Socialism is just as irrational as religion. Lets accept truth shall we?

[Dejavu]

I mentioned this in the anarcho-capitalism ( the only rational anarchy) thread. GeneCosta made claims about philosophy and materialism and described rather harshly that morality is phony. Yeah, I do a bit of philosophy too:)

Morality does not exist in the real world, this is true. Morality and Ethics are concepts but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are subjective. Scientific Method also doesn't exist in the real world as it is a concept but that doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective.

And now for the nail in the coffin of Socialism and to show why it is A.irrational B. incompatible with anarchy and C. why it is in the same family as organized religion.

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.:rolleyes:

[Dejavu]

Understanding now that 'classes' and 'collectives' do not actually exist. The person that justifies 'collective' ownership over private ownership must also justify the existence of 'god.'

By telling me how 'collective' ownership or 'democratic' 'workers' rule is even REALISTIC ( or should exist) you are obligated to tell me how 'god' exists.

You can't have it both ways. I'll accept theist socialists ( at least its consistent) or if you reject god then you have to reject socialism or your being inconsistent, irrational, and illogical.

Aside from that. As soon as you decide to become rational :

To Anarchists: For those of you who maintain your rationality, I will be accepting applications to pledge your support to anarcho-capitalism.

or

To Socialists: To those of you who wish to be irrational I might recommend an organized religion to join. Otherwise , same goes to you as for the anarchists.


Your friend always,
DejaVu :)

[Bud Struggle]

Morality does not exist in the real world, this is true. Morality and Ethics are concepts but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are subjective.Scientific Method also doesn't exist in the real world as it is a concept but that doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective.It also doesn't mean it isn't subjective.


And now for the nail in the coffin of Socialism and to show why it is A.irrational B. incompatible with anarchy and C. why it is in the same family as organized religion. Actually the idea that Communism is a "religion" is a point I've been making here for some time. Communism is a system of understanding the universe based on "faith" that some things are "preordained." Nothing wrong with that, it just not rational.


Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world.

This is without a doubt true. It's a made up construct of judging people by certain certain arbitrary criteria based on the subjective laws of the belief system. Nothing wrong witth that--it's similar to Catholics not eating meat on Fridays in Lent--it's a thing that the believers follow--it's nothing that exists in reality in the real world.



A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. If that's what some people want to believe---:)


A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion. Well, OK.


Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

You haven't sold me here for the same reason Anarchy hasn't sold me. There's value in a collective government that looks out for the good of the people. It stops excesses of the individuals.


Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.:rolleyes:


You are all WELCOME!! The Lord's awaitin' on ya!!!:D

[Dejavu]

You haven't sold me here for the same reason Anarchy hasn't sold me. There's value in a collective government that looks out for the good of the people. It stops excesses of the individuals.Damn Tom, You make this difficult. I have turn you into an atheist and these other guys into capitalists. :(

OK Tom.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area.
The first thing to understand is that the word “government” is a mere conceptual description, and so has no more existence in reality than “numbers” do. The word “government” has the same relationship to “people” as “forest” has to “trees.” Trees exist; a “forest” does not, except as a description within our minds. People exist - a “government” does not.
Thus there is no point trying to describe the actions or ethics of “governments” - we can only describe the actions and ethics of people.
For morality to mean anything, it must be universal, consistent and reversible. It cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that “Action X” is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow.
What is right for one must be right for all - and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all.
Just like logic, A is A. A cannot be A and not A at the same time. Contradictions do not exist in objective reality.

Stealing - forcing a transfer of property against the will of the owner - is wrong. Naturally, this definition perfectly applies to the practice of taxation, which is the initiation of violence against largely-disarmed citizens in order to take their money against their will. I certainly understand the democratic theory that, since people get to vote, the government does not take the money against their will, but the justification is nonsense. The fact that a slave gets to choose his master does not mean that he is not a slave. The fact that voters play a statistically-insignificant part in choosing who gets to rob them does not mean that they are not being robbed.
Some people also respond that the governments provide service, which have to be paid for. However, this is irrelevant. If I steal a $100 from you, then send you $10, I have not absolved myself of the crime of theft.
Some people also respond that certain services must be provided by the government, like roads or education or healthcare or old-age pensions. Again, this is utterly irrelevant. If I steal $100 from you, and then send $20 to my grandmother, or use it to pay for a road, this does not absolve me of the crime of theft.
There are people who also believe some services, such as education, will not be provided to everyone in the absence of the government. This is irrelevant. How education will be provided in the absence of the government has no bearing on the immorality of taxation. Saying that you will support a stateless society as soon as you can be convinced that everyone will get a great education is exactly the same as saying you will support the end of slavery once you know that every ex-slave will get a great job, or that you will only oppose the crime of theft if someone can prove to you that, after theft is abolished, every thief will have enough money.
The first question in politics - and ethics of course - is not what can be achieved through violence, but whether the use of violence is legitimate at all. If violence is legitimized by the ends it achieves, then no moral theories are possible, and society may as well continue its current war of “all against all,” as represented by the police, the military, the government and all the other special interests that prey on taxpayers.
The principles of anarchism - or voluntarism - are simple, direct, rational and clear-eyed. All human beings have the capacity to act in a corrupt and destructive manner - it is our very capacity for corruption and violence that requires the elimination of the centralized coercive power of the State. When you can force your victims to pay for both your income, and the violence which extracts their property, there is no limit to the expansion of violence. The government fosters and engenders widespread conflict - either openly, in warfare, or in the more subtle manner of lobbying and pressure groups. No group of men or women can conceivably wield the extraordinary coercive power of the state and not be corrupted - nor would any decent and honorable person be attracted to that kind of power. The existence of the State both corrupts society through the moral elevation of violence and gives the most corrupt people in society the greatest power.
Only one solution to the problem of violence has ever been found, which is the total elimination of centralized coercive power, so that no single group can profit from gaining control of State power. For example, in the absence of the State, war is never profitable, since without free labor in the form of conscription, and “free” funding in the form of taxation and deficit spending, there is no more profit in war than there is in openly burning down your own house.
The spontaneous self-organization of the free market is the most powerful mechanism for diluting the aggregation of centralized power that has ever been discovered. Monopolies are only possible when corporations - or unions - can leverage the centralized power of the State. The competition of economic self-interest is the only way to ensure that power will never be monopolized by any single group.

Self-Organization which is only available through the free market is the only logical,rational, and valid conclusion.
How can there be 'collectivized' organization when 'collectives' do not exist? How is that rational?


There is the possibility of a world without war, without involuntary poverty, without mandated ignorance - and a world in which violence - at its worst - is only occasionally accidental, not universally institutional.

[Bud Struggle]

Dejavu, How fast do you type? Whew!

[Post-Something]

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.


Just one quick point, when Marxists distinguish between classes, it's HOW an individual earns his money, not how much, or whatever other method you may wish to use. This is why most Marxists don't care about ideas like the middle class etc. The Bourgeoisie make their money by exploiting, while the proletariat make theirs by being exploited. One owns the means of production, one doesn't. I think that's pretty grounded in reality if you ask me.

[Demogorgon]

Speaks the anarcho-capitalist!

Really this "individuals exist, collectives don't" crap is just embarrassing. Only ultra right wing loonies who want to create a false dichotomy between "individualism" and "collectivism" bring the crap up. Those are meaningless phrases.

[Dejavu]

Just one quick point, when Marxists distinguish between classes, it's HOW an individual earns his money, not how much, or whatever other method you may wish to use. This is why most Marxists don't care about ideas like the middle class etc. The Bourgeoisie make their money by exploiting, while the proletariat make theirs by being exploited. One owns the means of production, one doesn't. I think that's pretty grounded in reality if you ask me.

You can't distinguish on something that has no basis in reality and then claim to derive certain truths from that. It is being irrational. Who the hell are you or anyone else to say how an individual earns HIS money unless they steal it from you ( government).You want a piece of his pie, ask him or trade him something for it. You have no right to steal from him and then claim you would prefer not to be stolen from. No ' bourgeoisie' or anything said about them reflect any truth, nor the 'proletariat.' It doesn't follow that just because one owns his own property all should own his property. It means that if he has the right to own his own property then everyone has the right to own their own property.



Speaks the anarcho-capitalist!

Really this "individuals exist, collectives don't" crap is just embarrassing. Only ultra right wing loonies who want to create a false dichotomy between "individualism" and "collectivism" bring the crap up. Those are meaningless phrases.

Aww listen to the baby whine. You sound like a preacher now telling me to read the Bible. INDIVIDUALISM can only be descriptive of objective reality, NOT COLLECTIVISM. Its based on a myth. We are matter with conscious. The only way we can be a 'collective' is if we had a single conscious and still that would be an individual mind. :laugh:


You tell me what you mean by collectivism without sounding irrational. :laugh:

If you choose to be socialist and irrational , base your theories upon a myth, fine with me but you should really explain to me how god exists.

[Bud Struggle]

Damn Tom, You make this difficult. I have turn you into an atheist and these other guys into capitalists. :(

OK Tom.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area.

Fine I'll accept that definition.



The first thing to understand is that the word “government” is a mere conceptual description, and so has no more existence in reality than “numbers” do. The word “government” has the same relationship to “people” as “forest” has to “trees.” Trees exist; a “forest” does not, except as a description within our minds. People exist - a “government” does not.

What you're describing is nominalism--a pholosophical system based on the idea that there are no universals. I don't know if I'm ready to go that far. There are universals--there is an idea of "tree" out there that lets you identify one quickly and quietly. On the other hand the place I have trouble is in the ARBITRARY universals of the Communists that state if you do X for a living you are this and if you do Y for a living you are that.



Thus there is no point trying to describe the actions or ethics of “governments” - we can only describe the actions and ethics of people. That's a point I've made here myself.



For morality to mean anything, it must be universal, consistent and reversible. It cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that “Action X” is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow. What is right ofr one must be right for all - and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all. I'll agree to that. Moral laws should be uiniversal--thou shalt not kill.


Stealing - forcing a transfer of property against the will of the owner - is wrong. Naturally, this definition perfectly applies to the practice of taxation, which is the initiation of violence against largely-disarmed citizens in order to take their money against their will. I certainly understand the democratic theory that, since people get to vote, the government does not take the money against their will, but the justification is nonsense. The fact that a slave gets to choose his master does not mean that he is not a slave. The fact that voters play a statistically-insignificant part in choosing who gets to rob them does not mean that they are not being robbed.

Here we disagree. (And maybe I'm the wrong person for you to argue with here.) I am fully vested in the government of the United States. I buy aircraft carriers and schools and welfare with my tax dollars because I WANT these things to be bought, and I pay people from Presidents to janators to supervise my purchaces. I'm a stockholder in America and while my employees don't always do the best job of running the place--they are still my employees and I am the owner.



The principles of anarchism - or voluntarism - are simple, direct, rational and clear-eyed. All human beings have the capacity to act in a corrupt and destructive manner - it is our very capacity for corruption and violence that requires the elimination of the centralized coercive power of the State. You misunderstand the purrpose of the state--it's to protect you against ME and people like me. I know my weaknesses--and one of them is to control everything I see--and there are a lot worse people than me out there. But the constitution protects people against me, I have to follow rules, I have to obey laws, I'm neutered to running businesses instead of lives. I'm a really nice guy--I just have a habit of taking over. Government stops me. You should be thankful.


Only one solution to the problem of violence has ever been found, which is the total elimination of centralized coercive power, so that no single group can profit from gaining control of State power. For example, in the absence of the State, war is never profitable, since without free labor in the form of conscription, and “free” funding in the form of taxation and deficit spending, there is no more profit in war than there is in openly burning down your own house. But once you get your anarchy--there will be people to tear it down as soon as it gets up. I would--an anarchy would be a playground for me. I certainly don't want the temptation.



The spontaneous self-organization of the free market is the most powerful mechanism for diluting the aggregation of centralized power that has ever been discovered. Monopolies are only possible when corporations - or unions - can leverage the centralized power of the State. The competition of economic self-interest is the only way to ensure that power will never be monopolized by any single group.

You miss the important connection between money and power. You bais all your presuppositions on the idea that money is all that people want--it's isn't. Money is only the gateway to power. That's the end.



There is the possibility of a world without war, without involuntary poverty, without mandated ignorance - and a world in which violence - at its worst - is only occasionally accidental, not universally institutional.

At this point you have a utopian belief system not unlike Communism or Christianity.

Yours cordially,

Tom

[Dros]

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world.

Operating under a bourgeois definition of class this would be true, yes. However, it is not true when looking at class from a Marxist perspective. Marxism is scientific and looks at the patterns of objective relations. There are certain objective elements called the means of production. They produce certain objects called products. All people in society somehow consume these products (or they die). These products are transferred to these people in ways that are objectively observable. And it is this relationship (between people and the means of production) that defines Marxist class analysis. It is not a social construct but a scientific view of society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The fact of the matter is that irrationality can be transposed unto virtually any belief system. There are glazed eyed Marxist and anarchist dogmatists who live in their own little isolation chambers, just as there are innumerable [insert opposing ideology here] functionaries. I'm not exactly sure what is so irrational about classifying people based on the services they perform in any given society (and before you label me as one of the "faithful", know that I take serious issues with certain aspects of Marxism.) I would in general agree with Demogorgon when he says that there is quite a bit of false dichtonomy involved in the false "individualist vs. collectivist" divide, which is a trap that many leftists fall into, as well.

[Post-Something]

Operating under a bourgeois definition of class this would be true, yes. However, it is not true when looking at class from a Marxist perspective. Marxism is scientific and looks at the patterns of objective relations. There are certain objective elements called the means of production. They produce certain objects called products. All people in society somehow consume these products (or they die). These products are transferred to these people in ways that are objectively observable. And it is this relationship (between people and the means of production) that defines Marxist class analysis. It is not a social construct but a scientific view of society.

Exactly!

[professorchaos]

An "individual person" is just a descriptive term for a number of biological systems and does not exist objectively. And a biological system is just a descriptive term for a number of organs and does not exist objectively. And an organ is just a descriptive term for a number of tissues. And a tissue is just a descriptive term for a number of cells, which is just a descriptive term for a number of organelles, which is just a descriptive term for a number of molecules, which is just a term for a number of atoms, which is just a term for a number of collected subatomic particles. So in your "reality" the only things that objectively exist are subatomic particles.

Or have I misunderstood?

[Bud Struggle]

The fact of the matter is that irrationality can be transposed unto virtually any belief system. There are glazed eyed Marxist and anarchist dogmatists who live in their own little isolation chambers, just as there are innumerable [insert opposing ideology here] functionaries. I'm not exactly sure what is so irrational about classifying people based on the services they perform in any given society (and before you label me as one of the "faithful", know that I take serious issues with certain aspects of Marxism.) I would in general agree with Demogorgon when he says that there is quite a bit of false dichtonomy involved in the false "individualist vs. collectivist" divide, which is a trap that many leftists fall into, as well.

