Bourgeois pigs kill suicidal 16 year old boy.

[FireIceTalon]

How many more global wars do we need to see the truth? How many more 10 year kids who don't want to be forced into child labor and get tasered by cops for it do we need to see the truth? How many more days must go by, each of which 30000 people die of starvation, do we need to see the truth? How many more hate crimes must occur each day to see the truth? How much more exploitation of labor than we have now must occur before we see the truth? And so on and so on.

I've heard all the arguments made by capitalists and their stockholm syndrome apologists to try and justify that their continued power and privileged existence somehow works to the benefit of all of us, and quite frankly, I haven't heard one yet to convince me of reconsidering my positions. In fact, they usually do the opposite, and only help to reaffirm them. All their arguments and solutions are complete idealism that have no relationship to the condition and objective economic laws of their system - and that is why Marxists are historically right, and you are not, I'm afraid.

You can try and compare Marxism to religion all you want, and it doesn't compute. Marxism has legitimate and observable criticisms of capitalism that can actually be observed, and have been so. Creationists, by comparison, have little to base their critique of evolution on, since the existence of God isn't something that can be tested or at least observed. Capitalism and its shortcomings CAN be observed. The reason is, one is grounded in materialism that observes objective sociological processes, the other is grounded in complete idealism that has no relevance into the objective material workings of the world.

[Jester]

How many more global wars do we need to see the truth? How many more 10 year kids who don't want to be forced into child labor and get tasered by cops for it do we need to see the truth? How many more days must go by, each of which 30000 people die of starvation, do we need to see the truth? How many more hate crimes must occur each day to see the truth? How much more exploitation of labor than we have now must occur before we see the truth?

This is nonsensical. Only if you've already accepted some absurd binary proposition, that it's "capitalism or communism," does this even begin to make sense. You have a positive case to demonstrate - that Marxism helps with any of this. That there is no war, with Marxism. That nobody starves, with Marxism. That no children labour, with Marxism. Hell, I'm not even as absolutist as you are - just show me why I should believe it will get better, I don't need total elimination.

You have offered nothing more than faith that this is the case. You reject all historical cases as having nothing to do with *your* version of the truth. You reject all evidence of improvement as not relevant. You expect us to just accept, apparently as obvious, that Marxism will help us with all this. The last people who tried to sell me that line were the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the ones before that, the Scientologists. I believe the problems of society are extraordinarily difficult to solve, and I am deeply mistrustful of anything that looks like an easy answer. There are an infinite number of easy, wrong answers to every problem. The trick is finding the right one, and you haven't made any serious case that you have it.

You can try and compare Marxism to religion all you want, and it doesn't compute. Marxism has legitimate and observable criticisms of capitalism that can actually be observed, and have been so.

So does the Catholic church, and it's pretty clearly a religion. But simply saying "the other guy is wrong" does not, in any sense, make you right. You talk incessantly about the shortcomings of capitalism. But the one time you bothered to respond when asked what actually *should* be done about solving the incredibly complex problems of politics, power, economics, and society, you retreated to "I don't have all the answers" within about two posts.

It's not enough to demonstrate that there's something wrong with "capitalism" (as if that was one single thing, as if everything bad in the world emerged from it). Marxists have been playing that card since before Lenin was in diapers, and it makes no more sense now than in the 1840s. You have to present a realistic alternative, and show that it's better than the other possible plans. This, you not only have not done, you haven't even started to do.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

This is nonsensical. Only if you've already accepted some absurd binary proposition, that it's "capitalism or communism," does this even begin to make sense.

And what are the viable alternatives to capitalism or communism in the developed world? A theocracy or any prior mode of production to capitalism is completely out of the question, I am sure that much we can agree on. Private property either does exist, or it does not exist, and thus the means of production, which is a social relationship is either controlled by a few, or by essentially all. Capitalism is the expressed ideological interests of the ruling class, communism the same for the working class. These two classes have different interests that cannot be reconciled, so what is your solution or alternative to this? This should be good....

You have a positive case to demonstrate - that Marxism helps with any of this. You have offered nothing more than faith that this is the case. That there is no war, with Marxism. That nobody starves, with Marxism. That no children labour, with Marxism. Hell, I'm not even as absolutist as you are - just show me why I should believe it will get better, I don't need total elimination.

