Do you know any Communists?

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 10:56AM

mariaalice wrote: »

KyussBishop, I have to saw I admire you for never giving up on you belief that paradise for everyone, is just around the corner if only people could see it.

And you can quote me saying that, where exactly? You can't, because you only make that trite implication, in order to make a rhetorical attack that you know is nonsense.

Which leads to the question: What is your personal motive, for completely making stuff up, and pinning it on other posters, in order to disparage them?

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 11:39AM

sin_city wrote: »

No it doesn't. Small tariffs could be be placed on various goods. It would be the choice of individuals whether or not they purchase these.

Not theft as the choice is with the individual.

NO INCOME TAX

What on earth do you think a tariff is? It is a tax.

You don't get to randomly redefine words when it doesn't suit your argument: I'm not going to adopt 'Libertarian-speak' here, use the standard English dictionary definition of words.

If you think you will be paying any less tax, by Ireland abolishing income tax and redistributing it onto goods instead - and that includes essential goods you have no practical choice in buying - then you really have failed to put any thought of your own into this, and are just lapping up nonsense.

sin_city wrote: »

I wish we had no such thing as countries and states and that common law would be respected. If we did have them, then I'd prefer they were small small states.

Everything could be done privately in my opinion.

We've been over this, and now you're flip-flopping over what you said earlier, contradicting yourself again - a tactic Libertarians use in argument pretty much all of the time, redefining their position to suit the argument at hand, even when it contradicts what they've said earlier.

You can never get rid of the state, because you can't have private legal systems, you need a public legal system - legal systems define private property, and assign private ownership over property - if you have competing private legal systems, one system can (legitimately) claim ownership over property, than another legal system has already assigned ownership to.

It is a practical impossibility.

sin_city wrote: »

Peter Schiff does not think hyperinflation will occur. He thinks we will have high inflation like the 1970s or slightly worse.

Schiff recommended gold at $300...Its now $1400.....If you knew about history and fundamentals you'd know you should be buying gold and silver.

His father went to prison for questioning the income tax...It is not a lawful tax and if you investigate you will see this.

Schiff can be seen years in advance of the crash in 2008 being made fun of for predicting the crash....His credentials are very strong and only an ill informed person would say otherwise.

Yes, Peter Schiff backpedalled on his hyperinflation claims, because he was proven wrong and continuing on with those claims looked more and more ridiculous as time went on - he lost people who invested with him, up to 40%-70% of their investments.

His father went to prison because he committed fraud - just like you don't get to redefine the dictionary whenever it doesn't suit your argument, you don't get to redefine the law either, when it doesn't suit you.

One of his last defenses against being convicted - for the 3rd/4th time - was that he was suffering a mental illness about his tax beliefs:

In this last case Schiff's attorneys again asked that the court consider the claim that Schiff has a mental disorder relating to his beliefs about taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff#Convictions_for_1997_through_2002_tax_years

His father is second only, to the Freeman on the Land movement, in terms of idiocy.

27-02-2014 11:46AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

And you can quote me saying that, where exactly? You can't, because you only make that trite implication, in order to make a rhetorical attack that you know is nonsense.

Which leads to the question: What is your personal motive, for completely making stuff up, and pinning it on other posters, in order to disparage them?

I am not, I do admire your persistence you never waver from you beliefs, I do acutely think if what you are saying could be brought about it would be paradise, the problems of unemployment, resources, different political systems etc., all solved, what I am going to say next is trite and simplistic but also true human nature does not change and our wants and desires ( as opposed to our needs ) does not change, people take the fact that we for example don't have state torcher any more,( it was common in the middle ages for example ) as
meaning that humans society is evolving towards being kinder and more cooperative. I don't think that true look at the fight for rescores in the world or ugly nationalism for example.

Why did one cave man think I want a bigger better cave why wasn't he satisfied with his smaller cave.

