If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I really don't know what the fuck you're on about, but (I think you were being sarcastic) don't ever bad mouth Noam Chomsky.
Damn...
Noam Chomsky is every bit the joke that Che Guevara is...
Or is it the reverse?
Guys like he do everything possible to destroy anarchist ideas in public opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he get some fair share of FBI budget…
Craig, Noam Chomsky is apart from his lingual competences, not that great.
Yes he is Tal
Shouldn't you make the attempt to confront the appropriate issue, rather than the coward's stab in the back of one who is not a point of conversation, and has never BEEN to this place?
Or simply a demonstration of your definitive gutlessness?
Me thinks the latter...
The fundamentals of economics shouldn't change really, people need luxuries and should have the opportunity to choose what they spend their credits on while the state is obliged to provide a minimum standard of living for all citizens.
The market cannot be manipulated to one person's favour while at the same time people enjoy the choices free-market capitalism gives us. Those who work well, live well, those who don't live a spartan exsistance, while at the same time a wide welfare net stops people slumping into poverty. Communism in action.
The issue? Is 'Chomsky is every bit the joke that Che Guevara is?' or the reverse?
Does 2=2, or the reverse? Does that help?
You know nothing about Bakuknin or Chomsky. If you did, you wouldn't call yourself an anarchist. Capitalism is not anarchism you fool. :rolleyes:
Oh and the fact that can even think this "Is Osama a proper anarchist from your point of view? He’s destroyed those bastions of exploitation!" shows how utterly misinformed you are about the whole concept of anarchism. Foolish boy.
He doesn't know what he's on about. Anyone who can equate free market capitalism with anarchism, when one of the basic tenets of anarchism is being against the private ownership of the means of production, (i.e. "property is theft"), is a tad silly, to say the least.
:rolleyes:
"would be based upon the nature of the work a person does as well as it's relative importance to society"
It sounds as though you get more credits in proportion to how hard you work. That is not marxist communism. How is that different to getting more money in proportion to how hard you work and how important you are in society?
Also does the state at present not provide a basic living net for its citizens ie the dole?
What if my father worked hard during his existence in order to provide me with a better standard of living, would all his assets be transfered to me to make me wealthy? If so that would create an inequality gap and if not what is the point of my father working hard in order to offer his children a better lifestyle?
"Shouldn't you make the attempt to confront the appropriate issue, rather than the coward's stab in the back of one who is not a point of conversation, and has never BEEN to this place?"
Ohhhhh.....you mean who has never been to this place in the PAST.
Hey Globe, check out my spiffy new profile on these boards.
Appears there are soooooo many erudite perspectives being expressed here.
Also, good to see that mudslinging, personal insults, sarcasm, and evading issues is NOT just a Republican debate tactic, but is plentiful from all sides....American as well as European. Always good to know that we Americans are not the only ones wallowing in the mud. :rolleyes:
One of the reasons communism failed was that they could not supply the populace with "luxury" goods because they concentrated on heavy industry. Any future communist state would have to address this to stop it happening again.
A doctor would get more credits per hour than a footballer. A roadcleaner would get more credits per hour than a shop assistant. A teacher would get around the same as a policeman etc. As it would be electronic, the government/some form of central bank controls the money but it doesn't "exist" so it's hard to hoard without earning it. Completely different to money. Everyone aspires to be more than they are, those who do will be rewarded.
Material goods bought with your fathers credits could be left in a will but there would be a limit on the amount of actual credits one person can pass down to another the rest "disappears".
People deserve better than what they do now. Pensions are drying up, the dole isn't a massive amount neither is disability. You wouldn't have to worry about paying taxes because the government generates the money, everyone would have a right to the essentials of life (home, food etc.). There would be little poverty compared to now. The only inequality would be between those who contribute most to society and those who contribute least, which isn't the case today.
All a pipe dream though, all a pipe dream. I've been watching too much Trek.
Actually, look at principles of operant conditioning as outlined by B.F. Skinner. The take home message from his rat studies is that rats work harder at lever pressing in order to gain reward, and their performance grinds to a halt when they are denied their reward.
Same thing applies to humans. We are, after all, animals.
Problem with Communism is that it denies the basic way in which we operate. You work for money, yet, it goes into a collective pot. That creates discontent and slowed responding, potentially, which will result in problems down the road for the society.
While I do NOT agree with the Capitalistic extremism espoused by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, I DO believe that her basic obsevation that "altruism" is also a selfish act. It is selfish in that it makes the person feel good about their contribution. The problem with Communism is that it is FORCED altruism. Kind of hard for it to be rewarding when it is NOT under one's voluntary control.