Once again, Marxism isn't the system itself, it is the mode of analysis and critique of class systems. I assume you mean 'communism' as far as the problems being reduced or eliminated, yes? Ill tell you why it will be better - because it is a classless, stateless international society - the means of production is owned by all, and private property is expropriated completely. This changes the entire way society is organized and ran. There is no more state to protect the interests of private capital or a ruling class, because there is no such thing as private capital or classes anymore. Goods and services are no longer produced for profit, but rather for human need - every single person will, at the very least, have their basic needs met. Things such as advertisement, marketing, and commodity fetishism are almost certainly gone, since they are no longer needed - there is no such thing as profits anymore.

There is no more war, because society doesn't have borders, classes, or nation states anymore competing for or trying to accumulate and/or expand private capital or for resources. No borders - thus no nationalism/patriotism. Racism, sexism, homophobia are essentially going to be gone as well, because these are divisions of labor that are necessitated in class society - in communism they are no longer necessary, not to mention by the time society progresses from socialist stage into the 'higher stage' of communism, the cultural and reactionary elements that were a product of the old order would have long disappeared. The primary functional basis of class society is that one group of persons is perceived as 'superior', and another group as 'inferior', and this is true whether it is capitalists vs workers, straight vs gay/lesbian/transsexual, men vs women, whites vs minorities/people of color, and so on. These are social constructs that result in class society so one sector of society asserts its dominance over the other. Things like racism and sexism are profitable in the capitalist mode of production. Why do you think women and blacks are paid less than white men? It isn't just simple discrimination, it is because it is profitable for them to do so - they have been a traditionally cheaper labor force. It is also a divide and conquer tactic, to keep the working class fragmented and so that certain groups of people can be used as scapegoats when capitalism goes into crisis. It is much easier to blame immigrants, muslims, or whoever the current scapegoat is, rather than blaming the capitalists and the shortcomings of their shit system. In a classless society, these things do NOT exist - there was no such thing as classes, racism/sexism, private property, wage labor, commodity fetishism and alienation, or empires and nation-states with powerful governments and military forces in hunter/gatherer or tribal societies. These things all developed as a result of the formation of class society.

The human nature argument against communism doesn't work either, and in fact, this is probably the easiest of all the arguments to debunk. Human nature is not a fixed, biological concept - it is a complex and dynamic process and social construct that changes, and is a reflection of the current economic, political, and social/cultural conditions of society. If human nature was fixed, we would be one of the worst adaptable species ever, but as it demonstrably has been shown through over 100,000 years of modern human evolution, we in fact adapt extremely well to various environments. As the social organization and culture of society change, so does human nature, consciousness, and behavior - a hunter/gatherer does not have the same behavior or nature as a slave, a serf from the middle ages does not have the same nature as a worker in capitalist society, etc. If people grow up in a capitalist society, and that is what they are exposed to from the day of their birth, they are going to be a reflection of that - they will more likely be individualistic, competitive, selfish and/or greedy, violent, shallow, materialistic, and in general, pretty mean. If they grow up in a communist society, they will more likely be cooperative, unselfish, non-violent, and understanding of one another in both difficult times and normal times. It is hard to say what communist culture would look like exactly, but you can be sure the core values, beliefs, actions, and social norms will be radically different from what they are right now - this is a no brainer. I think the Engles quote in my sig sums this up really well.

In capitalism, people are not paid according to how hard they work, they are paid an hourly or salary wage that the boss says is right. In communism, people are paid with labor credits according to how many hours they put in, and furthermore, the workday is greatly shortened, because there is no more capitalist class to produce excess labor for so they can maximize profits. Communists understand that capitalism is not just about material wealth and the ownership of property, it is ALSO an economy of time - the ruling class controls the means to production and reaps the lion share of the profit, therefore they also have more leisure time....the working class is forced to labor more to produce a surplus value for the capitalist class to turn into profits, and therefore workers have less leisure time than capitalists. Despite the fact it is us, not capitalists, that create all the wealth and goods/services in society. In communism, this issue is eliminated - labor is still required of course - there is no getting around this in ANY type of economy - but far less so than in capitalist society. The workday is likely to be reduced by at least half, and probably will only be required 3-4 days a week - though if you want to work more than that, you will be free to do so. I always found the argument that socialism promotes laziness to be rather odd: That is precisely one of the points of socialism/communism is so that we DON'T have to work as much, and so that we can enjoy life more. I am pretty sure there will be much more incentive to work as well anyways, since wage labor and alienation do not exist - if anything, it is capitalism, not socialism, that promotes laziness and stagnation - capitalists are all a bunch of lazy fucks that don't have to work because they have an army of wage slaves to do all the work for them. Nor is unemployment an issue.

