NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this speaks for itself. Our opponents do not want you to read our manifesto! Ask yourselves why... :p

Actually, as an opponent I would recommend that people do read your manifesto. I did, it was quite amusing, or would be if it were not supposed to be serious. I will however admit that it is a few steps ahead of the RTP in development.

NO DON'T READ THEIR MANIFESTO, IT'S FILLED WITH REFORMIST NONSENSE. FOLLOW THE REVOLUTION!
BAh sounds Commie!
http://www.groonk.net/blog/images/murphy_poster_revolution_800.jpg

Better dead than red!


Vote Mobra

We are not communist!

Never said you were, you are the rats, we know that.

Actually, as an opponent I would recommend that people do read your manifesto. I did, it was quite amusing, or would be if it were not supposed to be serious. I will however admit that it is a few steps ahead of the RTP in development.

I'm glad you liked it. :p

VOTE MOBRA

no other party already has 99% of the worlds assets in its territory! if you vote for us you will be able to enjoy the benefits of possecing all the underground bank vaults and being part pf a party that controls the worlds remianing oil!

-HH (prospective minister for shiny things)

http://img99.echo.cx/img99/7111/rats3lq.jpg

http://img99.echo.cx/img99/7111/rats3lq.jpg

What I forsee in Dhomme's future. (http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/wilderworks/images/drwilder1.jpg)


The burrowing rodents will have their revenge!

SCANDAL!

http://img197.echo.cx/img197/9408/scandal7yg.jpg

Earlier today Party Leaders DHomme (of the RTP) and The TIN man (of the Party of Order) were caught playing around naked with ice-cream and fluffy pink handcuffs!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

VOTE MOBRA

Our underground restructuring projects are going to plan and we are now proud to say their is ample accomadation for all those who sway to the Glorious Banner of MOBRA We Dont Descriminate!

Join us and find the wondes of the Underground!

SCANDAL!

http://img197.echo.cx/img197/9408/scandal7yg.jpg

Earlier today Party Leaders DHomme (of the RTP) and The TIN man (of the Party of Order) were caught playing around naked with ice-cream and fluffy pink handcuffs!

:eek: :eek:
lmao :p :p

SCANDAL!


Earlier today Party Leaders DHomme (of the RTP) and The TIN man (of the Party of Order) were caught playing around naked with ice-cream and fluffy pink handcuffs!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
LOL

:fluffle:

SCANDAL!

http://img197.echo.cx/img197/9408/scandal7yg.jpg

Earlier today Party Leaders DHomme (of the RTP) and The TIN man (of the Party of Order) were caught playing around naked with ice-cream and fluffy pink handcuffs!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Bows to your grace.
************************************

SCANDAL!

Earlier today Party Leaders DHomme (of the RTP) and The TIN man (of the Party of Order) were caught playing around naked with ice-cream and fluffy pink handcuffs!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Was that really necessary?

Was that really necessary?

Yes.

Yes.

I may be a bit of an amateur, but isn't that kind of post liable to get this thread blocked?

Complete lack of shock
http://img194.echo.cx/img194/6132/tinky7im.jpg
Today there was an utter lack of suprise when Tink revealed her true self. Yes after hiding behind her disguise of just an ordinary girl for well over a year, her parents finally revealed she was an escaped mental patient with a hairy lip. Nobody was really caught off-guard.

Was that really necessary?
DHomme made a pic of him with a sword stood next to my head on a spike, and TIN's just crazy so yes, yes it was

I may be a bit of an amateur, but isn't that kind of post liable to get this thread blocked?
I dont mind, I put her head on a pike, she made me gay with TIN man. Seems like a fair swap

Complete lack of shock
Today there was an utter lack of suprise when Tink revealed her true self. Yes after hiding behind her disguise of just an ordinary girl for well over a year, her parents finally revealed she was an escaped mental patient with a hairy lip. Nobody was really that suprised.

This is deteriorating... :(

DHomme made a pic of him with a sword stood next to my head on a spike, and TIN's just crazy so yes, yes it was
I imagine thats crazy...

I may be a bit of an amateur, but isn't that kind of post liable to get this thread blocked?they know to take it as a joke

I imagine thats crazy...
yes, and you'll see that i edited it, it's not my fault, you have to really bash the 'z' key on my keyboard!

they know to take it as a joke

good.

yes, and you'll see that i edited it, it's not my fault, you have to really bash the 'z' key on my keyboard!
Have you not seen my one with TIN's head?

DHomme made a pic of him with a sword stood next to my head on a spike, and TIN's just crazy so yes, yes it was

Tin is not to pleased about the scandal thingy. He thinks you've gone to far Tink...

yes, and you'll see that i edited it, it's not my fault, you have to really bash the 'z' key on my keyboard!
yeah when i went to poke fun(Dont be Dirty or be Dirty...)
I noticed it was edited in but id spent the effort waiting to post so i thought i should anyway...
I had the same prob with the 6
I dont know why i neveruse the 6
What good is 6 im not a Satanist?....

I fixed it by pulling it up really hard and twisting it to the left/right....
Might work.
You feeling alright?

Tin is not to pleased about the scandal thingy. He thinks you've gone to far Tink...
:rolleyes: well he's being silly

yeah when i went to poke fun(Dont be Dirty or be Dirty...)
I noticed it was edited in but id spent the effort waiting to post so i thought i should anyway...
I had the same prob with the 6
I dont know why i neveruse the 6
What good is 6 im not a Satanist?....

I fixed it by pulling it up really hard and twisting it to the left/right....
Might work.
You feeling alright?

Am I the only one to whom that makes a grand total of zero sense?

Why do I feel out of my depth in this thread?


*whimpers*

:rolleyes: well he's being silly

He didn't like it when I said he was playing with children.

I must agree, though. That was a bit severe. Hilarious, but cruel. Maybe fair agains t dhomme, but TIN didn't attack you that badly???

Am I the only one to whom that makes a grand total of zero sense?

Why do I feel out of my depth in this thread.

*whimpers*

Nope. Don't worry. I don't understand either. vote mobra, and that statement will make sense!

yeah when i went to poke fun(Dont be Dirty or be Dirty...)
I noticed it was edited in but id spent the effort waiting to post so i thought i should anyway...
I had the same prob with the 6
I dont know why i neveruse the 6
What good is 6 im not a Satanist?....

I fixed it by pulling it up really hard and twisting it to the left/right....
Might work.
You feeling alright?
I;m feeling great thanks

Could we perhaps all get back to discussing serious policies, then?

Nope. Don't worry. I don't understand either. vote mobra, and that statement will make sense!

I've been forced to declare myself neutral. I have a friend who will cause me large amounts of pain if I vote for anyone other than Tink, and I dont want to give him the satisfaction of forcing my vote. So I've decided to take the fence.

He didn't like it when I said he was playing with children.

I must agree, though. That was a bit severe. Hilarious, but cruel. Maybe fair agains t dhomme, but TIN didn't attack you that badly???
it's a silly, pretend election, with silly, pretend campaigns, nothing said should be taken as anything but silly and pretend, everyone else could see it was a joke, why can't he?

I;m feeling great thanks
Oh really good to hear...

it's a silly, pretend election, with silly, pretend campaigns, nothing said should be taken as anything but silly and pretend, everyone else could see it was a joke, why can't he?
Because hed rather be Gay with someone else Dhomme smells funny......

it's a silly, pretend election, with silly, pretend campaigns, nothing said should be taken as anything but silly and pretend, everyone else could see it was a joke, why can't he?

There are still rules about flaming though, that have to be obeyed.

Calm it down people or this will end up being locked, you know it.

This means all of you that are mud slinging. How about discussing policies or politics, not personal habits.

Goodness. The pure absurdity of it all...

Help Restore Sanity to the Political Process!

Vote for the Party of Whatever Works!

There are still rules about flaming though, that have to be obeyed.

Calm it down people or this will end up being locked, you know it.

This means all of you that are mud slinging. How about discussing policies or politics, not personal habits.

For once I have to concur with my opponent. I'm not blaming anyone, but don't let this thread spiral out of control.

There are still rules about flaming though, that have to be obeyed.

Calm it down people or this will end up being locked, you know it.

This means all of you that are mud slinging. How about discussing policies or politics, not personal habits.
DHomme got away with it yesterday so i see no reason why i shouldn't today

There are still rules about flaming though, that have to be obeyed.

Calm it down people or this will end up being locked, you know it.

This means all of you that are mud slinging. How about discussing policies or politics, not personal habits.

I have been discussing my policies... like how nearly 4oo NS users will be destroyed by my Rat army... Hoo Hah!

DHomme got away with it yesterday so i see no reason why i shouldn't today

"He started it!"

:rolleyes:

Goodness. The pure absurdity of it all...

Help Restore Sanity to the Political Process!

Vote for the Party of Whatever Works!

So many demands, so much propaganda,too many colours!

*cowers in the corner whimpering* :(

DHomme got away with it yesterday so i see no reason why i shouldn't today

Because you didn't find it offensive. Tin didn't like my insul and my attempt to discredit him, so i withdrew it. I went to far. Fine, attack his party and policies, but if offend someone, you've gone too far.

Maybe we should now not allow people to attack other party members, just party policies.

DHomme got away with it yesterday so i see no reason why i shouldn't today

It's not about your or anyone in particular, TInk. This isn't about blame, it's about everyone just cooling it for a moment.

So many demands, so much propaganda,too many colours!

*cowers in the corner whimpering* :(

Vote mobra... You'll be spared colour and a painful death.. ;)

Maybe we should now not allow people to attack other party members, just party policies.

*nods*

I've been forced to declare myself neutral. I have a friend who will cause me large amounts of pain if I vote for anyone other than Tink, and I dont want to give him the satisfaction of forcing my vote. So I've decided to take the fence.

Stand up for your right to decide for yourself, are you a man or a rodent?

Vote Classic Liberal and show that you can and want to make your own decisions, without duress or threat.

Because you didn't find it offensive. Tin didn't like my insul and my attempt to discredit him, so i withdrew it. I went to far. Fine, attack his party and policies, but if offend someone, you've gone too far.

Maybe we should now not allow people to attack other party members, just party policies.
i did find it offensive but i also knew that it was all in fun so it would be pathetic to moan about it

Vote mobra... You'll be spared colour and a painful death.. ;)

I've been forced to declare myself neutral. I have a friend who will cause me large amounts of pain if I vote for anyone other than Tink, and I dont want to give him the satisfaction of forcing my vote. So I've decided to take the fence.

My hands are tied!

Stand up for your right to decide for yourself, are you a man or a rodent?

Vote Classic Liberal and show that you can and want to make your own decisions, without duress or threat.

Hey! I find that offensive!

Stand up for your right to decide for yourself, are you a man or a rodent?

Vote Classic Liberal and show that you can and want to make your own decisions, without duress or threat.

You don't know this guy.

And anyway, it inflates my already huge ego to have people scrounging for my vote. :D

My hands are tied!

So.. Some pain.. or a painful death. think about it. Vote mobra, some pain, but you don't die.

Vote anyone else but Tink, pain, and painful death.

or, Vote Tink, Painful death.

You choose.

i did find it offensive but i also knew that it was all in fun so it would be pathetic to moan about it

Tink, I was not getting at you personally. I simply took your comment as an opportunity to make a general plea to all the mud slingers to stop. Everyone was guilty to some degree, including myself and Ariddia.

I, and it appears others here as well , were beginning to become concerned that if we did not self regulate, the mods would regulate for us. This is something that no one wants to happen, not even the mods, so I made a general plea. Please do not feel that I was getting at you, it was not intended that way.

So.. Some pain.. or a painful death. think about it. Vote mobra, some pain, but you don't die.

