Fen Boy/TomK Face-off [Archive]

nuisance

30th July 2008, 16:11

"If you are sympathetic to one capitalist, you must be sympathetic to all capitalists and fascists, as well." What a non-sequitur.
I think someone took something abit to seriously, it wasn't a completely serious reply and was basically taking the piss out of your stance.

I'm not going to call him a scumbag.
Despite embodying what you oppose?

His workers don't fully operate the means of production, true, but then again that's not really happening right now. That's what a revolution is for.
No no no. Who said that? Expropriation needs to begin before the revolution takes place/leading to revolution. Also what about modern day co-operatives?
It is perfectly easy enough for TomK to form the factory into a syndicate and simply live the rest of his live with the goods he already has, yet he doesn't appear to be doing that.

All I'm trying to say here is that Joe Hill's Ghost just needs to back the fuck off of him. Capitalism sucks, but TomK certainly doesn't represent every capitalist out there.
Yeah I can see that Joe has attacked TomK a fair bit but nevermind, I can understand why Joe is annoyed. Also I doubt to much that TomK actually minds to much- he couldn't of got where he is today without getting a fair few peoples backs up now, could he?

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 21:23

Also I doubt to much that TomK actually minds to much- he couldn't of got where he is today without getting a fair few peoples backs up now, could he?

Now THAT is a piece of CRAP. I have never make a business deal that wasn't to my advantage and to the advantage of the other party. EVER. It's not the way I do things. One could be a pretty darn good Capitalist without screwing people over. As a matter of fact--you really do a lot better as a Capitalist without screwingpeople over. Most of the people I do business with I have been doing business with for years--they grow and I grow.

Fen, you have a distorted view about the way business works. My vendors are my friends, my customers are my friends and my employees are my friends. I make money for my friends--and my friends make money for me. THAT'S Capitalism.

nuisance

30th July 2008, 21:35

Now THAT is a piece of CRAP. I have never make a business deal that wasn't to my advantage and to the advantage of the other party. EVER. It's not the way I do things. One could be a pretty darn good Capitalist without screwing people over.
But you employ people, correct? Therefore you have to be making a profit from their labour, ourwise it's not sustainable for you.

As a matter of fact--you really do a lot better as a Capitalist without screwingpeople over. Most of the people I do business with I have been doing business with for years--they grow and I grow.
I don't care whether your business benefits other businessmen.

Fen, you have a distorted view about the way business works. My vendors are my friends, my customers are my friends and my employees are my friends.
I highly doubt they are your mates. I've never known an employee that actually likes their employer, no matter what they may or may not say to their face.

I make money for my friends--and my friends make money for me. THAT'S Capitalism.
OK, so you're admitting that the only people that benefit from capitalism is the capitalist and their 'friends'. However if you're talking of your employees coming under 'friends', then tell me, how do you make them money?

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 22:23

But you employ people, correct? Therefore you have to be making a profit from their labour, ourwise it's not sustainable for you. Of course, I make money for myself and I help my emploees make money.

I highly doubt they are your mates. I've never known an employee that actually likes their employer, no matter what they may or may not say to their face. First of all you don't "know" me and you don't know who my "mates" are, so you'll just have to take my word on it--as I must take your word on who your mates are--but really, why would I lie to impress you? Anyway, look around on RevLeft--I must say I am friends or friendly with lots of peole that don't share my particular economic beliefs and they with me. Life would suck if everyone was the same and believed the same, wouldn't it?

Fen, or should I call you Boy? The world is a lot bigger place than the little political or economic differences that divide us. And no matter the things that divide us--we are all brothers and sisters.

OK, so you're admitting that the only people that benefit from capitalism is the capitalist and their 'friends'. However if you're talking of your employees coming under 'friends', then tell me, how do you make them money?

I employ them, I give them benefits, I give their kids schlorships--etc. They make me money, too. It's a win win situation. I have talents they don't have--they have talents I don't have. In a way, a business is alot like Communism--we all work together for a common end.

