The truth about your 'freedom'

[Dill Pickle]

@@cheshirecatv2

 

You don't know our plan but believe it isn't feasible? That is a very smart thing to do.

He knows how communism has been done in the past and all possible logical ways it can be done: you take stuff away from others via violence and distribute it in a manner that your regime will see fit.

"MORAL CASE"? Are you actually serious? The very property and rights you talk about originated with violence, slavery, domination, and massacres over those who had very little from the rich. Majority of the western hemisphere's wealth was gained through slavery. There are only a few countries that the British haven't invaded and when they died the U.S picked up. You assume the existence of a human overrides everything in the universe and that somehow we can own a property that existed long before us.

Incorrect, property and rights began in the Neolithic Revolution by those who decided to turn from hunter-gatherers into agricultural societies. Majority of the West's wealth was NOT gained through slavery but via the Industrial Revolution, technological innovation and people following the rules of the Market (demand for a good/service makes entrepreneurs borrow capital/gain financing through investors then provide the good/service at a profit).

(1) The necessary information will be gained through the workers of society - who, by working, already have the necessary information on redistribution. The level of resources going to different areas will be decided on various factors which will ultimately get voted at a council of workers/individuals living in that society such as time, importance etc.

The majority of workers are a bunch of uneducated retards, and do not have a basis in reality (look at the personal debt problem). How do the workers decide? Do they do direct democracy on every decision or, more feasibly, do they elect officials who eventually start to allocate resources on people's political views/race/etc.? Also why should Joe the Janitor or Shanequa from HR get to vote on the procurement/finance/legal steps for the country's resources? And what about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who have innovative ideas, but just lack the political connections to get their ideas heard?

(2) Already explained in (1)

 

Not really. Capitalism pushes for things in society that benefit it and vice versa. It doesn't push for things that are both healthy and important most of the time. Majority of the capitalist world is unaware/ignorant of global warming. You get so much useless products released to people that they do not need and barely use. I've never met a single person to use every single function in a phone or near to all of it. Most people use the same features but spend 2x more money everytime they buy a new phone - do they need it? No. Half of the things you own you've probably left at the side for a long time. Its simplistic desire which fades after minimal time.

Who the fuck are you to decide what's important and what's not? If someone is willing to pay for it, they have a use for it, and the company can generate the good/service, hire staff who can feed their families and buy what they need without the approval of some fucking Commie bureaucrat living hundreds of miles away. Global warming is propaganda, the world went through an Ice Age and warmed up even when people were not doing any massive carbon release. You say capitalism doesn't push health but people are now living up to 80-90 years old in relative comfort.

 

 

The Socialist Utopia* was a metaphoric concept of a society and is not a literal way of living. Scarcity will keep growing, and even if your eye is on nuclear fusion or modified crops, it still takes wealth and resources to get to those levels that the very rich will never give. Thats the point. That level will never be reached at this model of living. Before technological advancements you need to help the very poor who have never lived as you do, as you get up on your computer and reply back - they have no comprehension of this. Clean energy and genetically-modified crops (which is not a good way btw) is the least of many dangerous problems/issues.

Market economy doesn't distribute goods - I already explained that which you ignored & didn't reply to.

Why should I help the poor?

 

 

Private ownership over the means of production yes, enterprise not so much. Capitalism is an economic structure in which individuals can own private property and use it to gain property through wage-labour, with minimal interference of the state.

 

It seems illogical to make a statement then state "for xyz reasons".

 

How is the individual in the best position to understand his/her needs and wants? Expand on your point with elaboration, examples, evidence etc. Stop making blank statements.

 

Communism is not an extreme, you assume that due to your experiences with the dictatorships that evolved such as the Soviet Union and the Cuban revolution. Socialism is a mere step back from Communism, and you not knowing that tells me what I need to know about your political and economical knowledge.

 

Don't just jump in like this because I'm 99.9% sure you do not know what these theories mean. Like right now you're dodging majority of what I've written and gon' off on a tangent. Throughout this post you've made blank statements (& copy and pasted the same quotes/replies) and ignored my reply asking you to elaborate. Instead of trying to write paragraphs on a subject you're not so experienced in read a few books, watch a few arguments, watch a few documentaries etc.

EVERY FUCKING COMMIE PUPPET says "Communism has never been done right". Then what guarantees it will work this time? The ideas you suggest (Elect a council of workers who decide everything) has no basis in reality. In every company the Janitor Joes will always vote "Fuck work, give me benefits/time off/more pay" and then when the company fails because it cannot acquire the resource it needs to build something, and whatever it produces has no market demand, and the workers don't give a brown sticky stuff because they can just vote, they go with their hands out to the Commie bureaucrat who gives them more money and then the cycle keeps repeating.

