Communism- no money no work?

If you get a reaaly crap wage at a job then whatdoi you do walk out. So if you get piad in food thatn whoes gonean work. Food then comes a prevelage not a right.

Yet another pointless, not thought of thread, brought to you by Mclaren

Whats the food wage gotta do with communism?
What the fuck you on about?
You rushed so much to get another shitty thread in , that you didnt even speel half your words correctly, and it doesnt make any friggin sense

comrade kamo

Yet another rushed thread
WTF you on about

write slowly instead of spamming so we can read your fucking writing.

comrade kamo

Mclaren what are you on about now?

Someone said that you would work for the state and get paid in food. No money.

Mclaren has revealed the Macroscopic approach you all take to "saving" the world.
You see the nature of contemporary socialist thought is coercive and totalitarian despite what you try to shroud it behind. You are all elitist, so much so that you think you know what is best for people. You disparage those that would seek to accumulate material wealth as fools.
You spend immeasurable board space discussing things like Kamo's dated and plagiarized "capitalist social analysis" and think that is pertinent to General poliitical topics, but feel that a discussion on proper compensation of work is not. What do you think politics is you morons? It is the manner in which the government decides to spend that money(as a synonym for production's results) which has been designated in common, and if you are proposing a system in which all property is held in common you better be able to answer questions like McLaren's.

Guest,

I don't believe we've met. I'm vox. How do you do? Consider registering so we may have something to call you other than guest.

Pleasantries out of the way, I have to take issue with your statement about politics, for you set up government as something separate from people, anthropomorphizing it so that it suddenly has its own brain and can "decide" things by itself. Clearly, this is not the case, so your whole point is rather, erm, pointless, yes?

Yes.

Now, perhaps you can fool a "moron," but you can't fool me. Please try harder. Thank you.

vox

"You are all elitist, so much so that you think you know what is best for people."

by that definition, everyone who has an opinion about anything relating to politics is elitist. by that definition VOTING is elitist because you are deciding what is best for people.

Voting in capitalism is elitist, it's like a popularuty contest btween two people who offer nothing of diference but their personality.
The rulers don't rule the corporations do,that is irrefutable.
As for mclarens diatribe,if you get really crap wage at a job now,why is it the capitalists sell your labour for so much and steal the profits which you created?
Wouldn't you be better off owning the profits of your own labour?

"for you set up government as something separate from people, anthropomorphizing it so that it suddenly has its own brain and can "decide" things by itself."

So assuming you are a socialist, and from reading back to other threads you've contributed to, you were apparently of the opinion that the US government in particular is unresponsive to its citizens, where does this statement leave you.
Are you saying, contrary to what other socialist like MJM who states : "the corporations [rule], that government, western governments are not seperate entities from their constituencies. That western democracies are indeed responsive to its citizens. Hey I agree, Western democracies are not independant agents, they are beholden to the well-being and interests of their citizens.
I'm glad socialists like you agree, now if you would realize that such a political reality renders the traditional marxist analysis of what I've seen described as the "capitalist state machine," in other threads as useless.
In any case vox, you're right, that was an astute criticism of socialist thought.

PCE, actually voting in western capitalist democracies is the polar opposite of the process you've described. You've once again betrayed the totalitarian elitist nature of socialism. You assume that voting is based on a search for a common good, in which others know, or suspect they know what is good for others.
On the contrary voting is the individual's search for the individual's good. The aggragate effect is the benefit not for the common good, but for the aggragate good.
So voting or having a political opinion is hardly elitist, so long as it's not based on an assumption that what you think is good is universally good.

Dear guest,

Sadly, you ignored the whole aspect of joining the forum, or of providing a name. "Guest" is too ethereal for someone who seems to wish to enter into a conversation. Joining is a painless process, I assure you, and, lest thee be worried about spam, this site accepts web-based email addresses.

But now to respond to your post proper:

Your feeble and, I have to say it, disingenuous response to my post isn't quite as clever as you make it out to be, for my post, far from being a criticism of any socialist theory of government, is an indictment, which you prove to be correct in your response, of the ephemeral nature of government that capitalism requires.

See, guest, in the post to which I responded, you said that "decides to spend that money(as a synonym for production's results) which has been designated in common...." To go deeper, not only do you anthrpomorphize government, but you presume that the taxes that the government has collected is "designated in common," but that is antithetical to capitalist economy, and a look at capitalist budgets shows that to be true. By stating that the money is owned in common, you set up a dichotomous relationship in that the money is now "owned" by the government which thinks for itself!

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

So, your response, which sounds clever, is meaningless if we use your own original definition. When you set up an either/or situation, you must conform your argument to it or be silent. It's very sloppy thinking.

Now, we can discuss democracy, responsiveness, all of that if you wish, but not if one of us, and that would be you, holds tightly to the notion that a dichotomy is somehow unified (sympathetic) and not antagonistic (dialectic).

vox

(Edited by vox at 11:40 pm on Dec. 22, 2001)

leftist- i think we should treat everyone fairly, and work towards a better world.

guest- elitist socialist scum!