Now, inequalities in communism might develop as some people will choose to work more than others, but at least these inequalities are by choice, and not by coercion and wage slavery as under capitalism. If you see something that someone else has and you want it, work a few more hours and you can have it also. In capitalism, there are obvious social and economic constraints that prevent people from having things they need or want. I myself have little interest in material things, and would have less than others, because I chose to do so - and I would probably choose to spend my labor credits on things like traveling or site seeing rather than material possessions.

Additonally, people would be much more free to pursue their dreams and personal aspirations than they are under capitalism, since education will be free (or at worst, dirt cheap) and people wont have to pick something based on what gives them the greatest material return. Remedial labor, such as janitorial work, is greatly marginalized and under appreciated in capitalism - the value of things is determined by skill instead of how important the actual job is. Janitors are very important - without them we'd all be swimming in our own shit and piss, so there is no reason to treat them any less than a doctor or other professional. Such jobs of course are no fun, but nevertheless they have to be done. Under communism, people would likely rotate between these jobs, and they would be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve as human beings, unlike in capitalism, where they are generally treated as indifferent at best, inferior at worst. I could go on, these are just a few of the reasons why we believe communism to be superior to capitalism. In short, it isn't going to be a perfect society, but certainly a lot better than the steaming pile of shit system we have now. Child labor in communism you ask? Are you serious? I don't think I have ever met a single communist that would advocate child labor. If you have, I'd love to have a chat with this individual.

Fuck that is long, but you wanted specifics, so you got them.

You reject all historical cases as having nothing to do with *your* version of the truth.

And yet once again, Marxism isn't "my truth" (if anything that would be communism^see above). Marxism is simply an objective analysis of class antagonisms, their causes (property relationships based on the productive forces of society), and their symptoms (i.e. the State). It isn't a value system or ideology. My personal values, beliefs, or views are not relevant here, and neither are anyone else's.

You talk incessantly about the shortcomings of capitalism. But the one time you bothered to respond when asked what actually *should* be done about solving the incredibly complex problems of politics, power, economics, and society, you retreated to "I don't have all the answers" within about two posts.

That was a long time ago, before I fundamentally understood Marxism and its tenets, which leads me to....

It's not enough to demonstrate that there's something wrong with "capitalism" (as if that was one single thing, as if everything bad in the world emerged from it). Marxists have been playing that card since before Lenin was in diapers, and it makes no more sense now than in the 1840s. You have to present a realistic alternative, and show that it's better than the other possible plans. This, you not only have not done, you haven't even started to do.

Um, no. This is completely bogus, idealistic and you know it. To sit here and try to describe what communism would look like and make an exact prediction based on that is purely idealist, because one cannot look into a crystal ball and look at the future; and this is why Marx denounced the 'utopian socialism' that preceded his time, and why never wrote a detailed description of exactly how communism would look like because it would be completely dependent on the given material circumstances of the time. Communism is defined by a classless/stateless/moneyless international society - describing anything beyond that is purely subjective. It would be entirely up to that society on what the rules would be, how they organize, or what is produced. You are trying to put the burden on communists, when a negative cannot be proven - absurd. As modern communism has not yet materialized, there is no objective way to observe it - it is a negative, and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. Sure, communists have their ideas and opinions that we discuss on how a communist society would look and function as I did in that huge paragraph above, and we sometimes disagree with one another. But by no means would our descendants be obligated to fulfill OUR visions, hopes, dreams or opinions. It is entirely up to them, and them only.

