If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Corporate CEO's have picked up on a trick of the Unions/Democrats, now turning their employees into Republican foot soldiers   (rt.com) divider line 190
    More: Spiffy, Republican, subsidiary  
•       •       •

1422 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2012 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-16 03:56:16 PM
I'm amazed there aren't corporations that are telling their employees to vote absentee and take a picture of the filled-out ballot, to ensure they're voting for the "acceptable" candidates.
 
2012-10-16 04:03:48 PM

FarkedOver: When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

He'll eat you. That's the bottom line:

[imageshack.us image 451x800]

Nah, just advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual withering away of the "state" into a classless stateless society.

What a terrible thing. Maybe I should just give up and accept my lot in life as a wage slave who should feel lucky just to lick the boot of my corporate masters. Ahhh the path of least resistance is so much easier. Living in moderate comfort while workers are oppressed so that I can live my hedonistic American lifestyle! USA! USA! USA!


I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up to incentivise people to do things that are of a benefit to society as a whole. Remove the incentives and society becomes unsustainable and it fails.

Why the hell would I work if we all got the same government cheese for dinner every night regardless of our efforts or abilities?
 
2012-10-16 04:11:59 PM

Leeds: FarkedOver: When workers seize the means of production it is in their and society's best interest to defend that against their former exploiters. If there is a workers revolution, you are more than welcome to try and regain control of your old means of exploitation. :)

I am asking you how you propose to suppress me if I disagree with your policies. Do you propose to use the same methods of suppression as the running dog capitalist stooges? Shall I be shot, imprisoned, tortured? Please tell us what lengths you will go to to ensure that those you view as exploiters are destroyed?

He'll eat you. That's the bottom line:

[imageshack.us image 451x800]

Nah, just advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual withering away of the "state" into a classless stateless society.

What a terrible thing. Maybe I should just give up and accept my lot in life as a wage slave who should feel lucky just to lick the boot of my corporate masters. Ahhh the path of least resistance is so much easier. Living in moderate comfort while workers are oppressed so that I can live my hedonistic American lifestyle! USA! USA! USA!

I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up ...


Well, you might do work because you find it interesting and take personal satisfaction from it. Problem: There aren't enough jobs like that for everyone, and the garbage has to get collected, too. So for the rest of us, there's cash.
 
2012-10-16 04:20:45 PM

Leeds: I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up to incentivise people to do things that are of a benefit to society as a whole. Remove the incentives and society becomes unsustainable and it fails.

Why the hell would I work if we all got the same government cheese for dinner every night regardless of our efforts or abilities?


Thank you for hearing me out. I must say your concept of what I believe is somewhat skewed. Utopian socialism and scientific socialism are two very different things. I am not an advocate for utopian socialism, nor was Marx for that matter (as he addressed in many of his works). Socialism, from a Marxist perspective, is a struggle. It is something to be achieved. Marx went so far as to say capitalism was necessary. It is the step prior to that of socialism (socialism being the step before communism). Capitalism is the step that rapidly industrializes a populace (we can argue this is why socialism in the USSR because they were not by any stretch of the imagination a capitalist country at the time of the revolution).

I'm glad you once thought as I did. It's a shame you didn't expand upon your views as you saw them when you were 13, it seems you've regressed to objectivism, which is sad. Are you, or anyone else arrogant enough to hang your hat on capitalism and say "Good enough, that's as far as I'm willing to progress economically and socially." I, for one, am not willing to make that concession. A better world, a better society can be achieved when TRUE democracy is allowed to flourish, i.e. when the world is controlled by the majority rather than a minority. Is the world ready? Probably not yet, but as information spreads, as technology spreads the world is becoming one step closer every day. Cell phones in the hands of the youth in Iran or workers in Africa are a good example of this. See, this is where capitalism is necessary, getting the means of production ramped up and getting people their goods and needs.

But what happens after capitalism? Will capitalism always be? I say it will not always be. Feudalism met its end. Mercantilism met its end. Slavery met its end. How can we sit here and say that Capitalism will never end?
 
2012-10-16 04:23:17 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So which leads us back to the question, will forgotmydamnusername be one of the first up against the wall during your glorious workers revolution? If he or I oppose your policies can we expect summary execution?

