Plagiarism. Nice. No credit, then? Or perhaps I am sadly mistaken, and you are to original writer of all that?
Also, this -
Is comparing the USA, its leadership and citizens to those of Nazi Germany. I don't appreciate that. Please don't do that again, it is highy disrespectful.US Reich
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Why their both very highly similar. Just read these page'sOriginally Posted by War Angel
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes;read=34829,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html ,
http://watch.pair.com/reich.html.
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7556
http://opednews.com/articles/opedne_...who_told_o.htm This article is a perfect example of the so called freedom of speech you guys have:rolleyes2 .
Holy God! He told the Vice President to go smurf himself, and all they did was take his details down and make sure he wasn't about to murder anyone? My God! The horror! The inhumanity! The sheer barbarism... oh... wait a tick. Inconvenient, yes, but hardly totalitarian. The guys with the M-16s said he had broken no laws and was free to go. This really isn't convincing me that the US is all fascist, k?
See, that's one of the roots of the whole problem. There is no established method for deciding how much people's labor is worth other than how much they get paid. An entire philosophy built on that flawed principle is so amazingly shaky that I express constant surprise that it has any followers whatsoever.15. WHAT IS SURPLUS VALUE?
The new value created in the course of production by a worker's labour over and above the value of his labour power. If a worker receiving £100 a week in wages were to create only £100 a week in value, his employer would obtain no benefit from employing him and would cease to do so.
An employer will employ a worker only if he produces in a week an amount of new value which exceeds what is paid to him in wages. The difference is the surplus value -- value which is created by the worker but appropriated by his employer. If a worker creates £200 of new value in a week but is paid £100 in wages, his employer has obtained £100 in surplus value from that worker. So, if he employs 1,000 such workers, he obtains a total of £100,000 of surplus value in a week.
This is the mechanism by which the capitalist class exploits the working class. Clearly, exploitation under capitalism has a more concealed character than under slavery or feudalism.
Their is no money in a Communist society genuis.Communism is not about paying people wages equally, its about abolishing wages, its about abolishing work as we know it.See, that's one of the roots of the whole problem. There is no established method for deciding how much people's labor is worth other than how much they get paid.
We are lazy because we have to work; work is boring and oppressive, it drains our creativity as we repeat the same mundane task over and over because our boss told us to do. We have no escape out of this but consumerist society; where we spend the miserable crumbs we make on spetacular society, where our very image of our life is spit back out into our faces; hoping for some temporary resolve to our unhappiness. The boss drives us to work as much as possible; the more work we do, the more profit he makes; really, it is not nessecary to work 8 hours a day, but we do it anyway, because the boss desires it.
Communism is about free labor power; doing what you want, doing what fullfills you, not being restricted to do what you truly desire, its about abolishing work and bosses, and the opressive, alienated society that is built around it.
Maybe its because you knowAn entire philosophy built on that flawed principle is so amazingly shaky that I express constant surprise that it has any followers whatsoever.about Communism except what i already told you on this forum. And the propaganda your goverment has fed you.
Uh, you keep with the "lolz you don't know communism" but you think "work" (which means, creative effort, which means, individual achievement) can be abolished and the world will run without honest effort? Which one of us knows "
And for the record: our government never really taught about communism. What I learned I learned from reading YOUR propaganda. Marx meant well, but I fear he was crazy.
There never was any "honest effort" they work because they have to or they get nothing. In capitalism you can't always be what you want, either you have no capital to start your company, or have no chance because of cost of tuition.
It definatelly isnt you :rolleyes2 .Which one of us knows "
Except junk like "Communism involves a all powerful dictator which tells you how to think and act.". And all those anti-Communist video's they showed during the cold war and are starting to show again in grade school.And for the record: our government never really taught about communism.
My propaganda? Nice one:rolleyes2 . At least i think for myself unlike you. You sure know alot about Marxism since you didnt know its a State-less society. Thats just how much you paid attention to marx's books and my post's.What I learned I learned from reading YOUR propaganda. Marx meant well, but I fear he was crazy.
Uh, no. I was eighteen, working in a factory, and had no money - and now I am going to school because I got a loan and use the money I made in the factory to keep me running. So, I did just fine. Try again, please....ok.It definatelly isnt you :rolleyes2 .
