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.

(Some Guy)   Hugo Chavez, the champion of the poor, somehow amassed a $1 billion fortune while in office   (celebritynetworth.com) divider line 322
    More: Obvious, Hugo Chavez, double major, military sciences  
•       •       •

8658 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-06 10:57:21 AM  

FarkedOver: I like young, bank robber Stalin better


You weren't as big a fan when he was killing everybody then?
 
2013-03-06 10:58:16 AM  

halfof33: FarkedOver: I like young, bank robber Stalin better

You weren't as big a fan when he was killing everybody then?


Especially not a fan when he had Trotsky killed.
 
2013-03-06 10:58:55 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


Gained power through violence, used America as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries while complaining about us doing the same thing, bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote constitution and didn't follow it anyway, shut down media outlets that were critical of him, that's just off the top of my head.
 
2013-03-06 10:59:47 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Satanic_Hamster: jehovahs witness protection: Saw a couple of idiots who were saddened by the loss of "such a great man"
When somebody pointed out the dictator part they turned it in to the silliest thing ever.
YOU HAVE CHAVEZ BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK! YOU RACIST!!!!!

Are you trying to get people to make fun of you?  You're not very competent at trolling lately.

Not trolling. Just repeating what idiots said. Are you stupid enough to agree with them?


Right.  I'm sure that totally happened.

And you sure have Chavez all right.
 
2013-03-06 11:00:44 AM  
onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

So what country were they at war with?
 
2013-03-06 11:01:06 AM  
He robbed from the rich and gave to himself.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:38 AM  
FLMountainMan:  I used to love the threads where American Farkers would tell Venezuelan Farkers that Chavez really wasn't a bad guy.  Those Venezuelans just didn't know what was good for them.

And you can show us those actual threads?
 
2013-03-06 11:03:37 AM  

Latinwolf: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

So what country were they at war with?


What he means is that now all is right with the world now that there is hope that wall street investors can get their hands on Venezuela's natural resources.
 
2013-03-06 11:03:41 AM  
www.aidthoughts.org
it's good to be the king.
 
2013-03-06 11:03:46 AM  

epoc_tnac: liam76: Silly me, I thought deomcracy was a good thing and unilaterally grabbing power was in of itself bad.

Yes, you have a point, but it's not enough to put someone on a list of the world's most despised leaders.  Unless your country has a farkton of oil.

So it really comes down to 'we normally wouldn't give a shiat about your corrupt practices but we really want you oil so we're going to label you one of the worst people in the world (not to mention try and fail to overthrow you after you were democratically elected.)


I never called him the "world's most despised leader".

The US never tried to overthrow him. It wasn't exactly the most stable govt, and contrary to what some on Fark seem tot hink US involvement is not required.  People seem to forget that he first tried to get into power through a coup.
 
2013-03-06 11:04:31 AM  

ajt167: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Gained power through violence, used America as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries while complaining about us doing the same thing, bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote constitution and didn't follow it anyway, shut down media outlets that were critical of him, that's just off the top of my head.


I thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:02 AM  
Venezuela is sort of like a whole-country oil company.  Almost all their income is from oil, which was nationalized and controlled by the state.  So Chavez was basically the CEO, and like most oil company CEOs he was well compensated.

Sucks for the people though, as not much of that wealth trickles down to them.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:06 AM  

liam76: The US never tried to overthrow him


O rly!?
 
2013-03-06 11:06:41 AM  
FarkedOver:  FLMountainMan: Get over yourself. Your Robin Hood schtick is straight out of some community college sociology professor's curriculum. You sound really sad and miserable.
I judge Chavez from a Marxist point of view.  Was he a great Marxist? No, he wasn't.  Was he the best hope for the disenfranchised and the poor of Venezuela? Yes he was.  I believe the nationalization of the oil companies helped the poor in more ways than a market driven company could have.  Even the people of the US could say this is true, well at least the 250,000 low income people of New England that got free home heating oil from the Venezuelan government.
He was not the "dictator" or the "boogeyman" that everyone makes him out to be.  Hell after there was a US supported "coup" of Chavez the people went on strike and DEMANDED he be put back in power.  This doesn't sound like something an oppressed people would do.


But he doesn't kiss up to the U.S. which is the real reason conservatives can't stand him.  This concern for the people is total bullshiat on the part of conservatives.
 
2013-03-06 11:06:49 AM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Sucks for the people though, as not much of that wealth trickles down to them.


Chavez did a hell of lot more than previous administrations who were selling their oil rights to the highest bidder and farking the people of Venezuela.
 
2013-03-06 11:08:00 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: If you htink a farmer can't own his own cow, or profit fromt he toil on his own land you aren't a socialist, but a communist.

I'm glad you fully understand the end goal of socialism.



This is really pathetic.

