PDA

View Full Version : Socialist Revolution V. TSA: THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY


TSA
10-13-2009, 05:46 PM
he's all for it.
im against it.

I feel that he's a person with views i dont agree with but he bases them on facts and can cite, and his arguments seem to be well thought out and based rational, so i'd like to debate the issue. Im on this computer temporarily so i'll post my reasons why the abolition of private property is socially disasterous when i find something more stable.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kRBTLr-TZ68/SWyQNEG5cYI/AAAAAAAAFSw/5Pi7p8pjzmY/s320/PDVD_072.BMP
en garde. whodeh

Jutzu-Lo-Killer
10-13-2009, 05:48 PM
comunism is the true way

GhostfaceThaPharoahe
10-13-2009, 08:48 PM
Communism is a great idea theoretically, but not so great in practice (in a pure form anyway) on a large scale (such as a country).

Prolifical ENG
10-13-2009, 08:51 PM
The socialist ideas are always good in theory. But still I always picture everyone wearing cheap grey tracksuits and lining up for bread. I know thats an ignorant stance but I eat a lot of stinky aged cheeses with fancy crackers.

5hundred&one
10-13-2009, 08:52 PM
comunism is the true way

http://www.embacubalebanon.com/images/che032.jpg

Blackula Spectacula
10-13-2009, 08:53 PM
CMNry4PE93Y

Sheep Shifter
10-13-2009, 08:56 PM
What can I do, TSA
To get through to you
Cause I love you baby
Standing here
Baptized in all my tears
Baby through the years
You know Im revolting
Oo oo oo oo oo!

THE W
10-13-2009, 09:12 PM
no private property? why not?

PALEFORCE
10-13-2009, 09:16 PM
last time i checked it was a round world. people aint ready for this understanding. they still trying to own other people lol partners, marriage, kids etc..really theres no ownership in any of that only what are minds created

TSA
10-14-2009, 07:11 AM
[Revolt;1712093']What can I do, TSA
To get through to you
Cause I love you baby
Standing here
Baptized in all my tears
Baby through the years
You know Im revolting
Oo oo oo oo oo!
that's it?


anyways. my basic point is that utopias don't exist, and your aim to abolish private property is rooted in a desire to rid the world of its problems. If private property wasn't there and instead replace with communism you will see the multitude of problems that coupled all communist attempts in recent human history which made conditions in their respective countries worst then that of their peer nations '

example north and south korea

even if they were to progress further then their peer nations or their condition at the onset of communism you can't whole heartedly say that they will create a world void of problem.

also, communism is achieved by the drive of a communist party. meaning to abolish private property and keep the movement moving a group of idealistic individuals have to be at the helm. In order to be at the helm they must be the ones who abolish the private property of control the countries affairs.
This thus makes them the new ruling class that communism and the party its self sets to eliminate, only their power is totally and completely unchecked, nobody else has the means to defend themselves cause without private property they're totally dependant on the party and its system, and all the wealth instead of being abolished is concentrated and controlled by the party.

idk if it was das kapital or the manifesto that states that the ruling class will never leave willingly. Well, this makes a temporary party the new ruling class in every sense of the word and they wont leave willingly because of their position in the new more simplified but still repressive and pyramidlike hiearchy and they thus will never remove themselves willingly creating an oligarchy obsessed with power

this has happened in every communist country cause despite the nobility of their cause upon embarking it, they're human beings and this is the nature of human beings.

DUMBO
10-14-2009, 07:21 AM
Since its socialist revolution, Cuba has trained over 100,000 foreign doctors, offered medical assistance to its international neighbours and offered critical and autonomous support to several liberation wars in Africa. For all of this international effort and progressive ethic, Cuba has never asked for anything. No resource deals, no market controls, no money, nothing.

There is no greater member of the international community than Cuba and compared with its capitalist neighbours in the region (e.g. Jamaica, Trinidad, Haiti, etc.) this socialist society has achieved a higher level of social development than any other country of its size and postcolonial history.

Cuba has done what many other Third World countries has spoken of doing - it took charge of ITS OWN history for better or for worse and refused to be a puppet of powerful nations.

And all without private property - the so-called secret of well-functioning capitalism (see de Soto).

TSA: you are confusing private property with production - the only relationship between the two is that production (and productivity) is limited to the COMPLIANCE of the working class. without primitive accumulation (the politically violent process of dispossessing people from ownership of the most important property - that which is needed for people to sustain and improve their livelihoods) there is no 'progressive' capitalist production.

TSA
10-14-2009, 09:02 AM
the successes you list for cuba exist in capitalist nations as well so you can't base it on ideology cause that in the end doesn't seem to be a factor. I would say cuba benefits from a stable and focused government and lack of US interference which has riddled latin america with corruption and instability, 2 ethers to development.

also, no im not confusing the two, almost all major capitalist countries have citizens that enjoy and steadily increasing standard of living, wage, all around country, all the major ones did not witness and violent overthrow of the ruling class.

and if that's true then would you say that the cubans, to experience greater progress, will need to over throw their current owner/ruling class, which like it or not is the communist party that controls the means of production and property? is communism achieved by a series of overthrowers overthrowing overthrowers? If so what makes the next overthrower better then the last, they will always be the new ruling class and a ruling/owner class will thus always exist.

SKAMPOE
10-14-2009, 09:07 AM
belive it or not, im related to fidel castro,
alina fernandez is ma momz cousin. true story

5hundred&one
10-14-2009, 09:59 AM
There hasn't been a true example of revolutionary socialism completely instilled in any nation since the dawn of time.

Nobody is to say that that the countries that have embraced communism, most of which have functioned more like dictatorships than true socialist states, would fail simply by looking at history. Especially not North and South Korea. North Koreans are simply a failed example of instilling the communist ideals because the Soviets themselves still hadn't reached a state of true socialism, where as America taking South Korea under it's capitalist wing was more or less a guaranteed success, because capitalism was an already broadly excepted and practiced form of government.

One thing that communism has always needed to have in order to thrive is for the entire world to be on it's page, which has obviously never happened and probably never will.

so, I don't really feel you should use past examples of countries trying to push communism as leverage in the debate against socialism, but I agree that it's mostly a flawed ideology that will never meet the conditions that it needs in order to succeed.

Imperialist capitalism is another story, we may just see in the next twenty years an example of our own system failing. The only thing that makes sense for the current climate, is a balance of both philosophies. We (Americans) need a defense against outside threats, but we also need an all out class war in our country. It's fucked up that we live in a place where you almost have to be born in to the right situation in order to stand a chance of getting ahead in life.

SKAMPOE
10-14-2009, 10:02 AM
werd^

Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster
10-14-2009, 04:37 PM
I agree with, or at least respect, a lot of what you say, but this is some bullshit.



so, I don't really feel you should use past examples of countries trying to push communism as leverage in the debate against socialism, but I agree that it's mostly a flawed ideology that will never meet the conditions that it needs in order to succeed.

You can't use past examples of people using socialism to argue against the use of socialism? While past communist/socialist regimes may not have been "pure" socialism, they certainly proved why socialism doesn't work. People, inherently, are going to have different values, goals, aspiraions, ideals, and beliefs. SOcialism, by nature, must opress individuality. People could never reach ultimate concensus, so socialism, in practice, requires dictatorship.

Imperialist capitalism is another story, we may just see in the next twenty years an example of our own system failing. The only thing that makes sense for the current climate, is a balance of both philosophies. We (Americans) need a defense against outside threats, but we also need an all out class war in our country. It's fucked up that we live in a place where you almost have to be born in to the right situation in order to stand a chance of getting ahead in life.


The fuck? I think America is fucked up and many changes need to take place, but I will defend it when someone attacks it WITHOUT presenting a viable alternative, or an example of anything in the past that has EVER worked.

[I]It's fucked up that we live in a place where you almost have to be born in to the right situation in order to stand a chance of getting ahead in life[I]

THat's real fucked up. Like I said, America is flawed, but it is a place where, literally, ANYBODY with natural ability, of any color, ethnicity, belief system, or socioeconomic background CAN reach any level of success. WHere else is their class mobility like there is here?

Socialism, in theory is a great idea. It reality, it does not and can not work. However, elements of socialism are necessary. There ARE elements of socialism in America, and perhaps there needs to be more.

What, currently, is better? What would you do to fix it?