Go to a Red Theatre or a Red School eighty years ago and tell me how many times you hear "capitalistic exploitation", "dog-eat-dog mentality" and "starving proletarian" when they talk about America. (And, no, I really didn't see any of that. All of my teachers tended to see communism as "noble", the idiots.)Except junk like "Communism involves a all powerful dictator which tells you how to think and act.". And all those anti-Communist video's they showed during the cold war and are starting to show again in grade school.How do I not think for myself? Because I support liberty, justice, and freedom? Or because I don't agree with you and your party/mob?My propaganda? Nice one:rolleyes2 . At least i think for myself unlike you.No, I really get the idea of "pure communism" or "anarcho-socialism"; I was saying it's impossible, as impossible as anarchism.You sure know alot about Marxism since you didnt know its a State-less society. Thats just how much you paid attention to marx's books and my post's.
I am as of now offically a Communist. I cant believe i thought all this time Communism sucked and everyone was in misery. But in reality it is something much deferent.
You know, for some reason this has about as much sincerity as an angsty teenager telling his parents he's a goth.I am as of now offically a Communist
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Can't argue that. :rolleyes2You know, for some reason this has about as much sincerity as an angsty teenager telling his parents he's a goth.
Uhuh, so how do things get made if nobody is making them? As I have said, the ultimate ideal is one of complete automation where nobody at all has to work. We'd probably get overthrown by the sentient AI, but that's for another thread. Short of that, someone is going to have to work, and outside of a close circle of family and friends, people aren't going to work for other people. They're certainly not going to go for a job they don't want to do, and there are plenty of jobs people don't want to do.
Oh, and I never got any communist propoganda at school. It was the 90s (In England, no less.), people weren't bothered about Communism anymore. I don't know many people of my generation who've watched any anti-Communist propoganda. (Not that propoganda is necessary, just tell the truth and any self-respecting individual will reject the idea instantly.)
Would you of worked in that factory if you had the money?
Which would of been free under Communism. What about the less fortunate? Those's who cant pay or get the debt?- and now I am going to school because I got a loan and use the money I made in the factory to keep me running. So, I did just fine.
What would you expect? The US was doing the same thing too the Soviets. It's obvious they'd Demonize the US as much as they Demonized them.Go to a Red Theatre or a Red School eighty years ago and tell me how many times you hear "capitalistic exploitation", "dog-eat-dog mentality" and "starving proletarian" when they talk about America.
Where's the Liberty and justice in invading a country for profit? Where's the freedom when your country is being forced to follow a ideologyHow do I not think for myself? Because I support liberty, justice, and freedom?
of another?
Why is it impossible if it was never attempted? How are you so sure it wont work?Or because I don't agree with you and your party/mob?No, I really get the idea of "pure communism" or "anarcho-socialism"; I was saying it's impossible, as impossible as anarchism.
Of course he wouldn't have. But where would the goods come from if people didn't work in the factories?
Teek's been quiet plain is saying that he did not and does not support the War in Iraq. Or any other overseas action that I can call to mind reading his comments on, actually. At any rate, this allows me to springboard into a point I realized when I was in the shower earlier (Restrain yourselves ladies, I'm taken.).Where's the Liberty and justice in invading a country for profit? Where's the freedom when your country is being forced to follow a ideology
of another?
A capitalist society quite happily permits communist behaviour. Say you live on a street of 100 people (For ease of numbers.). You could without any trouble (Well, assuming everyone was agreeable to the idea of course. Nice that, opting out, isn't it?) get together and arrange to pool your incomes, to ensure everyone on the street gets funding for their rent, food, heating, electricity, and so forth. It also means you could acquire the resources to buy a plot of land and some tools and farm your own foods. You could buy solar panels and suchlike and produce your own electricity.
Every attempt at it has been derailed by some faction or another taking power and killing many people, in some cases tens of millions. It might work itself (Though I doubt it.) but if it can't even be implemented how can one justify, at this time and with this species, attempting to implement it again?Why is it impossible if it was never attempted? How are you so sure it wont work?
One intangible benefit is the personal freedom of doing what you want. This goes along with the division of labor, which is extremely rigid in capitalism, becoming fuzzier in communism. In communism, you'll have farmers who obviously farm the land, but they will not just be farmers. Who's to say a particularly lousy farmer, who still does his work, will not be a fantastic writer? You will have people with many more skills, skills that they can do because of their lack of reliance on capital. Freedom of the individual in communism actually will grow, contrary to what many capitalists say.
