Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Money in anarchy?

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Tomaks, Jul 26, 2010.

  1. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    You said that before yet you keep coming back. I didn't put a gun to anyone's head. Limiting people's potential is facism. In my idea people would be able to decide what they want. The other opinion in this thread is allowing people to decide what's they're allowed to want. No, I'm forcing you to concede with evidence. You know what else doesn't help? Talking on the internet. Nothing we do here helps. The only way to help is to go out there and do something about it. What you don't obviously understand is that insistence in the face of truth is faith. Faith isn't anarchy. Goodbye :ecouteurs:
     
  2. JackNegativity

    JackNegativityExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    885

    1

    28

    Nov 9, 2010
     
    "...Anti-fascist, Anti-capitalist, Anti-authoritarian, Anarchist and... Punk !"

    :ecouteurs:

    I feel bad for poor Bakica, speaking respectfully to this guy and getting shit on in return. Oh well, such is life.


    Peace.
     
  3. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    these fucking idiots never learn. money =/= capitalism. Anarcho communes still use money. And you wonder why I think everyone is stupid.
     
  4. Vegan_Who_Wears_Leather

    Vegan_Who_Wears_LeatherActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Jun 16, 2010
     
    Yes money does equal capitalism because capitalism is a byproduct of money. Why would the means of production be owned privately if not to make more money? In a society where money is used there will be people who make more money than others, which leads to inequality because those with more money will have more available to them and those with less will have less available. It also leads to slavery because money is a power, and because there will be people who make more money than other people, it is a power over others rather than its anarchist variant of power with others. Due to itself being a power over others and it having a value only because it is enforced to have a value, it is an absolute power over others. Power over others corrupts, and absolute power over others corrupts absolutely.
     
  5. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    Look I'm not gonna explain this shit to every schmuck who wants to throw his misinformed worthless 2 cents in. Read the discussion and LEARN. If you're too lazy to look through the past few pages, then shut the hell up. I'm not gonna reply to any new retards unless they have an argument. All I have to say to you and any other brainiac who thinks being a parrot makes them intelligent is:

    You don't understand money.
    You don't understand capitalism.
    You don't understand anarchy.
    You don't understand economics.
    You don't understand class.
    You don't understand slavery.
    You don't understand power.
    Above all you don't understand critical thought.

    Also to you specifically, literally not one of those sentences made sense.
     
  6. Vegan_Who_Wears_Leather

    Vegan_Who_Wears_LeatherActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Jun 16, 2010
     
    Oh really? Then would you mind explaining to me what your understanding of money, capitalism, anarchy, economics, class, slavery and power is?
     
  7. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
  8. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,618

    125

    666

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    It's you that hasn't learned as well sludge, some of your ideas are sound, some are not and completely follow Anarcho-capitalist rhetoric, but beneath it all is your complete lack of social skills and arrogance that gets in the way of anyone with an opposing view to yours wanting to understand what you're trying to say. I've stayed out of most of your shitfights on here because from time to time you show some insight, but remember ou818's method of arguing? Even when he was right he made himself stand out as a complete ass because of his arrogance, as I recall, it even annoyed the hell out of you, yet somehow you are now projecting his same said arrogance. Now in thread after thread you come off as thinking you comprehend so much more than everyone else, condescending to the forum in general, you speak in generalities and condemn all that don't agree with you with petty insults even when they remain civil in tone with you. I think you need to step back and examine this behavior you exhibit with quite a few other users, and re-examine exactly what you hope to achieve with that attitude. I get the feeling you don't really respect anarchist philosophies, you embrace misanthropy, you seem to enjoy some forms of misogyny in the music you champion, and you generally find this forum and the people in it to be some sort of joke worthy of your ridicule.
     
  9. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    Ok I agree with on this this one. Money sure isnt' form of facism, and you're not limiting anyone.

    I wasn't talking about anarcho-society. I was talking generaly. History can tell us that people are ready to do anything to come to power. And perfect way to possibly get power in anarcho-society is exploiting. Today, people are used to exploit, work for money, work for power. You think they are going to change ? Hard. As I said, some will, some won't. People will need more and more money. You say money won't mean anything ? How come ? Money will be reward for work, so you could trade. You would buy yourselve more, if you're richer. And that creates classes. Maybe not the deffinition of classes but sure if a doctor works for 8 hours and garbageman works for 8 hours - and if garbageman pay is half doctors - then it's inequal. Why ? Medicine is harder then collecting garbe. Yeah ? Try to live without garbageman. Or try to live without doctor. Impossible in modern society. So everyone should be equal. So it's better to barter becouse how much you have produced, that much you will have. Of course, there's a question - if I produce more then someone else, then it will create "classes" again ? Well, yes and no. Money is evil, TODAY. Money will be probably evil, tomorrow becouse people are used to fight for it, and not work. In anarcho society, I think everyone shall work 5-6 hours a day (ok, not limiting anyone). So if someone works 10 hours, and thinks he's richer - well he's wrong. Becouse he can't trade with us, we have made products working 5 hours, and he has made products working 10 hours so probably two times more then us. He will have to wait for another day, so he could trade with us, and/or he won't have to work that day. I understand why you're saying bartering would be a big problem. Yep, I understand. But it doesn't matter - becouse we will agree about money and bartering later, you will get to chose where do you want to live, in what conditions. Peace, as someone said. :ecouteurs:
     