5hundred&one
10-14-2009, 05:01 PM
on the first point that you outlined, I meant that until there is a period in time where there is no such thing as an upper class and socialism has become the way of the world, then there hasn't been a single example of true socialism failing.

using past attempts at instilling communism, such as that of the Soviets in North Korea, to debunk a true socialist revolution is misleading, basically.

my second point is that some people are raised comfortably in our society without ever having to lift a finger or work towards their own success, while. others are predisposed to poverty and crime by being forced to grow around it during the years that shape the personality that they will have for the rest of their lives, which I believe to be ages 3 through 8. there's more to it than economic equality, with a cycle of kids being victims of the lack of opportunity in impoverished communities, it's more the philosophy that a lower class is ineradicable and inevitable that I find major flaws in. To me, that's an excuse to keep rich people rich and in power at the expense of innocent children.

TSA
10-14-2009, 09:10 PM
you can't keep using the 'there's never been true socialism/communism' argument cause there has never been a true capitalist system either

there always needs to be both but when it leans more towards socialism it blows the hardest and ppl loose rights.

Olive Oil Goombah
10-14-2009, 09:42 PM
pyschologically speaking it is in our very nature to be selfish. Without selfishness and self preservation we fail as a species.

There is no utopia unless you want to drug everyone and control everything like in the novel Brave New World.

Essentially, thats true communism. Sometimes I think these pseudo commies and socialist forget the true nature of communism and what it would take for it to actually succeed in practice.

What it would take is everything they essentially would hate. Total government control of everything. Government is a nice word. Eventually it would become authoritarian control, as history has shown.

Communism is an attempt to rid human being of their own nature. It is an overly controlling and idealistic approach to fixing something we are hard wired with.

The reason we have made it this far is selfishness. Selfishness for our own perpetuation of our species.

Every living thing on this planet has this.


Frued thought we were born evil until civilization civilized us.

I think thats faulty because we existed before civilization. If we are born evil, than the 'evil' within us created civilization.

And what is civilization but the utmost selfishness. Every great civilization, every powerful empire has been more selfish than its less fortunate counterparts.

Its not really so much a question of Government control vs. private property....they are one in the same.

its coming to the realization that selfishness is needed for our survival and will often times manifest itself from the tiniest localized instance to the largest global one.

You cannot change that.

Visionz
10-14-2009, 09:53 PM
pyschologically speaking it is in our very nature to be selfish. Without selfishness and self preservation we fail as a species.

There is no utopia unless you want to drug everyone and control everything like in the novel Brave New World.

Essentially, thats true communism. Sometimes I think these pseudo commies and socialist forget the true nature of communism and what it would take for it to actually succeed in practice.

What it would take is everything they essentially would hate. Total government control of everything. Government is a nice word. Eventually it would become authoritarian control, as history has shown.

Communism is an attempt to rid human being of their own nature. It is an overly controlling and idealistic approach to fixing something we are hard wired with.

The reason we have made it this far is selfishness. Selfishness for our own perpetuation of our species.

Every living thing on this planet has this.


Frued thought we were born evil until civilization civilized us.

I think thats faulty because we existed before civilization. If we are born evil, than the 'evil' within us created civilization.

And what is civilization but the utmost selfishness. Every great civilization, every powerful empire has been more selfish than its less fortunate counterparts.

Its not really so much a question of Government control vs. private property....they are one in the same.

its coming to the realization that selfishness is needed for our survival and will often times manifest itself from the tiniest localized instance to the largest global one.

You cannot change that.
outside of rich people with their panties in a knot, what do you foresee as being a problem to madatory income ratios applied to a capatilst system? It's been the best solution I've been able to come up with to correct the inherent greed that arises in humans.