Capitalists didn't have to prove to feudal lords or the aristocracy that capitalism would be a superior system to feudalism, and it is pretty doubtful that the developing bourgeois class during the middle ages had any idea of what a capitalist system would even look like or function. People don't just wake up one day and say "hey, this how this system will look, and it will be better than what we have now, lets do it!" and then people run with that idea and put it into place - this is an idealistic and unrealistic way of looking at the world. Each epoch of history has been an organic result that came out of the ashes of the previous system that was destroyed by revolution or the complete collapse of that society - it didn't just magically appear out of someone's head. The bourgeois, which was a revolutionary class that destroyed feudalism, did NOT have any burden of proof that their system would be any superior to the old order (nor could they prove it until it was a reality - again a negative cannot be proved or disproved), and neither will communists when and if our time comes. To think otherwise is completely naive. We are talking about revolutions here, what are we supposed to do, walk up to the capitalists and ask for permission to revolt and create a communist society, just like they walked up to the aristocracy/monarch and asked if they could replace feudalism and the church with a market economy and liberalism? LMAO.....your reasoning here is pure comedy and just plain silliness! You've never seen or studied a revolution before, have you?

Perhaps you should go debate with all the social democrats and Maoists on youtube - you might fare a bit better vs them. This is too easy for me

[Hammerskjold]

You can try and compare Marxism to religion all you want, and it doesn't compute.

Yes, this is absolutely the truest of Truth! For a person like you, that is.

For someone who has trouble figuring out a simple joke of 'Friedrick Hayek\Salma Hayek', it will not compute.

For someone who has very low reading comprehension, it will not compute.

For someone who has very low self awareness to the point of borderline aspergers, it will not compute.

For someone who has trouble understanding what a 'True Scotsman' argument is, then proclaims a bizarre version of it as 'The True Version', it will not compute.

For someone who wears their willful ignorance like a proud badge, it will not compute.

"There is no god but Allah". Hah! Look at the silly superstitious religion nut! Marx was right!

"The only way is through Jesus". Hah! Yet another stupid religious sheep! Marx is sooooo smart!

"God, Country, Family". Hah! Patriotic bourgeois bullshit! Everyone who salutes a flag is an idiot! Unless it's -my- Red Flag! ©He ©he.


Everyone, stop drinking cola brand X. It's a leading cause of diabetes, it uses corn syrup created by a corrupt big agra business! It fuels wars! It is racist! And Sexist!111

Now -my- brand Y of cola on the other hand...

Edited addition when I noticed yet another nugget of Commie-dy.

That was a long time ago, before I fundamentally understood Marxism.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, where did I hear that one from before. Oh yes, from all the other True Believers.

"That was a long time ago, before I fundamentally understood ________."

Please choose the following:
- Jeebus
- Muhammad
- Yahweh
- Xenu
- The Dark Side of the Force
- Phrenology as a Science

[kandrathe]

... it is the mode of analysis and critique.

Right. Oh, so Marxism isn't an ism, it's like mathematics;

No, wait, before you said it's the "science" of hindsight; It's not philosophy, because Marx hated philosophers. Then, you go on to promote communism, which in fact HAS BEEN TRIED AND EVERYWHERE IT HAS IT BROUGHT MISERY AND DEATH.

This is too easy for me

It's not that it's easy, it is that you are too simple. First, as a Poli-sci guy, you seemingly have little understanding of it, so misrepresent it.

Then, you're fixated on such a narrow view that your description of every attempt at implementing this pipe dream, or even any the views of other Marxists is derisive and you declare that they weren't following the "TRUE WAY". Finally, yes, by the way you frame it, it's easy. You've diminished everything to black and white, where the right side is your seemingly personal interpretation and everything else is wrong.

When we get into the details, you refuse to defend the "Philosophy" and any facts presented -- then ignore, and insult people, or act superior and smug, the eventually we get to a the classic troll bow out...

Let's review the result the last time you tried to justify your spewage;

Well Jester, I'm going to end the discussion here mate. There are quite a few things in your last replies that I don't agree with, but I see no point to take it any farther, just because I think this debate would go on forever lol, and neither of us are going to ultimately change our views, so you get the last word. But it was a pleasure nonetheless, and it restored some of my confidence that mutual respect and civil discourse on very controversial and political topics is possible here. Cheers.

...because you cannot defend it.

Marxism smacks of religion, because through it's lens he hoped to produce a prophecy, which turned out false. Also similar was it's milennial apocalyptic, where the world would need to get really bad before it would be saved by the rejection of materialism. It's popular messiah's, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Pol Potts, Mao, etc. step in and form messianic cults of personality which lend themselves toward dictatorial totalitarian regimes.

Read: Main Currents of Marxism by Leszek Kolakowski. Or, stay ignorant. It's your choice.

