Thread: Is all Private Property bad ?

Results 41 to 53 of 53

  1. #41
    Join Date Nov 2012
    Location U.S.A.
    Posts 67
    Rep Power 6

    Default

    I don't get what's so impractical about car-sharing. I live on a crowded street, if everyone here had a car, we couldn't all park them here anyway (and what about people who live in tower-blocks? Do you want to provide each of them with 1,000-space car parks?). I can't park outside my house, visitors can't park outside my house, because there are too many other cars parked there. If we shared cars, there would be fewer cars on my street and I might be able to park outside my house. Frankly even halving the numbers of cars would be a start, but I'd think that cutting maybe 70% of cars (at least in urban areas) would be a reasonable target. I understand that in rural areas that's not going to be possible but even so, car-sharing could take maybe 25% of vehicles off the road.
    I still think mass-transit (buses, cable cars, rails, etc.) are the real solution. If everyone used mass-transit most routes would run every couple of minutes most of the day so you would never need a schedule. You would need no parking garages, visitors would not have to find a place to park, etc. The streets would need no parking spaces. And since mass transit vehicles would be the majority of vehicles on the street, road repair would be much less frequent. And without personal cars in urban areas we could say "F*ck-You" to the Middle Eastern oil and the USA would produce enough for other needed uses such as heating homes and workplaces.

    I can understand the need for personal vehicles or shared vehicles in rural areas but I firmly believe that personal automobiles should be banned in urban areas. We would be healthier and live longer breathing less polluted air and walking to the nearest bus stop, etc.
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Green Girl For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Posts 229
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    Well, if we're now getting to the finer points of the transportation aspect of urban planning in a hypothetical future communist society, I'll up the ante and even more radically suggest, that instead of creating megacities with behemoth transportation systems (be they public or private) it is much more advisable to aim for compact cities where most of the important stuff is within walking distance. Think Arcology. I think in a postrevolutionary society the entire purpose of and the dynamics of activity within the entity known as a city will have to be reworked completely.
    Suffice it to say that while the cities of today are in essence capital generating machines (mostly but, not only, financial districts at the center + factories if any exist) with living and entertainment space attached to them almost as an afterthought, in order to facilitate the efficent ordering about of labour, "the city" within a post-revolutionary society will instead be a creative space for the local residents to collaboratively express themselves (this ties in nicely with the whole getting rid of alienating labour thingy).
  4. The Following User Says Thank You to aristos For This Useful Post:


  5. #43
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    ... And without personal cars in urban areas we could say "F*ck-You" to the Middle Eastern oil and the USA would produce enough for other needed uses such as heating homes and workplaces...
    I don't give a fuck what the USA produces, and why would you want to say 'fuck you' to our brothers and sisters in Arabia who work in the oil industry? Are you some kind of nationalist/racist?
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Blake's Baby For This Useful Post:


  7. #44
    Join Date Dec 2012
    Posts 122
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So because you want to own your own car, but not your own house, that's where you draw the line?
    Draw the line between what? Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

    I don't get what's so impractical about car-sharing. I live on a crowded street, if everyone here had a car, we couldn't all park them here anyway (and what about people who live in tower-blocks? Do you want to provide each of them with 1,000-space car parks?). I can't park outside my house, visitors can't park outside my house, because there are too many other cars parked there. If we shared cars, there would be fewer cars on my street and I might be able to park outside my house. Frankly even halving the numbers of cars would be a start, but I'd think that cutting maybe 70% of cars (at least in urban areas) would be a reasonable target. I understand that in rural areas that's not going to be possible but even so, car-sharing could take maybe 25% of vehicles off the road.
    It's just about pointless to own a car in any high density place like that. Or a boat. Or an aeroplane. There are "houses" in Tokyo where you can't even own a bike. But if you WANTED to, you could have a housing cooperative that shared a few cars or something. I think I've seen some highrise coops like this. Not sharing cars, but they shared bathrooms and kitchens and stuff. One was an ex nurses barracks that got sold off to private enterprise. It was like 7 stories and it had a communal kitchen and bathroom on every floor. I think people bought their own food but overall it was very communal. Something like that could easily add car sharing to its MO. If they wanted to. But wanting to is the key.
    "Marxism is the only contagious mental illness I've ever known. With the possible exception of psychoanalysis." - Jack Kerouac
  8. #45
    Join Date Nov 2012
    Location U.S.A.
    Posts 67
    Rep Power 6

    Default

    I don't give a fuck what the USA produces,
    That's nice.

    and why would you want to say 'fuck you' to our brothers and sisters in Arabia who work in the oil industry?
    I have not done such a thing, what I said was "And without personal cars in urban areas we could say "F*ck-You" to the Middle Eastern oil and the USA would produce enough for other needed uses such as heating homes and workplaces."

