| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
where I complain so much about welfare to the poor
So you think welfare to the poor is ok? ou do not know what the directors receiving welfare think, I've a good idea. I think it will feel like someone giving you lots of money. therefore your are unable to make informed statements as to their thought processes Once again, I think we all have a good idea. How do you think it would feel to win the lottery? Just because those who are on the dole think it's okay, does not make it so. In your opinion. there are business leaders who agree with me I'm sure there are people in mental asylums who agree with you too. So what? Corporate welfare exists, is enormous and getting bigger every year. This is reality. Try living in it for a change rather than free market fantasy. THOU SHALL NOT STEAL You do like hearing yourself talk don't you. Corporate welfare is not stealing. The law states this quite clearly. Find me a statement of law that supports your position and a prosecution to retrieve corporate welfare. Sources please. Apparently you disagree with them Don't be ludicrous. Find me a statement of law that says paying tax's constitutes stealing. Sources please. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
You made the claim that I complained about it. Back up your claim.
How do you presume to speak for us all? You claim knowledge of other's thought processes and feelings, but cannot grasp simple concepts that are repeated time and time again.
It really bothers you that I am able to back up my claim. Too bad you are never able to provide evidence to back up your spurious claims.
Read carefully, Alex (I know that you seldom do). The source of funds for corporate welfare is taxation, in essence the recipients of corporate welfare are receiving stolen money. Why do I refer to the money as stolen? Because I am addressing a matter of morality, not legality. If the government is to say it is a law to lynch all black people whenever you encounter them, does this mean it is not murder to follow the law? Legally it is not murder, but morally it is. The moral test of any law is to ask if it would be right for an individual to commit the same act as the law grants the government the power to do. If I was to demand and receive your money under threat of force, it would be stealing (more specifically, extortion). However, when the government demands and receives your money under threat of force it is called taxation. There is no moral difference, only a legal one. From Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition Extortion. The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Wow, now you sound like a police interrogator or something. I am losing my patience, because you consistently fail to answer any of my questions. If you ardently believe in communism, you need to be able to defend it. I could ask you similar questions about capitalism Please do. I will actually answer your questions. of course your answer to those who refuse to live under the system is to either "starve or die" right? If you want to live in a communist economy, move to a communist country. If you want to establish a commune with other people, go ahead and do it. You have the option to spend your resources in any way that wish. You can belong to a community where everyone "works to their ability" and "takes according to their needs". Just don't drag me along with you. Practically nobody starves in America. Even the homeless people are well fed. Working class conciousness differ from time to time, and a workers revolution would NOT happen without the popular support of the working class, so to answer your question, if the workers are hostile to socialism, then there will be no revolution. Well, that is obvious. Given that America is a democracy, and the people vote for candidates that institute policies that they agree with, don't you find it telling that the American Communist Party has very few members? At least in America, you can be a communist. Imagine espousing support for capitalism in Soviet Russia. You would have been hauled off to a gulag or shot. Communist literature is readily available to anybody who wishes to read it. Communist resources of all types are readily available. Yet, the vast majority of people have no interest in this dream of pure communism. Communists are certainly allowed to preach their ideology, but when they forcefully enact a controlled economy against the will of the majority, then I disagree with that. Its that simple really. However, people who are part of a revolutionary party, it is the job of those people to keep up the struggle, maintain the party, and continue polemicizing against the current system. This is the party with the capibility of educating the working class its historic defeats, victories, its tasks, and which direction it must go for its own emacipation. Is "Educating" a euphemism for "using propaganda to sway the general population"? I don't consider going from an environment where I am allowed to engage in the economy in any way that I wish and direct my resources towards anything that I wish, to an economy where my efforts and creations are taken away from me as "emancipation". In regards to your question about the state withering away, again you fail to understand why it is impossible for capitalism to be "re-implemented" once that high stage is completed. By this time, (called the highest stage of communism) when the state has withered away, the poplulation can work "according to their abilities" and recieve "according to their needs", all this implies that there is an economic surplus and everyones basic needs are satisfied. By this time it is no longer possible to exploit workers, regardless of how selfish anyone is. When basic needs are satisfied, people STILL HAVE WANTS. When people have wants, other people will move to satisfy these wants, because there is possible profit in providing things to people. Economic trade will occur. When economic trade occurs, disparities will arise because some people will be able to offer things and make money off of it. When people make more money than others, disparities will occur. This will be capitalism. Eventually people with a collection of money(or resources.....whatever is used to represent worth) will offer to employ other people in order to help them increase production and meet demand. It's capitalism all over again. What is going to stop people from engaging in economic trade, unless there is a state that strictly monitors and controls all economic output? You express faith in "the people of the commune". You seem to think that they will "not allow this to happen". And I say that since people are not perfect, and incapable of living up to an ideal all of the time, that non-communist stuff WILL HAPPEN if there is no state enforcing the rules of economic equality. Ideals sometimes go out the window when profit is involved. Do you think it is possible that profit will entice people to engage in economic trade, instead of sticking to the egalitarian ideal? You have still not addressed question 2a at all. You have not addressed question 2b adequately. You have attempted to answer question 2c, but have not done a very good job of it. You have not addressed any of my hypothetical examples. You have finally answered question 3a. You say that communism will only arise when the majority want it. Thank you for being clear about that. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
