Click to expand
Rank #821 on ContentLevel 240 Comments: Doinitrite
OfflineSend mail to Orangepeel Block Orangepeel Invite Orangepeel to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||10/23/2010|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#752|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#1080|
|Content Thumbs:||14301 total, 16307 , 2006|
|Comment Thumbs:||4105 total, 5270 , 1165|
|Content Level Progress:|| 23.4% (234/1000) |
Level 213 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Content: Comedic Genius
|Comment Level Progress:|| 68.99% (69/100) |
Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite
|Times Content Favorited:||879 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1052|
latest user's comments
|#3872 - The KKK was a racist and violent organization that leaned stau… [+] (1 new reply)||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+3|
#3881 - repostsrepost (07/11/2012) [-]
The KKK was founded by the Democratic Party. FDR's first appointee to the Supreme Court was a card carrying Klan member by the name of Hugo Black. In contrast the National Rifle Association, now deemed as a right wing group, was America's first civil rights organization. It tried to stop Democratic lawmakers from imposing gun control aimed at stopping blacks from buying legal guns.
|#3871 - Please, point out all the genocidal famines which Capitalism h… [+] (22 new replies)||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+3|
#3913 - szymonf (07/11/2012) [-]
genocide is the systematic murder of a single ethnic group
america may not have done this, however they have murdered thousands of civilians in south east asia, terror bombed japanease and german cities, killed 40k civilians in Iraq and overthrew central american governments that ended up murdering thousands of their population
#3924 - Orangepeel (07/12/2012) [-]
And? The USSR killed huge numbers of Poles when it invaded Poland, used German POW's as slave labour, started the Winter War, but also murdered huge numbers of their own citizens (a communist trait, practically), unmatched by Capitalist powers.
genocide is the systematic murder of a single ethnic group
IE millions of Slavs in Russia.
#3991 - szymonf (07/12/2012) [-]
yes i am well aware of the mass graves at Katyn and other areas. My parents made sure it was burned into my brain. And I know about the holodomor I wrote an essay about it back in May...
We both know what my argument to the USSR will be so i will just leave it at that
#4053 - Orangepeel (07/13/2012) [-]
Of course you'd have to be aware. Hell, in Poland it's a crime to deny both the Holocaust and the crimes committed by the USSR.
The USSR is proof Communism doesn't work. Initially when Lenin took power he handed all capital over to the workers. But when the civil war broke out he reverted back to the capitalist structure (manager ----> Workers ------> Wages) because production had dropped tremendously, but had everything still state owned. Communism has been tried, and it hasn't worked. Worker ownership deteriorates to state capitalism.
#4083 - szymonf (07/13/2012) [-]
the USSR is proof that communism had not been tried
a communist revolution is supposed to occur in an industrialized nation, like england at the time.
Russia was the farthest thing from being industrialized. It was still feudal. The communist leaders attempted to create an industrial revolution after the proletarian revolution
#4961 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
Over. Finished. Done. Also, SMALL SCALE.
Communism is a regressive ideology that seeks to transform society back to the stone age, where we were untraveled and lived in uncommunicative castes.
#4974 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
Having to reply here because I've run out of space...
Yes, but that doesn't mean it becomes an exclusivity.
Why not? The majority of the people don't want Product X. It uses too many resources (which are limited) to produce and doesn't satisfy enough people. Unless of course, the stuck a price on it which can pay for production and replenish the resources (but that's capitalism).
So how exactly will you satisfy the small handful of consumers if the majority of the people don't want product X?
#4976 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
#4964 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
So, where's the "worker's revolution" now? Why hasn't happened on such a global scale?
You're not going to bother because you clearly CAN'T.
#4966 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
Or maybe it's because no one really wants the entire production of goods managed by uneducated rednecks and the working class?
#4968 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
Rubbish. Even Lenin abandoned worker self-management in favour of War communism, then state capitalism.
Pic very related.
Question: How are bakeries and retailers meant to operate under Communism? Clearly, in the end they can't be state-owned if the state is to disappear now isn't it?
#4970 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
He certainly was. Something we can both agree on.
If something is needed it is produced. It's really not that hard to grasp.
You've oversimplified it. Under capitalism, if I wanted a DVD that they don't produce anymore, technically I can still get it if I order it and can pay for it. That way, the workers who produce it still get paid even if just to satisfy one consumer. What if in your stateless society only one or two consumers want a particular film produced, are they to miss out, or will they be forced to get it from a Capitalist country where consumer satisfaction is higher?
#4971 - arisaka (07/24/2012) [-]
Well, you can always bootleg DVD's and then burn them onto blank ones. D.I.Y ethics play a big role in marxist ideology.
Just to clarify I hate the fuck out of stalinists, trotskyists, maoists, leninists, and many of the others. I'm more fond of the Situationist International.
#4972 - anonymous (07/24/2012) [-]
Fine then. If only a small handful of consumers want product X but the producers don't make it anymore. If the high price set is payable, then the producers will make a profit and the consumers will be satisfied. Under communism, you have no prices, it's only "democratic". So what happens to the people who want product X then? Apparently, since they're a minority, then have no say in production and will need to go to a capitalist country to have their voices heard.
D.I.Y ethics play a big role in marxist ideology.
