NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, most of the world already understands that communism can't work, so here is another thread for the communists to come argue against logic. And unlike the anti-capitalist thread, I'm not going to block out the opposing opinion.

Well, most of the world already understands that communism can't work, so here is another thread for the communists to come argue against logic. And unlike the anti-capitalist thread, I'm not going to block out the opposing opinion.
What else needs to be said? Communism is based on notions that are utter nonsense.

"Workers are exploited if someone makes a profit" is the refuted to death labor theory of value.

"We can distribute things based on need" by what standard is this need to be determined? I need a new car. Does that mean I should get one?

"Everyone can have a say in what gets produced" Not when their decisions are overruled by the majority.

"The USSR wasn't communist. It really really really really really really really really really really wasn't!" Oh really, No True Scotsman lover?

"We can determine what needs to be produced and how" With what? What do you have to tell you that? Only a market system can provide you with the knowledge of values and prices to give you the efficiency required. Otherwise, you're just masturbating with a cheese grater.

"Workers are exploited if someone makes a profit" is the refuted to death labor theory of value.

Maybe so, but there is also the authoritarian element of work for a boss.

"We can distribute things based on need" by what standard is this need to be determined? I need a new car. Does that mean I should get one?

If there are cars to spare, yes, otherwise, no.

"Everyone can have a say in what gets produced" Not when their decisions are overruled by the majority.

They don't vote literally on what products are made. They tell worker syndicates somehow, perhaps by lists.

"The USSR wasn't communist. It really really really really really really really really really really wasn't!" Oh really, No True Scotsman lover?

They used money and had social classes. Those two things are completely anti-communistic.

"We can determine what needs to be produced and how" With what? What do you have to tell you that? Only a market system can provide you with the knowledge of values and prices to give you the efficiency required. Otherwise, you're just masturbating with a cheese grater.

Price isn't the only way to determine how valuable something is. In fact, it's a poor way to do so since much information isn't recorded by price. Price can't tell you that a product created a lot of pollution when it was made.

Workers are exploited if someone makes a profit" is the refuted to death labor theory of value.
Maybe so, but there is also the authoritarian element of work for a boss.
That's not authoritarian.


"We can distribute things based on need" by what standard is this need to be determined? I need a new car. Does that mean I should get one?
If there are cars to spare, yes, otherwise, no.
But I need it. Therefore, I should get one, regardless. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA, REMEMBER? I should have one made for me, regardless. I need it. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA.


"Everyone can have a say in what gets produced" Not when their decisions are overruled by the majority.
They don't vote literally on what products are made. They tell worker syndicates somehow, perhaps by lists.
AUTHORITARIAN!


"The USSR wasn't communist. It really really really really really really really really really really wasn't!" Oh really, No True Scotsman lover?
They used money and had social classes.
Communist.


"We can determine what needs to be produced and how" With what? What do you have to tell you that? Only a market system can provide you with the knowledge of values and prices to give you the efficiency required. Otherwise, you're just masturbating with a cheese grater.
Price isn't the only way to determine how valuable something is. In fact, it's a poor way to do so
No, it's a rather efficient and proper way.

since much information isn't recorded by price. Price can't tell you that a product created a lot of pollution when it was made.
And "the amount of labor used to produce it" can't tell you anything.

But people do report on how much pollution a factory does produce. And tort suits can cause changes. But someone of your limited intellectual capacity (for fuck's sake--you think that logic is authoritarian!) would never bother to think of such things. You'd rather wallow in your Marxist dreamworld.

Let's see.

Capitalism where the bosses oppress the workers or communism where the workers wield their power to get whatever they want.

I think a balance between the two would be fine. If you want an example of the unions wielding their massive powers for greed, look at the MLB's player association.

Well, nobody's ever actually seen communism work.

But what's to say that the american democracy isn't ruled by the upper classes and just a sham to get the people to think they have some say over things?

I mean seriously, we have stamped on every upstart socialist country and replaced it with fascists. It seems a 'utopian' ideal is less attractive than a brutally real dictatorship.

Well, since you probably wont accept anything from socialist or communist authors, let me reminds you of Adam Smith, one of the most proeminent free-market theorists the world has ever known and professionals of capitalism.

Adam Smith's theory called for a totally free market theorizin' that a market free of interference would regulate itself with what was then called the invisible hand of supply and demand.

I agree with him.

But as much as true communism can never be achieved unless human nature changes tremendously (Hah I have a bigger lawnmower then the neighbour!!-Middle-town north-american commercial target)free market economies in our world today cannot exist in western countries where the all-mighty dollar has a strangle hold on most of our activities.

The reason you ask ?
Well, very simple, most corporations holding some key sectors have a more or less official understanding on how business should be conducted, for example, Gas- For those of you living in the US and Canada (excluding petrol producing regions) you would probably recall (and curse) the high prices of gasolene that we achieved during the summer, corporations called for every single change in the market price of crude oil to raise prices nation-wide despite having reserves (depending on the company) ranging from a 3 month reserve all the way to nearly 2 years. Minor prices changes would indeed affect the price of oil at the pumps but not on the very same week.. Oil companies have a tendecy to buy oil when they are in a very affordable price range en-mass to stock up, so if the rules of smith acctually applied we would only of seen an acctual price change after the reserves were exausted. Which they werent. The same can be applied to the electricity market, pharmaceuticals, food (nescesary groceries say.. Water, milk, meat ect.) By having a goverment acctually set the rules for business conduct inside a country would save money for the people and suck up the fraudulent extra income corporations exact in times of stress on the world market.

The fact is corporations today become so important and rich that they often become outrageously powerful and a weak goverment with limited power on interior affaires or following a capitalistic edict could only afford to help those helping them keep power aka big corporations.

So then, liberty for the people yes! Treating corporations as people so they may reap the same benefits ? Oh god no.

The nature of a socialist goverment if it stayed true to its form would be to make the PEOPLE the winners in this unfolding saga making their aim quite philantropic, not to deifie its leaders or help their companies achieve omnipotence.

Well, nobody's ever actually seen communism work.

That's not actually accurate. Many hunter-gatherer cultures are or were largely communistic. There are elements of free distribution in the US, believe it or not. Then there was the whole Spanish revolution which saw a few communes without money.

That's not authoritarian.

How is taking orders not authoritarian?

But I need it. Therefore, I should get one, regardless. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA, REMEMBER? I should have one made for me, regardless. I need it. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA.

You can't get what isn't in existance.

AUTHORITARIAN!

It's more of a respect thing. If the syndicate refuses a request, it looks bad on them unless this person is well-known for being lazy or something.

Communist.

That is the opposite of communism.

No, it's a rather efficient and proper way.

In my experience, "efficient" means "beneficial to the status quo".

And "the amount of labor used to produce it" can't tell you anything.

But people do report on how much pollution a factory does produce. And tort suits can cause changes. But someone of your limited intellectual capacity (for fuck's sake--you think that logic is authoritarian!) would never bother to think of such things. You'd rather wallow in your Marxist dreamworld.

Can cause changes. Because of price, though, affordability rather than pollution is more important.

Are we hunter-gatherers in this day and age? Maybe in Mongolia, but not in America or Britain or France etc. There's too many people. Communism only works in smaller communities, not densley populated ones.

Population density doesn't have much to do with it...heh, population overall however does.

Yeah I guess..

what's wrong with Communism was neatly summerized by Marx: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." possibly the most disgusting concept ever generated in human social interaction.

I am personally anti-Communist. The people in my country, (USA), that are part of the Communist party sicken me. They should move to a country that really is communist and stay there instead of being in a country that dislikes their idealogy.

what's wrong with Communism was neatly summerized by Marx: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." possibly the most disgusting concept ever generated in human social interaction.

That's one of the greatest concepts ever generated in human social interaction. It's a beautiful statement that advocates forgiving people for their flaws and rewarding effort rather than raw productivity. Even the weakest person will get what they need as long as they do what they can. It's very compassionate.

Capitalism, by contrast, is based on "might makes right", greed, power, etc. If you don't have government-enforced property, you don't have power. If you don't have power, you must suffer under those who do have power to survive. If you can't find someone who will support you while ordering you around, then you're SOL.

I am personally anti-Communist. The people in my country, (USA), that are part of the Communist party sicken me. They should move to a country that really is communist and stay there instead of being in a country that dislikes their idealogy.

while i think Communism is warped and deplorable, your attitude is most definitely worse. you apparently don't know the first thing about what it means to be American; the whole point of America is that our country doesn't dislike any ideology, only perhaps the implimentation of certain ideologies, and we welcome all conflicting views with respect and equality as long as they return the same. if you don't get that then it is you who need to leave for a country that embraces your brand of intollerance. America is not the place for you.

That's one of the greatest concepts ever generated in human social interaction. It's a beautiful statement that advocates forgiving people for their flaws and rewarding effort rather than raw productivity. Even the weakest person will get what they need as long as they do what they can. It's very compassionate.

*shudder* the attitude that anybody deserves more than they can earn is disgusting to me. i would never want or ask for support like that, and i have no respect for anybody who does. life should be free exchange, and all people should reap exactly what they sow; the incompetant should fail, and the competant should succeed. no competant person should ever be compelled to support the incompetant, and to insist otherwise is the furthest possible thing from compassion.

but hey, i have this weird notion that all humans are capable of supporting themselves (baring organic problems like medical handicaps, of course), and that they should do so rather than expecting other people to do it for them. i have the crazy thought that people should take responsibility for both their own successes and their own mistakes, and shouldn't take on those of other people. i know, i'm such a meanie.

while i think Communism is warped and deplorable, your attitude is most definitely worse. you apparently don't know the first thing about what it means to be American; , only perhaps the implimentation of certain ideologies, and we welcome all conflicting views with respect and equality as long as they return the same. if you don't get that then it is you who need to leave for a country that embraces your brand of intollerance. America is not the place for you.

I am not the only one in this country who hates the idea of communism. Communism has caused many wars that we have fought against, much like fascism, so excuse me for not being too enthusiastic towards commies in my country that have never even experienced true communism. I am not saying that I have, but I am not the one saying that America should turn into one. You contradicted yourself by the way. "the whole point of America is that our country doesn't dislike any ideology". You clearly are saying that a particular ideology against another ideology is unfit for America. By the way, I do not respect communism, and I am not asking for their respect towards me.

Well, most of the world already understands that communism can't work,

Welcome to 25+ years ago.

That's not authoritarian.
How is taking orders not authoritarian?
Same as being forced to breathe is not authoritarian.


But I need it. Therefore, I should get one, regardless. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA, REMEMBER? I should have one made for me, regardless. I need it. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA.
You can't get what isn't in existance.
Then the system is a FAILURE. Everything should be provided for everyone.


AUTHORITARIAN!
It's more of a respect thing. If the syndicate refuses a request, it looks bad on them unless this person is well-known for being lazy or something.
No, it's more of an AUTHORITY thing. They are TOLD WHAT TO DO and WILL DO IT OR ELSE PEOPLE WILL STARVE or whatnot.


Communist.
That is the opposite of communism.
No, it was communist.


No, it's a rather efficient and proper way.
In my experience, "efficient" means "beneficial to the status quo".
ad hominem fallacy.


And "the amount of labor used to produce it" can't tell you anything.

But people do report on how much pollution a factory does produce. And tort suits can cause changes. But someone of your limited intellectual capacity (for fuck's sake--you think that logic is authoritarian!) would never bother to think of such things. You'd rather wallow in your Marxist dreamworld. Can cause changes. Because of price, though, affordability rather than pollution is more important.
No it's not.

what's wrong with Communism was neatly summerized by Marx: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." possibly the most disgusting concept ever generated in human social interaction.

That's one of the greatest concepts ever generated in human social interaction.
No it's not (and frankly, it's straight from the bible, actually).

It's disgusting.

It says that those who produce MUST GIVE things away because others need them. By what right do those people's need have title over anything? You've NEVER been able to answer that.

It's a beautiful statement that advocates forgiving people for their flaws and rewarding effort rather than raw productivity.
It's granting the unearned. It's unjust.

Even the weakest person will get what they need as long as they do what they can. It's very compassionate.
No, it's very unjust.

Capitalism, by contrast, is based on "might makes right",
No it's not. It's based on the respecting of property rights and individuals.

greed, power, etc. If you don't have government-enforced property,
You can still have property.

you don't have power.
You don't need power.

If you don't have power, you must suffer under those who do have power to survive.
False.

If you can't find someone who will support you while ordering you around, then you're SOL.
And if people won't produce under communism, then you're SOL.

earn1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ûrn)
tr.v. earned, earn·ing, earns
To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work.
To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action.
To yield as return or profit.

Above is the definition of earn, from dictionary.com. Under which of the definitions do those of you who believe that "people should be able to keep what they earn" use the word earn?

It is all crap and a waste of time. Marx was a racist and a discrace to Jews, Stalins was a stupid asshole who'd kill you if you didn't agree with him. Lenin was small and looks like what an alien may look like (or do). Mao was a bloody war lord, Trotsky was just stupid (who gets killed with an ice pick in Mexico?) and Castro and Che were both idiots who sit and fill their lungs with smoke and imprision the people of Cuba to absolute poverty. As you can see, some of the most awful human beings have ran under the Communist title, I've forgot some of them like Kim Jong Il (WHO ISN'T EVEN A COMMUNIST BUT THINKS HE IS). It makes people insignificant and makes them no better than a number. It allows the lazy and stupid to get the smae opportunities as the smart and gifted. Capitalism has many flaws, but god, Communism is just one BIG flaw. It totally ignores human nature and thinks only of the people actually running the country. Whom ever thinks it's actually good should go live in Cuba for a year under the same conditions as the general population and then return and compare their life before and after. I think they'll shudder at the horrid differences. The Communist Party visited my house once during a Federal Election Campaign. If it wasn't against the law, I would have punched that SOB in the nose and sent him to Cuba, instead I politely said that we do not believe in the Communist ideals and he left. Pain in the ass! Now I know people will attack my stance with mindless, no point CAPITALISM BASHING. Have any of you actually visited or lived in a Communist country? My Cousin, who is Jewish, lived in the Soviet Union and ended up having to flee to Italy for fear of being captured and killed. What kind of a world is that, where people have to live in fear of the government that it will take them out of their own beds and they won't wake up in the morning? A damn piece of shit a.k.a Communism.

*shudder* the attitude that anybody deserves more than they can earn is disgusting to me. i would never want or ask for support like that, and i have no respect for anybody who does. life should be free exchange, and all people should reap exactly what they sow; the incompetant should fail, and the competant should succeed. no competant person should ever be compelled to support the incompetant, and to insist otherwise is the furthest possible thing from compassion.
Right. The term for that is "slavery".

but hey, i have this weird notion that all humans are capable of supporting themselves (baring organic problems like medical handicaps, of course), and that they should do so rather than expecting other people to do it for them. i have the crazy thought that people should take responsibility for both their own successes and their own mistakes, and shouldn't take on those of other people. i know, i'm such a meanie.
Oh yes. You're an authoritarian oppressor.

No it's not (and frankly, it's straight from the bible, actually).

It's disgusting.

It says that those who produce MUST GIVE things away because others need them. By what right do those people's need have title over anything? You've NEVER been able to answer that.

It's voluntary, though. In anarcho-communism, at least, you don't have to have your needs met if you don't want to share with others.

It's granting the unearned. It's unjust.

If you don't consider the individual characteristics of people, this is probably true, but consider that we all have different attributes. Why should someone be penalized for not living up to a certain level that their bodies just can't handle?

No, it's very unjust.No it's not.

See above.

It's based on the respecting of property rights and individuals.

Property "rights" are authoritarian. No one would claim we have the right to own slaves.

You can still have property.

But not nearly as much as the rich. In capitalism, wealth is power. If you don't own a factory, you can't employ others and you must take orders from a boss.

You don't need power.

Tell that to a CEO or president.

False.

Do you have a job? If so, then it is probably because you lacked property and thus economic power and had to sell your labor to survive.

*shudder* the attitude that anybody deserves more than they can earn is disgusting to me. i would never want or ask for support like that, and i have no respect for anybody who does. life should be free exchange, and all people should reap exactly what they sow; the incompetant should fail, and the competant should succeed. no competant person should ever be compelled to support the incompetant, and to insist otherwise is the furthest possible thing from compassion.

Enough with this anti-individualistic élitism. The "might makes right", dog-eat-dog world you desire would be hell. You said yourself that you have a major handicap and have deemed yourself inferior. Why would you advocate such a society?

but hey, i have this weird notion that all humans are capable of supporting themselves (baring organic problems like medical handicaps, of course), and that they should do so rather than expecting other people to do it for them. i have the crazy thought that people should take responsibility for both their own successes and their own mistakes, and shouldn't take on those of other people. i know, i'm such a meanie.

Barring medical handicaps? Don't make exceptions for yourself. Be consistant if you're going to be brutal.

Same as being forced to breathe is not authoritarian.

You're comparing a biological fact with a social relation. You simply can't compare the natural need to breath with the artificial need to sell your freedom to buy food.

Then the system is a FAILURE. Everything should be provided for everyone.

You are expecting too much. Capitalism can't provide everything for everyone. Why should communism?

No, it's more of an AUTHORITY thing. They are TOLD WHAT TO DO and WILL DO IT OR ELSE PEOPLE WILL STARVE or whatnot.

As though capitalism is somehow better in this regard.

No, it was communist.

So it had no real characteristics of communism but was still communist?

ad hominem fallacy.

No, a simple observation. You have a fondness for redefining words. I see no reason why I can't do the same.

If you don't own a factory, you can't employ others and you must take orders from a boss.

Not really. Ever heard of self-employment?

Not really. Ever heard of self-employment?

While self-employment doesn't exist, it isn't practical for everyone. If it was, then no one would flip burgers at McDonalds. No one would accept unemployment. They would just become self-employed. Since that doesn't happen, it is clear that self-employment isn't an option.

Not really. Ever heard of self-employment?
I'm thinking that it would probably convey Letila's message better if you changed the word "factory" to "the means of production."

Communism word for word does not work in this day and age, simply because people have more wants than before.

But what does work is democracy with respect for civil rights and a handle on buisiness.

It says that those who produce MUST GIVE things away because others need them. By what right do those people's need have title over anything? You've NEVER been able to answer that.

Now, while I do not consider myself a communist, I feel that I have to throw in an answer to this question, since it causes us to reflect on a very important generality.

You rant on about how people are entitled to only what they can "earn." Of course, we both know that your understanding of the term occurs entirely within a social system that includes a very precise division of labor -- one person, one job, essentially.

Clearly, however, there is no universal law that says things have to be that way. Society just happens to do it because it is the most efficient way to provide for the diverse goods required by its citizenry. Of course, society also has to provide for the exchange of these goods, produced by various people, so that people can get the things they need or want.

In other words, your entire ability to "earn" from your labor in one of those jobs is determined by the social structure in which you take part. Left to yourself, having to build your own home, make your own clothing, and grow your own food... I doubt you'd have time to build a car, TV, and computer on top of it -- if there were even the necessary networks (gas pumps, networks, and phone lines) to use these things.

Therefore, since the vast majority of your earning potential is dependent on society, it logically follows that society -- having done the earning -- is due a great deal of leeway in deciding what it wants to do with the product. In other words, the society instituted (and continues to take part in) this great enterprise of cooperation in order to fulfill some of its basic goals. Now, these goals might not include providing a basic subsistence for all of society's members (as in our own rather individualistic society)... but if the society in which you live decides that some of your earnings should go to support the least fortunate, there is no matter of "right" by which you can plead against it.

To put this in simpler, but more abstract terms, society preceeds the individual, because society determines every potential that the individual can reach. In matters of economic "right," therefore, society comes first.

Plato figured this out over 2,000 years ago (see Republic, Book II). You'd think by now it would have sunk in. Then again, we are a dense race....

While self-employment doesn't exist, it isn't practical for everyone. If it was, then no one would flip burgers at McDonalds.
So what?

No one would accept unemployment. They would just become self-employed. Since that doesn't happen, it is clear that self-employment isn't an option.
Non sequitur

So what?

People don't like taking orders. If they are forced to, it's slavery.

Non sequitur

Hardly. Would you take orders to survive if you could get by without being ordered around?

No it's not (and frankly, it's straight from the bible, actually).

It's disgusting.

It says that those who produce MUST GIVE things away because others need them. By what right do those people's need have title over anything? You've NEVER been able to answer that.
It's voluntary,
Can't be. NEED IS THE ONLY CRITERIA. If (someone needs) then (someone else MUST provide). That is how your system works. Deny that and you deny that you're a communist.

though. In anarcho-communism, at least, you don't have to have your needs met if you don't want to share with others.
Then that's not anarcho-communism. NEED IS THE CRITERIA! Think about the children! They need! You must provide! Think about the starving children!


It's granting the unearned. It's unjust.
If you don't consider the individual characteristics of people, this is probably true, but consider that we all have different attributes. Why should someone be penalized for not living up to a certain level that their bodies just can't handle?
Why should someone be penalized because someone else can't do something? That's UNJUST!


No, it's very unjust
See above.
Ditto.


It's based on the respecting of property rights and individuals.
Property "rights" are authoritarian.
No they are not.

Would you claim that someone had the right to your eyes? If not, then property rights are not authoritarian. Deal with it.


You can still have property.
But not nearly as much as the rich.
Irrelevant.

In capitalism, wealth is power.
No it's not.

If you don't own a factory, you can't employ others and you must take orders from a boss.
You must take orders from nature in order to live. Nature is authoritarian! Ban nature!


You don't need power.
Tell that to a CEO or president.
How about you tell that to the "collective" which makes the decisions in anarcho-communism. Someone will have to enforce the decisions.


False.
Do you have a job? If so, then it is probably because you lacked property and thus economic power and had to sell your labor to survive.
For someone who claims to not be a Marxist, you certainly use his words quite frequently.

You have to breathe to survive, don't you? Isn't that BAD? That you MUST do something to survive. BAD NATURE!

You are so fucking stupid. You think that because you must do something, that it is bad. How fucking lazy and immature! Grow the fuck up.


*shudder* the attitude that anybody deserves more than they can earn is disgusting to me. i would never want or ask for support like that, and i have no respect for anybody who does. life should be free exchange, and all people should reap exactly what they sow; the incompetant should fail, and the competant should succeed. no competant person should ever be compelled to support the incompetant, and to insist otherwise is the furthest possible thing from compassion.
Enough with this anti-individualistic élitism.
No, it's pro-individualist and not elitism in the least.

