Meh. I somewhat agree. I love your name BTW.

Dude, Marx hates the government! SO MANY UNEDUCATED PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM JESUS FUCK

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.

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.

Wouldn't nationalization go against the Anarcho communist train of though? The thing missing with the whole equation in my opinion is competition. So what if you can take the brightest minds in your country and put them in a room. What incentive do they have to be as productive as someone that was working for profits.

If everything in my life was already provided for me and the only thing I had to do was provide the bear minimum ie; 1 scientific innovation every 10 years, than that is what I will be doing. I have no competition to deal with and no profit motive. This also goes back to my point of quantity over quality. Sure I can have a toaster because it is the only one and it is available or I could take the best one I could find for 'x' price.

Another thing I have to say about this the worker revolution is that a a group of worker could have gotten all the factors of production and made into a good or service anywhere and they could have shared the profits equally, even in America, but it has yet to happen. Or is the goal to take something that is already established and give it to people that know nothing about it.

Another thing is if Anarchist call for the elimination of money, how can you tell what what people can get what. If I lived in a Communist society, if everyone is entitled to 1 TV, I definitely want two TVs

I feel like we are going to go back and forth for a long time and neither of our opinions will actually change so I call it quits.

Good game No Rematch (I'll read what you have to say if you want to add something though)

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.

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.

Dude, Marx hates the government! SO MANY UNEDUCATED PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM JESUS FUCK

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't nationalization go against the Anarcho communist train of though? The thing missing with the whole equation in my opinion is competition. So what if you can take the brightest minds in your country and put them in a room. What incentive do they have to be as productive as someone that was working for profits.

If everything in my life was already provided for me and the only thing I had to do was provide the bear minimum ie; 1 scientific innovation every 10 years, than that is what I will be doing. I have no competition to deal with and no profit motive. This also goes back to my point of quantity over quality. Sure I can have a toaster because it is the only one and it is available or I could take the best one I could find for 'x' price.

Another thing I have to say about this the worker revolution is that a a group of worker could have gotten all the factors of production and made into a good or service anywhere and they could have shared the profits equally, even in America, but it has yet to happen. Or is the goal to take something that is already established and give it to people that know nothing about it.

Another thing is if Anarchist call for the elimination of money, how can you tell what what people can get what. If I lived in a Communist society, if everyone is entitled to 1 TV, I definitely want two TVs

I feel like we are going to go back and forth for a long time and neither of our opinions will actually change so I call it quits.

Good game No Rematch (I'll read what you have to say if you want to add something though)

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.

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.

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 competition.As 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.

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.

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.

Dude, Marx hates the government! SO MANY UNEDUCATED PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISM JESUS FUCK

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't nationalization go against the Anarcho communist train of though? The thing missing with the whole equation in my opinion is competition. So what if you can take the brightest minds in your country and put them in a room. What incentive do they have to be as productive as someone that was working for profits.

If everything in my life was already provided for me and the only thing I had to do was provide the bear minimum ie; 1 scientific innovation every 10 years, than that is what I will be doing. I have no competition to deal with and no profit motive. This also goes back to my point of quantity over quality. Sure I can have a toaster because it is the only one and it is available or I could take the best one I could find for 'x' price.

Another thing I have to say about this the worker revolution is that a a group of worker could have gotten all the factors of production and made into a good or service anywhere and they could have shared the profits equally, even in America, but it has yet to happen. Or is the goal to take something that is already established and give it to people that know nothing about it.

Another thing is if Anarchist call for the elimination of money, how can you tell what what people can get what. If I lived in a Communist society, if everyone is entitled to 1 TV, I definitely want two TVs

I feel like we are going to go back and forth for a long time and neither of our opinions will actually change so I call it quits.

Good game No Rematch (I'll read what you have to say if you want to add something though)