Wall Street Occupation

[-martin- 10]

Pretty sure that could happen under any economic model if the propieter so chooses.

And what system does the mighty User addon fall under -communism? Free stuff for all for the greater good of the community?

That’s a hard question nd I tend to agree with karensman08 on it. But I think it kind of falls in between, when you buy the game from BIS it falls under a capitalist free market but when you start making/downloading addons it turns in to kind of a socialist thing.

In real life however there seems to be this cycle:

• Communism that forces people to work will never work, its only natural for people to oppose what they are forced to do. Let's face it, not everyone is good at making addons so why force them to.
  
• Since in democracy nobody forces you to work, people often spend their whole life taking welfare while others work to feed them with their tax money
  

.

The answer is not changing capitalism for communism, the answer is changing how we run the system.

I think that we need a system somewhere between capitalism and socialism where people who do a lot to benefit the community get benefits from it. We need a system where the free market exists but also a system that uses the free market to benefit society, to achieve this we need a system that makes people feel like society needs them and a system which helps people find what they are good at and a system that also benefits businesses for employing new people or teaching people new skills.

Right now I know a lot of people who live on the edge of society thinking that the country doesn't need them and they don't know what they can do for society because nobody helped them to find what they are good at.

I’m not surprised at this because the current system doesn’t give them a chance, companies want experience and education, where do you get education if you’re from a messed up family, where do you get experience if nobody wants to employ you without any, this often leaves people hopeless.

You can’t force businesses or people to do something, but you can give them benefits in exchange for doing something, everyone likes benefits and they are willing to do something to get them.

If we help people see that they are good at something, that the world needs them and that they can benefit from it too, I'm sure that there would be less crime, depression and social outcasts in the world.

It’s our job as people who have been blessed with good education and understating of the world to help out those who weren’t so lucky.

Edited October 4, 2011 by -Martin-

[karensman08 10]

It’s our job as people who have been blessed with good education and understating of the world to help out those who weren’t so lucky.

Martin,

This is the old American way of thinking. We freely and willing give of ourselves to help those less fortunate but it is done at a personal level, not a national/federal level. And it is not done in a way that is by force. I was really trying not to impose religious views, but it really is the Christian charity mentality. It is these Christian beliefs from which the US has strayed and I believe that this is where we have fallen to the point where we are now. Everyone wants things for themselves and they are not willing to give of themselves.

Just imagine an environment with Arma where we were not allowed to play the game unless we all contributed to it in a way dictated by BIS to each of us, even though we had already bought it. I could only imagine how successful (or rather unsuccessful) this game would be.

[st_dux 26]

A so called free market does not lie in the interest of companies that have achieved monopolies. And despite of that you get an oligarchy or more precisely a plutocracy of capitalists that has to be protected through a monopoly of force exercised by a police force. Who would give away labor voluntarily? Completely free markets are dope dreams. Capitalism and all class societies rely on violence.

You make it sound like everyone is miserable and would love to start a revolution tomorrow if it weren't for the evil police. That's not really how it is. Ordinary people don't sit around thinking about abstract labor theory of value calculations. Not everyone believes or has a problem with the idea that they aren't getting the "fair value" out of their work. As long as they're making enough to live a fulfilling life, whatever that may mean to them, they're content. As purchasing power for the average person has been on an upward trend for the last century, there is no reason to believe that a revolution is just around the corner.

I work for an "evil" capitalist company, yet I don't for one second think that my predicament is unfair or that the only thing holding me back from rebelling against the system is the police.

[froggyluv 2136]

This is the old American way of thinking. We freely and willing give of ourselves to help those less fortunate but it is done at a personal level, not a national/federal level. And it is not done in a way that is by force. I was really trying not to impose religious views, but it really is the Christian charity mentality. It is these Christian beliefs from which the US has strayed and I believe that this is where we have fallen to the point where we are now

Oh please! Get off it man -Amercians sometimes acts like saints, sometimes devils! Enough with the glorified Christian Amercian spirit. Where were these saints in masse when American Blacks were getting lynched down South and the killers were left alone by the judiciary? Only people I saw comin down to help were Northern liberals -wonder why minorities like Federal Gov't and Liberals? There ya go.

