International Politics Thread

[Panda-PL- 0]

No. No. No.

You learn things through media and schools that aren't correct, at all.

That's funny YOU would say that.

Because in this case I know these things from life.

You theorise about something my parents were observing in practice.

While you scream about being opressed if you cannot afford a PS3.

The rationising was an effect of those who were the new owners of ekhm... means of production being qualified to be marxists, but definitely not producers.

And for f sake: you're not gonna tell me things like milk, jam or ham need to be imported from West!

Another thing was the race of cast iron production, overproduction of alloy steels while not producing carbon steel - to give you an example from heavy industry.

I couldalso go on about building factories in plain countryside just for the sake of creating ploretariate populations around them.

You don't need sanctions when you have centrally planned economy.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]While you scream about being opressed if you cannot afford a PS3.

Politics is primarily a question about power. It has nothing to do with if you can afford a PS3 or not. I have no interest in such things.

A slave doesn't get more free if he gets a PS3, ten cars, two houses and a pizza. He's still a slave. But pizzas, TV and some liberal news can make him think he's free. Just like with religion or alcohol.

Quote[/b] ]You theorise about something my parents were observing in practice.

If there's something you don't understand don't pretend you do. Look the words up.

Calling Poland a communist state is a contradiction. Why? Because communism means a society without a state and without classes. No country has ever called itself communist. It's what liberals who don't know anything call others.

Sure, the planned economy in Poland wasn't working at maximum efficiency. No economy is, there are a lot of problems with efficiency in free markets too, like things going to waste in the case of having unemployed people, overproduction (and the disposal of products), conjunctures where factory prod is halted even though there's a need for the products, ads etc. However, a planned economy at least has the potential to grow better if and only if more products can be taken into account when you do the calculations. Back then you had to do math on 1000 products while there were 100 000s in reality. Today there are computers that can handle all those operations in no time.

Big companies are all planned economies internally.

And look at Poland today. What have you achieved? You got some US boots to shine, some cowboys down in Iraq, increased corruption, huge unemployment, worse social standards for most people (a few, probably a high % of those with internet conn. have it somewhat better). Exploitation, capitalist monopoly of the press, loss of economic democracy, no abortions, mix of religion with politics .. .. .. . How many people actually vote in Poland about 50%, less?

[Panda-PL- 0]

Well, I recall standing in line with my mom to get milk. Now I just take cash and go to store. I have enought cash to buy more than I can eat.

Quote[/b] ]A slave doesn't get more free if he gets a PS3, ten cars, two houses and a pizza.

Free not, happy.

People revolt when they are unhappy.

People don't revolt if they are happy.

If being a slave bounded by money but at the same time - being able to afford 10x what one needs and desires - would make one happy, then why liberate him? What's your resoning there, assuming your worldview to be true (that is: communism would make this guy own more, not less)?

He's got nothing to gain, as opposed to "nothing to loose but their chains".

The material factor was the crux of the argument. Oppression is the necessery prerequisite for revolution.

If there is no opression in capitalism then what do you revolt against?

This was my point with PS3 (that you didn't catch). You are now capable to satisfy all your needs within existing society on a level that satisfies me, personally.

You have a higher standard of living and maybe even an iPhone, but I don't envy you. I am fine.

I am not a big materialist, the things I like the most I couldn't buy anyway.

You are some kind of anarcho-socialist? Communism needs a rulling class to run. Direct voting is impossible physically and it would also be a stupid idea since avarage Joe lacks time to study the things he would vote on.

[echo1 0]

I think this boils down to the whole question of how human nature and the human mind work. No amount of rhetoric can ever take away from the fact that people instinctively want to be better than other people. Of course, its all a question of ethics, should everyone suffer from a life of unfulfillment equally or should some people suffer an awful lot so that the majority of people can have the chance to live life to the full? Admittedly, my "upper-middle-class" (whatever that means) background leaves me somewhat biased, but Im going to pick the latter. Then again, what has this got to do with International Politics anyway? :P

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]And like i told you, there haven't been society where elitist ruling class would not be. Socialism reguired elitist ruling class and as human is what it is, elitist ruling class will remain and your idea of communism fades away and gets twisted by elite. Working class then lives happily in their pastures, eats hay, while ruling class takes care of them and rules them.

Good to see that socialsm is going good   However most doesnt' support your communistic view of revolt and things. Most have given up whole idea of reaching for socialism (like my country's social-democrats). Mostly it has nothing to do with goal to reach communism and world's revolution (aka marxism). At most they try to change their sociaty gently by melting into capitalistic structures to work as counter weight. Nothing bad with that, as it's healthy to have things in balance.

