LOL LOOK AT THAT STUPID BITCH STUMBLE ALL OVER HERSELF TRYING TO MAKE HERSELF LOOK BETTER! OWNED.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-05 16:43
Wow, I didn't think anyone would just come out and say it.
Funny how it was a black woman who dropped the ball.
Name:
Libertaryan2008-06-05 18:31
OH MAN, I KNEW IT!!! A YOUTUBE VIDEO TO PROOV MY RETARDED DELUSIONS!! WHAT? DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM? WHO CARES, I'M LIBERTAYAN! ANYTHING WIT STAYT IZ SOOSHALIST! LIEK BUSH, WHO ISN'T A NORMAL SOSHALIST, BUT A LEFT-WING SOOSHALIST!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-05 19:10
>>4
Who the fuck pronounces it "socialist"? I've never heard it said that way in my life. Stfu thx.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-05 19:11
>>5
I am >>5 btw. I meant to say who the fuck pronounces it "sooshalist"?
>>9
When you're crying and howling during the pronunciation, it has such an effect, and libertarians always cry about DEM SOSHALISTS
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 13:10
>>10
No libertarian I've met in person has ever complained about "dem soshalists" - they certainly didn't pronounce things that way, and I attend party meetings. Gtfo faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 16:20
>>5 >>6 >>9 >>11
Protip: If you write less than the troll or use copypasta, you are succeeding in counter-trolling them. I myself have gotten this particular troll to waste countless hours posting the same shit over and over for just a few seconds of posting, it's sad but funny.
But clearly, you are a group who is crying "Bush is socialist". I'm sorry, but the sooner you face facts the sooner you'll come to peace with them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 19:53
>>12
And for you, my retarded friend, for your mind facts and truth might be BAWW TROLLAN, but they are facts. Keep crying in denial, and of course, your "counter-trolling", simply exposes how much you were hurt by the exposure of your retardation.
No amount of repeating the same delusions will change the truth.
Also, it doesn't take much to disprove your retarded delusions, because, as I said, they are so fucking obviously retarded. And, do you think copy-pasting the same stuff was any different than your other "arguments"? Sorry, but all libertarian crying is repeating the same crap, so it didn't really make a difference for me, but nice to see you acknowledging the fact that all your thought is just repeating the same bullshit!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 22:58
>>14
You could have spent all that time you used on that text to make an argument instead, but you didn't and wrote a load of trash instead. I think I've come to a conclusion here...
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 23:04
>>15
Argument to what? All that needed to be said was said, and you couldn't respond, instead you denied and cried, and a reply was posted to help you with your scheme of denial, why cry about that too? You're full of contradictions, my retarded friend, and I'm not even talking about the hilarious LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS/BUSH/ANYONE BUT ME IS SOCIALIST stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 0:26
MARKIT FORSAZ WILL FIX ALL DA STAYT KROOONYIZM AND SOOOSHALIZM! LIBERTARYNIZM PREZERVS FREEDUM!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 0:29
>>17
You couldn't resist, could you, faggot.
You were so close to saying something different but your lack of debate skills overtook you, didn't they?
Get some professional help.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 7:51
>>18
Actually, my reply was >>16, which neither you nor your retarded bretheren could answer, but then you copy-pasted that yourself or another retarded libertarian friend of yours did it in the same instance, and then you cried.
The sad thing is, of course, you retards actually believe that yet keep crying. But you wouldn't believe in magic market forces making everything alright if you could see the irony...
Socialist Workers Party => Socialist
Republicans => NOT SOCIALIST
Cuban Communist Party => Socialist
Democrats => NOT SOCIALIST
But, then again, you could always cry in denial ignoring the facts.
Name:
Libertaryan2008-06-07 9:48
>>23
Silly, facts aren't for libertaryans. ANYONE WHO ISN'T A FREE-MARKET FUNDEMENTALIST IS A SOCIALIST! AND WHAT SOCIALISM IS DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 10:47
>>23,24
LOL
Socialism is a very easy concept to grasp.
Unless you have some secret definition of it that no one else knows about, I think it's safe to say that other people can understand it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 10:49
>>23,34
Even the title of thread is "The True NATURE of the Democrats."
But, I guess that went over your head.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 11:09
>>23
Actually none of them are 100% socialist, so none of them are socialist.
