What Will Food Be Like Post-Revolution?

[MadMoney]

I assume with the gift economy that y'all are planning, I will be able to eat a lot of great food all the time. Can I expect breakfasts of steak and eggs with gigantic bowls of fresh fruit? Can I expect all of my hamburgers to be available with bacon if I am in the mood? Can I expect my chickens plump, my veggies crisp, my fish fresh? And can I get fries with that?

[Lord Testicles]

Yes, yes, yes and yes. I don't see why there would be a lack of these items in a post-revolutionary society, and as an added bonus all you're food should be delicious since there is no incentive to add "cheap" ingredients.

You are guaranteed all of this and more or you will be compensated for the cost of your revolution!

[Mindtoaster]

All food besides cabbage and soup is reactionary

[Jazzratt]

It will be delicious, but you can't have any because I don't like you. :rolleyes:

[Holden Caulfield]

we will eat gruel and those who do not like, or are allergic to, gruel will be shot or sent to the gulags depending on how much gruel they would be willing to eat to convice us to spare their lives,

those who ask for more will also be sent to the gulags

[Red October]

I assume with the gift economy that y'all are planning, I will be able to eat a lot of great food all the time. Can I expect breakfasts of steak and eggs with gigantic bowls of fresh fruit? Can I expect all of my hamburgers to be available with bacon if I am in the mood? Can I expect my chickens plump, my veggies crisp, my fish fresh? And can I get fries with that?

You will stand in line for three hours a day to get a few grams of dry bread, and once a month you'll be given an ounce of butter or jam, unless the people's high commission of rations decides that Comrade ______ needs it more than you...that is what some of you think will happen, right?


In all seriousness, things will be different, but not in the "1984 scenario" way.

[Killfacer]

Gruel and hard ships biscuit. And Victory Gin of course...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Food... of the FUTURE! (http://davidszondy.com/future/Living/futurefood.htm)

Of course, that assumes that we will still eat food. :D

[Pogue]

You will eat rice and drink water and you will love it because you're hunger will be a sign that the revolution is succeeding and bourgeois life is slowly being squeezed out of you. If you are an obedient worker you will be offered some salt for your rice and a shot of vodka for the cold days.

Sauces such as ketchup are bourgeois decadence and anyone asking for some will receive 5 years hard labour in the kitchens of revolution.

[Ele'ill]

Sauces such as ketchup are bourgeois decadence and anyone asking for some will receive 5 years hard labour in the kitchens of revolution.

:lol: Sign me up! I like to cook.

[Killfacer]

Soylent green

[Vendetta]

is capitalists.

[Revolutionary Youth]

You will eat rice and drink water and you will love it because you're hunger will be a sign that the revolution is succeeding and bourgeois life is slowly being squeezed out of you. If you are an obedient worker you will be offered some salt for your rice and a shot of vodka for the cold days.

That just works fine enough for me!:laugh:

[GPDP]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Leninade.png

[ckaihatsu]

What Will Food Be Like Post-Revolution?


It'll be good. Especially with some breadsticks and a light chianti.


-- or --



What Will Food Be Like Post-Revolution?


We will have genetically engineered out our need for food and so we will simply affix nutrient patches to our bodies as we live hyper-enlightened lives in our space colonies orbiting the earth.

Wait and see, people!!!!!


x D



Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Fuck Food man. We waste so much energy eating.

I rather like the idea of simply putting the nutrients directly into the bloodstream, and making the rest of the digestive tract go the way of the appendix.

[ckaihatsu]

Fuck Food man. We waste so much energy eating.

I rather like the idea of simply putting the nutrients directly into the bloodstream, and making the rest of the digestive tract go the way of the appendix.


* Whew *, I'm -so- relieved to find another, fellow I.V.-bagger -- did you also get the intestine-removal surgery? I just got off the phone with L.A., and they told me I'm ready now...!


x D

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm proposing that idea for my kids.

I fucking love food...but I hate it....but I love it more!

[ckaihatsu]

I'm proposing that idea for my kids.


Dude, avoid even more bother and just get 'em neutered, as Bob Barker tell us to...!

: D



I fucking love food...but I hate it....but I love it more!


Eeen pawst-raal-vo-loo-shun society, food eats you!


x D

[KC]

I assume with the gift economy that y'all are planning, I will be able to eat a lot of great food all the time. Can I expect breakfasts of steak and eggs with gigantic bowls of fresh fruit? Can I expect all of my hamburgers to be available with bacon if I am in the mood? Can I expect my chickens plump, my veggies crisp, my fish fresh? And can I get fries with that?We will only eat McDonald's.

EDIT: Wow I'm surprised nobody responded to this crap seriously. Usually a bunch of idiots do.

[ckaihatsu]

We will only eat McDonald's.


Yeah, but because you're such a smart-ass, KC, for you we're *not* going to keep the hot parts hot and the cold parts cold.


X D
X D
X D

[Comrade B]

For a realistic answer

Food is to be based on productivity. If there is very little land and many people, we will naturally not be eating beef, because cattle take a lot of land and give little food. Your food will not be your choice completely, as it is not your choice completely now. I would love to eat star fruit with every meal, that stuff tastes great, but is way to expensive for me to afford to have every day. The #1 purpose of food is to sustain human life. Once everyone is provided with enough food to survive, the next interest would be comfort, which means enough food that you can snack a bit, after that is luxury, you get your hamburgers and I get my star fruit at this stage. Food that takes a lot of work to prepare is no different than transportation, a country should first make sure that everyone has a method of transportation before they begin putting in hand crafted leather seats.

[KC]

Comrade B delivers!

Too bad McDonald's doesn't.:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

* Whew *, I'm -so- relieved to find another, fellow I.V.-bagger -- did you also get the intestine-removal surgery? I just got off the phone with L.A., and they told me I'm ready now...!


x D

IV bags? How disgustingly organic! I intend on getting my sustenance directly from nuclear fusion reactions, or vacuum energy if I'm lucky.

I haven't decided yet whether to reproduce by differential copying in cyberspace, or by physical existance as a self-reproducing nanotech swarm.

[Pogue]

For a realistic answer

Food is to be based on productivity. If there is very little land and many people, we will naturally not be eating beef, because cattle take a lot of land and give little food. Your food will not be your choice completely, as it is not your choice completely now. I would love to eat star fruit with every meal, that stuff tastes great, but is way to expensive for me to afford to have every day. The #1 purpose of food is to sustain human life. Once everyone is provided with enough food to survive, the next interest would be comfort, which means enough food that you can snack a bit, after that is luxury, you get your hamburgers and I get my star fruit at this stage. Food that takes a lot of work to prepare is no different than transportation, a country should first make sure that everyone has a method of transportation before they begin putting in hand crafted leather seats.

fancy pants bastard

[ckaihatsu]

IV bags? How disgustingly organic! I intend on getting my sustenance directly from nuclear fusion reactions, or vacuum energy if I'm lucky.

