Role of Capitalism


PDA

View Full Version : Role of Capitalism


Pages : [1] 2

Punx&Skunx
02-25-2008, 06:00 PM
During my short time here, i've had a few interesting conversations dealing with bands being capitalist. One thing really stuck to me:

Capitalism is an economic system, and they're making a big profit, which is money, so they can get more property, by being on a big label. And that is capitalism... I don't think a band can be sincere about hating the system and wanting to get rid of big corporations if they're on a major label and making tons of money from their "least favorite thing"...capitalism.


My question is how do you think capitalism effects bands, and what is your stance on the issue of capitalism, bands, and major record labels?

I don't think capitalism really effects the bands in such a way that Devourthekitten seems to think. Frankly i dont really see how the idea of a big corporation is the same as a major record label. The record label is the one making the money, bands get their money when they go on tours and sell merch. I think the main reason behind being on a major record label is to get ones music out there. On a major record label bands can spread their music out to a larger fan base one that a smaller record label might not be able to reach. I find it hard to believe bands a benefitting from capitalism when they are traveling the country in sh*tty van as opposed to a charter bus.

Discuss...

mike2
02-25-2008, 06:09 PM
it's more or less how the record label does, than how much money a band gets. Like anti-flag signing to RCA, RCA helps with the war effort in Iraq (I forgot how...something like funding) and they are against the war. and Against Me! believe in "Anarchy" or anarchist ideals, yet they are part of a corporation...which doesn't seem to be very anarchist.

crustyreed
02-25-2008, 06:14 PM
Not only that if a band is on a major they are rich. Like rockstars, thus anti-flag going 'yeah we live in a ****hole', uhm no you guys don't and even if you do you have the ability to live in decent house. Alot of south side kids make fun of the older crusties (from middle class families) for doing the same thing.

BTW I know Profane existence (a truly radical) punk zine, they said 'ok with the demise of independent music stores, we have to find new ways to get these outs.'' They got an offer from Banens and Noble stock people asking if they were interested in selling to barnes and nobles. So they send some to barnes and nobles, and borders and say 'hey do you want to carry these?'' They reviewed them and said 'You need more content and pictures.'' IN return a flat out 'no'. I think if they had gotten them into major stores that would of been awesome, definitely could of gotten more people into crust/DIY, but changing the zine around to suit them and the 'market'? **** that. If you change anything to get on a major i cannot support you at all.

mike2
02-25-2008, 06:15 PM
^that is also true, usually they want your band to change your sound...

but even indie labels suck as much as the major labels...look at hellcat and what tim armstrong did to leftover crack.

original=punk
02-25-2008, 06:49 PM
Seriously? I'm the first one to point out that this person cannot even spell "Role" properly, and I'm supposed to hear his opinion of capitalism? Hah.

Capitalism isn't bad. (zomg un-p0nx!)
Making money isn't bad. Money doesn't exist, so making it has no affect on the world as a whole.


EDIT: Also, contrary to popular belief, capitalism is NOT the reason why big corporations are "eevil" it's just humanity being stupid. Wanted to make money is something that shouldn't be "bad" But doing anything and exploiting people and their homes is bad. But that isn't capitalism. In a socialist society, the government, in theory, could still do the same thing, and it wouldn't even be for money!!

whyvern
02-25-2008, 06:57 PM
Capitalism is bad. Money is evil. Corporations suck. Be a punk and grow some balls and let the bastard's know who really owns this world.

original=punk
02-25-2008, 06:58 PM
Capitalism is bad. Money is evil. Corporations suck. Be a punk and grow some balls and let the bastard's know who really owns this world.


Quite obviously this is sarcasm? Cause if it isn't then i can't worship you anymore :(

sargasm
02-25-2008, 07:14 PM
Capitalism polarizes society into distinct economic classes, the poorer of which will always get ****ed over. Nobody deserves the luxuries which capitalism allows to the few, or the hardships that capitalism imposes on the many. Money assigns specific values to the worth of individuals, which are arbitrary and false.

jimmyjimjim
02-25-2008, 07:42 PM
^okay...but what system do you follow than? Anarchy is not feasible, communism is not feasible. But in context of this thread...
You have to stick to your morals. If you hate big labels, than don't sign. If you can make money some other way, that's good news. However, usually getting signed by a big label is the best way to maintain a livelihood through music. You may have regional success, but if you don't want to work a day job than you have to stick with a big label. It's a personal choice; do you consider Bob Dylan and John Lennon false idols?
Also, corporations create and donate to charities and foundations, which more positively affect the world than punk bands singing about the ills of capitalism.

original=punk
02-25-2008, 08:00 PM
^okay...but what system do you follow than? Anarchy is not feasible, communism is not feasible. But in context of this thread...
You have to stick to your morals. If you hate big labels, than don't sign. If you can make money some other way, that's good news. However, usually getting signed by a big label is the best way to maintain a livelihood through music. You may have regional success, but if you don't want to work a day job than you have to stick with a big label. It's a personal choice; do you consider Bob Dylan and John Lennon false idols?
Also, corporations create and donate to charities and foundations, which more positively affect the world than punk bands singing about the ills of capitalism.


That's a defeatist's attitude. That's why we anarchists don't give up, we don't believe in it being impossible. you gotta believe. Besides, if worse comes to worse, the anarchists can just take over an area of the stastes, declare it independant and start over form there.

jimmyjimjim
02-25-2008, 08:09 PM
It's not defeatist, it's realist. Do you have a job? Do you go to school? If you do, you're not a true anarchist. If you really wanted to overthrow a government you would spend every moment of the day planning and carrying out subversive activities. But you don't; you probably will say "but I need a job for money so I can finance myself" or "I need an education to further my goals." You'd be right, but you wouldn't be a true anarchist. And no, anarchists couldn't take over an area of the states, because what would they form, a government? Plus, what situation will result in "if worse comes to worse?" I'm sorry, but anarchists had their heyday back in the Early 1900's. Find a more constructive way to shape the world about you; don't just try to overthrow something because you perceive inequality. It's true that it exists, but anarchy will not solve it.

axeslash
02-25-2008, 08:17 PM
I'm glad O=P pointed out his massive spelling error, I was afraid no one else noticed, which would have made me very disappointed.

Anyways, Capitalism is a system in which those with money have the power, and those without money have no power. There's that whole class division thing everyone talks about, and then there's all that stuff about corporation. Whoop-de-doo.

Major labels are bad because they change the sound, and they expect the bands to do what they want, because it's a ****ing business. I would be shocked if labels didn't try to get bands to be more profitable. The question is, what are you willing to give up to reach that amount of money? And are you willing to risk all of your actual fans to get some money off of some teeny-boppers buying records off their parents money? It's all about whether or not you think it's worth it.

original=punk
02-25-2008, 08:18 PM
Really, what do you know of my beliefs? I don't believe in a set hierarchy, does that mean I disobey every request a teacher gives me? No, because I hold respect for them. I don't plan to overthrow the government, that was a joke., learn to laugh.

I like to learn. My teachers like teaching. Someone pays them to teach, creating even further incentive to teach me. I pay them money for my education, becuase I wish to not grow up an ignorant buffon, like, I don't know, you. Anarchy isn't about overthrowing the government, it's not about molotov cocktails, it's not about christians in the 1900s. It's about people, who want to be free, so they live their lives as freethinkers and doers. They do as they wish. I live at home, because I want to, I love my mom, she will take care of me until I graduate, in which I will take over my life for myself.

Who says I will take a normal job? Who says I won't? Who are you to say I will buy a house. Who am I to say I won't possibly own an apartment? You don't know me, or what I'm about. Leave it that way, cause you'll never understand.

sargasm
02-25-2008, 08:20 PM
^okay...but what system do you follow than? Anarchy is not feasible, communism is not feasible. But in context of this thread...
You have to stick to your morals. If you hate big labels, than don't sign. If you can make money some other way, that's good news. However, usually getting signed by a big label is the best way to maintain a livelihood through music. You may have regional success, but if you don't want to work a day job than you have to stick with a big label. It's a personal choice; do you consider Bob Dylan and John Lennon false idols?
Also, corporations create and donate to charities and foundations, which more positively affect the world than punk bands singing about the ills of capitalism.

I am an anarchist. I realize my ideals by applying them to my own life, and my own small communities. I try to live as much as possible without depending on the government and the arbitrary classist economy that endeavors to enslave us all. A complete social revolution would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

"Punk bands singing about capialism" is a pretty narrow minded view of what punk actually accomplishes. Spend some time in the punk scene. Go to Food Not Bombs. There are a lot of positive things happening within the community. It isn't all about the music. It's about building community in our own way without relying on anyone else to do it for us. It might seem like a small thing, but it's growing every day.

Corporations are able to give a little bit back because they have so much. Very few of them are doing anywhere near what they could be, and they never will because they don't have to. If it doesn't turn them a profit they're not interested. They'll only do enough so they can say "hey we help people" and apathetic middle class folk can buy their products under the impression that they're making a difference.

sargasm
02-25-2008, 08:21 PM
ITT: People don't understand anarchism.

axeslash
02-25-2008, 08:23 PM
It's not defeatist, it's realist. Do you have a job? Do you go to school? If you do, you're not a true anarchist. If you really wanted to overthrow a government you would spend every moment of the day planning and carrying out subversive activities. But you don't; you probably will say "but I need a job for money so I can finance myself" or "I need an education to further my goals." You'd be right, but you wouldn't be a true anarchist. And no, anarchists couldn't take over an area of the states, because what would they form, a government? Plus, what situation will result in "if worse comes to worse?" I'm sorry, but anarchists had their heyday back in the Early 1900's. Find a more constructive way to shape the world about you; don't just try to overthrow something because you perceive inequality. It's true that it exists, but anarchy will not solve it.
You do not know anarchy, but you wish to tell someone else that they don't know about it? I find that to be very hypocritical, and I for one will not stand for such tomfoolery.

jimmyjimjim
02-25-2008, 08:50 PM
Really, what do you know of my beliefs? I don't believe in a set hierarchy, does that mean I disobey every request a teacher gives me? No, because I hold respect for them. I don't plan to overthrow the government, that was a joke., learn to laugh.

I like to learn. My teachers like teaching. Someone pays them to teach, creating even further incentive to teach me. I pay them money for my education, becuase I wish to not grow up an ignorant buffon, like, I don't know, you. Anarchy isn't about overthrowing the government, it's not about molotov cocktails, it's not about christians in the 1900s. It's about people, who want to be free, so they live their lives as freethinkers and doers. They do as they wish. I live at home, because I want to, I love my mom, she will take care of me until I graduate, in which I will take over my life for myself.

Who says I will take a normal job? Who says I won't? Who are you to say I will buy a house. Who am I to say I won't possibly own an apartment? You don't know me, or what I'm about. Leave it that way, cause you'll never understand.

Bolded letters=lame joke, and an ignorant statement. You do not know me. You paint me as ignorant, and you probably assume I blindly follow the state. In short, you feel I am a tool. It would be unwise of you to view me as such. I share more of your views than you believe. Yet, we differ in several key areas.
You seem to be an individualist anarchist. You practice your anarchy through freethinking and doing; I too think as I want, and do as I want. I am not anarchist, and I feel that is weak anarchy. Yet, you seem to feel all anarchists are like this. Anarchy is about having no government, following as little government as you can, and establishing an alternative society. You may disagree with this; it's your right. There are too many sets of views of anarchy to create one base theme; indeed, having one set of views would not be anarchist in principle at all.
I do appreciate the later humor in the house/apartment joke. Perhaps you should consider a teepee and a nomadic lifestyle. Native American (First Nation) living does fascinate me greatly, and maybe we could start a tribe. Bows and arrows and everything.

To Sargasm: earlier I made the comment about punk bands singing about capitalism to emphasize my point that corporations do more good than many people credit them. Of course they shortchange people, but some do operate in good faith. Right now I guess I am the devil's advocate; the Food not Bombs organization is great, yet it probably does less than corporations doing and funding the same things. In the long run that is unlikely to change; I would like to have people like you running corporations and creating change through them, yet you probably have no interest in doing that such thing. You may call me a Booker T. and a sellout, but I feel the best opportunity for change lies in reforming the institution through the inside. I hope someday that I may do that, and I wish you great success in your initiatives. Perhaps one day our paths shall cross on the common path to victory.

EDIT: Yes, that last post is quite corny and dumb. Please excuse it. Anyways, the real reason for this edit is that I feel have gotten off on the wrong foot here. I am not hostile to your ideas; I am sorry if I have come off as that. In fact, you deserve more respect than nearly everyone I know. What I really trying to say is, why can't we be friends? :(

whyvern
02-25-2008, 09:02 PM
Corporations do nothing great. They've seen this world as a way to benefit themselves with no regards for it's other inhabitants. Anarchism and capitalism cannot coexist. There's nothing moral even in the classical sense of the world of an ideology or a system that takes advantage of people's weaknesses and dehumanizes people.

You may say that technology has done wonders for the world and that it wouldn't be possible without corporations.

You're wrong.

Technology has done wonders for HUMANS and the world has suffered every step of the way. Do I reap the benefits of capitalism? Sometimes, I do. I'm not ashamed to say that I have used this exploitative system but I also take steps in my life to fight it and everyone tries their own little bit to limit their influence on our lives.

I firmly stand by what I said before. Under no circumstance is a capitalist system benefital to this world. You shouldn't worship people any way. No Gods. No Masters.

Up the punx.

original=punk
02-25-2008, 09:11 PM
I believe that scientific development has aided us in the ways of medicine, and that's it. But the corporations didn't do it. The people did it.


I am an individualistic person, why? Because I am an individual. Although i may do what I want, and that only, that does not mean I am selfish. What if I want to help people? Then I help people, because I want to. That's why i'm being taught to be al ifeguard, because I want to make things safe for people. I also am using it to learn leadership skils, in which I am lacking horribly. I pay only 10% of the actual fee, for undisclosed reasons, and so therefore you cannot blame me for "helping the government I wish to "bring down" I think many people need a leader, but others do not, so why should the leader who a group of people want, be leader for all people? Why do we close off into "borders" of countries? Wouldn't it be easier weith no borders? You would have to deal with citizenship problems.

Countires happened because cultures became gradually segregated. But we're at an age where we are intelligent enough to realize the fact now that in essence, we are all the same, so we shouldn't create countires to sheild our cultures, in fact, just let the cultures intermingle across the globe, a mini Ireland could pop up in what is known as India. Wouldn't that be beautiful? I think it would be.

No borders, No bosses, No Masters, No Idols.

sargasm
02-25-2008, 09:28 PM
I think technology and anarchism are not mutually exclusive. I think I might write an essay or even a book one day about reconciling my anarchism with my love of technology.

jpate770
02-25-2008, 09:40 PM
I think technology and anarchism are not mutually exclusive. I think I might write an essay or even a book one day about reconciling my anarchism with my love of technology.
I agree. The form of anarchy denying advances in technology is actually anarcho-primitism, so, outside of that belief, it is perfectly plausible for the two to coexist.

ScummerVacation
02-25-2008, 10:33 PM
Capitalism rocks. Be smart, think fast and act faster. No guts no glory. Get cookin' or get out!

Ska Wars
02-25-2008, 10:39 PM
you're with us or you're with the terrorests!

Iluvpowerchords
02-25-2008, 10:57 PM
Capitalism?

More liek CRAPitalism!

lol am i rite or wut?

crustyreed
02-25-2008, 11:12 PM
Jimmyjimjim funny thing is their are 'anarchists' as you describe them. They squat, find their food in garbage cans, dont work, hardly consume anything. Indeed modeled after native american culture. And to say that doing anything less than that is basically saying the lovely quote 'if your not with us, your against us' Generalizations dont work.

This corporate going green stuff is bull****. Its 100% market demand. Nothing more. When a corporation puts up 20 million or so for 'Public Image' its just a image, they dont give a ****
But lets keep that demand rolling!
NO COMPROMISE IN DEFENSE OF OUR MOTHER EARTH
NO COAL, NO OIL, NO SHOWERS, NO CARS

Ska Wars
02-25-2008, 11:25 PM
Capitalism?

More liek CRAPitalism!

lol am i rite or wut?
:haha sig'd for truthfulness :p:

EDIT: Ok, so I have no idea how to change my signature now that UG's changed...help me?

jimmyjimjim
02-25-2008, 11:32 PM
You missed my point. I'm aware that there are people living like that, both out of choice and out of neccessity. You don't have to be an anarchist to be against the government, so I don't see why everyone wants to classify themselves as anarchist, as true anarchy is existence without government. There may be a romantic appeal that lies with classifying one's self as anarchist, and that has led to a vast diversification in what is called "anarchy."
Also, be careful when you and anyone else rails against corporations. Most of the corporations are small business entities that provide useful services for their communities and employ members of the communities, and have no wish nor means to conspire against the greater populace. I believe you refer to the mega corporations, which yield too much power and control in our present world. A distinction must be made, for the destruction of small corporations only hurts our world.

jimmyjimjim
02-25-2008, 11:33 PM
to ska wars:
Go to Control Panel
Edit Signature is first option, if that's any help

Ska Wars
02-25-2008, 11:38 PM
Oh, I'm stupid. I was looking in the My Profile thing. Thanks.

jimmyjimjim
02-25-2008, 11:41 PM
no problemo

sargasm
02-26-2008, 12:03 AM
Anarchism isn't as black and white as a lot of people seem to think. It is, by definition, lack of government. A society without a government could be many different things though.

whyvern
02-26-2008, 12:08 AM
You missed my point. I'm aware that there are people living like that, both out of choice and out of neccessity. You don't have to be an anarchist to be against the government, so I don't see why everyone wants to classify themselves as anarchist, as true anarchy is existence without government. There may be a romantic appeal that lies with classifying one's self as anarchist, and that has led to a vast diversification in what is called "anarchy."
Also, be careful when you and anyone else rails against corporations. Most of the corporations are small business entities that provide useful services for their communities and employ members of the communities, and have no wish nor means to conspire against the greater populace. I believe you refer to the mega corporations, which yield too much power and control in our present world. A distinction must be made, for the destruction of small corporations only hurts our world.

No, When I said corporation I meant corporation. It's a legal entity that has the same rights as me. The very design of incorporating something is unnatural and inhumane. To say that someone's business interests have the same value as a child's health and human rights is beyond ****ed up.

True anarchy means you exist without hierarchies not just governments. So racism, sexism and capitalism all are forms of oppressive hierarchies. As anarchists we try and remove those from our lives as much as possible.

Let me stress again the while corporations may help PEOPLE, there is more to the community at large than people. Corporations have done nothing but harm our planet and the rest of it's inhabitants for profit. Even if they are a "green" corporation, they're making money, as someone said earlier, off the market demand that they present a caring image. However, if they truly cared for the environment , they'd stop producing.

original=punk
02-26-2008, 08:36 AM
No, When I said corporation I meant corporation. It's a legal entity that has the same rights as me. The very design of incorporating something is unnatural and inhumane. To say that someone's business interests have the same value as a child's health and human rights is beyond ****ed up.

True anarchy means you exist without hierarchies not just governments. So racism, sexism and capitalism all are forms of oppressive hierarchies. As anarchists we try and remove those from our lives as much as possible.

Let me stress again the while corporations may help PEOPLE, there is more to the community at large than people. Corporations have done nothing but harm our planet and the rest of it's inhabitants for profit. Even if they are a "green" corporation, they're making money, as someone said earlier, off the market demand that they present a caring image. However, if they truly cared for the environment , they'd stop producing.


QFT

sargasm
02-26-2008, 12:15 PM
This thread makes me happy.

lavazza
02-26-2008, 12:45 PM
No itīs a ****......I want to follow, but I donīt want to read all of your long posts :(

Whatever......Whenever msuicians start to sell CDs in huge masses and sign major labels or do anything similar their music becomes worse, popular examples are Anti Flag, Against Me!

Iluvpowerchords
02-26-2008, 01:25 PM
The Replacements managed to improve when they signed to Sire.

Or at least they released two fabulous albums:

Tim and Pleased to Meet Me.