I would postit that the "Class system" is more arbitrary than irrational--it fits into the specific view of the world that Communists hold of the interpersonal relationships people hold with one another. You may work in a tire factory and I may work in a steel factory, but through our common belief in the idea of a class system we become "comrades".

There are other equally valid world views that hold various other beliefs as to their participants and their realtionships with one another. I may be a Catholic and have a common belief system with other Catholics--with them I am a "comrade" in our beliefs. Lutherans are foreign to Catholic comrades as the bourgeois is to the Communist worker comrades. There is nothing that makes the Communist belief system and it's view on interpersonal relationships--irrational. It like Catholicism or the Elks Club is entirely arbitrary.

As to Communism being a "science" I don't see it as a systematic knowledge based on the scientific method. It's not provable or testable and retestable by independant sources. Communism is a secular system of belief in an organization of the universe that may or may not pan out to be true. I wish you happiness in your beliefs--and if it does bring you happiness it just may be true after all, no matter if the future works out like Marx planned or not.

[Zurdito]

"forests don't exist"?

I stoped reading there, what a pile of rationalist Newtonian crap. as if the universe is made up of little atoms that contain their true essence within themselves, and then build up the universe by simply acting of their own accord and fitting together like rationally self-interest peices in a big clock, in accordance with their internally contained inherent qualities. :lol:

that "clockwork" view of the universe has been discredit for quite some time. things get their meaning and qualities from relations to other things. The size of a tree depends on the ground it grows in. The existence of a forest gives life to anecosystem which shapes the tree. the effect of the entire forest on the minerals in the ground affects the way the tree grows. the tree grew where it did because another trees seeds were pollinated by the wind or by a creature, therefore, the tree could not exist as it is, and where it is, without the forest.

Get beyond Newtonian rationalism then come back to us. ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

'forests' do not [exist].

Operating under that logic (and I use the word sparingly) you shouldn't be basing anything off of numbers or time. :laugh:

[SocialDemocracy19]

not true socialism is making sure everyone is taken care of and if u want anarchy than u support unfair competition but with no limits so its like captialism but worse.

[Dros]

not true socialism is making sure everyone is taken care of and if u want anarchy than u support unfair competition but with no limits so its like captialism but worse.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read this thread at all?

[RGacky3]

Ask your average wage worker if class exists and matters.

And yeah, Socialism has NOTHING TO DO with individualism vrs collectivism, infact it extends the opportunity for individudalism to everyone, not just the few that can afford it.

Also the concept of the individual is just as philisophical as the concept of the collective, and as long as people interact with each other and work with each other the collective exists as a social phemenon.

No Anarchist or Socialist thinks that the collective exists in a scientific sense, it exists in a social/practical sense, the same way time does'nt really exist as a physical thing, the same way the mind does'nt really exist (all of these examples are phylisophical and thus cannot be empirically proven), the same way the mind/soul does'nt exist.

Socialism is'nt a science, its a group of principles.

[mikelepore]

Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

Groups of things do exist and have group characteristics. No scientist would say that there's no such thing as the sun or the earth or moon, but it's only a case of here's a particle, and here's another one, and another one, and another one.

Groups of people can also have characteristics which can be observed; for example, we can all see the pattern that, in general, it's the masters who dictate instructions to the slaves, and not the reverse.

But let's suppose that, as a semantical exercise, we focus only on the smallest building blocks that can be identified, regarding everything combinatorial as an abstraction. How then, did the huge collection of particles that is the individual human being get selected to be the basic reality? It is because that answer "feels right" -- we have senses to feel our minds and bodies, but we can't feel our particles.

We could even bend over backwards and allow someone to select the individual human being as the fundamental reality, just to see where that leads. There is still a major problem. The original post doesn't show that any choice of social system makes the error that another choice is free of making. How did it come about that, when one person prefers the stockholders to receive the wealth and elect the management, that's the real stuff, but when another person prefers the workers to receive the wealth and elect the management, that an "abstraction"? Only by beginning with the desired conclusion. Another case of selecting what seems to feel right. This is found within a message that reminds us all to be scientific and rational.

[Post-Something]

Dejavu, you are a group of things. Otherwise, could you please point to the part of you which is "Dejavu". No, you can't, that's because you are just a collection of cells in a certain way, and we call that a human. Just like a collection of humans earning money in a certain way is called the "Bourgeoisie", or "Proletariat".

Furthermore, groups have characteristics of their own. If there is no such thing as collectives, please explain things like "false class consciousness" and "deindividuation". These characteristics only come about because of a GROUP situation. Plus, these classes are clearly different not only in the way they make they're money, and as Marxists, we argue that they are in fact antagonistic.

[Tommy-K]

I mentioned this in the anarcho-capitalism ( the only rational anarchy) thread. GeneCosta made claims about philosophy and materialism and described rather harshly that morality is phony. Yeah, I do a bit of philosophy too:)

Morality does not exist in the real world, this is true. Morality and Ethics are concepts but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are subjective. Scientific Method also doesn't exist in the real world as it is a concept but that doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective.

And now for the nail in the coffin of Socialism and to show why it is A.irrational B. incompatible with anarchy and C. why it is in the same family as organized religion.

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.:rolleyes:


For a start, i thought the whole point of the scientific method is that its NOT subjective.

If collectives do not exist, how do you explain communes? Or the Israeli kibbutzes? You are studying society from a very micro point of view, and whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is majorly important to observe the structures present in modern society that shape, limit and constrain individual action. Look at the bigger picture.

[JazzRemington]

For a start, i thought the whole point of the scientific method is that its NOT subjective.

If collectives do not exist, how do you explain communes? Or the Israeli kibbutzes? You are studying society from a very micro point of view, and whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is majorly important to observe the structures present in modern society that shape, limit and constrain individual action. Look at the bigger picture.

You fool, clearly you don't understand how this works. If he says there ain't such things as society then there ain't such things as society, by golly!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Forests don't exist?

[Matty_UK]

Deja Vu, you ought to take some LSD, and you'll realise what we see as our individuality is merely a social construction and we actually exist as a collective consciousness. You'll also realise that property is a bizarre concept. Try it, you'll learn a lot.

[Led Zeppelin]

Social class is actually about the relation of people to the means of production, not their existence as individuals or as a political, economic or social group.

You need to read up on Marxism before trying to refute it.

[Anashtih]

Deja Vu, you ought to take some LSD, and you'll realise what we see as our individuality is merely a social construction and we actually exist as a collective consciousness. You'll also realise that property is a bizarre concept. Try it, you'll learn a lot.
Also, you'll learn that aliens are out to harvest our organs.
NO, SRLSY.

No, not really :(

I guess what I'm trying to say is, LSD is good.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.
So let me get this straight... socialism is irrational for the same reason why forests don't exist?

I suppose then you don't exist either, because you are just a collective of cells, and there are no such things as collectives - only individual cells.

[Anashtih]

This is actually kind of sad. The OP took some extremely interesting ideas and ran in the opposite direction of what he should have.
EDIT: Or she.

[Awful Reality]

Forests don't exist

Sucks to live in whatever post-modern surrealistic wonderland you live in.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Deja Vu, you ought to take some LSD, and you'll realise what we see as our individuality is merely a social construction and we actually exist as a collective consciousness. You'll also realise that property is a bizarre concept. Try it, you'll learn a lot.

Somehow, I don't think this helps our cause:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Sucks to live in whatever post-modern surrealistic wonderland you live in.

Communists must know what it's like to live in that suckfest for sure. :lol:

[Dejavu]

What you're describing is nominalism--a pholosophical system based on the idea that there are no universals. I don't know if I'm ready to go that far. There are universals--there is an idea of "tree" out there that lets you identify one quickly and quietly. On the other hand the place I have trouble is in the ARBITRARY universals of the Communists that state if you do X for a living you are this and if you do Y for a living you are that.

To address your point. It can be said;"All persons who paint for a living are painters, Bob is a person who paints for a living, therefore, Bob is a painter." Not to get too technical but this describes an occupation. The only way to make universal proposition about people is to find a commonality among all people in order for it to be true. The above statement is true for people like Bob who paint for a living but not true for all human beings. A universal proposition applicable to all human beings is " All human beings are mortal, TomK is a human being, therefore, TomK is mortal." In other words , I made the assertion that all human beings are mortal and that since you're a human being , you are also mortal.

A communist can go only so far as to create the concept of a social class in his mind and assign that particular social class properties and then assert that certain human beings fall into that social class. However, because a social class does not exist in objective reality but, rather, it is a descriptive concept of a specific group of people,a communist cannot derive universal truths about all of humanity from a social class anymore then a person cannot make propositions universal to humanity based on his description of painters.

The only way you can say something true universal to all of humanity is if you treat your 'class' as the human species altogether. And even still, the aggregate is only a concept where in reality all that exist of humanity are individual beings. Right?

To claim that mankind is a 'collective whole' in objective reality rather than composed of individual beings puts the burden of proof on the communist to show that a 'collective' exists in objective reality.

I will explain with the tree example to address your other question.

Note: For the sake of consistency, I will make the disclaimer that these are actually digitized pictures representing things that exist in objective reality.
Onward :

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SKUNKA%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpghttp://www.pinetreeline.org/reunions/gimli-02/gimli24.jpg

Now any rational person would identify this object composed of matter as a tree. A 'tree' is a concept based on evidence drawn from material reality through our senses ( sight for example) to which our mind takes a 'snap shot' and forms the evidence ( sight : light particles reflected from the tree to our eyes) and organizes it into the concept ( 'snap shot'). Certain properties of a tree might be that it is composed of wood, it has branches, typically it grows leaves, etc.

Now, here is another picture:

http://www.blackburn.gov.uk/upload/img_400/Oak_tree.jpg

Notice, this tree does not look the same as the last. However, it still maintains the common properties part of all trees and thus is a tree. If the trees stood in close proximity of each other it wouldn't diminish the fact that they are still two different trees. No two trees are exactly alike though some may share more common characteristics with some trees rather than others. This is an oak tree. If I found somewhere where two oak trees were in close proximity to each other, then I can say 'two' or 'a couple' of oak trees over there but it wouldn't relinquish the fact that in objective reality they exist as two individual trees that happen to be close together. Also, think about this, when you observe these pictures ( digital representations of reality), you can identify them as trees without me telling you anything even if they look different. You are comparing this representation on pictures to your mental conception of a tree and reasoning logically that these pictures are in fact trees that (can) exist in reality.

Next picture :
http://captaincommunist.tegnebordet.dk/pix/st2.jpg
This is a picture of Captain Communist. :laugh:
Now, if I made the proposition that CC is a tree then that would be false. Note, I don't need to test CC or a tree to see this is false. I have a concept(representation) of a tree with relevant properties in my head and I know CC isn't composed of wood based on his properties(from a comic book :laugh:) and since wood is a common property for all trees, I know CC is not a tree. Now we know CC doesn't even exist in objective reality and though I have technically no way to disprove it ( nothing to test) there is also no way to prove it ( nothing to test.) Captain communist cannot be claimed to exist without empirical testing.

Now one more picture:
http://www.rffi.org/image/RedwoodForest.jpg
This is a forest, quite a beautiful one at that. Now, look at the trees in this forest carefully. Now what actually exists? Well, speaking of the trees, we see that these are nothing more than individual trees in close proximity to each other. If one claimed a forest actually existed then that is making a claim that a forest entity exists in objective reality. This puts the burden of proof on the one who makes the proposition to empirically prove that an 'aggregate' forest entity truly exists. Of course, this is a logical contradiction. If an aggregate means many, and the existence of the aggregate implies one aggregate, then it is a contradiction. You cannot have one and not one and be logical and rational. It is like saying TomK exists and does not exist. :confused:

Logic is consistent. Only one object can logically exist. Even of you say 2 trees exist. Logically, you are implying 2 of 1 tree exist. Get it? In technology we have logic gates that are part of all digital devices that make life great for us. Logic gates are simple. You have AND, OR, and NOT gates. In the world of digital logic , there exists 1s and 0s or simply is's and isn'ts. 1 AND 1 , 1 OR 0, 1 NOT 0. '1' in logic applies 'is' , only '1' 'is', it cannot be the case that 1 is 2,338,999 and 2,338,999 is 1. Logic would know the contradiction not to be true and '2,338,999' does not exist and therefore 1 NOT 0. '0' meaning 'nothing.'

An 'aggregate' or 'collective' is a concept that is applies to X+1 human beings that are in proximity to each other for whatever reason as a 'dozen' are to eggs or 'forests' are to trees. Picture a forest as a 'conceptual net' as fish in a net. Fish in a net are still X number of 1 fish in a net. Now, since the the concept of a forest actually represents individual trees in close proximity to each other, is it rational to say just because a tree that might be far away and therefore far apart from the forest that it is not a tree? Of course that wouldn't be the case. If we know our lone tree shares common properties with each of the 348 trees in the 'forest' then the lone tree is a tree. The aggregate does not define the individual trees, the individual trees define the aggregate. :)

Now apply this principle to nations, states , governments, religions, classes, races, occupations, collectives, and you will see that individual human beings all share common properties and there is nothing intrinsic in each that grant them power over the rest or else those that defy the common properties shared in all human beings would no longer be human. To suggest that some humans are 'more human' than others would be irrational , illogical , and is falsified empirically.



I'll agree to that. Moral laws should be uiniversal--thou shalt not kill.

I think its imperative to have a universal objective moral standard that is preferred by all human beings. Unfortunately religions, governments, communists,etc all have conflicting and therefore subjective moral standards which leads to things like nationalism , racism , classism , feminism, etc.




Here we disagree. (And maybe I'm the wrong person for you to argue with here.) I am fully vested in the government of the United States. I buy aircraft carriers and schools and welfare with my tax dollars because I WANT these things to be bought, and I pay people from Presidents to janators to supervise my purchaces. I'm a stockholder in America and while my employees don't always do the best job of running the place--they are still my employees and I am the owner.

But the dynamic changes if I don't want those things. Think of the examples I've cited earlier. If you honestly believe there should be an objective moral standard then you cannot coherently support a government in which a group of people operate on the aggression principle over everyone else they hold to the non-aggression principle , obviously , through force. You can still run your own company providing that it is not with force but rather through voluntary exchange. If you believe human beings have the moral justification to murder other human beings but still hold fast to 'thou shalt not kill' then obviously there exists a contradiction. Remember 1 and 1 only. If one has the moral justification for murder, than all have the moral justification for murder . If one ought to be able to own property , then all ought to be able to own property.



You misunderstand the purrpose of the state--it's to protect you against ME and people like me. I know my weaknesses--and one of them is to control everything I see--and there are a lot worse people than me out there. But the constitution protects people against me, I have to follow rules, I have to obey laws, I'm neutered to running businesses instead of lives. I'm a really nice guy--I just have a habit of taking over. Government stops me. You should be thankful.

I clearly know the purpose of the state and it is totally irrational , illogical , and not even scientific. Its aggression upon fellow man. Your are making the case and moral justification that those in government ( for no rational reason) should have the right to initiate violence against other human beings while at the same time making the case that others should not.
The constitution doesn't protect all people. The constitution isn't even respected today as it is claimed it should be. Furthermore, the constitution was voted upon by a secret ballot over 200 years ago. Roughly only 1/6th of the U.S. population actually voted for its ratification. While still allowing for institutionalized slavery for nearly 100 yrs , future generations are binded to a contract that some unknown people voted for. You find moral justification in that?