The "might makes right", dog-eat-dog world you desire would be hell.
Wonderful strawman. Try again.


but hey, i have this weird notion that all humans are capable of supporting themselves (baring organic problems like medical handicaps, of course), and that they should do so rather than expecting other people to do it for them. i have the crazy thought that people should take responsibility for both their own successes and their own mistakes, and shouldn't take on those of other people. i know, i'm such a meanie.
Barring medical handicaps? Don't make exceptions for yourself. Be consistant if you're going to be brutal.
He is being consistent.


Same as being forced to breathe is not authoritarian.
You're comparing a biological fact with a social relation. You simply can't compare the natural need to breath
Yes, I can.

with the artificial need to sell your freedom to buy food.
No one does any such thing, Karl Marx.


Then the system is a FAILURE. Everything should be provided for everyone.
You are expecting too much.
Nope. Just wanting it to live up to its standard.

Capitalism can't provide everything for everyone. Why should communism?
Because communists claim that is what will happen.


No, it was communist.
[Quote=Letila]So it had no real characteristics of communism but was still communist?
It had every real characteristic of communism.


ad hominem fallacy.
No, a simple observation.
No, it was an ad hom fallacy.

You have a fondness for redefining words.
No, that's your job, remember? You and Discordiac like to redefine anarchism as being anti-capitalist, when no definition at all shows that it is. You like to define profit as "theft from the worker", when that implies that value is objective, rather than what it actually is: subjective.

It says that those who produce MUST GIVE things away because others need them. By what right do those people's need have title over anything? You've NEVER been able to answer that.

Now, while I do not consider myself a communist, I feel that I have to throw in an answer to this question, since it causes us to reflect on a very important generality.

You rant on about how people are entitled to only what they can "earn." Of course, we both know that your understanding of the term occurs entirely within a social system that includes a very precise division of labor -- one person, one job, essentially.
So what? And my understanding of it exceeds that.

Clearly, however, there is no universal law that says things have to be that way. Society just happens to do it because it is the most efficient way to provide for the diverse goods required by its citizenry. Of course, society also has to provide for the exchange of these goods, produced by various people, so that people can get the things they need or want.
Be careful that you don't start thinking that society is some real thing (such that you reify it, which is a fallacy).

In other words, your entire ability to "earn" from your labor in one of those jobs is determined by the social structure in which you take part. Left to yourself, having to build your own home, make your own clothing, and grow your own food... I doubt you'd have time to build a car, TV, and computer on top of it -- if there were even the necessary networks (gas pumps, networks, and phone lines) to use these things.
So what?

Therefore, since the vast majority of your earning potential is dependent on society, it logically follows that society -- having done the earning
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

You just reified society. Can't do that. Society does nothing. Only individuals can do things. Society is just a collection of INDIVIDUALS.

-- is due a great deal of leeway in deciding what it wants to do with the product. In other words, the society instituted (and continues to take part in) this great enterprise of cooperation in order to fulfill some of its basic goals. Now, these goals might not include providing a basic subsistence for all of society's members (as in our own rather individualistic society)... but if the society in which you live decides that some of your earnings should go to support the least fortunate, there is no matter of "right" by which you can plead against it.
Oh, yes there is. NAZI society decided that it was ok to gas the jews, right (to use your terms). So the jews just had to go along with it, right? Couldn't complain, right?

Try again.

To put this in simpler, but more abstract terms, society preceeds the individual,
That's like saying the cart preceeds the horse. You're reifying society. The individual comes before "society". Society is made of individuals.

Oh, Plato was wrong, btw. "Society" is there for the individual. The individual is not there for "society".

So what?
People don't like taking orders. If they are forced to, it's slavery.
So who's going to make the people produce in an anarcho-communist system? Who is going to enforce the decisions of the whole?

Not to mention that no one is being forced to take orders.


Non sequitur
Hardly.
No, it was a non sequitur.

Would you take orders to survive if you could get by without being ordered around?
Not germane.

What will capitalists do when capitalism dies?

What will capitalists do when capitalism dies?
It will never die.

What will capitalists do when capitalism dies?

That's a Funny notion, as long as there are capitalists there will be capitalism.

I am personally anti-Communist. The people in my country, (USA), that are part of the Communist party sicken me. They should move to a country that really is communist and stay there instead of being in a country that dislikes their idealogy.


Just like the Pilgrim Fathers did?

Can't be. NEED IS THE ONLY CRITERIA. If (someone needs) then (someone else MUST provide). That is how your system works. Deny that and you deny that you're a communist.

Membership is not compulsory. If you don't want to be a member, you don't have to be.

Why should someone be penalized because someone else can't do something? That's UNJUST!

Because there are things you can't do. We all have different abilities. If we work together and share the benefits of those abilities, we can do better than if we all compete.

No they are not.

Would you claim that someone had the right to your eyes? If not, then property rights are not authoritarian. Deal with it.

There is a huge difference between owning a factory and owning eyes. Your eyes are a part of you, a factory isn't. You didn't even build the factory. Why should you control it?

You must take orders from nature in order to live. Nature is authoritarian! Ban nature!

You don't understand. For one thing, some people get out of taking orders. That creates unfairness because some people have much better lives than others and take advantage of others.

How about you tell that to the "collective" which makes the decisions in anarcho-communism. Someone will have to enforce the decisions.

This is anarcho-communism, not the Borg Collective. You obviously don't know anything about @-com but the basic definition.

For someone who claims to not be a Marxist, you certainly use his words quite frequently.

The idea that capitalism is exploitive and authoritarian is the basis of socialism. Both authoritarian and libertarian socialists agree that it is exploitive.

You are so fucking stupid. You think that because you must do something, that it is bad. How fucking lazy and immature! Grow the fuck up.

If other people benefit from the system that hurts me, then yes, I have every right to hate the system. You're an egoist, surely you believe I should be able to oppose something that hurts me.

No, it's pro-individualist and not elitism in the least.

It requires you to live up to a certain model to survive. If you aren't born a certain way, you don't get to live.

He is being consistent.

How? She created an exception so that she could get away with being disabled even though she said that you shouldn't be able to get something without earning it.

No one does any such thing, Karl Marx.

You do. You keep acting as though property and coersion are simply forces of nature.

Because communists claim that is what will happen.

We don't claim that stuff that doesn't exist will be distributed.

No, that's your job, remember? You and Discordiac like to redefine anarchism as being anti-capitalist, when no definition at all shows that it is. You like to define profit as "theft from the worker", when that implies that value is objective, rather than what it actually is: subjective.

If value is subjective, then money has no value.

That's a Funny notion, as long as there are capitalists there will be capitalism.
And as long as there are capitalists, there won't be communism. So, seeing as capitalism can't die out until all the capitalists are gone, I don't think the capitalists will do much of anything (maybe rot) when capitalism dies out.

That's a Funny notion, as long as there are capitalists there will be capitalism.
Capitalism is a finite entity that will eventually implode.

So, seeing as capitalism can't die out until all the capitalists are gone, I don't think the capitalists will do much of anything (maybe rot) when capitalism dies out.

Surely capitalism requires more than one capitalist?

Letila, how is the system hurting you?

Surely capitalism requires more than one capitalist?
Nope.

Regarding capitalism needing more than one capitalist:

Nope.

So Robinson Crusoe on his desert island, before he encountered Friday, could have been a capitalist, despite his inability to trade anything or a recognised monetary system?

Look around at the world....look at nature.
Do any animals behave communistically??

NO!

They always take what they can and create a kind of capitalist environment that benefits from growth and adaptation.

Besides...anyone ever heard of a POWER VACUUM???

People are selfish and there will always be someone who wants to be in power...so in a place where no one is in power...a leader will naturally rise and create a hierarchy...its inevitable. (*cough* STALIN *cough*)...and people are not truly bonevolent and hoarde and so on, so whoever comes to power or has any power will not provide for everyone.
So why not have a system that encourages people to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES???? To compete! Its the only way to prevent lethargy or total domination!

Capitalism is a finite entity that will eventually implode.

That has nothing to do with my sentiment, but I do appeal to such an future occurrence as long as egalitarianism is not what replaces it. I agree with everything about Communism; except the equality.

Regarding capitalism needing more than one capitalist:



So Robinson Crusoe on his desert island, before he encountered Friday, could have been a capitalist, despite his inability to trade anything or a recognised monetary system?
I didn't say you could have capitalism in a completely closed system, however, it would only take one capitalist to rekindle the fires of capitalism throughout the world.

And as long as there are capitalists, there won't be communism. So, seeing as capitalism can't die out until all the capitalists are gone, I don't think the capitalists will do much of anything (maybe rot) when capitalism dies out.
As capitalist society – the system of wage – labour and ‘free contract’ between master and man – was only developed according as the system of feudalism – or serf labour under a hereditary, landowning nobility – broke down owing to the demand for new methods of industry produced by the opening up of new markets though the discovery of America, and the perfection of means of transit and communication, in like manner will Socialism also come when the development of capitalism in its turn renders the burden of a capitalist class unbearable – and the capitalist system unworkable.

Look around at the world....look at nature.
Do any animals behave communistically??

Yes - and this is why some capitalists attack communism: it replaces the individual with the herd or the nest as the priority in society.

As capitalist society – the system of wage – labour and ‘free contract’ between master and man – was only developed according as the system of feudalism – or serf labour under a hereditary, landowning nobility – broke down owing to the demand for new methods of industry produced by the opening up of new markets though the discovery of America, and the perfection of means of transit and communication, in like manner will Socialism also come when the development of capitalism in its turn renders the burden of a capitalist class unbearable – and the capitalist system unworkable.
If it ever falls to any sort of anarchy, it won't be long before capitalism takes over again.

That has nothing to do with my sentiment, but I do appeal to such an future occurrence as long as egalitarianism is not what replaces it. I agree with everything about Communism; except the equality.
It is unlikely that there will ever be true equality. Animal Farm by George Orwell comes to mind. There will always be the leaders and there will always be the followers.

It is unlikely that there will ever be true equality. Animal Farm by George Orwell comes to mind. There will always be the leaders and there will always be the followers.
Animal Farm is a good way of explaining from my point of view how anarchy/anarcho-communism turns to capitalism.

As capitalist society ... in like manner will Socialism also come when the development of capitalism in its turn renders the burden of a capitalist class unbearable – and the capitalist system unworkable.

Despite Marx & Engels' assertions to the contrary, we have no evidence that the inevitable victory of the proletariat is, in fact, inevitable, much as I would like to believe it is. That is the problem with their so-called scientific dialectical materialism: it isn't science. It may very well be that what replaces capitalism in due course is something compeltely unexpected and as of yet unimagined.


EDIT: I'm typing like a pig with DT's today. Apologies for them errors what still slip through the net.

in an anarchal communist world...one capitalist would survive cuz he would take whatever he wanted and give only what people would trade for...but that only works if this proverbial capitalist has access to something someone else needs greatly...but beyond that he could trade for things he needed and people would like receiving gifts for services...soo...they would naturally become capitalists as well..

If it ever falls to any sort of anarchy, it won't be long before capitalism takes over again.
I totally disagree. As the world grows in population, so does the demand for the earths resources, it would be impractical to believe that one society will be able to continually hoard the finite resources.

I totally disagree. As the world grows in population, so does the demand for the earths resources, it would be impractical to believe that one society will be able to continually hoard the finite resources.
Uhm...that's the practical thing. That society realizes there isn't enough to go around even if they split it all equally so if they keep it to themselves they're better off. Ever seen "Total Recall"?

It is unlikely that there will ever be true equality. Animal Farm by George Orwell comes to mind.


Animal Farm is a good way of explaining from my point of view how anarchy/anarcho-communism turns to capitalism.

Ah, I love the irony of capitalists endorsing the work of the Communist Eric Blair/George Orwell. In case you hadn't notied, Animal Farm was an allegorical retelling of how one particular attempt at establishing a communist society (in one of the last places Marx would have expected i to happen) failed. It certainly raises issues, but it does not show that all communsit societies will eventually fail or that true equality (or indeed, equality greater than that granted under current contemporary capitalism) can never be achieved.

Socialists point out that the capitalist system depends upon the maintenance of equilibrium between the producing and consuming powers of the world; that business cannot go on unless the goods produced can find customers; that owing to the rapid development of machinery this equilibrium cannot be maintained; that the productive powers of the world are continually increasing whilst the virgin markets of the world are as continually diminishing; that every new scientific process applied to industry, every new perfecting of machinery, increases the productivity of labour, but as the area of the world remains unaltered the hope of finding new markets for the products of labour grows ever less and less; that a time must come when all the world will be exhausted as a market for the wares of commerce, and yet invention and industrial perfectioning remain as active as ever; that capitalism – able to produce more in a few months than would supply its customers for years – will have no work for the workers, who, constituting the vast majority as they do, will have to choose between certain starvation and revolt for Socialism.

Ah, I love the irony of capitalists endorsing the work of the Communist Eric Blair/George Orwell. In case you hadn't notied, Animal Farm was an allegorical retelling of how one particular attempt at establishing a communist society (in one of the last places Marx would have expected i to happen) failed. It certainly raises issues, but it does not show that all communsit societies will eventually fail or that true equality (or indeed, equality greater than that granted under current contemporary capitalism) can never be achieved.
I'm not going to make a counter-point to this "argument" simply because of the blatant attack on my intelligence that was made.

I'm not going to make a counter-point to this "argument" simply because of the blatant attack on my intelligence that was made.
Because someone attacks a person's intelligence, it doesn't by default mean that said person is indeed unintelligent, unless of course you actually agree with the inference.

Because someone attacks a person's intelligence, it doesn't by default mean that said person is indeed unintelligent, unless of course you actually agree with the inference.
If the person I'm arguing against can't respect my intelligence then I don't feel like it's worth my time to argue with them.

Look around at the world....look at nature.
Do any animals behave communistically??

NO!
Thats already been explained.

They always take what they can and create a kind of capitalist environment that benefits from growth and adaptation.
You do realize how full of shit that statement is? Right? Because I have never seen any documentation on lions, or some animal, hoarding food and forcing lesser lions to do their bidding in the food gathering and then selling it to the general lion population. See haow utterly moronic something like that sounds?

Besides...anyone ever heard of a POWER VACUUM???

People are selfish and there will always be someone who wants to be in power...so in a place where no one is in power...a leader will naturally rise and create a hierarchy...its inevitable. (*cough* STALIN *cough*)...and people are not truly bonevolent and hoarde and so on, so whoever comes to power or has any power will not provide for everyone.
So why not have a system that encourages people to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES???? To compete! Its the only way to prevent lethargy or total domination!
So your saying that humans cannot EVER work together for a common goal. Seriously? Because the beginning of human history seems to suggest otherwise. Also if your "theory" is true, its news to me and the entire scientific community.

If the person I'm arguing against can't respect my intelligence then I don't feel like it's worth my time to argue with them.
Geez I am having a deja vu here LOL!!!

I'm not going to make a counter-point to this "argument" simply because of the blatant attack on my intelligence that was made.


I am unaware what part you believe to be a 'blatant attack' on your intelligence: the only possibility I can see is the use of the phrase 'in case you hadn't noticed', which I used merely to indicate that 'I know this, and you know this and it is important', rather than to imply that you did not know it.

If that was the barb the felt, then I also wouldn't call it an attack on intelligence, possibly it could be read as an attack on someone's general knowledge, but that was not the intent.

That the same economic development which will create the necessity for revolt will also provide the conditions required to make that revolt successful, in so far as it will have forced out of business the multitude of small capitalists, and replaced them by huge companies, stores, and trusts – a unification of industry, requiring only the transference of the right of ownership from the individual to the democratic community to bridge the chasm between capitalism and Socialism. That the private property which the worker should possess in the fruits of his toil is continually confiscated to-day by the capitalist process of industry, and that Socialism by making all citizens – society – joint heirs and owners of the tools of production, will restore to the workers that private property of which capitalism deprives them.

You post made it look as if I didn't know anything about "Animal Farm" and was just citing it to make myself look smart.

Hey Lenidon!

ever heard of lion prides???
yeah...alpha male and all that shit...
yeah he does jack but kill other lions...the females do the hunting...dumbass

and also...my capitalist i mean competition...NOT CORPORATION

they are NOT the same thing at all.

And when have humans ever not feared/hated eachother/killed eachother...
wars?
rise and fall of empires?
any of that ring a bell?
EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS COMPETED...so you crash my argument...dont even think about what you say...and dont even have any evidence for what you say??

That the same economic development which will create the necessity for revolt .... will restore to the workers that private property of which capitalism deprives them.

Do you have nothing of your own to add here, rather than just cutting-and-pasting blocks of text from elsewhere on the internet?

Hey Lenidon!

ever heard of lion prides???
yeah...alpha male and all that shit...
yeah he does jack but kill other lions...the females do the hunting...dumbass

and also...by capitalist i mean competition...NOT CORPORATION

they are NOT the same thing at all.

And when have humans ever not feared/hated eachother/killed eachother...
wars?
rise and fall of empires?
any of that ring a bell?
EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS COMPETED...so you crash my argument...dont even think about what you say...and dont even have any evidence for what you say??

You post made it look as if I didn't know anything about "Animal Farm" and was just citing it to make myself look smart.

That was not the intention: I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it was a re-telling of a particular failing of communism, rather than a be-all-and-end-all disproving of communist ideas.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious then...

Do you have nothing of your own to add here, rather than just cutting-and-pasting blocks of text from elsewhere on the internet?
Well I did interject my own thoughts, but to be honest, the text I posted, reflect my belief and that it actually saved me lots of typing.

Capitalism will implode due to greed, for lack of a better word. As the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow, so will the animosity between the "haves" and the "have nots".

In 18th century France, with 19% of the population backing him, Napoleon overthrew the monarchy. Is there a lesson to be learned from history? Apparently not. History does repeat itself over and over.

no, I think he was addressing Lenidon...


Ah, that makes more sense: for some reason I didn't notice that there was a poster actually called Lenidon that had responded to him.

I'll delete my contribution.

Capitalism will implode due to greed, for lack of a better word. As the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow, so will the animosity between the "haves" and the "have nots".

This is assuming that not only are capitalists greedy, but that they are short-sighted. On a global scale, I'm not sure that one can really draw a neat direct correlation between the gap between the classes, and the animosity between them.

In 18th century France, with 19% of the population backing him, Napoleon overthrew the monarchy. Is there a lesson to be learned from history? Apparently not. History does repeat itself over and over.

Thus the impracticality of believing that Marx & Engels were actually presenting a scientific proof of the inevitability of communism.

Can't be. NEED IS THE ONLY CRITERIA. If (someone needs) then (someone else MUST provide). That is how your system works. Deny that and you deny that you're a communist.
Membership is not compulsory. If you don't want to be a member, you don't have to be.
Irrelevant. Need is the only criteria. I need. Someone must provide. That's how the system works.

Why should someone be penalized because someone else can't do something? That's UNJUST!
Because there are things you can't do.
So what? Does that mean that because I can't do something that I must force someone to do it for me or provide me with the tools to do it? NO! That would be unjust.


No they are not.

Would you claim that someone had the right to your eyes? If not, then property rights are not authoritarian. Deal with it.
There is a huge difference between owning a factory and owning eyes.
No, there is not.

Your eyes are a part of you, a factory isn't. You didn't even build the factory. Why should you control it?
Hey, the workers who make parts in the factory didn't build it, either. So why should they control it? OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS! Didn't think of that, did you?


You must take orders from nature in order to live. Nature is authoritarian! Ban nature!
You don't understand.
I do understand. You think that any action you take that you were ordered to do is wrong. Well your brain orders your muscles to expand and contract for your lungs via the neural pathways. Your brain is authoritarian! Ban it!


How about you tell that to the "collective" which makes the decisions in anarcho-communism. Someone will have to enforce the decisions.
This is anarcho-communism, not the Borg Collective.
Same thing.

You obviously don't know anything about @-com but the basic definition.
No, I know that it must work that way.


For someone who claims to not be a Marxist, you certainly use his words quite frequently.
The idea that capitalism is exploitive and authoritarian is the basis of socialism. Both authoritarian and libertarian socialists agree that it is exploitive.
Yet they can't show how. Odd.


You are so fucking stupid. You think that because you must do something, that it is bad. How fucking lazy and immature! Grow the fuck up.
If other people benefit from the system that hurts me, then yes, I have every right to hate the system.
You must breathe in order to live. You must hate life.

You're an egoist, surely you believe I should be able to oppose something that hurts me.
And how does it hurt you, O Ye 17 year old who knows jack shit about reality?


No, it's pro-individualist and not elitism in the least.
It requires you to live up to a certain model to survive.
No it doesn't.


He is being consistent.
How? She created an exception so that she could get away with being disabled even though she said that you shouldn't be able to get something without earning it.
Because, all other things being equal...

Obviously, you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp such.


No one does any such thing, Karl Marx.
You do.
No, I don't.

You keep acting as though property and coersion are simply forces of nature.
No, I don't.


Because communists claim that is what will happen.
We don't claim that stuff that doesn't exist will be distributed.
...in the same breath that you claim that everyone's needs will be met. Can't have it both ways.


No, that's your job, remember? You and Discordiac like to redefine anarchism as being anti-capitalist, when no definition at all shows that it is. You like to define profit as "theft from the worker", when that implies that value is objective, rather than what it actually is: subjective.
If value is subjective, then money has no value.
Equivocation.

Capitalism is a finite entity that will eventually implode.
More Marxist/Hegelian nonsense.

As capitalist society – the system of wage – labour and ‘free contract’ between master and man – was only developed according as the system of feudalism
No it wasn't.

– or serf labour under a hereditary, landowning nobility – broke down owing to the demand for new methods of industry produced by the opening up of new markets though the discovery of America, and the perfection of means of transit and communication, in like manner will Socialism also come when the development of capitalism in its turn renders the burden of a capitalist class unbearable – and the capitalist system unworkable.
Marxist/Hegelian nonsense.

That the same economic development which will create the necessity for revolt will also provide the conditions required to make that revolt successful, in so far as it will have forced out of business the multitude of small capitalists, and replaced them by huge companies, stores, and trusts – a unification of industry, requiring only the transference of the right of ownership from the individual to the democratic community to bridge the chasm between capitalism and Socialism. That the private property which the worker should possess in the fruits of his toil is continually confiscated to-day by the capitalist process of industry,
What the fuck is it with socialists and the labor theory of value? Did they not get the memo that the LTV has been refuted to death? Did they also not get the memo that Hegel's and Marx' dialectic is a load of shit?

