- Scent_Tree
- Registered Member
-
Member for 13 years, 6 months, and 16 days
Last active Fri, May, 1 2015 21:17:30
- 0 Followers
- 697 Total Posts
- 16 Thanks
-
6
FireroseNekowolf posted a message on How is Cynicism within a person created?By looking at the world around you.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science -
7
Tormented posted a message on Leviathan Vs. SMP Minecraft, or Griefers and Cheaters ExplainedI don't see how Minecraft is actually related to Hobbes's Leviathan or his concept of the state of nature. In Minecraft SMP, there is no scarcity. Resources, wide lands, ease of accessibility, etc. allow for just about anyone to get even the hardest resources. I speak from experience when I say that even under the harshest environemnt with factions, towny, or any other form of land protection you can still obtain food, land, and all types of ores. There is nothing near a state of nature in SMP, even on hardcore anarchy vanilla servers. People generally group together rather than struggle together.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
PvP? They only do that because it's fun and enjoyable with no moral and ethical repercussions as in real-life. There is no element of pain. Griefing? Same as above. Cheating? That too.
There is no struggle of each against all, it's generally groups against others. Servers do not need to create a specific "Leviathan" to prevent the state of nature, it just does't happen. Servers with little to no administrative intervention also do not experience this "state of nature", even as I had said, the anarchy vanilla servers.
The "hard to find ores" which you call scarce, or even lead to scarcity, are really not so. Dig to around level 15 and branch mine. You'll find tons. There is no scarcity. Especially if you implement a communist system as we have emulated time and time again in SCoM, every single time on every single server we have achieved super-abundance.
As for PvP in Minecraft, no, Minercrafters are not equal "in that it is relatively easy for even the weakest minecrafter to take down the strongest". I can get you one player that can destroy a whole group of 10 players even with diamond armor. That and the fact that you have diamond armor, diamond swords, potions, enchants, bows, lava buckets, etc. etc. which aren't that easy to obtain and produce, but which aren't scarce either.
As for preemptive action, we developed a large network of espionage, sabotage, and infiltration within our clan known as the SSP. We tend to catch any such pre-emptive actions and plans before they even take place and with ease take down a whole system in a single day as had happened multiple times now. But still, preemptive action does not become justified. There is no such thing as a PvP environment with "every Steve against every Steve", it would be multiple clans/groups against multiple clans/groups, and not because of scarcity, but because of fun or conflict.
As for your conclusion, I'm surprised that you had to write all that just to realize that those that do not like PvP and are generally more PvE oriented play on protected servers while those that like PvP play on unprotected servers. Even with that, I don't see how Hobbe's Leviathan has anything to do with that as servers are not on the same server all playing together, they're similar to completely different worlds with no outside interference. If they were all on the same server and map then I'd give it some thought. You do not need Hobbes or "Leviathan" to conclude that, implying that his claims actually led to such a conclusion. -
3
CosmicSpore posted a message on The Communist ThreadPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from creeperkiller000777
Its out of the history books, they indeed did try it, fine, whatever you guys say I don't really care.
So rather than admitting you're incorrect, you just state you are right and you "don't really care" what anyone else says.... even though you can't provide a single piece of evidence to support your statements?
This is clear ignorance on your part.
Quote from creeperkiller000777
Communism won't work.
Says the person who demonstrates clear ignorance of this topic...
Quote from creeperkiller000777
If they had the slightest grasp of it then they wouldn't know about it would they?
This sentence is just written very badly. It is not comprehensible.
Quote from creeperkiller000777
Sorry for talking with expert historians on american history, guess everyone is a liar in this retarded ass world.
Obviously you have never talked to an historian... nor have you apparently ever lived in the real world.
If anything you said could be supported with evidence, then you could provide a citation for your evidence rather than just making things up stating you have talked to 'expert historians on american history'.... This is ridiculous nonsense.
Again, this just demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
Quote from creeperkiller000777
1 question for you guys out there though. Do you preach communism at work and school etc.
Do you preach Republicanism, Democraticism, or whatever political beliefs you hold at work or school?
Because I can tell you now that if you do, everyone will hate you at work/school.... And you will probably get fired if you do that sort of thing at work.