Like I said before, that's a very backwards standpoint. I didn't build the house I'm in, I didn't build the computer I'm using. Under Communism, the workers should own what they make, right?
|#3835 - Good point, very good point.||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#3832 - I meant regarding replies rather than posts. The anons who spa… [+] (2 new replies)||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#3830 - You can hide all anonymous comments, though. [+] (4 new replies)||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#166 - >TFW I'm in New Zealand and I actually do have class in July...||07/11/2012 on Burn.||0|
|#3814 - <---- Pro-life libertarian here. [+] (1 new reply)||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+2|
|#3812 - I agree. I normally switch to anon whenever I get into a debat…||07/11/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+2|
|#275 - Haha I ******* saved the .jpg one. THAT one actually ma…||07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night||+1|
|#273 - Already done :D But **** I'd be so mad if that happened… [+] (2 new replies)||07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night||+1|
|#271 - I will post it then! [+] (4 new replies)||07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night||+1|
|#270 - Picture||07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night||+2|
|#266 - Picture [+] (8 new replies)||07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night||0|
|#245 - I read this as "Jewry in the night" :) [+] (3 new replies)||07/10/2012 on Jewelry in the night||+4|
#247 - anonymous (07/10/2012) [-]
|#3765 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||07/10/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+5|
|#3763 - Picture||07/10/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#956 - This is one of my favourite Penn Jillette quotes.||07/09/2012 on Science and religion||+5|
|#3686 - That's a good point, but libertarianism is characterized by it…||07/09/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#3678 - Libertarians are not socially liberal. Social liberal includes… [+] (4 new replies)||07/09/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
#3683 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. A liberal may claim to support gay marriage whereas a libertarian would just want the government out of marriage altogether.
#3684 - EventHorizon (07/09/2012) [-]
True enough, I'd certainly agree with you there. The problem is though that you can't really use the term "libertarian" to describe "libertarians". It's like explaining what red looks like to someone by saying "well it looks red, but it certainly isn't blue or green".
#3686 - Orangepeel (07/09/2012) [-]
That's a good point, but libertarianism is characterized by its support of limited government. Neither Social Conservatism or Social Liberalism supports limited government. To describe libertarianism to someone who only knows about liberalism and conservatism it's not accurate to say "economically conservative, socially liberal" because there are too many areas where libertarianism comes into conflict with both, particularly social liberalism.
For example, a libertarian might disagree with economic conservative in areas such as protectionism, central banking, military spending and corporate welfare.
A libertarian would disagree with a social liberal in areas such as centralization (Liberarians oppose a large federal goverment), marriage, guns, free speech, etc.
tl;dr "economic conservative, social liberal" is an over-simplification. Liberarianism should be classified as an entirely different ideology rather than a mixture of several IMO.
|#81 - It even used "you're" correctly...||07/09/2012 on YAY||+2|
|#3635 - Picture [+] (16 new replies)||07/09/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+6|
#3646 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
The US has no right to interfere with the affairs of another nation that don't threaten US security.
#3712 - acaciastrain (07/10/2012) [-]
Ok well at least you're consistent. I'm so sick of the idiots who think Bush was a monster but will praise all Obama does even though he's just as bad. I think the wars were necessary but there is obviously a better way we could have went about it. I also believe that ultimately these wars have helped America.
#3651 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
How? The US claimed to "Liberate" Iraq from Hussein the same way the Kony scam calls for US "liberation" from Joseph Kony.
Oh yeah, both Uganda and Iraq have oil.
Where's the major difference?
#3667 - anonymous (07/09/2012) [-]
But US involvement in say, Libya, had nothing to do with WMDs, same with involvement in Kuwait. Even the claim for Afghanistan threatening US security was unconvincing.
To be fair the US wasn't planning on invading Uganda in the first place, the Kony campaign and all its sheep were just telling the US to.
#3762 - anonymous (07/10/2012) [-]
the US (under Obama) had sent military advisor's to Uganda where they continue to train the Ugandan army.
That's not what the military is for. Helping the Ugandan government is a job for the UN, not American National Defence.
Most of them in the name of Western Capitalism
The atrocities committed in the name of Capitalism are dwarfed by the genocide committed in the name of socialism.
|#3531 - No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the tran… [+] (2 new replies)||07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#3530 - That's called the "Consensus model", but it was drop… [+] (2 new replies)||07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#3525 - And isn't the goal of communism a classless STATELESS society?… [+] (6 new replies)||07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
#3531 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
No, according to Marx the state is only necessary for the transition of Capitalism to socialism. Pure communism is "A classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned". Pure Communism abolishes the State, hence the USSR and other "communist" states were not really communist, they were just socialist.
|#3524 - My question was how does the government determine demand? Unde… [+] (4 new replies)||07/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
#3526 - feelythefeel (07/08/2012) [-]
Depends on how the resources are dispersed.
For example, there may be some sort of form that a family/living group would fill out that would decide what the family/living group would want, with a minimum and maximum value based on nutritional value and other aspects of importance. The more people that, say, request oranges, the stronger the initiative for producing oranges.
This is just an example, though.
#3530 - Orangepeel (07/08/2012) [-]
That's called the "Consensus model", but it was dropped by Khrushchev when he took office because it wasn't working.
So what if I want 10 000 copies of a particular DVD, but there's only enough resources give everyone one copy? Under capitalism, I can get that 10000 copies so long as I can pay for it, and that money spent will in turn increase production of said product and lower prices for everyone. But under Communism, will I still be free to choose what I want?