Do you know any Communists?

jank · 22-02-2014 08:32AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's the neoclassicals (New Keynesians/Keynesians) that determine economic policy, not the Post-Keynesians.

Can you clarify this then as the implication is that the Post Keynesians are running the show in the EU and are doing great work.

The Post-Keynesian school pretty much has all of the solutions we need for the economic crisis, figured out - and they're even slowly finding ways to work-around traps like the Euro and EU political deadlock, which would otherwise block seeking out alternative policies

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 10:36AM

jank wrote: »

You mentioned public services as some sort of flawless model one should be able to replicate in place of … something.. as a way to be more 'democratic', or something to that affect. All i did was show, rightly that public services are by no means flawless and in fact are terribly run in the most part and totally unaccountable for their actions. The most democratic thing in the world in the consumer as they can pick and chose each and every day what products and services they will buy. Yet because these companies are successful they are the bad guys. If you don't like Coca Cola, Facebook or Nike, then don't buy or use their products. If one doesn't like that fact that the HSE is grossly inefficient and offer a below standard health service well tough luck as the unions won't buckle unless you give them a pay off and you expect to avail and pay for shoddy health services until the end of time via your tax euros.

You're just shítstirring now jank - I didn't say anything even remotely like that in my post; if you want to rant about the public sector, startup "Jank's public sector whinging thread", don't pretend you're actually debating with what anyone's said in this thread.

jank wrote: »

Can you clarify this then as the implication is that the Post Keynesians are running the show in the EU and are doing great work.

And more shítstirring, since my post doesn't imply that.

Molester Stallone · 22-02-2014 10:43AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

My brother knows Karl Marx

His he still eating those mushrooms in the people's park

Molester Stallone · 22-02-2014 10:55AM

cloud493 wrote: »

Are sinn fein not reds? Been said to me a few times that has.

Posing as reds, but in reality as far right as Mussolini

bedrock#1 · 22-02-2014 11:06AM

biko wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by immature and ignorant mindset?

The core in communism is that all men and women are equal, low and high, and share the owning and responsibility for everything.
The opposite is capitalism where a few owns the means of production and doesn't have to work because the workers below create extra wealth - it's kinda like you owning a house and live upstairs while you have tenants downstairs that pay enough rent to cover your whole mortgage so you live free. A dream for some but fair, not so much.
Somewhere in between is socialism.

For me I suppose I kinda got tired of communism being used as an excuse for states to oppress and kill their own people and the despair that even with the best intentions, as soon as someone rise to power they don't distribute it but hold on to it.
I think communism works well on a small scale but terrible on a grand scale. Capitalism on any scale is pretty ****.

Maybe you should read some Bakunin or Kropotkin. Not all socialists believe that the state is a viable form of organisation. Even look at the difference between Marx and Bakunin and the split at the 1st international. Also look into the anarchist revolution that happened during the Spanish civil war, the republicans, the fascists and the communists tried to and succeeded in destroying it. The one thing they ALL fear is the destruction of the state.

Santa Cruz · 22-02-2014 11:15AM

Molester Stallone wrote: »

Posing as reds, but in reality as far right as Mussolini

They would pose as Krusty the Clown if it meant a few votes

Tiddlypeeps · 22-02-2014 02:54PM

sin_city wrote: »

We'vev never had pure capitalism and it would be great....Imagine companies were not allowed lobby politicians to put up regulations to stop others from entering.

You can place taxes on sales of goods at a very low level...Look at how the USA grew in the 1800s with none or little tax.

Tax pay interest on borrowings from the banking cartels that own the central banks....A first step to have real capitalism is to have competition of currencies.

Pure competition...The tech industry is one of the most capitalistic we have...nokia was huge a few years ago, then Apple, then samsung...lots of companies come in and go out...Consumer wins...prices go down and products improve.

Total capitalism is very dangerous for the rich...someone else can come along and the consumer will choose their products so barriers have to be put up to prevent this.

All the large companies today have created barriers to prevent smaller competition from getting into the market...

This is not part of capitalism....You don't understand capitalism if you think it is dangerous....it would free up workers from false dependence on the state.