If there is a class struggle and there is armed conflict people will probably die. If he hires a bunch of goons and mercs to storm a democratic work place and dies in the ensuing battle, yes there will be violence. If he comes up to a democratic work place run by workers and is like "Hey guys! Give it back and come work for me again! I'll be a better boss this time!" He'll probably just be laughed at.


What are the workers going to seize that factory wholly non-violently? What if management and some of their other workers just laugh at the Party Members when you say you are taking the factory in the workers name? Would that justify violent acts?
 
2012-10-16 04:26:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: What are the workers going to seize that factory wholly non-violently? What if management and some of their other workers just laugh at the Party Members when you say you are taking the factory in the workers name? Would that justify violent acts?


If there wasn't a majority on board I doubt they would seize the means of production. There are so many variables at play in a supposed workers revolution. You can rest easy and stop clutching your pearls because you and I both know this day will (probably) never come in our lifetimes in the US.
 
2012-10-16 04:30:37 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: What are the workers going to seize that factory wholly non-violently? What if management and some of their other workers just laugh at the Party Members when you say you are taking the factory in the workers name? Would that justify violent acts?

If there wasn't a majority on board I doubt they would seize the means of production. There are so many variables at play in a supposed workers revolution. You can rest easy and stop clutching your pearls because you and I both know this day will (probably) never come in our lifetimes in the US.


What happens to the minority then? Oh that's right., they get "suppressed". By any means necessary, right? So sad that you won't live to help "suppress" enemies.
 
2012-10-16 04:31:09 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: What happens to the minority then? Oh that's right., they get "suppressed". By any means necessary, right? So sad that you won't live to help "suppress" enemies.


So sad that you live to serve.
 
2012-10-16 04:35:11 PM

FarkedOver: Leeds: I consider you to be well spoken, considerate and by no means crazy. But I cannot agree with you for one simple reason- Capitalism is the only system that is based on motivating society using the incentive system.

I do not think that you have taken the time to think through your utopian idea of scrapping the incentive system for one where we just hope and pray that everyone chooses to work hard and everyone chooses to live without the spoils of their personal labor.

I can sympathize with you though. I once thought as you did. There was a time in middle school when I was intrigued by the concepts of socialism and communism. But I never understood them well enough to change my allegiance over to them. Then, over time I finally realized that the reason capitalism is the only practical solution (save a monarchy, oddly enough) is because it is set up to incentivise people to do things that are of a benefit to society as a whole. Remove the incentives and society becomes unsustainable and it fails.

Why the hell would I work if we all got the same government cheese for dinner every night regardless of our efforts or abilities?

Thank you for hearing me out. I must say your concept of what I believe is somewhat skewed. Utopian socialism and scientific socialism are two very different things. I am not an advocate for utopian socialism, nor was Marx for that matter (as he addressed in many of his works). Socialism, from a Marxist perspective, is a struggle. It is something to be achieved. Marx went so far as to say capitalism was necessary. It is the step prior to that of socialism (socialism being the step before communism). Capitalism is the step that rapidly industrializes a populace (we can argue this is why socialism in the USSR because they were not by any stretch of the imagination a capitalist country at the time of the revolution).

I'm glad you once thought as I did. It's a shame you didn't expand upon your views as you saw them when you were 13, ...


Because capitalism most efficiently meets supply and demand when properly controlled. Left completely unregulated, its collection of internal contradictions and perverse incentives tend to result in capitalism eating itself. However, a top-down, planned economy will always result in stifled innovation and the production of crap no one wants, because the planners are incapable of sufficient omniscience to always or even usually correctly allocate production priorities. The lack of incentives also tends to result in people slacking off even more than they do in giant American corporations, or, as they said in Russia, "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work!" Notions of hierarchy and private property and some sefish impulses also appear to be hard-wired in the human psyche. While these can certainly become quite destructive, I don't think it's really possible to root them out entirely, and the best one can hope for is managing them a bit.
 
2012-10-16 04:37:26 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: What happens to the minority then? Oh that's right., they get "suppressed". By any means necessary, right? So sad that you won't live to help "suppress" enemies.

So sad that you live to serve.


Yep, that's me, Running dog lackey of capitalism. You sure have me pegged, Comrade.

Seriously, you are in college, right? You'll outgrow your naive flirtation with Leninism and see Leninism for what it is, merely an excuse to oppress even more than the previous oppressor.
 