You and people like Joe make a Communist world of the future seem to be a very grim and bitter place indeed.

nuisance

30th July 2008, 22:35

Of course, I make money for myself and I help my emploees make money.
As much as if they expropriated the fruits of their labour from you? I think that'd be much more beneficial.

First of all you don't "know" me and you don't know who my "mates" are, so you'll just have to take my work on it--as I must take your word on who your mates are--but really, why would I lie to impress you? Anyway, look around on RevLeft--I must say I am friends or friendly with lots of peole that don't share my particular economic beliefs.
People like you and me don't mix in the real world due to material differences. So therefore, yes your economic stance and beliefs do hinder friend groups. I don't care whether others on here are sympathetic to you. I'm not friends with nazis on principle, and neither with those who exploit others of my class.

Fen, or should I call you Boy? The world is a lot bigger place than the little political or economic differences that divide us. And no matter the things that divide us--we are all brothers and sisters.
If you honestly believe we are all 'brothers and sisters', then why do you think it's OK for you to have more due to their labour? Ridculous bourgeois rhetoric.

I employ them, I give them benefits, I give their kids schlorships--etc. They make me money, too. It's a win win situation. I have talents they don't have--they have talents I don't have. In a way, a business is alot like Communism--we all work together for a common end..
Yet you still get a bigger chunk?

You and people like Joe make a Communist world of the future seem to be a very grim and bitter place indeed.
Because we don't believe that a sole person, or group, should beable to live a parastic life due to owning property? Good, communism isn't aimed to be liked by people of your luxury.

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 22:48

As much as if they expropriated the fruits of their labour from you? I think that'd be much more beneficial. I don't steal anyone's labor--people give it and I give them mine--it's a fair trade. It's the ACTUAL way the world works, you know.

People like you and me don't mix in the real world due to material differences. So therefore, yes your economic stance and beliefs do hinder friend groups. For some and not for others--I was born poor and all of that, or rather poor working class--not that I actually believe in that 19th century claptrap about "class". That was news from two centuries ago--the wold has evolved beyond all that 1850 jargon. Anyway, I have friends from all walks of life--it makes my live and their lives interesting. When you hang out with your "homies" too long you tend o get a bit "insular."

I don't care whether others on here are sympathetic to you. I'm not friends with nazis on principle, and neither with those who exploit others of my class. See that's the difference between you and me--I don't judge people--the Nazi guy may just need some explaination or understand and he might reall be quite a decent fellow and might even change his views if given a fair chance to understand how things work.

Intolerance breeds intolerance.

For me--all people are my friends, unless they prove different.

If you honestly believe we are all 'brothers and sisters', then why do you think it's OK for you to have more due to their labour? Ridculous bourgeois rhetoric. I don't have more do their THEIR labor--it's MY labor I benefit from. And "bourgeois?" Again with that 19th century rhetoric! :lol:

Yet you still get a bigger chunk?
Of course--I do more than they do. It's only fair.

Because we don't believe that a sole person, or group, live a parastic life due to owning property? Good, communism isn't aimed to be liked by people of your luxury.

I kind of think like a Vulcan--"Live long and prosper." :)

nuisance

30th July 2008, 23:02

I don't steal anyone's labor--people give it and I give them mine--it's a fair trade. It's the ACTUAL way the world works, you know.
That's the way the capitalist world works, yes. You either work for the property owner or starve. I don't see what is fair or equal about that.

For some and not for others--I was born poor and all of that, or rather poor working class--not that I actually believe in that 19th century claptrap about "class". That was news from two centuries ago--the wold has evolved beyond all that 1850 jargon. Anyway, I have friends from all walks of life--it makes my live and their lives interesting. When you hang out with your "homies" too long you tend o get a bit "insular."
Class isn't old or outdated, that's a ridiculous analogy. There will forever be a class structure as long as hierarchy exists. Also we don't use the term class as news but instead as fact.

See that's the difference between you and me--I don't judge people--the Nazi guy may just need soem explaination or understand and he might reall be quite a decent fellow and change his views if given a fair explaination of how things work, and what best may benefit all people. Intolerance breeds intolerance.
Sure I'll discuss differences but I'm not going to 'hang out'.

it's my labor I benefit from.
You could run the factory soley by yourself?

