Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

[Thirsty Crow]

Nowadays it's entirely possible for people to start their own businesses on the side while they're working, without the need for capital or physical resources.

What kind of business, under capitalism, would that be that it requires no capital to invest?

Another thing is that you're delusional to think that it would be possible for people to both work for a boss and operate a business on the side without grinding themselves to dust both mentally and physically. Of course, this does not relate to the fact that the first premise, that of no need for capital, is invalid. And also, there is this unfortunate fact of competition grinding small businesses down, and effectively proletarianizing the new small businessmen (making them, once again, wage workers out of sheer necessity of means of survivial)

The idea that workers are eternally confined to an imposed existence is simply not true. At least here in the US.

Pay attention and do not put forward straw man arguments.

I never claimed that all workers are eternally confined to the existence of wage labour.

And this is ultimately where our views will clash, as you see profiting from labor as immoral, unjust ect.

I don't.

I actually don't think it is immoral and unjust. As a worker myself, I experienced what capital offers in very concrete terms, not those of morality and abstract principles of justice. As have other workers across the globe, and in a far worse way at that. This is what I'm pointing out, that no notion of morality is needed here. Just a willingness to look at your own conditions of life soberly and act upon it. It's just that I think this kind of action necessitates revolutionary outcomes.

[Thelonious]

[QUOTE]

Of course everyone want to be a millionaire! That's a no brainer.

I don't.

[Questionable]

The difference between me and you is that you believe people have a predetermined destiny under capitalism based on the resources they're given at the start.

I don't believe that's correct. If someone wants something, they can get it. If they don't, whether by lack of knowledge, will-power, capital, or plain stupidity, they are ultimately responsible for that.

Obviously if someone is going to start a business they need to research the market beforehand. If a business fails, then it's likely the owner didn't do his or her homework before getting started. For the sake of the argument we were having, I didn't feel the need to go into detail about what it takes to start a business, as I thought you educated folks would have known already.

Do little fish get eaten by the big fish? They sure do, sometimes. But that is not always the case.

And yes, I happen to believe everything happens for a reason. Aren't we all allowed to have our own beliefs? That's one of mine. Is everything in the world as it should be? No, I don't think so. But like I said, I believe everything has a purpose.

Back up your beliefs with evidence or they're worthless. This debate is far from reality. It's just your own interpretation of reality.

I don't have to prove to you that capitalism doesn't require workers because I never said that it didn't.

Again, show me the post where I said that so I can go fix it.

You've consistently claimed that if someone is unhappy being a wage-slave, they can start their own business. When I pointed out that not everyone can start their own business because capitalism relies on workers to produce commodities, you dodged this point by saying not everyone would start their own business so it was irrelevant. But if you admit that some people HAVE to be workers, then your view of capitalism as a free-for-all where all our dreams come true is a farce.

That's how the left sees capitalism.

In reality, it's just a way for people to choose what they want to do, and not be limited by others around them that may not want to work as hard, or have the same aspirations. Really simple actually.

Prove it. I'm tired of speaking in the abstract. Give me exact economic arguments and studies that go beyond your moralizing and strawman-making, and we'll talk.

Yes, I already know you believe CEOs are like prison guards.

That's your opinion. There are millions of people that love their jobs and have great relationships with their bosses. Your definition (although exists in some places) is far from the reality of the real world.

It doesn't matter how people feel about their bosses anymore than they felt about their slaveowner back in the 1800s. The concrete reality of their economic situations does not change.

I totally agree with you. So what's the solution? Preventing everyone from becoming rich so the poor person doesn't feel bad? That to me is even more immoral and unjust.

Nature isn't fair. The slowest animals get eaten. It's not pretty but that's the reality of life. You can try, but you can't try to make things "fair" when they naturally aren't.

The solution is to stop with this silly rhetoric of yours and begin talking about real capitalism, but you don't seem to want to do that, we're just stuck talking about very abstract philosophical situations and you ignore any attempts to put the conversation within real economic terms, which is why I grow tired of speaking with you. Concepts such as starting a business become matters of will, good versus evil, and if I bring up anything about the statistics suggesting how difficult or nearly impossible it is to start a business in this economic climate, you quickly silence me and begin speaking about morality again. It's almost saddening.

Are you asking me to find a positive side to the story?

I can't.

I know there isn't. It's just an instance where your argument that everyone gets exactly what they deserve under capitalism is shit.

You're right. Rich people work smarter. And there's nothing stopping a poor person from learning from the rich person and doing the same.

