Capitalist Pig
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
and refering to the 'businessmen aren't out to get you' quote, no people don't tend to look to screw over other people, you should demonize capitalism instead if you must but not individual capitalists that are just looking to make a living for themselves. I know this comes from a guy with the user name 'capitalist pig'. You should stop dehumanizing people based on their class its wrong.
mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.You should know the answer because you have been in this forum since 2015. If you can not obtain the answers in this forum, we have thousands of publication covering the same topics
not really trying to stir up debate just seeing what you all individually think about the choice of government in a communist system but each of you seem to think the same thing.
Matt wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.No, you are missing the point. Government over people ceases to exist, as unnecessary, in a commonly owned world with production for use and free access.We then collectively , locally, regionally and globally administer resources.The forms of those adminstrations will be the decisons of the people at the time.The collective giuding ethos will be to facilite as my signature puts it, "From each according ot their ability ,to each according ot their needs" both of those criteria (needs and ability) will be the self assessment of free people freed from constraints of class domination.
That is a noble goal but that assumes people are capable of managing their own affairs and want to put in the time for the collective benifit of all. What I am saying is that some sort of government is nessesary in order for an advanced civilization to function. From what I've read so far all of you seem to support a democratic government of elected officials, or just anarchism.
mcolome1 wrote:We must define the concept of propertyThe Apache did not own anything privately and everything belonged to themThe ruling class owns everything and we do not own anythingThe objective of the state is to defend the property of the ruling classbusinessmen are not out to get you, you know that right? they are just looking to invest in a market and make money. You can define the meaning of the state however you want but in the end, we need one to maintain law and order. That doesn't mean it isn't incredibly corrupt(hillary look 20% of her campaign money from saldi arabia). Big pharma is literally the biggest lobbier in the USA(they outspend the fossil fuels industry 2:1) so you have a point with that
think you guys are missing the point. the question is what government would you individually suggest be the best in a communist economy, not the very deep meaning of democracy and a republic or if anarchism really means chaos or not.
Osama Jafar wrote:neither all of the above – #people_choice ; but people are limited by there conceived possibilities, we here of all sorts of state abolishers have a job of opening people's minds towards these possibilities as the creation of a new habitat root level is possible and urgently needed as humanity become closer and troubled every passing day.the thing is, communes may have worked in primative societies and in small populations of people but it would take a massive cultural shift to be even a possibility in an industrial society. Maybe it will happen maybe not but capitalism is here to stay it seems
mcolome1 wrote:It is very funny to listen to some so called Congressmen or lawmen saying that the Mexican workers are criminals. What about all the legalized thieves that have stolen the sweat from the Mexican workers inside and outside the USA? Those have been blessed by God and the law, those have the rights to exploits others human beings In the legal system it is known as robbery, in the legal system it is a legalized crime. What about all the land robbers that went all the way down to Mexico DF and signed the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty ? Those thieves returned possessing large extension of landsin many countries a Criminal is a person who has stolen the property of somebody else, or have killed another human being, but a person violating a traffic law is not a criminal, a person that has been forced to emigrate to another country due to the conditions created by a bunch of thieves, and assasin in others countries, is not a criminal. The law and the constitution is created to serve the rich peoples.In the name of the Law many countries have been destroyed with bombs and the peoples from those countries have been forced to emigrate, and now those peoples are being rejected after they created those conditions, and they have been labelled as criminalsIt doesn't matter if your brown white or black if you commit a felony while being here illegally you gotta go. Need at least some law and order
mcolome1 wrote:Republic vs Democracy is a nonsense created by the so called founders of the US ( like Bolivar, Sucres, San Martin, Duarte, Hidalgo, etc, etc.)which were a bunch of landowners, land robbers, indians killers, slave drivers, slave owners, opium traffickers, and racist peoples, and many peoples without knowing the real history are always repeating the same shit.Most do not know what a republic is, or what a democracy is, and whatever, or whoever do not support the same stupidity is called banana republic, without known where the expressios came from. All capitalists countries are republic including the smallest one that exists over the face of the earth, and in all of them the rich have more rights than the workers or the poor peoples, and all are divided in rich and poor, and that is call democracy. The more powerfull ones want to give lectures of democracy to others using warplanes, gunboat diplomacy, and they are presided by war criminals, and gangsters wearing a suit and a tieThe USA is a republic like any other Republic based on a bourgoise democracy, labor exploitation, and a ruling class that extracts profits from the sweat of the workers, and with millions of workers like any other country where the majority of the workers are supporting their own ruling elite, their own exploiterss, with nationalists point of view, and workers are rejecting others workers without knowing the real socio-economical reasonsAnarchism is a conception that millions of peoples do not know the real meaning of the expression, and the rulers have told them that it is a chaos, and without rules, and it just a lie, it is the absence of state and oppression. The first one that created chaos around the world is the capitalist state, and the first terrorist around the world is the US ruling class,a nd they have a long history of making alliances with terrorists, thieves, gangsters, and criminals, one gangster replace another gangster by votesIn this forum we have said millions of times ( we have written thousands of articles ) that we do not support any type of goverment, any type of republic, we do not support any type of leaders, we do not support the concept of nation, and we do not support the so called demcoracy of the rich, and we support a society without state, we do not support anby party of poverty, we support a world society without leaders, without wars, without a rat poison known as nationalism.What nation can have a human being that is living from a salary, and does not even have enough money to pay the rent, or is living in the streets begging for money, what country or republic can have a person that go to another country to kill another human being and does not have the courage,or the balls to say NO. I am not going to kill anybody ? Simple and easy. There is not need to go to the London or New York library to know that. We just need a bath of social reality, or buy new binoculars. My grandfather knew all that, and he cleaned his ass with a passport in front of an ambassadorwell your wrong, a republic and a democracy are different things and demonizing them won't change my views.Anarchism is by definition chaos. If there is no state or no leadership there will always be a struggle for power but I respect your view.by the way try being a little less pessimistic
alanjjohnstone wrote:Aren't we getting bogged down here on definitions?I linked to Wiki to purposefully show how wide and how diverse the concept of a constitution is.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_PeaceLikewise, Robbo tried to differentiate between possessions and owning property. Do you believe that owning private property gives you the right to deprive another person of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to quote a constitition)?Recall New Orleans and the Hurricane Katrina? Restoring "law and order" with orders to shoot "looters", those who went into flooded Walmarts in search of bottled water and food and other necessities for survival? If a diabetic when a natural disaster struck, wouldn't you flout the sacred right of property and bust into a pharmacy for your insulin, even if it meant the risk of being killed as a "looter"Wouldn't you say that the workers of a factory and the community dependent around it have more rights than investors on another continent endowed with the title deeds because they bought shares on Wall St?I do believe people should be allowed to own property, if you let the state have complete power wouldn't you think it would abuse it?
