Why I oppose communism and religion [Archive]

View Full Version : Why I oppose communism and religion

Individuality

9th February 2008, 16:20

I decided to post in here right away, since I'll just be restricted.

Too steal a page from Ayn Rand(an atheist)... though communism and religion are "enemies", they both share a similar goal of destroying the individual. One wants the individual to surrender to a pixie in the sky, the other wants the individual to surrender to the will of society.

I think Frank Zappa(an atheist) said it the best...

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -- to put it mildly -- a fatal design flaw.
From the time Mr. Developing Nation was forced to read The Little Red Book in exchange for a blob of rice, till the time he figured out that waiting in line for a loaf of pumpernickel was boring as fuck, took about three generations....
Decades of indoctrination, manipulation, censorship and KGB excursions haven't altered this fact: People want a piece of their own little Something-or-Other, and, if they don't get it, have a tendency to initiate counterrevolution.
-- Frank Zappa

I couldn't imagine living under a belief system that states, I must surrender to God or Society. That I must give up my dreams and do as my I'm told. Religion and Communism scare me since they're so damn similar.

Jazzratt

9th February 2008, 16:41

I decided to post in here right away, since I'll just be restricted.

Good good.

Too steal a page from Ayn Rand(an atheist)...

The only time I would imagine anyone take a page from that spectacularly thick **** is if they were out of toilet paper.

though communism and religion are "enemies", they both share a similar goal of destroying the individual.

Don't lie, it's stupid & unbecoming. Simply stating "Communism destroys the individual" without recourse to anything like, say, proof is just fucking stupid.

One wants the individual to surrender to a pixie in the sky, the other wants the individual to surrender to the will of society.

Thank you for that in depth analysis. Any more gems?

I think Frank Zappa(an atheist) said it the best...

Stop putting "(an atheist)" next to people's names, it doesn't give them any more credibility.

I couldn't imagine living under a belief system that states, I must surrender to God or Society.

Surrender what? I don't think you understand communism, especially as you seem to have this view that it's a load of people in grey overalls being forced to work for The Greater Good. Fuck knows where you got that impression from, though and I'd suggest you Read the FAQ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/frequently-asked-questions-t65239/index.html)or fuck off.

That I must give up my dreams and do as my I'm told. Religion and Communism scare me since they're so damn similar.

Don't look now but I think there's a Communist hiding under your bed waiting to eat your individuality.

Robespierre2.0

9th February 2008, 16:50

First of all, communism isn't about 'annihilating the individual'. It's about realizing that nobody can truly be self-reliant in a society of producers and consumers, and therefore structuring society in the most fair and egalitarian way possible. People are allowed to be individuals, but individualism is not allowed when it is at the expense of others, such as in capitalist society.

Everyone is still allowed to possess objects for personal use under socialism. What we aim to eliminate is private property. Private property creates a system in which a minority of people can be rewarded for the work of the majority. If you eliminate private property, people will be rewarded for their work, and their work alone. I think anyone who considers themselves an individualist would agree that people have a right to the fruits of their labor.

I really oversimplified it there, but read about the extraction of surplus value if you want the whole spiel. Needless to say, when you receive your paycheck, you're being paid for probably less than half the work you've done. Your boss is using that extra money to buy a third car, which he's probably going to keep in his garage and never use. Hurray capitalism!

Frank Zappa rocks, though, no matter how wrong his political beliefs were.

ÑóẊîöŉ

9th February 2008, 16:54

Too steal a page from Ayn Rand(an atheist)... though communism and religion are "enemies", they both share a similar goal of destroying the individual. One wants the individual to surrender to a pixie in the sky, the other wants the individual to surrender to the will of society.Strawman. Communist theory states that society creates history, not that individuals must surrender to the "will of society" - whatever that means, since society is made up of individuals with a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions.

I think Frank Zappa(an atheist) said it the best...

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -- to put it mildly -- a fatal design flaw.
From the time Mr. Developing Nation was forced to read The Little Red Book in exchange for a blob of rice, till the time he figured out that waiting in line for a loaf of pumpernickel was boring as fuck, took about three generations....
Decades of indoctrination, manipulation, censorship and KGB excursions haven't altered this fact: People want a piece of their own little Something-or-Other, and, if they don't get it, have a tendency to initiate counterrevolution.
-- Frank Zappa
This whole part of your post is a fallacious appeal to authority. Frank Zappa may be a good musician, but he is certainly not someone anybody should look to for political, economic or social theory.

I couldn't imagine living under a belief system that states, I must surrender to God or Society. That I must give up my dreams and do as my I'm told. Religion and Communism scare me since they're so damn similar.They are not similar. Religion requires you to believe in the supernatural, but communism doesn't.

Demogorgon

9th February 2008, 17:11

Words simp,y fail when it comes to talking about how much I despise Ayn Rand.

Calling her an atheist is spurious at best anyway. She didn't advocate a theistic God, but her movement sure as hell was a religious cult.

mikelepore

9th February 2008, 17:20

though communism and religion are "enemies", they both share a similar goal of destroying the individual. One wants the individual to surrender to a pixie in the sky, the other wants the individual to surrender to the will of society

"In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich to promote the existence of the laborer. In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois 'abolition of individuality and freedom'!" ------- from the Communist Manifesto, 1848

Dean

9th February 2008, 17:31

A-S M.

9th February 2008, 17:35

weird how these people come here, talk a bunch of crap, get the answers they don't like and then they simply don't reply... *cough moron cough*

Dean

9th February 2008, 17:39

weird how these people come here, talk a bunch of crap, get the answers they don't like and then they simply don't reply... *cough moron cough*

To be fair, its only been 80 minutes. But I still don't expect much :p

A-S M.

9th February 2008, 17:56

To be fair, its only been 80 minutes. But I still don't expect much :p

yea you're right, I just don't have a life :blushing:

Zurdito

9th February 2008, 18:00

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has -- to put it mildly -- a fatal design flaw.

A system based on the values of a 3 year old has a fatal design flaw. Imagine if the world were run by people who still piss the bed and went around scratching and biting and throwing tantrums. Oh, wait...

http://www.madcowprod.com/bushfellas.jpg

Individuality

9th February 2008, 18:55

[quote]Good good.Thanks, I still haven't been set to restricted yet though.

The only time I would imagine anyone take a page from that spectacularly thick **** is if they were out of toilet paper.Very elegant.

Don't lie, it's stupid & unbecoming. Simply stating "Communism destroys the individual" without recourse to anything like, say, proof is just fucking stupid.Maybe I'm confused about communism. I was under the impression that I had to conform to the needs of society. I'm not really sure how I could do my own thing, if my job is to provide for need.

Thank you for that in depth analysis. Any more gems?They all pretty much have the same meaning.

Stop putting "(an atheist)" next to people's names, it doesn't give them any more credibility.I think it does. I think listening to people that have mental delusions like Pat Robertson is a waste of time. At least these people don't believe in flying pixies with magic pixies laws that must be obeyed.

Surrender what? I don't think you understand communism, especially as you seem to have this view that it's a load of people in grey overalls being forced to work for The Greater Good. Fuck knows where you got that impression from, though and I'd suggest you Read the or fuck off.I guess I must be confused. I was under the impression that if I didn't want to provide for the need of others that I would be forced too. How else would it work?

Don't look now but I think there's a Communist hiding under your bed waiting to eat your individuality.There are none under my bed, but there are plenty here.

Thank you for your interesting post. I really enjoyed the condescension.

Individuality

9th February 2008, 19:13

People are allowed to be individuals, but individualism is not allowed when it is at the expense of others, such as in capitalist society.Who gets to determine that I'm an expense to them? Is it measurable? I fully support homosexuality, but what if someone feels that seeing it in public is bankrupting their children's morality. Would that be an expense?

If you eliminate private property, people will be rewarded for their work, and their work alone.Work or Value? I think most workplaces function on the basis of work. Like McDonalds will pay you $8/hr no matter if you flip 10 burgers or 100 burgers. The only people that wouldn't fit into that would be commission workers who would make based on value.

I think anyone who considers themselves an individualist would agree that people have a right to the fruits of their labor.I agree 100%. I deserve 100% the fruits of my labor. No one else deserves a penny of it.

Your boss is using that extra money to buy a third carWhat if the boss is $5million in debt? Do I deserve my share of debt so my boss doesn't have any?

which he's probably going to keep in his garage and never use. Hurray capitalism!I guess this boss doesn't really have the right to spend the fruits of his labor on a car?

Communist theory states that society creates history, not that individuals must surrender to the "will of society" - whatever that means, since society is made up of individuals with a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions.I can only be an individual in a way that society deems I'm allowed. It's not that I get to choose what I am allowed to do with my life, it's decided by what the needs of society are.

This whole part of your post is a fallacious appeal to authority. Frank Zappa may be a good musician, but he is certainly not someone anybody should look to for political, economic or social theory.Oh so, do I need a society approved list of people that I'm allowed to listen too. What makes your opinion more important than his?

They are not similar. Religion requires you to believe in the supernatural, but communism doesn't.Religion and Communism require you to surrender your individuality.

Calling her an atheist is spurious at best anyway. She didn't advocate a theistic God, but her movement sure as hell was a religious cult.Her belief was simple. The Individual is great. Don't waste your life. Live your dreams. I do agree the nutjob that is the head of the Ayn Rand Institute is pretty fucked up.

Communism is a striving for the fullest actuation of the will of man, which is the highest form of individualism there is.Communism is striving for society, not the individual.

Individualism is not about seperation; you cannot vouch for the individua and ingnore his place in society, his social nature. That is just competition, and there is nothing special about that, certainly nothing positive.
I never said anything about separation. I said I want to make my own choices. I don't need your permission do I?

People like yo uscare me because you blindly surrender to a god of economic power, and in the same breath talk of freedom.I surrender to myself. I admit it. I believe I own myself. I believe in freedom, and freedom is that of choice. What can I say, I'm a sucker for freedom.

There is no place for freedom in capitalism.I guess your version of freedom is the government telling me where to shop, right?

weird how these people come here, talk a bunch of crap, get the answers they don't like and then they simply don't replyI didn't realize I had to dedicate every waking moment to this forum. Sometimes I choose to do other things.

A system based on the values of a 3 year old has a fatal design flaw. Imagine if the world were run by people who still piss the bed and went around scratching and biting and throwing tantrums. Oh, wait...It's not about values, it's about instinct.

Thanks for the Bush picture. I hate Bush, I didn't vote for him. and I wish he and his minions would be impeached.

Coggeh

9th February 2008, 19:15

[quote]Thanks, I still haven't been set to restricted yet though.

Very elegant.

Maybe I'm confused about communism. I was under the impression that I had to conform to the needs of society. I'm not really sure how I could do my own thing, if my job is to provide for need.

