Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

MiniPhreek · Feb 14, 2004, 04:00 pm

"They are ignorant of the wealth, productivity and comfort the rest of the world enjoys."

i find it interesting that you would make this point considering that 2/3 of this planets population have not made something so simple as a phone call! and then theres the fact that thousands of people that die every day in afraca from Sarvation! I think you better move beyond your little eurocentric bubble before you make anymore acusations like that. to be perfectly fair it would require aprox 3 more earths in order to have everone living at the same standard as those in the west. personaly i'm not greedy nor am i ignorent, and i'd be willing to give up some of my creature comforts that you seem to take for granted, so that all 6 billion people can have proper housing education and healthcare. by the way have you ever heard of the maslo hirarchy of needs, as i see it these chinise have everything they need at there stage of develpment.

Toussaint · Feb 15, 2004, 04:13 am

Ummm... why is this place considered "communist"? People help others build their lives back up after calamities in non-communist societies. Such examples are prevalent in America for one, when where people donate millions for disaster relief, which arrives well before any relief promised by the government ("public" plunder).

And the farmer whom was interviewed in the story, he gave the fruits of his labor- his property- to others in the village. Did they have a right to his property? Sure doesn't sound like it- or else he wouldn't really be "giving" the food to them, it would already be theirs.

I think to call this village "communist" is a complete mischaracterization.

LiveAndLetLive · Feb 15, 2004, 06:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (MiniPhreek,)
It is My interpratation of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, that he did not intend it to be a State Capitilism or Beurocratic Dictatorship, nor did he intend it to be anarcaic sociaity with no instatutions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mini,

Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read Marx, but I don't believe you are correct here. Did he not call for State to "wither away"?

Marx seemed to want to change human nature, violently, and then when selfishness was no longer part of human nature, then the State would not be necessary. Ultimately, I agree that human nature could use some fixing, but this should be more about acting peacefully, not unselfishly, as it is currently understood. Marx seemed to miss a key to human nature, which is the inherently corrupting nature of power, that is, force. Power is like a drug, and the addicts, the politicians and bureaucrats, won't give it up willingly once they are hooked. That's why Marxism does not work.

RE: TANSTAAFL's point that a "collectivist" community is poor in terms of material things, that's likely true. But if material poverty is the choice of all, why should we be concerned? Some don't care about gadgets and food so much. If they are "pursuing happiness" peacefully and voluntarily, that's their choice, no?

FreedomFirst · Feb 16, 2004, 11:58 am

Phreek - The problem with Marxism is that it cannot manifest itself into anything but Trotskyism or Stalinism. Certainly, on paper it appears as an anarchistic system of equality/etc, but when you try to create a society around it, you'll find yourself drawn toward central planning, either that or your people will embrace libertarianism before you get the chance.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 17, 2004, 08:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (MiniPhreek,)
personaly i'm not greedy nor am i ignorent, and i'd be willing to give up some of my creature comforts that you seem to take for granted, so that all 6 billion people can have proper housing education and healthcare.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Let us know when you have given them up.

--Jackney Sneeb

castille · Feb 17, 2004, 10:04 am

Most Communist-like villages are extremely conservative.

So liberals arent welcome.

Bayou · Feb 19, 2004, 07:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille)
Most Communist-like villages are extremely conservative.
So liberals arent welcome<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well anything that is closer to communism wouldnt have a political spectrum to categorize those people in the 1st place, thus they would have elements that could be considered "conservative" while elements that would be considered "liberal".
It all has to do with environment of such a culture, since liberlisation has as much to do with having so many cultures interacting with each other on daily basis in the world- liberalisation is the natural outcome of such environment.

But anyways, back to the fray........
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Freedom1st)
Phreek - The problem with Marxism is that it cannot manifest itself into anything but Trotskyism or Stalinism. Certainly, on paper it appears as an anarchistic system of equality/etc, but when you try to create a society around it, you'll find yourself drawn toward central planning, either that or your people will embrace libertarianism before you get the chance.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Wait a minute, I thought the whole argument before hand has been that capitalism cannot turn into anything but Stalinism- which I guess would make you a trotskiast of capitalism then.....for if you can point out any nation that adopted Trotskiasm form of communism, I will find you a free market without a government........
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (L$Live)
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read Marx, but I don't believe you are correct here. Did he not call for State to "wither away"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes he did, as in a progressive evolution towards a form of government in that the citizen can represent himself in government.
the main point of marx is that Capitalism NEEDS government to regulate it, thus he is saying that the state will never whither away with the capitalist system in use, which is why he is calling for capitalism to be replaced.
It is the common goal of the communists and anarchists, though their methods are a matter of aesthetics.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Tousaint)
Ummm... why is this place considered "communist"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Because people share in this small communal system, something that is missing from the capitalist system.