Firstly, as Kyuss pointed out already, any taxes at mean that it is not pure capitalism.

I think it's pretty difficult to maintain a small state, they have a tendency to grow and bloat, people like creating jobs for their friends, they like being able to delegate their own work on to others etc etc. You have to ask yourself if it was working so well in the US in the 1800's why did it ever change?

I could be wrong but it seems that you are trying to argue that a capitalist country with a very small state is less likely to be corrupt? Please correct me if I picked that up wrong.

Just because there is very little state members to be corrupted does not mean that corruption is not happening, even among the corporations themselves.

Without a state to intervene how do you stop price fixing? How do you address the issue of monopolies controlling markets? This is whats dangerous about pure capitalism, companies will engage in these behaviours and worse if they are allowed to.

jank · 22-02-2014 03:00PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're just shítstirring now jank - I didn't say anything even remotely like that in my post; if you want to rant about the public sector, startup "Jank's public sector whinging thread", don't pretend you're actually debating with what anyone's said in this thread.

And more shítstirring, since my post doesn't imply that.

See folks this is why one can't criticise Communism or Socialism. Ill bring out the violin again for you KB. Its well worn in at this stage.

karma_ · 22-02-2014 03:12PM

jank wrote: »

See folks this is why one can't criticise Communism or Socialism. Ill bring out the violin again for you KB. Its well worn in at this stage.

Nobody minds if you criticise them, but please do it intelligently, that would be very welcome indeed.

lufties · 22-02-2014 03:18PM

I just spoke to an ex-communist..A Russian girl I know in Kazakstan via skype, beautiful, intelligent and well educated she is. It was very refreshing I must say.

Femme_Fatale · 22-02-2014 03:25PM

There has to be state protections. Some people abuse them but that's another argument. They have to be there. That in itself is an acknowledgment that we're not all born on a level playing-field.

"Be self sufficient" is not bad advice; it's important to instil the value of taking responsibility for one's self. But some people need a helping hand along the way.

Mjollnir · 22-02-2014 04:36PM

jank wrote: »

See folks this is why one can't criticise Communism or Socialism. Ill bring out the violin again for you KB. Its well worn in at this stage.

Why lie about what people have actually said when you don't have to?

Karl Stein · 22-02-2014 08:57PM

jank wrote: »

waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle

I don't know why you bother quoting me. I stopped reading your waffle a long time ago.

losthorizon · 22-02-2014 09:15PM

Dimitris Christofias

and

Vladimir Voronin

fatknacker · 23-02-2014 03:39AM

Interesting article here about large chains in the US, who create thousands of jobs but due to their low wages end up costing the state far more.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-15/mcdonalds-low-wages-come-with-a-7-billion-side-of-welfare

sin_city · 23-02-2014 06:59AM

Charles Rocher wrote: »

What you're essentially saying here is 'imagine humans not being humans'. Forget it.

Eh no, what I'm saying was imagine there was no such thing as career politicians. Imagine self regulation and common law were enforced and it would not be worth trying to buy off anyone as they simply would not have the power to influence....None of the founders of the US were career politicians.

Essentially you misunderstood my post.

Charles Rocher wrote: »

How much wealth was created on the back of the millions of slaves working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week for a couple of centuries? Also, the US was very protectionist which is essentially placing high taxes on goods from other 'competitors'.

Not a lot. Only 4% of all slaves from the African slave trade went to the US.
If you believe that then by the same standing Brazil should have been a hugely rich country as they had more slaves.

In fact it is all to the contrary. The Northern states were slavery was not as prevalient were richer than the southern ones.
How did a country like Japan become so rich without slaves while Brazil lagged and only recently has started to see some joy?

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Too simplistic. The tech industry owes much of its growth to publicly funded R&D, buying up of expensive hardware when only public money could do it, state granted and enforced patents, state granted and enforced copyrights, state granted corporate privileges etc.

I didn't know Steve Jobs received R&D funding...Did Gates also avail of this funding?

How much state funding did Nokia and Ericsson get and did it stop a few years ago? I'd like to see some more information on this funding as companies leave and enter the market a lot....is the funding being cut and given again to someone else? I thought competition was involved.

