New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Democratic Plan to Confiscate Guns

EatTheRich

President
They don't
Of course they do. Ore is gathered by miners. Smelting is done by smelter workers. Rubber is harvested by agricultural workers. Molding tires is done by rubber workers. All using machinery made by other workers. Nothing productive is done by capitalists.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Of course they do. Ore is gathered by miners. Smelting is done by smelter workers. Rubber is harvested by agricultural workers. Molding tires is done by rubber workers. All using machinery made by other workers. Nothing productive is done by capitalists.
You are misunderstanding.

Ore .. first..buy the land, build a mine, but the carts, lay the tracks, build the infrastructure, buy the tools, etc

Smelting.. buy the land, build the factory, purchase the power/fuel, etc

Tires... Buy the land, plant the trees, tend them, Harvest the rubber, build the tire factory, design the tires, mold the tires, provide the power..etc

Again...the worker whom you claim achieve everything...can't do so... Let them provide all of the above from scratch, without capital.

See?
 

EatTheRich

President
You are misunderstanding.

Ore .. first..buy the land, build a mine, but the carts, lay the tracks, build the infrastructure, buy the tools, etc

Smelting.. buy the land, build the factory, purchase the power/fuel, etc

Tires... Buy the land, plant the trees, tend them, Harvest the rubber, build the tire factory, design the tires, mold the tires, provide the power..etc

Again...the worker whom you claim achieve everything...can't do so... Let them provide all of the above from scratch, without capital.

See?
No, I don't. Buying land does not create anything. It is merely asserting a property relation inherited from feudalism at the expense of the productive. Workers build mines, build carts, lay tracks, build the infrastructure, build the tools that those who don't build anything buy ... are you getting it yet? Workers build the factories, create the power, and supply the fuel. Workers plant and tend the trees, harvest the rubber, build the tire factories, design the tires, mold the tires. All the capitalist does is exchange his/her accumulated social power (capital) for the land no one creates and the artificial means of production created by workers in order to increase his/her power over the workers by creating a bottleneck between the wealth the workers have created in the past and the ability of those workers to create in the future. But workers could do all that without the means of production being in the form of capital, if they had social ownership ... it would just mean that a cut of the wealth they created wasn't being appropriated by parasites who merely squatted on wealth they themselves did nothing to create, based on nothing more than the social system whereby money meant they had the power to do so.
 

trapdoor

Governor
No, I don't. Buying land does not create anything. It is merely asserting a property relation inherited from feudalism at the expense of the productive. Workers build mines, build carts, lay tracks, build the infrastructure, build the tools that those who don't build anything buy ... are you getting it yet? Workers build the factories, create the power, and supply the fuel. Workers plant and tend the trees, harvest the rubber, build the tire factories, design the tires, mold the tires. All the capitalist does is exchange his/her accumulated social power (capital) for the land no one creates and the artificial means of production created by workers in order to increase his/her power over the workers by creating a bottleneck between the wealth the workers have created in the past and the ability of those workers to create in the future. But workers could do all that without the means of production being in the form of capital, if they had social ownership ... it would just mean that a cut of the wealth they created wasn't being appropriated by parasites who merely squatted on wealth they themselves did nothing to create, based on nothing more than the social system whereby money meant they had the power to do so.
These workers, they just spontaneously "build carst, lay tracks, build the infrastructure..." or is there maybe some REASON they choose to do this.
Now, maybe you know something I don't know, but I think the reason the workers are doing these things is that someone is paying them to make the effort. That being the case, it seems unlikely they'd make the effort without the pay -- and the pay won't fall from the sky like manna from heaven.
This means somehow someone has to come up with something with which to pay for the effort -- and generally the term we use for this is capital.

The problem at the core of "Das Kapital" lies in that Marx seemed to believe there would be spontaneous effort -- that the coal would be mined or the oil drilled without any recompense for the effort save from the consumers of coal or oil providing their services down the line, without even a formal barter.