Vote anyone else but Tink, pain, and painful death.

or, Vote Tink, Painful death.

You choose.

*sarcastic* Oh gee, what are you going to do? barrage me with sniper smilies?

You don't know this guy.

And anyway, it inflates my already huge ego to have people scrounging for my vote. :D

Look, I am an ex Defensive lineman with martial arts training. We can also guarantee anonimity in your voting, so don't worry too much about 'this guy'.

Vote as you see fit, just do not allow anyone else to tell you using threats what you can and can't do.

Tink, I was not getting at you personally. I simply took your comment as an opportunity to make a general plea to all the mud slingers to stop. Everyone was guilty to some degree, including myself and Ariddia.

I, and it appears others here as well , were beginning to become concerned that if we did not self regulate, the mods would regulate for us. This is something that no one wants to happen, not even the mods, so I made a general plea. Please do not feel that I was getting at you, it was not intended that way.

i don't think anyone person was guilty of mud slinging. It started with one person rubbishing another parties policies, so they do the same.

As Ghandi said, 'An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind.'

Tink, I was not getting at you personally. I simply took your comment as an opportunity to make a general plea to all the mud slingers to stop. Everyone was guilty to some degree, including myself and Ariddia.

I, and it appears others here as well , were beginning to become concerned that if we did not self regulate, the mods would regulate for us. This is something that no one wants to happen, not even the mods, so I made a general plea. Please do not feel that I was getting at you, it was not intended that way.
damn you and your being reasonable! http://67.18.37.16/html/emoticons/dry.gif




:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Hey! I find that offensive!

Why?

*sarcastic* Oh gee, what are you going to do? barrage me with sniper smilies?

Obviously, you haven't seen my army of giant rats, i shall soon unleash upon all surfacers, unless they vote for MOBRA!

Why?

*Points to party name*

There's nothing wrong with being a rodent!

*Points to party name*

There's nothing wrong with being a rodent!

When did I say there was, it is your assumption, not my statement. :p

What I said was something like "stand up for yourself, are you a man or a rodent?" Where does this say that being a rodent is bad, unless you assume it is?

When did I say there was, it is your assumption, not my statement. :p

What I said was something like "stand up for yourself, are you a man or a rodent?" Where does this say that being a rodent is bad, unless you assume it is?

Your logic is strong surfacer, but it shall not save you from the Rats!!!

http://imagehost.bizhat.com/img_pag...mole_poster.jpg

when will the next election be?

O great moleland your link to the poster does not work, here it is:

http://imagehost.bizhat.com/img_page.php/1280/6881/mole_poster.jpg

Your logic is strong surfacer, but it shall not save you from the Rats!!!

http://imagehost.bizhat.com/img_pag...mole_poster.jpg

So you admit that you are prejudiced against rodents and then use threats of violence from those you are prejudiced against to try to cow me into submission.

Rodents of the world, look at how your purported leader really thinks of you. I call upon you to think for yourselves and free yourselves from this tyrranical oppresion. :D

So you admit that you are prejudiced against rodents and then use threats of violence from those you are prejudiced against to try to cow me into submission.

Rodents of the world, look at how your purported leader really thinks of you. I call upon you to think for yourselves and free yourselves from this tyrranical oppresion. :D

I shall not dignify this rubbish with an answer.

when will the next election be?

None is scheduled as of yet. It would be rather strange to elect a Parliament and then disband it immediately.

What? People have started blaming me for mudslinging? What did I do???

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal5.jpg

What? People have started blaming me for mudslinging? What did I do???

Hahaha.

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg

I have a question to pose to the communists- you claim that your society will create altruism by making sure that no one owns anything. I say this will create apathy and laziness, or, worse yet, it will create a state like the Soviet Union. According to the UDCP manifesto, the economy will be completely nationalized, and it will be computerized so as to be 'controlled' by the people. This would have been a PR scheme to make Stalin proud.

Impartial computers don't just make themselves- someone will have to make plans, regulate the centers, and lead the construction no matter what economic system. What if those few party leaders (and there will be few, because A. the economy will be nationalized and B. not everyone has the managerial skill to run mass construction and distribution) who are to be in control of the construction and maintenance of these centers slip in a bit of code here and there to allow themselves a 'bit' more control over what the centers create? Are we to expect that every single computer scientist is to go through every single line of code in every single distribution center to make sure that these extremely complex computer programs are all completely fair? What of the few communist leaders and economic planners- and, again, of course there will be few, since not everyone has the managerial skills to run a political party or economy and keep it working towards certain goals in a step-by-step fashion- that are in charge? When the first well-meaning leaders go, who is to say that ambitious self-centered ruthless authoritarians won't quietly take over the distribution centers to their own aims? It would be an easy task to bend the production to their will, considering that they are already in charge of the means of production and distribution. This would be just like any other Communist dictatorship beforehand- giving the illusion of serving the people while only serving themselves. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", as the millions dead in gulags and worker camps worldwide show.

This is not altruism- this is tyranny in the making. True altruism is not through elimination of competition, but through service to others at no material gain to oneself. This is what the Meritocratic Representative Republican believes in, and we would have leaders and voters who understand this and who would have shown that they chose to help others and are now continuing to lead them, help their fellow man. In a sense, their Service will never end- it will always be going on to bring mankind to more perfect peace, economic prosperity, and freedom.

Vote Meritocratic Representative Republicans.

One thing that startles me (just a quicky): this whole thread is spammed with misunderstandings about eachother's political points! Hah! Some people don't even seem to bother to read the programmes...

And a bit of political commercials: vote the UDCP: vote for equality, for freedom, for the right to do what you are good at, for the people who are you, yours, and the many men and women down the street. Don't let the mistakes of the past continue in prejudices of today. Old-fashioned assumptions and misunderstandings should not keep you from really checking out our Manifesto (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2) (be sure to check out the entire thread for added discussions and points). Do not assume that "the government" will be your "new boss" (as some classic liberals so eloquently pointed out). Voting for the UDCP means voting for the people, not for a "totalitarian government"! The "government" is made out of all the people, it is an actual democracy - forums that make decisions both on local and (inter)regional are open to all - voting is allowed by all who have reached voting age - all information regarding governance is researched and made public by trained professionals and "the common people" alike. Do not let yourself be fooled by our opponents, who would want nothing less than to see prejudice continue. Read our points, review our discussions, and make your own decision...

I have a question to pose to the communists- you claim that your society will create altruism by making sure that no one owns anything. I say this will create apathy and laziness, or, worse yet, it will create a state like the Soviet Union. According to the UDCP manifesto, the economy will be completely nationalized, and it will be computerized so as to be 'controlled' by the people. This would have been a PR scheme to make Stalin proud.

Wrong. The UDCP says nothing about computerization of the economic production. The automatisation regards the distribution of goods (and only on some levels), to keep corruption down. Our economic system will NOT create apathy, exactly the other way round. I suggest you read the entire manifesto and the discussion thread about it. You'll be surprised.
The economy is for the people, by the people. Apathy will not do, since anyone can do (at least as his/her main profession) what he/she wants to do and/or what he/she is good at. A multidude of educational facilities and chances will be offered to all, so that each and everyone will get the chance to determine what it is he/she wants to do. The economy is only nationalized in so far that is determined by the public what is to be produced. "Profit" is not our goal, satisfaction of the public is.

Impartial computers don't just make themselves- someone will have to make plans, regulate the centers, and lead the construction no matter what economic system. What if those few party leaders (and there will be few, because A. the economy will be nationalized and B. not everyone has the managerial skill to run mass construction and distribution) who are to be in control of the construction and maintenance of these centers slip in a bit of code here and there to allow themselves a 'bit' more control over what the centers create? Are we to expect that every single computer scientist is to go through every single line of code in every single distribution center to make sure that these extremely complex computer programs are all completely fair? What of the few communist leaders and economic planners- and, again, of course there will be few, since not everyone has the managerial skills to run a political party or economy and keep it working towards certain goals in a step-by-step fashion- that are in charge? When the first well-meaning leaders go, who is to say that ambitious self-centered ruthless authoritarians won't quietly take over the distribution centers to their own aims? It would be an easy task to bend the production to their will, considering that they are already in charge of the means of production and distribution. This would be just like any other Communist dictatorship beforehand- giving the illusion of serving the people while only serving themselves. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", as the millions dead in gulags and worker camps worldwide show.

You are incredibly prejudiced, and I'm convinced you didn't even read the manifesto and the discussion thread. Nationalization of the economy, in our view, entails that the public (everyone, not just "a few") will get to decide on both local and regional levels on what the economy needs to produce. Experts on certain fields will do research as to keep up with the most modern production processes and innovations, and all information on the economy will be made public on a daily basis, and is accessible to all. Each and everyone that gets to vote, has the power to change the economy - both on local and regional levels. The "government" will not have one representative organ like it does now - there will be direct voting on many subjects (locally, regionally, interregionally), each time on open forums, with professional advice by experts on the subject matter: for instance, decisions about farming will be made by the public (anyone interested to vote on it), and the completely transparent information will be provided by the research facilities and experts in that field (universities, institutions on agriculture, etc.).

The UDCP is not out to create a totalitarian governemnt, where "a few" run "the rest". The state is ruled by the people, and the people alone.

This is not altruism- this is tyranny in the making. True altruism is not through elimination of competition, but through service to others at no material gain to oneself.

Believe what you will. Our altruistic cultural element is just that, a cultural element that is embedded in human society, which we hold in high regard. Our elimination of the competion is executed to provide for each and all equal chances and economic products, and to root out the concept of "profit" and "personal gain" on an economic level. The members of the UDCP strive for a society where all the people in it get what they need and provide what they need through social thought and tolerance, and where each member of society contributes to society in the way that he/she deems him/herself best to do.

Again, don't be so prejudiced. Despite the word "communist" in our title, we go back to the root of the commune ideal (in France, in Germany, in Britain, in Spain, in native and pagan societies throughout the world), and should not be equalised with a truly failed regime that bore the same name.

One thing that startles me (just a quicky): this whole thread is spammed with misunderstandings about eachother's political points! Hah! Some people don't even seem to bother to read the programmes...

And a bit of political commercials: vote the UDCP: vote for equality, for freedom, for the right to do what you are good at, for the people who are you, yours, and the many men and women down the street. Don't let the mistakes of the past continue in prejudices of today. Old-fashioned assumptions and misunderstandings should not keep you from really checking out our Manifesto (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=2) (be sure to check out the entire thread for added discussions and points). Do not assume that "the government" will be your "new boss" (as some classic liberals so eloquently pointed out). Voting for the UDCP means voting for the people, not for a "totalitarian government"! The "government" is made out of all the people, it is an actual democracy - forums that make decisions both on local and (inter)regional are open to all - voting is allowed by all who have reached voting age - all information regarding governance is researched and made public by trained professionals and "the common people" alike. Do not let yourself be fooled by our opponents, who would want nothing less than to see prejudice continue. Read our points, review our discussions, and make your own decision...


I have read your manifesto, and you seem to be completely overlooking the question of how to ensure that necessary goods and services are provided in your arguments here. Go read your own manifesto on this, and then tell me that you are not just introducing the government as a boss that you have to work for. (No choice other than emmigrating, and even that you can't do as the government has taken all your assets from you. ) Freedom of information does not make freedom bny itself, freedom of choice is essential. Your manifesto removes this freedom of choice, it also removes freedom orf movement outside of the bordres of the state, it removes freedom of occupation, what use then is freedom of information? None.

You may be offering freedom from poverty in physical terms, but you are enforcing poverty of the human spirit. Where is the satisfaction, the sense of achievement that is part of being human in your world? Absent, missing, gon awol.

