Click to expand
Latest users (2): drastronomy, kanadetenshi, anonymous(25).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#651 - FuckingMagnets (06/13/2012) [-]
Hey, anyone that is interested in Communism, Anarchism, Marxist Theory, a Leftist view of history, conversing with other leftists, or getting your questions answered about left politics in general, you should go to revleft.com.   
It's a great way to learn. I made an account not too long ago. I love that fucking forum.
Hey, anyone that is interested in Communism, Anarchism, Marxist Theory, a Leftist view of history, conversing with other leftists, or getting your questions answered about left politics in general, you should go to revleft.com.

It's a great way to learn. I made an account not too long ago. I love that fucking forum.
#662 to #651 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
>Not Anarcho Capitalist

What's wrong with you?
#666 to #662 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
>A capitalist

I should be asking you the same. Here's your Adam Smith free market paradise of Somalia!
#668 to #666 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
>able to make anything work

Hong Kong is a free market.

Somalia isn't even listed on the Index of Economic Freedom
#672 to #668 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
I wonder why Mr. Anarcho-capitalist. You never want to see the other side of capitalism. You only want to look at the riches of the first world, and deny the existence of the places that make it possible.
#673 to #672 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
Because this happened in England at the start of the Industrial Revolution. I don't deny the existence of that place and shoving words into people's mouths doesn't help your case.

Would it have been better that they remained poorer farmers rather than being introduced to the productive capabilities of free enterprise. The lives of average individuals have never gotten better unless they were subjected to the forces of Capitalism.

Look at China, they realized that the Soviet Union couldn't sustain itself so they embraced capitalism to prevent the crash.
#675 to #673 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
Sure, this did happen in England at the start of the Industrial Revolution. The difference is, workers in England were working in England and making products that were sold from England. Indonesian workers make sneakers for a dollar a day, to be sold here for hundreds. Capitalism relies on constant growth. What happened in England and the US after the industrial revolution? Political unrest, riots, and massive governmental reforms. Corporations then move to the third world. When will Indonesia and China's worker reforms come. Where will we move our slave camps... i mean, factories then?

This peasant will not "deal with it."
User avatar #678 to #675 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
So what if goods are sold to other nations? Many things the English factory workers made didn't necessarily go to the English market. Britain was called the factory of the world because it exported many of the goods it created.

What corporations are providing workers are a wage. Would it be better they had no job in the first place? Businesses that can make goods cheaper will have satisfied consumers and with a larger consumer base, there will be a necessity for businesses to start creating more jobs in Indonesia to meet consumer demand.

After the industrial revolution people realized the amount of power a government has so everyone tries to abuse the government for their own means. Political up rest came about because of lack of representation in government ie; Chartist and in Great Britain. Do you think it is okay to beat down strikers, because the government thought it was a good idea.

Besides, much of the social reform that occurred, especially in America has been negative for the most part.

Also lol Paris Commune

French Communist - "Hey lets barricade the streets and have a workers revolution!"
French people - "That sounds like a terrible idea, the government is going to send the army after you."

Many of the things in that picture are laughable and are far from having anything to do with free enterprise. Fascism and Nazism are as free market as Socialism
#705 to #678 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
Yes, England was the factory of the world before the factory technology spread. That's why I said "sold from England."

The wage that outsourcing corporations are providing is laughable. What they are producing isn't even benefiting them past their $1.25 a day. Nationalizing industry has been a good thing for many countries. Even through democratic means, Salvador Allende in Chile, who had popular support from his country, nationalized copper. The U.S. didn't like this, bombed his home, killed him, and put Augusto Pinochet in control of Chile, thus making it a fascist military state.

The government used its power to beat down strikes and support big business every single time the time came to make a decision between protecting business or the worker. Socialists were in the crowd protesting, not denying the workers rights. The progressive era reforms were some of the best things to happen to the U.S. You think it would have been a good idea to leave all the unrest alone?

I bet you have a considerable amount of wealth, and can't imagine a reality where you were living in a tenement and working in an early industrial revolution factory for nothing.

Please don't start with the Paris Commune... It was sabotaged. It didn't even fail. It was taken over. It's citizens were shot. How does this help your case against communism?