2012-10-16 04:40:07 PM

forgotmydamnusername: Because capitalism most efficiently meets supply and demand when properly controlled. Left completely unregulated, its collection of internal contradictions and perverse incentives tend to result in capitalism eating itself. However, a top-down, planned economy will always result in stifled innovation and the production of crap no one wants, because the planners are incapable of sufficient omniscience to always or even usually correctly allocate production priorities. The lack of incentives also tends to result in people slacking off even more than they do in giant American corporations, or, as they said in Russia, "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work!" Notions of hierarchy and private property and some sefish impulses also appear to be hard-wired in the human psyche. While these can certainly become quite destructive, I don't think it's really possible to root them out entirely, and the best one can hope for is managing them a bit.


I agree to a point, but at it's nature capitalism exploits. Capitalism alienates. Hey man, congrats, you put your unwavering faith into a capitalistic society, that's part of what makes it move. All I'm saying is that we will move beyond it at some point in the future. Humans do have self interest, we do want to feel good, but that's only part of the equation. We also have it hard wired in us to be cooperative, to work together, to achieve things together. Money and greed will not be what moves society forward. It's cooperation that moves us forward.
 
2012-10-16 04:41:37 PM

FarkedOver: I know this idea is CRAZY, but imagine a work place that was run democratically..... without *gasp* OWNERS!!! THE HORROR!!! We need to be told what to do, because we are incapable of it without someone with power and money telling us what needs to be done.

Your defending a small cabal of people who dominate you and your fellow man on a daily basis. Feel proud of that.


You are aware that some tasks actually do require a central decision maker, right? And that some of those tasks can break down catastrophically if even one person decides not to follow said decision maker, right? How do you propose to accomplish such tasks in your utopia?
 
2012-10-16 04:42:43 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Seriously, you are in college, right? You'll outgrow your naive flirtation with Leninism and see Leninism for what it is, merely an excuse to oppress even more than the previous oppressor.


I'm a recovering democrat, actually, approaching 30. I'd consider myself more of a Trotskist and not a Leninist. Anti-Stalinist for sure as well as anti-fascist.
 
2012-10-16 04:44:17 PM

blahpers: You are aware that some tasks actually do require a central decision maker, right? And that some of those tasks can break down catastrophically if even one person decides not to follow said decision maker, right? How do you propose to accomplish such tasks in your utopia?


Democratically run work places have flourished in many places and continue to do so to this day. That's right.... the workers run the business and own the business. Insanity, I know.
 
2012-10-16 04:47:34 PM

FarkedOver: Thank you for hearing me out. I must say your concept of what I believe is somewhat skewed. Utopian socialism and scientific socialism are two very different things. I am not an advocate for utopian socialism, nor was Marx for that matter (as he addressed in many of his works). Socialism, from a Marxist perspective, is a struggle. It is something to be achieved. Marx went so far as to say capitalism was necessary. It is the step prior to that of socialism (socialism being the step before communism). Capitalism is the step that rapidly industrializes a populace (we can argue this is why socialism in the USSR because they were not by any stretch of the imagination a capitalist country at the time of the revolution).

I'm glad you once thought as I did. It's a shame you didn't expand upon your views as you saw them when you were 13, it seems you've regressed to objectivism, which is sad. Are you, or anyone else arrogant enough to hang your hat on capitalism and say "Good enough, that's as far as I'm willing to progress economically and socially." I, for one, am not willing to make that concession. A better world, a better society can be achieved when TRUE democracy is allowed to flourish, i.e. when the world is controlled by the majority rather than a minority. Is the world ready? Probably not yet, but as information spreads, as technology spreads the world is becoming one step closer every day. Cell phones in the hands of the youth in Iran or workers in Africa are a good example of this. See, this is where capitalism is necessary, getting the means of production ramped up and getting people their goods and needs.

But what happens after capitalism? Will capitalism always be? I say it will not always be. Feudalism met its end. Mercantilism met its end. Slavery met its end. How can we sit here and say that Capitalism will never end?


I can honestly say that I believe that an incentive-based economic system is a hard requirement for any system of governance. At this point it would seem that both socialism and communism lack this vital element and that is why they are forever doomed to failure. Capitalism isn't the only system that uses incentives for coercion, but it is the most fair one we have invented thus far.

