Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[RongzomFan]

This is what I don't understand....

 

EVEN if you accept the bullshit argument that corporations etc. run America, what does that have to do with the fact that the majority of Americans live happy middle class lives. Better lives, with more freedoms than communist countries. Less economic troubles than Europe.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[contrivedname!]

Do people ever actually research the points they make?

 

right, start off with an ad hominem argumentation, attacking my credibility instead of arguing the point from the get. i think the atrocities done to native americans are what one would call "household knowledge" that is, it is common knowledge, i dont feel a need to cite sources for that, just as you arent always citing your sources for hitler's regieme or stalin's.

 

your next points are just insulting to intelligence:

 

 

So, obviously the number of Native Americans killed here is hard to pin down. But, let's take the high estimate of 18 million across North America. Keep in mind, many or most of these were due to the importation of foreign diseases like smallpox. Which would have happened no matter what governmental system happened to be in place. You certainly can't blame a biological disaster like that on capitalism. But, let's just use 18 million killed over 400 years as a rough theoretical guess for Native Americans killed "by capitalism" here.

 

why does this get the quotes "by capitalism" as though it is absurd, but it is completely unabsurd (by your mentality) to blame other said atrocities on a political system?

 

good point about smallpox; guess intentionally passing out infected blankets doesnt count as germ warfare. no, i dont have sources for that either, if you are so interested in refuting knowledges i gathered years ago in school or my own studies and dont remember the sources to cite, look them up yourself and refute my statements.

 

That's still a drop in the bucket compared to 140 million killed as a direct result of Communism over just a few decades. Really, the numbers aren't even comparable. I love how all the neo-Commies here just KEEP GLOSSING OVER THE 140 MILLION BODYCOUNT!

 

why dont you make a new point? and while your at it stop using ad hominem argumentation. most of the people here who have refuted you have intentionally distanced themselves from being communist. so nobody is a neo-comie. but good job at the name calling when your argument is falling apart at the seems.

 

 

Racism is also not unique to capitalism or Communism. Remember, GIH fled HERE to "capitalist" USA to ESCAPE "ethnic prejudice" in the "Communist" USSR.

 

what does goldisheavy or his life have to do with my points about native americans? (which you sort of glossed over yourself, as you blame the "commies" doing about the atrocities you keep throwing out numbers for.) you also didnt address my points about slavery as an economic base, nor did you address japanese interment camps of WWII, you simply marginalized the native americans suffering because, numerically, not as many died.

 

 

 

And I've already pointed out that coal miners in VA make TWICE the national salary on average. See how the free market self-adjusts if you let it? That's why the DDJ advised against political micromanagement.

 

the DDJ says "Were I possessed of the least knowledge, I would, when walking on the great way, fear only paths that lead astray.

The great way is easy, yet people prefer by-paths.

 

The court is corrupt,

The fields are overgrown with weeds,

The granaries are empty;

Yet there are those dressed in fineries,

With swords at their sides,

Filled with food and drink,

And possessed of too much wealth.

This is known as taking the lead in robbery.

 

Far indeed is this from the way."

 

this sounds like an criticism of wealth disparity. yes i talked about the coal miners because they were mentioned before... what supremely logical reasoning can you give me for the reason a coal miner should make less in a whole year as a person who literally produces nothing can make in a couple transactions (think real estate agent).

 

is the american bureaucratic system "the great way [which] is easy"?; please list all of the laws regulating business.

 

chris

[contrivedname!]

btw, vortex, it's quite obvious that Marx was a reptilian. 'Karl' means slither and 'Marx' means forked-tongue. There's definitely a conspiracy here. Marx was no doubt a reptilian who wrote the Communist Manifesto as a way to control the population to make room for an earth invasion. It's a good thing that the good Capitalists won the war against the Soviets, who represented Marx's utopia, because we'd all be slaves right now to these evil alien conquerors.

 

oh no! please dont hijack this thread to lay foundation for the reptilian invasion! ahhh! run for your lives; the emotional vampires are just around the corner! they've joined forces with the reptiles to make the hybrid emotionile reptires, twice as deadly in the art of energy sucking! :lol:

[gendao]

If I were a mod in this forum and for the fact that you are flaming and swearing I would give time off. Cave meditations work really well.

