From a restricted Secion, what is the problem with Communism

[kelvin90701]

One thing we were debating at school was the pros and cons of both capitalism and communism.

One argument was brought up about communism -
In a communist society people have a lack of motivation to go out and work, I mean most people wouldn't try to work harder if they would always get the same amount as a person who is slacking off on the job. It just seems that money and wealth seems to be the sole driving force for the majority of people (even though it sickens me).

I had no response, because in a materialist sense, it is true. What do you think?

[synthesis]

You know, I don't think I've EVER seen this argument before!

Seriously, we should just have some fucking stock response we give to this shit. Kelvin, it's because a capitalist society must condition its citizens to be as ruthless and bloodthirsty as necessary to accumulate capital. It's the result of centuries of integrated brainwashing, so to speak, although I dislike using that term.

By the way, how is it true in a 'materialist' sense?

[kelvin90701]

You have not answered the question. Actually you have, but have not address the argument.

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 9:38 pm on Mar. 23, 2003)

[synthesis]

What? How did I address your question but not your argument? Weren't they the same thing? I can't see anything in your post that my response did not address.

[Anonymous]

He who can work and doesnt shall not eat either...
i think that is the enough incentive..

seriously im not going to reply to this shit again becuase iv alredy done it millions of times...
if you want to know that go to Theory section in this board and check the "Arguments for workers self-management" or something like taht,...

read expecially the last point about Shirkers...

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 9:43 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
What? How did I address your question but not your argument? Weren't they the same thing? I can't see anything in your post that my response did not address.


You told me what was wrong with capitalism. I stated a problem of insentive to work with communism.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: "Arguments for workers self-management" or something like taht,...




I'd like to, but after one post I am restricted from that section. Please see the similiar thread in that section. I believe at this moment I am the last one to post in that thread.

[Ghost Writer]

Hey Kelvin90701,

How is it going? It's nice to see you here, as I am sure you will be a valued ally in the war against the mental disorder known as communism. Thanks for showing up.

By the way, this is Stormin Norman. They have banned me three times, for whatever reason. Truthfully, I don't think they like the strength of my arguments.

Come on guys, he is a newcomer, and has a legitimate question. Either answer it, or shut up. Don't treat him as if he is an ignoramous because he wants you to adress a real problem in your philosophy. Address it.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from Monks Aflame on 9:48 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
in response to competition vs. co-operation: the hunter-gatherer socieities relied on co-operation because that's what worked and helped everyone survived. They lived in tiny isolated communities, there was no one and nothing to compete with. There were only a few families, and I assume living in such close quarters, there were few feuds and little malice

in response to laziness: you could of course, give people jobs they want to do. This would of course, motivate them to complete their job to the best of their ability. Then again, there are some jobs that no one, or at least very, very few, people like doing. Examples: garbage collector. You could give these people better benefits, shorter hours, longer holidays, as aforementioned.

Is there any possibility for a revolution, rather, overthrown of the monetary system? Greed is a factor in human nature and work ethic when competition exists. But if people do not need to compete for food and money, food because its provided, money because it doesn't exist, then would greed end?

Also: Everyone who is at the top of the hill currently are most likely not zealous in ending the status quo and giving up the wealth. How do you deal with these? Death makes you look like savages. They control most of the resources, military, and such, so how do you deal with them?

That is an interesting theory, but The National Center for Policy Analysis says that the driving force behind productivity is competiton:

http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf93/eajf93a.html

That is an analysis not an opinion.

Unless you can prove the theory regarding laziness, then it is just an unproven supposition. I am open to new methods of providing insentives to encourage workers to produce more. Until someone comes up with a better system other than a free market with competition, then I'll stick to a free market.

[Pete]

Kelvin, why would you even introduce that? That is what Dyer adressed in the first reply!

[synthesis]

You told me what was wrong with capitalism. I stated a problem of insentive to work with communism. I didn't necessarily tell you what was wrong with capitalism. I posed a counterargument to your statement that people would not work without the incentive of the American Dream, so to speak.

If people did not work if they did not have a material incentive... why do all the people of the tribes of Polynesia work to the fullest of their capabilities even though their culture has no concept of private property - owning anything - whatsoever?

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:11 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
Kelvin, why would you even introduce that? That is what Dyer adressed in the first reply!


