Hammer and sickle

[MrktMkr1986]

Who said we should turn a blind eye to their actions??

So do you think that the ability to lobby congressmen makes corporations more powerful than congressmen? <- Because that doesn't make sense does it?

I seem to remember a conversation we had on October 28th, 2005 in the Libertarian Party thread... it read:

Why has government fallen down on its promise? Why do people use government to exert force?

Greed.

Greed is a powerful force.

Greed is as natural as man. It is inherent in man. To pretend otherwise is to fool yourself. Better to have a system based on greed than one based on attempted control. Mankind hates to be controlled.

Corporate PAC leaders aren't going to walk up to Congressmen and threaten them with physical violence -- they're going to appeal to their most based instincts -- their inherent greed.

 

[Danoff]

Corporate PAC leaders aren't going to walk up to Congressmen and threaten them with physical violence -- they're going to appeal to their most based instincts -- their inherent greed.

Yup.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yup.

You didn't answer my question.

So do you think that the ability to lobby congressmen makes corporations more powerful than congressmen? <- Because that doesn't make sense does it?

No, it doesn't make corporations more powerful than congressmen. In the end, they have the final decision.

 

[Danoff]

No, it doesn't make corporations more powerful than congressmen. In the end, they have the final decision.

Well then, I stand validated.

Those that actually have the power ofcourse.

Who is that?

Since 1975, corporations.

No, it doesn't make corporations more powerful than congressmen. In the end, they have the final decision.

Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

It's a block hammer and a sickle is a gruesome weapon in the claw of the unshkilled . . .

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Freedom of speach seems to have been lost somewhere in this debate.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Well then, I stand validated.

No you're not. Where did that come from?

Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

I didn't admit to anything, thank you. Yes, congressmen have the final decision, but greed still influences policy.

For example:

When Ronald Reagan came into office, well-funded privately-owned conservative "think tanks" (including the National Bureau of Economic Research, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for the Study of American Business -- now known as the The Weidenbaum Center) started spreading propaganda geared towards "trickledown" economic policies. As a result, their supply-side economic "theories" laid the foundation for the Economic "Recovery" Tax Act of 1981.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't admit to anything, thank you. Yes, congressmen have the final decision, but greed still influences policy.

That wasn't the original question. The original question was "who has the power". You said "corporations", you later recanted.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That wasn't the original question. The original question was "who has the power". You said "corporations", you later recanted.

That's taken out of context. I never said corporations have ultimate power -- I said they have undue influence.

The power to lobby congress. Corporate PACs were made legal in 1975. They now have undue influence in politics.

 

[Danoff]

That's taken out of context. I never said corporations have ultimate power -- I said they have undue influence.

Those that actually have the power ofcourse.

Who is that?

Since 1975, corporations.

...

 

[luftrofl]

I think you're reading too much into this, so to speak.

Until the guy comes and starts mocking you because of your Latvian roots, I wouldn't worry about it.

Surely the guy isn't wearing it because he thinks it's the greatest thing ever.

I'd say let it go. He thinks commmunism could possibly be a good idea(hell, in a perfect world, even despotism would work right?) and so you should respect his beliefs.

About your swastika comment: The swastika is(99% of the time) implies support for the Nazi party. There was a conflict about the swastika in the EU because a religious group(hindus?) value the symbol for different reasons than the Nazis.

Anyways, the Nazis are extreme totalitarianists, but supporting totalitarianism isn't wrong, just the specific party is, so it is illegal.


The hammer and sickle on the other hand, represent a form of government. By itself, it in NO WAY supports the oppression of the likes of Stalin, Mao, etc.

That is why the hammer and sickle are legal.

I'm pressed for time so I'll try to get back on this topic later. I apologize if much of this makes little to no sense.

 

[logi74]

After doing much research on this subject, and writing a speech about it, I found out that Communism DOES work.

I'm 15, and I see a Che Guevara t-shirt every now and then at school. I ask them why they wear it, and the 3 answers I've gotten are: Because it looks cool, because I saw it on the internet, and because I'm emo.

Now, I'm probably the only person in school (besides Chris and Moet) that knows a ton about the Communist system. I know someone who did a thesis paper on this very subject as well, and they got asked by the professor if he could put it in his report.

Bottom line: COMMUNISM ONLY WORKS IF THE MONETARY SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ABOLISHED.

Once you're able to represent goods in paper and metal, it is way, way, WAY too easy to hoard, and therefore dominate.

My 2 cents.

 

[eliseracer]

It doesn't work because if you abolish the monetary system, you're looking at complete isolation in the global market. No country could survive without importing or exporting.

It also hasn't really worked very successfully throughout hitory, although that statment is open to debate.

In theory, it is a very logical way of living, but in reality, it doesn't work.

 

[logi74]

It doesn't work because if you abolish the monetary system, you're looking at complete isolation in the global market. No country could survive without importing or exporting.

It also hasn't really worked very successfully throughout hitory, although that statment is open to debate.