  10. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    I won't deny that I'm condescending as shit. But I've never been in a shit fight I couldn't back up 100%. Look at past incidents. I'm always the one with the real argument and I have the "trio of friends" following me around the forum starting shit because they don't like me. I don't talk without substance. You know firsthand that if I'm proven wrong I will gladly admit it and I expect people to do the same. And don't get me started on that ou818 guy. That's a whole different thing, the same reason I went off on him is the same reason I've gone off on people in this thread and past shit fights. I get pissy when people assert that they are STILL right and I'm WRONG when I'm giving them counterpoints and they're brushing me off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Especially when it becomes a tag-team effort.

    I admit I was being a dick to Bakica. I did not call HIM specifically an idiot though. Like you said, I have shitty social skills and I use profanity when I talk. But by the 4th page having to repeat myself over and over and having to counterpoint everything over and over (especially when I'm criticized for it) resulting only in my opponents assertion that they are STILL right and ask me questions that I JUST answered can you not understand how that could possibly wear out a person's patience? I've already proven to them WHY they are wrong and they think restating their position is a rebuttal, and refuse to acknowledge MY points while accusing me of the very same thing. So you'll excuse me if I'm short with people after continuously being demonized.

    I hate (stupid)people but I'm no misanthropist. If I was such a misanthrope I wouldn't be pushing for change and liberation of the common people I so intensely despise. Contrary to popular belief, I consider myself an anarchist. I just refuse to accept an ideology as a whole, and I pick apart what's bullshit and what's right. Ironic coming from me, but not everyone is right about everything. Some aspects of anarchy I consider too utopian. It's my dream to live in a marx like society, but I don't see it as a practical approach to the problems we're currently facing. My opponents here are dreamers, and I want change that is feasible NOW, not in 100 years. I see a lot of hypocrisy going on here. I see people accepting rhetoric as absolute fact without question and they call themselves an ANARCHIST. It's not real to these posters, it's a source of inflation for their egos. I have flaws like everyone else, and aggression towards ignorance happens to be one of them. My ego gets bigger when I prove people wrong, their ego gets bigger when they clutch to words they don't understand the meanings of.

    And so I'm an asshole because I like GG Allin and Anal Cunt?

    I don't find the whole forum a joke, just the useless idiotic hypocrites whose names happen to come up frequently. You know the incident that started it. Look at that and then look at the other shit fights. You'll notice it's the same people, trying to prove something. But Backica, you have been nice to me the whole time and I never see you being a dick to anyone and I'm sorry I used the words "fuck" "shit" and "stupid" against you. I guess I kinda was being a dick to that random person guy, but for fuck's sake I was tired of repeating myself. Fuck those other guys though.
     
  11. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    Oh, I'm not insulted. I just don't like people calling names each other. It's kinda what stupid people does, and we, err, are not that right ? :D
     
  12. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    Ok I see your point, no one can live without the other so it should make everyone fair. But don't you think that's going to make everyone want to do the easiest work possible if they're going to be paid the same? Don't you think it's going to make people invalidate higher education and better professions? That the people who are working really hard are going to feel unappreciated? Even though they're both necessary, I don't think it's fair to pay someone less just because the lowest job is also important. The harder you work, the more you get. I think that's fair. If the garbageman wants more money, then he should be something else. Simple as that. The garbageman should have no reason to complain either, because his easy job already affords him comfortable living. Not only that but it's a comfortable environment when everyone is employed and at a quality of living. Look at the way Norway is run. Lowest poverty and crime rate in the world, and ranked number 1 for highest quality of living in the planet. They use money. They made it work. If they can make it work, we can make it work too.

    Can we agree that until the day comes that we live in a perfect world where everything is free, we should band together and push for better budgeting? Because that's all you need to do in this country to make people happy. You don't need to dismantle society and do away with everything. There's enough money in this country to make all of this possible. It's just a matter of getting them to do it. And saying you want to live in a communist paradise is not the right approach to get shit changed. All I'm saying is, if you spend money on education and employment, that gets rid of poverty. Lowest income making people is not the same thing as poverty. Scandanavia has proved that.
     
  13. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    well everyone thinks I committed a fucking crime against humanity by saying shit fuck and stupid alot. I'm glad you're not offended by such arbitrary things. I don't care when people say shit to me, I usually laugh it off because they're an idiot. I thought as mature individuals we'd all be passed having our feelings hurt but I guess not...
     