Back on point, I'm all for Company's looking for big profit -but all this talk of deregulation? Need I remind people of the criminality of Enron after Dereg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

Big Corporations don't have the moral fibre that many people dream or hope they do -helping others because it's Christian. Im not anti-Corp as I believe in limiting frivolous lawsuits etc.. but if I were a greedy, morally absent big Corp -how would I go about getting Jane/Joe Voter to come to my cause -drape everything in Red/White and Blue thats how ;)

Edited October 4, 2011 by froggyluv

[Minutemen 10]

Do you know what "social democracy" means?

Even in the german constitution there is article Nr 14, and as far as i know norway and sweden have similar articles.

Funny. The Law what came out of the SHAFT novels isn't a "constitution" even if you call it so.

Secoundly, "gewahrleistet" doesn't mean "guaranteed", it means ensured. And its ensured by the government and if the government think there are more important range of applications, they take it away from you. In legalis, its very importand to know the difference.

Social democracy and socialism are two different things.

Nope. Red socks all of them.

and don't forgt who invented social democracy...it was not Lenin nor Stalin.

Yeah, lets follow the tracks, this could be getting much more interessting than just Lenin and Stalin. Maybee someone could find out they have all the same roots.

[karensman08 10]

froggyluv,

what you fail to comprehend is that what was liberal is today's conservative in the US. the democratic party has always been for segregation and prior to the american civil war was the party supporting slavery. the GOP or republican party (the party of Abe Lincoln) has always been for EQUAL rights.

even today, the democratic party is driving wedges between races by trying to give "opportunities" to the miniorities. this is not treating people equally, but rather giving favor to special populations. see this article to demonstrate my point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/24/uc-berkeley-racist-bake-sale_n_979184.html

As a white male, I would be ticked if I had to pay twice as much for the same brownie that the African American would be charged. This is discrimination in my eyes and is not equality.

[Beagle 684]

Funny. The Law what came out of the SHAFT novels isn't a "constitution" even if you call it so.

unfortunately there is no according word for "Grundgesetz" in english laguage but since it serves as a constitution I tend call it that way. The german "Grundgesetz" is considered a full constitution since the reunification in 1990...it's just the name of it that was not changed.

[-martin- 10]

It’s our job as people who have been blessed with good education and understating of the world to help out those who weren’t so lucky.

Martin,

This is the old American way of thinking. We freely and willing give of ourselves to help those less fortunate but it is done at a personal level, not a national/federal level. And it is not done in a way that is by force. I was really trying not to impose religious views, but it really is the Christian charity mentality. It is these Christian beliefs from which the US has strayed and I believe that this is where we have fallen to the point where we are now. Everyone wants things for themselves and they are not willing to give of themselves.

Just imagine an environment with Arma where we were not allowed to play the game unless we all contributed to it in a way dictated by BIS to each of us, even though we had already bought it. I could only imagine how successful (or rather unsuccessful) this game would be.

I agree with that, that’s why the answer isn’t switching to communism, it’s like getting out of a car with a flat tire and sitting in to a car with a flat tire.

We shouldn't force people to work on a national level or force companies to hire people, it’s just doomed to fail as always.

But we can encourage people and businesses to work or hire people on a national level in exchange for a benefit. Think of it as when your dad was teaching you to ride a bike by lending you a helping hand.

Now imagine this scenario (a typical scenario that has happened countless times before):

There is a 18 year old boy from a family of 3 kids, mother never cared about him and he never saw his dad, he dropped out of school and can't read or write properly, he doesn't have any money and so he committed a burglary with his friend. They get arrested and sentenced to 3 years in jail.

Now under the current system, nobody would care about him; he would get put in jail and sit there for 3 years, waste his life and then get let out to do whatever he wants.

But what I have in mind is changing the system like this:

1) Put him in jail and let him sit there for a few months, then give him an option with a benefit:

“Your sentence can be shortened by 1 year if you agree to start working for a furniture company and attend regular education classes, you will get paid half of the minimum wage and at the end of your sentence you will get a cheap apartment from the council and be able to continue working at the company for at least a year.â€

2) Now take a furniture company and give them this benefit: You will get a sum of money from the government plus a worker that will work for you for half of what you pay others if you agree to teach him basic wood work so he can help around or possibly work alone.