    You must have not meet many Americans but many of us are sick to death of our sons and daughters being killed in the Middle East for decades in wars for oil!! If we didn't drive so many cars perhaps we would not be fighting in war after war after war in the Middle East. On the contrary I believe all life is sacred, I'm for saving all the American and Arab lives I can by eliminating the main REAL cause for Middle Eastern wars, control of the oil fields.

    Eliminating the cause of war is a benefit to Americans as well as Arabs.

    Are you some kind of nationalist/racist?
    I don't understand why you are even asking this question. No I am NOT a racist, I am English, Irish, French, Black Dutch, Jewish and Cherokee Indian.

    Your signature says
    "No War but the Class War.
    If you believe that then you also would want America completely out of the Middle East.
    Last edited by Green Girl; 21st December 2012 at 03:14.
  9. #46
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    It's not all about the USA, you are only 5% of the world's population after all.

    ...
    I have not done such a thing, what I said was "And without personal cars in urban areas we could say "F*ck-You" to the Middle Eastern oil and the USA would produce enough for other needed uses such as heating homes and workplaces."...
    I know what you said, I read it. So rather than 'Middle Eastern oil' refering to the oil industry in the Middle East as I originally assumed, you want to say 'fuck you' to some minerals that happen to come from the Middle East? Do you think they'll notice? If they do, presumably (as there's no reason oil from the Middle East would understand English) you'd have to tell it 'fuck you ' Arabic or Farsi?

    ...You must have not meet many Americans but many of us are sick to death of our sons and daughters being killed in the Middle East for decades in wars for oil!! If we didn't drive so many cars perhaps we would not be fighting in war after war after war in the Middle East. On the contrary I believe all life is sacred, I'm for saving all the American and Arab lives I can by eliminating the main REAL cause for Middle Eastern wars, control of the oil fields...
    Are you seriously claiming that imperialism is the result of Americans not having a better public transport network?

    ...Eliminating the cause of war is a benefit to Americans as well as Arabs...
    The cause of war in the modern world is capitalism, not cars.


    ...
    I don't understand why you are even asking this question. No I am NOT a racist, I am English, Irish, French, Black Dutch, Jewish and Cherokee Indian.

    Your signature says

    If you believe that then you also would want America completely out of the Middle East.
    I don't know what 'America completely out of the Middle East' means. If you can read my signature, you'll see it also says 'Destroy All Nations'. I don't want 'America out of the Middle East', I want the USA to be destroyed. I'm not sure that more buses is the way to do that.
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  10. #47
    Join Date Nov 2012
    Location U.S.A.
    Posts 67
    Rep Power 6

    Default

    You didn't comprehend a single word I wrote. I'm not sure how I could more clearer but I will try my very best.

    It's not all about the USA, you are only 5% of the world's population after all.
    I am well aware of that and that is why I said "That's nice." as it's fine with me if people don't like the products of American workers, especially if they live in another country. Even someone like yourself who does not believe any countries should exist. But I would never use a curse word to describe another countries workers products.

    I know what you said, I read it. So rather than 'Middle Eastern oil' refering to the oil industry in the Middle East as I originally assumed, you want to say 'fuck you' to some minerals that happen to come from the Middle East? Do you think they'll notice? If they do, presumably (as there's no reason oil from the Middle East would understand English) you'd have to tell it 'fuck you ' Arabic or Farsi?

    I don't know what 'America completely out of the Middle East' means.
    Boy talk about misunderstanding, your take on my statements is bizarre indeed. First off I believe that the lives of all Arabs would be better without the grubby hands of the American Oil Companies and the American military bases all over the Middle East not only getting involved with the internal politics of every Arab nation but appropriating most of their national resources (oil) as well. I said "F*ck you" to the American Oil companies and the American Government exploitation of the Middle East, as they wouldn't need to go out of the USA to get MORE oil if USA citizens didn't use so much oil. And it would also the save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and and hundreds of thousands of Arabs both military and civilian citizens lives. If you can't see how absolutely evil America's OIL WARS in the Middle East has been for decades I'm not sure what I can say to help you understand. Maybe someone can help me explain to you why America getting out of all the Middle Eastern nations is better for Americans and better for Arabs.