27-02-2014 11:57AM

And instead of saying Russia, China ect were not communist ( which they were not ) so you cant say communism does not work because nobody tried it , you could look at why kibbutz change and evolved from there original form it is far more illuminating about why communism/socialism of the sharing work, resources and non hierarchical type do not work.

Iwasfrozen · 27-02-2014 12:13PM

mariaalice wrote: »

And instead of saying Russia, China ect were not communist ( which they were not ) so you cant say communism does not work because nobody tried it , you could look at why kibbutz change and evolved from there original form it is far more illuminating about why communism/socialism of the sharing work, resources and non hierarchical type do not work.

The countries themselves never claimed they were communist. They claimed they were socialist, communism was the goal to work towards therefore you had the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but the Communist party.

But let me ask you something. If not the countries themselves who actually gets to define what socialism is? Stalin said he was socialist why shouldn't I believe him?

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 12:51PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I am not, I do admire your persistence you never waver from you beliefs, I do acutely think if what you are saying could be brought about it would be paradise, the problems of unemployment, resources, different political systems etc., all solved, what I am going to say next is trite and simplistic but also true human nature does not change and our wants and desires ( as opposed to our needs ) does not change, people take the fact that we for example don't have state torcher any more,( it was common in the middle ages for example ) as
meaning that humans society is evolving towards being kinder and more cooperative. I don't think that true look at the fight for rescores in the world or ugly nationalism for example.

Why did one cave man think I want a bigger better cave why wasn't he satisfied with his smaller cave.

Okey I've probably misread your intent, but your representation of what I believe is still nothing like what I actually advocate.

sin_city · 27-02-2014 01:08PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

What on earth do you think a tariff is? It is a tax.

You don't get to randomly redefine words when it doesn't suit your argument: I'm not going to adopt 'Libertarian-speak' here, use the standard English dictionary definition of words.

Do you know the difference between taxing someone's wages and placing a tax on something as in a sales tax?

If you don't then all I thought about socialists is true.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you think you will be paying any less tax, by Ireland abolishing income tax and redistributing it onto goods instead - and that includes essential goods you have no practical choice in buying - then you really have failed to put any thought of your own into this, and are just lapping up nonsense.

Abolish income tax and lower all taxes to uphold the laws...Not to pay for roads or career polticians.

How did people manage pre income tax times.....quite well in the USA.

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can never get rid of the state, because you can't have private legal systems, you need a public legal system - legal systems define private property, and assign private ownership over property - if you have competing private legal systems, one system can (legitimately) claim ownership over property, than another legal system has already assigned ownership to.

That's one view. I don't mind have a small government state but I would be open to anarchy. It hasn't been tried out so you are just assuming. Communism on the other hand has been tried and tested and millions died under it.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes, Peter Schiff backpedalled on his hyperinflation claims, because he was proven wrong and continuing on with those claims looked more and more ridiculous as time went on - he lost people who invested with him, up to 40%-70% of their investments.

Gold is up 8% this year....it was up 12 out of the last 13 years.
I don't think you know enough about the what is going on in the gold market at the moment to comment.

Do you know that China is building up huge reserves. Do you know that there has not been an audit of Fort Knox since the 1950s?
Do you know that Germany was told it would take 7 years to get its gold back? Do you know anything of the manipulation in the gold and silver markets which are being manipulated just as the bonds markets are?
Do you know anything or are you just a victim of the denial?

KyussBishop wrote: »

His father went to prison because he committed fraud - just like you don't get to redefine the dictionary whenever it doesn't suit your argument, you don't get to redefine the law either, when it doesn't suit you.

One of his last defenses against being convicted - for the 3rd/4th time - was that he was suffering a mental illness about his tax beliefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff#Convictions_for_1997_through_2002_tax_years

His father is second only, to the Freeman on the Land movement, in terms of idiocy.

You clearly won't research the legality of the income tax law in the US so it is pointless for me to say anything here.

By sentencing an old man who was protesting the income tax as being unlawful the US gov was sending out a message.

