Latest users (3): enlightednatzie, excaliburr, whoozy, anonymous(18).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#29004 - IronWill (05/11/2013) [-]
Saw this on facebook. What do you think of this?
User avatar #29117 to #29004 - cleverguy ONLINE (05/13/2013) [-]
sales tax in california went up
User avatar #29051 to #29004 - oxan (05/12/2013) [-]
>I don't really care where Obama was born. It's just Republican butthurt.
>I don't know, and little do I care.
>It's a step towards disarmament. I don't like it. Not at all.
>I don't know, I'm not American, I don't know what your tax rates are.
>I think I've heard this, but I don't know for a fact.
>Probably. Doesn't matter, the Soviets still won the space race.
>I love this conspiracy theory. I doubt it's credible, but it's interesting nonetheless.
>I'm sorry? What's this?
>Indeed they are not. But there shouldn't be a private insurance industry or financial services sector anyway.
User avatar #29525 to #29051 - arisaka (05/18/2013) [-]
Reply limit reached on the other thing.

If the NEP was introduced to build socialism later then it was no longer a workers state.

But we all really know it never was. Workers councils that hold no real power? C'mon, man.
User avatar #29526 to #29525 - oxan (05/18/2013) [-]
The young workers' state was the vanguard against capitalism, with all its flaws. As such, it was worth protecting, and therefore appropriate measures were justified, especially considering Lenin was preparing to remove the measures dictated necessary by war.
User avatar #29527 to #29526 - arisaka (05/18/2013) [-]
Sorry. That's weaponized ideology and it's been demonized by Marx. It's a tool.
#29017 to #29004 - teoberry (05/11/2013) [-]
She looks like a guy
User avatar #29016 to #29004 - pebar (05/11/2013) [-]
>foolish regulations on things that do not significantly affect climate change is a huge drain on the economy
>Benghazi was a scandal; they knew the truth but decided not to tell it so Obama could win his second term
>I do not currently own an AR-15 but I plan on buying one in the future. People are trying to ban transfers of AR-15s. Therefore they're trying to take away my AR-15.
>taxes are around 50% including state and local taxes which means the public is funding a wasteful government instead of investing in things that could better benefit the economy
>the deficit is not dropping; government spending is still out of control
>if one person's hard-earned money pays for something for someone else, that is communism

This woman is a fucktard
User avatar #29021 to #29016 - Ruspanic (05/11/2013) [-]
All other things aside, your last bullet point describes all taxes (it also describes gifts, which I'm sure you didn't intend). Taxes most certainly are not communism and do not have anything do with communism. Just ask any of the Communists on this board.
User avatar #29023 to #29021 - pebar (05/11/2013) [-]
Governments are made by the people for the benefit of all society. Things like security, food quality regulation, trade oversight, and roads are all public goods that every gets to use. It's a community working together as a whole for the greater good. Government is by its nature communistic.

gifts are entirely voluntary so they don't count
#29050 to #29023 - oxan (05/12/2013) [-]
>Government is by its nature communistic

Shit nigger. Communism is a stateless society. I think the word you're looking for is 'socialistic' but even that is wrong. Socialism is a different mode of production to capitalism.

I would agree that a government's role should be to protect its people from external threats, internal threats, AND from hunger and cold, etc, but that's not socialist. Socialism, as I said, is a mode of production. Current governments, however, don't fulfill that role. Governments of liberal democracies are nothing more than an extension of bourgeoisie power.
#29079 to #29050 - pebar (05/12/2013) [-]
If communism is supposed to be stateless then it is just a naive fantasy version of anarchy that ignores man's selfish disposition.
Governments form when a community gets together and pools their resources to protect the welfare of the community as a whole. It is not forced equality like socialism. That is what a true government is; how is that not communistic?

Governments today have grown beyond the power they were given by the community and have become corrupt because they are made up of selfish people who act for selfish reasons.

pic related: when I get to dine alone
User avatar #29104 to #29079 - oxan (05/12/2013) [-]
Socialism isn't about forced equality. Nor is communism.

'To each according to his contribution' is clear. 'To each according to his needs' is often misunderstood, but simply: no one's ability is equal, why are their needs and wants?

Anarchists don't understand that state power has to be seized before communism can be achieved. That's the difference between us and them.

Finally: socialism and communism are not about redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is a temporary fix for the capitalist system. We believe that communism and socialism will remove the need for redistribution.
User avatar #29198 to #29104 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]
Also, "to each according to his contribution" is pre-marxian at best. It's a joke.

It was recuperated by Lenin later on to justify his Bolshevik ideology.
User avatar #29197 to #29104 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]
The difference between Anarchists and Communists is not actually about who-takes-the-state-and-does-what. tr00 communists will abolish the state in favour of workers communes in a localized fashion.