I haven't decided yet whether to reproduce by differential copying in cyberspace, or by physical existance as a self-reproducing nanotech swarm.


Hey, your self-reproduction in cyberspace -- besides being disgusting -- is using up far too much of the Internet, mainly because it's showing up on my screen!

Go swarm on some other computer network, wouldja? : )

[ckaihatsu]

what will food be like post-revolution?


No food! Only soma!




X D

[trivas7]

No food! Only soma!
X D
http://www.lafoodnotbombs.org/Benefit%20Show%20Jan%2026.jpg
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green)

[danyboy27]

we will eat your mother
:thumbup:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey, your self-reproduction in cyberspace -- besides being disgusting -- is using up far too much of the Internet, mainly because it's showing up on my screen!

A testament to the success of my potential method! Besides, my potential method of reproduction doesn't involve icky fluids and stuff.


Go swarm on some other computer network, wouldja? : )

Just try and stop me.

[MadMoney]

I appreciate the sense of humor many of you have, especially in this thread. I don't think I have ever laughed more while reading an internet forum. But seriously though, in terms of food, why will I be happier post-revolution (assuming I am not killed)? Or is my palate unimportant?

[RGacky3]

MadMoney, if you SERIOUSLY have to ask that question then you don't know much about the concept of communism/anarchism.

The thing is, I don't think NoXion is joking, techocrats are so freaking wierd.

[redguard2009]

Stupid fucking question, IMO you should be banned as a troll.

For the first couple hundred years after the "revolution", nothing about food will change.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The thing is, I don't think NoXion is joking, techocrats are so freaking wierd.

*ahem*

Advocating that we transcend our biological limitations is the prerogative of transhumanists, not technocrats.

Even though I hold to both, I would advise you not to confuse the two, as they are different beasts, so to speak. Also, not all transhumanists are technocrats and vice versa.

[JimmyJazz]

Stupid fucking question, IMO you should be banned as a troll.

calm down yo

[Bilan]

Gruel and hard ships biscuit. And Victory Gin of course...
beat me to it

[Bilan]

I appreciate the sense of humor many of you have, especially in this thread. I don't think I have ever laughed more while reading an internet forum. But seriously though, in terms of food, why will I be happier post-revolution (assuming I am not killed)? Or is my palate unimportant?

To be honest, the secret underground communist conspiracy corp has meals planned already.
The main plan is to, instead of feeding children and unhappy people sausages mash and potatoes all arranged into a smiley face, all food will take on the shape of hammers and sickles.
Even breakfast cereals.
And your drinks too.

Nothing will escape our erratic love for the hammer and sickle.

But that is the only serious change.

Although, all food will also be dyed grey, just to piss off people who believe that communists want everyone to look the same, and be some sort of homogeneous giant entity with no liberty, individuality or what have you.

But seriously, why would food take on a new form? Does food usually take on a new form as the previous economic form is over thrown?

I guess that explains this:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/Turducken-thumb.jpg
Turducken: Gross.

[Mindtoaster]

calm down yo
Agreed....

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, that original post just reminded me -- we all forgot about it -- aren't we supposed to:

Eat the rich!

[ckaihatsu]

I'll first knock him unconscious by kicking him in the ass!


: D

[KC]

Turducken: Gross.

Yeah, definitely. Turbaconducken is where it's at.

http://bacontoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/all-raw-wrapped-assembled-front.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You know the OP does raise a good point. No matter what the revolution is like if it's a discernible event it'll most likely take some time. In the US, to say we export a lot of food each year would be a mammoth understatement.

If we stopped exporting for any significant amount of time the effects would be massive. We're talking about billions of people starving.

[Plagueround]

You know the OP does raise a good point. No matter what the revolution is like if it's a discernible event it'll most likely take some time. In the US, to say we export a lot of food each year would be a mammoth understatement.

If we stopped exporting for any significant amount of time the effects would be massive. We're talking about billions of people starving.

I don't know if a revolutionary event would be drastic enough to cease production to the point where it would cause billions to die, but you do raise a legitimate concern. I personally would hope an event where workers take control of their workplaces would not cause them all to instantly stop importing and exporting goods. If anything, I think a "conscious working class" that is very much about internationalism would be more inclined to make sure this does not happen. This is of course assuming that a revolutionary situation would start in the US, which I don't know will be the case.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm thinking: billions die.

This entire business chain (actually more like a spider web) that almost all of the world lives under right now is so delecate that any disruption in it would cause severe shortages of things around the world--in countries with well established distribution systems, things might be OK--but in places with had to mouth existance there would be considerable trouble.

An example--my business (I'm not in the food business, but I think this would pertain to all businesses.) If I were removed and my woprkers take over the business there would be a considerable learning curve for them to get up the production and extablish the connections that I'm able to maintain--I'm not saying I'm smarter than they are, just that I've done all these things and they haven't. But most importantly I have the connections with other businessmen that make the daily business run smoothly. Now just transfer that to thousands of companies and you've really lost the interconnectiveness that makes things work.

I'm not saying that things can't get back up to the way they were, but there would be a considerable leaning curve--and in that curve people at the lower end of the food chain may get seriously hurt.

[Plagueround]

I'm thinking: billions die.

This entire business chain (actually more like a spider web) that almost all of the world lives under right now is so delecate that any disruption in it would cause severe shortages of things around the world--in countries with well established distribution systems, things might be OK--but in places with had to mouth existance there would be considerable trouble.

An example--my business (I'm not in the food business, but I think this would pertain to all businesses.) If I were removed and my woprkers take over the business there would be a considerable learning curve for them to get up the production and extablish the connections that I'm able to maintain--I'm not saying I'm smarter than they are, just that I've done all these things and they haven't. But most importantly I have the connections with other businessmen that make the daily business run smoothly. Now just transfer that to thousands of companies and you've really lost the interconnectiveness that makes things work.

I'm not saying that things can't get back up to the way they were, but there would be a considerable leaning curve--and in that curve people at the lower end of the food chain may get seriously hurt.

"Billions die" is so utterly dramatic and ridiculous. However, to address your argument, as someone who programmed phone systems and worked in the offices of plenty a self important executive, it would not be hard at all between the information contained in their phones, computers, and the records they keep to get things running. To be quite honest, most execs I ran into were the type that thought it funny to put "password" as their computer password. This also assumes people are going to use the exact same business routes to distribute the food supply. We've already got enough people dying because of how capitalism chooses to distribute food...I think we would do everything we can to avoid emulating or worsening that whole situation.

[Bud Struggle]

"Billions die" is so utterly dramatic and ridiculous. However, to address your argument, as someone who programmed phone systems and worked in the offices of plenty a self important executive, it would not be hard at all between the information contained in their phones, computers, and the records they keep to get things running. To be quite honest, most execs I ran into were the type that thought it funny to put "password" as their computer password. This also assumes people are going to use the exact same business routes to distribute the food supply. We've already got enough people dying because of how capitalism chooses to distribute food...I think we would do everything we can to avoid emulating or worsening that whole situation.