This is assuming that not only are capitalists greedy, but that they are short-sighted. On a global scale, I'm not sure that one can really draw a neat direct correlation between the gap between the classes, and the animosity between them.
I think it is becoming more and more obvious, especially as the elite continues to seek out more wealth by outsourcing production, squirreling away their capital in foreign banks, and properties, lobbying the governments (State and Federal), for more tax conscessions, and personal tax cuts.

In the mid-1990s, the United Nations published a report showing that the U.S. had already become the most class-stratified society among all the advanced industrial countries. Now, wealth in the U.S. is even more concentrated in the hands of a few. "It’s remarkable how little growth has trickled down to ordinary families," Krugman explained. "Median family income has risen only about 0.5 percent per year--and as far as we can tell...just about all of that increase was due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real wages."

The seeds have been sown, and the harvest has begun. Toss in, high consumer debt, high US Debt, increasing interest rates, and faltering stock market and you have foundation for a meltdown.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious, especially as the elite continues to seek out more wealth by outsourcing production, squirreling away their capital in foreign banks, and properties, lobbying the governments (State and Federal), for more tax conscessions, and personal tax cuts.

I'm in general agreement with what you are saying, but Marx said much the same thing in the 1850s with regard to the situation then, and no new age came of it then. I guess it is really a question of whether the progression towards capitalism consuming itself is an asymptotic one - one that will come closer and closer, but never actually be reached.

I'm in general agreement with what you are saying, but Marx said much the same thing in the 1850s with regard to the situation then, and no new age came of it then. I guess it is really a question of whether the progression towards capitalism consuming itself is an asymptotic one - one that will come closer and closer, but never actually be reached.
Personally speaking, I think it will be reached, as to when, is anyones guess. as long as the pervasive attitude exists that I'm okay, screw you Jack, makes it all the more logical. As rich as America is, less and less will see the benefits of the capitalistic society.

In their 1992 campaign for the White House, Bill Clinton and Al Gore liked to point out that the top 1 percent of Americans owned 40 percent of the country’s wealth. They also said that if you eliminated home ownership and only counted businesses, factories and offices, then the top 1 percent owned 90 per cent of all wealth. And the top 10 percent, they said, owned 99 percent!

When one considers the above, it simply boggles the mind. Toss in Bush's lucrative personal income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the picture becomes even more distorted.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a beautiful, compassionate ideal that that voices a love for ones fellow man that just doesn't exist.

Communism can't work, and can't be made to work. And I think that is a good thing. Under the communist doctrine there is no reward for hard work, or rather there is no overtime pay. Any extra effort an individual puts in leads to no personnal benefits. So instead of putting in that extra effort everyone just scrapes by and the society becomes stagnant even without being overseen by greedy, power-mad dictators.

The rags-to-riches American Dream that everyone can be a millionaire is false. But for as long as its fantasy persists, our capitalist society will perservere and even flourish. I'll take my chances with the possibility of a big payoff over bare subsistence every time; its human nature.

Communism itself is a good idea on paper. In reality it cant work because it fails to have competition which is the only way for society and technology to advance.

Communism itself is a good idea on paper. In reality it cant work because it fails to have competition which is the only way for society and technology to advance.

Totally idle speculation: how do you feel about having a communist society that gives out purely symbolic medals to those who advance society and technology, thus stimulating competition?

(I disagree with you that technology only advances as a result of inter-human competition, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of worms.)

Actually War is the fastest way to advance in tachnology.

why are so many people so quick to accept that it's humans who are failures and thus cannot achieve the perfection of a system? If the system is inattainable, doesn't that kinda limit the perfection of it? I think everyone should read the book The Story of B (whether you believe it is humans who are flawed or not, and even though I disliked it- it also has interesting thoughts on modern religion)
I think you'll be more confident about mankind afterwards.

You have the correct answer Sliders.

You have the correct answer Sliders.
well I stole it from Daniel Quinn...though I have to admit I chose what to agree with, since it is few and far between in his books....
(I'm giving him a harder time than necessary- I think I have some weird bias...I'm not into a gorilla who could speak to humans psychically as a way to put forth your ideals or something)

Actually War is the fastest way to advance in tachnology.

That may be so, but that doesn't contradict my doubts about technology advancing 'only' as a result of competition.

More Marxist/Hegelian nonsense.

Don't lump Hegel & Marx together. Marx himself termed his appropriation of him "turning Hegel on his head." In fact I believe it is because Capitalism is a more true representation of Hegel's dialectic interpersonally than Communism in & of itself that Capitalism triumphed over the Communist experiment. Only when a more consistently dialectical process for society is developed will society move beyond it's boundries of what we have now. i.e. True Federalism.

Be careful that you don't start thinking that society is some real thing (such that you reify it, which is a fallacy).

To reify is to treat an abstraction as if it were a material or concrete thing, which is not the same as treating it as if it were "real." In the philosophy of mathematics, for a more straightforward example, one generally treats number as abstractions... but this does not exclude a discussion of their ontology. The mistake is to treat them as if they "exist somewhere."

Whatever the ontological status of "society," real politics has to treat "it" as if it exists... otherwise, things like "public opinion" and "democracy" could not exist either.

You just reified society. Can't do that. Society does nothing. Only individuals can do things. Society is just a collection of INDIVIDUALS.

Actually, I didn't. But if you prefer, we can avoid the linguistic shortcuts of talking about "society," and say things like "the complex of interactions between individuals results in a net product that is greater than the sum of individual inputs." It doesn't matter to me.

Let's put it this way. You're on a team. There is no way to measure performance based on output, because the output is a group result. Say you're coming up with an idea together. You bounce ideas off one another... and no one can say what your output would have been by yourself, had you not had others helping. (Actually, a classic market failure, alleviated within most firms by appointing a manager who makes a "best guess" at your input by measuring non-output behaviors, such as whether or not you show up to work on time, or how long your breaks are.)

The point is, when people work together, each doing different jobs, the net result is greater than the sum of the individual inputs. You have created additional wealth as a group. And, just as the capitalistic entrepreneur takes a profit for doing the work of organizing firms and keeping them organized.... so too is society -- or, if you prefer something concrete in its immediacy, government -- justified in "taking a profit" or taxing your output, since it has "done the work" of maintaining the organization. And the society -- or government -- has every right to determine the use of those funds as it will. They are its "profit" for managing the great human organization. Of course, in a democracy you do have the right to make your own arguments about where it should go.


Oh, yes there is. NAZI society decided that it was ok to gas the jews, right (to use your terms). So the jews just had to go along with it, right? Couldn't complain, right?

Perhaps I wasn't clear -- if so, I apologize. My argument stipulates that society is prior to the individual qua economic creature. As it happens, I have modified that claim slightly, in this post, to a weaker thesis that still makes the same point: society/government does the work of organization, and is therefore entitled to do as it will with the excess funds... at least, within limits set by human or civil rights that might be determined on other grounds.

If you are no member of society, or you live under no government, then the fruits of your labor are yours and yours alone. But only then.

You're reifying society. The individual comes before "society". Society is made of individuals.

Try taking a bunch of babies and isolating them from all society until, say, they are 15 years old. (Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that somehow they will survive.) Then you will see what the "individual" looks like prior to society... and see if they can make a society on their own. If they can, then society can be made up of individuals, even if it never has been. If not, then society must preceed the individual, because you can take a society and break it up into individuals, but you cannot take non-social individuals and make them into a society.

Be careful you don't reify "individual," as if we each have some cosmic existence prior to being created by the language (social) and the relations (social) around us. Individuals do not simply come into being -- they are made.

Oh, Plato was wrong, btw. "Society" is there for the individual. The individual is not there for "society".

If you'd read the book, you'd see that he makes both arguments, and sees the sensible connection. (He's the earliest social contract theorist that I know of.) He suggests that the individual by himself is in a sad state -- having to make his own house, grow his own food, etc. But in society, he can do just one thing, and exchange with others... so everyone gets more. So yes, society exists for the good of us all. But that does not change the fact that society is the mother to the advanced creatures we have become... and we owe a debt for it.

Clearly, of course, we can never really separate the two. The point is that you cannot privilege one as monopolising all economic rights. (For you should easily see from the above argument that society has no right to ALL of your labor... just that portion, or an approximation of it, that is over-and-above what you could do all by yourself in the woods. I tend, however, to think this is a rather large percentage.)

what un-inteligent person said the USSR wasn't communist
it is true it wasnt communist beceause it was socialist thats the step between capitalism and communism...

but it was ruled by communists, money can be used in a communist society
communism is about social eqaulity not about total eqaulity...

Communism didn't work but I don't think for a minute that it was due 100% to it's failure in a domestic context. It was given a hard time by the capitalist countries from it's outset, not that one should expect any different from a oposing ideology. Unfortunatly this harrasment had the unfortunate side effect of opening the back door for extreme right wing governments (i.e. Pinnochet, Franco and Hitler), who to the capitalists, seemed the lesser of two evils.

As far as I can tell as long as people are predominantly motivated by greed communism can never work, it requires a fundamental change in the nature of people. However you can make a round peg fit in a square hole if you drill out the square edges, but that's missing the point of the game. Never-the-less capitalism isn't much better, it fails large proportions of people constantly. Everytime you see a rich man's stupid child in a well paid job and a poor man's inteligent child sweeping the streets; that's capitalism failing. Everytime your stuck in a traffic jam because everyone would rather drive when they could use public transport; that's capitalism failing. I digress as the list goes on.

It seems fairly obvious to me that capitalists and communists arguing about who's got the right vision for the future is about as useful as two dinosaurs in the late cretaceous arguing about which one is more suited to become the next dominant species.

what un-inteligent person said the USSR wasn't communist
There was me thinking it was State Capitalist.
it is true it wasnt communist beceause it was socialist thats the step between capitalism and communism...
Is it just me or does this go against your first 'clause'?
but it was ruled by communists,
How so?
money can be used in a communist society
How so?
If everything is shared in common, where is the need of money?
communism is about social eqaulity not about total eqaulity...
And there wasn't social equality in the USSR

Communism didn't work but I don't think for a minute that it was due 100% to it's failure in a domestic context.
Communsim has worked before. The USSR was the only 'Communism.'
As far as I can tell as long as people are predominantly motivated by greed
And how do you know people are motivated by greed
it requires a fundamental change in the nature of people.
Can you tell us what this "nature of people" is?

It seems fairly obvious to me that capitalists and communists arguing about who's got the right vision for the future is about as useful as two dinosaurs in the late cretaceous arguing about which one is more suited to become the next dominant species.
I quite like that.

Communsim has worked before. The USSR was the only 'Communism.'
:confused: THe USSR never made it past a workers state phase due to the large foregin insurgency and because the revolution wasn't spreading to western europe. Then all hell broke loose because you can't create socialism in one state and Stalin seized power. So it then became a 'deformed workers state" and therefore it never reached inernational socialism and then its impossible that the USSR (and for that matter any so called 'communist' country) could ever have become communist.

:confused: THe USSR never made it past a workers state phase due to the large foregin insurgency and because the revolution wasn't spreading to western europe.
Hence 'Communism' rather then Communism (in the '' marks)

More Marxist/Hegelian nonsense.
Don't lump Hegel & Marx together.
I must. Marx is just Hegel without the supernatural appeals, despite Marx' claims to the contrary. Marx never turned Hegel on his head. Marx' entire metaphysics is Hegel's (minus the supernatural), as is his epistemology (again, minus the supernatural, replacing it with "historical materialism").

Be careful that you don't start thinking that society is some real thing (such that you reify it, which is a fallacy).
To reify is to treat an abstraction as if it were a material or concrete thing, which is not the same as treating it as if it were "real."
Yeah, it actually is insofar as treating it as a concrete. Thus making it "real". You reified society in many places, bub. Same as Plato. Same as Marx. Same as all the other moron dual-realmers.

Whatever the ontological status of "society," real politics has to treat "it" as if it exists... otherwise, things like "public opinion" and "democracy" could not exist either.
No, those are just metaphors. "Public opinion" doesn't exist at all. There are only the aggregations of individual opinions.


You just reified society. Can't do that. Society does nothing. Only individuals can do things. Society is just a collection of INDIVIDUALS.
Actually, I didn't.
Actually, you did.

But if you prefer, we can avoid the linguistic shortcuts of talking about "society," and say things like "the complex of interactions between individuals results in a net product that is greater than the sum of individual inputs." It doesn't matter to me.
The sum of the individual inputs is the same as the product.

Let's put it this way. You're on a team. There is no way to measure performance based on output, because the output is a group result.
Wrong. A quick check of baseball or football stats will show the error here. Hits. RBIs. Tackles. Yards thrown. etc.

Want to try again?

The point is, when people work together, each doing different jobs, the net result is greater than the sum of the individual inputs.
Nope.

You have created additional wealth as a group. And, just as the capitalistic entrepreneur takes a profit for doing the work of organizing firms and keeping them organized.... so too is society -- or, if you prefer something concrete in its immediacy, government -- justified in "taking a profit" or taxing your output, since it has "done the work" of maintaining the organization.
No it hasn't! It creates the problems. It doesn't even manage, fer crissakes.

You're still reifying society.

And the society -- or government -- has every right to determine the use of those funds as it will. They are its "profit" for managing the great human organization.
*laughs*

That assumes that humans need such managing and that only ONE group can do it! What a load of shit.

Then there's the problem that since the government is just another collection of individuals, and in a representative republic such as the US the citizens are supposed to be represented, then my representation isn't being heard because I don't want my money stolen by the government! It's a load of self-contradictory nonsense.


Oh, yes there is. NAZI society decided that it was ok to gas the jews, right (to use your terms). So the jews just had to go along with it, right? Couldn't complain, right?
Perhaps I wasn't clear -- if so, I apologize. My argument stipulates that society is prior to the individual qua economic creature.
It's not. Man is by nature an economic creature.

As it happens, I have modified that claim slightly, in this post, to a weaker thesis that still makes the same point: society/government does the work of organization,
No it doesn't. It creates problems in the organization. And society != government. Please try again.

and is therefore entitled to do as it will with the excess funds... at least, within limits set by human or civil rights that might be determined on other grounds.
Not in the least. No one has the right to expropriate the property of another.Government is not an unifying force. It is divisive. "Society" is just an aggregation of individuals, and the individuals create the order. Society doesn't. Stop fucking reifying!


You're reifying society. The individual comes before "society". Society is made of individuals.
Try taking a bunch of babies
Irrelevant. The individual comes before society. Society is made of individuals. If the individuals disperse, society dissolves.

I'd love to see you actually address that. But your example didn't.

Be careful you don't reify "individual,"
Individual = one person. You can't reify that. It's just a fact.

as if we each have some cosmic existence prior to being created by the language (social) and the relations (social) around us. Individuals do not simply come into being -- they are made.
No--they are born. Each person is an individual person. One. One person. One individual. Born as one person. Born as one individual. Born.


Oh, Plato was wrong, btw. "Society" is there for the individual. The individual is not there for "society".
If you'd read the book,
I have. In fact, I have an e-copy of it.

you'd see that he makes both arguments, and sees the sensible connection. (He's the earliest social contract theorist that I know of.) He suggests that the individual by himself is in a sad state -- having to make his own house, grow his own food, etc. But in society, he can do just one thing, and exchange with others... so everyone gets more. So yes, society exists for the good of us all. But that does not change the fact that society is the mother to the advanced creatures we have become... and we owe a debt for it.
No we don't, and stop reifying society.

Clearly, of course, we can never really separate the two. The point is that you cannot privilege one as monopolising all economic rights. (For you should easily see from the above argument that society has no right to ALL of your labor
No right to any part of any labor, since society doesn't exist and can't get anything.

... just that portion, or an approximation of it, that is over-and-above what you could do all by yourself in the woods. I tend, however, to think this is a rather large percentage.)
Fucking thief.

As far as I can tell as long as people are predominantly motivated by greed communism can never work, it requires a fundamental change in the nature of people.
Agreed.

Never-the-less capitalism isn't much better, it fails large proportions of people constantly. Everytime you see a rich man's stupid child in a well paid job and a poor man's inteligent child sweeping the streets; that's capitalism failing.
Agreed.

It seems fairly obvious to me that capitalists and communists arguing about who's got the right vision for the future is about as useful as two dinosaurs in the late cretaceous arguing about which one is more suited to become the next dominant species.
So the obvious answer lies somewhere in between? Let's call that Socialism?

Since we've known communism doesn't work for a while now, why don't we try and make an anti-socialist thread? We've already got an anti-capitalist thread.

I just wrote a really long reply to BAAWA, but lost it.

Whatever. Let me make this really short and sweet:

In economics, there are linear, separable combinations of inputs, and nonlinear, nonseparable "cooperative" combinations.

MOST production in an advanced economy is cooperative. By definition, cooperative production creates a product that is more than the sum of the individual inputs.

Therefore, the group -- whatever group it may be -- creates a product that is inseparable from its existence as a group. It would be contradictory for any individual to claim a personal right to it. Mind you, the individual may still claim a portion of the product (he did, after all, contribute some work), but there is no consistent rule upon which he may claim all of it.

Unless, of course, the group agrees that it should be his. But that's just the point. Whatever the group does with its collective output is up to the group. In a democratic or anarchist society, you fortunately get some say in this.

That's a good thing. But when you get your say, what you CANNOT consistenly say is "I have a right to this product." You COULD, perhaps, suggest that society institute such a right, and that it be agreed that the group product should somehow be divided amongst the individuals that make up the group. But that would still depend on you deciding, as a group, what to do with it.

It's as if you and some friends painted a mural together. The product, necessarily, would be greater than the sum of its parts -- just try taking "your piece," and separating out everyone else's pieces, and looking at them one at a time. See if the enjoyment you get from viewing each of them adds up to the enjoyment you get from seeing the whole (assuming for the sake of argument you are all decent artists).

Now, BAAWA might say, "Well that's all well and good... but when we sell it, we divide up the proceeds, and I have a right to my share, goddamn it!!!"

Of course, there's nothing that says you have to sell it. Maybe you keep it somewhere you can all enjoy. Maybe you've donated it. Whatever you do, however, it will have to be a group decision. BAAWA will get his turn to speak, but he has no more "right" than anyone else.


Well, most labor in a complex economy works like that.

By the way, any psychologist would say you've reified "individual," which is a rather abstract concept. Try identifying the individuality of an infant, which experiences the world as if it were not separate from him... and especially as if Mother were a part of him.

Of course, you probably just mean, "a physical body -- just one body." Fine. But bodies by themselves don't do very much... so it's just not a very interesting concept.

--E

Hence 'Communism' rather then Communism (in the '' marks)
Oops! MIssed that.

communism doesn't work because people are initially corrupt. It's a good idea on paper, but in reality it fails because of people. However, China uses a mixed economy that borrows many traits from capitalist countries, yet are still communist. Why did they do that? Because the chineese are smart, and realize that it's better to take the working parts out of both opposing governments.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

Despite Marx & Engels' assertions to the contrary, we have no evidence that the inevitable victory of the proletariat is, in fact, inevitable, much as I would like to believe it is. That is the problem with their so-called scientific dialectical materialism: it isn't science. It may very well be that what replaces capitalism in due course is something compeltely unexpected and as of yet unimagined.Indeed. I'd argue that the way forward for anyone serious about social change, the way forward is the hard slog of serious community activism to defend working class communitys, not the easy cop-out of vanguardism.Thus the impracticality of believing that Marx & Engels were actually presenting a scientific proof of the inevitability of communism. Yep. Ironically I suspect Marx and Engels might have agreed with you, hence Marx's famous statement that he was not a Marxist. But to try and take something written under the historical conditions Marx was working under and try and apply it with no revision to our situation now, or to treat any writer, no matter how talented as infallible is laughable and an indicator of how morally and politically bankrupt the Last Century Left actually is.

I think you're bang on the nail with your comments on 'dialectical materialism' as well. Marxes economic determinism is one of his most significant failings.

I must. Marx is just Hegel without the supernatural appeals, despite Marx' claims to the contrary. Marx never turned Hegel on his head. Marx' entire metaphysics is Hegel's (minus the supernatural), as is his epistemology (again, minus the supernatural, replacing it with "historical materialism").

Supernatural isn't the correct term. Hegel's dialectic was idealistic, Marx's dialectic pertained to the material universe; which in-fact could be considered much more "supernatural" than the idea of thoughts synthesizing to form new ones, but that the matter of nature itself does so.

The dialectic was a theory whereby a new foundation was set from a previous coming together of two divergent sides of a concept; even if thought of in a materialist context, Communism cannot be said to be the dialectic even in theory by Marx's own stipulation that every survival of Capitalism must be destroyed before Communism can come to be. That means it isn't a natural amalgamation that sets a foundation over which the former opposites have realized themselves in one reconciled entity. By this very fact that Communism must be precariously balanced in a world empty of Capitalists proves that it has not set a standard beyond where new synthesis can arise for it has not proven itself a foundation at all. In fact, that Marx put this up only as theory, makes it idealistic and not materialistic at all like he claimed.

So the obvious answer lies somewhere in between? Let's call that Socialism?

Socialism is more of an inveterate theory than Communism. Georges Sorel's Anarcho-syndicalism is at least a good critique and continuation of Communism, but if taking that path as Giovanni Gentile said;

"It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged - conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism."

To synthesize Anarcho-syndicalism with it's opposite is the dialectical origin of Fascism. People are pushed away from that for no other reason that it's name, but the dialectical partner to Fascism would be Classical Liberalism. The unification of those is something Nietzsche had glimmerings of; 'The bi-cameral system of culture.' A system of culture because of it's idiovaluation.

The bottom line is: If I were living in a communist country, how do you plan on making me work?

The good of society?

I don't know about you, but I'm primarily concerned about myself and my family, not the well-being of people who I've never met, and can't guarantee that they work hard too.

Starving me out or denying me goods?

You can't, or you're no better than a capitalist society.

Some kind of work police? Congrats, YOU'RE authoritarian now.

What's to keep me from just mooching off of the work others do? I'll show you what happens when we create a communistic society, look at welfare. We get those who abuse the system, but continue to do so, because of commies or bleeding heart left-wing idealists.

The day you can find a way to make me work in a communistic society, I'll buy you a candy bar. Of course there probably won't be any, because why the hell would the workers want to exert themselves for no kind of incentive?

HM is an interesting theory. Marx lived before technology capable of destroying humanity had even been considered, but looking now, I'd say the stage after capitalism is going to be technocracy and then destruction or just skipping to destruction if we don't do something.

I must. Marx is just Hegel without the supernatural appeals, despite Marx' claims to the contrary. Marx never turned Hegel on his head.

I would describe Marx's description of a dialectic where the conditions of the world drive and produce ideas, as opposed to Hegel's dialectic wherein ideas drive and produce the conditions of the world to be turning Hegel on his head...