For example, Kolakowski says (pg. 445), "Like many other Marxists, Bloch does not trouble to substantiate his assertions but merely proclaims them. On the rare occasions when he puts forward an argument, it usually reveals his logical helplessness. For instance, he says there is no such thing as unchanging human nature, because even such ,a universal phenomenon as hunger has taken different forms in the course of history, in that people at different times have preferred different foods (Das Prinzip HojJnung, pp. 75-6). The reader who endeavours to follow his arguments generally finds that they consist of truisms and tautologies, disguised in verbiage of intolerable complexity."

A nice way of saying that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with BS. This is my own personal view of what Marxists do to perpetuate their existence, invariably it is tenured at a university, which it seems is the only paid position in which they are tolerated. And then, it is as a leashed pet -- to show the liberals how tolerant we all are.

[Jester]

Perhaps you should go debate with all the social democrats and Maoists on youtube - you might fare a bit better vs them. This is too easy for me

It's easy because you're answering the questions you'd prefer to answer, and fluffing the ones that I actually asked.

Parsing your rant, I picked out everything I could find that actually described a policy (what we would actually *do* under Communism) rather than an outcome (how super awesome things would be under Communism).

I got to 7:

1) Private property will be expropriated completely.
2) Goods and services will be produced for human needs.
3) Nation states will be abolished.
4) Workers will be paid in “labour credits” according to hours worked.
5) The work week will be reduced to 3-4 days.
6) People can choose to work as much extra as they want.
7) Workers would rotate among jobs.

The largest problem is, of course, "who decides"? And who watches the watchers?

Private property is expropriated - who says how it is distributed? To whom are they accountable? Goods and services are produced for human needs, but which needs? Who decides what I need? How do they know? How are the needs of people in the present reconciled with the needs of people in the future?

Who determines how many "labour credits" are assigned for each type of work? Or how many hours need to be worked in each job, or in total? Or how workers "rotate" from job to job? There are hundreds of thousands of jobs, some extremely specialized. Surely it makes no sense to have skilled physicists spend a month making shoes, then a month waiting tables, then a month tasting teas, then a month in outer space, then a month teaching swimming to 5 year olds. But if that's not what you mean by rotation, then what do you mean?

Who determines how much to save vs. spend? How to invest in new forms of production? Or even how to organize existing ones? Who manages factories, shops, farms? How is the quality of their work assessed? How to manage risky ventures, or insure against unlikely disasters? Who decides where people live, and at what cost? Who decides how many "labour credits" will be created each year, and how will this be squared with the number of goods and services produced? What happens to someone who saves labour credits, rather than consuming them?

These are each questions which economists have been thinking about since before Adam Smith. Not a one of them is trivial. Any alternative system that throws out the entire apparatus of market exchange must, somehow, solve them. So far, every attempt has been a miserable failure, and all have either degenerated into utter oppression and poverty (North Korea) or simply re-adopted a market exchange system (China).

These are the *functional* questions - or, rather, a tiny subset of them. Ranting and raving about how there will be world peace and an end to racism and a 3 day work week does not solve them. And without not only a good solution, but a better one than we have today, there will be no peace, there will be no end to racism, and there will certainly be no 3 day work week.

-Jester

Afterthought: Glad we could keep this gentlemanly, and not descend into arrogant declarations of how brilliant we each are, and how the other should go debate youtube commenters.

[Ashock]

Perhaps you should go debate with all the social democrats and Maoists on youtube - you might fare a bit better vs them. This is too easy for me

It's easy because you're answering the questions you'd prefer to answer, and fluffing the ones that I actually asked.

Parsing your rant, I picked out everything I could find that actually described a policy (what we would actually *do* under Communism) rather than an outcome (how super awesome things would be under Communism).

I got to 7:

1) Private property will be expropriated completely.
2) Goods and services will be produced for human needs.
3) Nation states will be abolished.
4) Workers will be paid in “labour credits” according to hours worked.
5) The work week will be reduced to 3-4 days.
6) People can choose to work as much extra as they want.
7) Workers would rotate among jobs.

The largest problem is, of course, "who decides"? And who watches the watchers?

Private property is expropriated - who says how it is distributed? To whom are they accountable? Goods and services are produced for human needs, but which needs? Who decides what I need? How do they know? How are the needs of people in the present reconciled with the needs of people in the future?