capitalism and the "free-market" exist only in theory. In today's modern world, that is true. We don't live under pure capitalism. We are taxed and many aspects of our economic behavior are controlled. Free market ideas and communist ideas can exist in the same country, in the same town and indeed the same company. True. Pure Capitalism does not exist in today's world. Pure communism does not exist in today's world. All of the world's individual economies are varying mixes of both. If the corporations were so keen on the free market theories they claim to follow they wouldn't be collecting 171 billion a year in welfare. Please stop saying the same "171 billion" line over and over again. I have repeatedly said that money should not be given away to ANYBODY or ANYTHING, whether it be a poor individual or an inefficient corporation. The only exception in my opinion should be aid for disabled people. People can be greedy. Sometimes they take what they can get, and pursue what they want. If a CEO learns that the government will give him a huge grant, do you think he will turn it down? If a person who doesn't produce enough to live learns that he will recieve free money, do you think he will turn it down? That is not communism, it is socialism Such labels exist only in theory. I understand that the term "communist" only exists in theory, because it has never been "properly implemented". Yet, you seem to express affinity for communism and socialism. I am just wondering where you stand. I will ask one more time: Give me a rough outline of the economic and governmental system that you desire and that you think could work in real life. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
 Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
If you want to live in a communist economy, move to a communist
country. If you want to establish a commune with other people, go ahead and do it. You have the option to spend your resources in any way that wish. You can belong to a community where everyone "works to their ability" and "takes according to their needs". Just don't drag me along with you. Wow, now you are one selfish person arent you? "dont drag me along with you"? So dont you think the people that dont wish to live under capitalism feel that way? You would still think that even if there was a mass workers revolution for socialism, and you suddenly became the minority. To you, this isnt about democracy or not, you dont give a shit about the people that live in the ghettos, or work in the factories, you just want to look after yourself. Now to answer your question on that point, why would a marxist need to move to another country? We want a world socialist revolution! Regardless of the country or the current system. Of course when there are openings in workers states, trotskyists do take the oppertunity to go in, and establish a revolutionary party for the working class, as some of us did during counterrevolution in East Germany and the USSR. Well, that is obvious. Given that America is a democracy, and the people vote for candidates that institute policies that they agree with, don't you find it telling that the American Communist Party has very few members? At least in America, you can be a communist. Imagine espousing support for capitalism in Soviet Russia. You would have been hauled off to a gulag or shot. The correct word for America's democracy is "bourgeois" democracy, that is democracy for the ruling class. What choice do the poor and the working class have to vote for? The majority of Americans dont even participate in elections for that very reason. For the working people, elections are a choice of which gang of theives will continue the attacks on them, minorities, immigrants..etc. You dont think political opponents are shot in America? Many black panthers were assasinated by the FBI during the cold war. Some democracy. Is "Educating" a euphemism for "using propaganda to sway the general population"? Propaganda is on TV all the time. The bourgeosie controls the press. Think when they cover anti-capitalist demonstrations like Quebec, Seattle, Prague, they will give you an unbiased report? I have yet to see a report on CNN about american imperialist interventions that fuck up the world in the interests of capital. When they show Saddam Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet, they never even mention that they were each put into power by America. That is propaganda. Marxist litarature looks at things from the point of view of the working class, of course if you dont share this perspective your gonna call it "propaganda", for those people, i cant help them, nor do I have any interest in doing so at the current time. On the question of the withering away of the state, i will again that once the withering away of the state is completed, when there is no class, nor need for supression, the state will have outlived its usefulness and will just wither away. Understand that this stage is at a high development stage, and takes a long time to get to. Once this stage has been reached, there is no longer any material basis to re-implement capitalism. You talk about "wants", well, what are wants when everyone has a house, a television, a computer, a car, job, healthcare, education...? You mean everyone wants their own private helicopter, or jet plane? Lets be realistic here, most people dont have those kind of wants, and the simple items like televisions and cars can easily be produced with the current industries in this world. So you are clearly against socialism, and I have no intention, nor do I think its possible of changing your mind. So I ask you this, how much longer does the world have to suffer at the hands of the imperialists ? Does there have to be a new interimperialist war (most likely with nuclear weapons), that has already happened 2 times this century ? Why should capitalists be able to live off of the sweat and blood of the workers just because they own a piece of property, that allows them that right of exploitation? In times when slavery existed would you believe in protecting the rights of the slaveholder, over that of the slave?