As the early days of the Soviet Union showed, this didn't work. It hasn't been made to work in any other society at any other time, either. It is a form of dorm-room philosophy that works beautifully and is perfect until the next morning when you have to clean up the empty cans and empty the ashtray.

Two forces have driven mankind's biggest development -- religion and profit. Because we have mostly (outside the Islamic world) thrown over religions that have power to do material things, the remaining motive for most effort is profit. Steam engines were developed to get the water our of coal mines for profit. The Wright Bros. invented the airplane with the goal of selling airplanes for profit. George Westinghouse spent millions on Tesla's electronic designs -- for profit. I defy anyone to provide an example of a true socialist accomplishment that changed history as much as any of those.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
No, I don't. Buying land does not create anything. It is merely asserting a property relation inherited from feudalism at the expense of the productive. Workers build mines, build carts, lay tracks, build the infrastructure, build the tools that those who don't build anything buy ... are you getting it yet? Workers build the factories, create the power, and supply the fuel. Workers plant and tend the trees, harvest the rubber, build the tire factories, design the tires, mold the tires. All the capitalist does is exchange his/her accumulated social power (capital) for the land no one creates and the artificial means of production created by workers in order to increase his/her power over the workers by creating a bottleneck between the wealth the workers have created in the past and the ability of those workers to create in the future. But workers could do all that without the means of production being in the form of capital, if they had social ownership ... it would just mean that a cut of the wealth they created wasn't being appropriated by parasites who merely squatted on wealth they themselves did nothing to create, based on nothing more than the social system whereby money meant they had the power to do so.
i keep saying it...go forth and do it. the workers cant do shit without capital. period.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Of course they do. Ore is gathered by miners. Smelting is done by smelter workers. Rubber is harvested by agricultural workers. Molding tires is done by rubber workers. All using machinery made by other workers. Nothing productive is done by capitalists.
there would be NO machinery without investors
So why are you on a capitalist PC?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
No, I don't. Buying land does not create anything. It is merely asserting a property relation inherited from feudalism at the expense of the productive. Workers build mines, build carts, lay tracks, build the infrastructure, build the tools that those who don't build anything buy ... are you getting it yet? Workers build the factories, create the power, and supply the fuel. Workers plant and tend the trees, harvest the rubber, build the tire factories, design the tires, mold the tires. All the capitalist does is exchange his/her accumulated social power (capital) for the land no one creates and the artificial means of production created by workers in order to increase his/her power over the workers by creating a bottleneck between the wealth the workers have created in the past and the ability of those workers to create in the future. But workers could do all that without the means of production being in the form of capital, if they had social ownership ... it would just mean that a cut of the wealth they created wasn't being appropriated by parasites who merely squatted on wealth they themselves did nothing to create, based on nothing more than the social system whereby money meant they had the power to do so.
I help feed the world and even YOU by buying property and raising crops on the property.

Cuba awaits your arrival
 

EatTheRich

President
These workers, they just spontaneously "build carst, lay tracks, build the infrastructure..." or is there maybe some REASON they choose to do this.
Now, maybe you know something I don't know, but I think the reason the workers are doing these things is that someone is paying them to make the effort. That being the case, it seems unlikely they'd make the effort without the pay -- and the pay won't fall from the sky like manna from heaven.
This means somehow someone has to come up with something with which to pay for the effort -- and generally the term we use for this is capital.

The problem at the core of "Das Kapital" lies in that Marx seemed to believe there would be spontaneous effort -- that the coal would be mined or the oil drilled without any recompense for the effort save from the consumers of coal or oil providing their services down the line, without even a formal barter.

As the early days of the Soviet Union showed, this didn't work. It hasn't been made to work in any other society at any other time, either. It is a form of dorm-room philosophy that works beautifully and is perfect until the next morning when you have to clean up the empty cans and empty the ashtray.