A lot would die. It's not self importance--and that's where you Communists fail, by not understanding the importance of owners/managers--just as lots of Capitalist fail by not understanding the role of the worker.

Just as workers ARE NOT interchangeable--neither are owners.

We are not "cogs in the machine"--neither workers or managers. That's what we need to get past--both the Communist AND THE Capitalist
paradigms.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1138

Venezuelan Workers Debate Workers Control of Industry and Government Enterprises

May 19th 2005, by Bill Burgess - Socialist Voice

[...]

The remarkable experience of oil workers in keeping that vital industry running during the lockout by oil company managers in December 2002 and January 2003 was an important experience related at the roundtable. The workers were able to restore production in several key refineries, and the bosses strike failed to drive the government of President Hugo Chavez from office. Although the oil workers did not institutionalize a direct participation in the direction of the state-owned oil company PDVSA, some 400 striking managers were dismissed. Other speakers said the class consciousness of all workers was raised by the example of oil and other workers who mobilized to keep their workplaces running during the bosses strike. (This contrasted sharply with the old union federation, the CTV, that the UNT has now largely replaced. It supported the bosses strike, and the failed coup against President Chavez in 2002.)

The most extensive experiences with co-management are in the state- owned electrical companies, CADAFE and CADELA, and the state-owned aluminium company, ALCASA. "Co-management" in the former emerged from efforts by the workers to block privatization of the electrical distribution sector. The Chavez government halted the privatizations and appointed union representatives to the companies' boards of directors. A variety of workplace assemblies and "transparency" policies have been instituted.

Most of the unionists attending the roundtable were electrical industry workers with rich first-hand experience with this process of "co-management". Loud cheering was common for speakers like Angel Naves when they sharply distinguished their "Bolivarian co- management" from co-management in countries like Germany or Argentina. Naves argued that in the latter, union leaders are simply co-opted into existing management structures and methods.

[...]

[RGacky3]

A lot would die. It's not self importance--and that's where you Communists fail, by not understanding the importance of owners/managers--just as lots of Capitalist fail by not understanding the role of the worker.

Owners and Managers are 2 very different things, people can be owners of a company they know nothing about, it happens a lot, and your right managers are important, which is why the brightest and most experience should be appointed or elected by the workers to manage things.

Don't think communism means no management, it means not Boss (meaning a guy with innate authority).

What we need to get past is the idea that someone can have innate authority over others, including in the form of a Boss.

TomK, if you really are nessesary to your company, and you really know better how to run it than your workers, then under communism chances are the workers would keep you in your managing position, only this time you earned it (I'm not saying you did'nt earn it, but under Communism you'll have to earn it, whereas under Capitalism you may or may not have.)

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, if you really are nessesary to your company, and you really know better how to run it than your workers, then under communism chances are the workers would keep you in your managing position, only this time you earned it (I'm not saying you did'nt earn it, but under Communism you'll have to earn it, whereas under Capitalism you may or may not have.)

I earn my living as a manager, I'll earn my "pay" as an owner if I choose to sell my company--but for now I earn my keep on a day to day basis.

I make the place run--really. I get sell the product, I energize the workers, I make the place fun, I make the place productive. Believe it or not it is fun to work for me--actual worker testimonials!


Under Communism I may choose to learn to play the piano better.

[Plagueround]

A lot would die. It's not self importance--and that's where you Communists fail, by not understanding the importance of owners/managers--just as lots of Capitalist fail by not understanding the role of the worker.

As RGacky pointed out, we understand perfectly the roles of management. Self-management does not necessarily mean we toss out everyone who isn't "bottom-level" workers and run around trying to figure everything out. I guarantee you, having seen the inner workings of hundreds of businessness (we phone guys see everything...everything), most businesses have secretaries and middle managers that do everything the boss does and could easily pull the bosses job off. In most cases they already do, but the boss is the one who gets the greater reward, and that is what we seek to elminate...those that aren't actually pulling their weight but "living large".
If that is not the case with you, great, you're a model citizen. I wasn't even talking about you, but if you find yourself on the defensive perhaps you should examine what you're defending.


Just as workers ARE NOT interchangeable--neither are owners.

Is that why so many business interchange their CEOs and board members like trading baseball players? I would argue that capitalism has, for the most part, degraded professional and artisan positions in many fields to the point where they are, unfortunately, interchangable (although I also think quality suffers immensly). I know my degree is getting more and more useless as businessess find a way to outsource and minimalize the amount of "skilled workers" they need to hire.


We are not "cogs in the machine"--neither workers or managers.

That's exactly the point. No one should be made to be a cog in the machine, which is why the casting off of owners who do nothing but reap the company's benefits is a must.


That's what we need to get past--both the Communist AND THE Capitalist
paradigms.

Thusfar what I've seen from you is an endorsement of what you believe to be social-democracy (although what you really seem to be endorsing is welfare capitalism, you're not actually supporting actual social-democrats). Correct me if I'm wrong, but many OIers seem to have this facade of "no ideology, I'm just for what works for everyone", even though they have rather typical and peggable politics that can be easily described. It's as if saying "no ideology" is a way of attempting to distinguish one's self as a free-thinking individual against the conformist commie horde.

I notice as time goes on on this site, perhaps naturally, perhaps as a result of some of our more hostile posts, or perhaps as I rise in "prestige" here and become less distinguishable, you seem to forget what I advocate and what I'm all about. To simply lump me in under the "big C" Communist banner diminishes what I'm actually for. I'm every bit the free thinking individual any one of the OIers claim to be, if not more so (but I won't go that far as it would be a bit arrogant).

[redguard2009]

Why should I calm down? I'm not irate. I'm just really tired of the lenient attitudes towards obvious OI trolls who post sarcastic anti-communist questions for no purpose of discussion whatsoever. OI shouldn't be a Chit-Chat for Restricted members.

[redguard2009]

Also, that turdwhatever looks absolutely vile. Especially the one that looks like vomit wrapped in bacon.

[Bud Struggle]

As RGacky pointed out, we understand perfectly the roles of management. Self-management does not necessarily mean we toss out everyone who isn't "bottom-level" workers and run around trying to figure everything out. I guarantee you, having seen the inner workings of hundreds of businessness (we phone guys see everything...everything), most businesses have secretaries and middle managers that do everything the boss does and could easily pull the bosses job off. In most cases they already do, but the boss is the one who gets the greater reward, and that is what we seek to elminate...those that aren't actually pulling their weight but "living large". I respectfully disagree. Really and truly--in the capitalist world people are paid for what they are worth (to Capitalism.)



If that is not the case with you, great, you're a model citizen. I wasn't even talking about you, but if you find yourself on the defensive perhaps you should examine what you're defending. I TRY to be a model citizen. Really.