Wow, you missed that point brilliantly. What Tim Cornelis was trying to point out is that the lower stratums of society do the majority of the work while receiving little, yet millionaires who play with numbers get much more.

Again, you're under the impression that what you're given at the start is what you'll end up with at the end.

That could not be further from the truth, and it's a left-wing talking point made to get the workers revolt. History has proven time and time again how a person that started with nothing went on to have immense power.

John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Steve Jobs, ect. I can list more if you want me to.

All Americans, I see. Although you've flatly admitted that people who suffer from capitalism outside of the USA are just in a "too bad, so sad" situation, so I don't know why I keep bringing this up.

And whatever examples you list will be infinitely smaller than the list of people who did indeed die in their same social class, or lower.

[RedMaterialist]

The idea of a classless, stateless, moneyless society where everyone merely exists to meet each others basic necessities seems a little meaningless to me.

I mean, what would the purpose of it be? Nobody would aspire to do anything great, as everyone would be simply content with existing and meeting needs.

Yeah, it sounds very noble. Nobody would starve, nobody would envy anyone, and everyone will be an equal.

But isn't the beauty of life the fact that we're all uniquely different, and each one of us with our own unique purpose? That would all cease to exist under a communist system, as everyone would be confined to this created belief of "equality," when individuals are actually far from equals.

I don't know, but I can't see how a life without personal goals or achievements has any purpose at all. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Your problem is that you now live in a capitalist society where everyone, supposedly, has the opportunity to be unique and develop their own life to the fullest. They have the right to become insanely rich and to become dirt poor. In fact, you live in a fantasy Coca-cola world of commodities where you are defined by how many commodities you own. If you are an American, your purpose and life goal is to own as many new and extravagantly useless commodities as you can.

History shows that the unequals, the slackers, the poor, etc. sometimes get pissed off and start chopping off the heads of the royals, Marie Antoinette,
Tsar Alexander. In the U.S. the royals are the billionaires. I think you and I can agree that we don't want things to get that bloody here in the U.S.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course everyone want to be a millionaire! That's a no brainer.

I don't

I would - not in the ideal world, but if under capitalism, magically, why the hell not - even if only to give it away. You couldn't do any worse than what it'd otherwise be used for. The problem is that you can't really, not everyone anyway - no matter how hard they tried or how perfect their business plan; the system needs and creates poverty. What I think the Mr. Monk quoted above is implying is the recognition that those millions come from somewhere - poverty and exploitation of others.

It's one of the ironies of the system: the drive for accumulation in the system has created abundance, but the mechanism for that is a class system based on exploitation and ensuring want; ensuring a population compelled or willing to work for wages. All subjective factors, all good intentions or whatnot aside this is a volatile system that creates problems out of it's own inherent functions: the boom/bust cycle and regular economic crisis, economic wars, direct repression by governments (even if you only include repression that is directly related to economic class struggle - strikes etc), environmental destruction, and inequality, are all objective features of capitalist societies and all are rooted in the way the system operates.

I apologize for having made sarky posts, you seem sincere and I'm kinda amazed that you've tried to answer a lot of these posts. But to be totally blunt, your view of the world seems completely dogma-driven. Of course we're all ideological here, but don't let it cloud your view of the world: there are plenty of right-wingers, reformists, liberals, whatever who (are wrong IMO, but) reconcile their perspective with a pretty realistic look at the world. All this small business and "try hard" Horatio Alger stuff is just myths; it's like the capitalist equivalent of a Stalinist who claims that Stalin's good will to the farmers alone increased grain production and the first words of every child born that year were "Uncle Joe". It's recession and austerity worldwide, Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan are metaphorically and not metaphorically dead respectively, nobody has seen or heard from Fred Durst in a very long time now (oh don't jinx this!), and nobody believes in the myth of middle class America anymore.

Do little fish get eaten by the big fish? They sure do, sometimes. But that is not always the case.

Sometimes the little fish can eat and eat and then become big enough fish to take on their adversary, but the big fish always eat the little fish. Unless like in that union bumper-sticker, all the little fish collectively gang-up on the big fish. It works if the little fish are supposed to be workers or I guess it could work as a bunch of smaller capitalist firms in a conspiracy. Fish!

[Comrade #138672]

I don't want a million dollars. I'd prefer to free the people, for their well-being as well as my own.

In a Capitalist society, everybody is always 'busy'. What they mean by that is that they are always busy being a wage-slave. In a Communist society, people would finally be free to do the things they actually like, and nothing could be forced upon them. People might actually socialize with each other for a change. And with socializing, I actually mean authentic socializing.