Of course none of them were quite as good as "Let It Be" but they still managed to not suck.

Same thing with Jawbreaker

Dear You doesn't suck.

Plenty of bands don't suck after going major.

Adam_Harrison9
02-26-2008, 02:47 PM
Not only that if a band is on a major they are rich. Like rockstars, thus anti-flag going 'yeah we live in a ****hole', uhm no you guys don't and even if you do you have the ability to live in decent house. Alot of south side kids make fun of the older crusties (from middle class families) for doing the same thing.
BTW I know Profane existence (a truly radical) punk zine, they said 'ok with the demise of independent music stores, we have to find new ways to get these outs.'' They got an offer from Banens and Noble stock people asking if they were interested in selling to barnes and nobles. So they send some to barnes and nobles, and borders and say 'hey do you want to carry these?'' They reviewed them and said 'You need more content and pictures.'' IN return a flat out 'no'. I think if they had gotten them into major stores that would of been awesome, definitely could of gotten more people into crust/DIY, but changing the zine around to suit them and the 'market'? **** that. If you change anything to get on a major i cannot support you at all.

LAWL LAWL LAWL LAWL

BrianApocalypse
02-26-2008, 04:16 PM
This is a good thread. I won't post an opinion, because I don't feel that I'm able to formulate one. But yes, it's nice to see something heavyweight.

mike2
02-26-2008, 04:31 PM
LAWL LAWL LAWL LAWL

how come you can not realise the hypocricy of anti-flag? just because the truth is that they are sellouts and definently not a punk band anymore, doesn't mean that you can't enjoy them.

IlikeTheSKA
02-26-2008, 05:07 PM
how come you can not realise the hypocricy of anti-flag? just because the truth is that they are sellouts and definently not a punk band anymore, doesn't mean that you can't enjoy them.

They say they still have total control over their music, and that they're using the major label to spread their message further.

I say

Baby,
I'm
a
Capitalist.

Adam_Harrison9
02-26-2008, 05:28 PM
how come you can not realise the hypocricy of anti-flag? just because the truth is that they are sellouts and definently not a punk band anymore, doesn't mean that you can't enjoy them.

I acknowledge that, but unlike most I acknowledge the causes they support, whether they're on a major label or not, they do more than your average punk bands. The benefits of their major label signing, outweigh the negatives massively. Sure they've been hypocritical, but that's something they have to deal with, I enjoy the music, sure. But to say they're rich is absurd.

Mav-16
02-26-2008, 05:48 PM
I acknowledge that, but unlike most I acknowledge the causes they support, whether they're on a major label or not, they do more than your average punk bands. The benefits of their major label signing, outweigh the negatives massively. Sure they've been hypocritical, but that's something they have to deal with, I enjoy the music, sure. But to say they're rich is absurd.

Anti-Flag is kind of like a corporation:

Yeah! save the planet and help the poor!

buy our product and support a fundraiser! each penny will help!

every tool sits and nods there head and buys it.

the Anti-Flag benifit for victims of a violent crime EP is a perfect example

using politics to sell is a classic move by any consumer

original=punk
02-26-2008, 05:50 PM
guys, Adam Harrison is right, alot of artists on major labels are NOT rich, to say so is ignorant. Go to a songwriters workershop, they'll tell you the truth.

However, that doesn't change the fact that some bands do in fact change their sound to be more commercially acceptable.

crustyreed
02-26-2008, 05:55 PM
I acknowledge that, but unlike most I acknowledge the causes they support, whether they're on a major label or not, they do more than your average punk bands. The benefits of their major label signing, outweigh the negatives massively. Sure they've been hypocritical, but that's something they have to deal with, I enjoy the music, sure. But to say they're rich is absurd.

Ok, i understand I will retract my statement when i see all of their yearly incomes, and see that they are below 50,00 USD (pretty big for ponx) I will consider them not sold out.
And Adam truthfully, out of 100 how many new Anti-flag fans are going to become politically active? Because i guesstimate only 50 in 100 punks actually start to care about politics.

I admit conflict are a bit of sellouts, as our dropdead (to a much lesser extent). And trust me i love those bands more than my own life.

jimmyjimjim
02-26-2008, 06:20 PM
No, When I said corporation I meant corporation. It's a legal entity that has the same rights as me. The very design of incorporating something is unnatural and inhumane. To say that someone's business interests have the same value as a child's health and human rights is beyond ****ed up.

True anarchy means you exist without hierarchies not just governments. So racism, sexism and capitalism all are forms of oppressive hierarchies. As anarchists we try and remove those from our lives as much as possible.

Let me stress again the while corporations may help PEOPLE, there is more to the community at large than people. Corporations have done nothing but harm our planet and the rest of it's inhabitants for profit. Even if they are a "green" corporation, they're making money, as someone said earlier, off the market demand that they present a caring image. However, if they truly cared for the environment , they'd stop producing.

Do you understand that most small businesses and corporations don't destroy the enviroment? Do you understand that they employ people in good faith and do not shortchange the populace? Do you understand that they exist to provide a means of income to the owners and their employees? Do you understand many barely scrape by?
I agree the fourteenth amendment has been abused horribly. But to stop producing is madness and destroy thousands of small corporations is madness. Anarchy theoretically will let anyone do what they want; the vast majority of humans will want products created with means outside their control. If they want, they can start their own business to make these items. If they don't, someone else will fill that void. Capitalism will always exist.
Also, do you realize virutally everything you do is in someway detrimental to the enviroment; it's nearly impossible to become totally green as you want.

original=punk
02-26-2008, 06:37 PM
Do you understand that most small businesses and corporations don't destroy the enviroment? Do you understand that they employ people in good faith and do not shortchange the populace? Do you understand that they exist to provide a means of income to the owners and their employees? Do you understand many barely scrape by?
I agree the fourteenth amendment has been abused horribly. But to stop producing is madness and destroy thousands of small corporations is madness. Anarchy theoretically will let anyone do what they want; the vast majority of humans will want products created with means outside their control. If they want, they can start their own business to make these items. If they don't, someone else will fill that void. Capitalism will always exist.
Also, do you realize virutally everything you do is in someway detrimental to the enviroment; it's nearly impossible to become totally green as you want.

Those two contradict each other, one has faith in humanity, the other doesn't.

Also, have you ever thought that people started charging money for goods instead of bartering was because you didn't barter with the government? The government doesn't want a sack of potatoes, it wants money, the mere invention of money is redundant, it's an impossible cycle. Company makes, say, auto parts. The need the material, they use money to buy materials from another company. That other company then uses the money they got to purchase more raw material to shape and form and then to sell to the other company. The company giving away the raw material wants money so it can contnue payment of it's workers and on machinery. These workers then use money to buy, say, a car, in that way giving money to the car company who uses their money to buy the parts from the company that got the material to make said parts from the raw material they buy!

Do you see?!?!

o-brien
02-26-2008, 09:28 PM
Those two contradict each other, one has faith in humanity, the other doesn't.

Also, have you ever thought that people started charging money for goods instead of bartering was because you didn't barter with the government? The government doesn't want a sack of potatoes, it wants money, the mere invention of money is redundant, it's an impossible cycle. Company makes, say, auto parts. The need the material, they use money to buy materials from another company. That other company then uses the money they got to purchase more raw material to shape and form and then to sell to the other company. The company giving away the raw material wants money so it can contnue payment of it's workers and on machinery. These workers then use money to buy, say, a car, in that way giving money to the car company who uses their money to buy the parts from the company that got the material to make said parts from the raw material they buy!

Do you see?!?!

i don't understand how you can build off the second sentence there.

economic systems change to accommodate the specialization of the society, not in accordance with formation of any type of government. it becomes way too complicated to simply barter goods when a system becomes too complex. too many specialized positions are required to have bartering as a feasible possibility

because gold is a precious metal with unchanging INHERENT value (not the same as a $ value in our society), it has been used as the method of payment for hundreds and hundreds of years. when it became inconvenient physically, bank notes were instituted with the promise that they could be exchanged for gold. that's what your dollar bills would have been, before the US dollar and other countries' currencies were cut from the gold standard (given the failings of human nature, this was a really bad call). I only mention this because trading gold was the step up from bartering, and it happened when bartering alone could not fulfill the needs of changing societies.

I don't think there's any realistic alternative to a capitalist society. it isn't the economic structure that's a problem, it's the idiots who follow their nose after getting a whiff of "big money".
human greed is what causes the corporation problem, the banking problem, the wall street problem. the institution of a capitalist system is irrelevant when it is basic human nature to suck the well dry. to think that all people are genuinely good enough or wise enough to see the value in a non-capitalist society is just being naive, if you ask me.

sorry this was long...I wasn't replying to anything in particular. these are just my ideas.

Adam_Harrison9
02-27-2008, 10:56 AM
Anti-Flag is kind of like a corporation:

Yeah! save the planet and help the poor!

buy our product and support a fundraiser! each penny will help!

every tool sits and nods there head and buys it.

the Anti-Flag benifit for victims of a violent crime EP is a perfect example

using politics to sell is a classic move by any consumer

That EP was released on their own label. And the proceeds went to victims of violent crime, with them pocketting very little. What is your beef with that? Or would you rather them not help these victims?

Adam_Harrison9
02-27-2008, 10:57 AM
Ok, i understand I will retract my statement when i see all of their yearly incomes, and see that they are below 50,00 USD (pretty big for ponx) I will consider them not sold out.
And Adam truthfully, out of 100 how many new Anti-flag fans are going to become politically active? Because i guesstimate only 50 in 100 punks actually start to care about politics.

I admit conflict are a bit of sellouts, as our dropdead (to a much lesser extent). And trust me i love those bands more than my own life.

I can't believe you care that they would be makign enough money to live ina decent house. I bet most on this forum live in a decent household.

sargasm
02-27-2008, 12:23 PM
On the subject of Anti-Flag, I don't really have a problem with them. I don't think they're very articulate though, and I don't like their music, and their fanbase tends to be pretty apathetic and apolitical.

BrianApocalypse
02-27-2008, 12:26 PM
I can't believe you care that they would be makign enough money to live ina decent house. I bet most on this forum live in a decent household.

I myself usually would.

At the moment, though, I live in a cupboard which hasn't been decorated since 1960, because my landlord is a money grabbing lazy bastard.

EDIT: Not to mention that it would actually be cheaper to buy a house and have a mortgage.

sargasm
02-27-2008, 12:37 PM
I live with my parents cause I can't afford rent for an apartment bigger than your average bathroom right now. I'm waiting till the summer when I will start a cool punkhouse and have shows and party heartily.

Either that or I will move to Ottawa and live with my friend who's actually doing something with his life.

mike2
02-27-2008, 02:41 PM
I live with my parents cause I can't afford rent for an apartment bigger than your average bathroom right now. I'm waiting till the summer when I will start a cool punkhouse and have shows and party heartily.

Either that or I will move to Ottawa and live with my friend who's actually doing something with his life.

:eek: that is what i wanna do too!!!! :D

ss311
02-27-2008, 04:23 PM
Do you understand that most small businesses and corporations don't destroy the enviroment? Do you understand that they employ people in good faith and do not shortchange the populace? Do you understand that they exist to provide a means of income to the owners and their employees? Do you understand many barely scrape by?
I agree the fourteenth amendment has been abused horribly. But to stop producing is madness and destroy thousands of small corporations is madness. Anarchy theoretically will let anyone do what they want; the vast majority of humans will want products created with means outside their control. If they want, they can start their own business to make these items. If they don't, someone else will fill that void. Capitalism will always exist.
Also, do you realize virutally everything you do is in someway detrimental to the enviroment; it's nearly impossible to become totally green as you want.


I have a few bones to pick with you:

a) You cannot spell the word, 'environment' correctly;
b) They do short-change the populace. You have clearly not studied Marx surplus theory. I would suggest you buy Das Kapital V1, but with your inability to argue articulately, my suggestion would be a waste of time;
c) They do not exist to provide a means of income to employees. They exist to profit by exploiting employees. Yet again, you really should read some Marx to understand this;
d) Anarchists and communists do not commit the unintelligible fallacy of suggesting that we 'stop producing'. They merely believe that, after a revolution, the factors of production should be held in common by everyone. Property should be abolished; that is all. I do not understand why people would stop producing. You have tangibly failed to read anything regarding anarchism and communism; for if you had, you would know these things.


A General Comment Regarding This Thread

Fighting the system from within the system merely tames the system. Has nobody here studied the Fabian Society or Eduard Bernstein, or even Marx himself?

ss311
02-27-2008, 05:16 PM
Seriously? I'm the first one to point out that this person cannot even spell "Role" properly, and I'm supposed to hear his opinion of capitalism? Hah.

Capitalism isn't bad. (zomg un-p0nx!)
Making money isn't bad. Money doesn't exist, so making it has no affect on the world as a whole.


EDIT: Also, contrary to popular belief, capitalism is NOT the reason why big corporations are "eevil" it's just humanity being stupid. Wanted to make money is something that shouldn't be "bad" But doing anything and exploiting people and their homes is bad. But that isn't capitalism. In a socialist society, the government, in theory, could still do the same thing, and it wouldn't even be for money!!

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'effect' and 'affect', so don't start on the thread starter for his/her poor spelling.

Without exploiting people, the rewards of undertaking the risk of running a business are not deemed to be sufficient. Read what sargasm has to say on the matter:

Capitalism polarizes society into distinct economic classes, the poorer of which will always get ****ed over. Nobody deserves the luxuries which capitalism allows to the few, or the hardships that capitalism imposes on the many. Money assigns specific values to the worth of individuals, which are arbitrary and false.


He is correct under this reasoning.

Also, corporations create and donate to charities and foundations, which more positively affect the world than punk bands singing about the ills of capitalism.

Big businesses do this so as to create a 'human face' of capitalism. Furthermore, businesses are taxed. By donating money that would have been taxed had they kept it, these businesses lose nothing. In fact, they gain. How? There are bands or ranges of how much a business is liable to pay in tax.

For a (rudimentary) example:

100,000 could be subject to 10% tax= $10,000 in tax.
105,000 could be subject to 15% tax= $15,750 in tax.

100,000-10,000= 90,000 dollars made.
105,000-15,750= 89250 dollars made.

Therefore, pre-tax profit is more profitable at a lower value! CHARITY PAYS!

This is a basic example, and I am by no means an expert on the matter, but this is how philanthropists manage to make so much money each year.


Anarchy isn't about overthrowing the government.

You're in for a shock. It is not only about overthrowing the government, but your concept of anarchy is obfuscated and rather teenage.

That's a defeatist's attitude. That's why we anarchists don't give up, we don't believe in it being impossible. you gotta believe. Besides, if worse comes to worse, the anarchists can just take over an area of the stastes, declare it independant and start over form there.

Wait, I thought you said anarchy is not about overthrowing the government? How else can an anarchist 'just take over an area of the states'?



Right now I guess I am the devil's advocate; the Food not Bombs organization is great, yet it probably does less than corporations doing and funding the same things.

Certainly not in relation to profits. Oh, and I have already discussed why big business gives to Charity.

I believe that scientific development has aided us in the ways of medicine, and that's it. But the corporations didn't do it. The people did it.


There are enormous pharmaceutical companies that supply medicine. By the way, they rip you off.

Anarchism isn't as black and white as a lot of people seem to think. It is, by definition, lack of government. A society without a government could be many different things though.

At least Jordan's posts save me from having to type more than I already have done.

lolmnt
02-27-2008, 05:31 PM
Nobody has pointed out that we (U.S., and I assume Cananda) are not captialists, we are a mixed economy.

ss311
02-27-2008, 05:35 PM
It is difficult to find a perfect example of a capitalist economy.

lolmnt
02-27-2008, 05:43 PM
Yeah, I think it's like communism. There has never been a pure communist state, and there has never been a pure capitalist state (to my knowledge). America has things like the library, fire dept.,and the police which keeps it from being purely capitalist. Also, the government can set regulations about what businesss can and can't do.

Hopefully we'll have a free health car system soon.

original=punk
02-27-2008, 05:59 PM
You're in for a shock. It is not only about overthrowing the government, but your concept of anarchy is obfuscated and rather teenage.

Wait, I thought you said anarchy is not about overthrowing the government? How else can an anarchist 'just take over an area of the states'?

There are enormous pharmaceutical companies that supply medicine. By the way, they rip you off.


1. My concept is anarchy is one I shar with many people, why you talk aobut, and others tlak about, overthrowing the government, so everyone can be free, and then forcing that belief of freedom, is kinda liek facism, not very close to an anarchist's ideals. I believe I share my beliefs with whyvern in that it is not about everyone changing, it is about personal change. I can't explain it as well though. Pardon my poor vocabulary, as I cannot think of the words to describe my opinions.


2. Read the whole thread, if you do so, you will see that what I said there, was a joke. Don't tll me about spelling if you won't read the whole thread. You're lazy, I have trouble with a common mix-up of words, no-one here is better, leave it at that.


3. The companies enlist countless scientists and doctors to create said medications, I did not say the companies are good, did I? No, in fact, I did not say anythign of that. I merely said that said drugs have made the possibility of being healthier possible.
I'm not talking about Prozac, or extra-strength tylenol, i'm talking about all the medications the hospitals use to help save people's lives, they wouldn't be there, if the doctors who work for said companies hadn't had made the drug. It may have been sold for an outrageous price, but that isn't the employee's fault.

werty22
02-27-2008, 06:58 PM
Does anyone agree with me that there should be an "only p0nx politics thread," since threads like this one show up on a weekly basis?

axeslash
02-27-2008, 07:03 PM
Does anyone agree with me that there should be an "only p0nx politics thread," since threads like this one show up on a weekly basis?
No. Because that thread would get spammed to death. But it wouldn't die. It would get more and more horrible each day, but nothing could stop it.

Ska Wars
02-27-2008, 07:11 PM
No. Because that thread would get spammed to death. But it wouldn't die. It would get more and more horrible each day, but nothing could stop it.
and then we'd sticky it :rolleyes:

axeslash
02-27-2008, 07:29 PM
and then we'd sticky it :rolleyes:
Amen brother.

werty22
02-27-2008, 08:49 PM
No. Because that thread would get spammed to death. But it wouldn't die. It would get more and more horrible each day, but nothing could stop it.
Good point. Now I'm glad I asked here before making it.

yoursweatersux
02-27-2008, 11:56 PM
Hey everybody, long time not talk. But I'm back, because whenever I wanna get pissed at how stupid most people are, I come to the UG punk forum. That said, I don't give a **** if I mispelel a few words after I just told everybody else how dumb they are. But onwards to my bestowing of knowledge upon you poor cretins.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Capitalism is the worst kind of economic system, except for everything else". If you disagree with that statement, f*ck off and die. But, before you do, I'll give you a chance to see the light. Allow me to explain.

Anarchism - An inherently retarded concept. First of all, this is not even possible for so many hilarious reasons that I don't even care to mention them. Secondly, even if everybody in the world could all agree to become anarchists, wow, great, now we're all subsistence farmers, what an awesome life. Oh, I forgot to mention something... there are now 6 billion people on this planet, and it's impossible to feed everyone on subsistence farming. Scratch that, it's basically impossible to feed ANYBODY. You know what the estimated max. population density is for subsistence farming, WITH irrigation (which isn't even possible in many places)? Ten people per square mile, in peak areas like the Mississippi Valley. You probably don't even realize how small that is. And there are SIX F8CKING BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET????? Failllllllllllllllllllll

Communism - I've got two words for you: Soviet Russia. Ok two more, North Korea. If you think that waiting in line for bread and fresh underwear is awesome, vote commie. To implement even a halfway decent version of this economic theory is so impossible it's not even funny. You can go ahead and say "But look at China, they're communist and they're making incredible economic growth!!" First of all, China is only communist in name. They're like what Avril Lavigne is to punk music. Secondly, despite everything, look at the massive inequality that exists in that country as it is. Far worse disparity between the rich and poor there than in "capitalist" countries. Faaillllllllll. You know why every commie country sucks? Because the economic theory blows. It doesn't work, and there are a million real world examples. Yet people still go on believing well, maybeee if you do it right, it'll work one day!! Wrong. You're crazy if you don't think some of the most dedicated people in these countries tried hard as they could to make communism work... and they all failed because it goes against human nature.