Is that why so many business interchange their CEOs and board members like trading baseball players? I would argue that capitalism has, for the most part, degraded professional and artisan positions in many fields to the point where they are, unfortunately, interchangable (although I also think quality suffers immensly). I know my degree is getting more and more useless as businessess find a way to outsource and minimalize the amount of "skilled workers" they need to hire. Can't speak to you (besides wishing you well) or anyone else--but business CHANGES. good managers keep ahead of the change (zwhy your truly is here--and other places.) Business is flux--at least good business is and all this "Capitalism is the and Capitalism does that" that we read around here is just crap. Capitalism isn't static. That's why it's always keep one stead ahead of Communism. Notice that?




That's exactly the point. No one should be made to be a cog in the machine, which is why the casting off of owners who do nothing but reap the company's benefits is a must. You need to meet more company owners! Workers work in the business--owners make it grow. Stock ownership is another issue--I would "think" over the idea of abolishing it. I'm not certain. I'll think about it.




Thusfar what I've seen from you is an endorsement of what you believe to be social-democracy (although what you really seem to be endorsing is welfare capitalism, you're not actually supporting actual social-democrats). Correct me if I'm wrong, but many OIers seem to have this facade of "no ideology, I'm just for what works for everyone", even though they have rather typical and peggable politics that can be easily described. It's as if saying "no ideology" is a way of attempting to distinguish one's self as a free-thinking individual against the conformist commie horde. Not for me. I agree with Communist that in 2009--no one should EVER starve to death--not with the technology we have now. I agree that everyone should have a decent opportunity to thrive --and CONTRIBUTE in and to society.

I think Capitalism gives the people with creative spirit an outlet, that Communism doesn't. I believe in the dignity of the working man, I believe they are like me created in the image and likeness of God and have a paticular worth in His eyes. I definitely have a belief and and ideology. Similar, but not the same as your Communists.




I notice as time goes on on this site, perhaps naturally, perhaps as a result of some of our more hostile posts, or perhaps as I rise in "prestige" here and become less distinguishable, you seem to forget what I advocate and what I'm all about. To simply lump me in under the "big C" Communist banner diminishes what I'm actually for. I'm every bit the free thinking individual any one of the OIers claim to be, if not more so (but I won't go that far as it would be a bit arrogant).

Forgive me. Really truly. There's times as a OI I just keep swating at the ball that's pitched to me, and there's a lot of freakin' balls headed my way! And, sometimes not taking notice of the pitcher. I get pitched a lot of balls pitched my way.

You are a friend and I appreciate that.

Let's do lunch! (Kidding!)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

[quote=TomK;1330394 Believe it or not it is fun to work for me--actual worker testimonials! [/quote]

You do relies i have said its fun to work for somone / be taught by them / be in there patrol before, i mean most cases i just wanted something such as money or a reference.

[Killfacer]

Having taken the piss a bit. I have a question which is similar. Surely there will be very little variation in food. I imagine that all the (just an example) Dorito factories will be shut down and not reopened. So we will all eat state made crisps... It's the same with clothes.

[RGacky3]

I earn my living as a manager, I'll earn my "pay" as an owner if I choose to sell my company--but for now I earn my keep on a day to day basis.

You own your company so you set your own pay, meaning you earn your living as the owner.


I make the place run--really. I get sell the product, I energize the workers, I make the place fun, I make the place productive. Believe it or not it is fun to work for me--actual worker testimonials!

So your a cheerleader? That explains why you (and most Capitalists) makes way way more than the workers. You can say all you want, but if your worth is really what you say it is, you have nothing to fear from communism, because your workers will value your worth and act accordingly.


I respectfully disagree. Really and truly--in the capitalist world people are paid for what they are worth (to Capitalism.)

If thats the case, then like I said, Capitalists have nothing to fear from democratizing the workplace/economy, if they are really paid their worth.


That's why it's always keep one stead ahead of Communism. Notice that?


What the hell are you talking about? The few times Communism has existed its been violently crushed by Capitalism, THATS why Capitalism stays ahead.


I believe in the dignity of the working man, I believe they are like me created in the image and likeness of God and have a paticular worth in His eyes. I definitely have a belief and and ideology. Similar, but not the same as your Communists.

There is so much BS in that statement you could fertilize all of Americas farms. That statement is 100% meaningless. Thats like a King saying "I believe in the dignity of the peasents ..... but I'm still the king."

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

:wub:
Having taken the piss a bit. I have a question which is similar. Surely there will be very little variation in food. I imagine that all the (just an example) Dorito factories will be shut down and not reopened. So we will all eat state made crisps... It's the same with clothes.

Unless the factories are needed for essential food (to stop people dieing) , medicine or if alot of weopens are needed i see no reason why dorito factories would cease to exist.

[ckaihatsu]

You need to meet more company owners! Workers work in the business--owners make it grow.


Workers row the oars, business owners steer the ship. Both are work of sorts, but one is much more humane, higher-level, and more creative and empowering than the other. Guess which!



Stock ownership is another issue--I would "think" over the idea of abolishing it. I'm not certain. I'll think about it.


Awright -- well, here it is...! (despite the hedging)

If you can collectivize capital ownership through the use of joint-stocks, then why not just turn it over to the workers who have to actually *show up* every day and provide the fuel, and let *them* steer the ship as well as row for it!



I think Capitalism gives the people with creative spirit an outlet, that Communism doesn't.


This is like saying white people seem to be doing all of the important things in society, therefore white people rock. >>> There just isn't an alternative, so white people are on top, by default (and by inheritance / racism). <<<

If we upgraded the firmware to Society 2.0 we'd *see* what kinds of initiatives people would take, free from having to work for a living. The racist myth is that free time = lazy time, and it's gotta go. People of all kinds can do better than have the bulk of their lives regulated by the punch-clock. Ask anyone who's independently wealthy (like company owners), and see what *their* lifestyle decisions are like, *if* they tell you....

Here's the nuts-and-bolts of the alternative:



Call [shopkeeping] an artistic endeavor and let the proceeds from a global communist economy fund it to whatever extent is needed. The supply of * value * would be entirely top-down -- as opposed to the situation under capitalism, where labor value is leeched *upwards*, unendingly. The proceeds from any artistic endeavor / small-scale "shop" would be made freely available to the public. Bottom-up taxes or fees would be unnecessary because there wouldn't be currency / commodities at all, and automation would mean that industrial workers would be doing minimal work anyway to supply all of the personal, artistic endeavors (including small-scale "shops") with all needed supplies.

[Plagueround]

I respectfully disagree. Really and truly--in the capitalist world people are paid for what they are worth (to Capitalism.)

If this were true, then I find it hard to believe you value everyone as much as you say you do, unless you're telling me that some people aren't worth a living wage, despite working themselves to the bone 50 or more hours a week. I'm sure capitalism could attempt to rectify that and perhaps that's what you mean, but it certainly isn't that way know.