Go on, ramble on and ignore the fact that there is no law requiring the US Income tax to be paid

PopePalpatine · 27-02-2014 01:12PM

sin_city wrote: »

Abolish income tax and lower all taxes to uphold the laws...Not to pay for roads or career polticians.

lolwut? Roads being the property of private corporations has to be one of the looniest ideas of anarcho-capitalism.

sin_city · 27-02-2014 01:16PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The countries themselves never claimed they were communist. They claimed they were socialist, communism was the goal to work towards therefore you had the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but the Communist party.

But let me ask you something. If not the countries themselves who actually gets to define what socialism is? Stalin said he was socialist why shouldn't I believe him?

Meh, who cares what name you put on it....its the use of force to get others to do what YOU want.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro...all the same.

Stalin said he was a socialist? Did he say he was a mass murderer too?

Henry Ford didn't mass kill last I checked

coolemon · 27-02-2014 01:37PM

sin_city wrote: »

Meh, who cares what name you put on it....its the use of force to get others to do what YOU want.

But sure even in an anarcho-capitalist society - with private security acting as enforcers of "property rights" - you have the use of force to get people to do what you want them to do.

Private property rights implies exclusion. And to exclude you need force, coercion and violence.

coolemon · 27-02-2014 01:48PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But let me ask you something. If not the countries themselves who actually gets to define what socialism is? Stalin said he was socialist why shouldn't I believe him?

If I can just answer that. I think if we are looking at these issues in a political and sociological way, then we are equipped with very specific definitions and terms to categorise political and sociological phenomena.

For example if the DPRK defines itself as democratic, well then, I think we have various frameworks to understand it differently, and more accurately.

Socialism, in the Marxist sense, has specific requirements. Like a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - where workers, through whatever organisational forms are developed, assert power and control over society. Stalin, by virtue of his powerful position as a non-worker (as defined by his relationship to the MoP), automatically rules him an his regime out of that Marxist definition.

We cant accept whatever regimes want to call themselves. We must attempt to look at these things objectively and define them accordingly.

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 01:58PM

sin_city wrote: »

Do you know the difference between taxing someone's wages and placing a tax on something as in a sales tax?

If you don't then all I thought about socialists is true.

So you know that - whether the tax is placed on income or on sales - it's still a tax, people still pay the tax, and also that most people pay more tax when it is redistributed from income to essential goods, because that only changes where the burden of the tax falls (away from the wealthy, and onto those who consume essential goods).

So your whole 'tax is theft' argument is meaningless, and is based upon silly semantic redefinitions of words, and your failure to understand that people still end up paying the tax, no matter if it is placed on income or on goods - that only changes the distribution of the tax.

sin_city wrote: »

That's one view. I don't mind have a small government state but I would be open to anarchy. It hasn't been tried out so you are just assuming. Communism on the other hand has been tried and tested and millions died under it.

Ok sin_city, explain to us how private legal systems are going to work: How are you going to stop private legal systems laying claim to property that is (under a competing legal system) already owned by someone else, when none of the legal systems will have ultimate authority?

sin_city wrote: »

Gold is up 8% this year....it was up 12 out of the last 13 years.
I don't think you know enough about the what is going on in the gold market at the moment to comment.

Do you know that China is building up huge reserves. Do you know that there has not been an audit of Fort Knox since the 1950s?
Do you know that Germany was told it would take 7 years to get its gold back? Do you know anything of the manipulation in the gold and silver markets which are being manipulated just as the bonds markets are?
Do you know anything or are you just a victim of the denial?

I don't give a toss about gold, you're just going off on random tangents - I'll repeat again Schiff lost 40%-70% of the value, of assets people invested with him - his hyperinflation predictions were a failure.

sin_city wrote: »

You clearly won't research the legality of the income tax law in the US so it is pointless for me to say anything here.

By sentencing an old man who was protesting the income tax as being unlawful the US gov was sending out a message.