  14. Caps

    CapsExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    393

    0

    6

    Nov 3, 2010
     
    Sludgefuck, I have read through everything – TWICE – and I have to say that I don’t think you’ve been as coherent or as clear as you think. You have certainly put forward a number of statements that are questionable as if they are fact and easily as guilty, if not more so, of ignoring the arguments of other people – dismissing them as stupid or whatever. The important point here is that you clearly have no time for a lot of anarchist principles and nearly all communist principles. Therefore, you totally reject anarcho-communist ideas out of hand, without any real consideration of what they are proposing. It’s not just that you don’t agree but you appear to have not read any literature on it. I’d reiterate the worth of reading Kropotkin, and Marx for that matter, on issues of money. Bakunin and Bookchin too. Also, News from Nowhere (William Morris) and The Dispossessed (Ursula Le Guin) are works of fiction that are definitely worth reading.
    Besides that there is a problem with your approach to this debate. There are people coming from a clear anarchist stand-point and you are not. You said so yourself, you are incorporating anarchist ideals into an alternative system (that is not remotely explained) that includes government and money. These two things are frequently anathema to anarchists. Therefore, I’d argue it’s not that you’re so fucking right and everyone else is so fucking right (edit: everyone else is so fucking wrong). Nor is it vice-versa. It’s that you are coming from two completely different stances and have ended up talking/writing over each other. Snookams’ point is important here, about there being 6 billion realities. Not just you, but people really need to stop being so dismissive and work worthwhile dialogue into these split points regarding conflicting ideological stances. In something as rhetorical and hypothetical as what is being discussed, it is pretty ludicrous to be talking about right and wrongs.

    Now, I do have some actual issues I’d like to address:

    "It's not the idea of money itself that's flawed, it's the emphasis that's put on it (like saying guns kill people)."

    You haven’t really explained this point. How is the emphasis flawed? I take it money and economics should be changed quite heavily. If so, how? As for guns killing people – you can say that guns are a factor in the killing of people, surely? Also, there would be questionable worth in having guns in a peaceful society – in a post-violent society. Similarly, couldn’t it be argued that money would have questionable worth in a post-capitalist (this term is important, money and capitalism are powerfully connected even if they are not the same), non-hierarchical society? In particular, you talk about a post-property society – what is money going to buy? Possessions? Here, is an important point of divergence, if that’s the case (and I can’t imagine what you suggest for money if not for the purchase of possessions): In an anarchist society, anarchists generally believe, people’s desires will be seriously reduced because it would be a post-consumerist society as well. Anyway, it is difficult to discuss this further without you giving a clearer explanation of how you think money should work. Just one further point, you seem to be suggesting that money should be used as some sort of ‘incentive principle’ (‘reward’). This certainly suggests problems with regards to corruption, hoarding and the like – though you clearly seem to think otherwise. Please explain how you think this wouldn’t be the case. Also, I think we should be clear that the original intention of money was as a symbol of exchange and, therefore, not as an incentive principle.

    "Dude, it is totally easier to fight corruption in government than dismantle society and start again from scratch. And it's not just about changing political leaders. It has nothing to do with political leaders, as a matter of fact. It's about changing the people. Because it's not the politicians fault he's in a position of tyrannical power, it's the people's for allowing it to happen."

    This here, to me, seems to hold as much idealism as any anarchist, post-capitalist, communist utopia. Surely, the changes you are suggesting have to be incredibly radical? There is an anarchist maxim – ‘All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Government allows hierarchy, therefore power and, therefore, corruption. Representative government has never been, and is never likely to be, completely open and will always have the scope to be corrupt. Again, your position here is never clearly outlined. The last sentence almost seems like you’re advocating revolution but you say you’re preference is reformism. I have not found a point in your writing that accurately explains how you envision the appropriate form of government, like I haven’t found a clear and concise explanation for the purpose and function of money. I might have missed it and, as you seem tired of repeating yourself, please quote yourself in response to the questions I have out forward.

    Are you gonna tell me everything is going to be free in your idea of anarchism?

    In essence, that would be the idea, yes. As someone has already stated ‘From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs.’ Things generally would be communal, excepting stuff that would be for direct, personal need. Yes, this is utopian and yes, this requires a complete change in the attitude of people. However, we see the seeds of these principles in the altruistic and anti-consumerist mentalities we find in so many people. It’s not like these ideas are plucked entirely from nowhere.

    "On class: Class is something that's cultural. No matter how utopian your society is, class will always exist, the only thing that's going to change is the lines that draw them. If you remove the ability to amass power from wealth then there's no harm in someone making more money than someone else."

    Again, this is something that appears completely alien. Class is merely cultural? It is not economic? I think this needs elaboration too.

