Aspie Communists Unite
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
I consider myself as an example. While I am far from rich I enjoy a comfortable American standard of living and consumption. If I were told to halve my living standard so 1000 poor people could live at a very modest level I would refuse. Why should I gave up any comfort for people I do not know and who have done nothing for me. And if they die they die. Since I did not make them poor in the first place I have no obligation whatsoever to make them more prosperous at my expense and the expense of my family. Tough nuggies on the miserable of the earth.
ruveyn
if America had a communist style revolution tomorrow wherein some people had to utillitarianly relinquish their wealth so that everyone could be equal, it is next to impossible that the American middle class would be affected one iota. The spoils would come from the 1% from which the wealth gravitates to.
You say that hardworking people should not be penalised, yet its these bastards that have done the least to get the most.
My sentiments exactly.
Their poverty is not any of my doing; just as my wealth is none of theirs.
This is not to say that I won't do what I can to help others out of poverty, but I do that only in my own family, neighborhood, city, county and state (in that order), and not in some third-world mudhole where the people would just as soon slit my throat as to look at me.
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
My sentiments exactly.
Their poverty is not any of my doing; just as my wealth is none of theirs.
.
capital comes from labour.
Labour comes from the workers, therefore the wealth rightfully is theirs.
as for third world mudholes, when you type on your computer remember that African child who probably had to risk his life in a mine to salvage the copper for the parts that went into it.
I consider myself as an example. While I am far from rich I enjoy a comfortable American standard of living and consumption. If I were told to halve my living standard so 1000 poor people could live at a very modest level I would refuse. Why should I gave up any comfort for people I do not know and who have done nothing for me. And if they die they die. Since I did not make them poor in the first place I have no obligation whatsoever to make them more prosperous at my expense and the expense of my family. Tough nuggies on the miserable of the earth.
ruveyn
if America had a communist style revolution tomorrow wherein some people had to utillitarianly relinquish their wealth so that everyone could be equal, it is next to impossible that the American middle class would be affected one iota. The spoils would come from the 1% from which the wealth gravitates to.
Good lord! You live in a cloud coo-coo-land fantasy of your own divising. You have absolutely no idea of how goods and services are produced. You think stripping the very rich of their luxuries will feed the miserable of the Earth? Forget it. The "one percent" if they were looted emptry would not feed five percent of the needy. Equalization will not be acheived by confiscation.
Any serious attempt at equalization will destroy incentive at the root. Things will not get invented that would have otherwise. People will simply not expend great efforts to create new things when they know up front they will not benefit from the fruit of their creative labors. Look at what happened in Russia. Chronic shortaages of everything, including food. People had to stand in line half a day to get crumbs for their table. Russia under communism was essentially a third world country with a first rate military establishment. The average Russian lived in sh*t. Lousy houses. Poor plumbing. Sh*tty clothes and shoes that did not fit very well. And the automobiles were a disgrace to any industriazed country. And this is what you are wishing on the middle class.
After the Great Equalization occurs you can be absolutely sure that a new "one percent" of apparachiks, and cronies will aries will the vast part of the population will live in squalor. Count on it. And if you think the American capitalistic system is corrupt you have no idea of the corrupt that exists in the so-called communistic nations.
Even China which is getting away from communism (as fast as they can run) is corrupt to the bone.
ruveyn
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
I believe equalization can occur by simply ceasing the means of the production. We don't need to point guns at rich people unless they react with violence. If the "owners" respond to our self management with force we have every right to retaliate imo. This is after all centralized authority has been rejected by the majority of the population. If the state can't control the cops, they can't do anything to stop us.
I'm not really speaking against communism per se. What I really don't like is authoritarianism. If there are communists out there who don't want the government to hold too much power, then I guess I agree with them.
Only if the market is overrun with out-of-control monopolies, which isn't characteristic of a true free market. Also, when did I suggest that I didn't support direct democracy? I hate representative democracy; it just brings more unnecessary power to the government.
Capital also comes from investment, savings, and interest.
They get paid what their labor is worth; that's all that matters. If they want to share more in the profits, then they should own shares in the company.
Evidence, please?