Go on, ramble on and ignore the fact that there is no law requiring the US Income tax to be paid

The law isn't decided by conspiracy theorist tax protesters - it is decided by courts (you know, the entities responsible for interpreting and upholding the law), and they say it is legal - end of.

This really is Freeman of the Land level stuff this; actual courts have clarified the law, again and again (3-4 times in the case of Schiff's father) so that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

KyussBishop · 27-02-2014 02:01PM

sin_city wrote: »

Henry Ford didn't mass kill last I checked

No, he just provided war materials for allowing Nazi Germany to carry that out, and used slave labour to manufacture those materials:

Ford continued to do business with Nazi Germany, including the manufacture of war materiel.[35] Beginning in 1940, with the requisitioning of between 100 and 200 French POWs to work as slave laborers, Ford-Werke contravened Article 31 of the 1929 Geneva Convention.[35] At that time, which was before the U.S. entered the War and still had full diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany, Ford-Werke was under the control of the Ford Motor Company. The number of slave laborers grew as the war expanded although Wallace made it clear that companies in Germany were not required by the Nazi authorities to use slave laborers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford#The_coming_of_World_War_II_and_Ford.27s_mental_collapse

Motley Crue · 27-02-2014 02:03PM

RonnieRocket wrote: »

I thought it was a strange question. The Cold War is over. Capitalism won and Communism is now broadly seen as the laughing stock ideology for the gullible and uneducated. Are Commies still seen as a threat?

Your words are more dangerous than what you're suggesting. Ironic that.

Mjollnir · 27-02-2014 06:16PM

sin_city wrote: »

Lol, I thought you were initially talking about communism......Well if you study history and economics you will see what is coming and understand there is no perfect system but that a small government republic has proved a sustainable and fruitful for the people of that society to live and better themselves.

Ask not on whom the Intergalactic Meathammer of Outrageous Unintentional Irony falls.... it falls on thee.

Iwasfrozen · 27-02-2014 06:37PM

coolemon wrote: »

If I can just answer that. I think if we are looking at these issues in a political and sociological way, then we are equipped with very specific definitions and terms to categorise political and sociological phenomena.

For example if the DPRK defines itself as democratic, well then, I think we have various frameworks to understand it differently, and more accurately.

Socialism, in the Marxist sense, has specific requirements. Like a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - where workers, through whatever organisational forms are developed, assert power and control over society. Stalin, by virtue of his powerful position as a non-worker (as defined by his relationship to the MoP), automatically rules him an his regime out of that Marxist definition.

We cant accept whatever regimes want to call themselves. We must attempt to look at these things objectively and define them accordingly.

If we are to take a Marxian view then I believe the Marxian definition of socialism had two conditions that must be met for a society to be considered Socialist. First it must be ruled politically by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" while economically the means of production must be under social control.

The first condition was indeed met by the contributions of Lenin to Marxist thought who expanded on the need in his opinion for a vanguard party to lead the revolution on behalf of the workers. In this sense under Marxist-Leninism a government under the control of the communist party satisfies Marx's condition for a dictatorship of the proletariat. While Marx does not call for a vanguard party he doesn't explicitly forbid it so the concept is compatible.

On the other hand the second condition in the Marxist definition of socialism that the property of the capitalist class be expropriated for social use was also met. No doubt under Stalinist Russia the capitalists had been expropriated and now the entire means of production was managed by the vanguard party theoretically representing the workers.

This is neither an argument for or against socialism. Like capitalism socialism has good and bad varieties and I'm sure we can both agree Stalins Russia was a bad form of socialism. But Socialism it was, I don't think any rational argument can be made that it wasn't socialist and usually the people who try are Marxists trying to disassociate themselves with the connection.

Iwasfrozen · 27-02-2014 06:38PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

Ask not on whom the Intergalactic Meathammer of Outrageous Unintentional Irony falls.... it falls on thee.