Do not be fooled by the promises of utopia, it is a recipie for slavery to the state.

I have been discussing my policies... like how nearly 4oo NS users will be destroyed by my Rat army... Hoo Hah!That's the first time I've seen godmoding in a non-roleplay thread...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

What? People have started blaming me for mudslinging? What did I do???You exist.



~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Wrong. The UDCP says nothing about computerization of the economic production. The automatisation regards the distribution of goods (and only on some levels), to keep corruption down. Our economic system will NOT create apathy, exactly the other way round. I suggest you read the entire manifesto and the discussion thread about it. You'll be surprised.
The economy is for the people, by the people. Apathy will not do, since anyone can do (at least as his/her main profession) what he/she wants to do and/or what he/she is good at. A multidude of educational facilities and chances will be offered to all, so that each and everyone will get the chance to determine what it is he/she wants to do. The economy is only nationalized in so far that is determined by the public what is to be produced. "Profit" is not our goal, satisfaction of the public is.
Satisfaction without reward? A strange new, well not new but disproven, concept of human nature. Yes each person can do what they are good at, that is a factor inherent in capitalism that you have imported. What you have not imported is the reward systems that encourage people to do the useful things they are good at rather than the unneeded activities such as playing games, or reading books that they are equally good at. The economy is totally nationalised in your manifesto. There is to be no money, distribution of goods is to be by the government, what economy is left?

It is to be determined by the public what is to be produced but it is not to be determined who is to produce it? Well this determination of what is to be produced is rather uneffective then, isn't it. I see a situation where the public determines that woolen blankets are to be produced, but the country has no sheep farmers. How then is the determination met? It can't be. And do you really believe that people will choose to be sheep farmers over being TV critics or astrophysicists? I don't.

So there has to be coercion for the system to work, coercion by the government. So much for everyone doing what they want to do and are good at!

Nationalization of the economy, in our view, entails that the public (everyone, not just "a few") will get to decide on both local and regional levels on what the economy needs to produce.
Hang on, you just said that the econom,y would not be nationalised. Make up your mind, or are you trying to deceive us?

Experts on certain fields will do research as to keep up with the most modern production processes and innovations, and all information on the economy will be made public on a daily basis, and is accessible to all. Each and everyone that gets to vote, has the power to change the economy - both on local and regional levels.
They have the power to vote to change the economy, but who actually makes the change. Voting for something does not do the thing voted for, does it? If this were the case politics would be incredibly easy.

The "government" will not have one representative organ like it does now - there will be direct voting on many subjects (locally, regionally, interregionally), each time on open forums, with professional advice by experts on the subject matter: for instance, decisions about farming will be made by the public (anyone interested to vote on it), and the completely transparent information will be provided by the research facilities and experts in that field (universities, institutions on agriculture, etc.).
Freedom of information, as I already said, is useless without more fundamental freedoms which your policies exclude. Democracy does nothing in itself, there needs to be action as well as voting, and this action has to be motivated. Your system eliminates all motivation.

The UDCP is not out to create a totalitarian governemnt, where "a few" run "the rest". The state is ruled by the people, and the people alone.
While the state requires individuals to work in menial tasks it is totalitarian. There is no conflict between totalitarianism and democracy, the two can co-exist.



Believe what you will. Our altruistic cultural element is just that, a cultural element that is embedded in human society, which we hold in high regard.
All evidence to date shows that there is no altruistic principle in human nature. Believe what I will, except that we are not altruistic is what you mean to say. Unfortunately for you, we are not altruistic, so the whole argument is built on a false premise.

Our elimination of the competion is executed to provide for each and all equal chances and economic products, and to root out the concept of "profit" and "personal gain" on an economic level. The members of the UDCP strive for a society where all the people in it get what they need and provide what they need through social thought and tolerance, and where each member of society contributes to society in the way that he/she deems him/herself best to do.
The ideal is very nice, now find a species for which it will work, because it does not work for us humans. We are motivated by competition, by personal achievement, by the fear of failure. You remove all of these factors and you remove motivation to do anything. Each person will deem it best to do what most pleases that person, face this fact.

Again, don't be so prejudiced. Despite the word "communist" in our title, we go back to the root of the commune ideal (in France, in Germany, in Britain, in Spain, in native and pagan societies throughout the world), and should not be equalised with a truly failed regime that bore the same name.

I am curious as to which British commune you are referring to here. The French (Paris) commune resulted in tyrrany, as did the Spanish communities in the Civil war. I know nothing about any German communes, and I also deny that native or pagan societies are communistic in stucture. they are feudal societies in nearly all cases with clearly distinct rights for different individuals.

Take the idealistic glasses off and have a look at the real worlsd out there, look at what has worked and what has failed, what has provided freedom and what has provided totalitarian dictatorships. These are the practical, real, empirical reasons to oppose communism in any from.

Wrong. The UDCP says nothing about computerization of the economic production. The automatisation regards the distribution of goods (and only on some levels), to keep corruption down. Our economic system will NOT create apathy, exactly the other way round. I suggest you read the entire manifesto and the discussion thread about it. You'll be surprised.

Your manifesto does not clearly state that, and if it only regards the distribution of goods on only some levels then it really wouldn't be largely automated. The use of computers would save workload and allow people to perform more important labor such as agriculture and road-building. This is vague as is 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', which creates a society in which everything is already provided and one need only do what they want to do in exchange. I will admit, though, that I was 'surprised' when I read that you'd take away the rights of people (with vagueness as to how much they would be limited, once more) who did not perform the 'menial work rota'. At least in a capitalist society their choices would be to work or get welfare or beg instead of being declared as a sub-human pariah.

The economy is for the people, by the people. Apathy will not do, since anyone can do (at least as his/her main profession) what he/she wants to do and/or what he/she is good at. A multidude of educational facilities and chances will be offered to all, so that each and everyone will get the chance to determine what it is he/she wants to do. The economy is only nationalized in so far that is determined by the public what is to be produced. "Profit" is not our goal, satisfaction of the public is.

If satisfaction was your goal, you'd let the market respond instead of using researcher's individual biases to determine what they think people need instead of what the consumers themselves buy. A company makes money- profit- when they satisfy its consumers- the public.



You are incredibly prejudiced, and I'm convinced you didn't even read the manifesto and the discussion thread. Nationalization of the economy, in our view, entails that the public (everyone, not just "a few") will get to decide on both local and regional levels on what the economy needs to produce. Experts on certain fields will do research as to keep up with the most modern production processes and innovations, and all information on the economy will be made public on a daily basis, and is accessible to all. Each and everyone that gets to vote, has the power to change the economy - both on local and regional levels. The "government" will not have one representative organ like it does now - there will be direct voting on many subjects (locally, regionally, interregionally), each time on open forums, with professional advice by experts on the subject matter: for instance, decisions about farming will be made by the public (anyone interested to vote on it), and the completely transparent information will be provided by the research facilities and experts in that field (universities, institutions on agriculture, etc.).

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion as to your first statements. You seem to be talking about 'experts' and 'trained personnel' a lot. Will any of these experts and trained personnel be of opposing, non-communist, political views, or will these only be communists 'for the good of the people'? How will you make sure that any ingrained personal bias- and we ALL have personal bias- won't get into these obviously limited number of people's research? Research often conflicts, with opposing theories having successful results. Assuming you have any experts of opposite political views and one capitalist chooses one theory and a communist chooses another, which one will be chosen? Will a selected panel decide or will the people have to vote on every single conflict? Who will choose these experts and trained personnel- a vote on each one by the people? Won't all of these universities, institutes etc. be funded by communists and thus be inclined to stick to the party line? What if people in one region people decide they want to eat nothing but chocolate? Will the panel or experts simply overrule them, because it's not good for them? What's to keep you from overruling them in more serious issues because it's not 'good for them'? You speak very strongly of the freedom in your government- however, your government flowchart is ridiculously complex and this strongly resembles a tactic used in Vichy France and elsewhere to bewilder the occupied populace into believing they were still free when they were actually being duped into authoritarian slavery.

The UDCP is not out to create a totalitarian governemnt, where "a few" run "the rest". The state is ruled by the people, and the people alone.

You may not, but what about the successors? Totalitarians before claimed to have ruled by the people. Won't there still be a Communist party with officials etc for elections? The public can be easily manipulated to think one way or the other if the entire industry is nationalized, considering that in the Communist society the media will obviously be fed by the Communist government. What if the people decide they don't want communism anymore? Will you decide not to let them for 'the good of the people'?

Believe what you will. Our altruistic cultural element is just that, a cultural element that is embedded in human society, which we hold in high regard. Our elimination of the competion is executed to provide for each and all equal chances and economic products, and to root out the concept of "profit" and "personal gain" on an economic level. The members of the UDCP strive for a society where all the people in it get what they need and provide what they need through social thought and tolerance, and where each member of society contributes to society in the way that he/she deems him/herself best to do.

But in capitalism people will reward others for services rendered and done. Why, if in a capitalistic society, a person who just makes crappy art all day doesn't get paid because no one wants it, thus ending up having to get a real job that would provide to the economy, should that person in a communist society be rewarded for something no one wants or needs? What's to keep everyone from doing the same?

Again, don't be so prejudiced. Despite the word "communist" in our title, we go back to the root of the commune ideal (in France, in Germany, in Britain, in Spain, in native and pagan societies throughout the world), and should not be equalised with a truly failed regime that bore the same name.

Unfortunately, we don't live in small agrarian tribes/struggling war victim camps where mere survival is the purpose and incentive to work and in which the communes are competing with opposing tribes/nature's cruelty/warring factions. The Bolsheviks also claimed that they were drawing influence from the old Mir communes which existed before Marx, and we all know what happened with the Soviet Union.

Seems like to much effort to start debating, so I'll put up a picture

http://img170.echo.cx/img170/5286/capw4eh.jpg

I made up a jingle in another thread that I thought I'd share. It's to the tune of Rice-a-roni -

Communism, it doesn't friggin' work. Communism, cuz people all are jerks.

YAY!!!

Has anyone else noticed what the Party of Order abbreviates to?
PoO (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=61460&dict=CALD)

I made up a jingle in another thread that I thought I'd share. It's to the tune of Rice-a-roni -

Communism, it doesn't friggin' work. Communism, cuz people all are jerks.

YAY!!!
people suck,
but people change.
lets try communism,
and break free of our chains ;)

people suck,
but people change.
lets try communism,
and break free of our chains ;)

Freedom is Slavery, eh PM?

Can anyone explain why the Democratic Socialist party, which opens its manifesto saying
recognising that not all economic leftists are communist the foundation of the democratic socialist party commences.
is planning an alliance with the United Communist Democratic Party and the Revolutionary Trotskyist Party?

Left wing could form a coalition, that means:

UDCP, RTP (both extreme we'll have some tough negotiations but it is not impossible), COTP (her pary is more moderate than ours, but I think she can agree on policies we have)

Now, I think this would be a very strong coalition.
Source (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9004305&postcount=52)


Surely this is selling its voters down the river and electoral dishonesty. Would you trust a government that says one thing very clearly and then goes against this principle just to obtain power?

Freedom is Slavery, eh PM?
capitalism is slavery.

maybe communism is slavery.


when are people ever free? its all relative.

Can anyone explain why the Democratic Socialist party, which opens its manifesto saying
-snip-
is planning an alliance with the United Communist Democratic Party and the Revolutionary Trotskyist Party?


The RTP is not aligning with the DSP

people suck,
but people change.
lets try communism,
and break free of our chains ;)

No they don't.

False premise --> false conclusion.

The RTP is not aligning with the DSP

You heard it here folks. Don't forget this clear and plain statement. If any such aliance should appear, you will know that you can no longer trust the people involved.