Communism is a terrible disease. Most of all, i disagree with the arrogance communism and communists say "we have the answers" "a perfect world" "quality"

While those things are nice, they're impossible. If humans are inherently imperfect how can we create a perfect or even near-perfect system governming millions?

If humans are inherently imperfect how can we create a perfect or even near-perfect system governming millions?

1. Against what standard are you measuring human beings and declaring them to be imperfect?

2. The eventual aim of most varieties of communism is not to create a "system governing millions", but to go beyond the need for any system and any governance whatsoever.

I just wrote a really long reply to BAAWA, but lost it.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

In economics, there are linear, separable combinations of inputs, and nonlinear, nonseparable "cooperative" combinations.

MOST production in an advanced economy is cooperative. By definition, cooperative production creates a product that is more than the sum of the individual inputs.
Is it?

Therefore, the group -- whatever group it may be -- creates a product that is inseparable from its existence as a group.
Meaning?

It would be contradictory for any individual to claim a personal right to it. Mind you, the individual may still claim a portion of the product (he did, after all, contribute some work), but there is no consistent rule upon which he may claim all of it.
And?

Unless, of course, the group agrees that it should be his. But that's just the point. Whatever the group does with its collective output is up to the group. In a democratic or anarchist society, you fortunately get some say in this.
(waits for some sort of point)

That's a good thing. But when you get your say, what you CANNOT consistenly say is "I have a right to this product." You COULD, perhaps, suggest that society institute such a right,
Society doesn't institute rights. The individuals of the group known as "society" agree to certain things.

You should read up on contractarianism.

and that it be agreed that the group product should somehow be divided amongst the individuals that make up the group. But that would still depend on you deciding, as a group, what to do with it.

It's as if you and some friends painted a mural together. The product, necessarily, would be greater than the sum of its parts -- just try taking "your piece," and separating out everyone else's pieces, and looking at them one at a time.
What if it's a mural of individual paintings?

See if the enjoyment you get from viewing each of them adds up to the enjoyment you get from seeing the whole (assuming for the sake of argument you are all decent artists).

Now, BAAWA might say, "Well that's all well and good... but when we sell it, we divide up the proceeds, and I have a right to my share, goddamn it!!!"
One would think so.

Of course, there's nothing that says you have to sell it.
That's true. But your example is assuming that it will be sold.

Maybe you keep it somewhere you can all enjoy. Maybe you've donated it. Whatever you do, however, it will have to be a group decision. BAAWA will get his turn to speak, but he has no more "right" than anyone else.
And?


Well, most labor in a complex economy works like that.

By the way, any psychologist would say you've reified "individual,"
No, they would not. In no way, shape, manner or form am I using individual in any psychological manner. I am using it in the sense that we are individual beings. Separate.

Of course, you probably just mean, "a physical body -- just one body." Fine. But bodies by themselves don't do very much... so it's just not a very interesting concept.
Oh it's quite interesting, for it puts to rest the notion of collective consciousness and other such bullshit.

I must. Marx is just Hegel without the supernatural appeals, despite Marx' claims to the contrary. Marx never turned Hegel on his head. Marx' entire metaphysics is Hegel's (minus the supernatural), as is his epistemology (again, minus the supernatural, replacing it with "historical materialism").
Supernatural isn't the correct term.
Actually, it is. The geist is utterly removed from normal natural experience, so it's perfectly well in keeping to call it "supernatural".

Hegel's dialectic was idealistic, Marx's dialectic pertained to the material universe; which in-fact could be considered much more "supernatural" than the idea of thoughts synthesizing to form new ones, but that the matter of nature itself does so.
Marx' ideas were of history.

The dialectic was a theory whereby a new foundation was set from a previous coming together of two divergent sides of a concept;
Yes. Hegelians never change light bulbs because a burnt-out bulb is on one end of the spectrum from a lit bulb, and will eventually synthesize itself into a dim glow.

That's a joke, btw.

even if thought of in a materialist context, Communism cannot be said to be the dialectic even in theory by Marx's own stipulation that every survival of Capitalism must be destroyed before Communism can come to be. That means it isn't a natural amalgamation that sets a foundation over which the former opposites have realized themselves in one reconciled entity. By this very fact that Communism must be precariously balanced in a world empty of Capitalists proves that it has not set a standard beyond where new synthesis can arise for it has not proven itself a foundation at all. In fact, that Marx put this up only as theory, makes it idealistic and not materialistic at all like he claimed.
Which is why it's still Hegel.

Actually, it is. The geist is utterly removed from normal natural experience, so it's perfectly well in keeping to call it "supernatural".

Actually, it is materialism that has a presupposition that something exists apart from thought, thinking & ideals, which is all that we can know. Materialism is then transcendent rather than immanent, therefore outside nature if nature is to be conceived as one's own natural state. Materialism can be argued to be a presupposition & therefore a logical presumption, supra naturalis, This is the philosophical basis of Fascism as set forth by Giovanni Gentile & his Actual Idealism.

Marx' ideas were of history.

Marx's theories were in his own terms the Materialist conception of history, Hegel's was an Idealist conception of history. Marx was leftist, Hegel was a rightist.

Which is why it's still Hegel.

But "Hegel" is a system not a specific content, the dialectic cannot & does not contain the postulate of Communism any more than existentialism by means of Heidegger proclaims itself Nazism.

McCarthy had theright idea - throw all the commies in jail - that is, afterall, what the end result of communism would be for everyone else.

Free room +board, work is not manditory, free health care, and you get what you need whenever you need it (and someone to decide for you what and when that is!). Communist nirvana!
(though they still need cash from capitalism to operate)

Actually, it is. The geist is utterly removed from normal natural experience, so it's perfectly well in keeping to call it "supernatural".
Actually, it is materialism that has a presupposition that something exists apart from thought, thinking & ideals, which is all that we can know.
*touches the keys on the keyboard, thus refuting that load of shit*

Got anything else?


Marx' ideas were of history.
Marx's theories were in his own terms the Materialist conception of history, Hegel's was an Idealist conception of history. Marx was leftist, Hegel was a rightist.
Hegel also suborned the individual to "society".


Which is why it's still Hegel.
But "Hegel" is a system not a specific content,
It's philosophical shorthand.

Society doesn't institute rights. The individuals of the group known as "society" agree to certain things.

Semantics. I will readily agree to the fact that the individuals of the group known as society agree to certain things... shorthand for which is the statement that "society institutes rights."

You should read up on contractarianism.

Ummm... maybe you're the one who needs to do some reading. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The moral theory of contractarianism claims that moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement." But, that's what I've been saying all along... You are the one who claims an absolute right of the individual that precedes his membership in society, i.e. his entry into the social contract. Perhaps instead you are trying to argue contractualism which, in descent from Kant, "holds that rationality requires that we respect persons, which in turn requires that moral principles be such that they can be justified to each person."

You should get your terms straight.

Even the contractualist, however, would have a hard time with an individual trying to justify stealing from the common pot, i.e. that portion of the social product that exceeds, due to the well-established effects of cooperation, the sum of individual non-cooperative inputs alone.

:headbang:

I'd make a comment but then,everyone knows what I think about communism.

Hegel also suborned the individual to "society".

So? The same is true of fascists and they are definitely right wing.

*touches the keys on the keyboard, thus refuting that load of shit*

Got anything else?

Please clarify your refutation. I see none. That sense occured in your mind, did that sense realize itself external to you? no.

Please clarify your refutation. I see none. That sense occured in your mind, did that sense realize itself external to you? no.

My thoughts exactly. I personally believe that everything is either perception or mind. The idea of a physical world is an artificial distinction.

My thoughts exactly. I personally believe that everything is either perception or mind. The idea of a physical world is an artificial distinction.

Yes, I'm not saying it isn't real to who is preceiving, but it is only real to the preceiver, and only real to society as a collective of individual preceptions, outside of which it has no meaning. We assume other's preceptions from language, but we draw the meaning to language from how we understand what we alone sense. Materialism is a presupposition as much as 'god the father' is. Only idealism can be free of presuppositions, science that creates "truth" as truth is that which can be known to us, it is a function of ideals, not of materialism.

Another point of Idealism being more actual than 'materialistic realism.' Let's for example take the median conception of a material from the ideal.

The material world has no objective quality outside of a median conception which develops into a world of assumptions by inituition of formerly conceived attributes as known directly by ones thinking. Even when using this median world by which our thinking puts science to it. Modern science has come up against nonlinear dynamics, so called 'chaos' theory, fractals & self-similarity, even something so simple as the construction of what light is, can be either understood through our material appropriation of it's cause & effect taking a particulate or wavelength quality; depending only on how we go about measuring it; that is, depending entirely on how we choose to precieve it with the means by which we think to compound our thinking; it exists in no way objectively outside of thinking about it on a scientific basis. It's entire quality alters when, not only physically measuring it as the materialist explaination is, but when grasping it as a concept.

To argue that Hegelianism was intrinsic to Marxism completely defies the Italian Fascist adoption of Hegel on the philosophical side of idealism, albeit a more extreme form, that he himself used. The Fascist's version was just as unconventionally implemented from Hegels own views of the dialectic as the Marxist was, but it was certainly no less true following in the Hegelian tradition in that it was carrying on only the core methodology. Soviets wouldn't allow the theory of a non-reformed Hegelianism from polluting their philosophy and, as they saw it, their unity of theory and practice. When the Soviet philosopher Deborin starting taking his theory and those of his followers along a path of Dialectical Idealism historically to justify Dialectical Materialism he was branded a deviationist for not reforming the dialectic to be materialist in and of itself. Hegel's theory certainly wasn't directly conducive to Communism's use of it without a truncation of the basis that it sought itself in the justification of idealism originally.

MOST production in an advanced economy is cooperative. By definition, cooperative production creates a product that is more than the sum of the individual inputs.

This is true. The assembly line is a perfect example of this.

Communism can work its just never come into practise in the real world.
Russia wasnt communist. China isnt and never was Communist. Cuba isnt and never was Communist. North Korea wasnt and Never was Communist.

In all these countries the ruling political party was called the Communist party. But these parties went on to completely betray and undermine the teachings of Marx (and the fact they all let dictators come to power didnt help either) These countries all counted just as socialist but not communist they only went halfway so noone can say Communism doesnt work because they have no idea.

Also the fact the Great (cough cough) United States of America is made up of rich self obsessed people, didnt help as America being the most powerfull country in the world spent 40 years using their military to interfere in all countries even slightly concerned about their people and equality. Branding them Lefties and reds.

Message to take away from this short passage? Dont just brand Communism a bad idea and throw it away. Give it achance you might be surprised

what's wrong with Communism was neatly summerized by Marx: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." possibly the most disgusting concept ever generated in human social interaction.

Yeah does not seem very social to me. What happens if you have more ability than the person next to you. Or if you need more?
Oh yeah and:
Lelita what the hell are you talking about? Most hunter-gather cultures were definitely NOT communist. Just because they shared resources does not make them communist. Members in their society still hold/held more power than others.
Even in a workers paradise where workers own the resources. They would still need to delegate responsibility to someone. This person would have to be able to order the workers around. This would make them authoritarian in your eyes as they have authority.

1. Abolish inheritance.
2. Abolish state-sponsored marriage (or state-sponsored prostitution).
3. Make social education mandatory for all.
4. Put the workers in control of the industries acquired by the state.
5. Make work mandatory for all those who can work.

My thoughts exactly. I personally believe that everything is either perception or mind. The idea of a physical world is an artificial distinction.

So you're a solipsist?

1. Abolish inheritance.
2. Abolish state-sponsored marriage (or state-sponsored prostitution).
3. Make social education mandatory for all.
4. Put the workers in control of the industries acquired by the state.
5. Make work mandatory for all those who can work.

Seems like force labour and brainwashing to me....

Seems like force labour and brainwashing to me....It is.
But if you think we can have a society without labor and education, I'm ready to hear about your input.
In my opinion, peace and justive are more important than the freedom to kill the next guy.

It is.
But if you think we can have a society without labor and education, I'm ready to hear about your input.
In my opinion, peace and justive are more important than the freedom to kill the next guy.

Fair enough. But your advocating social education. Such a thing should come around naturally. That's how you have differin opinions and ideas. In theory at least, under capitalism the more you work the more earn. I know there is more to it than that, but as I see it, in a capitalist society or one that leans in that direction, at least you are motivated to work harder. even if it is for selfish reasons

*shudder* the attitude that anybody deserves more than they can earn is disgusting to me. i would never want or ask for support like that, and i have no respect for anybody who does. life should be free exchange, and all people should reap exactly what they sow; the incompetant should fail, and the competant should succeed. no competant person should ever be compelled to support the incompetant, and to insist otherwise is the furthest possible thing from compassion.

but hey, i have this weird notion that all humans are capable of supporting themselves (baring organic problems like medical handicaps, of course), and that they should do so rather than expecting other people to do it for them. i have the crazy thought that people should take responsibility for both their own successes and their own mistakes, and shouldn't take on those of other people. i know, i'm such a meanie.

Tell you what, get yourself a t-shirt that says "the lowpaid suck, get a better job". Then walk in front of a slow-moving car - slow enough to injure you, but not enough to kill you. Now, let's see how well the not very well paid ambulance staff and paramedics treat you, and then the nurses. If there was any justice in the world, you'd be turfed back out on the street. However, because hospitals the world over are staffed with people who actual have an ounce of humanity in them and will treat people because they're sick, not to earn money, not because they like them, but just because they're sick, you'll more than likely be patched up and sent on your ignorant, elitist way.

Vas.

Communism word for word does not work in this day and age, simply because people have more wants than before.

And your point is? A more equal system where things are distributed more equally, thus satisfying more of the wants of the majority of people, is more practical than what we have now? Nonsense.

Vas.

That's a Funny notion, as long as there are capitalists there will be capitalism.

True, but meaningless. Capitalists can only exist within capitalism, abolish capitalism, then you've got people who might want to be capitalists, but they aren't anymore. It's all about property.

Vas.

And as long as there are capitalists, there won't be communism. So, seeing as capitalism can't die out until all the capitalists are gone, I don't think the capitalists will do much of anything (maybe rot) when capitalism dies out.

Rubbish, the workers decide tomorrow that they're taking over your factory - that's it, bye, bye capitalism for you. Take a look at Argentina, particularly The National Movement of Recovered Companies (MNER).

Vas.

Animal Farm is a good way of explaining from my point of view how anarchy/anarcho-communism turns to capitalism.

Animal Farm is a communist's critique of the non-communist USSR. Jesus, have you no knowledge of history?

Vas.

You post made it look as if I didn't know anything about "Animal Farm" and was just citing it to make myself look smart.

If you cite something outside of its historical context and in direct contradiction of what it was written to mean, you make yourself look stupid.

Vas.

Under the communist doctrine there is no reward for hard work, or rather there is no overtime pay.

OK, a simple equation:
In communism, ten people work together in a factory they own in common, and between them they produce 120 units of food. Within their commune is an elderly couple who are no longer capable of working, so the food is distributed equally with need taken into account, each person (including each member of the couple) receives ten units of food.

In capitalism, ten people work together in a factory, which is owned by a capitalist, and controlled by a manager. Within their town is an elderly couple no longer capable of working. They don't own the factory, so they have less personal investment in it (and, being unionised, they get a set rate), so they produce 100 units of food. This is take by the manager and sold. Each worker is paid enough to buy 5 units of food, the manager pays himself enough to buy 30 units of food and the owner receives enough in rent to buy 20 units. Tax, to the value of 2 units of food, is take from each worker, it being a progressive system, 10 units worth is taken from the manager, and 2 units from the owner. The tax money gives the couple enough money to buy 2 units of food between them, the rest goes on the priorities of government (arms, big offices, bureacracy).

So, basically, the system that rewards the worker leaves them, at the end of the day, with 3 units of food. The system that doesn't reward them gives them 10. Overtime in capitalism will provide them with only a percentage of what they produce (less tax), overtime in communism increases the production that's shared equitably. Even adding in the "to each according to their needs" element, each worker profits over three times more in communism than in capitalism.

Vas.

Society doesn't institute rights. The individuals of the group known as "society" agree to certain things.
Semantics. I will readily agree to the fact that the individuals of the group known as society agree to certain things... shorthand for which is the statement that "society institutes rights."
Nope. Then you're reifying society.


You should read up on contractarianism.
Ummm... maybe you're the one who needs to do some reading.
I have, actually. I own and have read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement and Narveson's The Libertarian Idea and Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice.

I know what I'm talking about.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The moral theory of contractarianism claims that moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement." But, that's what I've been saying all along
No, you've been saying that "society" does it, not individuals.

... You are the one who claims an absolute right of the individual that precedes his membership in society,
Society is just a group of people who interact, not some membership club.

i.e. his entry into the social contract. Perhaps instead you are trying to argue contractualism which, in descent from Kant, "holds that rationality requires that we respect persons, which in turn requires that moral principles be such that they can be justified to each person."
No, I'm not trying that.

You should get your terms straight.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Even the contractualist, however, would have a hard time with an individual trying to justify stealing from the common pot, i.e. that portion of the social product that exceeds, due to the well-established effects of cooperation, the sum of individual non-cooperative inputs alone.
Meaningless.

So? The same is true of fascists and they are definitely right wing.
No, fascism is dishonest communism.

Oh, please tell me more about how logic is authoritarian. I loved that joke.

*touches the keys on the keyboard, thus refuting that load of shit*

Got anything else?
Please clarify your refutation. I see none.
That's because you're illiterate.

That sense occured in your mind, did that sense realize itself external to you? no.
Yes. It can be shown that the keys impinged upon my fingers.

Good day to you, mystic.

My thoughts exactly. I personally believe that everything is either perception or mind. The idea of a physical world is an artificial distinction.
I love the refutation of this, actually.

Stub your toe. Then tell me it's just an "artificial distinction".

Fucking mysticism. It's a mental disease, and you have a bad case of it.

Tell you what, get yourself a t-shirt that says "the lowpaid suck, get a better job". Then walk in front of a slow-moving car - slow enough to injure you, but not enough to kill you. Now, let's see how well the not very well paid ambulance staff and paramedics treat you, and then the nurses. If there was any justice in the world, you'd be turfed back out on the street. However, because hospitals the world over are staffed with people who actual have an ounce of humanity in them and will treat people because they're sick, not to earn money, not because they like them, but just because they're sick, you'll more than likely be patched up and sent on your ignorant, elitist way.
Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you is "elitist".

How....elitist.

Animal Farm is a communist's critique of the non-communist USSR. Jesus, have you no knowledge of history?
Actually, it was a critique of the communist revolution and subsequent communist USSR.

I know if just trips your trigger when you get reminded that the USSR was communist, so I do it.

communism doesn't work because people are initially corrupt. It's a good idea on paper, but in reality it fails because of people. However, China uses a mixed economy that borrows many traits from capitalist countries, yet are still communist. Why did they do that? Because the chineese are smart, and realize that it's better to take the working parts out of both opposing governments.

Except China is not, was not and may never be actually communist. Just because they say it's communism, it doesn't make it so. Get back to me when China is a country of economic equality.

Vas.

I'm glad there is a thread on this. I think it is important not only to oppose communism for it's inefficiencies but to hate it with all your soul.

Taxation is robbery, death to the State.

I'm glad there is a thread on this. I think it is important not only to oppose communism for it's inefficiencies but to hate it with all your soul.

Tweedle-dum was here, it couldn't be long until tweedle-dee arrived.

Vas.

Tweedle-dum was here
Vas.
So I noticed.

Actually, it was a critique of the communist revolution and subsequent communist USSR.

I know if just trips your trigger when you get reminded that the USSR was communist, so I do it.But a simple analysis of both Animal Farm and 1984 shows us that while Orwell was against the Soviet system, he was still very much on the left politically.

Go visit the Ex-Soviet states and/or satellites like Poland and then tell me how great it was to try Marxists lies.

But a simple analysis of both Animal Farm and 1984 shows us that while Orwell was against the Soviet system, he was still very much on the left politically.

A simple reading of "Homage to Catalonia" should leave no-one in any doubt as to where Orwell meant when he wrote Animal Farm. In fact, the original preface began "This book was first thought of, so far as the central idea goes, in 1937, but was not written down until about the end of 1943." Orwell was fighting with the revolutionary Trotskyites, the POUM, side by side with the anarchists in Spain in 1937.

Vas.

Go visit the Ex-Soviet states and/or satellites like Poland and then tell me how great it was to try Marxists lies.They weren't Marxist. Demonstrate how they were, with specific reference to Marx's writings.

Go visit the Ex-Soviet states and/or satellites like Poland and then tell me how great it was to try Marxists lies.

Then go visit Indochina and Latin America and tell me how great it is to have been part of the great defence of "democracy". Bolshevism had nothing to do with communism, in fact, it deliberately destroyed the emergent communism in Russia and its neighbours - "Remember Kronstadt". The Soviet Union had no more to do with communism than Pinochet had to do with democracy.

Vas.

Orwell was fighting with the revolutionary Trotskyites, the POUM, side by side with the anarchists in Spain in 1937.
POUM had actually conclusively broken with Trotsky by that point.

POUM had actually conclusively broken with Trotsky by that point.

Or had Trotsky broken with Trotskyism? ;)

Vas.

They weren't Marxist. Demonstrate how they were, with specific reference to Marx's writings.
Centralised economic planning leading to totalitarian dictatorship. That's what will always happen to a country that attempts to institute Marxist ideas, whether Marx thought/wrote so or not. It's also what any competent theoretician would predict to happen ("The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek).

Centralised economic planning leading to totalitarian dictatorship. That's what will always happen to a country that attempts to institute Marxist ideas, whether Marx thought/wrote so or not. It's also what any competent theoretician would predict to happen ("The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek).Absolutely. But there is nothing in Marxist ideas which necessarily leads to centralised (as opposed to local) planning. The Paris Commune is a very good example of what I'm talking about.

Centralised economic planning leading to totalitarian dictatorship. That's what will always happen to a country that attempts to institute Marxist ideas, whether Marx thought/wrote so or not. It's also what any competent theoretician would predict to happen ("The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek).
That's a different point, Bakunin was one of the first to make that prediction - Any State, under pain of perishing and seeing itself devoured by neighbouring States, must tend towards complete power, and, having become powerful, it must embark on a career of conquest, so that it shall not be itself conquered; for two powers similar and at the same time foreign to each other could not co-exist without trying to destroy each other. Whoever says conquest, says conquered peoples, enslaved and in bondage, under whatever form or name it may be.

