuclear war, and we know what happens after that.

With this objective reality in mind, we can conclude that capitalism must be destroyed for a socialist world.

wtfm8lol

15th April 2007, 03:47

Imperialist wars have their logical ending in a nuclear war, and we know what happens after that.

spell out that cause and effect train for me, if you will

ZX3

15th April 2007, 03:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:42 pm
Nope.

Imperialist wars have their logical ending in a nuclear war, and we know what happens after that.

With this objective reality in mind, we can conclude that capitalism must be destroyed for a socialist world.
Oh, I agree that socialism needs to destroy capitalism in order to survive. To many of your cloudy thinking comrades just sort of assume evryone will become good little reds.

Its why I scoff at the claim that "there was never a socialis/communist society." The USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pot, Germany under Hitler, Vietnam under Ho, Cuba under Castro, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Ethiopia under Mengistu ect ect all went about to destroy capitalism in the name of socialism. And the results were unmitigated human sorrow and hell.

15th April 2007, 06:29

Oh, I agree that socialism needs to destroy capitalism in order to survive. To many of your cloudy thinking comrades just sort of assume evryone will become good little reds.

Its why I scoff at the claim that "there was never a socialis/communist society." The USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pot, Germany under Hitler, Vietnam under Ho, Cuba under Castro, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Ethiopia under Mengistu ect ect all went about to destroy capitalism in the name of socialism. And the results were unmitigated human sorrow and hell.

And the US government has done many things that have caused the death and suffering of millions of people in the name of "liberty" and "freedom". It's all rhetoric.

Fascist-Hunter

15th April 2007, 08:37

Cuba under Castro is not like hell. always keep in mind that Cuba is a third world country and they have nevertheless a good education system and even a better healthcare than for example the USA.

Yes, it is not like paradise, but much better then starving in the sun (that is whats happening in african countries right now).

ZX3

15th April 2007, 15:12

Originally posted by Fascist-[email protected] 15, 2007 02:37 am
Cuba under Castro is not like hell. always keep in mind that Cuba is a third world country and they have nevertheless a good education system and even a better healthcare than for example the USA.

Yes, it is not like paradise, but much better then starving in the sun (that is whats happening in african countries right now).
Socialist regimes always get a free pass by "scientific" socialists.

Meanwhile, African countries have been been for 50 years smashing the capitalist structures of their country, and gaining control of "their" resources. The results of such progress is easy to see, Zimbabwe being the most recent, sorry chapter. Perhaps it will dissuade South Africa from following a similiar march toward socialism.

15th April 2007, 17:11

Meanwhile, African countries have been been for 50 years smashing the capitalist structures of their country, and gaining control of "their" resources. The results of such progress is easy to see, Zimbabwe being the most recent, sorry chapter. Perhaps it will dissuade South Africa from following a similiar march toward socialism.

You've completely ignored my post which led you to post the dumbass shit above. If you're not going to actually read responses to what you say then you might as well leave.

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 22:02

Originally posted by Fascist-[email protected] 15, 2007 07:37 am
Cuba under Castro is not like hell. always keep in mind that Cuba is a third world country and they have nevertheless a good education system and even a better healthcare than for example the USA.

Yes, it is not like paradise, but much better then starving in the sun (that is whats happening in african countries right now).
Is paradise to you a place where you can be jailed for insulting the leader?

Simple yes/no question.

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 22:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:42 am
Nope.

Imperialist wars have their logical ending in a nuclear war, and we know what happens after that.

With this objective reality in mind, we can conclude that capitalism must be destroyed for a socialist world.
I'm willing to bet that most people, if given the choice between A>being vaporized in an instant or living in a post-nuclear wasteland or B> living in the abject poverty and tyranny a system run by the likes of you would become, they'd choose A immediately.

I know I would.

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 22:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:16 am

Communism is about the working-class acting in its concrete, material needs and interests. Anything or anybody that denies is either:

1. Doesn't know or understand.
2. Understands it but refuses to accept it.

Having formerly been a member of the "working class", I can tell you I'm quite glad they're not in charge nor ever are likely to be.

So face it, the working class will always be fighting for a better world, and thus negates your utopian bullshit.

A better world that is not going to exist on your fairy-tale expectations, so it is in fact a utopia.

Its in fact utopian to believe that capitalism won't fall.

I'm certain it will at some point. But it'll be long after all you angry teenagers are long dead.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 22:07

Socialism does not degenerate because of its theory, but because of material conditions and organizational structure.

Like I said before, your argument is shit because you don't have the ability to analyze these things, and doing so would lead to the correct conclusions that socialism is not what capitalists have painted it as or what USSR was under Stalin.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 22:10

Nope. Communism is not a utopia. Your ignorance shines once again.

It is the correct and scientific observation the class antagonisms under capitalism at one point or another lead to a classless society. Thats undeniable.