They all pretty much have the same meaning.

I think it does. I think listening to people that have mental delusions like Pat Robertson is a waste of time. At least these people don't believe in flying pixies with magic pixies laws that must be obeyed.

I guess I must be confused. I was under the impression that if I didn't want to provide for the need of others that I would be forced too. How else would it work?

There are none under my bed, but there are plenty here.

Thank you for your interesting post. I really enjoyed the condescension.
How is your individuality protected or expressed in capitalism and not in communism , do you think its being an individual to decide what mainstream manufactured music you like or what BS fashion to follow ? "Oh i get a choice in capitalism im free" theirs nothing individualistic about the system we have

Individuality

9th February 2008, 19:21

How is your individuality protected or expressed in capitalism and not in communism
Choice, my friend. Choice.

do you think its being an individual to decide what mainstream manufactured music you like or what BS fashion to follow ?
I'm not into manufactured music, but I think people can make their own choice. Listen to what you like, that's individualism.

"Oh i get a choice in capitalism im free" theirs nothing individualistic about the system we have
Well, today it's pretty regulated and taxes are too high, but in the end, it's based completely on individuals. I can choose what I do. I can goto Temple, I can attend a rave, I can sit on the toilet all day jacking off to porn magazines, I can go make some jello and rub it all over my body, I can go down to a casino and do some gambling.

The only real problem with capitalism is that I as an individual have too many choices.

Zurdito

9th February 2008, 19:22

It's not about values, it's about instinct.

Thanks for the Bush picture. I hate Bush, I didn't vote for him. and I wish he and his minions would be impeached.

But he's only following his instinct and making money for himself and his friends. By your logic, why shouldn't he?

Coggeh

9th February 2008, 19:28

Comrade Rage

9th February 2008, 19:49

This thread has gotta be the worst critique of communism/ other left thought that I've ever read.

EPIC
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/fail-24.jpg

Individuality

9th February 2008, 20:04

But he's only following his instinct and making money for himself and his friends. By your logic, why shouldn't he?
I wouldn't oppose it in a free market place. Like he can run all the oil companies and baseball teams into the ground for all I care. The fact is that I'm forced to pay taxes and play by his rules. That is the opposite of individualism.

you have to pay the billsSure do. I pay for what I use.

medical fees for your sick kidsNah, I don't think I should have too. I don't have any kids and have no plans on having any. I don't think I should be held liable for morons that had children they couldn't afford. With all the birth control we have today, this shouldn't happen. In the end you can always abort the little bastard.

because the private insurer doesn't deem the expenses necessary,I find that funny. Because you seem to think it's other people's job to bail out morons. Like why don't you sell your computer, since it obviously isn't a necessity of life and buy those children some health care.

See this is where individuality gets smashed by you guys. You determine that people owe others. It's not like the insurance companies got into bed with this woman and got her pregnant.

so you have to work extra hours or maybe even another job , for terrible wages and your afraid to unionize because you need a job so bad .Condoms are much cheaper. Abortions are much cheaper too than raising a child. Abort'em and everything is fine.

You have this idea in your head where everyone is an entrepreneur and the free liberal market balances out to everyones gain . No. I have in my head that I own myself and each and everyone else out there owns themselves. That we as individuals are allowed to make our own choices with regards to our life. If we make a stupid choice(like getting a girl pregnant when you work at McDonalds), that you should have to live with that mistake, because no other individual made that choice and/or owes that person for it.

Your dream society is alot more crazy than ours my friend .Freedom is a crazy idea, I know.

This thread has gotta be the worst critique of communism/ other left thought that I've ever read.Thank you for contributing your 2 cents. I really appreciate it.

Comrade Rage

9th February 2008, 20:14

Thank you for contributing your 2 cents. I really appreciate it.Always glad to help.:)

Zurdito

9th February 2008, 20:18

I wouldn't oppose it in a free market place. Like he can run all the oil companies and baseball teams into the ground for all I care. The fact is that I'm forced to pay taxes and play by his rules. That is the opposite of individualism.

ummm, if a group of corporations are rich and powerful enough to fund a state apparatus to make you do what they want or else they send their hired security (police and army) to put you back in line, why shouldn't they? They're just "giving in to themselves" as you put it, and satisfying their material desires by utilising their super wealth to protect their property and create monopolies.

What's wrong with that? It's just the law of the jungle, basic human instinct like you say. The capitalist class got rich enough to set up states to protect their monopolies, so why shouldn't they use their wealth to kill off competition?

Quit whinin', commie.

:D

Coggeh

9th February 2008, 20:22

I wouldn't oppose it in a free market place. Like he can run all the oil companies and baseball teams into the ground for all I care. The fact is that I'm forced to pay taxes and play by his rules. That is the opposite of individualism.

Sure do. I pay for what I use.

Nah, I don't think I should have too. I don't have any kids and have no plans on having any. I don't think I should be held liable for morons that had children they couldn't afford. With all the birth control we have today, this shouldn't happen. In the end you can always abort the little bastard.

I find that funny. Because you seem to think it's other people's job to bail out morons. Like why don't you sell your computer, since it obviously isn't a necessity of life and buy those children some health care.

See this is where individuality gets smashed by you guys. You determine that people owe others. It's not like the insurance companies got into bed with this woman and got her pregnant.

Condoms are much cheaper. Abortions are much cheaper too than raising a child. Abort'em and everything is fine.

No. I have in my head that I own myself and each and everyone else out there owns themselves. That we as individuals are allowed to make our own choices with regards to our life. If we make a stupid choice(like getting a girl pregnant when you work at McDonalds), that you should have to live with that mistake, because no other individual made that choice and/or owes that person for it.

Freedom is a crazy idea, I know.

Thank you for contributing your 2 cents. I really appreciate it.
So your saying abortions are for the poor ? I'm glad you support the idea of it but financial difficultly shouldn't being an issue when deciding to have an abortion , their should be free childcare , complete free health care , a longer maternity leave etc .

Abortions should be free , and condoms should be free also .

I'm sure people are going to come along( if they can be bothered) and "enlighten you" but frankly your logic is so idiotic that im going to stop wasting my time

Tower of Bebel

9th February 2008, 20:38

Choice, my friend. Choice.

I'm not into manufactured music, but I think people can make their own choice. Listen to what you like, that's individualism.

Well, today it's pretty regulated and taxes are too high, but in the end, it's based completely on individuals. I can choose what I do. I can goto Temple, I can attend a rave, I can sit on the toilet all day jacking off to porn magazines, I can go make some jello and rub it all over my body, I can go down to a casino and do some gambling.

The only real problem with capitalism is that I as an individual have [to] [make] many choices.

Oh my God! You don't only have choice under capitalism. You don't have choice in any other type of society like feudalism or communism?

Choice and individualtiy is such an obsolete criteria.
...

You cannot jack off to porn magazines all day on a toilet when you have to work. You have to work. You don't choose to work, you have to (or do you want to sleep under a bridge?).

Btw, you cannot chose everything you want, you cannot even make the best choice. Even your individuality doesn't save you from obligations, obstructions, ect.

...

In my country 800.000 (out of 5 million) people voted (e.g. they had a choise) in June 2007 for a very populist minister to become prime-minister of a new governemt which had to end the reign of both social-democrats and liberals. Today, february 2008, there is still no official government. This person with his 800.000 votes now works for a provisional government under the leadership of the former prime-minister, his biggest rival during the elections. Though almost one fifth of the population wanted him to become prime-minister, the country still doesn't have the government they voted for.

People in Kenya come back to the villages they had to leave after riots broke out. They see their homes back... in ashes. Yet, they prefered (e.g. they had a choise) peace, and voted for the opposition in order to end the corrupt rule of the previous government. The opposition didn't win according to the official result, yet everyone knows they had won.

The government made an important decission (choice) several years ago. They decided to let people worker harder, work longer, for the same salary or wage. The workers though made another choice when they elected these ministers 2 years before that. They voted for a social program, not this kind of exploitation.

Several workers got fired, even after years of excellent evaluations, because they didn't want to lose their jobs (choice). The boss wants (choice) to rebuild his factory in China apparently.

A worker on an island in the Pacific wants to become rich (choice!), but apparently he can't because he doesn't earn enough money (woops!!). he would like to have another job (choice!!!) so he could become rich, yet he needs proper education to get to the well payed jobs. Education he cannot affort (woops!!!!).

...

Yes, we can make choices, even tomorrow, and yes we are individuals; yet nor our individualtiy nor our choices make this world like paradise. You should read the FAQ, you should try to develop some politics, history and other stuff (maybe marxism?) instead of using obsolete propaganda or phrases that are easy to make.

Zurdito

9th February 2008, 20:43

The government made an important decission (choice) several years ago. They decided to let people worker harder, work longer, for the same salary or wage. The workers though made another choice when they elected these ministers 2 years before that. They voted for a social program, not this kind of exploitation.

Several workers got fired, even after years of excellent evaluations, because they didn't want to lose their jobs (choice). The boss wants (choice) to rebuild his factory in China apparently.

A worker on an island in the Pacific wants to become rich (choice!), but apparently he can't because he doesn't earn enough money (woops!!). he would like to have another job (choice!!!) so he could become rich, yet he needs proper education to get to the well payed jobs. Education he cannot affort (woops!!!!).

;) this part was brilliant.

could someone who has ever lived in the real world be a libertarian? I'm yet to meet one.

Individuality

9th February 2008, 20:44

ummm, if a group of corporations are rich and powerful enough to fund a state apparatus to make you do what they want
That's awfully expensive and would eat away at profits. I doubt they'd want to goto war with their consumers and lose their profits. RIght?

else they send their hired security (police and army) to put you back in line, why shouldn't they?
Umm, I guess in any society megalomaniacs will exist. It's just way to expensive to buy an army, equip an army and goto war with people.

Anyway, in a free society people are free to own(emphasis on own) weapons. If the easiest way to make profit is through spending their profits on war, they probably wouldn't last long.

What's wrong with that? It's just the law of the jungle, basic human instinct like you say.
I support individualism. I don't support people controlling others. I don't really think it's a law or instinct that people will behave in such a way. Most people crave peace and consistency. You know, the comfort zone.

The capitalist class got rich enough to set up states to protect their monopolies, so why shouldn't they use their wealth to kill off competition?
It's too expensive.

I'm not sure why you're trying to give these hypothetical scenarios. Do they some how prove anything. I believe in freedom of choice regardless of how others may act with their individuality. Megalomaniacs exist both in free markets and communism, so what's your point? That some people would do bad things. I hate to break it to you, but that will always happen.

So your saying abortions are for the poor ?
Nope, I'm saying choice is for everyone.

I'm glad you support the idea of it but financial difficultly shouldn't being an issue when deciding to have an abortion
I guess we disagree than.

their should be free childcare , complete free health care , a longer maternity leave etc .
I don't.