But once you get your anarchy--there will be people to tear it down as soon as it gets up. I would--an anarchy would be a playground for me. I certainly don't want the temptation.

Well, thats fine if you don't want it, you can always form your own aggregate and claim your part of the greater whole. But what moral justification does your conceptual aggregate have in holding other INDIVIDUALS in it, that don't want it, and forcing them to obey its rules?



You miss the important connection between money and power. You bais all your presuppositions on the idea that money is all that people want--it's isn't. Money is only the gateway to power. That's the end.

Money is power for the state and the state's drones. Money in the strict economic sense is a commodity preferred in indirect exchange. What gives a certain aggregate of human beings the moral justification to counterfeit money but at the same time prevent through force other human beings from performing the same action?



At this point you have a utopian belief system not unlike Communism or Christianity.


Its not utopian. Almost 90% of your life is anarchy. Hopefully most of your actions are done with other people in voluntary exchange without the necessity of coercion. It is the natural state of things where one aggregate doesn't rule over individuals because theres no logical,moral,scientific, or rational case for the state or other coercive institutions.

DejaVu.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Now apply this principle to nations, states , governments, religions, classes, races, occupations, collectives, and you will see that individual human beings all share common properties and there is nothing intrinsic in each that grant them power over the rest or else those that defy the common properties shared in all human beings would no longer be human. To suggest that some humans are 'more human' than others would be irrational , illogical , and is falsified empirically.
Oh really? Allow me to introduce you to feral children (http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php). There is good reason to believe that a human being growing up separated from human society is not "human" in any meaningful sense except the purely biological one.

Besides, all of this is irrelevant. Groups and collectives exist in empirical reality. You have done nothing but play with definitions. Sophistry.

[Dejavu]

For a start, i thought the whole point of the scientific method is that its NOT subjective.

If collectives do not exist, how do you explain communes? Or the Israeli kibbutzes? You are studying society from a very micro point of view, and whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is majorly important to observe the structures present in modern society that shape, limit and constrain individual action. Look at the bigger picture.

Scientific Method unlike religion is dynamic. Scientific Method proposes a theory about reality and then tests that theory to either prove or disprove the theory. If Scientific Method holds a concept about reality but it is falsified then then that concept about reality is dismissed as false. Concept always gives way to sensations experienced in reality. Religion is static and holds the concept higher even if objective reality contradicts a religious proposition.

Communes are only a concept, there is no such thing as a commune constructed of matter that actually exists. A commune is basically an aggregate concept of individuals. If an aggregate(commune)means one, and by definition an aggregate is many of one(not one of many), then claiming an aggregate is one of many (collective or commune) is a contradiction. In reality only objects of one exist. In order for an aggregate to exist it must be one composed of matter and energy.

Picture of part of a 'commune':

http://libcom.org/files/commune.jpg

This is a picture of part of the 'Paris Commune.' When you look at it objectively and observe what exists in actual reality, all you see is a grouping of individuals that share common human properties but that are also distinct. The commune is a aggregate concept applies to certain individuals in close proximity but the commune does not actually exist in objective reality, just individuals with concepts and beliefs.
What makes each person in this picture different from one person that would be outside of this picture maybe 2,000 miles away? Just their concepts and beliefs but nothing fundamental about their common human characteristics.

That community(group of individuals) in the pic can abandon the concept of a commune and nothing about objective reality in the picture would fundamentally change. Ground would still be the ground, buildings would still be buildings , trees be trees, and people would still be people , just with maybe different beliefs.



Oh really? Allow me to introduce you to feral children (http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php). There is good reason to believe that a human being growing up separated from human society is not "human" in any meaningful sense except the purely biological one.

Besides, all of this is irrelevant. Groups and collectives exist in empirical reality. You have done nothing but play with definitions. Sophistry.Face it , you Marxists are pseudo-scientific. The feral children are really individual children that have different concepts about reality. You are finding it hard to separate your socialist irrationality from simply observing empirical reality. You're being religious actually. You believe a particular set of concepts need to be developed in order to qualify as a human? If that feral girl is not a human, what species is she? I'd sure like to know.

Muslims can claim they are greater than other human beings because of their concept of Ummah, Rayah, and Infidel right?

Its like a X person claiming he may claim or ownership over the feral girl like a dog simply because her concepts are not 'human.' :laugh:

I'll show you this picture.

http://www.learnit2.com/photoshop/Add-Wrinkles/1.jpg
Just some random girl. You know nothing about her concepts of reality. Would you wait to wait to qualify this girl as a human being? What does the psuedo-science Marxism say about 'qualifications' to be considered human?


And you appear to be like a Christian minister. :laugh:
'You're just playing with definitions, angels exist in reality!'

I challenge you to find me evidence ( a picture will do) of a commune or collective that does not entail many individual objects ( with and without consciousness) but rather an an actual real commune existing apart from the individual objects that are part of the concept of a commune.

Show me the 'commune' is nothing more than just a bad idea and has no basis in material reality.

If a person said we are all 'god's family' and the earth is 'god's house' would you honestly believe that this is , in fact, god's house and we are all his children? Wheres the house in reality? Or wait, this is an concept and belief and that reality shows no such house. You have no more legitimacy than that. :laugh:

[Dejavu]

Dejavu, you are a group of things. Otherwise, could you please point to the part of you which is "Dejavu". No, you can't, that's because you are just a collection of cells in a certain way, and we call that a human. Just like a collection of humans earning money in a certain way is called the "Bourgeoisie", or "Proletariat".

Furthermore, groups have characteristics of their own. If there is no such thing as collectives, please explain things like "false class consciousness" and "deindividuation". These characteristics only come about because of a GROUP situation. Plus, these classes are clearly different not only in the way they make they're money, and as Marxists, we argue that they are in fact antagonistic.

Thats dimwit science argument. Going by that psycho babble, everything is a collective of atoms and that you are fundamentally no different than a rock. :laugh:
It is true we are constructed of individual matter however we have exclusive ownership over the matter properties that we are constructed of. Neurologically, biologically , and chemically we have full ownership over the purposeful actions our body performs. We are a living biological and chemical mass exclusively to ourselves. Unless my heart is physically taken out of my body and put into yours , it cannot do anything for your brain. No matter if you had me believe I was your total servant and I did everything you obeyed, you still could not will me to raise my arm or blink my eyes just by you thinking about it and wanting it as you would blink your eyes or raise your arm.

Scientifically(I'm not talking about pseudo-science Marxism either), in order for your proposition here to hold true for human beings, there would have to exist a single entity composed of all 6 billion of us biologically, chemically, and neurologically, with a single conscious and even then, it would be considered a single mass. ;)

And claiming 'class consciousness' is exactly equivalent to god existing. You are claiming something 'class' exists as conscious without matter.:laugh:
Thinking rationally would tell you a 'class' is an idea or concept that is shared by different individual human beings with independent consciousness. A single class conscious doesn't exist , just different individual perspectives that may or may not agree on things. We would all agree that you can read and comprehend English as can I. We agree on the general structure of the English language and are able to write sentences and speak coherently as a result. Does this mean that because you and I have a pretty strong agreement on how to read and write English that we are one conscious? Furthermore, if a single class conscious existed, then why do all the proletariats speak with with each other on this board ( as well as the bourgeoisie between each other) when that would be equivalent to speaking with your hand? If a single conscious existed, then why appeal with reason to others in your 'class' if not appealing to another conscious? Either you are clearly insane or just brainwashed. Either way , its irrational.

There is only confirmation that the belief in classism's existence by the verification of individuals stating they believe such nonsense. It doesn't show that class consciousness exists in objective reality as consciousness cannot exist without matter. Its equivalent to confirming that theists have the belief in god's existence but tells us nothing about if god does exist in objective reality.

[Dejavu]

If some of you decide to abandon your irrationality, I am here to help you on the road to recovery. :)

[Kronos]

Man I swear I'm trying to find something comprehensible in this thread, but I can't find my way through all the mental gymnastics and pictures of trees. Can you just relax for a second, collect your marbles, and restate slowly what it is you are trying to say again?

So far I got "socialism is irrational like religion". I certainly disagree with this, since socialism is not even remotely like religion.

[Dejavu]

Man I swear I'm trying to find something comprehensible in this thread, but I can't find my way through all the mental gymnastics and pictures of trees. Can you just relax for a second, collect your marbles, and restate slowly what it is you are trying to say again?

So far I got "socialism is irrational like religion". I certainly disagree with this, since socialism is not even remotely like religion.


And I thought you were a nihilist?
Read everything over again. I think some of the Socs are starting to understand it. I made it as easy as possible without having to be seasoned in philosophy.

[Dejavu]

TomK , this is for you specifically. Don't worry I'm gonna make another point but first...

Tell me what you see in this picture. Describe it to your best ability if you don't mind.

http://www.doubleealpacas.com/profile2.jpg

The rest of you can chime in if you want. Don't worry Tom, I'm not messing with you. I'm going to illustrate something as soon as you get done with the description. :)

[Bud Struggle]

I see a guy walking a couple of, I don't know--llamas?-- into a barn. A dog, kind of a big dog behind. It's in the south somewhere judging by the slope of the barn roof. It's morning and they are walking west. Probably Spring by the look of the trees and the jacket on the guy...

All guesses.

[Plagueround]

DejaVu lost my interest when he started ranting about applying Boolean logic to the analog real world.

[Bluetongue]

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.



There was a great meeting of Buddhist philosophers. In one seminar, a Zen monk grabbed an orange and ran into the audience, thrusting it into the faces of various attendants and demanding "What IS this?" and "What REALLY exists here?"
A Tibetan lama leaned over to an American philosopher and whispered: "Don't they have oranges in his country?"

Semantics do not an argument make.

Edited for typos.

[Dejavu]

I see a guy walking a couple of, I don't know--llamas?-- into a barn. A dog, kind of a big dog behind. It's in the south somewhere judging by the slope of the barn roof. It's morning and they are walking west. Probably Spring by the look of the trees and the jacket on the guy...

All guesses.

I don't know about the llamas :laugh: but certainly animals. By looking at the picture alone you could not tell if that is in the south or north with absolute certainty since north-south are just concepts humans develop to help navigate land and water bodies. Just like you couldn't know for certainty what 'country' that picture is. What you see is reality which is simply material objects. That picture actually has a 'political border' in it and it is both 'Canada' and 'America.':laugh:

Of course looking at reality you don't see the existence of countries or political borders. These are concepts in people's heads that unfortunately have nothing to do with the real objective world.

[Dejavu]

DejaVu lost my interest when he started ranting about applying Boolean logic to the analog real world.

If you can show me how an aggregate can exist as a single mass and not be an individual object then I will back off.


There was a great meeting of Buddhist philosophers. In one seminar, a Zen monk grabbed an orange and ran into the audience, thrusting into the faces of various attendants and demanding "What IS this?" and "What REALLY exists here?"
A Tibetan lama leaned over to an American philosopher and whispered: "Don't they have oranges in his country?"

Semantics do not an argument make.

'grabbed an orange and ran into the audience, thrusting it into the faces of various attendants?'

Can you elaborate? Did he hit them with the orange or merely present it? That sentence is barely coherent. He ran into the audience while thrusting the orange? :(
Please clarify.

[Anashtih]

It could be a rather generic insult calling you a moron, or quite possibly the most genius thing ever said. I'm really not sure.

[Comrade Krell]

As far as I am concerned this 'Opposing Ideologies' section of this forum should not even exist, I would never have any intention of even discussing with bourgeois or those who hold propertied ideologies, the only place for counter-revolutionaries and class enemies are at the but of a rifle and in a ditch.

[Dejavu]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/20071029_ishe_president.jpg

[Anashtih]

I would never have any intention of even discussing with bourgeois or those who hold propertied ideologies,
Oh, so you'd never post in Opposing Ideologies. Got it.



As far as I am concerned this 'Opposing Ideologies' section of this forum should not even exist, I would never have any intention of even discussing with bourgeois or those who hold propertied ideologies, the only place for counter-revolutionaries and class enemies are at the but of a rifle and in a ditch.

Haha. Hypocrite.

[Kronos]

And I thought you were a nihilist?

The only real nihilist is a dead nihilist. "Nihilism" is an impossible position.


Read everything over again.

What's in it for me?


I think some of the Socs are starting to understand it.

Don't get upset when I tell you this, but I think the Socs are ignoring it.


I made it as easy as possible without having to be seasoned in philosophy.

No, you made it as confusing as possible and very gawky. What I see is not a well crafted argument, but something more like one of those cheap self-help seminars you go to at the mall.

Gimme an outline of your premises....and please don't try to explain them. That's where you screw everything up. Just list a few founding premises and we'll go from there, kay?

[Anashtih]

You don't even know what nihilism is, do you.
Nihilism is the lack of belief in anything that requires faith.

[Kronos]

That definition won't work.

So if I have to have faith that my aunt Ruthy is gonna bring two large pizzas over later tonight, and then I become skeptical and stop believing that she will, I am a nihilist?

Hardly.

If you look at the wikipedia definitions, you will see that even those are nonsense. The definitions used to describe nihilism are riddled with misused terms. I can show you if you need me to.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I challenge you to find me evidence ( a picture will do) of a commune or collective that does not entail many individual objects ( with and without consciousness) but rather an an actual real commune existing apart from the individual objects that are part of the concept of a commune.
Do you understand the notion of a group or set? A group is composed of individual objects. Of course the existence of the group does not preclude the existence of the individual objects that compose it. A group that does not contain individual objects is not a group.

You are a group. You are composed of atoms and molecules. By your logic, either you are not real, or the atoms that compose you are not real, since apparently you cannot understand how something can be an individual object and at the same time be part of a group.


Thats dimwit science argument. Going by that psycho babble, everything is a collective of atoms and that you are fundamentally no different than a rock.
No, you moron, because a rock is composed of different atoms arranged in different ways than a human being.


It is true we are constructed of individual matter however we have exclusive ownership over the matter properties that we are constructed of. Neurologically, biologically , and chemically we have full ownership over the purposeful actions our body performs. We are a living biological and chemical mass exclusively to ourselves. Unless my heart is physically taken out of my body and put into yours , it cannot do anything for your brain. No matter if you had me believe I was your total servant and I did everything you obeyed, you still could not will me to raise my arm or blink my eyes just by you thinking about it and wanting it as you would blink your eyes or raise your arm.

Scientifically(I'm not talking about pseudo-science Marxism either), in order for your proposition here to hold true for human beings, there would have to exist a single entity composed of all 6 billion of us biologically, chemically, and neurologically, with a single conscious and even then, it would be considered a single mass.
Alright then, let's use another example of a group of atoms: a rock. A rock has no will. A rock has no ownership or control over its constituent atoms. Does that mean that a rock cannot exist, or that it is no different than, say, a glass of water? (since a glass of water is another group of atoms with no will)

I could say that the human beings who form a social class are in a relationship to each other that is analogous to the relationship of atoms that form a rock, or any inanimate object.


