"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (4 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Sucks to be destitute or disabled.

 

[ASNSWR127]

(Capitalism)



Why do you want your boss to appropriate the value of the products/services you produce? Wouldn't you rather it benefit yourself and the community?



What....? So the handfull of you will all fulfil all the roles socially-necessary including doctors, plumbers, electricians, construction workers, teachers, factory workers, miners, transport workers, etc. etc.



*whispers* that is, of course, excluding the boss *whispers*



Nobody needs capitalistic exploitation and management of their life



I want something a job and any income can't provide for me, I want the abolition of work (qua wage labour) and the abolition of all class.

You know something, I think ASNSWR217 has a point when he says "go and experience the real world rather then bourgeiose [sic] north shore". Your outlook is diametrically opposed to mine (and to a lesser extent to that of ASNSWR127). The reason for that is quite simple, we have very different positions in the system of social production and very different life experiences in relation to it. My guess is you do live in north Sydney, have both parents working in professional occupations (which are not necessarily non-working class may I note, the "middle class" is a bourgeois gradation based on income and not necessarily part of a Marxian analysis) and you have probably never had a job or at least any direct experience with the class struggle in your entire life. I think it is because of this that you think as you, and after all it's not surprising.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. - Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy​

That is correct.

I have worked jobs since I was 12, lived in a car parking lot when I was younger and only recently has our family got some sort of parity

That does not mean we go and spend and spend and borrow and borrow

and I will never forget nor forgive the system that allowed this to happen.

By the way it is of course possible for someone who lives in the most bourgeios (pardon my previous spelling mistakes - bloody french!) to still develop some sort of social conscience - Marx was of course one of the most upper middle class people going at his time.

Zeitgeist my views are no less radical then your own, however I think some of them are too difficult to swallow for the general population (having been conditioned with 'reds under the bed' and a media that is so insanely tied up with profit etc) and they tend to get caught up in a communist - stalinist confusion. I am looking for a practical way forward whilst still retaining the overall marxist/socialist theme.

 

[zstar]

If really rich and successful people don't want to give up x% of their income and I earn far less and would like welfare for my neighbour... is it wrong for me to suggest that the really rich and successful people be forced to give up x% of their income?

Yes it is wrong to use force, They earned their money and did it through hard work so it belongs to them. If you neighbour wanted money then he could choose either a) go to work or b) ask for his friends, families, co-workers etc c) ask for assistance through private charities and other non profit organizations were people have given up their money VOLUNTARILY.

(Capitalism)

Love it or Leave it

Why do you want your boss to appropriate the value of theproducts/services you produce? Wouldn't you rather it benefit yourselfand the community?

No because buying and selling goods is how wealth is created. What possible incentive is their to produce if you're giving it away for free? That's ridiculous fantasy.

What....? So the handfull of you will all fulfil all the rolessocially-necessary including doctors, plumbers, electricians,construction workers, teachers, factory workers, miners, transportworkers, etc. etc.

He was talking about Social welfare. He wanted government using taxpayer money to give him welfare. I simply said that he was cash strapped then he could turn to those closest to him for monetary assistance or through private charity.

*whispers* that is, of course, excluding the boss *whispers*

The boss of what? You keep talking about a boss, You don't think bosses in companies give money? When SE Asia went through the Tsunami crisis look how many people donated, You think some of that income didn't come from business owners?

Nobody needs capitalistic exploitation and management of their life

Because you're a socialist crybaby who doesn't know how good you have it, I don't understand you're not happy that they give you centrelink and medicare? What are you whining and complaining about? You don't like life here then move to Cuba or North Korea, There you can find out how fantastic Marxism really is.

I want something a job and any income can't provide for me, I want theabolition of work (qua wage labour) and the abolition of all class.

I'm sorry but that's not possible, Not in this life Not in this reality. You like other Marxists don't understand human psychology that is why your experiment has failed throughout history.

Their will always be an elite class in any society including a Marxist one. If a truck drive gets paid the same as a civil engineer who spend 5 yrs studying then what possible incentive does he have to study for 5 yrs? Why would he even bother working hard at all if he knows that no matter how crappy or shoddy his workmanship is he'll still be paid and paid the same as everybody else?