I TRY to be a model citizen. Really.Well yes, and everything is not black and white. As easy as it would be for all of us, businessmen (or commies, depending on where you stand) are not sniveling evil caricatures with a handle bar mustache to twirl as they snicker and plot our doom.




Can't speak to you (besides wishing you well) or anyone else--but business CHANGES. good managers keep ahead of the change (zwhy your truly is here--and other places.) Business is flux--at least good business is and all this "Capitalism is the and Capitalism does that" that we read around here is just crap. Capitalism isn't static.While business changes, the core of capitalism does not and cannot. If it does, then it is not capitalism. Recall that what we have here is not 100% pure capitalism (in sociology and economics they call it a mixed economy). Regardless of what we implement to either complement, hinder, or redirect capitalism, it still has fundamental attributes that can be observed. Whether or not these fundamental attributes are positive or negative is more what the debate is about.


That's why it's always keep one stead ahead of Communism. Notice that?I don't necessarily think it is. Perhaps in the US, but not elsewhere. It's certainly losing ground, but i don't think we will see the debate settled in either of our lifetimes. It is with this in mind of course that I promote what I hope to see and pass it on to others. Just today I had several people read something I had written and ask me where they can find more...it will be interesting to see what type of world they go on to create for their children...well, except for the ones that don't want children.


You need to meet more company owners! Workers work in the business--owners make it grow.I met and spoke with almost every small to medium business owner in the area I live in. Most of them are extremely nice people who feel they are doing a great service to the people they employ, but they also fail to see how much those people really do for them. Having worked on their phones computers, and homes, at the very least I can tell you they could certainly afford to expand that comfortable and luxurious lifestyle to many, many more people.


Stock ownership is another issue--I would "think" over the idea of abolishing it. I'm not certain. I'll think about it. I don't like the idea of treating employees and commodities as the same thing to be traded and sold. Stocks do this quite well. Stocks aren't so good? Dump some workers. Stocks are up? Expand. It's a terrible position to put people who have no say in. If stocks were owned by the employees themselves perhaps...I've always had sympathies with mutualism as being preferable to what we have now....but I wouldn't stop there.



Not for me. I agree with Communist that in 2009--no one should EVER starve to death--not with the technology we have now.Absolutely. I think most, short of racists and Randroids, agree wit h this. The question is which mode of production can accomplish it?


I agree that everyone should have a decent opportunity to thrive --and CONTRIBUTE in and to society.Absolutely. We aren't wanting to throw off one group of exploiters to give rise to another.


I think Capitalism gives the people with creative spirit an outlet, that Communism doesn't.I disagree entirely. The number of people I know who are amazingly creative but have to put it on the backburner to find a means of surviving is astonishing. Sure, you get lucky artists and musicians and such that make it big, but for all of those you also have millions who are too busy working to find much time. Even so, these people are so passionate about their art that they will display it for free, especially with the rise of the internet. Capitalism did not create these outlets, if anything it has hindered them.


I believe in the dignity of the working man,

Absolutely. Which is why the working person, who is the majority in society, should be given more diginity and control over the forces that affect their lives.


I believe they are like me created in the image and likeness of God and have a paticular worth in His eyes.I stopped going to church after I couldn't reconcile the nice bearded man with all the atrocities he commited. Another story for another time though.


I definitely have a belief and and ideology. Similar, but not the same as your Communists.Well, we'll keep working on you. If I recall you were a Regan Republican when you got here. :lol:


Forgive me. Really truly. There's times as a OI I just keep swating at the ball that's pitched to me, and there's a lot of freakin' balls headed my way! And, sometimes not taking notice of the pitcher. I get pitched a lot of balls pitched my way.It is all good, I haven't been the nicest person lately.


You are a friend and I appreciate that.

Let's do lunch! (Kidding!)If I'm ever in Florida I'll look you up. For lunch, not to murder the evil bourgeois oppressor. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Workers row the oars, business owners steer the ship. Both are work of sorts, but one is much more humane, higher-level, and more creative and empowering than the other. Guess which!Both are important. Just some are more scarce than the other.






Awright -- well, here it is...! (despite the hedging)

If you can collectivize capital ownership through the use of joint-stocks, then why not just turn it over to the workers who have to actually *show up* every day and provide the fuel, and let *them* steer the ship as well as row for it! 'Cause they can't! That's not their job--jobs aren't universal. Electricians aren't fork lift operators and they aren't janitors.

Turning over Eletrical Engeering to surf board builders doen't alway work--neither does turning over managment to label puter onners.



This is like saying white people seem to be doing all of the important things in society, therefore white people rock. >>> There just isn't an alternative, so white people are on top, by default (and by inheritance / racism). <<< Ouch bad anaolgy!!!! People are born all the same--people are TRAINED in different specialities.


If we upgraded the firmware to Society 2.0 we'd *see* what kinds of initiatives people would take, free from having to work for a living. The racist myth is that free time = lazy time, and it's gotta go. People of all kinds can do better than have the bulk of their lives regulated by the punch-clock. Ask anyone who's independently wealthy (like company owners), and see what *their* lifestyle decisions are like, *if* they tell you....

Here's the nuts-and-bolts of the alternative:

So far only Communism 1.0 has been released by the manufacturer (the Marx Corporation)--lot's of glitches. So far Communism 2.0 is only a figment of the manufacturers imagination. :)

[RGacky3]

So far Communism 2.0 is only a figment of the manufacturers imagination. :)

Nope Anarchism, and anarcho/syndicalism


Turning over Eletrical Engeering to surf board builders doen't alway work--neither does turning over managment to label puter onners.


As was explained before, ownership is different than management, you can be an owner without being a manager, and a manager without being an owner, infact for many if not most companies thats how it goes.

But like I said before, if you really are worth what your paying yourself, and if your really indispensable as a manager, then you have nothing to fear from a democratic workplace and economy (aka communism).

[FreeFocus]

Food will hopefully be more organic and much more localized. Surely, it will be much healthier than it is now, and will be equitably distributed.

[ckaihatsu]

'Cause they can't! That's not their job--jobs aren't universal. Electricians aren't fork lift operators and they aren't janitors.

Turning over Eletrical Engeering to surf board builders doen't alway work--neither does turning over managment to label puter onners.


Okay, let's call this Exhibit A, and this...



Ouch bad anaolgy!!!! People are born all the same--people are TRAINED in different specialities.


...is Exhibit B. Do you notice the contradiction between the two? You're implying in the first almost that jobs are fixed, and that workers *must* remain in specified work roles.

Then in the next case you're saying that people can be *trained* in different specialties -- so then why not *management* roles, just like any other kind of work role?

To say that people are inflexible and incapable of taking on new roles -- even management ones -- is just being inflexible yourself, and biased / bigoted.

