What did he mean by this?
What I mean is that if now person A owns significantly more private propery than person B, how to move towards a better state, if person A doesn't just want to give away his stuff.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
they are both bourgeois. It doesn't matter, that understanding can only take place under capitalism.
kill them both if they don't give it up to the workers
that's a extreme and easy solution I can't say I agree with extortion and murder, did you know that most of the french revolution went that way, then they had a dictatorship to blow off some steam, you know because democracy requires the expansion of territory especially when you kill maim and steal from your own people.
I see why communism didn't work so well, fascism either, neither does democracy, nor crapitalism, nor militocracy(meritocracy), you all refuse responsablity, blaming something else, if only there wasn't so much private property workers would be better off, well why? wouldn't they still have to work?
laws were put in place to have some backlash against what was deemed criminal, sure nowadays we are way past the point of having a conversation to solve problems, or having reliable law systems. But what if somebody steals, kill him/ what if they kidnap people, kill him? how is that fair? let's say your whole line you descend from worked their asses off to give you those 100 acres, should you give that up because you are forced to, how do you not see that you are doing the same as what you deem "bad" I'm not even going to say evil, that requires morality. So you think that problems will be solved if we can just scratch history and rewrite it to our fitting.
I'm not well versed in politics since there are so many shitty systems around, I might possibly read on your version of how to run the world, seeing as how I follow you but haven't read much of what you post about. I don't see why you are making things complicated, so if everybody owns the roads then what? no taxes? but everyone has to fix the roads? isn't that like compulsory prison time?
You're definitions have me perplexed, anyways I tend to dislike people who believe in systems of governance, you all oppose something, but you rarely do something different, it's not that you can't run a socialist or a communist system under capitalism, or for that matter somewhere else if you have such a problem with capitalists, you just don't, I tend to like people that actually live by their standards, if you don't want private property, give it up, don't call it personal but everyone elses private property should be owned by the not state, how is anarchy communism, why are you all just making a soup of governance without any rhyme or reason?
this sounds like a bad system where mistakes are committed on a massive scale because people just go by their whims and later have to backtrack to where things were working if they make a mistake, let me give you an example with github, if you make a project and everyone has the ability to change the code, but you remove the backlog that github keeps because dunno fuck it, it's public(private?!) property we don't need no order, then what, you have to rewrite it every time there is a mistake, you will always be doing great.
I can't figure this shit out, sorry for my "language" it's just how i think when I see no point, could be I just don't know enough, but than again there is information around so that's not a big problem.
Your post was good, it's just when the videos started that I was like fffffffff what?? ......... nonsense !??! nah I can't even rewatch them :| I get the what the fucks again.
This is going nowhere. keep it simple private is private call it profit property if you want to, private is owned by an individual or by whatnot else you want to have as a owner, if you want the state of non differentiated workers to own it, then wouldn't it be state property? but you don't want a state and you want communism so you want a so anarchy is no state, communism is what? workers own the means of production or whatever?
fuck it this is a good place to tie this to the beginning, sorry if I wasted your time(which shouldn't be possible) and thanks if you got this far, please stop adding more and more layers over foul wounds, call things what they are don't redefine definitions to fit your logic, that breaks the conversation people can have. this sounds like a bad terms of service where I normally read, we accept no responsibility, we might fuck you anywhere and anyplace anytime, but we love you, but you are a part of us whenever we talk together, only that we own anything you say, but you do too, but you don't really if we choose to, wouldn't you agree? I get it you don't want to throw trash and accept responsibility, you can't agree that systems in general are fucked, there should be one ok, just don't say that communism is great and socialism is awesome when they aren't that much different from the other shitty ones out there like imperialism and democracy, capaitalism or one of the many many other systems of ruling,, you are all making claims on personal opinion, what is democracy without a real conversation or a united populace, corporativism,
nevermind this is the air I'm getting either from my own mind or from viewing the post, either way as I've said, thanks I hope we can have a conversation so you can explain how I'm wrong with my assumptions. Took me a while to stop my reaction :D
"
I see why communism didn't work so well, fascism either, neither does democracy, nor crapitalism, nor militocracy(meritocracy), you all refuse responsablity, blaming something else, if only there wasn't so much private property workers would be better off, well why? wouldn't they still have to work?"
the difference is the workers will be getting what they produce and will be able to collectively decide the future of society. Think of the planners in the USSR. The workers in the area were always the ones leading every project.