Of course--i do more. It's only fair.
It's only fair that the workers own it collectively, including yourself, run by a workers council with delegated adminstrative positions.

This is going nowhere so we could end this debate now if you like?

Bud Struggle

30th July 2008, 23:10

That's the way the capitalist world works yes. You either work for the property owner or starve. I don't see what is fair or equal about that.
You work you eat--nothing wrong with that!

Class isn't old or outdated, that's a ridiculous analogy. There will forever be a class structure as long as hierarchy exists. Also we don't use the term class as news but instead as fact. It's yesterday's news--sorry. We are all the same class--some people just make more money than others. Easy enough--that's the 21st century perspective.

Sure I'll discuss differences but I'm not going to 'hang out'. A bit different than what you said further up the track.

You could run the factory soley by yourself? I did when I started it. Now now. Of course there would be no factory without me--no one else in my business could say that.

It's only fair that the workers own it collectively, including yourself, run by a workers council with delegated adminstrative positions. Some 19th century definition of "fair"--no doubt.

This is going nowhere so we could end this debate now if you like?

OK. :)

nuisance

30th July 2008, 23:21

You work you eat--nothing wrong with that!
When needs can be fulfilled, why rely on work to have them supplied? Does a person who works a certain job have more needs than another? Thus justifying a higher wage? That was rhetorical by the way.

It's yesterday's news--sorry. We are all the same class--some people just make more money than others. Easy enough--that's the 21st century perspective.
What? Seriously what? Do everyone own means of production? No. Does everyone need to work to live? No and so on. That's just neoliberal propaganda that was force fed during the Thatcher/Reagan years.

I did when I started it. Now now. Of course there would be no factory without me--no one else in my business could say that.
Equally you could also say that the factory would be nothing without the workers who helped it become fully functional for you to 'run'.

OK. :)
;)

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 00:17

When needs can be fulfilled, why rely on work to have them supplied? Who can say when my needs can be fufilled? You my Fen friend, may be more easily sated than me.

Does a person who works a certain job have more needs than another? Of course--it's been human nature, lo' these past 100,000 years--why change now?

Thus justifying a higher wage? Yes! now you see it!

That was rhetorical by the way. DAMN! So close to having you become a Capitalist! :cursing:

What? Seriously what? Do everyone own means of production? No. I'm don't intrude myself into others personal or economic lives.

That's just neoliberal propaganda that was force fed during the Thatcher/Reagan years. While I am quite ready to bow down to Reagan and Lady Thatcher saying: " I am not worthy, I am not worthy!" My thoughts are my own.

Equally you could also say that the factory would be nothing without the workers who helped it become fully functional for you to 'run'. The workers are "interchangable." I am not.[/quote]

;)

:)

Hey Fen Boy--you are a pretty decent person. I admire your grit and your resolve--we differ, but that's what makes the world go 'round.

Muchly enjoyed chatting.

Tom

nuisance

31st July 2008, 00:32

Who can say when my needs can be fufilled? You my Fen friend, may be more easily sated than me.
Or you are more able to indulge in consumerism based on your economic positioning.

Of course--it's been human nature, lo' these past 100,000 years--why change now?
Erm....no, I could recite some sources and stuff to show that old tribes (and modern day ones) live/d communistically. However I can't be bothered to scruel through aloada primmie sites.

Yes! now you see it!
:rolleyes:

DAMN! So close to having you become a Capitalist! :cursing:
:laugh:

I'm don't intrude myself into others personal or economic lives.
Well that's a blatent lie, beens you employ people. Therefore you are the master of their economic lives.

The workers are "interchangable." I am not.
People shouldn't be treated as a part of a machine, also ironically you could easily be removed from your position.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 00:44

Well that's a blatent lie, beens you employ people. Therefore you are the master of their economic lives. Anyone could leave my employ and become Master of their Own Domain!

People shouldn't be treated as a part of a machine, also ironically you could easily be removed from your position.