If both agree to take this deal this will be the result:

The boy will learn to read and write properly, he will learn some skills that he can use in life, he will learn how to be independent and he will also get a job for a year and a cheap apartment to start his new life. This means the probability of him going back to jail will be 10% as opposed to 90% under the current system.

I'm not saying that this is the final solution to the world’s problems but it would be a good step to move towards in and we don’t need any madness like changing regimes.

Edited October 4, 2011 by -Martin-

[Beagle 684]

But what I have in mind is changing the system like this:

1) Put him in jail and let him sit there for a few months, then give him an option with a benefit:

“Your sentence can be shortened by 1 year if you agree to start working for a furniture company and attend regular education classes, you will get paid half of the minimum wage and at the end of your sentence you will get a cheap apartment from the council and be able to continue working at the company for at least a year.â€

2) Now take a furniture company and give them this benefit: You will get a sum of money from the government plus a worker that will work for you for half of what you pay others if you agree to teach him basic wood work so he can help around or possibly work alone.

If both agree to take this deal this will be the result:

The boy will learn to read and write properly, he will learn some skills that he can use in life, he will learn how to be independent and he will also get a job for a year and a cheap apartment to start his new life. This means the probability of him going back to jail will be 10% as opposed to 90% under the current system.

I'm not saying that this is the final solution to the world’s problems but it would be a good step to move towards in and we don’t need any madness like changing regimes.

This is how "we" do it, and it seems to work for at least some of the youth criminals...but consider...some are already too far away from "civilized" world...they will laught at you and say they can "make" the same money in a week on the street. What to do with notorious criminals?

And before someone asks what do I know about...It's just two years ago that I had been the one to teach such a 20 year old that was send to us from youth-jail after a 2 year sentence (you're considered youth-criminal until 21 in germany) for drug trafficking and assault.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Beagle

[-martin- 10]

I know, I know those kinds of people personally, but there seems solution to the "making money on the street part", if drugs are legalised and sold like alcohol and cigarettes nobody would be able to make such large profit on them.

But this might make more of a problem then it solves because I know how easy it is for kids to get cigarettes, what if it’s that easy to get class A drugs... Damn, some problems seem like they have no possible solution.

And before someone asks what do I know about...It's just two years ago that I had been the one to teach such a 20 year old that was send to us from Youth-Jail after a 2 year sentence (you're considered youth-criminal until 21 in germany) for drug trafficking and assault.

Out of interest, do you know what he’s up to now?

[Spokesperson 0]

As a general note, some people here have grave misconceptions about basic terminology, but I don't blame them. It's meaningless to argue about it, but sadly it will be impossible to discuss more high-level subjects without it. It's like we speak completely different languages. The private monopoly of information/private propaganda department is to blame for causing this confusion. Snafu is right about social democracy though. Social democracy today is not the social democracy of the 19th century (which I don't think people here refer to).

There never was a German reunification, just an annexation.

You make it sound like everyone is miserable and would love to start a revolution tomorrow if it weren't for the evil police. That's not really how it is. Ordinary people don't sit around thinking about abstract labor theory of value calculations. Not everyone believes or has a problem with the idea that they aren't getting the "fair value" out of their work. As long as they're making enough to live a fulfilling life, whatever that may mean to them, they're content. As purchasing power for the average person has been on an upward trend for the last century, there is no reason to believe that a revolution is just around the corner.

I work for an "evil" capitalist company, yet I don't for one second think that my predicament is unfair or that the only thing holding me back from rebelling against the system is the police.

As the poet used to say "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". Some people don't care about why the wind blows but they still act accordingly. It doesn't matter if people understand the whys or hows as long as they can see what's in their interests and how to enforce it. I don't believe that any significant number of people who protest around the world read Marx or Lenin (but still a lot of people have opinions on those matters, it's just as if they reviewed a movie they never saw).

Just like with slavery and feudalism, capitalism would collapse without some kind of armed force enforcing the laws of the minority of owners. It doesn't matter if certain individuals are idle, I'm not saying all would seize the opportunity.