20 million die a year do to poverty. This is because the ruling class does not allow them to freely labor and take what they produce. This means that can not get food, vaccines, or even shelter without begging a member of the ruling class.
The workers would get what they produce, 5 people own more than the bottom 50% of society. Why do you think property is more important than lives? You make me sick.
well you said you were ok with killing people for property, I only pointed out the obvious, we are dancing around a good? argument. I don't want to make you sick, it's not just the ruling class, people are not bound to not help they just don't out of many reasons. It's not that you can't get 5000 matraces made out of hay or something on a minimum wage, get a room rented or some old garage, build some huts on a abandoned farm, it's just that when you do either the police will come because of a complaint or in the worst case a ghetto will form, in case those people see no reason to change develop further or lack the means, first you need knowledge, then you can move in some direction, those people are being neglected by everybody not just the "ruling class" there are many assholes, I have helped here and there on my non wage, because I don't work, because call it capitalism, or call it naivete and stupidity and truth be told I've payed a higher price than if I didn't help (as far as money is concerned). People are getting robbed around me, it's not my fault I don't like stealing, but guess what they are workers and the ones that rob them aren't, I can't say they are criminals either, I view them as fucked up people in a fucked up place, if you want to know why, It's because I don't know the reason behind their state of affairs, they have had free education for decades, free support and child care, guess what they beat their children, teach them to steal, traffic people at worst, then they drink in the local dump, that's not the fault of any system, the ones who want out take the hard way and leave the toxic environment, change and most of the times don't look back, why, well they think their own people are beyond help, why, that beats me currently.
and here I am making people sick because I can't agree with double standards. Why wouldn't I value property when I get to take care of it for the next 20 years and some "helpless" person just wants to drink more, so yeah last time I helped I payed a salty price, around 1000usd out of my own pocket just to see how low some are, it's not that I couldn't call the police, it's just that I don't think violence solves problems, most of the times it causes more and costs lives in the process. now please tell me how I'm wrong, I've earned every single cent out of that and I have cost people around me nerves and some minor losses, why because I'm naive as fuck, so what if people need help are they missing arms or legs? probably not, guess what it's not just arms and legs that make up a human, there's also emotion and empathy and you can't help anyone when you see him lying in your eyes, you can't help anyone that doesn't want help but is rather happy to have what you and the people before you have earned died and starved for.
Also don't try to play emotional cards on me. oh think of the children and all that, I've had the pleasure to live in a separated family since birth, grown in a dusty cardboard apartment with windows barred with boxes, had more than a few run ins with people that can't think straight for a minute, so I've seen enough bullshit to not care about others and I still do, why, well that beats me, I've grown some morals over the years to not get wasted as fuck and deadbeat over how "terrible" the world is, hey trust me I like free vacations as much as the next guy, but not when some writer/politician/private owner has to go work himself to death in a labor camp until he gets why communism is great. Hey I support the party, it's all a scam in the end, the person next to you fucking you over for a better seat. That's why communism fails. greed and power. That's why it's not different from crapitalism.
but hey sorry for rubbing my sick off on you. I'm a bit spent to argue at the moment, I wasn't really in the mood in the first place, only I get quite triggered when I see people with pink glasses. Hey at least you are an anarchist and have some decency to respond, so thanks for that.
and mind you greed and hunger are normal for people, it's only when there are no standards set for a select few that they become a problem, capitalism has the evil banksters or whatnot, nevermind I tend to drag out arguments I hope you get my point.
"well you said you were ok with killing people for property"
no, I side I was ok with killing people who used violence to steal the property in the first place
well I will agree there, but the video claimed that their great grand fathers could have done it too and they were responsible by some weird standard, so they better drop the loot and go be a worker now. And all that is debatable, in that scenario killing would be the best bet, for the reason they will rebel later and or poison your land :) oh wow your land, I meant the people's land.