That is correct.

I have worked jobs since I was 12, lived in a car parking lot when Iwas younger and only recently has our family got some sort of parity

That does not mean we go and spend and spend and borrow and borrow

and I will never forget nor forgive the system that allowed this to happen.

By the way it is of course possible for someone who lives in themost bourgeios (pardon my previous spelling mistakes - bloody french!)to still develop some sort of social conscience - Marx was of courseone of the most upper middle class people going at his time.

Zeitgeist my views are no less radical then your own, however Ithink some of them are too difficult to swallow for the generalpopulation (having been conditioned with 'reds under the bed' and amedia that is so insanely tied up with profit etc) and they tend to getcaught up in a communist - stalinist confusion. I am looking for apractical way forward whilst still retaining the overallmarxist/socialist theme.

You misunderstand me, I don't advocate the status quo, The reason why you are struggling is because of the high taxes and the hidden taxes such as Inflation.


That's why your wealth decreases because money is unstable and constantly going through periods inflation and deflation and taxation.


What I advocate is NO income tax and no tax increases, abolition of central banks and back to a stable monetary system, Abolition of most government institutions.



If that were to happen then the system would be fairer. Right now we have this Third way nonsense along with Keynesian economics that I personally don't believe in and in the long term will bring the same hardship to Australia as seen in America where governments are taking control and trying to "solve" problems that they created in the first place.

 

[Enteebee]

Yes it is wrong to use force, They earned their money and did it through hard work so it belongs to them. If you neighbour wanted money then he could choose either a) go to work or b) ask for his friends, families, co-workers etc c) ask for assistance through private charities and other non profit organizations were people have given up their money VOLUNTARILY.

So you don't think a greater injustice is done by not forcing the rich to give up their money? In a perfect world it is obviously more just if they can give up their money voluntarily, but then if that were the case taxation would be a mere formality.

 

[tommykins]

Half the time, the upper-class can afford to give their money away anyways, what damage will $1million do to you if you're making $10 million a year.

 

[zstar]

So you don't think a greater injustice is done by not forcing the rich to give up their money? In a perfect world it is obviously more just if they can give up their money voluntarily, but then if that were the case taxation would be a mere formality.

No because force is not good, That's called Socialism. If government takes away your property and gives it to the public then you would be upset because you know that if you worked hard then those who worked less can take from you. It is essentially a form of highway robbery. If you were wealthy and were forced at gunpoint to give up your wealth then wouldn't you be upset? Wouldn't you feel cheated? Wouldn't you feel like you've been robbed?

I have stated many times I oppose Income tax and would like to see reduced taxes and reduced spending. Those who call me greedy or conservative don't understand where I'm coming from.


I am simply advocating a system where everyone has a right to his property and earnings without government confiscating it through taxation or otherwise.


Socialism is the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your money, Socialism is government telling you what your choices are. If you've ever witnessed public run hospitals, public run transport, public run education then you'll see what I mean. It may seem "cheaper" but you pay out of your pocket through tax and you support a system that has poor quality and is just awful.


They just reported that NSW is running out of money and this state will go bankrupt someday if it continues down this path furthermore to keep supporting these services they're going to increase your taxes making you poorer and destroying your quality of life.

Half the time, the upper-class can afford to give their money away anyways, what damage will $1million do to you if you're making $10 million a year.

And what good is a welfare cheque?

Even if they do give you money then are you just going to live on welfare the rest of your life?

 

[Enteebee]

If government takes away your property and gives it to the public then you would be upset because you know that if you worked hard then those who worked less can take from you. It is essentially a form of highway robbery. If you were wealthy and were forced at gunpoint to give up your wealth then wouldn't you be upset? Wouldn't you feel cheated? Wouldn't you feel like you've been robbed?

Let's not go so far as complete socialism just yet, let's deal with how taxation works in Australia.

I might be upset that the government comes and takes some of what I may see as my hard earned fortune, but isn't my whinge about not being able to afford a 5th sports car a little petty by comparison with someone else's whinge that they can't afford healthcare?