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Eric writes:
Wow, now you are one selfish person arent you? "dont drag me along with you"? So dont you think the people that dont wish to live under capitalism feel that way? The thing is, in a Capitalist society, people who don't wish to live as free men are free to band together and form a Commune if they so choose. If they wish to submit themselves to a dictatorship of the proletariat, no one will stop them. But in a Communist society, people who want to be free of the tyranny of the majority are shit out of luck... they are "dragged along" no matter what. You would still think that even if there was a mass workers revolution for socialism, and you suddenly became the minority. A mass of workers in favor of establishing a Marxist community would be free (in a Capitalist society) to establish such an entity. They would not be free to seize the property of others in order to do so, nor to impose their "ideals" on those who wanted no part of it. To you, this isnt about democracy or not... The fact that 51% of the population of a nation are in favor of suspending human rights does not make it correct to do so. Unchecked Democracy is tyranny... the tyranny of the majority. ...you just want to look after yourself. And you want someone else to look after you. If no one does so voluntarily, you will happily force them to do so. Now to answer your question on that point, why would a marxist need to move to another country? In a Laissez-faire Capitalist country, he wouldn't have to. See above. We want a world socialist revolution! Regardless of the country or the current system. Translation: we want to seize by force the property of others, whether such property was gained through ethical means or not, because some owners of some property have what we deem to be more than they need. The correct word for America's democracy is "bourgeois" democracy, that is democracy for the ruling class. The vote of an illiterate crack dealer in South Central Los Angeles has as much weight as the vote of a Bill Gates. And, since there are many more illiterate crack dealers than there are "Bill Gates", the crack dealers as a "class" outnumber the multi-billionaires as a "class". What choice do the poor and the working class have to vote for? They SHOULD be voting Libertarian. In real life, they usually vote Democrat. Note that there are no laws prohibiting avowed Marxists standing for public office. The majority of Americans dont even participate in elections for that very reason. A very large portion of Americans don't bother to vote because they can see no substantive difference between the two major political parties, and they feel it's not worth the effort to vote for an alternative party even as a "protest" vote. ...the state will have outlived its usefulness and will just wither away. Bwahahahaha! There is no government that has EVER voluntarily relinquished power. None ever will. You talk about "wants", well, what are wants when everyone has a house, a television, a computer, a car, job, healthcare, education...? Not everyone will want even all those things. Others will want more, even if it is just to work like a maniac for twenty years rather than forty to obtain those things and then retire. The thing about Communism, is that NO ONE gets a television until EVERYONE first has a house. Then NO ONE gets a computer until EVERYONE first has a television. Lets be realistic here, most people dont have those kind of wants... But some do. I want a helicopter. As a matter of fact, I am willing to do without health care, a television, and a computer in order to buy my helicopter sooner. Who has the right to prevent me from starting my own business in order to buy a helicopter? Answer: the Communists. ...and the simple items like televisions and cars can easily be produced with the current industries in this world. Not in Communist countries. Russia had seventy years in which to provide cars. The only ones who actually HAD any were Politburo members. So I ask you this, how much longer does the world have to suffer at the hands of the imperialists ? Fortunately, large portions of the world no longer have to suffer under Communist imperialists. Just out of curiosity, which current countries do you consider imperialist? I don't recall America or England or France or Japan conquering anyone in the last few decades. Why should capitalists be able to live off of the sweat and blood of the workers just because they own a piece of property, that allows them that right of exploitation? In a Capitalist society, everyone is free to work towards acquiring their own property. If I bust my nuts for thirty years to the point where I have enough to buy a small ceramics factory and then hire somebody to help me utilize it to its full potential, how is it that I am "exploiting" him? Who gives my employees the right to rise up and seize MY ceramics factory? That factory didn't drop from the sky into my lap, I sweated blood to obtain it. In times when slavery existed would you believe in protecting the rights of the slaveholder, over that of the slave? Employees hired voluntarily under a legal employment contract are not slaves. This is standard Marxist ploy number 34... the inappropriate metaphor. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