A revolution may not be around the corner, but it gets closer every day as it's an inevitable event in human history. This is not the end of it, even though it is the normal thing for non-thinking people to believe throughout it.

This isn't about "evil", "greed" or "unfair", it's about objective interests. There is no universal good or bad, just different interests. And as owners and workers have an antagonism going, there's no stability in capitalism without the use of force.

The purchasing power has in fact not increased significantly since 1974 (in manufacturing). But you can see that the productivity has.

[froggyluv 2136]

froggyluv,

what you fail to comprehend is that what was liberal is today's conservative in the US. the democratic party has always been for segregation and prior to the american civil war was the party supporting slavery. the GOP or republican party (the party of Abe Lincoln) has always been for EQUAL rights.

even today, the democratic party is driving wedges between races by trying to give "opportunities" to the miniorities. this is not treating people equally, but rather giving favor to special populations. see this article to demonstrate my point:

As a white male, I would be ticked if I had to pay twice as much for the same brownie that the African American would be charged. This is discrimination in my eyes and is not equality.

Lol, sorry mate, but thats not the entire picture. Yes, Lincoln was republican and the old Democratic party was a party of Slavery, but the same people that were Southern-Crats are now Republican -you know and I know it. Those 50's and 60's peace activists that went down to help fight segregation are Liberals thru and thru -not republicans. And the valiant Liberatarian valuing Liberty supposedly for all Americans above all else -Segregation was one of the biggest affronts imaginable to an American -they should have and should still be championing that cause as the Mother Grail.

It took the Federal Gov't to fight for those minorities AGAINST state rights sometimes needing military force against local police force just to get a black student thru a college door.

Edit: LOL at that Racial Bakesale -if paying double for a brownie really ticked you off -just imagine the rancor you'd and your offspring would feel from some good old fashion:Slavery; mother/Sis raped without accountability; Siblings sold as goods; church burned down without accountability; not allowed to drink from certain fountains; sitting in back of bus by law; killed without accountability;considerd 1/3d human by noble forefathers and constitution; illegal for you to read; work for free to make owner rich; illegal to go to college....

...but yeah, double price brownies is just too much for the soul to bear...

Edited October 4, 2011 by froggyluv

[-martin- 10]

Basically we all just want it to work so we can go on with our lives, most people don't even care if they live in communism or capitalism as long as they have a full stomach, and I don't blame them I'm the same.

Changing regimes isn't going to benefit us in the long run, it might for 10 years, 20, 50, what about in 2100? We have to stick with what we have so far and improve it rather than throwing it away and starting from 0 again.

Just like with slavery and feudalism, capitalism would collapse without some kind of armed force enforcing the laws of the minority of owners. It doesn't matter if certain individuals are idle, I'm not saying all would seize the opportunity.

Every system or civilisation would collapse if someone didn't enforce their laws Men are enemies to other men.

A revolution may not be around the corner, but it gets closer every day as it's an inevitable event in human history. This is not the end of it, even though it is the normal thing for non-thinking people to believe throughout it.

I believe that every day is a revolution, every day people change the way they think, but this often resolves in clashes because eventually people will start thinking in a way that is different to the laws that are being enforced and this causes incompatibility.

[Spokesperson 0]

There's only one stable system and that's communism, which is why it's the end of history. Now I'm not talking about movie socialism which some people here confuse for communism. Socialism isn't state less while communism is.

"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.

Then begins an epoch of social revolution."

Productive forces ("refers to the combination of the means of labor (tools, machinery, land, infrastructure and so on) with human labour power." i.e simplified: technology).

Material conditions are necessary for changing ideas and bringing forth a revolution. If we see a growing amount of protests we can also draw the conclusion that the level of technology is beginning to clash with capitalism as a concept. It is not by mere chance that groups like anonymous initiated this. That's how Marx envisioned the general trend in the most developed countries (but as we know the theory wasn't complete - Lenin extended it and introduced the concept of the weakest link in the chain (which would be South America today)).

[st_dux 26]

The purchasing power has in fact not increased significantly since 1974 (in manufacturing). But you can see that the productivity has.