In a Communist society, I wouldn't need a million dollars to satisfy my needs. No, I would get exactly what I need and nothing more than what is needed. In that way, working-class people would not be suffering while working to satisfy my needs, and needs that I don't even have, but since I have a million dollars must have anyway. In Communism, there is no longer a contradiction between selfishness and altruism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Under capitalism, a disgruntled worker and quit and start his or her own company.

How did Bill Gates start Microsoft? How did Steve Jobs start Apple?

Did they have millions of dollars to invest?

See, here's the thing. The typical worker has the mentality that they're incapable of doing anything on their own, and that their capitalist bosses are responsible for their shortcomings. With that mentality, none of them will ever do anything.

If Gates and Jobs thought like that, they would have never bother to start anything.

Why do so few succeed? Because so few have the correct mentality.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

So they did that to get rich, you think?

[Comrade #138672]

Under capitalism, a disgruntled worker and quit and start his or her own company.

Only a few people could do that.

How did Bill Gates start Microsoft? How did Steve Jobs start Apple?

Did they have millions of dollars to invest?

They got Capitalists to invest into 'their' ideas and work. They didn't really do so much, as you seem to think they did.

See, here's the thing. The typical worker has the mentality that they're incapable of doing anything on their own, and that their capitalist bosses are responsible for their shortcomings. With that mentality, none of them will ever do anything.

Yeah, because the Capitalist bosses get in their way, because they have so much power over them, which is an inevitable consequence of the Capitalist system. That is why they are 'responsible'. We want them to leave, not be dependent on them. Remove those Capitalist parasites.

If Gates and Jobs thought like that, they would have never bother to start anything.

Why do so few succeed? Because so few have the correct mentality.

Wrong. The Capitalist system requires the majority to be poor. You can't blame everything on 'individual mentality', simply because some people had a mentality to become rich, of which only a few people managed to actually get rich. It is the system that needs to be changed.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Yes. There is a way out, indeed. That is why we want to abolish Capitalism. It is the only way. It can, and must, be done.

[Questionable]

I despise people who bring up petty revenge fantasies in a debate, but I think it's a statistical likelihood that sooner or later tooAlive will, like so many Americans, end up on the receiving end of the free market, and then it will be interesting to see how clinging to the belief of a "correct mentality" serves him.

[Ele'ill]

I despise people who bring up petty revenge fantasies in a debate, but I think it's a statistical likelihood that sooner or later tooAlive will, like so many Americans, end up on the receiving end of the free market, and then it will be interesting to see how clinging to the belief of a "correct mentality" serves him.

They will probably blame something else, maybe even blame themself.

[Questionable]

They will probably blame something else, maybe even blame themself.

I would laugh if it weren't so true.

“I’ve had grown men wet this floor with tears, begging for a job. We have to pray with some to keep them from killing themselves. So many say they just want to die,” says Charlie Tarrance, a director of a private social agency. His task is to deal with growing lines of despairing people looking for jobs, housing, and food. The place is Gadsden, Alabama, but it could be anywhere in the United States.

It could be Washington, D.C., at a Safeway supermarket a mile or so from the White House where an elderly man is crying and holding a can of dog food. When asked what’s wrong, he says, “I’m hungry. I’m hungry.”

It could be New York City, where a woman begins screaming at the landlord who evicts her and her several children. The Bureau of Child Welfare takes her children, which distresses her all the more. She herself is transported to a New York mental hospital crying angrily—only to be diagnosed and committed by the all-knowing psychiatrists as a “paranoid schizophrenic.”

There is misery and cruelty in the land. As U.S. leaders move determinedly toward their free-market Final Solution, stories abound of hunger, pain, and desperation. Such things have existed for a long time. Social pathology is as much a part of this society as crime and capitalism. But life is getting ever more difficult for many.

From Michael Parenti's "Dirty Truths," full excerpt available here: http://espressostalinist.wordpress.c...is-a-genocide/

[Ele'ill]

Nowadays it's entirely possible for people to start their own businesses on the side while they're working, without the need for capital or physical resources.

No it isn't.

The idea that workers are eternally confined to an imposed existence is simply not true. At least here in the US.

Why are so many people working minimum wage temp jobs (and terrible full time jobs)?

And this is ultimately where our views will clash, as you see profiting from labor as immoral, unjust ect.

I don't.

immoral and unjust aren't really the right words I'd say obviously exploitative, antisocial and completely unnecessary. Also violent. Intentional. Parasitic.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Nowadays it's entirely possible for people to start their own businesses on the side while they're working, without the need for capital or physical resources.

No it isn't.