>>25 >>26
If it is very easy, why can't you, my retarded friend? The definitions are very clear and it is clear that democrats aren't doing anything socialist, and crying BUT THEY'RE SECRETLY SOOSHALIISZT THEY'RE HIDING PROOF unfortunately isn't a valid argument. Anyways, back to youtube.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 16:49
>>29
I believe a thread was posted a little while ago that had Congresswoman Maxine Waters saying she wanted to socialize the oil industry.
I guess that's not proof, huh?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 16:58
>>28
I lied in order to procure a statement from you which proves pointing out that a system of government is 1% socialist is not the same as calling it socialist.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 18:04
>>30
Firstly, you're the retard confusing statism with socialism, so you lose from moment zero. Secondly, deeds done, retarded loser. What "socialist thing" have they done" (Of course, when you're a moron denying reality to the degree you are screaming BUSH IS SOCIALIST, then everything should be socialist to a retard of your grade)
>>31
You lied in order to prove yourself retarded once more. Congratulations on your fallacious way of thinking. Statism isn't socialism and won't be no matter how much you want to cry about it. Remember that you are the original retard who made the statement BUSH IZ LEFT-WING SOSHALIST.
was another completely retarded libertarian? Get out.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 5:42
Bush is a moderate right-wing socialist
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 6:28
>>35
You do realise that is another thread, don't you?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 8:56
>>37
You do realize that it's the same retarded faggot, don't you?
>>36
I can't decide on which one sounds more retarded, right-wing socialist or left-wing socialist.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 16:53
>>35
I'm not >>832, but I can see you took what he said out of context.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 19:10
>>36
I lolled
You retard fuck, in no way is Bush socialist, omfg
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 19:31
Not socialist, but an enormous spender. It's all for corporate welfare instead of individual welfare, which makes people happy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-18 4:40
>>40
context >>41
I merely proposed that there is little difference between state capitalism and socialism in a democracy. Both consist of excessive state intervention in the economy done in the name of "the people".
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-19 2:30
>>42
The retarded loser never tires. Still denying reality, eh? Keep up the I'M SO PATHETICALLY RETARDED I THINK STAYT MEANS SOSHALIZM EVEN THOUGH FOR EONS I HAVE BEEN SHOWN PROOF PROVING MY RETARDATION WRONG!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-19 12:01
>43
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-19 18:27
>>42
Context? what context, americas fucked view of politics?
How are state capitalism and socialism the same thing, yes they both involve state intervention, but on hugely differing scales. State capitalism is still exactly that, Capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-19 18:27
>>43
Lurker here.
Do you seriously think this passes as an argument to >>42's reponse to >>41?
Name:
socialistfag!cBA.fxfg1Y2008-06-19 18:35
>>46
It doesn't no. It completely makes his arguments redundant.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-19 21:07
>>46
Welcome to 4chan, which hates Libertarians even more than it hates White nationalists.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-20 0:19
>>46
As a "lurker", you don't realize that the same argument has been visited a million times over and over again, with the retard proclaiming every system which isn't "free"-market fundamentalism as "socialist", making up his own definitions etc.
>>44
Sorry, but you are a retard - that is the only way possible for you to believe in the delusional crap you do, so it in no way is fallacious. Ignoring arguments, of course, isn't something new for you, is it, retarded loser?
But, but, the Dems true nature isn't socialist.....
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-20 15:24
Market foreskins will adjust.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 1:25
>>56
Actually, it isn't, unless you are a retard screaming STAYT MEANZ SOSHALISM!! I DUN'T UNDERSTAND DEFINITIONS SO I IGNORE THEM AND MAKE UP MY OWN!!! BUSH IS LEFT-WING SOSHALIST!!. If you are such a retard, then I'm afraid there is no cure.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 3:33
>>60
So you believe nationalising major industries has nothing to do with socialism and socialism has not earned a reputation for doing such things in any way.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 3:59
>>61
Jack likes apples, Jill likes apples, so Jack is Jill.
Keep up the fallacious denial, retarded loser.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 5:56
>>62
The murderer has fingerprint A, Jack has fingerprint A, but it is a logical fallacy to assume Jack is the murderer. I see.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 7:37
>>63
How many fucking times do you have to be told the definitions, you pathetically retarded loser? The example was there to show a similarity didn't make them equal because they were fundamentally different from the very basis, but as a moron you again failed to understand this extremely simple explanation. Keep crying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 8:44
>>64
Please state the definition of socialism that you go by, so we can all be on the same page.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 10:04
>>65
I'm pretty sure it isn't STAAAYT KROOONIYIZIM INEFFISHUNT BUSH IS SOSHALIST!!!!