Two posts ago you were insisting they never took a dime. Your argument had as much depth as usual i see... And two posts ago you were implying that corporations cannot succeed without corporate "welfare". You avoid arguments you cannot win as usual, I see. In your world accepting welfare makes you lazy and destroys your company? I never said that, although it may in the long run end up destroying a given company once that welfare is withdrawn. Corporate welfare is wrong for the same reason that all income redistribution schemes are wrong... it seizes money from some and gives it to others. Forget about communism. The title of this thread is "Communism". You are the one claiming that corporate heads were Communists. But okay, for the rest of this post let's set Communism aside. Lets just concentrate on making peoples lives better for the moment. A good way of doing this would be to give all that corporate welfare to people who need it. A better way to do it is to let people keep what they make and allow them to spend it on themselves however they best see fit. Instead of giving mcdonalds half a million it could have gone to a single mom with a handicapped kid and made a real difference to their lives. Or it could have stayed in the pockets of those whose money it was in the first place. I don't pay tax so mcdonalds can get free advertising. I don't think many other people do either. The only legitimate use for government-raised revenue is to fund the legitimate function of government. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the citizens who pay for that very protection. Therefore, the use of public money for anything other than cops, courts, and military is immoral. However, there is immorality and then there is immorality. For example, I would rather have some of my tax dollars misappropriated to pay advertising for a fast food chain than to have those same dollars spent on a program to disarm me and my fellow citizens. Oh, speaking of government actions, could you please explain to us how Thatcher and her government were able to halt the demand for coal? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Pinkshark,
If you wish to intervene in my response, maybe it would have helped if you read my past posts where i have already done a lot of explaining. You obviously have not been reading posts i have made in here, and I can tell that by reading it. You accuse marxists of wanting workers to sieze property. To this accusation, i confess. Thats the whole point of a workers revolution, for the workers to take control of what belongs to them. Just like in a slave uprising, for the slaves to free themsleves. So if slavery was legal, you would argue against the slaves rising up against the slave owner? because legally the slaves are nothing but chattels and property of the slave owner? I already explained to you the system of bourgoeis democracy, you obviously have somewhat of an understanding of the point i was trying to make, however, in one sentence you hypocritically suggest that working class and oppressed vote democrat, while in the other sentence you confess that there is no difference between the two parties! Well......You continue living under your system then. You obviously benefit from it and have your own self interests to protect. By the way, democracy and communism are not opposites, communism and capitalism are opposites, meaning democracy can exist in a communist society as it did in the USSR before Stalin upsurped power after betraying the revolution (why did he do that? read my previous posts....hint...it was NOT human nature) where workers had the highest stage of democracy in which they were able to elect represenatives to the soviets, which were subject to recall at any time. You dont even have that right to recall representatives under bourgeosie democracy. The rights that the russian revolution granted to the oppressed and working class paved the way for rights to be granted to similar people in western so called "democracies", such as, welfare, right for women to vote, universal heathcare (in some countries)....these were all implemented after the russian revolution to appease the working class and oppressed in these countries against taking the russian route and overthrowing their oppressors. I suspect you have other questions or accusations to make to me, before you do, please do me a favor and read my previous posts, im starting to get tired from explaining the same thing over and over again.
| |||||||
|
Skikid16 fungus fan  Registered: 06/27/02 Posts: 5,666 Loc: In the middle of Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
How is it theirs, they did not put up the capital for the land or the building material, they did not employ workers; all the workers did was apply for a job and accept their hiring. How can you say it is justifiable for someone to take what is not truly theirs. I don't see how you can compare capitalistic employment to slavery. Were factory workers kidnapped and forced to work in the factory? No, they voluntarily sought employment. -------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
And two posts ago you were implying that corporations cannot succeed without corporate "welfare".