It is in the nature of the State to break the solidarity of the human race and, as it were, to deny humanity. The State cannot preserve itself as such in its integrity and in all its strength except it sets itself up as supreme and absolute be-all and end-all, at least for its own citizens, or to speak more frankly, for its own subjects, not being able to impose itself as such on the citizens of other States unconquered by it. From that there inevitably results a break with human, considered as univesrsal, morality and with universal reason, by the birth of State morality and reasons of State. The principle of political or State morality is very simple. The State, being the supreme objective, everything that is favourable to the development of its power is good; all that is contrary to it, even if it were the most humane thing in the world, is bad. This morality is called Patriotism. The International is the negation of patriotism and consequently the negation of the State. If therefore Marx and his friends of the German Socialist Democratic Party should succeed in introducing the State principle into our programme, they would kill the International.

From Marxism Freedom and the State (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/marxnfree.html)

The fact that Marxism is fundamentally flawed and probably impossible to implement is exactly what makes the USSR (and other so-called Marxist states) not communist.

Vas.

The fact that Marxism is fundamentally flawed and probably impossible to implement is exactly what makes the USSR (and other so-called Marxist states) not communist.

I don't think that's the "difference" between Marxism and Communism.

1. Abolish inheritance.
Then you must abolish all gift giving.

2. Abolish state-sponsored marriage (or state-sponsored prostitution).
Civil unions?

3. Make social education mandatory for all.
Slavery

4. Put the workers in control of the industries acquired by the state.
Do they know what's needed to do it?

5. Make work mandatory for all those who can work.
Define "work".

Tweedle-dum was here, it couldn't be long until tweedle-dee arrived.
Yes: you and Letila. Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber.

But I need it. (a car) Therefore, I should get one, regardless. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA, REMEMBER? I should have one made for me, regardless. I need it. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA.

no, you DON'T NEED it. you WANT it. there is a major difference to need and want. what you and every person NEEDS are: food, clean water, shelter, clothing, and utilities. the rest simply make life more cushy.

for some reason consumer minded people don't seem to be able to differentiate between need and want. this obviously has to do with advertising with which we are constantly bombarded about how we need the latest do-hickey cause it's so super neato! :rolleyes:

by the way, I hope those that say that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a disgusting concept don't think of themselves as christian. if so you are a hypocrite. yeshua didn't walk around charging people for his miracles, or when he fed the 5000 he didn't say "pay first!" he helped those that required help because it was the right thing to do, not because he could get rich. he was following the concept "to each according to his need" even when he had to pay money out of his pocket for it.

Well, most of the world already understands that communism can't work, so here is another thread for the communists to come argue against logic. And unlike the anti-capitalist thread, I'm not going to block out the opposing opinion.

Do you even know what communism actually is? It does work on occasion (Vietnam for example is currently a functional communism). And for the record, I'm not a communist, I'm a socialist.

I don't think that's the "difference" between Marxism and Communism.

Painting with a broad brush I would say that Marxism is a philosophical system, whereas (non-Marxist) Communism is merely an economic one.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Translates as "from the slave to the begger".

But I need it. (a car) Therefore, I should get one, regardless. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA, REMEMBER? I should have one made for me, regardless. I need it. NEED IS THE SOLE CRITERIA.
no, you DON'T NEED it. you WANT it.
No, I need it. Mine broke down, for instance. It is unrepairable, and I need it to be able to travel from my house to the factory (which is unserviced by a passenger railroad, bus service, and I can't get anyone to carpool with).

I need it.

No, I need it. Mine broke down, for instance. It is unrepairable, and I need it to be able to travel from my house to the factory (which is unserviced by a passenger railroad, bus service, and I can't get anyone to carpool with).

I need it.

Just throwing out some questions to see what happens:

Do you need to live where you currently do?
Do you need to work where you currently do?

First, BAAWA's original piece of garbage at the beginning of this topic needs a good shredding:

"Workers are exploited if someone makes a profit" is the refuted to death labor theory of value.
See, kids, this is a typical example of capitalist bullshit: Say that something has been "refuted to death" and you no longer need to face the challenge of actually addressing the issue yourself! Never mind the fact that you're lying through your teeth - with a bit of luck, no one will notice.

No one has refuted the labor theory of value, although many have tried. Interestingly, all these attempts took place in the 20th century, because before that the capitalists accepted the labor theory of value and more or less openly admitted that they were exploiting the workers.

Here, let me explain the whole matter of exploitation so that even BAAWA can understand:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

"We can distribute things based on need" by what standard is this need to be determined? I need a new car. Does that mean I should get one?
If there are enough cars available, of course.

Some needs are self-evident: Everyone needs food, drinking water, clothes, a house, medical assistance, etc. As for the other needs (the non-essential ones), I expect that various communes will try out various systems of distribution.

"Everyone can have a say in what gets produced" Not when their decisions are overruled by the majority.
Right, so communism is bad because the majority rules, and capitalism is better because the minority rules? :rolleyes:

"The USSR wasn't communist. It really really really really really really really really really really wasn't!" Oh really, No True Scotsman lover?
No True Scotsman Fallacy is when you constantly change the definition of a "Scotsman" to suit your interests. This is not what we are doing. We have clear definitions of communism (and socialism). the USSR doesn't fit them (because it wasn't democratic, and no kind of socialism/communism can exist without democracy), so the USSR was not socialist and it was not communist. End of story.

Your sole argument seems to be that "Stalin said he was a communist, so he must have been a communist".

By that same logic, would you say that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually democratic?

"We can determine what needs to be produced and how" With what? What do you have to tell you that?
How do we determine what people want? We ASK them. Amazing, isn't it?

See, if the people control the means of production, they will first use them to make the most vital items (the ones every human being needs), and then they will use them to make the items wanted by the greatest majority of people. Once those are done, they will move on to the items wanted by a smaller majority, then to the ones wanted by a minority, and so on, as long as resources allow.

Centralised economic planning leading to totalitarian dictatorship.
Funny, seeing how all stalinist countries (including the USSR) established a dictatorship BEFORE implementing centralized economic planning.

We know that a dictatorship sometimes leads to centralized economic planning (and sometimes it doesn't), but the reverse is not true. An increase in centralization and economic planning has never led to dictatorship.

No, I need it. Mine broke down, for instance. It is unrepairable, and I need it to be able to travel from my house to the factory (which is unserviced by a passenger railroad, bus service, and I can't get anyone to carpool with).

I need it.
Just throwing out some questions to see what happens:

Do you need to live where you currently do?
Yes. The community decided it. And I can't very well go against that!

Do you need to work where you currently do?
Yes. I was assigned here by the community.

How do we determine what people want? We ASK them. Amazing, isn't it?


What or whom is this 'we' that is somehow eparate from the people?

What or whom is this 'we' that is somehow eparate from the people?
It was a figure of speech. Perhaps I should have said that since the people rule, they already know what they want (i.e. what most of them need).

But a simple analysis of both Animal Farm and 1984 shows us that while Orwell was against the Soviet system, he was still very much on the left politically.
Not only that, but George Orwell was a strong socialist (during the first half of his life) and an anarcho-communist (after the Spanish Civil War, in which he fought for the Marxist POUM).

I'm not sure whether Orwell was also a Marxist, but that is certainly possible. At any rate, he wrote Animal Farm and 1984 primarily in order to denounce the anti-communist practices of the stalinist Soviet Union ("all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others").

As for 1984:
Big Brother = Stalin
Emmanuel Goldstein = Trotsky

Consider also the following quote from 1984:

"[Goldstein] was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed..."

This is a direct reference to Trotsky's most famous book, The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm).

First, BAAWA's original piece of garbage at the beginning of this topic needs a good shredding:
Big words. Let's see if you can write the check to cover it.


"Workers are exploited if someone makes a profit" is the refuted to death labor theory of value.
See, kids, this is a typical example of capitalist bullshit: Say that something has been "refuted to death" and you no longer need to face the challenge of actually addressing the issue yourself! Never mind the fact that you're lying through your teeth - with a bit of luck, no one will notice.
Except that it has been refuted to death. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Bohm-Bawerk, Menger, etc.

No one has refuted the labor theory of value, although many have tried.
See kids, this is a typical example of collectivist bullshit: lie your ass off when someone refutes your core idea and claim that no one has ever done it. Then you no longer need to face the challenge of actually supporting it. Never mind the fact that it is a lie---with a bit of luck, no one will notice.

Except the people who know better.

Interestingly, all these attempts took place in the 20th century, because before that the capitalists accepted the labor theory of value and more or less openly admitted that they were exploiting the workers.
Really? So Bohm-Bawerk and Menger were in the 1900s?

Here, let me explain the whole matter of exploitation so that even BAAWA can understand:
Here, let me explain the whole matter of the fact that exploitation is a communist myth so that even Conny the illiterate can understand.

The "capitalist" and "worker" come to an agreement that the "capitalist" will pay the "worker" X for performing a service. That is an expression of value. The final product sells for Y, which the consumer pays. The consumer values the item more than Y amount of money.

There is no such thing as "ultimate value", as the Labor Theory of Value implies. Value in this sense is not objective. It is a subjective estimation.

There you have it, Connie: LTV and exploitation refuted. Have a nice life.

"...any argument must be rejected if it involves "real worth (or value)" determined independently of markets. This error, again found in Marx's "labor theory of value," was cleared up in the 1870s (emphasis mine. What was that again about all of it being done in the 1900s, Connie?) with Carl Menger's insight that value is always an individual's subjective judgment shaped by context. Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever.

If many more buyers and sellers jumped in, their competition would establish a price (say $6 per hour) for this type of labor at which the buyers to whom it is worth more, and the sellers to whom it is worth less, are equal in number (say 1,000 person-hours per day). That thousandth hour is worth barely more than $6 to its buyer and barely less than $6 to its seller. Prudent economists are a little uncomfortable concluding that this market price "measures value," but it's the best anyone can do. So whether your interest is "the living wage," economic systems without markets, or "comparable worth" legislation, keep in mind that "worth" or "value" cannot be determined except by voluntary market exchange."
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1150&id=70


"We can distribute things based on need" by what standard is this need to be determined? I need a new car. Does that mean I should get one?
If there are enough cars available, of course.
Wrong answer, Connie. I need. Need is the only criterion. Therefore, a car should be provided to me or else the system is a failure.

Some needs are self-evident: Everyone needs food, drinking water, clothes, a house, medical assistance, etc. As for the other needs (the non-essential ones), I expect that various communes will try out various systems of distribution.
Wishy-washy weasel words.


"Everyone can have a say in what gets produced" Not when their decisions are overruled by the majority.
Right, so communism is bad because the majority rules, and capitalism is better because the minority rules?
The minority doesn't rule in capitalism.

And please provide the metaphysical and epistemic reasons that the majority should rule.


"The USSR wasn't communist. It really really really really really really really really really really wasn't!" Oh really, No True Scotsman lover?
No True Scotsman Fallacy is when you constantly change the definition
No such thing is happening on my end, whereas the definition change is precisely what your side is doing.


"We can determine what needs to be produced and how" With what? What do you have to tell you that?
How do we determine what people want? We ASK them.
So you'll have a market economy,then. Good.

See, if the people control the means of production, they will first use them to make the most vital items (the ones every human being needs),
Prove it.

and then they will use them to make the items wanted by the greatest majority of people. Once those are done, they will move on to the items wanted by a smaller majority, then to the ones wanted by a minority, and so on, as long as resources allow.
Prove it.

Centralised economic planning leading to totalitarian dictatorship.

Funny, seeing how all stalinist countries (including the USSR) established a dictatorship BEFORE implementing centralized economic planning.

We know that a dictatorship sometimes leads to centralized economic planning (and sometimes it doesn't), but the reverse is not true. An increase in centralization and economic planning has never led to dictatorship.
It is typical of the left wing that they assume the problem with a totalitarian dictatorship is that it is a dictatorship. The real problem is that it is totalitarian. I'd rather live under a benevolent libertarian dictator than a corrupt totalitarian democracy such as permeate the modern world.

People look to the state to solve their economic problems. "More welfare, more welfare" like little baby eagles chirping for their mother to puke some more food into them. How then could they ever not look for a new law to solve every other problem too? A law about mad dogs, a law about racism, a law about marijuana, a law about the bendiness of bananas. Communism/Socialism is the road to serfdom whether by vote, by dictatorship or by randomly drawing the leader out a hat.

And, although BAAWA is perfectly capable of defending himself, the labour theory of value has been refuted conclusively. You're just embarrassing yourself by trying to defend it. You also make the typical left wing error of misconstruing "capitalism" to be rule by "capitalists", a deliberate confusion introduced by the King of Confusion, Karl Marx. The refutation of this notion is summed up in the phrase "the customer is always right".

Centralised economic planning leading to totalitarian dictatorship.

Funny, seeing how all stalinist countries (including the USSR) established a dictatorship BEFORE implementing centralized economic planning.

We know that a dictatorship sometimes leads to centralized economic planning (and sometimes it doesn't), but the reverse is not true. An increase in centralization and economic planning has never led to dictatorship.
It is typical of the left wing that they assume the problem with a totalitarian dictatorship is that it is a dictatorship. The real problem is that it is totalitarian. I'd rather live under a benevolent libertarian dictator than a corrupt totalitarian democracy such as permeate the modern world.

People look to the state to solve their economic problems. "More welfare, more welfare" like little baby eagles chirping for their mother to puke some more food into them. How then could they ever not look for a new law to solve every other problem too? A law about mad dogs, a law about racism, a law about marijuana, a law about the bendiness of bananas. Communism/Socialism is the road to serfdom whether by vote, by dictatorship or by randomly drawing the leader out a hat.

And, although BAAWA is perfectly capable of defending himself, the labour theory of value has indeed been refuted conclusively. You're just embarrassing yourself by trying to defend it. You also make the typical left wing error of misconstruing "capitalism" to be rule by "capitalists", a deliberate confusion introduced by the King of Confusion, Karl Marx. The refutation of this notion is summed up in the phrase "the customer is always right".

It is typical of the left wing that they assume the problem with a totalitarian dictatorship is that it is a dictatorship. The real problem is that it is totalitarian.
It can't be totalitarian if it's not a dictatorship. You can't have slaves without masters. Totalitarianism means your life is totally controlled by some all-powerful authority - i.e. a dictator or an oligarchy.

I'd rather live under a benevolent libertarian dictator...
Yeah, and I really like blue flying pigs too. But I'd have to say it's typical of the right wing to wish there was a dictatorship. After all, what better way to secure the property of the filthy rich, corrupt and oppressive capitalist class than through a corporate police state?

...than a corrupt totalitarian democracy such as permeate the modern world.
A what? Oh, you're talking about pink flying pigs now!

First of all, if you think you're living in a totalitarian system, then you've got serious issues. I'm betting you have no single damn clue what a true totalitarian system means. Go spend a few months in Saudi Arabia - I guarantee you'll have a whole lot more respect for democratic freedoms after that.

Second of all, if you have a problem with society, do us all a favor and go live up in the mountains with your libertarian buddies. You see, Homo Sapiens is a social animal, I'm afraid.

People look to the state to solve their economic problems.
Uh, yeah, because we don't want to see poor disease-infested slums, widespread starvation, misery and abject poverty. Because we want a decent life for every human being. Because we don't want to return to the 19th century. Because the welfare state has eradicated social ills that have plagued humanity for millenia.

In brief, because we care about the good of all - unlike egotistical bastards like you.

"More welfare, more welfare" like little baby eagles chirping for their mother to puke some more food into them.
...so they can grow into beautiful, majestic eagles in their own right, riding the winds and soaring into the heavens, and eventually having little baby eagles of their own.

But perhaps you believe they should be left to starve to death instead... Well, I'm sure glad eagles aren't libertarians, 'cause that would drive them to extinction!

How then could they ever not look for a new law to solve every other problem too? A law about mad dogs, a law about racism, a law about marijuana, a law about the bendiness of bananas.
Maybe because the bendiness of bananas isn't a real problem? Maybe because marijuana isn't a real problem either? (or at least not one that can be made to go away through law)

Communism/Socialism is the road to serfdom whether by vote, by dictatorship or by randomly drawing the leader out a hat.
Oh, I see: in your view, poverty, misery and disease are freedom! Removing them from society would be evil! A system of mutual co-operation, prosperity and human dignity is serfdom! :rolleyes:

And, although BAAWA is perfectly capable of defending himself...
Actually, he isn't, which you will see as soon as I post my reply to his message.
But I'm afraid your kind of "help" isn't doing him any good.

You also make the typical left wing error of misconstruing "capitalism" to be rule by "capitalists", a deliberate confusion introduced by the King of Confusion, Karl Marx.
Ok, show me one president or member of government in a First World nation who isn't a filthy rich capitalist.

You ARE ruled by capitalists, my friend - and the only choice you're given in election day is between two rich capitalists.

The refutation of this notion is summed up in the phrase "the customer is always right".
"...unless we can rip him off through our advertising campaign."

Go visit the Ex-Soviet states and/or satellites like Poland and then tell me how great it was to try Marxists lies.
I don't need to. I live in Eastern Europe. And I can tell you from personal experience that (1) stalinism is not communism, and (2) the capitalism that was pushed down our throats is a f**king disaster. For your information, ALL ex-stalinist states - with only 3 exceptions: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic - had better economies before 1989. I suggest you go visit Russia and see the dismal hell that free-market capitalism has created there.

Except that it has been refuted to death. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Bohm-Bawerk, Menger, etc.
Remember what I said about attempts to refute it? When the refutation itself is refuted (as in the cases you brought up), then it's called merely an attempt at a refutation.

See kids, this is a typical example of collectivist bullshit: lie your ass off when someone refutes your core idea and claim that no one has ever done it.
No one has ever done it because, as you can see, the argument continues to this day. I did say that many people have tried to refute it, however.

Really? So Bohm-Bawerk and Menger were in the 1900s?
Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of Von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. But if you're saying they ripped off Bohm-Bawerk and Menger, who am I to argue?
As for the capitalists who openly admitted exploitation, I am referring primarily to Adam Smith.

Here, let me explain the whole matter of the fact that exploitation is a communist myth so that even Conny the illiterate can understand.
No, I suggest you go talk to a poor laborer who works 12 hours a day in filthy, inhumane conditions for barely enough money to feed his family - and who is likely to die at the age of 40, after having buried two of his children who succumbed to easily preventable diseases - and tell him that he's not exploited.

You'll find plenty of such people in the Third World. We used to live like that in the First World, too - until we invented the welfare state.

The "capitalist" and "worker" come to an agreement that the "capitalist" will pay the "worker" X for performing a service. That is an expression of value.
First of all, that's all nice and dandy as long as you don't tackle the sensitive issue of how they come to said agreement. An agreement is only "free" if the two sides negotiate from an equal footing. But this is rarely the case with the capitalist and the worker. You see, if one side has a disproportionate leverage over the other, that side can dictate the terms of the agreement. Suppose, for example, that the worker has no choice. Suppose that he must take this job (or another job which is identical to this one in terms of pay) or face unemployment. Or suppose he badly needs the money for whatever reason (in the Third World, the main reason would be the threat of starvation; in the First World, you many need to pay off a loan or an expensive treatment on which your life depends). The less government programs, the more likely it is that workers will find themselves in such no-choice situations. And when that happens, the "free" work contract is nothing less than a diktat.

There is no such thing as "ultimate value", as the Labor Theory of Value implies.
I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't really have a clue what the labor theory of value implies. For your information, the labor theory of value states that the primary source of value (i.e. the thing that creates wealth) is human labor.

"...any argument must be rejected if it involves "real worth (or value)" determined independently of markets."
Can you read? Have you actually paid any attention to my explanation of the principles behind capitalist exploitation? You've just attacked a STRAWMAN, you fool. I never mentioned how the value of the object is determined. Whether value is subjective or objective, capitalist exploitation still exists. Read what I said:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever.
Here, let me put it in market terms so that even your pea-sized brain can understand: The product is "really worth" what the buyer pays for it. If you pay me $2 for making a product, and the next minute you sell that product for $100, then you are exploiting me and gaining $98 without working for it.

Wrong answer, Connie. I need. Need is the only criterion.
Of course it is, but you're not the only person who needs something. If other people's needs are more urgent or vital than yours (like, say, if someone else needs emergency medical treatment), then your car will have to wait.

Therefore, a car should be provided to me or else the system is a failure.
There you go attacking a strawman again. When the hell did we say that communism can provide EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants? Communism is only the best possible economic system, not a perfect one. We can't make everyone happy - just the vast majority.

Wishy-washy weasel words.
Ok, show me a man who doesn't NEED to eat in order to live.

The minority doesn't rule in capitalism.
Yes it does - at least in the economy. And the people in that minority are the owners of the means of production.

And please provide the metaphysical and epistemic reasons that the majority should rule.
I'll provide a more down-to-Earth reason: A man knows his own interest better than anyone else. Therefore the majority knows its own interests better than anyone else. Therefore if you wish to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (as we do), then the greatest number should rule (because they know their own "greatest good" better than anyone else).

Of course, whether or not there should be certain limits on the decisions that a majority can take is a whole different discussion altogether.

No such thing is happening on my end, whereas the definition change is precisely what your side is doing.
Uh, no.

Communism is a communal system with no government and no private property. The Soviet Union had both. Therefore it was not communism.

Socialism is a system of collective/communal/public ownership over the means of production and political democracy. In the Soviet Union, the means of production were controlled by the state, and the people had no say in economic affairs (and no control over the means of production). Therefore it was not socialism.

Of course, the full argument is much longer than that, but this is the essence of it.

And let me ask you again: Do you believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually democratic? After all, Kim Jong-Il claims to be a democratic leader, just like Stalin claimed to be a communist.

So you'll have a market economy,then. Good.
No, we'll have a communist economy. Read my explanation further down in the message you quoted.

Prove it.
Prove it.
Certainly! As soon as you start up a revolution somewhere, call me - so I can establish a communist society there and prove it to you. Until then, however, I'm afraid I can't just conjure up a large communist society to show you.

Except that it has been refuted to death. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Bohm-Bawerk, Menger, etc.
Remember what I said about attempts to refute it? When the refutation itself is refuted (as in the cases you brought up),
Never happened, sorry. The LTV has been refuted, and you just lied your ass off.


See kids, this is a typical example of collectivist bullshit: lie your ass off when someone refutes your core idea and claim that no one has ever done it.
No one has ever done it because, as you can see, the argument continues to this day.
*laughs*

People still believe that the earth is flat. Does that mean that the spheroid earth idea hasn't refuted the flat earth idea? Fucking moron.

People still believe that no one has landed on the moon, despite being shown otherwise. Does that mean that the evidence for the moon landing has been refuted? Fucking moron.