As I said--every man is my brother. People choose to sell they talents. I am honored that some sell their services to me and my factory. If they find better employment elsewhere or decide to make their won way in life by starting their own business--they have my complete support.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 00:55

Anyone could leave my employ and become Master of their Own Domain!
And temporarily go with out then not beable to get a loan to do as you say yada yada. No. Also not everyone wants to exploit people to make it better from themselves.

As I said--every man is my brother. People choose to sell they talents. I am honored that some sell their services to me and my factory.
That's a joke and a half. People don't choose becasue they particulary want to. It's either working for you or someone else.

If they find better employment elsewhere or decide to make their won way in life by starting their own business--they have my complete support.
You are an expection, not the rule.
If you honestly think this, then why do you have workers? I'm sure most of them would rather have your riches.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 01:13

And temporarily go with out then not beable to get a loan to do as you say yada yada. No. Also not everyone wants to exploit people to make it better from themselves. Everyone has choices in their lives--as long as people are free top make those choices--I have no issues.

That's a joke and a half. People don't choose becasue they particulary want to. It's either working for you or someone else. Ir work for yourself, or become a rock star or paint pictures. Now there are repercussions that come with all those choices--but that's the price of freedom. People make those kind of choices every day.

You are an expection, not the rule.
If you honestly think this, then why do you have workers? I'm sure most of them would rather have your riches. It's not up to me to decide what the rule is. I've personally been avoiding the RULE all my life. But FWIW: most people could have as much money as I have--they just have to find a way to make it--as I did. By the Way--if you've been reading the comments from Joe and some other Commies I'm pretty much and idiot--and if and idiot can be a millionare--what's keeping you? :D :D :D

Killfacer

31st July 2008, 01:14

that one.

Tom, can you justify the fact that someone will always be payed less than you, no matter how hard they work?

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 01:14

shut up and get on with the debate

debate???? I'm SLAUGHTERING the Fen Boy. :(:lol:

Killfacer

31st July 2008, 01:19

Tom, can you justify the fact that someone will always be payed less than you, no matter how hard they work?

just incase you missed my question cus i edited it in

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 01:25

Tom, can you justify the fact that someone will always be payed less than you, no matter how hard they work?

just incase you missed my question cus i edited it in

What boss of the world says that everyone, no matter what they do and who they are should get the same wage? I could work like a dog shoveling a pile of dirt form one side of my driveway to the next and back again--I could work at it 20 hours a day--who cares? I could spend 10 mins and write a song that can be enjoyed by 100,000,000 million people around the world.

The song is worth more than the shoveling--and the song writer should get paid for his effort accordingly. It's not what you
DO, it's the WORTH of what you do that matters.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 01:27

Everyone has choices in their lives--as long as people are free top make those choices--I have no issues.
That's completely contradictory as peoples decisions are limited by other peoples decisions, so no, we are not all independently free to make all choices. Believe or not but capitalism can't spawn this fictious meritocracy that you seem to believe in.

Ir work for yourself, or become a rock star or paint pictures. Now there are repercussions that come with all those choices--but that's the price of freedom. People make those kind of choices every day.
What? It's ridiculous to believe that everyone could be a rockstar or artist. The capitalist world needs a working class too operate, it's as simple as that. Therefore everyone does not have a choice.

It's not up to me to decide what the rule is. I've personally been avoiding the RULE all my life. But FWIW: most people could have as much money as I have--they just have to find a way to make it--as I did.
No, most people couldn't own a factory as capitalism needs the minority to control the majority, otherwise capitalism wouldn't work and we'd have collective ownership.

Killfacer

31st July 2008, 01:28

Youv missed the point. I am not attempting to justify anything, im not attempting to criticize anything. All i am wondering is whether you think its ok for someone to work solidly for the entirety of their life on shit all.

Since you are now arguing two people, im gonna go to bed. Good luck Tom and Fenboy, may your debate go long into the night

nuisance

31st July 2008, 01:29

debate???? I'm SLAUGHTERING the Fen Boy. :(:lol:
No, as you have not given any sufficient answers and are using this mysterious meritocracy drivel as your only rebuttal.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 01:33

Youv missed the point. I am not attempting to justify anything, im not attempting to criticize anything. All i am wondering is whether you think its ok for someone to work solidly for the entirety of their life on shit all.