Nationalising industries is not necessarily indicative of socialism, but since socialism is literally communal ownership of the means of production, well actually nationalising industries is socialism if by "communal" you mean democratically elected state.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 8:42
>>71
Socialism can exist without statism, and statism can exist without socialism, therefore counting any form of etatist act as "socialist" is simply ignorant.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 9:20
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston Churchill
Socialism is fail.
Name:
Libertaryan2008-06-22 9:30
>>73
Oh man, that proves everyone is soshalist and soshalizm is rong!!! thanks a lot!!!!!
>>75
Indeed, the average retarded libertarian thought is so obviously fail, as exposed by their repeated retardation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 14:05
Oh yes, America should go full capitalism. I would just love ride the Microsoft Bus™ on the Monsanto Express Way™ to the Sony Public Library™. Afterwards we can go for a walk in Walmart Park™. Mastercard University™ sounds like a great place to get a degree and we get excellent health care at the Ford Motors Hospital™.
Capitalism is great ... if you're one of the Capitalists ... if you want what the Capitalists are willing to make, distribute and sell. Otherwise, Capitalism sucks assballs and in this declining age of the Holy American Empire, the bulk of the native population is going to learn EXACTLY what that means.
Keep worshiping that "free market", you fucking Fundies. Worship the thing that's now killing you.
>>80
Oh, everything that's wrong is because of dem corrupt central bank - and everything is fine in the rest of the world, right? Right??
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-23 17:15
If capitalism is so bad, why does America rule the earth?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-23 17:57
>>78
Anyone can become a capitalist by obtaining the necessary skills fuckwit. Before I moved to the US I used to work at a building supplies warehouse in India as a labourer, I made about 1/5th of the US minimum wage but I saved enough money to use as collateral for a loan which I used to do a course in stock control. As a low-level clerk I began by earning about the same as the US minimum wage paying off my loan in just a few months, I was promoted a year later earning approximately $9000 a year in today's money which was enough for me to save for a course in accountancy and prepare to move to America. This was over the course of 6 years mind you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-24 4:06
>>83
If by skill, you mean capital, yes. Also look at the poor retarded immigrant thinking he's a capitalist by making $9000. The beauty of capitalism is the retarded drones thinking they are on the "winning side" by having a trinket more than the other retards, while the reality is they both are on the receiving end.
You idiot, the beauty of capitalism is that it provides incentive for self-improvement. If >>83 was given free money from the government then why would be bother to educate himself?
>>82 You idiot, for one thing, America is not capitalist, not true capitalist anyway. For another thing, America is dominating primarily because they won (by staying out of it for the most part) WW2.
>>81 You're being reductive. Nobody says central banks cause all the world's problems, but they do cause a lot. The main problem with central banks is hidden taxation in the form of inflation. On top of that there's the creation of the business cycle. Why do you think oil prices are so high right now? It's because of all the cash that the US Federal Reserve is pumping out. The housing bubble popped so the cash can't go there, instead it's inflating the oil price.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-24 13:56
>>85
Ahh, capitalism is free market fundementalism and everyone is secretly soshalist, riiight. Also lol@BEAUTY OF CAPITALISM IS INSENTIV!!!! I'm sure it's better to be born a poor-ass retard who thinks he's one of the bourgeoisie by making a few trinkets than being born fuckrich, fucking retards.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 1:28
>>72
Socialism is to statism what a builder is to a hammer. A builder is not a hammer, but he has to use it a lot. >>84
After I moved to America I worked as a salaried accountant for several companies before setting up my own consultancy. My income growth rate has been approximately 50% a year since I started hauling bricks around on pallets for a living. >>85
gb2 50 years ago, ww2 is ancient history, yes things would be a lot different if the axis won ww2 but things would be a lot different if Ugrog decided to scratch his right ass cheek instead of his left ass cheek 50000 years ago. Also the federal reserve is not printing more cash, it has opened the flood gates selling securities and purchasing CDs (M3 and M2 types, credit, loans, assets), this means there is more money in circulation. >>86 >>85 never even said "socialism".