Capitalism controls your mind
Turns you to narcissism
The only truth you'll ever find
Is in the teachings of Marxism

Yeah thats right, Im a shit poet

No they don't.

False premise --> false conclusion.
argh not all this again.

you believe that people don't change.
i believe that human nature is malleable.


there.

Capitalism controls your mind
Turns you to narcissism
The only truth you'll ever find
Is in the teachings of Marxism

Yeah thats right, Im a shit poet
better than me :p

"Man is a social animal"- Aristotle
You're influenced by whatever culture you live in and the current one says "be selfish"

Do you want to be free to do what you want, socially and economically?
Do you value your freedom?

If you do, VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS.

Can anyone explain why the Democratic Socialist party, which opens its manifesto saying

is planning an alliance with the United Communist Democratic Party and the Revolutionary Trotskyist Party?

Surely this is selling its voters down the river and electoral dishonesty. Would you trust a government that says one thing very clearly and then goes against this principle just to obtain power?

Nothing is settled yet, and I've set some conditions for the coalitions, so we wont let anyone down. Don't trust Alien Born and his party, he is mending the truth and will continue if he gets in power, do you want a party that doesn't tell you the truth, makes assuptions and has no moral priciples when trying to bash its enemies? I thought so!

capitalism is slavery.

maybe communism is slavery.


when are people ever free? its all relative.

Well I prefer the slavery where you get paid for being a slave, get to choose what slave duties you do, have promotion prospects or be your own master, etc. :rolleyes:

Nothing is settled yet, and I've set some conditions for the coalitions, so we wont let anyone down. Don't trust Alien Born and his party, he is mending the truth and will continue if he gets in power, do you want a party that doesn't tell you the truth, makes assuptions and has no moral priciples when trying to bash its enemies? I thought so!

Unless you can show where I have lied, I demand an apology. Bashing individuals had been agreed on as out of bounds here. This is unnacceptable.

To my knowledge I have not lied anywhere. I have posted links to the sources, or they are in the manifestos. I have quoted honestly and fairly what has been stated. Where is the deceit? Decide for yourselves.

Well I prefer the slavery where you get paid for being a slave, get to choose what slave duties you do, have promotion prospects or be your own master, etc. :rolleyes:

Me too, well said :D

argh not all this again.

you believe that people don't change.
i believe that human nature is malleable.


there.

As was stated lkast time, the empirical evidenc shows that people don't change.
Homer's poetry still affects us, we can understand the motivations of the ancient Chinese, the Code of Hammurabi makes sense today. Thus people still have the same interests and same nature as they had more than 2000 years ago. Where is the change? Nowhere. Now accept the evidence, or admit you are arguing on pure blind faith.

Did I said lie? No it did not.

But you did mend the truth, said that we are forming a coalition wich didn't even exsist (now that is a lie). I wasn't bashing you but your party (and you along with it since you are a member, and what its members do that what a party does)

You have posted parts of the conversations taken out of the context and used it for your propagnada, now that is unacceptable!

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

Well I prefer the slavery where you get paid for being a slave, get to choose what slave duties you do, have promotion prospects or be your own master, etc. :rolleyes:
"your own master"?

yeah right :rolleyes:

capitalism: a slave to money, the system, and other human beings, i say


in communism no man is your master, all are equal
(except for those who are required to actually run such a system, who should be voted into office... or with direct democracy as the UDCP proposes, whereby no-one is your master, but the collective will of the people is supreme :) )


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCPbgcompressed.jpg

As was stated lkast time, the empirical evidenc shows that people don't change.
Homer's poetry still affects us, we can understand the motivations of the ancient Chinese, the Code of Hammurabi makes sense today. Thus people still have the same interests and same nature as they had more than 2000 years ago. Where is the change? Nowhere. Now accept the evidence, or admit you are arguing on pure blind faith.

Wrong, people don't have the same interstes as they did, how many of you would support slavery? Well in aincent greec it was considered necesary.
Showing values can changes, and selfishness is a value, so is private property, thus this can change.

I asked my sociology and psychology teachers bout this and the both agreed that it is possible.

http://img164.echo.cx/img164/3341/marx7vj.jpg

in communism no man is your master, all are equal
(except for those who are required to actually run such a system, who should be voted into office... or with direct democracy as the UDCP proposes, whereby no-one is your master, but the collective will of the people is supreme :)

And what would happen if the people voted for capitalism?

What if they voted for an end to communism at the next election?

"Man is a social animal"- Aristotle
You're influenced by whatever culture you live in and the current one says "be selfish"

Ahehehe... no. Social interaction exists only for mutual benefit. Man is not so much a social animal as he is a trader. He bands with tribes of other men for shelter and protection from the elements. He deals with them because he is better off for doing so, not because he identifies with the group more than he identifies with himself.

I, for one, embrace the idea that my culture says "be selfish" because it makes it easier for me to get the things I need to survive. It instills in me a drive to succeed and better my life, which wouldn't exist in a communist or socialist line of reasoning.

Long story short, Aristotle was being an idiot. Like most philosophers, he was right some of the time, but he sure did mung a hell of a lot of things up too.

That aside, does anyone else happen to think the MOBRA and the PoO sort of ruin the election? I've read their manifestos and it's nearly impossible tot ake either of them seriously as a political party. Why are they in this election? They're just fucking around....

I already posted an Emerson poem, the champion of self-reliance and individuality, so instead I'll put up a quote by Cecil Palmer.

"Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it"

"your own master"?

yeah right :rolleyes:

It's called self-employment.

http://zeus.zeit.de/bilder/orwell/big_brother_250.jpg

"Don't try to look after yourself", says Big Brother. "We'll do it for you".

If you want Big Brother to take care of you, look no further:
United Democratic Communists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610)
Revolutionary Trotskyists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701)

Did I said lie? No it did not.

But you did mend the truth, said that we are forming a coalition wich didn't even exsist (now that is a lie). I wasn't bashing you but your party (and you along with it since you are a member, and what its members do that what a party does)

You have posted parts of the conversations taken out of the context and used it for your propagnada, now that is unacceptable!

The only part of that post I cut out was your suggestion that you ally with MOBRA. I posted a link to it, for people to check for themselves.

If you are not planning a coalition or alliance, then please explain what "Left wing could form a coalition, that means" means. I am not bending the truth (mend means to repair, bend means to twist) I am simply reporting to the general public information that they have a right to know.

While you did not use the word lie, it was clearly implicit in your post, and the attack was made on me personally. I was simply criticisinfg the DSP party for double standards, not you personally. The personal aspect is why I am demanding and awaiting for an apology, which has still not been forthcoming.

Anyone who wishes to can follow the whole duplicitous scheme to mislead the voters in the DSP and UDCP threads. I just brought it to the attention of the world.

That aside, does anyone else happen to think the MOBRA and the PoO sort of ruin the election? I've read their manifestos and it's nearly impossible tot ake either of them seriously as a political party. Why are they in this election? They're just fucking around....

It is the price of political freedom. What is sad is that people vote for them, but they have to have the right to present their policies and manifestos and ask for support, juvenile and pathetic as these may be. Think of the Monster Raving Looney Party in the UK.

Think of the Monster Raving Looney Party in the UK.

Or the American Green National Socialist Libertarian Party.

Now planning a coalition would not mean that we are throwing away our basic principels and thus we are not misleading anybody, wich you said we are doing. I would like you to explain how excatly we are makeing double standards?

Secondly I did not bash you personaly, I took you as an exaple (what elese can I take if not the statements of its members) of your party and what it does, so no you get no apology otherwise you need to give me one to, since you did bashed my party basing on my statement (although taken out of the context).

in communism no man is your master, all are equal
In Communism, the Collective is your master...therefore, everyone from your neighbor to someone across the country that you don't know and will never meet are your masters. Communism is tyranny by the masses.

Or the American Green National Socialist Libertarian Party.
Yeah, but the scary thing is that they're serious.

I'm disappointed. You guys rhyme, but you need a catchy tune as well.

In Communism, the Collective is your master...therefore, everyone from your neighbor to someone across the country that you don't know and will never meet are your masters. Communism is tyranny by the masses.

This could be said for every other statist type of government, in which the masses are manipulated by certain powerful, well-off political overlords to oppress themselves.

It's called self-employment.

-snip-

"Don't try to look after yourself", says Big Brother. "We'll do it for you".

If you want Big Brother to take care of you, look no further:
United Democratic Communists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610)
Revolutionary Trotskyists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701)

If we can't protect people from those who want to exploit them (*cough capitalists cough*) then they will get utterly fucked. Big Brother did not want to help people, thats the difference between us

What if they voted for an end to communism at the next election?

Then there would be an end to communism at the next election. :rolleyes:

If we can't protect people from those who want to exploit them (*cough capitalists cough*) then they will get utterly fucked. Big Brother did not want to help people, thats the difference between us

In Communism the rich and middle classes are fucked by bringing them down and making them poor. In capitalism, at its worst the poor are not well treated, however in capitalism they have the chance to succeed and move up the social scale (if that even exists) like my dad did.

If we can't protect people from those who want to exploit them (*cough capitalists cough*) then they will get utterly fucked. Big Brother did not want to help people, thats the difference between us
Ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not you actually 'want to help people' its moral cannibalism to force money out of my pocket to do it. Property, being the sum of my labor is, in fact, an extension of the self. Property represents the time I take out of my life to provide a service to others and you bastards want to take it away!

To hell with that! "Help people" my ass!

Yeah, but the scary thing is that they're serious.

Well, true (unfortunately).

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

Ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not you actually 'want to help people' its moral cannibalism to force money out of my pocket to do it. Property, being the sum of my labor is, in fact, an extension of the self. Property represents the time I take out of my life to provide a service to others and you bastards want to take it away!

To hell with that! "Help people" my ass!

I just love the way you argue, its so god damn true :p

Now planning a coalition would not mean that we are throwing away our basic principels and thus we are not misleading anybody, wich you said we are doing. I would like you to explain how excatly we are makeing double standards?

Secondly I did not bash you personaly, I took you as an exaple (what elese can I take if not the statements of its members) of your party and what it does, so no you get no apology otherwise you need to give me one to, since you did bashed my party basing on my statement (although taken out of the context).

Please be consistent. You just stated you were no alliance was being formed, and now you state that you are planning a coalition with the communists. Either way round there is an ethical problem here with position shifting. The original position is that you are opposed to communism. As given in your manifesto OK.
Now either you are not forming an alliance with them in which case what you say here contradicts this and constitutes a shift in position, or you are forming an alliance with them which constitutes a shift in position away from your manifesto. Please make up your mind, and I assume that you are speaking for the party, so the you refers to the DSP andnot to Cool Dynasty 42, what your position is.

That last sentance is the first time I have entered your name, (I had to look back to how it was) so any previous criticism was of the party not of you personally. You, Cool Dynasty 42, however, explicitly criticised me by name, that is why I want the apology. What could be clearer?

I just love the way you argue, its so god damn true :p
Heh. Thanks.

One more point about the potential left alliance. Know who you are going to bed with people:

We'll use it to further our own goals and then cast them aside when the revolution comes! Just like Lenin when the other socialist parties gave him refuge after the failed "July Days" rising!
Source (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701&page=6)

Ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not you actually 'want to help people' its moral cannibalism to force money out of my pocket to do it. Property, being the sum of my labor is, in fact, an extension of the self. Property represents the time I take out of my life to provide a service to others and you bastards want to take it away!

To hell with that! "Help people" my ass!
Bollocks. The rich people in society make their money by exploiting the poor people, and not through their own labour. Their money is not an "extension of the self" or whatever BS you wanna put on it, it is stolen from the people who worked for it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/ssbmshadow/baby.jpg (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420124)

Nuff said.