    I’ll stop here because this is getting far too lengthy. I think the problem with your position, Sludgefuck, is that you are advocating a particular vision for society. All visions seem perfectly functional to their advocates but the holes are completely apparent for those who do not adhere to it. Hence why it is so simple for you to criticise anarcho-communism. Furthermore, I think your lack of understanding comes from not knowing enough about the arguments around archo-communism that appear so old hat to those already firmly entrenched in the ideology. By contrast, you are arguing a particularly personal interpretation and vision and so, unless you have a clear place to read up on what you are advocating, you need to be elaborate in a clear manner.

    Hope this all makes sense.
     
  15. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    You fucking dipshit "Go to school for free and get any job you want", do you think this strawman is simple? Take a look at everyone that is currently in school, they are not paying out of their pockets it is their parents who are. They are not losing anything as far as I know and yet there are still garbage men, butchers, loggers, construction workers, maids, clowns, and the many "low" work that do not in ANY FUCKING WAY equate to being a DOCTOR or an ENGINEER. You support wage inequality. That being said, you just got yourself into a big fucking gigantic hole you cannot possible get out of. Tell me how the fuck will there not be poverty and social and economical equality when a doctor, engineer, desk worker gets ten-fold the wage of a toiling farmer!? Do you think that just by going to school you will definately become a doctor or an engineer? Fuck no, you will not. How many job positions will there be? What and how the hell will you assure that the hundred thousands of graduates will find work? Oh oh, I'm pretty sure you have some assurance, eh? We do not want any unemployed workmen on the streets without food, shelter, nor any means of support, or is that part of your pathetic ideology?



    You idiot. You clearly embarrass yourself by the minute. You have evidently never been outside either. You have never heard of mafias, corruption, populace ass kissing, and the many formed "groups" revolving around a single rich fellow as seen in villages and particularly near where I live.They would listen to him because JOBS WILL NOT BE ASSURED NOR GUARANTEED and furthermore their jobs will be OF LOW PAY. Even with their low pay they will still need to buy that fancy new car or television, saying that THEY WILL NEED MORE MONEY. Got that? I hope it is not too hard for your vacant brain to comprehend. Education system that teaches them history and how to question things? Are you fucking serious? "Hello kids, today I will teach you how not to listen to anyone but yourself" Are you attempting to breed more "I can do whatever the fuck I want" Anarkids? Damn, and I thought your previous attempt at forming a coherent ideology was lousy.

    Empty fucking gibberish? That exactly describes your brain, the only empty fucking gibberish I see is coming from your pathetic excuse for an ideology. Private property will NOT be MAGICALLY reinstated, it will take years, a possible formation of another society/country/system that will threaten your pathetic Utopian dream. That or the inevitable rise of the bourgeois who have enough to do whatever they want, being that, WHO THE FUCK WILL STOP THEM? The police? Oh wait, they're too "authoritarian" for your like. If there will be police then who will "lead", "order", "organzine" said police? Oh, the community is too authoritarian? Too bad, they'll just hire some officers if you so desire. And there you have it, hierarchy all over. I did not even mention the rise of the bourgeois, which even in a PROPERTLYLESS, STATE-OWNED SOCIETY such as that of the USSR, THE BOURGEOIS APPEARED even if they tried all they can to prevent it. How fucking lovely. Asking how? Go look it up yourself since you seem too ignorant to actually see anything. Private property with the given conditions that you propose and show will be totally INEVITABLE.



    I am reading what you wrote, the problem is that is not even an actual argument. Everyone gets paid based on how much they work, the cost of training, skill level/danger, demand? Oh my fucking god. Might as well reinstate Capitalism while you're at it. All that inequality be it economical AND social and you say that hierarchy will NEVER form? You sir, a fucking idiot. How the hell can you actually calculate "how much they work" and "skill level/danger", should a miner LIVING IN A FUCKING HOLE who works 8 hours a day have his wage based upon the skill level/danger of his job as opposed to a DOCTOR LIVING AND WORKING IN AN OFFICE for 8 hours a day, WHO is to say that the doctor should be paid more? The cost of training you say? I thought education was free and everyone is able to become a man of importance? Demand? Is the demand of coal/lumber/garbage cleaner less important than the demand of a doctor where one can heal hundreds? Pathetic, just look at all those fucking holes. You base your Utopian ideology on money, social and economical equality, and the basing of pay on such things.

