So what will happen to all our wine, video games,

[CaptainCapitalist68]

movies, desserts under a communist society? Can this things exist just so long as there are poor people or anyone without access to the basics?

I went to my cousin's Holy Communion tonight across in Mexico. They threw the party at the most expensive hotel in the city, hired a clown, a sound system, a photographer, a camera man, had about a 100 bottles of wine, plus waiters, good food and of course payed the church I imagine.

I was enjoying this things then I realize that under a communist society all the luxuries (except for the church) wouldn't exist if there exist anyone who is poor on Earth.

Why should people be able to have wine if there exist poor people or people who have no access to food? And not just wine but everything else that is a luxury IE not a necessity.

This reason alone is enough to call communism a bad idea.

[Incendiarism]

A strongly centralized government will take and ration out these things evenly. And we will all have the same haircuts, wear the same uniform, and the same breast size and penis length.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

A strongly centralized government will take and ration out these things evenly. And we will all have the same haircuts, wear the same uniform, and the same breast size and penis length.

are you serious or just fucking around?

Will ugly people get compensation for their ugliness too?

[Trystan]

And what is the logic behind this? We want fair distribution of wealth, so red wine for all. ;)

[Trystan]

are you serious or just fucking around?

Will ugly people get compensation for their ugliness too?

Yes, and you will be sent to the country for reeducation.

[Zurdito]

I think humanity could easily produce wine for everyone, and video games, so no, no need to take them away.

ironically though the capitalists in the first world are already making the argument that first world workers are too used to luxuries and that this is unjustified considering how poor third world workers are.

so I think you are asking the question to the wrong people. we want to harness humanities productive potential to provide everyone with high and continual living standards, whereas capitalism right now is driving even middle class people in the US out of their homes - and using the argument that they are greedy if they complain, because how dare they have video games and red wines when most of the world's population does not.

communism is not guilt poltiics or moralism, it is the drive to provide the best material existence possible to every human.



Will ugly people get compensation for their ugliness too?


no but don't worry, with all the wine we will hand out to everyone you will surely get some action.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

And what is the logic behind this? We want fair distribution of wealth, so red wine for all. ;)

Maybe you see no logic in owning something of luxury but not everyone sees it that way.

If everyone wants luxury item X what makes you think that we'll have enough to go around?

Thats ofcourse assuming we have enough essentials for everyone because if we didn't no resources, such as labor, would be spent on making anything of luxury.

[Comrada J]

Actually CaptianCapitalist, we'd take away the church and marriage too. :)

[CaptainCapitalist68]

The communist will probably socialist the quality of food for everyone in the world.

what would food that taste as good as another other food in the world taste like? Would it even be enough?

[Trystan]

Maybe you see no logic in owning something of luxury but not everyone sees it that way.

If everyone wants luxury item X what makes you think that we'll have enough to go around?

Thats ofcourse assuming we have enough essentials for everyone because if we didn't no resources, such as labor, would be spent on making anything of luxury.

Are you suggesting that we should overlook a shortage of bare necessities to produce luxuries instead? I think that we should have as our first priority the production things that meet basic needs. Keeping people alive should be the first priority of any economic system. If we can do this well enough there's no reason why we can't all get pissed afterwards.

To use that old Soviet joke:

Q: What is the transitional period between socialism and communism?

A: Alcoholism.

;)

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I think humanity could easily produce wine for everyone, and video games, so no, no need to take them away.

ironically though the capitalists in the first world are already making the argument that first world workers are too used to luxuries and that this is unjustified considering how poor third world workers are.

so I think you are asking the question to the wrong people. we want to harness humanities productive potential to provide everyone with high and continual living standards, whereas capitalism right now is driving even middle class people in the US out of their homes - and using the argument that they are greedy if they complain, because how dare they have video games and red wines when most of the world's population does not.

communism is not guilt poltiics or moralism, it is the drive to provide the best material existence possible to every human.



no but don't worry, with all the wine we will hand out to everyone you will surely get some action.

I don't think that will happen because the government first priority would be put everyone in the world in a comfortable home or living space place first. So no resources such as labor or materials would be spend on makign things like movies, wine or video games.

It probably wouldn't even be possible to put everyone in a comfortable home. We'd probably have most people living in shitty apartments.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Are you suggesting that we should overlook a shortage of bare necessities to produce luxuries instead? I think that we should have as our first priority the production things that meet basic needs. Keeping people alive should be the first priority of any economic system. If we can do this well enough there's no reason why we can't all get pissed afterwards.

To use that old Soviet joke:

Q: What is the transitional period between socialism and communism?

A: Alcoholism.

;)

The priority of a government is to protect people's lives, protect their property and ensure their freedom from criminals. Its up to people to keep themselves alive. teh government is not our mommy and daddy. If you think people are too stupid to keep themselves alive on their own then what makes you think that having people govern people will work?

How many centuries will it take to put all those billions of people around the world in a comfortable living space?

The government lets people have alcohol in a socialist society so they can forget about the miserable lives they have.

[Trystan]

The priority of a government is to protect people's lives, protect their property and ensure their freedom from criminals. Its up to people to keep themselves alive. teh government is not our mommy and daddy. If you think people are too stupid to keep themselves alive on their own then what makes you think that having people govern people will work?

How many centuries will it take to put all those billions of people around the world in a comfortable living space?

The government lets people have alcohol in a socialist society so they can forget about the miserable lives they have.

Where did I say anything about the government?

[Trystan]

And if government is there to protect people from criminals, why should it not also provide economic protection? Why is it only economically that people need to look after themselves?

I'm not advocating statism btw, I'm just curious.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

are you serious or just fucking around?

Will ugly people get compensation for their ugliness too?

It was a joke.


I went to my cousin's Holy Communion tonight across in Mexico. They threw the party at the most expensive hotel in the city, hired a clown, a sound system, a photographer, a camera man, had about a 100 bottles of wine, plus waiters, good food and of course payed the church I imagine.

I was enjoying this things then I realize that under a communist society all the luxuries (except for the church) wouldn't exist if there exist anyone who is poor on Earth.