The difference is their framework of analysis; anarchists will generally argue from an ethical standpoint where Marxists analysis consists of dialectics. Marxists and Anarchists have a lot more in common than tr00 marxists and Leninists. The only REAL reason people think there is this huge rift between Anarchism and Marxism is because of a feud between Bakunin (who is a drip) and Marx. Bakunin was advocated that people will receive goods in accordance to the difficulty of their labour, and Marx argued that this perpetuates the wage system and therefore is counter revolutionary (for lack of a better work, I'm fucking sleepy).

It's also worth mentioning that the whole 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was mentioned by Marx very few times in his work. And it isn't even in roman connotation of the word, anyways. So when communists talk about seizing the state, I laugh, because all that does is perpetuate a revolution that is more similar to the age of enlightenment than anything else (middle class employs the lower class to kill off the upper class, and the middle class becomes the new upper class, and the lower classes stay low).
User avatar #29210 to #29197 - oxan (05/15/2013) [-]
It's sectarian nonsense. As is arguing about Lenin.

The fact is that the state is necessary to be seized, and the dictatorship of the proletariat to replace that of the bourgeoisie. In what form the dictatorship of the proletariat takes is irrelevant, really, in what we're discussing. The point is you can't simply have achieved the world revolution, and immediately abolish the state and enter communism.

But again, this is sectarian nonsense.
User avatar #29239 to #29210 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]
And one thing I find extra hilarious is how the greatest spontaneous self-organization of workers was crushed by the soviet union. They pop up everywhere every now and then, which is the right way to go. Occupy factories, towns, points of trade and commerce. Bring the economy down.

Arm yourselves when tanks show up. You think a Vanguard can do any of that? A vanguard is tyranny. In revolution, create the type of society you want to live in while you are fighting. Military discipline will only breed boring, robotic wage slaves.
User avatar #29279 to #29239 - oxan (05/16/2013) [-]
"While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake."

Like I said in the other post, I feel you're criticising Stalin more so than Lenin.

As for vanguardism, I've been looking more into Rosa Luxemburg's writings, so I'd prefer not to comment just yet.
User avatar #29308 to #29279 - arisaka (05/16/2013) [-]
Rosa Luxemburg is good but I find she's TOO spontaneous.

Still better than Lenin. Or all the Soviet pigs.
User avatar #29237 to #29210 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]
That's kind of a cop-out, man.

Bolshevism doesn't work. It reproduces the capitalist mode of production and gets caught in a vicious circle.

Sure, the state must be 'seized' but it is also radically transformed. It is not the same state that existed before hand. You reorganize it into a democratized, decentralized collective.

And, like I said, the dictatorship is a minor part of Marx's work and there is only attention to it because of the Soviets, which does NOT give it any merit whatsoever. Everything that happened to the soviet union is exactly why their methodology & socialism in one country and completely and utterly useless.
User avatar #29278 to #29237 - oxan (05/16/2013) [-]
These are more criticisms to be directed towards Stalin, not Lenin.

Indeed, Lenin spoke of the alien nature of the state apparatus the Bolsheviks merely took over:

"Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?

There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."

As he said, the government was busy with military engagements, and the economic repercussions of said engagements. Saying that, there were indications that Lenin was preparing to ease up on the authoritarian measures dictated necessary by counterrevolutionaries.

Further is the claim that Bolshevism doesn't work. I feel that's a little bit of a cop-out. Lenin, believing that socialism in one country doesn't work, introduced the NEP (partly because war communism wasn't intended to last forever, and Russia wasn't industrialised and therefore hadn't achieved mature capitalism, etc) due to the failure of socialist revolution in Germany and other states. And since socialism in one country was something Stalin originally thought of as rubbish, it's difficult to say that socialism in one country really was Bolshevism.
User avatar #29307 to #29278 - arisaka (05/16/2013) [-]
NEC = state capitalism, which is precisely why Bolshevism is quite silly. It is the complete negation of economic determinism.

Bolshevism is inherently authoritarian. Democratic centralism is a joke.

The party took what happened in 1905 and ruined it. They were opportunists, which Lenin sharply critiqued. Kind of funny how he contradicts himself.
User avatar #29359 to #29307 - oxan (05/17/2013) [-]
NEP is more or less state capitalism, but what of it? Lenin said quite openly state-capitalism.
User avatar #29419 to #29359 - arisaka (05/17/2013) [-]
State capitalism needs to be overthrown.