 

 

And please, keep your discussions on topic. Thanks.

Amen.

 

GIH - You obviously have some deepset, inner issues that you are projecting onto this debate which are causing you to become overemotional, irrational & totally lose your temper. I suggest you examine & resolve those within yourself, rather than displace them & take them out on others.

 

Perhaps you felt "bullied" as an ethnic minority by some ethnic/class majority when you were in the USSR? And you now blame this on the strong bullying the weak in capitalism & Social Darwinism? Except that that happened in the Communist USSR. And sometimes the strong can help the weak, too.

 

It's not as polarized & 1-sided as you see it. But you only see what you want to see. I don't know what is causing your huge blind spot - but it's clearly eating you alive.

 

Most corporations are fairly transparent, if you really took the effort to look. Most Americans today are already well aware of the fact that much of our stuff is made in China. It's usually printed on the bottom of any product you buy, for gawsakes. China is climbing out of the economic hole caused by 50 years of Communism, so happy to work for lower wages right now. Cheap labor is a necessary phase to progress out of poverty. Capitalism is actually their ticket out of Communist enslavement.

 

Politics is a sensitive topic, but there's no reason why we can't just calmly discuss the issues - without resorting to angry cursing & threats of violence. The bullied should be careful not to become the bully.

 

"Fuck you dirty Rethuglican?" Spoken like a truly compassionate liberal. Maybe time for a vacation, buddy?

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[contrivedname!]

Look at the Amish.

 

ahh yes of course. How did i miss this excellent point? the Amish are perfect examples of the way an average american lives. this group represents a large cross section of the diversity inherent in our society... wake up homie.

[gendao]

right, start off with an ad hominem argumentation, attacking my credibility

I was attacking intellectual laziness and poor examples being cited in this debate. 140 million does eclipse 18 million. And yes, I am aware of intentional germ warfare used by the European settlers here. However, even if some hadn't done that, smallpox and other diseases were spreading naturally anyways. All they did was hasten it some in some areas. Yes, this was HORRIBLE. But it was happening on its own, regardless. Which then can't be blamed on capitalism. It was simply a biological inevitability that would have happened no matter what form of government happened to be there.

 

My point here only being that 140 million died directly as a result of Communist purges & policies. Whereas the amount of Native American deaths attributable to capitalism was be a tiny fraction of that, at most. So, there's still no comparison there. The Communist bodycount was probably the highest of any "organized movement" in the history of mankind. So, I don't think you can downplay that.

 

It's similar to how Paganism or Satanism get a much worse rap than Judeo-Christianity. Yet, Christians & Muslims have actually killed FAAAARRRR more people than Pagans ever have!

you also didnt address my points about slavery as an economic base, nor did you address japanese interment camps of WWII, you simply marginalized the native americans suffering because, numerically, not as many died.

There's simply too many tangents in this thread to all address. And I've already said that ethnic discrimination is not unique to capitalism or Communism. GIH was a personal example of that.

The court is corrupt,

The fields are overgrown with weeds,

The granaries are empty;

Yet there are those dressed in fineries,

With swords at their sides,

Filled with food and drink,

And possessed of too much wealth.

This is known as taking the lead in robbery.

 

Far indeed is this from the way."

 

this sounds like an criticism of wealth disparity.

No, sounds like a criticism of a corrupt government. Who are neglecting their duties to party amongst themselves. This is not really specific to any type of government.

[contrivedname!]

"Fuck you dirty Rethuglican?" I think you need a timeout, buddy.

 

 

right that has no correlation to your constant name calling. every one who argues against you is a neo-commie.

 

neo-commie out,

chris

[goldisheavy]

Here's what the economist says about income inequality:

 

http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15908469

 

These are not exactly the progressive people, and this is a relatively recent article. Enjoy.

[contrivedname!]