... again with the real wage argument. Real wages is not the same thing as purchasing power. Purchasing power also encompasses the relative costs of goods, especially staple goods like food. Ordinary people living in capitalist Western countries have more disposable income (i.e., money to spend after necessities have been paid for) today than ordinary people anywhere had in the past. Furthermore, the fact that productivity has increased doesn't mean that labor has increased.

Your arguments are basically straight out of Das Kapital. You're saying exactly what Marx said, but Marx was wrong. Marx's entire prediction rests on the labor theory of value, which is a fallacious model. There is no such thing as objective value, ever, in any circumstance; value is always, in every circumstance, subjective. And that's why capitalism doesn't have to implode.

Communism is a ridiculous fantasy. There will never be a point in history when everyone has "plenty." "Plenty," like value, is subjective and relative. People will always want to have more. If everything is forced to be even (and it must be forced, violently, because nature is never even), then someone will immediately want to make it uneven in his favor. You're never going to get a whole nation, much less the whole world, to voluntarily distribute all resources equally and hold hands with one another singing Kumbaya. This concept is fundamentally opposed not only to human nature but also the nature of life itself. Life is a power struggle. You don't stop that struggle without also stopping life; the struggle is the essence of what life is.

[Beagle 684]

... again with the real wage argument. Real wages is not the same thing as purchasing power. Purchasing power also encompasses the relative costs of goods, especially staple goods like food. Ordinary people living in capitalist Western countries have more disposable income (i.e., money to spend after necessities have been paid for) today than ordinary people anywhere had in the past.

That's simply not true anymore, real wages are declining in europe for years...and in 2009 there was a downfall...no some countries like Portugal, Spain and Greece have a youth unemployment rate above 25%...and UK's and Frances rate is closing in....not to mention Iceland and Ireland, Estonia...etc.

That's why the uprising is NOW...the party of economical growth is over and the people klok at china and see a life standard better than their own ones in the chinese cities like Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shengyang, Hangzhou, Guiyang...etc. already... not on a broad front but it's better day by day better and we seem to get worse.

In in the very special case of Germany...we the germans see our social achievements sacrifized to procure enough money to keep the EU together by backing up Greece and the Euro by a gouverment that has lost support from the majoritiy for a year now....visible in the decline of the gouvernment parties CDU and FDP in the last three federal state elections...the FDP (market liberal party) did not made entry into state parliament in all elections (at least 5% of total votes needed)

Edited October 5, 2011 by Beagle

[*LK1* 10]

But you hear all the time about "some new kind of socialism" and it works to decept people. The hole Green Revolution Thing and Hardcore Environment Movement is a troyan horse to install a communist system.

Dont be so naiv, communism doesn't come back with stalin mustache, hammer and sickle and this stuff. But with a nice yuppie face that ask you ,,wanna something for free'' ?

+1 funny troll.

[Spokesperson 0]

... again with the real wage argument. Real wages is not the same thing as purchasing power. Purchasing power also encompasses the relative costs of goods, especially staple goods like food. Ordinary people living in capitalist Western countries have more disposable income (i.e., money to spend after necessities have been paid for) today than ordinary people anywhere had in the past. Furthermore, the fact that productivity has increased doesn't mean that labor has increased.

Your arguments are basically straight out of Das Kapital. You're saying exactly what Marx said, but Marx was wrong. Marx's entire prediction rests on the labor theory of value, which is a fallacious model. There is no such thing as objective value, ever, in any circumstance; value is always, in every circumstance, subjective. And that's why capitalism doesn't have to implode.

Communism is a ridiculous fantasy. There will never be a point in history when everyone has "plenty." "Plenty," like value, is subjective and relative. People will always want to have more. If everything is forced to be even (and it must be forced, violently, because nature is never even), then someone will immediately want to make it uneven in his favor. You're never going to get a whole nation, much less the whole world, to voluntarily distribute all resources equally and hold hands with one another singing Kumbaya. This concept is fundamentally opposed not only to human nature but also the nature of life itself. Life is a power struggle. You don't stop that struggle without also stopping life; the struggle is the essence of what life is.