Shit all! (Thanks for the heads up Fen boy.)

So sure. If you want to work like a dog and accomplish nothing more than making a living--have at it. and there's nothing wrong with that. People have different interests.

But you gotta make your own way in life. There's no insurance policy.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 01:42

That's completely contradictory as peoples decisions are limited by other peoples decisions, so no, we are not all independently free to make all choices. Believe or not but capitalism can't spawn this fictious meritocracy that you seem to believe in. I'm not saying it's just a meritocracy--there a bit of luck and a bit of intelligence and a bit of being at the right place at the right time and it "LOTS of hard work.

What? It's ridiculous to believe that everyone could be a rockstar or artist. The capitalist world needs a working class too operate, it's as simple as that. Therefore everyone does not have a choice. You limit youself. Everyone individually could do what ever he or she wants--within reason. The entire populace--of course--no. But as long as each individual has a choice--what's wrong with that.

There's still going to be ditch diggers under Communism.

No, most people couldn't own a factory as capitalism needs the minority to control the majority, otherwise capitalism wouldn't work and we'd have collective ownership.

As long as people make the choice to work in a factory--there will be factory workers. As long as some other peoople make the choice to be factory owner--there will be factory owners. It's how the world actually works. It's not some la-la land of collective ownership. (I'm thinking the "Hive" from Star Trek's the Borg. But since we don't live in outer space--Capitalism will have to do.)

nuisance

31st July 2008, 01:58

I'm not saying it's just a meritocracy--there a bit of luck and a bit of intelligence and a bit of being at the right place at the right time and it "LOTS of hard work.
You just contradicted yourself there then.

You limit youself. Everyone individually could do what ever he or she wants--within reason. The entire populace--of course--no. But as long as each individual has a choice--what's wrong with that.
If not everyone can become a rockstar at the same time, then obviously everyone could not become one.

As long as people make the choice to work in a factory--there will be factory workers. As long as some other peoople make the choice to be factory owner--there will be factory owners. It's how the world actually works.
You are actually an idiot if you think that. OMG. You can't simply make the choice to become a owner of some form of production outlet. Also with growing monoploies, your idea is even more ridiculous

It's not some la-la land of collective ownership.
Have you finally cracked? Egalitarian industry isn't a complicated idea and infact ran twice as effectively as capitalism in anarchist Spain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naFl66sPbTk First part of a documentary.

(I'm thinking the "Hive" from Star Trek's the Borg. But since we don't live in outer space--Capitalism will have to do.)
Well the Borg have more of a capitalist structure, as they have a leader whom controls all the other Borg:rolleyes:

pusher robot

31st July 2008, 03:11

Well the Borg have more of a capitalist structure, as they have a leader whom controls all the other Borg:rolleyes:

Google fight! (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=borg+capitalist&word2=borg+communist)

borg capitalist
51,800 results

borg communist
185,000 results

Ooh, sorry, the community has decided and a consensus has been reached: the Internet says you are wrong.

On a more serious note, take this:

If not everyone can become a rockstar at the same time, then obviously everyone could not become one.
Well? What is the commie answer to this problem? The capitalist's answer is simple: anyone may be a rock star if they want, and everyone else is free to give them money or not. As a result, people tend to economize by only giving money in exchange for performances that they find worthwhile, and it becomes unprofitable - but not forbidden - for "bad" (really, just unwanted by the community) rock stars to continue being rock stars. So, what would those people be doing in a communist society? Their being rock stars is obviously a waste to the rest of the community, a destruction of greater value for the sake of lesser value. Do you permit this waste? Do you force them to be something else at the point of a gun? What? Who decides? Obviously, you think it's some criticism of capitalism that not everybody can be a rock star at the same time, so I'm curious as to how this is not also a criticism of communism or any sensible economic system.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 11:19

Google fight! (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=borg+capitalist&word2=borg+communist)

borg capitalist
51,800 results

borg communist
185,000 results

Ooh, sorry, the community has decided and a consensus has been reached: the Internet says you are wrong.
It's more of a totalitarian state than capitalist but certainly not communist, well not any kind of communism that I would advocate.