I am sorry, your right. I got way off the thread. The discussion is worker insentive, not worker productivity. My orginal challenge still holds for worker insentive. I will take my arguement for worker productivity else where.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 11:11 pm on Mar. 23, 2003

You told me what was wrong with capitalism. I stated a problem of insentive to work with communism. I didn't necessarily tell you what was wrong with capitalism. I posed a counterargument to your statement that people would not work without the incentive of the American Dream, so to speak.



The "American dream theory" works. It is practice. You may not agree with it, you may not like it, but it definately motivates people to work.

The original post is a challenge that the "communisty theory of motivation" will not work.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 11:11 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
[quote]

If people did not work if they did not have a material



Please review this piece of logic it is an incomplete argument with the form:

"if ______ if"

I am sure it was typed in haste, please clarify.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 11:11 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
[quote]
why do all the people of the tribes of Polynesia work to the fullest of their capabilities even though their culture has no concept of private property - owning anything - whatsoever?



Communist theory applies to industrial society, not a tribal one. I did not know tribes in Polynesia had factories. I am no expert in communist theory, even I know that.

[Pete]

kelvin, you can address more then one issue in each post.

[synthesis]

Christ almighty, can't you fit all your responses into one post?


Please review this piece of logic it is an incomplete argument with the form: Sorry. It should be: "If people do not work when they do not have a material incentive."


Communist theory applies to industrial society, not a tribal one. No shit, Sherlock. I don't see how that refutes my point. It is merely a good response to the idea that this material incentive is necessary for people to work, when there are no material items at all in Polynesian society. My example simply proves that this desire for a material incentive is merely intrinsic to those humans residing in a capitalist system, and not all humans everywhere.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 1:41 am on Mar. 24, 2003
Christ almighty, can't you fit all your responses into one post?


Please review this piece of logic it is an incomplete argument with the form: Sorry. It should be: "If people do not work when they do not have a material incentive."

Read your logic again. It does not make any sense. An "if" supposition is typically followed by a "then" consquence.


Communist theory applies to industrial society, not a tribal one. No shit, Sherlock. I don't see how that refutes my point. It is merely a good response to the idea that this material incentive is necessary for people to work, when there are no material items at all in Polynesian society. My example simply proves that this desire for a material incentive is merely intrinsic to those humans residing in a capitalist system, and not all humans everywhere.

I would appreciate the respect you would give to a common stranger the same as I have shown you.

You you may have proven materialism is not inherent everywhere, specifically tribal societies. You have not proven it is not inherent in a communist system.

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 2:07 am on Mar. 24, 2003)

[Pete]

One form of wealth will displace another. It has been done before between feudal and capitalist societies. It will happen again between capitalist and socialist societies. Slowly the worth of each person is shining through their economic worth, and eventually how much money you have will be immaterial to determining your wealth.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:18 am on Mar. 24, 2003
One form of wealth will displace another. It has been done before between feudal and capitalist societies. It will happen again between capitalist and socialist societies. Slowly the worth of each person is shining through their economic worth, and eventually how much money you have will be immaterial to determining your wealth.

But how does this encourage someone to work harder?

Again I ask you all in this thread. What is the insentive for workers in a communist system? Not what is the insentive in a tribal society. Not what is wrong with capitalism model of worker insentive.

[synthesis]

I would appreciate the respect you would give to a common stranger the same as I have shown you.*shrug* Okay.


You have not proven it is not inherent in a communist system. Well, the Polynesian tribes are a stateless, moneyless, classless society - that's the definition of communism. I don't see how I could prove my point any further than that.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 2:44 am on Mar. 24, 2003

I would appreciate the respect you would give to a common stranger the same as I have shown you.*shrug* Okay.


You have not proven it is not inherent in a communist system. Well, the Polynesian tribes are a stateless, moneyless, classless society - that's the definition of communism. I don't see how I could prove my point any further than that.

DyerMaker:

If you can not propose an answer to my orginal argument, then is there something very wrong with communism?

In the restricted thread, it is proposed as fatal flaw in communism. If the flaw can not be disproven, then is communism a fatally flawed system?

If communism is a faulty system, then why continue the experiment?

Please consider carefully because I hope to change your mind. If you are not convinced, then propose evidence that will change my mind.