If you've ever witnessed public run hospitals, public run transport, public run education then you'll see what I mean.

Our public healthcare system is one of the best in the world, as are many of the far more public healthcare systems. This is by comparison to private healthcare systems, which seem to be lacking.

Private education in Australia isn't better per dollar that goes into it.

I'm sorry but while we can all agree that we have problems with how these things are run publicly, none of them seem to be fixed by privatisation.

They just reported that NSW is running out of money and this state will go bankrupt someday if it continues down this path furthermore to keep supporting these services they're going to increase your taxes making you poorer and destroying your quality of life.

As opposed to removing these services... which arguably would leave many of us without a leg to stand on.

And what good is a welfare cheque?

Even if they do give you money then are you just going to live on welfare the rest of your life?

You need urgent dental work, you live in excruciating pain. The government gives you $6,000. You get to have your teeth repaired.

THE WONDERS OF SOCIALISM.

 

[ASNSWR127]

No because force is not good, That's called Socialism. If government takes away your property and gives it to the public then you would be upset because you know that if you worked hard then those who worked less can take from you. It is essentially a form of highway robbery. If you were wealthy and were forced at gunpoint to give up your wealth then wouldn't you be upset? Wouldn't you feel cheated? Wouldn't you feel like you've been robbed?

I have stated many times I oppose Income tax and would like to see reduced taxes and reduced spending. Those who call me greedy or conservative don't understand where I'm coming from.


I am simply advocating a system where everyone has a right to his property and earnings without government confiscating it through taxation or otherwise.


Socialism is the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your money, Socialism is government telling you what your choices are. If you've ever witnessed public run hospitals, public run transport, public run education then you'll see what I mean. It may seem "cheaper" but you pay out of your pocket through tax and you support a system that has poor quality and is just awful.


They just reported that NSW is running out of money and this state will go bankrupt someday if it continues down this path furthermore to keep supporting these services they're going to increase your taxes making you poorer and destroying your quality of life.



And what good is a welfare cheque?

Even if they do give you money then are you just going to live on welfare the rest of your life?

Public run hospitals are the greates ever thing to have happened!

In NSW we may have long waiting lists in hospital ED's but that is because people who don't need to be there turn up over and over again ("oh my daughter had a slight temp today"). Having a public run system means that nobody will EVER let you die because you cant pay. This happens in america and private health insurance is the leading cause of bankruptcy and defaulted mortgages (ergo contrbuting a large way to the financial current crisis). if a country and a society can not take care of its sick then there truly is no hope!

Public education is similarly a great thing. It allows someone to participate in a class room with many different and varied people not those who believe the world is theres and nobody elses.

Public run transport is adequete. We still get to jobs in the end and the number of times that private run things lie that have to be bailed out is tremendous!

it is nothing like robbery to have taxes taken from you, particularly if you are rich! What a stupid analogy for you to make. The money goes to improving the quality of life for everyone not just the few who through the right circumstance have everything made for them and done for them.

again you need to see the real world a little more...

 

[zstar]

Let's not go so far as complete socialism just yet, let's deal with how taxation works in Australia.

I might be upset that the government comes and takes some of what I maysee as my hard earned fortune, but isn't my whinge about not being ableto afford a 5th sports car a little petty by comparison with someoneelse's whinge that they can't afford healthcare?

No because that's his damn responsibility, If he can't afford healthcare then he's not saving right. Insurance really does not cost that much if you took more care of your money and acted responsible. Why should I babysit someone who can't take care of himself/herself? It's up to the individual to make the right decisions. Is that really a big ask? If an immigrant with poor english can do it then why can't you?

Our public healthcare system is one of the best in the world, as aremany of the far more public healthcare systems. This is by comparisonto private healthcare systems, which seem to be lacking.

Private education in Australia isn't better per dollar that goes into it.

I'm sorry but while we can all agree that we have problems with howthese things are run publicly, none of them seem to be fixed byprivatisation.

Depends how you define the "best". I have seen the public system and while it may have some pro's I see alot of flaws, For example a case where my friends mother could not get the proper treatment from the public sector had to turn to the private sector because that's where it was available. I have also witnessed overcrowding and cases were patients have been negliected first hand in the public hospitals.

