i dont understand why people want to be comunists.

[luztax]

I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.

[Knight of Cydonia]

and the point is? :blink:

[( R )evolution]

Because, I do not think of just myself what about the billions of 3rd world workers who live in rampant poverty? They are oppressed so you can wear those clothes. How about the millions of people who have died and there family's have been tortured in the name of western imperialism and capitalism? The list goes on, stay on this site for a while and you will learn the truth.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:20 pm
I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.
what does that have to do with communism?

[Tower of Bebel]

I lost him when he told about his choice of clothes.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.
In true communism you would not have to buy "stuff." Stay on this site long enough and you will discover that communism, far from being an intolerable system of endless bureaucratic tyranny and individual regimentation is a system of greater individual liberty and shared abundance.

Let me take a guess as to what it is you're probably thinking. It's what I used to think about leftist politics. You fear regulations in your habits of dress and diet, living on famine rations, being forced to read propaganda in newspapers and schools, being deprived of free speech, losing the right to protest your leaders in public. You fear monetary inflation, intolerable red tape in obtaining the necessities of life. In other words, you fear and are puzzled by communism as the west perceives it, which is in the context of Stalinist Soviet Russia, China and North Korea. I don't believe any of these countries are true communism. The Soviet Union only went the way it did because Stalin betrayed the revolution and became a capitalist. Trotsky documents this extensively in his book, "The Revolution Betrayed," about Stalinist Russia.

A Communist government is the greatest of all possible systems. The average man doesn't like systems or generalities either. It is the task of the communist system to deliver the goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, media, amusements, his freedom to choose his own clothes, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in a TRUE socialist government.

[RASHskins]

luztax see i dont understand your reason for existence. How can you like being a slave to a system. How can you support a system that exploits the overwhelming majority for a miniscule minority. If you didn't have money Capatalism would have already fucked you and you would probably be dead from starvation or living in extreme poverty, now i don't think that you would enjoy that very much.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.
You're definately not familiar with marx's theories. You do not ask yourself why you like money.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:21 pm
in communism, papa stalin tells you how to dress all the time;

he says drab grey and military green are in fashion this five year plan.
Exactly, it is for the good of Communism for you to wear this, thus spoke All-Father Stalin, all sinners will be sent to gulags.

[IcarusAngel]

Economic freedom is a myth. You may have some money, but your choices are limited by the producers, not your fellow consumers.

[Jude]

I think that if you stick around and have an open mind, you will come to understand. We are not just a bunch of adolescent rebels and rejects who hate society. We are a diverse group of reformists who actually care about humanity instead of the new iPod Nano.

[Raúl Duke]

I have a feeling this person posted once and will never come back....


I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.

Does life only revolve around money and stuff?....man, that seems kinda empty, no its more like boring.

Well, in communism you can still have stuff and no one is telling you how to dress.
In capitalism, if you don't have enough money you can't get the stuff....

[luztax]

But what if no one wants to be communists? Its not fair if you make them since we all voted for democracy anyway and if people dont want to work in sweat shops then they dont have too. :D

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm
But what if no one wants to be communists? Its not fair if you make them since we all voted for democracy anyway and if people dont want to work in sweat shops then they dont have too. :D
Yeah, they can let thier families starve instead. Whosaid anything about "making" anyone be communist? Voted for democracy, did you? VOTED? Remind me, didn't Bush steal the election even though Al Gore got more votes? Selected, not elected? Yeah, this is a democracy. Your vote really counts.

[Forward Union]

Moved to OI.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm
But what if no one wants to be communists? Its not fair if you make them since we all voted for democracy anyway and if people dont want to work in sweat shops then they dont have too. :D
Why are you using words that have a double meaning under capitalist society? Like democracy. As if there is no democracy in communism. Communism = democracy (!) and we do not make people communists, we make them think and question society and leadership.
And not everone gets the job he/she likes, that's just impossible in this society. The material conditions force people to work in sweat shops, just like in most jobs.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm
But what if no one wants to be communists? Its not fair if you make them since we all voted for democracy anyway :D
Forget everything you 'learned' about 'communism' and its relation to 'democracy' in high school. Many of those cretins who call themselves historyteachers haven't even read the Manifesto in full.

Democracy is an inherent aspect of communism. On the other hand, the western 'democracies' that exist today are a sham.


and if people dont want to work in sweat shops then they dont have too.
Yeah, starving is really a great alternative. :rolleyes:

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.
Oh dear

[An archist]

Originally posted by luztax+--> (luztax)But what if no one wants to be communists? Its not fair if you make them since we all voted for democracy anyway[/b]
bollocks, no-one voted for democracy, in fact, the amount of people voting worldwide is getting lower and lower every year.


luztax
and if people dont want to work in sweat shops then they dont have too. :D
indeed, why don't they get a job as manager or simply inherit lots of money? tsss, losers

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Because, I do not think of just myself what about the billions of 3rd world workers who live in rampant poverty?

I thought communism wasn't a charity or about "helping others"?

Whatever happened to the intelligent communists here? Where's LSD? Redstar? Redteam? Sabocat?

Now I know why I don't venture to this board as often as I did in the past.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23, 2007 05:42 pm

Because, I do not think of just myself what about the billions of 3rd world workers who live in rampant poverty?

I thought communism wasn't a charity or about "helping others"?

Whatever happened to the intelligent communists here? Where's LSD? Redstar? Redteam? Sabocat?

Now I know why I don't venture to this board as often as I did in the past.
What are you talking about? The poster stated that s/he takes the conditions of others into account when looking at the world, which is certainly reasonable.

Are you serious or are you just trying to be thick?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by manic expression+March 23, 2007 05:45 pm--> (manic expression @ March 23, 2007 05:45 pm)
Capitalist [email protected] 23, 2007 05:42 pm

Because, I do not think of just myself what about the billions of 3rd world workers who live in rampant poverty?

I thought communism wasn't a charity or about "helping others"?

Whatever happened to the intelligent communists here? Where's LSD? Redstar? Redteam? Sabocat?

Now I know why I don't venture to this board as often as I did in the past.
What are you talking about? The poster stated that s/he takes the conditions of others into account when looking at the world, which is certainly reasonable.

Are you serious or are you just trying to be thick? [/b]
The rationale he gave for being a communist was that he tends to think about other proletariat all over the world. That reeks of idealism rather than materialism.

I thought that workers became communists simply because its in the individual's best material interests?

The original poster, even though redundant, raised an interesting question.

Why do people become communists? What makes one receptive to communist ideals? How did you and I become ideological opposites?

I thought it was being determines consciousness and not consciousness determines being?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23, 2007 05:54 pm
The rationale he gave for being a communist was that he tends to think about other proletariat all over the world. That reeks of idealism rather than materialism.

I thought that workers became communists simply because its in the individual's best material interests?

The original poster, even though redundant, raised an interesting question.