Get your facts straight: Copper ore is dug from mines; Copper metal is salvaged from old electrical and electronic gear.
Labour comes from the workers, therefore the wealth rightfully is theirs.
as for third world mudholes, when you type on your computer remember that African child who probably had to risk his life in a mine to salvage the copper for the parts that went into it.
Did the transistor come from the calloused hands of Labor. No, it come from the brains of three brilliant men who worked for Bell Telephone Laboratories.
The exploited Sons of Toil, bent in their heavy burdens working for the Evil Capitalists hardly ever invent anything useful. They are too busy being flogged by their Exploiters.
ruveyn
If we have compassion (positive responsiveness) for one another, then the polarisation of society into rich and poor, powerful and powerless is lessened. When we care about one another then the needs of each other become what we work for. Each to there own ability.
Somewhat Utopian, but it's where we need to go or we will tear each other and this planet apart fighting over scraps
Somewhat Utopian, but it's where we need to go or we will tear each other and this planet apart fighting over scraps
What if the rich love the poor more when they are poor and powerless and love them less when they are on the rise?
Sometimes, love kills.
ruveyn
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
where do you think 'value' comes from? Does it materialise out of thin air?
The speculative capitalism that you laud so much is selling itself the very rope it will hang itself with.
Same answer as above.
Get your facts straight: Copper ore is dug from mines; Copper metal is salvaged from old electrical and electronic gear.
Not all copper is 'salvageable'. If companies want to increase production, which invariably they do, then new fresh copper needs to enter circulation. It needs to come from the Earth and I dont see too many copper mines in the west.
That first statement makes absolutely no logical sense. It's an example of the Just World Fallacy. Would you say the labor of a starving third world child sweatshop laborer is worth a mere fraction of the labor of some fatass American producing the exact same good? One persons labor is worth more than another persons because they're lucky enough to be born in a country with a history of labor activism and thus are able to obtain higher wages? Cognitive dissonance?
Last edited by marshall on 14 Mar 2013, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What if the rich love the poor more when they are poor and powerless and love them less when they are on the rise?
Sometimes, love kills.
ruveyn[/quote]
Strange concept of love you have there.
Of course if the rich continue to concentrate the wealth into their hands to the detriment of the population as a whole, then the established pattern is the oppressed whip out the guillotine.
That first statement makes absolutely no logical sense. It's an example of the Just World Fallacy. Would say the labor of a starving third world child sweatshop laborer is worth a mere fraction of the labor of some fatass American producing the exact same good? One persons labor is worth more than another persons because they're lucky enough to be born in a country with a history of labor activism and thus are able to obtain higher wages? Cognitive dissonance?
The price of labor (the wage) is determined by supply and demand. If the demand is weak, who do you wish to blame?
ruveyn
Only if the market is overrun with out-of-control monopolies, which isn't characteristic of a true free market. Also, when did I suggest that I didn't support direct democracy? I hate representative democracy; it just brings more unnecessary power to the government.
I think traditional capitalism will always lead to monopolies as there is nothing to stop the accumulation of mergers and buyouts over time as existing markets always seek to increase profitability through reducing workforce redundancy. Economy of scale wins out in the long run. Once you have an economy utterly dominated by a handful of large corporations idealized competitive liassez-faire models no longer hold water.
Also, with emerging new forms of technology and infrastructure the government is typically heavily involved in paving the way for entrepreneurs through things like land leases and eminent domain. A lot of infrastructure technology simply isn't conducive to competitive market forces and government is almost always heavily involved. A true "free-market" without government involvement is a fantasy that's never existed. The idea is too keep government accountable to the common good, not allow it to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
I don't believe in government managing every mom-and-pop shop on every street corner, but I think government has to put rules around monolithic corporations with the power to manipulate the entire market or become "too big to fail". I think in the future the economy will have to evolve to something more socialistic than what we have now. Hopefully we will have some kind of market socialism with most large companies being semi-cooperatives.
Last edited by marshall on 14 Mar 2013, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Coming out of the aspie closet |
28 Nov 2024, 6:47 pm |
Have you been in a romantic relationship with another Aspie? |
04 Jan 2025, 10:35 pm |