Nebuchanezzar
Banned
MANDELAIron said:People react to fear, not love. You wont learn that in Sunday school, but it's true
NIXON
shame on you Iron. Shame on your capitalist tendencies!
MANDELAIron said:People react to fear, not love. You wont learn that in Sunday school, but it's true
NIXON
Oh Nebz. What a terror you used to be!Nebuchanezzar said:MANDELA
shame on you Iron. Shame on your capitalist tendencies!
YES!Zeitgeist308 said:Sweden? Socialism? Did I miss something?
fOR3V3RPINKKKK said:Wow I didnt actually look at it though that perspective. Interesting. Maybe other people haven't thought about it either and gone with the general idea that communism means less wealth. Also I think anyone who thinks that hard about it will realise in the long run that it means less wealth due to less efficiency in the economy.
i would like to join in on this spittingmelanieeeee. said:all you capitalists make me sick. i spit on you all. good day sir.
It's pretty easy to drop out of the capitalist system. There is no force seriously compelling you to work. But few do drop out, and those that try struggle because it's just so damn easy to succeed in capitalism.Nebuchanezzar said:I am compelled to work, I have very little freedom to not work. I could choose not to, but that would result in further deprivation of the things I like, much like in a communist society, no?
Yes comrade.Iron said:http://www.aph.gov.au/budget dummy/budget 2006-07 mirror/2006-07/overview/html/overview_30.htm
SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE $$$$$
It's over comrades! You won! Or at least came in a close second! Lay down your arms! Return to your feilds!
Perhaps it's that I've not read the same literature as you, and thus do not identify with the terminology of your post, but this response makes no sense.Well actually in my hypothetical the farmer did not "control" the crop qua property. The farmer, rather, was performing labour in the growing and harvesting of the crop in accordance with a hypothetical rational social plan for the production of use-values.
So then in this hypothetical society, in what way does trading or exchange of goods and services occur? How does for instance a plumber prioritise his limited work capacity? How does one produce for other than their own neccessities, but rather for their physical and intellectual benefit?Well actually Sam, that would be an impossibility as a result of the fact that:
1. The crop is not the property of the farmer
2. Even if we assume a hypothetical where the farmer was to appropriate the crop as his own property he would be unable to "control the price" due to the fact that in our hypothetical communist society money and the market no longer exist.
Not at all.an "Anarchist society" is a "communist society".
I'm suggesting there should be provision in the event that the farmer can not offer his labour, during a period of sickness, or otherwise. I must admit, I do not understand the system you do as marxist.Are you suggesting that the farmer must be forced to labour?
Did you pay attention when you read it Zstar?I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.
More the reason why the poor/middle class should desire the profits from owning the means of production to go to them instead of the top 1% or so of wealth?People are greedy deal with it
You can have more. If you work harder under communism you will receive greater reward... It's just that you can't make profits off controlling the means of production.People want more than others deal with it
And communism doesn't mind...Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.
All capitalist ideology also involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work? Coercion seems to be the mark of 'the state'... perhaps anarchism might be a solution but I find it very lacking as there are many other ways to utilise your power than through the state.Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt and all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.
Fidel Castro's cuba is actually doing decently well despite the heavy sanctions on it. It has great healthcare and education.Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.
I agree, it has failed... But you know what else has failed? The free market capitalist experiment. Look over at the US right now, how many multi-billion dollar companies is the government taking over to look after the population? Isn't that a market failure? It seems to me that what we have is a little bit of communism there to correct a problem with the market.Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.
In the US you have two major parties in a system that discourages 3rd parties.... It's not a total dictatorship and may very well be as good a democracy as we can get, but it certainly provides many disincentives for anyone who wants to effect greater social change.And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?
just because you are 17 doesn't mean that he has any less right to argue his points. he may have a higher intelligence than you for all you know. he has brought up a good rebuttal for all anti communism points. and if you can't understand his work deal with it.zstar said:Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old? Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.
But here you contradict yourself, whilst on the one hand you claim labour is "essential to a society" and yet you also claim that "unenjoyable" labour (however we define this assuming different individual capacities and preferences ie. some like working with their hands, others with their head, some like tackling math problems or working in a lab, others like manual work and the outdoors such as gardening or construction work) needs incentive (assuming by this incentive you mean something above and beyond the "incentive" to maintain a stable, functioning society, or your own personal living standards or improving these living standards)Empyrean said:Almost by definiton labour is external, and not enjoyable - a "labour" is often a trial or a tribulation. While labour is essential to a society, there are certain forms that are unenjoyable to everyone: hence an incentive is needed for it.