Why? Your response to his assertion isn't adequate.

sin_city wrote: »

Henry Ford didn't mass kill last I checked

Henry Ford is really not someone you should be holding up as a paradigm of virtue here.

coolemon · 27-02-2014 07:25PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The first condition was indeed met by the contributions of Lenin to Marxist thought who expanded on the need in his opinion for a vanguard party to lead the revolution on behalf of the workers. In this sense under Marxist-Leninism a government under the control of the communist party satisfies Marx's condition for a dictatorship of the proletariat. While Marx does not call for a vanguard party he doesn't explicitly forbid it so the concept is compatible.

Lenin was a theoretical lightweight who warped Marxist theory rather than improve it.

It is only compatible so long as the vanguard is a working class (proletarian) vanguard.

Marxian class is defined by the relations of production -> not by property as is so often assumed.

"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters." - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm

Property is a super-structural reflection of the relations of production.

By its very organisational form Lenin and his "vanguard party" were not a proletarian vanguard. Their relationship was that of a state bourgeoisie -> extracting the surplus value of the workers labour through their consolidated political power and detachment from production itself.

Was it Lenin and co's private property? No. It didn't have to be. It was state property and they controlled the state. A codified super-structural form based upon the "defence of the socialist state" secured their control.

As Marx stated - "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself."

On the other hand the second condition in the Marxist definition of socialism that the property of the capitalist class be expropriated for social use was also met. No doubt under Stalinist Russia the capitalists had been expropriated and now the entire means of production was managed by the vanguard party theoretically representing the workers.

Even if this were a 'condition' as you describe, capitalist property in the Soviet Union was not expropriated for social use. It was expropriated by a new state-capitalist class (as described above) through the mechanism of the state.

Whoever controlled the state controlled the MoP. And it most certainly was not the proletariat.

Superficially it meets the 'conditions'. But not really. And we see, with historical hindsight, what happened and where Lenin's theories fit within a historical materialist analysis.

This is neither an argument for or against socialism. Like capitalism socialism has good and bad varieties and I'm sure we can both agree Stalins Russia was a bad form of socialism. But Socialism it was, I don't think any rational argument can be made that it wasn't socialist and usually the people who try are Marxists trying to disassociate themselves with the connection.

Yes. In ways it can be described as socialist. Socialism means many things. The Labour Party and Sinn Fein describe themselves as socialist. Bertie Ahern called himself a socialist.

But in Marxist terms? No way. It runs against the very basics of Marxist theory and Marxist socialism.

And you will get a lot of "Marxists" telling you otherwise. But they are full of ****e to be frank.

EDIT: If I am arguing on the basis of trying to disassociate myself from it then surely somewhere, I should be wrong in what I have just said. An besides - im not a Marxist anyway - im an anarchist.

sin_city · 27-02-2014 10:26PM

coolemon wrote: »

But sure even in an anarcho-capitalist society - with private security acting as enforcers of "property rights" - you have the use of force to get people to do what you want them to do.

Private property rights implies exclusion. And to exclude you need force, coercion and violence.

No, all that is asked is for private property to be respected and non aggression.

People that don't respect private property are simply breaking the principle. I don't have to force them to do anything.
I could deal with the matter using common law and using common sense.

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you know that - whether the tax is placed on income or on sales - it's still a tax, people still pay the tax, and also that most people pay more tax when it is redistributed from income to essential goods, because that only changes where the burden of the tax falls (away from the wealthy, and onto those who consume essential goods).

So your whole 'tax is theft' argument is meaningless, and is based upon silly semantic redefinitions of words, and your failure to understand that people still end up paying the tax, no matter if it is placed on income or on goods - that only changes the distribution of the tax.

No, I said I don't know whether or not people would accept anarchy so respecting the non aggression principle it is only right not to force it upon anyone.