Sure, capitalism has its issues, but it beats the hell out of everything else. We just need to work to fix the issues and work out the kinks, and not act like retards running around saying "lets be communist lolzzzzz"

lolmnt
02-28-2008, 12:08 AM
^Communism could work on a small scale, like a single like-minded town.

neidnarb11890
02-28-2008, 12:11 AM
First of all, if you wanna see stupidity, go to The Pit.
Second, since when does anarchism make everyone farmers?

axeslash
02-28-2008, 12:14 AM
Hey everybody, long time not talk. But I'm back, because whenever I wanna get pissed at how stupid most people are, I come to the UG punk forum. That said, I don't give a **** if I mispelel a few words after I just told everybody else how dumb they are. But onwards to my bestowing of knowledge upon you poor cretins.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Capitalism is the worst kind of economic system, except for everything else". If you disagree with that statement, f*ck off and die. But, before you do, I'll give you a chance to see the light. Allow me to explain.
Sounds like you were pretty angry to begin with.

crustyreed
02-28-2008, 12:25 AM
Hey everybody, long time not talk. But I'm back, because whenever I wanna get pissed at how stupid most people are, I come to the UG punk forum. That said, I don't give a **** if I mispelel a few words after I just told everybody else how dumb they are. But onwards to my bestowing of knowledge upon you poor cretins.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Capitalism is the worst kind of economic system, except for everything else". If you disagree with that statement, f*ck off and die. But, before you do, I'll give you a chance to see the light. Allow me to explain.

Anarchism - An inherently retarded concept. First of all, this is not even possible for so many hilarious reasons that I don't even care to mention them. Secondly, even if everybody in the world could all agree to become anarchists, wow, great, now we're all subsistence farmers, what an awesome life. Oh, I forgot to mention something... there are now 6 billion people on this planet, and it's impossible to feed everyone on subsistence farming. Scratch that, it's basically impossible to feed ANYBODY. You know what the estimated max. population density is for subsistence farming, WITH irrigation (which isn't even possible in many places)? Ten people per square mile, in peak areas like the Mississippi Valley. You probably don't even realize how small that is. And there are SIX F8CKING BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET????? Failllllllllllllllllllll

Well first off substinence farming is only in green anarchism, take note they aslo consider it bad to plant any crops where they didn't already grow. Second lets see that poll taken again where everyone is vegan.


Communism - I've got two words for you: Soviet Russia. Ok two more, North Korea. If you think that waiting in line for bread and fresh underwear is awesome, vote commie. To implement even a halfway decent version of this economic theory is so impossible it's not even funny. You can go ahead and say "But look at China, they're communist and they're making incredible economic growth!!" First of all, China is only communist in name. They're like what Avril Lavigne is to punk music. Secondly, despite everything, look at the massive inequality that exists in that country as it is. Far worse disparity between the rich and poor there than in "capitalist" countries. Faaillllllllll. You know why every commie country sucks? Because the economic theory blows. It doesn't work, and there are a million real world examples. Yet people still go on believing well, maybeee if you do it right, it'll work one day!! Wrong. You're crazy if you don't think some of the most dedicated people in these countries tried hard as they could to make communism work... and they all failed because it goes against human nature.


I think its cute your saying that china ISNT communist but the USSR and North korea were. Ask 100 people who are 'communists' if they beleive any of those nations were/are communist, I would be suprised if 25 of them said 'yes'.

And their is something people always seem to forget about Capitalism. Supply and demand, of labor, the most important resource. As long as their are capitalist societies their will ALWAYS be people oppressed on the bottom to keep others working for the lowest wage possible. I first heard about this in history class so read some Marx on it. Extremely interesting concept, that the rich thrive off the poorer people are.

Next time you come to educate 'poor cretins'. Read up first, buddddddd.

yoursweatersux
02-28-2008, 01:15 AM
Well first off substinence farming is only in green anarchism, take note they aslo consider it bad to plant any crops where they didn't already grow. Second lets see that poll taken again where everyone is vegan.



Did you understand at all what I'm saying??? Any way you slice it, individuals farming/hunting/getting food in any way possible will NEVER match 1/10 (generous estimate) the productivity of the current system. Most people would starve to death without corporations, and that's a fact. Try to challenge me on this one, you'll lose horribly.





I think its cute your saying that china ISNT communist but the USSR and North korea were. Ask 100 people who are 'communists' if they beleive any of those nations were/are communist, I would be suprised if 25 of them said 'yes'.

And their is something people always seem to forget about Capitalism. Supply and demand, of labor, the most important resource. As long as their are capitalist societies their will ALWAYS be people oppressed on the bottom to keep others working for the lowest wage possible. I first heard about this in history class so read some Marx on it. Extremely interesting concept, that the rich thrive off the poorer people are.

Next time you come to educate 'poor cretins'. Read up first, buddddddd.


Again, you missed the point entirely. But just to put it in simple terms for you, what i was saying was something like "Look at all the countries that are/have tried communism. They either blew it big time, or are just fake communists countries and are capitalistic in reality". There, in terms that anybody can understand.

And for your comment about people always being "oppressed"... it's true because Marx says it is? Yeah right. Go ask anybody that's working for a corporation and making a decent salary if they feel oppressed. Trust me, as soon as I graduate I'll be ecstatic to have a job and an income.

And yeah, sorry to crush your dreams, but nothing is ever entirely fair, and even a pure and perfectly communist system wouldn't implement total fairness. Christ, it depends on what your definition of the word is, anyway. But here's the way I look at it:

1) We can have the current system, where the people that are smart and work hard have a good chance at making it to the top and are rewarded for their efforts and abilities. Sure, some fall through the cracks and some have less opportunities than others, but nothing is perfect, ya know?

or

2) We can have a communist society where everyone is equally poor. It doesn't matter if you're smart or talented, you're gonna make as much as the next idiot that is lazy and has sh*t for brains. So you might as well not even bother working hard, because you'll get the same crappy reward that everybody else is getting, anyway.


Now which sounds more fair to you???? Personally, I'm gonna go with being rewarded for working hard. Personally.

whyvern
02-28-2008, 02:59 AM
go back to yer condo yoursweatersucks... you have no idea what yer talking about.

axeslash
02-28-2008, 03:53 AM
This is to yoursweatersux. I don't feel like quoting your entire tl;dr post.

Marxism and implemented communism are two different things. Just so ya' know.

Also, corporations suck. They are necessary for our economy, but that doesn't mean we can't drastically improve them.

ss311
02-28-2008, 07:01 AM
1. My concept is anarchy is one I shar with many people, why you talk aobut, and others tlak about, overthrowing the government, so everyone can be free, and then forcing that belief of freedom, is kinda liek facism, not very close to an anarchist's ideals. I believe I share my beliefs with whyvern in that it is not about everyone changing, it is about personal change. I can't explain it as well though. Pardon my poor vocabulary, as I cannot think of the words to describe my opinions.


2. Read the whole thread, if you do so, you will see that what I said there, was a joke. Don't tll me about spelling if you won't read the whole thread. You're lazy, I have trouble with a common mix-up of words, no-one here is better, leave it at that.


3. The companies enlist countless scientists and doctors to create said medications, I did not say the companies are good, did I? No, in fact, I did not say anythign of that. I merely said that said drugs have made the possibility of being healthier possible.
I'm not talking about Prozac, or extra-strength tylenol, i'm talking about all the medications the hospitals use to help save people's lives, they wouldn't be there, if the doctors who work for said companies hadn't had made the drug. It may have been sold for an outrageous price, but that isn't the employee's fault.


Okay, Tolstoy, keep going.

You tangibly have no awareness of reality, and the fact that, with your methods, nothing will change. I am not lazy; I read the thread, as is demonstrated by all the times I quoted you in my last post.

Adam_Harrison9
02-28-2008, 08:03 AM
Hey everybody, long time not talk. But I'm back, because whenever I wanna get pissed at how stupid most people are, I come to the UG punk forum. That said, I don't give a **** if I mispelel a few words after I just told everybody else how dumb they are. But onwards to my bestowing of knowledge upon you poor cretins.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Capitalism is the worst kind of economic system, except for everything else". If you disagree with that statement, f*ck off and die. But, before you do, I'll give you a chance to see the light. Allow me to explain.

Anarchism - An inherently retarded concept. First of all, this is not even possible for so many hilarious reasons that I don't even care to mention them. Secondly, even if everybody in the world could all agree to become anarchists, wow, great, now we're all subsistence farmers, what an awesome life. Oh, I forgot to mention something... there are now 6 billion people on this planet, and it's impossible to feed everyone on subsistence farming. Scratch that, it's basically impossible to feed ANYBODY. You know what the estimated max. population density is for subsistence farming, WITH irrigation (which isn't even possible in many places)? Ten people per square mile, in peak areas like the Mississippi Valley. You probably don't even realize how small that is. And there are SIX F8CKING BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET????? Failllllllllllllllllllll

Communism - I've got two words for you: Soviet Russia. Ok two more, North Korea. If you think that waiting in line for bread and fresh underwear is awesome, vote commie. To implement even a halfway decent version of this economic theory is so impossible it's not even funny. You can go ahead and say "But look at China, they're communist and they're making incredible economic growth!!" First of all, China is only communist in name. They're like what Avril Lavigne is to punk music. Secondly, despite everything, look at the massive inequality that exists in that country as it is. Far worse disparity between the rich and poor there than in "capitalist" countries. Faaillllllllll. You know why every commie country sucks? Because the economic theory blows. It doesn't work, and there are a million real world examples. Yet people still go on believing well, maybeee if you do it right, it'll work one day!! Wrong. You're crazy if you don't think some of the most dedicated people in these countries tried hard as they could to make communism work... and they all failed because it goes against human nature.

Sure, capitalism has its issues, but it beats the hell out of everything else. We just need to work to fix the issues and work out the kinks, and not act like retards running around saying "lets be communist lolzzzzz"

Soviet Russia was not based around communism as we know it. Also, the two countries you have used as examples have leaders more retarded than the IQ of an elephant. Communism could work in my opinion, if you had the right people in charge and not some money grabbing mother****ers, who are driven by greed.

crustyreed
02-28-2008, 09:18 AM
Did you understand at all what I'm saying??? Any way you slice it, individuals farming/hunting/getting food in any way possible will NEVER match 1/10 (generous estimate) the productivity of the current system. Most people would starve to death without corporations, and that's a fact. Try to challenge me on this one, you'll lose horribly.

We already discussed that production of farming equipment (combines-tractors etc.) Wouldn't stop. Scientific progress will never stop. Neither will production, but it will carry on in a communal form. I almost forgot to mention how great the corporations are helping to feed are 3rd world bretheren already! Giving them rice that has fallen off the back of their trucks.


Oh and look up Chiquita Bananas, what a great and wonderful corporation!
(I expect him to come back with that fact they beat the newspaper in a court case, then i will say 'yes, chiquita did win, but they did not disprove any of the points.'')



Again, you missed the point entirely. But just to put it in simple terms for you, what i was saying was something like "Look at all the countries that are/have tried communism. They either blew it big time, or are just fake communists countries and are capitalistic in reality". There, in terms that anybody can understand.

And for your comment about people always being "oppressed"... it's true because Marx says it is? Yeah right. Go ask anybody that's working for a corporation and making a decent salary if they feel oppressed. Trust me, as soon as I graduate I'll be ecstatic to have a job and an income.


Cleary you didn't pay attention anywhere in school. Capitalism A market based on supply and demand, verdad? What is the most important natural resource? Your probaly thinking Oil? Gold? lumber? Very well, but who will acquire these resources. One want's to find someone without a job to start to do this, One also wants to make as much money as they can. So who do they hire the person who wants to work for 5 dollars or the person who wants to work for 10 dollars?
So if everyone in chicago had a job what would happen? The wages would go WAY up to try and attract other laborers to quit their job and work for them. How is this avoided? Have an endless supply of poor desperate people who will work for the minimun wage.

BTW. i learnt this in history class. Marx just exposes it's cruelty.
If that isnt clear enough, look for the marx copy. Even ask your econ. teacher, their will always be people subjected to this in a capitalist environment.

If you want to make the 'End all' argument, hit the books.

werty22
02-28-2008, 09:31 AM
Soviet Russia was not based around communism as we know it. Also, the two countries you have used as examples have leaders more retarded than the IQ of an elephant. Communism could work in my opinion, if you had the right people in charge and not some money grabbing mother****ers, who are driven by greed.

The problem is that most people who would want to be in positions of power are or will become "money-grabbing mother****ers." Communism gives people the benefit of the doubt. People can't be trusted.

lolmnt
02-28-2008, 05:11 PM
The problem is that most people who would want to be in positions of power are or will become "money-grabbing mother****ers." Communism gives people the benefit of the doubt. People can't be trusted.That's the main problem with communism and anarchism, you have to change the way people think in order for it to suceed

Hey everybody, long time not talk. But I'm back, because whenever I wanna get pissed at how stupid most people are, I come to the UG punk forum. Before you call us stupid, remember that you are the one who got pissed when we didn't want you to say "faggot" anymore.

neidnarb11890
02-28-2008, 05:15 PM
I'm no political/economic genious, but isn't Communism based around the idea of the uprising of the workers, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat? If you think a dictatorship is going to be fair and honest and create true equality, you're crazy.

Also, yoursweatersux, where the **** do you get this idea that anarchism means farming? Look at sargasm's earlier posts. Anarchism and technology are not mutually exclusive.

lolmnt
02-28-2008, 05:19 PM
I believe that the dictator is supposed to prepare and ready the country to become completely communist. When that time comes, he is supposed to give up power.

neidnarb11890
02-28-2008, 05:22 PM
I believe that the dictator is supposed to prepare and ready the country to become completely communist. When that time comes, he is supposed to give up power.
Yeah, pretty much. It's a "temporary" dictatorship.
As you can see, it works pretty well.

Adam_Harrison9
02-28-2008, 06:28 PM
The problem is that most people who would want to be in positions of power are or will become "money-grabbing mother****ers." Communism gives people the benefit of the doubt. People can't be trusted.

Some people can be trusted, not all politicians are morons, see mike gravel.

Adam_Harrison9
02-28-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm no political/economic genious, but isn't Communism based around the idea of the uprising of the workers, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat? If you think a dictatorship is going to be fair and honest and create true equality, you're crazy.

Also, yoursweatersux, where the **** do you get this idea that anarchism means farming? Look at sargasm's earlier posts. Anarchism and technology are not mutually exclusive.

A dictatorship can be good, depending on the policies it dictates, yes some people won't be happy i.e conservatives in general, but i think they'd soon come to realise equality of consumption and economics would be a good thing.

whyvern
02-28-2008, 07:19 PM
there's no such thing as a good dictatorship.

axeslash
02-28-2008, 07:30 PM
Adam Harrison9 is obviously a white suburban teenager with rich parents. I mean we can all tell that.

werty22
02-28-2008, 07:36 PM
I believe that the dictator is supposed to prepare and ready the country to become completely communist. When that time comes, he is supposed to give up power.
But someone with that kind of power isn't likely to give it up without a fight.

lolmnt
02-28-2008, 07:39 PM
But someone with that kind of power isn't likely to give it up without a fight.Exactly

your_martyr
02-28-2008, 08:02 PM
one thing i want to add is that the benifits of capitalism is that you can change social class's. In Communism you can't everyone exept those in power are at the same social level, working for the betterment of the group. I would rather have the option to better my self then be stuck in on place my whole life.

devourthekitten
02-28-2008, 08:10 PM
Yo I'm so proud, my comment started a thread. *-)

Record labels and radio stations are huge corporations...ever heard of Clear Channel?

axeslash
02-28-2008, 08:11 PM
Yo I'm so proud, my comment started a thread. *-)

Record labels and radio stations are huge corporations...ever heard of Clear Channel?
I'm gonna say this just so no one else can:

CLEAR CHANNEL **** OFF!

Iluvpowerchords
02-28-2008, 09:03 PM
But Guise, where would we be as a society without the wisdom of John Tesh?

devourthekitten
02-28-2008, 09:16 PM
I'm gonna say this just so no one else can:

CLEAR CHANNEL **** OFF!
Well, just to be an anarchist, I'll defy your rules!

CLEAR CHANNEL **** OFF! Heeheehee...

original=punk
02-28-2008, 09:25 PM
Okay, Tolstoy, keep going.

You tangibly have no awareness of reality, and the fact that, with your methods, nothing will change. I am not lazy; I read the thread, as is demonstrated by all the times I quoted you in my last post.


If you read the thread, you would know I was joking, endo story.

And I have one question for you, that is, why did you sh*it all over me and sargasm, but not on whyvern? He's the one who has influenced me the most, makes most sense, so don't f*ck with me if you won't f*ck with the guy I learnt from.

Unless you know he'd rape you in an argument...

axeslash
02-28-2008, 09:29 PM
If you read the thread, you would know I was joking, endo story.

And I have one question for you, that is, why did you sh*it all over me and sargasm, but not on whyvern? He's the one who has influenced me the most, makes most sense, so don't f*ck with me if you won't f*ck with the guy I learnt from.

Unless you know he'd rape you in an argument...
I'd let whyvern sex me. He's that good.

original=punk
02-28-2008, 09:32 PM
I'd let whyvern sex me. He's that good.


Or you're that gay.

But i concur, I would allow him to **** me.

Let's start a club.

neidnarb11890
02-28-2008, 09:46 PM
If you read the thread, you would know I was joking, endo story.

And I have one question for you, that is, why did you sh*it all over me and sargasm, but not on whyvern? He's the one who has influenced me the most, makes most sense, so don't f*ck with me if you won't f*ck with the guy I learnt from.

Unless you know he'd rape you in an argument...
I don't recall him ****ting over sargasm. Just you...

Can I join your club?

axeslash
02-28-2008, 09:53 PM
I don't recall him ****ting over sargasm. Just you...

Can I join your club?
You insult one Canadian on a website, you insult them all.

original=punk
02-28-2008, 09:54 PM
I don't recall him ****ting over sargasm. Just you...

Can I join your club?


ah, my bad, he agreed with sargasm.


And yes, you may.

yoursweatersux
02-28-2008, 11:02 PM
Hahahahaahhahahahahahah

Good to see at least some people are getting it. I forget who mentioned it, but I'll paraphrase them since they put it well. The problem with anarchism and communism is you have to change the way that people are in order for these theories to work.

Guess what? You can't change human nature. Many have tried, all have failed.

So before you go saying "blah blah labor is the resource most in demand blah blha Marx this Marx that I know a lot because I took a highschool history class"... you should probably just realize that it doesn't even matter what the theory says, since people will f*ck it up anyway since it's in our nature. You have to embrace competition, since it's part of human nature. Capitalism manages to understand that fact and works with it, instead of completely denying its existence, like communism.

Just face it, the world will never see a communist country that doesn't fail. Period. So get over it, and stop talking about it. Communism, as a serious political concept = dead.

And anarchism is so far off the mark it's just hilarious. You people can't even be taken seriously. I can't wait for you idiots to grow up and realize how naive you were.

yoursweatersux
02-28-2008, 11:06 PM
Oh, and just to sum up everything.

It's not like I'm denying the injustice in the world. It's not like I think Chicquita Bananas or whatever the f*ck is awesome. It's just that you guys have a lot of misdirected anger. It's not capitalism that's at fault. It's the individual corporations and the government that allows these corporations to pull Enron-like sh*t. So I'm not saying everything is grand in America, I'm just saying you need to get the f*ck off communism's and anarchism's balls since they'll never work. You need to tweak the system, not totally replace it.

lolmnt
02-28-2008, 11:08 PM
^I agree with the human nature part.


and the people that been agruing for anarchy are all 16+ and seem smarter in their posts than you do

original=punk
02-28-2008, 11:11 PM
Hahahahaahhahahahahahah

Good to see at least some people are getting it. I forget who mentioned it, but I'll paraphrase them since they put it well. The problem with anarchism and communism is you have to change the way that people are in order for these theories to work.