Miniphreek, thank you for elaborating on the differences beetween the russian solution to implenting a communist theory and Marxists original theory of communism.
Good to see another knowledgeable communist NDP member, actually nice to see so many canadians now to, I voted in you political questionaire...if only internet polls would result like federal polls.....
Though I am kinda sad you didnt include a communist option, but included the "green" party, I mean comon, thats basically the NDP now that Jack Layton is at the helm.
Anyways back to the main responses to me in chronological order.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Who controls production and consumption? The proletariat? And how, exactly, would they control society?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Culture and environment controls the soceity, the proletariate being part of a society in turn controls production and consumption based on goals and needs of the culture and moderated by the stability and limits of the environmental whole.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
So you're telling me that you wouldn't mandate participation in this society?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Nice dodge, just answer the question: how is volunteerism not part of the communist system I am describing?
Tell me if you need more elaboration on this subject, I remember you have a penchance for brief explanations.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Look closer. Big business leaders were the ones who pushed for government regulation. Government control of money caused the great depression. In a free market a monopoly cannot exist, it's like hitting the speed of light in modern physics, because in a free market a big business model is far more inefficient than a small business model, this is why big business lobbied for the government to regulate and control the market<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well theirs This guy sayin this and This guy saying that how come I cant say both are right?
Both shed a different light on the same subject, though they have different solutions to the same problem, one was taken and economic prosperity eventually came about.
I would be particularily interested in you rebuking the point claiming that "volunteerism" was partly to blame for the collapse of the market.
You can keep talking about your free market, but it has never existed and only remains a theory- unlike the speed of light which is reached by every photon created if left to its natural state.
From a purely scientific point of view, REALITY would suggest that capitalism is not sustainable and only marginaly sustainablity with current regulation: marx goes into depth why this is so.
The capitalist systems values are not based on reality, they are based on placing value on work and making it interchangeable with the commoditee that it is made or aquired with.
Unlike with nature, this commoditee has no value seperate from its work value.
That is inherently why capitalism without regulation is not sustainable, because whether it be large corporations or a whole bunch of seperate ones, it cannot represent the complexity of the natural world and it only does a marginal job describing the human one.
The argument would go to whether Capitalism would merely burn itself out that much faster without regulation to begin with.
And history has told us that without pressure from the proletariate or the government itself, a business will not change its practice.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
I don't think corporations should share rights. I believe in businesses being insured so owners don't lose all of their possessions, but corporations approached that theory from the wrong angle.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay good to see we have agreement here, though what type a Insurance business will exceed in a market, one that is small and has to charge larger insurance fees or one that gets continually bigger and can charge less and les because of the capital it controls.
Similarily, if you think the patent system should be kept just the way it is, what size of businesses can afford more reasearch into new products: one that is small or big?
Wouldnt reasearch take up a larger bite in the profit margin of a smaller company while larger ones would still be able to give out a nice dividend while expending the same amount of money?
Similarily, it seems the extended age rules for patents helps a large corporation keep control of the price for such a new product, guaranteeing that it will deliver to the investors.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
You're ignoring that growth, in a free market, becomes exponentially tougher as companies get larger.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And you ignoring the economic incentives for corporate assimilation.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Thats ironic, considering that America has never been a free market- we've had 6 Marxist tenets in place for nearly a hundred years. Microsoft has been enabled by government-established restrictions/regulations/welfare to business that price out the little guy and enable the big guy<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I beleive that Miniphreek answered this assertion, that the NEP style economic system is an inherently marxist system is false.
So in other words, the U.S has had 6 NEP tenets for a hundred years, with the latter 2 being pro-corporate.
Again, what was forcing those computer manufacturers to have windows pre installed?
What goverment restrictions helped do this, the which welfare checks were threatened to be removed- plus what regulations demanded that MSWindows be installed in all of these computers?
Seems to me that MS only had to say the words "you know we are the only operating system on the market, why not package it directly with you comp?".
And they had a valid point, other then Apple which is looked down by PC users in general had no option for operating systems, other then sticking with the archaic DOS or going with windows.
It was a market neccessity.
In fact the only regulation that I think would be relevant here would be the patent system, the one you have no vocal opinion against, though linux doesnt like it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
What "ethical morality that says you can't steal money?" That kind of thing is a result of wishful thinking. Are you expecting a non-sentient economic system (capitalism) to enforce a "universal morality" pertaining to theft? Yeah, Bayou, in reality bad things happen sometimes. Do you have a hard time realizing that the state and corporations are different sides of the same coin? Here we have you whining about corporations (which are created by the state using "law" which are threats backed by force) stealing from people, and your solution is to institute an organization based on forceful exaction (extortion) of money and redistribution of wealth in order to prevent the original thieves?!?! AHAHAHA<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No a communist system based on bartering would have no money to steal, it would be a system of equal distribution according to needs, with wealth expressed in ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work.
Yes indeed I realise the coin and the faces paradox, one of marx's key points is that business and government have been one and the same thing.
Capitalism is based on stealing, it's economic system revolves around the needs of man, taking from the environemnt without thought of the cause and effect of those actions.
I dont expect a system like that to survive along with the government that is the other side of the same coin.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
You act as if all businessmen are thieves, which is incorrect. I don't advocate the abolition of "government" because it doesn't exist. That's like asking an atheist if he wants to abolish "god." The only thing I'm interested in is abolishing state sponsored violence and institutionalized extortion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Thats because capitalism is theivery, I am glad that we both want to abolish state sponsored violence and theivery to, though then how one would support capitalism in light of its theft and plunder of the natural environment without government regualtion(thievery) seems kinda hypocritical.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
If by "businesses" you mean "corporations," would you mind telling me how a state is going to create a corporation if the state doesn't exist?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Nope I said and ment business, remember you havent explained how anarcho capitalism magically creates a better world while it shrugs of this armour of government, that historically has been so profiteable of a relationship.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Heh, here we go again... On the contrary, if I was filthy rich, I'd give most of the money away(while still leaving myself enough to live comfortably). You've pigeonholed me into a "selfish, money grubbing capitalist asshole" stereotype because I think it's wrong to steal money from people and give it to drug addicts. That said, there's nothing stopping me from doing a bum a good turn now and then, and I've done it before.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Except by giving the bum money you havent done them a good turn, only enabled their ability to feed their addiction.
It is those thieves who take your money who think that they can do a better job then you, and I would have to agree- they are at least trying to help them, rather then buying off their guilty conscience.
Heh you have pigeohold youself with you superficial answers and assumptions.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
As for the "services," what the thief does with the money after he steals it is irrelevant<hr size="1" /></blockquote> unlike you who knows that money will magically make you sober.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Whether he pays for a road, retirement homes for aging test chimps, or votes to give himself a raise and lines his own pockets with it. It's still extortion (give me your money or I will do X), and it's wrong, regardless of where the money goes afterward<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Good I am glad we have reached the same conclusion about capitalism too then, so you are willing to give back the rescources you have taken and remake the environment you have destroyed in the proccess.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Also, you seem to think that benefiting from something, whether directly or indirectly, somehow results in an "obligation" to pay. You can't seem to figure out that if people want roads, security forces, water, et al, that someone will figure out a way to capitalize upon creating this things for them. "I just WIIIISH there was a road I could use to get to the supermarket, but since there isn't, I'll just sit here and starve." <---pffft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Because they have found a way to profit from them, you see businesses dont have to pay the brunt cost of these services themselves because of the univeral theivery that they benefitt from, businesses small and large.
And people are not going to sit around being deprived of their services just to wait until some business has an apiphany about bulding something profiteably that was feesible with a little cooperation from everybody, not to mention more cost effective because they didnt have to pay of dividends to share holders.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
People aren't equal. No matter how much you steal from people and split it up, this won't change.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Hmmmm I see so, the capitalist systems base that "all peoples work value are equal" is in fact false and we should take and use that work time for our own advantage because they are not our "equal".
Again, the capitalist is now the rationale extortionist.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
So help them out and quit advocating extortion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I try, but you do not listen to my plea against extortion and what am I but one man of lesser economic equality then you, I can only invest the time you do not want to spare.......
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
If people want to self-medicate, there's not much you're going to do about it. Throwing stolen money at the issue won't make it go away.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No their is lots I am going to do about it, the economic system though limits the quality of my help. I never said anything about giving drug addicts money.
How simplistic you paint perspectives with, try colouring without cynicism and condescention.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Because there isn't a solution. I'm glad you have found me cooperative in your critique of Anarcho-capitalism<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Try colouring without cynicism and condescention.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Okay.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay, do I need to elaborate more?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
I never said anything about a "personal utopia." I merely said that it's wrong to steal from everyone to pay for other people's problems. You haven't proved that "government" even exists yet, so stop saying that it does all of these wonderful things. "methods change as we speak." Does that mean that the state finds bigger and better ways to flush stolen money down the toilet in a desparate attempt to control something which can't be controlled?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Isnt that the irony, I dont need to prove that government exists- your bithcing about the government proves that it affects you, so unless your mentally unstable I can assume this is a real entity for someone to want to dismantle it.
Oh and I can prove that corporations exist too, guess what operating system I am using and who made it..........
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
I don't distinguish any difference between someone who advocates institutionalised extortion and/or believes in a ficticious entity called "government." That's what authoritarians are, otherwise known as statists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "education." You're not telling me anything I haven't heard before from any other communist. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well I geuss I will say it again, I dont beleive in stealing by any means, whether it be the rape of nature or the rationalisation of extortion of people because an Apetberge thinks their inferior to them.
I see that you are still unclear about the capitalist system then and what it would be like without government, back to the article in question:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
What does that have to do with the fact that extortion is wrong?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>because capitalism sets up a system in which the people are dependent on that system for survival, it is not truely a free market in any sense of the word, capitalist petbeerge dictatorship.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Would you mind breaking that paragraph down and translating<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market".<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Free market, an oxymoron; implying something that doesnt or cannot exist in nature. Why?, next paragraph.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> everything in nature is connected as a whole- their are built in feedback structures to regulate the system, anything that destabilises the system will cause feedback loops of more extreme measure until that instability is under control. <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
A capitalist economy on a small scale with small innefective chains will not destabilise nature so much at first, but as it grows and remains free of natural regualting systems of the world, then nature will destabilise and the environment we thrived in will decay and eventually <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> nature will liquidate us, unless humanity voluntarily regulates itself in its present economic system or a new economic system entirely.
Capitalism has been condemmed to be hobbled by the governmental regulation it so despises or to be superceeded by a economic system that can integrate itself into nature far more effectively.....or sentence humanity to death at the hands of our nihilistic selfishness by the jurry of nature.