People have accepted a small government republic in the past and this seems like an acceptable balance. We could use lotteries and so on to raise money but as I said I have not seen this in the past and I prefer personally to base what is possible on history...don't you? Like how many millions can crazed leader like Stalin and Hitler kill? Well, we can look at history and see that Communism/Socialism is a great killer...Small government republics tend not to be as punishing to the local population.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ok sin_city, explain to us how private legal systems are going to work: How are you going to stop private legal systems laying claim to property that is (under a competing legal system) already owned by someone else, when none of the legal systems will have ultimate authority?

I have faith in common law and humans to resolve things more than you.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't give a toss about gold, you're just going off on random tangents - I'll repeat again Schiff lost 40%-70% of the value, of assets people invested with him - his hyperinflation predictions were a failure.

I know many people who invested with Schiff's Europac in 2003 and 2004 and are up over 400%.

How did the lose 70%...Can you provide the amount and time of investment? I sounds like bullsh!t unless you can provide these details.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The law isn't decided by conspiracy theorist tax protesters - it is decided by courts (you know, the entities responsible for interpreting and upholding the law), and they say it is legal - end of.

What law? Did you find the law on Income tax?

Please answer this at least...did you find the law...you ignore my questions and ramble...just answer this one....Did you find the income tax law?

KyussBishop wrote: »

This really is Freeman of the Land level stuff this; actual courts have clarified the law, again and again (3-4 times in the case of Schiff's father) so that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

Once again, just want to see the law.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

lolwut? Roads being the property of private corporations has to be one of the looniest ideas of anarcho-capitalism.

Why is that?

For me the funny thing is people banging on about communism even after we have seen it affects economically and on human lives.

Communism and Fascism are just other people forcing people to do what they want....Thankfully people use logic, history and facts to see that's all a load of bollox.

coolemon · 27-02-2014 10:48PM

sin_city wrote: »

No, all that is asked is for private property to be respected and non aggression.

And what makes you think everyone is going to respect that?

If I am at the bottom rung of your social ladder toiling and I see millionaire goon bags going around claiming they are "self made men" despite all the social-scientific evidence to the contrary -> You think I and my fellow intelligent toilers are just going to respect that nuttery?

People that don't respect private property are simply breaking the principle. I don't have to force them to do anything.

And so what if they break the principle. They have their own principles. And if your not going to "force them to do anything" then step aside, you have relinquished your so-called property.

I could deal with the matter using common law

And who or what enforces that law?

You know what, me and my fellow toiling masses will organise and write our own laws. And arm ourselves to assert them.

What are you going to do about it?

Or do you think we would have no reason to do so?

PopePalpatine · 27-02-2014 11:00PM

sin_city wrote: »

Why is [privately-owned roads a bad idea]?

Privately-owned roads would quickly descend into a monopoly (at least on a local scale). Normally free-marketers would say that competition would solve the problem. Let's say there's two towns that are connected by a 10km-long road, Ballywun and Ballytoo. If the owner of the road wants to set up a toll booth between these two towns, there's no-one with any authority to stop him. If he wants to charge motorists €5 every time they pass the toll booth, he's free to do so. The only way to challenge his monopoly is to build a new road between Ballywun and Ballytoo.

Grolschevik · 27-02-2014 11:06PM

sin_city wrote: »

I could deal with the matter using common law and using common sense.

...

People have accepted a small government republic in the past and this seems like an acceptable balance.

...

We could use lotteries and so on to raise money but as I said I have not seen this in the past and I prefer personally to base what is possible on history...don't you?

...

I have faith in common law and humans to resolve things more than you.

...

What law? Did you find the law on Income tax?

...

Please answer this at least...did you find the law...you ignore my questions and ramble...just answer this one....Did you find the income tax law?

...

Once again, just want to see the law.

...

Thankfully people use logic, history and facts to see that's all a load of bollox.

Sigh. I suspect a real Freeman-type Woo-like infection in the vicinity.

Clandestine · 27-02-2014 11:10PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Privately-owned roads would quickly descend into a monopoly (at least on a local scale). Normally free-marketers would say that competition would solve the problem. Let's say there's two towns that are connected by a 10km-long road, Ballywun and Ballytoo. If the owner of the road wants to set up a toll booth between these two towns, there's no-one with any authority to stop him. If he wants to charge motorists €5 every time they pass the toll booth, he's free to do so. The only way to challenge his monopoly is to build a new road between Ballywun and Ballytoo.