Why do people become communists? What makes one receptive to communist ideals? How did you and I become ideological opposites?

I thought it was being determines consciousness and not consciousness determines being?
There are many reasons for being a communist, and it is ridiculous to expect some type of uniform rationale. It is in the material interests of the workers to pursue socialism (aka be communists). However, many people who did not have to be part of the working class refused to take part in exploitation and deprivation, which is another (valid) rationale.

There was another thread about why people are leftists. People can and have become revolutionaries because of the conditions they saw in the world and their refusal to accept the system which created it. In this case, being has determined consciousness, as someone who is uncomfortable and/or unwilling to sit by as so many suffer will try to change it.

When talking of "being", you need to take class into account, and the class of these people is never the bourgeoisie. Why? Because the bourgeoisie inherently tries to perpetuate capitalism. Most of these individuals are formerly petty-bourgeois. More importantly, communists do not neglect the petty-bourgeoisie, and in fact, revolutionary movements which win the support of the petty-bourgeoisie are extremely strong. Oftentimes, the petty-bourgeoisie's material interests are the same as the proletariat's.

[R_P_A_S]

i love how we start shootin theory at this kid. its obvious he is beyond confused.. ease up on him. he has no damn clue. and with the shit we reply. we would run and be more confused

[redcannon]

i'll break it down for him.

Free Market/Capitalism: freemdom to exploit the worker (i.e. probably you at some point of your life)

Communism: Makin a classless society where the means of production are put nto the hands of the labourers, thus ending both poverty and exploitation

The Communist Manifesto: a better way to learn then in history class

My fist: in the face of cappie teachers worldwide

also, you like money. that's great until you find yourself working 60 hours a week and not seeing much of it

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:51 pm

Let me take a guess as to what it is you're probably thinking. It's what I used to think about leftist politics. You fear regulations in your habits of dress and diet, living on famine rations, being forced to read propaganda in newspapers and schools, being deprived of free speech, losing the right to protest your leaders in public. You fear monetary inflation, intolerable red tape in obtaining the necessities of life. In other words, you fear and are puzzled by communism as the west perceives it, which is in the context of Stalinist Soviet Russia, China and North Korea. I don't believe any of these countries are true communism. The Soviet Union only went the way it did because Stalin betrayed the revolution and became a capitalist. Trotsky documents this extensively in his book, "The Revolution Betrayed," about Stalinist Russia.

A Communist government is the greatest of all possible systems. The average man doesn't like systems or generalities either. It is the task of the communist system to deliver the goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, media, amusements, his freedom to choose his own clothes, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in a TRUE socialist government.
You've gone to plaid. (Spaceballs reference)


Your problem is this: the communism you describe is what you wish could be, the nightmares of leftist politics are what actually would be if you tried to attain what you wish could be.

(r ) boy said stay here and learn the truth. He doesn't mean learn the truth, he means learn what we wish could happen. That is not truth, it's idealism. Any asshole can come up with an ideology and claim that if his ideology were enacted it would work just like he thinks it would. Dreams are like excuses, which are like assholes.


Truth is history and reality, and the truth is that pretty much anyone who accumulates the power required to implement the changes you desire won't want to give up that power.

That's why you get laws against insulting the leaders of the revolution. The revolution is never complete. Why would those in power wish for it to be?


Do you understand that?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:34 am


also, you like money. that's great until you find yourself working 60 hours a week and not seeing much of it
ahhhh, sounds like my life already

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+March 24, 2007 03:40 am--> (R_P_A_S @ March 24, 2007 03:40 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 12:34 am


also, you like money. that's great until you find yourself working 60 hours a week and not seeing much of it
ahhhh, sounds like my life already [/b]
You remind me of Dante from "Clerks".

[An archist]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 24, 2007 02:24 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 24, 2007 02:24 am)
[/b]



Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)Your problem is this: the communism you describe is what you wish could be, the nightmares of leftist politics are what actually would be if you tried to attain what you wish could be.[/b]

Hence why we need to make sure there will be no leaders after a revolution, it's perfectly possible to organise without having leaders.


Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
(r ) boy said stay here and learn the truth. He doesn't mean learn the truth, he means learn what we wish could happen. That is not truth, it's idealism. Any asshole can come up with an ideology and claim that if his ideology were enacted it would work just like he thinks it would. Dreams are like excuses, which are like assholes.

Idealism is pretty stupid indeed, but you have idealists and utopians in every movement and of every ideology, like the liberals who believe that a free market is the best possible system for every one (even when it's flaws are so obvious)


[email protected]
Truth is history and reality, and the truth is that pretty much anyone who accumulates the power required to implement the changes you desire won't want to give up that power.

indeed, and as power corrupts, why would you have a system where few are in power?


t_wolves_fan
That's why you get laws against insulting the leaders of the revolution. The revolution is never complete. Why would those in power wish for it to be?

A revolution is never complete, why would anyone want it to be? If we just stick to old truths, we would still be ignoring racism, sexism, homophobia, animal issues, ...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+March 24, 2007 03:43 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ March 24, 2007 03:43 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:40 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 12:34 am


also, you like money. that's great until you find yourself working 60 hours a week and not seeing much of it
ahhhh, sounds like my life already
You remind me of Dante from "Clerks". [/b]
You've made that point before, it was shit to begin with.

[luztax]

Ok I am talking to the redcanon guy. We have capitalism and people can work where they want. If they are exploited they can form a union like they did before and have strikes. I don't think that a regular worker would make good managers to run a business. I have not read the comunist manifesto, where can i get one? I dont know what a cappie is. and my dad said that people would have plenty of money if they did not waste it on stuff like cable tv or stuff they dont need. :D

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:57 am
I have not read the comunist manifesto, where can i get one? I dont know what a cappie is.
Cappie is slang for a capitalist, and here is where you can find the Manifesto online;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm

[RNK]

We have capitalism and people can work where they want.

Wrong.


and my dad said that people would have plenty of money if they did not waste it on stuff like cable tv or stuff they dont need.

Ask your dad how many people in Africa, who are currently starving, have cable TV.

[An archist]

Originally posted by luztax+--> (luztax) people can work where they want.[/b]
Go try it for yourself.


Originally posted by [email protected]
If they are exploited they can form a union like they did before and have strikes.
unless there are laws that prevent that or the union is under government control (like in China)


luztax
I don't think that a regular worker would make good managers to run a business.
nope, if workers would run their own business they probably wouldn't be obsessed about profits, therefore they wouldn't fire people just to make more profits and they would have lots better wages.

[luztax]

But china and africa dont have capitalism they have communism and dictatorships. If they had capitalism and democracy they can work where they want and have food. I cant work yet because I am to young, but i am going to go to college to get a chemical engineering degree so i can get a good job so i can get wht i want.