The term luxury implies a somewhat large level of wealth inequality where one good or lifestyle is restricted from someone due to monetary restraints.

Your conclusion is completely off-base. Photographers will not disappear under communism, nor will food suddenly became crap, nor will we lose our capability to product wine, nor will there be a shortage of waiters.

Trillions of materials are wasted under capitalism precisely because of wealth inequality. Goods that people would otherwise ignore are produced simply because consumers can't afford higher-end items. Be it food, or toys, or homes, or planes, or computers - we waste a whole lot of shit just to maintain inequality.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think that will happen because the government first priority would be put everyone in the world in a comfortable home or living space place first. So no resources such as labor or materials would be spend on makign things like movies, wine or video games.

It probably wouldn't even be possible to put everyone in a comfortable home. We'd probably have most people living in shitty apartments.

Because home construction is such a competitive labor market under capitalism, eh? Even if we accept that monetary reward necessitates a thriving economy even in a post-scarcity economy, it would be a socialist market - where workers basically "profit-share" from all the revenue - that would improve on home constructions, not capitalism.

Or are you referencing architecture? You realize architects are artists? And that artistry is probably the one category of labor that people will never WANT to automate?

In communism I'd actually be interested in being both an architect and a construction worker. It would be interesting to see what projects individual homeowners want. Shit, Ayn Rand's philosophy can't account for my sentiments. Abort.

[communard resolution]

This reason alone is enough to call communism a bad idea.

I wouldn't think so. Take first-person shooter video games for instance: in capitalist societies, they're a fake substitute for authentic ways to act out one's atavisms. In communism, on the other hand, we will have Gulags where capitalists and their supporters are imprisoned. Now here's a good opportunity to have some Gulags that are more akin to 'safari parks'. This means that everybody will be able to drive through and shoot at passing capitalist prisoners just for fun. And of course, nobody will keep you from drinking the very best wine while shooting. Sounds good to you?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How many centuries will it take to put all those billions of people around the world in a comfortable living space?
So basically you're saying, "if I have to choose between wine for myself and food for starving children, I really want the wine."

In that case, you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

The fact that communism is more concerned with feeding the hungry than providing you with wine is precisely what makes it a good idea.

[Herman]

Sounds good to you?

That's awful! I'd rather have whiskey while shooting.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Where did I say anything about the government?

there will be people controlling crime and controlling the distribution of wealth. Your whole system will depend on controlling and so you will have people controlling everything. That will be yoru government right there. Eventually, because of the power this government has, and because of the limited resources we have on Earth this government will become corrupted and tyrannical just like every communist government has been.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

So basically you're saying, "if I have to choose between wine for myself and food for starving children, I really want the wine."

In that case, you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

The fact that communism is more concerned with feeding the hungry than providing you with wine is precisely what makes it a good idea.

You're so freaking wrong its not even funny.

No that makes me an honest human being unlike you.

Are you more concern about having a computer, and other luxuries? Have you drank beer at bars, smoked cigarettes or spent any of your wealth on non essentials?

Why didn't you use this wealth to help the hungry kids in fuking assfrica instead?

Reason: Because you much rather indulge yourself then help them. You either don't have enough intellectual honest to see this or youre in denial.

Communism might work for a selfless species. We are the opposite.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

And if government is there to protect people from criminals, why should it not also provide economic protection? Why is it only economically that people need to look after themselves?

I'm not advocating statism btw, I'm just curious.

Here's the thing. A person learns whats good and bad from punishment and reward. When a person does bad financially he will get punish (self punishment) and will learn not to do sthat bad thing again and visversa. But if we reward people for doing bad finical wise they will learn this behavior and continue to do it. Eventually people will get so much help that this become dependent on this help.

It really comes down to people being responsible for this own actions instead of the strong being responsible for the weak or everyone responsible for everyone(communist way of thinking)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No that makes me an honest human being unlike you.
Allow me to explain the difference between an honest human being and a fucking sociopathic asshole:

Honest human being: "I spend some of my money on luxuries. I know that it would be better spent helping the poor, but I'm not a perfect person. I'm trying to improve."

Fucking sociopathic asshole: "I spend some of my money on luxuries, I don't give a damn about the poor, and I have no remorse whatsoever. Everything I do is the very definition of perfect morality."

Guess which one you are.


Are you more concern about having a computer, and other luxuries? Have you drank beer at bars, smoked cigarettes or spent any of your wealth on non essentials?
Having a computer is actually required for my job (well, in theory I could go to internet cafes instead, but in the long run that would end up being far more expensive). Naturally, I do spend some money on luxuries, but I try to keep such spending to a minimum and I would gladly surrender all those luxuries for the goal of building socialism, if I lived under a socialist government.


Why didn't you use this wealth to help the hungry kids in fuking assfrica instead?

Reason: Because you much rather indulge yourself then help them. You either don't have enough intellectual honest to see this or youre in denial.
Actually, the reason is because I have no way to transfer my money directly to hungry kids in Africa. I donate some money to international charities, but not as much as I could because frankly I don't trust them. So I try to help the people near me instead. If you come to me and say you need $5 I'll probably give it to you.


Communism might work for a selfless species. We are the opposite.
We can be anything we want to be. Not everyone is as evil as you.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Trillions of materials are wasted under capitalism precisely because of wealth inequality. Goods that people would otherwise ignore are produced simply because consumers can't afford higher-end items. Be it food, or toys, or homes, or planes, or computers - we waste a whole lot of shit just to maintain inequality.


A lot of times products cost a lot because they are scarce. Just like when most poor people weren't able to afford flat screen TVs. They were expensive because there was not that many factories making them and so they were not that many available.

How do we waste shit to maintain inequality? I dont see how that is true.

the simple fact that communism's one of first priority will be the monumental task to accommodate everyone in the world with a suitable living quarters is more then enough evidence to support that we will lose most if not all luxuries because most of our resources will go to accomplishing this.