Charles Rocher wrote: »

You're making the mistake of thinking this would not happen in the absence of the state which is daft. The state is just human beings - it's not an entity separate from men.

The barriers they create when the lobby a politician and use law to enforce barriers would clearly not exist without the state.

Charles Rocher wrote: »

You're confusing the fabled free market with Capitalism.

The free market is a system where goods and services as exchanged free of government interference.

What we have now is crony capitalism...I prefer to old version that did not involve government.

KyussBishop · 23-02-2014 08:05AM

sin_city wrote: »

The barriers they create when the lobby a politician and use law to enforce barriers would clearly not exist without the state.

I'll put it as a set of questions this time instead; do you understand that:
Without laws, private property and companies don't exist, since they only exist, because they are defined in law?
In order to have a public legal system and laws, you need 'the state'?
That private legal systems are practically unmanageable?

This is like that joke about an economist 'assuming a tin opener', except in this case it's "lets assume we can get rid of the state".

Sad thing is, this (unrealistic assumptions) is exactly what most economics is founded on - the dominant economic theory today, assumes economies inherently move towards stability, and assumes that private debt doesn't matter and can be ignored; among many other things.

sin_city · 23-02-2014 10:12AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'll put it as a set of questions this time instead; do you understand that:
Without laws, private property and companies don't exist, since they only exist, because they are defined in law?
In order to have a public legal system and laws, you need 'the state'?
That private legal systems are practically unmanageable?

This is like that joke about an economist 'assuming a tin opener', except in this case it's "lets assume we can get rid of the state".

Sad thing is, this (unrealistic assumptions) is exactly what most economics is founded on - the dominant economic theory today, assumes economies inherently move towards stability, and assumes that private debt doesn't matter and can be ignored; among many other things.

When I mean without the state I mean without the type of state we have today....The USA that existed after the war of independence is the ideal scenario.

KyussBishop · 23-02-2014 10:43AM

sin_city wrote: »

When I mean without the state I mean without the type of state we have today....The USA that existed after the war of independence is the ideal scenario.

That's a pretty enormous difference in meaning: 'Less of a state' has completely different meaning to 'no state'/'without state'.

So do you also understand, that free markets - and all the benefits people tout about free markets - are impossible when the state exists (in any form), because the very existence of the state renders them 'unfree' and imperfect? (since the state means laws and taxes etc.)

Tiddlypeeps · 23-02-2014 10:48AM

sin_city wrote: »

When I mean without the state I mean without the type of state we have today....The USA that existed after the war of independence is the ideal scenario.

If it was so ideal, why did it change?

GerB40 · 23-02-2014 11:50AM

Charles Rocher wrote: »

I don't know why you bother quoting me. I stopped reading your waffle a long time ago.

Jaysus that reminds me, I haven't had waffles in ages...

sin_city · 23-02-2014 10:53PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If it was so ideal, why did it change?

It was ideal for the working man.

Why did it change?

The Federal Reserve Act, FDR's New Deal, minimum wages, LBJ's Great Society...These would be some of the main reasons.

Tiddlypeeps · 23-02-2014 10:58PM

sin_city wrote: »

It was ideal for the working man.

Why did it change?

The Federal Reserve Act, FDR's New Deal, minimum wages, LBJ's Great Society...These would be some of the main reasons.

Those are the things that changed, not why it changed. Why were those changes necessary if the current system was working really well?

DazMarz · 23-02-2014 11:20PM

Never liked Karl Marx too much, but I really like Richard Marx. Some of his music is very good.

And of course, lest we forget when Homer gave new life to the Soviet Union:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR7U1AAWuLc

sin_city · 24-02-2014 01:54AM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Those are the things that changed, not why it changed. Why were those changes necessary if the current system was working really well?

Money and power....Various politicians sold themselves to corporate interests who now have the power, not the politicians.

The Federal government of the US was never meant to be a superstate.

It was a group of states that would be loosely connected.

All the programs such as war spending and social spending put the US deeper into debt.

They would not have any debt if they took back control of the issuing of currency.