Bollocks. The rich people in society make their money by exploiting the poor people, and not through their own labour. Their money is not an "extension of the self" or whatever BS you wanna put on it, it is stolen from the people who worked for it.

I am tired of hearing about this "exploitation," show some logical deduction or economic mathematics with your argument.

It is an open challenge, anyone who wants to show that, in a free market, labourers do not get wages equal to the utility of their labor, please do so.

This could be said for every other statist type of government, in which the masses are manipulated by certain powerful, well-off political overlords to oppress themselves.
Pretty much true. Like pure Democracy being tyranny by the majority.

Can anyone tell me which is the party is the most right wing party

I am tired of hearing about this "exploitation," show some logical deduction or economic mathematics with your argument.

It is an open challenge, anyone who wants to show that, in a free market, labourers do not get wages equal to the utility of their labor, please do so.

In 1996 in the US manufacturing industry for every 100 dollars worth of products each individual made, they were paid 17 dollars. Seems pretty exploitative for me

One more point about the potential left alliance. Know who you are going to bed with people:

Well thats hardly final policy is it?

Bollocks. The rich people in society make their money by exploiting the poor people, and not through their own labour. Their money is not an "extension of the self" or whatever BS you wanna put on it, it is stolen from the people who worked for it.
Only the ones who cheat. How many rags to riches stories have you heard from Communist societies? How about Capitalist ones?



Yeah, that's what I thought.

Only the ones who cheat. How many rags to riches stories have you heard from Communist societies? How about Capitalists ones?



Yeah, that's what I thought.
Stakhanov.

In 1996 in the US manufacturing industry for every 100 dollars worth of products each individual made, they were paid 17 dollars. Seems pretty exploitative for me

The manufacturers need money for:

Tools/Machinery
Energy to power those tools
Raw materials

and more. Hardly surprising they didn't put all the money into salaries.

Stakhanov was a set up by the Stalinist government
and who is the most right wing party

Their money is not an "extension of the self" or whatever BS you wanna put on it, it is stolen from the people who worked for it.
Exactly... by an oppressive Collective or State.

Stakhanov.
Yeah? Can you name me a hundred more?

Stakhanov was a set up by the Stalinist government
and who is the most right wing party
Economic right wing or social right wing?

The manufacturers need money for:

Tools/Machinery
Energy to power those tools
Raw materials

and more. Hardly surprising they didn't put all the money into salaries.
You honestly think thats what the rest of the money went to? I think we should take a look at the difference in salarie between your average American CEO and his workers- the CEO earns 531 times more. Real fair system we got there

You honestly think thats what the rest of the money went to? I think we should take a look at the difference in salarie between your average American CEO and his workers- the CEO earns 531 times more. Real fair system we got there
Yeah, and in yours, someone whos work is worth $3 an hour gets paid the same amount of money as someone whos work is worth $7 an hour.

Real fair system you got there.

Yeah? Can you name me a hundred more?
Im sorry but western media tends to focus on western issues. Not what happened in Russia 60 years ago.

Can anyone tell me which is the party is the most right wing party

The Up yours party probably. There are no authoritarian parties at all though.

Oooh, that cop out was ace!

Keep up the good work!

In 1996 in the US manufacturing industry for every 100 dollars worth of products each individual made, they were paid 17 dollars. Seems pretty exploitative for me
Did the individual make the product from start to finish? The vast majority of the time, the answer is NO. Why should a person who works on one part of a product get full profit for the whole product?

Keep bringing more strawmen and I'll keep setting fire to them.

I want to know the most conservative group generally but if you could tell me both economicly and socially right wing then thanks then i can read their manifestos and decide.

OK, to start, I am consistant, firstly, we are still talking about with UDCP if we want a coalition, while RTP said they don't want it. Now in your post you said that we are forming a coalition wich we aren't yet(that was your lie). And I was pointing that out. Later when I said that we are planning it was reffering to the point that we are misleading the voters, wich if you would tell about the hole thread we are not, since we still stick to our basic principels (private property, no to abolition of money) so your asumption was that we are throwing those away with coalition, while we are not.

Saying that we do with coaltion is just asumption said to put us in a bad picture wich is a prophaganda of your party.

My name was in each and every one of your qoutes, this counts the same to me as it does if you put my name in your post. And I critisied your party on your statement you did the same to my party. I criticised your party basing on your asertion and on your mending of trouth (both I think I have proven now), as you did on my statement in our thread, isn't that the same?

Hope this is clear.

Yeah, and in yours, someone whos work is worth $3 an hour gets paid the same amount of money as someone whos work is worth $7 an hour.

Real fair system you got there.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
Unlike capitalism the socialist state would actually pay people fairly.

You honestly think thats what the rest of the money went to? I think we should take a look at the difference in salarie between your average American CEO and his workers- the CEO earns 531 times more. Real fair system we got there

There's no rule to stop people from becoming CEO's of their own company. Of course, people also get promoted in their own companies when they actually put in effort rather than sitting around all day saying how oppressed they are.

The manufacturers need money for:

Tools/Machinery
Energy to power those tools
Raw materials

and more. Hardly surprising they didn't put all the money into salaries.

Add risk in there as well. The worker goes to work they know the get paid. The manufacturer makes a product they have no way of knowing for sure that people will buy it. If they don't sell it do the workers give back their wages for making it?

How about the cost of administration? Have you ever seen the amount of time that some of these vp's and whatnot spend at work? Are they factoring all employees or just the 'workers' who made the product? What about accountants, lawyers, project managers, etc.?

What about the cost of benefits? My company spends an amount that exceeds my salary in benefits?

What about the cost of lawsuits by employees, customers, competing companies, etc.?

What about the cost of sales?

Shall I continue or was this all factored into this exploitation argument?

You honestly think thats what the rest of the money went to? I think we should take a look at the difference in salarie between your average American CEO and his workers- the CEO earns 531 times more. Real fair system we got there
Absolutely fair when you consider that he/she has to manage a whole corporation including all employees and is held liable for the welfare of the corporation.

His/her pay is commesurate with their responsibility. That is COMPLETELY fair.

Did the individual make the product from start to finish? The vast majority of the time, the answer is NO. Why should a person who works on one part of a product get full profit for the whole product?

Keep bringing more strawmen and I'll keep setting fire to them.
Yeah youve really torn down my arguments so far.

Me:"Capitalism allows people to exploit others for a monetary gain as show in this example"
Selfish Libertarians:"That's not true"

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
Unlike capitalism the socialist state would actually pay people fairly.
From Each According to his Will, To Each According to his Effort.

Unlike the socialist state, captialism would actually pay people based on results. Gasp! Imagine that!

In 1996 in the US manufacturing industry for every 100 dollars worth of products each individual made, they were paid 17 dollars. Seems pretty exploitative for me

This, interestingly enough, coming from a party that believes no entity but the state should get any of it.

Yeah youve really torn down my arguments so far.

Me:"Capitalism allows people to exploit others for a monetary gain as show in this example"
Selfish Libertarians:"That's not true"
Um.... if you think that argument amounts to nothing more than "That's not true" you really need to read it again.

OK, to start, I am consistant, firstly, we are still talking about with UDCP if we want a coalition, while RTP said they don't want it. Now in your post you said that we are forming a coalition wich we aren't yet(that was your lie). And I was pointing that out. Later when I said that we are planning it was reffering to the point that we are misleading the voters, wich if you would tell about the hole thread we are not, since we still stick to our basic principels (private property, no to abolition of money) so your asumption was that we are throwing those away with coalition, while we are not.
The whole thread is some six pages long, you want that I paste it all here? Don't be silly. I linked to it, that is sufficient.

Saying that we do with coaltion is just asumption said to put us in a bad picture wich is a prophaganda of your party.
No propoganda at all, just reporting statements made by your party. No embelishment, no alteration, no meaningful editing. Just straightforward reporting. That you, the party, have been caught trying to deceive the voters is a fact. It is not propaganda.

My name was in each and every one of your qoutes, this counts the same to me as it does if you put my name in your post. And I critisied your party on your statement you did the same to my party. I criticised your party basing on your asertion and on your mending of trouth (both I think I have proven now), as you did on my statement in our thread, isn't that the same?
Your name was on the post that I cited as you posted it. I did not attribute the position to you, I attributed it to the DSP. See the difference, if not, forget it. Let the voters decide, the facts of the matter are there before them.

Hope this is clear.[/QUOTE]

Um.... if you think that argument amounts to nothing more than "That's not true" you really need to read it again.

No your agruments tend to boil down to all this stuff about "risk" and that kinda crap which simply wouldnt exist under socialism so a fairer wage could be paid

The point is though Communism is going down hill more and more previously communist countrys are going back to capitalism so people must accept that other people will earn more than them. How many communist countrys are their left, N.Korea, Cuba, Vietnam(becoming capitalist), china

The point is though Communism is going down hill more and more previously communist countrys are going back to capitalism so people must accept that other people will earn more than them. How many communist countrys are their left, N.Korea, Cuba, Vietnam(becoming capitalist), china
China? Communist? Cheers for making me laugh, I was feeling a bit annoyed

As was stated lkast time, the empirical evidenc shows that people don't change.
Homer's poetry still affects us, we can understand the motivations of the ancient Chinese, the Code of Hammurabi makes sense today. Thus people still have the same interests and same nature as they had more than 2000 years ago. Where is the change? Nowhere. Now accept the evidence, or admit you are arguing on pure blind faith.
people's interests and motivations do change over time - you're just picking one time scale.
hunter-gatherers didn't have the same motivations or nature as we do today; nor do people living in subsistance circumstances in poverty-ridden Africa.

many people in Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany found their nature changed to one of (near) altruism in the face of such adversity. they were the ones who survived the longest (Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning)

and the oldest malleable nature arguement there is (Owen): take a child from one economic/social class and raise them with another class. the child will learn the values and nature of its adopted class, showing our nature is not simply inherited but a) learned from others and circumstance, and b) malleable.


of course the definition of human 'nature' is subjective as hell...

No your agruments tend to boil down to all this stuff about "risk" and that kinda crap which simply wouldnt exist under socialism so a fairer wage could be paid
Oh of course

Risk wouldnt exist because in a communist state you are told what you want and told what you must buy, of course, now i see :rolleyes:

In Communism, there is no innovation, there is no advance, why should people innovate if they will not benefit from it?

A worker may find a solution to something that will save the company millions, will they bother pursuing it? No, why? They will get no benefit, they will not be promoted, they will not earn more so whats the point?

No your agruments tend to boil down to all this stuff about "risk" and that kinda crap which simply wouldnt exist under socialism so a fairer wage could be paid
Socialists usually like to equate "fair wages" with "equal wages" which is a painfully optimistic way of looking at things. People are not created equal; get used to it. Many are lazy, many are not motivated, and many just hate what they do and suck at it. The idea that these people should be paid the same amount of money as me is laughable at best, and depressing at worst.

Bottom line: If someone works harder than someone else, they should be rewarded accordingly. "Fairer wage" my ass. Notice how in America we have more of an overeating problem that an undereating problem? You'd figure that because of our 'unfair' wage practices, everyone would be starving in the gutter, no?

Please. Pull your head out of the sand and take a look around.

China? Communist? Cheers for making me laugh, I was feeling a bit annoyed
Actually, China could be called "National Communists" due to their mix of Maoist Communism and Fascism (state owned industries).

The whole thread is some six pages long, you want that I paste it all here? Don't be silly. I linked to it, that is sufficient.