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 1:30
elling securities to sell CDs (M3 and M2 types, credit, loans, assets)
._.'
i am shame
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 1:46
>>86 If you were born rich you wouldn't value being rich as much as a person who was born poor and earned their wealth. There's more to life than money. A person with a higher bank balance isn't going to be happier. It's not better or worse to be rich, it's just different. You're obviously not putting much thought into your posts, but there's nothing wrong with their being poor people and rich people. Forcing everyone to have an equal income would cause many many problems. Yes under capitalism some people may have money without earning it, but that's usually because someone who DID earn the money decided to give it away, eg through inheritance. And if you live in a capitalist society and you don't have money, you can always earn the money, or ask people who have money if they'd like to invest in your business.
>>87
Yes, that's right about the Reserve, I meant printing more money in a figurative sense, ie adding to the amount of money in circulation.
WW2 may be ancient history now, but right now the USA is losing its economic status. After WW2, europe was fucked, but the USA was more or less untouched. On top of that, bretton woods was brought in which favoured the USA. It wasn't until the 70s when the USA were forced off bretton woods that things started going against the US. But the USA had so much accumulated wealth, and Europe was still in the shit, so its taken until now that Europe is eclipsing the USA.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 3:49
More retarded libertaryan denial of reality. I wonder what drives them to run away from facts so vehemently. Also lol@the retards thinking in capitalism working is rewarded, even though simply by owning the means of production and doing absolutely no work you can reap all the profits - but I guess that's how the retarded poor immigrant can sleep at night, glorifying his life of servitude, fueled by his ignorance.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 7:22
>>90 owning the means of production is just marxist bullshit. Say you own a factory, great -- your factory produces products and people buy them. What happens if people don't want to buy your products any more? Suddenly your factory is worthless, your capital has evaporated, all you own is worthless machinery.
Under capitalism, any capital (private property) must be continually maintained and updated, otherwise it loses its value. It's in soviet russia that you see tractors rusting in the tundra. In order to finance the maintainence of capital, it must be put to good and profitable use. To have enough cash to update your machines you need to make sure that you are producing products people want. Anyone with capital is under constant pressure from consumers to appeal to their tastes, otherwise the hard-earned money that went into the capital will evaporate.
You've got no independent thought, you're just parroting antiquated marxist rubbish.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 10:00
>>91
The sad thing is, of course, the retard doesn't realize what he's parroting in denial of reality - to the degree that the retard now denies the importance of capital and means of production as "marxist bullshit". As a retard you are failing to realize that you are suggesting capitalism is better because slaves have incentive to work harder because their masters will give them more trinkets, and the masters do so under pressure of DA MARKET - but the thing is, my dear retarded loser - the boss of a company isn't the company. He doesn't just own the factory and does the updating, marketing etc. himself - there are drones for that too - no work, money in pockets. Enjoy parroting retarded libertaryan delusions again and again.
Though I don't understand why exactly you are crying, because I believe in your retarded logic bush etc. is socialist too, so since everything is socialist, your crying is redundant.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 11:22
>>92
Here's where you're wrong: If people want trinkets, then let them go out and earn money and buy trinkets. But who wants trinkets? Do you want trinkets? There are many things that motivate people in this world, I don't believe trinkets are that high on the list. Maybe someone is working so he can afford to buy a house for his family, or to pay for an overseas trip, or to start up his own business, or to go back to school.
Capitalism gives anybody the opportunity to earn money to pay for the things that they want. I don't think people are about to start paying for things they don't want. Maybe if they were fucked in the head like you are they would, but typically if someone is working hard for their money they will spend it on things that are important to them, things that they value.
If there's nothing you value in life, you simply want food and shelter, build a shack in the middle of nowhere and grow your own vegetables. That's perfectly accetable. Of course someone may come along and buy your land if they think they can put it to better use, but you can use the money to buy some new land, still further away from civilisation, and plant a new vegie patch.
Now, as you say, a business owner might own a business but leave all the work, including management and decision making, to other people, so that he is a beneficiary with no input into the business. Those circumstances do exist, but I don't see any real problem here. The managers are still at the mercy of market pressure. It is likely that this person's business would go bad though, because what would happen if the managers were doing a bad job? Someone would have to fire them. Another possibility would be for another business to buy him out because they believed they could make more money out of the business by running it differently. But the main thing is that, the existance of silent beneficiaries, who do no work of their own, doesn't make capitalism good or bad. In any rate he, or someone else, would have had to have earned the money legitimately in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 12:54
>>93
Of course you don't see the problem there, you are an ignorant retard who is fabricating imaginary worlds where capitalism provides equal opportunity and are trying too hard to cry about it, to the degree you deemed every money ever earned to be have done legitimately, which I can't possibly decide on which part of me should I prefer to laugh with.