That you thinkt eh end goal of socialism is forced collectivization and removing the ability of any individual to suceded or improve their lot through their own hard work.

What is more pathetic is that evenw itht hat stupid view you support it.  You normally only hear they type of stupidity from troll crying abotu how bad socialism is.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:20 AM  

liam76: This is really pathetic.

That you thinkt eh end goal of socialism is forced collectivization and removing the ability of any individual to suceded or improve their lot through their own hard work.

What is more pathetic is that evenw itht hat stupid view you support it. You normally only hear they type of stupidity from troll crying abotu how bad socialism is.


That isn't what I said. What I said was the end goal of socialism is communism.  The fact that you believe the ability of one individual to "succeed" (and by succeed, let's face it: you mean fetishize accumulation of wealth and power) trumps everything else at the expense of countless human lives is disgusting.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:30 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: The US never tried to overthrow him

O rly!?


I am not going to be mad if my neighbor's wife tries to divorce him, does that mean I am trying to get them seperated?
 
2013-03-06 11:11:58 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape


No, rape is straight up rape.

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)


No, labor is entitled to get what it's promised to get in exchange for its labor.  But labor is only one part of producing valuable things, so labor's share of the proceeds is only going to be part of the total revenue derived from selling valuable things.

Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself.  Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person).  The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc.  In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

I realize you are young, so I'll put it in terms you might understand -- when people make a movie, there are hundreds or thousands of people involved.  There are the actors that you (as a consumer) actually see, and they are the ones who (from your perspective) are doing the "labor" of entertaining you.  But there are many more people working behind the scenes to make it all happen.  The entrepreneurial functions in a movie-production project are generally performed by the producer.  He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers, production crew, etc.  It's a huge, complex operation, and the producer (who may or may not also perform in other capacities) is at the center of it, organizing it, and coordinating all of the other factors of production. As with everyone else's contribution to the project, the producer's skill is a crucial factor of movie-production.

Likewise, whenever any business makes a profit, the profit (what's left over after everyone else gets paid) is how the business organizer (the entrepreneur) gets paid for doing a good job of organizing the business.

In your silly world view, only the people doing the manual labor deserve to get paid.  But the manual labor is only one part of many that contribute to the success of a business.  Organizing and other decision-making tasks are also crucially important, in any economic enterprise, and the people who do those tasks better than others deserve to get paid more than others.

If you had ever started a business or two, from scratch, you'd know that.
 
2013-03-06 11:13:22 AM  
FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?
 
2013-03-06 11:16:16 AM  

Phinn: FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape

No, rape is straight up rape.

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

No, labor is entitled to get what it's promised to get in exchange for its labor.  But labor is only one part of producing valuable things, so labor's share of the proceeds is only going to be part of the total revenue derived from selling valuable things.

Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself.  Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person).  The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc.  In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

I realize you are young, so I'll put it in terms you might understand -- when people make a movie, there are hundreds or thousands of people involved.  There are the actors that you (as a consumer) actually see, and they are the ones who (from your perspective) are doing the "labor" of entertaining you.  But there are many more people working behind the scenes to make it all happen.  The entrepreneurial functions in a movie-production project are generally performed by the producer.  He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers ...


Thanks for all that.  Oh I get what you're saying.  I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.  But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.  A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.

You're old, so let me explain this to you.  Your old ways are dying.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:11 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?


My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:02 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?


because they're pussies.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:31 AM  

FarkedOver: ajt167: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Gained power through violence, used America as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries while complaining about us doing the same thing, bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote constitution and didn't follow it anyway, shut down media outlets that were critical of him, that's just off the top of my head.

I thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.


You know, I should have worded that more clearly. He gained popularity that enabled him to become president through violence.
 
2013-03-06 11:19:13 AM  
FarkedOver
A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards.

Wouldn't that be "the people's animals" and "the people's grain"?


Phinn
Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself. Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person). The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc. In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

Most of those count as "labor".

He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers, production crew, etc. It's a huge, complex operation, and the producer (who may or may not also perform in other capacities) is at the center of it, organizing it, and coordinating all of the other factors of production. As with everyone else's contribution to the project, the producer's skill is a crucial factor of movie-production.

That's just a matter of organizational style. There are plenty of ways of organizing tasks to not create a dictatorship.

Likewise, whenever any business makes a profit, the profit (what's left over after everyone else gets paid) is how the business organizer (the entrepreneur) gets paid for doing a good job of organizing the business.

Some work is paid with leftover profit. Some work is paid by an hourly wage or salary. If it's all just work, why the difference in compensation methods? That's the source of the class divide.
 
2013-03-06 11:21:44 AM  

FarkedOver: RanDomino: FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?

My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.


You should add that it doesn't work. You eventually run out of other people's money.