Guess what? You can't change human nature. Many have tried, all have failed.

So before you go saying "blah blah labor is the resource most in demand blah blha Marx this Marx that I know a lot because I took a highschool history class"... you should probably just realize that it doesn't even matter what the theory says, since people will f*ck it up anyway since it's in our nature. You have to embrace competition, since it's part of human nature. Capitalism manages to understand that fact and works with it, instead of completely denying its existence, like communism.

Just face it, the world will never see a communist country that doesn't fail. Period. So get over it, and stop talking about it. Communism, as a serious political concept = dead.

And anarchism is so far off the mark it's just hilarious. You people can't even be taken seriously. I can't wait for you idiots to grow up and realize how naive you were.

I love how you say alot of **** about communism, but only laugh off anarchy.
Most likely because you don't know anything about it, so you can't attack it, only laugh it off.

sargasm
02-28-2008, 11:12 PM
The problem with the way people such as yoursweatersux view anarchism is they thing it has to be a global thing.

That's the ultimate goal, of course, but it can be applied in very microcosmic situations, and very often is with great success.

axeslash
02-28-2008, 11:27 PM
Oh, and just to sum up everything.

It's not like I'm denying the injustice in the world. It's not like I think Chicquita Bananas or whatever the f*ck is awesome. It's just that you guys have a lot of misdirected anger. It's not capitalism that's at fault. It's the individual corporations and the government that allows these corporations to pull Enron-like sh*t. So I'm not saying everything is grand in America, I'm just saying you need to get the f*ck off communism's and anarchism's balls since they'll never work. You need to tweak the system, not totally replace it.
I think we need less people like you in the world.

"My idea is superior and all your ideas are ****ing stupid and you are stupid too."

Yeah, the world needs more of those.

yoursweatersux
02-28-2008, 11:52 PM
^I agree with the human nature part.


and the people that been agruing for anarchy are all 16+ and seem smarter in their posts than you do


Oh wow they're 16+?????? I should listen to them I guess.


Oh wait a minute, that's right I'm 21, because age is important. oh yeah, and i got a 1400 on my SAT's, have a high IQ, and attend a prestigious university where I'm in the top 5% of my class.

I understand though I guess. When I was younger and pissed off at all the injustice I saw I wanted to believe in a quick fix like anarchism or communism. I was pissed off too. But I eventually came to terms with realize how destined for failure those concepts really are. They'll NEVER achieve the results you desire. Or even match the equality and fairness in a capitalist system. Sorry guys, there's no such thing as a perfect world or a utopia. But for now, capitalism is the best we've got. Suck it up, life's not fair.

lolmnt
02-28-2008, 11:54 PM
Oh wow they're 16+?????? I should listen to them I guess.


Oh wait a minute, that's right I'm 21, because age is important. oh yeah, and i got a 1400 on my SAT's, have a high IQ, and attend a prestigious university where I'm in the top 5% of my class.

I understand though I guess. When I was younger and pissed off at all the injustice I saw I wanted to believe in a quick fix like anarchism or communism. I was pissed off too. But I eventually came to terms with realize how destined for failure those concepts really are. They'll NEVER achieve the results you desire. Or even match the equality and fairness in a capitalist system. Sorry guys, there's no such thing as a perfect world or a utopia. But for now, capitalism is the best we've got. Suck it up, life's not fair.Everytime you get in an arguement, you post your sat scores.

I got a 1450 on my SAT's.


See I can lie too

original=punk
02-28-2008, 11:56 PM
That's because A) You believe we want a huge global change all at once, and IF YOU LISTENED TO US you would know that that is not our goal! It's baby steps! Baby steps!

and B) you don't fully understand our ideals because you don't study them. I disagree with the catholics because I've grown up catholic, don't agree with it. I grew up in a representative democracy, and I don't like it. Would rather speak for myself to the government, if anything. so study anarchy, talk to people CIVILLY about their ideals to try to understand it, then, come back, and debate with us.

don't just say it is "laughable" when you don't know anything.

neidnarb11890
02-29-2008, 12:03 AM
Everytime you get in an arguement, you post your sat scores.

I got a 1450 on my SAT's.


See I can lie too
I got a 5600 on my SATs. And my IQ is 1,000,000. So there.

Also, I'm in the upper 5% of my class.

One of those is true.

whyvern
02-29-2008, 12:07 AM
blah blah blah. Because I'm older than most of you what I say is way more valid than anything you could ever say. blah blah blah blah blah blah. privilege is a legitimate measure of someone's intelligence. blah blah blah. I'm a washed up defeatist liberal and I'm better than you because you're young.


All ages means all ages dude. Just because you might be older than some people doesn't make what you have to say more valid.

I ****ing hate it when people equate age to experience. I know 14 year olds that have lived on the streets, ate outta dumpsters (not for fun by the way) and gone through a huge spectrum of life. I also know 29 year olds who have never left their parent's house or if they have, have only done so in the lap of privilege and with a standard of living most of the world can even dream of.

The 14 year old was smarter than the 29 year old. Not book smart though by any means. The 29 year old went to an Ivy League college and did fairly well (B's ya know) and the 14 year old kid never went to High School. But the 29 year old kid couldn't relate to people to save his life and the 14 year old was one of the best scammers I've ever met, he could read people like the 29 year old could read Dostoevsky.

Intelligence in the sense you describe it is extremely objective, and it's presumptuous and not to mention pompous for you to say that yer older and therefore wiser. Punks and most kids in general know that when someone starts talking to them like that, that they're full of ****. And if they don't know how to articulate that, they at least feel it in their gut. When some teacher tells you that you have to do something in elementary school and you know it's wrong, that's just it. You know it's wrong. You can't do anything about it (unless you've been taught a vocabulary to deal with such a moral issue). But you know it's wrong.

Not to mention that you don't have the slightest clue what anarchism is about.

Yeah I went to a prestigious, private university myself, but that doesn't make me any better than my friends that are train-hopping and homeless on the streets of Chattanooga right now, does it?

**** yer ivory towers. The breeding grounds of racism and oppression.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 12:09 AM
I just love being an arrogant asshole on this forum, it rules. The best part is these debates never sways anybody's opinion really.

Anyway, now that I've gotten it out of my system I'm letting it go. You idiots can have fun believing in communism and anarchism. Ten years from now you'll realize how dumb you were, and it'll be great.

whyvern
02-29-2008, 12:11 AM
^they may not change anyone's opinion but it's important to have discussions on why things are the way they are.

If you paid attention in yer expensive university classes you'd realize that it's all about the discussion and getting things out. Yer not supposed to change anything. Just get it all out on the table.

edit: Oh yeah, 10 years from today, I'll wake up and shotgun a beer like I did today. But you'll be living in the suburbs with a wife and kids hating your life.

Have fun in college!

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 12:13 AM
All ages means all ages dude. Just because you might be older than some people doesn't make what you have to say more valid.

I ****ing hate it when people equate age to experience. I know 14 year olds that have lived on the streets, ate outta dumpsters (not for fun by the way) and gone through a huge spectrum of life. I also know 29 year olds who have never left their parent's house or if they have, have only done so in the lap of privilege and with a standard of living most of the world can even dream of.

The 14 year old was smarter than the 29 year old. Not book smart though by any means. The 29 year old went to an Ivy League college and did fairly well (B's ya know) and the 14 year old kid never went to High School. But the 29 year old kid couldn't relate to people to save his life and the 14 year old was one of the best scammers I've ever met, he could read people like the 29 year old could read Dostoevsky.

Intelligence in the sense you describe it is extremely objective, and it's presumptuous and not to mention pompous for you to say that yer older and therefore wiser. Punks and most kids in general know that when someone starts talking to them like that, that they're full of ****. And if they don't know how to articulate that, they at least feel it in their gut. When some teacher tells you that you have to do something in elementary school and you know it's wrong, that's just it. You know it's wrong. You can't do anything about it (unless you've been taught a vocabulary to deal with such a moral issue). But you know it's wrong.

Not to mention that you don't have the slightest clue what anarchism is about.

Yeah I went to a prestigious, private university myself, but that doesn't make me any better than my friends that are train-hopping and homeless on the streets of Chattanooga right now, does it?

**** yer ivory towers. The breeding grounds of racism and oppression.



You obviously didn't realize I only mentioned my age as part of a facetious rant in which everything I said was completely irrelevant yet perfectly (and successfully) designed to piss off everybody that was arguing against me. It's ok, it was a clever ruse, I know. I might've fallen for it if I were you.

In reality, the only thing I'm actually saying here is that communism and anarchism are unrealistic, will never happen (no matter how many "baby steps" you take) and that people should give it a rest. Instead of living in la-la land and dreaming about bringing down 'teh evil guvernment' they should actually just go out there and focus on the specific things they CAN change, and do something about it.

NOT ONE OF YOU HAS NAMED A SINGLE F*CKING POLICY YOU WANT TO FIX.

crustyreed
02-29-2008, 12:14 AM
Hahahahaahhahahahahahah

Good to see at least some people are getting it. I forget who mentioned it, but I'll paraphrase them since they put it well. The problem with anarchism and communism is you have to change the way that people are in order for these theories to work.

Guess what? You can't change human nature. Many have tried, all have failed.

So before you go saying "blah blah labor is the resource most in demand blah blha Marx this Marx that I know a lot because I took a highschool history class"... you should probably just realize that it doesn't even matter what the theory says, since people will f*ck it up anyway since it's in our nature. You have to embrace competition, since it's part of human nature. Capitalism manages to understand that fact and works with it, instead of completely denying its existence, like communism.

Just face it, the world will never see a communist country that doesn't fail. Period. So get over it, and stop talking about it. Communism, as a serious political concept = dead.

And anarchism is so far off the mark it's just hilarious. You people can't even be taken seriously. I can't wait for you idiots to grow up and realize how naive you were.

This post has removed any validity you had in your previous posts. oh wait, you had a 'statistic' from a uncited source, that you failed to grasp the contents of correctly.

People are changed to be in a capitalist society, trained to consume be told how to think. Leave it up to others to tell them what they can and can't do.
In an anarchist society the ideals of Autonomy, working with nature not against it, and community would be taught. And yes people will always strive to achieve greater measures, but when the people realize that they are not one person, but that they are a component of something larger, that's when WE will learn to succeed together.

Although you may go to a 'prestigious university' does not make you an expert on every field of thought. Everybody see's you ran out of the argument and tried to cover your tail by making us look like we didn't know what was being discussed, It's clear to everyone in the forum you went in talking up how big you were, and just got your ass handed to you buy a bunch of 'naive kids'.
I'd rather be naive than an ignorant asshole.


(A)//(E)

original=punk
02-29-2008, 12:16 AM
Intelligence in the sense you describe it is extremely objective, and it's presumptuous and not to mention pompous for you to say that yer older and therefore wiser. Punks and most kids in general know that when someone starts talking to them like that, that they're full of ****. And if they don't know how to articulate that, they at least feel it in their gut. When some teacher tells you that you have to do something in elementary school and you know it's wrong, that's just it. You know it's wrong. You can't do anything about it (unless you've been taught a vocabulary to deal with such a moral issue). But you know it's wrong.

Thank-you, that's how I feel, I try to exp,lain myself, stutter, then get laughed at and then I go and cry because I'm worthless, that's why i'm insane all the time, because people don't try to help. You understand that. I just try so hard to gain knowledge, I get so wrapped up in everything I read. Right now, I'm wrapped up in the fact that the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII. France and Englad were complete assholes after the Great W@ar, it was uncalled for to do to Germany, and I just wanna rant my head off about how it's so wrong.

But next week, it'll be something else.

But for osme reason, I dunno, maybe cause it actually makes sense....anarchism has always been there, making sense to me, I can always fall back on ranting aobut it to try and gain knowledge. Because it's always made sense.











O_O I really need to f*ck off right now...

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 12:16 AM
This post has removed any validity you had in your previous posts. oh wait, you had a 'statistic' from a uncited source, that you failed to grasp the contents of correctly.

People are changed to be in a capitalist society, trained to consume be told how to think. Leave it up to others to tell them what they can and can't do.
In an anarchist society the ideals of Autonomy, working with nature not against it, and community would be taught. And yes people will always strive to achieve greater measures, but when the people realize that they are not one person, but that they are a component of something larger, that's when WE will learn to succeed together.

Although you may go to a 'prestigious university' does not make you an expert on every field of thought. Everybody see's you ran out of the argument and tried to cover your tail by making us look like we didn't know what was being discussed, It's clear to everyone in the forum you went in talking up how big you were, and just got your ass handed to you buy a bunch of 'naive kids'.
I'd rather be naive than an ignorant asshole.


(A)//(E)



It's called not taking this at all seriously hahhaha

If you want a serious debate, though, I can give you one.

lolmnt
02-29-2008, 12:18 AM
You obviously didn't realize I only mentioned my age as part of a facetious rant in which everything I said was completely irrelevant yet perfectly (and successfully) designed to piss off everybody that was arguing against me. It's ok, it was a clever ruse, I know. I might've fallen for it if I were you.

In reality, the only thing I'm actually saying here is that communism and anarchism are unrealistic, will never happen (no matter how many "baby steps" you take) and that people should give it a rest. Instead of living in la-la land and dreaming about bringing down 'teh evil guvernment' they should actually just go out there and focus on the specific things they CAN change, and do something about it.

NOT ONE OF YOU HAS NAMED A SINGLE F*CKING POLICY YOU WANT TO FIX.I only brought up their ages because you were saying how they were immature

whyvern
02-29-2008, 12:28 AM
What do I want changed?

First and foremost, Abolish the World Trade Organization, World Bank, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA.

I want automony for oppressed groups wordlwide. That means, American Indians, Black Americans, Kosovar Albanians, Chechnyans, Palestinians.

I want an immediate end to American imperialism and the complete destruction of the military-industrial complex

I wanna see the Qa'baa in Mecca... not for religious reasons, but because all those people united together and doing one thing is super ****ing impressive.

I want intellectual property to be a thing of the past that we all look back and laugh on and say "man that was ****ing stupid, having people pay for an idea"

I want the utilization of technology to help reduce our ecological footprint and to make things more efficient and peaceful for all of us in this world.

I want punks worldwide to know and love each other. Hell I want kids worldwide to know and love each other. The youth are really where the future are at and it's important that we all can bond with one another. Punk for me at least has been really instrumental in doing this.

I want the workers to own the means of production in the form of a syndicate

I want people to help each other.

I wanna be able to know everyone on my block, and find away around the racism that has segregated my town.

I want the "captains of industry" to face the bottom ends of their actions in South America, Africa and Asia and I want them to be held accountable for their crimes by the people they exploited.

I want hipsters to care more about each other than what they're wearing.

I want people to work together to remove landmines in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia and other landmine hotspots worldwide so kids don't play in mine fields and blow up.


Can we do this without a capitalist system?

I think it's better to ask "can we do this with a capitalist system?"

original=punk
02-29-2008, 12:31 AM
I think those things cannot happen in a capitalist society, because it is based upon competitiveness, and what you are saying relies on workign together.

Thatp ost hurt my head though.

I wanna be smart!

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 12:49 AM
Anything can be done in a capitalist society, as long as there are incentives to do so.

The way the theory goes is that Company X is motivated by making a profit, and so Company X decides the cheapest (thus most profitable) way for them is to have a sweatshop that employs people who have no choice but to work in these horrible conditions in order to survive. Naturally, this is the situation that Company X desires, since it is profit-maximizing.

However, society decides that while they enjoy the low cost of their new jeans, they don't like having the whole sweatshop thing on their conscience. This is an implicit cost. While their jeans are cheaper, the discomforting knowledge of knowing they came from a sweatshop (the implicit cost) raises the total cost to a point where it'd actually be more profitable for another company to produce jeans without utilizing sweatshop labor, as their implicit costs are significantly lower.

Thus, as long as everybody cares enough about any particular issue, a way will be found to make the results satisfying to everybody involved. This is partially covered in the Coase Theorem ( http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/Syllabi/Coase.htm ).


So that's how it should work. In reality, too many people would rather have cheap jeans than a world without sweatshops. The problem here isn't the company trying to make a profit... the problem is the people that don't care about the poor bastards that make their jeans for low costs.

The problem here is the people, NOT the company, NOT the capitalist system

crustyreed
02-29-2008, 12:58 AM
Anything can be done in a capitalist society, as long as there are incentives to do so.

The way the theory goes is that Company X is motivated by making a profit, and so Company X decides the cheapest (thus most profitable) way for them is to have a sweatshop that employs people who have no choice but to work in these horrible conditions in order to survive. Naturally, this is the situation that Company X desires, since it is profit-maximizing.

However, society decides that while they enjoy the low cost of their new jeans, they don't like having the whole sweatshop thing on their conscience. This is an implicit cost. While their jeans are cheaper, the discomforting knowledge of knowing they came from a sweatshop (the implicit cost) raises the total cost to a point where it'd actually be more profitable for another company to produce jeans without utilizing sweatshop labor, as their implicit costs are significantly lower.

Thus, as long as everybody cares enough about any particular issue, a way will be found to make the results satisfying to everybody involved. This is partially covered in the Coase Theorem ( http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/Syllabi/Coase.htm ).


So that's how it should work. In reality, too many people would rather have cheap jeans than a world without sweatshops. The problem here isn't the company trying to make a profit... the problem is the people that don't care about the poor bastards that make their jeans for low costs.

The problem here is the people, NOT the company, NOT the capitalist system

the mindset that capitalism installs in people is the problem, thus capitalisms fault.

I do not understand how you can deny that in capitalism their will always be people living in poverty, it is a inherit part of the idea.

whyvern
02-29-2008, 01:01 AM
See you think the problem is people. I think the problem is the system.

I think people are inherently good and you've got that old washed up puritan idea that people are inherently bad.

I know how capitalist economics (doesn't) work.

You can't create a non-oppressive environment in a system that is based on inequalities.

That's just common sense. I don't have a fancy theory name to throw out on you because it's human nature. Not something that someone had to justify to make up for the inequalities.

The world doesn't always work like that. Have you ever been to a punk house or any kind of collective? Have you ever slept on the streets?

If you have, you'll start to have a lot more faith in people because you know at heart they are good.

original=punk
02-29-2008, 01:04 AM
I buy my jeans second-hand, or i get them as presents from my brother cause he gets them from his work practically half off.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:05 AM
What do I want changed?

First and foremost, Abolish the World Trade Organization, World Bank, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA.




I might eventually want to work through and discuss everything you've posted, because you seem like you have a good conscience and a decent enough head on your shoulders. I see where you're coming from, and I think you have admirable goals. However, you've gotten lost somewhere along the way.


This is EC101 stuff (literally, I'm not saying that to be a jerk, like I usually am). Now, what people don't realize is that free trade agreements actually benefit both parties involved in the agreement. This is due to a thing called comparative advantage. If you want to look into the specifics, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

What you'll notice if you scroll down is that there are two tables that show total world output and individual output for two hypothetical countries. One table shows their output before free trade, and the other shows their output after free trade. The free trade situation is shown to increase the wealth of BOTH countries.

Now you'll say well this is on paper blah blah perfect conditions etc. etc. In reality, this law of comparative advantage shows that ANY country will ALWAYS benefit from free trade under the condition that there is nothing fishy going on (i.e., as long as one country doesn't hold the proverbial gun to the other country's head and tell them to accept terms that are unfair).

So actually, free trade enriches societies. It's pretty ironic that people who protest against free trade are actually hurting the people they want to help the most.

original=punk
02-29-2008, 01:19 AM
It'd be easier if we didn't have countries :p:, just cultures.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:20 AM
Hey crusty I think you and I have different definitions of what's fair. You seem to believe strongly in the Marxist doctrine of "from each, according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Essentially, as Marx described in the manifesto, that means everybody should work as hard as they can and they'll get a fair, equal, equivalent share of the pie. This belief stems from the humanistic view that every human life is of equal value, and thus it's only fair to distribute equally.