Prior to the movie Star Trek: First Contact, there seems to be no evidence of a hierarchical structure within the Borg collective. The Borg previously seemed to have a structure that is analagous to the internet with no control center and distributed processing. The introduction of the Borg Queen radically changed the canon understanding of the Borg function.

Star Trek: First Contact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_First_Contact) introduced the Borg Queen (played by Alice Krige (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Krige)). The Borg Queen is the focal point within the Borg collective consciousness and a unique drone within the collective, who originates from Species 125, that brings "order to chaos", referring to herself as "we" and "I" interchangeably.

On a more serious note, take this:
Well? What is the commie answer to this problem? The capitalist's answer is simple: anyone may be a rock star if they want, and everyone else is free to give them money or not. As a result, people tend to economize by only giving money in exchange for performances that they find worthwhile, and it becomes unprofitable - but not forbidden - for "bad" (really, just unwanted by the community) rock stars to continue being rock stars. So, what would those people be doing in a communist society? Their being rock stars is obviously a waste to the rest of the community, a destruction of greater value for the sake of lesser value. Do you permit this waste? Do you force them to be something else at the point of a gun? What? Who decides?
You have a pretty shit distorted view of communism.
If a individual or band wished to play gigs then they would be offered a place to play, and people could attend at will with no charge. However with the longer free time that a communist society would bring, I'd reckon that alot of people would spread their time out alot more and take a variety of hobbies.

Obviously, you think it's some criticism of capitalism that not everybody can be a rock star at the same time, so I'm curious as to how this is not also a criticism of communism or any sensible economic system.
It's funny that you use the word 'obviously' when I wasn't using it as a critque of capitalism at all. TomK simply said all could become rockstars and then I said no, that's not so. Simple as, not a critque of capitalism but a disagreement of individual ideas.

This is boring and don't want to continue this talk as it isn't getting anywhere and thus is pointless. I shall try and refrain from posting again on this topic now.

Killfacer

31st July 2008, 17:30

all great debates devolve into borg arguments.

534634634265

31st July 2008, 19:51

i for one welcome our new borg masters.

srsly tho. fen_boy, if you think people will operate without the opportunity to gain from that operation then your deluding yourself. as a musician and an artist i can tell you that it becomes very clear very quickly when your work isn't going to support you. if people don't like my art or my music, they don't buy it. if they do, then i get money for it. you can't apply communist ideology to the music industry, because not everyone wants to hear your whiny emo pop-rock, or your br00tal metal, or whatever genre of music you would produce. its simply a matter of supply and demand. i can supply bad music all day long, but if theres no demand then i'm wasting my time.
also, ANARCHIST SPAIN? are you shitting me!? you honestly want to make comparisons to a failed political movement more than 70 years old? how much do you even know about "anarchist spain"?!

EDIT: also, its not like Tomk just crawled out from under a rock and was instantly some terrible capitalist oppressor. he started his company himself, worked the idea himself, got it funded and running himself, and was lucky enough to have had a good idea. people demanded his product, so he had enough inflow of money to expand and bring others into his business. people don't go from square one to EVIL CAPPIE OVERLORDZ status instantly, and thats what entitles him (under capitalist ideology) to money for no labor now. he already did his work getting it started, if people don't want to work for him they can start their own company as well.
how the fuck did i end up arguing capitalist theory?! i feel nauseated that this is even necessary...