[synthesis]

If you can not propose an answer to my orginal argument, then is there something very wrong with communism? I just did! It's what I've been doing on this whole damn thread!

[kelvin90701]

HHHHM, no. You have proven it is possible to not have materialism in tribial society. You have stated that materialism is what drives a capitalist system. You have proposed the "American dream" insentive is what drives the USA. Yet you have not stated what is the insentive in a communist system.

To make this easier for you, fill in the blank below:

The insentive for workers in a communist system is _______________.

[synthesis]

You work to strengthen the community. The stronger the community, the more benefits the individual receives.

[kelvin90701]

Ok now were getting somewhere? That was not so bad was it? Let me embellish here for a moment. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are trying to say that a worker who will strengthen the community will receive benefits?

Please explain what are the benefits? Is the benefits a worker receives in relation to his productivity or what? You stated he/she will get more benefits, is this insentive to work harder worth it? Convince me that benefits are worth it for me to work harder.

[synthesis]

Ok now were getting somewhere? That was not so bad was it? Yeah, sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking for.


Please explain what are the benefits? Well, if all the members of the community give all their money to the 'pool' so to speak, the 'pool' can purchase roads, schools, and other such things that the individuals couldn't do on their own.

Now you'll have to pardon me, because I'm going to make a new post. After two usages of the bracket-quote-bracket, the system fucks up... in layman's terms, I gotta start a new post.

[synthesis]

Is the benefits a worker receives in relation to his productivity or what? The benefits a worker receives are in relation to how much the entire community recieves from the worker pool as a whole. Therefore, the worker has an obligation to contribute as much as he can to set a precedent for other workers.


You stated he/she will get more benefits, is this insentive to work harder worth it? Yep. If he doesn't work - and convince other workers to do the same - his children do not get educated, clothed, or fed by the community. In a capitalist society, it is theoretically in the workers' best interests that the other workers do not work as hard as he does, because the employment necessity of the company will decrease as the company acquires more efficient technology, and it is in the worker's best interests to present himself as harder working than his colleagues to avoid being fired.

Make sense?


(Edited by DyerMaker at 4:35 am on Mar. 24, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

So it is in the best interest for a community to co-operate?

You made the supposition "If he doesn't work and convice others to do the same, then his children do not get educated, clothed, or fed."

How does a worker convice his co-workers to "get along"? What happens if he can not convince others to do the same? How do you convince co-workers to produce a maxium amount through co-operation.

I propose you can not.

http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf93/eajf93a.html

The Center For Policy Analysis clearly states that the USA out produces all nations, including socialist and communist ones, because of competition not co-operation.

[synthesis]

Double post

(Edited by DyerMaker at 4:35 am on Mar. 24, 2003)

[synthesis]

How does a worker convice his co-workers to "get along"?This isn't clear. Verbally? I don't know what you're asking.


The Center For Policy Analysis clearly states that the USA out produces all nations, including socialist and communist ones, because of competition not co-operation.No, it doesn't. It first provides a few examples as to how the States are better off than several other capitalist countries without saying how they tie into the study's premise. Then, it proceeds to give two examples that it actually justifies.

The deregulated American telecommunications industry is at least twice as productive as Germany's government monopoly.

You'd think if deregulation really made productivity that much more intensified, they could list more than a single industry that benefits from it. I suspect that there are other factors at play here with regards to the telecommunications industry, if it's the only one that towers so high above its subsidized brethren.

General merchandise retailing is more than twice as efficient in the United States as in Japan, largely because Japan's zoning laws protect small stores.

First, it doesn't specify how the zoning laws impact the overall productivity of the merchandise retailing industry; second, even if the regulation did bring down the overall efficiency of the industry, I consider this decrease a necessary sacrifice so that corporations do not gain too strong a hold over the smaller fish in the sea, so to speak. Here, it boils down to morals, I suppose.

(Edited by DyerMaker at 4:47 am on Mar. 24, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

You probably have not conviced The Center for Policy Analysis that they are wrong.

You have gotten closer to answering a riggerous solution to what is the insentive of a worker in a communist system.

"It boils down to morals".

So then you need a moral society of workers to achive the co-operation and insentive you propose?