Nice dodge on your mcdonalds screwup. I never said anything of the sort. Some corporations may be able to succeed without welfare - lets give them the chance and find out. I never said that Strange, I've heard so much talk on this board about welfare making people lazy and both you and evolving deny ever saying it. Must've been invertigo... You are the one claiming that corporate heads were Communists I said they live in a communist way - to each according to his need. If a corporate director wants a payoff for running the company into the ground, he gets it. The average worker isn't rewarded in the same manner. A better way to do it is to let people keep what they make and allow them to spend it on themselves In your opinion. Handicapped people often can't make much money. I don't want them dying in the street. Incidentally who would pay for roads, hospitals, environmental protection etc in your world? The only legitimate use for government-raised revenue is to fund the legitimate function of government So who pays for the roads? Health-care? Education? etc etc Therefore, the use of public money for anything other than cops, courts, and military is immoral. Right. Education and health-care is immoral. Thatcher and her government were able to halt the demand for coal? They didn't halt demand for coal. What are you talking about? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Wow, now you are one selfish person arent you? No, I am not. I just don't think my resources(which are very limited by the way) should be taken away from me by force. And I do not want to take someone else's resources against their will. So dont you think the people that dont wish to live under capitalism feel that way? Yes. If you want to live a certain way of life, then please pursue it. You could move to a commune. You can move to a communist country. You can vote for communist candidates. If no candidates are to your liking, you yourself can run for office. To you, this isnt about democracy or not It is about freedom. It is about my freedom to labor in any way that I wish, and to enjoy the fruits of my labor in any way that I wish. And, I think that most of my fellow human beings feel this way. you dont give a shit about the people that live in the ghettos, or work in the factories, you just want to look after yourself. That is not true. In case you have forgotten, I have worked in factories before. I have been poor before. I am concerned about my fellow Man. But, capable people should take responsibility for themselves and not rely on others to support or subsidize them. I care about my fellow human beings enough to want them to experience economic freedom, and to enable them to have the ability to take care of themselves. The correct word for America's democracy is "bourgeois" democracy, that is democracy for the ruling class. According to your "location", you don't even live in America. I don't think you have much authority to speak of it. If you think that the American government is solely devoted to serving the "ruling class", then why are we inundated with politicians who pander to the poor and the "decent working class people"? Why does America have countless public housing projects, welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, public education, food stamps, subsidized neighborhood rejuvenation efforts, and federally subsidized low-interest educational loans for those who qualify? Why does the EPA(a federal government agency) go after environmental polluters, if the government only serves the "ruling class" and the corporations? Why does the government sue companies who mislead or harm the public in some way? Why has the government instituted a minimum wage and work-place safety laws? The American government does not religiously serve the interests of the "bourgeois", as you seem to think. What choice do the poor and the working class have to vote for? Your economic standing does not affect the power of your vote. The majority of Americans dont even participate in elections I think that is because Americans have it so good, that they have become lazy. You dont think political opponents are shot in America? No, I don't. You don't think political opponents are shot in communist countries? Many black panthers were assasinated by the FBI during the cold war. Some democracy. I don't know if any of them were assassinated(if they were, that is definately wrong). I do know that the FBI made a concerted effort to counter them(through Cointel-Pro), and in the process did some illegal things(illegal wiretaps, etc..). An outcry occurred and as a result, the actions of certain agencies became better monitored and regulated. Propaganda is on TV all the time. The bourgeosie controls the press. Think when they cover anti-capitalist demonstrations like Quebec, Seattle, Prague, they will give you an unbiased report? With the way you talk, you seem to insinuate that there is a well-planned, deliberate, and coordinated effort to brainwash the human race. That is a fantasy that is common among left-wingers, and I don't think believe it. Most of the reports in the mainstream media that I have seen about the anti-capitalist demonstrations(against the World Bank, corporate globalism, etc..) have been favorable. The press(with their quasi-liberal bent that has a penchant for idolizing the "1960's" mentality) seems to oooo and awww over the "noble intentions" of the demonstrators. I have yet to see a report on CNN about american imperialist interventions that fuck up the world in the interests of capital. When they show Saddam Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet, they never even mention that they were each put into power by America. That is propaganda. If you don't like CNN, don't watch it. There are a myriad of sources to get information from. In my experience, the press consistently bring up how America funded Saddam in the 1980's in his fight against Iran. Marxist litarature looks at things from the point of view of the working class, of course if you dont share this perspective your gonna call it "propaganda", Seeing something from a certain perspective is understandable. But, when you view the world with a strict black-and-white mentality, and religiously follow every word of a group's ideology, then you are succumbing to propaganda. Communists(smart ones and dumb ones) seem to do this often. On the question of the withering away of the state, i will again that once the withering away of the state is completed, when there is no class, nor need for supression, the state will have outlived its usefulness and will just wither away. Once the state withers away...what