Thinking rationally would tell you a 'class' is an idea or concept that is shared by different individual human beings with independent consciousness. A single class conscious doesn't exist , just different individual perspectives that may or may not agree on things. We would all agree that you can read and comprehend English as can I. We agree on the general structure of the English language and are able to write sentences and speak coherently as a result. Does this mean that because you and I have a pretty strong agreement on how to read and write English that we are one conscious? Furthermore, if a single class conscious existed, then why do all the proletariats speak with with each other on this board ( as well as the bourgeoisie between each other) when that would be equivalent to speaking with your hand? If a single conscious existed, then why appeal with reason to others in your 'class' if not appealing to another conscious? Either you are clearly insane or just brainwashed. Either way , its irrational.
No one is arguing that social classes are Borg-like hive minds, idiot.

[Dean]

I mentioned this in the anarcho-capitalism ( the only rational anarchy) thread. GeneCosta made claims about philosophy and materialism and described rather harshly that morality is phony. Yeah, I do a bit of philosophy too:)

Morality does not exist in the real world, this is true. Morality and Ethics are concepts but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are subjective. Scientific Method also doesn't exist in the real world as it is a concept but that doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective.

And now for the nail in the coffin of Socialism and to show why it is A.irrational B. incompatible with anarchy and C. why it is in the same family as organized religion.

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.:rolleyes:


You'd get a lot more out of your time here if you actually addressed the real issues. For one, yes, being a communist is a religious experience. But it is hardly somehow more religious or comparable to the staunch supernaturalism of the organized, mystical theologies. So that is accurate in a strict philosophical sense, but really irrelevant when it comes down to criticisms of communism. Medicene and Physics are religions, too, but they are almost universally accepted as rational, for good reason.

The meat of your argument lies in opposing that collectives exist at all. I assume you mean that, since 'collective' refers to an abstract understanding of a social organization, rather than 'individual' which refers to a distinct physical entity, that worshipping one or the other is somehow more rational.

However, you fail to address the fact that "collective" refers to a social organization, just as "capitalist," "anarchist" and even "individualist." You can have an individual as a physical entity, but you can have neither individualism nor collectivism in that same sense. You have only proven that ideas don't run the world. Well, that is well established in the community.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think DejaVu realizes that socialism and communism are comprised of individual objectives. Marx was squarely against collectivization of peoples; he campaigned vigorously for proper treatment of natives, abolition of slavery, female empowerment, child protection, and religious tolerance. He also said people work in their material interest, which in contemporary lingo sounds like something a capitalist would say.

Hilariously, DejaVu, you identify with "real anarchists" and then reject acceptance of groups and organizations.

[Zurdito]

Groups of things do exist and have group characteristics. No scientist would say that there's no such thing as the sun or the earth or moon, but it's only a case of here's a particle, and here's another one, and another one, and another one.


to take that example further, no scientis would deny that the solar system or universe exist or that their properties as systems of interrelated parts define the properties of the parts.

conclusion: the statement "there is no such thing as collectives" is too dumb of a premise to take the rest of the argument seriously.

[mikelepore]

Actually, supporting capitalism is a lot like religion. To support capitalism is to argue that making ten thousand people poor so that one person can be rich is justified, because "he has a right to it", that forcing ten thousand people to obey orders so that one person can enjoy giving orders is justified, because "he has a right to it." Now, where else do we find the concept of right and wrong being defined in terms of rules that were handed down arbitrarily, and not requiring justification based on the concrete needs of most people? In religion. To support capitalism is to argue that the way to determine the "rightful owner" of things is to check the legal paperwork: who possesses a deed? Who possesses a stock certificate? What do the records on file at town hall say? Never mind how they originally acquired it, by whatever trickery or random luck. Now, where else do we find right and wrong being defined in terms of presumably infallable inscriptions on paper? In religion.

[Kronos]

Actually, supporting capitalism is a lot like religion.

No. Neither capitalism or socialism have anything to do with religion, although religion is responsible for "planting the seed" of capitalism. The first historical division of class pertaining to social function, in any sophisticated way, were the aristocracies, and the justification for the divided classes was based in theological theory; some men are ordained to rule, are elected by "God", have a right not to labor, are part of a special caste, etc. The monarchy is an example of this system based on such lies.

Because this kind of system simply endured for so long, even after the enlightenment period and the advance of science, the "roots" of the concept remained in economics after the founding premises were discarded; no, God does not exist, men are not elected to be part of a special theological caste, but the systems of private ownership, free market, etc., are still legitimate.

You see how religion started the first prototype class society, and that this model of economics remained even into the age of skepticism....which, during the enlightenment period, should have destroyed class based societies completely. Instead, the cancer mutated into another form: God might or might not exist, so liberty grants us the right to believe what we want...this is our freedom. So let's emancipate ourselves from European rule, sail to America, enslave some Indians, and set up free market colonies!

So by "planting seeds" I mean that a mistake is made which in a distant future, cannot be undone, so its side-effects remain in the heads of people without them ever considering the origins of such a system and its dependence on religious lies.

But to the point here. Religion is either a set of unverifiable beliefs (metaphysics), or a set of rituals and customs (buddhism, for example, is atheistic but cultural) , or both in unison.

Capitalism and socialism are economic processes, both determinate and scientific, unlike religion. However, an economic process and mode can certainly be influenced by metaphysical beliefs, as in the case of class societies forming as a result of the "divine division" of men in their functions.

I find the strength and beauty of socialism to lie in its power to check the horrible truth about man, that man refuses to see: man is a selfish creature who exists for no reason whatsoever. He is a veritable accident, one which will propel a state of further disorganization and destruction unless he is controlled. The first critical importance of achieving the socialist global system is to control production, so that this economic hyperactivity is halted once and for all. Beyond that I would be personally grateful to know that the capitalists I have experienced in my life, who aren't worth the sweat on my balls, are finally shot, or gagged and locked in a box.

Perhaps in Smith's day and age, capitalism was a good idea, and indeed fostered a quick, revolutionary development of industry, allowing new technologies to flourish. This, as Marx noted, can be considered progressive in general. Today, however, the virtual atmosphere of capitalism/consumerism has become a gross, decrepit perversion of the original integrities found in the spirit of the old capitalism. Capitalists today are no longer intelligent pioneers or inventors....they are worms who, because of the imperialist monopolies and economic hegemonies on second and third world countries, can utilize imported labor and commodities to "get rich quick".

Finally I should remind you all that there are no "rights" either from above or below. Rights are granted by powers who are in control. Socialism, the most paradoxical power of them all, is such a process that seizes power through brute strength, to take care of those who are suffering from the brute strength of capitalism. I love it. The revolutionary is one who knows this must happen, and that a negotiation of "rights" is unnecessary, nay, impossible, and that he will simply take power through force, building a state of democratic power for the superior class, the proletariat. Socialism saves man from himself by inventing and willing a new man, or better, preventing man from digressing once again into the parasite capitalist.

[Dr Mindbender]

i'd like to take the OP's logic to the next level, regarding the trees and forests analogy.

By his reckoning, it could be argued that none of us exist, just our constituent molecules, atoms and quarks.

So if the idea of a forest is irrational why not human society full stop?

[Zurdito]

So if the idea of a forest is irrational why not human society full stop?

erm...that's exactly what he was arguing.;)

[professorchaos]

i'd like to take the OP's logic to the next level, regarding the trees and forests analogy.

By his reckoning, it could be argued that none of us exist, just our constituent molecules, atoms and quarks.

So if the idea of a forest is irrational why not human society full stop?
Yeah, I said that on the first page but he never responded.

[RedAnarchist]

As far as I am concerned this 'Opposing Ideologies' section of this forum should not even exist, I would never have any intention of even discussing with bourgeois or those who hold propertied ideologies, the only place for counter-revolutionaries and class enemies are at the but of a rifle and in a ditch.

Even those that can be educated about our ideas? Some OI'ers are idiots who should really be banned from the Internet, but some of them are intelligent and know what they are talking about, so are good to debate with.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As far as I am concerned this 'Opposing Ideologies' section of this forum should not even exist, I would never have any intention of even discussing with bourgeois or those who hold propertied ideologies, the only place for counter-revolutionaries and class enemies are at the but of a rifle and in a ditch.

Da, komrade.

I will wipe the blood of the bourgeoisie off of my bushy mustache!

[Bud Struggle]

As far as I am concerned this 'Opposing Ideologies' section of this forum should not even exist, I would never have any intention of even discussing with bourgeois or those who hold propertied ideologies, the only place for counter-revolutionaries and class enemies are at the but of a rifle and in a ditch.

Yup!

As I said before: what the Communists need is a good public realtions firm to clean this kind of stuff up and a then a first rate marketing plan to repackage and then move the thoughts they have (and some are pretty damn good,) into competition in the marketplace of ideas.

[Dr Mindbender]

erm...that's exactly what he was arguing.;)
i think the point i was trying to make if human society and the species in general is an irrational concept then why should it matter to him what socio-economic political system we choose to live under? That is if you subscribe to the idea that the only common denominator is electrons spinning around atomic nuclei.

The only arguable motion therefore seems to choose the ideaology that causes least suffering, and capitalism aint it which suggest some sort of spiteful tendency on the part of the OP and his fellow reactionaries.

[Bud Struggle]

The only arguable motion therefore seems to choose the ideaology that causes least suffering, and capitalism aint it which suggest some sort of spiteful tendency on the part of the OP and his fellow reactionaries.

That's kind of it--except for the part that Capitalists are spiteful and maladjusted people. (For the most part,) we're not. We do want the best for everyone. Communism--or at least the Marxist flavor if it, from what been demonstrated in past experiments--isn't the answer. And Capitalism, as has been noted, does get stuck in some nasty situation where profits come before people.

The answer seem to reside in some sort of Socialistic Capitalism where the needs of the people are met, yet Capitalistic economic growth and personal freedom can still thrive.

[Dejavu]

Do you understand the notion of a group or set? A group is composed of individual objects. Of course the existence of the group does not preclude the existence of the individual objects that compose it. A group that does not contain individual objects is not a group.This was my point all along. This is why I stress that collectives are merely concepts do not exist in the real material world. Only a single object can exist as a single mass.


You are a group. You are composed of atoms and molecules. By your logic, either you are not real, or the atoms that compose you are not real, since apparently you cannot understand how something can be an individual object and at the same time be part of a group.All objects in the material world exist as matter or energy. Constituent atoms only apply to single masses which exist independently of other objects. Humans can and do exist independently of each other. Again,if were were going to use constituent atoms as an excuse for communism then you and I would have to form a single biological, neurological, and chemical mass with a single conscious ( if we were actually living).


because a rock is composed of different atoms arranged in different ways than a human being.Single masses.



Alright then, let's use another example of a group of atoms: a rock. A rock has no will. A rock has no ownership or control over its constituent atoms. Does that mean that a rock cannot exist, or that it is no different than, say, a glass of water? (since a glass of water is another group of atoms with no will)A rock does not have a conscious or biological properties but it still comprises a single mass. You cannot call a rock and and not a rock a rock and be rational. Make sense? I never said something doesn't exist if it isn't living ( i.e. biologically-chemically active with/without conscious). For something to exist it merely needs to be constructed of matter and/or energy. A 'group' or 'aggregate' is a concept that is composed of no such matter but rather is descriptive of an idea of individual existing masses holding some kind of common properties. It is does not negate the fact that only individual objects exist.


I could say that the human beings who form a social class are in a relationship to each other that is analogous to the relationship of atoms that form a rock, or any inanimate object.

Thats completely irrational. Because the atoms that form a rock are constituent to a single mass. A human being can and does exist apart from other human beings. If one human being existed on earth, he could find things in nature that can sustain his life and live however long his body will hold out without ever meeting another human being. Now the question of how prosperous the human being will be without collaboration with other human beings is different. That is a question of economics not of chemistry.
That question we can reserve for next time and see why the free market is superior and better represents reality than collectivization of property. The only way this analogy would hold up scientifically applied to mankind is to suggest that human society is like the atomic structure of a rock. It would necessarily follow that the idiot making this argument would think of humanity as a single constituent mass that necessarily share all relevant properties of existence , atomic , biological, neurological, but without conscious (like a rock). But even if we did have a conscious and all of us were constitutive of a single mass, we would have to have a single conscious. Do you see how ridiculous this is?



No one is arguing that social classes are Borg-like hive minds, idiot.Your rock analogy and collectivization of property is pretty 'hivish' :laugh:


Even those that can be educated about our ideas? Some OI'ers are idiots who should really be banned from the Internet, but some of them are intelligent and know what they are talking about, so are good to debate with.Ah yes comrade ANARCHIST! And which glorious leader will enforce the ban on idiots to the internet? :laugh:


i'd like to take the OP's logic to the next level, regarding the trees and forests analogy.

By his reckoning, it could be argued that none of us exist, just our constituent molecules, atoms and quarks.

So if the idea of a forest is irrational why not human society full stop?No, like I explained to the other comrade , we compose a single mass independent of others. You might just want to read what I already wrote. Human societies do not exist just as surely human races, nationalities, religious groups , and any other collective group do not exist in objective reality. Just single objects exist ( 1 or 0) . These are merely concepts to describe individual objects/consciousnesses that actually do exist in the real world that may share certain common properties.

For instance , all of us die. Mortality is a concept to describe the fact that we do not live forever. This is true of the real world. But nothing called 'mortality' exists in the real world.

I could say :
All men(and women) are mortal.
UlsterSocialist is a man.
Therefore, Ulstersocialist is mortal.

This is a common property you share with others though not quite in the literal tangible sense. Nothing in my body is part of yours though we may have commonality in the way our brain functions, heart functions , lungs , etc.

Some concepts of groups are illogical and irrational such as forced collectivization of property. Some concepts of uniformity are logical and rational and correlate descriptively ( without contradiction) to the real world ( like mortality or math).

[RedAnarchist]

Quote:
Even those that can be educated about our ideas? Some OI'ers are idiots who should really be banned from the Internet, but some of them are intelligent and know what they are talking about, so are good to debate with.
Ah yes comrade ANARCHIST! And which glorious leader will enforce the ban on idiots to the internet? http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-just-irrational-t78182/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif


I assume you know I was joking and thus replied in a joking manner?

[Dejavu]

i think the point i was trying to make if human society and the species in general is an irrational concept then why should it matter to him what socio-economic political system we choose to live under? That is if you subscribe to the idea that the only common denominator is electrons spinning around atomic nuclei.

The only arguable motion therefore seems to choose the ideaology that causes least suffering, and capitalism aint it which suggest some sort of spiteful tendency on the part of the OP and his fellow reactionaries.

Human species is not an irrational concept. It completely correlates descriptively to the real world without contradiction. Human society is almost an idealist concept. Because humans live in so many different societies it is hard to find universality applicable to all humans. To suggest something of human society must be a commonality among all humans or it is not a human society. One can speak of human society in the 'ought' sense but not actually 'is.'

