13-06-2003 23:51									#91
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lung Why do communists eagerly invest in shares? Worst of all, why do they treat the working class like lepers? Perceived moral superiority is hardly about social equality, so why do they act that way? If you ask me, it sounds like gross hipocrisy on their part

It is gross hypocracy. Many communists in the West come from the "middle" class, i.e., the professional classes. I and Theben are no exception, 'cept I grew up poorer than my bro. He was born after we moved out of thr trailer parks. We have, however, associated with working class and poor people our whole lives, never assuming anything. All we knew is that people had different families and kids were kids.

There is an assumption in the US that working people are reactionary and violent and scary, and some of that is true. Most of the people we think of as working class are are a part of the working class. Many of the people we think of as middle class are actually working class, just a different part of it. White collar, pink collar, brown collar are all as working class as blue collar.

Most people tend to know the radicals in their own class and family. If you are "middle" class, it's highly unlikely you know working class radicals. There are actually a lot more of them than you think. A good chunk of union leadership and almost all union activists are red or pink. These comrades don't own race horses and if they have any stock, it's in their pension funds.

When I became a red, I associated with a couple different groups. The group I eventually joined was hard core blue collar, The Spark, the American branch of the French organization Lutte Ouvriere. LO runs in French presidential elections and does quite well, even beating the Communist Party last time. With the exception of me and a couple other students in Chicago, it was all working class (all 50 or so of them). Well liked in their jobs, among the best educated group on the left (autodidacts), and they led some of the few winning strikes in the 1980s in the US.

Another group I hung with was called the International Socialist Organization. They are the American Branch of the British Socialist Workers Party (not to be confused with the US Socialist Workers Party, which has very different politics--they're both cults, though). We always called it the International Student Organization. Their policy, until 1996, was that the US working class was to reactionary to try and bring socialist politics to. They were solely located in the university. Eventually they rediscovered the working class, declaring that the WC had begun to become active again.

Most WC reds keep their politics close to their breasts. You'll almost never know if you're working with a Communist Party member (they haven't forgotten real McCarthyism). Many others will only refer to themselves as socialists or revolutionary socialists, but shy away from being called communist. I don't go waving my flag at work, either. Bosses no that commies are trouble and don't want us around. We're rabble-rousers and organizers. We do things like get the NYC Transit workers to strike. So, despite working with a bunch of liberals, I keep my exact politics a secret. I like having a job.

	13-06-2003 23:52									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I am simply regurgitating the VERY SAME arguments I have recieved from communists on 'poly in one of the older threads of this type.

The very same stuff (that last bit was taken from a raging debate DuncanK and I had, if you feel like checking).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: So you see...I'm not putting words into your mouth at all...I'm simply using some of the arguments of your Comrades against you....

	13-06-2003 23:56									#93
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by yavoon both mormons and communists supposedly live idealogically. but the road they use to get their is pretty radically different.

The early Mormon Church was communist, actually. Many US churches in the 19th Century tried to practice communism. Never lasted too long, though. Most fell apart, Mormonism abandoned most of its radicalism as it grew properous.

	13-06-2003 23:57									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

For example, Marx indeed doesn't take services into account when talking about the creation of riches. This is what makes a literal interpretation of Marx badly outdated. But does it mean today's communists don't believe in services as source of wealth ?

Fact is, in the communist creed, WORK is source of wealth, no matter where it is (of course, more or less useful work can result in more or less creation of wealth). The profits of the company, when owned by the workers, are to be shared between all members of the company, as they all contributed to this wealth.

Besides, about the banking system... I may be an utter cretin, but I don't see why the communists are opposed to a banking system as a whole. I see however how we could be opposed to a profit-driven banking system, i.e a banking system which benefits the bankers more than the society. The woncept of wealth is at the core of the communist idea (since communism is an economic system), so I fail to see why we'd oppose the activity of mediating this wealth.
The fact that we don't want banks exactly like they are today, partly because of our opposition to interest rates, doesn't mean we oppose the very idea of banking, i.e mediating money.