I was attacking intellectual laziness and poor examples being cited in this debate. 140 million does eclipse 18 million. And yes, I am aware of intentional germ warfare used by the European settlers here. However, even if some hadn't done that, smallpox and other diseases were spreading naturally anyways. All they did was hasten it some in some areas. Yes, this was HORRIBLE. But it was happening on its own, regardless. Which then can't be blamed on capitalism. It was simply a biological inevitability that would have happened no matter what form of government happened to be there.

 

My point here only being that 140 million died directly as a result of Communist purges & policies. Whereas the amount of Native American deaths attributable to capitalism was be a tiny fraction of that, at most. So, there's still no comparison there. The Communist bodycount was probably the highest of any "organized movement" in the history of mankind. So, I don't think you can downplay that.

 

 

dont know why your blaming me of downplaying an atrocity, never did that.

 

your also not taking into account difference in era. larger populations werent sustainable for natives given their tech level.

 

you keep bringing "140 million dead" into a discussion that was originally about, well an interview with a tibetan monk, so get off the high horse of "you are off topic"; following your style of argumentation slavery as an economic basis and the mistreatment of its own citizens are very pertinent to this discussion.

[gendao]

This is what all modern scientists believe basically. haha... damn commies.

Um, newsflash. As I already pointed out:

 

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle already scientifically proved in the 20s that on the quantum level, consciousness DOES affect matter...and "xiantian matter" is essentially unknowable...because as soon as you know about it, you've already changed (collapsed) it into "houtian" matter.

 

Materialism, Marx's philosophical basis - has thus already been scientifically debunked for about 80 years now. Marx is a scientifically-proven false god.

 

You are, of course, still free to worship him. And believe the Earth is flat. But don't hate on me cuz I don't based on modern science.

right that has no correlation to your constant name calling. every one who argues against you is a neo-commie.

Uh, the equivalent to "Fuck you dirty Rethuglican" would have been "Fuck you dirty Pinko."

 

I was simply using neo-commie as an equivalent abbreviation to neocon (neoconservative). Another vastly disproportional comparison. You're trying WAYYY too hard, man. Is that really all you got? If so, you got nothing.

 

 

 

Again, let's refocus and discuss the CORE TENETS of Marxism/Communism. All you Marxists or Communists - please make a good case describing how their theories would conceivably work & why you support them.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

There is a fear all of Europe is going bust, which is why the market is severely down today.

 

Another European economic blunder in a series of ones going back decades.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36802555

 

Like I mentioned pages ago, the value of the Euro continues to plummet versus the dollar.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36791531/

 

So much for European socialism. Spain is going to fall next.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[Apech]

 

 

Again, let's refocus and discuss the CORE TENETS of Marxism/Communism. All you Marxists or Communists - please make a good case describing how their theories would conceivably work & why you support them.

 

The common ownership of the means of production.

 

That's more or less it.

[RongzomFan]

I personally want to know HOW corporations control America instead of these vague statements without any reasoning.

 

If corporations are controlling America, they are doing a good job in my opinion.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[Apech]

I personally want to know HOW corporations control America instead of these vague statements without any reasoning.

 

If corporations are controlling America, they are doing a good job in my opinion.

 

They own the means of production (or a very large percentage).

[gendao]

The common ownership of the means of production.

 

That's more or less it.

Ok great. So (for example), you would ban any private automakers like Honda or Toyota? And all autos would thus be produced by the same collective with no competition? In effect, a "Government Motors?" Am I interpreting you correctly, here?

 

How do you think this would affect the value & quality of these cars?

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

They own the means of production (or a very large percentage).

 

 

Ok, but not using flawed communist theory.

[Apech]

Ok great. So (for example), you would ban any private automakers like Honda or Toyota? And all autos would thus be produced by the same collective with no competition? In effect, a "Government Motors?" Am I interpreting you correctly, here?

 

How do you think this would affect the value & quality of these cars?

 

No I wouldn't because I am not a communist. But this is what Marx recommended in his 10 point program as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.

 

Your question about value and quality is very interesting because this is the real issue for the present capitalist system.

[Apech]

Ok, but not using flawed communist theory.

 

I think its a fact not a theory.