    As I said before, as you seem to be a dimwit, EVERYONE, EVERY SINGLE ONE will attempt to reach "the top" (doctor, engineer) but not all will be able due to the following reasons and more: a) Intelligence, do you believe that everyone will top their exams and classes? Fuck no. b) Social intervention, their background, tradition, and the many nuisances from society, and other reasons. Being that, those who are attempting to reach the top of the economical scale will not always succeed and therefore there will be the manual poorly paid laborers. Them being there, they will NOT be able to obtain a high pay and thus LESS MONEY. With less money they will need to perform more grunt work which is already paid poorly and the fucking up of their lives in order to buy food, fridges, a TV, clothing, novelty and luxury items which COST MONEY. They will then resort to any means in order to obtain more of that lovely money with which they can buy such items of luxury and need. They will become toiling workers, while the doctor who sits on his desk all day being paid 60$ a patient who he shrugs off and lazies in the air conditioned office he works in. The trouble of becoming a doctor? ARE YOU FUCKING SANE? Is the "trouble" of becoming a doctor even COMPARED to a MINER or a fucking CONSTRUCTION WORKER? You're pissing the fuck out of me, you're proving to be much more than an idiot. Oh how hard it is to gaily spend my youth years in a University studying and reading and cheating my way through as opposed to growing pale and tired from mining and lifting rocks. This is from the same book of Kropotkin that I linked you before, it is very similar to the this shit you talk about:

    "But we know what to think of this. We know that if engineers, scientists, or doctors are paid ten or a hundred times more than a labourer, and that a weaver earns three times more than an agricultural labourer, and ten times more than a girl in a match factory, it is not by reason of their "cost of production," but by reason of a monopoly of education, or a monopoly of industry. Engineers, scientists, and doctors merely exploit their capital--their diplomas--as middle-class employers exploit a factory, or as nobles used to exploit their titles titles of nobility.

    As to the employer who pays an engineer twenty times more than a labourer, it is simply due to personal interest; if the engineer can economize £4000 a year on the cost of production, the employer pays him £800 And if the employer has a foreman who saves £400 on the work by cleverly sweating workmen, he gladly gives him £80 or £120 a year. He parts with an extra £40 when he expects to gain £400 by it; and this is the essence of the Capitalist system. The same differences obtain among divers manual trades.

    Let them, therefore, not talk to us of "the cost of production" which raises the cost of skilled labour, and tell us that a student who has gaily spent his youth in a university has a right to a wage ten times greater than the son of a miner who has grown pale in a mine since the age of eleven; or that a weaver has a right to a wage three or four times greater than that of an agricultural labourer. The cost of teaching a weaver his work is not four times greater than the cost of teaching a peasant his. The weaver simply benefits by the advantages his industry reaps in Europe, in comparison with countries that have as yet no industries.

    Nobody has ever calculated the cost of production and if a loafer costs far more to society than a worker, it remains to be seen whether a robust day-labourer does not cost more to society than a skilled artisan, when we have taken into account infant-mortality among the poor, the ravages of anæmia, and premature deaths.

    Could they, for example, make us believe that the 1s. 3d. paid to a Paris workwoman, the 3d. paid to an Auvergne peasant girl who grows blind at lace-making, or the 1s. 8d. paid to the peasant represent their "cost of production." We know full well that people work for less, but we also know that they do so exclusively because, thanks to our wonderful organization, they would die of hunger did they not accept these mock wages. "


    Okay out of that pathetic strawman there arises some questions I have. Firstly, WHO or WHAT will pay the workers and also WHO and WHAT will assure that nothing goes wrong and corruption of the "payers" is at bay? Secondly, that holed basis you uphold:

    "Too many doctors, not enough patients? Doctors get paid less. Don't need em. Not enough farmers? Now farmers are the ones who are making more than doctors"

    As you can see lads, this person clearly understands NOTHING and is sounding as bad as a Capitalist. This lad over here has never heard of strikes apparently, nor of riots, nor even of protests. Do you actually believe that you can simply cut the wages of doctors and increase the wages of farmers? :lmao: :lmao: This person is fucking hilarious! I'd love to see you actually do so and quell the ensuing riots and violence and the inevitable destruction of your lovely system in front of your very eyes. This statement of yours does not even demand an actual reply, although I have done so, it is but merely to appease your unsightly desire for such Utopian and kindergarten ways of thinking and theorizing. The doctors, upon being paid less than a farmer will without hesitation go on a strike. Oh wait, WHO is it that will cut their wages? I hope it's not the "authoritarian" majority, but then WHO ARE THEY to decide FOR them, I thought you were against the community ruling over someone or something? And if you are not then please do explain to me how this "theory" of yours will hold out against a wave of striking doctors and even laborers, will they accept or outlaw Unions? Who will put an end to that strike before the economy/system/society collapses (mind you that this is not restricted to doctors) on itself? I dearly do not hope that you will release your hounds on them and force them to work? Or wait, will you send in the strikebreakers? :lmao: You sir are a hilarity to listen to. Oh then, we will simply see doctors turn in to farmers. Oh the irony of it all. Your theory is going down the drain faster than anything I have ever seen. Pathetic attempt really.