People keep those kind of beliefs to themselves at work. You must never have had a job if you did not know that.
Quote from creeperkiller000777
Would you put that your communist on a job application or do you only talk about it on here? Thats really all I want to know to be honest.
Is "democrat" or "republican" something you think people put on a job application? Because then I can tell you that is probably why you've never had a job before (unless the answer to that lies in your age, which I honestly think is more true).
As for me, yes, I really talk about Communism outside of this forum. I've actually convinced a few people to reconsider Communism, and opened some people's minds to the idea.... Through facts, history, and through example.
Since I answered your questions, answer one for me...... What have you ever done in the name of your preferred political beliefs?
Quote from creeperkiller000777
No I'm not 12 and the only sources of it are all locked away with historians not out in public history books.
1. Your responses indicate you are very young, even if you're not exactly 12.
2. If "the only sources of it are all locked away" then it isn't a legitimate or support-able argument you hold.
3. You contradicted yourself by stating the info is not in history books, because in the first sentence of the above post you state it is written in history books..... So which is it?.... You can't even keep your lies straight. How embarrassing for you.... Better luck next time, champ.
Thanks and goodnight.Quote from creeperkiller000777
http://www.google.co...02&pf=p&pdl=300
Told you they indeed did try it. Read some of the articles.
This is just from doing a google search 1 minute ago and contradicts my last post. You guys happy now?
If you read any of the sites, none of them cite their information, give supporting documentation, or even provide a reasonable explanation. It's all just a bunch of trash, which can all be refuted very easily with very little work.
Provide a single citation as an example and you will undoubtedly have many counter arguments already refuting everything in the article.
Do you believe everything you read on the internet? This kind of crap is not put in history books -for a reason-. -
4
Tormented posted a message on Anti-CapitalismSee people? This is why I do not like debating with this child.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
Quote from MiracleMouse
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production
Then its nice to know you are as equally manipulated as you are provoked.
But give me a second and I will sum all of this up. Here we go...
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production
What you are describing is not communism then. Your arguments are now moot. You are arguing socialism.
"In a communist society you can have money, but not as it exists today (used in markets, private production, trade, wage labor, etc.)."
That is what I had said. Are you capable of reading? He ignored all of my post and gave me this nonsense. Oh and one more thing, communism, end-phase society, is only theoretical, even Marx himself BARELY talked about it, him hating Utopianism and whatnot. People can alter the communist society as they see fit, the above is only a general "prediction" and guideline to be used. Those principles depend on the assumption that superabundance is achieved, me hating that nonsense, I prefer to apply communism in the case of today's society and TRY to steer away from Utopianism and rhetoric.
Also lol your last sentence. Made me laugh, honestly.
Think, star trek TNG, moron.
Calls me a moron for claiming that Star Trek is not a proper representation or a basis for judgement of a political, economical, and social theory. Read what I had said, child, "Wait, wait, wait... So you're actually judging a political, economy, and social theory and even a real-life possibility on the basis of A GOD DAMNED MOVIE? I just..."
That is what and how the principles of communism would theoretically work
Flying in spaceships and blasting aliens?
Watch out for the counter-revolutionaries, people.
A society in which the individual has access to any and all resources. Both necessities and recreational. Your work performed is rewarded in liberties granted. Greed is no longer a factor as all things are available to all people if needed and even in some cases desired.
And yet I don't see how this is used to speak of communism, especially since you derive the following conclusion: "Hell, even gene rodenbury changed his mind with his star trek, now even they use money. If gene said it can't happen who am I to argue."
Since obviously Gene Rodenbury or whatever his name is a not only an all-knowing and all-capable God, but he can predict the future, is a legitimate and credible source on communist theory and how it should work, is actually applying communism and recording it in his scholarly and professional documentary known as "Star Trek".
GG.
Bro, the logical fallacies, the stupidity, the ignorance, the... I just... If there is one reason why I should become misanthropic and lose all hope in humanity it would be if two of you existed. Gladly, that is not the case. -
2
Machiavel posted a message on Anti-CapitalismPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from MiracleMouse
You are laughable at best sir. You lack the insight to see that all you say is equally as flawed as those that attempt to counter you. You read what you want and post on half of it. Your arrogance is only superceeded by your obvious need to be correct in your mere opinions despite the fact you have yet to learn the true nature of an opinion. You post link to site that support you ideas, yet when information is presented to the opposite that state affairs up to today you dissmiss it without regards.
I see now you are incapable of logical argument. Indeed respect is earned not given, yet you command it so naturally. I wish you the best in all things, as you most most obviously need it all the good tidings you can garner. But like any child there is the hope you will gain wisdom with age. Good luck to you.
Look at the bright side of things: you're only second from the bottom. -
7
Tormented posted a message on Anti-CapitalismI don't have the time to read and respond to all of the posts in this thread, but this one caught my attention as it was not replied to:Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
@blaster:
Quote from blaster
1. Monopolies on non-infrastructure industries are near impossible to create without government intervention (bribing them to make the laws favor a single company).
You're kidding, right? Obviously that's sarcasm... Wait... It's not. ****. Let's also go on about ponies, unicorns, and how free market Laissez-Faire Capitalism can make unicorns **** out rainbows and eat chocolate poop while we're at it. Monopolies on non-infrastructure industries can very well exist without government intervention. A company that can do away with competition through direct or indirect means, through finding more cost-effective production, advertisement, investment, engaging in a market with a high entry cost and debilitating exit cost, etc. etc. can very well turn into a monopoly and remain in such a position for a long time until the government steps in and implements anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws to stop them. Perfect competition is only theoretical and near impossible, if not outrightly impossible, in real-life; not even a full-on free market can ensure such a scenario as successful companies will eat up the unsuccessful ones until gaining a huge ground in the market. Competition does not exist for all such industries. Entry costs and exit costs prevent competition from existing in its theoretical "pure competitive" market form. Yes, entry costs, risks, investment, and other such obstacles are in the way of anyone who wishes to "break up" that monopoly. It is not a simple matter and one that does not exist in all industries. Even in statless laissez-faire market economies, such a problem exists, especially when cartels form, when companies merge, and when these firms have a "certain external aid" that can take the form of private security forces, pressure, or even price/profit leverage. If such monopolistic market entities do in fact lower their prices because of competition, they do so in order to undermine and outcompete the newer and lesser productive/profitable competitors. The same can be observed with Wal-Mart and its prices, that even go so low so as to cut out from its profits, in order to draw consumers and outcompete other businesses (which has led to numerous bankruptcies). For instance, Standard Oil could have been doing the same - cutting profits to cut competitors out of the market. Oil is a non-infrastructure industry but is a very good example of high entry and exist costs and barriers on entry. Oil necessitates large companies entering the market with proper capital to start-off with. The competitors were most likely already initatied and had the capablities to compete beforehand. In a laissez-faire market system, Standard Oil could take hold of the sources of oil, if possible, buy-out competitors, outcompete its competitors with lower prices, and even pressure them out of competition. Standard Oil could not use violence as a threat, at least in its home country, because of the existence of the state and its armed organization. I do not know which specific form of Laissez-Faire Capitalism that you seem to support, but I'll take into consideration the extreme form of Laissez-Faire Capitalism and speak of Anarcho-Capitalism as well. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, Standard Oil would very likely have had an armed wing of its own. Espionage, sabotage, paying mercs, bribes, etc. all come into paly in an Anarcho-Capitalist society that turns it on itself. The more established and pronounced a company is, the more it has at its disposal. Even in state intervetionist Capitalist market economies, regulated companies have and still do resort to such actions as can be seen during the Banana Wars as a very prominent example of this. Heck, it doesn't have to be an Anarcho-Capitalist society for such actions and events to take place, but such a society would certainly aid it with no government/state existing to put a stop to them. I can expand a lot on this issue but it'll do as a reply to one sentence. I've already debated and written a lot on Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Anarcho-Capitalism.
2. A cure would still create profit. Not infinite profit, sure, but still a profit. The world isn't controlled by a single corporation. If someone has already developed a drug that treats but not cures something, you can undercut their business and make a profit by developing your own drug to cure it.