TSA
10-15-2009, 12:10 AM
the problem is not everyones damn labor is worthy that much.
hell yeah i wanna pay the nigga that puts the bag of tootsie rolls into the truck minimum wage, cause if i paid him 15 dollars and hour the price of a tootsie roll would be 6 dollars each.


mcdonalds workers dont need to be payed more then they're getting paid wtf they're just flipping burgers, if they died their coworkers would go to their funeral to meet women, and they'll be replaced in a week
if you dont want that pay use the capitalist system to get past it, otherwise chill y are you being materialistic anyways

Visionz
10-15-2009, 12:28 AM
the problem is not everyones damn labor is worthy that much.
hell yeah i wanna pay the nigga that puts the bag of tootsie rolls into the truck minimum wage, cause if i paid him 15 dollars and hour the price of a tootsie roll would be 6 dollars each.


mcdonalds workers dont need to be payed more then they're getting paid wtf they're just flipping burgers, if they died their coworkers would go to their funeral to meet women, and they'll be replaced in a week
if you dont want that pay use the capitalist system to get past it, otherwise chill y are you being materialistic anywaysthe way I see it, it isn't about how little you can pay the people that work for you, only how much you can pay yourself in relation to that. If you have say a 100 to 1 ratio of how much you can pay yourself as compared to your lowest payed employee then the maxium wage would be $715 /hr if you're paying an employee minimum wage ($7.15). That works out to about 1.5 million a year, which is nothing imo to bitch about.

PALEFORCE
10-15-2009, 12:41 AM
the way is see it...especially in todays circumstances...the less you do the more that will get done

Visionz
10-15-2009, 12:46 AM
the way is see it...especially in todays circumstances...the less you do the more that will get done
in relation to what?

PALEFORCE
10-15-2009, 12:50 AM
pretty much everything except working on yourself. the earth and its inhabitants is perfect as is. its just fucked up cuz of our meddling.

Visionz
10-15-2009, 01:11 AM
pretty much everything except working on yourself. the earth and its inhabitants is perfect as is. its just fucked up cuz of our meddling.
but the meddling is going to continue

Clan Destine
10-15-2009, 01:51 AM
pyschologically speaking it is in our very nature to be selfish. Without selfishness and self preservation we fail as a species.

Firstly, you can only speak in generalities when talking about people's nature. Nature spawns many variations within populations. While it is true we cannot escape the principle of selfishness, the ability to act sympathetically also exists as a very significant part of the human character. It is usually only after a certain amount of selfishness has been satisfied, and is usually ultimately towards our own benefit anyway (the principle of selfishness).



There is no utopia unless you want to drug everyone and control everything like in the novel Brave New World.

Essentially, thats true communism. Sometimes I think these pseudo commies and socialist forget the true nature of communism and what it would take for it to actually succeed in practice.

What it would take is everything they essentially would hate. Total government control of everything. Government is a nice word. Eventually it would become authoritarian control, as history has shown.

Communism is an attempt to rid human being of their own nature. It is an overly controlling and idealistic approach to fixing something we are hard wired with.



True 'nuf. Excepting a natural pristine condition with a very low population.


The reason we have made it this far is selfishness. Selfishness for our own perpetuation of our species.

Every living thing on this planet has this.



To an extent that we are selfish in terms of our species is true (we don't really give a shit about other animals), but humanity's true ascendence in the animal kingdom was caused precisely by its cooperative and sympathatic nature towards its fellow man combined with its ruthless exploitative powers. The point is, we are generous to those we recognize most closely as our own group, family, tribe, nation, species, and the group acts generally ruthless to those groups and individuals outside of it.



Frued thought we were born evil until civilization civilized us.

I think thats faulty because we existed before civilization. If we are born evil, than the 'evil' within us created civilization.

And what is civilization but the utmost selfishness. Every great civilization, every powerful empire has been more selfish than its less fortunate counterparts.

Its not really so much a question of Government control vs. private property....they are one in the same.

its coming to the realization that selfishness is needed for our survival and will often times manifest itself from the tiniest localized instance to the largest global one.

You cannot change that.

Until you come to a point of 'global civilization' or the group recognition as 'species'. Which is sort what the world is slowly coming to. We've seen how selfishness can lead to total loss to both sides through the prospect of nuclear war. Or how the hapless exploitation of the planet motivated by capitalist competion leads to ecological collapse. This is the problem of global limits.


Historically communism hasn't worked because its had to compete with other nations for resources, it isn't truly and encompassing system because its system is only supposed to deal with those inside it. Communist has in effect had to compete within an international capitalist market. Of course its going to lose.

Competing nations exist due mostly to overpopulation. Communism would be a utopia system if there were like 1 billion people on the planet; so would anarchy in a sense, but communsim would act as a measure against an overaccumulation of power, wealth, and population unbalancing the whole.