Dean

31st July 2008, 20:04

People need to lay off TomK. Yes, he's a capitalist, but he is an example of someone who has come here, listened, and been altogether pretty friendly. Criticise him for the capitalist thing, debate him, whatever. But the antagonism is really out of place, and it is helping nothing.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 20:47

srsly tho. fen_boy, if you think people will operate without the opportunity to gain from that operation then your deluding yourself. as a musician and an artist i can tell you that it becomes very clear very quickly when your work isn't going to support you. if people don't like my art or my music, they don't buy it. if they do, then i get money for it. you can't apply communist ideology to the music industry, because not everyone wants to hear your whiny emo pop-rock, or your br00tal metal, or whatever genre of music you would produce. its simply a matter of supply and demand. i can supply bad music all day long, but if theres no demand then i'm wasting my time.
:laugh:
I think you missed the whole point. I never said that communism would be able to make people into rockstars.
I said that if people want to play then yes, you shall be provided a venue. I never said anyone would attend, thus meaning that you will only play if you truly wanted to, instead of grabbing at fantasties of being a world famous superstar.

also, ANARCHIST SPAIN? are you shitting me!? you honestly want to make comparisons to a failed political movement more than 70 years old? how much do you even know about "anarchist spain"?!...
You fail. The methods implemented didn't fail, it was the loss of the civil war due to the stab in the back by the Stalinists. Even you must know that. Infact, how about you watch the documentary I linked to.

EDIT: also, its not like Tomk just crawled out from under a rock and was instantly some terrible capitalist oppressor. he started his company himself, worked the idea himself, got it funded and running himself, and was lucky enough to have had a good idea. people demanded his product, so he had enough inflow of money to expand and bring others into his business. people don't go from square one to EVIL CAPPIE OVERLORDZ status instantly, and thats what entitles him (under capitalist ideology) to money for no labor now. he already did his work getting it started, if people don't want to work for him they can start their own company as well.
The capitalist ideology isn't up for debate, so you've made yet another needless post.
Who said he became a bourgeois by day one? Not I, you'd fully of known this if you cared to of read virtually any posts on here.
So you are condoning the employment of others so that TomK could could become stupidly rich off of surplus value? Are you actually leftist? Why do you even claim to fight the class struggle?

how the fuck did i end up arguing capitalist theory?! i feel nauseated that this is even necessary...
It wasn't necessary and hasn't added a single thing to the conversation, except the questioning of your credibilty of being any sort of anti-capitalist.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 21:42

:laugh:
I think you missed the whole point. I never said that communism would be able to make people into rockstars.[/] Fine

[quote]I said that if people want to play then yes, you shall be provided a venue. Too much trouble to find their own venue? So all would have venues--no matter how good or how bad--that may be a LOT of venues. :D

I never said anyone would attend, thus meaning that you will only play if you truly wanted to, instead of grabbing at fantasties of being a world famous superstar. Lots of venues with no one there. Sounds like waist of time. But that's Communism! :lol:

You fail. The methods implemented didn't fail, it was the loss of the civil war due to the stab in the back by the Stalinists. Even you must know that. Infact, how about you watch the documentary I linked to. You are in the wrong place to insult Stalinists. You're going to end up in the OI!

The capitalist ideology isn't up for debate, so you've made yet another needless post.
Who said he became a bourgeois by day one? Not I, you'd fully of known this if you cared to of read virtually any posts on here.
So you are condoning the employment of others so that TomK could could become stupidly rich off of surplus value? Are you actually leftist? Why do you even claim to fight the class struggle? I was poor. I was the son of Polish immigrants to America. My father was working poor all his life. I and my brother (seperately) chose differently--we each made a lot of money. We workded at it, but it was do-able.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 21:51

Too much trouble to find their own venue? So all would have venues--no matter how good or how bad--that may be a LOT of venues. :D
Of course there would be booking and such, don't be ridiculous. It's just that the opportunity would be wider for the a band to be put on as the band wouldn't need to gaurantee anyone turns up and so on.

Lots of venues with no one there. Sounds like waist of time. But that's Communism! :lol:
Do the best musicians generally want to play gigs anymore than the ones that don't have the same talent, yet still want to play?