[synthesis]

No, when I said that it boils down to morals, what I meant was that you have to take the practical value of an overall increased merchandise retailing industry versus the moral value of protecting the small businesses. It didn't have anything to do with my 'community-benefit' argument.


You probably have not conviced The Center for Policy Analysis that they are wrong. I didn't say that they were necessarily wrong, only that their evidence barely correlates to their premise. So, I suppose not ;)

[kelvin90701]

You probably have not conviced The Center for Policy Analysis that they are wrong. I didn't say that they were necessarily wrong, only that their evidence barely correlates to their premise. So, I suppose not ;)

I am going to put this as respectfully as I can, but I do believe their evidence correlates their premise. You disagree, that is your opinion. I put my faith in The Center for Policy Analysis. In a court of law, with both of you as witness. Who do you believe? Please do not take this an a challenge throwing down the gaunlet or a slap in the face, but it is an honest question that needs to be addressed.

[RedCeltic]

The major problem with Communism as practiced in the past example of the Soviet Union, as I see it… , is state ownership of production rather than worker ownership of production.

My Anarcho-Socialist view of how to transform society, may be a bit more impractical in implementation, but is much more practical in an end result (in my point of view.) A bloody revolution, may speed things along, however will require a strong government and military to protect it from being overthrown. This strong government will lead to corruption.

In addition, the Government will own all industry, and all who work in it will be government employees of equal status and pay, and no incentive to work harder or get ahead.

However, I believe in transformation of society from the bottom up. This means changing by one community and one workplace at a time. Shops will be transformed into co-operatives. This isn’t a “Revolutionary” idea, but one that exists even within capitalism.

There will be competition in trade, between shops, however there will be no such thing as a person working for wages, while a small group of individuals make the bulk of the profit. Instead, everyone who works, will receive an equal share of the profit. When people work harder, and the company makes more money, they make more money… not, down the road when they get a raise, but right away, reflective in their percentage of the profit. Also the darker side, if one slacks off, he affects everyone else’s profit, so there is more pressure for him to work.

Will some be better off than others? Naturally, but without 5 – 10 % of the population soaking up the profit from the rest of us… there will be enough for everyone to live well.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 3:10 pm on Mar. 25, 2003
The major problem with Communism as practiced in the past example of the Soviet Union, as I see it… , is state ownership of production rather than worker ownership of production.

My Anarcho-Socialist view of how to transform society, may be a bit more impractical in implementation, but is much more practical in an end result (in my point of view.) A bloody revolution, may speed things along, however will require a strong government and military to protect it from being overthrown. This strong government will lead to corruption.

In addition, the Government will own all industry, and all who work in it will be government employees of equal status and pay, and no incentive to work harder or get ahead.

However, I believe in transformation of society from the bottom up. This means changing by one community and one workplace at a time. Shops will be transformed into co-operatives. This isn’t a “Revolutionary” idea, but one that exists even within capitalism.

There will be competition in trade, between shops, however there will be no such thing as a person working for wages, while a small group of individuals make the bulk of the profit. Instead, everyone who works, will receive an equal share of the profit. When people work harder, and the company makes more money, they make more money… not, down the road when they get a raise, but right away, reflective in their percentage of the profit. Also the darker side, if one slacks off, he affects everyone else’s profit, so there is more pressure for him to work.

Will some be better off than others? Naturally, but without 5 – 10 % of the population soaking up the profit from the rest of us… there will be enough for everyone to live well.


Sounds great. Sounds a bit like Sweeden and Norway. I am not familiar at all with Anarcho-Socialist theory. Has any one ever put any of those ideas in practice?

To make my point, the insentive theory used here in the USA has been labeled "The American Dream" insentive. It is a theory that is in practice. It is a practice that has made workers in this country work very hard. It is a practice that has worked.

Has a similiar experiement been tried with Anarcho-Socialist theory of worker insentive? I believe it more than a bit impractical. I believe Anachro-socialist insentive is flawed.

[Cassius Clay]

In response to the originall question.

This is from a article I read a few months ago which is entitled 'In Defence of Stalinism'. Now doubltless some here will accuse me of spamming evil 'Stalinist' propaganda but since this is a interesting topic I think it deserves to be seen since it gives a example of how workers were motivated under Socialism (if not Communism) to work. Make of it what you will.