Would you give up property if you earned it in a business deal? In your mind you would be the one getting stolen from, why would you believe some utopic white knight out to cure world hunger, water shortages in the desert and vaccinate everyone. The story goes Jesus died on the cross, it was probably capitalists, but then again if he was a socialist then why did his follower betray him, 2 silver coins? damn capitalists. Thank god god is god.
right so I'm not even going to read that "free market capitalism" stuff, its retarded.
Capitalism would not exist without the police. The police upkeep laws to help the capitalists.
here is a nice video on the falling rate of profit.
and for good measure here is one destroying "anarchist" capitalism
" owner has to go work himself to death in a labor camp until he gets why communism is great"
actually the only people that get put there are those who actively fight against the will of the majority. Nice try tho
hey I watched the videos, thanks for having courtesy should I answer your comments with a slimy quote and a line below, that was a personal story with real examples that I've went through, well I suppose watching videos and thinking the world different would solve everything, but then again we aren't even doing that. We are dancing around an argument :)
"it's not that I couldn't call the police, it's just that I don't think violence solves problems, "
you could view police as a protection racket, but then government is the problem, so we agree there, keep in mind that even capitalists say what is said in the video, they only claim there will be more efficiencies in the future to combat the decline, which we know won't solve a problem rather just perpetuate it, it was why I've watched a lot of "conspiracies" on the current financial system and was a fan of the Venus project a few years back, they were the first to do something and show actual progress rather than the violent and "progressive" actually regressive in my view actions from the American "opposition" well two part rule isn't that different from a one party rule.
oh you got me there :) the second video, then zombies lulled me to sleep. I didn't read the Stefan Molyneux on universal ethics. Yes the Non-Aggression principle is a principle and it's stupid to apply it when the other "party" doesn't have the same beliefs. Preferably people will have morals to feed people and see the good in them, where there is some hope, educate, work together and stop the exploitation of natural resources over the top to produce material gains in the moment and profits in the quarterly term or whatnot. That is as close to happening(2000 years +++ of exploitation weigh in the other end) as the non aggression principle is to make it's way and make a great capitalistic society where the above mentioned scenario can occur.
Yes I'm a idealist i some sense as in I'd like to see stupid stuff to stop happening, but I'm also a realist in the sense that it's easier to cut corners and sweep shit under the rug.
also on that last line again, yeah writers that don't agree with how the country is run, how workers are exploited even after that is what should have stopped, those rascals, politicising their opinion..
on violence and military, I'd get back at you since you aren't really giving examples rather just trying to stomp on me, military is a part of the world for again millennia, prayers have normally gone with the military. I don't see you proposing solutions other than invest more into military budget to combat the military budget investments. Technically you don't need military if everyone is capable of defending themselves, you could have a small reserve in case of a major crisis, but that would be police and would hopefully not beat random people on the street, that in a socialist state would be peacefully disrupting the means of production ie. the roads. What would you have different than a state in a democracy? How would you have a country built if not on the past looting and pillaging of others (culture, traditions, heritage ..) In case your history is lacking Imperialism tends to be expansive (you want to have military that tends to put the generals in power) some tribal societies have mostly fought defensive wars and most of the smaller states have fought bloody wars to defend their heritage from the bloody capitalists(feudalism is probably capitalistic) still military is something pervasive during the ages because there is violence. How violence can solve that, I don't know I know that the military is being kept in check with fear. The whole modern world is a different breed and private armies are a different topic, yes that probably wouldn't exist in a socialist state, but then that's a topic on politics of power.
"it's just that I don't think violence solves problems,"
lmao
what will you do? Pray away the military?
you can't fix violence with non-violence, they will just shoot you and be done lmao
" keep it simple private is private call it profit property"
fuck off retard, not my fault you can't define anything
here is the wikipedia article on private property,
have fun retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
:) yay
"Private property in the means of production is criticized by socialists, who use the term in a different meaning."
hey I'm not retarded I can read and I can think too lucky me I'm a finger on a keyboard.
well that took about two minutes. Not that bad, luckily I didn't have to read 300 years of literature, also I'm now no where near understanding economics or politics either, probably right around where I was before I read it, still sane.