Pharmaceutical companies require a huge amount of investment, starting capital, experience, technology, gear, and the like. You cannot get a company to simply start up and cure anything. The investors, for instance, would require a return on their investments before investing, after investing, and to continue investing. Pharmaceutical companies base their claims on promises which more than often fail to bear any fruit. If that pharmaceutical company fails in its promises it can very likely go under in the blink of an eye. Putting aside all medical soothers and treatments and solely focusing on curing AIDs or cancer would mean that they would have to work subpar as they would not be reaping enough profits and investments to continue experimenting and researching. And that **** is expensive. The government is doing its part in the investments, a large part I'd say, even in unprofitable ventures, without that it would be quite disastrous. The world isn't controlled by a single corporation, indeed, but it is not controlled by millions of corporations either. The pharmaceutical industry, again, has high entry, exit, and "maintenance" costs.
3. Science isn't magic that can instantly develop cures for everything. That is the reason there is no cure at present.
Science isn't magic, but it requires a basis to develop those cures. Capitalism makes it extremely expensive and even counter-productive if a certain promise for a cure is unprofitable.
4. There are thousands of different programs that are attempting to slow the spread of AIDS. Those who set up programs that accelerate the spread? That would be the Catholic Church's anti-condom campaigns in North Africa. Even George Bush, of all people, set up the largest and most funded campaign to slow the spread of AIDS http://en.wikipedia....for_AIDS_Relief .
No one denies the lack of existence of morals and ethics, even under Capitalism, although I've seen numerous Capitalists reject morals and ethics altogether in favor of Social Darwinism. Oh and slowing the spread of AIDs would mean selling more treatment drugs and incurring more profits.
5. Why are we still using fossil fuels? This one is so obvious that even a 5 year old could comprehend it. Fossil fuel power can be produced far cheaper than renewable sources. Nuclear falls in between the two in price. Guess who isn't willing to pay for more expensive electricity? Just about everyone alive on the planet bar a few wealthy people in the developed world who have enough disposable income to choose differently.
Production for profit, not need. Reminds you of something?
@caHarkness:
Quote from caHarkness
I could say the same about you and how you had a lot of nerve to type this out. Actually, I'd have to congratulate you for doing so- it was quite an effort. Of course, I could see how you thought my statement was a bit bold, but other than the factors that could limit him from getting his cash to the collector's hand, it IS his fault.
If you have a task that you are expected to do, it's your responsibility. The the collectors don't care if you lose your job or can't find any other jobs... they expect you to pay for what you said you could pay for. Maybe losing a job isn't under your control, but finding a new one is! Learning and showing interest in another skill and selling it IS.
Sigh...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/19/news/economy/job-openings/index.htm
http://www.epi.org/publication/job_openings_per_unemployed_worker_unchanged_in_august/
http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/job-seekers-per-opening.shtm
http://www.numbernomics.com/nomicsnotes/?p=583
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/for-each-u-s-job-opening-4-6-unemployed/ -
6
Tormented posted a message on The Communist ThreadPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and ScienceQuote from Jed1314
I would argue that there is a ceiling to the capacity for a mixed economy socialist nation to develop into a communist state. For example, here in the UK it would require far more capital than is available to socialise all of the business we have over here. You can't expect people to give up their businesses to the government for nothing and seizing them would be illegal. A system even approaching communism relies on a nation either undergoing an upheaval sufficient enough to allow the forced takeover of these businesses and industries, or the founding of a new nation with no history of industry to be established as a communist state.
You've obviously never heard of a revolution have you? We aren't saying here "Hey, the state will buy all your businesses", no, what we're saying is that we're going to forcefully expropriate the means of production and cease the existence of private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor by those private bourgeois employers. We certainly do not expect people to give up their businesses, doing so would be stupid and that is why I laugh at the pacifists or "evolutionists". Seizing them would certainly be illegal, just as a revolution would be illegal, we have no qualms about that. As for your last sentence, it would certainly necessitate a revolution in a nation that had already achieved a developed capitalist mode of production for any socialist revolution to succeed, something which the RSFSR/USSR was not so lucky to have and even lost all hopes when the rest of the world's revolutions failed due to stupidity. Communism cannot start out of scratch, Marx et al. pointed this out. If communism started out of scratch, there would be no proletariat in the first place to carry through a revolution.