"All the workers, all are called to the production conference. And then begins
the so-called 'counterplanning,' in a very crude form, which quickly ends in a
fiasco. They read off the plan. Here, our chief administration has given us
such and such information, such and such indices, of course we have to meet
them, we all understand that this has to be done. Thus, the agitation proceeds
further. This we have to do, we have to fulfill and over fulfill. 'I hope that
some of the workers -- this is said by some engineer or a representative of
the party organization -- will bring forth counterproposals.' Now everyone
wants to manifest his 'activity.' Some 'butterfly,' some milkmaid gets up in her place and says 'I think we should promise Comrade Stalin to over fulfill by
100 percent.' She takes no account of materials, no account of supply. Then a
second stands up and says 'We should all promise 100 percent and I personally
promise 150 percent.' In short, it piles up higher and higher, and the engineers and economists scratch their heads. Nevertheless, this is called
'counterplanning,' a manifestation of the new socialist morality and higher
socialist enthusiasm. All this goes to the top and there, you understand, there
is confusion, downright confusion, a complete muddle."

This is ofcourse just part of the article dealing with the Stakhovite movement and ofcourse is merely just one example.


RedCeltic I may be mistaken and I won't pretend to know all the in's and out's of your theory but wasn't the same thing tried in Yugoslavia under Tito? I may be mistaken but by the time Tito died there were over a million unemployed in Yugoslavia which is hardly 'Socialist'. Anyway your theory appears to promote competion among workers and from there god knows what. Surely if the workers are competing with eachother to produce or sell whatever then one of the two will fail and that means one of the 'Shops' will not be able to pay there respective staff and then from there no food on the table and potentially unemployment. You do say that the workers would have a set wage so to speak so presumably this wouldn't happen. But how is that so? How can this part of Socialism co-exist perfectly with the Capitalism that your theory is encouranging (in my opinion anyway)?

We saw Soviet Union under NEP, by the late 20's millions of peasants were worse of then they had ever been and towns were at mercy of minority group of Capitalists who owned the grain. And then there's Tito's Yugoslavia.

Anyway just my two sense worth.

[Valkyrie]

hi!!!!

I think the incentive factor is an easy one --- besides the obvious - to survive..... the other factor is people have more incentive to do something when their work is valued and they have some input in the whole entire creative process rather than just being a cog carrying out orders.

As for competition --- I think industries of the same type would merge together and work side by side rather than compete. I think the bottom line of producing rather than now being profit, will instead be improvement and effiecieny. How can the best thing be made for the less possible costs and available to all people. After all - we don't want to bankrupt the communst/anarcho society by being spendthrifts and wasters.

[Disgustipated]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 4:25 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
One thing we were debating at school was the pros and cons of both capitalism and communism.

One argument was brought up about communism -
In a communist society people have a lack of motivation to go out and work, I mean most people wouldn't try to work harder if they would always get the same amount as a person who is slacking off on the job. It just seems that money and wealth seems to be the sole driving force for the majority of people (even though it sickens me).

I had no response, because in a materialist sense, it is true. What do you think?


Communism creates lack of motivation?

Sputnik, the Russian spacestation (aren't they still the longest in space), First person to orbit the earth, Saw a thing on the history channel about the last version of the MiG. They said it was capable of maneuvers that no other plane could do at the time. I think you'll find that Russian scientists have earned some respect without the competition of capitalism.

[RedCeltic]

I am not talking about Tito, I don't know what he had, but if it was run or started by a STATE rather than the WORKER than it's not what I'm talking about.

Let me put it this way. You decide that you are going to manufacture shoes. You get a group of friends together and you each pool your money together untill you have enough to start off with. Your plan is that you will sell your shoes and split the profits with each of the workers. This is called a worker's co-operative, and it's a legal operation that you could start up in the United States. It's not unkown, there are sucessful co-ops in the US, more are known in Canada, and it's a major way of life in Spain.

Than imagne down the road when buying materials for these shoes, you find another company that makes shoe laces and is also a worker's co-operative. You merge with them through a contract, where they provide the shoe laces, and you will make the shoes, and the total profit of the finished product goes to all workers equilly in both operations.

Keep in mind also that this theory also goes in hand with community co-operatives, where resources are also shared.

The idea isn't to change captialism overnight for the world, nation, or even a region. The idea is to change captialism to a socialist society by a few communities and shops at a time.