Really? So Bohm-Bawerk and Menger were in the 1900s?
Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of Von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. But if you're saying they ripped off Bohm-Bawerk and Menger, who am I to argue?
Bohm-Bawerk and Menger were also Austrian School.

As for the capitalists who openly admitted exploitation, I am referring primarily to Adam Smith.
Smith has a number of problems, not the least of which is his mystical "invisible hand".


Here, let me explain the whole matter of the fact that exploitation is a communist myth so that even Conny the illiterate can understand.
No, I suggest you go talk to a poor laborer who works 12 hours a day in filthy, inhumane conditions for barely enough money to feed his family
Ah. So you want me to go to a communist country and talk to the workers there in those "Workers Paradise" locales. I gotcha.

You'll find plenty of such people in the Third World. We used to live like that in the First World, too - until we invented the welfare state.
Funny how there still are people like that in welfare states.

Funny how "welfare state" is just another term for "steal from the wealthy because we're just jealous of them".


The "capitalist" and "worker" come to an agreement that the "capitalist" will pay the "worker" X for performing a service. That is an expression of value.
First of all, that's all nice and dandy as long as you don't tackle the sensitive issue of how they come to said agreement. An agreement is only "free" if the two sides negotiate from an equal footing.
And that normally is the case, despite your emotive pleas to the contrary.


There is no such thing as "ultimate value", as the Labor Theory of Value implies.
I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't really have a clue what the labor theory of value implies.
Because you yourself don't know, right?

For your information, the labor theory of value states that the primary source of value (i.e. the thing that creates wealth) is human labor.
...of which all labor is alike and sets the ultimate value, just like I said. Thank you for agreeing with me.


"...any argument must be rejected if it involves "real worth (or value)" determined independently of markets."
Can you read?
Yes. Can you?

Have you actually paid any attention to my explanation of the principles behind capitalist exploitation?
There's no such thing as capitalist exploitation.

You've just attacked a STRAWMAN, you fool.
No I haven't.

I never mentioned how the value of the object is determined.
You certainly did when you said the LTV hasn't been refuted, bucko. The LTV assumes that value for it is objective, dumbshit.

Seems you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Here's the principle: If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever.
Here, let me put it in market terms so that even your pea-sized brain can understand:
Here, let me put it in terms that your miniscule brain can understand:

"If I'd pay $100 to have a task done, and you'd do it for $2, we might bargain to $60, a price at which I'm paying less than it's worth but you're receiving more than it's worth. Paradox or contradiction? Not with "to me" and "to you" properly inserted. And the question "Yeah, but what's it really worth?" has no meaning whatsoever"

The product is "really worth" what the buyer pays for it.
That's between the buyer and seller of the finished product. You're making part of it. You have a separate agreement. There's no conflict or exploitation.

If you pay me $2 for making a product, and the next minute you sell that product for $100, then you are exploiting me and gaining $98 without working for it.
Prove it.


Wrong answer, Connie. I need. Need is the only criterion.
Of course it is, but you're not the only person who needs something.
Wrong answer, Connie. I need. Need is the only criterion. If I don't get what I need, the system is an abject failure.


Therefore, a car should be provided to me or else the system is a failure.
There you go attacking a strawman again. When the hell did we say that communism can provide EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants?
Letila did, and then backtracked. It was funny.

Communism is only the best possible economic system,
Prove it.

not a perfect one. We can't make everyone happy - just the vast majority.
Letila says that everyone will be made happy. Ergo, no strawman.


Wishy-washy weasel words.
Ok, show me a man who doesn't NEED to eat in order to live.
Goalpost shifting.


The minority doesn't rule in capitalism.
Yes it does - at least in the economy. And the people in that minority are the owners of the means of production.
How do they rule. Back your claim. Now.


And please provide the metaphysical and epistemic reasons that the majority should rule.
I'll provide a more down-to-Earth reason: A man knows his own interest better than anyone else. Therefore the majority knows its own interests better than anyone else.
Mystical and reification. Try again.

Therefore if you wish to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (as we do),
Utilitarian. Try again.

then the greatest number should rule (because they know their own "greatest good" better than anyone else).
Individuals have conflicting interests. Try again.

Of course, whether or not there should be certain limits on the decisions that a majority can take is a whole different discussion altogether.
No it's not.


No such thing is happening on my end, whereas the definition change is precisely what your side is doing.
Uh, no.
Uh, yes.

Communism is a communal system with no government and no private property.
Communism requires a government. The USSR had a government and no private property. Therefore, it was communist.

Socialism is a system of collective/communal/public ownership over the means of production and political democracy. In the Soviet Union, the means of production were controlled by the state,
In trust for the people. Therefore, it was socialism.

And your question about Korea is irrelevant.

So you'll have a market economy,then. Good.
No, we'll have a communist economy. Read my explanation further down in the message you quoted.
No, it would be a market economy. That's the only proper way to poll everyone.


Prove it.
Certainly! As soon as you start up a revolution somewhere,
I asked you to prove it. Do so. Now.

If you can't--tough shit. Don't make such claims.

What People constantly mistake is that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam <<<WERE NOT COMMUNIST>>> repeat <<<NOT COMMUNIST>>>
So all the rich people out there who whine about Communism and say "look at Russia etc. Look what Communism did to them arn't we just so much more happy living in our big house while all those factory workers etc are made redundant so the rich can become more rich" are wrong, sick idiots.

Communism has never been achieved. It is a perfect world still waiting to happen. All these Countries (excluding Cuba, Fidel Castro is a true lefty and actually gives a damn about his people) had Stalinist goverments. Cruel Dictators just as bad as Hitler who even worse pretended to care about their people until the communist traitor Stalin starting looking out for himself.

Capitalism and imperialism go hand in hand, look at both Britain and America.
These countries (and I am ashamed to say i come from Britain) are destoying the world and the majority of the people, creating elitist societies where rich business men actually think they are BETTER than there employees.

Until a country is brave enough to create a true communist state the world shall live in this chaos and be the playground of the rich Bastards.

Anyone who disagrees with me im more than happy to have a debate over it.

Let me see if I'm reading what someone on the page before said right.

Workers are exploited, because they are paid less than the value of the goods produced? Because they agree to do a certain task for a certain fee (note: 'the value of the goods produced' is not usually the fee people agree to) and the business profits and continues so that they can continue to work and make a living?

Damn... so THAT's what exploitation is! And here I thought being a slave on a plantation was bad.

Horrible. I can't imagine being forced to agree to do something, and then get paid the amount I agreed on for it, and then to keep doing it, for more pay!

Maybe if that's exploitation, exploitation isn't such a bad thing.

What People constantly mistake is that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam <<<WERE NOT COMMUNIST>>> repeat <<<NOT COMMUNIST>>>
Then what people constantly mistake is that no country has been capitalist, either.

So all the whining jealous leftists out there who whine about capitalism and say "look at the US etc. Look what capitalism did to them wouldn't we be just so much more happy living in a socialist/communist system" are wrong, sick idiots.

Capitalism has never been achieved. It is a world still waiting to happen. All these countries had interventionist goverments.

Capitalism and imperialism go hand in hand,
No, they don't.

look at both Britain and America.
These countries (and I am ashamed to say i come from Britain) are destoying the world and the majority of the people, creating elitist societies where rich business men actually think they are BETTER than there employees.
Which has nothing to do with capitalism.

Frankly, I don't think you've the intellect nor the ability to debate.

I don't need to. I live in Eastern Europe. And I can tell you from personal experience that (1) stalinism is not communism,
Yes it is.

and (2) the capitalism that was pushed down our throats is a f**king disaster.
It was done too quickly.

For your information, ALL ex-stalinist states - with only 3 exceptions: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic - had better economies before 1989.
Prove it.

I suggest you go visit Russia and see the dismal hell that free-market capitalism has created there.
It's not free-market capitalism. What idiot told you that it was?

Who is this BAAWA character? I mean, seriously.

Then what people constantly mistake is that no country has been capitalist, either.

So all the whining jealous leftists out there who whine about capitalism and say "look at the US etc. Look what capitalism did to them wouldn't we be just so much more happy living in a socialist/communist system" are wrong, sick idiots.

Capitalism has never been achieved. It is a world still waiting to happen. All these countries had interventionist goverments. What is your defination of capitalism? And why does Belize not qualify? (As an aside, if there was a non-interventionist goverment would that mean you had no problem with it?)

Not only that, but George Orwell was a strong socialist (during the first half of his life) and an anarcho-communist (after the Spanish Civil War, in which he fought for the Marxist POUM).What evidence do you have that Orwell became an anarchist?

I'm not sure whether Orwell was also a Marxist, but that is certainly possible. At any rate, he wrote Animal Farm and 1984 primarily in order to denounce the anti-communist practices of the stalinist Soviet Union ("all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others").

As for 1984:
Big Brother = Stalin
Emmanuel Goldstein = Trotsky

Consider also the following quote from 1984:

"[Goldstein] was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed..."

This is a direct reference to Trotsky's most famous book, The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm).
And there lies Orwell's biggest failing (it's also the case in Animal Farm) his softness on Trotsky. The complete abandoment of Marxism by the Bolsheviks didn't happen under Stalin but Lenin. And as Kronstadt showed, Trotskyists are merely Leninists who picked the losing side.

Originally Posted by McColl land
What People constantly mistake is that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam <<<WERE NOT COMMUNIST>>> repeat <<<NOT COMMUNIST>>>

Then what people constantly mistake is that no country has been capitalist, either.

So all the whining jealous leftists out there who whine about capitalism and say "look at the US etc. Look what capitalism did to them wouldn't we be just so much more happy living in a socialist/communist system" are wrong, sick idiots.

And may i ask why caring about other people and trying to help poor peolpe makes me Sick and wrong?


Capitalism has never been achieved. It is a world still waiting to happen. All these countries had interventionist goverments.


What Is capitalism then?


Which has nothing to do with capitalism.

Frankly, I don't think you've the intellect nor the ability to debate.

hoho the little rich boy is getting personal. (i only asked for people to debate my pro communism view to learn about their views not to get verbally attacked. DICK!) The world has got a hell of a lot closer to capitalism than communism an capitalism is ruining the world.

Except China is not, was not and may never be actually communist. Just because they say it's communism, it doesn't make it so. Get back to me when China is a country of economic equality.

Vas.
Riiight....

:confused: THe USSR never made it past a workers state phase due to the large foregin insurgency and because the revolution wasn't spreading to western europe. Then all hell broke loose because you can't create socialism in one state and Stalin seized power. So it then became a 'deformed workers state" and therefore it never reached inernational socialism and then its impossible that the USSR (and for that matter any so called 'communist' country) could ever have become communist.
Close enough.

So long as there is freedom, communism can't compete.

What will capitalists do when capitalism dies?
Open a store and sell food to starving communists

hoho the little rich boy is getting personal. The world has got a hell of a lot closer to capitalism than communism an capitalism is ruinin the world

The world is getting closer to capitalism and away from communism because communism failed. Utterly.

If it succeeded and produced nations as powerful as current capitalist ones, communism would be more prevalent.

Believe it or not folks, in the end, the populace of the world dictates what governments it wants to have. And the world is currently choosing capitalism, not communism. Even a nation like China is leaning closer to a economically capitalist society, even though its people are still ruled by a communist state.

The world is getting closer to capitalism and away from communism because communism failed. Utterly.

If it succeeded and produced nations as powerful as current capitalist ones, communism would be more prevalent.

Believe it or not folks, in the end, the populace of the world dictates what governments it wants to have. And the world is currently choosing capitalism, not communism. Even a nation like China is leaning closer to a economically capitalist society, even though its people are still ruled by a communist state.

In an independant survey it was found over 60% of chinese citizens support communism.

The people of Cuba for example want communism and are happy to live under Fidel Castros Communist (though technically not true communist as this hase never been achieved) party. But the USA has been trying to overthrow him for the past 40 years. WHY? They are scared of Communism. The only reason they havnt succeded is the people of Cuba WANT A LEFT WING GOVERMANT. That is the Peoples choice but the imperialistic and capitalist goverment of the USA want to change all that.

So long as there is freedom, communism can't compete.

Open a store and sell food to starving communists

Do you have anything pertinent to add to the debate or are you content to talk purely in Bumper Sticker slogans?

As capitalist society – the system of wage – labour and ‘free contract’ between master and man – was only developed according as the system of feudalism – or serf labour under a hereditary, landowning nobility – broke down owing to the demand for new methods of industry produced by the opening up of new markets though the discovery of America, and the perfection of means of transit and communication, in like manner will Socialism also come when the development of capitalism in its turn renders the burden of a capitalist class unbearable – and the capitalist system unworkable.

I think what you are trying to say here is that capitalism is highly evolved. It is no more similar to feudalism than a man is to a monkey. Though the DNA may be similar, the final product is far more evolved and advanced.

I agree, capitalism is far more evolved and advanced than any other oprtions.

In an independant survey it was found over 60% of chinese citizens support communism.

The people of Cuba for example want communism and are happy to live under Fidel Castros Communist (though technically not true communist as this hase never been achieved) party. But the USA has been trying to overthrow him for the past 40 years. WHY? They are scared of Communism. The only reason they havnt succeded is the people of Cuba WANT A LEFT WING GOVERMANT. That is the Peoples choice but the imperialistic goverment of the USA want to change all that.

Several things:

A) I agree with China remaining communist. Why? With 1.4~ billion people, tallying votes would be a major pain in the ass. Economically speaking, democracy would bankrupt China. So of COURSE the US wants to promote democracy in China. They know the Chinese government and people are not yet ready for the complications of democracy. I think China should remain communist for as long as it has to - in so far as its respect to ruling its people. Meanwhile, economically, China has switched its gears and has gone almost entirely capitalistic in its market, which is why it is advancing so quickly.

B) Cuba is one, tiny island nation. One example compared a vast portion of the rest of the world going from communism to capitalism, or staying capitalist is hardly "proof".

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the US promotes democracy, not for the sake and well-being of its people, but because it will usually cause enough chaos that the nation will not be a threat to US interests for a good long while. Look at Russia. Democracy/Capitalism in Russia is/was a disaster. It was done with US interests involved so that it would help elminate an otherwise potentially formidable nation from being a threat to them.

And it worked.

Will it work with China? I don't think China will succumb to US interests the way the Soviets did. Regardless of such though, most nations are still turning away from communism in favour of democracy-capitalism. There is no denial of this, even if you want to name one or two tiny little nations that do support communism.

Several things:

A) I agree with China remaining communist. Why? With 1.4~ billion people, tallying votes would be a major pain in the ass. Economically speaking, democracy would bankrupt China. So of COURSE the US wants to promote democracy in China. They know the Chinese government and people are not yet ready for the complications of democracy. I think China should remain communist for as long as it has to - in so far as its respect to ruling its people. Meanwhile, economically, China has switched its gears and has gone almost entirely capitalistic in its market, which is why it is advancing so quickly.

B) Cuba is one, tiny island nation. One example compared a vast portion of the rest of the world going from communism to capitalism, or staying capitalist is hardly "proof".

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the US promotes democracy, not for the sake and well-being of its people, but because it will usually cause enough chaos that the nation will not be a threat to US interests for a good long while. Look at Russia. Democracy/Capitalism in Russia is/was a disaster. It was done with US interests involved so that it would help elminate an otherwise potentially formidable nation from being a threat to them.

And it worked.

Will it work with China? I don't think China will succumb to US interests the way the Soviets did. Regardless of such though, most nations are still turning away from communism in favour of democracy-capitalism. There is no denial of this, even if you want to name one or two tiny little nations that do support communism.

Are you saying the USA has the right to destabilise another nation to eliminate a non-existant threat? Russia And China are both Super powers with the right to do what ever the hell they want with out the interference from the USA.

China is democratic and it has over 10 political parties, some right-wing. The members of the other parties are not hunted down and killed but encouraged. True China is no where near as democratic as the USA but who says the USA is the example all nations should live up to? When the oil of the world runs out America will topple and the smaller nations will be given their chance to shine.

And considering Cuba it may be small but it has kept the strongest nation in the world at bay for 40 years and is an example to all latin America.

And have all you people never considered you can have communism and Democracy in a nation at the same time?

Are you saying the USA has the right to destabilise another nation to eliminate a non-existant threat? Russia And China are both Super powers with the right to do what ever the hell they want with out the interference from the USA.

The USA has the right to do whatever it wants that it thinks it can get away with. If it succeeds, more power to it. In the case of Russia, the USA did succeed. In the case of China, well... that remains to be seen, but I do not believe the Chinese will bend to American whims.


China is democratic it has over 10 political parties. The members of the other parties are not hunted down and killed but encouraged. True China is no where near as democratic as the USA but who says the USA is the example all nations should live up to? When the oil of the world runs out America will topple and the smaller nations will be given their chance to shine.

And considering Cuba it may be small but it has kept the strongest nation in the world at bay for 40 years and is an example to all latin America.

I never said that the US is what the world should live up to. Read my message again - I believe every nation should choose for themselves. The US influenced Russia to become democractic, it did not invade Russia and roce democracy down their throats through war. So in the end, the Russians themselves made their own choice, through (in my opinion) misinformation from the US, but in the end, it was their choice. Russia was not ready for democracy, so the transition between the two was a big shock.

Hopefully, other nations making the transition will learn from Russia's mistakes and not repeat them.

A nation has the right to do whatever it can get away with for its own interest. And a nation will do that thing if it can get away with it. Saddam thought he could get away with invading Kuwait. He was wrong. The US thought it could get away with destroying the Taliban. They were right.

Who is this BAAWA character? I mean, seriously.
The worst nightmare of statists/socialists/communists. I'm a person who thinks and isn't swayed by their emotive pleas and fallacies.

In short: an anarcho-capitalist.

What exactly is entailed in an anarcho-capitalist system?

What People constantly mistake is that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam <<<WERE NOT COMMUNIST>>> repeat <<<NOT COMMUNIST>>>

Then what people constantly mistake is that no country has been capitalist, either.

So all the whining jealous leftists out there who whine about capitalism and say "look at the US etc. Look what capitalism did to them wouldn't we be just so much more happy living in a socialist/communist system" are wrong, sick idiots.
And may i ask why caring about other people and trying to help poor peolpe makes me Sick and wrong?
You neither care about people nor want to help poor people, that's the problem! You've got it stuck in your head that anyone who is capitalist is an evil, cruel person who cares about no one. That is one of the lamest ad hom strawmen extant, ranking right up there with "atheists are wicked satanists". You believe that your system helps people, when all it does is destroy economies and people.


Capitalism has never been achieved. It is a world still waiting to happen. All these countries had interventionist goverments.
What Is capitalism then?
An economic system whereby all the means of production are privately owned.


Which has nothing to do with capitalism.

Frankly, I don't think you've the intellect nor the ability to debate.
hoho the little rich boy is getting personal.
Rich? Me? That's a laugh.

(i only asked for people to debate my pro communism view to learn about their views not to get verbally attacked. DICK!)
Then you shouldn't have made verbal attacks, DICK!

The world has got a hell of a lot closer to capitalism than communism an capitalism is ruining the world.
Actually, no. It's interventionist/fascist/socialist/welfare statist. That is what is ruining the world.

The USA has the right to do whatever it wants that it thinks it can get away with. If it succeeds, more power to it. In the case of Russia, the USA did succeed. In the case of China, well... that remains to be seen, but I do not believe the Chinese will bend to American whims.
The USA nor any other nation should belive themselves able to interfere in any other countries policies it is their's and their's alone.


I never said that the US is what the world should live up to. Read my message again - I believe every nation should choose for themselves. The US influenced Russia to become democractic, it did not invade Russia and roce democracy down their throats through war. So in the end, the Russians themselves made their own choice, through (in my opinion) misinformation from the US, but in the end, it was their choice. Russia was not ready for democracy, so the transition between the two was a big shock.

Hopefully, other nations making the transition will learn from Russia's mistakes and not repeat them.


You belive every nation should choose for themselves but that america can interfere in anyway it wants?
I am sorry but this just sounds like imperialism to me. The British Empire which i think you'll agree was imperialistic. In the nations it didnt conquer it did its best to completely interfere in their goverment just to strenghthen it self.



A nation has the right to do whatever it can get away with for its own interest. And a nation will do that thing if it can get away with it. Saddam thought he could get away with invading Kuwait. He was wrong. The US thought it could get away with destroying the Taliban. They were right.

So you think that the saudi arabians had every right to kill the American Scum in september 11th. Because they got away with it. Its a pity a lot of the victems in the twin towers were foreigners to america wasnt it. It would have been so much better if they had all been Americans. That is good to know.

The taliban is still around in Afghanistan for your information and have gathered a lot of power once more. America thought they could get away with invading IRAQ how wrong they were.

In an independant survey it was found over 60% of chinese citizens support communism.
Cite?

Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

The people of Cuba for example want communism and are happy to live under Fidel Castros Communist
Then why do so many of them try to flee?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!

(though technically not true communist as this hase never been achieved) party. But the USA has been trying to overthrow him for the past 40 years. WHY? They are scared of Communism.
Nah. They just liked Batista better and the US government doesn't like to lose.

The only reason they havnt succeded is the people of Cuba WANT A LEFT WING GOVERMANT.
No, they don't. But the left wing government has all the weapons, y'see.

That's because you're illiterate.

Maybe you haven't read enough philosophy, Kant or any Idealist, to fully appreciate what Literacy is.

Yes. It can be shown that the keys impinged upon my fingers.

Good day to you, mystic.

How? It means you are a Materialist if you believe that Idealism is 'mysticism.' It is in-fact an Idealism with less presuppositions than Materialism, and is therefore less "mystical" in fact. Everything that can be "shown" is relative to the mind preceiving it, and nothing can be measured directly. This is a fact to one who can see it, but because the nature of the self there is no refuting it.

You neither care about people nor want to help poor people, that's the problem! You've got it stuck in your head that anyone who is capitalist is an evil, cruel person who cares about no one. That is one of the lamest ad hom strawmen extant, ranking right up there with "atheists are wicked satanists". You believe that your system helps people, when all it does is destroy economies and people.


I do help poor people. I do a lot of Charity work.
I am an athiest i am not satanic as satan doesnt exist neither does any other deity.


An economic system whereby all the means of production are privately owned.



Rich? Me? That's a laugh.


Then you shouldn't have made verbal attacks, DICK!


I didnt make any verbal attack in my initial message you started it by randomly saying i didnt have the intelligence to debate.


Actually, no. It's interventionist/fascist/socialist/welfare statist. That is what is ruining the world.