Why would anyone want to provide material to make houses for someone else without pay is beyond me. "Sorry tim, you can't have any items of luxury because all of our resources is going towards people getting a home"

Do you think you can really force people to work for other people? Where is the data to back this up?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Allow me to explain the difference between an honest human being and a fucking sociopathic asshole:

Honest human being: "I spend some of my money on luxuries. I know that it would be better spent helping the poor, but I'm not a perfect person. I'm trying to improve."

Fucking sociopathic asshole: "I spend some of my money on luxuries, I don't give a damn about the poor, and I have no remorse whatsoever. Everything I do is the very definition of perfect morality."

Guess which one you are.


Having a computer is actually required for my job (well, in theory I could go to internet cafes instead, but in the long run that would end up being far more expensive). Naturally, I do spend some money on luxuries, but I try to keep such spending to a minimum and I would gladly surrender all those luxuries for the goal of building socialism, if I lived under a socialist government.


Actually, the reason is because I have no way to transfer my money directly to hungry kids in Africa. I donate some money to international charities, but not as much as I could because frankly I don't trust them. So I try to help the people near me instead. If you come to me and say you need $5 I'll probably give it to you.


We can be anything we want to be.

So now this ass admits that he spends MOST of his wealth on luxury items instead of starving shitout of luck fucks in Africa.

So how many African kids have you adopted anyways? How many thousands of dollars have you given to the poor?

So shoudl we all walk around feeling guilty for havign plasma screens, buying 10 drinks at bars, buying lap dances, video games, desserts and other expensive shit? Is this the communist way of being?

Ohh and do you realize that the capitlist give the most to the poor since they are taxed the heaviest? Did you knwo Bill gates gave 30 billion to charity?

"No the rich steal money from the poor"

No not possible because the poor and weak have nothing to offer therefore you can't really take anything away from them to begin with.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So now this ass admits that he spends MOST of his wealth on luxury items instead of starving shitout of luck fucks in Africa.
Most of my small wealth is spent on necessities. The next largest share goes into savings (which, if all goes well, will be donated to charitable and/or political causes after my death).

But again, the difference between you and me is that I try to be a moral person, while you are an unapologetic dipshit. Fuck off and die.


So how many African kids have you adopted anyways? How many thousands of dollars have you given to the poor?
I don't have thousands of dollars lying around to begin with, moron.


So shoudl we all walk around feeling guilty for havign plasma screens, buying 10 drinks at bars, buying lap dances, video games, desserts and other expensive shit? Is this the communist way of being?
Heh, your standards are really easily met, you know. Let's see: I don't have a plasma screen, I've never bought 10 drinks at bars, and I certainly never bought a lap dance - though I do buy video games and desserts.

And yes, if you're not a perfectly moral person (which you're not, by a long shot), then it logically follows that you should be walking around thinking of ways to improve yourself.


Ohh and do you realize that the capitlist give the most to the poor since they are taxed the heaviest? Did you knwo Bill gates gave 30 billion to charity?
Nearly all of those 30 billion dollars were extracted from the working class through exploitation. Bill Gates hasn't earned that money and has no right to it in the first place. He stole a lot of money that rightfully belongs to the workers, and now he's giving some of it back. Why exactly should I feel grateful?


"No the rich steal money from the poor"

No not possible because the poor and weak have nothing to offer therefore you can't really take anything away from them to begin with.
Talk about circular reasoning. In case you couldn't figure it out, the poor "have nothing to offer" precisely because the rich are stealing most of their wealth.

And as for "weakness" - it sure as hell isn't the "weakness" of the workers that makes you feel the need to defend capitalism from a communist menace. It sure as hell isn't "weakness" when the ruling classes tremble before the imminent threat or manifest reality of a communist revolution. No, the problem of the workers is that we don't realize how strong we really are. If all the workers of the world agreed to end capitalism tomorrow, then capitalism would end, and there would be nothing you and your pompous rich buddies could do about it.

If you're looking for weakness, I suggest you go visit a liberal forum. Here we support class struggle - or, to put it in terms you can understand, it's us vs. you. No surrender, no retreat. Any questions?

[Demogorgon]

Reason: Because you much rather indulge yourself then help them. You either don't have enough intellectual honest to see this or youre in denial.

Communism might work for a selfless species. We are the opposite.
If we are so naturally selfish, and it is good that we act on that, why should I not, providing I am confident of getting away with it murder, steal, defraud and so forth as to absolutely maximise benefit for myself?

If it is acceptable to act solely in my self interest, why should I not murder those who stand in my way? Why shouldn't I take whatever I want regardless of hurt to others. If I am crafty enough to get away with it, is there anything wrong with it? After all, we are supposed to act according to our self interest.

[AnthArmo]

I was enjoying this things then I realize that under a communist society all the luxuries (except for the church) wouldn't exist if there exist anyone who is poor on Earth.

sigh*, foolish Capitalist, you fail at base one. This is the assumption that there ISNT enough to go around. that there ISNT enough for every single person on the planet to live a good, healthy and happy standard of living.

basic maths can prove you wrong.

The Average American Middle Class person earns about $50,000 (yes, this statistic is from wikipedia)

Bill Gates has a Net Worth of 58 BILLION! (holy crap indeed)

I don't doubt that Billy has worked hard, albeit off the back of workers. and Lenin DID say that the highest paid person should only be paid Four times more than the lowest paid (we advocate equality, not idiocy) so lets leave him 2 million. regardless, lets divide his money up amongst the people, see what we get.

58,000,000,000 / 50,000 = 1160000

So, potentially, Approx 11.5 MILLION people, who are currently either starving, struggling a Forty hour week on minimum wage to keep the kids fed, or homeless and unemployed, not to mention the cheap child labour paid a laughable amount to work in sweatshop conditions.

For every millionaire, you have (wait, lemme do the math)

1,000,000 / 50,000 = 20

20 people who currently own NOTHING, who could be living happily. think about that ratio for a moment, for every one rich man, you have 20 starving people. look at the ratio

1:20

then look at the ratio of people living in poverty in comparison to people who arent worldwide

1:2

And keep in mind, Wealth is limitless while poverty cannot go below 0$. As you saw in the case of our good friend Billy, there are people who own enough money to make a good chunk of the earths population happy.