So: You won't have World's Revolution. Time for it has passed, if there ever was change for it in the first place.

Just because the USSR was dissolved from above and the counter-revolution won it doesn't mean that socialism is impossible. It's like saying just because the Paris commune was defeated the USSR couldn't be created. History will repeat itself until society changes. Sooner or later it will.

There are many countries who have had socialism for decades and still have it like Cuba. They are doing great progress there and the island is far better off than the rest of the comparable countries in the region.

Social democrats aren't socialists usually. They are mostly social liberals. The Russian revolution changed more things in ten days than what the social democrats of many countries did in 100 years.

Marxism isn't the world revolution.

Well-well-well... I soon have new filthy powerful (and hopefully less f*cked up than my current) computer and if i manage to get it before week's end this is my last post for a while... Or then not, i dunno.

First you'r right with marxism. Seems that i have alot to learn about marxism. So i leave MArxism to that.

I have to agree that socialsm isn't impossible... But then again we are not talking about same kind socialsm. My socialsm is something what many welfare states are close to, or even have achieved. So yes i quess my favorite-socialsm is something with social-democrats would reach for, softening capitalism by acting as counter weight for it. I think this is the new healthy way of socialsm, while your (is it?) hardcore "by force if nothing else works"-way won't work for those countries which have things sorted out. Proof: When nation and region has got better in living standarts support of communism/socialism drops.

Btw. When Castro pulls out form power, Cuba will have to face option to move closer to capitalism. It's economical situation isn't very good and something has to be done. Castro ain't willing to face capitalism, but maybe his successor (in dictatorship) will or is forced to.

Russian revolution no doupt changed things. Russia was still pretty much in middle-age from what i've read. But if you read history you notice that that aint' first or even last time when so much progress happens in so short time.

[MehMan 0]

I think this is the new healthy way of socialsm, while your (is it?) hardcore "by force if nothing else works"-way won't work for those countries which have things sorted out. Proof: When nation and region has got better in living standarts support of communism/socialism drops.

It's the only way for socialism to succed. Forcing it onto people creates resistance, trying to prevent different thinking that could hurt socialism via networks of spies and informants makes people rather uncomfortable and unwanting of the system. However a social-democrat version much like in Spain is welcome. Forcing it down our throats is never a good idea, giving us a choice is.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Free not, happy.

People revolt when they are unhappy.

People don't revolt if they are happy.

If being a slave bounded by money but at the same time - being able to afford 10x what one needs and desires - would make one happy, then why liberate him? What's your resoning there, assuming your worldview to be true (that is: communism would make this guy own more, not less)?

He's got nothing to gain, as opposed to "nothing to loose but their chains".

The material factor was the crux of the argument. Oppression is the necessery prerequisite for revolution.

If people are happy being slaves, then that's ok for them. But I don't think people are happy in this consumerist society. I'm not. I want freedom and democracy.

Communism wouldn't make anyone own more or less. It's completely unrelated. It's not about possessions, it's about power.

Quote[/b] ]If there is no opression in capitalism then what do you revolt against?

This was my point with PS3 (that you didn't catch). You are now capable to satisfy all your needs within existing society on a level that satisfies me, personally.

You have a higher standard of living and maybe even an iPhone, but I don't envy you. I am fine.

I am not a big materialist, the things I like the most I couldn't buy anyway.

There's oppression in that that surplus value is created. It's an economical fact. All systems that consist of classes also consist of the oppression of one class over another.

Quote[/b] ]You are some kind of anarcho-socialist? Communism needs a rulling class to run. Direct voting is impossible physically and it would also be a stupid idea since avarage Joe lacks time to study the things he would vote on.

No, I'm a socialist. Communism has no ruling classes. Communism is not what existed in your country or anywhere else. That was your version of socialism at that time. Anarchists and socialist have the same goal; to reach the communist society. The difference is how it's done. I can't say how democracy will work in communism, it has to be decided by those who live in such a society. That can be 500 years away from now.

Quote[/b] ]I have to agree that socialsm isn't impossible... But then again we are not talking about same kind socialsm. My socialsm is something what many welfare states are close to, or even have achieved. So yes i quess my favorite-socialsm is something with social-democrats would reach for, softening capitalism by acting as counter weight for it. I think this is the new healthy way of socialsm, while your (is it?) hardcore "by force if nothing else works"-way won't work for those countries which have things sorted out. Proof: When nation and region has got better in living standarts support of communism/socialism drops.