Sorry to intervene, but i kind of have to disagree here.
I work 40 hours a week for my boss, and on the side i have my own business (just me, no employees). It's a lot of work, with long hours and it's not really making me lots of money, but hey, it's a hobby!

And that's precisly my point for communism. I'd do it for free too.

[tooAlive]

I apologize if I don't respond to every single point; there's far too many of you and only one of me. If there's one specific point you want me to address, repost it or PM me and I'll try to get to it.

What kind of business, under capitalism, would that be that it requires no capital to invest?

Plenty, actually. And with the internet the way it is today, anyone can start their own business online with little or even no capital.

I mentioned a few posts ago how one way is to become someone's affiliate and sell their products, earning commissions for your sales. That is, if you have no products or services of your own.

It's not easy and requires lots of knowledge, but it can be obtained right here online. All it requires is time and dedication. If you have a job, it makes it even harder. But it's not impossible.

Also, if a person absolutely requires capital, there are many online micro-loan and funding sites like Kiva and Kickstarter that help beginning entrepreneurs get started.

Another thing is that you're delusional to think that it would be possible for people to both work for a boss and operate a business on the side without grinding themselves to dust both mentally and physically. Of course, this does not relate to the fact that the first premise, that of no need for capital, is invalid. And also, there is this unfortunate fact of competition grinding small businesses down, and effectively proletarianizing the new small businessmen (making them, once again, wage workers out of sheer necessity of means of survivial)

No it isn't.

Why are so many people working minimum wage temp jobs (and terrible full time jobs)?

No actually, I'm not. I will tell you however from first-hand experience that it is by far not an easy thing to do, but entirely possible. You would however have to make sacrifices. When a lot of my friends are out partying or drinking, I'm home working. But in the midst of it all, I can tell you it can be a very rewarding experience.

And when I got out of high-school I worked a minimum wage temp job because I had no other experience. After about a year and a half I got a better job. Had I decided to stay working there, I'd probably still be getting paid the same.

[tooAlive]

Your problem is that you now live in a capitalist society where everyone, supposedly, has the opportunity to be unique and develop their own life to the fullest. They have the right to become insanely rich and to become dirt poor. In fact, you live in a fantasy Coca-cola world of commodities where you are defined by how many commodities you own. If you are an American, your purpose and life goal is to own as many new and extravagantly useless commodities as you can.

You're absolutely right.

I think we can both agree that we live in a very materialistic world, and greed fuels many people; rich and poor alike.

But what's the alternative? I believe the only way to fix that would be to eliminate material things altogether. Think about it.

Even the communists in history (which you will argue weren't true communists) ended up being oppressive and taking control, despite preaching equality, ect..

Those men were also fueled by greed. The greed of power. If you take material things away there will always be someone that comes along and try to have more of something. Whether it be money, material things, resources, power, control, ect..

And as noble of an idea that you say communism is, that's why it simply won't work. Because you can't count on everyone wanting the same thing. Unless you kill those people, like we've seen happen throughout history time and time again.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Even the communists in history (which you will argue weren't true communists) ended up being oppressive and taking control, despite preaching equality, ect..

If you recognise we don't consider them communists, why do you bring them up?

Those men were also fueled by greed. The greed of power. If you take material things away there will always be someone that comes along and try to have more of something. Whether it be money, material things, resources, power, control, ect..

And as noble of an idea that you say communism is, that's why it simply won't work. Because you can't count on everyone wanting the same thing.

What on earth do you mean by material things will be taken away?

Unless you kill those people, like we've seen happen throughout history time and time again.

Are you referring to Stalinist Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.? If you are, then you really have to understand that nothing they did helped promote socialism. And they supposedly killed people to promote socialism? C'mon, please be smarter than that. If you are not referring to those instances, then explain what you mean, please.

[tooAlive]

Back up your beliefs with evidence or they're worthless. This debate is far from reality. It's just your own interpretation of reality.

Again, I already told you these are my beliefs. And my beliefs are based on what I see in the world, and the way I interpret it.

But let me ask you the same thing now, and I'd like for you to answer.

What evidence do you have to support communism, since it's never been tried? Can you show me an example of a successful, "true communist" country today, or anywhere in history?

Or perhaps, an example of a "failed communist" country that was better than what we have today?

By that same token, I could say that the idea of communism is worthless because there's no evidence to support it.

You've consistently claimed that if someone is unhappy being a wage-slave, they can start their own business. When I pointed out that not everyone can start their own business because capitalism relies on workers to produce commodities, you dodged this point by saying not everyone would start their own business so it was irrelevant. But if you admit that some people HAVE to be workers, then your view of capitalism as a free-for-all where all our dreams come true is a farce.