True, you may eliminate the upper classes who own the means of production, but what of the classes that manage the labour etc. ?
In Marxist class analysis, there are only two significant, irreconcilable, and antagonistic classes that are always at odds: the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) and the proletariat (those who do not own the means of production but are forced to sell their labor-power in order to use the means of production and live). We, quite frankly, do not care about the "upper classes", "middle classes", etc. that are nothing but mere bourgeois stratification of society according to income rather than the relations of production (explained above) which define that specific mode of production (capitalism) that we're speaking of. The classes that manage labor are proletarians as well, such as supervisors, managers, etc. in as much as they do not own the means of production and are selling their labor-power as a commodity. In fact, the "classes that manage the labor" would be part of very revolutionary wave, if not then they would be piled over with the bourgeoisie.
You may eliminate the mega rich, but the divide will still be very apparent and very present. Eliminating the managerial class is not truly viable either. True, some managers are obsolete, but many average employees underestimate the importance of managers to the long term functionality of the business. The need for managers arises from the unique challenges presented by a human workforce and the need for a degree of accountability. After all, if nobody is held accountable for problems, what is the true driver to create a quality product ? I can tell you now (from the perspective of somebody who works in the manufacture industry) that the pride in a companies performance will only motivate workers so far before they have to be motivated by others.
The managers, again, are not the problem and are not something that we need to do away with. That is what the Bolsheviks had realized after the revolution in a few years, that the technical experts must not be done away with but actually allowed to take not only work, but be given freedom to act comfortably and not be subjugated to those who do not know anything about that specific field of work (Trotsky referred to the Soviets here). We do not wish to do away with the managers. What we wish to do away with are the employers, or specifically those who own the means of production. We replace those bourgeoisie by workers' self-management, let the workers themselves who already work, run, maintain, manage, and plan the workplace and production to themselves own that workplace and run it as best as they can. Who can we find better at such a job than the workers themselves? Managers can be elected in the workplace by choosing who those workers think would be suit that position, someone they know from experience and who can collectively agree on being the best. They can thus choose managers from their own ranks or from outside. If a group of workers were laboring in a workplace for many years, would they not be the best to know how things work, what is the best way for things to work, and know every problem and solution themselves? The thing here is that there is no need to hold one person accountable for everything when the whole workforce in that place could be held accountable as they are the ones running everything and the manager is merely another worker there. You speak from experience you say, well indeed, your experience is not only limited but actually skewed due to the fact that the very "manufacture industry" which you speak of exists within the frame of a capitalist mode of production. It is not socialism, the workers do not own the means of production and the workplace there, do they? Ever heard of the term "shoddy work for shoddy pay"? Why would workers there be motivated to work harder if they're (as generally the case) being paid the same wage constantly even if they produce 50 more widgets? Why would the workers be motivated to work harder if all what they produce is going out to some stranger which they do not even know or need not relate to while they get a petty wage which is not even worth the value of what they produced? Why would they work if they're being ****ed over constantly, working in pathetic conditions, long hours, low pay, without insurance, etc. etc.? You get the point.
We do not simply want to do away with the "mega" rich, we do not even want to do away with the rich, we want to do away with the private ownership of the means of production. You claim that a "divide will still be very apparent and very present". How so? Note that the only divide I care about is the divide between classes that are related to the means of production and nothing else.
Perhaps in your country, but over here (UK) we have never had a truly capitalist economy, so really assessing capitalisms failures when compared to my countries economy would be the same as drawing parallels of communisms failures from it (as the UK has, in the past, had a heavily socialist leaning economic model)
The UK is Capitalist. It is nothing other than Capitalist. How so? Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
"Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services forprofit. Competitive markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and personal finance are also considered capitalistic.[1]Competitive markets, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and personal finance may be parts of capitalism, however in practice there are never pure capitalist economies. Often, other non-capitalist systems such as market socialism and worker cooperatives retain aspects of capitalism."
In the UK we can find the following: private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit, competitive markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, personal finance, commodity production, capitalist relations of production, a capitalist mode of production, etc. etc.