Some of you ideas sound quite fascist
and can i ask do you truly belive all poor people should be left to rot and not given a helping hand? I feel sorry for how heartless and truly sad you are.

Do you have anything pertinent to add to the debate or are you content to talk purely in Bumper Sticker slogans?

You may as well enjoy my silliness as much as I am enjoying yours.

Nuke the whales!

The USA nor any other nation should belive themselves able to interfere in any other countries policies it is their's and their's alone.

But yet it happens constantly, and not just in the US. Look at the European union. A lot of nations were bullied into joining it, even though it hurt their currency and did damage to their local economies. Great Britain was very interested in seeing the EU grow, yet... inexplicably, GB has retained their own currency and has rejected all moves to move to the Euro Dollar.

It already happens, my friend. You may as well accept it.


You belive every nation should choose for themselves but that america can interfere in anyway it wants?

It can interfere if it can get away with it. The rest of the world lets America get away with it, so it does. The moment the rest of the world says, "No, you are not allowed to interfere anymore" and actually gives some consequences to such actions, then America will stop. Until such a time, you're not talking reality.


I am sorry but this just sounds like imperialism to me. The British Empire which i think you'll agree was imperialistic. In the nations it didnt conquer it did its best to completely interfere in their goverment just to strenghthen it self.

It is imperialism. What do you think the US practises? I agree with it because I have to. I live in a country that directly benefits from US imperialistic nature. To disagree with it, yet continue living in the comfort I presently do would be hypocritical.


So you think that the saudi arabians had every right to kill the American Scum in september 11th. Because they got away with it. Its a pity a lot of the victems in the twin towers were foreigners to america wasnt it. It would have been so much better if they had all been Americans. That is good to know.

The taliban is still around in Afghanistan for your information and have gathered a lot of power once more. America thought they could get away with invading IRAQ how wrong they were.

They didn't get away with it. The entire world is hunting them down more than ever now. They did it, but they're not getting away with it. The US however, IS getting away with doing whatever it wants. The US have already invaded Iraq, established a government there and are continuing thier presence. What has the world done about it? Oooh, look, you're all saying how much you dislike America now... But has anyone or anybody actually DONE something about it?

No. They haven't. So America has gotten away with it.

Cite?

Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?


Do you know thats just an excuse used by people prooved wrong.


Then why do so many of them try to flee?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!


You may not of realised this but a lot of what you hear is Yankee propaganda. Cuba's population is at its highest yet and has not had a drop since that bastard batista. IE proveing you WRONG


Nah. They just liked Batista better and the US government doesn't like to lose.


Quite true the USA is a very sore loser.


No, they don't. But the left wing government has all the weapons, y'see.

Have you ever been to Cuba? I have. The people are HAPPY. The people love Che guevara and fidel castro and treat them as heros and true lefties

So you're a solipsist?

This question was not directed at me, but I'd like to point out that everyone is a Solipsist. Even if they do not take that position theoretically, they are then denying that position from a universe of solipsism. Just as the very terminology "everybody is a solipsist" is a presupposition on my part because it assumes others have thought the same as I do, which in turn there is no way of knowing except with the phenomena I experience that never of itself has a connection to it's noumena; which may as well not exist (may as well? who says it does? only a presupposition).

Cite?

Did you know that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Do you know thats just an excuse used by people prooved wrong.
Actually, it's not. Thanks for playing and for not citing your nonexistant survey. It never happened.


Then why do so many of them try to flee?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!
You may not of realised this but a lot of what you hear is Yankee propaganda.
So the people on the boats trying to flee Cuba--the videos of them. The fact that they do flee---that's propaganda?

Ok, you're an utter moron.

Now answer my question.


Nah. They just liked Batista better and the US government doesn't like to lose.
Quite true the USA is a very sore loser.
The US government is.


No, they don't. But the left wing government has all the weapons, y'see.
Have you ever been to Cuba? I have. The people are HAPPY.
So you believed their propaganda, huh?

Nuke the whales!Working Class Rule in Working Class Areas!

They Say Kick the Tories Out, We Say Kick Them In!

Say it Loud, Working Class and Proud!

Shall I start a slogan thread? ;)

Have you ever been to Cuba? I have. The people are HAPPY. The people love Che guevara and fidel castro and treat them as heros and true leftiesDo you really think that the goverment would have let you talk to dissidents? And do you know about Cuba's record on gay rights? Lefties, my arse. Did you go over with the RCG by any chance?

But yet it happens constantly, and not just in the US. Look at the European union. A lot of nations were bullied into joining it, even though it hurt their currency and did damage to their local economies. Great Britain was very interested in seeing the EU grow, yet... inexplicably, GB has retained their own currency and has rejected all moves to move to the Euro Dollar.

It already happens, my friend. You may as well accept it.


I live in Great britain and We are most certainly not interested in bullying countries to join WE ARE LOSING A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY.

Do you know how many poor countries are begging to get into the EU? none are forced in.


It can interfere if it can get away with it. The rest of the world lets America get away with it, so it does. The moment the rest of the world says, "No, you are not allowed to interfere anymore" and actually gives some consequences to such actions, then America will stop. Until such a time, you're not talking reality.



It is imperialism. What do you think the US practises? I agree with it because I have to. I live in a country that directly benefits from US imperialistic nature. To disagree with it, yet continue living in the comfort I presently do would be hypocritical.
[/QUOTE]

i respect at least you stand by your values but do you not feel any guilt for the very poor people in thes countires making your life so easy.


They didn't get away with it. The entire world is hunting them down more than ever now. They did it, but they're not getting away with it. The US however, IS getting away with doing whatever it wants. The US have already invaded Iraq, established a government there and are continuing thier presence. What has the world done about it? Oooh, look, you're all saying how much you dislike America now... But has anyone or anybody actually DONE something about it?

No. They haven't. So America has gotten away with it.

Emm where is Osama Bin Laden then? Amereica is hunting no one else excluding Spain Cares

How many American Troops Have been killed in Iraq?


What goverment in Iraq? it was all nominated by America. Its called a puppet goverment.

What exactly is entailed in an anarcho-capitalist system?

I guess what I mean is, how is anarcho-capitalism different from and similar to anarchism and capitalism? Or is it just anarcho-capitalism because adding "anarcho" prefixes is trendy nowadays?

You neither care about people nor want to help poor people, that's the problem! You've got it stuck in your head that anyone who is capitalist is an evil, cruel person who cares about no one. That is one of the lamest ad hom strawmen extant, ranking right up there with "atheists are wicked satanists". You believe that your system helps people, when all it does is destroy economies and people.
I do help poor people. I do a lot of Charity work.
Goody for you. Do you want a cookie or a medal?

I am an athiest i am not satanic as satan doesnt exist neither does any other deity.
That was part of my point, dumbshit (and an atheist would know it's a-t-h-E-I-s-t).

Then you shouldn't have made verbal attacks, DICK!
I didnt make any verbal attack in my initial message
Bullshit. You made it quite clear that anyone who didn't believe as you did was sick.


Actually, no. It's interventionist/fascist/socialist/welfare statist. That is what is ruining the world.
Some of you ideas sound quite fascist
Kid, I doubt that you even know what fascism is.

and can i ask do you truly belive all poor people should be left to rot and not given a helping hand?
See? There's your strawman/misconception. You think that anyone who does not think exactly as you do wants all poor people to rot. That's the same as thinking an atheist is a wicked satanist. Don't you get it? Are you that fucking dense?

Frankly though, I have to ask you if you think all poor people should rot, since the economic policies you want would do just that.

I feel sorry for how heartless and truly sad you are.
I pity you that all you can come up with are emotive pleas.

This question was not directed at me, but I'd like to point out that everyone is a Solipsist.
Self-contradictory garbage.

Actually, it's not. Thanks for playing and for not citing your nonexistant survey. It never happened.



So the people on the boats trying to flee Cuba--the videos of them. The fact that they do flee---that's propaganda?


Ok, you're an utter moron.

Now answer my question.

and you know they are not actors in the videos how exactly?
im not sayin cuba is perfect nothing of the sort im saying they have gone a step in the right direction.

The US government is.



So you believed their propaganda, huh?

The americans say the cubans are unhappy to make themselves look better.
Belive me The average cuban is quite happy with his goverment. Of course some dont agree its not a utopia were everyone is happy but its goin the right way

That's because you're illiterate.
Maybe you haven't read enough philosophy, Kant or any Idealist, to fully appreciate what Literacy is.
Or maybe I've read it and found it to be dual-realmist garbage.


Yes. It can be shown that the keys impinged upon my fingers.

Good day to you, mystic.
How?
How what?

It means you are a Materialist if you believe that Idealism is 'mysticism.' It is in-fact an Idealism with less presuppositions than Materialism,
...doesn't exist.

and is therefore less "mystical" in fact. Everything that can be "shown" is relative to the mind preceiving it, and nothing can be measured directly.
Stub your toe and tell me that.

Self-contradictory garbage.

You are not only you? Then you believe everyone is a collective in the uniformity of nature? A pantheist Communist?

So the people on the boats trying to flee Cuba--the videos of them. The fact that they do flee---that's propaganda?


Ok, you're an utter moron.

Now answer my question.
and you know they are not actors in the videos how exactly?
And you know they aren't aliens from the planet Kolob how exactly?

Don't try to play that argument from ignorance/burden of proof shift fallacy on me, boy. I'll make you eat it.

im not sayin cuba is perfect nothing of the sort im saying they have gone a step in the right direction.
With starvation? That's the right direction?

So you believed their propaganda, huh?
The americans say the cubans are unhappy to make themselves look better.
Belive me The average cuban is quite happy with his goverment.
So you believed the propaganda, huh?

You are not only you?
Solipsism: the doctrine that I and I alone exist and that everyone and everything else is just a creation of the mind.

Looks like you're not using the definition of solipsism. Why not go back to Phil 101?

I guess what I mean is, how is anarcho-capitalism different from and similar to anarchism and capitalism? Or is it just anarcho-capitalism because adding "anarcho" prefixes is trendy nowadays?
Frankly, capitalism requires anarchy.

If you really want info, you can go to Anti-State.com (http://www.anti-state.com)

Or maybe I've read it and found it to be dual-realmist garbage.

Exactly, so the next step is to remove the duality; Actual Idealism. There is a great book on it by Roger W. Holmes, 1937, Macmillan press.

How what?

How can that happening be known to me outside of my idea of it?

...doesn't exist.

Your thoughts & senses of what you consider the external universe are then less true to you than that external universe? Tell me how in logic that is so.

Stub your toe and tell me that.

The act of me stubbing my toe would then be known only to me, the words of me telling you about my stubbed toe (whatever that is to you) would then only be known to you.

To finish off my arguement with BAAWA

Yes i know what Fascism is My grand Uncle is german. heres a few ww2 fascist states for you germany, italy, nationalist spain, and portugal.

I said think people who belive in an exact way are sick and dont care about poor people. Not people who belive in a hazy general way near to the exact way.

No i dont want a fucking medal for doing charity work i happen to like helping people.

I do belive communism can help people and if you dont well thats tough for you. You ever lived under a communist goverment? I have. I didnt starve. I wasnt brain washed by the goverment the tv wasnt constantly playing lets hail our goverment crap.

You really dont know what you are talking about go live ina communist goverment then come talk to me.

Solipsism: the doctrine that I and I alone exist and that everyone and everything else is just a creation of the mind.



Yes, is that not the case for everyone? Only You; from the Latin; Sola Ipsa. Sole Indentity.

I never once said that I am not a figment of your imagination, but you are a figment of my imagination too; that is not to say that you being a figment of my imagination is not a figment of your imagination. Otherwise, how else would you know it? Explain.

Or maybe I've read it and found it to be dual-realmist garbage.
Exactly, so the next step is to remove the duality; Actual Idealism.
So Kant and Hegel and the like weren't actual idealists? Berkely as well?

There is a great book on it by Roger W. Holmes, 1937, Macmillan press.
Oh great. Another book on mysticism. There's only about a million of those.


How what?
How can that happening be known to me outside of my idea of it?
It doesn't, but that has nothing to do with solipsism.


...doesn't exist.
Your thoughts & senses of what you consider the external universe are then less true to you than that external universe?
Strawman. Try again.


Stub your toe and tell me that.
The act of me stubbing my toe would then be known only to me, the words of me telling you about my stubbed toe (whatever that is to you) would then only be known to you.
So what? That's not solipsism.

To finish off my arguement with BAAWA

Yes i know what Fascism is My grand Uncle is german. heres a few ww2 fascist states for you germany, italy, nationalist spain, and portugal.
And you still don't know what it is. How sad.

I said think people who belive in an exact way are sick and dont care about poor people. Not people who belive in a hazy general way near to the exact way.
That was pretty much incoherent.

No i dont want a fucking medal for doing charity work i happen to like helping people.
Good on you.

I do belive communism can help people and if you dont well thats tough for you. You ever lived under a communist goverment? I have. I didnt starve.
Intellectually.

I wasnt brain washed by the goverment the tv wasnt constantly playing lets hail our goverment crap.
Ah. So you think I support the US government? Boy, are you in for a fucking surprise.

You really dont know what you are talking about go live ina communist goverment then come talk to me.
Or I could read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Solipsism: the doctrine that I and I alone exist and that everyone and everything else is just a creation of the mind.
Yes, is that not the case for everyone? Only You; from the Latin; Sola Ipsa. Sole Indentity.
That means there's only one person who exists, and that everything else is just imaginary.

I never once said that I am not a figment of your imagination,
Then you are, and I just imagined that you no longer exist.

Therefore, you don't exist. So I can no longer respond to you, since you don't exist.

So Kant and Hegel and the like weren't actual idealists? Berkely as well?

No, Kant was a Transcendental Idealist. An Actual Idealism is an Idealism with no presuppositions.

Oh great. Another book on mysticism. There's only about a million of those.

Calling it Mysticism is a presupposition.


It doesn't, but that has nothing to do with solipsism.

It is entirely solipisism, give an explaination to how it isn't.


Strawman. Try again.

Pejorative Anencephalism?

So what? That's not solipsism.

Use a logical argument to say how it isn't. A Solipism is nothing more than an Idealism with no presuppositions. You can either believe in the uniformity of nature (materialism) or that the only place where nature means anything is within the human mind (idealism). Where even the only place that the "uniformity of nature" means anything, as self contradictive as that is (by not having meaning in an external uniformity of nature). That is, in fact, only the uniformity between minds as thought of in one mind and not that of external nature.

That means there's only one person who exists, and that everything else is just imaginary.

No, everything is true as to the one person not imaginary. Solipsism, if thought of as true, means that it's condition is true, how wouldn't that be the case?

Then you are, and I just imagined that you no longer exist.

Therefore, you don't exist. So I can no longer respond to you, since you don't exist.

I am, I perceive you stating this fact from what can only be that I'm doing so taken as your point of view, but you responded refuting your postulate that if was true wouldn't be necessary to the logic of it. You cannot make untrue something within Solipsism as all is defined as true within it. Imagination is presupposition and has nothing to do with Actual Idealism.

The only way that Solipsism could be said to be a presupposition is if it was construed as meaning the only physical person; which it could not in that it denies an external world of material bodies altogether and therefore such a position breaks down to being free of those for what it ultimately is; a stance without presupposition of any kind.

Semantics. I will readily agree to the fact that the individuals of the group known as society agree to certain things... shorthand for which is the statement that "society institutes rights."

Nope. Then you're reifying society.

No, I'm not. Just because I happen to enjoy plain English does not mean I reify anything. "Reification" involves the way one treats a concept, and if I tell you -- which I have -- that whenever I say "society" I mean "the individuals of the group known as society," then that's what I mean!.

You're just trying to deflect the argument using the only bit of meaningful rhetoric you've picked up... which, in the process, has succeeded in deflating its value considerably.

I have, actually. I own and have read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement and Narveson's The Libertarian Idea and Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice.

I know what I'm talking about.

A. Whether or not you have read these books has little to do with whether or not you understand the contractarian argument (or any argument for that matter).
B. If what you really want to do is compare reading lists, I can add to those any number of contractarians... and others. After all, how far can you get knowing only one theory? Let's see... Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Rawls... oh, Plato, Aristotle, of course... How about Hegel, Marx, MacPherson, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno... Gramsci... umm... then there's McWilliams, Drucilla Cornell, Bronner, Judith Green...

You know what, that's tiring. (I do own them as well, by the way.)

No, you've been saying that "society" does it, not individuals.

See my first point.

Society is just a group of people who interact, not some membership club.

And what, then, is a membership club?

Even the contractualist, however, would have a hard time with an individual trying to justify stealing from the common pot, i.e. that portion of the social product that exceeds, due to the well-established effects of cooperation, the sum of individual non-cooperative inputs alone.

Meaningless.

No, it's not. Would it help if I diagrammed the sentence?

I have a good feeling plenty of other people understood it perfectly well. Of course, if the problem is that you haven't reached our reading level yet, I'll forgive you -- there's always time to learn. However, I expect you've given up on trying to argue your case, and will join the positivists in insisting that anything you can't disprove... you simply don't understand.

If there isn't an actual argument in your next post, I'm not going to waste my time in replying.

Semantics. I will readily agree to the fact that the individuals of the group known as society agree to certain things... shorthand for which is the statement that "society institutes rights."

Nope. Then you're reifying society.
No, I'm not. Just because I happen to enjoy plain English does not mean I reify anything.
However, you are treating society as if it were something real that can think and grant things. It's NOT! You're reifying it.

You're just trying to deflect the argument using the only bit of meaningful rhetoric you've picked up
No, I'm exposing your fallacies. Go whine to someone who's going to care.


I have, actually. I own and have read Gauthier's Morals By Agreement and Narveson's The Libertarian Idea and Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice.

I know what I'm talking about.
A. Whether or not you have read these books has little to do with whether or not you understand the contractarian argument (or any argument for that matter).
Actually, it has a lot to do with it.

B. If what you really want to do is compare reading lists, I can add to those any number of contractarians... and others. After all, how far can you get knowing only one theory? Let's see... Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Rawls... oh, Plato, Aristotle, of course... How about Hegel, Marx, MacPherson, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno... Gramsci... umm... then there's McWilliams, Drucilla Cornell, Bronner, Judith Green...
And you've read all of them? Doubtful.

You know what, that's tiring. (I do own them as well, by the way.)
Somehow I doubt that.


No, you've been saying that "society" does it, not individuals.
See my first point.
See my response.

Society is just a group of people who interact, not some membership club.
And what, then, is a membership club?
A group of people who come together for a specific purpose and have entry requirements stated. A society isn't.


Even the contractualist, however, would have a hard time with an individual trying to justify stealing from the common pot, i.e. that portion of the social product that exceeds, due to the well-established effects of cooperation, the sum of individual non-cooperative inputs alone.

Meaningless.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.

I suspect that you're one of the Kantian/Hegelian set who thinks that using words that you don't understand means that you're deep, profound and that you've actually said something.

If you can't bother to bring something to the table, then just shut the hell up and don't waste my time.

However, you are treating society as if it were something real that can think and grant things. It's NOT! You're reifying it.

No, I'm not. Look, I've told you again and again: when I say "society," I am referring to that "group of people" that you love so much. I just think that "a group of people who associate with one another" is an awkward phrase, and speech is more elegant if I don't have to constantly repeat it.


And you've read all of them? Doubtful.

And many more. Far from doubtful, it's necessary for a Ph.D. in political theory. By the way, may I ask what you do?

A group of people who come together for a specific purpose and have entry requirements stated. A society isn't.

Surely you, a contractarian, agree that society is a group of people who come together for mutual benefit. Not a very specific purpose, but certainly a purpose. Among those benefits, usually, is economic benefit, since cooperative labor is more productive than individualized labor.

There are no entry requirements. There are, however, requirements. (We call them "laws" or "rules"... or, just getting along with everyone else.) Moreover, if you break them, you risk being removed (jailed, executed, exiled...)

So all I've said is that society (that group of people) creates a (collective) product, and that the members of society are expected by society (by one another) to abide by the decision society (they) make about it. I'm not even telling you what that decision should be!! In other words, you might get it your way... but as with so many things in a social setting, you'll have to get everyone else to agree, first (you contractarian, you).

I suspect that you're one of the Kantian/Hegelian set who thinks that using words that you don't understand means that you're deep, profound and that you've actually said something.

I am not. But, I suspect you're one of those people who has read a few books, whose arguments "happen" to agree with what he or she already believes, and who now considers her- or himself an expert. Have you ever read Kant or Hegel -- with an open mind, I should add?

If you can't bother to bring something to the table, then just shut the hell up and don't waste my time.

Testy, testy!! In my experience, people who tell others to "just shut up" make neither good contractarians nor good anarchists... not to mention good capitalists, who usually highly value negotiation and conciliation.

I have brought the same thing, over and over. Other than contractarian arguments on which, generally, you and I agree, it relies on only one other essential premise -- that cooperative labor is more productive than individualized labor. So unless you can disprove that very well-established economic fact, you haven't a leg to stand on.

However, you are treating society as if it were something real that can think and grant things. It's NOT! You're reifying it.
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are.

Look, I've told you again and again: when I say "society," I am referring to that "group of people" that you love so much.
You weren't at first. And I have to keep at you to make sure.


And you've read all of them? Doubtful.
And many more. Far from doubtful, it's necessary for a Ph.D. in political theory.
Yes, it would be. However, I doubt that you have one.

By the way, may I ask what you do?
No, you may not.


A group of people who come together for a specific purpose and have entry requirements stated. A society isn't.
Surely you, a contractarian, agree that society is a group of people who come together for mutual benefit. Not a very specific purpose, but certainly a purpose. Among those benefits, usually, is economic benefit, since cooperative labor is more productive than individualized labor.
So what?

There are no entry requirements. There are, however, requirements. (We call them "laws" or "rules"... or, just getting along with everyone else.) Moreover, if you break them, you risk being removed (jailed, executed, exiled...)
Those are to follow while you're in, not to enter.

So all I've said is that society (that group of people) creates a (collective) product,
What product is that?

and that the members of society are expected by society (by one another) to abide by the decision society (they) make about it. I'm not even telling you what that decision should be!! In other words, you might get it your way... but as with so many things in a social setting, you'll have to get everyone else to agree, first (you contractarian, you).
You'd have to get rational people to.


I suspect that you're one of the Kantian/Hegelian set who thinks that using words that you don't understand means that you're deep, profound and that you've actually said something.
I am not.
Seems quite that way.

But, I suspect you're one of those people who has read a few books, whose arguments "happen" to agree with what he or she already believes, and who now considers her- or himself an expert. Have you ever read Kant or Hegel -- with an open mind, I should add?
Yes, I have. And I found them to be just so much mental masturbation without ejaculation. Dual-realmist garbage.