Human beings are charitable up to a point. After that, we require incentives to make us do all of the other things that need to be done as a society.
 
2012-10-16 04:50:02 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: Seriously, you are in college, right? You'll outgrow your naive flirtation with Leninism and see Leninism for what it is, merely an excuse to oppress even more than the previous oppressor.

I'm a recovering democrat, actually, approaching 30. I'd consider myself more of a Trotskist and not a Leninist. Anti-Stalinist for sure as well as anti-fascist.


So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?
 
2012-10-16 04:54:23 PM

Leeds: Human beings are charitable up to a point. After that, we require incentives to make us do all of the other things that need to be done as a society.


Some could argue that, that is a learned behavior. In fact, I intend to haha. One could say that "domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture was seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society as it was followed by private ownership and slavery."*(from wikipedia primitive communism article)

Prior to the Neolithic Revolution things were held communally. There was no private property and people worked for the good of the group.

NOW, I am not arguing that herding and farming are bad things, it enabled the human race to expand outward, but brought about some nasty societal changes (as listed above.) I'd say that is interesting take on the argument and could be see that humans learned to be greedy and learned to fetishize accumulation.
 
2012-10-16 04:57:04 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?


To which event are you referring?
 
2012-10-16 05:02:46 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?


That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.
 
2012-10-16 05:08:34 PM

FarkedOver: Leeds: Human beings are charitable up to a point. After that, we require incentives to make us do all of the other things that need to be done as a society.

Some could argue that, that is a learned behavior. In fact, I intend to haha. One could say that "domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture was seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society as it was followed by private ownership and slavery."*(from wikipedia primitive communism article)

Prior to the Neolithic Revolution things were held communally. There was no private property and people worked for the good of the group.

NOW, I am not arguing that herding and farming are bad things, it enabled the human race to expand outward, but brought about some nasty societal changes (as listed above.) I'd say that is interesting take on the argument and could be see that humans learned to be greedy and learned to fetishize accumulation.


One could also say that religions were the turning point in society because once religion became popular, each cult started looking after their own and killing the outsiders. Something that up until that point only happened on a family by family basis.

But throughout all of history there was need for incentives to keep people productive or at the very least alive. Initially these incentives were self-evident: store enough food for winter or your family will die. Now we have a larger net of people that we declare to be "us" and as such we have more complex incentives.

But scrapping the incentive system so that everyone shares in the wealth equally means that no one has any incentive to actually do anything at all. That's why communism and socialism have always been and will always continue to be absolute failures.

Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics? Just another case of too few incentives. Since union member A and union member Z are judged only on how long they've been paying union dues, does it matter if union member A works twice as hard as union member Z? Of course not, since he'll not receive any compensation for his efforts. That's why union members are lazy. It's not their fault, it the fact that they are caught in a system where they have no incentive to be good (productive) people.
 
2012-10-16 05:10:17 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.


Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.
 
2012-10-16 05:11:17 PM

Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics?


You undermine your whole rant with this, given that union workers are almost universally better and harder workers than non-union, rightist propaganda aside. Try to compare non-union miners or carpenters or theater techs or steelworkers to their organized counterparts and see who does better work.
 
2012-10-16 05:12:25 PM

Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics? Just another case of too few incentives. Since union member A and union member Z are judged only on how long they've been paying union dues, does it matter if union member A works twice as hard as union member Z? Of course not, since he'll not receive any compensation for his efforts. That's why union members are lazy. It's not their fault, it the fact that they are caught in a system where they have no incentive to be good (productive) people.


Bullshiat. Serious fraking bullshiat.

Most union workers are in jobs that require them to work harder on a single day than a weeks worth of work for the fat assed middle management guys sitting at their computers on Fark complaining about the lazy Union guys.
 
2012-10-16 05:14:32 PM
Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics? Just another case of too few incentives. Since union member A and union member Z are judged only on how long they've been paying union dues, does it matter if union member A works twice as hard as union member Z? Of course not, since he'll not receive any compensation for his efforts. That's why union members are lazy. It's not their fault, it the fact that they are caught in a system where they have no incentive to be good (productive) people.

At the same time we see people breaking their backs doing the job of 2 or 3 people at a non union job and what is their incentive? Salary freezes, and just be lucky to have a job. Wages do not accurately reflect productivity regardless of union or non union jobs.
 
