- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
this makes no sense .
Oh, I'd oppose it, violence is not the way to go, but I wouldn't go out and fight against them.
Singapore showing steady economic growth, low income inequality, and high employment seriously shows deregulation works.
Why would I produce more than I need when I get nothing more from it? To There is literally no reason to create any sort of surplus when there is nothing to gain from it. The quality of what is produced would decline for the very same reason that neglect is a hallmark of collectively owned property. No one cares enough to bother to make good quality products.
when it comes right down to it.. .all Commies end up supporting the same thing in terms of enacting their system.... the purging of non-believers from society.
to do so is very much a practical necessity..... the system cannot work without 100% compliance, backed by the fear of being "purged".
of course, enforcement has to be rigorous and sustained, which necessitates an well armed authority and the complete and utter absence of justice.
If people were having an actual violent revolution against the state, I wouldn't try to stop them.
You've never heard of capitalist dictators? Not a surprise. Also, do you want to abolish the state aswell? Wait, communism has no state, what government?
Take note that before this country had a minimum wage and higher taxes unemployment was regularly around those levels.
Henrin, I thought you'd be against that? State capitalism? Hm, doesn't sound like what you talk about.Singapore's government owns controlling shares in many government-linked companies and directs investment through sovereign wealth funds.[61] Singapore has attracted some of the world's most powerful corporations through business friendly legislation and through the encouragement of western style corporatism, with close cooperation between the state and corporations.
Singapore’s large holdings of government-linked companies and the state’s close cooperation with business are defining aspects of Singapore’s version of state capitalism.
I did, re-read about regulations I.b aid and trade with developing nations and how lack of manufacturing diversity creates gridlock and the inability to transfer job markets. Also what I was speaking about literary explains everything in your al jazeer article.
Ford defines the pRoDucers position in a market society
Wow, the lack of basic comprehension, I'm referring to a revolution under the current state. Jesus, the stupidity.
I hardly see how restricting the example to only the means of production changes my argument in the slightest. The very fact that you eliminated the profit motive would in fact lead to people caring for the property in question less and thus upkeep would suffer. Aristotle argued against collectively owned property on this basis centuries ago and I fail to see how he was wrong.
oh please!, you know very well you were talking about communism.
Really now? Talking about, in reference to the current states, a group of people rising up, and saying I wouldn't stop them, what the **** does that have to do with communism, a stateless society?
guy you know we were talking about the power of force by the type of system you are proposing....which is all we have talked about..... i have never talked about a system other then what you are proposing.
this shows either two things, you don't know what you are even discussing, or you screwed up and are trying to cover your mistake.
Why would they care less? You're making assumptions, oh yes, I also know a philosopher.
Karl Marx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deforestation? The dust bowl? Explain how these were caused by workers owning the means of production, and I urge you to name me a socialist state where the workers actually own the production. What are you getting your evidence off of? Forced collectivization under Mao/stalin, which involves a state? Marx has no evidence for anything he says? 10/10 :applaudYes, the difference is that what Aristotle said was based on evidence that individually owned property was better maintained and more productive than collectively owned property that is largely unproductive, unmaintained, and generally short lived. All you have to do is look at the disasters such as the dust bowl and deforestation to prove the point.
The system can work without 100% compliance, you're referring to stalin's method.
Deforestation? The dust bowl? Explain how these were caused by workers owning the means of production, and I urge you to name me a socialist state where the workers actually own the production. What are you getting your evidence off of? Forced collectivization under Mao/stalin, which involves a state?
communism is built on force, not liberty
It hasn't been built yet, and if needs to be done by force, I can understand why.
thanks for confirming that, and i am sure your force also means killing people it need be...
I suppose, although I highly doubt it will come to that, in regards to using armed force.
oh, do you think that if anyone got in the way of you idea, you are not going to be for killing them?
i suppose?......NO you would, which is why you type of world will always fail, because worlds built of force do not last, they can created, but they always destroy themselves in the end.
Sounds like what capitalists have done before, pointing out state socialism doesn't help you.
what governments have done before......governments are the biggest violators of rights and killers of the people.
you advocate for a government which has total control of the people.......to violate and kill more.
You've never heard of capitalist dictators? Not a surprise. Also, do you want to abolish the state aswell? Wait, communism has no state, what government?
if communism has no state, then how are the people secure?
how does communism "enforce itself" if it has no state.
There is nothing to enforce, it is a stateless society with collective ownership of production, things like farms, factories, lakes.. You seem to like guns alot, as do I, have quite a few myself, people would be able to "enforce" the idea of not killing others, stealing other's PROPERTY, apart from the means of production.. Again, communism is when the workers, the people, live in a society without any state leadership.
You keep making assumptions, much like Henrin, despite the fact that he follows anarcho capitalism, which has never existed. Really now? More baseless bull****? Stalins method isn't the way to do it, you make more assumptions.no, it can't.... the system falls immediately apart without total compliance.
I have no doubt that this stateless, classless ,moneyless society evolves into unregulated capitalism in very short order...
Stalins method, or one similar in authoritativeness, is how Communism, on a wide scale, comes into being in the real world... it can't happen otherwise.
that's another great thing about capitalism.... communists are free to operate in a capitalist system... the inverse is not true.
Bull**** on the producers position, you know that. Evidence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?