There's a definition of socialism too. A society has to have some key-features before socialism can be reached. Cuba is a socialist country for instance. "Social-democracy" (today's version) is just capitalism with so called "fair"-distribution of wealth. When money is distributed it just gets sucked up the same way by the system again. In the end it's no different from the rest of the liberal ideologies. In my opinion slavery has to end before we can talk about justice and how resources should be distributed.

Quote[/b] ]Btw. When Castro pulls out form power, Cuba will have to face option to move closer to capitalism. It's economical situation isn't very good and something has to be done. Castro ain't willing to face capitalism, but maybe his successor (in dictatorship) will or is forced to.

Cuba introduced some versions of private ownership during the "special period" after the dissolution of the USSR which made companies consisting of family-members legal and some other reforms. But since the cuban economy has improved they've taken back those reforms.

Raul Castro is elected by the national assembly which is elected by the people.

Quote[/b] ]It's the only way for socialism to succed. Forcing it onto people creates resistance, trying to prevent different thinking that could hurt socialism via networks of spies and informants makes people rather uncomfortable and unwanting of the system. However a social-democrat version much like in Spain is welcome. Forcing it down our throats is never a good idea, giving us a choice is.

Lenin had the same theory about socialism, that it has to be introduced by force as the ruling class would never give up their power peacefully. Those who have power usually don't give it up voluntarily.

It doesn't matter if socialists take the power by force or by winning elections (by following the liberal unbalanced non-democratic set of rules), there's always a counter-revolution. The old ruling class doesn't want to give up its power, so it tries to get it back by all means possible, and in the end it does so through violence.

More people died in the NY traffic during a day than what did during the russian revolution. It was the counter-revolution when the royalists, capitalists, dukes, land owners etc together with 12+ imperialist nations invaded Russia that was bloody.

As the socialist countries and the socialist bloc always had less resources and power than the western world, they had to protect themselves from west-supported counter-revolution. There had to be a huge counter-espionage apparatus. But this is no different from what's going on in the west. The state in all societies has the mission to keep the current society unchanged. Citizens of the west are more controlled now than what people in the east ever were. Partly due to new technology and new possibilities.

Spain is no socialist country and it isn't ruled by a socialist party. They once were socialists, long time ago, but now there's only the name and colors left. In European politics you only vote for colors, not about politics. There are hardly any differences between the biggest parties anywhere. Just rhetorics and small changes in % tax. Why? Because you can't do any changes when you want to keep the ruling class in power. And the ruling class that owns all media uses it as a weapon to combat critics and their points of view. People don't get to know much if they don't look for it themselves somewhere else.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Ever heard of "No True Scotsman"?

I think this is what you've just done.

Somehow each time someone tries to introduce communism he's allways stuck on some intermediate form.

The "temporary" elites of socialism have no bussiness giving up their power and going to full communism. And because they now own the newly created secret police that was used to opress the former rulling class they can equally well utilize it to opress those among the former revolutionaries that do want to go all the way.

You stand on the shoulders of Mao and Lenin. They WERE true belivers.

Communism is pretty much like perpetum mobile - there is allways some little detail that gets in the way and in the end you end up with "allmost" communism.

I like it how you admitt the eastern block was constantly backwards. Lack of private enterprise hurts economy.

Sure you can make a car with square wheels, you just need a better engine, lower transmission and a sloped road and it will run. Sure it will be a bumpy ride. But what's the point?

And finally what is the benefit of having power? In sense of human needs? Which need does it satisfy?

It's not that your country does not have a revolutionary base, the economical opression is simply nonexistent where you live.

Your views are for your neighbours just your silly hobby, they don't need you.

[scubaman3D 0]

@ Sep. 05 2008,13:15)]Communism is pretty much like perpetum mobile - there is allways some little detail that gets in the way and in the end you end up with "allmost" communism.

You're right, and I always explain this by concluding that people are inherently selfish. Once they get their "temporary" absolute power, 99.9% of people can't give it up.

In theory and in practice are definately two completely different animals.

If 100 countries went through the "revolution", 99+ of them would end up as corrupted totalatarian regimes, like the military dictatorships we had seen in the post WWII communist expansion.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Somehow each time someone tries to introduce communism he's allways stuck on some intermediate form.

The "temporary" elites of socialism have no bussiness giving up their power and going to full communism. And because they now own the newly created secret police that was used to opress the former rulling class they can equally well utilize it to opress those among the former revolutionaries that do want to go all the way.