What does that mean? The UK is through and through Capitalist. Not laissez-faire capitalism, but still Capitalism. The UK never had any "heavily socialist leaning", a "heavy socialist leaning" would be similar to the USSR, Cuba, or any other such country. The UK never had any socialist leaning, heavy or otherwise. Welfare is not socialism, it is just Capitalism with public facilities or a social safety net. They have nothing to do with socialism. The UK and other countries like are capitalist through and through.
I'm not saying that socialism isn't viable (on the contrary, I agree with you. The health care system over here isn't fantastic, but it is free and the same goes for the public school system)
"Free" education and healthcare =/= socialism. I don't see how the healthcare system or the public school system is socialism. Until the means of production are socialized, classes are done away with, production is for need and not for profit, etc. etc. do I consider a system to be socialist. Public schools and a national healthcare system are not even the defining features of socialism, they need not exist in socialism even.
On a side note, the implementation of communism (hence forth referring to realistic and not theoretical communism) would not increase employment rates as there is limited demand in the economy. You could create more jobs, but this would simply burden the state with employees and create an excess of labour in many industries, leading to lower efficiency (which tends to breed complacency in jobs as people become less focused due to the lower workload).
I already explained this here:http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/842174-the-communist-thread/page__st__1380#entry17403465
There isn't a limited demand on jobs, there is a limited capability of employing people while also keeping profits high. You do not see people saying, "Hey I don't want more workers even though I can increase efficiency, productivity, production, etc. because I can totally afford employing workers and stuff". You claim that increasing the amount of employees would lead to complacency and lower efficiency, you have either never heard of decentralization and workers' self-management in the workplace or you think that communism would be one man controlling and running everything. In the former case if someone becomes lazy, he would be talked with by the other workers. As Kropotkin explained in "The Conquest of Bread":
"To begin with, Is it not evident that if a society, founded on the principle of free work, were really menaced by loafers, it could protect itself without an authoritarian organization and without having recourse to wagedom?
Let us take a group of volunteers, combining for some particular enterprise. Having its success at heart, they all work with a will, save one of the associates, who is frequently absent from his post. Must they on his account dissolve the group, elect a president to impose fines, or maybe distribute markers for work done, as is customary in the Academy? It is evident that neither the one nor the other will be done, but that some day the comrade who imperils their enterprise will be told: "Friend, we should like to work with you; but as you are often absent from your post, and you do your work negligently, we must part. Go and find other comrades who will put up with your indifference!""
What about complacency? What not allow the workers to be proud or happy with their work? That does not lead to inefficiency but actually efficiency as everything that they produce would either go to them or their own society and not some random stranger that privately owns everything they work with, work at, and produce. They know that everything they produce won't be spoiled in warehouses or on shelves but actually be given to people who need them and they in turn would be given what they need from that society. Lower efficiency? Oh how so? How could that be due to the increased amount of employees when every workplace is self-managed in a decentralized fashion? See the quote above
As such, I do not at all see how abolishing unemployment would lead to inefficiency or burden. That is absurd.
Also, it is arguable that the increasing rate of technological advancement was due to other factors, such as the rise of the computer, the creation of mass production and indeed the 1st and 2nd world wars which drove vast improvements in many fields. One of the key contributors to technology from the purely socialism aspect is probably NASA, which would obviously not be publicly funded without a socialist aspect to government expenditure.
The USSR's achievements had nothing to do with this "general law" you attempt to create here. If that were the case then all the African nations would have been successes, all the Latin American countries would have been successes, almost every country would have had to achieve something equal or more than what the USSR had achieved for your claim to be true. The rise of the computer (to a proper extent) only took place in the later stages of the USSR and they had even shrugged it off most of the time. The creation of mass production? What do you even mean by that? Mass production rose with the introduction of capitalism, as Marx himself claimed, but that does not have anything to do with this "law" you just came up with. If that law had been true then, as I had said, other countries would have had to have equal or more achievements as the USSR due to the reasons you cite: "rise of the computer, the creation of mass production and indeed the 1st and 2nd world wars which drove vast improvements in many fields". You speak of the improvements of the World Wars that not only destroyed the USSR's very basis but sent it back 30 years, I will thus refer to the Broken Window Fallacy. The USSR went through multiple famines, a civil war, a first world war, a second world war, an invasion by the Allies and Central Powers, an invasion by Japan, etc. etc. all (except for WWII which was around 25 years) within the first few years after 1917. All of that took place and yet the one of the most backwards, feudalistic, and reactionary countries, the USSR, became a world super power that put the US to shame in those 25 years after the Revolution. The computer was not invented back then, mass production was almost non-existent in the USSR back then, and the first world war brought it nothing but destruction
We do not currently share the means of production. You have stated this yourself.