	14-06-2003 00:01									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin So you don't see why providing businesses with access to capital is a good thing? Do you at least conceed that the government should be promoting the creation of jobs so as to provide employment? How then do you propose we go about creating those jobs unless we promote business creation?

I'm not against creating new businesses and yes the govt should be promoting job growth, but the interests of capitalists is to maintain a reserve army of the unemployed and keep wages low. A communist is only hypocritical if he or she supports the interests of the capitalists by voting for their political candidates.

	14-06-2003 00:09									#96
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Cruddy Then why are people starving? The world already produces enough food to feed everyone - it's the distribution that sucks.

The distribution sucks because prices are too low where people are suffering. If you get rid of the price system distribution will no longer be a problem. The system right now has so much potential. It would be amazing really to see the current system produce at full capacity.

	14-06-2003 00:14									#97
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Are you sure you know what it means to be a communist? It might be a good idea to learn before you profess to be one.

Good advice. Why don't you take it?

quote: A communist believes that everyone should have there minimal survival needs meet then the remaining wealth should be evenly distributed among all the human beings in society or ideally on Earth.

Wrong.

A communist is someone who believes that production and distribution of goods and services should be handled socially. Right now, almost all goods and services are produced socially, so we have half of it down. Distribution is handled anarchicly, however, and the appropriation of surplus is handled privately by a tiny minority. Both should also be socialized and governed democratically. It's that last part we have a problem with, but given the fact that we have been under seige since day one, it's a small surprise that we haven't made it work. The capitalists have zero interest in letting us alone and seeing if we succeed, and every interest in doing whatever is necessary to either overthrow us and make conditions necessary for us to get all defensive and Israeli-like.

	14-06-2003 00:17									#98
	Tired of ads?

Unacceptable, chegitz. That is in total violation of the laws of supply and demand. You cannot control demand.

You cannot succeed, there are too many people who hate your beliefs to its core including me. Go and have your revolution in some third world nation in Africa, but never in the United States because you are not messing with the future of millions.

	14-06-2003 00:21									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx The problem with communist dogma is that labor is the holy grail. Specifically...physical labor. Sweat. Nothing else counts. If I touch the shoe and glue the sole on, my labor that went into the shoe is precious, and should rightly count as more of a contribution than the effort and ingenuity that went into arranging the factory's creation in the first place (that ain't work, you see....).

That's so BS. Marx wrote that nature is equally a source of wealth. He also wrote that not just any labor produces value, but socially-necessary labor. In other words, if your labor ain't necessary, it produces no value. The labor of a slow worker is less necessary than the work of a faster worker, which is why the products have the same value. This is why a fast worker creates more value than a slow worker.

Furthermore, mental labor is just as much a part of labor as physical labor. If you'd read any Marx you'd know this. It's just a lot harder to measure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a source of value or that it shouldn't be rewarded.

	14-06-2003 00:24									#100
	Put an end to popups!

he: I admite I've only read Engles & Marx and I took a few polisci classes in college but I still stand by what I said earlier. That was how communism was invisioned by it's creator.

	14-06-2003 00:25									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor For example, Marx indeed doesn't take services into account when talking about the creation of riches

That's not true, comrade. I suggest you read Das Kapital.

	14-06-2003 00:28									#102
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: You got one small problem, I am not a fascist. So be quiet you communist.

You say that, yet......

Everyone knows your a facist, as everyone knows I'm a communist. Please spare me the "No i'm not!!! Really!!!" routine

quote: I do listen and I do understand but I won't accept or consider.

Yep. Thats closed-mindedness.

quote: It's not nearly so easy to actually live it

That's true. I mean, when your surrounded by capitalist products, capitalists, capitalist ideology.....And then you move to ANY other country which is either in anarchy or capitalist....

