Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It does matter, if you produce food, you're amount of production is obviously important. I don't know, that's why the core idea of anarchism/communism is to pay laborers based on what they produce/the labor they give, or help them when they can't work. I'm sure you're better then most, (Yeah, ok) let's assume billions, as you use "most"It's my opinion, yes, I don't know, what do you produce? Food? Or excel spreadsheet data?
What does it matter what I produce? I produce work that yields goods and services that are needed by the public, in a cost effective manner. I am very good at my job. I am better than most. I accomplish more than most.
So please, answer my question. "Should" I produce more than others, without regard to what I am compensated?
Excuse me? What?....."Deciding whether a pay scale is fair cannot be left up to the employer alone."
Agreed
Hey, it actually worked, you want to bitch and circlejerk over authoritarian, self claimed socialist states that in no way relate to socialism.Socialism....Puke.If you're trying to say socialism/anarchism/etc doesn't work, please, refer to my signature, and consider the paris commune, the Ukrainian free territories, the anarchist movements in spain..No more than anything else that works.Sounds like socialismYou can't exploit the workers, if they start working together.
Tell me friend, are you a socialist?
Sure it is....Collective.....Get it?Collective bargaining is not socialism.Sounds like socialismYou can't exploit the workers, if they start working together.
Tell me friend, are you a socialist?
He's simply saying that the workers who actually produce the income for the capitalists need to be able to determine what they are paid, after all, they do the work.Excuse me? What?....."Deciding whether a pay scale is fair cannot be left up to the employer alone."
Agreed
Keep spewing bullshit. Collective bargaining is coercion? What a fucking idiot.Sure it is....Collective.....Get it?Collective bargaining is not socialism.Sounds like socialismYou can't exploit the workers, if they start working together.
Tell me friend, are you a socialist?
BTW, the more accurate term is collective coercion.
Worked? Don't use big words you don't understand.Well, people fail to realize socialism/anarchism has actually worked, just saying.I use what works, all of it, and I block sigs.If you're trying to say socialism/anarchism/etc doesn't work, please, refer to my signature, and consider the paris commune, the Ukrainian free territories, the anarchist movements in spain..No more than anything else that works.Sounds like socialismYou can't exploit the workers, if they start working together.
Tell me friend, are you a socialist?
Not even close, however capitalism works as well as it does because it's an amoral system perfectly comfortable with high levels of greed. It fits humanity to a T, hence the problem. For any form of Marxism to work, even a mixed economy, you need humanity to rise above its nature and that is usually asking too much, if it can even manage such a thing at all, which happens rarely. There is no solution to human suffering beyond extinction, Marxist or otherwise.I believe humanity is at its worst under capitalism...
It does matter, in my view, sorry. If it comes to a point where the workers finally seize production, and their is a factory producing completely useless luxuries, it will more then likely be taken to produce something useful. How are you judging if you're good anyways? You'll be compensated based on your labor and productivity, and anyways, the production would be collectively owned, so your argument doesn't have relevance to socialism.It does matter, if you produce food, you're amount of production is obviously important. I don't know, that's why the core idea of anarchism/communism is to pay laborers based on what they produce/the labor they give, or help them when they can't work. I'm sure you're better then most, (Yeah, ok) let's assume billions, as you use "most"It's my opinion, yes, I don't know, what do you produce? Food? Or excel spreadsheet data?
What does it matter what I produce? I produce work that yields goods and services that are needed by the public, in a cost effective manner. I am very good at my job. I am better than most. I accomplish more than most.
So please, answer my question. "Should" I produce more than others, without regard to what I am compensated?
You're wrong, it does not matter what I produce. But for argument's sake, let's go with food. Let's say I produce food, and I happen to be very good a producing food. "Should" I produce more food than most, regardless of what my compensation will be, so that it can be spread amongst other people who need it?