Now this is an exaggerated yet pertinent depiction of how this idea really comes into play. There's this bum that lives by my apartment that does nothing all day but get drunk and spout racist diatribe at any black people that walk by. Under the communist view, however, he is every bit your equal. As such, he deserves to have the same the stuff you have. Never mind that he'll barter it all away for booze, or that he'll never contribute a thing to society. Keep in mind, all the benefits he receives will simply be the fruits of everyone else's labor.

In other words, he does nothing (or at least, significantly less) and yet he receives benefits for doing nothing. Is that not unfair? Instead of the upper class receiving benefits for work they didn't do, we've simply flipped the situation upside-down so that it is a tyranny of the lazy and/or inept. These bums are also receiving benefits for work they didn't do, so what's the difference??

In reality, the only fair way to reward somebody is based on their ACTUAL work output. Otherwise, you'll inevitably be rewarding somebody, somewhere, somehow, for work that they didn't do. And that is the essence of unfair. And that is what communism demands.

original=punk
02-29-2008, 01:25 AM
What makes that bum less human than you? That makes you just as bad as him shouting racial slurs at "black people" (they're people! not "black people")

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:26 AM
Capitalism, on the other hand, is based on the idea of being rewarded for the benefits that you contribute to society. This is the essence of fairness. If you make everybody else better off, you deserve to be better off too. I'd say computes, since we're all using them right now, are a great thing that's really helped improve many lives. Thus, I think Bill Gates deserves to reap great rewards for the great benefits that his work has bestowed upon us. Wouldn't you agree?

What this reward system does, by the way, is it actually ENCOURAGES others to create things that benefit society so that these people can benefit themselves.

For example, if you make a good that society doesn't want, you haven't helped society at all, and society won't buy it, and you won't be any richer. Yet if you invent something fantastic that people want to buy because they feel it will improve their quality of living, they will buy it from you, and they will benefit by having the product you created, and you will benefit from the payment you receive as a reward for creating this product.

Thus, capitalism is mutually beneficial to all involved.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:29 AM
What makes that bum less human than you? That makes you just as bad as him shouting racial slurs at "black people" (they're people! not "black people")




Ya ignorant f*ck. First of all, I never said he was less human than me, I said he doesn't deserve to take benefits from work he didn't have a part of.

Secondly, I said black people to describe how racist he was. And wtf, are you seriously getting mad for me saying black people?

Haha I get it, you're doing what I do by being a troll. You almost had me thinking you were serious haha

original=punk
02-29-2008, 01:31 AM
Ya ignorant f*ck. First of all, I never said he was less human than me, I said he doesn't deserve to take benefits from work he didn't have a part of.

Secondly, I said black people to describe how racist he was. And wtf, are you seriously getting mad for me saying black people?

Haha I get it, you're doing what I do by being a troll. You almost had me thinking you were serious haha



....You implied he deserve's less than you because he lives his life in squalor. That's dehumanizing.

And yeah, saying "black person" pisses me off, it implies, again, they are different. Theres only one way life is like math, and I apply it to all my ideals. Everything needs to be equal otherwise it gets all f*cked up.

sargasm
02-29-2008, 01:31 AM
Hey crusty I think you and I have different definitions of what's fair. You seem to believe strongly in the Marxist doctrine of "from each, according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Essentially, as Marx described in the manifesto, that means everybody should work as hard as they can and they'll get a fair, equal, equivalent share of the pie. This belief stems from the humanistic view that every human life is of equal value, and thus it's only fair to distribute equally.

Now this is an exaggerated yet pertinent depiction of how this idea really comes into play. There's this bum that lives by my apartment that does nothing all day but get drunk and spout racist diatribe at any black people that walk by. Under the communist view, however, he is every bit your equal. As such, he deserves to have the same the stuff you have. Never mind that he'll barter it all away for booze, or that he'll never contribute a thing to society. Keep in mind, all the benefits he receives will simply be the fruits of everyone else's labor.

In other words, he does nothing (or at least, significantly less) and yet he receives benefits for doing nothing. Is that not unfair? Instead of the upper class receiving benefits for work they didn't do, we've simply flipped the situation upside-down so that it is a tyranny of the lazy and/or inept. These bums are also receiving benefits for work they didn't do, so what's the difference??

In reality, the only fair way to reward somebody is based on their ACTUAL work output. Otherwise, you'll inevitably be rewarding somebody, somewhere, somehow, for work that they didn't do. And that is the essence of unfair. And that is what communism demands.

You obviously don't know very many homeless people.

Sure, you've got your drunks and drug addicts. (although I'm sure you'd be looking for a buzz too if you had to sleep in an alley every night, but I digress)

You also have, in the majority from my experience, the people who work hard and are genuinely nice people but have simply been screwed over by capitalism. These people have as much to contribute as anyone but continue to be ignored by a system that arbitrarily divides the poor and the rich.

Also, anarchism is not communism. There are similarities for sure, but it's definitely not the same thing.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:46 AM
....You implied he deserve's less than you because he lives his life in squalor. That's dehumanizing.

And yeah, saying "black person" pisses me off, it implies, again, they are different. Theres only one way life is like math, and I apply it to all my ideals. Everything needs to be equal otherwise it gets all f*cked up.


Yeah, they are different. Their skin is black, mine is white. That doesn't mean one is better than the other. You might as well go tell black people to stop celebrating black history month, you freaking moron. Oh, I guess they're racists for pointing out their skin is black and celebrating it. How about we replaced "black history month" with "people history month" would that work for you? God I hate PR assholes that don't even make sense

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:48 AM
Oh, and I never said he deserves less for living in squalor, or however the **** he chooses to live. He deserves less because he contributes less. Are you retarded, or just trying to be a troll, crusty? Either way it's amusing

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 01:52 AM
You obviously don't know very many homeless people.

Sure, you've got your drunks and drug addicts. (although I'm sure you'd be looking for a buzz too if you had to sleep in an alley every night, but I digress)

You also have, in the majority from my experience, the people who work hard and are genuinely nice people but have simply been screwed over by capitalism. These people have as much to contribute as anyone but continue to be ignored by a system that arbitrarily divides the poor and the rich.

Also, anarchism is not communism. There are similarities for sure, but it's definitely not the same thing.


And that's why most bums don't stay bums for long. The ones that are capable human beings work their way out of it. There are a few exceptions, but nothing's perfect, which I feel like I need to constantly reiterate. And no, they haven't been screwed over by capitalism. There's this thing called luck... sometimes people have it and sometimes they don't. There were honest, hard working people that got laid off in the IT industry when the internet bubble burst. I'm sure some of them became homeless, and that sucks. Maybe some of them didn't even make it out of that situation, which also sucks. But that doesn't mean you toss the whole system just because a few people happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I mean hell, after all, I was born smarter, cooler, and better looking than all of you, but that doesn't mean we should clone everybody so all babies are exactly the same so it's "fair". Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw, ladies.

original=punk
02-29-2008, 01:56 AM
PR? Wth?

I appreciate the fact that african-americans have a culture. But to call them "black people" sounds different than saying "person" You don't say a white person is white, do you? I know I don't, no-one aorund here does, but all of a sudden, if you're describing someone who isn't white, their colour is suddenly important. Why is that?

African-american, however, implies a culture. a culture that is different from others, distinguishing it. There is also African culture. These cultures are not restricted to colour, American culture is heavily influenced by people of all different colours, but theres no "American History Month" Black history Month is a way of reparations that slave owners owe. I personally think to treat everyone as equals, and alot of money to balance out everyone's status in this country is a better way, than saying that Blacks have a completely different history than us. Ours intertwine, the world doesn't change histories depending on you skin colour. all of a sudden the Holocaust didn't happen because your skin changes colour. The history of the world is the same for every skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, blah blah blah.



Also, there is a thing called and "edit button" It helps you not double/triple post. :)

sargasm
02-29-2008, 01:56 AM
And that's why most bums don't stay bums for long. The ones that are capable human beings work their way out of it. There are a few exceptions, but nothing's perfect, which I feel like I need to constantly reiterate. And no, they haven't been screwed over by capitalism. There's this thing called luck... sometimes people have it and sometimes they don't. There were honest, hard working people that got laid off in the IT industry when the internet bubble burst. I'm sure some of them became homeless, and that sucks. Maybe some of them didn't even make it out of that situation, which also sucks. But that doesn't mean you toss the whole system just because a few people happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


It's pretty naive to think anyone who works hard and follows the rules can get out of a sticky situation. You must be young :rolleyes:

But seriously, that's a very narrowminded view of the situation. It doesn't work that way in real life.

recklessnick
02-29-2008, 02:13 AM
are all corporations capitalist?
and really what is the definition of a company being a capitalist company?
dont all companies, even diy ones earn profits?

axeslash
02-29-2008, 02:16 AM
It's pretty naive to think anyone who works hard and follows the rules can get out of a sticky situation. You must be young :rolleyes:

But seriously, that's a very narrowminded view of the situation. It doesn't work that way in real life.
I guess I need to say this again.

HE HAS LIVED IN HIS BUBBLY LITTLE RICH LIFE AND HE HAS NOT LIVED A LIFE OF HARDSHIP AT ALL.

Sorry, I've heard this argument before. He's used wikipedia as a resource and refers to every essence of any type of charity as communism, Marxism, or some variation thereof.

With people like this, it's important to realize something. He has based his experience on human nature from his girlfriend who broke up with him in junior high and that one black kid he had in his vastly Caucasian school. It sounds like he's never had to deal with anyone who doesn't fit a specific classifiable personality.

OH DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH SENSE IT MAKES WHEN I MAKE BROAD GENERALIZATIONS BASED ON ISOLATED INCIDENTS?

ss311
02-29-2008, 02:22 AM
If you read the thread, you would know I was joking, endo story.

And I have one question for you, that is, why did you sh*it all over me and sargasm, but not on whyvern? He's the one who has influenced me the most, makes most sense, so don't f*ck with me if you won't f*ck with the guy I learnt from.

Unless you know he'd rape you in an argument...


You're not reading the thread carefully enough. I have read whyvern's ideas on anarchy before, and I know where he stands whereas it is painfully obvious that you are confused by what you proclaim to be.

Furthermore, as for whyvern 'raping me' in an argument; he would be hard-pressed to do so considering that when he types, we tend not to argue because he doesn't have such a simplistic approach to his politics. It is obvious that you are influenced by his politics, which, I am not condemning, but you have to do the reading with declaring what you are.

By the way, don't suck up by saying someone would 'rape me' in an argument. I know I have been voted 'Biggest Suck Up' of the punk forum in the past, but don't get into something so subjective as to say who would win in a debate. I am one of the few people who can actually structure an argument. It is a technique worth learning.

Guess what? You can't change human nature. Many have tried, all have failed.

So before you go saying "blah blah labor is the resource most in demand blah blha Marx this Marx that I know a lot because I took a highschool history class"... you should probably just realize that it doesn't even matter what the theory says, since people will f*ck it up anyway since it's in our nature. You have to embrace competition, since it's part of human nature. Capitalism manages to understand that fact and works with it, instead of completely denying its existence, like communism.

Just face it, the world will never see a communist country that doesn't fail. Period. So get over it, and stop talking about it. Communism, as a serious political concept = dead.

I have all three volumes of Das Kapital. In conjunction with my reading on socialism, I refer to the original text. You, on the other hand, cannot seem to grasp that Marx predicted a revolution by the PROLETARIAT, not by, as other revolutionaries proposed, a dedicated few. Furthermore, the 'communist' regime in Russia was not achieved by the general proletariat. In fact, Russia was an agrarian-based society. Therefore, this was not communism, nor did it constitute the ideal circumstances for communism, for the proletariat was not big enough to realise 'class consciousness' that could lead to the end of capitalism. Of course communism is dead as a political concept; people are satisfied by capitalism with a human face, as we have now.

And that's why most bums don't stay bums for long. The ones that are capable human beings work their way out of it. There are a few exceptions, but nothing's perfect, which I feel like I need to constantly reiterate. And no, they haven't been screwed over by capitalism. There's this thing called luck... sometimes people have it and sometimes they don't. There were honest, hard working people that got laid off in the IT industry when the internet bubble burst. I'm sure some of them became homeless, and that sucks. Maybe some of them didn't even make it out of that situation, which also sucks. But that doesn't mean you toss the whole system just because a few people happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I mean hell, after all, I was born smarter, cooler, and better looking than all of you, but that doesn't mean we should clone everybody so all babies are exactly the same so it's "fair". Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw, ladies.

I think everyone will agree with me when I say that you lack sympathy and compassion. "No man is an Island entire of..." John Donne Look it up and read what he based human nature on. Socialists believe in nurture over nature. If humans were not told by a capitalist system to compete for self-gain, but for the good of the community, perhaps Kropotkin's (I think) idea of mutual aid could become important again. Once a bum, it is difficult to get out of being one because of the system. Get used to it.


I guess I need to say this again.

HE HAS LIVED IN HIS BUBBLY LITTLE RICH LIFE AND HE HAS NOT LIVED A LIFE OF HARDSHIP AT ALL.

Sorry, I've heard this argument before. He's used wikipedia as a resource and refers to every essence of any type of charity as communism, Marxism, or some variation thereof.

With people like this, it's important to realize something. He has based his experience on human nature from his girlfriend who broke up with him in junior high and that one black kid he had in his vastly Caucasian school. It sounds like he's never had to deal with anyone who doesn't fit a specific classifiable personality.

OH DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH SENSE IT MAKES WHEN I MAKE BROAD GENERALIZATIONS BASED ON ISOLATED INCIDENTS?

Exactly, and people should also remember that some early anarchists and communists were from upper-class families who had seen the light. So maybe that guy up there will one day realise he shouldn't endorse the system because it benefits him. The fact is, capitalism works for the few in terms of big money. We want something that works for the many.

whyvern
02-29-2008, 02:27 AM
I might eventually want to work through and discuss everything you've posted, because you seem like you have a good conscience and a decent enough head on your shoulders. I see where you're coming from, and I think you have admirable goals. However, you've gotten lost somewhere along the way.


This is EC101 stuff (literally, I'm not saying that to be a jerk, like I usually am). Now, what people don't realize is that free trade agreements actually benefit both parties involved in the agreement. This is due to a thing called comparative advantage. If you want to look into the specifics, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

What you'll notice if you scroll down is that there are two tables that show total world output and individual output for two hypothetical countries. One table shows their output before free trade, and the other shows their output after free trade. The free trade situation is shown to increase the wealth of BOTH countries.

Now you'll say well this is on paper blah blah perfect conditions etc. etc. In reality, this law of comparative advantage shows that ANY country will ALWAYS benefit from free trade under the condition that there is nothing fishy going on (i.e., as long as one country doesn't hold the proverbial gun to the other country's head and tell them to accept terms that are unfair).

So actually, free trade enriches societies. It's pretty ironic that people who protest against free trade are actually hurting the people they want to help the most.


Free Trade does not enrich societies at all. Even the World Bank says it's not working in their literature. Comparative advantage and capitalist economics are THEORIES not FACTS. Just because the law of comparative advantage says that a country will produce what is most beneficial doesn't mean it will.

It's been proven over and over again for a country to build up a strong economy it needs to protect it's industies. The United States and Great Britain are two of the best examples of this. The US was an isolationist country from the 1860's until the 1920's and the build up of AMERICAN industries for AMERICAN people helped stimulate the AMERICAN economy. The same the happened in Britain, they actually invented sheltering industries with the birth of the Textile Industry. It was punishable by death in Britain to export knowledge on how to make a Textile Mill and people who built them were not allowed to leave the country.

As these industries grew and grew they needed more resources and more markets to expand. So Colonial Empires grew out of this need. Let's continue with Britain. It used the Americas and India as a place for raw materials, Africa as a source of Labor and the British Isles continued to be the wealthy Market that benefited from the classic "triangular trade" that you read about in yer middle school history textbook. After the United States declared independence the British had grown more and more wealthy and they worried about where they could have a potential market for their goods and a place to get more and more raw materials because their entire system would fall apart if the machines quit turning. Consumption had to be maintained. And then BOOM!!! "Hey there's a ****tona fukkin' people in INDIA, and they're darkies that don't believe in Jesus... surely we can run that place alot better than they ever could and they could give us cheap labor so we don't have to ship darkies over from AFRICA and there's so damn many of them that they'll have to buy our ****!" And Britain got wealthier and wealthier and the sun never set on their Oppression, Bigotry and Racism.

After a while more and more British people got educated and didn't want to brutally oppress all of these indigenous peoples. Also the empire was so damn big it was impossible to pay for. So they let all the territories free.

Awww great isn't that awesome?

Well, not exactly. These new countries hadn't developed industries because they were all dependent on the British and there was still lots of wealth to be extracted from their natural resources to help finance new exciting programmes for their country. So they asked the nice British people to help them out and Western companies started investing in their natural resources, but the borders of these countries were artifical and wars started, ethnic cleansings ensued, the usus... so they ran up alot of debt.

Then SHAZAM!

After World War 2 ended and Europe was back to it's normal wealthy honky-ass self, this thing called the WORLD BANK offered to help people invest in their country. It issued loans (with intrest of course because everyone needs an incentive to make cash in a capitalist economy, right?). The loans had stipulations though, the economy must be privatized because competition can create the best results, right? Wrong. The economies are privatized and Western corporations start to "invest" in the countries. The Free Trade agreements lift tariffs that countries would normally place on the investment that a foreign company makes in the country. So they have no way to get out of debt from the World Bank.

Is it fair to have that these western countries have several hundred years of protection on their economies and are denying the right to all these developing countries? HELL NO!

Free Trade does more damage to local economies than it could ever help. If you don't believe me talk to a farmer in Chiapas or Nigeria. I'm sure they can tell you with more passion than I ever could about how Free Trade has hurt their lives.

It'd do you some good to learn about Fordism, public relations, consumerism, mass-media and mass control. These are all really important things to understand the current economical/political situation in the International community today.

Sorry to bore you with Globalization 101.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 02:28 AM
Exactly, and people should also remember that some early anarchists and communists were from upper-class families who had seen the light. So maybe that guy up there will one day realise he shouldn't endorse the system because it benefits him. The fact is, capitalism works for the few in terms of big money. We want something that works for the many.
The problem I see is that I don't think that kid wants something that works for the many. He wants something that works for him.

sargasm
02-29-2008, 02:33 AM
are all corporations capitalist?
and really what is the definition of a company being a capitalist company?
dont all companies, even diy ones earn profits?

Those are collectives, working within a capitalist medium.

ss311
02-29-2008, 02:35 AM
The 3 posts above this one are excellent. Dave, that was a candid, to the point explanation, and you should consider writing it up in a more sophisticated manner for publication somewhere.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 02:38 AM
First of all, I find the term African-American to be presumptuous. Just because somebody is black, it doesn't mean that they are either African OR American. There are tons of Jamaicans here in Boston, many of which would be insulted if you called them African-American. Dumbass.

And sargasm, you're right, it's pretty terrible how nobody who starts off poor really makes anything of themselves... http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-gates-winfrey-biz-cz_ts_0626rags2riches.html

(to summarize the article, 2/3 of the world's billionaires made their money from nothing)

Christ, even Bill Clinton was born into a working-class family.


Is social mobility here in the US perfect? No, but it's nowhere near as bad as you seem to think it is.

original=punk
02-29-2008, 02:42 AM
Alright, ss311, I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, I don't knwo what to say to you but I can't change the way I think. And if I could, I probably wouldn't, because nothign else makes sense.

EDIT: Yeah, I used african-american as an example. There's alot of different "black cultures" I'm not dumb. Toronto has an "afro-centric" school, and it doesn't focus on Africa, it focuses on Jamacian descent "black people"

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 02:46 AM
"It's been proven over and over again for a country to build up a strong economy it needs to protect it's industies."


Again, I could rip through your entire pathetic novelette you just wrote, but I'll start with this small fact. Protectionism hurts industries by allowing them to relax when they shouldn't be, you retard. Prime example would be the American car industry, which had huge protectionist barriers against foreign competition until the 1960s. Then, when those barriers began to break down, these American companies which had been so stagnant due to a lack of competition got hit with the foreign companies, they crumbled. As as result, you have what you see today, with American car companies like Ford and GM getting their asses handed to them. Protectionism hurts competition, which eats away at a nation's economy like termites in the pathetic wooden wall they've built to keep foreign competition out.