It's pretty hard to BE a communist.

quote: Of course, the Commies will be quick to say that it (Communism) never really got a fair shake, on account of all the dictators who co-opted their perfect little world (Stalin-ism, Mao-ism, insertyourfavoritetinpotdictatorhere-ism),

They fell under capitalist influences and capitalist greed, and shorchanged the people. As far as I'm concerned....They aren't communists, but capitalists
Though a flavour of communism has been practiced in scandanavia for many years....

quote: without acknowledging that flaws in the system (or as they prefer to say, flaws in humanity)

There are flaws in everything....Capitalism, communism, and yes Vel, even HUMANITY

quote: Even better, they'll tell you that the reason it hasn't worked so far is because it was designed to be a global system, and if we'd all just try it out, magically, everything would fall into place

Hmm.....I haven't quite heard a sensable communist say this. What we really need to do is embrace SOCIALISM as Scandanavia has done.

quote: How much conviction can you really PUT into something with the kind of track record that Communism has?

Vel, usually your posts are quite intelligent but this one seems.....Well, it seems like your angry and your just trying to vent it out in the form of this post. Likewise, your just taking cheap shots at Communism (and communists) without providing supporting evidence.

And likewise, a HORRIBLE troll

quote: but ultimately, not much of a troll.

quote: A communist believes

Who are you to say what a communist believes? Ignoring the fact that your completly wrong, your a CAPITALIST!!! You HARDLY know what a communist is.

Communism is more of a system where the wealth is DISTRIBUTED, not where its just given up!!! It's where the lower class is elevated to at least the middle class, but it's not a "Take from the rich, give to the poor" type system.

quote: "Communists are against....interest.....I don't blame them for investing their money."

Two words and one smiley. Very intelligent post, Vel

quote: . When we say we mean to abolish capitalism we don't mean to tear it down. We mean to abolish it the same way an adult abolishes the child, by growing up.

quote: You usually have good comments, but in this thread, you are a bit like the Iraqi Information Minister

Spiffor....Always the diplomat

quote: I am simply regurgitating the VERY SAME arguments I have recieved from communists on 'poly in one of the older threads of this type.

Well then they are wrong. It is just that simple.

	14-06-2003 00:31									#103
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That's not true, comrade. I suggest you read Das Kapital.

Can you give us a quote? I agree with Spiffor. Service was considered unproductive labor during the time period.

	14-06-2003 00:31									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Velociryx:

quote: but opportunity itself abounds, and is not limited to those with means. It is entirely possible (and in fact, desireable) to create your own opportunities. It's not a matter of luck or birth, it's a matter of determination and hunting for undiscovered opportunity.

Here you seem to see opportunity as something immaterial and metaphysical, something people can pull out of their individual arses... I use your own words of a few posts back: to me your idea of opportunity seems just as much a fiction of your mind as to you the theories of many communists seem a fiction unrelated to the actual world.
My logic goes more economical like: more means/money => more opportunities. Just like a firm needs a starting capital of cash to create a succesful enterprise, so does an individual need a starting capital of opportunities to create a succesful life and career. And the biggest your starting capital is, the higher your chances on succes, the lower the chances of failure.

quote: and I am saying that capitalism does not guarantee (nor should it) equal opportunity for everyone

I see a meritocratic society as my ideal: each gets what he gets depending on his talents and his efforts. The best method for that seems a social-democracy to me. What's your "ultimate idea" behind your political and economical ideas? Obviously not meritocracy if you are not in favour of equal opportunities. What then? I ask because I don't really mind when people have other political-economical ideals than I have, and as a consequence another pol-eco ideology & method to reach those ideals. After all there probably are no absolute truths or values IMHO. What does bother me terribly are people who have certain ideals, and believe in a method to reach that ideal, despite that there is plenty of scientific or empirical proof saying that method doesn't lead to that ideal. Such people are ignorant morons without any wisdom IMO. An example are people who have as goal the welfare of all people, but who believe in the method of communism or laisser-faire free market to reach that goal.
So what is your political-economical ideal? I need to know before I can decide if I should think of you as an intelligent person or an ignorant bastard.