 

[Lenin]

Hey bro, every day when you sit down for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, who decides what you want to eat?

Thats such a brown sticky stuffty dodge.

 

Thats not what determinism or free will entails. The fact is all the options you are given to consume are with a past reason or causal link in a large line of causes. You 'deciding' to eat something wasn't you choosing it was previous experiences and causes leading you too that 'choice'.

 

 

@@cheshirecatv2

Nice dogde of the entire post.

 

 

You don't know our plan but believe it isn't feasible? That is a very smart thing to do.

He knows how communism has been done in the past and all possible logical ways it can be done: you take stuff away from others via violence and distribute it in a manner that your regime will see fit.

"MORAL CASE"? Are you actually serious? The very property and rights you talk about originated with violence, slavery, domination, and massacres over those who had very little from the rich. Majority of the western hemisphere's wealth was gained through slavery. There are only a few countries that the British haven't invaded and when they died the U.S picked up. You assume the existence of a human overrides everything in the universe and that somehow we can own a property that existed long before us.

Incorrect, property and rights began in the Neolithic Revolution by those who decided to turn from hunter-gatherers into agricultural societies. Majority of the West's wealth was NOT gained through slavery but via the Industrial Revolution, technological innovation and people following the rules of the Market (demand for a good/service makes entrepreneurs borrow capital/gain financing through investors then provide the good/service at a profit).

(1) The necessary information will be gained through the workers of society - who, by working, already have the necessary information on redistribution. The level of resources going to different areas will be decided on various factors which will ultimately get voted at a council of workers/individuals living in that society such as time, importance etc.

The majority of workers are a bunch of uneducated retards, and do not have a basis in reality (look at the personal debt problem). How do the workers decide? Do they do direct democracy on every decision or, more feasibly, do they elect officials who eventually start to allocate resources on people's political views/race/etc.? Also why should Joe the Janitor or Shanequa from HR get to vote on the procurement/finance/legal steps for the country's resources? And what about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who have innovative ideas, but just lack the political connections to get their ideas heard?

(2) Already explained in (1)

 

Not really. Capitalism pushes for things in society that benefit it and vice versa. It doesn't push for things that are both healthy and important most of the time. Majority of the capitalist world is unaware/ignorant of global warming. You get so much useless products released to people that they do not need and barely use. I've never met a single person to use every single function in a phone or near to all of it. Most people use the same features but spend 2x more money everytime they buy a new phone - do they need it? No. Half of the things you own you've probably left at the side for a long time. Its simplistic desire which fades after minimal time.

Who the fuck are you to decide what's important and what's not? If someone is willing to pay for it, they have a use for it, and the company can generate the good/service, hire staff who can feed their families and buy what they need without the approval of some fucking Commie bureaucrat living hundreds of miles away. Global warming is propaganda, the world went through an Ice Age and warmed up even when people were not doing any massive carbon release. You say capitalism doesn't push health but people are now living up to 80-90 years old in relative comfort.

The Socialist Utopia* was a metaphoric concept of a society and is not a literal way of living. Scarcity will keep growing, and even if your eye is on nuclear fusion or modified crops, it still takes wealth and resources to get to those levels that the very rich will never give. Thats the point. That level will never be reached at this model of living. Before technological advancements you need to help the very poor who have never lived as you do, as you get up on your computer and reply back - they have no comprehension of this. Clean energy and genetically-modified crops (which is not a good way btw) is the least of many dangerous problems/issues.

Market economy doesn't distribute goods - I already explained that which you ignored & didn't reply to.Why should I help the poor?

 

 

Private ownership over the means of production yes, enterprise not so much. Capitalism is an economic structure in which individuals can own private property and use it to gain property through wage-labour, with minimal interference of the state.

 

It seems illogical to make a statement then state "for xyz reasons".

 

How is the individual in the best position to understand his/her needs and wants? Expand on your point with elaboration, examples, evidence etc. Stop making blank statements.

 

Communism is not an extreme, you assume that due to your experiences with the dictatorships that evolved such as the Soviet Union and the Cuban revolution. Socialism is a mere step back from Communism, and you not knowing that tells me what I need to know about your political and economical knowledge.

 

Don't just jump in like this because I'm 99.9% sure you do not know what these theories mean. Like right now you're dodging majority of what I've written and gon' off on a tangent. Throughout this post you've made blank statements (& copy and pasted the same quotes/replies) and ignored my reply asking you to elaborate. Instead of trying to write paragraphs on a subject you're not so experienced in read a few books, watch a few arguments, watch a few documentaries etc.