[RongzomFan]

whatever

[Apech]

whatever

 

[Enishi]

Common ownership of the means of production in the form of worker-owned businesses, family farms, community communes, or even shared tribal territory as existed back in the hunger-gatherer days is something I DO actually want.

 

However, I also disagree that you can achieve these things in a long term stable manner through using government coercion and micromanagement. It's like sending a lion (government) to fight off the wolves (corporations, which wouldnt even exist without government protection) and then hoping the lion won't turn on you as well.

 

I think it's something which has to be created from the grounds up.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Enishi

[contrivedname!]

targeting my credibility again eh? thats okay. maybe you will understand that doesn't give credence to your argument.

 

i wont go with the title communist or marxist, but i will give a quote from marx:

"Let us now take wage labor.

 

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

 

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

 

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

 

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

 

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

 

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

 

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

 

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

 

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

 

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

 

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital.

 

All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

 

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

 

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

 

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

 

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

 

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

 

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

 

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

 

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

 

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

 

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor."

 

So since nearly all products and services are corporatized the movement of capital is from one service/mode of production to another. Meaning that the movement of the majority of capital, is in essence, restricted to the upper-class, or in marx's terms, bourgeois. when a wage laborer acquires recompense for their labor, this money is then returned, in most cases, to the resources of the same small elite. This creates a crowding out effect wherein there is actually extremely static class mobility.

When mass production coupled with mass media proliferation is required in order to enter the larger consumer market; how is this accessible by small business? The level of capital required to start up and sustain competitive corporate business is insurmountable to the majority of the population, working class and middle class alike.

[goldisheavy]

Ok great. So (for example), you would ban any private automakers like Honda or Toyota? And all autos would thus be produced by the same collective with no competition? In effect, a "Government Motors?" Am I interpreting you correctly, here?

 

You interpret it wrongly. Thank God you asked! Usually you don't even bother to ask, you just assume your interpretation is the correct and only one.

 

Collective ownership is what happens when employees own the business, and make decisions by consensus with the power structure that's less top-down than what occurs in a typical capitalist business.

 

But how much less? Again it is absolutely critical to recognize that this is a range. You are very prone to polarized all-or-nothing, 0-or-1, black-or-white thinking, as you've amply demonstrated in this thread. Any time someone negated 0, you assert 1. If you negate 1, you revert to 0. You can't see any nuance. You can't see any shade of gray. You can't see something that's outside of your box, for example, neither 0, nor 1, nor between 0 and 1, but say 3 or 10. You can't see those possibilities at all.

 

So let's re-ask, how much less? The only honest answer is that it's any amount less. It can be anything from very slightly less to so much less that all decisions are driven by unanimous consensus of all employees.

 

For a concrete example, why don't you research Ricardo Semler, his company, and his management style.

 

Ricardo Semler was invited to teach and speak at MIT Sloan School of Management. Here's a video of at least one of the talks (there might be more out there):

 

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/308/

 

I put the video here because I know you have a short attention span (given how you like to polarize issues, which is a cognitive shortcut, used by lazy thinkers). This doesn't mean you should limit yourself by this video. Do more research. Open your mind. It's not my or anyone else job to open your mind for you.

 

How do you think this would affect the value & quality of these cars?

 

It can affect it very positively, depending on the prevailing culture.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

No I wouldn't because I am not a communist. But this is what Marx recommended in his 10 point program as outlined in the Communist Manifesto.

 

Your question about value and quality is very interesting because this is the real issue for the present capitalist system.

Ok, well if you support Marxism then let's go with it. Or if not, let's please hear from some real Marxists or Communists here???

 

Honda autos are widely unsurpassed in quality & value. This is a result of stiff capitalist competition. Has any collectivist automaker been able to equal this? I'm sure there must be better examples than the Trabant?

 

Or to make closer comparisons, why not compare autos made by Communist East Germany & capitalist West Germany at the time? Mercedes Benz vs Trabant? Why is there such a glaring difference in quality here?

 

If you eliminate competition, do you tend to eliminate efficiency & quality?

[RongzomFan]

Trabant all the way baby