You say it hasn't been tried? It's been tried and fails every time.  Heck, we're in a socialist country now -- over half the money I earn is taken from me (income tax + sales + property + automobiles + gas tax [gov makes more money off gas than the gas cos] + etc)
 
2013-03-06 11:21:45 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: This is really pathetic.

That you thinkt eh end goal of socialism is forced collectivization and removing the ability of any individual to suceded or improve their lot through their own hard work.

What is more pathetic is that evenw itht hat stupid view you support it. You normally only hear they type of stupidity from troll crying abotu how bad socialism is.

That isn't what I said. What I said was the end goal of socialism is communism.


I said-If you htink a farmer can't own his own cow, or profit from the toil on his own land you aren't a socialist, but a communist.

You said-I'm glad you fully understand the end goal of socialism.

So no you didn;t come out and say you are for removing the right of a farmer to own a cow, or improve his lot through hard work, you did agree that was your end goal, and the end goal of socialism.


FarkedOver: The fact that you believe the ability of one individual to "succeed" (and by succeed, let's face it: you mean fetishize accumulation of wealth and power) trumps everything else at the expense of countless human lives is disgusting


Where did I say it trumps everything else?

The fact is with your little "kulak" claims you are saying is that any whim of a central govt (regardless of it';s legitimacy) trumps the most basic property rights and abilities of the individual to feed himself.

You are a farking clown.
 
2013-03-06 11:22:04 AM  

RanDomino: Wouldn't that be "the people's animals" and "the people's grain"?


Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

Later they become the people's :)
 
2013-03-06 11:22:06 AM  

JohnAnnArbor: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)


Um, Chavez stood for election four times.  The US president already has vast executive powers.
 
2013-03-06 11:22:57 AM  
FarkedOver
My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.

We shouldn't say that women are weak. How absurd. Why don't those biatches just shut up and get back in the kitchen?
 
2013-03-06 11:23:40 AM  

liam76: The fact is with your little "kulak" claims you are saying is that any whim of a central govt (regardless of it';s legitimacy) trumps the most basic property rights and abilities of the individual to feed himself.

You are a farking clown.


Property rights should be abolished when they are used to exploit labor.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:23 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.

We shouldn't say that women are weak. How absurd. Why don't those biatches just shut up and get back in the kitchen?


You make a joke like that in a socialist drum circle you're likely to get purged comrade.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:09 AM  

Latinwolf: FLMountainMan:  I used to love the threads where American Farkers would tell Venezuelan Farkers that Chavez really wasn't a bad guy.  Those Venezuelans just didn't know what was good for them.

And you can show us those actual threads?


There's a green one on the Politics tab as we speak.
 
2013-03-06 11:27:16 AM  

vsavatar: He robbed from the rich and gave to himself.


Now be fair. He did give the lupins to the poor.
 
2013-03-06 11:29:02 AM  

FarkedOver: thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.


You know, there's at least one other guy who was elected, but also used violence to gain and increase power, used a particular race/religion as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries, had bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote his country's laws and still didn't follow them, shut down media outlets or simply killed those that were critical of him.

Being elected doesn't prevent one from becoming a tyrant
 
2013-03-06 11:33:28 AM  
FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).
 
2013-03-06 11:33:48 AM  

JustGetItRight: FarkedOver: thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.

You know, there's at least one other guy who was elected, but also used violence to gain and increase power, used a particular race/religion as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries, had bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote his country's laws and still didn't follow them, shut down media outlets or simply killed those that were critical of him.

Being elected doesn't prevent one from becoming a tyrant


Too compare Chavez to "one other guy" is a littler absurd, no?
 
2013-03-06 11:35:37 AM  

Bored Horde: What fascinates me is that we are talking about his personal failings and not the fact that he survived a coup attempt by business elites bankrolled and armed by America.  He survived the coup because the entire nation rose up to support him.

the coup plotters were too stupidly righteous to shoot him.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:54 AM  

FarkedOver: Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class. I own no capital and have no means of oppressing a worker.


FarkedOver: A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards


Was that Kulak's grain, or animals opressing workers?

You aren't just a joke, you are a bad joke.
 
2013-03-06 11:37:15 AM  

gunga galunga: vsavatar: He robbed from the rich and gave to himself.

Now be fair. He did give the lupins to the poor.


lupines! lupines! I'm sick to bloody death of lupines!  we eat lupines! we wear lupines! look! the poor cat has just choked to death on lupines!

//this whole wealth redistribution is more complicated than it looks.
 
2013-03-06 11:37:52 AM  

FarkedOver: I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.


Entrepreneurship is always "needed."  The economy constantly changes.  New technologies are constantly being developed and implemented.  Different producers are constantly being organized and disbanded.  Consumer preferences are constantly changing, and and those preferences being fulfilled by a constantly-changing set of new producers.  New people are born and the old ones die.