castille · Feb 19, 2004, 09:37 am

No matter what happens, no matter how much brainwashing and death camps, we cannot restrain the nature of man.

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Bayou · Feb 19, 2004, 09:43 am

Your exactly right castille Fascism shall never truly succeed at anything other then death and destruction.
Think of capitalism in the same light but on a much slower time scale then hitlers germany progressed at.

FreedomFirst · Feb 20, 2004, 06:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou)

Culture and environment controls the soceity, the proletariate being part of a society in turn controls production and consumption based on goals and needs of the culture and moderated by the stability and limits of the environmental whole.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
"Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. And I don't see how the proletariat can control anything without 51%=100% and 49%=0%.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou)

Nice dodge, just answer the question: how is volunteerism not part of the communist system I am describing?
Tell me if you need more elaboration on this subject, I remember you have a penchance for brief explanations.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It's hardly a dodge. I'm asking if you would mandate participation in your society. Read my signature file.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou)

You can keep talking about your free market, but it has never existed and only remains a theory- unlike the speed of light which is reached by every photon created if left to its natural state.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You're missing the analogy. The speed of light is akin to the status of a monopoly state in a free market.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou)

Wouldnt reasearch take up a larger bite in the profit margin of a smaller company while larger ones would still be able to give out a nice dividend while expending the same amount of money?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It would, not every company is going to be a Main Street store, but we sure wouldn't have any Enrons, Tycos, or other comglomerate giants. Take a look at this brochure:
http://www.quiz2d.com/tools/brochures/corporations.pdf

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou)

And you ignoring the economic incentives for corporate assimilation.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Economic incentives such as those you mention are supplied by government, not a free market. This is pointed out in that brochure I supplied above.

BTW: This forum style is pretty bad, I have a tough time quoting. We should switch to YaBB. Let me know if I missed anything.

Anarchist · Feb 20, 2004, 08:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
No a communist system based on bartering would have no money to steal,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
A communist system based on bartering. Now that's a real novel concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were against bartering (John agreeing to give Joe 12 Zonkles in exchange for 8 Dopplewhiffers, otherwise known as trade, the basis of capitalism). I don't know about you, but I don't much fancy the idea of lugging a wheelbarrow full of potatos to the grocer to exhange them for other products. I'd rather shove twenty bucks in my pocket and drive to the store to get what I need in order to make lunch.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
it would be a system of equal distribution according to needs,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Since your entire system is based on "neeeeed," perhaps you should define what "neeeed" actually means. You might want to add a couple of "in order to's" afterwards, too. "Need" neeeeeds "in order to" after it in order to mean anything. How are you going about determining "need?" Since you haven't supplied an "in order to" I'm going to make an educated guess. Let's say you're determining "need" as "what you neeed in order to survive." Well, that's simple. You don't need much more than a frugal meal a day, some water, a cardboard box, and maybe some rags if you're living up north. Since I know you're not going to be satisfied with that (not many communists ever are), there has to be another meaning behind the word "neeed," but what could it possibly be?