    Oh? Daunting isn't it, you just explained the unexplainable. What was the FORM of the Anarchist commune taking? WHY, what are the REASONS money was implemented? Just because they realized that it is necessary? Oh? On what reasons of necessity did they base of it off? What is the size and activity of the Anarchist commune? You need to ask ALL of these questions and more before even trying to HINT at it. I do not understand the basics of ANY of the ideologies you're discussing? Well really sir, it is due to the fact that THEY AREN'T EVEN COHERENT OR APPLICABLE.



    Actually, Vassily's mockery is more logical than all that shit you have spewed over the past few days. Now, where were we? Oh, yes.

    WHATEVER THE FUCK HAPPENED TO
    "Before you reply I simply request that:
    1) You outline your ideology, the basics of it and all.
    2) You reply in FULL, do not even exclude anything.
    3) That you actually read my post.
    4) That you try to refrain from using attacks instead of arguments."

    Did you suffer from severe brain lag? Fucking idiot. Skip part 4, I'm over that now.
     
  16. Caps

    CapsExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    393

    0

    6

    Nov 3, 2010
     
    Random, I think you should consider this, though:

     
  17. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    I know I've read it, won't change anything. If he wants to start shit, I'll join in.
     
  18. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Oh yes, now it's time for act two again (just like the last time, and the time before...):
    Dumbfuck the persecuted minority, a still misunderstood genius hounded by "idiots" ganging up on him... and demanding more than brainless babbling!
    How ridiculous, must be a conspiration:
    Oh yes, exactly just like the last time - but listen dumbfuck: The proper term would have been DISGUSTED - how could anyone be butthurt by a maladjusted wet blanket like you? Talk with an infantil idiot like you?
    Sorry, but I have to keep my digestion healthy...
    Getting a rise out of - YOU? Too bad that it's nothing more than a nauseating sick feeling... especially after fine examples like this:
    and that:
    How fucking ill and repulsively degenerated are you - is there any chance of a limit of your blithering idiocy?
    The stink of your bullshit on the forum is strong enough to make people avoiding AP.net - just to avoid the next sickening example of the retarded weirdo idiot running wild again... again and again abusing the tolerance of everyone involved with your dumb ranting.
    Others like ou818 weren't that lucky - maybe some fine day I'll understand the difference between him and his at least sometimes reasonable points and your braindead uncontrolled jabbering, preying and corrupting youngsters and resulting out of your big obvious personal problem:

    (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
    Antisocial personality disorder
    WHO definition:
    The World Health Organization's ICD-10 defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.
    It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
    1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
    2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
    3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
    4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
    5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
    6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
    7. Persistent irritability.
    The criteria specifically rule out conduct disorders. Dissocial personality disorder criteria differ from those for antisocial and sociopathic personality disorders.
    It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.
    Millon's subtypes:
    Theodore Millon identified five subtypes of antisocial behavior. Any antisocial individual may exhibit none, one or more than one of the following:
    * covetous antisocial - variant of the pure pattern where individuals feel that life has not given them their due.
    * reputation-defending antisocial - including narcissistic features
    * risk-taking antisocial - including histrionic features
    * nomadic antisocial - including schizoid, avoidant features
    * malevolent antisocial - including sadistic, paranoid features.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial ... y_disorder

    5,5 out of 7 from the WHO and 4 out of 5 according to Millon, quite a bull's eye, so I'll leave out the histrionic part, but:
    Fuck off for public health's sake and find yourself a psychiatrist, or better three...
     
  19. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    I think its pathetically ironic that a utopist can't possibly fathom the most basic distribution of wealth to benefit the population.

    There's no one "in a hole here"

    WHAT? This doesn't make any fucking sense. First off it's not a "strawman", just because you don't want to accept it as reality doesn't diminish it's credibility. Secondly just because THEIR PARENTS are paying out of pocket it makes it irrelevant? Uhh, what if THEIR PARENTS don't have any fucking money. How is their kid going to go to school? I don't understand what you're saying here. It must be my shriveled up brain. But I read this as "they are not losing any money yet there are grunt workers WHICH DOES NOT EQUAL DOCTOR OR ENGINEER" Are you trying to say they don't make as much as a doc? Well no shit. Being a doc is harder. You can call it made up names like "wage inequality" but that doesn't change the fact that it's simply people reaping what they have sown. You won't find a much fairer deal than that.

    No sarcasm, this is a good point. You see, in america all of our goods are produced dirt cheap by other countries, not to mention job outsourcing. If we produced everything HERE, locally, it would create an abundance of work outweighing the supply of labor, which would allow for borders to open up in order to supply the necessary work force to make the country self-sufficient. That is why I'm so confident in availability of employment. By far the largest field of labor would be this grunt work, and if everyone is paid a living wage, it reduces the incentive to go out and do more complicated work.

    The only one in a hole here is you buddy....