2012-10-16 05:14:48 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.

Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.


Yes, I see negative connotations in a world wide violent revolution spread by the Heroic Red Army. Shocking isn't it?
 
2012-10-16 05:16:00 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics?

You undermine your whole rant with this, given that union workers are almost universally better and harder workers than non-union, rightist propaganda aside. Try to compare non-union miners or carpenters or theater techs or steelworkers to their organized counterparts and see who does better work.


Bullspit.

If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.
 
2012-10-16 05:16:34 PM

Leeds: A Dark Evil Omen: Leeds: Have you ever noticed union members being complemented on their work ethics?

You undermine your whole rant with this, given that union workers are almost universally better and harder workers than non-union, rightist propaganda aside. Try to compare non-union miners or carpenters or theater techs or steelworkers to their organized counterparts and see who does better work.

Bullspit.

If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.


Look how stupid you are.
 
2012-10-16 05:18:02 PM

FarkedOver: forgotmydamnusername: Because capitalism most efficiently meets supply and demand when properly controlled. Left completely unregulated, its collection of internal contradictions and perverse incentives tend to result in capitalism eating itself. However, a top-down, planned economy will always result in stifled innovation and the production of crap no one wants, because the planners are incapable of sufficient omniscience to always or even usually correctly allocate production priorities. The lack of incentives also tends to result in people slacking off even more than they do in giant American corporations, or, as they said in Russia, "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work!" Notions of hierarchy and private property and some sefish impulses also appear to be hard-wired in the human psyche. While these can certainly become quite destructive, I don't think it's really possible to root them out entirely, and the best one can hope for is managing them a bit.

I agree to a point, but at it's nature capitalism exploits. Capitalism alienates. Hey man, congrats, you put your unwavering faith into a capitalistic society, that's part of what makes it move. All I'm saying is that we will move beyond it at some point in the future. Humans do have self interest, we do want to feel good, but that's only part of the equation. We also have it hard wired in us to be cooperative, to work together, to achieve things together. Money and greed will not be what moves society forward. It's cooperation that moves us forward.


Capitalism has numerous weaknesses and unfortunate features. However, it sucks just slightly less than everything else, most of the time. If it ceases, it will probably be because we've exhausted so many resources so much faster than any solutions to the scarcity could be come up with, that the Dark Ages will once again be upon us. It will be succeeded by the former system of feudalism. Cooperation and altruism only happen because of some perhaps only half-perceived idea of creating a storehouse of good will for the future, or some possibility of at least indirect benefit. You're still going to need incentives somewhere in that system to get sufficient buy-in, and standard Marxist-Leninist thinking simply doesn't allow for that, short of creating a North Korean-style 100% brainwashed anthill-state. You're welcome to that. I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.
 
2012-10-16 05:20:09 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.

Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.

Yes, I see negative connotations in a world wide violent revolution spread by the Heroic Red Army. Shocking isn't it?


I'm sorry you're a fan of overthrowing exploitation. We can argue til we are blue in the face neither of us will budge. I'd say we have more in common than you think, though :)
 
2012-10-16 05:22:15 PM

forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.


And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?
 
2012-10-16 05:24:15 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?


Tough shiat is the usual response.
 
2012-10-16 05:26:26 PM

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?

Tough shiat is the usual response.


Well, yes, but I'm always interested in getting people to bang their neurons together and at least think about what it is they believe.
 
2012-10-16 05:27:48 PM

FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: FarkedOver: Philip Francis Queeg: So if you are a Trotskist you support spreading the Glorious Worker Revolution by invading neighboring countries and "suppressing" your enemies there and not keeping the "suppression" merely to your own country?

To which event are you referring?

That's the very core of Trotskyism and the Fourth International. Trotsky believed that the Russian revolution failed because it was not spread to the rest of the planet in opposition to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy. I would think a good Comrade like you would know that about the founder of the Red Army.

Oh I wasn't aware of what you were trying to say when spun with all those negative connotations. Yes, I believe in a worldwide socialist movement and Stalins stance of socialism in one country was anti-Marxist.

Yes, I see negative connotations in a world wide violent revolution spread by the Heroic Red Army. Shocking isn't it?

I'm sorry you're a fan of overthrowing exploitation. We can argue til we are blue in the face neither of us will budge. I'd say we have more in common than you think, though :)


How many "exploiters" will need to be "suppressed" by violent means during your Gloriuous Workers Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? 10 Million? 20 Million? 100 Million?

Here's the thing. Marxist/lLeninist revolutions of the type you advocate tend to define "exploiters" as "My neighbor who had slightly more than I did".
 
2012-10-16 06:08:16 PM

Leeds: If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.


how farking retarded do you have to be to write something like that. The reason you are told to hate unions by the people who tell you what to think is because they cost the employer more money because of higher wages, tradesmen don't get paid more in non-union shops you farking buffoon. .
 
2012-10-16 06:40:39 PM

Headso: Leeds: If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.

how farking retarded do you have to be to write something like that. The reason you are told to hate unions by the people who tell you what to think is because they cost the employer more money because of higher wages, tradesmen don't get paid more in non-union shops you farking buffoon. .


You seem to have missed the point. I am not knocking union workers, I'm suggesting that when you remove the incentives to do a good job, by and large people cease to do a good job.
 
2012-10-16 07:05:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: How many "exploiters" will need to be "suppressed" by violent means during your Gloriuous Workers Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? 10 Million? 20 Million? 100 Million?

Here's the thing. Marxist/lLeninist revolutions of the type you advocate tend to define "exploiters" as "My neighbor who had slightly more than I did"


I'm not talking about taking the mom pop business owners out to the gulag until they see the light. They are just as exploited as the wage slave. What my organization does is we have public meeting. We want to change things through education. We want people to realize that as a class we have more potential united than we do divided. We reach out to the community and we stand with picket lines, we protest the jailing of political prisoners, we send what money we can to strikers through our international (CWI). We attempt to explain the many, many pitfalls of capitalism. We do this unarmed and people are free to come and go as they please. I hope that explains what I (and my organization) attempt to do.
 
2012-10-16 07:08:16 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?

Tough shiat is the usual response.

Well, yes, but I'm always interested in getting people to bang their neurons together and at least think about what it is they believe.


It's tough to get people to understand that the way things have always been done might not be the best way. People are hesitant, and I understand that. I mean I didn't just one day wake up and become a socialist. It's a process, to say the least.
 
2012-10-16 07:12:32 PM

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?

Tough shiat is the usual response.

Well, yes, but I'm always interested in getting people to bang their neurons together and at least think about what it is they believe.

It's tough to get people to understand that the way things have always been done might not be the best way. People are hesitant, and I understand that. I mean I didn't just one day wake up and become a socialist. It's a process, to say the least.


Neither did I. I was a conservative capitalist growing up (at least inasmuch as a young teenager can be), and then I started to get older, and I grew up and got a job and spent a lot of time reviewing why the things that I believed didn't bear out in the real world.
 
2012-10-16 08:34:12 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: forgotmydamnusername: I propose to shoot anyone that seeks to enforce my participation in such a thing.

And what about those who resent being forced to participate in the capitalist system?


You're not really forced. No one is holding a gun to your head. It's just that it's much, much easier for most people if they participate. If you'd rather not, go build yourself a hut out of bark in the woods someplace, and start scrounging for roots and berries. Native Americans managed to live like that for approximately 13000 years. If you attempt to opt out of a Communist system, the best you can hope for is 10 years under prison conditions designed to make it unlikely that you'll last the whole stretch.
 
2012-10-16 08:54:23 PM

Leeds: Headso: Leeds: If a union worker was actually motivated and good at what he did he'd quit the union and work for an actual American company where he could receive benefits based on his performance.

how farking retarded do you have to be to write something like that. The reason you are told to hate unions by the people who tell you what to think is because they cost the employer more money because of higher wages, tradesmen don't get paid more in non-union shops you farking buffoon. .

You seem to have missed the point. I am not knocking union workers, I'm suggesting that when you remove the incentives to do a good job, by and large people cease to do a good job.


A good manager finds other incentives, when the pay scales are all the same. Some unions, although not the construction industry trade unions like the one I'm a member of, do make it more difficult to fire people. There are ways around that if you're clever, too. The unionized workforce at his job never stopped Dear Old Dad from dumping subordinates he wanted to be rid of, once he made it into middle management.
 
Displayed 40 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report