    Are you seriously claiming that imperialism is the result of Americans not having a better public transport network?
    No, the reason there is not a better public transport network is because too many Americans are too bourgeois with their continued use of personal automobiles as I clearly stated in my post. If more Americans rode public transportation then the service would run more often and to more areas.

    The cause of war in the modern world is capitalism, not cars.
    I agree but these are NOT mutually exclusive. If you are not aware, the big Oil companies are some of Americas most profitable capitalist enterprises. If we as Americans cut down drastically on our use of personal automobiles then the big Oil companies wouldn't need the power and sacrificed lives of the American military to help secure the Middle East oil for them. Eliminate the demand and America can no long f*ck-over the Middle East, especially killing as many innocent Arab citizens as they do military targets.

    If you can read my signature, you'll see it also says 'Destroy All Nations'. I don't want 'America out of the Middle East', I want the USA to be destroyed. I'm not sure that more buses is the way to do that.
    First things, first. It is to the advantage of both American and Arabian lives if America gets the hell out of the Middle East completely.

    I would not want an elimination of countries until government is no longer necessary. Until we have communism with NO MONEY, from everyone according to their abilities to everyone according to their needs and wants. If we get one world government BEFORE that happens we could end up with a cruel Fascist dictatorship that might repress mankind for Millennia.
  11. #48
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    You didn't comprehend a single word I wrote...
    The feeling's mutual, believe me.


    I'm not sure how I could more clearer but I will try my very best...
    Good, me too, and perhaps we can make some headway.



    ...I am well aware of that and that is why I said "That's nice." as it's fine with me if people don't like the products of American workers, especially if they live in another country. Even someone like yourself who does not believe any countries should exist. But I would never use a curse word to describe another countries workers products. ...
    Which means it's pretty unclear at exactly which aspect of 'Middle Eastern oil' you're saying 'fuck you' to. You later explain that you mean 'fuck you' not to Middle Eastern oil (not the workers, not the industry, not the actual mineral stuff) but to American involvement in Middle Eastern oil. In other words, rather than saying 'fuck you' to Middle Eastern oil, you're saying 'fuck you' to American capitalism. 'American capitalism' is not the same as 'Middle Eastern oil' so claiming you want to say 'fuck you' to one of them when in fact you want to say 'fuck you' to the other is, to my mind, confusing at best.


    ...
    Boy talk about misunderstanding, your take on my statements is bizarre indeed. First off I believe that the lives of all Arabs would be better without the grubby hands of the American Oil Companies and the American military bases all over the Middle East not only getting involved with the internal politics of every Arab nation but appropriating most of their national resources (oil) as well...
    Well, I think the lives of all Arabs would be better if the proletariat overthrew capitalism. Fuck American capitalism, and fuck Arab capitalism too.

    ... I said "F*ck you" to the American Oil companies and the American Government exploitation of the Middle East, as they wouldn't need to go out of the USA to get MORE oil if USA citizens didn't use so much oil...
    And if we overthrew capitalism, it wouldn't matter if comrades in the former-USA needed to use oil.

    ... And it would also the save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and and hundreds of thousands of Arabs both military and civilian citizens lives...
    And if there was no America and no military and no wars, that would be even better.

    ... If you can't see how absolutely evil America's OIL WARS in the Middle East has been for decades I'm not sure what I can say to help you understand...
    If you can't see that wars are endemic to capitalism I'm not sure what I can say to help you understand.

    ...
    Maybe someone can help me explain to you why America getting out of all the Middle Eastern nations is better for Americans and better for Arabs.
    ...
    Maybe someone can explain to you why overthrowing capitalism is better for Americans, Arabs and Belgians.

    ...
    No, the reason there is not a better public transport network is because too many Americans are too bourgeois with their continued use of personal automobiles as I clearly stated in my post. If more Americans rode public transportation then the service would run more often and to more areas...
    Hmm, I'm tempted to say 'fuck you' here. 'Oh, the world would be so much better if the workers were just better people, they're too bourgeois because they drive cars, they just don't care about the world like I do'. That's sickening liberal moralistic shite, in my opinion. Fuck blaming the working class for the destruction capitalism causes.