[An archist]

Originally posted by luztax+--> (luztax)But china and africa dont have capitalism they have communism and dictatorships.[/b]
Indeed, there are African countries that have dictatorships, but if you say that China is communist, you have a lot to learn.


Originally posted by luztax+--> (luztax)If they had capitalism and democracy they can work where they want and have food.[/b]
You clearly have no experience in that field


[email protected]
I cant work yet because I am to young
that's pretty obvious, how old are you?


luztax
but i am going to go to college to get a chemical engineering degree so i can get a good job so i can get wht i want
Well, you better hope that they still need chemical engineers when you graduate, don't you?

[luztax]

I have read the china was a communist government. I know so people dont live in America but we have capitalism here and life is good. Life could be good every where if the had democracy and capitalism. also i tried to ask a question in the learning part but i couldnt so i am going to ask it here so why cant i make a profit off of my labor?

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:28 pm
I have read the china was a communist government. I know so people dont live in America but we have capitalism here and life is good. Life could be good every where if the had democracy and capitalism. also i tried to ask a question in the learning part but i couldnt so i am going to ask it here so why cant i make a profit off of my labor?
A government cannot be communist. It's impossible. China is really capitalist, nothing communist about it at all.

You need to read up on communism. Not only to learn more about it but also so you can see its many flaws. For example, Marx's most important conclusion was that capitalism will collapse, obviously wrong. Just the opposite has happened, it's stronger than ever, and free market capitalism is spreading like wild fire. But there are much more serious flaws about this ideology. Read up on it and you'll see.

[RNK]

100,000,000 killed in 100 years.. yeah, capitalism was a great success!

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:49 pm
100,000,000 killed in 100 years.. yeah, capitalism was a great success!
Oh yes! Blame it on big bad capitalism. :lol:

Typical marxist who thinks every single war grows out of the "class war." It's plain laughable.

[luztax]

Will someone asnwer my question about why cant i make a profit from my labor?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:16 pm
Will someone asnwer my question about why cant i make a profit from my labor?
In capitalism a worker produces a commodity with X labor, which the capitalist takes, sells, pockets X-Y profit, and gives the worker Y in wages.

Hence, a worker never recives the full value of their labor in capitalism.

That's the gist of it, anyhow.

[JazzRemington]

What do mean by "my labor"?

If you mean wage labor, you'll never maintain a profit. If you mean being self-employed then you won't technically profit (in the sense of profit being surplus value). If you employ others, then you probably will obtain profit.

[luztax]

Like my brother wanted halo so all he did was cut two yards and he had enough money to buy it. It would have taken him years to make the game him self. so he saved a lot of time to do other stuff. is that not profit?

[RNK]

In a communist economy, Halo would have been free. :)

[JazzRemington]

Depends. Most economics define profit as income minus expenses. In this sense, he made some profit. Simply saving time isn't technically profit. It can increase profit in some ways, but isn't profit in and of itself.

But profit is a form of surplus value (value of the product of one's labor minus the value of the labor itself). If one is self-employed, and does not employ others, one does not create surplus value because one enjoys generally the full profit of the labor done.

But using the fact that some people are self-employed does not legitimate profit or capitalism. That's like saying that since some people can share their tools and the products of their labor in common, that communism works. Plus, according to Table 591 from the Statistical Abstract, some 10,464,000 individuals were self employed in 2005. According to Table 587 of that same work, some 131,143,000 individuals were employed as wage or salary workers. Thus, wage/salary workers outnumber self-employed people by about 12:1

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:16 pm
Will someone asnwer my question about why cant i make a profit from my labor?
That's what I'm wondering too.

If I work for an hour and through my work create a value (of products or services) of about 30 dollars, why does my boss have the right to take 20 dollars and say he pays me 10 dollars?
I'm paying him!

[luztax]

So you are mad that you dont make as much money as you think you should so then people should be communist and not have any money. I like things the way they are now.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:36 pm
In a communist economy, Halo would have been free. :)
No, it would not.

There are costs involved in production. There always are. Even in a communist economy.

When you say "Halo" will be free to this guys brother, you mean the costs associated in its production will be shouldered by someone else.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:02 am
So you are mad that you dont make as much money as you think you should so then people should be communist and not have any money. I like things the way they are now.
You don't know the first thing about communism, do you? Communism does not mean you need money and don't have it, it means no one will have money BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT NEED MONEY.

[An archist]

Also, how old are you, you said you weren't old enough to work yet, that implies you haven't really been away from your parents protection.

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:02 am
So you are mad that you dont make as much money as you think you should so then people should be communist and not have any money. I like things the way they are now.
In a Communist society, money isn't needed. Think of it this way: people work and put their products into a big pot. So farmers put in food, builders put in houses, tailors put in clothes, teachers put in education and so on. Then everybody simply takes what they need from the pot. Basically, in a Communist society, you put in whatever you can, and you take whatever you need.

Secondly, you seem to be relating Communism with dictatorships, and capitalism with democracy. A Communist society is MUCH more democratic than a capitalist one. If people weren't happy with a representative, that representative can be removed from office and another elected in. This can happen at any time, unlike in the US where you can only elect politicians every four years (or whatever the period is). While the politicians in a capitalist society like the USA are in power they can do what they want and nothing will happen until the next election comes around: this sounds more like a dictatorship than a Communist society.

Finally, you might think you have a good life under Capitalism, but you're one of very few. If you take the US, something like 37 million people are living in poverty. If you take a look at the entire world you'll find that the vast majority people are living in poverty. 5% of people in the world own 95% of the world's wealth.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

When you say "Halo" will be free to this guys brother, you mean the costs associated in its production will be shouldered by someone else.


No, they are shouldered by all (According to ability), and the benefits, i.e playing Halo, will be reaped by all. (According to need for entertainment.)

-Alex

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:19 pm

When you say "Halo" will be free to this guys brother, you mean the costs associated in its production will be shouldered by someone else.


No, they are shouldered by all (According to ability), and the benefits, i.e playing Halo, will be reaped by all. (According to need for entertainment.)

-Alex

Would not "halo" be considered a personal possession, and therefore not something of which the community could lay claim to?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Simply, no. You're confusing property with posessions.

That said, I'd see no point in being selfish with your games. You might as well share, really. But I wouldn't wish there to be an obligation to do so.

-Alex

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:18 pm
Like my brother wanted halo so all he did was cut two yards and he had enough money to buy it. It would have taken him years to make the game him self. so he saved a lot of time to do other stuff. is that not profit?
I understand what you're saying, but till, most people around the world can't afford Halo, and they couldn't unless they worked their arses of for years at their current wage. Then there's the issue of getting an Xbox, a house with electricty -also, runing water and a nice view would be great-, etc. So how is that good for them? Really, it's not. That's why some support communism.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

For Workers the Choice to be Communism is a recognition of what you have to do to survive.

For Petty Bourgeois/Bourgeois/Middle Class/Rich, the choice to be communist is emotional desire.