As a result, entrepreneurship is not just the creation of a business as a one-time event at the beginning of a new enterprise.  It's the constant adaptation to economic circumstances (i.e., everything that everyone else is doing or not doing).

FarkedOver: But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.


Only if the people who are participating agree to work together on those terms. They have the right to agree to cooperate according to whatever terms each of them decides.  Adult relationships are voluntary.

But the entrepreneurial functions still have to be done.  Someone still needs to decide what goods to produce, and how to produce them.  This involves organization-wide decision-making on the order of about 200-300 times per day.

FarkedOver: A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.


A CEO creates wealth by organizing a profitable business, in all the ways I mentioned.

In modern business, the CEO is not usually the one who supplies the capital.  He arranges it, from specialized capital-providers (who are grotesquely over-compensation, on account of the modern form of state-sponsored cartelized banking, but that's another issue).  He might be, but the larger the enterprise, the less likely he is to be both CEO and the main source of capital.

In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives.  That's not exploitation.  That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

Everyone works to increase his/her profit, all the time.  Everyone chooses to do things because they believe that doing so is a benefit, compared to not-doing that thing, or doing something else.  That's what economic choice is.  (Of course, everyone values slightly different things, and constantly changes those values, which is how it should be.)

As long as they refrain from aggressive violence, then I want everyone to succeed in obtaining his/her own maximum profit, benefit and wealth increase, in whatever terms each person defines those things.  That includes you.  Just keep your hands off me and my stuff, and we'll get along perfectly well.
 
2013-03-06 11:41:27 AM  
Phinn
In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives. That's not exploitation. That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

If the situation is manufactured to make all options bad, but the least-bad one gives someone else a tangible profit, then, yes, that's exploitation.
 
2013-03-06 11:42:53 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).


When I agree with Ran about how stupid your communist ideas are you have really lost the plot.
 
2013-03-06 11:43:47 AM  

FarkedOver: Thanks for all that.  Oh I get what you're saying.  I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.  But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.  A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.


LOL, you owe me a new keyboard.  I nearly fell off my Ayn Rand booster seat.
 
2013-03-06 11:48:00 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).


I don't agree with the assertion that Kulaks were the peasantry.  They were affluent farmers.

According to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories:  Bednyak bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants. In addition, they had a category of batraks, landless seasonal agriculture workers for hire.

They were petite bourgeoisie at the very least.
 
2013-03-06 11:49:48 AM  
We cannot point fingers anymore

We have the biggest bag of douche of them all, squatting in the White House. A pretentious usurper dedicating his years of Communist/Socialist programming to destroying the Constitution while enriching himself at our public trough.

You call Chavez a filthy a-hole? Well you should.
Now, turn your indignation upon the correct target.

www.floppingaces.net
 
2013-03-06 11:51:51 AM  

RanDomino: Phinn
In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives. That's not exploitation. That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

If the situation is manufactured to make all options bad, but the least-bad one gives someone else a tangible profit, then, yes, that's exploitation.


It doesn't count as "exploitation" when both parties in a voluntary transaction realize a benefit.  That's why free economies are so prosperous -- both parties benefit in mutually-voluntary transactions.  This is because people only voluntarily agree to do things that benefit them. Without mutual benefit, there will be no agreement. "Exploitation" is one of those scary-sounding words that means whatever you want it to mean, as long as it's something along the lines of "bad."

Neither you nor any other commie I've ever encountered has been able to identify exactly how, in a free market, what "situation" is being "manufactured," and show how that is wrong, unjust, inequitable, etc.  But I'm always willing to hear a new attempt.  Don't just say "capitalism."  Be specific.
 
2013-03-06 11:53:39 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: The fact is with your little "kulak" claims you are saying is that any whim of a central govt (regardless of it';s legitimacy) trumps the most basic property rights and abilities of the individual to feed himself.

You are a farking clown.

Property rights should be abolished when they are used to exploit labor.


Property rights are abolished in order to exploit labor.
 
2013-03-06 11:54:38 AM  

dogdaze: My wife is Venezuelan and we just had family visit. The news broke just after they arrived, so much for the scotch in the house. Chavez has been terrible to his middle class of which my family was a part. They were very happy to hear the news. It's an amazing country with a wonderful diverse population. I sure hope things get better.


that's ok, you can replace it with a proper drink.  like whiskey
;-p
 
2013-03-06 11:54:50 AM  

FarkedOver: RanDomino: FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).

I don't agree with the assertion that Kulaks were the peasantry.  They were affluent farmers.

According to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories:  Bednyak bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants. In addition, they had a category of batraks, landless seasonal agriculture workers for hire.

They were petite bourgeoisie at the very least.


I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report