There are so many other things you're wrong about that I can even begin to start ripping on them.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 02:51 AM
"It's been proven over and over again for a country to build up a strong economy it needs to protect it's industies."


Again, I could rip through your entire pathetic novelette you just wrote, but I'll start with this small fact. Protectionism hurts industries by allowing them to relax when they shouldn't be, you retard. Prime example would be the American car industry, which had huge protectionist barriers against foreign competition until the 1960s. Then, when those barriers began to break down, these American companies which had been so stagnant due to a lack of competition got hit with the foreign companies, they crumbled. As as result, you have what you see today, with American car companies like Ford and GM getting their asses handed to them. Protectionism hurts competition, which eats away at a nation's economy like termites in the pathetic wooden wall they've built to keep foreign competition out.


There are so many other things you're wrong about that I can even begin to start ripping on them.
Rip this up. You don't know anything about the real world because you haven't lived in it.

Enjoy ripping that up.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 02:52 AM
Rip this up. You don't know anything about the real world because you haven't lived in it.

Enjoy ripping that up.



what a sickkkkkkkk burn hahhahahaha

original=punk
02-29-2008, 02:52 AM
Rip this up. You don't know anything about the real world because you haven't lived in it.

Enjoy ripping that up.


It's like Clockwork Orange a bit of twenty on one
Breaking heads well that don't sound like much fun
Is that your only way of getting kicks
By breaking heads you can't fix
Do you think you're tough?
Because you rip it up!
Gotta rip you up!
Do yo gotta rip it up?
Gotta rip it up!
Gotta rip it up!

axeslash
02-29-2008, 02:53 AM
what a sickkkkkkkk burn hahhahahaha
I love it when people mock a question when they can't answer it.

sargasm
02-29-2008, 02:54 AM
First of all, I find the term African-American to be presumptuous. Just because somebody is black, it doesn't mean that they are either African OR American. There are tons of Jamaicans here in Boston, many of which would be insulted if you called them African-American. Dumbass.

And sargasm, you're right, it's pretty terrible how nobody who starts off poor really makes anything of themselves... http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-gates-winfrey-biz-cz_ts_0626rags2riches.html

(to summarize the article, 2/3 of the world's billionaires made their money from nothing)

Christ, even Bill Clinton was born into a working-class family.


Is social mobility here in the US perfect? No, but it's nowhere near as bad as you seem to think it is.

I don't live in the US. I live in a city where affordable housing is nonexistant, living wage is unreachable by many, and I see the effects of it every single day.

That point about the billionaires is so irrelevant it's not even funny. Sure, social mobility is POSSIBLE. That doesn't make it probable or even practical to many. 2/3 of billionares may have made their money from nothing, but I'm sure you'll find the fraction of people without money who have made a lot of money is quite a bit smaller.

Not only that, but I don't look up to billionaires at all. That's a whooole lotta arbitrary worth assigned to people who don't deserve it.

(That's all money really is. A numerical measurement of a person's worth in our society. Money and equality, even social equality, are mutually exclusive ideas)

whyvern
02-29-2008, 03:04 AM
"It's been proven over and over again for a country to build up a strong economy it needs to protect it's industies."


Again, I could rip through your entire pathetic novelette you just wrote, but I'll start with this small fact. Protectionism hurts industries by allowing them to relax when they shouldn't be, you retard. Prime example would be the American car industry, which had huge protectionist barriers against foreign competition until the 1960s. Then, when those barriers began to break down, these American companies which had been so stagnant due to a lack of competition got hit with the foreign companies, they crumbled. As as result, you have what you see today, with American car companies like Ford and GM getting their asses handed to them. Protectionism hurts competition, which eats away at a nation's economy like termites in the pathetic wooden wall they've built to keep foreign competition out.


There are so many other things you're wrong about that I can even begin to start ripping on them.

If protectionism is so harmful to industries why is the US agriculture industry one of the most heavily subsidies in the world?

Protectionism helps keep small national level insitiutions alive and creates a demand for national level goods and services.

Free trade only benefits the wealthy when a protectionist system has been in place for centuries creating strong industries.

Do you know anything about globalization or have you only taken economics classes?

ss311
02-29-2008, 03:48 AM
My economics class is covering a huge chapter on globalisation, so I doubt he's even done economics.

whyvern
02-29-2008, 03:51 AM
Most American economics classes are designed for entrepreneurs and people going into the business world, so globalization is usually taught in a political context. It is however an economic issue that should be taught in both classes, if ya ask me.

ss311
02-29-2008, 03:54 AM
I have to admit that my economics book is probably a little New Right biased, but our economics teacher gives the other side of the story, and to anyone who doesn't look for the other side, I think they are foolish.

mike2
02-29-2008, 04:02 AM
Hey everybody, long time not talk. But I'm back

who the **** are you?

look, all i hate are corporations, we don't need them like yoursweatersux said, i would say i was more of a socialist than an anarchist


I'm no political/economic genious, but isn't Communism based around the idea of the uprising of the workers, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat? If you think a dictatorship is going to be fair and honest and create true equality, you're crazy.

what i think people forget is that communism is supposed to reach an anarchist state, your suppose to start out as a capitalist country, and ease communism into, until reaching a socialist then communist country, then the ultimate goal is to have a communal state without government.

and here is the thing that i think all the "anarchists" are trying to say


THEY THINK ANARCHISM WOULD BE GOOD IF IT COULD WORK, BUT IT CAN'T.

god damn it. we're not reatarded and all know that it would fail horribly...but it is probably the most prolific and free minded idea that humans ever thought of.

Oh wow they're 16+?????? I should listen to them I guess.


Oh wait a minute, that's right I'm 21, because age is important. oh yeah, and i got a 1400 on my SAT's, have a high IQ, and attend a prestigious university where I'm in the top 5% of my class.

I understand though I guess. When I was younger and pissed off at all the injustice I saw I wanted to believe in a quick fix like anarchism or communism. I was pissed off too. But I eventually came to terms with realize how destined for failure those concepts really are. They'll NEVER achieve the results you desire. Or even match the equality and fairness in a capitalist system. Sorry guys, there's no such thing as a perfect world or a utopia. But for now, capitalism is the best we've got. Suck it up, life's not fair.

blah blah blah, i think when we have the ****ing awards we should nominate this dude for being the biggest sellout yuppie huschebag. "I am in the top 5% of my class" God damn it, and look he used the "When i was younger..." card...your twenty one and you sound like my god damn parents you ****ing prick. **** off and die you terminal preppie asshole, just because you take everything literally and can't think outside of the box, doesn't mean that everyone is dumber than you. ugh...

mike2
02-29-2008, 04:11 AM
I might eventually want to work through and discuss everything you've posted, because you seem like you have a good conscience and a decent enough head on your shoulders. I see where you're coming from, and I think you have admirable goals. However, you've gotten lost somewhere along the way.


This is EC101 stuff (literally, I'm not saying that to be a jerk, like I usually am). Now, what people don't realize is that free trade agreements actually benefit both parties involved in the agreement.

the parties you speak of are the corporations, not the ****ing people of the world

THE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE.

Adam_Harrison9
02-29-2008, 09:02 AM
Adam Harrison9 is obviously a white suburban teenager with rich parents. I mean we can all tell that.

Then wouldn't I be some snobby conservative?

Adam_Harrison9
02-29-2008, 09:09 AM
Anything can be done in a capitalist society, as long as there are incentives to do so.
The way the theory goes is that Company X is motivated by making a profit, and so Company X decides the cheapest (thus most profitable) way for them is to have a sweatshop that employs people who have no choice but to work in these horrible conditions in order to survive. Naturally, this is the situation that Company X desires, since it is profit-maximizing.

However, society decides that while they enjoy the low cost of their new jeans, they don't like having the whole sweatshop thing on their conscience. This is an implicit cost. While their jeans are cheaper, the discomforting knowledge of knowing they came from a sweatshop (the implicit cost) raises the total cost to a point where it'd actually be more profitable for another company to produce jeans without utilizing sweatshop labor, as their implicit costs are significantly lower.

Thus, as long as everybody cares enough about any particular issue, a way will be found to make the results satisfying to everybody involved. This is partially covered in the Coase Theorem ( http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/Syllabi/Coase.htm ).


So that's how it should work. In reality, too many people would rather have cheap jeans than a world without sweatshops. The problem here isn't the company trying to make a profit... the problem is the people that don't care about the poor bastards that make their jeans for low costs.

The problem here is the people, NOT the company, NOT the capitalist system

The bottom line is, the incentive is always money, thus creating division in a capitalist society, hence it is hard to reason and reach any kind of diplomatic solution because people are too interested in lining their pockets. "Everyone has learnt this garbage and everyone can un-learn it". The competition capitalism creates makes it impossible for people to pull together and achieve things in the name of humanity, such as what whyvern posted. Corporations will always get in the way of environmental issues, because they will lose money.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 12:27 PM
Then wouldn't I be some snobby conservative?
No, that would just mean you have an unrealistic view of how the economy and politics work. There are snobby Liberals and snobby Independents too.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 12:35 PM
[QUOTE=mike2

THEY THINK ANARCHISM WOULD BE GOOD IF IT COULD WORK, BUT IT CAN'T.

god damn it. we're not reatarded and all know that it would fail horribly...but it is probably the most prolific and free minded idea that humans ever thought of.


[/QUOTE]


hahahah I am THE KING at pissing people off, hell yes.

But anyway mikey, I'm glad YOU at least aren't that retarded. You, despite having an affinity for anarchist/socialist ideals, can at least accept the fact that anarchism will never ever work, and therefore people shouldn't waste their time trying to bring it about. It's ok if you're influenced by anarchist ideals, but if you go around saying "I'm an anarchist, and eventually we'll all bring down the government" you're delusional and an idiot.

Sadly, I'm not quite so sure everybody else on this thread agrees with that. Some of you actually DO think anarchism could happen, am I right?


As for communism... slightly more plausible but the same story emerges. It can't exist in the form that people want it to exist in. That's why when communists have taken power, even with the best intentions, they've run their countries into the ground because the theory just doesn't work in reality.

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH REAL WORLD EXAMPLES??? WHYYYY???????????

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 12:42 PM
oh ya this is funny btw... this guy is just like you idiots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7270401.stm


I'm sureeeee it'll work when he tries next time... not

What I don't understand about you guys is how you actually think that people are inherently good, and that capitalism just forces undesirable traits onto people. Don't you live in the real world? I'm assuming most of you are in highschool... take a look around. What percentage of the people surrounding you are assholes? 50%? 60%? 80%? I've got news for you guys... it's not just your town... it's everywhere. I know you don't wanna believe it, but denial isn't just a river in egypt. The world is full of assholes. And I'm sure you could pull the convenient "capitalism MAKES them greedy assholes" argument... but that only accounts for greed. Just look around and see how many people are pure assholes for the sake of being an asshole.. myself included. THAT is why a system based on total cooperation will never work.

Adam_Harrison9
02-29-2008, 01:33 PM
No, that would just mean you have an unrealistic view of how the economy and politics work. There are snobby Liberals and snobby Independents too.

You sadden me axeslash :( I know I come across as a bit snobby at times over this forum. But, I am not snobby :( I just get pissed off easily sometimes. My bad I'll try and lighten up. In terms of economics I'm pretty un-intelligable, however I'd like tot hink I know a fair bit about politics, as I've done my research and study history and politics.

Adam_Harrison9
02-29-2008, 01:34 PM
oh ya this is funny btw... this guy is just like you idiots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7270401.stm


I'm sureeeee it'll work when he tries next time... not

What I don't understand about you guys is how you actually think that people are inherently good, and that capitalism just forces undesirable traits onto people. Don't you live in the real world? I'm assuming most of you are in highschool... take a look around. What percentage of the people surrounding you are assholes? 50%? 60%? 80%? I've got news for you guys... it's not just your town... it's everywhere. I know you don't wanna believe it, but denial isn't just a river in egypt. The world is full of assholes. And I'm sure you could pull the convenient "capitalism MAKES them greedy assholes" argument... but that only accounts for greed. Just look around and see how many people are pure assholes for the sake of being an asshole.. myself included. THAT is why a system based on total cooperation will never work.

Capitalism forces traits on to each other. But that, you don't seem to understand. Competition, the vitality to make money if you wish to survive and many other things.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 01:45 PM
oh ya this is funny btw... this guy is just like you idiots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7270401.stm


I'm sureeeee it'll work when he tries next time... not

What I don't understand about you guys is how you actually think that people are inherently good, and that capitalism just forces undesirable traits onto people. Don't you live in the real world? I'm assuming most of you are in highschool... take a look around. What percentage of the people surrounding you are assholes? 50%? 60%? 80%? I've got news for you guys... it's not just your town... it's everywhere. I know you don't wanna believe it, but denial isn't just a river in egypt. The world is full of assholes. And I'm sure you could pull the convenient "capitalism MAKES them greedy assholes" argument... but that only accounts for greed. Just look around and see how many people are pure assholes for the sake of being an asshole.. myself included. THAT is why a system based on total cooperation will never work.
Again with the assumptions.

If you knew anything about human psychology or genetics you'd know that human nature has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with good or evil. Good and evil are concepts created by humans.

Humans have two very important traits that basically define us. Our desire to breed, and the tendency to take the easiest route possible.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 02:47 PM
Again with the assumptions.

If you knew anything about human psychology or genetics you'd know that human nature has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with good or evil. Good and evil are concepts created by humans.

Humans have two very important traits that basically define us. Our desire to breed, and the tendency to take the easiest route possible.



Durrrrrrrrrr. Which is exactly why competition can never be removed from human nature. So let's say, hypothetically, everybody made the exact same income under a perfectly socialistic society. You're still gonna be competing to see who gets the f*ck the hottest girl. But now, since everybody makes the same amount of money, people will compete more heavily in other aspects to prove how they're better than other potential mates.

Suddenly, everybody is joining a band b/c they think it'll help them get laid. Now, sports are becoming more important than ever, and people who were previously just "jocks" are now ego-infused superjocks. Because previously, being good at sports didn't really matter when compared to the importance of getting a good job and making a good salary. Now that jobs/salaries don't matter, being good at sports is the be-all end-all of competition. So if you're born short, f*ck you, too bad. Not athletic? F*ck you, too bad. Fat? F*ck you too bad. Born smart? Nobody cares. Because at the end of the day, you'll still have the same quality of living as this dumbass egotistical jock. Only difference is, he'll just be more popular and banging hotter girls.

You see, competition isn't going to go away, no matter what you do about salaries (were communism even hypothetically attainable). You'll just channel it into other areas and ruin them.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 03:54 PM
Durrrrrrrrrr. Which is exactly why competition can never be removed from human nature. So let's say, hypothetically, everybody made the exact same income under a perfectly socialistic society. You're still gonna be competing to see who gets the f*ck the hottest girl. But now, since everybody makes the same amount of money, people will compete more heavily in other aspects to prove how they're better than other potential mates.

Suddenly, everybody is joining a band b/c they think it'll help them get laid. Now, sports are becoming more important than ever, and people who were previously just "jocks" are now ego-infused superjocks. Because previously, being good at sports didn't really matter when compared to the importance of getting a good job and making a good salary. Now that jobs/salaries don't matter, being good at sports is the be-all end-all of competition. So if you're born short, f*ck you, too bad. Not athletic? F*ck you, too bad. Fat? F*ck you too bad. Born smart? Nobody cares. Because at the end of the day, you'll still have the same quality of living as this dumbass egotistical jock. Only difference is, he'll just be more popular and banging hotter girls.

You see, competition isn't going to go away, no matter what you do about salaries (were communism even hypothetically attainable). You'll just channel it into other areas and ruin them.
That wasn't anywhere near where I was going with that, and thank you for proving my point that you don't have the foresight to think about anything more than yourself and your personal life.

Using jocks as in example for economics and politics is pretty much the lest relvant thing you could have talked about.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 05:37 PM
That wasn't anywhere near where I was going with that, and thank you for proving my point that you don't have the foresight to think about anything more than yourself and your personal life.

Using jocks as in example for economics and politics is pretty much the lest relvant thing you could have talked about.



You really seem to have trouble connecting the dots.

neidnarb11890
02-29-2008, 06:01 PM
You really seem to have trouble connecting the dots.
Oh no, I think the problem here is that you really seem to have trouble putting coherent arguments together.

devourthekitten
02-29-2008, 06:06 PM
Oh no, I think the problem here is that you really seem to have trouble putting coherent arguments together.
Or, he could just be dumb.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 06:06 PM
The point is that life's not fair and there's nothing you can do to make it that way. And one person making more money than another... well cry me a f*cking river. Money isn't supposed to be important anyway, so why do all of you people care so much about it???

Investment bankers on Wall Street work 100 hour work-weeks, and you people complain about the poor being oppressed hahha

Thing is, they're happy to do it.

devourthekitten
02-29-2008, 06:11 PM
The point is that life's not fair and there's nothing you can do to make it that way. And one person making more money than another... well cry me a f*cking river. Money isn't supposed to be important anyway, so why do all of you people care so much about it???

Investment bankers on Wall Street work 100 hour work-weeks, and you people complain about the poor being oppressed hahha

Thing is, they're happy to do it.
Well, if money isn't important, then I suppose people should stop using money. How do we get food, money, electricity? People can't live in houses because they don't have money. People starve because they don't have money. People get diseases that most people wouldn't, because they don't have money.

See a pattern? If you don't, here it is:
The world revolves around money.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 06:33 PM
You really seem to have trouble connecting the dots.
Or I can make arguments that don't lead to "I'm right, you all suck, I'm gonna be rich, you're all apathetic and poor."

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 06:44 PM
Well, if money isn't important, then I suppose people should stop using money. How do we get food, money, electricity? People can't live in houses because they don't have money. People starve because they don't have money. People get diseases that most people wouldn't, because they don't have money.

See a pattern? If you don't, here it is:
The world revolves around money.


You're an idiot. I'm obviously referring to having a lot of money versus making minimum wage. I'm not talking about starving to death, smart guy

pinheadslts75
02-29-2008, 06:44 PM
Capitalism and punk....

Well, my stance is this: I only care about the music. Your personal politics are your own business. Once you start ****ing with the music, then you've got problems.

yoursweatersux
02-29-2008, 06:44 PM
Or I can make arguments that don't lead to "I'm right, you all suck, I'm gonna be rich, you're all apathetic and poor."


Thanks for saying it for me. Now I don't have to repeat myself.

devourthekitten
02-29-2008, 06:49 PM
You're an idiot. I'm obviously referring to having a lot of money versus making minimum wage. I'm not talking about starving to death, smart guy
Well, you did say money isn't important... :rolleyes:

axeslash
02-29-2008, 06:53 PM
The point is that life's not fair and there's nothing you can do to make it that way. And one person making more money than another... well cry me a f*cking river. Money isn't supposed to be important anyway, so why do all of you people care so much about it???

Investment bankers on Wall Street work 100 hour work-weeks, and you people complain about the poor being oppressed hahha

Thing is, they're happy to do it.
For ****'s sake.

LISTEN VERY MOTHER****ING CAREFULLY.

Not everyone who is poor is poor because they choose to. Rich people aren't rich just because everyone else doesn't work as hard as they do. Money is important, it doesn't matter whether we like capitalism or not, money drives the world. It makes it go 'round and 'round.

Believe it or not we don't dislike capitalism just because we have no money. Some of us actually care about something other than ourselves.

devourthekitten
02-29-2008, 06:53 PM
For ****'s sake.

LISTEN VERY MOTHER****ING CAREFULLY.

Not everyone who is poor is poor because they choose to. Rich people aren't rich just because everyone else doesn't work as hard as they do. Money is important, it doesn't matter whether we like capitalism or not, money drives the world. It makes it go 'round and 'round.