Who determines how many "labour credits" are assigned for each type of work? Or how many hours need to be worked in each job, or in total? Or how workers "rotate" from job to job? There are hundreds of thousands of jobs, some extremely specialized. Surely it makes no sense to have skilled physicists spend a month making shoes, then a month waiting tables, then a month tasting teas, then a month in outer space, then a month teaching swimming to 5 year olds. But if that's not what you mean by rotation, then what do you mean?

Who determines how much to save vs. spend? How to invest in new forms of production? Or even how to organize existing ones? Who manages factories, shops, farms? How is the quality of their work assessed? How to manage risky ventures, or insure against unlikely disasters? Who decides where people live, and at what cost? Who decides how many "labour credits" will be created each year, and how will this be squared with the number of goods and services produced? What happens to someone who saves labour credits, rather than consuming them?

These are each questions which economists have been thinking about since before Adam Smith. Not a one of them is trivial. Any alternative system that throws out the entire apparatus of market exchange must, somehow, solve them. So far, every attempt has been a miserable failure, and all have either degenerated into utter oppression and poverty (North Korea) or simply re-adopted a market exchange system (China).

These are the *functional* questions - or, rather, a tiny subset of them. Ranting and raving about how there will be world peace and an end to racism and a 3 day work week does not solve them. And without not only a good solution, but a better one than we have today, there will be no peace, there will be no end to racism, and there will certainly be no 3 day work week.

-Jester

Afterthought: Glad we could keep this gentlemanly, and not descend into arrogant declarations of how brilliant we each are, and how the other should go debate youtube commenters.

Add to it the simple fact that without big time incentives, human beings tend to do just enough to get by. We would go stagnant almost immediately. iPad 4? In 30 years. Maybe. When there's no real answer to "What's in it for me", there is no "What's in me for it". I just thought of that one, btw. But it's true.

It's been tried before. People just don't give a rat's ass and they do just enough to not be branded "enemy of the people". Often enough, they spend most of their work time just thinking of how to beat the system to not be branded "enemy of the people". This often involves pointing a finger at a REAL enemy of the people. Well, at least better them than us type of enemy of the people.

Jester, you and I pretty much never see eye to eye. However, while I do not agree with pretty much most if not all of your views, I do not think that you are a fool. So why do you argue with one?

[FireIceTalon]

You will address the issue, not the poster. If you cannot defend your ideas without attacking other posters, your ideas are not strong enough to survive on their own.

-Bolty

[FireIceTalon]

Perhaps you should go debate with all the social democrats and Maoists on youtube - you might fare a bit better vs them. This is too easy for me

It's easy because you're answering the questions you'd prefer to answer, and fluffing the ones that I actually asked.

Parsing your rant, I picked out everything I could find that actually described a policy (what we would actually *do* under Communism) rather than an outcome (how super awesome things would be under Communism).

I got to 7:

1) Private property will be expropriated completely.
2) Goods and services will be produced for human needs.
3) Nation states will be abolished.
4) Workers will be paid in “labour credits” according to hours worked.
5) The work week will be reduced to 3-4 days.
6) People can choose to work as much extra as they want.
7) Workers would rotate among jobs.

The largest problem is, of course, "who decides"? And who watches the watchers?

Private property is expropriated - who says how it is distributed? To whom are they accountable? Goods and services are produced for human needs, but which needs? Who decides what I need? How do they know? How are the needs of people in the present reconciled with the needs of people in the future?

Who determines how many "labour credits" are assigned for each type of work? Or how many hours need to be worked in each job, or in total? Or how workers "rotate" from job to job? There are hundreds of thousands of jobs, some extremely specialized. Surely it makes no sense to have skilled physicists spend a month making shoes, then a month waiting tables, then a month tasting teas, then a month in outer space, then a month teaching swimming to 5 year olds. But if that's not what you mean by rotation, then what do you mean?

Who determines how much to save vs. spend? How to invest in new forms of production? Or even how to organize existing ones? Who manages factories, shops, farms? How is the quality of their work assessed? How to manage risky ventures, or insure against unlikely disasters? Who decides where people live, and at what cost? Who decides how many "labour credits" will be created each year, and how will this be squared with the number of goods and services produced? What happens to someone who saves labour credits, rather than consuming them?