For everyone, the sight of communism as truth is simple recognition of logic and rationality. It just depends which side one wishes to take. I'm sure most capitalists believe and truly fear Communism. (Ex. The CIA's maddening drive against revolution around the world during the Cold War. If they believed communism couldn't work and had no support, they wouldn't have wasted so much money)

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

When you say "Halo" will be free to this guys brother, you mean the costs associated in its production will be shouldered by someone else.

CD's cost usually less than 50 Cents per CD to make, while Halo is now sold at $20 (Previously $40), which is a over 4000% Profit. (Of course, production costs, but it evens itself out). Besides, if there was no more war funding or money at all, that wouldn't be a problem.

Besides, not everyones gonna go and hog halos. People like to play them in communal groups better than alone usually. I know that multiplayer with like 15 people is funner than by yourself XD.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:28 pm
Simply, no. You're confusing property with posessions.

That said, I'd see no point in being selfish with your games. You might as well share, really. But I wouldn't wish there to be an obligation to do so.

-Alex
Then we are back to where we originally started: "Halo" is not free. Its costs are being shouldered by the community, not the individual who desires to play the game.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:26 am

When you say "Halo" will be free to this guys brother, you mean the costs associated in its production will be shouldered by someone else.

CD's cost usually less than 50 Cents per CD to make, while Halo is now sold at $20 (Previously $40), which is a over 4000% Profit. (Of course, production costs, but it evens itself out). Besides, if there was no more war funding or money at all, that wouldn't be a problem.

Besides, not everyones gonna go and hog halos. People like to play them in communal groups better than alone usually. I know that multiplayer with like 15 people is funner than by yourself XD.
Comparitively, very few people would (I had never heard of "Halo").
There is no particular reason to suppose that the devotees of "halo" would be the benefit of society's largesse, so one would expect the costs all forms of entertainment to be shouldered by the community.

[luztax]

OK, I am 14. But if only a few people want to play halo and the workers decide not to make halo, then that is not fair. With capitalism my brother can play halo.

[KC]

I don't see how "cost" can exist without money.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 26, 2007 08:25 am
I don't see how "cost" can exist without money.
There is only a finite number of resources which can be used at a given time. If labor is deployed to grow grain, that labor cannot be used to build bridges. If the community chooses to build airplanes, it cannot use that steel to build a school. A socialist /communis/tanarchist community will need to make these kinds of decisions as well. They are not exempt. So the community needs mechanisms, information, which tells it that the resources being used (its costs) are being used in the most rational and best way for the benefit of the community (the value of the finished product being greater than the costs incurred in producing it).

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:13 pm
OK, I am 14. But if only a few people want to play halo and the workers decide not to make halo, then that is not fair. With capitalism my brother can play halo.
Your brother wouldn't get to play Halo? Oh, woe is you. Goodbye, cruel world. :rolleyes:

If the capitalists decide not to make Halo they won't either.

In communism, if you want something (especially software) you either aquire it from somebody (Peer-to-peer sharing) or you make (program) it yourself. That's how the best open-source games (often better than glitzy graphical games like Halo, I might add) are made right now. What's "unfair" about that? That your brother can't have a good time at someone else's expense? Isn't that unfair?

'Unfair' is when the majority is forced to bow to the will of a minorty. If the workers (the majority) were forced to produce Halo because your brother (a minority) thought he 'deserved it', that would be unfair.

[luztax]

But the capitalists did make halo even tho only a few people wanted it they made enough money to make it. Capitalism is better. :P

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:27 pm
But the capitalists did make halo even tho only a few people wanted it they made enough money to make it. Capitalism is better. :P
You are missing the point. You are saying that if the workers did not decide to produce Halo that it would be unfair because your brother could not play it. You seem to be coming from the assertion that your brother 'deserves' the ability to play Halo even if the majority of the workers do not want to make it en masse.

Yet the capitalists could just as easily have not made Halo either. Big-name games get cancelled all the time, even though they may have a huge base of people wanting to play it.

A (smart) capitalist will not do something if the percieved cost is higher than the percieved gain.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by MrDoom+March 26, 2007 09:03 am--> (MrDoom @ March 26, 2007 09:03 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 01:13 pm
OK, I am 14. But if only a few people want to play halo and the workers decide not to make halo, then that is not fair. With capitalism my brother can play halo.
Your brother wouldn't get to play Halo? Oh, woe is you. Goodbye, cruel world. :rolleyes:

If the capitalists decide not to make Halo they won't either.

In communism, if you want something (especially software) you either aquire it from somebody (Peer-to-peer sharing) or you make (program) it yourself. That's how the best open-source games (often better than glitzy graphical games like Halo, I might add) are made right now. What's "unfair" about that? That your brother can't have a good time at someone else's expense? Isn't that unfair?

'Unfair' is when the majority is forced to bow to the will of a minorty. If the workers (the majority) were forced to produce Halo because your brother (a minority) thought he 'deserved it', that would be unfair. [/b]
Bartering can only work if possess have something the other person wants for the item you want.

If the capitalists stop producing "Halo" it is because comparitively few people wish to aquire it.
What remains unanswered is why would a communist/socialist/anarchist community continue to produce "Halo" in such circumstances.

I am also wondering why such a community would demand of its members if they want to eat to grow their own grain, or to own a car to build it themselves. Socialism, as has been tirelessly explained, is supposed to free people from "working to survive." Now we are told that under communism people will have to survive on their own (and please don't say you were talking only about computer games, UNLESS you are prepared to explain why computer games and software are exempt in a communist community).

[dbzfanl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:27 pm
But the capitalists did make halo even tho only a few people wanted it they made enough money to make it. Capitalism is better. :P
Why is capitalism better? You explain it to us.

I'd recommend getting a part-time job before you preach to us about work involved.

Don't act like a kid and we won't treat you that way.

Think for yourself, don't repeat what others say.

In communism, people would do everything they could to support the community, putting in whatever labour they can do. Money leads to power, power leads to corruption.


One more thing: what's going to happen at the end of your life, when you're dead, and there's no use whatsoever for money? Where's it going to go? Capitalism has an endless loop and appeals to the future. Communism does not and appeals to the present.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by MrDoom+March 26, 2007 09:32 am--> (MrDoom @ March 26, 2007 09:32 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 02:27 pm
But the capitalists did make halo even tho only a few people wanted it they made enough money to make it. Capitalism is better. :P
You are missing the point. You are saying that if the workers did not decide to produce Halo that it would be unfair because your brother could not play it. You seem to be coming from the assertion that your brother 'deserves' the ability to play Halo even if the majority of the workers do not want to make it en masse.

Yet the capitalists could just as easily have not made Halo either. Big-name games get cancelled all the time, even though they may have a huge base of people wanting to play it.