As for education I have to disagree with you on that, The best performing non selective schools in NSW have always been private institutes, I don't advocate scrapping public schools I'm just simply saying that Public and Private could compete against each other.

Their are many market solutions to these problems, You don't government in everything.

As opposed to removing these services... which arguably would leave many of us without a leg to stand on.

No if spending was cut on these programs you would have more money, We would all be wealthier in general. You see it all trickles down like a domino effect.

If pork barrel spending was reduced and taxes cut it would create a healthier business environment, a more efficient economy and you would be able to earn more and struggle less. Social services in reality are an illusion because while it may seem you get something for free in reality these programs require huge sacrafices that have an adverse effect on the economy and ultimately for you to get these programs everyone pays more and in the long term everything becomes less affordable and creates more problems. You may not see this now but you wait in a few years.

You need urgent dental work, you live in excruciating pain. The government gives you $6,000. You get to have your teeth repaired.

THE WONDERS OF SOCIALISM.

As I mentioned your view is very short sighted and you don't see the bigger picture, I have never in my life required the government to see a dentist. If I saved money and bought insurance then problems like these will never happen.

Socialism is NOT a solution

 

[zstar]

Ok since you've all been grueling me and trying to make me look like a villain let me ask you a question.

Would you give away your money to someone who robbed you but he needed healthcare?

How would you feel knowing that this man tried to take your property and leave you without money yet you unknowingly reward him by giving your remaining money to fund his healthcare.

How would you actually feel?

 

[Enteebee]

No because that's his damn responsibility, If he can't afford healthcare then he's not saving right. Insurance really does not cost that much if you took more care of your money and acted responsible. Why should I babysit someone who can't take care of himself/herself? It's up to the individual to make the right decisions. Is that really a big ask? If an immigrant with poor english can do it then why can't you?

- A lot of life is luck, we don't all have the same access to make such 'responsible decisions'.
- Even if someone is irresponsible I don't believe that means they shouldn't be looked after. Life is more important than responsibility.

For example a case where my friends mother could not get the proper treatment from the public sector had to turn to the private sector because that's where it was available. I have also witnessed overcrowding and cases were patients have been negliected first hand in the public hospitals.

That's because there's MORE MONEY in the private sector and because EVERYONE has access to treatment.

As for education I have to disagree with you on that, The best performing non selective schools in NSW have always been private institutes, I don't advocate scrapping public schools I'm just simply saying that Public and Private could compete against each other.

This couldn't possibly be due to funding disparities between the elite echelons of private schools and public schools? Let alone the likelyhood that those with more stable family structures etc will get to go to private schools. If you're not advocating scrapping public schools then YOU'RE A SOCIALIST ^__^ by your own warped definition.

Would you give away your money to someone who robbed you but he needed healthcare?

No, and even if I would that'd be personal charity. I'd much prefer an elected body that represents the people decides how to dish out the welfare, I think it ends up with the best situation for all.

Either way no matter how I answer the question it is as pointless as asking someone whether they would give themselves FREE HEALTHCARE. What we want for ourselves isn't necessarily what's best for the greater society.

 

[zstar]

The problem with you people is that you don't understand what social welfare is all about.

This fallacy is due to two fundamental flaws. First, if I want to do good with other people’s money, I first have to take it away from them.That means violence and coercion lies at the base of the welfare system. Second, very few people spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own.”

Furthermore how can you say that the government can handle your money better than you can? When has that ever been true?

 

[Enteebee]

The problem with you people is that you don't understand what social welfare is all about.

This fallacy is due to two fundamental flaws. First, if I want to do good with other people’s money, I first have to take it away from them.That means violence and coercion lies at the base of the welfare system. Second, very few people spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own.”

I 100% support violence to take money from the rich to buy yachts and give it to the poor to buy schoolbooks.

 

[zstar]

I 100% support violence to take money from the rich to buy yachts and give it to the poor to buy schoolbooks.

Then why don't you do it then?

If you want to play Robin hood I'm not stopping you.

we'll see how far you get.