Two forces have driven mankind's biggest development -- religion and profit. Because we have mostly (outside the Islamic world) thrown over religions that have power to do material things, the remaining motive for most effort is profit. Steam engines were developed to get the water our of coal mines for profit. The Wright Bros. invented the airplane with the goal of selling airplanes for profit. George Westinghouse spent millions on Tesla's electronic designs -- for profit. I defy anyone to provide an example of a true socialist accomplishment that changed history as much as any of those.
“They do it because someone pays them to do it” means “they do it because those with a monopoly on the wealth they create withhold food from them unless they do it.” Socialist societies (in which productivity is boosted due to the advantages of economic planning under workers’ control) have production motivated by the needs of the workers and payment by capitalists replaced with payment by the state. It took capitalism 300 years to develop a steam engine. It took socialism 45 years to invent the satellites you are probably using to relay your screed.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The achievements of the Soviet Union, etc., say otherwise.
PS. Standing in line for hours or days on end for a loaf of shitty bread, and some sandpaper feeling toilet paper both rationed out to a bare minimum was probably no one's idea of socialist Nirvana anywhere or ever
 

EatTheRich

President
The Soviet Union acquired other nations by conquest, took their resources by force, and compelled their peoples to do as they say or die.

That is the otherwise that you were excluding
You mean, they to a limited extent, due to the immaturity of the socialist revolution, emulated the capitalist methods of “achievement” the use of which, while incidental to the Soviet Union’s success, were absolutely integral to the success of countries like the U.S.
 

EatTheRich

President
PS. Standing in line for hours or days on end for a loaf of shitty bread, and some sandpaper feeling toilet paper both rationed out to a bare minimum was probably no one's idea of socialist Nirvana anywhere or ever
Generations prior starved because they couldn’t get bread by standing in line.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
You mean, they to a limited extent, due to the immaturity of the socialist revolution, emulated the capitalist methods of “achievement” the use of which, while incidental to the Soviet Union’s success, were absolutely integral to the success of countries like the U.S.
Right right. All of these but buts and qualifiers.
Again if you're success is defined by the involuntary assimilation of neighboring nations, and their compulsion to do as you say, and to create as your will commands them. Then you're not really saying much of anything, and you're certainly not loading any sort of success. The Soviet Union at its peak was a dismal misery of human suffering and death. It never achieved anything beyond that outside of the compulsion already mentioned. Furthermore, every living being in that shit hole desired the capitalist consumables of the West.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Generations prior starved because they couldn’t get bread by standing in line.
And millions upon millions were tortured and starved to death because they couldn't grow the grain to make the bread fast enough so it was taken from them and they themselves were put to death. The [Unwelcome language removed] kind of books do you read?
 

EatTheRich

President
And millions upon millions were tortured and starved to death because they couldn't grow the grain to make the bread fast enough so it was taken from them and they themselves were put to death. The [Unwelcome language removed] kind of books do you read?
Yes, the bureaucracy’s departure from socialism under Stalin had devastating consequences. As projected decades in advance by Engels when he pointed out that if socialism triumphed in Russia alone without taking power in an advanced country in Western Europe the result as per Marxist theory would be an “orgy of barbarism.”
 

EatTheRich

President
Right right. All of these but buts and qualifiers.
Again if you're success is defined by the involuntary assimilation of neighboring nations, and their compulsion to do as you say, and to create as your will commands them. Then you're not really saying much of anything, and you're certainly not loading any sort of success. The Soviet Union at its peak was a dismal misery of human suffering and death. It never achieved anything beyond that outside of the compulsion already mentioned. Furthermore, every living being in that shit hole desired the capitalist consumables of the West.
Again, most of the Soviet Union’s development was based on peaceful increases in productivity. The U.S. among other countries was FAR more rapacious a warmonger, and the conquest of other nations was a FAR bigger part of the story of its economic development.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, the bureaucracy’s departure from socialism under Stalin had devastating consequences. As projected decades in advance by Engels when he pointed out that if socialism triumphed in Russia alone without taking power in an advanced country in Western Europe the result as per Marxist theory would be an “orgy of barbarism.”
Blah blah. A shit hole existence. Period.
 
Top