Here's what ex presidents said about the federal reserve:

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." -- James A. Garfield, President of the United States (Assassinated)

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson (attempted assassination)

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln (Assassinated)

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated
in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no
longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and
duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson

Wilson was the president that signed the Act so he was bought...he later said:
"I am a most unhappy man; unwittingly I have ruined my country..."

So central banking, one of the pillars of Marx's communism is largely to blame

BillyMitchel · 24-02-2014 02:02AM

Boskowski wrote: »

fyp

Three letters on probably my favourite post on boards EVER!

Frank Lee Midere · 24-02-2014 07:06AM

sin_city wrote: »

Eh no, what I'm saying was imagine there was no such thing as career politicians. Imagine self regulation and common law were enforced and it would not be worth trying to buy off anyone as they simply would not have the power to influence....None of the founders of the US were career politicians.

Essentially you misunderstood my post.

Not a lot. Only 4% of all slaves from the African slave trade went to the US.
If you believe that then by the same standing Brazil should have been a hugely rich country as they had more slaves.

In fact it is all to the contrary. The Northern states were slavery was not as prevalient were richer than the southern ones.
How did a country like Japan become so rich without slaves while Brazil lagged and only recently has started to see some joy?

I didn't know Steve Jobs received R&D funding...Did Gates also avail of this funding?

How much state funding did Nokia and Ericsson get and did it stop a few years ago? I'd like to see some more information on this funding as companies leave and enter the market a lot....is the funding being cut and given again to someone else? I thought competition was involved.

The barriers they create when the lobby a politician and use law to enforce barriers would clearly not exist without the state.

The free market is a system where goods and services as exchanged free of government interference.

What we have now is crony capitalism...I prefer to old version that did not involve government.

The State funding for IT would be :

1) state education of their workers, up to PHD level.
2) State funding of university science.
3) State involvement in technology development - generally military, security, Space which seeps into the private sector. The Internet for instance.
4) state subsidised universities inventing technology. Like tcp/ip. Or BSD. Which is kinda what the iPhone runs.

jank · 24-02-2014 10:23AM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The State funding for IT would be :

1) state education of their workers, up to PHD level.
2) State funding of university science.
3) State involvement in technology development - generally military, security, Space which seeps into the private sector. The Internet for instance.
4) state subsidised universities inventing technology. Like tcp/ip. Or BSD. Which is kinda what the iPhone runs.

Regards the internet argument. It was only after the deregulation of the internet which resulted in the growth of independent ISP's which spawned the 90's internet boom for home users.

Your BSD/UNIX/Linux roadmap is actually a perfect argument for a more open fee and libertarian methodology. Linux is an open source operating which is contributed to voluntarily by thousands of user groups across the world. Some companies have decided to offer enterprise flavours of linux e.g. RedHat, Novell where one can get support for a fee. Vast majority of flavours out there though are free and easy enough to use and download. People wrongly think that free market and liberation methods have to involve making a dollar. It is not about that. If one wants to voluntarily offer a service for free then no liberation would ever stand in their way. People coming together voluntarily to form a community of like minded individuals interested in tweaking software is exactly what the free market and libertarianism is about. I a heavily state regulated industry or society one could not do that.

I remember seeing a year or two ago Dublin Bus closing down a loophole that gave access to online data that was used by some clever guy to build an app to use in tracking and detailing timetable information which was free to download by everyone else. 'No, can not have that. Close it down and pay someone else to develop our own one and hand the tax payer the bill thank you very much!!'

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 10:54AM

sin_city wrote: »

Money and power....Various politicians sold themselves to corporate interests who now have the power, not the politicians.

The Federal government of the US was never meant to be a superstate.

It was a group of states that would be loosely connected.

All the programs such as war spending and social spending put the US deeper into debt.

They would not have any debt if they took back control of the issuing of currency.

These are all issues that you said would not happen in an almost completely capitalist system with a very small state.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:03AM

sin_city wrote: »

So central banking, one of the pillars of Marx's communism is largely to blame

I dont know where you got that idea from.

Marx advocated the abolition of money and its replacement with 'Labour Time Vouchers' in a transition towards a 'free access' society.

Communism has no money, and therefore no system of banking.

As for the OP, yes I know many communists. Me included.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments