Vlad_the_Inaner: abb3w: skullkrusher: oh yeah?

Should have been "Sighed" at the end.

skullkrusher: When I refer to capital I am talking about investing in physical capital and putting it to use in the classical sense, not the people who loan money to buy that sort of capital.

So, what are your thought's on Karl Marx's statement that "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- and what does it imply about Republican politics?

Sorry if I'm wrecking a cunning plan, but that's not Marx. That is a Abraham Lincoln quote. You know, the Republican.

Abraham Lincoln would be burned at the stake by the modern Republican party. He freed the SLAVES, for fark's sake!

Geotpf: Ok. They are against Economic Injustice. That's lovely.

Now, what specific laws do they want passed?

[crickets chirping]

Chirp

Vlad_the_Inaner: abb3w: skullkrusher: oh yeah?

Should have been "Sighed" at the end.

skullkrusher: When I refer to capital I am talking about investing in physical capital and putting it to use in the classical sense, not the people who loan money to buy that sort of capital.

So, what are your thought's on Karl Marx's statement that "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- and what does it imply about Republican politics?

Sorry if I'm wrecking a cunning plan, but that's not Marx. That is a Abraham Lincoln quote. You know, the Republican.

he was trying to be cute

abb3w: So, what are your thought's on Karl Marx's statement that "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- and what does it imply about Republican politics?

I would say he was stating the obvious. Machines do not replicate themselves, nor do they result from spontaneous creation. Clearly labor came first and capital is the result of labor in its barest form initially, followed by interaction between labor and capital to create more sophisticated capital.

Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: abb3w: So, what are your thought's on Karl Marx's statement that "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- and what does it imply about Republican politics?

I would say he was stating the obvious. Machines do not replicate themselves, nor do they result from spontaneous creation. Clearly labor came first and capital is the result of labor in its barest form initially, followed by interaction between labor and capital to create more sophisticated capital.

Perhaps you can expand on that by comparing and contrasting what Lincoln called "Mud-Sill" capitalism with what you call 'sophisticated capital'

You said it was going to be all multiple choice.

skullkrusher: You said it was going to be all multiple choice.

Just say (c), it's always c.

When is the last time we saw ANY Occupy pictures in the MSM?

So (∃x∈S:φ(x))→(∀x∈S:φ(x))?

DozeNutz: I swear that there are so many people on Fark shrugging this off as if its nothing... Its the typical libs, but I thought they can see wrong right away.

Sorry, but openly calling for communism/socalism, after its complete failure all over the world, and human rights violations, is just dumb as fark. I hope this is just a small sliver of the OWS. Also comparing it to Tea Party is asinine, the Tea Party actually votes, and know how the election process works, hence 2010.

For all you know, those could all be right-wingers pretending to be leftists.

Hey, it's just as likely as your 9/11 theories. Which are themselves more likely than RON PAUL winning the presidency.

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: You said it was going to be all multiple choice.

Just say (c), it's always c.

sometimes I draw famous people's boobies on my Scantron

******** ************
* * *
* * * * *
* * *
*********************

that's Tara Reid

QU!RK1019: Geotpf: Ok. They are against Economic Injustice. That's lovely.

Now, what specific laws do they want passed?

[crickets chirping]

Chirp

First off, that's not even an Occupy group (not that there is a centralized Occupy group, which is a large part of the problem). Nowhere does the word "Occupy" even appear on that website, as far as I can tell.

Second off, the majority of the suggestions there are unconstitutional, vague, unrealistic, and/or ridiculous.

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: Apparent my bum and a whole slew of Financial experts

slew away, my good man. Of course, bad loans is a big part of what got us into this mess so perhaps they would've thrown some GM's stumbling way after all.

Um, I was talking about why the government got involved with the bankruptcy in the first place.

The Economist Said That Without The Auto Rescue "It Is More Likely GM Would Have Been Liquidated, Sending A Cascade Of Destruction Through The Supply Chain..." "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." [The Economist, 8/19/2010]

Geotpf: Weaver95: Mrtraveler01: Geotpf: trotsky: I still would rather deal with the extreme OWS people than the teatard assholes. At least the nutty OWS folks are educated enough to discuss big ideas like what actual socialism is.

I'd wish they'd discuss small ideas like specific laws they want passed. Right now, they are mostly protesting for the sake of protesting, with no goals or demands.

Yeah, that's my biggest compliant too. I mean I like the message and all but goddmanit they're as disorganized and useless as every other left-wing protest group.

[images2.dailykos.com image 550x506]

Ok. They are against Economic Injustice. That's lovely.

Now, what specific laws do they want passed?

[crickets chirping]

Try Google next time.

Link

Eliminate Corporate Rights as Persons

Repeal of the Patriot Act

Forced Acquisition of the Federal Reserve for $1Billion USD by the US Congress

Ban corporate donations to political campaigns while limiting individual campaign donations to $100.

End the War on Drugs

National Repeal of Capital Punishment

End Gender Discrimination - Equal Pay

U.S. Ratification of the Rome Statute and Membership in the International Criminal Court.

Repeal Rex84 and H.R. 645 and the procedures to establish Martial Law in the Country


It's funny because a lot of them are against the Federal Reserve and want 9/11 investigated - you'd think DozeNuts would support them.

un4gvn666: Abraham Lincoln would be burned at the stake by the modern Republican party.

John Wilkes Booth was a conservative; Lincoln was a liberal.

I still don't know why people are surprised at signs like this.

As children in school, we are fed a constant stream of "Capitalism is good" "Capitalism is great", "Capitalism made America what it is today".

That last one is important. When you've been told from the time you started studying American history that America's capitalist economy is what helped her succeed time and again; and then you see your parents losing much of their 401Ks, little hope of employment, foreclosures, going out of business sales; and you then hear the refrain "It's because we were not capitalist enough, we need to get out of the way" and you see that getting out of the way led to the current state of things (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act anyone); well hell, can't say I blame them for going "Maybe Marx was right" after giving only a superficial reading of one of his works, and then ignoring the history of state level Communism because your rejecting what you learned in school about capitalism turns into "If your teachers were wrong about Capitalism, maybe what I was fed about Communism is wrong too".

//Apologies for the run on.

Geotpf: First off, that's not even an Occupy group (not that there is a centralized Occupy group, which is a large part of the problem). Nowhere does the word "Occupy" even appear on that website, as far as I can tell.

Second off, the majority of the suggestions there are unconstitutional, vague, unrealistic, and/or ridiculous.

Look man, it's a grass roots, unorganized coalition of like-minded protesters. You want them to sit down and draft legislation? They wouldn't all agree to it 100% anyways. If you really do want to know what they're about, the link I provided should help you. Otherwise, you're just acting like the newscasters in the comic you were replying to.

meat0918: I still don't know why people are surprised at signs like this.

As children in school, we are fed a constant stream of "Capitalism is good" "Capitalism is great", "Capitalism made America what it is today".

That last one is important. When you've been told from the time you started studying American history that America's capitalist economy is what helped her succeed time and again; and then you see your parents losing much of their 401Ks, little hope of employment, foreclosures, going out of business sales; and you then hear the refrain "It's because we were not capitalist enough, we need to get out of the way" and you see that getting out of the way led to the current state of things (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act anyone); well hell, can't say I blame them for going "Maybe Marx was right" after giving only a superficial reading of one of his works, and then ignoring the history of state level Communism because your rejecting what you learned in school about capitalism turns into "If your teachers were wrong about Capitalism, maybe what I was fed about Communism is wrong too".

//Apologies for the run on.

That's a great point. And quite insightful into why "Communism" gets flirted with by college students. That and a dash of "rebelling against the establishment," even though it's really just wearing a Che t-shirt and smoking.

abb3w: So, what about the "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" bit? And any implications about Republican politics?

it is a tiny snippet of an argument against those who would argue that labor only exists because of capital. That the capitalists are the reason labor exists. Lincoln points to the fact that the majority of people are self employed farmers and don't rely on the capitalist class for this, therefore the argument is false since they do labor but not because of capital provided by another. Since this is clearly no longer the case, I have no idea what you're trying to do with your single sentence taken out of context of a 150 year old speech.

un4gvn666: Vlad_the_Inaner: abb3w: skullkrusher: oh yeah?

Should have been "Sighed" at the end.

skullkrusher: When I refer to capital I am talking about investing in physical capital and putting it to use in the classical sense, not the people who loan money to buy that sort of capital.

So, what are your thought's on Karl Marx's statement that "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- and what does it imply about Republican politics?

Sorry if I'm wrecking a cunning plan, but that's not Marx. That is a Abraham Lincoln quote. You know, the Republican.

Abraham Lincoln would be burned at the stake by the modern Republican party. He freed the SLAVES, for fark's sake!

I thought it was the southern democrats that supported slavery, not republicans.

gulogulo: Yet, we see a Che banner after a brief lesson in history proves he wasn't someone I think of when I think of "freedom."

Che's brand of "freedom whether you like it or not" was a helluva lot like the kind of freedom Libertarians want to force on everyone else, but really the main reason he keeps showing up is he was damned photogenic. He just makes it *work* in that iconic photograph as a revolutionary. It's silly, but so was voting for Bush because you could have a beer with him or for Obama because he was supposed to be some kind of liberal.

Image is everything, details are distracting.

keylock71: Headso: DozeNutz: Sorry, but openly calling for communism/socalism, after its complete failure all over the world

versus all the successful libertarian states, ever since Russia took on the flat tax everyone there is living in the lap of luxury!

He must be talking about all those third world hell holes that use Socialist policies as part of a complex mixed economy like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, England, France, Norway, The United States...

Google comes up with some interesting graphs (not arguing one side or the other, just thought they were interesting):
Gross Domestic Product of countries mentioned [excluding US, since we make the graph hard to read]

(Wish I could hotlink the graph itself)

I missed an OWS thread where I could have called them terrorists:(

I alone am best: I missed an OWS thread where I could have called them terrorists:(

you could have called 5-7 of them on terrorists, depending on reports

ohdoublereally: I thought it was the southern democrats that supported slavery, not republicans.

It was. The Democrats were conservative and the Republicans liberal for several decades. That hasn't stopped today's conservative Republican liars from claiming Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt as their own, mind you.

Thread observations:
- Republicans has such a great sense of humor. Like yawning...
- They also have such a high level of 6th grade history knowledge. Equal to none...

Dwight_Yeast: gulogulo: Eh, not sure how you'd call what happened post Batista a model for the U.S., either. Is that what you're suggesting

Che was out of Cuba by 1965 and dead by 1967, so I'm not sure how much you can blame him for in what happened "post-Batista".

Oh, I'd give El Ché *plenty* of credit for what happened post-Batista. Castro didn't throw Guevara out of Cuba for nothing, after all. Guevara's failed "Great Leap Forward"-style attempt at industrialization basically destroyed the Cuban economy and made that island a completely enfeoffed satellite of the Warsaw Pact, dependent on its sugar crop (and later the services of mercenary soldiers) to pay its freight in the world. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Guevara's myriad f**kups are still affecting the Cuban economy to this day.

Dan the Schman: Marx was about the little guy realizing their own power and standing up to the oppressive minority.

Yes, this whole "we will fight without guns, until we have all the guns, then we will set the agenda" (paraphrased) is really sticking up for the little guy

You'd think that after:

Lenin
Stalin
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Che Guevara
Fidel Castro
Raul Castro
Hugo Chavez
Hitler
Mussolini
Quisling
Kim Jong Il

and 150,000,000 dead that people would finally realize that the socialists who lead the revolution eventually make up the access class who replace the bourgeois. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

Gordon Bennett: ohdoublereally: I thought it was the southern democrats that supported slavery, not republicans.

It was. The Democrats were conservative and the Republicans liberal for several decades. That hasn't stopped today's conservative Republican liars from claiming Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt as their own, mind you.

That doesn't stop democrats from ignoring that a progressive hero fought tirelessly against women's suffrage (Wilson), that southern democrats (Al Gore Sr, & Robert Byrd) filibustered the CRA of 1964 and that a US president interned American-born citizens with Japanese, Italian or German roots during WWII.

Ideological positions seem to magically flip whenever a progressive does something bad.

o5iiawah: Dan the Schman: Marx was about the little guy realizing their own power and standing up to the oppressive minority.

Yes, this whole "we will fight without guns, until we have all the guns, then we will set the agenda" (paraphrased) is really sticking up for the little guy

You'd think that after:

Lenin
Stalin
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Che Guevara
Fidel Castro
Raul Castro
Hugo Chavez
Hitler
Mussolini
Quisling
Kim Jong Il

and 150,000,000 dead that people would finally realize that the socialists who lead the revolution eventually make up the access class who replace the bourgeois. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

I don't really get what point you're trying to make but most of those are revolutionary marxist/communists, not socialists. There are also some fascists in the mix, which is literally the opposite of a communist. These are pretty basic terms and you should really be able to distinguish between them before you go spouting off. Socialism now means a social democracy (think Canada, Scandinavia) where you have a progressive tax structure and a public social safety net. America has this already to a smaller degree (socialism lite) and is much different from the communist and fascist autocracies that you named.
/you're probably a troll but i'll feed you anyways

o5iiawah: Dan the Schman: Marx was about the little guy realizing their own power and standing up to the oppressive minority.

Yes, this whole "we will fight without guns, until we have all the guns, then we will set the agenda" (paraphrased) is really sticking up for the little guy

You'd think that after:

Lenin
Stalin
Pol Pot
Chairman Mao
Che Guevara
Fidel Castro
Raul Castro
Hugo Chavez
Hitler
Mussolini
Quisling
Kim Jong Il

and 150,000,000 dead that people would finally realize that the socialists who lead the revolution eventually make up the access class who replace the bourgeois. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

Authoritarian regimes are authoritarian no matter what political philosophy they ostensibly claim.

Fact remains the GOP are by far the more authoritarian of the two parties in the US and thus remain more closely allied to the people on your list you claim to oppose.

All modern, industrialized western nations are a blend of socialism and capitalism.

Trick is finding the right balance.

Pure unfettered capitalism is, asides from being impossible, about as stupid and dangerous as unfettered communism or fascism.

Learn this at some point.

Sooner would work better than later.

ordinarysteve: I don't really get what point you're trying to make but most of those are revolutionary marxist/communists, not socialists. There are also some fascists in the mix, which is literally the opposite of a communist. These are pretty basic terms and you should really be able to distinguish between them before you go spouting off. Socialism now means a social democracy (think Canada, Scandinavia) where you have a progressive tax structure and a public social safety net. America has this already to a smaller degree (socialism lite) and is much different from the communist and fascist autocracies that you named.
/you're probably a troll but i'll feed you anyways

According to Marx, there was a progression in the course of man - that eventually he would move towards communism. The first step in this was ultimately socialism which was to be replaced by communism after the strongmen/ politburo decided that things were equal enough and that they would return to the fields and factories with the rest of the workers. Does it surprise you that the government leaders in socialist countries have never given up power to return to the people? Do Hugo Chavez and the Castros wait in line for medical treatment? Do their kids go to state schools? Of course they dont. Thats for everyone else!

Pure socialism only exists on paper. It has been tried scores of times and usually results in one class, ethnicity or group seeking the extermination of another in some brutal airing of grievances.

The playbook however is the same.

divide the people into classes or groups, demonizing one and praising the other
advocate for state control of the media and means of production
eliminate or fight against inheritance
eliminate or fight against property rights
Subhumanize the rebels
create a boogeyman with whom "the people" can always be at war

Folks like you used to say 'but look at social democracy' when talking about Europe as a whole. now, the only place left where it "works" are the nordic states, who have largely rejected the EU, hold massive amounts of resources in reserve, still support an aristocracy and who control 70% of their economy. Greece and Sweden have largely the same governmental structure, Sweden just got lucky that they have oil off their coast.

quatchi: Pure unfettered capitalism is, asides from being impossible, about as stupid and dangerous as unfettered communism or fascism.

Learn this at some point.

Sooner would work better than later.

pure, unfettered capitalism can do no harm to an individual without the compliance of government. In a society where government protects property rights and fairly addresses contract breaches in court, a corporation can do no harm to an individual than overcast day. A harmed individual would at least have his day in court yet this is not the case.

Behind every evil corporation is a government complicit in its actions.
behind every polluter is a bought and paid for bureaucrat who issued the permit
Behind every corporation who pushes out small business is a government that creates barriers to entry

A corporation has no legal authority to arrest a citizen without compliance from the state. it has no ability to force an individual to support its business without compliance from the state. It has no ability to harm an individual without consequence without compliance from the state.

o5iiawah...dude, we've all read animal farm. We know that communism leads to the pigs wearing pants and shiat. As Quatchi said, this happens with every single dictatorship. Well unless you get a benevolent despot but usually it's just a vain, paranoid psycho.

o5iiawah: quatchi: Pure unfettered capitalism is, asides from being impossible, about as stupid and dangerous as unfettered communism or fascism.

Learn this at some point.

Sooner would work better than later.

pure, unfettered capitalism can do no harm to an individual without the compliance of government. In a society where government protects property rights and fairly addresses contract breaches in court, a corporation can do no harm to an individual than overcast day. A harmed individual would at least have his day in court yet this is not the case.

Behind every evil corporation is a government complicit in its actions.
behind every polluter is a bought and paid for bureaucrat who issued the permit
Behind every corporation who pushes out small business is a government that creates barriers to entry

A corporation has no legal authority to arrest a citizen without compliance from the state. it has no ability to force an individual to support its business without compliance from the state. It has no ability to harm an individual without consequence without compliance from the state.

A company without government regulations can pay people whatever they want, even company scrip, and get away with it.

A company without government regulations can pollute the environment to the point of causing area to become basically unlivable.

A company without government regulations can hire children or illegal immigrants and keep the workplace as unsafe as they want.

A government can be affected by public opinion seeking redress for social ills and is responsible for the continued long term survival and prosperity of the country itself and it's citizenry in a way that can't really be compared at all to corporate citizenship view of responsibility.

Government must be powerful enough to be able to counter the undue influence of corporations and since the corporate world went international the scales have increasingly gone out of balance in favor of the corporations over government.

Frankly, the idea that government needs to made less powerful here seems a backwards-assed approach to solving the problem.

Do some large companies conspire to create legislation that shuts out smaller business and gives them an unfair advantage?

Yes, indeedy which is why anti-trust law needs to be seriously re-examined again.

Too many Too Big Too Fail corps out there.

More efficient government, one less prone to the undue influences that work against the nation's best long term interests needs to be the goal.

Giving even more power to the corporations at this point by disempowering government seems suicidal.

Weaver95: SkinnyHead:
When all the decent people abandon a movement for being too radical, what do you got left? Radicals. Police still have to deal with them.

except that's not what happened. YOU said OWS was weak and powerless....my counter is that if the movement is weak and powerless then why has law enforcement pressure INCREASED. if the movement is weak and powerless, then the cops should be backing off. i'm sure the cops have better things to do than go after a movement that's nothing more than a handful of people, right?

As a political movement, they are weak and powerless. As an unguided mass of communists, anarchists, and other nutjobs they are extremely dangerous with more potential for random violence. There is no contradiction.

OgreMagi: Weaver95: SkinnyHead:
When all the decent people abandon a movement for being too radical, what do you got left? Radicals. Police still have to deal with them.

except that's not what happened. YOU said OWS was weak and powerless....my counter is that if the movement is weak and powerless then why has law enforcement pressure INCREASED. if the movement is weak and powerless, then the cops should be backing off. i'm sure the cops have better things to do than go after a movement that's nothing more than a handful of people, right?

As a political movement, they are weak and powerless. As an unguided mass of communists, anarchists, and other nutjobs they are extremely dangerous with more potential for random violence. There is no contradiction.

Exaggerate much?

whidbey: OgreMagi: Weaver95: SkinnyHead:
When all the decent people abandon a movement for being too radical, what do you got left? Radicals. Police still have to deal with them.

except that's not what happened. YOU said OWS was weak and powerless....my counter is that if the movement is weak and powerless then why has law enforcement pressure INCREASED. if the movement is weak and powerless, then the cops should be backing off. i'm sure the cops have better things to do than go after a movement that's nothing more than a handful of people, right?

As a political movement, they are weak and powerless. As an unguided mass of communists, anarchists, and other nutjobs they are extremely dangerous with more potential for random violence. There is no contradiction.

Exaggerate much?

Perhaps you didn't hear what happened when like-minded idiots protested things like the fair trade summit and similar events.

Oh, wait. I remember you from other topics. You are a moron of the highest order who is capable of holding a multitude of contracting ideas in your pinhead all at once. I guess you don't know about those other protests since that would require someone to sit down and explain what was being shown on the magic box or read to you from a newspaper.