Capitalism simply means that private property ownership (and therefore, exclusivity) is permissible. Everything else that follows it 'pro or anti' capitalist are people's opinions about it but not actually part of the definition itself. Free markets imply total freedom in exchange from one owner to the next ( hence, for there to be owners, private property and exclusivity must exist since an exchange is a change in ownership).

The opposite of capitalism 'socialism' implies the exact opposite. 'Social' ownership or no ownership. Well then, must must define 'social' and correlate that descriptively to all of mankind in the real world in order to rational and logical.

If there is to be collective ownership then this must be universal to all human beings. The only way for it to be even remotely logical or rational in correlation to the real world is for every human to have an equal quotal ownership of everything or you are already setting terms of exclusivity. Then you have to show that collectives exist and not individuals in the real world.

Free Market Capitalism ( paired naturally with Anarchy) recognizes the individual's supremacy over himself and the land. An individual may choose to share or cooperate with other individuals but he is sole owner of himself and his labor (expendable energy) from which he may transform property to be his or exchange labor services for property with other humans. It recognizes that only individuals exists and that no 'collective' can rationally assert dominance over individuals since the 'collective' is also comprised of individuals and therefore, they are equal and interaction must be mutually consensual. In other words, its the only logical , rational, and empirically true system that can be universal to all of humanity. And once you have that, then an objective standard of morality can be recognized by all humans, not just conceptual and antagonistic races, nationalities, class, etc.

[Dr Mindbender]

That's kind of it--except for the part that Capitalists are spiteful and maladjusted people. (For the most part,) we're not. We do want the best for everyone. Communism--or at least the Marxist flavor if it, from what been demonstrated in past experiments--isn't the answer. And Capitalism, as has been noted, does get stuck in some nasty situation where profits come before people.
In some ways, i agree with that which is why i support the technocratic model of socialism. By replacing all human manual labour with extraneous sources of work it then becomes possible to install all people in areas of work that are tailored to suit their needs, passions and aspirations.
The dichotomy with 'benevolent socialist capitalism' is that capitalism as a concept requires a class system to thrive; you have to have some people in a state of abject misery in order to operate a proverbial carrot and stick tool of control.
Under technocratic communism no carrot and stick is needed. People will work hard, not because if they don't they will starve but because they are in positions they want to be in.

[Kronos]

An individual may choose to share or cooperate with other individuals but he is sole owner of himself and his labor (expendable energy) from which he may transform property to be his or exchange labor services for property with other humans. It recognizes that only individuals exists and that no 'collective' can rationally assert dominance over individuals since the 'collective' is also comprised of individuals and therefore, they are equal and interaction must be mutually consensual.

"Socialism" is what the bold is.

From what I gathered of your argument, you are saying that because individuals are separate entities, they cannot agree to own things mutually.

Are you seriously gonna sit there and argue that with a straight face?

That's the lamest argument I've heard in a long time.

[Kronos]

That's kind of it--except for the part that Capitalists are spiteful and maladjusted people. (For the most part,) we're not.

The capitalist is not spiteful insofar as he lacks the intelligence to find the contradictions in the principles he stands for in his practice. In short, at this stage, he is merely stupid. The capitalist who once was a proletariat, saved his money, starts his own business, and says to a working class friend "you should do the same", is also saying "there must always be people who cannot do this, or else we cannot become capitalists". Here, the principle is contradictory, and pertains only to an whimsically selected few. Everybody cannot be a capitalist, because some people must remain wage workers in order for the parasite to exist. The capitalist, therefore, cannot extend a universal principle to all men...only some, here and there. His "imperative" collapses.

As I said at this stage the capitalist isn't yet spiteful, because he is stupid. If, however, he eventually comes to grasp this point, he becomes secretly vindictive and must avoid exposing his stupidity. He certainly does spite the working class, but depends on the general ignorance of the workers to cover his inherent contradictions in principle.

What is really "ethical spite" is passed as "business ethics", which also depends on the stupidity of the workers- the fact that they do not know the founding contradictions in the capitalist which precede all else. Here is an example of what I consider a kind of ethical spite, the concept of "dead capital", which means that money that could be used in praxis is instead horded by the capitalist, so that it literally does nothing but sit there waiting for an opportunity to be invested.

My boss had to pay more per square foot for the concrete he was buying. So, rather than lower his own profit margin to cover the expenses, and dip into his "dead capital", he instead lowers my wage, so that essentially I am the one paying the difference of costs for the concrete. We have the profit produced for the parasite by the workers, which sits in limbo and does nothing. Then we have the parasite, who could use the dead capital, but instead sucks more blood from me to compensate for a financial loss that could've been accommodated for by the dead capital that was once living labor that I produced. Do you see what is happening here? The motherfucker builds an enormous surplus of my labor force...and then rather than doing me a favor and spending a meager fraction of it to cover new expenses.....he bites me again. The point is, that money isn't doing anything anyway. It is just sitting there, dead.

So, it isn't enough that the parasite doesn't have to do any work whatsoever. He must also transfer the debt created by another capitalist (the company that sells him concrete) once again onto my shoulders. So now we have 1) I am paying the parasite once by producing for him a product he will make a profit on, and 2) I am paying the parasite twice, by making a lower wage so he doesn't have to lose the profit he is already taking from me by giving a portion of it to the other parasite that is charging him more for the concrete.

If you are confused as to why I say "I am paying him", well, it should be obvious. The capitalist DOESN'T DO ANYTHING in the chain of production. He is in every sense of the word, a parasite.

The above is called "good business", of course, but behind this veneer there is either the honest ignorance of the parasite, or the secret vindictive spite of the parasite. In either case, in either case, he is expendable, worthless, useless, dead weight.

You say "for the most part, we're not". The petite bourgeois are granted no pardon, because they are in principle, regardless of the degree of exploitation they produce, still parasites. John Whoever, who owns the quaint little coffee shop downtown is no Bill Gates, but in the event that a revolution were to occur, John Whoever cannot be pardoned. Principles, Tom K. You seem to think that a revolution is concerned with sorting out the John Whoevers from the big fish, because the John Whoevers are nice polite people, who give their employees free drinks during the day, etc., etc. No man. There are no exceptions. And furthermore, that very same John Whoever, if provided with the opportunity, would expand his business to unprecedented proportions. The petite bourgeois are not "better" than the big corporate fish because they "choose not to invest in higher profits". They are better because they have failed at investing at higher profits, and by doing so, they produce a smaller degree of exploitation. How is that for irony: "John Whoever, you are a good man because you are a terrible failure", says his employee.

So let's summarize. The capitalist is either stupid, in the case that he does not have an understanding of the conflicts produced in his principles when he attempts to extend those rightfully to all men, or intelligent, and knows what he is doing is corrupt. In either case, he loses.


We do want the best for everyone.

Again, this is impossible. Capitalism NECESSARILY requires a division of classes. Only an ignorant capitalist, or an impotent capitalist could "want the best for everyone". It doesn't matter what your "morals" are here, because the very functioning of the system itself prevents this "best for everyone" from happening.


Communism--or at least the Marxist flavor if it, from what been demonstrated in past experiments--isn't the answer.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times. You cannot use any of the historical revolutionary instances as proof that the theoretical Marxist society cannot work. All the tragedies that occurred in the attempts to establish the socialist/communist states were justified because of the external factors and pressures put on them. When Mao made a frantic effort to increase China's economic potential at such a fast rate, it was because the capitalist parasite America was looming in the background, waiting to get its dirty imperialist hands on the first failed communist nation's plea for support. Fuck that. You go balls to wall, and if you fail, you fail with dignity. Anything but submitting to the capitalist poison. And by the way, don't forget the drastically progressive results that occurred while Mao was in power- life expectancy and literacy rates of the people were raised off the charts. If Mao had never gained power, how much of China would still be illiterate peasantry, dead at fifty years old?

The same goes for Stalin. Everything he did was necessary and justified because of the cold war race with America.

Remember this, cappy: unless you take your cancer off this planet, any healthy organs which attempt to evolve are going to be effected by your cancer. If they fail, that is no worse than the cancer you already are.

[Bud Struggle]

The capitalist is not spiteful insofar as he lacks the intelligence to find the contradictions in the principles he stands for in his practice. In short, at this stage, he is merely stupid. The capitalist who once was a proletariat, saved his money, starts his own business, and says to a working class friend "you should do the same", is also saying "there must always be people who cannot do this, or else we cannot become capitalists". Here, the principle is contradictory, and pertains only to an whimsically selected few. Everybody cannot be a capitalist, because some people must remain wage workers in order for the parasite to exist. The capitalist, therefore, cannot extend a universal principle to all men...only some, here and there. His "imperative" collapses.

While it's true not everyone can be a Capitalist--it's also true that not everyone WANTS to be a Capitalist--in the same way that not everyone can be a dotor and not everyone wants to be a doctor. As long as the OPPORTUNITY is there for anyone who wants top be a Capitalist to become one--the opportunity for a prol to become a bourgeois, I'm happy. Further: Capitalists aren't parasites. They CREATE the business that the people that don't want to be Capuitalists work in. They create the industry. The workers are the parasites--they take the jobs, sometimes they earn their keep--often they don't. They work in whatever was created for them to work in and earn a fair amount of pay.


As I said at this stage the capitalist isn't yet spiteful, because he is stupid. If, however, he eventually comes to grasp this point, he becomes secretly vindictive and must avoid exposing his stupidity. He certainly does spite the working class, but depends on the general ignorance of the workers to cover his inherent contradictions in principle. As long as the worker is working for the Capitalist--the Capitalist is smarter. It's just a better life, but that's my persona opinion.


My boss had to pay more per square foot for the concrete he was buying. So, rather than lower his own profit margin to cover the expenses, and dip into his "dead capital", he instead lowers my wage, so that essentially I am the one paying the difference of costs for the concrete. We have the profit produced for the parasite by the workers, which sits in limbo and does nothing. Then we have the parasite, who could use the dead capital, but instead sucks more blood from me to compensate for a financial loss that could've been accommodated for by the dead capital that was once living labor that I produced. Do you see what is happening here? The motherfucker builds an enormous surplus of my labor force...and then rather than doing me a favor and spending a meager fraction of it to cover new expenses.....he bites me again. The point is, that money isn't doing anything anyway. It is just sitting there, dead.

It's his money he can do anything with it that he wants--just like you can quit and sell your services anywhere you choose. As long as you can quit if you don't like the terms of employment, it's fair. For that matter if you boss dosn't like the terms of this contract to buy condrete he could buy it somewhere else. The part about him lowering your wages is indeed bad faith on his part, but as you have to chance to go somewhere else--it's all fair.


So, it isn't enough that the parasite doesn't have to do any work whatsoever. He must also transfer the debt created by another capitalist (the company that sells him concrete) once again onto my shoulders. So now we have 1) I am paying the parasite once by producing for him a product he will make a profit on, and 2) I am paying the parasite twice, by making a lower wage so he doesn't have to lose the profit he is already taking from me by giving a portion of it to the other parasite that is charging him more for the concrete. Again, I don't see your employer as being fair with you, but it's your choice to stay.


If you are confused as to why I say "I am paying him", well, it should be obvious. The capitalist DOESN'T DO ANYTHING in the chain of production. He is in every sense of the word, a parasite. Nonsense, he does his job--and you do yours. Business doesn't come from nowhere, you boss dod HIS JOB of creating and RUNNING the business you work in.


The above is called "good business", of course, but behind this veneer there is either the honest ignorance of the parasite, or the secret vindictive spite of the parasite. In either case, in either case, he is expendable, worthless, useless, dead weight. Nope it's bad business, and his business will suffer in the long run for his bad decisions--he won't attract good workers and/or his workers, not being motivated won't do good work--it's a bad thing all around.

{quote]You say "for the most part, we're not". The petite bourgeois are granted no pardon, because they are in principle, regardless of the degree of exploitation they produce, still parasites. John Whoever, who owns the quaint little coffee shop downtown is no Bill Gates, but in the event that a revolution were to occur, John Whoever cannot be pardoned. Principles, Tom K. You seem to think that a revolution is concerned with sorting out the John Whoevers from the big fish, because the John Whoevers are nice polite people, who give their employees free drinks during the day, etc., etc. No man. There are no exceptions. And furthermore, that very same John Whoever, if provided with the opportunity, would expand his business to unprecedented proportions. The petite bourgeois are not "better" than the big corporate fish because they "choose not to invest in higher profits". They are better because they have failed at investing at higher profits, and by doing so, they produce a smaller degree of exploitation. How is that for irony: "John Whoever, you are a good man because you are a terrible failure", says his employee. [/quote]

I say "for the most part" because some people (maybe like you boss,) are bad people and bad businessmen. I'm not worried about the "Revolution". Preaching that is like preaching the Soecond Comming of Christ--both events MAY happen, but only true believers of the "faith" take those events seriously. Kronos: I've seen the Revolutionaries, I've read their statements and their posts. I've been to China and the Soviet Union and Cuba as well as some other Iron Curtain countries--I've seen what Communism looks like--at least how it looks on this earth when put into practice my human beings. And frankly--Nah, I don't think so.


So let's summarize. The capitalist is either stupid, in the case that he does not have an understanding of the conflicts produced in his principles when he attempts to extend those rightfully to all men, or intelligent, and knows what he is doing is corrupt. In either case, he loses.

Nice theory, it jsut doesn't work that way--Communism is like Scientology, maybe there was a Xenu--but you'll excuse me if I don't quite believe. ON THE OTHER HAND--Communism does have soem important points about fairness, giving people living wages and enough to eat. I'm with you guys on that.


Again, this is impossible. Capitalism NECESSARILY requires a division of classes. Only an ignorant capitalist, or an impotent capitalist could "want the best for everyone". It doesn't matter what your "morals" are here, because the very functioning of the system itself prevents this "best for everyone" from happening.

Yea, but your understanding of the system and how things wprk is just dreaming.

Quote]If I've said it once I've said it a million times. You cannot use any of the historical revolutionary instances as proof that the theoretical Marxist society cannot work. All the tragedies that occurred in the attempts to establish the socialist/communist states were justified because of the external factors and pressures put on them. When Mao made a frantic effort to increase China's economic potential at such a fast rate, it was because the capitalist parasite America was looming in the background, waiting to get its dirty imperialist hands on the first failed communist nation's plea for support. Fuck that. You go balls to wall, and if you fail, you fail with dignity. Anything but submitting to the capitalist poison. And by the way, don't forget the drastically progressive results that occurred while Mao was in power- life expectancy and literacy rates of the people were raised off the charts. If Mao had never gained power, how much of China would still be illiterate peasantry, dead at fifty years old?

The same goes for Stalin. Everything he did was necessary and justified because of the cold war race with America.[/quote]

Nah. Communism is just a fucked up system. Really. All that Gulag stuff--that was as good as it gets. You need to TAKE WHAT IS GOOD out of Communism--and there is a lot good, and then move on to do something useful with it. There is nothing as reactionary as 150 yeal old as an economic philosophy that has failed numerous times. Sooner or later you have to stop with the excuses and do something useful with what is good with Communism.