If society ran like that then why would you want to buy textbooks anyway? Because the moment those students make money they'll be robbed and killed.

You know they tried that in China during the cultural revolution and you know what happened? China nearly imploded.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Sucks to be destitute or disabled.

They will survive by the donations and charity of evil altruists...

By the way it is of course possible for someone who lives in the most bourgeios (pardon my previous spelling mistakes - bloody french!) to still develop some sort of social conscience - Marx was of course one of the most upper middle class people going at his time.

This is true to a degree. Engels was most certainly bourgeois (his father was a wealthy industrialist), Marx is another matter. Due to his education in philosophy and prolific writing and study I suppose one could him an "intellectual" despite the fact that he never (atleast in his mid to later years) held a long term job. I've actually read that he applied to work as a clerk at a railway and was turned down because of his illegible handwriting. As a result he and his family lived, for the most part, in utter poverty in the working-class neighbourhoods of London, it was literally a day to day struggle with food, clothes and necessities of life made possible only by money provided by Engels. Despite Marx's "de-classed" position however, his writings and thought were a theoretical expression of the class struggle.

I think it is useful to quote Gilles Dauve here once again:

In a non-revolutionary period, revolutionary workers, isolated in their factories, do their best to expose the real nature of capitalism and the institutions which support it (unions, "workers"' parties). They usually do this with little success, which is quite normal. And there are revolutionaries (workers and non-workers) who read and write, who do their best to provide a critique of the whole system. They usually do this with little success, which is also quite normal. This division is produced by capitalism: one of the characteristics of capitalist society is the division between manual and intellectual work. This division exists in all the spheres of our society; it also exists in the revolutionary movement. It would be idealistic to expect the revolutionary movement to be "pure," as if it were not a product of our society. Inevitably the revolutionary movement under capitalism, that is communism, bears the stigma of capitalism.​

Only the complete success of revolution can destroy this division. Until then we must fight against it; it characterises our movement as much as it characterises the rest of our society. It is inevitable that numerous revolutionaries are not greatly inclined to reading and are not interested in theory. This is a fact, a transitory fact. But "revolutionary workers" and "revolutionary theoreticians" are two aspects of the same process. It is wrong to say that the "theoreticians" must lead the "workers." But it is equally wrong to say, as I.C.O. says, that collectively organised theory is dangerous because it will result in leadership over the workers. I.C.O. merely takes a position symmetrical to Lenin's. The revolutionary process is an organic process, and although its components may be separate from each other for a certain time, the emergence of any revolutionary (or even pseudo-revolutionary) situation shows the profound unity of the various elements of the revolutionary movement. - Dauve, Leninism and the Ultra-left​

In saying all this however it is important to remember that whilst some sections of the bourgeoisie may side with the proletariat (as with the case of Engels) and some proletarians may side with the (petit-)bourgeoisie (as in the case of fascism and other reactionary populist movements), the objctive class interests of these groups and their tendency towards action remain inevitably fixed.

I think some of them are too difficult to swallow for the general population (having been conditioned with 'reds under the bed' and a media that is so insanely tied up with profit etc) and they tend to get caught up in a communist - stalinist confusion.

In all due respect I think you're being opportunistic. You think we should moderate your political positions so as to make them appealing to the mass of the working class today, instead of saying what needs to be said by upholding strong convictions and militancy in the class struggle.

I am looking for a practical way forward whilst still retaining the overall marxist/socialist theme.

Once again, in all due respect, if this amounts to social-democracy, I would have to say that you are not at all "retaining the overall marxist/socialist theme."

 

[zstar]

Zeitgeist someday I hope you succeed in building Marxism I really do. Maybe we can all buy you a territory where you and the rest of your followers in this thread can enjoy Communism in all its glory.

If you ever feel hungry, repressed or sick of the food in your gulag cell then feel free to come to my house.

 

[Enteebee]

Then why don't you do it then?

If you want to play Robin hood I'm not stopping you.

we'll see how far you get.

If society ran like that then why would you want to buy textbooks anyway? Because the moment those students make money they'll be robbed and killed.

You know they tried that in China during the cultural revolution and you know what happened? China nearly imploded.