Actually by sharing the means of production, in that context, I was referring to workers sharing the means of production by working together, not owning them and doing away with the bourgeoisie. Workers collectively use the means of production already, that by itself is enough to ensure that workers would be able to collectively use and own the means of production in the future in socialism and communism. The only obstacle here would be the bourgeoisie that exploit them and take away the fruits of their labor with little to nothing in return except a petty wage which does not even equate 1% of the profits made by their labor.
The only factor of production we do share is labour (and perhaps skills though that is highly debatable).
What do you mean by that? How do we exactly "share" labor?
In fact, labour is the least valuable of the factors of production because it is never in short supply due to the increase in population
Lolnope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
Population need not be ever increasing, especially if another world war takes place. Even if the population is constantly increasing that does not mean that you have an ever increasing labor force as other factors come into play such as retirement, wars, etc. Labor being never in short supply would mean that unemployment is ever existent and even never in short supply as well, that would cause numerous problems and even decrease demand as people would not find work to be able to buy commodities.
Labour is of growing insignificance as time passes actually, as the rate of increase of demand far outstrips the growth potential of almost every other factor of production apart from labour.
[citation needed]
Do that and we'll speak of this, I won't argue baseless claims. Basically though, labor is the essence of everything. Ore and minerals do not extract themselves from the earth, fish do not fish themselves, goods do not produce themselves, all services do not work themselves, and everything cannot exist without labor. Labor is of growing insignificance, what an absurd and superficial claim knowing that the inability to meet the demand for employment leads to unrest, inefficiency, and wasted productivity. Labor, especially skilled labor, does not increase as time passes, especially if you're planning to replace that labor with machines. If you do so then you not only **** over 3/4 of the world, but you also destroy demand, create inflation, and even incite revolution easily, all things bad for capitalism.
The important factors to control are land and capital, both of which rest firmly in the hands of those who are in power currently.
I challenge you to show me how land can create goods, capital, create value, and work the means of production.
I challenge you to show me how capital can reproduce itself, produce itself, circulate itself, and even create anything at all by itself.
Those "important factors" are nothing without labor. I am also not claiming that we must do away with land and capital (I suspect that you use it in the mainstream economics sense) but actually do away with the hands that these "important factors" rest in and allow the workers and their society to be the deciders on how these "important factors" are to be used.
That is all well and good, but then you are running a capitalist economy with the only difference being that there are big wage price restrictions (which reduces competitiveness on a global scale decreasing exports, raising domestically produced commodity prices and encouraging people to import cheaper foreign goods which then damages domestic firms in a cycle until something, either the company or the employment rate, gives) and the firms are government owned. If the price of foreign goods is lower than that of the domestically produced goods (which it pretty much will be unless you live in a 3rd world country already) then (as stated above) imports would dominate the market, ultimately leading to the government owned firms closing up shop. Alternatively, if you block your citizens from buying imported goods, inflation will run rampant and the cost of living will increase beyond the rate of wage increase, leading to decreased buying power for the average consumer and a stagnant, or perhaps destabilised, economy.
Oh my, did you really just go on a rant about Capitalism that had nothing to do with either the subject at hand, socialism, nor communism? I am not speaking of placing "big wage price restrictions", "government owned" firms, etc. I am speaking of communism, just as the topic was about. Either you are attempting to teach me economics or you do not know what communism is. You bring up terms such as "the market", "commodity prices", "inflation", etc. all things related to CAPITALIST ECONOMICS that have NOTHING to do with communism. I do not even address this, but I will just for the sake of argument and because I have the time to do so.