Real wages are inflation adjusted wages, so it tells you how much you can buy in a given period of time. The graph is clear. Productivity has increased but those who create the goods don't get an increased share of it. The share holders do, and much of that growing amount of money ended up in banks for the workers to lend which led to the financial crisis. Not only do workers work many of hours per day for their owners (after they've worked an amount of time corresponding to their wage), but they also have to borrow the value/money they produced themselves.

There is both objective and subjective value, you just decide to neglect the underlying mechanisms behind value and put all factors into one term. That's not science, that's a liberal dogma, because if you do it otherwise you can't justify capitalism (unless you close your eyes). Liberal economic theories are not scientific or even empiric, they have shown to be false over and over again, just because they by dogma can't analyse the subject in an unbiased and scientific way due to political considerations. Marx has showed that there is meaning behind separating and dissecting the value concept and it's been successful.

You're never going to get a whole nation, much less the whole world, to voluntarily distribute all resources equally and hold hands with one another singing Kumbaya.

That's movie/schoolbook communism, and not the point with communism. In communism there is no economy, and the concept is completely realistic seen to increased levels of automatization. Sure, thousand of years ago no one would ever have imagined the current type of society and technology. But in fact all pre-communist societies are just constituting a transient period of human history.

[Spokesperson 0]

Speech by Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party of America

"Imagine a new society"

[ProfTournesol 956]

What's funny is that i tend to think that when something never happened, it will not happen in the future and will remain on a purely theoric level.

"Communism" as stated by the OP (and Marx) never happens, not even in the USSR. "Socialism" that occured was the imperfect state of communism, only leading to aparatchik dictatorships and economic inefficiency.

On the other hand, pure market economy, with perfect competition complying with its basic laws (Infinite buyers and sellers, Infinite consumers, perfect information etc.) never happens either, or on a very restricted level (the only "perfect" market ever seen is the exchange market).

So the discussion about which is the best system is in fact pointless, even if interesting.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ProfTournesol

[*LK1* 10]

"Communism" as stated by the OP (and Marx) never happens, not even in the USSR. "Socialism" that occured was the imperfect state of communism, only leading to aparatchik dictatorships and economic inefficiency.

capitalism is inefficient too, by an economic point of view, ye it is..

1/4-1/5 of the american population is still leaving in hoods and crap suburbs under the line of poverty :bounce3::bounce3: in the most rich country in the world.

[Spokesperson 0]

It has nothing to do with imperfections, socialism is a stage in itself only related to communism as feudalism is to capitalism. The countries were socialist, not communist. Nobody had the intent to create communism in a couple of decades and nobody claimed their countries to be communist. (In fact that would be a contradiction). Futhermore, there can't be communism in just one country. The system arises only after a world revolution and after a sufficient development of technology.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It has nothing to do with imperfections, socialism is a stage in itself only related to communism as feudalism is to capitalism. The countries were socialist, not communist. Nobody had the intent to create communism in a couple of decades and nobody claimed their countries to be communist. (In fact that would be a contradiction). Futhermore, there can't be communism in just one country. The system arises only after a world revolution and after a sufficient development of technology.

So, to make it short, it'll never happen.

[Baff1 0]

capitalism is inefficient too, by an economic point of view, ye it is..

1/4-1/5 of the american population is still leaving in hoods and crap suburbs under the line of poverty :bounce3::bounce3: in the most rich country in the world.

Under what line of poverty would that be?

I live under the line of poverty in my country. I don't exactly want for anything and I don't consider myself to be poor either.

The hoods in America are quite luxurious in many ways. People have cars. They have gardens. Their houses have more rooms than occupants. They have electricity, running water, sanitation, Internet, multiple TV's and Playstation, schooling and health care... It's a very far cry from Slumdog Millionaire.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Utter nonsense. Without government forces of coercion, cartels never last and monopolies rarely last. The market is too dynamic.

I'd like to develop this thought a little further.

I put it to you that without government forces of coercion, that monoplies and cartels would develop into governments capable of this themselves.

That a government is just the ruling cartel, the ruling monopoly.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Baff1

[dm 9]

capitalism is inefficient too, by an economic point of view, ye it is..

1/4-1/5 of the american population is still leaving in hoods and crap suburbs under the line of poverty :bounce3::bounce3: in the most rich country in the world.

If you have an iPhone and an TV bigger than ~40", you are NOT poor.