	14-06-2003 00:32									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin he: I admite I've only read Engles & Marx and I took a few polisci classes in college but I still stand by what I said earlier. That was how communism was invisioned by it's creator.

I'm willing to wager I've read more of Marx and Engles than you. Neither Marx, nor Engles (nor for that matter, Lenin) believe in universal poverty or that everything should be distributed equally, at least not until the 2nd stage of communism, when production has been increased to the point that there is more than enough for anyone. Engles talks about abolishing theft by making it silly to engage in theft, because everything will be free and in such quantities that hording will do you no good.

In the 1st stage of communism, Marx writes about rewarding those who are better workers or who do more important work (such as doctors) better than others. So we're still not talking about universal poverty.
The goal of communism is to make everyone rich.

	14-06-2003 00:37									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Can you give us a quote? I agree with Spiffor. Service was considered unproductive labor during the time period.

Not right now I can't, but it's simple common sense. Is a thing at the store more valuable than a thing at the factory? Yes, because you can't get it at the factory. Without transportation and salespeople to enable you to purchase a commodity it has no realizable value. To quote DesCartes, a thing that exists is more perfect than a thing which does not. I know I've read it, though. I'll see if I can't dredge it up at home, unless I'm too busy with the Bunnygrrl, who is home from San Diego now.

	14-06-2003 00:39									#107
	Increase Your PM Length

The goal of communism is equality of wealth and standard of living. At least that's what I remember from my class several years back. They believe this can best be achieved through state ownership of all productive assets. The state would then distribute the proceeds of those productive assets in a uniform fashion.

Theoretically no one would live in poverty since there would be enough wealth to go around, as a practical matter, that would only work if everyone was reduced to the least common denominator. That means, at least on a world wide scale, poverty.

	14-06-2003 00:41									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tassadar5000 You say that, yet...... Everyone knows your a facist, as everyone knows I'm a communist. Please spare me the "No i'm not!!! Really!!!" routine

Well actually you are wrong about that fact... I am moving closer to one economist by the name of Milton Friedman in social and economic views.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/friedman.htm

quote: Yep. Thats closed-mindedness.

No it isn't.

	14-06-2003 00:42									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Not right now I can't, but it's simple common sense. Is a thing at the store more valuable than a thing at the factory? Yes, because you can't get it at the factory. Without transportation and salespeople to enable you to purchase a commodity it has no realizable value. To quote DesCartes, a thing that exists is more perfect than a thing which does not. I know I've read it, though. I'll see if I can't dredge it up at home, unless I'm too busy with the Bunnygrrl, who is home from San Diego now.

That kind of service yes, because it contributes to the value of the good, but what about service that doesn't contribute to the value of a good, like a maid or a butler.

	14-06-2003 00:47									#110
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The goal of communism is equality of wealth and standard of living. At least that's what I remember from my class several years back. They believe this can best be achieved through state ownership of all productive assets. The state would then distribute the proceeds of those productive assets in a uniform fashion. Theoretically no one would live in poverty since there would be enough wealth to go around, as a practical matter, that would only work if everyone was reduced to the least common denominator. That means, at least on a world wide scale, poverty.

That's close enough to score some points in horsehoes. As far as world wide poverty, the first responsibility of a workers state is to spread the revolution, not do good deeds unto others. The second responsibility is to try and raise the standard of living within its own country. The third responsibility is to export to less fortunate revolutionary countries the means with which they can raise their own standards of living.

I know, I'm splitting hairs, but your hairs are in a Gordian knot, i.e, be careful what you learn from college professors.

	14-06-2003 00:53									#111
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious That kind of service yes, because it contributes to the value of the good, but what about service that doesn't contribute to the value of a good, like a maid or a butler.