I really don't feel the need to address your very last sentence.
User avatar #708 to #705 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
Also I know the difference between Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism. But they have nothing to do with free enterprise.
#707 to #705 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
But they are receiving a wage that is the point. What you consider a terrible wage in a modernized first world country is not what people in third world countries think is a terrible wage.

Are you implying that U.S. governmental action was the pinnacle of free enterprise because it is not. It is government intervention on behalf of big business. Do you think I support big business because I don't. I support the individual and governmental action only leads to worsening.

I am okay with people wanting to move towards a nationalized industry, but let the record of history be clear, industries that have been backed by the government have a tendency to lag behind. Centrally planned economies will fail because it subsidizes failure. Take for example quotas: As long as you meet that specific number, the good or service could be a piece of shit. It forces quantity of quality.

"The socialist believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory; freedom and organization." Elie Halévy
State Capitalism =/= Free Enterprise. I sound like a broken record. I am okay with people forming unions, as long as they do not work with government. Do you think the minimum wage was to help out the poor? Of course not, it was so union workers would not get undercut. It has reduced employment opportunities because it prevents employers from getting multiple people to do a specific task so they need to find one person that can do it.

Me, my mother came to this country in 1993 from El Salvador, she has worked in a factory for the majority of her life. We have lived in the city and later moved to the suburbs. My mother told me how important education was so I tried in school. The thing you are missing out of all of this is the out parents and grandparents went through those hardships so WE would have a leg up. So don't give me that shit about being wealthy, I don't just live off someone else like Marx did. I work both at a job and school.
#717 to #707 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
Marx was dependent of Engels because he was running from country to country because of governments trying to kill him. The wage you speak of is not efficient. If they need medicine they go hungry for a week. All they can afford is one small meal a day with nike's generous wage. We have worker camps in China that make our iphones. They get a wage. They also kill themselves regularly. As for lagging behind technology wise... wealth that the country could be using to fund science and technological advances goes to the rich. (military & prison industrial complexes) A soviet invented lasik eye surgery and a chinese communist created artificial insulin.

Also, it's not like the government is what decides all technological advancements. The soviet union had a better educational system than the US. Cuba today has a much better healthcare and educational system. People that want to become scientists or innovators will be able to, if they have valuable knowledge. If one wants to become an artist or musician, they can in their free time. Do you think art should have wealth as motivation?

I'm also very glad to hear that you were able to climb the economic ladder. I guess trickle down economics has helped one person! Who the fuck would have thought... especially a salvadoran immigrant. I guess she decided to scoot the fuck out of El Salvador once she saw the wonders the U.S. was doing for the people there.
#723 to #717 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
No joke though, I asked her if she knew anything about the U.S. government in El Salvador and she said she never heard of it before. Which is weird because I remember learning about it in middle school.

I wish I had the source for this because it is priceless. There was a study that showed those in the 1 percent at a specific time, 5-10 years later, 2/3 of them would not be in the 1 percent anymore. In the same study, all those in the bottom 20% of income earners, half of them would no longer be in the bottom 20% 5-10 years later.

I'll try to find it because I found it interesting.
User avatar #721 to #717 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
What you are saying about wages makes no economic sense whatsoever. Why would businesses market towards a group of factory workers that can't afford purchasing what they need.

This situation is very similar to what happened during the Industrial Revolution. It also lead to the rise of many charities like the Red Cross- though they actually started as an evangelical organization and later transformed in a charity. I am perfectly okay with charities aiding the poor in other countries, but I will not have government intervene because it will only lead to negative externalities. A collective group of people with the same interest can do far better than a bureaucratic monstrosity. However, for places like china, the people are still under control of the government so I don't see how they could be helped unless the government steps back.

I agree that those are very good achievements, but how about the achievements made by people that were free. Einstein didn't make his discoveries under the order of a government bureau. (Over used example but) Ford didn't revolutionize the automotive industry by a commissar yelling out orders.

Every country has a better educational system then America's, but every nation comes countries like England and America for college and university education. They are subjected to market forces like You need to login to view this link for scientist and artist, they are not free to do anything because they are controlled by 'intellectuals' in government. You can't honestly say that an artist in the former Soviet Union could paint a masterpiece saying that they want freedom. I believe you are mixing views as well, I support the individual. If someone wants to only paint, he has every right to do so. If he is taking a government handout just to paint then it is wrong.
#734 to #721 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
When did I ever say that a business should market toward people who can't afford what they're selling? I re-read my post to find it. I think workers should control the means of production.