Well I don't think we have the right to coercive force of our own within the state... I think being in the state we have given the state that right. By your own definitions you are 'playing robin hood' in your acceptance of public schools.

 

[untouchablecuz]

Socialism is the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your money, Socialism is government telling you what your choices are. If you've ever witnessed public run hospitals, public run transport, public run education then you'll see what I mean. It may seem "cheaper" but you pay out of your pocket through tax and you support a system that has poor quality and is just awful.

Have you read ANY of Zeitgiest's posts? Many of your posts demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding in respect to basic Marxist theory.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

They earned their money and did it through the hard work of others so it belongs to them.

*Fixed*

Love it or Leave it

As has already been explained you can't just "leave" capitalism. What we do try and do is transcend it and banish it to the dustbin of history.

No because buying and selling goods is how wealth is created.

1. What is wealth? Marx may as well have been replying to yourself for using such ambiguos phrases as "wealth" below:

What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?



"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions. - Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

​

2. In what sense does buying and selling goods create "wealth"?

What possible incentive is their to produce if you're giving it away for free? That's ridiculous fantasy.

A ridiculous fantasy which has been explained and for which you have given no direct response. Ridiculous indeed!

He was talking about Social welfare.

Yes, and using your same logical I was talking about capitalism. Get it?

You don't think bosses in companies give money?

-.- That wasn't the point. The point I was trying to make is that you condemn the forced appropriation of value by the government on it's citizens (endorsing instead the surrendering of values voluntarily in the form of charity), yet at the same time endorse the appropriation of values from the employee by the employer. Hypocritical much?

Because you're a socialist crybaby who doesn't know how good you have it, I don't understand you're not happy that they give you centrelink and medicare?

I'm not happy that I have to be "given" anything at all!

What are you whining and complaining about?

25 pages and you still haven't gotten that?

You don't like life here then move to Cuba or North Korea, There you can find out how fantastic Marxism really is.

Reverting back to straw men from page 1? Well I suppose that proves it, you really are a slow learner.

I'm sorry but that's not possible, Not in this life Not in this reality. You like other Marxists don't understand human psychology that is why your experiment has failed throughout history.

Fantastic arguement. I love the wealth of evidence you provide in support of your case.

Their will always be an elite class in any society including a Marxist one.

Why of course you don't bother to explain.

If a truck drive gets paid the same as a civil engineer who spend 5 yrs studying then what possible incentive does he have to study for 5 yrs?

1. There will be no such thing as wages in a communist mode of production
2. Maybe the hypothetical engineer likes physics and math? Maybe he doesn't want to drive a truck?

Why would he even bother working hard at all if he knows that no matter how crappy or shoddy his workmanship is he'll still be paid and paid the same as everybody else?

1. Maybe becasue he finds it rewarding? He likes driving a truck? He likes studying microscopic bacteria? He likes physical activty he gets on a builing site? He likes expressing himself through dance, or art, or acting, or writing?
2. Maybe he would realise that if that mentality was generalised it would result in adverse social effects which would inevitably impact his own standard of living?

 

[Zeitgeist308]

No because force is not good

Hurray for a priori moralism!

That's called Socialism.

Force = Socialism? "Robin Hoodism" = Socialism?

If government takes away your property and gives it to the public then you would be upset because you know that if you worked hard then those who worked less can take from you.

That's right, damn those lazy workers!

If you were wealthy and were forced at gunpoint to give up your wealth then wouldn't you be upset? Wouldn't you feel cheated? Wouldn't you feel like you've been robbed?

If your poor and own no means of production, and are forced to work in a job which you dislike, where you produce more value in one form than is given to you in another, wouldn't you be upset? Wouldn't you feel cheated? Wouldn't you feel like you've been robbed?

I am simply advocating a system where everyone has a right to his property and earnings without government confiscating it through taxation or otherwise.

I am simply advocating a system where everyone is a property owner (which makes no-one a property owner) and "earnings" without government confiscating it through taxation or the boss confiscating it through by means of his property ownership.

Socialism is the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your money, Socialism is government telling you what your choices are.

*sigh* Why do I bother...