A question to Communists:
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
- Status
I have read only 1984 and Animal Farm. I know that he was left-winger.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
The sheer number of fictional futuristic settings in which evil corporations take over the world would suggest that you are not alone in this fear.
I assumed that you meant the employee was going for a job at a place that needed skills that he was trained in, not McDonalds. A Degree should only count when its relevant, or anyone with any degree could block other people from getting good jobs. Why should someone get paid lots more at McDonalds because they have a degree in something completely irrelevant?
Well, I don't know the particulars of your job, or what test you needed to take. Part of my job is counting the cash that gets taken on our buses/taxis. Our buses still run on public holidays, so either me or my workmate have to come in on a public holiday to count the cash, or we can't keep up. I knew that this was a condition of accepting the job before I took it. It was my choice to take the job, and I can't turn around now and refuse to come in on public holidays.
In Communism and Socialism, your rights are not violated.
Not true... (from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights):
Article 17 (1) - Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
Article 17 (2) - No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 27 (2) - Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Plus, the backup...
Article 30 - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
So basically, I'm protected, and there's no way my government can change it. Even if a Communist party gets elected (highly unlikely) they couldn't take away our property. The government could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights and would lose.
My questions were to Wob Shop, and he indicated that there would be multiple communes. Lets say another town, or another country instead of another commune then - its a human right to change your nationality, or move within the borders of your own nation.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Yes, a right to own property, but to what property specifically? The government might say that you can't own this car anymore, but you have the right to some other property instead. The lawful authority in the west (just as in the Soviet Union) can decide what property is and what and how much you can have it, because property is not a force of nature, it's not a creation of divine will like the deluded capitalists often say, property is a state and a legal construct, enforced by state institutions with extremely violent measures.
This construct of property is often the most repressive of all, and probably the source of all major political, social and economic repression. According to this principle, the state must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, the property owners. Thus, property creates enourmously privileged upper-classes with vast institutional backing at the expense of the lower classes.
In anarchism, which is my favourite, we would have democratic control over property, means of production and our own productive effort, while institutions of power would be decentralized and responsive to direct democracy. I believe such a system would be closest to genuine liberty.
Meaningless. It's done all the time.
Although both communism and capitalism can introduce some interesting distortions:
For instance in the old Soviet Union scientific knowledge was very highly valued, qualified workers (doctors, chemists, etc) were better paid and treated.
When I visited first in 1994 I met a lovely girl, degree in chemistry, post-doc in bio-chemical research. Like many smart kids in the Soviet Union she had been encouraged toward scientific disciplines. Once communism collapsed and market forces intervened her professional salary was nowhere near enough even to live on in a very basic manner (literally not enough to cover her rent or food).
However, having learned English to study UK/US text books and research papers she found she could earn ten times as much as a secretary in an accounting office. And she could earn ten times that hooking a night or two a week in the business hotels around the Kremlin.
So, despite years of training on the assumption that her undoubted and exceptional intelligence was best applied to studying bacterial development, it turned out that an ability to translate business Russian into English was more valued, and a damn fine pair of legs even more so...
For the avoidance of doubt I did not take up the offer of her professional services. Howewver, if I hadn't been married I would have tried to get her a visa for the UK - utterly, utterly gorgeous!
BFR
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
As I observe that this thread is dominated by the bobby-sox school of history and political philosophy, and I don't want to honour any iof them with commenting directly on their posts, I will just answer you.
The point is; it is not about how great capitalism is doing.
It is about how great people are doing. All people, not only the privileged ones.
And then it is a moot question how great capitalism really has been doing. I for one, am not impressed. Unless we talk about its criminal record, which admittedly is unsurpassed, that is...
Some things I have wasted enough time on to bother to elaborate on here.
Like the fact that todays "libertarians", disregarding how little l' they write it with, has no right to claim to be the heirs of the classical liberals.
Like the fact that various shortcomings of the contemporary USA has been pointed out a multitude of times, including that its great social mobility is a myth.
Like the fact that the so-called true or pure capitalism is a pipe-dream, as capitalism being an exploitative and hierarchic system will need some enforcing establishments, and would never exist without a state.
Because when we talk about capitalism, we mean a social system. There is for instance no particulary political system that need to accompany it, it can do well both under limited democracy and dictatorships. As the example of Chile demonstrates, a dictatorship seems to be the best for the more extreme version. Actually, one could be tempted to say that capitalism really is the continuation of feudalism with other means, admittedly there are some differences, but the similarities spring more to the eye.
Finally, the shortcoming of capitalism is not only its economical and social injustice, but also the fact that it is a moronizing system. Or perhaps infantilizing is a better word. I can understand that some of the Usual Suspects on this board are horrified to live in a commune, because that would involve having to take responsibility as a free adult, not living the whole life as a giant baby indulging in commodity fetishism, tittytainment and the observation of their own belly-button. The ancient Greeks, who in some ways were more mature than we are, had a word for such people. They called them idiots.