No but you didn't have to state only a part of a discussion out a say it is the truth! In one of my post in the same thread i clearly said that we are not giveing up those principels! Thus you clearly were makeing an asertion, same with the "fact" that we are forming a coalition.

No propoganda at all, just reporting statements made by your party. No embelishment, no alteration, no meaningful editing. Just straightforward reporting. That you, the party, have been caught trying to deceive the voters is a fact. It is not propaganda.

Perhaps propaganda is to strong, but it is also not a fact we are deceiving the voters, as if you read the whole thread and my explanation now you know we weren't.

Your name was on the post that I cited as you posted it. I did not attribute the position to you, I attributed it to the DSP. See the difference, if not, forget it. Let the voters decide, the facts of the matter are there before them.

If you look carefully I also contributed asertions and bending the truth to your party. But you were mentioned as an example, since I think it is a valid example, as was my qoute in your case. Now tell me if where I did wrong?
And even if it was directed at you, would you not say that you did made asumptions?

Actually, China could be called "National Communists" due to their mix of Maoist Communism and Fascism (state owned industries).
But they're allowing exploitation of their workers to produce goods for corporations. They're state capitalist

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS

REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYIST PARTY - WE PUT PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITSunlike some other parties...

http://img141.echo.cx/img141/4038/capitalcrime4ge.jpg

No your agruments tend to boil down to all this stuff about "risk" and that kinda crap which simply wouldnt exist under socialism so a fairer wage could be paid

Fairer wage = Everything goes to the state which controls all means of production and distribution, thus entrenching it in its supreme control of those imprisoned within it. Communism simply does not present an environment with which an individual can better himself, as the average individual is glossed over in support of the good of the "community", i.e. the various ruling political overlords in any statist society.

Yeah, I saw that corrected it. I know my spelling sucks.
Yeah i saw, as soon as i posted it was corrected so i deleted my message :p

But they're allowing exploitation of their workers to produce goods for corporations. They're state capitalist
No... they exploit workers to produce products for STATE OWNED corporations. That makes the Fascist, not capitalist.

REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYIST PARTY - WE PUT (A FEW) PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITSunlike some other parties...

Thats better, more like what communism really is.

No... they exploit workers to produce products for STATE OWNED corporations. That makes the Fascist, not capitalist.
Oh yeah Im sorry, allowing McDonalds to operate within your borders... that must mean they're NOT capitalist!

people's interests and motivations do change over time - you're just picking one time scale.
True, we have changed since we evolved from proto humans, butt changes over geological time scales can not be built into political planning. How long do you expect to be in power with policies that do not fit the current edition of human nature, a few thousan millenium while our nature changes? I think not.

hunter-gatherers didn't have the same motivations or nature as we do today; nor do people living in subsistance circumstances in poverty-ridden Africa.
I don't know about the primative hunter gatherers as they left no evidence of their desires or interests, but the poverty ridden africans still have the same basic desires as we do, to eat drink and have shelter, to love and be loved, to be appreciated for who they are and for what they do. No basic desire to sacrifice themselves for the good of the other I am afraid to say.

many people in Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany found their nature changed to one of (near) altruism in the face of such adversity. they were the ones who survived the longest (Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning)
So you plan to institute concentration camp like conditions as those are the ones under which altruism appears? I am sure that is not what you mean. What I can say more seriously about this is that humans are rational, and if they are in aposition where they have no hope for their own survival anyway they will act altruistically. The question is whether you want to create the conditions under which this particular facet of human nature appears.

and the oldest malleable nature arguement there is (Owen): take a child from one economic/social class and raise them with another class. the child will learn the values and nature of its adopted class, showing our nature is not simply inherited but a) learned from others and circumstance, and b) malleable.
Values are one thing, nature is another. There is no basic variation of human nature across the range of social positions in a society until you get to the hopeless situation of the concentration camp victim. Owens' argument is false when he ascribes it to nature. Values are clearly malleable, but altruism is not a value, it is a way of being, an aspect of our nature.


of course the definition of human 'nature' is subjective as hell...[/QUOTE]

Thats better, more like what communism really is.
How silly of me! I forgot that the working classes were actually the minority on the planet. Oh wait, no! They're not! They're the overwhelming majority

But they're allowing exploitation of their workers to produce goods for corporations. They're state capitalist
I think they're really both socialist and Victorian age capitalist. It loks to me that they are exploiting a capitalist outlet for the benefit of keeping a conservative structure in the rural areas. I also think that the province is their main focus and main ideological capital.

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS IF YOU'RE RICH

Hows that for your party slogan?

I think they're really both socialist and Victorian age capitalist. It loks to me that they are exploiting a capitalist outlet for the benefit of keeping a conservative structure in the rural areas. I also think that the province is their main focus and main ideological capital.
They can't be judged as socialist at all. For something to be socialist in the actual sense of the word there has to be no dealing with private businesses. The Chinese state allows corporations to take whichever workers they want to exploit

How silly of me! I forgot that the working classes were actually the minority on the planet. Oh wait, no! They're not! They're the overwhelming majority
BY A FEW, I meant the party leaders :rolleyes:

Ah, it's always refreshing to see someone ignore my arguments and resort to spouting their misguided rhetoric. Keep it up, DHomme!

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS WHOEVER YOU ARE

Hows that for your party slogan?

PRETTY GOOD ACTUALLY

You honestly think thats what the rest of the money went to? I think we should take a look at the difference in salarie between your average American CEO and his workers- the CEO earns 531 times more. Real fair system we got there

Are you really suggesting that the AVERAGE CEO makes 531 times more than the AVERAGE American worker? Really? What's the average worker make? Let's say $20,000/year, which since I do a lot of work with these types of companies, I know this is far lower than the AVERAGE. Now, what does the AVERAGE CEO make in your equation? Let's see, $10,620,000/year. Are you really suggesting that the AVERAGE CEO sees anywhere near this much per year? I'd like to see some evidence of this. Now, remember there are literally tens of thousands of companies in the US so a couple of companies are not enough.

BY A FEW, I meant the party leaders :rolleyes:
Yeah thats the aim of communism :rolleyes:
See, we can both use emoticons. still doesn't help the arguments

Yeah thats the aim of communism :rolleyes:
See, we can both use emoticons. still doesn't help the arguments

You assumed i was referring to the working class, i was merely correcting you on who i was referring to.

May not be the aim of communism but it is always the result.

Are you really suggesting that the AVERAGE CEO makes 531 times more than the AVERAGE American worker? Really? What's the average worker make? Let's say $20,000/year, which since I do a lot of work with these types of companies, I know this is far lower than the AVERAGE. Now, what does the AVERAGE CEO make in your equation? Let's see, $10,620,000/year. Are you really suggesting that the AVERAGE CEO sees anywhere near this much per year? I'd like to see some evidence of this. Now, remember there are literally tens of thousands of companies in the US so a couple of companies are not enough.
He's just going to ignore you, you know. Whenever someone presents an argument he can't refute, he just ignores it. He's done it probably close to a dozen times today already.

Are you really suggesting that the AVERAGE CEO makes 531 times more than the AVERAGE American worker? Really? What's the average worker make? Let's say $20,000/year, which since I do a lot of work with these types of companies, I know this is far lower than the AVERAGE. Now, what does the AVERAGE CEO make in your equation? Let's see, $10,620,000/year. Are you really suggesting that the AVERAGE CEO sees anywhere near this much per year? I'd like to see some evidence of this. Now, remember there are literally tens of thousands of companies in the US so a couple of companies are not enough.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/aug/28/report_ceos_pay/
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/CEOsOverpaid.htm
http://europe.businessweek.com/careers/content/apr2001/ca2001049_100.htm

Meritocratic Representative Republicans
Slavery is given. Heroism is made.

You assumed i was referring to the working class, i was merely correcting you on who i was referring to.

May not be the aim of communism but it is always the result.
Paris Commune and early christian communes did alright. St. Petersburg pre-Russian civil war was also managing nicely. Certain parts of Spain nearly achieved communism (real communism) during the civil war but because they couldn't defend themselves they were crushed by fash.

According to the report, the average pay of a CEO at 365 major corporations now stands at $13.1 million per year...

That's "365 major corporations" in your source versus "Average CEO" in your argument. Major corporations are major because they take in a lot of money. It would stand to reason that the person who owns the goddamn company would get a nice share of the profits.

Is it fair? No, not really. Is life fair? No. Get used to it. Stop being angry at people who have more money than you. You want change? Go out and do it yourself. Put those bastards out of business if you're so righteous: either put your money where your mouth is or stop bitching about it.

That's "365 major corporations" in your source versus "Average CEO" in your argument. Major corporations are major because they take in a lot of money. It would stand to reason that the person who owns the goddamn company would get a nice share of the profits.

Is it fair? No, not really. Is life fair? No. Get used to it. Stop being angry at people who have more money than you. You want change? Go out and do it yourself. Put those bastards out of business if you're so righteous: either put your money where your mouth is or stop bitching about it.

There is no consumer power any more. People dont seem to get that. So many dickheads have become apathetic enough about boycotts that they're ignored.

If the system isn't fair then why the fuck don't you want to change it? To eliminate the inequities of life and do away with greedy bastards who exploit others. Or does the system benefit you too much for you to protest it?

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/aug/28/report_ceos_pay/
according to the report by the liberal-leaning Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, a Boston organization focusing on economic inequality.....
Defenders of executive pay levels argue that a global market for top executive talent drives up pay, which is justified by the performance of U.S. companies.
"It's not fair to compare them with hourly workers," said Ira Kay, practice director for compensation consulting at Watson Wyatt Worldwide.

"Their market is the global market for executives."

http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/CEOsOverpaid.htm
http://europe.businessweek.com/careers/content/apr2001/ca2001049_100.htm[/QUOTE]

After two decades of nearly uninterrupted economic expansion in the U.S., wealth is in vogue. If baseball's Alex Rodriguez is worth a $252 million, 10-year contract, who's to say that Citigroup CEO Sanford Weill isn't worth his $224 million a year? And if Julia Roberts can command $20 million a motion picture, why shouldn't Disney's Michael Eisner be worth his $72 million in salary and long-term compensation last year? "Money is our scorecard to gauge someone's success," says Thomas Li-Ping Tang, professor of management at Middle Tennessee State University. "The higher the score, the better."

Paris Commune and early christian communes did alright. St. Petersburg pre-Russian civil war was also managing nicely. Certain parts of Spain nearly achieved communism (real communism) during the civil war but because they couldn't defend themselves they were crushed by fash.

It's pretty obvious that there's a trend here. All of these were A.) single population centers, not entangled in the factors of advanced large-scale economies but instead largely agrarian B.) under incredible outside pressure of destruction, thus an impetus to survive and C.) all failed eventually. Now, what's a similar trend with large-scale communist nations like the USSR? A.) All very poor, not able to develop to large-scale economic strength, instead many of which acted incredibly like a small farming town with their heavy emphases on agriculture, B.) were all run by fear, thus giving an incentive to work and C.) all failed.

They can't be judged as socialist at all. For something to be socialist in the actual sense of the word there has to be no dealing with private businesses. The Chinese state allows corporations to take whichever workers they want to exploit
Well, it's not the case at all in the real world. I lived my earliest childhood in a "socialist state" (Romania - I still live here, but it's not socialist). I remember a cheaper franchise of Pepsi - it sucked, but we drank their stuff.
The point is that National-Communism is SELECTIVE. In my mind, it gets very close to the corporate doctrine of Fascism. This may be China, as well.
But, in addition, China still has a cooperative system on the large scale. It's pressure put on them by the market that has led to opening; a symilar case was Yugoslavia during Tito (they turned out to be more socialist during Milosevic).
This is my critique on applied socialism. It doesn't prevent me from BEING a socialist (NOTHING LIKE CHINA OR WHATEVER :) ), because I view it more as a tendency, a preserving of social policies rather than a doctrine.