will happen? Given the imperfections of human beings, there are many hypothetical situations that could arise. Once this stage has been reached there is no longer any material basis to re-implement capitalism. If there is no state to enforce human adherence to economic equality, people will begin to exhibit selfish behavior. You talk about "wants", well, what are wants when everyone has a house, a television, a computer, a car, job, healthcare, education...? You mean everyone wants their own private helicopter, or jet plane? Lets be realistic here, most people dont have those kind of wants Some people will want big TV's, and some won't want one at all. Some people will want a house, and some won't want one at all. Some people will want planes and helicopters, and some won't want either. Some people will want drugs, and some won't. You cannot control or homogenize people's desires. When people desire something, and the state is unable to give it to them in sufficient quantity or quality, then they will be willing to engage in economic trade to obtain it. When unencumbered economic trade occurs, inequalities arise. and the simple items like televisions and cars can easily be produced with the current industries in this world. And do you think people will be very interested in trying to innovate and create, if all of their efforts result in no personal incentive? So I ask you this, how much longer does the world have to suffer at the hands of the imperialists ? How much longer does the world have to suffer from people who think that they know "the answer", and who then proceed to implement this "answer" upon everyone they can? I realize that you only condone democratic communism, but the track record of attempted communism around the world is far from democratic. There will always be suffering. People cannot eliminate evil from the world, because people are not perfect. Because people are not perfect, communism will not work. There will always be people in this world who are willing to take advantage of someone else. Why should capitalists be able to live off of the sweat and blood of the workers just because they own a piece of property, that allows them that right of exploitation? In times when slavery existed would you believe in protecting the rights of the slaveholder, over that of the slave? Slavery - A state where an individual is owned by someone else. The individual in question has no rights and is forcefully held and made to work. In my opinion, slavery is wrong. Employment - A state where a person voluntarily decides to work somewhere, voluntarily decides to work for a certain person, and voluntarily decides to work for an agreed upon wage, all the while having the freedom to leave whenever they want. ...Big difference between the two. You have still not addressed question 2a. You have attempted to answer question 2b. You seem to say that when a certain level of comfort is obtained by everyone in a population, that there will be no further desires for additional things. I refute this argument. People will always want things, and each individual has individual tastes that do not always match his fellow citizen's tastes. I don't think it is possible for a controlled economy to produce products of a sufficient quality, amount, and variety to satisfy people's wants. You have attempted to answer question 2c. You seem to think that once the state withers away, people will be so used to living the communal way of life, that nobody will have any desire to gain excessive resources and nobody will have an urge to have power. To this I say that when people are not supervised, they tend to run wild. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Workers are exploited under the capitalist system to profit a small minority of people that own property (which gives them the so called "right" to exploit workers). The factories, cars, computers, ships, airplanes,...etc are all made from the sweat and blood of working people, not by the bourgeoisie, who arent actually interested in producing goods for society, but only for doing what is profitable in the interests of capital.
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I define America as a "bourgeois" democracy because thats what it is, and you happen to live in America. I also call the democracy of Canada (my country) Britain, Germany, France....etc by their real names, that is, democracy for the bourgeosie. I'm glad you brought up the question why welfare, healthcare...etc exists if the state is really commited to serving the bourgeosie. Well..... simple answer is that the Russian revolution forced these western countries to appease the working class, and poor in order to try to bring class peace at home. If there werent such things as welfare, then you would have a group of extremely impoverished people with nothing to lose. And people with nothing to lose, is dangerous to the ruling class. By maintaining these social services, they also propagate illusions that they are helping. These rights were won through class struggle, and in the absense of class struggle, the bougeosie feels they can finally take some of these rights away. (i.e you have people like Clinton who vowed to "end welfare as we know it").
You say democratic rights matter in America, but if that was true, then the people like the black panthers wouldnt have been bombed or infiltrated. In capitalist countries, democractic rule will function on the condition that it does not threaten the interests of the ruling class, hence in Germany, Hitler was brought to power by the bourgeosie to "save capitalism" by terrorizing workers into submission. The attitude of western governments during the cold war, fearing revolutions at home prove this very point. Good example (the overthrow of a democraticly elected leader in Chile, because US oil interests were threatened by nationalization, subsequently Pinochet was brought to power to terroize workers into submission). And to answer your other point, no I dont think the media or the state is involved in one big "conspiracy" against the working people. But you seem to think communists like myself read marxist litarature and suddenly think "hey, lets start a revolution and trick lots of people into thinking im helping them, then fuck them over later and take power for myself...brilliant idea!". Its all about CLASS INTEREST. Thats what dictate what goes on the press, and many journalists acknowledge that the whats in the press is dictated by "corporate interests", which borders along the lines of what I am saying. I wasnt always a communist, but i was always anti-capitalist, and I've been to some of these