Since I'm pretty sure it's not just basic, bare-bones physical survival you're after, you'll probably have a grocery list of other "necessities" to go along with it. Things like "free healthcare," refridgeration, air conditioning, plumbing, and three balanced meals a day. But...if these things are necessities, how did people survive before these things ever existed? How could a person living in the 1700's have a right to indoor plumbing? Before I go any further, I'll wait until you supply me with a meaning behind the word "need."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
with wealth expressed in ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Sure, intellectual gratification aids the open source model greatly, but it doesn't put food on the table. It depends upon the willingness of people to do things for free. What incentive would a person have to "express ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work?" It certainly wouldn't be wealth (in the sense of physical capital, since communism has theoretically eliminated such things), even going with your expression of the term "wealth." <--"The incentive for expressing ideas and goals in which to strive for in my work is being able to express ideas and goals in which to strive for in my work." I don't think your average assembly line worker is that enthusiastic about plastic injection molding. Granted, some people would do certain things for free because they generally enjoy their work, but you'll find that many people like their jobs because it puts food on the table and extra cash in their pockets (unless it's being taken from them before they ever get a chance to see it). Do you know why people work? To accumulate wealth (in the sense of dollars or a used car).
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Yes indeed I realise the coin and the faces paradox, one of marx's key points is that business and government have been one and the same thing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Marx was wrong, apparently. There's one glaring difference between "government" and business, being the former hasn't been proved to exist.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Capitalism is based on stealing, it's economic system revolves around the needs of man, taking from the environemnt without thought of the cause and effect of those actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Based on stealing? From whom? "It's economic system"? I didn't know capitalism (an economic system) had it's own seperate economic system. Maybe you're under the impression that capitalism is something more than an economic system.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
I dont expect a system like that to survive along with the government that is the other side of the same coin.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What "government?"
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Thats because capitalism is theivery, I am glad that we both want to abolish state sponsored violence and theivery to, though then how one would support capitalism in light of its theft and plunder of the natural environment without government regualtion(thievery) seems kinda hypocritical.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Apparently, you're not interested in abolishing state sponsored violence and thievery. Don't tell me your warped system is going to be "voluntary"... Who is the rightful owner of the "environment"?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Nope I said and ment business, remember you havent explained how anarcho capitalism magically creates a better world while it shrugs of this armour of government, that historically has been so profiteable of a relationship.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I never asserted that anarcho-capitalism magically creates a better world. Ditch the "anarcho" and just call it capitalism, since anarchy already exists in the first place. Obviously, capitalism doesn't "magically create a better world." There's no mechanism in capitalism to prevent bad things from happening by default. People have to take care of that.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Except by giving the bum money you havent done them a good turn, only enabled their ability to feed their addiction.
It is those thieves who take your money who think that they can do a better job then you, and I would have to agree- they are at least trying to help them, rather then buying off their guilty conscience.
Heh you have pigeohold youself with you superficial answers and assumptions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The topmost statement seems to make the implication that all bums are drug addicts, which is a stereotype and just isn't true. Nice job, you insensitive cock. I don't care how many bums are helped out. It doesn't justify the long history of atrocities and wrong-doings committed by the state.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
unlike you who knows that money will magically make you sober.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I never stated nor implied such a thing. Maybe you have "pigeohold youself with you superficial answers and assumptions."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Good I am glad we have reached the same conclusion about capitalism too then, so you are willing to give back the rescources you have taken and remake the environment you have destroyed in the proccess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What resources? Again, who is the rightful owner of the environment? The theft of something requires a righrful owner (the wronged party) and a perpetrator. Don't just talk that talk, Bayou. Walk the walk. Recycle your computer and stop using paper, it "destroys the environment." I wouldn't use the plumbing if I were you, PVC pipe is made in factories with evil, grimy smoke stacks that "destroy the environment."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Hmmmm I see so, the capitalist systems base that "all peoples work value are equal" is in fact false and we should take and use that work time for our own advantage because they are not our "equal".Again, the capitalist is now the rationale extortionist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
"All people's work value" isn't equal. That's why doctors get paid $100,000 a year and kids working at McDonald's get paid $5.25 an hour. "take and use that work time for our own advantage because they are not..blah blah" <---what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Your post has been nothing but one rambling string of non sequitur after another.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Try colouring without cynicism and condescention.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No. Why are you whining about condescension, anyway? After you dubbing me cute little nicknames like "Apetberg" and calling me a selfish tyrant? Ack.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Well I geuss I will say it again, I dont beleive in stealing by any means, whether it be the rape of nature or the rationalisation of extortion of people because an Apetberge thinks their inferior to them.
I see that you are still unclear about the capitalist system then and what it would be like without government, back to the article in question:<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yadda yadda yadda, red herring, blah blah blah, non sequitur, yak yak...
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Free market, an oxymoron; implying something that doesnt or cannot exist in nature. Why?, next paragraph.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Free market = free from state interference. "Free Market" doesn't mean "free from the laws of physics" or "Free from bad things happening like pandemics, pollution, strip mining and overpopulation."
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
nature will liquidate us, unless humanity voluntarily regulates itself in its present economic system or a new economic system entirely.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Let's face facts here: you're not interested in "voluntary." You're interested in "making things equal" (whatever that means), and I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't have any qualms about using guns to try and make that a reality. Just another fascist...

Anarchist · Feb 20, 2004, 08:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,)
"Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

His entire philosophy is based upon vague rhetoric. Watch out for "hot words" like "culture," "environment" and "need." Communists especially love to use "need." <--- "I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED BILL GATES MONEY! HE HAS TOO MUCH!!! HE DOESN'T NEEEEEEEEEED IT!"