So delude yourself of any myths that state that if the wealth were distributed equally, we would all be poorer, the fact is, the wealth is so concentrated in a tiny segment of the population, that there's enough to make almost everyone happier.

[Dr Mindbender]

movies, desserts under a communist society?

You will still have them.

Answers your question?

[Dr Mindbender]

A strongly centralized government will take and ration out these things evenly. And we will all have the same haircuts, wear the same uniform, and the same breast size and penis length.

there is no need for rationing. We already live in a world of abundance.

The only problem is the scarcity economy which prevents the masses accessing the squandered hordes of goods and sustinance.

[Killfacer]

This blokes a dick, but he is right. Its going to be pretty difficult to give everyone on the planet cars, plasma tv's, computer games etc

When i say hard, i mean it cant be done.

[Comrada J]

If it is acceptable to act solely in my self interest, why should I not murder those who stand in my way? Why shouldn't I take whatever I want regardless of hurt to others. If I am crafty enough to get away with it, is there anything wrong with it? After all, we are supposed to act according to our self interest.

^ Social contracts. Most people agree there needs to be at least some degree of stability. Also by only passively ripping people off, you can pretend you're still a good person and best of all, avoid open conflict/confrontation.

[Dr Mindbender]

You're so freaking wrong its not even funny.

No that makes me an honest human being unlike you.

Are you more concern about having a computer, and other luxuries? Have you drank beer at bars, smoked cigarettes or spent any of your wealth on non essentials?

Why didn't you use this wealth to help the hungry kids in fuking assfrica instead?

because as workers we have worked for our well being and sustinance, unlike the beourgiose.

Therefore the burden is on the beourgiose to solve the world's economic ills (ie by relinquishing the MOP).

[Dr Mindbender]

This blokes a dick, but he is right. Its going to be pretty difficult to give everyone on the planet cars, plasma tv's, computer games etc
only because of the material conditions that capitalism has created.

[Killfacer]

Thats irrelevant.

[Dr Mindbender]

Thats irrelevant.
why?

[Killfacer]

It may be capitalism's fault, but the material conditions exist and make what capitain capitalist said correct.

[Dr Mindbender]

It may be capitalism's fault, but the material conditions exist and make what capitain capitalist said correct.

if we allow communism to reverse those conditions then it will no longer be an issue and the world can equally distribute the afforementioned goods.

[Killfacer]

How long will it take for communism to reverse the conditions? After the fighting an international revolution and all the upheavel, it would take years.

[Raúl Duke]

I was enjoying this things then I realize that under a communist society all the luxuries (except for the church) wouldn't exist if there exist anyone who is poor on Earth.Actually, the opposite. All luxuries (if we have them available in abundance) will be available to all. The church on the other hand will be closed...religion will be turned into a very strict private matter (and once out of public life, will probably wither away in the dark).

I don't understand the last part ("if there exists any poor on Earth")...
Hypothetically, let's say a large part (like a part of a continent or a whole continent) becomes a communist society they will still allow their population access to whatever goods can be had even if the rest of the capitalist world suffers...it's not like a communist society is a "martyr/monastery society" that would break the champaign only once capitalism has been eradicated from Earth (although some "socialist puritans" imagine socialism to be like that).

However, immediately post revolution there may or may not be some rationing, etc depending on some factors.



the simple fact that communism's one of first priority will be the monumental task to accommodate everyone in the world with a suitable living quarters is more then enough evidence to support that we will lose most if not all luxuries because most of our resources will go to accomplishing this.

Why would anyone want to provide material to make houses for someone else without pay is beyond me. "Sorry tim, you can't have any items of luxury because all of our resources is going towards people getting a home"

This may be true initially as we transition over to communism and fix up the mess that was caused in the revolution/civil war/etc, some resources/luxuries may become unavailable-limited for a time.

Over time, the economy will be restored (or even advanced forward the previous level) to provide everyone with a high/comfortable standard of living and accessibility to many goods.


So now this ass admits that he spends MOST of his wealth on luxury items instead of starving shitout of luck fucks in Africa.

So how many African kids have you adopted anyways? How many thousands of dollars have you given to the poor?

So shoudl we all walk around feeling guilty for havign plasma screens, buying 10 drinks at bars, buying lap dances, video games, desserts and other expensive shit? Is this the communist way of being?

Ohh and do you realize that the capitlist give the most to the poor since they are taxed the heaviest? Did you knwo Bill gates gave 30 billion to charity?

"No the rich steal money from the poor"

This is the erroneous "communism as mega-charity for poor" view. (although some of what Kwisatz Haderach said, unsurprisingly, seemed based off this wrong view...)

Communism (even politics in general; hell, my AP government books make a similar definition) is about who is in control. To the Communists, the goal is power to the working class and with that power smash class society.



No not possible because the poor and weak have nothing to offer therefore you can't really take anything away from them to begin with.:rolleyes:

The "poor and weak" offer their labor that keeps society running.
Capitalism exploits their labor.


Do you think you can really force people to work for other people? Where is the data to back this up?:rolleyes:

It's already happening...the capitalist class force the working class to work for their benefit...

[Trystan]

Here's the thing. A person learns whats good and bad from punishment and reward. When a person does bad financially he will get punish (self punishment) and will learn not to do sthat bad thing again and visversa. But if we reward people for doing bad finical wise they will learn this behavior and continue to do it. Eventually people will get so much help that this become dependent on this help.


That's ridiculous. People are selfish and will end up making the same mistakes.

;)

[Dr Mindbender]

How long will it take for communism to reverse the conditions? After the fighting an international revolution and all the upheavel, it would take years.
we'd better get started then eh?

If things continue unchecked as they are it's only going to get worse.

[Killfacer]

we'd better get started then eh?

If things continue unchecked as they are it's only going to get worse.

And this is essentially the answer to the original question. It will take a while for everyone to get these luxuries, but it will be a better world when everyone does even if it does take a couple of years of hardship.

[JimmyJazz]

A strongly centralized government will take and ration out these things evenly. And we will all have the same haircuts, wear the same uniform, and the same breast size and penis length.

are you serious or just fucking around?