    ...
    I agree but these are NOT mutually exclusive. If you are not aware, the big Oil companies are some of Americas most profitable capitalist enterprises. If we as Americans cut down drastically on our use of personal automobiles then the big Oil companies wouldn't need the power and sacrificed lives of the American military to help secure the Middle East oil for them. Eliminate the demand and America can no long f*ck-over the Middle East, especially killing as many innocent Arab citizens as they do military targets...
    Reforming capitalism and making it slightly nicer is not the game here, if you think it is, I'd suggest going and working for the Democratic Party (or maybe the Greens). Capitalism is the problem, not this or that company. Capitalism needs to be overthrown, not this or that aspect of behaviour changed.


    ...
    First things, first. It is to the advantage of both American and Arabian lives if America gets the hell out of the Middle East completely...
    It's to the advantage of Chinese and French and Argentinian and Congolese and Indonesian and Icelandic and Mexican and Zimbabwean and Mongolian and Romanian and Equadorean and Algerian and Pakistani etc etc lives if capitalism is overthrown. Why concentrate on one particualr aspect, a symptom, instead of the whole problem?

    ...I would not want an elimination of countries until government is no longer necessary. Until we have communism with NO MONEY, from everyone according to their abilities to everyone according to their needs and wants. If we get one world government BEFORE that happens we could end up with a cruel Fascist dictatorship that might repress mankind for Millennia.
    Way to go misundertanding the point. I'm not advocating the destruction of states by setting up a state, how is that the destruction of the state? Under capitalism 'one world government' is impossible, in communism it's unnecessary.
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Blake's Baby For This Useful Post:


  13. #49
    Join Date May 2010
    Location Boston, MA
    Posts 2,564
    Organisation
    The Working Class
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Well, OK, let's look at that for a moment NGNM85 'property is theft'.

    I rather think I'm questioning the legitimacy of the concept of ownership there NGNM85 'property is theft'.
    Proudhon was using the word; 'property', in the sense of; 'capital.' Anarchism is completely opposed to capital, which necessitates exploitation, but not personal possessions, which do not.

    From the AnarchistFAQ;
    http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionB3

    You can't just plop the word 'legitimate' in here and expect to get to get away with it.
    In what sense is the purpose of motor vehicles illegitimate?

    They serve a utilitarian puropse, certainly, under capitalism where people often have to travel great distances due to work, where development of public transport ranges from pretty good to absolutely shit, and where for some reason everything starts and ends at particular times and people need to move around then and mostly only then.
    There's every reason to suspect a great number of individuals would still have to commute, even under Socialism, etc.

    Why do you think this is 'legitimate' NGNM85 'property is theft'?
    It isn't clear what you are referring to. I was referring to the need of individuals to travel significant distances to get places, and do things, a purpose for which motor vehicles are quite well suited.

    Again; Proudhon was referring to capital. You are either misunderstanding this quote, or deliberately misrepresenting it.

    My trousers do not emit noxious gases, require constant maintainace, use a tonne of metal and 1/4 tonne of plastic in their construction, take up space on the street or have the ability to kill people when misused. However, when it comes down to it, I don't really care if I 'own' my trousers or just 'use' them.
    I suspect you'd care if I decided to appropriate them. I would certainly care if you decided to take mine.

    The classical concept of ownership includes 3 elements; usus, abusus, and fructus.

    The first of these is what we would consider 'use' - I have the right to utilise the object in question. As a transportation device maybe. Use as weapon would probably bring me into conflict with other 'rights' so let's just stick to using it as a transportation device. So far so good. I think this is faie enough under capitalism or socialism, 'the right to utilise a car as a transportation device'.
    Granted.

    The second element is the right to 'abuse' the object - to destroy it, or disposses myself of it by transfrering 'ownership' to another. I certainly have this right under capitalism. Do I have this right under socialism? Does the car not then become an object of investment capital, or a potential hazard? Do I have the right to set fire to it by the side of the road, having decided I'm going to 'abuse' it? Do I have the right to promise it to someone, perhaps in exchange for some favour? I'd say, no, I don't.
    You would have the right to give it to someone else, either as a gift, or in exchange. You could abuse the car, by, for example; not changing the oil, by grinding the gears, etc., you could even take a baseball bat to it, although that hardly seems rational. You should not be allowed to set the vehicle on fire, as this represents a public safety hazard.