A (smart) capitalist will not do something if the percieved cost is higher than the percieved gain. [/b]
Oh, I see now. Production will not be geared to satisft the needs and wants of the consumers in a communist community. Production will be geared to satisfy the needs and wants of the WORKERS in a given industry.

Now, kindly explain how that is more fair and than gearing production to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers in the communist community. Kindly explain how their needs are met when the needs of the producers are paramount.

[MrDoom]

Bartering can only work if possess have something the other person wants for the item you want.

In the context of computer software, that is hardly consequential with systems like BitTorrent and proportional-sharing P2P-networks.




If the capitalists stop producing "Halo" it is because comparitively few people wish to aquire it.
What remains unanswered is why would a communist/socialist/anarchist community continue to produce "Halo" in such circumstances.

True. I would imagine games and other such software would be produced in the same way that free software is produced right now; by independent groups/individuals in their free time, over the medium of download rather than CD. Individuals, of course, would be able to back something up on CD or share it to their friends on disk.


I am also wondering why such a community would demand of its members if they want to eat to grow their own grain, or to own a car to build it themselves.
Grain and cars are not going to be out of demand for a very long time.


Socialism, as has been tirelessly explained, is supposed to free people from "working to survive." Now we are told that under communism people will have to survive on their own (and please don't say you were talking only about computer games, UNLESS you are prepared to explain why computer games and software are exempt in a communist community).

It is simple. If you want something that no one else is producing or willing to produce, make it yourself. Unlike in capitalism, where if you demand something, a small Chinese sweatshop kid makes it for you.

[luztax]

My brother deserves to play halo because he cut two yards. Maybe even for the guys that made halo! :D

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:48 pm
My brother deserves to play halo because he cut two yards. Maybe even for the guys that made halo! :D
That's nothing compared to the work done by some kid in China to make your brother's high horse and silver platter.

There is no such thing as a free lunch; and the world does not revolve around the demands of someone who wants to play Halo.

[Herman]

There is no such thing as a free lunch; and the world does not revolve around the demands of someone who wants to play Halo.

By the way, I love your avatar. I think i'll get one of Jean-Luc Piccard.

[luztax]

But I dont live in china! :rolleyes:

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:38 pm
But I dont live in china! :rolleyes:
What does that matter? Out of sight, out of mind, right? Since the kid working in whatever Chinese sweatshop who makes all of your stuff is in another country, it doesn't matter what exploitation the kid goes through, does it?

So long as you get to play mediocre and overhyped FPS's on your comfy suburban throne.


By the way, I love your avatar. I think i'll get one of Jean-Luc Piccard.

Indeed. I was watching the end of Star Trek II when I noticed Spock's quote: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Well, besides Kirk's 'KHAAAAAAAAAN!!'

[luztax]

It is not my fault what happens in china. If the people there allow it then it is ok by me. It is not my fault that they dont have democracy. :rolleyes:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by MrDoom+March 26, 2007 09:54 am--> (MrDoom @ March 26, 2007 09:54 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 02:48 pm
My brother deserves to play halo because he cut two yards. Maybe even for the guys that made halo! :D
That's nothing compared to the work done by some kid in China to make your brother's high horse and silver platter.

There is no such thing as a free lunch; and the world does not revolve around the demands of someone who wants to play Halo. [/b]
Actually Mr. Doom, it does. Why socialists would seek to deny this is mysterious.

Socialism is supposed to provide people with its needs and wants. By sneering at people's needs and desires, how do you suppose they will be met???

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:47 am

Bartering can only work if possess have something the other person wants for the item you want.

In the context of computer software, that is hardly consequential with systems like BitTorrent and proportional-sharing P2P-networks.




If the capitalists stop producing "Halo" it is because comparitively few people wish to aquire it.
What remains unanswered is why would a communist/socialist/anarchist community continue to produce "Halo" in such circumstances.

True. I would imagine games and other such software would be produced in the same way that free software is produced right now; by independent groups/individuals in their free time, over the medium of download rather than CD. Individuals, of course, would be able to back something up on CD or share it to their friends on disk.


I am also wondering why such a community would demand of its members if they want to eat to grow their own grain, or to own a car to build it themselves.
Grain and cars are not going to be out of demand for a very long time.


Socialism, as has been tirelessly explained, is supposed to free people from "working to survive." Now we are told that under communism people will have to survive on their own (and please don't say you were talking only about computer games, UNLESS you are prepared to explain why computer games and software are exempt in a communist community).

It is simple. If you want something that no one else is producing or willing to produce, make it yourself. Unlike in capitalism, where if you demand something, a small Chinese sweatshop kid makes it for you.
It gets stranger and stranger...


The world does not revolve around exchanging of computer programs. The point remains: Bartering only works idf the other person has something you need.


Why would some Chinese kid, in a capitalist environment, be making items which nobody wants? Where is the profit in that for a capitalist?

Conversly, why would it make more sense for me to make it, partcicularly as the society is supposed to satisfy my needs and wants, then let someone else make it, thereby freeing me to concentrate on what I can produce for the community (and to maximise my free time)?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:52 pm
It is not my fault what happens in china. If the people there allow it then it is ok by me. It is not my fault that they dont have democracy. :rolleyes:
No one is arguing that it's your fucking fault, you frustrating little ponce. The "blame" insomuch as it exists lies at the feet of international capitalism. It's not your fault right now, but you and your ilk are complicit in the crimes of capitalism.

[luztax]

No i'm not.

[RNK]

Hm... he makes a good arguement.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:55 pm
No i'm not.
Can you even grasp the concept of complicity, oik?

[luztax]

Yes.

[Jazzratt]

luztax: Illustrate to me then, how exactly your actively supporting capitalism does not make you complicit in all the bad it creates?

[luztax]

Because if I stopped using capitalism then noting would change anyway. So how can I be complicit? I mean if I cant stop it how can I be the cause of it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:15 pm
Because if I stopped using capitalism then noting would change anyway.
That's why you oppose it. The more people that oppose capitalism the closer we are to revolution, the closer we are to eradicating the foul stain on humanity that it is.


So how can I be complicit? I mean if I cant stop it how can I be the cause of it? As I suspected you have no idea what complicity is. Complicity does not mean you caused it you little prat.

[Demogorgon]

You lot wouldn't recognise trolling if it danced naked in front of you

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:30 pm
But china and africa dont have capitalism they have communism and dictatorships. If they had capitalism and democracy they can work where they want and have food. I cant work yet because I am to young, but i am going to go to college to get a chemical engineering degree so i can get a good job so i can get wht i want.
China is so communist that George H. W. Bush established closer ties with Beijing following a certain 1989 massacre. :lol:

[luztax]

I have done a lot or reading here over the last few weeks and I must admit that I am not persuaded by the arguements for communism. I had hope that you could at least explain it in simple terms, terms that a 14 year old could understand. But you did not, at least not to my satisfaction.