[Bud Struggle]

But like I said before, if you really are worth what your paying yourself, and if your really indispensable as a manager, then you have nothing to fear from a democratic workplace and economy (aka communism).

I agree there. I'm not in the least afraid of Communism. In some ways I think it might be an interesting adventure. I've often said that I don't thing the Revolution would work, just from the practiclaities of the matter--I don't ever believe I said it wasn't a good idea.

[Bud Struggle]

To say that people are inflexible and incapable of taking on new roles -- even management ones -- is just being inflexible yourself, and biased / bigoted.

Training is a long and difficult process for many--many never get trained at all. I'm not saying it can't happen--it often isn't worth the bother.

[Robert]

it often isn't worth the bother.

And as often, it's even worse, according to Laurence Peter and Ray Hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Do you subscribe to the Peter Principle, Tom? They make a reasonable point, though I think they overstate it to give their book length and coherence.

[Bud Struggle]

And as often, it's even worse, according to Laurence Peter and Ray Hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Do you subscribe to the Peter Principle, Tom? They make a reasonable point, though I think they overstate it to give their book length and coherence.

I live the life. Just tell a fork lift operator that he has to run a label machine. It's like cutting off a cowboy's balls and making him a chicken farmer.

They don't go gently into that goodnight. They rage, RAGE against the dying of the light.

[Robert]

Tom, if you haven't already done so and feel comfortable doing it, I'd be curious to know how many of your or anyone else's employees would accept a management position if it were offered. Could you ask one of them without making them suspicious or invading their privacy?

My bet is they wouldn't want the headache, regardless of the pay increase.

[Bud Struggle]

If this were true, then I find it hard to believe you value everyone as much as you say you do, unless you're telling me that some people aren't worth a living wage, despite working themselves to the bone 50 or more hours a week. I'm sure capitalism could attempt to rectify that and perhaps that's what you mean, but it certainly isn't that way know. Here you really miss the point. I'm a Capitalist, BUT I love my workers--they are my friends they make me succeed. Thay work hard and make me money, and I work hard and make them money. Good Capitalism is a WIN/WIN situation. Really. Do you really thing that people that have been beat to crap produce anything worthwhile? I don't think so. Happy people--SINGING people (the reason I'm interested in unions singing) produce loads more than unhappy people. and what makes people happy?

When I first came to RevLeft that was the question I said I wanted to have answered.



Well yes, and everything is not black and white. As easy as it would be for all of us, businessmen (or commies, depending on where you stand) are not sniveling evil caricatures with a handle bar mustache to twirl as they snicker and plot our doom. Fine. I really don't look on workers as the "enemy". I don't think my workers look on me as the "enemy". Yet you Communists seem to persist in your antiquated idea of "class warfare."

Yesterday's news.




While business changes, the core of capitalism does not and cannot. If it does, then it is not capitalism. Recall that what we have here is not 100% pure capitalism (in sociology and economics they call it a mixed economy). Regardless of what we implement to either complement, hinder, or redirect capitalism, it still has fundamental attributes that can be observed. Whether or not these fundamental attributes are positive or negative is more what the debate is about. Than it's not Capitalism. I certainly don't care what you call it. Call it anything you want. But there are two kinds of people in this world--doers, and then people that follow and label what "doers" do.


I don't necessarily think it is. Perhaps in the US, but not elsewhere. It's certainly losing ground, but i don't think we will see the debate settled in either of our lifetimes. It is with this in mind of course that I promote what I hope to see and pass it on to others. Just today I had several people read something I had written and ask me where they can find more...it will be interesting to see what type of world they go on to create for their children...well, except for the ones that don't want children. Communism is loosing ground the same way that Capitalism is loosing ground--both are "yesterday's" way of looking at the world. New and exciting and hopfully more equal and fair ways of looking at the world are comming to the fore. Why bother with Trotsky and adam Smith?


I met and spoke with almost every small to medium business owner in the area I live in. Most of them are extremely nice people who feel they are doing a great service to the people they employ, but they also fail to see how much those people really do for them. Having worked on their phones computers, and homes, at the very least I can tell you they could certainly afford to expand that comfortable and luxurious lifestyle to many, many more people. Yea, they fail to see how people help them--personally, one of the reasons I'm at RevLeft is to see better how I can improve people's lives. But it's a two way street, right? There's something in building a business that a worker will never understand. And here I fail the Communist test--it's MINE, it's my BABY.

You are not going to understand, I know. And maybe that's the problem.


I don't like the idea of treating employees and commodities as the same thing to be traded and sold. Stocks do this quite well. Stocks aren't so good? Dump some workers. Stocks are up? Expand. It's a terrible position to put people who have no say in. If stocks were owned by the employees themselves perhaps...I've always had sympathies with mutualism as being preferable to what we have now....but I wouldn't stop there. No disagreement there. I'm no friend of the stock and bond system. But there's a problem--you can't get "capital" without it. I have always avoided selling shares in my businesses--I like what's mine to be MINE. But I can see why people go public. It's a problem.



I disagree entirely. The number of people I know who are amazingly creative but have to put it on the backburner to find a means of surviving is astonishing. Sure, you get lucky artists and musicians and such that make it big, but for all of those you also have millions who are too busy working to find much time. Even so, these people are so passionate about their art that they will display it for free, especially with the rise of the internet. Capitalism did not create these outlets, if anything it has hindered them. Not at all. Play your guitar--put it up on youtube see how well you do. Display it for free--if it's good mabe you can charge some later on. Do we need billionare rockstars? Not really. They aren't essential to capitalism. More diverse music is just fine. A bunch of artists making $1000 than ten artists making a million dollars--that's good Capitalism to me.


I stopped going to church after I couldn't reconcile the nice bearded man with all the atrocities he commited. Another story for another time though. I tey to seperat the bearded man from those that try to use him as their pawn and tool, but to each his own. But, I have to add--people have done the same with other bearded men in the past, too.


Well, we'll keep working on you. If I recall you were a Regan Republican when you got here. :lol: I've learned a lot here--I argue, but how else can one properly learn? Socraties said as much.


It is all good, I haven't been the nicest person lately. You are and have always been a gentleman.


If I'm ever in Florida I'll look you up. For lunch, not to murder the evil bourgeois oppressor. ;)It would be an honor for me.

[ckaihatsu]

Training is a long and difficult process for many--many never get trained at all. I'm not saying it can't happen--it often isn't worth the bother.


See? Now you're back to the de-facto voice, dictating the terms of capitalist management just like a monarch. Obviously, since you're partisan to capitalism, you're *not* helping the situation of unemployment and underemployment *at all* with an attitude like that.

If it's not in the interests of capitalists like yourself to bother to train people and incorporate them into the upper layers of work and management, then that's a solid indictment of the entire, caste-like system.

Instead of leaving these decisions to the likes of you it would be *far* more preferable to have it in the hands of workers themselves who can have *collective* co-management / administration of something that's *theirs*, *together*, with full and transparent access to the rewards as well.