I'm certain it will at some point. But it'll be long after all you angry teenagers are long dead.
It will end with socialism, or it will end humanity.

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 22:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:07 pm
Socialism does not degenerate because of its theory, but because of material conditions and organizational structure.

How do you plan to overcome material conditions and organizational structure?

Like I said before, your argument is shit because you don't have the ability to analyze these things, and doing so would lead to the correct conclusions that socialism is not what capitalists have painted it as or what USSR was under Stalin.

LOL.

What do you do for a living out of curiosity?

Since I assume you haven't seen me say it before I will make this clear for your benefit: I'm quite sure the Candyland theory you envision all works quite well with no problems. Any asshole can come up with a fantasy political-economic system that works out just fine and dandy with no problems, in theory.

It's the actual application that's problematic. Attempting to put your cute little theory into practice inevitably leads to tyranny.

Practice vs. theory. Learn the difference sometime, ace.

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:10 pm

It is the correct and scientific observation the class antagonisms under capitalism at one point or another lead to a classless society. Thats undeniable.

Since you can predict the future with such accuracy please tell me,

in what year will this occur?

and,

who is going to win next year's Superbowl? I'd like to put some money down.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 22:26

How do you plan to overcome material conditions and organizational structure?
You can't. If there was a socialist revolution in the U.S, people would not be living in poverty.

Any asshole can come up with a fantasy political-economic system that works out just fine and dandy with no problems, in theory.
Nobody "just came up with that", Marxism is a science. Thats once again undeniable.

It's the actual application that's problematic. Attempting to put your cute little theory into practice inevitably leads to tyranny.
Wrong again, the workers taking over the means of production for their benefit does not lead to tyranny. Adverse material conditions and hierarchical structures do.

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 04:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:26 pm

How do you plan to overcome material conditions and organizational structure?
You can't. If there was a socialist revolution in the U.S, people would not be living in poverty.

You previously said communism falls apart because of material reality and organizational structure, which you now say cannot be overcome; but then you say communism would work and end poverty.

Uh....how?

Nobody "just came up with that", Marxism is a science. Thats once again undeniable.

Um no, Marxism is not a "science", it is a theory within the sciences of economics and political science. I've never heard anyone refer to it as a "science" before...on what would you base that claim?

It's the actual application that's problematic. Attempting to put your cute little theory into practice inevitably leads to tyranny.
Wrong again, the workers taking over the means of production for their benefit does not lead to tyranny. Adverse material conditions and hierarchical structures do.

Workers will not be in charge.

This is the question no communist has ever really been able to answer. If the workers are "in charge", that means they can produce how ever much or how ever little they want, and it's 99.99% certain they'll end up producing too little since a group of individual workers cannot possibly ascertain the needs and wants of the population they are to serve in a large, complex society. If consumer needs and wants are not met, the system will fall apart because consumers will be unhappy. So what you'll probably have is centralized planning to keep the system running. And if centralized planning exists, that means workers are not in charge because now they're required to meet production quotas. It's not much different if "the community/commune" votes to decide what to make, the workers now simply have he commune's vote as an answer.

If workers agree to meet the demands of the consumers, then consumers are actually in charge by definition, aren't they?

Reasonably, there will not be a system in which the workers are really "in charge" that will last very long.

Rawthentic

16th April 2007, 04:22

You previously said communism falls apart because of material reality and organizational structure, which you now say cannot be overcome; but then you say communism would work and end poverty.

Uh....how?
I was referring to the underdeveloped nations. By organizational structure I mean the "Leninist" party with strict discipline and top-down structure. Communism is the method by which the working class takes back the means of production, thus eliminating poverty.

on what would you base that claim?

Historical materialism, class struggle, revolution. These are scientific methods and theories that are to be used according to material conditions. They thus are not dogmas.

Workers will not be in charge.

Simple fact: whoever owns the means of production is in power.

If the workers are "in charge", that means they can produce how ever much or how ever little they want, and it's 99.99% certain they'll end up producing too little since a group of individual workers cannot possibly ascertain the needs and wants of the population they are to serve in a large, complex society
One group of workers would not do the planning for an entire population, but for their workplace or neighborhood I assume, and this would be decided democratically.

If consumer needs and wants are not met, the system will fall apart because
And they will return to glorious capitalism and all will be well...

The needs will be met. How stupid it is to think that workers running their workplaces would not meet their own needs. :blink:

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 14:20

Ol' Dirty

16th April 2007, 18:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:22 am
Historical materialism, class struggle, revolution. These are scientific methods and theories that are to be used according to material conditions. They thus are not dogmas.

They are not "scientific methods", they are theory-based methods of analysis that seek an outcome that supports the theory.

A truly scientific method is not based in theory and does not seek outcomes that agree with a theory, a scientific method asks what is happening in a totally objective manner with no expected outcome.