I also must say that I am displeased at the level of violence advocated and the language used on this site. I don't see how you are ever going to win over even moderate individuals with such actions. Honey over vinegar and all that. You guys (and gals) are coming off as very immature and unprofessional. But I do admire your passion, it's that I just think it is misdirected towards unproductive ends.

Thanks for your time.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:32 pm
I have done a lot or reading here over the last few weeks and I must admit that I am not persuaded by the arguements for communism. I had hope that you could at least explain it in simple terms, terms that a 14 year old could understand. But you did not, at least not to my satisfaction.

I also must say that I am displeased at the level of violence advocated and the language used on this site. I don't see how you are ever going to win over even moderate individuals with such actions. Honey over vinegar and all that. You guys (and gals) are coming off as very immature and unprofessional. But I do admire your passion, it's that I just think it is misdirected towards unproductive ends.

Thanks for your time.
Maybe if you had displayed this kind of eloquent speech to begin with and throughout, we wouldn't have gotten so frustrated with you, but as it is, you came off as cocky and set in your ways. At every step of the way, you mocked us and wouldn't listen to our points. You're welcome here anytime, but next time try to actually listen to the other side instead of seeking to validate the opinions you already have.

[luxemburg89]

''terms that a 14 year old could understand. But you did not, at least not to my satisfaction.'' Perhaps you are not intelligent enough to understand.

"If they had capitalism and democracy they can work where they want and have food" HAHAHA yeah right!! everyone in America and Britain has job satisfation and knows nothing but complete happiness. You are an idiot if you believe that capitalism (where money is concentrated in the hands of the few) will provide a job spectrum where everyone can do exactly what they want.

[EwokUtopia]

Oh man, this reminds me of when I was a 14 year old radical anti-communist.

Funny how things change. :lol:

Kid, you'll grow and you'll learn. Just know what your talking about before you start talking.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:32 am
I have done a lot or reading here over the last few weeks and I must admit that I am not persuaded by the arguements for communism. I had hope that you could at least explain it in simple terms, terms that a 14 year old could understand. But you did not, at least not to my satisfaction.

I also must say that I am displeased at the level of violence advocated and the language used on this site. I don't see how you are ever going to win over even moderate individuals with such actions. Honey over vinegar and all that. You guys (and gals) are coming off as very immature and unprofessional. But I do admire your passion, it's that I just think it is misdirected towards unproductive ends.

Thanks for your time.
Then you must reading things that are not being written! I have seen NO arguments in favor of communism/socialism/anarchism. ALL that has been presented is variations of "capitalism bad, socialism/capitalism/anarchism good."
Really? how? Well nobody can say for sure, societies are different, nobody can see the future ect. ect.. Have faith in what we say (oh and by the way, socialism/communism/ is highly scientific).
Your instincts are good, kid. Stick with it.

[luztax]

Well, this is the gist of what I have garnered here:
Communists believe that they are not receiveing the full value of thier wage labor.
They believe that this is neither fair nor just.
Wage labor is the result of 'Capitalism'.
Communism would bring fairness and give them the full benefit of their labor.

Is that about it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:49 pm
Well, this is the gist of what I have garnered here:
Communists believe that they are not receiveing the full value of thier wage labor.
They believe that this is neither fair nor just.
Wage labor is the result of 'Capitalism'.
Communism would bring fairness and give them the full benefit of their labor.

Is that about it?
Essentially, yes.

EDIT: Now you're no longer pretending to be a mentally handicapped 14 year old could you stop using that fucking irritating red colour?

[luztax]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 pm

Essentially, yes.

EDIT: Now you're no longer pretending to be a mentally handicapped 14 year old could you stop using that fucking irritating red colour?
Thanks for the reply. Now I have a follow up comment and question. I assume Communists believe that communism and capitalism cannot work side by side. But what prevents the following in the USA:
Workers starting their own business where they share all the profit equally as part of a capitalist system.
Workers owning land where they can live off it and not interact with the capitalist system.

Jazzrat, I can stop using the irritating red color as easily as you could stop using that vulgar language.

[An archist]

Originally posted by luztax+--> (luztax)Workers starting their own business where they share all the profit equally as part of a capitalist system.[/b]

There are people who do this on a small scale, if you want to try it on a large scale you will get problems.
-You need a hell of a lot of money to start any kind of (large) factory, money wich is mostly in the hands of the people who own those plants and their shareholders.
-Since other companies save on wages and even move their facilities to places where they can save even more (thirld world countries) they can produce goods at a lower price.
-A lot of people (capitalists and right-wingers) would do everything to gt you out of business.
So no, communism and capitalism can't co-exist


luztax
workers owning land where they can live off it and not interact with the capitalist system.
Thet would be a commune, some exist, but you would be set back a lot in time, it's not a real solution, it's kinda running away from the world.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by luztax+March 28, 2007 02:18 pm--> (luztax @ March 28, 2007 02:18 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 pm

Essentially, yes.

EDIT: Now you're no longer pretending to be a mentally handicapped 14 year old could you stop using that fucking irritating red colour?
Thanks for the reply. Now I have a follow up comment and question. I assume Communists believe that communism and capitalism cannot work side by side. But what prevents the following in the USA:
Workers starting their own business where they share all the profit equally as part of a capitalist system.
Workers owning land where they can live off it and not interact with the capitalist system. [/b]
Nothing at all, but that wouldn't solve all the problems of capitalism, particularly the price system and market economics both of which are incredibly inefficient ways of ordering an economy, especially when compared with technocratic energy accounting.


Jazzrat, I can stop using the irritating red color as easily as you could stop using that vulgar language. Fairly easily then. I recommend you do so.

[luztax]

There are people who do this on a small scale, if you want to try it on a large scale you will get problems.
............
So no, communism and capitalism can't co-exist

Well actually, according to you, yes it can. Just not on a large scale. But why would would want to produce on a large scale anyway?



Thet would be a commune, some exist, but you would be set back a lot in time, it's not a real solution, it's kinda running away from the world.

Well, I thought that's the point of what Communists want; to get away from the capitalist world.

[luztax]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:53 pm
Nothing at all, but that wouldn't solve all the problems of capitalism, particularly the price system and market economics both of which are incredibly inefficient ways of ordering an economy, especially when compared with technocratic energy accounting.

I understand that you disagree with the methods on modern capitalism. But what does its effect on others, whether good or bad, matter to you? I thought the point of an individual choosing communism is that it was in that individual worker's self interest.

Note: red is gone. ;)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by luztax+March 28, 2007 03:07 pm--> (luztax @ March 28, 2007 03:07 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 02:53 pm
Nothing at all, but that wouldn't solve all the problems of capitalism, particularly the price system and market economics both of which are incredibly inefficient ways of ordering an economy, especially when compared with technocratic energy accounting.

I understand that you disagree with the methods on modern capitalism. But what does its effect on others, whether good or bad, matter to you? I thought the point of an individual choosing communism is that it was in that individual worker's self interest.