Eventually when it grows large enough there will be no need for dealing with the market, but rather goods would be produced and than distributed to those who need them.

The co-operative shop is something I haven't worked on yet, but it's a great theory, and I've seen examples of this working.

The co-operative community, which basicly works the same way where everyone pools money in for the common good, is something I'm actually starting here in Albany, NY in June. First we are pooling money together to rent two houses, and learn to live as a co-operative community, as we save our money to buy a building.

This is also not something that has never been tested, or never worked. This is actually something that we are taking from another co-operative living situation in Albany New York, known as the Ironweed anachist collective. Who are so sucsessful they own a house, a school, and recently purchased a three story building. Their collective is so popular her in albany that they are looking to purchase more houses to expand the group.

[kelvin90701]

Quote:

Sputnik, the Russian spacestation (aren't they still the longest in space), First person to orbit the earth, Saw a thing on the history channel about the last version of the MiG. They said it was capable of maneuvers that no other plane could do at the time. I think you'll find that Russian scientists have earned some respect without the competition of capitalism.

Those scientist were German. The running joke in the 50s durring the space race among Americans and Russians was, "Our German scientist are better than your German scientist."

[RedCeltic]

I agree... I've heard that one. :)

[Chiak47]

Yes except we used Jewish Germans and the ussr used Germans.Seeing Stalin tried to kill religion.

The grace of GOD pulled America to the fore-front.

[kelvin90701]

When rockets started to land in Mexico on accident from White Sands, the German scientist proudly proclaimed, "We are the most western German division to invade the USA and we are now attacking Mexico."

[notyetacommie]

Could you give me the names of those Germans who launched Gagarin? Was Gagarin German? Was Korolev German? What are you talking about?

It looks similar to the US claims that they ALONE won WWII, while they were only asked to help, as USSR lost vast numbers of human lives in this war.

Maybe I am wrong, and it was really Germans who launched Sputnik? Could you give me more information on this?

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 4:50 am on Mar. 26, 2003
Could you give me the names of those Germans who launched Gagarin? Was Gagarin German? Was Korolev German? What are you talking about?

It looks similar to the US claims that they ALONE won WWII, while they were only asked to help, as USSR lost vast numbers of human lives in this war.

Maybe I am wrong, and it was really Germans who launched Sputnik? Could you give me more information on this?

You not going to find any sources for Germans in the Russian space program. The Soviets wrote the history and the headlines. Do you think the Soviets would ever include any Germans in their history?

When Germany fell in WW2, the rocket scientist were captured by both the Soviets and the USA; Some went to the USSR, some went to the USA. Anywhere in the USA where the rocket science is founded, you will find small German villages in places you would never expect. They just did not capture a few scientist. They captured families, technicians, etc. Werner Von Braun who headed the USA space program was a captured German. You will never find the name of his counterpart in the USSR. Werner Von Braun was a captured German, he did not launch other Germans to the moon didn't he?

http://www.demon.co.uk/natofeur/rudol.html

or to save time:

"Into Space

But, it was the Communists, who were also using captured German scientists, who managed the first success, with the launch of the satellite Sputnik , in 1957.

The American response was to form NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] headed by Werner Von Braun, and with Arthur Rudolph as chief co-ordinator for the rocket project.

It was the effort of this combination of Von Braun and Rudolph which using a Saturn V rocket to launch the Apollo spacecraft enabled Neil Armstrong to step out onto the Moon at 2.56 pm on July 21st 1969."

http://www.demon.co.uk/natofeur/rudol.html

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 5:15 am on Mar. 26, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 11:10 pm on Mar. 25, 2003

Quote: from notyetacommie on 4:50 am on Mar. 26, 2003
Could you give me the names of those Germans who launched Gagarin? Was Gagarin German? Was Korolev German? What are you talking about?

It looks similar to the US claims that they ALONE won WWII, while they were only asked to help, as USSR lost vast numbers of human lives in this war.

Maybe I am wrong, and it was really Germans who launched Sputnik? Could you give me more information on this?

You not going to find any sources for Germans in the Russian space program. The Soviets wrote the history and the headlines. Do you think the Soviets would ever include any Germans in their history?