So, you not only fail in theoretics (because, as mentioned, you are an uneducated retard, but you even fail in "storytelling" arguments. Very sad, indeed, dear retarded libertaryan... All these lengths he goes to, just to deny reality and attempt to hide his ignorance...
>>97
Yes, they hate Libertarians since Libertarians actually have well-founded reasons for advocating the social structure of government they envision. You can't just discredit a Libertarian by saying he's a racist or an anti-Semite. In order to discredit a Libertarian, you'd have to first address the issue of Libertarianism itself; and you can't successfully complete the second step of discrediting it, since Libertarianism is infallible.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 4:55
>>97
Butthurt libertaryan is obvious, and still equating everything that doesn't fit in his retarded worldview as "liberal" (which, is apparently completely interchangable with "socialist", "communist", "marxists" and with a nice twist "George W. Bush").
Anyways, next time ask yourself why these somehow "self-hating" people "hate" you (because, clearly, you and them aren't in the same set if that is what you are implying). If a moron is repeating the same disproved and extremely delusional bullshit over and over again, he's bound to get negative press and his intelligence is going to be questioned - sorry, you can't run away from this like that.
>>99
Apparently everything else being secretly socialist (which means evil if you don't know already) is a "well-founded reason". Rriiight...
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 9:03
>>100
Wow. I was the guy who said "bush is a socialist" as a joke months ago, seems like it really hit you hard and you've been crying all this time.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 9:34
>>101
Sorry, unfortunately the retarded libertaryan who cried "BUSH IS SOSHALIST" was very serious about it - to the degree he tried to defend it against all forms of reason and reality for a very long time. So, this attempt to run away from ownage is unfortunately unsuccessful. You'll just have to keep crying.
Name:
Comrade Politik2008-07-07 22:11
Government run major industries is the most efficient, effective and logical way to run a nation. This way regulation, control and all knowledge pertaining to the production of the product/resource is available.
In a capitalist system in our modern world, major industires such as oil, electricity, water, transportation, etc. Should not be in the hands of private owners, this leads to corruption and general mismanagement, because without the watchful eyes of commitees and boards, people don't run businesses as they should.
Sooner or later even the United Stations will discover that they're going to have to go down that path, and once that happens you'll find your gas prices, even in for the absurd measurement of 'gallons' will drop drasticly as control over the market and production takes hold.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 3:22
>>103
oh yes, we'd all love to have an entity that can barely deliver the mail in a timely manner in charge of everything important.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 8:29
>>103
"without the watchful eyes of commitees and boards, people don't run businesses as they should"
So people who've invested millions into a business do so without setting up a board to monitor the business and make sure they are using their investments correctly. I see.
Name:
Comrade Politik2008-07-08 9:08
>>104
There is entirely different aspect to that; private industries is like going to pick some vegetables but not being sure of they're good, or if they're actually the vegatables you're looking for. With a government one, you know where they are, what they are and how they are.
Also, it takes time for mail to travel, not because of an ineffective, but because it must use public lines of transit which are obviously going to be shared with the citizens and other aspects of the government.
>>105
As we can all see in the many corporate scandels and breakdowns, they don't work when the company isn't public, private workings just aren't made to be transparent and responsiblity to the people they work for. Having the bottom line being greed instead of a want to help people is the ruination of most corporations and private businesses.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 21:01
>>106
So if people would just never be greedy and never commit crime your idea would work. Well let's wait till then before putting your theories into practice.
Name:
Comrade Politik2008-07-08 21:12
>>107
I was refering to my point that such issues in practise would work for major industries, because overall people want them to work. - No one wants to pay too much for gas, no one wants to see corruption in the gasoline industry.
Therefore it would be smart, and it would work. I am not asking people not to be greedy (though I am asking for them not to be criminals ;) ), what I am asking is that industries important to the very function of a nation be controlled by a public system that is transparent. Because if it is transparent, it cannot be readily and easily abused.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-09 19:50
>>108
ok um.. can you say exactly what your policies are...