You stand on the shoulders of Mao and Lenin. They WERE true belivers.

Communism is pretty much like perpetum mobile - there is allways some little detail that gets in the way and in the end you end up with "allmost" communism.

I like it how you admitt the eastern block was constantly backwards. Lack of private enterprise hurts economy.

Sure you can make a car with square wheels, you just need a better engine, lower transmission and a sloped road and it will run. Sure it will be a bumpy ride. But what's the point?

No it hasn't to do with word-perfections. A communist society is a society without a state and without classes. Nobody has ever tried to build one, and nobody has ever claimed to have one. Communism has never existed.

You're talking about socialism, nothing else. Socialism eventually transforms into communism after some generations, when the world revolution has been performed.

Economies work wonderfully without private enterprise. The USSR has the growth record. Cuba has had the highest growth in the region for many years, while the EU for instance has a negative growth, a decline.

Quote[/b] ]If 100 countries went through the "revolution", 99+ of them would end up as corrupted totalatarian regimes, like the military dictatorships we had seen in the post WWII communist expansion.

Military dictatorships? Like what?

The "USSR"/Soviet Russia was initially a multi-party state. But, some parties started a civil war, finally there were two big parties (Bolsheviks and Left SR). Left SR was offered positions in the government but refused as it didn't want to end the war with germany. They began to assassinate bolsheviks and even the german ambassador, as they thought people would support them that way. They shot Lenin (who survived) and started to terrorize people around the country. There was a minor armed uprising that was defeated. The Bolsheviks never wanted a one-party state, but there were no parties left, as they all were counter-revolutionary. Supporters of socialism but who were in other socialist parties joined the bolsheviks instead.

[echo1 0]

The "USSR"/Soviet Russia was initially a multi-party state. But, some parties started a civil war, finally there were two big parties (Bolsheviks and Left SR). Left SR was offered positions in the government but refused as it didn't want to end the war with germany.

Actually, they won something like 60% of the total votes in the post-revolution election, but Lenin disbanded the assembly and made it into a one party state when he realized that democracy would go against him. Their dissatisfaction with Germany was after this happened.

Quote[/b] ]They shot Lenin (who survived) and started to terrorize people around the country. There was a minor armed uprising that was defeated.

A woman who was affiliated with the SR shot Lenin. Whether or not it was all planned by the SR is probably uncertain, but it was definitely used as an excuse to carry out a purge of about 12,000 people or so.

[scubaman3D 0]

Military dictatorships? Like what?

I don't even have to argue this point. Its moot.

The substantive claim is that 99+ out of 100 countries will end up as corrupted totalitarian regimes.

[Panda-PL- 0]

The USSR has the growth record.

In what? Cast Iron Production Race with China?

How come Russian Federation has only half the gross income of UK, no advanced technologies and it literally lives from oil export?

And no, it didn't used to be better.

If it wasn't for oil and natural gass...  

The "few generations" of socialism you mention do not serve the builtup of proletarian conciousness. instead the new rulling class has time to get accustomed to their new position.

Not to mention socialism usually doesn't last that long somehow... People don't like it. It's hard to rule a country with 95% of society against you and the remaining 5% working for you.

Maybe if you could hire 50% of population to watch over the remaining half it could work...

I have actually read trough the mannifesto once and had a good laught when Engels rises this exact problem (the problem of revolution only serving to bring new group of people into power) and just asserts: "this is reactionist propaganda" and leaves this statement hanging in the air.

There is a group of people at power in a country with supressed media, limited freedoms and good means to keep iot that way. What do you think will they do?

Quote[/b] ]Actually, they won something like 60% of the total votes in the post-revolution election, but Lenin disbanded the assembly and made it into a one party state when he realized that democracy would go against him.

Pwnd?

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, they won something like 60% of the total votes in the post-revolution election, but Lenin disbanded the assembly and made it into a one party state when he realized that democracy would go against him. Their dissatisfaction with Germany was after this happened.

There were two revolutions, and there is a difference between parliament and soviet elections. The parliament was more or less disbanded while the soviets (=democratic councils) were kept and set as the primary legislative branch.

"Democracy would go against him", that's bullshit. Multiple parties were represented in the soviets. They were even offered a position in government. But they refused due to the war. The bolsheviks (and some mensheviks) were the only ones who wanted to end it. The rest were too nationalist to do it so they tried to make the war start again by killing bolsheviks and germans.