    The third is the right to the 'fruit' of the object. Products. Well, no-one in capitalism enforces their right to harvest the exhaust gasses of their car, but it exists. Will people do this under socialism? Will this right exist? Will cars be utilised as productive machines, and if they are, is it OK to own them as long as one doesn't employ wage labour? Tricky situation here. It implies I can 'own (enjoy the use, abuse and fruit)' anything as long as I don't get someone else to work it.
    Yes; exactly. Without extracting surplus value, without exploitation, there is no philosophical issue.

    Are you sure this where you want to go, NGNM85 'property is theft'?
    As I've said, there's simply no philosophical, or practical reason for an Anarchist to object to the ownership of motor vehicles, or possessions; in general. Motor vehicles serve a practical purpose, and it's likely to assume that in a Socialist society they would still be widely used.
    [FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13
    [/FONT]


    "Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
    How can you refuse it?,
    Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
    D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
  14. #50
    Join Date Nov 2012
    Location U.S.A.
    Posts 67
    Rep Power 6

    Default

    Good, me too, and perhaps we can make some headway.
    You are getting closer to the meaning of the one sentence you couldn't comprehend: "And without personal cars in urban areas we could say "F*ck-You" to the Middle Eastern oil and the USA would produce enough for other needed uses such as heating homes and workplaces." I didn't think I would have to give you a history of the USA/Arab Oil wars for you to try to understand why I don't believe that Middle Eastern Oil is worth the HIGH cost in American and Arabian lives. I hate killing for no reason and killing for oil is one of the stupidest reasons man has ever came up with, I guess you were unaware of all the USA/Arab Wars and that the CIA put Shah of Iran in power in 1953 and has been involved in the internal affairs of oil rich Middle Eastern countries up to this very day when we are in three Arabian Wars all at once. It makes me sick to my stomach and very ashamed of my government for being of pawn of the capitalist Big American Oil companies. I expected the USA's despicable history in the Middle East was also known by the rest of the world.

    I can't pretend the whole world will be communist tomorrow or even in my lifetime. But I can be pissed at both the Oil companies and the bourgeois who are too high and mighty to use public transportation. In fact I feel those who own cars that are not needed indirectly contribute to the hundreds of thousands of deaths of both American and Arabian citizens. It is HELL. And I am insulted you don't care more about all the people who NEEDLESSLY died for the greedy Oil companies.

    So I am sorry that you didn't understand the reprehensible USA history in the Middle East to comprehend that one simple sentence that explained it all.

    Well, I think the lives of all Arabs would be better if the proletariat overthrew capitalism. Fuck American capitalism, and fuck Arab capitalism too.
    I agree, however first things first. Saving the lives of young Americans and innocent Arabs has to come first, because we can do that now. When is REAL communism coming? I've been waiting my whole life.

    And if we overthrew capitalism, it wouldn't matter if comrades in the former-USA needed to use oil.
    True, however Oil is not a renewable resource, when it is gone, it's gone. So it is not fair to future generations of human beings to squander it now. I see REAL communism making the maximum use of public transportation, and that personal automobiles be seen as the bourgeois artifacts they are.

    And if there was no America and no military and no wars, that would be even better.
    I agree, however we are not there yet as a planet.

    If you can't see that wars are endemic to capitalism I'm not sure what I can say to help you understand.
    I do and there is nothing more capitalist than Big Oil and personal automobiles. That is what you don't understand.

    Maybe someone can explain to you why overthrowing capitalism is better for Americans, Arabs and Belgians.
    I have known this for over 40 years, give me a gun I am ready to fight the evil capitalists in my country, but I can't do it alone!!

    Hmm, I'm tempted to say 'fuck you' here. 'Oh, the world would be so much better if the workers were just better people, they're too bourgeois because they drive cars, they just don't care about the world like I do'. That's sickening liberal moralistic shite, in my opinion. Fuck blaming the working class for the destruction capitalism causes.
    If you did then it would reveal you as a member of the bourgeois class. NO!!!! The proletariat should live by example until the liberating revolution comes ushering in REAL communism. It is pure simple logic to understand the reason there is not a better public transport network is because too many people are too bourgeois with their continued use of personal automobiles as I clearly stated twice before. If more people rode public transportation then the service would run more often and to more areas. What about this do you not understand? It would be the same under capitalism as under communism. The more buses the proletariat fill up the more often they can run.

    I never blame the proletariat working class for anything at anytime! It's the bourgeois capitalists, and those proletariat who pretend to be or wish to be bourgeois by putting on airs with their personal automobiles usually with just a single occupant, spewing pollutants into the air I breath, clogging the streets of the city I live in. Public transportation is proletariat and wasteful personal automobiles are bourgeois and nobody will convince me otherwise.