demonstrations, like the one in Quebec, and seeing the biased one sided media coverage opened my eyes a little more. I was thinking "why would the media whitewash these events? there are cops beating people on the street for no reason!" But, you still seem to miss the point about the withering away of the state. It is impossible for anyone to bring back capitalism after it has reached that high stage. You know, in prehistoric times of human existance, there existed primative communism. That meant that, everyone worked for the survival of the tribe, and everyone received equal amounts of food...etc, it was impossible back then to exploit people for material gain, because farming methods were inadiquate enough to produce a material basis for that. Once farming methods were improved, a small group of people realized they didnt have to work, and they lived off the surplus, while forcing people to work, as slaves. This is where the system of private property came into existance. Slaves were the first form of property, and "special bodies of armed men" were able to enforce that right, and that system. In the highest stage of communism, once everyones material needs are satisfied, they can be free to do other things, and like i said by this stage it will be physically impossible to re-implement the system of capitalism, as there is no material basis for that.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Eric writes:
If you wish to intervene in my response, maybe it would have helped if you read my past posts where i have already done a lot of explaining. You obviously have not been reading posts i have made in here, and I can tell that by reading it. I've read every post in this thread, some more than once. I have read all of yours, and what you think of as "explaining", I see as evading. As for "intervening", I was unaware that a personalized invitation to respond was a prerequisite for a post here. My bad. Thats the whole point of a workers revolution, for the workers to take control of what belongs to them. Randal has addressed this, so I'll be brief. My ceramics factory most emphatically DOES NOT belong to my employees. If a potter wants to hand make ten pots a day on his own and sell them and keep all the proceeds, he is free to do so with no interference from me. But if he wants to make a hundred pots a day using MY factory's facilities, I'm going to charge him for that privilege. So if slavery was legal, you would argue against the slaves rising up against the slave owner? because legally the slaves are nothing but chattels and property of the slave owner? A slave is not a kiln. A slave is not a potter's wheel. I own the wheel and the kiln and the building in which both are located. I do not own my employees. They use my kiln and wheel at my direction by their choice. No Marxist has ever been able to show that an employee working for wages is a slave, because he isn't. ...however, in one sentence you hypocritically suggest that working class and oppressed vote democrat, while in the other sentence you confess that there is no difference between the two parties! And you accuse ME of not reading your posts? I said that they SHOULD vote Libertarian, but that they usually vote Democrat. I further said that many non-VOTERS (non-voters does not equate to WORKERS) choose not to vote because they see no substantive difference between the two major parties. By the way, democracy and communism are not opposites, communism and capitalism are opposites, meaning democracy can exist in a communist society... The more Democratic a society is, the faster it reverts from a Communist to a quasi-capitalist one. That's my whole POINT re Communism being impossible to maintain without the suppression of the populace. THAT'S why Stalin had to establish a crushing dictatorship, as did Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and all their ilk... because humans by their essential nature are not Communist. Humans are not ants or bees. You dont even have that right to recall representatives under bourgeosie democracy. Representatives can be impeached. However, I am not in favor of unlimited Democracy. I prefer a constitutionally limited Republic in which representatives to the legislature may be elected through democratic methods. The rights that the russian revolution granted to the oppressed and working class paved the way for rights to be granted to similar people in western so called "democracies", such as, welfare, right for women to vote, universal heathcare (in some countries)....these were all implemented after the russian revolution to appease the working class and oppressed in these countries against taking the russian route and overthrowing their oppressors. Oh, please! Just because the Russian revolution occurred before some of these things doesn't mean it CAUSED them. And what "rights" did the Russian revolution grant to Russians? The right to be herded onto collective farms? The right to have their legally and ethically-acquired possessions seized by force? I suspect you have other questions or accusations to make to me, before you do, please do me a favor and read my previous posts... Believe me, you don't want me to start challenging all your claims from your very first post on. ...im starting to get tired from explaining the same thing over and over again. First of all, you have dodged several requests from myself and others for explanations on key points Secondly, most of your "explanations" don't explain anything. Repeating the same slogans endlessly is not the same as explaining. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
Nice dodge on your mcdonalds screwup. Alex, I was unaware that MacDonald's had ever received a government grant. I conceded the error, not even asking you to provide a source. I had given a list of five specifically named corporations that didn't receive welfare, but one of them apparently did. Evolving then provided a list of several dozen others. The fact that one corporation out of several dozen was incorrectly named does not invalidate my point, despite your attitude of "Oh, goody. Pinky made a mistake on one company, therefore no one will notice when I dodge the entire principle under discussion". I said they live in a communist way - to each according to his need. If a corporate director wants a payoff for running the company into the ground, he gets it. The average worker isn't rewarded in the same manner. No. Alex, you said that Communism was "alive and well" in the corporate world. You then went out for several more posts about how the rich loved Communism and how companies operating in free trade zones were Communist. I don't want them dying in the street. Then help them. who would pay for roads, hospitals, environmental protection etc in your world? Roads and hospitals existed before governments got involved in paying for them. As for environmental protection, laws exist which provide punishment for those who pollute. You are of course well aware that the most shocking environmental abuses are in Communist countries. Oh, wait.... there are no Communist countries... just ones who proclaim themselves to be. Education and health-care is immoral. No, Alex. Read my lips: The use of public money for anything other than cops, courts and military is immoral. They didn't halt demand for coal. What are you talking about? How was the English coal industry "devastated" by Thatcher then? If Thatcher didn't prevent people from wanting coal, and the coal mines still have coal, how did the coal industry become devastated? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I conceded the error, not even asking you to provide a source
No you said something like "lets presume you are correct". You didn't say "I was wrong". Are you as certain your other companies don't recieve corporate welfare as you were about mcdonalds? No. Alex, you said that Communism was "alive and well" in the corporate world They live according to the principle "To each according to his need". I'd say that meant communism was alive and well. Then help them. I do. I pay tax's in the hope that they would recieve help. Instead it appears mcdonalds and corporations recieve the lions share of my tax. The use of public money for anything other than cops, courts and military is immoral. Trouble is there really isn't any profit in free roads or health care for the poor. Leave it in private hands and the poor arn't going to get a look-in. Either the government cares for them or no-one does. That's reality. I certainly don't want to leave the fate of the handicapped in the hands of corporations who'se sole goal is short-term profit. How was the English coal industry "devastated" by Thatcher then? Because she closed the mines. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Dilauded Sensability andr  Registered: 10/29/02 Posts: 682 Loc: Krunkville, FL Last seen: 23 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Well dude, if you'd like to have your life run by the government. And government run everything. Read up on what went on in Russia during Lenin and Stalin. Communism is bad, while everybody lives at the same level and the rich pay outrageous taxes, government officials live it up in luxery, Castro is a good example.
We didn't like it because, we faught for independence from Great Britain for freedom of being Great Britain's bitch. If you think its a good idea, maybe you should visit a Communist country and see what its like. Dilauded
| |||||||
|
Dilauded Sensability andr Registered: 10/29/02 Posts: 682 Loc: Krunkville, FL Last seen: 23 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
That made no sense
| |||||||
|
zeronio Stranger  Registered: 10/16/01 Posts: 2,349 Loc: Slovenia Last seen: 11 months, 9 days |
| ||||||
Are you sure? I felt that people live under much pressure over there. You can't do drugs, you can't drive fast, you have to show ID if you want to drink a beer, you have to hide if you want to smoke a cigarette, you don't have paid vacations or sick leave, you have death penalty. What kind of individual rights did you have in mind? The main difference is in that you give your tax money for anti ballistic missiles while other countries give it for social security.
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
You can't do drugs,
That sucks you can't drive fast, That depends on where you are. you have to show ID if you want to drink a beer, That depends on where you are and how old you look. But yes, you're probably right, children should have the right to experience alcohol poisoning before their 13th birthday. you have to hide if you want to smoke a cigarette, Huh? you don't have paid vacations or sick leave, Yes we do. Do you even know what you're talking about? you have death penalty. So, should the state support child molesters and serial murders and give them old age pensions? What kind of individual rights did you have in mind? Freedom of political speech is much greater in the U.S. than just about anywhere else (but the leftists in this country are working hard to change that). We have a right to self defense. We have greater rights to keep the fruits of our labors. The main difference is in that you give your tax money for anti ballistic missiles while other countries give it for social security. Social security? Like they had in the Soviet Union and East Germany? That must explain why they had to try so hard to keep people from leaving while we have to try to keep people from coming in. Here's some news for you, the western social welfare states are all headed for eventual bankruptcy. Do the math, the benefits they pay out in social security to an aging population will not be able to be maintained with a birth rate below replacement levels - the demographics on this are quite clear. The system will collapse from a negative balance of payments, it's only a matter of time. This is not something that will happen immediately but it will develope slowly. There are measures that can be taken, but they all have trade offs which main stream politicians are not willing to forthrightly address. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings. Edited by Evolving (01/05/03 04:44 AM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
6,231 | 132 | 11/18/05 07:09 PM by bukkake |
|
|
marxism. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
3,111 | 37 | 02/04/04 05:53 PM by Tao |
|
|
Communism / socialism ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 overgrower |
5,462 | 58 | 12/18/04 06:04 AM by vampirism |
|
 |
Artificial Desire ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Sclorch |
3,632 | 48 | 01/08/04 08:56 PM by phreakyzen |
|
 |
Karl Marx was wrong ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
Sclorch |
8,553 | 122 | 08/17/03 03:43 PM by d33p |
|
|
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism | lonestar2004 |
1,356 | 10 | 07/28/06 11:40 AM by Vvellum |
|
|
communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state | Anonymous |
1,486 | 12 | 08/31/03 12:35 AM by Malachi |
|
|
Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas |  TrueBrode |
833 | 10 | 11/07/03 02:43 AM by zeronio |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 16,204 topic views. 5 members, 35 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||