Quote[/b] ]A woman who was affiliated with the SR shot Lenin. Whether or not it was all planned by the SR is probably uncertain, but it was definitely used as an excuse to carry out a purge of about 12,000 people or so.

No, but it showed the face of the counter-revolution. There has to be maximum security and efficiency in combatting counter-revolutionaries.

Quote[/b] ]In what? Cast Iron Production Race with China?

Economic growth.

Quote[/b] ]How come Russian Federation has only half the gross income of UK, no advanced technologies and it literally lives from oil export?

And no, it didn't used to be better.

If it wasn't for oil and natural gass...  

The Russian Federation is another country. GDP dropped by 30%. 90% in some areas. When the USSR was dissolved.

Even the GDR had higher GDP/capita than the UK:

"In the 1970s, the World Bank reported the GDR had a higher GDP per capita than the UK."

Wiki

Quote[/b] ]I have actually read trough the mannifesto once and had a good laught when Engels rises this exact problem (the problem of revolution only serving to bring new group of people into power) and just asserts: "this is reactionist propaganda" and leaves this statement hanging in the air.

The communist manifesto is of no big importance. But yes, a revolution will of course bring a new group of people into power. That's the idea.

[Commando84 0]

@spokesperson isn't rationing only a option used during war or other crisis? Thats when i have usually seen it being encouraged..

[Spokesperson 0]

Rationing never was a common thing, but ensured that all people got their share of things, if they wanted, when needed.

In capitalist economies people starve instead. And at times stores here ration products as well.

While all citizens of the GDR had food and loads of social benefits, -maybe they couldn't find any bananas in their stores, miners in the UK were lucky to have rusks and clean water. Standard 19th century prison food. But, what's the difference anyway?

[Commando84 0]

I dunno in my country people in prison have better food than the elderly and school children

I guess the guys in charge of running the prisons don't want the prisoners to riot or something..

Anyways school food in Sweden is usually free of charge cause everybody who pays taxes in country indirectly pays for their and other kids food, which is a good system. If you live close to school or have cash you can eat at a nearby Mcdonalds or something if you are really picky

I dunno there is always food in food stores at least in my country, but sure the nice foods like froozen chicken filet and a crapload of microwave food have a tendency of running low at the end of the month just before people get their payment to their accounts.

I can't really imagine that food can not be found in the store, just some of the finer and sometimes cheaper products during sales that can run out of stock in a week or two.. But all regular stuff like meat and milk and salads are always available...

[Baff1 0]

@ Sep. 05 2008,19:00)]How come Russian Federation has only half the gross income of UK, no advanced technologies

.......... Pwnd?

No advanced technologies.

Uh Huh.

[Baff1 0]

Russia has not been in anyway aggressive towards NATO at all.

It is Russia, not NATO, that is threatening to target the CIS countries, like Poland, with nuclear warheads.

Its Russia that is protesting their entrance into NATO and the EU.

Its Russia that has repeatedly threatened its satellite neighbors with sanctions military action if they join western government organizations.

Seems you're fighting an uphill battle.

It's Russia that is being threatened by new missiles being placed by the U.S. in Poland.

Russia didn't threaten Poland with nuclear strikes and then Poland, frightened by Russia's new agression ask the U.S. to build a missile shield on it's borders.

That isn't what happened.

We all threaten each other with nuclear missiles all the time.

100% of the time. It isn't the repeating of an existing present threat that changes anything, it is the implimentation of a new one. An escalation of the arms race provokes a response.

Any NATO member seeking to justify provocation is a member that needs to be removed.

This is not a NATO deployment, becuase NATO doesn't want those missiles in Poland threatening the Russians either.

It's not just Russia that is protesting NATO and EU expansion. A good number of EU and NATO members are also.

Russia isn't the only country to repeatedly threaten it's neighbours with sanctions and military actions. The U.S. does exactly the same with Venezuala and Cuba. (Not to mention Panama and Columbia and many many other countries around the world).

America threatened Cuba with sanctions and military actions over it's intention to host Russian missiles.

This is normal behaviour.

What did you expect?

Are you going to condemn America for that too? I don't mind if

you do, but I hope the indefenceablility of your idealogical position iif you don't is not lost you.

Seems I am fighting an uphill battle with you mate.

I've got you down as a Mid Western American.

Someone for whom all the worlds problems can be clearly defined into catagories with "good guys" and "bad guys" and for whom hatred is always the prime motivator.

You know the racial stereotype.

Someone who abjectly does not want to know.