Remember this, cappy: unless you take your cancer off this planet, any healthy organs which attempt to evolve are going to be effected by your cancer. If they fail, that is no worse than the cancer you already are.

And that would be the sound of a fanatic foaming at the mouth. And that's a little bit of the problem. Some of you guys are a bit too reactionary for your own good. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

In some ways, i agree with that which is why i support the technocratic model of socialism. By replacing all human manual labour with extraneous sources of work it then becomes possible to install all people in areas of work that are tailored to suit their needs, passions and aspirations.
The dichotomy with 'benevolent socialist capitalism' is that capitalism as a concept requires a class system to thrive; you have to have some people in a state of abject misery in order to operate a proverbial carrot and stick tool of control.
Under technocratic communism no carrot and stick is needed. People will work hard, not because if they don't they will starve but because they are in positions they want to be in.

I don't know if you need people to be anything they don't want in Capitalism. If there is enough food and there is a framework to just by general civil agreememt to keep everyone from starving--I think that would work quite nicely. I have no problem with someone making millions if that's what is he heart's desire--just like I have no problem with an artist painting pictures if that's his heart's desire. If people are fed and well off, who cares if some guy wants to build a better computer and make himself a fortune?

At that point it all becomes "play."

[Kronos]

Capitalists aren't parasites. They CREATE the business that the people that don't want to be Capuitalists work in. They create the industry. The workers are the parasites--they take the jobs, sometimes they earn their keep--often they don't. They work in whatever was created for them to work in and earn a fair amount of pay.
No Tommy. The material needs of society are present before such commodities are produced to meet those needs, or the modes of production which might come into existence.

The capitalist does not "create" the industry. Rather, he "appropriates" what is already produced (he might buy a factory which was already built by workers, with capital he has raised by exploiting workers), as well as the productive capacities of the proletariat, to have more produced for him, but never, ever by him. The capitalist (with the exception of the petty bourgeois who sometimes actually "work") is a ghost in the machine. He does not perform, he does not labor, he does not produce.

And then you say "the workers are the parasites". Jesus man you really are stupid. The fucking jobs are already there, just like the workers. The capitalist doesn't START anything. People don't suddenly need loafed bread because a capitalist has gone into business.

And then you can't even get your own point right: you say the workers take the jobs? From who, you idiot? The capitalist? The fucking capitalist doesn't work anyway man!

"Sometimes they earn their keep, sometimes not"

While you may certainly believe you are giving them what they "earned", in reality, you've got it completely backward. What you "have" is what they produced, not you.

I'll knock the rest of your nonsense down later.

[Bud Struggle]

I'll knock the rest of your nonsense down later.

Nonsense? It's the real world. When "the revolution comes" is the "Jesus comming don from the sky" of the Communist religion.

"Oh no Tom, it's SCIENCE!

"No Kronos, it's a dream. It never worked."

"It did, it did! Just the bad Capitalist got in the WAY!"

"Nope, the Soviet Union is what Communism looks like."

"It was the Cold War, I tell you!"

"The Soviet Union was the real Communism. It doesn't get any better."

"No, No, NO! Just wait, wait till the revolution, We'll show you, we'll show you, the workers--they'll REVOLT"

"Nobody's revolting, it happened, it failed, time to move on."

"You lie, the workers are massing as we speak! It's Science. Science, it's gotta be, it's GOTTA BE!"

"Calm down Kronos. Read your Das Kapital and go to sleep." :D

[Kronos]

Cute hyperbole, Tommy. The truth is, I couldn't care less if the revolution never happens. Humanity is not something that has to exist, you know. However, there is a great degree of consistency in historical materialism, "dialectical" consistency, if you will. It has a way of "working out the glitches". I do imagine that a global socialism will exist one day long after I am gone. But do not mistake my soliloquy as a desperate plea for anything. I will live out my life, create a little mischief here and there, and then die. I got no problem with that. Meanwhile I'm gonna use people like you as a punching bag, while younger communists watch and learn, hopefully.

So where were we. Oh yes, the nonsense.


As long as you can quit if you don't like the terms of employment, it's fair.

In practice it doesn't work that way. The odds against the worker are often stacked. For instance, if I quit working for this guy, I will end up spending more money in gas to drive to bum-fuck egypt to get a job making higher wages. But the higher wage will be canceled out because of the costs of gas. In this case it is in my best interest to keep working for this guy. But this guy doesn't suffer the same odds proportionately, meaning, if I quit, he would hire new employees, and if these employees demanded slightly hire wages then myself, he would still maintain his profit margin with minimal change. In my case, even a minimal change reaps drastic effects and consequences. A meager dollar-per-hour can make or break me and make all the difference in the world. One dollar to me is more valuable than one hundred dollars to him, proportionately, because of the odds against us are not equal in their consequences. This guy could toss one hundred dollars out the window and not notice a difference....while I have to hold on dearly to one dollar, or my world comes crashing down.

The terms of employment between the capitalist and the worker are never "fair", because the circumstances for the worker are already set against him, while the capitalist suffers losses that make no real impact on his capital. A capitalist can make money off of dead capital, as in the case of drawing interest on his money in the bank. This means that not only would paying hire wages to new employees really affect his margins, but that he is also making more money just by having money.


Again, I don't see your employer as being fair with you, but it's your choice to stay.


There is no "fair" to begin with. You need to admit that. You would do the same thing if you were him. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a tactical capitalist. Jesus man, I'm a better capitalist than you are. If I have to explain to you how proper capitalist measures need to be taken, but also how they are unfair by default, I wonder how you even run your own business. You are the schizo-capitalist: "it's fair but that isn't fair so it's fair to quit and find another job".


Nonsense, he does his job--and you do yours. Business doesn't come from nowhere, you boss dod HIS JOB of creating and RUNNING the business you work in.

His job is to select custom checks (he likes the one's with ducks on them) and fancy ball-point pens with which to sign his name with.

I tell ya man, I don't know how he does it. I would be completely exhausted if I had to do that once every friday. Maybe he could hire employees to do that for him to, eh?

I jest. I really don't care man. I have no self pity, nor do I loath myself. I am perhaps one of the most arrogant, self infatuated people you could ever meet. My sympathy for the working class is based from my personal experiences with capitalists. I have worked with fellas who are so bad-ass, five bosses couldn't keep up with them. The problem is about order and efficiency- those capitalists should not be the ones in charge, nor should they be running a business. If a socialist state existed, those morons would be digging ditches, while the workers would be managing far more complicated projects.

Aside from that, you've got to be an idiot to not notice what capitalism has done, and is doing, to the planet. In for hundred years more damage has been done by the explosion of industry and population than the prior four thousand years combined.

[Bud Struggle]

Cute hyperbole, Tommy. The truth is, I couldn't care less if the revolution never happens. Humanity is not something that has to exist, you know. However, there is a great degree of consistency in historical materialism, "dialectical" consistency, if you will. It has a way of "working out the glitches". I do imagine that a global socialism will exist one day long after I am gone. But do not mistake my soliloquy as a desperate plea for anything. I will live out my life, create a little mischief here and there, and then die. I got no problem with that. Meanwhile I'm gonna use people like you as a punching bag, while younger communists watch and learn, hopefully.

Well, to be honest, I did take you for a bit of a pie in the skyer. My mistake, but you are a bit convincing in your ranting. :)


So where were we. Oh yes, the nonsense.
In practice it doesn't work that way. The odds against the worker are often stacked. For instance, if I quit working for this guy, I will end up spending more money in gas to drive to bum-fuck egypt to get a job making higher wages. But the higher wage will be canceled out because of the costs of gas. In this case it is in my best interest to keep working for this guy. But this guy doesn't suffer the same odds proportionately, meaning, if I quit, he would hire new employees, and if these employees demanded slightly hire wages then myself, he would still maintain his profit margin with minimal change. In my case, even a minimal change reaps drastic effects and consequences. A meager dollar-per-hour can make or break me and make all the difference in the world. One dollar to me is more valuable than one hundred dollars to him, proportionately, because of the odds against us are not equal in their consequences. This guy could toss one hundred dollars out the window and not notice a difference....while I have to hold on dearly to one dollar, or my world comes crashing down.

And now for me being a bit more realistic about things--I understand and agree to everything you said.


The terms of employment between the capitalist and the worker are never "fair", because the circumstances for the worker are already set against him, while the capitalist suffers losses that make no real impact on his capital.

Most times it has more impact than you realize--but in general the Capitalist, or at least the one you envision for this discussion, won't starve becuase of a loss. But you have to understand, the Capitalist TOOK THE RISK and he won or lost. You didn't. So he should reap the reward if his gamble pays off just as he takes the loss if his venture fails.


A capitalist can make money off of dead capital, as in the case of drawing interest on his money in the bank. This means that not only would paying hire wages to new employees really affect his margins, but that he is also making more money just by having money.

I understand, but it's HIS freaking money, he can do with it whatever he wants. What business is that of yours? If it's one dollar or one billion dollars--it's HIS not YOURS.


There is no "fair" to begin with. You need to admit that. Now you are contradicting yourself--see above. ;)


You would do the same thing if you were him. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a tactical capitalist. Jesus man, I'm a better capitalist than you are. If I have to explain to you how proper capitalist measures need to be taken, but also how they are unfair by default, I wonder how you even run your own business. You are the schizo-capitalist: "it's fair but that isn't fair so it's fair to quit and find another job".

No I WOULDN'T do the same thing as him. He's a bad Capitalist. Workers are ASSETS, Customers are ASSETS youjust don't piss them away with lousy pay and poor workanship. You CHERISH those things. That's how you make a business grow. Happy workers make happy customers. Happy customers stay customers and recommend you to other people who become customers. In most businesses (granted not all,) good customer satisfaction is created by good worker attitudes and good worker productivity and good workmanship. I'm not schizo--I'm sucessful, and I know what works. Me haveing a pissed off Kronos or anyone else isn't going to make me money in the long run.

That's why (learning from this board,) I've started workers councils--soviets, no managers. The workers figure out what their problems are and how to solve them--no bosses involved. If money is saved or made they get to share in the profits. (50%. 25% goes for capital improvements to their working conditions, and 25% goes, I forget where ;):D.)


His job is to select custom checks (he likes the one's with ducks on them) and fancy ball-point pens with which to sign his name with.

I tell ya man, I don't know how he does it. I would be completely exhausted if I had to do that once every friday. Maybe he could hire employees to do that for him to, eh?

You boss is a looser. Really--I have nothing for comtempt for the bastard. I wouldn't do business with him, that's for sure.


I jest. I really don't care man. I have no self pity, nor do I loath myself. I am perhaps one of the most arrogant, self infatuated people you could ever meet. My sympathy for the working class is based from my personal experiences with capitalists. I have worked with fellas who are so bad-ass, five bosses couldn't keep up with them. The problem is about order and efficiency- those capitalists should not be the ones in charge, nor should they be running a business. If a socialist state existed, those morons would be digging ditches, while the workers would be managing far more complicated projects. I agree. Hence the TomK Soviettes! A good Capitalist takes the information to do the job best from WHOMEVER can figure out how to do the job the best. PERIOD.


Aside from that, you've got to be an idiot to not notice what capitalism has done, and is doing, to the planet. In for hundred years more damage has been done by the explosion of industry and population than the prior four thousand years combined.

Maybe, but I don't think some 150 year old crickety and cranky economic philosophy is going to work, but I do agree that business is loosing a valuable resource in not enlisting the workers as part of the capitalist process.

Why the hell do you think I'm on RevLeft? Just to tell you Commies that you don't have a clue? No. I'm here to learn how to be a better Capitalist and make more money (and then occasionally tell you Commies that you don't have a clue--on the side. :D)

[Kronos]

Most times it has more impact than you realize--but in general the Capitalist, or at least the one you envision for this discussion, won't starve becuase of a loss. But you have to understand, the Capitalist TOOK THE RISK and he won or lost. You didn't. So he should reap the reward if his gamble pays off just as he takes the loss if his venture fails.


One of your problems is your failure to analyze each class exclusively, rather than as if each class has anything in common. Failing at a capitalist venture means that the capitalist has to become a proletariat. Failing at a proletarian venture (getting a job) means that the proletariat will become homeless, at worst.

"Taking a risk" for the capitalist means "using my money to see if I can find a way to make others make money for me, rather than working myself". To fail at such a risk means to be leveled back to the original position of being a worker. There is no loss here, there is only "no gain".


No I WOULDN'T do the same thing as him. He's a bad Capitalist.

No Tom. He is a good capitalist, because he is strategic. What he did saved him money. We aren't on the same page here, man. I'm saying capitalism is bad, period. I'm not saying capitalist A is better than capitalist B. All that shit is irrelevant. Again, you don't seem to understand how or why capitalism works.....the technical aspects of it. If you wouldn't have done the same thing he did, you would increase your chances of going under, and that is bad capitalist ethics.


Me haveing a pissed off Kronos or anyone else isn't going to make me money in the long run.

Sure it will. Workers are expendable to the capitalist. You are a small fish if you are able to practice your business as you say. I promise you that the more you attempt to expand, the harsher your treatment of workers must become. Wal-Mart didn't get as big as it is by giving careless raises and pats-on-the-back to its employees. It got as big as it is by weeding out competitive workers. Go have a look at the Burger King scandal. Look at the fucking pictures of the conditions on the farm. The workers live at poverty level. Because of that, Burger King is as successful as they are right now.

Yeah man, you are small fish. The corporate fish could squash you dude. Whatever business you are running right now, a bigger capitalist could either offer to buy it for a price you could not resist, or simply start a similar business and run you into the ground in no time. I'm telling you man, your little hallmark slogans "workers are assets...happy customers...have a nice day, yada, yada" is capitalism in a cartoon world.


You boss is a looser. Really--I have nothing for comtempt for the bastard. I wouldn't do business with him, that's for sure.

My boss is a millionaire. He would eat you for breakfast and leave a tip bigger than your whole bank account, then he would buy your entire family.

[Bud Struggle]

My boss is a millionaire. He would eat you for breakfast and leave a tip bigger than your whole bank account, then he would buy your entire family.

Well, OK. You and your boss know more about business than me. But I'm trying to tell you how Capitalism is going to work in the 21st century and you don't want to listen. You have your Reactionary Communism fighting your Reactionary Capitalism.

You seem like you've been spending a little to much time with Mr Peabody.

[eyedrop]

My main objection to capitalism is that someone else owns all the means of production and resources. There is little chance of myself owning most of them. Thus I conclude that noone should be allowed to own them. The rest is just theorising about how to achieve that aim.

And yes I fool idiots on the net in poker for some extra cash.

This seemed to make some sense in relation to the things in the tread when I wrote it. Not so sure now.

[Bud Struggle]

My main objection to capitalism is that someone else owns all the means of production and resources.

Why do you care who owns what?



There is little chance of myself owning most of them.

WRONG. You can do anything you want or be anything you want. You just have to get off your butt and do it. PM me and I'll tell you how to get started. Take it step by step and in a little time you'll be a millionaire.