Argh.

FreedomFirst · Feb 21, 2004, 11:24 am

Agreed, this is why Communism always turns into a dictatorship.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,)
"Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

His entire philosophy is based upon vague rhetoric. Watch out for "hot words" like "culture," "environment" and "need." Communists especially love to use "need." <--- "I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED BILL GATES MONEY! HE HAS TOO MUCH!!! HE DOESN'T NEEEEEEEEEED IT!"

Argh.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Bayou · Feb 22, 2004, 02:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
"Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. And I don't see how the proletariat can control anything without 51%=100% and 49%=0%<hr size="1" /></blockquote> hmmmm vague math for supposedly vague statements, whew how do I answer this one

But to ram home the original point I was making, is that an economic system doesnt have to be desighned to control soceity like capitalism has been desighned to do by carrot on a string coersion.
Their are already human and environmental conditions that did that job admirably before the theory of the "free market" ever materialised.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
It's hardly a dodge. I'm asking if you would mandate participation in your society. Read my signature file<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Sorry, it was peculiar choice of words that made it feel like a dodge, but then I realise that your choice of words are chosen to represent a totalitarianist steoryotype of political language: Unless you hunt for your food and construct everything with your bare hands in a capitalist soceity(on land that you dont own though[illegal in a capitalist system], unless you have cheated and purchased it), you are MANDATED to participate in the capitalist system.
Hence of course their is no mandate to participate in this communist system, that isnt already mandated by the existence of the capitalist system.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
You're missing the analogy. The speed of light is akin to the status of a monopoly state in a free market<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes and your misssing the "science" you complain on the one hand that a free market has never existed, but then you say that this non existent system will retard such groath so adamently to make an allusion to proven scientific fact.
So again, your missing the science to prove that statement; especially contrary to historical observations of the business in the capitalist system.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
It would, not every company is going to be a Main Street store, but we sure wouldn't have any Enrons, Tycos, or other conglomerate giants. Take a look at this brochure:<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I read the brochure, curious that an organisation that claims to support decentralisation also supports corporate value tax that would have to applied by a national government body, if not an international government body considering the multinational corporations in todays world.
But then again it also claims that it was marx's Idea to nationalise all corporate entities, when in fact that was Lenin and the bolsheviks, who readily conceded that the NEP was a concession to the right.
If the facts of a brochure are wonky, guess you should expect the same from the theory.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Economic incentives such as those you mention are supplied by government, not a free market. This is pointed out in that brochure I supplied above<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes what your brochure points out, again that wonky logic. It makes no sense to the examples I made: tax dodging by Microsoft with mergers is nonsense, as the size/cost expended on the consumption were negligble because of the size difference beetween MS and small IND companies.
The brochure has no relevance to an insurance company, which is the most attractive in the market with lower fees charged, which means economic pressure for continual growth: esspecially with the addition of a "Capitalist risk insurance[tax]" in the effect to replace the cost saving loopholes of the legal corporation.
An insurance company in such capitalist system would have no choice but to be a multi national entity to a stable market.
Same goes for an energy company , in which their fees charged for services are most attractive when charges are smaller(not to mention more stable) then the competition, so nix the enronisation of energy company tendancies in a "free" market.
Though you have yet to address the bigger issues on the
Horizon which I brought up about the nature of the capitalist system left to its own devices.
The Capitalist system does not regulate its action within the confines of the biological whole.
Not to mention how you ommited answering other questions like your stance on the patent system that helps encourage monopolies, conflicting theories on what caused the great depression and the prosperity of the 50's and 60's.