No one in the soviet union and no communist on the face of the earth believes one should "get a handout" for painting. I'm wondering if my last post was actually read by you.

Ford "revolutionized" the auto industry with the "assembly line." All that anti-semitic scum did was sell cars for cheaper. Big government scares you to the point of thinking that a scientist would be yelled at to make progress by a soviet soldier? The point of the socialist phase is to phase out the bourgeoisie, or middle class factory owner / land owner. Once the population consists of educated and ARMED classless and self-sufficient people, the government would slowly be phased out along with the money system.

As for censorship... there wouldn't be such thing as intellectual property. And as for an artist talking about "getting free" and overthrowing the government.... I don't believe it would really make much of a difference. Say you were to make a song about how you plan to take over the nation by force, or say you make a painting of dead people from the government... what would happen in The U.S. or Britain?

Also Marxism isn't even about supporting a bureaucratic party that "runs all industry." It's about workers developing a class consciousness and eventually saying "Enough is enough." We will organize, take over the government, and take the means of production.
User avatar #737 to #734 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
I feel that Marxism is very bureaucratic. If you control the means of production, you control the way of life. A small farming community won't know how much to cultivate to feed enough people, they need to be told by someone higher up. The farmers aren't incentivized to produce goods through profit, they are forced to do so or they will die. There is no other way for them to be motivated to grow food, they have to be forced.
User avatar #847 to #737 - arisaka (06/15/2012) [-]
User avatar #850 to #847 - reaganomix (06/15/2012) [-]
I said it feels bureaucratic. As in there is still a hierarchy that dictates what needs to happen. You don't need a government to have a hierarchy.
#736 to #734 - reaganomix (06/14/2012) [-]
No what I meant is that, if people are only making a low amount of money, then why would a business market to someone that doesn't have that money in that area. In your post you said that people only make a wage of $1.25. It makes no sense for a business to market to someone that makes $7.50 an hour because no one would buy it.

As for the paint, you said should painters be motivated by money. I am saying no, they have the right to do whatever they want in a free society as long as they are not taking a handouts.

Ford, with the assembly line was able to produce something cheaper because competition within a market leads to cheaper and better goods. If you want to buy a tomato, would you go to someone that grows terrible and expensive tomatoes, or would you buy it from someone that sells them cheaper and tastier.

My problem with the soviet phase is how you plan to get there. The average factory worker could not possibly answer the basic economic questions without guidance from a higher figure. Even if everyone was an intellectual, one who masters English could not understand the intricacies of baryons and mesons. So in this 'equal' society there would still be more educated people that would control others, not through incentives like in a capitalistic society, but by force.

"Once the population consists of educated and ARMED"

In the U.S. and Britain it depends really on what you make, because the government in both these countries have a duty to protect its citizens. If you make a threat, of course they will investigate you. Justifiable, maybe. If you draw something that the left side of the spectrum would support you can and the other way around.
#738 to #736 - FuckingMagnets (06/14/2012) [-]
This is why I am for nationalization of industry. Ford was able to produce cars cheaper, so he did. Socialist society is democratic. The people are supposed to decide on how things are run. We don't expect everyone to understand the intricacies of atomic theory or even care about it. People who have a passion for science would be able to take part in a socialist system. He would get no more and no less than a worker would.

People like Lenin wanted to speed up class consciousness with a vanguard party to take control of the government and teach the workers about class struggle and the growth of the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes after the industrial revolution. After the Russian Civil War, he enacted the NEP (New Economic Plan) in order to jump start the economy with a small profit incentive for farmers. He was flexible and reasonable. Stalin sabotaged the revolution, exiled and killed the old bolsheviks, edited Lenin in order to make himself seem more "politically alligned with him." He also changed what the people were being educated with. Stalin made curriculum less about marxist theory and class struggle, and more about the glorious revolution and how Lenin was GOD.

If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years.
- Vladimir Lenin

Anarchists disagree with this method and say it was elitest and opportunist. I though, do agree with Lenin's approach. It's realistic.

I'm not arguing for "the individual." I'm just trying convey the idea that the individual wouldn't be suppressed how people with pre-conceived notions of communism think it would be.
 Friends (0)