As for tangible benefits, how about the commune's subsistence for one? If the people sleep all day and do no work, as seems to be your father's rather usual capitalist objection, will these people survive? I argue that people naturally have a will to survive, people do not want to die, and they will do what is required to avoid death. This means work. The will to survival is not easily debated, as we all undoubtedly have it. People in communism will work for personal and collective entertainment and enjoyment, as well as communal subsistence. In short, if you don't work, you obviously don't get any food. Why would people simply not work and thus starve themselves to death? Such logic boggles the mind.
Going along with that, many a capitalist has said that 'selfish' desires will take over the people. But this also, when looked at critically, amkes little sense. It is inarguable that in a small commune, every one person will do something constructive for the whole. Value will be placed on communal subsistence. Some say this is impossible. But if one is selfish, and one takes another person's food because 'they have earned it', this person will eliminate the other. Not only will this be severely frowned upon in any group with any kind of morality, but also this will eliminate a worker. This worker was providing the selfish person with some material goods, and now the selfish person has eliminated the worker. In short, in a small community, not only will social relations be rather good, but also each individual will be connected to another, meaning that if one individual is eliminated, the whole suffers. Individuals are reliant upon society, and society is reliant upon individuals.
And this is coming from someone who was educated by a right-winged school system. Your thinking the way your state wants you to think, and you dont even realize it.Oh, and I never got any communist propoganda at school. It was the 90s (In England, no less.), people weren't bothered about Communism anymore. I don't know many people of my generation who've watched any anti-Communist propoganda. (Not that propoganda is necessary, just tell the truth and any self-respecting individual will reject the idea instantly.)
No. But I wasn't there yet. You have to work your way up. I have to make the money to get somewhere. Gain capital.
I understand it would have been "free", i.e., everyone would have paid for it. I prefer that I pay for it, because it's my education.Which would of been free under Communism. What about the less fortunate? Those's who cant pay or get the debt?
As for a more serious discussion, I haven't decided where I stand for those who really can't support themselves (as for what I mean, I mean mentally disabled or handicapped. I don't mean welfare mom). Still, what about them? 99% of the people can work. And those who do not toil shall not eat, do you not agree? (By the way: everyone can get a loan. Not everyone will get as good as a loan, but everyone can get a loan.That's my point. For whatever propaganda America saw on communism the Soviets saw tenfold on capitalism. I'm saying that the propaganda thing is a moot point, because everyone is doing it. And like MILF said: I went to school in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union fell. I didn't even know what communism was until I was thirteen.What would you expect? The US was doing the same thing too the Soviets. It's obvious they'd Demonize the US as much as they Demonized them.First off, I was speaking hypothetically, not about America. America is not capitalist-free-society, unfortunately; if it was, we'd be a hell of a lot better off and all. But since we're now talking about the war: there is no liberty and justice in invading a country for profit. I would have been ok with the war if there had been a set plan and an objective goal (to actually free the Iraqis from a tolitarian regime, for instance), but even then I wouldn't support it. I'm not an altruist. America shouldn't mess with the affairs of the rest of the world.Where's the Liberty and justice in invading a country for profit?I don't know what this is in reference to, but there's no freedom in that, no.Where's the freedom when your country is being forced to follow a ideology of another?Pure communism is really just anarchism with a bunch of helpful people. But anarchism can't work because anyone can just take over. I understand: the Soviet Union wasn't "purely communist", but that's not the point. The point we are all making is that that is the logical outcome of pure communism. Someone is bound to take control. The masses don't exist. People are people, not to be numbered, but want to put in their honest, individualistic effort to help themselves, and are easily expolited (as your Party is big on exploitation, you'd have to agree). All you need is a hero like Lenin to step up and help in the name of the people, and then Comrade Lenin over here, based on his absolute importance and need, finds out he needs a little bit more room than the average person, and a little more food, and he needs to hold parties becuase he represents their noble ideal. And so it becomes that parties are being held where they drink fine wine and eat cavier while the people are toiling for the masses and got a little less food, this time around.Why is it impossible if it was never attempted? How are you so sure it wont work?
Even short of that, I have a lot of problems with a supposed "pure" communist state, if you'd like to hear them.
Posting Permissions