In post 106 first you say you don't like private businesses because they don't work when the company isn't "public". Then you point out their bottom line is greed (the objective of obtaining profit for shareholders?) and this increases the likelyhood of corruption.
Now you say you just want them to be "transparent" and that greed is ok. However private businesses are already regulated, if they are suspected of crime they have to show the FBI their records, so I don't see how this is any different from what we have now. Are you saying all the records should be monitored by the government or displayed to the public because it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
It'd take a lot more space and time then I have available here to outline my views on most politices, but I will attempt to clarify.
Greed is human nature, I accept that and see that it can be put to use for the betterment of everyone. Greed is wanting to improve, it isn't just the want of more money, its to do something to get a reward.
With a private establishment, its for profit, money - Oh there may be some environment or some morals in it to make the people running it feel a bit better about themselves, but the bottom line is that they're looking for money to spread around in their pockets.
A public company is providing a service for the public, by the public, through the public. Since it is run by the government, there is no profit, its only the service therefore the greed will be different - It will not be for money, but to do good. We do not need to remove greed, just change what its final goal is, instead of money, recognition, and a better quality of service.
Also, private businesses to their very foundation is corrupt since they're trying to pad the pockets of people first, second is to provide whatever service they're offering. This isn't what should happen, there should be no padding, only a service. And as for monitoring - FBI find the records only after the corruption may have begun. If it was public, it would be constantly monitored and would be discovered as it started.
Now, I am going to sleep! :) If any of this doesn't make sense (and it most likely does not), point out the aspects that don't and I'll explain better later on today (Its late, dammit!)
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-11 17:18
>>103 >>106 >>110
you didn't read marx at all
not even the wikipedia entries
weak
Ha, you'd be incorrect. I happen to own the Communist Manifesto, Maos Little Red Book and a number of other Leftist materials.
However, one must realize that we live in a world that has changed since Marx time, and while I do believe that Marx's ideals are correct, even today - We must progress towards his goals one step at a time, it is much easier to slowly change then to change overnight.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-12 13:57
>>112
the communist manifesto doesn't contain marx' thesis as it was written only as propaganda for the german revolution, dumbass
all your posts show that you're completely ignorant of his dialectical method and the theory of value
"greed is human nature"
ahahahahaha
try again, faggot
So you want to achieve this
>A public company is providing a service for the public, by the public, through the public.
to achieve this
>remove greed... change what its final goal is, instead of money, recognition, and a better quality of service.
So presumably you want to replace shareholders and the board of directors and CEO with the bureaucracy of a representative government. That's nationalisation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but you're not being specific... History has shown that nationalisation is only better where the service would end up as a monopoly under the private sector.
"If it was public, it would be constantly monitored and would be discovered as it started."
Who? Everyone? It will all be monitored all the time? Every e-mail has to be made public? Every audit?
>>112
"Marx's ideals are correct"
If we ever create a super duper happy utopia like in star trek we'll be dead. We need the state and property law at the moment because as evil as a monopoly over violence can be it's always more desirable than a patchwork of warlords and as little property some people can find themselves with it's better than the use of that home being at the mercy of whoever decides what is best for "the community".
>>113
I was just stating some of the more well known Communist material, I have read and own a lot more than that. Though, I will admit that I have my own take on it, since I am not Marx and I don't want to be him. Therefore I will not have his exact nature, or values.
>>115
Yes, as I stated some time ago (This has been going on for some now time, hasn't it - Golly!). Major industries should be nationalized to create a more efficient and open, fair and just way of spreading out the products/services.
As for the bureaucracy, - Yes and no. It would be part of it, it should direct and run the outcome of the product, manage it - However the lower management would stay with the professionals, though monitored. I am not dumb, I know that professionals are professionals for a reason. And as for the monopoly, anything and everything can be a monopoly if it is allowed.
If its in a public business, and business, then would not everything be monitored, why would one mind if their emails, if their audits are public? Private businesses already look at ones communications and they're much less trustworthy and than a government.
As for your belief that the only way for a Utopia is if we're dead, I believe thats incorrect, very few of us truly want violence, and if the if the implements for that violence are removed, even fewer will go out of their way, and those could be easily controlled.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-13 16:20
>>116
you're a failure at philosophy
kill yourself to save your family from more embarrassment