[Bud Struggle]

See? Now you're back to the de-facto voice, dictating the terms of capitalist management just like a monarch. Obviously, since you're partisan to capitalism, you're *not* helping the situation of unemployment and underemployment *at all* with an attitude like that. I'm telling what works. There's very little that Capitalists do that isn't because it works best. aining a person in a particular job and having him do it is the best and most effecient way to operate, constant retraining is a waist of manpower and time.


If it's not in the interests of capitalists like yourself to bother to train people and incorporate them into the upper layers of work and management, then that's a solid indictment of the entire, caste-like system. Don't be silly--Capitalists LIKE trained people. there's nothing better than a plumber who ACTUALLY knows what he's doing. He's certainly the guy I want to fix my leak--not some la-ti-da guy that wants to try out plumbing for a day.


Instead of leaving these decisions to the likes of you it would be *far* more preferable to have it in the hands of workers themselves who can have *collective* co-management / administration of something that's *theirs*, *together*, with full and transparent access to the rewards as well.

If that kind of management is so good--why isn't it working anywhere? I'm sure there are workers co-operatives, but in 25 years in business I've never seen one.

[Killfacer]

My manager does deserve to be paid more than me, but not as much more as he is payed. Sure he has a high stress job which is more difficult than mine, but the wage gap is epic.

I assume it's the same with you tom. More money yes, THAT much more money no way.

[Robert]

Killfacer, not to butt in, do you believe managers are needed, and how much more does your manager deserve? Do you foresee one of these worker councils I read about here deciding questions like that? If you were on this council, how would you structure the pay?

My own suggestion is that he can receive unlimited compensation if the company really thinks it's in its best interest from an economic and public relations and labor relations standpoint. Which it isn't.

Anyway, if we tax the hell out of any income society deems excessive, then the society ends up with the lion's share of the excess salary and can redistribute it in the form of public works, health care, job training, and so on. Tax the excess at 90% if you want. We actually had that in the states back in the 50's.

What's wrong with that from your point of view?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm telling what works. There's very little that Capitalists do that isn't because it works best. aining a person in a particular job and having him do it is the best and most effecient way to operate, constant retraining is a waist of manpower and time.



If that kind of management is so good--why isn't it working anywhere? I'm sure there are workers co-operatives, but in 25 years in business I've never seen one.


Okay, uh, sorry, Your Highness, it must be because we're just not really putting our all into it, otherwise it would be everywhere, right?

And poor people in the urban slums of the world * really should * be listening to more self-motivational audio tapes so that they can invent new bootstraps and pull themselves up with them, pronto! - Whatever -

Look, Tom, you have the status quo on your side -- when you own the racetrack *every* pony finishes first for you, okay, so it's a little *too* easy for you to just say, "Well, this is how it works because this is what exists."

The reason us commies and assorted revolutionary leftists advocate for a worldwide revolution is so that we *won't* have to put up with this kind of drivel from the likes of you. Nothing less than a complete overhaul will do so that the whole scenery changes to one that *supports* the kind of workers co-management I mentioned.

[RGacky3]

There's very little that Capitalists do that isn't because it works best.

Best for what?


If that kind of management is so good--why isn't it working anywhere? I'm sure there are workers co-operatives, but in 25 years in business I've never seen one.

You should already know the answer to that question, considering how long you've been here.


I agree there. I'm not in the least afraid of Communism. In some ways I think it might be an interesting adventure. I've often said that I don't thing the Revolution would work, just from the practiclaities of the matter--I don't ever believe I said it wasn't a good idea.

Its not about good idea or not, its fair, its just. Thats what matters, some might say democracy is'nt a good idea, and dictatorship is better, but thats not the point.


I'm a Capitalist, BUT I love my workers--they are my friends they make me succeed. Thay work hard and make me money, and I work hard and make them money. Good Capitalism is a WIN/WIN situation. Really. Do you really thing that people that have been beat to crap produce anything worthwhile? I don't think so. Happy people--SINGING people (the reason I'm interested in unions singing) produce loads more than unhappy people. and what makes people happy?

"I"m a Capitalist but I love my workers."
Heres the think TomK, none of that matters, at all. You have (unjust) authority over them, they do not, you ultimately have the right to make all the desicions, they do not, you make a profit from their work, they make a fraction of what they produce.

So whether or not your their "friends" or they smile doe'snt matter at all. Peasents can be happy too and have friendly, that does'nt justify the power structure.


Fine. I really don't look on workers as the "enemy". I don't think my workers look on me as the "enemy". Yet you Communists seem to persist in your antiquated idea of "class warfare."

Wait till they want something your not willing to provide and they think its absoltely justified.

Class warfare will only be outdated once the power structures change, which they hav'nt. You don't see them as the enemy, because you have the power, they may not see you as the enemy, because you may be a good boss, that does'nt change the fact that your authority is unjustified.


Communism is loosing ground the same way that Capitalism is loosing ground--both are "yesterday's" way of looking at the world. New and exciting and hopfully more equal and fair ways of looking at the world are comming to the fore. Why bother with Trotsky and adam Smith?


You talk more meaningless floaty crap than a stoned hippy..

Capitalism, IS NOT GETTING MORE FRIENDLY, the power structures will not become more equal, unless they are actually equal.


I've learned a lot here--I argue, but how else can one properly learn? Socraties said as much.


considering we have to repeat things over and over again, no you hav'nt.

[Bud Struggle]

You should already know the answer to that question, considering how long you've been here. I know the official "Commie line" I just would liek a common sense line.


"I"m a Capitalist but I love my workers."
Heres the think TomK, none of that matters, at all. You have (unjust) authority over them, they do not, you ultimately have the right to make all the desicions, they do not, you make a profit from their work, they make a fraction of what they produce. NO a FREAKIN' LAGE CHUNK. Raw materials cost much less..Rent, power and all of that much less than that. Labor is the #1 cost of any business.


So whether or not your their "friends" or they smile doe'snt matter at all. Peasents can be happy too and have friendly, that does'nt justify the power structure. Quality of life is the most important thing. I pay more to have a better quality of life for myself. People that feel they get paid fairly--are happy people.


Wait till they want something your not willing to provide and they think its absoltely justified. We'll discuss it like GROWN UPS! We won't throw tantrums and have strikes. We won't throw tantrums and have lockouts. I'll show them what we have, I'll discuss what I think is fair, they will do the same and we'll move on.


Class warfare will only be outdated once the power structures change, which they hav'nt. You don't see them as the enemy, because you have the power, they may not see you as the enemy, because you may be a good boss, that does'nt change the fact that your authority is unjustified. Of course, things could always be better--things can always improve. I have authority because all my workers see that where they are working is my idea. I invented their business from my head to my garage to the place they are now working.