These are each questions which economists have been thinking about since before Adam Smith. Not a one of them is trivial. Any alternative system that throws out the entire apparatus of market exchange must, somehow, solve them. So far, every attempt has been a miserable failure, and all have either degenerated into utter oppression and poverty (North Korea) or simply re-adopted a market exchange system (China).

These are the *functional* questions - or, rather, a tiny subset of them. Ranting and raving about how there will be world peace and an end to racism and a 3 day work week does not solve them. And without not only a good solution, but a better one than we have today, there will be no peace, there will be no end to racism, and there will certainly be no 3 day work week.

-Jester

Afterthought: Glad we could keep this gentlemanly, and not descend into arrogant declarations of how brilliant we each are, and how the other should go debate youtube commenters.

Gee, lets get our crystal balls and take a look, shall we?

You are a complete idealist, that thinks consciousness determines the way we live, when it's the other way around. All those questions will be determined by the people in that society, during that time. Material conditions always presuppose ideas or ideology - it was the same way during the Enlightenment and before capitalism became the dominant mode of production - or at any other point in history. The ideas of people like Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire were radical at the time, and it took two very bloody revolutions and a series of wars before they were actually materialized. You can't make policy for a society that does not yet exist - you can engage in philosophical and intellectual masturbation by making suggestions, guesses, or possibilities, but nothing more. During the middle ages and feudal society, the arising bourgeois class had no clue as to how a capitalist society would function, or what the exact policies would be - it was only when it organically materialized out of the destruction of feudal society that such things could be determined or answered, and ultimately be put into a material context when constructing the new society and beyond. The same is true of any society before that one, and the same will be true of communism (or if it is something else altogether entirely).

With these questions, you are implying that history is some pre-determined, linear course that exists in a vacuum with inevitable results, and it just isn't. It is a dynamic, complex and dialectical process in which material conditions and processes change unpredictably, and all ideas, ideology, or policy need corresponding material conditions to make them reality, or legitimize them. It's like saying you are going to drown when there is no water nearby - there has to be water (and a substantial amount of it) first.

[Taem]

In short, you are the prototypical reactionary capitalist scum that likes to use others as scapegoats for all the worlds problems instead of acknowledging that the current system sucks ass, or that it is perhaps YOUR kind that is creating the problems. ****ing racist bigot.

Personal attacks are so unnecessary. I went ahead and edited "that" part out of the quote. You really outdid yourself this time FIT. I reported that post. I actually hope you get a temp ban this time for your outbursts. Please try thinking before posting in the future. You don't need to demean people to make a point, and if that's the way you argue, then it's not appreciated. You can make a point without the personal attacks, vulgarity, or profanity you so like to strew about in your posts.

Sincerely,

Taem

[FireIceTalon]

But the personal attacks made toward me because I'm a radical whose views are simply intolerable are ok though, right? I don't have Kandrathe and Hammer on ignore because I disagree with them, I have them on ignore because they're jerks. Me and you have many disagreements, but we can also have a civil conversation, with them I can't.

[Jester]

Gee, lets get our crystal balls and take a look, shall we?

Someone needs a crystal ball, here, but it isn't me.

You make extraordinary claims about the *effects* of Communism. What a miraculous system it must be, creating world peace, ending hunger, banishing discrimination of all kinds, ending inequality, increasing welfare, and the list goes on and on. Everything bad about the world today, is fixed in your magical system. You claim you can "see" this - you don't roll your eyes and make sarcastic remarks at these claims, even though they are in the future.

But you refuse to make any serious claims about the *functioning* of Communism. How do we get from where we are, to all these wonderful results? How are they maintained, once we get there? Who can say, you reply? Some unfathomable arrangement of "material conditions." This part of the future, apparently, we can't see. All we can be confident is that the results will be amazingly awesome; how we get there is up to history.

You are not imagining a functioning economic system, or a social order. You're imagining a utopia. I'm asking you how on earth it's supposed to work, and you have no idea, only the unshakable conviction that it will be awesome. This is a New Jerusalem.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But the personal attacks made toward me because I'm a radical whose views are simply intolerable are ok though, right? I don't have Kandrathe and Hammer on ignore because I disagree with them, I have them on ignore because they're jerks. Me and you have many disagreements, but we can also have a civil conversation, with them I can't.

Let's see... Mr. Whoopee set the wayback machine to...

...Anywhoo, think I'll just put ya on ignore now. Was a pleasure destroying you.