EVERY FUCKING COMMIE PUPPET says "Communism has never been done right". Then what guarantees it will work this time? The ideas you suggest (Elect a council of workers who decide everything) has no basis in reality. In every company the Janitor Joes will always vote "Fuck work, give me benefits/time off/more pay" and then when the company fails because it cannot acquire the resource it needs to build something, and whatever it produces has no market demand, and the workers don't give a brown sticky stuff because they can just vote, they go with their hands out to the Commie bureaucrat who gives them more money and then the cycle keeps repeating.

 

1) Communism was never achieved

2) The closest was Lenin and the Soviets which turned into a state socialist structure and an imperialist one with Stalin

3) There has only been a few large left revolutions, not all methods have been tried. Retake your history paper

4) There are different methods and structures of reaching Communism, the one you mentioned has never been done by leftists, only capitalists who took the wealth to themselves

 

Since the other guy dodged can you define Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Capitalism etc.?

 

1) Workers do not decide every aspect of society but their fields and expertise.

2) Organic intellectuals are workers who have significant intelligence who are a part of the workers council.

3) Workers arent uneducated retards. From reading what you put I would like to point out the irony to you but he ho.

4)The industrial revolution's resources - capital, was gained through imperialism, methods of taking poor countries resources to build capital. In the industrial revolution the rich were powerful (because of the imperialism) and the workers were pretty much slaves at dangerous jobs with very little income forcing children to work + no rights whatsoever.

5) Give me some evidence of when a market suceeded without being controlled. Go ahead.

6) We call vanguardism the temp state which will be abolished after it suceeds at its task - to educate the public. Councils will represent each area and votes will take place on what the people need, which is brought up to topic by the people. You've never seen this take place but I have. Your ignorance is not an excuse its being an egoistic broccoli.

7) Your comment about Bill and Steve tell me how much of a broccoli you are.

 

 

1) One individual doesnt decide whats important, it is a collective decision made on universal factors which effect everyone. Its the entire premise of Philosophy and Politics. Why the fuck are you whining about my views but replied anyway?

 

2) Global warming is propaganda?

End//

[cheshirecatv2]

@ It wasn't a dodge, I just gave up with this when you used your response to (1) as an answer to (2) re. bounded rationality (didn't Lenin try centralised system but gave up with it after a while because it was chaos?). My question was in response to yours ("how is the individual in the best position to understand their needs/wants?"). Forgot the parallel I drew with the determinism/free will debate - the purpose of which was to highlight that the illusion of freedom can be a functional idea, ergo not likely to be disappear any time soon.

 

 

 

also, re. the xyz reasons: omitted full explanation because you alluded to many of the reasons behind asymmetry of power in other posts. 

 

also, you'd still need to build a contemporary moral case for overriding current property rights regardless of their origin. There's some argument, or essay written on this which I can't recall at the moment. It's to do with how responsibility for ownership is inherited, or some brown sticky stuff. It's categorised under generational justice, I'm sure it's summarised somewhere on SEP.

 

also, fabulous job on calling me out on my ignorance of the nuances between political philosophies. This is your turf, I concede that. All I'm trying to argue is that capitalism ain't that bad. 

 

you don't think the failed attempts contribute towards the idea that these theories aren't feasible?

 

I think what the rest of us are trying to get at (and as someone who works in engineering knows all too well) rule by committee is notoriously inefficient. 

 

also, I like your nietzsche sig.

[Lenin]

@ It wasn't a dodge, I just gave up with this when you used your response to (1) as an answer to (2) re. bounded rationality (didn't Lenin try centralised system but gave up with it after a while because it was chaos?). My question was in response to yours ("how is the individual in the best position to understand their needs/wants?"). Forgot the parallel I drew with the determinism/free will debate - the purpose of which was to highlight that the illusion of freedom can be a functional idea, ergo not likely to be disappear any time soon.

 

 

 

also, re. the xyz reasons: omitted full explanation because you alluded to many of the reasons behind asymmetry of power in other posts. 

 

also, you'd still need to build a contemporary moral case for overriding current property rights regardless of their origin. There's some argument, or essay written on this which I can't recall at the moment. It's to do with how responsibility for ownership is inherited, or some brown sticky stuff. It's categorised under generational justice, I'm sure it's summarised somewhere on SEP.

 

also, fabulous job on calling me out on my ignorance of the nuances between political philosophies. This is your turf, I concede that. All I'm trying to argue is that capitalism ain't that bad. 

 

you don't think the failed attempts contribute towards the idea that these theories aren't feasible?

 

I think what the rest of us are trying to get at (and as someone who works in engineering knows all too well) rule by committee is notoriously inefficient. 

 

also, I like your nietzsche sig.

I really dont want to write paragraphs that you will dodge. Reply to the original post and we'll continue. If not, then I wont reply back either.