You talk more meaningless floaty crap than a stoned hippy.. This is RevLeft remember where you are--you know: "no one really HAS to WORK." "DRUGS--Dude, pary on!"


Capitalism, IS NOT GETTING MORE FRIENDLY, the power structures will not become more equal, unless they are actually equal. Here's your problem--there's a VAST difference between "equal" and "fair."


considering we have to repeat things over and over again, no you hav'nt. I agree where Communists are right and I disagree where Communists are wrong.

Remind you of anyone. ;) :)

[Edit] And one more thing--forget RevLeft and all this stuff--you take your Commnist point of view and my point of view and blithly ask normal people on the street who makes more sense. Me with cooperation or you with your Class Warfare--and I'll win hands down every time. Really, truly.

[Bud Struggle]

Okay, uh, sorry, Your Highness, it must be because we're just not really putting our all into it, otherwise it would be everywhere, right?

And poor people in the urban slums of the world * really should * be listening to more self-motivational audio tapes so that they can invent new bootstraps and pull themselves up with them, pronto! - Whatever -

Look, Tom, you have the status quo on your side -- when you own the racetrack *every* pony finishes first for you, okay, so it's a little *too* easy for you to just say, "Well, this is how it works because this is what exists."

The reason us commies and assorted revolutionary leftists advocate for a worldwide revolution is so that we *won't* have to put up with this kind of drivel from the likes of you. Nothing less than a complete overhaul will do so that the whole scenery changes to one that *supports* the kind of workers co-management I mentioned.

You aren't discussing anymore--you are preaching.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

[Edit] And one more thing--forget RevLeft and all this stuff--you take your Commnist point of view and my point of view and blithly ask normal people on the street who makes more sense. Me with cooperation or you with your Class Warfare--and I'll win hands down every time. Really, truly.

Yeah but if you got into a tardis (go watch dr who) and went back to 19th century London and mentioned democracy people would associate you with being a major terrorist bellend. (as a result of a certain revolution which ended in dictatorship the first time and managed to achieve its aims the second)

Shit changes.

[RGacky3]

I know the official "Commie line" I just would liek a common sense line.

It is the common sense line, and there is no "official commie line," its logic.



NO a FREAKIN' LAGE CHUNK. Raw materials cost much less..Rent, power and all of that much less than that. Labor is the #1 cost of any business.


So? That does'nt address my point at all!


Quality of life is the most important thing. I pay more to have a better quality of life for myself. People that feel they get paid fairly--are happy people.

That does'nt justify anything, even if the slave owner treats his slaves very well and gives them nice things, that does'nt justify the slave-master relationship.


We'll discuss it like GROWN UPS! We won't throw tantrums and have strikes. We won't throw tantrums and have lockouts. I'll show them what we have, I'll discuss what I think is fair, they will do the same and we'll move on.

Heres the thing Tomk, if you don't like it, you'll fire them, they can't fire you, they can strike. Striking is not throwing a tantrum, its an act of rebellion against an illigitimate power, its workers taking control of their own enviroment.

When you say "discuss it like grown ups" What you and most other Capitalists mean, is the workers can suggest it, or ask me, and I'll decide, thats what you mean. That is not fair.


I have authority because all my workers see that where they are working is my idea. I invented their business from my head to my garage to the place they are now working.


First of all, under capitalism, your ownership of a business has nothing to do with if its your idea, or even if you built it, it has nothing to do with that, it may be in your case, but thats not a prerequisit.

You have the authority not because your workers "see that its fair" you have the authority because they don't have a choice (as too you has the authority), whether they feel its fair or not does'nt change a thing, you'll still be the owner, oh and also property laws.


Here's your problem--there's a VAST difference between "equal" and "fair."

When I say equal, I mean equal in authority and say, and that is fair, I don't mean everyone has the same things and responsibilities. Equal in say and authority is the definition of democracy.


agree where Communists are right and I disagree where Communists are wrong.

Remind you of anyone.

I don't know, someone who is self-important and close minded and approaches discussions with their mind already made up dispite what people tell them.


And one more thing--forget RevLeft and all this stuff--you take your Commnist point of view and my point of view and blithly ask normal people on the street who makes more sense. Me with cooperation or you with your Class Warfare--and I'll win hands down every time. Really, truly.

I disagree, you take out words with communist connotations and explain communism in regualr words and you'll be suprised at what people say. I.e. Do you think people should get the full value of their work? Do you think we should be albe to vote for our bosses?

You'd be suprised TomK, although you should'nt be because its common sense that people want to have control over their enviroments.

[Bud Struggle]

agree where Communists are right and I disagree where Communists are wrong.

Remind you of anyone. I don't know, someone who is self-important and close minded and approaches discussions with their mind already made up dispite what people tell them

It's you dude.

[RGacky3]

It's you dude.

Hahah, touche.

[Bud Struggle]

Hahah, touche.

Whilest we oft times disagee--I muchly appreciate your posts. :)

Tom

[Plagueround]

I disagree, you take out words with communist connotations and explain communism in regualr words and you'll be suprised at what people say. I.e. Do you think people should get the full value of their work? Do you think we should be albe to vote for our bosses?

You'd be suprised TomK, although you should'nt be because its common sense that people want to have control over their enviroments.

This is truth right here. You talk these concepts with people without using "commie buzzwords" and they're usually amazed and excited about it. Since becoming an anarcho-commie many of the people around me have been slowly tuning in, while others have full on "joined the cause". People are afraid of communism because of the scary stories they've been told all their lives about the Bolshevik Boogieman, not because the ideas are inherently alien and terrible.

[ckaihatsu]

You aren't discussing anymore--you are preaching.


I am not discussing anymore -- I am advocating.

[Bud Struggle]

I am not discussing anymore -- I am advocating.

A good way of putting it, for sure. :)

[Bud Struggle]

This is truth right here. You talk these concepts with people without using "commie buzzwords" and they're usually amazed and excited about it. Since becoming an anarcho-commie many of the people around me have been slowly tuning in, while others have full on "joined the cause". People are afraid of communism because of the scary stories they've been told all their lives about the Bolshevik Boogieman, not because the ideas are inherently alien and terrible.

I agree woth both of you--the "Commie wording" doesn't help much at all--but I think the idea of Free Enterprise still resonates in most people's hearts.

Thought granted mega-corporations aren't anything I find specificly desirable, I do like the idea of being free to succeed of to FAIL on my own merits. Maybe I'm just anti-social. :lol:

[RGacky3]

but I think the idea of Free Enterprise still resonates in most people's hearts.

Right now free enterprise is only for about 5% of the population, anarchists want to give free enterprise to everyone, meaning actual freedom. (Not the freedom to live of other peoples work).


I do like the idea of being free to succeed of to FAIL on my own merits. Maybe I'm just anti-social.

That has nothing to do with SOcialism or Capitalism, Socialism or Capitalism are 2 different social structures, that have to do with control and ownership.