1) Working and being given money, credits, points, labor notes, or whatever is not capitalism, not even close. Remuneration for labor can exist and has existed in societies that are not by any means capitalist.
2) The rest of you post after the first line (not first sentence) of that part of your post has nothing to do with communism nor socialism but with capitalist economies where the state tries to intervene in the market and place restrictions. A good example to prove you wrong on this point would be the Scandinavian countries and their economies which have heavy statist intervention in the market, high taxes, and yet they're considered heavens.
3) You seem to be unable to fathom the idea that the state can alter and change its policies according to changing circumstances.
4) Having "big wage price restrictions" which I think you mean "minimum wage laws" does not lead to all those problems that you mention. In fact, minimum wage laws lead to an increased demand on goods as those workers would have money to buy goods and services. Countries with no minimum wage laws and little to no labor laws have a populace that cannot even buy the basic necessities for life, are being super-exploited, and are not by any means proper consumer markets.
5) How the heck can minimum wage laws decrease competitiveness on a global scale? If anything, they increase that competitiveness by allowing people to have more money to buy goods. Allowing workers to have more money would be better as these workers are inevitably going to buy food and other necessity goods while the rich would either hoard their money or just produce more goods. You need consumers, without consumers you would destroy your economy. Paying workers a dollar or two a day is not a proper way of running an economy, go take a look at Third-World countries or heck, even China. Workers there are super-exploited, the majority lives in hell, and yet their economy is "booming". Their products are being exported to countries that have a good consumer market such as the United States and the European countries where people have money to buy ****. The rich are not good consumers.
6) In your "chain" you seem to forget that by increasing wages, you also increase consumption.
7) You forget about the existence of protectionist policies that would restrict imports.
8) You forget about the state being able to manage the economy to alleviate the problems within it without having to remove the minimum wage.
9) You forget that blocking imports does not lead to inflation if you have a proper demand and supply which can be achieved by the state.
10) You forget that workers would own and manage their workplaces, not the bourgeoisie. They have a stake in the whole thing, they are being paid more, they can get all their basic needs for free or little pay, etc.
11) You forget that production in such a society would be based on need and not the maximization of profits at any cost, even producing crap goods.
12) What you claim about this "chain" is purely theoretical thought that is only to be used for capitalist market economies and nothing else. If you remove the market or even capitalism from the scenario then all that economic theory is done away with.
"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, andstateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Note the "moneyless" aspect of it which would be the ultimate goal (only when we can implement a gift economy). I here was not speaking of the moneyless aspect but claimed that if a person wants a plasma TV, he can pay for it by working more. That is me referring to the fact that money would still certainly exist throughout socialism and even a bit through communism but NOT in their current form, NOT with capitalist markets, not with commodity production, not with wage labor, not with capitalist economics.
-
2
SM8 posted a message on [Site/Userscript] Deadfly, the adf.ly/adcraft.co bypasser!Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
5 seconds of having malicious "Download" image links pop up on your screen, ready to load up peoples' computers with who-knows-what and more. -
14
Machiavel posted a message on The Communist ThreadMods confirmed for bourgeoisie reactionaries.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science -
16
Tormented posted a message on The Official Militia thread.If you are part of a militia, please tell us alittle bit about yourself: I like weapons and da constitution. Doz sand monkeys r gonz git ded.Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
Whats the name of your militia? American Constitutional Militia of Free Liberty Against Big Government In Favor of Ron Paul Our Founding Father.
What state is it in? Lebanon.
What weapon(s) do you carry? Vz. 58, AK 47, RPG-7, Glock 18, and some other Murrican gawnz.
What was your reason for joining a militia? Ta surv may cuntry and stop big government. Also as payback what the sand monkeys did by sending planes into 9/11. and to stop those russian godless commies in the good government of the good ol' US of A. especially Obummer. - To post a comment, please login.
1
Seriously though probably secret police and mass propaganda.
1
Who can't be trusted?
2
Griefing the CRom server is not very mature, nor is accusing a democracy of being oppressive when you're running a dictatorship
1
1
1
1
1
LORD DAGON WELCOMES YOUR SOUL IN PARADISSSSSSS SSSSSSSE
1