[Dill Pickle]

Thats such a brown sticky stuffty dodge.

 

Thats not what determinism or free will entails. The fact is all the options you are given to consume are with a past reason or causal link in a large line of causes. You 'deciding' to eat something wasn't you choosing it was previous experiences and causes leading you too that 'choice'.

 

 

1) Communism was never achieved

2) The closest was Lenin and the Soviets which turned into a state socialist structure and an imperialist one with Stalin

3) There has only been a few large left revolutions, not all methods have been tried. Retake your history paper

4) There are different methods and structures of reaching Communism, the one you mentioned has never been done by leftists, only capitalists who took the wealth to themselves

 

Since the other guy dodged can you define Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Capitalism etc.?

 

1) Workers do not decide every aspect of society but their fields and expertise.

2) Organic intellectuals are workers who have significant intelligence who are a part of the workers council.

3) Workers arent uneducated retards. From reading what you put I would like to point out the irony to you but he ho.

4)The industrial revolution's resources - capital, was gained through imperialism, methods of taking poor countries resources to build capital. In the industrial revolution the rich were powerful (because of the imperialism) and the workers were pretty much slaves at dangerous jobs with very little income forcing children to work + no rights whatsoever.

5) Give me some evidence of when a market suceeded without being controlled. Go ahead.

6) We call vanguardism the temp state which will be abolished after it suceeds at its task - to educate the public. Councils will represent each area and votes will take place on what the people need, which is brought up to topic by the people. You've never seen this take place but I have. Your ignorance is not an excuse its being an egoistic broccoli.

7) Your comment about Bill and Steve tell me how much of a broccoli you are.

 

 

1) One individual doesnt decide whats important, it is a collective decision made on universal factors which effect everyone. Its the entire premise of Philosophy and Politics. Why the fuck are you whining about my views but replied anyway?

 

2) Global warming is propaganda?

End//

1) Worker expertise doesn't matter if your company/country doesn't make money aka create value. Go to college for 10 years but if you can't create value, you're out of luck. Also in every human society 'experts' will disagree with each other, and in communism the one with the right connections will be in power.

2) See above, it's all who you know, not what you know.

3) Workers fail to see the long-term picture and will be selfish if given the choice (see Greece, and any other socialist brown sticky stuffhole where workers vote to take long vacations, get raises they dont deserve and join unions, while not adding any additional value)

4) Wrong, it was mostly gained by trade deals that were willingly signed by the sovereign nations of the time. If Mubutu lives as a hunter-gatherer for a thousand years and British settlers choose to settle in an area adjacent to Mubutu and create a civilization, then they don't owe anything to Mubutu. If Mubutu's king/leader cannot defend his borders, he has no right to call them his own. Also, a lot of countries were better off under Imperial rule (Rhodesia=known as Zimbabwe today) but when they kicked the whites out and stopped getting hand-outs they had famine and the economy collapsed, GG

5) Markets in capitalism are not controlled like they are in communism, there are laws in place that are there for stability and transparency and to garner investor trust. There aren't forced marches into work-camps to farm grain like Communism. No one is taking money from private accounts to do whatever the "Council" decides to do. You can run your business and/or add value to yourself and get a job and be amply rewarded, not so in Communism.

6) The public doesn't need your forced Commie education, they are free to obtain information from themselves and elect people into office who will represent their views and interests. You can't point a gun at people and yell propaganda at them to make it true.

7) Ad hominem that doesn't reply to the issue presented.

 

1) ALL COMMUNIST COUNTRIES HAVE A LEADER WHO RUNS THINGS BASED ON A CULT OF PERSONALITY (Lenin, Mao, Che Guevera, Pol Pot, Chavez, Castro). NOT A SINGLE COMMUNIST COUNTRY IN EXISTENCE HAS ACHIEVED YOUR IDEA OF A UTOPIAN COUNCIL.

 

2) I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to adequately demonstrate that HUMAN ACTION is causing global warming. Also Global Warming isn't happening as the experts predicted it would, which is demonstrated by record snowfalls in certain areas and the oceans are rising less than predicted.

 

Please try to approach my points with a critical approach as opposed to calling me a broccoli or main clan, thanks.

[Datassd0e]

Loving the arguments. Solid arguments for each side:p

[Patrick]

Socialism will NEVER work

[Datassd0e]

Socialism will NEVER work

Social democracy can though.

[Dill Pickle]

Social democracy can though.

wrong

[Datassd0e]

wrong

Our last democratic socialist president was elected 4 times in a row(there was a term limit set later). Let that sink in:)

[Jackson]

pc

pc

[knikker]

pc

 

pc

can u stop u braindead monkey

[UnderMayhem]

+1