Will ugly people get compensation for their ugliness too?

lol just get out

[Forward Union]

Im already drinking all the wine there is, don worry about that.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What will happen to the wine.

I will drink it all and get tried by a communal court and shot for theft.

But seriously it will be managed like the other goods life is crap without fun stuff. For instance i could imagine you could have X items such as DVDS / games etc every X days aslong as you worked.

[Dr Mindbender]

And this is essentially the answer to the original question. It will take a while for everyone to get these luxuries, but it will be a better world when everyone does even if it does take a couple of years of hardship.

technocracy will expediate the process.

(as distasteful as the traditional communists here find that it is true).

[shorelinetrance]

reading this thread has lowered my intelligence exponentially.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Here's the thing. A person learns whats good and bad from punishment and reward. When a person does bad financially he will get punish (self punishment) and will learn not to do sthat bad thing again and visversa. But if we reward people for doing bad finical wise they will learn this behavior and continue to do it. Eventually people will get so much help that this become dependent on this help.

It really comes down to people being responsible for this own actions instead of the strong being responsible for the weak or everyone responsible for everyone(communist way of thinking)

Your right.

Il try to be born into a family that can afford a posh school next time.
Just as little kids in kenyan slums should try and be born where they dont have to pick up scrap so they can eat.

Its abit like how folk in 1970s south africa should have learnt not to be born black

:rolleyes:

(massive sarcasm post im not really a moronic racist dolt)

[Labor Shall Rule]

movies, desserts under a communist society? Can this things exist just so long as there are poor people or anyone without access to the basics?

I went to my cousin's Holy Communion tonight across in Mexico. They threw the party at the most expensive hotel in the city, hired a clown, a sound system, a photographer, a camera man, had about a 100 bottles of wine, plus waiters, good food and of course payed the church I imagine.

I was enjoying this things then I realize that under a communist society all the luxuries (except for the church) wouldn't exist if there exist anyone who is poor on Earth.

Why should people be able to have wine if there exist poor people or people who have no access to food? And not just wine but everything else that is a luxury IE not a necessity.

This reason alone is enough to call communism a bad idea.


The nature of work on a global scale has changed with globalization, in that capital’s fatal addiction to growth has meant lower wages for farm workers in foreign countries, and right here at home (specifically for Chicano and Black workers).

To pretend that re-directing the surplus value they produce into wage-saving (minus deductions and other costs) accounts - a condition that's a necessary prerequisite to remove capitalist relations in production (i.e. for profit), - will somehow quantitatively downturn winemaking and video games, is incredibly stupid. Their output will not suddenly stop - a “market” will continue to sell their consumer products.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The sociological effects of capitalism are showing through.

[Zurdito]

This blokes a dick, but he is right. Its going to be pretty difficult to give everyone on the planet cars, plasma tv's, computer games etc

When i say hard, i mean it cant be done.

why not? productive forces don't stay still they are improving all the time. 1000 years ago, most people would have said it would be impossible for everyone in Britain to have a car

[Bud Struggle]

reading this thread has lowered my intelligence exponentially.

This is by far the funniest thread I've ever seen on RevLeft. :laugh:

[revolution inaction]

In communism this'd just mean we had more wine to drink

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5105176.stm

[Dust Bunnies]

We wouldn't have video games under Communism because...

In the Soviet Union Video Games play you!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As radicalgraffiti mentioned, there is in fact a surplus of wine that the capitalist economcy cannot handle, and from what I hear the only reason that food in the West isn't cheaper than it is is because prices are artificially kept high.

So food, even non-essential foodstuffs like wine and desserts, is not a problem for a system based on egalitarian distribution rather than profit and greed.

The production cost (in terms of resources) of video games and other software can be reduced to practically nothing if digital distribution via the internet is applied across the board.

As for waiters, I would not miss them one little bit. They are simply modern-day servants, and what the hell is wrong with getting your food from the table yourself? Are you that narcissistic and lazy that you have to have your food brought to you by some poor dolled-up soul who's given up their dignity for a crappy wage?

[Vanguard1917]

Zurdito explained it well. A communist society presupposes a radically higher mode of production, where there is nothing stopping us from producing enough wine for all. :)

Bourgeois ideologues have long been emphasising so-called natural limits to productivity, which displays their narrow-minded defence of the capitalist system and their inability to see beyond its constraints. (Today, such arguments about natural limits usually come in the form of green politics, which, by arguing that capitalism gives way to too much economic progress (!), provides very convenient apologism for the capitalist system.)

[shorelinetrance]

This is by far the funniest thread I've ever seen on RevLeft. :laugh:
:rolleyes:

[CaptainCapitalist68]

reading this thread has lowered my intelligence exponentially.

Get the hell out of my thread if you don't liek then.

Its already been admitted that once communism is implemented on a global scale most if not all luxuries will disappear. Some honest Communist here have admitted that things will stay like this for a while but I believe things stay this way forever.

Did your witless senseless mind know that shit before? or did you think about it? Probably not because most stupid humans like you don't care about the shit they have unless they lose it. "umm where's the internet.....?!?!?"

You stupid commie, all you think about is the wealth you'll get from the rich but you never think abotu all the billions of parasites and leeches int he world who will suck all that is good dry. You haven't thought about how in a world, where you receive wealth based on your whims and needs, people will fake their needs or put themselves in a situation that fabricates needs. this shit happens all the time.

[Trystan]

My God, you are a dumbass.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Your right.

Il try to be born into a family that can afford a posh school next time.
Just as little kids in kenyan slums should try and be born where they dont have to pick up scrap so they can eat.

Its abit like how folk in 1970s south africa should have learnt not to be born black

:rolleyes:

(massive sarcasm post im not really a moronic racist dolt)

Ahhh man, another "What about the children!!!!!!!!!" post.

A family that is poor has no business having kids in the first place.... Why are people so fuking stupid to have kids in places where there isn't even enogh food or drinkable water to go around? The only thing this people have any business doign with their sexual organs is makign them sterile!

[CaptainCapitalist68]

That's ridiculous. People are selfish and will end up making the same mistakes.

;)

You're such an idiot dude.