    Reforming capitalism and making it slightly nicer is not the game here, if you think it is, I'd suggest going and working for the Democratic Party (or maybe the Greens). Capitalism is the problem, not this or that company. Capitalism needs to be overthrown, not this or that aspect of behaviour changed.
    I never said such a thing, but keeping capitalism from destroying innocent proletariat lives before the communist revolution comes is MANDATORY!!! Hiding your head in the sand until that happens is chicken shit in my humble opinion. I agree capitalism needs to be overthrown, help me build an army and we will.

    It's to the advantage of Chinese and French and Argentinian and Congolese and Indonesian and Icelandic and Mexican and Zimbabwean and Mongolian and Romanian and Equadorean and Algerian and Pakistani etc etc lives if capitalism is overthrown. Why concentrate on one particualr aspect, a symptom, instead of the whole problem?
    Agreed but as I clearly said "First things, first." We need to live day to day until capitalism can be abolished.

    Way to go misunderstanding the point. I'm not advocating the destruction of states by setting up a state, how is that the destruction of the state? Under capitalism 'one world government' is impossible, in communism it's unnecessary.
    I know you are not, but you can't vouch for other revolutionaries. As I stated I would not want an elimination of countries until government is no longer necessary. Until we have communism with NO MONEY, from everyone according to their abilities to everyone according to their needs and wants. If we get one world government BEFORE that happens we could end up with a cruel Fascist dictatorship that might repress mankind for Millennia.

    In other words if not done correctly the revolution could be subverted like it was in the USSR and with a terrible one world government instead of the desired end: No government at all.
    Last edited by Green Girl; 22nd December 2012 at 00:39.
  15. #51
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    ... I am insulted you don't care more about all the people who NEEDLESSLY died for the greedy Oil companies...
    I'm insulted that you don't bother to read or think about other people's posts before you spew moralistic drivel about them.

    Really. Take your liberalism elsewhere, I'm not interested.
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  16. #52
    Join Date Nov 2012
    Location U.S.A.
    Posts 67
    Rep Power 6

    Default

    I'm insulted that you don't bother to read or think about other people's posts before you spew moralistic drivel about them.
    I read this whole thread and every single post including your idea of car-sharing, did you?

    One is either proletariat or bourgeois, I am proud to be a member of the proletariat and a friend of the Earth. No one will change my opinions of the evilness of the Oil industry or owning personal automobiles.

    How can YOU justify the needless deaths of Americans and Arabs in the name of OIL PROFITS?

    Really. Take your liberalism elsewhere, I'm not interested.
    I'm not interested in liberalism, in fact I abhor both liberals and conservatives with every fiber of my being! I am a progressive communist and believe in the working class completely.
    Last edited by Green Girl; 23rd December 2012 at 10:46. Reason: corrections
  17. #53
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    No you don't. You describe the working class as 'bourgeois' because it drives cars, and you look down on it for not living up to your hippy ideals - that seems pretty obvious to me anyway.

    You have a ridiculous notion that driving less would mean the US wouldn't throw its military weight around. Do you also believe that the American working class is to blame for death-squads in Central America because of its 'bourgeois' consumption of pinapples and bananas? Do you also believe that the 'bourgeois' use of batteries by American workers is to blame for the collusion of Rio Tinto Zinc with the Pinochet regime?

    Your solutions are ridiculous utopianism. There is no class analysis at all, all you're proposing is changes of behaviour inside capitalism.

    Why on earth do you think I'd want to justify people being killed for oil profits? Do you even read other people's posts, or just splurge half-cocked nonsense if someone disagrees with you? I'm attacking you for being a liberal, for wanting to keep capitalism intact and just putting a happier face on it. How is that in any way justifying capitalism's wars? I want to destroy capitalism. You just want to make it shinier.
    Last edited by Blake's Baby; 29th December 2012 at 15:15.
    Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

    No War but the Class War

    Destroy All Nations

    Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Blake's Baby For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Private Property
    By FinnMacCool in forum Learning
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30th May 2010, 07:35
  2. Private Property
    By insurgent in forum Learning
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12th February 2007, 14:50
  3. Private property.
    By Noah in forum Learning
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30th August 2006, 01:25
  4. What is private property?
    By ahhh_money_is_comfort in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 30th June 2005, 11:20
  5. Private Property
    By DaCuBaN in forum Theory
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 5th July 2004, 08:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread