Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
> :Erm, what, Russia is not good enough an example for you?
>
> No, it is definitely not. the USSR (not "Russia" BTW) was no more a
> genuine communist state than the US is a genuine capitalist state.
> :If you agree (and I
> :don't speak for you) that there is no perfect version of capitalism, but the
> :USA is the closest,
>
> Sorry, I do not agree with this statement. It is mere propaganda. See
> above.
So ok, what then is a good version in your eyes of communism and capitalism?
> No. Prefall USSR was an almost perfect example of Fascism.
I'd venture to say that the USA's government is pushing fascism slowly. But
that it is a capitalist system. I'd also venture to say that while Russia
wasn't fully communist, it was the closest any government got to it. But
again, I don't force you to agree.
> :Ok, well, just go and ask the Average Russian(tm) if he gives a rat's ass about
> :some Average American(tm) bitching about how his beer and his pack of
> :cigarettes are too expensive these days, or about any other topic. I'd guess
> :(remember, I don't speak for the Average Russian either) that he'd say "Fuck
> :you" in so many words.
>
> This argument does not address my point. I have just as much of a problem
> with the average Russian not giving a rats ass about my beer and
> cigarettes. I'm fatally flawed in that I believe that a thinking creature
> (and I am convinced that at least *some* humans fall into this category)
> must use this ability to serve *everybody*. That may well be best done
> through serving ones self, but this is not the question under
> consideration here.
I think your argument then is quite moronic. You cannot honestly expect
someone to care about something that does not affect them either way. I don't
expect you to care either way about how much I liked or disliked my breakfast,
or what color my morning shit was. It's irrelevant to your life in the same
way that a Russian would find your beer and cigarettes.
In a word, not everyone will care about the same things. This isn't up for
debate, it's reality. You might or might not like it, but that's irrelevant to
reality.
> :Bottom line - it's human nature to not be interested in what doesn't affect you
> :directly.
>
> I disagree: that is animal nature. If man wants to claim the higher
> ground, s/he will have to play the part.
Whatever. I'm not here to argue your opinions on how humans should be. But
I've stated how we are. You might not like it, but again, reality is. Hope
isn't.
> There is a distinct difference between the concepts of "first hand
> knowledge" and "not giving a rats ass". That you see them as one in the
> same is the root of the problem here.
No I don't. I've had first hand knowledge of something, I can speak for it. I
might have had first hand experiences about something and not given a rat's
ass either. And I might not have had first hand knowledge of something, nor
given a rats ass about it.
You are being quite moronic here. Again, you can disagree if you wish, it's
your right. But unless your arguments begin to approach logic and reality, I
won't retract that opinion.
> :Doubtful. As long as you can make money, what's the difference?
>
> I don't really give a rats ass about the money: don't you *get it*? A LOT
> of us don't care about he friggin money!!! I work because I find it
> fulfilling. The day that stops, I look for new work: money has not *once*
> been the issue. I have taken STEEP pay cuts for jobs I found attractive,
> as well as big increases. The money just doesn't matter to me. What
> difference does it make if you have "enough"? Enough is defined here as
> enough to pay the utilities, medical expenses, and car parts for my aging
> 1986 piece of American S**T (I *love* learning how to fix it's broken
> parts!). Food is noce, etc. Just how much does that *take*? Certainly
> nowhere *near* what I am used to being paid. Would I work for free? Yes.
> I've done it. A lot. Give away the money I haven't used? Yep. That
> too.
And if you asked whether I gave a rats ass, my answer would be no. Look, do
whatever makes you happy. I'm not forcing your hand one way or another. It's
your life, you make your choices. But as soon as you force me to do what YOU
do, it's not freedom.
> I think we are seeing here the actual capitalist (actual == native belief)
> vs the actual communist/socialist/democratrist (I often wonder where I
> should try to pigeonhole myself. Closest to Libertarianism..).
Except for one little thing: you're free to do with your life what you will.
Under a communist regime, that wouldn't be the case. While you may be
perfectly happy working for nothing and giving your money away, I wouldn't.
But again, I wouldn't force you to accept money and keep it, but a communist
state would force me to work for free. I'm not stating that you would force me
to work for free, but as soon as "you" become a government, that would be the
case.
> :If you really
> :truly give a shit, nothing (but money) stops you from opening your own
> :franchise, and rather than managing, you could take orders. :)
>
> That's really a specious [non] "argument" you know.
In what way? It is the truth. If flipping burgers makes you happy, do it. If
you can find anyone willing to hire you to flip burgers, then either take it up
as a hobby, or get your own establishment where you can. It's not a
non-arguement, it's reality.
All I'm stating here is "Do what makes you happy" - and adding that if you
can't get it by working for others, get it by working for yourself. That's
what FREEDOM is about. Do you understand the concept?
> :Yup, but in the end, you need money to live.
>
> Yes, but *how much*? $20,000? $100,000? 200,000? Where does the line of
> necessity intersect the line of waste?
That's up to YOU. That's up to YOUR level of income and life style. I cannot
make that decision for you. Can anyone other than you make it?
You seem to be asking questions that would lead to communism were a person
exist to answer such questions. And indeed that's what communism forces on
you.
It forces an answer, whether you like it or not as to what you will do for the
rest of your life, what your work conditions will be, what your living
conditions will be, and at times whom you will be able to marry/date/fuck.
If that's the kind of life you wish to live, one where all decisions have been
REMOVED from you, then you won't be human anymore. You'll be a slave to the
system. A cog. A drone. But if it makes you happy to live that way, fine
with me. * JUST DON'T ASSUME THAT I'LL GO ALONG WITH SOMEONE ATTEMPTING TO
FORCE THAT ON ME *
This is the concept that gets you guys with commie leanings. You're free to do
as you wish, but you don't have a clue of what to do with yourselves, so you
wish to be a slave and for a master to guide you.
That's fine if that's what makes you happy, but, don't force your yearnings of
slavery on others. Again, I don't give a rats ass what you do with your
life. I'll think it's a pity that you chose to enslave yourself, but it's your
choice.
And mind you, you might not have said this in so many words, but you didn't
have to, that's what I inferred from your messages. If you didn't mean to
infer it, you should have made your messages more clear.
I'm not even looking to make millions here, I'm looking for the pursuit of my
happiness. And having more money isn't going to hurt that. Having far less
money would. So what if there is the danger that I could wind up having more
than I can use?
At that point, you can rest assured, I'll find something to do with it and it
might just be charity. *BUT* It'll be my decision, not the government's, and
not a commie master's.
> This assumes that I can't make a living at the income levels of the art I
> choose to make.
Bullshit, it assumes that you have basic necessities such as drinking clean
water, breathing clean air, and eating good food. What you do with the extra
income is your choice.
> McD employees worldwide are "making it". They may not be
> having an easy time of it, but it's happening. And besides, it's a
> *choice* that *I* chose to make. Art for art's sake, when self-financed
> (whether through MickyD or Macdonald Douglass) should be nobody's business
> except the artists.
That's the whole point - Freedom of choice. You do what you need and want to
do. The pursuit of happiness isn't about being a slave, it's about you being
your own master.
> :You might
> :be very famous, and billions might like your work, but what the fuck, once
> :you're dead, you're dead. :)
>
> Personally, I don't care if *anyone* "likes my work" when the art is done
> as a form of self gratification. You are confusing the art with a
> profession here: it's that capitalist streak again :-)
Sure is, but I don't give a rats ass what you do with that Art, whereas if you
lived in a communist state, you wouldn't have that choice. It would be made
for you.
For all I know, your art rivals that of Picasso and Michaelangelo, but you hide
it in your basement and once done with it you destroy it promptly. Even so,
it's your choice. No one can force you to do anything with it.
But, realistically, unless your basic needs are met - food, etc.: you die.
Even that is your own choice (regardless of what our fascist government says
about the lack of a right to suicide.)
> :> since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to
> :> :> keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency.
> :>
> :> That's the JOB of a corporate entity: it *exists* to make money. The
> :> union is no better. Sam is the same... You need to rely *on yourself*.
> :> If a company isn't offering what you need, *DON'T SETTLE*, look elsewhere.
> :> If everyone did that, the "shitbox job[s]" would come up to the minimum
> :> standard which the worker required.
> :
> :Yup - but 39 hours my ass. I work closer to 60 hours a week. :)
>
> To use your own paradigm, if this is unacceptable, then your market value
> will have to change, or you will have to die a starving artiste' :-)
Indeed. I like working that many hours, or I'd go work elsewhere.
> :If a wage is equal to it's value, then we're back to capitalism.
>
> No, not necessarily. You are taking this statement to indicate
> value==money. I see a broader value set.
>
> : A thing is
> :worth what people are willing to pay for it.
>
> Agreed, but with the stipulation that money is only one of many forms of
> payment.
Look, barter is another form of exchange. A way of saying that I'll give you
50 chickens for your cow, or whatever. Money is an abstraction of this.
Whether your exchange gifts, services or beer, ultimately, you CAN put a value
on something. You might ask, what's X worth to me, and the answer you give is
it's value to you. Quantify that with money or not, but you still measure it's
value.
> : So how else would you evaluate a
> :wage? At that point, how can it be communism, but rather a worker-owned
> :company where each worker owns shares of the company? What's this if not an
> :even more pure grade of capitalism?
>
> The two systems do have a *lot* in common you know. Nothing is quite so
> black and white. Ideally, communism *is* a worker owned "company". It's
> the "pure" capitalist who would barf at this thought.
Not at all. Why would I want to own stock in the company I work for
otherwise? That doesn't make me a communist. It makes me a capitalist. It's
just that I'm one of the owners of the company, and now I have more of an
incentive to do a good job since my income depends on how good my work is. It
also depends on others, so I will bitch if they fuck up.
But the difference is that I do get a slice of the pie back. I don't give up
all my personal belongings to a communal pot. I don't get to eat my dinner at
a communal kitchen. I get back in payment in proportion to what I put into the
system. OTOH, I can't sit on my ass and be a fat cat in luxury. I could in
communism if I were one of the "party."
Under a communist system I wouldn't even be able to own stock in the company.
I'd get thrown in jail for that.
The difference comes down to freedom of choice. At no point am I forced to
work for a company that I would own a piece of. Under communism, I would be
forced to do so - without owning my work, and my job dictated to me from when
I'm 18 until I retire.
> :Except here, it's a car accident, a .45 in the head, or missile attacking your
> :plane. (Vinny Foster, Ronny Brown, etc.) :)
> :
>
> Yes. In an odd way the Soviet system was a little more "honest" about it.
> We don't do *nearly* as much of it, but we are so careful to deny what
> little we do behind double-speak...
Yup, and one of the reasons I'm on this forum is in protest of that kind of
extreme form of censorship. But at least here in the USA there is far more
freedom.
--
---------------------------- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos --------------------
+ ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\
\|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] all government would be opposed to what /\|/\
<--*--> -------------------- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/
/|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/
+ v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ.
---------------------------- http://www.sunder.net -----------------------
I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