Believe it or not we don't dislike capitalism just because we have no money. Some of us actually care about something other than ourselves.
And that's why you're my favorite. :)

sargasm
02-29-2008, 06:57 PM
You're an idiot. I'm obviously referring to having a lot of money versus making minimum wage. I'm not talking about starving to death, smart guy

Minimum wage =/= living wage.

axeslash
02-29-2008, 07:05 PM
Minimum wage =/= living wage.
I wish people could actually understand this.

crustyreed
02-29-2008, 07:06 PM
Wow lots of reading up to do.

First off gloabalization isnt helping the people in the Maquiladora's. Nor is it good for the CHILDREN working in Firestone, wal-mart, hanes, and target factories.
And when the jobs leave those country's for even poorer (if thats even possible) countries they will feel the same devastation that africa felt.

Second off, it's absurd you make the generalization the only way to 'bang a hot chick' leaves out the entire field of thought of sexual attraction and emotional attraction. This furthermore proves that you have no compassion, or coherent thoughts.

BTW i am not a communist.

devourthekitten
02-29-2008, 07:07 PM
I wish people could actually understand this.
And I wish the barrio had nice houses.

your_martyr
02-29-2008, 08:55 PM
What do I want changed?

First and foremost, Abolish the World Trade Organization, World Bank, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA.

I want automony for oppressed groups wordlwide. That means, American Indians, Black Americans, Kosovar Albanians, Chechnyans, Palestinians.

I want an immediate end to American imperialism and the complete destruction of the military-industrial complex

I wanna see the Qa'baa in Mecca... not for religious reasons, but because all those people united together and doing one thing is super ****ing impressive.

I want intellectual property to be a thing of the past that we all look back and laugh on and say "man that was ****ing stupid, having people pay for an idea"

I want the utilization of technology to help reduce our ecological footprint and to make things more efficient and peaceful for all of us in this world.

I want punks worldwide to know and love each other. Hell I want kids worldwide to know and love each other. The youth are really where the future are at and it's important that we all can bond with one another. Punk for me at least has been really instrumental in doing this.

I want the workers to own the means of production in the form of a syndicate

I want people to help each other.

I wanna be able to know everyone on my block, and find away around the racism that has segregated my town.

I want the "captains of industry" to face the bottom ends of their actions in South America, Africa and Asia and I want them to be held accountable for their crimes by the people they exploited.

I want hipsters to care more about each other than what they're wearing.

I want people to work together to remove landmines in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia and other landmine hotspots worldwide so kids don't play in mine fields and blow up.


Can we do this without a capitalist system?

I think it's better to ask "can we do this with a capitalist system?"

You are one informed kid. I totally agree with you about workers owning the company's they work for. I am a union member, at krogers( hey im 16), i attend all union meetings an i listen, unlike some union leaders. If workers owned thier owned factories they worked for they might not be so grabby for benifites. The auto industry is in trouble, not only because of gas prices, not only because of the clean energy kick going on, but also because the unions have been grapping at any an every presumed "right" they can get. They are sinking buisness that employ them.

but good for you! there is a local meat processing plant that is acually worker owned an run.

crustyreed
02-29-2008, 09:20 PM
^^ whyvern is 21 or 22, i believe.
that meat plant sounds cool (well i object to the industry) being employee owned.

gopherthegreat
02-29-2008, 09:38 PM
Believe it or not we don't dislike capitalism just because we have no money. Some of us actually care about something other than ourselves.
:cheers:

mike2
03-01-2008, 05:33 AM
i'm too drun k to reed this stuff now....i wiil try latre...expect a coment.

your_martyr
03-01-2008, 10:37 AM
^^ whyvern is 21 or 22, i believe.
that meat plant sounds cool (well i object to the industry) being employee owned.

opps, sorry I'm new to the punk forum

jimmyjimjim
03-01-2008, 11:14 AM
I have a few bones to pick with you:

a) You cannot spell the word, 'environment' correctly;
b) They do short-change the populace. You have clearly not studied Marx surplus theory. I would suggest you buy Das Kapital V1, but with your inability to argue articulately, my suggestion would be a waste of time;
c) They do not exist to provide a means of income to employees. They exist to profit by exploiting employees. Yet again, you really should read some Marx to understand this;
d) Anarchists and communists do not commit the unintelligible fallacy of suggesting that we 'stop producing'. They merely believe that, after a revolution, the factors of production should be held in common by everyone. Property should be abolished; that is all. I do not understand why people would stop producing. You have tangibly failed to read anything regarding anarchism and communism; for if you had, you would know these things.

A General Comment Regarding This Thread

Fighting the system from within the system merely tames the system. Has nobody here studied the Fabian Society or Eduard Bernstein, or even Marx himself?

I guess I'm sorry I don't treat Marx as an infallible god like you do. I don't believe they corporations exist purely to exploit employees. That is just an ignorant statment. And Section D shows why anarchy would not work; if the factors of production were to be held in common by everyone, who would be in charge? If there is no "established heirarchy," how could you convince people to share their knowledge, ablitity, and resources with the rest of the populace? How would you keep everyone in line? With no "hierarchy," no one would listen to each other and it would be chaos.

EDIT: whyvern's statement is one that I agree with. I feel that yes, we can accomplish most of those goals with a capitalist system; we just need leaders in the government who are not indebted to industry leaders and who are willing to regulate our country more tightly. Things such as landmines could be easy to rid if we diverted our efforts to peace not war; instead, we're fighting pointlessly in the Mid East. What we lack is leaders and an engaged populace. Too many people are complacent under the system as it is.

lavazza
03-01-2008, 11:15 AM
What do I want changed?
I want automony for oppressed groups wordlwide. That means, American Indians, Black Americans, Kosovar Albanians, Chechnyans, Palestinians.



......and basques and catalans and Azerbajan minority in Armenia and the Kurds and the muslime minority in India and Tibet and Chechnya and Srbska and Scotland and Wales :D

jimmyjimjim
03-01-2008, 11:31 AM
The point is that life's not fair and there's nothing you can do to make it that way. And one person making more money than another... well cry me a f*cking river. Money isn't supposed to be important anyway, so why do all of you people care so much about it???

Investment bankers on Wall Street work 100 hour work-weeks, and you people complain about the poor being oppressed hahha

Thing is, they're happy to do it.

Social Darwinism is a dumb philosophy. How (this is just an example) are the poor suppossed to become investment bankers? Most cannot go to college for monetary reasons, most live in areas where the education system is horrible. There are inherent disadvantages that do keep many poor from becoming successful.

yoursweatersux
03-01-2008, 01:10 PM
Social Darwinism is a dumb philosophy. How (this is just an example) are the poor suppossed to become investment bankers? Most cannot go to college for monetary reasons, most live in areas where the education system is horrible. There are inherent disadvantages that do keep many poor from becoming successful.


I was gonna quote your post above this to say at least somebody is in touch with reality. And I can see how you might think that social darwinism is a bad policy. Of course, taken to its extreme it is, but I think it certainly needs to exist on some level.

And while you're right that it's harder for the poor to become wealthy, it's far from impossible. If you check back a few pages, you'll see the link to an article in forbes magazine which details that 2/3 of the world's billionaires came from nothing. It was probably BECAUSE they came from nothing that they were so motivated to succeed, so in that case being poor was a benefit to them and their work ethic.

Also, this figure I'm about to say sounds like it's being pulled out of my ass because I can't find the study where I read it so I can't cite it... but what one study found was that in the US after 2 generations there is no discernible connection between prior wealth and present wealth. In other words, if your grandpa was rich you're just as statistically likely to be poor as everybody else is, and if your grandpa was poor you're just as statistically likely to be as rich as everybody else is.

What this is basically saying is that if you work hard and you're motivated, ok, maybe you on a personal level will only be able to go from poor to middle class. But your kid will have all of the potential in the world. So yeah, if you work hard and you're talented you WILL be rewarded in this country. Social mobility is what it's all about

ss311
03-01-2008, 02:04 PM
I guess I'm sorry I don't treat Marx as an infallible god like you do. I don't believe they corporations exist purely to exploit employees. That is just an ignorant statment. And Section D shows why anarchy would not work; if the factors of production were to be held in common by everyone, who would be in charge? If there is no "established heirarchy," how could you convince people to share their knowledge, ablitity, and resources with the rest of the populace? How would you keep everyone in line? With no "hierarchy," no one would listen to each other and it would be chaos.

I do not treat Marx as an infallible God. I am not a Marxist. I was merely pointing out Marx's theories in order to prove that many people here have no clue regarding Marxist theory. By the way, the main aim of any business is to make profit. Don't get sucked into the propaganda they put out about caring for the workers.

Kamistan
03-01-2008, 05:12 PM
Capitalism could be used for good and evil. Remember the art of billionaires getting bored of their money and donating most of it to charity. I percieve it as being more helpful than those who merely bitch.

The consumer is the best regulator if the consumer is aware, which is usually not the case as the consumer is unaware, however I wish to be a part of a movement that activates the regular consumer by telling them of any bad practices in places like Nike factories and switch over to something like http://www.adbusters.org/metas/corpo/blackspotshoes/index.php

Nike would, like any dumb corporation ( yes, they don't think and simply accommodate for the majority) have to change their practices, so you'll have good coming out of it. Of course, I still wouldn't go back to Nike because of the initial mistake.

I think Capitalism gives me more freedom, and I see much more conflict between a left leaning liberal/ socialist government and Punk as opposed to libertarianism and similar parties and Punk.

To some extent I'm an Individualist that believes in helping himself before others, and I don't believe in making the only aim in my life helping to improve the lives of others as it seems a little bit redundant.

Corporations are required for certain fields where a strong foundation of knowledge is required. For example, one can not start an aerospace company from scratch and compete with today's greats. You simply can't, and that's because many have foundations nearly dating back to a century ago.

I've yet to study systems like Parecon which my favorite record label, G7, uses. So I won't assert what I've written above as the truth.

axeslash
03-01-2008, 05:54 PM
I was gonna quote your post above this to say at least somebody is in touch with reality. And I can see how you might think that social darwinism is a bad policy. Of course, taken to its extreme it is, but I think it certainly needs to exist on some level.

And while you're right that it's harder for the poor to become wealthy, it's far from impossible. If you check back a few pages, you'll see the link to an article in forbes magazine which details that 2/3 of the world's billionaires came from nothing. It was probably BECAUSE they came from nothing that they were so motivated to succeed, so in that case being poor was a benefit to them and their work ethic.

Also, this figure I'm about to say sounds like it's being pulled out of my ass because I can't find the study where I read it so I can't cite it... but what one study found was that in the US after 2 generations there is no discernible connection between prior wealth and present wealth. In other words, if your grandpa was rich you're just as statistically likely to be poor as everybody else is, and if your grandpa was poor you're just as statistically likely to be as rich as everybody else is.

What this is basically saying is that if you work hard and you're motivated, ok, maybe you on a personal level will only be able to go from poor to middle class. But your kid will have all of the potential in the world. So yeah, if you work hard and you're talented you WILL be rewarded in this country. Social mobility is what it's all about
I feel like a ****ing broken record.

Motivation and hard work drive capitalism. When discussing capitalism as a principle, that is correct. But in reality, this is not the truth.

You see, I'm pretty sure someone has already gone into this, but I think I need to repeat it. Think back to America, circa 1800. Now tell me, what part of hard work and motivation drove that capitalism? When slavery was legal, African-Americans would not have known anything about capitalism and the free-market system, seeing as how they weren't a part of it. the rich slave owners stayed rich, and the slaves stayed slaves. Now that's kind of an extreme example, right?

Well let's go to America, circa 1900. Slavery has been abolished, and everyone is free. Now what happened to all of those freed slaves? Some of them moved North, and some stayed behind. A lot of them, however, were forced back into the conditions they born into, since the whites controlled the government and positions of power, and slaves were uneducated. So many of them were still in the same conditions they were 50 years ago.

Now you see, the conditions you are born into often affect your life. Now, take this to other parts of the world, where to economy is horrible and the education system is just as bad. This problem exists all over the world. People have poor opportunities to make anything of themselves.

I bolded that portion for a very important reason. I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument I'll pretend it's accurate. If that is true, no one would ever be motivated to do anything. People don't live for their kids. Sure, some people care about their kids a lot and would accept that, but that is no where near enough reason for people to work hard.

original=punk
03-01-2008, 06:30 PM
Yes! Axeslash, I've always thought that! I hear these racist assholes say the "White people came here, they prospered, why can't black people do so now? Why do they resort to crime?" speech and that is the answer why. Thank-you.

axeslash
03-01-2008, 07:18 PM
I make socio-economics look sexy. :)

yoursweatersux
03-01-2008, 08:02 PM
I feel like a ****ing broken record.

Motivation and hard work drive capitalism. When discussing capitalism as a principle, that is correct. But in reality, this is not the truth.

You see, I'm pretty sure someone has already gone into this, but I think I need to repeat it. Think back to America, circa 1800. Now tell me, what part of hard work and motivation drove that capitalism? When slavery was legal, African-Americans would not have known anything about capitalism and the free-market system, seeing as how they weren't a part of it. the rich slave owners stayed rich, and the slaves stayed slaves. Now that's kind of an extreme example, right?

Well let's go to America, circa 1900. Slavery has been abolished, and everyone is free. Now what happened to all of those freed slaves? Some of them moved North, and some stayed behind. A lot of them, however, were forced back into the conditions they born into, since the whites controlled the government and positions of power, and slaves were uneducated. So many of them were still in the same conditions they were 50 years ago.

Now you see, the conditions you are born into often affect your life. Now, take this to other parts of the world, where to economy is horrible and the education system is just as bad. This problem exists all over the world. People have poor opportunities to make anything of themselves.

I bolded that portion for a very important reason. I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument I'll pretend it's accurate. If that is true, no one would ever be motivated to do anything. People don't live for their kids. Sure, some people care about their kids a lot and would accept that, but that is no where near enough reason for people to work hard.


Uhhh, slavery doesn't exist anymore? A black man is probably going to be the next president?? His wife is from the ghetto (and black) and she'd be considered extremely successful even if she weren't associated with Barack?? axleslash - "HOW CAN THIS BE???? THEY WERE POOR AND OPPRESSED BY THE WEALTHY AND RACIST WHITE PEOPLE AND PRACTICALLY IN CONDITIONS OF SLAVERY.... YET THEY'RE ABOUT TO BECOME THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE ON EARTH?? OH NOES, MY THEORY DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE!!! :( :( :("



Secondly, you can't even read accurately. this part: "I bolded that portion for a very important reason. I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument I'll pretend it's accurate. If that is true, no one would ever be motivated to do anything. People don't live for their kids. Sure, some people care about their kids a lot and would accept that, but that is no where near enough reason for people to work hard."

Uhhhh buddy... you seem to forget the part about how the individual is more than capable to change his own social standing as well. Aka, dad works hard, gets a good job, goes from poor to middle class, and his son THEN becomes wealthy. I never said that people do it MERELY for their children. They do it for themselves, and the fact that their children are better off too just helps them feel better about it. Learn some reading comprehension skills.

axeslash
03-01-2008, 09:40 PM
Uhhh, slavery doesn't exist anymore? A black man is probably going to be the next president?? His wife is from the ghetto (and black) and she'd be considered extremely successful even if she weren't associated with Barack?? axleslash - "HOW CAN THIS BE???? THEY WERE POOR AND OPPRESSED BY THE WEALTHY AND RACIST WHITE PEOPLE AND PRACTICALLY IN CONDITIONS OF SLAVERY.... YET THEY'RE ABOUT TO BECOME THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE ON EARTH?? OH NOES, MY THEORY DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE!!! :( :( :("



Secondly, you can't even read accurately. this part: "I bolded that portion for a very important reason. I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument I'll pretend it's accurate. If that is true, no one would ever be motivated to do anything. People don't live for their kids. Sure, some people care about their kids a lot and would accept that, but that is no where near enough reason for people to work hard."

Uhhhh buddy... you seem to forget the part about how the individual is more than capable to change his own social standing as well. Aka, dad works hard, gets a good job, goes from poor to middle class, and his son THEN becomes wealthy. I never said that people do it MERELY for their children. They do it for themselves, and the fact that their children are better off too just helps them feel better about it. Learn some reading comprehension skills.
Well, I tried using the issue of slavery since I thought practically everyone knew about it. Looks like you knew about it, you just couldn't understand the analogy between that and modern day people living in harsh conditions. I'm sorry, I won't use such complicated arguing techniques next time.

So an African-American could be the Democratic nominee for the next Presidential race!? ZOMG THIS TOTALLY DESTROYS MY ARGUMENT SINCE OBAMA IS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL AFRICAN-AMERICANS. AND SINCE ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE IS CAPABLE OF DESTROYING MY ARGUMENT I COWER IN FEAR OF YOU! PLEASE, DON'T USE YOUR AMAZING ARGUMENTATIVE SKILLZ AGAINST ME ANYMORE!

Since I can't possibly combat that argument, let's move on to your next point.

I read what you said perfectly. I was just explaining that what you said is a terrible argument against people being responsible for their own financial situations. The way you worded it was terrible. I don't need comprehension skills, I just can't read your mind since you can't effectively communicate. Anyone here will tell you my reading skills are perfectly adequate.

Yes, the individual is ultimately responsible for their life. A poor man can become rich. A rich man can become poor. A man in the middle class can stay in the middle class. But that doesn't have anything to do with my argument on how that DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMICS!!!!!!!! The situation you explained is plausible, but that doesn't mean it works for everything, or even the majority of situations. There's more to life that what you perceive around you or that you've seen on TV. There's a lot more to global finance than you can obviously comprehend.

:)

yoursweatersux
03-01-2008, 09:53 PM
"The situation you explained is plausible, but that doesn't mean it works for everything, or even the majority of situations. "

It was found actually to be what happened, in the majority of situations. FYI. That's why they called it "the results". Ya know.

axeslash
03-01-2008, 09:57 PM
"The situation you explained is plausible, but that doesn't mean it works for everything, or even the majority of situations. "

It was found actually to be what happened, in the majority of situations. FYI. That's why they called it "the results". Ya know.
Show me the proof and I'll believe it. You ever hear that old saying:

"80% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and 32% of all statistics are real."

yoursweatersux
03-01-2008, 09:59 PM
And by the way, there's something hilarious about this entire argument. You think I don't agree with you because I don't know of or understand things like Marx's ideas and economics. On the contrary, I'm very well versed in all of these matters, and I just disagree with your values and perceptions of the present situation.

You, on the other hand, are wrong not on account of a lack of knowledge. No, you have all the necessary knowledge at hand. You're wrong because you see the facts and interpret them all in the absolute worst possible way. It's not that you don't care enough about the issue, or that you're too lazy to research things. It's much sadder than that. It's just that you're too retarded to get it straight once you've taken in the information. As such, no amount of learning or discussion will ever be able to help you un-retard yourself. Sad thing, really.

yoursweatersux
03-01-2008, 10:03 PM
"It's cool though, plenty of tards lead kickass lives. My last wife was a tard. she's a pilot now"

StreetLight3989
03-01-2008, 10:05 PM
And by the way, there's something hilarious about this entire argument. You think I don't agree with you because I don't know of or understand things like Marx's ideas and economics. On the contrary, I'm very well versed in all of these matters, and I just disagree with your values and perceptions of the present situation.

You, on the other hand, are wrong not on account of a lack of knowledge. No, you have all the necessary knowledge at hand. You're wrong because you see the facts and interpret them all in the absolute worst possible way. It's not that you don't care enough about the issue, or that you're too lazy to research things. It's much sadder than that. It's just that you're too retarded to get it straight once you've taken in the information. As such, no amount of learning or discussion will ever be able to help you un-retard yourself. Sad thing, really.
Axe's argument actually makes much more sense than yours. I really didn't want to post in this thread and I'm not going to get into some huge political argument, but axe's ideas make more sense, so does the way he words it. Calling people retarded and stupid does not add to your argument, it actually makes you look like the stupid one.

axeslash
03-01-2008, 10:10 PM
And by the way, there's something hilarious about this entire argument. You think I don't agree with you because I don't know of or understand things like Marx's ideas and economics. On the contrary, I'm very well versed in all of these matters, and I just disagree with your values and perceptions of the present situation.