You're generalizing things way too much.

If people are stupid enough to keep on making mistakes even after punishment then their genes should cease to exist. But how will this happen in a system that rewards weakness?

But most people actually learn from their mistakes provided there is some sort of punishment or suffering.

[Trystan]

You're such an idiot dude.

You're generalizing things way too much.

If people are stupid enough to keep on making mistakes even after punishment then their genes should cease to exist. But how will this happen in a system that rewards weakness?

But most people actually learn from their mistakes provided there is some sort of punishment or suffering.

If what you describe is to work, people would have to become docile slaves. There is injustice in society, and some people are just not willing to bow to the capitalist masters and be slaves to the whims of the market.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Most of my small wealth is spent on necessities. The next largest share goes into savings (which, if all goes well, will be donated to charitable and/or political causes after my death).

Ohh so you haven't even donated shit yet huh? WOW your such a freaking saint and so much more moral then me!




But again, the difference between you and me is that I try to be a moral person, while you are an unapologetic dipshit. Fuck off and die.

Giving to others doesn't make you moral. It makes you into a good person wanna be jackass.




I don't have thousands of dollars lying around to begin with, moron.

And you'll never have enough wealth because of your way of thinking. You'll be poor all your life. And this, this is the mentality you want everyone to have. You want people to sacrifice their happiness for your suffering.




Heh, your standards are really easily met, you know. Let's see: I don't have a plasma screen, I've never bought 10 drinks at bars, and I certainly never bought a lap dance - though I do buy video games and desserts.

Let me ask agin Should we feel any guilt possessing or indulging in any luxuries in a world where people are dieing of stavation? Should a rich person feel guilty? Should people share your suffering?

So if I were to give more or give at all I would be improving myself?




And yes, if you're not a perfectly moral person (which you're not, by a long shot), then it logically follows that you should be walking around thinking of ways to improve yourself.

You're just like everyone else dude. You're just another man who likes to show that there a good guy by giving or sayign that they will give but you really aren't.





Nearly all of those 30 billion dollars were extracted from the working class through exploitation. Bill Gates hasn't earned that money and has no right to it in the first place. He stole a lot of money that rightfully belongs to the workers, and now he's giving some of it back. Why exactly should I feel grateful?

No not really, He made windows and made 10-100 bucks out of every computer that has windows. He didn't force anyone to buy his product.

Its so stupid to think that if a man is making little then he is being expolited but if a man is makign a lot then he is exploiting peple.




Talk about circular reasoning. In case you couldn't figure it out, the poor "have nothing to offer" precisely because the rich are stealing most of their wealth.

Well they can quite their freaking jobs if they feel this way. They should just walk out of the rich man's factory then and find another way to sustain themselves.

Stealing is taking something by force unnoticed. In capitalism people make money of each other though consensual trade and exchanges.



And as for "weakness" - it sure as hell isn't the "weakness" of the workers that makes you feel the need to defend capitalism from a communist menace. It sure as hell isn't "weakness" when the ruling classes tremble before the imminent threat or manifest reality of a communist revolution. No, the problem of the workers is that we don't realize how strong we really are. If all the workers of the world agreed to end capitalism tomorrow, then capitalism would end, and there would be nothing you and your pompous rich buddies could do about it.






If you're looking for weakness, I suggest you go visit a liberal forum. Here we support class struggle - or, to put it in terms you can understand, it's us vs. you. No surrender, no retreat. Any questions?

Go ahead, personally I would for you guys to start fighting and using force to get your way. Unlike capitlism yoru system depends on forcing people to do things.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its already been admitted that once communism is implemented on a global scale most if not all luxuries will disappear.

Bullshit. Or did you not notice the fact that the EU is producing more wine than it knows what to do with? The reason they can't just sell it is because it would bring the price of wine crashing down and drive the wine industry out of business. This can only happen in a monetary economy, not a moneyless economy like communism.


You stupid commie, all you think about is the wealth you'll get from the rich but you never think abotu all the billions of parasites and leeches int he world who will suck all that is good dry.

You're a disgusting specimen of a human being. If humans are so evil and lazy in your view, then capitalism merely rewards the most clever "parasites and leeches".


You haven't thought about how in a world, where you receive wealth based on your whims and needs, people will fake their needs or put themselves in a situation that fabricates needs. this shit happens all the time.

The reason people seek more and more wealth is because of the basic insecurity of capitalism - you never know when circumstances might demand an enormous expenditure of cash, so it is in your self-interest to gather as much wealth as possible.

In a society where provision for your needs is gauranteed, this kind of behaviour would be unnecessary and pathological.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

If what you describe is to work, people would have to become docile slaves. There is injustice in society, and some people are just not willing to bow to the capitalist masters and be slaves to the whims of the market.

I am not talking about work. I am talking about people making mistakes.

Who says you have to bow down? Your free to quit your job and become a begger in the street. Many people have done it why can't you?

In your system we will have to be slaves to the weak.

[Trystan]

I am not talking about work. I am talking about people making mistakes.

Who says you have to bow down? Your free to quit your job and become a begger in the street. Many people have done it why can't you?

In your system we will have to be slaves to the weak.

Free to become a beggar? (Note the spelling btw!:lol:). I am free in the sense that if I don't like my country, I can leave. Wonderful. Well, I want more than that. And by the way, what makes you so "strong" exactly? Everyone is strong when it comes to something. But with capitalism its your money that makes you "strong".

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Bullshit. Or did you not notice the fact that the EU is producing more wine than it knows what to do with? The reason they can't just sell it is because it would bring the price of wine crashing down and drive the wine industry out of business. This can only happen in a monetary economy, not a moneyless economy like communism.

I am not talkign about just wine. I am talking about luxuries in general. I heard we have warehouses full of diamonds too. Not sure how true this is but i heard.




You're a disgusting specimen of a human being. If humans are so evil and lazy in your view, then capitalism merely rewards the most clever "parasites and leeches".

the successful capitlist is the one that has worked the most and smartest. Unhlike the poor bum begging for money and drinkign beer and doign drugs every weekend. Get out of your rich-people-evil,-poor-people-good mentality and studiy reality once in a while yah?