Anyhow on to Apetberges reactionary diatribes.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
A communist system based on bartering. Now that's a real novel concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were against bartering (John agreeing to give Joe 12 Zonkles in exchange for 8 Dopplewhiffers, otherwise known as trade, the basis of capitalism). I don't know about you, but I don't much fancy the idea of lugging a wheelbarrow full of potatos to the grocer to exhange them for other products. I'd rather shove twenty bucks in my pocket and drive to the store to get what I need in order to make lunch.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
My my, how unknowledgeable you are of communist theory vs communist practicality.
Communist practicality tells us that we cannot develop a truly communist economic system until capitalist style bartering been usurped in the world.
Thus I propose a novel solution instead of concetrating on the very abuseable government controlled NEP system, to eliminate monetary trade by a system of direct barter of worktime giving, with scientific values of the ecological condition being applied by the proletariate to control production VS the consumption.
Though your idea of wheeling in potatoes would only be kinda relevant to a farmers situation- it does not express the worktime value of transporting those items would entale to give him all that much more bartering leverage.
Thus the ablity to remove the monetary unit value from the commodity makes the 1st step towards developing a communist system while still being able to guarantee freedom of movement with nations that have not adopted this system.
Succinctly, their is no proof that their is not other ways to represent the value of worktime and its representative commoditee except as a monetary unit.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
Since your entire system is based on "neeeeed," perhaps you should define what "neeeed" actually means. You might want to add a couple of "in order to's" afterwards, too. "Need" neeeeeds "in order to" after it in order to mean anything. How are you going about determining "need?" Since you haven't supplied an "in order to" I'm going to make an educated guess. Let's say you're determining "need" as "what you neeed in order to survive." Well, that's simple. You don't need much more than a frugal meal a day, some water, a cardboard box, and maybe some rags if you're living up north. Since I know you're not going to be satisfied with that (not many communists ever are), there has to be another meaning behind the word "neeed," but what could it possibly be?
Since I'm pretty sure it's not just basic, bare-bones physical survival you're after, you'll probably have a grocery list of other "necessities" to go along with it. Things like "free healthcare," refridgeration, air conditioning, plumbing, and three balanced meals a day. But...if these things are necessities, how did people survive before these things ever existed? How could a person living in the 1700's have a right to indoor plumbing? Before I go any further, I'll wait until you supply me with a meaning behind the word "need.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I see when you say "Before I go any further" you actually mean to continue on for another page or so ranting, though I see many of the responses are single sentences comparitively to the quotes, so perhaps you ment "before I add anything more of value to my argument".
Yes how could some one from the 1700's survive on such frugal means, while people in 1990's and 2000's food supplies have 50% less vitamins and nutrients then the f food supplies in the 1950's?
Increased consumption and obesity are the only means to survival in a modern day scenario.
Given such an alarming fact you need to attach real or scientific value to the needs or neccessities of the human body + the needs of human soceity which are embodied by the statuate of human rights VS the ecological condition and economic ability.
With these functions you will be able to determine what the best course of action will be, though you know pieces that need to be solved, nutrient levels must be increased while consumption must decrease.
One frugal meal a day, some water and a cardboard box will not let you survive in the "north" (especially canada) especially when considering the functions coming into play(of course much of its common sense, no one survives canada in a cardboard box when its minus 40).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
Sure, intellectual gratification aids the open source model greatly, but it doesn't put food on the table.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Right, basic scientific values of physical human needs would determine what food gets put on the table.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
It depends upon the willingness of people to do things for free.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> No it depends on the willingness of people to share. <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
What incentive would a person have to "express ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Funny I thought being able to express goals or ideas implies organising things where they should belong: goals and ideas, the things that truly drive society, rather then the distortion that an economic system has to use coersion to bend someone else to the Idea and goal<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
It certainly wouldn't be wealth (in the sense of physical capital, since communism has theoretically eliminated such things), even going with your expression of the term "wealth." <--"The incentive for expressing ideas and goals in which to strive for in my work is being able to express ideas and goals in which to strive for in my work." I don't think your average assembly line worker is that enthusiastic about plastic injection molding.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>They might not be enthusiastic about plastic injection molding, but I have lost count of the car crazy people in which such production methods are used for.This is the idea and goal. To say that they are not crazy about it doesnt not tell you any reason why that is.To give the person the power to determine how they share their worktime is letting a person determine what they value in work and time <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
Granted, some people would do certain things for free because they generally enjoy their work, but you'll find that many people like their jobs because it puts food on the table and extra cash in their pockets (unless it's being taken from them before they ever get a chance to see it). Do you know why people work? To accumulate wealth (in the sense of dollars or a used car)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I agree, people want to see the fruits of their labour, but how will that happen in a system that guarantees the employer gets the lionshare value of the labour?
Sure you have the social democrat solution of a heavily moderating government, but their action are no better then the management thieves who take 1st.
Many more people would volunteer to share their worktime if they realised how it is the real cause of the accumulation of material wealth today, or that the elimination of trivial production would help materialise hopes goals and Ideas into reality.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
Marx was wrong, apparently. There's one glaring difference between "government" and business, being the former hasn't been proved to exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Well he aint anti-capitalism for nothin ya know.
though if you could track down Marx volumes of "Das Politikal" you notify me kay

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)

Based on stealing? From whom? "It's economic system"? I didn't know capitalism (an economic system) had it's own seperate economic system. Maybe you're under the impression that capitalism is something more than an economic system<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Capitalism, or more succinctly employers of the capitalist system steal employees work time and claim the commoditees the proletariate create as products of the employer.
Succinctly capitalism takes materials from the natural worlds without second thought to the consequences or balances neccessary to keep an ecological balance.
Both are stealing.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
What "government?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The economic governance of the people through coercion by accumulation of wealth that does not equal the worktime invested.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
Who is the rightful owner of the "environment"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> No one is the rightful owner of the evironment, though the environment that is affected and changed by the worktime of a person becomes property of the state through the cause and effects of these actions on the whole.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
I never asserted that anarcho-capitalism magically creates a better world. Ditch the "anarcho" and just call it capitalism, since anarchy already exists in the first place. Obviously, capitalism doesn't "magically create a better world." There's no mechanism in capitalism to prevent bad things from happening by default. People have to take care of that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I see so it is an economic dictatorship over the environment, which has an economic dictatorship over the majority of the people who do the work in this economic system.
So the people have to invoke an imaginary government that doesnt exist to control it, in which this theory that empowers the people is wrong because it draws its rescources in the exact same manner as the capitalist system does.
in order for "People to have to take care of that" would be to over throw the capitalist system with a system that integrates itself in balance with the natural world.The Irony here being that capitalism asserts itself over anarchy, distorting it and then you identifying as an anarchist, while supporting the system that wishes to remove that anarchy.
Perhaps you should call yourself the "nihilist" instead.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
The topmost statement seems to make the implication that all bums are drug addicts, which is a stereotype and just isn't true. Nice job, you insensitive cock. I don't care how many bums are helped out. It doesn't justify the long history of atrocities and wrong-doings committed by the state.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes the majority of homeless people have mental illness, which again giving them money on the street would not help them out of that illness, or their homelessness.I agree, the capitalists and its system that has heleped support these states must be held accountable, an accessory to the crime as you would.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberge)
What resources? Again, who is the rightful owner of the environment? The theft of something requires a righrful owner (the wronged party) and a perpetrator. Don't just talk that talk, Bayou. Walk the walk. Recycle your computer and stop using paper, it "destroys the environment." I wouldn't use the plumbing if I were you, PVC pipe is made in factories with evil, grimy smoke stacks that "destroy the environment."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>No one is the rightful owner of the evironment, though the environment that is affected and changed by the worktime of a person becomes property of the state through the cause and effects of these actions on the whole. I can only walk the walk as far as the economic system that delegates the capital value of my worktime will let me.
I put the utmost effort into recycling as many of the things I use as the system will give a care about. How can I recycle the cardboard at my workplace when the company I work for will call the dump truck becaue it is more conveniant for them? Those who control the capital in a capitalist society are the ones who hold power of such a society. The individual environmentalist has reached its power in the capitalist system long ago, it is only through government more authoritarian state con