I asked you about Popper's characterization of Marxism as a science, and you ignored that and replied with paragraphs of gems like, "What IS a fantasy is YOUR lolbertarian ideology and moralistic filled horse-shit ..."

This was not a case of me calling you names and you ignoring me. This was a case of you oddly going ape shit crazy over Ayn Rand, calling her every vile name reserved for misogynists (then you edited your post in a less feverish moment to remove the excessive use of the C*** word). But, it's not just me you've gone off on... Lemming, Shadow, Occhi -- I can dig up the posts.

You've ignored me because I don't agree with you, and I challenge your lies with evidence to the contrary.

[NuurAbSaal]

Every now and again I decide to amuse myself with a few lines by the only poster I ever put on ignore. I guess I'm weird that way.

This made my day:

All those questions will be determined by the people in that society, during that time.

Jester, how you can keep doing what you're doing in the face of, well, him, is beyond me. I salute you. You remind me of someone we both miss.

take care
Tarabulus

[Occhidiangela]

They're all pigs. Period. Only decent cops I ever met where the ones that didn't like their jobs.

1. You are a fool, period.

2. You have met few cops, if any. I am more convinced that you are a liar than what you posted (which is highlighted in red) is true.

Thanks, F.I.T., for reconfirming the notion I've had for many years that the Internet's main function is to spread stupidity at the speed of electricity, minus line loss, switching, etc.

Occhi

[FireIceTalon]

1. You are a fool, period.

And you're a tool, period.

2. You have met few cops, if any. I am more convinced that you are a liar than what you posted (which is highlighted in red) is true.

They are bourgeois protectors therefore they are scum regardless if I have met them or not. And yes, I've met a few cops, and almost all of them were worthless, arrogant, chauvinistic bigots that thought they were the shit just because they wore a badge. Tasering 10-year old kids who don't want to perform child labor seems to be their newfound activity of choice, when they get bored with racially profiling minorities, or pepper spraying protestors.

Thanks, F.I.T., for reconfirming the notion I've had for many years that the Internet's main function is to spread stupidity at the speed of electricity, minus line loss, switching, etc.

And you are one of the spokespersons for spreading said stupidity - but I'm sure you never considered that. Now enjoy your ignore.

[Jester]

Now enjoy your ignore.

Perhaps you might consider just ignoring everyone, and un-ignoring specific cases. It would probably save you time, at this point.

-Jester

[Tal]

They are bourgeois protectors therefore they are scum regardless if I have met them or not. And yes, I've met a few cops, and almost all of them were worthless, arrogant, chauvinistic bigots that thought they were the shit just because they wore a badge. Tasering 10-year old kids who don't want to perform child labor seems to be their newfound activity of choice, when they get bored with racially profiling minorities, or pepper spraying protestors.

You paint with a pretty broad paintbrush. There are a lot of hardworking, intelligent and caring policemen that are doing a very difficult job. You sleep under the blanket of the safety that such police provide you. I hope for your own sake that you don't ever have cause to thank those police for protecting you in a dark hour.

[kandrathe]

They are bourgeois protectors therefore they are scum regardless if I have met them or not. And yes, I've met a few cops, and almost all of them were worthless, arrogant, chauvinistic bigots that thought they were the shit just because they wore a badge. Tasering 10-year old kids who don't want to perform child labor seems to be their newfound activity of choice, when they get bored with racially profiling minorities, or pepper spraying protestors.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Pot, meets kettle.

[shoju]

I'm curious FiT... Do you hold the same contempt towards the military? Aren't they the ULTIMATE in "bourgeois protectors"? I mean... They are Uncle Sam's Rottweiler, trained and ready to shoot first and ask questions only if you survive and are tortured, right?

[/sarcasm off]

Seriously. You are painting with an incredibly broad brush, based on shock inducing media stories and coverage. Every group has a bad apple or two, one that takes things to an extreme, pushes the limits too far, abuses the power that they have acquired. The Police are no different than any other group of people that you can apply that to.

Are you going to say that every Lounge Member is a Communist because you are a communist? I mean. By your own logic, if every cop is some facist pig who actively works to do deplorable things, shouldn't you just go ahead and categorize all of the lounge as a bunch of Communists? Surely, we could paint with that big of a brush right?

Oh wait. That's right. You'd never do that. Because it's OBVIOUSLY False. Just like your non sensical notion that every single cop is out to get you.