Abortions should be free , and condoms should be free also .
I disagree. Abortions cost money. Someone has to do work to abort a fetus. Same thing for condoms.

I'm sure people are going to come along( if they can be bothered) and "enlighten you"
Enlighten me with their... conjecture?

but frankly your logic is so idiotic that im going to stop wasting my time
Thanks for stopping by. Cheers!

Individuality

9th February 2008, 20:51

Oh my God! You don't only have choice under capitalism.
Individual choice? No.

You don't have choice in any other type of society like feudalism or communism?
You have less choice and in communism, it has to be choice approved by society.

Choice and individualtiy is such an obsolete criteria.
There's no individuality without choice.

You cannot jack off to porn magazines all day on a toilet when you have to work.
You mean provide value to society?

You have to work.
You make work sound like a bad thing. I can do any thing I want that provides value to someone else.

Btw, you cannot chose everything you want,
That's limited thinking.

you cannot even make the best choice.
I never said anything about the best choice. I just said choice.

Even your individuality doesn't save you from obligations, obstructions, ect.
I still get to make choices though.

In my country 800.000 (out of 5 million) people voted (e.g. they had a choise) in June 2007 for a very populist minister to become prime-minister of a new governemt which had to end the reign of both social-democrats and liberals. Today, february 2008, there is still no official government. This person with his 800.000 votes now works for a provisional government under the leadership of the former prime-minister, his biggest rival during the elections. Though almost one fifth of the population wanted him to become prime-minister, the country still doesn't have the government they voted for.

People in Kenya come back to the villages they had to leave after riots broke out. They see their homes back... in ashes. Yet, they prefered (e.g. they had a choise) peace, and voted for the opposition in order to end the corrupt rule of the previous government. The opposition didn't win according to the official result, yet everyone knows they had won.

The government made an important decission (choice) several years ago. They decided to let people worker harder, work longer, for the same salary or wage. The workers though made another choice when they elected these ministers 2 years before that. They voted for a social program, not this kind of exploitation.

Several workers got fired, even after years of excellent evaluations, because they didn't want to lose their jobs (choice). The boss wants (choice) to rebuild his factory in China apparently.

A worker on an island in the Pacific wants to become rich (choice!), but apparently he can't because he doesn't earn enough money (woops!!). he would like to have another job (choice!!!) so he could become rich, yet he needs proper education to get to the well payed jobs. Education he cannot affort (woops!!!!).
Interesting story. I'm just a little confused on why you're telling me it.

Yes, we can make choices, even tomorrow, and yes we are individuals; yet nor our individualtiy nor our choices make this world like paradise.
Who said anything about paradise?

You should read the FAQ, you should try to develop some politics, history and other stuff (maybe marxism?) instead of using obsolete propaganda or phrases that are easy to make.
The thing is you're trying to make this political, when I'm making it ideological. And I know you don't like that.

Comrade Rage

9th February 2008, 20:57

The thing is you're trying to make this political, when I'm making it ideological. And I know you don't like that.What are your politics? All you've done is carp about how 'I am my own person. Blaaaaaaah"

Zurdito

9th February 2008, 21:06

ok this guy is too dumb to bother with, I quit. there should be some "sub-opposing ideologies" forum for Randroids.

Kwisatz Haderach

9th February 2008, 21:41

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!"
...and in case you haven't noticed, infants tend to say "Mine!" with regard to any object they desire, even those that belong to other people. Property prohibits theft, yet the instinct of small children seems to be to steal anything they want and abandon it once they are no longer interested in it. This is not the concept behind capitalist property. In fact it's closer to Proudhon's concept of possession, whereby people can take what they wish (more or less) and such objects belong to them only while they are actively using them.

But, of course, the whims of infants are not a particularly good basis on which to build an adult society, so the "argument from baby speak" is a complete fallacy.

Maybe I'm confused about communism. I was under the impression that I had to conform to the needs of society. I'm not really sure how I could do my own thing, if my job is to provide for need.
News flash: Every society requires the individual to conform to the needs of others in some way in order for that individual to survive. Capitalism doesn't let you "do your own thing" - if you wish to survive, you must work, and you must work under the conditions offered by the ruling class and in exchange for the (inadequate) compensation given by the ruling class.

I pay for what I use.
And the price you have to pay is determined by supply and demand, both of which depend on other people's actions. Likewise, the money you earn - with which you can pay the bills - is also determined by supply and demand (for labour), which again depends on other people's actions.

So, under capitalism - as under any kind of monetary economy - other people determine how much money you earn, and other people determine how much money you have to pay for something. So much for the almighty individual.

If we make a stupid choice(like getting a girl pregnant when you work at McDonalds), that you should have to live with that mistake, because no other individual made that choice and/or owes that person for it.
And why do children have to live with the stupid choices of their parents?

I guess your version of freedom is the government telling me where to shop, right?
Capitalism allows you to choose between shops owned and controlled by a minority of rich people. Communism allows you to choose between shops owned and controlled by the majority of people in society - a society of which you are part.

Neither capitalism nor communism allow you to maintain your own shop against everyone else's will. If no one likes your shop under capitalism, you will lose money and you will have to close it. Both capitalism and communism require you to get the approval of other people before you can do a number of things. The difference is that communism requires you to get the approval of society as a whole, while capitalism requires you to get the approval of people with money.

I couldn't imagine living under a belief system that states [...] that I must give up my dreams and do as my I'm told.
Ah, but you already do. The only difference seems to be that you are in denial about it. That's one way to cope, I suppose. We communists prefer to take action.

Dr Mindbender

9th February 2008, 21:50

I decided to post in here right away, since I'll just be restricted.

Too steal a page from Ayn Rand(an atheist)... though communism and religion are "enemies", they both share a similar goal of destroying the individual. .

Well to steal a page from our friend Karl Marx, ''there is no need to since for all but 1/10 of the population capitalism has succeeded in doing so [in this case people's individuality]''

Individuality

9th February 2008, 22:42

What are your politics? All you've done is carp about how 'I am my own person. Blaaaaaaah"
Why should I give you my politics? So you can turn the discussion into ad homs?

ok this guy is too dumb to bother with, I quit.
Bu'bye!

there should be some "sub-opposing ideologies" forum for Randroids.
Actually, I'm not a "Randriod". I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and I just couldn't finish it. It just went on and on and on and on.

yet the instinct of small children seems to be to steal anything they want and abandon it once they are no longer interested in it.
When I was a kid, I really liked my Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They were mine!

But, of course, the whims of infants are not a particularly good basis on which to build an adult society, so the "argument from baby speak" is a complete fallacy.
I wasn't trying to build a society around an infant, I was illustrating human nature.

News flash: Every society requires the individual to conform to the needs of others in some way
Wow, you're a sharp one. But Communism wants the individual to BEND OVER and serve the needs of society.

Capitalism doesn't let you "do your own thing" - if you wish to survive, you must work,
I notice you guys here use work in a very negative way. How do you define "work"?

work under the conditions offered by the ruling class and in exchange for the (inadequate) compensation given by the ruling class.
False. I've never experienced this in my whole. I'm just being honest.

And the price you have to pay is determined by supply and demand, both of which depend on other people's actions.
Yes. The actions of other consenting individuals. The joys of the free market. Voluntary cooperation.

Likewise, the money you earn - with which you can pay the bills - is also determined by supply and demand (for labour), which again depends on other people's actions.
Ahh, no. It depends on supply and demand.

So, under capitalism - as under any kind of monetary economy - other people determine how much money you earn,
The market determines what I earn.

and other people determine how much money you have to pay for something.
The market determines what I pay for something.

And why do children have to live with the stupid choices of their parents?
I don't know, nor do I care. All I know, is it's not my responsibility.

Capitalism allows you to choose between shops owned and controlled by a minority of rich people.
Really, I could of swore most business owners were middle class. Either way, these "rich" people need to work hard to make me happy in hopes that I'll voluntarily hand over my money to them instead of another rich guy down the street.

Neither capitalism nor communism allow you to maintain your own shop against everyone else's will.
Communism the government stops you. Capitalism it's a matter of person choice. In a communist society, I couldn't open up a Butt Plug shop and charge people money for them. I have to serve the needs of society. Capitalism I can do it. If people choose not to buy, than I'm just a guy with a shop with no money.

If no one likes your shop under capitalism, you will lose money and you will have to close it.
Cause and effect

Both capitalism and communism require you to get the approval of other people before you can do a number of things.
No no no. They're totally different. In order to do start a business in a communist society, I need the approval of some bureaucratic group. Under capitalism I can start it under my own free will. If people choose to shop their that's their business and if they don't, that's fine too. I don't have to pander to some bureaucratic body or give out bribes just for the chance to join the market place.

The difference is that communism requires you to get the approval of society as a whole, while capitalism requires you to get the approval of people with money.
Yes. Is there is a point to all this?

Ah, but you already do. The only difference seems to be that you are in denial about it.
I'm not in denial. You're just assuming I approve of the current United States. I'm not even allowed to take ecstasy.

That's one way to cope, I suppose. We communists prefer to take action.
Is that just another way of saying, kill and murder?

Well to steal a page from our friend Karl Marx, ''there is no need to since for all but 1/10 of the population capitalism has succeeded in doing so [in this case people's individuality]''
Huh?

Comrade Rage

9th February 2008, 22:50

Why should I give you my politics? So you can turn the discussion into ad homs?Ad hominem attacks? Didn't this spammy cack start off that way as yet another capitalist rant about us evil commies? *Fangs pop out*
I wanted you to share your politics so I knew from which perspective you were issuing this 'critique' so I could measure up communism with your ideology of exploitation, but you seem like you're just going to repeat your obsolete slogans like a stuck record, so I'll just turn into a bat and fly away.:rolleyes:
There are some freedom-lovers I want to oppress.:drool: Maybe I can build a gulag!!!:lol:

Red_or_Dead

9th February 2008, 22:52

Ok, feel free to tear me apart on this short and simple post, but here it is:

When I will want to become a totaly free individual, ill go and live in a jungle, just me and no other people to conform with. But since I live in a community, be it my home, my town, my street, or whatever, I have to conform, and I have to accept and respect other peoples choices, like they have to respect and accept my choices. Im conforming. I cannot always make my choices, because of other people, that make their choices. Thats the whole point of living and interacting with other human beings. We have to take other people into consideration.

Now, Individuality, we may argue what system may be the best to ensure that people really respect and accept other peoples choices, and to conform to society to a point when all people are on equal terms. I dont think that you have more than basic knowledge of communism, Marxism, and similar ideologies, so Id suggest you learn about them, and you will see that they are... better. I cant find any other word, but to say that they are better than capitalism.

Wow. That wasnt so short and simple after all!

RevMARKSman

10th February 2008, 00:34

The market determines what I earn.