Note: red is gone. ;) [/b]
Your reply rather assumes that communism is an individual movement, it isn't and nor is it meant to be. It is the "next step" from capitalism and is designed to act on the class interests of the proletariat, unlike capitalism which acts in the class interest of the bourgeoisie. Naturally it's effects on others matter to me, as an anthropocentric transhumanist my primary concern is the well being of humanity, as it is with leftists of all kinds. Therefore because capitalisms methods are detrimental to the vast majority of people they should be countered and because capitalist methodology has led to the degradation of the biosphere they must be stopped quickly.

Well done on not typing in the red by the way.

[luztax]

I understand that communism, as it is now, is a movement with the goal of bettering the majority, of which are primarily wage laborers. I disagree that it is the best solution to a wage laborer's problem of inequity.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:51 pm
I understand that communism, as it is now, is a movement with the goal of bettering the majority, of which are primarily wage laborers. I disagree that it is the best solution to a wage laborer's problem of inequity.
And the solution you suggest?

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:51 pm
I understand that communism, as it is now, is a movement with the goal of bettering the majority, of which are primarily wage laborers. I disagree that it is the best solution to a wage laborer's problem of inequity.
Your right. Anarchism is better.

[RNK]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+March 28, 2007 06:35 pm--> (EwokUtopia @ March 28, 2007 06:35 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 03:51 pm
I understand that communism, as it is now, is a movement with the goal of bettering the majority, of which are primarily wage laborers. I disagree that it is the best solution to a wage laborer's problem of inequity.
Your right. Anarchism is better. [/b]
Lol

Ass

Luz, Communism isn't just about bettering the lives of wage labourers. It has evolved since the beginning to become a much broader progressive movement that not only fights for the rights of people like you and me to own a proper share of the value we make, but also fights against all forms of social oppression (racism, discrimination), against imperialism and war-mongering, and against environmental damage, and hunger, famine, etc. It doesn't simply offer to "better the lives of wage labourers". It offers to better the lives of everyone, by addressing and correcting all of the issues that lead to suffering without concern for "money".

[wtfm8lol]

Luz, Communism isn't just about bettering the lives of wage labourers. It has evolved since the beginning to become a much broader progressive movement that not only fights for the rights of people like you and me to own a proper share of the value we make, but also fights against all forms of social oppression (racism, discrimination), against imperialism and war-mongering, and against environmental damage, and hunger, famine, etc. It doesn't simply offer to "better the lives of wage labourers". It offers to better the lives of everyone, by addressing and correcting all of the issues that lead to suffering without concern for "money".

basically, it promises to be a magical cure-all. luckily most people aren't convinced.

[luxemburg89]

...because twats like you indoctrinate them to believe that it won't work. People are only not convinced because they're lied to. The opponents of socialism are either the products or fascists - take out the capitalist system and eventually the opponents of socialism will wilt - you are left only with fascists - who are the elite of the capitalist system; they are ideologically unopposed and so by destroying capitalism there is a chance we will destroy elements of fascism too.

[Herman]

basically, it promises to be a magical cure-all. luckily most people aren't convinced.

"The abolition of the antithesis between town and country is no more and no less utopian than the abolition of the antithesis between capitalists and wageworkers."

Lenin, Collected Works, 45 Volumes, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1963-1970

"We are not among those communists who believe that a community in goods can be established, as if by magic, on the morrow of victory..."

Marx and Engels, "Communist Journal," September, 1847

"Many intellectuals who have read Marx do not understand that freedom to trade is a return to capitalism."

Lenin, Collected Works, 45 Volumes, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1963-1970

"We are no quack-mongers advocating a system that shall be a cure-all."

Marx and Engels, "Communist Journal," September, 1847

"The bourgeoisie want nothing better than to answer the people's queries about the scandalous profits of the war supplies deliverers, and about economic dislocation, with 'learned' arguments about the 'utopian' character of socialism."

Lenin, Collected Works, 45 Volumes, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1963-1970

"...a perfect society, a perfect 'state,' are things which can only exist in imagination."

Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy , Moscow, Progress Publishers

[Raúl Duke]

But the capitalists did make halo even tho only a few people wanted it they made enough money to make it. Capitalism is better.

The thing is not just of whether the majority wanted it (however, that idea would be the main guiding force of the communist economy)

Lets say thet the makers of halo lived in a communist society. They decided that they have a great idea of a video game. The rest of the collective (worker-run workplace) decide not to make the game, because not so many people desire it.

The people who wanted to make halo can leave the collective that doesn't want to make halo, form their own collective, and than make halo.

problem solved, you and your bro have halo.


But china and africa dont have capitalism they have communism and dictatorships. If they had capitalism and democracy they can work where they want and have food. I cant work yet because I am to young, but i am going to go to college to get a chemical engineering degree so i can get a good job so i can get wht i want.

China isn't communist, nor socialist (communist state doesn't exist, a communist society does. reason being that communism is state-less). SO China is basically a capitalist dictatorship. In Africa there are some dictatorships and some democracy, yet they all have problems because of capitalism and their role in international capitalism: to be cheap labor/raw materials to exploit.

Capitalism doesn't mean you always have the neccesary food or the job you want. Look at the poor in the world, whether the US, Africa, etc.

About the last part, you are a "lucky one" because you might have the chance to work in a good job. But capitalism is like a lottery, for every winners (of different degree) there would be a lot of losers. (and don't claim that this winner-loser thing is based on mertritocracy)


I have done a lot or reading here over the last few weeks and I must admit that I am not persuaded by the arguements for communism.

Than read up on anarchism instead :P

An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931)


Workers starting their own business where they share all the profit equally as part of a capitalist system.

In socialism worker's can start their own coopertative and get the full value of their labor.

In communism, the product of their labor would be distributed by "From according to each abillities. to each one's needs (and wants if the economy allows it)"

Still, in both; the workers will run their own co-ops.

To get an idea:
Co-ops (under capitalism I suppose, so it would be slightly diiferent under socialism and/or communism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative)

Workplace democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy)

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:54 am

basically, it promises to be a magical cure-all. luckily most people aren't convinced.

"The abolition of the antithesis between town and country is no more and no less utopian than the abolition of the antithesis between capitalists and wageworkers."

Lenin, Collected Works, 45 Volumes, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1963-1970

"We are not among those communists who believe that a community in goods can be established, as if by magic, on the morrow of victory..."

Marx and Engels, "Communist Journal," September, 1847

"Many intellectuals who have read Marx do not understand that freedom to trade is a return to capitalism."

Lenin, Collected Works, 45 Volumes, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1963-1970

"We are no quack-mongers advocating a system that shall be a cure-all."

Marx and Engels, "Communist Journal," September, 1847

"The bourgeoisie want nothing better than to answer the people's queries about the scandalous profits of the war supplies deliverers, and about economic dislocation, with 'learned' arguments about the 'utopian' character of socialism."