Or are you really that paranoid that you think Russia is coming to get you?

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's like trying to explain how capitalism actually works to Spokesperson. He doesn't want to know. He can't identify with the thought that there aren't vast cabals of evil people in the world all out to get him. A load of unjust monsters all waiting for him to save the world from them.

And neither can you.

I know perfectly well how capitalism works. That's a requirement for a socialist point of view. The difference between you and me is that I know what to do about it. You don't even have a clue about basic economics like how values are created, or how an econ. value is defined. That's a minimum requirement for understanding, as it's the basic tool for econ. analysis.

If you value what's called "scientific method" and not "blabla bla", you have to appreciate that big subjects have to be understood from its smaller but fundamental contents.

[Baff1 0]

No mate.

You really don't.

You have absolutely no idea.

If knowing how capitalism works is a requirement for "a socialist point of view", then you need to re-evaluate your position on that also.

I appreciate that "big subjects have to be understood from their smaller but fundamental contents".

Which is why I have gone to such previous lengths to explain those fundamentals to you. To help you refine your understanding of the issues you raise.

You don't want to know. You don't want to know about the fundamental contents of a big issue if they happen to conflict with your pre-conceptions. You don't want to know. You would rather not learn.

You objective is not the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom it is solely the furtherment of your own personal ideology.

Scientific method isn't a method you use.

You don't know how to do anything about anything.

You are a school kid. Wake up mate.

A person may be ignorant, but not stupid. A lack of education is not a lack of intelliegence.

You are both.

[Spokesperson 0]

That's blah-blah-blah talk. It's easy to talk. Your whole idea that authority > arguments just shows how you think and how unscientific it is.

Intelligence doesn't guarantee that you learn the alphabet or how the economy works all by yourself. Sure you might come up with an alphabet, but chances are that it won't be the same as the one used by other people.

Quote[/b] ]Scientific method isn't a method you use.

So economy is unscientific?

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]I've got you down as a Mid Western American.

Someone for whom all the worlds problems can be clearly defined into catagories with "good guys" and "bad guys" and for whom hatred is always the prime motivator.

You know the racial stereotype.

 Wow, talk about the kettle calling the pot black. I didn't realize mid western Americans could be categorized.

Quote[/b] ]Anyways school food in Sweden is usually free of charge cause everybody who pays taxes in country indirectly pays for their and other kids food, which is a good system.

 It's a good system unless you are some one like me. See I don't want to pay for other people's children, it was their choice to have children not mine I want to keep my money for my self.

 The problem with these types of "tax payer" funded programs is that people who don't pay taxes for example can benifit and take advatage, which is unfair to those who paid for it. For example I can go up to Canada and get cheap prescription drugs that the Canadians have paid for with their tax dollars, how is it fair to them that I can come from another country and get the medicine for that price when I have not even paid into their system?

 As for you Spokeperson I guess between you and I it all comes down to this, the fruits of my labor are mine and not yours, if you ask nicely I might share, perhaps I'll even sell for the right price. In the end it is mine though, and if you were to say try and seize it and put me in a "labor camp for counter revolutionaries" well I guess it would just be a fight to the death. See you might win and "kill the counter revolutionary" or I might win and you'd be dealt with. What ever the case I would rather die than surrender what is mine and you would have to kill me if it came down to your gulag solution as I would not be taken alive.

 Spokesperson reading your post has really made me understand and subscribe to the principal of "better dead than red".

[kavoven 4]

Isn't it interesting that spokesperson is talking about Blablabla posts?

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ] As for you Spokeperson I guess between you and I it all comes down to this, the fruits of my labor are mine and not yours, if you ask nicely I might share, perhaps I'll even sell for the right price. In the end it is mine though, and if you were to say try and seize it and put me in a "labor camp for counter revolutionaries" well I guess it would just be a fight to the death. See you might win and "kill the counter revolutionary" or I might win and you'd be dealt with. What ever the case I would rather die than surrender what is mine and you would have to kill me if it came down to your gulag solution as I would not be taken alive.

If you own a factory then the workers will seize it, because your ownership and profits are based on exploitation. A worker works 8hours a day. 3h work pays his wage. The rest (5h) ends up in your pockets. That's modern slavery, and workers don't want that.

So in what way do you as a share-holder work? I think the workers can live without you and your "work", but you can't live without them.

It's natural to resist for an owner of means of production, and those who resist, who want to keep the old ways, are enemies of the revolution.

Nobody is interested in your TV, computer, car or carpets. Only means of production are interesting.