I'm sorry, but past events in history don't let me believe this.Not even close, however capitalism works as well as it does because it's an amoral system perfectly comfortable with high levels of greed. It fits humanity to a T, hence the problem. For any form of Marxism to work, even a mixed economy, you need humanity to rise above its nature and that is usually asking too much, if it can even manage such a thing at all, which happens rarely. There is no solution to human suffering beyond extinction, Marxist or otherwise.I believe humanity is at its worst under capitalism, nothing is perfect, but let's be real now man...
Marx wasn't so much wrong as he was overly faithful and idealistic. Had he seen what versions of hell modern man was soon to create on earth, even he would have retired to an island and quietly drunk himself to death. I'd offer you hope, if I could, but such a thing would be a lie as there is none.
If you imagine that you share this planet with seven billion tiny demons straight from the bowels of Hell, you will find yourself that much father ahead of them as they race to catch you on their way to leaping into the abyss...
Yeah, that's totally what I've done, I know your 76 years old and have erectile dysfunction, prove me wrong. See your stupidity?
The paris commune, the free Ukrainian states, Revolutionary Catalonia...Worked? Don't use big words you don't understand.Well, people fail to realize socialism/anarchism has actually worked, just saying.I use what works, all of it, and I block sigs.If you're trying to say socialism/anarchism/etc doesn't work, please, refer to my signature, and consider the paris commune, the Ukrainian free territories, the anarchist movements in spain..No more than anything else that works.Sounds like socialism
Tell me friend, are you a socialist?
It's clear by your posts that it is your age. - This is the stupidity you are presenting to me.Yeah, that's totally what I've done, I know your 76 years old and have erectile dysfunction, prove me wrong. See your stupidity?
Well, you're right about one thing, and it's not my age.
BTW, why are you now attacking me on a personal level? I haven't done that to you. So why resort to it yourself?
Hierarchical systems are stable with little more than relative safety and adequate food and shelter. They are the natural state of human societies because they do not require the masses to think for themselves, a horrible chore to the majority of human beings. Intellectuals could do it OK but as you well know intellectuals are a miniscule minority and are just about never allowed to wield the levers of power.They didn't in the paris commune, the free ukraine, etc, etc, etc... It takes education to make people realize it's possible.We already have, we have accomplished it, and if we can't, we already have the concept of no state that has been achieved, the concept of direct democracy, it doesn't devolve, the examples I've given that worked were violently overthrown, look what happened to those in the paris commune.It's just how humans are wired, we cannot conceive a system where there is no ruling hierarchy, no big boss controlling everything. It's why Socialism/Marxism devolves into everything it claims to hate. Our reptilian mid-brain demands a clear leader but leaders usually place themselves above the rabble and serve their own interests, something Marxism aims for but can never truly achieve on a large scale.It's disturbing. Workers need to take over production, work together, care for each other..Most workers are not professionals, they are easily replaceable drones who put up with massive amounts of bullshit because they are nothing but faceless cogs and management reminds them every day of that fact. I never have worked for a big company because of just how coldly impersonal the employment relationship is when you have never laid eyes on the man who signs your paycheck.
7 Million during a revolution, and the bolsheviks fighting against the anarchists, and they succeeded,The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територіяvilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территорияsvobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a statelessanarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertariancommunes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]
I used to be just like you but had to temper my revolutionary zeal with the hard fact that people live how they want to live and they want to live under presidents, kings, warlords and generalissimos. It really makes no sense that people willingly give away so much personal responsibility to these self serving sociopaths but they do.
Did you ignore what I posted?Hierarchical systems are stable with little more than relative safety and adequate food and shelter. They are the natural state of human societies because they do not require the masses to think for themselves, a horrible chore to the majority of human beings. Intellectuals could do it OK but as you well know intellectuals are a miniscule minority and are just about never allowed to wield the levers of power.They didn't in the paris commune, the free ukraine, etc, etc, etc... It takes education to make people realize it's possible.We already have, we have accomplished it, and if we can't, we already have the concept of no state that has been achieved, the concept of direct democracy, it doesn't devolve, the examples I've given that worked were violently overthrown, look what happened to those in the paris commune.It's just how humans are wired, we cannot conceive a system where there is no ruling hierarchy, no big boss controlling everything. It's why Socialism/Marxism devolves into everything it claims to hate. Our reptilian mid-brain demands a clear leader but leaders usually place themselves above the rabble and serve their own interests, something Marxism aims for but can never truly achieve on a large scale.It's disturbing. Workers need to take over production, work together, care for each other..