Lenin, Collected Works, 45 Volumes, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1963-1970

"...a perfect society, a perfect 'state,' are things which can only exist in imagination."

Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy , Moscow, Progress Publishers
you realize that citing works by no one who lived past the year 1924 in a discussion about current communist theory as opposed to early communist theory to refute a claim made about current communist theory and not about early communist theory is slightly stupid, do you not?


The people who wanted to make halo can leave the collective that doesn't want to make halo, form their own collective, and than make halo.

how fucking feasible.

[Raúl Duke]

it is isnt it :P ;)

if not..have any better solutions? (than again...asking you that would be dumb; you'll just say "capitalism of course")

than again....I don't think luztak is coming back; so it wouldn't matter anymore.

[wtfm8lol]

if not..have any better solutions? (than again...asking you that would be dumb; you'll just say "capitalism of course")

sure. my solution is for communities come together, agree that the use of their force will be entirely used to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the members of their communities and then, for the sake of efficiency in the barter system, to set up a form of currency for measuring how much individuals are willing to giving up in exchange for the goods made by or owned by others.

[dbzfanl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:13 pm

if not..have any better solutions? (than again...asking you that would be dumb; you'll just say "capitalism of course")

sure. my solution is for communities come together, agree that the use of their force will be entirely used to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the members of their communities and then, for the sake of efficiency in the barter system, to set up a form of currency for measuring how much individuals are willing to giving up in exchange for the goods made by or owned by others.
So you're idealizing Capitalism now?

[Herman]

you realize that citing works by no one who lived past the year 1924 in a discussion about current communist theory as opposed to early communist theory to refute a claim made about current communist theory and not about early communist theory is slightly stupid, do you not?

Current communist theory is based on early communist theory, fool.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.
You have seriously misinterpreted the meaning of communism (and you've also spelt it wrong :P)

Communism means money will not matter. You won't need to buy stuff because it will be provided for you. No one will tell you how to dress, that's a ridiculous notion. That sounds more like fascism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+March 31, 2007 06:55 am--> (Tommy-K @ March 31, 2007 06:55 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to.
You have seriously misinterpreted the meaning of communism (and you've also spelt it wrong :P)

Communism means money will not matter. You won't need to buy stuff because it will be provided for you. No one will tell you how to dress, that's a ridiculous notion. That sounds more like fascism. [/b]
Actually, the communist governments of China and Albania did indeed tell the people how to dress. I am not aware of any fascist state doing so.

[Pilar]

Well, there really are NO communists in the world today to speak of. So no one's really chosen communism at least not in their actions.

Living in a cappie world makes "acting" like a commie nearly absurd. The most active communists in Europe can't BE communists in 2007. They pay their cell phone bill or the service gets turned off. If they want to have a demonstration, they pay money for things. When they buy their clothes, they look for the best price and use the competition set up by capitalism.

For my money (look, cappie joke), there are no real commies around in PRACTICE.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Nazi Germany had a forced dress code for the jews.

And a "communist government" cannot exist.

-Alex

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:05 pm
Well, there really are NO communists in the world today to speak of. So no one's really chosen communism at least not in their actions.

Living in a cappie world makes "acting" like a commie nearly absurd. The most active communists in Europe can't BE communists in 2007. They pay their cell phone bill or the service gets turned off. If they want to have a demonstration, they pay money for things. When they buy their clothes, they look for the best price and use the competition set up by capitalism.

For my money (look, cappie joke), there are no real commies around in PRACTICE.
I agree. Even supposed 'Communist' states in the past have never been truly Communist.

Even for Communists today, they have to live like a capitalist in order to survive (like you say, paying phone bills and buying clothes and food). It is virtually impossible to live like a true Communist. I suppose you would have to grow your own food, make your own clothes and somehow find somewhere to live on public land without paying for it.

Ok, when I said virtually impossible, I've now realised after my description that it would in fact be totally impossible. We have to conform to the capitalist society in order to survive. And if we survive we can carry on getting active and try to make a beneficial change to society. It may be infuriating to have to conform to horrific capitalist norms, but it's what we have to do for the time being. Not through choice, I hasten to add. It's a crying shame that this is what we have to do, but there really is no other way if we want to remain active.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:06 am
Nazi Germany had a forced dress code for the jews.

And a "communist government" cannot exist.

-Alex
Okay. Star of David. Still down 2-1.

I know there can never be a 'communist government." just like there is no money in a communist community, just like all needs are met in a communist community, ect ect ect :o

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Suadi Arabia forces a dress code for women in public.

[An archist]

...as did the taliban in Afghanistan

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Iran's theocracy is basically facist, and they enforce the veil I believe.


I know there can never be a 'communist government." just like there is no money in a communist community, just like all needs are met in a communist community, ect ect ect

All needs aren't by definition met, we just think that they will be. By definition there can't be a government, so let's not talk as if there can be, okay? :)

-Alex

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+March 31, 2007 11:55 am--> (Tommy-K @ March 31, 2007 11:55 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I mean, I like having money and buying stuff. I dont like my parents telling me how i have to dress all the time to. [/b]
Haha, when I was 13, I hated communism because I thought that abolition of private property meant that those evil pinko's were going to take away my Super Nintendo.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:28 am
Iran's theocracy is basically facist, and they enforce the veil I believe.

Irans government isnt too particularly strong, and it is highly unpopular with its people. They do not force the Hijab, though in society, if a woman doesnt wear a hijab, she runs the risk of being hounded because not wearing it can come across as "sluttish" to alot of simple minded people. The theocracy in Iran will not last 10 years, if left alone. If attacked, it may either fall to a more blatantly US puppet fascist state, or, Iran might win against America, and the Theocracy would be given more power.

At any rate, I think my point is clear, its best to just leave Iran alone and let it work its own shit out. America has disturbed enough shit for one century already.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:13 am

if not..have any better solutions? (than again...asking you that would be dumb; you'll just say "capitalism of course")

sure. my solution is for communities come together, agree that the use of their force will be entirely used to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the members of their communities and then, for the sake of efficiency in the barter system, to set up a form of currency for measuring how much individuals are willing to giving up in exchange for the goods made by or owned by others.
Cool. Oh wait... how are they going to decide who owns what?

In real history, private property was established according to the principle "he with the biggest club gets the most land".

[pusher robot]

In real history, private property was established according to the principle "he with the biggest club gets the most land".

Of course; such is the state of nature, which, absent the presence of a controlling legal authority, even man is ruled by.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:32 pm
In real history, private property was established according to the principle "he with the biggest club gets the most land".

Of course; such is the state of nature, which, absent the presence of a controlling legal authority, even man is ruled by.
Which is how private property ownership developed...and is ironically how it will be destroyed.

The masses have the biggest club, and it is only a matter of time until they use it.