    I'll remind you the definition of poverty because it seems you have no fucking idea what it is. Poverty is the inability to provide for one's self. People who make the least amount of money are still able to provide for themselves. You think they're SO jealous of the brand new super expensive TV that they are going to turn to crime and tyrants?

    Well you see ol buddy ol pal most graduates actually end up working in the field they studied in. Mind blowing isn't it? Of course there's competition and some can't find work in their field when it's overcrowded, but the boom in the common labor division should even that out. You see the reason why graduates can't find work is because they picked a field that's incredibly overcrowded. This is because of the emphasis put on college in this country. In schools it is taught as the ONLY possible option (not even mentioning trade school) and instills a fear into them that they MUST study to be a doctor or else they will be miserably poor, which we know isn't true (you're probably going to deny that). Therefore, they flock to these oversaturated fields where the supply greatly outweighs the need, hence you have graduates out of work.

    Being able to prove your point while other's can't is embarassing? :lmao: I bet you think being a nerd is "uncool" too. This is totally irrelevant because like I said, with a boom in common labor division (with comfortable pay) it guarantees steady employment. No, they will not NEED TO BUY A FANCY CAR OR NEW TV. YOU'RE the one making up strawmen now. You think people will turn to desperation simply because they lack useless commodity's affordable only when you've been busting your ass working for years? You're more of an idiot than I thought. Yeah it's TOTALLY fucking unheard of middle-class people being satisfied with their comfortable lives.

    Mafias, corruption, and populace-ass kissing (which I assume are politicians and elite corporation CEOs) are only possible in a capitalist society. It's already been established by myself and other gentlemen that money is not the same thing as capitalism. You see dear boy, capitalism is when society is based around money. EVERYTHING comes down to money. It's all about doing whatever you have to do, stepping on whoever you have to, using any dirty trick in the book just to get one over on the schmuck next to you trying to do the same thing. This is not what my system is about at all, but you're so closed minded you can't even see that. Your brain must shutoff when confronted with logic or something. Money is the tool, but the emphasis is placed on COMMUNITY and Education. Capitalism is dog eat dog, my system is "what are you trying to accomplish? We'll help you achieve whatever you want but you must do all the work if it's what you truly want". You have EVEN STILL YET to explain exactly how corruption will take power when everyone is at a comfortable standard of living and there is no property.

    I guess you most be fond of the current education system then. Which is all about CONFORMITY. Well I think I can understand you better now. Makes sense you're so stupid when you don't think improving the education system is a good idea.

    Come on buddy you gotta start READING the things I wrote instead of looking for keywords you disagree with like MONEY and WORK and EDUCATION and the begin typing away without rhyme or reason. Tell me how the expansion of middle class creates inequality. I keep getting accused of being a misanthrope but you're much much more cynical than I ever could be. You assume the absolute worst of people while at the same time believe a utopia is practical, which leads me to believe you're one of those "benevolent dictator' communists. I don't think people are going to hate each other because one makes more than the other. Because that doesn't happen in our country now where there is greater gap between poor and rich than in my proposed system. YOU STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION. Exactly. How. Does. Someone. With. More. Money. Exert. Dominance. With. The. Abolishment. Of. Property. And. Monopolies. I suppose it's still too inconvenient for you, so you're going to ignore it and continue to propose that SOMEONE MAKING MORE MONEY AUTOMATICALLY MAKES THEM HITLER.

    If everyone is at the general consensus that they are happy with the situation, why would there be a formation of another society/country/system? Reform reflects the will of the people. People have no will to reform, no reform happens. You still believe that this is MAGIC. That at any moment, a well structured self-sufficient society will collapse in ruin for absolutely no reason at all, which will allow the rise of the rich to sweep in and enslave the masses. MAGIC.

    Now see, this is where it gets tricky. This is the part where people shut off their brains. They hear the word "government" and "police" and immediately think it's the same thing as the US government and police force.
    See the problem is the force that controls these institutions (corrupt as shit) rather than the IDEA of the institutions. If the government and police are not corrupt, then what's wrong with them? HOW IS POSSIBLE you ask?

    Government. If you need to me to tell you how to keep the government from being corrupt you should just kill yourself. You know how to keep the government from being corrupt, we all do.

    Police. This is very very tricky and I admit I'm very very apprehensive towards the idea of police, but it's undeniable its a force that must exist to a certain extent. Even Norway has a police force. You see I'm calling for a merging of the police force and national guard. They become one in the same. And here's why: In our society, they give any egotistical, racist, stupid, (if you have too high an IQ you aren't allowed be a cop look it up) douchebag looking for a gun to compensate for his small penis a sense of authority and power. This is obviously not good. The biggest problem in the police force is the lack of training and standard. SO, with the nation guard's superior training, discipline, and standard you've already begun weeding out the potential for scum to be in a position of power.