That would likely be considered like the services of teachers and doctors. In this case, the service itself is the commodity. The service has a use-value and an exchange value, like any other commodity. The fact that it is intangible doesn't make it any less a commodity. If Marx didn't explicitely state this, it should mean to be taken that he ignoerd it. I will have to search on this, though. It seems to me self-evident, so it surely occurred to a greater thinker than I.

	14-06-2003 01:12									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Gepap: If one is to believe Engles & Marx then communism is all about Community and Equality. Everyone is absolutely equal reguardless of ability. The only criteria is need. "Each according to his needs, each according to his ability" and all that. Once needs are met then everyone must be absolutely equal; thus if someone is less then equal then wealth must be redistributed in order to make them equal. Remember that starving African? Is he equal? No? Then a good communist would work to make him equal by giving arranging for wealth to be given to him until he is equal.

Lets begin: You believe everyone is equal as well: the matter of equality is central to modern thinking. If not, democracy would not be seen as a value.

Look at the quote: "to each according to their needs, to each according to his ability", andf look at the starving African. Do you think that he is able to do as much as he is able to do, if he is starving? Without each according to his needs you never will get each accoridng to his abilities. Were is equality of outcome ever mandated in this quote? If one is more able, for this quote to be true, he should end up with more, as long as his ending up with more does not deny someone esle of what comes to them according to their needs.

I do believe that it is an outrage that the rich western world, with the ability to feed everyone in the world does not do so. Endless human potential is wasted in the sake of "market efficiency", something that as a system is utterly amoral. The system does not care about good or bad, good or evil, only efficient, infefficient. But people are all too willing to confuse the two for their own needs.

And as I said earlier, true communism can only come about once we have a system so prodcutive as to allow everyone what they need while also affording everyone according to their ability.

	14-06-2003 01:16									#113
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

No arguments from me Che...I *know* it's BS....again, straight from the mouth of your fellow Comrades.... (so tell me, in our perfect little communist commune, if you and I go fishing, I catch four, and you catch two, what is the proper good communist response here? Should I give you one, or release two, so the "wealth" is distributed equally? After all....surplusses are a dangerous thing....if I build up a sufficient "fish surplus" I can then stop fishing for my dinner and begin dreaming up ways of exploiting you....

Tass: "Communism is more of a system where the wealth is DISTRIBUTED, not where its just given up!!! It's where the lower class is elevated to at least the middle class, but it's not a "Take from the rich, give to the poor" type system."

Try telling the above to the mom and pop owners of the shoe factory the workers commandeer in pursuit of their glorious revolution....

"Well then they are wrong. It is just that simple."

Your fellow Comrades, hard at work....

Maniac: I don't spend too much (any) time dreaming of the perfect world--generally too busy improving my lot in the real one and/or pretending to be working and posting on 'poly, which is one of my chief forms of entertainment!

However, IN the real world (or, if you prefer, my perception of it, based on my own experiences), what I see works very well.

True. Not everyone has equal opportunities. That is to say, where Bill Gates has the resources available to found a new hospital in Oregon, that option is not open to me (well, there's an outside chance, sure, cos things like that have happened, but it's not something I'm interested in in any event).

So, I have scalar opportunities. Opportunities that are scaled to the size of the resource base I have, and at the end of the day, that is what is important.

It does not matter that I will never achieve "Gatesian Wealth," because already, I have been able to improve my station in life many times over. Several thousand percent from where I was. In that regard, I have accomplished many times more than the person who was born wealthy and is at the same level of wealth he was at twenty years ago.

I am not exceptional in this regard. Just an average guy who developed a few talents along the way, and diligently applied myself to that improvement. No special education, no magic tricks, or surprise inheritances....just steady work, taking advantage of opportunities as they arose, and creating some of my own along the way as they occurred to me (and they don't just jump out at you most times, and are not just lying about on the ground to be picked up like nuggest of gold, so in that regard, yes, it is perhaps a shade metaphysical....but the opportunities are where you are).