I never said all dreams come true under capitalism. If i did, then again, please show me the post so I can fix it.

And yes, capitalism needs workers to produce goods and services. Whether those workers work for themselves or a boss is irrelevant; capitalism requires production.

I said "free-for-all" in the sense that people are free to try to do what they want. I didn't guarantee them success simply by trying. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

The solution is to stop with this silly rhetoric of yours and begin talking about real capitalism, but you don't seem to want to do that, we're just stuck talking about very abstract philosophical situations and you ignore any attempts to put the conversation within real economic terms, which is why I grow tired of speaking with you. Concepts such as starting a business become matters of will, good versus evil, and if I bring up anything about the statistics suggesting how difficult or nearly impossible it is to start a business in this economic climate, you quickly silence me and begin speaking about morality again. It's almost saddening.

Yes, you're right; starting a business is tremendously hard. Specially now. I totally agree with you. Where did I ever say it was easy?

I simply said everyone "could try" if they so wished. Again, I didn't guarantee them success simply by trying. Under capitalism, everyone that wants to can do so. That doesn't guarantee success.

And since you even said that starting a business is incredibly hard, I'm sure you will understand that it's precisely why not everyone wants to do so.

I know there isn't. It's just an instance where your argument that everyone gets exactly what they deserve under capitalism is shit.

I said that I believe everything happens for a reason. That doesn't mean what happens is "fair," or is what that person "deserves." There's a big difference there. And that's not in regards to capitalism; that's in regards to life.

For example, what would you say about a person born with a disability? I don't think that's fair. Do you? Did it happen because of capitalism?

What if that person had been born in a perfect communist society?

He or she would definitely not be able to enjoy the world as everyone else would. So what would be the humane thing to do; give everyone the same disability?

Wow, you missed that point brilliantly. What Tim Cornelis was trying to point out is that the lower stratums of society do the majority of the work while receiving little, yet millionaires who play with numbers get much more.

I understand that. But by my belief, not everyone stays in the lower stratums of society. Although there will always be people there, they won't be the same ones. In other words, no one is confined to that lifestyle.

For example; a kid gets a job working at a grocery store for minimum wage. He works hard, and after a few years, he's the manager of the store getting paid a much higher wage. In a few more years, he's a district manager overseeing many stores. See where I'm going with this?

That person is no longer in the lower stratum of society, and someone else has taken his place. It's a cycle. Of course, that's not always the case.

[tooAlive]

If you recognise we don't consider them communists, why do you bring them up?

Well, because they proclaimed to be communist. They read the same books and literature as you, and said they wanted to do the same things you say you want to accomplish.

Otherwise, communism would be nonexistent. Merely an idea that people are just starting to come up with now.

What on earth do you mean by material things will be taken away?

Exactly that; anything material that could be assigned a value. Greed isn't eliminated by doing away with currency.

Are you referring to Stalinist Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.? If you are, then you really have to understand that nothing they did helped promote socialism. And they supposedly killed people to promote socialism? C'mon, please be smarter than that. If you are not referring to those instances, then explain what you mean, please.

Again, I'm referring to those that proclaimed to be communists. Otherwise we'd just have to forget about history and say that this is a new idea.

Which clearly isn't the case.

[Luís Henrique]

For example; what if I wanted to travel the world? How could I afford to do so if I had no money?

To travel you need planes, ships, or cars, not money.

Would the entire world have to be communist as well, and my entire trip around the world be totally free?

Yup, communism is a world system.

I also see you have capitalism associated with wage slavery. Why?

Because we must waste half or our active life doing meaningless shit to make others rich, with never being able to do anything self-fulfilling, else we won't starve?

Why is a person a wage slave, if not by his or her own choice? For example; I've worked a job where I busted my behind and felt exploited. So I quit. I was only a wage slave if I chose to be. Everyone has that choice.

That's funny, considering that you think that one could not travel the world without money. How do you eat, dress, move around in a capitalist society if you have no money? Yes, we all "chose" to be wage slaves, over starving. But those are, for the immense majority of people, the two only options.

According to that "reasoning", chattel slaves "choose" to be chattel slaves too - they could instead kill themselves, or arrange things so that their masters would kill them.

Luís Henrique

[tooAlive]

Originally Posted by tooAlive
Of course everyone want to be a millionaire! That's a no brainer.

I don't.

Thank you for bringing that point up.

That's precisely the same reason why not everyone wants to own their own business, and are perfectly happy working for someone else so long as they're paid a generous wage and treated with respect.