In case you didn't notice, the "market" is composed of (gasp!) other people. There is no material entity called "the market" out there. It's not an independent actor. The market is the sum of the actions of a bunch of other people.

Either way, these "rich" people need to work hard to make me happy in hopes that I'll voluntarily hand over my money to them instead of another rich guy down the street.

Have you ever noticed how these rich guys tend to give you crappy stuff? I'll give you the example of... earbuds. Dunno about you but mine always seem to either a) have something wrong with them right off the bat, like the tracks for left and right are sent to the wrong side, or b) they break within a month. Every single one.

The underlying issue here is that all these rich guys have come to the same conclusion - the actual quality of the product is not what matters. It's the appearance of quality.

Communism the government stops you.

Did you actually read the FAQ? A paragraph of it? A sentence, a clause? Anything?

In order to do start a business in a communist society, I need the approval of some bureaucratic group. Under capitalism I can start it under my own free will.

a) What the hell are you talking about?
b) Under capitalism, you need capital to start a business. Capital most often comes in the form of an initial investment, maybe from a venture capitalist. To get that guy's money, you need his approval. Damn. Guess you're not so independent after all.

Yes. Is there is a point to all this?

Yes.

Under capitalism you have no more "choices" than you would in communism. You need someone's approval to produce goods.

R_P_A_S

10th February 2008, 01:48

this guy does not understand communism. wow! lol but is good for entertainment porpuses. I personally want him to quote more atheist. go go go! :drool:

INDK

10th February 2008, 02:34

I wasn't trying to build a society around an infant, I was illustrating human nature.

The nature of humans is defined by a surrounding social structure - moreover, a baby is probably the worst example you could have come up with. Yes, they might want the toy and will possibly be aggressive in its keeping, but because they're fucking babies - I mean... c'mon. Any sensible adult that does this obviously isn't all that sensible, is he?

Human nature is defined entirely by the external, situational factors surrounding it. Capitalism makes you relatively aggressive in the obtainment of goods and services because without them you will not enjoy life all that much. There would obviously not be as forceful a society of rabid consumers if it was a bit easier to have access to the resources you need.

Wow, you're a sharp one. But Communism wants the individual to BEND OVER and serve the needs of society.

No, no, my friend - the society BENDS OVER to serve the needs of the people.

I notice you guys here use work in a very negative way. How do you define "work"?

Work, directly, is completing the tasks assigned to you by your current occupation. But what in the world does that change? We use it generally in a negative fashion because work is where we all go to get milked like a cow. It's not the nicest place ever. Of course, work itself is a fine thing - workplaces are institutions of exploitation.

False. I've never experienced this in my whole. I'm just being honest.

What haven't you experienced? Being underpaid? You just don't fucking know it - your boss gets richer and richer and you work harder and harder. Yeah, you get a wage - but it's not worth what you're putting in. It is the exploitation of the proletariat's labour-power.

Yes. The actions of other consenting individuals. The joys of the free market. Voluntary cooperation.

Voluntary cooperation?! Am I really reading that you typed the free market is of a voluntary cooperative function? Yeah, you're not required by law to take part - but if you don't take part, you're out of your three meals a day, buddy.

Ahh, no. It depends on supply and demand.

Which is determined by other people's actions...

The market determines what I earn.

And the market is determined by other people's actions...

The market determines what I pay for something.

No, supply and demand determines what you have to pay for something. And we know what determines that...

Really, I could of swore most business owners were middle class. Either way, these "rich" people need to work hard to make me happy in hopes that I'll voluntarily hand over my money to them instead of another rich guy down the street.

You're just a fucking hoot, I'll tell ya...

Communism the government stops you. Capitalism it's a matter of person choice. In a communist society, I couldn't open up a Butt Plug shop and charge people money for them. I have to serve the needs of society. Capitalism I can do it. If people choose not to buy, than I'm just a guy with a shop with no money.

What the fuck are you babbling on about? In true Communism, there is no government. At all. In a Communist society, you'd be making Butt Plugs because you like to and the people will be grateful: Nobody's telling you to make butt plugs though. Oh yeah, and if the Butt Plug thing was a shot at a joke then you utterly failed.

Huh?

You're a fucking dolt.

Dros

10th February 2008, 04:04

[quote]I guess I must be confused.

We already knew that.

I was under the impression that if I didn't want to provide for the need of others that I would be forced too. How else would it work?

Read Marx.

Thank you for your interesting post. I really enjoyed the condescension.

Jazzratt doesn't care that you enjoyed his wit.

Entrails Konfetti

10th February 2008, 04:23

Why should I give you my politics? So you can turn the discussion into ad homs?

What are you afriad of?

When I was a kid, I really liked my Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They were mine!

Theres a major difference between posessions, and owning a multi-national. We have tooken into account possessions. But you have this thought in your mind that we share one skillet to cook all our food. How silly, like we want to wait around all day for someone else to get done with skillets, phones, and the like.

I wasn't trying to build a society around an infant, I was illustrating human nature.

Good luck with illustrating that point. You know if god doesn't exist-- the being who we are made after and resemble except for our faults, if that doesn't exist, then we can say there aren't set characteristics of human nature!

Wow, you're a sharp one. But Communism wants the individual to BEND OVER and serve the needs of society.

Every individual is accounted in society, and expresses through their workplaces and society. Unlike Capitalism, where its the rich who are respresented because they have money to throw to the government, not to mention most government people are business people. Working people have to standby while the fatcats do whate3ver they want to the economy-- were going into recession, and we must sacrifice, or if its war for markets (which has always been the case), again, we must sacrifice. I am an appendage to their machine, while they are the formed being that push the buttons on the outside of the machine.

I notice you guys here use work in a very negative way. How do you define "work"?

In the same way as Adam Smith defines "talents", a 19 year old who makes heads for nails has a "talent", and thanks to the division of labour " This can be his employment for his lifetime, where he can expend his talent with great dexterity". Instead we say how crappy, dehumanizing, and deforming such the circumstance is. This 19yr old gets robbed of all the beauty and wisdom of the world, his hands eventually become deformed. So there you have it, an idiot with deformed hands. He can't even pleasure his love interest with his fingers! What a life!

Yes. The actions of other consenting individuals. The joys of the free market. Voluntary cooperation.

You think the worlds infront of you right now. You know there has to be poor people inorder for there to be rich people. Rich people won't do the shit jobs. And theres only so much wealth created and extracted, so inorder for someone to have alot of wealth, there has to be poor people.

Ahh, no. It depends on supply and demand.

Of which supply can be manipulated, and demand is hard to track.
When in rare cases, supply and demand are in equalibrium, the price is determined by the labour embodied in the product plus a extra for the capitalist (as to the extent what this guy gets no one can really say... he
makes way more than daily subsidence, the reason why is because he had the opportunity of learning a skill in lengthy amount of time. If he were to train his employees more, that would mean greater skill, and theyd demand more pay).

The market determines what I earn.

It also determines, who you are, how you live, who you'll see-- though not through a direct power of a bureacracy. But it is other people.

The market determines what I pay for something.

It is other people. I am not the market, most of the members on here aren't (with exception of a few capppies).

Really, I could of swore most business owners were middle class. Either way, these "rich" people need to work hard to make me happy in hopes that I'll voluntarily hand over my money to them instead of another rich guy down the street.

Not always, you buy accordingly to what you can afford.
When theres monopolies, it doesn't really matter if they make good products or not.

However, monopoly isn't always the case, so really, whats the point in this competetion that expresses itself in wars? As a producer and consumer I'd rather take over production with my fellow workers and produce what we need, instead of needs being met through never ending chains of wars.

Communism the government stops you. Capitalism it's a matter of person choice. In a communist society, I couldn't open up a Butt Plug shop and charge people money for them. I have to serve the needs of society. Capitalism I can do it. If people choose not to buy, than I'm just a guy with a shop with no money.

Uh, I'm pretty sure you'd nead to get a bank loan, and go to your local chamber of commerce to approve your store.

Under Communism we'd make our own butt plugs. Red ones, green ones, glow in the dark!
Sure alot less will be made, because most people do not use butt-plugs. So instead of these plugs dring and cracking on shelves, and eventually get throw away, we use more of these rubbers on car brakes or childrens school erasers.

No no no. They're totally different. In order to do start a business in a communist society, I need the approval of some bureaucratic group. Under capitalism I can start it under my own free will. If people choose to shop their that's their business and if they don't, that's fine too. I don't have to pander to some bureaucratic body or give out bribes just for the chance to join the market place.

Try getting a bank loan to open a store that exclusively sells butt-plugs.
Try to get this store built anywhere! I'm sure the county chamber of commerce wouldn't like the idea of it being next to the First Baptist Church.

Yes. Is there is a point to all this?

Your not an island dude, you want to be, go live on an uncharted one.

I'm not in denial. You're just assuming I approve of the current United States. I'm not even allowed to take ecstasy.
Move to fucking Amsterdam if thats all you care about. Or become an addict in the UK, then you can get treatment doses and abuse it.

Is that just another way of saying, kill and murder?

No its saying defence. And saying we refuse to take this shit.

apathy maybe

10th February 2008, 10:44

apathy maybe

10th February 2008, 10:51

Oh, and I would also suggest not using Ann Rand as a source for learning about what communism is about. That would be rather silly, not to mention stupid. Especially considering how ignorant she was...

Jazzratt

10th February 2008, 10:51

Okay, dickface, stop repeating the same fucking point over and over again - it's stupid, we've told you why it's stupid and you're just parroting slogans at us based on a straw man you've taken from some unspeakable, dark & filthy orifice on your body.

Any given society, no matter what system it is has to have people working towards its continued existance, that is how societies survive. If we all just sat about dick in hand nothing would get done - no one wants to work but they are forced to either with the threat of actual bodily violence (i.e feudalism) or the threat of being starved to death (i.e capitalism). A communist or technocratic society aims to minimise the coercion involved in keeping a society stable.

Before you make another post think seriously on these questions:
1) Am I sure this post on based on actual understanding of communism or is it just a strawman based on the insane scrawlings of a piss poor novelist?

2) Will the post move the discussion along or will I be repeating the same hackneyed phrases over and over again?

3) Have I expunged my embarrassing attempts at "wit" and any forays I have made into the unfamiliar territory of sarcasm, or do I look like a completely cretinous ****?

If the answer to 1 and/or 2 is no, then don't post. If the answer to 3 is "I look like a completely cretinous ****", don't post.

mikelepore

10th February 2008, 12:47

Maybe I'm confused about communism. I was under the impression that I had to conform to the needs of society. I'm not really sure how I could do my own thing, if my job is to provide for need.
...

I was under the impression that if I didn't want to provide for the need of others that I would be forced too. How else would it work?

It's not a "would" question. It's a question of what each movement advocates. There are some groups that call themselves Marxist and they propose a system in which any person will be able to take whatever they want without having to pay for it. There are some groups that call themselves Marxist and they propose a system in which people will have to earn the money to buy what they want. All of the possible interpretations are out there. It's not reasonable to oppose communism based on it having some particular form or feature, because you just could as well say that you support communism as long as it has a different form or feature instead, the one that you think it needs to be viable. One of the fundamentals is production for social use instead of profit. After someone accepts the fundamentals, then they ask themselves what forms they believe it would need, and this often means they come to endorse the program of a particular writer or organization.

Individuality

10th February 2008, 15:43

Ad hominem attacks? Didn't this spammy cack start off that way as yet another capitalist rant about us evil commies?
You obviously don't understand ad homs, so I won't read the rest of your post.

I have to conform, and I have to accept and respect other peoples choices, like they have to respect and accept my choices.
That's not conforming. That's just respect. If you're a pure individual you probably wouldn't give a flying fuck what other people are doing.

I cannot always make my choices, because of other people, that make their choices.
Yes, We are all individuals making choices. Like if I have to take a huge shit, and someones on the john, I'm going to have to wait. But I still have a choice I get to make. I can choose to wait. I can choose to shit my pants. I can choose to run out to the woods. Choice!

We have to take other people into consideration.
Consideration is a little different than someone pointing the barrel of a gun to into your face saying, "You got to do this because people need it."

Now, Individuality, we may argue what system may be the best to ensure that people really respect and accept other peoples choices, and to conform to society to a point when all people are on equal terms.
What the hell does equal mean? Like Equal under law. Equal under scientific laws. Equal in class.

I dont think that you have more than basic knowledge of communism, Marxism, and similar ideologies
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Maybe I don't view that statement how it was intended, but it sounds like the people that have the ability have to slave it out for the people that have needs. Is that a fair statement?

Let's say I work at a union run business under the marxist ideals. I'm the best worker there. I'm just so damn smart and I can do all the high tech work. My reward for being gifted, smart, the best, is to work longer hours, for less pay(because that's my ability), While some moron, that is stupid, lazy and got 5 chicks pregnant gets more pay, and bonus pay(because he needs it), the reward for being a stupid ass.

I'm against any system that punishes the gifted and reward incompetence.

I cant find any other word, but to say that they are better than capitalism.
I'm sure telling people how to live their life really gets you off.

In case you didn't notice, the "market" is composed of (gasp!) other people. There is no material entity called "the market" out there. It's not an independent actor. The market is the sum of the actions of a bunch of other people.
Yes, so.

Have you ever noticed how these rich guys tend to give you crappy stuff?
No.

Dunno about you but mine always seem to either a) have something wrong with them right off the bat, like the tracks for left and right are sent to the wrong side, or b) they break within a month. Every single one.
What?

The underlying issue here is that all these rich guys have come to the same conclusion - the actual quality of the product is not what matters. It's the appearance of quality.
There is always trade offs for quality vs practicality. I'm sure they can just perfection of cars, but the average joe really doesn't have half a million dollars to fork out for them.

Did you actually read the FAQ? A paragraph of it? A sentence, a clause? Anything?
Not one thing.

b) Under capitalism, you need capital to start a business.
Prove it. I've started a business and the most expensive thing I forked out was the $105 registration fee to the government.

You need someone's approval to produce goods.
No I don't.

this guy does not understand communism.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

a baby is probably the worst example you could have come up with.
Why? It's nature that is least corrupted.

Any sensible adult that does this obviously isn't all that sensible, is he?
If you haven't figured this out already, people are motivated by self interest, not the common good.

Human nature is defined entirely by the external, situational factors surrounding it.
No. Human nature is programmed into our brain and they function regardless of the situation. You maybe trying to say that external forces may cause a specific reaction. That would be true. Trap any animal in a corner and scare it, they'll lash out.

Capitalism makes you relatively aggressive in the obtainment of goods and services because without them you will not enjoy life all that much.
Really? I had no idea. And look at me, I think people are tards going out spending all that money for christmas presents. I own very little worldly possessions. I'm going to go out on a limb and say probably a lot less than you. People can choose to be materialistic, or not. Personally, I think experiences are more rewarding than possessions, but I'm not going to dictate to others what should float their boats.

No, no, my friend - the society BENDS OVER to serve the needs of the people.
Actually Yes yes yes. Both our statements are correct.

Work, directly, is completing the tasks assigned to you by your current occupation. But what in the world does that change?
Well, what if my passion in life is climbing mountains. Let's say, I'm the adventure dude that loves hiking and mountain climbing. And I got this sweet job taking tourists mountain climbing. Is that a negative thing or a positive thing?

workplaces are institutions of exploitation.
So you're a victim?

Being underpaid?
Nope. I really don't. I had a job at a golf course that payed just above minimum wage and all I did was drive golf carts around doing donuts. I don't think I was worth more than I got.

? You just don't fucking know it - your boss gets richer and richer and you work harder and harder
Well, a lot of businesses I worked for, were average middle class joes that started a business and they failed. If they go get more debt and debt, as they work harder to keep it afloat, do I owe them some money.

That's a serious question. As a worker we haven't invested into this business, hence we're not liable. I think if my boss makes a million dollars off $100 of my labor, he/she deserves every penny of it, because if my boss loses a million dollars off $100 of my labor, because I don't want that debt.

I suppose this is the other side of the equation that you just don't want to look at. Maybe if you had to put your house up as collateral to work a job, than I would say you deserve part of the profit.

you're out of your three meals a day, buddy.
Yeah, the joys of choice. You can always eat out of dumpsters, but it's probably easier and more convenient to earn some money. Choice is the key.

Which is determined by other people's actions..
Choices by individuals in a market.

You're just a fucking hoot, I'll tell ya...
Really? I suggest you take a look at the facts and figures.

In true Communism, there is no government. At all.
Did I mention government?

In a Communist society, you'd be making Butt Plugs because you like to and the people will be grateful: Nobody's telling you to make butt plugs though. Oh yeah, and if the Butt Plug thing was a shot at a joke then you utterly failed.
So in this "true communist" society we'll have a free market. Is this what you're suggesting? Cause I don't think you are. In a "true communist" society I have to behave a certain way. Right? From each according to their ability to those according to their needs. How do you enforce such an ideology without some group with guns sticking them in my face, demanding that I conform?

You're a fucking dolt.
Thank you. It's quite mature of you to say.

We already knew that.
I appreciate your empathy.

Jazzratt doesn't care that you enjoyed his wit.
Well thank you for letting me know. I truly care that you told me.

What are you afriad of?
Nothing. I just don't want to see the desperate attempt to move the argument in a different direction, because you don't want to discuss it in it's current form. It's like your own intellectual copout.

Theres a major difference between posessions, and owning a multi-national.
Like what?

But you have this thought in your mind that we share one skillet to cook all our food.
I don't get the analogy. Are you trying to say like, one size fits all??

You know if god doesn't exist-- the being who we are made after and resemble except for our faults, if that doesn't exist, then we can say there aren't set characteristics of human nature!
Why not? Are you suggesting if a lady gave birth to a child and left it in the woods all alone, it wouldn't do anything at all? It would some how just lie there quietly. It wouldn't cry when it was hungry?

You're joking right?

Every individual is accounted in society, and expresses through their workplaces and society.
accounted eh? What's that supposed to mean?

Unlike Capitalism, where its the rich who are respresented because they have money to throw to the government, not to mention most government people are business people.
If the government had nothing to sell, it probably wouldn't be bought. Right?

Working people have to standby while the fatcats do whate3ver they want to the economy-- were going into recession, and we must sacrifice, or if its war for markets (which has always been the case), again, we must sacrifice.
I totally agree. You do realize that I do not support the US economy and it's not a free market place. I'm against war and I'm against all Bush's excessive spending on that war(a trillion).

I admire you for trying to find common ground between us.

I am an appendage to their machine, while they are the formed being that push the buttons on the outside of the machine.
Interesting view. If the machine dies and goes out of business, are you sold for scrap metal(to pay off your share of the debt)?

Instead we say how crappy, dehumanizing, and deforming such the circumstance is. This 19yr old gets robbed of all the beauty and wisdom of the world, his hands eventually become deformed. So there you have it, an idiot with deformed hands.
You're right, what a stupid moron.

He can't even pleasure his love interest with his fingers! What a life!
Dildos still work.

You know there has to be poor people inorder for there to be rich people.
You mean, there needs to be risk takers and people that are too afraid to leave their comfort zone.

Rich people won't do the shit jobs.
Shit jobs eh? I suppose that is a subjective term. Personally I wouldn't want to be the head of a business working 80hrs of high stress for a million dollars a year. Just not worth it.

That's the fun thing about subjective terms, everyones different.

And theres only so much wealth created and extracted, so inorder for someone to have alot of wealth, there has to be poor people.
hahhahahahah ahahahahah . How exactly does that work? Like for example, there is a hundred dollars in my wallet, right now. No matter how rich Paris Hilton gets, that hundred dollars will still be in my wallet. *GASP*

Of which supply can be manipulated, and demand is hard to track.
I'm pretty no one can manipulate supply and demand. I'm not going to pay $100 for a loaf of bread. Not going to happen. I'm not going to pay a maid $500/hr to clean my house. Not going to happen. I'm not going to hire an engineer for $5/hr, not going to happen.

When in rare cases, supply and demand are in equalibrium, the price is determined by the labour embodied in the product plus a extra for the capitalist (as to the extent what this guy gets no one can really say... he
makes way more than daily subsidence, the reason why is because he had the opportunity of learning a skill in lengthy amount of time. If he were to train his employees more, that would mean greater skill, and theyd demand more pay).
It's funny how you feel the boss owes these people. Considering these employees aren't liable. If you think workers are owed profits, than they're definitely owed debt.

It also determines, who you are, how you live, who you'll see-- though not through a direct power of a bureacracy. But it is other people.
How does the market determine who I am? And better yet, who I'll see? Please explain that to me.

It is other people. I am not the market, most of the members on here aren't (with exception of a few capppies).
You're in the market, or at least your parents are.

Not always, you buy accordingly to what you can afford.
I buy what I choose to buy. Of businesses snubbed me as a consumer they wouldn't get a penny, they have to show me something that I like better than what their competitors do. If it be unbeatable service, unbeatable price, unbeatable knowledge, unbeatable warranty, etc.

When theres monopolies, it doesn't really matter if they make good products or not.
Monopolies just don't happen. And even if they did, they'd be forced not to piss off their consumers to lose them out of spite.

However, monopoly isn't always the case, so really, whats the point in this competetion that expresses itself in wars?
Wars?

I'm pretty sure you'd nead to get a bank loan, and go to your local chamber of commerce to approve your store.
I may, or may not. I don't need societies permission to do it either way.

Under Communism we'd make our own butt plugs. Red ones, green ones, glow in the dark!
Isn't there more pressing issues for labor?

Sure alot less will be made, because most people do not use butt-plugs. So instead of these plugs dring and cracking on shelves, and eventually get throw away, we use more of these rubbers on car brakes or childrens school erasers.
Are you suggesting there is no market for butt plugs?

Try getting a bank loan to open a store that exclusively sells butt-plugs.
I've noticed that you communists have very negative outlooks on life. And like to play the victims of society. No wonder you guys can't get out of your ruts, you call a life.

Try to get this store built anywhere! I'm sure the county chamber of commerce wouldn't like the idea of it being next to the First Baptist Church.
I'm sure they wouldn't. I'm completely against business regulations. I would love to open up a whore house right next to every church in America. I have a feeling I would make big money.

Your not an island dude, you want to be, go live on an uncharted one.
No, his point was that other individuals in society will have an effect on my choices. And it will, but I still get to make those choices.

Move to fucking Amsterdam if thats all you care about.
No.

Or become an addict in the UK, then you can get treatment doses and abuse it.
No thanks.

No its saying defence. And saying we refuse to take this shit.
So go on strike? lol

Individuality

10th February 2008, 15:56

Individuality: I would suggest that you stop posting for a while, say a week, and simply read over the forums. Browse Learning particularly (especially the stickied threads), but also this forum, Politics and Theory.

Read up on communism, anarchism and so on, from the perspective of actual left-wing individuals.

As for communism oppressing individuality, there are only certain types of "communist" who wish to do that, and they aren't my comrades. The stereotypical "grey uniform" communism is bullshit, just like the "chaos" anarchism (incidentally, what is your opinion on anarchism?).
I must be missing something. I'm an anarchist, but I suppose a better term is anarchocapitalist. Explain to me how "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs" can be applied in an "anarchist" society. At least the one you guys see.

Oh, and I would also suggest not using Ann Rand as a source for learning about what communism is about. That would be rather silly, not to mention stupid. Especially considering how ignorant she was...
I know it must be tough to hear Ayn Rand, who looked at peoples great qualities and talents as good things, instead of things to be chopped down and feed to the poor.

Okay, dickface, stop repeating the same fucking point over and over again - it's stupid, we've told you why it's stupid and you're just parroting slogans at us based on a straw man you've taken from some unspeakable, dark & filthy orifice on your body.
Is this how debate and discussion works in a communist society, suppression?

Any given society, no matter what system it is has to have people working towards its continued existance, that is how societies survive.
Curse!!! How did America become so powerful and rich defending the rights of individuals?

If we all just sat about dick in hand nothing would get done - no one wants to work but they are forced to either with the threat of actual bodily violence (i.e feudalism) or the threat of being starved to death (i.e capitalism).
Just eat out of a dumpster. Free food. I bet it would be the same quality as a communist state(or anti-state).

A communist or technocratic society aims to minimise the coercion involved in keeping a society stable.
So we agree, the goal is to suppress the individual for the need(or good) of society.

1) Am I sure this post on based on actual understanding of communism or is it just a strawman based on the insane scrawlings of a piss poor novelist?
I'm here to post about my great views on the individual and the greatness of the individual, which communists despise.

2) Will the post move the discussion along or will I be repeating the same hackneyed phrases over and over again?
ahhh, I see the reframing of you words. You're trying to shift the frame that I'm just mentally masturbating and all these communist replying are just "victims" or my mental masturbation.

3) Have I expunged my embarrassing attempts at "wit" and any forays I have made into the unfamiliar territory of sarcasm, or do I look like a completely cretinous ****?
Well, I wasn't being witty. I shared how I personally feel. I do find it cute that you have to announce yourself a victor.

If the answer to 1 and/or 2 is no, then don't post. If the answer to 3 is "I look like a completely cretinous ****", don't post.
I have a feeling you're building a case to give me an online KGB style rub out? No?

There are some groups that call themselves Marxist and they propose a system in which any person will be able to take whatever they want without having to pay for it.
What happens if the person that you take it from says no?

There are some groups that call themselves Marxist and they propose a system in which people will have to earn the money to buy what they want. All of the possible interpretations are out there.
So is this a free market? If it is, I would definitely support it. Not sure why it's called marxist though.

One of the fundamentals is production for social use instead of profit.
How do you have innovation without profit?

A-S M.

10th February 2008, 16:08

if this thread keeps on going it'll be the at the same level as the "forever yours (http://www.revleft.com/vb/forever-yours-t28919/index.html?t=28919&highlight=godessofsensuality)" thread... :scared:

apathy maybe

10th February 2008, 16:12

Ah, an "anarcho" capitalist. You know you aren't a real anarchist if you believe that it is OK for people to accumulate unlimited amounts of property.

RevMARKSman

10th February 2008, 18:14

Yes, so.

So you are dependent on other people, dipshit.

What?

Is it selective illiteracy, or do you not understand the concept of an "example"?

There is always trade offs for quality vs practicality. I'm sure they can just perfection of cars, but the average joe really doesn't have half a million dollars to fork out for them.

I'm sure there's a way to make durable earbuds without using rare metals. Make the wire thicker or something.

Prove it. I've started a business and the most expensive thing I forked out was the $105 registration fee to the government.

To actually produce products, you need money. You illustrated that in your last "point" about cars.

What did you do in your business, talk to people on the street for money?

No I don't.

You need money. And unless you were born rich, you need that money from someone else.

Once you've started your business, if people don't buy your products, you'll go into debt and eventually have to stop producing things. You're dependent on them.

OneBrickOneVoice

10th February 2008, 19:27

Dystisis

10th February 2008, 20:31

Prove it. I've started a business and the most expensive thing I forked out was the $105 registration fee to the government.
Oh gee. You have no conception what so ever of economics.

You want us to prove to you that production costs money/labor? This is stuff you should of learned in primary school.

Red_or_Dead

10th February 2008, 21:06

That's not conforming. That's just respect. If you're a pure individual you probably wouldn't give a flying fuck what other people are doing.

It IS conforming. You cant do everything you want to, because of other people that want to do something which is in your way. You have to accept it, respect it and live with it. CONFORMING. Happens every day, in every society, in every system. The difference between capitalism and communism is that in capitalism a handfull of people can do practicly everything they want to, while the rest of us have to live with it. In communism there isnt a handfull of people that can do anything they want to. Simple as that.

Yes, We are all individuals making choices. Like if I have to take a huge shit, and someones on the john, I'm going to have to wait. But I still have a choice I get to make. I can choose to wait. I can choose to shit my pants. I can choose to run out to the woods. Choice!

But you cant take a shit in that toilet at that time. You dont have that choice. This toilet stuff is a stupid example anyway, and I wont bother with it any further. No government, be it a capitalist or a communist will bother about whos turn is it to use the toilet.

Consideration is a little different than someone pointing the barrel of a gun to into your face saying, "You got to do this because people need it."

Absolutely. And where does this idea that someone is going to point a gun barrel at your head and force you to do something come from? Something you heard about N. Korea? I think that you will find out that most of the members here dont have a high opinion on N.Korea, or indeed any "communist" regime that existed in the past. The regimes that existed up until now were not truly communist. Period. It may seem as an old excuse, but thats how it is. Infact, if you search around this site, or if you read works from people like Marx, Engels, Lenin and the like, you will see that what they advocated was democracy, not an authoritarian regime.

I think that all that covers a lot of other points that you made. Read about it, before you argue about it. Or, if you just like to come here and ask stupid questions and make stupid points... Your problem.

graffic

10th February 2008, 21:09

I don't know much about Communism Idealogy but from the little thought Ive given it, these are the questions I have. (This isnt an argumentative post, more of a question/learning post).

Apologies for most probably sounding stupid and ignorant, these are just some questions which have been getting on my tits

- How will art, expression and entertainment still exist and give working people the adrenaline and excitement it does in the current capitalist society? Will rock stars and film stars be taken out of their huge mantions, drugs and women and put in small houses the same as everyone else? If so that takes away the "star" status the "glitter" etc. If everything and everyone lives at the same standard where will music and general artists get their inspirations from?

- Isnt it human nature to be competitive and strive for something better in life? The saying "No pain No gain" rings true in most of my everyday life. Its impossible to have everything "good" because the worst of the "good" will be "bad". Hence why the idea of Heaven and Hell is flawed.

- To be frank I don't want to get the same amount of money as everyone else, I grew up in a fairly poor lower - middle class home and my aspirations in life are to work hard and play hard. If I work hard enough I will be rich, simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner

Jazzratt

10th February 2008, 21:52

How the fuck does someone this brain-rapingly stupid manage to operate a computer?

Not one thing.

Well done. Is that because you're semi-literate and the idea of reading more than a paragraph's worth of text made you shit yourself with terror or is it because you've spent all your lonely life cuddling up to your cum-drenched big-print copy of Atlas Shat and now you're having your idiocy challenged for the first time? Anyway, in the preamble to the FAQ it is stated:

IMPORTANT- though you are not obliged to read the below FAQ it is recommended as any posts that have already been answered in this FAQ will simply result in them being trashed (unless of course they make reference to the answers given here), if you insist on ignoring this and continually making posts on issues already dealt with by this FAQ your behaviour could be considered trollish which may result in a suspension or ban.

Consider this a formal warning, thank you.

As for your laughable ad hominem claims you appear to have made the mistake every mouth breathing fuckwit that comes across the term makes. An ad hominem is only an ad hominem attack if the person making it is making no other point or is using their attack on your character as an attack on the argument. So, for example, if I said "You're incorrect because you're a gobshite" that would be an ad hominem, but if I said "You're wrong about y because x, you grotesquely ugly cocksatchel" then I would not be committing an ad hominem.

I'm an anarchist

Lair, Lair pants on fire.

I have a feeling you're building a case to give me an online KGB style rub out? No?

No, I'm trying to save you from embarrassing yourself further. Either illustrate you have some idea about what you oppose or fuck off.

Individuality

10th February 2008, 22:56

Ah, an "anarcho" capitalist. You know you aren't a real anarchist if you believe that it is OK for people to accumulate unlimited amounts of property.
Why?

So you are dependent on other people, dipshit.
No it doesn't. It means my choices may be effected by other people. I'm not dependent on others.

Is it selective illiteracy, or do you not understand the concept of an "example"?
It's a piss poor example.

I'm sure there's a way to make durable earbuds without using rare metals. Make the wire thicker or something.
Than make a business and see if it floats.

To actually produce products, you need money.
That's false.

You illustrated that in your last "point" about cars.
A car requires money. But I guess I was unaware that a car was everything.

You need money.
You need a $105.

Once you've started your business, if people don't buy your products, you'll go into debt and eventually have to stop producing things. You're dependent on them.
It's a mutual exchange. I don't need them to make my choices. The success of my choice is dependent on their choices. I hope you understand or "get it" now.

communism isn't about subjecting your individuality to something.
How can you be an individual when you have to serve the needs of the needy?

It's about liberating it from the confines of capitalism.
But capitalism is a good thing.

Under capitalism your individuality is limited to your money, your self-worth, etc..
No, it's not.

Under socialism you are really free to pursue the kind job you want, the type of shit you want to do because money, affordability, and profit play no role
Sounds like a society that would crash. I always find this cute. Who builds the bridges and who becomes the porn stars? Are they payed the same? If so, who the hell would want to build a bridge? If not, wouldn't that create a wealthier class?

You have no conception what so ever of economics.
Tell me all about the businesses you've started.

You want us to prove to you that production costs money/labor? This is stuff you should of learned in primary school.
Notice how you said, "money/labor". I work at my business. My work isn't a cost.

You cant do everything you want to, because of other people that want to do something which is in your way.
I understand that. That's the world of individuals. Like I mentioned before, I can't take a shit if someones on the john. But the fact of the matter is I want to make my own choices. It isn't about doing anything you want, because everything applies to cause and effect. My point is that if I want to smoke a big dubee, I don't need your permission, or that of society. If I want to start an apple pie business, I don't need your permission or that of society.

You have to accept it, respect it and live with it. CONFORMING.
No, I just can't do that.

The difference between capitalism and communism is that in capitalism a handfull of people can do practicly everything they want to, while the rest of us have to live with it.
False.

In communism there isnt a handfull of people that can do anything they want to. Simple as that.
I doubt it.

But you cant take a shit in that toilet at that time. You dont have that choice.
You're right. I can't have sex with a $500 a night prostitute if I only have $200.

You dont have that choice.
Stellar observation.

This toilet stuff is a stupid example anyway, and I wont bother with it any further.
I think it does a good job of illustrating the point, unless you'd like me to use examples like jazz boy and use words like "****alicious", "****acular" and "****amonopolous"?

No government, be it a capitalist or a communist will bother about whos turn is it to use the toilet.
Yes, I know. That's why I used that example.

Absolutely. And where does this idea that someone is going to point a gun barrel at your head and force you to do something come from?
Okay, let's throw out a hypothetical. Let's say right now we're living in the perfect ideal communist state. I want to start a business and sell things for money for my own profit instead of the needs of others. What exactly will be done?

I think that all that covers a lot of other points that you made. Read about it, before you argue about it. Or, if you just like to come here and ask stupid questions and make stupid points... Your problem.
Thanks

How the fuck does someone this brain-rapingly stupid manage to operate a computer?
It must be my ****acular uber skills.

Well done. Is that because you're semi-literate and the idea of reading more than a paragraph's worth of text made you shit yourself with terror or is it because you've spent all your lonely life cuddling up to your cum-drenched big-print copy of Atlas Shat and now you're having your idiocy challenged for the first time?
I guess so.

Consider this a formal warning, thank you.
Oh noes! The KGB is coming for me. I must be destroying the very fabric of the opposing ideologies forum with my... opposing ideology.

As for your laughable ad hominem claims you appear to have made the mistake every mouth breathing fuckwit that comes across the term makes. An ad hominem is only an ad hominem attack if the person making it is making no other point or is using their attack on your character as an attack on the argument.
Copouts are copouts, copout.

Lair, Lair pants on fire.
Yippie!

No, I'm trying to save you from embarrassing yourself further.
Oh don't worry about me. I don't need you to protect my ego. I think it'll be just fine.

Either illustrate you have some idea about what you oppose or fuck off.
I'll keep illustrating my exact point.

Individuality

10th February 2008, 23:05

- How will art, expression and entertainment still exist and give working people the adrenaline and excitement it does in the current capitalist society? Will rock stars and film stars be taken out of their huge mantions, drugs and women and put in small houses the same as everyone else? If so that takes away the "star" status the "glitter" etc. If everything and everyone lives at the same standard where will music and general artists get their inspirations from?
In a communist society, pornstars will make as much as doctors and engineers. If they didn't make the same, there would be class issues. I just know, it's much more ,,, satisfying and easy to be a porn star than an engineer that builds bridges.

- Isnt it human nature to be competitive and strive for something better in life? The saying "No pain No gain" rings true in most of my everyday life. Its impossible to have everything "good" because the worst of the "good" will be "bad". Hence why the idea of Heaven and Hell is flawed.
Human beings strive for their own selfish intentions. Communism some how stops this and some how forces people to want to serve the needs of society. I think they sprinkle magic pixie dust on the population.

- To be frank I don't want to get the same amount of money as everyone else, I grew up in a fairly poor lower - middle class home and my aspirations in life are to work hard and play hard. If I work hard enough I will be rich, simple.
That's awesome. I respect it fully. That's the great thing about a free society(like real freedom, not pinko freedom) is that we can both choose to live the lives we want and work toward them. We don't need to bend to the will of society, bend over and submit.

Tungsten

10th February 2008, 23:20

So your saying abortions are for the poor ? I'm glad you support the idea of it but financial difficultly shouldn't being an issue when deciding to have an abortion , their should be free childcare , complete free health care , a longer maternity leave etc.

Abortions should be free , and condoms should be free also .
How generous. Does this mean you're volunteering to pay for these wonderful services?

Yes, we can make choices, even tomorrow, and yes we are individuals; yet nor our individualtiy nor our choices make this world like paradise. You should read the FAQ, you should try to develop some politics, history and other stuff (maybe marxism?) instead of using obsolete propaganda or phrases that are easy to make.
If our choices don't make a difference then why are you advocating communism? Your choice won't make any difference...

Capitalism allows you to choose between shops owned and controlled by a minority of rich people. Communism allows you to choose between shops owned and controlled by the majority of people in society - a society of which you are part.
What difference does it make if you're told to piss off by a rich person to being told to piss off by some anonymous "majority"? And aren't rich people aren't part of society too?

Individuality

10th February 2008, 23:27

What difference does it make if you're told to piss off by a rich person to being told to piss off by some anonymous "majority"? And aren't rich people aren't part of society too?
Rich people aren't part of society. They exploit people. They offer goods and services that people want to buy and these people just take the money right out of their wallet and hand it over. It's like FUCKING ROBBERY!!!

Tungsten

10th February 2008, 23:29

Ah, an "anarcho" capitalist. You know you aren't a real anarchist if you believe that it is OK for people to accumulate unlimited amounts of property.
Accumulating unlimited amounts of anything doesn't put you add odds with anarchy. You're not suggesting there be a rule against it, with someone to actually enforce this rule, are you?

Individuality

10th February 2008, 23:32

You're not suggesting there be a rule against it, with someone to actually enforce this rule, are you?
I've yet to get an answer for this. They tell me I can be an individual in society, but what happens when I don't do "for each according to their ability, to each according to their need", I have a feeling I'll be brutally murdered by some authoritarian group with guns. But I'm sure they'd still call it "anarchy".

INDK

11th February 2008, 00:19

I will only be answering one of your rebuttals as Jazzratt's reply (and Moderator warning, as it happens) makes it clear you have totally ignored our literature citations and simple attempts to make you see the basic proposition of true Communism.

Did I mention government?

Yes, you did. You said this:

Communism the government stops you. Capitalism it's a matter of person choice. In a communist society, I couldn't open up a Butt Plug shop and charge people money for them. I have to serve the needs of society. Capitalism I can do it. If people choose not to buy, than I'm just a guy with a shop with no money.

The emphasis is mine. I made the simple statement that Communism is a social organization that is without state or government.

pusher robot

11th February 2008, 00:56

oops, dp

pusher robot

11th February 2008, 01:02

Demogorgon

11th February 2008, 02:09

Do you guys who say these things have any concept of what it takes to produce these goods? They don't fall from the sky or grow on trees, you know. Resources have to be mined, goods manufactured, labor expended, logistics planned, energy expended. Whether or not there is a price, there is always a cost. ALWAYS. Somebody has to pay it.

Who?
Very true, however it makes sense for society to collectively bear such costs as best it can. The trouble with capitalist method of meeting these costs is twofold, first of all as noted constantly on this board, the owners of land and capital exploit the efforts of labour. Some capitalists acknowledge the problem with land of course and advocate land value taxes, but that is basically a distraction from the main problem which is the exploitation of labour by capital.

The second problem is that under a market as we have it now, some people simply don't have the spending power to make their mark on demand. You tell us that markets are the most efficient means of allocating resources (presuming perfect competition), but that ignores the fact that simply re-arranging the distribution of spending power would bring about a radically different market outcome, even with the same people with same wants. Given that, any equitable system will give people a roughly equal say in what they want produced. Capitalism fails to do that.

Some people here will tell you Communism will abolish the need to ever expend effort (usually pleading technocracy), they are wrong. What Communism will do however is bring about less need to work constantlty be ending the exploitation of labour by capital and giving peple a mroe equitable share of the proceeds.

Of course in theory you could o a long way to achieving that even under capitalism. The reason I don't bother advocating that is because in capitalist polyarchies (to say nothing of capitalist dictatorships) political decisions will always benefit those who wield the most power, and such a reform would never benefit them, but even if you were to make no change to the present system except to redistribute wealth to the worse off to a greater extent (even through something as simple as a negative income tax) you could give people a better share of decision making in how resources are used.

It would be inadequate and probably not feasible politically to redistribute wealth to any significant extent, but as a thought experiment, you would have to give a good reason as to why you oppose it, as I know you will. This is why I am so sceptical of capitalist arguments. Capitalists keep bringing the debate regarding capitalism back to the market, knowing as they do that the market (for goods and services) is probably the least repellent aspect of capitalism and refuse to talk about the other problems like the wide spread inequality engendered and the consequent lack of ability for the worst off to have their wants met.

Zurdito

11th February 2008, 02:13

RevMARKSman

11th February 2008, 03:07

No it doesn't. It means my choices may be effected by other people. I'm not dependent on others.

Those two statements are equivalent. Under any economic system, you could decide to kill everyone in the world. Ultimately, if not everyone in the world wants to be killed (and they have guns), you can't make that choice. Your choices are limited by the choices of people around you.

It's a piss poor example.

Because... ?

Than make a business and see if it floats.

I'd love to, but I don't have the time or the money.

That's false.

Which, of course, contradicts all observable evidence, but what did we expect?

A car requires money. But I guess I was unaware that a car was everything.

Everything you could possibly make that's not a bodily fluid requires supplies. Supplies require money. Pick which one you disagree with.

You need a $105.

And the money to buy your supplies...

The success of my choice is dependent on their choices. I hope you understand or "get it" now.

Therefore, you are dependent on their choices. You can have a thought process all on your own (I hope), but whether your goal can be carried out is dependent on other people.

pusher robot

11th February 2008, 03:09

But yet the means exist for the world's billionaires to have as many private jets and diamonds as they want?

The "material scarcity" line is one of the crassest of all bourgeois economic smokescreens.

All the wealth of those billionaires would make barely a dent in costs on the scale we are talking about.

But even then, the point is not so much that we couldn't possibly create such goods and services. Rather, the point is that it is completely disingenuous to act as though they will be available for everybody to partake, without anybody having to be inconvenienced with providing them.

Very true, however it makes sense for society to collectively bear such costs as best it can.

This hasn't been demonstrated. And make sense to whom? The social planners or the individual members?

It would be inadequate and probably not feasible politically to redistribute wealth to any significant extent, but as a thought experiment, you would have to give a good reason as to why you oppose it, as I know you will.

Because it destroys both the incentive to take rational risks and the penalty to avoid irrational ones. It abolishes any real reason for prudence.

Demogorgon

11th February 2008, 03:23

Because it destroys both the incentive to take rational risks and the penalty to avoid irrational ones. It abolishes any real reason for prudence.
I thought we would get this, but you contradict yourself here. Notice the form of wealth redistribution I suggested for this thought experiment (a fairly substantial negative income tax), how on earth is that going to discourage rational risk? It is likely to encourage it as it reduces negative consequences if the risk fails (it is suggested that that is why Scandinavian countries with substantial social welfare tend to be more entrepreneurial than other comparable countries).

I will propose in fact that this objection is simply ideological. You get this all the time with defenders of capitalism. They try and paint their defence of capitalism as being simply about wanting efficient markets to allocate resources, but if you grant them that for the sake of argument, they get upset if you suggest shooting capitalism's other sacred cows.

Die Neue Zeit

11th February 2008, 03:27

^^^ Capitalism isn't even efficient in the securities markets. :lol:

Demogorgon

11th February 2008, 03:36

^^^ Capitalism isn't even efficient in the securities markets. :lol:
No :lol:

A lot of capitalist rhetoric comes down to the efficiency of market's, but all the neoclassical economic models they trot out with depressing predictability presume perfect competition which simply doesn't exist. I suppose if it did spring into existence then it might turn out to be eficient, but that is ahrdly worth worrying about.

The whole market argument is a red herring though anyway. Market's aren't exclusive to capitalism anyway. Even if one doesn't agree with it, it is possible to conceive of markets in socialism, just as they existed in feudalism and so forth.

There are people that actually argue for that.

pusher robot

11th February 2008, 05:11

Ugh, I tried giving a good example with a couple of different models but none capture all the differences between a capitalist and socialist risk structure yet. I'll try again tomorrow.

Tungsten

11th February 2008, 11:58

Very true, however it makes sense for society to collectively bear such costs as best it can.
Collectively bearing the cost of goods for personal use is a bad idea for two reasons:
1- No personal accountablitly- people can spend other people's money to the point of bankrupcy. A system like that is going to fall on it's arse in short order.
2- No one learns anything; people are insulated from mistakes/idiocy and what's more- everyone else gets the pleasure of paying to cleaning up the mess. Some get wise to the system and begin to exploit it.

The trouble with capitalist method of meeting these costs is twofold, first of all as noted constantly on this board, the owners of land and capital exploit the efforts of labour. Some capitalists acknowledge the problem with land of course and advocate land value taxes, but that is basically a distraction from the main problem which is the exploitation of labour by capital.
How sad that you don't consider the exploitation of labour by other labour to be worthy of mention.

The second problem is that under a market as we have it now, some people simply don't have the spending power to make their mark on demand.
Not indivdually, but that's perhap a blessing in disguise; I trust under socialism that considerable public resources will be (mis)allocated to provide half a dozen "bring back 8-track" people with their format of choice.

You tell us that markets are the most efficient means of allocating resources (presuming perfect competition), but that ignores the fact that simply re-arranging the distribution of spending power would bring about a radically different market outcome,
Have you planned for the drop in production capacity on account of money being distributed to where it is not likely to be used for production?

It would be inadequate and probably not feasible politically to redistribute wealth to any significant extent, but as a thought experiment, you would have to give a good reason as to why you oppose it, as I know you will.
Because it's stealing? The worker sells his labour. The capitalist sells the product. To have the worker then demand the product "back" or even better- to demand the sale profits from that product too, is pretty arrogant (which brings us on to another interesting argument: would they demand any loss too?)

If you were to sell me a car, and I then decided to sell it on for twice what you paid me, would you accuse me of exploiting you and demand that I handed over the difference?

But yet the means exist for the world's billionaires to have as many private jets and diamonds as they want?

The "material scarcity" line is one of the crassest of all bourgeois economic smokescreens.
You're one to talk about smokescreens: Public sector spending in the UK has increased £1 trillion in the past ten years. Not even billionaires will be able to afford it. And those shouldering the cost of these wonderful services after the revolution won't be them- it'll be us.

Dean

11th February 2008, 17:03

Communism is striving for society, not the individual.
No, it is not. Communism strives for individual liberty in man's context - as part of society. You can have liberty outside of society, but you will miss out on a lot of good things. The capitalist concept of individualism necessarily puts a person in societ,y and under the guise of "liberty" and "individualism" claims that he deserves more rights than others. This is individualism in the narrowest sense: individualism for one individual. Conctrarily, communism seeks equal rights, and thusly individualism for as many as possible.

I never said anything about separation. I said I want to make my own choices. I don't need your permission do I?
No, but if you want liberty and inequality you cannot be a part of society without taking liberty from others. Again, you can leave society under communist dogma - we have nothing against that, but if you do you can't necessarily expect any help when you need it.

I surrender to myself. I admit it. I believe I own myself. I believe in freedom, and freedom is that of choice. What can I say, I'm a sucker for freedom.
Not really. You believe in capitalism - an ideology that actively takes freedom from huge masses of people to give it to a minority. Perhaps, you believe in autocracy and subjugation, or the freedom to be autocratic, but certainly not freedom as a rule. If you surrendered to yourself, you would try to find yourself - this involves very little having, and very much "being." In other words, surrendering to yourself means that you shouldn't care for base, material goods and power, but you seem to love it.

Entrails Konfetti

11th February 2008, 19:09

Nothing. I just don't want to see the desperate attempt to move the argument in a different direction, because you don't want to discuss it in it's current form. It's like your own intellectual copout

I guess your ideology is really that bad.

Like what?

The differences are obvious

I don't get the analogy. Are you trying to say like, one size fits all??

Wow, you're totally out of your element! I never even suggested such a thing.

Why not? Are you suggesting if a lady gave birth to a child and left it in the woods all alone, it wouldn't do anything at all? It would some how just lie there quietly. It wouldn't cry when it was hungry

I'm saying there are basic characteristics of human nature, and thats all anyone can say. Saying this system or that system is human nature, is the biggest cop-out. It's like you're saying that the body of research on sociology and psycology has ended.
All anyone has been able to say is people act according to their given mental and material circumstances.

accounted eh? What's that supposed to mean?

Workers-councils, theres tons of stuff on the internet about the subject!
You're out of your element-- again!

If the government had nothing to sell, it probably wouldn't be bought. Right?

I'm not willing to go into great detail about the political machine. I already stated the government is also made up of sellers.

I totally agree. You do realize that I do not support the US economy and it's not a free market place

I love it! You're saying how Communism can't work, because of the USSR. I can easily say that pure free-market Capitalism isn't! By your logic I can say Keynesianism is human-nature!

Interesting view. If the machine dies and goes out of business, are you sold for scrap metal(to pay off your share of the debt

First, off I'm talking about a working-class person who has to work for someone else.
Second, your attempt at wit, instead of responding to the argument is another cop-out.

You're right, what a stupid moron

Capitalism has to make people stupid or keep them stupid, because some people have to work for someone else.

You mean, there needs to be risk takers and people that are too afraid to leave their comfort zone.

Not everyone can take risks, those who can, it's not always really a risk. And if everyone took risks-- there would still people working for someone else.

Shit jobs eh? I suppose that is a subjective term. Personally I wouldn't want to be the head of a business working 80hrs of high stress for a million dollars a year. Just not worth it.

Funny, rich people dont enjoy the stress. Workers hate the monotony, living conditions, and dead-ends.
Everyone really hates capitalism!

hahhahahahah ahahahahah . How exactly does that work? Like for example, there is a hundred dollars in my wallet, right now. No matter how rich Paris Hilton gets, that hundred dollars will still be in my wallet. *GASP*

Inorder for there to be rich people, there has to be poor people. Simple.

I'm pretty no one can manipulate supply and demand. I'm not going to pay $100 for a loaf of bread. Not going to happen. I'm not going to pay a maid $500/hr to clean my house. Not going to happen. I'm not going to hire an engineer for $5/hr, not going to happen.

Hoarding. under-production

It's funny how you feel the boss owes these people. Considering these employees aren't liable. If you think workers are owed profits, than they're definitely owed debt.

I don't understand why the bosses daily subsidence is more than the average worker. Why will the boss die if they live under the same conditions as their employees?

The boss must keep most of the work-force from gaining too much expirience, otherwise they'll demand more. The only reason why the boss is priceless is because of their expirience. So because the boss has better living conditions than anyone, they owe the workers for his life.

The employees are liable, if the boss accumulates too much debts, or isn't making what they want, he fires part of the workforce.
The boss doesn't realize the descisions they make affect others.

How does the market determine who I am? And better yet, who I'll see? Please explain that to me

Determines according to your financial abilities, where you can go, the extent you can develop your mental facalties, the type of people you'll be around, I could go on...

You're in the market, or at least your parents are.

We don't own a business.

I buy what I choose to buy. Of businesses snubbed me as a consumer they wouldn't get a penny, they have to show me something that I like better than what their competitors do. If it be unbeatable service, unbeatable price, unbeatable knowledge, unbeatable warranty, etc.

Again, you make choices according to what you can afford. How much you have determines what you can buy, and how many choices you can make.

Wars?

Wars are a big business! In the current situtation is has to do with taking a market from someone else.

Isn't there more pressing issues for labor?

Exactly, under Communism I'd use my labour for something more important. That I need, and what others in agreement will need to.

Are you suggesting there is no market for butt plugs?

I'm suggesting no market.

I've noticed that you communists have very negative outlooks on life. And like to play the victims of society. No wonder you guys can't get out of your ruts, you call a life.

Not my fault they'll deny you such a loan. I'm just part of a cog in machine I have no control of over.

I'm sure they wouldn't. I'm completely against business regulations. I would love to open up a whore house right next to every church in America. I have a feeling I would make big money.

Stop being such a victim, and having such a negative view on life.

So go on strike? lol

My Comrades and I are all about encouring one strike into many, then us workers taking over the means the production. lol