Feb 15, 2004, 04:13 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
Toussaint Molten Ash Posts: 43	Ummm... why is this place considered "communist"? People help others build their lives back up after calamities in non-communist societies. Such examples are prevalent in America for one, when where people donate millions for disaster relief, which arrives well before any relief promised by the government ("public" plunder). And the farmer whom was interviewed in the story, he gave the fruits of his labor- his property- to others in the village. Did they have a right to his property? Sure doesn't sound like it- or else he wouldn't really be "giving" the food to them, it would already be theirs. I think to call this village "communist" is a complete mischaracterization. "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat "Now go and sin no more!" - Jesus Christ

Feb 15, 2004, 06:22 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (MiniPhreek,) It is My interpratation of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, that he did not intend it to be a State Capitilism or Beurocratic Dictatorship, nor did he intend it to be anarcaic sociaity with no instatutions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Mini, Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read Marx, but I don't believe you are correct here. Did he not call for State to "wither away"? Marx seemed to want to change human nature, violently, and then when selfishness was no longer part of human nature, then the State would not be necessary. Ultimately, I agree that human nature could use some fixing, but this should be more about acting peacefully, not unselfishly, as it is currently understood. Marx seemed to miss a key to human nature, which is the inherently corrupting nature of power, that is, force. Power is like a drug, and the addicts, the politicians and bureaucrats, won't give it up willingly once they are hooked. That's why Marxism does not work. RE: TANSTAAFL's point that a "collectivist" community is poor in terms of material things, that's likely true. But if material poverty is the choice of all, why should we be concerned? Some don't care about gadgets and food so much. If they are "pursuing happiness" peacefully and voluntarily, that's their choice, no?

Feb 16, 2004, 11:58 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	Phreek - The problem with Marxism is that it cannot manifest itself into anything but Trotskyism or Stalinism. Certainly, on paper it appears as an anarchistic system of equality/etc, but when you try to create a society around it, you'll find yourself drawn toward central planning, either that or your people will embrace libertarianism before you get the chance. "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 17, 2004, 08:01 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (MiniPhreek,) personaly i'm not greedy nor am i ignorent, and i'd be willing to give up some of my creature comforts that you seem to take for granted, so that all 6 billion people can have proper housing education and healthcare.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let us know when you have given them up. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 17, 2004, 10:04 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Most Communist-like villages are extremely conservative. So liberals arent welcome. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 14, 2004, 04:00 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
MiniPhreek Sedimentary Rock Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 9	"They are ignorant of the wealth, productivity and comfort the rest of the world enjoys." i find it interesting that you would make this point considering that 2/3 of this planets population have not made something so simple as a phone call! and then theres the fact that thousands of people that die every day in afraca from Sarvation! I think you better move beyond your little eurocentric bubble before you make anymore acusations like that. to be perfectly fair it would require aprox 3 more earths in order to have everone living at the same standard as those in the west. personaly i'm not greedy nor am i ignorent, and i'd be willing to give up some of my creature comforts that you seem to take for granted, so that all 6 billion people can have proper housing education and healthcare. by the way have you ever heard of the maslo hirarchy of needs, as i see it these chinise have everything they need at there stage of develpment.