7 Million during a revolution, and the bolsheviks fighting against the anarchists, and they succeeded,The Free Territory (Ukrainian: Вільна територіяvilna terytoriya; Russian: свободная территорияsvobodnaya territoriya) or Makhnovia (МахновщинаMakhnovshchyna) was an attempt to form a statelessanarchist[1] society during the Ukrainian Revolution. It existed from 1918 to 1921, during which time "free soviets" and libertariancommunes[2] operated under the protection of Nestor Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army. The population of the area was around seven million.[3]
I used to be just like you but had to temper my revolutionary zeal with the hard fact that people live how they want to live and they want to live under presidents, kings, warlords and generalissimos. It really makes no sense that people willingly give away so much personal responsibility to these self serving sociopaths but they do.
It does matter, in my view, sorry. If it comes to a point where the workers finally seize production, and their is a factory producing completely useless luxuries, it will more then likely be taken to produce something useful. How are you judging if you're good anyways? You'll be compensated based on your labor and productivity, and anyways, the production would be collectively owned, so your argument doesn't have relevance to socialism.It does matter, if you produce food, you're amount of production is obviously important. I don't know, that's why the core idea of anarchism/communism is to pay laborers based on what they produce/the labor they give, or help them when they can't work. I'm sure you're better then most, (Yeah, ok) let's assume billions, as you use "most"It's my opinion, yes, I don't know, what do you produce? Food? Or excel spreadsheet data?
What does it matter what I produce? I produce work that yields goods and services that are needed by the public, in a cost effective manner. I am very good at my job. I am better than most. I accomplish more than most.
So please, answer my question. "Should" I produce more than others, without regard to what I am compensated?
You're wrong, it does not matter what I produce. But for argument's sake, let's go with food. Let's say I produce food, and I happen to be very good a producing food. "Should" I produce more food than most, regardless of what my compensation will be, so that it can be spread amongst other people who need it?
In my mind, if you have the means to, sure, why not, it's a decent and good thing to do.It does matter, in my view, sorry. If it comes to a point where the workers finally seize production, and their is a factory producing completely useless luxuries, it will more then likely be taken to produce something useful. How are you judging if you're good anyways? You'll be compensated based on your labor and productivity, and anyways, the production would be collectively owned, so your argument doesn't have relevance to socialism.It does matter, if you produce food, you're amount of production is obviously important. I don't know, that's why the core idea of anarchism/communism is to pay laborers based on what they produce/the labor they give, or help them when they can't work. I'm sure you're better then most, (Yeah, ok) let's assume billions, as you use "most"It's my opinion, yes, I don't know, what do you produce? Food? Or excel spreadsheet data?
What does it matter what I produce? I produce work that yields goods and services that are needed by the public, in a cost effective manner. I am very good at my job. I am better than most. I accomplish more than most.
So please, answer my question. "Should" I produce more than others, without regard to what I am compensated?
You're wrong, it does not matter what I produce. But for argument's sake, let's go with food. Let's say I produce food, and I happen to be very good a producing food. "Should" I produce more food than most, regardless of what my compensation will be, so that it can be spread amongst other people who need it?
You're still not answering. I told you, I produce food. "Should" I produce more food than most other people in my profession, regardless of what I am compensated, and have my crops passed out to people based on their need?
It's clear by your posts that it is your age. - This is the stupidity you are presenting to me.Yeah, that's totally what I've done, I know your 76 years old and have erectile dysfunction, prove me wrong. See your stupidity?
Well, you're right about one thing, and it's not my age.
BTW, why are you now attacking me on a personal level? I haven't done that to you. So why resort to it yourself?
It's because you came here with that name and agenda like some kind of masochist. It's like wearing a meat suit to feed the bears.It's like a gang bang, and I'm receiving.