"just don't say that communism is great and socialism is awesome when they aren't that much different from the other shitty ones out there like imperialism and democracy"
see that massive dip right there? That's capitalism
also remember, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism
yeah we have the fall of the berlin wall, the collapse of the soviet union, mafia years and then the putin boom. how any of that helped any man is above me. plus that's just 10 years in life expectancy and it's not that high anyway. Hey I like communism when it gives jobs and spreads wealth and makes good reliable cars and the occasional
just quoting some random site,
here is another one
it's not just capitalism, it's the constant changing in definitions, the old getting sick and the young having no good example setting persones, the volatility of the times and the constant nagging of everybody as well as the whole loss of a unified reason to live, people just gave up in that time and started drinking, looting, scamming, probably one third of the population did some crap like that. How do you live in a world where the person next to you fucks you over? What happens when after 50 years or more you have nothing to show for yourself and everyone around you deems you the devil himself.
the articles were probably written by capitalists, I will go read what I have quoted to tell you if I agree with what is in there, because I probably won't, I tend to have my own opinion.
that's like that massive dip bitcoin prices made last week, the fact is so far communism and socialism have ended with totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. The good sides are there, so are the bad.
here is a nice video on how many people capitalism has killed
"that's like that massive dip bitcoin prices made last week, the fact is so far communism and socialism have ended with totalitarian regimes and dictatorships."
actually the ussr was run by a council lmao, I guess you just ate too much propaganda.
probably, or not enough, oh well socialist, please stop mixing in words, it's the videos :D who said capitalism was supposed to cure world hunger, deliver water and produce medicine, it's there to make nice yachts and shitty movies bad food and fat and zombie people, all on the pile of dead bodies, exploited continents for resources and labor and other political reasons, it's there to make more and shove it in people's face so they shut up.
That's my comment up to the 2:20 minute mark
and then some fffffffff starts going again. yay utopia, I don't eat ice cream, I'm not a multi billionare and I've heard some propaganda/conspiracy that the vaccines bill gives freely are quite the opposite of a cure.
I don't get the emotional tugs each second, 4:10 again 4 years of no difference. shit one way shit the other way. ok I'm with sargon when he speaks bullshit, I've watched probably 4-5 videos at most. I don't agree with him in this case and this is not a thing I would morally advice anyone to do, just move on fuck that, what a terrible accident, it's still quoted out of context. we go out of context to the extreme ok good, I can't say the face that guy pulls brings me hope for his political views, ok hes more relaxed now, less insane, only because he trumped capitalism, so if you tally the numbers socialism is half as bad as capitalism. I might agree there. You could say it's a quarter bad, still I don't like either because I don't know enough.
"yeah we have the fall of the berlin wall, the collapse of the soviet union, mafia years and then the putin boom. how any of that helped any man is above me"
yet when the capitalists fell, the lifespan skyrocketed. Double standards
well if your standards go as far as five years go for it, mine go above 90 as a reasonable age and mind you I'd like people to think straight and hold a conversation even then, also possibly walk and be happy their life went great, they took care of their family for generations and they saw if not their great grand children, at least some grand children for maybe 10 years, so imagine that, I like perspective and reality better than lumped up statistics, I don't see people like that with the exception of Japan 50 years ago and some villages in Italy. Have you seen Happy People? That is a compromise I could work with, If I live through the first few years in that scenario.
there you are, Cheers
"that's a extreme and easy solution "
private property only exists through violence and violence is the only option we have to change it. Do you know what happened when Chile tried to vote in a socialist?
The capitalists simply paid the truckers to stop moving food. People started starving until they took the socialist out of power, food was back literally the next day.
" call things what they are don't redefine definitions to fit your logic"
That's ironic because private property was actually first defined by marxism, you just changed the definition to fit your capitalist needs
well I'm all out of capital to call myself a capitalist. I know that everybody is guilty of wanting things to be different, it's interesting to know at what cost, all I'm saying is that when stuff gets redefined to fit some other purpose, people get killed in the process because they no longer fit, yeah people like stuff, but I don't like killing. I'd like to have a conversation and consensus where possible. or I think I would like to, I don't know myself well in extremes.
"people get killed in the process because they no longer fit"
actually the old property owners in the ussr got off very light, until they burned crops and salted land worsening a natural famine until it became one of the worst in history. (They did this because stalin wouldn't let them hoard grain to make money off of starving cities paying a premium.)