When Germany fell in WW2, the rocket scientist were captured by both the Soviets and the USA; Some went to the USSR, some went to the USA. Anywhere in the USA where the rocket science is founded, you will find small German villages in places you would never expect. They just did not capture a few scientist. They captured families, technicians, etc. Werner Von Braun who headed the USA space program was a captured German. You will never find the name of his counterpart in the USSR. Werner Von Braun was a captured German, he did not launch other Germans to the moon didn't he?

Sounds like a consperacy theory if you ask me. Maybe NASA Didn't realy land on the moon?

[Chiak47]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...910_attack.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/buzz020910_attack.html)

A Punch in the Face
Lunar Landing Skeptic Says Buzz Aldrin Attacked Him

Officers were called on Monday to the Luxe Hotel on Rodeo Drive and took a report from Bart Sibrel, 37, who said he was attacked by the former Apollo 11 astronaut.
Aldrin, 72, had left the hotel when police arrived about 4:30 p.m. and was not interviewed, said Beverly Hills Police Lt. Joe Lombardi.

Sibrel, of Nashville, Tenn., said he does not believe Aldrin or anyone else has ever walked on the moon.

He said he was trying to confront Aldrin about his 1969 lunar mission when he was punched. The incident was videotaped, he said.

An early morning telephone call left at the office of Aldrin's publicist was not immediately returned.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 5:22 am on Mar. 26, 2003
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...910_attack.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/buzz020910_attack.html)

A Punch in the Face
Lunar Landing Skeptic Says Buzz Aldrin Attacked Him

Officers were called on Monday to the Luxe Hotel on Rodeo Drive and took a report from Bart Sibrel, 37, who said he was attacked by the former Apollo 11 astronaut.
Aldrin, 72, had left the hotel when police arrived about 4:30 p.m. and was not interviewed, said Beverly Hills Police Lt. Joe Lombardi.

Sibrel, of Nashville, Tenn., said he does not believe Aldrin or anyone else has ever walked on the moon.

He said he was trying to confront Aldrin about his 1969 lunar mission when he was punched. The incident was videotaped, he said.

An early morning telephone call left at the office of Aldrin's publicist was not immediately returned.


Bart did not realize that although Buzz is 72, he is in good shape. Good enough to kick his ass.

[Chiak47]

That video is awesome.I'm sure it's on the net.He knocked him the fuck out.The guy cried about first ammendment rights.Thats like screaming fire in a crowded nightclub and *****ing that there were 19 dead...lol

[RedCeltic]

http://home.insightbb.com/~silently_lucid/dd/subject.jpg

[Chiak47]

Red,calm down man.I'm here and what was the subject again?

Hell this thread could go on for ever.
I would have asked Whats right with communism and I would have got 1 reply...



NOTHING-probably from a bunch of people but monatany is ok...It leads a simple life...

[kelvin90701]

Boxers or briefs?

Worker insentive? What about this company. It is not by any means a Harvard Business School model, but it definately is not communist. The driving motive for workers is: MONEY.

Count the number of times the word "pay" comes up. It is all about getting paid.

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/corporate/career/
http://www.fed.org/onlinemag/dec98/briefcase.html

They have indentical product lines where each assembly line compeates which each other to produce the same product. In essence, workers teams are racing against each other. Competition between employees is stiff and unending. They are not paid a salary, they are paid piece work. You can work a few hours a day or you can work 12 hours a day. Guess what? Workers choose to work lots of hours for MONEY! They don't lay off. But if there is no work to go around, you don't work and you don't get paid. Which has taught workers to save money when there is lots of work to go around. They are not working to build a community, or collective energy for roads and hospitals. They are working because want of MONEY!

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 7:36 am on Mar. 26, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 1:22 am on Mar. 26, 2003
Red,calm down man.I'm here and what was the subject again?

Hell this thread could go on for ever.
I would have asked Whats right with communism and I would have got 1 reply...



NOTHING-probably from a bunch of people but monatany is ok...It leads a simple life...


was just looking for a reason to post that.. :)

[Chiak47]

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

[kelvin90701]

Yea, show me a communist facotry worker who is willing to work 12 hours a day.

[kelvin90701]

So any commies willing to examine my question?

Scroll down.......








Boxers or Briefs? Scroll down for more>>>>>>>>>














Oh and the other question at the above post, about Lincoln Electric?