In theory, it is a very logical way of living, but in reality, it doesn't work.

Trade doesn't necessarily include money. How do you think people traded before money? The Himalayans still export and import without using money.

To say trade can't exist without money is laughable.

 

[luftrofl]

Trade doesn't necessarily include money. How do you think people traded before money? The Himalayans still export and import without using money.

To say trade can't exist without money is laughable.

Trade wouldn't work too well on a grand scale without currency as long as there are other trading options that would involve currency.

Example:

Trader 1: Has 5 million units of currency.
Trader 2: Has 1 million kgs of fish.
Trader 3: has 200,000 pieces of metal.

Now let's say hypothetically that trader 1 and trader 3 both need the fish that belongs to trader 2.

Assuming the 5 million units of currency owned by trader 1 = 200,000 pieces of metal, who would trader 2 rather do business with? (assuming that they can BUY what they want from other traders and that they don't need all/any of the metal)

Obviously trader 2 will take the 5 million u.o.c., and also obvious is that trader 3 will sell his metal to someone else.

The problem with a non-currency system in our current day and age is that most of the world uses currency.

It can work well in small communities, but once you get into larger numbers it stops working effectively.

 

[logi74]

Trade wouldn't work too well on a grand scale without currency as long as there are other trading options that would involve currency.

Example:

Trader 1: Has 5 million units of currency.
Trader 2: Has 1 million kgs of fish.
Trader 3: has 200,000 pieces of metal.

Now let's say hypothetically that trader 1 and trader 3 both need the fish that belongs to trader 2.

Assuming the 5 million units of currency owned by trader 1 = 200,000 pieces of metal, who would trader 2 rather do business with? (assuming that they can BUY what they want from other traders and that they don't need all/any of the metal)

Obviously trader 2 will take the 5 million u.o.c., and also obvious is that trader 3 will sell his metal to someone else.

The problem with a non-currency system in our current day and age is that most of the world uses currency.

It can work well in small communities, but once you get into larger numbers it stops working effectively.

But that's the whole point. Commercialism CREATED these cities that pollute and stagnate, but grand-scale trade isn't needed nearly as much when all these people are in small communities.

People don't need nearly that much metal if villages stayed.

I'm agreeing with you, but my point is, disregarding the huge change that would happen to get rid of currency, that once commercial cities cease to exist, many of the things that are required for the city to work disappear. Skyscrapers aren't needed in a largely local-based economy.

It goes around in circles. The more we have, the more we need (in commercialism).

 

[smellysocks12]

You guys should buy Civilization IV. See how good your civilization would be without inventing currency. By the way, I forgot this was the GT forum and I thought you guys were discussing Civilization IV... hahaha.

 

[logi74]

You guys should buy Civilization IV. See how good your civilization would be without inventing currency. By the way, I forgot this was the GT forum and I thought you guys were discussing Civilization IV... hahaha.

It's a game.

💡



What if EVERYONE (read: everyone) abolished currency?

 

[niky]

It's an interesting thought-experiment, carried through in full by Damon Knight in "A Reasonable World". It's a book with a silly premise: An alien lifeform, telepathic and empathic, infects the world. Anyone who is violent to others (causes psychic pain) falls down dead. People become nice. very nice. or die.

One side effect, started by a con man hoping to make a fortune off of a cult, is the moneyless society. Now, a barter society works only to some extent, but how do you quantify in volume such indefinables as art, writing and architecture? How about medical services? The premise of the cult is that the ultimate moneyless society is based on need and NOT fair trade. Thus, a crippled individual needs an electric wheelchair or mobility device, but cannot produce anything to barter for it at any reasonable price. They still get it. And whatever they can give back to society, they give.

A farmer will only need shoes once every six months or so from the shoemaker, but the shoemaker will need food every day. They still trade, but not ona 1:1 basis. It's more a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine... no matter how big the itch is" kind of thing.

BUT, since we're all human, all inherently a little selfish... it'll never work.

As an economic system, communism has its pitfalls, but I think it's as a political system where communism really stinks. Democracy allows for the turn-over of malfunctioning political units... Communism doesn't. Socialism does work, but the only examples of that are small, rich European countries... hell, Switzerland could be fascist and it'd still work.

That said, Democracy has its pitfalls, and is too easy to abuse... but that's mostly because 90% of the voting population are idiots who flip a coin for their vote, or who vote based on abtruse and abstract political loyalties. And people who get elected are often the people who WANT power... those are usually the most dangerous of all. In a Communist/Fascist system, they stay there, but at least in a Democracy, there's a chance of kicking them out.

I went to a state University that was full of Communists. Not your average "I'm a communist because it's cool" western student, but hardcore, indoctrinated-in-the-mountains, farmer's kids Communists. The kind who go out on the streets and throw rocks at everyone. It's depressing how intelligent they seem, yet how blindly they carry on in the face of intelligent debate. At least some of these kids, when they grow up, turn into useful members of our capitalistic society. The kind who get into it as a fad just never graduate... ...because they're just plain dumb.