There is no consumer power any more. People dont seem to get that. So many dickheads have become apathetic enough about boycotts that they're ignored.

If the system isn't fair then why the fuck don't you want to change it? To eliminate the inequities of life and do away with greedy bastards who exploit others. Or does the system benefit you too much for you to protest it?Flamebaiting mods now, are you? (Ok, it's for the mods to decide that, but... :rolleyes:)

Nevertheless, there is consumer power. If a group of people could convince >1 million people not to buy from a particular company, it would lose sales. Its prices would go up. Even more people would boycott it.

Not like that's going to happen anytime soon in real life. So yes, for now there is no consumer power. :headbang:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Flamebaiting mods now, are you? (Ok, it's for the mods to decide that, but... :rolleyes:)

Nevertheless, there is consumer power. If a group of people could convince >1 million people not to buy from a particular company, it would lose sales. Its prices would go up. Even more people would boycott it.

Not like that's going to happen anytime soon in real life. So yes, for now there is no consumer power. :headbang:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Im not flamebaiting. Why would you accuse me of that? Thats just mean *cries*

There is no consumer power any more. People dont seem to get that. So many dickheads have become apathetic enough about boycotts that they're ignored.
Bullshit. No one follows you to the Piggly Wiggly with a gun to your head. Companies would not exist if people didnt need or want what they were selling.

If the system isn't fair then why the fuck don't you want to change it?
I misspoke. The System is perfectly fair, the fact that CEOs get lots of money for sitting on their asses isn't. Even this is something of a misnomer, because the company in question is his and he decides what happens to it and where the money goes, etc etc. Socialists like to think that they could make this sort of thing go away, but the fact of the matter is, in your Leftist Utopia, "CEO" would just be replaced with "Party Member."

To eliminate the inequities of life and do away with greedy bastards who exploit others. Or does the system benefit you too much for you to protest it?
Ummm... Notice how it says these workers are being... you know... paid for what they do? That kind of kicks your 'exploitation' argument square in the cojones.

The system does not benefit me much. I make $7.25 an hour [plus tips] at a shitty, dead end job downtown. Last year, I lived for four to six weeks on $6, subsisting on ramen noodles and peanut butter. I don't mean peanut butter on bread or on a cracker, I mean peanut butter straight out of the goddamn jar. Does this mean it's right for me to undermine other peoples' property just because I got fucked? Of course not. Don't give me that "boo hoo people are poor" argument. I've been there.

Im not flamebaiting. Why would you accuse me of that? Thats just mean *cries*Sorry. I thought using curse words and taunting people was flamebaiting. But what do I know? *shrugs*


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/aug/28/report_ceos_pay/
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/CEOsOverpaid.htm
http://europe.businessweek.com/careers/content/apr2001/ca2001049_100.htm

Yes, I see, the top 365 firms in the country average that level of multiplier. I'm curious what would happen if you included the next thousand, the next hundred thousand, all of them. As I said, you aren't talking about the AVERAGE CEO, you are talking about the average CEO of selected firms and that's it. It's misleading in the best light, and a boldfaced lie in the worst. I also noticed that they include stock, benefits, etc when looking at the executive compensation but only salary when looking at the workers. I think it's possible to be more biased and skewed but it would require you to just make crap up.

Hey, I just did a survey of the poorest 10,000 people in the USA and I found they have an average per capita income of $0/year. Let's write an article and put "USA Has An Average Per Capita Income Of 0$ Per Year"

You more than made my point for me. You use the argument of the worst abusers and you make out like they are everybody. At my company the highest paid individual makes approximately four to five times of the lowest paid individual. My company includes individuals with advanced degrees and no degrees and the disparity is only four to five times in our 1000 person company. You think companies like use were included in the study? What about a company where the company went out of business and the CEO who was compensated largely in stock got almost nothing, but all the workers got paid (see, workers get paid before stockholders)? What about the company I worked for in the late 90's where the CEO/owner lost everything he had (in excess of $5,000,000) when the company failed but all of us made our salaries and even got severence packages? Interesting how you're not bringing those up. Is it because they are the exception or because you don't think they'll help you deceive people? I'll give you hint, how many corporations went bankrupt in 2004 in the US?

Sorry. I thought using curse words and taunting people was flamebaiting. But what do I know? *shrugs*


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Nah, it's not flamebait. Flamebait in this context would be something like "All $GROUP are assholes," where $GROUP is an organization to which someone in the thread belongs.

That's not the only form of flamebait, of course, but its the one most applicable to this situation.

Now, what's a similar trend with large-scale communist nations
There haven't been any large-scale communist nations.

One vote in for the Classic Liberals. Unfortunately, I wanted to vote for Melkor quite a lot but I could not bring myself to vote for the points where his programme differs from the Liberal ticket.

Therefore, I would like Melkor to run as Classical Liberal :)

Bullshit. No one follows you to the Piggly Wiggly with a gun to your head. Companies would not exist if people didnt need or want what they were selling.I'm not so sure. There are a lot of companies that I don't seem to need...

*someone whispers in my ear* Oh wait, there are people other than me. I forgot. Sorry. :(

I misspoke. The System is perfectly fair, the fact that CEOs get lots of money for sitting on their asses isn't. Even this is something of a misnomer, because the company in question is his and he decides what happens to it and where the money goes, etc etc. Socialists like to think that they could make this sort of thing go away, but the fact of the matter is, in your Leftist Utopia, "CEO" would just be replaced with "Party Member."Actually, no matter what a CEO does, he isn't doing any of the work and shouldn't get any money out of it. It's like you mods earning money, then being forced to give most of it to the NS admin (apologies admins, I know your job is important...). I may be wrong, but my beliefs run counter to the existence of any authority.
Ummm... Notice how it says these workers are being... you know... paid for what they do? That kind of kicks your 'exploitation' argument square in the cojones. They are paid, but how much? A whole lot less than CEOs are. And they do more work. That's just unfair.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

There haven't been any large-scale communist nations.

*cough* Soviet Union (dont deny it)

*coughs again* China before the reforms

*cough*

Ooh dear, i seem to have a bad cough

There haven't been any large-scale communist nations.Hmmm...

The USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea...They must be very small and insignificant indeed. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

*cough* Soviet Union (dont deny it)

*coughs again* China before the reforms

*cough*

Ooh dear, i seem to have a bad coughBeat me to it! :mad:


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

*cough* Soviet Union (dont deny it *coughs again* China before the reformsThere's a difference between calling yourself socialist and actually being socialist.

There haven't been any large-scale communist nations.
The concept of "communist nations" is troubling. If you are refering to policy (as in "being led by a communist party") there have been plenty - including the largest one on Earth.
Otherwise, it cannot work: communism has no state, and nation outside of state is a very risky concept. I mean, there has been a "yes nation/no state" view in some cases (even in anarchism, of all places), but it was very limited and had no single purpose. Generally, it was a view held by countries like Albania or Cambodia (even Romania, to some extent) - included in their disregard of Sovit supremacy.

I'm not so sure. There are a lot of companies that I don't seem to need...

*someone whispers in my ear* Oh wait, there are people other than me. I forgot. Sorry. :(

Actually, no matter what a CEO does, he isn't doing any of the work and shouldn't get any money out of it.
I didn't build my house, does that mean I can't live in it? Please. Philosophy is nothing without consistency.

It's like you mods earning money, then being forced to give most of it to the NS admin (apologies admins, I know your job is important...). I may be wrong, but my beliefs run counter to the existence of any authority.
They are paid, but how much? A whole lot less than CEOs are. And they do more work. That's just unfair.
Depends on the CEO. Some of them really are douche bags. Others are, in fact, very hard working.

Nah, it's not flamebait. Flamebait in this context would be something like "All $GROUP are assholes," where $GROUP is an organization to which someone in the thread belongs.

That's not the only form of flamebait, of course, but its the one most applicable to this situation.Thank you. I must have taken a very long break from reading the stickies. I thought that was trolling!

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Hmmm...

The USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea...They must be very small and insignificant indeed. ;)All perfectly good example of countries that weren't communist.

They are paid, but how much? A whole lot less than CEOs are. And they do more work. That's just unfair.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Workers do more work than CEOs? On what do you base this? How much training and education did the CEO go through? How many CEOs fail and end up making as little as most workers? How long did the CEO work in the industry before they ended up at those 'overpaid' jobs? How many hours does that CEO work? How many hours did they average when they were working there way up? How much money did they invest in themselves during that period? It's not as simple as you make it out to be. And YES, they do work and are necessary. Ask the CEO for whatever company you work for to go home for a month and see how long you continue to get paid. Why do you think when some CEOs leave or die the stock prices go into the toilet? I wonder how often that happens when a worker leaves or dies.

The concept of "communist nations" is troubling. If you are refering to policy (as in "being led by a communist party") there have been plenty - including the largest one on Earth.
Otherwise, it cannot work: communism has no state, and nation outside of state is a very risky concept. Exactly my point.

I didn't build my house, does that mean I can't live in it? Please. Philosophy is nothing without consistency. Actually, I really used to think that you shouldn't live in a house you don't build. Until I needed to get one myself. ;)

Depends on the CEO. Some of them really are douche bags. Others are, in fact, very hard working.Ah. I obviously haven't been spending very much time around the hard working CEOs. And what exactly are they working so hard at? Cheating customers out of profits? That seems to happen very often. (It happened to me, although it was attributed to a 'computer glitch'. Well why don't the computer glitches ever take $20 off our monthly phone bill?)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED

Exactly my point.
Oh, sorry. I didn't quite get you.
So, we agree.

Ah. I obviously haven't been spending very much time around the hard working CEOs. And what exactly are they working so hard at? Cheating customers out of profits? That seems to happen very often. (It happened to me, although it was attributed to a 'computer glitch'. Well why don't the computer glitches ever take $20 off our monthly phone bill?)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I have worked in a call centre for a energy company, similar to a phone company in how it operates. trust me, if they make a mistake it is either the computers fault or the workers fault. Of course the computer problem is usually the fault of a crap programme choice by higher up in the company.

Of course, unlike in a socialist or communist state, you are free to take your custom elsewhere. A significant advantage of capitalism.

Ah. I obviously haven't been spending very much time around the hard working CEOs. And what exactly are they working so hard at? Cheating customers out of profits? That seems to happen very often. (It happened to me, although it was attributed to a 'computer glitch'. Well why don't the computer glitches ever take $20 off our monthly phone bill?)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

CEOs make decisions. Its work, its just a different kind of work.

All perfectly good example of countries that weren't communist.When exactly do you mean? I need sources.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Oh, sorry. I didn't quite get you.
So, we agree.
Yes, we do. :D So did you vote for the UDCP?

Well why don't the computer glitches ever take $20 off our monthly phone bill?)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

If it did, would you report it? For the record, it happened a friend of mine in the military. A computer glitch gave him a grand (bank) and they couldn't find where it came from so they just froze it at first. When everything balanced out they just let him keep it. Trust me, I was quite jealous. The difference is when people GET money they keep their mouth shut and hope that no one notices. When they have money taken from them, they yell it from the rafters.

Yes, we do. :D So did you vote for the UDCP?
No, I'm more of a social democrat.

CEOs make decisions. Its work, its just a different kind of work.Making decisions? That is a very difficult kind of work for some people...but very easy for others. So it depends on what kind of person our CEO is, doesn't it? If s/he's anything like me, s/he can't make decisions (and doesn't). If s/he's different, it's extremely easy.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

When exactly do you mean? I need sources.
Read the part of Argesia's post that I quoted in post #962.