You, on the other hand, are wrong not on account of a lack of knowledge. No, you have all the necessary knowledge at hand. You're wrong because you see the facts and interpret them all in the absolute worst possible way. It's not that you don't care enough about the issue, or at you're too lazy to research things. It's much sadder than that. It's just that you're too retarded to get it straight once you've taken in the information. As such, no amount of learning or discussion will ever be able to help you un-retard yourself. Sad thing, really.
It's okay. I understand. You can't defend yourself so you resort to using ad hominem attacks.

I request that you present me with evidence of what you say, and you attack me. I argue against what you say, and you tell me I can't comprehend what you write. I argue logically and with something to back me up, and you call me retarded. I disagree with you, therefore I am intellectually inferior to you.

You are truly the sad one.

Adam_Harrison9
03-02-2008, 07:45 AM
It's okay. I understand. You can't defend yourself so you resort to using ad hominem attacks.

I request that you present me with evidence of what you say, and you attack me. I argue against what you say, and you tell me I can't comprehend what you write. I argue logically and with something to back me up, and you call me retarded. I disagree with you, therefore I am intellectually inferior to you.

You are truly the sad one.

Pretty much hit the nail right there.

your_martyr
03-02-2008, 11:45 AM
wow we go from "lets help everyone by makeing everyone equal" to a witch hunt of those with differnt ideas. this seems to always brighten my day.

lavazza
03-02-2008, 12:02 PM
wow we go from "lets help everyone by makeing everyone equal" to a witch hunt of those with differnt ideas. this seems to always brighten my day.

MODERN DAY WITCH HUNT

axeslash
03-02-2008, 02:18 PM
wow we go from "lets help everyone by makeing everyone equal" to a witch hunt of those with differnt ideas. this seems to always brighten my day.
Do you mean who we're all ganging up on yoursweatersux or are you talking about how yoursweatersux is calling us all idiots for disagreeing with how attacks us every time we say something?

Iluvpowerchords
03-02-2008, 02:58 PM
Dear Horatio Alger,

Saying that hard work and perseverance are enough to move you up the social latter is as naive a statement as anything in this thread.

That view of the world is just as bogus as the Hippy Dippy love fest share-a-thon other people are aiming for.

yoursweatersux
03-02-2008, 04:01 PM
Do you mean who we're all ganging up on yoursweatersux or are you talking about how yoursweatersux is calling us all idiots for disagreeing with how attacks us every time we say something?


Because if that comment was made in your defense, then it's ok. But it was made in my defense, then that's just wrong..... ............


Anyway, ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies are just par for the course when it comes to internet arguments. I know you'll never be convinced by what I say so I just say funny sh*t that amuses me. Plus, I also try to constantly reinforce the fact that I honestly DO think you're pretty dumb. Dummy.


Because when it comes down to it:
A) This is the internet. I don't care, at all, if anybody thinks I'm dumb, because nobody even knows me.
B) Nobody will change their mind because of this argument.
C) Despite how hard you try to structure your arguments and present a logical case, there's really only one thing I need to say to disprove every lame point you make. And that's: communism is doomed because it tries to fight human nature. That's why it won't ever work. And you can keep coming back at me saying "It's capitalism that makes people act that way, not human nature!!!" but it's just so sadly wrong. If you disagree that humans are competitive and greedy by nature, you've got some serious learning to do.


I went to Russia when I was in 8th grade for some trip that one of the teachers at my school organized. I met a few communists along the way, and a few Russians that liked their newfound communism. But you know what was interesting about them? They were all fundamentally the same. Even the purported commies liked showing off their nice cars and well-paying jobs. They responded with "Oh, well I'm just going along with the capitalist system because it won't do me any good to try fight it by not working for a corporation. But I'll still vote for whoever presents the strongest socialist ideals." And that statement pretty sums up my point. 90% of commies are commies of convenience. If you told that dude he'd lose his shiny cadillac and have his well paying job replaced by something much more average... you can bet his ideals would change pretty quickly.

People talk about how great communism would be except for when you realize what the actual results will be. That's when people bail out. Because, as previously stated, it goes against human nature, and when people realize this, they want nothing to do with it.

yoursweatersux
03-02-2008, 04:05 PM
Dear Horatio Alger,

Saying that hard work and perseverance are enough to move you up the social latter is as naive a statement as anything in this thread.

That view of the world is just as bogus as the Hippy Dippy love fest share-a-thon other people are aiming for.


Haha. I like that post. But let me edit this part for you...

(Hard work).5 + (perseverance).2 + (TALENT).2 + (Luck).1 = moving up the social ladder


All values are on a scale of 0-1, 1 being the highest. If the end value is a 1, social improvement is certain. If it is above .5, it is more likely than not.

Haha, look how scientific I am.

yoursweatersux
03-02-2008, 04:07 PM
OH!!! I just thought of an analogy I really like. Here it is:

Communism will never work because it's exploitable. And all exploits will always be taken advantage of. See every single MMO case studies in this.

axeslash
03-02-2008, 04:49 PM
Anyway, ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies are just par for the course when it comes to internet arguments. I know you'll never be convinced by what I say so I just say funny sh*t that amuses me. Plus, I also try to constantly reinforce the fact that I honestly DO think you're pretty dumb. Dummy.You're losing the argument, so you're playing the "I don't really care, I'm just pissing you off" card. You fail.C) Despite how hard you try to structure your arguments and present a logical case, there's really only one thing I need to say to disprove every lame point you make. And that's: communism is doomed because it tries to fight human nature. That's why it won't ever work.I haven't been talking about communism. I haven't been arguing for or against communism. Fact is, I barely even mentioned communism. You fail.And you can keep coming back at me saying "It's capitalism that makes people act that way, not human nature!!!" but it's just so sadly wrong. If you disagree that humans are competitive and greedy by nature, you've got some serious learning to do.Nowhere did I say capitalism is the cause of all problems. Human nature, apathy, cultural beliefs, greed, envy, jealousy, hardship, desperation, all of these things drive economics. I was trying to point out how your argument was fragmented and didn't provide any real evidence other than a few theories you places forth with no way to verify them. But no, you just keep ignoring what I write and just keep on going, don't you?I went to Russia when I was in 8th grade for some trip that one of the teachers at my school organized. I met a few communists along the way, and a few Russians that liked their newfound communism.Now I know you're just making this stuff up.But you know what was interesting about them? They were all fundamentally the same.Even the purported commies liked showing off their nice cars and well-paying jobs. They responded with "Oh, well I'm just going along with the capitalist system because it won't do me any good to try fight it by not working for a corporation. But I'll still vote for whoever presents the strongest socialist ideals." And that statement pretty sums up my point. 90% of commies are commies of convenience. If you told that dude he'd lose his shiny cadillac and have his well paying job replaced by something much more average... you can bet his ideals would change pretty quickly.Russia hasn't been communist for quite some time now. And like I've said before, you're basing your argument on people that don't represent the majority of people, and you're basing your statements based on personal experience and huge assumptions. "I've met a 'commie' once, therefore almost all commies must be like him."People talk about how great communism would be except for when you realize what the actual results will be. That's when people bail out. Because, as previously stated, it goes against human nature, and when people realize this, they want nothing to do with it.You don't know anything about human nature, you don't know anything about arguing, and you really don't know anything at all. You can't even stay on topic .

axeslash
03-02-2008, 04:51 PM
Haha. I like that post. But let me edit this part for you...

(Hard work).5 + (perseverance).2 + (TALENT).2 + (Luck).1 = moving up the social ladder


All values are on a scale of 0-1, 1 being the highest. If the end value is a 1, social improvement is certain. If it is above .5, it is more likely than not.

Haha, look how scientific I am.
You = huchebag.

Look at how accurate I am!

neidnarb11890
03-02-2008, 07:16 PM
I went to Russia when I was in 8th grade for some trip that one of the teachers at my school organized. I met a few communists along the way, and a few Russians that liked their newfound communism.
Newfound Communism? You were in 8th grade in the 1920's? O_o

Let's see, you're currently 21. I'm guessing you'd be 13/14 in 8th grade.
21-14=7
2008-7=2001.
Oh. That's right. The Soviet Union totally still existed in 2001! MY BAD. I GUESS I JUST DON'T KNOW MY HISTORY.

crustyreed
03-02-2008, 07:36 PM
Newfound Communism? You were in 8th grade in the 1920's? O_o

Let's see, you're currently 21. I'm guessing you'd be 13/14 in 8th grade.
21-14=7
2008-7=2001.
Oh. That's right. The Soviet Union totally still existed in 2001! MY BAD. I GUESS I JUST DON'T KNOW MY HISTORY.

I liked how he thought it would be funny to say his 8th grade field trip was to russia.

Peoples dont even bother like he says hes just trying to joke because he made an idiot of himself and hes trying to play it off.

EDIT: gotta protect the E-rep

lolmnt
03-02-2008, 10:20 PM
Newfound Communism? You were in 8th grade in the 1920's? O_o

Let's see, you're currently 21. I'm guessing you'd be 13/14 in 8th grade.
21-14=7
2008-7=2001.
Oh. That's right. The Soviet Union totally still existed in 2001! MY BAD. I GUESS I JUST DON'T KNOW MY HISTORY.Those are my thoughts exactly

your_martyr
03-02-2008, 10:42 PM
Do you mean who we're all ganging up on yoursweatersux or are you talking about how yoursweatersux is calling us all idiots for disagreeing with how attacks us every time we say something?

No, it wasnt in any ones defence, just an observation.I belive yoursweatersux is just argueing for argueings sake.

axeslash
03-02-2008, 10:43 PM
No, it wasnt in any ones defence, just an observation.I belive yoursweatersux is just argueing for argueings sake.
Probably. He's still a dick, though.

your_martyr
03-02-2008, 11:19 PM
lol

yoursweatersux
03-02-2008, 11:39 PM
Probably. He's still a dick, though.


No way dude, I'm 100% serious. You just don't get anything that I'm saying. I feel bad for you.

yoursweatersux
03-02-2008, 11:42 PM
come back at me with some real arguments, sonnnnnn


I'm still waiting for you to counter this one: (it's infallible, but you can try)

"Communism will never work because it's exploitable. The world has shown that when something is exploitable, it WILL be exploited. See: every single MMO ever made"

axeslash
03-03-2008, 02:22 AM
We're your parents killed by communists or something?

sargasm
03-03-2008, 02:36 AM
Man, this guy hates Communism more than Tony Montana.

yoursweatersux
03-03-2008, 12:00 PM
We're your parents killed by communists or something?



BOOYA! NO COMEBACK..

"oh he can see he's losing the argument so he resorts to ad hominem attacks whahhh i'm a baby wahhhhh"

lolmnt
03-03-2008, 12:04 PM
I love how you are talking about their lack of comeback/information, but there's about four pages of their views



So stfu and gtfo

sargasm
03-03-2008, 12:47 PM
BOOYA! NO COMEBACK..

"oh he can see he's losing the argument so he resorts to ad hominem attacks whahhh i'm a baby wahhhhh"

I love how you've been doing exactly that this entire thread, while us stupid ol' anarcho commies have done nothing but present perfectly valid points.

axeslash
03-03-2008, 12:54 PM
BOOYA! NO COMEBACK..

"oh he can see he's losing the argument so he resorts to ad hominem attacks whahhh i'm a baby wahhhhh"
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

lavazza
03-03-2008, 01:03 PM
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

hamsters are red, communist animals, so his mother cannot be one, you have to look for a brown one, thatīs for ..... You get it?

yoursweatersux
03-03-2008, 02:29 PM
I knew you pansies would give up. That's what communist losers do.

I bet when you guys played rec soccer you all got trophies even if you were losers, didn't you?

lolmnt
03-03-2008, 02:29 PM
I thought I told you to gtfo

Punx&Skunx
03-03-2008, 02:31 PM
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

+1 for the Holy Grail quote.

axeslash
03-03-2008, 03:23 PM
I knew you pansies would give up. That's what communist losers do.

I bet when you guys played rec soccer you all got trophies even if you were losers, didn't you?
Go back to circle-jerking to rollerblading videos will your friends.

Mav-16
03-03-2008, 05:02 PM
yeah... this yoursweatersux guy seems like an idiot....




but communism WOULD NOT work and as history has shown, ALL Governments are corrupt. and there is NOTHING you can do about that. And Communism is probably the easiest government to corrupt.


sorry

original=punk
03-03-2008, 05:22 PM
I knew you pansies would give up. That's what communist losers do.

I bet when you guys played rec soccer you all got trophies even if you were losers, didn't you?


Yeah, cause we were kids, you're stooping so low as to compare houseleague children's sports to world economics?

axeslash
03-03-2008, 06:20 PM
yoursweatersux has resorted to pretending to be a troll to escape his actions, O=P. But that doesn't mean he will get off that easy. I know his ways, and I will not rest until he is no more...

original=punk
03-03-2008, 07:14 PM
yoursweatersux has resorted to pretending to be a troll to escape his actions, O=P. But that doesn't mean he will get off that easy. I know his ways, and I will not rest until he is no more...
You've spent time with the trolls, you know how they operate.

That's like that thing, you know, using a thief to catch a thief...

lolmnt
03-03-2008, 07:23 PM
I ran into a troll once. I was crossing a bridge and he made me answer a riddle.

I answered and got to cross

yoursweatersux
03-03-2008, 09:35 PM
Acting like a troll? Nah I'm just having some fun.

I still 100% believe in everything I said, but sometimes I just have to point out stuff like my politicians : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eqzNc-8APg

kick more ass than your lame pinko commie musicians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y



But in all seriousness, I don't think anybody has countered the whole argument that communism is exploitable/corruptable, and therefore it'll be exploited and that's why it'll never work. It's undeniable that communism can be easily exploited by anybody that wants to. All you have to do is pretend like you can do less work than you're really capable of doing. So what if you contribute almost nothing to society, you're still getting paid as much.

So will somebody please tell me why everybody wouldn't exploit the hell out of a system like this???? Or you can all try to escape the argument by dismissing me as a troll when you've come across a point even you fools seem to realize you can't beat.

Punx&Skunx
03-03-2008, 09:58 PM
I agree with you (yoursweatersux), but i think in order for something like communism to work there has to be rules and regulations that set the limit for the amount of work that one must do to get x amount of money so sed lazy ****s will have to work to their potential to make money.

your_martyr
03-03-2008, 10:09 PM
any one ever met a pussy troll? Remeber pillowpants from Clerks 2! lol

whyvern
03-04-2008, 12:07 AM
Yoursweatersux,

Why did you switch to talking about communism. It's very different from anarchism. Why are you avoiding the topic we set out? Anarchists for the most part disagree with communists, I know I do. I still think there is oppression under a "communist" system. Do you just not understand what Anarchism is?

Cameronrobson
03-04-2008, 02:03 PM
I knew you pansies would give up. That's what communist losers do.

I bet when you guys played rec soccer you all got trophies even if you were losers, didn't you?
They're for participation....










:sad:

Mav-16
03-04-2008, 02:11 PM
any one ever met a pussy troll? Remeber pillowpants from Clerks 2! lol

:haha :haha :haha

AWESOME!!!

jimmyjimjim
03-04-2008, 05:24 PM
I believe the original issue arose when I said communism and anarchism aren't feasible. While their goals are laudable, the potential for abuse far outweighs the the abuse now in the capitalist system. The chances for those states to turn into totalitarian ones is a prospect that is too large to ignore.

whyvern
03-04-2008, 07:10 PM
and over and over again, we've explained how anarchism is achievable and I've even given examples of situations where it does work. I can't speak for communism because I don't believe in it, but I think we've proved our point about anarchism and at this point all of the people who keep saying "give me a real argument!" are just being childish and don't know how to admit they've lost an argument or that they don't understand things like they thought they did.

yoursweatersux
03-04-2008, 08:55 PM
I believe the original issue arose when I said communism and anarchism aren't feasible. While their goals are laudable, the potential for abuse far outweighs the the abuse now in the capitalist system. The chances for those states to turn into totalitarian ones is a prospect that is too large to ignore.


Sorry whyvern, jimmyjimjim and I are right, you're wrong. You'll realize it one day. *HIGH FIVES JIM*

And just to make everything clear: I've been focusing on communism because people have been arguing about communism. Now that you guys have mentioned anarchism again, I'm more than willing to let you know how poorly I think of it.

In fact, I seriously don't even want to start typing the ways in which it wouldn't work. I'd be here all freaking day. Could somebody even attempt to present some sort of event timeline describing how it'd even be possible for anarchism to come into effect, and explain how we'd all benefit from it? I'm eagerly anticipating your answers because I'm sure they'll be so far removed from reality it'll be hilarious.

sargasm
03-04-2008, 09:13 PM
What do you mean by "come into effect" exactly?

Because it works all the time in small communities so one could say that it's already "in effect."

whyvern
03-04-2008, 10:40 PM
Sorry whyvern, jimmyjimjim and I are right, you're wrong. You'll realize it one day. *HIGH FIVES JIM*

And just to make everything clear: I've been focusing on communism because people have been arguing about communism. Now that you guys have mentioned anarchism again, I'm more than willing to let you know how poorly I think of it.

In fact, I seriously don't even want to start typing the ways in which it wouldn't work. I'd be here all freaking day. Could somebody even attempt to present some sort of event timeline describing how it'd even be possible for anarchism to come into effect, and explain how we'd all benefit from it? I'm eagerly anticipating your answers because I'm sure they'll be so far removed from reality it'll be hilarious.


dude we've told you about collectives all ready and groups based on consensus where anarchist theory is all ready in practice. To give you a "timeline" is such a business capitalist oriented thing that it's impossible to have that sort of thing in an anarchist dynamic.

I wish that you would realize how much you defend a system that only hurts people. How can you sleep at night knowing that you support that kind of suffering? I feel bad for you, I really do. Maybe one day I'll learn it's ok for people to suffer? I doubt so, because everyone who's ever tried to teach me anything (parents, religion, teachers) have always told me that things are never ok if someone is suffering and that I should have compassion for fellow humans (and other creatures). How can you just blindly ignore our basic instinct as animals to work together and care for each other?

HUMANS ARE MADE TO SURVIVE IN TRIBES. THAT'S WHAT PUT US INTO CITIES. THE COMPETITION THAT ENSUES FROM A CAPITALIST SYSTEM WILL ONLY DESTROY US.

The Hopi actually have a much more accurate word for Capitalism, "KOYAANISQATSI" it means "self-destroying life". There's an awesome movie by that name that you should watch if you can take the time outta yer life to understand an abstract art film about the dangers of consumerism and global capitalism.

But, I know I probably can't change yer mind because yer too comfortable with the lifestyle you have. ****, you probably like it. A revolution would mean that you'd have to give up the life you live and you're too selfish to ever do that, even if it meant billions of people could be happier and freer.

jimmyjimjim
03-04-2008, 10:43 PM
whyvern, I've read through virtually every post and I can only find a few trace mentions of anarchist in this present day. I'm not saying this as an arguing point but rather if I have missed something I would be happy to go back and read it. What I did find, not by you neccessarily, were refrences to people eating out of trashcans and the Food not Bomb organizations. Also, I found your post on Free Trade, which I happen to disagree with. You argue for the free movement of people, which is exactly what free trade achieves. And to refute your point of Nigerian farmers, I give you Ethiopian and Colombian bean harvesters who are paid more than the market average by an evil corporation for their products, with no benefits to the corporation, because the increased consumer base that would result is essentially zero and it cuts into their bottom line. Additionally, if you study the tariff system, it hurt many people in the protected nations by driving up the prices on everyday items, creating a higher cost of living. That is why Progressive people like Woodrow Wilson characterized protective tariffs as part of a "Triple Wall of Privilege." Yet I understand your aversion to free trade, for some corporations do use it to exploit workers. Once again, this is an area where governments could step up their regulation. Other countries do not have minimum wage and other fair labor practices that allow for abusive multinational corporations to come in and exploit their citizens. That is what angers me most.

your_martyr
03-04-2008, 10:47 PM
Pussy Trolls! That is the anwser to all problems. feel free to quote!