If you can't bother to bring something to the table, then just shut the hell up and don't waste my time.
Testy, testy!! In my experience, people who tell others to "just shut up"
You mean like you did to me, Mr. Pot?

You're a hypocrite. Have fun being one.

Yes, it would be. However, I doubt that you have one.

I never said I did. I am, however, a Ph.D. student, so it won't be too long. In the meantime, what do I have to do? Mail you a copy of my MA? Write up a general book report? Look, I doubt that you've read Kant and Hegel... but if you say so, fine. There's little point in disputing it. So, how about we both agree not to lie, and then we'll both agree to believe one another?


You mean like you did to me, Mr. Pot?

Show me where I told you to "shut up." I did express the fact that I would quit the argument if you refused to offer anything substantial, or reply to my central argument... but I did it as an act of negotiating the point, not just to be rude.

Of course, while you broke up most of what I had to say to insert sarcastic non-answers, you have still failed to address the issue of cooperative labor. I assume this means you do not intend to do so... and thus I repeat that I have little interest in continuing this discussion if all you want out of it is a name-calling session.

You're a hypocrite. Have fun being one.

Even if I were a hypocrite (which I am not), how would that affect my argument? If someone says murder is wrong, and then commits murder... He was still right when he said it was wrong. That's an ad hominem, not a counter-argument.

Well it seems being ignored (ignorance) has prevented the continuation to an analytical critique of my argument, but I do wish to add then a final part. Solipsism can only have meaning as the 'perception' of the self, that is "the mind," it cannot be as the physical body self solely animate with spirit amongst many false ones (such a spirit would be a presupposition). Since if viewing other physical selves and refuting those as an external reality it must be refuting external reality by it having no immanent quality rather than saying other bodies contain no thinking nature, which would be preposterous. It must regard them as an internal reality; for it is only the factor of idea in which there is any knowledge of self to understand it's existence. Solipsism is not a stand had within the Material view of the universe, but is in opposition to Materialism as a universal view. Solipsism is not a presupposition that it's conception of self within the universe is the only one of them to exist in the universe, but that it's conceptions in their entirety create the universe indistinguishable from the self. For example, words are true to themselves as far as a self makes them, it is the meaning one alone applies to them which make them exist, which if they did not exist as true to the self, the self would not exist in that it is built out of it's understandings which, in Solipsism, is seen as itself; language is a result of asserting the self, it is not learnt, the meaning of language is synthesized arbitarily from perceptions the self is left to in reflection. It is reality but only as far as it is part of the self, because it is the only constitution made of natural self; having no external reality means one's own external body cannot be reality or the construction of the self above & beyond the perception of it for that implies a uniformity of nature in a material world implied beyond the reason of self; only one's idea of which is what makes the singular reality possible, it is the one true reality. Therefore it is not correct to see Solipsism as generative of other minds for their own capacity, that doesn't exist to the Solipsist, only that it is generative of how the self knows them. A physical root for the self defies it's position of only the self being real. This is how Solipsism stands against Communism, because it stands against the presupposition of materialism where alone egalitarianism can be considered tangible.

I live in Great britain and We are most certainly not interested in bullying countries to join WE ARE LOSING A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY.

Do you know how many poor countries are begging to get into the EU? none are forced in.

Great Britian was a BIG proponent of the European Nation though, and having travelled to several countries in Europe, and my knowledge of those I've spoken to from there in my travels, they're not necessarily happy about going over to the Euro dollar.

It was in GB's interest to see a unified Europe, but not in their interest to share their dollar. Why? It's simple, the Pound is a VERY strong currency presently. Last I checked, still somewhere in the range of 1.5X the USD, and about 2X the Canadian. The Euro is about equal to the USD, so in effect, GB would be weakening its dollar if it went to the Euro. Hence, of course, they won't.

i respect at least you stand by your values but do you not feel any guilt for the very poor people in thes countires making your life so easy.

None at all, because they would not feel any guilt about putting me in the same situation. I realize that I cannot enjoy the life I lead without someone in another part of the world having to live a poorer life. Why? Because our society is not prepared to pay $100 for a pair of mediocre quality jeans. People who rail against this so-called exploitation should take a good hard look at their own wardrobe and personal items and see how many of them have the nice little label "Made in China" or "Made in Malaysia" or whatever. They don't have Unions in those countries. Workers aren't paid $26 an hour to drive a bus, or sort mail. That is why we can get affordable goods that keeps our economy going.


Emm where is Osama Bin Laden then? Amereica is hunting no one else excluding Spain Cares

How many American Troops Have been killed in Iraq?

What goverment in Iraq? it was all nominated by America. Its called a puppet goverment.

Of course its a puppet government, but it's the first taste of democracy these people have ever had. Now the test for Iraq is if they keep it. If they don't, then they'll have to bail themselves out of another oppressive dictator who cuts out the tongues of anyone who says the wrong thing about him.

As for Osama, when they catch him, do you think they're just going to slap him on the wrist? He's a marked man. He, his family, his wealth and everyone he knows. There is a war against him and his kind now. There is always a consequence to be paid for everything you do - only for the US, that consequence is usually marginal because they have the power to make it marginal. For Osama, I don't think it's quite as marginal, when you're living under a hill, forever looking over your back for that sniper bolt.

Then why do so many of them [Cubans] try to flee?
Because a continent-wide global superpower with access to all the resources of the world (namely the USA) is richer than a tiny island nation isolated through embargo (Cuba). Go figure.

Notice something interesting, however: When was the last time you heard of Cubans fleeing to any of their neighboring Latin American countries? Are Cubans fleeing to Haiti? Are Cubans fleeing to Jamaica? Are Cubans fleeing to Mexico? No. And you know why? Because Cuba has higher standards of living than any of its Latin American neighbors.

Living in Cuba isn't better than living in the USA or Canada, but it's better than living anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.

Consider the following statistics, which I've compiled using no less an authority than the uber-capitalistic CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/):


LIFE EXPECTANCY:

Cuba - 76.8 years
Chile - 76.35 years
Jamaica - 76.07 years
Uruguay - 75.87 years
Argentina - 75.48 years
Mexico - 74.94 years
Paraguay - 74.4 years
Venezuela - 73.81 years
Ecuador - 71.89 years
Colombia - 71.14 years
Brazil - 71.13 years
Peru - 70.88 years
Dom. Rep. - 67.63 years
Bolivia - 64.78 years
Haiti - 51.78 years

What was that about "starving Cubans", kiddo? Looks to me like they're living longer than anybody else in Latin America. And that's what even the CIA admits.


LITERACY:

Uruguay - 98%
Argentina - 97.1%
Cuba - 97%
Chile - 96.2%
Paraguay - 94%
Venezuela - 93.4%
Ecuador - 92.5%
Colombia - 92.5%
Mexico - 92.2%
Peru - 90.9%
Jamaica - 87.9%
Bolivia - 87.2%
Brazil - 86.4%
Dom. Rep. - 84.7%
Haiti - 52.9%

Well, Cuba didn't get first place this time, but it comes a close third. And look: Cuba's state-run education still does a better job than your beloved uber-capitalistic Chile!

The worst nightmare of statists/socialists/communists.
Worst nightmare? Hahahaha!! I've seen worse than you, kiddo. In fact, compared to some of the other market freaks I've fought, you're not much of an opponent.

I'm a person who thinks and isn't swayed by their emotive pleas and fallacies.
Sorry, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence of intelligent thought from you yet. Try again.

Oh, and I'm sure you're not swayed by "emotive pleas and fallacies", because, as we have seen, you're not swayed by reason and logic either. In fact, nothing can remove you from your ignorant dogma.

In short: an anarcho-capitalist.
Oh, I see - you're an oxymoron. That explains a lot.

You think that anyone who does not think exactly as you do wants all poor people to rot.
No, I think poor people will rot in your twisted economic system, whether you want it or not.

It is a FACT that poor people are poorer and more miserable in countries with more capitalism - and that they are better off in countries with more welfare and state intervention.

Frankly, capitalism requires anarchy.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!! You really think that the immense injustices of capitalism could last more than 10 seconds if there wasn't a government to enforce them? Private property is a form of authority - it can only exist while it is protected by some authoritarian force (such as a government). Your "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, because you can't have capitalism unless you have some way to prevent the poor from rising up against the rich.

What is your "anarcho-capitalism" going to do when the starving masses decide enough is enough and start up a revolution? Without government, how can you stop the poor majority from overthrowing the rich elite and taking what is rightfully theirs?

Or I could read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Yes, of course, you could base your entire world-view on the words of one Russian... or you could actually try to listen to what other Russians and East Europeans have to say, too. Like the millions whose lives were ruined by capitalism.

I belive Cuba is a good exmple on how Communism Can Work.

Fidel Castro's Goverment has created a society that the majority of Cubans are happy to live in. The people are not viciosly slaughtered like in other nations on the USA's axis of Evil list.

I have been to Cuba and lived there and it is not like a dictatorship country.
Propaganda is not constantly spewing out of the tv and radio with songs of lets praise our leader and goverment.

Cuba remains one of the only communist nations in Latin America but it is one of the most succesful. The People are not starving as BAAWA told me yesterday. Their population is at an all time high and ill repeat these figures by constantinopolis


LIFE EXPECTANCY:

Cuba - 76.8 years
Chile - 76.35 years
Jamaica - 76.07 years
Uruguay - 75.87 years
Argentina - 75.48 years
Mexico - 74.94 years
Paraguay - 74.4 years
Venezuela - 73.81 years
Ecuador - 71.89 years
Colombia - 71.14 years
Brazil - 71.13 years
Peru - 70.88 years
Dom. Rep. - 67.63 years
Bolivia - 64.78 years
Haiti - 51.78 years

What was that about "starving Cubans", kiddo? Looks to me like they're living longer than anybody else in Latin America. And that's what even the CIA admits.


LITERACY:

Uruguay - 98%
Argentina - 97.1%
Cuba - 97%
Chile - 96.2%
Paraguay - 94%
Venezuela - 93.4%
Ecuador - 92.5%
Colombia - 92.5%
Mexico - 92.2%
Peru - 90.9%
Jamaica - 87.9%
Bolivia - 87.2%
Brazil - 86.4%
Dom. Rep. - 84.7%
Haiti - 52.9%

Well, Cuba didn't get first place this time, but it comes a close third. And look: Cuba's state-run education still does a better job than your beloved uber-capitalistic Chile!

I think these figures say how Obviosly they are being abused and starving (cough cough) Look how damn close cubas life expectancy and literacy rates are to say Great Britain or the USA who are capitalist Nations

The communist party of Cuba has created a communist society to rival the USA's capitalist one.

Fidel Castro's Goverment has created a society that the majority of Cubans are happy to live in. The people are not viciosly slaughtered like in other nations on the USA's axis of Evil list. Unless they're gay of course. Does that not count?

I have been to Cuba and lived there and it is not like a dictatorship country.
Propaganda is not constantly spewing out of the tv and radio with songs of lets praise our leader and goverment.Which group did you go with?
The communist party of Cuba has created a communist society to rival the USA's capitalist one.Fuck off Stalinist.

To finish off my arguement with BAAWA

Yes i know what Fascism is My grand Uncle is german. heres a few ww2 fascist states for you germany, italy, nationalist spain, and portugal.



And you still don't know what it is. How sad.


I am feeling you are the one who doesnt understan the plain wrongness of fascism.



I said think people who belive in an exact way are sick and dont care about poor people. Not people who belive in a hazy general way near to the exact way.



That was pretty much incoherent.


Well next time only take offence if you belive in that exact way.



No i dont want a fucking medal for doing charity work i happen to like helping people.



Good on you.


WHAT? was that actually a comment from you that didnt contain either a direct or indirect insult.



I do belive communism can help people and if you dont well thats tough for you. You ever lived under a communist goverment? I have. I didnt starve.



Intellectually.


What are you on about i didnt starve intellectually either when there i wasnt deprived of knowledge and books in case i discovered the (non-existant) secret evil of the goverment, in cuba there are libraries etc just like any nation.




I wasnt brain washed by the goverment the tv wasnt constantly playing lets hail our goverment crap.



Ah. So you think I support the US government? Boy, are you in for a fucking surprise.


emm i cant recall saying you did. i am glad you at least have the intellectual capacity to understand how US propaganda works but next time dont make up things that i have apparantly said just to feel like a big boy and say swear words




You really dont know what you are talking about go live ina communist goverment then come talk to me.



Or I could read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


that is the opinion of one man who didnt gain anythng out of communism. and you may not belive this but reading a book and living through something are very differant

Damn it, I hate it when my post is the last on a page. No one reads it then... *sigh*...

So let me re-post my previous post (and let me emphasize the fact that the statistics I use - and which McColl quoted - are taken from none other than the CIA World Factbook).

Then why do so many of them [Cubans] try to flee?
Because a continent-wide global superpower with access to all the resources of the world (namely the USA) is richer than a tiny island nation isolated through embargo (Cuba). Go figure.

Notice something interesting, however: When was the last time you heard of Cubans fleeing to any of their neighboring Latin American countries? Are Cubans fleeing to Haiti? Are Cubans fleeing to Jamaica? Are Cubans fleeing to Mexico? No. And you know why? Because Cuba has higher standards of living than any of its Latin American neighbors.

Living in Cuba isn't better than living in the USA or Canada, but it's better than living anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.

Consider the following statistics, which I've compiled using no less an authority than the uber-capitalistic CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/):


LIFE EXPECTANCY:

Cuba - 76.8 years
Chile - 76.35 years
Jamaica - 76.07 years
Uruguay - 75.87 years
Argentina - 75.48 years
Mexico - 74.94 years
Paraguay - 74.4 years
Venezuela - 73.81 years
Ecuador - 71.89 years
Colombia - 71.14 years
Brazil - 71.13 years
Peru - 70.88 years
Dom. Rep. - 67.63 years
Bolivia - 64.78 years
Haiti - 51.78 years

What was that about "starving Cubans", kiddo? Looks to me like they're living longer than anybody else in Latin America. And that's what even the CIA admits.


LITERACY:

Uruguay - 98%
Argentina - 97.1%
Cuba - 97%
Chile - 96.2%
Paraguay - 94%
Venezuela - 93.4%
Ecuador - 92.5%
Colombia - 92.5%
Mexico - 92.2%
Peru - 90.9%
Jamaica - 87.9%
Bolivia - 87.2%
Brazil - 86.4%
Dom. Rep. - 84.7%
Haiti - 52.9%

Well, Cuba didn't get first place this time, but it comes a close third. And look: Cuba's state-run education still does a better job than your beloved uber-capitalistic Chile!

The worst nightmare of statists/socialists/communists.
Worst nightmare? Hahahaha!! I've seen worse than you, kiddo. In fact, compared to some of the other market freaks I've fought, you're not much of an opponent.

I'm a person who thinks and isn't swayed by their emotive pleas and fallacies.
Sorry, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence of intelligent thought from you yet. Try again.

Oh, and I'm sure you're not swayed by "emotive pleas and fallacies", because, as we have seen, you're not swayed by reason and logic either. In fact, nothing can remove you from your ignorant dogma.

In short: an anarcho-capitalist.
Oh, I see - you're an oxymoron. That explains a lot.

You think that anyone who does not think exactly as you do wants all poor people to rot.
No, I think poor people will rot in your twisted economic system, whether you want it or not.

It is a FACT that poor people are poorer and more miserable in countries with more capitalism - and that they are better off in countries with more welfare and state intervention.

Frankly, capitalism requires anarchy.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!! You really think that the immense injustices of capitalism could last more than 10 seconds if there wasn't a government to enforce them? Private property is a form of authority - it can only exist while it is protected by some authoritarian force (such as a government). Your "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, because you can't have capitalism unless you have some way to prevent the poor from rising up against the rich.

What is your "anarcho-capitalism" going to do when the starving masses decide enough is enough and start up a revolution? Without government, how can you stop the poor majority from overthrowing the rich elite and taking what is rightfully theirs?

Or I could read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Yes, of course, you could base your entire world-view on the words of one Russian... or you could actually try to listen to what other Russians and East Europeans have to say, too. Like the millions whose lives were ruined by capitalism.

Unless they're gay of course. Does that not count?
Which group did you go with?Fuck off Stalinist.

Cuba's main religion is catholisism. and unfortuanatly the catholics dont like gays. i do not belive I said Cuba is without faults. But in defence of Cuba a lot of what you hear abour enemies of the US is VERY exagerated. Look at america it was no that long ago when they treated black people terribly. But America is the richest nation in the world so has advanced at a quicker pace than Cuba so soon Cuba will stop this ill treatment and learn from their mistakes.

Sadly Many countries in the world including some in the UN persacute and kill homosexuals with accordance to their religion.
I do not support this, i do not support Stalin he was a communist traitor and i do not support religion so next time keep you tongue behind your teeth and keep insults for the day I spout out rascist remarks like a fascist (which will never happen)

It can't be totalitarian if it's not a dictatorship. You can't have slaves without masters. Totalitarianism means your life is totally controlled by some all-powerful authority - i.e. a dictator or an oligarchy.

Or a president or an illiberal majority.....


Yeah, and I really like blue flying pigs too. But I'd have to say it's typical of the right wing to wish there was a dictatorship. After all, what better way to secure the property of the filthy rich, corrupt and oppressive capitalist class than through a corporate police state?

I'm not right wing and I don't want a dictator. I'm a libertarian. However, that govt is best which governs least. Thus a libertarian dictator is better than an elected despot like Bush, Blair or Chiraque.



A what? Oh, you're talking about pink flying pigs now!

First of all, if you think you're living in a totalitarian system, then you've got serious issues. I'm betting you have no single damn clue what a true totalitarian system means. Go spend a few months in Saudi Arabia - I guarantee you'll have a whole lot more respect for democratic freedoms after that.

I hear rubbish like this all the time. That's like saying a rape victim that at they should be grateful because in South Africa they'd have been killed. A totalitarian system is one where the state controls everything. When you are forced to endure 11+ years of indoctrination at a state school, two fifths of your money is confiscated every year and the govt regulates everything from the price of beer to the curvature of bananas I would say that qualifies. Democratic freedom is no freedom at all because it puts your freedom to a vote (in a contest it's rigged to lose).


Second of all, if you have a problem with society, do us all a favor and go live up in the mountains with your libertarian buddies. You see, Homo Sapiens is a social animal, I'm afraid.

Society will be more beneficial for us if we stop using the state to oppress and steal from each other. Are you claiming that "being social" is the same as using govt guns to force each other to do stuff? There was me thinking the essence of being social was VOLUNTARY association.


Uh, yeah, because we don't want to see poor disease-infested slums, widespread starvation, misery and abject poverty. Because we want a decent life for every human being. Because we don't want to return to the 19th century. Because the welfare state has eradicated social ills that have plagued humanity for millenia.

In brief, because we care about the good of all - unlike egotistical bastards like you.

I am a capitalist because these things upset me. Where were the poor disease-infested slums, widespread starvation, misery and abject poverty - East or West Germany? All the improvements of the 20th century came in spite of, not because of, the welfare state. Private charity and free enterprise would have done even better. The welfare state has not achieved it's objectives anyway (and in fact has been antagonistic towards them), or had you not noticed the inner city slums?


...so they can grow into beautiful, majestic eagles in their own right, riding the winds and soaring into the heavens, and eventually having little baby eagles of their own.
What planet are you living on?

Maybe because the bendiness of bananas isn't a real problem? Maybe because marijuana isn't a real problem either? (or at least not one that can be made to go away through law)

Neither is poverty something that can be made to go away through law.

Oh, I see: in your view, poverty, misery and disease are freedom! Removing them from society would be evil! A system of mutual co-operation, prosperity and human dignity is serfdom! :rolleyes:
The soviet govt used to provide food. Badly. Then they privatised agriculture. Did this mean no food? Of course not. It meant food was more plentiful. Why do you think that only the govt can solve these problems. The idea isn't to level society, it's to build new institutions on the principles of free enterprise and voluntary association.


Ok, show me one president or member of government in a First World nation who isn't a filthy rich capitalist.

You ARE ruled by capitalists, my friend - and the only choice you're given in election day is between two rich capitalists.[/QUOTE]

Tony Blair. But that's not the point. The govt is an institution outside of the free market. Democracy may indeed become rule by an oligarchy. It's yet another good argument for statelessness. Capitalism - the free market - is NOT rule by capitalists. I'm not your friend.


"...unless we can rip him off through our advertising campaign."
What a moronical statement.

What exactly is entailed in an anarcho-capitalist system?
There is no govt. Your rights are protected instead by yourself, voluntary associations or for-profit police companies. The advantage in this is that they protect you from violence and theft without using violence on you or stealing from you.

The poor are taken care of via a combination of free enterprise and private charity.

Every aspect of anarcho-capitalism has succeeded in practice from law and order to private provision of charity. It just hasn't been tried as a whole package anytime recently.

Unlike other anarchists, ancaps tend to be very intelligent, hygienic individuals. The system isn't based on utopian fantasy but on solid economic theory and proven historical success stories. If you are interested in finding out more try these links.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

And this one for a quick overview of law without the state, which is probably the idea which newcomers find most scarey. (in fact it's mostly common sense)

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

There is no govt. Your rights are protected instead by yourself, voluntary associations or for-profit police companies. The advantage in this is that they protect you from violence and theft without using violence on you or stealing from you.Mafia?

Cuba's main religion is catholisism. and unfortuanatly the catholics dont like gays. i do not belive I said Cuba is without faults. But in defence of Cuba a lot of what you hear abour enemies of the US is VERY exagerated. Look at america it was no that long ago when they treated black people terribly. But America is the richest nation in the world so has advanced at a quicker pace than Cuba so soon Cuba will stop this ill treatment and learn from their mistakes.See also Cuba's treatment of the anarchist movement. It's not a 'mistake' as you suggest. It's policy.

Sadly Many countries in the world including some in the UN persacute and kill homosexuals with accordance to their religion.The difference being that nobody is trying to claim that Iran is "communist".
I do not support this, i do not support Stalin he was a communist traitor and i do not support religion so next time keep you tongue behind your teeth and keep insults for the day I spout out rascist remarks like a fascist (which will never happen)You support Castro. Castro is a Stalinist.
QE fucking D

Mafia?
You mean the mafia will take over? No. Your police company would protect you better and cheaper than the govt does(n't). And the govt is really just a protection racket the same as the mafia anyway. Except when they steal your money the govt pretend to protect you from unemployment and old age as well as common criminals. Read the links. Like I said, it's common sense.