Making decisions? That is a very difficult kind of work for some people...but very easy for others. So it depends on what kind of person our CEO is, doesn't it? If s/he's anything like me, s/he can't make decisions (and doesn't). If s/he's different, it's extremely easy.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Of course it depends on the person. Like I said, a lot of CEOs are, in fact, complete douche bags who pawn everything else off on other people. Does that mean we should punish them all? Well, not really.

If it did, would you report it? For the record, it happened a friend of mine in the military. A computer glitch gave him a grand (bank) and they couldn't find where it came from so they just froze it at first. When everything balanced out they just let him keep it. Trust me, I was quite jealous. The difference is when people GET money they keep their mouth shut and hope that no one notices. When they have money taken from them, they yell it from the rafters.Well, that is Human Nature. Humans by nature are greedy and if they are cheated into something they keep quiet, but if they're cheated out of something they yell. Therefore this debate is just people yelling at each other for interpreting human nature the wrong way round. Hopeless.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Making decisions? That is a very difficult kind of work for some people...but very easy for others. So it depends on what kind of person our CEO is, doesn't it? If s/he's anything like me, s/he can't make decisions (and doesn't). If s/he's different, it's extremely easy.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You don't get paid by how hard something is. You get paid by it's value. Do you pay more to go to see Cats on broadway than at your local theatre because it's harder to perform Cats in New York City or because the performance is better (more value) so you're willing to pay more for it?

Read the part of Argesia's post that I quoted in post #962.Thank you. You get 10 points extra credit for crediting.

Now if I can remember where someone else said that.... ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You don't get paid by how hard something is. You get paid by it's value. Do you pay more to go to see Cats on broadway than at your local theatre because it's harder to perform Cats in New York City or because the performance is better (more value) so you're willing to pay more for it?I wouldn't go all the way to New York City just to see 'Cats' for two reasons:

1) I hate 'Cats' and
2) I've never heard of New York City. ;) But besides those two minor points, you're right, things with more value are worth more.

The workers are making the products.
The CEOs are making decisions about what to do with them.

Which will we actually use, the products or the decisions?

(I know, without the CEOs the products would never get to us. But in that case, the two equal parts -- working and selling -- should be paid the same. Instead the workers are paid less than the sellers.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Thank you. You get 10 points extra credit for crediting.

Now if I can remember where someone else said that.... ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Hey, I'm no Marxist. I just state what I think is true. I mean, it's cause it is true: Marx said that communism is a final stage of developement, where there is no state.
Communist policy, on the other hand, has been "available" throughout the world, in various forms. The difference between "aiming for communism" through certain policies and "living in communism". There's a nuance.
Read all of my post: no. 957

Hey, I'm no Marxist. I just state what I think is true. I mean, it's cause it is true: Marx said that communism is a final stage of developement, where there is no state.
Communist policy, on the other hand, has been "available" throughout the world, in various forms. The difference between "aiming for communism" through certain policies and "living in communism". There's a nuance.So then, what exactly were the USSR, China, etc. living in? It wasn't communism, it wasn't capitalism. What economic system did they have then?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I must remind everyone present that I'm obligated to lock this thread if it reaches 1300 posts; some kind of General Forum rule I'm told. We should start responding more sparingly.

The workers are making the products.
The CEOs are making decisions about what to do with them.

Which will we actually use, the products or the decisions?

(I know, without the CEOs the products would never get to us.
Of course, the workers could conceivably make those same decisions that the CEO makes. The CEO couldn't produce all of the products by himself.

Or in other words: "The boss needs you. You don't need the boss."

Or: "You can run an office without a boss, but you can't run an office without secretaries." - Jane Fonda

I must remind everyone present that I'm obligated to lock this thread if it reaches 1300 posts; some kind of General Forum rule I'm told. We should start responding more sparingly.Thank you for the reminder, Melkor. *flees*

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

So then, what exactly were the USSR, China, etc. living in? It wasn't communism, it wasn't capitalism. What economic system did they have then?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Marxism (and ONLY Marxism) has a developement in stages. You go through a revolution, then you are in gradual stages of an intermediary step called "socialism". With various interpratantions from country to country - in the USSR, they had "the first victorious socialist economy". Other nations "reached" socialism by the 60s (look it up: that's when most of the countries in Eastern Europe switched from "People's" to "Socialist republics").
The only universal agreement was on delaying communism (funny thing: the cliques in power realized that in the final stages ther would be no party to rule no state, so they invented new, and still newer stages that you "had" to go through. Ceausescu's was "a fully developped multi-sided socialist society" and so on).

Of course, the workers could conceivably make those same decisions that the CEO makes. The CEO couldn't produce all of the products by himself.

Or in other words: "The boss needs you. You don't need the boss."Yes. Then instead of a tyranny by individual, you'd have a tyranny by majority. And the workers would argue all the time and filibuster each other's decisions, and nothing would get done (like the fictional Regressive Progressive Party in Czardas, which isn't entirely clear on its ideology. I was thinking of starting a RPP, but abandoned the idea.) and the economy would implode. So I suppose CEOs are necessary. But why they should be paid 531* times the workers is beyond my comprehension.

*Source, this thread.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Yes. Then instead of a tyranny by individual, you'd have a tyranny by majority. And the workers would argue all the time and filibuster each other's decisions, and nothing would get done
If you have a filibuster, then by definition you can't have tyranny of the majority, as the filibuster protects the minority. There are many other ways to protect the minority other than a filibuster, of course.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/udcp1.gif

:D

(just thought I'd be altruistic and help out the Communists ;))

If you have a filibuster, then by definition you can't have tyranny of the majority, as the filibuster protects the minority. There are many other ways to protect the minority other than a filibuster, of course.Right, whatever, I tend to get mixed up in everything, you can't have a tyranny that protects the minority. I meant to say, Yes. Then instead of a tyranny by individual, you'd have a tyranny by majority. Otherwise the workers would argue all the time and filibuster each other's decisions and never get anything done.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/5192/arms4pc.jpg

Help Give The Workers A Say In Politics!
Vote For The Revolutionary Trotskyist Party

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/udcp1.gif

:D

(just thought I'd be altruistic and help out the Communists ;))
thanks :rolleyes:

Marxism (and ONLY Marxism) has a developement in stages. You go through a revolution, then you are in gradual stages of an intermediary step called "socialism". With various interpratantions from country to country - in the USSR, they had "the first victorious socialist economy". Other nations "reached" socialism by the 60s (look it up: that's when most of the countries in Eastern Europe switched from "People's" to "Socialist republics").
The only universal agreement was on delaying communism (funny thing: the cliques in power realized that in the final stages ther would be no party to rule no state, so they invented new, and still newer stages that you "had" to go through. Ceausescu's was "a fully developped multi-sided socialist society" and so on).

This is complete nuance hair-splitting philosophic idealism. There's a difference between countries that are socialist and the communist nations. You also say it's not really communism because it's in development- is a child not a human because he's not an adult yet?

Yes. Also, you've read history books.We've covered this already, haven't we?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

We've covered this already, haven't we?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Sorry, he didn't explain himself at all. I've removed my original now that there can be a rational argument.

This is complete nuance hair-splitting. There's a difference between countries that are socialist and the communist nations.
Yes. This is a "stage" in marxism - he uses the same word. It is complete eradication of private property, in his view. The next step is communism - since this is the ultimate goal, marxist ideology took the name "communism".
It's more than a nuance - it's the basis for every peculiar thing in marxism. I know, it is confusing.
The countries coln't have been "communist" other than in ideal (read my previous posts, please) - the ultimate stage does not allow the state to exist anymore.

Not to be confused with socialist ideology - as trusted by social democratic parties. A world of difference! They see the ultimate goal in socialism, and this is understood as much less rigid than its corresponding "stage" in marxism.

KEEP IN MIND: I AM A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT MYSELF, but we have to state these issues.
Hope I didn't seem condescending.

I wouldn't go all the way to New York City just to see 'Cats' for two reasons:

1) I hate 'Cats' and
2) I've never heard of New York City. ;) But besides those two minor points, you're right, things with more value are worth more.

The workers are making the products.
The CEOs are making decisions about what to do with them.

Which will we actually use, the products or the decisions?

(I know, without the CEOs the products would never get to us. But in that case, the two equal parts -- working and selling -- should be paid the same. Instead the workers are paid less than the sellers.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Again, you're not considering value. The CEO requires a very expensive education. There are far less qualified CEOs and upper management then there are qualified workers. Supply and demand, brother. Good CEOs are in high demand so they make more money. They also provide WAY more value to the company than the average worker. What business ever was severely damaged because one worker quit or died? It is regular practice for stock prices to dive when a CEO quits, is fired, or dies. Again, why do you think that is?

Again, you're not considering value. The CEO requires a very expensive education. There are far less qualified CEOs and upper management then there are qualified workers. Supply and demand, brother. Good CEOs are in high demand so they make more money. They also provide WAY more value to the company than the average worker. What business ever was severely damaged because one worker quit or died? It is regular practice for stock prices to dive when a CEO quits, is fired, or dies. Again, why do you think that is?Fewer CEOs.

If a company had 1000 CEOs, if one died or quit there would be no problem.


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Of course, the workers could conceivably make those same decisions that the CEO makes. The CEO couldn't produce all of the products by himself.

Or in other words: "The boss needs you. You don't need the boss."

Or: "You can run an office without a boss, but you can't run an office without secretaries." - Jane Fonda

Um, no they can't. Are you suggesting that the average worker has the training and education necessary to run Chrysler or Microsoft? If this was true, then Chrysler would just hire that worker, double his salary and save the stockholders millions of dollars a year. They don't do this, however, because they can't. Do you think that companies just can't wait to throw money at some hotshot CEO who isn't worth it? Like you said, the corporation is greedy and will get away with paying a worker, EVERY worker as little as the worker is willing to do the work for. This absolutely includes the CEO unless he owns the company.

And the CEO is being compared to the salary of one worker. The CEO can absolutely produce the work of the one worker if he wanted to. What you said is exactly the opposite of the actual way things work. I think we have a word for it, it's called WRONG! Now if you're saying the CEO can't do the work of all of the workers of the company, well, you're right. So if the CEO should be compared to 1000's of workers then that should be the salary comparison as well. So let's just say Chrysler only has 5,000 workers (not even close) but let's say it. So if the average worker gets paid around $25,000 at Chrysler (too low) then the CEO should be making $125 million dollars to be fair in the way you're talking about. Perfect. These CEOs need raises.

Fewer CEOs.

If a company had 1000 CEOs, if one died or quit there would be no problem.


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

And if they had a 1000 CEOs then you would have a valid argument and complaint, but they don't so that one CEO makes the salary of the thousand that don't exist. You just established that CEOs are underpaid. Excellent point. I DEMAND RAISES FOR THE UNFAIRLY COMPENSATED CEOS!

And if they had a 1000 CEOs then you would have a valid argument and complaint, but they don't so that one CEO makes the salary of the thousand that don't exist. You just established that CEOs are underpaid. Excellent point. I DEMAND RAISES FOR THE UNFAIRLY COMPENSATED CEOS!No. CEOs are overpaid. They are one of about 20 people who make decisions as opposed to (say) 2,000 workers. Yet the management gets paid more overall than the workers. If the 2,000 workers make $30,000 a year each, then it follows that the 20 management should get $3 million a year each. But they don't. They get a whole lot less, and the CEO alone gets a whole lot more. It follows that CEOs are overpaid.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Current Parliament Standings (based on simplly-rounded, porportional, at-large elections):
NS Classic Liberals 5
Democratic Socialist Party 5
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 2
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 1
Total 25