Feb 19, 2004, 09:37 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	No matter what happens, no matter how much brainwashing and death camps, we cannot restrain the nature of man. Tyger Tyger burning bright, In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 19, 2004, 09:43 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	Your exactly right castille Fascism shall never truly succeed at anything other then death and destruction. Think of capitalism in the same light but on a much slower time scale then hitlers germany progressed at. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Feb 20, 2004, 06:29 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou) Culture and environment controls the soceity, the proletariate being part of a society in turn controls production and consumption based on goals and needs of the culture and moderated by the stability and limits of the environmental whole. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. And I don't see how the proletariat can control anything without 51%=100% and 49%=0%. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou) Nice dodge, just answer the question: how is volunteerism not part of the communist system I am describing? Tell me if you need more elaboration on this subject, I remember you have a penchance for brief explanations. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's hardly a dodge. I'm asking if you would mandate participation in your society. Read my signature file. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou) You can keep talking about your free market, but it has never existed and only remains a theory- unlike the speed of light which is reached by every photon created if left to its natural state. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're missing the analogy. The speed of light is akin to the status of a monopoly state in a free market. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou) Wouldnt reasearch take up a larger bite in the profit margin of a smaller company while larger ones would still be able to give out a nice dividend while expending the same amount of money? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It would, not every company is going to be a Main Street store, but we sure wouldn't have any Enrons, Tycos, or other comglomerate giants. Take a look at this brochure: http://www.quiz2d.com/tools/brochures/corporations.pdf </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou) And you ignoring the economic incentives for corporate assimilation. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Economic incentives such as those you mention are supplied by government, not a free market. This is pointed out in that brochure I supplied above. BTW: This forum style is pretty bad, I have a tough time quoting. We should switch to YaBB. Let me know if I missed anything. "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 20, 2004, 08:41 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) No a communist system based on bartering would have no money to steal,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> A communist system based on bartering. Now that's a real novel concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were against bartering (John agreeing to give Joe 12 Zonkles in exchange for 8 Dopplewhiffers, otherwise known as trade, the basis of capitalism). I don't know about you, but I don't much fancy the idea of lugging a wheelbarrow full of potatos to the grocer to exhange them for other products. I'd rather shove twenty bucks in my pocket and drive to the store to get what I need in order to make lunch. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) it would be a system of equal distribution according to needs,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Since your entire system is based on "neeeeed," perhaps you should define what "neeeed" actually means. You might want to add a couple of "in order to's" afterwards, too. "Need" neeeeeds "in order to" after it in order to mean anything. How are you going about determining "need?" Since you haven't supplied an "in order to" I'm going to make an educated guess. Let's say you're determining "need" as "what you neeed in order to survive." Well, that's simple. You don't need much more than a frugal meal a day, some water, a cardboard box, and maybe some rags if you're living up north. Since I know you're not going to be satisfied with that (not many communists ever are), there has to be another meaning behind the word "neeed," but what could it possibly be? Since I'm pretty sure it's not just basic, bare-bones physical survival you're after, you'll probably have a grocery list of other "necessities" to go along with it. Things like "free healthcare," refridgeration, air conditioning, plumbing, and three balanced meals a day. But...if these things are necessities, how did people survive before these things ever existed? How could a person living in the 1700's have a right to indoor plumbing? Before I go any further, I'll wait until you supply me with a meaning behind the word "need." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) with wealth expressed in ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sure, intellectual gratification aids the open source model greatly, but it doesn't put food on the table. It depends upon the willingness of people to do things for free. What incentive would a person have to "express ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work?" It certainly wouldn't be wealth (in the sense of physical capital, since communism has theoretically eliminated such things), even going with your expression of the term "wealth." <--"The incentive for expressing ideas and goals in which to strive for in my work is being able to express ideas and goals in which to strive for in my work." I don't think your average assembly line worker is that enthusiastic about plastic injection molding. Granted, some people would do certain things for free because they generally enjoy their work, but you'll find that many people like their jobs because it puts food on the table and extra cash in their pockets (unless it's being taken from them before they ever get a chance to see it). Do you know why people work? To accumulate wealth (in the sense of dollars or a used car). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Yes indeed I realise the coin and the faces paradox, one of marx's key points is that business and government have been one and the same thing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Marx was wrong, apparently. There's one glaring difference between "government" and business, being the former hasn't been proved to exist. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Capitalism is based on stealing, it's economic system revolves around the needs of man, taking from the environemnt without thought of the cause and effect of those actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Based on stealing? From whom? "It's economic system"? I didn't know capitalism (an economic system) had it's own seperate economic system. Maybe you're under the impression that capitalism is something more than an economic system. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) I dont expect a system like that to survive along with the government that is the other side of the same coin.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What "government?" </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Thats because capitalism is theivery, I am glad that we both want to abolish state sponsored violence and theivery to, though then how one would support capitalism in light of its theft and plunder of the natural environment without government regualtion(thievery) seems kinda hypocritical.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Apparently, you're not interested in abolishing state sponsored violence and thievery. Don't tell me your warped system is going to be "voluntary"... Who is the rightful owner of the "environment"? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Nope I said and ment business, remember you havent explained how anarcho capitalism magically creates a better world while it shrugs of this armour of government, that historically has been so profiteable of a relationship.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never asserted that anarcho-capitalism magically creates a better world. Ditch the "anarcho" and just call it capitalism, since anarchy already exists in the first place. Obviously, capitalism doesn't "magically create a better world." There's no mechanism in capitalism to prevent bad things from happening by default. People have to take care of that. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Except by giving the bum money you havent done them a good turn, only enabled their ability to feed their addiction. It is those thieves who take your money who think that they can do a better job then you, and I would have to agree- they are at least trying to help them, rather then buying off their guilty conscience. Heh you have pigeohold youself with you superficial answers and assumptions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The topmost statement seems to make the implication that all bums are drug addicts, which is a stereotype and just isn't true. Nice job, you insensitive cock. I don't care how many bums are helped out. It doesn't justify the long history of atrocities and wrong-doings committed by the state. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) unlike you who knows that money will magically make you sober.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never stated nor implied such a thing. Maybe you have "pigeohold youself with you superficial answers and assumptions." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Good I am glad we have reached the same conclusion about capitalism too then, so you are willing to give back the rescources you have taken and remake the environment you have destroyed in the proccess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What resources? Again, who is the rightful owner of the environment? The theft of something requires a righrful owner (the wronged party) and a perpetrator. Don't just talk that talk, Bayou. Walk the walk. Recycle your computer and stop using paper, it "destroys the environment." I wouldn't use the plumbing if I were you, PVC pipe is made in factories with evil, grimy smoke stacks that "destroy the environment." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Hmmmm I see so, the capitalist systems base that "all peoples work value are equal" is in fact false and we should take and use that work time for our own advantage because they are not our "equal".Again, the capitalist is now the rationale extortionist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "All people's work value" isn't equal. That's why doctors get paid $100,000 a year and kids working at McDonald's get paid $5.25 an hour. "take and use that work time for our own advantage because they are not..blah blah" <---what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Your post has been nothing but one rambling string of non sequitur after another. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Try colouring without cynicism and condescention.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No. Why are you whining about condescension, anyway? After you dubbing me cute little nicknames like "Apetberg" and calling me a selfish tyrant? Ack. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Well I geuss I will say it again, I dont beleive in stealing by any means, whether it be the rape of nature or the rationalisation of extortion of people because an Apetberge thinks their inferior to them. I see that you are still unclear about the capitalist system then and what it would be like without government, back to the article in question:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yadda yadda yadda, red herring, blah blah blah, non sequitur, yak yak... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Free market, an oxymoron; implying something that doesnt or cannot exist in nature. Why?, next paragraph.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Free market = free from state interference. "Free Market" doesn't mean "free from the laws of physics" or "Free from bad things happening like pandemics, pollution, strip mining and overpopulation." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) nature will liquidate us, unless humanity voluntarily regulates itself in its present economic system or a new economic system entirely.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's face facts here: you're not interested in "voluntary." You're interested in "making things equal" (whatever that means), and I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't have any qualms about using guns to try and make that a reality. Just another fascist...

Feb 20, 2004, 08:45 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,) "Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> His entire philosophy is based upon vague rhetoric. Watch out for "hot words" like "culture," "environment" and "need." Communists especially love to use "need." <--- "I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED BILL GATES MONEY! HE HAS TOO MUCH!!! HE DOESN'T NEEEEEEEEEED IT!" Argh.

Feb 21, 2004, 11:24 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	Agreed, this is why Communism always turns into a dictatorship. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,) "Culture and environment" controls your society? Sounds vague. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> His entire philosophy is based upon vague rhetoric. Watch out for "hot words" like "culture," "environment" and "need." Communists especially love to use "need." <--- "I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED BILL GATES MONEY! HE HAS TOO MUCH!!! HE DOESN'T NEEEEEEEEEED IT!" Argh.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org