You are in the wrong place to insult Stalinists. You're going to end up in the OI!
:rolleyes:

I was poor. I was the son of Polish immigrants to America. My father was working poor all his life. I and my brother (seperately) chose differently--we each made a lot of money. We workded at it, but it was do-able.
Yeah, it has already been established that you are a class traitor, there's no need to keep going on about it.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:08

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:12

Of course there would be booking and such, don't be ridiculous. It's just that the opportunity would be wider for the a band to be put on as the band wouldn't need to gaurantee anyone turns up and so on. Makes me think of all those great Soviet bands of the '70s and '80s. :lol:

Do the best musicians generally want to play gigs anymore than the ones that don't have the same talent, yet still want to play? It's like untalented posters at RevLeft--and you're still posting. How Communist of you.

Yeah, it has already been established that you are a class traitor, there's no need to keep going on about it.
There's no such thing as class--that's SOOOOO 19th century.

Use better terminology.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 22:13

Thank you. :)
I didn't mean to insult you personally but the implications that arise from you owning property.

nuisance

31st July 2008, 22:16

Makes me think of all those great Soviet bands of the '70s and '80s. :lol:
I'm not a state socialist, so this is redundant.

It's like untalented posters at RevLeft--and you're still posting. How Communist of you.
Jeez, yet you feel the need to reply after I've tried to end this 'debate' various times.

Someone trash this thread!

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:20

I didn't mean to insult you personally but the implications that arise from you owning property.

Thanks. I might have been impolite in the last post. Forgive me.

Henceforth, let's keep it business, but disagreements aside--I do admire you tenacity and understanding of Communist principals.

You are a good guy, Fen Boy.

Tom

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:21

I'm not a state socialist, so this is redundant.

Jeez, yet you feel the need to reply after I've tried to end this 'debate' various times.

Someone trash this thread!

I SAID WE CROSSPOSTED AND I MAKE A MISTAKE!

Now I'n nicer. I'm sorry.

Damn it, it's not a chat room!!!!

nuisance

31st July 2008, 22:23

Thanks. I might have been impolite in the last post. Forgive me.

Henceforth, let's keep it business, but disagreements aside--I do admire you tenacity and understanding of Communist principals.

You are a good guy, Fen Boy.

Tom
Calm it! You're making me blush!
:blushing:

nuisance

31st July 2008, 22:24

I SAID WE CROSSPOSTED AND I MAKE A MISTAKE!

Now I'n nicer. I'm sorry.;
What's crossposted? I'm confused.

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:28

What's crossposted? I'm confused.

I was impolite when I thought you were impolite then you were polite and I was still impolite and I became polite when I saw that you were polite and then you though I was impolite again and I apologized.

Got that straight? :)

Or as you British say: it's all shit all. :D

nuisance

31st July 2008, 22:30

I was impolite when I thought you were impolite then you were polite and I was still impolite and I became polite when I saw that you were polite and then you though I was impolite again and I apologized.

Got that straight? :)

Or as you British say: it's all shit all. :D
Oh I get it. Let's end this thread now for the benefit of all!
:cool:

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:31

Oh I get it. Let's end this thread now for the benefit of all!
:cool:

fine!

We'll meet again!!!!!!

nuisance

31st July 2008, 22:33

fine!
You're right, we have really turned this into the eqiulvant of a chat-room:lol:

Bud Struggle

31st July 2008, 22:41

You're right, we have really turned this into the eqiulvant of a chat-room:lol:
Actually it's good for the real RevLeft--most of what goes on in "the other place" is Capitalism: "Nyet!", Communism: "Da!"

Pretty dull--but in the OI, there's a whole lotta shaken going on.:laugh:

TomK-Director of OI Marketing and I approved this message.:thumbup:

danyboy27

1st August 2008, 04:11

Actually it's good for the real RevLeft--most of what goes on in "the other place" is Capitalism: "Nyet!", Communism: "Da!"

Pretty dull--but in the OI, there's a whole lotta shaken going on.:laugh:

seriously, this is where the biggest challenges are!
i dont support all topic in IO but i think that a lot of verry progressive social idea can be debated without dogma and other religious marxism doctrines.

when i post something in the learning section, i get hammered most of the times and i am affraid to speak out about my idea by being affraid to be judged or accused to be a reformist, being accused to promote a degenerate worker state, or simply deny the basic principles of communism.