Do you have any experience or training in actual scientific or statistical analysis? I ask because you seem to just be making this up.

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Scientific Method (http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)

These four decisive factors have been sufficiently met:

1: Marx, Engles, Luxembourg, Lenin, etc et. al., each observed the political world intensively throughout their lives.

2: They came to the hypothesis that all history is made up of class struggles, or, if preffered, power struggles.

3: They effectively predicted the triumph over the higher capitalist classes (the ones who hold both de facto and de jure power over the means of production through monopoly) over the proletariat (those that control only personal posessions) in every major social group -possibly even those that are rather minor- on the planet.

4: Many social scientists have used the same hypothesis, and it has shown to be correct.

Scientific fact.

Of course, just as the theory of evolution took centuries to be accepted by the wider scientific community, so has material analytics.

Workers will not be in charge.

Simple fact: whoever owns the means of production is in power.

Then the consumers have no power, and that's not going to be sustainable for very long.

Barron's describes the consumer as the ultimate user of a product or service. As of yet, all people are consumers, and most of these consumers or proletarian.
As both consumers and producers, it is in their best interest to take control over that wealth. If they were to do that... you get the idea.

One group of workers would not do the planning for an entire population, but for their workplace or neighborhood I assume, and this would be decided democratically.

The needs will be met. How stupid it is to think that workers running their workplaces would not meet their own needs. :blink:

Of course the workers will meet their needs, but how do you ensure the needs and wants of the community are met?

Assuming we are workers, we have that covered, don't we?

Say a community needs 500 units of X. There are two factories that produce X. They take a vote amongst themselves on how they're going to work and they come to the conclusion that one factory will produce 200 units and another will produce 250 units of X. You are now short 50 units of X.

What happens?

Does the community decide to force the workers to produce another 25 units each? Then the workers are not in charge.

Be specific. Don't simply claim "they'll just agree to do it".

Democracy= rule by the people at large.

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 18:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:02 pm
Scientific fact.

:lol:

OK dude, whatever.

Barron's describes the consumer as the ultimate user of a product or service. As of yet, all people are consumers, and most of these consumers or proletarian.
As both consumers and producers, it is in their best interest to take control over that wealth. If they were to do that... you get the idea.

But everyone consumes products or services they do not produce.

So again, how are the workers in charge if other people are telling them they need more of what htey produce?

Democracy= rule by the people at large.

Nice slogan, but not an answer.

pusher robot

16th April 2007, 19:09

Scientific Method

These four decisive factors have been sufficiently met:

1: Aristotle, Ptolemy, Plato, etc et. al., each observed the physical world intensively throughout their lives.

2: They came to the hypothesis that all the cosmos revolves around the Earth.

3: They effectively predicted the roughly circular motion of the sun and the stars.

4: Many astronomers and physical scientists have used the same hypothesis, and it has shown by Ptolemy to be mathematically correct.

Scientific fact.

Of course, just as the theory of phlogiston took centuries to be accepted by the wider scientific community, so has geocentrism.

Ol' Dirty

16th April 2007, 20:28

Barron's describes the consumer as the ultimate user of a product or service. As of yet, all people are consumers, and most of these consumers or proletarian.
As both consumers and producers, it is in their best interest to take control over that wealth. If they were to do that... you get the idea.

But everyone consumes products or services they do not produce.

So again*, how are the workers in charge if other people are telling them they need more of what htey produce?

*That's a different question than the one you asked before. You're not asking whether or not people's needs will be met; you're spouting rhetoric. Be consistent.
Second hand: Democracy is based around the free exchange of ideas. If communism is democratic, then the only tyrany that exists is that of the majority.

Scientific Method

These four decisive factors have been sufficiently met:

1: Aristotle, Ptolemy, Plato, etc et. al., each observed the physical world intensively throughout their lives.

2: They came to the hypothesis that all the cosmos revolves around the Earth.

3: They effectively predicted the roughly circular motion of the sun and the stars.

4: Many astronomers and physical scientists have used the same hypothesis, and it has shown by Ptolemy to be mathematically correct.

Scientific fact.

Of course, just as the theory of phlogiston took centuries to be accepted by the wider scientific community, so has geocentrism.

QUOTE (Tommy-K @ April 11, 2007 12:54 pm)
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Please tell me how you justify this.
I guess your going to give me that bullshit functionalist response of 'poverty is essential in a sustainable society.'

And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.

And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.

Truth is not determined by consensus. I do not accept the terms of your request.

Humans are falible; this is well known and documented. But if a person disregards logic due to the fact that humans can be wrong, they'd might as well start cutting their wrists and give up on life, because human falibility isn't ever going to cease.
Scientific fact, by definition, is subjective in nature. Humans are often wrong; that's why we use science to check ourselves.