    The second amendment to the police force is the idea of rotation. I read an article about the conditions of prisons VS military prisons and it was established that military prisons (not talking about guantanamo bay here) were better than state prisons because the guards were constantly being rotated. It was never the same people so it prevented the guards from becoming jaded and cynical or being so established in their district that they have more power than has been invested in them by the people. People who WANT to be cops and WANT to be jail guards obviously have some sort of agenda. By combining police and military, you eliminate corrupt incentives. None of the military guards wanted to be there, it was just a momentary duty until they were transferred or discharged or whatever. They were there to do their job and that's it. The sooner and easier it was done with, the better. Secondly, the investigative aspect of the police force is a completely separate entity. THAT is handled by the citizens. Once again prevents corruption.

    The third amendment is emphasis on community. Cops don't have guns and more often than not petty crimes are handled by the neighborhood watch. Training on what to do in case you witness a crime should be taught in school, along with instilling a sense of unity. See the problem in our capitalist society is, like I said, dog eat dog. Children are taught that they need to look out for themselves and not get involved in anyone's business. They expect individuals with power to handle things. But the power doesn't lie in individuals, it lies in the PEOPLE, and this is something that must be apart of our culture.

    Not only that, but the need for a police force would be DRAMATICALLY reduced due to the end of poverty. Most crimes are caused by poverty you know. But Mr. Benevolent Dictator believes that all people are scum and must be crushed into submission.

    Silly commie, miners don't live in holes! They live in houses! They're people too you know. And Doctors don't live in offices, they too, like people, live in houses. I don't think it's fair to make people live where they work (poor garbagemen!) but clearly we disagree. Well you see my good man, we have finally found some common ground. Mining is dangerous, unappreciated work. This type of labor should be prized for it's importance, therefore I think people with difficult, unappealing jobs should be paid more than comfortable work. I think miners should be paid more than doctors. Education is free, but the cost of training affects the wage of the individual. Like I said, always at comfortable standard, so I see no problem. You see, when you join a union trade school, they will train you for free while you're working. It's called "apprenticeship". They start you off with minimum pay (which is like 13$ depending on the trade) and as you progress in training you earn more and more until you've reached maximum wage for that job. Your wage is cut at the beginning to compensate for the training, but after you've worked in that field long enough to pay it off then you are able to earn at your full potential.

    What social intervention? Background? TRADITION? NUISANCES FROM SOCIETY? OTHER REASONS?! What the hell are you talking about. If you're going to throw empty rhetoric at me, you better have a fucking explanation. It seems to me you understand what these words mean and are merely regurgitating keywords from the propaganda you think is "fact". I ask you to explain what you mean by these things.

    What are you basing this on? That's total utter bullshit. You have no statistic nor reference point. Now it's obvious you're getting desperate. You're looking for an argument but you can't find one so you're using all these strawmen to justify your made up bullshit. That's a BIT of a fucking generalization don't you think? 100 fucking percent. That's a bit of a large claim, don't you think Stal- I mean random person. But I guess you CAN make a generalization that big when you can impose your will upon everyone and doing away with "undesirables". I shouldn't have to explain to you why not 100% of people are going to do the same thing. But if you're really that stupid and you ask nicely I'll explain. Otherwise it's a complete waste of mine as I have many many many flaws to point out to you and my time is valuable.

    There's no doubt about it now. You're a facist, plain and simple. PEOPLE NEVER WORK HARD, THEY LIE AND CHEAT THEIR WAY TO THE TOP. FORCE THEM ALL TO WORK THE MINES!!!!!! Yeah becoming a doctor isn't fucking hard at all. Fucking idiot. And I will ONCE AGAIN restate that the absolute most basic foundation of your logic is entirely wrong just by introducing the very simple idea of "a living wage for all". But I guess that's too fucking complicated for you.

    They don't cut the wages of doctors to increase to wage of farmers you idiot. You should learn something about economics. Even in OUR society that doesn't happen. The wealth of taxes should be redistributed according to where it's needed for stimulation. From your OWN argument "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". When everything is COMMUNAL it all evens out.

    That's why you implement STANDARDS to avoid this kind of corruption.

    Literally every single one of your arguments has been a strawman. Every single one. They have no basis nor logical substance and in your own words you continue to disregard my points and refuse to answer my questions.
     
  20. sludgefuck

    sludgefuckExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    225

    0

    4

    Oct 18, 2010
     
    Vassily if you have a bone to pick with me PM then I'll talk. If you can't help yourself from following me around and trolling then why are you here? If I disgust you so much why am I the object of your obsession? I'll fight everything you have to say about me and I can say everything you've said about me to you and we're not going to get anywhere. So if you want to start shit, PM me. You haven't defended a single argument here or anywhere else and you say the same shit over and over so I guess that makes us both pretty fucking predictable doesn't it? Grow up.
     
Loading...