I'm troubled by your view that there is no need for a constitution, rights are fought for not given and if there is nothing stopping someone from violating them they will be violated. I don't think the centralization of land in the hands of the state is a good thing, if you look back in history terrible things have happened when this has occured. Which is why I support the right of the individual to own property. You may say "but there will be no state in a communist society" that would be anarchism, complete chaos and disorder. The way I see it I don't think communism wouldn't even be compatible in an industrialized country, which is ironic because it can't happen without industrialzation. I guess if we were all altruistic dreaming of a better world and none of us were corrupt or capitalism self imploded, but thats my view anyway.
ah so you have an anarchist view. interestingI think there would need to be a constitution explaining everyones' rights pertaining to property, speech, privacy, y'know.by the way don't mean to be patronizing I am really curious to what you think
Young Master Smeet wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.Freedom of association is one thing, as is freedom of movement, and freedom of expression. But it can't be common ownership of the world if we have regional owners: but common ownership means common: so not section of the world can dictate in such a way as to effectively deprive another of their share: teh free development of each should be the condition for the free developmen of all. Democracy within common ownership has to be practised in such a way as to support, nurture and continue common ownership.
what about the rights of the local people to know who is coming into their town or city? their rights do not matter if the majority thinks otherwise?
ALB wrote:Isn't Capitalist Pig writing from the USA (I could be wrong on this), where there are no borders from one side of the Continent to the other? And isn't the USA famously " a nation of immigrants"?there is a difference between immigrating legally and illegally. Open borders is a whole other story.
robbo203 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.I understand the point you are getting at when you say you don’t “want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny”. It is a point I have made myself. There is a balance to be struck between “democracy” and the “freedom” of individuals to choose. But, rememeber, this freedom to choose applies also to the question of travel and where you want to live I think the point that is being made is that the very existence of “borders” implies the continuation of that core generic institution of capitalism – the nation state. This is why I have problems with your statement – “open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism”. Open or closed it still seems to imply the existence of the nation state which is incompatible with the existence of communism. Also the word “prerequisite” is somewhat misleading. A prerequisite is a “thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist”. “Open borders” is not in that sense a prerequisite of communism though mass communist consciousness certainly is. Mass communist consciousness entails amongst other things a repudiation of the ideology of nationalism that sustains the very existence of the nation-state. As I suggested in my earlier post democracy in a communist (aka socialist) society would be a multi-level phenomenon – local regional and global. Obviously, this entails the existence of distinct spatial cum administrative entities and you can’t have such an entity without it being spatially bounded – that is to say, having boundaries that demarcate and differentiate one such entity from another. I prefer the term boundary than border since the latter seems to have statist connotations I have no problem with the idea of the free flow of people across these boundaries in a communist world and I don’t quite see why you think it is such an important issue. You say borders “might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests”. Well then other than to demarcate a particular administrative entity within which a particular level of democratic decision making is effected what possible reason would there be for such “borders”. I think at the root of your preoccupation with “borders” is the worry that should borders disappear there will be some huge influx of people into a particular part of the world e.g. Europe which will overwhelm its economic support structures and undermine its sense of cultural identity. I do not believe there is any basis for concern at all. You have to ask yourself why is it that people migrate today. In the main it is for political and economic reasons – war and the prospect of seeking employment. These factors will disappear come a communist society. If anything there is likely to be far less in the way of wholesale migration in the sense of people uprooting themselves from one part of the world and relocating elsewhere. Of course people will still travel and visit other parts of the world and this is a good thing. Cultural diversity is something that needs to be nurtured, fostered and above all experienced and I am all for it. Variety is the spice of life and one of the many insidious effects of capitalism is its tendency to create a dreary monoculture everywhere. World cities are more and more starting resemble each other with the same predictable array of corporate chains setting up business in them – the "McDonaldization" of global society which is an expression coined by the sociologist George Ritzer in his 1993 book on the subject.
welp we will see, I just don't see it happening in my lifetime because of radical islam. But I do think people should have the right to control immigration into their country, land, whatever.