Thus I conclude that none should be allowed to own them. The rest is just theorising about how to achieve that aim.

Sour grapes. The sooner you start, the sooner you can make some money, and the sooner you make some money the sooner the party starts. Let's get working dude--I'll help you do it. There are definite perks to being a "friend of TomK!" :thumbup:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

WRONG. You can do anything you want or be anything you want. You just have to get off your butt and do it. PM me and I'll tell you how to get started. Take it step by step and in a little time you'll be a millionaire.
And that's why you are a millionaire, right Tom? Or maybe you just didn't work hard enough?

[Bud Struggle]

And that's why you are a millionaire, right Tom? Or maybe you just didn't work hard enough?

I am just a poor boy and my story's seldom told. :(

[Robert]

You guys realize that Tom really is a millionaire, right?

Of course, a million doesn't go as far as it used to. Can I get a witness?

[RGacky3]

PM me, and I'll tell you how you can make millions smuggeling Chineese girls to the US and makeing them whore themselves out to pay back transport loans, THEN the party gets started :). Think about it, win, win, Chineese girls get a job, get to America, Costomers get laid, we get millions. High Five Tomk :).


WRONG. You can do anything you want or be anything you want. You just have to get off your butt and do it. PM me and I'll tell you how to get started. Take it step by step and in a little time you'll be a millionaire.

Because people living in grinding poverty just hav'nt gotten off their butts yet :P right? Too busy drinking bud light living the lazy poor mans life.

[eyedrop]

Why do you care who owns what? Because when someone else owns it they deny myself the access of it.





WRONG. You can do anything you want or be anything you want. You just have to get off your butt and do it. PM me and I'll tell you how to get started. Take it step by step and in a little time you'll be a millionaire. To a certain degree I agree. Don't believe I'm bitter of any kind. I am not. I love my life. But the American Dream is mostly a myth. As statistics from Norway say that a daughter of rich industrial leaders have 39 times as large chance to end up within the economic upper class than a daughter of a parent without any education. http://www.dagbladet.no/magasinet/2008/04/30/534051.html What is the difference then? Genetic superiority? Cultural superiority? Or the system? A capitalist system where people had equal opportunity wouldn't be so bad imo, but personal wealth would still be partly a matter of luck. Anyway a capitalist system of equal opportunities is just a wet dream anyway, doesn't seem any plausible at all. As it is today I don't see why I should accept that I have to start behind some people. It is like starting a 100 meter running race with most of the people starting at 200 meters while a few starts at the 50 meter line. It's unfair for no good reason.


But yeah I'll send you a PM as I love small sideprojects, it beats working for anyone else.




Sour grapes. The sooner you start, the sooner you can make some money, and the sooner you make some money the sooner the party starts. Let's get working dude--I'll help you do it. There are definite perks to being a "friend of TomK!" :thumbup: I love perks. It's still a lottery who starts with different opportunities, I don't see why it should need to be.

[Kronos]

Why do you care who owns what?

That's the big question. There are different things that can and should be privately owned, and there are also different effects, different consequences, created by the owning of these things.

The one thing that shouldn't be owned is the "means" to produce something which has a higher value than the value of what it took to make it- this is surplus value and "variable capital". If something "cost" X amount to be made (the price of labor and material), but "cost" Y amount to be sold, there is a value created and gained there which cannot be shared by those who were part of the costs of producing it. The class that "sells" their labor to produce something which will become a value that exceeds the material costs of making it, and the price charged for the labor, is being illegitimately exploited.

Now, on the other hand, if a person could use only their own labor, but still had to pay for material costs, any higher value (variable capital) created for the product "in the market" would not be a surplus capital in the real sense...because nobody "sold" their labor to produce it for this person. This means that no capital is made exclusively from a wage worker, and primitive mercantilism is still possible. Eventually this stage advances into the next, mercantile capitalism....when people begin to sell their labor.

People can own whatever they can afford to buy, but they cannot own a "means", like a factory or machine, for instance, to produce something, nor can they "pay" workers to provide the labor to produce.

In a socialist market, people work, have different incomes, and buy commodities. The only difference is that there is a state which owns all productive capacities...so that no individual can "buy" labor from another, or "sell" it to another. You can own whatever you want...you can't can't own something that makes things which are owned. If you want to merely trade or sell your property, that is fine, but you can't give money to someone who exchanges their labor for a price that is lower than the price of the thing they produced, and which goes into the pocket of the guy who "exchanged" money for a worker. And you cannot own a machine that produces something by itself and/or must be operated by workers. The state controls all that.

You could still have your Harley, TomK (I don't see how you could prefer one over a Kawasaki).

[eyedrop]

In a socialist market, people work, have different incomes, and buy commodities. The only difference is that there is a state which owns all productive capacities...so that no individual can "buy" labor from another, or "sell" it to another. You can own whatever you want...you can't can't own something that makes things which are owned. If you want to merely trade or sell your property, that is fine, but you can't give money to someone who exchanges their labor for a price that is lower than the price of the thing they produced, and which goes into the pocket of the guy who "exchanged" money for a worker. And you cannot own a machine that produces something by itself and/or must be operated by workers. The state controls all that.


Actually as an anarchist I basically agree with this except just semantical differences. Not able to be owned and owned by everyone is the same thing in practicality, assuming that the state is as close to everyone and not a beuracratic body controlled by a few. As that would evolve back into capitalsim in time.

[pusher robot]

That's the big question. There are different things that can and should be privately owned, and there are also different effects, different consequences, created by the owning of these things. Indubitably.



The one thing that shouldn't be owned is the "means" to produce something which has a higher value than the value of what it took to make it- this is surplus value and "variable capital". If something "cost" X amount to be made (the price of labor and material), but "cost" Y amount to be sold, there is a value created and gained there which cannot be shared by those who were part of the costs of producing it. The class that "sells" their labor to produce something which will become a value that exceeds the material costs of making it, and the price charged for the labor, is being illegitimately exploited.


The problem is that the set of things that are "'means' to produce something which has a higher value than the value of what it took to make it" is infinite. The bigger problem is that if your goal is material prosperity, you want to encourage innovation in the exploration of this set; communal ownership does not do this, however.

Let's take a theoretical example: suppose that you have a worker-owned auto company that produces 1,000 cars a day with 10,000 workers. If your goal is material prosperity, you ought to want to decrease the costs of auto production. But suppose that a productivity enhancement allows them to replace 1,000 workers with computers, a great cost savings. What do you think the chances are that those changes would be approved by the workers who own the auto company? Why do they even care how much the cars cost?



People can own whatever they can afford to buy, but they cannot own a "means", like a factory or machine, for instance, to produce something, nor can they "pay" workers to provide the labor to produce.


This analysis is just impractically outdated. Look around, the majority of economic activity isn't in production, it's in services. All collectivizing means of production would do is make services an even more attractive avenue of investment.


...so that no individual can "buy" labor from another, or "sell" it to another. You can own whatever you want...you can't can't own something that makes things which are owned.If I need a plumber, I need the labor of a man who knows how to fix plumbing. I don't need the labor of a man who owns pipe-making machinery.


If you want to merely trade or sell your property, that is fine, but you can't give money to someone who exchanges their labor for a price that is lower than the price of the thing they produced, and which goes into the pocket of the guy who "exchanged" money for a worker.What is the value of the "thing" produced by a plumber? A teacher? A doctor?


And you cannot own a machine that produces something by itself and/or must be operated by workers. The state controls all that.

I hope not - the most productive machine to ever exist is the human brain. It just happens to produce ideas, not goods. But ideas are no less valuable than goods, and no less a scarce resource, and no less a basis of economic wealth.

[Kronos]

assuming that the state is as close to everyone and not a beuracratic body controlled by a few

This is one of my objections to anarchy. I believe that there can be no spontaneous collectivity which would accomplish the necessary organization required for the most efficient modes of production.

People are not "equal", and those less qualified to perform a certain task, or job, must not have the opportunity to do so, I think. Therefore, a certain central control state should be present to organize productivity, rather than leaving the mode of production open to the purest form of democracy. In such a democracy, many people will be making decisions they are not qualified to make, and working in ways they should not be.

The central governing body would be composed of elected "officials" who's ruling takes precedence over otherwise democratic policy, and those officials would be voted into position....but once there, they have executive power. If at any time the official were believed to be unsatisfactory, the voting process would repeat to replace him.

So people here aren't voting on decisions, but rather voting for people who would make those decisions for them. This form is far more organized and efficient, economically, than the alternative of having no central state. The dictatorship would be proletarian, so the elected officials would not be "bosses", obviously, but only ranked.

But yeah, everybody owns everything, because they vote democratically for how the property is managed, and who manages it.

[eyedrop]

This is one of my objections to anarchy. I believe that there can be no spontaneous collectivity which would accomplish the necessary organization required for the most efficient modes of production.

So good that no serious anarchists disagree with you then. Not likely that the kind of organisation I envision would happen spontaneously.




People are not "equal", and those less qualified to perform a certain task, or job, must not have the opportunity to do so, I think. Therefore, a certain central control state should be present to organize productivity, rather than leaving the mode of production open to the purest form of democracy. In such a democracy, many people will be making decisions they are not qualified to make, and working in ways they should not be.Demarchy could solve this problem, by lottery of those interested. Besides all the people working at a spesific part of the factory are the authorities on how that should be run. In todays society one can se how many crappy decsions(sorry, the word refused to be spelled correctly) are made from people disconnected functions they are deciding. Look at the comic Dilbert for examples.




People are not "equal", and those less qualified to perform a certain task, or job, must not have the opportunity to do so, I think. Therefore, a certain central control state should be present to organize productivity, rather than leaving the mode of production open to the purest form of democracy. How would the central leaders know who is most qualified to organize? One coudl also have a test one have to pass, if neccesary, before being able to vote.

In such a democracy, many people will be making decisions they are not qualified to make, and working in ways they should not be. Isn't this happening now? Those who work with it are qualified to vote on it. Go and ask some contractors how many times they have to modify plans made by arcitects because the arcitects are wrong. My friends that work in contracting say that's how it goes at least. The arcitects often comes up with unrealistic plans.

[Kronos]

The problem is that the set of things that are "'means' to produce something which has a higher value than the value of what it took to make it" is infinite.Actually it isn't "infinite". Anything that is produced requires certain materials and forms of labor to be produced.

If you mean the "value" is infinite, then yeah, sort of. The value is determined by a shifting market, so the profits made from sales in this market is variable capital.

Still my point remains: I'm saying that any value, or profit, made from something produced by someone who does not share that profit, is alienating.


suppose that you have a worker-owned auto company that produces 1,000 cars a day with 10,000 workers. If your goal is material prosperity, you ought to want to decrease the costs of auto production.This is a false dilemma. A "worker-owned" auto company would not desire to "decrease the costs" of auto production because a capitalist-free, worker-owned market would not be competitive; a decrease in cost would mean a decrease in effort, not "expenses", since capital would not exist....and therefore the incentive to decrease costs is different. Your example is invalid.

See here:


But suppose that a productivity enhancement allows them to replace 1,000 workers with computers, a great cost savings. What do you think the chances are that those changes would be approved by the workers who own the auto company?The changes would be approved by the workers because such changes would result in more efficient productivity. Replacing human jobs with machines is not a problem. But as above, this wouldn't be done to "save costs", because capitalist economics would be obsolete in this model. "Profits" are irrelevant here.


This analysis is just impractically outdated. Look around, the majority of economic activity isn't in production, it's in services.All is reduced to material machines and labor. "Services" is labor, and the labor is involved in the mediation of product use. A service representative at a phone company, for example, is performing labor that wouldn't be possible without the computer software that was developed to run the systems they use, or the actual machines themselves, or the building she has an office in, etc., etc. So any job which is a service is just another link in commodity production. If a person is involved in distributing products, or in using those products to provide a service for another, they are laboring.


All collectivizing means of production would do is make services an even more attractive avenue of investment.
Investing wouldn't even be possible here, man. Your arguments are mixing elements of each opposing system, and creating false dilemmas.


If I need a plumber, I need the labor of a man who knows how to fix plumbing. I don't need the labor of a man who owns pipe-making machinery.
If a plumber is needed, a plumber will be provided. Trades are still specialized in a socialist/communist system. And fortunately for the consumer, some knucklehead who doesn't know a hammer from a pipe-wrench wouldn't be coming to your house, because there is no private enterprise, and no unqualified services or trades in the market because of that control.


What is the value of the "thing" produced by a plumber? A teacher? A doctor?The extent to which it is a necessary commodity.


I hope not - the most productive machine to ever exist is the human brain. It just happens to produce ideas, not goods. But ideas are no less valuable than goods, and no less a scarce resource, and no less a basis of economic wealth. And that creative production of ideas does not cease in a socialist system. There is always incentive.

[eyedrop]

Capitalism seem sto me to fail in delivering. As production effieciency goes up s the goods we have should either go up or the average work should go down, not make a bunch of beuracratic useless jobs.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This analysis is just impractically outdated. Look around, the majority of economic activity isn't in production, it's in services. All collectivizing means of production would do is make services an even more attractive avenue of investment.
You're not taking a worldwide perspective. Worldwide, there are more jobs in manufacturing and industry today than ever before. A greater proportion of the human species consists of industrial workers than ever before. This growth in industrial labour was achieved mainly by scaling back agricultural labour. If I am not mistaken, the proportion of human beings engaged in agriculture is about to drop below 50% for the first time in history.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hey, let's all agree to Tom's terms and not care who owns the means of production. That sure worked wonderfully when our ancestors were bending their knees to the feudal lords. Now it's just capitalists. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Hey, let's all agree to Tom's terms and not care who owns the means of production. That sure worked wonderfully when our ancestors were bending their knees to the feudal lords. Now it's just capitalists. ;)

The difference Gene, is that my ancestors couldn't rise above their station under feudalism. Now the boarder bewteen rich and poor is open--anyone can move ahead (or behind).

[Bud Struggle]

That's the big question. There are different things that can and should be privately owned, and there are also different effects, different consequences, created by the owning of these things.

The one thing that shouldn't be owned is the "means" to produce something which has a higher value than the value of what it took to make it- this is surplus value and "variable capital". If something "cost" X amount to be made (the price of labor and material), but "cost" Y amount to be sold, there is a value created and gained there which cannot be shared by those who were part of the costs of producing it. The class that "sells" their labor to produce something which will become a value that exceeds the material costs of making it, and the price charged for the labor, is being illegitimately exploited.

Now, on the other hand, if a person could use only their own labor, but still had to pay for material costs, any higher value (variable capital) created for the product "in the market" would not be a surplus capital in the real sense...because nobody "sold" their labor to produce it for this person. This means that no capital is made exclusively from a wage worker, and primitive mercantilism is still possible. Eventually this stage advances into the next, mercantile capitalism....when people begin to sell their labor.

People can own whatever they can afford to buy, but they cannot own a "means", like a factory or machine, for instance, to produce something, nor can they "pay" workers to provide the labor to produce.