I wasn't there I'm a bit biased from the stories of Ayn Rand that I've payed minor attention to, I'm not well acquainted with why and what the reasons and the happenings were around Soviet Russia.
even today, in capitalist russia, stalin is considered one of the best leaders in history. Even after major reforms, 80% of people voted to keep russia communist, only the rich had gotten a foothold. (but capitalism is freedom right?)That's what happens when you try to be nice to them, they come back and destroy the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
ayn rand and non-violence?
Here is a nice book showing how capitalism will always lead to imperialism, with historical data.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
oh and here is some nice reading about the USSR
http://writetorebel.com/2016/12/16/popular-support-for-the-soviet-union/
http://writetorebel.com/2016/11/25/the-successes-of-socialism-in-the-ussr/
http://writetorebel.com/2016/11/13/socialism-and-democracy-in-the-ussr/
"but I don't like killing" too bad killing is the only way to keep capitalism in place
"I'd like to have a conversation and consensus where possible"
How about the workers democratically controlling the means of production, which are collective property not controlled by any one person?
oh wait sorry that's communism.
well I don't benefit from capitalism, I'm not all for it. I said I'm not well versed in systems of governance or economic models, communism is a mixed bunch of both, it's not democratic, when it was implemented it was dictatorial for the most part, the one party rule isn't really democratic. A democratic control of the means of production by the workers would be democracy or a form of anarchy if there is no state, but then what would keep workers together, when they are free to wander off and on,
well I'm off to read again :|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management
"Part of a series on Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism"
Venus Project much?
I'm not into technocracy either. Something they said about no emotions in their last movie, always saving the best for last, thank god I grew up :D
Talking about many definitions, if I follow all the links to the right I will be left with white hairs :D
"ut then what would keep workers together, when they are free to wander off and on"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
markets have existed under socialism, but when given the choice workers almost always choose to forgo them. What would keep the workers together? There want to be together, humans are social and enjoy helping each other. You can see that in every country the gov collapses in anarchist communism is the outcome. (well except for like 3 mutualist ones, but nobody cares about those)
"Something they said about no emotions in their last movie"
there is no reason to do anything without emotions, yet again it is not a good branch of socialism
so I'm going to stop reading here "it's not democratic"
Communism literally can not exist without democracy.
to quote one of the most influential socialists in history (killed by capitalists while trying to use non-violence to turn a country socialist mind you)
"Venus Project much?"
it was based off an older branch of Utopian socialism, scientific socialism is better.
You,re so cool!
all I'm saying is that you want to play the same game, but want to have the rules in your favor like anybody else you are so much against. tell me why you can't make a company based on the virtues of communism, I bet you 50 hammers you can get 50 people willing to try it out.
oh here is a video of why "communist companies" can't work under capitalism. Turns out you just don't understand captialism, who would've thought
"White blood cells not being able to out-compete cancer cells doesn't show that cancer cells are better, only that they are better at spreading like a virus."
again the last quote bugs me, cancer isn't taken you know just as profits in this day and age are created and exploitative, both are true, fiat money don't have much value.
now onto the video, yes "house always wins"~1min
some lots o' ffffffffffffffffffffff
after the third minute it's ok I suppose.
I agree with most of the second half there. It's a scratch my back I scratch yours system I know.
You,re so cool!
" tell me why you can't make a company based on the virtues of communism"
because a company making profit off of the workers will always have enough power to crush it.
It can only be a society. Again, those are almost always crushed by the far more massive capitalist countries. They are literally bombed to death, or destroyed through embargoes. Just look at cuba, only 350+ assassination attempts on the leader, by the United States.
"why don't you try to help jews in nazi germany"
fair point there.
well just that last part I don't agree with and well turns out I'm almost right, 42% of the holocaust deaths were from the various european jews(24 polish, 8 soviet), on the other hand we have 20% soviet prisoners, 10% politicals (..no worries) 22% ukrainians+belarrussians+ethnic poles, well
here is a great video, I'd advise you to watch it.
https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_dunlap_talks_about_a_passionate_life
it's not political, rather historical. Here is an example that is hard to repeat. I can only aspire to even be close to such a happening. I have to say it gets me every time.
You,re so cool!