I believe this passage from Judy Cox's An Introduction to Marx's Theory of Alienation may be able to answer these questions and more:Empyrean said:I am still unclear on how you believe labour can be made an internal part of an individual. How do you make labour a necessity to the individual? It relies on man having a feeling of belonging and essential commitment to his/her society.
Here again we return to the same fundamental assertion: Man is selfish. Here again as always you offer no proof in support of your assertion in favour of some form of social Darwinism. The fact of the matter is the manner in which humans behave with one another is fundamentally a question of the social relationships they form in the production and reproduction of their life. In primitive hunter-gather societies and even those based on substance agriculture greed was unknown and where it did occur it was frowned upon immensely. Why? Because of the social relationships these people where forced to operate within, the appropriation of social product above and beyond what was necessary for survival was not permitted because due to the low level of the development of the product forces did not allow for a surplus in the social product to exist.Empyrean said:Most humans are really selfish when it comes down to it - people will die for a cause and do sacrifices/things for others, but this latter condradiction is generally supplementary to the former.
As was noted before, different people have different capabilities and also different “interests” if you like. This of course does not mean that all jobs will have someone who will “want” to do them. Some tasks are dangerous, laborious and undesirable. When this is the case these tasks should be, where possible, automated, but in the case they can not the task must fall equally to all members of society. Remembering that in the German Ideology Marx speaks of communism as the end of the social division of labour (not necessarily the technical division of labour). As such people will not longer have a “job” which they are forced to perform for their entire lives, they will rather participate in free, creative and cooperative labour, the “all-around development of the individual” where “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”, this will include the necessary but undesirable tasks of society.Empyrean said:Having people working for society's good or for something else which somehow makes it an internal necessity still won't make them want/revel in working that job, because by nature it is still a bad job which doesn't want to be done - altruism and duty to society only goes so far.
My emphasis added*Empyrean said:They won't flock to them for the good of mankind - for that is against their self serving natures. They would have to be forced into it. But unlike capitalism, they would get fuck all.
This makes no sense. Please elaborate.Empyrean said:If i decide to take Marx's famous quote about abilities and needs, then all we are presented with is an alternate form of slavery.
I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about here. What exactly is a “communist leader”? How can a communist leader become “richer” when money no longer exists and distribution is based on need? What does being rich have to do with class struggle, are you telling me a white collar office worker who brings home a “decent” pay cheque does not have class interests opposed to capitalist relations and the bourgeoisie?Empyrean said:For true equality and freedom cannot be achieved - for example, as communists get richer, they become less committed to their ideology.
Avarice will disappear when the material conditions for its existence disappear.Empyrean said:Avarice is a common trait - it cannot be destroyed even by force.
Of course not. Communism is not “Robin Hood-ism”.Empyrean said:If a proletariat rebels, i doubt they are going to take (materially/fiscally) from the bourgeios what is needed to make everyone materially equal and just stop at that.
Hence: "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves". - Marx, The Critique of the Gotha ProgrammeEmpyrean said:Neither would a government. Their own greed would commit them to take as much wealth as possible, and establish themselves as a new repressive class.
This myth is refute above. “Human nature” depends on the relationships men form in the production and reproduction of their lives.Empyrean said:It is irrational, illogical and useless to atttempt the achievement of an ideology that requires a change in human nature: if you read literature from the earliest parts of history to our contemporary, you will find that people have changed little.
You can't have “Socialism in one country”Empyrean said:Give me one Communism nation
How can a society be “Marxist”. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the class struggle not a mode of production.Empyrean said:is truly "marxist" (in all or most operations)
That is of course unless you want to starve or in the case you own a small patch of land can grow your own food without the need for running water or electricity. Gee, and here's me working like a sucker.Graney said:It's pretty easy to drop out of the capitalist system. There is no force seriously compelling you to work.
Oh so easy indeed when the vast majority of the worlds population is bereft of productive property and as such compelled to sell themselves for as little or as much as they can get.Graney said:But few do drop out, and those that try struggle because it's just so damn easy to succeed in capitalism.