If the road is too expensive to drive on, people won't use it. Its in his best interest to remain competitive and keep the cost low. If he keeps his costs down, he won't have to worry about another individual setting up shop.

Clandestine · 27-02-2014 11:10PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

Sigh. I suspect a real Freeman-type Woo-like infection in the vicinity.

Going to address his points at all? Or make more digs at him?

sin_city · 27-02-2014 11:14PM

I'm not saying a small government republic is the perfect system....its just the best we've ever had.

Please see "Tragedy Of The Commons"

You guys don't actually address real problems....we've seen communism...it stinks.

I care about the affects of a system not the intentions of the system....unfortunately for silly socialists like you all, you are the other way around.

Clandestine · 27-02-2014 11:17PM

sin_city wrote: »

The people I listen to are people like Ron Paul and the teachings of Austrian economists.....Is there something about Ron Paul's movement you disagree with?

I like Austrian Economics and Ron Paul, but he often sticks his Christian views into his politics. As an example, I recall him complaining about the sodomy laws being repealed because they weren't referenced in the constitution.

Frank Lee Midere · 27-02-2014 11:31PM

coolemon wrote: »

I don't think communism would necessarily need unlimited material abundance - that would be capitalism!

The point is that, when we produce for use-value, rather than for social value, the actual quantities of materials used for otherwise needless production would be much, much lower.

Planned obsolescence, and the incredible waste of resources therein, would be gone. The construction of super yachts, disposable cars, Segway's (as social value), palaces/mansions, Range Rovers (and their accompanying oil consumption), disposable mobile phones (as social value) - would not take place. Now im only just scratching the surface of the waste that exists.

Our standard of living is a needless one cultivated by the demands and requirements of capitalism. We know that we would need four or five earths to maintain such a standard of living for everyone on earth anyway.

Communism is about putting people in such a situation where they would consume solely on use-value. It would not require star-trek like abundance in my opinion.

So basically you are promoting poverty. I recall old communists used to denigrate capitalism for not fulfilling its productive capacity because it left factories and labour idle, during recessions. It was never concerned with environmentalism.

And the laughable economics. Nobody is really sure what "use value" means but if you destroy the mobile, PC, mobile, car , Segway, phone markets (and subsequent ancillary markets in software, sales, services for these) you will eliminate about 90% of private sector jobs. I mean it's not like older Marxists knew anything about economics, Marx was as much an economist as he was a string theorist, but you guys know nothing.

There is of course no way the actual real living proletariat is going to spontaneously decide to give up their jobs, to be poorer for the sake of revolution. Which is why modern Marxists are generally trustifarians or state sponsored ideologues, or both.

coolemon · 27-02-2014 11:43PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

So basically you are promoting poverty.

Yeah. Im promoting poverty :rolleyes:

Are you promoting poverty too? A guy just called to the door selling poverty to me. So I said yeah, that's a great idea, ill promote it on the internet.

Nobody is really sure what "use value" means

Your right. Nobody knows the use-value of anything. I tried to drink water from my computer earlier and nearly got electrocuted.

you will eliminate about 90% of private sector jobs.

Exactly yeah. The same way wiping childrens arses has been eliminated.

Grolschevik · 27-02-2014 11:43PM

Clandestine wrote: »

Going to address his points at all? Or make more digs at him?

His points so far are either tautological, contradictory, nonsensical, or illogical. So, eh, no.

(Edit: technically, this post would only count as a second "dig", so I'm not sure where the "more digs at him" dig came from).

Clandestine · 27-02-2014 11:54PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

His points so far are either tautological, contradictory, nonsensical, or illogical. So, eh, no.

Point out how they are these things... its not enough to generalise like this

Do you know any Communists?

Comments