The reason people seek more and more wealth is because of the basic insecurity of capitalism - you never know when circumstances might demand an enormous expenditure of cash, so it is in your self-interest to gather as much wealth as possible.

If you gain wealth taking advanatge of the market, IE like selling somethign which is high in demand for a very profitable price that is fine. People are free to buy this something or free not to buy.

But if you wealth by stealing from someone or forcing someone to give you money (such as a law) then that is the fucked up way to make money. Your system makes people pay up at the point of a gun. How fucked up is that?



In a society where provision for your needs is gauranteed, this kind of behaviour would be unnecessary and pathological.

It'll happen dude. Its happens all the time.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Free to become a beggar? (Note the spelling btw!:lol:). I am free in the sense that if I don't like my country, I can leave. Wonderful. Well, I want more than that. And by the way, what makes you so "strong" exactly? Everyone is strong when it comes to something. But with capitalism its your money that makes you "strong".

What more do you want? You want the rich man to give up his wealth because you envy him and you think everyone should share your suffering?

Whoever is in need is weak.

[Trystan]

What more do you want? You want the rich man to give up his wealth because you envy him and you think everyone should share your suffering?

Whoever is in need is weak.

You really are a thoroughly indoctrinated Randoid ****, aren't you? I do not envy the rich, put that fucker Von Mises down. The rich make money off the backs of the poor, who only see a fraction of the good things in a society go back to them. Capitalist economics 101.

I would like to see wealth distributed where it's due, and I would also like to be able to do my job the way I want.

Now fuck off you insufferable troll.

[spice756]

If people are stupid enough to keep on making mistakes even after punishment then their genes should cease to exist. But how will this happen in a system that rewards weakness?

But most people actually learn from their mistakes provided there is some sort of punishment or suffering.


Did you stop to think they do crime because they are poor and that is a way of supporting them self.

Did you stop to think there may be no jobs in that area?





Ahhh man, another "What about the children!!!!!!!!!" post.
A family that is poor has no business having kids in the first place.... Why are people so fuking stupid to have kids in places where there isn't even enogh food or drinkable water to go around? The only thing this people have any business doign with their sexual organs is makign them sterile!


Who are you to tell people if they should or should not have kids.It is their body they can do what they like.

[spice756]

I am not talking about work. I am talking about people making mistakes.

Who says you have to bow down? Your free to quit your job and become a begger in the street. Many people have done it why can't you?

In your system we will have to be slaves to the weak.

Many people on the street do have jobs or their pay is not enough to pay rent.And others are because of class alienation and competition.





the successful capitlist is the one that has worked the most and smartest. Unhlike the poor bum begging for money and drinkign beer and doign drugs every weekend. Get out of your rich-people-evil,-poor-people-good mentality and studiy reality once in a while yah?


No the capitlist are lazy people or they would run the place by them self.The working class are the people who work for the capitlist to make the capitlist profit.The working class does not own the profit but made the profit.The capitlist did not make the profit, but the working class did.

And there are middle class and pop stars who drink and do drugs so don't say only the poor do it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not talkign about just wine. I am talking about luxuries in general. I heard we have warehouses full of diamonds too. Not sure how true this is but i heard.

I don't see why it's such a big problem to produce "luxuries" for all who want them. I doubt people would eat caviar every day even if they could - it would get boring.

And in the event that there isn't enough of a particular luxury for everyone, then they'll just have to wait, won't they?


the successful capitlist is the one that has worked the most and smartest.

Bullshit. Did Bill Gate's daughter "work hard" for the billions she is certain to inherit?


Unhlike the poor bum begging for money and drinkign beer and doign drugs every weekend.

Most poor people don't beg for money.


Get out of your rich-people-evil,-poor-people-good mentality and studiy reality once in a while yah?

How about you get out of your "rich people good, poor people lazy and stupid" mentality?


If you gain wealth taking advanatge of the market, IE like selling somethign which is high in demand for a very profitable price that is fine.

Sez who? And why should we believe them?


People are free to buy this something or free not to buy.

No they are not. They are limited in their choice by their amount of money.


But if you wealth by stealing from someone or forcing someone to give you money (such as a law) then that is the fucked up way to make money. Your system makes people pay up at the point of a gun. How fucked up is that?

People are not forced to "pay" anything because there is no money to pay with.


It'll happen dude. Its happens all the time.

Sarcasm does not become you.

[redSHARP]

shit will be around still, i just wont have the blood of the people on my hands when i buy that wine.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Bullshit. Did Bill Gate's daughter "work hard" for the billions she is certain to inherit?Hell, Bill Gates isn't some exceptional inventor either. His success was from marketing.


Get out of your rich-people-evil,-poor-people-good mentality and studiy reality once in a while yah?Are you serious? Your entire philosophy is built around hating the poor.

We don't loathe the rich. We loathe how they acquire most of their wealth, through extortion. Are you so blind to the state's operations that you would think property relationships are going to remain just like they are now today?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Ahhh man, another "What about the children!!!!!!!!!" post.

A family that is poor has no business having kids in the first place.... Why are people so fuking stupid to have kids in places where there isn't even enogh food or drinkable water to go around? The only thing this people have any business doign with their sexual organs is makign them sterile!

People want to have kids its a kind of sexual feeling. If somone wants to pop about babies good for them. If not good for them.

If people from poor countries stopped having kids in about 50 years the US economy would be fairly fucked up.

Should folk from the united states stop having kids then?

also abuse is needed here -

Fuck off you poor excuse for a piece of shit.

[JimmyJazz]

Whoever is in need is weak.

Yeeees...it's almost as though you escape from need by possessing the ability to initiate force.....

[ComradeOm]

People want to have kids its a kind of sexual feeling. If somone wants to pop about babies good for them. If not good for themEh.... no. In peasant economies children are a valuable resource. They mean more hands working the land and, crucially, a form of social security in old age. When the only thing you can depend upon is your family then you want to make sure this is as large as possible. Of course this often has disastrous long term consequences for the land (particularly with regards generations of subdivisions) but it also explains why birth rates tend to drop so dramatically in industrialised welfare states


Yeeees...it's almost as though you escape from need by possessing the ability to initiate force..... Well the triumph of the will has always been a key component of fascist ideology ;)

[Demogorgon]

Care to answer this one CaptainSociopath?

If we are so naturally selfish, and it is good that we act on that, why should I not, providing I am confident of getting away with it, murder, steal, defraud and so forth as to absolutely maximise benefit for myself?

If it is acceptable to act solely in my self interest, why should I not murder those who stand in my way? Why shouldn't I take whatever I want regardless of hurt to others. If I am crafty enough to get away with it, is there anything wrong with it? After all, we are supposed to act according to our self interest.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ahhh man, another "What about the children!!!!!!!!!" post.

A family that is poor has no business having kids in the first place...

this is exactly the double standards that Marx meant about the beourgiouse preaching family values when he talked of the ''beourgiose claptrap'' in the communist manifesto.

Your 'suitability' to have kids is not measured by your love, aptitude, or commitment but by the thickness of your wallet.

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050613/050613_jacksonbaby_vmed_3p.widec.jpg

[IcarusAngel]

Has anybody seen that add that says:

Leftist, and a fan of Mortal Kombat?

Takes you to here:
http://www.mkpit.com/

heh. That's pretty cool. I love MK. I want to get it the arcade on my playstation 2:

7OFArVnbfR0

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But most people actually learn from their mistakes provided there is some sort of punishment or suffering.
I'm glad you finally admit that you support a world based on punishment and suffering. You want people to suffer; communists want people to be happy. That is the most basic difference between us.

[Dr Mindbender]

Has anybody seen that add that says:

Leftist, and a fan of Mortal Kombat?

Takes you to here:
http://www.mkpit.com/

heh. That's pretty cool. I love MK. I want to get it the arcade on my playstation 2:

7OFArVnbfR0


MK1 in deception? How the fuck did they do that? :confused:

I owned that game and never saw that!!!!!!!!

[IcarusAngel]

You have to get MK Deception: Premium Pack edition. It looks like this, with sub-zero on the cover:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/games/drg100/g198/g19815fhu88.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Kombat-Deception-Premium-Playstation-2/dp/B0002TG3Z0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223331418&sr=8-1

For Xbox, it's called something else, like MK: Deception "Kollector's edition."

[Dust Bunnies]

I'll take and hoard all of these luxuries under Communism, you can call me Uncle Tom, or just General Secretary are fine. :rolleyes:

[mikelepore]

Your whole system will depend on controlling and so you will have people controlling everything.

That's a common mental block. Many people think, if the stockholders elect the industries' directors, one share one vote, that's not "control" but instead it's "spontaneity" and "individuality", but if working people elect the industries' directors, one person one vote, that "central control", a "command economy", "dictatorship." How the hell did the suggestion to drastically increase the number of people who are allowed to vote on something that affects everyone's lives get twisted into what this writer thinks? The educational system must be really bad.

[Dr Mindbender]

You have to get MK Deception: Premium Pack edition. It looks like this, with sub-zero on the cover:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/games/drg100/g198/g19815fhu88.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Kombat-Deception-Premium-Playstation-2/dp/B0002TG3Z0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223331418&sr=8-1

For Xbox, it's called something else, like MK: Deception "Kollector's edition."


nm i got it for PSP anyway. :thumbup1:

[CaptainCapitalist68]

That's a common mental block. Many people think, if the stockholders elect the industries' directors, one share one vote, that's not "control" but instead it's "spontaneity" and "individuality", but if working people elect the industries' directors, one person one vote, that "central control", a "command economy", "dictatorship." How the hell did the suggestion to drastically increase the number of people who are allowed to vote on something that affects everyone's lives get twisted into what this writer thinks? The educational system must be really bad.

The reason companies are successful in the first place is because of smart investors. The bad investors obviously lose their money because the company they put their money on went bad. Again things are not all equal.

Why a person, who instead uses his hard earn wealth to invest in beer, hookers, video games, and other things which are use to bring pleasure have any right or say so in who's to run a company is beyond me. No the people who own this company, hence the investors, are the ones who have a say soon how this company should run.

Where do you get the idea that the average person is at all qualified to elect the personal who will run a companyy? And who usually wins people's votes? The person whos a great speaker or the person who will do a better job?

If as you believe, the education system is really bad because they don't teach your ideology of cannibalism then why would you think people have the ability to cast a good vote on anything in the first place?

[Dr Mindbender]

Where do you get the idea that the average person is at all qualified to elect the personal who will run a companyy? And who usually wins people's votes? The person whos a great speaker or the person who will do a better job?

If as you believe, the education system is really bad because they don't teach your ideology of cannibalism then why would you think people have the ability to cast a good vote on anything in the first place?

decisions made by big bosses under capitalism arent made with the interests of the workers at heart, they're made in the interests of safeguarding the company profits.

A profitable company isnt much good to the people under it if it isnt providing them with secure well paid jobs and dignified working conditions.

The argument about who is 'most qualified' is not applicable under communism since all industries are nationalised and there is none of this cross-company competition.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

decisions made by big bosses under capitalism arent made with the interests of the workers at heart, they're made in the interests of safeguarding the company profits.

A profitable company isnt much good to the people under it if it isnt providing them with secure well paid jobs and dignified working conditions.

The argument about who is 'most qualified' is not applicable under communism since all industries are nationalised and there is none of this cross-company competition.

In order to have good workers their moral must be up. Successful companies pay their workers very good to accomplish this. After all people who know how to get the job done right aren't cheap compared to people who have very little skill, ability and competence. Just like Google and oil companies. They pay most of their employees very good. Now if a person didn't invest their time and wealth to go to college and such then this person shouldn't be complaing about flipping burgers at mcdonalds.

Many profitable companies are good to the people. They are the companies that bring us oil, make our computers and give us google. How are this companies not good?

The United States has a lot of wealth because we have many and some of the biggest profitable companies in the world. In places like Africa you will find a lot less of this companies. So no, they are good, they are the ones who produce wealth.