The point is; it is not about how great capitalism is doing.
It is about how great people are doing. All people, not only the privileged ones.
And then it is a moot question how great capitalism really has been doing. I for one, am not impressed. Unless we talk about its criminal record, which admittedly is unsurpassed, that is...
Some things I have wasted enough time on to bother to elaborate on here.
Like the fact that todays "libertarians", disregarding how little l' they write it with, has no right to claim to be the heirs of the classical liberals.
Like the fact that various shortcomings of the contemporary USA has been pointed out a multitude of times, including that its great social mobility is a myth.
Like the fact that the so-called true or pure capitalism is a pipe-dream, as capitalism being an exploitative and hierarchic system will need some enforcing establishments, and would never exist without a state.
Because when we talk about capitalism, we mean a social system. There is for instance no particulary political system that need to accompany it, it can do well both under limited democracy and dictatorships. As the example of Chile demonstrates, a dictatorship seems to be the best for the more extreme version. Actually, one could be tempted to say that capitalism really is the continuation of feudalism with other means, admittedly there are some differences, but the similarities spring more to the eye.
Finally, the shortcoming of capitalism is not only its economical and social injustice, but also the fact that it is a moronizing system. Or perhaps infantilizing is a better word. I can understand that some of the Usual Suspects on this board are horrified to live in a commune, because that would involve having to take responsibility as a free adult, not living the whole life as a giant baby indulging in commodity fetishism, tittytainment and the observation of their own belly-button. The ancient Greeks, who in some ways were more mature than we are, had a word for such people. They called them idiots.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Everyone who doesn't agree with him.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
He/she is.
Just check out his/her infantile sig.
But be warned though, your brain might hurt afterwards.
A lot.
And for a long time.
No, obviously I was referring to the joker to come in here calling people idiots and boasting he wasn't going to "honour any iof them with commenting directly on their posts". I see you've also let your political persuasion blind you.
Oh look, he's insulting me again... Jeez, i wonder what I ever did to him, besides disagree with him.
And still nobody answered my questions about how the "commune" would work... I guess that's what you get for making valid points against commies... insults or the silent treatment.
Edit: The website in my link is there because its a fun place to check out. The commie rants section is the best part. Here, let me quote one of the funny ones...
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
I didn't call you an idiot, I referred to the ancient Greeks. But by all means, if the shirt suits you, please wear it.
1. You called me a troll, and now a joker.
2. You insult my intelligence yet and again, even to the extent of using exclamation marks in your sig.
Yes, sure, whatever.
Both of the websites, I presume?
Incredibly funny. Excuse me while I wipe coffee off my monitor.
Really, I read "funnier" stuff every time I drop in here, not the least from guess-who.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Well, I did post a comment on the very essence of your believes: the property system. And you seem to have glossed over it.
In my opinion, any decent human power system should be a decentralized, federal arrangement of democratically run communes or relatively small municipalities, basically groups of autonomius localized units with democratic central institutions to provide management on areas where the communes are interdependant. And as for the economics of the system, well, there's an abudance of anarchist (or other left wing) literature you might start with, including an article in wiki: see
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I could go on forever, luceafarul... and these are some of the top of the successful people, and not one is an athlete or an entertainer. There's countless numbers of middle and upper income households that pulled themselves out of poverty.
(Pictured: Microsoft staff, 1970s; Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart; H. Ross Perot, founder of Electronic Data Systems; Ron Popeil, inventor; Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald's; Wally Amos, founder of "Famous Amos" cookie brand.)
Perhaps you could go on forever. But there's currently 300 million people in the United States and countless more millions before them. Your forever could never extend so long to include all those that have been abused by the same system that gave these couple of thoulsand people a oppurtunity.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I could also go on forever about the 500,000 or so massacred by the Titoist regime in the ex-Yugoslavia.
So when I debunk an argument of yours you debunk mine by saying that "my" side is even worse. Does that make your side better?
Not to mention I've never heard that 500k figure from anyone before.
You don't know . .. .. .. .. You've never been to Yugoslavia, I doubt you've talked to anyone from there. I doubt that you've ever read a book about it or seen any documentary more than those on the local newschannel.
If you take up this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM source then there's nothing to take up. Rummel is one of the pseudo scientists I least respect in the world. And that is the only source on the entire web. Everything redirects to that. There is no clear evidence of your claim and if you can't provide it you are nothing but a liar or very guilable
Not to mention I've never heard that 500k figure from anyone before.
You don't know . .. .. .. .. You've never been to Yugoslavia, I doubt you've talked to anyone from there. I doubt that you've ever read a book about it or seen any documentary more than those on the local newschannel.
If you take up this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM source then there's nothing to take up. Rummel is one of the pseudo scientists I least respect in the world. And that is the only source on the entire web. Everything redirects to that. There is no clear evidence of your claim and if you can't provide it you are nothing but a liar or very guilable
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Look, look, you're all wrong. Simple as that.
- Status
Similar threads