The thing is both the bureaucracy and the capitalists of the 'west' used spectacular means to perpetuate their ideologies. Both were just different manifests of capitalism which needed to be destroyed. Lenin's ideology was a warped adaptation of Marxism which betrayed several key concepts.
User avatar #29454 to #29419 - oxan (05/18/2013) [-]
The alternative of the NEP was return to the provisional republic, or go ahead with socialism in one country. I doubt you'll agree with either.

So the NEP was really the only viable option if the young workers' state were to continue its existence.
User avatar #29455 to #29454 - arisaka (05/18/2013) [-]
It wasn't a workers state though

It was an oligarchy
User avatar #29460 to #29455 - oxan (05/18/2013) [-]
Nonsense, arisaka. Indeed, there were measures taken that weren't desirable, but they were necessary, considering war and foreign intervention. But it was far as oligarchy, and was definitely a young workers' state, albeit with a bureaucratic twist, which Lenin highlighted to avoid anything stupid being done (like disbanding trade unions as Trotsky wanted).
User avatar #29520 to #29460 - arisaka (05/18/2013) [-]

Lenin violated the sanctity of democratic workers councils

thats fucked up

he was a butthurt little turdmonkey who may have been an okay dialectical materialist, but that's where his legacy ends.
User avatar #29521 to #29520 - oxan (05/18/2013) [-]
Taking necessary measures, or allowing the Whites to win, and return to Tsarism.
User avatar #29523 to #29521 - arisaka (05/18/2013) [-]
That's a red herring. There were many other ways things could have worked out.

And it was obvious Russia wasn't ready for socialism but that prick went through with it anyways, with his warped idealism. There's a little something called 'economic determinism'. He violated basic Marxist theory.

You know why he needed a vanguard party? Because the proletariat hadn't been developed enough. (also he thought they were stupid. fuck him).
You know why the proletariat wasn't developed? Because most of the population were still peasants.
You know why most of the population were part of the peasant class? Because there weren't many factories.
You know why there weren't many factories? Because capitalism hadn't centralized people into urban environments in mass numbers yet.

Lenin was basically one of those kids who makes up all these stupid house rules when you play Sorry (best canadian game).
User avatar #29524 to #29523 - oxan (05/18/2013) [-]
Lenin recognised that socialism could not be built in Russia under the conditions it was in. That's why the NEP was introduced - to enable socialism to be built later on.
User avatar #29199 to #29197 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]

fuck my life I need sleep.
User avatar #29108 to #29104 - pebar (05/12/2013) [-]
"To each according to their contribution."

................. that's capitalism
User avatar #29111 to #29108 - oxan (05/13/2013) [-]
A hedge fund manager doesn't contribute to society the same amount as thousands of doctors do.
User avatar #29112 to #29111 - pebar (05/13/2013) [-]
And how would you measure such contribution?
There is obviously a demand for these managers, more so than for doctors.
User avatar #29113 to #29112 - oxan (05/13/2013) [-]
The managers aren't necessary for a society to function. Doctors are necessary.
User avatar #29114 to #29113 - pebar (05/13/2013) [-]
Coca-Cola isn't necessary for society to function either but people still want it therefore it exists.
Wise investing funds the growth of new firms that offer goods or services that people want. By helping these firms grow, people's wants are satisfied (more or less) and more jobs are created. These people do contribute to the economy; there are just not very many of them so they get paid quite a bit. Much like professional athletes, they don't directly contribute to the economy but by doing what they do, the help HDTV firms, boneless chicken wing producers, chicken farmers, chip producers, clothing producers, etc all grow when they have millions of people willing to spend money.
User avatar #29211 to #29114 - oxan (05/15/2013) [-]
I forgot to respond, but Arisaka brought me back here.

Anon is right. Managers aren't necessary for companies like Coca-Cola to function. Simply put, the workers can manage their own affairs. It's just a different form of organisation.
#29123 to #29114 - anon (05/13/2013) [-]
Managers aren't necessary for companies such as Coca-Cola to function aswell under the socialist mode of production.
User avatar #29138 to #29123 - pebar (05/14/2013) [-]
yes they are
User avatar #29024 to #29023 - Ruspanic (05/11/2013) [-]
"Communism" generally refers to a system in which all property, or all means of production, is owned collectively by society rather than privately by individuals. Or it's the ideology that supports such a system. That's what Maddow meant, and that's typically what opponents of certain liberal policies are referring to.

You evidently meant it in a different sense.
#29012 to #29004 - byposted (05/11/2013) [-]
>Benghazi isn't a scandal
>Taxes haven't gone up
>Deficit is actually dropping
>Moderate reforms
>Nobody is taking away anyone's guns

>moon landing was real
User avatar #29009 to #29004 - valeriya (05/11/2013) [-]
I don't get it, it seems like the musings of a goat on acid, geared towards people who fear big government, I don't even know what I'm meant to infer from this.
 Friends (0)