Indeed, who needs social revolution and the abolition of wage labour when we can have benevolent capitalism. Sam I think you aught to replace that Hammer and Sickle with a Rose.sam04u said:Three more victories though and I'll be satisfied.
Lovely ad hominem. Some of your sure are good at this debating stuff aren't ya.zstar said:Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old? Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.
The Communist Manifesto is in my opinion far from Marx's best or most important work. Whilst it is beautifully written and does contain many essential gems of information, it is very much lacking in substance and the whole of the third chapter and the 10 immediate demands made are about 150 years out of date. As such it should be read with a grain of salt and along with Marx's other major works.zstar said:I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.
People are "greedy", people want the best for themselves, some people are wealthier than others because they work harder, but only those you exploit others are significantly more wealthy.zstar said:People are greedy deal with it, People want more than others deal with it, Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.
Here's the thing you need to understand about the state: it serves a particular set of class interests. In capitalist society the state serves to mediate the class struggle in favour of the ruling class and to maintain the existing social relations of production.zstar said:Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt
What? Please, make sure you use proper English so we can understand what you are saying, not a hysterical gobbledygook.zstar said:all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.
The failure of the "socialist states" is a complex phenomena. Many factors had a play in the events such the theoretical errors carried over from the Second International but more importantly what lead to their taking hold, the relative undeveloped nature of these national economies and as such the relative youth and inexperience of the workers movement their and the inability of the revolution to generalise itself rapidly leading to isolation and degeneration (in the Russian case only, the others can not even be called "proletarian revolutions".)zstar said:Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.
Buddy please, save me the condescending attitude and your pathetic straw man arguments.zstar said:Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.
And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?
So kids stay in school and have a hard think about practicality vs your delusions. Realise that life is not perfect and deal with it.
Comrade, he's pwning you. You can hardly insult him for an inferior education.zstar said:Why am I arguing with a 17 yr old?
Listen Zeitgeist you're a retard.
I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto and like every other left wing Socialist turd it's all a bunch of shit.
Communism cannot work not in this life or the next.
People are greedy deal with it, People want more than others deal with it, Some people are more wealthier than others because they work harder deal with it.
Here's all you ever have to understand about governments, They are selfish and corrupt and all Marxist ideology involves the use of force otherwise it cannot work there's no argument there.
Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il sung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro all promised the same crap you idiots advocate and all they did was fail then they screw the people over by starving them, repressing them and killing them.
Spin it however you want but the Communist experiment has failed completely and utterly in every single country that has practised it. They didn't build fences to keep people out of the "workers paradise" they built it to keep people in.
And no matter what crap you want to add to it the fact remains is marxism can only function if massive government dictatorship was their to enforce it and we all know what happened don't we?
So kids stay in school and have a hard think about practicality vs your delusions. Realise that life is not perfect and deal with it.
The social plan is not enforced by anyone. The rational social plan is the plan for the production of goods. It is dictated and decided upon by the the people themselves based on the production of "use-values" (as opposed to "exchange-values" in capitalist production relations) and the fulfilment of needs through their democratic organs of expression (ie. soviets, workers councils, factory/workplace committees)sam04u said:Who enforces or guides this social plan? Secondly, what is this rational social plan?
Trade does not occur. Trade presupposes that the goods to be traded are the property of an individual. In a communist mode of production the goods are not the property of the individual who appropriates them on the basis of their ownership of the means of production and of labour power. Rather they are collective property (and as as such they are in reality not property at all) and are distributed on the basis of need to all members of society.sam04u said:So then in this hypothetical society, in what way does trading or exchange of goods and services occur?
The plumber prioritises on need of those seeking his services. But quite frankly this is very trivial. I like Marx do not want to dictate the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow. I am not going to tell the plumber how to do away with his labour.sam04u said:How does for instance a plumber prioritise his limited work capacity?
Since you have provided no effort in your rebuttal, I will provide none in mine:sam04u said:Not at all.
What does this have to do with whether or not the labour of the farmer is coerced for free?sam04u said:I'm suggesting there should be provision in the event that the farmer can not offer his labour, during a period of sickness, or otherwise
That's not surprising considering you believe "democratic-socialism" is Marxism and that benevolent state-capitalism is communism. No offence intended.sam04u said:I must admit, I do not understand the system you do as marxist.
That's because you have a loose vagina, and nobody likes to converse with those that have loose vajjayjays.fOR3V3RPINKKKK said:Errr he still hasn't replied to some of my points.