The opportunity of advancement for all. That's what I've experienced, and that's what I've seen around me. If you disagree, bring me a case study. A real person you know who can't seem to make it happen. We'll talk about it privately and I'm willing to bet we can make something happen....

-=Vel=-

	14-06-2003 01:17									#114
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Endless human potential is wasted in the sake of "market efficiency", something that as a system is utterly amoral.

One of the massive ineficiencies inherent to capitalism, but not the only one.

	14-06-2003 01:21									#115
	Re: Re: Question for communists . . . . Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Because homelessness and starvation are not a valid alternative to living in a capitalist system. How can you claim to be gay when you are living in a straight society? If you're gonna be gay, then you must renounce everything straight. (Won't that make driving fun.) Socialism is about taking capitalism and improving it. When we say we mean to abolish capitalism we don't mean to tear it down. We mean to abolish it the same way an adult abolishes the child, by growing up. Socialism abolishes capitalism by transcending it, building into something bigger and better than itself. The old will be recognizable, but the new will be stronger, smarter, more creative.

You can relax Chegitz -- I understand the points made to my question.

But as for me being gay in a heterosexist society . . . since my being gay is not a choice, I will always be gay whether I would be hypocritical or not.
In fact, many homophobics are gay but they vehemently deny it by hating those homosexuals who are comfortable with who they really are.

Now, if I was hypocritical while claiming to be a gay ACTIVIST, that is something similar to being hypocritical while claiming to be a communist. And I try to be consistent as a gay activist.

And you falliciously put words in my mouth -- I never said that you needed to starve or be homeless to be a consistent communist before I took in the answers to my question.

I thought you would have to give up luxuries, but according to the points made, I thought wrong.

	14-06-2003 01:22									#116
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx No arguments from me Che...I *know* it's BS....again, straight from the mouth of your fellow Comrades.... (so tell me, in our perfect little communist commune, if you and I go fishing, I catch four, and you catch two, what is the proper good communist response here? Should I give you one, or release two, so the "wealth" is distributed equally? After all....surplusses are a dangerous thing....if I build up a sufficient "fish surplus" I can then stop fishing for my dinner and begin dreaming up ways of exploiting you....

We through the fish together in a pot and the commune has fish stew with the rice that other comrades have harvested and vegetables other comrades have gathered. Then we drink the beer other comrades have made and entertain each other with stories of the one that got away.

	14-06-2003 01:23									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara One of the massive ineficiencies inherent to capitalism, but not the only one.

Communism has way more inefficencies than capitalism. Capitalism is a logical working system. Communism is not. Communism in all senses is illogical. I don't know why some of you actually believe in communism. It creates nothing but economic chaos.

	14-06-2003 01:26									#118
	Inflate your Upload Space

As formulated in theory, the marketr is perfect at gettign rid of economic inefficiencies. The main problem today si that the ability of a consumer to actually know what the true costs of his choices are, and what is the best chocie for them is highly limited, either becuase many costs are inherently 'hidden', or they will never be able to really "know" what all their choices are.

In the NYT's magazine they had a nice article, about how the time of recessions vs boomtimes has been changing over time, with more time for booms and less for busts. And they postulate that this gorwth is due to the victory of capital over labor. Labor is more "flexible" today. The rpoblem is that while that sounds fine to an economicst, what does "more flexible labor" mean for a worker? Less joib security, the need perhaps to siwthc jobs often (and with that benefits) and perhaps also a constant need to keep movign about and to work longer hours and take less time off. The system as a whole purrs along, more wealth being created, but the reality of the individual atom becomes less and less secure, much more stressfull. That is what marxist speak about worker alienation.

	14-06-2003 01:27									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Fez Communism has way more inefficencies than capitalism. Capitalism is a logical working system. Communism is not. Communism in all senses is illogical. I don't know why some of you actually believe in communism. It creates nothing but economic chaos.

its BAM! man!

Our hero!

	14-06-2003 01:28									#120
	Inflate your Upload Space

Chegitz -- I replied to your post.

Did you miss it?