That might explain why current Communist nations often are not "purely" Communist. Case in point. Vietnam. Because a pure Communist nation will fail because it denies our inate tendency to work for self-gratification.
Lots of Mil.com people have the ability to debate. They are just often active or retired military personnel, and enjoy a good round of punching the hell out of others. I think it is a military thing, which is all fine and good to me.
I'm a civilian. So my perspective is a bit different. Plus that, even over there, I tend to refrain from personal attacks. Not my style, although I've slipped on a few occasions when people were making outrageously ludicrous statements, such as "All vets are baby killers."
However, believe it or not, some of the bigger hard azzes on Mil.com people have a pensive side as well ....:eek: :crazyeyes
PS. Are we allowed to curse on this side or do we have to use modified cursing like "azzhole?"
We've found the soldiers and ex-soldiers are a little too up Bush's arse for our liking. They spout out the same rhetoric in every argument, and they ALWAYS cut and paste. None of them to ever come here has ever been able to debate in any way.
Anyway, welcome to thesite. A little corner of Britain on the web
Fuck, shit, bullshit, bollocks... the only swear word filtered out is the lovely 'c' word but there is a way round that as well...
As for mil.com, whenever I log on to check what kind of obscenities are being suggested there I must say I never fail to be shocked and disgusted by some of the things being said that- not by everybody, but by a sizeable majority of posters there. That’s why I choose not to post there…
Actually, I have a moderately liberal bent and because I'm not uncritical of the Bush administration, I have periodic disagreements with Mil.com members myself. In fact, I was just recently embroiled in a debate about the merits of Federal intervention in order to curb the profit-making frenzies of companies in order to protect the rights of workers. I was called a Socialist for my efforts. However, in spite of the comment, the truth is that I am highly in favor of Capitalism, if not in a pure form.
However, it would be inaccurate to assume that the members of that site are unread. If you've ever perused some of BlueSpaderRaakasan's (sp?) posts, or AscendingDragon's posts, you will quickly realize that they are incredibly learned on many military history topics. Also, although I tend to have fundamental disagreements on philosophical issues with the Army forums moderator, Greenhat (who is a Special Forces retired soldier), I can't deny that he is smart guy. He has a Master's degree in history. When he comes out of his role as moderator, and out of his contentious, hard ass role as the "enforcer" of order on the boards, I found that he is INCREDIBLY well versed on the subject of our Constituition as well as military history. I tend to agree with him on issues regarding women in the military as well as on points concerning the Vietnam War.
As for a poster here on your forums? Globe? He is a personal friend of mine. He has some extreme views, to say the least, however, I know him well, and his knowledge exceeds what may be the assumption on these boards. And to be honest? His creative writing ability is as good, and even surpasses, many people who I know who have been published on a consistent basis in non-internet life. His perspective is based a lot in his own military experiences, and that experience should not be discounted as a source of information. Same can be said, in my opinion, of other combat veterans and their personal experiences. Granted, I don't think that their opinions are the ONLY thing to be considered. But working with veterans in the past has at least made me have some respect for the incredible discipline that is required in ground combat, and a level of sacrifice that is pretty much unfathomable to civilians.
As for Mil.com? Ex-military and current military, just like to fight. Oh well... to each their own. I don't hold it against them....plus that, I guess I must kind of enjoy arguing myself or I would not be there.
Instead we have repeatedly been treated to his own brand the very fort of rabid right wing ideological solipsisms one could just as easily hear spewed out by the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter (replete with such laughable indictments as "traitor", "UnAmerican", or his all time favorite (when regularly evading any substantive review of the Bush admin's routine abuses of office or their glaring duplicities) "collaborator".
Rather difficult to find any shred of legitimacy to his attacks and rants when he prefers to champion to militant demagoguery rather than political accountability.
Jim V,
Point taken. Just wanted to say that I'm talking about Mil.com because I've had several people bring up the topic to me first on this thread and on another thread as well. In fact, one of your members was discussing me here on this thread, although I'd never heard of this site. It was that comment that brought me here from Mil.com to begin with.
But again, point taken.
Clandestine,
Ask Globe, he will tell you that he and I don't always agree on issues. He tells me that he sees things in black and white, and I tend to see issues in "shades of grey." However, in general, I know him better than anyone on this board, and thus, have formed my opinions about what he is capable of intellectually as well as creatively.
As for my asking him anything, I gave up bothering long ago for lack of legitimate issue oriented response.