In a socialist market, people work, have different incomes, and buy commodities. The only difference is that there is a state which owns all productive capacities...so that no individual can "buy" labor from another, or "sell" it to another. You can own whatever you want...you can't can't own something that makes things which are owned. If you want to merely trade or sell your property, that is fine, but you can't give money to someone who exchanges their labor for a price that is lower than the price of the thing they produced, and which goes into the pocket of the guy who "exchanged" money for a worker. And you cannot own a machine that produces something by itself and/or must be operated by workers. The state controls all that.

Marxist gobbley-gook. :rolleyes:


You could still have your Harley, TomK (I don't see how you could prefer one over a Kawasaki).

I don't ride much, it's an image thing at Bike Week and Biketoberfest in Daytona.

[Kronos]

let's all agree to Tom's terms and not care who owns the means of production. That sure worked wonderfully when our ancestors were bending their knees to the feudal lords. Now it's just capitalists.

I wouldn't doubt it if Lord TomK was involved in a system of reciprocal legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) obligations among the warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior) nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility) of his class.

Instead of owning armies, he owns companies. Instead of riding a horse, he rides a Harley. Instead of chain-mail, he wears a suit.

Same song, different dance.

(special thanks to wikipedia for providing the links and quote)

[Kronos]

I don't ride much, it's an image thing at Bike Week and Biketoberfest in Daytona.

So let me get this straight. You have a bike that you just ride for fifteen minutes a year at a festival so you can "look cool"?

Oh brother. Tom. Tell me you aren't one of those guys.

...

Does your helmet match your bike suit, and do you wear leather garments that make you look like Mad-Max? If you don't, I bet you would like to, wouldn't you?

Do you have specific music that you listen to...TomK's theme songs....while you ride? Don't lie man. We all have theme songs. I just want to know what yours are, because I've got a bad feeling about it.

Alright so tell us about the bike. I once owned a yamaha 440...small bike but it was new when I had it, so it was nice.

[Killfacer]

TomK i agree with you on alot of things but your veiw seems a bit blinkered on this one. The idea that the boarder between the rich and the poor is open is a ridiculous one, the percentage of working class families stay working class and the majority of rich families stay approximatly at the same level of wealth. Look at the percentage of well paid jobs, the people occupying them all went to universities dominated by the rich (over here its oxford, cambridge). Same story with the british goverment, all a bunch of Eaton, public school boys.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK i agree with you on alot of things but your veiw seems a bit blinkered on this one. The idea that the boarder between the rich and the poor is open is a ridiculous one, the percentage of working class families stay working class and the majority of rich families stay approximatly at the same level of wealth. Look at the percentage of well paid jobs, the people occupying them all went to universities dominated by the rich (over here its oxford, cambridge). Same story with the british goverment, all a bunch of Eaton, public school boys.

My parents came to America from Poland, dirt poor. My dad promptly went deaf when he as 24. He worked in a factory (that made made Keds sneakers.) I and my brother went to Georgetown (one of the better American schools) he went into banking, I went into commercial and industrial real estate--his horse ranch is in Virginia, mine's in Florida. His hobby is Standardbreds, mine Arabians and Barbs.

We worked at it, but it's just something we wanted and we got it. Not for everybody, but if you want to succeed--you can.

England is another story, I'm sure--so I won't comment. We rent a house in Tuscany during the month of June--our neighbors are English MiLords--lots of them, they hide out in Italy while their houses are open too paying visitors till October 1--then they go on living the lives of "gentlemen" in their family seats. Now THEY are of ANOTHER CLASS. They have money, sure, but they do really and truly think they are better than everyone else.

I have lots of "Lord" stories from there. But I ain't one of them.

[Comrade Rage]

We worked at it, but it's just something we wanted and we got it. Not for everybody, but if you want to succeed--you can.FFS I'm tired of hearing this crap about how if everyone wasn't so lazy, we could all be rich. How can I be rich, huh? Virtually all the family jobs have left my city, we lost 600 jobs already in the first five months of the year. I'm a little fortunate as I might be able to pack up and move, but I'm part of a lucky few.

You got rich because of your father's hard work. Not all of us were as lucky to be born into wealth as you.

[Kronos]

TomK, if you want to redeem yourself, you may send $20 to every member of RevLeft that isn't a capitalist, and an extra $10 to me for thinking up this wonderful idea.

Each member will contact you to make payment arrangements, however that will be.

But each working class member must donate a portion of that $20 to some charitable act. That subjective amount each person chooses to donate will be determined by the movement of Smith's Invisible Hand, and everybody will feel happy.

Here we would have a real redistribution of wealth back to the working classes at RevLeft.

[Bud Struggle]

You got rich because of your father's hard work. Not all of us were as lucky to be born into wealth as you.

My father never made more than 10Gs a year in his life.

But my father's EXAMPLE of hard work is what mattered to me. Frugality, faith in God and humor are the things that I remember best. I (by his goodness) got ahead in life. He helped me in better ways than money--but he was no rich man to be sure.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, if you want to redeem yourself, you may send $20 to every member of RevLeft that isn't a capitalist, and an extra $10 to me for thinking up this wonderful idea.

Each member will contact you to make payment arrangements, however that will be.

But each working class member must donate a portion of that $20 to some charitable act. That subjective amount each person chooses to donate will be determined by the movement of Smith's Invisible Hand, and everybody will feel happy.

Here we would have a real redistribution of wealth back to the working classes at RevLeft.

Better yet: get a job.

You can get money every week rather than a one time "gift".

Do you see all the fucking RULES you are setting up for everybody? they have to do THIS: and then they have to do THAT. Then they can get THIS so they have THAT.

You are creating Communist monkeys.

[Kami]

they have to do THIS: and then they have to do THAT. Then they can get THIS so they have THAT.
You have to work for 40 hours a week, and conform to societal norms. Then you can get money, so that you can eat.
Sounds like capitalism to me.


Better yet: get a job.
Some of us live in places with high unemployment, and can't. Then what?

[Bud Struggle]

So let me get this straight. You have a bike that you just ride for fifteen minutes a year at a festival so you can "look cool"?

Oh brother. Tom. Tell me you aren't one of those guys.

...

Does your helmet match your bike suit, and do you wear leather garments that make you look like Mad-Max? If you don't, I bet you would like to, wouldn't you?

Do you have specific music that you listen to...TomK's theme songs....while you ride? Don't lie man. We all have theme songs. I just want to know what yours are, because I've got a bad feeling about it.

Alright so tell us about the bike. I once owned a yamaha 440...small bike but it was new when I had it, so it was nice.


Missed this: a 2004 Softail Classic. Anyway Bike Week is the most Communist event you could imagine. Every woman: fat, young, "curvy" "not so curvey" a ***** Queen, evey guy a Stud. All fun. Some hardcore, some rich, some poor, some lifetime bikers, some dentists.

Lots of fun.

I have a place in Key West, too: now I can tell you about Fantasy Fest--;) :ohmy:

Kronos--enjoy life a bit.

[Bud Struggle]

Some of us live in places with high unemployment, and can't. Then what?

It's not society's problem that you can't get a job. It's your gob to provide for yourself.

You have to take care of YOURSELF. Get creative, think of something, build something. Be a FREE man or woman.

You can NEVER be free depending on society.

[Kami]

It's not society's problem that you can't get a job. It's your gob to provide for yourself.

There's more unemployed than jobs, and there's no space on the market for new business even if one could raise the capital to start one. That, I am afraid, is society's problem.

[RNK]

Socialism isn't as irrational as religion, though there is a fucking pathetically high number of "socialists" and "leftists" who are just as irrational as religious people.

[RGacky3]

though there is a fucking pathetically high number of "socialists" and "leftists" who are just as irrational as religious people.

Sounds funny, comming from a Maoist, I'm not saying your wrong, but ... Your a Maoist :P.


It's not society's problem that you can't get a job. It's your gob to provide for yourself.

Thats very easy to say, when your the one giving out jobs.


You have to take care of YOURSELF. Get creative, think of something, build something. Be a FREE man or woman.

You can NEVER be free depending on society.

We are trying to be fee men and women, but getting rid of a system where we have to sell ourselves for your wealth. We can never be free depending on the Capitalists, but problem is, they own everything, and its our jobs to take it away from them so we don't have to depend on them anymore.

[RNK]

Sounds funny, comming from a Maoist, I'm not saying your wrong, but ... Your a Maoist :P.

I'm a Maoist who can spell "you're", so I'm better than you, restrictorino. So suck my People's Revolutionary Cock.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You guys realize that Tom really is a millionaire, right?

Of course, a million doesn't go as far as it used to. Can I get a witness?

Claims to be a millionaire, at the very least - unless someone can quantify with hard evidence.

I can't personally testify to a million not being "what it used to be," but certainly it does not signify any large ownership over the means of production. Tom may fancy himself a capitalist but he's still playing a losing game. Only he's under the presumption he's "won." :laugh:

[Killfacer]

TomK i dont think that you can deny that many families that are working class will stay working class and that many families that are upper class will stay upper class. Yes there are occasioanlly stories about working class migrants coming good and becoming rich the american dream blah blah blah. But the percentage of working class people stay working class. Of course much of this is assumption, this is how it is in the UK and i assume that its at least fairly similar in the US of A.

[Bud Struggle]

Socialism isn't as irrational as religion, though there is a fucking pathetically high number of "socialists" and "leftists" who are just as irrational as religious people.

Are you kidding? Commnism IS a religion. People REALLY believe that it can predict the future. Just as the Second Comming of Christ to Christians a "sure thing" the inevitablilty of Communism is to Communists.

And while at the present time the world is growing more Socialist, Marxism is (as it always was) quite dead--yet people sit around waiting for it's second comming. The advantage Christians have is that Christ lived on this earth once, so if he come again it will be the second comming. Marxism--not so much. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Claims to be a millionaire, at the very least - unless someone can quantify with hard evidence.

I can't personally testify to a million not being "what it used to be," but certainly it does not signify any large ownership over the means of production. Tom may fancy himself a capitalist but he's still playing a losing game. Only he's under the presumption he's "won." :laugh:


Yea it's tough to quantify. I do want to say, that while I have done pretty well in business I am certainly way over the top here in my lack of "humility" about it. It's not the way I am in the real world. But as just about the only "owner of the means of production" around here I have to play the part a bit.

I'm really quite a sweet guy in person. :blushing::)

[Dean]

That's why (learning from this board,) I've started workers councils--soviets, no managers. The workers figure out what their problems are and how to solve them--no bosses involved. If money is saved or made they get to share in the profits. (50%. 25% goes for capital improvements to their working conditions, and 25% goes, I forget where ;):D.)

Seriously? What company do you own?

Also, Soviets are a lot more complicated than that :p

[Bud Struggle]

Seriously? What company do you own?

Also, Soviets are a lot more complicated than that :p

I have a chemical company. I started it IN MY GARAGE, after I had retired to Florida. I put my money into it and it grew pretty well.

And Soviets are easy--I start with the basics--solve your own work relate problems--stop looking to management.

Maybe some control issues will come later--and then financial issues. One step at a time.

[RGacky3]

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.--Marx

Did marx really say that? Thats hillareous, I would'nt expect jokes from him.


I have a chemical company. I started it IN MY GARAGE, after I had retired to Florida. I put my money into it and it grew pretty well.

Good work, look at history, there are rags to riches stories before Capitalism, knights that became kings, soldiers that became emperors. Does'nt Justify the system, because it does'nt matter how many rags to riches stories their are, the ones that do it, still rely on exploited labor.

[RNK]

Hey, even Hitler got laid.

I don't know whether or not communism is inevitable, but I do know that the extermination of your way of life is.

(...is inevitable, for the dense)

[Anashtih]

One thing that pisses me off especially about capitalism is how people like Rockefeller are so idolized. Oh, rags to riches! If you work hard enough you can become wealthy!
That's such bullshit. There's only so much money available. It's not unlimited. Hence, more or less, if you become wealthy, you're taking that money from someone else.
It's like the lower and middle class are mules. We carry around all this cash until it's needed by one of the few "upper class" people. Then they take it. It's like we only have money because it's a pain for the rich to lug it around.
Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but it really does piss me off.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Did marx really say that? Thats hillareous, I would'nt expect jokes from him.



Good work, look at history, there are rags to riches stories before Capitalism, knights that became kings, soldiers that became emperors. Does'nt Justify the system, because it does'nt matter how many rags to riches stories their are, the ones that do it, still rely on exploited labor.

In addition to odd jobs, I've made $XX,XXX with a small printing business (cooperative). Your point is very clear and concise, RGacky, but I think you're giving Tom too much credit. Assuming his claims are true and accurate (which truthfully I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), he's more or less the guild wrench who became a guild master. Kings are rarely made from common blood.

DejaVu's original post sounds more or less like a stretch of his own aspirations for eternal capitalism. However, it appears (to me at least) that technology underwrites capitalism by producing abundant consumer goods and services. Much like how improved agrarian methods ironically resulted in the decline of feudalism, the improved methods in production are resulting in a lack of need for competition between private firms. If corporations were converted into a sort of proto-technate experiment, I imagine socialism would out compete capitalism by providing people with "free" stuff. ;)

[pusher robot]

Did marx really say that? Thats hillareous, I would'nt expect jokes from him.
Really, why not? I mean, just look at him:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Grouchomarxpromophoto.jpg

[The Sloth]

Yeah, I do a bit of philosophy too:)

now, keeping this inappropriate admission in mind, let us consider the following:


Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world.an untenable premise, but you nevertheless proceed:


A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs.unfortunately, it all seems to fall apart here. on a purely conceptual level, your distinction is correct. but, you equivocate. "forests," "trees," and "eggs" can only nominally function "as groups," as they do not substantially interact. when we talk about people, "social class" implies a number of shared elements and experiences that shape, encourage, and generate certain outlooks and behaviors, since we are (please, note the italics) talking about sentient, complex beings, not trees. thus, the conceptual category is, like any category, a ghost; but, the real-world implications have obvious physical counterparts beyond "mere convenience."

still, i'm sure your vast background in philosophy couldn't possibly let you miss this simple point, so i'm left to guess -- i hate to strain -- why you'd even take the time to type this trifle. nonetheless, you accentuate the problem with anarcho-cappies, and da originatorz (regular libertarians, i suppose) themselves: an inability to apply theoretical speculations to real-world problems. instead, you rely on violent, inappropriate analogies to force their way through the otherwise graceful straits of logic.


Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.:rolleyes:


sophists never die.

[Hefty]

Everything is perception. For instance, we can say, "It's a minute past twelve!" but this is OUR measurement of time. There is no "12" and there is no minute. Basically, because humans are the most powerful species existing on this planet, we make the rules. The USA, for example, does not exist in that sense, because all it is, is lines made by us on a map, but the truth is, The United States Of America DOES exist, it IS a collective of people, ruled by a government which rules over the people as a NATION, a GROUP of people. So what you are implying is that, nearly everything is idealistic. And in a sense, you are right lol.

:confused:

[dannydandy]

communism at the very least has its intellectual virtue as an critic to capitalism... or else the capitalist would never bother to improve their ways